If god can do anything he wants...

About this "free-will" discussion: There are too many scriptures in the OT and NT that refute such an idea, plus, it just wouldn't make sense.Keep in mind that I'm a christian, lol(seriously!).People always say that "God will never force himself on anyone", and in the same breath make the statement, "God is All-Powerful". So let me ask you all a question. If God is ALL powerful, then that would mean that no one else has any power, correct?
The word "all" is one of the strongest words in the english language. It's right up there with the word's "yes" and "no" and "everything" and "nowhere" and "none"................the word "all" is an absolute word, meaning that it's all-inclusive, there's nothing left out of the word "all". I once told this to someone and they told me that the word "all wasn't absolute, but a mysterious word. I wanted to kick my computer when he typed that in. People, christians, religous people try to make everything so spiritual and deep, but there's nothing deep about the word "all". For example, if you have a bag of chips, and I ask you to give me "all" of your chips, and you give me two chips, well then, YOU DIDN'T GIVE ME WHAT I ASKED FOR, DID YOU! Therefore, I conclude that the word "all" is an absolute word.
Now that that point has been made, back to the original one I was trying to make.
If God is ALL powerful, like some proclaim that he is, then that would mean that no one else has any power, because he has "all" of it, and to say that God won't force himself on you is just preposterous (hope I spelled that right, lol), because to say that the same God that you proclaim to have ALL power has to force ANYTHING to happen would be a contradiction. To say that God forces ANYTHING is to say that there is ANOTHER force in the universe capable of giving the ALL powerful being resistance, but, because he is the force that causes all other forces to be, it's no longer a matter of forcing, but of his will being accomplished!
The longer you think about it, free will can't exist, because if it truly existed you could chose not to die!, but we know that it is appointed to each man once to die (Heb.9:27).....For in Adam "ALL" died (1Cor.15:22), so there's no escaping that. According to the bible, your already dead, if you want to be technical (how do you escape that reality if you have a free moral agency?)
You know, it's hilarious, and at the same time sickening to realize that the ones who go to the scriptures to justify their claims of "free thought", otherwise known as "free moral agency", they'll skip over completely the verses, scriptures, even whole chapters that condradict their beliefs. I was brought up to believe that the bible never, ever condradicted itself, that it never cancelled itself out. I've not always agreed with the things that I've written to this forum (whoever "chooses" to read it), but I'll say this, that if your going to use a scripture, then it must stand at FULL STRENGTH, regardless of what the others scriptures say, because each scripture MUST be in perfect harmony one with another. If not, then the book is a lie, and if I ever find that out (which I know I won't) I'll quit just as soon as I do. You can't pick and choose which scriptures you want, and which ones you don't. It's the whole book, or none of it, if your going to call yourself a christian.

I'm just wondering if we're clear on the meaning of "All-powerful". I work for a gentleman who has over 6000 people in his organization. Speaking in simplified terms, I'll use one of his staff meetings as an example. He runs the show, he makes the decisions, creates or modifies policy, and could even have someone ejected from the room if he becomes disruptive. Whatever he says, goes. However, being all-powerful, in his world, he can "bestow" power on others to perform certain tasks (like have someone ejected from the room). Since you quoted scripture, you must be familiar with Revelation 12 where God "gave the order" (my perception) to Michael to eject Satan from Heaven. Nowhere is it implied that Michael didn't have any power to do this. Michael had the power because God bestowed it upon him. (Whether God bestowed that power in that instant or at an ealier point in eternity is not important). I agree that "all" is absolute, at least in all senses that I can think of. I'm open to correction on that point, as with any other. But my point is, please don't lump too many people together just because someone once said "all" is not absolute.

