Who Let the Dogs Out?

[POI]

Theists will state Satan rules the roost here on earth. But someday, God will (contain/remove/isolate/other) him.

Imagine you possessed a very violent dog. He attacks or disrupts all animals and all people for which he encounters. Your only job is to contain him, by leash. You opt not to, citing free will or something other. Would you be considered wise?

For Debate:

Someday, God is going to contain Satan, but not yet. Why?

[TRANSPONDER]

I think it is actually a good parable, because human empathy only goes so far. If you let the satanic dog out and let him do his worst, then the pressure becomes intolerable and human beans, being what they are will opt for survival rather than ethics.

That's exactly why I'd be considered wise if I did it. The situation allows those who didn't have to choose survival to get high horses to tower over those that were actually faced with the no-win situation. The former would praise me for setting up the conundrum. I'd be adulated.

We're expected to be absolutely perfect. Because we're the people at the bottom, and the people at the top need high horses.

This is just my cynical brain talking, but it seems to me (opinion, not fact) that morality is a lot like money, and people like to have it all while those at the bottom have none. And if we actually are perfect, if the standard they set is let-yourself-be-killed-violence-is-wrong, then we're dead and we have no money anyway. Win-win.

Now, this is an ad-hominem. This is me thinking, wow, the structure of morality certainly fits with an elite class of moralitygrubbers, and this well might be their motivation. I don't think ad hominem is a fallacy, but I know I'm engaging in it so I may as well point it out because most people think it is a fallacy.

There's a lot there and perhaps not quite considering where Satan would fit into that, either as a gofor for God or a loose cannon. In my view, the basis of morality is reciprocity; the Golden Rule. That implies empathy and wanting the best for everyone, that being extended from the immediate group to all humanity. Therefore, it would seem that the highest form of morality would be an egalitarian one. It therefore seems to me to follow that selfishness is the way Satan would try to undermine that God - given morality of empathy, supposing that God's morality is anything like the one He supposedly gave us.

Now, as to ad hom, it is a fallacy when used to discredit an argument. The obvious example is to say Delius wasn't a good composer because he went blind from Syphilis. Obviously that has nothing to do with whether his music is good, nor that Einstein's theories must be wrong because he dumped his wife and married his cousin. But I imagine ad hom could be appropriate where it is relevant to the argument. Like for instance debunking the Religious credentials of a politician who knows nothing of the Bible and apparently never attends church.

[AquinasForGod]

[Replying to TRANSPONDER in post #24]

I did respond to that. See post 21

[Replying to AquinasForGod in post #21]

And I responded to that to say it was an elitist view and immoral so as to be disgusting, and you dismissed that as a 'emotional outburst' which I said it wasn't but a pertinent objection to your argument. To make the point clear, are you denying that this argument of yours points to an elitist and frankly immoral doctrine, or don't you care?

Ball back in your court and don't make it worse by pretending that you already responded.

I am waiting for you to explain how it is immoral or disgusting that our very existence is God, or else nothing would exist, and God is the good, thus we can only do good because we are all with God to some degree. No one is completely without God.

I cannot even imagine what your reason might be to call this immoral or disgusting, so please do explain.

[Purple Knight]

There's a lot there and perhaps not quite considering where Satan would fit into that, either as a gofor for God or a loose cannon. In my view, the basis of morality is reciprocity; the Golden Rule. That implies empathy and wanting the best for everyone, that being extended from the immediate group to all humanity. Therefore, it would seem that the highest form of morality would be an egalitarian one. It therefore seems to me to follow that selfishness is the way Satan would try to undermine that God - given morality of empathy, supposing that God's morality is anything like the one He supposedly gave us.

But ultimately Satan isn't evil in this scenario. It's a balance. Wanting the best for all includes yourself. If someone dumps on you, sends rabid dogs to bite you, the happy Buddha here in the middle has to ask you if you're okay with a world that lets that happen to anyone, and you have to say no.

You don't get altruism without selfishness, because to have empathy and understand that he wants cats, you have to understand your love for your own cats, and you don't just give him all your cats because then you have none and you're sad, and if everybody cares for everybody, nobody else wants you to be sad anymore than you want him to be sad.

Christianity pretends you can have empathy and altruism without selfishness. Let's explore that, based on the Golden Rule. Because you are a selfless giver, and what you want is to give, give, give, and then starve to death, then do unto others as you would have them do unto you means take all their stuff so they starve but they get to be moral and selfless and happy. If you don't have that speck of selfishness to understand that you actually want things, for yourself, no other bloody reason, you don't have the understanding to do unto others anything that they'd actually want done to them.

The equilibrium is to share, as long as that won't hurt you, because at equilibrium everybody cares about everybody, everybody is also a little selfish, and nobody wants you to be hurt either.

