What's so unappealing about the concept of a vengeful God?

Post Reply New Topic

Here's my problem - the likelihood of your being someone's enemy in a similar fashion, maybe not in the same magnitude but there nonetheless is pretty good. Some people really don't care, they'll dance on other people's toes, other people step on a few when they feel they have to, the rest try not to but its like being at the beach and trying not to step on sand which even then - there are times when you need to step on some people's toes out of obligation, in ways that the bible is agnostic on and may even punish the fallout of; hence owning the burdens and responsibilities of being a 'man' 'woman', aka. an adult.

With the limits of free will, I'm not sure where God would draw the line. In the world as it is, when you look at the evil in it - it looks more like the people who are seemingly evil are really there to test the good and toughen them up, make them grow, and think of it like this - if the good are going to toughen up, be adults, be etched and firm, evil in this world is a necessity and a God who loved us so much as to count every hair on our heads who would also know the exact probability of two parents raising a kid with a specific genetic set and having that kid turn out one way or the other, its not even close to equal. True, plenty of people again just let it go, they choose to be sheisty, being a***holes, pricks, backstabbers, shows confidence in and in the animal world showing the guts to be cruel for nothing is a true sign of alphahood and superiority; we have that in us in spades. The question also for the bullied though is, would they face judgment for not confronting or taking down the bully? It gets really weird when you take all of these things into account, then again its why I guess I can't get too riled against capital punishment - after all if someone does something terrible, even if its them acting on genetic or fate predestiny; actions still have consequences and its all part of the equation.

I'd fully agree with that notion, just that I'd consider it wrong-think when a Christian would take that on as an excuse. If anything you'd figure that someone who just sits there and lets evil happen would likely be condemned right along with those enacting the evil as enablers and if there was a hell would find just as hot a corner within it. Whether you'd like to admit it or not though, this is one of those areas where likely have more in common with George W Bush than you'd like to admit .

I never said it wasn't up to us. I realize the immense power that fear holds over others and that may be the only motive an amoral person has for refraining from crime. It is our duty to administer justice.

Crime is probably mostly driven by personal circumstance. Poverty, drug needs, racial discrimination and within a marriage situation the fury of total frustration within couples. Religion is probably pretty ineffective under these pressures.

This is one thing that I have always hated our western society. Our laws and social customs are heavily taken from the ancient social mores of the Italians and Greeks.

That the whole point of justice is to to punish strikes me as wrong headed. Justice is redress for a victim. It is a preventive action for society. To offer injury for injury, spite for spite is evil.

I wish that our ancestors had preserved the northern Judicial traditions. Weregeld is much better than state administrated(or private) blood revenge.

There is a very obvious question that I need to ask... why did this omnipotent, omniscient diety invent evil in the first place?

In other words, the victims should be the only ones to suffer? Would you allow a serial killer or child molester to go free without facing the consequences of his actions?

Some crimes are inexcusable. These are heinous crimes such as rape, child abuse and molestation, random serial killings, robbery followed by murder, drive by shootings, killing someone for a pair of Nike sneakers and so forth are not justifiable by any means. Religion may be ineffective for some but harsh punishments administered by the state may do the trick.

Last edited by timeisdead on 13 May 2009, 2:31 am, edited 1 time in total.

As God created us all with free will in order to test us. Human create evil through their actions while exercising their God-given free will.

Harsh punishments are not always better at controlling crime, in fact they seem counter-productive. It's cutting off the hydra's heads. What really keeps crime down is actually investigating the causes of it.

America pours a lot of money into punishing criminals, and very little into rehabilitating criminals, and also has one of the largest income equality gaps in the world. It doesn't come as a surprise that America is leading in the world in number of prisoners both by percentage and by number. That's right, you beat China.

Here are some essays if you want to read more about it.

Inconceivable. Free will as a concept is ridiculous.

Let's just say that we can choose to do what we want... but we can't choose what we actually want.

An omniscient, omnipotent being also knows exactly what you're going to do.

Because that means that I would face the same judgment.



They're just dead. No hell. No heaven. Just dead.



Those that are able to comprehend a universe larger than themselves recognize that the world does not revolve around them, and thus, life can be unfair. Justice is a concept created by fallible sentient beings, it is not actually a real and tangible thing.



So you've made yourself into a vengeful god? How very arrogant. The world is ****ed up, time to get used to it.



No view of hell makes any sense. To apply such petty human emotions such as anger and vengeance to an all-knowing deity is just silly.



If you're enlightened, you attempt to reform them, there is no sense of "punishment". If you're unenlightened, you make your own fascistic judgments on others.



There is no such thing as an amoral person, just as there is no such thing as a moral person. Morals are, again, a concept created by fallible sentient beings, they are not some real tangible law of the world. Even a serial killer has some basic morals that he will instinctively follow, even as he violates the most basic tenet of our general social "agreement".

Your thought to use fear to spread your personal moral vision is fascistic and offensive to my view of personal liberties.



This is a common but incredibly weak argumentative tactic. Appeal to emotion.



All crimes are excusable, if by excusable you mean "will still allow you to be treated like a human being, and hopefully made to see the error in your ways so that you can improve yourself and offer some benefit to society". You're just appealing to emotion again. Behind those heinous crimes are acts even more heinous in that they created a time-line wherein these acts could be committed. There are not bad people, but there are bad parents.



Personally, I don't like the idea that God is ****ing with me. Also, if you believe in God, you can't believe in free will. There is a leap in basic logic that should be glaringly obvious to anyone with average skills of comprehension. God and no free will, no God and free will, no God and no free will, but you can't have God and free will, it is logically impossible.

As a Christian, would you agree that the new testaments admonishment to "turn the other cheek" supplants the old Testaments "An eye for an eye"?

Knowledge does not necessarily imply intervention.

It does, if we are talking about something omnipotent.

If you are a good person, you have nothing to worry about.



So therefore those who are evil should be permitted to harm innocents based on their whims?


Only a perpetual victim would ever utter such words.




Afraid of the fact your sociopathic behavior may have future consequences?



Try reforming some of the prison inmates in for rape or murder; let's see how far that goes. You have to be pretty naive to think that there aren't those that derive pleasure from harming innocents. Everyone can be reasoned with? You can't be serious.....


My definition of morality is not based on social agreement but rather whether or not the action in question will have a negative impact on an innocent life.



What personal liberties would these be?



I see. You are negating the emotions of those who have suffered from heinous crimes. Sociopathy perhaps?


Let's all hold hands and everything will be A-OK! A child abuser couldn't possibly mean any harm right?



That is if you assume God controls every action in the known universe. I personally don't believe it.

Last edited by timeisdead on 13 May 2009, 4:17 am, edited 2 times in total.