Addressing the view of God as cruel and unjust - Mothering Forums

Forum Jump: 
 
Thread Tools
Old 05-30-2011, 08:37 AM - Thread Starter
 
les_oiseau's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Posts: 250
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)

I think it's really important for Christians to be able to defend their faith and the character of our God.  This seems to be a really common misconception of the character of God and I would love to have a conversation about it to 1. gain a broader perspective on the issue, 2. discuss scripture that show God's personality and character in a way that refutes this image.

 

 

Any one want to join me? 

 

I respectfully ask that if all posts stay on the course of calmly discussing this topic, and that no one criticise our efforts to gain perspective and knowledge on this issue. If you see God as unjustly judgement and cruel than your input is appreciated as it will give insight into this image of Him.

 

 

les_oiseau is offline  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
Old 05-30-2011, 10:07 AM
 
Wolfcat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Nebraska
Posts: 1,118
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 6 Post(s)

I'm interested.

 

I'm not Christian (Pagan), but this is a topic that is near and dear to my heart. I am aware of and sensitive to the beliefs of Christians, and I am capable of looking at this situation from a "Christian perspective".

 

I was actually considering the "problem of evil" just the other day, which is a similar concept:

I thought it might be similar to parenting issues. When we are teaching our children how to behave, and what is acceptable behavior, we sometimes have to be what I call "mean mama". That is we deny them, punish them, put them in timeout, etc. This seems very cruel and authoritarian to the child, but it is done for the greater good of the child's development. In a way, God was acting as the "mean mama" throughout most of the Old Testament. He was teaching the Israelites how to behave, what was acceptable. As a culture, we have had some time to become more sophisticated, so this "parenting" has become more subtle.


Check out my radio blog, Pagan Musings.
I'm a head-covering witchy mama to DS ('06) and DD ('10) with DH, Stormie, a Heathen breadwinning daddy.
Wolfcat is online now  
Old 05-30-2011, 10:44 AM
 
Nazsmum's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: In the vine
Posts: 2,774
Mentioned: 4 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 44 Post(s)

My question would first be where/who told that God is cruel and unjust?  basicly who is asking the question

 

I know that in the OT some laws look unjust BUT the Lord put the MERCY SEAT on the top of the Ark of the Covent to show that He has mercy.

 

King David was very wrong and should have been stoned for adulty and murder, but the Lord saved him.

 

Adam and Eve could have been "killed" and God start everything over, but He did not.

 

Jesus came to fulfill that Law and the prophits. Jesus died for all sin of all time SO that shows MERCY that can not compare to anything that I know.

 

I know that you asked for scripture...I will have to come back with that.

 

My 2 yr old wants to get on my lap I will come back later.

 

GOOD QUESTION

Nazsmum is online now  
Old 05-30-2011, 11:01 AM
 
cappuccinosmom's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: SW Pennsylvania
Posts: 5,447
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)

Interesting, our pastor was just preaching through the book of Joshua, and he touched on this.  There's a great deal of "wiping out" in that book.

 

I'm still mulling it over.

cappuccinosmom is offline  
Old 05-30-2011, 11:11 AM
 
philomom's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: Pacific Northwest
Posts: 9,263
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 3 Post(s)
Actually, this is one of the many reason that I am no longer a xtian.
The bible is very quick to smite enemies, dole out punishment and treat women badly.


Does god turn a blind eye to badness in the world?
Does he allow it to happen or is he unknowing?
So he is either non-benevolent to mankind or he is not omniscient .
philomom is offline  
Old 05-30-2011, 12:36 PM - Thread Starter
 
les_oiseau's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Posts: 250
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)

What prompted me to want to talk about this was reading this morning Revelation 19:3 (talking about the distruction of Babylon)

 

"A second time they said:

 Hallelujah!

Her smoke ascends forever and ever!"

 

Wow, right? I've heard things like this quoted before and didn't believe they were in the Bible. This is a multitude in Heaven (vs. 1).

