Originally posted by KellyJay
...
With respect to why anyone is going to suffer torment, that will be because of their sins.
Where it is true the salvation offered to man is rooted in faith, the cause for that suffering
will be due to the sins of ones life. That is according to the Bible not that things you've
just said.[/b]

Everyone sins (and we sin merely for being born human). Faith belief in God provides salvation. It follows that God wants us to have faith belief, that is His fundamental desire.

Originally posted by Suzianne
... 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.
...

Of course we can judge God. How else can we tell whether He is good or bad?

Trying to understand what we judge is important of course, but ultimately we are able to judge actions even when we don't understand why someone committed those actions. For example, do we need to understand the mind of a maniac to know that killing babies is wrong?

Originally posted by googlefudge
It's the actions [+ the thoughts] that make the crime and not the thoughts by themselves.

I can think of many instances where your position would seem rather odd. Attempted murder for example. Suppose I plan to murder someone. I take a bottle of sleeping pills to their house and plan to slip it into their drink. I am discovered just before I do so. Am I not guilty of any crime given that carrying around sleeping pills is not a criminal offence. None of my actual actions were criminal. It was my intent that was criminal.
I also see no justification for punishing only actions. The whole point of punishment is to deal with intent. A criminal justice systems purpose is a combination of:
1. Prevention by incarceration or other restrictions.
2. Deterrence to the perpetrator or others.
3. Revenge (an evolved desire we have to cause us to do 1. and 2.)
I see no reason why any of those would not be better applied to thoughts and intents than actions.

Originally posted by twhitehead
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).

The mistake is made in assuming to judge God by man's standards. That's ridiculous. Man is not the pinnacle of morality and to claim that he is, strains credulity. Man cannot match up to God. Man has, quite literally, burned his bridges concerning God. That's why he sent his Son, to bridge the wide gap between man and God. At least for the relatively few who want to make the effort.

Originally posted by Suzianne
The mistake is made in assuming to judge God by man's standards. That's ridiculous. Man is not the pinnacle of morality and to claim that he is, strains credulity. Man cannot match up to God. Man has, quite literally, burned his bridges concerning God. That's why he sent his Son, to bridge the wide gap between man and God. At least for the relatively few who want to make the effort.

Do you think atheists are atheists because they don't want to 'make the effort' to be a theist?

Originally posted by Ghost of a Duke
Do you think atheists are atheists because they don't want to 'make the effort' to be a theist?

I think some don't want to, but this question is to broad a brush for all.

Originally posted by apathist
Faith belief in God provides salvation. It follows that God wants us to have faith belief, that is His fundamental desire.

That is a circular argument isn't it?
Surely the salvation is through doing what a god wants.
The god makes the rules.
Why would a god want anyone to have faith in him/her/it?

Originally posted by Suzianne
The mistake is made in assuming to judge God by man's standards. That's ridiculous. Man is not the pinnacle of morality and to claim that he is, strains credulity.

Not sure what "Man is not the pinnacle of morality" means but Man can certainly
talk about morality up to any level. I don't see how the concept is out of our grasp.
And we can certainly hold anything up to any moral standard and judge it accordingly.

Originally posted by Suzianne
The mistake is made in assuming to judge God by man's standards. That's ridiculous. Man is not the pinnacle of morality and to claim that he is, strains credulity. Man cannot match up to God. Man has, quite literally, burned his bridges concerning God. That's why he sent his Son, to bridge the wide gap between man and God. At least for the relatively few who want to make the effort.

The first question is what 'morality' actually is. What is it we are talking about.

When I talk about morality I am talking about 'wellbeing' of individuals and societies and how one goes about
judging what does and does not promote wellbeing.

If we can agree that is what morality is and what it's about then we can then go on about how one does that
'judging'.
If we can't agree on that then we are simply not talking about the same topic.

If we use my meaning of morality then we can then use the methods of science and the knowledge we have gained
through it to objectively determine whether certain actions/situations/etc promote or detract from wellbeing.
In the same way that we can analyse what does or does not promote good health, which is a similar but distinct
concept.

