Questions on the Flood for TWD39 (or any theist)

GodsUseForAMosquito
Moderator
GodsUseForAMosquito's picture
Posts: 404
Joined: 2008-08-27
User is offlineOffline
Questions on the Flood for TWD39 (or any theist)

This thread is mainly for TWD39, though other people who believe the flood, Noah and so on really happened are welcome to chime in. It is an extension of the other thread discussing language and the tower of Babel, which started some questions about Noah's flood.

If you believe that the Flood happened as the Bible states, then you must have rational answers to the following questions:

 

 

1 Were babies also killed in the flood? Were they deemed sinful, or just collateral damage? What about the unborn? (in case you think people are born with sin..) Is God an innocent baby killer?

2 If the flood covered the whole earth, where did the water come from, and where did it go afterwards?

3 If the flood was caused by rain for 40 days and nights, and rain covered the earth, then it would need to rain 112 million cubic kilometers each day. The water vapour that’s needed to be suspended in the air to achieve this would render the air unbreathable - people would have drowned by breathing this air. How did Noah and his family survive this?

4 How did the animals get to the arc? If Noah gathered them, how did he get around the world so quickly? If the animals came of their own accord, how did the giant tortoises get there in time? How did animals that can’t swim cross seas to get there?

5 How did Noah feed the animals? Some animals have very specific diets (pandas eat only bamboo, koalas eat only eucalyptus, for example) so how did Noah get these foods, which don’t grow in Mesopotamia?

6 How did Noah keep meat fresh for the hungry carnivores?

7 How did the freshwater fish survive? Did the arc carry fresh water? How were these fish collected and stored?

8 The flood would have killed all plant life. What would the ‘saved’ herbivores eat? What about those that feed only on adult trees that take a long time to grow?

9 What about the carnivores? They must have had to eat the herbivores – they were on the arc for over a year, so any corpses would be completely rotten, as well as being buried under sediment.

10 Where would the animals find fresh water to sustain themselves?

11 How did the plants survive being underwater for more than a year? Some might have seeds that survive, but vast numbers of plant species would have become extinct. How come the are still here today?

12 When the flood ended, only 6 people survived that would go on to breed. The bible indicates that the tower of Babel happened 100 years after the flood. How were there enough people to build the tower, which must have been massive?

13 How did the Native Americans, and Australian Aboriginals get to their continents (Which don’t have land bridges with Asia) after the flood?

14 How did God ‘create’ the rainbow as part of the promise he’d never flood the whole world again? If there was refracted sunlight and rain ever before the flood, there must have been rainbows.

15 Why did god change his mind about how many of each type of animal had to be taken into the arc? Genesis 6 says take 2 of each, Genesis 7 says take up to 7.

16 Lastly, why did god go to all the trouble?

 

 

 


caposkia
Theist
Posts: 2701
Joined: 2007-05-15
User is offlineOffline
cj wrote:Belief perseverance

cj wrote:

Belief perseverance or confirmation bias - is a tendency of people to favor information that confirms their beliefs or hypotheses. No matter how much evidence you give them, no matter how many knots they tie themselves into in a debate, they will persist in believing their original idea(s).

The theory is that admitting you are wrong is very difficult for those people who have a strong self-image and the inaccurate belief or hypothesis is closely allied with that self-image. Caposkia appears to be someone who has a strong self-image of being christian and so s/he is not going to view alternative ideas in an un-biased manner.

William L. Craig has a video on his website and in it he states that it doesn't matter what evidence is presented against his ideas or how often he is called out during debates concerning his apologetics being incorrect, he will always believe in god regardless of evidence contrary to that belief. Caposkia follows in WLC's footsteps.

Mind you, I am not at all sympathetic to this. If my beliefs are incorrect, not in alignment with facts or my logic has fallacies, I want to know. And I want to correct my beliefs to align with facts. Some may remember that I have said - on these forums - that I was wrong on some fact. It is not a part of my self-image to be infallible. Nor do I believe that anyone is infallible, but some try harder to ground their ideas in reality and those people I will trust to have examined the facts in their area of expertise. Unless I feel inclined to look it up and determine the facts for myself.

I feel sorry for Caposkia - to ground your reality in an ancient manuscript written by late bronze age/early iron age goat herders and wishful thinking for an imaginary friend as an adult is pitiable.

However I have claimed just as you have many times on these forums that if my beliefs are not correct I want to know... I am not just going to buy the next persons opinion of my beliefs being wrong without solid reasoning... So far the most solid reasoning is what you wrote last, to ground my reality in ancient scripts.. unfortunately if it was just based on a book alone I would be sorely delusional however there is much more to it than just a book... The book gives us a basis of understanding as to who we're following and what is expected of us in our lives.   We build a relationship with God, not the Bible... the Bible is a manual to life, God is life.  We see Gods work daily and can witness to it... I don't expect you to buy that or accept that... I'm not writing this as a reason for proof, rather to show you your assumptions are off base. 

In every attempt to disprove these ancient scripts that we follow I have seen the runaround, contradictions, blind assumptions, excuses and accusations based on a subjective ground.  With all that said, what reason do I have to question my faith at this point?  Do you have something new based on solid research and logical reasoning?  if so, please present it.

 

 


caposkia
Theist
Posts: 2701
Joined: 2007-05-15
User is offlineOffline
Jabberwocky wrote:I'm going

Jabberwocky wrote:

I'm going to consolidate this a bit, because we're splitting things up too finely again. I don't see what correlation you're speaking of. 

This is the problem when you're positing an omnipotent and omniscient being. He had to deliberately create everything how he created it, knowing each and every detail of the result. He would know that I would come to type this post. 

Now, what if this post was going to de-convert Christians (wouldn't it be nice!), and god simply decided to remove my desire to write it, is that a violation of free will? I would end up not writing the post because I simply didn't feel like it, but it was god manipulating my desires. Is that a violation of the agreement? I was never actively controlled, but my desires were manipulated deliberately, because someone above wanted me to behave differently.

But here's the problem. God could have made the universe a bit different, where all things until now were identical, but now I noticed a bird on my balcony, and decided to feed the bird instead of writing this post. God would have to know what tiny variable he had to change during the moment of initial creation in order for that bird to be there. By doing that, he would have prevented me from writing this post. Is THAT a violation of free will? 

If it is, then how does an omnipotent/omniscient god provide us with free will, when he created everything specifically in order for us to behave how we have thus far, and make the decisions that we have thus far? He would know a way for me to not write this post, but he also had to know how to create the universe in order for me TO write this post as well. That means that god created the universe that eventually resulted in my typing this post, and he knew that it would happen. If that is a violation of free will, then there can be no free will under Christianity, because god decided what we were all going to do anyways, even though we're the ones who are choosing to do it. He knows how long that fire will burn, and how. He knows in what order the molecules will be subject to the chemical reaction of wood burning.

If god knows these things going in, then our free will is worthless.

If he doesn't, he's not all knowing. 

God allows us to make choices.  What you example are situations God does put us in in order that His will be done.  However, none of that necessarily would "prevent" you from writing this post, rather you have a choice to make.  

Considering the first example to simply remove your desire to write it, that would be manipulating your will and a violation of free will.  My understanding is that is not how God works... he'd more likely let you write it and use my reply to contradict your intentions... that is a more effective ministry than preventing you from writing it.   

You ask how an omnipotent/omniscient being provides us with free will.  First it's not provided, it is allowed.  Just because He knows and is able to stop it doesn't mean that's the life he wants for us.  

To contradict your contradiction, you need to understand that knowing is not determination and having the ability to do something does not dictate the outcome.  Rather knowing allows you to be aware of the outcome while simply standing on the sidelines... Having the ability to do gives you the power to change the outcome but does not take your power of choice to do so away.  

God explicitly stated that He left us in charge of His world... in other words, though He has the power to run it all, He is allowing us to... how would you say we're doing with that?  

To summarize.:

"if god knows these things going in, then our free will is worthless"

Why?  Just becasue you know something doesn't mean you've already changed the outcome

"If he doesn't then he's not all knowing:"

What is all knowing?  Does that necessarily assume you also know everything that has yet to be written?  All knowing by definition is having complete unlimited knowledge.... of what exactly we don't know... it could mean past present and future events in their entirety.  it could be simplified to just knowing everything that has been and is which would give you a good idea of what an unwritten future holds, but doesn't necessarily allow you to know it because it is unwritten.  

The combination of all knowing and all powerful gives you the ability to manipulate future events without affecting the will of those who choose not to adhere to that future ideal.  They create their own future while the rest follow the intended future.  

Jabberwocky wrote:

No. There is no confirmed prophecy in the bible. I can predict that someone this weekend will win the lottery, and I will be right every single weekend. Why? Because I have provided no specific information. There are lotteries all over the world, and even on a very statistically improbable week where, say nobody wins the Powerball, 6/49 or LottoMax in Canada, EuroMillions, or anything of the major ones, I can look up lotteries all over the world, and without a problem, find several where someone won the entire jackpot. Now, if I were to tell you that "on this weekend, a person living in this community, will win this lottery", then I have done something more impressive. The bible never delves into specifics. When you are this vague, you can call your prediction correct just about any time you want. It does not mean that it is prophecy. 

The bible does have some rational effective advice. I'm glad it said not to commit murder, or steal. However, I highly doubt I require a book to tell me that.

The book says that's written in your heart.  The OT predicted the coming of Christ.. regardless if you believe or not most historians accept that a person named Jesus Christ existed.  

Jabberwocky wrote:

Now, the bible also does tell you that rape is ok as long as you marry your victim (and that also means that the victim must marry their attacker), and even specifically outlines how much you are to pay her father for his troubles. It tells you how to treat slaves, and how much beating them is too much. It tells you to feed your enemies poo (Ezekiel 4:12...this one is fun). You find this to be a better grasp on how to be successful? Just which things in the bible that are illegal, immoral, and barbaric would you be doing if the law or society didn't stop you? 

I'm curious... what were slaves in Biblical times?  it sounds to me as if your understanding is somewhat unfounded.  I just need a simple explanation

 


cj
atheistRational VIP!
cj's picture
Posts: 3330
Joined: 2007-01-05
User is offlineOffline
facts

caposkia wrote:

In every attempt to disprove these ancient scripts that we follow I have seen the runaround, contradictions, blind assumptions, excuses and accusations based on a subjective ground.  With all that said, what reason do I have to question my faith at this point?  Do you have something new based on solid research and logical reasoning?  if so, please present it.

It depends on what particular subject you wish to have "solid research and logical reasoning."

Archaeology? The bible is not supported historically by modern research. I can look up evidence for specific claims. Seriously, there is so much to dispute here that I am not going to attempt listing them all.

Your internal feelings? Fine. You feel warm and fuzzy when you see a rainbow, beach, infant, whatever. So do I. And that proves what?

Morals? Dude, I am as disgustingly boring at this point in my life as the most puritanical christian. I have just had an anniversary so I have been married to the same man without either of us having sex with any other person for 28 years now. I can't drink more than the occasional glass of wine. Sometimes I cheat and have a beer with dinner instead of a glass of wine. I have never smoked anything. Not for any particularly noble reason, just can't stand the taste. Don't bother to gossip. Haven't murdered anyone. Don't steal. Etc. Shall I go on? God/s/dess is not required for morality.

Love, beauty, peace? I have all of those, thanks. Perfect earth? If I had evolved to live on Venus (strictly uninhabitable for earth-like life), I would think Venus was perfect. Earth is not really as perfect as most christians who make the claim it is.

The problem of evil. You likely don't want to get me started on that one.

Pick one, and I will discuss it with you. But there are too many reasons to not believe for me to just take off randomly. See 50 Reasons People Give for Believing in a God for some basic refutations of the most common arguments. I agree with all of Harrison's arguments, so we could start there. Shall I get my copy of the book and we can go through them one-by-one?

 

 

-- I feel so much better since I stopped trying to believe.

"We are entitled to our own opinions. We're not entitled to our own facts"- Al Franken

"If death isn't sweet oblivion, I will be severely disappointed" - Ruth M.


cj
atheistRational VIP!
cj's picture
Posts: 3330
Joined: 2007-01-05
User is offlineOffline
caposkia wrote:I'm

caposkia wrote:

I'm curious... what were slaves in Biblical times?  it sounds to me as if your understanding is somewhat unfounded.  I just need a simple explanation

 

You can always look up answers. This article seems to be pretty inclusive:

http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/med/lewis1.asp

As always, the answer is not simple.

There is no question in my mind, that slavery as we understand it today, was practiced in the Middle East by Jews and Muslims. And like the U.S., conditions varied a lot depending on your antecedents (family, class, why you were enslaved) and your owner(s).

But, you can not claim that slavery was vastly different then from what it is today. And you must either accept slavery is okay as the bible states, or that it is not okay by our modern understanding.

 

-- I feel so much better since I stopped trying to believe.

"We are entitled to our own opinions. We're not entitled to our own facts"- Al Franken

"If death isn't sweet oblivion, I will be severely disappointed" - Ruth M.


Beyond Saving
atheist
Beyond Saving's picture
Posts: 5448
Joined: 2007-10-12
User is offlineOffline
caposkia wrote:I had to

caposkia wrote:

I had to change it???  Since when did infants go to college?  What specifically did I change?  

Your original analogy

caposkia wrote:

nice try, but it's more like this if you want to use the college analogy.  Parent sends kid off to college.. they start a family, may have made good or bad choices in life, but the child's parents messed with someone who threatened to kill their whole family if they didn't correct the problem they caused... they refused and so the child and their children were hunted down and killed... not their fault, but their parents.  

So your original analogy posits that the kids may have made "good or bad choices", iow, we don't know if they are innocent or if they did something bad. But, the child's parents did something to make someone else mad. That someone else goes and kills the kids (who didn't do anything to that person, the killer is just trying to get even with the parents). In this analogy, God is the killer seeking revenge. I pointed out that this is a very accurate analogy, and asked if you were on a jury with the killer (god) on trial, would you forgive the cold blooded murder of the children simply because the parents did something terrible to him. And then you completely changed the analogy. You said,

caposkia wrote:

alright, let's put it in perspective then.  What you're suggesting is putting a judge on trial for sentencing someone to death for a crime worthy of death according to the Law... On that jury I would say that the judge did their job appropriately. 

Using this analogy, the parents then likely somehow involved their child in the process... regardless whether the child was taught that murder was wrong, the child, by command of their parents likely killed someone themselves (considering our Law in this instance) and would be worthy of a death sentence be it that they are in college and are of age.  

So now you are making the assumption that the kids committed murder and are worthy of a death sentence. Quite different from the original analogy positing that we don't know if they made good or bad choices. You are now assuming they not only made bad choices, but evil choices equivalent to what their parents did that you think deserves death. You also changed who god was in the analogy, from the killer who killed the kids and is on trial to the judge. I hope you can see there is a huge difference between being the judge and being the defendant on trial. The kids who were killed did not get a trial, they may have made "good or bad choices" so they may or may not be criminals. After you changed the analogy so that the kids were automatically evil murders deserving to die, I pointed out that the group of people who were killed that the college kids were originally intended to represent included infants, who by definition could not have made bad choices so the change to the assumption that they are evil is absurd.   

 

caposkia wrote:

anyway, Let's assume this psychopath btw is responsible... He is just as responsible as any other judge that is called a psychopath for sending a family member to death according to the law stated... and again, parents are responsible for their child... How many parents today would quickly change what they are doing if they knew not changing would mean the death of their children which would be squarely on their shoulders because they had a choice?

Do you think a system of justice where judges sent children to the electric chair for the crimes of their parents would be a good system? Such a system might be effective at reducing crime among parents who love their kids, since many parents care more for the well being of their children than their personal well being. I would not describe such a system as being just or moral.

Historically, many societies did punish entire families for the crimes of one person. The closest to our justice system was in English Common Law in which acts of "attainder" were common for those guilty of capital crimes- usually treason. The main purpose was to prevent the family of a guilty party from inheriting anything and/or exiling them to another country. The issue was directly addressed in our Constitution Article 3 Section 3:

Quote:

The Congress shall have power to declare the Punishment of Treason, but no Attainder of Treason shall work Corruption of Blood, or Forfeiture except during the Life of the Person attainted.

While our current scumbag in chief sees fit to ignore the Constitution and murder a 16 year old boy for having a terrorist as a father, this principle has been mostly upheld in US law and English law has also been modified so that children are no long punished for the crimes of their parents. I think that is a very good thing, don't you agree?  

 

caposkia wrote:

You can try to manipulate it all you want, but when it comes down to it, children are always victims of other peoples bad choices... this is accurate today and throughout history.  Does it mean the children were at fault?  even the 5 year olds?  

I don't care what age you make them, if they are considered a child, they are usually a victim of others mistakes and/or choices good or bad

And I think we should hold those that make the choices responsible. If a parent makes bad choices that harms their children, we should punish the parent. We should try to protect the victims and punish those who harm them. In the case of the flood, the children were the victims of God's bad choices. The were not killed by some unintelligent and unstoppable force (according to your story), they were harmed directly by the most intelligent and the most capable force in the universe.

So now that you concede that the children are innocent, if you were on a jury deciding whether to convict someone for the murder of the children, would you accept "their parents did ______ to me so it isn't my fault I killed them, it is their parents fault" as a defense?

If, if a white man puts his arm around me voluntarily, that's brotherhood. But if you - if you hold a gun on him and make him embrace me and pretend to be friendly or brotherly toward me, then that's not brotherhood, that's hypocrisy.- Malcolm X


danatemporary
danatemporary's picture
Posts: 1951
Joined: 2011-01-12
User is offlineOffline
EnLil's away EnLil's away EnLil's away on business (..business)

 The Cradle, of our regional and collective history begins in ancient Mesopotamia, recall the  Sumerian religion, I recall a famous discourse between EnKi and EnLil.

 

Re :: EnLil's away EnLil's away EnLil's away on business (..business)

YouTube Link --

  http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3oKpE2T93aI

      submitted by Gary Jones II  -- (source :: Sanityaching)

  The Grave, multiple Thermonuclear detonations and blasts I shouldn't think.

p.s. -- PJTS knows . Ragnarok awaits .. The present heavens and earth are reserved for fire, where the earth and everything ( done in ) will be laid bare.

 


blacklight915
atheist
blacklight915's picture
Posts: 544
Joined: 2011-12-23
User is offlineOffline
caposkia wrote:that's fine.

caposkia wrote:

that's fine.  I understand.  We're not really getting anywhere at this point.  We were making better progress before

Thank you; I appreciate your graciousness. As a side note: I've continued conversations with a number of people whom I know don't respect me. 

 


caposkia
Theist
Posts: 2701
Joined: 2007-05-15
User is offlineOffline
cj wrote:caposkia wrote:In

cj wrote:

caposkia wrote:

In every attempt to disprove these ancient scripts that we follow I have seen the runaround, contradictions, blind assumptions, excuses and accusations based on a subjective ground.  With all that said, what reason do I have to question my faith at this point?  Do you have something new based on solid research and logical reasoning?  if so, please present it.

It depends on what particular subject you wish to have "solid research and logical reasoning."

Archaeology? The bible is not supported historically by modern research. I can look up evidence for specific claims. Seriously, there is so much to dispute here that I am not going to attempt listing them all.

