Is God a mass murderer?
       |           

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
March 28, 2024, 06:20:10 PM
News: Election Simulator 2.0 Released. Senate/Gubernatorial maps, proportional electoral votes, and more - Read more

  Talk Elections
  General Discussion
  Religion & Philosophy (Moderator: World politics is up Schmitt creek)
  Is God a mass murderer?
« previous next »
Pages: [1] 2
Author Topic: Is God a mass murderer?  (Read 2923 times)
The Arizonan
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 2,543
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« on: November 06, 2015, 01:21:08 AM »

What do you guys think?

God killed millions of people with the flood and before all of the apologists come out of the woodwork, remember that he also killed all of the first-born Egyptian children who have done nothing wrong except not believing in God.

Jesus was okay though, but I can't say the same about his father who is ironically the same guy (depending on interpretation).
Logged
World politics is up Schmitt creek
Nathan
Moderator
Atlas Superstar
*****
Posts: 34,249


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #1 on: November 06, 2015, 02:25:57 AM »

Crypto-Marcionite talking points aside, I think it might be misleading to treat this separately from the question of natural evil.
Logged
afleitch
Moderators
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 29,835


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #2 on: November 06, 2015, 04:21:11 AM »

Crypto-Marcionite talking points aside, I think it might be misleading to treat this separately from the question of natural evil.

Not if the concept of 'natural evil' from a theological perspective  was in part postulated in order to give a justification or at least a framework for god ordained biblical atrocities.

'Natural evil' is not a concept a non believer would need to grapple with as he has no reason to judge naturally occurring atrocities in moral terms.

So I think it should be treated separately from that branch of apologist theology.
Logged
True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)
Ernest
Moderators
Atlas Legend
*****
Posts: 42,157
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #3 on: November 06, 2015, 04:32:04 AM »

Assuming one believes in the concept of spiritual immortality, be it of the reincarnation or afterlife variety, then termination of corporeal existence is not the same as the termination of existence. And since if you don't believe in that concept, you also likely don't believe the historicity of the accounts in the first seven books of the Bible, then what deaths are you actually charging God with?
Logged
afleitch
Moderators
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 29,835


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #4 on: November 06, 2015, 04:55:23 AM »

Assuming one believes in the concept of spiritual immortality, be it of the reincarnation or afterlife variety, then termination of corporeal existence is not the same as the termination of existence. And since if you don't believe in that concept, you also likely don't believe the historicity of the accounts in the first seven books of the Bible, then what deaths are you actually charging God with?

I'm making an assumption for the purpose of this exercise that these things happened. You know Ernest, that thing people do sometimes to engage in discussions. A bit of 'let's pretend'
Logged
World politics is up Schmitt creek
Nathan
Moderator
Atlas Superstar
*****
Posts: 34,249


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #5 on: November 06, 2015, 11:58:42 AM »
« Edited: November 06, 2015, 12:09:09 PM by 秋と修羅 »

Crypto-Marcionite talking points aside, I think it might be misleading to treat this separately from the question of natural evil.

Not if the concept of 'natural evil' from a theological perspective  was in part postulated in order to give a justification or at least a framework for god ordained biblical atrocities.

'Natural evil' is not a concept a non believer would need to grapple with as he has no reason to judge naturally occurring atrocities in moral terms.

So I think it should be treated separately from that branch of apologist theology.

The idea that 'natural evil' is a concept that only 'apologist theology' would want to deal with isn't one I've encountered before. One needn't be interested in 'apologist theology' or even religious to have a desire to account for a morally significant universe.

Even if it is only relevant to 'apologist theology', I don't really understand why you think that that makes it irrelevant here. Obviously it would be irrelevant to your interested, but the OP was asking all of us, and the question posed presupposes (even if only for purposes of argument) that God exists, so for those of us who do believe in God it falls into the same category of 'questions that require God's existence in order to be interesting' that you think the question of natural evil does.

Put another way, 'if God did exist, would he be a mass murderer?' is the sort of question that can be--you'll probably disagree that it should be, but it can be--answered in the same sorts of ways as 'if God did exist, whence ebola and hurricanes?'.
Logged
afleitch
Moderators
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 29,835


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #6 on: November 06, 2015, 02:46:41 PM »

Crypto-Marcionite talking points aside, I think it might be misleading to treat this separately from the question of natural evil.

