Do we need to police one another to ensure that no-one offends God?

[Alceste]

Open discussion. I don't personally believe in God, but I was raised with a particular idea of what God is, for those who believe in it.

My understanding is that we are not to judge one another, because judgment is God's domain.

We are only to care for one another.

Nevertheless, a vast amount of time and energy is spent by some who believe in God trying to impose behavior they think God would approve of upon others.

Are they not usurping God's position as the ultimate judge?

 

[Saint Frankenstein]

It's funny isn't? Jesus saved some of His harshest words for hypocrites.

 

[HonestJoe]

Nevertheless, a vast amount of time and energy is spent by some who believe in God trying to impose behavior they think God would approve of upon others.

Are they not usurping God's position as the ultimate judge?

Yes, though it’s kind of hypocritical to say so. [FONT=&quot][/FONT]

 

[seeking4truth]

No civilised person 'imposes' opinions on other.
It is what we call bullying I think.

We do however have a responsibility to educate and try to raise the overall standard of justice, honesty and peace in or own circles wherever we can and to explain the harm that can be done by some behaviour. This applies whether you are a believer or not.

 

[LuisDantas]

The way I see it, it is an important part of human nature (and need) to judge, regardless of whether there is a top dog with the ultimate authority.

No point in fighting against it.

We do, however, have to accept the joined duty and responsibility of dealing with the consequences of our judgements.

 

[Alceste]

Yes, though it’s kind of hypocritical to say so. [FONT=&quot][/FONT]

How so? I don't personally believe in an ultimate judge.

 

[HonestJoe]

How so? I don't personally believe in an ultimate judge.

I was trying to make a joke. I'm sure God would approve, the guy has to have a sense of humour (albeit a warped one). :run:

 

[Quintessence]

Nevertheless, a vast amount of time and energy is spent by some who believe in God trying to impose behavior they think God would approve of upon others.

Are they not usurping God's position as the ultimate judge?

If you are acting on the behalf of another person, say, because you've been appointed as their emissary or representative, are you usurping their position?

 

[Iti oj]

If you are acting on the behalf of another person, say, because you've been appointed as their emissary or representative, are you usurping their position?

the difference being people are self appointed not officially sanctioned directly/

 

[freethinker44]

If you are acting on the behalf of another person, say, because you've been appointed as their emissary or representative, are you usurping their position?

If that person tells you not to act as their representative then yes, you're usurping their position.

 

[Altfish]

To go back to the question...
"Do we need to police one another to ensure that no-one offends God?"

Do we have a right to not be offended?
I'm offended when I hear Whitney Houston on the radio; I'm offended when people use text-speak; I'm offended with people who don't believe that Eric Cantona is a great human being; etc. etc.

So people should just 'get over it"

 

[ZooGirl02]

I believe that this would be a bad thing. The reason why is because there are so many different religions with different opinions on what offends God. For example, Muslims believe that saying God has a Son is offensive to God. However, Christians do believe God has a son. Therefore, if the police were Muslim then Christians would likely be arrested or fined any time they said that God has a Son and it was either reported to the police or the police saw it happen.

So yeah, theocracy is not a good thing because we live in a pluralistic society and undoubtedly one religion would take power which would then likely lead to members of other religions being oppressed. That's my opinion.

 

[ChristineES]

Open discussion. I don't personally believe in God, but I was raised with a particular idea of what God is, for those who believe in it.

My understanding is that we are not to judge one another, because judgment is God's domain.

We are only to care for one another.

Nevertheless, a vast amount of time and energy is spent by some who believe in God trying to impose behavior they think God would approve of upon others.

Are they not usurping God's position as the ultimate judge?

When it comes to faith, I can only speak within my own faith:

In Christianity, since Jesus told us(His followers) not to condemn others, I don't think it is prudent to go ahead and do it. Teaching others about our various faiths, however, is a different thing. For one thing, Jesus taught His disciples not to force the subject, to walk away when the others don't want to hear it. And if we Christians go by Jesus' example, the people came to Jesus and not the other way around. I would gladly speak of my religion to anyone who wants to hear about it, but only in person (I don't think I could teach it on a forum very well) but if someone doesn't want to hear about it, the subject will not come up.

I don't see it as usurping God so much as playing God. People who condemn others, and people of faith and people with no faith do it, are seemingly assured that what they believe is the correct way.

 

[Sir Doom]

Open discussion. I don't personally believe in God, but I was raised with a particular idea of what God is, for those who believe in it.

My understanding is that we are not to judge one another, because judgment is God's domain.

We are only to care for one another.

Nevertheless, a vast amount of time and energy is spent by some who believe in God trying to impose behavior they think God would approve of upon others.

Are they not usurping God's position as the ultimate judge?

This, I believe, is one of the roots of Christian fundamentalism. As it is not okay to pass judgment as it is God's position, and the Bible is the word of God, it is comfortable to pass judgment based on the Bible (since that means it is really God making the judgment).

 

[Quintessence]

the difference being people are self appointed not officially sanctioned directly/

May I ask how exactly you know this? Why are you assuming that those who are emissaries or representatives of a particular god are self-appointed? What grounds are there for this assumption? How do you know whether or not they've been chosen by the god?

If that person tells you not to act as their representative then yes, you're usurping their position.

Howso? Does speaking on the behalf of another necessarily compromise the power or authority or another? I don't think so; I don't think "usurp" is the correct word to use here, especially in the case of the gods. In many theologies, the gods are categorically distinct from humans; they have powers and abilities we cannot and will never have. Speaking on the behalf of a god doesn't endow one with its powers; there can be no usurping of their power.

I think Christine has a better word here - mortals can play at being gods - but usurp is not really the right word for many theologies.

 

[Sleeppy]

Yes, and no. God will take care of everything.

 

[Thief]

I think it's written somewhere....
'...let the filthy be filthy.....'

As well as....
'Do good unto those who would do you harm.'

Each one of us will develop a sense of judgment.

Mine works like this....
If you judge by sight, you will be judged on sight.
No one will ask of you anything.

If you judge by rumor, you will be judged by hearsay.
No one will ask of you anything.

If you judge at all....make certain your own mind and heart first.

As for any prophet....
He will lay His hand on your shoulder, look you in the eye and say to you...."brother and fellow servant...'

or He won't.

 

[Valjean]

A convenient justification for enforcing your own sense of propriety or sanctity.

Hard to believe the author of the Universe would be so concerned with the attitude of a single creature on a single planet in a galaxy of hundreds of billions of star systems, in a universe of hundreds of billions of galaxies.
Talk about micromanagement...

 

[Alceste]

If you are acting on the behalf of another person, say, because you've been appointed as their emissary or representative, are you usurping their position?

Good question. I suppose I'm most familiar with the "judge not, least ye be judged" version of God, and that one has not appointed any human emissaries or representatives but one, and that one was actually God himself in some way that makes very little logical sense.

 

[fantome profane]

May I ask how exactly you know this? Why are you assuming that those who are emissaries or representatives of a particular god are self-appointed? What grounds are there for this assumption? How do you know whether or not they've been chosen by the god?



Howso? Does speaking on the behalf of another necessarily compromise the power or authority or another? I don't think so; I don't think "usurp" is the correct word to use here, especially in the case of the gods. In many theologies, the gods are categorically distinct from humans; they have powers and abilities we cannot and will never have. Speaking on the behalf of a god doesn't endow one with its powers; there can be no usurping of their power.

I think Christine has a better word here - mortals can play at being gods - but usurp is not really the right word for many theologies.

God gave me the official list of all the people who have permission to speak on his behalf. I just check the list to see if their name is on it.