How do you tell the difference

[Clizby WampusCat]

Of course it is...good luck with that.

I guess threats is all you have instead of good evidence.

 

[disciple Clint]

So this is your justification to kill them all? Just step back and look at how your belief is twisting your sense of decency.

you are trying to judge what happened in those times by the values of today.

 

[Clizby WampusCat]

you are trying to judge what happened in those times by the values of today.

Then why was it moral for God to order the killing of the Amalekite children in those times? Could God order the killing of all the Canadian children if He wanted to today?

 

[cvanwey]

Who was going to care for the children? Children grow up and seek revenge for the killing of their parents, they also poison the minds of their children who also seek revenge. Look at the Palestinian people today.

If that worked so well back then, why not do it today too? Why doesn't God just order the slaughter of all such children today?

 

[cvanwey]

you are trying to judge what happened in those times by the values of today.

You just said it yourself, to "look at the Palestinians today". Seems as though all offspring will always want to later seek revenge, when they grow up. Hence, why not always kill all offspring in war? Seems as though the 'revenge' factor will otherwise always be... Thus, these 'values' do not change with time.

 

[disciple Clint]

Then why was it moral for God to order the killing of the Amalekite children in those times? Could God order the killing of all the Canadian children if He wanted to today?

Well He is God, so He could do anything He likes. I previously answered your question but it requires some knowledge of history and how much different values were in those days, the Bible has to be read with the idea of understanding what God was saying at the time in view of the conditions at the time.

 

[disciple Clint]

If that worked so well back then, why not do it today too? Why doesn't God just order the slaughter of all such children today?

The answer should be obvious, we do not have the same values or society that they had then. In most parts of the civilized world vendettas are a thing of the past.

 

[disciple Clint]

You just said it yourself, to "look at the Palestinians today". Seems as though all offspring will always want to later seek revenge, when they grow up. Hence, why not always kill all offspring in war? Seems as though the 'revenge' factor will otherwise always be... Thus, these 'values' do not change with time.

The Palestinians today are an exception to our values in the world today

 

[DamianWarS]

How do you tell the difference between a good god and a bad god that is lying about being a good god? Christians refer to the Bible to indicate that God is good. Why isn't the possibility that God is bad and telling us he is good in the bible plausible? How would you know?

if God is the creator of all things then good and evil are terms relative to him with good being for him and evil being against him. God is good not because he says so but because he is God. if he weren't good, then either we have defined good incorrectly or he is not God. A classic biblical example is the first sin which was to not eat the fruit of a certain tree. is eating fruit good or evil? in that case, for that tree, for those people, it was evil because God said not to eat it, thus eating it would go against God ergo evil.

Christianity sees God as a trinity which is somewhat a controversial subject among other faiths. But I would suggest the concept of the trinity is the only thing that allows love to preexist creation otherwise God would need us to love (and he would then cease to be God). if God were 1 love exists imperfectly since loving yourself doesn't grasp all of love. if God were 2 love still exists imperfectly. there would be a relationship of 1↔2 but the relationship cannot be truly contrasted since there really is only 1 relationship with any contrast (so how do you know that's love?). when there is 3 love can now exist perfectly. the relationships are 1↔2, 1↔3, 2↔3 and 1↔2↔3. relationships are now perfectly contrasted and love can exist perfectly. If we want to call God love it's important to know that love preexists creation otherwise God is incapable of love.

 

[Clizby WampusCat]

Well He is God, so He could do anything He likes.

Sure, I cannot stop Him. But I can judge His actions as moral or not.

I previously answered your question but it requires some knowledge of history and how much different values were in those days, the Bible has to be read with the idea of understanding what God was saying at the time in view of the conditions at the time.

Then explain it to me how a situation is moral where God orders the killing of all children?

 

[Clizby WampusCat]

if God is the creator of all things then good and evil are terms relative to him with good being for him and evil being against him.