Not if the concept of 'natural evil' from a theological perspective  was in part postulated in order to give a justification or at least a framework for god ordained biblical atrocities.

'Natural evil' is not a concept a non believer would need to grapple with as he has no reason to judge naturally occurring atrocities in moral terms.

So I think it should be treated separately from that branch of apologist theology.

The idea that 'natural evil' is a concept that only 'apologist theology' would want to deal with isn't one I've encountered before. One needn't be interested in 'apologist theology' or even religious to have a desire to account for a morally significant universe.

Even if it is only relevant to 'apologist theology', I don't really understand why you think that that makes it irrelevant here. Obviously it would be irrelevant to your interested, but the OP was asking all of us, and the question posed presupposes (even if only for purposes of argument) that God exists, so for those of us who do believe in God it falls into the same category of 'questions that require God's existence in order to be interesting' that you think the question of natural evil does.

Put another way, 'if God did exist, would he be a mass murderer?' is the sort of question that can be--you'll probably disagree that it should be, but it can be--answered in the same sorts of ways as 'if God did exist, whence ebola and hurricanes?'.

That's not quite what I was saying. 'Natural Evil' is the apologists answer to gods less than pleasant actions, or inaction but this 'answer' (categorising natural phenomenon as moralistic in their impact) is in itself a 'cause' (and in a round about way can be used to absolve god of responsibility)

For example, why consider a drought to be a moral action? It's amoral. It's just a drought. It's impact on us, we consider a moral action because it impacts us. To consider these phenomena to be a 'natural evil' assumes that we are the arbiters of morality and that goodness and badness in things and acts are measured by their positive or negative impact on us. But the Christian position is one in which we are not the arbiters of morality. God is. Things that we enjoy and that independently we might consider 'good' might still be immoral because god is the arbiter of that. So our opinion on 'natural evil' is moot, because it's not up to us.

(Slight segway into something I posted a few months ago: Sin by it’s definition is an action against god; a sin need have no grounding in whether that action is right or wrong. If things are ‘good’ because god says that they are good, or because they line up with his will, then morals are arbitrary and subjective. Because good is what god says it is, then it robs ‘good’ from its definition. ‘Good’ is simply what something powerful mandates. If god mandates it, then ‘good’ means nothing. Saying ‘god is good’ is simply saying he is god. It says nothing meaningful about his actions because god would be ‘good’ no matter what he does.)

So strictly speaking making the assumption that because floods and storms and droughts and plagues harm me that it is a matter for universal ethics is very human centric. It's not really important to anyone who doesn't think that what happens to us is a matter for the universe to answer to.

Is it not therefore possible to construct an answer to this question without making the assumption that natural acts have any intrinsic value at all?




Logged
World politics is up Schmitt creek
Nathan
Moderator
Atlas Superstar
*****
Posts: 34,249


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #7 on: November 06, 2015, 07:55:57 PM »

Is it not therefore possible to construct an answer to this question without making the assumption that natural acts have any intrinsic value at all?

You know, you're right.

I'll reword my first post in this thread: I understand why one would ask this question, but, Crypto-Marcionite talking points aside, my first instinct would be to fold it into the question of natural evil, and I have a hard time seeing answers that I personally would consider substantive that don't connect to that question.
Logged
True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)
Ernest
Moderators
Atlas Legend
*****
Posts: 42,157
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #8 on: November 06, 2015, 10:29:19 PM »

Assuming one believes in the concept of spiritual immortality, be it of the reincarnation or afterlife variety, then termination of corporeal existence is not the same as the termination of existence. And since if you don't believe in that concept, you also likely don't believe the historicity of the accounts in the first seven books of the Bible, then what deaths are you actually charging God with?

I'm making an assumption for the purpose of this exercise that these things happened. You know Ernest, that thing people do sometimes to engage in discussions. A bit of 'let's pretend'

Then a necessary corollary of that assumption is the existence of spiritual immortality. My point was that certain assumptions are necessarily linked. The validity of the historicity of the Bible necessarily implies the validity of the theology of the Bible. The converse need not be implied, tho it is true that certain theological interpretations cannot be valid if one assumes certain portions of the Bible are myth instead of history.

