Is God a good ruler?

[fakename]

I am merely wondering about the efficiency of God’s rule -could God be more efficient in ruling man?

For instance, many sins carry maximum punishments (disrespect to parents, sodomy, and murder all carry or carried death penalties). Also, many sins carry practically the same punishment (onanism and laughing at a prophet have both been punished with death before).

Therefore I wonder how much of a deterrent these punishments really serve? If people already know that they will all suffer the same horrible punishments for things, then won’t they be more inclined to do as many of these bad things as possible (for they can only be killed once) while apart from this, won’t people become hardened and desensitized to the severity of these punishments too? After all, people could reason that since some of these sins are easier to commit than others, then (since we will all be punished by the same punishment) we should commit these sins since we are bound to be caught by at least one?

So wouldn’t it be more effective to create more grades of punishment? And why hell? After all wouldn’t infinite punishment be practically no different from death, for we cannot sense much less can we fear, infinite pain? So why not get rid of hell and simply settle for less exalted pleasures and pains?

 

[empther]

After all, people could reason that since …

There’s the problem.

People do not think and act reasonably. They do stupid, foolish things.

God has set up the system to deal with stupid, foolish people.

 

[fakename]

There’s the problem.

People do not think and act reasonably. They do stupid, foolish things.

God has set up the system to deal with stupid, foolish people.

That’s my problem, for it seems to me that one could argue that God has set up a system that encourages stupid things.

 

[davidv]

That’s my problem, for it seems to me that one could argue that God has set up a system that encourages stupid things.

What part of the command love God and one another encourages stupid things?
Seems to me you are mis-assigning the cause of stupidity. Clue - it cannot be God or his kingdom

 

[fakename]

What part of the command love God and one another encourages stupid things?
Seems to me you are mis-assigning the cause of stupidity. Clue - it cannot be God or his kingdom

Like I said before, the similarity of punishments and the devastating nature of these punishments plus the fact that some sins are difficult to avoid are incentives to not focus on avoiding the especially powerful sins, since one is highly likely to be punished just as harshly for a small sin as for a big one. It also serves as an incentive to committing both small and large sins, for why not transgress God’s law twice when one is already going to get the maximum sentence for doing so once and one is likely to be caught at least once?

(and really, I never blamed God for being the per se cause of stupidity and even if he was the accidental cause of stupidity, it would be well worth it).

If the punishments were more graded, then people would not commit sins so easily since there would be an incentive to avoid the worse sins and substitute it with lesser sins.

 

[davidv]

Like I said before, the similarity of punishments and the devastating nature of these punishments plus the fact that some sins are difficult to avoid are incentives to not focus on avoiding the especially powerful sins, since one is highly likely to be punished just as harshly for a small sin as for a big one. It also serves as an incentive to committing both small and large sins, for why not transgress God’s law twice when one is already going to get the maximum sentence for doing so once and one is likely to be caught at least once?

(and really, I never blamed God for being the per se cause of stupidity and even if he was the accidental cause of stupidity, it would be well worth it).

If the punishments were more graded, then people would not commit sins so easily since there would be an incentive to avoid the worse sins and substitute it with lesser sins.

How does this response address my point in the post you responded to?

It also seem that you are presuming to know better than God, what punishments are just and which ones aren’t.

The only time sin is difficult to avoid is when one insists on doing ones own will rather than the will of God or because of this attitude the sin has become habitual.

Based on my experience with many people over many years, those who sin regularly are rarely considering the consequence. Besides, how do you know the punishments aren’t graded?

The alternative to serious sin is to not sin. Substituting another sin is still offensive to God and cannot be allowed. Remember the principle that evil cannot done to acheive a good end. Proposing that a lesser sin be a substite for a serious sin violates this principle.

 

[spencelo]

It also seem that you are presuming to know better than God, what punishments are just and which ones aren’t.

This is one of the problems I have with Christianity. If the overriding starting assumption is that God is all-good, then no matter what the empirical facts are, no matter how strongly those facts suggest that God isn’t good (or more accurately, that there is no all-good being), then there is no way to call the initial belief into question. It’s not unlike a child who has absolute total faith that her father is good: when the facts suggest that he is grossly neglectful, she is unable to shake her faith.

 

[spencelo]

This is one of the problems I have with Christianity. If the overriding starting assumption is that God is all-good, then no matter what the empirical facts are, no matter how strongly those facts suggest that God isn’t good (or more accurately, that there is no all-good being), then there is no way to call the initial belief into question. It’s not unlike the child who has absolute total faith that her father is good: when the facts suggest gross neglect, she is still unable to shake her faith.

