What can God be held accountable for?

[Raithere]

Please xpand on your thought of the meaninglessness of the whole scheme, it sounds interesting.

Bear with me, I'm exploring the idea myself.

Value can only be determined as a relationship. A single thing, existing alone, has no value. In this discussion the point has been made that things/people only have value relative to god, that they have no intrinsic worth in themselves or to each other. This is the same situation conceptually. I would even go so far as saying that god has no value in this scenario for there is nothing relative to god by which to measure value.

Assuming creation (lower case 'c', not capital 'C'), god must have imbued creation with an inherent value independent of god. This is the only way I find the act of creation makes any sense.

I don't think the assignment of value is arbitrary - not any more so than the 'personal inherent value' you advocate.

If things have an inherent value then their relative value can be determined though their relationships to each other. If only one thing (namely god) has value, then there is no value because there is nothing to measure value by. Value is reduced merely to what god prefers.

We are certainly apart from other creatures on this planet; why not then are birds ruling the earth?

I don't see that anyone "rules" the earth. If I had to pick a species though it would be bacteria, not humans.

The seeming disparities between our views results from simply this; I believe in God: you don't.

Not at all. I am perfectly capable of working under the presumption of god's existence; I was a theist for a good number of years. I felt it was more productive to continue the discussion under the theistic presumption than just go back to arguing the premise and have the same old discussion again.

The problem may arise when these 'values' contradict. There will never be a 'perfect' balance.

I didn't say that the had to be a perfect balance. The world would have to be static and unchanging. It isn't.

That is God makes right.

Why?

We can put off answering this question forever -- but as long as we do, life on earth will seem arbitrary.

Or we can eliminate this variable from the equation and seek to understand how things interrelate. Things make much more sense this way.

This is why God gave people rules to live by; rules that ensure they would step on eachother's toes -- and on eachother -- as little as possible.

Rules are largely ineffective as a means of governance.

Might *does* make right -- when might is *loving*.

Irrelevant. If only god determines value then there is no measure for god. Loving, hateful, evil, malign, funny, it all becomes the same. You can't have it both ways. You cannot state that value is only derived through god and also have an independent measure for those values.

~Raithere

"A man's ethical behavior should be based effectually on sympathy, education, and social ties; no religious basis is necessary. Man would indeed be in a poor way if he had to be restrained by fear of punishment and hope of reward after death." - Albert Einstein

 

[Raithere]

Ok, so God (outside of our temporal dimension/universe) can see anything that happens as it happens.

From this perspective the Universe would be static, time would just be another dimension, change an illusion for those unable to see beyond their limited perspective.

God could intefere in any specific moment of time, but this is not implied by God being able to somehow see every moment in time

If god can change something then god cannot be omniscient. Remember we're operating outside of time.

~Raithere

 

[MarcAC]

Such errant use of the semicolon.

I wonder whose post(s) this random, unsupported statement refers to.

 

[MarcAC]

If only one thing (namely god) has value, then there is no value because there is nothing to measure value by. Value is reduced merely to what god prefers.

I didn't state or intend to imply that God alone would have value; I intended to communicate the point that God Who creates endows value through purpose. Truly I have no problem with value being reduced to what God prefers - He has all the knowledge so...

I don't see that anyone "rules" the earth. If I had to pick a species though it would be bacteria, not humans.

Interesting; can't disagree. As stated previously however; God values all His creation.

Not at all. I am perfectly capable of working under the presumption of god's existence; I was a theist for a good number of years. I felt it was more productive to continue the discussion under the theistic presumption than just go back to arguing the premise and have the same old discussion again.

Interesting, I find it hard to follow how you come to your conclusions in such a case.

I didn't say that the had to be a perfect balance. The world would have to be static and unchanging. It isn't.

But then it all goes back to people stepping on each other's toes. Value then becomes truly arbitrary in my opinion: "I make right". If a true "balance" is achieved then everyone would have been believing in God. I don't think the world would be static and unchanging absolutely: only in the respect of "values". With regards to rules; they surely keep creation in line.

Why?

Because there is none above Him and non on par with Him; not even arguably on par. In other words we can't use the standards of judging a dog to judge our kids (an analogy).

'A man's ethical behavior should be based effectually on sympathy, education, and social ties; no religious basis is necessary. Man would indeed be in a poor way if he had to be restrained by fear of punishment and hope of reward after death.' - Albert Einstein

How many different "social norms" are there? Social ties will often serve to "oppose" sympathy. I wonder if Einstein was sympathetic to those in Hiroshima. By what standards does he employ the term "poor"?

 

[Raithere]

I intended to communicate the point that God Who creates endows value through purpose. Truly I have no problem with value being reduced to what God prefers

And it is my assertion that such a reduction makes any ethical foundation meaningless.

