Do You See A Good/Moral God Overall?

[Mordecai]

Women have a right to abortion as determined by the US Supreme Court...

Why did the US Supreme Court have authority? Because the Constitution gave it to them. But they threw the Constitution under the bus, when they ruled on Roe v. Wade. They had no authority whatsoever, the moment they ignored what the Constitution actually says. Not only does the Constitution not mention a right to privacy, the right to privacy has nothing to do with whether a woman has a right to destroy a would-be baby. The idea that you can derive a right to abortion from the Constitution is the result of a corrupt judicial system that doesn't work on any rational level. It's designed to manipulate the system to usurp power from elected officials, who not only outnumber the Supreme Court, they are elected and thus have a great mandate to power.

Whether I say yes or no, what does it have to say about the morality of "god" performing the abortions for us- even against our will?

Why wouldn't God have a right to cause abortions? He co-created the would-be baby in the first place and created our power to procreate. Why should He not have a right to control who dies, when we all live and exist because of Him? He made reproduction and gave it to us, so He can take it away.

[Hughes]

I do not see how this is relevant. Whether I say yes or no, what does it have to say about the morality of "god" performing the abortions for us- even against our will?

Women have a right to abortion as determined by the US Supreme Court. Not sure what you are asking about a "moral right." This gets into things such as when does life begin, rights of the fetus, etc. which is a whole other topic.

If you are hoping to draw some type of comparison between "moral rights" as practiced by a human versus "moral rights" as practiced by god, then you are woefully off the mark. God is perfect, humans are imperfect. Evil cannot exist in god's presence, yet "evil" surrounds us humans. With regard to morality, yes, I would expect more from a perfect being such as god.

The argument from the atheist, is that we see immoral situations all around us, Eldwynn just mentioned three or four. The assumption being that, "Under any definition of morality that applies to humans, god either turns up immoral..."

The point of the question about a moral right for women to kill their own child (ie via abortion), is to expose a glaring double standard.

If you say yes, the woman has a moral right to abort, and deny the same moral right to God with his creation, how is that not a double standard?

If you say no, the woman hasn't any moral right to abort, then at least you're consistent in applying your moral standards.

Now, you say that God isn't aborting anyone with these "mutational developmental diseases. Diseases such as Progeria, Ondines curse" and so on. And yet the very foundation for a woman's moral right to abortion is that the baby is in her body. And in the same way, we are in God's "body" so to speak, his creation. We are not living independent of him, just as a baby doesn't live independent of it's mother. Rather, with every breath we breathe, we do so because he provided the air, gravity, atmosphere, and Earth to live on, and the Sun (at just the right distance) too keep us from freezing. We depend on him for every moment of our existence. And yet, a woman has a moral right to abort, and God doesn't have the same moral right?

[Jeff K.]

Jeff K., on 16 May 2011 - 07:18 AM, said:

Let us look at it from another angle. Is it a good and moral parent that keeps their child absolutely safe. Making all the decisions, allowing no skinned knees, no pain, and making life an idyllic pleasure for them so that they can never know sacrifice, deprivations, death, lonliness, and with that never appreciate birth, charity, success, and friendship, brotherhood, and love. You cannot have one without the other, and the deeper the cost, the greater the understanding and feeling and empathy.

I can understand what you are saying. Pain is a great way to get people to learn something (then again... assuming intelligent design... that is only because we are designed to learn through pain). Sometimes you have to let your child skin his knees to get something. Sometimes it's a lot more painful (circumcision anyone?).

But I am not talking about anything remotely close. I am talking about something like cholera or Ebola.

Someone proposed that these viruses evolved to affect humans only after they were created. Fine, but that still doesn't answer mutational developmental diseases. Diseases such as Progeria, Ondines curse (being born having to consciously breathe, as in it's not automatic), Androgen insensitivity (being born looking like a beautiful woman, but in reality you are a man, with no sex organs) etc. etc. The list goes on and on.

If I wanted to teach my child a lesson, and I gave him fatal familial insomnia, you would not call me moral, by any definition. You would not say "Oh well, he is the father and he knows best. Who am I to judge?" You would call the act immoral, and throw me in prison. Under any definition of morality that applies to humans, god either turns up immoral, or is just not responsible for ANYTHING in the universe.

Perhaps you are young... you missed the point completely.

Allow me to be more literal....

If I thought my children were going to be stunted or die, I would be horrified. Who wouldn't be horrified by such a thought? But what if there was a way out. A way in which I could overcome that very strong obstacle to their life. Among other things it would mean giving up a great deal of control over my children, allowing them to find their own way, and face the short term consequences of the path they chose. It would also mean that someone I loved would have to pay a terrible price, something much higher than any of us could imagine today. But my children would flourish, many would grow, and they would all have the opportunity to overcome the shortcoming in their progress and become complete and whole. None would be denied and all would offered the same opportunity.

In this sense the alternative in the premortal existence is much much worse than we could imagine now. But the path would be difficult for us. An atonement would be needed. The choices wholly ours.

