Is there anything a God could do that would make him evil?

[Moral Orel]

I think Scripture shows that Jesus was certainly hurt physically. I don’t think he was damage or injured mentally, though I do think the sin of those around Him did make Him sad for them.

God the Father isn’t a physical being, so He obviously can’t be harmed physically.

God as a Trinitarian being is relational by nature. He created us as relational beings. Sin hinders our relationship with God. So I would think that my sin does matter to God and on some level affects Him. But harms Him? Probably not.

However, there are many crimes people commit where the only person they harm is either nobody or themselves and they are still punished.

If I can't harm God in any way, how are my crimes "against" Him?

 

[SPF]

If I can't harm God in any way, how are my crimes "against" Him?

I think Jesus most certainly was harmed for my sins.

And why is harm a requirement for my sin to be against him anyway?

Are you suggesting that if someone steals $50 from my wallet that their crime is somehow less against me than if they stole $50 from you since I make a lot more money than you and I’m consequently “harmed” less than you?

 

[Moral Orel]

I think Jesus most certainly was harmed for my sins.

I didn't do that.

And why is harm a requirement for my sin to be against him anyway?

That's my question to you. How are my crimes "against" a person I can't and have never harmed?

Are you suggesting that if someone steals $50 from my wallet that their crime is somehow less against me than if they stole $50 from you since I make a lot more money than you and I’m consequently “harmed” less than you?

No. But if someone steals $50 from you, that is a crime against you, not a crime against me. If someone steals $50 from me, that is a crime against me, not a crime against you. Even in your analogies, crimes are "against" who they're harmed, not someone who isn't harmed. Earlier you talked about shooting a dog in the head as a crime against the dog, and shooting a man in the head as a crime against the man.

Now, you're saying that my crimes are against an eternal God, but I'm not doing Him any harm. So how does that work?

 

[SPF]

I didn't do that.

That's my question to you. How are my crimes "against" a person I can't and have never harmed?

No. But if someone steals $50 from you, that is a crime against you, not a crime against me. If someone steals $50 from me, that is a crime against me, not a crime against you. Even in your analogies, crimes are "against" who they're harmed, not someone who isn't harmed. Earlier you talked about shooting a dog in the head as a crime against the dog, and shooting a man in the head as a crime against the man.

Now, you're saying that my crimes are against an eternal God, but I'm not doing Him any harm. So how does that work?

I would suggest that sin is more harmful and far reaching than you give it credit for.

A husband who sins against his wife may end up destroying his marriage, and entire family, leaving deep rooted scars that affect his wife and his children. The impact of which may hit one of his children years later who then does something to wrong someone else that he never would have done had his father been in the picture.

Sin’s impact is far reaching.

All sin is ultimately against God, who is Creator. He will hold everyone accountable for their actions. Justice or Grace are the only two outcomes for all people. Justice or Grace are your only two options.

There are times where sin may not harm another but that doesn’t make it Ok.

As a business owner, I make 8 figures a year. Someone stealing $50 from my wallet would do me no tangible harm. Yet that doesn’t mean it’s not wrong or that the thief shouldn’t be held accountable.

 

[Moral Orel]

I would suggest that sin is more harmful and far reaching than you give it credit for.

A husband who sins against his wife may end up destroying his marriage, and entire family, leaving deep rooted scars that affect his wife and his children. The impact of which may hit one of his children years later who then does something to wrong someone else that he never would have done had his father been in the picture.

Sin’s impact is far reaching.

I have never and can never harm God. Whoever I harm is someone I've committed a crime against. I get that. But if I've never harmed God, and can never harm God, then how are my crimes "against" Him?

All sin is ultimately against God, who is Creator.

How? That's what I'm asking. If I'm not harming God, how is it "against" God?

As a business owner, I make 8 figures a year. Someone stealing $50 from my wallet would do me no tangible harm. Yet that doesn’t mean it’s not wrong or that the thief shouldn’t be held accountable.

No, it does tangible harm. Just because it's so minuscule that you don't care doesn't mean that it isn't tangible. $50 is tangible. I can't harm God at all, so it isn't an apt analogy.

