(October 15, 2014 at 4:51 pm)orangebox21 Wrote: When the atheist claims that people suffer eternal punishment for finite crimes they leave out an important qualification: against an eternal being. The argument should be: eternal punishment for finite crimes against an eternal being is immoral.

Yeah, that's super important.

The status of the judge means jack shit to me (and the status of the victim only marginally more-so. kill a man-do 20, kill a woman-do 20, kill a child-do 20, kill a bum-do 20. kill a millionaire-do 20). Where are you from? I think I'm about to have another "god bless america" moment......

And why does Jesus ignore Ezekiel 18:20 and takes on upon himself the sins of the world?

(October 15, 2014 at 4:51 pm)orangebox21 Wrote: When the atheist claims that people suffer eternal punishment for finite crimes they leave out an important qualification: against an eternal being. The argument should be: eternal punishment for finite crimes against an eternal being is immoral.

I don't understand why that matters. We can extend that to its "logical" conclusion and assume that the punishment for a crime committed against a 1-year-old cannot last longer than one year.

I think the more accurate qualification would be "against a being of incomparable power" who can do as he pleases because no one is capable of staying his hand. But that factor, when combined with a moral code that amounts to "it's good if he says it's good" makes for a very scary deity.

(October 7, 2014 at 10:46 am)orangebox21 Wrote: The answer may offend you, but....

Isaiah 45:9 (9"Woe to the one who quarrels with his Maker-- An earthenware vessel among the vessels of earth! Will the clay say to the potter, 'What are you doing?' Or the thing you are making say, 'He has no hands '?) is quoted and expounded in Romans 9:16-24

16It does not, therefore, depend on human desire or effort, but on God’s mercy. 17For Scripture says to Pharaoh: “I raised you up for this very purpose, that I might display my power in you and that my name might be proclaimed in all the earth.” 18Therefore God has mercy on whom he wants to have mercy, and he hardens whom he wants to harden.

19One of you will say to me: “Then why does God still blame us? For who is able to resist his will?” 20But who are you, a human being, to talk back to God? “Shall what is formed say to the one who formed it, ‘Why did you make me like this?’ ” 21Does not the potter have the right to make out of the same lump of clay some pottery for special purposes and some for common use?

22What if God, although choosing to show his wrath and make his power known, bore with great patience the objects of his wrath—prepared for destruction? 23What if he did this to make the riches of his glory known to the objects of his mercy, whom he prepared in advance for glory— 24even us, whom he also called, not only from the Jews but also from the Gentiles?

Often we want God to be how we want Him to be, act how we want Him to act, so as to serve our wills. We want to create a God in our image. This is the perspective of humanism interpreting scripture, namely "It should be all about ME, all for MY benefit." Well, who are you oh man that you should.....

I spent 47 years of my life "not questioning my maker". When I asked some questions why there were so many inconsistent statements in the bible, I was told some bullshit about gods word is perfect and that we need to study it more to understand it.

Quoting the bible to tell me not to question the bible is kind of stupid. Just because some men a few hundred years ago decided to create a document to "explain" all the questions does not make it perfect.

Ask some questions! Then honestly LISTEN to the answers, you will be dumb founded.

(October 15, 2014 at 5:05 pm)Chad32 Wrote: Morality is subjective, and changes over time,

If that is true, then no modern day standard of morality can be used to retroactively judge the morality of previous cultures. At best we can say, their actions weren't immoral for them then, just immoral for us now and what is moral for us now may be immoral in the future.

Furthermore no subjective statement can be used as a universally applied statement (that would make it an objective statement). An example of a subjective statement is: "The color orange is the best color." I may have good reasons for this (it's bright, it keeps road construction workers and hunters safe, it's a color and a fruit and that makes it unique...etc.) Certainly you would agree that an argument over what color is best could never determine which color is in fact best. If morality is subjective then it's a matter of opinion, like what color is best, and not universally applicable.

(October 15, 2014 at 5:05 pm)Chad32 Wrote: but a form of morality that helps the most people while hindering the least helps society grow faster. Killing people doesn't help the group, which is why it's normally illegal, and we know that killing people isn't going to stop a storm from blowing in, or the ground from shaking or a volcano from erupting. Unless you can come up with a sound reason for killing someone, and show that cutting someone's heart out on an altar really makes a difference, then you can't convince someone it's the right thing to do.

