Does Good exist without God? Moral Theory: Atheism vs Christianity

Moral Orel

Proud Citizen of Moralton
Site Supporter
May 22, 2015
7,379
2,641
✟476,748.00
Country
United States
Faith
Agnostic
Marital Status
Married
Right, just like the state can order executions and not prosecute itself. I am glad you understand the logic, but you keep saying the same thing as a defense, but it isn't a defense. You are just admitting my argument is logically coherent. Murder is still objectively evil.
So here's the thing, the only thing that makes killing someone murder is if God says "don't kill that person". Which means the only difference between killing and murder is obedience to God. You haven't shown me some objective evil other than "disobeying God" all you've shown is one specific way to disobey God that you've put a label on.

If the only reason a thing is a bad thing to do is because God said "don't" then there's no objective evil besides "obey". That's why I specifically asked for an "action" and didn't use a vague term like "thing". Murder isn't an action, killing is an action, and murder defines that killing in context.

If God can kill, torture, take, etc., for any reason He wants, then there are no objective morals. Showing me things that are just examples of "God said don't do it" is just more examples of "obey".

Also, since you agree that God is incapable of murder and incapable of stealing, I just have to point out that He doesn't seem to have free will then, eh? If it is impossible for Him to choose to do an evil thing, then He isn't choosing to do good now is He? Again, this is why I call this concept of God "amoral".
 
Upvote 0

variant

Happy Cat
Jun 14, 2005
23,636
6,398
✟295,051.00
Faith
Agnostic
Marital Status
Single
It is a premise of classical theism and I think Augustine does a good job of proving it.

I really don't think so. Agustin is starting out with the premise that good is more fundamental than evil. And, I am not sure how one would know that.

Is this what you mean?
  1. Evil is that which is against God's will. (Premise)
  2. Evil is necessary for the greatest good. (Premise)
  3. God wills the greatest good. (Premise)
  4. Therefore God wills evil. (From 2 & 3) (Contradiction with 1)
No one can do evil that good may come of it, not even God. God permits evil and brings good out of it. So we must distinguish at (4). God wills evil only permissively, not actively. He permits evil, he does not cause evil. Therefore evil is against God's will, but he nevertheless permits it for the sake of a greater good.

God will make use of existing evil in order to bring about the greatest good, but he will not directly cause evil. God does not do what is against his will, he merely permits it.

I see no substantive moral difference between actively engaging in evil and passively allowing it when you clearly can prevent it.

God's "plan" is the end goal here, which is apparently good, that comes from taking actions or inaction that require great evil to occur.

I can't technically myself or you out of this because I as a lesser being would be wrong to allow say the holocaust to happen if I indeed could prevent it.

Using great suffering and evil of others to my own purposes when I haven't caused, and indeed could prevent it, would also be pretty reprehensible.

If I haven't addressed your point then I think you need to make the contradiction more visible and precise.

The contradiction is plain. In this system, with those premises, God must both want there to be evil, as it knows what will happen if evil is permitted, and at the same time not want evil to occur (because evil is defined as something happening which is against God's will).
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

zippy2006

Dragonsworn
Nov 9, 2013
6,834
3,410
✟244,837.00
Country
United States
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Single
I really don't think so. Agustin is starting out with the premise that good is more fundamental than evil. And, I am not sure how one would know that.

If it was a premise he would never have converted from Manicheanism. You might try reading him before criticizing him. Generally that's a good rule.

I see no substantive moral difference between actively engaging in evil and passively allowing it when you clearly can prevent it.

The difference is relevant because it undermines your argument. If God acted contrary to his own will there would be a problem. He doesn't. He merely allows things to happen that are contrary to his (antecedent) will.

Using great suffering and evil of others to my own purposes when I haven't caused, and indeed could prevent it, would also be pretty reprehensible.

That's a different argument, and is based on the premise that one must always prevent evil if they are able. I see no reason to believe such a premise.

