Resolving a Paradox

[lucaspa]

If I accidently rear-end someone while driving my car, I am held responsible and suffer, as a result, much larger insurance fees and an increase in the cost of my driver's license renewal. In a very tangible way, I am punished for doing something destructive that I did not intend to do.

This is a human system. The question is: does God operate the same way? Remember, Jesus prevented the punishment of the adulteress at the well. He prevented the operation of the responsibility and suffering of the offender.

The horribleness of Christ's death demonstrated the magnitude of the potential for depravity in humanity,

Many people have noted the horribleness of God's actions in the OT. If you are going to use human activity to conclude "the magnitude of the potential for depravity in humanity" you are also going to have to use God's activity to conclude "the magnitude of the potential for depravity in God". Sauce for the goose.

I think you would want to rethink your argument here.

BTW, there are execution styles that are at least as horrible as crucifixion.

 

[aiki]

This is a human system. The question is: does God operate the same way? Remember, Jesus prevented the punishment of the adulteress at the well. He prevented the operation of the responsibility and suffering of the offender.

My example was in response to untunhud's comments about how punishment ought to take into account whether or not evil consequences were intended by the one being punished. I was not making any particular characterization of how God deals with us.

Why did Jesus prevent the stoning of the adulteress? Do you think other adulteresses had been stoned before this moment? If so, why did God not intervene to prevent their deaths as Jesus did for the one brought before him?

Many people have noted the horribleness of God's actions in the OT. If you are going to use human activity to conclude "the magnitude of the potential for depravity in humanity" you are also going to have to use God's activity to conclude "the magnitude of the potential for depravity in God". Sauce for the goose.

I think you would want to rethink your argument here.

No, I think not. To begin with, you are making a fundamental error in comparison. God is not human. You're also making the mistake of assuming that something that is terrible is also necessarily evil. Sometimes a surgeon must cut off a person's limb in order to save that person's life. Its an awful, bloody, painful thing to have to do, but it is not therefore evil. In spite of the terrible nature of the act of cutting off a limb, the surgeon is not guilty of having done something evil. Likewise, God is not depraved because He righteously judges and punishes sin. He destroyed the wicked in the OT because they were wicked, not because He was depraved.

Peace.

 

[untunhud]

I think God has excellent reasons for why He punishes sin, some of which I have shared with you.

