»Can we accuse God of immorality?«
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Number of users, who voted: 21 Number of counted votes: 21 |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|||
 Another way of looking at my question would be: can we, the creation of an omnipotent God, logically believe that the Creator is immoral? Can clay tell the potter how it should have been molded? posted by stinkz |
|||
|
|||
| in-my-opinion.orgReligion and Mysteries, from worship to werewolvesReligious & Philosophical TopicsCan we accuse God of immorality? |
|
|||
|
Why is the word immortality so closely related to the word immorality in the English language? posted by Guy |
|||
|
|||
|
|||
 Let's say I set a rule whereby all people are expected to wear green on a Tuesday. Now let's imagine that one Tuesday I am wearing all black. Surely I cannot turn around and say: "I don't have to keep the rule, because I SET the rule in the first place." I don't know about anyone else, but I would consider such a statement to be nonsense. posted by fatpie42 |
|||
|
|||
|
|||
 stinkz: Another way of looking at my question would be: can we, the creation of an omnipotent God, logically believe that the Creator is immoral? Can clay tell the potter how it should have been molded? God is neither moral nor immoral, he is the creator of moral laws (if you believe in such god). posted by knn |
|||
|
|||
|
|||
|
You can't be 100% moral if you don't know 100% the future (including what chain of reactions your actions will cause). Thus god can only be moral if we assume, that god knows the future. God created Satan. There MUST be something moral about that if we assume that god knows the future AND that god is moral. If we assume that god does not know the future, then we confess that god can make mistakes = Be immoral, not by intent, but by stupid mistake. This is a blasphemic thought, yet would explain a lot. FOr example, why god created Satan. posted by knn |
|||
|
|
|||
|
|||
 Guy: Why is the word immortality so closely related to the word immorality in the English language? Because only the good die young. fatpie42: Let's say I set a rule whereby all people are expected to wear green on a Tuesday.
Now let's imagine that one Tuesday I am wearing all black. Surely I cannot turn around and say: "I don't have to keep the rule, because I SET the rule in the first place." Nice.  Very good analogy. Now, the person wearing black (the guy making the rules) will probably argue that he wore black "for the greater good." But if that's the case, then the rules are more like guidelines rather than rules.knn: You can't be 100% moral if you don't know 100% the future (including what chain of reactions your actions will cause). There are three parts to morality --- intent (what you hope to achieve by any given action), means (the way in which you undertake said action), and results (what you actually achieve by your actions). Even if you don't know the future 100%, you still have control over your intent and means. Without knowing the future 100%, you cannot know for certain what all the results will be. But you can probably make a pretty good guess what the immediate results will be. For example, if I put poison in your wine, I probably know that you'll die if you drink it. I can argue, "Well, I wasn't 100% certain that you would die. After all, Rasputin consumed enough poison to kill a large horse and lived." But does that really mean I shouldn't be judged based on results? posted by Tiefling |
|||
|
|||
|
|||
|
-C. S. Lewis -C. S. Lewis posted by stinkz |
|||
|
|||
|
|||
|
Tiefling: Without knowing the future 100%, you cannot know for certain what all the results will be. Aaah, so by "immoral"/"moral" you DON'T talk about morality (= that which is good in the end) but about OPINIONS about morality. I act immoral (= I THINK I do) (e.g. by killing a baby) although the final result will be moral (if the baby is Adolf Hitler). That's maybe one of the definition problems of "is homosexuality immoral". Stinkz talks about OPINIONS about homosexual acts, while the other talk about RESULTS of homosexuality (which are basically non-existent). While the opinion might be bad (= homosex is immoral) the result might be good (= homosex is moral). posted by knn |
|||
|
|||
|
|||
|
stinkz: If we reject him, we ought also to reject all his works. But one of his works is this very moral standard by which we reject him. If we accept this standard then we are really implying that he is not a Brute and Blackguard. If we reject it, then we have thrown away the only instrument by which we can condemn him. What a nonsense is that? This is so full of junk that I don't even know where to start. Every sentence is a wrong assumption. posted by knn |
|||
|
|||
|
|||
|
... the less repect I have for the man. Every argument he comes up with seems to be on the grounds that people are either all bad or all good. There are no grey areas for him. If Brute and Blackguard aren't moral, but they made the moral laws then they are hypocrites. Why should dismissing some of their actions mean that you have to dismiss ALL their actions. It's rubbish! If this is your standard of logic then no wonder you think everything is irrational! It's like saying that if I like the taste of one meal produced by a great chef, I should also enjoy the dreadful meal he prepares one evening when completely drunk after his wife leaves him! posted by fatpie42 |
|||
|
|||
|
|||
|
