• Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.

  • CF has always been a site that welcomes people from different backgrounds and beliefs to participate in discussion and even debate. That is the nature of its ministry. In view of recent events emotions are running very high. We need to remind people of some basic principles in debating on this site. We need to be civil when we express differences in opinion. No personal attacks. Avoid you, your statements. Don't characterize an entire political party with comparisons to Fascism or Communism or other extreme movements that committed atrocities. CF is not the place for broad brush or blanket statements about groups and political parties. Put the broad brushes and blankets away when you come to CF, better yet, put them in the incinerator. Debate had no place for them. We need to remember that people that commit acts of violence represent themselves or a small extreme faction.

God's Morals?

Status
Not open for further replies.
Jun 30, 2009
6
1
37
USA
✟22,735.00
Gender
Male
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Single
Not to intrude on your conversation, but would this broad definition also include collages, universities, professors, atheists, agnostics, or Mikes, that may use simple peer pressure or the idea of a diploma or other academic award that may offer a better life for someone if they simply changed the way they think?

Or is this definition reserved for the religious crazies, and whatever god they may serve?

If you are asking if I am using that definition just for religious purposes, the answer is no. That's why I encompassed everyone when I said "anyone". Hypothetically speaking, if a nonreligious person were to kill a religious person, I would not tolerate that person's actions, and I would have them dealt with by the courts.
 
Upvote 0
Jun 30, 2009
6
1
37
USA
✟22,735.00
Gender
Male
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Single
I have read the Bible many, many times. Unlike you, however, I have some understanding of it, too. What I have already explained about such passages holds true here as well. God is holy and just - even in Deuteronomy 3. If you want to know why I think this, go back and read what I've already written (on page 4 of this thread, in particular).

Peace.

Let me ask you a straightforward question. If God said to you, during one of your prayer sessions, to kill one of your own in order to show your love for all the great things he's done for you, would you? Or rather, would you know that it is entirely immoral to kill one of your own?

Oh, and one more thing. Even if you've read the Bible a hundred times, it still wouldn't matter because you believe that, because God commanded his followers to kill people rather than some average Joe down the street, that it is all the more justified.

If I were in charge of the same group of people, and told them to murder the same people that God had, you'd call me a nutjob who needs to be thrown in jail.
 
Upvote 0

davec375

Junior Member
Jul 7, 2009
25
2
✟22,655.00
Faith
Protestant
Marital Status
Private
Aiki,

Anyone who manipulates people's minds, whether through fear or other means, to get them to do harmful things is a monster. Are you familiar with Deuteronomy Chapter 3, verses 1-7? If not, read it and then come back and tell me God was just. Christians always tell the nonbelievers to read the Bible to know the truth, so practice what you preach. Read the Bible.

These nations lived too long in sin, these nations were abominable, and God didn't want the Israelites mixing in with them. He didn't want the Israelites to be accustomed to their ways and beliefs. The Canaanite nations sacrificed their unwanted babies to their gods, they were sexually uncouth, following sex cults that had prostitute priestesses and hosted orgies. These nations were so baser they hit rock bottom. And sin is so widely appealing. They were wanted wiped clean and the earth they stood on "salted". They were just as hostile and xenophobic towards the Israelites as the Israelites were towards them if not more so. The Canaanites were a savage heart of darkness.

In fact, the word "Cannibal" specifically derives from "Canaan Baal".
 
Upvote 0
Jun 30, 2009
6
1
37
USA
✟22,735.00
Gender
Male
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Single
These nations lived too long in sin, these nations were abominable, and God didn't want the Israelites mixing in with them. He didn't want the Israelites to be accustomed to their ways and beliefs. The Canaanite nations sacrificed their unwanted babies to their gods, they were sexually uncouth, following sex cults that had prostitute priestesses and hosted orgies. These nations were so baser they hit rock bottom. And sin is so widely appealing. They were wanted wiped clean and the earth they stood on "salted". They were just as hostile and xenophobic towards the Israelites as the Israelites were towards them if not more so. The Canaanites were a savage heart of darkness.

In fact, the word "Cannibal" specifically derives from "Canaan Baal".

I don't know if everything was consensual or not, but, just for argument sake, let's assume that those sexually "uncouth" people as you put it were all consenting adults. Now, what is worse? Promiscuity or being celibate for so long that you do something you probably wouldn't otherwise do like partake in beastiality or pedophilia?

For that reason, I would much rather tolerate polyamorous behavior than force someone to remain celibate just for the simple fact that I would not want them to be able to reach the point of actually going out and hurting someone. Too much testosterone build up can be a bad thing, as is proven with the use of steroids. I imagine the same thing could occur in a person who does not ever engage in any type of sexual activity.
 
Upvote 0

SiderealExalt

Well-Known Member
Feb 25, 2007
2,344
165
44
✟3,309.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Private
These nations lived too long in sin, these nations were abominable, and God didn't want the Israelites mixing in with them. He didn't want the Israelites to be accustomed to their ways and beliefs. The Canaanite nations sacrificed their unwanted babies to their gods, they were sexually uncouth, following sex cults that had prostitute priestesses and hosted orgies. These nations were so baser they hit rock bottom. And sin is so widely appealing. They were wanted wiped clean and the earth they stood on "salted". They were just as hostile and xenophobic towards the Israelites as the Israelites were towards them if not more so. The Canaanites were a savage heart of darkness.