The contradiction is plain. In this system, with those premises, God must both want there to be evil, as it knows what will happen if evil is permitted, and at the same time not want evil to occur (because evil is defined as something happening which is against God's will).

Then you are missing the distinction: he wants it insofar as it will bring about a greater good, but he doesn't want it insofar as it is evil. To want and not want something in two different ways is not a contradiction. The victim illustrated above wants the wound insofar as it breaks up his deadly plaque, but does not want it insofar as it harms his body. Good and evil effects can come from a single cause, and it is only rational to both want and not want the cause insofar as it brings about both good and evil.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

dcarrera

Member
Apr 26, 2014
283
50
Lund, Sweden
Visit site
✟9,347.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Married
Recently I had a discussion in another thread regarding the equivocation that is used by atheists to circumvent the logical conclusion of their faith.

I am an atheist. Exactly what faith do you claim that I have?

I wanted to see if anyone has good supporting reasons for morals on atheism.

Morals evolve out of the need to live and cooperate in large social groups. Other intelligent animals that live in cooperative communities also display morals in various forms.

I am asking is there such a thing as objective "Good & Evil" on atheism?

I can see two interpretations of this sentence:

(1) There is at least one thing that is "objectively good" or "objectively evil".

(2) Every possible action can be classified as "objectively good" or "objectively evil".

If you mean (1) I would say yes, and if you mean (2) I would say that that's dumb. To follow up with (1), say I push a magic button that ends all life in the universe forever. This is clearly not conductive to well-being and there are no up-sides.

In order for atheism to succeed you must show that Good & Evil objectively exist a part from God.

What do you mean by "succeed"? Are you saying that people will not want to be atheists if we do not show that "good and evil" are objective? If so, I have several responses:

1) You just made that up.

2) Christians cannot show that "good and evil" exist with god, and they succeeded. So clearly success is not predicated on any kind of philosophical virtue.

I would claim that atheism is likely to succeed (aka become popular) because Christianity and Islam cannot offer any useful moral guide. Those religions worship an evil, sadistic monster, and their followers continue to commit horrible deeds because they blindly follow their ancient texts. For example, in the US the Christian right-wing is strongly associated with attacks on science, attempting to remove science in the classroom and in public policy, and attacking rights and well-being of women, and they seek to deny rights to homosexuals. The last time that Christianity was the law of the land is a time that we refer to as the Dark Ages. Yet, somehow Christians have the audacity to claim moral authority based on their worship of a fictitious deity that is clearly a xenophobic racist misogynist homicidal maniac.
 
Upvote 0

variant

Happy Cat
Jun 14, 2005
23,636
6,398
✟295,051.00
Faith
Agnostic
Marital Status
Single
If it was a premise he would never have converted from Manicheanism. You might try reading him before criticizing him. Generally that's a good rule.

I find the characterization as unsupported until I see a good reason to think otherwise.

You're right that I rather don't care for Agustin, and I doubt I would agree with his characterization of evil either, or the concepts of Manicheanism.

But again, it can't be much more complex than our usual discussions for you to summarize this argument rather than just name dropping to say an argument is invalid.

The difference is relevant because it undermines your argument. If God acted contrary to his own will there would be a problem. He doesn't. He merely allows things to happen that are contrary to his (antecedent) will.

According to Christians God is omnipotent, which means that it can literally do anything.

There is nothing that can happen if God wills otherwise.

That's a different argument, and is based on the premise that one must always prevent evil if they are able. I see no reason to believe such a premise.

It's not really though. The issue is whether God wills A or god wills B. If B happens it is because God wills it rather than A. As God must know what is going to happen if Omniscient, it can't simply "allow" things to happen. It must want them.

Then you are missing the distinction: he wants it insofar as it will bring about a greater good, but he doesn't want it insofar as it is evil. To want and not want something in two different ways is not a contradiction. The victim illustrated above wants the wound insofar as it breaks up his deadly plaque, but does not want it insofar as it harms his body. Good and evil effects can come from a single cause, and it is only rational to both want and not want the cause insofar as it brings about both good and evil.

