Right, but then He’d be pissed about crimes against humans, not crimes against HimSelf. Even if the human who was hurt was the one commiting the crime.
Is God angry because orgies hurt His feelings, or is He angry because orgies hurt human beings, and hurting human beings hurts His feelings?
Those things don’t hurt anybody else either, though. Who is hurt by idol worship? Who is hurt by orgies? The idea of an omnimax God being butthurt by idol worship is especially weird.
No, assuming God as an infinite, omniscient being existed, a crime against Him would be impossible.
I kind of pity people who live in fear of displeasing an omniscient, omnipotent entity. There’s a lot of self-inflicted misery in their lives, not eased by when they try to spread this fear to others.
In the criminal justice system, offenses against omnipotent deities are considered especially heinous. In New York City, the dedicated detectives who investigate these vicious felonies are members of an elite squad known as the Special God Unit. These are their stories.
Law & Order: SGU, starring Haley Joel Osmet as Curtis LeMay
Some Christians might say that cutting the power to an abortion clinic in the middle of the night might be an example of a crime against man butn not a crime against God.
What Was The Noise Of A Single Facepalm?
And, as part of his pointless post collection, would the OP care to weigh in with an opinion? Union?
The benefit that I can see to Curtis’ current crop of threads is that he seems to be struggling with logical problems that arise from his current conception of God (slavery, the existance of evil, God’s temper and jealosy). I look forward to the day a few years from now when he’s a more athiestic than Der Trihs. Course, first we have to go through the Hindu/Buddhist stage, and the Quaker stage and stuff.
Don’t worry, we’re here for you, dude.
I fail to see the logic you reference and I look forward to the day when he takes a vow of silence.
The OP says that he is 15 years old, which means that he is probably in school right now, delaying responses until he returns.
What, he don’t got a web-ready cellphone? Pfft, kids today…
No, not at all.
I want to respond specifically to this. I’ve seen a lot of atheists do this, and in fact it’s this argument which is nonsense, even under their own logic. Tossing out any particular theory of God except for a vague Christianity (so I’m not going to get involved in some arguments on specifics)…
You keep thinking of crimes in terms of a personal injury. And yet, we have daily evidence right here and now in our everyday lives that this is not so. In fact, in any social group, actions taken against one member apply against all members.
Thus, when one child strikes his or her sibling, the parent considers it a crime against the family, and sees to it that the child is properly punished for it. The punishment may be isolation or even physical reprisal. (Let’s not get into the spanking argument, mind you). The harmony of the family, as laid down by the (God-like in authority and hopefully wise in practice) parents.
When you harm another citizen, then it is considered a crime against the state. Agents of the state, acting on behalf of the entire people of the state, which seeks you out, arrests you, tries you and may punish you if found guilty. And this is not in the least unjust. The state is the arbiter of justice. Note that on the face of it the charges are ludicrous and can potentially be really silly. For example:
Let us propose that a citizen and resident of New York (state) attacks and kills a visitor from New Jersey - oh hell, to stave off the inevitable New Jersey jokes, the victim was a penguin hunter from Antarctica. The aggressor harmed the life, liberty, or property of one person - who was not even a citizen. That person has no natural claim on justice from a foreign community. That is, if the act had taken place in Antarctica it wouldn’t really be New York’s place to enforce the law.* However, New York says that such acts of violence are crimes against the state’s own law. The criminal is a criminal because he violated New York’s authority.
If he had only violated the rights of the individual, it might be a civil matter. But it is not. And if the victim survived and then said, “Oh well, I don’t want him punished,” that also would not matter. The criminal is guilty of breaking the moral order laid down by the state, even though he in no way harmed the state directly, nor any citizen of the state.
*Many jurisdictions do claim the authority to punish their own citizens who go abroad to commit some actions which are illegal in the home ground, and then flee back home to avoid punishment by foregn authorities with whom there is no extradition treaty, or in cases where the home jurisdiction fears bias against its citizen. But that’s a more complicated case and doesn’t change the basic concept.
Whether you agree or not, Christians believe God is in a similar position as the state in my example. God is the essence, author, and enforcer of a moral order. When humans do evil acts, they may offend against each other - but they definitely and in all cases offend against the moral order. Hence, sin.
So you can imagine I find hilarious that the same people who often get huffy when something they think should be punished by an authority is not, then mock God for becoming angry and punishing the guilty for far more serious transgressions.
Of course, I am not here asking you to agree with it. You have to be convinced by the ressurection before you can believe in Christ, I think. But there is no reason to mock another’s beliefs because you fundamentally fail to understand them.
Well, let the community of gods act, if they feel one of their citizens has been victimized (even if that particular god-citizen doesn’t feel like pressing charges) or if they feel an offense has taken place in their territory.
Assuming of course, you can prove their existence, or the existence of even one god-citizen.
There’s no reason to consider God, or gods in general moral authorities. I don’t recall him running for office. And you are ignoring the problem that an omniscient/omnipotent creator god - which in reality is what the vast majority of Christian believers buy into - is in fact ultimately responsible for and the cause of everything, everywhere including our alleged sins. God punishing us for doing something he made us to do is anything but moral.
Really? Always?
What? I’m sorry, but no. The reason physical assault is wrong is because of the harm it does to the victim. And the primary victim is not “the family”. Especially not in your example.
But once you ask why the state is the arbiter of justice in this case, it’s not at all because of some hypothetical crime against the state, it’s because:
The murder itself is not a direct crime against the community.
You may frame it as crimes against the state, but I’m not convinced at all that this is the best or most just way of looking at the issue.
But communities and states are composed of humans. All you’ve done so far is flat out state that crimes against humans are also crimes against god. You’ve done nothing at all to show that crimes against god even exist in their own right
Yeah, sorry, I have to disagree with this bizarre logic myself. As one who has children who have been struck, I’ve never considered it “a crime against the family.” It has nothing to do with keeping the family in harmony; it has to do with one person willfully injuring another person. I’d alert the parents of the bully even if it wasn’t my kid being hurt. A household is not the mafia.
I have asked serious, respectful questions of him in other threads that he has never answered; I have requested answers to questions and those answers are not forthcoming. Have you a reason for his past failures to respond?
And besides this, anything you do do contributes to this being the best of all possible worlds, so the supposed crime results in a better world than the one in which you did not commit the crime.
So, if God is causing us to commit these crimes against him, I can only guess that he is doing it for the insurance money.
I guess if I believed in god I could actually picture some kind of crime against god. But I don’t, so I can’t.
I originally read this as crime against dog, and I have mixed feeling about that. Sure, you can do things that dogs don’t like–but does the dog consider it a crime?
Humans are real, exist, and have feelings. So yes, a crime against a human is worse.
If there were an omniscient, omnipotent, omnipresent god, seems like it would be hard to commit a crime against that god without that god’s consent. So, again–no.
And according to that new testament guy, if you did it to the least of humans you did it to him. So yet again–no.
I thought he was fourteen?