It could be that God requires bloodshed like a body-and-fender man requires a blowtorch to remove smashed portions of a wrecked car. Had the car not been wrecked, there would be no requirement for a blowtorch. The problem is choice. God certainly had the power to program mankind to simply love and obey him. Sort of like us, today; we can build and program a robot (and some amazing technology exists for doing that) to obey our every command. We could perhaps even program the robot with what might be perceived as loyalty, or other characteristics that we might seek in, say, a spouse.
But programming love is another problem. Let's say we developed a way to program "love" into the robot's software. The robot would have no choice but to love you, obey you, be loyal, etc. The robot may even worship the ground you walk on. The software does not contain a choice to "hate" or reject you. This would first seem like a marriage made in heaven, pardon the expression. But after a short period, you would come to disturbing realization, that the robot doesn't really love you; it's just executing the directives of the programmer (maybe even you were the programmer). You could never have a relationship as meaningful as with a human spouse who has the "choice" of rejecting and walking out on you. As long as this human spouse stays with you, accepts you, is loyal, maybe even worships the ground you walk on, you'll know that it probably is (in reasonable cases, anyway) true love because, if it wasn't, your spouse would be free to do otherwise but has "chosen" to do what he/she is now doing (loving you).So, God programmed us with a spirit that is not like any kind of software. A spirit is alive. Software is just 1s and 0s, processed by a non-living object that processes commands one at a time (I'm keeping it simple, please work with me on this) then waits, ice-cold and emotionless, without admiration of any kind for you, for the next command. We simply can't have a relationship with that kind of system. God gave us a living spirit that could choose to love or hate, accept or reject, admire or abhor. Take hate out of the list of choices, and love is no longer a choice. Love is only a choice as long as hate remains a choice. Same for the choice to accept or reject. Take the choice of rejection away, and acceptance is no longer a choice. Take away the choice of abhorrence, and admiration is no longer a choice.Now this brings me fully around to face your concluding statement directly: God bestowed upon us life and the ability to make choices. Instead of loving him and accepting him, we walked out on him. We disobeyed his directives. He couldn't just let that go without some accountability, but he didn't kill anyone for it (although he killed a fur/wool bearing animal to clothe the first humans). He tried to set us back on course, but instead we chose to get into all kinds of crazy things and continued to disobey the commands he gave to get us back on track. Sort of like the shooting down of Korean flight 007 by the Soviet Union. The pilot was off course, and showed no signs of using his instrumentation, other tools, or even visual perception, like he should have. The flight crew ignored ground control orders, as well as interceptor communication attempts to change course. Eventually, the plane flew into "enemy" territory and was shot down. I know much controversy exists concerning what "really" happened with that flight, but work with me on the basics for this example, please. Just as with that flight, we also continued on into enemy territory. Even worse, we actually joined forces with the enemy to rebel against God, and God couldn't just let that go without accountability. It wasn't God who chose death; we chose a way that we were warned would lead to death, all in the name of instant gratification and rebellion. God had to take steps to hold us accountable as a certain measure of control. Some areas got completely out of control, for example, Sodom and Gomorrah, which he chose to destroy (probably because he saw no hope of restoring order without taking away their "choice" and just "programming" them back into control.My conclusion: The way to death and destruction is the choice man made all on his own. God warned us what would happen if we selected the choice of walking out on him and venturing into enemy territory. He told the children of Israel how much he would bless them if they only obeyed his laws and commandments, but also told them what he would do if they walked out on him. I have had up to 300 people in my organization at one time, and have been forced to perform the undesireable task of terminating individuals for performance and/or conduct issues. However much I hate that task, I have no choice if I want to maintain certain levels of performance and conduct. The involuntary termination of an employee for a conduct issue is brought on not by my being a sadistic person, but by the individual's own choices. And not a single termination, that I have performed, came as a surprise to the employee involved. They all knew they had it coming, although most would still be indignant about my having to take action. Sorry about that long example, but this is how things are with God. He's not sadistic. He's taking action based on choices that we've made, and we tend to be indignant about it. In the story of Jonah, God decided to destroy Nineveh, but first sent Jonah to announce a warning. When the leaders and people of the city repented and changed their ways, God changed his mind and spared them. He could have easily said, "...too late, you folks should have thought of that a little sooner..." and then POW! He would have been fully just in doing that, because the crimes had already been committed and couldn't be undone just by saying you're sorry about it. God loved those people, and chose to spare them when they showed him they were serious about changing course. Were God sadistic, as you say, he would have just went POW! without further warning despite their sackcloth and ashes.Sorry for such a long answer to a short question.[This message has been edited by Skeptick, 02-07-2004]

Have you ever been in love?I ask because these statements don't sound like love to me. I think you mentioned a wife in another thread; I myself am married too.Can you tell me the moment that you chose to fall in love with your wife? I sure can't tell you the moment that I chose to fall in love with mine - it just happened. Volition simply wasn't a part of it. It's like being hit by a freight train; you don't choose to be run over, you're just standing there when it happens.You mention choosing to stay with your wife. Maybe you've been married longer than me but I have to tell you, there's no choice involved. I mean, I have the choice to stand in front of a bus, but every single thing in me cries out to make the other choice. It's impossible for me to make that choice. Same with leaving my wife. It's Hobson's choice.You can dress it up all you like, but any version of the argument "there must be evil and suffering to preserve free will" is just plain stupid, and contrary to observation: as a result of science and technology people live longer, happier lives with less suffering and disease. It's certainly less painful to live nowadays than it ever has been before. Is there any indication our free will is decreasing as a result?No. In fact people have more choices these days than ever before, about how and where they want to live, and just about anything else.Evil doesn't preserve free will, or choice. Evil reduces choice. There's an infinite number of ways to do the right thing.

