Atheistforums.com

Question for y'all.  If a perfect God exists do you think that God would send you to a place like hell (i.e., punish you) or a place like heaven (i.e., reward you) based on the way you've lived your life?

Quote from: bfiddy100 on November 25, 2015, 09:01:40 PM
...based on the way you've lived your life?

I think this is the part of the equation no one can decide on.

In what way are we supposed to live our life to please God? You'll get answers that range from feeding the hungry to bombing abortion clinics, and each person who holds that belief holds it sincerely.

Also, does it work on some sort of points system? The good you do just has to outweigh the bad?

If you do bad, do the Catholics have it right and all you need to do is say sorry? Or do the Baptists have it right and the bad doesn't matter and all you need to do is believe in Jesus?

And no, I don't think God would send me to Hell and let Satan punish me for not believing in God. That has never made sense to me. If Satan hates God and I'm supposed to be punished for not doing right by God, wouldn't Satan reward me?

Quote from: bfiddy100 on November 25, 2015, 09:01:40 PM
Question for y'all.  If a perfect God exists do you think that God would send you to a place like hell (i.e., punish you) or a place like heaven (i.e., reward you) based on the way you've lived your life?

G-d isn't perfect (that is clear in Genesis 1 thru Noah).  But speaking generically, there is no difference between heaven and hell, and I am already here ... in heaven/hell aka the present ... but I don't have any memory of being sent here.  Again generically, G-d is perfect ... a perfect monster.  Lots of people get rewards and punishments here and now ... but I don't know that any of it comes from G-d ... it mostly comes from other people aka shit monkeys.  Got poo?

Interesting reply, TomFoolery. 

One thing that I think is important to consider is that you would certainly expect this God to always do what is right...since He is perfect.  Therefore, if it is wrong to send you to a place like hell you would expect Him not to do that.  But that reveals that we expect a perfect God to act like it's never good to do wrong.  So I think that shows us the standard we expect God to have if He is perfect.  If we have done anything that we knew was wrong then a perfect God must punish us, since to reward us would be to act like it is sometimes good to do wrong, which a perfect God could never do.  Agree?

IF a god exists, then yes, all life would have a wonderful fulfilling afterlife…you, me, bunny rabbits, tree frogs, mosquitos…all life. The horrible, horrendous POS that the babble presents does not exist, thankfully, what a monstrous clusterfuck that thing is. But yes, if a real god existed, perhaps…of course the idea that it is perfect is a rather dappled red apple. Nice of us to imagine such a thing just for our fragile little egos to have, but the reality…meh.

Quote from: aitm on November 25, 2015, 09:44:42 PM
IF a god exists, then yes, all life would have a wonderful fulfilling afterlife…you, me, bunny rabbits, tree frogs, mosquitos…all life. The horrible, horrendous POS that the babble presents does not exist, thankfully, what a monstrous clusterfuck that thing is. But yes, if a real god existed, perhaps…of course the idea that it is perfect is a rather dappled red apple. Nice of us to imagine such a thing just for our fragile little egos to have, but the reality…meh.

Hmmm, all life?  Do you really think a perfect God would/should give members of ISIS a wonderful fulfilling afterlife?

Quote from: bfiddy100 on November 25, 2015, 10:07:25 PM
Hmmm, all life?  Do you really think a perfect God would/should give members of ISIS a wonderful fulfilling afterlife?

maybe "your" perfect god would not. "My" perfect god would not allow such creatures as ISIS to exist in the first place. I guess we have different versions of what a REAL god is eh?

Bfiddy said:

QuoteIf we have done anything that we knew was wrong then a perfect God must punish us, since to reward us would be to act like it is sometimes good to do wrong, which a perfect God could never do.  Agree?

Disagree.

Reward and punishment is a primitive way for humans to control each other. What about giving up his mysterious invisibility, and communicating directly with us the information we require?

And who says a "perfect" God has need of our compliance with his will? Or that he views "good" and "evil" as priorities in the universe?

But there are so many reasons God is NOT perfect, that your point is moot.

Quote from: bfiddy100 on November 25, 2015, 09:40:45 PM
Interesting reply, TomFoolery. 

One thing that I think is important to consider is that you would certainly expect this God to always do what is right...since He is perfect.  Therefore, if it is wrong to send you to a place like hell you would expect Him not to do that.  But that reveals that we expect a perfect God to act like it's never good to do wrong.  So I think that shows us the standard we expect God to have if He is perfect.  If we have done anything that we knew was wrong then a perfect God must punish us, since to reward us would be to act like it is sometimes good to do wrong, which a perfect God could never do.  Agree?

It is, in my book, inherently wrong to punishment anyone eternally for a finite crime.
And if god was perfect, there would be no need for punishment. (I can elaborate later if you'd like, after work. Let me know.)

If there is a God, and that God really is perfect, then

1. He would have done a better job of creating the earth, and the system by which life evolves - and then he would not have wasted time sitting back and watching all the shit that ever happened. There would have been no need for a God which really could and did create it all himself to wait for evolution.

2. Being the perfect and all-powerful creator of everything, he would have actually created us all, and then he would have made us perfect too - otherwise, he himself could not be called perfect. Therefore, he never would have to punish any of us. When you have to resort to that with your own creation, you ain't no God, you're just a shithead!

If you're talking about a perfect god who did not create us, but has the right to judge us, well no he doesn't unless he answers to a greater god, and it would not be one which is all-perfect and all-powerful because no such God would need to hire a flunkie to do his work for him.

When did you stop  beating your wife?

Sorry, but your question presumes a whole lot in OP.

If the perfect god existed, the universe wouldn't look like the work of an office temp with a bad attitude.

Omniscience, omnipotence, omnibenevolence. Choose two.

Quote from: aitm on November 25, 2015, 10:15:15 PM
maybe "your" perfect god would not. "My" perfect god would not allow such creatures as ISIS to exist in the first place. I guess we have different versions of what a REAL god is eh?

Would your perfect God allow any of us to exist?  Undoubtedly, we've all done things that we knew were wrong, but we did them anyway because we found them more pleasurable for ourselves than doing what we knew to be right.  If God is perfect then it would seem reasonable that He is merciful.  And it is right for all of the attributes of a perfect God to be expressed.  However, mercy can't be expressed unless someone is in need of mercy.  If people were perfect and never did what they knew was wrong then how would God demonstrate His mercy?  Likewise, how would God demonstrate His perfect anger towards wrongdoing if nobody does wrong?     

Quote from: Mr.Obvious on November 26, 2015, 10:26:39 AM
It is, in my book, inherently wrong to punishment anyone eternally for a finite crime.
And if god was perfect, there would be no need for punishment. (I can elaborate later if you'd like, after work. Let me know.)

They aren't finite crimes...they're infinite crimes, which is why the punishment never ends.  But I'm curious why you think a perfect God would never punish anyone.

Quote from: bfiddy100 on November 26, 2015, 09:11:16 PM
Would your perfect God allow any of us to exist?

Of course, ANY perfect god would allow us to exist. Do you not understand what perfect means? Punishing anything for a gazillion billion years for a one day fuck up is not what a perfect god does, it is what a two year old does because they are a fucking two year old with no fucking sense.

Quote from: bfiddy100 on November 26, 2015, 09:18:54 PM
They aren't finite crimes...they're infinite crimes,

Yeah, to a god that created a 14 billion light year where we are in actuality smaller than an atom we require  punishment of a billion gazillion years….you must be a moron.

Quote from: Hakurei Reimu on November 26, 2015, 07:47:07 PM
If the perfect god existed, the universe wouldn't look like the work of an office temp with a bad attitude.

Omniscience, omnipotence, omnibenevolence. Choose two.

Well, unless you can refute that a perfect God wouldn't act as though wrongdoing is a good thing OR say that people haven't done things that they knew were wrong then the reason why there is suffering in this world would be the demonstration of this perfect God's displeasure with our wrongdoing. 

Quote from: aitm on November 26, 2015, 09:24:35 PM
Of course, ANY perfect god would allow us to exist. Do you not understand what perfect means? Punishing anything for a gazillion billion years for a one day fuck up is not what a perfect god does, it is what a two year old does because they are a fucking two year old with no fucking sense.

My understanding of perfect is to always do what is right.  That means that if it is right for someone to be punished for a gazillion billion years then a perfect God would punish them for exactly that much.  I'm curious what you think perfect means.

Quote from: aitm on November 26, 2015, 09:26:58 PM
Yeah, to a god that created a 14 billion light year where we are in actuality smaller than an atom we require  punishment of a billion gazillion years….you must be a moron.

Are you implying that the size of a person determines how much evil they can commit? 

Quote from: bfiddy100 on November 26, 2015, 09:18:54 PM
They aren't finite crimes...they're infinite crimes, which is why the punishment never ends.  But I'm curious why you think a perfect God would never punish anyone.

Yes, all my crimes are infinite crimes ... bwaha
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cJOmUW5QyqQ

I look really hot in red!

Quote from: bfiddy100 on November 26, 2015, 09:38:15 PM
My understanding of perfect is to always do what is right.  That means that if it is right for someone to be punished for a gazillion billion years then a perfect God would punish them for exactly that much.  I'm curious what you think perfect means.

G-d usually does what is wrong ... haven't you been paying attention?  There is no such thing as perfect or imperfect.  These are the words of the monkey men.

QuoteWhat if there is a God and that God is perfect?

Hard to say. Perfection is in the eye of the beholder.

What is a "God"?

Quote from: Hijiri Byakuren on November 26, 2015, 10:21:35 PM
Hard to say. Perfection is in the eye of the beholder.

Exactly.  I knew a guy who had an answer to this.  Everything that actually happened, was the definition of perfect.  So if you didn't slide into the ditch on the black ice ... then that was perfect ... and if you did slide into the ditch on the black ice ... then that was perfect too.  And this isn't contradictory, because after the fact, things only happen one way (well unless you count QM).

Quote from: facebook164 on November 26, 2015, 11:28:58 PM
What is a "God"?

Usually theologians make up a list of impossible adjectives, and call that "God".  But that is a problem, because G-d makes theologians, theologians don't make G-d.

Quote from: bfiddy100 on November 26, 2015, 09:38:15 PM
My understanding of perfect is to always do what is right.  That means that if it is right for someone to be punished for a gazillion billion years then a perfect God would punish them for exactly that much.  I'm curious what you think perfect means.

So, short version/ god is perfect, therefore everything he does is right, because god is perfect, so it has to be right because god is perfect so god is perfect, therefore everything he does is right because god is perfect so it has to be right everything he does is right because god is perfect, god is perfect, therefore everything he does is right because god is perfect so it has to be right,

Quote from: bfiddy100 on November 26, 2015, 09:18:54 PM
They aren't finite crimes...they're infinite crimes, which is why the punishment never ends.  But I'm curious why you think a perfect God would never punish anyone.

I'm curious as to why you think any crime can be infinite ...err, no - not unless it's choosing mass stupidity over using your good sense. If your God was perfect, then he never would have allowed your brain to think independently, and he never would have allowed his enemies to use it to their own end. Call it "free will" as you wish, but it's still a mistake.

Quote from: bfiddy100 on November 26, 2015, 09:34:16 PM
Well, unless you can refute that a perfect God wouldn't act as though wrongdoing is a good thing OR say that people haven't done things that they knew were wrong then the reason why there is suffering in this world would be the demonstration of this perfect God's displeasure with our wrongdoing.

That we have a conscience says absolutely nothing to prove your god delusion, but it does demonstrate how sociable animal life evolves. Conscience and other chemically-controlled emotional states are in no way limited to humans, we are different only for being more socially and emotionally complex.

Quote from: bfiddy100 on November 26, 2015, 09:38:15 PM
My understanding of perfect is to always do what is right.  That means that if it is right for someone to be punished for a gazillion billion years then a perfect God would punish them for exactly that much.  I'm curious what you think perfect means.

That isn't right for any animal with a 60-100 year life span to be punished longer than is comprehensible for it, and once again I must agree with aitm - you really are a moron, and a pathological one at that!

Quote from: bfiddy100 on November 26, 2015, 09:18:54 PM
They aren't finite crimes...they're infinite crimes, which is why the punishment never ends.  But I'm curious why you think a perfect God would never punish anyone.

And to be honest, I'm curious as to why you think any human crime/sin or collection thereoff compiled within a finite lifetime and affecting finite lives can be considered infinite. I'd like it if you could explain further why they'd be infinite. And if so, should we then never let anyone ever out of jail (unless perhaps they come to accept the great JC)?

But aside from our evidently different view on the (in)finity of (the effect of) our actions, there are two more points I'd like to raise as to why a 'perfect' God would never punish anyone. Though I hope we can get deeper into (in)finity business because why it may not scorn the idea of a punishing god, it does show that christian medieval ideas of eternal punishment are immoral.

The second point is that while more than anything else the necessity to be punished is a sign of a fault on the transgressor's part, the necessity to punish is also a sign of imperfection from the punisher. Allow me to explain.
In the real world this punisher is society as a whole. Sure, there are certain people appointed to judge and 'perform' the punishment. But in democracies this happens (or is meant to happen) with the support of the wider society who agree on the terms and rules. We punish to protect our society and it's people from further crimes being afflicted on them. Isolation of problematic and offending individuals in jails thus fits this role. Also, in some cases as per example a fine, it compensates the wronged party. And just to be complete, the threat of a punishment can prevent future crimes. Lastly I'd like to add a very important one: it also gives the punished person to time to atone for his/her crimes and reflect on his/her behavior; wether it's being put in the corner of being thrown in jail. Meaning that after the crime, this person ought to be able to rejoin society as a whole and complete person, without us holding their past against them. (Wether such reflection and dedication to a new, productive life as well as the acceptance without bias by others actually take place, I leave in the middle, but it's supposed to be this way. And that's an important thing to remember about punishment.)
For these reasons one could argue that mankind will, most likely, always need punishment, to some extent, to protect and regulate itself. And I would probably not disagree on that. But we are a 'flawed' species. Punishment would theoretically become obsolete if we had the power and wisdom to do and know everything. If we could make a perpetrator understand what (s)he did was wrong, and be certain that after teaching this the person would never transgress this way again, there would be no need to lock them up for an enlongated time and thus protect society in this way. And if we were all-knowing and all-powerfull, we could do this and be certain of it. (Mind you this has nothing to do with free will. We could use whatever technique necessary to make the transgressor come to this conclusion on his own accord. We would merely know what to say/do to make them realize this and choose for it themselves.) We wouldn't even need to demand compensation for the crime, for one could argue the transgressor would feel the guilt, probably would probably offer it on his/her own accord anyways after seeing the light and we could help the victim in such a way that the transgression left no mark on him/her anyways. At least we could if we were all-knowing and all-powerfull simultaneously. Seeing as the crimes could be solved and resolved in this way, the need for threat of punishment would decrease significantly on it's own. Though perhaps not completely. But take in accord with this that if we were all-knowing and all-powerful we would know how to convince the populace to choose for themselves to not sin and commit crime at all in the first place! Without the need for threats of punishment.
Now, if you read the above, you understand why I would think an all-knowing and all-powerfull God would have no need for punishment. And let's not forget about that all-loving bit which is usually thrown in there. Now if you're idea of a perfect god doesn't necessitate him to be all-knowing, all-powerful and all-loving, then I guess I've spent a whole lot of text on nothing. But I'm going to go out on a limb here and say that not only you believe your perfect God to embody these traits, you also concider them necessary components for your God to be perfect. If I'm wrong about that, let me know. I might be jumping the gun, but most often when I meet religious people, they claim theirs to be such. And I too would describe these features as necessary to the hypothetical deity.
Before we move on to my last point, I need to adress one more thing. In the above text I explained why I view punishment itself obsolete to an all-powerfull, all-loving and all-knowing being by contrasting it to why it's necessary for imperfect creatures like ourselves when governing ourselves. But in that I mentioned that punishment is also meant in our society to allow individuals to repent and atone for their sins and crimes and afterwards rejoin society without any bias held against them, like the prodical son returned. Hell is not punishment in this regard. It's only torture. Neverending. Eternal. It doesn't allow a person to grow. It does not allow a person to learn from his/her mistakes. It does not allow a person to repent or atone. It's simply infinite cruelty. It does not teach people why they were wrong. It does not teach people why they should avoid such behavior in the future. It does not help transgressors to become empathic towards their victims. It does not allow them to reflect. It simply allows them to burn and burn and burn.

Now the last point. And admittedly again this assumes a perfect god embodies omniscience & omnipotence. As well as that it created the universe. If you say this perfect being of yours does not, then fine. We'll see where the conversation leads but I would think it fair to say we have different views on not only what perfection entails and what a God is. In which case, I have to refer to the the other posters in this thread who've pointed out that perfection is in the eye of the beholder.

