How do you know God is the good guy?

[The Happy Humanist]

In another thread, I was told that true morality is found by following God. God, we are told, is the source of absolute morality, the final arbiter of good and evil in the universe.

How do we know this? How do we come to assume that God's good is really good? Sure, we are told as much by the Bible. But it's one thing to accept the Bible as God's word...but what if he's lying?

What I'm asking is, what is it about God that makes you so sure he's the good guy, the one you should be following? And how can you trust your instincts in this regard, when you believe he is the source of your moral compass in the first place? Would it not be possible for a Supreme Being to plant a moral compass in you that automatically registers his words as "good", no matter what?

So? Discuss!

[Tigerlilly]

I may be hateful, spiteful, and evil, but I can assure you, I'm not bored. Razz Maybe I'm # 40,000,001. icon_confused2

For believing that God doesn't exist, you sure do despise Him. I find that hard to understand. I don't despise the Imaginary Pink Unicorn, and I wouldn't even if his/her/its followers ascribed all sorts of horrible things to him/her/it, or did horrible things in his/her/its name. I might despise them, but not a being that I believe doesn't exist.

I don't dispise it as a real entity. I dispise the literary figure, as much as I would dispise say...Dr. Freeze. Except people, iirc, don't worship Dr. Freez and develope a frozen culture around him.

I don't like the idea of it and what it does. I have nothing against some imaginary figure, although I use his deeds to show the opposite of what many think he represents literarily.

[Bro Dave]

I may be hateful, spiteful, and evil, but I can assure you, I'm not bored. Razz Maybe I'm # 40,000,001. icon_confused2

For believing that God doesn't exist, you sure do despise Him. I find that hard to understand. I don't despise the Imaginary Pink Unicorn, and I wouldn't even if his/her/its followers ascribed all sorts of horrible things to him/her/it, or did horrible things in his/her/its name. I might despise them, but not a being that I believe doesn't exist.

I don't dispise it as a real entity. I dispise the literary figure, as much as I would dispise say...Dr. Freeze. Except people, iirc, don't worship Dr. Freez and develope a frozen culture around him.

I don't like the idea of it and what it does. I have nothing against some imaginary figure, although I use his deeds to show the opposite of what many think he represents literarily.

If I may, please try not to be too hard on Christian, or for that matter any religious groups. Their pictures and understanding of God and His nature are a collection of woefully inadaquate thoughts and words, forced into pattern in "holy books", which men have declared to be "perfect". Neither the men nor their book are perfect, nor do we have any real chance of describing God in His Infinity. The experience is entirely personal, and once achieved, undeniable. Which, unfortunately, leaves those who have experienced God's personal presents anxious to share what truly cannot be shared. I believe the closes "description" understanable to us mortals in in the Urantia Book. Its worth a look.

Bro Dave

[potwalloper.]

Jimspeiser wrote

And if it was planted in us by God, how can it be trusted?* It's not "unbiased", and therefore worthless as an instrument!

This is a very good point and raises a number of questions - a predisposition for a belief in God's word together with an innate perceptual bias as described would certainly help to fulfill her purpose (being worshipped by all) and would reduce the likelihood of challenge. The question would then, of course, have to be asked why any omniscient being that knew all possible outcomes at the point at which she created the universe would bother to go ahead and create it anyway in such circumstances. It would be like playing the same game of chess over and over and over...for all eternity (whatever that may be).

That aside I think that the issue of only being provided with one side of the argument is more valid in this context. God is claimed to be "good" by believers and this claim appears to be based on biblical teachings (setting aside God's rather poor record on human rights of course). Biblical teachings that came from...er god (allegedly).

Now if you were to vote in an election but were only ever given information by the Democrats (including all of the information about the characteristics, views, actions and beliefs of the Republicans) would you be likely to vote Republican? The answer is probably no, because you would have no checks and balances against which to temper the views put forward by the Democrats. You would be a brainwashed Democrat. Similar to Christians who accept biblical references at face value - they reject out of hand anything that opposes this singular worldview.

