You Want God To Punish Sin

abigail-williams-liberty-german

These girls were murdered in my hometown.

Liberty German was 14 years old.

Abigail Williams was 13 years old.

They were just hiking a trail in a park.

Two innocent girls, killed for no reason.

Do you think we should even bother trying to find the killer?

If the killer is found, what should happen to him?

Would you just ‘forgive’ him?

Would you tell Abigail’s family to do the same?

Would you lecture Liberty’s family about compassion?

Should the murderer be released?

Punishing the killer won’t bring the girls back, right?

Nobody’s perfect.

We’ve all made mistakes.

Does this seem reasonable to you?

Suppose the killer is never found.

Suppose the killer lives comfortably to a ripe old age.

What do you think God should do?

Would you be cool with a God who doesn’t mind murder?

Would you worship a God who cares nothing for justice?

Could you adore a God who offers no comfort to heartbroken parents?

You want to live forever next door to the guy who never felt remorse for this crime?

 

Be very careful how you answer these questions.

Because if you won’t say this sin deserves punishment…

…you are a monster too.


121 thoughts on “You Want God To Punish Sin

  1. Good Violet told me that murderers such as these are people too, and that they just haven’t had the benefit of the good education that comes with the good life that she has.

    I think good Violet easily forgets about the victims and all their suffering and terror even when I show her graphic pictures.

    But good Violet’s heart is full empathy for the murderers.

    Violet is such a good person.

    Like

  2. The laws of nature and the existence of God, not to mention righteousness, DEMAND a day of reckoning.

    No ifs, ands, or buts about it. Can God forgive? Of course. But the ledger needs corrected. Even the voice of godlessness must agree even if in silence.

    Like

  3. When God wipes out an entire, wicked nation: “Genocide!!!!”
    When God allows foreigners to be made slaves instead: “Those poor slaves!”
    When God tolerates Fascism and Communism (and Feminism) and any other human attempt to establish order: “Where is God to stop this evil? People are suffering!”

    You know…there’s a word for people who are ALWAYS on the wrong side of justice.

    Atheists.

    🙂

    Liked by 3 people

  4. Meet Rudolf Höss (Not to be confused with Rudolf Hess).

    “He presided over the extermination of some 2.5 million prisoners in the three years he was commandant of the Auschwitz-Birkenau concentration camp. Another half a million died there from disease and starvation. A year after his tenure came to an end, he returned to oversee the execution of 400,000 Hungarian Jews.”

    He was also a lapsed Catholic, but confessed his sins, received Jesus into his heart and took Holy Communion just before he died.

    According to Christians, he is now sitting next to Jesus in Heaven.

    According to Christians, every single one of his victims who died without professing Christ as their Lord and Savior is doomed to roast in Hell for all eternity.

    Ain’t God swell?

    Liked by 1 person

      1. No. I do not share your belief in objective moral values and thus far you haven’t provided any evidence for such.

        Like

      2. Really? It’s now been two weeks and you’ve yet to present a single objective moral value, Mr. Branyan. So which of us is guilty of having failed to deliver the goods?

        Like

      3. Wrong.
        Refusing to admit that genocide is ALWAYS wrong doesn’t mean it’s subjective. It just means you’re stubborn.
        We both know the Holocaust was wrong.
        We both know murdering two innocent girls is wrong.
        Only one of us is honest enough to admit it.

        Liked by 2 people

      4. I completely agree that genocide is wrong. I also agree that committing murder is wrong except for when it’s done in self-defense. However, others seem to disagree. Convince them (and me) why these things are objectively wrong.

        Like

      5. I’m not asking you to convince me it’s subjectively wrong—on that we agree. I’m asking you to demonstrate why it is objectively wrong, even to those who would argue otherwise.

        Like

      6. We do not agree.
        You didn’t use the word subjective when you said genocide was wrong.

        So if even genocide is not objectively wrong, why are you here bitching about Nazis? It’s just your opinion.
        Why should we give a shit what you think?

        Like

      7. Huh? Must I remind you I’m arguing for subjective morality in every comment I post? Or can I trust you to retain and assimilate that knowledge for future reference?

        And if you don’t care what I think, why do you keep responding?

