Is God’s law relevant without enforcement?

[Greatest I am]

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

No. Just not enough.

Perhaps I should add that there is discipline where corrections are shown for the child to learn and when I use the word punishment it refers more to corporeal punishment.

I corrected and disciplined my sons often. I spanked one of them once and realized that it was not his ability to learn that failed. It was my ability to raise him properly. Many parents take the easy way out by punishing their children when it is they that should be learning from their own mistakes.

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

I have by answering these. Care to have a go?

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

 

[SnakeLord]

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

No, merely a lack of adequate teaching ability. Typically grounding children stems from fears of the parent, if there was no fear - grounding wouldn't happen. If we had an adequate way of teaching our offspring of our experience and knowledge, (both of which they lack), then there wouldn't be a problem. We can't.

Of course some might and do claim that children cannot possibly avoid falling into such issues regardless to how we teach. Such people have made redundant any argument. If they cannot possibly avoid it, it's equivalent to grounding them for breathing.

 

[wynn]

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

Then I don't understand your reply to NMS earlier:

Do we have to be punished to learn?

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

- ?

Could you provide an example of a learning situation where the person has to be punished in order to learn?
I am not sure what the punishment pertains to, in your view.

 

[lightgigantic]

No, merely a lack of adequate teaching ability. Typically grounding children stems from fears of the parent, if there was no fear - grounding wouldn't happen. If we had an adequate way of teaching our offspring of our experience and knowledge, (both of which they lack), then there wouldn't be a problem. We can't.

actually what we can't do is create a pedagogical model that relies solely on the teacher

Of course some might and do claim that children cannot possibly avoid falling into such issues regardless to how we teach. Such people have made redundant any argument. If they cannot possibly avoid it, it's equivalent to grounding them for breathing.

I don't follow.
You think there is no grounds for a person or child or anyone to learn anything from punishment?

 

[lightgigantic]

Then I don't understand your reply to NMS earlier:



- ?

if we don't learn by punishment (arguably the last leg of learning)we simply continue in ignorance (and suffer accordingly)
Kind of like repeatedly touching a hot iron until it finally clicks why we are repeatedly getting a burnt hand.

 

[lightgigantic]

I have by answering these. Care to have a go?

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

IOW is your trip about god the unjust nullified if hell isn't given an eternal status?

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?

Its not inconceivable.
I mean if you lose the human form of life (due to sinful acts) and take birth as a fungus on the back side of a deep sea lobster it would probably take about that long to gain the human form of life again and take another shot at exiting material existence.

2. Is it good justice for small or mediocre sinners to have to bear the same sentence as Hitler, Stalin and other genocidal maniacs?

depends what you rate as a mediocre sinner of course, but in general, no.

This might actually include God if you see Noah’s flood as God using genocide and not justice against man. Pardon the digression.

Why talk of any flood, this world has been celebrating a 100% mortality rate for time immemorial.

Of course an important point you are failing to factor in is that god occupies a completely different position to us - namely he is responsible for delivering us to our current destination at birth and redirecting us to a different one after death (all in the name of accelerating our spiritual learning in lieu of our past deeds) as well as supplying the body and its necessary ingredients during the interim -- so its not so much murder but relocation.

If I kill you however, I am depriving you of your body (which is not mine) and have no scope for directing your state of affairs after you die (what to speak of your state of affairs before you were born)

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

sure

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

not at all, but then if it is accepted that liberation is the only state that has a monopoly on eternal existence (with the sojourn of material existence being characterized by many different ego births and deaths) then this problem of yours doesn't come to the fore

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?

its not possible because the soul is eternal, although if it does have an appetite for illusion it does wind up in material existence (which functions like a virtual reality machine )

 

[wynn]

if we don't learn by punishment (arguably the last leg of learning)we simply continue in ignorance (and suffer accordingly)


Kind of like repeatedly touching a hot iron until it finally clicks why we are repeatedly getting a burnt hand.

I need you to be a bit more specific here.

I don't think there are many people who continually touch a hot iron because they wouldn't learn that touching it is bad.

Are we to say that a person who self-injures, does so because she has not learned that applying a razor to the skin will tear it up??

I think that if someone continually engages in behavior that results in harm, this has little or nothing to do with the behavior itself or the lesson implicit to it, but much more with other factors.

Most alcoholics know that alcohol is bad for them. The reason they continue drinking is because they don't know any other way to deal with the stress of life. Stopping drinking itself does not teach them to deal with stress.
Many people who quit grossly harmful habits, such as alcohol and drugs, resort to other habits, in a similar addictive manner, while the original cause for such behavior remains unaddressed.

 

[lightgigantic]

I need you to be a bit more specific here.

I don't think there are many people who continually touch a hot iron because they wouldn't learn that touching it is bad.

Are we to say that a person who self-injures, does so because she has not learned that applying a razor to the skin will tear it up??

I agree it is an extreme (and unlikely) example.

If you unpack it however, you can see that how it functions - memory comes to play in analyzing cause and effect in one's actions.

IOW one remembers that it is painful but only if one touches a certain part of it (the handle is ok)

If one can't remember it (or if the gravity of the memory is diminished by some other state that facilitates illusion) one can go on touching it again

I think that if someone continually engages in behavior that results in harm, this has little or nothing to do with the behavior itself or the lesson implicit to it, but much more with other factors.

Most alcoholics know that alcohol is bad for them. The reason they continue drinking is because they don't know any other way to deal with the stress of life.

there is also the pleasure involved (or probably more accurately, a nostalgia)

Stopping drinking itself does not teach them to deal with stress.
Many people who quit grossly harmful habits, such as alcohol and drugs, resort to other habits, in a similar addictive manner, while the original cause for such behavior remains unaddressed.

intoxication (an act of tamas) is commonly dealt with by elevating the person to rajas.
If you want to talk of surmounting rajas, that requires sattva

 

[wynn]

You think there is no grounds for a person or child or anyone to learn anything from punishment?

Arguably, for anyone to ever learn anything, in any way, by punishment or not, there must be some degree of trust between the parties involved, or a degree of self-trust (if the situation involves one person and objects/animals).

If this trust is absent, the person may externally behave in desired ways, but harbor deep fears and resentment that eventually burst out, and often in destructive ways.

 

[wynn]

Allright, let's bring this into relation with God and (God's) punishment.

Could you provide an example of (God's) punishment because a person hasn't learned some particular lesson?

Are floods, diseases, earthquakes, famines etc. a punishment?
Or are they a consequence of irreligious behavior?


IOW: Are floods, diseases etc. tools for teaching people a lesson?

 

[lightgigantic]

Arguably, for anyone to ever learn anything, in any way, by punishment or not, there must be some degree of trust between the parties involved, or a degree of self-trust (if the situation involves one person and objects/animals).

If this trust is absent, the person may externally behave in desired ways, but harbor deep fears and resentment that eventually burst out, and often in destructive ways.

depends on the punishment and the person/entity involved

If a person is punished with electrodes for every wrong answer they get during a ten hour exam, it s understandable how such an ordeal could cause mental problems.

If a person explodes into a rage of destruction for being refused a drinking straw with their orange juice, it makes you wonder whether they already have mental problems

 

[lightgigantic]

Allright, let's bring this into relation with God and (God's) punishment.

Could you provide an example of (God's) punishment because a person hasn't learned some particular lesson?

To cast a wide net, if one hasn't learnt that they are not the body, material existence will provide a constant stream of reinforcing elements to the lesson plan.

Are floods, diseases, earthquakes, famines etc. a punishment?
Or are they a consequence of irreligious behavior?

The only distinguishing feature between irreligious behaviour and punishment is that one is the cause and the other is the effect

IOW: Are floods, diseases etc. tools for teaching people a lesson?

a general function of the adhidaiva klesa(issues with the environment) is to teach the jiva that they are not in control
a general function of the adhibhauta klesa (issues with other living entities) is to teach the jiva they are not in a position to lord it over others
a general function of the adyatma klesa (issues with one's own mind and body) is to teach the jiva that they are not their body

 

[wynn]

a general function of the adhidaiva klesa(issues with the environment) is to teach the jiva that they are not in control
a general function of the adhibhauta klesa (issues with other living entities) is to teach the jiva they are not in a position to lord it over others
a general function of the adyatma klesa (issues with one's own mind and body) is to teach the jiva that they are not their body

But are these lessons enough to bring the person to the proper spiritual platform from where on they can have a truly satisfactory life?

