Christian Discussion Thread IV

[Tsaraine]

That reminds me, why is modern Israel a republic if it is supposed to be a kingdom according to the Old Testament?

Modern Israel was founded by a highly secular movement that was initially opposed by religious Jews.

IIRC there's a sect of Jews in upstate New York somewhere which holds that the state of Israel can only be (re)established by the Messiah, making the current state of Israel theologically illegitimate and actively delaying the coming of the Messiah - sort of the opposite of evangelical Christians' position that the state of Israel must be established to prepare for the return of the Messiah.

[The United Neptumousian Empire]

Here's a thing that's bothered me about the (old testament) god for a while, something I've never really gotten a satisfactory answer to. I may have also raised it in the Christian Discussion Thread before, sorry if that's the case, I can't remember. I think it's in Exodus. The Israelite king preceding David (Saul, I think?) is punished by god, his throne is given to another, because the genocide of the Amalekites he has carried out on god's orders has been insufficiently thorough.

Some people have tried to explain this by saying that the Amalekites were irredeemably evil (and that this evil was heritable, naturally - the inheritance of sin is something I also find fault with god about, but as that's kind of at the root of Christian theology it's another topic entirely). Or that Saul's sin was in not obeying god to the letter. But these seem to be insufficient to me, splitting hairs over the exact wording when the act itself is clear; god commanded genocide, and Saul obeyed, to like 99.99%. God commanded genocide; how then is god moral?

It seems to me that if god were apprehensible, he would be swiftly brought before the ICJ on charges of crimes against humanity. This really bothers me, since people I like and respect are happily Christian, and I really can't reconcile that with what god gets up to in the old testament; the old testament god seems more worthy of condemnation than worship, and his chosen people seem like bloody-handed murderers.

I'm really not trying to troll or offend anyone here, and I'm sorry if I've caused offense, but this seems ... really critical to the whole Abrahamic faith. How do you reconcile your god with your morality?

My answer is going to be different from those provided by others so far. They have said, basically, "whatever God commands is moral by definition." I don't think so.

Rather, my answer is: "Everything God commands is carefully calculated so that the innumerable consequences of that action, big and small, will lead to a (much) better result than if the action had not been carried out."

Have you ever read a work of science-fiction involving either (a) time travel, or (b) someone who could see all possible futures, and which describes how a seemingly-insignificant event in the past can have monumental consequences for the future? Now imagine all the threads of history radiating outward from an event which is not at all insignificant, but is rather the genocide of the Amalekites. Forget Hitler; everything about our world today may be entirely different if the genocide of the Amalekites had not happened. Perhaps the human species itself may be extinct by now, having annihilated itself in nuclear war.

Or to put it differently... read this book:



Leto II Atreides, a man who could see all possible futures, gave up his own humanity so that he could become the God-Emperor, and rule the known universe for 3500 years as a seemingly-bloodthirsty tyrant. He did this because every other course of action eventually led to the self-destruction of the human species at some point in the future. After 3500 years, he arranged for his own death, because that was also necessary for the success of the Golden Path (the carefully orchestrated series of events that would lead to the one possible future where Humanity thrives and expands across the universe).

So... if Leto II commands you to destroy a planet, is he evil? I say no. But not because "everything the God-Emperor commands is good by definition." Rather, because the God-Emperor can see all possible futures, and understands the consequences of destroying that planet better than you ever could. Maybe the survival of the human species 2500 years in the future depends on the destruction of that planet today.

I think that this argument, combined with the other one that whatever is Godly is also good, formulates a firmly adequate response to the query.

[Securitan]

My answer is going to be different from those provided by others so far. They have said, basically, "whatever God commands is moral by definition." I don't think so.

Rather, my answer is: "Everything God commands is carefully calculated so that the innumerable consequences of that action, big and small, will lead to a (much) better result than if the action had not been carried out."

