B
- Status
T
tonyrey
Guest
Entertaining but not explaining! 
S
Spirithound
Guest
The difference between the two scenarios is that people do not go to hell for disobeying God. People go to hell for choosing to separate themselves from God. The objective rules of morality exist whether God had chosen to tell them to us or not. In His mercy, He has chosen to tell us the rules. (even those that are apprehensible to our natural reason).
K
KathleenGee
Guest
As they work to bring down the crosses from public, it feeds zeal for Christians to go back to wearing crosses on themselves and their clothing for the public to see…
T
tonyrey
Guest
And they get sacked in the UK for doing so!
T
ThinkingSapien
Guest
This reminds me of the badly drawn “cartoon” by NonStampCollector in which the tax office offers a free will arrangement so that you can decide whether or not to pay taxes. Of course if you don’t pay there will be consequences. But it’s totally up to you. It’s a free choice.
I think the main problem here is that the semantics in which one usually uses the term “free choice” or “free will” or the synonyms is not compatible with how it is being used in this context.
I think you’ll have better success at taking this argument on after convincing the people to which you are speaking that there exists a god and that Yahweh is that god. Until you are successful with that it may just come across as assertion without a foundation or assertion founded on beliefs which have already been found to be “disagreeable.”
I think the main problem here is that the semantics in which one usually uses the term “free choice” or “free will” or the synonyms is not compatible with how it is being used in this context.
I think you’ll have better success at taking this argument on after convincing the people to which you are speaking that there exists a god and that Yahweh is that god. Until you are successful with that it may just come across as assertion without a foundation or assertion founded on beliefs which have already been found to be “disagreeable.”
M
Maranatha
Guest
The initial sin of Satan was wanting to be God. Of the two people in the picture only one is your actual creator. Your maker, by His nature as your creator has the right to request you live up to the standards He set. The thief in the picture wants to put himself in the position of your creator. The atheist who made the picture wants to put himself in the creators position so he has license to do what he pleases.
T
tonyrey
Guest
For what reason?
H
Heuchler
Guest
God isn’t a robber threatening death. It’s more like a kid (God) walking up and asking you to be His friend. You can freely choose to be God’s friend or you can say no and run off. Running off is Hell which is not being friends with God from whom all good things come. So, essentially you are denying friendship which results in Hell because we are made for God and we can’t truly be happy unless we are with him.
T
ThinkingSapien
Guest
Apparently it’s a significant factor that influences how these free will scenarios are interpreted. I specifically name Yahweh to distinguish from the other competing concepts of for “God.”
S
StrawberryJam
Guest
Bad logic going on here.
We are assuming that the choice one would make with the robber is to not go along with his demands.
We are also assuming that one wants an eternal life in heaven in the other senario.
We are assuming that the choice one would make with the robber is to not go along with his demands.
We are also assuming that one wants an eternal life in heaven in the other senario.
A
admonsta
Guest
I think the problem is with the definition of “free will”. It doesn’t mean the license to do whatever we please, but freedom to choose right or wrong. And whatever we choose, it’s still either right or wrong.
For example, an animal does not have free will. It cannot sin. It isn’t responsible for its own actions.
God gave us free will so that when we do accept him and follow his laws, it would actually mean something.
It’s all down to the idea of moral relativism - the atheist believes (as I understand it) that it is one’s own choice what is right and wrong. They set their own moral code. The atheist is saying effectively “nobody tells me what to do!” and calls that freedom. What is the atheist aiming for in life? Having the most fun before oblivion?
A theist believes that God has a set of rules that He expects us to obey (although He doesn’t force us to). To choose to follow God results in unfathomable reward - something that’s missing from the image posted here. The theist aims to get to Heaven, to enjoy an eternal reward that is vastly better than anything imaginable by us on earth.
One more thing: the picture shows God demanding worship. It misses out the other rules that have been set up to ensure our lives are happy and peaceful, and that we look after each other. God’s not a narcissist, demanding praise and worship, although He has a right to expect it, being our Creator and all. We gain rewards here on earth and in Heaven when we follow the guidelines given to us.