This is really an easy point to understand. But you have to keep in mind that, again, this has nothing to do with free will.

You have the creator of the universe. Let's start with that deity. That deity, who is all-knowing and all-powerfull, decides to make a creation. Being all-powerfull and all-knowing the way it designs it's creation is exactly what it intended. This means, inevitably, that all that happens in this creation, is as it intended it too. Every aspect of this reality is thus exactly as it wanted it to be.
Any murder. Any rape. Any theft. Any assault. Any war. Any disease. Any sin. Any crime. All is as much it's design as any 'positive' thing. Any hug. Any newborn. Any act of charity. Any flower. Any act of heroïsm. Everything.
Now at this point in the argument often I get the rebuttle concerning free will. Which is why I explicitly stated that it has nothing to do with it. You need to keep your eye on the big picture here. (Sorry if I sound condensending, it just kind of irks me the wrong way when people fail to understand this.) You can claim all you want that I choose not to see the light. That any criminal choses to rape or murder. Chooses to steal or swindle. Chooses whatever sin and thus chooses to offend, not only against the victim in question but also against god. But that's not the case if your all-powerfull and all-knowing god chose to design it's creation so that it would lead to this. It chose to create all of us knowing in advance what all of us would do and choose in life. It could have built it's creation and it's inhabitants anyway it wanted, with any possible outcome to any possible situation. It would have known how to do this and have been able to, or your god is not all-powerful and/or not all-knowing and thus not perfect. And from the infinite creations it could have created it chose to create  this one.
Simply put: If your god had created a world in such a way that none of it's inhabitors would have chosen to do evil, it would have had as much free will as this creation in which some of it's inhabitors chose to do evil. God could have created us with as much free will as we have today and with none of the actual sins being comitted but chose to set up his creation(s) in such a way that they choose to sin.
Another way to explain this: When god made his creation he saw in advance that we would have this conversation. He chose to create it in such a way that none of us are convinced by your arguments. When he could have created it so that the people you talk to are, just as genuinly of their own accord, convinced by your arguments.
Now running with the hypothesis that this world was created by an all-knowing and all-powerfull perfect being and that thus everything that happens inside it is exactly as it planned, it would be immoral for it to punish anyone for any crime because it's what he designed us to (choose to) do. Especially if this punishment is eternal. It's his will that we choose to sin rather than we choose to live piously. This is not punishing a child for chosing to be disobedient. This is in advance choosing to create child who you absolutely know will choose to be disobedient (you'll know when, how and how much) rather than creating a child who will choose (just as much free will) to be obedient, and then punishing that child for being what you wanted it to be.

This is why I have rejected the "judicial" model of theology or reality.  It is absurd.

Quote from: bfiddy100 on November 26, 2015, 09:34:16 PM
Well, unless you can refute that a perfect God wouldn't act as though wrongdoing is a good thing OR say that people haven't done things that they knew were wrong then the reason why there is suffering in this world would be the demonstration of this perfect God's displeasure with our wrongdoing. 

Your "perfect God" created us imperfect humans in the first place, right? Then he has only himself to blame for our shortcomings. That he directs that displeasure against us instead of the true source, himself, only shows that he is childish and needs to grow up, and thus imperfect. By hypothesis, your god is perfect, so by contrapositivity, a perfect God would not show such displeasure towards us. What would be the point? It would be like a bad carpenter blaming his tools.

Quote from: bfiddy100 on November 25, 2015, 09:40:45 PM
Interesting reply, TomFoolery. 

One thing that I think is important to consider is that you would certainly expect this God to always do what is right...since He is perfect.  Therefore, if it is wrong to send you to a place like hell you would expect Him not to do that.  But that reveals that we expect a perfect God to act like it's never good to do wrong.  So I think that shows us the standard we expect God to have if He is perfect.  If we have done anything that we knew was wrong then a perfect God must punish us, since to reward us would be to act like it is sometimes good to do wrong, which a perfect God could never do.  Agree?

No.  And you guessed it--I'm not TomFoolery.  She is much smarter than I.  Anyway.  If God were perfect, he could not create a hell.  A perfect being could not--or at least, should not--be able to create a place of everlasting punishment.  Nothing a person can do on this earth and in the short time we have here, deserve 'everlasting' agony.  No, not even Hitler.  I am not perfect, but I can devise a much more effective way to create a place the 'bad' people should go.  Why not create a place where, ---let's say Hitler---would go after death.  How about make Hitler experience from that person's view and feel that person's emotions, every person he harmed in his lifetime?  That way, the victim of that act would get justice.  And Hitler, after he has experienced the harm first hand from every body he ever harmed, he could then be cleansed.  That way all would win--those hurt and the person doing the hurting.  That would be perfect. 

An everlasting hell is an idea of the ancient Egyptians.  Even the Hindus ... who believe in hell, don't think you stay there forever .. you get reincarnated eventually into another place.

Quote from: Mr.Obvious on November 27, 2015, 12:47:50 PM
And to be honest, I'm curious as to why you think any human crime/sin or collection thereoff compiled within a finite lifetime and affecting finite lives can be considered infinite. I'd like it if you could explain further why they'd be infinite. And if so, should we then never let anyone ever out of jail (unless perhaps they come to accept the great JC)?

But aside from our evidently different view on the (in)finity of (the effect of) our actions, there are two more points I'd like to raise as to why a 'perfect' God would never punish anyone. Though I hope we can get deeper into (in)finity business because why it may not scorn the idea of a punishing god, it does show that christian medieval ideas of eternal punishment are immoral.

The second point is that while more than anything else the necessity to be punished is a sign of a fault on the transgressor's part, the necessity to punish is also a sign of imperfection from the punisher. Allow me to explain.
In the real world this punisher is society as a whole. Sure, there are certain people appointed to judge and 'perform' the punishment. But in democracies this happens (or is meant to happen) with the support of the wider society who agree on the terms and rules. We punish to protect our society and it's people from further crimes being afflicted on them. Isolation of problematic and offending individuals in jails thus fits this role. Also, in some cases as per example a fine, it compensates the wronged party. And just to be complete, the threat of a punishment can prevent future crimes. Lastly I'd like to add a very important one: it also gives the punished person to time to atone for his/her crimes and reflect on his/her behavior; wether it's being put in the corner of being thrown in jail. Meaning that after the crime, this person ought to be able to rejoin society as a whole and complete person, without us holding their past against them. (Wether such reflection and dedication to a new, productive life as well as the acceptance without bias by others actually take place, I leave in the middle, but it's supposed to be this way. And that's an important thing to remember about punishment.)
For these reasons one could argue that mankind will, most likely, always need punishment, to some extent, to protect and regulate itself. And I would probably not disagree on that. But we are a 'flawed' species. Punishment would theoretically become obsolete if we had the power and wisdom to do and know everything. If we could make a perpetrator understand what (s)he did was wrong, and be certain that after teaching this the person would never transgress this way again, there would be no need to lock them up for an enlongated time and thus protect society in this way. And if we were all-knowing and all-powerfull, we could do this and be certain of it. (Mind you this has nothing to do with free will. We could use whatever technique necessary to make the transgressor come to this conclusion on his own accord. We would merely know what to say/do to make them realize this and choose for it themselves.) We wouldn't even need to demand compensation for the crime, for one could argue the transgressor would feel the guilt, probably would probably offer it on his/her own accord anyways after seeing the light and we could help the victim in such a way that the transgression left no mark on him/her anyways. At least we could if we were all-knowing and all-powerfull simultaneously. Seeing as the crimes could be solved and resolved in this way, the need for threat of punishment would decrease significantly on it's own. Though perhaps not completely. But take in accord with this that if we were all-knowing and all-powerful we would know how to convince the populace to choose for themselves to not sin and commit crime at all in the first place! Without the need for threats of punishment.
Now, if you read the above, you understand why I would think an all-knowing and all-powerfull God would have no need for punishment. And let's not forget about that all-loving bit which is usually thrown in there. Now if you're idea of a perfect god doesn't necessitate him to be all-knowing, all-powerful and all-loving, then I guess I've spent a whole lot of text on nothing. But I'm going to go out on a limb here and say that not only you believe your perfect God to embody these traits, you also concider them necessary components for your God to be perfect. If I'm wrong about that, let me know. I might be jumping the gun, but most often when I meet religious people, they claim theirs to be such. And I too would describe these features as necessary to the hypothetical deity.
Before we move on to my last point, I need to adress one more thing. In the above text I explained why I view punishment itself obsolete to an all-powerfull, all-loving and all-knowing being by contrasting it to why it's necessary for imperfect creatures like ourselves when governing ourselves. But in that I mentioned that punishment is also meant in our society to allow individuals to repent and atone for their sins and crimes and afterwards rejoin society without any bias held against them, like the prodical son returned. Hell is not punishment in this regard. It's only torture. Neverending. Eternal. It doesn't allow a person to grow. It does not allow a person to learn from his/her mistakes. It does not allow a person to repent or atone. It's simply infinite cruelty. It does not teach people why they were wrong. It does not teach people why they should avoid such behavior in the future. It does not help transgressors to become empathic towards their victims. It does not allow them to reflect. It simply allows them to burn and burn and burn.

Now the last point. And admittedly again this assumes a perfect god embodies omniscience & omnipotence. As well as that it created the universe. If you say this perfect being of yours does not, then fine. We'll see where the conversation leads but I would think it fair to say we have different views on not only what perfection entails and what a God is. In which case, I have to refer to the the other posters in this thread who've pointed out that perfection is in the eye of the beholder.

This is really an easy point to understand. But you have to keep in mind that, again, this has nothing to do with free will.

You have the creator of the universe. Let's start with that deity. That deity, who is all-knowing and all-powerfull, decides to make a creation. Being all-powerfull and all-knowing the way it designs it's creation is exactly what it intended. This means, inevitably, that all that happens in this creation, is as it intended it too. Every aspect of this reality is thus exactly as it wanted it to be.
Any murder. Any rape. Any theft. Any assault. Any war. Any disease. Any sin. Any crime. All is as much it's design as any 'positive' thing. Any hug. Any newborn. Any act of charity. Any flower. Any act of heroïsm. Everything.
Now at this point in the argument often I get the rebuttle concerning free will. Which is why I explicitly stated that it has nothing to do with it. You need to keep your eye on the big picture here. (Sorry if I sound condensending, it just kind of irks me the wrong way when people fail to understand this.) You can claim all you want that I choose not to see the light. That any criminal choses to rape or murder. Chooses to steal or swindle. Chooses whatever sin and thus chooses to offend, not only against the victim in question but also against god. But that's not the case if your all-powerfull and all-knowing god chose to design it's creation so that it would lead to this. It chose to create all of us knowing in advance what all of us would do and choose in life. It could have built it's creation and it's inhabitants anyway it wanted, with any possible outcome to any possible situation. It would have known how to do this and have been able to, or your god is not all-powerful and/or not all-knowing and thus not perfect. And from the infinite creations it could have created it chose to create  this one.
Simply put: If your god had created a world in such a way that none of it's inhabitors would have chosen to do evil, it would have had as much free will as this creation in which some of it's inhabitors chose to do evil. God could have created us with as much free will as we have today and with none of the actual sins being comitted but chose to set up his creation(s) in such a way that they choose to sin.
Another way to explain this: When god made his creation he saw in advance that we would have this conversation. He chose to create it in such a way that none of us are convinced by your arguments. When he could have created it so that the people you talk to are, just as genuinly of their own accord, convinced by your arguments.
Now running with the hypothesis that this world was created by an all-knowing and all-powerfull perfect being and that thus everything that happens inside it is exactly as it planned, it would be immoral for it to punish anyone for any crime because it's what he designed us to (choose to) do. Especially if this punishment is eternal. It's his will that we choose to sin rather than we choose to live piously. This is not punishing a child for chosing to be disobedient. This is in advance choosing to create child who you absolutely know will choose to be disobedient (you'll know when, how and how much) rather than creating a child who will choose (just as much free will) to be obedient, and then punishing that child for being what you wanted it to be.

Thanks for taking the time to reply in such length.  There are many ways in which it can be understood that our crimes against a perfect God are infinite offenses.  I will describe 2.
1)God is perfect (e.g., infinitely wise, good, and powerful).  Therefore, it is infinitely good and right to obey this God and infinitely wrong to disobey Him.  Every act of disobedience against this perfect God is an infinite offense because it is infinitely wrong.  If you wish to argue against this please do so by addressing the argument (as you've been doing) and not saying something like, "the God of the Bible isn't perfect, you're a moron."  We can discuss whether or not the God of the Bible fits this definition of perfect, but the argument is not that the God of the Bible is perfect, but that it is infinitely wrong to disobey a God that is perfect. 
2)God is perfect and therefore infinitely worthy of honor.  If it is somewhat wrong to dishonor someone who is somewhat worthy of honor then it is infinitely wrong to dishonor someone who is worthy of infinite honor.  Again, we are only talking about what is right and wrong, so the typical response of "a God who needs to be honored by His creation isn't perfect" does NOT refute this argument in any way.  I am not making any claims about what this God wants or needs, I am only saying that it is infinitely wrong to not honor Him and that disobeying this God is not honoring Him.

I didn't see where you proved that punishing someone demonstrated a flaw in the one doing the punishing.  All I saw was a demonstration that a perfect God would have no need to punish Himself.  I certainly agree with that, but I don't think that was what you were trying to prove.

I find it interesting that you seem to think that the problem is a lack of wisdom or knowledge in criminals.  This argument only holds water if you can say that you've never done what you KNEW was wrong.  The issue isn't a lack of knowledge, but rather a lack of goodness.  We knew that certain things were wrong before we did them, but we did them anyway because we found it more pleasurable for ourselves than doing what was right.  This is irrefutable, but you do not wish to look at things in this way because of where it leads. 

I'd have to ask what you mean by "all-loving."  Do you mean that this perfect God would express love to everyone by giving them what they want?  Obviously, this is impossible, since many people desire the suffering of others, who do not wish to suffer. 

You objected to hell not allowing people to return to society and it being only torture.  I guess then that you'd say that a person should never receive a life sentence for any crimes that they commit in this world.  No matter how heinous a person's crimes are you would say that they should only be taken out of society for a short time to "learn" that the thing that they already knew was wrong was wrong, right?  And to give someone a life sentence for the most heinous crimes (like chaining some people to the back of a pickup truck and dragging them until they're dead while yelling racist slurs at them) would not be justice, but rather cruelty, right? 

Your final point about free will is quite astute.  You have a better understanding of this than most people I've conversed with.  You are correct in many ways here.  Yes, God did choose to create people who would freely choose to do what they knew was wrong.  Without having people who would choose to act in such a way there would be no way for God to show His mercy since there is no need for mercy where there is no crime.  So God offers His mercy to all.  And yes, He even created people who would freely choose to reject His mercy to show how much He loves what is good and right by demonstrating His perfect hatred for wrongdoing by punishing those who do wrong and refuse His mercy.  That likely repulses you, but if God is perfect and has a perfect hatred for wrongdoing it is right for that hatred (along with all of His attributes) to be demonstrated.     

Quote from: Baruch on November 27, 2015, 01:22:44 AM
Usually theologians make up a list of impossible adjectives, and call that "God".  But that is a problem, because G-d makes theologians, theologians don't make G-d.

And you add another unknown:"G-d". Why?

Quote from: facebook164 on November 28, 2015, 05:34:54 AM
And you add another unknown:"G-d". Why?

In some traditions, "G-d" is used to censor God's name so as not to accidentally take his name in vain.

Quote from: Hijiri Byakuren on November 28, 2015, 08:20:43 AM
In some traditions, "G-d" is used to censor God's name so as not to accidentally take his name in vain.

Ok. So he diesnt even want to give us his identification of the unkown entity. He refers too... Talk about being ridicously vague.

Quote from: Hijiri Byakuren on November 28, 2015, 08:20:43 AM
In some traditions, "G-d" is used to censor God's name so as not to accidentally take his name in vain.

That strikes me personally as odd. It's like writing 'f*ck' instead of 'fuck'. We all know what word is meant. The intent and meer usage of the word is there, what will the blotting of one of its letters achieve? Do you trick the all-knowing g-d by this? And if i refer to him as 'the great motherfucker in the Sky' instead of god, do i avoid breaking this law of his?

Quote from: Mike Cl on November 27, 2015, 06:42:14 PM
No.  And you guessed it--I'm not TomFoolery.  She is much smarter than I. 

Awe, shucks...

