First  Prev  1  2  3  4  5  Next  Last
Christians: Who defines your interpretation of God?
3910 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
26 / M / Pandemonium
Offline
Posted 3/11/14 , edited 3/11/14

Laiseran wrote:

Well, God is able to judge people properly, unlike us. And like you say, if good people will go to heaven, why not take them there early by letting them die? You also seem to be assuming that people somehow deserve life and God should let us have it. It's pretty clear in the Bible that we do not deserve eternal life and I can think of no scientific evidence to suggest that.


I just need to say in advance that I'm not trying to be cheeky or rude or anything, but when discussing topics like this, science isn't really involved in any way either way.
You know -- unless you can find scientific evidence to the contrary.

As for what the bible says, well that all depends on whether you take the bible's justification to be legit. I don't, because I believe that the fall of man that is described in the bible is God's fault. Which means that he's punishing the descendants of the first two people for the crime that those two people committed. Which happened because God was slacking at work.

Did you know that North Korea imprisons people because of the political views that their GRANDPARENTS had? Does that seem fair to you?
http://www.nationalturk.com/en/north-korean-prison-camps-are-filled-with-150000-political-prisoners-included-17496





Laiseran
The bible outlaws murder, but not all killing. If the killing could be justified, like in saving anothers life by killing the would be murderer then it is fair.


But then that should make abortion fair, should it not?
After all -- an unwanted child can mess up a person's life pretty bad.





Laiseran
Murder is wrong, as we do it for selfish reasons and cannot see others intentions. If God kills some undeserving humans, so what? He gave them life so He can take it away. We are on the same level as the other humans, we steal their chance at life, God simply takes back what was his to begin with.
It's not so much that God thinks all fetus should die, it's that we are not the ones to make decisions.


That means that the loss of human life doesn't really mean a lot to God. Certainly not as much as the bible and many christians make it seem.
Which means that his grounds for making murder unlawful disappears. Because he himself treats human life so flippently. If human life has no more worth than that, then on what grounds does he justify us not being able to murder people?

As far as I can remember, his reasons for murdering people were often quite selfish too.






Laiseran
I don't know if God takes the unborn dead to heaven but I think he may work on a sort of hypothetical, how they would have acted. I'm only guessing here, I can't fathom the thoughts of God. I think everyone lives on Earth to make the choice to follow God or not. If there is no temptation there is no reward.


That would mean that he knows in advance what people will turn out evil or not (of course, because he is supposed to be omniscient), which means that he knows what people will be sent to hell, which means that if he loved them so much he would spare those people that pain by never creating them in the first place (as he would know if they would turn out evil).
But instead he creates them -- even though he knows they will turn out evil -- just to eventually send them to hell.
That doesn't sound like omnibenevolence to me.






Laiseran
Maybe sin has corrupted the world somehow? Do the unborn really suffer less? Does living on Earth give us a worse time?


According to the bible, it at least gives us a chance to end up in hell. So yeah, I'd say it does.






Laiseran
I think God has left the world to be corrupted and so allows us to be born into it, this may make us suffer more than an unborn child but that pales in comparison to Hell.
I think it is similar to being born rich or poor, one may seem worse but in terms of eternity the difference is negilable. I think there is a passage in the bible saying that those who suffer will be rewarded, so maybe we will be rewarded more than the unborn as the extremely poor are more than us.


Which is even MORE of a reason NOT to let them be born here in the first place.

So rather than giving all people infinite happiness -- he gives some people only halfway the amount of happiness, based on how much they suffered in life?
That doesn't seem fair. Especially since we're talking about eternity. To which the life of a human being is relatively short.






Laiseran wrote:

In summary, while your argument may make sense if we assume unborn babies are given a free pass, I think that is illogical and the idea that they are hypothetically judged makes more sense. I think God is more or less indifferent to when they die but just wishes that we do not intervene. To God, the mortal death of a person is nearly irrelevant, but we should not be the ones to decide such things. We are pretty biased. It is less to do with the fact that they died and more that we make them suffer against their will for our own gain.


Why? What sense does that make? That's just a downright dick-move. Especially if he's actually indifferent to when they die.
And fetuses who have not developed conciousness do not suffer. And even IF, then they would only suffer for the short time that it takes to perform an abortion. Which is still far less than the amounted suffering of mortal life on earth.
3910 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
26 / M / Pandemonium
Offline
Posted 3/11/14

Octava wrote:

If god prevented the situation wherein people decide to have abortions, then the act of abortion would never exist in the first place. But it would be impossible for people to not consider abortions, since abortions have been made possible, meaning that at least one person has considered it. It's a confusing paradox, but it makes sense.


People only consider abortion if they are in a situation where they would want to have one. If you don't want something, then you still won't consider it even if it is possible.
If people want to have an abortion, it is because they are in a situation where abortion is a desirable option. Which is a situation that God could've prevented.





Octava
The act of "deciding" is a conscious effort and consideration made towards a problem.


Exactly. A problem that God could've prevented.






Octava
But theoretically speaking, there has to be at least one person to consider abortion if the act of abortion were to be made possible. Because if god prevented all situations of abortion, then that means that abortion should not exist... which in turn means that god wouldn't have been able to prevent us from thinking about abortion, as abortion does not exist...!


Abortion is a concept that only arises from the need/desire to have one. It's merely an idea -- forged from the desire to not have a child.
The medical procedure of abortion is relatively new. But it has always existed. Be it via a kick to the stomach, or just downright murdering the woman along with the child.
You're over-thinking this.





Octava
So if god were to exist, a better question would be: "Why does abortion exist?" And yet this, too, turns into circular reasoning. So the short answer? Abortion exists because humans have conscious, independent thought.


No, it exists because there are situations where having a child is not a desirable outcome.
If situations like that didn't exist, then abortions would not exist, even if humans have conscious, independant thought.






Octava
But this makes no sense, as you could apply this to any situation: "If there is a god, then why do so many disasters, genocides, rapes, crimes, and acts of hatred occur?"


Yes. He could've prevented those from ever happening as well.






Octava
...which I find a ridiculous question to ask. There is no known answer, neither from god or anyone else. This is what happens when you have 7 billion people of different genetics, histories, backgrounds, living conditions, societies, and with the complexity of the human body, all on one planet... A lot can go wrong.


But according to the bible -- it all happened because of the downfall. The eating of the forbidden fruit by Adam and Eve. Which God could have prevented.
One of the many reasons I abandoned religion.





Octava
It's relevant. There has always been a lot of argument between Creationists and the scientific community (specifically biotechnology and synthetic biology and whatnot) over whether or not we, as humans, should have the power to create life and destroy life. Normally this is for the extreme cases of cloning, euthanasia, creating artificial life, and perhaps genetically modified crops/food, among other situations. This entire act is informally termed "playing god". The idea is that only god should have the power to create or end life. It's not really about existence, but about death.


