Why does God not follow the Golden Rule? His best rule?

First topic message reminder :

Why does God not follow the Golden Rule? His best rule?


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G_-nHw0_Fos&feature=player_embedded

I have a hard time seeing God as --- doing unto others as he would want done to himself --- in the clip above. I cannot see God wanting someone to do what he did to the women who owned those wombs to him. He is therefore certainly not walking his talk or following his own good advice.

It seems that people are more responsible than God, as we are trying to get everyone on board the Golden Rule that God ignores.

http://www.pbs.org/moyers/journal/03132009/watch.html

Regards
DL

polyglide wrote:DR, Sheldon,
                 I understood that Stu was no longer going to post, I cannot help but keep his chin up by showing what a first class idiot you are.

Stu and I have been friends for quite some time, and he's a genuinely nice guy. He does not share your beliefs at all, and is as much an atheist as I am. So it's hilarious you think you're besting me here, and equally hilarious you think stu shares your delusion. However that's not what you said, you claimed you "had just heard of stu's situation." You lied as my quotes above show, and you used stu's illness as an excuse to take a swipe at me, to avoid answering my post. The fact that you now resort to childish insults rather than show some integrity and admit it is no surprise. Your petty childish insult speak for itself as well, as they always do, and again I'm more than happy for anyone to read the posts here and make their own mind up about where your claim really belongs. Especially as you dole out the same childish ad hominem to everyone who rejects your beliefs, including I might add stu and Shirina, both of whom you later posted sickeningly hypocritical and self righteous condolences to in a show of false pious humility. Keep it up chum, and I'll dig up the posts where you called them stupid as well. You really are something else, and this has been a very edifying glimpse into the "moral" ascendancy that religion provides.

Dr, Sheldon,
Having deep concerns for others problems and feelings of sympathy is not in any way invalidated by not agreeing with those concerned opinions, they are entirely different.

To assume my feelings are false gives a clear indication that yours are suspect as I would never have even considered them to be so previously.

I think I will have given far more of my time and efforts in aiding the handicapped than you have over a very long period.

Not talking about helping but doing so.

Wether you believe it or not I pray for Stu's welfare every night, I believe in actually doing rather than perpetually quoting the work of others and having nothing of consequence to offer yourself.

How you do love to brag.

You didn't just disagree with stu and Shirina you insulted their intelligence. As you have done to every poster who has tried to discuss religion with you.


The reason they have all given up except me is that it's almost impossible to discuss anything with you due to your blinkered entrenched dogma and what is by any standards a very poor grasp of the written word. The complexities of logic and the dynamics of properly evidenced polemic.

Not to mention your childish propensity for ad hominem, and most of all the dishonest way you completely ignore what others have posted and just endlessly repeat your own beliefs and claims with acknowledging they've even offered a refutation.

Dr, Sheldon,
I have never bragged about anything, I have just stated the facts to refute your own spurious remarks.

As for your repeated references to ad hominem, do you actually read your own posts they are full of the same.

You have no understanding of, omnipotence, faith,[ as applied to God] evolution regarding the origin of life, not the Darwin theories which are obvious to anyone without all the time he wasted,
and obviously believe in nothing unless it involves a peer review and better still a Nobel Prize, strange.

polyglide wrote:Dr, Sheldon,
                I have never bragged about anything, I have just stated the facts to refute your own spurious remarks.

You bragged about your charity work, and I had made no comment whatsoever about it, so two lies in the same sentence there. My remarks referred directly to your use of ad hominem against anyone who had disagreed with your beliefs on here, including, but not limited to, Shirina and stu, if you don't like this being highlighted then stop resorting to childish insults in place of cogent well reasoned arguments.

Polyglide wrote:As for your repeated references to ad hominem, do you actually read your own posts they are full of the same.

No they're not, unfortunately you never seem able to know the difference between a derogation of a point or argument, and pure ad hominem, on the odd occasion you have exhausted my patience I have offered the same back, but always after addressing the content, such as it is, of your posts. I have repeatedly offered definitions and links for ad hominem, do try and learn what it is, as your endless petty insults are a waste of time. It's not like I am the first poster to receive them either, which was my point.