There is an archaeological study Bible... might be a good start to tear that apart first.

cj wrote:

Your internal feelings? Fine. You feel warm and fuzzy when you see a rainbow, beach, infant, whatever. So do I. And that proves what?

nothing, glad we agree there

cj wrote:

Morals? Dude, I am as disgustingly boring at this point in my life as the most puritanical christian. I have just had an anniversary so I have been married to the same man without either of us having sex with any other person for 28 years now. I can't drink more than the occasional glass of wine. Sometimes I cheat and have a beer with dinner instead of a glass of wine. I have never smoked anything. Not for any particularly noble reason, just can't stand the taste. Don't bother to gossip. Haven't murdered anyone. Don't steal. Etc. Shall I go on? God/s/dess is not required for morality.

yet as some threads have revieled morality seems to be quite subjective... 

You say God is not required for morality but the Bible says God has put it in everyone's heart.  All that proves to a Christian is that the Bible is true.

cj wrote:

Love, beauty, peace? I have all of those, thanks. Perfect earth? If I had evolved to live on Venus (strictly uninhabitable for earth-like life), I would think Venus was perfect. Earth is not really as perfect as most christians who make the claim it is.

I think that depends on what you mean by 'perfect Earth'.  If you're looking at it as having no problems, well that's quite subjective now isn't it... but if you look at it as despite all the ways we've screwed it up and despite all the natural things that have happened to it in history it still manages to stay on track and survive, then it's quite perfect.  

cj wrote:

The problem of evil. You likely don't want to get me started on that one.

be it that evil in today's language is quite a subjective term I have a feeling we wouldn't get far.

cj wrote:

Pick one, and I will discuss it with you. But there are too many reasons to not believe for me to just take off randomly. See 50 Reasons People Give for Believing in a God for some basic refutations of the most common arguments. I agree with all of Harrison's arguments, so we could start there. Shall I get my copy of the book and we can go through them one-by-one?

actually, I would be quite interested in that..  Let's.  If you feel it's necessary to bring this to a new thread I'm game as well.


caposkia
Theist
Posts: 2701
Joined: 2007-05-15
User is offlineOffline
cj wrote:caposkia wrote:I'm

cj wrote:

caposkia wrote:

I'm curious... what were slaves in Biblical times?  it sounds to me as if your understanding is somewhat unfounded.  I just need a simple explanation

 

You can always look up answers. This article seems to be pretty inclusive:

http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/med/lewis1.asp

As always, the answer is not simple.

There is no question in my mind, that slavery as we understand it today, was practiced in the Middle East by Jews and Muslims. And like the U.S., conditions varied a lot depending on your antecedents (family, class, why you were enslaved) and your owner(s).

But, you can not claim that slavery was vastly different then from what it is today. And you must either accept slavery is okay as the bible states, or that it is not okay by our modern understanding.

 

What if I told you that slaves that are in question here that God gave laws around were paid?  Are you sure they weren't different?  I don't remember us paying black slaves.  These slaves also were able to leave their bondage after 7 years or choose to stay for their life... why would they choose to stay?  

the link explains this a bit, it goes through the misconceptions by a particular person who wrote in a challenging letter to this person who explained the slavery in scripture I feel fairly well.  

http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/2007/02/02/feedback-bible-slavery


cj
atheistRational VIP!
cj's picture
Posts: 3330
Joined: 2007-01-05
User is offlineOffline
new discussion

caposkia wrote:

actually, I would be quite interested in that..  Let's.  If you feel it's necessary to bring this to a new thread I'm game as well.

 

You're on. I started a new thread here: http://www.rationalresponders.com/forum/34086

The post up is an introductory post, if you have any questions about what I said, please post them on that thread. Also, I will not get around to summarizing the first chapter until tomorrow afternoon. Later,

CJ

 

-- I feel so much better since I stopped trying to believe.

"We are entitled to our own opinions. We're not entitled to our own facts"- Al Franken

"If death isn't sweet oblivion, I will be severely disappointed" - Ruth M.


caposkia
Theist
Posts: 2701
Joined: 2007-05-15
User is offlineOffline
Beyond Saving wrote:caposkia

Beyond Saving wrote:

caposkia wrote:

I had to change it???  Since when did infants go to college?  What specifically did I change?  

Your original analogy

 *edit* 

So now you are making the assumption that the kids committed murder and are worthy of a death sentence. Quite different from the original analogy positing that we don't know if they made good or bad choices. You are now assuming they not only made bad choices, but evil choices equivalent to what their parents did that you think deserves death. You also changed who god was in the analogy, from the killer who killed the kids and is on trial to the judge. I hope you can see there is a huge difference between being the judge and being the defendant on trial. The kids who were killed did not get a trial, they may have made "good or bad choices" so they may or may not be criminals. After you changed the analogy so that the kids were automatically evil murders deserving to die, I pointed out that the group of people who were killed that the college kids were originally intended to represent included infants, who by definition could not have made bad choices so the change to the assumption that they are evil is absurd.   

to put it in perspective does not change the analogy.  I never specified age, you did... to specify age would obviously change parameters of what is said unless we can justify that an infant made a bad choice and had to pay for it... that would be absurd.  

In all of the analogies, God was and is the judge.  The "killing" is a judgement, not a random action of violence like you're viewing it.  

The following is said in a calm rational manner.  none of it is intended to be angry or disgruntled. to make sure I wrote this after I wrote below.    

I hope you can now see how speculatory this whole conversation has to be.  Neither of us can claim to know the crimes of those whom died in the flood.  Neither of us can claim to know the quality of life of any infant, child or adult in that time before the flood.  Neither of us can claim to know the outcome to this date of any alternative choice based on whatever reasoning we choose to have as to an objection to the choice made.  

You are going to have a problem with infants dying... anyone would.  It's disturbing... my perspective puts their lives strictly on the parents be it that it was their choice that allowed that judgement to pass on them and their household. (per consistency in scripture, they had a choice for it to not happen)  Your perspective puts seemingly the death of at least the infants on God... because He could have chose to allow them to live.  

I can't claim to know Gods will and you as a non-believer definitely cannot.  You can keep trying to come up with excuses, but I've been following your lead the whole time.  If you added a new dynamic, without contradicting myself, I appeased your angle.  Everything I said still applies and I have checked to make sure.  I have speculated situations and have tried to put it in perspective.  You are going to see what you want to see no matter what I say I can see that now.  

If you want to condemn God, go for it.  Read Job, He had a good approach.  Be prepared to defend yourself.  

The thing is you're missing my intention.  I'm here to find common ground.  I'm willing to hear and listen to all who believe I'm wrong for believing what I do and am waiting for someone to show me a solid reason why.  Morality issues are not going to convince me that God doesn't exist and I don't expect you to buy into Biblical rationality without belief in God.   If we can never agree that a story this vague by itself needs a lot of speculation to conclude good or bad on Gods part then we can never find common ground and our conversations will never get anywhere.  


A_Nony_Mouse
atheist
A_Nony_Mouse's picture
Posts: 2880
Joined: 2008-04-23
User is offlineOffline
.

caposkia wrote:

God does have a different level of love than we have and it is widely accepted that we can never fully understand this love.   We accept that it is greater than we can imagine.

What does "wide acceptance" have to do with anything? Who gives a rat's ass? How wide is wide? Who does this? WHY do they accept it? Please be specific in your response.

But what I read is the repetition of gibberish. It is a meaningless statement.

Quote:
Gods behavior was reflected through Jesus.  If you're going to compare other choices God made, we'd have to discuss them individually and talk about what we know and moreso what we don't know.

Jesus is a blood sacrifice due to the Law.  That was the way to forgiveness.  God didn't have to send His son to die for us... He could have gone the way of Noah's time and said forget you all.

It was primitive blood sacrifice required by a law you believe it created in the first place. By definition the lawmaker can make any law. All of its laws are arbitrary and capricious. By definition the lawmaker is not bound by the law as it can change or repeal or supercede any law at any time.

You make a stupid statement.

Quote:
concerning your last question:  just look at people, look at yourself.  Consider all the choices you made in life... can you honestly say you're all good?  

Consider this.  Is a murderer evil?

A caprecious law by your lawmaker says it is at the present time. It can change at any time.

 

 

 

 

 

Jews stole the land. The owners want it back. That is all anyone needs to know about Israel. That is all there is to know about Israel.

www.ussliberty.org

www.giwersworld.org/made-in-alexandria/index.html

www.giwersworld.org/00_files/zion-hit-points.phtml


Jabberwocky
atheist
Posts: 411
Joined: 2012-04-21
User is offlineOffline
caposkia wrote:God allows us

caposkia wrote:

God allows us to make choices.  What you example are situations God does put us in in order that His will be done.  However, none of that necessarily would "prevent" you from writing this post, rather you have a choice to make.  

Considering the first example to simply remove your desire to write it, that would be manipulating your will and a violation of free will.  My understanding is that is not how God works... he'd more likely let you write it and use my reply to contradict your intentions... that is a more effective ministry than preventing you from writing it.   

You ask how an omnipotent/omniscient being provides us with free will.  First it's not provided, it is allowed.  Just because He knows and is able to stop it doesn't mean that's the life he wants for us.  

To contradict your contradiction, you need to understand that knowing is not determination and having the ability to do something does not dictate the outcome.  Rather knowing allows you to be aware of the outcome while simply standing on the sidelines... Having the ability to do gives you the power to change the outcome but does not take your power of choice to do so away.  

God explicitly stated that He left us in charge of His world... in other words, though He has the power to run it all, He is allowing us to... how would you say we're doing with that?  

To summarize.:

"if god knows these things going in, then our free will is worthless"

Why?  Just becasue you know something doesn't mean you've already changed the outcome

"If he doesn't then he's not all knowing:"

What is all knowing?  Does that necessarily assume you also know everything that has yet to be written?  All knowing by definition is having complete unlimited knowledge.... of what exactly we don't know... it could mean past present and future events in their entirety.  it could be simplified to just knowing everything that has been and is which would give you a good idea of what an unwritten future holds, but doesn't necessarily allow you to know it because it is unwritten.  

The combination of all knowing and all powerful gives you the ability to manipulate future events without affecting the will of those who choose not to adhere to that future ideal.  They create their own future while the rest follow the intended future.  

So you've said it now. If god were to create a universe where all is identical, but my will to write that post was not present, it would be a violation of my free will. However, since we live in a universe where I did write that post, it could only mean one thing if an omnipotent and omniscient creator is behind our universe: god created a universe where he knew that I would have the ability and will to write that post. These can both be violations of free will, or they can both be not (depending on how you interpret it). It's not possible for one to be a violation, and not the other.

I agree that knowing something means that you've changed the outcome.  But if you know absolutely everything (as you believe god does), and can do absolutely anything (as you believe god does), and created everything ever (as you believe god did), then it is impossible for anything that has ever happened in all the history of the universe to be not god's will. Hence all occurrences in history of torture, murder, rape, any deadly natural disaster, etc., would all by definition have to have been god's will.

To say that he was not capable of making a universe that lacked these terrible things would be to say that he's not all powerful. To say that he did have the ability, but he decided to do it differently....well that just makes him a dick. 

My main point here is: All powerful + All knowing + created everything = everything that has ever happened were a result of his "specifications" when creating everything. If you can demonstrate to me where this point is wrong, then go right ahead.

caposkia wrote:

The book says that's written in your heart.  The OT predicted the coming of Christ.. regardless if you believe or not most historians accept that a person named Jesus Christ existed.  

So people that commit violent crimes got missed by the omnipotent heart-engraver?

Wrong. Historians believe that a person named Jesus existed. The only mention I think that dubs him the Christ is the Testimonium Flavianum, which is considered by historians to be a later interpolation by Eusebius, for whom promoting Christianity was a motive. If there was enough actual evidence, why would he feel the need to doctor that passage?

caposkia wrote:

I'm curious... what were slaves in Biblical times?  it sounds to me as if your understanding is somewhat unfounded.  I just need a simple explanation

 A slave is a person who is the property of another person. Ownership of other people is, and always was, and always will be wrong.

I'm curious why you skipped the part about rape victims being forced to marry their attackers. You are a person who views that book as moral perfection, yet it contains passages like that. Does that not bother you?

 

Theists - If your god is omnipotent, remember the following: He (or she) has the cure for cancer, but won't tell us what it is.


RobbyPants
atheist
RobbyPants's picture
Posts: 148
Joined: 2011-11-30
User is offlineOffline
 caposkia wrote:RobbyPants


 

caposkia wrote:

RobbyPants wrote:

This is pretty much how every one of these debates ends. The theist saying that they don't know, but still believe anyway.

You're suggesting it's over??? so soon?
It is when the entirety of your debate relies on you shifting goal posts and running two separate, contradictory arguments.


caposkia wrote:

God chooses to be just and unchanging... that means he's not going to judge anyone differently than anyone else as harsh as that might seem. Again you're trying to blame God for a choice the parents of those children made.
These aren't the same thing. How is it okay for God to judge the parents (equally) and then to take the children as collateral damage. Clearly, the children aren't culpable, but they're being subjected to the same punishment. That is unequal judgment. Just because you personally declare that the children dying wasn't directly because of God's judgment doesn't make him responsible when he's the sole person (entity?) doling out said judgment.

He is the one in charge here. You keep making him powerful and capable when talking about all the good he does (and how he turns bad things into good things), but he suddenly, mysteriously becomes far less powerful when it comes time to dole out judgment. Suddenly, he's stuck using only the broadest blanket punishments imaginable, and there's nothing he can do! His hands are tied! He has to punish those wicked adults and those poor, poor kids just got caught in the crossfire.

You need to stake out a more consistent claim and stick to it. This goal post shifting is getting annoying.


caposkia wrote:
RobbyPants wrote:

I imaging if I ask you why it's the best thing, the answer will be some form of "I don't know, but I still believe it".

I imagine if i ask you what the better alternative could be you might answer I don't know, or just how about saving the children and killing the rest or some sort of compromise that you posit would not have any adverse future results... yet you still don't believe and still don't really know the results of an alternative choice nor what life was like at that time.

I should ask you this... how would you expect me to know exactly why this one choice in history was the best choice? I understand that God has not proven to me that he makes bad choices and all His choices in history have only proven a better future for His followers, so why should I doubt that it wasn't the best choice?

So, are you saying that the reason to worship God is abject fear of being punished by a powerful, yet deeply flawed entity as opposed to love? Why would you love such an individual? How would you know you could trust such an individual? You're painting a good picture of the Old Testament god, but that's not the one most Christians believe in.


caposkia wrote:

RobbyPants wrote:
Again, more of you simply saying you don't know, but still believe regardless.

as are you apparently. except that the 2nd part of your answer is; "but I still don't believe regardless" If I'm wrong above and here then answer the question.

No, and here's where you keep missing the difference. You start by accepting something despite a lack of evidence. You accept it despite it making no sense. If it doesn't make sense, you say that that's okay, it doesn't need to, and you believe anyway.

I reject the notion that I need to accept this because of a lack of evidence. While I can't prove that it didn't happen, the fact that it doesn't make any sense makes it seem even more dubious. These are not even close to the same thing.
 


Beyond Saving
atheist
Beyond Saving's picture
Posts: 5448
Joined: 2007-10-12
User is offlineOffline
caposkia wrote:to put it in

caposkia wrote:

to put it in perspective does not change the analogy.  I never specified age, you did... to specify age would obviously change parameters of what is said unless we can justify that an infant made a bad choice and had to pay for it... that would be absurd.  

In all of the analogies, God was and is the judge.  The "killing" is a judgement, not a random action of violence like you're viewing it.

A killing is a killing. What I am trying to draw from you is an explanation of whether it was justified or not. Whether you want to view God as a judge or not, how is it possible that a judge can be justified in killing an innocent?

 

caposkia wrote:

I hope you can now see how speculatory this whole conversation has to be.  Neither of us can claim to know the crimes of those whom died in the flood.  Neither of us can claim to know the quality of life of any infant, child or adult in that time before the flood.  Neither of us can claim to know the outcome to this date of any alternative choice based on whatever reasoning we choose to have as to an objection to the choice made.  

I claim to know that many in the flood committed no crimes. For starters the infants and probably the vast majority of the kids and likely many of the adults. 

 

caposkia wrote:

You are going to have a problem with infants dying... anyone would.  It's disturbing...

If it disturbs you, why do you worship the being that killed them?

 

caposkia wrote:

my perspective puts their lives strictly on the parents be it that it was their choice that allowed that judgement to pass on them and their household. (per consistency in scripture, they had a choice for it to not happen)  Your perspective puts seemingly the death of at least the infants on God... because He could have chose to allow them to live.

Not only could he have chosen to allow them to live, it was a positive action from him that intentionally led to their deaths. He decided to use the flood as a means of punishing those he judged. He could have used a number of means (he is omnipotent remember?)

 

caposkia wrote:
 

I can't claim to know Gods will and you as a non-believer definitely cannot.  You can keep trying to come up with excuses, but I've been following your lead the whole time.  If you added a new dynamic, without contradicting myself, I appeased your angle.  Everything I said still applies and I have checked to make sure.  I have speculated situations and have tried to put it in perspective.  You are going to see what you want to see no matter what I say I can see that now.

Yet you claim to know that God is good and that God has OUR best interests at heart. I am not coming up with excuses, I am looking at what the Bible says God did and asking if they are consistent with your explanation of God's will. The clearly are not.

 

caposkia wrote:
 

The thing is you're missing my intention.  I'm here to find common ground.  I'm willing to hear and listen to all who believe I'm wrong for believing what I do and am waiting for someone to show me a solid reason why.  Morality issues are not going to convince me that God doesn't exist and I don't expect you to buy into Biblical rationality without belief in God.   If we can never agree that a story this vague by itself needs a lot of speculation to conclude good or bad on Gods part then we can never find common ground and our conversations will never get anywhere.  

You are missing my intention. I am not going to try to convince you that God does not exist. Nor is the moral discussion an attempt to do so. I find it genuinely mind boggling that someone who appears to be a fairly decent person and I am pretty sure doesn't have a bunch of dead bodies in the basement can not only defend but worship a being that you believe exists and believe committed genocide on such a massive scale. I can't figure out how you rationalize it to yourself outside of simply refusing to think about it. 

The story on this particular point is not "vague". It is very clear that God killed every human on the planet that was not in the Ark. It is very clear that those humans consisted of people from all age groups and therefore, it is perfectly clear that at least some of them were innocent. If this story happened and the story is accurate, then God is evil. What confuses me is that you believe the story is true and accurate, yet you seem completely unwilling to even question whether the act was necessary.

Rather than asking yourself "Is this God a being I should devote my life to and worship" you start with the worship and are apparently willing to rationalize absolutely any act committed by this being regardless of how horrifying it is. Have you even considered that the God written about in the Bible might actually be the devil and has successfully lied to humanity? Have you ever considered the idea that God might not be good as a possibility? If you have considered those possibilities and discarded them, explain your reasoning. If you haven't, how can you blindly worship a being without thinking over the most basic questions?

 

If, if a white man puts his arm around me voluntarily, that's brotherhood. But if you - if you hold a gun on him and make him embrace me and pretend to be friendly or brotherly toward me, then that's not brotherhood, that's hypocrisy.- Malcolm X


RobbyPants
atheist
RobbyPants's picture
Posts: 148
Joined: 2011-11-30
User is offlineOffline
Beyond Saving wrote:caposkia

Beyond Saving wrote:

caposkia wrote:

I hope you can now see how speculatory this whole conversation has to be.  Neither of us can claim to know the crimes of those whom died in the flood.  Neither of us can claim to know the quality of life of any infant, child or adult in that time before the flood.  Neither of us can claim to know the outcome to this date of any alternative choice based on whatever reasoning we choose to have as to an objection to the choice made.  

