Post by: Fly320s on November 11, 2007, 02:29:26 PM
The idea is to motivate the troops by telling them that if God is with them, then they will fight harder, longer, stronger, better, etc. The troops will have less fear because they are on the side of righteousness.
But the enemy leaders are giving the same speech to their troops. Both sides can't be right, can they?
So, here's the question: If you were a soldier preparing for war, would a speech that references God/Allah/religion given by your commanders motivate you?
Using the war in the mid-east as an example, would you feel that you are on the "right" side if you were a U.S. soldier? What if you were an Iraqi or Al Queda?
Going back to WWII, would you feel that you a "right" if your were a Christian German soldier?
Post by: RevDisk on November 11, 2007, 02:41:14 PM
So, here's the question: If you were a soldier preparing for war, would a speech that references God/Allah/religion given by your commanders motivate you?
Using the war in the mid-east as an example, would you feel that you are on the "right" side if you were a U.S. soldier? What if you were an Iraqi or Al Queda?
Going back to WWII, would you feel that you a "right" if your were a Christian German soldier?
Using the war in the mid-east as an example, would you feel that you are on the "right" side if you were a U.S. soldier? What if you were an Iraqi or Al Queda?
Going back to WWII, would you feel that you a "right" if your were a Christian German soldier?
Depends. If my commander said "God/Allah/Buddha/FSM tells me that killing infidels who deny his noodly appendage is a good thing. Kill them in his name, Ramen." I'd get kinda nervous. If he says "God willing, we'll make it through", I wouldn't be.
Everyone likes to think their side is just and righteous. You wouldn't get many willing intelligent and skilled volunteers who thought their side was in the wrong.
As for the Iraqis, it's a bit more simple. It's their land. Even religion pales in comparison to a man depending his home.
Post by: Tallpine on November 11, 2007, 04:24:48 PM
Post by: CAnnoneer on November 11, 2007, 04:37:52 PM
Post by: brennankg on November 11, 2007, 06:14:35 PM
Don't be silly. The divine always favors "us" and hates "them".
CAnnoneer, EXACTLY!
Therein lies the safety net of the zealous.
Zealots know they are the favored, and their faith is its own proof.
B.
Post by: Ron on November 11, 2007, 06:32:06 PM
Trying to justify war in light of the teachings of Christ is an act of contortion IMHO.
I don't try and justify war, it is just an ugly reality.
Post by: griz on November 12, 2007, 02:24:09 AM
Post by: K Frame on November 12, 2007, 08:13:43 AM
You know during WW II the Germans were motivating their troops with references to Mutter, Streudel, and Volkswagons.
Speaches like that are less an appeal to divine intervention than they are an effort at tapping into a soldier's shared cultural heritage.
In this day and age not as many people are willing to fight and die for god as there were 500 years ago, but there are lots of people who are more than willing to fight, and possibly die, protecting that shared cultural heritage.
Post by: Len Budney on November 12, 2007, 08:56:56 AM
...there are lots of people who are more than willing to fight, and possibly die, protecting that shared cultural heritage.
The irony being that in 99 cases out of 100, they aren't protecting any such thing. Most US wars, for example, have been non-defensive foreign wars, in which the Constitution has been steadily eroded. So they're really fighting for the rulers' whims and attacking their own heritage at the same time. At least religion offers apple pie in the sky--which is a good deal since that's where most of the soldiers are likely to end up.
--Len.
Post by: K Frame on November 12, 2007, 09:00:29 AM
Post by: Tecumseh on November 12, 2007, 10:25:57 AM
In war, the people in charge nearly always reference God during the "motivational" speech to the troops. The Generals urge the troops to fight with bravery, because, "God is on our side," or Allah, if your part of Al Queda. Or whoever you choose to worship; the name is irrelevent.
The idea is to motivate the troops by telling them that if God is with them, then they will fight harder, longer, stronger, better, etc. The troops will have less fear because they are on the side of righteousness.
But the enemy leaders are giving the same speech to their troops. Both sides can't be right, can they?
So, here's the question: If you were a soldier preparing for war, would a speech that references God/Allah/religion given by your commanders motivate you?
Using the war in the mid-east as an example, would you feel that you are on the "right" side if you were a U.S. soldier? What if you were an Iraqi or Al Queda?
Going back to WWII, would you feel that you a "right" if your were a Christian German soldier?
The idea is to motivate the troops by telling them that if God is with them, then they will fight harder, longer, stronger, better, etc. The troops will have less fear because they are on the side of righteousness.
But the enemy leaders are giving the same speech to their troops. Both sides can't be right, can they?
So, here's the question: If you were a soldier preparing for war, would a speech that references God/Allah/religion given by your commanders motivate you?
Using the war in the mid-east as an example, would you feel that you are on the "right" side if you were a U.S. soldier? What if you were an Iraqi or Al Queda?
Going back to WWII, would you feel that you a "right" if your were a Christian German soldier?
http://www.amazon.com/Terror-Mind-God-Religious-Comparative/dp/0520240111
That is an excellent explanation of the beliefs behind religious terrorism. He looks at the Christian terrorists in Ireland and the USA, Muslim terrorists in the Middle East, Buddhist terrorists in Japan, Hindu and Sikh terrorists in India, and Jewish terrorists in Israel. And he draws some startling conclusions and explanations. But in the end the general idea is that all terrorists don't believe they are wrong.
Post by: slzy on November 12, 2007, 10:43:17 AM
Post by: StopTheGrays on November 12, 2007, 11:24:03 AM
Quote
So, here's the question: If you were a soldier preparing for war, would a speech that references God/Allah/religion given by your commanders motivate you?
Only if we had either the Lost Ark or the Spear of Destiny...