Have you ever read a work of science-fiction involving either (a) time travel, or (b) someone who could see all possible futures, and which describes how a seemingly-insignificant event in the past can have monumental consequences for the future? Now imagine all the threads of history radiating outward from an event which is not at all insignificant, but is rather the genocide of the Amalekites. Forget Hitler; everything about our world today may be entirely different if the genocide of the Amalekites had not happened. Perhaps the human species itself may be extinct by now, having annihilated itself in nuclear war.

Or to put it differently... read this book:



Leto II Atreides, a man who could see all possible futures, gave up his own humanity so that he could become the God-Emperor, and rule the known universe for 3500 years as a seemingly-bloodthirsty tyrant. He did this because every other course of action eventually led to the self-destruction of the human species at some point in the future. After 3500 years, he arranged for his own death, because that was also necessary for the success of the Golden Path (the carefully orchestrated series of events that would lead to the one possible future where Humanity thrives and expands across the universe).

So... if Leto II commands you to destroy a planet, is he evil? I say no. But not because "everything the God-Emperor commands is good by definition." Rather, because the God-Emperor can see all possible futures, and understands the consequences of destroying that planet better than you ever could. Maybe the survival of the human species 2500 years in the future depends on the destruction of that planet today.

I think that this argument, combined with the other one that whatever is Godly is also good, formulates a firmly adequate response to the query.

Well I don't particularly think it was for the betterment of the people or had anything to do with morality. I think it was just a test to see if he would use his free will to follow him.

[Sun Wukong]

Here's a thing that's bothered me about the (old testament) god for a while, something I've never really gotten a satisfactory answer to. I may have also raised it in the Christian Discussion Thread before, sorry if that's the case, I can't remember. I think it's in Exodus. The Israelite king preceding David (Saul, I think?) is punished by god, his throne is given to another, because the genocide of the Amalekites he has carried out on god's orders has been insufficiently thorough.

Some people have tried to explain this by saying that the Amalekites were irredeemably evil (and that this evil was heritable, naturally - the inheritance of sin is something I also find fault with god about, but as that's kind of at the root of Christian theology it's another topic entirely). Or that Saul's sin was in not obeying god to the letter. But these seem to be insufficient to me, splitting hairs over the exact wording when the act itself is clear; god commanded genocide, and Saul obeyed, to like 99.99%. God commanded genocide; how then is god moral?

It seems to me that if god were apprehensible, he would be swiftly brought before the ICJ on charges of crimes against humanity. This really bothers me, since people I like and respect are happily Christian, and I really can't reconcile that with what god gets up to in the old testament; the old testament god seems more worthy of condemnation than worship, and his chosen people seem like bloody-handed murderers.

I'm really not trying to troll or offend anyone here, and I'm sorry if I've caused offense, but this seems ... really critical to the whole Abrahamic faith. How do you reconcile your god with your morality?

My answer is going to be different from those provided by others so far. They have said, basically, "whatever God commands is moral by definition." I don't think so.

Rather, my answer is: "Everything God commands is carefully calculated so that the innumerable consequences of that action, big and small, will lead to a (much) better result than if the action had not been carried out."

Have you ever read a work of science-fiction involving either (a) time travel, or (b) someone who could see all possible futures, and which describes how a seemingly-insignificant event in the past can have monumental consequences for the future? Now imagine all the threads of history radiating outward from an event which is not at all insignificant, but is rather the genocide of the Amalekites. Forget Hitler; everything about our world today may be entirely different if the genocide of the Amalekites had not happened. Perhaps the human species itself may be extinct by now, having annihilated itself in nuclear war.

Or to put it differently... read this book:



Leto II Atreides, a man who could see all possible futures, gave up his own humanity so that he could become the God-Emperor, and rule the known universe for 3500 years as a seemingly-bloodthirsty tyrant. He did this because every other course of action eventually led to the self-destruction of the human species at some point in the future. After 3500 years, he arranged for his own death, because that was also necessary for the success of the Golden Path (the carefully orchestrated series of events that would lead to the one possible future where Humanity thrives and expands across the universe).