 

But then what struck me earlier on in my reading was Revelation 17: 8b

 

" Those who live on the earth whose names were not written in the book of life from the foundation of the world will be astounded when they see the beast that was, and is not, and will be present again."

 

So these are people who have not given themselves to God, and they will be astounded when they see the beast.  And these are the people whose perspective I was interested in when reading this; someone who (hypothetically--for those who don't believe in this God) goes through life here, with all it's goods and all it's evils, whose experiences and knowledges lead them to see God as evil, partially because of verses like the first one quoted. To me, especially a few years ago, this is shocking. That one group of people would sing hallelujah! because another group of people's smoke is rising forever and ever.  So to see that verse and think God is evil, I guess I don't think that's off base.  But according to the Bible, this same group of people will be astounded when they see the beast, and since those chapters where talking about Babylon it will be the context of the evil "structure" that has been built with the omission of God.

 

So, what does that say of God? To the Christian, and to the non believer?

 

 

les_oiseau is offline  
Old 05-30-2011, 12:57 PM
 
eclipse's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: Mexico
Posts: 7,440
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by philomom View Post

Actually, this is one of the many reason that I am no longer a xtian.
The bible is very quick to smite enemies, dole out punishment and treat women badly.


Does god turn a blind eye to badness in the world?
Does he allow it to happen or is he unknowing?
So he is either non-benevolent to mankind or he is not omniscient .

This was my reasoning, too. I feel like I'm not willing to hold a supreme being to a lower moral standard than I would hold a human being - and if a human knew that, for example, a woman was being raped or a child being abused and it was within their power to stop it and chose not to. . .well, I wouldn't think very highly of them as a person. So it became less of a question of "does the Christian god exist?" and more of a "If the Christian god (or any all powerful, omniscient being) exists, is he/she/it worthy of my worship?" - for me, that answer was no. I think the most troubling sections of the OT for me are the ones that advocate"taking" women as wives as spoils of war. I don't think I can put into words how that makes me feel, while still being respectful of other's religious choices.
eclipse is offline  
Old 05-30-2011, 01:06 PM - Thread Starter
 
les_oiseau's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Posts: 250
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)



 

Quote:
Originally Posted by philomom View Post

Actually, this is one of the many reason that I am no longer a xtian.
The bible is very quick to smite enemies, dole out punishment and treat women badly.


Does god turn a blind eye to badness in the world?
Does he allow it to happen or is he unknowing?
So he is either non-benevolent to mankind or he is not omniscient .


The "treat women badly" is a whole other thread that was really interesting to read!  (tried to find it to post link but cannot)

 

To your questions it almost seems "easy" for Christians to respond....

 

1. absolutely not

2. He allows it to happen, because He gives us free will and the option to follow Him or not.

3.  Those are both valid assumptions, but not the only two that can be concidered after asking those two questions.

 

They seem like the "easy" answers to me anyway... but do they address your concerns?  Can you go deeper into what causes you to ask those questions?  And also, according to the questions you asked, what do you think God should do in response to evil?

les_oiseau is offline  
Old 05-30-2011, 06:42 PM
 
lilyka's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: Sioux Falls, SD
Posts: 17,896
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1 Post(s)

I don't have a lot to say on this topic but did want to address a few things.  We live in a fallen world.  Not the paradise that God created.  Bad things happen because we chose to break communion with God.

 

Death is not unmerciful or cruel or evil.  Death is not even an end.  God has an eternal perspective and so should we.  While it sucks to lose someone we love death is simply the next step in life.  I have never been bothered terribly by death and destruction and war and loss.  Death is just the next leg of their journey.  God is merciful.  And he can save whom he will.  And if he chooses to wipe a people off the face of the earth it does not mean he has blasted them to hell.  I guess I do not see any of this as cruel.   I am not saying I do not mourn losses but I mourn more for what I have lost than the fact that someone has died. 