Hmmm. No choice involved? Would you like to debate that with the members of your local divorce court? If there were no choice, howcum divorce rates are so high. I've known people who were so madly in love with each other when they got married, but then at some point one of the two walks out, leaving the other to beg and plead? How can you say there was no choice involved in that?
I'll be married 21 years this summer and, like you, leaving my spouse doesn't even show up on my list of choices. But only because I have stricken it from "my" list. The choice, nevertheless, is still fully available. A high number of divorces are the ultimate result of one member choosing to *allow* a "falling in love" with a third party. No, that "falling in love" with a third party did not just "happen"; it was a choice, my friend. Had this unfaithful spouse been a programmed robot, the third party interference could not have occurred (the software had no provision for that option). (we're assuming hack-proof and virus-proof software, of course) Again, tell that to a divorce attorney or judge. But I know you're just testing my fallacy detection abilities again; don't look now, but your example above is flawed reasoning. We're not talking about standing in front of a bus (the effect would be irrevocably career-ending). Walking out on a spouse and joining up with a third party could be viewed by someone as benefit, speaking in terms of instant gratification. Long range, at least in my humble opinion, the effects would indeed be detrimental, the same as when Adam took that fateful bite (he was warned, but "chose" not to believe God's warning). But yet, humans continue to make choices that satisfy for the moment, even though they usually know the effects could be, or will be, detrimental. Think of some of the "choices" that a number of ENRON executives made that they're now having to plead guilty to. They knew they were taking a chance, but somehow hoped they could get away with it. That's how it goes with most crimes; the criminal HOPES or THINKS he can get away scott-free with some "benefit". As for people walking out on a spouse, large number of divorce stories are available on-line to support this. As for man in general, Satan offers us every sort of instant benefits if we simply walk out on God and join forces with him. The choice is, serve this master, or another.But wait, let me commend you! If you say that you're absolutely unable to walk out on your spouse (assuming that you're not a programmed robot), because you love her and cherish her, then WOW! You may have the qualities that God saw in Abraham and Noah! God selected these individuals for specific reasons, which I won't debate here (start a new thread if you'd like). But just because Abraham made certain choices, doesn't mean Nimrod selected the same ones. Abraham made certain choices, and Nimrod made his. Abraham chose to serve God, while Nimrod chose to join forces with the enemy of our Creator. If we were to ask Abraham why he "chose" to serve God, Abraham would probably respond the same way you did, that he didn't think it was a choice; his insides cried out to God and he WANTED to serve him. (and THAT is precisely what God is looking for! ) But yet, Abraham did indeed have the choice to love, serve, and believe God or not. If it wasn't a choice, then what was it? As for Nimrod, well, I'll let you guess as to what his level of rebellion was.
God is certainly reaching out for you, and keeps bumping into you on occasion. Please don't keep walking away from him. I'm not sure where you got that quote from, but it didn't come from me. If someone else said it, you might want to respond to them. I said that there must be accountability. As it seems, man himself is often making himself pay harder than God would in the short term(just check out the daily news). You even see accountability standards enforced where you work or, if you're BFS, you practice it yourself and certainly see your customers practice it (if you're company fails to perform to agreed specs, you could be sued or just won't get future business).I did say: This doesn't mean God destroys an enemy because he doesn't want to take away their "free will". God demands that a price be paid for the evil deeds that were performed. The "evil" that you mention, was chosen by man, not God. The "suffering" that you mention was due to the choices man made. Complaining about that "suffering" would be like an armed robber complaining about the pain of his bullet wounds that he sustained in a gun battle with police during a bank robbery. Satan wants us to think that. But here's the crux of the whole argument: The "pain and suffering" that I think you are referring to is ultimately the result of Satan's daily performances (he never sleeps). Despite what he may lead you to believe, Satan hates you. He hates you because he hates God. Since you were made in God's image, you remind Satan of God whenever he sees you. He's dug his grimy fingers into absolutely everything and messed up God's creation. He has convinced men to join forces with him and rebel against God and, like some demented sadist, he continues to convince men to torture and kill each other along the way. Satan would love to snap his fingers and convert the earth into an uninhabited planet, so he could appear before God and say "HA! So there!"Satan's master performance was to convince many of us that it's GOD who is the sadistic murderer. Yes, Satan is certainly a master strategist as well as a brilliant tactician.Life is full of choices. If it weren't, we would probably even complain about that.

I imagine that those folks would be the first to tell me that they were no longer in love, and moreover, that falling out of love was not a choice that they had made; simply what had happened. Yet, nobody who falls in love reports having a choice about it. I'm inclined to take their word over yours in regards to their own behavior.I noticed that you haven't told me yet when you chose to fall in love with your wife. Of course. Even under love, their actions continue to be volitional. But their feelings are not, and that's what we're talking about - whether there's a determinable difference between being "programmed" to fall in love, and falling in love via free will. Since nobody who falls in love reports choosing to do so, I conclude that there's no choice in love. Therefore your argument that "true" love requires free will fails, unless you think we're all love-machines. You've simply pushed the Teleological Problem of Evil ("Why does a good God allow suffering to persist?") back one step. Rather than address it you've simply begged another question: why does God allow Satan (the source of evil) to persist? "Free will" can't be the answer, for the reasons I outlined before.

You're allowed to have your opinion in all this and I mine. I still view this as I've stated so I won't rebut the majority of your stated opinion because no new information will be provided.However, I will touch on a couple of your points/ideas: There is much in this world that is not reported, my friend. And even more that is never admitted to (or firmly denied), despite however obvious. One doesn't choose to fall in love with an "individual." But you do choose to allow yourself to fall in love or to resist. This is observed across the globe. Many people, who have gone through very hurtful relationships, "decide" on their very own to avoid future relationships (to avoid being hurt again). That doesn't mean they don't have the ability to love again, or the desire to love again. Monks, priests, etc, also make certain choices regarding love and live accordingly. Not that they didn't or don't have a choice (as recent news reports have indicated; some of these folks change their minds (different thread!)). Well, I fully disagree with that. You say my argument fails, but I say your conclusion is not logical. The absence of a report does not negate an occurrence (if a tree falls in the forest,....)
But that's what forums like this are for; to discuss differing viewpoints. See my previous comments above (this post) to cover your question again. Yes, that invariably pops up as the standard response in a discussion like this. I almost started to address it in my last post, but the post was already far too long as it was. Plus, I think ADMIN may admonish us for muddying the waters of this topic too much. I would be glad to discuss the "why does God let Satan get away with it?" question in a thread dedicated to that.