Quote from: Mike Cl on November 27, 2015, 06:42:14 PMI am not perfect, but I can devise a much more effective way to create a place the 'bad' people should go.  Why not create a place where, ---let's say Hitler---would go after death.  How about make Hitler experience from that person's view and feel that person's emotions, every person he harmed in his lifetime?

Hitler is an extreme, polarizing example, but you bring up an interesting idea about who "bad" people are. Everyone can agree that Hitler belongs on the list, but the vast majority of people could probably go either way if there were some way to tally up some kind of cosmic karma.

Think about this: Saddam Hussein promoted education and literacy above almost anything else. Just three years after he became president, Iraq was awarded The United Nations Educational, Scientific, and Cultural Organization prize for eradicating illiteracy. Education at all levels was free and he expanded the middle class. He expanded healthcare programs, medicine was so heavily discounted by the government it was damn near free, things like birth control pills were available, and kids were vaccinated door-to-door. When he wasn't busy hiding bodies in soccer fields, Saddam was doing that.

Meanwhile, Martin Luther King, Jr. would sleep with any woman who would have him, and heavily plagiarized much of his material. He was sneaking a cigarettes on the balcony after an extramarital tryst when he was shot. I don't think this makes him a bad man necessarily when all things are considered, but it proves that he was in fact just a man.

That's just two small examples, but it goes to show that people are complex and very rarely are the gods or villains we hold them up to be. So is the notion of what makes a "good" person or a "bad" person. If you rely on the Bible or the Quran to tell you how to be a good person, you're probably getting a lot of mixed messages.

Quote from: Mr.Obvious on November 28, 2015, 09:08:26 AM
That strikes me personally as odd. It's like writing 'f*ck' instead of 'fuck'. We all know what word is meant. The intent and meer usage of the word is there, what will the blotting of one of its letters achieve? Do you trick the all-knowing g-d by this? And if i refer to him as 'the great motherfucker in the Sky' instead of god, do i avoid breaking this law of his?

I never claimed it was logical. :P


Secretly a Warsie.

Quote from: facebook164 on November 28, 2015, 05:34:54 AM
And you add another unknown:"G-d". Why?

The theological "God" isn't the real "G-d".  If I were not referring to monotheism ... I would have used "gods".  It is tricky to speak of ideas that are different and that implicitly refer to each other ... and in English might be referenced with the same word.

Religious Jews would be using "G-d" as a superstition ... but I am irreligious.  And yes, I could use long phrases rather than short words ... to achieve less ambiguity.

"If you rely on the Bible or the Quran to tell you how to be a good person, you're probably getting a lot of mixed messages." ... Exactly.  Doing this is like driving somewhere, while looking at the old fashioned map, while not looking outside while driving (not checking the map while stationary).  Now today maybe this would be more plausible with a good GPS ... but I think you would still scare everyone if you drove with a good GPS while blacking out your car windows!

Quote from: TomFoolery on November 28, 2015, 09:56:53 AM

Hitler is an extreme, polarizing example, but you bring up an interesting idea about who "bad" people are. Everyone can agree that Hitler belongs on the list, but the vast majority of people could probably go either way if there were some way to tally up some kind of cosmic karma.

Think about this: Saddam Hussein promoted education and literacy above almost anything else. Just three years after he became president, Iraq was awarded The United Nations Educational, Scientific, and Cultural Organization prize for eradicating illiteracy. Education at all levels was free and he expanded the middle class. He expanded healthcare programs, medicine was so heavily discounted by the government it was damn near free, things like birth control pills were available, and kids were vaccinated door-to-door. When he wasn't busy hiding bodies in soccer fields, Saddam was doing that.

Meanwhile, Martin Luther King, Jr. would sleep with any woman who would have him, and heavily plagiarized much of his material. He was sneaking a cigarettes on the balcony after an extramarital tryst when he was shot. I don't think this makes him a bad man necessarily when all things are considered, but it proves that he was in fact just a man.

That's just two small examples, but it goes to show that people are complex and very rarely are the gods or villains we hold them up to be. So is the notion of what makes a "good" person or a "bad" person. If you rely on the Bible or the Quran to tell you how to be a good person, you're probably getting a lot of mixed messages.

Those are good points and I agree--what is 'good' can be quite hazy.  My main thrust was to tackle the 'perfect god' thing and how such a being could create a christian hell and still be perfect.  I would suggest that the creation of hell by this being would make it non-perfect with that act alone.  Everywhere you look, this perfect god has created pain and suffering, both physically and emotionally.  The physical nature of this god demands a 'eat or be eaten' type of survival.  One MUST kill to live.  Can't be avoided.  That's perfect????  And then we are to follow a set of rules from the perfect bible or we are threatened with everlasting pain and suffering--after living a scant 100 yrs. or less?  And the bible is far from clear or perfect, so the perfect god could not even get the instruction manual done right.  This god makes Hitler and Stalin look like pikers--raw amateurs.   

I used Hitler precisely because he is so far over on the 'evil scale'.  If I can propose a hell that is actually fair to Hitler and his victims, then why can't a perfect god do it?   

Theological gods are ridiculous.  And rationalists do count how many angels can dance on the head of a pin.  Total waste of time for me.  But then I have spent a lifetime trying not to live in my head!

Quote from: facebook164 on November 28, 2015, 08:28:49 AM
Ok. So he diesnt even want to give us his identification of the unkown entity. He refers too... Talk about being ridicously vague.

Since there are over 300,000 gods being worshipped about the world right now, vague is rather normal. Sometimes it takes pages to find out which imaginary friend one splays themselves too.

Who you think you are, often isn't what others think you are ... or what you really are.  But then forums are good for this exploration ;-)

Quote from: Baruch on November 28, 2015, 11:28:34 AM
Theological gods are ridiculous.  And rationalists do count how many angels can dance on the head of a pin.  Total waste of time for me.  But then I have spent a lifetime trying not to live in my head!

When I read questions like the OP's I can't reply with any confidence because it makes assumptions I don't agree with and is from a perspective I don't share.

"If a perfect God exists do you think that God would send you to a place like hell (i.e., punish you) or a place like heaven (i.e., reward you) based on the way you've lived your life?" - No, because a perfect God wouldn't reward or punish humans for being what they are.

"If you were a tree, what would be your favorite color?" - Red or blue, because those colors are used for photosynthesis and would make me a happy little tree.

"How many angels can dance on the head of a pin?" - All of them.

I'm equally confident with all those responses.

Quote from: Baruch on November 28, 2015, 11:28:34 AM
Theological gods are ridiculous.  And rationalists do count how many angels can dance on the head of a pin.

That's highly debatable with people who don't believe in angels. If you have a theory that atoms or quantum particles are really angels, you cannot rationalize that in any way.
  :25:

Quote from: Baruch on November 28, 2015, 11:28:34 AMBut then I have spent a lifetime trying not to live in my head! 

:hum:.................:laugh:

Quote from: bfiddy100 on November 26, 2015, 09:42:35 PMWell, unless you can refute that a perfect God wouldn't act as though wrongdoing is a good thing OR say that people haven't done things that they knew were wrong then the reason why there is suffering in this world would be the demonstration of this perfect God's displeasure with our wrongdoing.

Child dies from cancer. Who was God displeased with: the child or the parents?

Quote from: bfiddy100 on November 26, 2015, 09:42:35 PMMy understanding of perfect is to always do what is right.

How do you know what God thinks is right? Is he telling you?

Quote from: bfiddy100 on November 26, 2015, 09:42:35 PMThat means that if it is right for someone to be punished for a gazillion billion years then a perfect God would punish them for exactly that much.

How would you know if that wasn't right? Would he have to tell you?

Quote from: bfiddy100 on November 26, 2015, 09:42:35 PMI'm curious what you think perfect means.

Flawless.

Quote from: bfiddy100 on November 26, 2015, 09:42:35 PM
Are you implying that the size of a person determines how much evil they can commit? 

It depends: were they picking up sticks on the Sabbath, or were they "defilers of mankind with themselves?"

Quote from: Solomon Zorn on November 30, 2015, 02:20:40 PMChild dies from cancer. Who was God displeased with: the child or the parents?

In Christian theology, the kid is probably going to heaven anyway, so they'd likely see it as God's version of CPS.

Quote from: Hijiri Byakuren on November 30, 2015, 03:15:16 PM
In Christian theology, the kid is probably going to heaven anyway, so they'd likely see it as God's version of CPS.

CPS?

In the story of the man blind from birth, neither he nor his parents had sinned ... but the curing of blindness is for the glory of G-d.  Of course we forget about the original infliction of blindness from birth, and all those who are not cured.  Christian theology is something other than the NT.  Though Paul pretty much agrees with the Book of Job ... G-d is an all powerful demon, who does whatever G-d wants ... uses people like clay pots.  This would include the idea us moderns forget about .. the chamber pot.  To Paul, if G-d wants to use you as a chamber pot ... than just be the best pot-ty you can be ... or STFU.

Quote from: Mike Cl on November 27, 2015, 06:42:14 PM
No.  And you guessed it--I'm not TomFoolery.  She is much smarter than I.  Anyway.  If God were perfect, he could not create a hell.  A perfect being could not--or at least, should not--be able to create a place of everlasting punishment.  Nothing a person can do on this earth and in the short time we have here, deserve 'everlasting' agony.  No, not even Hitler.  I am not perfect, but I can devise a much more effective way to create a place the 'bad' people should go.  Why not create a place where, ---let's say Hitler---would go after death.  How about make Hitler experience from that person's view and feel that person's emotions, every person he harmed in his lifetime?  That way, the victim of that act would get justice.  And Hitler, after he has experienced the harm first hand from every body he ever harmed, he could then be cleansed.  That way all would win--those hurt and the person doing the hurting.  That would be perfect. 

I already made the point that doing something infinitely wrong does deserve infinite punishment, so I won't go through that again.  What you're arguing for is actually precisely what hell is.  The only thing you're failing to see, however, is that the person your crimes are really against is God.  So you must experience from God's perspective how He feels about what you did if we carry out your proposal.  Since we are considering a perfect God, His love for what is good and right must be infinite.  If it could be any greater than it is then we wouldn't be talking about a perfect God.  Now then, if His love for what is good and right is infinite then His hatred for what is wrong must be infinite.  That means God hates all of the things that you've done that you knew were wrong infinitely.  Therefore, your punishment (which is what you've recommended) is to have done to you what you hate infinitely.  However, you're a finite being who can't hate anything infinitely and so you must experience what you hate forever.  Unless, of course, this God was also infinitely kind and loving and would send Someone to suffer that punishment on your behalf.   

Quote from: GSOgymrat on November 29, 2015, 10:30:12 AM
When I read questions like the OP's I can't reply with any confidence because it makes assumptions I don't agree with and is from a perspective I don't share.

"If a perfect God exists do you think that God would send you to a place like hell (i.e., punish you) or a place like heaven (i.e., reward you) based on the way you've lived your life?" - No, because a perfect God wouldn't reward or punish humans for being what they are.

"If you were a tree, what would be your favorite color?" - Red or blue, because those colors are used for photosynthesis and would make me a happy little tree.

"How many angels can dance on the head of a pin?" - All of them.

I'm equally confident with all those responses.

That seems like a clever response, until you think about it for a moment.  So you're saying that a perfect God wouldn't be pleased or displeased by the choices that humans make, right?  What would you think of a person that reacted the same way to someone raping a child as they did to a person giving a hungry child something to eat?  I would say such a person is terribly evil.  But you're saying that a perfect God would act this way.  You're saying that a perfect God would be amoral.   

What I am saying is that G-d is real ... but amoral.  Not moral, not immoral.  The Bible ethics are a crock of night soil.  A perfect G-d would not create humans in the first place, particularly if G-d is also omniscient.  But clearly G-d is not omniscient in Genesis, and not even intelligent.  And in the incident with Noah is clearly a genocidal maniac.

So for me, a rhetorical god, isn't worth talking about.  A real G-d is, but empirically this is an exercise in imperfection and amorality.  The ideas of omnipresence and  omniscience, eternity and immortality, omnipotence ... were Greek philosophical ideas drug into Church dogma and doctrine.  They don't exist in the Bible ... just in the twisted imaginations of theologians.

As far as how G-d feels, I don't know, G-d hasn't told me.  But if G-d is like me, then G-d is probably pretty depressed and lots of other not nice mental conditions.  As far as G-d the judge goes ... G-d can kiss my ass.

Quote from: Baruch on December 04, 2015, 10:24:59 PM
What I am saying is that G-d is real ... but amoral.  Not moral, not immoral.

I've always figured that if God did exist, he'd have to be akin to someone playing a universe simulator in order to explain some of the shit that happens on his watch.

If god exists and he were perfect, that would make him perfectly intelligent, logical, able and compassionate. But we have ISIS, Nazis and Republicans here, which contradicts all that.

Quote from: Atheon on December 05, 2015, 02:23:46 AM
If god exists and he were perfect, that would make him perfectly intelligent, logical, able and compassionate. But we have ISIS, Nazis and Republicans here, which contradicts all that.

G-d is just letting the lab mice run around free, except when a Darwinian even occurs ... that is "maze meets cheese".

Quote from: bfiddy100 on December 04, 2015, 09:24:53 PM
I already made the point that doing something infinitely wrong does deserve infinite punishment, so I won't go through that again.  What you're arguing for is actually precisely what hell is.  The only thing you're failing to see, however, is that the person your crimes are really against is God.  So you must experience from God's perspective how He feels about what you did if we carry out your proposal.  Since we are considering a perfect God, His love for what is good and right must be infinite.  If it could be any greater than it is then we wouldn't be talking about a perfect God.  Now then, if His love for what is good and right is infinite then His hatred for what is wrong must be infinite.  That means God hates all of the things that you've done that you knew were wrong infinitely.  Therefore, your punishment (which is what you've recommended) is to have done to you what you hate infinitely.  However, you're a finite being who can't hate anything infinitely and so you must experience what you hate forever.  Unless, of course, this God was also infinitely kind and loving and would send Someone to suffer that punishment on your behalf.

No!  What you fail to see in your infinite willful blindness and ignorance is that you are worshiping something that does not and cannot exist.  But you refuse to even think that.  You even refuse to think, for what you do is believe.  And that lets you off the hook form the thinking part.  You and reasons, facts and thinking are things you don't want to consider.  You buy into a fairy land of absurd beings and propositions.  But you buy into it hook, line and sinker.  That way you don't have to reason and think--just believe.  It is soooooo much easier that way.  I do pity you.

Quote from: bfiddy100 on December 04, 2015, 09:29:41 PM
That seems like a clever response, until you think about it for a moment.  So you're saying that a perfect God wouldn't be pleased or displeased by the choices that humans make, right?  What would you think of a person that reacted the same way to someone raping a child as they did to a person giving a hungry child something to eat?  I would say such a person is terribly evil.  But you're saying that a perfect God would act this way.  You're saying that a perfect God would be amoral.   

I hate to break this to you, but your cartoon god and his cartoon creation is the picture perfect poster child for 'amoral'.  What a blind fool you are!!!!

So why would a perfect entity need to be worshiped in the first place? A god that can create every conceivable condition and situation created one where a chaotic and largely destructive, short term entity (us) live under a set of conditions that are largely contradictory and honestly don't seem to have any real long term goals at all? Short term life-die- got to heaven, exist eternally yada yada. Sounds pointless to me. Don't personally see a master plan in that.

Or else god doesn't exist and we invented him. Makes way more sense.

Quote from: stromboli on December 05, 2015, 11:52:58 AM
So why would a perfect entity need to be worshiped in the first place? A god that can create every conceivable condition and situation created one where a chaotic and largely destructive, short term entity (us) live under a set of conditions that are largely contradictory and honestly don't seem to have any real long term goals at all? Short term life-die- got to heaven, exist eternally yada yada. Sounds pointless to me. Don't personally see a master plan in that.

Or else god doesn't exist and we invented him. Makes way more sense.

Excellent question.  You are right that the perfect God doesn't need to be worshipped.  However, the perfect God does love what is good and right perfectly and therefore He requires us to worship Him because it is good and right to worship that which is infinitely worthy of worship (i.e., the perfect God).  The master plan is for God to show what He is like.  If God is perfect it is good and right for Him to show His attributes.   

G-d has shown himself in the events of this world ... and I remain unimpressed.  This is what I mean by ... I know G-d personally.  I have a handle metaphysically as well, but it is this personal disgust that frames it most for me.  A god who is only theological, is just word salad.

I am irreligious because while a theist I am also a freethinker.  But I am also irreligious because I don't revere G-d, and because at this time congregational worship isn't doing anything for me.  At times it has, and it may again.