Now from my perspective, a skinned knee is a small thing, because I know the child will eventually be made whole. To my child it is the end of the world, and they want it to stop. But I realize they have to learn what a skinned knee is, how the consequence of their actions or the actions of others affects them, and how to overcome skinned knees and see the bigger scheme of things. Perspective and allowing failure and enduring are part of the process.

Since we will be made whole, and our future will be stronger than any reality we face now, our suffering is only for a short time, really only a flash in the long term scheme of things. Nothing will be lost to us, but great experience will be gained. We will be wiser for it. In essence on an eternal basis, this life, is nothing more than a skinned knee, even in its most depraved.

So when you stated

But I am not talking about anything remotely close. I am talking about something like cholera or Ebola.

.......Diseases such as Progeria, Ondines curse (being born having to consciously breathe, as in it's not automatic), Androgen insensitivity (being born looking like a beautiful woman, but in reality you are a man, with no sex organs) etc. etc. The list goes on and on.

If I wanted to teach my child a lesson, and I gave him fatal familial insomnia, you would not call me moral, by any definition. You would not say "Oh well, he is the father and he knows best. Who am I to judge?" You would call the act immoral, and throw me in prison. Under any definition of morality that applies to humans, god either turns up immoral, or is just not responsible for ANYTHING in the universe.....

You are in effect presuming that nothing is restored, that we will continue with whatever damage we recieve in this mortal life, and that there really is not next life in which we will continue to progress. Your view in other words is that we are limited by the physical damage done in this life for all eternity. Where that true, I would state that I could not divine the moral code of God and would not know if such justice occurred or not.

But the God I know, and the one you seem to describe are two different people. The God I know restores all things, supports us in our times of need, and allows us the freedom to grow. The God I know provides me with an inheritance that makes any trials in this life a mere pittance.

You don't have an expansive view of God, yours is of a limited view of the here and now, and what he can do for you know in this mortal life. Like the prodigal you want your reward now, so that you can "now" decide what to do with it (or if you will you think the reward should be given to others now so that they can decide what to do with it). The other son labored, and continued to grow and learn. Perhaps the prodigal will repent and take part in the inheritance, perhaps not.

So by your judgement of God and his morality, you have overlooked some infinitely powerful variables. And these variables make God moral beyond your ability to judge Him, since He will restore all things and provide an eternal inheritance, and I trust you realize eternal does not merely mean infinitely long. I would not trade my inheritance for a momentary flash in this mortal life because sometimes I see a glimmer of what may be for me and my family.

I trust this clarifies it.

[Alla]

The argument from the atheist, is that we see immoral situations all around us, Eldwynn just mentioned three or four. The assumption being that, "Under any definition of morality that applies to humans, god either turns up immoral..."

The point of the question about a moral right for women to kill their own child (ie via abortion), is to expose a glaring double standard.

If you say yes, the woman has a moral right to abort, and deny the same moral right to God with his creation, how is that not a double standard?

If you say no, the woman hasn't any moral right to abort, then at least you're consistent in applying your moral standards.

Now, you say that God isn't aborting anyone with these "mutational developmental diseases. Diseases such as Progeria, Ondines curse" and so on. And yet the very foundation for a woman's moral right to abortion is that the baby is in her body. And in the same way, we are in God's "body" so to speak, his creation. We are not living independent of him, just as a baby doesn't live independent of it's mother. Rather, with every breath we breathe, we do so because he provided the air, gravity, atmosphere, and Earth to live on, and the Sun (at just the right distance) too keep us from freezing. We depend on him for every moment of our existence. And yet, a woman has a moral right to abort, and God doesn't have the same moral right?

Hughes,

WOW! I never thought about it this way. Thanks.

I am learning so much on this forum. I had many discussions with atheists before about God and I really understand them. But if I was an atheist I would accept this answer.

[Hughes]

Hughes,

WOW! I never thought about it this way. Thanks.

I am learning so much on this forum. I had many discussions with atheists before about God and I really understand them. But if I was an atheist I would accept this answer.

Thanks!

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

The argument from the atheist, is that we see immoral situations all around us, Eldwynn just mentioned three or four. The assumption being that, "Under any definition of morality that applies to humans, god either turns up immoral..."

The point of the question about a moral right for women to kill their own child (ie via abortion), is to expose a glaring double standard.

If you say yes, the woman has a moral right to abort, and deny the same moral right to God with his creation, how is that not a double standard?

It is good to see that you finally get why double standards are a problem.

[Walden]

The argument from the atheist, is that we see immoral situations all around us, Eldwynn just mentioned three or four. The assumption being that, "Under any definition of morality that applies to humans, god either turns up immoral..."

The point of the question about a moral right for women to kill their own child (ie via abortion), is to expose a glaring double standard.

If you say yes, the woman has a moral right to abort, and deny the same moral right to God with his creation, how is that not a double standard?

If you say no, the woman hasn't any moral right to abort, then at least you're consistent in applying your moral standards.