In fact, the word "Cannibal" specifically derives from "Canaan Baal".

Ah so..other people being(supposedly bad) is justification for xenophobia and national hatred of a people that leads a deity to order the mass murder of said people, the burning of their homes, the theft of their livestock and goods, the killing of men women and children. And putting a small portion of the female population into slavery including for the use of rape is ok?

Glad we cleared THAT up. I was so confused.
 
Upvote 0

davec375

Junior Member
Jul 7, 2009
25
2
✟22,655.00
Faith
Protestant
Marital Status
Private
I don't know if everything was consensual or not, but, just for argument sake, let's assume that those sexually "uncouth" people as you put it were all consenting adults. Now, what is worse? Promiscuity or being celibate for so long that you do something you probably wouldn't otherwise do like partake in beastiality or pedophilia?

For that reason, I would much rather tolerate polyamorous behavior than force someone to remain celibate just for the simple fact that I would not want them to be able to reach the point of actually going out and hurting someone. Too much testosterone build up can be a bad thing, as is proven with the use of steroids. I imagine the same thing could occur in a person who does not ever engage in any type of sexual activity.

Ancient Israelites had marriage customs that were dictated by prearranged marriages by marrying strictly within the tribe or within a larger confederation of tribes. The husband ruled the house and the family of the wife were given a dowry for wages lost in giving their daughter away. Up until then the daughter worked and earned wages for her family and lived under the protective roof of her father.

One man, one woman, one flesh.

Quite a contrast to the human sacrifices, orgies, sex cults, and cannibalism practiced by the Canaanites.
 
Upvote 0

davec375

Junior Member
Jul 7, 2009
25
2
✟22,655.00
Faith
Protestant
Marital Status
Private
Ah so..other people being(supposedly bad) is justification for xenophobia and national hatred of a people that leads a deity to order the mass murder of said people, the burning of their homes, the theft of their livestock and goods, the killing of men women and children. And putting a small portion of the female population into slavery including for the use of rape is ok?

Glad we cleared THAT up. I was so confused.

Female children were spared sanctified to service of the Holy Nation. There were provisions and liberties given to the men of war towards spared virginal prisoners and if a man of war was compelled to take her as a wife. She was required to shave her head and let her nails pared, given a month to mourn her parents, and allow the men of war a period to reconsider. And that man of war is NOT to have sexual relations with the virgin until after marriage. This was a provision and liberty for the men of war.
 
Upvote 0

drich0150

Regular Member
Mar 16, 2008
6,407
437
Florida
✟59,834.00
Country
United States
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
Is it harmful to better yourself through a proper education?

no, my point was "Higher education" like religion is a based on "changing the way people think." Which was deemed a monstrous activity.. I Just wanted to point that out.
 
Upvote 0

SiderealExalt

Well-Known Member
Feb 25, 2007
2,344
165
44
✟3,309.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Private
Female children were spared sanctified to service of the Holy Nation. There were provisions and liberties given to the men of war towards spared virginal prisoners and if a man of war was compelled to take her as a wife. She was required to shave her head and let her nails pared, given a month to mourn her parents, and allow the men of war a period to reconsider. And that man of war is NOT to have sexual relations with the virgin until after marriage. This was a provision and liberty for the men of war.


This makes it in no way any less a horrible and disgusting group of actions.
 
Upvote 0

aiki

Regular Member
Feb 16, 2007
10,874
4,352
Winnipeg
✟251,568.00
Country
Canada
Gender
Male
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Married
Let me ask you a straightforward question. If God said to you, during one of your prayer sessions, to kill one of your own in order to show your love for all the great things he's done for you, would you? Or rather, would you know that it is entirely immoral to kill one of your own?

In all of history God has never asked anyone to do anything like this except for Abraham. And in Abraham's instance, no one actually was killed. It was simply a test of Abraham's faith in God. Abraham knew that God was not capricious, or bloodthirsty, but rather that He was holy, and just, and kind. Even though Abraham could not understand completely why, or what, God was doing in commanding him to sacrifice Isaac, He knew God's righteous character and was consequently able to obey God even when the appearance of things might have seemed to justify not obeying Him. From what the biblical passage relating this story indicates, Abraham all along expected God to provide a substitute offering, which He did.

To someone like you who has no real idea of the character and nature of God, trusting Him like Abraham did seems reckless, even "immoral" (a rather strange term for an atheist to use). But I know who God is; I have some understanding of His character. As a result, I can confidently assert that God would never ask me to show my gratefulness to Him for all His goodness to me by killing "one of my own." He's not that kind of God. Your question asks me, then, what I would do if God was not the kind of God I know Him to be. And I would respond that if God was not as He is, I would not have the relationship with Him that I do and thus would act differently toward Him than I presently do.

Oh, and one more thing. Even if you've read the Bible a hundred times, it still wouldn't matter because you believe that, because God commanded his followers to kill people rather than some average Joe down the street, that it is all the more justified.

