Design

[tonyrey]

Not quite. It is more like:

A person has the potential to commit sin/evil.
God says sin will be punished.
A person sins.
God either punishes them or forgives them and does not punish them.

Christians emphasise God’s forgiveness, hence there can be no certainty of punishment.

Misrepresentation! God punishes no one. Our vices incur their own punishment even when God forgives us. How could it be otherwise? Don’t Buddhists believe we all get what we deserve? The difference is that the Christian God offers us the opportunity of heaven…

If you are a Calvinist then it is possible you will be punished even if you do not sin – if you are not among the elect then you are punished, even if you die at one week old.

Calvinists are a very small minority…

 

[tonyrey]

What word? What promise? The promise to allow evil to (on some ocassions) ensure free will?

And the Holocaust nothing more than a night in an inconvenient hotel? Chilling…

What is the alternative? Would you prefer to lose your free will? Or do you consider yourself or your descendants to be immune to temptation or weakness if compelled to live in a totalitarian state like Nazi Germany? Were they all monsters?

 

[Vonsalza]

If you are a Calvinist then it is possible you will be punished even if you do not sin – if you are not among the elect then you are punished, even if you die at one week old.

As a former Calvinist with some formal schooling on the topic, I’m afraid I can’t let this stand.

1. If you are a Calvinist then it is possible you will be punished even if you do not sin

Incorrect. A Calvinist believes axiomatically that all have sinned or were born into a sin nature and thus eventually will. This “un-sinning” creature you propose does not exist within a Calvinist paradigm. Ergo, No. A Calvinist does not affirm what you state here.

1. …if you are not among the elect then you are punished, even if you die at one week old.

The first part is correct. All those who are not part of the elect will suffer punishment (again, as all of them will have sinned, without exception). As for the second part, synod after synod and confession after confession has provided a rebuttal for the “damned infant” for about 400 years.

Respectfully, you should be substantially more skeptical of your source(s) on Calvinism. They’re not very good.

 

[Vonsalza]

What is the alternative? Would you prefer to lose your free will? Or do you consider yourself or your descendants to be immune to temptation or weakness if compelled to live in a totalitarian state like Nazi Germany? Were they all monsters?

It seems that the most popular atheistic understanding of a “Good God” is also one that would destroy your ability to commit evil. I imagine that God to be quite the tyrant.

I think a “Good God” would preserve my ability to choose betwixt the paths; delighting when I chose toward Him and angering when I chose away from Him.

 

[o_mlly]

What word? What promise? The promise to allow
evil to (on some ocassions) ensure free will?

And the Holocaust nothing more than a night in an inconvenient hotel?
Chilling…

If two hold different beliefs, the only criticism one may offer the other is logical inconsistencies in their belief system.

If one believes there is no God, no free will, no objective morality (feels good is good enough), no design, no life after death, no reward or punishment in eternity then how can one feel the Holocaust as a “chilling” event?

Under that belief system the Nazis did exactly what they were always going to do. They felt it was the right thing to do. Having no free will, they could not have done otherwise. The Holocaust most certainly did not chill the Nazis. Why should the Holocaust chill anyone else?

However, if one believes in God, free will, an objective morality based on revelation and right reason, Divine Providence, an afterlife of eternal reward and punishment then, and only then, can one be both chilled by a Holocaust and yet remain a believer.

 

[Vera_Ljuba]

It seems that the most popular atheistic understanding of a “Good God” is also one that would destroy your ability to commit evil. I imagine that God to be quite the tyrant.

Indeed… it would be a GOOD tyrant. A GOOD tyrant would care about ALL the participants in an act, the one who wants to perform an “evil” act and the one who suffers the consequences of that act.

You guys (in general) have this sick obsession with the “free will” of the psychopaths, as if THEIR free will would be something desirable for its own sake. As if preventing a rape, a torture or murder would make this world a worse place. As if having all those atrocities would make a better world. What kind of weirdos are you?

