Is God a Moral Being?

[Harbal]

It could be you know as a sensible human being that you would need an Infinite all powerful God to account for the existence of the finite yet structured universe such as the one in which you live. You also have spiritual awe of Creation and respect for life and your fellow man that comes from the Holy Spirit that you know to be true on an experiential level. But the purely man-made ideology of atheism has taken root within you twisting your mind and making you spew forth the blaspheming lies of untruth against what you know to be true deep within you. Something like that maybe?

I suppose I believe that the concept of God is purely man made, therefore, so are his attributes, which means that what those attributes actually are is up to any particular individual to decide. I think the idea of "blasphemy" is something the church came up with to stifle dissent. Calling someone who doesn't have any religious beliefs a blasphemer seems like a pointless exercise.

[Simply Wee]

A moral act ought not lead you to think so, but the masses are like sheep being lead to greener pastures, they too want to believe in better, whilst the wolf is not interested in what they want, only in where they are. Either you are safe within your society and at peace with your God, or easy pickings, perhaps a stray amongst many in greener pastures far away. For them, the wolf waits, but in todays present climate, where societies are allowed to freely intergrate, so too will tensions increase in the world. Your society is under attack, your God, your everything, and it appears those in power who have led you there, are not in a position to do anything about it. We are now at the point of the 'abomination of the desolation spoken of by Daniel the prophet, standing were it ought not', great monuments being destroyed that go back to the establishment of society, monuments that were created by giants amongest us, giants our ancestors declared came from the stars...and we do nothing. That will be judgement enough on all of us, and I doubt very much, that if they who built them really care about our moral reasons for having done apsolutely nothing to protect what became our idea of God.

[Ruskin]

I suppose I believe that the concept of God is purely man made, therefore, so are his attributes, which means that what those attributes actually are is up to any particular individual to decide.

You don't really suppose this because you know for a fact that something ultimately Infinite (not ultimately finite obviously, be sensible) made us else we wouldn't exist. Before you say your parents, evolution or the natural laws of physics these are all part of the universe God created with the purpose of creating us. Also you can't have an infinite regression of things because you realise you have to start somewhere and something rather than nowhere and from nothing. If you try to argue with the fundamental facts then this can be the only valid response anyone can give you.

I think the idea of "blasphemy" is something the church came up with to stifle dissent.

It's more a way of telling you what the video above tells you to do.

Calling someone who doesn't have any religious beliefs a blasphemer seems like a pointless exercise.

It depends if they're trying to convince others that God doesn't exist when they understand that God must exist given the irrefutable logic I've given you, though already know all this of course but you like to pretend you convinced yourself otherwise because you think you're better than God and you don't want there to be anything greater than you. You're in a rebellious state against your Creator though there is a human tendency toward rebellion.

[Harbal]

You don't really suppose this

Let's clear one thing up to start with, Ruskin: I am not saying God does not exist. My position on that is, I don't know if there is a God or not, I just haven't got a reason to think there is.

you know for a fact that something ultimately Infinite (not ultimately finite obviously, be sensible) made us else we wouldn't exist. Before you say your parents, evolution or the natural laws of physics these are all part of the universe God created with the purpose of creating us. Also you can't have an infinite regression of things because you realise you have to start somewhere and something rather than nowhere and from nothing.

I don't know anything for a fact and I wasn't going to say any of the things that you anticipated me saying. As far as the infinite regression problem is concerned, it seems to me that it applies to God as much as it applies to any other explanation.

I think the idea of "blasphemy" is something the church came up with to stifle dissent.

It's more a way of telling you what the video above tells you to do.

The video is an unnecessary attempt at making me out to be an idiot for not seeing things the way you do. I'm sure you have had the same tactic used against you and I am equally sure you didn't appreciate it any more than I do. Anyway, I really do think that the concept of blasphemy is one of the ways in which the church tries to keep people under control.

It depends if they're trying to convince others that God doesn't exist when they understand that God must exist given the irrefutable logic I've given you,

I am not trying to convince anyone that God doesn't exist, it really doesn't matter to me whether you or anyone else believes God exists or not. As far as your logic is concerned, if it was as irrefutable as you seem to think it was then I would have expected it to have had more impact on me than it did. In fact, it didn't have any impact at all so if that is a measure of it's irrefutability I'm afraid it didn't perform all that well.

So, now that we've established that I am not criticising you for believing in God I can say what I am criticising. It's the things that you believe about God that are, to say the least, highly questionable. Do you have any irrefutable logic that leads to the justifiable conclusion that God has any interest in whether we believe in him or what we think of him? Correct me if I'm wrong but I think you said, on another thread, that God is unknowable yet you seem to be claiming quite an extensive knowledge of what he requires of us and what he disapproves of.

I don't have a problem with anyone's belief in God, it's religion that needs stamping on.

