Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
3 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 13/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Is God evil?
iano
Member (Idle past 1941 days)
Posts: 6165
From: Co. Wicklow, Ireland.
Joined: 07-27-2005


Message 3 of 30 (481584)
09-11-2008 6:48 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by ugolino
09-10-2008 7:34 PM


ugolino writes:
The curious thing is that the "God" worshipped by Christians, Jews and Muslims is, according to the Gnostics, pure evil. Isn't it totally amazing that billions of people worship a God that some people believe to be the very quintessence of wickedness? Judging by some of the things that Christians, Jews and Muslims inflict on their fellow human beings (mass murder, torture, inquisition, suicide bombings, massacres, death camps etc), don't the Gnostics have a very good case?
Hi ugolino and welcome to EvC.
There are two immediate problems you must face. The first you accept yourself, it would seem.
That RC Christianity and non-RC Christianity lie at poles (you suggest), renders them different 'religions'. But the God worshipped by Christians (of whatever hue), Jews and Muslims lie at poles, rendering the God of each, different in all but name. Assuming for a moment God exists then some or all have the wrong end of the stick and worship a god made in own image and likeness.
The next problem (assuming God exists for a moment) is this; "what constitutes a Christian?" Clearly God is the final judge of who is and who isn't actually a Christian. 'Christians' of every other hue would not in fact be real Christians - they'd just bear a hollow name. The obvious follow up question is this; do Christians carry out the acts you point to? Or could it be that 'Christians' carry them out? Perhaps its even stevens. Whatever, for want of a way of differentiating, your argument chases shadows.
-
One of the reaons that religion is so absurd is that it frequently allows the precise opposite views to be arrived at from precisely the same theological "facts". The Gnostics and the Christians both accept that "God" created the earth, but the former conclude that this was an act of supreme evil while the latter celebrate it as a great and glorious thing. Same "facts" - entirely different conclusions. Religion is plainly just a matter of interpretation, opinion and taste. There are no objective standards whatever. Some religions can actually contain diametrically opposed views...how is it possible for an extreme capitalist and an extreme left winger to both claim that they are good Christians obeying God's will? At least one must be wholly wrong.
You're excluding the logical possibility that one or other religion is 'right'. Perhaps not 100% right but right enough in whatever areas that might be considered essential. That the 'wrong' religions differ with the 'right' one is neither here nor there. Indeed you might very well expect it to be so. You can't tar all religions with one brush unless you can figure out a way to stand them against the same wall.
Your argument could equally be applied to atheistic morality btw - without any possibility of anyone being right. One atheist can find it perfectly moral to commit acts of rape. The other finds otherwise. There are no objective standards.
I'm not sure what a persons politics have to do with them being Christian or no. No politics is "right" - it's just politics.
-
In democratic terms, no religion on earth commands the allegiance of more than about 16% of the world's population (Catholic Christianity and non-Catholic Christianity must, of course, be considered as separate religions since they have precious little in common). So, whatever set of beliefs you choose to adopt, at least 84% of the world's population say you're wrong. Isn't it bizarre that people who trumpet the wonders of democracy, reject utterly the precepts of democracy in terms of religion?
What precept are you talking about?
-
The democratic verdict regarding every religion is that it's wrong. In political terms, people are willing to accept the majority view. In religion, they reject it utterly. How weird!!
I accept the majority view - most think me wrong. Now what would you have me do? Democracy doesn't demand that I change my view anymore than the majority voting Conservative means a Labour MP should give up Labour views.
-
Shouldn't the fact that no matter what religion they belong to, religious believers are in a tiny minority, cause them pause for thought and make them question their beliefs?
Religions are belief based worldviews. Athiesm is also a belief based worldview - based on a belief system involving empiricism and a host of other philosophies.
Atheists are a tiny, tiny minority.
Edited by iano, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by ugolino, posted 09-10-2008 7:34 PM ugolino has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 10 by Otto Tellick, posted 09-13-2008 10:31 PM iano has replied

  
iano
Member (Idle past 1941 days)
Posts: 6165
From: Co. Wicklow, Ireland.
Joined: 07-27-2005