I'm not sure I follow here...My reading the Bible a hundred times doesn't matter because I believe what it says? I don't understand the logic in this...How does my belief in the Bible negate the value in reading it?

If I were in charge of the same group of people, and told them to murder the same people that God had, you'd call me a nutjob who needs to be thrown in jail.

Well, obviously. You aren't God, are you? And He didn't "murder" anyone. He exerted His right as a holy, just God to judge the wicked.

Peace.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

SiderealExalt

Well-Known Member
Feb 25, 2007
2,344
165
44
✟3,309.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Private
In all of history God has never asked anyone to do anything like this except for Abraham. And in Abraham's instance, no one actually was killed. It was simply a test of Abraham's faith in God.

Man to his employee:Hey Bob, go kill your son!

Bob: But Ron that is horrible! I can't believe you would ask me to do that. But, you are my boss, ok I will.

Ron watching as Bob is about to off Timmy: No Bob, it's ok..I don't want to kill your son. I just wanted to test your faith in me as a boss. And you passed! You're promoted, now go play baseball with that kid of yours.

Bob: Oh happy day!!!!

Abraham knew that God was not capricious, or bloodthirsty, but rather that He was holy, and just, and kind. Even though Abraham could not understand completely why, or what, God was doing in commanding him to sacrifice Isaac, He knew God's righteous character and was consequently able to obey God even when the appearance of things might have seemed to justify not obeying Him. From what the biblical passage relating this story indicates, Abraham all along expected God to provide a substitute offering, which He did.

The above isn't holy, it's disturbing. In a religious context, it is no less disturbing. And perhaps even more so when presented at the behest of an incorporeal presence.

To someone like you who has no real idea of the character and nature of God, trusting Him like Abraham did seems reckless, even "immoral" (a rather strange term for an atheist to use). But I know who God is; I have some understanding of His character. As a result, I can confidently assert that God would never ask me to show my gratefulness to Him for all His goodness to me by killing "one of my own." He's not that kind of God. Your question asks me, then, what I would do if God was not the kind of God I know Him to be. And I would respond that if God was not as He is, I would not have the relationship with Him that I do and thus would act differently toward Him than I presently do.

Nothing but an argument from authority. There is no grand mystery to understanding the Jewish/Christian/Islamic deity, and no psuedo decoder ring mentality needed either. What is morally reprehensible for humanity is no less reprehensible in the context of deities.

Well, obviously. You aren't God, are you? And He didn't "murder" anyone. He exerted His right as a holy, just God to judge the wicked.

Peace.

Argument from authority, and a comment with morally reprehensible and dangerous implications.
 
Upvote 0

aiki

Regular Member
Feb 16, 2007
10,874
4,352
Winnipeg
✟251,568.00
Country
Canada
Gender
Male
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Married
Man to his employee:Hey Bob, go kill your son!

Bob: But Ron that is horrible! I can't believe you would ask me to do that. But, you are my boss, ok I will.

Ron watching as Bob is about to off Timmy: No Bob, it's ok..I don't want to kill your son. I just wanted to test your faith in me as a boss. And you passed! You're promoted, now go play baseball with that kid of yours.

Bob: Oh happy day!!!!

Hardly the same the situation at all - for what seems to me to be rather obvious reasons. Foremost among these reasons is that you're making an error in category of comparison. An employer and God are far more unlike each other than they are alike - so much so that I would think a comparison such as yours is quite unwarranted and inaccurate.

The above isn't holy, it's disturbing. In a religious context, it is no less disturbing. And perhaps even more so when presented at the behest of an incorporeal presence.

You see what you want to see, I guess. For the Christian, God is not simply some "corporeal presence." Certainly, this wasn't how Abraham saw God. If you will only acknowledge God as the least and lowest of all things He could be, then nothing He does will make any sense to you. But this is more a matter of how you've chosen to see God, not an issue of how He is actually presented in Scripture.

Nothing but an argument from authority.

Not exactly. You asked me what I would do in a particular circumstance and I gave you an appropriately personal response. Other than God, I am the best authority, the greatest expert, on what Iwould do in any given situation. No one else save God can speak to this with superior authority or confidence than I can. Inasmuch as this is true, and inasmuch as you asked me what I would do, it is perfectly reasonable to reference the very greatest human authority who can speak with 100% certainty on the matter of what I would do: myself.

The God I know and serve is a very particular kind of God. All that I believe Him to be is derived from my study of the Bible and my experience of Him every day. From this study and experience I drew my response, which is necessarily subjective to a large degree. When you asked me what I would do if He asked me to "kill one of my own" to show my gratefulness to Him, you were asking me essentially to consider and extrapolate from an impossibility. You might as well have asked me, "If God was completely different from what you know Him to be would you kill one of your own." The point of the question is lost when the disparity between the hypothetical God in your question and the one I know personally is so great.

There is no grand mystery to understanding the Jewish/Christian/Islamic deity, and no psuedo decoder ring mentality needed either. What is morally reprehensible for humanity is no less reprehensible in the context of deities.