Post by: MechAg94 on November 12, 2007, 11:59:46 AM
Post by: Brad Johnson on November 12, 2007, 01:58:35 PM
Brad
Post by: RevDisk on November 12, 2007, 03:37:09 PM
In this day and age not as many people are willing to fight and die for god as there were 500 years ago, but there are lots of people who are more than willing to fight, and possibly die, protecting that shared cultural heritage.
I do see a decline in the power of central organized religion of the militant variety as a very decent step forward.
Folks however will always be willing to fight for their home turf.
Post by: Jamisjockey on November 12, 2007, 04:15:54 PM
Post by: RoadKingLarry on November 12, 2007, 04:23:36 PM
Post by: Hawkmoon on November 12, 2007, 06:40:09 PM
As for the Iraqis, it's a bit more simple. It's their land. Even religion pales in comparison to a man depending his home.
Ummmmm .... right. That's why the Sunnis are killing the Shiites, the Shiites are killing the Sunnis, and both the Sunnis and the Shiites are killing the Kurds. All within their "home" country.
Yup. Makes sense to me.
Post by: jeepmor on November 12, 2007, 07:29:36 PM
Post by: RevDisk on November 12, 2007, 07:36:58 PM
To get me to buy into that you'd first have to get me to buy into the whole all seeing, all knowing all loving god thing. I just can't accept some supernatural being mucking about in the lives of people and needing to be worshiped and adored. Granting the odd miracle and then allowing 6 year olds to get leukemia and child rapists. If I'm wrong and there is a God I got a bone to pick with that heartless SOB.
Misotheism, meaning "hatred of deity". Very popular in more than a few Nordic legends, and some Greek ones. Most of the legends involve some deity picking on a mortal, and the mortal finally getting the courage to tell off said deity.
Maltheism, belief that a god or gods are evil. The standard joke is "An atheist would be a maltheist if the Bible was proveably true."
Dystheism is fairly related, in which believing a deity is not wholly good, but not intrinsically evil. Mainly Trickster deities such as Loki, Eshu, etc.
Post by: CAnnoneer on November 12, 2007, 08:08:02 PM
Post by: BryanP on November 13, 2007, 02:03:51 AM
Allies from fairy tales are only good for building morale in the gullible.
Post by: longeyes on November 14, 2007, 06:39:26 AM
Post by: Waitone on November 14, 2007, 12:10:39 PM
Post by: Jamisjockey on November 15, 2007, 03:10:29 AM
If god is on their side at least I have the tooth fairy.
Allies from fairy tales are only good for building morale in the gullible.
Allies from fairy tales are only good for building morale in the gullible.
I almost snorted coffee out my sinuses.
I laid down the "Mythology and History of the Jewish people" on my old lady (Born-again Christian) and she almost bitch slapped me.
Post by: brimic on November 15, 2007, 05:59:00 AM
Post by: CAnnoneer on November 15, 2007, 07:30:29 AM
Post by: Fly320s on November 15, 2007, 03:33:49 PM
Luckily for me, I'm not very serious. Or deep, really. And I am surprised (and a little frightened), again, to realize that many of us think alike. <shudder>
Post by: CAnnoneer on November 15, 2007, 03:35:27 PM
Post by: Perd Hapley on November 15, 2007, 06:13:53 PM
"Our God is the real article, your god is a hoax."
Well, yeah.
Post by: Kaylee on November 15, 2007, 07:01:42 PM
Rather than ask whether God is on our side, we should endeavor to place ourselves on His side.
I daresay at least in the West, we'd see far fewer wars at all that way.
Post by: Perd Hapley on November 15, 2007, 07:21:48 PM
Post by: CAnnoneer on November 15, 2007, 10:49:41 PM
Post by: Perd Hapley on November 16, 2007, 04:26:52 AM
Post by: CAnnoneer on November 16, 2007, 06:12:04 AM
What if God is not like you? Strange thought, I know, but what if God was able to pay attention to all things at all times? What if He was actually interested in the well-being of every creature He had made?
I am not doubting the ability so much as the presence of motivation. There does not seem to be a convincing reason why the divine would "care". Analogy certainly is not guaranteed in its validity as a method in this case, but that's what we seem to be stuck with.
Incidentally, the spirit of your argument goes opposite to the anthropomorphic idea ("made in one's image" and so forth).
Post by: Kaylee on November 16, 2007, 06:21:34 AM
The very notion of God as Creator implies that God cared enough to create us, and hence has reason to care what our choices may be.
The one follows the other.
Post by: CAnnoneer on November 16, 2007, 06:28:53 AM
The very notion of God as Creator implies that God cared enough to create us, and hence has reason to care what our choices may be.
The one follows the other.
The one follows the other.
Your body creates millions of new cells, carbon dioxide, perspiration, excrement, etc. every day. Do you consciously care about those things? What if life as we know it is just an unintended or unimportant by-product?
Post by: Len Budney on November 16, 2007, 06:29:07 AM
You didn't make the ants. You have no reason to care.
Yep. It's certainly reasonable to suggest (and various scriptures do say) that a creator would regard us as a parent does his children. Incredibly retarded children, compared to the creator, but parents have this weird way of caring even about severely handicapped children.
Post by: Perd Hapley on November 16, 2007, 06:48:13 AM
There does not seem to be a convincing reason why the divine would "care".
There does not seem to be a convincing reason why the divine would create things about which he does not care.
Quote
Incidentally, the spirit of your argument goes opposite to the anthropomorphic idea ("made in one's image" and so forth).
Being made in the image of God is not anthropomorphic, but deo-morphic. Gods such as the Greek and Egyptian pantheons are anthropomorphic, in that they behave with all the envy, jealousy, caprice and other lusts as humans do. Not to mention that they practice sexual reproduction. Such gods are made in the image of man. The contention of Judaism and Christianity is that humans are made in the image of God. This idea is easily misunderstood.
