Gods supposed perfection

[Cyberman]

"Supposed" Hahahar

The lithium just kick in, fr00ds?

[orangebox21]

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?

Good point. No we do not limit a punishment for a crime if the victim is limited in knowledge.

The severity of all punishments is linked to something outside the act itself. An act itself is simply an event. Without presupposing morality and laws, and a rational mind to apply said morality and laws, all events would be amoral.

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?

I'm not 100% convinced but to the best of my knowledge I actually lean towards believing that God is, as you have put it, forced to punish people and that is 'why' He does it. Let me explain forced. I believe that sin against God necessitates punishment. If a part of God's nature is holiness and justice, then it would follow that in a legal setting God would have 'no choice' but to be just. In other words, justice would necessarily follow legal debt (sin). It's not a matter of will in that punishment is a choice, it's a matter that given the nature of God, justice will necessarily follow. In that sense, God is forced to punish.

He has placed His punishment upon His son for the sins of believers, and so there is mercy available, if you want it, if you believe it.

I just wana know what the master said. I wana know where Jesus said that he came here to die for our sins so whatever sins we do, it's paid for. I want to see it. It's that IDIOT PAUL who said it.

Mark 2:8 Immediately Jesus knew in his spirit that this was what they were thinking in their hearts, and he said to them, “Why are you thinking these things? 9 Which is easier: to say to this paralyzed man, ‘Your sins are forgiven,’ or to say, ‘Get up, take your mat and walk’? 10 But I want you to know that the Son of Man has authority on earth to forgive sins.” So he said to the man, 11 “I tell you, get up, take your mat and go home.” 12 He got up, took his mat and walked out in full view of them all. This amazed everyone and they praised God, saying, “We have never seen anything like this!”

Luke 7:48 Then Jesus said to her, “Your sins are forgiven.”49 The other guests began to say among themselves, “Who is this who even forgives sins?”50 Jesus said to the woman, “Your faith has saved you; go in peace.”

Luke 9:18 Once when Jesus was praying in private and his disciples were with him, he asked them, “Who do the crowds say I am?” 19 They replied, “Some say John the Baptist; others say Elijah; and still others, that one of the prophets of long ago has come back to life.” 20 “But what about you?” he asked. “Who do you say I am?” Peter answered, “God’s Messiah.” 21 Jesus strictly warned them not to tell this to anyone. 22 And he said, “The Son of Man must suffer many things and be rejected by the elders, the chief priests and the teachers of the law, and he must be killed and on the third day be raised to life.”

John 19:30 When he had received the drink, Jesus said, “It is finished.” With that, he bowed his head and gave up his spirit.

Luke 24:13 Now that same day two of them were going to a village called Emmaus, about seven miles[a] from Jerusalem. 14 They were talking with each other about everything that had happened. 15 As they talked and discussed these things with each other, Jesus himself came up and walked along with them; 16 but they were kept from recognizing him. 17 He asked them, “What are you discussing together as you walk along?” They stood still, their faces downcast. 18 One of them, named Cleopas, asked him, “Are you the only one visiting Jerusalem who does not know the things that have happened there in these days?” 19 “What things?” he asked.“About Jesus of Nazareth,” they replied. “He was a prophet, powerful in word and deed before God and all the people. 20 The chief priests and our rulers handed him over to be sentenced to death, and they crucified him; 21 but we had hoped that he was the one who was going to redeem Israel. And what is more, it is the third day since all this took place. 22 In addition, some of our women amazed us. They went to the tomb early this morning 23 but didn’t find his body. They came and told us that they had seen a vision of angels, who said he was alive. 24 Then some of our companions went to the tomb and found it just as the women had said, but they did not see Jesus.” 25 He said to them, “How foolish you are, and how slow to believe all that the prophets have spoken! 26 Did not the Messiah have to suffer these things and then enter his glory?” 27 And beginning with Moses and all the Prophets, he explained to them what was said in all the Scriptures concerning himself.

Matthew 26:26 While they were eating, Jesus took bread, and when he had given thanks, he broke it and gave it to his disciples, saying, “Take and eat; this is my body.”27 Then he took a cup, and when he had given thanks, he gave it to them, saying, “Drink from it, all of you. 28 This is my blood of the covenant, which is poured out for many for the forgiveness of sins. 29 I tell you, I will not drink from this fruit of the vine from now on until that day when I drink it new with you in my Father’s kingdom.”