While we may not yet [or ever] know what the best possible [most moral] society or action for any given set of
circumstances is, we can certainly rule out some 'solutions' as being definitely worse than others.
In the same way that we don't know what 'the best possible most healthy lifestyle is' [or even if there is only one,
or one universally applicable one at all] but that doesn't mean that we can't say with certainty that a lifestyle that
consists of only eating junk food, watching tv 14 hrs a day, and smoking 60 a day while downing a bottle of JD is
definitely NOT a healthy lifestyle.
A common analogy is to chess, you can look at a given position [white to move] and not be able to determine
definitely what the best possible move is, but a move that allows Black to gain or force checkmate on their next
turn definitely a bad move.

So while we may not be able to say what the best possible society [from a moral wellbeing standpoint is] or
even know if a single best possible society [for a given set of circumstances] exists. We CAN make objective
judgements and evaluations of societies and tell which are better or worse than others, and evaluate proposed
possible alternate societies to see if they are better or worse than present or past societies we have already
tried/experienced.

Note, that this is entirely and completely independent of the existence of any god. It doesn't matter if a god exists or
not we can still make the same evaluations.

Because morality for us is about promoting wellbeing and thus dependent on our own nature and the circumstances
we find ourselves in [and how we choose to change those circumstances].

Thus if a god did exist, and we had records of it's actions/suggestions/orders/whatever then we can evaluate its
reported actions/proposals to see if they are better or worse at promoting wellbeing.

IF that god is good, and deserving of the title god, then we should expect that every time we gain better understanding
of how best to promote wellbeing the plans of god should prove to be better and better. And always better than the best
we can currently do.

What we actually find when looking at the depictions of the god in the bible [or as described by believers such as yourself]
is that the actions and plans/laws/commands/whatever of that god are way worse than our present society.

The proposals in the bible are the wellbeing equivalent of smoking 60 a day. [actually probably more like chugging down
drain cleaner]

Thus I/we judge those actions/commands/laws to be immoral. They do not promote human wellbeing.

You might respond that they promote god's wellbeing, but at that point we are no longer talking about the same thing and
I no longer care.

Originally posted by googlefudge
The first question is what 'morality' actually is. What is it we are talking about.

When I talk about morality I am talking about 'wellbeing' of individuals and societies and how one goes about
judging what does and does not promote wellbeing.

If we can agree that is what morality is and what it's about then we can then go on about how one does t ...[text shortened]... llbeing, but at that point we are no longer talking about the same thing and
I no longer care.

What if morality that matters has more to do with what occurs after this life? If that were
true than the standards of what occurs here could have nothing to do with the well being
of either individuals or societies as we measure wellbeing.

The actual reason I asked the question in the first place was concerning a scripture that
had to do with verses below."...imperishable beauty of a gentle and quiet spirit, which in
God's sight is very precious."

So as I was pondering this I started thinking our lives being lived out in common places
in the hidden ways that almost no one sees is very precious to God. Which is different
than what we see with a lot of our super stars where after a made basket in a basketball
game people scream and pound their chests, or a the dances done in the end zones of
an American foot ball game.

1 Peter 3 ESV
3 Do not let your adorning be external—the braiding of hair and the putting on of gold jewelry, or the clothing you wear— 4 but let your adorning be the hidden person of the heart with the imperishable beauty of a gentle and quiet spirit, which in God's sight is very precious.

Originally posted by twhitehead
I can think of many instances where your position would seem rather odd. Attempted murder for example. Suppose I plan to murder someone. I take a bottle of sleeping pills to their house and plan to slip it into their drink. I am discovered just before I do so. Am I not guilty of any crime given that carrying around sleeping pills is not a criminal offence ...[text shortened]... see no reason why any of those would not be better applied to thoughts and intents than actions.

What if the person would have changed his mind at the last second?

I read a case about person whose daughter had been murdered. He got hold of a gun, tracked the guy down to a house, entered it, at which point he had every intention of killing him. When he raised the gun, the guy pleaded for mercy and he suddenly realised that he would be no better than him.

Now imagine that a police officer caught the father before entering the house. If intent is all the matters, under your system he should be charged with murder (not even attempted murder) and potentially executed for a crime that not only he did not commit, but which he would never have committed.

That does not strike me as justice. Minority Report explores pretty much this issue.

Originally posted by twhitehead
I can think of many instances where your position would seem rather odd. Attempted murder for example. Suppose I plan to murder someone. I take a bottle of sleeping pills to their house and plan to slip it into their drink. I am discovered just before I do so. Am I not guilty of any crime given that carrying around sleeping pills is not a criminal offence ...[text shortened]... see no reason why any of those would not be better applied to thoughts and intents than actions.

