The Forum Site - Join the conversation
Forums:
Religion & Philosophy

The nature of punishment

Reply to Topic
AuthorMessage
Pages: << · 1 2 3 4 5 6
Salutations75 On November 24, 2009

Deleted



Toronto, Canada
#76New Post! Nov 12, 2009 @ 15:50:11
@buffalobill90 Said

I take it your answer to this paradox is, "We are free, and God is also omnipotent and omniscient, and that makes sense but we can't possibly understand how"? Great. The theological get-out-of-jail-free card has been played yet again. Are you afraid of being critical of your beliefs or can you just not be bothered to address an obvious contradiction and would prefer not to think about it?

The problem is right there: God is omniscient, he knows everything that we will ever do, and in fact determines what will occur because he is the omnipotent creator of everything, and yet we are also undetermined and unpredictable and therefore God can judge us as if we are responsible for our own actions. These jigsaw pieces do not fit together.




Wait a minute, you are actually contending that there is no ethical difference between a human and an item of furniture because they are both property.

This is basically your argument:

Premise 1: It is not ethically wrong to harm your property.

P2: God created humans.

P3: Humans are God's property.

Conclusion: It is not ethically wrong for God to harm humans.

P1 is only true insofar as your property is not a moral agent. If I owned a conscious being, let's say a pet dolphin, would it be ethically permissable for me to treat it harmfully simply because it belongs to me? Pain is pain whether or not you belong to someone else. An item of furniture is an inanimate object without conscious sensations, so I can kick a chair without being concerned for its welfare as a moral agent. You seem to arrive at the first premise by assuming that, because items of furniture are property, and it is not immoral to harm furniture, then it is not immoral to harm property. This is a classic invalid argument; you are confusing predication with identification. Property is a predicate of furniture, property is not identical to furnture.

If I wanted to be particularly zealous, I might argue against the truth of P2 and P3 as well, but we'll focus on the first premise. My initial negative contention is that property or ownership is not the sole determinent of moral status. My positive contention is that what entitles something to respect and rights is its capacity to suffer, i.e. to have undesirable or otherwise intrinsically negative experiences. Humans are undoubtedly capable of this, and are therefore entitled to respect regardless of whether or not they are the property of God. You have argued in other threads that slavery is not necessarily immoral, and that may help to illustrate my point; just because someone is a slave does not mean their entitlement to respect is revoked. Your present claim could easily be used to justify the most dehumanising and abusive forms of slavery that have been practised.



We don't know how the human brain stores information or where it stores information - does that mean the brain does not store information? Therefore not knowing how human responsibility and God's sovereignty work doesn't mean that they don't work together.

Humans have their dignity found in the fact that they are made in God's image and are His most valued property.
I can kill a cow for profit and God will not condemn me for sinning.
I can't kill a human for profit without falling under God's condemnation for sin.
The difference isn't in the fact that the human more capacity for pain, but rather that the human is my equal and God's property. I have no right to damage God's property like that, unless God expressly gives me permission - which He has not done.

Can I beat my dolphin without sinning? Definitely. God cares about the motives behind my actions against my property, not the actions themselves. However this does not apply to humans because God never gives up His claims of full ownership of humans and therefore I never fully own another person, and also I am not allowed to dishonor someone made in the image of God.

Human value and rights are all bound up in being made in the image of God and being the property of God. Two equal pieces of property do not have the right to take it upon themselves to bring pain or dishonor to one another. But God is the owner, and value is determined by how much He values something, so nothing has any value or rights before God unless He Himself grants such value and rights to that thing.

We are not allowed to treat others the way that God is allowed to treat us. Why? Because God has given us rights in our relationships with each other that are based on our being His property. But that clearly doesn't apply to the property owner.
My cow does not have the right to kick my sheep - but I have the right to slaughter them both.

You have no rights before God, He can do anything He wants with you.

By the way, if you want to argue that dignity is demanded by being able to feel pain - are you a vegetarian? You would have to be, because you'd have no right to eat meat or cause death or pain for the sake of having meat.
buffalobill90 On July 12, 2013
Powered by tea





Viaticum, United Kingdom
#77New Post! Nov 12, 2009 @ 16:07:13
@Salutations75 Said

We don't know how the human brain stores information or where it stores information - does that mean the brain does not store information? Therefore not knowing how human responsibility and God's sovereignty work doesn't mean that they don't work together.


We know that the brain stores information in the form of neural growth. Even if this wasn't understood, we know that the brain stores information anyway, otherwise memory and retrospection would be impossible. We do not, however, know that humans are free; it is apparent to me that our actions are determined by prior causes just like every other event. We are not magical or special, we can't make movement appear from nothing, we are governed by the same physical laws that constrain the actions of other matter. Indeed, we are made of the same matter.

