Can God sin?

[alien444]

I am sure everyone here will agree that God, being the objective source for moral authority is incapable of sin. An omnipotent, omniscient being who is the creator of the universe surely transcends the pettiness of his creations. What has always confused me about this view, is the very human emotions attributed to God (especially those that we agree are sinful). There are multiple examples of God being hateful. For example:

Romans 9:13 - "As it is written, Jacob have I loved, but Esau have I hated."

However, the attribute that seems even more contradictory is the petty emotion of jealousy. I heard this justified by saying that God has the right to be jealous because he is the one true God, and therefore deserves our worship. Why jealousy instead of pity and understanding of the limited intelligence of his much lesser creations (much the way a parent looks at a very young child's behavior)?

Finally, the bible makes it clear that jealousy is not only undesirable but evil and sinful. If you agree that jealousy is the same as envy, then there is a multitude of passages that define it as sinful (including the 10th commandment and one of the seven deadly sins). Even if you don't equate it with envy (which would be disingenuous), there are still the following passages describing jealousy as sinful
How do Christian theologians resolve this contradiction in God's nature? I am not asking "why" God is portrayed as jealous, I am asking "how" it is logically possible for God to be jealous (based on the logical attributes of a "higher being")

1Corininthians



3 for you are still of the flesh. For while there is http://biblia.com/bible/esv/1 Corinthians 3.3#footnote0jealousy and strife among you, are you not of the flesh and behaving only in a human way?

"Jealousy is of the flesh and human, and therefore ungodly"



Galatians5:



20 idolatry, sorcery, enmity, strife, jealousy, fits of anger, rivalries, dissensions, cdivisions, 21 envy,4 drunkenness, orgies, and things like these. I warn you, as I warned you before, that dthose who do such things will not inherit the kingdom of God


"Jealousy is equated with other sins of the flesh and sorcery. Therefore, jealousy is a egregious sin."



Romans 13:12-14

(NIV)

12 The night is nearly over; the day is almost here. So let us put aside the deeds of darkness and put on the armor of light. 13 Let us behave decently, as in the daytime, not in carousing and drunkenness, not in sexual immorality and debauchery, not in dissension and jealousy. 14 Rather, clothe yourselves with the Lord Jesus Christ, and do not think about how to gratify the desires of the flesh.[a]

"Jealousy is a "deed of darkness"--it is evil and a desire of the flesh"

Two Questions

1. How could any God logically posses such an attribute when it contradicts his nature? The Abrahamic God not only possesses this quality but adamantly declares his jealousy.

2. Does objective universal morals have to apply to God in order to be truly objective and universal? If not, then isn't the objective source of morality actually subjective, thereby destabilizing universal morality. If any authority creates a set of rules and ethics and does not follow them himself, then they are illegitimate. If universal morality does apply to God, the aren't his attributes sinful?

 

[ViaCrucis]

In Romans where Paul says "Jacob I have loved, Esau I have hated" is quoted from the Prophet Malachi,

"'I have loved you,' says the LORD. 'But you ask, "How have you loved us?" Was not Esau Jacob's brother?' declares the LORD. 'Yet I have loved Jacob, but Esau I have hated, and I have turned his hill country into a wasteland and left his inheritance to the desert jackals.'" - Malachi 1:2-3

This isn't about Jacob and Esau, but rather Israel and Edom. Edom, a longtime rival of the Israelites, was regarded as being descended from Esau in the same way the Israelites were descended from Jacob.

It's about God's covenant with Jacob, that is with the people of Israel; that He had made a covenant with them.

Paul quotes this passage in order to speak of how God has the right to choose whomever He will. But of course Romans 9 needs to be read as part of the far larger argument Paul has been making since the beginning of the letter, that point won't reach its climax until chapter 11. Indeed reading Romans 9 apart from the bigger context, and in particular without reading through until Romans 11 is going to mean not understanding what Paul is saying or where Paul is going.

It's like walking into a lecture 3/4 of the way through and leaving before it's finished. Chances are you're not going to understand what the lecture is about.

So there's that.

As far as jealousy is concerned, we do right in rightly understanding healthy jealousy and harmful jealousy.

A married couple ought to rightly be jealous of one anothers' love, that is a wife has every right to expect her husband to be faithful to her, to love her, and be a good husband to her; and likewise a husband has every right to expect the same of his wife. For they have married, committed themselves to one another. That's a good kind of jealousy.