Now, you say that God isn't aborting anyone with these "mutational developmental diseases. Diseases such as Progeria, Ondines curse" and so on. And yet the very foundation for a woman's moral right to abortion is that the baby is in her body. And in the same way, we are in God's "body" so to speak, his creation. We are not living independent of him, just as a baby doesn't live independent of it's mother. Rather, with every breath we breathe, we do so because he provided the air, gravity, atmosphere, and Earth to live on, and the Sun (at just the right distance) too keep us from freezing. We depend on him for every moment of our existence. And yet, a woman has a moral right to abort, and God doesn't have the same moral right?

So essentially, you are holding god to the same moral standards as humanity, as flawed, imperfect and often evil as we are.....sorry, but a perfect being such as god should have perfect moral clarity, and thus be morally perfect. I expect a higher standard from god than your argument that essentially states that "well, we perform immoral acts, why can't god." This makes no sense to me, then again, I don't believe that god exists.

[Jeff K.]

So essentially, you are holding god to the same moral standards as humanity, as flawed, imperfect and often evil as we are.....sorry, but a perfect being such as god should have perfect moral clarity, and thus be morally perfect. I expect a higher standard from god than your argument that essentially states that "well, we perform immoral acts, why can't god." This makes no sense to me, then again, I don't believe that god exists.

Here read: I cannot argue against your point. Therefore I will argue that what I consider moral is not morality.

Double standards must be propped up, no matter what.

[Lightbearer]

Of course I see a good/moral God, if I didn't I would be an atheist and try to bash the believers like many do on this board. Can I explain God's "behavior" as recorded in the Bible? No, but I think it rather arrogant to judge Him by my "personal standards" especially when we do not have all the answers yet. But unlike many I have faith in Him in spite of the grainsayers.Other's may have a different view of Him but I submit that perhaps it is their "window" that is dirty not that God is immoral or unjust.

[bluebell]

So essentially, you are holding god to the same moral standards as humanity, as flawed, imperfect and often evil as we are.....sorry, but a perfect being such as god should have perfect moral clarity, and thus be morally perfect. I expect a higher standard from god than your argument that essentially states that "well, we perform immoral acts, why can't god." This makes no sense to me, then again, I don't believe that god exists.

I don't believe that was Hughes's argument. I think he is asking whether or not you feel that abortion is morally wrong. If you don't believe it is morally wrong, then he wants to know how you believe that God's choice to 'abort' some of his children is morally wrong.

Basically, I think hughes is trying to understand where you stand on a basic moral issue (abortion) so that he can better address your judgement against God's morals.

After all, it is not Hughes who has demanded that God have the same moral standard as a human. You have made that demand by attempting to hold God to the same moral standards as yourself and condemning God for not behaving in a way that YOU agree with.

Hughes is trying to address your demand that God should have the same moral standard as you, but he did not create the demand.

Your argument here that God should NOT behave as a human who is flawed and imperfect, actually seems to undermine your whole point, which seems to be "i don't agree with these things, therefore, they are immoral".

[Walden]

Why did the US Supreme Court have authority? Because the Constitution gave it to them. But they threw the Constitution under the bus, when they ruled on Roe v. Wade. They had no authority whatsoever, the moment they ignored what the Constitution actually says. Not only does the Constitution not mention a right to privacy, the right to privacy has nothing to do with whether a woman has a right to destroy a would-be baby. The idea that you can derive a right to abortion from the Constitution is the result of a corrupt judicial system that doesn't work on any rational level. It's designed to manipulate the system to usurp power from elected officials, who not only outnumber the Supreme Court, they are elected and thus have a great mandate to power.

Why wouldn't God have a right to cause abortions? He co-created the would-be baby in the first place and created our power to procreate. Why should He not have a right to control who dies, when we all live and exist because of Him? He made reproduction and gave it to us, so He can take it away.

We can quibble all we want regarding the power of the Supreme Court vs. the Constitution, but the fact remains, as I stated, that the US Supreme Court has given women the right to have an abortion, regardless of the "morality" of the action. And regarding your statement that elected officials have a "greater mandate to power," I can tell you unequivocally that the Judicial branch of the United States is the most powerful branch of government by far, and thus the Supreme Court is the most powerful institution. Name another government in which officials are given a life term (such as Supreme Court justices) and where there is no veto power that can override a decision (when the court states that something is unconstitutional, that is the final say). Considering the Founding Fathers established this court in Article III, section 1 of the US Constitution, well maybe god was taking a day off from leading the Founding Fathers in the development of this document when they gave these rights and powers to the Supreme Court.

God certainly has a right to cause abortions, as well as send babies to this world with debilitating, painful abnormalities in which they suffer for several minutes, days or months before succumbing to death after a short, excruciatingly painful existence. Yes, god has that right, I just don't find anything "moral" about it, that's all.

[Walden]

I don't believe that was Hughes's argument. I think he is asking whether or not you feel that abortion is morally wrong. If you don't believe it is morally wrong, then he wants to know how you believe that God's choice to 'abort' some of his children is morally wrong.

