This is a split board - You can return to the Split List for other boards.

[Physical] death is a gateway, not a destination.

#31Julian_CaesarPosted 12/7/2012 5:09:12 AM
From: TheWetRat | #024
And yes, I would hold God responsible for the state of the universe, not man, no matter what free will arguments you might employ. If God set up a universe, knew that man would screw it all up, and still hit the "OK" button anyway, he's responsible for it in the same way that if you told your kid "don't play with these matches I'm giving you," then left the room, knowing that the kid would intentionally disobey you and burn the house down, you're the one ultimately responsible for it when your kid lights everything on fire.


You are responsible for your house as a material object, yes. But your child is still responsible for their own decision.

God does not judge humanity based on the state of the universe. He knew that was going to **** when He gave us free will. What He judges us on is the innermost being, or the decisions and inner struggles that we have. To say it another way, God does not judge us based on the consequences of our actions, but on the motives for those actions. And just as a good parent cares far more about their child's growth into an adult than they care about a house (or anything material), God cares much more about a single person's spiritual growth than He does about all the stars in all the galaxies in all the universe.

From my point of view, I'm seeing a God who intentionally sets up the universe from the very beginning in a way that forces people to love and worship him, not because it's morally right, but because God decided to create a system in which people who don't choose to worship God automatically screw themselves over. Sure, you could argue that it's still mankind's choice whether or not to accept God's "gift," and you'd definitely be right in saying that you'd be an idiot not to accept it, but that doesn't mean God isn't a dick for setting the system up in such a pointlessly cruel and coercive way in the first place.


So you would prefer what, exactly? A system where we have no choice but to accept God's gift? A system where we have no free will whatsoever?

God did not give us free will just to make a weighted system. God gave us free will because without free will, Love cannot truly exist. He wanted to share His glory and His beauty with free-will beings like Himself. This is what the Bible means when it says we were created "in God's image." Of course, the downside of free will is that it really is "free", people really are completely free to reject God if they so choose. If they weren't, then it wouldn't be free will and it wouldn't be a choice. We would just be angels.

You can call it "pointlessly cruel and coercive" if you like, but I'm genuinely curious as to what you would have done in God's place.
---
Every day the rest of your life is changed forever.
#32Faust_8Posted 12/7/2012 9:09:39 AM
So you would prefer what, exactly? A system where we have no choice but to accept God's gift? A system where we have no free will whatsoever?

God did not give us free will just to make a weighted system. God gave us free will because without free will, Love cannot truly exist. He wanted to share His glory and His beauty with free-will beings like Himself. This is what the Bible means when it says we were created "in God's image." Of course, the downside of free will is that it really is "free", people really are completely free to reject God if they so choose. If they weren't, then it wouldn't be free will and it wouldn't be a choice. We would just be angels.

You can call it "pointlessly cruel and coercive" if you like, but I'm genuinely curious as to what you would have done in God's place.


Is it so beyond your theistic mind to grasp that your god could have given us free will, the choice to worship him or not, and NOT have any consequence for not believing, and simply rewarded or punished based upon the goodness of our lives and/or hearts?

I have no idea why the only choices you suggested in these words were there would be no choice or no free will. How could you think those would be the only alternatives?
---
The supernatural says that if you act a certain way you might avoid suffering. But reality says you came from the stars...
#33kts123(Topic Creator)Posted 12/7/2012 1:00:56 PM(edited)
Now, that does not change the fact that we have the option not to worship him. That does not change the fact that God has, pointlessly and cruelly, decided for some strange reason that if we do not worship him, we go to hell forever. You're acting like being born into an existence of suffering with no other purpose than to deify the one who created this very existence or else suffer even more is as natural and wonderful as a fish being happy to be in water. I'm saying that such an existence is repulsive and anyone who would intentionally create such a universe is a complete sicko.


Worship means to love and adore. The Lord is love. If you do not have love, you will never truly be happy. You are in essence, saying you'd like to be a hateful ball of spite and still be happy for all of eternity. It runs contrary to our nature. Embracing unconditional love is what our spirit thrives on. The "other option" is downright pathetic and despicable. No amount of whining or complaining that it's "not fair I'm not allowed to be a spiteful hate ball and still be joyous!" is going to make that logical. God's "draconian commandment" is to be kind and loving. Yeah, if you decide to reject that, you're going to make yourself miserable. If you think you can do that and still be happy, you're being incoherent. Love and joy go hand in hand, they're two sides of the same thing. It's like trying to get rid of electrons but begging for electricity.

