Total Posts:9|Showing Posts:1-9
Jump to topic:

Would a moral God step up to his responsibili

GreatestIam
Posts: 1,723
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/12/2011 1:42:46 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
Would a moral God step up to his responsibilities?

God cannot do miracles. If he could, he would.

From God's POV, all here must be perfect. He began in perfection and would not back slide to anything less. That's scripture. It is to us to see things as he does.

From mankind's POV, all here is not perfection. This contrary and wrong POV is promoted by religion and is generally accepted to some degree by most people. I tend to agree with God even as most do not.

From a moral stand point, most will agree, that if one sees a wrong that they can right; they will do the right thing and right the wrong. This is the right thing to do.

The fact that there are preventable human evil acts being perpetrated by mankind, supposedly created by God, and he does not act, means that a moral God does not exist.

A moral God takes responsibility and God is not stepping up. A moral God would. If he could that is. Just as all of us would. We are in his image and know that stepping up is a good idea.

Perhaps God is not the miracles working super God. You know the one. The one that man has created to hold all of his hopes and wishes, dreams and desires, loves, ---- and hates ---, and although never seen in any real way, --- believers will kill for Him. Insanity.

If God does exist, and is not moral, then what good is he to mankind or you?
Would you want life without morals?

No wonder then that Eve, the first to be as God/human, ----yes there is a difference, ---- had the wisdom to have adam/mankind, eat of it. What a wonderful myth.

Believers who follow a God without morals, Bible God, should question why they do.
God has a basis in reality but certainly not like the God without morals that has somehow been molded by what was initially, a rather beautiful ideas. The Bible.

To think and act God like, is to ----- do unto others.
If God creates man, then it should be for a best end. Not an evil end like hell. Fact is, many millions die daily of easily preventable cause. Allowed to by a miracle working God who just does not step up.

The fact that God, who by definition, would have the attribute of taking responsibility, as any good entity would, proves beyond any doubt that a moral miracle working God cannot exists.

And if there is a miracle working God, mankind should give him a thumbs down for his lack of morals.

Can a moral God exist?
Is it moral for God, who wants relevance to mankind, to not step up?
As a creator God does he have any responsibility to what he creates?

Regards
DL
Cerebral_Narcissist
Posts: 10,806
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/12/2011 2:27:46 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
This has been done to death recently, ultimately you are referring to the problem of evil. To deal with the problem of evil the theist has three options.

1: Ignore it.

2: Deny the omibenevolence of God.

3: Declare existence to be, against all intents and purposes omnibenevolent. God could prevent x, y and z but in actually this would increase the net evil or suffering.

Three seems to be the most popular, but I'd be inclined towards 2. Why presume an omnibenevolent God. The Judaeo-Christian-Islamic God of scripture is not benevolent.
I am voting for Innomen because of his intelligence, common sense, humility and the fact that Juggle appears to listen to him. Any other Presidential style would have a large sub-section of the site up in arms. If I was President I would destroy the site though elitism, others would let it run riot. Innomen represents a middle way that works, neither draconian nor anarchic and that is the only way things can work. Plus he does it all without ego trips.
Crede
Posts: 455
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/12/2011 4:20:24 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
Actually I believe that the problem of evil in no way contradicts the Judeo-Christian God. If you would like to debate me on this send an invite my way.
DetectableNinja
Posts: 6,043
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/12/2011 4:22:44 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 9/12/2011 2:27:46 PM, Cerebral_Narcissist wrote:
This has been done to death recently, ultimately you are referring to the problem of evil. To deal with the problem of evil the theist has three options.

1: Ignore it.

2: Deny the omibenevolence of God.

3: Declare existence to be, against all intents and purposes omnibenevolent. God could prevent x, y and z but in actually this would increase the net evil or suffering.

Three seems to be the most popular, but I'd be inclined towards 2. Why presume an omnibenevolent God. The Judaeo-Christian-Islamic God of scripture is not benevolent.

There's also a fourth response:

4: Deny God's existence.