The truest answer to violence is love. The truest answer to death is life. The only prevention for violence is for the heart to have no violence within it.  We cannot prevent evil through any system devised by mankind. But we can grapple with evil and defeat it, but only with love—real love.

lilyka is offline  
Old 05-31-2011, 05:53 AM
 
Koalamom's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Earth
Posts: 4,536
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1 Post(s)
Subbing for this interesting discussion.
Koalamom is offline  
Old 05-31-2011, 05:57 AM - Thread Starter
 
les_oiseau's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Posts: 250
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)


Quote:
Originally Posted by eclipse View Post



This was my reasoning, too. I feel like I'm not willing to hold a supreme being to a lower moral standard than I would hold a human being - and if a human knew that, for example, a woman was being raped or a child being abused and it was within their power to stop it and chose not to. . .well, I wouldn't think very highly of them as a person. So it became less of a question of "does the Christian god exist?" and more of a "If the Christian god (or any all powerful, omniscient being) exists, is he/she/it worthy of my worship?" - for me, that answer was no. I think the most troubling sections of the OT for me are the ones that advocate"taking" women as wives as spoils of war. I don't think I can put into words how that makes me feel, while still being respectful of other's religious choices.


 

Where do you get your moral standard?

 

We live in a society that has decided that things are only true in the perspective that we think they're true. We think everything is under our scrutiny and that we can create our own reality. Is this true for morals? If it is, you have a system that says "good" for one person may not be "good" for another. Or one person's "evil" is not another person's. When you don't have a set moral standard you end up with people saying " my needs for sex were greater than her needs for safety" and. rape.

 

So we need a moral standard, right? or wrong? 

 

If the moral standard doesn't come from God, who is unchanging and would give us an unchanging moral standard, then where does it come from?
 

 

les_oiseau is offline  
Old 05-31-2011, 09:50 AM
 
eclipse's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: Mexico
Posts: 7,440
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by les_oiseau View Post

e.

 

So we need a moral standard, right? or wrong? 

 

If the moral standard doesn't come from God, who is unchanging and would give us an unchanging moral standard, then where does it come from?
 

 


I think that's another question and thread, entirely, and one that doesn't relate much (to me) to the question of whether a particular deity is good, evil, or "human."
eclipse is offline  
Old 05-31-2011, 10:01 AM
 
EFmom's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Posts: 7,802
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)

I'm an atheist who was raised Catholic and who explored other Christian denominations.

 

The nature of the Christian god is one of the reasons I found Christianity unconvincing, although I really think your god shouldn't need you to defend him.  The OT is full of stories of a  vengeful deity who is pretty indifferent to suffering and perfectly willing to slaughter innocents abundantly.  This is the god who is supposedly unchanging. 

 

There are too many mental gymnastics required for me to believe in a god who is all powerful, is supposedly kind and compassionate, yet who will let children starve, be abused, will allow natural and man-made disasters, and all manner of suffering.  The "free will" defense is not a convincing explanation for any of this. 

 

There is nothing you or any other Christian is going to be able to say that refutes what is in the bible, both old testament and new.  And it is precisely the bible stories that make your god both unbelievable and undesirable from my point of view.

 

As for the "moral standard," pretty much all societies develop their own moral standards, and they tend to have many common themes.  Moral standards are not unchanging, even for those who claim to be Christian.  Christians have been pretty enthusiastic about slavery as recently as a few hundred years ago, to name just one example.  Moral standards come from humans, regardless of religion.

EFmom is offline  
Old 05-31-2011, 11:33 AM
 
philomom's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: Pacific Northwest
Posts: 9,263
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 3 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by les_oiseau View Post




 

Where do you get your moral standard?

 

We live in a society that has decided that things are only true in the perspective that we think they're true. We think everything is under our scrutiny and that we can create our own reality. Is this true for morals? If it is, you have a system that says "good" for one person may not be "good" for another. Or one person's "evil" is not another person's. When you don't have a set moral standard you end up with people saying " my needs for sex were greater than her needs for safety" and. rape.

 

So we need a moral standard, right? or wrong? 

 

If the moral standard doesn't come from God, who is unchanging and would give us an unchanging moral standard, then where does it come from?
 

