04 Mar 10
Originally posted by rwingettI see. So your justice system might be based more on general morality than the current one? Do you believe that the current one differs from yours due to the difficulties in deciding and prosecuting certain moral issues, or is it due to a flaw in our societies value system (eg the rich make the rules and let themselves off lightly), or do you think that what works for societies isn't quite the best system when you are omnipotent, or is it something else I haven't though of?
Not necessarily, because what I interpret as a crime would differ in many ways from the criminal justice system. Many people who now commit the most grievous crimes with the full sanction of the law would feel my divine wrath.
04 Mar 10
Originally posted by whodeyLet's try this angle. How about this argument:
What I am discussing is the notion that God is love. What does that mean? For me, free will is a necessary component of love. For example, if I tried to force my wife to love me through intimidation it is not love. In fact, if I gave her the impression that she must love me she would naturally drift away from such a mandate. We instinctively fight off those who try to impose their will upon us.
1) Jesus [God the son] said, "If you love me, you will keep my commandments."
2) Sin is a failure to keep God's commandments.
3) The wages of sin is death/hell.
4) God is the one who 'destroys both body and soul in hell' per Matt. 10:28
5) From 1), 2), 3) failure to love God results in dying/going to hell, and from 4), God is the one who executes the sentence.
Conclusion: God coerces people to love him under threat of hell.
But, according to whodey, coercion through intimidation is not love.
Any issues?
04 Mar 10
2 edits
Originally posted by SwissGambitBut having rejected his commandments all you have to do is glibly tell yourself that he does not exist. So where is the coersion?....or has he proven his existence to you?
Let's try this angle. How about this argument:
1) Jesus [God the son] said, "If you love me, you will keep my commandments."
2) Sin is a failure to keep God's commandments.
3) The wages of sin is death/hell.
4) God is the one who 'destroys both body and soul in hell' per Matt. 10:28
5) From 1), 2), 3) failure to love God results in dying/going to ...[text shortened]... ll.
But, according to whodey, coercion through intimidation is not love.
Any issues?
God cannot condone those who oppose his ways because his ways are holy. He is the source of love and life so if you reject him what does that leave you?
04 Mar 10
1 edit
Originally posted by twhiteheadI mispoke by saying that sin is a requirement of love. After all, not all of creation has chosen to sin nor necessarily will sin. What I should have said that love requires the option. Conversely, sin is what coerces you to do its bidding. Christ correctly refers to it as bondage.
You are really getting yourself tied in a knot here aren't you. No wonder you cant imagine your own God scenario, you are too confused about the one you believe in already.
One moment sin is necessary for love, the next moment it is part of your nature that you don't like, and want to overcome.
One moment you are talking about free will, and sin is a free will choice not to love, next moment we are slaves to sin.
04 Mar 10
1 edit
Originally posted by rwingettIts a fair question. However, had you considered the fact that the Egyptians first slaughtered the first born of Israel in an attempt to snuff out Moses? As the saying goes, it is an eye for an eye. Of course, that is my speculation as to why that occured, only God can answer as to why.
No, of course not. God is a terrible judge. Why kill the first born Egyptians? They did nothing wrong. If he wanted to have the Egyptians let the Israelites go, he should have smitten pharaoh and those responsible for keeping them in bondage. A few carefully chosen smitings would have a ripple effect through the populace. He could have gotten the desired re ving bears slaughter 40+ children for calling someone 'baldy' is just wrong by any standard.
Having said that, I believe that this is one of the reasons why Christ came. It is a softer and gentler way than an eye for an eye.
04 Mar 10
Originally posted by twhiteheadThe rich write the rules, which they write primarily to benefit the rich. In my universe to be among the richest individuals in a world where millions routinely starve would be crime punishable by death. At year's end I would smite the 100 richest people in the world. This would continue year after year until vast inequalities in wealth came to be universally frowned upon and starvation was brought to an end. If it took 100 years that would be 10,000 smitten. The number of people who die from starvation now is substantially higher. That is a maximum amount of good requiring a minimum amount of sacrifice. That, my friend, is what any god worthy of the name should be doing.