So... if Leto II commands you to destroy a planet, is he evil? I say no. But not because "everything the God-Emperor commands is good by definition." Rather, because the God-Emperor can see all possible futures, and understands the consequences of destroying that planet better than you ever could. Maybe the survival of the human species 2500 years in the future depends on the destruction of that planet today.

You run into this argument a lot.

The problem is, that while it words well for an omniscient power, it doesn't hold up for an omnipotent and omniscient creator.

[Constantinopolis]

The problem is, that while it words well for an omniscient power, it doesn't hold up for an omnipotent and omniscient creator.

It does work if the creator in question has voluntarily decided to refrain from using his omnipotence in most cases (e.g. the Abrahamic God refuses to mess with people's minds), so that he must rely on carefully calculated chess moves to achieve a desired result.

[Securitan]

The problem is, that while it words well for an omniscient power, it doesn't hold up for an omnipotent and omniscient creator.

It does work if the creator in question has voluntarily decided to refrain from using his omnipotence in most cases (e.g. the Abrahamic God refuses to mess with people's minds), so that he must rely on carefully calculated chess moves to achieve a desired result.

Didn't the Abrahamic God "harden the heart" of the Pharaoh?

[Constantinopolis]

It does work if the creator in question has voluntarily decided to refrain from using his omnipotence in most cases (e.g. the Abrahamic God refuses to mess with people's minds), so that he must rely on carefully calculated chess moves to achieve a desired result.

Didn't the Abrahamic God "harden the heart" of the Pharaoh?

Poetic license. It would be rather silly to assume that God literally makes the Pharaoh act against His own chosen prophet.

[Narland]

Here's a thing that's bothered me about the (old testament) god for a while, something I've never really gotten a satisfactory answer to. I may have also raised it in the Christian Discussion Thread before, sorry if that's the case, I can't remember. I think it's in Exodus. The Israelite king preceding David (Saul, I think?) is punished by god, his throne is given to another, because the genocide of the Amalekites he has carried out on god's orders has been insufficiently thorough.

Some people have tried to explain this by saying that the Amalekites were irredeemably evil (and that this evil was heritable, naturally - the inheritance of sin is something I also find fault with god about, but as that's kind of at the root of Christian theology it's another topic entirely). Or that Saul's sin was in not obeying god to the letter. But these seem to be insufficient to me, splitting hairs over the exact wording when the act itself is clear; god commanded genocide, and Saul obeyed, to like 99.99%. God commanded genocide; how then is god moral?

It seems to me that if god were apprehensible, he would be swiftly brought before the ICJ on charges of crimes against humanity. This really bothers me, since people I like and respect are happily Christian, and I really can't reconcile that with what god gets up to in the old testament; the old testament god seems more worthy of condemnation than worship, and his chosen people seem like bloody-handed murderers.

I'm really not trying to troll or offend anyone here, and I'm sorry if I've caused offense, but this seems ... really critical to the whole Abrahamic faith. How do you reconcile your god with your morality?

It is a hard question.

God gives us breath, determines our alloted times, and then we are gone. Some are raised to Eternal life, and some consigned to the fires of Hell. Our pride makes it hard for us to accept that we are not the absolute masters of our own destinies. We are imperfect creatures with a moral obligation to our Creator that requires throwing ourselves to the mercy of the Judge of the Universe for clemency that can only be found in perfection of Jesus Christ. The wages of sin is death but the gift of God is eternal life. Romans 6:23. This is repugnant to our self worth as we are proud creatures. We as a race (humanity) have already been judged, but for those whom He shows mercy, they will be spared. John 3:16-20

God wiped out the old order of Humanity except for 8 people because their thoughts and deeds were wicked evil all the time to each other. Genesis 6-9 The Allies wiped out the entire Nazi order of leadership for much less and took out a whole lot of Germans in the process. They (the Nazi Party) were only wickedly evil to those considered inferiors and only when it suited their purposes. Should Montgomery and Eisenhower been tried for war crimes? There are other beings in this universe because of their wicked evil whom He did not spare at all. 2 Peter 2:4.

