Since the god of the bible has a history of forcing people to do evil things, how would I know if I was doing it of free will, or if god was forcing me to do something I would never choose to do?
As I mentioned, I am not here to argue for Christianity. I will say that you are cherry-picking what you like for your arguments. That is, you are choosing some elements of Christianity, and then making an argument on that, but ignoring anything from Christianity that you would neuter your argument. That is exceptionally offensive reasoning.
Superfluous Parentheses: As I mentioned, I’m not arguing for Christianity here. I’m not laying out the foundation for believing this. I only state the logical conclusion and specifically how it flows from the premise logically. The premise is that God embodies the moral order. if you don’t agree with that, then the latter has no meaning for you.
You claim that the crime is “causing harm” to a specific victim. However, even to say that, you are accepting that a real, specific harm exists. All law codes I have ever heard of punish crimes regardless of the victim’s feelings.
I have never met anyone who honestly claimed that people can give any morally meaningful permission for someone to harm them, so the crime must be offending against some higher moral order. That is, you can’t say, “Ok, go ahead and rape me.” Or torture. Or kill. Or rob. You may choose to give or allow things up to a certain point, but not beyond, and it is irrelevant what you as a victim say.
Frankly, it’s irrelevant as to how you think it should be looked at. Legally, that is how it is in fact done. The criminal breaks the state’s law, which is above any individual interest. It is not an offense against the public order, but the public law. The murder is a crime regardless of whether or not it bothers the body politic in any way, shape, or form.
I would close by pointing out that that I did not, in fact, claim that crimes against humans are crimes against God. As a matter of fact I rather say the two are only sometimes the same and only vaguely related. However, the Christian logic is not erroneous. That you either don’t agree with or understand the premise does not mean it or the conclusion is wrong - or right. That’s a separate matter, and I would be happy to discuss it… in another thread.
Bolding mine.
Exactly. That is my point. The act itself is presumed to be wrong. But it can only be wrong in a real moral system in which actions are not relative to the individuals. The other child cannot give permission to be beaten or
There are, or at least have been entire legal systems which essentially were nothing more than a vehicle of power for individuals. The “legal” system was entirely relative: a powerful person was not viewed as evil for robbing, murdering, or otherwise harming a weaker person. We are not like this socially or legally. The act is viewed as right or wrong on its own, not because of the personalities involved.
Added note: Yes, there are some people who get their jollies out of S&M or petplay or what. But they are not, deep down, giving up control and can easily leave if they wish. They apparently find a little danger or service exciting.
“I am fourteen going on fifteen, some think that I’m naive.”
People do grow up, Guin, year by year, even Curtis.
I think he’s fifteen by now, but don’t quote me. 
Hmmm, because if he was born in 1996, (IIRC), then he should only be fourteen. I think he was thirteen when he joined, right, and that was only a year ago.
You’ve never heard of assisted suicide? Or for that matter insurance scams, where someone arranges for someone else to steal/destroy something of theirs that’s insured? Which is wrong of course, but the party being wronged isn’t the one who gave permission for the theft or destruction. And there’s masochists who get off on being whipped, shocked or cut.
People are perfectly capable of giving others the “morally meaningful permission for someone to harm them”; the subject just doesn’t come up that often because most people aren’t interested in being hurt.
Wait, that’s Curtis? I wonder why he changed his name.
The fact remains that if God owns everything and is in total control of the universe, the most that can done against him can only be described as self-abuse.
God masturbates?
Just so he has an excuse to kill kittens.
Of course.
“Causing harm” in my example should be understood as “causing harm ‘without informed consent’”. That’s why fraud is punishable, but asking someone for a gift is not. It’s also why there is a concept of ‘informed consent’ at all, and why we consider some people incapable of giving consent. Most crimes are in fact actions that can be legally consented to, and of the ones that cannot be legally consented to a lot of them (but probably not all) are that way only for religious reasons. Example: sodomy laws, assisted suicide etc.
Technically, everything is. But that’s a question of organization. You are aware that written laws are a fairly recent invention, right? Besides, the state is not the law. The state (in democracies) implements the law on behalf of the people. This is for a lot of different reasons, including the general sense that law should be applied to all people equally, that the weak should be protected from the strong, and to prevent escalating revenge schemes.
As I said, the state is not the law. Now we can have crimes against the state (that is, against the people in general) - tax evasion, whatever. But those still actually do harm against the state or the people or the social contract or however you want to put it. There’s no equivalent crime with God as the victim, unless you say that God literally IS the law (I’m sure there are people who make those kinds of meaningless statements), in which case every crime is a crime against God and the OP’s question is meaningless.