General Discussion

Apologetics and Theology

Read 11420 times

Nic Kelly

  • *
  • 4 Posts
    • View Profile
defense of hell -- fallacy
« Reply #75 on: January 25, 2011, 07:56:08 pm »
Quote from: Brunswick
One objection that atheists often make to hell is that it is overkill, because God would be sending someone to hell for an eternity as punishment for sins that they committed during a finite amount of time in this life.  One response that I have often heard from Christians is that it doesn't matter how long it takes one to commit a crime, the punishment is initiated based on the magnitude of the crime.  Ergo, a crime committed against an infinitely great being is worthy of an infinitely great punishment.

As a novice in this field I'll attempt to tread lightly, I've been struck with two points that seem to me to be mis-understandings, BTW I'm always open to correction and greatful for it.  
1. I'm not sure we do ourselves justice in trying to understand hell literally or as a place or punishment. From what I've seen (although hell is constantly described with physical imagery, I believe the term is hyperbole) hell is nothing more than seperation from God, God being all good, the giver and susstainer of life. If hell is simply the absence of God. God who is completely holy or pure goodness is obliged to seperate himself from "the wicked" that being all of humanity.
2. My second concern is from the nature of which we are choosing to discern what is and is not just. As a human my subjectivity is immenently inopportune. I too initially agree with the system of justice set forth in the quoted question, I hesitate though to presume that because the favored opinion is such that God aught to "measure up" to our standards in order to pass, so to speak. If we are trying to understand this God of christianity I believe he needs to be seen as the ultimate empirical conclusion in a personified sense.
I'm curious to know where my thinking is off. by all means give me your feedback
Thanx  

1

Johan Biemans (jbiemans)

  • *****
  • 12686 Posts
  • WCBP - http://tinyurl.com/agmwhpj
    • View Profile
defense of hell -- fallacy
« Reply #76 on: January 25, 2011, 08:08:34 pm »
That is interesting.  If hell is separation from God, and God is the sustainer of life, then hell is the separation from life, or more simply put death.  If hell is simply death, then I see no problem with it.  Actually its not a half bad system of justice.  Rather then punish the wrong, you reward the good by bringing them back to life, and you simply leave the dead, dead.

You were so close in the first part;  The punishment is based on the magnitude of the crime.  If you had have stopped there I would have been in complete agreement, but then you make the statement that the punishment should be proportional to who it was committed against.  This is wrong, and the first part is right (IMHO).

As for the last part, basically saying "who are we to attempt to judge God".  This I find is a horrible attitude.  I think that it is always in our best interest to question anyone who claims authority.  Otherwise we could end up following horrible leaders (Hittler comes to mind).  If I cannot judge for myself that God is good or not, then why should I assume that he is good at all ?  Why not assume that he is evil ?  If I cannot judge God's morality for myself, then I cannot know anything about him, and then this whole discussion is futile.

2

Triptych

  • **
  • 387 Posts
  • Christian Apologist
    • View Profile
defense of hell -- fallacy
« Reply #77 on: January 26, 2011, 01:04:35 am »
@ jbiemans: I appriciate your respect and politeness while discussing these topics.  You seem like a nice guy.

-First, I think there is a misunderstanding about what objective means in this argument.  For something to be morally objective, this means that something is moral whether anyone believes in it or not.  This would encompass individuals as well as groups of people.  Second, it doesn't seem that this is beginning the question at all.  I think I've given good enough evidence (from Dr. Craigs work) that if morals do not come from a transcendent being, than there just isn't anything objective about "our moral values".  It's not that I believe in God, and therefore I'm saying they need a transcendent anchor.