Polyglide wrote:You have no understanding of, omnipotence,

Don't be absurd I've repeatedly quoted both the OED and the Merriam Webster dictionary definitions, precisely as they define the word in the context it applies to a deity. I have stuck to these definitions, you have not.

Polyglide wrote: evolution regarding the origin of life, not the Darwin theories which are obvious to anyone without all the time he wasted,

Again the arrogance of such a claim speaks for itself, as does the stupidity, even before anyone reads your many comments on the subject, and no, none of that is ad hominem, PLEASE LEARN WHY....

Polyglide wrote:and obviously believe in nothing unless it involves a peer review and better still a Nobel Prize, strange.

I see the lies are racking up now, those criteria have only been used where you have spuriously claimed scientific evidence for hokum superstition like creationism, and since your claim specifically relates to the scientific process it should be obvious why those basic requirements of that process are relevant, and why therefore I have repeatedly tried to explain that not satisfying them makes your claims false.  Others will have read and understood, even if you apparently still won't, or can't. I started a thread elsewhere specifically to discuss why theists think their dogma and doctrine should be considered equally or more valid than the rigorous scientific process that has innumerable successes in so short a time, when religious claims have been dismantled in the same short time period after being clung to as immutable for thousands of years. You haven't really offered much there, but feel free to go there and try again.

polyglide wrote:Dr, Sheldon, evolution regarding the origin of life,

I'm not sure why you must be told repeatedly that evolution has nothing whatsoever to do with the origin of life, yet you keep dishonestly conflating the two, why? Abiogenesis is not even remotely connected to the science of evolution, and Darwinian evolution is a scientific fact. It's the most well evidenced and thoroughly scrutinised scientific theory we have. No evidence that science has validated in over 150 years of scientific scrutiny has falsified it or the mechanisms that drive it. What is more the dishonest claims that scientists have produced evidence to refute it are demonstrably false precisely because we know exactly what happens when this occurs as science has a very rigid and rigorous methodology.

1. If evolution were disproved or falsified the scientist would be at least as famous as Darwin.
2. The news would flash around the world in an instant.
3. At the very least the scientist(s) involved would receive a Nobel prize.
4. And most importantly the scientific world would discard the falsified or refuted theory.

Now I really can't imagine why anyone would claim repeatedly that this has happened when it quite clearly has not.

The scientific study of abiogenesis has no direct connection to the study of evolution, no matter how much creationists would like to dishonestly try and conflate the two. Far from strengthening your argument it shows you are basing your claims on a very well known misnomer. This is precisely what I am so often pointing out as creationist clichés.

Since I have been repeatedly, and in my opinion very dishonestly, accused of misunderstanding omnipotence in the context it is used to describe the attributes of a deity, I will once again quote the Oxford English Dictionary.

(Of a deity) having unlimited power:
God is described as omnipotent and benevolent

I will ink the page as well:
Link

I shan't waste every one's time by defining unlimited as it speaks for itself. However it is quite obvious that if such a being existed then the ubiquitous suffering we see, could be stopped by that being, and no set of circumstances could rationally be offered as a barrier, as this would limit that being's power.

Conversely if as has been suggested that omnipotent deity chooses to be bound by circumstance and allows this ubiquitous suffering then it can't rationally be described as benevolent, and this is important, even by human standards, but especially when attributing benevolence to a being with both limitless knowledge and power, and which if it existed would self evidently have limitless choice.

Again I think the quote I used a while ago and have since reused, from Epicurus sums it up in a way that beautifully and rationally encapsulates the innate contradictions that theologians describe as theodicy.  

“Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able? Then he is not omnipotent.
Is he able, but not willing? Then he is malevolent.
Is he both able and willing? Then whence cometh evil?
Is he neither able nor willing? Then why call him God?”

For the sake of clarity evil is a human concept, and I think if I were to be pedantic I'd replace it with suffering, but other than that I cannot find fault in Epicurus's assessment of the paradox of theodicy.

Dr, Sheldon,
You can have a Bank Manager who has total control of a Bank.

He can or cannot at will do what he wishes regarding his clients.

This in no way suggests that he has not complete control.

Just as God at the present time is bound, read Matthew, and Satan is ruling the world, God has given Satan a chance to prove God wrong.

