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

"You can't criticize God" Continued

#71LunarAmbiencePosted 1/18/2013 5:32:02 PM(edited)
From: OrangeWizard | #070
off topic

On-topic. You have a definition of God. How do you go about assessing which God best fits the definition? And if you don't choose the Holy Bible to believe in, naturally that definition gets thrown out the window as being attached to that specific character. Not just on-topic. Topic-ender.

Because anybody with a brain knows which God we're all talking about. Especially when they use THE BIBLE to criticize him.

I never criticized the definition. I criticized the irreconcilability of the definition to the Holy Bible's portrayal. Anybody with a brain can see that.
---
The above is both true and false.
#72LunarAmbiencePosted 1/18/2013 5:37:04 PM
And you're not answering my question. If they have a definition, but they can't independently assess God's behavior, how do they determine which God to believe in?

Inheritance? Preference? Spin the bottle?
---
The above is both true and false.
#73OrangeWizardPosted 1/18/2013 6:37:15 PM
From: LunarAmbience | #067
Hold on, hold on, hold on. What kind of moral system states that, given two solutions with equal outcomes and in which the outcomes are of the highest concern, we should choose the one that results in more pain?


Nobody.

Who states that the "outcomes are of the highest concern", rather than "the bigger picture is of the highest concern"?

From: LunarAmbience | #071
You have a definition of God. How do you go about assessing which God best fits the definition?


This just seems like a really stupid question.
"You have a definition of a car. How do you go about assessing which car best fits the definition"?

You compare and contrast the car with your definition.

And yes, this IS off-topic, because we already HAVE a definition of God, which is necessary to criticize him.

I never criticized the definition. I criticized the irreconcilability of the definition to the Holy Bible's portrayal.


And the point of this topic, is that you can't do that unless you find an actual contradiction.
"I think X is immoral" is not a contradiction.

From: LunarAmbience | #072
And you're not answering my question. If they have a definition, but they can't independently assess God's behavior, how do they determine which God to believe in?

Inheritance? Preference? Spin the bottle?


Off-topic.
---
"Let's make this quick, I'm double-parked." - Two-face
#74myzz007Posted 1/19/2013 9:06:43 AM(edited)
The standard of judging God's actions rests upon an objective understanding of morality contained to this universe as we experience it. Since God, the all-powerful and progenitor of all, supersedes this dimension, the reasoning behind his actions are also outside comprehension. What we have is pragmatic deduction and abstract speculation, codified in scripture, catechisms, and prophecy; yet no proper syllogistic causation to God.
---
http://s10.postimage.org/mxioonsd1/gildavatar.gif
Gilda doesn't give a flying feather about what you think!
#75Suibom(Topic Creator)Posted 1/19/2013 10:04:06 AM
myzz007 posted...
The standard of judging God's actions rests upon an objective understanding of morality contained to this universe as we experience it. Since God, the all-powerful and progenitor of all, supersedes this dimension, the reasoning behind his actions are also outside comprehension. What we have is pragmatic deduction and abstract speculation, codified in scripture, catechisms, and prophecy; yet no proper syllogistic causation to God.


In other words...

Get on His level or get off His case.
---
"Indeed these are the mere edges of His ways, and how small a whisper we hear of Him!
But the thunder of His power who can understand." - Job 24:14
#76Suibom(Topic Creator)Posted 1/19/2013 10:06:23 AM(edited)
I am, by the way, working on something to add to the topic, but it's been a bit of research and organizing so far. Will try and have it done by tomorrow
---
"Indeed these are the mere edges of His ways, and how small a whisper we hear of Him!
But the thunder of His power who can understand." - Job 24:14
#77myzz007Posted 1/19/2013 10:47:17 AM
From: Suibom | #075
In other words...

Get on His level or get off His case.

It's impossible to get on his level by the very definition of God. What people do is get on the case of what other people proclaim God did.
---
Reason, Purpose, Self-esteem.
#78kirsybuuPosted 1/19/2013 5:25:52 PM
From: myzz007 | Posted: 1/19/2013 8:06:43 AM | #074
Since God, the all-powerful and progenitor of all, supersedes this dimension, the reasoning behind his actions are also outside comprehension.


I don't think you can assert this.

If there is a sound argument which concludes that his actions are the right thing for him to do, then he could manifest a book with the argument properly written in it and give it to us to understand. Just because that hasn't happened doesn't mean there is no argument. Any argument can be finite length too: given a description of the [finite] state of the observable universe at some point in time and optimization criteria (ex. moral rules), he could prove that the actual past is among the set of best possible histories.

If there is not a sound argument, then his actions are not justified by definition.
---
"sabe que no puede resistir mis encantos sensuales." ~ Poolshark128
#79LunarAmbiencePosted 1/19/2013 6:08:47 PM
From: OrangeWizard | #073
Nobody.

Who states that the "outcomes are of the highest concern", rather than "the bigger picture is of the highest concern"?

Unnecessary pain was an essential part of a bigger picture? And God emphasized the outcome right in the book.