Quote from: Mike Cl on December 05, 2015, 09:52:17 AM
No!  What you fail to see in your infinite willful blindness and ignorance is that you are worshiping something that does not and cannot exist.  But you refuse to even think that.  You even refuse to think, for what you do is believe.  And that lets you off the hook form the thinking part.  You and reasons, facts and thinking are things you don't want to consider.  You buy into a fairy land of absurd beings and propositions.  But you buy into it hook, line and sinker.  That way you don't have to reason and think--just believe.  It is soooooo much easier that way.  I do pity you.

Huh, this is a strange response.  Correct me if I'm wrong, but it seems like you prefer to just insult me instead of think through my arguments and address them.  You exalt thinking and reasoning, and yet you do none of it in your response.  Are you able to refute my argument and show where the error is? 

Quote from: Mike Cl on December 05, 2015, 09:54:37 AM
I hate to break this to you, but your cartoon god and his cartoon creation is the picture perfect poster child for 'amoral'.  What a blind fool you are!!!!

Again, I fail to see any reasoning behind your insults and assertions.  God hates evil and loves good and acts consistently with that hatred and love.  That is the exact opposite of amoral. 

Quote from: bfiddy100 on December 05, 2015, 02:30:25 PM
Again, I fail to see any reasoning behind your insults and assertions.  God hates evil and loves good and acts consistently with that hatred and love.  That is the exact opposite of amoral.

If you were correct, you would be right.  But you are a rationalist ... and reality is empiricist.

Quote from: bfiddy100 on December 05, 2015, 02:17:25 PM
Excellent question.  You are right that the perfect God doesn't need to be worshipped.  However, the perfect God does love what is good and right perfectly and therefore He requires us to worship Him because it is good and right to worship that which is infinitely worthy of worship (i.e., the perfect God).  The master plan is for God to show what He is like.  If God is perfect it is good and right for Him to show His attributes.   

What is the point to "love" when by all accounts god contains or understands every iota of existence? Love connotes an external expression towards something, as opposed to loving oneself which seems narcissistic at best. All the "good" and "right" are human concepts, as are god's attributes. A perfect god doesn't need to describe himself to himself. If we as humans need to love him, what aspect of a perfect being are we fulfilling? Makes no sense. If he needs to be loved he is not perfect, but lacking that component. If he had to create us just to be loved or worshiped, then he is anything but a perfect being, but is instead a vain and needful one.

And god is still a personification of men's projected ideas and still a fabrication.

Quote from: bfiddy100 on December 05, 2015, 02:25:42 PM
Huh, this is a strange response.  Correct me if I'm wrong, but it seems like you prefer to just insult me instead of think through my arguments and address them.  You exalt thinking and reasoning, and yet you do none of it in your response.  Are you able to refute my argument and show where the error is?

There are no 'arguments' for your beliefs.  There are beliefs for you beliefs.  And I've heard all that crap before.  To have an argument or discussion, one needs to have some reasons, some facts to deal with.  In your world of a belief in a thing in which there is no evidence does not allow us to have a discussion or argument.  I could insert the name 'The Invisible Pink Unicorn' and make the same 'arguments' you do.  And you could not 'prove' me wrong. The error you seek is that you believe in a fiction and you think your faith makes it so.  I may as well try to dissuade a person who sincerely believes that Mickey Mouse is a real being.  Your sincerely held beliefs hold absolutely no shred of facts or reasoning in them. 

Quote from: bfiddy100 on December 05, 2015, 02:30:25 PM
Again, I fail to see any reasoning behind your insults and assertions.  God hates evil and loves good and acts consistently with that hatred and love.  That is the exact opposite of amoral.

You fail to see any 'reasoning' behind my insults or assertions??!!!!  You are not familiar with irony, are you. :)))))))) There is not a shred of reasoning in your beliefs.  Your beliefs make you blind to facts and reasoning.  'God hates'---hey---listen up here---a non entity cannot hate!  Nor do or feel anything.  You belief in not only a dead idea but a non idea.  Nothing there.  It is good to see that you do know what amoral is. 

When you're going to have an argument that features a "god," you will have to substantiate the existence of a "god" first. It is very hard to argue when no facts are involved - as it is the facts that determine which side (if either) is correct in their assumptions.

Facts are rooted in reality and reality can be observed and tested with consistent results.

God is by definition a supernatural being. Supernatural means not measurable or quantifiable in human terms. So if you postulate a god you can do so only assuming that as such he/she/it is beyond our understanding and therefore not knowable in anything but abstract terms, and even then only as an idea and nothing more.

I see a perfect God the same way I see Supermanâ,,¢, Batmanâ,,¢ and the Smurfsâ,,¢... a fictional character.

Quote from: josephpalazzo on December 05, 2015, 07:36:03 PM
I see a perfect God the same way I see Supermanâ,,¢, Batmanâ,,¢ and the Smurfsâ,,¢... a fictional character.

Go Popa Smurf ;-)  He would make a better god than the one in the Bible!  Because he would declare smurf-berries are kosher for everyone ;-)

I would postulate that a perfect god could not create imperfect creations and thus, as there is little perfection among any creature, he failed, thus, imperfect, thus impotent. Thus….not a god but perhaps a scientist or an accidental janitor in another dimension completely unaware of his accident.

Quote from: aitm on December 05, 2015, 09:15:53 PM
I would postulate that a perfect god could not create imperfect creations and thus, as there is little perfection among any creature, he failed, thus, imperfect, thus impotent. Thus….not a god but perhaps a scientist or an accidental janitor in another dimension completely unaware of his accident.

Lol aitm I think you just created the plot for an SF novel: "The Accidental Janitor"

Well, that would imply perfect justice.  And consigning someone to eternal, unceasing torment for 70 or so years of getting it "wrong" on the basis of information deliberately withheld by the deity in question is simply not just, period.

Positing a 'perfect god' also means taking perfection to be something beyond divinity: that perfection is not inherent in godhood.  Otherwise that qualification is repetitive.

Now, even though it's been used in the ontological argument, that perfection requires existence therefore if god is perfect he must exist, this is simply incorrect.  We use non-existent "perfect" things all the time -- a 'perfect gas' is use all the time in chemistry and physics, even though no perfect gas exists.  It just simplifies things for the sake of calculation.

If anything, "perfect" suggests non-existence.

Quote from: bfiddy100 on December 04, 2015, 09:29:41 PM
That seems like a clever response, until you think about it for a moment.  So you're saying that a perfect God wouldn't be pleased or displeased by the choices that humans make, right?  What would you think of a person that reacted the same way to someone raping a child as they did to a person giving a hungry child something to eat?  I would say such a person is terribly evil.  But you're saying that a perfect God would act this way.  You're saying that a perfect God would be amoral.   

The idea of "a perfect God" is yours, not mine, but perhaps God is amoral. Maybe God doesn't have human emotions or other characteristics. Perhaps God leaves it to humans to decide how they should treat one another and humanity triumphs or fails, not based on God's judgment, but on the consequences of our own behavior.

Quote from: GSOgymrat on December 06, 2015, 08:03:47 AM
The idea of "a perfect God" is yours, not mine, but perhaps God is amoral. Maybe God doesn't have human emotions or other characteristics. Perhaps God leaves it to humans to decide how they should treat one another and humanity triumphs or fails, not based on God's judgment, but on the consequences of our own behavior.

If we speak of the god of the babble, we are forced to admit that god has experienced all of human emotions as he "tells" us he is jealous and vengeful and warns us not to be eh? Do as I say, not as I do. The only experience or emotion that god cannot have is the fear of death or death itself. If you cannot fear death you have no right to judge those who do.

Quote from: aitm on December 06, 2015, 02:26:55 PM
If we speak of the god of the babble, we are forced to admit that god has experienced all of human emotions as he "tells" us he is jealous and vengeful and warns us not to be eh? Do as I say, not as I do. The only experience or emotion that god cannot have is the fear of death or death itself. If you cannot fear death you have no right to judge those who do.

True for the OT, but not true for the NT ... and maybe a clue as to why the NT was created.  Jews taking vengeance on a neglectful G-d.

Quote from: Baruch on December 06, 2015, 02:47:37 PM
... and maybe a clue as to why the NT was created. 

I thought the creation of the NT was pretty obvious to the outsider. Jesus was rebuked as being a false prophet and turned to the unwashed, the gentiles as a "saviour". He was such a charmer that they were more than happy to kill off some greeks and blame his death on them nasty jews.

Quote from: aitm on December 06, 2015, 02:26:55 PM
If we speak of the god of the babble, we are forced to admit that god has experienced all of human emotions as he "tells" us he is jealous and vengeful and warns us not to be eh? Do as I say, not as I do. The only experience or emotion that god cannot have is the fear of death or death itself. If you cannot fear death you have no right to judge those who do.

Most gods have human characteristics because otherwise it is difficult, and unsatisfying, to think of a god. If there really is a creator of everything and that creator is responsible for all life that has ever lived, and will ever live, on all the planets, in all the galaxies, in all the universes, in perhaps all the multiverses, a creator that is outside our reality, it is unlikely humans could understand it on any level. Where is the fun in that?! Most people don't want a cosmic god they can't understand but a personal god who listens, guides their actions and comforts when life is hard. A god who rewards the good guys and smites the bad guys. A god who loves deeply, or connects us to each other, or watches over our loved ones, or says we are special, or is going to righteously destroy the world. A "perfect" god that is embodies an ideal, multiple gods that pull us in different directions, or no god at all. We create our gods in our own image because we need for our gods to understand. I think that is one reason why the Christianity appeals to so many-- Jesus is both human and divine.

Quote from: aitm on December 06, 2015, 03:24:07 PM
I thought the creation of the NT was pretty obvious to the outsider. Jesus was rebuked as being a false prophet and turned to the unwashed, the gentiles as a "saviour". He was such a charmer that they were more than happy to kill off some greeks and blame his death on them nasty jews.

Well that is how some folks tell the story.  It is a little more complicated ... and a more realistic telling would tend to agree with the Jewish position and deny the Christian position ... at least post 135 CE.  The unwashed he turned to (and he did occasionally visit with the rich) were Jewish unwashed.  Not Gentiles ... he called some Gentiles ... dogs.  Other Gentiles who were god-fearers ... he called more Jewish than Jews.

Technically (as a story character) ... Jesus was actually guilty of blasphemy to the Jews and actually guilty of treason to the Romans.  But only if you are narrow minded as the authorities were.

Quote from: Baruch on December 06, 2015, 07:38:12 PM
Well that is how some folks tell the story.  It is a little more complicated ...

No, it really isn't. It is really pretty simple. The fact that it is this simple is why so many claim it is more complicated. It is easier for the "intelligent" to claim it is "complicated" instead of admitting they bought into the bullshit and are not really as smart as they assume themselves to be.

Quote from: aitm on December 06, 2015, 07:43:24 PM
No, it really isn't. It is really pretty simple. The fact that it is this simple is why so many claim it is more complicated. It is easier for the "intelligent" to claim it is "complicated" instead of admitting they bought into the bullshit and are not really as smart as they assume themselves to be.

But here you are changing the subject ... implicitly ... to me.  But then I am a bit of a Bu-Jew like Jesus ... so you are partially correct.  But I ain't climbing on any cross to save you from your sins ... nada!   Burn doggie burn.

I don't know what a Bu-Jew is but I will now picture you should I ever hear it again.

I think that is Buddhist Jew, not sure. "I shall know myself as you and you as myself, oy vey." Like that.

Quote from: stromboli on December 07, 2015, 12:21:08 PM
I think that is Buddhist Jew, not sure. "I shall know myself as you and you as myself, oy vey." Like that.

oh, that makes perfect sense for an american jew.

Quote from: bfiddy100 on November 27, 2015, 10:46:24 PM
Thanks for taking the time to reply in such length. 

Hey, finally got around to replying to your reply. Sorry it took so long, have been rather busy with stuff… Due apologies.

Quote
There are many ways in which it can be understood that our crimes against a perfect God are infinite offenses.  I will describe 2.
1)God is perfect (e.g., infinitely wise, good, and powerful).  Therefore, it is infinitely good and right to obey this God and infinitely wrong to disobey Him.  Every act of disobedience against this perfect God is an infinite offense because it is infinitely wrong.  If you wish to argue against this please do so by addressing the argument (as you've been doing) and not saying something like, "the God of the Bible isn't perfect, you're a moron."  We can discuss whether or not the God of the Bible fits this definition of perfect, but the argument is not that the God of the Bible is perfect, but that it is infinitely wrong to disobey a God that is perfect. 
2)God is perfect and therefore infinitely worthy of honor.  If it is somewhat wrong to dishonor someone who is somewhat worthy of honor then it is infinitely wrong to dishonor someone who is worthy of infinite honor.  Again, we are only talking about what is right and wrong, so the typical response of "a God who needs to be honored by His creation isn't perfect" does NOT refute this argument in any way.  I am not making any claims about what this God wants or needs, I am only saying that it is infinitely wrong to not honor Him and that disobeying this God is not honoring Him.

I must admit I still have a hard time understanding what you mean with the crimes against a hypothetical perfect God being infinite offenses. Perhaps I am misunderstanding your points. If so, point it out.
But in the first of your two ways, you seem to imply that the offense is infinite because of the characteristics of the offended party, in this case the supposed deity. But this to me seems like a horrible way to measure the 'worth' (for the lack of a better word) of a crime. The awfullness of a crime should not be measured by the characteristics of the victim, rather by the act itself and the intentions preceding it. And if anything, one could argue that a perfect god can not be harmed or wronged (as in damaged) by disobedience and suffers no lasting trauma or internal conflict because of said perfection. So even if one were to say that it's the characteristics of the victim that come in to play to determine how bad a crime is, being all-knowing and all-powerfull would I think lessen the 'worth' of the crime. But perhaps I'm misunderstanding.
In the second of your ways, again I'm completely lost. Again it seems to imply that the characteristiscs determine how bad a crime is, rather than the crime itself. But apart from that I'm lost at the jump you make from perfection implying being infinetly worthy of honor. For instance, I find many of my cliënts as a social worker to be worthy of honor for because they do their best despite being so clearly as far from perfect as one can get. (Same goes for anyone I meet, nobody is perfect.) To use an example from work; Is a divorced mom who's new, illegal partner has gotten throat-cancer thus needing vitamines to gain weight for the treatment but which are too expensive and who lives without the allemony being paid for her three kids and who works for below minimum wage an still struggles to do everything right worthy of less honor as a another woman in the exact same situation who has more wisdom, patience, intelligence, strength, multi-tasking skills and other capabilities and usefull life-skills? Isn't it the effort that she puts in and the virtue that she shows despite imperfection a better way to measure how much honor and respect she deserves?  Even if your perfect god were to exist, any honor I'd bestow it would be measured not by it's characteristics but by what it was trying to do and the way it was doing this to the best of it's capabilities. Which, hypothetically, are infinite. Which would imply that if this world is not perfect, which I would argue it's not, your perfect God would not be giving it it's all.

Quote
I didn't see where you proved that punishing someone demonstrated a flaw in the one doing the punishing.  All I saw was a demonstration that a perfect God would have no need to punish Himself.  I certainly agree with that, but I don't think that was what you were trying to prove.

Basically, what I was trying to say is in a summerized way: We have the need to punish because we can not take the necessary steps to nullify the effects of crime or to prevent it all together. Were our race/society all powerfull we could. We could in advance make sure that everyone of their own free will would not chose to do something awfull. And that even if they had done something awfull, we could undo it or at least the damage and then be certain that with the certain approach said offender would never offend again and thus allow them to participate in society without blemish because we know (s)he will never be a risk to others ever again. But we can't because we're not all-knowing nor all-powerfull. 
I don't know how to make it clearer. If you still don't see what I mean, I'll try.

Quote
I find it interesting that you seem to think that the problem is a lack of wisdom or knowledge in criminals.  This argument only holds water if you can say that you've never done what you KNEW was wrong.  The issue isn't a lack of knowledge, but rather a lack of goodness.  We knew that certain things were wrong before we did them, but we did them anyway because we found it more pleasurable for ourselves than doing what was right.  This is irrefutable, but you do not wish to look at things in this way because of where it leads. 

I believe you misunderstood the point I was trying to make. Perhaps I should have been more clear. I'm not saying the problem lies within a lack of wisdom or knowledge in the criminals. But if our governing body was all-knowing and all-powerfull it would know exactly what to do and teach and say to make sure everyone of these would be criminals would chose not to do anything criminal. I think this is where you misunderstood me. It's not the lack of knowledge in the criminal party that is the problem. I understand that people do things they know are bad. For example, a lot of rapists or murderers or thieves know what they do is wrong, but they do it anyway. The problem is that if I were omniscient and omnipotent I would know what to say and do to guide anyone to not go down such a path of their own free will and be certain that my actions and influences have made it so that this person would never do such a thing, without taking away their free will. If I could not do this, I would not be omniscient and/or omnipotent. Which I'm not, of course. Which is why I can't prevent crime. Or at least can not prevent it totally nor be certain that I'm preventing it at all.