Message 11 of 30 (482102)
09-14-2008 6:02 PM
Reply to: Message 10 by Otto Tellick
09-13-2008 10:31 PM


iano writes:
... "what constitutes a Christian?" Clearly God is the final judge of who is and who isn't actually a Christian. 'Christians' of every other hue would not in fact be real Christians - they'd just bear a hollow name. The obvious follow up question is...
Otto Tellick writes:
First off, if by some chance it turns out that the Christian God (whatever version) doesn't exist, then who is the final judge of who is/is not actually a Christian? Secondly, regardless of the previous point, isn't it the case that a significant number of Christians have in fact taken it upon themselves to draw this distinction?
Q1: Whatever else it is that defines such things I suppose. Whatever the next absolute that happens along..
Q2: People who identify as Christians have certainly declared on who is or isn't. It would be interesting to see how many who are God-defined accurately declare on who is or isn't a God-defined-Christian.
-
1. What proportion of people who consider/call themselves (or are called by others) "Christians" have really had that sort of personal religious experience, as opposed to simply associating themselves with (declaring membership in) a particular group?
It would be interesting to see someone pose a method of figuring out the answer to that question. It appears to me too that there will be God-identified-Christians who never identified with either of the above groups. Add that to the mix!
-
2. Looking just at the people who have had such an experience, how many immutably distinct groups do they fall into, such that each group would look at the others and say "those people cannot be real Christians, because their beliefs are wrong"?
As many immutably distinct groups as there are ways to decide on immutably distinct, I imagine. You'll get some Calvinists calling Arminians heretics and some Calvinists describing those whom they consider to be fellow Christians "doctrinally challenged".
Then there are the shades in between such extremes. And that's but two views.
-
Your argument could equally be applied to atheistic morality btw - without any possibility of anyone being right. One atheist can find it perfectly moral to commit acts of rape. The other finds otherwise. There are no objective standards.
Whoa. No objective standards?
"No objective standards ...from the atheistic pov" ...I could have better expressed. As in having the atheist say; "there are no objective standards".
For that is what any self-respecting, self-declared-objective atheist must conclude for himself.
-
Contrast that with religious affiliation, where the tendency is always in the direction of fracturing into smaller groups (which can only grow in size if evangelism by group members is successful, never by merging with other groups), and declaring membership in any one group tends tends to be an exclusive, all-encompassing acceptance -- people don't tend to base their religious practice on making choices like "well, I like this bit about Judaism, and that part of Islam, and these other things from Catholicism, and those Lutherans are pretty good on some points..." (and similarly for rejecting the particulars that they don't like).
Your conflating (understandably), religious affiliation with belonging to a particular people called "the (a la Christian view) saved".
If I were to suggest that such a party ("the saved") will consist of Luterans, Baptists, Brethern, Roman Catholics, Muslims, Hindus, Atheists, etc., etc., then your point would begin to flounder.
Were I to further suggest that a particular people called "the (a la Christian view) damned" would consist of members belonging to all of the above denominational parties then your point would sink without trace.
So it is, I suggest.
-
I accept the majority view - most think me wrong. Now what would you have me do? Democracy doesn't demand that I change my view anymore than the majority voting Conservative means a Labour MP should give up Labour views.
Now you're the one who isn't expressing thoughts clearly enough. That first sentence sounds like a complete self-contradiction. If you accept the majority view, then you are accepting the view that most people think is right. If most people think you are wrong, it must be that you are not actually accepting the majority view, but are expressing or supporting some other view instead. I guess it hinges on what you mean by "accept" here.
Accepting the majority view (in a democracy) means accepting that the majority view should hold sway / have it's will expressed - even thought my (minority) view would desire that we all chart a different course.
Accepting the majority view in a democracy doesn't mean I think the majority view is right/best/advisable/wise/etc
-
I think "tiny, tiny" is a bit far fetched.
Tiny, tiny was going too far perhaps. 84% spiritual vs. 16% non-spiritual would be one way to split the party political cake. Saved/unsaved would be another. Perhaps that ratio balance will be even more skewed in the final summing up - it would depend on how narrow the narrow path.
And how broad the broad.
Edited by iano, : No reason given.
Edited by iano, : No reason given.
Edited by iano, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 10 by Otto Tellick, posted 09-13-2008 10:31 PM Otto Tellick has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 12 by Otto Tellick, posted 09-15-2008 1:46 AM iano has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024