"Playing god" is a term that the creationists came up with -- not the scientific community. Essentially as a form of psychological manipulation in order to fool people to think that what the scientists are doing is wrong because they are crossing over in supposedly divine territory. Even though proper justification for why it is supposedly divine has yet to be presented.

And if god DOESN'T exist, then the entire problem becomes moot.




Octava
If someone died from murder, and someone else died from old age, their existence after death is irrelevant. They're both dead. It depends on how they died. One is considered ethical, and one is not. One is probably god's will, and one is probably not. Care to guess?


What? Does the way in which they die somehow affect how righteous they are percieved to be by God?
50 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
F
Offline
Posted 3/11/14 , edited 3/11/14

Syndicaidramon
People only consider abortion if they are in a situation where they would want to have one. If you don't want something, then you still won't consider it even if it is possible.
If people want to have an abortion, it is because they are in a situation where abortion is a desirable option. Which is a situation that God could've prevented.


Abortion is not specific to situations; it's specific to the individual, many of whom have similar situations. Abortion is not the necessary option, but it's the option many humans take. If god were to exist, he would have prevented the idea of abortion from ever occurring, but my semantic argument is that you can't prevent people from never thinking of the idea unless the idea never existed in the first place.



Octava
The act of "deciding" is a conscious effort and consideration made towards a problem.



Syndicaidramon
Exactly. A problem that God could've prevented.


Humans have conscious thought; if god were to exist, this is assuming he has free reign over anyone? That doesn't make sense. If humans have the capability to sin and be punished, then who is to say we can't think our own independent thoughts?




Octava
But theoretically speaking, there has to be at least one person to consider abortion if the act of abortion were to be made possible. Because if god prevented all situations of abortion, then that means that abortion should not exist... which in turn means that god wouldn't have been able to prevent us from thinking about abortion, as abortion does not exist...!



Syndicaidramon
Abortion is a concept that only arises from the need/desire to have one. It's merely an idea -- forged from the desire to not have a child.
The medical procedure of abortion is relatively new. But it has always existed. Be it via a kick to the stomach, or just downright murdering the woman along with the child.
You're over-thinking this.


My argument is: the only way for humans to not think about abortion is if they did not have the capability for conscious thought. If god prevented all situations of abortion, then shouldn't abortion not exist? Because there would be no need for abortion.



Octava
So if god were to exist, a better question would be: "Why does abortion exist?" And yet this, too, turns into circular reasoning. So the short answer? Abortion exists because humans have conscious, independent thought.



Syndicaidramon
No, it exists because there are situations where having a child is not a desirable outcome.
If situations like that didn't exist, then abortions would not exist, even if humans have conscious, independant thought.


That's impossible. That's exactly my point. If all situations of abortion did not exist, then that would imply that humans do not have conscious thought, or control over their actions.




Octava
But this makes no sense, as you could apply this to any situation: "If there is a god, then why do so many disasters, genocides, rapes, crimes, and acts of hatred occur?"



SyndicaidramonYes. He could've prevented those from ever happening as well.


No. Then why can people sin? It's because humans have conscious thought and are not controlled by a celestial entity. Even the bible states that humans sin independently from god's control.




Octava
...which I find a ridiculous question to ask. There is no known answer, neither from god or anyone else. This is what happens when you have 7 billion people of different genetics, histories, backgrounds, living conditions, societies, and with the complexity of the human body, all on one planet... A lot can go wrong.



SyndicaidramonBut according to the bible -- it all happened because of the downfall. The eating of the forbidden fruit by Adam and Eve. Which God could have prevented.
One of the many reasons I abandoned religion.


I am not saying that god exists; I think the contrary. I just think that it's ridiculous to say that everything could be prevented with a god. The only way to prevent hatred from occurring is to fundamentally change the way humans work. If there is a god or not, god wouldn't be able to control us.

"See, I set before you today life and prosperity, death and destruction."
Deuteronomy 30:15

"...but of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil you shall not eat, for in the day that you eat of it you shall surely die.”
Genesis 2:17

“Therefore, just as through one man sin entered the world, and death through sin, and thus death spread to all men, because all sinned.”
Romans 5:12


Doesn't that imply a choice? God warned Adam and Eve to not eat the forbidden fruit. He gave them the option of choice. The entire point is that there is a choice. There is always a choice. We are not puppets. According to the bible, humans are all sinners at heart, because when Adam ate from the forbidden tree, he brought sin to the humankind.


Octava
It's relevant. There has always been a lot of argument between Creationists and the scientific community (specifically biotechnology and synthetic biology and whatnot) over whether or not we, as humans, should have the power to create life and destroy life. Normally this is for the extreme cases of cloning, euthanasia, creating artificial life, and perhaps genetically modified crops/food, among other situations. This entire act is informally termed "playing god". The idea is that only god should have the power to create or end life. It's not really about existence, but about death.



Octava
"Playing god" is a term that the creationists came up with -- not the scientific community. Essentially as a form of psychological manipulation in order to fool people to think that what the scientists are doing is wrong because they are crossing over in supposedly divine territory. Even though proper justification for why it is supposedly divine has yet to be presented.

And if god DOESN'T exist, then the entire problem becomes moot.


Yes, I never said that "playing god" was made up by scientists. Isn't it quite evident that it was coined by creationists?


Octava
If someone died from murder, and someone else died from old age, their existence after death is irrelevant. They're both dead. It depends on how they died. One is considered ethical, and one is not. One is probably god's will, and one is probably not. Care to guess?



Syndicaidramon
What? Does the way in which they die somehow affect how righteous they are percieved to be by God?


I was being sarcastic.

One person died from old will, their relatives say: "It was god's will." When the rational explanation is due to science.

One person died from murder, their relatives say: "You left this world too soon. God wanted you in heaven. You died because someone else has sinned." When the rational explanation is probably because the murderer was mentally ill, and the victim was extremely unlucky.



To reiterate: I am not religious. I just find it ridiculous to argue the extreme for either side. Both sides (atheist and religious) attempt to refute the other, but there are contradictions in both cases, and I'm not biased towards one or the other.

1773 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
19 / M
Offline
Posted 3/11/14 , edited 3/11/14

I just need to say in advance that I'm not trying to be cheeky or rude or anything, but when discussing topics like this, science isn't really involved in any way either way.
You know -- unless you can find scientific evidence to the contrary.

I'm not talking about scientific evidence for God, I just meant that there are no reasons, scientific or religious, that indicate people deserve things like eternal life or happiness. God has chosen to give people the opportunity for said things, but we definitely don't deserve them. Just because God is "good", that doesn't mean he must give us eternal life on demand.


I don't, because I believe that the fall of man that is described in the bible is God's fault. Which means that he's punishing the descendants of the first two people for the crime that those two people committed. Which happened because God was slacking at work.