Quote
I'd have to ask what you mean by "all-loving."  Do you mean that this perfect God would express love to everyone by giving them what they want?  Obviously, this is impossible, since many people desire the suffering of others, who do not wish to suffer. 

But would a perfect omnipotent and omniscient God not create a world in which everyone that would ever be, be all-loving and harmonious themselves? Why would this perfect god willfully create a world in which strife and hatred would blossom and people would need to be shunned or punished and fall short of his grace when he can create a world in which everyone chooses to accept his divine authority, his guidelines to life, of their own free will and who feel no natural emnity towards one another?
In any case: no. All-loving does not necessarily mean giving everyone what they want. That's not the way I use it. I don't even use it that often myself. The way I understand it as how most religious seem to use it is that it means god is an ultimate force for good (and love) and wants the best for his creation.

Quote
You objected to hell not allowing people to return to society and it being only torture.  I guess then that you'd say that a person should never receive a life sentence for any crimes that they commit in this world.  No matter how heinous a person's crimes are you would say that they should only be taken out of society for a short time to "learn" that the thing that they already knew was wrong was wrong, right?  And to give someone a life sentence for the most heinous crimes (like chaining some people to the back of a pickup truck and dragging them until they're dead while yelling racist slurs at them) would not be justice, but rather cruelty, right? 

In a perfect world? No, we would not have life-sentences. Even in a world in which crime can not be avoided, which in a perfect world it could be, but in which the governing body of society were all-knowing and all-powerfull they could be absolutely certain that a certain action or treatment could make the sentenced person never commit another crime ever again and be able to be a productive member of society of his/her own free will.
But we do not live in a perfect world. We do not have omnipotence and omniscience. We can not be certain. So we need punishment. Because we're not perfect.
And, I'd like to add. Even in sentences in which people are to never get out of jail, we still tend to try to make them understand why what they did was wrong. And if possible, give them some way to repent for their crimes. At least that's the way it is in Belgium, I don't know how it is where you come from. But even jail is or at least ought to be more than throwing someone in a dark hole, shutting the door and melting the key down without ever looking back.
Locking up the person in your example would not be cruelty. It would be necessary. But that is because we have limited capabilities. We were not able to prevent the pick-uptruck driver from becoming a racist or a murderer of his own free will. We are not able to restore the damage done to the victim. We can't be certain our actions following the crime convince the offender that what he/she did was wrong. We can't be certain the offender will never do it again. All because we are not perfect. We, and our governing bodies, are not unlimited. They are not perfect. That's why in some cases WE need those kinds of punishment. WE, not a hypothetical PERFECT BEING.

Quote
Your final point about free will is quite astute.  You have a better understanding of this than most people I've conversed with.  You are correct in many ways here.  Yes, God did choose to create people who would freely choose to do what they knew was wrong.  Without having people who would choose to act in such a way there would be no way for God to show His mercy since there is no need for mercy where there is no crime.  So God offers His mercy to all.  And yes, He even created people who would freely choose to reject His mercy to show how much He loves what is good and right by demonstrating His perfect hatred for wrongdoing by punishing those who do wrong and refuse His mercy.  That likely repulses you, but if God is perfect and has a perfect hatred for wrongdoing it is right for that hatred (along with all of His attributes) to be demonstrated.     

And why would God need to show his mercy? Is it not better not to have need for mercy than to display perfect mercy? And does he really need to show his perfect hatred for wrongdoing? Is it not better to not have a need for this perfect hatred? I'm sorry, but I simply do not agree that having these personality-traits means they should be displayed if their need can be avoided.
You are right. The notion does repulse me. I see not why these need to be demonstrated. What would you think of a judge in high court who manipulates and influences people into committing crimes only to show how well he knows the law by dealing out the appropriate punishments? What would you think of a government that would enable terrorists, just so it could show how much it cared for it's own citizens when it came down hard on them after they'd slaughtered thousands of the innocent citizens?
If your hypothetical perfect god had perfect hatred for wrongdoing, he should be one hell of a selfloathing bastard. And if your hypothetical perfect god had created me to dissobey him, to refuse him, then that's what I'll do, I suppose. But unlike what you said before; he'd have earned no honor or respect from me. Nor should he have earned any from anyone.

Quote from: bfiddy100 on November 25, 2015, 09:01:40 PM
Question for y'all.  If a perfect God exists do you think that God would send you to a place like hell (i.e., punish you) or a place like heaven (i.e., reward you) based on the way you've lived your life?

In what way is God "perfect"? Is it perfectly good, or perfectly bad? Is it perfectly beautiful, or perfectly ugly? Is it perfectly big, or perfectly small? Is it perfectly perfect, or perfectly imperfect?

Jesus, you have a lot of patience, Mr. O! I think you're just banging your head though. He's not reasoning, he's just rationalizing. :banghead:

What kind of  ASSHOLE witnesses suffering, which is in their power to fix with only the slightest effort, but chooses not to lift a finger?

Only a PERFECT ASSHOLE.

God can't be perfect, because the definition of perfection is completely abstract and bias.

I might imagine my idea of perfection is a hairy bear adonis with 12 inch tackle, where as someone elses idea of perfection is a big busted lass with an 11 inch tackle.

Quote from: Unbeliever on December 09, 2015, 04:22:25 PM
In what way is God "perfect"? Is it perfectly good, or perfectly bad? Is it perfectly beautiful, or perfectly ugly? Is it perfectly big, or perfectly small? Is it perfectly perfect, or perfectly imperfect?

He's perfectly perfect, dumb atheists... :25:

Quote from: josephpalazzo on December 11, 2015, 08:45:52 AM
He's perfectly perfect, dumb atheists... :25:

I'm glad we've finally reached inevitable conclusion that Mary Poppins is God.

https://youtu.be/SBXPKA6i4Zg

Quote from: GSOgymrat on December 11, 2015, 08:52:16 AM
I'm glad we've finally reached inevitable conclusion that Mary Poppins is God.

https://youtu.be/SBXPKA6i4Zg

There are two general strategies in theology, both dead ends ;-)

The positive way, enumerating all of G-d's superlative qualities ... which this string is about ... and the negative way, enumerating all potential qualities as not being what G-d is like.

Quote from: Mr.Obvious on December 09, 2015, 04:13:34 PM
Hey, finally got around to replying to your reply. Sorry it took so long, have been rather busy with stuff… Due apologies.

No problem.  Sorry it took me so long to reply this time.  Thank you for the civil discussion.  I can see that you're truly trying to understand my points, which I certainly appreciate.  Whether we agree or not, is something else, but I appreciate at least being able to have the conversation.   

Quote from: Mr.Obvious on December 09, 2015, 04:13:34 PM
I must admit I still have a hard time understanding what you mean with the crimes against a hypothetical perfect God being infinite offenses. Perhaps I am misunderstanding your points. If so, point it out.
But in the first of your two ways, you seem to imply that the offense is infinite because of the characteristics of the offended party, in this case the supposed deity. But this to me seems like a horrible way to measure the 'worth' (for the lack of a better word) of a crime. The awfullness of a crime should not be measured by the characteristics of the victim, rather by the act itself and the intentions preceding it.

I suspect you wouldn't argue that we should punish someone who kills an ant in the same way that we would punish someone who kills a human.  I also suspect that you would say it's far more evil to kill a good man who is contributing to society and caring for his family than it would be to kill a man after he was convicted of heinous crimes (even if you disagree with capital punishment).  My point is that you often do determine if an act is evil (and how evil it is) based on the offended party.  And since your argument isn't consistent we can dismiss it as false.  Only when an argument is consistent are we dealing with something true.  The truth is always consistent.     

Quote from: Mr.Obvious on December 09, 2015, 04:13:34 PM
And if anything, one could argue that a perfect god can not be harmed or wronged (as in damaged) by disobedience and suffers no lasting trauma or internal conflict because of said perfection. So even if one were to say that it's the characteristics of the victim that come in to play to determine how bad a crime is, being all-knowing and all-powerfull would I think lessen the 'worth' of the crime. But perhaps I'm misunderstanding.

I have to point out that your contradicting yourself here.  I point this out once again with the hope that you'll recognize that you aren't dealing with the truth and abandon this line of reasoning.  First you said that the awfulness of a crime shouldn't be measured by the characteristics of the victim, but now you're saying that if the victim isn't really damaged by your actions (a characteristic of the victim) then it's not such a big deal.  What if a man is too rich to even notice that you're stealing some of his money?  Are you doing nothing wrong because the man isn't damaged by your actions?  The issue, however, is that God does hate wrongdoing with an infinite hatred because He is perfect and has an infinitely great love for what is good and right.  Would it matter to you if people did things to you that you hate more than anything?
 

Quote from: Mr.Obvious on December 09, 2015, 04:13:34 PM
In the second of your ways, again I'm completely lost. Again it seems to imply that the characteristiscs determine how bad a crime is, rather than the crime itself. But apart from that I'm lost at the jump you make from perfection implying being infinetly worthy of honor. For instance, I find many of my cliënts as a social worker to be worthy of honor for because they do their best despite being so clearly as far from perfect as one can get. (Same goes for anyone I meet, nobody is perfect.) To use an example from work; Is a divorced mom who's new, illegal partner has gotten throat-cancer thus needing vitamines to gain weight for the treatment but which are too expensive and who lives without the allemony being paid for her three kids and who works for below minimum wage an still struggles to do everything right worthy of less honor as a another woman in the exact same situation who has more wisdom, patience, intelligence, strength, multi-tasking skills and other capabilities and usefull life-skills? Isn't it the effort that she puts in and the virtue that she shows despite imperfection a better way to measure how much honor and respect she deserves?  Even if your perfect god were to exist, any honor I'd bestow it would be measured not by it's characteristics but by what it was trying to do and the way it was doing this to the best of it's capabilities. Which, hypothetically, are infinite. Which would imply that if this world is not perfect, which I would argue it's not, your perfect God would not be giving it it's all.

I see your point.  Doing something good with little means is worthy of honor.  But I don't think it's a "jump" to go from God being perfect to God being infinitely worthy of honor.  If God were not worthy of as much honor as possible then He would not be perfect.  If in any way God could be more worthy of honor than He is then He would be less than perfect.  This world is exactly what we should expect if God is perfect.  If God loves what is good and right then we should expect Him to be angry about us doing things that we know are wrong.  We do see that in the suffering that we experience in this life, but we also see many good things in this world, which tells us that God is also patient, kind and merciful. 

Quote from: Mr.Obvious on December 09, 2015, 04:13:34 PM
Basically, what I was trying to say is in a summerized way: We have the need to punish because we can not take the necessary steps to nullify the effects of crime or to prevent it all together. Were our race/society all powerfull we could. We could in advance make sure that everyone of their own free will would not chose to do something awfull. And that even if they had done something awfull, we could undo it or at least the damage and then be certain that with the certain approach said offender would never offend again and thus allow them to participate in society without blemish because we know (s)he will never be a risk to others ever again. But we can't because we're not all-knowing nor all-powerfull. 
I don't know how to make it clearer. If you still don't see what I mean, I'll try.

I do see what you're saying, but I just don't think it works.  Yes, if you were omniscient then you would know that a man was going to commit a crime beforehand and you could prevent him from doing so.  But preventing the man from doing what he wants to do (commit the crime) IS punishment.  The only way there can be no punishment is for people not to desire to do evil in the first place.  We do not have such a world, as evidenced by our own desires to do what we know is wrong.  God promises to change anyone who repents and believes in Christ so that they will no longer desire to do anything wrong.  That is why heaven will be heaven.   

Quote from: Mr.Obvious on December 09, 2015, 04:13:34 PM
I believe you misunderstood the point I was trying to make. Perhaps I should have been more clear. I'm not saying the problem lies within a lack of wisdom or knowledge in the criminals. But if our governing body was all-knowing and all-powerfull it would know exactly what to do and teach and say to make sure everyone of these would be criminals would chose not to do anything criminal. I think this is where you misunderstood me. It's not the lack of knowledge in the criminal party that is the problem. I understand that people do things they know are bad. For example, a lot of rapists or murderers or thieves know what they do is wrong, but they do it anyway. The problem is that if I were omniscient and omnipotent I would know what to say and do to guide anyone to not go down such a path of their own free will and be certain that my actions and influences have made it so that this person would never do such a thing, without taking away their free will. If I could not do this, I would not be omniscient and/or omnipotent. Which I'm not, of course. Which is why I can't prevent crime. Or at least can not prevent it totally nor be certain that I'm preventing it at all.

Again, you could prevent crimes by keeping people from doing the wrong things that they want to do.  But keeping someone from doing what they want IS punishment.  The only way around this is to actually change the person's desires.  And that is exactly what God promises to do for anyone who comes to Him and desires to be changed. 

Quote from: Mr.Obvious on December 09, 2015, 04:13:34 PM
But would a perfect omnipotent and omniscient God not create a world in which everyone that would ever be, be all-loving and harmonious themselves? Why would this perfect god willfully create a world in which strife and hatred would blossom and people would need to be shunned or punished and fall short of his grace when he can create a world in which everyone chooses to accept his divine authority, his guidelines to life, of their own free will and who feel no natural emnity towards one another?
In any case: no. All-loving does not necessarily mean giving everyone what they want. That's not the way I use it. I don't even use it that often myself. The way I understand it as how most religious seem to use it is that it means god is an ultimate force for good (and love) and wants the best for his creation.

It comes down to whether or not God's grace is something that should be demonstrated.  If it is a wonderful thing then it should be treated as a wonderful thing and it should be displayed, not hidden.  But without people doing bad things we can never see God's grace since He doesn't need to show grace to people who haven't done anything wrong.  And the suffering that is necessary to demonstrate how great God is, is not something that God just makes humans go through (even though we are fully deserving of it).  Nobody suffered more to show how wonderful God is than Jesus Christ.  Jesus suffered infinitely because of our sins and to make known how magnificent God's love, grace, and goodness are.   

Quote from: Mr.Obvious on December 09, 2015, 04:13:34 PM
In a perfect world? No, we would not have life-sentences. Even in a world in which crime can not be avoided, which in a perfect world it could be, but in which the governing body of society were all-knowing and all-powerfull they could be absolutely certain that a certain action or treatment could make the sentenced person never commit another crime ever again and be able to be a productive member of society of his/her own free will.
But we do not live in a perfect world. We do not have omnipotence and omniscience. We can not be certain. So we need punishment. Because we're not perfect.
And, I'd like to add. Even in sentences in which people are to never get out of jail, we still tend to try to make them understand why what they did was wrong. And if possible, give them some way to repent for their crimes. At least that's the way it is in Belgium, I don't know how it is where you come from. But even jail is or at least ought to be more than throwing someone in a dark hole, shutting the door and melting the key down without ever looking back.
Locking up the person in your example would not be cruelty. It would be necessary. But that is because we have limited capabilities. We were not able to prevent the pick-uptruck driver from becoming a racist or a murderer of his own free will. We are not able to restore the damage done to the victim. We can't be certain our actions following the crime convince the offender that what he/she did was wrong. We can't be certain the offender will never do it again. All because we are not perfect. We, and our governing bodies, are not unlimited. They are not perfect. That's why in some cases WE need those kinds of punishment. WE, not a hypothetical PERFECT BEING.

God has given us all an understanding why what we have done is wrong.  Our conscience, given to us by God, informs us of right and wrong.  The problem isn't that we don't know that things we do are wrong or that we can't figure out why they're wrong.  The problem is that we suppress the truth and don't want to think about these things because we want to believe that we are good people worthy of praise instead of evil and in need of mercy from our Creator.  And regarding repentance, God not only offers to forgive us if we repent, but He actually commands us to repent.  God is actually commanding you to be forgiven of all of your wrongdoing!  But you refuse.  A man shouldn't be let out of prison if he refused to change his ways and stubbornly declares that he will continue in his evil deeds. 

Quote from: Mr.Obvious on December 09, 2015, 04:13:34 PM
And why would God need to show his mercy? Is it not better not to have need for mercy than to display perfect mercy? And does he really need to show his perfect hatred for wrongdoing? Is it not better to not have a need for this perfect hatred? I'm sorry, but I simply do not agree that having these personality-traits means they should be displayed if their need can be avoided.
You are right. The notion does repulse me. I see not why these need to be demonstrated. What would you think of a judge in high court who manipulates and influences people into committing crimes only to show how well he knows the law by dealing out the appropriate punishments? What would you think of a government that would enable terrorists, just so it could show how much it cared for it's own citizens when it came down hard on them after they'd slaughtered thousands of the innocent citizens?
If your hypothetical perfect god had perfect hatred for wrongdoing, he should be one hell of a selfloathing bastard. And if your hypothetical perfect god had created me to dissobey him, to refuse him, then that's what I'll do, I suppose. But unlike what you said before; he'd have earned no honor or respect from me. Nor should he have earned any from anyone.