Okay ,Skeptic, I do see where your coming from, but let's not confuse "God" with the CEO of some Fortune 500 company, because if the gentleman that employs you actually "ran the show", then there would be no disruptions, because that would go against what your employer desires. For it is God that works in us both to will and to do of HIS good pleasure (Isa.46:9-11; Eph.1:11; Phil.2:13). Let's get one thing clear. No man can resist the will of God (Rom.9:19), and you can say whatever you want about your employer making the decisions, but God has fashioned every one's heart to do what is pleasing to Him (Psalms.33:15; 105:25). Your "heart" is your "will", or "desire", therefore every decision that he (your employer) makes is because God made him do it.
We put God in a box, and always try to compare Him (who is absolute), to anything and everything else (which is relative).
Who of any of us can be likened unto the Lord? (Psalms.89:6).
We do have will, but it is only relative to God's will, which is absolute, therefore, there is one and one alone which exhibits "free will".GOD.Let every soul be subject unto the higher powers. For there is no power but of God: the powers that be are "ordained" (which means to 'prearrange unalterably', also synonymous with the term "predestined") of God (Rom.13:1).
In the relative, which is what most of us see, we make decisions and choices, we can "bestow" power on people to do or not to do. However, in the absolute, which is what most people never really understand (He also had to open my eyes, Deut.29:4, which just proves that He's All-powerful, because if He would've never opened them, I would forever be blind), He is the one that gives us the power (AKA, Faith) to do all things.
Pilate went again into the judgment hall, and saith unto Jesus, Whence art thou? But Jesus gave him no answer. Then saith Pilate unto him, Speakest thou not unto me? knowest thou not that I have power to crucify thee, and have power to release thee? Jesus answered, Thou couldest have no power AT ALL against me, except it were given thee from above (John.19:9-11). So even in the case of Rev.12:7-9, Micheal was an extension, and only an extension of the absolute sovereignty and the power of the All Mighty God. In fact, I'll take it and flip it, because how can you say that someone is "all" powerful, and they not be in control of everything? Your boss doesn't control "everything", if he did, you and all your co-workers would get to work on time everyday, and he wouldn't have to work. So, like I was saying, let's flip it; In the book of Job God asked satan if he had considered him (Job), and lucifer replies, "Doth Job fear God for nought? Hast not thou made an hedge about him, and about his house, and about all that he hath on every side? thou has blessed the work of his hands, and his substance is increased in the land. But put forth thine hand now, and touch all that he hath, and he will curse thee to thy face. And the Lord said unto Satan, Behold, all that he hath is in thy power; only upon himself put not forth thine hand. So Satan went forth from the presence of the Lord (Job.1:8-12, We also find this happening in Job.2:1-6). Not one time did satan do contrary to what God commanded him to do, that was impossible, because God is the one that distributes the power (Rom.13:1). To contest this is to say that the word of God contradict's itself, which is also impossible, because He's All-powerful. It specifically states that every power is ordained of God (Rom.13:1), and anybody can say anything, I don't care anymore, because how can you say that you have ANY power of your own self when the God said "the works (actions) were finished from the foundation of the world (Heb.4:3)? He said that "I have declared the end from the beginning, and from ancient times the things that are not yet done, saying, MY counsel shall stand, and I will do ALL MY pleasure (Isa.46:10).
And, for your last comment, I can lump a good portion of the population of planet earth (especially the "institution" of the church) together, because when it comes down to it, people don't agree with it. I'm not blaming anybody, or you, Skeptic, because we're all product's of society, and our environments. Most people in the "church" (which I also grew up in) have been engrained with this false doctrine that we have free moral agency (free will), and it ultimately is an issue of pride and arrogance. I could go on for hours, but I'll await your response. Peace and Love.

--------------------------------------------------------------------
I have been searching for an answer to why God necessitates so much bloodshed and atrocity in the old testament.so if this is the case, it means he chooses violence
Thus, he likes setting men at each others throats.
God could have got his work done anyway he chose. Including non-violent and constructive methods. Yet it was his desire, to shed as much blood as possible.
Conclusion: God is a sadistic, and murderous one.
---------------------------------------------------------------------All of these conclusions come from the assumption that we judge God by the same standards we judge ourselves. The problem with many "believers" is that we try to explain away everything and support it with biblical quotes.My belief is this...A God that created the universe is beyond comprehension. Us trying to figure out His "wants" is impossible. That does not mean we are not supposed to question, only that we may not get all the answers. I think he "wants" us to love Him, and treat each other as is taught in most of the new testament. We can, and will continue to ask these kinds of questions because that is our nature. Unfortunately none of us will know the answers while we are alive. If "believers" are correct, we will find out in heaven.To most scientific minds that is not enough, at some point faith kicks in for those who believe in God. Faith is really the key difference in all debates like this...

Well, I agree with you that God does use violent means to get what He wants done (Psa.105:25), I mean, He is All powerful, so that means that everything that happens is because He wants it to (Phil.2:13).
I personally don't try to expain anything away, if I don't know, I don't know. I don't believe that God is a sadistic murder though, because a murder is someone who kills unlawfully, but all things are lawful to God, because He created All, and All belong to Him. Furthermore, I know that He shall have mercy upon All (Rom.11:16), because He can't fail, He's Love (1.Cor.13; 1.Cor.15:19-28, Rom.8:19-23; Eph.1:10; Lamen.3:31,32; Acts.3:21; JOHN.12:32). Peace and Love.