        Nor am I complaining about Nazis. That’s you projecting your own thoughts into the mix.

        Like

      8. By all means, Junior.
        Tell me where I’ve misconstrued your concept of subjective morality.
        Tell me where I’ve erected a straw man.
        God forbid I put words in your mouth.

        Like

      9. James,

        You asked: Who doesn’t think murder is wrong?

        My response is: people with antisocial personality disorders (i.e. psychopaths and sociopaths). It’s estimated they comprise anywhere from 0.5 to 2.5% of the population.

        Which is why the non-religious like myself argue that empathy and social conditioning form the primary underpinnings of morality.

        And yes, I inadvertently wrote murder when I meant to use the word kill. My apologies for the confusion.

        Like

      10. I actually would disagree, James! I think some sociopaths and psychopaths understand the concept of right/wrong they’ve been “conditioned” to believe just fine. (To use the word “conditioning,” like Ron did.) The problem is: they’ve been programmed with a godless education. It’s actually the most brilliant and logically-calculating people who become psychopaths, when they take their belief in mindless evolution to its nasty conclusion.

        If you’ve never heard of David Wood, I can’t recommend this video enough. He was a self-described sociopath (who one was diagnosed a full-blown, murderous psychopath) who now raises four boys with his wife in New York. He was a well-known apologist, with a ministry to Muslims, for several years on social media before he produced this, and people thought he was joking.

        Like

      11. You make a good point here Amanda but I am not sure true sociopaths can self-identify.

        By definition, a sociapatg is a person with a personality disorder manifesting itself in extreme antisocial attitudes and behavior and a lack of conscience.

        Really, I think, many of the people we may think are sociopaths might just be evil.

        Anyway, using them as an example of people who may think murder, that’s the context they were first mentioned if I’m not mistaken, is a horrible way to make a case objective morality doesn’t exist. That was my point.

        Like

      12. I would say, they KNOW murder is wrong, but they also are TAUGHT not to trust their consciences… What’s creepy about psychopaths (like Ted Bundy and Jeffrey Dahmer) is how totally sane they come across in interviews. They don’t have what we call “normal” feelings, but they are totally logical. If society determines what is right or wrong, and they simply don’t care about society’s opinion, then bad things (logically) happen…

        Jeffrey Dahmer–
        “If a person doesn’t think there is a God to be accountable to, then—then what’s the point of trying to modify your behaviour to keep it within acceptable ranges? That’s how I thought anyway. I always believed the theory of evolution as truth, that we all just came from the slime. When we, when we died, you know, that was it, there is nothing…”

        Liked by 1 person

      13. Jeffrey was given a knowledge of right and wrong from the beginning… but his “social conditioning” taught him not to trust any religion–including SECULAR religion.

        Here’s David Wood:

        “I had a life-changing experience…. I found myself in someone’s back yard. In front of me, was a beautiful garden. I started to walk around the garden, but then I stopped to philosophize…I thought, ‘I don’t care about the people in that house. So why am I going out of the way to avoid stepping on their vegetables? Why am I being so courteous?’ Because I’d been brainwashed, that’s why!”

        Liked by 1 person

      14. I am not trying to argue with you here, I find this fascinating and am just stating some thoughts.

        I don’t think being taught there is no God leads to thinking there is no point in keeping behavior within acceptable ranges. If it did then everyone who was taught there is no God would do whatever they wanted almost without restraint and that is clearly not the case.

        Really, I think this position reinforces the idea that objective morality exists and is written on our hearts regardless of what we believe about God.

        Dahmer is a special case and his quotes are indeed fascinating but, minus context, what do they really mean? Was the quote you used after he was arrested for his crimes? After he was convicted? While he was being tried and trying to make a case that he was crazy therefore not accountable?

        Also, look at Charles Manson. Yes, I know he is a special case too but what is he? Physchopath? Sociopath? Just evil?

        He can seem rational, can form coherent thoughts, is well spoken…

        Again, just kicking some thoughts around.

        Like

      15. There’s no disagreement that I can see, James. 🙂 Atheism and psychopathy isn’t a one-to-one, cause-and-effect relationship. (As you say, it’s very obvious that not every Atheist does whatever he wants, without restraint.) And I totally agree that it’s proof that objective morality is written on the human heart.