-In response to the "morals" in the Bible:  When most people talk about this, they are refurring to God taking life, and saying that this is murder.  I'll post the same response I posted to Snakey about this:
I talked to Snakey about this once already and was hoping that this site  was past it.  About the issue of God taking life, should we than take  this to mean that murder is a moral act?  "According to the version  of divine command ethics which I’ve [Dr. Craig] defended, our moral  duties are constituted by the commands of a holy and loving God.  Since  God doesn’t issue commands to Himself,  He has no moral duties to  fulfill.  He is certainly not subject to the same moral obligations and  prohibitions that we are.  For example, I have no right to take an  innocent life.  For me to do so would be murder.  But God has no such  prohibition.  He can give and take life as He chooses.  We all recognize  this when we accuse some authority who presumes to take life as  “playing God.”  Human authorities  arrogate to themselves rights which  belong only to God.  God is under no obligation whatsoever to extend my  life for another second.  If He wanted to strike me dead right now,  that’s His prerogative."  What that implies is that God has the right to take lives; how long we live and when we die is up to Him.
So for instance, the first part of God's greatest commandment that Jesus said (would is moral) was to Love the Lord your God with all your heart, soul and mind.  However, God wouldn't give this same type of commandment to Himself.  Or say worshiping God, God wouldn't worship Himself.  These are some examples of how this would work.
However, if you're going to say that the Bible condones Sexism, misogyny, polygamy, genocide, slavery, child abuse, you'll need to give some evidence of this.  The burden isn't on me.
Obviously the Proverb verses you gave are not good evidence that the Bible says you should be abusive to your children.  Especially as the entire verse is about punishing your kids because you love them...

@Wonderer: If you do not wish to continue our conversation Wonderer I understand.  I appreciate the brief discussion we did have though.  Maybe some other time .

"We can easily forgive a child who is afraid of the dark.
The real tragedy of life is when men are afraid of the light."
-Plate
“Reason is not automatic.  Those who deny it can not be conquered by it.”
-Ayn Rand
GodBls, L8

3

Snakeystew

  • ***
  • 4218 Posts
    • View Profile
defense of hell -- fallacy
« Reply #78 on: January 26, 2011, 02:19:18 am »
He has no moral duties to fulfill. He is certainly not subject to the same moral obligations and prohibitions that we are.


This is, as I have explained before, fatally flawed - it defeats any ability of a human to declare that 'god is good'.

WLC is walking down the street one day when he happens upon god in the process of raping a five year old boy. The human side of WLC's brain is saying: "Woah, that's just wrong" whereas the non-human part of WLC's brain is saying: "But he's god, he doesn't have the same moral prohibitions or obligations and no moral duties to fulfill". He cannot say anything at all concerning the 'goodness' or otherwise of such entity other than "If god wants to rape five year old boys, that's his perogative!"

Obviously the Proverb verses you gave are not good evidence that the Bible says you should be abusive to your children


As highlighted on my last post:

Exodus 21:15, Leviticus 20:9, Deuteronomy 21:18-21, Mark 7:9-13, and Matthew 15:4-7). Killing your children is about as abusive as it can get. It is, by being god commanded, a moral obligation.

4

Johan Biemans (jbiemans)

  • *****
  • 12686 Posts
  • WCBP - http://tinyurl.com/agmwhpj
    • View Profile
defense of hell -- fallacy
« Reply #79 on: January 26, 2011, 08:45:46 am »
Second, it doesn't seem that this is beginning the question at all.  I think I've given good enough evidence (from Dr. Craigs work) that if morals do not come from a transcendent being, than there just isn't anything objective about "our moral values".  It's not that I believe in God, and therefore I'm saying they need a transcendent anchor.

The reason that I am saying that this is begging the question is because you have not demonstrated that these values are objective, and then asserting that because you say they are, therefore this other mind must exist.  If you actually re-read what you said, I agree with your first part.  "If morals do not come from some source other then our minds then they are not objective.  I would simply change "our minds" to "any mind".  Since they come from the mind of God they are subjective.  

Unless of course you want to say that they come naturally from the nature of God, in which case you would shoot your other argument in the foot.  I say this because if morality comes from God's nature, then God must also follow the same morality (because it is his nature, he cannot do otherwise).  There could not be a distinct morality for humans and one for God because our morality and his morality come from the same source, his nature.

There is also another problem with this idea, it renders morality arbitrary.  God could not choose his nature, and could have potentially had any nature.  God could have had the nature of being omni-melovelent.  This would mean that evil things would be moral. etc.  

But it appears that you think it is what God commands us to do that is what constitutes morality, and not what God does himself.  So lets explore where that must take us.  

The commandment says "Thou shall not kill" and then they go on to explain rules on when to kill people.  I think there should have been a * and some exceptions listed.  So lets see the morality that is commanded by God.