Why? So a God that mandates child sacrifice as worship would be good in your eyes? Being a god does not make it automatically good.

God is good not because he says so but because he is God. if he weren't good, then either we have defined good incorrectly or he is not God.

You have actually defined God as good which does not have to be the case. There is no reason a God has to be good.

A classic biblical example is the first sin which was to not eat the fruit of a certain tree. is eating fruit good or evil? in that case, for that tree, for those people, it was evil because God said not to eat it, thus eating it would go against God ergo evil.

If eating the fruit was evil and eating that fruit gave you the knowledge of good and evil, why then did god give Adam and Eve the knowledge that eating the fruit was evil? Anyway, you need to justify why a god has to be good.

Christianity sees God as a trinity which is somewhat a controversial subject among other faiths. But I would suggest the concept of the trinity is the only thing that allows love to preexist creation otherwise God would need us to love (and he would then cease to be God).

Just because something explains something doe snot mean it is true. It needs to be demonstrated to be true. The Trinity is not logical and contradicts the laws of logic. You need to show how the trinity is logical.

if God were 1 love exists imperfectly since loving yourself doesn't grasp all of love. if God were 2 love still exists imperfectly. there would be a relationship of 1↔2 but the relationship cannot be truly contrasted since there really is only 1 relationship with any contrast (so how do you know that's love?). when there is 3 love can now exist perfectly. the relationships are 1↔2, 1↔3, 2↔3 and 1↔2↔3. relationships are now perfectly contrasted and love can exist perfectly. If we want to call God love it's important to know that love preexists creation otherwise God is incapable of love.

Like I said above, this explains the trinity but it does not demonstrate that it is true.

 

[DamianWarS]

Why? So a God that mandates child sacrifice as worship would be good in your eyes? Being a god does not make it automatically good.

Perhaps for a god but not for the God.

You have actually defined God as good which does not have to be the case. There is no reason a God has to be good.

a god no. The God yes.

If eating the fruit was evil and eating that fruit gave you the knowledge of good and evil, why then did god give Adam and Eve the knowledge that eating the fruit was evil? Anyway, you need to justify why a god has to be good.

The text doesn't say he gave them any knowledge of good and evil. He just gave them a command not to eat the fruit.

Just because something explains something doe snot mean it is true. It needs to be demonstrated to be true. The Trinity is not logical and contradicts the laws of logic. You need to show how the trinity is logical.

The trinity is logical in a thestic space. Many gods are illogical as ultimately the source of all things must start from one not many so extra gods are only created beings at best and there still stands one preexisiting it all. Two cannot be omnipotent at the same time only one can be otherwise it is only shared power not all power which then still points to something greater.

A God of one that preexists all things is unable to fully comprehend things that require a 2nd or 3rd party, things like love. Only three can perfectly contrast where two is too little and four is too much. If God is perfect than he can perfectly express things like love before creation without excess or limitations.

Like I said above, this explains the trinity but it does not demonstrate that it is true.

It demonstrates the why for the trinity because without it God is lacking and in need of his creation to carry transitive actions out preexisting his creation but it doesn't explain the how (which is not something I claim to know). So the trinity is required out of nesscessity otherwise God is a fraud that needs his creation as much as we need him ergo he is not perfect egro he is not God. Where is the logic in that?

 

[Clizby WampusCat]

Perhaps for a god but not for the God.

Why was it moral for The God to order the killing of children?

a god no. The God yes.

Why does The God have to be good?

The text doesn't say he gave them any knowledge of good and evil. He just gave them a command not to eat the fruit.

and added that they would certainly die. Did they know that would be a bad thing? If not then why would God say it to them?

The trinity is logical in a thestic space. Many gods are illogical as ultimately the source of all things must start from one not many so extra gods are only created beings at best and there still stands one preexisiting it all. Two cannot be omnipotent at the same time only one can be otherwise it is only shared power not all power which then still points to something greater.

