Justification Of God's Dubiously Just Acts

[Deepcrush]

What, my faith or that I can joke/insult about anything?

[Sonic Glitch]

What, my faith or that I can joke/insult about anything?

Yes.

[Deepcrush]

[Sonic Glitch]

Seriously. Faith, when applied properly, is a great thing to have. So is a sense of humor. If you've got both, you're good

[Lighthawk]

Seriously. Faith, when applied properly, is a great thing to have. So is a sense of humor. If you've got both, you're good

What he said

[Deepcrush]

Hey, I believe in something that there is ZERO proof of and has ZERO basis of fact while still being someone who preaches about honesty and evidence...

If I couldn't laugh about that then there is something wrong with me...

[GrahamKennedy]

Are you kidding? I'm the same person to not judge you for your professed atheism

"Professed"?

, or someone else for being a Christian, or somebody else for being a Buddhist. You can continue to call it a cop-out if you like, though I at least know that this is not the case, but for this discussion we must at least take my belief in the following maxim as a given: "G-d" cannot be judged or even delineated in human terms." Therefore, I have no right to judge His actions anymore than I have the right to judge your belief system. As far as judging you for the morality of your acts, it's a different paradigm - you obviously can be judged in human terms - must be, in fact.

But you aren't comparing like with like. I don't judge you for having a particular belief, but I most certainly DO judge your actions, and you judge mine.

For instance if it were splashed across the news tomorrow that I was a serial killer who had murdered 40 children, I don't believe you would shrug and say "well that could be a good thing, could be a bad thing, it's not my place to judge." You'd judge me an awful person for doing that, as would anybody. Indeed in our society you can even find yourself on a jury where it would be your civic and legal duty to judge a fellow citizen's actions.

But when god murders 40 children in 2 Kings 2:23-24 for the crime of insulting a man for being bald, that you do shrug and say "well it's god doing it, who can judge?"

If god exists then I don't much care what he believes, and don't judge it. I do condemn his actions, as from all evidence many of them are evil in character.

[Mikey]

"Professed"?

Indeed. I couldn't judge you, whether I wanted to or not, on your atheism if I never knew about it.

that you do shrug and say "well it's god doing it, who can judge?"

I don't know if you were raised with religion or not, but somewhere either you've gotten out of touch with it OR I'm a relatively rare bird in the way I believe. When I see a news report about someone's death, I don't think "Oh, G-d took someone else. Was it fair? Was it right?" I believe in G-d, most certainly; However, I don't blame (or ascribe) every detail of day-to-day life to His direct intervention.

I do condemn his actions, as from all evidence many of them are evil in character.

Kind of a moot point, since you don't, really; you'd have to believe in a "Him" in order to condemn His actions.

[GrahamKennedy]

"Professed"?

Indeed. I couldn't judge you, whether I wanted to or not, on your atheism if I never knew about it.

Curious, then, that you don't put that word before anything anybody else believes.

I don't know if you were raised with religion or not, but somewhere either you've gotten out of touch with it

As it happens, I wasn't raised as a believer. My parents ignored religion, and by the time I got to school I was mature enough not to take their (feeble) attempts to indoctrinate seriously.

OR I'm a relatively rare bird in the way I believe. When I see a news report about someone's death, I don't think "Oh, G-d took someone else. Was it fair? Was it right?" I believe in G-d, most certainly; However, I don't blame (or ascribe) every detail of day-to-day life to His direct intervention.

And when god decides that forty children need to be torn to pieces by a bear, on his orders, you really wonder if that's fair and right do you?

Kind of a moot point, since you don't, really; you'd have to believe in a "Him" in order to condemn His actions.

I don't really think that follows. The fact that something is fictional doesn't mean it can't be seriously discussed; the very existence of this forum proves that.

[Mikey]

Curious, then, that you don't put that word before anything anybody else believes.

Not really, as this little bit of discussion stemmed from a point about whether or not I'd judge you for your lack of religious belief.

And when god decides that forty children need to be torn to pieces by a bear, on his orders, you really wonder if that's fair and right do you?

No, I don't. It's a parable with no application. Theologically, I consider it simply to be a fable regarding G-d's ire at human immorality (as judged by human standards.) Logically, I consider it a product of a time when the monolatry of Judaism was formed among, and competing with, pantheistic religion in which that sort of awful thing was common.

I don't really think that follows. The fact that something is fictional doesn't mean it can't be seriously discussed; the very existence of this forum proves that.

Surely, and as long as these debates remain cordial, I enjoy them immensely. It just seemed a tad odd to hear you discussing what you thought of G-d's actions riding, as it were, on the fact that you don't believe G-d exists.

[GrahamKennedy]

No, I don't. It's a parable with no application. Theologically, I consider it simply to be a fable regarding G-d's ire at human immorality (as judged by human standards.) Logically, I consider it a product of a time when the monolatry of Judaism was formed among, and competing with, pantheistic religion in which that sort of awful thing was common.

Which is exactly what I said a few posts back; "if you believe that god is good, then you either have to believe that he didn't do many of the things attributed to him in the bible, or you have to believe that those things - slavery, rape, murder on a truly epic scale, including the mass murder of children, to name but a few - are good things."You choose the former, which is fine.

It does however leave you with the issue of how you separate out and decide which aspects of the bible are real and to be followed, and which are not.

It just seemed a tad odd to hear you discussing what you thought of G-d's actions riding, as it were, on the fact that you don't believe G-d exists.

I see it as no different than discussing which were Picard's worst command decisions when there's no such person as Picard.

[Mikey]

You choose the former, which is fine.