So then god is a dictator?he can kill and murder all he wants, cuz what he says goes. All the girls raped, and babies smashed on rocks, thats a ok because god told them to do it.Tell me, by what mechanisim does god make infantaside, or rape good and just?Plese tell me how killing babies and forcing girls into marrigie can be made into a good thing by the lord?NOTE: I have been up and down this debate before, I don't want to repeat myself. Those two questions above are all I want answerd, otherwise I wont reply.I will only reply to those who answer these questions explicitly.Thank you very much.

In Message #24, Scotty says, "I have been searching for an answer to why God necessitates so much bloodshed and atrocity in the old testament."Scotty, it's really quite simple. Back in the "old testament" times, the god of the Israelites had a whole lot of competition from the gods of neighboring peoples. And there wasn't all this preoccupation with the "path to paradise" that dominates post-Temple theologies worldwide.Back in "OT Times" the focus simply was on which god empowered one people to invade another people's land and subsequently enforce political domination. Consequently, the competition required a lot of bloodshed to ensure a convincing superiority of one ethnic god over another.It's kind of hard to grasp the entire picture now that we are indoctrinated by the concept of a "loving god" who offers eternal paradise for his adherants. Today it's more a competition between manmade dogmas rather than open battle between ethnic patron gods. Remember, most of the competing gods were killed off, and in the case of Judaism, Christianity, and Islam at least, we are left with only variations of the same victor god.Peace.

Yaro, I disagree with your logic. You responded to Grace2u this way:

quote:

---

"Your logic here is flawd, as moral absolutes clearly do not exist. Morality is variable, dependent on situation, and social necessity. Morals evolve within societys to preserve their integrity.

​

Why do you think different societys have such widely varying morals?"

---

TJ replies:Just because the accepted morality of a certain group of people(or of people in general) changes from generation to generation doesn't mean that there is no absolute moral standard that God will judge us by. All that proves is that man doesn't accept God's standards or wants to be free of those standards. It only shows that man's standards change. So what?I do believe that God has written His law on our hearts and the fact that we all have a conscience supports this Scriptural claim. You will I'm sure try and propose a different origin for the conscience, but in the ultimate sense, neither proposition can be proven. Anyway, as people continue to break their consciences, they become dulled to sin. When enough people are brave enough to push the standards far enough, these actions begin to become accepted. It will only be a matter of time until homosexual marriage is accepted. However, regardless of people's views, there may still be an absolute moral standard either supporting or opposing such an action. It might mean simply that more and more people are accepting lower moral standards.If we teach evolution in our schools and reject a Creator, then this is the natural progression that we would expect to see in our society. Whether a person or persons believe in God or not has absolutely no bearing whatsoever on whether God really exists.Yaro continues:

quote:

---

Now, as to your hitler question. Hitlers extermination of the Jews was imoral due to its vast disengenuty and its compleat lack of benefit to social order. Infact, genocide, and murder in general are most often conciderd amoral due to the simple fact that as humans we value life. And to preserve society we need each other. What good is killing and murder to society?

---

TJ replies:Well, surprise surprise surprise! Could that be part of the reason that God included "Do not murder." in the 10 COmmandments? In wishing for personal freedom, we so often forget that God's commands are given for our own good, because He loves us. He desires to protect us from harm and to provide blessings for us. This is a prime example. Almost any society you go to around the world would realize that murder is fundamentally wrong and harmful to society. That is not to say they do not practice it though.Your opinion that murder is amoral - neither right or wrong - is a chilling reflection on the state of modern society. Your post is confusing because sometimes you say it is wrong and immoral and other times you say it is amoral. I hope you do actually believe it is wrong. However, if you do not believe in God, then you have no choice but to say that it is amoral. The most you could say in that scenario is that it is "not good" for society, but you can never say it is "wrong" or "immoral" in an absolute sense.If there is no god, then that means that those who murder and are never caught are totally free. It also means that if I were to choose to murder someone, that action can at most be considered "illegal", but not fundamentally wrong in the absolute sense. Wow, what a relief for my conscience!If we teach our kids that murder is simply an amoral action that is not healthy for society, just how effective do you think that will be? I don't want to try it and find out, although that is where we are heading. When a person realizes that nothing is fundamentally wrong or immoral in an absolute sense, it is so much easier to rationalize the action given certain conditions. Yaro continues:

quote:

---

A prime example is the infamous Khmer Rouge. They were a communist totalitarian regime that ruled the people with an iron fist. Plenty such govts exist in this world, yet the Khmer Rouge faild miserably.

​

Why? Killing and brutality were employed so overtly and frequently that they nearly decimated a quarter of their population. The people were so demoralized that they would not work. The punishments were so harsh that the infrastructure and leadership hiarchy broke down do to the actual leaders fleeing for their own lives. As a result the regimes amorality was its own undoing, despite the fact that its govurnmental philosophies were no diffrent than other communist nations.

