Romans 9:20-21 NIV says that: "But who are you, a human being, to talk back to God? “Shall what is formed say to the one who formed it, ‘Why did you make me like this?’” Does not the potter have the right to make out of the same lump of clay some pottery for special purposes and some for common use?"
This basically means that because God made us, we are his property. If I decide to dig a hole in my backyard, for some reason or another, and this doesn't affect anyone else, what right does someone else have to say whether I can or can't. Also, if the ground were sentient, what right would it have to object as it belongs to me? To further this out, when Stephen Fry said, "(B)one cancer in children? What’s that about? How dare you? How dare you create a world to which there is such misery that is not our fault. It’s not right, it’s utterly, utterly evil." Well, the children are his property, he can as he wishes as they belong to him, he made them.
Objections?
I want his debate to be about the idea of whether God can do as he wishes to his private property, not whether he actually did make creation.
Subscription Note:
Choosing to subscribe to this topic will automatically register you for email notifications for comments and updates on this thread.
Email notifications will be sent out daily by default unless specified otherwise on your account which you can edit by going to your userpage here and clicking on the subscriptions tab.
@Unknown: Well, the children are his property, he can as he wishes as they belong to him, he made them.
Are you a Catholic priest by any chance? They appear to follow that same disgusting philosophy. Children aren't anybody's property. They are human beings who need to be protected, nurtured, and educated.
The only redeeming feature of a god that would allow bone cancer in children to continue is its non-existence. If it existed, we'd have to go to the trouble of killing the vile thing.
You can be a lump of clay or a slave or whatever owned by your sky fairy. Count me out.
^^^^^^^^^^^THIS^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
"Children aren't anybody's property. They are human beings who need to be protected, nurtured, and educated." - Assuming that they are the property of God in the way that the bible suggests, are their any objects?
@Unknown: Assuming that they are the property of God in the way that the bible suggests, are their any objects?
Could you rephrase your question in English?
Sorry,
Assuming that they are the property of God in the way that the bible suggests, are there any objections?
@Unknown"
Of course there are objections. Children aren't property. They are human beings with their own rights as individuals.
God didn't create anything. People created god, so god is your property. Do what you like with it. Give it a big red nose or devil's horns if you like. Just keep it away from me.
Okay, I don't think you read the whole text above. Assuming that God of the bible exists, assuming he created human beings, are we his property, and does he have the right to do as he wishes to us?
Of course I object. Are you a fundamentalist, or do you just pick and choose what suits you?
Mark 12:19
"Master, Moses wrote unto us, If a man's brother die, and leave his wife behind him, and leave no children, that his brother should take his wife, and raise up seed unto his brother."
Which means that if your brother dies you must bang his widow. That's pretty dumb and barbaric. The bible is dumb and barbaric.
If God created us does that make us his private property, and does he have the right to do with us he wishes. I am not saying it is or isn't barbaric, what i'm asking is whether it is justified if we are his property.
If anything is cruel and barbaric, then anyone can challenge any claims to ownership. There is a little label for this kind of thing, it is called "human progress". Only by throwing off any ownership can humanity eliminate slavery, child abuse, and many of the evils inflicted on humanity by religion.
If you take your twisted and cruel logic further, then a father has the right to rape his children. Oh wait, they already did that in barbaric times.
I don't believe you are answering when I ask whether it is justified. The problem with child abuse and slavery is that the objects of ownership were not obtained in a consensual or moral way. The difference being with God creating, and with father raping his child, is that God created from nothing, whereas the father created from something. You can claim lands and animals that are not under current ownership. You cannot own your own species as that is immoral (unless consensual). However, does creating from nothing grant this right of ownership?
@ Unknown
Only summation you need. Regardless of how the process is done, if you create an intelligent being with a independent mind of their own, then NO! you do NOT own it even if you created it. Otherwise, it is enslavement and irreprehensibly immoral. Nothing more need be said. Period. Exclamation Point!
rmfr
Why does the being have intelligence and an independent mind make it immoral. Also, what is included in the use of the word intelligence and independent? Animals are independent, and how intelligent?
If you truly think about it, you just answered your own questions.
rmfr
How so?
Re-read. Think critically...
rmfr
"Children aren't anybody's property. They are human beings who need to be protected, nurtured, and educated." - Assuming that they are the property of God in the way that the bible suggests, are their any objects?