My argument aligns very well with this deo-morphism. If a man established a farm, or even built an aquarium, we would expect him to care for all that entails. We would hold him to a standard of perfection that only a god could truly meet. If he failed to clean the aquarium on schedule, even once, we would say, "Well, he should have cleaned it, but he's only human." In other words; he is made in the image of God, but he's not the real deal, so he makes mistakes. If he let his fish starve, out of mere carelessness, or even failed to plant grass around the farm house, we would recognize this as a defect, a deviation from the ideal of loving care for each detail. We despise such people because they have failed to fulfill their function, as image-bearers of a God that cares for each detail of His creation.
Post by: RoadKingLarry on November 16, 2007, 07:26:50 AM
Quote
What if He was actually interested in the well-being of every creature He had made?
So that would explain childhood cancers and leukemias. Two year olds being scalded to death by the step dad and 4 year olds being raped and murdered by a stranger. Not to mention drunk drivers walking away from wrecks they caused that killed an innocent family of four. Yep pretty interested, if you say so.
Post by: CAnnoneer on November 16, 2007, 09:43:37 AM
There does not seem to be a convincing reason why the divine would create things about which he does not care.
We don't care about many things we create, especially without intent or as a by-product. Why would the divine be any different, especially if we are created in its image?
Quote
Being made in the image of God is not anthropomorphic, but deo-morphic.
If A and B are similar, it seems facetious to say that "A is similar to B" is wrong but "B is similar to A" is right.
Quote
My argument aligns very well with this deo-morphism. If a man established a farm, or even built an aquarium, we would expect him to care for all that entails.
Who is "we" and do we agree that it is an aquarium created and managed on purpose, instead of divine excrement or by-product?
"Dei-morphic", "aquarium"... I see pride, admittedly a deadly sin.
Post by: Perd Hapley on November 16, 2007, 10:43:07 AM
Quote
What if He was actually interested in the well-being of every creature He had made?
So that would explain childhood cancers and leukemias. Two year olds being scalded to death by the step dad and 4 year olds being raped and murdered by a stranger. Not to mention drunk drivers walking away from wrecks they caused that killed an innocent family of four. Yep pretty interested, if you say so.
Do you have children?
Post by: CAnnoneer on November 16, 2007, 10:48:11 AM
Do you have children?
Good retort, but RKL is not omnipotent, so he has an excuse.
Post by: Perd Hapley on November 16, 2007, 11:42:02 AM
Quote
What if life as we know it is just an unintended or unimportant by-product?
If you believed in such a fumbling God, you might be right. I was talking about a much more competent diety.
Quote
If A and B are similar, it seems facetious to say that "A is similar to B" is wrong but "B is similar to A" is right.
But we're not talking about mere similarity. We're talking about degrees of similarity. Gods who struggle for power, betray and kill one another, and back differing factions of humankind against one another, are simply human beings writ large.
Quote
"Dei-morphic", "aquarium"... I see pride, admittedly a deadly sin.
Is this the old argument that the Biblical teaching about being made in God's image is arrogant? It assumes that the "image-bearing" is not true, and is simply something that religious people want to believe. It is an unwarranted assumption. After all, we could be right about God making us in His image. To the Christian, particularly, it doesn't grant much room for arrogance, considering our belief that "all have sinned and fallen short of the glory of God." We are like Him in some respects, yes, but we are also hopeless rebels against that God-likeness, bound for Hell. Post by: Perd Hapley on November 16, 2007, 11:54:09 AM
Do you have children?
Good retort, but RKL is not omnipotent, so he has an excuse.
Not really. Even if you could, would you shield your child from every hurt they might encounter? No good parent would be so stiflingly over-protective. The child would not mature properly.
In the extreme cases that RKL mentioned, that may seem like a stretch. But not if one is talking about a God that is omniscient and omnipotent, to use all situations for our good. If RKL doesn't have faith in God's superior judgment, that is his call. But many people have undergone horrific pasts, confident that they could not have had the blessings of God without suffering what he allowed them to undergo in earlier life.
Additionally, God owes no one the slightest protection from the world we have made for ourselves. God receives the blame for every evil thing that happens to a child, yet none of the credit for the oxygen and food he provides them, the parental love, shelter, warmth, etc.
Post by: Risasi on November 16, 2007, 01:08:03 PM
Just because God is long suffering and gracious, don't mistake that for lack of care. Where did that ridiculous line "why do bad things happen to good people" come from? The better question would be "why do good things happen to bad people".
Well, the bible says that our thoughts are not God's thoughts, nor our ways his ways. It also says the heart of man is deceitful above all else.
If true, then assuming then God is always right and I am wrong, and if my heart is deceitful I cannot even be self adjusting in my own flawed thought process. If my thought process is flawed then my observation and conclusion will be flawed.
Therefore I need an outside instrument to calibrate me. (Which according to the bible is itself).
If not, then assuming that the bible is wrong and I am right then why should I pay any attention to it, dying kiddies, or this discussion? I might as well go kick puppies, start my own despotic country and eat, drink and be merry. Live it up....
Fortunately the bible says that not only did the Lord Jesus Christ create everything, but they also consist (are held together) by him. Therefore one can make arrogant statements about God without fear of going fissionable.
Back on topic; if God favors your enemy I think that means you are a Palastinian...
Post by: thebaldguy on November 16, 2007, 01:50:32 PM
I always found it interesting that people used God as a war rally. Especially when unleashing death and destruction on another group fighting for their God. Maybe this shows that there is no God.
Post by: Phyphor on November 16, 2007, 03:42:22 PM
The question is phrased upside down.
Rather than ask whether God is on our side, we should endeavor to place ourselves on His side.
I daresay at least in the West, we'd see far fewer wars at all that way.
Rather than ask whether God is on our side, we should endeavor to place ourselves on His side.
I daresay at least in the West, we'd see far fewer wars at all that way.
