Do we owe God obedience because God created us?

Now you're just being argumentative, which from what I've seen around here is your modus operandi. It is dishonest to say that I am "making excuses"; instead, I clarified my point. You are not able to address my clarification, so you are trying to focus on my earlier statement. Abuse of power is not the legitimate use of force.

That is not the most fundamental aspect of sovereignty. Sovereigns, first and foremost are autonomous - they possess a certain adequate degree of control over their own person and their own circumstances. This, indeed, is what it means to be a person - a morally free and responsible agent. Your God's sovereignty is that of a despot - it reduces all other persons to slavery.

Yeah, yeah more recycled conservative talking points. History shows that majoritarian democracy is unstable; the logic of democracy requires an individual civil rights dimension, because each person who participates in self-government recognizes that they can become the victim of the majority, and so will want to apply constitutional checks to the exercise of majority will. Perhaps majoritarianism comes first to your mind when you think of democracy, because for you a democracy where Christianity is legally privileged seems the natural order of things.

The bottom line is this, and it is evident in honest Christians like Quantrill, here: Monotheism is, ultimately, incompatible with democracy. It explicitly proffers a worldview where there is no popular sovereign, only a king. Conservatism itself is the ancient enemy of democracy, and the natural ally of religious authority: even in America today, it is conservatives who think religion should have more influence in the government and in the laws; it is conservatives who are willing to cast civil liberties aside in the name of "security"; it is conservatives who constantly bang on about how the United States "is not a democracy"; it is the conservative mentality's devotion to the ideals of hierarchy, obedience, and loyalty which are set directly against the democratic ideals of political and moral equality.

Christianity is interesting, because it is a hybrid of a Semitic tribal deity and a Greek universalistic outlook. The Greek influence is critical; its absence in Islam is what makes Islam lean towards the unification of church and state. Christianity emerged in the context of Greco-Roman culture; in Christianity's formative period, it had no hope of getting control of the state - and as a result, it emphasized the importance of personal morality and the individual conscience vis-a-vis God. Eventually those ideals where reinvigorated by the Protestant revolution; and after the hypocrisy of Christian humanism was made plain by the Wars of Religion, Christian humanism was gradually transformed into secular humanism. That is the tradition that Madison was in; Jefferson was more secular than Madison, and Thomas Paine was more secular still; the trajectory of Western history is clear, however - Christianity, in spite of itself, gave birth to modern secularism.

Even though many Americans, as you recognize, are in denial of this fact:

 

This is an unfounded claim. It's certainly possible that an insane being could create a sane being, or an evil being could create a good one. But it goes much further than this.

If God created us as free agents, by this fact alone he is morally required to relinquish control over us.

If you yourself created a breathing thinking person, what would he think of you if you put him in prison as soon as you created him?

 

Those are unfounded claims. God is not morally required by you to do any thing. According to who, you? Your morality? Please.

Who said you were a free agent? You?

I don't understand your last question as Im not aware of God putting us in prison.

Quantrill

 

We wouldn't "already" do it, because we woudn't know to do it in the first place without God's command.

Who said He is?

That's not evidence, just minutiae that has been used to justify a bogus conclusion.

 

There are lots of ways to approach this. Here's the simplest.

According to God's own morality.

Almost every Christian claims that God created us with freewill. If God can do no evil, he must have thought it good to give us freewill. If he turns around and makes slaves of us, he is denying his own goodness in giving us free will. Ipso facto he is admitting he's evil.

No. According to almost every Christian I've ever talked to. If you have a problem with their version of Christianity, take it up with them.

If on the other hand, you are arguing that neither you nor I has freewill, then this conversation is over. You are only disagreeing with me because you are a mere slave of the machinery of the universe, hence a slave of God since he was the creator of this machine. Hence to talk to you is to talk to no one.

It's a simple analogy for us having freewill and not being allowed to use it, or for us not having freewill at all which is what you seem to be arguing.