There's also another kind of jealousy, which is typically what we understand as jealousy. It's not an understanding of mutually trusting, committed love, to desire the love of the one with whom you are mutually committed; instead it is a jealousy borne of envy, selfishness, and insecurity.

It is good for a married couple to be jealous FOR one another; it is quite not good if their jealousy turns to envy, selfishness, bitterness, etc.

When God committed Himself to the nation of Israel, and they received Him, accepting His covenant, He became their God and they His people. That covenant, committed relationship between God and Israel is fundamental to the very fabric of Israelite religion and is found consistently throughout the texts of the Old Testament, at times being compared to and described as a marriage. God promised He would be faithful to them, and they promised to be faithful to Him. To turn to other gods was an act of infidelity, a breech and violation of that mutual commitment.

-CryptoLutheran

 

[graceandpeace]

^What he said.

 

[alien444]

In Romans where Paul says "Jacob I have loved, Esau I have hated" is quoted from the Prophet Malachi,

"'I have loved you,' says the LORD. 'But you ask, "How have you loved us?" Was not Esau Jacob's brother?' declares the LORD. 'Yet I have loved Jacob, but Esau I have hated, and I have turned his hill country into a wasteland and left his inheritance to the desert jackals.'" - Malachi 1:2-3

This isn't about Jacob and Esau, but rather Israel and Edom. Edom, a longtime rival of the Israelites, was regarded as being descended from Esau in the same way the Israelites were descended from Jacob.

It's about God's covenant with Jacob, that is with the people of Israel; that He had made a covenant with them.

Paul quotes this passage in order to speak of how God has the right to choose whomever He will. But of course Romans 9 needs to be read as part of the far larger argument Paul has been making since the beginning of the letter, that point won't reach its climax until chapter 11. Indeed reading Romans 9 apart from the bigger context, and in particular without reading through until Romans 11 is going to mean not understanding what Paul is saying or where Paul is going.

It's like walking into a lecture 3/4 of the way through and leaving before it's finished. Chances are you're not going to understand what the lecture is about.

So there's that.

Fair enough, a better passage to quote is:

These six things doth the LORD hate: yea, seven are an abomination unto him: [17] A proud look, a lying tongue, and hands that shed innocent blood, [18] An heart that deviseth wicked imaginations, feet that be swift in running to mischief, [19] A false witness that speaketh lies, and he that soweth discord among brethren.

I have been told before that God hates evil or wickedness and that is because he is good. He is a God of love and therefore hates evil. That not only takes aleap of logic to understand but is only reasonable if you think of morality in black and white. God's absolutism leaves no room for the complex world in which humanity finds itself. God hates those who shed innocent blood because those who do are evil. However, not all who shed innocent blood are evil. For example, World War II was necessary to stop a psychopath from taking over the world. Yet not all German soldiers believed in (or were even aware of ) the atrocities being committed in their country's name. Most were more or less as innocent as their young Allied counterparts. Yet, this was a necessary situation where innocent young men had to slay other innocent young men in order to stop a greater evil. For that matter, what is innocence anyway? Does God tell us in specific terms who is innocent and who is not. In Christianity, isn't everyone a sinner (even non-baptised infants) and therefore not innocent? My point is hate is very rarely ever a righteous emotion, because it ignores the vast complexities on the spectrum of good and evil. A more Godly view of evil would be pity, understanding, and justice.



As far as jealousy is concerned, we do right in rightly understanding healthy jealousy and harmful jealousy.

A married couple ought to rightly be jealous of one anothers' love, that is a wife has every right to expect her husband to be faithful to her, to love her, and be a good husband to her; and likewise a husband has every right to expect the same of his wife. For they have married, committed themselves to one another. That's a good kind of jealousy.