A being that knowingly allows harm to happen can only be considered immoral.
Animals get killed so humans can eat them. That is harmful, yet billions allow that to happen. Is that immoral?
An action is immoral to the degree they knowingly allow harm to happen - i.e. harm that they could prevent.
So me killing germs on my hands is immoral?
An action is immoral to the degree a being knowingly allows harm to happen - i.e. harm that they could prevent.
You are not omnipotent, but you have some awareness of the likely consequences of your actions. There are different degrees of harm, and different degrees of agency.
An omnipotent being that creates pain can only be considered immoral.
So is killing germs immoral. I am knowingly doing it?
@Unknown
Since Algebe is the only one who has posted as of yet, I will make my reply before reading his post.
For starters...... Wow.... I mean.... wow..... Almost at a loss for words here.... But I shall give it a shot...
Re: "Well, the children are his property, he can as he wishes as they belong to him, he made them."
Without going into much detail, as I have said many time before on this site and elsewhere, even IF that god did somehow exist, it is NOT worthy of my respect, much LESS my worshiping it. I would consider myself a more moral being than that god. Sooooo... If you create something that is sentient, you most definitely DO NOT have a right to do whatever you want to do with it. And anybody who is willing to excuse and defend such actions and "reasoning" is really worth less than a smudge of dog shit I might scrape off the bottom of my shoe. That is one of the most ludicrous statements I have heard on here in a very long time. (And, believe me, as anybody else here can attest to, THAT is saying something.) Once again... Wow.... Just... wow.....
Re: "I want his debate to be about the idea of whether God can do as he wishes to his private property, not whether he actually did make creation."
Did you even read what you wrote in that statement? Did it not strike you as to how utterly ridiculous it is? You are asking us if we think "god" is allowed to do whatever he wants with his "private property" (namely, Mankind), yet you stipulate you are not interested in discussing whether or not this "god" actually created us. Sooooooo... If this "god" did not create us, then how then hell are we his private property??? Did he purchase us from another god? Is this god on some sort of rent-to-own program? Or maybe this god was cruising around the universe one day and spotted Earth and all the creatures on it and claimed the Earth for itself because maybe the Earth and our solar system is in some sort of "neutral" intergalactic space? Kinda like "finder's keepers". By the way, have I said, "Wow," yet?.... Wow......
Tin-Man,
"Or maybe this god was cruising around the universe one day and spotted Earth and all the creatures on it and claimed the Earth for itself because maybe the Earth and our solar system is in some sort of "neutral" intergalactic space? Kinda like "finder's keepers"."
I saw a sy fy movie based on that idea. A family of space aliens owned several planets including Earth and when the population reached a certain point they would harvest the peope like a herd of livestock.
Jupiter Ascending
rmfr
EDIT: This was in answer to Diotrephes post about the movie he mentioned.
?
1. "If you create something that is sentient, you most definitely DO NOT have a right to do whatever you want to do with it" - Why not? Why does sentience grant this?
2. "Did you even read what you wrote in that statement? Did it not strike you as to how utterly ridiculous it is? You are asking us if we think "god" is allowed to do whatever he wants with his "private property" (namely, Mankind), yet you stipulate you are not interested in discussing whether or not this "god" actually created us. Sooooooo... If this "god" did not create us, then how then hell are we his private property???" - I don't want this topic of debate to be about whether God created us, that is a topic for another time. This topic is about whether God as the right to do his property/creation (us), already assuming he already has. I am interested in discussing whether or not God created us, but not right now.
1. "If you create something that is sentient, you most definitely DO NOT have a right to do whatever you want to do with it" - Why not? Why does sentience grant this?
2. "Did you even read what you wrote in that statement? Did it not strike you as to how utterly ridiculous it is? You are asking us if we think "god" is allowed to do whatever he wants with his "private property" (namely, Mankind), yet you stipulate you are not interested in discussing whether or not this "god" actually created us. Sooooooo... If this "god" did not create us, then how then hell are we his private property???" - I don't want this topic of debate to be about whether God created us, that is a topic for another time. This topic is about whether God as the right to do his property/creation (us), already assuming he already has. I am interested in discussing whether or not God created us, but not right now.
@UnKnown
I don't think you belong to this centrury, frankly. Your statement, and your so called, disgusting hoky book is very immoral. Do you really think that coming to an atheist forum, you will find common ground about this part of your philosophy?
Pages