God alloted who would be born when, and to what nations they would belong. Acts 17:26-27 Some nations he cuts off early and some he lets fill up with their wickedness before they are destroyed. Genesis 15:16 The wicked are made for the day of destruction. Proverbs 16:4 He uses the wickedness of others to bring about a greater good. Genesis 5:20 He made it so that anyone who considers nature can see that there is a God. Those that call out to Him earnestly will be saved. Acts 17:26; Romans 3 Deuteronomy 4:29 Jeremiah 29:12-14

Part of the Sermon Given by Paul at the Areopagus Acts 17:24
“He is the God who made the world and everything in it. Since he is Lord of heaven and earth, he doesn’t live in man-made temples, and human hands can’t serve his needs—for he has no needs. He himself gives life and breath to everything, and he satisfies every need. From one man he created all the nations throughout the whole earth. He decided beforehand when they should rise and fall, and he determined their boundaries.

“His purpose was for the nations to seek after God and perhaps feel their way toward him and find him—though he is not far from any one of us. 28 For in him we live and move and exist. As some of your own poets have said, ‘We are his offspring.’ And since this is true, we shouldn’t think of God as an idol designed by craftsmen from gold or silver or stone.

“God overlooked people’s ignorance about these things in earlier times, but now he commands everyone everywhere to repent of their sins and turn to him. For he has set a day for judging the world with justice by the man he has appointed, and he proved to everyone who this is by raising him from the dead.”--the man being Jesus Christ.

I hope that helps.

[Securitan]

Didn't the Abrahamic God "harden the heart" of the Pharaoh?

Poetic license. It would be rather silly to assume that God literally makes the Pharaoh act against His own chosen prophet.

Then what exactly would you assume? I think testing Moses' faith and perseverance against the Pharaoh would be pretty effective for crafting a good and reverent leader.

[Tarsonis Survivors]

Poetic license. It would be rather silly to assume that God literally makes the Pharaoh act against His own chosen prophet.

Then what exactly would you assume? I think testing Moses' faith and perseverance against the Pharaoh would be pretty effective for crafting a good and reverent leader.

There's a difference between revoking Free will, and Manipulating someone.

[Securitan]

Then what exactly would you assume? I think testing Moses' faith and perseverance against the Pharaoh would be pretty effective for crafting a good and reverent leader.

There's a difference between revoking Free will, and Manipulating someone.

Not when you are manipulating them against their will and without their knowledge.

[Tarsonis Survivors]

There's a difference between revoking Free will, and Manipulating someone.

Not when you are manipulating them against their will and without their knowledge.

Yes there is. Say my roommate is a neat freak. And I leave a sock purposefully in the center of the living room every day. I haven't revoked his free will, but I've definitely manipulated him into becoming irate.

[Securitan]

Not when you are manipulating them against their will and without their knowledge.

Yes there is. Say my roommate is a neat freak. And I leave a sock purposefully in the center of the living room every day. I haven't revoked his free will, but I've definitely manipulated him into becoming irate.

Yes, but you didn't directly reach into their mind and make them irate, right?

[Narland]

Not when you are manipulating them against their will and without their knowledge.

Yes there is. Say my roommate is a neat freak. And I leave a sock purposefully in the center of the living room every day. I haven't revoked his free will, but I've definitely manipulated him into becoming irate.

Did you paste eyes and a carboard mouth into it?

[Tarsonis Survivors]

The problem is, that while it words well for an omniscient power, it doesn't hold up for an omnipotent and omniscient creator.

It does work if the creator in question has voluntarily decided to refrain from using his omnipotence in most cases (e.g. the Abrahamic God refuses to mess with people's minds), so that he must rely on carefully calculated chess moves to achieve a desired result.

So your view of God's morality is "The ends justify the means"

[The United Neptumousian Empire]

There needs to be a Pope Sixtus VI.

[Securitan]

There needs to be a Pope Sixtus VI.

