Does might make right?

[stealthmongoose]

Dieu des hommes

Sir Kyle of Elsewhere

God must follow his own rules. If he doesn't follow his rules, he surely can't expect me to follow them. Hypocrisy is a bullshit way to run the world.

The rules as laid out in religious texts are only applicable to humans. It's like calling a man a hypocrite for setting a bedtime for his children but not himself.

In the man's defense, he must make such rules because he himself has no direct control over the round-the-clock sleeping habits of his creations.

If the argument is that God can transcend his own rules, then he's certainly taking a very fallible path by acting like as though humans need rules as opposed to divine intervention.

That being said, even the extant father requires some realistic intervention in order to enforce these rules. Rules which follow logical and demonstrable real-world consequences and conclusion.

[Artistic Layman]

Sir Kyle of Elsewhere

I have to ask this. So the Christian God doesn't want people to kill,

Murder to be specific after all you need to kill animals in order to eat them(I'm sure you know this difference, I'm just clarifying it)

Sir Kyle of Elsewhere

and yet, he has killed for dumber things than man has.

What is an example of these "dumber things"?

Sir Kyle of Elsewhere

Now I believe that anybody who were to witness a homicide or a rape would more than likely agree that the aggressor probably deserves to die for the crime, they literally destroyed the life of another human being. However, would anybody in their right mind kill or eternally punish somebody because they don't believe you exist?

People don't go to heaven for simply believing that God exists. They must believe in (trust in) in God, I.E. Jesus Christ.

Of course no human actually can punish someone eternally. God can but that's because He is eternal and the reason for an eternal punishment is because any offence against the eternal God is an eternal offence.

Sir Kyle of Elsewhere

God has, and many Christians accept that strong contradiction and defend it with "He's God, so his will is always right and just." Would anybody happen to have a reasonable defense to this?

I'm trying to understand what your objection is but I don't see it. Can you clarify it for me?

[Sir Kyle of Elsewhere]

Artistic Layman

Sir Kyle of Elsewhere

I have to ask this. So the Christian God doesn't want people to kill,

Murder to be specific after all you need to kill animals in order to eat them(I'm sure you know this difference, I'm just clarifying it)

Sir Kyle of Elsewhere

and yet, he has killed for dumber things than man has.

What is an example of these "dumber things"?

Sir Kyle of Elsewhere

Now I believe that anybody who were to witness a homicide or a rape would more than likely agree that the aggressor probably deserves to die for the crime, they literally destroyed the life of another human being. However, would anybody in their right mind kill or eternally punish somebody because they don't believe you exist?

People don't go to heaven for simply believing that God exists. They must believe in (trust in) in God, I.E. Jesus Christ.

Of course no human actually can punish someone eternally. God can but that's because He is eternal and the reason for an eternal punishment is because any offence against the eternal God is an eternal offence.

Sir Kyle of Elsewhere

God has, and many Christians accept that strong contradiction and defend it with "He's God, so his will is always right and just." Would anybody happen to have a reasonable defense to this?

I'm trying to understand what your objection is but I don't see it. Can you clarify it for me?

"Dumber things" would refer to things like sending armies to slaughter villages of people because they don't worship him. In fact, those people had no clue of his existence. And yes, it's true people don't go to heaven simply because they believe god exists, but he sure sends them to hell for not believing he exists.

[Sir Kyle of Elsewhere]

Kimyanji

Sir Kyle of Elsewhere

Kimyanji

Sir Kyle of Elsewhere

I have to ask this. So the Christian God doesn't want people to kill, and yet, he has killed for dumber things than man has. Now I believe that anybody who were to witness a homicide or a rape would more than likely agree that the aggressor probably deserves to die for the crime, they literally destroyed the life of another human being. However, would anybody in their right mind kill or eternally punish somebody because they don't believe you exist? God has, and many Christians accept that strong contradiction and defend it with "He's God, so his will is always right and just." Would anybody happen to have a reasonable defense to this?