 


Its a complete fallacy that those who do not believe in a god or gods are somehow lacking in morals or have no moral code.

philomom is offline  
Old 05-31-2011, 07:55 PM - Thread Starter
 
les_oiseau's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Posts: 250
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)

I'm not saying people who don't believe in God or a god or gods are lacking morals. I'm asking where the standard comes from.  How do you (or anybody) determine what is right and what is wrong.

 

I'm also suggesting that operating on the idea of morals being subjective to one's view of them does not make a "moral" society.

 

I'm not trying to imply anything. I'm trying to input into conversation not debate.

les_oiseau is offline  
Old 05-31-2011, 08:27 PM
 
CatsCradle's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: New York City
Posts: 1,945
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)


Quote:
Originally Posted by les_oiseau View Post

I'm not saying people who don't believe in God or a god or gods are lacking morals. I'm asking where the standard comes from.  How do you (or anybody) determine what is right and what is wrong.

 

I'm also suggesting that operating on the idea of morals being subjective to one's view of them does not make a "moral" society.

 

I'm not trying to imply anything. I'm trying to input into conversation not debate.


Societies determine what is right or wrong.  These may comprise of societies of two or two million or 200 billion.  Morality is a social construct, in my opinion, and not contingent on a belief in a supreme being.  There are arguments that morality is even innate in humans, and primates as a whole (since all primates seem to implement a code of behavior that is required and acceptable to the whole).  We determine what is right and wrong within our social group, and most of the time, the right and wrong crosses all cultural boundaries.  Without adhering to the moral code in our group, we subject ourselves to rejection, punishment, banishment.  Christianity and Judaism did not spring from a vacuum.  We derived our moral code from somewhere, most likely from what thousands of years of people had determined what was ethical, just and fair.  Interestingly, I think that there are different shades of morality that people put more emphasis on than others.  For example, I think (personally) that too much emphasis is put on issues such as "purity" when it comes to religious thought as opposed to the ideas of justice and fairness.  Justice and fairness are very important issues to me because I think they are often overlooked and are something very much in human control.  When humans start discussing their problems in this arena, then I'll be willing to discuss whether a god is just or good.  Humans, in my opinion, are reflections of their god(s), and humans themselves haven't shown me much.  Sorry to be cynical, but that's my observation.

 


"Lawyers, I suppose, were children once." Charles Lamb.
CatsCradle is offline  
Old 06-01-2011, 06:39 AM
 
cappuccinosmom's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: SW Pennsylvania
Posts: 5,447
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)

 

Quote:

Does god turn a blind eye to badness in the world?
Does he allow it to happen or is he unknowing?
So he is either non-benevolent to mankind or he is not omniscient .  

 

Well, no he doesn't turn a blind eye.  but that is where the "smiting" comes in and you don't like that either. And then there's ultimate justice, separation from God (what Christians term "hell") but I'm guessing you have a problem with eternal punishment too?

 

The third option is that he is both benevolent and omniscient, and we limited human beings lack the ability to fit our minute, limited experience into our limited understanding of God.

cappuccinosmom is offline  
Old 06-01-2011, 06:41 AM
 
cappuccinosmom's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: SW Pennsylvania
Posts: 5,447
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)


But if morality is a social construct, determined by humans and variable, why should your views of justice and fairness hold primacy?  What if someone else, or some other culture, has different ideas about those things and related morality? 
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by CatsCradle View Post




