How are you okay with that?

[Tristesse]

BTW, how does a rapist who repents benefit the victim of the rape?

 

[Tristesse]

in theology there are two kinds of choices that we attribute to God positive choices and natural choices.

natural choices are things that God does by his nature like be good and just, he has control over these he just is goodness and justice.

positive choices are choices he decides upon such as creating us.

So, god is subject to is own laws? He can't change them?

 

[tarasan]

if you make statements like

you hold no value to human life.
so living in a celestial dictatorship is what fits your principles....
that's what you're saying, i don't think you realize it but it is what you are saying.

like i said it depends on how you define how a human being has worth.
do people who live under a dictatorship have worth?
clealry god thinks we have worth or else why bother keeping us in existence?

 

[tarasan]

So, god is subject to is own laws? He can't change them?

he is as much subject to his own nature as you as subject to the energy that is hypercondenced to be you. his nature is just his nature,

 

[Tristesse]

he is as much subject to his own nature as you as subject to the energy that is hypercondenced to be you. his nature is just his nature,

Oh ok, your god is immoral.

 

[tarasan]

BTW, how does a rapist who repents benefit the victim of the rape?

this is more a problem of evil question now than a problem of hell question.

 

[waitasec]

When we trust Christ, all our guilt and shame and sin is laid on Christ who bore our transgressions. Knowing we are bought with a price although freely saved and that God considers us his children, royal princes and princesses of the King of Kings spurs us on to living with integrity and self dignity and not groveling in this sinful world. It is because we are freely saved that people begin to see a change in us and see our good works, not to get saved, but as a result, not required for salvation, but an overflow of God in us.

maybe i wasn't clear.
you have to live with yourself. you have to live with your guilt.
in theory, jesus may have ultimately forgiven you, but you still have to forgive yourself.
btw, i don't come with a price tag...

 

[tarasan]

Oh ok, your god is immoral.

by who's standards yours?

and again doesnt this show how to be just he Has to do this?

 

[waitasec]

like i said it depends on how you define how a human being has worth.
do people who live under a dictatorship have worth?
clealry god thinks we have worth or else why bother keeping us in existence?

under a dictatorship the people are worthless according to the dictator.

clearly whoever thought of the idea of god had tyrannical tendencies...

 

[tarasan]

So you are saying that stealing 5 dollars from a poor starving sick child would be a minor crime, but stealing 5 dollars from a very rich successful man would be a very serious crime. Is that what you are saying?[FONT=&quot] [/FONT]

why do you think a rich man has more worth than a poor child?

I reject this premise
I reject this premise as well. I can see no reason why “God” should be granted any more status than any human being.
[FONT=&quot]
(Matt 25:35-40) [/FONT]

God in christian theology not only created everything but sustains everything he is the reason we exist and continue to exist, so we attribute infinite worth for that reason unless u do the same thing?

 

[spencer751]

if you did them to God yes.

So stealing God's favorite pen is equal to trying to kill him?
I guess my problem with the argument is that the seriousness of the crime increases as its negative effect on the victim increases not as the status of its victim increases.

 

[tarasan]

under a dictatorship the people are worthless according to the dictator.

clearly whoever thought of the idea of god had tyrannical tendencies...

isnt that dependant on the dictator? what if he decides to give us worth? and doesnt government do the same thing, aka giving out positive right?

 

[tarasan]

So stealing God's favorite pen is equal to trying to kill him?
I guess my problem with the argument is that the seriousness of the crime increases as its negative effect on the victim increases not as the status of its victim increases.

actually yes both inifinite crimes, so say if i were to kill an ant would that be just as bad as say killing a person?

 

[fantome profane]

why do you think a rich man has more worth than a poor child?

I don’t. I think I am confused by your use of the word status.

What do you mean by status? Can you give us an example (other than “God”) of a high status individual and a low status individual?

Can you give us an example of a crime in which the status of the victim makes a difference?

 

[tarasan]

I don’t. I think I am confused by your use of the word status.