Good as defined by Christians appears to differ from the principle of "good" as developed within modern society and is not absolute but is relative and may be subject to alteration dependent upon the actions of their deity (whatever she/he/it does is "good" no matter whether or not this contradicts with the commonsense view of what is right and proper in a civilised society). God could simultaneously murder thousands of babies whilst disembowelling a million nuns and his/her/its actions would still be perceived as good by many Christians by the very fact that God did it. The Christian views on the recent Tsunami are a case in point here (they range from abdication of responsibility through to "God's plan" but never seem to accept any element of culpability on god's part in spite of the omniscience principle and their view that God created tectonic plates).

Fortunately I do not believe in God and as such see her/him/it as purely conceptual - neither good nor bad.

If I were to accept the bible, however, in a literal sense I'm afraid that God would have to be rated as worse than Hitler, Stalin, Pol Pot, Caligula, Idi Amin and all of the other evil dictators throughout history. This rating would be a simple logical interpretation based upon her human rights record to date as described in the OT...

...whilst it is rather bleak I can't find anything that Tigerlilly has said that I can disagree with.

[chrispalasz]

potwalloper: a predisposition for a belief in God's word together with an innate perceptual bias as described would certainly help to fulfill her purpose (being worshipped by all) and would reduce the likelihood of challenge. The question would then, of course, have to be asked why any omniscient being that knew all possible outcomes at the point at which she created the universe would bother to go ahead and create it anyway in such circumstances. It would be like playing the same game of chess over and over and over...for all eternity (whatever that may be).

That aside I think that the issue of only being provided with one side of the argument is more valid in this context. God is claimed to be "good" by believers and this claim appears to be based on biblical teachings (setting aside God's rather poor record on human rights of course). Biblical teachings that came from...er god (allegedly).

Now if you were to vote in an election but were only ever given information by the Democrats (including all of the information about the characteristics, views, actions and beliefs of the Republicans) would you be likely to vote Republican? The answer is probably no, because you would have no checks and balances against which to temper the views put forward by the Democrats. You would be a brainwashed Democrat. Similar to Christians who accept biblical references at face value - they reject out of hand anything that opposes this singular worldview.

Good as defined by Christians appears to differ from the principle of "good" as developed within modern society and is not absolute but is relative and may be subject to alteration dependent upon the actions of their deity (whatever she/he/it does is "good" no matter whether or not this contradicts with the commonsense view of what is right and proper in a civilised society). God could simultaneously murder thousands of babies whilst disembowelling a million nuns and his/her/its actions would still be perceived as good by many Christians by the very fact that God did it. The Christian views on the recent Tsunami are a case in point here (they range from abdication of responsibility through to "God's plan" but never seem to accept any element of culpability on god's part in spite of the omniscience principle and their view that God created tectonic plates).

Fortunately I do not believe in God and as such see her/him/it as purely conceptual - neither good nor bad.

If I were to accept the bible, however, in a literal sense I'm afraid that God would have to be rated as worse than Hitler, Stalin, Pol Pot, Caligula, Idi Amin and all of the other evil dictators throughout history. This rating would be a simple logical interpretation based upon her human rights record to date as described in the OT...

The logic you are using to make a point makes no sense. Try these points together:

1. Do you think you're smarter than God? Do you think you're smarter than a supernatural omniscient, omnipotent, and omnipresent being? Then why do you pretend that your reasoning is smarter or better than His? Why do you pretend that you can think of something that He doesn't know or that He hasn't thought of?

2. Let's pretend, to humor your objection, that the being that I worship, Jesus Christ, planted these ideas in the minds of Christians and that the ideas are false. Why can He plant them in our heads and not yours? If they were false, why would He plant them in the minds of some and not all?