If your deities and your humans are more or less the same, then I would agree with you. But, at least as far as the Christian God is concerned, there is almost no similarity at all and that difference makes all the difference.

Argument from authority, and a comment with morally reprehensible and dangerous implications.

Are you God?

The issue isn't really one of authority (at least not in the sense in which you're thinking of it here), but of belief and I think you know it. Seems to me you're just trying to obfuscate...

Peace.
 
Upvote 0

SiderealExalt

Well-Known Member
Feb 25, 2007
2,344
165
44
✟3,309.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Private
Hardly the same the situation at all - for what seems to me to be rather obvious reasons.

Metaphors for fun and profit.

Foremost among these reasons is that you're making an error in category of comparison. An employer and God are far more unlike each other than they are alike - so much so that I would think a comparison such as yours is quite unwarranted and inaccurate.

Absolving intelligences of murder in cold blood is definitely something I would call "quite unwarranted and inaccurate." you're still making an argument from authority.

You see what you want to see, I guess. For the Christian, God is not simply some "corporeal presence." Certainly, this wasn't how Abraham saw God.

You made a typo, if you look at my quoted portion, the term I used was "INcorporeal presence."

If you will only acknowledge God as the least and lowest of all things He could be, then nothing He does will make any sense to you. But this is more a matter of how you've chosen to see God, not an issue of how He is actually presented in Scripture.

No mystery decoder ring to understand that asking someone to kill their son just to see if they'd go ahead and do it on faith with the intention to stop them before they actually do it is a horrible, HORRIBLE, immoral and sadistic thing to do.


Not exactly. You asked me what I would do in a particular circumstance and I gave you an appropriately personal response. Other than God, I am the best authority, the greatest expert, on what Iwould do in any given situation. No one else save God can speak to this with superior authority or confidence than I can. Inasmuch as this is true, and inasmuch as you asked me what I would do, it is perfectly reasonable to reference the very greatest human authority who can speak with 100% certainty on the matter of what I would do: myself.

You're still making an argument from authority. Then oddly by proxy attempting to place that mantle on yourself it seems. Transferring the horrible actions of a deity onto yourself changes nothing.

The God I know and serve is a very particular kind of God. All that I believe Him to be is derived from my study of the Bible and my experience of Him every day. From this study and experience I drew my response, which is necessarily subjective to a large degree. When you asked me what I would do if He asked me to "kill one of my own" to show my gratefulness to Him, you were asking me essentially to consider and extrapolate from an impossibility. You might as well have asked me, "If God was completely different from what you know Him to be would you kill one of your own." The point of the question is lost when the disparity between the hypothetical God in your question and the one I know personally is so great.

I would certainly agree that humans, in the creation of their deities, primarily think of their entities in terms of how they choose to envision them first, and how their books that try to say how their deities are, second. Many people in history have commented on that very thing. It is a very compelling argument for the artificiality of deities.
If your deities and your humans are more or less the same, then I would agree with you. But, at least as far as the Christian God is concerned, there is almost no similarity at all and that difference makes all the difference.

This statement, you realize. Doesn't make your deity, or the worship of such a thing better you know right? In fact it makes it all the more horrific. It all makes arguments for it's morality unintelligible.

Are you God?

The issue isn't really one of authority (at least not in the sense in which you're thinking of it here), but of belief and I think you know it. Seems to me you're just trying to obfuscate...

Peace.

No one and nothing is. Look up the logical fallacy. You're making an argument from authority.
 
Upvote 0

aiki

Regular Member
Feb 16, 2007
10,874
4,352
Winnipeg
✟251,568.00
Country
Canada
Gender
Male
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Married
Absolving intelligences of murder in cold blood is definitely something I would call "quite unwarranted and inaccurate." you're still making an argument from authority.

As I said before, you see what you want to see. I don't think I am making a fallacious argument or appeal to authority in this instance. A fallacious appeal to, or argument from, authority is based on the claim of a source that is not truly authoritative. This isn't the case here. The Scriptures are the supreme source from which the Christian derives his understanding of who God is. They are authoritative beyond all other sources on the matter of the nature of the God Christians worship. It is with this in mind that I made the comments to which you replied above. Now, you may not wish to concede that the Scriptures are authoritative at all, but then this rather upsets how you're using them to justify your cartoonish version of God.

You made a typo, if you look at my quoted portion, the term I used was "INcorporeal presence."

Yes, you've made some too. So what?

No mystery decoder ring to understand that asking someone to kill their son just to see if they'd go ahead and do it on faith with the intention to stop them before they actually do it is a horrible, HORRIBLE, immoral and sadistic thing to do.

I disagree for reasons I have already made very clear. Why is it, do you think, that Abraham didn't respond to God as though He were "horrible, immoral, and sadistic"? And what about all those instances in Scripture where God acts completely opposite to the way you've described Him above? Why are you ignoring them?

You're still making an argument from authority. Then oddly by proxy attempting to place that mantle on yourself it seems. Transferring the horrible actions of a deity onto yourself changes nothing.