I've been reading Luther's commentary on Genesis of late, specifically the portion concerning the Flood. I think I can condense his views relevant to this discussion (and leave out his considerable anti-Jewish and anti-Papist invective). God is slow to anger and thus grants mankind considerable leeway, acting against those who purposely sin only when needed to save those who follow him. Hence the Flood, which killed myriads of myriads of people was needful to not only save the eight remaining true followers of God, but also to remove the corrupting influence of the Cainites. The plagues on Egypt were needed not merely to set the Israelites free from bondage, but to ensure they were severed from the corrupting influence of the Egyptians. The conquest of the Promised Land needed to purge the Canaanite influence from that land, thus those who could not be influenced to leave needed to be killed. The trials of the Babylonian Captivity were needful to purify the Jews so as to preserve the true church. The same was true for the Diaspora during Roman times. Given Luther's beliefs about what would befall the Papists, I think he would hold that they should be thankful that contrary to his prediction, they failed to be a sufficient threat to the purified reformed church that their destruction proved needful to save the true church.

As with the treatment of cancer in oncology, sometimes the treatment of sin in theology necessitates extreme measures to save that which is healthy. While according to the Biblical account, God certainly has committed mass homicide to preserve the true church, that does not imply it was mass murder.
Logged
The Arizonan
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 2,543
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #9 on: November 09, 2015, 10:55:11 PM »

No matter how one breaks it down, God is an a**hole.
Logged
MyRescueKittehRocks
JohanusCalvinusLibertas
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 6,763
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #10 on: November 10, 2015, 02:45:49 AM »

No matter how one breaks it down, God is an a**hole.

No. He's not
Logged
The Arizonan
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 2,543
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #11 on: November 10, 2015, 05:43:29 PM »


How can you read the Old Testament and think otherwise?

I mean, he created hell after all and the only people who deserve to go there are people like Stalin and Pol Pot.
Logged
World politics is up Schmitt creek
Nathan
Moderator
Atlas Superstar
*****
Posts: 34,249


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #12 on: November 11, 2015, 12:37:21 AM »


Somehow, millions of Jewish people manage.

Quote
You must be logged in to read this quote.

Hell isn't discussed at any great length in the Old Testament.
Logged
Attorney General, LGC Speaker, and Former PPT Dwarven Dragon
Dwarven Dragon
Atlas Politician
Atlas Superstar
*****
Posts: 31,578
United States


Political Matrix
E: -1.42, S: -0.52

P P P

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #13 on: November 11, 2015, 11:41:09 AM »
« Edited: November 11, 2015, 11:43:16 AM by Wulfric »

In a word, no.

Every living human (outside of extremely young infants), from the most devoted Christian to the most devoted Atheist, has sinned against god. For most christians, upon death, that list of sins likely numbers somewhere in the hundred thousands. For non-christians, it is much longer. The only just action for god to take is to immediately kill (and send to hell) all of us, for as it says in Romans, "the wages of sin is death". All of us have earned nothing but death. And if god were to kill us all right this moment, he would be fully justified in doing so. There is no credible argument that anyone would be able to make that Humans deserve anything less from god, for we have truly disrespected the world he gave us.

But, instead of killing us right here and now, or at least sending 100% of us to Hell upon natural death, God has, from the beginning of the human race, generously allowed us to substitute an alternate sacrifice for our own life, and go to heaven, even though we don't deserve it. In the old testament, it was animal sacrifice. Nowadays, Jesus, who lived that perfect life that all of us have not, works as an eternal sacrifice for all of our sins. That's not the actions of a mass murderer, that's the actions of an extremely merciful god, one whose mercy NONE OF US (including myself) deserve. Instead of trying to carefully think through every single action of every single day to avoid the great impulse to sin that is so woven into our flesh, we have the gift of jesus's sacrifice. All we are asked in return for this extremely generous gift is 1) Believe in god, 2) Believe that Jesus died on the cross to save our sins, and was resurrected soon after, 3) Fully confess our sins and continue to be repentant for them during our entire lives. That's a pretty small price to pay for the absolutely inexcusable actions that all humans have committed towards god.

Logged
afleitch
Moderators
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 29,835


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #14 on: November 11, 2015, 01:27:07 PM »

Hell isn't discussed at any great length in the Old Testament.

