Why is god benevolent?

[CassinoChips]

Again, this is the only warning this thread gets. If insulting and name-calling is the way this thread is going to go, it will be locked.

 

[Koloth]

That's because religion and politics is not good subject matter for friendly conversations. Also, God was an alien and is probably dead now.

 

[Emyunoxious]

This is your way of trying to gain appeal from other people.
I see.
A barbaric homosexual is more so to not only kill his target, but rape him as well. A barbaric homosexual is likely to not only torture his target, but rape him as well. A barbaric homosexual is likely to not only likely turn a city into chaos, but rape everyone as well.
Is it sinking in?

A heterosexual is just as likely to rape someone as a homosexual. Back this up with your sources if you disagree.

If you think that only homosexual people rape others of the same sex, you've never been to prison. Barbaric times make people do barbaric things. Sexuality don't got a gatdurned thing to do with it.

Is it sinking in?

The only bigot is you for calling God malevolent, which goes directly against the Bible and rationality as well.

Not to namecall, but let's look at this in the opposite direction:

"The only bigot is you for calling Hitler malevolent, which goes directly against everything Hitler's followers said about him and rationality as well."

Do you see why this isn't a valid argument?

Is it sinking in?

 

[Sum1sgruj]

There's no point in sourcing common sense lol. It's bad enough that woman get raped, let alone everybody.

I don't even know why I keep posting on this thread, like I haven't squashed the debate.

Your counter example is implying that Hitler and God have the same morals.

You know what? Goodbye

 

[Jquestionmark]

Before I start, I want to point out that this is the most straw manned, ridiculously argumentative post I've ever seen in my life.

I'm missing out on the straw man. Care to point out specific examples? Saying we're using fallacies and not pointing out where doesn't really do anything to show our use of fallacies.

Which I am going to bring to light:

Go ahead and try.

We are talking about God, as in the Judeo-Christian god, right?

We are. How does that magically prove that he owns our souls (if we even had souls)?

I don't know. Bibles and things of the sort that bear 100's of clues.

And my explanation of God desiring worship and lying to people to get it is equally valid. The evidence for it is even in the bible, if you interpret it the right way.

Ever intentionally piss someone off? Voila.

How is that messing with their soul? This statement fails to prove that souls exist or I can interact with them. I mess with their emotions, but there's no reason to think there's a soul in the picture.

That was the only time He ever messed with free will, and it was because He wanted to show Egypt just how great their imaginary gods are. And also to gain the confidence of the Jews and have the truth realized.

So you agree that god is vain and does mess with free will?

The only good vanity can do is for yourself.

What if you found a cure for a disease that you had? Lets say I had AIDS, and that motivated me to find the cure. How would that NOT benefit other people?

I agree that 95% of what you do with vanity is ultimately immoral.

I never said that. Are you agreeing with yourself?

The bible speaks on suicide, and letting yourself die in vain is suicide.
You are picking at a truth that cannot be denied. Your just trying to insult my intelligence, but it's really just making you look foolish.

I'm just trying to understand what definition you're using. There's no insult contained. Except in your response ("it's really just making you look foolish").

Oh, the garden that would have ultimately been destroyed by man anyways because of their new found knowledge?

How do you know that? The same crystal ball that shows you the sodom alternate future?

Your statement holds no value.

It only contains as much value as the story it references. I'm just pointing out that god was actually the one that kicked man out. Lucifer wasn't responsible for god's desire to get revenge for being disobeyed.

Overthrow Him.. right..

If we're so unlucky that he exists, yes please.

God is not vain. He's God. I guess you are talking about his actions..

He's jealous. And acts on it. Weren't you saying the root of jealousy is vanity? The bible flat out says he's jealous. So, yeah, he's vain.

They were not vain. He saved a lot of trouble doing what He did in the scheme of things.