3. If God were bad or evil, why would He tell us to love everyone? Why would He send His one and only Son to die for us? Why would He teach us not to slander, not to steal, not to lie, not to commit adultery, and not to wrong anyone? Why would He teach us that every human being is our neighbor and that we should serve our neighbors? Do you think these ideas are Evil? Because these are the teachings of Christ.

4. If God is the Creator of everything, exactly how does it make sense that His creation can rightfully take what He has created and say that it's wrong or redefine it? What makes you think that God's creation could do anything without His allowing it to happen?

5. If Satan had a "side of the story", and he was able to tell you it - how would you be able to determine whether or not it was true or false?

I wrote: People believe what they want to believe, regardless of what's really there.

jimspeiser: I assume you are including yourself in this...despite the fact that you have said elsewhere "it is not a belief that God is good, it is a fact."

Of course I'm including myself. My testimony speaks for itself. I used to believe what I wanted to believe regardless of what is really there... then I became a Christian. Now I believe what's really there because it's really there. 8)

[potwalloper.]

Greenlight311 wrote

The logic you are using to make a point makes no sense. Try these points together:

1. Do you think you're smarter than God? Do you think you're smarter than a supernatural omniscient, omnipotent, and omnipresent being? Then why do you pretend that your reasoning is smarter or better than His? Why do you pretend that you can think of something that He doesn't know or that He hasn't thought of?

Well it would be difficult to be smarter than something that does not exist.

However, this would all depend upon how we define smarter. If we consider smarter from the point of view of human common sense then it is difficult to consider God as described by Christians as in any way being "smart".

Would a smart superbeing create creatures that are full of design flaws?

Would a smart superbeing that is omniscient create a universe where she already knows the outcomes of everything?

Would a smart superbeing create evil (unless it was for some perverse pleasure)?

Would a smart superbeing create tectonic plates in the knowledge that they would cause earthquakes and tsunamis that would kill hundreds of thousands of people?

I could go on...

On the basis of common sense I'm afraid God comes out as being a few olives short of a pizza.

Now you could say that God (being supersmart) knew all about these things and yet went on to create them anyway. If that is the case then it has to bring into doubt any principle of God's benevolence. Only an innately evil creature would knowingly create such abject misery.

2. Let's pretend, to humor your objection, that the being that I worship, Jesus Christ, planted these ideas in the minds of Christians and that the ideas are false. Why can He plant them in our heads and not yours? If they were false, why would He plant them in the minds of some and not all?

A good point and that is why I feel that the principle of the one-sided presentation of information is more likely than an innate need to believe. However, we have already seen that God is less than perfect - perhaps the predisposition to belief also had a design fault (as does just about everything else about humans) and therefore does not work properly...

3. If God were bad or evil, why would He tell us to love everyone? Why would He send His one and only Son to die for us? Why would He teach us not to slander, not to steal, not to lie, not to commit adultery, and not to wrong anyone? Why would He teach us that every human being is our neighbor and that we should serve our neighbors? Do you think these ideas are Evil? Because these are the teachings of Christ.

Love everyone please (while you are drowning in a tidal wave I created).

Love everone please (while your body is being eaten away by cancer that I created).

Love everyone please (while you are rotting with gangrene).

Love everyone please (oh sorry you can't understand me because I designed you to have Alzheimer's disease).

Love everyone please (oops you drowned in my Great Flood so can't - oh well... )

It is easy to tell people to love each other and be nice and could be rather fun in a perverse way if you created the creatures with a predisposition for the opposite. Indeed making sex the key driver in human behaviour and then telling people it is sinful would be a great laugh (which appears to be what God did if we accept the Christian worldview).

The telling does not make you any less evil I'm afraid.

4. If God is the Creator of everything, exactly how does it make sense that His creation can rightfully take what He has created and say that it's wrong or redefine it? What makes you think that God's creation could do anything without His allowing it to happen?

My wife and I created my son. If I murdered him today would you say it was right? Of course it would not. However using your logic how can it be wrong for me to take away something that I created?