A God of one that preexists all things is unable to fully comprehend things that require a 2nd or 3rd party, things like love. Only three can perfectly contrast where two is too little and four is too much. If God is perfect than he can perfectly express things like love before creation without excess or limitations.

It demonstrates the why for the trinity because without it God is lacking and in need of his creation to carry transitive actions out preexisting his creation but it doesn't explain the how (which is not something I claim to know). So the trinity is required out of nesscessity otherwise God is a fraud that needs his creation as much as we need him ergo he is not perfect egro he is not God. Where is the logic in that?

The trinity violates the law of non contradiction, identity and excluded middle.

 

[DamianWarS]

Why was it moral for The God to order the killing of children?

if there is a God morality and goodness are based on him. the child doesn't have to agree or understand what a parent does in order for the parent to act out of goodness. I can only reconcile the biblical genocide accounts in a spiritual vacuum but not when the physical is introduced. I know we are speaking of an ancient world with different rules and superimposing modern abstract western culture doesn't work. that doesn't dismiss the suffering which I'm sure was great but if there is a God then there is an afterlife and if what we perceive as injustice on this side can be met with justice in the next. But a world where there is no God, children die, and injustice reigns.

Why does The God have to be good?

If there is a God he is perfect, limitless, and unchanging with no beginning or end. such a being would have no faults and no capacity to error and every action would be the perfect action and nothing is done without purpose. the very concept demands only goodness.

and added that they would certainly die. Did they know that would be a bad thing? If not then why would God say it to them?

the fall account has a specific purpose and the details build to that purpose. it is traditionally penned by Moses under the inspiration of God and if we follow a biblical timeline it is some 2500 years after the event happened. The account is given to post-exodus Hebrews who were predisposed to paganism and its purpose is to identify that we are all fallen and all sinful (as we are all from Adam) as a type of foundation for their law but it also exposes a need for redemption. I think the literalness of the account has nothing to do with the account and in practice, the account is treated in the same way as a non-literal account is with a moral goal that all details point to where nothing outside that goal exists (like to Adam have a navel). So the account has limits and when we can only squeeze it so much to get what we want. How Adam and Eve understand good and evil pre-fall is not answered in the account so I don't think it's an important detail or serves a purpose to the account itself. it's not there to answer those questions and when we turn it into that we miss the point of it.

he trinity violates the law of non contradiction, identity and excluded middle.

so does the big bang

 

[Clizby WampusCat]

if there is a God morality and goodness are based on him.

Why is this the case? Even if a god exists and tells us what its morality is we can still evaluate it against our own morality and see if we agree or not.

the child doesn't have to agree or understand what a parent does in order for the parent to act out of goodness.

No, but if my child thinks I am doing something immoral and askes me about it I will explain to him/her why my actions are moral even if they seem immoral. Your God will not do that for us. See Job.

I can only reconcile the biblical genocide accounts in a spiritual vacuum but not when the physical is introduced. I know we are speaking of an ancient world with different rules and superimposing modern abstract western culture doesn't work. that doesn't dismiss the suffering which I'm sure was great but if there is a God then there is an afterlife and if what we perceive as injustice on this side can be met with justice in the next.

Then you take it on faith that ordering the killing of Amalekite children was a good thing.

But a world where there is no God, children die, and injustice reigns.

Unfortunate but just because you don't like the implications of your God not existing does not mean your God exists.

If there is a God he is perfect, limitless, and unchanging with no beginning or end. such a being would have no faults and no capacity to error and every action would be the perfect action and nothing is done without purpose. the very concept demands only goodness.

