| We hope you enjoy your visit. You're currently viewing our forum as a guest. This means you are limited to certain areas of the board and there are some features you can't use. If you join our community, you'll be able to access member-only sections, and use many member-only features such as customizing your profile, sending personal messages, and voting in polls. Registration is simple, fast, easy, and completely free. Join our community! If you're already a member, please log in to your account to access all of our features: |
| If God is Good | |
|---|---|
| Topic Started: Nov 21 2009, 07:44 AM (341 Views) | |
| Post #1 Nov 21 2009, 07:44 AM | Huxley |
|
I wish we had theists here; this would be aimed at them but perhaps you ex theists can give it some thought. If God is good and He has a plan for you consider the following: God tells you to kill your child or someone you care about. if God is good, would you do it? Would you risk eternal torment by refusing Him? If God could demand something like this, how could He be 'good'? Was there a time when sucha command would have to be taken seriously? |
 
|
  | |
 
|
 |
| Post #2 Nov 21 2009, 03:18 PM | Perry |
|
Good luck with that, Hux. Gawd-driven genocide features strongly in the more ancient parts of the Boys' Own Book of Beliefs. That is why we have the counterpoints in the Revisited Sanitised Version, right? |
Con fused jus
|
|
|
|
| Post #3 Nov 22 2009, 11:00 PM | magicshoemonkey |
|
It raises the question, obviously, that if God is good and "God" comes to you and asks that, can't you just assume that whatever/whoever came to you, it wasn't God? So, couldn't we assume, if God is good, that the "God" that comes to Abraham and the Israelites in the OT is not really God since he asks them to do things which aren't good? I have a friend who struggled with this stuff and decided that, instead of maybe questioning the Bible or any such thing, God is not really all good, just sovereign. But he's not a Calvinist or anything, he just says that God has no inherent goodness/evilness, only his own choices which are neither good or evil. Or something like that, I hope I'm not misrepresenting him. |
 
|
|
|
|
| Post #4 Nov 23 2009, 11:06 AM | Huxley |
|
I realised the questions would raise sub- questions and as such gave me pause too. If God is not inherently good then why, as Epicurus said, whence is good? Why worship him? The internet is full of the same question; which came first Morality or religion? I think the answer is unquestionable and demonstratively, Morality. If God is not 'good' from where do theists, particularly christians, derive their morality? On another board I got a Christian to admit if God tol dhim to kill, he would do so. His caveat was, of course, that God wouldnt tell him to do that. But God has a history of speaking to people and telling them to do all sorts of things. At least this is what they claim. So it isnt some abstract question. Why would any believer in God risk His wrath and eternal damnation and wouldnt afundamentalist at the very least do exactly as he was told? |
|
|
| |
|
|
|
| Post #5 Nov 23 2009, 02:13 PM | magicshoemonkey |
|
Usually when Christians say "God wouldn't ask me to kill for him" or something similar, they are thinking of some kind of "metanarrative" they use to interpret the Bible in which God would not, at this time, do the things he did in the past. So, the metanarrative that says that God changed the way he deals with humanity after Christ would say, for instance, "now God deals with humans in a spiritual way, while then he was dealing directly, in a physical way. So God would not ask someone to kill because he doesn't deal directly or physically anymore." It's a flawed method of interpretation, though. For one thing, modern literary criticism laughs at that kind of narrative creation to save pet theories. Also, modern historical criticism would laugh at the notion of a text like that Bible having an overarching theme. Even most modern theology rejects this idea, but these are fundamentalists. |
|
|
|
|
| Post #6 Nov 23 2009, 08:37 PM | Perry |
|
That sounds just like the ad hoc logical fallacy, to me. |
Con fused jus
|
|
|
|
| Post #7 Nov 24 2009, 06:28 AM | Huxley |
|
So then, am I to assume that the countless people who deem themselves important enough to know the mind of God are sadly mistaken? |
|
|
| |
|
|
|
| Post #8 Nov 24 2009, 08:54 PM | Joe E. Holman |
|
The god who gives and sets up what is called "right" and "wrong" would already have made the determination in his instructions as to what you should do--kill your child. That's the poison you have to pick and be happy with as a theist. God cannot be "sinful" or "evil" by definition, nor can his instructions be. But that means whatever this deity says to do is by definition "good," and the Bible backs that up. The modern Christian can only say: "Oh it would be wrong to disobey god, but today, god wouldn't ask us to do such a thing." My recent article touches on this... http://joeholmansblog.blogspot.com/2009/11/gods-entrapment-and-james-idiocy.html |
|
|
|
|
| Post #9 Nov 26 2009, 04:40 AM | Huxley |
|
"Oh it would be wrong to disobey god, but today, god wouldn't ask us to do such a thing." Exactly my point Joe. But doesnt God speak to all sorts of people telling them to do all sorts of things that we would deem horrible? At least this is what they claim in court. I can only assume they are lying. Edit: This is a request for information. At what point exactly, did Yahweh state that all bets were off, He was through testing people and being a nasty bastard? At what point do Christians justify His sudden change of heart? I hear them saying the NT changes all that misery, but where? Edited by Huxley, Nov 26 2009, 04:57 AM.
|
|
|
| |
|
|
|
| Post #10 Nov 27 2009, 01:54 AM | Joe E. Holman |
Jeremiah 31:31 says God would make a new covenant. They take that to mean "new rules" which I explain in my book it doesn't mean. Other passages talk about feast days stopping, and then you have Jesus not carrying out the stoning of the woman at the well (though Jesus still showed confidence in the law in that example). They let that be enough to convince them that the refining of their culture is a sort of "manifest destiny" example of divine changes. Is it valid? Fuck no. Ole Jeebuz hasn't changed a bit, neither has jehovee, but religion fucks with the mind. They can't see that they are products of their culture. |
|
|
|
|
| 1 user reading this topic (1 Guest and 0 Anonymous) | |
| « Previous Topic · Religion discussion/biblical criticism/philosophy · Next Topic » |
4:36 PM Jul 31
