- cross-posted to:
- exchristian
- cross-posted to:
- exchristian
You must log in or register to comment.
No, you are not. these people must’ve masturbated, hence they’re sinful.
Or they wore mixed fabric clothing, so they’re basically satan
Satin, you say?
Statins
Wait, so all this time I should have been going full denim?
Including your underpants. And socks.
And skin.
Santa
But you just created them. The whole of their lives they have been tied to that track the way a character is trapped in the holodeck. When have they had time to sin?
According to the 20 commandments that i just made up-
drop one stone tablet
10 commandments that i just made up, thou shall not question the decision of god, hereby you’re sinned.
Nice reference drop there.
Even Jesus said imagining adultery is the same as committing it. They can still think, ergo they are worthy of punishment
So… Christianity has thought crimes?
Property is theft in the same way that religion is sin
No. What he was saying is that everything you do starts off as a thought. So instead of policing your own actions, police your own thoughts and don’t entertain the bad ones when they enter your mind. Then when the opportunity presents itself - let’s say she indicates she’s up for a quickie behind the bike sheds, if you’ve already been fantasising about all the different scenarios you’re much more likely to take her up on it than if you haven’t. Therefore you should consider thinking about adultery as being just as bad as the act itself, even though it really isn’t.
so… thought crimes then?
Absolutely.
*Suddenly, you find yourself together with the people on the tracks.*
-embrace sweet death
They should just repent for existing, if they can’t even do that they’re basically just asking for the train
I sin multiple times per day but it’s ok because I always make sure to kill god first.
Aren’t they from birth sinful?
Imminent death and dismemberment is my kink
the simulation we are all trapped in resets as they now need to include a provision that no weird af kinks screw up the test
And then when they all believe, you change the rules because you accidentally spawned to many people.
God: “I can only save some of you!”
People: “How many?”
God: “Twelve…”
People: “Twelve?!? But there are many more of us”
God: “Times 12…”
People: “144?!? But there are still many more!”
God:“… thousand.”
People “Oh lord, I’m one of those 144000, right?”
God: “Of course you are my dear”.
Other people:“…but you already saved more than 144000 before we were even born?”
God:" yeah well, just believe me OK?"
Depends on denomination but source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/144,000
It’s amazing that there are so many different interpretation. Religious people have such creative imaginations.
I’m reading a fictional book series where a character in the first few books literally becomes the new god… then the later books take place a few hundred years later, and you see how the new god laid everything out for the people, and gave them books on how to prosper and all this valuable info… and STILL these idiots ended up forming various competing religions, full of BS!
mistborn saga, right?
Haha yup!
I mean, the trolley obviously can’t fit under the bridge, so this seems like a mass murder/suicide scenario.
The bridge will part!
Using the power of beyblade!
Me when I split the sea with a bayblade
What if the trolley can shrink when going under the bridge
What if they accept that I’m the creator of the situation but I still don’t save them as I promised?
You have a plan, that doesn’t involve them. And it was all for good.
When a creator does it, the word is “ineffable”. Just like how when I’m rich, I’ll become eccentric.
Nah, fuck that. I’m eccentric now. What’s a rich guy going to do about it?
They’ll be beside themselves if this ever gets out. They might be driven to buy multiple motor yachts that they’ll never even clap eyes on, to cope with that
No no no, doesn’t stop there.
Then you created a business, run by your most…devout… followers, they’ll manage the business.
You pay them to collect money for you, and um, teach them the ways and make sure they bring their families and friends in.
You tell them they are all horrible people who will suffer in eternity unless they worship you and thank you that they were born.
Then your managers, they meet with all your followers and
shake them downtell them how important it is to fund the business.It’s a very complex thing really being the creator of the universe and having to have people start a business to fund…um…worshiping you…
Nice
For this to be more accurate you need to take the “God” out of the image entirely.
Substitute the trolley for a tornado, the tracks for homes, the deity killing randomly with said tornado, and the survivors thanking deity for their survival (and their neighbors’ deaths).
Not a good analogy? Of course it isn’t. God doesn’t exist, and if he does, he’s perfectly happy killing you and destroying your family for no reason whatsoever, and your neighbors will thank him for doing so.
Evil is a dumb term. The word they are looking for is “responsible”.
It was already a fun thread, but this comment upps it a notch.
Of course that is not something I could judge by myself. You will have to ask the people in the situation and see what they will answer of their own free will.
I’d like to propose a thought.
1.) God makes rules
2.) Following those rules is good
3.) Breaking those rules is evil
From the perspective of God the delineation between good and evil is a human perspective, not necessarily God’s.
