toldailytopic: For those unsaved. If it turns out you were wrong and you face God in

[Skavau]

How have you determined what is wicked and what is good? Do you view goodness and wickedness as absolute, or culturally defined, or independently established from one individual to the next?

It is not universal, as morality is a human-centric concept. Morality can be broadly defined as what one ought or ought not do in the context of a community (that is with the deliberate consideration of others and your surroundings). There can be no coherent justification for torture and certainly no justification for torture for what one thinks, be it mandated by a 'divine' arbiter or a human dictator.

Have you done the cost-benefit analysis, or is this merely an emotional response?

I have done the cost-benefit analysis. It serves no purpose. The depravity of constant suffering towards those residing in eternal torment can be nothing more than pure sadism. There can be no rehabilitation if it is eternal, and so any actual pain inflicted upon those in hell is pointless.

Indeed, it is also disproportionate - punishing finite actions (or beliefs) infinitely. There can literally be no greater injustice.

 

[Hilston]

I would say that I only worshiped as man has worshiped for practically forever, for thousands if not tens of thousands of years.

How do you suppose this gets you off the hook? What the basis for your assumption that there is safety in numbers? Jesus declared that the way to eternal life is narrow and the way to condemnation is broad, and there are many that take the broad road. So why do you think you would have an excuse for siding with the majority opinion?

I could simply not believe that an all powerful all-good deity intent on saving mankind ...

First of all, I have no doubt that your conception of "all-good deity" and of what "all-good" means is a bit different from that of the Bible. Second, where do you get the notion that God is intent on saving mankind, when the Scriptures announce in advance that the vast majority of people will reject God, only a few will be saved, and that Christ will save only those whom the Father gave to Him?

... could have been so unable to stifle the diverse array of long-lived pre-Abrahamic traditions.

What makes you think God wanted to stifle pre-Abrahamic traditions?

Most of the people who believe in Christ believe in Christ for less proof than that.

Are you under the impression that people believe in Christ because of proof or evidence?

If you are good to others in your thoughts and in your actions, what is this other, intangible, nameless form of morality that only Christ can provide?

You are mistaken to assume there is any such thing as "goodness" that is independent of the Biblical standard. Jesus doesn't merely add to some general conception of goodness, but He is the very source and definer of it.

... You claim God puts this goodness into people, but is there any real way of distinguishing this Christ-given goodness from the basic morality that anyone can have?

Not at all. The problem for unbelievers is that they have no rational basis for their so-called goodness. They cannot rationally define it. And they cannot rationally perform it. There is no reason for the unbeliever to "be good," to say nothing of how they go about defining it.

Hilston

 

[Skavau]

How do you suppose this gets you off the hook? What the basis for your assumption that there is safety in numbers? Jesus declared that the way to eternal life is narrow and the way to condemnation is broad

And what an immoral injunction that was. It is effectively declaring the road to anything other than permanent torture is narrow. This is even worse and far more incoherent when you consider the fact that the criteria to enter this 'narrow road' is based solely in thought. That is one must force themselves to accept specific truth-claims on reality to be true based squarely on the desire for them to be true. Nevermind that billions of people across the planet are not aware of said claims and/or not convinced of said claims being true - they are deserving of eternal torture for their incapability or inability to consider vicarious redemption as true.

Such 'divine' thought-crime is monstrous.

So why do you think you would have an excuse for siding with the majority opinion?

No-one here is making excuses. We are all coming out and saying that the notion that claims only those saved can avoid hellfire is profoundly immoral and unjustifiable.

First of all, I have no doubt that your conception of "all-good deity" and of what "all-good" means is a bit different from that of the Bible. Second, where do you get the notion that God is intent on saving mankind, when the Scriptures announce in advance that the vast majority of people will reject God, only a few will be saved, and that Christ will save only those whom the Father gave to Him?

Then your entire world-view is nothing more than post-apocalyptic destruction as mandated and approved by God. You want to call this moral, then go ahead. Don't expect any humanist to agree.

Are you under the impression that people believe in Christ because of proof or evidence?

I'm not - though I am certainly under the impression that those who do not believe in Christ would do so if evidence existed for it.

You are mistaken to assume there is any such thing as "goodness" that is independent of the Biblical standard. Jesus doesn't merely add to some general conception of goodness, but He is the very source and definer of it.

Then according to your understanding: What is "good"? What does a "good" action involve?

Not at all. The problem for unbelievers is that they have no rational basis for their so-called goodness. They cannot rationally define it. And they cannot rationally perform it. There is no reason for the unbeliever to "be good," to say nothing of how they go about defining it.

I certainly have no reason to "be good" from the likely definition of it that you espouse. I suspect that your definition of "good" is solely synonymous with obedience towards God. That is that the only thing you literally care about is obedience towards God. Anything that is not unflinchingly resolve and adulation towards God according to you is what you would label "bad". This is why you are capable of supporting eternal torture. This is why you are capable of endorsing thought-crime. You do it on behalf of the God that you believe in. Humanity is merely a means to Gods end for you. You are the literal definition of anti-humanity.