I'm beginning to see that you don't fully understand what an argument from authority actually is. I think you keep repeating - erroneously - that this fallacy is occurring because you are unwilling to actually respond to the substance of my comments. A fallacious argument from authority happens when I base my comments upon an illegitimate source of authority. But, as I said, I am the single greatest authority upon what I would do, so I cannot fallaciously refer to myself as an authority on what I would do.

I would certainly agree that humans, in the creation of their deities, primarily think of their entities in terms of how they choose to envision them first, and how their books that try to say how their deities are, second. Many people in history have commented on that very thing. It is a very compelling argument for the artificiality of deities.

Apparently, you aren't actually thinking about what I'm writing. I have done just the reverse of what you've described above, which I explained clearly in the comments I made to which you are responding above. I wrote:

"All that I believe Him to be is derived from my study of the Bible and my experience of Him every day. From this study and experience I drew my response..."

My experience of God is - as it is for every mature Christian - subjected to the declarations of Scripture. My experience of God is false if it in any way contradicts the Word of God.

This statement, you realize. Doesn't make your deity, or the worship of such a thing better you know right? In fact it makes it all the more horrific. It all makes arguments for it's morality unintelligible.

Millions of intelligent, charitable, loving Christian people over the centuries disagree with you.

Peace.
 
Upvote 0

SiderealExalt

Well-Known Member
Feb 25, 2007
2,344
165
44
✟3,309.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Private
As I said before, you see what you want to see. I don't think I am making a fallacious argument or appeal to authority in this instance. A fallacious appeal to, or argument from, authority is based on the claim of a source that is not truly authoritative. This isn't the case here.

That does not describe why the appeal to authority fallacy is a fallacy.

The Scriptures are the supreme source from which the Christian derives his understanding of who God is. They are authoritative beyond all other sources on the matter of the nature of the God Christians worship. It is with this in mind that I made the comments to which you replied above. Now, you may not wish to concede that the Scriptures are authoritative at all, but then this rather upsets how you're using them to justify your cartoonish version of God.

See above.

Yes, you've made some too. So what?

I didn't use a typo to create a false argument.

I disagree for reasons I have already made very clear. Why is it, do you think, that Abraham didn't respond to God as though He were "horrible, immoral, and sadistic"? And what about all those instances in Scripture where God acts completely opposite to the way you've described Him above? Why are you ignoring them?

You predicate this with the assumption that the rest of your book paints this thing as a "nice guy". For that matter, there is nothing redeeming about...yes I know I'm a mass murderer...but I'm nice sometimes! Nice shell game.

I'm beginning to see that you don't fully understand what an argument from authority actually is. I think you keep repeating - erroneously - that this fallacy is occurring because you are unwilling to actually respond to the substance of my comments. A fallacious argument from authority happens when I base my comments upon an illegitimate source of authority. But, as I said, I am the single greatest authority upon what I would do, so I cannot fallaciously refer to myself as an authority on what I would do.

See first reply.

Apparently, you aren't actually thinking about what I'm writing. I have done just the reverse of what you've described above, which I explained clearly in the comments I made to which you are responding above. I wrote:

"All that I believe Him to be is derived from my study of the Bible and my experience of Him every day. From this study and experience I drew my response..."

My experience of God is - as it is for every mature Christian - subjected to the declarations of Scripture. My experience of God is false if it in any way contradicts the Word of God.

This portion does not seem to be a reply to the quoted portion of my text.
Millions of intelligent, charitable, loving Christian people over the centuries disagree with you.

Peace.

Agreement is immaterial to statements that render adjectives you wish to apply to something, including your deity, unintelligible. "God is unie." is an unintelligible statement, regardless of how many Christians or anyone else make it.

I suggest a few pieces of literature that would explain this argument to you, since honestly it seems like I'm talking past you and your replies aren't making sense in respect to the portions of my text. Atheism:the Case Against God, and Dan Bakers Godless book sheds some light on the matter.
 
Upvote 0

wi11ow

New Member
Jul 28, 2009
1
0
✟22,611.00
Faith
Seeker
Marital Status
Private
hi, im just not sure about the whole god thing, and its the morality thing that is the biggest obsticle, so i started to read this thread, and a lot of the replies confused me, there were different explinations for the same concepts like hell/ void etc, unfortunately i only got through the first several pages (it seems like some of the posts are missing?) but hopefully i can write more later cause this is really interestign and helping a lot ;D

God's morality or His Will IS The Bench Mark For Morality. Everything he does is moral, because his will defines morality.
If we used our will as a bench mark for ultimate morality then the question becomes what culture do we use? or what time period is God supposed to live by?? what about 1930's Germany? Or 1960's Soviet Union? How is this any better than 1990's or current western thinking? and even then in what region?

when the president does it its not illegal - richard nixon
your admitting that morality is relative to time place and culture then?
if you really think that western society is more immoral then either soviet russia or Nazi germany, your godwining your own argument (see: godwins law) and admitting you have no sense of history.
If God was subject to our will then he would not be worthy of worship..

in catholism there the impression that what laws the pope and church make on earth god will uphold in heaven. arguably this is free license for a modernization of the church.

