Will the defendant: God alias Jahweh alias Allah please rise...

[LordFarid]

Upfront, I apologise to all religious fellow posters, and let them know that although i dont agree with their views of the truth i respect them and it isn't my intention to hurt them. I'm an Arab immigrant in Europe thats basically a fully integrated dutch, and although my parents are both muslim, I'm atheist myself. I dont hate all believers, but seeing what this "God" did to my country, i must be honest and admit that I'm starting to hate God.

After the religious murder of movie maker Theo van Ghogh in the Netherlands and the violent burning of mosques and churches that followed afterward a discussion has started about not just islam, but about religion in general (for example, some parties including the right wing liberals now want to expell the law against blashpemy in the constitution).Anyways, this is what is happening now:
The religious inspired murder of Theo van Ghogh has changed the Dutch attitude about Islam, but also about religion in general. Two prominent Dutch writers, Afshin Ellian and Leon de Winter have filed a lawsuit at a Dutch court against God/jahweh/Allah.

Afshin Ellian is a Juror and columnist from Iran that used to be a Muslim but fled both his country as his religion.

Leon de Winter writes for Dutch right wing publication Elsevier and also works for the Hudson institute. Aside from that, he writes for the american conservative publication "The Weekly Standard".

Of course, the Dutch court will likely dismiss the case, as this God is hiding in his clouds and an arrest warrent would be quite difficult, but the action is very interesting in itself. I mean think about it...would god in court stand a chance? Even if he would be defended by the worlds best lawyers he would most likely loose.

He would have to face charges from thousands of years of commiting murders, torture and crimes against humanity in his name. Unlike Milosevic, he would not be able to defend himself with the excuse that he didn't know or couldn't stop it, after all he is God.
Aside from that, he also commited some crimes directly himself. There are countless examples of his crimes written all over the Bible, the Torah and the Qu'ran but lets take for example the plagues of egypt.
The jews where surpressed and enslaved in ancient egypt and as a counter-act God killed all their first born sons. My fellow religious earth inhabitants, take a minute to breathe deeply and think about it. Yes the egyptians where wrong and very contemptable to enslave the jews, but does that justify the act of killing all their first born sons, many of which werent even able to think for themselves yet and thus bear no direct responsibility for their acts?
If there was no other way, perhaps, but American history (and countless other examples for that matter) prove that there are less violent ways to free a people that is being enslaved and supressed. For example, the African Americans didn't free themselves by killing EVERY white American first born son now did they? Besides, if you have a slave and supress him, and you also have a child of only 1 years old...do i have the right to kill that child of yours to set the slave free? I don't think so, slavery is wrong, wether its jews, blacks, whites or anyone, but it doesn't mean that the killing of innocent babies is justified.
This is just one single example, but of course there are many, many more. If God would be man enough to come to earth to face his charges...i don't think that any honest court in this world would give him anything less than an eternity in prison.

Like i said before, the Dutch court will most certainly dismiss the case (because they too, are politically correct), but i still applaud this action, and I hope that this criminal will be arrested and put to justice for the mess he has created..and is still creating in this world.

[Avptallarita]

Don't repress yourself in the name of political correctness. If you feel hostile to religion say it.

The Italian population has been tortured, beaten, suppressed and murdered for the last one thousand years because of the church. And I'm still meant to respect this institution.

I'll tell you what. When the Pope stands up and officially apologises for all the misery that his institution has brought on earth, I *might* begin thinking about respecting his views. Until then, call me a blasphemer and call me stupid, but an institution that has survived by crucifying people who believed in freedom of speech, by burning women because they owned black cats, by supporting a dictatorship that has bled my country to death for twenty years, that has been cause for wars and conflicts and that is now the cause for opposition to abortion, gay marriage and stem-cell research, has nothing but my scorn.

And if this view offends you, then I'm sorry, but it offends *me* to have Galileo almost burned alive because he said the sun wasn't spinning around the earth. I'm not the one who has to apologise.

[Sajon]

Originally Posted by LordFarid

He would have to face charges from thousands of years of commiting murders, torture and crimes against humanity in his name. Unlike Milosevic, he would not be able to defend himself with the excuse that he didn't know or couldn't stop it, after all he is God.