Societies determine what is right or wrong.  These may comprise of societies of two or two million or 200 billion.  Morality is a social construct, in my opinion, and not contingent on a belief in a supreme being.  There are arguments that morality is even innate in humans, and primates as a whole (since all primates seem to implement a code of behavior that is required and acceptable to the whole).  We determine what is right and wrong within our social group, and most of the time, the right and wrong crosses all cultural boundaries.  Without adhering to the moral code in our group, we subject ourselves to rejection, punishment, banishment.  Christianity and Judaism did not spring from a vacuum.  We derived our moral code from somewhere, most likely from what thousands of years of people had determined what was ethical, just and fair.  Interestingly, I think that there are different shades of morality that people put more emphasis on than others.  For example, I think (personally) that too much emphasis is put on issues such as "purity" when it comes to religious thought as opposed to the ideas of justice and fairness.  Justice and fairness are very important issues to me because I think they are often overlooked and are something very much in human control.  When humans start discussing their problems in this arena, then I'll be willing to discuss whether a god is just or good.  Humans, in my opinion, are reflections of their god(s), and humans themselves haven't shown me much.  Sorry to be cynical, but that's my observation.

 



 

cappuccinosmom is offline  
Old 06-01-2011, 06:46 AM
 
EFmom's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Posts: 7,802
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)


Quote:
Originally Posted by les_oiseau View Post

I'm not saying people who don't believe in God or a god or gods are lacking morals. I'm asking where the standard comes from.  How do you (or anybody) determine what is right and what is wrong.

 

I'm also suggesting that operating on the idea of morals being subjective to one's view of them does not make a "moral" society.

 

I'm not trying to imply anything. I'm trying to input into conversation not debate.



There are so many interpretations of Christianity that Christians are hardly a monolithic block, although in my experience most Christians tend to believe that all Christians think like they do.

 

But I've been part of a liberal Quaker meeting where people self-identified as Christian.  I was raised Roman Catholic.  I also was a member of a mainstream Protestant denomination for a time.  None of those groups had the same standards.  There were similarities and important differences, just as there are similarities and differences between the ethical standards of any group of people.  Groups develop norms of what's acceptable.  Sometimes they reference religion in developing those norms, but you can have many groups referencing the same set of documents, with very different outcomes.  The Westboro group considers itself Christian and uses the same documents that mainstream churches use to develop its morals.

 

EFmom is offline  
Old 06-01-2011, 06:49 AM
 
cappuccinosmom's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: SW Pennsylvania
Posts: 5,447
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)



 

Quote:
Originally Posted by EFmom View Post

  Christians have been pretty enthusiastic about slavery as recently as a few hundred years ago, to name just one example.  Moral standards come from humans, regardless of religion.



Actually--a small portion of Christians, under the influence of culture (non-Christians were also "pretty enthusiastic" about slavery, not to mention the "progressive" ideas of eugenics), in a certain period of history, ignored truth and served themselves rather than others.

 

Historically Christians have not been "enthusiastic about slavery" and even during the time when *some* were, a great many other Christians put their resources, careers, social status, and even their lives on the line in opposition to slavery. 

cappuccinosmom is offline  
Old 06-01-2011, 07:49 AM
 
CatsCradle's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: New York City
Posts: 1,945
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)


Quote:
Originally Posted by cappuccinosmom View Post


But if morality is a social construct, determined by humans and variable, why should your views of justice and fairness hold primacy?  What if someone else, or some other culture, has different ideas about those things and related morality? 
 



 


First of all, I think there are certain moral principles that are common to all humans.  There are basic human rights that we can all agree upon.  Have they been observed by all?  Of course not, but there are many things that we as a whole have condemned and will continue to condemn...from the smallest untruth to the most outrageous murder.  There are many who take a moral high ground based on religion.  That's fine but I don't think that people of faith have the market cornered on certain moral principles.  And, I don't think that religion per se invented morality.  I think they have co-existed for a very long time and I think that people of all backgrounds and social groups have paused and questioned:  "Is this right or wrong?" 
 

This is a question that springs from the gut, and I think it is common to most humans.  Otherwise there wouldn't be so much that we can agree upon, despite our differences and cultural specific norms. 

 


"Lawyers, I suppose, were children once." Charles Lamb.
CatsCradle is offline  
Old 06-01-2011, 10:39 AM
 
Nazsmum's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: In the vine
Posts: 2,774
Mentioned: 4 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 44 Post(s)

I want to say this.....All humans have morals. I personaly think that Christians MISS the point of the Bible and being a christian! THE POINT IS JESUS/YESHUA!!!!