‘and I will give to thee the keys of the reign of the heavens, and whatever thou mayest bind upon the earth shall be having been bound in the heavens, and whatever thou mayest loose upon the earth shall be having been loosed in the heavens.' Matthew 16:19

but then, some of those popes were dodgy characters, one drank the blood of 3 boys before dying as a medievil cure. something about the life in the blood...

The practice was not always a success. In 1492, when Pope Innocent VIII was on his deathbed, his doctors bled three boys and had the pope drink their blood. The boys died, and so did the pope

theres a bbc article on this but apparently i cant post links?

In other words if He gives life or takes it away, Glory be to God, because that life, our lives, are his to give or take.

so because god will see you on the otherside your death is meaningless to him? what you want as an independant thinking feeling creature endowed with free thought (against gods will mind you) want is meaningless. such disreguard for a creature he loves on an individual basis.

Imagine all of the horror and the manor of depravity we witnessed in the concentration camps of WWII Germany, and the general downward spiral our culture, and yet none of this sparks the same kind of response that Noah's generation did. Why? Because there were/are more than a single family here living among us to be found righteous before the Lord

again with the nazi's, you know that most SS members were church going confessing christians. and the only christian in the nazi high command excommunicatied before or after the war was goebbles for marrying a protestant. and the idea that every family on earth was steeped in immorality, you really do believe that for the 100-200,000 years our species has been here its lived in a state of complete and utter immorality.

You don't know that they were in fact innocent

so we are guilty from birth? or was birth our sin, which a life of servitude and worship is supposed to expunge? you are not born with loyalty, loyalty is earned through trust and friendship. these children had time for neither

Wasn't that how Hitler got started? Isn't that How he came to power in the first place? Trying to right all that had gone wrong after WWI?

no he was a frustrated artist with a very engaging personality who got into politics, and through politics was given the power to vent his rascist ravings on the jews of europe.
stalin you would be interested perhaps to know was trained and educated in a seminary in georgia, he was going to be a priest.

God doesn't torture those who do not wish to worship Him. We are simply given a choice to live with God, and all that he has created for us for eternity, or to Be sent somewhere completely devoid of God (Which includes all of His creation)

if this were true it hell would be a place empty of all other beings, a nihilistic wet dream, or bhudist state of non being. some cultures seek this. instead we are threatened with fire and brimstone, a devil to plague us (a creation of god) and hell (created BY god)

Jealousy and anger are just as much apart of Love as forgiveness and understanding. If you have gotten past your first 20 years I'm sure you have experienced this.. If you are married would you share your wife with others? if yes would you share you mother with others as you would share your wife?

ah but to be obsessively jelous at the expense of the other persons well being or happyness is not part of love. and my mother is not mine to share, she is her own person to share herself as she sees fit.

Maybe my bible isn't the only one that needs to be read..
Genesis 6:

which version of genisis are you using? they are rather mutally exclusive what with eve being created at the same time as adam in one and adam being created first then eve second in the other, also the mentions of primordial water that exists before god created anything etc.

Sons of the Lord and daughters of man can be interpreted angels or demons having human female wives.

or as the extended family of adam and eve's prodigious offspring deciding to intermarry.

nephilim were the result "Titans" or warrior giants

the nephilim were angelic creatures, who boned the daughters of eve in an attempt to bring about demi gods like hercules. its a ret con to incorperate previous heros and explain those of other cultures.

What if the descriptions of Heaven and Hell Got mixed up somewhere back in time, and Heaven (where God lives) was a fiery pit, and hell was paradise, but without the presents of God? Would you still want to goto Heaven (Where God Lives?)

so your admitting hat heaven is a carrot and hell is the stick

God sending someone to the Void is God Being loving enough to Give that child what he wants.. Eternal seperation from God. (no matter how much He loves them.)

*voice from all dogs go to heaven* and you can never come back.... you can never come back.... you can never come back....

But He has done something about it! God sent us His only Son, Jesus Christ, to receive the punishment for our sins on our behalf.

you lose me here, christ didnt die for my sins, he died for the sins of people dead several millenia now, i commited no sins or offenses, unless my sins are predetermined but thats a whole other can of beans

if they can see Him in the nature of the cosmos and reflected in their own capacities to love, dream, moralize, and laugh, what do you say?

its just a peice of burnt toast, or an oil spot, or the grease stain in a pizza tray (i kid you not christians visit it like a shrine)

If millions of people are convinced that they experience God every day

but can never explain how they know other then "i just know" we cant even tell if all christians the world over hold the same image or concept of god let alone all share a mutual experience because they all feel "something" since none of them can compair what that something is.

The whole of the Bible is taken up with God's efforts to redeem sin-corrupted people from the consequences of their sin. In the Bible we see God most certainly has "made an effort" - even going so far as to be crucified at the hands of the creatures He had made, which is far more "effort" than any of us deserve!

what effort, hes god, he can say "make it so number one" and it will happen, there is no effort in "fixing" mankind or redeeming them. and what is crucifixtion to god? what is pain to god?

Jesus' sacrifice wasn't made to rid the world of sin, but to rid sinners of the eternal punishment of their sin and to break the power of sin in the lives of those who trust in Christ as their Saviour.

because belief in god wasnt enough?