What does saving trouble have to do with vanity? Or are you equivocating again? If you suddenly change from vain (self-important) to vain (useless), you're committing a logical fallacy. The results of his actions saving trouble has no relevance to his self-importance.

And if you want to be technical, God is the crux of existence.

This is a gargantuan and unsupported claim.

Vain really isn't in His construct.

If he's the crux of all existence, all of existence (including vanity) is in his construct.

Once again, we are talking about the Judeo-Christian god, right?

Absolutely. Which is why I included this possibility of him being a liar gunning for worship. It is consistent with everything we know about him. Your question does nothing to undermine the situation I posited.

I said if you are barbaric and are homosexual than you are probably a dangerous person.

What about heterosexuals? Connecting homosexuality and danger is wholly unsupported, and if I were you I'd be worried about people seeing you try to make this connection.

Sodom exemplifies this completely.
If you are civil, than it's quite the contrary.

Sexual orientation is not relevant to violent tendencies regardless of the level of civilization. If the story of sodom shows a connection between homosexuality and rape/murder then it and the creator of the story are bigoted and homophobic.

It was either that or he dies, they get raped and become slaves forever.

You cannot prove that would have been the outcome, and this is once again a flase dilemma. He could have found something else to do (like escape out the back door, for example).

Way to be rational.

Thank you.

I hope you are never put in that predicament.

Me too.

Oh wait, you won't because God had that place wiped off the planet.

Or because that place never existed. Yeah, it's probably that one.

So you are saying that because the Serpent entered Eden, the entirety of the story is metaphorical?

That's not at all what I'm saying. I'm saying that based on your criteria (lots of details), we should think that eden story should be considered a literal recounting.

Well, let's see.. they were rich and did what they pleased (understatement). And like any other place, they were probably growing to.

You can assume, but you're providing no evidence.

Oh yeah, and God probably saw that becoming a reality.

How would we know that? Did he tell you?

I would think that God would be capable of knowing if man can have a general idea.

Sure, I guess, but that doesn't explain how you know.

I didn't say He didn't understand revenge. I was implying that He is God, what 'revenge' can He distribute?

Kicking Adam and Eve out seems pretty vengeful. Or Sodom and all that. There's a lot of examples, really.

Nimrod had the tower made so he could rage war with Heaven.

That never happened. Not in the bible. The connection between Nimrod and the tower never comes up in the bible. Where are you getting this from?

Do you know why people call a dumb person a nimrod?

This is pretty recent. It originally meant tyrant or hunter. There seems to be no actual connection between its current meaning and the biblical Nimrod (since he was just a tyrant and a hunter and not connected to the tower of babel).

What? I implied quite well the irrelevancy of that quote in lieu of the immediate subject that was at hand.

You said revenge (eye for an eye) was fair, and this quote points out that all it does is blind people. Seems relevant to me.

Besides, Ghandi was speaking for man, not the creator of existence, who as I said before has no revenge to serve.

Except those times that he did serve revenge.

Everything He does is balance and purity of everything He created.

No. Not really.

I said that you cannot believe in Christ and flaunt vanity. You bring a literal construct of how it could be so. I was so obviously not speaking in the extreme literal sense you are throwing up.
So no, I wouldn't want to waste space talking about something so incredibly asinine.

Right.

You still haven't addressed this. You claim you cannot do both, and I say it is possible to do so. If you don't actually mean that "you cannot believe in Christ and flaunt vanity" then what is going on in that sentence? I just don't understand what else you could mean. Do you mean it's not okay to? I really don't get it, because what you said is pretty clear.

This is your way of trying to gain appeal from other people.
I see.

Actually, I think he was trying to warn you. The way your comment came across, I'm worried about the way you were portraying homosexuals.

A barbaric homosexual is more so to not only kill his target, but rape him as well.

Evidence shows that homosexuals are less likely than heterosexuals to sexually abuse their children, so extending that, it's safe to assume that barbaric homosexuals would be less likely to rape. Your claim is incorrect, and insulting to homosexuals.

