Yes, no question.
Last question: Should punching an 80 year old woman in the face be punished equally to punching the drunk trucker in the bar, as long as both only suffer with a black eye?
Upvote
0
Yes, no question.
I find that rather puzzling... I run into good people all the time, and I consider myself a good person as well.
Last question: Should punching an 80 year old woman in the face be punished equally to punching the drunk trucker in the bar, as long as both only suffer with a black eye?
No, it's not irrelevant. I just want to see if we are on the same page. So, does whom the crime is inflicted against have any bearing at all on the punishment?You're talking apples and oranges. The punishment for hate crimes is still a finite punishment for a finite crime. It may be more serious than a similar non-hate crime, but that's irrelevant.
Well, even there I'd have to disagree. If you positively believe things that you can't demonstrate to be true, that is irrational. Even if your belief is internally consistent, that doesn't make it a rational belief.
How is making morality anthropocentric not a presupposition? Seriously, can you please explain this to me.Whereas I disagree that those are presuppositions
What should compel GOd to care more about animate sentient beings than inanimate objects?1) Morality is anthropocentric: First off, as I stated in a previous post "sentient being-centric" would be a better label.
First off, we can demonstrate that moral actions, moral judgments, moral consequences, etc have a major and direct impact on humans and human society. Therefore, humans clearly play a role in morality.
To move beyond that and show that morality is not anthropocentric, we would then need to show something else non-human that plays a direct role in moral actions, judgments, etc.
Yes, but you can be entirely lacking certain things without its antithesis. I already demonstrated this in my discussion of the concept of forgiveness.If your goal is a perfectly pure example of anything, you can not achieve a purer form of something by adding it's antithesis into the mix.
As I mentioned in a previous post, you don't need evil in order to run into situations that require a level of forgiveness. Showing up late for a lunch date, or being clumsy and breaking someone's glass are acts that require a level of forgiveness, but aren't evil.
As for serious crimes, or genuine examples of evil, I'd say the world would be a better place without that. A world where you forgive the person who murdered your kid is not as good as a world where your kid didn't get murdered at all. A world where a woman forgives her rapist is not as good as a world in which she hadn't been raped in the first place, etc.
Heaven is a place which is commonly defined as being perfectly good. There is a complete absence of evil and sin in heaven.
Based upon your argument, heaven could then be improved by allowing Satan in the door to spread around some evil.
If you don't agree that the inclusion of evil would make heaven a better place, then you are forced into admitting a place of perfect goodness is a place that lacks all evil.
I was referring to Augustine
Yes.
Most people find it more tragic when the poor are robbed from instead of the rich, because they can afford it less, or woman are hit instead of men, because of common decency.
Because I am yet to meet a good person, and I bet you are not one either.
Are you asserting that we can go about throwing terms like "evil," "injustice" and "righteousness" around without even reflecting upon what our measure even is? There has to be some sort of definition to what evil is, and evil to whom, for us to speak about it meaningfully.
Not if by Him not being glorified as much as He can be is considered "injury."
True, but this is not a thread on that. I am not here positively asserting that claim.
Because if a man wants to be treated like God (which many do) he does wrong, because he actually isn't. If God wants to be exalted as God, well, that would be truthful and consistent with His character.
If by "good," you mean "morally perfect," then you're not likely to ever met someone who is "good." But why do we deserve worse? Why do we deserve eternal torment for not being morally perfect?
But why would it be? How does him not being glorified do him harm? Are you suggesting that human beings have the capacity to harm a deity simply by withholding worship from him?
You are assuming that being a God is enough to merit worship. Why? If that were enough, then why is it still necessary for that God set up a situation in which "mistakes" are inevitable by design, for him to then intervene to fix those mistakes solely for his own glorification? That is consistent with the character of a narcissist constantly in need of praise.
Because God is holy very simply. His requirements are moral perfection. Be ye holy, for I am holy, and be ye perfect, for I am perfect come to mind.
God is by definition, a being worthy of worship.
And do not be put off by our usage of the word "worship". We are creatures who worship. We all worship something or someone. It is who we are.
Which still doesn't answer the question. Why should human beings be punished with eternal torture for not being divine?
I'm not convinced that that is part of the definition. If a God exists, he may not require or demand worship at all.
When I hear of the problem of evil, I think of that event that happened where some under 6 yr old girl was kept and raped for 7+ years and think that some believe that a deity watched it and heard her prayers.
Every hour.
Every day.
And did nothing.
I cannot fathom the kind of justification one has to go through to not be sickened and appalled, nor the incredible mental gymnastics one has to go through to "bigger picture" it.
God sees everything that happens on the face of the earth. He sees far more horrific things than you have heard of or seen or will ever see.
He saw His sinless Son being tortured and beat beyond recognition and nailed to a cross between two criminals.
Christ Himself was a man of sorrows and acquainted with grief.
He bore our sins, our pain, our sorrow, and our heartache while He was hanging on the cross.
Pain and suffering are only seen aright when viewed in light of the cross.
I think in general people forget gods don't owe their creation anything, and we have broken, and confinhr to break Universal Law. There are punishments for doing this; we would expect the justice system to do its job against a proven murderer. We broke Universal Law. We aren't owed anything.
We aren't owed a life without murder, rape, assault, ailment, trauma, etc... When you don't have problems is a blessing, because our genetic father and mother chose to abdicate their dominion of this planet to something else in exchange for knowledge of good and evil. Imperfection cannot breed perfection. People cause problems for people, not God.
This life is a class to learn. 120 years compared to several googols of years in eternity is nothing.
My parents created me and I don't think they owe me anything. But, I am glad they never said things like, "You brought that raping upon yourself, you know, when you look at the bigger picture. You were born, and everything."
God doesn't say that either. But, He is natural, and will allow everything to happen according to how it is supposed to naturally happen. Even "miracles" are natural, as well as the "super"natural.
But, let's not forget who started this s*** show in the first place. It is our sin that perpetuated this world as rotten as it is. It isn't God's fault it is ours. We lie. We spread thin our sexual intimacy. We murder our own kind. We exploit each other.
You don't need a Satan because we humans destroy enough ourselves. Satan/Azazel, that very one that tempted Adam and Eve - his name means "scapegoat." Satans have become scapegoats of deflection of responsibility. People are horrible enough without needing to blame a god, or using a scapegoat.
He has intervened in the past by specifically not allowing things to naturally take their natural unimpeded course, and directly influencing things.
Given that, he actively chooses when to "naturally" allow things or to "naturally" make things happen, that otherwise wouldn't have.
He makes a choice.
This sounds like something that a caricature of a 1950's abused wife would say about her husband, and it totally being her fault; she deserves it. But it hurts him that she's in pain.
But she did deserve it.