 

[Vonsalza]

Indeed… it would be a GOOD tyrant. A GOOD tyrant would care about ALL the participants in an act, the one who wants to perform an “evil” act and the one who suffers the consequences of that act.

You guys (in general) have this sick obsession with the “free will” of the psychopaths, as if THEIR free will would be something desirable for its own sake. As if preventing a rape, a torture or murder would make this world a worse place. As if having all those atrocities would make a better world. What kind of weirdos are you?

Careful, Loobie. This “Good God” of your imagination would likely destroy your ability to disagree with it as well, as to limit this “Evil” you speak of. You’d sit on this forum and tell us all how “right” we are.

In keeping with my theory that the primary thing God wants is to be worshiped by a moral agent that is free to refuse to do so, the action you advocate would make no sense.

 

[Vera_Ljuba]

Careful, Loobie. This “Good God” of your imagination would likely destroy your ability to disagree with it as well, as to limit this “Evil” you speak of.

This is accepting the notion of “thought crime” from “1984”. Agreement or disagreement are irrelevant, ACTIONS are relevant.

In keeping with my theory that the primary thing God wants is to be worshiped by a moral agent that is free to refuse to do so, the action you advocate would make no sense.

I freely refuse to worship God (since I see no reason to believe that it exists), and yet I do not have the slightest inclination to do harm to other human beings. Not worshipping God does not lead logically to atrocities toward others.

So, yes. My criticism stands. Your obsession with the free will of the psychopaths is “weird”.

 

[Vonsalza]

This is accepting the notion of “thought crime” from “1984”. Agreement or disagreement are irrelevant, ACTIONS are relevant.

The very first sin was conceived in the mind before it was acted out; just the same as it is today.

Sorry Loobie, they cannot be separated. Action proceeds from the mind.

I freely refuse to worship God (since I see no reason to believe that it exists), and yet I do not have the slightest inclination to do harm to other human beings.

Not in any way that your recognize or are immediately aware of.

Perhaps this is another example of your profoundly “subjective” grasp of logic in that you’re trying to conflate non-belief with the necessity of harm to people?

Again,

 

[Elf01]

Indeed… it would be a GOOD tyrant. A GOOD tyrant would care about ALL the participants in an act, the one who wants to perform an “evil” act and the one who suffers the consequences of that act.

You guys (in general) have this sick obsession with the “free will” of the psychopaths, as if THEIR free will would be something desirable for its own sake. As if preventing a rape, a torture or murder would make this world a worse place. As if having all those atrocities would make a better world. What kind of weirdos are you?

A few points

1. I know that this won’t be convincing to you but, yes, we have free will and God does permit atrocities to happen we also believe that he brings good from them and that those that commit them will be punished.
2. If there is no objective morality I don’t see how they can be called atrocities.

 

[Vera_Ljuba]

The very first sin was conceived in the mind before it was acted out; just the same as it is today.

Sorry Loobie, they cannot be separated. Action proceeds from the mind.

I am not interested in “sin”. It is true that actions come from the mind, but an unacted-upon thought is only a thought-crime, and that is only a crime in the society described in the novel or “1984” - the most horrifying state of affairs. If it were true that Jesus said: “If a man looks upon a woman with lust, he has already committed adultery in his heart” then Jesus would be the equivalent of the thought police.

Not in any way that your recognize or are immediately aware of.

Nonsense. If an act of mine would lead to some bad outcome, which I did not intend and which I could not have been foreseen, then it could only be called an accident or mishap. I was talking about the intentional causation of causing harm to others. Please don’t change the topic.

Can you give me a reason why to allow acts, which have only one intended outcome, causing harm to others? Because that is what I was talking about. Humans are not the epitome of “goodness”, but most human beings would jump in and thwart a kidnapping if they had the opportunity to do so - ESPECIALLY if they could do it without exposing themselves to harm.

