Is The Bible Literally True?

[Christianbookworm]

We never claimed that God's rights stemmed from His Omnipotence! He is the most responsible being period. It would have to be an intrinsic responsibility, but He is still the true champion of the oppressed and defender of the helpless!

[Teallaura]

Again, you're redifining justice. It's about fairness, not about having the power to do as one pleases. You can argue that Justice doesn't apply to god if you want, but then you can't at the same time define him as being just. What you're arguing is that god has the right to be unfair, that he has the right to be unjust, which of course would be true if he were an unjust god, but having the right to be unjust, doesn't make his actions just.

No, you're just using the wrong definition - which doesn't matter since God isn't being unfair or unjust in taking the life He loaned out. It's His - there's nothing unfair about Him reclaiming it.

But the definition that actually applies would be:

Justice: : the principle or ideal of justdealingor right action(2): conformity to this principle or ideal : RIGHTEOUSNESSthe justice of their cause

Source

• • The principle of moral rightness; decency.
    
    
  
  The principle of moral rightness; decency.
  
  

[Teallaura]

I disagree. Freedom of religion is a right but one can follow the wrong one.

And that would be unjust how, exactly? I suppose you could argue it an injustice to God - but that would be the sin itself, not a mere error in judgment.

[Teallaura]

Well, now you're just agreeing with me, apparently without realizing it. That isn't the argument that Tea was making. Her argument was that a god has the right to do anything he chooses with his property, and that the mere fact that he has that right, that power, is what makes it just. Justice isn't measured by ones right, or ones power, to act, it's measured by the fairness of the act itself. If the action is just in one case, then it must be just in the other, otherwise it isn't just.

Right here is different from power - although were God not omnipotent, the issue would not arise. But no, my argument is that He has the right - the power just let's Him enforce that right but whether or not His actions are just depends on whether or not He has the right to take those actions. The whole universe belongs to Him - no one else has proprietary right to it or anything in it. There is nothing unjust - or even unfair - about God exercising His right of ownership.

[Teallaura]

We never claimed that God's rights stemmed from His Omnipotence! He is the most responsible being period. It would have to be an intrinsic responsibility, but He is still the true champion of the oppressed and defender of the helpless!

Actually, in my argument, His right of ownership indirectly stems from His omnipotence - He created the universe and therefore owns it. That's only possible because He is omnipotent.

[Christianbookworm]

Actually, in my argument, His right of ownership indirectly stems from His omnipotence - He created the universe and therefore owns it. That's only possible because He is omnipotent.

Well, yeah, but jim made it out to seem like he thought we were using the appeal to force fallacy.

[JimL]

Right here is different from power - although were God not omnipotent, the issue would not arise. But no, my argument is that He has the right - the power just let's Him enforce that right but whether or not His actions are just depends on whether or not He has the right to take those actions. The whole universe belongs to Him - no one else has proprietary right to it or anything in it. There is nothing unjust - or even unfair - about God exercising His right of ownership.

"Right," as in having the right, has nothing to do with "right" as in whether an action taken is itself "right." You're confusing the different uses of the term right. One can have the right to take an action, but having the right isn't what determines whether said action is just. To punish one person and not another for one and the same offense is unjust, period, regardless of whether you have the right to be arbitrary or not.

[JimL]

Actually, in my argument, His right of ownership indirectly stems from His omnipotence - He created the universe and therefore owns it. That's only possible because He is omnipotent.

All that you are arguing Tea, is that god has the right to be unjust. That may be true, but he would still be unjust, not just.

[Teallaura]

All that you are arguing Tea, is that god has the right to be unjust. That may be true, but he would still be unjust, not just.

No, there is no unfairness or injustice in God taking life - it belongs to Him.

God isn't unjust - and you haven't made any argument that even kinda hints that He even could be. You keep stating it - but you aren't proving it.

[ReformedApologist]

[Sparko]

JimL, like all moral relativists, can't help but argue for objective morals. "not fair" they cry out.

[JimL]

Unfairness, injustice, are wrong by human definition. They are human terms which we human beings apply to our idea of god. If you don't think they apply to your god, then stop defining his thusly.

[ReformedApologist]

Giving moral relativism why do I have to adhere to your definition. Saying they are wrong by human definition begs the question.

[Teallaura]

Unfairness, injustice, are wrong by human definition. They are human terms which we human beings apply to our idea of god. If you don't think they apply to your god, then stop defining his thusly.

What gives it moral authority then?

[Christianbookworm]

Fundy atheists remind me of the dwarves that would not be taken in from The Last Battle.