Battleground God

[Piers]

[ QUOTE ]
You took zero direct hits and you bit 1 bullets. The average player of this activity to date takes 1.39 hits and bites 1.11 bullet. 388436 people have so far undertaken this activity.


[/ QUOTE ]

Me2. Which bullet?

[ QUOTE ]
Bitten Bullet 1

You answered "True" to questions 7, and 15.

These answers generated the following response:

You've just bitten a bullet! You are consistent in applying the principle that it is justifiable to base one's beliefs about the external world on a firm, inner conviction, regardless of the external evidence, or lack of it, for the truth or falsity this conviction. The problem is that it seems you have to accept that people might be justified in their belief that God could demand something terrible.

This is something many religious people are willing to accept. For example, Kierkegaard believed that it is precisely because Abraham had to contravene established morality to follow God's will and attempt to sacrifice his son which made his act the supreme act of faith.

But as Kierkegaard also stressed, this makes the act incomprehensible from a rational point of view. The rational alternative - that people should require more than such an inner conviction to justify such a belief - is more attractive to most people, but you reject this alternative and bite the bullet


[/ QUOTE ]

[Hopey]

[ QUOTE ]

This suggests that people were so evil in ancient times that they deserved God's wrath in the form of plagues and such but that we are much more righteous in the present day so we don't see these things. Is that a fair characterization?

[/ QUOTE ]

The great religious thinkers Jerry Falwell and Pat Robertson preached that the terrorist attacks of 9/11 were a consequence of "the pagans, and the abortionists, and the feminists, and the gays and the lesbians who are actively trying to make that an alternative lifestyle, the ACLU, People For the American Way, all of them who have tried to secularize America. I point the finger in their face and say 'you helped this happen.'"

So apparently god continues to show his wrath. He just doesn't do it in the form of plagues anymore. He careens jumbo jets into skyscrapers to spread his word these days.

[Taraz]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

Is that a fair characterization?


[/ QUOTE ]

The purpose of the Book of Jonah isn't to distinguish between ancient and modern civilization.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yes, but you said that God's actions only differ because of the state of man at the time. So if God introduced plagues, pestilence, and the like in Biblical times then the only reason he doesn't do so now is because humanity has changed. This presumably means that we are less deserving of his wrath and scorn at present.

[NotReady]

[ QUOTE ]

the only reason he doesn't do so now


[/ QUOTE ]

Who said He doesn't now?

[jstnrgrs]

I believe in God. I bit 2 bullets, and took no direct hits. I have no problem with this.\

Bullet 1:
You are consistent in applying the principle that it is justifiable to base one's beliefs about the external world on a firm, inner conviction, regardless of the external evidence, or lack of it, for the truth or falsity this conviction. The problem is that it seems you have to accept that people might be justified in their belief that terrible things are right. You have agreed that the rapist is justified in believing that he carries out the will of God, and in an earlier answer you indicated that you think that God defines what is good and what is evil. Therefore, to be consistent, you must think the rapist is justified in believing that he acts morally when he acts on his inner conviction. Hence, you bite the bullet and justify the rapist

Bullet 2:

In saying that God has the freedom and power to do that which is logically impossible (like creating square circles), you are saying that any discussion of God and ultimate reality cannot be constrained by basic principles of rationality. This would seem to make rational discourse about God impossible. If rational discourse about God is impossible, there is nothing rational we can say about God and nothing rational we can say to support our belief or disbelief in God. To reject rational constraints on religious discourse in this fashion requires accepting that religious convictions, including your religious convictions, are beyond any debate or rational discussion. This is to bite a bullet.

I have thought for a while that God must be byond logic. That Is why I don't often participate in the discussions about God on this forum.