Does a creator have the right to give and take?

Jump to Last Post 1-3 of 3 discussions (57 posts)

67
SwordofManticorEposted 11 years ago
Does a creator have the right to give and take from his creation?
reply report
1. 61
  renegadetoryposted 11 years agoin reply to this
  Certainly. My Creator has the right to give eternal life and to also take away sin.
  reply report
  67
  SwordofManticorEposted 11 years agoin reply to this
  What about life and death?
  reply report
  0
  Brenda Durhamposted 11 years agoin reply to this
  Yes He does.
  reply report
  67
  SwordofManticorEposted 11 years agoin reply to this
  Agreed.
  reply report
  61
  renegadetoryposted 11 years agoin reply to this
  Yes
  reply report
2. 0
  Emile Rposted 11 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.
  reply report
  61
  renegadetoryposted 11 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.
  reply report
  0
  Emile Rposted 11 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?
  reply report
  61
  renegadetoryposted 11 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.
  reply report
  0
  Emile Rposted 11 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?
  reply report
  61
  renegadetoryposted 11 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.
  reply report
  0
  Emile Rposted 11 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.
  reply report
  61
  renegadetoryposted 11 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?
  reply report
  46
  Ericdierkerposted 11 years agoin reply to this
  No it comes from the application. Interpretations can change along with the individual or society. How we apply the law in action is what is the spirit of the law. Of course with a capital S it means divinely known.
  reply report
  0
  Emile Rposted 11 years agoin reply to this
  No, I don't think the spirit of the law comes from understanding interpretation. If so, why didn't the pharisees understand the spirit of the law? Why did a twelve year old boy understand the spirit of the law? Interpretation serves to limit the spirit, divert the spirit. It creates - yes, but - scenarios. It allows someone to justify behavior not in line with the spirit.
  
  The spirit of anything is its truest intent. It is the starting point. If you don't have the appropriate starting point, everything that flows from that point degrades the spirit until you reach a point where you are opposed to the spirit. Plus, the spirit needs no further guidance. If your actions line up with the spirit of the intent, you need no law to guide you. The spirit is sufficient.
  reply report
  61
  renegadetoryposted 11 years agoin reply to this
  That makes sense.
  
  If the spirit of anything is its truest intent (which I agree with), it would appear that the ability to see the spirit of the law rests more with the one who seeks to understand it. Someone with honest and humble motives can see more clearly the true intent of the law, which is perhaps why the pharisees could not and never would.
  reply report
  0
  Emile Rposted 11 years agoin reply to this
  Yes, but I get the impression you might be saying that an appropriate spirit allows you to interpret law. That begs the question, why do you interpret law? The only reason is, to judge. If you live within the spirit, you don't judge. So, what reason do you have to interpret?
  reply report
  61
  renegadetoryposted 11 years agoin reply to this
  Not to interpret the law, just to understand the spirit of the law, that's all.
  report
  0
  Emile Rposted 11 years agoin reply to this
  Oh, ok. Yea. Their hearts weren't in the right place.
  report
  61
  renegadetoryposted 11 years agoin reply to this
  I should also say that its not enough to just know what the spirit of the law is, your actions must me the spirit of the law in action.
  report
  0
  Emile Rposted 11 years agoin reply to this
  Yes, which is why self evaluation is more important than anything. We have to know what motivates our behavior. I think, if we could line up 100% with the spirit of the law we would not react. We would only act. So many of the actions I regret were reactions to my understanding of the actions of others.
  report
  89
  wildernessposted 11 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.
  reply report
3. 59
  A Troubled Manposted 11 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.
  reply report
  61
  Disappearingheadposted 11 years agoin reply to this
  Praise be ATM, that was really thoughtful. Did you bang your head this morning?
  reply report
4. 70
  Titen-Sxullposted 11 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.
  reply report
  0
  Brenda Durhamposted 11 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.
  reply report
  70
  Titen-Sxullposted 11 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.
  reply report
  59
  A Troubled Manposted 11 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.
  reply report
  61
  renegadetoryposted 11 years agoin reply to this
  Jesus was the Son of God in the flesh, and flesh and blood can die.
  reply report
  67
  SwordofManticorEposted 11 years agoin reply to this
  I just vant to encourage you to not waste time on ATM.
  reply report
  61
  renegadetoryposted 11 years agoin reply to this
  I'm well acquainted with his postings, but thank you for your concern. It is noted
  reply report
  59
  A Troubled Manposted 11 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.
  reply report
  0
  Deepes Mindposted 11 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
  reply report
  59
  A Troubled Manposted 11 years agoin reply to this
  Jesus was merely a god in a flesh suit, which he took off and discarded after fooling everyone.
  reply report
  59
  Jeramiposted 11 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.
  reply report
  61
  renegadetoryposted 11 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.
  reply report
  59
  A Troubled Manposted 11 years agoin reply to this
  Yes, that's called "setting up the mark" in a long con.
  reply report
  61
  renegadetoryposted 11 years agoin reply to this
  I feel stupid for asking, but who/what is a mark?
  reply report
  0
  Deepes Mindposted 11 years agoin reply to this
  A "mark" is someone that is easily set up for a con or is easily fooled
  reply report
  61
  renegadetoryposted 11 years agoin reply to this
  Thank you for clarifying that for me Deepes.
  
  ATM- Clearly I know very little about cons, but would I be correct in assuming that the mark(s) you are referring to is Jesus' disciples/followers? Would I also be correct in stating that in a con, the one who sets up the the con (or who is not the mark) is the one who profits from the scheme?
  
