You ask why post at all. Even though interesting and arguably a future topic, crossing the line from becoming like god to usurping god is off topic and one I have not thought out.
You implied that all religions are created. Why imply the conclusion when the explicit statement is true? All religions are created. Though arguably off topic, the important question is if God is created.
Assuming dual independent overlapping jurisdiction, is it possible for Jesus to forgive sins while being just to the victim?
GIA, that was a snide, silly, and unjustified question as was your comment that followed. While some of us have felt the same way about many of your posts, we haven’t attacked them like that, especially when you were new and just feeling your way as Student is.
You ask why post at all. Even though interesting and arguably a future topic, crossing the line from becoming like god to usurping god is off topic and one I have not thought out.
You implied that all religions are created. Why imply the conclusion when the explicit statement is true? All religions are created. Though arguably off topic, the important question is if God is created.
Assuming dual independent overlapping jurisdiction, is it possible for Jesus to forgive sins while being just to the victim?
student
Some of my thinking on this is here. Please meet me there.
In this, I think somewhat the way Jews do.
GIA, that was a snide, silly, and unjustified question as was your comment that followed. While some of us have felt the same way about many of your posts, we haven’t attacked them like that, especially when you were new and just feeling your way as Student is.
Occam
What does not kill us makes us strong.
I was talking about new member participation in the forum. Driving them away by unjustified criticism is far different from killing them, so your quotation of Nietzsche is not applicable.
Your link seems to take us back to this same topic’s first page. Which of your post numbers objects to the dual independent overlapping jurisdiction concept?
You said you think some what like Jews do. Do Jews also object to the dual independent overlapping jurisdiction concept?
GIA, that was a snide, silly, and unjustified question as was your comment that followed. While some of us have felt the same way about many of your posts, we haven’t attacked them like that, especially when you were new and just feeling your way as Student is.
Occam
What does not kill us makes us strong.
I was talking about new member participation in the forum. Driving them away by unjustified criticism is far different from killing them, so your quotation of Nietzsche is not applicable.
Occam
If a poster cannot take a bit of heat then he will likely not enter a debate forum.
Note that he is still here.
Have you forgotten the heat I took when new, which was more than I gave here. Where were you then?
Your link seems to take us back to this same topic’s first page. Which of your post numbers objects to the dual independent overlapping jurisdiction concept?
You said you think some what like Jews do. Do Jews also object to the dual independent overlapping jurisdiction concept?
student
My bad on my last. Sorry.
I do not know what Jews think of that and in Canada, I do not think it happens.
As to the concept. I can only say that to try a person more than once for the same charge, unless some new compelling evidence supports a reopening of the case when a vote of innocent has already been given, and a change to guilty is likely, then it is unjust.
If there is any kind of overlap then both prosecutors should file jointly for the one trial.
Mine was a religious question with just a touch of the political.
Let’s go there shall we.
I do not care about the strange laws in the U S political system.
You said two prosecutors with overlapping juristiction should file jointly. Because two prosecutors (not just one) file jointly, should the potential penalty be double? On the reverse side of the coin, if one of the two prosecutors (with overlapping jurisdictions) declines prosecution (let’s call it forgiveness), should the potential penalty be cut in half?
You said trying a person more than once for the same charge is unjust. Because of dual independent overlapping jurisdictions, is it possible that the first independent charge is criminal behavior in jurisdiction A and the second independent charge is criminal behavior in jurisdiction B? Does two jurisdictions permit two independent charges?
You said you asked a religious question. What religion lacks divine authority (i.e. jurisdiction), law and duty, punishment, and forgiveness?
You said two prosecutors with overlapping juristiction should file jointly. Because two prosecutors (not just one) file jointly, should the potential penalty be double? On the reverse side of the coin, if one of the two prosecutors (with overlapping jurisdictions) declines prosecution (let’s call it forgiveness), should the potential penalty be cut in half?
