I haven't read that part yet, so I wouldn't know. However, God is God. He created man, therefore he can erase man as well. It's mankind who is messing around with death. Think of it this way: If somebody spent 5 years and ten million dollars making a beautiful clay sculpture, would it be illegal for the creator himself to destroy it? No, as he has a purpose of doing so, but that action would be illegal for somebody else.
34 comments
God didn't spend 5 years or 10 million dollars making earth. A more suitable analogy would be if a man, simply by thinking made a beautiful structure and could easily make one far more beautiful, simply by thinking would it be ok for someone to destroy it? I think destroying it wouldn't be the nicest thing to do but it doesn't really affect the creator.
Also, if man does manage to clone a human being, surely it is man's to do whatever they wish with so your argument implies that torture could be perfectly moral. I disagree.
Another thing, god is ALL POWERFUL, so why should we worship him for making us, it took him no effort whatsoever. (i am of course referring to the Christian god, who as far as i'm concerned does not exist).
Yeah...he creates a clay pot, and decides to send it to hell for all of its imperfections. What that pot should really do is apologize to its creator for all the flaws that the same creator put into him in the first place, 'cause that's the only way to escape Hell. If you blame yourself and accept the guilt for your flaws, than you go to heaven. Yay.
A better analogy would be this: If you gave birth to a son who dissappointed you by being gay, would it be illegal for you kill him? Of course, we know what the average fundie would say to that...
TB,
This is from a thread on the Naruto Forum about abortion. The above is a reply to another poster that references yet another poster that had submitted the following:
"Kings 15:16 God allows the pregnant women of Tappuah (aka Tiphsah) to be “ripped open”. And the Christians have the audacity to say god is pro-life. How and the hell is it that Christians can read passages where God allows pregnant women to be murdered, yet still claim abortion is wrong?"
One thing I noticed is that the majority of the posters on this website are under 20 years old with the average around 15. So you have to understand you're dealing with heads full of pudding going in. They don't know what they think, only what they're told to think.
When you create someone conscious, whether it be through natural reproduction, cloning, or thinking (as God allegedly can), you have no rights to control it. God would have no right to kill us, the same way parents have no right to kill their child. Besides, a knowledgeable, all-good and all-powerful god wouldn't kill anyone, so it's a moot point; even if God exists, he won't kill or torture or send anyone to hell, unless A), he's a self-interested bastard, B) he has about as much power as the Assistant Deputy Undersecretary of Agriculture, or C) he's a rider of the divine short bus.
Totally. If someone designs a building, and then decides they don't like it after it's been built and there are people living/working inside it, they can totally destroy it whenever they want. All design firms have that written into their contracts. Don't you guys know anything?
Mr. Turquoise
SC: I see. So, hasn't read the Bible yet, but knows exactly what God wants. Typical religiousperson, I'd say.
These fundies keep asking these sci-fi questions. the relationship to god described in this post seems to be more like a scientist to a hypothetical AI capable of independent thought and with the ability to feel pain than like parents to their child.
So if some brilliant programmer went through the trouble of building an AI that could feel pain and then proceeded to torture it for all eternity, would it be wrong? Well, it wouldn't be illegal, and it might not be technically wrong in the Biblical sense, but it would definitely be the action of a very sick and twisted individual.
Also if you went to all that trouble to create an entity solely for your own sadistic joy, it might be frustrating to you if that entity started coming up with own moral code, and suggesting things like good and evil are uncompromising concepts that bind the actions of the creator himself. If somebody snuck this little piece of viral machine code into your creation, you might have to go through an elaborate song and dance to convince the subject you are really on his side, that, in fact, you were incapable of evil because everything you do is good by definition. And it would be most helpful to your cause to suggest that the one guy who's always saying you should think for yourself is actuall a bad guy.
Agree about Maronan's remarks.
"He created man, therefore he can erase man as well" which I often hear from god-believers, is one of the most hideously immoral things I can imagine. This idea ALONE is sufficient to reject theistic orthodoxy.
Good post rob.
It wouldn't be illegal to torture the machine nowadays, but if it could be demonstrated that such a machine could be built and could actually suffer I suspect that there would be laws on the books before long.
Of course, just because something isn't illegal doesn't mean it's not unethical.
FYI, John Fogerty no longer owns the rights to his own music, so yes, he has no right to destroy it even though he created it.
Oh, and, if God can just destroy us because he created us, why hasn't he? I mean, the fundies keep telling us that we're pissing off God every day, how much longer is it gonna take?
Crosis - the clay sculpture is worth much more than Tsu, despite not being sentient, right? ;)
Of course, I'm joking.
Well, now I know your name, Winston ;)
Anyways, in my post, I was doing something probably unheard of in this world--making an anology. Therefore, YES, Croix, I do know the difference between a sentient being and a clay pot. If you guys don't like how I use analogies of inanimate objects, you guys can go be emo and I'll change during by the time you've stopped crying.
As for my age, I am 15. So? I've gone through enough in life to be 27. You might've had a head of "pudding" when you were 15, but please don't generalize that for everybody in the general age group.
Now, this quote is taken out of context. If you guys read the entire procession of the thread, then you would know that I responded to many of the arguments posed here.
As for now,
Cheers.
And keep on being your mature selves.
As for any questions, or general wishes to debate or to insult or whatever you all do, please email me at cerisster@gmail.com.
Thank you Winston. I enjoyed reading the responses of these people.
We're not being "emos." We're showing you the flaw in your analogy.
Edit: How was it taken out of context? You essentially said that whoever creates something can destroy it, and that people are as worthless as inanimate objects.
With those arguments, you can't logically oppose abortion, because since the parents created the fetus, they have the right to destroy it.
<<< If you guys don't like how I use analogies of inanimate objects >>>
Analogies are supposed to be appropriate. That is, the items you are comparing them to must share the relevant characteristics. A sentient being and a clay sculpture do not share the characteristics that are relevant when considering whether it is permissible to destroy them. Thus, the analogy fails.
Yeah, that's one of my pet peeves with fundillogism: they say "this is Dog, he made you, worship him". It's like saying to a kid: "OK, this is your mommy. She's a STD-ridden crack whore, it is because of her you were born seropositive and hooked on drugs and she abandonned you in a public toilet, but now you have to love and respect her."
And with the crack whore example, she most probably has excuses, even beyond the default human fallibility: poverty, youth, lack of education, situation of weakness, and so on. She's not some sort of omnipotent, omniscient and supposedly perfect sky fairy. Another thing is that the existence of the crack whore and her blood relation to the kid can be proved. Jehovah, OTOH, has yet to manifest himself, to say nothing of proving his paternity.
So if he wants us to worship him, he could begin by sending a sign that he exists (a burning Bush is always a favourite). Then he'd have a lot of explaining to do to get our forgiveness. Respect and worship would be things of the distant future....
"Think of it this way: If somebody spent 5 years and ten million dollars making a beautiful clay sculpture, would it be illegal for the creator himself to destroy it? No, as he has a purpose of doing so, but that action would be illegal for somebody else."
Abortion.
Great! You've just destroyed all Christian arguments against abortions. If you and your spouse create a fetus and the woman spends gallons of blood to sustain it, would it be illegal for the creators to order the destruction of it? No, as they have a purpose of doing so.
Confused?
So were we! You can find all of this, and more, on Fundies Say the Darndest Things!
To post a comment, you'll need to Sign in or Register . Making an account also allows you to claim credit for submitting quotes, and to vote on quotes and comments. You don't even need to give us your email address.