If a person learns (at least to some degree) that she is not in control, not in the position to lord it over others, and not the body, does it automatically follow that then this person will come into contact with proper spiritual knowledge (such as in the form of a person or book), or even come to that knmowledge by themselves?
Does God guarantee to step in more directly at this point?

Because a Buddhist may, for example, learn these lessons well, but remain ignorant of anything higher, so there is still an unhappiness.

I have this unease impression that while God may create the circumstances that bring the person to learn these lessons (sometimes, by force), the person is then left high and dry.
(Popular) Christianity seems to be a good example of such leaving a person high and dry.

 

[lightgigantic]

But are these lessons enough to bring the person to the proper spiritual platform from where on they can have a truly satisfactory life?

No that's something else (suddha satva - eg SB 6.1.16)

If a person learns (at least to some degree) that she is not in control, not in the position to lord it over others, and not the body, does it automatically follow that then this person will come into contact with proper spiritual knowledge (such as in the form of a person or book), or even come to that knmowledge by themselves?
Does God guarantee to step in more directly at this point?

two possibilities
sadhana sidhi (perfection by practice)
krpa sidhi (perfection by mercy)

(neither of which are guarantees, since god, much like any other person, has a host of issues that surround their direct personal intervention on things ... the most obvious being the said opinion of the other to the person)

Because a Buddhist may, for example, learn these lessons well, but remain ignorant of anything higher, so there is still an unhappiness.

I have this unease impression that while God may create the circumstances that bring the person to learn these lessons (sometimes, by force), the person is then left high and dry.

In all circumstances we follow our desire (even if its the desire to extinguish desire ... which more often than not rides the three modes

(Popular) Christianity seems to be a good example of such leaving a person high and dry.

popular Christianity seems to be primarily about home and hearth ... and most adherents don't seem to be plagued by a high and dry sense of stagnation ... if however one is not interested in attempting to stabilize on a wrung of rajas, then it will certainly be different (and may even warrant even a less popular form of christianity, or even, god forbid, inquiry into a different religious philosophical outlook)

 

[wynn]

two possibilities
sadhana sidhi (perfection by practice)
krpa sidhi (perfection by mercy)

(neither of which are guarantees, since god, much like any other person, has a host of issues that surround their direct personal intervention on things ... the most obvious being the said opinion of the other to the person)

Just to be clear -
What do you mean is the deciding factor in whether God steps in more directly - God's opinion of the person, or the person's opinion of God?
I imagine that God's opinion of a person is largely dependent on the person's opinion of God (since God is the Supreme, He gets to set the terms)?

Because the argument could be made that God should/would intervene simply because a person is deeply unhappy, regardless of what the person's opinion is about God. (We tend to think that misery entitles us to this and that, and esp. to God's mercy and intervention.)

In all circumstances we follow our desire

Where does desire come from; what determines what a person will desire?

 

[NMSquirrel]

Just to be clear -
What do you mean is the deciding factor in whether God steps in more directly - God's opinion of the person, or the person's opinion of God?
I imagine that God's opinion of a person is largely dependent on the person's opinion of God (since God is the Supreme, He gets to set the terms)?

i think this only matters in application to our relationship with him..

Because the argument could be made that God should/would intervene simply because a person is deeply unhappy, regardless of what the person's opinion is about God. (We tend to think that misery entitles us to this and that, and esp. to God's mercy and intervention.)

see this is a common misconception about god, perpetrated by the catholic church to increase their numbers and maintain control..
nowhere in the bible does it say god is about our happiness..i personally feel god does not care for our happiness (per-se)yes it talks about joy, but joy can be separated from happiness, it is possible to have joy in the midst of struggle..struggle is integral to our growth, we as a species would stagnate without it..

but i digress..

i think the law/punishment argument is a result of human interpretation of the bible, ppl see the consequences that god has put forth to the masses as punishment and hence has incorporated it into our society..

also we see punishment as effective in our children (children are incapable of reasoning out why something should/shouldn't be done) it becomes easier to punish than to educate, this carries over into our adult life and how we can get others to line up with our current views about what is right, this becomes about who is right and who is wrong..(not what is right)
i still believe (although i have been proven wrong ALOT of times) that it just takes the right statement to convince others of a reasonable course of action, some statement that makes a particular concept 'click' into the others mind.
unfortunately we as humans don't always have those words available to us as individuals, and we tend to value what we believe as more important than what others believe, its kind of a 'do as i say and ill feel better about myself' kinda thing, unfortunately those in power have the power to force this on others.