I claim to know that many in the flood committed no crimes. For starters the infants and probably the vast majority of the kids and likely many of the adults. 

Oh, don't worry. He's covered that in his conversation with me. The deaths of the children are the adult's fault, because they knew they'd incur God's wrath and knew better. So, even though God pulled the trigger, so to speak, it was all the adult's fault.

@Caposika: In all seriousness, I don't think I'm paraphrasing what you said too much there (other than tone, I suppose). That is your actual stance, corrrect? 


caposkia
Theist
Posts: 2701
Joined: 2007-05-15
User is offlineOffline
A_Nony_Mouse wrote:What does

A_Nony_Mouse wrote:

What does "wide acceptance" have to do with anything? Who gives a rat's ass? How wide is wide? Who does this? WHY do they accept it? Please be specific in your response.

But what I read is the repetition of gibberish. It is a meaningless statement.

really?? the wide acceptance thing is what you got stuck on out of that?  Alright moving on

A_Nony_Mouse wrote:

It was primitive blood sacrifice required by a law you believe it created in the first place. By definition the lawmaker can make any law. All of its laws are arbitrary and capricious. By definition the lawmaker is not bound by the law as it can change or repeal or supercede any law at any time.

but to supercede the laws would be to change the expectations which is understood not to change.  Point and case with the Laws is that they are the way to achieve perfection, which is impossible and the point of implementing them is to allow us the opportunity to admit that.  You need to really look into the history of the religions you criticize.

A_Nony_Mouse wrote:

You make a stupid statement.

You do too many times but I let it go and roll with it

A_Nony_Mouse wrote:

A caprecious law by your lawmaker says it is at the present time. It can change at any time.

So is it evil?  I don't care what a law says, either it is or it isn't.  What do you say? (this is in reference to murder)


caposkia
Theist
Posts: 2701
Joined: 2007-05-15
User is offlineOffline
Jabberwocky wrote:So you've

Jabberwocky wrote:

So you've said it now. If god were to create a universe where all is identical, but my will to write that post was not present, it would be a violation of my free will. However, since we live in a universe where I did write that post, it could only mean one thing if an omnipotent and omniscient creator is behind our universe: god created a universe where he knew that I would have the ability and will to write that post. These can both be violations of free will, or they can both be not (depending on how you interpret it). It's not possible for one to be a violation, and not the other.

I agree that knowing something means that you've changed the outcome.  But if you know absolutely everything (as you believe god does), and can do absolutely anything (as you believe god does), and created everything ever (as you believe god did), then it is impossible for anything that has ever happened in all the history of the universe to be not god's will. Hence all occurrences in history of torture, murder, rape, any deadly natural disaster, etc., would all by definition have to have been god's will.

That's like saying the will of the creator of the internet was to monopolize the porn industry.  I doubt that's the case.  Consider the creator of the internet was omniscient, omnipotent etc.  He would be aware of all the bad that could happen with the creation... He could prevent it, but then that would also prevent many good things from happening due to the fact that pretty much all of the processes that enable porn on the computer are there to enable families to connect, businesses to expand, pictures to be edited and shared, etc.  Point and case; God created a universe with as far as we know any number of possibilities... within those possibilities were all good intentions, but good intentions can be manipulated into anything anyone wants them to be in a universe with free will.  

Just because you have the capability of creating in a specific way doesn't mean that's the best way to create it.  Consider an internet without video chat, social networking, pictures, online shopping, bill pay online and so on... not much of it is left is there to use.

Jabberwocky wrote:
 

To say that he was not capable of making a universe that lacked these terrible things would be to say that he's not all powerful. To say that he did have the ability, but he decided to do it differently....well that just makes him a dick. 

unless His intentions were good and we were the ones that manipulated those good intentions and made them into bad things... which would make us the dicks.  e.g. our hands capable of building and creating have been manipulated by us to also kill.  We have 1001 uses for our hands, but we still choose to kill with them and create weapons designed to kill many at once.  

Jabberwocky wrote:

My main point here is: All powerful + All knowing + created everything = everything that has ever happened were a result of his "specifications" when creating everything. If you can demonstrate to me where this point is wrong, then go right ahead.

I feel I just did, please do comment on that though

Jabberwocky wrote:

caposkia wrote:

The book says that's written in your heart.  The OT predicted the coming of Christ.. regardless if you believe or not most historians accept that a person named Jesus Christ existed.  

So people that commit violent crimes got missed by the omnipotent heart-engraver?

Wrong. Historians believe that a person named Jesus existed. The only mention I think that dubs him the Christ is the Testimonium Flavianum, which is considered by historians to be a later interpolation by Eusebius, for whom promoting Christianity was a motive. If there was enough actual evidence, why would he feel the need to doctor that passage?

Wrong, Historians believe that a person named Jesus who claimed to be the Christ existed..   Otherwise Historians believing that someone in history named Jesus existing is not unusual be it that even today there are many people throughout the world whom possess the name Jesus.

I don't know why someone would feel the need to doctor a passage

Jabberwocky wrote:

 A slave is a person who is the property of another person. Ownership of other people is, and always was, and always will be wrong.

I'm curious why you skipped the part about rape victims being forced to marry their attackers. You are a person who views that book as moral perfection, yet it contains passages like that. Does that not bother you?

 

rape bothers me (period) 

Also, where in the Bible did it say rape victims must marry their attackers?  


danatemporary
danatemporary's picture
Posts: 1951
Joined: 2011-01-12
User is offlineOffline
"Merit death, swept over Eve, though a living soul . ."

"Merit death, swept over Eve, though a living soul . ."
 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nD0Yx6nCTF0

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


caposkia
Theist
Posts: 2701
Joined: 2007-05-15
User is offlineOffline
RobbyPants wrote:It is when

RobbyPants wrote:

It is when the entirety of your debate relies on you shifting goal posts and running two separate, contradictory arguments.

yet when anyone who claimed I did that was challenged to show me how I have, they've failed miserably, but please humor me.  

RobbyPants wrote:

These aren't the same thing. How is it okay for God to judge the parents (equally) and then to take the children as collateral damage. Clearly, the children aren't culpable, but they're being subjected to the same punishment. That is unequal judgment. Just because you personally declare that the children dying wasn't directly because of God's judgment doesn't make him responsible when he's the sole person (entity?) doling out said judgment.

Children suffer the conseqences of their parents actions all the time.  When a parent gets arrested today, the children suffer from it no matter how much you think they don't.  You're just trying to blame God for it here... You're assuming the parents couldn't take the threat seriously and safe their family... You're also assuming the parents couldn't give their children to Noah knowing their fate and accepting it.  Point is, I believe there were many ways for the parents of those children to save their children even if they couldn't save themselves, but they chose not to.  The process again was strait across.  

You're also again forgetting that God intended to end life... which includes men, women, and children.  He put events in motion which once He found there was still someone worthy of life He changed to a consequence for all those who don't accept God and change their ways.  I see it as God knowing that these generations to come were not going to change and that if a parent had even a speck of faith could have handed their child to Noah and said to take care of them.  

If God is bad in your eyes, so be it then.  All those who take parents away from children are bad as well and so are those who institutionalize children because parents are unfit to take care of them.  We've made it a sad sad world.  No one wants to look in the mirror though.

RobbyPants wrote:

So, are you saying that the reason to worship God is abject fear of being punished by a powerful, yet deeply flawed entity as opposed to love? Why would you love such an individual? How would you know you could trust such an individual? You're painting a good picture of the Old Testament god, but that's not the one most Christians believe in.

The OT God is the NT God, the only difference is Jesus Christ, because God does love His people.  All God has wanted throughout history is for people to admit they have severe issues without God.  Whenever the human race has failed to do that, bad consequences happen and God is viewed as the bad guy by those who don't know Him.  Typical throughout history.. so it's a good question.  If God is so bad, why do people... so many people in the world follow this God?  

How about in history?  Why did people in history follow such a God when other gods who claimed to be just as powerful or maybe even more powerful offered much better things like riches and 500 virgins... or even your own planet to rule?

RobbyPants wrote:

No, and here's where you keep missing the difference. You start by accepting something despite a lack of evidence. You accept it despite it making no sense. If it doesn't make sense, you say that that's okay, it doesn't need to, and you believe anyway.

actually that reasoning is why I believe... becasue every non-believer seems to have lack of reasoning or evidence as to why they don't believe... only that they haven't seen reason for it.  They seem to make very little sense or reasoning when coming up with why they hate my God if in fact they do.  

If there was lack of evidence as you say, I wouldn't believe... but the evidence is not something I can present to you on paper unless it's statistics or common reoccurances of certain results.  

RobbyPants wrote:


I reject the notion that I need to accept this because of a lack of evidence. While I can't prove that it didn't happen, the fact that it doesn't make any sense makes it seem even more dubious. These are not even close to the same thing.
 

I accept your rejection.  I wouldn't accept it either then if I were you.  Consider that nothing makes sense until it's understood.  


danatemporary
danatemporary's picture
Posts: 1951
Joined: 2011-01-12
User is offlineOffline
I Stand By the Door

 

  > I Stand By The Door  ..

 

 

 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NuYczvp-Kzo


caposkia
Theist
Posts: 2701
Joined: 2007-05-15
User is offlineOffline
Beyond Saving wrote:A

Beyond Saving wrote:

A killing is a killing. What I am trying to draw from you is an explanation of whether it was justified or not. Whether you want to view God as a judge or not, how is it possible that a judge can be justified in killing an innocent?

the judgement was justified.. but was it justified for the parents to drag their children through the mud like that? I think that was cruel

Beyond Saving wrote:

I claim to know that many in the flood committed no crimes. For starters the infants and probably the vast majority of the kids and likely many of the adults. 

the children were at their parents mercy.  It is understood that no adult had committed no crimes... this would include Noah most likely.

Beyond Saving wrote:

If it disturbs you, why do you worship the being that killed them?

I don't worship the parents.  

The being that passed the judgement on teh people created all of them in the first place, but put the responsibility of the young ones on the parents shoulders. 

Beyond Saving wrote:

Not only could he have chosen to allow them to live, it was a positive action from him that intentionally led to their deaths. He decided to use the flood as a means of punishing those he judged. He could have used a number of means (he is omnipotent remember?)

He chose to use the flood to destroy all life.  That was the intention, lets' not forget that.  Once one was found upright, the flood was a lesson for those future generations because it really was too late for the rest.  The parents I'm sure could have handed off their children to Noah, but there's nothing in scripture that says any tried.  Are you still sure it was God's fault they died?  Yes he's omnipotent and can do anything, that also means He can allow us to reflect on our ancestors bad choices.  

Beyond Saving wrote:

Yet you claim to know that God is good and that God has OUR best interests at heart. I am not coming up with excuses, I am looking at what the Bible says God did and asking if they are consistent with your explanation of God's will. The clearly are not.

no, they are and yes I claim that God is good.  

Beyond Saving wrote:

You are missing my intention. I am not going to try to convince you that God does not exist. Nor is the moral discussion an attempt to do so. I find it genuinely mind boggling that someone who appears to be a fairly decent person and I am pretty sure doesn't have a bunch of dead bodies in the basement can not only defend but worship a being that you believe exists and believe committed genocide on such a massive scale. I can't figure out how you rationalize it to yourself outside of simply refusing to think about it. 

I'm thinking about it.  You fail to put the blame where it belongs.  don't judge the righteous judge who passes judgement according to the law, Judge those who break the law and choose to drag others down with them.

Beyond Saving wrote:

The story on this particular point is not "vague". It is very clear that God killed every human on the planet that was not in the Ark. It is very clear that those humans consisted of people from all age groups and therefore, it is perfectly clear that at least some of them were innocent. If this story happened and the story is accurate, then God is evil. What confuses me is that you believe the story is true and accurate, yet you seem completely unwilling to even question whether the act was necessary.

You seem unwilling to question whether it was just.  There had to have been innocents and so those innocent deaths had to have been teh judges fault because the parents had no responsibility in the matter.

Beyond Saving wrote:

Rather than asking yourself "Is this God a being I should devote my life to and worship" you start with the worship and are apparently willing to rationalize absolutely any act committed by this being regardless of how horrifying it is. Have you even considered that the God written about in the Bible might actually be the devil and has successfully lied to humanity? Have you ever considered the idea that God might not be good as a possibility? If you have considered those possibilities and discarded them, explain your reasoning. If you haven't, how can you blindly worship a being without thinking over the most basic questions?

 

I have considered all that.  I have also seen the works of God and the works of those who claim to follow this God and clearly aren't.  Consistency failed with every other following.  This one has been proven to me.  I have seen it with my own eyes.  

consider that the devil has successfully lied to humanity, but which part of humanity has been duped?

 


danatemporary
danatemporary's picture
Posts: 1951
Joined: 2011-01-12
User is offlineOffline
worrisome thing who'll leave ya to sing the blues in the night

 "A worrisome thing who'll leave ya to sing the blues in the night"

 

 

 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sJGv3DE_4Ks


Jabberwocky
atheist
Posts: 411
Joined: 2012-04-21
User is offlineOffline
caposkia wrote:Jabberwocky

caposkia wrote:

Jabberwocky wrote:

So you've said it now. If god were to create a universe where all is identical, but my will to write that post was not present, it would be a violation of my free will. However, since we live in a universe where I did write that post, it could only mean one thing if an omnipotent and omniscient creator is behind our universe: god created a universe where he knew that I would have the ability and will to write that post. These can both be violations of free will, or they can both be not (depending on how you interpret it). It's not possible for one to be a violation, and not the other.

I agree that knowing something means that you've changed the outcome.  But if you know absolutely everything (as you believe god does), and can do absolutely anything (as you believe god does), and created everything ever (as you believe god did), then it is impossible for anything that has ever happened in all the history of the universe to be not god's will. Hence all occurrences in history of torture, murder, rape, any deadly natural disaster, etc., would all by definition have to have been god's will.

That's like saying the will of the creator of the internet was to monopolize the porn industry.  I doubt that's the case.  Consider the creator of the internet was omniscient, omnipotent etc.  He would be aware of all the bad that could happen with the creation... He could prevent it, but then that would also prevent many good things from happening due to the fact that pretty much all of the processes that enable porn on the computer are there to enable families to connect, businesses to expand, pictures to be edited and shared, etc.  Point and case; God created a universe with as far as we know any number of possibilities... within those possibilities were all good intentions, but good intentions can be manipulated into anything anyone wants them to be in a universe with free will.  

Just because you have the capability of creating in a specific way doesn't mean that's the best way to create it.  Consider an internet without video chat, social networking, pictures, online shopping, bill pay online and so on... not much of it is left is there to use.

Jabberwocky wrote:
 

To say that he was not capable of making a universe that lacked these terrible things would be to say that he's not all powerful. To say that he did have the ability, but he decided to do it differently....well that just makes him a dick. 

unless His intentions were good and we were the ones that manipulated those good intentions and made them into bad things... which would make us the dicks.  e.g. our hands capable of building and creating have been manipulated by us to also kill.  We have 1001 uses for our hands, but we still choose to kill with them and create weapons designed to kill many at once.  

Jabberwocky wrote:

My main point here is: All powerful + All knowing + created everything = everything that has ever happened were a result of his "specifications" when creating everything. If you can demonstrate to me where this point is wrong, then go right ahead.

I feel I just did, please do comment on that though

I don't think you understand the full definition of the word "omnipotent". You seem to be unable to imagine a different world than the one that we do indeed live in. Your internet analogy is ridiculous, because an omnipotent, omniscient internet creator would have had the ability to make the internet fully functional as we know it, except incapable of transferring porn (although I disagree that it would be a positive thing).

Then you gave me the same answer again as the previous several times (again, not understanding the word omnipotent). God gave us this great world, and we screwed it up. However, he could have made us physically capable, but mentally incapable of screwing it up. Don't you say that it would be a violation of free will, because making us capable of war, and incapable of telepathy would both be equal violations of that free will. Basically, if an omnipotent and omniscient being makes your brain, he can't just phone it in, or delegate it to an intern. He makes it himself, and knows what it will do.

In short, you've answered nothing and we're going in circles. 

caposkia wrote:

Jabberwocky wrote:

Wrong. Historians believe that a person named Jesus existed. The only mention I think that dubs him the Christ is the Testimonium Flavianum, which is considered by historians to be a later interpolation by Eusebius, for whom promoting Christianity was a motive. If there was enough actual evidence, why would he feel the need to doctor that passage?

Wrong, Historians believe that a person named Jesus who claimed to be the Christ existed..   Otherwise Historians believing that someone in history named Jesus existing is not unusual be it that even today there are many people throughout the world whom possess the name Jesus.

I don't know why someone would feel the need to doctor a passage

Read my post up there again, especially the bold part. It answers your question.

caposkia wrote:

rape bothers me (period) 

Also, where in the Bible did it say rape victims must marry their attackers?  

Deuteronomy 22:28-29. Disgusting, right?

 

Theists - If your god is omnipotent, remember the following: He (or she) has the cure for cancer, but won't tell us what it is.


danatemporary
danatemporary's picture
Posts: 1951
Joined: 2011-01-12
User is offlineOffline
.. and look for nothing in return . . .

 Re :: .. and look for nothing in return . . .

  "Give your love freely and look for nothing in return. No man is measured by the how much he is loved, but by the love he gives to others." and "Under the certainty of heaven all that we can be sure of is tomorrow. When yesterday is already ours .."  ¬ Ellis Peters (modified).

  Letter's Home .. Sullivan Ballou wrote home to his dear wive but was killed a week later in the 1st Battle of Bull Run

 "Please forgive my many faults, and what pain they have caused you, that I have caused you. How thoughtless, how foolish I have sometimes been!...But, my wife, 0 Sarah, if the dead can come back to this earth and flit unseen around those they love, I shall always be with you, in the brightest day and in the darkest night... always, always. And when the soft breeze fans your cheek, it shall be my breath, or the cool air your throbbing temple, it shall be my spirit passing by"

 


RobbyPants
atheist
RobbyPants's picture
Posts: 148
Joined: 2011-11-30
User is offlineOffline
caposkia wrote:RobbyPants

caposkia wrote:

yet when anyone who claimed I did that was challenged to show me how I have, they've failed miserably, but please humor me.


Sure. I'll lift a quote from your current response since it highlights it pretty well.




Here is you likening God's ability to handle the situation to a parent getting arrested by people. In this situation of a parent getting arrested, people are relatively powerless to prevent the suffering of the children. They might mitigate it, but they can't really stop it. If this is your analogy for why God let the kids drown, then I can only conclude that you honestly believe God's hands were somehow tied and there was nothing he could do.
caposkia wrote:

Children suffer the conseqences of their parents actions all the time. When a parent gets arrested today, the children suffer from it no matter how much you think they don't. You're just trying to blame God for it here...


Here you are stating that he's powerful enough to take something bad and turn it into something good.
caposkia wrote:

That would not be the right way to look at it. The assult isn't in the plans from what we understand... rather God will use the assult and turn it into something good... namely the child the might come of it. If a child is conceived, we figure there's a plan for them in this world no matter how minor.