 

God's omniscience commands it. We are required to conform to his prior knowledge. If anyone could do something that conflicts with God's knowledge, then God must not be omniscient and hence not God.

 

If 'freewill' is the center of your questions, then yes we need go no farther. Man does not have free will. Man has a will. But it isn't free. Man makes decisions based on somethings that come into his life. He cannot change those things, and must decide based on those things, which many times he would rather not have to decide period. But, his will is not free. He must decide. See. God is the only one who has 'freewill'. His will is done. Man only has a will.

So, until we can come to grips with that, apparently your other questions are meaningless to me.

Quantrill

 

No it isn't.

And that He does. Mortal existence allows you to "try before you buy", so you can experience the illusion of self-determination long enough to realize that doing it your way (which, though it isn't really your way at all, isn't God's way either) doesn't work.

 

That makes sense and it does indeed change the whole picture. It doesn't help you though. To show why, see if you can answer this question:

What is the difference, if any, between a robot and a human?

 

I mean it only in the sense that there is nothing in the original claim that says it's not possible. Hence it is possible

Again we are left with an evil God, punishing us for mere illusions now.

 

A vast amount of differences but Im sure the ony one your concerned with is the will.

Man still has a will. And he exercises that will. And the decisions he makes he lives and dies by. That is different than a robot.

Quantrill

 

name 3 differences between a robot and a human.

Merely intoning the word "will" means nothing. If will is simply acting in a certian way according to circumstances, it is no different than what a robot does.

 

No it isn't, regardless of the original claim.

No, the punishment comes from the provider of illusions, who is the devil, to whom sinners owe their fealty; and they only experience that punishment eternally if in the end they prefer sweet little lies to reality.

 

It isn't. A robot is just as "happy" throwing itself into a crusher as it is tightening a bolt, because it cannot desire anything. A human only commits suicide because he desires what he cannot have.

 

"No it isn't" is not a defense.

Still left with an evil God. Give it up!

Now you say God is punishing us for being duped by Satan.

 

If we have no free will, happiness is just an illusion. And if we kill ourselves, we do so for the same reason that a coffeemaker percolates coffee.

 

So back to the original question. Do we owe God obedience for creating us or for any other reason? I would argue that it is literally impossible to defend the belief that we owe God anything.

 

Not dishonest unless you yourself are being dishonest in not considering all the definitions of the term 'rationalize'; which includes this definition:
"Psychol. to devise superficially rational, or plausible, explanations or excuses for (one's acts, beliefs, desires, etc.), usually without being aware that these are not the real motives". So you Rationalized your former statement in an attempt to justify that statement, when that statement said what it said and meant what it said. What is "legitimate"?

How is it possible for one to be Autonomous when one has relinquished a portion of his/her own natural authority and gave it over to someone else? "Adequate degree of control over their own person and their own circumstance"... But you gave up that adequate control when you allow someone else to dictate to you that you must not allow your grass to grow over a certain height or that you cannot cross the street on foot between street corners (jay walking) or that you cannot spit on the sidewalk... etc... My Gods sovereignty is not that of a despot, else we would all right now be bowing at the foot of God and worshiping Him. Your very existence as an Atheist is proof that God is not a Despot.

The "natural order of things" is what IS. If we are not experiencing the effect of 'the natural order of things', then we must of necessity be experiencing that which is 'unnatural' or perhaps 'supernatural'. So, regardless of how I view democracy, we experience the "IS" of right now, or the 'natural order of things'.

Are you a 'popular sovereign'? If you say yes, then go on down to your local legislative body and demand as a 'sovereign' that they recognize you as a sovereign and further demand that they rewrite the secular laws to make them in accord to your way of thinking. Are you afraid to exercise your authority as a sovereign? Or are you more willing to allow some other 'popular sovereign' to tell you what to do?