 

[Hilston]

It is not universal, as morality is a human-centric concept.

Which morality are you then invoking when you pronounce the Bible-God as wicked? And are you then saying that the Bible-God is only "wicked" on selected anthropocentric terms?

I have done the cost-benefit analysis. It serves no purpose.

Is this hyperbole? Does it really serve no purpose, or rather does it not serve a purpose that satisfies your Skavau-centric ersatz morality?

The depravity of constant suffering towards those residing in eternal torment can be nothing more than pure sadism.

How do you define "depravity"? Why is constant suffering bad? What are the criteria for "pure sadism"? How did you come up with these standards? On your own? Or did you read it somewhere? Or is it your innate sensibility being expressed? Why should your sensibility prevail as a moral standard over, say, that of Mao or the Marquis de Sade?

There can be no rehabilitation if it is eternal, and so any actual pain inflicted upon those in hell is pointless.

Again, are you saying it is absolutely pointless, or just that you cannot fathom any possible point it could have?

Indeed, it is also disproportionate - punishing finite actions (or beliefs) infinitely. There can literally be no greater injustice.

What is "justice"? Whence comes your conception of it, and why should anyone regard your definition as having any meaning, let alone declaring to others what constitutes just behavior?

What seems disproportionate to you might be perfectly proportional to someone else. Why should your sense of proportionality dictate the matter?

Hilston

 

[Skavau]

Which morality are you then invoking when you pronounce the Bible-God as wicked? And are you then saying that the Bible-God is only "wicked" on selected anthropocentric terms?

I am referring to humanism. That is, a moral system invested in the interest and progression of humanity and the individuals contained within it. Every valid system of humanism declares thought-crime as unacceptable as it deliberately inhibits one's own expression. Every valid system of humanism declares torture as unacceptable as its purpose is nothing more than sadism.

Is this hyperbole? Does it really serve no purpose, or rather does it not serve a purpose that satisfies your Skavau-centric ersatz morality?

It literally serves no purpose.

How do you define "depravity"?

The depravity was hyperbole. But in this context, it refers to the willful attempt to inflict suffering towards others.

Why is constant suffering bad?

It serves no purpose and only causes to cause suffering to those inflicted. It is at best a permanent infliction of their liberty to choose their own path in life. Neither you or I would want to be tortured for eternity. Recognition of our own objection to it is enough to understand the general objection towards it. If you are to seriously argue against this, then I would consider you more inhumane that I currently do.

What are the criteria for "pure sadism"?

The deliberate objective of inflicting suffering for one's own amusement and enjoyment on a subject permanently. I take it you know what sadism means.

Again, are you saying it is absolutely pointless, or just that you cannot fathom any possible point it could have?

I certainly am open to any new 'enlightening' arguments that suggest that torture for eternity is meaningful. Please go ahead an surprise me.

What is "justice"? Whence comes your conception of it, and why should anyone regard your definition as having any meaning, let alone declaring to others what constitutes just behavior?

What seems disproportionate to you might be perfectly proportional to someone else. Why should your sense of proportionality dictate the matter?

Do you even know what the word "proportionality" means? I will respond currently with a question: How can it be proportionate to punishment someone for what they finitely, infinitely?

 

[Squishes]

Hilston, do individual humans have a moral obligation to believe that God exists? Is it morally wrong to not believe he exists?

 

[Jacob]

Hilston, do individual humans have a moral obligation to believe that God exists? Is it morally wrong to not believe he exists?

Do you believe beliefs are actions or that morality can be extended to intents of the heart?

 

[rexlunae]

For those unsaved. If it turns out you were wrong and you face God in judgment what will be your defense?

Well, assuming that I fall into that category, I suppose my first reaction would be to ask to see the charges against me. I don't believe I've ever done anything that warrants a punishment that I need to fear.

 

[BabyChristian]

Simply that I tried my best to lead a good life and not cause any harm . . . .

Which is something some believers in God can't say!

See, this is why I believe in "absolute truths". I'll betcha Hitler thought he tried to lead a good life too and tried to make the world a better place ridding earth of Jews.

 

[BabyChristian]

The question's really used by believers of all kinds to gauge the "real" or "deepest" reasons a non-believer remains outside the fold. There's any number of different answers, each that could theoretically be used depending on the deity in question. As a thought experiment related to the God TOL is most acquainted with, there's simply no defense possible, or of any use. Which is why I wouldn't offer one.

Now, should the God of the Mormons ask me the same thing, I'd explain that it appeared he was the imagined deity of some New York state frauds and hicks, and that the deity had crafted a ridiculous and puerile back story; no big shakes, since I'd wind up in a terrestrial heaven that'd be quite pleasant.

