[Serious] What God's justification for eternal torment?

[The Architect Of Fate]

I would agree that multiple sources would not be able to determine standards of right or wrong; I agree that would be arbitrary.  However, for a single God to determine right or wrong would work - there would be no confusion then.

Doesn't follow 1 god or 100 it's still arbitrary

I'm not going to answer the hypothetical question about rape. 

Because you can't 

 Let's change it to genocide, why would that be inherently bad? 

Let's not 

 From a man vs man point of view, there are going to be wars and capital punishment but in general sure killing is bad. 

Killing in war is still bad but is necessary and indiscriminate killing in war is evil and capital punishment is unjust  

 But now if God orders Israel to wipe out other people why would that be different?  

Yes because that was genocide and it's wrong period 

Well, I imagine they were carrying out his punishment on other countries that were disobedient 

Wiping out a whole country is wrong period 

- indeed their ability to do so typically depended on their own obedience to God.  

Wiping out a whole country is wrong period 

I know this opens up a whole can of worms, let's just say in the New Testament we don't see this approach being carried out any longer. 

It's the same god thus the same evil 

 I'm not pro-genocide, but God can wipe out whichever countries are deserving of that justice.

Can and has the right and is just in doing so are different things 

God does what God wants, justice is carrying out punishment for disobedience.

Then god is an unjust cruel monster

[The Grand Nudger]

I don't personally believe that a god or human beings get to determine right or wrong.  That would make the terms fundamentally arbitrary.

Do you believe that?  Do you believe that if god declared rape to be good, that rape would be good?  

Why should there be consequences for murder if we cannot maintain that moral agents are responsible for the consequences of their actions?  On what theory does god carry out justice?  God does what god wants, justice is just some word that we use for things that we can't force god to do, as I recall.

I would agree that multiple sources would not be able to determine standards of right or wrong; I agree that would be arbitrary.  However, for a single God to determine right or wrong would work - there would be no confusion then.

This seems like a simple problem with language that I can clear up with you.  A thing isn't made arbitrary or non arbitrary on account of the number of deciding agents.  The terms right and wrong are made arbitrary by not referring to anything about the act - rather, to the whims of the decider.

Nothing about the act of rape, or your example below of genocide, will change if a god or anyone else or many gods or many people declared it to be right.  Insomuch as a thing can be right or wrong, in any real sense, there must be something about that thing that makes it right or wrong. Some thing that either is or isn't true about that thing, not the appraiser.

I'm not going to answer the hypothetical question about rape.  Let's change it to genocide, why would that be inherently bad?  From a man vs man point of view, there are going to be wars and capital punishment but in general sure killing is bad.  But now if God orders Israel to wipe out other people why would that be different?  Well, I imagine they were carrying out his punishment on other countries that were disobedient - indeed their ability to do so typically depended on their own obedience to God.  I know this opens up a whole can of worms, let's just say in the New Testament we don't see this approach being carried out any longer.  I'm not pro-genocide, but God can wipe out whichever countries are deserving of that justice.

God does what God wants, justice is carrying out punishment for disobedience.

Rape is no more or less hypothetical than genocide...but, sure, another example we use for it's ease.  Why would genocide be bad?  I think that we're touching on alot of things here - but we can put the brakes on it for a moment to make sure that we're not having a pointless argument.

Is it your contention that morality is real, non arbitrary, and that theres something about these seemingly bad things that makes them better or good, or justifiable, or are you dispensing with morality entirely in favor of an invocation of pure ability?  It would be silly to bicker over the morality of an issue with a person who does not think that morality applies.   

Do you think that genocide might be justifiable punishment for disobediance, or do you think that the issue is moot in the face of gods raw power?

[The Architect Of Fate]

I would agree that multiple sources would not be able to determine standards of right or wrong; I agree that would be arbitrary.  However, for a single God to determine right or wrong would work - there would be no confusion then.

This seems like a simple problem with language that I can clear up with you.  A thing isn't made arbitrary or non arbitrary on account of the number of deciding agents.  The terms right and wrong are made arbitrary by not referring to anything about the act - rather, to the whims of the decider.

Nothing about the act of rape, or your example below of genocide, will change if a god or anyone else or many gods or many people declared it to be right.  Insomuch as a thing can be right or wrong, in any real sense, there must be something about that thing that makes it right or wrong.  Some thing that either is or isn't true about that thing, not the appraiser.

I'm not going to answer the hypothetical question about rape.  Let's change it to genocide, why would that be inherently bad?  From a man vs man point of view, there are going to be wars and capital punishment but in general sure killing is bad.  But now if God orders Israel to wipe out other people why would that be different?  Well, I imagine they were carrying out his punishment on other countries that were disobedient - indeed their ability to do so typically depended on their own obedience to God.  I know this opens up a whole can of worms, let's just say in the New Testament we don't see this approach being carried out any longer.  I'm not pro-genocide, but God can wipe out whichever countries are deserving of that justice.

God does what God wants, justice is carrying out punishment for disobedience.

Rape is no more or less hypothetical than genocide...but, sure, another example we use for it's ease.  Why would genocide be bad?  I think that we're touching on alot of things here - but we can put the brakes on it for a moment to make sure that we're not having a pointless argument.

Is it your contention that morality is real, non arbitrary, and that theres something about these seemingly bad things that makes them better or good, or justifiable, or are you dispensing with morality entirely in favor of an invocation of pure ability?  It would be silly to bicker over the morality of an issue with a person who does not think that morality applies.   

