Bill Snedden

If this is truly the way that it works, then, like Ivan Karamazov, I desire to respectfully return my ticket. I have no wish to exist in or be a part of any such travesty. That a being could create man and give him such wonderful powers and abilities, grant him such longings and desires, and provide him with the ability to comprehend, to be curious, to seek truth and reason, and then subject him to abject slavery and punish him for using those gifts is a feat of evil never to be matched.

I simply cannot accept that a god of power and majesty, who could create the universe with all its wonder and the human soul with all its simultaneous frailty and power could be such a petty-minded, neurotic tyrant. I pity you both...

Regards,

Bill Snedden

Ricomise

SOMMS, I understand that your argument begins with the assumptions that "God exists" and "God is Holy." If we accept your first premise, arguendo, we still must deal with the second as it relates to this discussion.

It appears that you are saying God is Holy, and therefore God would never request that humans do something other than that which is good. If God is requesting something, it must by definition be good, (or holy) as it is God himself that is the standard of what is good.

The problem, as I see it, is how "holy" is defined. If holy means only "whatever God wills," it appears to have no meaning, as we could just as easily say "if God exists, then what he wills is what he wills."

On the other hand, if the characteristic of holiness has meaning independant of God, then it must be derived from somewhere. That is, it is must be a concept defined and described by human beings. If that is the case, then we only know that "God is holy" in one of two ways. The first is that someone has told us that he is, and that we believe that individual to be correct. The second is that the entity, in this case God, has exhibited behavior that comports with the characteristic of "holiness" as we have defined it.

While trust is, at times, an admirable quality, basing an entire moral philosophy upon what someone has told me God is just doesn't work for me. And, unfortunately, I have yet to see any exhibited behavior at all by God. That behavior which has been ascribed to him by others, if taken as true, is, at best, a mixed bag. I therefore cannot accept the second premise of your argument. (I won't go into the argument regarding "creators" having to verify their characteristics to their "creations," as it requires a corolary to the "God exists" assumption which I am not yet willing to grant.)

Thanks for your time.

Fiach

Ricomise writes:

On the other hand, if the characteristic of holiness has meaning independant of God, then it must be derived from somewhere. That is, it is must be a concept defined and described by human beings. If that is the case, then we only know that "God is holy" in one of two ways. The first is that someone has told us that he is, and that we believe that individual to be correct. The second is that the entity, in this case God, has exhibited behavior that comports with the characteristic of "holiness" as we have defined it.

Well stated. God does not manifest itself in any way. We have no evidence that it exists. All we know about all of the gods, JHWH, Jesus/Trinity, Allah, Thor, Wodin, Ahura Mazda, Brahma, Vishnu, Shiva, Dagda, Lugh, and Danu, is what some other bloke tells he heard from voices or visions. We know that such testimony is unreliable from the number of different so-called revelations. We also know that psychotic people and those with temporal lobe epilepsy may hear voices perceived as God or see a God of the religion held by his culture. What is holy? Ultimately it is what we consider is very good, and that is from our intuitive notions, mixed with any religion under which we have been indoctrinated. So it is all subjective.

[While trust is, at times, an admirable quality, basing an entire moral philosophy upon what someone has told me God is just doesn't work for me.

Nor for me. I think we are both right.

And, unfortunately, I have yet to see any exhibited behavior at all by God.

That makes two of us, and every sane person on the planet IMO.

That behavior which has been ascribed to him by others, if taken as true, is, at best, a mixed bag. I therefore cannot accept the second premise of your argument.

Who is to say that Mithraic revelation is more credible than Christian? Who is to say that Hindu revelation is more credible than ancient Celtic or Judaic? It is a mixed bag alright, a bag of bollocks.

(I won't go into the argument regarding "creators" having to verify their characteristics to their "creations," as it requires a corolary to the "God exists" assumption which I am not yet willing to grant.)

It also assumes the existence of a hypothetical being, whose characteristics are shown by historical accounts to have "evolved" and been modified when it suited the hypothetical being's prophets.

God is the creator (unproven assumption/ hypothesis)
Creator must be perfectly holy (unproven hypothesis)
Therefore, God is perfectly holy. (Illogical conclusion.)

