Why is God not held to the same moral standard as man?

[barcelonic]

If you take a book James, and then hand a copy of that book to every human/person (or whatever you like to call us) in the world, each one of us will have a different idea of what that book is about. We will interpret it differently.

It doesn't need to be a religious book or even philosophical (it could be fiction even), but let us take the Bible as an example because it is has been arguably the most divisive book in history: we have Catholicism and Protenstantism (among many others) who both disagree with how the others are interpreting their book.

They both feel as though they are able to understand it correctly and the other group is not.

Obviously you take me for a child.

I don't see how you've come to this conclusion from what you quoted above, but I am now beginning to as you seem incapable of addressing my questions in a mature manner.

Do you now see how you are not so special and your interpretation of the Bible (followed by subsequent studies) is just that - an interpretation. Just as you disagree with most other Christians, most other Christians disagree with you. So the question I'm drawn to asking myself is why do YOU believe you have the right to present your interpretation of the Bible as though it is the correct one. Are you not capable of conceding that you may be wrong?

So what you are saying is that if I make a statement that anyone else might or might not agree with, then I am being unduly confident merely because other people argue? They each think they are right, therefore no there can be no right? Seems like an unlikely situation.

No. James you are a tricky one aren't you? You know very well that is not what I'm saying. But feel free to correct me if I'm giving you too much credit.
Try reading it again and you may just spot the KEY part of what I posted - YOU ARE PRESENTING OPINION AS FACT - i never said you are not entitled to post your opinions - in fact i challenge you to point out where I said this!

I, myself, accept that I may be wrong with my opinions on all kinds of things, and so I make a point to not present opinion as fact and to not belittle the opinions of others (unless they are doing this to my own beliefs).

I prefer to ask questions rather than make statements or claims and try to be aware when I do make a claim so that I am careful with what I say and how I say it.

Hmm.. seems just the opposite.

Well of course it does to you James because it seems clear you're not capable of making a concession - i'd be interested if you could point me to a SINGLE post on ILP made by you in which you accept you are wrong.
Personally i think this all stems from discrimination against non-Christians and atheists but thats just a feeling i have (although im sure youll no doubt take it as a concrete statement).

Perhaps you are, like so very many others, unaware of the tendency for presumptuous people to interpret the statements of others through a vision of themselves, a reflection, and thus the liar presumes the other to be lying, the addict presumes the other to be an addict, the presumptuous presumes the other to be presumptuous, the hateful presumes the other to be hateful, and so on.

Impressive how you know this much, yet surprising you cannot hold the mirror up to yourself in this regard. If I'd written this exact sentence about you it would be a fairer remark.

You, on the other hand, seem to have an altogether different system; does it not sit right with you that people are out there not understanding the 'true' word of God?

Such isn't my concern unless they are particularly (and unusually) interested enough to ask.
Of course, in your lack of hesitation and compulsion to judge, you probably and predictably didn't notice that I have only given my "interpretation" when asked for it either directly or indirectly.

Haha brilliant thank you sooo much. Tis good to know you are the kind of person to whom you can give a shovel with whcih they dig their own graves! Lol
Fortunately others may see this underlined part despite the fact you won't due to your perpetually self-supporting pathology.
To illustrate for you what I mean: I assert you believe your understanding of Christianity is correct and most others' are wrong - you go right ahead and confirm it with that beautifully-placed statement ha I thank you once again for that one; it seems you ARE capable of making concessions - but just unconcsiously it would seem.


You should to save your preaching for the preachers, son.

Where's the preaching in my post James, huh?!?
I'm not even pushing a belief, merely questioning the way YOU preach yours. If all you are able to do is say, "I know you are but what am I?", what is one to think of you other than being the immature person you apparently felt i labelled you in my last post - ??

[James S Saint]

YOU ARE PRESENTING OPINION AS FACT

Has it every occurred to you that you are merely reading "THIS IS AN ABSOLUTE FACT!!" into a mere voiced opinion?

..as I said, you merely see yourself between the words you read.

[barcelonic]

YOU ARE PRESENTING OPINION AS FACT

Has it every occurred to you that you are merely reading "THIS IS AN ABSOLUTE FACT!!" into a mere voiced opinion?

..as I said, you merely see yourself between the words you read.

