DaveC426913
Valued Senior Member
Actually, I did that. You'd sort of have read a few posts of the other thread, starting here.James R is placing the Judeo-Christian god of biblical fame in the framework of a modern family.
This thread is spawned from that one. If I were a cynic, I'd say that JamesR was - er - dissatisfied with being presented with a construct that was positive and self-consistent rather than the common cynical self-confirming atheistic view.
(Note to JamesR: No offense intended. Not trying to skewer you as the bad guy. Just trying to make my case.)
I agree.The analogy breaks down instantly.
In fact, I believe the very premise (of JamesR's) is flawed, because the parable is essentially pandering directly to the atheistic skepticism.
My framework was attempting to show how - if one were brought up in a culture that embraced it, rather than regarded it with inborn skepticism - there is an internal logic to a God that a] gives humans free will, b] tells them how to live well, c] tells them what not to do, and then d'] still justifiably punishes them for their choices.
(My usual disclaimer: I am an (evidence-based) atheist. I don't believe God exists , but that doesn't mean I believe the construct - in terms of loving thy neighbor - is as illogical as many atheists believe. That's why I'm playing Devil's Advocate.)
Last edited: