Is God’s law relevant without enforcement?

[Greatest I am]

If with 'religious authority' you mean God, then why not trust Him? If you mean man ("a man"), then why trust him?

You would trust him, whoever that is, just as you now trust those and the laws you follow right now.

Or more importantly, why do you think people won't be just as divided by any proposed Way?

Like now, if you happened to vote for the guy that did not make it, it does not matter. you still follow the laws that are there or will change.

You're waiting for a messiah, but you don't want authority and you don't seem to trust anyone for that role.

Messiah sounds like some supernatural entity. I do not believe in the supernatural. If you mean just a man who will unite us then fine.

It won't square. How would you, personally, believe what he says and follow him?

No problem. I do that now with whoever I vote for. So do you.

Let's say he tells you to "love your neighbour as yourself," what will your response be? "Good rhetoric but that is all it is"?

Yes and he is that stupid he will never get elected.

Or he might say: "I have divine authority." Will you answer "drop your literal God"? He might simply say "everyone follow me" and you will call those who do "sheeple".

I have no idea how you propose anything will be different with another person or principle to unite under if it isn't in some way authoritative.

Drop the crap. No such idiot would be elected right?
He would have authority. We collectively would give it to him just like we give authority to someone now.

Regards
DL

 

[Greatest I am]

Per definition, God's law is 1. relevant, 2. enforced. If it weren't, it wouldn't be God's law.
Because God is the Creator, the Maintainer, the Controller of the Universe and everything in it. He has the first and the last word, so to speak.

Wow. You really have your head up Gods ass.

Other than hear say, how do you know all this and what evidence are you offering. Hear say is so useless.
Faith without facts is for fools friend. how some facts or even a logic trail.
have you had an apotheosis to prove your God/ i have had mine to prove the Godhead I follow so let's exchange FACTS.

Regards
DL

 

[Greatest I am]

I believe the big three as in Judaism, Islam, and Christianity can easily be combined, or at least practiced in a way of tolerance. However for that to happen people have to realize their "bibles" are flawed as they are written by men, I believe todays top and most tolerant theologians could write a compatible text without actually changing much of the message. All religions are supposed to teach us to treat each other well, especially our own people.. the only thing is today the entire world population needs to be considered "our people".

It is possible to have a God and a faith and yet not be idiots bent on world dominion. Actually science is not incompatible with such a faith.

We will always have a god because not everyone will be comfortable in an understanding of how we got here.. which science cannot ever really explain really if we are honest. I see no problem with people using an intelligent design option, because honestly we don't know if we are actually a product of supreme intelligence or not. If people take comfort in our short little spec of a lifetime by having a little hope it means something.. fine with me. But lets be intellectually honest about what that creator would have us do to our fellow human beings and for them. I don't think a God would care for quibbling over things we cannot understand, or punish us for rejecting what we cannot prove as ify. If there is such a thing, then its only real concern would be our evolution and probably our ethics and culture.. our society. I would say we are not impressing anyone at this point...

Not badly said at all.

I agree with most except-----you remark on I D.
It would likely be ok if the literalists and fundamentals did like the pope and put God past the big bang and gave evolution the veracity it deserves. Unfortunately, as the Dino museum attests, they will not. The U S courts found as they were kicking their I D buts that there was collusion and lies within the I D community and i am afraid that that will continue as they push their 6 day creation B S.

As to the rest of your post. Keep up the good thinking.

Regards
DL

 

[Gremmie]

Wow. You really have your head up Gods ass.

I can't stop laughing...I have never heard anyone say that before..

I mean, I have heard of one having ones own head up their own ass, just never God's.

I immediately had this visual of seeing the heavenly colon etc...

Thanks for the laugh, I needed it.

 

[Greatest I am]

.

I cannot link you but please check this site first.

http://www.raceandhistory.com/historicalviews/doubtingexodus.htm

To read a book literally that begins with talking animals and a water walkind immortal God who can somehow die is ridiculous.

You believe the Bible yet it can be shown in many ways to have unworkable laws and a genocidal God.
Would you follow Hitler for God’s sake? If not, what are you doing following the mythical O T genocidal fool?

If the above link does not make you think then try your morals on this.

Judgment and punishment go hand in hand.

Our human laws have a form of punishment where the penalty is graduated to fit the crime. An eye for an eye type of justice.
God‘s punishment seems to surpass this standard.

The definition I am comparing here is the eternal fire and torture type of hell and I am not particularly interested in the myriad of other definitions and theories that some use to supplant this traditional view.


To ascertain if hell would be a moral construct or not, all you need do is answer these
simple question for yourself.

1. Is it good justice for a soul to be able to sin for only 120 years and then have to suffer torture for 12000000000000000000000000 + years?

2. Is it good justice for small or mediocre sinners to have to bear the same sentence as Hitler, Stalin and other genocidal maniacs?
This might actually include God if you see Noah’s flood as God using genocide and not justice against man. Pardon the digression.

Punishment is usually only given to change attitude or actions and cause the sinner to repent.

3. Is it good justice to continue to torture a soul in hell if no change in attitude or actions are to result?

4. If you answered yes to these questions, then would killing the soul not be a better form of justice than to torture it for no possible good result or purpose?

Is hell moral construct or not?

Please explain your reasons and know that ---just because God created it ---does not explain your moral judgment. It is your view I seek and not God’s as no one can speak for God.

Regards
DL

 

[Greatest I am]

http://www.raceandhistory.com/historicalviews/doubtingexodus.htm

 

[Greatest I am]

I can't stop laughing...I have never heard anyone say that before..

I mean, I have heard of one having ones own head up their own ass, just never God's.

I immediately had this visual of seeing the heavenly colon etc...

Thanks for the laugh, I needed it.

You are welcome. Just thank God, so to speak, I have yet to find a cartoon of it.

I did find a picture of God/Adam/Jesus/Eve.

Now I know what this means.

Genesis 1:27
So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them.
Genesis 1:26-28
Male and female created he them; and blessed them, and called their name Adam, in the day when they were created.

http://imgur.com/a/9NF9T

Regards
DL

 

[NMSquirrel]

good discussion..
the only thing i could add is just a different version of the OP question..

Do we have to be punished to learn?

 

[lightgigantic]

good discussion..
the only thing i could add is just a different version of the OP question..

Do we have to be punished to learn?

only if we fail to learn through hearing or seeing others punished along similar lines

 

[lightgigantic]

Is God’s law relevant without enforcement?

Most of us follow secular laws regardless of what our religious laws say.
In fact, those who sometimes follow what they think is the laws of God are often punished by secular law if the believer breaks a secular law in following the law of his God.
We follow secular law primarily for altruistic purposes or from fear of retribution or enforcement. That and most recognize that Biblical law is draconian, outdated and unworkable.

its the very nature of appearing in this world to be in the grip of god's enforcement.

Practically we spend our entire lives moving from one ordeal of enforcement to another.

Has God then become redundant as most of us follow a secular God, so to speak, who can enforce and explain the logic behind that law and change them as we evolve?

Its not clear how secular law has over-ridden epic issues that frame birth, death, old age or sufferings caused by other living entities or even one's own mind.

I mean I can't imagine how practical it would be for a community to declare misery and misfortune illegal, no matter how suave the law enforcement agency is.

Does that mean that the trend of religiosity will continue to decline, as it has of late, and that the near or further history of man will result in no religion at all or in one that has little to no meaning to the daily lives of the vast majority?

religiousity does shirk in the face of gross materialism ... however its the nature of gross materialism to run off the tracks and fall into catastrophe hence religiousity is constantly going through cycles of dimishing and re-establishment and reformation.

Its kind of like winter. Afterwards comes spring (and so on).

Having said this and if you think it holds some truth, do you think the religious should be confronted to help religion die as soon as possible?
Is religion, as it is, holding back other more worthy endeavors based on reality and not myth, fantasy and magical thinking?