How do you know this? I can think of an imperfect God.

the fall account has a specific purpose and the details build to that purpose. it is traditionally penned by Moses under the inspiration of God and if we follow a biblical timeline it is some 2500 years after the event happened. The account is given to post-exodus Hebrews who were predisposed to paganism and its purpose is to identify that we are all fallen and all sinful (as we are all from Adam) as a type of foundation for their law but it also exposes a need for redemption. I think the literalness of the account has nothing to do with the account and in practice, the account is treated in the same way as a non-literal account is with a moral goal that all details point to where nothing outside that goal exists (like to Adam have a navel). So the account has limits and when we can only squeeze it so much to get what we want. How Adam and Eve understand good and evil pre-fall is not answered in the account so I don't think it's an important detail or serves a purpose to the account itself. it's not there to answer those questions and when we turn it into that we miss the point of it.

Well when Christians in general decide what the point is then I let me know.

so does the big bang

Even if this is so it does not alleviate the fact that the trinity violates the laws of logic.

 

[DamianWarS]

Why is this the case? Even if a god exists and tells us what its morality is we can still evaluate it against our own morality and see if we agree or not.

That depends if morality itself is subjective. If it's relative then it looses its meaning and everything is equally good and evil.

No, but if my child thinks I am doing something immoral and askes me about it I will explain to him/her why my actions are moral even if they seem immoral. Your God will not do that for us. See Job.

God doesn't need to explain himself. I get that seems like a cop out answer but if there is a God it's happens to be true. A God that has to explain his every action or even a parent to a child is going to come to points where the recipient will not understand, it also challenges his authority to do so (and the parents). Just because it isn't clear doesn't mean it isn't good.

Then you take it on faith that ordering the killing of Amalekite children was a good thing.

Death is a paradox to what God offers so I am unable to reconcile what is good and what is not and doing so would be just conjecture. All I can say at the end of the day is justice will overcome injustice and I believe it is the case with death of child as well.

Unfortunate but just because you don't like the implications of your God not existing does not mean your God exists.

Then the problem is unsolvable because that same logic can be used for the existence of God.

How do you know this? I can think of an imperfect God.

An imperfect God would be a God with limits which is not God it's something else.

Well when Christians in general decide what the point is then I let me know.

I've told you the point. The account shows that humans are innately sinful and in need for a saviour. If it happened or not really doesn't change this and of course it begs the question before the fall does that mean Adam didn't need God? Humans innately are separate from God (without or without a fall) and in need of divine intervention to fill that need. The point of the account is to establish that from the start we need God.

Even if this is so it does not alleviate the fact that the trinity violates the laws of logic.

Without God the logical problems go to how everything started or where everything came from. With God those logical problems are removed as God becomes the source. So God rescues the big bang from these logical problems. The difference with God is there is no claim to a beginning or an end and God preexists our space time continuum so cannot be measured by science as science is blinded to God. Although it doesn't answer the logic problems it puts God in a space outside the reach of science and so God cannot be measured including his substance.

 

[Clizby WampusCat]

That depends if morality itself is subjective. If it's relative then it looses its meaning and everything is equally good and evil.

This is untrue. When we decide on a subjective goal for morality actions can then be objectively determined to be good (advances that goal) or bad (hinders that goal).

God doesn't need to explain himself. I get that seems like a cop out answer but if there is a God it's happens to be true. A God that has to explain his every action or even a parent to a child is going to come to points where the recipient will not understand, it also challenges his authority to do so (and the parents). Just because it isn't clear doesn't mean it isn't good.

I agree, however a good parent will explain the important things in life like life or death or good and bad morality. God wants a relationship but he wants it one way. If I as a father did not explain my action to my children when they thought they were immoral and asking honest questions, I would be a bad father.

Death is a paradox to what God offers so I am unable to reconcile what is good and what is not and doing so would be just conjecture. All I can say at the end of the day is justice will overcome injustice and I believe it is the case with death of child as well.

Well why would you believe something without any good evidence?

Then the problem is unsolvable because that same logic can be used for the existence of God.

Except I was not using that fallacious argument you seemed to be. You seemed to be saying that you don't like the consequences of life without God so that is evidence god exists. I don't like the consequences of The God existing from the Bible but that is not why I don't believe.

An imperfect God would be a God with limits which is not God it's something else.