 

[InterestedAtheist]

No, it’s like the analogy that I provided.

Define Harm.

Well, the most obvious definition - "cause physical injury to" immediately runs into problems, since God isn't physical.
So, therefore, God can't be harmed.
If He can't be harmed, then nothing you can do is capable of injuring him.
Therefore, if sin does not affect God, wherefore should he punish it?
No harm, no foul, as they say.

Jesus would disagree.

Maybe so, maybe not. But that's neither here nor there. What you need to do is substantiate your arguments.
God is infinitely great, we are infinitely small, and so are our sins.
Therefore, logically, our sins are too small to bother God.

Unless you’re a psychopath, it should actually be fairly obvious why a MGB would be good as opposed to evil. In fact, the primary argument against MGB in the past has been the problem of evil.

You haven't answered the question.
Why would a Maximally Great Being necessarily be good?

 

[yeshuaslavejeff]

What about the people on other continents?

If they get in the ARK, they survive.

 

[yeshuaslavejeff]

Really?

When was the last time you read the Bible?

Leviticus 26: 14-20

Daily.
I can't read your reference. Would you type it out in full? i.e. not a link nor reference, but the text, in context.

 

[Larniavc]

If they get in the ARK, they survive.

So people on other continents would have no chance of survival.

Very fair.

 

[SPF]

No, it does tangible harm. Just because it's so minuscule that you don't care doesn't mean that it isn't tangible. $50 is tangible. I can't harm God at all, so it isn't an apt analogy.

Scripture is clear that our sin does affect God. Does it do Him physical harm? Obviously not at this point. But God is relational, and sin hinders our relationship with Him. And Jesus did endure physical pain and suffering due to sin.

His death on the cross made it possible for you to be forgiven of your sins.

Well, the most obvious definition - "cause physical injury to" immediately runs into problems, since God isn't physical.
So, therefore, God can't be harmed.

You mean, God can’t be harmed physically. If you’re going to take the exclusive definition of harm as physical and ignore the other types of harm, then you need to remain consistent and say that God specifically can’t be harmed physically. You attempted to say that since God can’t be harmed physically that He can’t be harmed “at all”.

Therefore, logically, our sins are too small to bother God.

God is personal and intentional and desires a relationship with you. Therefore, all your sins matter to God. All your sin, from the smallest to the biggest hinders your relationship with Him.

You haven't answered the question.
Why would a Maximally Great Being necessarily be good?

I know you’re not actually an “Interested” Atheist, so I won’t entertain you with the basics of the ontological argument. You’re welcome to do some personal study so you can be InterestedAtheist instead of IgnorantAtheist.

 

[SPF]

Isaiah 59:2

Sin involves man's relationship with his Maker. According to this verse, sin damages and can even sever that relationship: "Your iniquities have separated you from your God; and your sins have hidden His face from you, so that He will not hear." Crime is offense against man's laws, enacted by human legislative bodies. Which law, according to God's Word, has precedence? In the Bible, God clearly establishes His supreme position, as well as the individual's and human government's relationships to Him.

Hebrews 9:15-17

Christ did this so that we can serve God. Thus, in order for us to serve God personally, we must be close to Him. Sin separates! What does sin do to relationships, either with humans or with God? It divides. When a person steals from another, do they become closer? If a spouse commits adultery, does that bring a married couple closer? No, it drives them apart. If a person covets something belonging to another person, does their relationship blossom? Sin separates.

Above all, it separates us from God. How can we be close to Him as long as we are sinning? Something had to be done, first of all, to bridge the gap: The sins had to be forgiven. Therefore, Jesus Christ, when He qualified by being blameless, voluntarily offered Himself to be the sacrifice that would overcome the division.

Before He did this, knowing He would die, He made out a will. He said, "When I die, those who take advantage of My death will inherit what I have inherited." The inheritance is to be in His Family! With it goes all the other promises: the promises of the Holy Spirit, eternal life, all the gifts, continual forgiveness, etc.

Whatever is needed, He will supply it. He will continue to stand between God and us, for a priest is one who bridges the gap between different parties to bring them together. He is saying, "When I am resurrected, I will always stand in the gap and be there when you need Me, and I will administer the Spirit of God."