        I think the formula for psycho/sociopathy has at least three components. #1. BELIEF that mindless evolution really is the only truth. #2. LOGICAL ABILITY to deconstruct everything they think society has forced on them. #3. DETERMINATION (and opportunity) to carry-out some sort of evil plan.

        As I’ve told some of the Atheists here before: it’s not that all Atheists are psychopaths; it’s that not all Atheists are logically consistent. If they REALLY believed morality was subjective, and if they REALLY believed truth is a social construct, and if they REALLY wanted to take something that wasn’t theirs (whether money or sex or another person’s entire life)–then nothing (logically) would be able to stop them.

        “The Universe couldn’t conceivably care less whether you love your neighbor as yourself, or you torture him to death for fun. So you might as well do whatever you feel like doing with the little bit of time you’ve got.” -David Wood

        Like

      16. And that’s it Amanda! The belief that there is no objective morality has no good end if you follow it to its conclusion.

        This is why the atheist cannot actually believe what they say. That fact must cause them an incredible amount of frustration and angst.

        I read on a blog of someone who shuns objective morality that when they lash out at the God of the Bible they are really lashing out at his immoral behavior (not an exact quote).

        If that is true, and there is no objective standard to use to determine if God is immoral, then she is just lashing out at an opinion.

        The whole mess really gives me a headache.

        Liked by 1 person

      17. “It’s been almost a week and you still haven’t drawn up a list of objective moral values. What’s the holdup? [People should] not make baseless claims about the existence of objective morality they can’t back up… Compile that list of objective moral values every single person on earth has written inside them.” –Ron, a few weeks ago

        Hey, Ron, I think I found one of the things on the list. It appears that a person murdering millions of others is objectively wrong! Do you disagree with that?

        https://branyancomedy.wordpress.com/2017/02/21/evidently-youre-wrong/comment-page-1/#comment-16091

        Like

      18. Well, I presume the millions who objected to being murdered thought it was wrong. But their executioners thought it was hunky dory. So how have you established it was objectively wrong?

        “I believe today that I am acting in the sense of the Almighty Creator. By warding off the Jews I am fighting for the Lord’s work.” – Adolf, Hitler

        Like

      19. If the testimony from the nuns is correct, the executioner didn’t think it was hunky dory. That’s why he asked for forgiveness.

        What do YOU say? Is it always wrong for a human to kill millions of other humans?

        Like

      20. mrsmcmommy,

        Ok. Some of the executioners disagree. So which side is objectively right? And how did you decide?

        Like

      21. Still not going to answer, huh?

        Well, that’s okay.

        Everyone else sees what you’re too stubborn to admit: we all KNOW that killing millions of people, based on power-lust and racial hatred, is objectively wrong. It’s indefensible. You should ditch Atheism and get a worldview that lets you condemn what those Nazis did!

        Like

      22. I thought my position would have been clear from the comment I made here.

        But if you need clarification, I think that killing millions of innocent people is wrong. I also condemn the allied bombings of Dresden and the atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki. However, I also recognize that there are people who don’t/didn’t agree with those sentiments, much in the same manner that vegans and non-vegans debate the morality of eating animals—further evidence that morality is subjective.

        Like

      23. That’s ridiculous. Your belief that it’s wrong to kill millions of people isn’t a matter of “disagreement.” It’s not a simple difference of opinion.
        If someone believes it’s perfectly fine to kill millions of people for your own political advantage, then one of you is RIGHT and the other is WRONG.

        But, of course, no one actually thinks it’s right. People who know it’s wrong go ahead and do it anyway. But that’s not the same thing as right and wrong being subjective.

        Like

      24. This is correct.
        Junior won’t commit to saying genocide is objectively wrong. So he isn’t even brave enough to give his own ‘subjective’ opinion about mass murder! That’s because he KNOWS the truth and it contradicts his argument.

        Like

      25. That’s what I just told him.

        Atheists are the only one who even TRY to pretend like mass murder is complicated. (Or to pretend like starving a child isn’t black and white.)