 

All the other things are just side issues. Any person can "keep" the 10 commandments. Even if you don't believe in a god or gods you know that some things are just wrong. Jesus did not put "rules" on us. He said that we are to LOVE each other and that is how the world will know we are His children/sheep. That leans itself to doing nice and loving things for people.

 

I wish that we would just do that LOVE EACH OTHER.

 

 

Nazsmum is online now  
Old 06-01-2011, 12:43 PM
 
Liquesce's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: Mayberry
Posts: 4,680
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)


Quote:
Originally Posted by CatsCradle View Post




First of all, I think there are certain moral principles that are common to all humans.  There are basic human rights that we can all agree upon.


What are they?

 

I personally don't think morals need to be universal to be considered either legitimate or effective as a concept, so I'm not trying to be all argumentatively, "prove it."  I'm just not really coming up with any sweeping universal moral standard that doesn't have some pretty significant caveats.

 

At any rate, I adhere to, or try to adhere to, a particular religious moral standard, but I recognize that my interpretation of that moral standard, how it should be applied, and what a society beholden to it would look like is something outright offensive to some people who trumpet the same source.  And some of the people who trumpet the same source are people who I would never, ever want shaping societies in which I live -- I would not be able to see that society as other than a moral failure in many respects.  And so seeing this range of "'one true' interpretations of applied morality" coming from just one religious source, in a world full of competing religious sources, makes it hard for me to take seriously the idea that a religious origin, a godly origin as we have it, simplifies matters.   To have an effective universal you first have to have a universal agreement on what's true.  And religion doesn't bring that any better than anything else.

Liquesce is offline  
Old 06-01-2011, 01:46 PM
 
CatsCradle's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: New York City
Posts: 1,945
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)


Quote:
Originally Posted by Liquesce View Post




What are they?

 

I personally don't think morals need to be universal to be considered either legitimate or effective as a concept, so I'm not trying to be all argumentatively, "prove it."  I'm just not really coming up with any sweeping universal moral standard that doesn't have some pretty significant caveats.

 

Well, I think that freedom from torture, execution without trial, discrimination, genocide, basic crimes which compromise bodily intregrity, etc. are all things in which we, in modern times, place high moral value.  As I stated before, these basic moral principles are not always observed, but I think society as a whole finds a breach of these basic human rights morally repugnant.  Often, however, we are repulsed in retrospect.  How could this have happened, we ask ourselves? 

 

Now that I think about, especially in terms of torture, I think that we have been led or allowed to think that sometimes it is okay to do certain things based on some shakey justification that these things benefit the whole.  I think this is our own fault and that we should take a hard look within ourselves to understand why we think/thought that hurting another human being was somehow justified.  While I think that there are a lot of amoral people out there (for whatever reason), I really do think that the average human being recoils from the mistreatment of others.  I think that it is almost reflexive.  Maybe because we have a certain amount of empathy? 

 

I think what I was trying to get at in my first post here is that I find it difficult to blame a god or G-d for injustice when we have such a hard time as humans evaluating and correcting our own failures.  I think that blaming a god or G-d is a huge cop out.  I think it is lazy thinking.  Regarding stuff like natural disasters:  again, I think that the physical earth is doing what it does and has done since the beginning, and to blame a god is to not think very far beyond our gut reaction to the event.  I can't take the view that people are being punished or whatever or that G-d turned his head when say, a river flooded a town.  The river would have flooded had there been a town there or not.  The physical earth is in constant flux and sometimes we happen to be in the way.

 

I don't know, not explaining myself very well.  It is true that it is a many-layered issue. 