A similar point of view would be if a person sets a rule for a child or maybe a pet. The person strictly enforces this rule, but openly breaks the rule because it does not apply to them. The child or pet meet feel that they are being treated unjustly and categorize breaking of the rules as being wrong. Making the child go to bed at bedtime or not allowing the pet to eat certain foods.
What many atheists do not understand is that human logic does not apply to God(s), just like the feelings of my dog wanting a slice of pizza do not apply to me.
Is God evil, probably, what is evil? What is good? Is God just? In application to others if you’re following Christian ideology he theoretically is in the long term, but in application to their self definitely not.
The biggest problem I have with Atheist logic is that if there is a god that it should follow human logic and because there is suffering and issues in the world there must be no god or that God isn’t worth following. If after life beliefs are correct do you think it matters if you took a moral high ground against an unfair god?
If you’re an atheist because you don’t believe there is a god then cool, but if you are an atheist because you think God should follow our rules idk what to say for you.
The same goes for religious people, you have to accept that God let’s bad things happen to you.
The simple obvious answer is that there is no God. If there is, I want no part of an afterlife with him.
“God is so moral that he doesn’t need earthly morals” is an absolutely laughable justification. May God strike me dead before I click the “reply” button, if I’m wrong.
Hey, that’s chill. I’m not trying to appeal to people to change their opinions on whether there is a god or not. I’m simply arguing that if what is said about god is true, then taking the moral high ground because you’re the better being doesn’t really mean anything.
“Hey what did you do that landed you up in eternal pain and suffering?”
“Oh, I’m just morally superior to the being that put me here.”
The same goes for religious people blaming the bad things in their life on anything other than the same all powerful being.
The religious blame the bad things on Satan, not God. Pretty convenient. God gets all of the credit an none of the blame. It’s delusional.
Also, what rational argument suggests there is eternal pain and suffering? Some old Mediterranean folk lore twisted through time, with more Faust and Inferno (Dante) than scripture in the current belief? I don’t see any reason to rationally believe there is eternal pain and suffering.
IDK, I was going for the more extreme groups of religious groups. In some religious beliefs your belief in god has less effect on your post death outcome. Maybe in those you become a cat rather than burn in eternal pain for not believing in xyz god.
In high school I wrote a paper about the dichotomy of religious beliefs portrayed in Beowulf. My paper was about how the embracing of a new religion was personified by the acts of good being attributed to god, but the acts of evil were attributed to the non-biblical and villainous entities being portrayed by pagan representations. Essentially, as new cultures adopted Christianity they had a core issue in assigning blame to god for the ills in their lives so they were instead assigned it to something else that was still familiar (another cultural belief). This lead to a short period in which these peoples earnestly believed in both religious pantheons.
deleted by creator
but if you are an atheist because you think God should follow our rules
You can’t be an Atheist if you believe a god exists that should follow our rules.
That is like the whole point of Atheism.
Tell that to the self proclaimed atheists that use the morality of God as a reason why there is no god. To be clear I agree, but I’m tired of hearing the argument.
Again, atheists tend to argue the LPOE terribly.
The Argument From Evil, properly stated, concludes that no god exists because it defines God as a necessarily omnipotent/omni-benevolent being. I think it’s weak because it leans on a version of God that most religious people don’t REALLY believe. It then leans on the fact that lines like “God is not good” or “God is not omnipotent” gets religious folks’ back up.
If the only way an atheist argument wins is because the valid logic objections to it are frustrating to Christians, it’s not a great argument.
But stated right, it IS still an argument for the nonexistence of God, not an argument that “God exists but is immoral”.
Ah the argument from authority… this exact reasoning is I believe why christofascism is taking such a root in American politics. A pet still knows when it is being abused. Having rights and power over others does not make actions moral. This is basically a might makes right line of thinking except God becomes humanities bully.
You may not believe morality is subjective, but I do, and I define moral actions as led by my inner compass. You may choose to call your inner compass the holy spirit and assign gods divinity to it, making your interpretation of gods actions closer to divine authority, but it holds no more importance than anybody elses interpretation or convictions.
To think that any being would be exempt from judgement or morality based on their power or position of authority is in my opinion the weakest logic of all. By this logic, abortion should be a non starter for theists after all, my house my rules, right? No it turns out there is no equivalent logic to explain the relationship between man and god. All sinful humans must follow your inner compass whereas any command or action attributed to god is exempt from reproach, and since you inner compass is actually the holy spirit, it gives you or your interpretation of your favorite book dominion over all others without the need for any self reflection whatsoever. This way you can attribute acts that are considered evil by every other daily metric as good so long as you can delude yourself that it is gods will.