I have heard this argument, and with all do respect, it is a theological spin. There are three kinds of jealousy and none are becoming of a God. 1)jealous of others real or perceived advantages 2)suspicions of rivalry and 3)guarding something possessively. Sure husbands and wives are jealous of each others love but it is a mixture of types 2 and 3. What you describe in your example of jealousy is simply a description of the commitment that couples make to each other. The reason a husband is jealous of his wife's love or vice versa is because he is afraid of losing his possession of her love(type 2) to a rival (type 3). He guards her love possessively because the love between a man and a woman is fragile and conditional. I am not saying that all couples are like this. In fact, no matter how you try to make it sound as if it is founded in commitment, it is ultimately founded in insecurity and it is probably not indicative of a healthy relationship. So is God supposed to be insecure and afraid of losing love to a rival God? Once again, if any anthropomorphic emotion should be ascribed to a God of love in this case, it would be more appropriately pity. All three types of jealousy have as their foundation insecurity and suspicion. Jealousy is the result of insecurity over-riding reason or envy over-riding goodwill. On one end of the spectrum is envy and on the other insecurity.
There is no good type of jealousy.

There's also another kind of jealousy, which is typically what we understand as jealousy. It's not an understanding of mutually trusting, committed love, to desire the love of the one with whom you are mutually committed; instead it is a jealousy borne of envy, selfishness, and insecurity.

It is good for a married couple to be jealous FOR one another; it is quite not good if their jealousy turns to envy, selfishness, bitterness, etc.

To be jealous FOR your spouse (in any case) is to guard your possession of their love out of insecurity that you may lose it to a real or imagined rival. Their is simply no form of jealousy not based in insecurity or envy.

When God committed Himself to the nation of Israel, and they received Him, accepting His covenant, He became their God and they His people. That covenant, committed relationship between God and Israel is fundamental to the very fabric of Israelite religion and is found consistently throughout the texts of the Old Testament, at times being compared to and described as a marriage. God promised He would be faithful to them, and they promised to be faithful to Him. To turn to other gods was an act of infidelity, a breech and violation of that mutual commitment.

If the covenant is analogous to a marriage, then my previous point apply. Ascribing anthropomorphic characteristics to a God is always problematic, especially when they result from human weakness like hate or jealousy.

 

[ForJesusChrist]

God is perfect and he cannot sin and he never will.

God Bless

 

[ViaCrucis]

If the covenant is analogous to a marriage, then my previous point apply. Ascribing anthropomorphic characteristics to a God is always problematic, especially when they result from human weakness like hate or jealousy.

But then again the Christian doctrine of Divine impassibility means God isn't subject to pathos, God is not a capricious superman who emotes responsively to external stimuli, as though things can affect His "mood". So anthropomorphic language is always analogous.

I can, as a matter of theology, speak of God's wrath. But I don't believe God "gets angry", as though our sin spoils His mood. Likewise "divine jealousy" must be understood within its appropriate analogous context, of expecting His people who have committed themselves to Him and He to them to be and remain faithful, analogous to a marriage commitment.

Trying to read divine jealousy any other way results in a rather capricious and insecure deity. Which is contrary to both the Jewish and Christian religious traditions.

-CryptoLutheran

 

[alien444]

But then again the Christian doctrine of Divine impassibility means God isn't subject to pathos, God is not a capricious superman who emotes responsively to external stimuli, as though things can affect His "mood". So anthropomorphic language is always analogous.

I can, as a matter of theology, speak of God's wrath. But I don't believe God "gets angry", as though our sin spoils His mood. Likewise "divine jealousy" must be understood within its appropriate analogous context, of expecting His people who have committed themselves to Him and He to them to be and remain faithful, analogous to a marriage commitment.

Trying to read divine jealousy any other way results in a rather capricious and insecure deity. Which is contrary to both the Jewish and Christian religious traditions.

-CryptoLutheran

Impassibility is a perfect example of the extreme divide between theology and popular religion.

While I agree and was arguing (in an indirect way) that ascribing any human attribute to God is rather absurd, the vast majority of Christians (as well as most believers throughout history) seem to believe God is affected by and shares in human emotion and nature. In Christianity, the idea that humanity was created in the image of God supports this anthropomorphic view of God. However If God existed, by definition he would be unknowable.

It is the certainty of religion without evidence that is so unappealing to non-believers as a means to understand the universe and our place within. The more anthropomorphic attributes we ascribe to God, the further the entity is removed from what a God must be in order to be a God. Yet, removing these anthropomorphic attributes leaves an unknowable distant God that most believers would be uninterested in worshiping. The bible is replete with specific descriptions of God, but they are only a reflection of ourselves as divine. This is hardly a new criticism as Xenophanes famously said in the 5th century B.C.
“If oxen and horses and lions had hands and were able to draw with their hands and do the same things as men, horses would draw the shapes of gods to look like horses and oxen would draw them to look like oxen, and each would make the gods bodies have the same shape as they themselves had.”