A barbaric homosexual is likely to not only torture his target, but rape him as well.

You say that you are okay with homosexuality, and then you claim homosexuals in a "barbaric" setting are likely to torture and rape? Regardless of the setting we're talking about, this is quite the thing to claim.

A barbaric homosexual is likely to not only likely turn a city into chaos, but rape everyone as well.

Why do you assume this? This makes it look like you think homosexuals are predisposed to chaos and rape. Do you think that?

Is it sinking in?

Well, since you've said a lot of things in the past and not meant them, I'll wait until you answer my questions before I finalize any thoughts on this. What you're currently saying kind of concerns me, though.

The only bigot is you for calling God malevolent, which goes directly against the Bible and rationality as well.

First, don't call people a bigot. It's ad hominem, and not very polite.

Second, thinking god is malevolent isn't really relevant to bigotry.

Third, there's evidence for god being malevolent in both the bible and reality (if he exists, his unwillingness to do anything to prevent the terrible situations that befall mankind is pretty malevolent, especially since he has the power to do something).

So, no, no one here is a bigot for calling god malevolent (unless you think it makes you a bigot to point out things that are supported by evidence?).

 

[Emyunoxious]

There's no point in sourcing common sense lol. It's bad enough that woman get raped, let alone everybody.

If I'm disagreeing with it, maybe it's not common sense, or even correct. Maybe you should back up anything you said, because that's something I could possibly agree with.

I don't even know why I keep posting on this thread, like I haven't squashed the debate.

You haven't, but I don't know why.

Your counter example is implying that Hitler and God have the same morals.

Yeah.

It is.

You know what? Goodbye

See you tomorrow!

 

[Jquestionmark]

There's no point in sourcing common sense lol. It's bad enough that woman get raped, let alone everybody.

What does this mean? Are you implying that it's common sense to think homosexuals are more likely to rape, torture and murder? Not only is that contrary to evidence, it's downright offensive to homosexuals.

I don't even know why I keep posting on this thread, like I haven't squashed the debate.

You certainly haven't squashed anything. All you've done is left your fallacies out in the open and refused to address the refutations to your claims. I'm sorry you're confused about this.

Your counter example is implying that Hitler and God have the same morals.

I love his counter-example. If I wasn't married, I would propose to it.

In all seriousness, his counter example makes a lot of sense and points out exactly what's wrong with your claim.

You know what? Goodbye

Poor little logical fallacies and bizarre claims, you're leaving them all behind to our tender mercies.

 

[Sum1sgruj]

Just to show exaction for the way this debate has treated me, I'm not even going to pretend to be all friendly to opinion.
No, it's come down to fact..

I have no f*cking animosity towards homosexuals.

Two, you are still speaking in vain Prove my past statements wrong, and quit hiding behind bullshit semantics.

 

[der Astronom]

Two, you are still speaking in vain Prove my past statements wrong, and quit hiding behind bullshit semantics.

And if we are speaking in vain, that's irrelevant; the questions that we have about your arguments still hold. For starters, try actually responding to the idea that Hitler and god have the same morals, since this has everything to do with how you think god is a beacon for morality. But obviously, since we don't hold Hitler's views on morality as being particularly moral, I don't think anyone including god who shares the same morals as Hitler is fit to judge anyone and act on it.

None of this is semantics; this is just you trying to avoid answering the questions posed to you.

 

[Sum1sgruj]

try actually responding to the idea that Hitler and god have the same morals

I've already answered this. Wtf is the matter with you people?

I'm done with this debate.

 

[der Astronom]

I've already answered this. Wtf is the matter with you people?

I'm done with this debate.

So you agree that Hitler and god have the same morals? Because that's the last I got out of you.

If you disagreed, you haven't fully explained why.

 

[Sum1sgruj]

So you agree that Hitler and god have the same morals? Because that's the last I got out of you.