“Didnt you go out and do all these things in my name?”
If god exists and provided you free will and the holy spirit, why then would you not be expected to use it to discover more about god? To develop discernment instead of chalking up inconsistencies in the messaging to gods will and all actions dictated by men as “acts of God”. Isn’t it possible that the idea of god of the Bible or the Quran or whatever is inherently flawed and twisted to serve the desires of man? That god, if real, is not depicted accurately in any single book in the history of man?
I cant stand these ray comfort style gotcha arguments like no actually we don’t have to follow logic or morality because divinity and anyone who questions our assertions has the absolute arrogance to spit in gods face.
I’m not trying to make an argument in support of religion or god, I’m making an argument that moral (subjective or objective) rationales do not validate or invalidate the existence of god. If god exists, then they do so whether you believe in them or not. If god exists and the supposed outcomes of not following their rules is true, then whatever judgements about them you have is irrelevant.
Is god evil because it allows bad things to happen? Yeah and so what? You can think god sucks and is unfair or unjust, be the better person and refuse to worship or believe all you want. If you don’t meet their magic requirements for the good ending then you get the bad ending no matter how much more moral you are.
I think that trying to have a philosophical debate about the morality or ethics of god(s) is asinine since if a god exists your objections to it have literally no value.
Only you are not having a philosophical debate with god about your moral judgments, ill be the first to admit that gods opinion matters fuck all in a philosophical debate about god you are debating the ideas of the person who believes in god. This idea that god can and will always be good and just simply because he may exist outside of any human measurement is absolute bullshit for all the reasons I listed above and more. The belief of god and the claim the god wills or controls every action and event can be tested.
Any claim to the contrary is just cowardly evasion or desperation
Dude, you’re literally inventing shit. I never said that,
“that god can and will always be good and just simply because he may exist outside of any human measurement is absolute bullshit for all the reasons I listed above and more. The belief of god and the claim the god wills or controls every action and event can be tested.”
I’m making the statement that if you think that god doesn’t exist because god doesn’t meet your definition of good or moral, you’re missing the mark. If god exists they exists outside of whether you believe in them. If god exists and their power is what is attributed to them then your opinions, however morally well founded they may be, are completely worthless.
The idea that you can test god’s will or that god controls our every action cannot be tested unless you assume that god is a benevolent being. If god doesn’t care that you kill your neighbor as long as it doesn’t effect their long term plan then killing your neighbor doesn’t disprove there is a god.
If god turns out to be a 7th dimensional being playing around with a 3rd/4th dimensional ant farm, that can just destroy us in a snap then all your moral high ground is for shit. If god is real our relationship to it is the same as ants in an ant farm to the guy outside the glass wall. If they fry us with the magnifying glass it makes no difference if they are good, evil, just, unjust, right, or wrong.
If you don’t believe in god then cool. If you think god is unworthy of worship and belief then cool, but if so you’re not an atheist because you believe in god. If you believe in god, but think they are unworthy of worship you opinion doesn’t matter because you’re an ant in an antfarm. The lesson here is either stop believing in god or fucking shut up about it.
Im making shit up? You opened with this
I’d like to propose a thought. 1.) God makes rules 2.) Following those rules is good 3.) Breaking those rules is evil
For the record I’m agnostic, and I don’t believe in a monotheistic god. One that is asserted as omnipotent, benevolent, omnipresent, omniscient etc. The Christian god is the one which the moral argument was presented against which does assume a god of perfect good. I personally think if god exists they would encompass the lowest common denominator of spiritual beliefs and likely be devoid of a singular personality.
Just like your original point about this supposed moral immunity derived from authority, the subject is not so black and white. You’re not either an athiest or a believer depending on where you argue from. Every believer in one god is also an athiest to another.
I don’t have to believe in “your” god to point out the bad argument in support of god. I dont have to acknowledge gods existence to defend against believers imposing their beliefs of god onto me. I also don’t have to stay quiet while somebody takes a pulpit and cries about how their omnibenevolent 7th dimension king of kings gets a bad rap from everyone who doesn’t see just how magnificient their being is because theyre too hung up on the silly notion that a being of perfect good would not order kidnapping virgins to take as child brides, or genocide every Canaanite, command bears to eat children who teased a bald guy and so on.
I’m making the statement that if you think that god doesn’t exist because god doesn’t meet your definition of good or moral, you’re missing the mark. If god exists they exists outside of whether you believe in them. If god exists and their power is what is attributed to them then your opinions, however morally well founded they may be, are completely worthless.