This would imply that God lacks a perfect solution to the problem of attaining the greater good, and is thus, not omnipotent.

That goes back into the problem of evil again which again, I don't accept, because, I see no reason to believe God incapable of of evil when not defined via self reference.

A God as a utilitarian pragmatist is an interesting concept though from the daentological moralist absolutists.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

dcarrera

Member
Apr 26, 2014
283
50
Lund, Sweden
Visit site
✟9,347.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Married
Suffering exists because God made beings who can follow their own desires.

According to this claim, there is absolutely no source of human suffering that is not due to humans following their own desires. So apparently earth quakes, floods, and tsunamis don't exist, snake bites don't exist, malaria does not exist, and worms whose entire life cycle depends on growing in a person's eye also do not exist.
 
Upvote 0

dcarrera

Member
Apr 26, 2014
283
50
Lund, Sweden
Visit site
✟9,347.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Married
Murder, rape, molestation, homosexuality, theft, lust, pride, coveting, are all objectively evil in God's eyes and would never be commanded by him.

This is a good example of how Bible morality is neither true nor objective. Homosexuality causes no harm, and the only reason why many Christians think that it is evil is because they blindly obey an ancient book that claims that it is.

Here is the other problem. If morality is objective, an evil act must be evil even if God did it. Well, according to the Bible god is responsible for committing and/or commanding murder, genocide, rape, theft, and pride.
 
Upvote 0

Dr Bruce Atkinson

Supporter
Site Supporter
Feb 19, 2013
737
375
Atlanta, GA
✟65,538.00
Country
United States
Faith
Anglican
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
Recently I had a discussion in another thread regarding the equivocation that is used by atheists to circumvent the logical conclusion of their faith. The discussion centered on Sam Harris' "The Moral Landscape" and developed into an argument over the ontological status of morals. I wanted to see if anyone has good supporting reasons for morals on atheism.

Here is the question: does Good exist without God? Let's clarify, I am not asking if an atheist can do 'good' things. I am asking is there such a thing as objective "Good & Evil" on atheism? In order for atheism to succeed you must show that Good & Evil objectively exist a part from God.

Here is a key definition before we start:
To objectively exist means that morals must be true whether anyone agrees with them or not. For instance, if non-consensual sexual intercourse (rape) is objectively evil it must not be possible for it to ever be good. This has two characteristics; it must be true and unchanging.

Are there any atheists in the house to defend their moral champion, Dr. Sam Harris?

Ding ding ding...

I see I am a bit late in responding to the bell. Oh well...

“Does Good exist without God?” Obviously not. “Good” is a term that actually means “of God.” And nothing that exists in fact would exist without God.

But your premise to atheists is: “If there were no God (and we still had this reality as you perceive it), would there truly be a moral good and evil? But the answer here is still “No” because atheists do not believe in any absolute moral values. It is all relative. My truth is as good as yours. Only a belief in God can wed you to any absolute moral values. But each individual atheist will have their own subjective view of good and evil, so some of them would say "Yes" because they believe their own values are the right ones. The more narcissistic they are, the more they will say (as if they were a god) that what they call "good" is truly good (and everyone else should agree).

Your other statement is in error: “In order for atheism to succeed you must show that Good & Evil objectively exist apart from God.” First of all, atheism will never succeed long term because God does exist. Second, for good & evil to objectively exist, it would be (it is) in fact evidence of God. There is no way to prove it would be “apart from” God as opposed to “originated by” God.

Your logic is not going to help point atheists in the right direction, it is only going to tie their brains in knots trying to figure out what your questions really mean.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

dcarrera

Member
Apr 26, 2014
283
50
Lund, Sweden
Visit site
✟9,347.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Married
You are just admitting my argument is logically coherent. Murder is still objectively evil.