Why would it be? They have no concept of it. They knew (before the advance of Hellenistic Judaism advanced greek notions of Hades which is a side topic in itself) that sheol was a repose for all souls, held accountable for a finite time period because god's justice would not be served by eternal suffering. However if you're both talking about god, then the Christian concept of hell and how Christianity stumbled on that (as it did with almost every other key parts of the faith) in the centuries after Jesus' death is important. You can't just hive it off as someone else theological problem.
Logged
ingemann
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 4,226


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #15 on: November 11, 2015, 04:08:47 PM »

A murder is a illegal killing, is God a entity who is under Human laws; no, as such God do not commit murder.
Logged
°Leprechaun
tmcusa2
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 8,117
Uruguay


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #16 on: November 11, 2015, 06:04:06 PM »

Hell isn't talked about that much in the gospels either.
Logged
World politics is up Schmitt creek
Nathan
Moderator
Atlas Superstar
*****
Posts: 34,249


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #17 on: November 11, 2015, 09:29:53 PM »

Hell isn't discussed at any great length in the Old Testament.

Why would it be? They have no concept of it. They knew (before the advance of Hellenistic Judaism advanced greek notions of Hades which is a side topic in itself) that sheol was a repose for all souls, held accountable for a finite time period because god's justice would not be served by eternal suffering. However if you're both talking about god, then the Christian concept of hell and how Christianity stumbled on that (as it did with almost every other key parts of the faith) in the centuries after Jesus' death is important. You can't just hive it off as someone else theological problem.

My response was what it was because The Arizonan seemed like he was associating 'big bad Old Testament God' rhetoric with the concept of Hell.
Logged
🦀🎂🦀🎂
CrabCake
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 19,192
Kiribati


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #18 on: November 12, 2015, 10:59:12 AM »

What I've never understood about theology is that there is a need to make God omnibenevolent. As benevolence is a human trait centred around human ideals of morality, it stands to reason that a deity would not be bound to "goodness". Clearly "God" - quite aside from the actions of Yahweh - does not act in a way humans would call "moral". He arbitrarily punishes the beings He has created depending on whether they worship him or not (Rather than using his omnipotent powers to, err, cure original sin with a snap of the divine fingers). I mean, good for Him - as our Creator that's his prerogative - but it isn't a mark of benevolence to send your creations into a confusing world full of many religions and faiths and punishing them if they don't stumble upon the right one.
Logged
True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)
Ernest
Moderators
Atlas Legend
*****
Posts: 42,157
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #19 on: November 12, 2015, 07:37:42 PM »

Omnipotence is not the ability to do any action, it is the ability to do any possible action. Big Brother might be able to make 2+2=5; God cannot. To cure original sin with a wave of Her starry hands, God would have to also eradicate human free will. For original sin is only partially based on the inevitable commission of evil by humans. Its primary basis is our conceit that our inevitable evil makes us so unlovable by God that He cannot love us.  But God in Their perfection are love and accept us for who we are, so long as we do our best to avoid and mitigate our evil by following the Way that They have shown us. If God were to deny us the ability to engage in self-hate, then It would be destroying our free will. Lastly, for God to make possible for us to not commit evil, then Ey would have to remove our lack of omniscience, for only the omniscient can possibly see what actions are best, and then we would no longer be human.

(Yes, the varying pronouns was deliberate.)
Logged
The Arizonan
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 2,543
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #20 on: November 12, 2015, 09:02:11 PM »


How can you read the Old Testament and think otherwise?

I mean, he created hell after all and the only people who deserve to go there are people like Stalin and Pol Pot.
Sad What do you have against Communists?

I named those two because they are mass murderers and didn't throw in Hitler because he was too obvious.
Logged
afleitch
Moderators
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 29,835


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #21 on: November 13, 2015, 06:53:29 AM »

Omnipotence is not the ability to do any action, it is the ability to do any possible action. Big Brother might be able to make 2+2=5; God cannot. To cure original sin with a wave of Her starry hands, God would have to also eradicate human free will. For original sin is only partially based on the inevitable commission of evil by humans. Its primary basis is our conceit that our inevitable evil makes us so unlovable by God that He cannot love us.  But God in Their perfection are love and accept us for who we are, so long as we do our best to avoid and mitigate our evil by following the Way that They have shown us. If God were to deny us the ability to engage in self-hate, then It would be destroying our free will. Lastly, for God to make possible for us to not commit evil, then Ey would have to remove our lack of omniscience, for only the omniscient can possibly see what actions are best, and then we would no longer be human.