Should the God of the Jews ask me this question I'd simply shrug and explain that as One of the Chosen I deserve a mulligan.

Should Allah ask me, I'd hold my tongue just as I would with the God of the Christians.

If Allah asks you the same question, what would you tell him?

Mulligan. :chuckle:

 

[Layla]

Belief is not a conscious choice.

 

[Yazichestvo]

How do you suppose this gets you off the hook? What the basis for your assumption that there is safety in numbers? Jesus declared that the way to eternal life is narrow and the way to condemnation is broad, and there are many that take the broad road. So why do you think you would have an excuse for siding with the majority opinion?

First of all, I have no doubt that your conception of "all-good deity" and of what "all-good" means is a bit different from that of the Bible. Second, where do you get the notion that God is intent on saving mankind, when the Scriptures announce in advance that the vast majority of people will reject God, only a few will be saved, and that Christ will save only those whom the Father gave to Him?

I'm not sure that all Christians would say God is not intent on saving mankind.
However, you are not far from the mark on one thing; to my mind, a "all-good deity" would attempt to maximize happiness and wellbeing in the world, and attempt to save as many people as possible. It also seems that if he were also all powerful, "as many people as possible" would be everyone. Supposedly the soul is divine, but if he created many only to discard the majority as failures, then I am doubtful of this creator. If he created many only to have never known of him even, this seems to be a less-than perfect result for a perfect God's actions. Even "choice between good and evil" is no explanation. 1) what opposing God created this evil, and 2) choices made without being fully informed are no test of a person's character, so why has man so frequently been misinformed or uninformed?

What makes you think God wanted to stifle pre-Abrahamic traditions?

This is most puzzling of all. What makes me think this? The fact that doing so (forcefully if need be) seems to be a main tenet of Christianity and Islam.

Are you under the impression that people believe in Christ because of proof or evidence?

My point is that they do not. They have less rationale then I do. If you reject that having a rationale is important, then why debate anything?

You are mistaken to assume there is any such thing as "goodness" that is independent of the Biblical standard. Jesus doesn't merely add to some general conception of goodness, but He is the very source and definer of it.

Not at all. The problem for unbelievers is that they have no rational basis for their so-called goodness. They cannot rationally define it. And they cannot rationally perform it. There is no reason for the unbeliever to "be good," to say nothing of how they go about defining it.

Hilston

This is clearly where we differ. If someone cannot be moral on their own, by their own virtue, then I fail to see how they can take credit for being moral at all. To me, morality is the desire to maximize happiness in the world. Life is the only thing that gives meaning to the universe, so satisfying life is all that matters. Seems rational to me- at least as much as morality can be rational. Is yours rational? Like people have been asking since Socrates- is it good because God likes it, or does God like it because it is good? Either God determines morality arbitrarily, or he has a reason. If he has a reason, then morality has some definition other than "because he says so".[/quote]

 

[Nick M]

There is no point evaluating their actions when you've already decided the outcome.

That is right. All are sinners. And many "Christians" boast in the flesh. That is to brag about behaviors in relation to salvation. When there is no relation.

Be reconciled to Christ.

 

[Rusha]

Belief is not a conscious choice.

Exactly

 

[chrysostom]

Belief is not a conscious choice.

so what exactly is it that we choose?
or
is it not for us to decide?

 

[Hilston]

Hilston, do individual humans have a moral obligation to believe that God exists? Is it morally wrong to not believe he exists?

The Biblical answer is yes, and yes. In the past, prior to the conversion of Saul of Tarsus, the obligation extended beyond individual humans to tribes and nations.

What does "moral obligation" and "wrong" mean to you?

Hilston

 

[Layla]

so what exactly is it that we choose?
or
is it not for us to decide?

Er... we choose lots of things. Today I chose to do some reading, watch Frasier on DVD and make a salad for lunch.

What does that have to do with anything? What are you asking, exactly?

 

[chrysostom]

Er... we choose lots of things. Today I chose to do some reading, watch Frasier on DVD and make a salad for lunch.

What does that have to do with anything? What are you asking, exactly?

you said

Belief is not a conscious choice.

maybe you should explain that

 

[Skavau]

you said

Belief is not a conscious choice.

maybe you should explain that

It isn't. You can't /choose/ to believe that anything is true. I can't literally choose to believe that Islam is true or Christianity is true. I have to be convinced that they are true as before I can believe. It is why Pascal's Wager is a fallacy and it is why the entire notion of redemption through thought is incoherent.

 

[Layla]

you said

Belief is not a conscious choice.

maybe you should explain that

Does it need explaining? I thought it was fairly succinct.

Ok... One cannot force belief. It's there or it is not. One can be convinced... by a display, an experience, or an argument... but one cannot make a choice.

I could sit here and tell you all I believe in god. But I'd be lying to you and myself. I can't suddenly decide to believe anymore than you can decide not to.