1984 was off by about 17 years

[John Eric Tiessen]

Orson Wells was off by about 17 years when he wrote the book 1984, which described a future in which information  was constantly censored and history always being re-written to suit the image that the central government wanted. The problem is that that day is already here. We are living in an age where we spend a considerable amount of our time online in an environment that isolates us from information and perspectives that are threatening to our own! Case in point: Facebook!

The 'filter bubble'

Facebook actively screen's out information and political views on your news feed that go contrary to your political, religious and general way of thinking about the world.

Why is this concerning? There is no longer a generally accepted perspective on ANY issue! It is becoming impossible to have a generally recognized source of information and opinion! We are headed towards an age where it doesn't matter that you are quoting from a panel of scientists who have definitively proven that global warming is real. The group of conservatives across the table from you will just point to their lone scientist and claim that he's right and the other guys are wrong.

What can we do to avoid this fate? Should we even bother to try and stop this? Finally, what are going to be the long term consequences of this new way of looking at the world, through a metaphorical pinhole camera instead of the traditional wide-field lens?

[Vertigo_One [Ops Mod]]

I forgot how many bullets you have to put into your brain for this ""'theology""" to work.   Let's roll up the sleeves and get started. 

 

If you continue with insults, I will not continue this discussion. I will simply declare victory and leave, since as the Chinese proverb says "The man who strikes the first blow admits he has lost the argument".

 

Within Catholic theology, crimes are sins provided that the legislation does not violate the natural law.  Anything that violates the natural law is a sin.  
A crime is a violation of legislation imposed through governance.  

 

A sin is rebellion against God. A crime is breaking the law of the state. The punishment system for one is not the same as the punishment system for the other.

 

It's not kind, nor is it justice.  The Jews would also contend that last part of your statement.

 

Then they would need to respond to the parts of the Old Testement that make the point that the greater covenant is comming.

 

Assuming Bin Laden weren't killed at the scene and was instead sentenced to be killed, but some follower rushes into the hearing and throws himself at the judge begging to be punished instead. Let's say that Osama consents and the judge says "sure" too. 

It is barbaric for Osama to let his wife suffer for his crimes. 

Justice has not been served as the criminal is not the one suffering for the act. 

 

Yes, but pure justice would mean we all go to hell. That was the problem God had. So, he created a solution. If he wanted to deal with the problem, it is he who would have to pay. In your example, it does not work because it is a random follower/his wife who takes the fall. But what if it was the judge himself. The judge administers the sentence and then takes it himself. Only then in the strictest sense of the word can it be forgiveness in that sense. Calling it "justice" may not be the most apt system to compare it to. A better one would be "debt". IE Billy owes John a large sum of money. A sum of money that can never be paid off, not even if Billy were to work all the days of his life. John realises this, and so offers Billy the option of having the debt cancelled. However, if the debt is cancelled, John will have a large hole in his accounting books, and he must deal with that somehow. Billy therefore has two options. Accept John's gift, and thank him for the sacrifice he makes, or insist that he can pay the debt back, and suffer the rest of his life trying to pay back what he cannot achieve.

 

It's not a fact, and within the Christian mythos it's also incorrect theologically.  Within the Christian doctrine of the Trinity, it can be said that Jesus is god, but not that god is Jesus.  As with the previous example, justice is not served. 

 

Jesus is God, God is Jesus "I and the Father are one".

 

Either god is the arbiter of morality or he is not.  If he is not, then he is bound to morality as its objectivity cannot be changed.

 

I fail to see how I am being inconsistant. God has the authority, morality is part of his nature.

 

In the NT Jesus says that it is wicked for a parent to give a child a scorpion when the child has asked for an egg, killing Job's innocent wife and daughters far beyond a lesson. 

 

In your opinon. You cannot prove it.

 

 Once again, the punishment cannot be transferred to another individual and call it justice. 

 

It can be, if the punishment is meeted out onto the judging authority. Furthermore, you forget also that the punishment being given to another (Jesus) is conditional. In that sense, it serves the fundimental aim of justice. Correction. You will only reciveve grace if you are sincere in wanting forgiveness and thankful for the salvation offered. And if you are sincere in forgiveness, then you won't want to do it again.

 

Your source was weak.  We see the Hebrews attack armies of men in which only soldiers are killed and the OT narrates as such.

 

You are making the mistake that the OT is all one document. Parts of the OT are like this, parts are not. The source stands.

 

Furthermore, the account from numbers demonstrates that women were killed on account of the genocide law in the OT.