Now, as to ad hom, it is a fallacy when used to discredit an argument. The obvious example is to say Delius wasn't a good composer because he went blind from Syphilis. Obviously that has nothing to do with whether his music is good, nor that Einstein's theories must be wrong because he dumped his wife and married his cousin. But I imagine ad hom could be appropriate where it is relevant to the argument. Like for instance debunking the Religious credentials of a politician who knows nothing of the Bible and apparently never attends church.

Let's refine the example a little bit. Let's say Einstein has this great argument about fidelity. Let's say I can't find a single flaw in it. I still don't think I have to accept it if he just dumped his wife. I don't think I have to accept an ironclad argument about morality from a known paedophile either. I don't think I have to accept diet advice from people fatter than I am, and I don't give a carp about the science behind it. At some point, you become your own credentials.

[POI]

...So why doesn't God contain it...

What do you mean with that?

What do you mean by "what do I mean with that"?

We already have "knowledge of good and evil". Hence, there is no reason for God not to contain further "evil."

[Miles]

The OP is just a variation on the much asked question : why does God allow wickedness. He does so because it has proved to be the only way to effectively settle the issues raised in Eden.

So god has settled issues raised in Eden before, you say. Curious as just what issues these were and why allowing wickedness today isn't working any more. Is god no longer capable of handling the job? Did he lose his omni powers or something?

.

[JehovahsWitness]

Did he lose his omni powers or something?

.

No.





RELATED POSTS

Why did God allow Jesus to suffer and die?
http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v ... 30#p908730

What is the issue of universal Sovereignty? [Defined]
viewtopic.php?p=1031210#p1031210

Why has it taken so much TIME to settle the issue of universal Sovereignty?
viewtopic.php?p=845975#p845975

Should not a loving God have ignored the issues in order to avoid suffering? [this post]
viewtopic.php?p=908722#p908722

Why did God allow Job to be tested?
http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v ... 26#p908726

Does God ignore the prayers of those that suffer?
viewtopic.php?p=1024256#p1024256

Will human governments be able to eliminate all suffering one day?
viewtopic.php?p=1062765#p1062765

To learn more please go to other posts related to...

SATAN , HUMAN SUFFERING and .... THE ISSUE OF UNIVERSAL SOVEREIGNTY

[brunumb]

Is god no longer capable of handling the job?

If the Bible is anything to go by, he never was capable of handling the job.

[Miles]

Did he lose his omni powers or something?

.

No.

If god effectively used wickedness in the past to settle issues raised in Eden I assume they've all been taken care of. So why continue to allow it to exist?

.

[JehovahsWitness]

If god effectively used wickedness {snip }...

God has not "used" wickedness, he has allowed wickedness, not the same thing. To learn more please see my earlier post, Why has it taken so much TIME to settle the issue of universal Sovereignty?
viewtopic.php?p=845975#p845975

If god effectively [allowed] wickedness in the past to settle issues raised in Eden I assume they've all been taken care of.
...

You presume correctly. Since 1914 the issue has effectlively been settled and God is in the process of choosing those he sees as deserving of living under his world government. All that remains is to finish gathering the members of that world government ( 144, 000), kill off those that would rather not live under it, finish dealing with Satan and then let the good times roll!

Vivre le Royaume!!!



RELATED POSTS

Are we living in the last days?
viewtopic.php?p=1008292#p1008292

If God's kingdom has been in power since 1914 why have there been no significant changes on earth?
http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v ... 72#p883772

To learn more please go to other posts related to...

GOD'S KINGDOM, MILLENIAL RULE and ...1914

[TRANSPONDER]

[Replying to TRANSPONDER in post #24]

I did respond to that. See post 21

[Replying to AquinasForGod in post #21]

And I responded to that to say it was an elitist view and immoral so as to be disgusting, and you dismissed that as a 'emotional outburst' which I said it wasn't but a pertinent objection to your argument. To make the point clear, are you denying that this argument of yours points to an elitist and frankly immoral doctrine, or don't you care?

Ball back in your court and don't make it worse by pretending that you already responded.

I am waiting for you to explain how it is immoral or disgusting that our very existence is God, or else nothing would exist, and God is the good, thus we can only do good because we are all with God to some degree. No one is completely without God.

I cannot even imagine what your reason might be to call this immoral or disgusting, so please do explain.

I don't recall you raising that, only last that I thought it wasn't moral to have a members club that got you into heaven rather than it being open to any good persons, no matter what their religion. I don't recall ever calling the scenario you put above immoral or disgusting, but as to the the rather incoherent point you put above, I simply don't agree that our existence is anything to do with a moral god, but natural physics, so far as I am willing to bet. Now that is done, the ball is back in your court - why is it not immoral and disgusting to have salvation based on belief rather than deeds and morals? I don't accept the implied 'God can do whatever he likes' in your post, let alone that makes it good because he is 'good', because that makes morals whatever the dictator says it is. Which is pretty immoral and disgusting now I come to think of it.