I think the primary assumption that the "Christian God" does not want people to kill is incorrect. It's correct that God forbids murder, which is the killing of a human being by another human being unlawfully (according to a law established by the Christian God). He however does not forbid all killing.

God doesn't murder anyone because He is not bound by the laws He ordained which also define what is or is not murder.

I can't really speak for Christians particularly, but this is my understanding.

The bible states that God flooded the Earth and killed nearly every living creature on the planet. That's murder. Darkmatter2525(Youtube) put it in perspective. "It's like creating a bunch of robots, giving them free will, and then punishing them because they're not acting like robots".

Based on the definition of the word, it's still not murder.

What backwards dictionary are you reading? Drowning somebody is murder. Drowning many people is mass murder. In fact, its called genocide. Why isn't it murder? Because he spared like 1% of everything?

[ratgirl34]

Sir Kyle of Elsewhere

Artistic Layman

Sir Kyle of Elsewhere

I have to ask this. So the Christian God doesn't want people to kill,

Murder to be specific after all you need to kill animals in order to eat them(I'm sure you know this difference, I'm just clarifying it)

Sir Kyle of Elsewhere

and yet, he has killed for dumber things than man has.

What is an example of these "dumber things"?

Sir Kyle of Elsewhere

Now I believe that anybody who were to witness a homicide or a rape would more than likely agree that the aggressor probably deserves to die for the crime, they literally destroyed the life of another human being. However, would anybody in their right mind kill or eternally punish somebody because they don't believe you exist?

People don't go to heaven for simply believing that God exists. They must believe in (trust in) in God, I.E. Jesus Christ.

Of course no human actually can punish someone eternally. God can but that's because He is eternal and the reason for an eternal punishment is because any offence against the eternal God is an eternal offence.

Sir Kyle of Elsewhere

God has, and many Christians accept that strong contradiction and defend it with "He's God, so his will is always right and just." Would anybody happen to have a reasonable defense to this?

I'm trying to understand what your objection is but I don't see it. Can you clarify it for me?

"Dumber things" would refer to things like sending armies to slaughter villages of people because they don't worship him. In fact, those people had no clue of his existence. And yes, it's true people don't go to heaven simply because they believe god exists, but he sure sends them to hell for not believing he exists.

"Dumber things" could also refer to killing a man's family and destroying his livelihood as a test. Which is pretty dumb for an omnipotent being to feel the need to do.

[Artistic Layman]

Sir Kyle of Elsewhere

"Dumber things" would refer to things like sending armies to slaughter villages of people because they don't worship him. In fact, those people had no clue of his existence.

I don't get it. Why should that be considered dumber?

Sir Kyle of Elsewhere

And yes, it's true people don't go to heaven simply because they believe god exists, but he sure sends them to hell for not believing he exists.

Are you objecting to that or am I missing something?

[Kimyanji]

Sir Kyle of Elsewhere

Kimyanji

Sir Kyle of Elsewhere

Kimyanji

Sir Kyle of Elsewhere

I have to ask this. So the Christian God doesn't want people to kill, and yet, he has killed for dumber things than man has. Now I believe that anybody who were to witness a homicide or a rape would more than likely agree that the aggressor probably deserves to die for the crime, they literally destroyed the life of another human being. However, would anybody in their right mind kill or eternally punish somebody because they don't believe you exist? God has, and many Christians accept that strong contradiction and defend it with "He's God, so his will is always right and just." Would anybody happen to have a reasonable defense to this?

I think the primary assumption that the "Christian God" does not want people to kill is incorrect. It's correct that God forbids murder, which is the killing of a human being by another human being unlawfully (according to a law established by the Christian God). He however does not forbid all killing.

God doesn't murder anyone because He is not bound by the laws He ordained which also define what is or is not murder.

I can't really speak for Christians particularly, but this is my understanding.

The bible states that God flooded the Earth and killed nearly every living creature on the planet. That's murder. Darkmatter2525(Youtube) put it in perspective. "It's like creating a bunch of robots, giving them free will, and then punishing them because they're not acting like robots".