Your statement doesn’t exist in a void!! People dismissing god as immoral is based on a thousand years of philosophy such as Thomas Aquinas, Immanuel Kant, and CS Lewis asserting that god is the source of all morality.
People arent starting with god isnt moral therefore he doesn’t exist, as you claim in this strawman. arguments for god are been presented as omnibenelovent and the source of all morality, god does things that are agreed upon as immoral, therefore the moral arguments for god are wrong and god still likely doesn’t exist. Pointing out contradictions between the actions of god in the Bible and the claims made about gods also doesn’t make an athiest a believer. More desperate gotcha bullshit.
The lesson here is either stop believing in god or fucking shut up about it.
So much for that high school paper. You very clearly don’t have any grounds to hand out lessons.
But what if following the rules got the pet or child hurt, and not following them would not hurt them. Because that is the case here.
I completely understand the analogy, but the result bestowed upon the child/pet is what determines the subject : good/evil.
Though I read a very good comment here that said both options could and should be replaced by “responsible”, which actually makes a lot is sense.
It’s not that we don’t believe because we think he should follow our rules, it’s that a God with such flimsy, ever-changing morality which falls all over the spectrum from one book to the next is clearly just an invention of the people who were writing about him at the time.
Or, in other words, the unreliability of God’s morals leads inevitably to the realization that this god can’t be the creator of objective morality (if such a thing even exists) considering he can’t even follow his own standards. He’s like a narcissist that thinks every rule applies to others but not himself. If such morality is actually real and objective due to his mere existence, then he wouldn’t be able to break it. Yet he does constantly in the text.
It’s basically “might makes right” on a cosmic scale.
It’s just so blatantly obvious that it was written to whatever moral standard of the day that the author existed in, which is why he goes through a personality change between testaments.
Let me put it plainly:
If you have a problem with the idea that God doesn’t monkey-see-monkey-do set a good example as the rationale that God doesn’t exist then you inherently still believe in God. If God exists they are beyond whatever beliefs or rationales you have.
If you don’t believe in God then fine, if you don’t believe in God because they don’t meet your moral code then surprise you still believe in God. If that God exists then it doesn’t care what you think. Either really stop believing in God or stop rationalizing with the giant outside our collective ant farm.
God’s supposed nature is contradictory, therefore he is an invention of humans and doesn’t exist.
Is that easier for you?
I’ll be the first to say the new trend of atheists horribly mangle the Problem of Evil, and while they rebut responses like yours, they tend to do so horribly and emotionally. But properly stated, Divine Command theory really doesn’t work.
The LPOE is challenging one of two traits for God: omnipotence or omni-benevolence. And those two concepts are defined in reasonable, quantitative ways. The God in the your example is a direct acceptance of the LPOE by the admission that god isn’t “benevolent” at all by that definition. Which is perfectly fine, but it does create a lot of very valid moral or ethical problems, along the line of Hedonistic salvation.
The rest of my reply doesn’t belong with LPOE, but this is focusing on the rules side instead of the suffering side.
You see it as a parent setting rules for a child, but it can also accurately be seen as (sorry, both of these come from the show Suits, and apparently the showrunners have a problem with moms) “mommy tells the child he’ll get a Playstation if he lies to the judge about daddy hitting her”. OR, “mommy will punish you if you tell daddy what she did with the mailman last night”. Rules are not inherently Good by most standards.
And that’s before you add the uncertainty. We’re 100% definitely not “following rules that our parents gave us”. We’re following rules we found typed up on a piece of paper that some people **insist ** came from our parents, and maybe they did. And some of them seem really weird or even harmful, and seem to contradict what we think mom and dad want for us. And we have to decide whether or not we’re going to follow them before our parents come home. Because daddy will murder us if we’re wrong. And I don’t mean a beating, I mean with his God-glock.
What many atheists do not understand is that human logic does not apply to God(s), just like the feelings of my dog wanting a slice of pizza do not apply to me
This is true, but you can still pass some judgement on a dog who acts out of possessive-aggression. But of course, we are more responsible for our actions than dogs, aren’t we? Why? Because we have more agency than dogs. Guess who has the most agency, assuming there’s a God? That would make him the most accountable. When he does something prima facie evil and the more you analyze his actions the weaker the objections get, then “Good is just what God wants and evil is just what he doesn’t want” simply doesn’t cut it.
Is God evil, probably, what is evil? What is good? Is God just? In application to others if you’re following Christian ideology he theoretically is in the long term, but in application to their self definitely not.