Basically, I think hughes is trying to understand where you stand on a basic moral issue (abortion) so that he can better address your judgement against God's morals.

After all, it is not Hughes who has demanded that God have the same moral standard as a human. You have made that demand by attempting to hold God to the same moral standards as yourself and condemning God for not behaving in a way that YOU agree with.

Hughes is trying to address your demand that God should have the same moral standard as you, but he did not create the demand.

Your argument here that God should NOT behave as a human who is flawed and imperfect, actually seems to undermine your whole point, which seems to be "i don't agree with these things, therefore, they are immoral".

What is so hard to understand here. I am an immoral person. You are an immoral person. We have all sinned and we have all transgressed against god. We live in an imperfect world where there is evil and immorality.

How does my opinion on abortion affect god's morality?

You have completely missed my point if you think that I am demanding that "God have the same moral standard as a human," as you suggest, nor am I "attempting to hold God to the same moral standards as [myself]." That would be a mess....I am holding god to a much higher standard, a standard of perfection. Is he not perfect?

And I am completely baffled by your statement that my "argument here that God should NOT behave as a human who is flawed and imperfect, actually seems to undermine your whole point, which seems to be "i don't agree with these things, therefore, they are immoral." This makes no sense......god is perfect, man is imperfect (do we at least agree on that much?). There are a lot of things that I don't agree with, but that doesn't make them immoral, and there are likely some things that i agree with that you would consider immoral. But I expect god to act perfectly moral....I guess I apologize for my high expectations of perfection.

[Alla]

We can quibble all we want regarding the power of the Supreme Court vs. the Constitution, but the fact remains, as I stated, that the US Supreme Court has given women the right to have an abortion, regardless of the "morality" of the action. And regarding your statement that elected officials have a "greater mandate to power," I can tell you unequivocally that the Judicial branch of the United States is the most powerful branch of government by far, and thus the Supreme Court is the most powerful institution. Name another government in which officials are given a life term (such as Supreme Court justices) and where there is no veto power that can override a decision (when the court states that something is unconstitutional, that is the final say). Considering the Founding Fathers established this court in Article III, section 1 of the US Constitution, well maybe god was taking a day off from leading the Founding Fathers in the development of this document when they gave these rights and powers to the Supreme Court.

God certainly has a right to cause abortions, as well as send babies to this world with debilitating, painful abnormalities in which they suffer for several minutes, days or months before succumbing to death after a short, excruciatingly painful existence. Yes, god has that right, I just don't find anything "moral" about it, that's all.

That is the point that "moral" or "immoral" are very subjective things. To let babies to suffer is not "moral" or "immoral" by itself.

To kill somebody is niether moral or immoral. To feed the hungry is niether moral or immoral. But our intentions make our actions moral or immoral. If I kill someone because I am a sadist, it is immoral. If I kill someone defending myself or my children it is moral.

To feed hungry to gain his trust to get something from him is immoral.

Do you know God's intentions to make babies suffer and die so you can say for sure:"Yes, God's intention was evil and immoral, therefore His action is immoral".

[bluebell]

What is so hard to understand here. I am an immoral person. You are an immoral person. We have all sinned and we have all transgressed against god. We live in an imperfect world where there is evil and immorality.

How does my opinion on abortion affect god's morality?

You have completely missed my point if you think that I am demanding that "God have the same moral standard as a human," as you suggest, nor am I "attempting to hold God to the same moral standards as [myself]." That would be a mess....I am holding god to a much higher standard, a standard of perfection. Is he not perfect?

But it's your definition of perfection that He must meet, right?

You said-"Sorry, but I fail to see any good/morality in knowingly sending your children to a situation in which you are fully and completely aware that they will starve to death before they reach their fifth birthday (every single day, almost 16,000 children die from hunger-related causes, or about one death every five seconds), be born with debilitating and/or excruciatingly painful diseases/abnormalities (for a quick example, just do a google search of harlequin ichthyosis....but please be forewarned that it is a gruesome birth defect), be cared for by abusive and/or neglectful parents who end up killing their children through physical abuse, etc. Not to mention the numerous slaughters as presented in the Old Testament....I never considered vengeance a moral trait."

Have you considered that this is your interpretation of God and not the reality of God?

I'm going to use a personal example to explain what i mean.

We live in an apartment building that has a very nice courtyard. This courtyard is great bunny habitat and so the kids who live here have had a lot of opportunities for baby bunny finding. One mother bunny decided to put her nest of babies right under the slide at the playground and they were quickly discovered and brought to me to 'care' for them. They were only a few days old however and there was no way for a person to give these little guys what they needed to survive, so i made the choice to put them back outside each night so that their mother could come back and feed them. Then we would remove them each morning to keep them safe from the children (since mother bunnies don't visit the nests during the day, it was fine for them to be out of it) and put them back each night.