Christianity is interesting, because it is a hybrid of a Semitic tribal deity and a Greek universalistic outlook. The Greek influence is critical; its absence in Islam is what makes Islam lean towards the unification of church and state. Christianity emerged in the context of Greco-Roman culture; in Christianity's formative period, it had no hope of getting control of the state - and as a result, it emphasized the importance of personal morality and the individual conscience vis-a-vis God. Eventually those ideals where reinvigorated by the Protestant revolution; and after the hypocrisy of Christian humanism was made plain by the Wars of Religion, Christian humanism was gradually transformed into secular humanism. That is the tradition that Madison was in; Jefferson was more secular than Madison, and Thomas Paine was more secular still; the trajectory of Western history is clear, however - Christianity, in spite of itself, gave birth to modern secularism.

Even though many Americans, as you recognize, are in denial of this fact:[/QUOTE]

 

Flesh, blood, sex, alive, pro-create, spirit, soul.

A robot gives out answers. It doesn't have a will.

Quantrill

 

What I said doesn't need defending.

In the eyes of evil people, sure.

You have me confused with someone else.

That doesn't happen except through a person's selfishness.

Actually free will is the illusion you buy into the first time you sin and then try to escape the awareness of it.

 

Good questions. But they make no sense to someone who does not believe in God's existence.
.

 

We pursue our own good pleasure at God's command? Oh, I see: you're employing the tactic that many a totalitarian ruler does - being slaves is only what's good for the people, and if they will not do what is good for them, then they must be punished, in order to see what is their "good pleasure."

How are we different from God, in not wanting to harm the children (if you leave out the account God-sanctioned slaughter of children in the Old Testament, anyway)? You cite this as one of the reasons God imposes his will on us; but again, we impose on one another, legitimately, when we sometimes make the choice to harm children. So God is not any more special than we are, in that regard.

Is causing a child to suffer, wrong only because God says it is?

Ah, yes. The overwhelming deliverances of common sense experience tell us that we are not "born" with some innate knowledge of God's goodness (unless you are merely talking about awareness of the dictionary definition of "God" - which is a laughable argument) - but to you, that experience is "just minutiae" to justify an unsupported conclusion.

When the truth is that you are coming to me with the Big Lie: You cannot support your view that we "know" God is good from birth, and you simply deny the overwhelming evidence of common sense experience - that there is no one there - in order to justify your unsupported conclusion.

In all of this, of course, you are not answering my question: presuming that a Creator-God exists, on what basis does God command us to do anything? Back on planet Earth, there always must be some basis, either force majeure or a principled reason, for how one agent can compel another to obey. What is God's basis?

 

Well, they're not directed at the atheist, really. But I think it is a useful line of reasoning to pursue for athiest and theist alike; since it grants for the sake of argument that God exists (a major concession to theists), and then proceeds to explore just what moral basis a powerful Creator-being might have, to morally obligate us in any way.

My approach is to show that even if God exists, religion does not follow from it. It doesn't matter if someone could prove by miracles or whatever that God exists - God is no more in a position to demand worship, than the president is.

 

Bottom line is emphasized in red letter above.

Regardless of what reasoning, rationale, miracle, lack of miracle, or "Whatever", a Theist were to place in front of you, you would immediately reject it because it is representative of God. So what you are essentially saying, is that if God Himself were to appear before you, you would spit in His face? Another fundamental observation to be taken here, is the fact that your presence on this forum is not about debate, not about learning, not about anything other than your hatred toward God and anyone who promotes God. Your presence here, then is duly noted as being nothing more than an expression of your right to commit hate crimes.

 

Yes, there is a superficial similarity - the critical difference being, of course, that the totalitarian ruler is lying.

No, they will be punished, by evil one who sold them freedom to enslave them.

No, in order to see that the freedom they egotistically desire is slavery.

Your point being...?

That's the only reason anything is objectively wrong.

If you're using Einstein's definition of common sense, I agree.

Do you not understand that all proofs lead to propositions which have no articulable support?

It's not my job to support it, it's for you to realize you've been had whoever led you to believe otherwise.

I answered that with my first post - which was obviously too simple for you to get your mind around, but there is nothing I can do about that.

God IS the basis for every just demand, since He is the Source of Justice.