Originally Posted by rezo
Thats not where I was going with the "don't look at him as a god". I would have said "don't look at him as a human" if he were a human. I think its better to look at all of the requirements that go into doing something or its equivalent, and judging based on that. Because, should those requirements be met by something else, regardless of what it is, they would be on equal terms. And since it is the meeting of certain requirements that we are judging, and whatever meets those requirements isn't relevant, I say disregard the character. For instance, as you brought up a tiger. If a tiger kills an antelope and eats it purely for the sake of survival, a human that would do the same, in that circumstance would be on equal terms with respect to the reasons and means that go into procuring his survival.
This thought is sort of a response to the next thing I'll quote
Man can walk. God can walk. Should god be walking, and I be walking, we would be on the same level with respect to being "walking things". Thats what I was getting at. Saying god's walking is on a different level than walking is to say that it isn't walking. While he may be capable of things beyond humans, he is also capable of things within the human spectrum, and within the ants spectrum, and should he choose to act or think at that level he would be at that level and there would be no reason to say otherwise. So we get back to the "reason" he did what he did. If a human is capable of having the same reason of wanting something to be done, the fulfillment of that action would be equally justified, whether it is god or man that comes up with it.