If you disagreed, you haven't fully explained why.

Yeah, bullshit. The contrary is in the evidence, just look through the posts. This debate is over for me. Good-bye

 

[Emyunoxious]

Yeah, bullshit. The contrary is in the evidence, just look through the posts. This debate is over for me. Good-bye

Wow, leaving and returning twice in one day.

Is this a record for you?

Look, I'm not being facetious. I don't know if there are any significant differences between the morals espoused between God and Hitler.

Both talk about their chosen people, and seek to lead them to victory, at the detriment of all others. Both use fire to purge the evils, as they see it, from their worlds, be it the fire and brimstone in Sodom and Gomorrah or the ovens in Auschwitz. Both assert a sort of infallibility, which their followers don't question.


Let's see how Hitler feels about this comparison.


"My feelings as a Christian points me to my Lord and Savior as a fighter. It points me to the man who once in loneliness, surrounded by a few followers, recognized these Jews for what they were and summoned men to fight against them and who, God's truth! was greatest not as a sufferer but as a fighter. In boundless love as a Christian and as a man I read through the passage which tells us how the Lord at last rose in His might and seized the scourge to drive out of the Temple the brood of vipers and adders. How terrific was His fight for the world against the Jewish poison. To-day, after two thousand years, with deepest emotion I recognize more profoundly than ever before the fact that it was for this that He had to shed His blood upon the Cross. As a Christian I have no duty to allow myself to be cheated, but I have the duty to be a fighter for truth and justice... And if there is anything which could demonstrate that we are acting rightly it is the distress that daily grows. For as a Christian I have also a duty to my own people.

-Adolf Hitler, in a speech on 12 April 1922 (Norman H. Baynes, ed. The Speeches of Adolf Hitler, April 1922-August 1939, Vol. 1 of 2, pp. 19-20, Oxford University Press, 1942)

 

[Sum1sgruj]

That is one mans corrupted view of God. Nothing could be more false in leiu of what God exemplifies.
The truth can be found with the Bible through simple reasoning. Whether Jesus was the Messiah or not, he showed the exaction of what God intends and if you actually read the Bible, you would know this to be true.
It's real easy to skim the Bible and find immorality, but it's only those who thoroughly read the contexts that realize the benevolence behind it.
That is why this conversation becomes comical for me, and also the reason why I keep posting despite my claims to not do so.
It's an undeniable truth for all who wish to use reason instead of bias thought.

 

[Emyunoxious]

That is one mans corrupted view of God. Nothing could be more false in leiu of what God exemplifies.

I fail to see how your views,on this topic, are any more valid than Hitler's.

The truth can be found with the Bible through simple reasoning. Whether Jesus was the Messiah or not, he showed the exaction of what God intends and if you actually read the Bible, you would know this to be true.

See, but I've also read the Lord of the Rings. I am very aware of what my Dark Lord Sauron wishes for me to do. How can I know which of my lords to follow? If I'm not looking for historical support, and going entirely on faith, why not go with my Dark Lord of Mordor, the first of the fallen?

It's real easy to skim the Bible and find immorality, but it's only those who thoroughly read the contexts that realize the benevolence behind it.

So, when you get indoctrinated, you come to believe the precepts in the book? Makes sense.

That is why this conversation becomes comical for me, and also the reason why I keep posting despite my claims to not do so.

Liars go to hell, buddy.

It's an undeniable truth for all who wish to use reason instead of bias thought.

 

[Sum1sgruj]

See, but I've also read the Lord of the Rings. I am very aware of what my Dark Lord Sauron wishes for me to do. How can I know which of my lords to follow? If I'm not looking for historical support, and going entirely on faith, why not go with my Dark Lord of Mordor, the first of the fallen?

Well the fact that you need something to follow to exeplify any degree of benevolence just shows the tyranny of all men

This is a hopeless argument. Read the Bible.