Hmm, the one above plus..... (all in this thread alone)

The burden of proof is on the one making ANY claim, for or against.

Much like physics, it isn't an issue of whether it is man made, but rather whether it fits reality and to what degree.

If God were to "intercede", God would be interfering with Himself.

God becoming evident is what people understandably fear.
You seriously don't want God to become very evident to even the animals.
That's when the serious shit hits the fan.
God is being nice by not being obvious.

God is not a Man.

Obviously you take me for a child.

Firstly, i don't know why I am answering questions of yours when you respond to all of mine without answering them - simply asking questions of your own instead of addressing mine.

Secondly, James, if you still are unwilling, following the above examples, to concede you've been far too presumptuous and have been presenting opinion as fact then I don't know how else i can show you.

Try to do the same with me and you'll find in most cases I use words like "Do you...", "Is it that...", "It seems as though....", "Imho....", "I don't see how..." etc... - phrased deliberately to make it clear I do not have all the answers.

Now -- as "the burden of proof is on anyone making ANY claim", please now attempt to explain why you find yourself exempt from this.

[James S Saint]

Firstly, i don't know why I am answering questions of yours when you respond to all of mine without answering them - simply asking questions of your own instead of addressing mine.

I asked you questions? Perhaps even more presumption on your part? Don't think that the little "?" at the end of many statements is requesting a response.

Secondly, James, if you still are unwilling, following the above examples, to concede you've been far too presumptuous and have been presenting opinion as fact then I don't know how else i can show you.

You mean that I make statements much like yours, but contrary to your opinion?

Try to do the same with me and you'll find in most cases I use words like "Do you...", "Is it that...", "It seems as though....", "Imho....", "I don't see how..." etc... - phrased deliberately to make it clear I do not have all the answers.

Haha... perhaps you should try rereading that last post with that thought in mind.. or most of your other posts. Count the number of times you stated something without prefacing it with your list of disclaimers.

Now -- as "the burden of proof is on anyone making ANY claim", please now attempt to explain why you find yourself exempt from this.

You presume, yet again, that my intent was proof. When a reasonable person disagrees or asks for more evidence or "proof", I might or might not give it depending on the complexity of the situation and whether I feel up to going through the trouble.

I see that you have a hard time yielding mutual respect for assertions that might contradict your own. You might want to think deeply about why it bugs you so much. I imagine there are many places that you should avoid in real life.

Is it really that hard to simply state, "I disagree and my opinion is...", rather than your rather emphatic contentions with mere stated opinions?

[barcelonic]

Firstly, i don't know why I am answering questions of yours when you respond to all of mine without answering them - simply asking questions of your own instead of addressing mine.

I asked you questions? Perhaps even more presumption on your part? Don't think that the little "?" at the end of many statements is requesting a response.

Wow!!

I answered the question in the previous post with the shortest sentence i've posted on ILP - "No."
The other question i replied to by using your own words in quote boxes to refute the claim and highlight how you are trying to redirect my criticisms of you towards me, hoping no-one would be the wiser.

I won't stand for slander James so please take the time (like i just did) to check something is the case before you make such accusations. The fact remains I DID answer yours and you DIDN'T answer mine, so don't drag your name into the mud any further with lies OK - i apologise if there are questions on a previous PAGE of this thread which i haven't addressed - highlight them and i will address them for you now if you'd do the same - somehow i suspect you won't.
As far as my remark about you not answering my questions however, i was referring to the post I had last put to you (above top) which you ignored while I answered your question by saying "No" yet you seemed not to notice - are you even reading my replies?!?

Again, wow!!

Secondly, James, if you still are unwilling, following the above examples, to concede you've been far too presumptuous and have been presenting opinion as fact then I don't know how else i can show you.

You mean that I make statements much like yours, but contrary to your opinion?

Oh I'm sorry James, was my wording here too difficult for you to understand you felt the need to paraphrase my well-chosen words?
You seem to begin a lot of your retorts with "You mean.....?" - does this not EPITOMISE presumption?!?

Try again - are you "unwilling.. to concede.. you've been presenting opinion as fact"?

Try to do the same with me and you'll find in most cases I use words like "Do you...", "Is it that...", "It seems as though....", "Imho....", "I don't see how..." etc... - phrased deliberately to make it clear I do not have all the answers.