I have an announcement which may shed some light on this issue.
This morning I had a divine revelation, and this is what God dictated to me:
1) I am the Powerful Almighty Real Omnipotent Deity Yecize.
2) Everything written here is true, because I have said it.
3) Yecize is my name, and all other past and future gods are not real.
4) I created the universe
5) The one and only time I have intervened with the universe is by sending this message
6) After this message is sent I will remove myself from reality, I will not exist any more
7) I have one true moral teaching which is above all others: "Try not to be a dickhead"
8) Everything written here is exactly as I want it written
9) End communication
I hope this will clear everything up.

Prove it.

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.
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.
References?
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.

Good observation. If things are factually wrong, that doesn't necessarily make them morally wrong. These are two separate categories.

Which of the following statements are facts?:
Rocks are hard.
Water is a liquid.
Orange is a color.
Blue is the coolest color.
Humans have brains.
Humans are smart.
Sacrificing a person will not stop a volcano from erupting.
It is wrong to sacrifice people to prevent volcanoes from erupting.

Some of these statements are facts, some are subjective, and some are moral. The sentence, 'orange is a color' is a non-moral, non-subjective, factual statement. The sentence 'blue is the coolest color' is a non-moral, non-factual, subjective statement. Claiming something to be morally wrong because as a statement it is factually wrong is illogical. If I said, blue is the coolest color because blue is a color, would you accept that blue is the coolest color? I hope not. Yet this is what you are doing when you say: "It is wrong to sacrifice people to prevent volcanoes from erupting because sacrificing a person will not stop a volcano from erupting." Certainly it is wrong to sacrifice a person to prevent volcanoes from erupting, but not because sacrificing a person will not stop a volcano from erupting. It is morally wrong, for moral reasons, not factual ones.

References being the bible. Specifically things like the fact that the first four traditional commandments are strictly about him.

Scriptural reference that shows that the 10 commandments were written in order of importance.

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.

Is the same Hebrew word for 'kill' used in both places?

After all the English language has words like 'kill' and 'murder'. When someone is on trial for killing, we say on trial for murder. Yet, if a soldier kills another soldier in the context of war, it is not considered murder.

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?

I always saw that the main thing was the revelation of God and His plan of salvation through His son Jesus Christ.

Yes. If your god is a person, he should be able to talk to me like a person.
Show up,

Like 2000 years ago.

maybe do some things that defy physics to show he's not a normal Human being,

Like feed a crowd with a small amount of food, or change water into wine, or walk on water, or heal the sick with a touch, or....

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.

If any of you lacks wisdom, let him ask God, who gives generously to all without reproach. (James 1:5)

You have what you have asked for, but if you do not believe the words of the Bible, you wouldn't believe it if someone came to you and claimed to be God, however convincing the experience.

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.

This is what I don't understand about the argument. Why does quantity of crimes equal quantity of time?

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.

As I wrote to Chad32 above, a subjective statement by definition is not factual. Every one of your above statements are subjective statements and are therefore not factual.

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.

How does justice fit in?

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.

Why do you think that God is 'unharmed' by our crimes against Him?

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.

Why are judges asked to recuse themselves in certain trials? It is because in certain situations they couldn't be (or at least we assume they couldn't be) impartial and would therefore pervert justice. If a person were to be by nature perfectly just, then there would be no reason to recuse themselves. A perfectly just judge by nature, would be impartial.

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.

In your worldview it would be the equivalent. In the atheist worldview, a person's entire existence is from birth to death. In the Christian worldview a person's existence is from birth to eternity. If a person were to be sentenced to life in prison, according to the atheist worldview they would spend the rest of their entire existence being punished. In the same way, a person suffering punishment in hell does so for the rest of his/her existence.

But my argument wasn't drawing an analogy between a man's finite life and their eternal life. I agree the 'time frame' is different. I was merely testing the logic of your premise. You asserted that: 'Rehabilitation is impossible in an infinite punishment.' We observe situations where punishment continues after rehabilitation occurs. Ergo, it is not necessarily true that rehabilitation is impossible in an infinite punishment.

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?

I don't know about 'more moral', but I would agree that a punishment that seeks to morally correct the punished would be better (although I do this being persuaded by you, it's still a subjective statement). This of course, assuming that the goal of punishment is rehabilitation, and also assuming the person in hell is capable of being rehabilitated.

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

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

No. Are you accountable for your choices?

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.

The structure of a government is amoral.

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.

This is the most open and honest response you've given me to date. Thank you.

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?