Based on the definition of the word, it's still not murder.

What backwards dictionary are you reading? Drowning somebody is murder. Drowning many people is mass murder. In fact, its called genocide. Why isn't it murder? Because he spared like 1% of everything?

It's called a Black's Law Dictionary. Are you even having the same discussion? To be a murderer you have to be a human being. God is not a human being, hence he can't murder anyone or anything. That is, God can drown the entire planet (that is 100%) if he wanted, and it still wouldn't be "murder".

[haunting heaven]

crimsin eyes

haunting heaven

So, I already responded to a lot of this in the other thread (since we were having a similar conversation there, too), so instead I'm going to ignore most of it (let me know if you think I missed something key that wasn't covered in our other conversation), and just concentrate on the specific issue of an omnipotent being's will being thwarted. c:

crimsin eyes

1-God is Omnipotent
2-Gods will can not therefore be thwarted (Gods will however is that we would know Him, and at the core of who He is is the freedom to chose to do right or wrong. At the core of who He is is Love, it is Justice, for He is Judge)

Buuuut... according to the Bible, it is God's will that all humanity be saved. So if his will is that we will all come to know him, an omnipotent God should be able to work within the realm of free will and still get the result he wants, yes? Because if he is thwarted by free will despite his desire that all be saved, is he still omnipotent?

Quote:

(aslo please forgive me if your not a girl sweatdrop your picture was not displayed and I could tell by your name and all my analogies are in the context of a heterosexual woman and I never meant to offend you in any way only illustrate things whee )

Well, I am a woman, but I'm not heterosexual. xD Even so, I understand the point of your analogies, so it's all good.

1-an omnipotent God should be able to work within the realm of free will and still get the result he wants
1- No. He is the one who imposed free will and to do anything to force us to chose would be to take away that free will.

Ah, but that's not what I mean. An all powerful God should be able to make it so that everyone is saved AND freely chose him.

Quote:

We have choice. He has revealed Himself to us in hopes we would take the invitation offered by His extended hand, but He will not force himself on us and will not force us to chose. If your thinking is, He is all powerful than why is there something He can not do, than the answer is that He choses not to do it. And I explained why He choses not to do it in the last post. If you say well than why doesn't he just show himself so everyone would believe, than I would say He has and those who do not believe have chosen not to believe in spite of what they've seen.

But he hasn't, really. (Revealed himself, I mean -- or not to the world at large.) God could easily prove his existence, but there is no tangible proof of any deity.

Or God could simply create human beings with the innate knowledge that he exists (and that he is a specific God of a specific religion). Believing in God naturally isn't an infringement on free will -- even by biblical standards.

Belief isn't a choice, anyways. wink

Quote:

(this also makes me think of the parable of Lazarus the beggar and the rich man. The beggar lived outside the rich mans gates and eventually they both died, Lazarus went to heaven and the rich man went to hell. The rich man wanted an angle to sent to his family that they would not suffer his fate. Moses told the rich man that f they did not believe the law and the prophets, they would not believe the angle.)

Wouldn't it depend on how the angel appeared, though? Like, if the angel appeared to be human, the rich man's family would have no more reason to believe them over any other person. However, if the angel proved that they were something supernatural sent from God, how could anyone actually deny that? Because there is a difference between text/tradition and tangible proof of the supernatural/God's will.

Quote:

So basically it sounds like your saying he should be able to persuade us even though we have free will. I think if you've spent enough time of these forums you may realize that all the facts or proofs in the world wont persuade people.

But isn't an omnipotent God greater than earthly facts and proof?

Quote:

They must decide for themselves whether they chose to believe what is in front of their eyes or not. The same goes for God. He will not force you to believe, but will show you evidence and try to persuade you, but we must chose whether to accept the evidence and be persuaded or to not,

I'm going to restate this because it's really important:

Even within the constraint of free will, an all powerful God should be able to enact his will (and his will is that everyone will be saved and no one will perish) without infringing on our right to choose.