If it is absurd to ascribe jealousy, anger or hatred to God, then is it also to ascribe love, compassion, or any other human emotion? Would most Christians be interested in worshiping a God in which they cannot possibly imagine and therefore not possibly feel a connection? Trying to understand the concept of a God is kind of like trying to understand enormous quantities or vast lengths of time and space. For example, even though physicists can understand what 13 billion years or 13 billion light years means in mathematical terms, the human imagination and intellect is extremely incapable of understanding these things as reality. I can envision the distance of 1 mile or the passage of 1 year, but understanding these vast quantities are well past the limits of our imagination. You can try to understand God by looking closely at what he creates, but to understand the nature of a God is also far beyond our imagination and intellect. So even if God existed, I see no reason to believe that humanity has such an understanding as to create an organized belief system or concept of God that is even remotely absolute in its truisms.

 

[God Is Immortal]

Nope, there is no darkness in him.

 

[ForJesusChrist]

Nope, there is no darkness in him.

Thats the best way to say it, in the shortest way possible. Great post.

God Bless

 

[alien444]

Nope, there is no darkness in him.

Did you read the thread posts or just the thread title?

 

[ForJesusChrist]

Did you read the thread posts or just the thread title?

What do you mean? This is exactly the answer. God cannot sin. There is no darkness in Him.

God Bless

 

[Sunshine Locket]

What is sin? If we go by what scripture tells us, transgression of God's law, then no God can not sin.

 

[alien444]

What is sin? If we go by what scripture tells us, transgression of God's law, then no God can not sin.

Please read the entire and thread and then let me know what you think about what has been said during the exchanges. Right now I don't have anything to add until someone challenges one of my specific points. (God is ascribed attributes that are human weaknesses--Hate, Jealousy--How can he logically possess these attributes? Do anthropomorphic attributes only reflect ourselves as divine, how do you describe and know the unknowable, don't anthropomorphic attributes make God less than what a God is supposed to be, and I think there are some good points raised by Viacrucis. Thanks

 

[oi_antz]

OP, do you think that a human who worships someone other than God (this is the problem, not the fact that someone doesn't worship Him), then does something that God has not instructed them to do because they believe they have been instructed to do it by the god they worship, might be of concern to Him? What word would you use to describe it? I feel you are correct about something, though you are getting tripped by it. He is characterized with human emotions so we can relate to Him. Our brain is only capable of comprehending that which it understands. So, as you should speak in simple terms to a child with a narrow vocabulary, He too speaks to us according to our limitations.

 

[alien444]

OP, do you think that a human who worships someone other than God (this is the problem, not the fact that someone doesn't worship Him), then does something that God has not instructed them to do because they believe they have been instructed to do it by the god they worship, might be of concern to Him? What word would you use to describe it? I feel you are correct about something, though you are getting tripped by it. He is characterized with human emotions so we can relate to Him. Our brain is only capable of comprehending that which it understands. So, as you should speak in simple terms to a child with a narrow vocabulary, He too speaks to us according to our limitations.

You are saying that anthropomorphic characteristics are used by God to describe himself (and by us to describe him) because we cannot understand his true nature and he is therefore reducing his nature to something we can understand, correct? If this is true, then he has underestimated his creation's imagination and intellect and mistakenly "dumbed down" his nature to the point that there has been so much confusion that billions of people will go to hell because of their misunderstanding. If God made such a determined effort as to even consider the vocabulary by which he would use to reveal his nature, then why isn't the bible so clear and self-evident that more than 1/3 of the world believes it's validity and why make theologians spend a millennium trying to decipher it's meaning with various results. Not to mention by saying that God made a decision to reveal himself in simpler terms, you are ascribing anthropomorphic attributes in the process. Either God does possess human characteristics on some level, in which he would not truly be a God, or he is unknowable and ALL human language and understanding fails miserably in trying to describe him.

Their is a Buddhist parable that goes something like this: Walk in to a secluded forest and begin talking aloud; describing what God is, what he wants, why he is, how he is ,etc. and after many hours or days you will come to a point where you will reach for more words to describe God and they won't come and your mind will go completely blank: and at that exact moment you will know God's true nature more than ever before.