Fire and brimstone" are used to describe Hell because that was the closest thing the writers had to describe what it is like to be consumed by nothingness

so the book is metaphorical? gotcha ;D nothingness is just that nothingness, pain is a creation of god, as are our bodies, this void would only contain the soul or conciousness but then our souls are also creations of god and thus according to you subject to his omnipresence.
by stripping a "sinner" of all of gods creations you are also stripping the "sinner" of all that person loves, a great cruelty, out of love. an odd contradiction.

How is anything said by Finneus not true. 'God' knows EVERYTHING that has happened, that will happen, and that is happening. He would have known trillions upon trillions of years before he created man that nearly all of humanity would fail his completely just and fair standards, that we would implore logical thinking skills, that we would recognize his plan of salvation as some really lame action/drama that skipped theatres and went straight to DVD. Yet STILL he creates man, knowing full well that we will have to end up suffering

my friend read dostoyevskis "the grand inquisitor"

We are all offered free salvation, a salvation which does not require us to work for it, but is given freely

you work all your lives for it, subservient, worshipping, afraid of sin or immorality, afraid of human experience. this is one hell of a price.

One morning I got up and walked into the hall and I heard a voice say "How would you like to be stabbed in the Valley". The Valley was the rough end of town, and the voice scared me a little, I wondered if I had done something to offend God....
I was on a forum libertyunites.us and came across a post by a user called ABC in the post she appealed to the captors to release Douglas Wood because he had gone to a/or the Bazaar and bought food for homeless people and had provided them with "A-meal". I believe God saw this action too and blessed Douglas Wood with an escape from his captors.
see a therapist. its called an auditory hallucination.

Millions of Christians do not see God and His plan for mankind as you've described above.

your dodging the question re gods omnipotence and omniscient powers.

If we chose something in God's will, then we would in fact be in God's will and not in our own.. So to exercise freewill is to sin..

it was in taking free will that man fell from grace, there is no question of letting or asking us to love god he DEMANDS it, and punishment for not. the choice was never to be given, we took it for ourselves... i blame the talking snake.
 
Upvote 0

Van

Contributor
Oct 28, 2004
8,956
111
California
✟9,814.00
Faith
Christian
Hi Folks, I am reminded of the line from a movie, "round up the usual suspects." Atheists keep reposting the same claims over and over, and we never seem to make any progress.

Here is the thread opener:

icon5.gif
God's Morals?
I used to be a Christian but left my church because of a realization I had about the nature of the Christian God. How can anyone consider God moral while at the same time be appalled by the atrocities committed against the Jews during WWII, the genocides in Africa, or any other horrific historical event? One example is the story of the flood; God regretted making humans and therefore decided to kill everyone except for Noah and his family because they were the only ones deemed righteous. But instead of just killing the unrighteous of mankind, God decided to also kill all of the innocent children. Why did God feel it was moral to kill innocent children as bystanders in his mass homicide? Why does God give us a moral code to follow that He, himself, does not adhere to as well? Isn't that hypocrisy?

This line of argument is repeated over and over, find some horrific thing God did in the Old Testament, then claim this shows that God is not real. Usually they mix directions God gave the nation of Israel with directions God gives individuals to govern their person to person relationships, and then claim God is inconsistent.

So the first false premise all these arguments rely upon is the right of the clay over the potter. He made us but He does not have the right for whatever reason to mush us and start over. Let's leave it that the Potter has the right over the clay, and to deny this is irrational.

The next false premise is to claim that God must treat everyone the same. This argument of course is simply coveting God's behavior toward someone else, and God's answer of course is "What is it to you, how I treat others?"

Next, Hell is said to be unjust, a place of eternal torment for finite sins. The Conditionalist view of hell is never adopted by atheists. In the afterlife, those whose names are not recorded in the Lamb's book of life, suffer torment for their misdeeds, then their existence is terminated Their body and soul are "destroyed." Thus the lost face perfect justice in the afterlife.

Next, we have Omniscience defined as God knowing everything, past, present and future exhaustively, being held up as exhibit G by the DA (determined atheist). But again, the view of omniscience defined as God knowing all He has chosen to know is never adopted. With this view, God of course does not know things before He decides to know them, so His free will is intact. And since God has chosen not to know who will choose to trust in Jesus, we are free to accept or reject Christ, and that decision is not foreordained.

If atheists would consider these alternate views, they would see that much of their struggles to accept God could be over.
 
Upvote 0

leftrightleftrightleft

Well-Known Member
Jul 14, 2009
2,644
363
Canada
✟37,986.00
Faith
Seeker
Marital Status
Married
There's a lot in this thread. But I'll give my take on some of the morality of God.