Now, if you wish to argue that the Holocaust (or something close to it) was just a blessing in disguise, that preventing throwing the Jews into the gas-chambers would have lead to a “worse” world, go ahead, make my day. But be specific please. No idiocy of “how can you know that it would not have been worse to prevent the Holocaust?”. The answer should be obvious to you: “if would have been better for the VICTIMS”.

 

[Vera_Ljuba]

1. I know that this won’t be convincing to you but, yes, we have free will and God does permit atrocities to happen we also believe that he brings good from them and that those that commit them will be punished.

What you believe is of no consequence. Prove to us that the Holocaust was only a blessing in disguise. Maybe you are aware of the old adage: “an ounce of prevention is better than a pound of cure”.

1. If there is no objective morality I don’t see how they can be called atrocities.

That is your own personal problem. I am not interested in explaining to you, unless you realize that in some circumstances an act is positive, in others it is negative and in yet others it is neutral. In other words acts cannot be separated from the circumstances and the consequences. If you think that there are intrinsically evil acts (like masturbation or artificial contraception) then you will never understand me.

 

[Bradski]

If two hold different beliefs, the only criticism one may offer the other is logical inconsistencies in their belief system.

If one believes there is no God, no free will, no objective morality (feels good is good enough), no design, no life after death, no reward or punishment in eternity then how can one feel the Holocaust as a “chilling” event?

Under that belief system the Nazis did exactly what they were always going to do. They felt it was the right thing to do. Having no free will, they could not have done otherwise. The Holocaust most certainly did not chill the Nazis. Why should the Holocaust chill anyone else?

However, if one believes in God, free will, an objective morality based on revelation and right reason, Divine Providence, an afterlife of eternal reward and punishment then, and only then, can one be both chilled by a Holocaust and yet remain a believer.

An objective morality means that something is wrong in itself. It’s wrong because it’s wrong. You need give no reasons. So you are specifically saying that without reference to your particular god, there are no good reasons why something like the Holocaust is morally wrong.

I can’t believe that you could give no secular, non religious reasons at all why it would be wrong. That there is no objective morality demands that you have these. Yes, people will argue that their view is right, so you better have something you can use that is a lot better than ‘Well, it just is. God sez so’.

Otherwise you might get a response saying that as far as the victims are concerned, all this rape, torture and death is no more than a night in a two star hotel.

 

[Bradski]

What is the alternative? Would you prefer to lose your free will? Or do you consider yourself or your descendants to be immune to temptation or weakness if compelled to live in a totalitarian state like Nazi Germany? Were they all monsters?

You’ve already admitted that you consider God to have interceded to prevent some atrocities. It’s your problem to work out why He allows our free will to operate in some circumstances and not in others.

 

[Vonsalza]

I am not interested in “sin”.

Then the conversation is “over”.
For the Christian, a sinful thought is the same as a sinful deed in that they are both sins.

Humans are not the epitome of “goodness”, but most human beings would jump in and thwart a kidnapping if they had the opportunity to do so - ESPECIALLY if they could do it without exposing themselves to harm.

Reminds me of that story where 30-some-odd people watched a woman be murdered several decades ago and no one did anything. Was it Chicago or New York that particular horror took place in?

Now, if you wish to argue that the Holocaust (or something close to it) was just a blessing in disguise…

Again, your inability to identify a false equivalency turns its head… I’m going to try to elevate you one more time…

If act (A) has possible outcomes (X), (Y) and (Z), it is a textbook logical fallacy to set act (A) as “equal” to any one of the possible outcomes. Ergo, “Free Will” does not equal “Holocaust”. Anyone too dense to grasp this shouldn’t dabble in arguments.

To your sloppily formed point, I would argue that the Holocaust might provide some justification for the existence of a hell to send the evil to as a consequence for their misdeeds.

 

[Vera_Ljuba]

For the Christian, a sinful thought is the same as a sinful deed in that they are both sins.

For some Christians, maybe. But only those who practice the “false equivalence” of confusing a thought with an act.

Reminds me of that story where 30-some-odd people and God watched a woman be murdered several decades ago and no one did anything. Was it Chicago or New York that particular horror took place in?

