A thought to ponder

Originally posted by FreakyKBH
No, terror is more akin to the proper sentiment than anything else you're stabbing around. I understand that the PC view these days is to eliminate anything which might strike fear in the hearts of us poor timid ones, but there is something which cannot be denied or washed away to which only fear fits.

Namely, our very existence is God-dependent. We h ...[text shortened]... efore it.

"The fear of the Lord is the beginning of wisdom." That fits the bill perfectly.

please its inconceivable that you should portray god this way, he does not cajole anyone into serving him through a tyrannical abuse of powers, dangling life and death before the traumatised human, its a nonsense! and has no basis in scripture. time and again he is described as merciful, slow to anger, loyal, abundant in loving kindness, feely forgiving and forgetting, compassionate and reasoning, and you would assert that he is a terrorist, please learn what this means,

(1 John 4:18-19) . . .There is no fear in love, but perfect love throws fear outside, because fear exercises a restraint. Indeed, he that is under fear has not been made perfect in love.  As for us, we love, because he first loved us.

Originally posted by FreakyKBH
Break it down.

"A compassionate police officer" Human, conflicted and subjective.

"would not beat Rodney King" Situational, totally dependent upon variables.

"with a nightstick" As opposed to, say, a tire iron?

"while he lies motionless on the ground." Or, apparently so.

In your thought experiment, you place the p o conclude that a nightstick was the most compassionate option for the police officer.

The heart of the disagreement isn't the whole God thing - it's the fact that folks like you and epi seem to have radically different notions [at least, to mine] of what compassion is. Your conclusion confirms this. Beating an apparently unresponsive person is, to me, the exact opposite of acting compassionately. It is acting cruelly.

This is what I like to call bizarro-speech; the use of words with almost the exact opposite meaning of the normal definition.

Originally posted by Badwater
I don't think that "... God is omnipotent and has no beginning then he knew for eternity which of his creations would get into heaven and those who wouldn't...". Further, a great many stories in the OT do not support this view of God.

If God is not omnipotent then you can sin without consequence as long as he doesn't see you... 😕

Originally posted by FreakyKBH
Break it down.

"A compassionate police officer" Human, conflicted and subjective.

"would not beat Rodney King" Situational, totally dependent upon variables.

"with a nightstick" As opposed to, say, a tire iron?

"while he lies motionless on the ground." Or, apparently so.

In your thought experiment, you place the p ...[text shortened]... o conclude that a nightstick was the most compassionate option for the police officer.

Originally posted by FreakyKBH

In your thought experiment, you place the police officer in the position of God, but fail to see the huge disparities between the two.
Yes, you are right, the police officer has the excuse of being human and fallible. God does not.

it is a reasonable assumption to conclude that a nightstick was the most compassionate option for the police officer.
Is there a 'quote of the week' award on this board?

Originally posted by FreakyKBH
Break it down.

"A compassionate police officer" Human, conflicted and subjective.

"would not beat Rodney King" Situational, totally dependent upon variables.

"with a nightstick" As opposed to, say, a tire iron?

"while he lies motionless on the ground." Or, apparently so.

In your thought experiment, you place the p ...[text shortened]... o conclude that a nightstick was the most compassionate option for the police officer.

I dont think "motionless" people on the ground can make "aggressive moves" towards anyone.

Originally posted by SwissGambit
The heart of the disagreement isn't the whole God thing - it's the fact that folks like you and epi seem to have radically different notions [at least, to mine] of what compassion is. Your conclusion confirms this. Beating an apparently unresponsive person is, to me, the exact opposite of acting compassionately. It is acting cruelly.

Thi ...[text shortened]... arro-speech; the use of words with almost the exact opposite meaning of the normal definition.

When I said "apparently so," I was referring to the perspective you recall of the incident--- you know, the one most people have of the incident: the video portion of that night.

What the video didn't show was the 100+ MPH chase on the freeway which segued into 55-80 MPH chase through neighborhoods. Nor does it show how two of the three occupants exited the car when ordered, but King (whose blood-alcohol test put him at just below the legal limit... five hours after the incident) refused. The video also wasn't able to capture King's highly erratic behavior upon finally being coaxed from the car, which put into the minds of the officers that perhaps he was on PCP. And, the video is also unable to show the resistance he repeatedly offered despite tasers and multiple power strokes with batons. Lastly, the video can't give the perspective of the officers who were standing in close proximity to King, close enough to come to the conclusion that he simply wasn't going to stop until unconscious.

In hindsight, I'm certain there are some things the officers wish they hadn't done, while there are likely some things they wouldn't change. (I've often wondered why they don't employ industrial netting for situations like these. But that's not the point.) At any point, licensed to kill, the officers had other options available to them. Between 56 hits with a baton and six kicks from grown adults or a barrage of bullets, I suspect most people would prefer the former over the latter. Granted, neither of them sound very warm and fuzzy, but the compassionate option between those two is fairly straight forward.