        The only reason they jump through those crazy hoops is to protect their thesis. Otherwise, the fact that some people do objectively bad things and others do objectively good things is totally obvious.

        Like

      26. I saw. :/

        I also notice he’s struggling with the concept that human opinion currently POINTS to morality, but it doesn’t determine it.

        Even if everyone on the planet thought the Nazis did something good, they would all be wrong. That would be the point the people destroyed by the flood had reached–totally wrong and without hope.

        Like

      27. Lots of theists thought (and continue to think) it’s perfectly fine to kill people for one reason or another and justify it by appealing to scriptures in which God/Allah commanded it. So who are you to declare them wrong? And by what metric?

        Like

      28. I know this is hard for you, because I tried reasoning with you on my blog. But try to understand:

        The fact that people (including Theists) do bad things PROVES that we all know right and wrong exist. We all know it–even when we sometimes disagree about which things are right and which are wrong.

        One thing is for sure: we all agree that killing millions of men, women, and children, just for being Jews, was/is wrong. (The only people who even try to argue otherwise are Atheists, who say morality is just an evolutionary trick. It’s an illusion. But even they are kidding themselves.)

        Like

      29. Now you’re engaging in argumentum ad populum (an appeal to popularity). As I explained before:

        Objective means not influenced by personal feelings or opinions. William Lane Craig defines it thus:

        “To say that there are objective moral values is to say that something is right or wrong independently of whether anybody believes it to be so. It is to say, for example, that Nazi anti-Semitism was morally wrong, even though the Nazis who carried out the Holocaust thought that it was good; and it would still be wrong even if the Nazis had won World War II and succeeded in exterminating or brainwashing everybody who disagreed with them.”

        Demonstrate how you determined that genocide is objectively wrong (i.e. despite what one might subjectively believe) given the above definition.

        Like

      30. Actually, it’s the opposite of appealing to popularity.

        I just wrote to JB: “Ron is struggling with the concept that human opinion currently POINTS TO morality, but it doesn’t determine it. Even if every human on the planet believed the holocaust was good, they would ALL be wrong.”

        You are the one appealing to popularity by demanding that everyone “agree” about right and wrong before you will admit what you already know is the truth. Killing millions of Jews was wrong. Period.

        Like

      31. mrsmcmommy,

        I’ve done no such thing. In fact, I’ve done precisely the opposite. I’ve stated that while I believe harming others is wrong, there are those who disagree, and asked you to provide the objective (i.e. non-human-opinion-based) standard available to settle the matter. Thus far you’ve profered the following reasons:

        “we all KNOW that killing millions of people, based on power-lust and racial hatred, is objectively wrong.”

        “Even if everyone on the planet thought the Nazis did something good, they would all be wrong.”

        “One thing is for sure: we all agree that killing millions of men, women, and children, just for being Jews, was/is wrong.”

        “Even if every human on the planet believed the holocaust was good, they would ALL be wrong.”

        But these are all just slightly reworded assertions of your personal opinion. By what process did you determine “we all KNOW” these things are objectively wrong? Did you interview every person on the planet?

        Like

      32. Making your comments longer and restating your own “opinion” won’t change your problem, Ron. We’re all very clear on what you’re claiming.

        You’re pretending that you don’t know murder is objectively wrong because you know it is a problem for your Atheism. No, I did not interview everyone on the planet. But, even if I did, I’d run into problems when Atheists lie, as you have been.

        Like

      33. mrsmcmommy,

        My biggest problem is your unwillingness to engage me in an open and honest dialog. So I will discontinue our conversation until you make an attempt to rectify your behavior.

        Like

      34. Ah, yes. The fact that this conversation has been a train-wreck for you is MY fault. 😉

        Suit yourself. And, while you’re away, here was going to be my next question for you:

        My husband think green tea is delicious, and I disagree. Is that the same type of “disagreement” humans supposedly have about genocide?

        I’m genuinely curious how you categorize these “disagreements” in your mind…

        Like

      1. Hey SOM,

        Without question, Ron has no clue about atonement. It’s a curious comment since He was advocating subjective morality just a few days ago.