People are not punished for what their ancestors have done, everyone has sinned, and are therefore separated from God. God cannot magically grant people eternal life. In order to go to heaven they must be one with God, totally perfect. There is not a set level of goodness you need to achieve, there is perfection or there is total separation. That is why Jesus had to die, so that we may be perfect like God. Eternal life is a choice: We have all chosen to leave God and therefore deserve only death. God, through his love for us, has given us a second chance.


That would mean that he knows in advance what people will turn out evil or not (of course, because he is supposed to be omniscient), which means that he knows what people will be sent to hell, which means that if he loved them so much he would spare those people that pain by never creating them in the first place (as he would know if they would turn out evil).
But instead he creates them -- even though he knows they will turn out evil -- just to eventually send them to hell.
That doesn't sound like omnibenevolence to me.

If God forced us to be unable to sin, then we would not be good. If I made two robots, one set to help people, the other to destroy, which one is evil? Neither. The robots are machines following commands. We are created in God's own image, in the sense that we can choose between good and evil. If we cannot choose, we are neither good nor evil and have no free will. Also, if the "evil" people deserve death, then why is giving them a short piece of life considered terrible?

God doesn't send people to hell against their will. You might say "Oh, but I want eternal life", but then you misunderstand the nature of heaven. To enter heaven you must focus your life on God, anything else, it eventually will fail you and you will become selfish and miserable. Somebody may want eternal life, but they also wish to stay the same as they are, refusing to admit that anything is wrong. You do not deserve heaven, you cannot. You must change your heart, or it is impossible to enter heaven. Unless you are perfect, you cannot exist in heaven, you can't just be given eternal happiness. Why do think God should give us some sort of perfect life? He has given us the chance to redeem ourselves, so you can't say that He doesn't love us. The world may be broken, evil and twisted, but that is just what we deserve. It's totally fair to let us spend a bit of time here, because we turned away for a while, than instantly taking us to heaven.


Why? What sense does that make? That's just a downright dick-move. Especially if he's actually indifferent to when they die.

It's not about when they die, it's that we are the ones making such a decision. You seem to object to murder and suffering for some reason, but I'm not sure why. If you believed in some higher power it would make sense, but if not, then is it not natural that we should kill to gain from others? You claim God is hypocritical, yet you say denying a unborn child (that you believe deserves eternal life) a chance to life is fine if it benefits others. Why then do you disagree with murder? Surely it is an advantage to take another's life at some point and if they are evil, then shouldn't they deserve it?
I am not talking about if God exists here, you seem to think it is wrong to end someone's life even if it would stop them "suffering" on Earth, but in the case of abortions you are doing them a favour. Where are these rules that say murder is morally wrong? Morally wrong that is, not legally. Can you please go one way? Is killing wrong, or are there no real rules at all?
3910 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
26 / M / Pandemonium
Offline
Posted 3/11/14

Octava wrote:


Syndicaidramon
People only consider abortion if they are in a situation where they would want to have one. If you don't want something, then you still won't consider it even if it is possible.
If people want to have an abortion, it is because they are in a situation where abortion is a desirable option. Which is a situation that God could've prevented.


Abortion is not specific to situations; it's specific to the individual, many of whom have similar situations. Abortion is not the necessary option, but it's the option many humans take. If god were to exist, he would have prevented the idea of abortion from ever occurring, but my semantic argument is that you can't prevent people from never thinking of the idea unless the idea never existed in the first place.



No. If god existed, then he would have prevented situations where abortion is a desirable option from happening. Sometimes, having a baby will lessen someone's life. The fair thing to do then is not to just make them not consider having an abortion -- it would be making it so that they wouldn't HAVE to neither consider an abortion OR have their life quality lessened by an unwanted child.




Octava

Octava
The act of "deciding" is a conscious effort and consideration made towards a problem.



Syndicaidramon
Exactly. A problem that God could've prevented.


Humans have conscious thought; if god were to exist, this is assuming he has free reign over anyone? That doesn't make sense. If humans have the capability to sin and be punished, then who is to say we can't think our own independent thoughts?


Never said we couldn't. But seeing as God is supposed to be omnipotent, he should be able to manipulate events so that situations where an unwanted child is made do not happen.




Octava

Octava
But theoretically speaking, there has to be at least one person to consider abortion if the act of abortion were to be made possible. Because if god prevented all situations of abortion, then that means that abortion should not exist... which in turn means that god wouldn't have been able to prevent us from thinking about abortion, as abortion does not exist...!



Syndicaidramon
Abortion is a concept that only arises from the need/desire to have one. It's merely an idea -- forged from the desire to not have a child.
The medical procedure of abortion is relatively new. But it has always existed. Be it via a kick to the stomach, or just downright murdering the woman along with the child.
You're over-thinking this.


My argument is: the only way for humans to not think about abortion is if they did not have the capability for conscious thought. If god prevented all situations of abortion, then shouldn't abortion not exist? Because there would be no need for abortion.


OR if the only times women got pregnant were the times when both the mother AND the father WANTED her to get pregnant.





Octava

Octava
So if god were to exist, a better question would be: "Why does abortion exist?" And yet this, too, turns into circular reasoning. So the short answer? Abortion exists because humans have conscious, independent thought.



Syndicaidramon
No, it exists because there are situations where having a child is not a desirable outcome.
If situations like that didn't exist, then abortions would not exist, even if humans have conscious, independant thought.


That's impossible. That's exactly my point. If all situations of abortion did not exist, then that would imply that humans do not have conscious thought, or control over their actions.


Not impossible for the being that is supposed to be omnipotent.






Octava

Octava
But this makes no sense, as you could apply this to any situation: "If there is a god, then why do so many disasters, genocides, rapes, crimes, and acts of hatred occur?"



SyndicaidramonYes. He could've prevented those from ever happening as well.


No. Then why can people sin? It's because humans have conscious thought and are not controlled by a celestial entity. Even the bible states that humans sin independently from god's control.


And the bible makes no sense. Because if god was both omnipotent and omnibenevolent, he wouldn't allow sin to ever exist.







Octava
I am not saying that god exists; I think the contrary. I just think that it's ridiculous to say that everything could be prevented with a god. The only way to prevent hatred from occurring is to fundamentally change the way humans work. If there is a god or not, god wouldn't be able to control us.

"See, I set before you today life and prosperity, death and destruction."
Deuteronomy 30:15

"...but of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil you shall not eat, for in the day that you eat of it you shall surely die.”
Genesis 2:17

“Therefore, just as through one man sin entered the world, and death through sin, and thus death spread to all men, because all sinned.”
Romans 5:12


Doesn't that imply a choice? God warned Adam and Eve to not eat the forbidden fruit. He gave them the option of choice. The entire point is that there is a choice. There is always a choice. We are not puppets. According to the bible, humans are all sinners at heart, because when Adam ate from the forbidden tree, he brought sin to the humankind.