 

I'd recomend you read other sources on the issue.

 

http://christianthinktank.com/midian.html

[Hutch Hogan]

If you continue with insults, I will not continue this discussion. I will simply declare victory and leave, since as the Chinese proverb says "The man who strikes the first blow admits he has lost the argument".

Anything to walk away with a "win". My remark was more so directed at myself, remembering how I had to tether my doubts when I got into apologetic debates. 

A sin is rebellion against God. A crime is breaking the law of the state. The punishment system for one is not the same as the punishment system for the other.

However, as you appeal to religious motivations for civil laws, you believe that the two should overlap in some regard.  The laws of deuteronomy are not just religious customs, but also impose civil laws as well. 

Then they would need to respond to the parts of the Old Testement that make the point that the greater covenant is comming[sic].

Within Judaic tradition, it is coming, but it has not yet come.  Either way your response focused on the least important part of that statement. 

Jesus is God, God is Jesus "I and the Father are one".

That statement is too vague to derive the transitions that you do.  It's a pity that you haven't gone into more philosophy behind the mystery of the Trinity to understand the complexity of the Christian belief and the exact nature of the speech that must be used to aptly discuss it.  If I had not come to see Christianity for what it is, I would encourage you to delve deeper into the philosophy, but now I'll just tell you not to waste your life. 

I fail to see how I am being inconsistant. God has the authority, morality is part of his nature.

You've developed your position a little bit better in this post, finally getting some part of the clarity.  Though you have opened up the problem of God giving up "true justice" for a "quasi-justice" which then leads to the problem of why a human sacrifice was even necessary, let alone the sacrifice of an innocent human. 

In your opinon. You cannot prove it.

So is morality subjective or objective? If you're telling me that when I say "it is wrong to kill innocents, even if it means teaching a lesson" is my subjective opinion, then you're giving up a lot of ground in terms of objective morality. 

You are making the mistake that the OT is all one document. Parts of the OT are like this, parts are not. The source stands.

 I'm not making a mistake, we see Joshua kill soldiers and we see Joshua slaughter innocents. 

 

I'll respond to the article and the problem of transferring justice later today. 

[Vertigo_One [Ops Mod]]

However, as you appeal to religious motivations for civil laws, you believe that the two should overlap in some regard.

 

I believe that God has good ideas for us, but I don't believe those good ideas included being forced to believe. So I believe in using his wisdom for the state's benefit wherever human rights permits.

 

The laws of deuteronomy are not just religious customs, but also impose civil laws as well

 

 

That statement is too vague to derive the transitions that you do.

 

Perhaps, but I would argue that it works both ways, that God is all of them and all of them are God. I fail to see why that is a problem

 

So is morality subjective or objective? If you're telling me that when I say "it is wrong to kill innocents, even if it means teaching a lesson" is my subjective opinion, then you're giving up a lot of ground in terms of objective morality. 

 

No, I'm not. I'm saying it can be your opinion if you want. That doesn't change how accurate it is.

 

I'm not making a mistake, we see Joshua kill soldiers and we see Joshua slaughter innocents. 

 

Yes you are. You said that other parts of the OT talk about killing the same way as in Joshua, yet we accept it as accurate rather than hyperbolic. I, however, am pointing out that since not all of the OT is written by the same person, in the same way, we can eaisily expect two different writers to write the same thing when we read it, but in it's context mean different things.

[Hutch Hogan]

No, I'm not. I'm saying it can be your opinion if you want. That doesn't change how accurate it is.

Your interests are obviously too vested if you're unwilling to believe that is wrong to kill innocent people to teach another person a lesson. 

[Vertigo_One [Ops Mod]]

That depends upon your definition of "innocent" and whom it is who is doing the killing. From God's perspective, no one is innocent, hence why we all die, and only he has the right to determine when it is we do die.

[God ~blogs admin ~]

Then god is but a over zealous, sick child with a magnifying glass. To which point, why the earth would anyone worship such a filthy creature? People can't stand kings, let alone sick twisted demonic beings such as that rat you're describing. 

[Hutch Hogan]

You're using circular logic.  You're defining God at the source of morality and then trying to fault my argument by saying that God cannot do immoral things through definition. 

When you define your parameters so that god cannot commit immoral actions, then you're presented with a plausible case of god being immoral, and you say "well since its god, it's not immoral", that's faulty logic.  Especially when you try to hold an atheist to accept such a silly definition (there is charitable sportsmanship, but there is also simply inane ideas). 

