Bill Snedden

Asked and answered. Again and again and again...

Under your god, the only freedoms I enjoy are those he explicitly grants to me. Just like the plantation owner. If I disobey him, the punishment is eternal suffering. Again, similar to the plantation owner (except no "eternal" part).

Want to tell me again that I'm "free" to reject him?

Hmmm....let's see. I want to construct an argument to demonstrate that "slavery" is a situation analagous to your conception of the relationship between your god and Man but I can't use "slavery" as the basis for the analogy because it assumes that slaves have no freedom...

And I misunderstand?

I've argued several times that your "freedom" is a fantasy. Your god holds a metaphorical gun to our heads and threatens us with eternal suffering if we don't do what he says. By what twisted logic does anyone label the resulting "choice" free?

The trivial freedoms of which you speak (trips to the store, purchasing things, or eating ice cream) are inconsequential compared to the punishment that awaits us should we decide that we want some other freedoms denied us by our master's decree. Even the most dominating plantation owner allowed his chattel some degrees of freedom. The delightful legacy of gospel music reminds us of what the slaves were able to accomplish in their "free" time, with the "freedom" allowed them by their masters. However, it didn't make them any less slaves, just like the many freedoms we are allowed by your god doesn't make us any less slaves. Regardless of how well fed and cared for we are in our servitude, we are still the chattel of your god, to be eternally chastised should we reject his yoke.

See above. I'm quite surprised that anyone would actually argue that the ability to eat ice cream and make trips to the store constitutes real freedom. I think we've already examined your most serious claim several times: that we have the freedom to reject god. I ask you again, do you consider it "freedom" to be given a choice between death and submitting to the will of another? If you do, I must observe that your idea of freedom seems to me hopelessly stunted.

As I've already said a number of times, I don't think that there is or can be a right for one rational being to own another. Mere creation doesn't contain anything that automatically confers moral authority. I gave an example earlier: if I could build an artificial life form (say a robot) that possessed the ability to reason and conceived of itself as a moral agent, would my creation of that entity automatically confer upon my the moral right to do with it whatever I chose? I say NO. Take this a step further. Assume for the sake of argument that one day scientists succeed in producing life from non-living components. This new life becomes self-aware and conscious. Does the fact that the scientists created it automatically confer upon them moral authority? Again, I say NO.

As I see it, moral agency (which I define as the ability to understand moral principles and act on them) carries with it an inherent right of self-determination (the autonomy theophilus denies we have). Any being with the intellectual power to conceive and understand moral autonomy possesses that right.

In order for you to remain consistent to your position, you must answer YES to both situations above. But understand that by doing so, you're condoning the ownership of one human by another, the essence of slavery.

I must note that you indicated (in the above quoted sentence) that you would concede if I would only explain my position, but you said nothing about needing to agree with it. I guess you'll be conceding, then?

Then I ask again for an elucidation of the principle by which this right is asserted. I think I've demonstrated that mere creation is insufficient. It would render human beings the qualitative equal of television sets or clothing. Does this seem reasonable to you? Don't you desire to be treated with a tad more respect than last season's shoes?

Unfortunately, it is you who are making a positive argument here. Namely that your conception of god is exempt from modern, almost universally accepted moral principles. I asked you to provide the principle upon which he claims such authority. You responded with fallacious special pleading. As you're the one making the assertion, you bear the burden of proof.

And what you fail to see is that it doesn't matter that your god is a nice guy, even the nicest possible guy. A benevolent dictator is still a dictator. As a principle, "nice guy" also seems insufficient to justify treating free moral agents as chattel.

Regards,

Bill Snedden

Satan Oscillate My Metallic Sonatas

Bill,
??

No. You don't go to hell if you merely disobey God. Christians disobey God all the time but aren't going to hell for it.

You are separated from God by a lifetime of choosing to separate yourself from God.



It seems to me that you and I are looking at the exact same situation (God owning and having authority over creation) but interpreting very differently. I see a monarchy. You see a dictatorship. I think the key difference in our perspectives is that I see freedom...you do not. You offer that slavery is an analogy of your situation.

Here's what I don't understand about your position Bill. You claim we don't have freedom to separate ourselves from God...but at the same time you complain that seperation from God (hell) is misrable. This is an obvious contradiction in your position Bill.

So you need to clarify: Are you claiming we can't separate ourselves from God?

Yes or no?


Thanks.


Satan Oscillate My Metallic Sonatas

Wyz_sub10

I won't speak for Bill, of course, but IMO your "choice" is really no choice at all.

I think perhaps you need to clarify something first - what does eternal separation from god entail? (i.e. what is hell?)