Yet another case of how the bible contradict itself. If God was omnipotent, omniscient, and omnibenevolent -- he wouldn't have made humans as flawed and stupid as we are, nor would he have allowed sin to ever become a thing.

1773 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
19 / M
Offline
Posted 3/11/14


Yet another case of how the bible contradict itself. If God was omnipotent, omniscient, and omnibenevolent -- he wouldn't have made humans as flawed and stupid as we are, nor would he have allowed sin to ever become a thing.

Why? The flaws come from the aspect of having free will. More knowledge would not make us sin less, look at Lucifer, he knew much more than we do and realising this, wished to overthrow God.
1773 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
19 / M
Offline
Posted 3/11/14

The fair thing to do then is not to just make them not consider having an abortion -- it would be making it so that they wouldn't HAVE to neither consider an abortion OR have their life quality lessened by an unwanted child.

Where is your idea of "fair" coming from? It is not the biblical fair as I explained earlier. Do you assume everyone holds the same moral standards as you? Not everyone subscribes to your definition of fair, you know. You can't use it as the reasoning behind an argument.
I can't use "Stop stealing from the poor, because God says that's wrong" as reasoning against you. I can use that as my reason for why it is wrong, but not the universal one. It is unfair to assume people believe the same things as you. You are speaking like these are things everyone knows are wrong and agrees that they are but that is not the case. Many people think it is unfair, but that always relies on their beliefs, not universal truths.
3910 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
26 / M / Pandemonium
Offline
Posted 3/11/14 , edited 3/11/14

Laiseran
I'm not talking about scientific evidence for God, I just meant that there are no reasons, scientific or religious, that indicate people deserve things like eternal life or happiness. God has chosen to give people the opportunity for said things, but we definitely don't deserve them. Just because God is "good", that doesn't mean he must give us eternal life on demand.


He should. I would if I could. And isn't God supposed to be omnibenevolent? I know I'm not omnibenevolent, yet if I could create eternal happiness for all people, I totally would.





Laiseran
People are not punished for what their ancestors have done, everyone has sinned, and are therefore separated from God.


Babies have not sinned. The only "sin" they have commited is being born with "original sin", which is them being punished for the crime of Adam and Eve.




Laiseran
God cannot magically grant people eternal life.


Sure he can. He's supposed to be omnipotent.




Laiseran
In order to go to heaven they must be one with God, totally perfect. There is not a set level of goodness you need to achieve, there is perfection or there is total separation. That is why Jesus had to die, so that we may be perfect like God.


But we're not, are we?





Laiseran
Eternal life is a choice: We have all chosen to leave God and therefore deserve only death. God, through his love for us, has given us a second chance.


No. If I was given the choice at birth whether or not to be one with God or not, I would've chosen "yes". No problem.
To say that we all have chosen to leave God is bullshit, because we were never in the position where we WERE with God and could make a concious decision about whether to leave him or not in the first place.







Laiseran
If God forced us to be unable to sin, then we would not be good. If I made two robots, one set to help people, the other to destroy, which one is evil? Neither. The robots are machines following commands. We are created in God's own image, in the sense that we can choose between good and evil. If we cannot choose, we are neither good nor evil and have no free will. Also, if the "evil" people deserve death, then why is giving them a short piece of life considered terrible?


How exactly do you judge what is evil or not? Personally, I judge whether something is evil or not based on to whether it helps achieve my desired end result for humanity or not. If it makes the situation better, it's good. If it makes thing worse, it's evil. Is that not what we do when it comes to people? So what is the differentiating factor? Just that we are not mindless robots following a programming? I don't buy that at all.
It's the end result that matters.

Regarding free will -- take a look at this video, and let me know what you think:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rzgV_ebia84

Also, it's bad because those evil people do not only die -- they are supposedly sent to hell. Which is being concious in eternal torment. Which is cruel. And the only reason someone can be considered evil is if they have actually done something evil. If those evil people did not exist at all, they would never have done anything evil, which means that they wouldn't have had to be sent to hell.

Basicly, God is creating people for the sole purpose of sending them to eternal damnation after they have made a negative impact on other people's lives.




Laiseran
God doesn't send people to hell against their will. You might say "Oh, but I want eternal life", but then you misunderstand the nature of heaven. To enter heaven you must focus your life on God, anything else, it eventually will fail you and you will become selfish and miserable.


See that is already wrong. There are numourous people who are not religious, yet still devote their lives to help other human beings. Are they evil? Do they deserve hell just because they didn't believe that God exists, even when they weren't evil?




Laiseran
Somebody may want eternal life, but they also wish to stay the same as they are, refusing to admit that anything is wrong. You do not deserve heaven, you cannot. You must change your heart, or it is impossible to enter heaven.


And this change MUST happen during our life on earth and cannot happen when you're standing in front of the pearly gates because -- ?




Laiseran
Unless you are perfect, you cannot exist in heaven, you can't just be given eternal happiness. Why do think God should give us some sort of perfect life? He has given us the chance to redeem ourselves, so you can't say that He doesn't love us. The world may be broken, evil and twisted, but that is just what we deserve. It's totally fair to let us spend a bit of time here, because we turned away for a while, than instantly taking us to heaven.


Seems like the most unreasonable request ever to me.
Why should God give us perfect life? Because he's supposed to be omnibenevolent. That is also why he should prevent evil people from being born. If he does not do those things, then he is not omnibenevolent.

And to say that young children deserve to have their parents murdered, or that women who have never done anything to harm someone else deserves to get raped, or that people who spend their lives trying to be as good as they can deserve to have their lives shattered and destroyed, etc. is just messed up. And more than that, it's simply not true.
If it is, you'll have to provide some damn good justification for such a claim.





Laiseran
It's not about when they die, it's that we are the ones making such a decision.


So it's not about the actual harm (or lack thereof) of the actual loss of life -- it's just about how we are not allowed to make that decision, just because?





Laiseran
You seem to object to murder and suffering for some reason, but I'm not sure why. If you believed in some higher power it would make sense, but if not, then is it not natural that we should kill to gain from others?

You claim God is hypocritical, yet you say denying a unborn child (that you believe deserves eternal life) a chance to life is fine if it benefits others. Why then do you disagree with murder? Surely it is an advantage to take another's life at some point and if they are evil, then shouldn't they deserve it?



http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G7iuT8hJafc





Laiseran
I am not talking about if God exists here, you seem to think it is wrong to end someone's life even if it would stop them "suffering" on Earth, but in the case of abortions you are doing them a favour. Where are these rules that say murder is morally wrong? Morally wrong that is, not legally. Can you please go one way? Is killing wrong, or are there no real rules at all?


Where did I ever say that? That is not at all the case.

Whether killing is wrong or not is circumstantial. It depends on who gets killed and why.