Interesting; can't disagree. As stated previously however; God values all His creation.

And you base this opinion upon what?

Interesting, I find it hard to follow how you come to your conclusions in such a case.

Through reason.

But then it all goes back to people stepping on each other's toes. Value then becomes truly arbitrary in my opinion: "I make right".

What's arbitrary about examining relationships to determine value? Humans need air to live; therefore air has value to humans. This seems far less arbitrary to me than, "Thou shalt not take the Lord's name in vain." Why? "Because he doesn't like that."

Because there is none above Him and non on par with Him; not even arguably on par. In other words we can't use the standards of judging a dog to judge our kids (an analogy).

And what if God has the morality of a child? If you read the OT he certainly seems to. He's petulant, abusive, uncompassionate, and vengeful.

How many different "social norms" are there? Social ties will often serve to "oppose" sympathy.

He said, "social ties" not social norms. Social ties are the relationships we have with other people, how do these "oppose" sympathy?

I wonder if Einstein was sympathetic to those in Hiroshima.

Most certainly:

"I made one great mistake in my life-when I signed the letter to President Roosevelt recommending that atom bombs be made but there was some justification-the danger that the Germans would make them." - Albert Einstein

"Though Einstein was never directly involved in the creation of the bomb, it was his earlier theories that had paved the way for its possibility. After its eventual use on Hiroshima and Nagasaki, Einstein became a constant and vocal activist for peace -spending much of the rest of his life speaking and writing on the subject."
http://www.pbs.org/wnet/americanmasters/database/einstein_a.html

By what standards does he employ the term "poor"?

I would assume he was using it to mean, "wanting in amount or capacity : less than adequate" (MW online). The unspoken argument is that behavior based upon "fear of punishment and hope of reward" is purely selfish. Einstein had more faith in man than god apparently does.

~Raithere

 

[battig1370]

These may a strange thing to say, I got really pissed off at God 22 years ago.


Near the end of February of 1983, I was in a state of helplessness, my cup was empty and I felt alone. With extreme anger I cried out, "OH GOD, WHERE ARE YOU!? COME DOWN AND LET WORLD KNOW THAT YOU CARE! WHERE IS YOUR LOVE!? Can you see and hear of all the things that have happened and are happening!?" Those that have a mind to process what they see and hear would think that YOU are sleeping, or do not even exist, or on vacation, or just don't care, by letting all the suffering and destruction happen on this earth. Why all the abominations that have happen in Jesus' name that are to bloody and wicked to mention? OH GOD, why all the conflicts and division within Christianity? Countless numbers of Christian churches with their various false religious doctrines and false religious preaching using The Name of Jesus as its foundation, and at the same time seeing and hearing of ALL the suffering, and also seeing the destruction of the environment from all kinds of pollutants which causes suffering to ALL livings things. And also, the weapons of mass destruction that mankind have used and will use against each other again to the point of ANNIHILATION, which is M.A.D. IF THEY ARE NOT STOPPED, HUMANITY IS FINISHED, OH GOD! LISTEN TO THE CHILDREN CRY!, OH GOD! WHY DON'T YOU DO SOMETHING!"

Peace be with you, PAUL

 

[Alter Ego]

I don't know what God can be held accountable for, but I know he ows me for the damn face he gave me.

 

[cole grey]

Wanderer,
one jolly rodger is enough, don't you think?

 

[water]

Value can only be determined as a relationship. A single thing, existing alone, has no value. In this discussion the point has been made that things/people only have value relative to god, that they have no intrinsic worth in themselves or to each other. This is the same situation conceptually. I would even go so far as saying that god has no value in this scenario for there is nothing relative to god by which to measure value.

Assuming creation (lower case 'c', not capital 'C'), god must have imbued creation with an inherent value independent of god. This is the only way I find the act of creation makes any sense.

The premises are that 1. God created the world, 2. God loves the world.

If we wish to talk about God, we have to rely on the premises given by a certain religious discourse (in this case, Christianity). We cannot talk about God independently of all existing discourses -- it would be like talking about words from a foreign language without knowing that language. Of course they mean nothing, we can only observe the external form and make statements about it in regards to our native language.

That is, if we wish to talk about God, we have to
1. Use a certain individual religious discourse.
2. Treat its premises as axioms.

This
"Assuming creation (lower case 'c', not capital 'C'), god must have imbued creation with an inherent value independent of god."
is an example of talking about God independently of a certain religious discourse. In this light, the claims made by a certain religious discourse will make little sense.

On the other hand, one can certainly develop one's own religious discourse, self-tailored. But then this is like making up your own language: other people won't understand you, so what's the use of it ...