Haha... perhaps you should try rereading that last post with that thought in mind.. or most of your other posts. Count the number of times you stated something without prefacing it with your list of disclaimers.

O M G thats what i just asked YOU to do!! Why should I - the onus is on you and all is there to see. That's why i asked you to "try" - but you seem to be saying that I should do this.
I took the time to go back and quote you from earlier posts and I asked if you could do the same with me - a simple NO would have sufficed.

Once again you are trying to turn the tables akin to a child saying "I know you are but what am I?"

But by all means laugh away James - you're making yourself look like a true fool here but you're only concern, apparently, is making it appear as though I am you and you are me - how ridiculous!

Now -- as "the burden of proof is on anyone making ANY claim", please now attempt to explain why you find yourself exempt from this.

You presume, yet again, that my intent was proof. When a reasonable person disagrees or asks for more evidence or "proof", I might or might not give it depending on the complexity of the situation and whether I feel up to going through the trouble.

I see that you have a hard time yielding mutual respect for assertions that might contradict your own. You might want to think deeply about why it bugs you so much. I imagine there are many places that you should avoid in real life.

Is it really that hard to simply state, "I disagree and my opinion is...", rather than your rather emphatic contentions with mere stated opinions?

This charade can go on until my death bed for all i care James.
PLEASE PAY ATTENTION WHEN I AM QUOTING YOU, AND TAKE THE TIME TO READ MY POINTS
I now have to requote it for you...

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>

The burden of proof is on the one making ANY claim, for or against.

Your words James - your own words. YOUR WORDS. How on Earth did this get by you?!?

I was quoting you because those were YOUR words in THIS thread - and you reply as if they are mine!!!!
You then called me presumptuous once more....

Now -- as "the burden of proof is on anyone making ANY claim", please now attempt to explain why you find yourself exempt from this.

You presume, yet again, that my intent was proof. When a reasonable person disagrees or asks for more evidence or "proof", I might or might not give it depending on the complexity of the situation and whether I feel up to going through the trouble.

Now if you cannot accept you have made a mistake here you are truly in denial because I've posted it twice now (i'm sure others would have seen this error the first time though).

So if you have any civility at all you would apologise here for the last accusation of presumption, as quite clearly i was asking you, "Please attempt to explain why you find yourself exempt.." from your OWN RULE!!


PS. Your last sentence made it clear you have no idea what this is even all about as we are not debating a difference of opinion.
I am criticising you for presenting opinion as fact, and your blatant unwillingness to just say "OK I was wrong about that"
as if you are somehow infallible from error.

[James S Saint]

My my, what a firefly.

If you really want to debate what is or isn't presented as a fact rather than PRESUMING to know and accusing, completely ad hom off topic, what you really need is a definition of what a fact is versus an opinion, don't you?

barcelonic; "To ask advice is to seek validation or justification. Who in their right adult mind does that if they know there is no question?"

Is that stating an opinion as a fact? It seems a bit arrogant to me, and typically presumptuous. You obviously think that you know what a fact is or isn't and what is unquestionable.

I'll again remind you that you are merely seeing yourself between my words and attacking what you think you see. It is YOU who have been making accusing claims without actually debating. To me, I am not the topic on this thread, so I feel no need to bother with your non-sense personal attacks in any great detail.

So I suggest to either counter the actual topic comments that I made that you have such disagreement with, or get into what a "fact" is and how it is to be presented by your great wisdom and factual certainty (a different thread, I would think).

[Helandhighwater]

Don't expect an answer from James, he doesn't do answers, just ad homs endlessly until you get bored. It's his thing.

[barcelonic]

My my, what a firefly.

If you really want to debate what is or isn't presented as a fact rather than PRESUMING to know and accusing, completely ad hom off topic, what you really need is a definition of what a fact is versus an opinion, don't you?

barcelonic [actually KRISWEST]; "To ask advice is to seek validation or justification. Who in their right adult mind does that if they know there is no question?"[/b]

Is that stating an opinion as a fact? It seems a bit arrogant to me, and typically presumptuous. You obviously think that you know what a fact is or isn't and what is unquestionable.

James - if you want to quote me at least use my words and not Kriswest's words

How embarassing when you've misquoted me twice consecutively. I find it quite insulting you don't read my posts properly and instead 'skim through', when i take the time to read yours.

