Would a moral God step up to his responsibilities?

[Greatest I am]

Not every mans beliefs are true. How do you know which God to pray to? Common sense.

Sense?
Not according to the leader of the reformation.

Faith must trample under foot all reason, sense, and understanding.
Martin Luther

Reason is a whore, the greatest enemy that faith has.
Martin Luther

The question to you then becomes, why does you common sense lead you to honor a genocidal maniac?

Is that good common sense?

Regards
DL

 

[Greatest I am]

its not a question of either/or..
look at the questions raised by atheists here on sciforums, MOST always blame God for everything Bad that happens in the world..(If there was a God then X would/would not have happened.)
not trying to argue against how religion does/doesn't line up with that attitude, just arguing you cannot use that argument to single out christians as it applies to both theist and atheist or more accurately Anti-theist.

If Christians say that it is all in God's hands, then they should take the heat.
They certainly give him all credit so why not all the blame.
That seems fair.

Regards
DL

 

[NMSquirrel]

If Christians say that it is all in God's hands, then they should take the heat.
They certainly give him all credit so why not all the blame.
That seems fair.

Regards
DL

yes..that makes sense..If God can be blamed for all the Bad, then it makes sense that the opposite holds true also.

 

[lightgigantic]

Like I said:

When it comes to choice of religion, we use human standards to judge God's behavior as described by various religions.

The various religions present different ideas of what an omni-personality is.

For example, some Christian schools believe that the mark of an omni-personality is to condemn the majority of his parts and parcels to eternal damnation, based on one irrevocable decision by those parts and parcels.
Some Christian schools also believe that an omni-personality doesn't really have a name and a face.
They also find it inconsistent with an omni-personality that he would be always happy.

I don't think this has anything to do with omni-hood

Other religions have different ideas about what makes for an omni-personality and what doesn't.


You seem to be talking about judging God without reference to particular religious ideas.

I am talking about the general principle that its absurd to apply the exact same moral frame one uses to judge humanity to god for the simple reason that the two are not exactly the same.

I do not think we can assess God without reference to particular religious ideas.
It's not like we have a non-denominational, neutral idea of what an omni-personality is.

thats a detail

if one can't get one's head around the general principle above there is no point going int o details

 

[Greatest I am]

yes..that makes sense..If God can be blamed for all the Bad, then it makes sense that the opposite holds true also.

Now all we have to do is bring that bit of wisdom to the Christians who deny God his responsibilities and are constantly making man the creator of evil and God the creator of good.

Regards
DL

 

[wynn]

I am talking about the general principle that its absurd to apply the exact same moral frame one uses to judge humanity to god for the simple reason that the two are not exactly the same.

And I am saying that how we think about God is necessarily dependent on (a particular) religion.

thats a detail

No.

if one can't get one's head around the general principle above there is no point going int o details

All we know "about God", we know from individual religions.


There is no general principle, other than in natural theology.

Natural theology, while consistent to some extent with most theisms, is still just natural theology, philosophical speculation.
Natural theology is not revealed religion.
Natural theology is not and cannot be authoritative.
Whatever conclusions we might come to via natural theology, there is no reason to believe they are a sound basis for assessing God or anything else to do with God.

 

[NMSquirrel]

And I am saying that how we think about God is necessarily dependent on (a particular) religion.

no.
God was there before religion,religion was formed by those who believed in God.
a more accurate statement would be 'how we think of God is Influenced by religion.' not dependant, and especially not dependant on a specific religion.

All we know "about God", we know from individual religions.

all we know of God is from individuals.
these individuals may be in a position of power that influences others beliefs as to who/what God is,(justification) but the base of the belief is in the individual.
IOW just because the majority says it is so, does not mean it is so..(yes i know this conflicts with my other thoughts..but discretion plays a major part in this)

 

[lightgigantic]

And I am saying that how we think about God is necessarily dependent on (a particular) religion.

and I am saying that god and the living entity are not in the same category (granted that there may be some religions that profess the living entity can evolve into god and create universes and whatnot, which I guess would make them the exception, but I wouldn't describe such views as remotely close to a minority view, what to speak of mainstream .... but even then, I would hazard a guess that such views involve a radical transformation of the human vessel)

No.

yes

All we know "about God", we know from individual religions.


There is no general principle, other than in natural theology.