Exodus 21:15, Leviticus 20:9, Deuteronomy 21:18-21, Mark 7:9-13, and Matthew 15:4-7:  As snake already pointed out these verses direct you on when to kill your child.

Especially as the entire verse is about punishing your kids because you love them...

Punishing your kids with a rod is showing that you love them ?





There are many verses that allow for rape of women.  The attacker must marry the victim if they are not engaged, if they are then they both are to be stoned. (this also relates to the sexism and misogyny part.  Women were seen as property).

More on sexism:



1 Corinthians 14: 34. Let your women be silent in the assembly: for it is not permitted them to speak, but to be in subjection, as also Torah says. 35. And if they wish to be informed on any subject, let them ask their husbands at home: for it is unbecoming for women to speak in the assembly.



As for the genocide commanded by God, that is pretty self evident.  You can try to justify it by saying they were sinners and deserved it, but aren't we all sinners ?  Its similar justification that allowed the Holocaust because people were able to justify the genocide.

Luke 19:27 But those mine enemies, which would not that I should reign over them, bring hither, and slay them before me.


There are also verses that allow for slavery, and give commands on how you should treat your slaves.

Slaves, obey your earthly masters with deep respect and fear.  Serve them sincerely as you would serve Christ.  (Ephesians 6:5 NLT)

5

Johan Biemans (jbiemans)

  • *****
  • 12686 Posts
  • WCBP - http://tinyurl.com/agmwhpj
    • View Profile
defense of hell -- fallacy
« Reply #80 on: January 26, 2011, 08:56:17 am »
Sorry for the double post but I wanted to split this up:

On the question of subjectivity.  

Would you say that taste in food is subjectively good or bad ?  or is it objective ?

On an evolutionary model, our taste for food is relative to its nutrition and energy content.  We find high sugar foods to be attractive because that is what we once would have needed to survive.  Now we have abundance and that is what is leading to some obesity problems.  But no matter what your personal taste in food is, you cannot deny that some foods taste horrible to everyone, and for good reason, those foods are toxic.  No one can deny that some foods will cause you harm if eaten, despite what your personal subjective preference is.

The same can be said for morality.  Some actions cause harm, and it is indisputable that those actions cause harm, despite what your personal subjective preference is.

My personal approach to morality is that we should attempt to limit as much harm as possible, while maximizing the benefits of our actions.  No action should be taken if the harm outweighs the good.  Now you will probably complain about "who decides what constitutes harm and good", and that is the question we must have is morality is to continue to develop.

6

Nic Kelly

  • *
  • 4 Posts
    • View Profile
defense of hell -- fallacy
« Reply #81 on: January 26, 2011, 08:36:58 pm »
jbiemans wrote: That is interesting.  If hell is separation from God, and God is the sustainer of life, then hell is the separation from life, or more simply put death.  If hell is simply death, then I see no problem with it.  Actually its not a half bad system of justice.  Rather then punish the wrong, you reward the good by bringing them back to life, and you simply leave the dead, dead.

You were so close in the first part;  The punishment is based on the magnitude of the crime.  If you had have stopped there I would have been in complete agreement, but then you make the statement that the punishment should be proportional to who it was committed against.  This is wrong, and the first part is right (IMHO).

As for the last part, basically saying "who are we to attempt to judge God".  This I find is a horrible attitude.  I think that it is always in our best interest to question anyone who claims authority.  Otherwise we could end up following horrible leaders (Hittler comes to mind).  If I cannot judge for myself that God is good or not, then why should I assume that he is good at all ?  Why not assume that he is evil ?  If I cannot judge God's morality for myself, then I cannot know anything about him, and then this whole discussion is futile.