"Lawyers, I suppose, were children once." Charles Lamb.
CatsCradle is offline  
Old 06-01-2011, 02:36 PM
 
cappuccinosmom's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: SW Pennsylvania
Posts: 5,447
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)

CatsCradle, I know we disagree on some things but I totally get your last post and think it is amazing and true. :D

cappuccinosmom is offline  
Old 06-01-2011, 05:25 PM
 
CatsCradle's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: New York City
Posts: 1,945
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)


Quote:
Originally Posted by cappuccinosmom View Post

CatsCradle, I know we disagree on some things but I totally get your last post and think it is amazing and true. :D


 

I'll go out on a limb and say that despite our very different perspectives and backgrounds, there is a certain recognition of basic "truths" between us.  I know I can be very argumentative and I have many, many foibles!  Thank you for not being dismissive, it means a lot.  hug2.gif

 

I quite enjoy discussing this stuff and I think I grew up just south of where you live.  I've had these discussions my entire life!  :)
 

 


"Lawyers, I suppose, were children once." Charles Lamb.
CatsCradle is offline  
Old 06-01-2011, 05:48 PM
 
annettemarie's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: In the Restricted Section
Posts: 34,451
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1 Post(s)
Jumping back to the OP orngbiggrin.gif it reminds me a bit of Stephen King's book Desperation. And I think it is something that we, as Christians, have to face head on. God does not unleash evil into the world, but then why doesn't he stop it? For me, at the end of the day, I come back to God naming Himself as I Am. He is. And He is so unyielding that He won't even break His own rules. not even to save us. Not even to save His Son. But can we really call that cruel? Because if God is good then we have to believe that what He does is rightly done. He defines, by His actions, what is good and just and right and we, with our limited understanding and sinful ways, cannot comprehend what true goodness is.

I think we need to get rid of this squishy kitty Sunday School version of goodness and God. I think real goodness can sometimes be mistaken for cruelty.

This opened up a great conversation at our house tonight. Thanks!

Flowers, fairies, gardens, and rainbows-- Seasons of Joy: 10 weeks of crafts, handwork, painting, coloring, circle time, fairy tales, and more!
Check out the blog for family fun, homeschooling, books, simple living, and 6 fabulous children, including twin toddlers

annettemarie is offline  
Old 06-01-2011, 05:53 PM
 
philomom's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: Pacific Northwest
Posts: 9,263
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 3 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by annettemarie View Post

I think real goodness can sometimes be mistaken for cruelty.

Isn't this the same argument that some parents use for spanking their kids? They did it because it was "good for them". greensad.gif

philomom is offline  
Old 06-01-2011, 05:57 PM
 
annettemarie's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: In the Restricted Section
Posts: 34,451
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by philomom View Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by annettemarie View Post

I think real goodness can sometimes be mistaken for cruelty.

Isn't this the same argument that some parents use for spanking their kids? They did it because it was "good for them". greensad.gif

I;m not saying God looks down and pushes the smite button (the heavenly version of a spanking, I guess). I'm thinking more along the lines of Him consistently following His own rules through until the end. More like a heavenly version of natural consequences.

Flowers, fairies, gardens, and rainbows-- Seasons of Joy: 10 weeks of crafts, handwork, painting, coloring, circle time, fairy tales, and more!
Check out the blog for family fun, homeschooling, books, simple living, and 6 fabulous children, including twin toddlers

annettemarie is offline  
Old 06-01-2011, 09:30 PM
 
Liquesce's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: Mayberry
Posts: 4,680
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)


Quote:
Originally Posted by CatsCradle View Post

Well, I think that freedom from torture, execution without trial, discrimination, genocide, basic crimes which compromise bodily intregrity, etc. are all things in which we, in modern times, place high moral value.  As I stated before, these basic moral principles are not always observed, but I think society as a whole finds a breach of these basic human rights morally repugnant.


Who are "we" though?  I mean, the initial thought was with regard to universal human morals.  Now it is restricted to modern times, proposing a list containing some really plain disagreements even in modern times as to whether or not these things are true and if they are true what are their definitions and limitations.  Almost uniformly these things have borne and continue to bear the often socially fully morally acceptable exclusion clause of, "assuming you are a member of the classes not deserving of our way of doing it."

Liquesce is offline  
 
User Tag List

Thread Tools


Forum Jump: 

Posting Rules  
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are Off