[FONT=&quot]I do not agree that the reasons you have given for punishing people forever are excellent. Looking at these reasons again:[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]God hates sin with a perfect hatred because he is holy and just. He cannot love what is evil. He must punish sin. [/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]This reason depends on the claim that sin is so terrible that he is obliged to give a terrible punishment for it. [/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]In support of this claim you say sin is in defiance of God. The deed is against God and it is an entirely different thing to slap God in the face who is our creator than some ordinary Joe Schmo. You then give a list of impressive qualities possessed by God in support of a magnified view of God. [/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]A list of impressive attributes might be a good reason to feel impressed, awed, amazed but is not a good reason to punish disobedience. To explain why I think this, I shall give my views on the nature of morality and punishment. Why bother having morality? What is the point of following an arbitrary set of rules/principles? It seems to me that the purpose of morality is to make our world a better place to live in. A world in which killing was avoided and opposed is a better world than one in which killing is indulged in and tolerated. In other words, morality is about promoting the welfare of all. Otherwise what would be the point of morality? Thus wearing white socks is a trivial matter because it hardly impinges on the welfare of others, whereas genocide certainly does impinge on the welfare of others. A part of morality is punishment. The purpose of punishment I believe is to deter harmful behaviour. Retribution seems to me some kind of side-bonus because if all our feelings of retribution vanished tomorrow, it would still be madness not to punish criminals because of the lawless society that would result. In other words I think deterrence is the real reason for punishment. However, if God has a list of impressive qualities it is not clear to me that any real harm is done by disobeying him and that therefore such disobedience should be deterred. You may be thinking of reasons why disobedience of God does cause harm but at this moment I am saying that God having a number of impressive qualifications, merely because they are impressive, does not show that disobedience of God causes harm. Disobeying a magnificent being does not necessarily cause harm. [/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]Another reason you give, however, is that God's wisdom, love, justice and holiness are reflected in his commands. Holiness seems to be a meaningless word, unless it means hating sin or disobedience to God in which case we have a somewhat circular reason for obeying God (because he hates to be disobeyed). But you say that if God is all-wise and all-just then it is a no-brainer to do what he says. However, before we can trust in God we have to make the judgement that God is all-wise and all-just. You mention that the truth of his wisdom lies in our experience but I have not seen this in my own experience. You also mention we can catch a glimpse of his awesome wisdom in his creation. But it all depends on to what level of detail God is responsible for the creation. If all he has to do is say 'Be!' and all the details of the creation are taken care of automatically then not much wisdom would be needed for creating a universe. And we have no way of knowing to what level of detail God is responsible for the creation. Moreover God may be wise in some things but not in others. Thus he might be wise in the technicalities of creating a universe but not in matters of justice. So I dont think we can know that God is all-wise and all-just. That is why I suggest we should work things out for ourselves. But if God (or anyone) gave a good reason for us to do something or avoid doing something else, showing that certain behaviour is harmful, for instance, and thus should be avoided, then we would have an obligation which would be based on the reason given and not because God ordered it. You also mention that sins (even apparently trivial sins) cause the most terrible consequences, but I see no evidence of this just as no-one as far as I know sees evidence that good deeds cause the most terrible consequences. [/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]Now I think that experience suggests that different things make different people happy. One person's idea of happiness is another person's idea of misery. This contradicts the notion that there is a single best way to live as designed by God. Thus it seems to me more sensible for people to find their own way to live so long as they do no harm to others, since there is no good evidence that there is a single best way to live or that there is a being who knows what that best way to live is. [/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]Another reason you give is that hell gives the sinner what they want: an existence devoid of God. But a person who wants to live a life without religion does not necessarily want to experience eternal torment. You might then say it is not possible to have the one and not the other, but then either God is limited in power (he cannot simply annihilate the existence of nontheists) or else you would have to rely on other reasons why God must punish the nonreligious. Moreover there are people who want a life with God but just happen to worship a different God probably because of the way they were brought up and because of the social pressures in the community in which they live. Yet these people would be condemned for not being Christian. [/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]The final reason that you give for hell (as far as I can see) is that disobedience of God spurns the gift of salvation and tremendous love, grace and mercy in that gift. But this presupposes that we need salvation in the first place which would be based on the idea that God must punish us for reasons given above which do not convince me of their excellence. [/FONT]

From where do you derive these conditions? What is the source for them?

[FONT=&quot]Firstly I would point out that it is hard to generalise in morality, or in other words there are few if any absolute principles in morality. Principles have exceptions but exceptions cannot be arbitrary; there must be a reason for the exception. [/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]As a rule of thumb then punishment should only be given where the perpetrator could have chosen to do otherwise. The reason for this is because there is no point in trying to deter behaviour that cannot be helped since it will be ineffective. You thus cause unnecessary suffering. An exception to this rule might be if there are prescribed punishments e.g. fines for the same offence and it is impractical and not worth the effort to determine whether the perpetrator could have done otherwise in each case. But the more serious the punishment the greater effort should be expended to ensure that the perpetrator could have done otherwise, since this minimises the risk of suffering for all persons. Hence in your example of accidentally backing into somebody's car, I presume it would be impractical to investigate each case and determine whether such an accident could have been avoided before applying penalties. As for the example with the accidentally discharged firearm, in this case the perpetrator should have been more careful with the firearm so the perpetrator in this case could have avoided the accident e.g.by keeping firearms locked up or by not having any firearms at all. [/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]Obviously then from the above principle if you could not know that an action has certain harmful consequences you cannot be punished for it. For instance if unknown to me every time I step on a crack in the pavement/sidewalk somebody dies in China then I cannot be punished for stepping on a crack because there is no way that I could know of such a thing given that there is no plausible connection between the two events. Even if somebody came up to me to warn me of this, I would not be obliged to believe him because of the lack of evidence. [/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]I claimed that punishment should be humane if possible. One reason for this is that carrying out inhumane punishment is degrading and corrupting to the one carrying it out. Another reason is if persons who have not committed any inhumane acts are given inhumane punishment for other kinds of offences this increases the risk of terrible suffering for all which is unnecessary. Thus with God's policy of hell there is at present a roughly 2 in 3 chance of going to hell. You can say that if you can't do the time then don't do the crime, but we all have our weak moments which different situations and even our gene make-up can bring out so we need a system that gives the right balance between deterring harmful behaviour and making it possible to avoid punishment. Some people would argue that you should not even give cruel and inhumane punishment to those who have practised such a thing themselves, but I am not going to pursue this line of thought as I am unsure of my ground. [/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]Finally I claimed punishment should be roughly proportionate to the offence. For example you would not execute somebody for theft. Again this is about creating the right balance between deterring harmful behaviour and making it easy to avoid punishment. If punishments were too lenient then there is the risk of harm from people behaving badly who are not deterred. If punishments are too severe then there is an increased risk of suffering caused by making a mistake which we are all prone to do. [/FONT]