---

TJ replies:
Why is it that the atheistic governments seem most prone to such actions? No, not all atheists end up with these views. I'm not saying that. But it is far easier for an atheist to justify things like this than those who believe in an absolute moral standard. I don't know of any such governments which are guilty of the kind of genocide and murder that the atheistic governments of the 20th century were. Could it be that since atheists believe there is no such thing as right and wrong, they feel freer to do whatever they have to in order to accomplish their desired goals? It is the old "The end justifies the means" idea. Sure, if there is no absolute morality, this is a very valid point. And yes, their evil was their own downfall. This too is to be expected. It is a perfect example of what can easily happen when a government takes their atheism to the logical conclusion. Nietzsche, the great atheist of the 19th century who proclaimed the death of God, understood that the death of God meant big trouble for society. He predicted that the 20th century would be the most blood-stained century yet because more and more people are becoming atheists. Unfortunately, he was right. No big surprise there. When we refuse to recognize the existence of an absolute Law Giver and an Absolute Law, we are free to live however we want in an ultimate sense. You can make up as many reasons as you want to get people to try and follow your laws and put society before themselves, but some will always see through it and do their own thing. Nietzsche also said this:gsin is nothing but a ruse invented by a wretched band of ascetic priests.h For him, kindness, forgiveness, humility, obedience, self-denial were characteristics of weak, repressed slaves who had rejected the joy of life. Again, if there is no such thing as sin, then we're free to live however we want. When we step out from under God's moral umbrella of protection, we reap the consequences.Nietzsche wasn't the first to realize that the death of God spelled out trouble for society. King Solomon said the same thing in Proverbs. He said that those who fear God shun evil, and of course the opposite is also implied. (Just like those who fear and respect the law, shun illegal actions.) Fearing God is a healthy thing. It means having a deep respect for Him and for His laws. When we remove this, certainly people feel freer to do evil, as long as they can get around their consciences. And of course, people who do not fear and respect the authorities are much more prone to break the law than others.Yaro continues:

quote:

---

Ironicaly, it was the Khmer Rouges view of Absolute Morality that caused these killings as was Hitlers. Pol Pot saw all intelectuals as bad. Hitler saw all jews as bad. Absolutes, with no room for variablity, thus their philosophies were destructive faliurs.

---

TJ replies:
You are absolutely right. They didn't believe in absolute morality and therefore felt they were free to do whatever they wanted in order to accomplish their goals. But please don't try and tell us the the Khmer Rouge believed in aboslute morals. If so, they would have had to believe in the existence of God, or some moral authority over humans and this is obviously false. Don't confuse their beliefs with absolute moral standards. You got it right in the last sentence. "Their philosophies". That was all it was. Their personal beliefs. But please don't tell me that you don't have personal beliefs or that you don't believe that your beliefs are true. I don't understand your argument here. Are you saying that because they acted on their beliefs that they were bad? Are you saying that no one should act on their beliefs? If there is no such thing as absolute truth, then how can you say that your beliefs are better than theirs? Different yes, more accepted by society in general, yes, but better in a moral sense of the word? Be careful, you are making an argument here for the existence of God.I agree that their philosophies were destructive failures, but that has nothing to do with absolute morality.Yaro continues:

quote:

---

Likely, the best illustration of variable morality is the age old question as, If your baby is starving would you steal a loaf of bread to feed it after exausting all other options? Or, Would you kill the man who is about to murder your whole family?

---

TJ replies:
Could GOd's standard of absolute morality include options for when certain moral principles collide? FOr instance, disobedience to the government is wrong according to Romans 13, but in Acts 5, disobedience to the authorities is encouraged if the authorities are asking you to break God's law. So although God's moral principles are absolute, there is room for variation when different principles collide.You will have different interpretations on the question of killing a robber in self-defense or stealing for food when in need. If I had no food and my baby were starving, I might steal even though I know it is not the best thing to do. Would that be wrong? I don't know. I'll let that up to God, but in the end of Proverbs, one of the writers prays that God would not let him be so poor as to have to resort to stealing and not be so rich as to forget God. Interesting and wise prayer.Yaro continues:

quote:

---

Now, in a broader context killing is wrong. Murder is wrong, yet there are exceptions when taken into specific circumstances.

---

TJ replies: Now wait, how can an amoral action be called wrong? And how can it be called wrong in an absolute sense if there is no absolute standard by which to judge it against? I agree with your conclusions, but you are appealing to an absolute standard that you say does not exist. No wonder the Bible says that "The fool has said in his heart 'There is no god.'"Yaro continues:

quote:

---

That is why a judicial system as we have, is so succesfull. We are not simply convicted on the spot, we are tried by our pears. Our actions are weighd by the standards of the society we lived in.

---

I think the right word is peers, not pears(a fruit)If you killd the man who was about to kill your child, would you be happy to be sent straight to jail? Of cource not, the circumstances would be taken into account.So you see, absolute Morality does not exist. Infact, when it is instituted, it ultimetly leads to catastrophy. Many of the attrocities thrughout history were performed in the name of absolute morality (a moral god). So even that standard is not without its victims.[/quote]TJ replies:
I answsered that earlier and I believe that your conclusion is invalid. You misunderstand the idea of absolute morality that the Bible speaks of. No wonder you think it doesn't exist.In this response, I just wanted to point out that at least for me, your criticisms of Grace2u's post are totally without merit. Go back and read it again and maybe you will see more of an answer to your question than previously thought. You dismissed his arguments based on your own faulty responses that I have just mentioned.I doubt you will ever find a sufficient answer to your dilemna, but I agree with Grace2u that your argument can only be valid if you accept some kind of absolute moral standard. Otherwise, why would these things bother you so much? Actually, I'm glad they do bother you. It is when a person can sin with no regret, or if such sin doesn't bother others that is a real problem. It looks like you haven't gone that far astray yet. THere is still hope.Regards,TJ

