Movie: "God on Trial"

hi Larni. so would you create your children downloaded with everything they needed to know or would you consider the learning process important?

I meant to stay in lurker mode, but I dreampt up this thought experiment and knew I just had to share it with you.I am going to be put into a box for a week. I will have all the fresh air and water I need, but as for food, I have to take it in with me. I am brought before two crates; I have to choose between these crates. One contains wholesome food that will last for a week, the other contains the rotten fillet steak you spoke of earlier. I can't differentiate the two so there's a 50% chance I'll choose "wrong"; or unfortunately, if you prefer.You are there also, and you know which is which, and are allowed to either tell me or keep the information to yourself.Will telling me which is which limit my free will, or free choice?
Which action on your part is the more moral?

Learning is fine, being born with AIDs is not fine.

This is a very longwinded way of re-stating the basis for your holding the account anti-semetic. You don't believe it - or whole swathes of the gospel accounts - are an accurate historical statement of what occurred. Ergo - anti-semetic.I, on the other hand, do believe it's an accurate account of what took place. Hence not anti-semetic. How would you propose moving past such a stalemate?-On second thoughts, let's not bother. A brief glance down the rest of your post gives a sense of the spirit of the discussion as you'd seem to want to partake of it. I've no appetitie for weaving through your patent annoyance/frustration/anger myself.Over and out on this one Granny.

Dreampt up. How very Irish sounding*.- Okay. A baseless choice. A reasonless choice. Commonly known as a guess. It's balanced in the sense that there is nothing on either side to make you swing this or that way. And you are free to make it.Thus a free, balanced guess-choice. Not quite the kind of choice under discussion though.- If I tell you that box A contains delicious food and box B contains rotten food then I have destroyed the balanced aspect of what was previously, for all intents and purposes, a guess.And have produced a free, unbalanced push-choice-We can see from the above that there are varieties around the word choice. What we're considering in the case of God is a choice that is free, contains information on both sides - something to attract this way and something to attract that way. In balanced fashion.We're not considering something that is guaranteed to have any sane person choose this way over that - everytime. Nor something that's the equivilent of pinning a tail on a donkey.-*It doesn't appear that you could spell dreamt as dreampt by accident. If so no offence - it's just that that's the way it's spoken in Oireland.Edited by iano, : No reason given.Edited by iano, : No reason given.

A total failure to read and understand. The second passage I quoted, 1 Thess 2:14-16, is not an account of an event, historical or otherwise. It is simply an accusation that the Jews killed Christ, followed by some more random anti-Semitic hate-speech.This is Paul's opinion, not a recounting of events (talk about your original self-hating Jew). Your previous defence cannot apply here, unless you yourself are of the opinion that the Jews "killed the Lord Jesus" and regard the Blood Libel as historical fact.Is that what you think? I would not put it past you. Uh huh. Just as you believe that the contradictory accounts are accurate. I get it. Dude, you compared me to fucking Hitler!Complain abut tone all you like, but it is pathetic for you to accuse another person of being morally comparable to Hitler, and then whine about them lowering the tone.Your habit of saying appalling and outrageous things, in a bland tone, and then acting surprised when people are appalled and outraged is puerile.Oh, and, just a hint for future movie review purposes; you might try actually watching the film before criticising it.Mutate and Survive

---

On two occasions I have been asked, — "Pray, Mr. Babbage, if you put into the machine wrong figures, will the right answers come out?" ... I am not able rightly to apprehend the kind of confusion of ideas that could provoke such a question. - Charles Babbage