This is at the heart of the question - if hell is simply some world without god that offers no punishment, but offers none of the rewards of heaven then I might be convinced in agreeing that we are not slaves.

If hell consists of torture and "weeping and gnashing of teeth", then I think there is no more freedom here than in a situation where a woman is told to have sex with an assailant or be shot.

Satan Oscillate My Metallic Sonatas

Wyz_sub10,
Yes and no.

Can we choose to be separate from God and does this take a conscious effort? Yes.

Does anybody in their right mind have a good reason for choosing eternal separation from God? No.



An excellent question. I'm not sure exactly what hell is like Wyz_sub10, but I can say this. If hell is separation from God, and God is love like I John 4:16 says...then hell is a place complete devoid of love. That's sounds pretty bad to me.



Thoughts and comments welcomed,


Satan Oscillate My Metallic Sonatas

Fiach

Is that printable on paper or disc from an oscilloscope?

Fiach

Bill Snedden

Really? A Christian who never conforms to god's will can still get into heaven?

Isn't it one of your god's expressly stated prerequisites for the granting of salvation that we must accept Jesus as our savior?

How does a Christian who disobeys this edict of your god still make it into heaven?

I guess that means that your god has ordered us not to separate ourselves from him. Disobedience of that order results in punishment.

Well, as I demonstrated in a previous post, there is no practical difference between a monarchy and a dictatorship. Both are autocratic, authoritarian governments which presume to grant individuals only as much freedom as the ruler allows.

"Monarch" more specifically seems to indicate authority by heredity. Obviously, your god doesn't fit that description. Regardless, it is clear that one can be both a "monarch" and a "dictator" (i.e., Louis XVI, George III, Peter the Great, et al), so your perspective is not objectively different from my own. The only difference is that you reject the negative connotations ascribed to monarch/dictator by post-enlightenment thinking in favor of a pre-enlightenment approach that holds that position/status determines a "right" to authority.

Not at all. Does the slave have the "freedom" to separate herself from her master? Of course; in death.

The question is, does this really represent "freedom"? Can a choice between death or servitude, no matter how pleasant, be considered truly free? By your definition of "freedom", African slaves were never slaves; they were free Men

As I said before, your god holds a metaphorical gun to our heads and threatens us with death should we not submit ourselves to his will. I don't consider either choice in such a situation to be truly free.

Additionally, "hell" is a problematic concept in Christian theology. "hell" is claimed to be separate from god, but it is clear that this separation can only be in the "geographic" sense. Hell cannot be metaphysically separate from god in that, if it is a "place", it is his will that created it and that supports its continued existence.

In other words, my "separation" in hell is not complete separation from god; I am still subject to his will. Otherwise, I would be free to leave hell and this is clearly not the case.

I think it's also germane here to consider something you wrote to Wyz_sub10:

This is, of course, your bias. It also contains a number of hidden assumptions about what "separation from God" entails. Namely, that it can be nothing good. But this is only true because you define it so.

However, it's completely irrelevant; one cannot choose to separate oneself from god's will. Choosing to reject him results not in freedom from him, but eternal punishment for that choice.

Regards,

Bill Snedden

Satan Oscillate My Metallic Sonatas

Bill,


Don't know if it was intentional or not, but you forgot to respond to the most important part of my last post.


Are you claiming we can't separate ourselves from God?

Yes or no?




Satan Oscillate My Metallic Sonatas

Bill Snedden

Actually, a careful reading of my last post will reveal that I did answer that question indirectly, which was my intent. However, I'll make it clearer.

What is meant by "separate ourselves from god?"

I can separate myself from something else in a couple of ways. I can walk away from it, which is "geographic" or physical separation, or I can reject something, which is a "philosophic" or "metaphysical" separation.

The former is easy to understand, the latter more subtle. It would be akin to saying, as I used to quite often, "I'm from North Carolina, but I don't support Jesse Helms."

I can also take an action that is sort of like a combination of both. For example, I might quit an organization because I disagree with an action they took or position they've taken. This implies both a physical separation (I am no longer part of their "body") and a metaphysical one (I no longer wish to be associated with them).

In what sense then can we be "separated" from god? Well, clearly we cannot separate ourselves physically; god is omnipresent, and no action we take can prevent him from being anywhere. It would also seem to be evident that we cannot separate ourselves in the metaphysical sense either. I can certainly indicate to god that I wish to be separated, but it is not in my power to compel him to comply.

So, there is nothing we can do to separate ourselves from god simply because we lack the power to compel the separation. Clearly then, any separation must be either an action on god's part, or a response on his part to an action by us. IOW, god must separate himself from us or allow us to be separated from him.