For example, an animal does not have free will. It cannot sin. It isn’t responsible for its own actions.
God gave us free will so that when we do accept him and follow his laws, it would actually mean something.
It’s all down to the idea of moral relativism - the atheist believes (as I understand it) that it is one’s own choice what is right and wrong. They set their own moral code. The atheist is saying effectively “nobody tells me what to do!” and calls that freedom. What is the atheist aiming for in life? Having the most fun before oblivion?
A theist believes that God has a set of rules that He expects us to obey (although He doesn’t force us to). To choose to follow God results in unfathomable reward - something that’s missing from the image posted here. The theist aims to get to Heaven, to enjoy an eternal reward that is vastly better than anything imaginable by us on earth.
One more thing: the picture shows God demanding worship. It misses out the other rules that have been set up to ensure our lives are happy and peaceful, and that we look after each other. God’s not a narcissist, demanding praise and worship, although He has a right to expect it, being our Creator and all. We gain rewards here on earth and in Heaven when we follow the guidelines given to us.
S
StrawberryJam
Guest
God does in fact demand worship. It is the first one of the two most important Commandments one can strive to follow
Love God with all your heart mind soul (this requires worship, God tells us this)
Love your neighbor as yourself
So, you were saying?
S
StrawberryJam
Guest
That kid in school was called a bully. Back when we were kids there were no programs in place to deal with those types. Now there is.
A
admonsta
Guest
Ah, you got me. What I meant was the first part about God not being a narcissist. But you’re right about the rest of that sentence. I also maintain that He has a right to expect worship.
I stand by the rest of my argument.
S
StrawberryJam
Guest
At Mass it is agreed it is right to do so.
He created us, therefore he doesn’t have to be good or bad to expect worship.
A
admonsta
Guest
Um, okay.
Not sure if you’re disagreeing or agreeing with me. Or making another point entirely. I think we might agree…
S
StrawberryJam
Guest
If I were sure I would be a catholic now. For now what you see here is an agnostic who attends Mass very regularly and occasionally goes to Divine Liturgy. When not doing that I am generally a hostile grump.
C
carn
Guest
The right guys ask you to do the right thing, something moral, something that is in your interest, the other doesn’t.
In absence of the adverse effects of the decision, it would be obvious not to do what the left guy suggest and it would be obvious to do the moral thing, e.g. what the right guy suggest.
If the adverse effects would be reversed (Give me your money, i’ll shoot you if you do; worship me, you’ll burn in hell if you do.), it would be obvious not to do what the left guy suggest. With the right guy it would be a bit more difficult, because doing the moral thing, when it has harsh consequences, is at least hard. (Though purely rationally i might be inclined to nonetheless follow the right guy,even if the consequences are reversed - you do what is right and pay the consequences)
Why should the pattern - do not do what the left guy suggest, if possible, and do what the right guy suggest, if possible - change due to the consequences being as suggested?
That argument falls only apart, if one assumes the action suggested by the right guy not to be moral or immoral. That is only possible if the right guy is not assumed to be perfectly good (as respecting aka worshipping a perfectly good creature is moral, as one must strive to become more moral and looking up to a perfectly good creature could be of help there, then you know the direction to take).
But then the right guy is not God.
Then one can agree with the atheist (and the atheists can as far as i can see not deny this), that if a perfectly good creature exists, it is worthy of worship and the only thing left to discuss is whether such a creature might exist and whether it could be the right guy. But on assumption the right guy is that creature, he doesn’t do anything immoral in suggesting to us, we should worship him.
T
ThinkingSapien
Guest
I think that presenting this to a person that presented the argument of the OP would only compound the differences between the interacting parties unless you first agree on how you evaluate what is “right”, what is “moral”, or what is meant by these words. But if you already had agreement on these things then you would probably already have agreement on the original issue too, making it a non-issue.
One of these days I have got to figure out what people mean when they say “purely rational.” I’ll save it for another day and another thread.
- Status