The principle of God's creation not being able to do anything without her allowing it to happen is an interesting one. If we accept this then we must also accept that God is culpable for every evil act that has ever occured throughout the history of mankind. Failure to act to prevent suffering when this lies within your locus of control makes you culpable.

Autonomy cannot be mitigated - you are either autonomous or you are not. As you are describing it the principle of free will falls I'm afraid.

5. If Satan had a "side of the story", and he was able to tell you it - how would you be able to determine whether or not it was true or false?

I wouldn't any more than I can determine whether or not God's side is true or false. It would, however, allow for a determination on the balance of probabilities. One cannot make a judgement when only one side of the story has been presented.

As it stands it is difficult to determine which mythical being is evil and which is good in human terms.

The concept of heaven as described by Christians does come across as both boring and rather patronising. I do not get pleasure from blindly obeying the will of others (God included). "Sit in heaven (where there is no sin) and worship God for all eternity". Since sinful activities appear to be the ones that stimulate the pleasure centres in humans this would not seem to be the most pleasurable experience I can envisage.

Now if heaven were described as "sit in heaven and experience multiple orgasms into all eternity" then it may seem a rather more attractive proposition.

It is likely, of course, that all of the interesting people will be in hell rather than heaven - perhaps if one wants some meaningful interaction hell may be a better proposition.

I am minded of Act 2 in Jerry Springer: the Opera...

[Tigerlilly]

If we actually look at the Bible, Humans are smarter than the omniscient, omnipotent God. But the fact that god is omnipotent and omnipresent doesn't mean he's smarter. That just means he's more powerful.

The logic you are using to make a point makes no sense. Try these points together:

1. Do you think you're smarter than God? Do you think you're smarter than a supernatural omniscient, omnipotent, and omnipresent being? Then why do you pretend that your reasoning is smarter or better than His? Why do you pretend that you can think of something that He doesn't know or that He hasn't thought of?

If we actually look at the Bible, Humans are smarter than the omniscient, omnipotent God. But the fact that god is omnipotent and omnipresent doesn't mean he's smarter. That just means he's more powerful.

That's it. In fact, I can show you in many cases where God's word isn't too smart compared to the knowledge held by human society. Some of God's claims are quite illogical and ridiculous. And before you go off and say: it just makes no sense to us..that doesn't fly. If it doesn't make sense, it's most likely because it makes no sense, not because magically we get it wrong.

The bible is chock-full of anti-scientific principles and almost laughable analogies.


Personally. I like MY theory of why God is the way he is. He suffers from a lack of self-esteem and a non-existent or very weak superego, which allows his Id to rush forth and dominate his Ego.

He also is a prime example of Hegelian Desire for Recognition. It's the motivation of God's behavior.

He's a deity with a godly, supersized sense of self-importance.

The concept of heaven as described by Christians does come across as both boring and rather patronising. I do not get pleasure from blindly obeying the will of others (God included). "Sit in heaven (where there is no sin) and worship God for all eternity". Since sinful activities appear to be the ones that stimulate the pleasure centres in humans this would not seem to be the most pleasurable experience I can envisage.

This is a good example. You hit the nail on the head. It IS boring and patronizing. You don't go to heaven because God loves you, you go to heaven because God wants you near him for closer worship. He wants you there to revel in the glory that is heaven--to praise his name.

Heaven is like the auditorium, and god is the musician playing there. When you die, you become his eternal audience, but only if you don't tick him off. If you do, you are sent to Hell, because you are a troublemaker, a nonconformist--unworthy to bow before him and act as his eternal servant.


When you die, your big prize is to sit and have tea with God for eternity and tell him how wonderful and good he is for letting you stay in his house after he got done killing you.

[The Happy Humanist]

1. Do you think you're smarter than God? Do you think you're smarter than a supernatural omniscient, omnipotent, and omnipresent being? Then why do you pretend that your reasoning is smarter or better than His? Why do you pretend that you can think of something that He doesn't know or that He hasn't thought of?