Laiseran wrote:



Yet another case of how the bible contradict itself. If God was omnipotent, omniscient, and omnibenevolent -- he wouldn't have made humans as flawed and stupid as we are, nor would he have allowed sin to ever become a thing.

Why? The flaws come from the aspect of having free will. More knowledge would not make us sin less, look at Lucifer, he knew much more than we do and realising this, wished to overthrow God.


No, our flaws come from our tendency towards selfishness, our limited ability for empathy/sympathy and our lack of understanding and insight towards what actions would benefit the collective population the most.

Lucifer sinning makes no sense. It's stupid. If God is truly omnipotent and cannot be beaten, then Lucifer would have to be a fucking idiot to even THINK to stand against him.




3910 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
26 / M / Pandemonium
Offline
Posted 3/11/14

Laiseran

The fair thing to do then is not to just make them not consider having an abortion -- it would be making it so that they wouldn't HAVE to neither consider an abortion OR have their life quality lessened by an unwanted child.


Where is your idea of "fair" coming from? It is not the biblical fair as I explained earlier.


It comes from what would benefit all parties as much as possible.




Laiseran
Do you assume everyone holds the same moral standards as you? Not everyone subscribes to your definition of fair, you know. You can't use it as the reasoning behind an argument.


Sure I can. You just have to provide a reasonable argument, logically explaining why my definition of fair is inadequate and/or unreasonable.




Laiseran
I can't use "Stop stealing from the poor, because God says that's wrong" as reasoning against you.


No, but that's because it's not an argument.




Laiseran
I can use that as my reason for why it is wrong, but not the universal one. It is unfair to assume people believe the same things as you. You are speaking like these are things everyone knows are wrong and agrees that they are but that is not the case. Many people think it is unfair, but that always relies on their beliefs, not universal truths.


Alright. Then I ask you: in that situation, which option is more fair and why?

1773 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
19 / M
Offline
Posted 3/11/14 , edited 3/11/14

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G7iuT8hJafc

This only explains why you believe that morals are a good thing to have. It does not force everyone to comply with said morals. People may hate murder, but it only goes against their personal beliefs.

I have heard many a person say that individuals morals should not be forced on others. This explains why you have morals, which I understand, but not the total support (and the insulting of those who disagree) of the creation of laws to "help" people, which only satisfy ones personal desires because they are against it.

Then what about laws of equality? The slave trade provided profit to the owners but hurt the slaves. You may argue that it is wrong as you feel in the same group as the slaves and so wish them to be free. But is someone else not equally entitled to say that they feel like they are from a different group and so wish to improve the slave owners lives over the slaves? You cannot claim that is wrong. You feel that it is, but in the end that is your opinion, not a fact.

And more than that, it's simply not true.
If it is, you'll have to provide some damn good justification for such a claim.

You seem to be stating this as fact. I am not saying you are not allowed to have morals, but you cannot claim them as truth more than anyone else can. These rules are your own private fancies, but you seem to think that the are an overarching truth.


Did you know that North Korea imprisons people because of the political views that their GRANDPARENTS had? Does that seem fair to you?
http://www.nationalturk.com/en/north-korean-prison-camps-are-filled-with-150000-political-prisoners-included-17496

Again, here you assume that I should empathise with these people, but I don't have to. They are not in my "group" and I have never met them. You seem to think that this should invoke an emotional response, but that doesn't help your case.

There is reasoning enough for you to have morals and stick to them, but how can you claim that others are hypocritical and use that in an argument? It is not solid evidence, it is only opinion, so I don't have to subscribe to it. Moral offences cannot be used as a common ground for justification as morals vary between people.

You can use "fair" as an argument, if we agreed on what "fair" meant. I disagree with your definition and your morals therefore your arguments have no meaning to me. As they are opinion based, there is no reason for me to have the same morals as you, and so when something happens that you think should not, like people being killed by God, you cannot insist that you are right in saying that it is wrong. You are free to believe that, certainly, but you can't say that it should influence others in any way. You may feel strongly and emotionally about your point, but if I do not care, the point is irrelevant to me. You can't say that God should do something because you think that is right, when you are correcting me. I don't have to believe that. What if I think it's totally fair? Then in regard to my beliefs it makes sense.

I'm not saying you're not correct in your reasoning, you probably are, but the thing I disagree with you on is morals and therefore is opinion-based. Your reasoning may make sense in terms of your morals, but I believe mine makes sense in terms of my own.

Which leads nicely back to the topic. If I base my interpretation of God on the Bible, you cannot prove my interpretation is morally wrong (to me) unless you use morals found in the Bible, which you are, for the most part, not doing. Also, biblical morals are often up to interpretation as well.

I know you may have thought you were reasoning out the hypocrisies in the text, but you began to use your own, non-biblical, definitions to do so. If you want to point out flaws in the Bible in terms of my beliefs (not yours), you need to use a moral standpoint from within the Bible. In fact, if you are criticising my beliefs in the way that you are, namely that what God does is evil, you need to use my moralistic beliefs.
I'm not saying you can't disagree with it based on your own morals, that's completely up to you, but you can't say my beliefs are hypocritical using your own moral standpoints as though I should believe in them.
3910 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
26 / M / Pandemonium
Offline
Posted 3/11/14

Laiseran wrote:


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G7iuT8hJafc

This only explains why you believe that morals are a good thing to have. It does not force everyone to comply with said morals. People may hate murder, but it only goes against their personal beliefs.


I never said it did. And yeah. Obviously. Because there is no universal absolute morality.




Laiseran
I have heard many a person say that individuals morals should not be forced on others. This explains why you have morals, which I understand, but not the total support (and the insulting of those who disagree) of the creation of laws to "help" people, which only satisfy ones personal desires because they are against it.


Could you elaborate? That phrasing was a bit weird.




Laiseran
Then what about laws of equality? The slave trade provided profit to the owners but hurt the slaves. You may argue that it is wrong as you feel in the same group as the slaves and so wish them to be free. But is someone else not equally entitled to say that they feel like they are from a different group and so wish to improve the slave owners lives over the slaves? You cannot claim that is wrong. You feel that it is, but in the end that is your opinion, not a fact.


Yes. That is absolutely correct.
As for laws of equality, those are a product of the same thing as described in the video. We are encouraged to be empathetic and sympathetic towards our fellow beings. And equality laws are a result of that.




Laiseran

And more than that, it's simply not true.
If it is, you'll have to provide some damn good justification for such a claim.

You seem to be stating this as fact. I am not saying you are not allowed to have morals, but you cannot claim them as truth more than anyone else can. These rules are your own private fancies, but you seem to think that the are an overarching truth.


You are correct, however I stated that under the pretense that you agree that all people should be treated well unless they have done something that would make them deserve otherwise. If you disagree with that notion, then I'd be interested in hearing why.
If you DO agree, then I ask that you provide me with some compelling reasoning as to why those things are justified.