This in no way negates the fact that God could wipe out Satan or do anything else, including wiping away all that is wrong including illness etc;

God at the present time will be far more concerned and feeling far worse than any other at the present and past suffering etc;

Howver, his time is fast approaching.

None of that answers my question, is your claim that

1. Your god is bound to its agreement with Satan that allows evil and suffering, through choice, and therefore not benevolent?

or

2 Does your god have to be bound by this agreement (as you claimed earlier)  and therefore is not omnipotent.

Its simple enough, does your god choose to be bound by this agreement, YES or NO?

Dr, Sheldon,
Of course God is bound by any agreement he decides to make, that does not mean he condones anything that is as a result of the agreement, it depends entirely on what basis the agreement is made.

I know, I know, it is too complicated for you to understand, get someone to explain.

You seem to be having the same argument on two threads?

boatlady wrote:You seem to be having the same argument on two threads?

True, by polyglide on Wed Jun 03, 2015 12:20 pm, introduced omnipotence with yet another tedious accusation that I don't understand it, which I've come to realise means I won't accept his subjective definition and am pedantically sticking with the OED. Which he finds infuriating, because he genuinely believes he's solved the paradox of theodicy.

Obviously if I was to answer the thread question then it'd be because god is an entirely human creation, and all the evidence supports this, the human propensity for creating deities which is evidenced by the sheer number we've created, the fact that we anthropomorphise them is amply proved by their fallible and erroneous message(s), so when their behaviour depicted in religious texts falls short of human morality after just a few thousand years later it's hardly surprising as the morals are also man made and fallible because of it.

polyglide wrote:Dr, Sheldon,  Of course God is bound by any agreement he decides to make, that does not mean he condones anything that is as a result of the agreement, 

If he chooses to be bound by it then he's not benevolent, whether or not he condones the result is irrelevant, if he is bound but not out of choice then he isn't omnipotent, this is theodicy in a nutshell, as I have tried to make you understand, why not go away and study it instead of insulting me for trying to help you grasp it?

Polyglide wrote:I know, I know, it is too complicated for you to understand, get someone to explain.

Not at all, but it does seem to have you somewhat confused. Here's a link to explain it again:

Theodicy

Now which is it, bound by choice and not benevolent, or bound without choice and not omnipotent? See not complex at all really....

Dr, Sheldon,
How you think benevolent comes into this is beyond me.

Benevolent, means, characterized by or expressing goodwill.

When God gave Satan the chance to turn all humans against him it did not in any way involve anything other than giving Satan a chance , just as God gave mankind free choice, he gave Satan a certain amount of time to do his worst, this in no way contradicts that God is omnipotent, in fact it confirms that God is able to do anything he wishes, wether we like it or not.

Dr, Sheldon,
Theodicy is explained by God not being responsible for evil as he actually does not interfere in matters at the present time, all the evil in the world is caused by mankind who has free choice, if mankind got his act together there would be far less evil.

Polyglide wrote: How you think benevolent comes into this is beyond me.

Benevolent, means, characterized by or expressing goodwill.

Yes I've noticed it is beyond you. Not to worry I'll elucidate it one more time for you.

If....as you and Christianity claim, a deity exists with limitless power and benevolence then this claim is directly contradicted by the presence of ubiquitous suffering and evil. Benevolence is salient because a benevolent being would not allow this, let alone an omni-benevolent being that was also omnipotent.

Hope this helps you understand. However should you still be struggling you could read my many quotes of Epicurus. Or alternatively look at the many links I've posted defining theodicy. Or even get a knowledgeable christian theologian to explain the paradox that theodicy deals with.

polyglide wrote:Dr, Sheldon,
                Theodicy is explained by God not being responsible for evil as he actually does not interfere in matters at the present time, all the evil in the world is caused by mankind who has free choice, if mankind got his act together there would be far less evil.

You can't evidence that of course. However, that aside, an omnipotent being can stop evil and suffering whilst simultaneously maintaining free will, as nothing is impossible for omnipotence. A benevolent being would not allow suffering or evil.

So whilst evil and suffering are obvious facts your religion's claims are demonstrably wrong. That is where theodicy cones from,  the innate paradox that theologians can't solve.