        I’m protestant so I’m fuzzy about the Catholic doctrine in this area. What does the Catholic church teach about the eternal fate of unrepentant people? Can living people pray for the salvation of the deceased? I’ve heard different things about purgatory and indulgences and I am honestly confused.

        Like

      2. SOM and JB –

        Our family is protestant. Our neighbors (and best friends) are Catholic. They’re also from Illinois – but we’ve forgiven them for that. We walk into each others houses in the same way that Kramer walked into Seinfeld’s apartment.

        Shouldn’t we hate each other? What are we doing wrong?

        ~CQW

        Liked by 1 person

      3. SOM,

        You’ll have to take up your eschatological differences with the Christian commenters in the linked article.

        Like

      4. They’re not my beliefs. That’s why I wrote “according to Christians.”

        If you disagree with other Christians, you’ll have to correct them yourself.

        Like

      5. Ron,

        So, you have taken it upon yourself to disagree with Christians on all kinds of things but when Christians disagree with other Christians you go into “my name is Paul, that’s between ya’ll” mode?

        Either you understand the faith enough to build a coherent case against it or you don’t.

        Like

      6. John,

        Jesus made it clear that repentance, or a turning away from one’s sinful ways, is absolutely necessary before we can be forgiven.

        Nevertheless, a repentant, forgiven sinner still has to pay the piper.

        Protestants do not believe this.

        Protestants believe that once forgiven, that’s it. The slate is clean.

        So it’s actually a Protestant idea that the sacraments of Confession and Eucharist somehow magically relieve the sinner of having to pay the piper, or atone for the damage he did while sinning.

        Biblical justice demands an atonement.

        Protestants believe that Jesus atoned for our sins once and for all.

        So all the Protestant sinner has to do is beg God for forgiveness and that’s it. The slate is wiped clean in the name of Jesus Christ.

        The Catholic Church teaches that God’s grace (the power to heal the ravages of sin) comes through the sacraments (Baptism, Eucharist, Confession, etc.)

        Nevertheless, a repentant, forgiven sinner still needs to pay the piper.

        Most of our sinning is not subject to civil authority, but divine authority only.

        The Bible and Catholic Church teach that alms-giving, feeding the hungry, clothing the naked, protecting the widow and orphan atone for sin.

        Consequently, the Christian, a sinner, must spend as much time as possible helping others in order to atone for his sins.

        Like

      7. Okay.
        So what happens to the Nazi who makes a death bed confession?
        (Amanda is already sharpening her spear. I’m still willing to give diplomacy a try before declaring all out war…)

        Like

      8. It’s not a matter of SAYING he’s sorry. It’s a matter of BEING sorry. That’s repentance.

        I’m not capable of paying for my own transgressions…and I’m not even a Nazi. All sin is equal. Break one part of the law, you’ve broken the whole thing. There isn’t any different between me and Himmler. Sin is sin. That’s why Jesus had to die. Because of me, you, Hitler and Ron.

        It’s NOT justice! That’s the point. Jesus intentionally took the raw deal. He hung on a cross INSTEAD of me! Nothing just about that.

        Liked by 3 people

      9. John,

        I thought the premise was that the NAZI was truly sorry.

        In such a case, Protestant belief holds that the NAZI goes directly to heaven.

        Catholic teachings hold that the sinner though forgiven, must still pay the piper.

        Like

      10. Sorry. I didn’t mean to split hairs about ‘saying’ and ‘being’ sorry. I’ve been steeped in atheist dialogue. I forgot I was talking to a reasonable person.

        So the Nazi would go to purgatory for the purposes of paying the piper?

        Like

      11. John,

        Yes. Someone who mass murdered millions of innocent people does not have the purity necessary for heaven.

        The purpose of Purgatory is to purify the soul so that it can enter heaven.

        Like

    1. It’s only the atheist who believes Christianity is about saying the “right words.”

      Is belief of the head (giving mental-assent to a thing) or of the heart?

      There are many “de-converts” who once claimed to have confessed their sin (nature) and received Jesus as their Lord & Savior. Where are they now… what has happened?… Didn’t they mean or believed what they said.

      Your last line makes no sense.
      You spoke of what other Christians say… then you made the link to God. Why didn’t you simply address what Christ Jesus had to say? [Too convicting huh?]

