So....how big of a jerk is traditional Christian God? I was thinking about this the other day, and God is supposed to be this benevolent, omnipotent, and omniscience father figure right? Well, if you had kids, would you teach them by killing them? That's what God has done, according to the Bible. Not frequently, but in a lot of cases, and in a lot of circumstances, when the people began to be 'too wicked', he would just strike them all down, flood the earth, sink their city into a fissure in the earth, plague them all, or some other in-your-face show of power. What kind of God is that? I mean, if he's omnipotent, then he coul just make us do right. If you argue that's an example of taking our free agency away, then what is killing someone if not the ultimate removal of free agency?It just seems to me that as parents, our objectives are to raise our children in what we feel to be the best way possible. Discipline is a problem for all parents to varying degrees, but that's part of the challenge of being a parent. Is figuring out what works for your children and what doesn't, what they will respond to positively and what they respond to negatively. If you can't control your children, they will control you.
But that's what's tough, we're just human beings, we're not omnipotent and omniscient, we have to work at gaining the knowledge of what works and what doesn't. God should already know these things. If God knows everything about everyone, he should easily be able to influence the lives of those who are 'wicked' such that they will want to change. I realize that God today doesn't kill off huge amounts of people for vengeful purposes (or at least no serious religion is claiming such) but that doesn't excuse him from his alledged 'past' behavior. Like I'm seriously am having a hard time understanding how anyone could believe in a higher being that would commit mass genocide as a solution to the discipline problems of his supposed 'children'.
I don't see the difference between God using his omnipotent powers to simply control our actions as a puppetmaster would (which I think people would have serious problems with), or simply killing us, which he does loads of times in the Christian Bible, and in the LDS Book of Mormon. Someone please explain this to me.
3 comments:
"...then what is killing someone if not the ultimate removal of free agency?"
Your post implies that death (or the end of this mortal life as we know it) is the end of existence, and thus free agency. We would be greatly limiting ourselves if we declared our existence ended at death, just because that's all we know. That state of mind is what hindered Galileo when he declared that the Earth wasn't the center of the universe or Columbus when he declared the Earth wasn't flat. If death was the end, you would have a good point. But like Galileo and Columbus, I suspect some day, we will have evidence of existence beyond mortality, even if it means waiting until we die ourselves to find out.
Making the assumption that there is a post-mortal existence, which you have already done in previous posts, I choose to believe that the essence of what continues on, minus the physical body, is still the same in identity, character, and desires. If this is the case, I can also believe that that essence still has an intelligence capable of thinking, reasoning, and making decisions. I don't believe that removing that essence from its mortal shell removes its capability to make its own individual decisions, implying that death is not an ultimate removal of free agency.
"I don't see the difference between God using his omnipotent powers to simply control our actions..., or simply killing us..."
Based on the belief I stated above, I see the first as being controlling, manipulative, and destructive to individual identity. I see the latter as a way of God changing our physical state of being, but not changing our spiritual state of being, thus leaving our free agency intact. That's a huge difference. Carrying on your scenario of God being a father figure, a simplified version would be a father taking his son to the playground at his son's request. He takes his son for the purpose of giving him a chance to play, learn, experience, and practice, both as an individual and in a group, being one of several kids on the playground. The child accomplishes something and turns to his father for praise. He fails at something and turns to his father for comfort. He attempts something new and turns to his father for help. He attempts something dangerous or destructive, and his father steps in to warn him of possible natural consequences. The father offers all these things as a caring father, including discipline if warnings are ignored. Discipline could involve having a toy taken away, getting restricted from a certain area, or sitting out for a while. These same consequences would apply if the son's actions were negatively impacting the learning, growth, or experiences of the other children. After the discipline is accomplished, the child is then "unrestricted" and allowed to make the choice again. If the destructive behavior is repeated, then the discipline is repeated until the child eventually knows that the behavior will not be tolerated. If the child then continues to persist in the destructive behavior, the father has to conclude that the child is choosing to do so with full knowledge of what he is doing. At this point, the father knows he must take the son home because he has proved that he intends to persist in actions that will cause (or did cause) damage to himself, others, or the play equipment. The father still loves the son but is saddened by his son's decisions. The son is still free to make his own choices but because he chose not to do what they went to the playground to do, there was no reason to stay further.
The point being that sometimes God's children persist in destructive behaviors even after they have been warned, disciplined, and acknowledged what the consequences will be. At that point, God acknowledges that the child has no intention of accomplishing what he promised he would do if allowed to come to Earth; so, there is no reason to stay further. The child is taken from the Earth so that his destructive behavior will no longer negatively influence his other children. The spirit goes on with free agency intact, but his mortal opportunities are no longer available. The destruction of societies by an Old Testament God were only after repeated warnings, punishments, and prophecies of destruction if they chose to continue their destructive lifestyles.
The misery of the damned isn't a condemnation by God to an eternity of damnation in fire and brimstone but is a result of living eternally with a perfect knowledge of what could have been, if only...
Excellent analogy with the father and child at the playground. It helps to explain God's mass genocides of the Old Testament. However I still feel like death may not have been the only solution.
It was never my belief neither was it ever my intention to imply that there is no life after death, nor that there is no free agency in our supposed pre-mortal and post-mortal lives.
However, I still don't agree with your differentiation of controlling our earthly choices (forcing us to do right) and removing our option to make earthly choices (killing us). To me, the means may be different, but the end is still the same: the individual is left without the option to make his/her own choices while on earth. I guess I don't see what the difference is between the two that makes one morally justifiable and the other not. I guess I can see that in the 'controlling' scenario, you are suspending the individual's right to free agency until which time God chooses to take them from the earth and reinstate their free agency in a post-life. In that sense I guess I can understand how God wouldn't want to ever remove that agency entirely, even if it's only a post-life agency.
Back to your example, one flaw I see is that in the scenario, if a father takes his child home, there's always the possibility of taking him back to the playground after more extensive discipline. Once God kills his children, there's no going back. But then I guess you can go back to God's omniscience, and I guess he wouldn't kill anyone he wasn't absolutely certain had no hope of improving. I just have a hard time imagining a world where everyone, each single person, is so wicked that God's only solution is to flood the earth and kill them all, and out of all those people, only a handful had enough of a hope of improving that he provided a way to survive the flood.
Speaking of the flood, I'm not sure I understand the idea behind the 'rainbow' and the symbology that it's supposed to be God's way of saying he won't flood the earth again. To me, making a statement like that implies regret. It would seem that if God thought it necessary to do it once, that he would have nothing against doing it again, if he thought it necessary......but if God is omniscient and KNEW he would never have to do it again, I guess he could fairly make a statement like that.
Very convenient for believing in,I think, God being omnipotent and omniscient, and being ever-present.
After getting more than 10000 visitors/day to my website I thought your dpowell02.blogspot.com website also need unstoppable flow of traffic...
Use this BRAND NEW software and get all the traffic for your website you will ever need ...
= = > > http://get-massive-autopilot-traffic.com
In testing phase it generated 867,981 visitors and $540,340.
Then another $86,299.13 in 90 days to be exact. That's $958.88 a
day!!
And all it took was 10 minutes to set up and run.
But how does it work??
You just configure the system, click the mouse button a few
times, activate the software, copy and paste a few links and
you're done!!
Click the link BELOW as you're about to witness a software that
could be a MAJOR turning point to your success.
= = > > http://get-massive-autopilot-traffic.com
Post a Comment