Well I'm not sure if the way in which the term death is agreed here. In my view death isn't the end or the finish line but sort of the opposite of life, in perhaps a more virtuous way. We would see love as the opposite of hate in the same way (the biblical God is referred to as both, Love and life that is). Of course when we die we call it death but the bible tends to blend the two together in some ways, I'm not going to die on that mountain top though so I digress. I would hesitate to agree with the last statement in the first paragraph, the bible doesn't say  those who go to heaven are the good guys. In fact the bible says things like : :no one is good not even one" or,  all have sinned all fall short of Gods glorious standard" and "the wages of sin is death". When we think of getting into heaven at least from a biblical perspective we need to recognize it isn't a reward for being "good enough:". This sort of justice, as your referring to it, is seen more in what happens to those that are in heaven, where each one will be accountable for what they have done. Access into Heaven is what Christians get so excited about because its a  free gift, like the presents under a Christmas tree. It would just seem awkward if someone were to obligate me to give them a free gift simply because they tried to be generally good all year.(I understand the stakes aren't necessarily the same but I hope you get my point). The fallacy I believe is in the requirements for entry into heaven, Biblically it's perfection. I can't presume that status for myself. Maybe a good analogy is back in the court room. We agree on the basic forms of justice where you say sending someone to hell is unjust based on the crime. I say its more fitting to see it like this:  Someone being tried in a court room has been invited to sit in he judges seat, and drive home with her, also eat dinner with her and laugh carry on and sleep in the same bed, with his Judge the one who is supposed to be without conflict of interest, formal, professional and just. As long as we see it simply as a law to be followed in order to gain entry we are from my perspective missing the forest through the trees. Heaven is the encounter with God. This is why Jesus could say things like "the kingdom of heaven is upon you". or "you are not far off from the kingdom of heaven". Once actual death occurs the culmination of heaven is realized. I must stop here on this note and remind myself that I am not a theologian, so I don't presume to give an exhaustive explination on this point, although I'm confident that I'm not to far off. I hope I've provided some food for thought. I did want to mention further explanation on the rest of your comments but I feel as though I've offered enough to discuss for now.
Thanks for the feedback . NK

7

Dan Stewart

  • ***
  • 2068 Posts
    • View Profile
defense of hell -- fallacy
« Reply #82 on: January 26, 2011, 09:12:57 pm »
As I said in another thread, God is just. If Hell weren't bad - and deserved - there is no explaining the cross.

Most of the trick here is to portray God as mankind's enemy. Get past that absurdity, and you're basically home free. What's left to bother with?

"P.S. Oct 22d. Hen. has taken your M.S. to London, & will write.— I have lately read Morley's Life of Voltaire & he insists strongly that direct attacks on Christianity (even when written with the wonderful force & vigour of Voltaire) produce little permanent effect: real good seems only to follow f

8

Triptych

  • **
  • 387 Posts
  • Christian Apologist
    • View Profile
defense of hell -- fallacy
« Reply #83 on: January 27, 2011, 02:00:05 am »
@ jbiemans: So again, they don't come from the mind of God, they are a part of His essential nature.  "God's moral nature is expressed in relation to us in the  form of divine commands which constitute our moral duties or  obligations. Far from being arbitrary, these commands flow necessarily  from His moral nature. In the Judaeo-Christian tradition, the whole  moral duty of man can be summed up in the two great commandments: First,  you shall love the Lord your God with all your strength and with all  your soul and with all your heart and with all your mind, and, second,  you shall love your neighbor as yourself. On this foundation we can  affirm the objective goodness and rightness of love, generosity,  self-sacrifice, and equality, and condemn as objectively evil and wrong  selfishness, hatred, abuse, discrimination, and oppression."
So you are conflating Gods necessary moral nature with the moral duties that He commands.
"According to the version  of  divine command ethics which I’ve [Dr. Craig] defended, our moral  duties  are constituted by the commands of a holy and loving God.  Since  God  doesn’t issue commands to Himself,  He has no moral duties to  fulfill.   He is certainly not subject to the same moral obligations and   prohibitions that we are."
I already gave an example of this when I talked about worship (A command what God gives as moral, but God wouldn't worship Himself.)