 

[davidv]

This is one of the problems I have with Christianity. If the overriding starting assumption is that God is all-good, then no matter what the empirical facts are, no matter how strongly those facts suggest that God isn’t good (or more accurately, that there is no all-good being), then there is no way to call the initial belief into question. It’s not unlike a child who has absolute total faith that her father is good: when the facts suggest that he is grossly neglectful, she is unable to shake her faith.

Please identify said facts and demonstrate, beyond a shadow of doubt, that said facts can be traced to God as the the direct cause.

 

[spencelo]

Please identify said facts and demonstrate, beyond a shadow of doubt, that said facts can be traced to God as the the direct cause.

First, I don’t believe that God exists, so my remarks about God “not doing this” or “not doing that” should be understood as merely assuming his existence for the sake of argument.

Second, it appears you are assuming that God needs to be a “direct cause” in order to be responsible. If a father neglects to feed his child, which result in her death, the father may not be a “direct cause” of her death - in your sense of the phrase - but he’d still be responsible.

 

[davidv]

First, I don’t believe that God exists, so my remarks about God “not doing this” or “not doing that” should be understood as merely assuming his existence for the sake of argument.

Second, it appears you are assuming that God needs to be a “direct cause” in order to be responsible. If a father neglects to feed his child, which result in her death, the father may not be a “direct cause” of her death - in your sense of the phrase - but he’d still be responsible.

How can a non-existent being be responsible for anything?

 

[spencelo]

How can a non-existent being be responsible for anything?

LOL - he can’t. Hence my qualification “merely assuming his existence for the sake of argument.”

 

[davidv]

LOL - he can’t. Hence my qualification “merely assuming his existence for the sake of argument.”

OK. Then make your case and connect the dots.

 

[spencelo]

OK. Then make your case and connect the dots.

But my whole point is that I can’t, not to Catholics, because they hold to the overriding assumption that God is all-good, no matter what the empirical facts are. Like I said, it’s not unlike trying to disabuse a child of the notion that her father, although he abused and neglected by her, isn’t a good man.

 

[fakename]

How does this response address my point in the post you responded to?

It also seem that you are presuming to know better than God, what punishments are just and which ones aren’t.

The only time sin is difficult to avoid is when one insists on doing ones own will rather than the will of God or because of this attitude the sin has become habitual.

Based on my experience with many people over many years, those who sin regularly are rarely considering the consequence. Besides, how do you know the punishments aren’t graded?

The alternative to serious sin is to not sin. Substituting another sin is still offensive to God and cannot be allowed. Remember the principle that evil cannot done to acheive a good end. Proposing that a lesser sin be a substite for a serious sin violates this principle.

For future reference one should read b/t the lines, for I did respond to your post even if I didn’t explicitly do so. But for the present I will be clearer and in the interests of clarity I responded that the penalties for not loving God and neighbor are so evenly and extremely applied that they probably have no or a negative effect in encouraging people to love their neighbors.

Also, if I said anything that was presumptive then it was surely not intentional since I am not saying that “God is bad,good, efficient,inefficient, etc.” I’m asking a question if “God is efficient or inefficient” and so the lack of presumption is now obvious. Can God be inefficient in the sense that he could be “more efficient”?

I’ll respond to the last points of the above post here:

(1) There are sins which are clearly more difficult to avoid: for lust is more attractive than wrath and Aquinas even said that lust is the hardest temptation to master.

(2) The punishments are graded, that much is certain but I’m saying that practically they don’t seem graded and that’s not how the application of punishments seem work out. Again, look at my OP and the examples I gave. One might even find examples in their own experiences.

 

[davidv]

For future reference one should read b/t the lines, for I did respond to your post even if I didn’t explicitly do so. But for the present I will be clearer and in the interests of clarity I responded that the penalties for not loving God and neighbor are so evenly and extremely applied that they probably have no or a negative effect in encouraging people to love their neighbors.

Also, if I said anything that was presumptive then it was surely not intentional since I am not saying that “God is bad,good, efficient,inefficient, etc.” I’m asking a question if “God is efficient or inefficient” and so the lack of presumption is now obvious. Can God be inefficient in the sense that he could be “more efficient”?

I’ll respond to the last points of the above post here:

(1) There are sins which are clearly more difficult to avoid: for lust is more attractive than wrath and Aquinas even said that lust is the hardest temptation to master.

(2) The punishments are graded, that much is certain but I’m saying that practically they don’t seem graded and that’s not how the application of punishments seem work out. Again, look at my OP and the examples I gave. One might even find examples in their own experiences.

I did look at you OP, which is why I responded the way I did. Your OP confuses civil law and it punishmentments (death penality) with moral law and its punishments. On what basis can you compare them?