Now, assuming for a moment that god would not take the initiative to separate himself from us (which would seem to fit with orthodox Christian theology), and that such separation could only be in response to our rejection of him, can such a separation actually be effected? I don't see how.

All of the universe exists by god's will. That includes hell, which is traditionally thought to be the place where the cast out dwell. So while consignment to hell represents a "physical" separation from god, it does not represent a "metaphysical" separation as those in hell are still subject to god's will. If they were not, they would be free to leave and that is clearly not the case.

So, I would say that one is "free" to reject god (if one defines "free" to include choices made at gunpoint), but the consequences of rejection are not actually separation, but eternal punishment.

Regards,

Bill Snedden

Fiach

I can separate myself from something else in a couple of ways. I can walk away from it, which is "geographic" or physical separation, or I can reject something, which is a "philosophic" or "metaphysical" separation.

Omnipresence in god makes no sense. God is not bound by space or tiime. Therefore he must have no "location." He is everywhere in a non-spatial sense. Physical separation is meaningless, from something that is non-physical.

I can also take an action that is sort of like a combination of both. For example, I might quit an organization because I disagree with an action they took or position they've taken. This implies both a physical separation (I am no longer part of their "body") and a metaphysical one (I no longer wish to be associated with them).

I also deny the possibility of physical separation as it is meaningless. But metaphysical separation is in my opinion on a brain level. God is a brain concept. Can you really separate from a cognitive concept. I am an Atheist but I have a sort of God concept. So I cannot separate myself from the God concept while not believing God is real.

In what sense then can we be "separated" from god? Well, clearly we cannot separate ourselves physically; god is omnipresent, and no action we take can prevent him from being anywhere. It would also seem to be evident that we cannot separate ourselves in the metaphysical sense either. I can certainly indicate to god that I wish to be separated, but it is not in my power to compel him to comply.

Your brain may reject god as rationally incoherent but not actually reject the God concept. We can only reject the idea that God exists outside of our neuronal-synaptic circuits.

So, there is nothing we can do to separate ourselves from god simply because we lack the power to compel the separation. Clearly then, any separation must be either an action on god's part, or a response on his part to an action by us. IOW, god must separate himself from us or allow us to be separated from him.

Naturally I don't feel that God is an entity that can act independently. He is a brain concept and his actions are what we choose to imagine him to do.

Now, assuming for a moment that god would not take the initiative to separate himself from us (which would seem to fit with orthodox Christian theology), and that such separation could only be in response to our rejection of him, can such a separation actually be effected? I don't see how.

We can only reject his existence hypothesis.

All of the universe exists by god's will.

God exists because of our conceptualisation in the brain.

[B]That includes hell, which is traditionally thought to be the place where the cast out dwell. So while consignment to hell represents a "physical" separation from god, it does not represent a "metaphysical" separation as those in hell are still subject to god's will. If they were not, they would be free to leave and that is clearly not the case.

Hmmm.

So, I would say that one is "free" to reject god (if one defines "free" to include choices made at gunpoint), but the consequences of rejection are not actually separation, but eternal punishment.

Based on Christian mythology that would be the case.

Fiach

Satan Oscillate My Metallic Sonatas

Bill,

I think I agree with you. Essentially what you are saying is right now there is no way we can seperate ourselves from (at least the possiblity) of God. This makes sense. We can certainly reject God (and I have used the euphimism 'separate' for this). Eventually however, our choices will catch up with us and there will be consequences.



Well I think that is exactly what hell is Bill. If one spends a lifetime of rejecting God (your terms) then eventually God will say 'Ok...whatever you want'. This makes plenty of sense. And again, this really doesn't seem like God is holding a gun to your head saying 'choose me or go to hell'. If He were...you would not be an athiest. You (and I) would be a pissed off theist!

The very fact that you can deny His existence is evidence that no one is holding a gun to your head and threatening you Bill.




I would disagree with this. As I pointed out above this can't be a 'gun to the head' situation...because you can (and do) deny His existence. If someone was really holding a gun to your head you couldn't deny their existence.

I would also like to highlight a key word you mentioned...'consequences'. If you meet a park ranger in the woods and ask him if you should take the left or right trail and he says 'take the left...the right is full of bears' but you take the right anyway and get mauled by a bear...is this punishment or merely conseqence? The ranger could have locked you up so you wouldn't get hurt but you are a free person and this would have violated that. I think its save to say that yeah...our actions do have consequences. That doesn't mean we can hold God responsible for stupid stuff we do.




Satan Oscillate My Metallic Sonatas