Invalid. We are attempting to assess the probability of God's existence, using the only tools we have, logic and common sense. It is out of bounds for our purposes to posit that such a being is so much smarter than us that he can defeat our common sense. Why? Because anyone can posit such a being - Murray, for instance. (What's that Murray? Oh, very funny. Murray just said he could think of a few billion beings that are smarter than me.)

2. Let's pretend, to humor your objection, that the being that I worship, Jesus Christ, planted these ideas in the minds of Christians and that the ideas are false. Why can He plant them in our heads and not yours? If they were false, why would He plant them in the minds of some and not all?

Substitute the word "true" for the word "false" and you'll see the mirror image argument that we make. Why do only some people get the God experience, and not others? Our answer: some people are pre-disposed to religious thinking, or self-delusion. Or gas.

3. If God were bad or evil, why would He tell us to love everyone? Why would He send His one and only Son to die for us? Why would He teach us not to slander, not to steal, not to lie, not to commit adultery, and not to wrong anyone? Why would He teach us that every human being is our neighbor and that we should serve our neighbors? Do you think these ideas are Evil? Because these are the teachings of Christ.

What potwalloper said, plus, if you insist on parent-child analogies, how about the father that dutifully tells his children not to drink, smoke, take drugs, or act unkindly towards people...while he's out selling crack on the streets. See why God-as-parent analogies don't work?

4. If God is the Creator of everything, exactly how does it make sense that His creation can rightfully take what He has created and say that it's wrong or redefine it? What makes you think that God's creation could do anything without His allowing it to happen?

Oooo, Potwalloper walloped you on that one. Plus: The simple act of creating a universe full of sentient creatures does not give the creator absolute license to do as he pleases with that universe. If he invests his creations with sentience and a sense of morality, he has to -expect- to be bound by that same morality and subject to its edicts, especially if he wishes to be worshipped as the source of it. To create innate morality in humans and then purposely go about -appearing- to defy it, is a game more worthy of a satanic entity than an omnibenevolent God.

5. If Satan had a "side of the story", and he was able to tell you it - how would you be able to determine whether or not it was true or false?

You make our case for us. Think about it.

[chrispalasz]

potwalloper: Would a smart superbeing create creatures that are full of design flaws?

Would a smart superbeing that is omniscient create a universe where she already knows the outcomes of everything?

Would a smart superbeing create evil (unless it was for some perverse pleasure)?

Would a smart superbeing create tectonic plates in the knowledge that they would cause earthquakes and tsunamis that would kill hundreds of thousands of people?

I could go on...

You could go on. But if what I suggest is correct, and God is in fact infinately smarter than humans (saying that He exists), then you really have no way to deduce the answer to these questions... or any question, unless God tells you.

Could a toddler hope to decifer quantum mathematics? Neither could we hope to decifer God. Now, you might hope to dismiss this comparison on the grounds that toddlers don't have enough developed mental reasoning skills; but my comparison would still stand because my claim is that compared to God, our mental reasoning skills are that of a toddler.

potwalloper: On the basis of common sense I'm afraid God comes out as being a few olives short of a pizza.

And this is a conclusion a toddler might draw from a parent that makes a just and logical decision.

potwalloper: Only an innately evil creature would knowingly create such abject misery.

... because you say so?

potwalloper: A good point and that is why I feel that the principle of the one-sided presentation of information is more likely than an innate need to believe. However, we have already seen that God is less than perfect - perhaps the predisposition to belief also had a design fault (as does just about everything else about humans) and therefore does not work properly...

From a non-Christian perspective, then perhaps. Or... from a non-Christian perspective, perhaps Christians are correct, and perhaps those flaws actually are caused by sin...

potwalloper: Love everyone please (oops you drowned in my Great Flood so can't - oh well... )

It's a bit funny that you bring this up... because you and so many others never drowned in any flood, yet you still reject God. Wouldn't that make you living proof that God's judgement is Just? If He had let those people live... they might live their entire lives as you live yours now.

potwalloper: My wife and I created my son. If I murdered him today would you say it was right? Of course it would not. However using your logic how can it be wrong for me to take away something that I created?

