Is God A Moral Monster?

[Mr.Cat]

[quote name='Mark of the Cross' timestamp='1316735786' post='2308697']It's not impossible there are other God's money, power, self! The one I was discussing is the same as the biblical one. You appeared to be dismissing that as irrelevant. Can I not refer to the real Mr Cat in a discussion about Mr Cat of the internet forum?[/quote]You didn't answer my question and you apparently haven't read my responses.
[quote name='Mark of the Cross' timestamp='1316735786' post='2308697']You don't have to be an expert to question the Bible. There are plenty of things that need explaining. What you are doing is judging the God of the Bible, to do this would require an expert and then some.[/quote]Criticizing yes. But respectfully disagreed, as I explained above.
[quote name='Mark of the Cross' timestamp='1316735786' post='2308697']Merely pointing out that the Bible was not written as an evidence to prove something. It will not prove the existence of God nor will it prove God a moral monster. The purpose of the Bible is obscure to all except those who believe in it's God. If you don't believe in God you will get nothing from it. It's not a history book and it would be fairly uninteresting as a fictional story book.[/quote]This is simply illogical. By you're reasoning someone cannot criticize Big Bro in 1984 because it is fictional. What you are doing is nothing more than attempting to create a discussion stopping point.
[quote name='Mark of the Cross' timestamp='1316735786' post='2308697']How can you separate the book from it's contents? The Biblical inerrancy refers to the word of God. If you read something that you want to see in the Bible, then it is your word not God's and is therefore not inerrant.[/quote]I am not wanting to read anything [u][b]into[/b][/u] the Bible, I have merely represented what is written there, no interpretations... But WHAT separation?
[quote name='Mark of the Cross' timestamp='1316735786' post='2308697']Why do I need to side step the discussion? I never said I didn't believe in the Bible, I merely pointed out that there are correct ways and incorrect ways of reading it.[/quote]According to you. I didn't accuse you of not believing. But you wrote verbatim, "[i]I for one don't believe it is.[/i]"
[quote name='Mark of the Cross' timestamp='1316735786' post='2308697']Certainly I don't understand much of it and there are many contradictions. That's why I propose either poor or false writing. I don't know which. From my point the Bible is the word of God, because I read it in the manner of which I think I will obtain the word of God. This doesn't mean I'm doing it the only correct way.[/quote]... This seems to almost contradict your previous statement and seems to be more of denial.
[quote name='Mark of the Cross' timestamp='1316735786' post='2308697']There is more than one way of skinning the cat! (excuse the pun no offence intended) I've merely tried to point out that the Bible is a complex instrument and cannot be treated as a normal historical text. It's nearest would be I imagine a law book, where clever lawyers can make a text support their argument. Not that I know anything about law books so it will not be necessary for you to debunk this statement.[/quote]No... the Bible would be a horrible legal text... If you were to argue it is chiefly a religious text, I would agree, but in my opinion this makes it fictional.[i] But your comment about skinning cats, creepy and disturbing.[/i]
[quote name='Mark of the Cross' timestamp='1316735786' post='2308697']No it doesn't! it questions the validity of how you are reading it.[/quote]Okay... If you and I were arguing if Big Bro in 1984 was a monster... and you decided to argue about the fictional nature of the story in order to prove that big bro was not a monster... You are off topic. Because the entire argument you made against the bible while reasonable and makes me wonder why you believe in the bible when you are vaguely familiar with the serious problems it has... it never addresses the actual argument.

But it is an informal logic fallacy unless you can give good reason why it's not.
[quote name='Mark of the Cross' timestamp='1316735786' post='2308697']I've had discussions with you before and I am aware that you will ramble as long as I provide the fuel. My objective is not to win you over or get you to stop posting. Eventually I will stop posting when I am bored. You're a difficult person to debate with. Either you are very clever or are obscure in your thinking or are determined not to give ground on anything.[/quote]I am not rambling, I am replying. But since you are "[i]quacking like a duck[/i]", it is difficult to have a discussion with you... Most of this I would consider a non-discussion since you aren't really approaching the subject.

I was specifically educated and trained to debate... My first major was political science and I was quite adept to it when I put forward the effort. But we are not having a debate... But I haven't seen you make any concessions in this discussion at all... I in fact agreed with more than a few of your points, even though it doesn't contribute back into the topic. Which is ultimately the problem.