I already answered why God desires to show His mercy.  I'm not sure if you have children or not, but if you do then I imagine you want them to know how much you love them.  If your children never did anything wrong it would be reasonable for them to assume that your love for them is based on their performance.  You might say that you'd still love them even if they did something you really hate, but they'd never just how great your love for them is unless they actually did something you hate and saw how you continued to love them and showed them mercy.  Having done what God hates and yet experiencing God's love, those in heaven will be assured forever that God will continue in their love towards them and have a joy that is complete and that could not be known otherwise.  We simply disagree, however, regarding whether or not God manipulates or influences people in a way that causes them to do wrong.  We show, however, that our thinking is just like Adam's when we blame God for the wrong things that we've freely chosen to do.   

What a confusing question. If God were perfect we would never have existed.

How can god be perfect when it was created by imperfect humans?

Note how god(s) have the same emotions (jealousy, anger, revenge, sorrow, gladness etc),  as their creators?
Even the same human 'form'? (Genesis 1:27)

Quote from: bfiddy100 on December 19, 2015, 10:29:12 PM
The truth is always consistent.     

This is not true.  The highest level of truth is that of mathematical truth, insofar as once something is proven it is proven forever, and there is no gainsaying it as a matter of opinion or alternate interpretation.  However, we also know via Kurt Gödel that mathematics may be consistent (in which case it cannot include all true statements) or it may be complete (in which case it cannot be consistent).  Truth in a precise sense cannot be consistent.

Furthermore, truths can be contradictory and still be true.  If we go to see a comedian perform, and I say he was hilarious, and you say he wasn't funny, both statements are true since a) we each carry our own definitions of what we find funny, and b) there is no external, definitive and objective definition of funny against which our definitions and the comedian's performance can be measured.

By and large, though, a functional truth requires evidence, and evidence stands on its own -- it's not a matter of being passed down through the ages or taking the word of a self-appointed authority figure, but is instead independently verifiable, either through multiple independent sources or by one's self.

I don't need to "believe" that water is made of hydrogen and oxygen, I can electrolyze it for myself and demonstrate first hand that it decomposes into two gases, one much lighter than the other, the properties of which match those published in other sources, and it's exactly the same every single time I repeat the experiment.

There is no comparable experiment for whether or not there is any divine authority in the universe.  If I ask fifty different religious figures, I will get fifty different explanations of what the divine is, many of which are not only contradictory, but mutually exclusive.  Furthermore, there is no reliable test to determine which interpretation is the right one, nor is there any known process in the universe that requires an external sentient presence to bring it about.

Under those circumstances, the application of Occam's Razor is called for: without a definite reason to suppose there's an external sentient force, there's no reason to suppose there is one.  The idea that there is a god requires evidence, and there is none -- and no, the bible doesn't qualify as proof all by itself.  If it does, then so do the Iliad, Gulliver's Travels and Harry Potter and the Philosopher's Stone -- and I suspect you're not willing to admit to the existence of Zeus, Lilliputians and/or Hogwarts.

If humans keep grasping at straws, then the Scarecrow is G-d ...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nauLgZISozs

Just stay away from fire ;-)  Also this disproves intelligent creation ;-))

Quote from: trdsf on December 20, 2015, 01:33:01 AM
This is not true.  The highest level of truth is that of mathematical truth, insofar as once something is proven it is proven forever, and there is no gainsaying it as a matter of opinion or alternate interpretation.  However, we also know via Kurt Gödel that mathematics may be consistent (in which case it cannot include all true statements) or it may be complete (in which case it cannot be consistent).  Truth in a precise sense cannot be consistent.

Just a few pointers:

Math is based on a single idea: the identity law, A = A, the substitution principle is just a glorified identity law. What Gödel found is that all math structures (set theory, group theory, algebra, etc)  need to start with axioms - unproven statements. If you try to prove those axioms, you would need other axioms, hence your system is always either consistent or incomplete (a combination of unproven axioms and logically consistent proven theorems).

QuoteFurthermore, truths can be contradictory and still be true.  If we go to see a comedian perform, and I say he was hilarious, and you say he wasn't funny, both statements are true since a) we each carry our own definitions of what we find funny, and b) there is no external, definitive and objective definition of funny against which our definitions and the comedian's performance can be measured.

You're talking about opinions, but true propositions (in both logic and math) are about factual statements. And the "true/false" are values applied to propositions. Even though people apply these values to opinions, strictly speaking from philosophy, they really don't. Hence it is misleading to consider an opinion on a comedian performance as being "true". It's a matter of taste: you liked it; someone else didn't. That has no bearing on what is considered as truthful. No one can really verify if you are truthful in expressing your opinion, not until someone invents 100%-proof mind reading apparatus ;-).

QuoteBy and large, though, a functional truth requires evidence, and evidence stands on its own -- it's not a matter of being passed down through the ages or taking the word of a self-appointed authority figure, but is instead independently verifiable, either through multiple independent sources or by one's self.

Empirical truths (as in scientific theories, for instance) are tentative: as new evidence are discovered, the old theories might end up in the dumpster  - the phlogiston theory is a good example.

If you assume god as the source for everything you assume without him there is no morality nor any sense of ethics to deal with issues day to day and hour to hour. The mere fact that secular people manage to be moral and ethical flies in the face of that assumption. I see so many instances of "religiously moral" people being immoral to others who don't fit their paradigm of what they need to be moral to. Everybody goes to heaven except the following list....hmmm... gays no, non christians no, I'm a Baptist so Seventh day Adventists no, Scientologists no, Hindus no........golly that is a highly moral attitude. Sounds more like judgment to me. In terms of application, the only difference from one religion to the next is the level of severity of punishment a lot of symbolic trappings. Otherwise change the name and they are practically all the same.

For your god to be perfect he first has to exist. In every instance of belief I am aware of, you first have to skip over that initial problem and blandly believe without bothering to reconcile that first problem. Every one here that is atheist is because we couldn't prove that first problem. Every single thing you believe is based on assumptions without evidence. It isn't any harder than that. You can argue endlessly and apply all manner of philosophical viewpoints, but without proof of that first assumption, the rest is just BS.

The idea, even if there is some kind of god ... that this god communicates with humans, but only a very few or only one human, and only in the past tense ... is patently ridiculous.  All the major religions fail on this point, even if one has some kind of god.

If there is a god ... this god has to communicate with all humans everywhere and all the time ... so that any human, in any present tense, has access.  Of course this leaves open what 'communicate' means ... let alone with 'god' means.  This is why for me, mysticism is the only viable option ... if any are.

Quote from: peacewithoutgod on November 27, 2015, 11:16:14 AM
That we have a conscience says absolutely nothing to prove your god delusion, but it does demonstrate how sociable animal life evolves. Conscience and other chemically-controlled emotional states are in no way limited to humans, we are different only for being more socially and emotionally complex.

Emotion and / or the conscience is not strictly the product of chemical balances as it also causes the changes in the chemical levels.

Faith in selfless Unity for Good.

Whoops! Pops is back. That rounds out my day.

Quote from: Mr.Obvious on November 26, 2015, 10:26:39 AM
It is, in my book, inherently wrong to punishment anyone eternally for a finite crime.
And if god was perfect, there would be no need for punishment. (I can elaborate later if you'd like, after work. Let me know.)

This. Plus, free will does not exist, so we can not do anything other than what we do. If there were a perfect god, I don't see why anyone would be treated differently in the afterlife. We should all get paradise, or the choice to cease existing.

The Gods have, if nothing else, proven conclusively, by their actions or inactions, that they are indeed, not gods.- Joebels Gheman

Quote from: josephpalazzo on December 20, 2015, 08:34:37 AM
You're talking about opinions, but true propositions (in both logic and math) are about factual statements. And the "true/false" are values applied to propositions. Even though people apply these values to opinions, strictly speaking from philosophy, they really don't. Hence it is misleading to consider an opinion on a comedian performance as being "true". It's a matter of taste: you liked it; someone else didn't. That has no bearing on what is considered as truthful. No one can really verify if you are truthful in expressing your opinion, not until someone invents 100%-proof mind reading apparatus ;-).

Exactly.  The point I was trying to make is that truth is not an absolute measured from outside the universe since there are different kinds of truths.  It's still a true statement if I say (for example) Steve Martin is hilarious, and it's just as true if you were to say he wasn't -- whether or not it can be independently verified that you and I actually hold those opinions.  In any case, on matters of opinion, one can only take the speaker's word on the matter anyway.  Using the same example, I have no reason to doubt you when you say he's not funny.  Subsumed in that, of course, is the leading clause "I think" or "I believe" or "It's my opinion that".

And your point about phlogiston is on the mark, and it's worth noting that phlogiston was a scientific theory in the modern sense, in that it explained a set of phenomena and made predictions about events that could falsify the theory.  So when Lavoisier came along with the right interpretation and the observations to back it, phlogiston theory was properly dethroned... by a different incorrect theory, the caloric theory of heat.

Scientific truth does change, but it has the advantage of homing in on reality over time as observations and interpretations improve.  It's better to say that scientific truth is refined over time, rather than changes -- scientific understanding generally evolves from a partial theory to a more complete theory.  Total revolutions like Newtonian physics and Einsteinian relativity are uncommon.  More often you see a progression and a refinement as in the case of phlogiston theory being replaced by caloric theory being replaced by the kinetic theory of heat becoming modern thermodynamics.

It's really uncommon that scientific inquiry proceeds up the wrong alley for long periods of time: I don't think anyone seriously believes that the fundamentals of chemistry will be proven wrong and we end up going back to alchemy, nor will General Relativity be overthrown in favor of a return to luminiferous æther.  While there's always a need for observation, there's no good reason to think any of the hard sciences are currently on a dead-end course and will need to back up.

Quote from: aitm on December 20, 2015, 09:10:28 PM
The Gods have, if nothing else, proven conclusively, by their actions or inactions, that they are indeed, not gods.- Joebels Gheman

Linda Smith put it more succinctly: "If God wanted us to believe in him, he'd exist."

trdsf - the philosophy of modern physics is a little bit more nuanced.  Newtonian physics still works for most circumstances ... so it was never replaced.  We didn't move to GR, and then retreat to Newtonian physics.  And this is in spite of Newtonian physics and GR being on very different basis.  What Einstein meta-discovered was ... philosophy (Mach) is useful for finding new theories, but once you have the new theory you can and should discard the enablig philosophy (Mach) to get to the next new theory (post-Mach).  Philosophy is a pragmatic temporary scratch pad ... the goal is the right equations ... and what they mean, simply doesn't matter.  It doesn't matter if space/time are connected, doesn't matter if matter bends space-time.  As Feynman summarized (in regards to QM) ... shut up and calculate.

In more detail ... Einstein's original formulation got rid of the Ether.  It was unnecessary as an assumption for the equations (unlike previous work by others).  But shortly after Minkowski came along and invented space-time.  Actually it had been invented prior to Galileo, but had been ignored.  And this was of course not a pre-Galilean or Galilean space-time, but an space-time consistent with Einstein.  At a stroke, after just 3 years, the new Ether had been invented.  This new Ether (son of phlogiston) was useful, not just a math trick .. because it made GR possible.  And not only that, the new Ether made relativistic QM possible (but inconsistent with GR).  So now we have a much more powerful Ether than the one we started with.  So ideas are more cyclic, than linear.  We have had several Ethers ... each one gets overthrown but replaced with a new-improved Ether.  So now we have an Ether, that per Heisenberg, can spontaneously generate a couch or chair out of nowhere, and disappear it ... provided that the observation time is short enough.  You can violate conservation laws, if you are tricky enough.  GR also violates conservation laws in specific circumstances.  Physics is more like a house of cards, than a Egyptian pyramid.  As long as you have a magic equation, what it means doesn't matter.  But what the public gets is that pseudo-philosophy, because they can't understand the magic equation without years of schooling.

Quote from: trdsf on December 20, 2015, 10:32:25 PM

Scientific truth does change, but it has the advantage of homing in on reality over time as observations and interpretations improve.  It's better to say that scientific truth is refined over time, rather than changes -- scientific understanding generally evolves from a partial theory to a more complete theory.  Total revolutions like Newtonian physics and Einsteinian relativity are uncommon.  More often you see a progression and a refinement as in the case of phlogiston theory being replaced by caloric theory being replaced by the kinetic theory of heat becoming modern thermodynamics.

It was Kuhn who defined such scientific changes as a "paradigm shift", in which not only the science had changed but so does our worldview. Today, "paradigm shift" is a buzzword in advertisement, ;-)

Quote from: josephpalazzo on December 21, 2015, 07:16:36 AM
It was Kuhn who defined such scientific changes as a "paradigm shift", in which not only the science had changed but so does our worldview. Today, "paradigm shift" is a buzzword in advertisement, ;-)

Read Carlo Ravelli?  Italian theoretical physicist.  He says Kuhn is full of it.  Overgeneralization of the Copernican revolution (Copernicus had more epicycles than Ptolemy).  More like a reshuffling of the deck ... saving appearances etc.

Again, sorry for the late reply. But if we are going to keep this conversation going, seeing how long our points are and how we both also have other things to do, I imagine the ones in the future being just as tardy.

Quote from: bfiddy100 on December 19, 2015, 10:29:12 PM
I suspect you wouldn't argue that we should punish someone who kills an ant in the same way that we would punish someone who kills a human.  I also suspect that you would say it's far more evil to kill a good man who is contributing to society and caring for his family than it would be to kill a man after he was convicted of heinous crimes (even if you disagree with capital punishment).  My point is that you often do determine if an act is evil (and how evil it is) based on the offended party.  And since your argument isn't consistent we can dismiss it as false.  Only when an argument is consistent are we dealing with something true.  The truth is always consistent.

Regarding the ants thing. You must be able to see why that's a bad analogy. In one instance it's killing an insect, in the other it's murder: The killing of another person (without justification or excuse). These are two different concepts, there is a difference between killing animals and murder. They are different acts by definition. We weigh their implications by the acts, which are different, and the intentions. For instance we'll look diffently at a kid with a magnifying glass who'se doing it for kicks, someone who accidentally steps on an ant and someone who places an ant-trap filled with poison to keep his house from getting entirely infested.
Following this. One could argue that capital punishment is not murder. As it is, judicially not without justification. Meaning it does not fit the textbook definition of murder. Some others who disagree with you might argue this. I however do not agree with capital punishment personally, and don't condone it. I find it to be primitive and I disagree with it wholeheartedly. I find it vile, despicable and inhumane.
But there are a few on here, I think, who agree capital punishment can be concidered okay in some instances. They can argue what I said above about judicial justification, or find some other line of reasoning. I don't presume to dictate what they think. However if they do follow that line of reasoning concidering judicial justification, they argue that either it's not murder (the act itself) and/or that the intentions behind influence the gravity and excusability of the act.
To clarify: let's concider someone who sees his daughter killed before his eyes and either the murderer is right in front of him right after the act or is found not guilty in court to a lack of evidence and walks free. If he really murdered the child, and the father retaliates by murdering him, we tend to look at the act as 'less evil', as you'd say. But I would argue it's not because the murderer is a bad guy, it's because we understand the intentions and justification  the father holds at that moment. We sympethise because he's mad with grief, or even because he wants to avenge his daughter, whatever the reason. But it changes how we view the intentions behind the act (perhaps even going so far as to call it justified and perhaps thus not even murder if we go by the textbook analysis). That's how whe wheigh how bad it is. And it wouldn't at that moment change the fact that the daughter's murderer was a just someone who killed the daughter to get money but had not had a prior life of crime or whether he was someone who killed the daughter to get money and had a previous life filled with drugdealing, cartheft and extortion. Because that prior life has no influence on the perception of the father, and thus his intentions for killing the murderer in return. So: It's not weighed by the victim, but by the act and the intentions preceding it.

Quote
I have to point out that your contradicting yourself here.  I point this out once again with the hope that you'll recognize that you aren't dealing with the truth and abandon this line of reasoning.  First you said that the awfulness of a crime shouldn't be measured by the characteristics of the victim, but now you're saying that if the victim isn't really damaged by your actions (a characteristic of the victim) then it's not such a big deal.  What if a man is too rich to even notice that you're stealing some of his money?  Are you doing nothing wrong because the man isn't damaged by your actions?  The issue, however, is that God does hate wrongdoing with an infinite hatred because He is perfect and has an infinitely great love for what is good and right.  Would it matter to you if people did things to you that you hate more than anything?

