What if there is a God and that God is perfect?...

[GSOgymrat]

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.

[aitm]

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.

[Baruch]

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.

[aitm]

... 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.

[GSOgymrat]

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.

[Baruch]

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.

[aitm]

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.

[Baruch]

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.

[aitm]

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

[stromboli]

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

[aitm]

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.

[Mr.Obvious]

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

[Unbeliever]

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?

[Solomon Zorn]

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.

[Solomon Zorn]

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.