In my opinion, the debates over God being moral or not for allowing atrocities to occur breaks down to the idea of free will. God CREATED us with free will. When you create something that can think on its own there are two possibilities: A) he will do what you want or B) he will do what you don't want. By this, God gives us the ability to kill, murder, maim, rape and torture all our fellow human beings because he CREATED us with the ability to NOT do his will. I will use an analogy:

" [FONT=&quot]You are walking a dog in a field on a leash. You can continue to have him leashed and control his every move and pull him away from things he can’t be sniffing and stop him from crapping on your field. But you also have a second option: you can unleash him and watch him run free. He will probably do some things that you don’t agree with, he may crap in the field and eat things he’s not supposed to eat, but he will be happier and exploring on his own. He will be learning and it will be dynamic and creative. Keeping him leashed is pointless, why would you get the dog in the first place if all you planned to do with him his whole life was keep him leashed and following your every whim? Now, while he’s off running in the fields you could chase after him and catch him and make sure he’s not doing anything wrong, but you choose to limit your abilities because that’s the way you wanted the dog to experience life. And ultimately, you want the dog to come back to you by his own wanting. You want him to realize that he can eat grass and mice and rabbits, but you and you alone can give him doggie treats, whether he’s on the leash or not. And I think this is the way God views the human race and free will. He created us purely because he wanted us to be dynamic and creative and conscious and rational and intelligent; for us to go think on our own and experience life without being leashed to the good morals that God intended us to follow. He full well knows that some of us may not come back; some may run away forever and be lost. But Jesus and salvation are like the doggie treats, calling us back to him.[/FONT]"

So in that sense, I think Hitler was acting by his free will. God will not interfere with that. I think God places things and actions and people in the world around us that give us a clear enough message of his presence and what he wants us to do...but, by our free will, some of us choose to ignore these messages or don't listen. Hitler had free will like the rest of us, and I think, just like anyone else, God placed ample messages, actions and things in Hitler's life that attempted to show Hitler the right path. But Hitler ignored it and instead chose to use power to kill, torture and destroy millions of people.

As for the six million people he killed and tortured? The same rule applies: They were all given ample messages in their lives to find God. Maybe some did, maybe some didn't. What we deem an "atrocity" may very well be hundreds of people dying and going on to eternal life and glory with God and God is happy for it. Death is seen as "bad" in our world because most people have a fear of it. But perhaps an "atrocity" to God is one singular person turning away from him, and perhaps, to him, this is worse than 6 million people dying. I'm not saying I believe that, I'm just posing it as an open thought.

As for "innocent children" being killed? I have some vague belief that all children go to heaven. Jesus tells us to act like children; to act like the innocent, unconditionally-loving child. there is a loss of innocence when a child becomes an adult and begins to think oh-so logically, rationally and scientifically. When our skepticism and criticism blinds us of the simplicity and love that is God.

As for Noah and the flood. I think that the Old Testament has been highly mythologized. I have much firmer historical belief in the New Testament. The Old Testament, for me, is a grouping of significant stories BASED on truth which contain timeless lessons and timeless truths which God wants us to learn and live by. Noah and the flood is God showing us that people do turn away from him and will be committed to a place where he is not present. Those that find him and love him will be given a place on the ark.

As for hell, I think the common view of hell has been so misinterpreted. When Jesus spoke of hell-fire I don't think he was referring to literal hellfire but, like most of his stories, was talking in metaphor. When he tells us to bear fruit you don't see people saying, "Hey! How am I supposed to bear fruit?! There's no way I'm going to be capable of growing apples out my elbows and oranges out my knees!" No because that's ridiculous. Similarily I look at hellfire and say, "Would an all-loving God really commit you to an eternity of TORTURE, BURNING and PAIN?" To me, that's as ridiculous as saying I should grow apples out of my elbows. I think hell is a God-less place. But I'm still working on what I actually mean by that :confused:. I'm taking the approach that says, "I know what I think hell is NOT, so let's see what I'm left with after a deduce."

I'm surprised if anyone read all this....it's quite long.
 
Upvote 0

EGoldstein

Newbie
Jun 29, 2009
21
0
✟22,631.00
Faith
Agnostic
Marital Status
Private
The Canaanite nations sacrificed their unwanted babies to their gods
Gods people did something similar (except with a virgin daughter), God is sooooooo awesome! (Judges 11:29-40)
Female children were spared sanctified to service of the Holy Nation. There were provisions and liberties given to the men of war towards spared virginal prisoners and if a man of war was compelled to take her as a wife. She was required to shave her head and let her nails pared, given a month to mourn her parents, and allow the men of war a period to reconsider. And that man of war is NOT to have sexual relations with the virgin until after marriage. This was a provision and liberty for the men of war.
Another fun fact, if you want to marry a girl that doesn't want to marry you, just rape her and all you have to do is pay 50 sheckles of silver! (Deuteronomy 22:28-29)
Or if you are a rape victim and you couldn't scream loud enough, the rapist AND yourself will get to be stoned to death! (Deuteronomy 22:23-24)
a rather strange term for an atheist to use

What arrogance, to think that someone without god cannot be moral. So Hitler's extermination of the Jews was only wrong because god said 'thou shalt not murder', if god never said that murder was a sin it would be cool with you? Anyone who can love the god of the bible is morally bankrupt.

And what about all those instances in Scripture where God acts completely opposite to the way you've described Him above? Why are you ignoring them?

Just because a serial killer/rapist also volunteers at Salvation Army doesn't absolve him of his crimes, the same applies to god.

I'm surprised if anyone read all this....it's quite long.

I will read it later, I am short on time >.<
 
Upvote 0
Status
Not open for further replies.