Holy shit. Have you ever seen Frailty? It's a movie directed by Bill Paxton that's about murdering in the name of God. Having grown up in at conservative (and at moments psychotic) Christian religious house hold, I have to say it is the single most disturbing film about the twisted ethics of religion I've ever seen or will see. It's a great movie, but the ending is more horrific than 1984. I nearly lost it when I realized what the real implication of the last 5 minutes was. It was horror like I've never felt.

I wouldn't say I'm anti-religion. I know plenty of religious people who are fine people and don't force their beliefs on others. I'm also pro-cultural preservation, which I think is impossible to separate from religion. (This is why I am against the idea of missionaries--it's cultural imperialism, and any argument that claims otherwise is total bullshit.) However, I do believe that most religions are incompatable with each other, regardless of what spin their more liberal members put on them. Christians, Jews, and Muslims have contradicting beliefs, so perfect, lasting religious reconciliation is impossible. The logical solution is to find some other way to make sense of this world we live in, which is why I'm not religious.


-Matt

[Mike Doolittle]

Originally Posted by Sajon

I'm also pro-cultural preservation, which I think is impossible to separate from religion. (This is why I am against the idea of missionaries--it's cultural imperialism, and any argument that claims otherwise is total bullshit.)

I'd just like to add that I think it's fine when missionaries go into other countries to do charity and simply say, "I'm doing this for you because of my faith." It's a whole other thing when they go into other countries Billy Graham style for the sole purpose of converting the "lost."

[Polo88]

Farid from your post it would seem that you believe that people have no free will. Is that true?

[keele864]

From a Catholic theological standpoint, a God that could be judged by human beings is no God at all. God cannot be understood by a mere human. We can discern some things about God, but we can't go study him directly. The idea of judging God is just about the ultimate possible hubris.

He would have to face charges from thousands of years of commiting murders, torture and crimes against humanity in his name.

If I robbed a bank to pay the server maintenance of GameCritics.com, is Game Critics guilty of my crime? I think not.

Also, the very idea of crimes presupposes some idea of morality. Which then leads to the question of the origins of morality. I'd argue Natural Law, which was created by God. If God is good, God does not commit crimes.

Catholic dogma states that God can bring good from evil, and that evil arises from our misuse of free will. In other words, you want to put humanity on trial, not God. Or, alternatively, you're mad at God for giving us free will.

I'll tell you what. When the Pope stands up and officially apologises for all the misery that his institution has brought on earth, I *might* begin thinking about respecting his views. Until then, call me a blasphemer and call me stupid, but an institution that has survived by crucifying people who believed in freedom of speech, by burning women because they owned black cats, by supporting a dictatorship that has bled my country to death for twenty years, that has been cause for wars and conflicts and that is now the cause for opposition to abortion, gay marriage and stem-cell research, has nothing but my scorn.

The Church has apologized for many of the things it has done, including persecution of "witches" and the fiasco with Galileo. Gay marriage is opposed by the Church, but the Church does not believe that gays are evil or anything. As for the Church's position on abortion and stem-cell research, I explained that in another topic. By the way, which country do you live in?

Aside from that, he also commited some crimes directly himself. There are countless examples of his crimes written all over the Bible, the Torah and the Qu'ran but lets take for example the plagues of egypt.

I point out that, according to the Bible, the Egyptians were warned. God didn't just randomly create plagues. Moses repeatedly told the Pharaoh to free the Israelites. I suppose you could compare the situation to the dropping of the A-bomb on Japan in WWII.

[Polo88]

Originally Posted by keele864

I suppose you could compare the situation to the dropping of the A-bomb on Japan in WWII.

I wouldn't make that comparison. The two situations are quite different. Other than that, I agree with everything you said.

[strech]

Originally Posted by keele864

I point out that, according to the Bible, the Egyptians were warned. God didn't just randomly create plagues. Moses repeatedly told the Pharaoh to free the Israelites. I suppose you could compare the situation to the dropping of the A-bomb on Japan in WWII.

However, from what I understand, at least at a couple points in that whole thing the Pharoah didn't free the Israelites becase god made him not do it (Exodus 9:12 and 10:20 seem to suggest this).