And the fact you didn't even ACKNOWLEDGE your last mistake, let alone apologise for your act of presumption (which I have now proven twice lol) means its unlikely you'll do any different this time around.

I'm sure there's a suitable forum for people like you somewhere on the web - tis a big place.

Best of luck with your 'wordsmithery' - i hope next time you come up against someone whose understanding of logic in debates isn't sufficient to successfully fend you off.

Don't expect an answer from James, he doesn't do answers, just ad homs endlessly until you get bored. It's his thing.

Ye you're right - as long as others know this im happy.

Besides im off day after tomorrow and i've been suspecting James has been waiting for this so he can have the 'last word', as it were.

[James S Saint]

James has been waiting for this so he can have the 'last word', as it were.

When someone so greatly over estimates their significance, I think they call that "arrogance".

And I will apologize for the confusion of who was speaking in that quote. I thought to go sort through to make sure it was from you, but then... there were SO many examples to use, I didn't bother.

[barcelonic]

James has been waiting for this so he can have the 'last word', as it were.

When someone so greatly over estimates their significance, I think they call that "arrogance".

And I will apologize for the confusion of who was speaking in that quote. I thought to go sort through to make sure it was from you, but then... there were SO many examples to use, I didn't bother.

A) Very true James. Similarly, I think implying someone is greatly overestimating their signifiance is often called 'presumptuous'.

B) You have won a little respect from me James. 1 out of 2 is a start.
B2) I think you've eloquently summed up the difference between my approach to our discussion and your own.... you "didn't bother" and i did. Im going away for a week in 2 days so you have plenty of time to do so if you desire. But, without wishing to sound presumptuous here... I think we've probably both begun to grow a little weary of this.

Im willing to proceed in this discussion but not particularly excited about the prospect as I'm sure there'll be ample more times for us to clash heads on ILP in the future, and if neither of us stops posting eventually ILP's SEO rank will break Google lol

[James S Saint]

Actually I have found it a bit humorous that you seem to think that you have been accomplishing something.

[barcelonic]

Actually I have found it a bit humorous that you seem to think that you have been accomplishing something.

Once again you've lost me.

But i do appreciate your new found use of the words 'seem to'

[Mutcer]

Mutcer

How about the Christian God? According to Christians, it judges us based on whether or not we possess particular scientific beliefs and not on how we treat ourselves or our neighbors. That doesn't sound like a loving God to me.

What scientific beliefs are you speaking about here, Mutcer?I might hazard a guess and say you're speaking about the resurrection but I might be incorrect.

When I say we are judged based on scientific beliefs which we either hold or don't hold, I'm talking about things like miracles in which the laws of physics and nature are defied. That kind of stuff seems to be completely unrelated to how well we treat our neighbor.

You wouldn't send anyone into a fiery pit and neither would I. But the Christian God would. Is that a God we should be worshiping? Sounds more like an evil God than a loving God.

This is why the theory of reincarnation works for me. I'm not saying that there is such a thing. This might be all there is to us, what we are experiencing now in the moments. But Balance. There does need to be a balance of fairness and justice, an answering for, so to speak. But if there is a god who is so aware and intelligent and loving and compassionate, it just seems to me that that god would look into the human heart/mind/spirit to see where that human has been and what has brought him or her to the life they have lived and the choices which they have made.

Believing that things which defied the laws of physics and nature actually occurred isn't a choice one makes.

It isn't about judging but about observing with a detached but caring reasoning. And then perhaps, an intelligent and caring god would allow the person to see themselves from god's mind....sort of like a movie being played back. And then understanding seeps in and the person journeys to where it will learn what it needs to learn...ad continuum. lol

Perhaps it isn't so much an evil god but one who does not see an entire picture...or more of an entire picture - one which does not see that there is both darkness and light - they aren't evil so much as lacking in clarity and light and humility.

If God is all knowing and all powerful, then he would see the entire picture.

I also like the concept of reincarnation. But unfortunately reincarnation almost certainly doesn't happen. And more certainly, if it does happen, it's not going to be determined who does and who doesn't get reincarnated based on some scientific belief we either held or didn't hold.

What do you base that on?

