jump to last post 1-3 of 3 discussions (57 posts)

Does a creator have the right to give and take?

  1. SwordofManticorE profile image78
    SwordofManticorEposted 4 years ago

    Does a creator have the right to give and take from his creation?

    1. renegadetory profile image100
      renegadetoryposted 4 years agoin reply to this

      Certainly.  My Creator has the right to give eternal life and to also take away sin.

      1. SwordofManticorE profile image78
        SwordofManticorEposted 4 years agoin reply to this

        What about life and death?

        1. profile image0
          Brenda Durhamposted 4 years agoin reply to this

          Yes He does.

          1. SwordofManticorE profile image78
            SwordofManticorEposted 4 years agoin reply to this

            Agreed.

        2. renegadetory profile image100
          renegadetoryposted 4 years agoin reply to this

          Yes

    2. profile image0
      Emile Rposted 4 years agoin reply to this

      Since this is asked in the Christian section, it is safe to assume you are referencing the Creator as presented in the Bible. The answer then, is no. If God is good, he would never negate that which is good. He looked on creation and determined it to be good, in its entirety.

      Having the right to do something doesn't make it right.

      1. renegadetory profile image100
        renegadetoryposted 4 years agoin reply to this

        The Hebrew word you are referring to when God looked upon His creation is "tov" and from your response I sense that you are implying a moral goodness to it's meaning since you referenced God as good in the same sentence (please correct me if I am wrong in my assumption). 

        The reality is that His creation was good in a functional sense, without physical flaw, as this word was also used to describe the dry land.

        Morally, His creation (Adam) was a blank slate.  If Adam was created morally good, then how could he sin?  Rather, he was created with the ability to chose that which is morally good or that which is morally evil.  He chose the latter.

        Having the right to do something can be right if the one who established the rules also established the rules that determines what is right and what is wrong and abides by those very rules even if others do not.

        1. profile image0
          Emile Rposted 4 years agoin reply to this

          My point  was simply that it was labeled good in the first place. Not to mention, the whole concept behind the reasons for the law. I would expect the spirit of the law to function within the parameters of that spirit. Why have a spirit of the law above diametrically opposed to the spirit of the law below?

          1. renegadetory profile image100
            renegadetoryposted 4 years agoin reply to this

            I'm not certain what you mean by spirit of the law above and the spirit of the law below, are you referencing God's law versus man's law?  Or the law in God's kingdom (heaven) and how it applies here on earth?  I just want to make sure I understand what you are meaning before I answer (and possibly stick my foot in my mouth), thanks.

            1. profile image0
              Emile Rposted 4 years agoin reply to this

              Since this was posted under the heading of Christianity I assume the question was in context of the Christian scriptures. According to the words of Jesus, love is the spirit of the law. Love God, love your neighbor as yourself and all the law is fulfilled. According to his words, the law is meant to serve man. He made it clear that actions must come from an understanding of this. That thoughts matter also. My understanding of that is because if a thought falls short of universal love you are doing a disservice to creation, or the Creator, on some level.

              If the law is to serve man and the spirit of the law is love, why would that law be different on another plane? Why would a Creator go to such lengths to teach this, if it didn't live by it? Unless, one had an interpretation of a deity who says do as I say and not as I do. If that is the case, is that the definition of the Christian God?

              1. renegadetory profile image100
                renegadetoryposted 4 years agoin reply to this

                A God who says one thing and does another is a hypocrite, but the scriptures say He is a just God.  How can that be?

                You are bang on when you speak of thoughts.  Thoughts matter.  You're 100% right.  So let me ask you this, can you read another persons thoughts?  Can you see the intentions of their mind?  I know I can't.  So who can?  God can.  That is why He is judge and why He is able to make a judgement and why we cannot.  Thus, that is the reason we cannot do as He does in this regard.

                One of the reasons God gave us these laws of what we should and shouldn't do was to reveal who He is to us.  This is what He is about.  This is how He views justice and mercy and love. 

                While God has on occasion struck someone dead on the spot (in scripture) there are many more instances where He has allowed us many, many chances to repent, to change, to be a better person and to have the opportunity to enter into eternal life. Not just in the here and now, but after death.  Before His throne the book of life is opened and the dead are given a final chance to enter into eternal life.  Which is why I am to be merciful, because my Father in heaven is merciful.