It's not that I don't know how they could work together, it's that I know that they can't work together. They are logically incoherent in a blatently obvious way, and you have stated yourself in the past that God can't do things which are logically impossible.

@Salutations75 Said

Humans have their dignity found in the fact that they are made in God's image and are His most valued property.
I can kill a cow for profit and God will not condemn me for sinning.
I can't kill a human for profit without falling under God's condemnation for sin.
The difference isn't in the fact that the human more capacity for pain, but rather that the human is my equal and God's property. I have no right to damage God's property like that, unless God expressly gives me permission - which He has not done.

Can I beat my dolphin without sinning? Definitely. God cares about the motives behind my actions against my property. However this does not apply to humans because God never gives up His claims of full ownership of humans and therefore I never fully own another person, and also I am not allowed to dishonor someone made in the image of God.

Human value and rights are all bound up in being made in the image of God and being the property of God. Two equal pieces of property do not have the right to take it upon themselves to bring pain or dishonor to one another. But God is the owner, and value is determined by how much He values something, so nothing has any value or rights before God unless He Himself grants such value and rights to that thing.

We are not allowed to treat others the way that God is allowed to treat us. Why? Because God has given us rights in our relationships with each other that are based on our being His property. But that clearly doesn't apply to the property owner.
My cow does not have the right to kick my sheep - but I have the right to slaughter them both.

You have no rights before God, He can do anything He wants with you.



If humans do not own anything then your furniture analogy was totally irrelevant.

I can't argue with dogma, all I can say is that I disagree; humans can suffer and that is what entitles us to respect. Whether or not we are the property of a deity is a theological question which in my view is entirely detached from ethics. God doesn't need to give us rights, we have them any way. Our ability to suffer gives us rights, which God must respect. We already have value as conscious beings.
Salutations75 On November 24, 2009

Deleted



Toronto, Canada
#78New Post! Nov 12, 2009 @ 16:22:17
Quote:
We know that the brain stores information in the form of neural growth. Even if this wasn't understood, we know that the brain stores information anyway, otherwise memory and retrospection would be impossible. We do not, however, know that humans are free; it is apparent to me that our actions are determined by prior causes just like every other event. We are not magical or special, we can't make movement appear from nothing, we are governed by the same physical laws that constrain the actions of other matter. Indeed, we are made of the same matter.

It's not that I don't know how they could work together, it's that I know that they can't work together. They are logically incoherent in a blatently obvious way, and you have stated yourself in the past that God can't do things which are logically impossible.


I also mentioned that we don't know where the brain stores information. Regardless, the point is this: we see that our brains store information and we don't know how it works, the fact that we don't know how something works does not mean that it doesn't work.

I never argued for free will, I argued that human beings make choices that they are responsible for. You make choices, you CHOOSE to respond to me. God judges you based on your decisions. And God declares that His sovereignty does not override human responsibility. How does this work? None of us are intelligent enough to understand. You're right that I said God cannot do something illogical, but God can do something logical that you and I do not understand. Our inability to understand the logic behind something does not mean that it is illogical, we are limited beings discussing an infinitely powerful God. Are all the things you don't understand untrue? Or do you claim to understand everything that has ever been and will be? God can and will do things we aren't able to understand, and that's only logical: the finite cannot comprehend the infinite.

Quote:


If humans do not own anything then your furniture analogy was totally irrelevant.


God has given humans the right to possess His things under the title of 'ownership' and use them as they see fit for the limited time that they have them. However this does not override that humans are equals in the sight of God and must treat each other as such. Roles of authority do not negate all of us being owned by Him and being accountable to Him for how we treat each other. Human beings have dignity before human beings through their value to God which everything else does not have, therefore humans cannot treat humans as humans treat animals or other possessions.

Quote:
Our ability to suffer gives us rights, which God must respect.


God disagrees, He didn't give you the ability to suffer so that you could demand that He respect you.
Paradigm10 On July 09, 2010




Old Forge,
#79New Post! Nov 12, 2009 @ 17:54:38
@Salutations75 Said

You sure are responsible for your actions.
As scripture explains in Romans 9 - some people are vessels made for destruction and some people are vessels made for honor.
Now as for election, God does choose which people He will redeem and call to Himself. Everyone is bent away from God and will never come to Him on their own. Election is God choosing someone to change them so that they turn to God in love and humility. Non-election is God not stopping you from running in to the pit called Hell all on your own.
Once again:
Election is God actively bringing you to Himself.
Non-election is God passively allowing you to reject salvation and then actively pushing you down the path you chose (2 Thes. 2:11).