[quote name='Mark of the Cross' timestamp='1316735786' post='2308697']Not at all. I'm saying that the only way of reading the Bible is to read it with a heartfelt purpose in order to obtain what it is intended to convey. If you don't unlock the door you cannot enter the room. I think that would apply to many other books. If you read a book on alternative medicine but only believe in scientific medicine then all you may be able to achieve from it is to debunk it. You won't get anything positive from it if you don't believe you will and don't look.[/quote]This reminds me almost of a word salad. I am sure there is a meaning to this but somehow it is lost on me.

So if a Muslim told you that there is no violence or contradictions in the Koran and they are a religion of peace, even more so than Christianity, how would you reply? How would you reply afterwards if the Muslim said you were merely incorrectly interpreting and understanding their religion?

This is the thought stopping that you are doing... You are putting your bible in the realm of, "[i]it only means what I want it to mean[/i]".

Edited September 23, 2011 by Mr.Cat

[Mr.Cat]

[quote name='Mark of the Cross' timestamp='1316735786' post='2308697']Slavery is wrong from a Christian viewpoint. From a non religious view what is wrong with the 'Borg' system and Slavery. Hitlerism, killing of inferior people, the sick, old and defective. Breeding for the purpose of superior life forms is logical. We do it with animals and don't think it immoral what makes it immoral for humans apart from souls.[/quote]Show me in the Bible a place where god or jesus condemn slavery? Because I can show you more than several places where both condone or even encourage it. Can you explain how slavery is wrong in Christianity?

To answer your questions... Slavery is diametrically opposed to freedom of society and individuals, therefore I propose it as wrong. Hitler was a Catholic/Christian, he in fact speaks strongly against atheism and enemies of Christianity, there is nothing non-religious about this. Breeding happens all the time, even "[i]voluntary eugenics[/i]" when we consider what our offspring will be like. The violation of freedom happens when eugenics is [b]NOT[/b] completely voluntary[i]..[/i][i].[/i] We generally do not consider animals to have intelligent sentience and are not the same species as us homo sapians sapians.
[quote name='Mark of the Cross' timestamp='1316736007' post='2308698']Yeah and females don't have souls. You made your own point there. They did what you are doing.[/quote]Was this supposed to not make sense?
[quote name='Mark of the Cross' timestamp='1316736007' post='2308698']People decide? Morality evolves? Interesting! If it doesn't come from religion/God where does it originate. What makes us decide or more accurately what drives our consciences to decide what is moral. What makes conscience evolve? What is conscience?[/quote]Isn't that what your Church does when it decides what is moral and teaches about it? Such as end of life procedures and euthanasia?
[quote name='Mark of the Cross' timestamp='1316736007' post='2308698']Any difference in what various religions consider as moral are due to corruption or errors. Do we teach morality? Do you need to be told that it is immoral to expose yourself in public?[/quote]Do you expose yourself in public? People do at nude beaches. Are nude beaches immoral? [i]Not that I would ever attend one...[/i]
[quote name='Mark of the Cross' timestamp='1316736007' post='2308698']As soon as you start losing you will know God joined the debate.[/quote]Was that supposed to not make sense too?
[quote name='Mark of the Cross' timestamp='1316736007' post='2308698']On the subject of debate. I do not consider this a debate, I have know from as soon as Mr Cat responded to my post that I was in a Kobayashi Maru situation. I've merely been playing along for the amusement. (Not intending to defame you Mr Cat just pointing out that from past experience I know you will not stop!)[/quote]You are not playing, but be welcome to pretend and say you are. But I can now see that you are not interested in an actual discussion as I suspected before, this non-discussion is over till you seriously decide to have a discussion.

However you are the only one who wrote of this as a debate, I did not. I also take it you admit defeat, which is the ultimate point of the Kobayashi Maru simulation, [i]unless you cheat[/i]. So I accept your admission of defeat and we can conclude our non-discussion.

Edited September 23, 2011 by Mr.Cat

[Winchester]

[quote name='Mr.Cat' timestamp='1316738609' post='2308707']
So I accept you're admission of defeat and we can conclude our non-discussion.
[/quote]
I don't think Mark actually [i]is [/i]an admission of defeat.