                1. profile image0
                  Emile Rposted 4 years agoin reply to this

                  I don't think it is so much a question of being able to read the thoughts of another as it is to be able to understand what motivates our actions. I don't know that there is anything written in the Bible about determining what motivates another human being. Wasn't that the point of the story of the woman the crowd wanted to stone? Were they justified, by law, to proceed? Sure. Were they advised to? No. What they were advised to do was judge themselves and if they were sinless, cast away.

                  I don't see the point of that story being that God, being sinless, can cast stones where he wants. I saw the point of the story being that one who was sinless chose mercy, not judgment; without a second thought. I suppose it could be argued that the words 'Go and sin no more' can be construed as implying that had the same scene been acted out the next week; Jesus might have lobbed a rock at her for not changing her ways. But, I didn't read it that way. It was simply compassion for the suffering of another and I think compassion would have won the day had he run across that same scene again.

                  Anyway, you say the reason the law was given was for God to reveal himself. What law? The spirit or the word? Because, I still say the spirit of the law trumps any interpretation of written law. And, the spirit of the law would prevail at all levels. The spirit being what the reasons for the law boils down to.

                  1. renegadetory profile image100
                    renegadetoryposted 4 years agoin reply to this

                    To clarify, I was speaking of the laws handed down to Moses in the OT.

                    "the spirit of the law trumps any interpretation of written law"- Doesn't understanding the spirit of the law come as a result of its interpretation?

        2. wilderness profile image99
          wildernessposted 4 years agoin reply to this

          "Having the right to do something can be right if the one who established the rules also established the rules that determines what is right and what is wrong and abides by those very rules even if others do not."

          But every person establishes the rules of right and wrong for themselves.  Even those that claim their rules are the rules of God have different rules from others claiming the same thing.

    3. A Troubled Man profile image60
      A Troubled Manposted 4 years agoin reply to this

      Not if the creator gave the creation total free will, then the creation would have the right to be free, which means the creator must give up the right to take away.

      Of course, that doesn't stop the creation from freely and willingly giving his life back to the creator to do what he will.

      1. Disappearinghead profile image78
        Disappearingheadposted 4 years agoin reply to this

        Praise be ATM, that was really thoughtful. Did you bang your head this morning? big_smile

    4. Titen-Sxull profile image90
      Titen-Sxullposted 4 years agoin reply to this

      Do your parents have the right to kill you?

      Well not once you've left the womb at least.

      Oh wait, no, you meant a supernatural creator.

      Whether you believe in a God or not it's understood that no one alive today was created by supernatural means. We're all the product of sexual reproduction. So a creator God, if one exists, would be fairly well detached from those of us alive today, in the biological sense. No direct intervention by this God created the current generation and so I fail to see how God could have the right to take lives that he didn't give away.

      The very idea of one intelligent being owning another intelligent being is dodgy at best no matter how advanced, intelligent and powerful the God you want to posit is. We are thinking feeling beings with empathy and moral understanding. We have a sense of fairness and concepts of justice. The idea of being owned, I should hope, is repugnant to most people as it implies not only inferiority but slavery.

      Imagine for a moment that you are the God of a simulated Universe, you developed it, you populated it with people nearly as advanced as you are. Perhaps they aren't quite as complex or quite as intelligent as human beings but they are, for all purposes, sentient and capable of feeling, language and thought. Now you might say you OWN this Universe, that you created it. You might even have create people far inferior to you in the simulation. But can you own another living thing? Even one that is simulated? Because you created it do you have the RIGHT to destroy it, automatically?

      Suddenly there are lives at stake, finite, limited lives, filled with emotion, memory, sentiment, history, philosophy, POTENTIAL. Not immortal, not infinite, and yet from the scarcity of life comes life's value. Now let's say you are actually the monotheistic Christian God, immortal, infinite, perfect, far beyond these creatures. You cannot lost anything, you cannot be harmed other than (perhaps) emotionally, your life cannot be extinguished. Where is your potential? As God you have nothing to gain because you are not lacking anything. Nothing to lose. But these people have something to lose, they can be deprived because they are incomplete. They can be destroyed.

      I really don't have a stance on the question itself. A creator God would certainly have the MIGHT with which to take away life, but does the MIGHT make it RIGHT? The answer might say more about you than about any deity you espouse belief in.

      1. profile image0
        Brenda Durhamposted 4 years agoin reply to this

        Yep, in this case,  MIGHT makes RIGHT.    God has the right to do whatever He wants to.
        Guess what He did?
        He sent His Son Jesus to DIE for mankind.
        That doesn't sound like an uncaring God, and it's wrong to try to label Him as such.

