God as the Divine Blackmailer

[potwalloper.]

It has been said that the threat of eternal damnation is no different to blackmail - ie coercing people to do things by the use of a threat.

...and as blackmail is a sin then if he is guilty God would be a sinner.

What do you think?

Is god guilty of blackmail and therefore a sinner?

- if yes why do you believe this to be so

- if no then why not?

[potwalloper.]

Scorpia wrote

If say, a man offered you said drink of antidote, you can still choose to not believe him, or spite him even, and choose not to, although it would risk death.

But that man poisoned you in the first place...

Quote:
How can it be a choice when you gave an unequivocal answer to my previous question "yes"? If everyone is a sinner no matter what they do then it is not a choice it is a fait accompli created by god.

No matter what they do???? People can DO things that are not sin. People do not sin 24/7. People can try not to sin. It may not be total, and they would sin at some point. But if your going to fuss over about that point, what about why they sin? Did an invisible force make a man steal that lady's handbag, taking away free choice, or did he simply think it might be a good idea at the time to get money he didn't earn?

I think that you may be missing my point.

I agree that people can choose to temper their behaviour and try not to "sin". However the key issue is that people will be judged to have sinned no matter what they do in life due to the concept of original sin - we are all sinners no matter what we do.

As such our behaviour from the point at which we are classified as sinners (presumably the point of conception) becomes irrelevant as we, as sinners, are always condemned to hell.

It is like chopping off someone's arm at birth and then saying "you have the choice as to whether or not you cut off any more of your limbs throughout your life". No matter how many limbs you decide to amputate (all or none) you still lack that original arm!

Sin, as classified by christianity, is much the same. I could have been born on a desert island, brought up by robots, never met another human being, never had lustful thoughts, never stole, never murdered. Even in that situation I would be cursed by original sin and would go to hell unless I worshipped god. If that is not a fait accompli then I don't know what is

Quote:
If god created the world and is omniscient then he would have known all of the possible outcomes of all of the behaviours of all of the people and creatures born and yet to be born throughout the entire history of mankind at the point at which he created everything. As such he is culpable by the very act of that creation for all of the actions taken as a consequence. An omniscient god can't claim ignorance

But he wasn't going to place some force making it impossible for people to sin now, was he?

He would not have needed to create any invisible force for people to sin. The very creation of a race with a predisposition to sin, combined with the ultimate knowledge of all of the outcomes, means that when god created humans he also created sin.

If I programmed a robot and knew that at a certain point in the programming code the robot would kill, steal, lie then I would be deemed responsible for that robot's actions. If the code spontaneously altered to alter the robot's behaviour so that on the face of it it would be difficult to predict but I had an algorithm to calculate the nature of the changes and by this knew the outcome then on the face of it the robot would appear to be responsible rather than I. However the application of the algorithm (omniscience) switches culpability back to me.

Whilst free will is often used to mitigate against this argument, when considered objectively the principle of free will somehow switching responsibility to mankind is a logical fallacy. Due to his omniscient nature god would have known all of the choices all individual people would make (and thus their sins and the nature of same) at the point at which he created the universe. By then going on and creating the universe anyway, combined with a place called hell where these preknown sinners would burn for all eternity, god created a fait accompli. A situation that was preknown and which cannot be altered.

If you were to say that I have the choice of altering my behaviour then yes, I agree with you. However god's omniscience means that he already knew my choices in the future when he first created everything. If I change my mind he also knew that I was going to change my mind. No matter how I attempt to mitigate the situation an omniscient god would have been aware of this alteration before it occured!

Quote:
Unfortunately god is unlikely to eat food that I offer and I cannot send him to hell for not worshipping me...I wish I could

But he was put in the same situation, all the same

If you are referring to Christ then this is a moot point. God's omniscience means that he would have been aware of all of the consequences of all of his actions during his time on earth and as such could mitigate against sin by the very nature of that omniscience and his supernatural behaviour.

It all comes down to the question of whether or not we are all sinners and if so will burn in hell unless we turn to god.

If the answer to this is yes then by the very creation of this situation god has created an environment of coercion by the use of a threat and as such is blackmailing people.

The question then has to be asked, of course, why would he bother if he knew the outcome anyway - but that is another debate...

[Corvus]

If I programmed a robot and knew that at a certain point in the programming code the robot would kill, steal, lie then I would be deemed responsible for that robot's actions. If the code spontaneously altered to alter the robot's behaviour so that on the face of it it would be difficult to predict but I had an algorithm to calculate the nature of the changes and by this knew the outcome then on the face of it the robot would appear to be responsible rather than I. However the application of the algorithm (omniscience) switches culpability back to me.

As an interesting comparison, see Exodus 21:28-29

21:28 If an ox gore a man or a woman, that they die: then the ox shall be surely stoned, and his flesh shall not be eaten; but the owner of the ox shall be quit.

21:29 But if the ox were wont to push with his horn in time past, and it hath been testified to his owner, and he hath not kept him in, but that he hath killed a man or a woman; the ox shall be stoned, and his owner also shall be put to death.