In the way I have written above. God is able to be merciful to His believers without contradicting His nature (justice) which He couldn't do. So without the substitutionary atonement of Christ there could be no forgiveness. This is why it is written: "I saw [a]in the right hand of Him who sat on the throne a [b]book written inside and on the back, sealed up with seven seals. 2 And I saw a strong angel proclaiming with a loud voice, “Who is worthy to open the [c]book and to break its seals?” 3 And no one in heaven or on the earth or under the earth was able to open the [d]book or to look into it. 4 Then I began to weep greatly because no one was found worthy to open the [e]book or to look into it; 5 and one of the elders *said to me, “Stop weeping; behold, the Lion that is from the tribe of Judah, the Root of David, has overcome so as to open the [f]book and its seven seals.”

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"?

I'm pretty sure the white throne judgment isn't located in Australia.

Seriously though...... ironically just the opposite. Who's law is broken, man or God's? God's. So if it's God's law that you have broken, you should be tried in God's courtroom. To throw out that system and replace it with a human system.....that would be a kangaroo court.

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?

You won't. That's the point. The bible is just a story book. Any gods in existence, exist only in the minds of the believers who created them after having been exposed to their holy book of choice and the views of other Christians around them.

I think you're running into a 'chicken and the egg' problem here. People wrote a book that created a god within the minds of people who wrote a book that created a god within the minds of people who wrote a book that created a god within the minds of people who.....

[Chad32]

I'm not 100% convinced but to the best of my knowledge I actually lean towards believing that God is, as you have put it, forced to punish people and that is 'why' He does it. Let me explain forced. I believe that sin against God necessitates punishment. If a part of God's nature is holiness and justice, then it would follow that in a legal setting God would have 'no choice' but to be just. In other words, justice would necessarily follow legal debt (sin). It's not a matter of will in that punishment is a choice, it's a matter that given the nature of God, justice will necessarily follow. In that sense, God is forced to punish.

He has placed His punishment upon His son for the sins of believers, and so there is mercy available, if you want it, if you believe it.

It's not the fact that he punishes people. It's the severity of the punishment. No one would tell a parent never discipline your children. But abandoning a young child because he understands the word No, despite not understanding why, or setting a child on fire for doing something wrong, is too extreme to ignore. There's a big different between punishing wrongdoers, and compeltely destroying and torturing them regardless of the crime.

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.

Good observation. If things are factually wrong, that doesn't necessarily make them morally wrong. These are two separate categories.

Which of the following statements are facts?:
Rocks are hard.
Water is a liquid.
Orange is a color.
Blue is the coolest color.
Humans have brains.
Humans are smart.
Sacrificing a person will not stop a volcano from erupting.
It is wrong to sacrifice people to prevent volcanoes from erupting.

Some of these statements are facts, some are subjective, and some are moral. The sentence, 'orange is a color' is a non-moral, non-subjective, factual statement. The sentence 'blue is the coolest color' is a non-moral, non-factual, subjective statement. Claiming something to be morally wrong because as a statement it is factually wrong is illogical. If I said, blue is the coolest color because blue is a color, would you accept that blue is the coolest color? I hope not. Yet this is what you are doing when you say: "It is wrong to sacrifice people to prevent volcanoes from erupting because sacrificing a person will not stop a volcano from erupting." Certainly it is wrong to sacrifice a person to prevent volcanoes from erupting, but not because sacrificing a person will not stop a volcano from erupting. It is morally wrong, for moral reasons, not factual ones.

I guess the best way for me to convince someone that something is wrong is to show them objectively why it is wrong, instead of relying on subjective morals. It helps avoid the whole "fair for its time" problem. Sure Yahweh said try not to completely beat your slave to death, but it overlooks the problem that slavery is wrong. It's objectively wrong because being a different skin color, or being less enlightened, doesn't make other groups not Human.

References being the bible. Specifically things like the fact that the first four traditional commandments are strictly about him.

Scriptural reference that shows that the 10 commandments were written in order of importance.

The bible is littered with passages that state the most important thing to Yahweh is himself. The fact that he felt the only way to appease himself was to send a part of himself to sacrifice to himself just shows how self centered he is. The whole idea of original sin is that Yahweh believes us all to be evil because his first Humans dared to disobey him once.

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.

Is the same Hebrew word for 'kill' used in both places?

After all the English language has words like 'kill' and 'murder'. When someone is on trial for killing, we say on trial for murder. Yet, if a soldier kills another soldier in the context of war, it is not considered murder.

There seem to be more cases in which you're allowed to end someone's life, than when you're not allowed to. so I'm not sure what the point of that commandment was.

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?

I always saw that the main thing was the revelation of God and His plan of salvation through His son Jesus Christ.

We sure, because you're a christian. If you lived during the thousand years or so before then, I doubt you would have. Or if you grew up in a jewish home that rejects the new testament.

Yes. If your god is a person, he should be able to talk to me like a person.
Show up,

Like 2000 years ago.

maybe do some things that defy physics to show he's not a normal Human being,

Like feed a crowd with a small amount of food, or change water into wine, or walk on water, or heal the sick with a touch, or....

