(October 10, 2014 at 3:42 pm)Chad32 Wrote: No, he is not justified in torturing people for eternity.
How do you know that it's torture and how do you know He's not justified?
(October 10, 2014 at 3:42 pm)Chad32 Wrote: I said somewhere recently, in this thread or another, that if it was some sort of community service for a finite amount of time, I'd be happy to work it off for any crimes I've done.
You're proposing that we let the criminals determine their own sentence?
(October 10, 2014 at 3:42 pm)Chad32 Wrote: I'd like to think you aren't stupid enough to not get this. There are more reasonable and constructive ways to meet out justice than eternal hellfire.
According to what standard?
(October 10, 2014 at 3:42 pm)Chad32 Wrote: I have not killed anyone, despite being tempted to. I have not raped anyone despite being tempted to. I have not stolen things, despite being tempted to.
“Two men went up into the temple to pray, one a Pharisee and the other a tax collector. 11 The Pharisee stood and was praying this to himself: ‘God, I thank You that I am not like other people: swindlers, unjust, adulterers, or even like this tax collector. 12 I fast twice a week; I pay tithes of all that I get.’ 13 But the tax collector, standing some distance away, was even unwilling to lift up his eyes to heaven, but was beating his breast, saying, ‘God, be [f]merciful to me, the sinner!’ 14 I tell you, this man went to his house justified rather than the other; for everyone who exalts himself will be humbled, but he who humbles himself will be exalted.”
(October 10, 2014 at 3:42 pm)Chad32 Wrote: Yet I would apparently be judged by your god for thoughts as if they were actions. These are the kinds of things I have no control over, yet apparently would be judged for.We haven't been discussing anything about thoughts. Our context has been about actions, of which you've admitted wrongdoing (see post #40 paragraph 2). Is God just in punishing you for the wrong you have done?
(October 11, 2014 at 3:58 am)Wyrd of Gawd Wrote: That sounds legit but remember the main point. When man ate from the tree of knowledge of good and evil he then knew what is good and evil just like God knows the difference. So man is therefore able to judge God's actions as being either good or evil. Man has done that and found God wanting because God's actions are mostly evil. As it says in the New Testament, man will judge angels. It should have also said that man will judge God as well.An account and definition of 'good' and 'evil' would be necessary for this judgment to be made. Please provide them.
(October 11, 2014 at 4:28 am)Esquilax Wrote: The former is a subset of the latter; eternal punishment for finite crimes is morally wrong, and therefore the bible is in error when it describes god as morally good and perfect.Understood.
(October 11, 2014 at 4:28 am)Esquilax 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?
An organization of your argument.
1. The purpose of punishment is atonement and rehabilitation.
2. Infinite punishment for finite crime will become excessive at some point.
3. Rehabilitation is impossible in an infinite punishment.
4. If punishment cannot rehabilitate then it is unjust.
5. Something that is unjust is immoral.
6. Torture is the epitome of cruel and unusual punishment
7. Entrapment [defined as the infliction of punishment for crimes we cannot avoid committing] is immoral.
8. Dictatorship's [defined as an authority without any accountability or requirement to be a representative of the people handing down the punishment] are immoral.
9. Eternal punishment is excluded from any normal understanding of regular morality and perfect morality.
.:/Any being performing eternal punishment cannot be morally perfect.
-and-
.:/The claims about god in the bible do not accurately reflect the character it portrays.
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 would also raise the following objections/clarifications to your premises:
1. Is rehabilitation and atonement the only purpose of punishment?
2. Entirely subjective
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.
4. No punishment necessitates rehabilitation. According to this premise, all punishments are potentially unjust because no punishment necessitates rehabilitation.
5. Mercy is unjust, yet not immoral.
6. While also highly subjective, I would agree to this premise.
7. What crimes are we unable to keep from committing?
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.
9. Please define your terms 'regular morality' and 'perfect morality.'
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.
(October 11, 2014 at 4:28 am)Esquilax Wrote: Because "merciful and just" and "advocator and performer of infinite punishment," are mutually exclusive terms. Hell, "merciful," and "just," are mutually exclusive terms, because mercy is a suspension of justice. Perfect justice and any mercy at all are necessarily in contradiction.
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.
What do you mean when you say "advocator and performer of infinite punishment are mutually exclusive terms?"
(October 11, 2014 at 4:28 am)Esquilax Wrote: One would think the obvious alternative is that one suffers punishment commensurate with the crime they have committed, after a fair trial, and that they are released once that is finished. Of course, that would require that god, being the putative victim in this case, recuse himself from passing judgment, but that's just one of the many problems with the system as it stands that makes god's judgment deeply unfair.And what would be a "punishment commensurate with the crime they have committed," and who decides?
(October 11, 2014 at 12:16 pm)downbeatplumb Wrote:(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.....
Where have you hidden the answer?(October 12, 2014 at 3:01 am)Losty Wrote: I am suggesting that after reading and/or studying parts of the bible and being exposed to the views of Christians around you, you created your own god in your mind and then called it the god of the bible. Yes.What is the difference between the God of the Bible and the 'god I have created in my own mind?' And when you give your answer, how will I know that your answer is the God of the Bible and not just the god you created in your mind after reading and/or studying parts of the bible and being exposed to the views of Christians around you?
If it could be proven beyond doubt that God exists...
and that He is the one spoken of in the Bible...
would you repent of your sins and place your faith in Jesus Christ?