Gen 7 And the Lord said, I will destroy man whom I have created from the face of the earth... 13 And God said unto Noah, The end of all flesh is come before me; for the earth is filled with violence through them; and, behold, I will destroy them with the earth.

"Bigger picture"? "Mysterious, elusive bigger picture"? I'm afraid that's an excuse you can't use this time. There's the desired outcome: Wipe out the wicked, unrighteous humans. Now, explain to me how at least choosing to end the generations of wicked men in a more merciful manner fails to achieve your bigger picture. Tell me how the frightening and painful end to the lives of nearly all of the men, women, and children fulfills this picture better than a more merciful end. It is your assertion. Now where's your substantiation?

This just seems like a really stupid question.
"You have a definition of a car. How do you go about assessing which car best fits the definition"?

You compare and contrast the car with your definition.

And yes, this IS off-topic, because we already HAVE a definition of God, which is necessary to criticize him.


AH. So you decide on the definition of a deity and then you assess whether or not a described deity matches your definition. In a way, you're judging and critiquing the Biblical God's actions to determine if they match your established definition. Which makes this question ON-TOPIC. It demonstrates that, hopefully, Christians take the step of criticizing God's actions before they actually become Christians. Or does the definition have no utility? Do these individuals embrace the Judeochristian deity regardless of any assessment of this god's actions?

And the point of this topic, is that you can't do that unless you find an actual contradiction.
"I think X is immoral" is not a contradiction.


We've found a contradiction in the Flood. God is allegedly perfect, yet he chose a rather imperfect solution to meet the goal of removing wicked humans from the Earth. I don't just "think" this. This is an objective fact. You can attempt to muddy this assessment any way you'd like. I'd encourage it. It exemplifies the fact that you get caught in a vicious circle of "God is perfect," "God does only perfect things," and "God is mysterious," and really demonstrates that you could never logically come to the conclusion you're following the correct deity. Further, you're being disingenuous. You would never openly admit that this is the case even though it is demonstrably so. Go ahead. Tell me more about the bigger picture.

From: LunarAmbience | #072
And you're not answering my question. If they have a definition, but they can't independently assess God's behavior, how do they determine which God to believe in?

Inheritance? Preference? Spin the bottle?


Off-topic.


You wish. We're getting at the heart of the implications of being unable to criticize God. I'd say that's very on-topic. Discomfort isn't a measure of topicality.
---
The above is both true and false.
#80OrangeWizardPosted 1/19/2013 7:22:14 PM
From: LunarAmbience | #079

Unnecessary pain was an essential part of a bigger picture?


The pain ceases to become "unnecessary" when it's part of the bigger picture. It then becomes necessary.


Gen 7 And the Lord said, I will destroy man whom I have created from the face of the earth... 13 And God said unto Noah, The end of all flesh is come before me; for the earth is filled with violence through them; and, behold, I will destroy them with the earth.

"Bigger picture"? "Mysterious, elusive bigger picture"? I'm afraid that's an excuse you can't use this time. There's the desired outcome: Wipe out the wicked, unrighteous humans. Now, explain to me how at least choosing to end the generations of wicked men in a more merciful manner fails to achieve your bigger picture.


For one thing, generations upon generations of people wouldn't have remembered it if it was less spectacular. Right now, every major world culture has their own version of the global flood story.

If everybody just dropped dead, or disappeared, the myths would be much more forgettable.

So yeah, if making a giant spectacle was part of the bigger picture, then mission accomplished.

Or even if I can't explain it, that doesn't mean there wasn't a reason why he chose a flood, rather than, I don't know, turning the plants against humanity like in "The Happening". God's omniscient. We're not. Thus, the topic title "You can't criticize God".


AH. So you decide on the definition of a deity and then you assess whether or not a described deity matches your definition.
In a way, you're judging and critiquing the Biblical God's actions to determine if they match your established definition.


How would you do this in reverse? How would you judge and critique the actions of something that has no definition?
If you don't know what X is supposed to be, you can't judge it.

This is why you don't just hire people off the street to judge a cooking contest. If the goal is to make the best ribs, you need an expert on ribs, because this expert knows what ribs are supposed to taste like.

If you're judging mystery slop, by what criteria are you supposed to judge it? How do the judges know that this mystery slop isn't the BEST MYSTERY SLOP EVER, if they don't know what mystery slop tastes like?

All they're left with is a relative standard between each of the bowls of slop they're presented, and someone could have cheated and made something other than mystery slop, then he would have won, because Mac and Cheese tastes better than whatever Mystery slop is supposed to taste like.


That's why doing anything else doesn't work.


We've found a contradiction in the Flood.


No we didn't. You just said you think it's immoral. But nobody cares what you think because your subjective moral standard doesn't count for ****.

What makes your standard any better than Hitler's?


This is an objective fact.


It's a fact that the flood was an imperfect solution?
Define perfect, then.
---
"Let's make this quick, I'm double-parked." - Two-face