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

Does creating a sentient being give you the right to mistreat it?

#51Julian_CaesarPosted 2/3/2013 8:59:39 PM
From: hunter_gohan | #045
I'm perfectly benevolent and loving. I just tortured and killed a baby.

Must you accept that I'm perfectly benevolent before you can talk about the latter sentence? Or can you rightly just simply point out that those two sentence contradict each other?


I'm not sure what you're trying to accomplish with this illustration. It has absolutely no relevance to what we're talking about, mostly because I sincerely doubt you would be capable of claiming to be the mortal manifestation of an eternal Being who created the entire universe. If you were, I might be more inclined to believe you if you could raise yourself from the dead. Which you haven't, as far as I know.

Also, since when have you started using OW's tactics? You know, making a point that differs just enough from the actual discussion that you can make it seem true, without actually making a rebuttal for anything?

You kinda have to. Cause without delving into a second layer it would be "Stargate canon" and "Reality canon" not "Bible canon". With that we have the little problem of there not being any evidence that YHWH exists or doesn't. It's not my fault that when you look at the Bible from within "reality canon" and the Book of Origin from within "Stargate canon" that YHWH and the Ori wind up looking pretty much identical.


Only because this discussion is specifically about using the Bible to say that God's actions were immoral.

People can lie, even in books. The only thing I have to do is accept that someone claimed YHWH was morally perfect. Just like I claimed to be perfectly benevolent and loving before torturing and killing that baby. Just like the Ori claimed to be loving, yet have devices to burn people alive in the middle of their villages. Just like Stalin claimed to be the Gardener of Human Hapiness. Just like Kim Jong Il claimed well there's a whole thread on what his autobiography claims on the politics board. Just because someone claims something doesn't mean it's true even if it's in a book.


Do you not even realize that this sentence applies equally to the stories of God commanding the Israelites to kill all those people? Making your argument useless...because if you can "criticize" God by saying "oh well the Bible just lied about Him being perfect," then I can just as easily "exonerate" God by saying "oh well the Bible just lied about Him killing all those people."

That's my point. You're trying to use semantics to confuse the issue, but at the end of the day you're just saying "I choose to believe the stories of God's commands to take lives because it makes Him look immoral in my eyes, but I refuse to believe the stories of God being morally perfect because that means I'm not allowed to judge His actions."

\From: hunter_gohan | #046
It doesn't though(cook my noodle, it does effect it). Tyrannical dictators should never be obeyed. My argument is basically, if the beings talked about in the bible are real, then I'm throwing my hat in with Lucifer who stands up and fights against the tyrannical dictator. It seems more likely that he is the good guy of that story.


You're assuming a priori that no tyrannical dictator could ever be motivated by purely good motivations. Which is fine when you're talking about human dictators...not so much when talking about God. You've assumed your conclusion before you even begin the discussion. There's nothing wrong with believing that God is evil, per se...just so long as you understand that your basis for that belief is no different than the Christian who believes that God is all good. That is to say, you believe it because you want to believe it.
---
Every day the rest of your life is changed forever.
#52Julian_CaesarPosted 2/3/2013 9:12:06 PM
I'm perfectly benevolent and loving. I just tortured and killed a baby.


You can't make yourself right by repeating a poorly targeted analogy that uses brevity as a substitute for actual meaning. Logic doesn't work that way. This has no application to the God of the Bible because you have not parted the Red Sea, or fed the five thousand, or raised yourself from the dead, or saved three men from a fiery furnace. The Bible doesn't just say that God was a certain way; it says that He did certain things as well. If you're going to make a "parody canon" for the sake of making the Bible sound absurd, you can't ignore God's miracles...nor can you ignore the fact that God also is the source of perfect Justice. Meaning that even if He is perfectly benevolent and loving, He does not tolerate the presence of sin.

Also, the word "torture" implies a non-benevolent motive for the sole purpose of inflicting pain. Nothing in the Bible has anything about God doing that. And you can't even pretend that you used it for any other reason than to evoke a negative emotional reaction in the reader, much as pro-life activists do when they insist on calling a fetus an unborn child. Not exact the most reputable debating tactic.