I'm not really concerned with what a catechism says. Bring me scripture.
You are correct however that God does not desire for the wicked to perish, but He will cause them to perish (Psalm 9:5).
I don't desire for my favorite table to be burned, but I do desire to be warm on a cold day when there is no other wood. My desire for warmth overrides my desire for my table to not be burned. Does that mean I wanted to burn my table? Certainly not.

Now, the Lake of Fire may not actually be a place full of fire but rather some other place of punishment. But, the idea is that it's a place of wailing and gnashing of teeth where the worm burns but it not consumed. It sounds like a place of burning torture. Hell is not merely separation from God, and the Lake of Fire is not merely separation from God - There is pain, so much so that "The smoke of their torment rises forever and ever."


Romans 9 addresses the Jews in the early Church who were wondering how it was that God's promises to them had seemingly been broken. Paul is speaking to the Jewish problem of having been cast aside in favor of the Gentiles in this present Church age.

How can a mere mortal assume responsibility for their actions if one is predestined by God for destruction? It would seem that Romans 9 suggests and supports the doctrine of predestination but the second Council of Orange and the Council of Trent reject the doctrine of predestination to evil.

It is also curious that the Calvinist's use the theology of St. Augustine to support their doctrine of predestination and the Councils supported Augustine's theology as well. Am I missing something here?

These men of the Church were well versed in scripture and were maintaining and promoting the teachings of the early church which gave us these same scriptures. Had they all fallen under the influence of Satan?

Aren't we assured that it is by their own choice that the damned find themselves in the state of eternal punishment?
buffalobill90 On July 12, 2013
Powered by tea





Viaticum, United Kingdom
#80New Post! Nov 12, 2009 @ 18:27:08
@Salutations75 Said

I also mentioned that we don't know where the brain stores information. Regardless, the point is this: we see that our brains store information and we don't know how it works, the fact that we don't know how something works does not mean that it doesn't work.

I never argued for free will, I argued that human beings make choices that they are responsible for. You make choices, you CHOOSE to respond to me. God judges you based on your decisions. And God declares that His sovereignty does not override human responsibility. How does this work? None of us are intelligent enough to understand. You're right that I said God cannot do something illogical, but God can do something logical that you and I do not understand. Our inability to understand the logic behind something does not mean that it is illogical, we are limited beings discussing an infinitely powerful God. Are all the things you don't understand untrue? Or do you claim to understand everything that has ever been and will be? God can and will do things we aren't able to understand, and that's only logical: the finite cannot comprehend the infinite.


This sounds familiar. Maybe it's because you're just saying the same thing over and over again. If God is the omnipotent, omniscient creator of the universe, then God chose that I would respond to you, not me. Or at least, the choice I would make was inevitably determined by prior causes which God was responsible for and which God was aware of when he created the universe, so God knew the choice I would make and determined that it was so. If your only argument is that it says in scripture that we are responsible for our action and therefore it must be true despite being incomprehensible, then this discussion is at a dead end.

@Salutations75 Said

God disagrees, He didn't give you the ability to suffer so that you could demand that He respect you.



Then God is irresponsible. If he didn't want to have to show humans any respect or compassion, he should not have made us capable of suffering.
Salutations75 On November 24, 2009

Deleted



Toronto, Canada
#81New Post! Nov 12, 2009 @ 20:11:34
@buffalobill90 Said

Then God is irresponsible. If he didn't want to have to show humans any respect or compassion, he should not have made us capable of suffering.



I don't see why you believe that your ability to suffer demands that you have respect.
buffalobill90 On July 12, 2013
Powered by tea





Viaticum, United Kingdom
#82New Post! Nov 12, 2009 @ 20:18:11
@Salutations75 Said

I don't see why you believe that your ability to suffer demands that you have respect.



Look at it this way: if no one could suffer or be happy, what would be the point of morality? Why would anyone deserve respect, if there was nothing you could possibly do to hurt them?

If an entity is capable of experiencing hedonic sensations, they are a moral agent deserving of respect. Nothing else matters, only pleasure and pain, happiness and suffering, positive and negative experiences. Everything is neutral and inconsequential apart from hedonic sensations.
Salutations75 On November 24, 2009

Deleted



Toronto, Canada
#83New Post! Nov 12, 2009 @ 21:26:27
@buffalobill90 Said

Look at it this way: if no one could suffer or be happy, what would be the point of morality? Why would anyone deserve respect, if there was nothing you could possibly do to hurt them?