I'm afraid I don't understand your aside about the Alpha and Omega and the Most Superior Woman. Could you explain, please?

[FONT=&quot]She Who Must Be Obeyed is so superior, so intelligent and so beautiful that all men must do what she says otherwise she is entitled to punish them severely. She cannot be compared to any other man or woman. It is one thing to disobey the ordinary Joe Schmo, quite another to disobey She Who Must Be Obeyed. [/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]The Alpha and Omega is so powerful, so wise, so good, etc etc that everyone must do what he says otherwise he is entitled to punish them severely. He cannot be compared to any human. It is one thing to disobey Joe Schmo, quite another to disobey the Alpha and Omega. [/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]I think both the above notions are nonsensical for the same reason, which is the assumption that attributes can be possessed to such a degree that you are entitled to obedience and to punish disobedience severely. I have argued against this assumption in the above paragraph regarding a list of impressive attributes. [/FONT]

The horribleness of Christ's death demonstrated the magnitude of the potential for depravity in humanity, and also the tremendous depth of love and resolve Christ had in saving us from our own sin. I think it was and still is vital for these things to have been demonstrated to us.

[FONT=&quot]Finally you say that Christ's sacrifice is necessary to demonstrate the potential for depravity. But this is already demonstrated by human depravity itself e.g by the holocaust or atrocities committed before Christ such as the Assyrians skinning people alive or other crucifixions taking place. Christ's sacrifice is also necessary, you say, to demonstrate the depth of love and resolve in saving us from our own sin. But I have argued that hell serves no useful purpose. It is pointless suffering and is not justice. So no such self-inflicted suffering is necessary although it is beyond me why such a sacrifice would save us anyway. So why demonstrate the lengths to which Jesus is prepared to make a pointless sacrifice? [/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]All that is needed is to close down God's version of Guantanamo. [/FONT]

 

[aiki]

God hates sin with a perfect hatred because he is holy and just. He cannot love what is evil. He must punish sin.

This reason depends on the claim that sin is so terrible that he is obliged to give a terrible punishment for it. God hates sin with a perfect hatred because he is holy and just. He cannot love what is evil. He must punish sin.

I'm sorry, but I don't follow your reasoning here. How is the fact that God is perfectly holy and hates sin dependent on the sin being so terrible that God is obliged to punish it?

Sin is "so terrible" because of who God is. It is human thinking that stratifies evil behaviour, putting murder at the top and white lies at the bottom. The immediate consequences of murder may be greater than telling a white lie, but the nature of both deeds is evil. Telling a "harmless" lie is worthy of the same punishment as murdering someone because both defy the Creator's command not to do these things.

A list of impressive attributes might be a good reason to feel impressed, awed, amazed but is not a good reason to punish disobedience.

Those attributes are what the Creator of the universe has revealed to us of His nature. They may or may not impress, but they define and order the way in which God interacts with us. It may be amazing that God is perfectly holy, but that holiness means that God despises our unholy behaviour. It may be awesome that God is just, but His just nature means He will not let sin go unpunished.

Our sin is not evil because God is merely impressive, but because He is God. He made us and continues to sustain each of us every moment we live. Our very existence is due to Him and is totally dependent upon Him. As our Creator and Sustainer, God is due our obedience. Who better to guide our thinking, our values, and our morals than the One who made us?

Why bother having morality? What is the point of following an arbitrary set of rules/principles? It seems to me that the purpose of morality is to make our world a better place to live in.

And how do you arrive at this basis for morality? How do justify elevating your moral basis above one that defines what is "better" very differently from you? For instance, in middle eastern countries it is moral to murder your daughter in the street if she does anything to dishonor the family. In the North American culture, we object, generally, to such "morality." But on what basis can we object? What gives us the authority to say that honor killing is wrong when others believe it is right? For these people who kill their "dishonorable" daughters, a "better" society and morality requires such killing. On what basis do you say they ought to have a different concept of what "better" is?