"I'm perfectly benevolent and loving. I am also the perfect Judge, and have proven my presence to my followers and non-believers alike by many extraordinary miracles. I just killed a baby."

There. I fixed it for you. You can call that "evil" if you desire, but you have no more basis for saying that than the Christian who calls God "good."
---
Every day the rest of your life is changed forever.
#53Julian_CaesarPosted 2/3/2013 9:24:01 PM
From: countzander | #047
tl;dr

I think God can do whatever he wants. Even if morality exists independently of God, there's no one to call God to account.

Heck, let's just assume God is objectively evil and that he's just a cosmic troll. So what?


So what, indeed.

From: DarkContractor | #049
well lets be honest about the assume the Bible thing. If we're assuming its true, what truth? we're assessing that God gave us the Bible. Not everything the Bible says. You might as well say if the Bible says 2+2=22, then its automatically true if we assume anything else about the Bible.

So it's not that a woman should be stoned if she didn't scream loud enough when being raped, it's that God said that.

its not that there was a global flood intended to kill millions, its that he said that.

its not that hes omnibenevolent and beyond moral approach, its that he said that.


if the last was true, I don't get how the first two could be. if the first two are false, then he has lied, something he himself said was wrong, falsifying the 3rd.


OT laws were given to the Hebrews because of the hardness of their hearts (such as the divorce law referenced by Jesus), not because they were God's ideal laws. And a flood intended to kill millions of people is well-within the rights of a perfectly Just deity who created everything and knows everything.

Therefore, if the last is true, the first law can be "true" because God allowed the Hebrews to have non-optimal laws because their society was a non-optimal one (as all societies became after the Fall). That is to say, it's true that God gave them that law, but it isn't true that such a law is what God ideally wants us to do. And the second can be true because God is not just perfectly Loving, He is also perfectly Just. He bends over backwards to show us Love, but He is not going to override our free will in order to do so...meaning that sometimes, people receive consequences that result from God's Justice, because they refuse to accept Love.
---
Every day the rest of your life is changed forever.
#54Julian_CaesarPosted 2/3/2013 9:25:28 PM
From: bratt100 | #050
Exactly. I could claim the same about myself and if I where deluded enough I could believe it...still doesn't make it true.


Again...if you claimed those things about yourself and rose from the grave after being dead for three days, I'd be more inclined to believe your claims.
---
Every day the rest of your life is changed forever.
#55DarkContractorPosted 2/3/2013 9:26:09 PM
okay see I can respect that. I don't agree, but I respect it. You offer a defense besides "anything God does is a priori good"
---
An eye for an eye makes the whole world blind.
#56bratt100Posted 2/3/2013 9:56:23 PM
Julian_Caesar posted...
From: bratt100 | #050
Exactly. I could claim the same about myself and if I where deluded enough I could believe it...still doesn't make it true.


Again...if you claimed those things about yourself and rose from the grave after being dead for three days, I'd be more inclined to believe your claims.


Cool, so all I need to do is get a couple of people to back me up and I'll have more proof then the entire crucifixion/resurrection. And hey atleast I can prove I exist
---
If you believe in the flying Spaghetti Monster and are 100% proud of it copy this to your sig.
#57hunter_gohanPosted 2/4/2013 12:47:20 PM(edited)
Julian_Caesar posted...
I'm not sure what you're trying to accomplish with this illustration. It has absolutely no relevance to what we're talking about,....


It's completely relevant. Following your logic you must assume I'm perfectly benevolent and loving to be able to say anything about the latter sentence. Btw I'm also never wrong, so now you must accept that before addressing anything else I've posted.

....mostly because I sincerely doubt you would be capable of claiming to be the mortal manifestation of an eternal Being who created the entire universe. If you were, I might be more inclined to believe you if you could raise yourself from the dead. Which you haven't, as far as I know.


I said nothing about being any sort of manifestation of anything or anything about any powers I do or do not hold, so I have no clue where this is coming from.