I only mentioned that most humans would jump in.

To your sloppily formed point, I would argue that the Holocaust might provide some justification for the existence of a hell to send the evil to as a consequence for their misdeeds.

So let’s build some more torture chambers, and then invent some new “crimes” so that the existence of these torture chambers can be justified - retroactively. Very strange… As I said before, and everyone tries to sweep under the rug: “an ounce of prevention is better than a pound of cure”. If God could prevent some atrocity and does not do it, then he is equally guilty of the act. And then adds to the irrationality by punishing the perpetrators, instead of preventing the whole incident.

Of course according to your strange approach, the ones who contemplated the atrocity, but never put it into reality are “equally” guilty to the ones, who “planned and carried out the deed”. Sorry, bro, you are much too irrational for my taste.

 

[Bradski]

To your sloppily formed point, I would argue that the Holocaust might provide some justification for the existence of a hell to send the evil to as a consequence for their misdeeds.

I’ll quote that bit again so it will give you an opportunity to recant. Because what you are implying is that God made hell and then decided to allow the holocaust to justify its existence: ‘See, we did need it. It serves a purpose’.

Nothwithstanding that anyone who believes in God, an objective morality and an afterlife would, according to the consensus, never sin. We can forget about what WE might define as a minor sin and what is a major one. Any given mortal sin, unrepented, will send you to hell.

I’m pretty certain that a predominantly Catholic state such as Germany guaranteed that at least some of those responsible for atrocities were, as far as they would claim, God fearing Catholics. Objective morality might exist as far as they were concerned, but killing Jews was not immoral. So what do you think you might need to convince your friendly neighborhood Nazi that what he is doing is morally wrong?

Ah no, Bradski. Let’s slip the No True Scotsman fallacy in here. They cannot have been Catholics who believed in objective morality and been responsible for such heinous crimes against humanity. But such crimes are exactly on par with masturbation and blasphemy. So maybe they repented at death’s door and were saved an eternity of torment.

But here’s the funny thing - it’ll make you laugh, honestly. The Nazi who rapes and murders a man’s family and then kills his children and parents and brothers and sisters, if he genuinely repents, he gets to go to heaven.

And the Jewish guy who has seen his family massacred and takes out his justified anger against God and refuses to repent that anger (He could have saved them but, hey, free will and all that), he get hell.

So much for the 3rd class hotel analogy. He gets the worst of all worlds. And the guy who spent years raping and killing and having a grand old time, he gets the best of all worlds.

Funny old system, isn’t it…

 

[o_mlly]

It’s wrong because it’s wrong. … there are no good reasons why something like the Holocaust is morally wrong. …

Do you really mean that?

 

[Bradski]

Do you really mean that?

You have said that if there was no belief in God and no objective morality (and you conflate those along with divine providence and revelation), then people would just do what they felt was right.

I suggest that it is your definition of objective morality that does not allow for people to make personal decisions about what is right and what is wrong. That right or wrong is somewhere and somehow fixed for all situations. And that particular somewhere and somehow is God.

If reasons are to be given, then they will undoubtedly and undeniable be what each of us considers to the reasons we feel are valid. Now on some things, there will be universal agreement (and that, by the way, doesn’t even include such atrocities as the holocaust, because there were certainly God fearin’ Catholics involved in it). But does that mean it is correct because of that universal agreement? Obviously not, because one cannot vote on matters of morality.

So apart from giving our own personal reasons, which may well seem to us to be blazingly obvious, then what do you suggest? Well, you have already given your answer. A belief in God and revelation. No reasons other than God sez so.

Me? I’m going with relative morality. No requirement for God, divine providence or revelation. That comes in handy because not everyone on the planet believes in the same god. And if they do, they may interpret His word differently to you. I’m pretty certain that we can include the guy who thought it was a good idea to blow up children in Manchester earlier today.

We have very good reasons why what he did was evil. Bringing God into an argument as to why it’s wrong won’t carry any weight at all if the other guy does exactly the same.