[Sir Kyle of Elsewhere]

Kimyanji

Sir Kyle of Elsewhere

Kimyanji

Sir Kyle of Elsewhere

Kimyanji

Sir Kyle of Elsewhere

I have to ask this. So the Christian God doesn't want people to kill, and yet, he has killed for dumber things than man has. Now I believe that anybody who were to witness a homicide or a rape would more than likely agree that the aggressor probably deserves to die for the crime, they literally destroyed the life of another human being. However, would anybody in their right mind kill or eternally punish somebody because they don't believe you exist? God has, and many Christians accept that strong contradiction and defend it with "He's God, so his will is always right and just." Would anybody happen to have a reasonable defense to this?

I think the primary assumption that the "Christian God" does not want people to kill is incorrect. It's correct that God forbids murder, which is the killing of a human being by another human being unlawfully (according to a law established by the Christian God). He however does not forbid all killing.

God doesn't murder anyone because He is not bound by the laws He ordained which also define what is or is not murder.

I can't really speak for Christians particularly, but this is my understanding.

The bible states that God flooded the Earth and killed nearly every living creature on the planet. That's murder. Darkmatter2525(Youtube) put it in perspective. "It's like creating a bunch of robots, giving them free will, and then punishing them because they're not acting like robots".

Based on the definition of the word, it's still not murder.

What backwards dictionary are you reading? Drowning somebody is murder. Drowning many people is mass murder. In fact, its called genocide. Why isn't it murder? Because he spared like 1% of everything?

It's called a Black's Law Dictionary. Are you even having the same discussion? To be a murderer you have to be a human being. God is not a human being, hence he can't murder anyone or anything. That is, God can drown the entire planet (that is 100%) if he wanted, and it still wouldn't be "murder".

Since when have we ever come to the conclusion that you have to be human to be a murderer? God is supposed to be superior to us, meaning that he should be BETTER. That means if taking lives is a shitty thing for a human to do, then it's an even shittier thing for the creator of existence to do. Especially for less far lesser reasons than we do it. Now what? Are you about to tell me that God works in mysterious ways?

[Sir Kyle of Elsewhere]

Artistic Layman

Sir Kyle of Elsewhere

"Dumber things" would refer to things like sending armies to slaughter villages of people because they don't worship him. In fact, those people had no clue of his existence.

I don't get it. Why should that be considered dumber?

Sir Kyle of Elsewhere

And yes, it's true people don't go to heaven simply because they believe god exists, but he sure sends them to hell for not believing he exists.

Are you objecting to that or am I missing something?

Did you seriously just say that you don't know why killing somebody for not worshipping would be considered a dumber thing? Okay, let's look at the reasons some of us kill others. Some do it because god said so, and some just do it for enjoyment. Those are the assholes on that side of the spectrum. However, people will also kill in defense, they'll kill because they are left with no other option but killing or dying, and that's usually the case in why we kill each other. I'm not saying it's the best reason, but it's far more of a reason than "They don't believe in me" or "They said my name in a shitty tone of voice."

[Kimyanji]

Sir Kyle of Elsewhere

Kimyanji

Sir Kyle of Elsewhere

Kimyanji

Sir Kyle of Elsewhere

The bible states that God flooded the Earth and killed nearly every living creature on the planet. That's murder. Darkmatter2525(Youtube) put it in perspective. "It's like creating a bunch of robots, giving them free will, and then punishing them because they're not acting like robots".

Based on the definition of the word, it's still not murder.

What backwards dictionary are you reading? Drowning somebody is murder. Drowning many people is mass murder. In fact, its called genocide. Why isn't it murder? Because he spared like 1% of everything?

It's called a Black's Law Dictionary. Are you even having the same discussion? To be a murderer you have to be a human being. God is not a human being, hence he can't murder anyone or anything. That is, God can drown the entire planet (that is 100%) if he wanted, and it still wouldn't be "murder".