Also, since when have you started using OW's tactics? You know, making a point that differs just enough from the actual discussion that you can make it seem true, without actually making a rebuttal for anything?


I could ask you the same question since he is the one who brought this "logic" to the boards. It is identical. If I must accept YHWH claiming to be morally perfect means he actually is morally perfect to be able to speak about all the times he has claimed to commit genocide, then you must accept that I'm perfectly benevolent and loving to be able to speak on the sentence where I claimed to have tortured and killed a baby. You must also accept that Stalin is the Gardener of Human Happiness before you can talk about any of his actions.

Only because this discussion is specifically about using the Bible to say that God's actions were immoral.


I could specifically use Mein Kampf to say what Hitler wanted for the Jews was immoral regardless of if he claimed to be loving or that it was the correct course of action in said book. You seem to be unable to grasp that beings that exist can lie or simply be mistaken. I don't have to accept that Stalin was the Gardener of Human Happiness to judge his actions.

Do you not even realize that this sentence applies equally to the stories of God commanding the Israelites to kill all those people? Making your argument useless...because if you can "criticize" God by saying "oh well the Bible just lied about Him being perfect," then I can just as easily "exonerate" God by saying "oh well the Bible just lied about Him killing all those people."


Well of course. Palpatine never actually existed or did anything it said he did in Star Wars. That doesn't prevent me from recognizing that he is evil though. If you believe in a god separate from the Biblical one whose actions are not accurately represented in their, then I'm not addressing that god. Just like I'm not addressing Aphrodite. Basically I'm doing, If W was responsible for actions X, Y, Z as detailed in A, then W is evil. Of course if he is real and never did those actions that judgement would not apply to him. In fact that is what I actually believe.(err that the actions outlined in the Bible had nothing to do with any god if they even happened in the first place) That those things were either completely made up(Like the Exodus) or were simply a savage barbaric people who claimed they had a god backing up their barbarism. Just like modern day suicide bombers claim to have a god on their side.
---
The food that stands on his [Odin's] table he gives to two wolves of his called Geri and Freki. He himself needs no food; wine is for him both drink and meat.
#58hunter_gohanPosted 2/4/2013 12:36:33 PM
That's my point. You're trying to use semantics to confuse the issue, but at the end of the day you're just saying "I choose to believe the stories of God's commands to take lives because it makes Him look immoral in my eyes, but I refuse to believe the stories of God being morally perfect because that means I'm not allowed to judge His actions."


I choose to believe the stories of Stalin's commands to take lives because it makes him look immoral in my eyes, but I refuse to believe the stories of him being the Gardener of Human Happiness because that means all his actions were those which maximized human happiness.

You're assuming a priori that no tyrannical dictator could ever be motivated by purely good motivations. Which is fine when you're talking about human dictators...not so much when talking about God.


Special pleading. Also you're assuming Stalin wasn't motivated by purely good reasons to maximize human happiness. Motivation is not the end all be all when your actions wind up being evil. If someone's motivation was to save the world, then can we just forget about his actions when he comes to the conclusion that the best way to do that would be to wipe out all humans so we can't trash it anymore? The road to hell is paved with good intentions.

You've assumed your conclusion before you even begin the discussion. There's nothing wrong with believing that God is evil, per se...just so long as you understand that your basis for that belief is no different than the Christian who believes that God is all good. That is to say, you believe it because you want to believe it.


I believe YHWH as decribed in the Bible is evil because I'm judging his actions. Actions speak louder than words. By their fruit you will recognize them. Do people pick grapes from thornbushes, or figs from thistles? Likewise, every good tree bears good fruit, but a bad tree bears bad fruit. A good tree cannot bear bad fruit, and a bad tree cannot bear good fruit. Every tree that does not bear good fruit is cut down and thrown into the fire. Thus, by their fruit you will recognize them.

The fruit that is genocide, slavery, and torture are rotten to the very core.

Christians who believe that he is all good do so in spite of his claimed actions. They ignore judging the tree by its fruit. They are no better than someone who assumes Stalin is the Gardener of Human Happiness and insist all his actions were those which maximized human happiness.