If you define God that way, ok. But there is no reason why that needs to be the case.

I've told you the point. The account shows that humans are innately sinful and in need for a saviour. If it happened or not really doesn't change this and of course it begs the question before the fall does that mean Adam didn't need God? Humans innately are separate from God (without or without a fall) and in need of divine intervention to fill that need. The point of the account is to establish that from the start we need God.

Yes, you have but you know that there are other Christians the believe different than you about Adam and Eve. Why should I believe your interpretation over theirs?

Without God the logical problems go to how everything started or where everything came from.

That is not a logical problem it is a problem of lack of good evidence. The Big Band does not contradict the laws of logic, the trinity does.

With God those logical problems are removed as God becomes the source. So God rescues the big bang from these logical problems. The difference with God is there is no claim to a beginning or an end and God preexists our space time continuum so cannot be measured by science as science is blinded to God. Although it doesn't answer the logic problems it puts God in a space outside the reach of science and so God cannot be measured including his substance.

Then demonstrate this is true and demonstrate the trinity does not violate the laws of logic. I am honest and saying I don't know why everything is here. You are claiming The God is the reason, you need good evidence.

 

[Bradskii]

Interesting discussion. But I do find that a lot of points get lost in the flurry of posts in the course of a thread. It becomes a lot clearer what people say (and presumably mean) if one reads the whole thread in one sitting. So I made some notes.

Paul4jc said that God does not author evil. And that atheists put all the evils of the world onto God. Even though, by definition, we don't believe He exists (it would be exactly the same as saying that I blame Vishnu).

Tolworth wants to know how we tell between good and bad. I personally don't have a problem.

Raymond says we teach our children the difference between good and bad, but only our perception of it as parents know no better - I wonder what he teaches his kids? So maybe he should talk to Tolworth. But he also says that God gives us what we desire (where's that 12 string guitar I've been coveting?).

Bling thinks it ok for a woman to be forced to marry a man. And Bling is married! Maybe he should check that with his wife. Or his daughter. He also sees no difference between being a slave or a slave owner because we're only here for a short time. Which would you prefer, Bling?

TedT says that God is preventing Satan being as evil as be wants to be (so presumably He allows him to be a little bit evil). He also thinks that genocide is ok even if it includes children and the unborn - they are no different to adults as regards sin. OldWiseGuy thought it more humane to slaughter the children as they would have died without their parents anyway. And Clint agreed and thought they might have wanted revenge as well.

OldWiseGuy said that God doesn't create evil. But RaymondG pointed out that God Himself contradicts that notion (and don't forget that He allows Satan to be a little bit evil).

Clint also pointed out that things were different back then. We don't have the same values. Alhough I'm not sure how that affects God's decisions. Why would He make a different decision about matters such as genocide based on what we currently think? Is He concerned about what we might think? I can't think of another reason.

And Damian suggested that if morality is subjective (things were different back then) then morality loses it's meaning. Missing the point that morality reflects the time and place in which we live (as Clint had recently pointed out).

OK...carry on, Cat. I'll join in again later.

 

[Rodan6]

How do you tell the difference between a good god and a bad god that is lying about being a good god? Christians refer to the Bible to indicate that God is good. Why isn't the possibility that God is bad and telling us he is good in the bible plausible? How would you know?

There is no such thing as a "bad God". Indeed, the Bible does feature accounts of an angry, brutal and intolerant God. But these accounts are not true. They reflect the limited understandings of humans who lived thousands of years ago, and long, long before Jesus' true revelation of a "Loving Father in Heaven".

 

[dóxatotheó]

How do you tell the difference between a good god and a bad god that is lying about being a good god? Christians refer to the Bible to indicate that God is good. Why isn't the possibility that God is bad and telling us he is good in the bible plausible? How would you know?

if God follows his own laws than we would know if hes good or not b our nature we know right from wrong just like by nature God does good always and never evil bible speaks about it in Romans