      Liked by 2 people

      1. Did you read to the end of the linked article?

        “And the guard who was present said it was one of the most beautiful moments in his life seeing this ‘animal’ kneeling, with tears in his eyes, looking like a little boy and receiving Holy Communion, receiving Jesus with his heart,” the nun said. “Unimaginable mercy.”

        Kneeling with tears in his eyes. The guard, the nun and Father Lohn seemed convinced his confession was legit.

        And how do you know what Jesus said? Were you there to hear it?

        Like

    2. I would take issue with several of your premises, however, even if your point is correct that Rudolf Höss’s soul was saved even after all the atrocities that he committed, someone still had to pay the price for his sins. Death is the price of sin. Jesus died as payment for our sins. He did this for all of us, even though we have all done things worthy of death. So, yes, God IS swell.

      Like

      1. “Someone has to pay.”

        Hey! That’s what I tell everyone who complains when I strangle kittens to atone for the sins of those who walk across my lawn. Death is the price of trespassing against Ron.

        Seems like I’m a man after God’s own heart. 🙂

        Like

      2. I think you’ve missed my point. If you were God, then when someone sins against you, you DIE for them, so you can still have a relationship with them because you LOVE them.

        Like

      3. No. I understand your point. I simply disagree.

        Forgiveness requires nothing more than the extension of forgiveness. A sacrifice seems completely extraneous to that process, so why would an all-powerful being need to engage in such an elaborate and pointless exercise? Moreover, theology informs us that God only played dead for a weekend, so where’s the sacrifice? And where is the justice in punishing the innocent for the crimes of the guilty? If that kind of justice doesn’t fly in a human court, why would it be acceptable in a divine court?

        Like

      4. “And where is the justice in punishing the innocent for the crimes of the guilty?”

        I’m not sure what this has to do with our current conversation unless by “punishing the innocent for the crimes of the guilty”, you’re talking about Jesus sacrificing Himself for us. In that case, you’re right. That’s not justice. It’s mercy.

        “Forgiveness requires nothing more than the extension of forgiveness.”

        Does it? You brought up courts. If someone is found guilty in a courtroom and he apologizes and vows to never commit the crime again, does the judge just say “okay, never mind then?” No, the guilty party has to pay the injured party, whether that be jail time, a fine, community service, or the death sentence.

        What has happened is we have all committed a crime worthy of spiritual death (i.e., separation from God), we have been found guilty and the penalty is death. Jesus has come before the judge, and said “Take my life instead.” And Jesus’ life is infinitely more valuable than mine. He didn’t have to do it. He owes me nothing, while I owe Him everything. In light of this, can you not see why we love Him so much?

        Like

      5. Thanks for your response. But I’m still unclear why an all-powerful, all-knowing God would need to sacrifice himself to himself to save us from his own wrath. It all seems rather convoluted to me, because I normally just forgive people and move on with my life. Harming myself to complete that process seems counterproductive and unnecessary.

        You’re correct. Our courts were instituted to dispense punishment, rather than justice or mercy. But I submit that justice and mercy are incompatible goals, anyway, because one cannot simultaneously mete out and set aside the prescribed remedy within the same ruling. And scapegoating serves neither purpose—at least from my perspective.

        Like

      6. Whitney is having trouble with your views on subjective morality.

        If you are correct, then there is no wrath of God because there is no such thing as evil. If somebody killed your family, you will just forgive them and move on with your life. That is justice.

        Like

      7. Ron,

        The notion that God sacrificed himself to himself comes from Sabellianism, Patripassianism, and/or Modalism, and has been refuted by orthodox Christians dating back to the 2nd century and was officially condemned as heresy at the council of Nicaea. Thus, what you suggest is actually a misrepresentation of the Christian view.

        Christians are trinitarian monotheists. That is, we believe that there is one God that exists in three distinct persons. Thus, if the Son is sacrificed to the Father, it is incorrect to say that one person is sacrificing himself to himself.

        If you want to argue against Christianity, that’s your right. But I would suggest you learn about what Christians truly believe first instead of just repeating what you saw on a meme.