If you were God, why would you grant eternal life and/or a spot in heaven based on a belief we don't really have control over? Wouldn't it make more sense to base it on how we treat our neighbors and how we treat ourselves - or more importantly something we can easily choose?

There's that scientific belief again. Again, what scientic belief? You mean religious belief or opinion?
If one of us is being reincarnated, we are all being reincarnated. lol. This is not an elitist club.

What kind of a club do you think it should be?

Do you consider reincarnation to be a physiological process? Is it something that happens as part of our human nature or is it imposed upon us by some kind of supreme being?

And it isn't based so much on what we believed, although belief has so much to do with how we respond or react in life and to others.

Not necessarily true. It has to do with how willing we are to accept those who have beliefs which are different from ours. If you believe that thousands of 200 foot tall pink unicorns roam the plains of western Kansas and I don't - do I hold that absurd belief against you or do I hold you in just as high regard as I would if you didn't have that belief?

[Arcturus Descending]

Mutcer

When I say we are judged based on scientific beliefs which we either hold or don't hold, I'm talking about things like miracles in which the laws of physics and nature are defied. That kind of stuff seems to be completely unrelated to how well we treat our neighbor.

Ah, but I don't actually believe in those kind of miracles - like the miracle at Lourdes. The only kind of miracles I truly beleive in, and i do not have to 'believe' because i see them every day, are the miracles of nature and science and medicine. And they are not based on laws which defy physics. And I do agree with you - for me, it is about the human relationship and how people treat one another. I think that the doctrine of the Holy Trinity speaks more about human relationships - there is the so-called, Father, Son and Holy Spirit. Now I'm rambling.

Believing that things which defied the laws of physics and nature actually occurred isn't a choice one makes.

Unless I am misunderstanding your meaning here, I agree with you. It is more based on being swept away by the beliefs of others, hysteria is very contagious. And I think these kind of beliefs are much more psychological in nature than in reality. People have a great need to believe in something larger than themselves, to believe that there is a power greater than themselves capable of changing and transforming and going against nature law. But it is understandable in humans and perhaps though it may be illusion to us - well, who is to say that in a sense they are not luckier than we are in not believing or choosing to believe.

Perhaps it isn't so much an evil god but one who does not see an entire picture...or more of an entire picture - one which does not see that there is both darkness and light - they aren't evil so much as lacking in clarity and light and humility.

If God is all knowing and all powerful, then he would see the entire picture.

When I said the above, I was not referring to an actual god, but to the god which we project. When I once believed, I did believe in an all-knowing and all powerful god - but let us say that if by some miracle I came to 'see' Something which began all of this, I wouldn't find it necessary to believe that that Something was all knowing and all powerful. But I can readily understand because of the workings of the universe and nature, how we have come to 'believe' and to sense this. But I think it is more of a psychological necessity than anything else in us humans. Based on the way in which we treat one another and what transpires in the world, it might just be a really cruel god, if in fact it is an all knowing and all powerful one.

If you were God, why would you grant eternal life and/or a spot in heaven based on a belief we don't really have control over?

For myself, I would not. Human beings are very complicated creatures. If we were all wonderful profilers who worked for the FBI, we might come to understand human nature. I think there is as much, if not more, dark energy and matter within us as there is in the universe at large - and that's saying a lot. What 72% and 23% or something like that? How could being granted eternal life possibly be based on belief alone...when belief is simply a leaf spiralling through the wind anyway?

Wouldn't it make more sense to base it on how we treat our neighbors and how we treat ourselves - or more importantly something we can easily choose?

Yes - this is why I like the "theory" of reincarnation. I think a large bit of community service goes a long way toward teaching and raising awareness in all ways.

What kind of a club do you think it should be?

I actually do not belong to any clubs. I like to fly free.

Do you consider reincarnation to be a physiological process? Is it something that happens as part of our human nature or is it imposed upon us by some kind of supreme being?

Physiological - human nature? If there is a soul, then what physiological? Wouldn't it be more like "spiritual"? I don't actually like the word "imposed" perhaps designed might be a better word. My, I certainly do have problems with some words. For me, at least, if there were to be reincarnation, and the chance to make restitution, to learn, to seek absolution, I wouldn't think much in terms of an imposing god as one who from knowledge and wisdom and love, ordained a better, less wasteful way.