Aboslutely! Punishing kids for sure shows you them you love them.  Here's a little humor to show you:


The rest of these objections about these verses in the Bible is just Biblical apologetics gone crazy.  I'll address them one at a time (as evident by the website you got them from).
-There are many verses that allow for rape of woman?! You gotta be kidding me... Just take a look at the first story that redicious site gives, Judges 21.  All of the woman in that story are married to their husbands.  Now how they got married might seem strange to us, especially because I can see that you have no knowledge of ancient Hebrew culture.  But where is the rape?  None...
-1 Corinthians 14, First, Paul is talking solely about woman in the church and not in any other format or circumstance.  Now I personally haven't looked into this verse much, so I can't give a great response unless you want to continue to push it till I give you an answer.  However, I think we can see that there is something else going on here in 1 Corinthians 14, when we take into account other verses in the Bible.  When we read in 1 Corinthians itself, we can see that the woman were not remaining silent at all, and it was praised!!
Ex:
1 Corinthians 11: talks about woman praying and prophesying in the Church.  Not to mention verse 11: "Nevertheless, in the Lord woman is not independent of man, nor is man independent of woman."
1 Corinthians 14:5 Women are speaking in tongues and interpreting.
So here we have woman praying in the church, they were prophesying in the church, they were speaking in tongues in the church, they were interpreting in the church.  Woman were NOT being quite!
Galatians 3:28: "There is neither Jew nor Greek, Slave nor Free, Male nor Female, for you are all one in Christ."
If you want me to go deeper, I'll try and find the time to do this.  But I think this is enough to refute your claim on this.

-For answers about the "apparent genocide" in the Bible, check out Dr. Craigs Question #16 http://www.reasonablefaith.org/site/News2?page=NewsArticle&id=5767

-Slavery?  First, the chapter from Galatians takes care of this.  But furthermore, the purpose of that part in Ephesians was not to talk about slavery.  The NT and OT neither encourages or condones slavery, as its purpose was not to change societal situations.  Rather, it was about how to have practical ways in dealing with the realities of the day.  If you were to post the whole of the verses and not just the little snippet that pleases you, it would go like this:
"Slaves, obey your earthly masters with respect and fear, and with sincerity of heart, just as you would obey Christ. 6  Obey them not only to win their favor when their eye is on you, but as  slaves of Christ, doing the will of God from your heart. 7 Serve wholeheartedly, as if you were serving the Lord, not people, 8 because you know that the Lord will reward each one for whatever good they do, whether they are slave or free.And masters, treat your slaves in the same way. Do not threaten them,  since you know that he who is both their Master and yours is in heaven,  and there is no favoritism with him."

I'll respond to your claim on morality later

"We can easily forgive a child who is afraid of the dark.
The real tragedy of life is when men are afraid of the light."
-Plate
“Reason is not automatic.  Those who deny it can not be conquered by it.”
-Ayn Rand
GodBls, L8

9

Snakeystew

  • ***
  • 4218 Posts
    • View Profile
defense of hell -- fallacy
« Reply #84 on: January 27, 2011, 03:06:16 am »
"Rather, it was about how to have practical ways in dealing with the realities of the day."

Practical ways heh? "I am the Lord thy God. Don't do it!". Short and sweet but kinda makes the point.

P.S I notice you've not responded to the dilemma WLC's statement inevitably faces. I assume you agree with WLC - hence why you quote it - and as such the dilemma is also yours. Whenever you're ready.

10

Johan Biemans (jbiemans)

  • *****
  • 12686 Posts
  • WCBP - http://tinyurl.com/agmwhpj
    • View Profile
defense of hell -- fallacy
« Reply #85 on: January 27, 2011, 06:17:36 am »
@ jbiemans: So again, they don't come from the mind of God, they are a part of His essential nature.

And again I already addressed that, but I guess it got lost in the length of the post.  Watch:

God's commands are a direct result of his essential nature.
Human morality is derived directly from God's commands.
Therefore human morality is derived directly from God's essential nature.

You see there is no difference between God's commands to humans and his nature, because his commands come from his nature.  But it gets worse:

God's actions are a direct result of his essential nature.
Human morality is derived directly from God's essential nature.
Therefore Human morality is derived directly from God's actions.

Or to make it simpler:

God's morality, Human morality, God's actions and God's commands all come from the same source, God's Nature.

This should mean that they should be the same.  God should not be able to command anything that is against his nature, any more then he could act on something that is against his nature.  If he cannot commit immoral acts, then he cannot command immoral acts either.

Basically anything God says or does is a reflection of his nature, and if his nature is the source of our morality, then anything God says or does is the source of our morality.

