Jack the Bodiless

A-Theist:

It is obviously not possible for a finite being, on Earth only for a few decades, to commit any crime worthy of infinite punishment.

The defense that "God is infinitely good, so any crime looks infinitely bad to him" fails on two counts. One, God as portrayed in the Bible isn't infinitely good (nor is he omnipotent, omniscient, omnipresent etc: the God of Christian theologians is not the God of the Bible). Two, being good doesn't mean being intolerant: good is defined by example in the New Testament using phrases such as "turn the other cheek" and "love thy neighbor".

And the punishment of innocents for the crimes of others is unjust by definition, because the concept of "justice" involves people "getting what they deserve".

Rather than mangling the meanings of "good" and "just", why don't Christians simply use more appropriate words? God is (almost) perfectly intolerant and perfectly vindictive. Any deviation from God's will triggers God's intolerance, and God's vindictiveness demands that somebody must suffer for it. The mercy offered via Jesus (allegedly) offers an escape from God's otherwise perfect intolerance and vindictiveness.

John E.D.P. Malin

David:

The notion that *god is Good and Just was imported in Christianity from the pagan philosopher Plato via the ancient learning of Neo-Platonist in late antiquity!

A reading of the ancient religious texts will reveal that *god is neither good nor just. He is tempermental, destructive and nasty. The ignorant modern minds of rabid religionists fail to note the anthropomorphisms and anthropopathisms in these ancient writings. Religion is pure psychiatric madness in the post-modern age!

Lord Malin

John E.D.P. Malin

Jack the Bodiless!

Right on! Stick to your guns! I assure you these religious dopes do not understand their ancient texts. They are too lazy to study classical Hebrew and classical Greek. They do not understand the historical ignorance of religion. If the ancients were alive today, they would scoff at our churches (they would consider them insane or mad babble); it is our banks and insurance buildings and staff they would view as religious: do ut des! [Latin technical term, "I give so that you may/might give (back to me)"!]

More later!


Lord Malin

xoc

Sorry Malin, but God is portrayed as both good and just in the Bible.
2CHR7:3;
Ps34:8;86:5;100:5;119:68;145:9
Mt.19:17

Gen 18:25
LEv 19:15
Deut 32:36
PS 7:11;96:10;Jer11:20;9:4; 9:16;101:1;
Isa 5:16; 28:17; 30:18;
Jer 10:24; 30:11;
Zep 3:5
Mal 2:17
Luk11:42
Ro3:25
Ac17:31

Whether or not you think it's "good and just" is another matter.

As I'm sure you'll know, (and as I've already mentioned) Socrates saw justice in the form of a "caste" system. The ruler would be a ruler, the farmer would be the farmer etc. and it would be unjust for it to be the other way around. Last time I checked Christian theologians do not use that definition as the justice of God.

Tani

my meditation on the matter:

if god has free will with good and just defined according to him, wether we agree to it or not, then it seems whether god is good or just is irrelvent. i mean what is the purpose of this godly good/just vs selfly good/just? god is not part of me (literally, no metaphors), and therefore selfly good/just must always be of preference... to make this point clear, it's basically not-my-definition-of-goodness/justice vs my-definition-of-goodness/justice, or not-understandable-goodness/justice vs understandable-goodness/justice. i will always take preference of my preference... basically a claim of identity, a triviality. if i believe the otherwise, as in denying this principle of identity, then i don't think anyone would even understand (logically) me since i would be defying logic.

but if god is not the sole measurement of good and just, then first there must be something more constant than him and as well more fundamental, also, it implies that of all possible worlds, there must be at least one world that god would be unjust or bad, or else god has no freewill (which makes him equivalent to that "something" that's constant and as well fundamental.). if god is the principle (hence no freewill, he can't be otherwise), then i would be conceiving something impossible, something that is anything but god (something more than the principle can describe), beyond god simply. basically, having freewill and being necessary good and just is not possible. after all, what is so free about not being free to commit injustice?

now the problem is if i were to let good and just be defined by god. then his goodness and justice is always irrelevent to me. clearly, if it is not good and just to me, it is not good and just to me. or i can change to a bad and unjust self later (according to my definition)... but i am not planning on it. on the other hand, if he can be bad and unjust, then obviously, he is not good and/or just. if god is good and just and he is the principle... then i am conceiving something beyond god.

it's one thing to say there's objective justice and another to say that i must subjectively deem it "just," while even when it is certainly unjust according to my definition. it's not merely a pun. it seems to be a self referencing problem. i can't justly (according to me, irrelevent to objective def.) accept something that's unjust (according to me irrelevent to objective def.). the alternative is really not a choice at all, since i would be talking about the possibility of the non-existence of either, and making any associations to goodness and justice pure abitrarity... which makes the whole point irrelevent before i even begin.