 

[oi_antz]

Hi Alien, please don't be put off by my fastidious reply, I am not intending to be argumentative but these questions are genuine observations:

You are saying that anthropomorphic characteristics are used by God to describe himself (and by us to describe him) because we cannot understand his true nature and he is therefore reducing his nature to something we can understand, correct?

Not exactly, but I am saying that God is far greater than the human brain can fully comprehend. So much so, that He had to incarnate Himself to human form, and even then we could not understand/accept/comprehend Him. (Some could, and still do, of course).

If this is true, then he has underestimated his creation's imagination and intellect and mistakenly "dumbed down" his nature to the point that there has been so much confusion that billions of people will go to hell because of their misunderstanding.

What actions or statements has He made, that you are referring to here?

If God made such a determined effort as to even consider the vocabulary by which he would use to reveal his nature, then why isn't the bible so clear and self-evident that more than 1/3 of the world believes it's validity and why make theologians spend a millennium trying to decipher it's meaning with various results.

There are lots of reasons for those failures, not all because of God's insufficiency but more for the insufficient submission to Him by those who have an interest in it. Of those 2/3 that you mention do not believe the bible, which percentage have actually assessed what is recorded in the bible sufficiently to say that Jesus is not who He claimed to be? Also, is that what they say when they say they aren't Christian? Of the 1/3 that you say do believe the bible, how many of them have reached that conclusion from an honest look at what is stated in the bible? When you are discussing what truth is in this context, the pendant that someone wears around their neck is not really a reliable measurement. I have heard you complain of Christians that don't have a strong intellectual understanding of their faith. Do you count them in the 1/3? How about the ones in the 2/3 that don't have a strong intellectual understanding of the Christian faith. Do you count them as not belonging to Christ?

Not to mention by saying that God made a decision to reveal himself in simpler terms, you are ascribing anthropomorphic attributes in the process.

Well, one human to another.

Either God does possess human characteristics on some level, in which he would not truly be a God,

Are you serious? If so, can you explain why you believe this?

or he is unknowable and ALL human language and understanding fails miserably in trying to describe him.

I agree that human understanding fails to completely understand Him, and that language often fails to convey an understanding. It is not always the authors fault, I expect you to know. Some people fail to even make the effort to obtain the understanding, so they don't understand Him at all. This said, it does not mean it is impossible to know Him. There are people all around us that we don't fully understand, yet we know them. He does make some effort to be known, even beyond that which is humanly possible. Consider this, what is the threshold of understanding that you think a person needs to have of God, before they can say that they know Him?

Their is a Buddhist parable that goes something like this: Walk in to a secluded forest and begin talking aloud; describing what God is, what he wants, why he is, how he is ,etc. and after many hours or days you will come to a point where you will reach for more words to describe God and they won't come and your mind will go completely blank: and at that exact moment you will know God's true nature more than ever before.

This sounds like an interesting exercise. Do you think this is why people like to discuss it with others?

 

[God Is Immortal]

One must study things very closely. Wickedness tends to look a lot like righteousness but one must know the differences in order to pass the test.


There is both a righteous and unrighteous jealousy.
There is both a righteous and unrighteous anger.
There is both a righteous and unrighteous lust.
There is both a righteous and unrighteous greed.
There is both a righteous and unrighteous hatred.


Love does not harm it's neighbor therefore hatred does. Hate is to harm but not all harm is sin. There is not a single sinful thing about God even if the understanding of others contradicts this. No, it's not because he is God. God is no hypocrite and he follows his own laws so much so that Jesus died.

Treat others the way you want to be treated. Do not do anything to others in which you would not want them to do to you. Well, God kills others and he allowed them to kill him. God asked for Isaac, yet gives "Jesus." The feet of Jesus was washed and then he went and washed feet. Do you see what I see? God has even made other images in which he dwells to fulfill parts of the law in which his original form may not be able to do. For example, can the only immortal die? This one seems to have the power to do anything, even die..

 

[God Is Immortal]

When God kills people off and sends them into the lake of fire where there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth, that is what he would consider "hate." When he "loves" us, he will do what is BEST for us. When he take his love from us, then he may do what is best for others, THROUGH us.