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.

If any of you lacks wisdom, let him ask God, who gives generously to all without reproach. (James 1:5)

You have what you have asked for, but if you do not believe the words of the Bible, you wouldn't believe it if someone came to you and claimed to be God, however convincing the experience.

This may come as a surprise to you, but I wasn't alive 2,000 years ago. Whatever events people claimed to have happened and wrote in a book don't really apply to me. Regardless of what holy book we're talking about.

[Esquilax]

This is what I don't understand about the argument. Why does quantity of crimes equal quantity of time?

Aren't two murders worse than one murder? I mean, if you punish someone for committing a murder, if they do it twice shouldn't the punishment logically reflect that?

As I wrote to Chad32 above, a subjective statement by definition is not factual. Every one of your above statements are subjective statements and are therefore not factual.

Neither of us have an objective view on this issue. Even if you're talking about god, god is a subject, his view is as subjective as any other. God has a mind, has feelings... regardless of the authority you wish to place on his view, it's not objective. There's no way of ensuring that god won't fall victim to the same biases that cause human subjectivity to be problematic, and the mere assertion that he doesn't, that his rule is perfect, is not compelling. The only way we're really going to have a productive conversation on this issue is if you recognize that I don't automatically afford god the authority and perfect judgment that you do; from my perspective we're both arguing from subjective viewpoints, and the superiority of god's judgment will be determined through his actions, and not the fiat assertion of authority.

How does justice fit in?

Isn't that a just outcome? The person atones for his crimes, and comes away from the situation educated and less inclined to repeat the negative behavior. Given the situation, that should really be the ideal ending.

Why do you think that God is 'unharmed' by our crimes against Him?

Ah, but this is your burden of proof to bear: can you explain how an omnipotent, out of reality creator being is harmed by, say, a completely unconnected person not believing in him? Because it seems to me that the idea that sin harms god is a complete non sequitur, and so far nobody has been able to explain what harm god comes to beyond what essentially amounts to "it's an affront to his pride/morality," and I'm sorry, but nobody has the right not to be offended, and that answer is still begging the question when it comes to god's supposed just nature.

Why are judges asked to recuse themselves in certain trials? It is because in certain situations they couldn't be (or at least we assume they couldn't be) impartial and would therefore pervert justice. If a person were to be by nature perfectly just, then there would be no reason to recuse themselves. A perfectly just judge by nature, would be impartial.

Aside from the simple assertion, what indication is there that god is just at all? Set aside your presupposition for a moment and ask yourself if execution without trial, as god is said to have done in numerous situations, is a just outcome? And if it's not just for humans, why is it just for god? Your answer, I have little doubt, will simply be a return to the assertion that god is perfectly just and therefore it's okay, but that is textbook circular reasoning.

I get it, god claims god is perfectly just, and for you that assertion is sufficient for belief. But it's not for me, and frankly, if it is for you and yet other claims, from other gods aren't, then you are special pleading. What else do you have, beyond the simple demand that god is just?

In your worldview it would be the equivalent. In the atheist worldview, a person's entire existence is from birth to death.

... Which is a finite span of time, and not infinite. My death may signal the end of my consciousness, but I am not the universe, and it will persist beyond the totality of my experience with it.

In the Christian worldview a person's existence is from birth to eternity. If a person were to be sentenced to life in prison, according to the atheist worldview they would spend the rest of their entire existence being punished. In the same way, a person suffering punishment in hell does so for the rest of his/her existence.

The issue is with the length of time though, and not how much of a person's lifespan it takes up. People die in prison all the time for crimes they committed, but they did so while serving time commensurate with the crime in question. That's not the problem, as they were given a sentence befitting the crime. The problem is that, in a hell scenario, they are given a sentence far outweighing the crime, because it is simply not possible to commit crimes sufficient to justify eternal punishment.

Consider this: if we invented a suspended animation machine that could keep prisoners alive forever and in constant pain, would it be moral to use it? Would it be moral to use it on every criminal regardless of their actual crime?

No doubt your answer to both would be no, right? But what I've described is essentially what god is doing, so what makes it okay for him to do so? If your answer is that god is just, referring back to the same circular reasoning that you've been using as justification all this time, then, well, you've got a problem there, don't you think?

But my argument wasn't drawing an analogy between a man's finite life and their eternal life. I agree the 'time frame' is different. I was merely testing the logic of your premise. You asserted that: 'Rehabilitation is impossible in an infinite punishment.' We observe situations where punishment continues after rehabilitation occurs. Ergo, it is not necessarily true that rehabilitation is impossible in an infinite punishment.