A world in which killing was avoided and opposed is a better world than one in which killing is indulged in and tolerated. In other words, morality is about promoting the welfare of all.

And others disagree with you. Some think killing is very necessary to achieving a better world. How are they wrong and you are right? To what can you appeal in asserting your view over theirs?

In other words I think deterrence is the real reason for punishment. However, if God has a list of impressive qualities it is not clear to me that any real harm is done by disobeying him and that therefore such disobedience should be deterred.

I don't think you're being careful in considering what those divine qualities mean. Simply calling them impressive is just about the most superficial response you could give.

All of God's qualities are framed by His position as Sovereign and Creator of the universe. He isn't just another inhabitant of the cosmos; He is the Maker of it all and the Source of its continuation.

You may be thinking of reasons why disobedience of God does cause harm but at this moment I am saying that God having a number of impressive qualifications, merely because they are impressive, does not show that disobedience of God causes harm. Disobeying a magnificent being does not necessarily cause harm.

It does when that "magnificence" is indicative of His perfect capacity and right to command us. He knows, as our Creator, exactly the best way for us to be. It is the height of arrogance and foolishness to presume to know better than He, yet we humans carry on as though we do all the time. Such folly is wickedness, as far as God is concerned - especially when He has clearly explained and demonstrated how we ought to live.

Another reason you give, however, is that God's wisdom, love, justice and holiness are reflected in his commands. Holiness seems to be a meaningless word, unless it means hating sin or disobedience to God in which case we have a somewhat circular reason for obeying God (because he hates to be disobeyed).

I don't mean to be offensive, but "holiness" is only "meaningless" to those who aren't holy.

One can argue that there are beneficial reasons for doing what God says. We ought to do what is right because it is better for us. The bottom line, though, is that we ought to do what is right because it is right. And God has every right to hate it when we disobey Him. Who do we think we are to disobey the One who made us? The pride in such defiance of God is staggering!

You mention that the truth of his wisdom lies in our experience but I have not seen this in my own experience.

There are many things that are true that lie outside your experience.

You also mention we can catch a glimpse of his awesome wisdom in his creation. But it all depends on to what level of detail God is responsible for the creation. If all he has to do is say 'Be!' and all the details of the creation are taken care of automatically then not much wisdom would be needed for creating a universe.

Taken care of "automatically"? By what, if not God Himself? The Bible tells us that God - and only God - is responsible for all that is. It is His power and wisdom that upholds all things.

And we have no way of knowing to what level of detail God is responsible for the creation. Moreover God may be wise in some things but not in others.

If this were true, He would be no God at all! Goodness, what an odd and trivial concept of God you have!

Thus he might be wise in the technicalities of creating a universe but not in matters of justice. So I dont think we can know that God is all-wise and all-just.

You have just given a series of speculations, not reasoned arguments, and certainly not proof of what you're suggesting.

That is why I suggest we should work things out for ourselves. But if God (or anyone) gave a good reason for us to do something or avoid doing something else, showing that certain behaviour is harmful, for instance, and thus should be avoided, then we would have an obligation which would be based on the reason given and not because God ordered it. You also mention that sins (even apparently trivial sins) cause the most terrible consequences, but I see no evidence of this just as no-one as far as I know sees evidence that good deeds cause the most terrible consequences.

If you are making your own thinking the final arbiter of all things true, you are always going to have the above perspective. I have made my case from the Bible, which is the basis for theology and doctrine for the Christian. I have given you the Christian perspective, a biblical viewpoint, on God. If you wish to adopt another view, so be it. But so far your views have merely been conclusions drawn from superficial thinking and baseless conjecture. It is very obvious to me now why God is so diminished in your thinking.

The most "terrible consequence" of sin is an eternity in hell. Any sin results in this consequence. It is, then, very prudent to avoid all sin, however trivial.

Now I think that experience suggests that different things make different people happy. One person's idea of happiness is another person's idea of misery. This contradicts the notion that there is a single best way to live as designed by God. Thus it seems to me more sensible for people to find their own way to live so long as they do no harm to others, since there is no good evidence that there is a single best way to live or that there is a being who knows what that best way to live is.

