- Joined
- 31 May 06
- Moves
- 1795
Originally posted by twhiteheadThat might have been because I wasn't in that thread.
Although I agree with the rest of your post, this sentence I disagree with and is not supported by what preceded it. There was recently a thread about thought crimes and it was interesting that nobody was willing to actually argue a position against having thought crimes. Thought crimes do even exist in most legal systems today.
I am wholly against thought crimes.
Originally posted by googlefudgeI've travelled in a few countries outside of my own, the laws, rules, and norms can be very
I have no idea what a god or gods would find important if they existed.
Due to the problem of evil I know for a fact that no morally good gods exist that know about/care about us.
Beyond that I have no idea.
But the question I would want to ask first is... Why should I, or anyone else, care what is important to a god
or gods if they existed?
different. If God exists, than His views on laws, rules, and norms would be the ones you
would held accountable too. I think it would matter if you find yourself on the outs of God
dues to your lack of concern over what He wants. That I think is one reason.
Originally posted by KellyJayThis really goes to the heart of the matter. Believers say God's ways are better than man's ways, while unbelievers say no, man's ways are all that is important. They do not understand that man cannot judge God. It seems that anymore, most men cannot even understand God, let alone presume to judge him.
You think that God's ways and thoughts would be different than our own and actually be
better?
I'm reminded that the Hebrews were punished many times for abandoning their God. How far are we from our punishment?
"The issue is whether or not it is reasonable to punish someone for not believing something despite the lack of convincing evidence."
It is not reasonable. But neither is faith reasonable: "Credo quia absurdum." (Tertulian) What the Judeo-Christian God demands of man is not reasonableness, but obedience. The Book of Job makes that abundantly clear.
Originally posted by SuzianneI think you are mistaken. You should talk it over with more unbelievers. In my experience, they don't "judge God", they simply reject the claims that believers make about their God figures.
Believers say God's ways are better than man's ways, while unbelievers say no, man's ways are all that is important. They do not understand that man cannot judge God.
It's your ideology and truth-claims-about-reality that get judged by unbelievers, not a supernatural figure that they do not believe in.
It may be true in many cases that unbelievers think that "man's ways are all that is important" but then most of them think that convoluted religionist doctrines and mythologies are just examples of "man's ways" and nothing more.
Originally posted by SuzianneI believe that since the unbelievers reject the notion of God, the notion of a standard not
This really goes to the heart of the matter. Believers say God's ways are better than man's ways, while unbelievers say no, man's ways are all that is important. They do not understand that man cannot judge God. It seems that anymore, most men cannot even understand God, let alone presume to judge him.
I'm reminded that the Hebrews were punished many times for abandoning their God. How far are we from our punishment?
their own that they will be held to is meaningless to them. It does not excuse them, but
it does give them a talking point, nothing more.
1 Peter 4:17-18
For it is time for judgment to begin at the household of God; and if it begins with us, what will be the outcome for those who do not obey the gospel of God?
And
“If the righteous is scarcely saved, what will become of the ungodly and the sinner?”
Originally posted by FMFActually I have no problem judging God. With the understanding that 'judging' means checking whether or not some entity matches up to a certain moral code or standard and 'God' means the non-existent entity as described by a theist.
You should talk it over with more unbelievers. In my experience, they don't "judge God",
Yes, I can, and do, judge God, and nobody can tell me I can't. (OK, they can, but they will be wrong).
Originally posted by SuzianneInteresting how this went from what is important to God, to judging God.
This really goes to the heart of the matter. Believers say God's ways are better than man's ways, while unbelievers say no, man's ways are all that is important. They do not understand that man cannot judge God. It seems that anymore, most men cannot even understand God, let alone presume to judge him.
I'm reminded that the Hebrews were punished many times for abandoning their God. How far are we from our punishment?
Originally posted by twhiteheadYou'd be judging an ideology not an actual being, that was my point.
Actually I have no problem judging God. With the understanding that 'judging' means checking whether or not some entity matches up to a certain moral code or standard and 'God' means the non-existent entity as described by a theist.
Yes, I can, and do, judge God, and nobody can tell me I can't. (OK, they can, but they will be wrong).
1 edit
Originally posted by googlefudgeMy 'why?' wasn't intended to apply to why you missed the thread, but why you are against thought crimes. I realise my post was a bit ambiguous.
I've been busy / ill recently and probably just missed the thread.
I'm sure the topic will come around again however. 😉
PS: hope you get better if you haven't already.
- Joined
- 31 May 06
- Moves
- 1795
Originally posted by twhiteheadYeah, just a case of serious man flu 😉
My 'why?' wasn't intended to apply to why you missed the thread, but why you are against thought crimes. I realise my post was a bit ambiguous.
PS: hope you get better if you haven't already.
I accept that in some cases why a person does an action has a baring on whether that action is
moral/legal or not.
If you accidentally trip and destroy a priceless vase then that's clumsy but not immoral or illegal.
If you deliberately destroy a priceless vase then that's immoral and illegal [if it's not yours].
However a thought crime is claiming it's illegal to simply think about destroying that vase.
Or [for example] to simply think that crashing a passenger plane into a skyscraper is a good idea.
Those are not nice things to think, but they only become crimes [or should only become crimes]
when they lead to some kind of action towards actioning those thoughts.
It's the actions [+ the thoughts] that make the crime and not the thoughts by themselves.
Now sometimes the action might be inciting others to do those actions but that is still an action
effecting other people, and not simply a thought.
And I view this as a position of principle beyond simply a case of practicality, as in I would hold this
position even if/when we develop the technology to be able to tell what people are thinking beyond
what is betrayed by their words and deeds.