... and the god of the bible is objectively evil because he is the greatest murderer in history.

Naw, you just don't understand the christian view of the human condition. Christian's believe in a soul that has a moral obligation to obey God. Pride, lust, covetting, etc... are not just feelings, but actions that reflect the rejection of God's loving mercy & grace.

Punishing people for thought crime is evil. Thought crime causes no harm, but torture in hell is harmful.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

Dr Bruce Atkinson

Supporter
Site Supporter
Feb 19, 2013
737
375
Atlanta, GA
✟65,538.00
Country
United States
Faith
Anglican
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
This is a good example of how Bible morality is neither true nor objective. Homosexuality causes no harm, and the only reason why many Christians think that it is evil is because they blindly obey an ancient book that claims that it is.

Here is the other problem. If morality is objective, an evil act must be evil even if God did it. Well, according to the Bible god is responsible for committing and/or commanding murder, genocide, rape, theft, and pride.

Look up the real statistics. Homosexuality causes more harm than theft and many other things. It causes a lower life span than cigarettes!

https://www.lifesitenews.com/news/expert-research-finds-homosexuality-more-dangerous-than-smoking

The HIV/AIDS and many other STDs are devastating. Homosexuality is highly associated with extreme promiscuity, depression, anxiety, drug addiction, and suicide. Science is revealing many other negative consequences as well, so please do not say that it causes no harm.

Let's look at the theology involved. All sin is, by definition, harmful to living creatures (self and others) and God is against sin for just this reason (God loves His creatures and does not want them to self-destruct).

Only God knows everything so only God knows how right or wrong any behavior is. God, by definition, does no evil (He cannot deny or oppose Himself). Therefore, YOU are in no position to judge as evil what God has allowed or done.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

Dr Bruce Atkinson

Supporter
Site Supporter
Feb 19, 2013
737
375
Atlanta, GA
✟65,538.00
Country
United States
Faith
Anglican
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
Dennis Prager made such an argument on Public Discourse back in 2013. I reference that post and the replies here. He recently did a YouTube video on the topic, as seen below.

The problem I see with such a position is that it is refuted by what is now referred to as Virtue Ethics. Namely, that which is conducive to human flourishing is good and that which is destructive to human flourishing is evil. Although this provides an objective standard of morality, the argument could perhaps be salvaged by the claim that certain moral imperatives rise above the level of Virtue Ethics. For example, the prohibition against murder could be said to supersede the level of authority available to prohibitions on Virtue Ethics.


The trouble is, you cannot get people to agree on the definition of "human flourishing." I can guarantee you that what I think is good for us will be different from my neighbor thinks ... in many respects.
 
Upvote 0

Dr Bruce Atkinson

Supporter
Site Supporter
Feb 19, 2013
737
375
Atlanta, GA
✟65,538.00
Country
United States
Faith
Anglican
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
According to this claim, there is absolutely no source of human suffering that is not due to humans following their own desires. So apparently earth quakes, floods, and tsunamis don't exist, snake bites don't exist, malaria does not exist, and worms whose entire life cycle depends on growing in a person's eye also do not exist.

God also made powerful (alien) spiritual beings with some (limited) free choice-- angels. And apparently a third of them went wrong and this presence of sin in both angels and humans can account for nature's going haywire.
 
Upvote 0

dcarrera

Member
Apr 26, 2014
283
50
Lund, Sweden
Visit site
✟9,347.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Married
Homosexuality causes more harm than theft and many other things. It causes a lower life span than cigarettes!

https://www.lifesitenews.com/news/expert-research-finds-homosexuality-more-dangerous-than-smoking

I don't see a link to the original research. There is a URL at the bottom of the article goes nowhere. But for the sake of argument, let's assume that the statement is correct. I still say that the argument is [bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse]. You don't condemn smokers and people who don't do sports as evil just because they have lower life expectancy. Christians condemn homosexuals because Christianity is obsessed with sex; not because Christianity equates "reduced life expectancy" with "horrible sin worthy of going to hell".