(Yes, the varying pronouns was deliberate.)

On the pronoun thing, despite being confusing, whatever you think god is, the Christian god presented itself as male. Twice. It ‘seeded’ a woman (a ‘male’ act) and was born as a man. Even if it had to do the first of these in order to manifest itself, it didn’t have to engender as a male by birth. Dworkin hits the nail on the head here; insemination as an act is an act of greater maleness than committing a mere sexual act because it redeems a man from the ‘gender ambiguity of any sex act he might commit for his own pleasure.’ Which is why god doesn’t do what other ancient gods do and commit the deed himself. Inseminating Mary is evidently more ‘male’ than actually being born in a male form. God did both of these things.

That aside, why do you keep talking about ‘free will’? It’s as much of theological invention as ‘natural evil.’ As I said to Madeline earlier on, you can’t get round theological problems by inventing a theological framework (in saying that nature can be moral and people have free will) by which to then excuse the original theological problem.

‘Free will’ was advanced forward in order to try and explain away the inconvenient paradoxes within a theistic universe. If humans can voluntarily choose to be evil (which makes us worse than god because he isn’t) because we have such a thing as a ‘free will’, then it no longer becomes a problem with god but with mankind.  The problem is that free will doesn’t make sense.

You can theorise a soul as a sort of spiritual facsimile of your conscious being that isn’t subject to entropic demise, however the fleshy bit of you; the body and the brain and the resulting consciousness are subject to causality. No human being has exactly the same cognitive and physical abilities as the next person and they partially determine the course of action that you take and the decisions that you make. Therefore no human is ‘fully informed’ of all choices that are available. You are afforded the choices that evolution has granted you and what causality has determined. There is a chunk of the human experience that as someone with very mild Aspergers is forever just out of reach. Given that spiritually speaking, that may result in me by default making a ‘sinful’ decision that someone else may exercise their volition and avoid then one would hope that wouldn’t be held against me.

But it would be held against me, if you keep advancing the idea of ‘free will’; it’s why so many countless people have been told when facing an experience that to them makes perfect complete and utter sense but runs contrary to doctrine that you’re just not ‘trying hard enough’ to see things the way they ought to be.  Even if you were to assume that the soul was the ‘fully informed’ part of you then it can be easily inferred from the actions that people take, that this soul is incapable of informing the rest of you, because you’re still making ‘mistakes’ as your cognitive abilities are still subject to your consciousness which is still rooted in the physical.

If the concept of a genuinely free will isn’t compatible with a materialistic view of the universe, even if you subscribe to a spiritual/metaphysical view of the universe (where there is a soul), there isn’t any evidence that this soul is informing you in addition to or in place of your consciousness.

If the soul was truly ‘free’ from that ( yet still somehow ‘you’), it would allow you to experience cognitive processes that you would not otherwise be able to experience due to your physical limitations. If it was making its presence known then it should, at least occasionally be able to ‘burst out’ of your physical and cognitive confines rather than hide behind it. Yet this doesn’t happen. If the soul is acting behind the scenes, then it’s following exactly the same processes as your body and isn’t guiding you any more or any less than your consciousness is in making moral choices.

So how can you say that a soul exists independently or even co-dependently of your consciousness? How can you say that it exists at all? But it has to exist in order for ‘free will’ to exist in turn in order to help excuse god’s theodicy. So much has to be constructed in order to excuse the acts of god that manifest themselves in the Bible.

Logged
🦀🎂🦀🎂
CrabCake
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 19,192
Kiribati


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #22 on: November 13, 2015, 09:04:41 AM »

I maintain that free will given by a being infinitely wiser and more powerful than us is essentially an amoral act on god's part, and downright immoral from a humane perspective. Much like giving free will to a baby, it seems like downright neglect on the deity's part, especially considering the eternal consequences of making the wrong decision. He doesn't even have to take over free will! Why couldn't He simply rearrange all the stars to spell out "yes I'm real, sorry Dawkins start grovelling now"? Why go through the incredibly painstaking process of incarnating himself as a human in a world crawling with self-professed prophets and then sacrificing himself?
Logged
True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)
Ernest
Moderators
Atlas Legend
*****
Posts: 42,157
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #23 on: November 13, 2015, 09:51:58 AM »

Why go through the incredibly painstaking process of incarnating himself as a human in a world crawling with self-professed prophets and then sacrificing himself?
Because some of us so stubbornly cling to our imperfections as something which bars us from communion with the Divine that it took such an Act to convince some of us of our error.