Well, you can follow your own way, or God's way. It's up to you. If you understand God as revealed in the Bible, you will see the wisdom of following His commands. If you deny that God is as the Bible says He is, then you will find your own way. The idea that there is no evidence that God's way is the best is, however, flatly untrue. I would recommend reading "How Christianity Changed the World" by Alvin J. Schmidt. It will show you how profoundly mistaken you are in this assertion.

Another reason you give is that hell gives the sinner what they want: an existence devoid of God. But a person who wants to live a life without religion does not necessarily want to experience eternal torment.

So? A person who jumps off a cliff in order to live a life free of gravity may not want the fatal impact with the ground that results, but that's just the way it is.

You might then say it is not possible to have the one and not the other, but then either God is limited in power (he cannot simply annihilate the existence of nontheists) or else you would have to rely on other reasons why God must punish the nonreligious.

God's nature results in somewhat predictable outcomes. Its possible He could do other than He has decided to do, but this would not be in keeping with His revealed nature. In a sense He is limited: He cannot do evil; He cannot love sin; He cannot leave the guilty unpunished.

The final reason that you give for hell (as far as I can see) is that disobedience of God spurns the gift of salvation and tremendous love, grace and mercy in that gift. But this presupposes that we need salvation in the first place which would be based on the idea that God must punish us for reasons given above which do not convince me of their excellence.

I'm not here to convince you of the truth. That's God's job. I can tell you what the Bible says, but whether or not you want to accept its truth is not my primary concern. I am here to give a Christian answer to questions and offer support to those who would like biblical advice and/or encouragement. If you aren't convinced, well, that's too bad. God'll have to fix that - or not.

Firstly I would point out that it is hard to generalise in morality, or in other words there are few if any absolute principles in morality.

There are none if God isn't the basis for them.

I will have to finish responding to your last post later. I'm out of time for now.

Peace.

 

[pilgrimage]

Hello I'm Peter Jones.

I was wondering if you could help me sort out some difficulties I have been having.

It has always seemed obvious to me that Christianity is true. There is basically the empty tomb mentioned in the Gospels as well as the appearances of Jesus to the disciples which are impossible to explain by theories like the conspiracy theory, hallucination theory, wrong tomb theory and so on. As I cant think of any other theory to explain these things so I thought it must be true. Not to mention various other reasons.

Then I've been exploring different things on the internet and I came across this Zeitgeist movie. And it was saying how all these mythical beings like Horus from ancient Egypt had all these similarities to Jesus so Jesus must be a myth that was copied from other myths. There was something also about the crucifixion coming from the Sun being crucified on the Southern Cross. Also Jesus is not mentioned by historians living at the same time. Tacitus and others like him only mention him some time after the crucifixion. I cant explain these things without supposing that Jesus was some kind of myth.

So I' m coming to opposite conclusions which is very puzzling and I think I am going wrong somewhere. Any advice?

Zietgiest simply means spirit of the age, this being the age of grace would be the Holy Spirit, no other spirit would have more presidence. If you want to refute them then stick to arguments about the Holy Spirit and don't waver from that. You could start with the Spirit brooding over the waters. The Holy Spirit predated Jesus in the flesh but not Jesus as He really is, spirit and truth.

 

[aiki]

As a rule of thumb then punishment should only be given where the perpetrator could have chosen to do otherwise. The reason for this is because there is no point in trying to deter behaviour that cannot be helped since it will be ineffective.

Are you saying a sociopath who cannot help killing people should not be deterred from his behaviour? How is it determined what behaviour can and cannot be helped?

Obviously then from the above principle if you could not know that an action has certain harmful consequences you cannot be punished for it. For instance if unknown to me every time I step on a crack in the pavement/sidewalk somebody dies in China then I cannot be punished for stepping on a crack because there is no way that I could know of such a thing given that there is no plausible connection between the two events. Even if somebody came up to me to warn me of this, I would not be obliged to believe him because of the lack of evidence.

If, however, there was evidence that bore out the claim of this person that your crack-stepping was killing people in China, would you not be obligated at least to err on the side of caution and avoid stepping on cracks in the future?

I claimed that punishment should be humane if possible. One reason for this is that carrying out inhumane punishment is degrading and corrupting to the one carrying it out.

What constitutes humane and inhumane punishment? From where do you derive the standard from which to make such a characterization of punishment?

What if you think a certain punishment is "inhumane" but the one who is executing that punishment does not? If he thinks the punishment is perfectly appropriate, will delivering such punishment "degrade and corrupt" him?

