Does God make mistakes?

Mind boggling nonsense. The believer is happy to shift the burden of responsibility to a third (imaginary) party when it suits their purposes. Yet, they are the ones talking, no one else, just them.

This would be cute and funny if it was coming from an infant.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

What's in question here is lovingness the others are just not going to be in question, do realize that God has no judge and no creator He cannot be judged for that's impossible. He's the one who allows for any morality.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

You may believe it is the only one of those on the list in question, but I believe each can be questioned.

But this is simply not the case. I can judge and do judge with the capabilities I was born with and with the morality I have developed. How could a God be surprised by this? If we are speaking about an Abrahamic God, then this God made me and gave me this capability.

If so, He opened the can of worms and falls under our judgment because of that.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

From my perspective, I DON'T think a baby "deserves" to get raped, also, I don't think anyone deserves to get raped. What is interesting though, is how you singled out a "baby". Why?
What is the distinction between a baby and an adult, apart from age, with regards to actually being raped?

jan.

 

You will never be able to judge Him if He doesn't allow you to.

All morals are created by Him.

Edit: No He can't allow you to it's just not possible.

 

Alan McDougall,

The way I see it is, matter works in a systematic way, going through various changes, and ultimately is destroyed. This adversary of God that you speak of is part of the destruction and is in accordance with the laws of nature.

Or to put it in a nutshell, material nature.

jan.

 

If you don't think a baby deserves to get raped, then I don't see what raising the issue of its innocence is. It is innocent enough not to be placed in harm's way like that.

I chose a baby because often taking most clear examples can highlight problems with philosophical, religious or moral stances that are harder to see with other examples. I do not think it is OK for adults to get raped, but I don't want to get distracted by some of the issues that can get raised around adults. With babies most of these are immediately eliminated. We have someone utterly dependent on the adults in the home God has placed them in. Regardless of the choices the baby makes it cannot defend itself. It has not been bad so one cannot see the rape as something it has brought on itself, somehow, morally.

Since we are dealing with God, all examples must be covered.

To give a kind of opposite example to babies can perhaps show why I chose babies:

Why does God allow prison inmates to get raped?

You can imagine how the discussion might go all over the place to issues that do not apply in the situation with babies. I could have also used an everyday non-criminal adult. An example 'in the middle' so to speak. But even there it is muddier.

I chose the one where the issues I want to highlight are most clear.

 

There are 2 meanings of the word judge, at least, and perhaps we are talking past each other. But I mean, I do in fact evaluate the morality of God's actions and assertions. I decide if these are moral or immoral. And given that in the Abrahamic traditions it is God who made me, this facility and the desires inherent in its use are things I was given by God. He has clearly allowed me to do this. In fact I would say it would be remiss not to. But I do not believe God is infallible.

Note: you are judging God. You are evaluating God's abilities, actions, etc. To say this being is beyond our judgment is a judgment of that being. And also of us.

 

God doesn't fall in the category of what He created and since morals are created therefore relative you get the picture.

I'm not judging or evaluating Him I'm merely referring to what must be true about Him. one cannot judge the absolute.

 

Morals are relative? This is not what any of the Abrahamic religions say, so I am not sure which religion you are coming from here.

There is no reason God must be outside judgment and if God wished to be, there were rather clear steps God could have taken which God did not take. In fact God took many steps that made it very likely his choices would be judged. Why did God do that?

 

I'm sure we both agree that no one really wants to be truly raped, and if a person finds themself in that predicament, chances are they are pretty helpless, probably (in some cases) not as helpless as a baby, but helpless all the same. At the risk of sounding heartless, it could be a worse experience for the adult, because the adult would take on the full weight of the fear such experiences can generate. Not only before, and throughout the ordeal, but, for the rest of their natural life.

The baby is innocent, of course, but what makes you think the soul is?
Or did you use the term "soul" in a different context?

jan.

 

Sigh. You are trying to get me to defend the position that adults deserve to be raped more, or some such. This is irrevelent.

Now you are opening up the issue of the soul of the baby being innocent. I would have thought we covered this ground since the baby is not some thing that is other than the soul. It is soul and body.

Do you think that some baby's souls deserve rape?

Earlier you said you didn't think babies deserved to be raped and the babies were innocent. But now you are asking me if I think the baby's soul is innocent. As if when you said the baby was innocent you were not referring to its soul. How odd

 

You haven't read up on all of the Abrahamic religions then at least one of those religions have indicated morals are relative.

 

If the soul remains constantly in a state of not being materially affected (although it can, under the duress of illusion, have the experience of identifying the body as the self), its not clear how it gets raped.

 

Which one? It seems to me they all take very clear stands against moral relativism.

And as far as the rest of what I said?

 

Ah, come on, lightgigantic. That stance is a poor fit with, for example, Christianity. Or did Jesus not suffer for our sins?

I mean, if anyone was a soul it was him, n'est pas?

I think I am going to have to ask each person to defend their particular version of the infallible God within whichever tradition - if they are in one.

I mean you and I could get into a rather different discussion of God than the version in this thread. At least, I don't think you are in one of the Abrahamic traditions.

Here's how the thread started.....

more elided.

 

Once again the honorable C Martiny makes absolute statements based soley on his own perpective of life

Existence is a duality like the idea I propose below!!


I AM ALPHA MOMENT



IT IS TIME

I AM SOMETHING? IT IS NOTHING
I AM ANSWER IT IS QUESTION?
I AM ENERGY IT IS CONSUMER
I AM POSITIVE IT IS NEGATIVE
I AM AWARE IT IS AWARE
I AM LIGHT IT IS DARKNESS
I AM LOVE IT IS HATE
I AM SUPPLY IT IS CONSUME
I AM UP IT IS DOWN
I AM LIFE IT IS DEATH
I AM GOODNESS IT IS EVIL
I AM LIGHT IT IS DARKNESS
I AM TRUTH IT IS LIE
I AM HONEST IT IS DECEPTION
I AM PEACE IT IS DESOLATION
I AM ETERNAL IT IS ETERNAL
I AM LIFE IT IS DEATH
WHO AM I? WHO IS IT?

CHOOSE ME!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Alan

 

Yes, they stand against practicing moral relativism but do not deny morals are relative.

 

sure
a soul that isn't under the duress of illusion

Their ability to appear in this world by choice (and not force or implication by material desire) is what makes them especially unique, even amongst droves of spiritually perfected persons.

All it suggests is that god is sorry to see the living entity in this world.
If one is working out of the notion that man is inherently of this world (IOW the corporeal world is our "real" home), perhaps there would be a problem

 

which religion is this and could you direct me to the appropriate text: Bible, Koran, Torah, etc.

And what about the rest of what I said?