And if we want to say that none are innocent in God's eyes, we do have exceptions in scripture: Zachary and Elizabeth stood blameless in front of god. 

And they were both just before God, walking in all the commandments and justifications of the Lord without blame.

And even in the case that Job's wife and daughters were sinful, within Christian morality are three divisions for the action, the object, the intent and the circumstances.  God's intent was to test Job when he killed his family, not to bring sinners to justice. 

[Hutch Hogan]

Yes, but pure justice would mean we all go to hell. That was the problem God had. So, he created a solution. If he wanted to deal with the problem, it is he who would have to pay. In your example, it does not work because it is a random follower/his wife who takes the fall. But what if it was the judge himself. The judge administers the sentence and then takes it himself. Only then in the strictest sense of the word can it be forgiveness in that sense. Calling it "justice" may not be the most apt system to compare it to. A better one would be "debt". IE Billy owes John a large sum of money. A sum of money that can never be paid off, not even if Billy were to work all the days of his life. John realises this, and so offers Billy the option of having the debt cancelled. However, if the debt is cancelled, John will have a large hole in his accounting books, and he must deal with that somehow. Billy therefore has two options. Accept John's gift, and thank him for the sacrifice he makes, or insist that he can pay the debt back, and suffer the rest of his life trying to pay back what he cannot achieve.

There is a fundamental problem here again.  

Consider my case with bin Laden again.  Now let's say instead of a zealot offering his life for bin Laden's, the judge says he'll take on bin Laden's punishment instead, letting bin Laden go free. 

This actually highlights one of the biggest problems with Christianity itself, especially in the narcissism of Jesus. 

Justice is not served and is pushed to an innocent person, but justice isn't served because while the judge may have been harmed by bin Laden, he was not the only one to be harmed.  

Jesus forgiving sins is said to be a claim to divinity with the doubters in the Bible saying "only god can forgive sins!"  And that's not true, only victims can forgive sins.  While you can moan about how god is a victim of every sin, he cannot be the only one.  Not without taking away our humanity. 

[Vertigo_One [Ops Mod]]

When you define your parameters so that god cannot commit immoral actions, then you're presented with a plausible case of god being immoral, and you say "well since its god, it's not immoral", that's faulty logic.

 

No, it isn't. To provide an example to prove my point, if someone stole my car, and I then found out who it was and captured them, locked them in my basement for X number of years and then let them go, I would have committed an offence. If however, someone steals my car and the police arrest him and he is put away for X number of years in prison etc then it is okay. We accept the reality of the fact that in many cases, the moraltiy of an action can be changed by the person doing it.

 

And if we want to say that none are innocent in God's eyes, we do have exceptions in scripture: Zachary and Elizabeth stood blameless in front of god. 

 

Context. It says blameless. It does not say without sin.

 

And even in the case that Job's wife and daughters were sinful, within Christian morality are three divisions for the action, the object, the intent and the circumstances.  God's intent was to test Job when he killed his family, not to bring sinners to justice. 

 

Death is the sentence for all sinners. We all face that ultimately. When we face it is up to God.

 

Jesus forgiving sins is said to be a claim to divinity with the doubters in the Bible saying "only god can forgive sins!"  And that's not true, only victims can forgive sins.  While you can moan about how god is a victim of every sin, he cannot be the only one.  Not without taking away our humanity. 

 

I fail to see the issue here. Our sin is defined as rebellion against God. The only victim of sin can be God. Certianly, others can be victims because of the consequences of the sin, but that is what we have courts for.

[Hutch Hogan]

I fail to see the issue here. Our sin is defined as rebellion against God. The only victim of sin can be God. Certianly, others can be victims because of the consequences of the sin, but that is what we have courts for.

Really?  Really? Your god got a wonderful look at how well those work, didn't he?

[Vertigo_One [Ops Mod]]

Really?  Really? Your god got a wonderful look at how well those work, didn't he?

 

The point I'm making is that it's not God's responability to conduct justice between us. That's our job. So your argument that God, in offerign salvation, somehow robs us of humanity doesn't work. Sin is defined as rebellion against God. It is justice for sin that God deals with.

[Hutch Hogan]

"Now don't you rape and kill that woman, Johnny.  No. Stop Johnny, now you've done it."

"Oh god, that was so bad of me to hurt her so badly, I'm so sorry god."

"Her? You hurt me Johnny, I told you specifically not to rape and kill her and look what you've done.  Now apologize."

"Oh I'm so sorry god."

"That's alright, all better now that you've rectified yourself with me."

What a loving, just and merciful god.