Being brought close to God not only enables us to serve Him, it also enables the Father to serve us. Because we are in His presence, He can distribute to us the gifts than enable us to continue. Christ, then, is shown to be the Sacrifice for forgiveness of sin; the Mediator of peace between God and us; the Testator who died, passing on the benefits to us. These benefits work to remove the flaw, allowing us to keep the terms of the New Covenant.

We can then have a sustained and wonderful relationship with God. We can have His laws written on our hearts (Hebrews 8:10) and so be transformed into His image, qualified to share the inheritance of the promises with Him because we are like Him.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

I have never and can never harm God. Whoever I harm is someone I've committed a crime against. I get that. But if I've never harmed God, and can never harm God, then how are my crimes "against" Him?


How? That's what I'm asking. If I'm not harming God, how is it "against" God?


No, it does tangible harm. Just because it's so minuscule that you don't care doesn't mean that it isn't tangible. $50 is tangible. I can't harm God at all, so it isn't an apt analogy.

C'mon, Moral! I think you know the answer to this riddle. Even Jesus gave some indication about 'how' moral/immoral activity can be framed as being either 'for' or 'against' the Lord, and He did it in such a way that it should make just about every person who claims to be a Christian think twice about the quality of his or her Christianity.

 

[yeshuaslavejeff]

So people on other continents would have no chance of survival.

Very fair.

IF THEY GET IN THE ARK they will be saved.

 

[Moral Orel]

C'mon, Moral! I think you know the answer to this riddle. Even Jesus gave some indication about 'how' moral/immoral activity can be framed as being either 'for' or 'against' the Lord, and He did it in such a way that it should make just about every person who claims to be a Christian think twice about the quality of his or her Christianity.

I can think of some other contexts to use the word "against", sure. But to explain who a crime is committed "against", no, I actually don't know how you can commit a crime against a person who cannot be harmed.

 

[yeshuaslavejeff]

I can think of some other contexts to use the word "against", sure. But to explain who a crime is committed "against", no, I actually don't know how you can commit a crime against a person who cannot be harmed.

A person ?

Stealing from a person would be a crime, and would not necessarily hurt them at all.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

I can think of some other contexts to use the word "against", sure. But to explain who a crime is committed "against", no, I actually don't know how you can commit a crime against a person who cannot be harmed.

The first clue for us to consider in all of this talk about the ethereal contours of "justice" as they apply to the biblical concepts of God is to recognize that if we're talking about Christianity, we know we're NOT talking about various Post-Enlightement/Modern notions of justice employed today across the world.

So, our attempt to understand the Metaphysical and Axiological principles involved in a human sin being seen as actively asserted "against" God isn't going to come by perusing various tomes of modern legal thought, now is it?

 

[Moral Orel]

The first clue for us to consider in all of this talk about the ethereal contours of "justice" as they apply to the biblical concepts of God is to recognize that if we're talking about Christianity, we know we're NOT talking about various Post-Enlightement/Modern notions of justice employed today across the world.

So, our attempt to understand the Metaphysical and Axiological principles involved in a human sin being seen as actively asserted "against" God isn't going to come by perusing various tomes of modern legal thought, now is it?

I don't think my thoughts are particularly modern in all this. Eye for an eye, tooth for a tooth and all.

 

[yeshuaslavejeff]

I don't think my thoughts are particularly modern in all this. Eye for an eye, tooth for a tooth and all.

It seems A LOT OF PEOPLE , all over the earth, agree with an eye for an eye (or even MORE), TODAY.
If so, it is very modern.

Not good. Not right. But modern, yes.

 

[Moral Orel]

It seems A LOT OF PEOPLE , all over the earth, agree with an eye for an eye (or even MORE), TODAY.
If so, it is very modern.

Not good. Not right. But modern, yes.

It's ancient.

 

[yeshuaslavejeff]

It's ancient.

So?
The TRUTH IS OLDER!

And MODERN BELIEVERS BELIEVE THE TRUTH !

MODERN UNBELIEVERS believe an eye for an eye, and other lies.