Accusations Against God: Hyper-severity

by BlogSpotThinker
October 13, 2011

Concern appears to reasonably be considered to have been expressed suggesting the impropriety of certain specific, apparently Biblically-suggested, punishment of humanity, apparently suggested by God with regard to certain specific human violations. I humbly and respectfully submit that, without claiming authoritative understanding of the rationale for God’s decisions, I side with God on the basis of the Bible’s apparent depiction of God as all-knowing, supremely just and supremely interested in the well-being of humanity.

However, I similarly submit that this post appears to not be intended to express either agreement or disagreement with the concerns apparently expressed. The intent of this post appears to be to explore and analyze the issues relevant to the apparently suggested concerns.

Toward that end, therefore, I humbly and respectfully submit the apparently reasonable theory that human perspective appears to be reported to be capable of adopting a range of positions regarding, perhaps, any philosophical premise. The positions adopted appear to be reasonably considered to be both potentially related to religious perspective as well as unrelated to religious perspective. This apparently reasonable theory is presented to suggest, purely from a perspective of human logic and reason, that human perception of impropriety appears to be reasonably considered to not necessarily establish impropriety. In other words, purely from a logical perspective, the above-mentioned punishments appear to be reasonably considered to be, at least, potentially appropriate, despite the appearance, from human perspective, of impropriety.

I humbly and respectfully submit that a material difference appears to exist between the context of God’s judgment and that of humanity’s judgment. The Bible appears to suggest that humanity’s sense of judgment is flawed and that God’s sense of judgment is not. The apparent implication appears to be that, if God were to allow humanity to review and understand God’s rationale regarding God’s decision-making, humanity would withdraw any related reservation regarding God’s decision-making. The Bible appears to not be generally considered to indicate that God is to be expected, at any point in time, to divulge said rationale because God is sovereign.

Despite the apparent potential for (a) reasonable human opinion to vary regarding the propriety of the above-mentioned punishments, and for (b) humanity to not fully understand what might be referred to as God’s “rationale” for the above-mentioned punishments, there appears to be humanly-recognizable and understandable logic and reasoning that appears to be reasonably considered to logically and reasonably suggest the propriety of the apparently Biblically-suggested, God-authorized system of punishments.

To clarify, certain other human concerns appear to be expressed regarding malevolent acts apparently suggested to have been committed by humanity. A concern regarding these malevolent acts appears to be that God, despite God’s apparently Biblically-suggested unlimited knowledge and power, appears to have allowed such malevolence to occur and to continue. The apparent goal of behavior-shaping punishment appears to be, to be sufficiently severe to eliminate the behavior by disincentivizing the behavior. The apparent goal of violator-elimination measures appears to be reasonably considered to be elimination of the behavior by eliminating the entity exhibiting the behavior. In light of Bible and secular history’s apparent report that threat of stoning appears not to have totally prevented commission of the acts, the punishments appear to be reasonably considered to not be too severe.

Consequently, the next issue appears to be whether the above-mentioned behaviors merit that level of behavior-shaping or behavior-elimination. Here, again, given incomplete information, I side with God. From a standpoint of human logic and reason, however, given the context of an environment of purely appropriate perspective, the apparent effect on the human experience of those acts, as described in the Bible accounts of the applicable guidelines, and to the extent that those guidelines were in fact prescribed by God, appears to be reasonably considered to be harmful enough to merit their not ever occurring. This appears to be the context in which the guidelines were given.

In summary, the Bible appears to suggest that God had established, on humanity’s behalf, another new start by freeing the Hebrews/nation of Israel from bondage in Egypt. The Bible appears to be reasonably considered to suggest that, in this context, God had apparently gifted this newly-freed community with the opportunity to reestablish an environment of purely appropriate perspective. Violations of the type apparently Biblically-suggested appear to be reasonably considered to be disastrous to this new start. The Bible appears to be reasonably considered to suggest that God was not aiming for a mediocre community experience, but, perhaps was aiming for restoration of the God/humanity experience that God had initially designed. Disregard for the destruction apparently projected to occur to such an environment via such willful violation appears to be reasonably considered to warrant the apparent capital disincentive and occurrence, perhaps even from a human perspective.

Apparently related concerns appear to describe God as having a mutually-exclusive pair of choices: (a) humanity not sinning, and (b) humanity having exercise of free will. I humbly and ultimately refer to God questions regarding God’s intent. However, the following, apparently reasonable theory appears to be appropriately sharable. The Bible appears to suggest that God does not consider these choices to be mutually-exclusive. The Bible appears to suggest that God’s intent is for humanity to exercise its free will to choose to recognize God’s sovereignty and to follow God’s leadership.