Far less evil would still leave evil. Also you claimed the devil was fooling us so how is that our fault? You also claim god allows this willingly so how is such a deity benevolent? You also don't tackle the ubiquitous suffering that occurred for hundreds of millions of years before humans existed.

All in all not a very compelling argument and completely unevidenced of course.

Dr, Sheldon,
Will you please try and understand the following: God's hands are tied regarding what Satan is being allowed to do, you are intimating that an omnipotent being cannot allow an arrangement to be made, when in fact an omnopoten can do ANYTHING.

God could wipe out anything he wanted to and do anything he wanted to, he has allowed Satan a chance to prove him wrong, that is what omnipotence allows, ie; anything.

spelling

polyglide wrote:Dr, Sheldon,
                Will you please try and understand the following: God's hands are tied regarding what Satan is being allowed to do, you are intimating that an omnipotent being cannot allow an arrangement to be made, when in fact an omnopoten can do ANYTHING.

               God could wipe out anything he wanted to and do anything he wanted to, he has allowed Satan a chance to prove him wrong, that is what omnipotence allows, ie; anything.  

As I have repeatedly explained and am about to do again I HAVE NEVER SAID GOD CANNOT DO ANYTHING. I don;t believe in god, why are you repeating this claim when I have said plainly it isn't true? I know what I think, I don;t need anyone to tell me.

You have again made two mutually exlusive choices.

1. Either god chooses it's "hands to be tied" and allows Satan and evil.
2. Or God has no choice and his are tied and so Satan and evil exist

If it's 1 then such a being would not be benevolent, if its 2 then such a being is not omnipotent. That's theodicy, have you even read the links I posted explaining theodicy?

So which is it, 1, or 2?

polyglide wrote: God could wipe out anything he wanted to and do anything he wanted to, he has allowed Satan a chance to prove him wrong, that is what omnipotence allows, ie; anything.  

That would mean he's allowing evil and suffering out of choice, so he's not benevolent, as your religion claims.

In point of fact omnipotence means unlimited power, such a being could literally do anything, That means it could keep it's deal, allow Satan, stop suffering and evil, instantly make every human know it exists, and still maintain free will.

Of course it's a fact that a deity hasn't done this, and so such a deity either isn't as your religion has claimed or doesn't exist. The latter is far more likely given the human propensity for creating fictitious deities.

Dr, Sheldon,
We appear to differ on the most important aspect of this matter.

God could and eventuallly will do what you credit his abilities with and all things being equal he would have done so in the beggining.

We differ regarding Satan, why God has allowed Satan the chance to defy him I know not, that is between God and Satan and probably beyond our understanding as we are unaware of what goes on between the residents of the place in which God dwells but the facts are that Christians believe that this is the present position and explains why God at this time is allowing Satan to do his worst in an attempt to turn all mankind against God.

The problem is if you do not believe in God then you will always have the same problem and I have no means of changing your mind other than to request you consider all that you see and all that you experience and find a better explanation.

polyglide wrote:Dr, Sheldon, We appear to differ on the most important aspect of this matter. God could and eventuallly will do what you credit his abilities with and all things being equal he would have done so in the beggining.

This doesn't alter that evil and suffering is ubiquitous and if a being possesses the ability to stop this and chooses not to then that is not benevolent, quite the opposite.

Polyglide wrote:   We differ regarding Satan, why God has allowed Satan the chance to defy him I know not, that is between God and Satan and probably beyond our understanding as we are unaware of what goes on between the residents of the place in which God dwells but the facts are that Christians believe that this is the present position and explains why God at this time is allowing Satan to do his worst in an attempt to turn all mankind against God.

Well we differ in that I reject the notion that these remnants of ancient superstitions exist. The illogical nature of the claims and innate paradoxes they generate merely add to the weight of evidence that supports that rejection. It's also worth noting that since the vast majority of humans are theists then Satan isn't doing a very good job if he exists.

Polyglide wrote:  The problem is if you do not believe in God then you will always have the same problem and I have no means of changing your mind other than to request you consider all that you see and all that you experience and find a better explanation.