Can I please use that as a sig?
Post by: Archie on November 16, 2007, 08:06:10 PM
Cannoneer. Man was created in God's image by God. However, man is a flawed copy due to man's choices. Yes, God is similar to man, just as the original is similar to a fifth generation Xerox copy.
Yes, mankind has used 'gods' as excuses for all manner of evil doings. Does that make God responsible? That's like blaming the Denver mint for counterfieting.
Post by: Kaylee on November 16, 2007, 09:57:28 PM
Quote
Just because God is long suffering and gracious, don't mistake that for lack of care. Where did that ridiculous line "why do bad things happen to good people" come from? The better question would be "why do good things happen to bad people".
Again, well said.
The unspoken assumption seems to be that God has an obligation to stop other people from doing bad things, but not to stop any given speaker from doing "less bad" things. Who gets to draw the line for whether a sin is "bad enough" for God to stop? If I fault God for failing to stop a genocide, am I not saying as well He should strike me down for infidelity? What about gossip and slander? How much of your free will are willing to surrender in order for others get what they deserve? Are you willing to truly get what you deserve?
To the more natural problems of wretched lifetimes .. the old retorts come back. "I want to ask God why He allows such things to happen.... but I'm afraid He'd ask me the very same thing." Do we have the right to ask why God does not bend heaven and earth to feed a hungry child if we're not willing to forgo a single luxury to do it ourselves? Oh sure, some of us give to charity - some quite generously. But none of us as much as we could. The very fact that we're posting on an internet forum means every. single. one. of us values this recreation over another human life we could purchase back from famine somewhere in the world, but choose not to.
There is not one of us with the moral authority to decry God for not doing what we ourselves won't give up just a bit of play to do.
Quote
I always found it interesting that people used God as a war rally. Especially when unleashing death and destruction on another group fighting for their God. Maybe this shows that there is no God.
Alternately, it shows God's patience with even the worst humanity has to offer.
"Let he who is without sin...." as it were.
Quote
Can I please use that as a sig?
Oh, it didn't originate with me for certain sure. But yeah, go ahead. Post by: CAnnoneer on November 17, 2007, 03:02:20 AM
Cannoneer. Man was created in God's image by God. However, man is a flawed copy due to man's choices. Yes, God is similar to man, just as the original is similar to a fifth generation Xerox copy.
If we follow fistful's line of thought, wouldn't the above be an argument in favor of an incompetent fumbling creator?
Also, while I can see that some challenge may be a useful educational tool in light of free choice and all, it seems most of daily life's drudgeries are dull, repetitive chores. If indeed mortal life as we know it is basic training for something beyond, the level of chickenshit and fannying-about is abominably high.
Post by: roo_ster on November 17, 2007, 04:53:23 AM
Cannoneer. Man was created in God's image by God. However, man is a flawed copy due to man's choices. Yes, God is similar to man, just as the original is similar to a fifth generation Xerox copy.
If we follow fistful's line of thought, wouldn't the above be an argument in favor of an incompetent fumbling creator?
Also, while I can see that some challenge may be a useful educational tool in light of free choice and all, it seems most of daily life's drudgeries are dull, repetitive chores. If indeed mortal life as we know it is basic training for something beyond, the level of chickenshit and fannying-about is abominably high.
Also, that level of dull drudgery is endemic to first-world countries. In third-world countries, folks have a bit more excitement & tension while they avoid being killed by genocidal despots, finding enough food to eat, and just making it through the day.
Post by: Kaylee on November 17, 2007, 08:28:57 AM
Quote
If we follow fistful's line of thought, wouldn't the above be an argument in favor of an incompetent fumbling creator?
No, because you missed the part about "due to man's choices." And if you wish to argue that God should have created an "unfallable man" instead, you're stuck with whether you'd really prefer a life without any meaningful choice. Either we're free to make decisions that can affect ourselves and the world around us, or we're not. So far as "dull drudgery" - that's entirely on you. You want an exciting life, go make one. Absolutely nothing is stopping you from stepping away from the computer, liquidating your assets, and exploring the world on foot while sleeping under bridges. Sure it won't be comfortable, but it will be exciting. Again - if that's what you really want.
Post by: Perd Hapley on November 17, 2007, 09:05:29 AM
Cannoneer. Man was created in God's image by God. However, man is a flawed copy due to man's choices. Yes, God is similar to man, just as the original is similar to a fifth generation Xerox copy.
If we follow fistful's line of thought, wouldn't the above be an argument in favor of an incompetent fumbling creator?
If you forget the part about God being God. Does being created in the image of God mean that you are perfect? No, not anymore than a statue of you has all of your qualities of weight, height, etc. Does your God-likeness mean that God has all the flaws that you do? No, not anymore than your characteristics are exactly the same as your father's or mother's.
Quote
Also, while I can see that some challenge may be a useful educational tool in light of free choice and all, it seems most of daily life's drudgeries are dull, repetitive chores. If indeed mortal life as we know it is basic training for something beyond, the level of chickenshit and fannying-about is abominably high.
So does the level of child-rape, people being burned alive, slavery, etc. But such is our mortal perspective. If one believes in God, the question is whether one trusts the judgment of God to allow suffering or unhappiness, even when we cannot see its purpose. Some will, some will not.
CAnnoneer, if you're really interested in this, there are innumerable books written on this subject. As you may know, it's the question of theodicy.
Post by: CAnnoneer on November 17, 2007, 11:55:43 AM
jfruser, I recognize we have it easier than others, but that point is lateral to the thrust of the discussion.
Kaylee, most of the drudgery is not due to man's choices. It is by construction through physical laws and biological imperatives. Examples: most people spend roughly a third of their lives sleeping and another third making a living. The final third has to account for routine, such as cooking and washing, as well as anything of transcendent significance. Ergo, the blatant inefficiency and wastage.