No, I think it's probative for you to address the question - are benevolence and omnipotence widely-held characterizations of God or aren't they?I'm prepared to address your God, too, I just want you on the record about this. Well, but I already addressed this. Free will means choosing to do evil, not that evil is done. Free will only guarantees freedom of choice, it doesn't guarantee any particular outcome. You may choose to murder a child, but that doesn't mean your choice has to result in the death of a child - maybe the cops get to you first. Or maybe they don't. In the latter case, a just God would certainly intervene - not to provide justice to the criminal, but to the victim. Because that's not justice. As a perfectly free expression of their will, same as now. Nobody's guaranteed outcomes, and it's particularly perverse to suggest, as you have, uniquely those who are choosing to do evil are somehow so important that they should be guaranteed no interference in that outcome. What about those who choose to cure diseases that stubbornly refuse to submit to treatment? What about those who choose to battle endemic poverty that refuses to be ameliorated? Why is it only the evildoers whose free will can brook no interference?That's neither justice nor freedom. Not at all. Free will is a matter of freedom of choice, not expression. Nobody's guaranteed an outcome; just a choice. Right, and in this case I'm making a reasoned argument that you may not be qualified to assess the moral nature of wanting to extinguish all human life. Well, no.

quote:

---

Malevolent : productive of harm or evil

---

Well, I'm irritated by the great and transparent scam of religion any time the subject comes up. But "patent nonsense"? No, the ironclad result of research:

quote:

---

It's clear that many Americans -- including Christians - don't know their Bible. Just look at the numbers from a recent study:

​

More than 60 percent of Americans can't name either half of the Ten Commandments or the four Gospels of the New Testament.
Some 80 percent including "born again" Christians believe that "God helps those who help themselves" is a direct quote from the Bible.
And 31 percent believe a good person can earn his/her way into heaven.

---

http://www.cbn.com/...u-Know-Your-Bible-Many-Christians-DontOr from a more credible source:

quote:

---

Time magazine observed in a 2007 cover story that only half of U.S. adults could name one of the four Gospels. Fewer than half could identify Genesis as the Bible's first book. Jay Leno and Stephen Colbert have made sport of Americans' inability to name the Ten Commandmentseven among members of Congress who have pushed to have them posted publicly.
Perhaps the first step toward improved Bible literacy is admitting we have a problem. A 2005 study by the Barna Group asked American Christians to rate their spiritual maturity based on activities such as worship, service, and evangelism. Christians offered the harshest evaluation of their Bible knowledge, with 25 percent calling themselves not too mature or not at all mature.

---

http://www.christianitytoday.com/ct/2010/may/25.38.htmlI'm sorry, Iano, but calling something every Christian knows is true "nonsense" indicates that you're the one tired of debate, not me. I'm sorry that's the case. Maybe you're tired of fending off replies from so many of us? I suspect I would be.

IF the Jews killed Christ (per gospel account) THEN Paul is merely developing that same factual theme. You're back to belief vs. unbelief regarding the historicity of the account. Paul vs. you this time. You've not moved your argument forward one jot.

quote:

---

2:14 For ye, brethren, became followers of the churches of God which in Judaea are in Christ Jesus: for ye also have suffered like things of your own countrymen, even as they have of the Jews:
2:15 Who both killed the Lord Jesus, and their own prophets, and have persecuted us; and they please not God, and are contrary to all men:
2:16 Forbidding us to speak to the Gentiles that they might be saved, to fill up their sins always: for the wrath is come upon them to the uttermost.
1 Thessalonians 2;14-16

---

Assuming Paul is basing his writing on fact, where's the hate-speech?Edited by iano, : No reason given.

They are indeed. It's just that your argument appears to be built on a version of benevolence suggestive of only-benevolence, i.e. wrath and benevolence are mutually exclusive.Now I haven't delved into it much, but since the biblical God is clearly wrathful, I seriously doubt that your version of benevolence is the utilised in theodicies involving the biblical God.- The choice to do evil needs to terminate in deed in order for that choice to be properly and fully registered as such. It's one thing to decide to murder a child and to make your way to it's room with that intent - it's quite another to stick a knife in it's chest.The cops might get there first. So too might the decision to murder be averted on the sight of the gurgling, smiling child. No, no, choice must be actioned in order to be fully expressed.(Our legal systems recognise this btw. The penalties for murder being other than those applying to conspiracy to murder.)-

quote:

---

Because that's not justice.