   

The problem is one of  logic, and it's believing such a deity exists that creates it, not rejecting that belief, my atheism doesn't require I try to solve this paradox after all, whereas the Christian church has dedicated some of it's finest minds to the branch of theology that deals with theodicy. So it is believers who will always have this problem as they're no nearer to solving it now than when they started, hardly surprising as the problem has only one unequivocal solution that I'm aware of and that is the rejection of the belief that a deity with benevolence and omnipotence exists. These discussions are not about changing the minds of others, that's what proselytising is for, and it should be clear that I have considered all that I see before arriving at an explanation, and I try my best to base it on solid evidence and rational logic, weighed as objectively as I can.  

You might want to consider that an atheist is free to contemplate whether a god exists or not, as and when they please, and weigh all the evidence. Theists by comparison are constantly admonished to have faith no matter what the evidence shows, and to adhere rigidly to one text or book as immutable no matter what it claims, either by semantics and allegory, or even worse by outright denial of known well evidenced facts when they contradict it. It should be clear which position is the more likely to involve some objectivity.

This is incontrovertible proof that God is evil. God does not live by his own golden rule.

God kills when he could just as easily cure. This is irrefutable.

This is a clear violation of the golden rule. The golden rule as articulated by Jesus.

God then is clearly evil.

Do you agree with Jesus that anyone who breaks the golden rule is evil?

Regards
DL

I am not sure what you think proves God is evil.

Satan is running things on earth from the time he challenged God, God will only interfere when Satan oversteps the mark or a true Christain asks for help or his faithfull are unduely attacked.

Even were one to break the golden rule ( I am not sure to what you are actually refering) and you were classed as evil, this not mean you are condemned to death, it just means you have fallen off the faith.

Of course Jesus is not evil, to suggest so is not in the best interests of any debate regarding religion, and Jesus in particular. and it is even more difficult to understand from people who do not accept that the BIble also condemns many other things that others think right.

Regards.

Greatest I am wrote:This is incontrovertible proof that God is evil. God does not live by his own golden rule.

God kills when he could just as easily cure. This is irrefutable.

This is a clear violation of the golden rule. The golden rule as articulated by Jesus.

God then is clearly evil.

Do you agree with Jesus that anyone who breaks the golden rule is evil?

Regards
DL

Well it's evidence that the concept of the Christian deity is evil. and why theologians have struggled with 'Theodicy' or the argument from evil since before Christianity was created.

polyglide wrote:

1) Satan is running things on earth from the time he challenged God, God will only interfere when Satan oversteps the mark or a true Christain asks for help or his faithfull are unduely attacked.

2) Even were one to break the golden rule ( I am not sure to what you are actually refering) and you were classed as evil, this not mean you are condemned to death, it just means you have fallen off the faith.

3) Of course Jesus is not evil, to suggest so is not in the best interests of any debate regarding religion, and Jesus in particular.

4) and it is even more difficult to understand from people who do not accept that the BIble also condemns many other things that others think right.

Regards.

1) Lamentations 3:37
Who is he that saith, and it cometh to pass, when the Lord commandeth it not?

2) "The Golden Rule or law of reciprocity is the principle of treating others as one would wish to be treated. It is a maxim of altruism seen in many human religions and human cultures." Not adhering to this 'rule' might not make a fallible evolved mammal like homo-sapiens evil, but I would argue that an omnipotent and omniscient being would be definition have a far higher level of culpability for it's actions, or even omission of action. It's not hard to see why the concept of the deity on the bible would be considered evil, and that would certainly include Jesus, as the bible claims he endorses all the abhorrent and immoral laws and tenets in the OT, and of course worst of all it was gentle Jesus meek and mild who introduced the idea of hell, that humans might not just suffer in this life, but could be tortured for all eternity.

3) On the contrary, and accurate and objective observation is always in the best interests of any debate, and we only have our own reason and rationality combined with human logic, ethics and morality to assess any claims, ideas, or beliefs.

4) Why would that be difficult to understand? I'd have thought it obvious that those who view the bible as entirely human in origin would assess what it says objectively, and without the a priori beliefs that seem to motivate Christians to make such subjective ad hoc rationalisations of texts that in any other circumstance they could view not other way than evil and immoral. I've not noticed any Christians defend things like rapine, genocide, slavery, sex trafficking, and child sacrifices outside of the biblical endorsements of these acts.