the right to judge

[distada]

Can anyone give me their opinion in this quote?

God's right to judge is not because He is most powerful. Might makes right is not a Biblical concept. God has a right to judge for the same reason our nation's judges have the right. They have authority. We also just happen to be God's creation, designed and sustained by Him.

I know nothing of the American judicial system. What's wrong or right about this quote?

[SCarpelan]

Judges are given the right to judge by the institutions created by the people and are required to follow the written laws of the society. According to the christian doctrine God has the right to judge because he says so and his will is the law.

[sandman]

Well, the metaphor is very weak, because Biblicaly, God has self-granted authority because he is the creator. Legally in the USA, a judge has authority because the people he judges have collectively granted him that authority. Theologically, God's authority is unalterable and undeniable because it is self-derived, and he is the most powerful and original creator. A judge's authority, on the other hand, is subject to interpretation, defiance, rejection, and even reversal or removal should the external source of his authority rescind it.

Hardy a sound theological metaphor.

[N. De Plume]

Well, the metaphor is very weak, because Biblicaly, God has self-granted authority because he is the creator. Legally in the USA, a judge has authority because the people he judges have collectively granted him that authority. Theologically, God's authority is unalterable and undeniable because it is self-derived, and he is the most powerful and original creator. A judge's authority, on the other hand, is subject to interpretation, defiance, rejection, and even reversal or removal should the external source of his authority rescind it.

In other words, no matter what the guy that came up with the metaphor thinks, God’s authority pretty much is just “might makes right.”

[sandman]

The metaphor is useless because it ignores the source of authority. God's authority allegedly derives from the fact that he is the omnipotent creator. I don't know why this guy seems to have an issue with the doctrine that God's authority derives from his power, since it's fairly self-evident.

He is right in the fact that "might makes right" is not a Biblical assertion, at least not in the teachings of Christ. But the concept of omnipotent authority is not a question of might makes right, but inherent authority, so even from a comparative point of view the metaphor is still useless.

[distada]

thanks all, this is good information.

[Lithp]

I have another way of looking at this:

The judge isn't supposed to make decisions based on how big his gavel is. Law evolved heavily from natural philosophers. Laws are supposed to be logical. Like others indicated, the judge's rulings don't come from himself, he is exercising constitutional principles. So if God was judging by some trait that naturally existed, that would be a good metaphor, but it would also make him subject to something, & so Fundies won't do that.

[DNAunion]

Can anyone give me their opinion in this quote?

God's right to judge is not because He is most powerful. Might makes right is not a Biblical concept.

Ask poor Job about that.

Job was innocent, but God gave Satan the thumbs up to kill all 10 of Job's children, and to torture the sh*t out of Job.   When Job finally gets to "talk with" God, all God does is scold and reprimand and talk down Job for thinking that he, a mere human, has any right to question the almighty God, no matter how immoral and unjust.   

[Yla]

Can anyone give me their opinion in this quote?

God's right to judge is not because He is most powerful. Might makes right is not a Biblical concept.

Ask poor Job about that.

Job was innocent, but God gave Satan the thumbs up to kill all 10 of Job's children, and to torture the sh*t out of Job.   When Job finally gets to "talk with" God, all God does is scold and reprimand and talk down Job for thinking that he, a mere human, has any right to question the almighty God, no matter how immoral and unjust.   

Really? If I recall correctly, his neighbours were the ones who told Job to just accept his fate and not question God. After he entered the discussion, God asserted his authority, but he also restored Job's fortunes.

[Askold]

The whole point in the story about Job is that Job was faithful and praised God, but the Devil claims that he only does that since he is rich, has many children and his life is good. The Devil bets that if Job would lose anything he would blame God for it and stop his worship.

God accepts the bet and lets Satan do whatever he wants to Job' life as long as Job remains unharmed, being very thorougly he takes from Job every good thing in his life, this includes killing his children, still Job accepts his faith and remains a devout servant of God. (Despite the fact that in this particular case God and Devil really are to blame.)

When God claims that Satan was mistaken since Job is still faithful even though he is now poor and alone Satan claims that the only reason poor Job is faithful is because he is still healthy, if he was about to die he would curse God for his cruel faith. Long story short, Job is unhappy and dying of super-AIDS* and his wife says he should blame God for it, his friends all claim that this is a punishment for some sins he has done and even Satan comes to mock him. Then God shows up, explains everything and gives Job back everything he lost and then some. Also his friends have to pay fines (sacrifices) for daring to doubt God's judgement.
 



* Well technically boils and stuff.

[Neith]

But didn't he give him a different wife and different children? You can't really replace loved ones when they die.

[TenfoldMaquette]

But didn't he give him a different wife and different children? You can't really replace loved ones when they die.

Yeah - new family and twice as much livestock for his troubles.

I would've personally preferred that god had abstained from the reward in that story, just because I see too many "faithful" people who only try to be good because god is watching and he's going to give them a cookie when they die. Even if god hates you, or just doesn't care, does that make him any less god and still worth your unconditional worship? Why is it he's only worth acknowledging when he's on your side? If you're only in it for the cookies, are you really faithful - and thus, are you really a good person like you claim?

They never answer, and we all already know why.

[Old Viking]

If the Old Testament God wasn't operating on the "might makes right" principle, just what the hell was the basis for his actions?

Incidentally, in human affairs might absolutely does make right. Just ask anyone who has ever confronted might.