thebagman
07-12-2011, 11:44 PM
I found an article that I thought was interesting.
http://atheism.about.com/b/2007/07/31/comment-of-the-week-morality-of-believing-in-a-vengeful-god.htm
Christians frequently try to portray their god as a loving, benevolent god, but this ignores the long history of Christian theology which includes a great deal about their god being wrathful, vengeful, and downright violent. Christians have generally just accepted this on the assumption that it's wrong to "judge" their god — whatever it does must necessarily be moral, right?
Secular atheists are not so constrained and can more easily point out just how immoral or indecent such a god is. A more interesting issue, though, may be how belief in such an immoral god influences the morality of the believers. When grossly immoral and indecent behavior is accepted as a matter of course, or even as an example of just behavior, how can believers themselves uphold minimal standards of morality and decency in their own lives?
George writes about religious leaders who deliver positive portrayals of their god delivering vengeance to even innocent people:
What strikes me about what the Bishop says is his careless feeling for a person's life. I imagine that his constituents feel that on a face to face he is caring but I think it is obvious that he cares little for an innocent life taken away miles from some "moral crime" God is displeased about. (And how is it the God of the Bible cannot think Capitalism to be a most egregious sin but one in which his followers so delight?)
As a nonbeliever I find life to be infinitely precious no matter who it is who may have life and am offended if some god capriciously takes that innocent life for no other reason than a grudge. The Bishop defends the morally indefensible and becomes immoral himself.
I don't see how he can't see he turns his own religion completely upside down.
Perhaps there is something wrong with the cognitive organization of his religion.
If a religious believer thinks that it would be moral and unjust for their god to cause your death not for some "sin" of yours, but because of the "sins" of neighbors — or perhaps of people hundreds of miles away — would you be able to maintain the belief that this person is moral? Would you continue to trust this person very far? Would you entrust the safety of your children to them?
I don't think I could and I would in fact go a bit further: I'm not sure I would trust such a person never to feel justified in enforcing the will of their god on their own. If they think it's just and good for you as an innocent person to die, then of course it would be just and good for you to die if you aren't innocent. Once that inference is accepted, how much of a leap is it to for someone to think that they could be the instrument of their god's vengeance on sinners?
What do you think?
http://atheism.about.com/b/2007/07/31/comment-of-the-week-morality-of-believing-in-a-vengeful-god.htm
Christians frequently try to portray their god as a loving, benevolent god, but this ignores the long history of Christian theology which includes a great deal about their god being wrathful, vengeful, and downright violent. Christians have generally just accepted this on the assumption that it's wrong to "judge" their god — whatever it does must necessarily be moral, right?
Secular atheists are not so constrained and can more easily point out just how immoral or indecent such a god is. A more interesting issue, though, may be how belief in such an immoral god influences the morality of the believers. When grossly immoral and indecent behavior is accepted as a matter of course, or even as an example of just behavior, how can believers themselves uphold minimal standards of morality and decency in their own lives?
George writes about religious leaders who deliver positive portrayals of their god delivering vengeance to even innocent people:
What strikes me about what the Bishop says is his careless feeling for a person's life. I imagine that his constituents feel that on a face to face he is caring but I think it is obvious that he cares little for an innocent life taken away miles from some "moral crime" God is displeased about. (And how is it the God of the Bible cannot think Capitalism to be a most egregious sin but one in which his followers so delight?)
As a nonbeliever I find life to be infinitely precious no matter who it is who may have life and am offended if some god capriciously takes that innocent life for no other reason than a grudge. The Bishop defends the morally indefensible and becomes immoral himself.
I don't see how he can't see he turns his own religion completely upside down.
Perhaps there is something wrong with the cognitive organization of his religion.
If a religious believer thinks that it would be moral and unjust for their god to cause your death not for some "sin" of yours, but because of the "sins" of neighbors — or perhaps of people hundreds of miles away — would you be able to maintain the belief that this person is moral? Would you continue to trust this person very far? Would you entrust the safety of your children to them?
I don't think I could and I would in fact go a bit further: I'm not sure I would trust such a person never to feel justified in enforcing the will of their god on their own. If they think it's just and good for you as an innocent person to die, then of course it would be just and good for you to die if you aren't innocent. Once that inference is accepted, how much of a leap is it to for someone to think that they could be the instrument of their god's vengeance on sinners?
What do you think?