This concept was very hard for the children in the neighborhood to understand. The nights were cold and the bunnies' nest was in damp sand. They thought i was cruel to leave them outside. The kids thought they new a better way. The babies did well under my system, but eventually a very kind hearted neighbor girl decided that she wanted to take over care of them. She was about 12 and was very invested in their survival. She had been helping me retrieve the bunnies and so was aware of how impossible it was for the bunnies to grow and mature under our care, no matter how well intentioned. She agreed to keep the plan in place, but, when night came, she decided that it was too cruel to leave the little guys outside and that she would become their mother. From that time on, she kept them with her day and night. The babies were all dead in 2 days.

She meant well, but she could not see the bigger picture, could not see that good intentions could not make up for her weaknessess as a human trying to nurture baby bunnies, and ultimately she could not put the bunnies well being above her discomfort at their very temporary suffering. She was willing to trade what the babies needed most for what she believed they needed in the moment, and it was disaster for the bunnies.

Have you considered that your judgments against God's morality could be similar to how the children saw the process of keeping the bunnies alive? ARe you considering the bigger picture? Are you making room for your very limited understanding of what God's children really need to 'grow up'? Are you judging Him based on what His children actually need, or are you judging Him based on what you think they need?

I know you are decided in your beliefs about God and i'm not in any way under the impression that what i've written here is going to change that. These are just things for you to consider.

There are a lot of things that I don't agree with, but that doesn't make them immoral, and there are likely some things that i agree with that you would consider immoral. But I expect god to act perfectly moral....I guess I apologize for my high expectations of perfection.

I know you expect God to act perfectly moral. I do as well. I'm simply suggesting that you are using your own personal defition of morality (as the children did, when i left the bunnies outside) and that it might be wise to consider that your defition of morality could be flawed (as the children's was) because you, right now, are incapable of seeing the bigger picture.

[Kenngo1969]

I didn't equate those things.

I responded to this question:

If a parent sends a child to school to get an education and the child is bullied, harrassed, and abused at school, was the parent's decision to educate immoral?

Dang my immoral parents!!!

[Kenngo1969]

... [O]ur intentions make our actions moral or immoral. ...

Great point, Alla. Because I don't always understand God's intentions, I may be tempted to conclude that something He does is immoral based on incomplete information. (Besides, oftentimes, to we really know what God does, versus what He allows or prevents? I don't think so; it's the difference between having a finite mind and having an infinite one.

[LeSellers]

Name another government in which officials are given a life term (such as Supreme Court justices) and where there is no veto power that can override a decision (when the court states that something is unconstitutional, that is the final say). Considering the Founding Fathers established this court in Article III, section 1 of the US Constitution, well maybe god was taking a day off from leading the Founding Fathers in the development of this document when they gave these rights and powers to the Supreme Court.

The Congress can, although rarely does, repeal a decision/opinion.

It can remove a piece of legislation from judicial power. I don't have my Constitution with me today, but it's in there.

Lehi

[Hughes]

So essentially, you are holding god to the same moral standards as humanity, as flawed, imperfect and often evil as we are.....sorry, but a perfect being such as god should have perfect moral clarity, and thus be morally perfect. I expect a higher standard from god than your argument that essentially states that "well, we perform immoral acts, why can't god." This makes no sense to me, then again, I don't believe that god exists.

So, by not answering the question you don't understand.

Bluebell has got it.

In essence, as an atheist, your argument to criticize God's morality is a self defeating argument.

Once you say, "God's morality is not good..." You have posited an absolute moral standard (law), to determine what is good or not.

And in doing so, you've stepped outside of an atheistic world view, and into a theistic one to attempt to criticize God, because once you posit a moral law, you also must have a moral law giver.

And since you've had to step outside the atheistic world view to make this criticism, you are actually supporting the idea that God exists, which ends up undermining your position and your argument in the first place.

Now. The problem of pain and suffering isn't something that only has to be dealt with by the Theists. The atheists also have to deal with it.

What is their answer?

You live and you die, and you just suffer and that's the end? The pain is meaningless, because life is meaningless? Or it just "happens" that way?

The Christian message gives hope to the suffering, because Christ suffered. What does the atheist offer to the suffering?

[bluebell]

That is the point that "moral" or "immoral" are very subjective things. To let babies to suffer is not "moral" or "immoral" by itself.

To kill somebody is niether moral or immoral. To feed the hungry is niether moral or immoral. But our intentions make our actions moral or immoral. If I kill someone because I am a sadist, it is immoral. If I kill someone defending myself or my children it is moral.

To feed hungry to gain his trust to get something from him is immoral.

Do you know God's intentions to make babies suffer and die so you can say for sure:"Yes, God's intention was evil and immoral, therefore His action is immoral".

I think this is an excellent point. I would make sense that some atheists or agnostics would have trouble believing in a moral God because they sometimes try to judge His actions while ignoring His intentions. They judge the short term picture while declaring that the long term goal does not exist.

Sticking a baby with a needle just because would be immoral. Sticking a baby with a needle to keep it from getting a deadly disease is moral. The reason or consequence for the action is usually what determines whether or not it is moral or immoral, not the action itself.

I think we could all think of exceptions to this idea-times when the end does not justify the means. However, the idea still has merit and needs to be considered regardless of the existence of exceptions to it.