Thus with God's policy of hell there is at present a roughly 2 in 3 chance of going to hell.

???

You can say that if you can't do the time then don't do the crime, but we all have our weak moments which different situations and even our gene make-up can bring out so we need a system that gives the right balance between deterring harmful behaviour and making it possible to avoid punishment.

God has provided just such a system in the person of His Son, Jesus Christ. God knows "we are dust" and is well-acquainted with our moral "infirmities." He knows we cannot on our own be "holy as He is holy." Consequently, He has offered His own Son as a sacrifice for our sins so that we might be forgiven of our sins and stand justified, or declared legally righteous, before Him and thereby enter into a personal relationship with Him. He imparts to those who take His gift of salvation, His own Holy Spirit who enables the Christian believer to live free of the dominating power of sin.

Finally I claimed punishment should be roughly proportionate to the offence. For example you would not execute somebody for theft. Again this is about creating the right balance between deterring harmful behaviour and making it easy to avoid punishment. If punishments were too lenient then there is the risk of harm from people behaving badly who are not deterred. If punishments are too severe then there is an increased risk of suffering caused by making a mistake which we are all prone to do.

None of this applies to God who sees all things rightly and judges perfectly. You are describing a system that is appropriate for fallible, finite, flawed human beings, not the all-knowing, all-wise, all-powerful Creator of the universe.

I think both the above notions are nonsensical for the same reason, which is the assumption that attributes can be possessed to such a degree that you are entitled to obedience and to punish disobedience severely. I have argued against this assumption in the above paragraph regarding a list of impressive attributes.

Along with the comments I have made in my last post, I would like to demonstrate to you from our human sphere how incorrect you are in your thinking here. If I slap my sister in the face, she is likely to cry out in surprise and try to slap me back. If I slap my boss in the face, he is likely to fire me and press assault charges. If I slap a police officer in the face, I will be roughly arrested and end up in court facing charges, and possibly spend some time in jail. If I slap the Prime Minister of Canada in the face, I may be shot and killed by bodyguards trying to protect the Prime Minister from harm. As the attributes of authority and power of each person increase in each instance of face-slapping, the consequences to the same action grow increasingly severe. If I can face such serious consequences slapping the face of the Prime Minister of Canada, how much greater the consequences when offending the Maker of the Universe?

Finally you say that Christ's sacrifice is necessary to demonstrate the potential for depravity.

This is by no means its sole purpose.

But this is already demonstrated by human depravity itself e.g by the holocaust or atrocities committed before Christ such as the Assyrians skinning people alive or other crucifixions taking place. Christ's sacrifice is also necessary, you say, to demonstrate the depth of love and resolve in saving us from our own sin. But I have argued that hell serves no useful purpose. It is pointless suffering and is not justice.

I'm afraid your arguments have not been very successful, which I have tried to point out by various comments and questions.

So no such self-inflicted suffering is necessary although it is beyond me why such a sacrifice would save us anyway. So why demonstrate the lengths to which Jesus is prepared to make a pointless sacrifice?

Paul the apostle wrote:

1 Corinthians 1:18-25
18 For the message of the cross is foolishness to those who are perishing, but to us who are being saved it is the power of God.
19 For it is written: "I will destroy the wisdom of the wise, And bring to nothing the understanding of the prudent."
20 Where is the wise? Where is the scribe? Where is the disputer of this age? Has not God made foolish the wisdom of this world?
21 For since, in the wisdom of God, the world through wisdom did not know God, it pleased God through the foolishness of the message preached to save those who believe.
22 For Jews request a sign, and Greeks seek after wisdom;
23 but we preach Christ crucified, to the Jews a stumbling block and to the Greeks foolishness,
24 but to those who are called, both Jews and Greeks, Christ the power of God and the wisdom of God.
25 Because the foolishness of God is wiser than men, and the weakness of God is stronger than men.

Don't be so wise in your own mind that you become a fool.

Peace.

 

[lucaspa]

Why did Jesus prevent the stoning of the adulteress? Do you think other adulteresses had been stoned before this moment? If so, why did God not intervene to prevent their deaths as Jesus did for the one brought before him?

Why do you think Jesus prevented the stoning? Because she was innocent? Jesus never says that.

I think it is a matter of timing. God was changing the rules. This is the first example of the new rules.