Another point I would make is that we don't simply punish actions. There have been a number of cases in the UK where people have administered lethal doses of drugs to sick people. In some cases, they haven't even been charged, in some cases they have been found guilty of murder. However the action that would have amounted to murder was essentially the same.

Although not the only factor, a key element in whether to prosecute is the intent of the individual.

Originally posted by KellyJay
What if morality that matters has more to do with what occurs after this life? If that were
true than the standards of what occurs here could have nothing to do with the well being
of either individuals or societies as we measure wellbeing.

The actual reason I asked the question in the first place was concerning a scripture that
had to do with verses ...[text shortened]... ith the imperishable beauty of a gentle and quiet spirit, which in God's sight is very precious.

What if morality that matters has more to do with what occurs after this life? If that were
true than the standards of what occurs here could have nothing to do with the well being
of either individuals or societies as we measure wellbeing.

"What if morality that matters has more to do with what occurs after this life?"
Well then you are talking about a different thing than I am talking about and again I don't care.
I care about wellbeing of people right here right now and if you are talking about something else
then that is not morality.

Additionally, I don't have to play your 'what if' because I know for a fact that there is no 'afterlife' to
worry about.

The actual reason I asked the question in the first place was concerning a scripture that
had to do with verses below."...imperishable beauty of a gentle and quiet spirit, which in
God's sight is very precious."

So as I was pondering this I started thinking our lives being lived out in common places
in the hidden ways that almost no one sees is very precious to God. Which is different
than what we see with a lot of our super stars where after a made basket in a basketball
game people scream and pound their chests, or a the dances done in the end zones of
an American foot ball game.

1 Peter 3 ESV
3 Do not let your adorning be external—the braiding of hair and the putting on of gold jewelry, or the clothing you wear— 4 but let your adorning be the hidden person of the heart with the imperishable beauty of a gentle and quiet spirit, which in God's sight is very precious.

Ok, but nobody has ever given me anything remotely resembling a convincing reason for caring
what is or is not precious to god even if a god existed.
Nobody has ever given me any convincing reason to suppose that if a god existed they have the
slightest clue what that god would want.
Nobody has ever given me a convincing reason to suppose that the things they claim that god wants
or cares about are not laughably and obviously made up by people who have no clue what god wants.
Nobody has ever given me anything remotely resembling a convincing reason to suppose that any
god or gods exist at all.
And as far as I am concerned the problem of evil proves beyond reasonable doubt that if any one singular
god does exist then that god is and must be evil.

Originally posted by twhitehead
I can think of many instances where your position would seem rather odd. Attempted murder for example. Suppose I plan to murder someone. I take a bottle of sleeping pills to their house and plan to slip it into their drink. I am discovered just before I do so. Am I not guilty of any crime given that carrying around sleeping pills is not a criminal offence ...[text shortened]... see no reason why any of those would not be better applied to thoughts and intents than actions.

"I can think of many instances where your position would seem rather odd. Attempted murder for example. Suppose I plan to murder someone. I take a bottle of sleeping pills to their house and plan to slip it into their drink"

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.

Attempted murder is an attempt to action those thoughts. It is thus a crime... I thought I was clear on that.

I take a bottle of sleeping pills to their house and plan to slip it into their drink. I am discovered just before I do so. Am I not guilty of any crime given that carrying around sleeping pills is not a criminal offence. None of my actual actions were criminal. It was my intent that was criminal.

I would certainly agree that in this case the actions+intent are and should be criminal.
Although as a practical matter what you describe would be very very hard to actually prosecute as your example
is unlikely to include sufficient evidence to demonstrate motive.

But again, this is not just someone sitting at home thinking about killing someone, it's a person actually putting
into effect a plan that would result in the death of that person. There are actions to go along with the thoughts.

Originally posted by KellyJay
For those that do not believe in God feel free to give what you think would
be important if God were real.

Since this god of yours is manufactured by mankind, the importance attributed to it would be anything men want it to be. It's up to the manufacturers what the properties of this god should be.

They have already given it some human attributes, like it looks like a human and is a jealous god. The manufacturers wanted it that way so the religions it spurred would be understandable to fellow humans of the gullible type, who needed some order in their dangerous lives.