Laiseran


Did you know that North Korea imprisons people because of the political views that their GRANDPARENTS had? Does that seem fair to you?
http://www.nationalturk.com/en/north-korean-prison-camps-are-filled-with-150000-political-prisoners-included-17496

Again, here you assume that I should empathise with these people, but I don't have to. They are not in my "group" and I have never met them. You seem to think that this should invoke an emotional response, but that doesn't help your case.


So you don't empathise with people that are not in your "group" or with people that you have never met, ist that it?

And even so, that wasn't the point. The point is "is it fair to imprison people for political views that they don't even hold themselves?". That was the point.





Laiseran
There is reasoning enough for you to have morals and stick to them, but how can you claim that others are hypocritical and use that in an argument?


Did I ever do that?




Laiseran
As they are opinion based, there is no reason for me to have the same morals as you, and so when something happens that you think should not, like people being killed by God, you cannot insist that you are right in saying that it is wrong.


As far as I remember, I never did. I just said it was hypocritical of God to say that we cannot kill if he can kill as much as he wants.




Laiseran
You can't say that God should do something because you think that is right...


Actually, I can. Because I can do so based on the morals that the bible itself has set. And thus, I can point it out when it contradict itself, as well as when God does not act according to what would be the best option towards achieving certain goals.




Laiseran
What if I think it's totally fair? Then in regard to my beliefs it makes sense.


Sure. But then I'd ask for some compelling reasoning from you in order to justify that.




Laiseran
I'm not saying you're not correct in your reasoning, you probably are, but the thing I disagree with you on is morals and therefore is opinion-based. Your reasoning may make sense in terms of your morals, but I believe mine makes sense in terms of my own.


You still have not specified exactly what your morals are. I have a feeling that you're being intentionally vague. Will you please clarify on what your morals are?
Obviously it is all opinion-based. That's what morals are. Morals are just a set of beliefs that works the best towards achieving a desired outcome. Thus, what one's morals are is decided by what one's preferred outcome is.
There is no universal, absolute set of morals.




Laiseran
Which leads nicely back to the topic. If I base my interpretation of God on the Bible, you cannot prove my interpretation is morally wrong (to me) unless you use morals found in the Bible, which you are, for the most part, not doing. Also, biblical morals are often up to interpretation as well.


But I can. God is supposed to be omnibenevolent. He acts in ways that are contrary to what being omnibenevolent is.
Thus, proven wrong.




Laiseran
I know you may have thought you were reasoning out the hypocrisies in the text, but you began to use your own, non-biblical, definitions to do so. If you want to point out flaws in the Bible in terms of my beliefs (not yours), you need to use a moral standpoint from within the Bible.


Did I not do so when I pointed out that God is essentially creating people just so that he can send them to hell, after they have impacted the lives of their fellow humans negatively, which is in every way contrary to the claim that God is supposed to be omnibenevolent?

Is not treating lives with so little care that he sends grown bears to maul children simply for mocking someone contrary to being omnibenevolent?
Is then saying that others cannot end a life that hasn't even begun for the sake of making someone's life better hypocrisy from someone that is supposed to be of infinite justice?




Laiseran
In fact, if you are criticising my beliefs in the way that you are, namely that what God does is evil, you need to use my moralistic beliefs.
I'm not saying you can't disagree with it based on your own morals, that's completely up to you, but you can't say my beliefs are hypocritical using your own moral standpoints as though I should believe in them.


Okay. But then if you are disagreeing with me, you will have to present counter-arguments. After all, I cannot understand your way of thinking unless you present it to me.
50 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
F
Offline
Posted 3/12/14

Syndicaidramon
No. If god existed, then he would have prevented situations where abortion is a desirable option from happening. Sometimes, having a baby will lessen someone's life. The fair thing to do then is not to just make them not consider having an abortion -- it would be making it so that they wouldn't HAVE to neither consider an abortion OR have their life quality lessened by an unwanted child.


But this is entirely subjective. You can argue that one person's life will be lessened with the introduction of a child, but other people can argue that it will not. People have different moral standards and opinions; are you judging abortions on a universal scale? You may think of the typical scenarios: people who didn't want to have a child, people who would not be able to properly care for their child, etc., but there are too many different situations to judge with the same perspective.

For example, some families in China used to abort their unborn children because it would "lessen their lives". They aborted the fetus if it was a girl. Boys were seen as having the ability to: inherit the last name, continue the generation, and work to take care of the family when the parents grew too old. Females, on the other hand, were seen as liabilities.



Octava

Octava
But theoretically speaking, there has to be at least one person to consider abortion if the act of abortion were to be made possible. Because if god prevented all situations of abortion, then that means that abortion should not exist... which in turn means that god wouldn't have been able to prevent us from thinking about abortion, as abortion does not exist...!



Syndicaidramon
Abortion is a concept that only arises from the need/desire to have one. It's merely an idea -- forged from the desire to not have a child.
The medical procedure of abortion is relatively new. But it has always existed. Be it via a kick to the stomach, or just downright murdering the woman along with the child.
You're over-thinking this.


My argument is: the only way for humans to not think about abortion is if they did not have the capability for conscious thought. If god prevented all situations of abortion, then shouldn't abortion not exist? Because there would be no need for abortion.



SyndicaidramonOR if the only times women got pregnant were the times when both the mother AND the father WANTED her to get pregnant.


That doesn't mean that the child won't be aborted.



Octava

Octava
So if god were to exist, a better question would be: "Why does abortion exist?" And yet this, too, turns into circular reasoning. So the short answer? Abortion exists because humans have conscious, independent thought.



Syndicaidramon
No, it exists because there are situations where having a child is not a desirable outcome.
If situations like that didn't exist, then abortions would not exist, even if humans have conscious, independant thought.


That's impossible. That's exactly my point. If all situations of abortion did not exist, then that would imply that humans do not have conscious thought, or control over their actions.



Syndicaidramon
Not impossible for the being that is supposed to be omnipotent.


If I interpreted this correctly-- god wanted humans to have personal control over their actions and thoughts. It's not a lack of power; it's him not using power. Why? Because what's the point of even "creating" the humankind to begin with, if they're only mindless robots living in a utopian world?


Octava

Octava
But this makes no sense, as you could apply this to any situation: "If there is a god, then why do so many disasters, genocides, rapes, crimes, and acts of hatred occur?"



Syndicaidramon
Yes. He could've prevented those from ever happening as well.


No. Then why can people sin? It's because humans have conscious thought and are not controlled by a celestial entity. Even the bible states that humans sin independently from god's control.



Syndicaidramon
And the bible makes no sense. Because if god was both omnipotent and omnibenevolent, he wouldn't allow sin to ever exist.