[Mr.Cat]

[quote name='Winchester' timestamp='1316740444' post='2308716']I don't think Mark actually [i]is [/i]an admission of defeat.[/quote]How do you know?

But where would I be without my pedantic comrade? Corrected nonetheless, does that calm your obsessive desire to correct me?

[Winchester]

[quote name='Mr.Cat' timestamp='1316740601' post='2308717']
How do you know?[/quote]
I am very wise. That's how.

[quote]But where would I be without my pedantic comrade? Corrected nonetheless, does that calm your obsessive desire to correct me?
[/quote]
It's not just you, although you may feel as though it is. I once sent a letter into the union paper with the wrong their, they're, there choice. Yeesh.

[Mr.Cat]

[quote name='Winchester' timestamp='1316741021' post='2308719']I am very wise. That's how.[/quote]I was hopeful you would say god told you and gave you the secret handshake. [quote name='Winchester' timestamp='1316741021' post='2308719']It's not just you, although you may feel as though it is. I once sent a letter into the union paper with the wrong their, they're, there choice. Yeesh.[/quote]I know... That is why I call you a pedant.

BUT... I agree. If you are writing a public publication I do hope there is some professionalism. That should of been caught by their people who are supposed to screen their writers.

[Winchester]

[quote name='Mr.Cat' timestamp='1316741666' post='2308728']
I was hopeful you would say god told you and gave you the secret handshake. I know... That is why I call you a pedant.

BUT... I agree. If you are writing a public publication I do hope there is some professionalism. That should of been caught by their people who are supposed to screen their writers.
[/quote]
I see what you did there.

[Guest]

Mr. Cat show me one example in the old testement where God had someone killed for no reason at all. Show me one example where God had someone killed just for the heck of it. God kills everyone in the end we all die. When my grandpa died of horrible chest pains and a heart attack it is fair to say God killed him. Does this make God evil ? Anyways back to my original question. Give me one passage where God had one of His men kill someone just to kill them for fun. For no reason. Thanks.

[Mr.Cat]

I'm not going to get an apology am I? I also suppose you are going to remain church militant?

But alright... in Genesis chapter 41 it seems Joseph may believe the great famine for seven years through the entire world was somehow from "[i]god[/i]". He says, "[i]God will shortly bring it to pass[/i]". There doesn't seem to be any apparent reason for this... I suppose you could argue that it was to make Joseph wealthy and respectable with the Pharaoh/Egyptian people... but that's not an explanation to why it needed to be the entire world? One can assume that this made many suffer and at least some die... ([i]Liberally speculated at about 70,000 people[/i])

If you believe that "[i]god[/i]" somehow created a natural order where there is a natural conclusion to life, a "[i]natural death[/i]"... That is indirect and passive enough that I would not consider it for this discussion. If you believe that "[i]god[/i]" somehow plagued humanity to suffer and die for all time because of original sin, this is still indirect enough that I generally would not consider it for this discussion. But if you believe "[i]god[/i]" intentionally plagued the entire world for no apparent reason with great famine to cause suffering and death... well... This is primarily what I hoped the discussion to focus on. If you believe "[i]god[/i]" specifically killed anyone or instructed anyone to be killed for any reason, when he specifically gives a commandment not to kill, this is primarily what I hoped the discussion to focus on.... 2.5-25 million people specifically dead from this, that's a lot of people.

But a passage where "[i]god[/i]" instructs his people to "[i]just to kill them for fun[/i]" without any reason... That's a contradiction... For fun can be a reason. Which is a bit of the problem with most of this questioning... I almost suspect your questions are intentionally obtuse and missing the point. Someone could even argue that "[i]god[/i]" instructing them to kill is a reason in of itself...

Also as I have stated before, I am not a bible expert and neither do I desire to be. I opened this topic with three links that you are welcome to examine. Almost all of my examples are coming from those three links and you are welcome to investigate further.[quote name='Delivery Boy' timestamp='1311499402' post='2274797']I'd be honored if you called me a killer. Delivery Killer Boy.[/quote]But with this kind of comment from before, coupled with other comments, I get the impression that you will rationalize any and all killings by/for/in the name of god...

So if you don't mind may I ask you a question? Why does your god need to kill at all? Why can't your god offer his own defense, why does this god need you to give me explanations or excuses? If you answer the way I suspect you will, the futility of answering you may become apparent. In which case another non-discussion comes forward.