Sorry for saying it so many times, but I want to make sure that it is clear.  You cannot say that God did X, but it is immoral for humans to do X, if the above is true.  If you try, that means that you are adding something else to determine what is moral and what is immoral apart from the nature of God.  Can you tell me what that is ?

I will get to the bible verses later.


11

Triptych

  • **
  • 387 Posts
  • Christian Apologist
    • View Profile
defense of hell -- fallacy
« Reply #86 on: January 27, 2011, 02:30:00 pm »
@ Snakey:  I wasn't ignoring your post, I just don't have the time to get to everyone one right away hah.
The problem going on here is that you seem to think that God "taking" a life is contrary to His nature (Obviously unlike rape at all, completely contrary to God's nature).  I put "taking" like this to show that there really isn't anything that you earned to have your life.  God is under no obligation whatsoever to extend anyone's life. Life is a  gift from God, and He's not duty bound to prolong your life. He can take it as he sees fit.
So it seems that you are conflating His moral nature with moral duties.  Raping someone who go against both His moral nature and the moral duties which He has given us.  In order to hold to this view, you need to somehow show that by God "ending" a life is in conflict with His moral nature.

@ jbiemans: This part is not wholly correct:
God's commands are a direct result of his essential nature.
Human morality is derived directly from God's commands.
Therefore human morality is derived directly from God's essential nature.
God's commands are based off His nature.  But it doesn't follow necessarily that every part of His nature is a command.  I express this at the bottom.

And this is just an invalid argument:
God's actions are a direct result of his essential nature.
Human morality is derived directly from God's essential nature.
Therefore Human morality is derived directly from God's actions.
*This is saying
-All A have B
-All C have B
-Therefore All C have A
Logically invalid argument.

So this is where your problem lies.  All of our moral duties come from God's nature.  But not all of God's nature is found in all of our moral duties.  Just because God has a moral nature, does not mean that every part of His nature is also part of our duties.  There could be parts of His nature that are not expressed to us through our moral duties.  For example, God's being a just judge and the end of our lives (determining our eternal status) I would say is part of His moral nature, but He has not commanded US to do that.  So we have not place to do such a thing.

So it's wrong for us to take a life because we are not the sustainers of life, God is.  Therefore God commands us not to take life.  However, God is the sustainer of life, so He is in the position to do so whenever He see's fit.  So I think this just a failure to understand WHY taking a life is wrong, and KNOWING that taking a life is wrong.

Hope this answers all your guy's questions.
"We can easily forgive a child who is afraid of the dark.
The real tragedy of life is when men are afraid of the light."
-Plate
“Reason is not automatic.  Those who deny it can not be conquered by it.”
-Ayn Rand
GodBls, L8

12

Johan Biemans (jbiemans)

  • *****
  • 12686 Posts
  • WCBP - http://tinyurl.com/agmwhpj
    • View Profile
defense of hell -- fallacy
« Reply #87 on: January 27, 2011, 03:40:16 pm »
God's commands are based off His nature.  But it doesn't follow necessarily that every part of His nature is a command.  I express this at the bottom.

But you just said this:

@ jbiemans: So again, they don't come from the mind of God, they are a part of His essential nature.

So is it God's commands that constitute human morality, or is it God's nature that constitutes human morality ? (once you confirm I will respond.)

jbiemans wrote:
God's actions are a direct result of his essential nature.
Human morality is derived directly from God's essential nature.
Therefore Human morality is derived directly from God's actions.

*This is saying
-All A have B
-All C have B
-Therefore All C have A
Logically invalid argument.

Thats not what I said.  I did not say that human morality has God's essential nature, I said it was derived directly from it.  Its more like saying this:

A = B
C = B
Therefore C = A

Where A is God's actions, B is God's nature and C is human morality.

God's actions, God's commands and human morality all come from the same source, God's nature.  If they all come from the same source they should all be aligned and similar.

Imagine that you had a rule book for a game.  We both took copies of the same rule book and explained the game to each other.  We should be explaining exactly the same game, should we not ?  Would you expect me to say, well in my version of the game, I am allowed to take 2 turns in a row if I choose.

