30 Oct 11
Originally posted by whodeyBoth.
Which statement do you identify with best?
1. A loving God would not cast a punitive judgement upon me or anyone else.
2. A loving God would not turn a blind eye to injustice suffered by me or others around me.
A just God would only cast punitive justice if it served some purpose (such as the punitive justice currently in most criminal justice systems.) The punitive justice described by most religions appears not to serve any reasonable purpose.
A loving God would not allow much of the injustice suffered by me or others around me, unless ignoring it was either unavoidable or served some greater purpose that could not be obtained by a better method.
30 Oct 11
Originally posted by twhitehead"1. A loving God would not cast a punitive judgement upon me or anyone else.
Both.
A just God would only cast punitive justice if it served some purpose (such as the punitive justice currently in most criminal justice systems.) The punitive justice described by most religions appears not to serve any reasonable purpose.
A loving God would not allow much of the injustice suffered by me or others around me, unless ignoring it was either unavoidable or served some greater purpose that could not be obtained by a better method.
2. A loving God would not turn a blind eye to injustice suffered by me or others around me."
This is your statement and the answer is both. He would not cast an unjust punishment but will still ask for justace when it applys.
31 Oct 11
Originally posted by galveston75But #1 doesn't say unjust punishment, it says punitive judgment.
"1. A loving God would not cast a punitive judgement upon me or anyone else.
2. A loving God would not turn a blind eye to injustice suffered by me or others around me."
This is your statement and the answer is both. He would not cast an unjust punishment but will still ask for justace when it applys.
31 Oct 11
Originally posted by twhiteheadUnfortunately, the statement: "...unless ignoring it was either unavoidable or served some greater purpose that could not be obtained by a better method." gives theists that insipid little get out of jail free card which is *"God's" plans always server a greater purpose!*..Hell, god could gouge out the eyes of every baby living today and it would still just be a case of "the lord works in mysterious ways...we trust it's for the best!"
Both.
A just God would only cast punitive justice if it served some purpose (such as the punitive justice currently in most criminal justice systems.) The punitive justice described by most religions appears not to serve any reasonable purpose.
A loving God would not allow much of the injustice suffered by me or others around me, unless ignoring it was either unavoidable or served some greater purpose that could not be obtained by a better method.
31 Oct 11
1 edit
Originally posted by AgergInane postulations such as these are pathetically absurd. For, in just your 2nd word, the existence of the God of the bible is already acknowledged. Therefore the rest of the statement is fallacious because (a) the God of the bible wouldn't do such a thing, and (b) even IF the God of the bible did it, by His very nature described in the bible, it absolutely WOULD be for the best... no trust required.
Hell, god could gouge out the eyes of every baby living today and it would still just be a case of "the lord works in mysterious ways...we trust it's for the best!"
31 Oct 11
3 edits
Originally posted by sumydidYou have neither the credibility nor accuracy of reasoning to be taken seriously when you say my statement is fallacious. Implied in my first sentence (which went over your head) was the supposition of some god's existence * only for the sake of argument*. Your final sentence just affirms my prediction that some thoughtless theist would play that hackneyed defence, and moreover for someone who has the gall to talk about fallacies; how the hell can you conclude your god gouging out all babies eyes would be for the best if you also assert God would never do such a thing!??? 😕
Inane postulations such as these are pathetically absurd. For, in just your 2nd word, the existence of the God of the bible is already acknowledged. Therefore the rest of the statement is fallacious because (a) the God of the bible wouldn't do such a thing, and (b) even IF the God of the bible did it, by His very nature described in the bible, it absolutely WOULD be for the best... no trust required.
31 Oct 11
1 edit
Originally posted by twhiteheadI find myself agreeing with you in large part but wonder what you mean by most religions do not appear to serve any reasonable purpose.
Both.
A just God would only cast punitive justice if it served some purpose (such as the punitive justice currently in most criminal justice systems.) The punitive justice described by most religions appears not to serve any reasonable purpose.
A loving God would not allow much of the injustice suffered by me or others around me, unless ignoring it was either unavoidable or served some greater purpose that could not be obtained by a better method.
Just remember if judgement was swift and certain you and I would probably not be sitting here today chatting.
31 Oct 11
Originally posted by AgergYou are funny today. 😀
Unfortunately, the statement: "...unless ignoring it was either unavoidable or served some greater purpose that could not be obtained by a better method." gives theists that insipid little get out of jail free card which is *"God's" plans always server a greater purpose!*..Hell, god could gouge out the eyes of every baby living today and it would still just be a case of "the lord works in mysterious ways...we trust it's for the best!"
31 Oct 11
Originally posted by AgergAnother funny post. I can hardly stop laughing. 😀
You have neither the credibility nor accuracy of reasoning to be taken seriously when you say my statement is fallacious. Implied in my first sentence (which went over your head) was the supposition of some god's existence * only for the sake of argument*. Your final sentence just affirms my prediction that some thoughtless theist would play that hackneyed def ...[text shortened]... all babies eyes would be for the best if you also assert God would never do such a thing!??? 😕