I'll talk to the Mafia and make it happen.

[Sun Wukong]

The problem is, that while it words well for an omniscient power, it doesn't hold up for an omnipotent and omniscient creator.

It does work if the creator in question has voluntarily decided to refrain from using his omnipotence in most cases (e.g. the Abrahamic God refuses to mess with people's minds), so that he must rely on carefully calculated chess moves to achieve a desired result.

In addition to the aforementioned hardening of hearts, this still does not mesh with the world we live in. Not only do several naturally occurring brain disorders, that an omnipotent creator must, necessarily, have created "mess with people's minds," but there is an enormous amount of cruelty and suffering totally independent of any issue of humanity or free will.

Consider that there are 3.7 billion years of life on this planet in which most creatures capable of feeling pain died in pain, and that cats should play with mice.

An omnipotent creator shouldn't have to resort to these kinds of methods to achieve any end. If he does, then he is not omnipotent.

[Tarsonis Survivors]

There needs to be a Pope Sixtus VI.

So the Storm Troopers can turn on the Jesuits? No thanks.

[Securitan]

It does work if the creator in question has voluntarily decided to refrain from using his omnipotence in most cases (e.g. the Abrahamic God refuses to mess with people's minds), so that he must rely on carefully calculated chess moves to achieve a desired result.

In addition to the aforementioned hardening of hearts, this still does not mesh with the world we live in. Not only do several naturally occurring brain disorders, that an omnipotent creator must, necessarily, have created "mess with people's minds," but there is an enormous amount of cruelty and suffering totally independent of any issue of humanity or free will.

Consider that there are 3.7 billion years of life on this planet in which most creatures capable of feeling pain died in pain, and that cats should play with mice.

An omnipotent creator shouldn't have to resort to these kinds of methods to achieve any end. If he does, then he is not omnipotent.

It is also interesting how God favors the free will of oppressors rather than the oppressed. For example, it is against a child's free will to be put into slavery, they had no intention of being put into slavery, but we're forced into it. God favors the free will of the slaver to enslave the child rather than the child's free will before he was enslaved.

[Tarsonis Survivors]

In addition to the aforementioned hardening of hearts, this still does not mesh with the world we live in. Not only do several naturally occurring brain disorders, that an omnipotent creator must, necessarily, have created "mess with people's minds," but there is an enormous amount of cruelty and suffering totally independent of any issue of humanity or free will.

Consider that there are 3.7 billion years of life on this planet in which most creatures capable of feeling pain died in pain, and that cats should play with mice.

An omnipotent creator shouldn't have to resort to these kinds of methods to achieve any end. If he does, then he is not omnipotent.

It is also interesting how God favors the free will of oppressors rather than the oppressed. For example, it is against a child's free will to be put into slavery, they had no intention of being put into slavery, but we're forced into it. God favors the free will of the slaver to enslave the child rather than the child's free will before he was enslaved.

I don't think you understand free will.

[Securitan]

It is also interesting how God favors the free will of oppressors rather than the oppressed. For example, it is against a child's free will to be put into slavery, they had no intention of being put into slavery, but we're forced into it. God favors the free will of the slaver to enslave the child rather than the child's free will before he was enslaved.

I don't think you understand free will.

I think you think I don't understand free will. How do you think I should understand free will?

[Tarsonis Survivors]

I don't think you understand free will.

I think you think I don't understand free will. How do you think I should understand free will?

Free will is freedom of choice, is not mastery over one's own fate.

[Securitan]

I think you think I don't understand free will. How do you think I should understand free will?

Free will is freedom of choice, is not mastery over one's own fate.

I don't particularly think one would choose to be placed into slavery.

[Tarsonis Survivors]

Free will is freedom of choice, is not mastery over one's own fate.

I don't particularly think one would choose to be placed into slavery.

You're still conflating mastery of fate over freedom of choice.


You don't chose to be put into slavery (usually). But when slavery is faced you do have a choice, usually its submit or die.