This is that contradiction. You first make God weak to the point where the kids dying were something that had to happen, and then you say that he's powerful enough to try to turn bad things into good things. Is he, or is he not powerful enough to have saved all of the children during the flood? Could he have taken something bad (wicked adults) and turned it into something good (righteous children)? If he could have done that, then they drown simply because he wanted them to. If not, then he isn't powerful enough to turn bad into good in any meaningful sense.




caposkia wrote:
RobbyPants wrote:


These aren't the same thing. How is it okay for God to judge the parents (equally) and then to take the children as collateral damage. Clearly, the children aren't culpable, but they're being subjected to the same punishment. That is unequal judgment. Just because you personally declare that the children dying wasn't directly because of God's judgment doesn't make him responsible when he's the sole person (entity?) doling out said judgment.


Children suffer the conseqences of their parents actions all the time. When a parent gets arrested today, the children suffer from it no matter how much you think they don't. You're just trying to blame God for it here... You're assuming the parents couldn't take the threat seriously and safe their family... You're also assuming the parents couldn't give their children to Noah knowing their fate and accepting it. Point is, I believe there were many ways for the parents of those children to save their children even if they couldn't save themselves, but they chose not to. The process again was strait across.
The problem of comparing this to other events is that the other actors don't have the ability or discretion to pin-point the consequences. When a parent gets arrested, we don't have the ability to make everything perfect for the kid, yet the Bible posits a god that can pin-point kill just the first born males, if he so desired. He didn't do that here. He killed everyone when he (demonstrably) didn't have to.


caposkia wrote:
You're also again forgetting that God intended to end life... which includes men, women, and children. He put events in motion which once He found there was still someone worthy of life He changed to a consequence for all those who don't accept God and change their ways. I see it as God knowing that these generations to come were not going to change and that if a parent had even a speck of faith could have handed their child to Noah and said to take care of them.

If God is bad in your eyes, so be it then. All those who take parents away from children are bad as well and so are those who institutionalize children because parents are unfit to take care of them. We've made it a sad sad world. No one wants to look in the mirror though.
I will admit, this does paint a really creepy image of God in my eyes. One I would genuflect to out of fear and not love.


caposkia wrote:
RobbyPants wrote:

So, are you saying that the reason to worship God is abject fear of being punished by a powerful, yet deeply flawed entity as opposed to love? Why would you love such an individual? How would you know you could trust such an individual? You're painting a good picture of the Old Testament god, but that's not the one most Christians believe in.



The OT God is the NT God, the only difference is Jesus Christ, because God does love His people. All God has wanted throughout history is for people to admit they have severe issues without God. Whenever the human race has failed to do that, bad consequences happen and God is viewed as the bad guy by those who don't know Him. Typical throughout history.. so it's a good question. If God is so bad, why do people... so many people in the world follow this God?

How about in history? Why did people in history follow such a God when other gods who claimed to be just as powerful or maybe even more powerful offered much better things like riches and 500 virgins... or even your own planet to rule?

No, they're painted quite differently. The OT version of God looks a lot like a Greek god: very fallible and relatively weak (unable to find people hiding in a garden, worried about stepping in human waste while walking about the camps, unable to defeat armies with sufficiently advanced technology) and prone to fits of violent rage and jealousy, while still far stronger than people; basically, a poorly adjusted bully. This doesn't stop people from singing his praises in the OT, but out of all the things he does, he is quite limited in his capabilities and quite cruel and capricious.

The god of the NT is painted as much more patient and loving, although, this is rather paradoxical, as Christianity added the concept of heaven and hell to Judaism, so instead of threats of death, it now gets ramped up to eternal torture. So, I guess he takes a more passive-aggressive stance as time goes on.


caposkia wrote:
RobbyPants wrote:

No, and here's where you keep missing the difference. You start by accepting something despite a lack of evidence. You accept it despite it making no sense. If it doesn't make sense, you say that that's okay, it doesn't need to, and you believe anyway.



actually that reasoning is why I believe... becasue every non-believer seems to have lack of reasoning or evidence as to why they don't believe... only that they haven't seen reason for it. They seem to make very little sense or reasoning when coming up with why they hate my God if in fact they do.
I'm not sure what you're saying here. That I can't hate the notion of something that I don't believe in, or that I must believe if I hate it.


caposkia wrote:
If there was lack of evidence as you say, I wouldn't believe... but the evidence is not something I can present to you on paper unless it's statistics or common reoccurances of certain results.
What is your evidence? A "feeling" or the "knowledge" that God exists? If you can't point to anything concrete, then the only evidence you have is evidence of a feeling, not evidence of God. You simply attribute that feeling to God.

I'm not saying you don't believe, but I don't think you have anything that could be categorized as evidence in any meaningful sense.


caposkia wrote:
RobbyPants wrote:

I reject the notion that I need to accept this because of a lack of evidence. While I can't prove that it didn't happen, the fact that it doesn't make any sense makes it seem even more dubious. These are not even close to the same thing.




I accept your rejection. I wouldn't accept it either then if I were you. Consider that nothing makes sense until it's understood.


There are an infinite number of things that don't make sense and probably aren't true. Why should I consider this to be any different?



 


danatemporary
danatemporary's picture
Posts: 1951
Joined: 2011-01-12
User is offlineOffline
Divine's command or will that creates something


Disclaimer ::  RELUCTANTLY,  Do  I  add the following fore it does not represent the views of Dana . . .  It's more of the highly INAPPROPRIATE sense of humor . . .





Re :: The Divine's command or will that creates something

 "[In the] Old Testament literature ...,upon [which] the conceptions of sin and salvation [are founded]" (View  Image):

  
 

 

"[In the] Old Testament literature ...,upon [which] the conceptions of sin and salvation [are founded]"

  Part of the Comment .. YouTube video ::

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U768-gCY0ds

 

   YouTube  search is and would be ..  'Michael Card' ..title:: The Final Word.

 


Beyond Saving
atheist
Beyond Saving's picture
Posts: 5448
Joined: 2007-10-12
User is offlineOffline
caposkia wrote:the judgement

caposkia wrote:

the judgement was justified.. but was it justified for the parents to drag their children through the mud like that? I think that was cruel

How is the judgement justified? How do you justify killing an innocent child because of something their parents did? Two wrongs do not make a right. Would you tolerate a human legal system where children were given the death penalty because of something their parents did? 

 

caposkia wrote:

the children were at their parents mercy.  It is understood that no adult had committed no crimes... this would include Noah most likely.

No, they were at God's mercy. Their parents did not kill them directly, their parents made God mad. God had the power to kill or not to kill them, he chose not to be merciful and to kill them. 

 

caposkia wrote:

Beyond Saving wrote:

If it disturbs you, why do you worship the being that killed them?

I don't worship the parents.  

The being that passed the judgement on teh people created all of them in the first place, but put the responsibility of the young ones on the parents shoulders.

No, you worship the being that actually wielded the weapon and had all of the knowledge and all of the power to decide whether or not to kill the kids.

 

caposkia wrote:

He chose to use the flood to destroy all life.  That was the intention, lets' not forget that.

I haven't forgotten. You are the one trying to convince me that God has our best interests in his heart. I a skeptical that a being that decides to destroy all life is on my side. I don't consider a being that attempts to destroy all life "good" by any stretch of the imagination. 

 

caposkia wrote:

 Once one was found upright, the flood was a lesson for those future generations because it really was too late for the rest.  

Do you support killing innocents to make an example for future generations?

 

caposkia wrote:

The parents I'm sure could have handed off their children to Noah, but there's nothing in scripture that says any tried.  Are you still sure it was God's fault they died?  Yes he's omnipotent and can do anything, that also means He can allow us to reflect on our ancestors bad choices.

He caused the flood right? So yeah, it is all his fault. I don't think killing babies is a good way to "allow" us to reflect on our ancestors choices. That type of tactic has been used in human governments in the past, we tend to refer to the people who use them as tyrants. Is God a tyrant?

 

caposkia wrote:

Beyond Saving wrote:

You are missing my intention. I am not going to try to convince you that God does not exist. Nor is the moral discussion an attempt to do so. I find it genuinely mind boggling that someone who appears to be a fairly decent person and I am pretty sure doesn't have a bunch of dead bodies in the basement can not only defend but worship a being that you believe exists and believe committed genocide on such a massive scale. I can't figure out how you rationalize it to yourself outside of simply refusing to think about it. 

I'm thinking about it.  You fail to put the blame where it belongs.  don't judge the righteous judge who passes judgement according to the law, Judge those who break the law and choose to drag others down with them.

How can a judgement rendered against an innocent person be just? Why shouldn't I blame a judge who knowingly punishes an innocent? Whatever fault the parents have for failing to protect their children has absolutely no bearing on God's responsibility for actually killing them. There is nothing in the concept of fault that means only one person/entity is solely responsible. Whatever blame you believe belongs to the parents does not absolve God of blame. He chose to kill the kids, he had other options and decided not to exercise them. 

 

 

caposkia wrote:

You seem unwilling to question whether it was just.  There had to have been innocents and so those innocent deaths had to have been teh judges fault because the parents had no responsibility in the matter.

No, I am questioning whether it was just, that is what I have been doing all along. I find that it is glaringly obvious that it was not just. The judge issued an execution order for people he knew were innocent, that is not just. Whatever terrible things the parents did were irrelevant. God decided to kill the children and personally wielded the weapon that killed them.

 

 

caposkia wrote:

I have considered all that.  I have also seen the works of God and the works of those who claim to follow this God and clearly aren't.  Consistency failed with every other following.  This one has been proven to me.  I have seen it with my own eyes.  

consider that the devil has successfully lied to humanity, but which part of humanity has been duped?

 Well considering that you are defending the mass slaughter of children I would say your part of humanity is the one that has been duped. If we can agree that killing babies is wrong, then it would be quite the con job to convince people to worship you and claim that your killing of those babies was good. 

If, if a white man puts his arm around me voluntarily, that's brotherhood. But if you - if you hold a gun on him and make him embrace me and pretend to be friendly or brotherly toward me, then that's not brotherhood, that's hypocrisy.- Malcolm X


caposkia
Theist
Posts: 2701
Joined: 2007-05-15
User is offlineOffline
Jabberwocky wrote:I don't

Jabberwocky wrote:

I don't think you understand the full definition of the word "omnipotent". You seem to be unable to imagine a different world than the one that we do indeed live in. Your internet analogy is ridiculous, because an omnipotent, omniscient internet creator would have had the ability to make the internet fully functional as we know it, except incapable of transferring porn (although I disagree that it would be a positive thing).

Then you gave me the same answer again as the previous several times (again, not understanding the word omnipotent). God gave us this great world, and we screwed it up. However, he could have made us physically capable, but mentally incapable of screwing it up. Don't you say that it would be a violation of free will, because making us capable of war, and incapable of telepathy would both be equal violations of that free will. Basically, if an omnipotent and omniscient being makes your brain, he can't just phone it in, or delegate it to an intern. He makes it himself, and knows what it will do.

In short, you've answered nothing and we're going in circles. 

He knows what it's capable of, not what it will do considering He created a mind that is self aware and able to make its own choices.  Considering all I've said including creating things that are capable of being bad but have good original intentions, the point is, an omniscient omnipotent being is well aware of all possibilities and yet cannot create limitations without limiting the good intentions which ultimately limits all around abilities.  Omnipotence and omniscience cannot defy the Law of non-contradiction.  Sure, God was capable of preventing all of it, but just as the internet analogy goes, we'd also be unable to do a lot of good.  We'd likely be stripped down to communication through binary code.  Maybe that's a bit extreme... you get the point though?

Jabberwocky wrote:

Deuteronomy 22:28-29. Disgusting, right? 

Ah yes, the Sundry Laws.... and you're suggesting these were the Laws of Moses handed down by God?   Quite disturbing some of them yes.  I have a feeling we need to discuss these laws in their context a bit further to understand their intent... and source.  


caposkia
Theist
Posts: 2701
Joined: 2007-05-15
User is offlineOffline
RobbyPants wrote:caposkia

RobbyPants wrote:

caposkia wrote:

yet when anyone who claimed I did that was challenged to show me how I have, they've failed miserably, but please humor me.


Sure. I'll lift a quote from your current response since it highlights it pretty well.




Here is you likening God's ability to handle the situation to a parent getting arrested by people. In this situation of a parent getting arrested, people are relatively powerless to prevent the suffering of the children. They might mitigate it, but they can't really stop it. If this is your analogy for why God let the kids drown, then I can only conclude that you honestly believe God's hands were somehow tied and there was nothing he could do.
caposkia wrote:

Children suffer the conseqences of their parents actions all the time. When a parent gets arrested today, the children suffer from it no matter how much you think they don't. You're just trying to blame God for it here...


Here you are stating that he's powerful enough to take something bad and turn it into something good.
caposkia wrote:

That would not be the right way to look at it. The assult isn't in the plans from what we understand... rather God will use the assult and turn it into something good... namely the child the might come of it. If a child is conceived, we figure there's a plan for them in this world no matter how minor.


This is that contradiction. You first make God weak to the point where the kids dying were something that had to happen, and then you say that he's powerful enough to try to turn bad things into good things. Is he, or is he not powerful enough to have saved all of the children during the flood? Could he have taken something bad (wicked adults) and turned it into something good (righteous children)? If he could have done that, then they drown simply because he wanted them to. If not, then he isn't powerful enough to turn bad into good in any meaningful sense.

First, hands tied or not in the analogy, kids suffer, their parents are not there... You could let the parents go free in hopes they'll take care of their kids, but parents like that typically don't anyway and likely after the ordeal of getting caught will offer less attention to their kids and focus more on not getting caught. (actual case)  all efforts by others considered the kids still suffered.  

In the case of God from the very beginning He has put the responsible of this Earth and our young in OUR hands.  The parents had the responsibility for their children and the consequence also applied to their children by the parents choice.  I've gone through the hypothetical scenarios that throughout scripture has shown to be possible yet they did not happen.  If God is as you say, then not even Noah would have been saved and we would not be having this conversation now.   Yes God made a choice He chose no matter how grim to leave the fate of the children in the hands of humans as He intended to from the beginning.  

Good attempt though.  

now for my alleged contradiction. He is powerful enough to have saved all the children from the flood.  Could he have taken wicked adults and turned them into riteous children?  Be it that He left the children in the care of the wicked adults, likely not without contradicting himself.  Someone would have had to be righteous enough to care for the little ones that could not care for themselves.  If that were the case, there would have been no reason for the flood to destroy all of humanity.  The scenario ultimately defies the Law of non-contradiction.  If someone was able to care for the children, then not all were wicked and such a flood would not be considered.  

All in all, God wanted to destroy humanity due to their extensive sin... that part is quite clear and has been said many many times now.  

I'm assuming you're not accepting failure here yet, so what accusation are you going to try?  

RobbyPants wrote:


The problem of comparing this to other events is that the other actors don't have the ability or discretion to pin-point the consequences. When a parent gets arrested, we don't have the ability to make everything perfect for the kid, yet the Bible posits a god that can pin-point kill just the first born males, if he so desired. He didn't do that here. He killed everyone when he (demonstrably) didn't have to.

The problem of comparing this to other events is there are no other events quite like this one.  My ultimate point is, was and will be that God is putting complete responsibility of the children on the parents.  Same as today.  Nothing has changed.  

RobbyPants wrote:


I will admit, this does paint a really creepy image of God in my eyes. One I would genuflect to out of fear and not love.

Which is why God has promised never to do such a thing again.  All things considered, He likely was executing the Jesus plan when He said that.  Ultimately destroying every time humanity turns completely wicked makes no sense becasue as in the case of Noah, there's always going to be someone or many someones who don't deserve to be a part of that consequence and it will also be a reoccuring event every so many generations.  

God is one to fear, but also to love for the promises He has for all of us who come to Him through Jesus Christ and because of Jesus Christ.  


RobbyPants wrote:

No, they're painted quite differently. The OT version of God looks a lot like a Greek god: very fallible and relatively weak (unable to find people hiding in a garden, worried about stepping in human waste while walking about the camps, unable to defeat armies with sufficiently advanced technology) and prone to fits of violent rage and jealousy, while still far stronger than people; basically, a poorly adjusted bully. This doesn't stop people from singing his praises in the OT, but out of all the things he does, he is quite limited in his capabilities and quite cruel and capricious.

That's a very shortsighted view of the OT.  Considering not being able to find people in the garden for example.  Do you really think He didn't know where they were or do you think He just knew they were hiding and playing along.  Consider that whenever God came into the garden, they always came to Him except this one time and He knew why.  Parents do this all the time when kids did something wrong and they knew not only exactly what it was, but where they are hiding.  You're allowing the child to make the choice to fess up

RobbyPants wrote:


The god of the NT is painted as much more patient and loving, although, this is rather paradoxical, as Christianity added the concept of heaven and hell to Judaism, so instead of threats of death, it now gets ramped up to eternal torture. So, I guess he takes a more passive-aggressive stance as time goes on.

depending on how much humanism you want to throw into the picture.  

RobbyPants wrote:

I'm not sure what you're saying here. That I can't hate the notion of something that I don't believe in, or that I must believe if I hate it.

I was referencing to non-believers in general and not specifically you, but considering you or anyone for that matter, you cannot hate something you don't believe in and if you do hate it, there must be some aspect of it that is real to you..

RobbyPants wrote:


What is your evidence? A "feeling" or the "knowledge" that God exists? If you can't point to anything concrete, then the only evidence you have is evidence of a feeling, not evidence of God. You simply attribute that feeling to God.

I'm not saying you don't believe, but I don't think you have anything that could be categorized as evidence in any meaningful sense.

from what you're considering, i've used history and science which has evidences including archaeology and specifically Quantum physics, but beyond that, the concrete evidences that can be shared over a forum are quite limited, not that they don't exist, but rather it's more self-evident if you're searching

RobbyPants wrote:

There are an infinite number of things that don't make sense and probably aren't true. Why should I consider this to be any different?

Because smart people who have studied it for years, including those who sought out to disprove it believe in it.  It has also stood the test of time and generations of attempts to discredit it without avail. (you don't think you're the first generation to question it do you?)  Biblical miracles have been documented and witnessed throughout the generations, Prophesies have come to pass and are coming to pass as described in the Bible, many attest to it... and so on.


caposkia
Theist
Posts: 2701
Joined: 2007-05-15
User is offlineOffline
Beyond Saving wrote:How is

Beyond Saving wrote:

How is the judgement justified? How do you justify killing an innocent child because of something their parents did? Two wrongs do not make a right. Would you tolerate a human legal system where children were given the death penalty because of something their parents did? 

their blood is on their parents hands, not Gods.  Again the parents (considering consistency in scripture) would have likely had a choice to repent at least for their children's sake and allow them to survive but they didn't.  

Beyond Saving wrote:

caposkia wrote:

He chose to use the flood to destroy all life.  That was the intention, lets' not forget that.

I haven't forgotten. You are the one trying to convince me that God has our best interests in his heart. I a skeptical that a being that decides to destroy all life is on my side. I don't consider a being that attempts to destroy all life "good" by any stretch of the imagination. 

Has, present tense, think about it.  

Consider good for a moment.  Is it good to destroy bad?  Is it good to allow bad to flourish?  

Beyond Saving wrote:

 Well considering that you are defending the mass slaughter of children I would say your part of humanity is the one that has been duped. If we can agree that killing babies is wrong, then it would be quite the con job to convince people to worship you and claim that your killing of those babies was good. 

For the last time, parents are responsible and had the choice.  If a parent gets in a shootout with the cops at their house and a cop happens to shoot one of their children, what you've been saying throughout this thread is that the cop is at fault...and has passed judgement on that child for the parents attempt to shoot cops.  It's just not logical thinking.  I get where you're coming from.  I get your issue, but you're looking at it from the wrong perspective.  

