winstonjen

Yes I did. Consent of the governed is important.



The Nazis, and Hitler, thought otherwise - they believed they were carrying out god's work, and had his governance and authority.

yguy

What's He supposed to do, ask you if you want to be created?

Do you believe they were? No. Neither do I - so I don't know where you're going with this.

winstonjen

Yes, and give me knowledge of that. He is all-powerful, isn't he?


Doesn't matter what I think. My point was that religion has been used to justify the most horrific atrocities.

kctan

What's the difference between being at one & having none ? In effect both are the same.



& just why not ?


How can you be sure that those are not god's will as well ?


How can it eludes you ? If this god is for the humans he creates, why create them until they are so frail in the first place ?

No. The law is never higher than you & I. Nothing is ever higher than you & I. Only the self can be higher than anything else.

You're wrong in this case. An honest man is 'stealing' things all the time. He just take it for granted that those things are there for him to use. It's in him to do it, he just didn't realise until another points it out to him.

yguy

Jesus of Nazareth was at one. Stalin had none. Hope that clears things up.

Forget it. This line of inquiry is going nowhere.

The pharisees, by being hypocrites, were doing God's will? Only in the sense that, for a time, He allowed them to do the will of their father the devil.

First, anything God creates is frail compared to Him. Second, it is only by overcoming the weakness that we can appreciate the strength we develop from it. This, I believe, is why so many immigrants from places like Soviet Russia turn out to be better Americans than those of us who were born here and took our freedom for granted.

To test your hypothesis, I invite you to rob a bank. If you are correct, you can expect that the law will do obeisance to you.

How do you figure that?

Chiron

yguy: "Jesus of Nazareth was at one. Stalin had none. Hope that clears things up."
I think you misunderstood kctan's assertion: it doesn't matter whether or not you can hear a conscience you may or may not have.
Earlier, you asserted that "If he doesn't feel the pain of conscience, then he's good. Nothing need be codified." If A. Sociopath does not have a conscience, then by your first definition he (or she, I'd suppose) is good.
Later, you changed your assertion to say that it doesn't really matter whether you feel bad, it's all absolute anyway. kctan was attempting to point out your inconsistencies.

"To test your hypothesis, I invite you to rob a bank. If you are correct, you can expect that the law will do obeisance to you."
This isn't what he meant. The law is not on higher moral ground than the self. In a similar way, the logical AND operator is not on higher moral ground than the self. However, the law represents other selves, and as such, it abridges, among others, the freedom to walk into a bank and swipe the cash. Y'know, like how my personal liberty ends where others' personal liberty begins.

"First, anything God creates is frail compared to Him."
This does not fit with the image of an omnipotent god. Why must everything be frail compared to him? I mean, if S. Being is all-powerful, why can it not do anything and everything? The second part of this paragraph seems to me to be equally suspect: why can we only appreciate strength after overcoming weakness? Is an omnipotent being unable to give humans an appreciation of strength without having to undergo hardship?
And again, what don't you understand about kctan's statement "If you attribute creation to a god then it's logical to ascribe human frailties to said god"? If I were to get a potter's wheel and some clay, and create some distorted, frail vases, it would be quite logical and correct to attribute the vases' distortions and frailties to me, their creator. It is quite logical to apply this to another creator and his creations. This is especially true if this other creator were in absolute control of everything, and so could have created perfect, unbreakeable vases, but chose not to.

Hopefully elucidatingly,
-Chiron

yguy

No, because my assertion was based on the assumption that the person in question has a conscience.

Don't know what you're talking about here.

That depends on the character of the legislators as compared with that of the person it is applied to. The man who assassinated Hitler because he was a monster - rather than for some personal reason - would have been higher than German law. John Hinckley, OTOH, was lower than US law.

Because He can destroy any of His creations.

Adam's only frailty was the ability to doubt God - which is intrinsic to being created in His image, because to doubt God is to be a God in your own mind. Without that frailty, he could never have developed faith, or love.

kctan

Thanks Chiron,
We share some similar thoughts.