  Who then profited from this con?
  reply report
  0
  Deepes Mindposted 11 years agoin reply to this
  Basically, The overall understanding is that followers are marks for Religious leaders looking to line their pockets with money or to control people by instilling fear in others.
  reply report
  59
  A Troubled Manposted 11 years agoin reply to this
  However created Jesus created a religion as a result. Profit comes in various forms.
  reply report
  59
  A Troubled Manposted 11 years agoin reply to this
  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Confidence_trick
  
  You can also do a search on 'grifting'
  reply report
  61
  renegadetoryposted 11 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.
  reply report
  70
  Titen-Sxullposted 11 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.
  reply report
  46
  Ericdierkerposted 11 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.
  reply report
  69
  JMcFarlandposted 11 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?
  reply report
  46
  Ericdierkerposted 11 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.
  reply report
  61
  renegadetoryposted 11 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).
  reply report
5. 46
  Ericdierkerposted 11 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.
  reply report
6. 0
  Lybrahposted 11 years agoin reply to this
  Absolutely. We are all Gods creation and therefore belong to Him. God can do what God wants.
  reply report
89
wildernessposted 11 years ago
Of course. Any creator certainly has the power, and isn't that all that matters at the God level?
reply report
1. 0
  Emile Rposted 11 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.
  reply report
  89
  wildernessposted 11 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.
  reply report
60
SpanStarposted 11 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.
reply report

Post a Reply

jump to first post

Necessary
HubPages Device ID	This is used to identify particular browsers or devices when the access the service, and is used for security reasons.
Login	This is necessary to sign in to the HubPages Service.
Google Recaptcha	This is used to prevent bots and spam. (Privacy Policy)
Akismet	This is used to detect comment spam. (Privacy Policy)
HubPages Google Analytics	This is used to provide data on traffic to our website, all personally identifyable data is anonymized. (Privacy Policy)
HubPages Traffic Pixel	This is used to collect data on traffic to articles and other pages on our site. Unless you are signed in to a HubPages account, all personally identifiable information is anonymized.
Amazon Web Services	This is a cloud services platform that we used to host our service. (Privacy Policy)
Cloudflare	This is a cloud CDN service that we use to efficiently deliver files required for our service to operate such as javascript, cascading style sheets, images, and videos. (Privacy Policy)
Google Hosted Libraries	Javascript software libraries such as jQuery are loaded at endpoints on the googleapis.com or gstatic.com domains, for performance and efficiency reasons. (Privacy Policy)

Features
Google Custom Search	This is feature allows you to search the site. (Privacy Policy)
Google Maps	Some articles have Google Maps embedded in them. (Privacy Policy)
Google Charts	This is used to display charts and graphs on articles and the author center. (Privacy Policy)
Google AdSense Host API	This service allows you to sign up for or associate a Google AdSense account with HubPages, so that you can earn money from ads on your articles. No data is shared unless you engage with this feature. (Privacy Policy)
Google YouTube	Some articles have YouTube videos embedded in them. (Privacy Policy)
Vimeo	Some articles have Vimeo videos embedded in them. (Privacy Policy)
Paypal	This is used for a registered author who enrolls in the HubPages Earnings program and requests to be paid via PayPal. No data is shared with Paypal unless you engage with this feature. (Privacy Policy)
Facebook Login	You can use this to streamline signing up for, or signing in to your Hubpages account. No data is shared with Facebook unless you engage with this feature. (Privacy Policy)
Maven	This supports the Maven widget and search functionality. (Privacy Policy)

Marketing
Google AdSense	This is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
Google DoubleClick	Google provides ad serving technology and runs an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
Index Exchange	This is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
Sovrn	This is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
Facebook Ads	This is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
Amazon Unified Ad Marketplace	This is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
AppNexus	This is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
Openx	This is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
Rubicon Project	This is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
TripleLift	This is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
Say Media	We partner with Say Media to deliver ad campaigns on our sites. (Privacy Policy)
Remarketing Pixels	We may use remarketing pixels from advertising networks such as Google AdWords, Bing Ads, and Facebook in order to advertise the HubPages Service to people that have visited our sites.
Conversion Tracking Pixels	We may use conversion tracking pixels from advertising networks such as Google AdWords, Bing Ads, and Facebook in order to identify when an advertisement has successfully resulted in the desired action, such as signing up for the HubPages Service or publishing an article on the HubPages Service.

Statistics
Author Google Analytics	This is used to provide traffic data and reports to the authors of articles on the HubPages Service. (Privacy Policy)
Comscore	ComScore is a media measurement and analytics company providing marketing data and analytics to enterprises, media and advertising agencies, and publishers. Non-consent will result in ComScore only processing obfuscated personal data. (Privacy Policy)
Amazon Tracking Pixel	Some articles display amazon products as part of the Amazon Affiliate program, this pixel provides traffic statistics for those products (Privacy Policy)
Clicksco	This is a data management platform studying reader behavior (Privacy Policy)

Does a creator have the right to give and take?

Arts and Design

Autos

Books, Literature, and Writing

Business and Employment

Education and Science

Entertainment and Media

Family and Parenting

Fashion and Beauty

Food and Cooking

Games, Toys, and Hobbies

Gender and Relationships

Health

Holidays and Celebrations

Home and Garden

HubPages Tutorials and Community

Personal Finance

Pets and Animals

Politics and Social Issues

Religion and Philosophy

Sports and Recreation

Technology

Travel and Places

About Us

This website uses cookies

Does a creator have the right to give and take?

Related Discussions

This website uses cookies