So what you're saying is that, coincidentally, every single human being decides to lie about exactly the same thing, for no reason whatsoever?Then what about me? I never chose to fall in love. Are you saying that, despite thousands of years of literature and personal testimony about the nature of love that seem to agree with my experience, that really I'm the only human being ever for whom falling in love was not a choice?Is that seriously your argument? Is that the kind of argument that somebody who proported to be a skeptic would offer? Somehow, I doubt it. Monks and priests fall in love. It's one of the oldest stories. Another old story is the person who swears off love - and yet falls helplessly when that "special someone" comes into their life.You're conflating the actions of love, which I have never claimed aren't volitional, with the experience of love itself. That's either your mistake or a purposeful attempt to erect a straw man. I'm sure if you search the site you can dig up an old topic about the problem of evil. If you care to, by all means point me to it when you do.[This message has been edited by crashfrog, 02-08-2004]

Tokyojim,First off, greetings from the land of the rising sun! I have always wanted to go to Tokyo.I know I said I wouldn't answer anyone who didn't directly answer the last two questions, but I did note that you put considerable amount of time and thought in to your post, so I would definetly honer your efforts with a reply, and a hope that perhaps we may have a fruitful discussion. How is it strange? Are you saying that right and wrong must exist apart from us in order for the concepts to be real? I don't see this as necessary at all. As I demonstrated before right and wrong vary widely between human cultures. Living in Japan, I'm sure you have first hand witness concerning this. The Japanese have a profound sense of duty and social order that Americans would find very strange and oppressive. Likewise, to the Japanese, Americans come off as loud and obnoxious. These are examples of variant morality within humanity, and I pose them as evidence of the subjective nature of morality.Further, addressing your premiss that morality must exist outside of man in order for it to exist at all, we must first find evidence of morality outside of man. I propose you find an example of morality in nature which is particularly cruel.When the coo-coo lays it's egg in a bird nest knowing full well that its child will kill all the other babies and eat the parents to the point of starvation, is this evidence of a pervasive morality? When the wasp lays it's egg on a poor tarantula, who struggles for it's life well aware of the doom that awaits it, is this evidence of morality? When a woman has her body riddled with cancer despite her impeccable health, is this evidence of good in nature? When a baby is born with severe deformities, is this yet again the echo of gods morality in all his creation?How do reconcile the parasitic nature of orchids which strangle trees to death and rob them of their sunshine? How do you reconcile a non-human morality with the male-lion that eats foreign cubs as the mother who loved and took care of them watches on helplessly? How can we say a morality exists outside of human consciousness when the world around us displays so much of what we humans would consider amoral behavior, yet rightly term neutral? For even natures cruelty is no match for the supreme indifference of an exploding volcano, a freak storm, a sudden earthquake, or a wayward comet that would turn us all into so much dust.If you would argue that morality must exist outside of us for it to exist at all, I would ask for evidence of this morality outside of the human world. For all I see beyond our conscience is neutrality and indifference. A wildabeast calf cries for it's mother as the cheetah tears it to shreds, the mother fights in vain, and mourns the loss. Who was in the wrong in this situation? When you eat a cow, or a chicken, that has spent it's life tortured, starved, and caged, who was wrong? Well, the Christian god is supposedly the standard, and he can do whatever he wants. In fact the bible has many accounts showcasing his endorsed atrocities. What do you mean by this statement? Because it was not good, it served no purpose, brought pain on many, and was compleatly counterproductive to improving society or life in general. He was wrong because what he did, did not benefit anyone and was counterproductive to social order. He was wrong on human terms, birds didn't give a hoot (no offense ) if Hitler gassed the Jews or not. The planets didn't change alignment because of WWII, and indeed, if the earth blew up back in 1943 nothing Hitler did would have really mattered. Get it? So, show me evidence of Gods standards. How are we to be judged against standards we are not even aware of? Furthermore, were do we have evidence of gods standards being absolute? He does change his mind more than once in the bible, and sometimes makes conflicting laws all together. How is this evidence of absolute standards? Well, first you have to show me how everyones conscience is the same. If indeed we all have a common conscience written in our hearts, why would we find so much variance between peoples and cultures? First you must define sin, and then show that we are becoming dulled by it. Well, what is the absolute moral standard? If you are going to say Leviticus, then why aren't we stoning rape victims, and forcing people into slavery? After all these are moral standards in the same book. Furthermore, you make it sound like this is a new thing, homosexuality has existed in human culture for a very long time. Other cultures were fully ok with it, in ancient Athens for example, and even Japan! So whats the deal? First you must define these un-movable, aperantly elusive, and all together ambigius, moral standards. First off, Evolution does not reject a creator. Thats a different topic tho.Fine, but how is it right for god to judge a person who has no idea what his laws are? How about all those native Americans before 1492? Wow! Surprise surprise! Perhaps it wasn't, god, but a peoples stating a pretty prevalent law in human cultures overall, god didn't make up the rule it was just a good idea, that's why so many cultures came up with it as well. After all, if you allowed and encouraged murder, then society wouldn't last very long what with no people to form a society. Why does this have to be a result of god and not just simple reasoning? I mean, it doesn't take to