If you wouldn't follow Hitler, why follow God?
-
John Carson wrote: My position is that each being has to define its own place given the constraints to which it is subject. That makes no sense if you don't have control over whether those decisions have binding authority. Sure, you can think that way, but in the end, you're just gambling, hoping that you choose well. John Carson wrote: 1. His allowing the (relatively) innocent to suffer on earth, "Relatively" is the key word. If they're not innocent by God's standards, then they aren't innocent. 2. The God-driven attrocities reported in the Old Testament, 3. The eternal punishment that the Bible predicts for many people. Attrocities are perspective dependent. If a soldier kills an invading enemy soldier during a war, was that an attrocity? If the legal system of a country executes a mass murderer, is that an attrocity? No. And so, when you have a proper perspective on the horror of sin, you realize that God's judgment is justice, not an attrocity. (Yes, I understand your position, but again you're jumping off assumptions that your own arbitrarily chosen morality is able to define "how bad" certain things are.) John Carson wrote: I freely admit that my embrace of human welfare as the metric of good is just as axiomatic as your use of God as the metric of good Thank you for being honest about your own assumptions, but you totally ignored that fact that my statements about God are not a simple "God is good". There is valid reasoning to support my conclusion, unlike your own. I gave it to you and you ignored it. John Carson wrote: I asked in an earlier post if it would be OK if parents beat a child almost to death whenever the child got less than 100% in a school test because their concept of justice required it. That is an inaccurate correlation. Parents don't have the capability of knowing what is best for a child in the same way that God knows what is best. Also, parents are clearly caught in the same moral position as the children -- sinful, often selfish, imperfect, etc. Also, you are ignoring the fact that a parent who treats a child in such a way is violating the principles God teaches in the Bible. John Carson wrote: You apply similar reasoning in support of God's goodness, justice etc. Where is that? I am becoming more convinced that you simply can't understand my posts. John Carson wrote:
As both teacher and student, I have often observed the circumstance where something is clearly explained but the student (either me or someone else) just doesn't get it. Eventually the light dawns and the student suddenly realises that the explanation was there all along but for some reason just didn't penetrate. One of us is just not seeing it. You think it is me. I think it is you. Unlike in the incidents I referred to, I doubt that this will change. John Fisher wrote: That is an inaccurate correlation. Parents don't have the capability of knowing what is best for a child in the same way that God knows what is best. Also, parents are clearly caught in the same moral position as the children -- sinful, often selfish, imperfect, etc. Also, you are ignoring the fact that a parent who treats a child in such a way is violating the principles God teaches in the Bible. "[Y]are ignoring the fact that a parent who treats a child in such a way is violating the principles God teaches in the Bible". What a sad argument. I was drawing an analogy between the God-human relationship and the parent-child relationship. Plainly if you introduce God into the parent-child relationship, then there is no analogy (unless one imagines there to be some "Super God" in the background of the God-human relationship). You happily introduced the parent-child analogy yourself and, as soon as it is turned against you, you introduce something that destroys the analogy. Basically, your mind is completely trapped in your belief of how things are and your cannot step outside it to consider alternatives. "Also, parents are clearly caught in the same moral position as the children -- sinful, often selfish, imperfect, etc." Same problem again. You are invoking God in the background to pass judgement on the parents. For the analogy to hold there is no God in the background (just as there is no Super God laying down morals for God). For the purposes of the analogy, the parents get to say what is moral. Them laying down standards for the child and determining the punishment that meets their standards of justice is completely analogous to God laying down standards for humans and likewise determining the appropriate punishment. If we can't call God selfish for pursuing his purposes at the expense of human welfare, then, for the purposes of the analogy, we can't call parents selfish for pursuing their purposes at the expense of their child's welfare. What it comes down to is that, except when it serves your short ter
-
John Fisher wrote: If you think I had stated such a thing, then I'm sorry for the confusion. I only intended to indicate that God, through the Bible, has specified morals for humans. These morals were not meant to be applied to animals, etc. I am not under the impression that, say, the Ten Commandments apply to dogs. The Christian position, as I understand it, is that each being has a defined "place in God's Creation", with the nature of that place being defined by God. My position is that each being has to define its own place given the constraints to which it is subject. John Fisher wrote: Since you provide none of this "evidence", the statement isn't work much. (I would have assumed that you believed God didn't exist. If that were the case, how could you even have any evidence for what God is like?) Assessments of what God is like are obviously being made conditionally under the hypothesis that God as described in the Bible exists. Given that hypothesis, the evidence that God does not have our best interests at heart is: 1. His allowing the (relatively) innocent to suffer on earth, 2. The God-driven attrocities reported in the Old Testament, 3. The eternal punishment that the Bible predicts for many people. John Fisher wrote: Your position, based on my understanding of your posts: - Assumption: Being interested in human beings welfare is a virtue. - Assumption: Only humans are capable of accurately knowing what is in their best interest. - Conclusion: Human beings are best at defining their own morality. Unless you can provide a non-circular argument for the first assumption, the entire logical structure of that argument falls apart. You are left standing in a position that is less valid than the one to follow. I only hold to the first assumption. Supposing God to exist, God might very well know what is in human beings' best interests (indeed, might know it better than humans), but this counts for very little if God gives human welfare a low priority. I would prefer someone a little dim who is acting in my interests than someone all-wise who isn't. As for providing a "non-circular" argument for the first assumption, I have never attempted to offer an argument in its favour since I took it as axiomatic. I find it exceedingly strange that the assumption is thought to require justification but I guess that indicates how far apart are our perspectives. I am a human being. Everything I feel and percei