Well that's why I say 'if anything'. Because I don't agree the victims characteristics determine the severity of the crime rather than the crime and it's intent. I'm saying that even if your line of reasoning were one I could subscribe to, it'd be completely the opposite. Not that I do. Sorry if this confuses you, but there is no contradiction here. I don't subscribe to your arguments, but If I did, I'd still think you'd have them backwards. That's all I'm saying.

Quote
I see your point.  Doing something good with little means is worthy of honor.  But I don't think it's a "jump" to go from God being perfect to God being infinitely worthy of honor.  If God were not worthy of as much honor as possible then He would not be perfect.  If in any way God could be more worthy of honor than He is then He would be less than perfect.  This world is exactly what we should expect if God is perfect.  If God loves what is good and right then we should expect Him to be angry about us doing things that we know are wrong.  We do see that in the suffering that we experience in this life, but we also see many good things in this world, which tells us that God is also patient, kind and merciful. 

See, this is something that I've noticed in your reasoning before, and I think it's a main reason for our failure to reach to a common point in this discussion: We're going about this same question from completely different sides and with different implications partaining to the question from the starting point.
Or rather: I think there are two questions at play here, really.“What if there is a god and that god is perfect?” & “What if there is a god who created this world, and that god is perfect?”.
I feel like I'm trying to answer the first question. While you are answering the second. I feel like I'm trying to picture what a perfect world created by a perfect god would look like, without asserting that this one is it. All the second question seems to do for me is give you a circular reasoning. If there is a god that is perfect and he created this world and everything he creates is as he wants it and therefore perfect, then yes everything is perfect. But then it's a meaningless concept. And then you've done nothing more with this though-experiment than say: 'If there is a perfect god, that god is perfect'.

Quote
I do see what you're saying, but I just don't think it works.  Yes, if you were omniscient then you would know that a man was going to commit a crime beforehand and you could prevent him from doing so.  But preventing the man from doing what he wants to do (commit the crime) IS punishment.  The only way there can be no punishment is for people not to desire to do evil in the first place.  We do not have such a world, as evidenced by our own desires to do what we know is wrong.  God promises to change anyone who repents and believes in Christ so that they will no longer desire to do anything wrong.  That is why heaven will be heaven.   

But it's not punishment. Not if you can convince them they don't want to do it out of their own accord which you could or you would not be all-powerful. Convincing someone of a new point and letting them integrate that into their personality isn't punishment. It really isn't. Convincing someone to become vegetarian isn't punishment. Convincing someone not to cheat on their spous isn't punishment. Convincing someone not to park in a handicapped space when they are able-bodied isn't punishment. It simply isn't.

Quote
Again, you could prevent crimes by keeping people from doing the wrong things that they want to do.  But keeping someone from doing what they want IS punishment.  The only way around this is to actually change the person's desires.  And that is exactly what God promises to do for anyone who comes to Him and desires to be changed. 

No. It isn't. A part of me might still lust after others than my spouse. Perhaps forever, but I'm not punished by being convinced not to cheat. Deciding not to do something, despite having a longing to do it, as long as you choose of your own accord not to do it, isn't punishment. It's self-control.

Quote
It comes down to whether or not God's grace is something that should be demonstrated.  If it is a wonderful thing then it should be treated as a wonderful thing and it should be displayed, not hidden.  But without people doing bad things we can never see God's grace since He doesn't need to show grace to people who haven't done anything wrong.  And the suffering that is necessary to demonstrate how great God is, is not something that God just makes humans go through (even though we are fully deserving of it).  Nobody suffered more to show how wonderful God is than Jesus Christ.  Jesus suffered infinitely because of our sins and to make known how magnificent God's love, grace, and goodness are.   

It shouldn't be. Not if that is the cost. It's only ego-boosting if he could create a world in which that display was unecessary. Which is something I would assign as an imperfection. (Of course if you, as I said before, try to answer this question with the assersion that this is a perfect world created by a perfect god, than yes, that would be perfect. With perfect being just about the most empty, valueless word you could think of.)

Quote
God has given us all an understanding why what we have done is wrong.  Our conscience, given to us by God, informs us of right and wrong.  The problem isn't that we don't know that things we do are wrong or that we can't figure out why they're wrong.  The problem is that we suppress the truth and don't want to think about these things because we want to believe that we are good people worthy of praise instead of evil and in need of mercy from our Creator.  And regarding repentance, God not only offers to forgive us if we repent, but He actually commands us to repent.  God is actually commanding you to be forgiven of all of your wrongdoing!  But you refuse.  A man shouldn't be let out of prison if he refused to change his ways and stubbornly declares that he will continue in his evil deeds.

I'm sorry, but I fail to see how this reply adresses anything I point out in my previous alinea altogether. So I won't try to point out why and how you misinterpreted it, rather take it as a new point altogether.
To everything apart from the last sentence: Prove it. Don't just assert it. Prove it. Not trying to be an ass here, but all I see is a bunch of ungrounded assertions.
To the last sentence: I can see the point within that last sentence. I'm just not sure why you put it there.  I'm all for getting people who've done something bad to see the error of their ways. It's your hypothetical god with his hypothetical infinite potential who fails to help people come to this and indeed supposedly intentionaly fabricates people to fail to repent.

Quote
I already answered why God desires to show His mercy.  I'm not sure if you have children or not, but if you do then I imagine you want them to know how much you love them.  If your children never did anything wrong it would be reasonable for them to assume that your love for them is based on their performance.  You might say that you'd still love them even if they did something you really hate, but they'd never just how great your love for them is unless they actually did something you hate and saw how you continued to love them and showed them mercy.  Having done what God hates and yet experiencing God's love, those in heaven will be assured forever that God will continue in their love towards them and have a joy that is complete and that could not be known otherwise. 
We simply disagree, however, regarding whether or not God manipulates or influences people in a way that causes them to do wrong.  We show, however, that our thinking is just like Adam's when we blame God for the wrong things that we've freely chosen to do. 

Indeed, you did already answer why your hypothetical god would show feel the need to create evil so he could show mercy. And your answer, I'm sorry to say, was lacking at best. 
I'm actually not a father. But I really want to become one. And yes, I imagine loving them even if they did something bad. But no, I wouldn't manipulate them into doing something bad so I could show what a good guy I am. And if that meant that I'd never have to forgive them because they'd never do something bad, so be it. They'd still feel the fullness of my love. And this way no third party would have to suffer, just so they could be even 'more certain' of a love they have no reason to doubt. It would be completely immoral for me to manipulate them or willfully influence them into harming a third party so they could experience this.
And yes, taking the characteristics of omnipotence and omniscience into account, which you've not objected to, it would be manipulating and influencing people in ways that causes them to do wrong, by the very way the supposed creator decided to create his creation. There is no way around it.

I find the question to be pointless, because perfection is impossible.
Whence cometh evil
Can god make a rock he cannot lift
Etc.
I can't even entertain the question without my brain exploding.

Here's the thing...  My dad used to be a baseball coach.  One of those memes he always threw out at us kids is that "You can't score a run unless you cross first base."  He used it as a way to keep me and others from swinging for the fences - just get on base and let the next guy advance you.

Why do I bring this up?  Because for me to even comment or think about whether or not any god could be perfect... I would first need to be convinced that there exists such a thing as god.

So after we get to first base - prove that god exists, then and only then will I worry about whether or not this god is perfect.

Quote from: GreatLife on February 28, 2016, 12:31:36 PM
Here's the thing...  My dad used to be a baseball coach.  One of those memes he always threw out at us kids is that "You can't score a run unless you cross first base."  He used it as a way to keep me and others from swinging for the fences - just get on base and let the next guy advance you.

Why do I bring this up?  Because for me to even comment or think about whether or not any god could be perfect... I would first need to be convinced that there exists such a thing as god.

So after we get to first base - prove that god exists, then and only then will I worry about whether or not this god is perfect.

That's a good way of looking at it.

It all depends on the definition of perfect. Arguments for and against the existence of god can be constructed from different definitions of perfect and God.

An a priori argument used by the philosopher Anselm to prove the existence of god is as follows:

(Axiom) Something is better if it exists.
(Argument) If God is perfect then, necessarily, he exists.

I generally dislike a priori proofs and this is no exception. Like most a priori proofs for the existence/non-existence of god the logical fallacy lies in the axioms. There are many contradictions to the above axiom.

Perfect and God are difficult words to define.

Quote from: DeltaEpsilon on February 28, 2016, 08:50:46 PM


Perfect and God are difficult words to define.

Yeah, they are.  Probably because both are fictions.  Nothing is perfect.  And god does not exist.

Quote from: bfiddy100 on November 25, 2015, 09:01:40 PM
Question for y'all.  If a perfect God exists do you think that God would send you to a place like hell (i.e., punish you) or a place like heaven (i.e., reward you) based on the way you've lived your life?

Every reaction to an action
is the reward of a perfect God.

Quote from: TomFoolery on November 25, 2015, 09:11:02 PM
In what way are we supposed to live our life to please God?

The right way.

Quote from: TomFoolery on November 25, 2015, 09:11:02 PMAlso, does it work on some sort of points system? The good you do just has to outweigh the bad?

No, it all depends on how much
God loves you or does not love you.

Quote from: TomFoolery on November 25, 2015, 09:11:02 PMIf you do bad, do the Catholics have it right and all you need to do is say sorry? Or do the Baptists have it right and the bad doesn't matter and all you need to do is believe in Jesus?

No, they are all deceived.

Quote from: TomFoolery on November 25, 2015, 09:11:02 PMIf Satan hates God and I'm supposed to be punished for not doing right by God, wouldn't Satan reward me?

Maybe, maybe not.  It depends upon his will for you.

Quote from: Baruch on November 25, 2015, 09:36:39 PM
G-d isn't perfect (that is clear in Genesis 1 thru Noah).

God created perfection. He also created imperfection.

Therefore God is greater than perfect.

Quote from: Baruch on November 25, 2015, 09:36:39 PMBut speaking generically, there is no difference between heaven and hell, and I am already here ...

Only in your own mind.

Quote from: Baruch on November 25, 2015, 09:36:39 PMAgain generically, G-d is perfect ... a perfect monster.  Lots of people get rewards and punishments here and now ... but I don't know that any of it comes from G-d ... it mostly comes from other people aka shit monkeys.  Got poo?

Everything comes from the spirit realm.

Quote from: bfiddy100 on November 25, 2015, 09:40:45 PM
Interesting reply, TomFoolery. 

One thing that I think is important to consider is that you would certainly expect this God to always do what is right...since He is perfect.  Therefore, if it is wrong to send you to a place like hell you would expect Him not to do that.  But that reveals that we expect a perfect God to act like it's never good to do wrong.  So I think that shows us the standard we expect God to have if He is perfect.  If we have done anything that we knew was wrong then a perfect God must punish us, since to reward us would be to act like it is sometimes good to do wrong, which a perfect God could never do.  Agree?

Your expectations
of what is right and what is wrong
is not the expectations of God.

Quote from: aitm on November 25, 2015, 09:44:42 PM
IF a god exists, then yes, all life would have a wonderful fulfilling afterlife…you, me, bunny rabbits, tree frogs, mosquitos…all life. The horrible, horrendous POS that the babble presents does not exist, thankfully, what a monstrous clusterfuck that thing is. But yes, if a real god existed, perhaps…of course the idea that it is perfect is a rather dappled red apple. Nice of us to imagine such a thing just for our fragile little egos to have, but the reality…meh.

You will certainly know one way or the other some day.

Quote from: bfiddy100 on November 25, 2015, 10:07:25 PM
Hmmm, all life?  Do you really think a perfect God would/should give members of ISIS a wonderful fulfilling afterlife?

They are going to be
greatly surprised when they
leave this world. 

There will be nothing
wonderful and fulfilling about it.

Quote from: aitm on November 25, 2015, 10:15:15 PM
maybe "your" perfect god would not. "My" perfect god would not allow such creatures as ISIS to exist in the first place. I guess we have different versions of what a REAL god is eh?

See!  That's where all the trouble starts!   None of you are agreeing with me and toeing the line!

HONEY!!   Have you seen my exterminators tool box?! 

Quote from: aitm on November 25, 2015, 10:15:15 PM
maybe "your" perfect god would not. "My" perfect god would not allow such creatures as ISIS to exist in the first place. I guess we have different versions of what a REAL god is eh?

There is only 1 God and many many many gods.

Quote from: Solomon Zorn on November 26, 2015, 08:40:37 AMReward and punishment is a primitive way for humans to control each other.

Not true.

Quote from: Solomon Zorn on November 26, 2015, 08:40:37 AM
What about giving up his mysterious invisibility, and communicating directly with us the information we require?

He has already done it.  In the beginning.

Quote from: Solomon Zorn on November 26, 2015, 08:40:37 AMAnd who says a "perfect" God has need of our compliance with his will? Or that he views "good" and "evil" as priorities in the universe?

But there are so many reasons God is NOT perfect, that your point is moot.

God is not perfect in your mind. 
But there again your mind is not perfect.

Which makes your point...moot.

Quote from: Mr.Obvious on November 26, 2015, 10:26:39 AM
It is, in my book, inherently wrong to punishment anyone eternally for a finite crime.
And if god was perfect, there would be no need for punishment. (I can elaborate later if you'd like, after work. Let me know.)

The problem with this is you are not in charge.
You do not make the rules. You live by the rules
made by others.

Quote from: peacewithoutgod on November 26, 2015, 07:08:11 PM
If there is a God, and that God really is perfect, then

1. He would have done a better job of creating the earth, and the system by which life evolves - and then he would not have wasted time sitting back and watching all the shit that ever happened. There would have been no need for a God which really could and did create it all himself to wait for evolution.

2. Being the perfect and all-powerful creator of everything, he would have actually created us all, and then he would have made us perfect too - otherwise, he himself could not be called perfect. Therefore, he never would have to punish any of us. When you have to resort to that with your own creation, you ain't no God, you're just a shithead!

If you're talking about a perfect god who did not create us, but has the right to judge us, well no he doesn't unless he answers to a greater god, and it would not be one which is all-perfect and all-powerful because no such God would need to hire a flunkie to do his work for him.

If it is too hard for you to accept
that God does as He pleases when He pleases How He pleases
without considering your thoughts and feelings...

then you are going to be greatly disappointed most of your life.

Quote from: TheVirtueOfTruth on June 17, 2016, 12:59:48 PM
If it is too hard for you to accept
that God does as He pleases when He pleases How He pleases
without considering your thoughts and feelings...

then you are going to be greatly disappointed most of your life.

You are one of the most stupid people I've ever read.  But, it's not your fault, for that is how god made you. 

You have created one stupid universe for yourself.  But since you really, really like stupid fiction, then go ahead, roll in it. 

Interesting, tho in a way.  You can do anything or not do anything and it will be okay for that is how god intended you to be.  You cannot do or say or think anything that god did not intend you to do, say or think.  Hey--live it up, you can do no wrong. 

Quote from: Mike Cl on June 17, 2016, 01:54:24 PM
You are one of the most stupid people I've ever read.  But, it's not your fault, for that is how god made you. 

You have created one stupid universe for yourself.  But since you really, really like stupid fiction, then go ahead, roll in it. 

Interesting, tho in a way.  You can do anything or not do anything and it will be okay for that is how god intended you to be.  You cannot do or say or think anything that god did not intend you to do, say or think.  Hey--live it up, you can do no wrong.

I sure am glad you believe this you have said about me.

It is a witness to my greatness.

First, God can't be anything but perfect. If He isn't, then the deity is capable of dying, and can't be an eternal self-existent God. Second, God doesn't send people to Hell. At the end of the Age after the Judgment, He simply gives those who are not saved what they have chosen. As far as the question of someone going to hell who hasn't had a chance to be saved, the answer is theoretically yes. After all, all people are born disconnected from God and headed for hellfire. But God knows this and has already arranged for everyone to live long enough to choose God, either in this age, or during the Millennium, where those who have had no chance get to live again. There is an indication that the world goes on as it has under the iron rule of Christ, as Isaiah said that a child will die a hundred years old. The Raptured souls are not ruled at all, and are not subject to sin. Also, where did the society come from after the millennium? They are deceived by Satan, and are not saved. There's no mention of them being resurrected.