[Belinda]

Harbal wrote:

I suppose I believe that the concept of God is purely man made, therefore, so are his attributes, which means that what those attributes actually are is up to any particular individual to decide.

Yes, but don't you agree that it is only comparatively recently that particular individuals generally have been autonomous thinkers? After the fading of the influences of the Greeks and especially during the Christianised Dark Ages of Europe there was little autonomous thinking. It wasn't until the scientific Enlightenment that we plebs and our betters were even permitted to speak and think what at one time was blasphemy.

Harbal wrote:

I don't have a problem with anyone's belief in God, it's religion that needs stamping on.

Not me! I disapprove of most God-beliefs. I think it's a pity that believers such as Ruskin seem unable to surmount traditional God-beliefs and attach their undoubted loyality instead to God-beliefs that suit modernity and can actually help to make the world a better place.

[Harbal]

It wasn't until the scientific Enlightenment that we plebs and our betters were even permitted to speak and think what at one time was blasphemy.

Yes, I realise "blasphemy" comes from a different time and I am not, strictly speaking, qualified to comment on its appropriateness for that time but I really don't think it is appropriate now, particularly in western societies.

Not me! I disapprove of most God-beliefs. I think it's a pity that believers such as Ruskin seem unable to surmount traditional God-beliefs and attach their undoubted loyality instead to God-beliefs that suit modernity and can actually help to make the world a better place.

I don't know where Ruskin comes from but if he has to believe in God he should join the Church of England, they don't do much damage these days.

[Ruskin]

Let's clear one thing up to start with, Ruskin: I am not saying God does not exist. My position on that is, I don't know if there is a God or not

Of course you don't know I don't know either but this has nothing to do with what you

know

but what you believe to be true. If you don't believe God is real or you have no belief in God or gods then you're an atheist. You shouldn't pull a Neil Degrasse Tyson with this you have just be honest and say you have no belief in God.

I just haven't got a reason to think there is.

That's because you have adopted the naturalist worldview as your belief structure this is how you see the world and your place in it. From my point of view you're in a very dark and miserable place, you're not necessarily spiritually dead but the sheep who lost his way. Sheep being the metaphor of humans who belong to a flock we're sociable creatures and the Shepard who is God and He leads the way to the greener pastures. This is just my point of view of course you will see things very differently but the very least see the valid possibility that you are very wrong in your assumptions in what you believe or what you lack a belief in.

I am not trying to convince anyone that God doesn't exist, it really doesn't matter to me whether you or anyone else believes God exists or not. As far as your logic is concerned, if it was as irrefutable as you seem to think it was then I would have expected it to have had more impact on me than it did.

It's not irrefutable but there is a strong rational case for the existence of God I'd like to try and present. I could be mistaken of course and you could be right, if you're right then essentially anyone who believes the kind of thing I believe in is a headcase and worthy of some ridicule.

Though if I'm right atheists are in fact narrow minded plonkers of the highest order and not very rational at all. They're fools as the Bible calls them. So of the two of us one of us has the right idea and the other is utterly and horribly mistaken, if they knew how mistaken they were they would be embarrassed by themselves. That person will be you in my opinion but feel free to persuade me that I'm if you have any decent arguments at all. Atheists tend to just have an opinion which they state or they support it by stating something as fact that they don't actually know from what I have seen so far. I'd like to see a really meaty argument against the existence of God because if I'm mistaken I'd like to be corrected and corrected well, this will be your job as the fully rational and knowledgeable human being you (think you) are.

In fact, it didn't have any impact at all so if that is a measure of it's irrefutability I'm afraid it didn't perform all that well.

Well there is an impact if you're here talking about it you wouldn't discuss the Tooth Fairy and Easter Bunny. You can think of God as a lightbulb and atheists are like moths drawn to the light but not knowing what it is they will circle around and keep smashing themselves against it in bewilderment. The window is open and you can fly right out back into the night at any time but there is something within you that compels you to keep battering away, that's the Holy Spirit bringing you into the light. God doesn't necessarily want to force people to love Him but he doesn't easily let people go either you're kept in a kind a holding zone within the light where at least everyone else (the believers in God) can see where you are.

Do you have any irrefutable logic that leads to the justifiable conclusion that God has any interest in whether we believe in him or what we think of him?

God loves you and would ideally like you to know this yourself though of course he can't force his love on you, forced love isn't a nice thing at all. If you go back to the moth analogy you're battering yourself against the bulb because you are being drawn by this love, you just have no idea what is drawing you in or why as a moth doesn't know why it's smashing itself against a glass surface. Now I have pointed this out you there is a chance you may change your mind if you feel within you that this is true. Or you can reject everything I say and keep smashing fruitlessly against the lightbulb until you die eventually you have your own freedom of will to do and believe as you please. I would say that the light is far better to use in order to see where you are and where you're going rather than something to keep attacking and risk injuring yourself in the process.