Not really. You're over-simplifying it in order to fit it into your atheistic argument; which is understandable, I suppose. However, I rather take it, as much of the Bible, as symbolism mixed with a healthy dose of what most religions were like before they took on the faces we know. Here's an example; when, in Exodus, the Bible says that "G-d hardened Pharaoh's heart," I can't with a straight face believe that to mean that G-d actually purposefully turned the man against the very goal which G-d had been trying to acheive; rather, I take it as a colloquialism or vernacular of a time in which that sort of pantheistic idea of commonplace and direct divine intervention wound its way into the language. An ancient Greek might have said "Zeus is angry" when a thunderstorm occurred, but that might very easily have just become the common way of saying "There's a thunderstorm," while any conscious thought of divine intervention was long drained from the phrase. We still say "G-d bless you" when someone sneezes, but most people today don't really believe that a person who sneezes needs protection from the evil spirits that can enter the sinuses.

It does however leave you with the issue of how you separate out and decide which aspects of the bible are real and to be followed, and which are not.

See above, and there is no such issue. Further, there is no need to take the historical stories of the Bible as fact in order to follow the teachings of the Bible.

I see it as no different than discussing which were Picard's worst command decisions when there's no such person as Picard.

I only saw it as different because religion is a real thing; when we discuss Picard, we both agree that he is a fictional character. However, please relax; I meant nothing by it at all.

[GrahamKennedy]

Not really.

Yes, really. You can dress it up in whatever language you want, but at the end of the day that either actually happened or it did not. There are no other choices.

Here's an example; when, in Exodus, the Bible says that "G-d hardened Pharaoh's heart," I can't with a straight face believe that to mean that G-d actually purposefully turned the man against the very goal which G-d had been trying to acheive; rather, I take it as a colloquialism or vernacular of a time in which that sort of pantheistic idea of commonplace and direct divine intervention wound its way into the language. An ancient Greek might have said "Zeus is angry" when a thunderstorm occurred, but that might very easily have just become the common way of saying "There's a thunderstorm," while any conscious thought of divine intervention was long drained from the phrase. We still say "G-d bless you" when someone sneezes, but most people today don't really believe that a person who sneezes needs protection from the evil spirits that can enter the sinuses.

And again, those are simply ways of saying that the things in question didn't really happen. There is no possible equivocation about this; thunderstorms either happen because Zeus is angry, or they do not. If you choose to say "Zeus is angry is just another way of saying there's a thunderstorm, they don't literally mean it's caused by Zeus," then you are saying that thuderstorms do not happen because Zeus is angry. Just like if you want to say that the bears ripping children to bits on God's order is symbolism, then you ARE saying that that did not happen.

I'm being blunt about it because it really is a very simple thing. The bible is littered with atrocities either ordered by or directly caused by god. If you think god is good then you must either class these things as good or you must believe that they didn't happen. I'm sorry, but those are your choices and there are no others. Dress them up in whatever language you like, but you'd do well to realise that that's what it comes down to.

See above, and there is no such issue.

Since all you really did was agree with me whilst saying that you weren't, then the issue remains.

Further, there is no need to take the historical stories of the Bible as fact in order to follow the teachings of the Bible.

Nope, none at all. But it does make things a whole new ball game once you go there.

[Mikey]

Yes, really. You can dress it up in whatever language you want, but at the end of the day that either actually happened or it did not. There are no other choices.

And again, those are simply ways of saying that the things in question didn't really happen. There is no possible equivocation about this; thunderstorms either happen because Zeus is angry, or they do not. If you choose to say "Zeus is angry is just another way of saying there's a thunderstorm, they don't literally mean it's caused by Zeus," then you are saying that thuderstorms do not happen because Zeus is angry. Just like if you want to say that the bears ripping children to bits on God's order is symbolism, then you ARE saying that that did not happen.

I'm being blunt about it because it really is a very simple thing. The bible is littered with atrocities either ordered by or directly caused by god. If you think god is good then you must either class these things as good or you must believe that they didn't happen. I'm sorry, but those are your choices and there are no others. Dress them up in whatever language you like, but you'd do well to realise that that's what it comes down to.

There is a combination of the two options which Graham Kennedy has pronounced to be his, and therefore universal, absolute truth. Again, I find it both understandable and unsurprising that an atheist wouldn't acknowledge, or even formulate, such an option which is based on theological faith, and also depends on it. But completely aside from an argument on the existence of G-d, we can take as a given that I believe in such. While I have already expressed my belief in free will and G-d's relative lack of direct involvement in mankind's day-to-day affairs, I still believe in G-d - an uncaused cause, prime mover, however it might be said. While G-d may not be directly responsible for a particular thunderstorm, or one Pharaoh's mindset, or one bear attack, He did in fact create the universe which allowed/caused these things to happen. When my little girl grows up and moves away, I will not be dirtectly responsible for her actions; but I will have a certain responsibility nonetheless as one of the parents who helped to shape her personality.

You can call this couching the matter in a certain way, or semantics, or what have you; and indeed, it must seem like such because you are an atheist. However, that is patently not the case.

[Mikey]

Upon a little further reflection, I guess it comes down to this: this matter is unique in that no matter how well I explain myself - and no matter that you are obviously intelligent enough to understand my explanation, even if you disagree - you can never fully, viscerally understand my belief, any more than I can truly understand the belief of the Jews For Jesus (or what have you.) I've said it before and will probably say it many times again - I fully believe in the fact that Scripture may be taken as truth, but not historical fact. In fact, I would go so far as to say that it can't be taken as historical fact, nor was it ever intended to. I don't believe that Methuselah was truly 969 modern sidereal years old, nor do I think I need to; other "facts" in the Bible are no different. It is in this way that I fully and comfortably reconcile my belief in G-d as creator with my belief in evolution, among other things.