If an entity is capable of experiencing hedonic sensations, they are a moral agent deserving of respect. Nothing else matters, only pleasure and pain, happiness and suffering, positive and negative experiences. Everything is neutral and inconsequential apart from hedonic sensations.



Does it surprise you that God is a hedonistic God that desires pleasure and is opposed to displeasure? That those who bring Him pleasure are rewarded with their own pleasure, but those who bring him displeasure are rewarded with their own displeasure? We are made in His image, our love for pleasure is a reflect of God's love for His own pleasure. When the scriptures speak of Jesus going to the cross they say he did it "because of the joy that was set before him." He suffered temporarily in order to purchase people for himself so that he would enjoy them.
buffalobill90 On July 12, 2013
Powered by tea





Viaticum, United Kingdom
#84New Post! Nov 12, 2009 @ 21:28:44
@Salutations75 Said

Does it surprise you that God is a hedonistic God that desires pleasure and is opposed to displeasure? That those who bring Him pleasure are rewarded with their own pleasure, but those who bring him displeasure are rewarded with their own displeasure? We are made in His image, our love for pleasure is a reflect of God's love for His own pleasure. When the scriptures speak of Jesus going to the cross they say he did it "because of the joy that was set before him." He suffered temporarily in order to purchase people for himself so that he would enjoy them.



How can God desire anything?
Salutations75 On November 24, 2009

Deleted



Toronto, Canada
#85New Post! Nov 12, 2009 @ 21:57:12
@buffalobill90 Said

How can God desire anything?





He's a person, not a power.
He has no needs, but He has desires - all of which He provides for Himself. We are one of His desires being fulfilled - those who are redeemed will never again turn back to sin after being freed from it and will for eternity love Him.

God enjoys community. He doesn't need us, but He wants us for His own pleasure.

Why? I don't know.
How? I don't know.

God doesn't tell us the answers to these things.

Personally, I'm not complaining that God desires community and wants there to be a people who find their fulfillment in Him and reflect back to Him who He is.

I think it may have something to do with the fact that God loves Himself and we act as a mirror. I'm happy to be that mirror, better an existing mirror than something that does not exist.
buffalobill90 On July 12, 2013
Powered by tea





Viaticum, United Kingdom
#86New Post! Nov 12, 2009 @ 22:00:44
@Salutations75 Said



He's a person, not a power.
He has no needs, but He has desires - all of which He provides for Himself. We are one of His desires being fulfilled - those who are redeemed will never again turn back to sin after being freed from it and will for eternity love Him.

God enjoys community. He doesn't need us, but He wants us for His own pleasure.

Why? I don't know.
How? I don't know.

God doesn't tell us the answers to these things.

Personally, I'm not complaining that God desires community and wants there to be a people who find their fulfillment in Him and reflect back to Him who He is.

I think it may have something to do with the fact that God loves Himself and we act as a mirror. I'm happy to be that mirror, better an existing mirror than something that does not exist.



If God cannot fulfil his desires without the help of humans then he is neither perfect nor omnipotent.
Salutations75 On November 24, 2009

Deleted



Toronto, Canada
#87New Post! Nov 12, 2009 @ 22:59:45
@buffalobill90 Said

If God cannot fulfil his desires without the help of humans then he is neither perfect nor omnipotent.



Please explain how to have a community without there being more than just you.
buffalobill90 On July 12, 2013
Powered by tea





Viaticum, United Kingdom
#88New Post! Nov 12, 2009 @ 23:10:01
@Salutations75 Said

Please explain how to have a community without there being more than just you.



Why does God need a community?
Salutations75 On November 24, 2009

Deleted



Toronto, Canada
#89New Post! Nov 12, 2009 @ 23:36:57
@buffalobill90 Said

Why does God need a community?



He doesn't need anything.
He enjoys community.
Reply to Topic<< Previous Topic | Next Topic >>
Pages: << · 1 2 3 4 5 6

1 browsing (0 members - 1 guest)

Quick Reply
Be Respectful of Others

      
Subscribe to topic prefs

Similar Topics
    Forum Topic Last Post Replies Views
New posts   Religion & Philosophy
Wed Jun 06, 2012 @ 13:30
48 4650
New posts   Religion & Philosophy
Tue Jan 24, 2012 @ 09:53
38 2225
New posts   Religion & Philosophy
Tue Sep 20, 2011 @ 23:40
1 668
New posts   Religion & Philosophy
Thu Oct 23, 2008 @ 17:45
25 3121
New posts   Religion
Sun Jul 06, 2008 @ 15:38
1 934