        James

        Like

    3. Ron,

      What you seem to misunderstand about Christianity is that it’s not about who is good enough to get into Heaven by human standards and a human sense of fairness but more so about the fact that absolutely no one is good enough without a redeemer.

      Sure, it may seem unfair that a Nazi who is responsible for countless deaths is in Heaven but how is this vastly different than Paul who went from being one of the greatest adversaries of the early church — aiming to kill or imprison all of them — to being one of its greatest assets?

      It may seem counterintuitive but human standards do nothing but muddy the water. Using your own logic, Ted Bundy could argue that he gets a pass because, unlike Jeffery Dahmer, he didn’t eat his victims.

      I completely understand your thinking and why it makes sense to you, I do. But it’s human thinking and purely subjective where God’s thinking is universal and objective.

      James

      Liked by 1 person

      1. Hi James.

        It’s not so much that I misunderstand the basic tenets of Christianity—I understand them all too well—it’s that I consider them incoherent and incompatible with modern conceptions of morality and justice.

        What purpose is there to prolonged punishment without respite or chance of requital? In secular nations (primarily outside the U.S.) the move has been away from retributive/punitive systems to restorative justice and gradual reintegration into society for all except the most hardened of criminals. They also report the lowest incarceration and recidivism rates; exactly the opposite of the the U.S. (the world’s leading jailer with the highest number of re-offenders).

        Like

      2. Ron,

        I have been reading through this thread a bit and I doubt there is much common ground between you and the believers on this blog so I really don’t want to belabor this.

        I personally am a big fan of restoration, forgiveness, and people who have committed crimes reintegrating back into society. In fact, I do a lot of work trying to help people society has written off as lost causes so this is actually personal to me.

        That being said, no matter how much emphasis a society puts on restorative justice, there is still always a punishment for criminal wrong doing. In other words, a debt has been paid by someone even if the cost is lower than it may be in other justice systems.

        Problem with using this to make a case against God’s system of justice is that crimes against God (sin) are crimes against an infinite being and they demand an infinite punishment.

        Sure, you can not like this, a lot of people don’t, but that doesn’t change reality.

        James

        Liked by 1 person

      3. James,

        I agree that we’re poles apart in our worldview. The question is: Do you feel it worthwhile to take steps in closing the breach? Or do you consider it an exercise in futility?

        Liked by 1 person

  5. JB and Sweet Cheeks –

    As you know – I have from time to time asked the atheists for scientific evidence that murder is in fact wrong. Have I missed any evidence presented during my hiatus?

    ~CQW

    Like

    1. We dedicated not one, but TWO, posts to the issue of objective vs. subjective morality. The Atheists gave a valiant effort–including one who believes we can measure empathy by looking at CAT scans or X-rays or some such. Now–if only we could agree that empathy is absolutely right! 🙂

      Like

    2. Crimson,

      First, welcome back! You have been loafing around long enough.

      Second, no. You’ve missed nothing.

      The atheists have written MILLIONS of words explaining how morality is subjective and everybody should be free to decide for themselves what is wrong except for Christians who sin when they indoctrinate their children with the idea that sin is a real thing.

      Now you are caught up.

      Like

    3. I think “empathy” has been offered (link, Peaches?). Apparently, it is implied that all of us are naturally empathetic- only the religious people believe they need God for that. I mean, until you talk about people who did not live an empathetic life- then they are suddenly “religious”. So basically, only atheists are empathetic 😉

      Like

      1. It would be helpful if Violet, Allallt, Sirius, Windbag or Tildeb would hop in here and explain how subjective morality works in cases like this. I’m so thoroughly indoctrinated that I don’t even wait to analyze the data before declaring the killing of innocent children is wrong. The pagans will bring an enlightened perspective to my backward superstitions.

        Like

      2. I’d be happy to provide links, but I’m not sure which ones to include. The conversation where Allallt insisted that all the answers were on his blog? Or the one where Violet said “Morality isn’t a product of evolution. It evolved.”

        Or the quote where Fictionspawn said, “One word. Empathy. Done.” *snort*

        Not to make CQW feel more left out than he might already, but… there have been some memorable quotes recently. We’ve been busy.