NOTE: I need to reply at this level, since the next reply level is too deep for CP to accept it. John Carson wrote: I was drawing an analogy between the God-human relationship and the parent-child relationship. Plainly if you introduce God into the parent-child relationship, then there is no analogy (unless one imagines there to be some "Super God" in the background of the God-human relationship). Your statement: If the parents' standard is academic perfection, then surely it is an act of loving grace that they only beat the child almost to death. You apply similar reasoning in support of God's goodness, justice etc. It did not mention that you were trying to draw an analogy. So, now that you've described it as an analogy, I'll treat it that way. First, you must describe why the parents set a standard of academic perfection. God's moral law is not merely arbitrary as you seem to indicate. I am not privy to all the reasons, but some are pretty clear. Second, you must establish a correlation between the lack of academic perfection and punishment. Why are the parents punishing the children if they don't achieve? Again, God has given us reasons why this works. Your analogy has not done so for the parents. My point is this: God's system is logical and you are trying to draw an analogy against a currently illogical system. John Carson wrote: What it comes down to is that, except when it serves your short term propagandist purposes, you reject any analogy with God. I just proved you wrong above. John Carson wrote: Thus God is in the unique position of not being able to be held to any standard. How does that follow? Not being held to the standard that you want Him held to does not mean that He has no standard. The Bible describes things that God cannot do. If He ever did, then He would have broken the "standard" He set for Himself. (We describe it not as a standard by character.) John Carson wrote: You doubt that I understand your posts. In reality, you seem to be in denial about your own beliefs. I am not in denial about my beliefs, and am in the process of showing that to you. What happened here is that you used my arguments out of context and with an intent different than my own. I can see why you did it, but because the analogy you have drawn between God and parents is incomplete and inaccurate, my arguments don't fit in support of the par
-
NOTE: I need to reply at this level, since the next reply level is too deep for CP to accept it. John Carson wrote: I was drawing an analogy between the God-human relationship and the parent-child relationship. Plainly if you introduce God into the parent-child relationship, then there is no analogy (unless one imagines there to be some "Super God" in the background of the God-human relationship). Your statement: If the parents' standard is academic perfection, then surely it is an act of loving grace that they only beat the child almost to death. You apply similar reasoning in support of God's goodness, justice etc. It did not mention that you were trying to draw an analogy. So, now that you've described it as an analogy, I'll treat it that way. First, you must describe why the parents set a standard of academic perfection. God's moral law is not merely arbitrary as you seem to indicate. I am not privy to all the reasons, but some are pretty clear. Second, you must establish a correlation between the lack of academic perfection and punishment. Why are the parents punishing the children if they don't achieve? Again, God has given us reasons why this works. Your analogy has not done so for the parents. My point is this: God's system is logical and you are trying to draw an analogy against a currently illogical system. John Carson wrote: What it comes down to is that, except when it serves your short term propagandist purposes, you reject any analogy with God. I just proved you wrong above. John Carson wrote: Thus God is in the unique position of not being able to be held to any standard. How does that follow? Not being held to the standard that you want Him held to does not mean that He has no standard. The Bible describes things that God cannot do. If He ever did, then He would have broken the "standard" He set for Himself. (We describe it not as a standard by character.) John Carson wrote: You doubt that I understand your posts. In reality, you seem to be in denial about your own beliefs. I am not in denial about my beliefs, and am in the process of showing that to you. What happened here is that you used my arguments out of context and with an intent different than my own. I can see why you did it, but because the analogy you have drawn between God and parents is incomplete and inaccurate, my arguments don't fit in support of the par
John Fisher wrote: First, you must describe why the parents set a standard of academic perfection. God's moral law is not merely arbitrary as you seem to indicate. I am not privy to all the reasons, but some are pretty clear. Second, you must establish a correlation between the lack of academic perfection and punishment. Why are the parents punishing the children if they don't achieve? Again, God has given us reasons why this works. Your analogy has not done so for the parents. My point is this: God's system is logical and you are trying to draw an analogy against a currently illogical system. If you claim that a standard of "academic perfection" is arbitrary, then you must either think that parents desiring good school results is arbitrary (which it surely is not) or that the arbitrariness comes in the desire for perfection. How do God's standards compare? I will grant you that many (though not all) of the moral standards laid down in the Bible can be supported with good reasons, but when it comes to requiring perfection (and having horrendous punishments for failing to meet it), that seems to me to be just as arbitrary as requiring perfection in academic performance. Arguments about God's nature requiring perfection don't work for me. The parent's nature could equally be said to require it. As for the "reasons why it works", the parent's justification is presumably that it is a motivator. What is the reason for God's punishment? If it is to satisfy God's need for justice, holiness etc., then I can say analogous things for the parents. If it is a motivator, then it plainly is a rather poor motivator. On the Bible's own claims, many fail to heed the message. This is no doubt partly because the truth of God's existence and of the specifically Christian interpretation of God are far from clear to a large proportion of the human race. Whatever you might say about the reasons for this, it is plain that God could make it vastly clearer what the choices are. Imagine if the parent didn't make clear to the child what the child was liable to be punished for. Wouldn't we consider the parent arbitrary and unreasonable? John Fisher wrote: John Carson wrote: What it comes down to is that, except when it serves your short term propagandist purposes, you reject any analogy with God. I just proved you wrong above. I haven't denied your willingness to make some analogies; you have made many. I have denied your willingness to follow them through with any con