Yeah, that's why I said in my example that you knew that the child with the matches would intentionally disobey you. The kid is well aware that he's disobeying his parent. Doesn't mean the parent isn't both responsible and immoral for giving his stupid kid matches in the first place.


We are not ignorant children who played with matches and got burned.

God's garden was perfect and good, man screwed it up. You have this warped image of man as this innocent child who was put somewhere dangerous. On the contrary, nature and the life God filled it with was perfect and good -- there was nothing wrong with creation. The "problem" was us. If you wonder why God let bad happen to the garden, it's because he loved us too much to zap out of existence. Unless you'd like us to be erased from reality to where even the past vomits out our memory into nothingness. If you want God to rewrite the garden without flaws, it will be exactly how it was one second before he created us.
#34ThuggernautzPosted 12/7/2012 1:03:44 PM
kts123 posted...

God's garden was perfect and good, man screwed it up. You have this warped image of man as this innocent child who was put somewhere dangerous. On the contrary, nature and the life God filled it with was perfect and good -- there was nothing wrong with creation. The "problem" was us. If you wonder why God let bad happen to the garden, it's because he loved us too much to zap out of existence. Unless you'd like us to be erased from reality to where even the past vomits out our memory into nothingness. If you want God to rewrite the garden without flaws, it will be exactly how it was one second before he created us.


Woah there, Pharlap. Humanity was created without the knowledge of good and evil. Further, the snake was also God's creation. In this analogy, the snake is the match. God could easily have completely removed the snake, then Eve wouldn't have been persuaded, and problem solved.
#35kts123(Topic Creator)Posted 12/7/2012 1:13:10 PM(edited)
Woah there, Pharlap. Humanity was created without the knowledge of good and evil. Further, the snake was also God's creation. In this analogy, the snake is the match. God could easily have completely removed the snake, then Eve wouldn't have been persuaded, and problem solved.


Oh right, it was the snake's fault!

Good blame pass.

The snake didn't let sin into the garden, man did. Man was the garden's keeper. If you have a keeper than can't keep, it's the keeper's problem. You want him to get rid of the snake, which had no power to let sin in, as opposed to the one who had the power to let sin in, and did just that. The clear solution is to get rid of the man.
#36ThuggernautzPosted 12/7/2012 1:13:10 PM
kts123 posted...
Woah there, Pharlap. Humanity was created without the knowledge of good and evil. Further, the snake was also God's creation. In this analogy, the snake is the match. God could easily have completely removed the snake, then Eve wouldn't have been persuaded, and problem solved.


Oh right, it was the snake's fault!

Good blame pass.


No, it's God's fault for allowing the snake to be there... let's not forget that before eating of the fruit they didn't have any knowledge of good and evil, and so wouldn't have known of the duplicitous nature of the creature. And before you say it, OW, the text doesn't say experiential knowledge anywhere and even if it did, having not experienced manipulation in this factor they had no way to judge it.
#37kts123(Topic Creator)Posted 12/7/2012 1:28:20 PM(edited)
Thuggernautz posted...
kts123 posted...
Woah there, Pharlap. Humanity was created without the knowledge of good and evil. Further, the snake was also God's creation. In this analogy, the snake is the match. God could easily have completely removed the snake, then Eve wouldn't have been persuaded, and problem solved.


Oh right, it was the snake's fault!

Good blame pass.


No, it's God's fault for allowing the snake to be there... let's not forget that before eating of the fruit they didn't have any knowledge of good and evil, and so wouldn't have known of the duplicitous nature of the creature. And before you say it, OW, the text doesn't say experiential knowledge anywhere and even if it did, having not experienced manipulation in this factor they had no way to judge it.


It's the fruit of the knowledge of good and evil, not right and wrong. Scripture clearly and repeatedly uses "good" and "evil" to denote "pleasant" and "unpleasant." Further, even if there is moral connotations, there is a clear difference between having full knowledge and cursory knowledge. There may be a tree of knowledge of history. I may have not eaten that fruit, but I still know history. Now eating that fruit may multiple my knowledge of history, but that in no way implies I had no knowledge of history prior. And any book that had such a fruit of knowledge of history, would never persuade readers to assume that eater's of the fruit have absolutely no knowledge of history prior.

