God could have prevented any war and/or prevented them from becoming nomads. He's all knowing and all powerful, right?
That's a big problem with the whole thing. He supposedly had the ability to stop slavery and other atrocities and did not.
What was god purpose for creating humans?
- Thread starter sadiehawkins
- Start date
That's a big problem with the whole thing. He supposedly had the ability to stop slavery and other atrocities and did not.
If you read the Bible in its entirety, then you know that God will end all suffering. The entire book is devoted to His plan to end suffering and redeem us.
If, as you suggest, God decided to end OT slavery around 1200 BC then that would have been the end of the world as we know it. Once God comes to end pain & suffering He is ending ALL of it, not just some of it. That is just and we know God is just.
Thankfully, we know how the story ends. God has defeated death through Christ’s death & resurrection. We have hope knowing God plans to right all wrongs.
The difficulty is the issue of time. God does His work not according to our preferred timing.
That sir is a great point.
The reason is simple. Deep down they fear death because they haven’t been taught the truth about what death is. Why ? the churches have failed to teach the truth.
The truth is something as the hellfire doctrine would certainly turn people off to wanting to know God. It goes against everything God stands for. The very idea of burning humans alive was repugnant to God.
Jeremiah 7:31-They have built the high places of Toʹpheth, which is in the Valley of the Son of Hinʹnom, in order to burn their sons and their daughters in the fire, something that I had not commanded and that had never even come into my heart.’
Clear the very thought of punishment in hellfire is detestable to God
I've never denied you that right. The claim was that only the Christian God can be the source for "objective morality". That those who deny that god, have no basis for their own morality. That's patently false. That kind of claim is going to get you an argument every time. You can base your own morality on that idea. You can even gather a community of like-minded people and set up your society using those standards. But - believe it or not - it's not a universal truth.
In the spirit of truth…define what “good” is. Against what standard you would judge something as “good?”
Historical I can agree with. But not magical mystical or powerful in away of determining whT happens after death. I put Jesus in the same class as Caesar, Cleopatra, Lincoln and a few more. Historical nothing more nothing less. If ya want to beleive the fairy tale crap nothing more can help you.
Good is treating everyone fairly. Good benefits all.
Other cultures that aren't Christian have morality most very similar to each other.
Not going to lie, I curse God on a regular basis. Almighty but yet all sucky. To start with God, help make my 14yo less autistic so he doesn’t have to suffer so much. Please God, do better, A-hole.
Societies make that determination based on what they think is best for the whole. The Aztecs thought human sacrifice provided for their well-being. It was moral to them. The early Jews and Christians - among just about everyone else - regarded slavery as moral because they thought they needed slaves. Why do you think it isn’t condemned in the Bible?
For all the bluster, it doesn’t even condemn human sacrifice.
Using your definition, can you infer it was “good” that the Japanese surrendered to the Americans in 1945? I think so, but the Japanese in August 1945 may think differently.
Many in China thought their “one-child” policy was “good.” Was it?
After WW I, the German surrender had many, many restrictions. The Allies thought those restrictions were good…..
Many at the time thought it was “good” that the US brought down many of the Colombian drug cartels several decades ago. But, this led to the rapid rise of the Mexican cartels.
My son was caught lying this weekend so he was disciplined and lost privileges. Is what I did good? Does my son agree with me?
Sure, but back to my earlier questions:
How would the first decision-maker in the first society know if their first judgement was good or bad?
In your Aztec example, why did leaders not sacrifice their own children? The fact they didn’t meant they had a standard (ok to sacrifice some other person but not their own). One was bad / one was good. How was the first human sacrifice judged to be considered “good?” There must be a baseline or standard to judge against, no?
I think a few posts from earlier today in this thread answered your other questions.
My 24yo daughter is far enough down the spectrum people don't see it at first glance, and so don't take it into account when dealing with her. But far enough up the spectrum that she is almost entirely incapable of handling any social environment - including job interviews or casual conversation. She managed to graduate from college, but now she is living with us and we have no idea what can be next.
It's something that is on you mind every day of your life.
But, hey, it's not God's fault. It's Adam. It was Adam's choice, and God's hands are tied. My daughter (and your child) must be punished.
Did you not read what I posted? To sacrifice their own would be to put their society at risk. You don't even have to think that hard to understand that. It is always "the other" who is viewed as lesser. Didn't the Bible allow the buying of slaves only from the surrounding nations? You don't enslave your own. You don't sacrifice your own - though even that could be practiced by some societies if they thought the needs of the many outweighed the needs of the one. Think tossing virgins in volcanoes.
The Bible condones slavery, the Bible commands genocide...yet you still maintain that morality can't exist outside of it. Curious.