 

[unadulteratedawesome]

I have no f*cking animosity towards homosexuals.

I'm glad. You could have responded with that in the first place. Be careful of how you word something. The way it is written can be more important than what you were actually saying.

That is one mans corrupted view of God.

Every man's view of god(s) is equal. Who are you to say that your view is greater than anyone else's? Despite my convictions (and often my gut reaction), my disbelief in god (though rational) is not superior to anyone else's.

The greatest irony in the discussion on this issue throughout these various topics is that people, or I at least, have simply been trying to illustrate that some of your views of God are irrational (based off of the very reasons you have them). I'm concerned with rationality. That you seem to claim that your view of god(s) is the only correct one or is somehow better than others is incredibly arrogant. Which I find comically ironic given your rails against vanity.

The truth can be found with the Bible through simple reasoning.

The issue is that you can arrive at multiple, rational, objectively equal (as they only have a subjective value) beliefs. There is no one way to interpret the Bible, especially when you bring in the issue of some being metaphorical and some being literal. It's generally easier to go all one way or the other.

The 'truth' in this case is entirely subjective. However, the thing we can discuss and argue is the subjective merit and, more importantly, the rationality of the beliefs. And the issue I've been having with yours is that your basis for your view of god(s) seems entirely arbitrary even though it's based on one source. Well, technically many since you mentioned that you believe some literal (and metaphorical) things from areas outside the Bible like demonology and various church canons.

Well the fact that you need something to follow to exeplify any degree of benevolence just shows the tyranny of all men

I don't think he's implied anywhere that he needs something to follow for anything. The view he's discussed in this forum seems to be very individualistic, especially if the Gaahl avatar is any indications on his beliefs.

This is a hopeless argument. Read the Bible

I can't speak for anyone else, but I have read the Bible. King James version. Actually, I call into question whether you have read the Bible (or if you read it a long time ago and the memory isn't fresh) since you've messed up some big details. Like claiming Nimrod was linked to the Tower of Babel in the Bible and that Lot gave his sisters to the mob.

 

[Emyunoxious]

Well the fact that you need something to follow to exeplify any degree of benevolence just shows the tyranny of all men

This is a hopeless argument. Read the Bible.

You...

Wait.


Wait.

Did you just criticize me for needing something to follow to understand morality, another way of phrasing "exemplify any degree of benevolence", and then instruct me to read the Bible, so it will teach me morality, how to exemplify any degree of benevolence?

You wound me, Summy.

You cut me deep.

This is not an insult, please understand this. I am trying to make sense of you, Summy. You're an enigma to me. I feel that we've talked enough that I understand your views, but I can't understand you. I see only two possibilities. You are either truly a paragon of trolls, a master of your art, and I have to admire your honed skills, and this topic is a masterpiece of your craft, or you are actually too oblivious to realize the problem with what you just said. I make concessions because you make long posts sometimes, and it's hard to get all the thoughts you think to fit together all the time, but this was like, 2 paragraphs. 3 sentences. I don't even know how this is possible. Did you write them hours apart, without looking back at what you had already said? Do you not think this is a contradiction?

How could it not be? Have I not made it clear that the Bible is not special, in terms of religious books? How could I possibly been clearer than I have been? I don't mean to insult you, I really don't, and if you take it as an insult, I am sorry, it was not intended in such a way. You just baffle me. I have begun to drink as I was typing this, and I will be quite drunk before I finish.

In the pursuit of greater understanding of everyone on these forums, I would like to try to take apart this reply, and see if I can make sense of it. Feel free to make your own interpretation. I can't act like I know this is, for sure, what Summy meant, but this is how it seems.

Well the fact that you need something to follow to [exemplify] any degree of benevolence just shows the tyranny of all men

To begin with, this doesn't make a lick of sense. My Lord of the Rings example was obviously an example, not something I actually believe in. But, that smiley face at the end implies he might have known this.