Your basis for compassion is you or some projection you have for some undisclosed median you. My basis for compassion is God: all that He is free to do as a result of the work done on the cross.

Originally posted by FreakyKBH
When I said "apparently so," I was referring to the perspective you recall of the incident--- you know, the one most people have of the incident: the video portion of that night.

What the video didn't show was the 100+ MPH chase on the freeway which segued into 55-80 MPH chase through neighborhoods. Nor does it show how two of the three occupants exite assion is God: all that He is free to do as a result of the work done on the cross.

Well, you've only created a false dilemma. The police are only licensed to use force in self-defense, or in defense of other innocents. Once a perpetrator is subdued, there is no license to continue violence of any kind. That's the line they crossed.

Originally posted by SwissGambit
Well, you've only created a false dilemma. The police are only licensed to use force in self-defense, or in defense of other innocents. Once a perpetrator is subdued, there is no license to continue violence of any kind. That's the line they crossed.

I'm not going to argue the merits of whether they did what they were put into office to do, or whether they exceeded those powers. Like I said, I can't understand why they don't have nets. Whatever behavior King demonstrated was enough to convince them more force was necessary. From the safety of our favorite television watching chairs, most of us saw it differently.

Originally posted by epiphinehas
My point is, God is the way he is (holy) regardless of whether or not we like him that way, and God does what he does (judge) regardless of whether or not we think his way is right. He is sovereign, after all. God, if he is God, couldn't be otherwise.

It doesn't matter what we think is right or wrong. God is judge. Statements ...[text shortened]... is a terrible and fearful thing to fall into the hands of the living God (Heb. 10:31).

Do you think that the predicate 'compassionate' has a different meaning when applied to God than when applied to other persons? You can't both claim that it is appropriate to use terms like 'just', 'compassionate', 'sovereign', etc. in reference to God and then also deny that these attributions are immune to counterexamples because these terms take on different meanings when predicated of God. To make this claim is to undermine whatever epistemic grounds you have for the initial attribution. Of course, you can avoid this consequence if you specify that 'compassion' means something different than 'compassion as it inheres in God', but then you lose the rhetorical punch of the initial predication. And, anyway, if 'compassion as it inheres in God' allows for the systemic failure to prevent unnecessary harm, then the obvious question is "Why should we care about that sort of compassion?" In short, if your idea of God is as a being that transcends our predicates, fine. But don't then go on to use our predicates to describe God, or as grounds for worship, or love, or whatever. Make it clear that God is not compassionate, as we use that term, but rather that the term at best is metaphorical. This strategy can get you out of the Problem of Evil, if you're at all worried about that. You can claim that terms like 'benevolence', 'moral perfection', etc. are not actual attributes of God, and thus dissolve the apparent tension.

Originally posted by FreakyKBH
I'm not going to argue the merits of whether they did what they were put into office to do, or whether they exceeded those powers. Like I said, I can't understand why they don't have nets. Whatever behavior King demonstrated was enough to convince them more force was necessary. From the safety of our favorite television watching chairs, most of us saw it differently.

As a victim of unprovoked police attacks right here on good ol' Australia and having read many other reports of unprovoked police attacks ,(eg. a woman was shot 5 times in the chest after apparently brandishing a knife,(why not in the leg is unclear at best)), I think an incident like the Rodney King one only scatches at the surface of corrupt police msusing their force.
It is up to all of us to make this world a better place by speaking out against such things. God aint gonna step in on this issue.
i know this is off topic but I would really like to know why you dont get Swiss Gambits point here.

Police slam my head into a wall after no restitance from me=resisting arrest.
Police finding my DNA in a school= entering premises illegally with intent.
Apparently no furthur evidence was required, or perhaps they just like to pick on the poor who cant access proper lawyers.

Originally posted by bbarr
Do you think that the predicate 'compassionate' has a different meaning when applied to God than when applied to other persons? You can't both claim that it is appropriate to use terms like 'just', 'compassionate', 'sovereign', etc. in reference to God and then also deny that these attributions are immune to counterexamples because these terms take on differe ...[text shortened]... are not actual attributes of God, and thus dissolve the apparent tension.

The ghost returns.

Make it clear that God is not compassionate, as we use that term, but rather that the term at best is metaphorical.
You are here establishing a contrast that is, at best, wrongheaded, and, at worst, evasive.

If God is who we understand Him to be, by the very nature of our understanding of Him, He is the standard--- and, apparently, for all things good... again, as we understand good. When we describe (or, better: ascribe) God as compassionate, it is with the knowledge that He could, He ought to behave in a specified manner, but something other compels His action otherwise.