There are two categories. The saints are like the Kings sword. The sinners are like the fire that molds the sword. The saints are like the Kings meal. The sinners are like the oven. The saints are like the Kings castle. The sinners are like the broom, mop, and dust pan.

Some are used for a royal purpose. Greater things. The others, not so much. However, God does not like waste. He will be using both to fulfill his plans. Both will glorify him whether they want to do so or not. See, he harden Pharaohs heart and used him to glorify his name. Pharaoh was like a mere common item used for a common purpose, only to be replaced and forgotten.

Imagine a horse that is only for the farm and then a horse that is made to carry the King's chariot.


God indeed follows his own laws for he was both servant and king. He has been both rich and poor. So on and so forth.


God is the inventor and we are the invention. If a knife was made to be sharp and too cut but then is becomes obsolete and not fulfilling it's original purpose, will it be recycled or thrown into the trash? Sinners who repent are kinda recycled. Would you consider the lake of fire the trash can for unwanted items? Even their names will be forgotten.


That's the thing about God. His ways are higher than our ways. He does not think like us. Please, do not confuse your own vocabulary with that of his. Nor your forms of communication. Just know that God does not and cannot sin. After all, one is friend and the other foe. Does God not have a right to destroy his enemies? Well, to destroy them, he would consider "hate."

 

[aiki]

I am sure everyone here will agree that God, being the objective source for moral authority is incapable of sin. An omnipotent, omniscient being who is the creator of the universe surely transcends the pettiness of his creations. What has always confused me about this view, is the very human emotions attributed to God (especially those that we agree are sinful). There are multiple examples of God being hateful. For example:

Romans 9:13 - "As it is written, Jacob have I loved, but Esau have I hated."

I think often the Bible is speaking anthropomorphically when describing God's actions and feelings. But the description that is given is the closest we can come to describing a Being who is largely indescribable. THere is some kind of similarity, however distant, between the hatred God feels and the feeling we have that we call hatred. In any case, if God hated Esau, as the verse says, it would have been in a manner consistent, not with human emotion, but with His divine perfection. And there are things God (and we, too) ought to hate. God's hatred of Esau was not petty after the manner often typical of human hatred but just, and right, and perfect in its measure.

Some Bible commentators explain that Jews used the term "hatred" to mean a "lesser love" or to refer to affection withheld. It did not mean hatred of the sort that I have for peas or spiders, for instance. This "lesser love" sort of "hatred" is laid out more clearly in the following examples: Genesis 29:30, 31; Prov. 13:24.

However, the attribute that seems even more contradictory is the petty emotion of jealousy. I heard this justified by saying that God has the right to be jealous because he is the one true God, and therefore deserves our worship. Why jealousy instead of pity and understanding of the limited intelligence of his much lesser creations (much the way a parent looks at a very young child's behavior)?

God is jealous because He values highly that over which He is jealous. It is the jealousy of a husband for the wife he dearly loves. I would think it very warped for a man to tell his wife, "I love you," and then care not a whit if other men attempted to seduce her. In such a situation, the natural jealousy born of the husband's love of his wife would be perfectly appropriate. So, too, with God. His jealousy is born of His love, not pettiness.

Two Questions

1. How could any God logically posses such an attribute when it contradicts his nature? The Abrahamic God not only possesses this quality but adamantly declares his jealousy.

See above.

2. Does objective universal morals have to apply to God in order to be truly objective and universal? If not, then isn't the objective source of morality actually subjective, thereby destabilizing universal morality. If any authority creates a set of rules and ethics and does not follow them himself, then they are illegitimate. If universal morality does apply to God, the aren't his attributes sinful?

Does God have to obey His own rules? Yes, and no. The commands God gives to His creatures He is not obliged to obey in every respect because He is not human. "Thou shalt not commit adultery," for instance, obviously does not apply to God. This doesn't mean God may act in contradiction to His holy, just, loving, pure nature, however. God is bound by who He is, by His own nature, in what He may and may not do. This is why God was obliged to punish our wickedness but also obliged to act in love to save us from that punishment, which is essentially the story of the Gospel.

Selah.

 

[God Is Immortal]

What is sin? If we go by what scripture tells us, transgression of God's law, then no God can not sin.

He does not break his own laws. He cannot.