Confronted?
With what?
Balaclavas? Book burning?

Please Google Why Religion Should Be Confronted by Victor Stenger for a good article on this issue.

"Whoever imagines himself a favorite with God,
holds other people in contempt.

hence humility is the key to actually being a favourite of god, as opposed to merely imagining it.

Whenever a man believes that he has the exact truth from God,
there is in that man no spirit of compromise.

well duh
That's the modus operandi of anyone who has the foggiest in absolutely any ideological framework.

Sheesh.
I mean its not like we see a spirit of compromise in your ambitions to make religion die, do we?

He has not the modesty born of the imperfections of human nature;

On the contrary, there are tons of scriptural commentaries that more or less conclude on the point that if there is one thing you can be certain of, its that you are fallible

he has the arrogance of theological certainty and the tyranny born of ignorant assurance.

gawd
as if atheistic certainty paints a different picture ....

Believing himself to be the slave of God,
he imitates his master,
and of all tyrants,
the worst is a slave in power."
--Robert Ingersoll

if you read a bit of history you will see that when theism goes off the rails due to imitating god (which is a good job description for the gross materialist, even the atheistic variety), it usually results in reformation

This quote, if true, shows that religions will never unite or cooperate enough to help us solve problems that can only be solved by a world government or world body that is given authority by the all of the people; religious or not.

lol
Dude, I bet you don't even live in a household that solves its problems in a uniform politically conglomerate fashion, much less entertaining a pipe dream about how a world bereft of religion makes for a world bereft of all or even most (or even some) political difference

Is it time for secular tolerance to be moved to a more firm demand that the religious of all stripe either accept their Gods as myths only so that we can progress or should secularists lay back and allow religions to keep us in our progressive doldrums as we see our world ecology and economies cause severe hardship for all of us?

I don't think I recall a single religious figure calling the shots or even giving a POV on the recent GFC or on green house gas trade emissions or whatever.


Actually there is only one thing that is driving the economy and the destruction of the environment : Greed.

While there have been quite a few incidents where religion has played that card, I think only an idiot would think that its only theists who have it in their deck

 

[wynn]

Wow. You really have your head up Gods ass.

Other than hear say, how do you know all this and what evidence are you offering. Hear say is so useless.
Faith without facts is for fools friend. how some facts or even a logic trail.
have you had an apotheosis to prove your God/ i have had mine to prove the Godhead I follow so let's exchange FACTS.

Regards
DL

What I said simply follows from general theistic definitions.

For example, God is by definition omnipotent, so there is no question of proving whether God is omnipotent or not.
What may be elaborated upon is how we, humans, can understand this omnipotence.

 

[wynn]

Thanks for this.

If the law was good, you would think that God himself would be able to keep it.
Take the big 10. God kills, God lies and causes to lie. He covets.
Even the divorce law is unjust and unworkable.

Think on these and see if you agree.

If that is not bad enough, just answer thefollowing and you will see that even his punishment is unjust.

Judgment and punishment go hand in hand.

Our human laws have a form of punishment where the penalty is graduated to fit the crime. An eye for an eye type of justice.
God‘s punishment seems to surpass this standard.

The definition I am comparing here is the eternal fire and torture type of hell and I am not particularly interested in the myriad of other definitions and theories that some use to supplant this traditional view.


To ascertain if hell would be a moral construct or not, all you need do is answer these
simple question for yourself.

1. Is it good justice for a soul to be able to sin for only 120 years and then have to suffer torture for 12000000000000000000000000 + years?

2. Is it good justice for small or mediocre sinners to have to bear the same sentence as Hitler, Stalin and other genocidal maniacs?
This might actually include God if you see Noah’s flood as God using genocide and not justice against man. Pardon the digression.

Punishment is usually only given to change attitude or actions and cause the sinner to repent.