By the grace of God your wife was able to have a child. You did not play the part in that creation that you would like to think you did. In fact, it was God that wove your child together in your wife's womb (figuratively speaking). There for, given that you do not have omniscience, this situation is not comparable in the least. This point has been covered numerous times. I would have expected not to hear this argument from you.

The principle of God's creation not being able to do anything without her allowing it to happen is an interesting one. If we accept this then we must also accept that God is culpable for every evil act that has ever occured throughout the history of mankind. Failure to act to prevent suffering when this lies within your locus of control makes you culpable.

God allows the things that happen to happen. He does not commit the evil Himself. He is not evil.

At the most, God is culpable of letting Evil succumb to Supreme Justice.

Autonomy cannot be mitigated - you are either autonomous or you are not. As you are describing it the principle of free will falls I'm afraid.

I don't know what your point is here and I'm not even quite sure what you're saying. Would you please elaborate and expand on this point? God has Free Will... but other than that, you happen to be having a discussion with a person that will not stick up for Free Will apart from God.

A. God is perfectly Good. I know this to be a fact.
B. God is completely sovereign. I know this to be a fact.

When it comes down to it - the Bible supports both "A" and "B" and the Holy Spirit testifies to it. That's what is important, that these are both true. How one gets from A to B is not important and can only be philosiphised. But why worry about little details like this when a person is still absent to God's very existance? I say... work on His existance first.

Try the Prayer Challenge.

potwalloper: Indeed making sex the key driver in human behaviour and then telling people it is sinful would be a great laugh (which appears to be what God did if we accept the Christian worldview).

Let this example that you have provided stand out in bright letters. Let the missapplication stand out as well. If sex were sinful... Christians wouldn't be reproducing. This is just one of the many examples where you take the Christian Worldview and you bend it to how you want it to look, then deceivingly state it as if it were a fact. Let me tell you plainly: it does your view no justice.

I'm not married... but if and when I do get married - my wife and I will most definately glorify God by having sex.

potwalloper: The concept of heaven as described by Christians does come across as both boring and rather patronising. I do not get pleasure from blindly obeying the will of others (God included). "Sit in heaven (where there is no sin) and worship God for all eternity". Since sinful activities appear to be the ones that stimulate the pleasure centres in humans this would not seem to be the most pleasurable experience I can envisage.

Now if heaven were described as "sit in heaven and experience multiple orgasms into all eternity" then it may seem a rather more attractive proposition.

It is likely, of course, that all of the interesting people will be in hell rather than heaven - perhaps if one wants some meaningful interaction hell may be a better proposition.

If that's your choice... it speaks for itself. I object to you making it, but I can do nothing about it other than share the gospel of Jesus. When you need Him in your life... just send me a PM. I'm open 24 hrs.

[chrispalasz]

If we actually look at the Bible, Humans are smarter than the omniscient, omnipotent God. But the fact that god is omnipotent and omnipresent doesn't mean he's smarter. That just means he's more powerful.

Fact: You just stated that God is omniscient; literally.

Dictionary.com says:
om·nis·cient ( P ) Pronunciation Key (m-nshnt)
adj.

Having total knowledge; knowing everything: an omniscient deity; the omniscient narrator.

n.
1. One having total knowledge.
2. Omniscient God. Used with the.

Fact: Humans do not know everything.

If a being that knows everything compared to a being that does not know everything is not smarter... by what do you measure how smart a being is?

Was that a type-o? If you meant to type omnipresent... then why is it that you acknowledge God being omnipresent and omnipotent, but not omniscient?