[Kenngo1969]

Don't even get me started on neurological diseases.

I'm sure you can come up with what seems to an outsider to be a litany of perfectly hideous neurological conditions which are far worse than mine; I'll concede that point at the outset. That said, since I can only speak to what I know, I'll use myself as an example.

I have Cerebral Palsy. I was born nearly 10 weeks prematurely, a virtual death sentence back then. Indeed, the doctor told my dad not to expect me to live throughout the night; when competent medical authority tells you it's likely that your child will die shortly after birth, it's also likely that no one is taking bets that he'll have a very good quality of life even if he does manage to survive.

I survived; if someone had bet on me back then instead of betting against me, he or she would be a multibillionaire today! Has it been easy? No. Can I say it has all been worth it? Not yet. Do I think that, eventually, I'll be able to say it's been worth it? Well, I have faith that I will ... eventually.

I was "mainstreamed" in school from Day One, with all that it entails (almost none of my peers were my friends, at least, not at first); I've had my left hip reconstructed three times, including having hardware implanted and removed; I've had surgery on every major muscle in my left leg; I've spent a total of about six months with my lower body completely immobilized in plaster; I've used every ambulatory device imaginable, including canes, crutches, braces, and a wheelchair; I've undergone thousands of hours of painful, grueling, often-seemingly-fruitless therapy.

I haven't yet found someone who, from my perspective, can truly see what she's looking at to the degree necessary for her to agree to spend Her Eternity with me; I haven't yet found a suitable, stable, comfortable, reasonably well-remunerated occupational niche; I've alternated between being nipped at, and almost being devoured whole by, the dog of a psychiatric diagnosis. (Dr. Sidney Freedman [of M*A*S*H fame] once said that war is the most efficient enterprise ever invented for separating a person's brain from his buns: some of the things I've gone through are a close second! )

Does a spirit that inhabits a body like mine (or worse) have the free will to say, once he actually gets here, "Forget it; I know I said I was eager enough to get a body that I'd be willing to settle for one that's less than perfect, but this isn't what I signed up for"? Maybe. There's been alot of speculation about that among me, my family, and my friends. If, indeed, I chose such a lot, there's really no sense in bellyaching about what that lot entails. One just has to follow Mrs. Gump's advice and do the best one can with what God gives one.

With all of this, I've done pretty well: I'm an Eagle Scout, and there's no "asterisk" by my name; I did everything any other Scout in my Troop did to get that award. I received a scholarship from my peers when I graduated from high school as a token of their respect for me, given that I graduated with them (my challenges notwithstanding). I've gone on to earn three degrees. In the interest of full disclosure, one of them is an associate degree, in case you think that shouldn't "count". Still, I was first nominated for, and later received, similar recognition from my peers at the institution which awarded that degree. I've studied abroad in Mexico. I'm a published and award-winning poet, editor, and author.

If I cannot yet say for certain the reasons why I've been through everything I've been through (I can for some of it, but not for all of it), I'm not going to try to guess the reasons why someone who has (at least from the perspective of an outsider looking in) a worse lot, is called upon to go through what s/he goes through. I do strongly suspect, however, that I'm a much different person for what I've gone through than I would be without it: I believe it has made me a more empathetic, articulate, intelligent human being. As for the reasons I don't yet comprehend, I can only shrug and, along with Nephi, say, "I know not the meaning of all things; nevertheless, I know that God loveth His children."

But I'd be wary of looking at someone else's lot and trying to conclude anything about why God does what He does, why He allows what He allows, or that you would do things much differently (if only you were He!)

[Mordecai]

Considering the Founding Fathers established this court in Article III, section 1 of the US Constitution, well maybe god was taking a day off from leading the Founding Fathers in the development of this document when they gave these rights and powers to the Supreme Court.

The only reason the Supreme Court has run amok is because the legislative branch is afraid to stand up to the Supreme Court. It's not the Constitution that is the issue but the weakness of Congress that is the problem. One President who stood up to the Supreme Court once said, "They made the law. Let them enforce it." The legislature should be impeaching justices left and right at this point. Because they haven't exercised that power, the Supreme Court just makes its own rules, ironically.

Personally, I see no reason to respect Roe v. Wade in the slightest other than the fact that Congress and the President support it. If they were not so weak and/or corrupt, they would just dismiss it for the trash that it is. It's not well reasoned nor remotely sensible and represents an illegal usurpation of power by the Supreme Court. Elected officials should just say, "They made the law. Let them enforce it."

God certainly has a right to cause abortions, as well as send babies to this world with debilitating, painful abnormalities in which they suffer for several minutes, days or months before succumbing to death after a short, excruciatingly painful existence. Yes, god has that right, I just don't find anything "moral" about it, that's all.

For God, it's moral if the outcome is good.

[Walden]

So, by not answering the question you don't understand.

Bluebell has got it.

In essence, as an atheist, your argument to criticize God's morality is a self defeating argument.