You can't make yourself right by repeating a poorly targeted analogy that uses brevity as a substitute for actual meaning.


Just like YHWH can't make himself right by repeating that he's morally perfect. Just like Stalin can't make himself right by claiming to be the Gardener of Human Happiness.

This has no application to the God of the Bible because you have not parted the Red Sea, or fed the five thousand, or raised yourself from the dead, or saved three men from a fiery furnace.


Again with the powers. Are you trying for a might makes right argument? Is that it?
---
The food that stands on his [Odin's] table he gives to two wolves of his called Geri and Freki. He himself needs no food; wine is for him both drink and meat.
#59hunter_gohanPosted 2/4/2013 12:51:34 PM(edited)
Meaning that even if He is perfectly benevolent and loving, He does not tolerate the presence of sin.


Sure if you conveniently define sin as "going against YHWH". If you define it as evil actions, then well he apparently revels in those according to the Bible. Stalin commits genocide - sin. YHWH does the same - not a sin. All you are doing is latching onto your favorite tyrannical dictator and claiming anything he does is good. This is no different than the followers of any other human tyrannical dictators save a healthy does of might makes right where you claim that your tyrannical dictator is much more powerful(see the multiple times you've brought up power in here) so when he does it it's right, but those others aren't as powerful so when they do it it's wrong.

Also, the word "torture" implies a non-benevolent motive for the sole purpose of inflicting pain. Nothing in the Bible has anything about God doing that.


Torture:
1 a : anguish of body or mind : agony
2: the infliction of intense pain (as from burning, crushing, or wounding) to punish, coerce, or afford sadistic pleasure
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/torture

Are you trying to claim that YHWH never claimed to say give plagues, kill first borns, commit genocide, or throw people in hell for eternity(if you believe that) as punishments? He never claimed to have rained down fire and brimstone to punish anyone? He never claimed to have brought down foreign armies onto the Israelites as punishment? He never claimed to have taken away a wife and mother by turning her into salt simply to punish her for turning her head and looking in a certain direction?

And you can't even pretend that you used it for any other reason than to evoke a negative emotional reaction in the reader, much as pro-life activists do when they insist on calling a fetus an unborn child. Not exact the most reputable debating tactic.


I use it because it accurately describes many of his actions. It actually fits the definition here, unlike a fertilized egg being a child. If you take offence at the actions of your god being called what they are, then stop worshiping a god who has no problem resorting to genocide and torture.

There. I fixed it for you. You can call that "evil" if you desire, but you have no more basis for saying that than the Christian who calls God "good."


So long are you accept that calling Stalin "evil" has no more basis than someone who calls him "good". Again you seem completely unable to grasp the concept that just because a being is real and exists doesn't prevent it from lying its ass off. I'm judging the rotten fruit. You're saying the rotten fruit must actually be fine because you assume the tree could only give non-rotten fruit; eventhough, the fruit is identical to fruit you would call rotten from another tree.

Again...if you claimed those things about yourself and rose from the grave after being dead for three days, I'd be more inclined to believe your claims.


Might does not make right. No matter how far you crank that might up. The Ori could do this as well.

bratt100 posted...
Cool, so all I need to do is get a couple of people to back me up and I'll have more proof then the entire crucifixion/resurrection. And hey atleast I can prove I exist

I was there with a crowd that numbered in the hundreds. It's true he rose from the dead. We all saw it. I exist; I can't possibly be lying or mistaken!
---
The food that stands on his [Odin's] table he gives to two wolves of his called Geri and Freki. He himself needs no food; wine is for him both drink and meat.
#60OrangeWizardPosted 2/4/2013 2:15:36 PM
From: Julian_Caesar | #051
Also, since when have you started using OW's tactics? You know, making a point that differs just enough from the actual discussion that you can make it seem true, without actually making a rebuttal for anything?


Is that what I do?

I'm so sorry.

I'll take that into consideration and work on my problem.
---
"Let's make this quick, I'm double-parked." - Two-face