Homosexuality is highly associated with extreme promiscuity, depression, anxiety, drug addiction, and suicide.

Homosexuality is highly associated with Christian bashing and Christian-promoted social ostracism. Social ostracism is correlated with depression, anxiety, drug addiction, and suicide. If you decided that black people were inherently evil and ostracized them and denied them rights, you would also see a correlation between being black and depression, anxiety, drug addiction, and suicide.

Let's look at the theology involved. All sin is, by definition, harmful to living creatures

Whose definition is that? I thought Christians defined sin as stuff God doesn't approve. Is eating fries a sin?

(God loves His creatures and does not want them to self-destruct).

"Love" is not the message I get from the bible or present-day Christians.

Therefore, YOU are in no position to judge as evil what God has allowed or done.

I have every right to point out the enormity of the evil that the Abrahamic god is supposed to have done. To exempt your preferred deity from moral consideration is a perversion of morality.
 
Upvote 0

dcarrera

Member
Apr 26, 2014
283
50
Lund, Sweden
Visit site
✟9,347.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Married
God also made powerful (alien) spiritual beings with some (limited) free choice-- angels. And apparently a third of them went wrong and this presence of sin in both angels and humans can account for nature's going haywire.

Wait... are you saying that evil angels are the reason for malaria?
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

Dr Bruce Atkinson

Supporter
Site Supporter
Feb 19, 2013
737
375
Atlanta, GA
✟65,538.00
Country
United States
Faith
Anglican
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
I don't see a link to the original research. There is a URL at the bottom of the article goes nowhere. But for the sake of argument, let's assume that the statement is correct. I still say that the argument is [bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse]. You don't condemn smokers and people who don't do sports as evil just because they have lower life expectancy. Christians condemn homosexuals because Christianity is obsessed with sex; not because Christianity equates "reduced life expectancy" with "horrible sin worthy of going to hell".





Homosexuality is highly associated with Christian bashing and Christian-promoted social ostracism. Social ostracism is correlated with depression, anxiety, drug addiction, and suicide. If you decided that black people were inherently evil and ostracized them and denied them rights, you would also see a correlation between being black and depression, anxiety, drug addiction, and suicide.



Whose definition is that? I thought Christians defined sin as stuff God doesn't approve. Is eating fries a sin?



"Love" is not the message I get from the bible or present-day Christians.



I have every right to point out the enormity of the evil that the Abrahamic god is supposed to have done. To exempt your preferred deity from moral consideration is a perversion of morality.

Sin is self-destructive (even as was the original sin). God does not want us to suffer. It does not bless anyone to tell them that sin is not sin after all; that would be cursing them to their fate. We love them because God loves them. He loves the sinner but hates the sin (because sin is harmful in ways that we cannot even know). If you saw people running toward the cliff to their destruction, would you say "That's OK, enjoy the trip!" or would you warn them and try convince them of the danger?

Your presumption to judge God (as He is revealed in the OT) is foolish. You cannot be more moral, understanding, and pure than God Himself. The entire Old Testament story includes a developmental process where God is bringing His people along, preparing them and the entire human race for the Messiah, for the option of eternal salvation. Parents do not treat their 3 year old the same way as a ten year old or a 16 year old. So God the Father (knowing everything and what will work long term and what will not) dealt with Abraham and Isaac and Jacob and the Israelites as they required, not only for them but to reveal truths to us today about good vs. evil.

But you clearly have made up your mind that you are somehow qualified to judge. That internal stance places a big wall between you and the sovereign, gracious, and wise God, who is both the Father of Jesus Christ and also the God we read about in the Old Testament.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

Dr Bruce Atkinson

Supporter
Site Supporter
Feb 19, 2013
737
375
Atlanta, GA
✟65,538.00
Country
United States
Faith
Anglican
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
Wait... are you saying that evil angels are the reason for malaria?

