Can divine punishment be unjustified?

It is hard to do justice to the process by which one may learn about God in a short post.

One thing I believe is evident is the disparity between the bible's message and the interpretation which the clergy class has sold to mankind throughout the millenniums

neo missed my point. we wouldn't need to learn anything new about god, we could focus entirely on learning about neo, and from that we could extrapolate what he wants us to "know" about "god" - because although he can't admit it, he's talking exclusively about god-through-the-eyes-of-neo.

obviously, we have a bible, and he has a bible, and he's pointed out again and again that our eyes aren't good enough until they've had *his* training, *his* knowledge, *his* perspective. we're talking about neo, and only neo, and only his access to the subject. his claim that it's the right access means nothing, except to him and people that believe he's got vision that we don't.

on that front, i think *everyone* has visions that other's don't, but neo excludes those, for his own. personally i don't think god-through-the-eyes-of-neo alone is sufficient, but if we have our own vision, he says it's false.

i say the inclusion is true, and the exclusion is false. he says the exclusion is true, and the inclusion is false. maybe we're both right, but i'm not giving up an open mind for neo's monopoly on interpretation just yet. of course, that will (allegedly) be my downfall, that i didn't trade in an open mind. i'm prepared for that, if that's the price that god-through-the-eyes-of-neo exacts. it would be a very silly god, i think.

There are only two perspectives I can present:

My understanding of God, or

The bible's representation of God.

Forgive me if I have failed to include the disclaimer I have often made in my earlier a2k posts, that I present purely my point of view and may incorrectly state the bible's case.

But as for whether the bible says God's judgements can be unjustified:

"The Rock, perfect is his activity,
For all his ways are justice.
A God of faithfulness, with whom there is no injustice;
Righteous and upright is he.

 5 They have acted ruinously on their own part;
They are not his children, the defect is their own." (Deuteronomy 32:4,5)

Surely they are the same? Or at least your own interpretation of the bible leads you to your own understanding of God?

If on the other hand you maintain your understanding of God is unique to you, then you must allow for other people to come to their own understanding.

Hence there must be as many "understandings" or interpretations of that small three letter name as there are individuals capable of intellectualising it. In otherwords there is not one God, but 6.6 billion gods, or rather the concept of The One God is meaningless.

I'm sorry but time after time the ship of religious belief flounders on the rock of logic.

right, or as i'd like to put it, "neo's interpretation of the biblical interpretation of jesus's interpretation of god."

which neo simply refers to as "the biblical interpretation of god," which is why i said he missed my point. to neo, there's no room for misunderstanding, at least if there is, there's no room for him. for other people, there's lots of room- but what matters is he's ahead of them because he thinks that his interpretation is the "correct" one.

that's funny because lots of people (that don't agree with each other) think their "literal" interpretation is the correct one.

i don't rely on neo for that, but i do rely on everyone's interpretation to make decisions about what the bible says, myself and neo included. but what i can rely on neo for 100% is getting *neo's* interpretation. on that he never fails, and i do find it interesting. canonical? hmm... well, everyone's got a bible and most people have an opinion about it. i wouldn't hold that against neo when everyone else does it, but i'd like to call it what it is- another opinion.

I have no claim to special enlightenment. Take what I say at face value.

He doesn't. Imperfections are different than say being a murderer. I wouldn't call the desire to commit a murder an imperfection.

Boy, I hope you're not lumping me into this catagory.

If so, you don't know me very well.

You can use my siggie for that. :wink:

I hate people like you who expect me to believe what you believe but refuse to accept the possibility that what I believe may be in fact true. I acknowledge the fact that there may not be a god without proof that such is true. You, on the other hand, and people like you demand proof for my beliefs even if you yourself don't believe them. Like it would hurt you personally to let me have my own belief in God.

Hardly debate worthy if you ask me so I am not going to further discuss or clarify my beliefs.

And for the record, since people like you tend to lump all of us who believe in God into one giant pile, I am not a drone. I don't blindly follow anything or anyone.

Do you think God, if he exists would prefer someone who just says he believes, because it costs nothing, over someone who honestly and bravely comes to the opposite conclusion?

Is that question addressed to moi?

If so, why would anyone say they believed just for the sake of saying it?

That doesn't make any sense.

Do I think that all non-believers are going to Hell? Absolutely not.