Post by: Risasi on November 17, 2007, 01:01:18 PM
You keep alluding to the same questions or statements about God. And while I doubt the sincerity of your questions I will answer you according to what the bible says on the subject.
Why does God allow such suffering to happen? Does God care about the things he created? God; incompetent boob, or senile grandfatherly old type?
The number one reason that God allows such things to happen is that ultimately all of this will manifest his great glory when he returns to reign on earth. He being the God who created all things, who IS before time began. (This is Jesus Christ, who came as a man, died for all sins, and rose again bodily. Then ascended into the third heaven.)
And not only that, but it is the grand story of the redemption of mankind. God is spoken of as the God of war, God of peace, the God of love. But not love as we think. This God who is angry with the sinner every day, yet loved the world enough to die for all who would believe. It's a principled love.
This God, for who no thought can occur to him, he can't learn, he already knows all things. He cannot change, nor can he lie. This God who is a consuming fire, yet gracious forgiving God. This God who was at one time laughing in derision, but now has gone silent, and will one day bring his great wrath and fury to bear upon Israel (who are HIS people, don't mess with them), Satan and the world. This God who allowed thought and free choice by angels and men, this is the same one who will restore order to chaos and reign on earth.
In short that is what the bible says about why God allows such things. And what I have just said is paltry, really. The scriptures do a far better job of explaining themselves.
The big question is whether or not you believe it? If you do, fine. You are on the winning side.
If not, anybody who does is clearly a lunatic and wasting their lives - you should probably avoid them.
Post by: Len Budney on November 18, 2007, 05:50:55 AM
fistful, it seems to me you are trying to have it both ways. If the divine is a competent creator, why create imperfections, e.g. flawed humans, both physically and mentally? If the imperfections are intentional, meant as educational tools, why are the tools themselves obviously inefficient...
Efficiency is meaningful only in the context of scarcity. We economize time because time is limited. We economize resources because resources are limited. Why would an eternal being "economize" an infinite resource like time?
--Len.
Post by: Balog on November 18, 2007, 06:33:37 AM
fistful, it seems to me you are trying to have it both ways. If the divine is a competent creator, why create imperfections, e.g. flawed humans, both physically and mentally?
They weren't created with imperfections. All the evil and drudgery in the world are the result of the original humans choice to sin. Humans introduced those things into the world. That's why God hates sin so much; "sin" isn't some meaningless offense against a made up law. As IIRC Tozer said "God hates sin the way a mother hates the polio that kills her child."
Post by: CAnnoneer on November 18, 2007, 07:22:48 AM
Efficiency is meaningful only in the context of scarcity. We economize time because time is limited. We economize resources because resources are limited. Why would an eternal being "economize" an infinite resource like time?
Except we are talking about the wastage from the viewpoint of mortal existence being an educational tool for mortals. The longevity of the divine is irrelevant here. If we are to learn something beyond shedding the mortal coil, the world is certainly built on a fundamental level in a way exceedingly non-conducive to the stated goal. Then we have to reconcile the obvious inefficiency with the idea of a beneficent competent omniscient omnipotent deity. It does not add up.
Post by: CAnnoneer on November 18, 2007, 07:28:12 AM
They weren't created with imperfections. All the evil and drudgery in the world are the result of the original humans choice to sin. Humans introduced those things into the world. That's why God hates sin so much; "sin" isn't some meaningless offense against a made up law. As IIRC Tozer said "God hates sin the way a mother hates the polio that kills her child."
Who created the snake and the apple? Who created subjects #1 and #2 in a way that they could be tempted? Why is knowledge evil? Why doesn't an omnipotent diety eradicate that which it hates?
Post by: Len Budney on November 18, 2007, 07:44:24 AM
Efficiency is meaningful only in the context of scarcity. We economize time because time is limited. We economize resources because resources are limited. Why would an eternal being "economize" an infinite resource like time?
Except we are talking about the wastage from the viewpoint of mortal existence being an educational tool for mortals.
Our inconvenience and "waste" is in some sense irrelevant--like a dairy farmer worrying that his cows might be bored with the prospect of doing nothing but making milk for him. Each mortal's time is finite, but the supply of fresh mortals is essentially unlimited.
--Len.
Post by: Balog on November 18, 2007, 07:51:03 AM
Quote
Who created the snake and the apple? Who created subjects #1 and #2 in a way that they could be tempted? Why is knowledge evil? Why doesn't an omnipotent diety eradicate that which it hates?
"The snake" was created perfect to. Temptation is an inevitable consequence of free choice. God could eliminate evil; by eradicating your ability to choose. You really want that?
Post by: Moondoggie on November 18, 2007, 08:02:27 AM
"God is this or that", "God says this or that", "God intends this or that", "God favors this side or that side"...as if anybody has the slighest chance of knowing god's will. One person telling another person that they have the answer is the most ridiculous concept in the history of mankind. One person (or group)enforcing their ideas or will upon another based upon their "understanding" of god is one of the greatest tragedies in the history of mankind. The whole concept has much to do with power and very little to do with "god".
Yawn..... next subject.
My answer to the original question would be....nope.
Peace to the planet.
Post by: Perd Hapley on November 18, 2007, 09:26:51 AM
I am always amazed/amused by folks who seem to think anyone comprehends the nature/intent/character or characteristics of the creator of a universe/existence that none of us can even begin to understand or appreciate. I think it's even more astounding that a great many of us accept that folks who lived thousands or years ago automatically knew more about God than we do today.
"God is this or that", "God says this or that", "God intends this or that", "God favors this side or that side"...as if anybody has the slighest chance of knowing god's will. One person telling another person that they have the answer is the most ridiculous concept in the history of mankind.
"God is this or that", "God says this or that", "God intends this or that", "God favors this side or that side"...as if anybody has the slighest chance of knowing god's will. One person telling another person that they have the answer is the most ridiculous concept in the history of mankind.