Not necessarily true. It has to do with how willing we are to accept those who have beliefs which are different from ours. If you believe that thousands of 200 foot tall pink unicorns roam the plains of western Kansas and I don't - do I hold that absurd belief against you or do I hold you in just as high regard as I would if you didn't have that belief?

We do not have to accept the beliefs of others but we can respect their choice to believe them. Of course, if those beliefs are causing harm to them or to others, we must try to raise their awareness and give them something to think about, no? of course, if they chose not, then we have to walk away.

Depending on the beliefs, we might not necessarily hold them in high regard, insofar as silly beliefs and illusions go, but as human beings who have worth and value in other ways, yes, we can still hold them in our regard. You know, some beliefs are more rational and reasonable than others (even if they are not true- and who knows - I am just saying). It's the really far-fetched ones that I have trouble with.

[Arcturus Descending]

Mutcer...

If you were God, why would you grant eternal life and/or a spot in heaven based on a belief we don't really have control over?

For myself, I would not. Human beings are very complicated creatures. If we were all wonderful profilers who worked for the FBI, we might come to understand human nature. I think there is as much, if not more, dark energy and matter within us as there is in the universe at large - and that's saying a lot. What 72% and 23% or something like that? How could being granted eternal life possibly be based on belief alone...when belief is simply a leaf spiralling through the wind anyway?

------------------------------------
Aside from that, we DO have control over our beliefs, if we choose to take the time to mull them over and to examine them rationally. But we're happy in our coccoons and we're also lazy in our thinking, in our automatic thought processes. But for those of us who actually do have the capacity for this, perhaps we are more held accountable, and ought to be, than those who do not so much have the capacity for it. We are all given different gifts and tools to work with.

Aside from that, heaven, as well as hell, is here and not depending on our perception and attitudes. Heaven is where you are as is hell. If we don't get it here, we won't get it there. I think I might have stole that from little Jonathan Livingston Seagull - I'm not sure - he eventually became a wise one. Okay, I'm rambling - time to go.

[Moreno]

I want to know why police aren't held to the same moral standard as non-police.
Let's work our way towards the big question step by step.

[Arcturus Descending]

I want to know why police aren't held to the same moral standard as non-police.
Let's work our way towards the big question step by step.

Basically, I think they are. There are ethical and moral police people out there.
The ones who are not - the ones who do not hold their selves to the same moral standards, perhaps do so because of the darkness and futility which they see or have seen every day. This does not make them less responsible nor answerable for their actions though. It is not always an easy thing for us silly humans to maintain an awareness and clarity of self and what one's vision and purpose was in first becoming a police person or any calling for that matter. Human nature is so capable of becoming corrupt, we do have our darker side, and from my point of view, at times, the individual police person just lets go and slides into corruption. But that doesn't mean that ALL do. And of course there are those others, the way i see it, who were always that way and simply wanted to exercise, either consciously or unconsciously, their power, control and ego over others.

And human nature being what it is, there are those who will LIE to their selves and protect the others because they like them or because they believe they are just not capable of such corruption.

Aside, from that, it's possible that all law-enforcement officers are held to even higher moral and ethical standards than you and I are - not only by the state but for many, by their selves.

[Moreno]

I want to know why police aren't held to the same moral standard as non-police.
Let's work our way towards the big question step by step.

Basically, I think they are. There are ethical and moral police people out there.

But that's not the same issue. It's the standard, for example in the use of force, that is not the same, regardless of how individual police act. If I push a policeman I will go to jail, I will likely get very badly hurt on the way to the ground. I will at the very least pay some heavy fines. If a policeman pushes me, the chances that he or she will be held accountable for that, even if it can be demonstrated I had not done anything, are very, very small.

Aside, from that, it's possible that all law-enforcement officers are held to even higher moral and ethical standards than you and I are - not only by the state but for many, by their selves.

[/quote]I don't think this is true. If someone called me an asshole and I threw him to the ground and dislocated his shoulder, I would stand a good chance of going to jail. A policeman or woman doing that, very low chance.

I suppose I am primarily thinking of violence. Police are generally allowed to overreact and move to physical violence in ways I am not. And the difference is ever more clear where the interactions is between a civilian and a cop. If cop calls you an asshole and tells you to move your car or whatever, you'd better just let that word slide. If you call a cop and asshole, it will likely not just slide, not even close.