Since when have we ever come to the conclusion that you have to be human to be a murderer? God is supposed to be superior to us, meaning that he should be BETTER. That means if taking lives is a shitty thing for a human to do, then it's an even shittier thing for the creator of existence to do. Especially for less far lesser reasons than we do it. Now what? Are you about to tell me that God works in mysterious ways?

While I personally believe that He does work in mysterious ways, that is irrelevant to the primary idea here: What applies to God does not apply to human beings and vice-versa. God is not a human being to be judged by laws prescribed for human beings. He is transcendent and not bound by the laws of the universe He created. He owns the entire universe and what is in it and He can do whatever He wants. Like it or not, this is the Christian worldview to the best of my understanding.

[Madam kitty 1]

it's hypocrisy really. The christian god does horrific things yet Christians blindly follow him as a heroic savior.

[Artistic Layman]

Sir Kyle of Elsewhere

Artistic Layman

Sir Kyle of Elsewhere

"Dumber things" would refer to things like sending armies to slaughter villages of people because they don't worship him. In fact, those people had no clue of his existence.

I don't get it. Why should that be considered dumber?

Sir Kyle of Elsewhere

And yes, it's true people don't go to heaven simply because they believe god exists, but he sure sends them to hell for not believing he exists.

Are you objecting to that or am I missing something?

Did you seriously just say that you don't know why killing somebody for not worshipping would be considered a dumber thing? Okay, let's look at the reasons some of us kill others. Some do it because god said so, and some just do it for enjoyment. Those are the assholes on that side of the spectrum. However, people will also kill in defense, they'll kill because they are left with no other option but killing or dying, and that's usually the case in why we kill each other. I'm not saying it's the best reason, but it's far more of a reason than "They don't believe in me" or "They said my name in a shitty tone of voice."

How so?
In a godless universe there is no qualitative difference between killing for enjoyment, killing for self defense, killing for conquest, killing for god, or killing for no reason at all.

Conversely in a God created universe it is not respectful or wise you to ignore the existence of or degrade the name of the very reason you exist. Christians are not allowed to murder such people while Muslims are commanded to so the statement of killing because "They don't believe in me" is not universally applicable to all religious thought.

[crimsin eyes]

Quote:

Ah, but that's not what I mean. An all powerful God should be able to make it so that everyone is saved AND freely chose him.

Ever heard of the question "Can God make a boulder so big that He Himself cant lift it?". This is a lot like what you are asking here. The answer would seem yes, as God is omnipotent and can do anything, yet if He does this, He disproves His omnipotence by succumbing the weight of the rock. Stated in your terms it looks like "Can God make a people free with a choice that they can not get wrong?" The answer would seem that God is omnipotent and can make a people free, yet if they can not experience the fullness of choice than is God truly omnipotent in having made them free in the first place? You are seeking something that doesn't exist, and claiming that it should and pointing to an omnipotent God as proof. What your asserting here is that God can be two things. Like in the first it states that God can be strong yet in his strength be then weak. And in the second that God can make a people free to chose yet in their freedom make their freedom irrelevant.

Stated differently, if there are three bowls upside down on a table and under all three bowls is a ticket that says winner. What choice would a person have to lose? To place 'winner' under every bowl is to remove their freedom of choice.

Quote:

Wouldn't it depend on how the angel appeared, though? Like, if the angel appeared to be human, the rich man's family would have no more reason to believe them over any other person. However, if the angel proved that they were something supernatural sent from God, how could anyone actually deny that? Because there is a difference between text/tradition and tangible proof of the supernatural/God's will.

Immanuel means "God with us" and it is the name given to Jesus. Jesus was the fullness of God, made man to live among us. Every bit God and every bit man. He performed miracles, he raised the dead, yet people still did not believe. The Pharisees accused Jesus of blaspheming the God they claimed to worship, yet did not believing that he WAS the God they worshipped, because He wasn't what they wanted or were expecting. Your thesis could be applied here, why didn't Jesus reveal Himself to them in a way they could accept?