Once you say, "God's morality is not good..." You have posited an absolute moral standard (law), to determine what is good or not.

And in doing so, you've stepped outside of an atheistic world view, and into a theistic one to attempt to criticize God, because once you posit a moral law, you also must have a moral law giver.

And since you've had to step outside the atheistic world view to make this criticism, you are actually supporting the idea that God exists, which ends up undermining your position and your argument in the first place.

Now. The problem of pain and suffering isn't something that only has to be dealt with by the Theists. The atheists also have to deal with it.

What is their answer?

You live and you die, and you just suffer and that's the end? The pain is meaningless, because life is meaningless? Or it just "happens" that way?

The Christian message gives hope to the suffering, because Christ suffered. What does the atheist offer to the suffering?

Sorry, I was unaware that this question is only open to theists. I don't know how many of my other posts that you have read, but if you had, you would know that I have never unequivocally stated that my opinion that there is no god is some absolute truth. I realize that in the end, this is a unanswerable question, as proof of disproof of god cannot be absolutely determined. I speak for myself, and no other atheists, when I state, and have stated on numerous occasions in the past, that I could be completely wrong about the god question and that in fact god could exist. Personally, I just don't see the evidence for it, as much as I have looked. Just as I don't take every apologists post on here as the absolute truth about all of mormondom or belief, why do apologists continually come at me with some weird interpretation of my remarks to frame them as though I am trying to pass off some absolute truth with my statement that I do not believe in god.....that's just me, and my interpretation of the world around me, nothing greater, so just chill.

By stating that I have to "step outside the atheistic world view to make this criticism, you are actually supporting the idea that God exists, which ends up undermining your position and your argument in the first place,"....does this mean that only theists can criticize or question god because they are the only ones that acknowledge his existence? This makes no sense.....I don't believe that little green men have visited this earth either, does that mean I cannot have an opinion on alien life forms?

And as is often the case, your theist mind cannot seem to comprehend that just because I am an atheist does not automatically mean that I consider life to be meaningless. Would you then argue that life only has meaning if there is some reward waiting for you in the sky when you die? That to me is a more depressing scenario than atheism. My own personal view of atheism actually makes this life more meaningful.....there are no "second chances", there is no eternal forgiveness for wronging others. An atheist then needs to lead a more "ethical" life then someone who knows that he/she will be forgiven for their wrongs. An atheist, therefore, needs to be more conscientious of his actions and decisions and their outcomes, for he/she will not be saved from their "unethical" decisions by some god....an atheist has to live with the very real consequences of his actions, without the comfort of some eternal god to save them. When given only 75-85 years to exist, isn't life more meaningful? It is to me. Likewise, knowing that I have only this time makes me more sensitive to the fact that I do not want to waste these precious moments imprisoned, marginalized or outcast due to some offense against society. How many atheists do you think there are in any given prison? I would posit that the percentage is quite miniscule....do you think that if someone truly embraced the fact that we have only this life to live, and I mean truly embraced it, that they would bother stealing that car that would put them in jail for 20 years, or roughly a quarter of their existence? I would argue that they would not risk it.

[Hughes]

Sorry, I was unaware that this question is only open to theists. I don't know how many of my other posts that you have read, but if you had, you would know that I have never unequivocally stated that my opinion that there is no god is some absolute truth. I realize that in the end, this is a unanswerable question, as proof of disproof of god cannot be absolutely determined. I speak for myself, and no other atheists, when I state, and have stated on numerous occasions in the past, that I could be completely wrong about the god question and that in fact god could exist. Personally, I just don't see the evidence for it, as much as I have looked. Just as I don't take every apologists post on here as the absolute truth about all of mormondom or belief, why do apologists continually come at me with some weird interpretation of my remarks to frame them as though I am trying to pass off some absolute truth with my statement that I do not believe in god.....that's just me, and my interpretation of the world around me, nothing greater, so just chill.

By stating that I have to "step outside the atheistic world view to make this criticism, you are actually supporting the idea that God exists, which ends up undermining your position and your argument in the first place,"....does this mean that only theists can criticize or question god because they are the only ones that acknowledge his existence? This makes no sense.....I don't believe that little green men have visited this earth either, does that mean I cannot have an opinion on alien life forms?

And as is often the case, your theist mind cannot seem to comprehend that just because I am an atheist does not automatically mean that I consider life to be meaningless. Would you then argue that life only has meaning if there is some reward waiting for you in the sky when you die? That to me is a more depressing scenario than atheism. My own personal view of atheism actually makes this life more meaningful.....there are no "second chances", there is no eternal forgiveness for wronging others. An atheist then needs to lead a more "ethical" life then someone who knows that he/she will be forgiven for their wrongs. An atheist, therefore, needs to be more conscientious of his actions and decisions and their outcomes, for he/she will not be saved from their "unethical" decisions by some god....an atheist has to live with the very real consequences of his actions, without the comfort of some eternal god to save them. When given only 75-85 years to exist, isn't life more meaningful? It is to me. Likewise, knowing that I have only this time makes me more sensitive to the fact that I do not want to waste these precious moments imprisoned, marginalized or outcast due to some offense against society. How many atheists do you think there are in any given prison? I would posit that the percentage is quite miniscule....do you think that if someone truly embraced the fact that we have only this life to live, and I mean truly embraced it, that they would bother stealing that car that would put them in jail for 20 years, or roughly a quarter of their existence? I would argue that they would not risk it.