Of course you believe the above. You make this assertion according to the standard of morality you have developed through the years of your life and the culture you were raised in. You have been taught that the 'group' is most important, and that killing doesn't help the group, and that morality should help the most people while hindering the least. But again, that's subjective and therefore not universally applicable.

(October 15, 2014 at 5:05 pm)Chad32 Wrote: The most important thing Yahweh wants from you is worship. The main requirement for him accepting you or casting you out is worship. Regardless of any good deeds or bad deeds you have done in your life, the most important thing he's concerned about is whether or not you worship him. Even when you get to heaven, the main thing you'll be doing is worshiping him. That is the only thing Yahweh is concerned about, and the bible makes it clear that's where his priorities lie.

References?

(October 15, 2014 at 5:05 pm)Chad32 Wrote: He does not talk to me through a book written by people long ago that claimed to be inspired by him. If my mother wants to talk to me, she does not ask my sister to write a letter and send it to me. she actually calls me up and speaks to me.

So if God doesn't speak to you in the same way your mother speaks to you then God can't or doesn't speak to you?

(October 16, 2014 at 8:11 am)Ksa Wrote: And why does Jesus ignore Ezekiel 18:20 and takes on upon himself the sins of the world?

He didn't. Who was Jesus' father? Who was Jesus' son? Was Jesus punished for the sins of His father?

(October 16, 2014 at 8:28 am)Tonus Wrote:

(October 15, 2014 at 4:51 pm)orangebox21 Wrote: When the atheist claims that people suffer eternal punishment for finite crimes they leave out an important qualification: against an eternal being. The argument should be: eternal punishment for finite crimes against an eternal being is immoral.

I don't understand why that matters. We can extend that to its "logical" conclusion and assume that the punishment for a crime committed against a 1-year-old cannot last longer than one year.

That's an excellent point. If God's infiniteness was limited to His 'age' then your reducto absurdum would be well stated and I would agree with you. Is it true that God's infiniteness is limited to His age? No. He is eternal in age (Rev 1:8, 22:13), in knowledge (1 John 3:20), in presence (Jer 23:23-24). The point here is that a crime against an infinite being would be infinite in nature and would therefore require an infinite punishment.

(October 16, 2014 at 8:28 am)Tonus Wrote: I think the more accurate qualification would be "against a being of incomparable power" who can do as he pleases because no one is capable of staying his hand. But that factor, when combined with a moral code that amounts to "it's good if he says it's good" makes for a very scary deity.

Just include the qualifier of infinite to God's being, not just His age, and you'll do fine.

(October 16, 2014 at 10:42 am)polar bear Wrote: I spent 47 years of my life "not questioning my maker". When I asked some questions why there were so many inconsistent statements in the bible, I was told some bullshit about gods word is perfect and that we need to study it more to understand it.

How would you know the difference between the inconsistency being your understanding or the text?

(October 16, 2014 at 11:49 pm)orangebox21 Wrote: That's an excellent point. If God's infiniteness was limited to His 'age' then your reducto absurdum would be well stated and I would agree with you. Is it true that God's infiniteness is limited to His age? No. He is eternal in age (Rev 1:8, 22:13), in knowledge (1 John 3:20), in presence (Jer 23:23-24). The point here is that a crime against an infinite being would be infinite in nature and would therefore require an infinite punishment.

But you are still linking the severity of the punishment to something outside of the act itself. Do we lessen the punishment for crimes committed against the mentally retarded, since they are more limited in knowledge or presence?

Nor have you explained why a crime against an infinite being requires an infinite punishment. Requiring something implies an obligation, and that seems unlikely to apply to god. I am assuming that you agree that god is not forced to punish anyone?

(October 16, 2014 at 11:49 pm)orangebox21 Wrote:

(October 15, 2014 at 5:05 pm)Chad32 Wrote: Morality is subjective, and changes over time,

If that is true, then no modern day standard of morality can be used to retroactively judge the morality of previous cultures. At best we can say, their actions weren't immoral for them then, just immoral for us now and what is moral for us now may be immoral in the future.

Furthermore no subjective statement can be used as a universally applied statement (that would make it an objective statement). An example of a subjective statement is: "The color orange is the best color." I may have good reasons for this (it's bright, it keeps road construction workers and hunters safe, it's a color and a fruit and that makes it unique...etc.) Certainly you would agree that an argument over what color is best could never determine which color is in fact best. If morality is subjective then it's a matter of opinion, like what color is best, and not universally applicable.

