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

Post Reply New Topic

The raw ability to do something does not translate into actually performing the action.

Jesus specifically mentions the right here , even though a blow from a right-handed person would normally fall on the left cheek. This probably means that the blow is delivered with the back of the hand, since then it would indeed fall on the right cheek. We know for certain that such a blow was considered particularly insulting. The injustice that is willingly accepted here is therefore not so much a matter of body injury as of shame. (H.N. Ridderbos. "Matthew": Bible Students Commentary. Zondervan. p. 113)

Well, it's the nature of the judgment that bothers me, really. Further, I don't believe in moral absolutes, and as such do not believe that a person can be "good" or "bad".



You miss the point. We can debate all day about how society should deal with those that deviate from "acceptable" human activity. The point is that there is no real standard for "justice", just like so many other things, it is relative, open to interpretation. So using the abstract idea as the basis for a moral absolute is not just illogical, but in my view, dangerous.



That's quite a judgment. No, I am merely being a realist. My negative feelings are not the result of the way the world has treated me, they are much more the result of how the world treats others. I count myself lucky tbh.



Sociopath - a person, as a psychopathic personality, whose behavior is antisocial and who lacks a sense of moral responsibility or social conscience.

A few things. First, you are being judgmental and arrogant, actually quite offensive. I do not find that the definition for sociopath applies correctly to me. I have a sense of moral responsibility, I just don't believe in moral absolutes. I absolutely have a social conscience.

Secondly, there is no fear of consequences. The idea of hell is absurd to me.



It's been done. If we had a more enlightened prison system, it would be done more often.



Right. But I'm not naive because I don't think that. Your assumptions are becoming larger.



And now you're misquoting me. Reading comprehension ftl.



Ok, that is fine. My *personal* take on morality is much the same, but who are we to say that this is "right".

Even within this realm of thought about positive and negative impact on others, there is much room for relative perception. I, for one, believe indoctrinating children with religion has a immensely negative impact on others, but I doubt you would feel the same.



Freedom from all moral crusaders. My definition of personal liberty - You have the right to do anything, so long as it does not directly affect the rights of others.



It's just another appeal to emotion.



The point is to change the things that led to that person meaning harm, or to retroactively remove their desire to do harm. Not to let them do it.



So you're saying that God is not all-powerful, not all-knowing? Then he's not really much of a god is he?

Is it truly fair that in your system of justice the victim would suffer but not the perpetrator? I perfectly understand that you wish to prevent these crimes but the fact of the matter is they always would occur no matter how significantly the crime rate is reduced.


Why should those who are stepped on in life passively allow others to victimize them? It's best to take life into your own hands.



From where do you derive your social conscience?





What exactly would be done in an enlightened prison system?




And are you not giving the right to harm others by ensuring there would be no negative consequences to a person's actions?



This in itself doesn't make my statement any less truthful.



Remove their desire? And how exactly would that be done?


None of these characteristics imply constant direct intervention.

I think we can both agree that Jesus supported state administered Justice. He had nothing to say nor did he effect an escape from punishment for the men crucified along side him.

But are you saying that Jesus advised striking out of malice, out of anger? Did he ever suggest seeking revenge? Are you claiming that Jesus advocated causing pain or suffering?

If we further assume that the alleged diety is omniscient, and created the universe, doesn't that mean the diety would know exactly what would happen, IOW the diety performed the action?

EDIT: 1000th post. Nice.

It is possible to know something is about to occur without stepping in to intervene. If the deity gives free will to his creation and thus man, his creation, performed these actions. If the deity has given man free will, he bears no responsibility. As life can be thought of as a test, this is akin to asking why a trigonometry professor would allow some students to fail his class. Both the teacher and the deity provide instruction, but in the end, it's ultimately up to the individual student.

But there is no free will in a universe with an ominpotent, omniscient diety. Sigh.

Give up. Some people are incapable of seeing the consequences of their premises.

Sorry I haven't responded for so long, my work gets in the way sometimes.

You have to look at the idea of "fair" in a different way to understand where I'm coming from. To me "fairness" is another one of those relative abstract concepts, so it means different things to different people. Is it fair to the victim of a crime that the crime was committed, of course not, but does the punishment of the criminal really make things fair? I would say no. The victim and the victim's loved ones are still getting a raw deal, no matter what happens to the criminal. If you don't think that punishment creates a fair situation, then why are you doing it? I would say it is a negative human emotion, vengeance, which comes out of our reactionary nature. I think, while understanding and sympathizing with the emotions of those hurt by the crime, we should also seek to deny this emotional element while we are constructing policy. It is not that the emotion does not matter, just that it does not help create good policy decisions.

If your goal is remove the unfair element of random crime, which I agree, is highly unlikely to ever be completely removed from society, I think the best method is honest reform as opposed to petty punishment.



I completely agree with this actually, though I'm not exactly sure of the context in relation to the statement I made.



I think it's mostly derived from my upbringing, and specifically from my parents. I think it's instinctual for parents to teach their offspring about how to survive in the world, and an element to that is how to get along with others of the species.



I could write a book right now, and there are books that have been written on just this subject. In short, less emphasis on doing time, and more emphasis on using that time to your advantage. Emphasis on education, rehabilitation and reform.

I would suggest you look for yourself



You assume that my version of prison would be a Disneyland. There would still be negative consequences, such as giving up your day to day life, friends, family, etc. But once you got into the prison you would be made to improve yourself as opposed to languish among other criminals.



As a matter of fact it does. "Truth" is another one of those relative abstract ideas. Do I believe you honestly mean your statement, yes, I do. But there is no fact in your statement, it is just reflective of your opinion.



A lot of crime results from a criminal not respecting others, which is generally due to them not respecting themselves. Once someone respects themselves, they recognize that others likely have this self-respect, and that creates a personification that changes them from "next victim" to "fellow individual". You have to get deep into psychology for this sort of discussion.



I've gone over this point too many times to count. I'll try and lay it out real quick, but I don't expect you to understand this.

If God knows all, he knows our path, he knows our future. You would say he allows us to make our own decisions, but if he knows all, he ultimately knows what we will decide. If there is knowledge of this decision, then it's not really a decision. There are not divergent paths of possibility, because that would make something unknown to God, who knows all.

It's like Back To The Future II. Biff gets that betting magazine with all the sports results of the last xx years, goes back in time with it, and gets rich. To the residents of the correct time period, these sports results are still up in the air, they could still go either way. But for Biff, who is now all-knowing (in regards to sports results), knows how these contests will be decided.

Mostly in your head. Justice is a concept and a notion, not a fact in the world.

ruveyn

Maybe there's no 'deserve' about it. Maybe the bliss just is.

Maybe morality only exists on a human level because we're in a material world, locked into perceiving ourselves as separate beings with conflicting desires, and we've evolved (well, some of us) to be intelligent enough to realize that rules, and penalties for breaking them, are a good way to make sure we don't all tear each other's throats out. None of which need have anything to do with God.

The assumption that there is something called 'divine justice' that works on the same premise as human justice is a big one. If God can be hurt and offended and need to punish humans, then God must have an ego. That's making God out to be just a Big Person (and given that God's morality almost always corresponds closely to that of the people invoking him for that purpose, it's usually a Big Me). That's just as much idolatry as if you seriously thought he had a long white beard.

Well, ever wondered why theists persist in calling the diety "he", saying it's otherwise "too impersonal"?