Reuters: US ambassador to Libya dead

[Eddie Teach]

(Temporary) Suffering makes you appreciate the good parts more. However, any kind of eternal hell pretty much automatically qualifies god as a monster.

[frunk]

Suffering is a choice of free will.

So if I am born with a congenital defect that causes me unimaginable pain throughout my life, this resulted from free will?

[garbon]

Actually I just looked at would say again we've gone beyond the parameters of what I said.  I stated that I personally didn't feel that I had the perspective to gauge the level of monstrosity of a god.  My hypothetical was predicated on the notion that one believed in a god that believed that said god was monstrous.  I'm not sure trickster gods really matter in such a case where one believe that the god is monstrous.

[Valmy]

So if I am born with a congenital defect that causes me unimaginable pain throughout my life, this resulted from free will?

The pain is a result of phyiscal laws, which we are all subject to but are without morality they just exist.  The suffering, to the extent this causes you suffering, is your interpretation of it.

[PDH]

All I know is that God wanted me to have a chocolate eclair right now, but I don't have one.  Something is wrong.

[Jacob]

I'm not sure why said person would assume the God was a trickster god.

... and I'm not sure why said person would assume the god in question was just an asshole.

As in I think frunk makes just as many presumptions in choosing to follow what he feels is good.

That's the point. Your hypothetical is built on a set of presumptions designed to give you the answer you're looking for. Thus, if you don't like the pre-supposed answer (and I don't), your best option is to change the presumption or the hypothetical.

[frunk]

So if I am born with a congenital defect that causes me unimaginable pain throughout my life, this resulted from free will?

The pain is a result of phyiscal laws, which we are all subject to but are without morality they just exist.  The suffering, to the extent this causes you suffering, is your interpretation of it.

Does this mean that it's not possible to have a monstrous god if monstrosity is defined as intentionally bringing about suffering, since we could choose not to suffer?

[Valmy]

Does this mean that it's not possible to have a monstrous god if monstrosity is defined as intentionally bringing about suffering, since we could choose not to suffer?

If you define monstrosity that way then sure.  If a Nazi tortures a Jew who is at peace the whole time does that mean he is not a monster?

[frunk]

If you define monstrosity that way then sure.  If a Nazi tortures a Jew who is at peace the whole time does that mean he is not a monster?

Of course the Nazi is a monster, and just because we define suffering so that it can't be inflicted doesn't mean that any god is off the hook for creating an environment where nasty things happen.

[The Brain]

Seems racist to me to claim that the poor Arab Mohammed couldn't tell fantasy from fact.

[garbon]

That's the point. Your hypothetical is built on a set of presumptions designed to give you the answer you're looking for. Thus, if you don't like the pre-supposed answer (and I don't), your best option is to change the presumption or the hypothetical.

It isn't the answer I'm looking for. Again, I was the one who said I'd have difficulty judging the monstrosity of a god (primarily for the reasons that frunk listed).

[Viking]

Seems racist to me to claim that the poor Arab Mohammed couldn't tell fantasy from fact.

not when you say the same thing about hitler, stalin and scientologists.

[Neil]

I would think that most people would like to believe that they would maintain their moral system in any situation.

[derspiess]

Man, the administration needs to get its shit together on this Libya thing: 

http://www.theatlanticwire.com/global/2012/10/state-department-disowns-susan-rices-libya-narrative/57801/

[CountDeMoney]

ITS A FLUID SITUATION.