Sovereignty of a deity

[maquiscat]

No. Your God has no sovereignty over me or others.

I decided to post this here instead of possibly creating a thread jack.

Now while I do not follow the mind set of a lot of the uber Christians here, being a Christians myself, this argument strikes me as an incorrect one, maybe even a fallacy, although I can't think of which one at the moment.

Allow me to make a parallel. Not all that long ago, we have a rash of people (at least as far as were hitting to public scene) making claim that they were not subject to this law or that. We are subject to the sovereignty of the various levels of government we fall under, whether we acknowledge them or not. Simply saying that you fall under the jurisdiction of the Confederate Articles (one of the arguments I recall) does not mean that you are not subject to the Constitution, either state or national.

In that same vein, whether or not we acknowledge a given deity, if that deity exists (not an argument on the existence of any given deity), then we do indeed fall under its sovereignty. The argument of course works for all the deities. The Goddess has sovereignty over the Christians, whether they acknowledge Her or not.

While we can easily claim what set of laws/people hold sovereignty over us in that we can objectively prove which government rules what area, a deity is not so easily proved objectively. Thus a claim of sovereignty or no sovereignty cannot factually be proven. With that it is important to note, that something/one having sovereignty over you, is not an automatic indication that one intends to or will obey that which has sovereignty.

 

[blarg]

so if i have power to do something to you it is my sovereign right to do as i please with you?

 

[Dragonfly]

Since this section is devoted to Religion & Skepticism, and not politics or governments, I'd say that there's a HUGE problem with "sovereignty" as it's directly associated with a deity.

First and foremost - which deity?

In a theocracy that's easy to answer.

In a country such as the USofA, much more difficult to answer. Which of course doesn't even touch on the need for some kind of proof regarding the existence of said deity.

So I'm not sure where this thread is supposed to go, or it's original intent.

 

[blarg]

Since this section is devoted to Religion & Skepticism, and not politics or governments, I'd say that there's a HUGE problem with "sovereignty" as it's directly associated with a deity.

First and foremost - which deity?

In a theocracy that's easy to answer.

In a country such as the USofA, much more difficult to answer. Which of course doesn't even touch on the need for some kind of proof regarding the existence of said deity.

So I'm not sure where this thread is supposed to go, or it's original intent.

if any 1 god exists it has the right to do anything to you i think was the intended message

 

[blarg]

I decided to post this here instead of possibly creating a thread jack.

Now while I do not follow the mind set of a lot of the uber Christians here, being a Christians myself, this argument strikes me as an incorrect one, maybe even a fallacy, although I can't think of which one at the moment.

Allow me to make a parallel. Not all that long ago, we have a rash of people (at least as far as were hitting to public scene) making claim that they were not subject to this law or that. We are subject to the sovereignty of the various levels of government we fall under, whether we acknowledge them or not. Simply saying that you fall under the jurisdiction of the Confederate Articles (one of the arguments I recall) does not mean that you are not subject to the Constitution, either state or national.

In that same vein, whether or not we acknowledge a given deity, if that deity exists (not an argument on the existence of any given deity), then we do indeed fall under its sovereignty. The argument of course works for all the deities. The Goddess has sovereignty over the Christians, whether they acknowledge Her or not.

While we can easily claim what set of laws/people hold sovereignty over us in that we can objectively prove which government rules what area, a deity is not so easily proved objectively. Thus a claim of sovereignty or no sovereignty cannot factually be proven. With that it is important to note, that something/one having sovereignty over you, is not an automatic indication that one intends to or will obey that which has sovereignty.

who is your god tyrant if multiple deity's exists?

 

[Evilroddy]

Do gods have rights? Do gods have sovreignty, given that humans create and record the principles, doctrines, dogma and rites of all gods' worship?

Men and women are subject to the power of the state due to the state's capacity to mete out coercive force on uncooperative citizens. Gods do not have such tools, except in militant theocracies, and so must depend on divine retribution. Has anyone seen any evidence of intentional divine retribution, specifically targetted at uncooperative and non-compliant religious followers of any faith recently? I know I haven't.

I think the argument is silly because it uses mundane ideas of power relationships to define the sublime and divine.

Cheers and be well.
Evilroddy.

 

[Daisy]

I would say our Creator has the right to to rule over us for that very reason...He created us so who knows us better than He? We did not will ourselves into existence...we exist because of God’s will so for this reason, life lived solely for self-interest is empty and meaningless...to find inner peace, joy, satisfaction, and fulfillment, we need to learn what God’s will is and then bring our life into harmony with it...only then can the purpose of our creation and existence be found...

“You are worthy, Jehovah our God, to receive the glory and the honor and the power, because you created all things, and because of your will they came into existence and were created.” Revelation 4:11

 

[Dragonfly]

if any 1 god exists it has the right to do anything to you i think was the intended message

The "right", or just the ability?

 

[Valery]

uber Christians here, being a Christians myself,

Isn't a Christian someone who follows the teachings of Jesus عليه السلام? Then who is "uber" Christian and how is he or she different from a Christian such as yourself?

 

[Valery]

So I'm not sure where this thread is supposed to go, or it's original intent.

I suspect you're just too proud to acknowledge the truth in the argument.

 

[Dragonfly]

I suspect you're just too proud to acknowledge the truth in the argument.