        1. Titen-Sxull profile image90
          Titen-Sxullposted 4 years agoin reply to this

          Except that Jesus, according to Christian beliefs, isn't dead.

          He returned to life three days later.

          If the Christian story is true than Jesus' sacrifice was nothing of the sort. After all he is one third of the trinity, who ascended into Heaven to rule all of time and space forever and ever and all he had to do was spend a day on the cross and three days in a tomb. That's hardly a sacrifice.

          To sacrifice something you must lose something. You might say that Jesus sacrificed his life, but he regained it three days later. He even regained the EXACT SAME BODY he died in. This, of course, doesn't take into account the fact that God is only "saving" people from an unjust punishment he himself created.

          I tried to write my response as very general, any time you bring in the specific doctrines and scriptures of Christianity it just falls apart. Christianity implodes upon itself with the slightest application of logic and empathy.

        2. A Troubled Man profile image60
          A Troubled Manposted 4 years agoin reply to this

          Yes, that is an uncaring God.

          But wait, Jesus never died because He was the son of God, and gods can't die. So obviously, God knew He wasn't sending anyone to die, He sent His son to fool you all, and it worked. lol

          1. renegadetory profile image100
            renegadetoryposted 4 years agoin reply to this

            Jesus was the Son of God in the flesh, and flesh and blood can die.

            1. SwordofManticorE profile image78
              SwordofManticorEposted 4 years agoin reply to this

              I just vant to encourage you to not waste time on ATM.

              1. renegadetory profile image100
                renegadetoryposted 4 years agoin reply to this

                I'm well acquainted with his postings, but thank you for your concern.  It is noted smile

              2. A Troubled Man profile image60
                A Troubled Manposted 4 years agoin reply to this

                And, who are you to censor me? My posts must hit pretty close to the mark to get you so riled up. lol

                1. profile image0
                  Deepes Mindposted 4 years agoin reply to this

                  He's not so much censoring you as he is warning others not to bother trying to have a debate with you.. Totally different

            2. A Troubled Man profile image60
              A Troubled Manposted 4 years agoin reply to this

              Jesus was merely a god in a flesh suit, which he took off and discarded after fooling everyone.

              1. Jerami profile image72
                Jeramiposted 4 years agoin reply to this

                You may have a point there.   
                He did say he was the son of God, ...  didn't he say we are all sons of God?
                SOoo   by dieing and then showing himself afterwards   maybe he was just showing us all that we are just wearing a bodysuit which after we die (slip out of the bodysuit), we will still be here in the same way he was.
                We are all inteligent beings focusing upon whatever we have chosen to focus upon, while wraped in a body suit.

              2. renegadetory profile image100
                renegadetoryposted 4 years agoin reply to this

                Fooling someone usually means that they are not in on the supposed "joke."  Jesus clearly explained on many occasions to his disciples and his followers what was to take place upon his death.  What they lacked was not information about what would happen, what they lacked was belief that he would in fact rise again on the third day.

                1. A Troubled Man profile image60
                  A Troubled Manposted 4 years agoin reply to this

                  Yes, that's called "setting up the mark" in a long con.

                  1. renegadetory profile image100
                    renegadetoryposted 4 years agoin reply to this

                    I feel stupid for asking, but who/what is a mark?

      2. renegadetory profile image100
        renegadetoryposted 4 years agoin reply to this

        "Because you created it do you have the RIGHT to destroy it, automatically? "

        The right to take a life was not bestowed on us, it is reserved only for God in the same way that a police officer or the government has a separate authority from our own.  If a stranger on the street stabs and kills someone and we see it, do we as citizens have the right to go and do whatever we feel is right to that person (perhaps that depends on where we live geographically, but I speak of North America in this instance)?  Is not that right reserved for others?  The same principal applies here.

        1. Titen-Sxull profile image90
          Titen-Sxullposted 4 years agoin reply to this

          The right to take life is only for God?

          Than why is it not built into the world?

          We kill animals, we kill each other. We do it all the time. Do we have the right to take life? And when does that right enter into things? Is the death penalty moral or immoral? What of war? See it isn't so black and white to me, but than I don't believe there is any God watching over the Universe. We're on our own, and these gray areas belong to us, not to magical or supernatural forces beyond us.

          1. Ericdierker profile image60
            Ericdierkerposted 4 years agoin reply to this

            Perhaps I get it, but then the answer is too cynical. Why in the hell does a person who does not believe in a creator, read and comment on such matters? The only thing that makes sense about it --- are anger issues and a desire to harm others with opposite cantankerous positions. Someone correct me.