ALL disease and natural disasters are the result of sin coming into the world. Sinful processes have been occurring for millennia, so is has become quite complex. How much is due to Satan and his demons and how much due to sinful humanity I cannot know this side of heaven, but virtually of it is due to both, that is certain. Even God's righteous judgment in punishing people is a result of sin.
But He holds out eternal salvation for those who believe. This life, even this world is a temporary fallen situation. The perfect Kingdom of God is being prepared.
 
Upvote 0

dcarrera

Member
Apr 26, 2014
283
50
Lund, Sweden
Visit site
✟9,347.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Married
Sin is self-destructive (even as was the original sin).

[Citation needed]

Please define sin. My dictionary says "transgression of divine law". If you agree with that definition, then I do not believe in sin because I do not believe in the divine. If you are using a different definition, please tell me what it is and please show that it is self-distructive.

God does not want us to suffer.

[Citation needed]

I think you are taking your personal wishes and hopes and stating them as fact. I do not believe that there is a god, and the god described in the bible seems to like human suffering.

We love them because God loves them.

If what you are trying to say is that you only care about people because you are instructed to do so, then you lack empathy. Morality is not the result of following a directive from above. This is one of the ways that Abrahamic religions pervert morality.

If you saw people running toward the cliff to their destruction, would you say "That's OK, enjoy the trip!" or would you warn them and try convince them of the danger?

If I was the god of the bible, apparently I would condemn them as evil, and I probably created the cliff, and I probably forced them to run toward it (e.g. every time the god of the bible hardens someone's heart to force them to do commit a punishable offence and then punishes them for doing so).

Your presumption to judge God (as He is revealed in the OT) is foolish. You cannot be more moral, understanding, and pure than God Himself.

That is a total cop-out and a perversion of morality, and I suspect you know it. Part of you must be aware that this is a cowardly non-answer. If genocide is objectively evil, then it is also objectively evil when god does it. If you claim that god is good, you must have a pre-existing judgement of what "good" is and have empirical evidence that "god" fits the definition. In other words, you must have a moral standard that is independent of god. If you define "good" and "evil" based entirely on whatever "god" wants to do, then there is no moral objectivity and the phrase "god is good" becomes devoid of value or meaning.

The entire Old Testament story includes a developmental process where God is bringing His people along, preparing them and the entire human race for the Messiah, for the option of eternal salvation.

Please explain to me in which way slavery and ethnic cleansing helped prepare the human race for the Messiah and for the option of eternal salvation. Let's not forget that "salvation" means that god is saving us from himself.

Parents do not treat their 3 year old the same way as a ten year old or a 16 year old. So God the Father (knowing everything and what will work long term and what will not) dealt with Abraham and Isaac and Jacob and the Israelites as they required, not only for them but to reveal truths to us today about good vs. evil.

You are telling me that commanding and committing homicide, genocide, slavery, and ethnic cleansing were part of the process of god instructing the Israelites how to become a more loving and just society?

But you clearly have made up your mind that you are somehow qualified to judge.

I take responsibility for my moral stances, yes. Independent thought is non-negotiable.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

dcarrera

Member
Apr 26, 2014
283
50
Lund, Sweden
Visit site
✟9,347.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Married
dcarrera said:
Wait... are you saying that evil angels are the reason for malaria?
ALL disease and natural disasters are the result of sin coming into the world... How much is due to Satan and his demons and how much due to sinful humanity I cannot know...

Just to confirm, you are telling me that angels and humans cause malaria and tsunamis?
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

Dr Bruce Atkinson

Supporter
Site Supporter
Feb 19, 2013
737
375
Atlanta, GA
✟65,538.00
Country
United States
Faith
Anglican
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
[Citation needed]

Please define sin. My dictionary says "transgression of divine law". If you agree with that definition, then I do not believe in sin because I do not believe in the divine. If you are using a different definition, please tell me what it is and please show that it is self-distructive.