Quote from: truthman8 on August 03, 2016, 10:53:38 PM
First, God can't be anything but perfect. If He isn't, then the deity is capable of dying, and can't be an eternal self-existent God. Second, God doesn't send people to Hell. At the end of the Age after the Judgment, He simply gives those who are not saved what they have chosen. As far as the question of someone going to hell who hasn't had a chance to be saved, the answer is theoretically yes. After all, all people are born disconnected from God and headed for hellfire. But God knows this and has already arranged for everyone to live long enough to choose God, either in this age, or during the Millennium, where those who have had no chance get to live again. There is an indication that the world goes on as it has under the iron rule of Christ, as Isaiah said that a child will die a hundred years old. The Raptured souls are not ruled at all, and are not subject to sin. Also, where did the society come from after the millennium? They are deceived by Satan, and are not saved. There's no mention of them being resurrected.

With "those who have had no chance get to live again", you mean all those who lived the vast timeperiod before the first coming of your messiah, right? Do you also mean those that came after, but died in childbirth or very early on at infancy? And those who lived in area's isolated from 'the good word' and who never heard of Christianity?
Seems more fair than saying: "bugger you lot, straight off to hell you go." I'll grant you that much. But one would have to wonder why this all-knowing and all-powerfull God would choose a system in need of a do-over for (up to now) the vast majority of the people in the world. Also, I would have preferred to have lived before the coming of Jesus Christ then, as in this day and age I have heard of his legend, but haven't found it convincing for the last 7 years of my life. At least in the Milennium, as I understand it, I would have had good cause to believe in Christ and had reason to accept and follow his iron law. (Given that he hypothetically is perfect and Christianity as thus is not as immoral in essence as I come to understand it but actually makes perfect sense.)

Quote from: truthman8 on August 03, 2016, 10:53:38 PM
First, God can't be anything but perfect.

How do you know this????

Quote from: Mike Cl on August 04, 2016, 10:36:12 AM
How do you know this????

I think it's the definition from the United States Dictionary of Urban Legend.  But it doesn't solve the big issues and it brings up new issues as well. 

Quote from: truthman8 on August 03, 2016, 10:53:38 PM
First, God can't be anything but perfect. If He isn't, then the deity is capable of dying, and can't be an eternal self-existent God. Second, God doesn't send people to Hell. At the end of the Age after the Judgment, He simply gives those who are not saved what they have chosen. As far as the question of someone going to hell who hasn't had a chance to be saved, the answer is theoretically yes. After all, all people are born disconnected from God and headed for hellfire. But God knows this and has already arranged for everyone to live long enough to choose God, either in this age, or during the Millennium, where those who have had no chance get to live again. There is an indication that the world goes on as it has under the iron rule of Christ, as Isaiah said that a child will die a hundred years old. The Raptured souls are not ruled at all, and are not subject to sin. Also, where did the society come from after the millennium? They are deceived by Satan, and are not saved. There's no mention of them being resurrected.

Mere assertions.  Where is your replicable independent evidence for these claims?

And no, your bible is not replicable independent evidence.

Quote from: SGOS on August 04, 2016, 01:27:58 PM
I think it's the definition from the United States Dictionary of Urban Legend.  But it doesn't solve the big issues and it brings up new issues as well.

Most likely.  But it doesn't really matter in that this guy is most likely another drive-by.

Quote from: truthman8 on August 03, 2016, 10:53:38 PM
First, God can't be anything but perfect. If He isn't, then the deity is capable of dying, and can't be an eternal self-existent God. Second, God doesn't send people to Hell. At the end of the Age after the Judgment, He simply gives those who are not saved what they have chosen. As far as the question of someone going to hell who hasn't had a chance to be saved, the answer is theoretically yes. After all, all people are born disconnected from God and headed for hellfire. But God knows this and has already arranged for everyone to live long enough to choose God, either in this age, or during the Millennium, where those who have had no chance get to live again. There is an indication that the world goes on as it has under the iron rule of Christ, as Isaiah said that a child will die a hundred years old. The Raptured souls are not ruled at all, and are not subject to sin. Also, where did the society come from after the millennium? They are deceived by Satan, and are not saved. There's no mention of them being resurrected.

Are you a drive-by preacher, or do you plan to respond?

IF such a god did exist, whatever we believe or don't believe about it has no meaning at all, since we could know absolutely nothing about such a being. We could speculate wildly, and never know if our speculations had any bearing on Truth. Such speculation is therefore useless.

He is gone….another great.."What if"..

Quote from: aitm on August 04, 2016, 07:15:38 PM
He is gone….another great.."What if"..

And he had so much potential.

Quote from: truthman8 on August 03, 2016, 10:53:38 PM
First, God can't be anything but perfect. If He isn't, then the deity is capable of dying, and can't be an eternal self-existent God. Second, God doesn't send people to Hell. At the end of the Age after the Judgment, He simply gives those who are not saved what they have chosen. As far as the question of someone going to hell who hasn't had a chance to be saved, the answer is theoretically yes. After all, all people are born disconnected from God and headed for hellfire. But God knows this and has already arranged for everyone to live long enough to choose God, either in this age, or during the Millennium, where those who have had no chance get to live again. There is an indication that the world goes on as it has under the iron rule of Christ, as Isaiah said that a child will die a hundred years old. The Raptured souls are not ruled at all, and are not subject to sin. Also, where did the society come from after the millennium? They are deceived by Satan, and are not saved. There's no mention of them being resurrected.

Your theology is way to complicated.  Demonstrate G-d in front of you, right here, right now.  Otherwise it is empty metaphysics.

The idea of G-d's perfection is a bad cover for G-d's manifest imperfection.  Like someone who is a Bill Clinton supporter saying he never had sex with any of those women.  Zeus is better, at least he would never deny he is attracted to the ladies.

Yeah, Zeus even had ladies springing right out of his forehead!

QuoteFirst, God can't be anything but perfect. If He isn't, then the deity is capable of dying, and can't be an eternal self-existent God.

But - but - didn't the deity die for our sins and stuff? Or was it only part of God that died, but the rest of him was too ornery do croak?

QuoteAfter all, all people are born disconnected from God and headed for hellfire.

Wow, a loving God who makes eternal torture the default position of life? I wonder what he'd've done had he not been quite so loving?

Quote from: Unbeliever on August 12, 2016, 05:38:15 PM
Yeah, Zeus even had ladies springing right out of his forehead!

But - but - didn't the deity die for our sins and stuff? Or was it only part of God that died, but the rest of him was too ornery do croak?

If we consider current day religion in the same light as ancient religion (and many of you do) ... then it isn't too much to get upset at, it is just silly.  The question of the relationship between Jesus' humanity and Jesus' divinity would have gotten you in trouble, even executed, in the first few centuries of Constantinian Christianity.  That is what the whole Arian controversy was about.

Quote from: Baruch on August 12, 2016, 07:04:58 PM
If we consider current day religion in the same light as ancient religion (and many of you do) ... then it isn't too much to get upset at, it is just silly.  The question of the relationship between Jesus' humanity and Jesus' divinity would have gotten you in trouble, even executed, in the first few centuries of Constantinian Christianity.  That is what the whole Arian controversy was about.

The whole thing is silly--insisting my fiction is truer than your fiction is the height of stupidity.

My ancestor, Emperor Magnus Maximus, was the first Christian ruler to execute other Christians for heresy.  He executed Priscillian and a few of his followers ... for puritanism.  The question of puritanism turns on the question of Jesus' humanity.  I think that puritans consistently misread the NT.

Quote from: Baruch on August 12, 2016, 07:11:10 PM
My ancestor, Emperor Magnus Maximus, was the first Christian ruler to execute other Christians for heresy.  He executed Priscillian and a few of his followers ... for puritanism.  The question of puritanism turns on the question of Jesus' humanity.  I think that puritans consistently misread the NT.

All christians have misread the NT--and the OT.  All have read it through the lens of wishful thinking, not rational, reasoning.

Quote from: Mike Cl on August 12, 2016, 07:16:36 PM
All christians have misread the NT--and the OT.  All have read it through the lens of wishful thinking, not rational, reasoning.

Agreed. And I'd go even further and wager that any who has ever read any holy text has most likely misread said text.

Quote from: Mr.Obvious on August 13, 2016, 05:16:09 AM
Agreed. And I'd go even further and wager that any who has ever read any holy text has most likely misread said text.

Bookworms, that made the text holy, ate all the good parts ;-)

The great thing about the babble is that it is so crystal clear in its intent that every single person who reads it interprets it the exact same way. That is why there is only one religion…….

Quote from: truthman8 on August 03, 2016, 10:53:38 PM
BLAH BLAH BLAH

[mod]Bye.[/mod]

Quote from: Baruch on August 12, 2016, 07:11:10 PM
  I think that puritans consistently misread the NT.

I think just about everyone misreads the NT, and the OT.

Quote from: SGOS on August 04, 2016, 08:29:14 PM
And he had so much potential.

Maybe he had potential energy, which turned into kinetic energy, and subsequently turned into heat (etc.) energy. :holdtears:

Quote from: Unbeliever on August 17, 2016, 04:14:58 PM
I think just about everyone misreads the NT, and the OT.

First clue ... ask Jewish people about Jewish literature.  The OT and NT are both Jewish.  Would you expect someone not French to be an expert in French literature?  Anglophones are "tres arrogant".

Quote from: Mike Cl on August 12, 2016, 07:16:36 PM
All christians have misread the NT--and the OT.  All have read it through the lens of wishful thinking, not rational, reasoning.

Now that's just false. Really , that does not even sound right.

Sent from my LG-H820 using Tapatalk

Quote from: Mr.Obvious on August 13, 2016, 05:16:09 AM
Agreed. And I'd go even further and wager that any who has ever read any holy text has most likely misread said text.

Someone pick a verse. Let read it together. We can see if a believe and non believe come up with the same conclusion.

Sent from my LG-H820 using Tapatalk

Quote from: g2perk on August 17, 2016, 10:06:48 PM
Now that's just false. Really , that does not even sound right.

Sent from my LG-H820 using Tapatalk

Prove it.  Give me on thing that is proven by the bible.

Quote from: g2perk on August 17, 2016, 10:10:05 PM
Someone pick a verse. Let read it together. We can see if a believe and non believe come up with the same conclusion.

I'll bite.

Quote from: 1 Samuel 15:3Now go and smite Amalek, and utterly destroy all that they have, and spare them not; but slay both man and woman, infant and suckling, ox and sheep, camel and ass.

I think this one means your god is a sociopathic psychopath, and I wouldn't bend my knee to him even if he was the creator of the universe because I didn't get my morality from religion.

What's your take?

Quote from: Mike Cl on August 17, 2016, 10:42:40 PM
Prove it.  Give me on thing that is proven by the bible.

Wisdom will save you also from the adulterous woman, from the wayward woman with her seductive words,
Proverbs 2:16 NIV
http://bible.com/111/pro.2.16.NIV

Sent from my LG-H820 using Tapatalk

Quote from: g2perk on August 17, 2016, 10:10:05 PM
Someone pick a verse. Let read it together. We can see if a believe and non believe come up with the same conclusion.

Sent from my LG-H820 using Tapatalk

Is that false..

Sent from my LG-H820 using Tapatalk

Quote from: PopeyesPappy on August 17, 2016, 10:49:33 PM
I'll bite.

I think this one means your god is a sociopathic psychopath, and I wouldn't bend my knee to him even if he was the creator of the universe because I didn't get my morality from religion.

What's your take?

What part is not true?

Sent from my LG-H820 using Tapatalk

Quote from: g2perk on August 17, 2016, 10:52:38 PM
What part is not true?

Is English not your first language, or were you just home schooled? The conversation was about how different people interpret the Bible in different ways. You said pick a passage. I did, and I gave you my take on it. What is your's?

It means what it says. Really.

Sent from my LG-H820 using Tapatalk

Quote from: g2perk on August 17, 2016, 10:10:05 PM
Someone pick a verse. Let read it together. We can see if a believe and non believe come up with the same conclusion.

Sent from my LG-H820 using Tapatalk

The point I meant by that is that not only are the holy texts your read translations of translations and copies of copies of copies so that 'original texts' may be lost or altered. On top of that, they were written in a time and place completely different from our own. If you just look at a foreign film from nowadays, chances are you won't get it completely because you miss the full context of the culture in which the film was made. Now imagine thousands and thousands of years added to that. All manner of references, (poetic) wordplay and metaphors could be going over our head. Even now ancient texgts are filled to the brim with stuff some say you must take metaphorically, others say you must take literally: It's a dividing mess.
And finally, the most important reason why everyone who reads holy texts as a whole must necessarily misinterpret the original text is that they are filled with contradictions and contradictory rules.

Also... Did you above quote yourself, when you said "Is that false.."?

Quote from: PopeyesPappy on August 17, 2016, 10:49:33 PM
I'll bite.

I think this one means your god is a sociopathic psychopath, and I wouldn't bend my knee to him even if he was the creator of the universe because I didn't get my morality from religion.

What's your take?

Sociopathic psychopath? That makes little sense. Sometimes I feel like people just use the words "sociopath" and "psychopath" as pejoratives whilst not understanding the psychiatric definition of those terms.

Quote from: DeltaEpsilon on August 18, 2016, 10:15:15 AM
Sociopathic psychopath? That makes little sense. Sometimes I feel like people just use the words "sociopath" and "psychopath" as pejoratives whilst not understanding the psychiatric definition of those terms.

Sociopath: a person with a personality disorder manifesting itself in extreme antisocial attitudes and behavior and a lack of conscience.

Psychopath: a person suffering from chronic mental disorder with abnormal or violent social behavior.

Used together we have extreme antisocial behavior, lack of conscience and violent behavior. Sounds like the god of the Old Testament to me.

Quote from: PopeyesPappy on August 18, 2016, 10:50:18 AM
Sociopath: a person with a personality disorder manifesting itself in extreme antisocial attitudes and behavior and a lack of conscience.

Psychopath: a person suffering from chronic mental disorder with abnormal or violent social behavior.

Used together we have extreme antisocial behavior, lack of conscience and violent behavior. Sounds like the god of the Old Testament to me.

Not quite your right about the definition of sociopath, but wrong about the definition of psychopath.

A psychopath is someone who has impaired emotions, they are incapable of feeling. These would lead to antisocial tendencies and a lack of conscience, no?

Donald Trump is often called a sociopath and a psychopath (I hate Trump but that's just ignorant). He may be an egotistical imbecile but I disagree.

I don't know Delta. Perhaps you are a mental health professional up on the current medical usage of the terms, but the definitions I listed are the first thing that comes up when you Google the definitions. They are common usage.

Webster's gives the following definition for psychopath.

Simple Definition of psychopath
: a person who is mentally ill, who does not care about other people, and who is usually dangerous or violent

A medical professional might not be happy with the way I used the words but given the definitions listed they accurately depicted the idea I was trying to communicate.

Quote from: PopeyesPappy on August 18, 2016, 10:21:22 PM
I don't know Delta. Perhaps you are a mental health professional up on the current medical usage of the terms, but the definitions I listed are the first thing that comes up when you Google the definitions. They are common usage.

Webster's gives the following definition for psychopath.

Simple Definition of psychopath
: a person who is mentally ill, who does not care about other people, and who is usually dangerous or violent

A medical professional might not be happy with the way I used the words but given the definitions listed they accurately depicted the idea I was trying to communicate.

Dictionaries don't always provide medical definitions. My source is my interpretation of diagnostic manuals but let's not get hung up of technicalities I just wanting to make a point about the misuse and overuse of psychiatric terms.

Quote from: DeltaEpsilon on August 18, 2016, 11:08:03 PM
Dictionaries don't always provide medical definitions. My source is my interpretation of diagnostic manuals but let's not get hung up of technicalities I just wanting to make a point about the misuse and overuse of psychiatric terms.

Highlighting added

Really? Thats strange, because in Psychiatry the preferred term is "Anti-Social Personality Disorder". "Sociopath" and "Psychopath" are not medical terms, and do not appear in DSM-V, the standard diagnostic manual used by psychiatrists worldwide.

Quote from: Duncle on August 21, 2016, 10:15:28 AM
Highlighting added

Really? Thats strange, because in Psychiatry the preferred term is "Anti-Social Personality Disorder". "Sociopath" and "Psychopath" are not medical terms, and do not appear in DSM-V, the standard diagnostic manual used by psychiatrists worldwide.

http://www.webmd.com/mental-health/features/sociopath-psychopath-difference

They're mutually exclusive.

Quote from: aitm on November 26, 2015, 09:24:35 PM
Of course, ANY perfect god would allow us to exist. Do you not understand what perfect means? Punishing anything for a gazillion billion years for a one day fuck up is not what a perfect god does, it is what a two year old does because they are a fucking two year old with no fucking sense.

Well, wouldn't we all just be in some sort of perrfect forever-unchanging utter wond...

Never mind, sounds kind of hellish...