And then there's the villages God tells the israelites to kill everyone in. The God of the Old Testament doesn't exactly behave in a fashion that would be moral for a human being.

Of course, this goes back to the judging thing; if God is all-powerful and all-good we can't judge him. But I can look at holding God up to judgement this way - if he is all-powerful, then he knows quite well what is going to happen when bequeaths the religions of the world onto people.

The Catholic response to this is that people's misuse of free will is getting them into this situation, and thus it is humanity's failing. But, for one thing, God tends to punish people after preventing them from exercising their free will, if the Old Testament is accurate (see above; also Deuteronomy, 2:30-2:34, for another example).

And can't God be held to a higher standard? If someone breeds a pitbull to attack people and then lets it loose near people, isn't he responsible for the pitbull's actions? If God is all-powerful, he has more knowledge of the consequences of his actions than the owner of the pitbull. Should he be given a free pass? And if god is all-powerful, then, to be moral, how could he not hold himself to a higher standard than we hold ourselves to? Something he clearly has not done.

[LordFarid]

"I suppose you could compare the situation to the dropping of the A-bomb on Japan in WWII."

Is this an event that is uhm...celebrated in the United States? I know its the official end of WW2 so to speak, but out here, the dropping of the A bomb is still used as one of the best cases against America.

[Avptallarita]

Originally Posted by keele864

From a Catholic theological standpoint, a God that could be judged by human beings is no God at all. God cannot be understood by a mere human. We can discern some things about God, but we can't go study him directly. The idea of judging God is just about the ultimate possible hubris.

Saying that God cannot be understood by a mere human being nullifies the necessity of God's existence. If God requires no explanation, then the universe doesn't either - hence, there's no reason for us to believe that there's a God

I'm from Italy, by the way.

[Sajon]

Originally Posted by keele864

I point out that, according to the Bible, the Egyptians were warned. God didn't just randomly create plagues. Moses repeatedly told the Pharaoh to free the Israelites. I suppose you could compare the situation to the dropping of the A-bomb on Japan in WWII.

But the first-born of Egypt were innocents. God obviously has no problem with killing--by his own hand--people who have not yet had the chance exercise their free-will simply to make a point. Same as the U.S. has no problem with nuking an entire population of women and children--whom had no say in their govenments actions--to make a point.


-Matt

[Sajon]

Originally Posted by LordFarid

"I suppose you could compare the situation to the dropping of the A-bomb on Japan in WWII."

Is this an event that is uhm...celebrated in the United States? I know its the official end of WW2 so to speak, but out here, the dropping of the A bomb is still used as one of the best cases against America.

It is celebrated by some, typically those who have hardcore black & white moral perspectives. You can argue forever about whether Hiroshima and Nagasaki ultimately cost less lives than a U.S.-lead invasion of Japan, but some Americans believe that the fact that it might have absolves the U.S. of any wrong-doing, as if two wrongs make a right. Some people just have trouble seeing war as a contradiction, that it can involve things that are simultaneously right and wrong. I think this is especially a problem for Americans, many of whom have a child-like belief that things can be simply divided into to goodguys and badguys. Badguys are bad and deserve no sympathy. And goodguys are good and deserve no criticism. This is because morality is always "rounded up" to whatever the greater good being accomplished is. It was "mostly good" therefore it is "good."


-Matt

[Sajon]

And why assume that 'logic' can solve anything, let alone disputes?

Well if religion is any indicator, it obviously doesn't. So I guess we're fucked.

[Sajon]

Originally Posted by kant

If trained philosophers can't agree on something 'fundamental' like the role of 'testimony' in an everyday encounter, then what can we bear witness to?

Philosophers can't agree on anything. What do you think they're for? :P


-Matt

[kant]

Originally Posted by Sajon

Philosophers can't agree on anything. What do you think they're for? :P


-Matt

Philosopher's attempt to use logic to build shrines to their own sensibilitities, and congregate according to the desired crusade against 'unreason'. So whilst their worshipping at one another's feet, they engage in jijads against (perceived) infidels and heretics.

but to clarify - you haven't become a dialectician? I'm sensing attempts to internalise or harness contradictions in your attempts to make sense of things - am I representing you correctly, or just testing the limits rational of representation?