Octava
I am not saying that god exists; I think the contrary. I just think that it's ridiculous to say that everything could be prevented with a god. The only way to prevent hatred from occurring is to fundamentally change the way humans work. If there is a god or not, god wouldn't be able to control us.

"See, I set before you today life and prosperity, death and destruction."
Deuteronomy 30:15

"...but of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil you shall not eat, for in the day that you eat of it you shall surely die.”
Genesis 2:17

“Therefore, just as through one man sin entered the world, and death through sin, and thus death spread to all men, because all sinned.”
Romans 5:12


Doesn't that imply a choice? God warned Adam and Eve to not eat the forbidden fruit. He gave them the option of choice. The entire point is that there is a choice. There is always a choice. We are not puppets. According to the bible, humans are all sinners at heart, because when Adam ate from the forbidden tree, he brought sin to the humankind.




Syndicaidramon
Yet another case of how the bible contradict itself. If God was omnipotent, omniscient, and omnibenevolent -- he wouldn't have made humans as flawed and stupid as we are, nor would he have allowed sin to ever become a thing.

That's not necessarily true. If he has the power to stop it all sin, it doesn't mean that he has to. If god chooses to trust in individuals for their sense, then that only implies that he is not corrupt. He doesn't force people to think or act a certain way. If someone sins, they will get punished, but this is still infinitely more moral than forcing someone into always doing the "correct" thing.



48494 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
F / ar away
Offline
Posted 3/12/14 , edited 3/12/14

Octava wrote:

Syndicaidramon
Yet another case of how the bible contradict itself. If God was omnipotent, omniscient, and omnibenevolent -- he wouldn't have made humans as flawed and stupid as we are, nor would he have allowed sin to ever become a thing.

That's not necessarily true. If he has the power to stop it all sin, it doesn't mean that he has to. If god chooses to trust in individuals for their sense, then that only implies that he is not corrupt. He doesn't force people to think or act a certain way. If someone sins, they will get punished, but this is still infinitely more moral than forcing someone into always doing the "correct" thing.

I think with perfection and brilliance comes a price: Loss of individuality and free will. The vast differences in people results in the appearance that relative suffering and hardship exist on the opposite end of the spectrum as wealth and prosperity. When in reality all that occurs with the human condition is a vast degree of differentiation that makes us capable of identifying and striving for greatness. If we were all great, there would be no purpose, no meaning to life, it would be boring.

3910 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
26 / M / Pandemonium
Offline
Posted 3/13/14 , edited 3/13/14

Octava wrote:


Syndicaidramon
No. If god existed, then he would have prevented situations where abortion is a desirable option from happening. Sometimes, having a baby will lessen someone's life. The fair thing to do then is not to just make them not consider having an abortion -- it would be making it so that they wouldn't HAVE to neither consider an abortion OR have their life quality lessened by an unwanted child.


But this is entirely subjective. You can argue that one person's life will be lessened with the introduction of a child, but other people can argue that it will not.


Let's say we have a girl, who is a student and who is already only bare able to financially support herself, and spends most of her time and energy devoted to school, with no devoted partner who would be a father or to provide financial support. I'm pretty sure that a child will not help her situation.
Can you think of any way where having a child in such a situation would do anything other than lessen that person's life?







Octava
People have different moral standards and opinions; are you judging abortions on a universal scale? You may think of the typical scenarios: people who didn't want to have a child, people who would not be able to properly care for their child, etc., but there are too many different situations to judge with the same perspective.


If someone chooses to have an abortion, it's probably because they feel as if their life would be lessened if they had the baby. That makes sense, does it not?







Octava
For example, some families in China used to abort their unborn children because it would "lessen their lives". They aborted the fetus if it was a girl. Boys were seen as having the ability to: inherit the last name, continue the generation, and work to take care of the family when the parents grew too old. Females, on the other hand, were seen as liabilities.


Which is a societal problem. And even so, if the family is in such dire needs that they feel as if having a female child rather than a male would be a considerable burden, then that's pretty much up to them to decide for themselves.






Octava


Octava
My argument is: the only way for humans to not think about abortion is if they did not have the capability for conscious thought. If god prevented all situations of abortion, then shouldn't abortion not exist? Because there would be no need for abortion.



SyndicaidramonOR if the only times women got pregnant were the times when both the mother AND the father WANTED her to get pregnant.


That doesn't mean that the child won't be aborted.



No? How so? If both the parents wanted the child, and were happy to have it born -- why would they abort it?







Octava
If I interpreted this correctly-- god wanted humans to have personal control over their actions and thoughts. It's not a lack of power; it's him not using power. Why? Because what's the point of even "creating" the humankind to begin with, if they're only mindless robots living in a utopian world?



Like I've said before. He doesn't have to control their minds. But he can still manipulate the world and events.
According to the bible, he already did that many, many, MANY times already. So why shouldn't he still do so?
And even so, many christians do in fact believe that god STILL intervienes in the world today. Like if he saves someone from accidents or from illness or helps them find their car-keys or whatever.

So if he can do all that, why can he then not prevent a situation where an unwanted child would be made?





Octava
That's not necessarily true. If he has the power to stop it all sin, it doesn't mean that he has to. If god chooses to trust in individuals for their sense, then that only implies that he is not corrupt. He doesn't force people to think or act a certain way. If someone sins, they will get punished, but this is still infinitely more moral than forcing someone into always doing the "correct" thing.


Take a look at the world around us. Both as it is today, and how it was in the past.
I think it's been demonstrated perfectly well time and time again that most people do not know what's best for neither themselves, nor for the people around them.
WHY would God trust in individuals in general for their sense?

At the very least, he should at least reveal himself to the entire world and eliminate all false religion. Eliminate all doubt so that all the world can be united.
And after that, he should grant us the knowledge of nature and the universe. So that we can understand the plane of our existence more and make the most we can out of it.
And preferably also alter our brains to function better. Give us a higher ability for empathy, sympathy and logical reasoning. Take away our minds' tendancy towards irrationality.

None of that would be "forcing" anyone to do anything. It would just provide us with more knowledge, and makes us more able and better suited towards doing things that would benefit both ourselves and those around us.
There would be far less evil in the world, I can tell you that much. And yet, he doesn't do that. None of that.

How do you intend to justify that?
50 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
F
Offline
Posted 3/13/14

Syndicaidramon
No. If god existed, then he would have prevented situations where abortion is a desirable option from happening. Sometimes, having a baby will lessen someone's life. The fair thing to do then is not to just make them not consider having an abortion -- it would be making it so that they wouldn't HAVE to neither consider an abortion OR have their life quality lessened by an unwanted child.



Octava
But this is entirely subjective. You can argue that one person's life will be lessened with the introduction of a child, but other people can argue that it will not.