Tigerlilly wrote: Some of God's claims are quite illogical and ridiculous. And before you go off and say: it just makes no sense to us..that doesn't fly. If it doesn't make sense, it's most likely because it makes no sense, not because magically we get it wrong.

I'll go ahead and repeat my analogy from above:

I wrote above: Could a toddler hope to decifer quantum mathematics? Neither could we hope to decifer God. Now, you might hope to dismiss this comparison on the grounds that toddlers don't have enough developed mental reasoning skills; but my comparison would still stand because my claim is that compared to God, our mental reasoning skills are that of a toddler.

What kind of chances would a toddler have of questioning quantum mathematics and putting up a good argument or finding an error? No need to answer this question. The answer should be obvious to all.

Tigerlilly wrote: This is a good example. You hit the nail on the head. It IS boring and patronizing. You don't go to heaven because God loves you, you go to heaven because God wants you near him for closer worship. He wants you there to revel in the glory that is heaven--to praise his name.

Heaven is like the auditorium, and god is the musician playing there. When you die, you become his eternal audience, but only if you don't tick him off. If you do, you are sent to Hell, because you are a troublemaker, a nonconformist--unworthy to bow before him and act as his eternal servant.

When you die, your big prize is to sit and have tea with God for eternity and tell him how wonderful and good he is for letting you stay in his house after he got done killing you.

In the same way that we can never accurately fathom Hell... we can never accurately fathom Heaven either. I don't really know what Heaven will actually be like... but I know I want it because I trust God's Word, and He is 100% reliable; He hasn't let me down yet.

[chrispalasz]

jimspeiser: Invalid. We are attempting to assess the probability of God's existence, using the only tools we have, logic and common sense. It is out of bounds for our purposes to posit that such a being is so much smarter than us that he can defeat our common sense.

It's not invalid. My logic and common sense has proposed this notion and I whole-heartedly believe that it is true. It's contradictory for you to declare that we're going to discuss the existance of a being that has such an attribute and then for you to say that discussing His attributes is "out of bounds for our purposes to posit such a being."

Essentially you are saying: Let's talk about the probability of God's existence... but let's not discuss what His existence is.

Do you want to discuss God, or do you not want to discuss God? Make a decision.

jimspeiser: Substitute the word "true" for the word "false" and you'll see the mirror image argument that we make. Why do only some people get the God experience, and not others?

You could have just flat out asked that question to begin with and ANY Christian would have flat out told you the answer.

Try the Prayer Challenge: http://www.debatingchristianity.com/for ... php?t=1087

jimspeiser's first point: What potwalloper said,

my first response: what responded to potwalloper with.

jimspeiser's first point: plus, if you insist on parent-child analogies,

God is the Father of all True Christians. I do insist on parent-child analogies.

jimspeiser's first point: how about the father that dutifully tells his children not to drink, smoke, take drugs, or act unkindly towards people...while he's out selling crack on the streets. See why God-as-parent analogies don't work?

Well... that parent would know exactly WHY drinking, smoking and taking drugs would be harmful for the child, then. Right?

jimspeiser's: Oooo, Potwalloper walloped you on that one.
Hmmm... no, I don't think so. He sometimes makes some good points... but my personal opinion is that this is not one of them.

jimspeiser's: Plus: The simple act of creating a universe full of sentient creatures does not give the creator absolute license to do as he pleases with that universe.

Why not?

jimspeiser's: If he invests his creations with sentience and a sense of morality, he has to -expect- to be bound by that same morality and subject to its edicts, especially if he wishes to be worshipped as the source of it. To create innate morality in humans and then purposely go about -appearing- to defy it, is a game more worthy of a satanic entity than an omnibenevolent God.

He did create humans with that sense of morality. Adam and Eve had it... and they were decieved by Satan. Jesus Christ had it.

That's what the Christian message is. Lay down your arms... you're being deceived by The Enemy. Your battle is not with Christians and it is not with God... it is with Satan's deceit. Take the Prayer Challenge.