Fiach

Jack the Bodiless

Like others here, I'm wondering where you get that from?

The God of the Bible harbors evil intent: in fact, he supposedly created evil. So when did you renounce Biblical Christianity, SOMMS?

As Ricomise pointed out, you haven't resolved the Eythyphro dilemma yet either.

So you have absolutely no foundation for morality yet.

Furthermore:
Yes, we CAN argue that rape is right. The Bible doesn't say that rape is wrong!

There is no Biblical punishment of rape (only adulterous rape, because adultery is deemed to be wrong). The Christian poster known as "Old Man" does not regard non-adulterous rape as seriously wrong. Like the authors of the Bible, he regards a woman's consent as largely irrelevant.

...So where's the standard? You've already chosen to embrace non-Biblical morality (and, hypocritically, implied that it's "Christian").

Jack the Bodiless

Going back to the original post:
This is not a "missing" concept, Theo: this is a bogus concept.

The Biblical God is not the standard of good: because he doesn't exist, because he doesn't meet his own standard of good, and because standards of good can exist independently of God.
Translation: "I assert that this is true, it is beyond dispute, if you deny it then I can't hear you".

Baseless (and false) assertions won't cut it around here. But you have a tendency to forget that.

Eudaimonist

Actually, when one considers the idea that God could be subject to a standard of good that is an aspect of his own nature (and therefore not subject to his whim) this ironically provides an easy rebuttal along similar lines from secularists.

Human good can be thought of as an aspect of human nature -- the good would be human life, and moral good would be those human actions that nourish human life -- and therefore morality for human beings need not be subject to human whim, but is instead a discovery of what fulfills human nature.

Hence, God is a needless concept as far as this line of thinking goes. Human beings don't need God for an objective good.

Satan Oscillate My Metallic Sonatas

Philosoft,
You are absolutely correct. Jesus did not need to die.


This is echoed in John 3:16
For God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son that whosoever believeth in Him shall not perish but have everlasting life.


Note that it doesn't say God had to give his only son.



Satan Oscillate My Metallic Sonatas

Satan Oscillate My Metallic Sonatas

Philosoft,
Sorry. I thought you were asking me about my understanding of God. I'm using the common definition...that God is omnipotent, omniscient and omnibenevolent (Holy).


Satan Oscillate My Metallic Sonatas

Satan Oscillate My Metallic Sonatas

Bill,
Ah...I see the misunderstanding here.

God does not punish us for using our gifts...punishment is reserved for those who consciously and repeatedly embrace evil.


Bill...this honestly sounds like an emotionally charged issue for you. It doesn't sound like your convinced that God is not out there.



Satan Oscillate My Metallic Sonatas

Satan Oscillate My Metallic Sonatas

Ricomise,

Welcome and thanks for your well thought out and well presented comments.


Allow me to respond in like kind.

We may be a little bit off track here. I may personally claim that God exists, but I almost never do when debating with atheists. I will usually start a point with 'IF God exists...' Notice the capitalized 'IF'. I really do mean 'IF' when I speak with athiests. I do not expect them to assume that God exists. However, I do expect them to understand and be able to converse about this tautalogy.

So in short I am not assuming 'God exists'. I am merely stating a tautology...namely that IF God exists THEN He has no evil intent. This is tautological because if God is omnipotent, omniscient and omnibenevolent (Holy) then it is logically impossible for God to have evil intent.

Again...I'm not asking you to believe God exists...I'm just talking about the tautlogy here.





Ok...I think I can clear this up a bit. The term 'holy' as used in the Bible means 'sinless'. The term as it's used here does convey more meaning than just 'whatever God does'...it imparts the sinless nature of God.



I don't think it does. In fact the term 'holy' was coined so that man could talk about God.

As a sidenote I think it's important to point out that many times the Bible may use a phrase like 'And so-and-so was a holy man'. However, these are mainly euphimisms for 'so-and-so was a good man who followed God'. These are not meant to convey the idea that so-and-so was completely sinless like God.




Thoughts and comments welcomed,


Satan Oscillate My Metallic Sonatas