fatpie42: If Brute and Blackguard aren't moral, but they made the moral laws then they are hypocrites. I'm having a hard time understanding your poor English. I think you are trying to say that, if God made morality yet isn't moral, then He is a hypocrite. That is well and good, but has nothing to do with what Lewis said. fatpie42: Why should dismissing some of their actions mean that you have to dismiss ALL their actions. It's rubbish! Can't any of you give something a good 30 seconds of rational thought before calling it rubbish? Here... since you obviously need me to hold your hand, I will attempt to walk you through the quote so you can understand it. Let us, for a moment, assume God created the world, and everything in it. This would mean that He also created your mind, and placed inside of it an inkling that certain things are "good" while others are "bad," would it not? It would mean that all your ideas about morality and justice were given to you by Him. Now, suppose you accuse God of acting unjustly, because you see people dying from terrible diseases at young ages. What does it mean that you are calling him "unjust?" You are, in essence, saying "God, Your standards of morality are right and good, and because I know that, I know that these young people dying is an injustice." You see? I trust that my sense of morality and justice is rooted in objectivity, and I use this sense to judge that which I find occuring on this earth. When I do this, I am proving that I believe that ultimate reality is not in fact immoral and corrupt, but instead moral and good. Am I not? fatpie42: If this is your standard of logic then no wonder you think everything is irrational! Where you thought his quote was illogical, you merely misunderstood it. fatpie42: Every argument he comes up with seems to be on the grounds that people are either all bad or all good. There are no grey areas for him. This statement makes no sense, and has nothing to do with the quote I posted. fatpie42: The more quotes I hear from C.S. Lewis... the less repect I have for the man Then perhaps you should stop basing your opinion on quotes, and actually read one of his books. Here's another quote from a later passage of the same text. Let's see if you can understand this one the first time through. C. S. Lewis I cannot and never could persuade myself that such defiance is displeasing to the supreme mind. There is something holier about the atheism of a Shelley than about the theism of a Paley. That is the lesson of the Book of Job. No explanation of the problem of unjust suffering is there given: that is not the point of the poem. The point is that the man who accepts our ordinary standard of good and by it hotly criticizes divine justice receives the divine approval: the orthodox, pious people who palter with that standard in the attempt to justify God are condemned. Apparently the way to advance from our imperfect apprehension of justice to the abolute justice is not to throw our imperfect apprehensions aside but boldly to go on applying them. Just as the pupil advances to more perfect arithmetic not by throwing his multiplication table away but by working it for all it is worth. posted by stinkz |
|||
|
|||
|
|||
|
You guyz must be REALLY young. Eventually, you find out, any group of anyone can go on and on and on about this same or similar topic...Until their face turns the colour of red or purple or blue... Which is not a bad thing if they were trying to mimmick orchids or something... Beautiful flower...In the end... Everyone has their own opinion... posted by Guy |
|||
|
|||
|
|||
|
Guy: You guyz must be REALLY young. ...or be the admin of a forum... 
posted by knn |
|||
|
|||
|
|||
|
stinkz: Let us, for a moment, assume God created the world, and everything in it. This would mean that He also created your mind No, it doesn't mean that. OK, actually to start off, we need assumptions BEFORE that first statement: For example: 1) There is only 1 god and not 23. Maybe 1 god was OK, while 22 were evil? 2) God created everything. 3) God liked what he created AND STILL LIKES it. 4) It matters what god likes and what not. 4) ... NOW we come to the first wrong conclusion: stinkz: Let us, for a moment, assume God created the world, and everything in it. This would mean that He also created your mind Completely rubbish. As if the chair you sit on was also created by god. Who says that the mind isn't created by life forms themselves? Or by Satan? stinkz: This would mean that He also created your mind, and placed inside of it an inkling that certain things are "good" while others are "bad," would it not? No, it wouldn't. Where do you get this idea from? If I create a computer program then it means it can distinguish between "tea" and "coffee". What nonsense is that? stinkz: Now, suppose you accuse God of acting unjustly, because you see people dying from terrible diseases at young ages. What does it mean that you are calling him "unjust?" You are, in essence, saying "God, Your standards of morality are right and good, and because I know that, I know that these young people dying is an injustice." You see? I trust that my sense of morality and justice is rooted in objectivity, and I use this sense to judge that which I find occuring on this earth. When I do this, I am proving that I believe that ultimate reality is not in fact immoral and corrupt, but instead moral and good. Am I not? No, you are making a wrong conclusion. If god creates free minds with free opinions then these minds can have their OWN opinion whether the universe is good or bad. You are basically claiming that only because you made a son, the son will automatically see what a wonderful father you are. Nonsense. posted by knn |
|||
|
|||
|
|||
|
To show how ridiculous childish C. S. Lewis assumptions are shows this thought: Imagine god created this universe with a fun for suffering. God loves to see others suffer. He creates pain, Satan and whatever not. Would make sense, too. posted by knn |
|||
|
|||
1, 2, 3, 4, 5 Next
Goto page
1, 2, 3, 4, 5 Next
 Register Log in |
The time now is 24 May 2012, 06:44 php B.B. |