Yes, I know where you're going to go with this too, if the cop was Omnipotent/omniscient than shooting the child couldn't be a mistake and would have been intentional.  That's missing the point.   The point is, the childs parents in the analogy put the child in danger and ultimately are at fault for the child getting shot.  In the Biblical scenario, God has made ti clear that we are responsible for the little ones and does not change that responsibility because parents aren't smart enough to put the well being of their child ahead of their own ideals.   

You can blame God till your fingers fall off, but in the end, it's still the parents responsibility.  It seems we likely will never agree on that.  I know you want to make my God out to be this terrible being that has no sympathy for mankind... or in your case, just children it seems, but that is completely contradictory to pretty much all of scripture and you're taking one scenario that we know almost nothing about to the ultimate extreme as if you have some inside information that the rest of us never got our hands on.  This is not unusual for non-believers to do, but if you're trying to convince me that God is bad from this one scenario, you just don't have enough evidence or informatino on the scenario to justify that understanding.  

Let's take it to the ultimate extreme for a moment.  Let's assume (because that's really all we've been doing the whole time) that there were no children... the people were so far gone that they've gone as far as to kill every child that has lived before the scenario of the flood occurs.  considering that this people was considered so sinful that God wanted to destroy them and never make humans again, it is logical to think such a thing could have happened in such a society.  If so, your whole case is gone.  What now?  Are you going to come back and assume that's not possible?  


Beyond Saving
atheist
Beyond Saving's picture
Posts: 5448
Joined: 2007-10-12
User is offlineOffline
caposkia wrote:their blood

caposkia wrote:

their blood is on their parents hands, not Gods.  Again the parents (considering consistency in scripture) would have likely had a choice to repent at least for their children's sake and allow them to survive but they didn't.  

At the very least it is on both of their hands. Whatever the parents did, God was ultimately the one who purposely killed the children. 

 

caposkia wrote:

Has, present tense, think about it.  

Consider good for a moment.  Is it good to destroy bad?  Is it good to allow bad to flourish?  

It is not good to destroy bad if by doing so you kill innocents. If the choice is to allow bad to flourish or to drown innocents in mass, it is much better to allow the bad to continue. 

 

caposkia wrote:

For the last time, parents are responsible and had the choice.  If a parent gets in a shootout with the cops at their house and a cop happens to shoot one of their children, what you've been saying throughout this thread is that the cop is at fault...and has passed judgement on that child for the parents attempt to shoot cops.  It's just not logical thinking.  I get where you're coming from.  I get your issue, but you're looking at it from the wrong perspective.  

Yes, I know where you're going to go with this too, if the cop was Omnipotent/omniscient than shooting the child couldn't be a mistake and would have been intentional.  That's missing the point.   The point is, the childs parents in the analogy put the child in danger and ultimately are at fault for the child getting shot.  In the Biblical scenario, God has made ti clear that we are responsible for the little ones and does not change that responsibility because parents aren't smart enough to put the well being of their child ahead of their own ideals.

You can blame God till your fingers fall off, but in the end, it's still the parents responsibility.  It seems we likely will never agree on that.  I know you want to make my God out to be this terrible being that has no sympathy for mankind... or in your case, just children it seems, but that is completely contradictory to pretty much all of scripture and you're taking one scenario that we know almost nothing about to the ultimate extreme as if you have some inside information that the rest of us never got our hands on.  This is not unusual for non-believers to do, but if you're trying to convince me that God is bad from this one scenario, you just don't have enough evidence or informatino on the scenario to justify that understanding. 

Let's take it to the ultimate extreme for a moment.  Let's assume (because that's really all we've been doing the whole time) that there were no children... the people were so far gone that they've gone as far as to kill every child that has lived before the scenario of the flood occurs.  considering that this people was considered so sinful that God wanted to destroy them and never make humans again, it is logical to think such a thing could have happened in such a society.  If so, your whole case is gone.  What now?  Are you going to come back and assume that's not possible?  

Yet if a cop shoots a child and we determine that the cop could have avoided shooting the child we sometimes punish the cop, even in a high stress situation of a shootout. Yes, the parents bear some responsibility for whatever actions they do that brings the situation, but that does not absolve cops, judges or anyone else responsibility if their actions result in harm to an innocent. You keep trying to phrase it as either/or and it isn't an either or thing. That God is the actor in the situation who has the most power and knowledge to control exactly what happens just makes it especially ironic that you put all the blame on ignorant humans. It would be like blaming a child for playing with a gun and killing someone while absolving the parent of blame for allowing the kid to play with the gun.

As for your hypothetical, what would be the point of God drowning them then? If all the kids were dead, the society would not have continued. All he had to do was wait for 30-40 years, an eye blink for god, and every human in the world would have been dead and all the innocent animals still alive. So you simply have the senseless slaughter of animals because of a little impatience.

You cannot escape the reality that given an omnipotent god and the story of the Ark being real, God intentionally decided to kill children. So either you have to accept that killing children was ok in that situation and support the action, or you have to believe God did something bad. Trying to pass the blame onto others doesn't work and is completely nonsensical when you are assuming the being in question is omnipotent. 

If, if a white man puts his arm around me voluntarily, that's brotherhood. But if you - if you hold a gun on him and make him embrace me and pretend to be friendly or brotherly toward me, then that's not brotherhood, that's hypocrisy.- Malcolm X


Jabberwocky
atheist
Posts: 411
Joined: 2012-04-21
User is offlineOffline
caposkia wrote:He knows what

caposkia wrote:

He knows what it's capable of, not what it will do considering He created a mind that is self aware and able to make its own choices.

Then he is not omniscient. It's as simple as that. Omniscience demands that one knows the full result of everything that they do, and everything that will ever happen. You can't have partial omniscience. That is a contradiction.

caposkia wrote:

Ah yes, the Sundry Laws.... and you're suggesting these were the Laws of Moses handed down by God?   Quite disturbingsome of them yes.  I have a feeling we need to discuss these laws in their context a bit further to understand their intent... and source.  

No, I'm suggesting that these are barbaric laws written by barbaric people, intertwined in an awful and stupid myth. I didn't say anything about Moses having a thing to do with that law, so don't pretend that I did. But it is in your book.

Now, you speak of context, and seem to ignore the omnipotence and omniscience (and in this case it's important to note omnibenevolence as well) of your alleged god. I think we can all agree that any person who has a sexual act inflicted upon them without their informed consent, has been sexually assaulted/raped (depending on the specific action as each has its own definition). I think we can also agree that any time such a thing occurs, it is an abhorrent act, and the world would be a far better place if it one day ceased to happen completely. So in the face of all this, can you tell me why it's appropriate for a book you consider to be a moral masterpiece to simply say something along the lines of "If you rape someone, simply complete actions X, Y, and Z, and what you've done is not immoral"?  Not to mention that one of those actions of having a rapist marry their victim also necessarily means that the victim must marry their attacker. Wouldn't a book that's supposed to be the epitome of morality find it appropriate to condemn rape outright throughout? I don't care what year it was written. Were it actually inspired by an omnipotent, omniscient being, then I will say without any issue that if that being were to exist, my morality is far superior to theirs. 

 

Theists - If your god is omnipotent, remember the following: He (or she) has the cure for cancer, but won't tell us what it is.


RobbyPants
atheist
RobbyPants's picture
Posts: 148
Joined: 2011-11-30
User is offlineOffline
caposkia wrote:First, hands

caposkia wrote:

First, hands tied or not in the analogy, kids suffer, their parents are not there... You could let the parents go free in hopes they'll take care of their kids, but parents like that typically don't anyway and likely after the ordeal of getting caught will offer less attention to their kids and focus more on not getting caught. (actual case) all efforts by others considered the kids still suffered.

In the case of God from the very beginning He has put the responsible of this Earth and our young in OUR hands. The parents had the responsibility for their children and the consequence also applied to their children by the parents choice. I've gone through the hypothetical scenarios that throughout scripture has shown to be possible yet they did not happen. If God is as you say, then not even Noah would have been saved and we would not be having this conversation now. Yes God made a choice He chose no matter how grim to leave the fate of the children in the hands of humans as He intended to from the beginning.

Good attempt though.

When a person takes a deliberate action to kill a person, you hold that person accountable for their actions.
When a part of a car has a mechanical failure that is the normal result of wear and tear, you don't blame a person for it (we'll assume this isn't an "act of God" ).
When God decides to flood the entire planet for the explicit purpose of killing all people, I honestly don't know why we wouldn't hold him accountable for it.

Now, you can try to take my first point (killing another) and turn it into something like self defense and say it's justified, and then use that analogy to justify God flooding the world (it was justified!). That approach would not work, however; God is in full control of the situation and is not forced to flood the world for any reason other than his own desire to drown nearly the entire human population.

Good attempt, though.



caposkia wrote:
now for my alleged contradiction. He is powerful enough to have saved all the children from the flood. Could he have taken wicked adults and turned them into riteous children? Be it that He left the children in the care of the wicked adults, likely not without contradicting himself. Someone would have had to be righteous enough to care for the little ones that could not care for themselves. If that were the case, there would have been no reason for the flood to destroy all of humanity. The scenario ultimately defies the Law of non-contradiction. If someone was able to care for the children, then not all were wicked and such a flood would not be considered.
Simple: God could use magic to take care of the kids. He already clearly did so to:
1- make everything fit on the ark.
2- feed everything on the ark.
3- keep the freshwater and salt water fish alive in the same water.
4- clear the water away.
5- feed the herbivores for quite some time (all of the terrestrial plants would have been long dead).
6- feed the carnivores (you need about a 30:1 ratio of herbivores to carnivores to sustain the population, and the animals were only brought on the ark in pairs, not 60 deer and 2 wolves).
7- protect fragile geological structures that should have toppled.
8- reorganize the sediment layers to remove evidence of the flood.

If you accept that a global flood happened 5,000 years ago and the Bible's record of events is accurate, then all of the above points would have needed to be addressed. So, it's certainly possible that there's a cosmic being out there that could have handled all eight of those points, he also could have addressed those children.

I'll chalk this up under either depraved indifference or outright malice.



caposkia wrote:
All in all, God wanted to destroy humanity due to their extensive sin... that part is quite clear and has been said many many times now.

Destroy, as opposed to deal with it in any other way that he wanted. He's pretty powerful, supposedly.



caposkia wrote:
I'm assuming you're not accepting failure here yet, so what accusation are you going to try?

Wow.



caposkia wrote:
RobbyPants wrote:

The problem of comparing this to other events is that the other actors don't have the ability or discretion to pin-point the consequences. When a parent gets arrested, we don't have the ability to make everything perfect for the kid, yet the Bible posits a god that can pin-point kill just the first born males, if he so desired. He didn't do that here. He killed everyone when he (demonstrably) didn't have to.



The problem of comparing this to other events is there are no other events quite like this one. My ultimate point is, was and will be that God is putting complete responsibility of the children on the parents. Same as today. Nothing has changed.

I could put complete responsibility of my one-year-old's actions on her, but it wouldn't make me a good parent.



caposkia wrote:
RobbyPants wrote:


I will admit, this does paint a really creepy image of God in my eyes. One I would genuflect to out of fear and not love.



Which is why God has promised never to do such a thing again. All things considered, He likely was executing the Jesus plan when He said that. Ultimately destroying every time humanity turns completely wicked makes no sense becasue as in the case of Noah, there's always going to be someone or many someones who don't deserve to be a part of that consequence and it will also be a reoccuring event every so many generations.

He only promised never to destroy the world in its entirety with a flood again. He's still open to burying the world under a lake of lava, or something, if he really feels like it. Also, I would submit that destroying humanity even once like that makes no sense. In fact, that's what I've been saying all along.



caposkia wrote:
God is one to fear, but also to love for the promises He has for all of us who come to Him through Jesus Christ and because of Jesus Christ.

An abusive parent is one to fear, but one that could still show love.



caposkia wrote:
RobbyPants wrote:

No, they're painted quite differently. The OT version of God looks a lot like a Greek god: very fallible and relatively weak (unable to find people hiding in a garden, worried about stepping in human waste while walking about the camps, unable to defeat armies with sufficiently advanced technology) and prone to fits of violent rage and jealousy, while still far stronger than people; basically, a poorly adjusted bully. This doesn't stop people from singing his praises in the OT, but out of all the things he does, he is quite limited in his capabilities and quite cruel and capricious.



That's a very shortsighted view of the OT. Considering not being able to find people in the garden for example. Do you really think He didn't know where they were or do you think He just knew they were hiding and playing along. Consider that whenever God came into the garden, they always came to Him except this one time and He knew why. Parents do this all the time when kids did something wrong and they knew not only exactly what it was, but where they are hiding. You're allowing the child to make the choice to fess up

I could say your view of the NT is rather short sighted.

If you take two different parts of the Bible, one where God does something that looks malicious to our point of view, and another where he looks really benevolent to our point of view, you could take the stance that he's both malicious and benevolent at various times. Now, apologetics will attempt to reconcile these events by saying that the first event only looks malicious, but it's actually part of a grand plan that we don't understand, and therefore, it's actually a benevolent action.

Of course, the only reason to assume that that is the case is if you assume he's supposed to be a purely benevolent being. I don't see any reason to make this assumption. Just because God says he loves us doesn't mean he actually does. Logically speaking, it's entirely possible that he lies to us. As far as Occam's razor goes, that actually makes sense. Rather than assuming that he's telling the truth about his benevolence, and thus, any apparent malevolent action must therefore be benevolent, why not simply take it at face value? He makes the unfounded claim that he doesn't lie and we can trust that he is benevolent (a being can certainly lie about not lying), and therefore, when an action looks to not be benevolent, it's quite likely that it's not benevolent.

It really does take a load off your shoulders to stop trying to cling to certain unfounded assumptions and then try to shoehorn everything else in to fit said assumptions.



caposkia wrote:
RobbyPants wrote:

I'm not sure what you're saying here. That I can't hate the notion of something that I don't believe in, or that I must believe if I hate it.



I was referencing to non-believers in general and not specifically you, but considering you or anyone for that matter, you cannot hate something you don't believe in and if you do hate it, there must be some aspect of it that is real to you..

The aspect of it that's real to me is how long I spent believing it, and all the lies I told myself to try to maintain that belief.



caposkia wrote:
RobbyPants wrote:


What is your evidence? A "feeling" or the "knowledge" that God exists? If you can't point to anything concrete, then the only evidence you have is evidence of a feeling, not evidence of God. You simply attribute that feeling to God.

I'm not saying you don't believe, but I don't think you have anything that could be categorized as evidence in any meaningful sense.



from what you're considering, i've used history and science which has evidences including archaeology and specifically Quantum physics, but beyond that, the concrete evidences that can be shared over a forum are quite limited, not that they don't exist, but rather it's more self-evident if you're searching

This is true. Muslims that spend time searching for Allah will find him. Mormons that spend time searching for Italian angels will find them. Buddhists who search for enlightenment will find it. Pastafarians who search for the Flying Spaghetti Monster's noodly appendage will find it. People searching for answers in the bottom of a glass of poison Kool Aid in Jonestown will find it.

Just because people really believe something doesn't make it true.



caposkia wrote:
RobbyPants wrote:

There are an infinite number of things that don't make sense and probably aren't true. Why should I consider this to be any different?



Because smart people who have studied it for years, including those who sought out to disprove it believe in it. It has also stood the test of time and generations of attempts to discredit it without avail. (you don't think you're the first generation to question it do you?) Biblical miracles have been documented and witnessed throughout the generations, Prophesies have come to pass and are coming to pass as described in the Bible, many attest to it... and so on.

What about the smart people that have found other gods to be real? A lot of biblical miracles are hearsay; others have been flat out debunked. Many of the prophesies that have come to pass were so vague that there's no way they wouldn't have come to pass (wars and rumors of wars? No one could have seen that!). Other people's prophesies have come true, too.

 


danatemporary
danatemporary's picture
Posts: 1951
Joined: 2011-01-12
User is offlineOffline
re :: I'll be back !

 Re :: I'll be  back!  Smiling

Jabberwocky wrote:

Urgh, I had some computer problems, but I'm back now.

 See :: Image

 


 


caposkia
Theist
Posts: 2701
Joined: 2007-05-15
User is offlineOffline
Beyond Saving wrote:At the

Beyond Saving wrote:

At the very least it is on both of their hands. Whatever the parents did, God was ultimately the one who purposely killed the children. 

you're trying to look at it as if God grabbed each child and personally killed them.  God made a grand event happen.  I'm thinking parents had a choice in the matter.  They could have possibly handed their child to Noah and said; "take care of them" but they didn't.  Can't blame God for that.  I know.. you'll still try.

Beyond Saving wrote:

It is not good to destroy bad if by doing so you kill innocents. If the choice is to allow bad to flourish or to drown innocents in mass, it is much better to allow the bad to continue. 

What a concept... and consider you made that choice... and the bad ultimately over time killed the same amount of innocent people that would have been killed to stop it?  What then?  Which would have been a better choice?  You have to rationalize here... to let bad flourish does put the innocent in danger... otherwise it wouldn't be bad.  

Beyond Saving wrote:

Yet if a cop shoots a child and we determine that the cop could have avoided shooting the child we sometimes punish the cop, even in a high stress situation of a shootout. Yes, the parents bear some responsibility for whatever actions they do that brings the situation, but that does not absolve cops, judges or anyone else responsibility if their actions result in harm to an innocent. You keep trying to phrase it as either/or and it isn't an either or thing. That God is the actor in the situation who has the most power and knowledge to control exactly what happens just makes it especially ironic that you put all the blame on ignorant humans. It would be like blaming a child for playing with a gun and killing someone while absolving the parent of blame for allowing the kid to play with the gun.

It really is an either or thing here though.  God has made it clear that we are responsible for our own.  If God is going to do some grand event that coudl put our own in danger, He has always scripturally from what we can see given clear warnings of doing so and a means for safety.  It is then left in our hands to make the appropriate choice.  I mean you can let your child walk on the tracks, then blame the train operator when the child gets struck, but why would you let your child walk on the tracks in the first place?  

Beyond Saving wrote:

As for your hypothetical, what would be the point of God drowning them then? If all the kids were dead, the society would not have continued. All he had to do was wait for 30-40 years, an eye blink for god, and every human in the world would have been dead and all the innocent animals still alive. So you simply have the senseless slaughter of animals because of a little impatience.

or could it be that more children soon to be could be hurt before that happened and he prevented that?  Just because all children had been killed up to that point doesn't mean that no more children would be born in the next 30-40 years.  They might be born just for the sacrifice to whatever god they followed at the time.  Is it really worth putting more children in danger just so that the humans can wipe themselves out?  

Beyond Saving wrote:

You cannot escape the reality that given an omnipotent god and the story of the Ark being real, God intentionally decided to kill children. So either you have to accept that killing children was ok in that situation and support the action, or you have to believe God did something bad. Trying to pass the blame onto others doesn't work and is completely nonsensical when you are assuming the being in question is omnipotent. 

The blame has always been on the parents, never passed to them.  Anyway, if that's what it has to come down to, lets go back to the beginning then.  God intentionally tried to wipe out life and later made an exception for Noah and his family.  This would include men, women, children, family pets, etc.  This I've been saying from the very beginning.  You've been trying to make it a morality thing and yet you don't know what was happening... specifically to the children at the time.  You seem to think it would have been better to let children live through daily rapes, beatings, sacrifice, etc whatever may have been happening to them vs. being killed all at once by God... which then they could be living a perfectly normal happy life with God instead of fearing for the next day on Earth.   