You misunderstand, and maybe I could have phrased it more clearly: rehabilitation in hell is impossible. Because hell features no outlets for the prisoners there, no means of rehabilitation, no nothing. It's just into the lake of fire to be tormented forever. You don't get out of hell. There's no qualitative judgment of your relative crime, or fitness to re-enter society, or anything. It's a one-size-fits-all, thoughtless punishment, given just to inflict pain and nothing else.

I don't know about 'more moral', but I would agree that a punishment that seeks to morally correct the punished would be better (although I do this being persuaded by you, it's still a subjective statement). This of course, assuming that the goal of punishment is rehabilitation, and also assuming the person in hell is capable of being rehabilitated.

If god is infinitely just and powerful, why wouldn't he rehabilitate those in hell?

No. Are you accountable for your choices?

Yes, I am accountable to myself, my loved ones, and the other people on this planet. But you took issue with my idea that we can't help but commit crimes against god, which is a view that only makes sense if we can avoid sinning. If we can't, then we have no choice but to commit crimes against god.

The structure of a government is amoral.

Certainly, but democracy affords the populace a more easily attained, peaceful means of ousting those in power than autocracy does.

This is the most open and honest response you've given me to date. Thank you.

No problem, it's just the truth. However, I would add that from where I'm sitting neither of us has an objective grounding for things, in the way you're thinking of.

In the way I have written above. God is able to be merciful to His believers without contradicting His nature (justice) which He couldn't do. So without the substitutionary atonement of Christ there could be no forgiveness. This is why it is written: "I saw [a]in the right hand of Him who sat on the throne a [b]book written inside and on the back, sealed up with seven seals. 2 And I saw a strong angel proclaiming with a loud voice, “Who is worthy to open the [c]book and to break its seals?” 3 And no one in heaven or on the earth or under the earth was able to open the [d]book or to look into it. 4 Then I began to weep greatly because no one was found worthy to open the [e]book or to look into it; 5 and one of the elders *said to me, “Stop weeping; behold, the Lion that is from the tribe of Judah, the Root of David, has overcome so as to open the [f]book and its seven seals.”

Okay, let me rephrase: what is just in causing someone else to suffer for your crimes? If you allowed someone else to be executed for a crime you committed here on earth you'd be labelled a monster.

I'm pretty sure the white throne judgment isn't located in Australia.

Who knows? Lotta uncharted desert out there.

Seriously though...... ironically just the opposite. Who's law is broken, man or God's? God's. So if it's God's law that you have broken, you should be tried in God's courtroom. To throw out that system and replace it with a human system.....that would be a kangaroo court.

Why does god get to have his own law? ... Because of an assertion of authority and perfect justice that neither of us has any reason to really accept.

Round and round, the reasoning goes...

[abaris]

God being perfect?

The old book is a slaughter fest that every splatter movie would have a hard time replicating. Kill this or that tribe, kill this or that person, kill children, pregnant women, cattle, sacrifice your only son (oops, god was only joking), have slaves, beat them, women who have been raped should marry their rapist and on and on and on.

Then along comes Jesus, supposedly being god, being a little bit bored by all this slaughter and has a try on being a hippie. Love thy neighbour, the one being without sin throwing the first stoine, but also the one Jesus, claiming to bring a sword and not changing an iota of the old law. So he's still craving blood despite all the window dressing. And to top it off, since the trinity says so, he sacrifices himself to himself to go out in the ultimate splatter movie Mel Gibson could dream of.

Yeah, a very logical god.

[robvalue]

I have an announcement which may shed some light on this issue.
This morning I had a divine revelation, and this is what God dictated to me:
1) I am the Powerful Almighty Real Omnipotent Deity Yecize.
2) Everything written here is true, because I have said it.
3) Yecize is my name, and all other past and future gods are not real.
4) I created the universe
5) The one and only time I have intervened with the universe is by sending this message
6) After this message is sent I will remove myself from reality, I will not exist any more
7) I have one true moral teaching which is above all others: "Try not to be a dickhead"
8) Everything written here is exactly as I want it written
9) End communication
I hope this will clear everything up.

Prove it.

Proof? It's very simple. Look at number 2, everything written here is true. Also number 8. What more proof could you want?

[Chad32]

Sounds legit to me.

[LastPoet]

Just as legit as any of those fantasies they call religion.

[robvalue]

Thanks

Yeah, so now I have divine revelation proving atheism is correct. Does it get better than that?

[Nintentacle]

You have an issue with it because you misunderstand it. This argument has been refuted multiple times, and you can look into it yourself.