Same. My older son is 28 and he walks dogs and housesits for a living. We got him on Medicaid and are working on disability. He lives in our basement apartment and pays token rent. Anything that requires interactions with strangers drives his anxiety through the roof. He tried being a vet tech - even got his degree - but he couldn't handle the pace (which was brutal in the practice where he interned) and any mistake would end his day.
We've tried to set things up so he'll be ok once we're gone but we always wonder if he'll be able to handle life once he's on his own. Scarier still, what happens if the economy goes to hell and people don't want to pay for someone to take care of their pets.
We worry about our younger son as well - I suppose all parents do - but he doesn't have those issues. He has a good job with a great boss and has friends all over the country.
Reading the Epicurean paradox was the nail in the coffin for my belief in the God concept I was raised with:
“Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able? Then he is not all-powerful.
“Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able? Then he is not all-powerful.
Is he able, but not willing? Then he is not all-good.
Is he both able and willing? Then whence cometh evil?
Is he neither able nor willing? Then why call him God?”
So you cannot define the standard to judge what is good and what isn’t? Or you refuse to?
Re Bible, addressed that earlier. I disagree with your summation. We can agree to disagree there.
Good implies punishment of some sort for not being good. Japan had to surrender to admit they had crossed a line for attacking the US. WWI punishments were, in hind sight, too severe, but mistakes are a part of being human.
Good is not about the individuals thoughts or feelings it is about the good of the collective society.
Laws change as people evolve.
You certainly have a right to reasonably discipline your son for lying, but if you chose to have you son suffer (burn in hell) for eternity that would not be good or fair.
Holy crap...READ what I posted for once. The standard is set by the society. I'm not at all sure what's got you stumped here. The Jews thought genocide was good. They were "ordered by God" to slaughter every man. woman, child, and infant from various groups they encountered - the Canaanites, the Amekelites, the Hittites and on and on. Obliterate them from the face of the Earth. They regarded that as good - especially since it gave them the land those societies had occupied with a near zero chance they would face any kind of rebellion since...you know...those people were all but wiped out. Why did THEIR standard change? When did genocide become bad? Well...when it became THEM.
With the exception of that last line, that's not my summation...that's Biblical. YOUR standard for what is "good". And you've already used that standard in the same way as the Southern plantation owners did to justify slavery. You should REALLY stop. You want to convince yourself that "good" doesn't exist outside some amorphous Biblical standard, that is your prerogative. But if you're going to argue that it's true, you're going to have problems.
Japan surrendered because Hirohito overruled his generals who valued honor over survival. Hirohito was a literal god to his people - his word WAS law - and he chose to do what was best for them by surrendering. As you said, that's where the collective "good" came from in that instance. But that's our standard. To the generals who were overruled - it wasn't "good" at all.
I’ll ask again. How would the first decision-maker in the first society know if their first judgement was good or bad?
That's my point laws/morals/values should be for the collective good of all living humans. Sometimes "feelings" get in the way of the collective good.
Who said the first decision maker's judgement was good? It evolves, bad decisions lead to negative results for the collective thus leading to changes.
Do you believe all Christian inspired laws have been good?
Take stealing for example. We can agree this is universally considered immoral. So immoral, that even babies know it is wrong. They inherently know it is unfair. You don’t have to teach them, they know. That is the objective morality I am speaking of.
No it isn't. Pirates steal...happily. Their entire culture is based on it and there's nothing wrong - to them - about it. The British govt paid privateers to steal. The British are Christians, btw.
This only works if leaders value ALL living humans. They never do. If you're talking about ideal good...sure. But leaders base their definition on what's good for THEIR people and rule accordingly.
This reminds me of a book I listened to one time called "The Language of God" by Francis S. Collins.
It was his take on who and what is God from his perspective as the leading authority of the Human Genome Project.....so a big time science guy.
He always came back to the same thought as you imply here....the "Moral Law" which is saying what you are here I think.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_L...ection of The Language,the existence of a God.
Another section of The Language of God focuses on 'The Moral Law Argument.' Moral Law is very important for Collins: "After twenty-eight years as a believer, the Moral Law stands out for me as the strongest signpost of God" (p. 218). Moral Law is an argument for the existence of a God.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_morality
Do you have no children? Little kids take things away from other children all the time. Their entire world revolves around "me" and "mine." They have to be taught to ask permission and share. They certainly are not born to wait their turn.
I remember when I was maybe 3 or 4 and I took a bubble gum cigar from the shelf as my mom was checking out. She didn't see it until we got into the car. She immediately told me how bad it was and that if I steal I would have to go to jail(Said I'd have to eat bread and water.