But, then again, I've yet to see a theist become an atheist soley on the PoE alone.
Think'st thou heaven is such a glorious thing?
I tell thee, 'tis not half so fair as thou
Or any man that breathes on earth.

- Christopher Marlowe, Doctor Faustus
Cerebral_Narcissist
Posts: 10,806
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/12/2011 4:34:50 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 9/12/2011 4:20:24 PM, Crede wrote:
Actually I believe that the problem of evil in no way contradicts the Judeo-Christian God. If you would like to debate me on this send an invite my way.

I agree with you.
I am voting for Innomen because of his intelligence, common sense, humility and the fact that Juggle appears to listen to him. Any other Presidential style would have a large sub-section of the site up in arms. If I was President I would destroy the site though elitism, others would let it run riot. Innomen represents a middle way that works, neither draconian nor anarchic and that is the only way things can work. Plus he does it all without ego trips.
GreatestIam
Posts: 1,723
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/12/2011 5:07:47 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 9/12/2011 2:27:46 PM, Cerebral_Narcissist wrote:
This has been done to death recently, ultimately you are referring to the problem of evil. To deal with the problem of evil the theist has three options.

1: Ignore it.

2: Deny the omibenevolence of God.

3: Declare existence to be, against all intents and purposes omnibenevolent. God could prevent x, y and z but in actually this would increase the net evil or suffering.

Three seems to be the most popular, but I'd be inclined towards 2. Why presume an omnibenevolent God. The Judaeo-Christian-Islamic God of scripture is not benevolent.

My focus was more to responsible action. not free will or evil.
I have no problem with evil. As an evolving creature, I recognize that in an evolving world, there is nothing wrong with competition, doing evil to most, and doing good, cooperating.
All that man ever does is either cooperation or competition.
In that sense the ancients had it right. We are all born with a sin on our souls but it is a necessary sin and we should be thanking God, or nature to be more pr3cice, for giving man this attribute.

Regards
DL
GreatestIam
Posts: 1,723
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/12/2011 5:09:31 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 9/12/2011 4:34:50 PM, Cerebral_Narcissist wrote:
At 9/12/2011 4:20:24 PM, Crede wrote:
Actually I believe that the problem of evil in no way contradicts the Judeo-Christian God. If you would like to debate me on this send an invite my way.

I agree with you.

So do I.

Regards
DL
izbo10
Posts: 2,995
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/12/2011 5:09:35 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 9/12/2011 4:34:50 PM, Cerebral_Narcissist wrote:
At 9/12/2011 4:20:24 PM, Crede wrote:
Actually I believe that the problem of evil in no way contradicts the Judeo-Christian God. If you would like to debate me on this send an invite my way.

I agree with you.

of course you agree, you are a christian.
DDO's marketing strategy has certainly paid off just not sure I agree with the target market: http://tinypic.com...
It's amazing to me that you still have yet to grasp the difference between believing something, not believing something, and having no belief at all -JCMT
To respect religion, is to disrespect the Truth!

If this board was a room and you all were the light bulbs, I'm bringing a flashlight.
Cerebral_Narcissist
Posts: 10,806
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/12/2011 5:16:30 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 9/12/2011 5:09:35 PM, izbo10 wrote:
At 9/12/2011 4:34:50 PM, Cerebral_Narcissist wrote:
At 9/12/2011 4:20:24 PM, Crede wrote:
Actually I believe that the problem of evil in no way contradicts the Judeo-Christian God. If you would like to debate me on this send an invite my way.

I agree with you.

of course you agree, you are a christian.

My inbox lays exposed and ready like an eager virgin, take your sh1t and shove it there.
I am voting for Innomen because of his intelligence, common sense, humility and the fact that Juggle appears to listen to him. Any other Presidential style would have a large sub-section of the site up in arms. If I was President I would destroy the site though elitism, others would let it run riot. Innomen represents a middle way that works, neither draconian nor anarchic and that is the only way things can work. Plus he does it all without ego trips.