3. Is it good justice to continue to torture a soul in hell if no change in attitude or actions are to result?

4. If you answered yes to these questions, then would killing the soul not be a better form of justice than to torture it for no possible good result or purpose?

Is hell moral construct or not?

Please explain your reasons and know that ---just because God created it ---does not explain your moral judgment. It is your view I seek and not God’s as no one can speak for God.

Regards
DL

Some popular form of Christianity is not the alpha and omega of theism, you know ...

 

[SnakeLord]

Like you said, this is the role the Bible plays - it's the record of a people's experience with a specific God.

1. This is where we tend to hit a brick wall because - as it currently stands - most christians tend to not believe half of the stories, (especially in the OT), and even themselves consider those who do as fundamentalist lunatics.

Although, having said that, I'm sure AIG and other such websites still get enough followers who do take these things as literally true.

The moment the bible is considered to be fallible, the moment any 'trust' in what it might say is completely lost.

2. I wouldn't say that such record really does such god any favours. It seems, upon spending any time with said entity, that the majority seemingly did not trust him or want to be around him. Not only a portion of his angels but countless 'followers' instead who, given just a short time to themselves, considered it more appropriate to put their trust in an inanimate cow shaped statue.

Israel trusted this God because He miraculously led them out of Egypt.

I disagree - they complained that their slavemasters treated them better, god then proceeded to kill them.

It simply isn't true that only people who believe in God fall for quackery

Of course not, that was not my statement or intention by it.

Similarly, good science is critical for reasonable faith because it helps to shape an accurate picture of reality

This is the standard kind of hocum that WLC comes out with, but it isn't based upon anything. I can't address this in detail as it stands.

I think you confuse God with the people whose faith and experiences are being described in the Bible

Not in the slightest.

But when people object against the idea of a divine condemnation and hell, it is ostensibly out of concern for even a person like this. We hypocritically expect God to let sins slide that we won't.

There is no valid comparison between torture free time in prison and eternal torture.

 

[Greatest I am]

only if we fail to learn through hearing or seeing others punished along similar lines

Some punishment and the fear of it are not worthy. If I have to punish my child for instance, it is because I have not taught him well and do not have tie intelligence to do so. My bad in that case.
Further, as in the case of

http://www.grandtimes.com/rosa.html

for us to punish her till she complied proves that punishment without logic is wrong.

Regards
DL

 

[gmilam]

good discussion..
the only thing i could add is just a different version of the OP question..

Do we have to be punished to learn?

As Will Rogers said,

“There are three kinds of men. The one that learns by reading. The few who learn by observation. The rest of them have to pee on the electric fence for themselves.”

 

[wynn]

good discussion..
the only thing i could add is just a different version of the OP question..

Do we have to be punished to learn?

The teacher, the student and the observers often have different ideas about what the supposed lesson is.
The teacher can literally beat the student to death, and the observes can criticize either of them forever, but as long as there is no agreement on what the lesson is, there is no sense that the "lesson has been learned".

 

[wynn]

only if we fail to learn through hearing or seeing others punished along similar lines

You seem to be saying that ultimately, punishment is a guarantee for learning.

This doesn't seem true to me at all.

Surely there is a frequent co-incidence between a punishment and the person afterwards behaving in desired ways - but where is the proof that the change in the person's behavior came about because of the punishment?

 

[Greatest I am]

As Will Rogers said,

http://imgur.com/a/s0QKO

 

[lightgigantic]

You seem to be saying that ultimately, punishment is a guarantee for learning.

Not at all.
There are no guarantees for learning.
There are only limbs of learning.

 

[lightgigantic]

Some punishment and the fear of it are not worthy. If I have to punish my child for instance, it is because I have not taught him well and do not have tie intelligence to do so. My bad in that case.
Further, as in the case of

so anyone who grounds there child suffers from a lack of intelligence?

http://www.grandtimes.com/rosa.html

for us to punish her till she complied proves that punishment without logic is wrong.

Regards
DL

agreed.
I think you have yet to establish how this is the case with god however ....