[Citation needed]

I think you are taking your personal wishes and hopes and stating them as fact. I do not believe that there is a god, and the god described in the bible seems to like human suffering.



If what you are trying to say is that you only care about people because you are instructed to do so, then you lack empathy. Morality is not the result of following a directive from above. This is one of the ways that Abrahamic religions pervert morality.



If I was the god of the bible, apparently I would condemn them as evil, and I probably created the cliff, and I probably forced them to run toward it (e.g. every time the god of the bible hardens someone's heart to force them to do commit a punishable offence and then punishes them for doing so).



That is a total cop-out and a perversion of morality, and I suspect you know it. Part of you must be aware that this is a cowardly non-answer. If genocide is objectively evil, then it is also objectively evil when god does it. If you claim that god is good, you must have a pre-existing judgement of what "good" is and have empirical evidence that "god" fits the definition. In other words, you must have a moral standard that is independent of god. If you define "good" and "evil" based entirely on whatever "god" wants to do, then there is no moral objectivity and the phrase "god is good" becomes devoid of value or meaning.



Please explain to me in which way slavery and ethnic cleansing helped prepare the human race for the Messiah and for the option of eternal salvation. Let's not forget that "salvation" means that god is saving us from himself.



You are telling me that commanding and committing homicide, genocide, slavery, and ethnic cleansing were part of the process of god instructing the Israelites how to become a more loving and just society?



I take responsibility for my moral stances, yes. Independent thought is non-negotiable.

If you want citations and references about the issue of “sin,” then I will provide some passages from the Bible, since that is my primary authority for all things spiritual.

Sin is indeed disbelief and disobedience, and it always leads to destructive consequences.

In the Garden of Eden story in early Genesis (3:1-5) we hear of the first human sin; God had warned Adam and Eve to avoid one particular tree (the Tree of Good and Evil) because it would lead to death (the ultimate in self-destruction). Call it poisonous, if you will. But the spiritual death came from distrusting and disobeying the Creator (a separation from the source of Life) and physical death came into human experience later. Whether one regards the story as metaphorical or literal does not matter, the point is the same: sin leads to death – the ultimate in self-destruction. Therefore, all illness and secondary causes of death (destruction) are due to the fact of sin.

"Therefore, just as through one man sin entered the world, and death through sin, and thus death spread to all men, because all sinned." (Romans 5:12)

“… desire when it has conceived gives birth to sin, and sin when it is fully grown brings forth death.” (James 1:15)

“For the wages of sin is death, but the free gift of God is eternal life in Christ Jesus our Lord.” (Romans 6:23)

Briefly on suffering: Does God want us to suffer? No and yes. Jesus healed many people and relieved much suffering. He was God in human form. But it is also like this: As a father, I do not want my child to suffer, but I know it will be inevitable, and so I hope all her suffering will lead to valuable lessons, to wisdom and maturity which will minimize future suffering. Sometimes God is glorified by removing the pain (John 11), but sometimes He is glorified by sustaining us through the pain (2 Corinthians 12:1-10). Christians must embrace both perspectives, not one or the other.

God’s goodness, sovereignty and love do not mean that His children will not suffer, but that they will overcome, persevere and endure. God does not promise that we will not suffer, but that suffering will not separate us from His love (Romans 8:35-39) and the suffering is always temporary for those who are saved into eternity.
Jesus was tortured and killed; He was then resurrected and ascended; He overcame suffering and even death and so will those who believe in Him, even those who believed in Him prior to His coming. You see, since the Cross and Resurrection, suffering and death are no longer the worst that can happen; now immortality is a fact and some will be with the Lord forever and others will be separated out forever for refusing to believe. You may have heard something of their fate.

I know that you will regard all this as foolishness, but I am writing to other listeners on this thread. It is a Christian Forum after all.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0