now to put it into prespective... my prespective of it that is:

fact: god is unjust according to me,

if god is just according to god's freewill, then his justice is irrelevent to me. if god is just according to a more fundamental principle (which god adheres to), then he is not the real deal, which i would assert here that, in such a case, not only him being good and just would be irrelevent to me, _he_ would be irrelevent to me.

if god is unjust... well, what's the point to even defend him?

if god is just for the case cannot be the otherwise, then i am conceiving something beyond god. again, that makes _him_ personally irrelevent to me. i mean, what does he know about my predicament, literally?

if god is neither just or unjust... well, like i said earlier, the whole point would be pointless.

basically, after all my mumbo jumbo, what i'm trying to say is: since i am conceiving something that is beyonds the bound of godly good and just, god is either just/good (in his own terms) and completely irrelevent to me, or god is not just/good (in my terms) which is unacceptable to me.

if i don't see god just, then no matter how anyone redefine justice, he will still be not just to me, and i can never justly accept his injustice as justice. if i were to prove the otherwise, i would fist have to prove that there is justice, and then god is justice, and then how i don't need to see it just to be just, or without knowing it just for it to be just and then to accept it as just without seeing/knowing or accepting (which now makes no sense) it just. to claim i should accept god's justice becuase of something else other than justice... then i would be saying justice is irrelevent... pointless to even talk about justice then.

or i can accept it against my own reason... but then, in such a case, if i were to accept god, i would not accept god. what am i accepting if i were to accept that? i.e. if i were to be able to accept contradictions, i would not be able to accept contradictions.

no one who accept god as good and just can convince me since i really can't conceive someone negating a supposedly inconceivable (to him/her) position.

calvaryson

The purpose of punishing crimes is to punish for wrong doing or law breaking not to deter crime. If there is deterence as a result, then it is as a consequence. People who know right from wrong(most of us), fear punsishment when they do wrong, including in the spiritual realm.

doink-chan

I think that God is a big doink. He flooded the entire world just because there were a few more doinks on it. Then the big demiurge in the sky killed innocent babies in Egypt, and gave Job sores that he didn't deserve. He also hates women and urges the Hebrews to rape and kill women and children in cities they conquer. And that is why I think God is a doink.

Jack the Bodiless

I disagree. There are Biblical claims that God is good, just, omnipotent, omnipresent, omniscient etc, but the Biblical God does not act in a manner consistent with these claims. It's as if someone wrote a factually accurate history of the Nazis, complete with details of the Holocaust, but inserted claims that the Nazis were kind and gentle. The claims don't fit the portrayal. The labels don't match the deeds described.

We're left with a "good" God who inflicts eternal torment, a "just" God who punishes innocents for the sins of others, an "omnipotent" God who is powerless against chariots of iron, an "omnipresent" God who has to come down to Earth to see what's going on, an "omniscient" God who has to go looking for Adam and Eve and needs to "test" people, and so forth. The "omnimax" attributes have been crudely tacked on to a rather ordinary "big guy in the sky" tribal totem god, who plainly lacks them.

HRG

This "purpose" sounds quite tautological ("The purpose of punishment is to punish"). Most theories about punishment contain nowadays general and special deterrence, as well as improvement of the improvable offender, or protection from further harm by the "non-improvable offender.

HRG.

SeaKayaker

David Gould,

Oops! I thought that there was a message to which I was going to reply on the “Insight into the existence of God (Jesus)” thread, but I could not remember what it was (and it was hidden in all of the unrelated messages). Because of the separate topics on that thread, I suggest that we consider that discussion now moved to this post (unless you object).

If God is just by the human definition, then you have nothing to fear from Him as long as you obey Him (since His commands are law). If you disobey Him, then He has the right to punish you. Since all men have fallen short of the glory of God, you have disobeyed Him and do deserve His punishment.

If God were to operate on some radically different definitions of good and just, you would be right. However, I do not necessarily think that you have exactly a Biblical idea of goodness and justice. If God were only just, you would not be alive.

I do not see that as a problem in your argument at this point.

I realize that you are not advocating this idea, but I still think that it shows an important aspect of your thinking. God could justly condemn all people to Hell. However, it is through His mercy that He does not do so, but rather saves some people. Therefore, when you talk of people receiving condemnation for their actions, they deserve the punishment that they receive. This does not violate God’s justice. In other words, I think that your confusion is over what God requires of man. God can justly condemn a person to Hell who violates His law (if you do not agree with this, we need to address it).

SeaKayaker