This standard is righteousness and it is also justice, it is also truth. Being absolute righteousness and justice, His perfection immediately disqualifies those holding anything less. We are those holding that. His compassion is demonstrated in not doing what His righteousness demands... or, at least, not doing it to those upon whom He has compassion. This He has done. He has satisfied His righteousness by virtue of the work done on the cross. Perfect Christ for perfect God, granted to man.

When we speak in terms of compassion, we more or less speak in terms of empathy. However, our limitation is that empathy typically begins with us as the template. God's compassion begins with Him. No difference? Actually, big difference. In beginning with us, we are replete with subjective and transient values. God suffers no such dilution. Completely objective and completely true to the standard, He nonetheless epitomizes true compassion, upon which we base our model.

Originally posted by karoly aczel
As a victim of unprovoked police attacks right here on good ol' Australia and having read many other reports of unprovoked police attacks ,(eg. a woman was shot 5 times in the chest after apparently brandishing a knife,(why not in the leg is unclear at best)), I think an incident like the Rodney King one only scatches at the surface of corrupt police ms ...[text shortened]... nce was required, or perhaps they just like to pick on the poor who cant access proper lawyers.

Sounds like bad police.

Originally posted by bbarr
Do you think that the predicate 'compassionate' has a different meaning when applied to God than when applied to other persons? You can't both claim that it is appropriate to use terms like 'just', 'compassionate', 'sovereign', etc. in reference to God and then also deny that these attributions are immune to counterexamples because these terms take on differe ...[text shortened]... are not actual attributes of God, and thus dissolve the apparent tension.

What freaky said. I am officially out of my depth.

Originally posted by FreakyKBH
The ghost returns.

[b]Make it clear that God is not compassionate, as we use that term, but rather that the term at best is metaphorical.
You are here establishing a contrast that is, at best, wrongheaded, and, at worst, evasive.

If God is who we understand Him to be, by the very nature of our understanding of Him, He is the standard--- and, app true to the standard, He nonetheless epitomizes true compassion, upon which we base our model.[/b]

But it is not in reference to God that we, or at least many of us, learn the term 'compassion'. Different folks, with different conceptions of God, or no thoughts on God at all, can master the typical use of this term. We are pretty good at recognizing when an action qualifies as compassionate, or when a motivation or disposition does. In tough cases, we know which questions to ask to determine whether predicating compassion is appropriate. We ask whether the action was aimed at the reduction of suffering, or whether suffering was taken into account. We ask whether a person is disposed to notice the suffering of others, whether they judge that suffering is, all else equal, unfortunate or regrettable. We ask whether a person is typically motivated to help alleviate suffering. The sense of term is set in this way; this is just what 'compassion' means, at least to those who have mastered the term as typically used. Given this, you cannot simply claim "Oh wait, God is actually the standard of compassion...", where that entails that our use of the term is incorrect. What you are engaged in is the stipulative redefinition of a term that already has an entrenched sense. Now, that is fine, as far as it goes, you can use sounds however you prefer. But if you think that you can define a term like 'compassion' so that it has nothing to do with the alleviation of unnecessary suffering, then you are just wrong. I can say "Oh wait, Ikea is the standard of furniture', where this entails that only poorly made crap qualifies as furniture. But you would be right to ignore this as nonsense. But of course, if you want to claim that the predication of 'compassion' to an agent is compatible with that agent systematically failing to prevent or alleviate unnecessary suffering, it is your prerogative. As above, we would be right to ignore this nonsense.

EDIT: Even you are driven to use 'true compassion' instead of 'compassion'. That is fine. But if 'true compassion' is compatible with allowing people to suffer and be harmed unnecessarily, when it would be easy to prevent, then 'true compassion' is simply not what we're talking about when we use the term 'compassion'. And, of course, if you prefer true compassion, which from our point of view just seems like periodic callousness, fine. But please make sure to use the term 'true compassion' in your writing, so that we will know that sometimes you use sounds in a way that departs fairly radically from how we use sounds.

Originally posted by epiphinehas
What freaky said. I am officially out of my depth.

Look, it is easy: If you see somebody who, in response to unnecessary suffering, fails to do anything about it when it would be very easy to do so, you would not attribute 'compassion' to that person. So, you know how to use the term; you have grasped its meaning. Now, if you claim that God can know of unnecessary suffering, fail to do anything about it even though it would be easy, then you can't also attribute 'compassion' to God. This use of the term is illegitimate because of how far it deviates from the term's meaning. This is not to say that all suffering must be alleviated; it could be that some is necessary, or that alleviating suffering would run contrary to another characteristic of God in some particular case. But if God consistently fails to alleviate unnecessary suffering, then, by definition, he cannot be compassionate. You could still define God as the ultimate standard of rightness, but then it would follow that compassionate action is not mandated by your account of rightness. That's a tough pill to swallow.