Do you think that genocide might be justifiable punishment for disobediance, or do you think that the issue is moot in the face of gods raw power?

So far his morality seems to be 

[The Grand Nudger]

Perhaps, and that would at least be a clear position on the matter, though I like to think it's a miscommunication. For most of the faithful, gods decrees and demands are good, but decrees and demands are not goodmaking properties. That's where notions like desert come in. There would not need to be any comments about justice and disobedience if this were not a situation of moral import, and if god were not a moral agent, and could not be held accountable to a moral standard. If god does what he wants, and what he can do is the rightmaking property - nothing about what we do or deserve matters. If we didn't deserve it - but god wanted it- it would be good....up to and including genocide. If we did deserve it, but god didn't want it, it would be bad. I assume that covers alot of sins.

The one is a moral defense of a moral agent according to a moral standard in a situation with moral import. The other is a rejection of morality in it's entirety.

[runewell]

Ironically, the only part of the bible that seems to explore hellfire is Revelations.

Depends on what you mean explore. In several instances Jesus alluded to fruitless branches that would get cut off and thrown into the fire.

---

This seems like a simple problem with language that I can clear up with you.  A thing isn't made arbitrary or non arbitrary on account of the number of deciding agents.  The terms right and wrong are made arbitrary by not referring to anything about the act - rather, to the whims of the decider.

Nothing about the act of rape, or your example below of genocide, will change if a god or anyone else or many gods or many people declared it to be right.  Insomuch as a thing can be right or wrong, in any real sense, there must be something about that thing that makes it right or wrong.  Some thing that either is or isn't true about that thing, not the appraiser.


Rape is no more or less hypothetical than genocide...but, sure, another example we use for it's ease.  Why would genocide be bad?  I think that we're touching on alot of things here - but we can put the brakes on it for a moment to make sure that we're not having a pointless argument.

Is it your contention that morality is real, non arbitrary, and that theres something about these seemingly bad things that makes them better or good, or justifiable, or are you dispensing with morality entirely in favor of an invocation of pure ability?  It would be silly to bicker over the morality of an issue with a person who does not think that morality applies.   

Do you think that genocide might be justifiable punishment for disobediance, or do you think that the issue is moot in the face of gods raw power?

So far his morality seems to be 

[runewell]

Regarding: So far his morality is "Might makes right".

Well, it's an easy and convenient argument to make, and one I agree with. I don't want to limit my replies to that narrow rebuttal, but it may become necessary. When I was asked about holding God to some sort of standard, I immediately recused myself from that idea - I don't hold God to any standard, and wouldn't want to worship one who could be.

Jesus said, "there is no one good but God". You might not like the idea of the Israelites committing genocide in the old testament or hellfire in the new testament, but those are expressions of his justice. The initial post of this thread rages against the idea of eternal torment as an appropriate punishment,

that to me is NOT of justice, NOT of love and certainty NOT righteous, if anything, its barbaric, its savagery, its inhumane, and most importantly, its EVIL.

The bigger the crime, the bigger the time right? If you intentionally murder someone else you could easily end up losing your life as punishment. Isn't it possible that rebelling against an infinite God is a considerably bigger crime, deserving of a much bigger punishment than merely mortal death?

[The Architect Of Fate]

Regarding: So far his morality is "Might makes right".

Well, it's an easy and convenient argument to make, and one I agree with. I don't want to limit my replies to that narrow rebuttal, but it may become necessary. When I was asked about holding God to some sort of standard, I immediately recused myself from that idea - I don't hold God to any standard, and wouldn't want to worship one who could be.

So you admit your god is an immoral being lol 

Jesus said, "there is no one good but God". You might not like the idea of the Israelites committing genocide in the old testament or hellfire in the new testament, but those are expressions of his justice. The initial post of this thread rages against the idea of eternal torment as an appropriate punishment

So no real argument just saying it's right because lol

---

The bigger the crime, the bigger the time right? If you intentionally murder someone else you could easily end up losing your life as punishment. Isn't it possible that rebelling against an infinite God is a considerably bigger crime, deserving of a much bigger punishment than merely mortal death?

This doesn't follow "rebelling " against god does not a bigger crime  or even a crime infinite or otherwise . Thus is not deserving of a bigger punishment . And it sure as hell isn't equal to the real crime of murder .

[no one]

runewell is another disciple of delusion.

Have you ever had a single original thought?

[runewell]

---

The bigger the crime, the bigger the time right? If you intentionally murder someone else you could easily end up losing your life as punishment. Isn't it possible that rebelling against an infinite God is a considerably bigger crime, deserving of a much bigger punishment than merely mortal death?

This doesn't follow "rebelling " against god does not a bigger crime  or even a crime infinite or otherwise . Thus is not deserving of a bigger punishment . And it sure as hell isn't equal to the real crime of murder .

This doesn't follow.  Rebelling against god is a bigger crime and thus deserving of a bigger punishment.  And it is certainly much worse than murder.

[The Architect Of Fate]

---

This doesn't follow "rebelling " against god does not a bigger crime  or even a crime infinite or otherwise . Thus is not deserving of a bigger punishment . And it sure as hell isn't equal to the real crime of murder .

This doesn't follow.  Rebelling against god is a bigger crime and thus deserving of a bigger punishment.  And it is certainly much worse than murder.

No it does . Rebelling against god is not a bigger crime or even a crime thus it does not deserve a bigger punishment . And murder is wat worst .