‘Free will’ was advanced forward in order to try and explain away the inconvenient paradoxes within a theistic universe. If humans can voluntarily choose to be evil (which makes us worse than god because he isn’t) because we have such a thing as a ‘free will’, then it no longer becomes a problem with god but with mankind.  The problem is that free will doesn’t make sense.

You can theorise a soul as a sort of spiritual facsimile of your conscious being that isn’t subject to entropic demise, however the fleshy bit of you; the body and the brain and the resulting consciousness are subject to causality. No human being has exactly the same cognitive and physical abilities as the next person and they partially determine the course of action that you take and the decisions that you make. Therefore no human is ‘fully informed’ of all choices that are available. You are afforded the choices that evolution has granted you and what causality has determined. There is a chunk of the human experience that as someone with very mild Aspergers is forever just out of reach. Given that spiritually speaking, that may result in me by default making a ‘sinful’ decision that someone else may exercise their volition and avoid then one would hope that wouldn’t be held against me.

But it would be held against me, if you keep advancing the idea of ‘free will’; it’s why so many countless people have been told when facing an experience that to them makes perfect complete and utter sense but runs contrary to doctrine that you’re just not ‘trying hard enough’ to see things the way they ought to be.  Even if you were to assume that the soul was the ‘fully informed’ part of you then it can be easily inferred from the actions that people take, that this soul is incapable of informing the rest of you, because you’re still making ‘mistakes’ as your cognitive abilities are still subject to your consciousness which is still rooted in the physical.

If the concept of a genuinely free will isn’t compatible with a materialistic view of the universe, even if you subscribe to a spiritual/metaphysical view of the universe (where there is a soul), there isn’t any evidence that this soul is informing you in addition to or in place of your consciousness.

If the soul was truly ‘free’ from that ( yet still somehow ‘you’), it would allow you to experience cognitive processes that you would not otherwise be able to experience due to your physical limitations. If it was making its presence known then it should, at least occasionally be able to ‘burst out’ of your physical and cognitive confines rather than hide behind it. Yet this doesn’t happen. If the soul is acting behind the scenes, then it’s following exactly the same processes as your body and isn’t guiding you any more or any less than your consciousness is in making moral choices.

So how can you say that a soul exists independently or even co-dependently of your consciousness? How can you say that it exists at all? But it has to exist in order for ‘free will’ to exist in turn in order to help excuse god’s theodicy. So much has to be constructed in order to excuse the acts of god that manifest themselves in the Bible.

Your devotion to the idea that order equals "good" betrays you, as it does many others, both theist and atheist. That human nature includes chaos (i.e. free will) doesn't make us inferior to a being of greater order, it makes us different. We tend to think that difference makes the Divine incapable of cherishing us, but like many assumptions concerning the unlovableness of that which is different, it is incorrect.

I also find error in your assumption that failure to do something which you are incapable of doing somehow equates to evil. The ability to be omnibenevolent does not require omnipotence, only omniscience. Plus, keep in mind that when it comes to philosophy/theology, the operative definition of 'omni-' is not 'all things imaginable' but 'all things possible' since the former leads to paradox.

I also fail to see why an immortal soul is required for the existence of free will. Immortality is inherently orderly while free will is chaotic. The two can coexist, but neither is dependent upon the other.
Logged
Why
Unbiased
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 612
Australia


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #24 on: November 26, 2015, 05:41:23 PM »

God is a mass killer, not a mass murderer. There is a huge difference between the two. Only being a mass murderer is a bad thing.
Logged
Pages: [1] 2  
« previous next »
Jump to:  


Login with username, password and session length

Terms of Service - DMCA Agent and Policy - Privacy Policy and Cookies

Powered by SMF 1.1.21 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines

Page created in 0.069 seconds with 12 queries.