Natural theology, while consistent to some extent with most theisms, is still just natural theology, philosophical speculation.
Natural theology is not revealed religion.
Natural theology is not and cannot be authoritative.
Whatever conclusions we might come to via natural theology, there is no reason to believe they are a sound basis for assessing God or anything else to do with God.

if all the individual religions come to the same general conclusion (eg - god can create the universe and a human being cannot) you have a general principle

 

[wynn]

if all the individual religions come to the same general conclusion (eg - god can create the universe and a human being cannot) you have a general principle

Do you see no problem with believing in a creator God who will torture the majority of His supposedly beloved children in hell for all eternity?

He is the creator, so He can do whatever He wants, including damn and torture individuals for eternity?

 

[lightgigantic]

Do you see no problem with believing in a creator God who will torture the majority of His supposedly beloved children in hell for all eternity?

If one can't comprehend the necessary distinctions between god and the living entity there is no way to approach the above problem in an intelligible way

 

[wynn]

If one can't comprehend the necessary distinctions between god and the living entity there is no way to approach the above problem in an intelligible way

How we understand the necessary distinctions between God and the living entity depends on the particular religion and its doctrine to which we refer.

For example, Christians hold that God is a necessary being, but humans are not.
In some schools of Hinduism, both God and the invidiual entity are considered necessary beings.
In some schools of Hinduism, individual entities are considered parts and parcels of God, and thus total separation between them is impossible. Some Christians argue just the opposite.

 

[kx000]

Now all we have to do is bring that bit of wisdom to the Christians who deny God his responsibilities and are constantly making man the creator of evil and God the creator of good.

Regards
DL

No. Go created everything in this universe. He never knew Lucifer would turn out like he did.. who knows, maybe he did. If he did he did for good reason.

 

[Greatest I am]

No. Go created everything in this universe. He never knew Lucifer would turn out like he did.. who knows, maybe he did. If he did he did for good reason.

Hear say and book say.
Thanks for the assumption that you have bought into.
Quite a good way to win a debate in your own mind. By invoking a fantasy.
Can I stay on a level playing field by invoking a fantasy as well?

Regards
DL

 

[SciWriter]

Do you see no problem with believing in a creator God who will torture the majority of His supposedly beloved children in hell for all eternity?

He is the creator, so He can do whatever He wants, including damn and torture individuals for eternity?

You guys and gynos have to first identify the Creator as being so before going off on all these suppositions in threads everywhere and wasting time and space, so please come to the 'Simpleton Notion' thread and help me derive the Guy. Really, truly.

http://www.sciforums.com/showpost.php?p=2816554&postcount=98

 

[lightgigantic]

How we understand the necessary distinctions between God and the living entity depends on the particular religion and its doctrine to which we refer.

For example, Christians hold that God is a necessary being, but humans are not.
In some schools of Hinduism, both God and the invidiual entity are considered necessary beings.
In some schools of Hinduism, individual entities are considered parts and parcels of God, and thus total separation between them is impossible. Some Christians argue just the opposite.

in all cases you mention god (or brahman) is beyond most or all of the moral obligations pertinent to humankind.

IOW if one can't fathom that general principle a further foray into moral obligations of god/the living entity doesn't really begin.

 

[wynn]

IOW if one can't fathom that general principle a further foray into moral obligations of god/the living entity doesn't really begin.

Again, how we understand the necessary distinctions between God and the living entity depends on the particular religion and its doctrine to which we refer.

What is considered a "general principle" and what a "detail" differs from religion to religion.


There is no non-denominational, objective, neutral religion.

Natural theology cannot be above revealed religion.

 

[lightgigantic]

Again, how we understand the necessary distinctions between God and the living entity depends on the particular religion and its doctrine to which we refer.

What is considered a "general principle" and what a "detail" differs from religion to religion.


There is no non-denominational, objective, neutral religion.

Natural theology cannot be above revealed religion.

then what is that religion that suggests the living entity(in their current state) and god are on par?

 

[wynn]

then what is that religion that suggests the living entity(in their current state) and god are on par?

If humans are not allowed or are deemed unable to assess the various descriptions of God (as presented by various religions) by their human standards, then religious choice is an absurdity.

 

[Greatest I am]

I agree.

Man and his standards are supreme here.
Not invisible super miracle working absentee Gods.

Regards
DL

 

[lightgigantic]

If humans are not allowed or are deemed unable to assess the various descriptions of God (as presented by various religions) by their human standards, then religious choice is an absurdity.

are we talking about how the notion of the living entity not being on par with god is so controversial as to stand head and shoulders outside of general religious theology or something else?