 


caposkia
Theist
Posts: 2701
Joined: 2007-05-15
User is offlineOffline
Jabberwocky wrote:caposkia

Jabberwocky wrote:

caposkia wrote:

He knows what it's capable of, not what it will do considering He created a mind that is self aware and able to make its own choices.

Then he is not omniscient. It's as simple as that. Omniscience demands that one knows the full result of everything that they do, and everything that will ever happen. You can't have partial omniscience. That is a contradiction.

Where in the definition of omniscience does it say you can predict the future?  Which btw, The Bible does make clear that God can determine certain futures and thus make them happen if He so chooses despite what happens in between.    

For what you just said above, God is fully aware of the result of everything "HE" does.  I believe God created everyone knowing full well the full possibilities in either direction.  I think the difficulty is knowing once given a choice which direction each individual will ultimately take considering every circumstance that could change the intended outcome.  

Let's discuss the definition of omniscience for a moment.  A few different places including Wiki define it as; "knowing everything that can be known"  which then brings up the question, can the future be known?  How do we determine if it can or cannot?

Beyond Saving wrote:

No, I'm suggesting that these are barbaric laws written by barbaric people, intertwined in an awful and stupid myth. I didn't say anything about Moses having a thing to do with that law, so don't pretend that I did. But it is in your book.

to say that "it's in your book" is suggesting that you're implying that it has to do with Moses be it that all the Laws of God were handed down by Moses.  If you look into the laws further, it is what the people added to the laws later to fill in the gaps that the laws of Moses seemed to have.  SOOOOO someone thought it necessary to add them in my book because they were intended to go along with those Laws.  Just because it's in my book doesn't mean it's good or right, rather it's there because it better describes how things came to be the way they did so as to continue the timeline to Jesus.   The Bible is said to be a manual to life.  If that's true, then it must have the bad aspects as well as the good in it.  

One cannot just read the Bible, pull out phrase and say, OP! it says we have to do this!  No, we have to look at the context to see why it's there.  

Beyond Saving wrote:

Now, you speak of context, and seem to ignore the omnipotence and omniscience (and in this case it's important to note omnibenevolence as well) of your alleged god. I think we can all agree that any person who has a sexual act inflicted upon them without their informed consent, has been sexually assaulted/raped (depending on the specific action as each has its own definition). I think we can also agree that any time such a thing occurs, it is an abhorrent act, and the world would be a far better place if it one day ceased to happen completely. So in the face of all this, can you tell me why it's appropriate for a book you consider to be a moral masterpiece to simply say something along the lines of "If you rape someone, simply complete actions X, Y, and Z, and what you've done is not immoral"?  Not to mention that one of those actions of having a rapist marry their victim also necessarily means that the victim must marry their attacker. Wouldn't a book that's supposed to be the epitome of morality find it appropriate to condemn rape outright throughout? I don't care what year it was written. Were it actually inspired by an omnipotent, omniscient being, then I will say without any issue that if that being were to exist, my morality is far superior to theirs. 

 

it's in the book because it paints a picture of future events.  Who ever said that everything written in scripture was considered moral?  I don't agree with that angle they took on the rape crime, but it was their way of holding the rapist accountable for their actions.  They also felt at that time that women didn't have a say in the matter of marriage and therefore it fit with the Laws of the time.  The rapist then would be responsible for that woman and have to commit himself to her.  which likely wouldn't happen, He then would be an adulterer and put to death widowing the woman.  If the guy did stay faithful to her, then He likely repented of his ways and took responsiblity for his actions.  For the time, the Law makes sense.  Is it God approved?  it doesn't say so, it only was added after the fact.  Moral?  no, but neither was the general view of women at the time.


caposkia
Theist
Posts: 2701
Joined: 2007-05-15
User is offlineOffline
RobbyPants wrote:When a

RobbyPants wrote:

When a person takes a deliberate action to kill a person, you hold that person accountable for their actions.

unless they're a judge passing a sentence or a cop doing their job.  God is a judge

RobbyPants wrote:

When a part of a car has a mechanical failure that is the normal result of wear and tear, you don't blame a person for it (we'll assume this isn't an "act of God" ).
When God decides to flood the entire planet for the explicit purpose of killing all people, I honestly don't know why we wouldn't hold him accountable for it.

Couldn't the immorality of people that prompted God to take such drastic actions be viewed the same as wear and tear on a car?  Think about it, 2 perfect people were born, over time, things started to go wrong, just like with any car.. eventually the car gets so beat up due to lack of preventative maintenance that it costs less to junk it than to repair it.  Why are we trying to blame God for the progessive corruption of man?

RobbyPants wrote:


Now, you can try to take my first point (killing another) and turn it into something like self defense and say it's justified, and then use that analogy to justify God flooding the world (it was justified!). That approach would not work, however; God is in full control of the situation and is not forced to flood the world for any reason other than his own desire to drown nearly the entire human population.

Good attempt, though.

well, I will reiterate the origin of this conversation... the same thing I've been saying the whole time, but I'll take your words to describe it here:  Gods own desire was to "drown nearly the entire human population" but why?  The question I thought wasn't whether he meant to do it, rather was it a moral action or a murder spree.  

Good attempt on your part though.

Consider this, if the childrens parents, and their parents, and so on were completely moral and responsible, do you really think these kids would have had a problem?

RobbyPants wrote:




caposkia wrote:
now for my alleged contradiction. He is powerful enough to have saved all the children from the flood. Could he have taken wicked adults and turned them into riteous children? Be it that He left the children in the care of the wicked adults, likely not without contradicting himself. Someone would have had to be righteous enough to care for the little ones that could not care for themselves. If that were the case, there would have been no reason for the flood to destroy all of humanity. The scenario ultimately defies the Law of non-contradiction. If someone was able to care for the children, then not all were wicked and such a flood would not be considered.
Simple: God could use magic to take care of the kids. He already clearly did so to:
1- make everything fit on the ark.
2- feed everything on the ark.
3- keep the freshwater and salt water fish alive in the same water.
4- clear the water away.
5- feed the herbivores for quite some time (all of the terrestrial plants would have been long dead).
6- feed the carnivores (you need about a 30:1 ratio of herbivores to carnivores to sustain the population, and the animals were only brought on the ark in pairs, not 60 deer and 2 wolves).
7- protect fragile geological structures that should have toppled.
8- reorganize the sediment layers to remove evidence of the flood.

If you accept that a global flood happened 5,000 years ago and the Bible's record of events is accurate, then all of the above points would have needed to be addressed. So, it's certainly possible that there's a cosmic being out there that could have handled all eight of those points, he also could have addressed those children.

I'll chalk this up under either depraved indifference or outright malice.

now who's living in a fantasy world?  Non-believers try to toke God's work up to "magic", but if you consider what God did, God used logics, math, and natural occurances typically in all his work, it really came down to timing and accuracy.   If it was magic, do you think God would really have had to give Noah measurements for the ark, or could He have just said;  build an ark, however you like, I"ll make it work.  

..and I do not accept that it happened only 5000 years ago.  I believe that there is evidence of a severe flood 5000 years ago that yeilds to the possibility of a flood to the magnitude of what the Bible describes, but, very likely much longer ago than that.  

Also, why would God want to erase evidence of the flood?  If that was the case, just make sure it was never written about and thus no one would be looking for such an occurance.  Sounds to me as if God wants us to know about it.  

RobbyPants wrote:




caposkia wrote:
All in all, God wanted to destroy humanity due to their extensive sin... that part is quite clear and has been said many many times now.

Destroy, as opposed to deal with it in any other way that he wanted. He's pretty powerful, supposedly.

He did promise never to do a flood like that again.  Also, power has nothing to do with it.  being all-powerful like He is, that is the way He wanted to deal with it.  We can get all hypothetical again and try to blame God for imorality, but when it comes down to it, we know nothing of the situation that lead to the event.  

RobbyPants wrote:




caposkia wrote:
I'm assuming you're not accepting failure here yet, so what accusation are you going to try?

Wow.

damn, got me there. Eye-wink  

Just for the record, I'm keeping this friendly.  I don't mean any of this to be agressive or forceful.  I just get sarcastic.  I apologize.  I did write that because it seems to be the trend for you at this point.  I'm thinking no matter what i say, you're going to accuse me of something and not admit that you might have been jumping to conclusions anwhere.

RobbyPants wrote:


The problem of comparing this to other events is there are no other events quite like this one. My ultimate point is, was and will be that God is putting complete responsibility of the children on the parents. Same as today. Nothing has changed.

I could put complete responsibility of my one-year-old's actions on her, but it wouldn't make me a good parent.

instead, you are completely responsible for her actions.  reread what i wrote.  I never said God put the responsibility of the childrens actions on the children did I?


RobbyPants wrote:

He only promised never to destroy the world in its entirety with a flood again. He's still open to burying the world under a lake of lava, or something, if he really feels like it. Also, I would submit that destroying humanity even once like that makes no sense. In fact, that's what I've been saying all along.

it makes no sense because we know nothing about it. of course it makes no sense.  All we know is that God did it and yes, that is something to fear.  what could they have possibly done to deserve that?  My guess we shouldn't test the waters to find out.  

Also, yes the bible states specifically no more floods of the such, but I took it to mean nothing else to wipe out every life on the planet again.  Also though the Gospel of Jesus Christ it would be counter productive.  

RobbyPants wrote:


An abusive parent is one to fear, but one that could still show love.

an abusive parent can try to show love, but they dont' love.  if they did, they wouldn't be abusive.  

RobbyPants wrote:


I could say your view of the NT is rather short sighted.

If you take two different parts of the Bible, one where God does something that looks malicious to our point of view, and another where he looks really benevolent to our point of view, you could take the stance that he's both malicious and benevolent at various times. Now, apologetics will attempt to reconcile these events by saying that the first event only looks malicious, but it's actually part of a grand plan that we don't understand, and therefore, it's actually a benevolent action.

Of course, the only reason to assume that that is the case is if you assume he's supposed to be a purely benevolent being. I don't see any reason to make this assumption. Just because God says he loves us doesn't mean he actually does. Logically speaking, it's entirely possible that he lies to us. As far as Occam's razor goes, that actually makes sense. Rather than assuming that he's telling the truth about his benevolence, and thus, any apparent malevolent action must therefore be benevolent, why not simply take it at face value? He makes the unfounded claim that he doesn't lie and we can trust that he is benevolent (a being can certainly lie about not lying), and therefore, when an action looks to not be benevolent, it's quite likely that it's not benevolent.

It really does take a load off your shoulders to stop trying to cling to certain unfounded assumptions and then try to shoehorn everything else in to fit said assumptions.

I found researching the scriptures puts quite a load on actually.  It's shortsighted to view the 2 as you have and separate them.  I see apologetics view and of course it make sense scripturally, but let's take out the assumption that it has to do with a master plan.  The subject in question from the OT is the event as a result of some unknown evils that occured for an unknown period of time.  It is also unknown just what actions were taken to prevent and/or rectify such evils before the final event took place.  In other words, you basing malice on nothing.  No need to reconcile anything because there's nothing to reconcile.  

God has proven over 1000's of years of scripture that He does not lie and holds to His promises.  The flood is a perfect example of that.  He was going to destroy all of humanity because there was nothing left good in it... After that decision He found that Noah was good still and so saved His family, but He had already promised to flood the world and thus stopping it now would turn Him into a liar.  All in all, God has always followed through with his word and never once showed us a reason to doubt Him though we come up with our own reasonings time and time again.

RobbyPants wrote:


The aspect of it that's real to me is how long I spent believing it, and all the lies I told myself to try to maintain that belief.

if you had to lie to yourself to maintain that belief, then you didn't believe in what I do.

RobbyPants wrote:


This is true. Muslims that spend time searching for Allah will find him. Mormons that spend time searching for Italian angels will find them. Buddhists who search for enlightenment will find it. Pastafarians who search for the Flying Spaghetti Monster's noodly appendage will find it. People searching for answers in the bottom of a glass of poison Kool Aid in Jonestown will find it.

Just because people really believe something doesn't make it true.

that's right!  So how then do we determine truth?



RobbyPants wrote:

What about the smart people that have found other gods to be real? A lot of biblical miracles are hearsay; others have been flat out debunked. Many of the prophesies that have come to pass were so vague that there's no way they wouldn't have come to pass (wars and rumors of wars? No one could have seen that!). Other people's prophesies have come true, too.

 

who ever said other gods are not real?  Even the Bible attests to the existence of other gods.  digging deeper some Christians believe they are demons trying to play the role of a god.  I dont' know of any miracles written in the scriptures that have been flat out debunked.  You'll have to show me the study and what miracles they're talking about.  

Wars and rumors of wars.  This wasn't just talking about every once in a while, but constant.  That wasn't happening until the last century.    There's nothign to say other prophesies can't come true, but they never come true in the way they were orignally described, and like the Jehovah's Witnesses, when something else does happen, they bend over backwards to "change" the wording to fit the result.  e.g. 1914 according to Awake 1889, the world is going to end and the return of Christ will happen in 1914.  Once the year 1914 had almost passed, they have one publication late that year that used the exact same article and only changed the date to 1915... then they changed it back to 1914 and changed the wording to say "it could happen".  Today, they claim that the end did start in 1914 and try to use the start of WWI as the sign which happened to be in 1914.  

Point and case, the world did not end.  They still claim Jesus became king in 1914, but cannot base that on anything.  To claim the end started in 1914 is just as random as pulling any other date out of the air because without their false prophesy and the start of a large war, they have nothing to base that on.  

Unless you can show me other prophesies that have come true exactly as they said they would...


danatemporary
danatemporary's picture
Posts: 1951
Joined: 2011-01-12
User is offlineOffline
Amazes me that which is situated above . . . .

 Re :: Amazes me that which is situated above . .  . .



Disclaimer ::  RELUCTANTLY,  Do  I  add the following fore it does not represent the views of Dana . . .  It's more of the highly INAPPROPRIATE sense of humor . . .





Re :: The Divine's command or will that creates something

 "[In the] Old Testament literature ...,upon [which] the conceptions of sin and salvation [are founded]" (View  Image):

  
 

 

"[In the] Old Testament literature ...,upon [which] the conceptions of sin and salvation [are founded]"

  Part of the Comment .. YouTube video ::

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U768-gCY0ds

 

   YouTube  search is and would be ..  'Michael Card' ..title:: The Final Word.

 

 


RobbyPants
atheist
RobbyPants's picture
Posts: 148
Joined: 2011-11-30
User is offlineOffline
caposkia wrote:Just for the

caposkia wrote:
Just for the record, I'm keeping this friendly.  I don't mean any of this to be agressive or forceful.  I just get sarcastic.  I apologize.  I did write that because it seems to be the trend for you at this point.  I'm thinking no matter what i say, you're going to accuse me of something and not admit that you might have been jumping to conclusions anwhere.

Fair enough.

 

I’ll hit on a few points, as this is related enough that I don’t think I need to address each quote block on its own. If you think I missed anything, let me know. I’ll break it into two parts:

 


 

Who is accountable: God or the wicked people?

 

caposkia wrote:
well, I will reiterate the origin of this conversation... the same thing I've been saying the whole time, but I'll take your words to describe it here:  Gods own desire was to "drown nearly the entire human population" but why?  The question I thought wasn't whether he meant to do it, rather was it a moral action or a murder spree.

Personally, I’d say murder spree, because he had other options, and this was the one he took. I can get into that more…

 

caposkia wrote:

Couldn't the immorality of people that prompted God to take such drastic actions be viewed the same as wear and tear on a car?  Think about it, 2 perfect people were born, over time, things started to go wrong, just like with any car.. eventually the car gets so beat up due to lack of preventative maintenance that it costs less to junk it than to repair it.  Why are we trying to blame God for the progessive corruption of man?

I guess I think it would be more moral for God to step in and take the car to a mechanic earlier on, rather than letting it get to the point of totaling it. I think you and I are making different assumptions about whether or not it’s the God’s responsibility or the wicked people’s responsibility to pay attention to their car.

 

Even if it were the people’s responsibility, God could still be that maintenance light. And before you tell me that maybe God was the light and the people ignored him, the Bible makes no mention that God gave them a warning. It simply states that they became wicked, and he gave up on them:

 

Genesis 6:1-8 wrote:

6 1 When human beings began to increase in number on the earth and daughters were born to them, 2 the sons of God saw that the daughters of humans were beautiful, and they married any of them they chose. 3 Then the Lord said, “My Spirit will not contend with[a] humans forever, for they are mortal; their days will be a hundred and twenty years.”

4 The Nephilim were on the earth in those days—and also afterward—when the sons of God went to the daughters of humans and had children by them. They were the heroes of old, men of renown.

5 The Lord saw how great the wickedness of the human race had become on the earth, and that every inclination of the thoughts of the human heart was only evil all the time. 6 The Lord regretted that he had made human beings on the earth, and his heart was deeply troubled. 7 So the Lord said, “I will wipe from the face of the earth the human race I have created—and with them the animals, the birds and the creatures that move along the ground—for I regret that I have made them.” 8 But Noah found favor in the eyes of the Lord.

Sure, it’s possible that God was in there intervening somehow, but the Bible doesn’t say that, and it’s just a baseless assumption.

 

I would have rather God taken a more active role in preventing this whole mess. He was certainly powerful enough to do so. He did this out of neglect or malice.

 

 

caposkia wrote:

Consider this, if the childrens parents, and their parents, and so on were completely moral and responsible, do you really think these kids would have had a problem?

Now, part of this gets into my next point (that God would have had to intervene after the fact for the world as we know it to come about from the ark*); if God had to intervene to keep all of the carnivores fed and to preserve (or restore?) fragile geological structures, why couldn’t he have intervened for the children? Lets assume the parents were irredeemably wicked (this makes no sense to me, but I’ll roll with it for this purpose), why couldn’t Noah have put all he children on the ark along with the pairs of animals?

 

At the end of the day, their deaths were senseless.

 

*It’s possible that you believe some version of the flood story that is drastically different than what is presented in Genesis. I know that you’ve said you think it didn’t necessarily happen 5,000 years ago, but do you accept the rest of it? If not, I need to know how you feel it deviates, or else I think we may end up talking past each other with assumptions.

 

 


 

The flood being “magic” and how much God personally had to deal with after the fact

caposkia wrote:

now who's living in a fantasy world?  Non-believers try to toke God's work up to "magic", but if you consider what God did, God used logics, math, and natural occurances typically in all his work, it really came down to timing and accuracy.   If it was magic, do you think God would really have had to give Noah measurements for the ark, or could He have just said;  build an ark, however you like, I"ll make it work.  

So, terminology aside, there were many things that would have had to have happened in order for the flood to have happened as it was said in the Bible. Even if it happened more than 5,000 years ago. Now, if you’re making other assumptions (that the animals weren’t in pairs, or they evolved afterward, or the flood wasn’t global), I need to know. Otherwise, we’ll end up talking past each other. Do you accept the Genesis account of the flood as-is?

 

You never actually responded to any of these points, so I’ll re-post them. These are all things that would have to be addressed between the end of the Genesis flood story and the world we have today:

RobbyPants wrote:
1- make everything fit on the ark.
2- feed everything on the ark.
3- keep the freshwater and salt water fish alive in the same water.
4- clear the water away.
5- feed the herbivores for quite some time (all of the terrestrial plants would have been long dead).
6- feed the carnivores (you need about a 30:1 ratio of herbivores to carnivores to sustain the population, and the animals were only brought on the ark in pairs, not 60 deer and 2 wolves).
7- protect fragile geological structures that should have toppled.
8- reorganize the sediment layers to remove evidence of the flood.