I believe the bible is critical in the education of the concept of love and how it can abolish the law..IE if i loved you i would do no harm to you because i loved you..(lets not get into the conversation of tough love)..hence no need for law..as most laws are a result of 'doing no harm' to others.

Is gods law relevant without enforcement?
what did jesus teach?
old testament was about the law and the enforcement..
new testament is about why the law is important.

Where does desire come from; what determines what a person will desire?

desire alone does not mean anything..it is what we do with that desire that means anything.

 

[Greatest I am]

To which there is the reply "Some popular form of Christianity is not the alpha and omega of theism, you know ... ".

IOW is your trip about god the unjust nullified if hell isn't given an eternal status?


Its not inconceivable.
I mean if you lose the human form of life (due to sinful acts) and take birth as a fungus on the back side of a deep sea lobster it would probably take about that long to gain the human form of life again and take another shot at exiting material existence.

depends what you rate as a mediocre sinner of course, but in general, no.

Why talk of any flood, this world has been celebrating a 100% mortality rate for time immemorial.

Of course an important point you are failing to factor in is that god occupies a completely different position to us - namely he is responsible for delivering us to our current destination at birth and redirecting us to a different one after death (all in the name of accelerating our spiritual learning in lieu of our past deeds) as well as supplying the body and its necessary ingredients during the interim -- so its not so much murder but relocation.

If I kill you however, I am depriving you of your body (which is not mine) and have no scope for directing your state of affairs after you die (what to speak of your state of affairs before you were born)


sure

not at all, but then if it is accepted that liberation is the only state that has a monopoly on eternal existence (with the sojourn of material existence being characterized by many different ego births and deaths) then this problem of yours doesn't come to the fore


its not possible because the soul is eternal, although if it does have an appetite for illusion it does wind up in material existence (which functions like a virtual reality machine )

I will take the two times above where you skimmed the right answer and then took off on me with the added conditions.

I will ignore your last as pure fantasy unless you have more proof to offer than the usual theist has. or doesn't have actually.

My escape. I think you like it long while I KIS and direct.

Regards
DL

 

[Greatest I am]

, then it will certainly be different (and may even warrant even a less popular form of christianity, or even, god forbid, inquiry into a different religious philosophical outlook)

They will tell you to-----

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=otCpCn0l4Wo

Regards
DL

 

[Greatest I am]

i
also we see punishment as effective in our children (children are incapable of reasoning out why something should/shouldn't be done)

Seems wrong.

http://www.ctv.ca/CTVNews/TopStories/20100511/study-infants-morality-100511/

I believe the bible is critical in the education of the concept of love and how it can abolish the law..IE if i loved you i would do no harm to you because i loved you..(lets not get into the conversation of tough love)..hence no need for law..as most laws are a result of 'doing no harm' to others.

Hogwash. I learned love in spite of that immoral Bible.
It also does not set it's laws on the principle of no harm to others. It should but does not. Ask women, gays and slaves.

desire alone does not mean anything..it is what we do with that desire that means anything.

That is not what Jesus said. Think of the sin and you have sinned.

Regards
DL

 

[NMSquirrel]

Hogwash. I learned love in spite of that immoral Bible.
Regards
DL

ok..now i am confused as to your position..i thought you were on gods side..
and love is not just about feeling it..it is used as an action word,something that is to be done not felt.
and if you tell me you know all there is to know about love i will call you on it..

It also does not set it's laws on the principle of no harm to others. It should but does not.

the first four commandment were for god..
no other god
no idols
don't slam god
remember sundays for god

the rest are relational..
honor you mom and dad
don't kill
don't steal
no adultery
don't lie about your neighbor
don't desire someone else's stuff.

i believe they all were to help us maintain a focus on something other than ourselves..

That is not what Jesus said. Think of the sin and you have sinned.

this was applied to adultery, not to all sins..find me quotes that says it applies to all sins..

Ask women, gays and slaves.

all those were caused by the attitudes of man not god..