To begin with, you are making a fundamental error in comparison. God is not human.

So morality does not apply to Him?

You're also making the mistake of assuming that something that is terrible is also necessarily evil. ... Likewise, God is not depraved because He righteously judges and punishes sin. ...He destroyed the wicked in the OT because they were wicked, not because He was depraved.

But in some of the OT acts He punishes the innocent. Remember, God may be punishing the "sin" in Sodom and Gomorrah, but there are babies there who did not share in the sin. Yet God kills them all. He knocks down the walls of Jericho so that the Israelites can slaughter every man, woman, and child in the city. What "sin" was being punished? That they lived in Canaan when no one else was there? The "sin" of living in a land that God now gave to the Hebrews? That is "sin"?

In Exodus there is a group of people who disagree with Moses. They are not wicked nor depraved. They simply have grievances with how Moses is leading them. According to the text, Moses invites them all to the tent for a conference, then ducks out the back. God sets the tent on fire and burns them all alive.

 

[lucaspa]

My example was in response to untunhud's comments about how punishment ought to take into account whether or not evil consequences were intended by the one being punished. I was not making any particular characterization of how God deals with us.

But the whole conversation is about how God deals with us. So your example had nothing to do with God? Are you saying God doesn't need to punish if the consequences were not intended? Or are you saying that God should punish sin no matter that the sinner did not intend the consequences?

 

[lucaspa]

Sin is "so terrible" because of who God is. ...Telling a "harmless" lie is worthy of the same punishment as murdering someone because both defy the Creator's command not to do these things.

Wow.

Those attributes are what the Creator of the universe has revealed to us of His nature.

By your logic above the Creator is neither very flexible nor very thoughtful if He thinks a white lie is the same as murder. BTW, the commandment is against false witness, which is a limited subset of not telling the truth. It is a deliberate telling of a lie in order to cause harm to someone. White lies are not false witness.

It may be awesome that God is just, but His just nature means He will not let sin go unpunished.

Well, then, you just wiped out forgiveness and Christianity! After all, God forgives and does not punish our sin.

As our Creator and Sustainer, God is due our obedience.

One of the messages of Genesis 1 is that do not owe obedience to God. God created us for our own sakes.

All of God's qualities are framed by His position as Sovereign and Creator of the universe. He isn't just another inhabitant of the cosmos; He is the Maker of it all and the Source of its continuation.

True. But that doesn't make Him tyrant, does it? I could say I am the "maker" of my children. They would not exist except for me. How much power to punish does that give me over them?

The bottom line, though, is that we ought to do what is right because it is right. ...There are none [morals] if God isn't the basis for them.

There you have 2 contradictory positions on morals. They are in different parts of your post but I wanted to put them together. A very old question: Is something "right" because God commands it or does God command it because it is "right"?

The first sentence I quoted from you answers yes to the second option. The second sentence is the first option.

If something is right because it is right, then morals are independent of God. God isn't the basis of morals, but instead God instructs us in morals. But it means that we can figure out morals on our own. It also means that God has to do what is "right". You can't get God off the hook by simply saying "God is God and whatever He does is right." If something, like genocide, is immoral as we have determined morals independently, then genocide is immoral if God does it. So when God orders the genocide of the Amelekites, He is giving an immoral order.

 

[aiki]

lucaspa:

You actually aren't supposed to be directing your posts to other respondents. See forum rules.

By your logic above the Creator is neither very flexible nor very thoughtful if He thinks a white lie is the same as murder.

He certainly isn't "flexible" in the way we humans are. The Bible makes it quite clear that God has no part whatsoever in darkness and wickedness. From what I see in the Bible, He doesn't "flex" on this in the slightest.

BTW, the commandment is against false witness, which is a limited subset of not telling the truth. It is a deliberate telling of a lie in order to cause harm to someone. White lies are not false witness.

Is this an example of the "flexibility" you're talking about? Here's some of what the Bible says about lying:

John 8:44
44 You are of your father the devil, and the desires of your father you want to do. He was a murderer from the beginning, and does not stand in the truth, because there is no truth in him. When he speaks a lie, he speaks from his own resources, for he is a liar and the father of it.

Are lies, then, more in keeping with God's character, or the devil's? This verse gives a crystal clear answer. As children of God, we ought to reflect His character, not Satan's. There is no room for "white lies."