        Liked by 1 person

      3. Then there was this gem from two days ago:
        “…that violates one of my personal codes of honor, to refrain from doing harm; particularly killing anyone exists as a walking talking entity. It’s just a personal belief of mine that applies to me; one I wouldn’t force on others who feel their religion justifies harming others. What others consider okay for them to do doesn’t mean that it’s okay for me to do as well; or we’d all be jumping off of bridges. But hey, if your religion says it’s required for you to jump off of bridges, why should I stop you from obeying your personal convictions?”

        So, that doesn’t speak directly to CQW’s question about murder. But, watching someone commit suicide? Yeah, that could be a defensible “right.”

        https://branyancomedy.wordpress.com/2017/03/11/indoctrinate-those-kiddies/comment-page-1/#comment-17541

        Like

      4. Thanks Sweet Cheeks, Matthew, and JB –

        I feel caught up now. It’s nice to know we can make up our own rules.

        ~CQW

        Like

  6. In the case of “paying the piper”, I feel like it confuses atonement with consequences. You can’t atone for the sins that you have committed after receiving salvation, because that is exactly what Christ did. However, you will face the consequences of how you’ve chosen to live your life. If you smoked all your life, got lung cancer and then became a Christian, you may still have to face the consequences of a life of smoking. Sure, you’re saved. But you reap what you sow.

    Liked by 1 person

  7. For by grace you have been saved through faith, and that not of yourselves; it is the gift of God, not of works, lest anyone should boast. Ephesians 2:8-9

    Like

    1. Gene,

      That is probably my favorite couple of verses from Scripture.

      I may just start “replying” (as in not) to the atheists with the gift of a Bible verse or two or three. It will be sure to set them off.

      But it might drive John crazy, too. (I just listened to the latest podcast).

      Dave

      Like

  8. John,

    Murder is only wrong, either subjectively or objectively, if there is an intrinsic value to all human life. When humans get to decide which lives have value, we get eugenics and a Holocaust.

    There can only be an intrinsic value in all human life if Someone declares such. Randomly created living beings can’t have intrinsic value. However, living beings created in the image of God can be declared to have intrinsic value by their Maker.

    Good thing that He did.

    And if we are speaking of mass murder as being wrong, either subjectively or objectively, can we afford to fail to mention the ongoing mass murder of innocents daily, based upon them just being unwanted?

    Can we take an entire group of humans and declare them to not be persons and therefore say we have the right to murder them without penalty? We railed against genocide when it comes to Jews, blacks, and ethnic minorities, yet there is one class of innocent persons who can be slain without fear of earthly consequence.

    Of course, I am talking about babies in the womb. Who can be more innocent of crimes against the state then them?

    Or do we only assign value to life once it can become a tax exemption?

    Most unbelievers want to protect murderers from the death penalty, yet pronounce and carry it out on the unborn. Scripture teaches the opposite.

    Yet they dare call us immoral?

    Dave

    Psalm 139:13-16 (ESV)

    [13] For you formed my inward parts;
    you knitted me together in my mother’s womb.
    [14] I praise you, for I am fearfully and wonderfully made.
    Wonderful are your works;
    my soul knows it very well.
    [15] My frame was not hidden from you,
    when I was being made in secret,
    intricately woven in the depths of the earth.
    [16] Your eyes saw my unformed substance;
    in your book were written, every one of them,
    the days that were formed for me,
    when as yet there was none of them.

    Like

  9. Dave, it’s all I have. I’m not as smart as all these folk. I haven’t listened to the latest podcast. Maybe later. I’m not trying to be nice, so if it drives John crazy that’ll be ok 🙂 haha I still love you guys.

    For as the rain comes down, and the snow from heaven, and not to return there, but water the earth, and make it bring forth and bud, that it may give seed to the sower and bread to the eater, so shall my Word be that goes forth from my mouth; it shall not return to me void, but it shall accomplish what I please, and it shall prosper in the thing for which I sent it. Isaiah 55:10-11

    Like

  10. It’s a really good thing for the families of those girls that law enforcement personnel in Indiana don’t share the Atheists’ view of subjective morality.

    Liked by 2 people

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s