Edited September 23, 2011 by Mr.Cat

[Winchester]

Need?

[Mr.Cat]

[quote name='Winchester' timestamp='1316785294' post='2308889']Need?[/quote]Well... if you are willing to admit that "god" in the bible kills without any imperative... that... says a lot.

[Winchester]

Where would God get imperatives?

[Guest]

Ok Mr. Cat thanks for your answer. You seem really intelligent and I would hope you could see what I was doing with the thread I started. I was playing off the impression and judgments you have put on God and His people. I was not threating to kill you and I also thought you had asked the question about listening to God if He instructed you to kill someone. I was wrong and it was stevil. I do want to say sorry to you and I do mean that. I live off the message of Jesus which is love and peace. I do also believe there is a difference between murder and killing though. I will answer your other points in your post when I wake up. I can't keep my eyes open now. Again I am sorry if you took what I said in the other thread out of context. Ok man Godbless and goodnight.

Edited September 23, 2011 by Guest

[Mr.Cat]

Well, I am pleasantly surprised, an instance it is good to be shown wrong. Apology accepted.

[Guest]

[quote name='Mr.Cat' timestamp='1316786490' post='2308898']Well, I am pleasantly surprised, an instance it is good to be shown wrong. Apology accepted.[/quote] Thanks brother and so you know I share in your troubles with all the killings in the Old Testement. I also struggle with the story of the cross Jesus had to carry too. Prayers for me and you both. Godbless and goodnight.

Edited September 23, 2011 by Guest

[sixpence]

Admittedly, I have not read every post in this thread (though I do intend to soon), but I am failing to understand your problem with the concept that God CANNOT be immoral.
You can either assume that morality comes from God, (eg. it is His will), and that therefore he cannot be immoral...
OR assume that our "morality" is the product of natural selection/ evolution of social behavior etc. Under that assumption why on earth would ANY non-human entity be expected to obey the rule of human "morality" whether it was a cat or a deity or an alien?

edit: grammar fail

Edited September 23, 2011 by sixpence

[Mark of the Cross]

[quote name='Mr.Cat' timestamp='1316738222' post='2308706']
I am not wanting to read anything [u][b]into[/b][/u] the Bible, I have merely represented what is written there, no interpretations...
[/quote]
I thought you read into the Bible that God is a moral monster. If it is merely written there then please point it out.

Obviously from your responses we don't understand each other. A fact that I have been aware of from a previous discussion with you. When I said you were difficult to understand, I did not necessarily mean that in a derogatory way. You will recall that I left open the possibility that you are clever, which could also mean that I am floundering in my understanding of what you are on about. You should have been able to pick up that I gave you the benefit of the doubt at least! I have continued to respond to you...I said amusement.. maybe that's a little harsh. Lets change it to, I have been having an interesting discussion with you. But at this time you are not responding to what I am trying to convey and have misunderstood most of what I wrote. So yes I agree with you it's time to let it rest. You say that you are a qualified debater. I am not and as I've always maintained I write on these forums more for my own learning and exercising the few neurons that I have left. than trying to win debates which would be similar to going around picking fights for the pleasure of beating the dung out of someone. It's not very Christian. I have no ill feelings toward you, it has been fun even though I'm a little disappointed that I was not able to convey more accurately what I was attempting too. I hope we can consider each other at least jousting friends. G'day mate!

Edited September 23, 2011 by Mark of the Cross

[Socrates]

Through the sin of Adam, everybody must die. None of us makes it out of life alive. As God is the author of life and death, it is up to him to decide how and when death takes place, not us.

An atheist would have to believe that morality is simply a set of rules invented by human beings, nothing more.
There is no reason to think that an infinite God must be forced to play by rules made up by humans.

But since apparently the OP has apparently already decided that God is just a silly made-up character, this is all pointless and begging the question. I mean, there's no reason for me rail on for pages and pages against the actions of Daffy Duck (or should I type that in all lc as "daffy duck"?).

[Mr.Cat]

[quote name='Mark of the Cross' timestamp='1316812667' post='2309022']I thought you read into the Bible that God is a moral monster. If it is merely written there then please point it out.