Now, the first part:

"Well the fact that you need something to follow to exemplify any degree of benevolence"

Okay, as I said before, this seems to be just a way of phrasing "because you believe something in order to have morals". A "degree of benevolence", I think, is anything moral, in Summy's view. Exemplifying any degree of benevolence, is, essentially, doing good things, within a given moral system. Yes, this presupposes a morally subjective universe, because get that objective moral horseshit out of my house.

So, this basically means, "The fact that you need a moral system to act morally..."

"Just shows the tyranny of all men?"

Tyranny is bad, within this proposed moral system, I take it. "The fact that you need a moral system to do good things just shows how evil men are"?

See, when you break it down like that, it almost makes sense. Are we not inherently evil, within this statement? We require some outside structure to act well. Clearly, we are lacking something.

So, help us out, Summy. What do we need to do?

This is a hopeless argument. Read the Bible.

You mean the book that provides a moral system?

please oh my satan someone help me i think i'm dying

 

[Jquestionmark]

I have no f*cking animosity towards homosexuals.

It's worth noting that I never said or implied you had animosity towards homosexuals. I was concerned over the beliefs you have regarding them. To make things 100% clear, I'll ask two questions:

1) Were you referring to barbaric homosexuals versus barbaric heterosexuals, or were you referring to barbaric homosexuals versus modern homosexuals?

2) If you were referring to barbaric versus modern, why did you have to clarify homosexuals and specifically leave out heterosexuals (since a general barbaric versus modern means we should have been worried about the likelihood of Lot raping his daughters {this is actually very funny to talk about, since they rape him later in the story}) - do you believe barbaric heterosexuals are less likely to rape and murder than barbaric homosexuals?

Two, you are still speaking in vain Prove my past statements wrong, and quit hiding behind bullshit semantics.

We already did. Logical fallacies are not semantics. They are places where your logic fails, and serve to disprove things you say.

Well the fact that you need something to follow to exeplify any degree of benevolence just shows the tyranny of all men

First, way to take what he was saying way too literally (weird, this sounds familiar somehow). Actually, I could be wrong. Maybe he does follow Sauron. Makes as much sense as following god, Lucifer, or the fence around my yard.

Second (my actual point, since my first is just me being comedic), Emyu's need to follow something to be benevolent does nothing to show that all men are tyrants. That's like me saying "one Christian is a moron, so all Christians are morons." It is not good reasoning.

This is a hopeless argument. Read the Bible.

It is hopeless, because the bible is a fantastic example of malevolence on god's part. Have you read the bible (I have to ask, considering the Lot/sisters/daughters thing and the Nimrod connection to babel)?

 

[Dean Winchester]

Coming from a family who has a severe belief that if you do not follow God's commandments you'll end up being thrown into the lake of fire, I have to admit that what fed me up the first place was the whole "believe because we have to".

Don't get me wrong, I believe in God, but the way some religions (especially the Christians) have portrayed God has made me ponder whether or not is it possible to avoid damnation. Because if you look at it from the point of logic, we have that almost every religion claims the same: "If you don't belong to us you are a sinner and you are doomed" but since we can't be part of every religion it seems that either-way we are doomed.

So I say, fuck it, if I am going to end up walking the "green-mile" I might as well enjoy my life as much as I can. I'll try to stay healthy, out of trouble, probably family some kids and then age until my time is up.

I am not even sure if God is up there any more, or if he is even paying attention to this tiny piece of Universe. The Universe is vast, deep and unexplored by us, so believing we are the only ones God is caring about is really arrogant.

Besides a lot of stuff happened prior to the Genesis, much more than the Bible has mentioned. There are many theories, plot holes, things that don't really fit into place, and a bunch lot of stuff that got twisted half way in the translation process that we can even imagine.

Personally, I would prefer neither heaven nor hell, all I want is more the same. Good old imperfection and the ability to decide what to do with my life.