What do you mean by status? Can you give us an example (other than “God”) of a high status individual and a low status individual?

Can you give us an example of a crime in which the status of the victim makes a difference?

well would it be worse to kill a cow or a person?
worse to kill an ant or a child?

status is the importance that is attributed to it.

 

[fantome profane]

well would it be worse to kill a cow or a person?
worse to kill an ant or a child?

status is the importance that is attributed to it.

So are you saying there is no status difference between one human and another?

If there is a status difference between one human and another, what would you base it on?

 

[tarasan]

So are you saying there is no status difference between one human and another?

If there is a status difference between one human and another, what would you base it on?

i havnt studied ethics nearly enough, but i would cliam no there was no status between humans.

 

[spencer751]

actually yes both inifinite crimes, so say if i were to kill an ant would that be just as bad as say killing a person?

Of course killing a human is worse.
And I still stand by the fact that stealing a pen is worse than attempting murder because a pen can be replaced a life cannot.

 

[Penumbra]

How can you be a good person if you condone such treatment for others just because they don't agree with you?

You can't. If someone condones such views, they aren't a good person (unless one considers a severe deficiency in empathy a good thing.)

The religions that people adhere to and the gods that they worship say a whole lot about their own personality.

 

[Penumbra]

sorry but ive always wanted to test this arguement out on this forum and uve given me the opertunity .

so here it goes

(4) Other things being equal, the seriousness of a crime increases as the status (the degree of importance or value) of its victim increases.
(5) God has an infinitely high status.
(6) Therefore, crimes against God are infinitely serious (from (4) and (5)).
(7) All sin is a crime against God.
(8) Therefore, all sin is infinitely serious (from (6) and (7)).
(9) The more serious a crime is, the more serious its punishment should be.
(10) Therefore, all sin should receive an infinitely serious punishment (from (8) and (9)).


this logical arguement assumes that the more value a victum has the more serious a crime is done against it, aka we dont view it as bad if you kill an ant than a person.


and because christians believe GOd has an infinite amount of worth when you sin, you do an infinite crime to GOd because of his worth.


therefore your punishment to be just, must be eternal


this kind of arguement doesnt show how God can legitametly do something rather it shows how he must do it to be just.


your thoughts?

​

Assuming a deity exists and that it has qualities sufficient to make the label of "god" appropriate, then your logic is precisely backwards.

1. Other things being equal, the seriousness of a crime decreases as the status of its victim increases (status in the case of god referring to power and wisdom).
2. God has infinitely high status.
3. Therefore, crimes against god are infinitely unimportant.
4. All sin is amusing to god, like watching a kitten trying to nibble or scratch your finger.
5. Therefore, all sin is infinitely unimportant.
6. The more (or less) serious a crime is, the more (or less) serious its punishment should be. But self-actualized beings understand that sadism and vengeance are petty and unenlightened qualities, so punishment should aim to protect or teach.
7. Therefore, no sins should be punished, or if they were, then it would be to teach or protect.


Examples:
-Stealing from a starving child is atrociously evil. Stealing a dollar from a rich person is pretty stupid and illegal, but mostly just silly.
-Making fun of a depressed and insecure teenager is pretty messed up and can potentially lead to a really bad outcome. Making fun of an extremely wise old Buddhist monk won't do any harm to the monk and does nothing but display bad character.
-In a sparring class, if I had to fight against a small child, it would be immoral to hit that child really hard. But if my opponent was a 250 lb professional MMA fighter, I could hit as hard as I want and it wouldn't do much.

Punishment (especially eternal punishment) by anything that could reasonably hold the title of a god doesn't make much sense. It's just a case of people with those beliefs reflecting their own natures onto the entity that they worship.

by who's standards yours?

and again doesnt this show how to be just he Has to do this?

By the standards of self-actualized people. A god with a mindset of an 8-year-old bully doesn't make sense. Why would a god be less reasonable than a self-actualized human?