Obviously from your responses we don't understand each other. A fact that I have been aware of from a previous discussion with you. When I said you were difficult to understand, I did not necessarily mean that in a derogatory way. You will recall that I left open the possibility that you are clever, which could also mean that I am floundering in my understanding of what you are on about. You should have been able to pick up that I gave you the benefit of the doubt at least! I have continued to respond to you...I said amusement.. maybe that's a little harsh. Lets change it to, I have been having an interesting discussion with you. But at this time you are not responding to what I am trying to convey and have misunderstood most of what I wrote. So yes I agree with you it's time to let it rest. You say that you are a qualified debater. I am not and as I've always maintained I write on these forums more for my own learning and exercising the few neurons that I have left. than trying to win debates which would be similar to going around picking fights for the pleasure of beating the dung out of someone. It's not very Christian. I have no ill feelings toward you, it has been fun even though I'm a little disappointed that I was not able to convey more accurately what I was attempting too. I hope we can consider each other at least jousting friends. G'day mate![/quote]I think you are trying to defend an unsupportable position by appealing to informal logic fallacies or denial of some kind. But the only references I can think of off the top of my head where I call god a "[i]moral monster[/i]" are [i]"what if[/i]" situations intended to spark a reply. As I mentioned already, I don't believe in "god" and I view the bible as fictional, I have no motivation to reasonably prove that a non-existent god in a fictional story is somehow a monster. But as I mentioned before, this discussion never attained the depth I hoped it would, which is why I originally posted it to the theology section. But the outrageous lack of coherent, reasonable, or logical rebuttal to this kind of accusation is a bit surprising.

But this concludes our non-discussion... and I am generally indifferent about you and most people in this thread. I know that this is you defending your faith from what you perceive as a threat, is an expected and normal response.[quote name='sixpence' timestamp='1316807916' post='2309000']Admittedly, I have not read every post in this thread (though I do intend to soon), but I am failing to understand your problem with the concept that God CANNOT be immoral.
You can either assume that morality comes from God, (eg. it is His will), and that therefore he cannot be immoral...
OR assume that our "morality" is the product of natural selection/ evolution of social behavior etc. Under that assumption why on earth would ANY non-human entity be expected to obey the rule of human "morality" whether it was a cat or a deity or an alien?

edit: grammar fail[/quote]That was one aspect of the discussion that I ventured with Winchester, honestly I think if he admitted that god can do bad/wrong acts... or at least appear to do so in the context of the bible... I think I would of had a lot more respect for Winchester in this discussion. But I would of then expected something supportable from the Bible to demonstrate how this is so, otherwise it would just be an arbitrary and convenient "[i]interpretation[/i]". So this isn't my problem.

Shintoism for example has no problems in admitting their gods and goddesses are capable of doing evil deeds...

But in regards to "[i]god[/i]" following his own rules... In some nations their elected officials have immunity from the law, at least till their term of office is complete. In almost all nations diplomats are granted this privileged immunity. But when it comes to OUR laws we can go to the law books and show how they are specifically exempted and even how they are to be held responsible later. But no where in the bible does this "[i]god[/i]" specifically exempt himself and even if he does, it still makes that god hypocritical to do differently or then expect his faithful to do differently. It's a problem of appealing to authority and special pleading.

Though as the topic suggests... it's not the morality of "[i]god[/i]" or his actions that are necessarily in question, but if that "[i]god[/i]" for his attitudes and behaviors could be considered a monster. Because of the lack of reply to previous points and focusing on this aspect, I am suspecting that maybe there is no defense to this. Because a monster can still do good things but be a monster...

Edited September 24, 2011 by Mr.Cat

[Mr.Cat]

[quote name='Socrates' timestamp='1316812691' post='2309023']An atheist would have to believe that morality is simply a set of rules invented by human beings, nothing more.
There is no reason to think that an infinite God must be forced to play by rules made up by humans.[/quote]A nihilist would argue the arbitrary nature of morality, which even if your god made up that morality, it is still arbitrarily made up... just by a supposed god. [b]Atheists are not necessarily nihilists, its two different philosophies[/b]. But thanks to previous encounters you have displayed to me serious problems with overly generalizing issues the slippery slope fallacy, so I have no intention on discussing this with you... because you will eventually just call me a communist and later claim I'm some immigrant trying to take your job...

No thanks.

Edited September 24, 2011 by Mr.Cat