But then again, I don't really believe in a Hell.

i wasn't referring to anyone in particular, was attacking the idea of blind faith, not the people that have it. although if you do believe in blind faith, i can see how you would take offense. however, i wasn't referring to you, let alone accusing you of such a thing. i don't think neo is blind either, but he *seems* to be arguing in favor of being blind.



the only thing i expect people to believe is that they don't have a monopoly on truth. that by the way, has nothing significant to do with my reply.



ha! of course i believe it's possible that there's a god. almost anything is possible. i take no issue with the fact that you believe in a god, whatsoever.



cool. in my book, which is of no consequence to you, that makes you a reasonable person. however, i never said you weren't.



not at all! i think you're perfectly entitled to believe in a god, or gods. i took issue with your argument for a god, not with your conclusion. your argument for a god (which isn't necessary to believe in one, i might add) is an old argument, and it misses important points like the fact that there is more than one religion. pascal's wager just doesn't work unless there is only one god.

(and while you may believe there is only one god, that belief is not universal among believers since pascal's wager is based on "why not believe in god just in case?" it's impossible to believe in one without choosing one, and risking the wrath and punishment of the other gods. this is just one of the flaws with pascal's wager.)



oh, i think i'm more open to the idea than you might realize.



actually i think it would be better to let people have their beliefs in god, and i argue this point with atheists regularly.



that's your decision, but it would be a pity for you stop posting out of a misunderstanding that has nothing to do with you or your beliefs.



actually, i lump all beliefs into one giant pile, including atheism and agnosticism. i can't imagine how you would take that personally, except that you think i'm arguing against believing in god. the simple fact is that i'm not- at all.



that's good, although i think you're mentioning this because you think my picture of the dalek was aimed at you. it was aimed, exclusively, at what neo said.

here are my beliefs, in case it makes any of the above points more clear:

1. no one has a monopoly on truth: not atheists, not agnostics, not theists.

2. there is, in my opinion, some evidence for a god. it's not proof, and atheists might be right. in fact, i don't care if there is a god or not.

3. atheists and theists have a lot of common ground. atheists should look into the useful aspects of religion (without necessarily embracing it) and theists should give credit to atheists for the values they share, and basically get over fundamentalism (if possible.) it would be ideal.

religion is important to atheists because science is important. among science is the study of mankind, his history, his psychology, anthropology. you cannot understand any of these things if you do not understand man's politics and man's beliefs. religion also has an impact on philosophy, and i believe that archetypes are priceless to organizing philosophical constructs. while some beliefs *might* be garbage (maybe not,)

religion is rich in stereotypes that benefit (and preserve) philosophy and inspire rich fictional works for the entertainment of atheists everywhere. star trek is richer for having creators versed in judeo-christian concepts. i'm sure other religious ideas are borrowed from.

i'm not proposing that these are the only benefits of religion, i'm giving two examples that atheists should be able to relate to.

atheism is the belief that we're on our own, as such it is the recognition of responsibility to take care of ourselves. the fact is that we can look at this in terms of our personal wealth or collective wealth, but no god is going to clean up our messes, only we can do that. you might think this fosters apathy and ego, but religion can just as easily.

progressive politics and atheism go together beautifully, the idea that we must help each other progresses naturally from atheism because there's no skydaddy to come make things better. christians in particular should come to the realization that atheists have some values that are very christian, and some goals that are very christian, and work together with them to make the world better.

on the points where the two must disagree, they must disagree. i see these points as relatively superficial, but people are entitled to their beliefs. after all, as i said, no one has a monopoly on truth.

is that more reasonable? it's not a new stance of mine, at all. i think you just misunderstood, people are largely entitled to that as well.

Let me apologize for jumping down your throat.

It's been a rough few days (sick baby) and in these threads I can be a little, well jumpy. I tend to be stubborn and while I don't get offended easily, the one thing that does get me going is when people assume to know me and try to tell me I am a follower.

So now that we are clear that you did not and are not saying I am, we can move on.

By the way, I love your avatar. It makes me smile every time I see it.

please don't worry about it, everybody has crap days where they're sensitive to things that aren't even being said.

i'm glad you like the avatar every once in while we're lucky enough to make something that kind of springs out of its own existance, i got the idea from the "just-hatched" status i gained by joining a2k, and the image has tickled me ever since.

I thought your avatar was a reference to extraordinary height. I fully expected to meet someone 6'8" or so.

No, huh?

ooooooohhhh
nah, it's not a reference to any aspect of my body- although cjhsa has already mentioned that he disagrees, i don't think he's done any research beyond the usual speculation.

and what a thing to speculate about!