If someone claims they know everything there is to know about God, I'd be a little amused, too. If they claimed to figure it out by themselves, they'd be even sillier. But if someone claims that God has revealed certain things about Himself, so that we can know some things about Him, that would be quite reasonable. Christianity would fall under that heading.
Post by: CAnnoneer on November 18, 2007, 03:06:59 PM
Our inconvenience and "waste" is in some sense irrelevant--like a dairy farmer worrying that his cows might be bored with the prospect of doing nothing but making milk for him. Each mortal's time is finite, but the supply of fresh mortals is essentially unlimited.
Len, this viewpoint would clash with the idea of a beneficient deity. So, we would end up with a contradiction again.
Post by: CAnnoneer on November 18, 2007, 03:13:05 PM
"The snake" was created perfect to. Temptation is an inevitable consequence of free choice. God could eliminate evil; by eradicating your ability to choose. You really want that?
Then what you are saying is that the divine intended for the mortals to be tempted by something the divine created. If the snake is evil, then the divine created evil, something a beneficient deity would not do.
Also, I am not certain free choice necessitates the existence of evil. There are a bunch of important choices about existence, which have little to do with good or evil.
Post by: CAnnoneer on November 18, 2007, 03:22:22 PM
I think it's even more astounding that a great many of us accept that folks who lived thousands or years ago automatically knew more about God than we do today.
That bothers me too. If anything, the folks back then knew much less about the universe than we do today, yet their opinions and literary products are given disproportionately large, almost exclusive authority. It is also amusing to me when old "editions" are discovered that contain alternative renditions, yet they do not seem to change the official positions in any meaningful way. It certainly seems like a selective reading to me.
It seems to me it would make more sense to try to use logic to produce a self-consistent system of beliefs based on ALL available sources.
Post by: Perd Hapley on November 18, 2007, 07:48:45 PM
fistful, it seems to me you are trying to have it both ways.
I understand why you might see it that way. Perhaps you expect Christian doctrine to be the sort of children's fairy tale that comes in a few primary colors. If it were, I don't think I'd believe it either. Reality is too messy for such simple explanations. Nor does reality allow for the kind of dream-world that you would expect a God to create. Perfect beings that simply can not be tempted? I'm not sure even God could create such chimeras. The God of which I speak has a perfection that would be impossible to share. Let's say God could create another perfect being like himself. The very idea is problematic. Part of God's perfection is that he was not created, nor does he have a starting point. He simply exists. As you may know, the Bible calls Him "the I Am."
Quote
If the divine is a competent creator, why create imperfections, e.g. flawed humans, both physically and mentally? If the imperfections are intentional, meant as educational tools, why are the tools themselves obviously inefficient to the stated purpose, e.g. as witnessed by the colossal loss of time built into the system?
I don't think that's the view that I presented. If I gave that impression, I apologize. The very fact that humans and animals (and the universe itself) were created by another is a mark against our perfection. We are not self-existent, independent beings. But let us say that, undeterred by this, God went on to make beings that were as perfect as circumstances would allow. This is what the Bible describes.
After God created the heavens, earth, humans, etc, he said that it was Good. There was no drudgery or other unpleasantness. Adam and Eve (and Lucifer) fell, not due to some poor design on God's part, but due to their very excellence. They had no physical weakness, no mental or emotional deficiency, no anxiety over whether God loved them, nor any lack of self-esteem. They had no long list of difficult rules, such as the law of Moses.
Naturally, such nearly perfect beings thought themselves qualified to make their own rules about morality, just as you and I have also tried to do in the course of our lives. It is conceivable that God could have built into them some mechanism to enforce some humility on their minds, to keep them from testing His laws. But would such allow for independent thought or real choice, real morality, real love? Wouldn't we despise such folk as slavish dolts?
Quote
Who created the snake and the apple? Who created subjects #1 and #2 in a way that they could be tempted? Why is knowledge evil?
I don't think anyone here claimed that knowledge is evil. Gen. 3.22: "Behold, the man has become like one of Us, knowing good and evil." In other words, Mankind chose to make up its own mind about good and evil, rather than letting God decide. This was the only knowledge that was forbidden. If God had made humankind like animals, without human awareness or rationality, we would not have been capable of sin. But we would have been that much further removed from perfection. The snake and apple were both created by God. As I have mentioned earlier, the snake (Lucifer) was not created to be an evil being. He chose to become so, for much the same reasons as A & E did. The "apple," really the fruit of the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil, was also created by God, and why God would create such a thing is an intriguing question. The command not to eat of the tree is analogous to all the other commands of God, especially those we cannot understand. I believe God put it in the Garden to give Adam and Eve a very clear choice about whether they would obey or not. They were going to assert their own judgment over God's eventually, the "apple" made the choice immediate and clear, so that they could appreciate exactly what they were doing, rather than wandering into sin by negligence.
Quote
If the imperfections are intentional, meant as educational tools, why are the tools themselves obviously inefficient to the stated purpose, e.g. as witnessed by the colossal loss of time built into the system?
Here's where I think you're not understanding the Christian view point that most of us are espousing. Imperfections are not God's intention at all. Nor do we believe that God created evil, or that He can be blamed for its existence. These were things that humans (and some angels) insisted on having. We refused to simply live perfect and easy lives as God intended. This is not to say that anyone wants to be born with a birth defect or to be victimized by some random crime. But God does not want that either. He allows it because He respects the free will of His creatures, and as part of a plan intended for the maximum benefit of all mankind. It is also a mistake to believe that, if God allows harm to befall a small child, he is therefore not benevolent. God is not morally required to prevent harm to us. We have all sinned against him, and deserve maximum punishment. In truth, God grants us grace every day, in the form of oxygen, food, warmth, shelter, clothing, the love of family members, etc. We deserve none of these things. But what about the child who grows to hate God because of his horrific childhood? God could have put them in Eden. But we saw how that worked out.