I see. So your justice system might be based more on general morality than the current one? Do you believe that the current one differs from yours due to the difficulties in deciding and prosecuting certain moral issues, or is it due to a flaw in our societies value system (eg the rich make the rules and let themselves off lightly), or do you think that w ...[text shortened]... 't quite the best system when you are omnipotent, or is it something else I haven't though of?
04 Mar 10
Originally posted by twhiteheadBut we get punished for our parents short comings all the time. Why not throw their genes in the mix? I mean, if your parents are alcoholics, you will suffer if you are their child. If they are molestors, you will suffer from their sin etc.
So you believe that we get punished for something in our genes? Weird.
So if you were God, what would you do?
So is it fair that the "innocent" suffer from other peoples sin? No. But then again, the same happened to Christ and he never said it was fair either.
04 Mar 10
4 edits
Originally posted by rwingettConsidering you are rich compared to Haitian standards, for example, eventually your number would be up.
The rich write the rules, which they write primarily to benefit the rich. In my universe to be among the richest individuals in a world where millions routinely starve would be crime punishable by death. At year's end I would smite the 100 richest people in the world. This would continue year after year until vast inequalities in wealth came to be universal ...[text shortened]... mount of sacrifice. That, my friend, is what any god worthy of the name should be doing.
What if these "rich" SOB's were redeemable? Would it be worth your while? Do you have any love for them?
04 Mar 10
Originally posted by whodeyNo, that's not true. I am not among the 100 richest people, or the 10,000 richest people. The number of people smitten over time is actually quite small. Only the very richest would suffer from my wrath.
Considering you are rich compared to Haitian standards, for example, eventually your number would be up.
What if these "rich" SOB's were redeemable? Would it be worth your while? Do you have any love for them?
If those rich individuals could see that they were up for a smiting next then of course they could redeem themselves. Get rid of enough money to not be in the top 100 richest anymore. Use that money to feed the hungry. When the problem ceases then the smitings will stop. If the 100 richest people in the world knew they were up for a smiting in twelve months time, how different do you think the world would look? I bet conditions in the world would change pretty darn quickly.
Of course, as a god, I would not dictate how people ended hunger. I would merely tell them that it must be done and then leave it for themselves to figure out. I would take genuine pleasure in seeing what solutions they could come up with.
04 Mar 10
Originally posted by whodeyWell, I tried ... but I suppose I can't force you to engage. I'm off to the chess forum now...
But having rejected his commandments all you have to do is glibly tell yourself that he does not exist. So where is the coersion?....or has he proven his existence to you?
God cannot condone those who oppose his ways because his ways are holy. He is the source of love and life so if you reject him what does that leave you?
04 Mar 10
Originally posted by rwingettUnfunded mandate, eh?
No, that's not true. I am not among the 100 richest people, or the 10,000 richest people. The number of people smitten over time is actually quite small. Only the very richest would suffer from my wrath.
If those rich individuals could see that they were up for a smiting next then of course they could redeem themselves. Get rid of enough money to not be ...[text shortened]... to figure out. I would take genuine pleasure in seeing what solutions they could come up with.
05 Mar 10
Originally posted by whodeySo love requires the option of coercion? What was free will again, I'm getting really confused here.
I mispoke by saying that sin is a requirement of love. After all, not all of creation has chosen to sin nor necessarily will sin. What I should have said that love requires the option. Conversely, sin is what coerces you to do its bidding. Christ correctly refers to it as bondage.
05 Mar 10
Originally posted by whodeyInteresting speculation. It tells us something about your sense of justice. So you believe that the 'eye for an eye' rule works not only on individuals but on families, societies, races etc? If you take out my eye, can I take out your sons eye? What about your countryman's sons eye? I just want to understand what the logic is here.
Its a fair question. However, had you considered the fact that the Egyptians first slaughtered the first born of Israel in an attempt to snuff out Moses? As the saying goes, it is an eye for an eye. Of course, that is my speculation as to why that occured, only God can answer as to why.