Walden,

I can only respond to your statements, I can't read your mind. I hear you say, "I am an atheist..." so I'm trying to respond accordingly.

Here's my response to your latest argument.

On what basis does life have meaning? And on what do you base your ethic? And by extension, how can you criticize a God you don't believe exists?

In other words, if you base your life ethic on what *you* experience and feel is right and wrong, how is it that you can justify criticizing anyone else's ethic unless you see this ethic of yours, as transcending yourself onto others and ultimately to God? At which point you've failed to justify how your ethic should supersede the ethic of others or God's.

As for the meaning of life in pain and suffering, you offered nothing in response. For a theist, the meaning is derived from the creator. He infuses all life with meaning. All life is sacred and special, and has meaning because of our connectedness to him.

[Walden]

Walden,

I can only respond to your statements, I can't read your mind. I hear you say, "I am an atheist..." so I'm trying to respond accordingly.

Here's my response to your latest argument.

On what basis does life have meaning? And on what do you base your ethic? And by extension, how can you criticize a God you don't believe exists?

In other words, if you base your life ethic on what *you* experience and feel is right and wrong, how is it that you can justify criticizing anyone else's ethic unless you see this ethic of yours, as transcending yourself onto others and ultimately to God? At which point you've failed to justify how your ethic should supersede the ethic of others or God's.

As for the meaning of life in pain and suffering, you offered nothing in response. For a theist, the meaning is derived from the creator. He infuses all life with meaning. All life is sacred and special, and has meaning because of our connectedness to him.

To answer your questions from my perspective (I don't speak for all atheists).....

On what basis does life have meaning?....Life has whatever meaning you infuse into it. It can either be meaningless or meaningful, that decision is up to each individual. For me, a meaningful life is one in which you have positively influenced those around you, have attempted to encourage goodness, kindness and empathy, lived a life of integrity and have made an attempt to leave the world a better place.

And on what do you base your ethic?....Personally, I prefer the Golden Rule.

And by extension, how can you criticize a God you don't believe exists?....I am criticizing the idea and ideals of god as presented in the bible and in religion and by which I am surrounded in our society. Living in a world in which I am surrounded by believers, in a country whose system is based in part on Judeo-Christian ethics/morality supposedly handed down by god, born into a family and raised by devout LDS parents, I think that I have a right to speak regarding my views on god. I criticize fictional characters in books that I read (why would Robinson Crusoe require a slave?, what was Humbert Humbert thinking with his sick, twisted obsession with Lolita?, etc.), and so I do with this character in the bible, though admittedly the stakes are raised when speaking of this god character.

if you base your life ethic on what *you* experience and feel is right and wrong, how is it that you can justify criticizing anyone else's ethic unless you see this ethic of yours, as transcending yourself onto others and ultimately to God? At which point you've failed to justify how your ethic should supersede the ethic of others or God's......Everyone bases their life ethic on what they experience and feel is wrong or right....mormons base their ethics on the mormon god (who they experience and feel is right), muslims base their ethics on allah (who they experience and feel is right), buddhists place their ethics on buddha (who they experience and feel is right), etc. I am not trying to convince anyone to follow my ethic or that my ethic supersedes that of others (if I was, maybe I'd send people door to door to share the message regarding my superior ethics).

Very simply, I am responding to a question that was posted and I am making a simple argument in which I state that I do not think that god acts ethically. What you imply about me from reading that (which appears to be a lot, and quite off the mark) is your interpretation. A question was asked and I responded with my thoughts on the question.

As for the meaning of life in pain and suffering, you offered nothing in response. For a theist, the meaning is derived from the creator. He infuses all life with meaning. All life is sacred and special, and has meaning because of our connectedness to him.....Again, the meaning of life in pain and suffering is whatever meaning we give to that life. I don't need a "creator" to infuse my life with meaning, I find it all around me and I create my own meaning. Pain and suffering happen, that's life. Sometimes there are no "meanings" to be derived....that is one of the consequences of a random universe. In fact, I give much more credence to the buddhist belief that life is suffering, and the path that leads from suffering is contained in the the four noble truths and the eightfold path, none of which require a creator (but that is another post entirely).

[Eldwynn]

As for the meaning of life in pain and suffering, you offered nothing in response. For a theist, the meaning is derived from the creator. He infuses all life with meaning. All life is sacred and special, and has meaning because of our connectedness to him.

Why couldn't someone say the same thing, except appeal to the idea that all life on this planet is related? Or in other words:

"For a nontheist, the meaning is derived from the observation that all life is related. This interconnectedness infuses all life with meaning. All life is sacred and special, and has meaning because of our connectedness to it."