[scorpia]

But that man poisoned you in the first place...

Noooooooooooo.... you chose to be poisoned. God didn't shove that apple down adam and eve's throat, now, did he?

I agree that people can choose to temper their behaviour and try not to "sin". However the key issue is that people will be judged to have sinned no matter what they do in life due to the concept of original sin - we are all sinners no matter what we do.

Is that REALLY how you... no.... look, a person isn't going to be simply judged as a sinner simply because he is human..... besides, Jesus being God aside, Jesus was a human and didn't sin. A person'sthoughts and deeds may be exposed.... whatever they may be... and though they will not be judged on sin, it is these factors that determine whether they are sinners or not.

Or if it's about you doing good things, as well as bad, and not wanting to be judged on the bad because you did some good, well, it doesn't work that way, now, does it?

Sin, as classified by christianity, is much the same. I could have been born on a desert island, brought up by robots, never met another human being, never had lustful thoughts, never stole, never murdered

You can be someone who does not sin, then you would not be a sinner, no. But it is quite doubtful for you to accomplish this, but if you could, then you wouldn't be sinful.

It does say in the bible that there is always a way out of sin, but then why don't people get out of sin then?

If I programmed a robot and knew that at a certain point in the programming code the robot would kill, steal, lie then I would be deemed responsible for that robot's actions.

Why does remind me of that movie, 'I, robot?'

Or ..........here's another way of looking at it..... you know how evil hitler was...... what if you go back in time, see him as an innocent little baby... knowing what he would do. Would you kill him, as a baby? If you don't you would then be responsible for the death of thousands of people, but if you do, it's still pretty cold.

As for a view that he should not have created anything in the first place or people would die.....

A couple in a not-so advanced place or time had a child. Their first child caught a disease that was rampant at the time and was claiming many a child. Unfortunately the child died. the father was distraught, but then noticed his wife was pregnant again.
"Another?" He asked. "Why? The diease will simply kill it."
"Yes, the disease will kill it...." The wife admitted, but then said; "Disease may kill, an animal may kill it, a famine may kill it. But if I have more children, some will live."

21:29 But if the ox were wont to push with his horn in time past, and it hath been testified to his owner, and he hath not kept him in, but that he hath killed a man or a woman; the ox shall be stoned, and his owner also shall be put to death.

Then again we are not ox...........

If you knew someone you cared about was going to choose to do wrong, you're not going to kill them are you?

If you were to say that I have the choice of altering my behaviour then yes, I agree with you. However god's omniscience means that he already knew my choices in the future when he first created everything. If I change my mind he also knew that I was going to change my mind. No matter how I attempt to mitigate the situation an omniscient god would have been aware of this alteration before it occured!

So if I go back in time and know of all my parents did, I'm automatically resposible for any mistakes they made? Bt if I stop them, might be going against their choice, though, wouldn't it?

If you are referring to Christ then this is a moot point. God's omniscience means that he would have been aware of all of the consequences of all of his actions during his time on earth and as such could mitigate against sin by the very nature of that omniscience and his supernatural behaviour.

But he was able to make a choice at the time I'm thinking of.... He could have chosen two different futures offered to him. But he didn't choose that other choice, otherwise people could not possibly be saved, and he doesn't want that, because of his love.

[Corvus]

21:29 But if the ox were wont to push with his horn in time past, and it hath been testified to his owner, and he hath not kept him in, but that he hath killed a man or a woman; the ox shall be stoned, and his owner also shall be put to death.

Then again we are not ox...........

A man can be stoned because he is responsible for his ox. All I sought to do was show the comparison that ownership implies culpability, especially if an action happens that could have been avoided.

If you knew someone you cared about was going to choose to do wrong, you're not going to kill them are you?

No. (Neither would I stone oxen or men). So similarly I would expect someone who cares about me not to send me to hell for an eternity based on whether or not I unconditionally submit to him. But my post wasn't about who should kill what, but who is responsible for whom. God, knowing that I am an ox who is wont to push with my horn, should take proper care to secure me, otherwise he is accountable for my actions.

[scorpia]

No. (Neither would I stone oxen or men). So similarly I would expect someone who cares about me not to send me to hell for an eternity based on whether or not I unconditionally submit to him

But God isn't threatening anyone to worship him. He is simply offering the one escape.

You have to let the doctor operate on you otherwise he can't fix the illness. Similarly you need to trust God for him to help you.

On this blackmailing; what of Jesus, who wandered the desert and was tempted by the devil? The devil said 'worship me, and all this will be yours', and perhaps if Jesus chose that, though it wouldn't have been saving people from their punishment from sin, maybe he wouldn't have had to die and spend some time in hell..... what of that?

God, knowing that I am an ox who is wont to push with my horn, should take proper care to secure me, otherwise he is accountable for my actions.

oh? what should he do then? Tie you up in a chair and pull a 'clockwork orange' on you? Real moralistic. The only other way is death, and that isn't so crash hot either. So what's he going to do? Not create? Out of fear of those who won't make it? That's wussy. Not create, because of this time of pain and sin? This life is nothing, no time at all compared to the world after.