It's not much different than having a wife you literally cannot leave around another man for ten seconds. Even if you prevent adultery by removing other men, does that make your wife any less of an adulterous? In fact lets say another man approaches your wife, and you realize she's about to sleep with him -- so you interrupt the two and drag your wife off. Do you feel any better that your wife didn't just cheat on you? Is your relationship all peachy keen now that you had to physically intervene to keep her from cheating?
#38TheWetRatPosted 12/7/2012 1:29:40 PM
Julian_Caesar posted...
You are responsible for your house as a material object, yes. But your child is still responsible for their own decision.

God does not judge humanity based on the state of the universe. He knew that was going to **** when He gave us free will. What He judges us on is the innermost being, or the decisions and inner struggles that we have. To say it another way, God does not judge us based on the consequences of our actions, but on the motives for those actions. And just as a good parent cares far more about their child's growth into an adult than they care about a house (or anything material), God cares much more about a single person's spiritual growth than He does about all the stars in all the galaxies in all the universe.

You missed the point of the analogy altogether. Burning the house down = going to hell. Giving the kid matches when you knew he would burn the house done = God creating somebody, knowing that they would screw up go to hell. Saying "Yeah, well the kid still TECHNICALLY chose to go to hell of his own free will," = stupidity, for reasons I've already stated.

So you would prefer what, exactly? A system where we have no choice but to accept God's gift? A system where we have no free will whatsoever?

God did not give us free will just to make a weighted system. God gave us free will because without free will, Love cannot truly exist. He wanted to share His glory and His beauty with free-will beings like Himself. This is what the Bible means when it says we were created "in God's image." Of course, the downside of free will is that it really is "free", people really are completely free to reject God if they so choose. If they weren't, then it wouldn't be free will and it wouldn't be a choice. We would just be angels.

You can call it "pointlessly cruel and coercive" if you like, but I'm genuinely curious as to what you would have done in God's place.

Basically what Faust said. For some weird reason you you find it impossible to consider a God who isn't a jackass and who arbitrarily deems it necessary to make people suffer forever when they don't do what he wants. You literally believe in a God who makes people, KNOWING they won't do what he wants, and who then gets pissed off and makes them suffer when they do exactly that. Not only is it logically idiotic and childish, but also morally reprehensible and disgusting.
---
Be confident in what you know; and don't be afraid of what you don't.
#39kts123(Topic Creator)Posted 12/7/2012 1:34:37 PM(edited)
Basically what Faust said. For some weird reason you you find it impossible to consider a God who isn't a jackass and who arbitrarily deems it necessary to make people suffer forever when they don't do what he wants. You literally believe in a God who makes people, KNOWING they won't do what he wants, and who then gets pissed off and makes them suffer when they do exactly that. Not only is it logically idiotic and childish, but also morally reprehensible and disgusting.


Okay, I'm afraid I'll have to give you a commandment. You may NOT chew off your hand without painkillers. If you do, you will suffer great pain and anguish. Kts hath spoken.

OH NO, KTS IS SO EVIL. You can either OBEY KTS or SUFFER!

Woah is you. My commandment is so evil and draconian. You either obey or suffer!
#40ThuggernautzPosted 12/7/2012 1:54:02 PM
kts123 posted...


It's the fruit of the knowledge of good and evil, not right and wrong. Scripture clearly and repeatedly uses "good" and "evil" to denote "pleasant" and "unpleasant." Further, even if there is moral connotations, there is a clear difference between having full knowledge and cursory knowledge.


Absolutely. And what does the Bible say on the matter? Oh, it doesn't. It just says knowledge.

So you have added in here an extra little descriptor of 'cursory' knowledge, because it suits your world view. Another person might take it at its purely literal reading, noting the absence of descriptors to mean all knowledge, because it suits their world view. etc etc ad infinitum and ending in no agreement. Your interpretation of this passage is no more valid than anyone else's, just because it fits more cleanly into what you want to have happened.

I guess it was God's divine plan to form a completely ambiguous and vague series of stories and let people argue endlessly over the details with no possible resolution.