The Great Flood

Originally posted by twhitehead
What if the victim does not find it acceptable but has no choice in the matter. Further you believe it will be beneficial to the victim even though the victim doesn't.
What if the crime was something smaller like taking naked photos or something less sexually charged like a beating?

what are you saying? that if the victim has no choice in the matter, he/she should take the money and call it even? does that imply that bill gates can afford several rapes, a couple of thousand beatings and several hundred of thousand "naked photos taking"?

this digresses and maybe you should create another thread in which you clearly state your points so as to know exactly what we are debating.

Originally posted by Zahlanzi
what are you saying? that if the victim has no choice in the matter, he/she should take the money and call it even? does that imply that bill gates can afford several rapes, a couple of thousand beatings and several hundred of thousand "naked photos taking"?

this digresses and maybe you should create another thread in which you clearly state your points so as to know exactly what we are debating.

What I am asking is to what extent we have the right to go against the will of others when we think it is to their benefit, and what Gods rights are. The Bible has countless examples of God hurting people against their will supposedly for their own benefit, and for the case in point - the benefit of others. People have argued that in the 'bigger picture' God had his motives and we should not question him.

I am also wondering what DoctorScribbles views on the matter are as he asked the question, and I suspect he hoped to kick of discussion along certain lines.

Originally posted by twhitehead
What I am asking is to what extent we have the right to go against the will of others when we think it is to their benefit, and what Gods rights are. The Bible has countless examples of God hurting people against their will supposedly for their own benefit, and for the case in point - the benefit of others. People have argued that in the 'bigger picture' ...[text shortened]... re as he asked the question, and I suspect he hoped to kick of discussion along certain lines.

i understand your point now, thank you for the clarification.

first of all, the issue of god hurting people for their benefit or for the benefit of others. i have said it numerous times that the old testament is a collection of myths, narrative stories and quite often, outright genocidal and horror stories. many times it revolves around the fact that god chose ONE people and gave them a chunk of beach and desert and called it the promissed land and told them to murder anyone who stands in their way and worships something else. this is a very important contradiction with the message of christs who basically says to keep pester the heathens with good deeds and turning the other cheek until the heathens see the fluffyness of christianity.

the OT must be read with the NT as a clarification tool, anytime it contradicts the NT message, skip the passage. i think even the jews have different other books that clarify parts of the OT(well for them it is not old😀) and do not hold it literally. i as a christian do not get why the old and the new are marketed together, it is really really bad marketing.


and now to the really hard part of your question: how far can we go to hurt a person in order to save them? when are we allowed to do that? when are we not? is it morally right to save someone against their will?
if your sister is a junkie, is it right to commit her by force in a rehab facility? if you are convinced your 1 year old baby will go to heaven if you kill him right now, is it right to actually kill him(you would still go to hell unless you repent of course but the baby will definetely go to heaven 😀)? The answer to this is that there is no answer. We cannot make directives like "free will is absolute, and nobody should be forced to do anything against his will". We can make laws that draw the line closer or farther away from a certain point, line that can be moved when that particular law is changed or dismissed. Like we made a law that bans alcohol because it is harmful. And now we make a law that forbids people to smoke in public places. It all depends on our reasoning at the time. When it comes to god, if we hold his reasoning to be far superior to ours, where can the line be crossed? Didn't he drew the line already when he sent J-man to give us the new and improved message?