            1. JMcFarland profile image88
              JMcFarlandposted 4 years agoin reply to this

              I'll correct you.  Since I have a degree in theology (obtained before I became an atheist) and I spent all of my childhood, youth and adolescence in the church, I have an interest in the subject.  Am I supposed to just forget this interest because I no longer find it to be true?  What should I do instead?  Find a hobby?  Go back and undo all of my years of research, missionary work and time in the church and replace it somehow with something else?  You don't have to believe something in order to be able to discuss it.  Christians go into evolution discussions all the time and they don't believe in it.  Should I assume, by your logic, that Christians are angry at the evolution monster so they find the need to write against it?  People have interest in a whole bunch of different topics.  Why exclude people from discussions just because they have a different point of view and disagree with it?

              You also have to take into consideration that, at least in this country, you're confronted with faith and religion all of the time, from prayers in city council meetings to the person proselytizing on the street corner because they saw my atheist bumper sticker, to family members who are still active in the church.  You cannot escape it, and since religion and its followers directly impact the fact that my marriage is still not recognized in 38/50 states, I feel as though I have a right to speak.  Forums by definition are open discussions, and you can't seriously expect everyone to mirror each other's beliefs.  What fun would that be?

              1. Ericdierker profile image60
                Ericdierkerposted 4 years agoin reply to this

                I get what you are saying and you are proof of it. But I was more speaking to someone who responds along the lines of "there is not one so who cares?" In that scenario why answer? Clearly though I am Christian I am evolving so I can speak to that. Clearly an atheist can speak of concepts and should. If you would address my scenario I would like it. Use Titen Sxull as an example.

          2. renegadetory profile image100
            renegadetoryposted 4 years agoin reply to this

            Titen Sxull- "See it isn't so black and white to me, but than I don't believe there is any God watching over the Universe. We're on our own, and these gray areas belong to us, not to magical or supernatural forces beyond us."

            I realize that there are some Christians who believe everything is black and white when it comes to God, but my understanding is a bit different and when you speak of the existence of grey areas, you are right.  There are rules but there are also exceptions to the rules.

            When it comes to what is moral, clearly everyone has their own compass.  How I understand what is moral (right) or not (wrong) is by the scriptures

            Do we have the right to take life? The answer is no (a dark grey no, not a black no) with exceptions.  In self-defense when your life is in danger and you have done all that you can to get away and in your struggle you end up killing the person accidentally (as long as you do not set out to kill or intend to kill, but to get away) it is ok.

            In matters of war, a country has a right to defend itself against aggression.  Historically, wars were started with non-altruistic intentions, usually as a result of greed or pride, allowing for the suffering of countless innocent people, making it morally wrong.

            Is the death penalty moral?  According to scripture, yes.  After "diligent inquiry" to confirm any charges of wrong doing and only "with the testimony of 2 or 3 witness", not just one (Deut 17:4-6).

    5. Ericdierker profile image60
      Ericdierkerposted 4 years agoin reply to this

      No the answer is a clear NO. We are creations. There are inalienable rights that we have because of that. The creator has no such rights. It would make no sense.
      So yes the creator can do what it will, but never as a matter of right. So on the spectrum, plants have no rights and God's have no rights. If God were to act as a matter of "rights" someone/thing would have to have granted God those "rights" it simply cannot be done. We must be careful, except in fun, not to confuse 1. a right turn. 2. a matter of rights. 3. what is right to do. Spanish has fun words like this that can get you in trouble. Derecho and Derecha.
      Nope God has no rights.

    6. profile image0
      Lybrahposted 4 years agoin reply to this

      Absolutely.  We are all Gods creation and therefore belong to Him.  God can do what God wants.

  2. wilderness profile image99
    wildernessposted 4 years ago

    Of course.  Any creator certainly has the power, and isn't that all that matters at the God level?

    1. profile image0
      Emile Rposted 4 years agoin reply to this

      You lost my vote for the position of God on that one. But, don't lose hope. Looking at American government, you still have a chance at the position of president with that attitude. smile

      1. wilderness profile image99
        wildernessposted 4 years agoin reply to this

        A mighty step down, but I suppose I would accept.  If, that is, you leave the bennies alone - they're worth more than the salary by quite a bit.

  3. SpanStar profile image60
    SpanStarposted 4 years ago

    If a person created a robot and that robot performs as expected does the creator of that robot have the right to destroy and dismantle that robot?

    Who is to say that the robot is not alive for we only recognize life based on our limited understanding of life.

 
working