long to come up with the idea, "heck, it wouldn't be nice if someone killed me, or my kids, or my wife, so Im not gonna kill anyone either." We also make exceptions to these rules, do you agree with the death penalty? Euthanasia? Pulling 'the plug' when necessary? etc.If morality was absolute there would be no exceptions to the rule. Even the bible makes amendments to it's commandments. Perhaps you are misunderstanding my position. I am saying that outside of human society, and perception, it's not right or wrong. I gave a long list of things that go on in nature. Im sure the cow hates being caged up, force fed, and butchered but we do it all the time. Our morality is only ever applied to ourselves but dosn't exist outside of us. Get it? Yes, I do not belive in absolutes. I would gladly kill the man who would harm my daughter, no questions asked. And no, I wouldn't think it was wrong. Tell me, if there was no god, and murder meant little outside of society, what makes you think you would be a murderer? I think it's sad that the only thing that keeps you from doing awful things, and visiting pain on others is some big boogie man in the sky.I don't belive in god, and I don't go around murdering basically because I value all life as precious. After all we only have one. Furthermore, I can empathize, I wouldn't want pain visited upon me. Lastly, I enjoy being a part of my society and interacting with it, why would I ever want to be exiled or ostracized by it?The way you paint it is that every human is a psycho killer rapist, and would gladly go about doing those things if it wern't for their belief in god. How about teaching kids the value of life, and it's beauty, and the fact that its a precious thing to preserved since we all have just one. If you want to teach them about reprocussions, how about telling them that they will be caged up far away from home, or spend the rest of their lives running from the reprocussions of their actions. If you want to teach them why its wrong, ask them if they would like their parents killd or their friends.Tell me why the above are not just as valid ensetives as 'yer gonna burn in hell!'? That's BS. You have to show evidence that a) absolute morality exists, b) it's implementation has led to good things and c) that societies based on variable morality lead to anarchy. Well, I know some folks could be that unstable, but god ain't keeping them from doing it Stuff like that happens all the time, and it's bad and punished by our society. Nobody would say that's a good thing atheist or not, people like that usually end up in jail. First off, I can name plenty of non-atheist regimes that do these things, many more than the athist ones. How about America for instance? Im talking, old America, you know the Christian one that killed all the Indians and perpetrated the biggest genocide in history?Or how about the Taliban? Maybe the Inquisition? The Crusades? Hmmmm..... Oh I know! Salem witch trials! Hitler was a catholic, talked about god allot, how the Jews killed Jesus etc. Stalin also. The Conquistadors were pretty bad, and the Spanish invasion that came with them.I would challenge you to research some history and tell me how many atheist vs. religious totalitarian regimes there are. Heck, read the bible and learn about the Israelite genocides. Hmmmm.... America, El Salvador, Afghanistan, Israel, England, Spain, Peru, Columbia, Dominican Republic, Haiti, .... wow! I bet I could trace just about any country in the world to a genocide! I guess they all must be athisit Funny, Machiavelli was a chritian. Prove it. Prove that this is the most bloodstained. Human history is the history of killing and war, I cannot think of a time were bloodshed, torture, etc. Have not been a theme.This is a bald assertion, can you support that the 20th century is the most bloodstained? Can you prove it while taking into account population growth, advanced weaponry, and advanced communications?If you can I would love to see it! They did belive in absolute morality. Anything Pol Pot said was law. So pol pot said, if they don't work kill them, if they are intellectuals, kill them, and they did. It was absolute morality. There was no 'wiggle room' it was black and white. Oh, is it false? They believed that whatever the 'organization' said was law. The 'organization' could not be questioned, it had final authority. How is this not a form of a god? Or of absolute morality. No, I am saying that their beliefs being forsebly imposed on all others bellow them with no room for questioning or subjectivity, lead to an ineffective government, and demoralized society. No I am not, I am simply saying that their government, do to moral absolutism, was a disaster. It was impractical and ineffective, it served no good, and improved no ones life. How is this an argument for God? It has everything to do with it! Their philosophy was based on Absolute morality, whatever the 'organization' said was unquestioned law! This is an outright contradiction! Either Morality is absolute, or it's subjective. Moral Absolutism does not allow for exceptions. If god allows exceptions to his rules, then he is not a standard of absolute morality. Well, again, if god passes judgment on a contextual basis, then he does not impose moral absolutes. So, when an Aztec who comited human sacrifice to appease his rain gods, comes before the lord, the lord must judge him on that context. For, the Aztec never new of God, it was before his time. And the Aztec was only trying to do the right thing. Am I right?If this is the case, then your god is not morally absolute. In the broader context of humanity, as in society. My apologies for not being clear. I have already covered this issue. Then please define absolute morality, and demonstrate it's exitance. You have failed to do this. I clarified my argument, and I again support it. You can think it's without merit all you want, but the fact remains:a) Morality is not absolute.
b) The exitance of morality in human society does not necessitate a god. Right, so basicaly you are saying, that in order to belive in absolute morality, I must pre-suppose absolute morality. I agree!Kinda like, in order for you to belive that the world is held up by a giant turtle you must first pre-suppose giant turtles capable of supporting the world. Great logic!Tell me, how about those great bible verses where god orders virgins raped and babies kills? Was that moral, and by what mechanism did god make rape, and infantaside moral.[This message has been edited by Yaro, 02-08-2004]