06 Mar 10
Originally posted by twhiteheadYou just don't quite seem to have a grasp of this concept yet. My smiting the 100 richest people, in and of itself, is not designed to solve anything. The purpose is to 'motivate' people to solve the problem themselves. If people subsequently decide to implement higher taxes for the rich or enact universal health care, then that is all well and good. If they can lessen inequality and eliminate starvation by other means, then so be it. It would be up to the people to devise solutions to their own problems. My purpose as a god would be to make sure they recognize that there is a problem in the first place and that it had better be solved by some means. Or the smitings will continue indefinitely.
I am simply not convinced that your methods would have the effect you think they would. I don't think that is lack of imagination.
[b]My agenda would be to prod people into saving themselves.
I do not believe that punishment is the best way to do things. I believe it shows a failure on behalf of the parent / God to take more proactive measures. I ...[text shortened]... ar policy if you were a fully human dictator. ie shoot the 100 wealthiest citizens once a year.[/b]
I target the rich, not because smiting them will result in any meaningful wealth redistribution, but because they are in a position to enact substantive changes to how social institutions are run. If they are in imminent danger of being smitten then their motivation for enacting progressive change is heightened considerably. Of their own accord they would redistribute enough wealth to, if nothing else, avoid future smitings.
The program I have outlined here is wholly incompatible with human governments. It is designed exclusively to fit within the parameters of this thread...if I were a god.
06 Mar 10
Originally posted by rwingettAnd my argument is that if human nature and current situations are anything to go by, it simply would not work. I simply don't believe that the threat of a smiting for excessive wealth would be very effective as a motivation for anything good. It would probably only result in people avoiding accumulating excessive wealth, which in and of itself would not particularly benefit anyone.
If they are in imminent danger of being smitten then their motivation for enacting progressive change is heightened considerably. Of their own accord they would redistribute enough wealth to, if nothing else, avoid future smitings.
The program I have outlined here is wholly incompatible with human governments. It is designed exclusively to fit within the parameters of this thread...if I were a god.
But since you would largely not interfere except for your once a year smitings, human governments would still have to remain in place.
06 Mar 10
Originally posted by twhiteheadI do not believe that 'human nature' has a fixed character. I believe that humans are eminently improvable. If people behave as greedy louts it is because they are born and bred into a system that rewards greed. If they are instead raised in a system where the rich and powerful are actively subjected to divine punishment then they will internalize an entirely different code of behavior.
And my argument is that if human nature and current situations are anything to go by, it simply would not work. I simply don't believe that the threat of a smiting for excessive wealth would be very effective as a motivation for anything good. It would probably only result in people avoiding accumulating excessive wealth, which in and of itself would not ...[text shortened]... re except for your once a year smitings, human governments would still have to remain in place.
Human governments would be a necessity for the foreseeable future, yes. The smiting business is reserved exclusively for me (god), however. The leaders of governments which killed their own citizens would in turn be smitten. As with opulent displays of wealth, bad governance would also be a smitable crime. At year's end, not only would the richest be smitten, but the worst of the world's leaders would receive the same fate. There would actually be several categories where the worst offenders would be smitten. The cumulative effect would be the gradual improvement of the human race to the point where not only are governments unnecessary, but my services as a god are no longer required. Humanity will behave in a righteous fashion, not because they fear divine punishment, but because they have internalized that mode of behavior to such an extent that it becomes second nature to them. At that point they will have grown up and become as gods themselves. As a god, I will have no further purpose and will then cease to exist.
I hope that expanded glimpse of my theology clears things up for you.
06 Mar 10
1 edit
Originally posted by whodeyI'd screw it all up!
If you were God, how would you run things? Would you punish evil doers or would you turn a blind eye? If you did punish evil doers, how would you punish them? Would you erradicate free will? Who would go to heaven and who would go to hell? Would there even be a hearven or hell?
06 Mar 10
Originally posted by josephwI think I'd transform everyone into ducks for the sins of the world, so that whoever flaps their wings would get to have eternal life.
Not really.
I'd become a man so I could die for the sins of the world, so that whoever would simply trust and believe would get to have eternal life.
Ya! That's what I'd do. 🙂
07 Mar 10
Originally posted by rwingettI am curious. Do you think that if a God could do it with a little nudging here and there, that a benevolent dictator could achieve the same thing?
The cumulative effect would be the gradual improvement of the human race to the point where not only are governments unnecessary, but my services as a god are no longer required.
07 Mar 10
Originally posted by whodeyAnd still the picture looks a whole lot brighter with atheists in charge. It seems Christians are typically just not very nice people. Almost every atheist has at least suggested what he believes would make the world a better place. Christians have either made fun of the whole idea, abstained, or threatened to make a total mess of things.
100 posts on my thread!!
That's all, just going for an all time record. Carry on.
08 Mar 10
Originally posted by twhitehead"It seems Christians are typically just not very nice people."
And still the picture looks a whole lot brighter with atheists in charge. It seems Christians are typically just not very nice people. Almost every atheist has at least suggested what he believes would make the world a better place. Christians have either made fun of the whole idea, abstained, or threatened to make a total mess of things.
Hey! I'm a very nice person. Really, I am.
It's just that I'm not a very smart person, so I say things that aren't very nice sometimes.
But I'd give you the coat off my back. 🙂