Is God a good ruler?

[davidv]

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. {snip}

To me this is a false claim. One inherent difference is the source of these laws.

To the extent your proposal rests on this assumption it is not reasonable.

 

[Regular_Atheist]

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.

Why do religious folk have such little trust in humanity? :nope:

 

[davidv]

Why do religious folk have such little trust in humanity? :nope:

Because over and over thoughout history, humans have generally proven they are not to be trusted, particularly if they are not relying on God’s grace to align their will to God’s.

 

[fakename]

To me this is a false claim. One inherent difference is the source of these laws.

To the extent your proposal rests on this assumption it is not reasonable.

Laws are all similar. For to the extent that a law is good, it participates in divine law. If a law is reasonable then it is good, and if it is good, then it is natural, and if natural then divinely instituted.

So all law is really connected w/o differences except that human law is supposes a distinct matter (humans). I think that laws therefore, is really like refracted light -the same but supposing certain conditions, it alters and appears differently.

So that proves the contentious premise.

 

[Regular_Atheist]

Because over and over thoughout history, humans have generally proven they are not to be trusted, particularly if they are not relying on God’s grace to align their will to God’s.

But so often (what you would most likely see as) God’s word has been used to cause suffering. And, humanity can do brilliant things. It happens all the time.

 

[fakename]

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.

I’m not sure what your question is?

To open a window into my mind, I meant to ask if God is less than efficient in making people just, and if he is, is such inefficiency justifiable or indeed, consistent with a God?

Now this seems to be one of those questions that are “too high for thee” but I think that if we can tell, universally, what punishment is both good and well-administered (and I think we can) then we can also answer the question of how well God administers and assigns punishments.

 

[StrawberryJam]

I’m not sure what your question is?

To open a window into my mind, I meant to ask if God is less than efficient in making people just, and if he is, is such inefficiency justifiable or indeed, consistent with a God?

Now this seems to be one of those questions that are “too high for thee” but I think that if we can tell, universally, what punishment is both good and well-administered (and I think we can) then we can also answer the question of how well God administers and assigns punishments.

Someone is high alright.

 

[davidv]

But so often (what you would most likely see as) God’s word has been used to cause suffering. And, humanity can do brilliant things. It happens all the time.

Thank you. This proves my point.

 

[davidv]

Laws are all similar.

How does this negate the inherent difference between human and divine law?

For to the extent that a law is good, it participates in divine law. If a law is reasonable then it is good, and if it is good, then it is natural, and if natural then divinely instituted.

So all law is really connected w/o differences except that human law is supposes a distinct matter (humans). I think that laws therefore, is really like refracted light -the same but supposing certain conditions, it alters and appears differently.

So that proves the contentious premise.

What about the laws that are not good?

 

[fakename]

How does this negate the inherent difference between human and divine law?

What about the laws that are not good?

It means that the differences are not inherent, but mere modifications of the same thing.

The laws that are not good are not laws in a civil or moral sense.

 

[davidv]

It means that the differences are not inherent, but mere modifications of the same thing.

Why? God is inherently different than humans. Civil law is created by humans. Devine law is created by God.

The laws that are not good are not laws in a civil or moral sense.

Do you think this argument would be accepted in a court of law? I don’t.

 

[fakename]

Why? God is inherently different than humans. Civil law is created by humans. Devine law is created by God.

Do you think this argument would be accepted in a court of law? I don’t.

But the difference in who makes the law does not bear inherently on the nature of the law.

For instance, divine law is about justice, and justice is found in divine law. Likewise, civil law is about justice and justice is found in civil law. Therefore the two are the same.

I like your last statement seeing as it draws me into an uncomfortable contradiction. Let me split hairs. Civil law is said in two ways: (1) as what positively passes for civil law (in which case any statute just or unjust is called law), and (2) what really is law, that is justice.

So there is law and there is just law. Now a court of law is not necessarily a court of just law and therefore, it is possible for them to think that any law is a law. But truly speaking, only good laws are laws and so that is why people are justified in overthrowing “legislators” who enact bad “laws” for they reassert rather than break laws.

 

[davidv]

But the difference in who makes the law does not bear inherently on the nature of the law.

For instance, divine law is about justice, and justice is found in divine law. Likewise, civil law is about justice and justice is found in civil law. Therefore the two are the same.