[otseng]

Imagine a genetic engineer who deliberately modifies the genes of 100 unborn babies such that they will be born with pre-cancerous cells in their bodies.

The cells will develop into an agonising cancer that will give them pain for all eternity. They have no means of preventing this themselves.

If this was so with God, then perhaps your argument might hold that he is a blackmailer. However, your assumption that God created us with sin is incorrect. Adam and Eve were created sinless.

Also, could you distinguish for us what exactly constitutes blackmail? Suppose someone was given a warning that if he kills someone, he will receive capital punishment. Would this be considered blackmail?

[worship-your-mother-she-i]

If this was so with God, then perhaps your argument might hold that he is a blackmailer. However, your assumption that God created us with sin is incorrect. Adam and Eve were created sinless.

Also, could you distinguish for us what exactly constitutes blackmail? Suppose someone was given a warning that if he kills someone, he will receive capital punishment. Would this be considered blackmail?

Then why did Adam and Eve sin?THe problem is you say certain situations,which are unavoidable for even the most exemplary of humans, as sin.For example desiring on women is sin according to christianity.But if this has to be the case,then we should not get desires in our mind when we see women.Getting desires is unavoidable.There wont be human race if this condition is to be fulfilled.We cannot turn our desires on when we see our wives/lovers and turn it off when we see other women.Sex is as natural a need as hunger and thirst.If you call this as sin and say "accept you are sinner,else burning hell" is that not blackmail?

Blackmail is done to get something done by threat which is not possible to get by legal means.Usually(not always) the victim is law abiding and the threatening authority is acting illegally or unethically here.

[Amadeus]

1st: Worshp-your-mother....: I don't think that the single act of desiring a woman is sin. Lust is more complicated than that. Lust is when ALL you want is a woman's body, and not just a fleeting thought, but an OBSESSION on only her body. It has to do with disrespect...like when a woman is trying to talk to you and you don't pay attention to what she is saying, but stare at her breasts .

Potwollaper: I think you misunderstand the concept of being a sinner. It is not that it is not possible never to sin. It is that, after we chose to sin the first time, we lost that closeness with God that allows us to keep chosing right. We were not created flawed. Once we sin, we flaw ourselves. Is that any clearer?

[worship-your-mother-she-i]

1st: Worshp-your-mother....: I don't think that the single act of desiring a woman is sin. Lust is more complicated than that. Lust is when ALL you want is a woman's body, and not just a fleeting thought, but an OBSESSION on only her body. It has to do with disrespect...like when a woman is trying to talk to you and you don't pay attention to what she is saying, but stare at her breasts .

Potwollaper: I think you misunderstand the concept of being a sinner. It is not that it is not possible never to sin. It is that, after we chose to sin the first time, we lost that closeness with God that allows us to keep chosing right. We were not created flawed. Once we sin, we flaw ourselves. Is that any clearer?

I thought that christianity completely prohibits desires.I heard a pastor say if you just see a woman and desire her you are mentally raping her.He also said masturbation and fantasizing are sins.Are these biblical beliefs or just his view points?

when you desire obviously you desire the body only.And staring at breasts is not a sin as long as the woman isnt offended by it.And by the way women dress these days i think that they will be more offended if you dont stare at their breasts.So if we stare at them and they like it,what is the sin?Some women even think it as a compliment.

I will clear the flaw and sin with an example.If we buy a dell computer and if it breaks down while we use it, can we say the company made a mistake?We cannot,since the user might have made some mistakes and might have spoilt it. We can point out other machines that run well and say "See these machines run well.So problem is not with the manufacturer, but with the user".But if every machine has a mistake definitely the problem lies with the company and not user.

Likewise if only some men sin we can say god created them flawlessly and problem is not with him but the men themselves.But if all men sin,mistake is not with them.It is with the creator.

[Amadeus]

Worship-your-mother... said:

I thought that christianity completely prohibits desires.I heard a pastor say if you just see a woman and desire her you are mentally raping her.He also said masturbation and fantasizing are sins.Are these biblical beliefs or just his view points?

The Biblical command I think this is based on is "do not covet your neighbor's wife". But I think, from the experience you've had, they are taking it too far. I am under the belief that if you are married and you are lusting after a woman, that it is almost as bad as actually cheating, because your heart is not in the right place. But if you have a sudden desire that you dismiss soon after, it is normal physiology, if you ask me.

And by the way women dress these days i think that they will be more offended if you dont stare at their breasts.

Seriously!

But if all men sin,mistake is not with them.It is with the creator.

I think the "sinful nature" thing falls under this category. Some believe that, when Adam and Eve sinned and lost that intimate connection with God, that they screwed it up for all of us, so we are born without the connection they were created with. If you really wanted to, you could blame it on them. BUT if Adam and Eve didn't screw up, someone else would have. We have all sinned in some way, and it only takes an ounce of imperfection to bar us from Heaven. You still cannot blame it on God, though, because they chose to disobey, and they did not have the "sinful nature."