Anyway, in practice, god has no value in this scenario for there is nothing relative to god by which to measure value is resolved by people who value God. The relationship, and value, exist in the mutuality.

If people don't value God, then God has no value for them. But this doesn't mean that God has no value -- as long as there is no relationship, His value is indeterminate.

But again, people do not make up the concept of God fom scratch, we get it from the religious discourse, and this discourse does axiomatize certain properties and relationships.

If, on the other hand, we, each person for himself, would have to make up the concept of God for himself, from scratch, then we are indeed forever stuck in indeterminateness.

It would be like taking a word, say, "table", and try to discover and determine its meaning with compelte disregard to the English language.

Or we can eliminate this variable from the equation and seek to understand how things interrelate. Things make much more sense this way.

Of course. Just the tiny, nagging question of what is the meaning on all this? remains ...

Rules are largely ineffective as a means of governance.

How do you mean?

Might *does* make right -- when might is *loving*.

Irrelevant. If only god determines value then there is no measure for god. Loving, hateful, evil, malign, funny, it all becomes the same. You can't have it both ways. You cannot state that value is only derived through god and also have an independent measure for those values.

This is where religious axioms step it.
Just like in science, we start from axioms, or we can't do anything.

"A man's ethical behavior should be based effectually on sympathy, education, and social ties; no religious basis is necessary. Man would indeed be in a poor way if he had to be restrained by fear of punishment and hope of reward after death." - Albert Einstein

This is a statement of faith.
We can always ask, "Why should a man's ethical behavior be based effectually on sympathy, education, and social ties?"

If people say they are moral because they fear punishment, it makes no difference whether the basis of morality is religon or not. Religion just conceptualizes punishment somewhat dfferently than some non-religious ideology.

Ask: What are the consequences if a man is not sympathetic, educated and disregards social ties? It does not make him a criminal yet.

If god can change something then god cannot be omniscient. Remember we're operating outside of time.

That God "changes" something is spoken from our perspective, not from God's.

I intended to communicate the point that God Who creates endows value through purpose. Truly I have no problem with value being reduced to what God prefers

And it is my assertion that such a reduction makes any ethical foundation meaningless.

Eventually, no ethical foundation can be justified -- in *human* terms. No matter what principle or value humans propose, it can be violated by humans with no chance of justice's prevailing.

It is only when the "all-overarching organizing principle" (ie. God) is seen as the foundation of ethics, that this foundation is justified.

The premise on which any justification is based is It is only the highest authority that can give undisputable justification and sanction tresspasses against the laws this authority gave.

At least hostorically, only God is an entity that can have such authority.

Interesting; can't disagree. As stated previously however; God values all His creation.

And you base this opinion upon what?

It's an axiom in the religious discourse.

What's arbitrary about examining relationships to determine value? Humans need air to live; therefore air has value to humans. This seems far less arbitrary to me than, "Thou shalt not take the Lord's name in vain." Why? "Because he doesn't like that."

If you give God to have authority over you, then you should not take His name in vain, for that would be an act of you renouncing His authority over you.
Of course, you can do that -- but if you renounce God's authority over you, then you also cut yourself off from God, with all the consequences.

In short:

1. You do not have to acknowledge God's authority over you.

2. If you do acknowledge God's authority over you, then this has consequences for you, good and bad.
If you acknowledge God's authority but rebel against it, the consequences are as given in the Bible.

3. If you don't acknowledge God's authority over you, then you are not under God's law, and you have no reason to fear the consequences for rebellion as are given in the Bible.

4. If you do fear the consequences for rebellion as are given in the Bible, then this means that you are actually acknowledging God's authority over you.

And what if God has the morality of a child? If you read the OT he certainly seems to. He's petulant, abusive, uncompassionate, and vengeful.

For human terms, certainly. But if God is omnimax, He then has a very different perspective than we.

The unspoken argument is that behavior based upon "fear of punishment and hope of reward" is purely selfish. Einstein had more faith in man than god apparently does.

If people acknowledge God's authority over them, but then rebel against this authority, then it is their problem, they are selfish, not God.


* * *

These may a strange thing to say, I got really pissed off at God 22 years ago.