So it's wrong for us to take a life because we are not the sustainers of life, God is.  Therefore God commands us not to take life.  However, God is the sustainer of life, so He is in the position to do so whenever He see's fit.  So I think this just a failure to understand WHY taking a life is wrong, and KNOWING that taking a life is wrong.

If God commanded us not to take life, then it must be part of his nature to not take life, as God cannot command that which is not part of his nature.  You cannot then turn around and say that God takes life, because then God is doing something against his nature (not to take life).

13

Snakeystew

  • ***
  • 4218 Posts
    • View Profile
defense of hell -- fallacy
« Reply #88 on: January 27, 2011, 03:57:35 pm »
The problem going on here is that you seem to think that God "taking" a life is contrary to His nature


I didn't say or imply any such thing - anywhere.

Clearly, given WLC's statement that "He has no moral duties to fulfill. He is certainly not subject to the same moral obligations and prohibitions that we are", the opposite is clearly true; This god can do anything it wants an nothing can be said concerning the morality of it. That is precisely the point.

You proceed in saying that such things as rape etc are "against god's moral nature" which is to argue that it's nature is confined to acting in accordance with certain moral understandings, (action A is immoral, action B is moral), but if those understandings differ from our own, you have no valid basis with which to say "god is good".

You then attempt to argue that rape is against his moral nature, (action A is immoral), without any valid justification and against WLC's statement to the contrary - that it has no moral duties and isn't subject to the moral obligations and prohibitions (rape etc) that we are.

14

Johan Biemans (jbiemans)

  • *****
  • 12686 Posts
  • WCBP - http://tinyurl.com/agmwhpj
    • View Profile
defense of hell -- fallacy
« Reply #89 on: January 28, 2011, 06:13:23 am »
love that russel peters sketch, but just because you can laugh at is, does not make it right.

---Aboslutely! Punishing kids for sure shows you them you love them.  Here's a little humor to show you:

Its not just about punishing them, but about using a rod to punish them.  Or, as in the verses Snakey showed, killing them outright for being disobedient.

-There are many verses that allow for rape of woman?! You gotta be kidding me... Just take a look at the first story that redicious site gives, Judges 21.  All of the woman in that story are married to their husbands.

"Go and hide in the vineyards.  When the women of Shiloh come out for their dances, rush out from the vineyards, and each of you can take one of them home to be your wife!  And when their fathers and brothers come to us in protest, we will tell them, 'Please be understanding.  Let them have your daughters, for we didn't find enough wives for them when we destroyed Jabesh-gilead. And you are not guilty of breaking the vow since you did not give your daughters in marriage to them.'"  So the men of Benjamin did as they were told.  They kidnapped the women who took part in the celebration and carried them off to the land of their own inheritance.  Then they rebuilt their towns and lived in them.  So the assembly of Israel departed by tribes and families, and they returned to their own homes."
(Judges 21:10-24 NLT)

This is treating women as property you can simply go and take.  To excuse it because they were "married" is insane.  Imagine this scenario. (hypothetical only so do not get offended).

I go over to your city and then break into your house, kill you and your wife, and then kill any children that you may have that are older the age of consent.  Then I kill any male sons you have.  Then I take your young female daughter and make her become my wife.  Then when she turns 12 (age of consent) we consmiate our relationship.  You think that scenario is OK because I married her first ?!!??!!?

4) Laws of Rape  (Deuteronomy 22:28-29 NLT)

   If a man is caught in the act of raping a young woman who is not engaged, he must pay fifty pieces of silver to her father.  Then he must marry the young woman because he violated her, and he will never be allowed to divorce her.

What kind of lunatic would make a rape victim marry her attacker?  Answer: God.

5) Death to the Rape Victim   (Deuteronomy 22:23-24 NAB)

   If within the city a man comes upon a maiden who is betrothed, and has relations with her, you shall bring them both out of the gate of the city and there stone them to death: the girl because she did not cry out for help though she was in the city, and the man because he violated his neighbors wife.

   It is clear that God doesn't give a damn about the rape victim.  He is only concerned about the violation of another mans "property".


You ignored these.  These commands say that if you rape a women but she does not cry out for help and is within the city, then she gets stoned, etc.


Nice flow chart showing the laws listed above =)