Civil law is created by fallible humans, Moral law is created by a perfect God. Any injustice in civil punishments are due to the errors of humans who more often than not don’t follow moral law. God is perfectly just, so any divine punishment is graded exactly proportional to the offense.

 

[Linusthe2nd]

I am merely wondering about the efficiency of God’s rule -could God be more efficient in ruling man?

For instance, many sins carry maximum punishments (disrespect to parents, sodomy, and murder all carry or carried death penalties). Also, many sins carry practically the same punishment (onanism and laughing at a prophet have both been punished with death before).

Therefore I wonder how much of a deterrent these punishments really serve? If people already know that they will all suffer the same horrible punishments for things, then won’t they be more inclined to do as many of these bad things as possible (for they can only be killed once) while apart from this, won’t people become hardened and desensitized to the severity of these punishments too? After all, people could reason that since some of these sins are easier to commit than others, then (since we will all be punished by the same punishment) we should commit these sins since we are bound to be caught by at least one?

So wouldn’t it be more effective to create more grades of punishment? And why hell? After all wouldn’t infinite punishment be practically no different from death, for we cannot sense much less can we fear, infinite pain? So why not get rid of hell and simply settle for less exalted pleasures and pains?

God does not rule man. He created us with an intellect and free will. If you want things to be better or more reasonable, you will have to begin with yourself, then use your intellect and social and political activity to try to convince the " powers that be " to be more reasonable. Just be sure that you are reasonably certain you are correct before you get too involved in any " causes. "

 

[fakename]

I did look at you OP, which is why I responded the way I did. Your OP confuses civil law and it punishmentments (death penality) with moral law and its punishments. On what basis can you compare them?

Civil law is created by fallible humans, Moral law is created by a perfect God. Any injustice in civil punishments are due to the errors of humans who more often than not don’t follow moral law. God is perfectly just, so any divine punishment is graded exactly proportional to the offense.

civil law is not inherently different from moral law: they are essentially the same and to the extent one disagrees with the other then, one of them is either not moral or not civil.

The death penalty for instance, is a punishment used by God (the flood) and not just by men.

And as I mentioned, it seems to us that God’s punishments are not graded since after all, adultery was punished with stoning and laughing at a bald prophet was condemned with being devoured by a she-bear.

From this, the paradoxes that I mentioned follow, for if one is going to be killed for both easy-to-avoid and harder-to-avoid offenses, and if huge offenses are sometimes easier to slip into, then one might as well also commit both small and large offenses too since you are going to be punished exactly the same either way.

But with more graded punishments, one is encouraged to not give in to violent temptations and to avoid the onerous vices since one now can shift one’s costs and efforts into avoiding that which is harder to avoid while paying less attention to those things which are easy to avoid.

 

[fakename]

God does not rule man. He created us with an intellect and free will. If you want things to be better or more reasonable, you will have to begin with yourself, then use your intellect and social and political activity to try to convince the " powers that be " to be more reasonable. Just be sure that you are reasonably certain you are correct before you get too involved in any " causes. "

But men rule other men by a decree of God’s natural law. So much more then are we ruled by God since the ultimate cause is more a cause than the proximate one.

 

[StrawberryJam]

I am merely wondering about the efficiency of God’s rule -could God be more efficient in ruling man?

For instance, many sins carry maximum punishments (disrespect to parents, sodomy, and murder all carry or carried death penalties). Also, many sins carry practically the same punishment (onanism and laughing at a prophet have both been punished with death before).

Therefore I wonder how much of a deterrent these punishments really serve? If people already know that they will all suffer the same horrible punishments for things, then won’t they be more inclined to do as many of these bad things as possible (for they can only be killed once) while apart from this, won’t people become hardened and desensitized to the severity of these punishments too? After all, people could reason that since some of these sins are easier to commit than others, then (since we will all be punished by the same punishment) we should commit these sins since we are bound to be caught by at least one?

So wouldn’t it be more effective to create more grades of punishment? And why hell? After all wouldn’t infinite punishment be practically no different from death, for we cannot sense much less can we fear, infinite pain? So why not get rid of hell and simply settle for less exalted pleasures and pains?

The question that led me here to this thread was simple. Is God a good ruler?
I have many ideas about how to reply to such a question but first, I grab my bible and consult the wisdom inside it first.
Let’s all turn to Romans 13:1 for a brief understanding about rulers here on earth and who allows them to be in power.
bible.cc/romans/13-1.htm

After reading this thread, I realized there were so many other questions tacked on to the opening title that I was not sure if it would not have been better if they would have been addressed in multiple threads.

My question for the Original poster would be this simple. Is this the first time you have ever tried to reconcile justice with belief?

In criminal cases, you see a punative hand. In others, there may be a certain amout of rehabilatative concern.