The tools are inefficient? Compared to what? One stands on shaky ground when one claims that one can create a better world than the current scheme. (It would also be fun to charge you with Utopian socialism, but I won't be that cruel.
) But, really, we have no way of knowing whether a better world might have been created. This may well be the best of all possible worlds. Quote
Why doesn't an omnipotent diety eradicate that which it hates?
As pointed out, God would have to eliminate your own humanity, in order to do so. Unless you would prefer to be destroyed entirely. We might wish for God to strike down the terrorists and pedophiles and those who talk in the theater. But if He were to strike down all the sinners, then their victims would have to go as well. Nobody's perfect. He would have to destroy humankind altogether, or degrade them to an animal existence without choice or reason. Even the Final Judgment of Hell is not "eradication," but a reward. Sinners choose a life apart from God, and God grants that. Quote
If the divine is a competent creator, why create imperfections, e.g. flawed humans, both physically and mentally?
God does not create imperfections, although He may often allow them. As I said, the creation was originally without flaw. If God wished to eradicate all imperfection, he would have to destroy both of us. Even well-behaved, clean-cut boys like cosine and carebear would not escape. Quote
If you are aware of books on the subject that make a logical self-consistent argument, please summarize.
I haven't read any books that deal specifically with theodicy. The first one I would read is The Problem of Pain, because it's hard to go wrong with C.S. Lewis. For general questions about Christian apologetics, I would recommend the Case For... series by Lee Strobel. Books consisting of interviews with prominent philosophers and theologians, they are a decent introduction. The Case for Faith would be most apropos to this topic. You might also try Making Sense Out of Suffering by Peter Kreeft, Where is God When It Hurts? by Philip Yancy, When God Weeps by Joni Eareckson Tada and Steven Estes, and Where is God When Bad Things Happen? by Luis Palau. Those are listed in Strobel's bibliography. There's another book called, When Good Things Happen to Bad People. Don't recall the author. Post by: Perd Hapley on November 18, 2007, 07:56:26 PM
It seems to me it would make more sense to try to use logic to produce a self-consistent system of beliefs based on ALL available sources.
Assuming you mean all available reliable sources, I agree. See you in church, brother. 
Quote
It is also amusing to me when old "editions" are discovered that contain alternative renditions, yet they do not seem to change the official positions in any meaningful way. It certainly seems like a selective reading to me.
If you're talking about Christian writings and beliefs, I think you've been sold a bill of goods. Are you talking about the so-called Gnostic gospels, or what?
Post by: Len Budney on November 19, 2007, 09:51:30 AM
Our inconvenience and "waste" is in some sense irrelevant--like a dairy farmer worrying that his cows might be bored with the prospect of doing nothing but making milk for him. Each mortal's time is finite, but the supply of fresh mortals is essentially unlimited.
Len, this viewpoint would clash with the idea of a beneficient deity. So, we would end up with a contradiction again.
Only because you're using the wrong definition of "beneficent." Hint: it doesn't mean "gives me lots of candy." That's a definition one hopefully outgrows by age five.
--Len.
Post by: griz on November 19, 2007, 02:53:33 PM
Quote
But if someone claims that God has revealed certain things about Himself, so that we can know some things about Him, that would be quite reasonable.
There have been conflicting things "revealed" to different people. Are they all reasonable?
Post by: CAnnoneer on November 19, 2007, 03:09:36 PM
Only because you're using the wrong definition of "beneficent." Hint: it doesn't mean "gives me lots of candy." That's a definition one hopefully outgrows by age five.
Webster: beneficent
Main Entry: be?nef?i?cent
Pronunciation: \-sənt\
Function: adjective
Etymology: back-formation from beneficence
Date: 1616
1: doing or producing good; especially : performing acts of kindness and charity
2: beneficial
be?nef?i?cent?ly adverb
And your definition is...?
Post by: Len Budney on November 19, 2007, 03:17:17 PM
Only because you're using the wrong definition of "beneficent." Hint: it doesn't mean "gives me lots of candy." That's a definition one hopefully outgrows by age five.
And your definition is...?
... completely irrelevant. Assuming arguendam that God exists, He is what he is. If He calls that "good," or if I do, we're using God as the definition of goodness--and hence, if He happens to be the God of the Bible, "goodness" must not be incompatible with, e.g., Joshua's genocidal invasion of Canaan. When you argue the reverse, that genocidal invasions are always "bad," and therefore God must be "bad," you're introducing a different definition of goodness. If you go farther and claim that you have demonstrated a logical contradiction, then you have fallen for the fallacy of equivocation, plain and simple.
--Len.
Post by: The Swamp Fox on November 19, 2007, 04:45:03 PM
Quote
So, here's the question: If you were a soldier preparing for war, would a speech that references God/Allah/religion given by your commanders motivate you?
Since this is not a hypothetical for me I can say firmly not. Since I do not know of any Commanders in the US Army that share my religous views therefore any speech referencing their higher power would be lost on me.
Quote
Using the war in the mid-east as an example, would you feel that you are on the "right" side if you were a U.S. soldier? What if you were an Iraqi or Al Queda?
Again... since this is not a hypothetical for me I can say firmly yes. My mission will be to assist the Iraqi's in defeating fight Al Queda invaders, establishing a republic and improving civil rights in the country so I feel pretty good about going back there. I don't think I would have volunteered otherwise.
Quote
Assuming arguendam that God exists, He is what he is. If He calls that "good," or if I do, we're using God as the definition of goodness--and hence, if He happens to be the God of the Bible, "goodness" must not be incompatible with, e.g., Joshua's genocidal invasion of Canaan. When you argue the reverse, that genocidal invasions are always "bad," and therefore God must be "bad," you're introducing a different definition of goodness.