(October 15, 2014 at 5:05 pm)Chad32 Wrote: but a form of morality that helps the most people while hindering the least helps society grow faster. Killing people doesn't help the group, which is why it's normally illegal, and we know that killing people isn't going to stop a storm from blowing in, or the ground from shaking or a volcano from erupting. Unless you can come up with a sound reason for killing someone, and show that cutting someone's heart out on an altar really makes a difference, then you can't convince someone it's the right thing to do.

Of course you believe the above. You make this assertion according to the standard of morality you have developed through the years of your life and the culture you were raised in. You have been taught that the 'group' is most important, and that killing doesn't help the group, and that morality should help the most people while hindering the least. But again, that's subjective and therefore not universally applicable.

(October 15, 2014 at 5:05 pm)Chad32 Wrote: The most important thing Yahweh wants from you is worship. The main requirement for him accepting you or casting you out is worship. Regardless of any good deeds or bad deeds you have done in your life, the most important thing he's concerned about is whether or not you worship him. Even when you get to heaven, the main thing you'll be doing is worshiping him. That is the only thing Yahweh is concerned about, and the bible makes it clear that's where his priorities lie.

References?

(October 15, 2014 at 5:05 pm)Chad32 Wrote: He does not talk to me through a book written by people long ago that claimed to be inspired by him. If my mother wants to talk to me, she does not ask my sister to write a letter and send it to me. she actually calls me up and speaks to me.

So if God doesn't speak to you in the same way your mother speaks to you then God can't or doesn't speak to you?

We can judge past deeds by how they effect future society. Hindsight being 20/20, and all. So even though people kept slaves in the past, doing it because a book told them it was ok, or because they didn't believe differently colored people who still used bows in an age of guns weren't actually people, is not a good reason to own another Human being. Also since we know why earthquakes happen, and volcanoes erupt, and why lightning strikes, we can know that killing people to make it stop is wrong. Though I guess I'm talking more about things that are factually wrong than subjective morality.

References being the bible. Specifically things like the fact that the first four traditional commandments are strictly about him. We don't even get down to "thou shalt not murder" until number six, and Yahweh quickly made an exception to that rule when he told Moses to kill his followers for erecting a golden calf after wandering in the desert for forty years. Which he had them do as a test to see which ones would remain eternally loyal to him. How could you read the bible and not see that the main thing, if not the only thing, your god cares about is people worshiping him?

Yes. If your god is a person, he should be able to talk to me like a person. Show up, maybe do some things that defy physics to show he's not a normal Human being, and we can have a talk. Not some messed up book with contradictory lessons, or some christian saying this is how I should interpret the passages.

(October 13, 2014 at 4:08 pm)orangebox21 Wrote: It would help me to understand better if you were to qualify 'infinite' related to crimes and punishment. Do you mean to say: it is immoral to punish a finite number of crimes with a punishment of an infinite amount of time?

Essentially. By definition, unless the crimes committed are themselves infinite- which I don't even know what that would look like within our reality- then at some stage the punishment will go past the point where it would be excessive, and then still continue. And it would not stop. This is the problem with the kind of hyper-intense consequences religion pushes on people; no matter what you've done, eternity will eventually overtake your capacity to commit evil.

Quote:If I have accurately represented your premises and conclusion, then your argument is neither valid nor sound. You could make a more cogent argument from some of the existing premises.

I wouldn't even call it an argument. Rather, it is a simple set of factual statements, within the context of the christian narrative, that contradict the claims therein.

Quote:I would also raise the following objections/clarifications to your premises:
1. Is rehabilitation and atonement the only purpose of punishment?

It should be. I mean, I understand that containment is also a part of the process, removal from society for the safety of the law abiding, but if at all possible this should be done with a view to eventually removing the threat without ending the life of its instigator. We put people in prison to atone, so that they act as a deterrent both to repeat violations and potential violations from others, and to ensure that it doesn't happen again. It's a consequence that we hope will make criminals think twice.

What else would you use it for? Vengeance? I would think we are better than that.