I think there are Christian ideologies that can make sense of it all, but contingent salvation is as filmsy to philosophical attack as wet cardboard. I would encourage you to listen/read Dr. Josh Rasmussen for his in-depth research into the Problem of Evil and Salvation from an open-minded Christian perspective. He, too, concludes that God cannot pass the Problem of Evil if there is contingent salvation. But he stands by the Ontological Argument, so conceding “God isn’t all-good” is not on the table for his POV.
The biggest problem I have with Atheist logic is that if there is a god that it should follow human logic and because there is suffering and issues in the world there must be no god or that God isn’t worth following. If after life beliefs are correct do you think it matters if you took a moral high ground against an unfair god?
Ironically, I would hope a Christian would be the first person to say YES IT MATTERS because they stand behind martyrdom as a legitimate virtue. Let me put it this way. If Christianity were true with one exception, that the Devil ultimately wins instead of God, would you kneel to him because your eternity is more important than actually being a good person? Would you be able to respect a person who does unspeakable evils, knowing they are unspeakable evils, because they get to selfishly be immortal?
If so, I think you’ve just given atheists the win. If not, then at least you can understand (if not agree) rejecting a God you think is evil.
The same goes for religious people, you have to accept that God let’s bad things happen to you.
Yeah, I’m fine with that. I think the true god is neither omnipotent nor omni-benevolent. God can be a jerk sometimes, but so can I, and I don’t have to debase myself or put him far above me, so I can forgive god. If that gets me a good afterlife, I got there in a way I’ll never regret. If that gets me eternal damnation, at least I know I didn’t selfishly throw away my morals for personal gain.
In this situation, I could see it being done in order to announce that you have the power to alter reality on a whim, and really need people to get with the program.
So I would say it would depend on your other intentions, as if you have the creative power that is chested, you could easily bring someone back to life and place them in another scenario until they actually understand what you’re trying to tell them.
I don’t have enough information to ascertain whether or not the omnipotent being is evil or just a prankster.
Why do you have to “announce” your capabilities to beings you designed? Why do you have to onboard them to your “program” at all? If you truly are omnipotent, simply make beings that already know, and are already with the program. Assuming that is indeed what you want, why would you do anything else?
Are you throwing in extra steps for your own amusement? Just as a prank? Why? You’re omniscient. You already know how it ends. What’s amusing about it?
You are either toying with beings you created to be non-accepting and deliberately presenting conditions that won’t convince them, or you’re lacking one or both of omnipotence or omniscience.
An argument straight from the edgy teen atheist textbook, sure, but nonetheless one I have yet to see a compelling rebuttal for.
But, by your argument, you do have enough evidence to rule out benevolence, no?
No not really, my friends and I fuck with each other all the time, but we never do permanent harm or majorly inconvience each other.
If I could just snap my fingers and rewrite reality, I’d totally put those closest to me through a haunted mansion to be just by a serial killer, maybe even have them die a couple of times as a joke…
Then I’d bring them back to life and we’d go to the planet of nymphomaniacs to laugh it off over a few ambrosial liqours and impossibly large breasted company.
“You really had me going with the whole Saw trap, but then when I cut off my leg to escape the trap you changed my biology so that I could just re-attach it. Such a kidder.”
ITT: A collectively poor understanding of Christian theology
Why did you assume “christian theology” ? I can think of many religion that fit the description
If you think Christianity fits this description then you have a poor understanding of Christianity.
And then here comes Cormac McCarthy (RIP) to shit all over your idea of some benevolent god, to give you a real sense of how chaotically brutal the reality of life actually is, to question autonomy and the very notion of free-will, and to maybe, as a side-effect of literature, to make you think twice about everything you’ve assumed about the world.
Gonna miss that guy.
I don’t know why the Nobel asswipes didn’t give him the recognition he deserved.
My guess is that his work was too “American” for their tastes.
deleted by creator
I was thinking more of “Blood Meridian,” but it’s definitely true that “The Road” tackles a lot of similar themes albeit on a more personal and isolated scale.
I think “No Country” also is a continuation of said themes, with Anton Chigur as a sort of modern incarnation of The Judge. He must own everything. Nothing can be allowed to exist or happen save by his dispensation.
He is an amoral archon, as is life and the universe itself. He is offended only by those who refuse to acknowledge and countenance the cruel and arbitrary nature of reality itself.
Decisions and random facts of chance have permanent consequences, none of which can or should be escapable. It’s offensive to The Judge/Anton Chigur that anyone might imagine otherwise.