I like your last statement seeing as it draws me into an uncomfortable contradiction. Let me split hairs. Civil law is said in two ways: (1) as what positively passes for civil law (in which case any statute just or unjust is called law), and (2) what really is law, that is justice.

So there is law and there is just law. Now a court of law is not necessarily a court of just law and therefore, it is possible for them to think that any law is a law. But truly speaking, only good laws are laws and so that is why people are justified in overthrowing “legislators” who enact bad “laws” for they reassert rather than break laws.

So, if civil law can be unjust, this all that is needed to show that it is inherently different that divine law, which cannot be unjust.
Your last paragraph is full of contradictions. I don’t know how to respond.

 

[fakename]

So, if civil law can be unjust, this all that is needed to show that it is inherently different that divine law, which cannot be unjust.
Your last paragraph is full of contradictions. I don’t know how to respond.

That’s just equivocal.

As I said in the post above, civil law (equivocally called) can be unjust but civil law properly called is just. Therefore civil law is divine law -simple.

The last paragraph is not contradictory as far as I know. However, it seems that you don’t understand that to interpret “civil law” as “any ordinance made by man” gives “civil law” an equivocal meaning. As I said before there are two senses of the term “civil law”. In one sense, it is the “material” (as opposed to formal) aspect of what a law is, namely, whatever bill a guy called a “legislator” passes. But formally, civil law is simply good laws. So in the only true sense of the term, civil law is divine law and is never wrong.

To call such an explanation contradictory is IMO, like calling the proposition “4 is greater than some numbers and bigger than other numbers” contradictory because 4 is less than 5 and bigger than 3. In one POV it is less and in another aspect it is more.

 

[davidv]

That’s just equivocal.

As I said in the post above, civil law (equivocally called) can be unjust but civil law properly called is just. Therefore civil law is divine law -simple.

The last paragraph is not contradictory as far as I know. However, it seems that you don’t understand that to interpret “civil law” as “any ordinance made by man” gives “civil law” an equivocal meaning. As I said before there are two senses of the term “civil law”. In one sense, it is the “material” (as opposed to formal) aspect of what a law is, namely, whatever bill a guy called a “legislator” passes. But formally, civil law is simply good laws. So in the only true sense of the term, civil law is divine law and is never wrong.

To call such an explanation contradictory is IMO, like calling the proposition “4 is greater than some numbers and bigger than other numbers” contradictory because 4 is less than 5 and bigger than 3. In one POV it is less and in another aspect it is more.

 

[fakename]

That doesn’t necessarily tell me what confuses you.

Perhaps it is the same stuff?

 

[davidv]

That doesn’t necessarily tell me what confuses you.

Perhaps it is the same stuff?

Your last post is nonsense from what I can tell.
Please explain why your following statement isn’t contradictory nonsense.

fakename:

As I said in the post above, civil law (equivocally called) can be unjust but civil law properly called is just.

 

[fakename]

Your last post is nonsense from what I can tell.
Please explain why your following statement isn’t contradictory nonsense.

Explanation: my post plays on the concept of “two-senses” and equivocation. Obviously some words are equivocal, like “man” which is sometimes used to describe a real man or a man in a painting.

Likewise I’m saying that civil law has two senses namely (1) any law positively defined, and (2) a good law.

Just as in the former example the primary meaning of man is “real man” so too I would say that the primary meaning of law is “good law”. But it is possible to mistakenly confuse the two and so equivocate one’s meaning, for instance by using civil law in one instance as “any law” or in another as “good law”. I’m using it as “good law” and you seem to be using it to mean “any law”. But again, good law is the primary sense. This would be as if someone used the word “man” to mean “any representation of a man” instead of “a real man” -imagine the confusion if two people were talking about humans in this way.

One might also venture, though this seems out-there, that the very term “positive law” is equivocal since it implies both good and bad laws. So the term has no real meaning since it has contrary meanings.

 

[Vico]

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?

Are you asking what the Catholic Churches teaches or philosophically, where God is a concept created by Man?

 

[jochoa]

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?

Excellent thoughts, my friend! As I consider all of your questions, I wonder what purpose have you assigned to God for creating? In other words, what is the purpose God creates?

When I assign the purpose of creating an ever-lasting society of true friends to God, in which He gets to participate as a friend, I find absolute efficiency, mercy, forgiveness, patience, kindness, guidance, selflessness, and leadership.