Correct me if I'm wrong but I think you said, on another thread, that God is unknowable yet you seem to be claiming quite an extensive knowledge of what he requires of us and what he disapproves of.

If you're talking about Christianity we're not necessarily required to do anything we're already forgiven for all sin, we don't have to accept this forgiveness though we can tell God to screw himself and pursue a life of hate and/or evil that will result in a full spiritual separation from God i.e. You're clearly well within Gods light radius going back to the moth analogy as most atheists generally are, if you're within that zone you should be fine. It would be better for you to be within Gods light and enjoy being there rather be there and suffer from a certain amount of frustration. If you take Richard Dawkins and Hitchens and chums they're unsettled, disquieted and deeply uncomfortable people who have not found their peace. But God continues to draw them in and they have become a part of the dialogue of faith.

I don't have a problem with anyone's belief in God, it's religion that needs stamping on.

If we go back to the lightbulb analogy God is light and religion is the vessel that holds the light. As the moth you are smashing against the glass bulb while claiming not to have anything against the light within the bulb. If you were to break the bulb light in general will continue to exist but it will no longer be contained within the vessel you just smashed. It's not that you really want to smash the bulb it's the light within that has transfixed you.

[Harbal]

Ruskin:
I don't mind what you believe and I certainly have no interest in trying to change your mind about anything. I don't share any of your beliefs, which isn't a problem for me and I don't see why it should be one for you. I have no interest in what is written in the Bible and you calling me a moth isn't going to get me worked up enough to argue about it.

[Ruskin]

Ruskin:
I don't mind what you believe and I certainly have no interest in trying to change your mind about anything. I don't share any of your beliefs, which isn't a problem for me and I don't see why it should be one for you. I have no interest in what is written in the Bible and you calling me a moth isn't going to get me worked up enough to argue about it.

If you have no interest and have no interest in defending your ideology then don't come on here and don't post anything that's the easy thing to do if you can't handle it. What I said apples to all atheists in general it wasn't something personal about yourself specifically.

[Harbal]

What I said apples to all atheists

What is it with you and apples?

[Belinda]

Ruskin wrote to Harbal:

If you have no interest and have no interest in defending your ideology then don't come on here and don't post anything that's the easy thing to do if you can't handle it. What I said apples to all atheists in general it wasn't something personal about yourself specifically.

I cannot speak for Harbal. I write to Ruskin because he represents literal interpreters of Biblical texts. I do support God belief but only if that God-belief itself supports the welfare and rights of individuals, especially poor and oppressed individuals, and not those of vested interests, the very rich, or states. Ruskin does not seem to understand that the traditional God, even He of the Anglicans, is the head of a hierarchical social system.

The shepherd who leads the sheep controls the sheep who follow the source of their material needs unaware that they will be slaughtered for profitable trade,or at the least have their fleeces and their lambs' milk stolen. The candle flame that attracts moths besides providing light also burns them so the moths attracted by the pretty mythical light do well if they don't immolate themselves.

[Harbal]

If you have no interest and have no interest in defending your ideology then don't come on here and don't post anything

I don't think I've got an ideology to defend. I don't have a good opinion of religion but that could hardly be described as an ideology.

[Ruskin]

I don't think I've got an ideology to defend. I don't have a good opinion of religion but that could hardly be described as an ideology.

You can't really call it a faith but it is a metaphysical belief system the way you see the world and the purpose of life, why we are here and where we will all end up ultimately. There are some powerful arguments but I would just use them as a basis for some open minded doubt about certain things. There some doubt expressed in the Bible so I think it's good to have in some quantity.

"If only for this life we have hope in Christ, we are of all people most to be pitied." Corinthians 15:19

So the story of Christ may give you hope and comfort in this life but if this is some kind of symbolic tale that has no basis in actual fact and there is no life death then this is false hope. You would be better with the actual reality of life than a fiction. It does go on to say this ain't no fiction but the authors were well aware of the possibility of being wrong. Atheists are as well but they assume they're right unless you can scientifically prove otherwise.

[Alec Smart]

Atheists are as well but they assume they're right unless you can scientifically prove otherwise.

I think I know what you are saying. You're talking about the atheists who would like to believe in God but Can't because they are too intelligent, right?

[Wayne92587]

God does not having a problem with separating Good from Evil.

God's Knowledge is absolutely perfect Knowledge, the Truth; the fact being that God has no Knowledge of Good and Evil, Knowledge having a dual quality.

The Knowledge of Good and Evil, Absolutely Bad Knowledge having a dual quality is born of Mankind's Guilefulness, the single source of an Irrational, the Rational Mind; Absolutely Bad Knowledge being mistaken to be absolutely Good Knowledge is at best a half-truth, a lie, deception; the Knowledge of Good and Evil being only born of a single source, the Irrational mind.

God has no reason to Rationalize, God is Amoral!