Colossians 3:9
9 Do not lie to one another, since you have put off the old man with his deeds,

Titus 1:2
2 in hope of eternal life which God, who cannot lie, promised before time began,

Proverbs 19:22
22 What is desired in a man is kindness, And a poor man is better than a liar.

Jeremiah 9:5-6
5 Everyone will deceive his neighbor, And will not speak the truth; They have taught their tongue to speak lies; They weary themselves to commit iniquity.
6 Your dwelling place is in the midst of deceit; Through deceit they refuse to know Me," says the Lord.

Well, then, you just wiped out forgiveness and Christianity! After all, God forgives and does not punish our sin.

As I have explained, He is also merciful and loving. As a result, He has made a way to satisfy all the demands of His character, His holiness as well as His love, His justice as well as His mercy. We call this way the Gospel. The punishment of our sin was not set aside; it was suffered for us by Christ.

One of the messages of Genesis 1 is that do not owe obedience to God. God created us for our own sakes.

Oh? How so? And what about the other places in Scripture where it is made clear that we were not created "for own sakes" but for God's?

True. But that doesn't make Him tyrant, does it?

I've never characterized God as a "tyrant."

I could say I am the "maker" of my children. They would not exist except for me. How much power to punish does that give me over them?

Actually, you can't say you're their maker in anything like the sense in which God does. You have no control over whether or not conception will take place or what the attributes of the child will be. God does. He determines in every detail the physical nature and basic character of the human life He brings into being. You do not. Perhaps if you had the absolute control over the giving and shaping of a life as the True Maker does, you might have the same absolute grounds upon which to judge and punish that life.

There you have 2 contradictory positions on morals. They are in different parts of your post but I wanted to put them together. A very old question: Is something "right" because God commands it or does God command it because it is "right"?

The answer to the euthyphro question is that His commands are right because they issue from his necessarily perfectly righteous nature. See the link below:

Reasonable Faith: Question 44 - Euthyphro Dilemma

But in some of the OT acts He punishes the innocent. Remember, God may be punishing the "sin" in Sodom and Gomorrah, but there are babies there who did not share in the sin. Yet God kills them all.

You and I did not share in the sin of Adam and Eve, yet we bear the terrible consequences of their sin to this day. But this is the wretched nature of sin: Its consequences always ripple outward and impact others destructively. Part of the evil consequences of the sin of those whom God judged was that it also destroyed the "innocent." I think, too, that God was illustrating how He deals with wickedness. He removes the root, tree and branch of evil. As well, it seems to me that an "innocent" child in heaven with its Maker and Heavenly Father is far better off than one left to the evil devices of earthly, pagan, parents who would raise it to despise their Maker and eventually to suffer an eternity in Hell.

The fact is, God kills us all. He gave us life as it pleased Him and He takes it as it pleases Him. That's His prerogative as Creator. Besides, the joyful eternity we will spend with Him is far more important to Him (as it should be to us) than the comparatively brief moment we spend here on Earth.

He knocks down the walls of Jericho so that the Israelites can slaughter every man, woman, and child in the city. What "sin" was being punished? That they lived in Canaan when no one else was there? The "sin" of living in a land that God now gave to the Hebrews? That is "sin"?

Are you suggesting that the people of Jericho were without sin? Historical evidence suggests that when it was destroyed by the Israelites the inhabitants of Jericho were commonly involved in child sacrifice, religious prostitution, sodomy, etc. Do you think that if the city's people had been living differently and had been eager to embrace the Israelites and their God, that they would have been destroyed? I think not. Furthermore, does all that Scripture reveals to us of God's nature suggest that He would arbitrarily destroy the people of Jericho? Absolutely not!

In Exodus there is a group of people who disagree with Moses. They are not wicked nor depraved. They simply have grievances with how Moses is leading them. According to the text, Moses invites them all to the tent for a conference, then ducks out the back. God sets the tent on fire and burns them all alive.

And who had very clearly and dramatically ordained Moses as the leader of the Israelites? God, of course. Who, then, were these people really resisting? Their defiance of Moses was a tacit defiance of God Himself who had certified His appointment of Moses by parting the Red Sea, leading the Israelites through the desert with pillars of cloud and fire, and feeding them with "manna from heaven" daily (to name only a few of the miraculous deeds he did on behalf of Moses and the Israelites). No, these rebellious people had no confusion about who they were ultimately defying. And that defiance of their Maker cost them their lives.

Peace.