---

I'll await your response to the need for free will to be actioned.- The free will of those who do evil can be interfered with. The cops might come (and God might be the source of the reason they come). The bible makes clear that God does intervene in wordly affairs - but that's not the same as him being required to intervene to prevent all evil all the time.There is a larger purpose at play here, larger than whether good people die young. That purpose is the issue of each individuals salvation. Free will expressed unto evil - as well as good - can be utilised by God as a lever in that purpose.We see this in the story of Joseph. What his brothers intended for evil, God worked to good in positioning Joseph at the head of Pharoahs government. Positioned thus, to come Israels aid in time of famine. An example of evil used for a larger good.- I would agree that God produces harm. I wouldn't agree that God produces evil (spitefulness, that other definition of malevolent, being evil).You're back to figuring out how God killing folk is evil.- Sorry Crashfrog - I misunderstood. What I intended to describe as "nonsense" was the notion that Christians involved in the theodicy debate didn't know their bibles. They do and they are aware (and wouldn't simply dismiss) the wrath of God. Therefore their understanding of the concept of God's benevolence would not be the only-benevolent view seemingly propagated by you.-As for this? It's worse here! I'd warrant that a tad more than 60% of (predominantly Catholic) Ireland would answer "Matthew, Mark, Luke and John" when asked what the gospel is.Christianity branched into Christendom early on. It's not new news.Edited by iano, : No reason given.Edited by iano, : No reason given.

Who knows from whence misspellings come? My surname does happen to be of Irish origin, but I don't know how many generations I'd have to go back - more than four, anyways - to find an ancestor living on the Emerald Isle. I see your point. Let's see if I can't improve the scenario.In this new scenario, I can see what is in the two crates I have to choose between. One has healthy, wholesome food: chicken breast, salad, oatmeal; that sort of thing. The other has chocolate cake, cookies, jelly beans, etc. Now it's no longer a guess; both choices have positives and negatives, and it's not a slam dunk either way. At least it wouldn't be for me.In this new scenario, the information you have that I don't is: the junk food is laced with some sort of chemical that will make me very sick when I eat it: stomache cramps, muschle aches - you get the point.So I pose my two questions again:
Are you limiting my free will by giving me the information?
What is the more moral thing for you to do?Edited by Aware Wolf, : Clarification of wording

It's not a guess but it isn't exactly a balanced choice of positive/negatives either. I can't suppose a normal individual would chose living for a week on sugar (much as I love Jelly Beans myself).Would it suit things to suppose the person has a humdinger of a sweet tooth? Something that would sway the balance more towards the sugar - so that the positives and negatives are truly balanced? Okay (although I don't suppose you'd have to lace it with anything to acheive stomach cramps if a weeks survival is the task at hand)- Assuming* we've balanced the original wholesome/junkfood choice (eg: with the addition of the sweettooth) then I'd tell the person about this hidden downside. The hidden downside attachs to only one of the options, effectively skewing the choice out of balance.A free unbalanced choice, like a free, balanced guess, limits true freewill expression and so I consider it my moral duty to intervene.-*if we don't assume the choice balanced prior to the addition of the poison element then adding poison only makes it more unbalanced.Edited by iano, : No reason given.

My bold.A contradiction, I believe. Unless you hold man's morality higher than your god's?

Could you make this a little clearer? I understand you think intervening in this situation is the moral thing to do, but I'm not following why - I'm stuck on the whole free/unbalanced/choice/guess thing.So, clearly, I have tried to make this an analogous situation to God not revealing the entire consequences of our choice to accept or reject him. Earlier in this thread you argued that it is more moral for God to leave the choice more balanced, (that is, hide or de-emphasize the real consequence: eternal bliss vs. eternal torment) than to reveal the full information. In my thought experiment, you (in the analogous God role) chose the other way. How do you explain this?Edited by Aware Wolf, : Punctuation for clarity

Where's the contradiction? Edited by iano, : No reason given.

I don't understand how you can't see the contradiction.That said, I've just done 4 patients back to back so my mind in fried.I'll deconstruct my point, but I lack the capacity now .