 

[Vonsalza]

For some Christians, maybe. But only those who practice the “false equivalence” of confusing a thought with an act.

Thoughts and physical actions can both be sinful. shrug

How interesting your fantasy would be if it were made manifest. Someone would be capable of having a malicious thought, but the “command” to the “machine” of the body would return an error or refusal.

Verily, Vera, your will would be trapped inside your biological construct - a perfect example of “Locked-In Syndrome”. How utterly terrifying.

So let’s build some more torture chambers, and then invent some new “crimes” so that the existence of these torture chambers can be justified - retroactively.

It doesn’t take a genius in order to predict that a free moral agent would potentially choose a negative path; especially as that path generally promotes self interest.

Of course according to your strange approach, the ones who contemplated the atrocity, but never put it into reality are “equally” guilty to the ones, who “planned and carried out the deed”. Sorry, bro, you are much too irrational for my taste.

Again, you either don’t understand or are deliberately misinterpreting my stance to better suit your non-argument/fantasy.

I don’t hold to the belief that hell is experienced in the same way for the serial killer as it is for the chronic liar. I only hold to the belief that, if unrepentant, they both may go there. To put it simply, I think one stands a little closer to the furnace than the other in concordance to the magnitude of their respective sins.

I’ll quote that bit again so it will give you an opportunity to recant. Because what you are implying is that God made hell and then decided to allow the holocaust to justify its existence: ‘See, we did need it. It serves a purpose’.

Your understanding is erroneous.

Heaven and Hell exist as ultimate reward for the moral agent. If they choose an evil path, they “win” hell. If they choose a righteous path they “win” heaven.

No recantation shall be given at this time.

Nothwithstanding that anyone who believes in God, an objective morality and an afterlife would, according to the consensus, never sin. We can forget about what WE might define as a minor sin and what is a major one. Any given mortal sin, unrepented, will send you to hell.

Essentially, you’re stating that if one dies without confessing a mortal sin, they automatically go to hell, right?

This notion has been debunked. Anyone who stubbornly holds to it is likely someone who’d hate to lose this “weapon” in their rhetoric against the Catholic Church (surprise, surprise ).

Here’s a video from this very site on the matter.

If you don’t want to watch, here’s a summary:

God has bound salvation unto his sacraments. However, God is not bound by his sacraments. There is hope for literally everyone.

I’m pretty certain that a predominantly Catholic state such as Germany guaranteed that at least some of those responsible for atrocities were, as far as they would claim, God fearing Catholics.

rubs temples

Read “Ordinary Men”. It’s a story about the paramilitary units that actually constituted most of the “death squads”. The general view on Catholicism by those groups was not positive. Any particularly vocal Catholic who didn’t “get in line” with what they were doing was equally subject to the “kindness” of their Mausers.

And your notion that Nazi Germany was “predominantly Catholic” is erroneous. They were mostly Protestant, if you think that somehow matters.

They cannot have been Catholics who believed in objective morality and been responsible for such heinous crimes against humanity.

Sure they could have been. Joining the Church does not remove your proclivity to sin, as St. Paul pointed out on several occasions. The abstinence from sin is work. I think most here would agree that Church membership doesn’t automatically equal salvation.

But such crimes are exactly on par with masturbation and blasphemy.

I’m sorry you think so.

The Nazi who rapes and murders a man’s family and then kills his children and parents and brothers and sisters, if he genuinely repents, he gets to go to heaven.

Praise God for it. None are beyond redemption unless they choose to be.

And the Jewish guy who has seen his family massacred and takes out his justified anger against God and refuses to repent that anger (He could have saved them but, hey, free will and all that), he get hell.

I’d refer him to The Trials of Job. But I’d also rebuke anyone who claims to know who specifically is in hell. God sits on the seat of judgement. Not Bradski, Vonsalza, Christopher Hitchins or the Pope.

Funny old system, isn’t it…

As I’ve said earlier, objective reality has no relationship with how I feel about it.