They are all things that are certainly possible, given a God of the power we are discussing, but they would require something supernatural (magic/whatever you want to call it) to achieve it. The ark couldn’t have fit everything unless you assume it was extra dimensionally large, the measurements were metaphorical, or you buy into baraminology and assume stuff changed after the fact. Fresh and saltwater fish couldn’t have both survived in the water. That water all had to go somewhere. The ratio of herbivores and carnivores wouldn’t have been sustainable after the fact without God feeding the carnivores mana from heaven (or something. Steaks? Mmmm… ). Same for the herbivores, as all the terrestrial plants would have been gone.

All of these things would have had to have been addressed, many of which on a quick time line, before animals started to starve. Given all that God had to do directly, I think he could have managed to deal with the children separately from the adults.

And even if not (somehow!), they could have still been put on the ark.

caposkia wrote:
..and I do not accept that it happened only 5000 years ago.  I believe that there is evidence of a severe flood 5000 years ago that yeilds to the possibility of a flood to the magnitude of what the Bible describes, but, very likely much longer ago than that.  

Also, why would God want to erase evidence of the flood?  If that was the case, just make sure it was never written about and thus no one would be looking for such an occurance.  Sounds to me as if God wants us to know about it.  

How long ago did it happen? Are you saying it was global? There are fragile geological structures that would have toppled if that were the case. I suppose there’s room for a somewhat localized flood, but I need to know what assumptions you are making.   


Beyond Saving
atheist
Beyond Saving's picture
Posts: 5448
Joined: 2007-10-12
User is offlineOffline
caposkia wrote:Wars and

caposkia wrote:

Wars and rumors of wars.  This wasn't just talking about every once in a while, but constant.  That wasn't happening until the last century.   

I'm sorry to derail here, but I can't let this slide without comment. Wars have been constant since before biblical times. You would struggle to find a day where there wasn't a war happening somewhere in the world. Despite having better technology for killing people, our wars today are significantly smaller. The only modern war that competes as far as per capita deaths is WWII. The world is not becoming more violent, it is becoming less violent both in terms of wars between nations and in terms of violence experienced on an individual level (such as murders). War has never been something that happens "every once in a while", for thousands of years peace has been the exception. 

http://www.amazon.com/The-Better-Angels-Our-Nature/dp/1455883115

http://www.amazon.com/Winning-War-Decline-Conflict-Worldwide/dp/0452298598/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1375448204&sr=1-1&keywords=winning+the+war+on+war

For those who don't have the time/desire to actually read the books, both of these authors did an interview on NPR about the subject.

http://www.npr.org/2011/12/07/143285836/war-and-violence-on-the-decline-in-modern-times

Just looking at the wars Rome was involved in, war was constant when the bible was written.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Campaign_history_of_the_Roman_military

And that is just where Rome was involved. Warfare was also occurring in other parts of the world. 

If, if a white man puts his arm around me voluntarily, that's brotherhood. But if you - if you hold a gun on him and make him embrace me and pretend to be friendly or brotherly toward me, then that's not brotherhood, that's hypocrisy.- Malcolm X


Beyond Saving
atheist
Beyond Saving's picture
Posts: 5448
Joined: 2007-10-12
User is offlineOffline
caposkia wrote:you're trying

caposkia wrote:

you're trying to look at it as if God grabbed each child and personally killed them.  God made a grand event happen.  I'm thinking parents had a choice in the matter.  They could have possibly handed their child to Noah and said; "take care of them" but they didn't.  Can't blame God for that.  I know.. you'll still try.

What is the difference if he kills them individually or uses a weapon of mass destruction that he knows will kill every single one? Are the Boston Marathon bombers not responsible because they didn't kill everyone personally? That is ridiculous. It certainly would have been more humane to kill them individually and instantly. Instead, God chose to drown them. Have you ever witnessed a drowning? It is an extremely unpleasant way to die.

In order for a person to hand their kids to Noah, several things had to happen.

1. They had to know that Noah existed, what he was doing and exactly where he was located.

2. They had to travel across the world! They couldn't exactly buy a plane ticket. They had to walk, which in those days meant almost certain death.

Since you have admitted in the other thread that a reasonable person can come to the conclusion that there is no God today when we have an enormous amount of access to research and communication, how can you ignore that a completely reasonable and rational person thousands of years BC might come to the conclusion that the guy they don't know and have never met telling them about this massive flood coming is crazy? It IS unreasonable to expect someone to move their entire family and risk what they know to be almost certain death because some stranger tells them that something that has never happened before is going to kill them. No sane person who cares about their family would risk them like that on the ramblings of a complete stranger. So if God wanted to save sane people who cared about their families, he picked a pretty lousy way to warn them. 

On the other hand, for God to save the kids he had a number of options well within his power.

1. He could have not flooded the world.

2. He could have killed the bad people using more precise means. 

3. He could have flooded the world but used his powers to protect the lives of the innocent and children. 

4. He is omnipotent, he could do whatever he wanted. The children died because God wanted them to die. 

 

caposkia wrote:

What a concept... and consider you made that choice... and the bad ultimately over time killed the same amount of innocent people that would have been killed to stop it?  What then?  Which would have been a better choice?  You have to rationalize here... to let bad flourish does put the innocent in danger... otherwise it wouldn't be bad.  

I reject utilitarianism as evil. My understanding of the Bible is that it also is not utilitarian. It lists things in black and white, good or bad and doing bad is not justified on the basis of it being the lesser of two evils. So why are you using a utilitarian argument? I can shred the argument to bits and have in the past, but I don't see the point when it is an argument that is as inconsistent with your views as it is with mine. 

Also, your argument has been that God is absolute 100% good. If he does one bad thing, that proves he is not 100% good 100% of the time. And thus, your automatic acceptance that he is a perfect authority on morality is false. Maybe he is only a perfect authority on morality 99.99% of the time.

 

caposkia wrote:

It really is an either or thing here though.  God has made it clear that we are responsible for our own.  If God is going to do some grand event that coudl put our own in danger, He has always scripturally from what we can see given clear warnings of doing so and a means for safety.  It is then left in our hands to make the appropriate choice.  I mean you can let your child walk on the tracks, then blame the train operator when the child gets struck, but why would you let your child walk on the tracks in the first place?  

If the train operator got a call from the station saying "there is a kid on the tracks, stop now or you will hit them" and then decided not to even try to stop that train operator would be fired and most likely charged with manslaughter. Don't you agree that would be appropriate?

In the case of God, he is the train operator that knew the kid was there, knew he was going to hit the kid, had the ability to stop the train in time and didn't even reach for the brake. I consider that immoral, don't you?

 

caposkia wrote:

or could it be that more children soon to be could be hurt before that happened and he prevented that?  Just because all children had been killed up to that point doesn't mean that no more children would be born in the next 30-40 years.  They might be born just for the sacrifice to whatever god they followed at the time.  Is it really worth putting more children in danger just so that the humans can wipe themselves out?  

Can you even see how far you a stretching to rationalize this heinous act? 

 

 

If, if a white man puts his arm around me voluntarily, that's brotherhood. But if you - if you hold a gun on him and make him embrace me and pretend to be friendly or brotherly toward me, then that's not brotherhood, that's hypocrisy.- Malcolm X


caposkia
Theist
Posts: 2701
Joined: 2007-05-15
User is offlineOffline
RobbyPants wrote:Personally,

RobbyPants wrote:

Personally, I’d say murder spree, because he had other options, and this was the one he took. I can get into that more…

I figured that'd be your approach... and from what i understand, to justify that perspective would be to suggest that we have the ability to know other alternatives and the outcomes of each... which no human can claim.

RobbyPants wrote:

I guess I think it would be more moral for God to step in and take the car to a mechanic earlier on, rather than letting it get to the point of totaling it. I think you and I are making different assumptions about whether or not it’s the God’s responsibility or the wicked people’s responsibility to pay attention to their car.

That was my point... God had tried to fix it many times... you see it within Adam and Eve after the fall, their children and so on... granted a lot of details are left out between then and the time in question, but there's nothing there to leave us assuming that God stopped trying to fix humanity up to this point.

RobbyPants wrote:

 

Even if it were the people’s responsibility, God could still be that maintenance light. And before you tell me that maybe God was the light and the people ignored him, the Bible makes no mention that God gave them a warning. It simply states that they became wicked, and he gave up on them:

Right... What is "wicked' according to scripture, that which is against God.  I think if they were completely ignorant, scripture wouldn't have called them wicked, it would have called them blind... see the NT.

RobbyPants wrote:

Sure, it’s possible that God was in there intervening somehow, but the Bible doesn’t say that, and it’s just a baseless assumption.

It would be implied by the points from Adam and Eve on where it indicated He had intervened.  

Let's assume those points weren't there though... both our views then would be baseless assumptions and thus we could not conclude on the morality of God based on this incident.

RobbyPants wrote:

I would have rather God taken a more active role in preventing this whole mess. He was certainly powerful enough to do so. He did this out of neglect or malice.

based on what exactly?

RobbyPants wrote:

Consider this, if the childrens parents, and their parents, and so on were completely moral and responsible, do you really think these kids would have had a problem?

Now, part of this gets into my next point (that God would have had to intervene after the fact for the world as we know it to come about from the ark*); if God had to intervene to keep all of the carnivores fed and to preserve (or restore?) fragile geological structures, why couldn’t he have intervened for the children? Lets assume the parents were irredeemably wicked (this makes no sense to me, but I’ll roll with it for this purpose), why couldn’t Noah have put all he children on the ark along with the pairs of animals?

without the parents consent, that would be kidnapping.  

RobbyPants wrote:

*It’s possible that you believe some version of the flood story that is drastically different than what is presented in Genesis. I know that you’ve said you think it didn’t necessarily happen 5,000 years ago, but do you accept the rest of it? If not, I need to know how you feel it deviates, or else I think we may end up talking past each other with assumptions.

The Bible doesn't claim it happened 5,000 years ago.  The generations and "days" being talked about are... I believe the same Hebrew word YOM is used... it is understood to be a period of time and not a specific 24 hour period.  So these generations/days could be 24 hours, but they also could be 24000 years.  Granted when talking about people they're more likely to be something like 100 years, either way, there are many more generations than 5000 years worth mentioned in scripture let alone what was not mentioned.  

RobbyPants wrote:

So, terminology aside, there were many things that would have had to have happened in order for the flood to have happened as it was said in the Bible. Even if it happened more than 5,000 years ago. Now, if you’re making other assumptions (that the animals weren’t in pairs, or they evolved afterward, or the flood wasn’t global), I need to know. Otherwise, we’ll end up talking past each other. Do you accept the Genesis account of the flood as-is?

I believe the flood was localized to the part of Earth that was populated at the time.  I don't believe it was literally the whole sphere of the Earth, but from a human perspective, anyone that survived would have seen the whole world flood.  I also believe that it was all local animals and they likely flocked to the arc because when waters start rising, animals seek higher ground... the Arc was likely built on a higher point.  Not necessarily a high point.    Understanding that humans originated from a specific location, it would make sense that animals would originate in a similar area.  Thus all animals could have still been wiped out due to this localized flood.  

The water creatures died because ocean water mixed with fresh water and would kill all animals that couldn't survive in the opposing water conditions.  What of the ones that can survive in both?  I don't know the answer to that one.  

RobbyPants wrote:

 

You never actually responded to any of these points, so I’ll re-post them. These are all things that would have to be addressed between the end of the Genesis flood story and the world we have today:

RobbyPants wrote:
1- make everything fit on the ark.

everythign that needed to fit, did fit

RobbyPants wrote:

2- feed everything on the ark.

everything on the ark survived

RobbyPants wrote:

3- keep the freshwater and salt water fish alive in the same water.

doesn't work, plus why when He was trying to destroy creation

RobbyPants wrote:

4- clear the water away.

I dont' remember teh context of this one

RobbyPants wrote:

5- feed the herbivores for quite some time (all of the terrestrial plants would have been long dead).

it's logical that he would have grabbed food for them... either that or they were all sustained in hybernation of some sort.

RobbyPants wrote:

6- feed the carnivores (you need about a 30:1 ratio of herbivores to carnivores to sustain the population, and the animals were only brought on the ark in pairs, not 60 deer and 2 wolves).

I again would assume a hybernation of some sort for these animals.  Animals are known to live up to a few years depending on the animal in hybernation mode... they just needed to last 40 days and 40 nights.  

RobbyPants wrote:

7- protect fragile geological structures that should have toppled.
8- reorganize the sediment layers to remove evidence of the flood.

not sure of the context of 7, but I thought i addressed 8, why remove evidence of the flood?

They are all things that are certainly possible, given a God of the power we are discussing, but they would require something supernatural (magic/whatever you want to call it) to achieve it. The ark couldn’t have fit everything unless you assume it was extra dimensionally large, the measurements were metaphorical, or you buy into baraminology and assume stuff changed after the fact. Fresh and saltwater fish couldn’t have both survived in the water. That water all had to go somewhere. The ratio of herbivores and carnivores wouldn’t have been sustainable after the fact without God feeding the carnivores mana from heaven (or something. Steaks? Mmmm… ). Same for the herbivores, as all the terrestrial plants would have been gone.

All of these things would have had to have been addressed, many of which on a quick time line, before animals started to starve. Given all that God had to do directly, I think he could have managed to deal with the children separately from the adults.

And even if not (somehow!), they could have still been put on the ark.

I think the biggest mistake most people make about the Ark story is making assumptions as to what kind of animals existed at the time.  considering the generations discussed before the event in genesis, humanity had not been around very long, which by our time scales would indicate an event a little under 200,000 years ago.  

RobbyPants wrote:

How long ago did it happen? Are you saying it was global? There are fragile geological structures that would have toppled if that were the case. I suppose there’s room for a somewhat localized flood, but I need to know what assumptions you are making.   

What geological structures would have toppled that existed 200,000 years ago that we know of today?  


caposkia
Theist
Posts: 2701
Joined: 2007-05-15
User is offlineOffline
Beyond Saving wrote:caposkia

Beyond Saving wrote:

caposkia wrote:

Wars and rumors of wars.  This wasn't just talking about every once in a while, but constant.  That wasn't happening until the last century.   

I'm sorry to derail here, but I can't let this slide without comment. Wars have been constant since before biblical times. You would struggle to find a day where there wasn't a war happening somewhere in the world. Despite having better technology for killing people, our wars today are significantly smaller. The only modern war that competes as far as per capita deaths is WWII. The world is not becoming more violent, it is becoming less violent both in terms of wars between nations and in terms of violence experienced on an individual level (such as murders). War has never been something that happens "every once in a while", for thousands of years peace has been the exception. 

right, but it talks about hearing of them... only nations involved in wars before the 19th century were aware of the wars, now adays we hear of all of them.  I never claimed the world is more violent now, just more connected, so no goalpost excuses on this one either... though more nations are typically involved in individual wars, vs. long ago

RobbyPants wrote:

Just looking at the wars Rome was involved in, war was constant when the bible was written.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Campaign_history_of_the_Roman_military

And that is just where Rome was involved. Warfare was also occurring in other parts of the world. 

The Bible acknowledges constant wars at the time, in fact it says that Israel won't be at peace until the end.    That has proven to be true


caposkia
Theist
Posts: 2701
Joined: 2007-05-15
User is offlineOffline
Beyond Saving wrote:What is

Beyond Saving wrote:

What is the difference if he kills them individually or uses a weapon of mass destruction that he knows will kill every single one? Are the Boston Marathon bombers not responsible because they didn't kill everyone personally? That is ridiculous. It certainly would have been more humane to kill them individually and instantly. Instead, God chose to drown them. Have you ever witnessed a drowning? It is an extremely unpleasant way to die.

In order for a person to hand their kids to Noah, several things had to happen.

1. They had to know that Noah existed, what he was doing and exactly where he was located.

2. They had to travel across the world! They couldn't exactly buy a plane ticket. They had to walk, which in those days meant almost certain death.

Since you have admitted in the other thread that a reasonable person can come to the conclusion that there is no God today when we have an enormous amount of access to research and communication, how can you ignore that a completely reasonable and rational person thousands of years BC might come to the conclusion that the guy they don't know and have never met telling them about this massive flood coming is crazy? It IS unreasonable to expect someone to move their entire family and risk what they know to be almost certain death because some stranger tells them that something that has never happened before is going to kill them. No sane person who cares about their family would risk them like that on the ramblings of a complete stranger. So if God wanted to save sane people who cared about their families, he picked a pretty lousy way to warn them. 

On the other hand, for God to save the kids he had a number of options well within his power.

1. He could have not flooded the world.

2. He could have killed the bad people using more precise means. 

3. He could have flooded the world but used his powers to protect the lives of the innocent and children. 

4. He is omnipotent, he could do whatever he wanted. The children died because God wanted them to die. 

...and what would have been the ultimate result of each choice?  To claim you know that is to claim you know more than any human has ever been able to know in the history of the world... and you should be awared the Nobel Prize.  Point and case with your whole statement, all we can do is make assumptions about the situation, we don't know enough about it.  You assume it was a bad choice and that we can't take a utilitarian approach to it.  I take the angle that we don't know enough about it, but I compare it to the details of Sodom where if someone had yet to be raped by the townspeople that they were demanded to be brought out so they can be raped.  This would include the guests who happen to be messengers of God.  How good could those people have been?  You assume there was something to save and every other situation mentioned in the Bible that ultimately got destroyed had no possibility of being saved per description

Beyond Saving wrote:

I reject utilitarianism as evil. My understanding of the Bible is that it also is not utilitarian. It lists things in black and white, good or bad and doing bad is not justified on the basis of it being the lesser of two evils. So why are you using a utilitarian argument? I can shred the argument to bits and have in the past, but I don't see the point when it is an argument that is as inconsistent with your views as it is with mine. 

Also, your argument has been that God is absolute 100% good. If he does one bad thing, that proves he is not 100% good 100% of the time. And thus, your automatic acceptance that he is a perfect authority on morality is false. Maybe he is only a perfect authority on morality 99.99% of the time.

It just doesn't work that way... considering that He is the creator of everything, He also would have had to create the boundaries of morality that are instilled within us.  This would make His morality perfect, no matter what a change of views makes it.  Morality does change considering the culture and life you are raised in.  A child raised in a war torn neighborhood is going to have different moral standards than one raised in a rich safe neighborhood.  etc.  God has always been held by His followers as the ultimate standard.

Beyond Saving wrote:

 

caposkia wrote:

It really is an either or thing here though.  God has made it clear that we are responsible for our own.  If God is going to do some grand event that coudl put our own in danger, He has always scripturally from what we can see given clear warnings of doing so and a means for safety.  It is then left in our hands to make the appropriate choice.  I mean you can let your child walk on the tracks, then blame the train operator when the child gets struck, but why would you let your child walk on the tracks in the first place?  

If the train operator got a call from the station saying "there is a kid on the tracks, stop now or you will hit them" and then decided not to even try to stop that train operator would be fired and most likely charged with manslaughter. Don't you agree that would be appropriate?

that would be appropriate, but the scenario to parallel the topic in question would be more like the train operator doing their job and parents letting their kids play on a random part of the tracks where it is well known that trains run at about 60 mph and visibility is short... also the schedule of the train is perfect.  if kids got hit by the train, who's fault would it be in this scenario? The train operator or the parents? 