This is an issue that most organized religions face. It is impossible to do "good" for all creatures therefore any acts that are not "good" are often explained away as "divine mystery" or "greater good" or whatever. Certainly the bible and quaran are fraught with complex moral issues where the divine entity servents of the host appear to not always do "good".
But in answer to the OP's title question I guess if so; I will die a horrible death within the year. Of course my living and returning home safely will not mean that I was more favored either.
Edit:
Quote
What if you were an Iraqi
Just noticed that. Very curious. It kind of implies that Iraqi's are on the opposite side. Certainly some are. But since less than 2% of the population is involved in the insurrection I guess it would kind of depend if you were in that minority that is fighting US forces.
But then again if I were Iraqi my mindset would be: En'shalla.
Quote
or Al Queda
Well I might think I were. But then again I might have my doubts. That is why my comrades will keep the detonator from afar and duct tape my hands to the steering wheel and give me a large dose of liquid courage before I drive into the check point with my VBIED. Even then I might change my mind but thee isn't much I could do about it.
Post by: Perd Hapley on November 19, 2007, 05:11:52 PM
Quote
But if someone claims that God has revealed certain things about Himself, so that we can know some things about Him, that would be quite reasonable.
There have been conflicting things "revealed" to different people. Are they all reasonable?
I could answer that pedantically, but let's skip straight to your real question. Which is:
A) Is something true just because some guy from two thousand years ago claimed it was revealed by God?
Answer) Of course not.
B) How do you know that something was actually revealed by God?
Answer) That's a good question, with a very in-depth answer. To summarize, Christians demonstrate the veracity of the Bible by showing evidence that Christ rose from the dead; that His immediate followers gave a reliable record of His teachings, which has been well-preserved until the present day; that the Old Testament has a similar record of reliability and preservation; that miracles and fulfilled prophecy testify to such; and that archeology and secular history agree with the Bible to an impressive degree. I probably missed a few categories of evidence.
Post by: griz on November 20, 2007, 03:21:35 AM
That brings up another question. Would any contemporary person be taken seriously if they claimed to be sent from G-d? What sort of miriacles would be required to establish proof?
Post by: CAnnoneer on November 20, 2007, 03:51:08 AM
To summarize, Christians demonstrate the veracity of the Bible by showing evidence that Christ rose from the dead; that His immediate followers gave a reliable record of His teachings, which has been well-preserved until the present day; that the Old Testament has a similar record of reliability and preservation; that miracles and fulfilled prophecy testify to such; and that archeology and secular history agree with the Bible to an impressive degree. I probably missed a few categories of evidence.
Fistful, please walk us through the evidence. As far as I can tell, it is all hearsay - reports on testimony of adherents. For me, solid evidence is what can be established by observation, experimentation, and artifacts.
Post by: CAnnoneer on November 20, 2007, 04:01:56 AM
That brings up another question. Would any contemporary person be taken seriously if they claimed to be sent from G-d? What sort of miriacles would be required to establish proof?
Unless they can perform observable, measurable miracles, they likely won't. But, if their message is likeable, they will generate a following nonetheless. They will write a book, which will be commented upon by subsequent followers, expanding the "knowledge" and generating vague predictions and promises. Then some things will inevitably happen that will be interpreted by partial eyes as fulfilment of said promises/predictions and the canon would get its "prophecies come to be". Mix in a little bit of true neutral history, a few deals of mutual support with the secular govs, stir well, and after some long time of iteration, you end with an established major religion.
Post by: grampster on November 20, 2007, 04:42:03 AM
To summarize, Christians demonstrate the veracity of the Bible by showing evidence that Christ rose from the dead; that His immediate followers gave a reliable record of His teachings, which has been well-preserved until the present day; that the Old Testament has a similar record of reliability and preservation; that miracles and fulfilled prophecy testify to such; and that archeology and secular history agree with the Bible to an impressive degree. I probably missed a few categories of evidence.
Fistful, please walk us through the evidence. As far as I can tell, it is all hearsay - reports on testimony of adherents. For me, solid evidence is what can be established by observation, experimentation, and artifacts.
Cannoneer,
Get a copy of Evidence That Demands a Verdict. Josh McDowell. Probably can be found at a used book store or a Christian used book store.
Mr. McDowell wrote this book as a mission to debunk Christianity and came to the opposite conclusion. He did a monumental amount of work and it's all footnoted as well. This work should answer all of your questions.
Post by: Werewolf on November 20, 2007, 05:11:33 AM
God DOES PLAY DICE WITH THE UNIVERSE.
Better hope his rolls go your way.
Post by: RoadKingLarry on November 20, 2007, 05:54:48 AM
.
Post by: Perd Hapley on November 20, 2007, 01:23:36 PM
That brings up another question. Would any contemporary person be taken seriously if they claimed to be sent from G-d? What sort of miracles would be required to establish proof?
Unless they can perform observable, measurable miracles, they likely won't. But, if their message is likeable, they will generate a following nonetheless.
Like this guy? http://abcnews.go.com/Primetime/story?id=2925021&page=1
Fistful, please walk us through the evidence. As far as I can tell, it is all hearsay - reports on testimony of adherents.
I'm glad to report that it is not all hearsay. People like Peter, John the Apostle, Paul, Moses and many others, wrote of things they saw for themselves, including resurrections.
I have gone into more detail in other threads. I may do so again. But you are a smart guy, and you can do your own research. Other people have been paid to write what I would be writing for free. And you get what you pay for. As grampster suggested, the Evidence books are probably a good place to go. They sell them at my local Barnes & Noble, maybe yours, too. Or you might find it at a library. Which would be good, as it is a big, hardback affair.
If you wish to be really devious, see if any local churches have a library. They might have it. If you can manage to borrow it from them, you can leave all manner of subversive notes in between the pages.