Near the end of February of 1983, I was in a state of helplessness, my cup was empty and I felt alone. With extreme anger I cried out, "OH GOD, WHERE ARE YOU!? COME DOWN AND LET WORLD KNOW THAT YOU CARE! WHERE IS YOUR LOVE!? Can you see and hear of all the things that have happened and are happening!?" Those that have a mind to process what they see and hear would think that YOU are sleeping, or do not even exist, or on vacation, or just don't care, by letting all the suffering and destruction happen on this earth. Why all the abominations that have happen in Jesus' name that are to bloody and wicked to mention? OH GOD, why all the conflicts and division within Christianity? Countless numbers of Christian churches with their various false religious doctrines and false religious preaching using The Name of Jesus as its foundation, and at the same time seeing and hearing of ALL the suffering, and also seeing the destruction of the environment from all kinds of pollutants which causes suffering to ALL livings things. And also, the weapons of mass destruction that mankind have used and will use against each other again to the point of ANNIHILATION, which is M.A.D. IF THEY ARE NOT STOPPED, HUMANITY IS FINISHED, OH GOD! LISTEN TO THE CHILDREN CRY!, OH GOD! WHY DON'T YOU DO SOMETHING!"

Peace be with you, PAUL

Welcome to the effects of free will.

If God wants to interfere and still be just, then He must act with great vehemence. Either wipe out everyone, or noone, or make special arrangements that don't interfere with anyone's free will.


* * *

I don't know what God can be held accountable for, but I know he ows me for the damn face he gave me.

Wanderer,
one jolly rodger is enough, don't you think?

He has just begun. Oh, the fury that shall come!

 

[battig1370]

water: > "If God wants to interfere and still be just, then He must act with great vehemence. Either wipe out everyone, or noone, or make special arrangements that don't interfere with anyone's free will."

battig1370: > ["If God wants to interfere and still be just, then He must act with great vehemence. - and - make special arrangements that don't interfere with anyone's free will."] If God interfered, I think what a just God would do is give people a final choice. Rules for life, or rules for death?

Which rules would people choose?

Peace be with be you, Paul

 

[MarcAC]

And it is my assertion that such a reduction makes any ethical foundation meaningless.

Simply because you don't believe in God.

And you base this opinion upon what?

He created it all?

Through reason.

... and some illusive inherrent bias.

What's arbitrary about examining relationships to determine value? Humans need air to live; therefore air has value to humans.

Only to those who value life. This is not a very supportive analogy in my opinion: air is a constant - "inherrent human value" isn't.

And what if God has the morality of a child? If you read the OT he certainly seems to. He's petulant, abusive, uncompassionate, and vengeful.

He's loving; He's just. This is a whole other string of threads so...

He said, "social ties" not social norms. Social ties are the relationships we have with other people, how do these "oppose" sympathy?

I interpreted it in a more "political" sense. Different societies, competing societies, warring societies; people exist in dfferent societies which are subject to social norms. As your referenced article illustrates, sympathy renders social ties irrelevant (unless, of course, as I was ingorant of (or forgot) the quoted statement(s) I am also ignorant of the "fact" of Einstein's "social ties" with the Japanese).

I would assume he was using it to mean, "wanting in amount or capacity : less than adequate" (MW online).

Well in that case I would think Christians and he would agree.

The unspoken argument is that behavior based upon "fear of punishment and hope of reward" is purely selfish. Einstein had more faith in man than god apparently does.

I speak for Christians; Einstein was not one (the statement is rather removed from it [Christianity]). He excluded the crucial element of love. It's not that you fear going to hell and so... no: you love God and you want to be with God - that is your reward - eternity with God. Something analogous to eternity with your bride. If you love your wife some things you'd damn well fear doing and you'll always do what's right for a "hope of reward" (let's keep our minds out of the gutter).

 

[water]

["If God wants to interfere and still be just, then He must act with great vehemence. - and - make special arrangements that don't interfere with anyone's free will."] If God interfered, I think what a just God would do is give people a final choice. Rules for life, or rules for death?

People do have a final choice. At Judgement Day.

God gives rules for life -- but He doesn't prevent people from having free will. This also means that some people use their free will in a manner to kill or otherwise harm other people. Such are the consequences of free will. To ensure justice, God has to make up for that, and hence life after the death of the body.
If life were over after the body would die, the chance for ultimate justice would not exist. Then God's justice would be the same as man's: limited to this life, and this way, justice is often not done.

Which rules would people choose?

What do you think?
So far, they liked to prove that they want all the best for themselves, want to have God on their side -- but they don't want to do anything for that, or only as little as they still can give without feeling diminished.

 

[battig1370]

water: > "People do have a final choice. At Judgement Day."

battig1370: > I agree. It is written, "And before Him shall be gathered all nations; and He shall separate them one from another, as a shepherd divideth his sheep from the goats: And He shall set the sheep on his right hand, but the goats on the left. Then shall the King say unto them on his right hand, Come you blessed of my Father, inherit the kingdom prepared for you from the foundation of the world". - (Matt. 25:31-46)

Those that have chosen the rule of death will be separated from those that have chosen the rule of life and each side will be given the reward of their choice.

Peace be with be you, Paul