Syndicaidramon
Let's say we have a girl, who is a student and who is already only bare able to financially support herself, and spends most of her time and energy devoted to school, with no devoted partner who would be a father or to provide financial support. I'm pretty sure that a child will not help her situation.
Can you think of any way where having a child in such a situation would do anything other than lessen that person's life?


The issue is that you are viewing this in your perspective. Humans have an inherent sense of reproduction; many people want to have children, because it's simply ingrained in our existence. Some women simply want to have children, even if they cannot afford the expenses for the child, or if other people think they are not capable of caring for the child. Though, many people do not have children due to the way our society has evolved. If god were to exist, he'd have to change or prevent procreation.

It's impossible for a species to have evolved this much, physically, and mentally, while still remaining primitive in procreation. God wanted humans to reproduce for the purpose of reproduction; it's humans and society that has indulged in the pleasure of reproduction, or the social aspect of having/not having babies, resulting in many unwanted children.

The written proof that many followers adhere to does not contradict this point. There is no contradiction. Logically, you may think that many beliefs could not possibly take place, whether that be from an understanding of modern science, or otherwise; but there is no contradiction. Christians and many other religious followers believe that god offered choice to humankind, and the fact that murder, destruction, rape, and corruption occur, is only proving that this option of choice is true.


Octava
For example, some families in China used to abort their unborn children because it would "lessen their lives". They aborted the fetus if it was a girl. Boys were seen as having the ability to: inherit the last name, continue the generation, and work to take care of the family when the parents grew too old. Females, on the other hand, were seen as liabilities.



Syndicaidramon
Which is a societal problem. And even so, if the family is in such dire needs that they feel as if having a female child rather than a male would be a considerable burden, then that's pretty much up to them to decide for themselves.


No, it's not an entirely societal problem. The one-child policy in China was created to reduce rampant population growth. This population growth is not natural; arguably, it's a combination of many factors. Lack of natural selection, trying to overcome natural selection by higher populations, specifically due to Mao's encouragement for more children, not as much accessibility to contraceptives, etc.

All of this has nothing to do with god. Their beliefs do not contradict a set statement (god controls every thing's actions and thoughts), but it only implies that god has given humans the ability of choice.



Octava
My argument is: the only way for humans to not think about abortion is if they did not have the capability for conscious thought. If god prevented all situations of abortion, then shouldn't abortion not exist? Because there would be no need for abortion.



Syndicaidramon
OR if the only times women got pregnant were the times when both the mother AND the father WANTED her to get pregnant.



Octava
That doesn't mean that the child won't be aborted.




Syndicaidramon
No? How so? If both the parents wanted the child, and were happy to have it born -- why would they abort it?


In China, there is a male to female ratio of 120:100.



Octava
If I interpreted this correctly-- god wanted humans to have personal control over their actions and thoughts. It's not a lack of power; it's him not using power. Why? Because what's the point of even "creating" the humankind to begin with, if they're only mindless robots living in a utopian world?




Syndicaidramon
Like I've said before. He doesn't have to control their minds. But he can still manipulate the world and events.
According to the bible, he already did that many, many, MANY times already. So why shouldn't he still do so?
And even so, many christians do in fact believe that god STILL intervienes in the world today. Like if he saves someone from accidents or from illness or helps them find their car-keys or whatever.

So if he can do all that, why can he then not prevent a situation where an unwanted child would be made?


Many people believe that fortunate events such as winning the lottery, overcoming a grave illness, surviving a fatal accident, and other likewise situations, are a product from god. These are all very positive events, typically with low chances of occurring.

The situation of unwanted children is not a miracle. It is a common thing, especially with the way our world has evolved. Children become unwanted because of fear of social pressure, lack of resources to care for the child, an inability to care for the child, and other situations. There are too many variables and factors in every situation for a definite: abort, or do not abort.

The only reason "miracles" are labelled as such is because they have low chances of occurring. The only reason why people cherish miracles is because they don't happen often. There is nothing religious that states that god always performs miracles. It's often said that he only performs miracles to those faithful and deserving.



Octava
That's not necessarily true. If he has the power to stop it all sin, it doesn't mean that he has to. If god chooses to trust in individuals for their sense, then that only implies that he is not corrupt. He doesn't force people to think or act a certain way. If someone sins, they will get punished, but this is still infinitely more moral than forcing someone into always doing the "correct" thing.



Syndicaidramon
Take a look at the world around us. Both as it is today, and how it was in the past.
I think it's been demonstrated perfectly well time and time again that most people do not know what's best for neither themselves, nor for the people around them.
WHY would God trust in individuals in general for their sense?

At the very least, he should at least reveal himself to the entire world and eliminate all false religion. Eliminate all doubt so that all the world can be united.
And after that, he should grant us the knowledge of nature and the universe. So that we can understand the plane of our existence more and make the most we can out of it.
And preferably also alter our brains to function better. Give us a higher ability for empathy, sympathy and logical reasoning. Take away our minds' tendancy towards irrationality.

None of that would be "forcing" anyone to do anything. It would just provide us with more knowledge, and makes us more able and better suited towards doing things that would benefit both ourselves and those around us.
There would be far less evil in the world, I can tell you that much. And yet, he doesn't do that. None of that.

How do you intend to justify that?


But all those things can only be applied in a utopian world. Even with heightened emotions or abilities, humans cannot live peacefully together. Survival, selfishness...those are innate to us-- it's innate to every being, every living organism in this world. The only way for the world to progress is for there to be disagreement, the need for improvement, the need for difference-- a difference in the gene pool. The only way for evolution is to survive, whether that means being selfish, or making rash decisions.

Most murderers, psychopaths, rapists, cannibals, are unnatural. They should theoretically not exist. They exist because there is something different about them, whether that be their perception of the world, or a physical, or chemical difference in the brain. Most of these criminals are mentally ill. Committing atrocities involves an ability to dehumanize your victim, to do something that requires disregarding society's morals, and to receive satisfaction or pleasure from doing so.
It's impossible for all humans to have a perfect sense of everything, god or not.

Your argument lies on: if god exists, he would have made everything perfect. But that doesn't make sense. Even if god gave every one heightened abilities to empathise, care for, and love others, assuming that god does not directly control these humans, even then will there be hardship. Nothing in life is absolute, and there is always the space for the inverse to occur. Murders will occur, deformities, viruses, disease, death, discrimination... until we are all stripped of our ability to think and function, we will think thoughts that are disagreeable.

If god took away our mind's tendency for irrationality, he would be taking the very thing that made us free-willed beings. We would be closer to the other animals, primitive, rudimentary beings without conscious thought. Being rational is not an objective thing. Being rational means you are being reasonable, agreeable and likely focused on logical facts and not emotions or opinions. This is contradictory to humans being emotional, empathetic beings. Being irrational is part of being human. We are emotional, faulty creatures.
First  Prev  1  2  3  4  5  Next  Last
You must be logged in to post.