You said trying a person more than once for the same charge is unjust. Because of dual independent overlapping jurisdictions, is it possible that the first independent charge is criminal behavior in jurisdiction A and the second independent charge is criminal behavior in jurisdiction B? Does two jurisdictions permit two independent charges?
Sure. The criminal is not being tried twice for the same crime now is he?
You said you asked a religious question. What religion lacks divine authority (i.e. jurisdiction), law and duty, punishment, and forgiveness?
student
Some of the Eastern ones. Buddha does not punish if memory serves.
Have a look at how you ended up with a God of war.
You said the Christian God’s first law is duty to himself. The assumption is “himself” is God. You asked what does this first duty say. This first duty to God says that God is the most important and significant over others and the Christian. Is this order of importance and significance out of place if God is the creator and the Christian and others are the creation?
You said the Christian God’s first law is duty to himself. The assumption is “himself” is God. You asked what does this first duty say. This first duty to God says that God is the most important and significant over others and the Christian. Is this order of importance and significance out of place if God is the creator and the Christian and others are the creation?
student
If God is the miracle working super God then what does he need with mans love honor or respect?
That God would have no needs and certainly would not get angry with us for not kowtowing to him and send the vast majority of us to purposeless torture in hell for not believing in his absentee self, as a God of genocide who had his own son needlessly murdered.
If he wanted to show that he deserved respect then he should not have disrespected his own son.
No noble and gracious God would demand the sacrifice of a so called son just to prove it’s benevolence.
Your second July 11th post refers to man’s love, honor, or respect to God. Is it correct to say that if you believed in God, God would have to earn man’s love, honor, or respect? Being man’s creator or owner alone is insufficient to earn (or even to command) love, honor, or respect from man?
You asked what does God need with man’s love, honor, or respect? You are right, God does not need man’s love, honor, or respect.
If you believed in God, would God also have to earn God’s authority and jurisdiction?
Your second July 11th post refers to man’s love, honor, or respect to God. Is it correct to say that if you believed in God, God would have to earn man’s love, honor, or respect? Being man’s creator or owner alone is insufficient to earn (or even to command) love, honor, or respect from man?
Owner?
Should a slave respect his master?
History says no.
Can emotions like love, hate or respect be called up out of a human by command?
We basically own our children till a certain age. Can they be ordered to love us or do we earn it by our actions?
You asked what does God need with man’s love, honor, or respect? You are right, God does not need man’s love, honor, or respect.
Then why will he send us to hell if we do not give it?
If you believed in God, would God also have to earn God’s authority and jurisdiction?
student
Would God have to prove his worth to himself somehow?
Seems like a good idea yes.
If you are going to label yourself the best then you should prove it to yourself.
Vengeance is not ours it’s God’s. Jesus only forgive those who repent and admits that he had sinned. If an unjust person continue to commit sin, and repented not; he might not be punished today but in the future, he will suffer. God is just, he is in control.
Vengeance is not ours it’s God’s. Jesus only forgive those who repent and admits that he had sinned. If an unjust person continue to commit sin, and repented not; he might not be punished today but in the future, he will suffer. God is just, he is in control.
Jesus went to hell. We all must follow for purification.
Matthew 10:38
And he that taketh not his cross, and followeth after me, is not worthy of me.
I condemn Christians thinking that God would do the most immoral thing possible, having his son murdered and for trying to profit from the murder of an innocent man.
I condemn Christian thinking because they do not recognize that the gateway to heaven is hell.
Jesus went to hell. We all must follow for purification. Not abuse him as the shield to our own purification.
Matthew 10:38
And he that taketh not his cross, and followeth after me, is not worthy of me.
As I said, Christians do not recognize the true moral of the myth.
The Christian way of thinking only has a few of those God loves reaching heaven. The true way is that we all get there but like Jesus, must carry our cross through it and come out in heaven not with a cross but with an ankh.
2 Peter 3:9
The Lord is not slack concerning his promise, as some men count slackness; but is longsuffering to us-ward, not willing that any should perish, but that all should come to repentance.
If you wish to continue then answer this.
Is it good justice and moral to punish the innocent instead of the guilty?