From your answer, with or without a conscience doesn't mean a thing. As long as there's no attack of conscience from any act, it's considered to be 'good' in your view. Can't you see that conscience is meaningless here ? A person with a conscience whom always felt his/her actions are always 'right' will be just like a person without one.

How can you be sure ? Where's the prove ? You could be the hyprocrite following the devil's will for all we know.

This is of course in jest just like the assumption you made above. Ever heard of a term called Satanization ? You're doing it right now just like that little jest I made.

Again this just begs more questions. Why in the first place must god create things that are frail compared to him ? Isn't god supposed to be omnipotent ? What's the reason for making us so frail ? By your reasoning, even if we does realise our strength, it would still be frail compared to that of god because we are created frail in the first place.

If you wish to go into this further, it would make a disbelief in a god the ultimate goal of all humans. By overcoming our weakness & discovering our strength, it would meant that we'll have attended a standing as equal to that of your god. We might not have it's omnipotence but in terms of other departments, we are definitely superior.


In this sense, it's still someone else who views the law is higher then another. We make the rules & laws remember ? It's open to us again to interprete just how powerful these laws can be. Anyway, without the might behind these laws, do you think they will work ? Society provides the 'might' in this case.

IOW might makes right.

Adam's frailty is not the ability to doubt god. Adam's frailty is the inability to understand anything pertaining to moralistic issues. He don't know what's right & wrong remember ? Who's fault is it that Adam have such an inexcusable frailty ? What's faith & love if one don't have the ability to conceptualize them ?

BTW We're 'stealing' things all the time. Especially xians who says their 'grace' when being treated by a friend to a meal. You're stealing the credit.



Seriously, we're 'stealing' everything that we use. We steal, murder, kill, pillage, rape, foul, desecrates etc... from the environment to provide for ourselves the comfort, food, entertainment et al. We take it as granted just because we're 'mightier' than 'everything' so far. Abit like your concept of god, a being which could do whatever it deems fit just because it's capable of doing it.

yguy

Nope. As I said, my statement assumes the person in question has a conscience.

If you mean that neither will feel pangs of conscience in this life, you are correct.

Obviously.

Is there something wrong with saying the pharisees are evil, if that's what they are?

See my answer to Chiron.

Only egotistical humans have any desire to be superior to God.

This part of argument has nothing to do with justice. The obviuos fact is that the creation is subject to the creator. I can destroy my computer, but it can't destroy me.

Sorry, you're wrong.

What an absurd question. Children have both those things without being able to conceptualize them.

This all presupposes that the environment is not ours to manage, and that we are not God's to manage - an unfounded and ridiculous idea.

kctan

Which means conscience is not neccessary.

You could be the evil one instead remember ?

I saw your reply & it just begs more questions. Actually I replied in response to your response to Chiron.

There's 2 different superiority we have here. One is egotistical in nature which you're using while another is passsive superiority which means we're actually superior to a god only that we may not realise this until it's shown by having discussions or debates when you're pitted against one.

Pray supply the facts please. Unbased assertions are useless. I can also turn around & say that the obvious fact is that a creator is subject to the creation. Your computer may not be able to destroy you but in some ways it's much more superior then you.


Yes I'm right. It's with reference to the bible. Read genesis if you don't believe me.

Yes they've them but they also don't have the concept of differing 'good' & 'evil' just like Adam. How much blame does a child warrant if he/she failed to obey you because he/she can't understand what the fish you're getting at ?

Who said so ? When have your god ever manage anything ? Are you going to cite the earthquakes, typhoons, tornadoes, tsunamis, volcano eruptions, forest fires, lighting strikes etc... as god's work ? When have we been given the authority or responsibility to manage it ? Where's the seal of approval ? Your bible ? It's written by us remember ! So who's idea is more unfounded & ridiculous now ?