John A. Broussard

There was a story in the papers recently about a mother who killed her new born child in order to make sure that it would automatically go to heaven. She was afraid that if it grew up it would sin and not be saved.

I take it you would approve of her action. Am I correct?

I look forward to your reply.

EnterTheBowser

Regarding the moral skepticism I accused bling of before:

1: Death is not necessarily bad; see afterlife
2: Men should not murder because they cannot know all the consequences
3: God can kill because God knows all the consequences

Now, if we accept 2 and 3, it seems we're stuck with a severe sort of moral skepticism. What makes right acts right? The fact that they maximize consequences. But then you go on to state that we can only act when we have perfect information. That is: we shouldn't murder because we don't know if it will actually maximize consequences, even when we have fairly good reason to believe this to be so. But if that's true - why doesn't this reasoning apply to acts thought to be morally acceptable? Why should I give money to charity, given that I do not have perfect knowledge that it will help people - only the reasonable expectation that it will do so. If we accept reasonable expectations in some cases, why not others?

And just as a side note - if death is not a bad thing, why oughtn't we kill?

patman

You guys are having a field day with me eh?

Did God command The Israelites to utterly destroy every living thing in a nation on occasion?

Yes.

Did that include children?

Yes.

Was God upset that Israel worshiped other Gods after showing signs and signs and signs proving he was the one?

Yes.

Did God condone rape?

No.

I can only be honest with you guys. My answers are straight forward. I can offer no more than that. So the least I can ask of you is to READ my answers and not put words into my mouth... no names mentioned (ahem, John).

"I take it you would approve of her action. Am I correct?"

Didn't you read what I said? Her actions were wrong. She has no right nor authority to move one person from one life to the next. I know you don't believe in the after life, but we are debating a subject that involves a God who gives us one. It is fair gain in my rebuts.. And logical from my standpoint. I would appreciate some respect on this, please, thank you.

I thought I would try to come across as honest and logical. I am not going to twist around what is right and wrong. And I am not going to deny what the Bible says. It is what I believe.


"Regarding the moral skepticism I accused bling of before..."

I know that what I said begs the question. I gave just a few reasons, the most obvious ones. If God exists, after life does too. To him, he can move anyone to the "next step" in "life" if he wishes, what's the problem with that if there is a God?

I would ask you guys to read and just try to look at things from my standpoint since you are debating from it. If God exists, and if we submit something he did or said, we must look to "other worldly" reasons to explain things sometimes, (I say other worldly, but they are not that hard to understand).

So anyway, John, especially, please don't try to manipulate my arguments to say I would justify something. Especially when in my last post I explained just a few reasons why.

"I strongly suggest that you read your bible."

And this? I kindly explained that I read it, but am only human. I can't remember every single verse. I asked you remind me, but instead you accuse me of being completely ignorant.

I get that you don't like my God. You don't agree with his actions. Fine. But if you are curious as to my answers, cut back on the christian slapping. I didn't come here calling everyone sinners and preaching fire and brimstone at you, accusing you of this or that.

If this were a "real" debate, that would not even be a point. That's more like politics. I borrow something from The Daily Show.

"Politician A didn't vote for a medical bill that might help babies. Politician A is a baby hater."

If you are really trying to understand the other person you wouldn't immediately say that, you would try to see the reasons why they were saying what they did instead. Any position has more aspects to it than these black and white reasons you are painting for everyone.

The idea that you are so quick to say these things makes me wonder about your motives in this conversation. Is it to christian bash or to understand?

patman

We all have our opinions about how things should be.

Some think there should be capitol punishment.

Others think that is too cruel.

Some think there should be no abortion.

Others think that idea hurts women's rights over her body.

Some think war is necessary at times.

Others think never.

I do not submit these "opinions" for discussion. That is a completely different thread.

What is really at the heart of where people lean on these issues is how "liberal" or "conservative" they are.

For argument's sake, I will submit the issue is not settled to make a point.

If both are equal, and if God were real, he would be a conservative. If God did something that a liberal didn't agree with, does that make God good or bad? Just because someone didn't agree with it, and didn't see his reasoning is he bad?

I mean, we are talking about a being who designed death for a reason, one we haven't talked about yet, and this being knows what reasons are just and good and right to move a person through it, wouldn't that take some of the sting off it, both liberal and conservative views being equal?

So what's left? We didn't disprove that God exists, we just proved you don't like him.

EnterTheBowser

I did not argue that there is no afterlife; for the purposes of the discussion I'll agree that there is one. I don't quite know what you mean by otherwordly reasons; I also am not sure what it has to do with the points I made. I don't really mean to argue against the four points I thought you made; I tried to argue that strange things happen with morality if they're true. I also did not notice a response to the particular points that I did make. (And what does politics have to do with this discussion?)

patman

ETB, I know you accused bling of that. I accused him of worst before.

Bling's message about our creation depicts God manipulating Satan to cause all this sin to happen that love might come of it. And then he says God isn't sinning by doing that. And then he says we shouldn't sin that love might come.

That's all hard to take in, even for me. If God directs Satan to sin, God sinned. Bottom line.

Yes, Yes, we all know about poor o' Job. Please don't bring up that complex issue too. This isn't a Bible answer form. I feel I understand the issue, but I feel it best we focus on learning how bad things can exist with a good God, not picking apart the Bible on theological issues.

ANYWAY

On the other hand, I presented God creating man with freewill, and without future knowledge, and with good intent. But those who wanted to sin and pervert the good and make evil in this world did, and that isn't God fault.

So on this issue, I see no way of double standards on morals.

Now we start getting into Bible stories that you submit that show God isn't all that good.

I admit, what he asked those people to do wasn't nice, it would have been hard to watch happen, and tragic that these people died. I know. But there are understandable reasons for these particular things; such that only God can be allowed to command such things.

And if only God can justly command such things, that means no man should or could ever be allowed to make these decisions.

Thus we have a situation that God can do something, but Man cannot. And that is where you see the double standard.

I personally do not see this is a big deal. A parent can drive a car, a 4 year old can't. So seriously up stakes on that idea and we get God can make such a decision, man cannot.

I don't think it's that big of a "double standard" in that it makes since.

We all respect the power of death on this form. It is brought up a lot, so apparently it is important that we all agree that no one should murder. But God's command of or actual doing of the killing of a person is really something only he can do for a billion reasons. Mainly he is wise enough, and even more so he did create us as physical and spiritual beings. He designed into us the ability to live on afterwards should we die, so death isn't "so bad", if there is a God, and if there is an afterlife.

We need to allow some slack for these possibilities when we submit the existence of God, whether we like what he did or not.

I hope this helps a little, ETB.
-Pat

patman

ETB

I do not wish to come across mad or whatever. I am not, I apologize if it did. That post was more for John than you, I try to post to each person one at a time, your post was answered directly a post or two later. I hope it explained a little.

Otherworldly reasons is just a lack of a better way of saying, "God can do this but we can't cause he's God," without all the words.

EnterTheBowser

I don't believe that I argued that your position was bad because it gives God one moral standard and men another (yet). My points were of a rather different nature; do you want me to go over them again?

John A. Broussard

Thank you for your straightforward answers and your sensitivity in not mentioning any names.

Now, to move on to substantive issues. The woman who killed her children in order to save them was really doing no worse than Abraham who happened to be stopped at the last minute. He was. She wasn't.

How can you fault her and not him?

John A. Broussard

Got it...I think.

Your god is saying, substantially, "Do as I say and not as I do."

Am I reading you correctly?

Thank you.