It was the early 60s). She carried me back into the store, made me apologize and she paid for the gum. I never stole anything again because my mom taught me it was wrong, I didn't know it innately.
I think God was just horny and he get's off on watching us shower.
Kind of like that landlord that owned those apartments on Gilbert St a couple decades back.
Kind of like that landlord that owned those apartments on Gilbert St a couple decades back.
The Christian God ordered genocide...multiple times. So much for morality.
Lewis had the same notion. A moral law requires a law-giver.
But if someone took something from you, you immediately knew it was wrong. We all have a sense of fairness built into us. We may need to be taught not to steal but we all know the feeling when it happens to us.Do you have no children? Little kids take things away from other children all the time. Their entire world revolves around "me" and "mine." They have to be taught to ask permission and share. They certainly are not born to wait their turn.
I remember when I was maybe 3 or 4 and I took a bubble gum cigar from the shelf as my mom was checking out. She didn't see it until we got into the car. She immediately told me how bad it was and that if I steal I would have to go to jail(Said I'd have to eat bread and water.
I knew I didn't like it and I would have tattled, but I'm not sure I knew it was wrong. If young children had a sense of fairness they would be born to share, they are not. I spent my entire teaching career teaching young children, they have to be taught and sometimes forced to share. I really can't believe you think children know right from wrong at birth if so parenting would be easy, it isn't.
Do you have a link that backs up your claim?
I never said they know right from wrong. What is fascinating is when something is stolen from them, they know it is unfair. You never have to teach a child that lesson. There is a sense of fairness built into each human. I posit our sin nature causes us to want to break that for our own benefit. However, we all have an innate thirst for justice when we are on the opposite end.
They also think it's unfair when their parent or teacher won't let them do or have something they want. Their sense of fairness is self centered. It's not developed enough to consider others.
Maybe, but is that what the science shows us?
Here are some good reads on the matter:
Are Babies Born Good?
New research offers surprising answers to the age-old question of where morality comes from
Altruistic babies? Study shows infants are willing to give up food, help others
New research by the University of Washington’s Institute for Learning & Brain Sciences finds that altruism may begin in infancy. In a study of nearly 100 19-month-olds, researchers found that...
www.washington.edu
That’s not “fairness”. Being angry when something is taken from me but having no problem taking from others isn’t fair in any sense. Babies aren’t born with empathy or a sense of fairness. They’re selfish in the extreme. They want what they want and they want it now. Makes sense given that for a time they are their own world. Empathy can certainly develop naturally over time. It’s in our DNA it confers a survival advantage. But not everyone develops it to the same extent and some never do.
Those were interesting articles, thank you. Little kids can be sweet and intuitive about other's feelings, they are not always selfish especially with adults. These experiments were done with objects, puppets, and adults. I think children at a very early age discover that pleasing adults results in smiles, cuddles, hugs, treats, etc. It would be interesting if they would be able to just observe behavior of a group of toddlers interacting with limited toys or treats without adult influence. I think fewer of them would be altruistic. Don't get me wrong I loved being an early childhood teacher. Everyday they made me smile no matter what was going on outside of work. I just don't think you can claim they have an innate morality. They start learning the day they are born so it is difficult to tell what is nature or nurture.Maybe, but is that what the science shows us?
Here are some good reads on the matter:
Are Babies Born Good?
New research offers surprising answers to the age-old question of where morality comes fromwww.smithsonianmag.com
Altruistic babies? Study shows infants are willing to give up food, help others
New research by the University of Washington’s Institute for Learning & Brain Sciences finds that altruism may begin in infancy. In a study of nearly 100 19-month-olds, researchers found that...www.washington.edu
Here are some quotes from the first article that support my thoughts:
“Where morality comes from is a really hard problem,” says Alison Gopnik, a developmental psychologist at the University of California at Berkeley. “There isn’t a moral module that is there innately. But the elements that underpin morality—altruism, sympathy for others, the understanding of other people’s goals—are in place much earlier than we thought, and clearly in place before children turn 2.”
Plenty of bleak observations complicate the discovery of children’s nobler impulses. Kids are intensely tribal: 3-month-olds like people of their own race more than others, experiments have shown, and 1-year-olds prefer native speakers to those of another tongue. Yes, a baby prefers the good guy—unless the bad one, like the baby, eats graham crackers. If the good guy is a green-bean eater, forget it. Babies, in addition, are big fans of punishment. Hamlin likes to show a video of a young vigilante who doesn’t just choose between the good and bad puppets; he whacks the bad guy over the head. In the spontaneous responses of the newest humans, “We’re seeing the underbelly of judgments we make as adults but try not to,” she says.
Similar threads