Due tell - what is the "truth in the argument" from the OP?

Spell it out.

 

[maquiscat]

Isn't a Christian someone who follows the teachings of Jesus عليه السلام? Then who is "uber" Christian and how is he or she different from a Christian such as yourself?

I'll respond to this first, and hit the others later.

The Uber Christian (and by default there can be others of this ilk in other religions) are those who would seek to impose their specific religion and denomination on others, especially through force of law. They are the ones who want laws requiring others to follow Christian morals, even if they are not Christians. They want businesses closed on Sundays, mandated prayer in schools and at government functions. I have personally encountered a few would have tried to get mandatory church attendence a local law. They are those that claim only their brand of Christianity is the correct one, and all the others may be close but are still wrong. They deny history, claiming marriage has always been what they said and that all the world was once followers of their version of God.

Most Christians recognize that God and the Christ valued free will and the decision to follow them, instead of imposed religion, and seek to allow others to live their lives, as long as it does not directly harm others.

 

[maquiscat]

Due tell - what is the "truth in the argument" from the OP?

Spell it out.

I'm looking forward to this as well. 10 bucks says he gets it wrong.

 

[zyzygy]

I'm looking forward to this as well. 10 bucks says he gets it wrong.

This should be good! Valery, the floor is yours.

 

[maquiscat]

so if i have power to do something to you it is my sovereign right to do as i please with you?

Having sovereignty and having the right to it are two separate things. Additionally, powers and limits of that sovereignty can vary. The Federal government has sovereignty over the citizens of the US, but still has limited power and abilities.

 

[blarg]

The "right", or just the ability?

Having sovereignty and having the right to it are two separate things. Additionally, powers and limits of that sovereignty can vary. The Federal government has sovereignty over the citizens of the US, but still has limited power and abilities.

what can a god do that you would say is not justified?

 

[Daisy]

Having sovereignty and having the right to it are two separate things. Additionally, powers and limits of that sovereignty can vary. The Federal government has sovereignty over the citizens of the US, but still has limited power and abilities.

Exactly...just as the Bible says, God has the right to sovereignty over mankind, but as of now, Satan is ruling...

 

[RAMOSS]

Exactly...just as the Bible says, God has the right to sovereignty over mankind, but as of now, Satan is ruling...

Nah, Satan isn't ruling anything.

 

[distraff]

I decided to post this here instead of possibly creating a thread jack.

Now while I do not follow the mind set of a lot of the uber Christians here, being a Christians myself, this argument strikes me as an incorrect one, maybe even a fallacy, although I can't think of which one at the moment.

Allow me to make a parallel. Not all that long ago, we have a rash of people (at least as far as were hitting to public scene) making claim that they were not subject to this law or that. We are subject to the sovereignty of the various levels of government we fall under, whether we acknowledge them or not. Simply saying that you fall under the jurisdiction of the Confederate Articles (one of the arguments I recall) does not mean that you are not subject to the Constitution, either state or national.

In that same vein, whether or not we acknowledge a given deity, if that deity exists (not an argument on the existence of any given deity), then we do indeed fall under its sovereignty. The argument of course works for all the deities. The Goddess has sovereignty over the Christians, whether they acknowledge Her or not.

While we can easily claim what set of laws/people hold sovereignty over us in that we can objectively prove which government rules what area, a deity is not so easily proved objectively. Thus a claim of sovereignty or no sovereignty cannot factually be proven. With that it is important to note, that something/one having sovereignty over you, is not an automatic indication that one intends to or will obey that which has sovereignty.

First off, the constitution says that the government should be very very limited and people should have the freedom to make their own personal choices, and the role of the government is to protect people. So we shouldn't blindly accept any king or ruler without question. Also, the government is appointed by the people. The constitution bans cruel and unusual punishments. God is a dictator who makes laws running people's personal laws, is a dictator, and his punishments are cruel and unusual.

Also, if don't like the current laws, you are free to leave the country and live out in the world or in another country. This isn't possible in the bible, even though God could easily make some decent place for people to live if they don't want to follow is rules and want to rule themselves.

 

[devildavid]

Exactly...just as the Bible says, God has the right to sovereignty over mankind, but as of now, Satan is ruling...

God doesn't have rights.

 

[Dragonfly]

what can a god do that you would say is not justified?

Torture it's own creations, for all eternity, for doing exactly as the god intended for the creations to do in the first place.

 

[maquiscat]

what can a god do that you would say is not justified?

Justification and any basis behind it is a purely subjective view. If you created an AI are you justified to do anything you want with it?

 

[distraff]

Justification and any basis behind it is a purely subjective view. If you created an AI are you justified to do anything you want with it?

Interesting question. Is it ethical to kill the AI if it doesn't do what I want it to do?

 

[Daisy]

Interesting question. Is it ethical to kill the AI if it doesn't do what I want it to do?

If it performs in direct conflict with the way you intended it to, when created...absolutely you do...

 

[blarg]

Justification and any basis behind it is a purely subjective view. If you created an AI are you justified to do anything you want with it?

it is subjective and personally i dont think so not if it has things it wants to do though it really stupid and cruel to make things that want stuff on their own if you want to control them

so if things are subjective how is god sovereign in any way but might makes right?