Quote:2. Entirely subjective

I would call it a mathematical certainty. We live finite lives, and then we die; there is no possible way we could commit infinite crimes, and therefore infinite punishment becomes excessive at the point at which its length surpasses the length of our crimes. Now, I've seen you later on state that since god is an infinite being we have transgressed, infinite punishment is required, but this is nonsense. For one, a "crime" that causes no harm to this supposed infinite being can hardly be said to have been a crime against him. If you're just going to assert that god's authority cannot be crossed then my answer is that authority that is demanded and not freely given is a dictatorship, a tyranny entirely ill fitting of any morality, let alone supreme morality. That's being sent to a gulag without trial, not justice.

But if you're set on considering god the victim here, then let me accept that premise and remind you of something: what sort of court would set the victim of the crime as the judge of the accused? Judges are supposed to be impartial, after all. It is only right, in a sane and fair trial, that god recuse himself from the judgment of every soul, if you're committed to making him the victim. And if he doesn't, then we're back to tyranny, I'm afraid. That's vengeance, not justice.

Quote:3. Rehabilitation is entirely possible in an infinite punishment. This is exemplified in our current legal system. An inmate's punishment doesn't necessarily end when they have been rehabilitated. Some inmates spend the rest of their lives being both rehabilitated and punished.

"The rest of their lives," is in no way infinite.

Quote:4. No punishment necessitates rehabilitation. According to this premise, all punishments are potentially unjust because no punishment necessitates rehabilitation.

Would you not consider a punishment that seeks to morally correct the punished and turn them into productive members of society more moral than one that simply sees fit to punish? Is not betterment preferable to the infliction of pain?

Quote:5. Mercy is unjust, yet not immoral.

Highly dependent on what you're being merciful on. Showing mercy to an unrepentant serial killer, for example, only ensures more victims. There are types of mercy that are immoral, for sure.

Quote:7. What crimes are we unable to keep from committing?

Is it possible for any given human to avoid sinning their entire life?

Quote:8. Dictatorships are not necessarily immoral. If a dictator is moral, then he/she will make moral judgments. If a dictator is immoral, then he/she will make immoral judgments.

I would consider self determination enough of a moral imperative that democracy is inherently more moral than dictatorship.

Quote:9. Please define your terms 'regular morality' and 'perfect morality.'

The distinction is immaterial; regular morality is morality as we understand it, while perfect morality would be the consistent selection of actions that are the most morally correct for any given context.

Quote:I have to admit, when I first read what you had written it sounded very reasonable to me. They are, however, a list of assertions, mostly subjective, with no logical cogency. From such, we cannot logically conclude anything, not yet anyway. You are a very persuasive person, I'll give you that. Persuasive and illogical.

I think the issue is our disagreement on morality, given that, from what I can surmise you believe morality finds its source in god, whereas I find it to be a context driven determination based in a set of simple general rules founded on our nature as living beings. I simply can't give you the kind of absolute, objective grounding for my morality that you assert to exist, and so of course my arguments would seem to be assertions, a problem not helped by the fact that actually going through the grounding behind each premise would be a book on its own, and you'd probably still find them less than perfectly sound because of the expectations your own belief system has given you.

Quote:I agree with the second part. This is the answer as to why Jesus had to die, why the cross is necessary. Namely, it is how can God be completely merciful and just.

How does substitutionary atonement help the situation at all?

Quote:What do you mean when you say "advocator and performer of infinite punishment are mutually exclusive terms?"

Sorry, my sentence was a bit unclear :"Advocator and performer of infinite punishment" is mutually exclusive with "perfectly moral and just."

Quote:And what would be a "punishment commensurate with the crime they have committed," and who decides?

That would depend on the individual in question. Each life is different, which is another reason why giving everybody the same punishment is a ludicrous proposition. As to who decides... not god. Not the person bringing the charges.

We've built up an entire judiciary system around the idea of fair trials and eliminating bias, why would it then be okay to throw that all away at the most important trial of one's life, and make the judge, jury and executioner be the same person, who is also the prosecution and all the witnesses and the accuser, and also you get no defense or right to appeal, or human rights at all? That's madness.

Ever heard the phrase "Kangaroo Court"?

Where does Jesus say that? IT IS PAUL! PAUL! Paul smoked weed and started to ramble. I want to hear what the MASTER has to say...Christians are experts at quoting PAUL!

I thought Paul was dead? Abbey Road would never lie to me!