Beyond Saving wrote:

In the case of God, he is the train operator that knew the kid was there, knew he was going to hit the kid, had the ability to stop the train in time and didn't even reach for the brake. I consider that immoral, don't you?

If your scenario actually paralelled the case of God sure, but it doesn't.  Let's put it this way, train operators know kids play on tracks, we've all done it as kids, but they do hope that the parents will do their job to keep their kids safe when the train is coming through... the last thing they want to do is hit someone.. I believe their hearts would be very troubled if they did just like Gods was in this situation according to scripture.

Train operators could take extra precautions and not run the trains faster than 20 MPH or so just to make sure no incidents would happen, but then some still would... and of course what other rammifications would take place due to their corrected speed?

Beyond Saving wrote:

 

caposkia wrote:

or could it be that more children soon to be could be hurt before that happened and he prevented that?  Just because all children had been killed up to that point doesn't mean that no more children would be born in the next 30-40 years.  They might be born just for the sacrifice to whatever god they followed at the time.  Is it really worth putting more children in danger just so that the humans can wipe themselves out?  

Can you even see how far you a stretching to rationalize this heinous act? 

just as far as you are to villify it.  Again all we can both do is assume exactly what hapened in this scenario... Consistency in scripture shows that God was just in his actions here... can I know that for sure.  I have no reason to doubt Gods choice in the matter, but I don't know for sure exactly what was going on that caused God to make such a choice.

 


RobbyPants
atheist
RobbyPants's picture
Posts: 148
Joined: 2011-11-30
User is offlineOffline
caposkia wrote:RobbyPants

caposkia wrote:

RobbyPants wrote:

Personally, I’d say murder spree, because he had other options, and this was the one he took. I can get into that more…

I figured that'd be your approach... and from what i understand, to justify that perspective would be to suggest that we have the ability to know other alternatives and the outcomes of each... which no human can claim.

Are you saying that God had no other alternative other than to flood the world? This same god is said to be able to precision-strike individuals to turn them into salt or simply strike them dead. He could have killed all of the wicked people with zero collateral damage, yet he didn't. Why would he suddenly face such a stark limitation in his already established powers?


caposkia wrote:

RobbyPants wrote:

I guess I think it would be more moral for God to step in and take the car to a mechanic earlier on, rather than letting it get to the point of totaling it. I think you and I are making different assumptions about whether or not it’s the God’s responsibility or the wicked people’s responsibility to pay attention to their car.

That was my point... God had tried to fix it many times... you see it within Adam and Eve after the fall, their children and so on... granted a lot of details are left out between then and the time in question, but there's nothing there to leave us assuming that God stopped trying to fix humanity up to this point.

Where did he intervene with Adam, Eve and their children after the fall? Anything else you are adding in is assumptions on your part. There's no evidence it happened.


caposkia wrote:

RobbyPants wrote:

Sure, it’s possible that God was in there intervening somehow, but the Bible doesn’t say that, and it’s just a baseless assumption.

It would be implied by the points from Adam and Eve on where it indicated He had intervened.

Let's assume those points weren't there though... both our views then would be baseless assumptions and thus we could not conclude on the morality of God based on this incident.

Again, you are asserting it's implied. That's an assumption on your part. I make no such assumptions. I'm simply noting the lack of evidence that he had intervened. It's not a baseless assumption; it's an observation.


caposkia wrote:

RobbyPants wrote:

I would have rather God taken a more active role in preventing this whole mess. He was certainly powerful enough to do so. He did this out of neglect or malice.

based on what exactly?
Which part are you questioning? The part about him being powerful enough or the part where it is either neglect or mailce?

If it's the power part, I mentioned above that he's powerful enough to handle a situation of this magnitude without all the collateral damage.

If it's the neglect/malice part, given that he's powerful enough to have averted this, the fact that it happened was because he wanted it to happen.


caposkia wrote:

RobbyPants wrote:

caposkia wrote:

Consider this, if the childrens parents, and their parents, and so on were completely moral and responsible, do you really think these kids would have had a problem?

Now, part of this gets into my next point (that God would have had to intervene after the fact for the world as we know it to come about from the ark*); if God had to intervene to keep all of the carnivores fed and to preserve (or restore?) fragile geological structures, why couldn’t he have intervened for the children? Lets assume the parents were irredeemably wicked (this makes no sense to me, but I’ll roll with it for this purpose), why couldn’t Noah have put all he children on the ark along with the pairs of animals?


without the parents consent, that would be kidnapping.

Just to be clear: are you asserting that kidnapping children (specifically to avoid killing them) is morally as bad or worse than drowning them?

The idea here is that God is purging all of the wicked people, and that children of a young enough age aren't inherently wicked and could be raised properly. You yourself have said that the wicked people deserved this and had it coming, so we'll assume that God plans to drown them. Now, why not rescue the kids (kidnapping aside, the people raising them were "wicked" ) and have Noah raise them in a moral fashion. When CPS takes children from unfit parents, do you consider this the moral equivalent of murdering the children?


caposkia wrote:

I believe the flood was localized to the part of Earth that was populated at the time. I don't believe it was literally the whole sphere of the Earth, but from a human perspective, anyone that survived would have seen the whole world flood. I also believe that it was all local animals and they likely flocked to the arc because when waters start rising, animals seek higher ground... the Arc was likely built on a higher point. Not necessarily a high point. Understanding that humans originated from a specific location, it would make sense that animals would originate in a similar area. Thus all animals could have still been wiped out due to this localized flood.

The water creatures died because ocean water mixed with fresh water and would kill all animals that couldn't survive in the opposing water conditions. What of the ones that can survive in both? I don't know the answer to that one.

Thanks for clearing that up. Given that you believe it was localized, that would get rid of some of my other objections.


caposkia wrote:

RobbyPants wrote:

2- feed everything on the ark.

everything on the ark survived

That is circular. They could have survived because they were fed from food stores, or because of mana/whatever provided by God. Their mere survival alone doesn't dictate that God couldn't/didn't provide food. Now, depending on how localized you think the flood was, it could be quite possible that there weren't really that many animals on the ark, so, this point could be moot.


caposkia wrote:

RobbyPants wrote:

4- clear the water away.

I dont' remember teh context of this one

I don't know what you mean about the context. Again, depending on how localized the flood was, the water could disperse, and this point may also be moot.


caposkia wrote:

RobbyPants wrote:

5- feed the herbivores for quite some time (all of the terrestrial plants would have been long dead).



it's logical that he would have grabbed food for them... either that or they were all sustained in hybernation of some sort.

caposkia wrote:
RobbyPants wrote:

6- feed the carnivores (you need about a 30:1 ratio of herbivores to carnivores to sustain the population, and the animals were only brought on the ark in pairs, not 60 deer and 2 wolves).


I again would assume a hybernation of some sort for these animals. Animals are known to live up to a few years depending on the animal in hybernation mode... they just needed to last 40 days and 40 nights.

What sort of hibernation? This isn't a normal sort of hibernation, so it would have to have been somehow modified by God. This is the sort of intervention I was talking about. 


danatemporary
danatemporary's picture
Posts: 1951
Joined: 2011-01-12
User is offlineOffline
Reminds me of the emaciated, french fry eating cat of nowhere..

RobbyPants wrote:
5- feed the herbivores for quite some time (all of the terrestrial plants would have been long dead).

it's logical that he would have grabbed food for them... either that or they were all sustained in hybernation of some sort.

6- feed the carnivores (you need about a 30:1 ratio of herbivores to carnivores to sustain the population, and the animals were only brought on the ark in pairs, not 60 deer and 2 wolves).

I again would assume a hybernation of some sort for these animals. Animals are known to live up to a few years depending on the animal in hybernation mode... they just needed to last 40 days and 40 nights.

Rob wrote:
..7- protect fragile geological structures that should have toppled. 8- reorganize the sediment layers to remove evidence of the flood.

..not sure of the context of 7, but I thought i addressed 8, why remove evidence of the flood?

The ratio of herbivores and carnivores wouldn’t have been sustainable after the fact without God feeding the carnivores mana from heaven (or something. Steaks? Mmmm… ). Same for the herbivores, as all the terrestrial plants would have been gone.

How long ago did it happen? Are you saying it was global? There are fragile geological structures that would have toppled if that were the case. I suppose there’s room for a somewhat localized flood, but I need to know what assumptions you are making.

Caposkia wrote:
What geological structures would have toppled that existed 200,000 years ago that we know of today?

I honestly didnt expect the answers we, in the a highly collective sense we, are hearing on whole. Which is Okay. The problem is mainly with dependence of habitat, and concerningly has to do with numbers. A single breeding pair is recklessly jeopardizing the hope of the continuance of the animal species, it only serves to set back things by glossing over issues. Population scientists and biological scientists can accurately predict when a animal species is due to extinction. Please expound on your local flood theory. You are suggesting whole orders (a Zoological scientific classification) of animals would remain utterly unaffected by this event (or not)? People classically think the text contains a abundance of details everyone has been glossing over, from all sides. The height the mountains mentioned; the number of days and nights it rained; the re-population of the human specific hint hint hint, that's without even cracking open the text to re-review it.

Caposkia wrote:
The ratio of herbivores and carnivores wouldn’t have been sustainable after the fact without God feeding the carnivores mana from heaven (or something. Steaks? Mmmm… ). Same for the herbivores, as all the terrestrial plants would have been gone.

After some modo unpleasantness, it is nice to get back to civil and respectful dialog, even if there apparently is no more for more,. I am reminded of the french fry eating cat that lives not too far away by drive. A happy place in my thoughts. Not so much for the cat it is literally starving to death. Cats are carnivores, I have two as my babies. This cat, I always remember viewing will eat almost anything. It was still a shock to witness it for yourself. Its' personal chances are good. However, the french-fry gobbler is still under-weight and emaciated. It's chances, outside of some merciful intervention, for breeding and the young surviving long enough to learn to hunt on their own AREN'T TOO HOT. These things you cannot gloss-over.


Beyond Saving
atheist
Beyond Saving's picture
Posts: 5448
Joined: 2007-10-12
User is offlineOffline
caposkia wrote:right, but it

caposkia wrote:

right, but it talks about hearing of them... only nations involved in wars before the 19th century were aware of the wars, now adays we hear of all of them.  I never claimed the world is more violent now, just more connected, so no goalpost excuses on this one either... though more nations are typically involved in individual wars, vs. long ago

Yet you insist that everyone in the world tens of thousands of years ago heard of the warning that the whole world was going to flood and knew of Noah? Can't you see the huge disconnect?

 

caposkia wrote:

The Bible acknowledges constant wars at the time, in fact it says that Israel won't be at peace until the end.    That has proven to be true

The same is also true of virtually every other country on the planet if you call what has happened in Israel to be constant war. A prediction is meaningless if it applies to everyone, it would be like me predicting that your heart is going to beat while you read this post. (Aha! I predicted the future I must be a great prophet!)

And there certainly has been periods of extended peace in the geographic area that is Israel. Most notably off the top of my head are the 300 odd years it was under the Ottoman Empire. While the Empire had several wars with Russia and the occasional revolt to put down, the area that we know as Israel today was quite peaceful. So if you include being part of an empire which is involved in a war somewhere in the world as not being peaceful, then few countries have ever experienced peace. And define "constant", how long does a break have to be for it to no longer be constant? 1 year? 10 years? 100 years? Ultimately, the predictions mean nothing and that they came true mean nothing. 

If, if a white man puts his arm around me voluntarily, that's brotherhood. But if you - if you hold a gun on him and make him embrace me and pretend to be friendly or brotherly toward me, then that's not brotherhood, that's hypocrisy.- Malcolm X


Beyond Saving
atheist
Beyond Saving's picture
Posts: 5448
Joined: 2007-10-12
User is offlineOffline
caposkia wrote:...and what

caposkia wrote:

...and what would have been the ultimate result of each choice?  To claim you know that is to claim you know more than any human has ever been able to know in the history of the world... and you should be awared the Nobel Prize.  

Well God certainly isn't winning the Nobel Peace prize anytime soon, that would be even more laughable than giving it to Obama, the committee might stoop low, but never that low. I know that a lot of people wouldn't have been slaughtered by God if he chose not to slaughter them. I don't need to know more than that to make a moral judgement. Do you have to know all the possibilities of what the people who died in the Holocaust would have done with their lives to condemn it? 

 

caposkia wrote:

Point and case with your whole statement, all we can do is make assumptions about the situation, we don't know enough about it.  You assume it was a bad choice and that we can't take a utilitarian approach to it.  I take the angle that we don't know enough about it, but I compare it to the details of Sodom where if someone had yet to be raped by the townspeople that they were demanded to be brought out so they can be raped.  This would include the guests who happen to be messengers of God.  How good could those people have been?  You assume there was something to save and every other situation mentioned in the Bible that ultimately got destroyed had no possibility of being saved per description

God is omnipotent and he was incapable of saving them? Do you believe that children are evil from birth?

 

caposkia wrote:

It just doesn't work that way... considering that He is the creator of everything, He also would have had to create the boundaries of morality that are instilled within us.  

Then why didn't he instill it in me? 

 

caposkia wrote:

This would make His morality perfect, no matter what a change of views makes it.  Morality does change considering the culture and life you are raised in.  A child raised in a war torn neighborhood is going to have different moral standards than one raised in a rich safe neighborhood.  etc.  God has always been held by His followers as the ultimate standard.

Then why does he support a morality that is consistent with the morality of someone raised in a war torn village, but inconsistent with the moralities of most people raised in a wealthy, safe, highly educated country?

 

caposkia wrote:

that would be appropriate, but the scenario to parallel the topic in question would be more like the train operator doing their job and parents letting their kids play on a random part of the tracks where it is well known that trains run at about 60 mph and visibility is short... also the schedule of the train is perfect.  if kids got hit by the train, who's fault would it be in this scenario? The train operator or the parents? 

If the train operator knows that the kid is there and has the power to stop the train on time, then the train operator is immoral if he/she fails to stop the train. Whether the parents are stupid for letting their kids play on the track or negligent in not paying attention as their kids play on the track is irrelevant to determining the morality of the train operator's actions. It is possible that both the train operator and the parents are immoral, it isn't an either/or. God knew, and he had the power to stop it. Would you excuse the train operator if you asked and they said "Well, I knew I could stop before I hit the child, but I figured the parents were being irresponsible so I decided not to hit the brakes to teach the parent a lesson."?

 

caposkia wrote:

Beyond Saving wrote:

In the case of God, he is the train operator that knew the kid was there, knew he was going to hit the kid, had the ability to stop the train in time and didn't even reach for the brake. I consider that immoral, don't you?

If your scenario actually paralelled the case of God sure, but it doesn't.  Let's put it this way, train operators know kids play on tracks, we've all done it as kids, but they do hope that the parents will do their job to keep their kids safe when the train is coming through... the last thing they want to do is hit someone.. I believe their hearts would be very troubled if they did just like Gods was in this situation according to scripture.

Train operators could take extra precautions and not run the trains faster than 20 MPH or so just to make sure no incidents would happen, but then some still would... and of course what other rammifications would take place due to their corrected speed?

And many people in the train industry go through great pains to be safe and make sure that they don't hurt people with a number of safety precautions. They do everything humanely possible to minimize risk, because they know that stupid people and kids often mess around near or on train tracks. My ex-father in law nearly died when a kid got his shoe stuck in the tracks at the station where he worked and the train was not able to stop on time. And accidents still happen, and no doubt everyone involved felt terrible about it, even if they did everything possible to try to stop it. The difference is, that humans are not omnipotent. A train cannot stop on a dime, and it is very difficult to tell what is on the tracks around the curve and there is always the possibility of human error. God on the other hand is omnipotent. He could stop the metaphorical train, and he does know who is on the tracks, where they are and exactly what time they are going to get hit. If a train operator had that kind of knowledge, there would be zero accidents, unless he/she is as immoral as god. 

 

 

caposkia wrote:

just as far as you are to villify it.  

I don't have to go far at all. I only have to look at one small portion of the population he exterminated; children. That is only a tiny step into all the people that he murdered. I don't have to assume that those children were particularly good, or different than usual. I just have to assume that children existed and that children back then were not dramatically more mentally developed than children today. That is hardly a stretch. 

 

caposkia wrote:

Again all we can both do is assume exactly what hapened in this scenario... Consistency in scripture shows that God was just in his actions here... can I know that for sure.  I have no reason to doubt Gods choice in the matter, but I don't know for sure exactly what was going on that caused God to make such a choice.

Is there any good reason to drown a child? If you can't come up with one, isn't that a good reason to at least doubt that God made a good choice? (Not necessarily come to the determination that God made a bad choice as I do, but to at least have a reasonable doubt that the choice was good?) 

If, if a white man puts his arm around me voluntarily, that's brotherhood. But if you - if you hold a gun on him and make him embrace me and pretend to be friendly or brotherly toward me, then that's not brotherhood, that's hypocrisy.- Malcolm X


Jabberwocky
atheist
Posts: 411
Joined: 2012-04-21
User is offlineOffline
caposkia wrote:Where in the

caposkia wrote:

Where in the definition of omniscience does it say you can predict the future?  Which btw, The Bible does make clear that God can determine certain futures and thus make them happen if He so chooses despite what happens in between.    

It says in the word itself. Omni means all, and scient means knowing. If you claim not to know everything that will happen, then you don't know everything, even if it doesn't exist yet. I know (within a miniscule margin of error, but I'd be willing to bet every dollar I own to anyone that takes me up on it) that in 24 hours, someone on this planet will be asleep. At least one person at any given time on this planet, is asleep. Can god know that? If so, is it because he can deduce it like us mere mortals? Or is it because of his omniscience? If it's the latter, then where is the limit on it?

Also, if he can determine certain futures, but not all, the question is the same as above. What is the limit on his omniscience?

caposkia wrote:

For what you just said above, God is fully aware of the result of everything "HE" does.  I believe God created everyone knowing full well the full possibilities in either direction.  I think the difficulty is knowing once given a choice which direction each individual will ultimately take considering every circumstance that could change the intended outcome.  

Then he is watching big brother, while not knowing who's getting kicked out of the house. Sure, that television show is utterly stupid, and anything that occurs within it is far less more important than real people making serious choices, but god's inability to know what everyone will choose, is a limit on his knowledge. Any limitation here simply precludes omniscience.

caposkia wrote:

Let's discuss the definition of omniscience for a moment.  A few different places including Wiki define it as; "knowing everything that can be known"  which then brings up the question, can the future be known?  How do we determine if it can or cannot?

If you know everything (absolutely everything) about the now, you also know what comes next. I know if I drain the oil out of my car, and drive it without, the engine will seize up given enough time. However, if I had full 100% knowledge of the state of every molecule and exactly how much friction is generated by this problem, I would be able to say exactly how long it would take. If god doesn't know what I'm going to do tomorrow, then he is lacking in knowledge of my brain chemistry right now. So now, he doesn't know the future, or fully know the present. Either that, or he knows the present, but his own computing power isn't enough to deduce the future from it (which would hit him right in the omnipotence). His full knowledge of the past and present also requires him to be able to know the future as well if he is all powerful. You seem to have a big problem understanding the concept of "all". 

 

Theists - If your god is omnipotent, remember the following: He (or she) has the cure for cancer, but won't tell us what it is.