Why is God not held to the same moral standard as man?

[elman]

We and God are not on the same level. We are creation, God is the creator. It's God's job alone to choose when each man should die. And this life is not meant to be perfect or everlasting: that's what Heaven is for.

With one of us, however, it is not our job to choose when a man should die. If we see someone in danger, it is our moral responsibility to act. If we choose to let them die, then we essentially make ourselves out to be gods.

I don't think God choses who is going to live and die and when. Everyone dies including the righteous.

 

[Cieza]

You are putting me in the place of God without the knowledge of God. That is not valid and you cannot reach any valid conclusions that way. I am saying I think God has set up this world in such a way that we all die. Some of us die in Tsunamis but in the big picture it becomes less important how or when we die, and more important what we do before we die. I don't know what the consequences of God screaming out to people that a Tsunami is coming would have on the way people live and the future. God probably does know these things, and perhaps wisely refrains from doing so.

If I understand you correctly, you are saying God would not be morally bound to inform the people that a tsunami is about to sweep the people to their deaths. That being said, God is obviously holding himself to lower moral standards than man holds himself. Why then should we worship a being that doesn't even have the same moral standards as us?

 

[Cieza]

We and God are not on the same level. We are creation, God is the creator. It's God's job alone to choose when each man should die. And this life is not meant to be perfect or everlasting: that's what Heaven is for.

What if a man chooses to commit suicide? Either you are incorrect and God doesn't choose when each man dies or the man who chooses to commit suicide is God. Which is it?

With one of us, however, it is not our job to choose when a man should die. If we see someone in danger, it is our moral responsibility to act. If we choose to let them die, then we essentially make ourselves out to be gods.

Then why doesn't God have a moral responsibility to act if he sees the people of Haiti in danger of being killed by an earthquake? Or does he have a moral responsibility, but chooses to ignore it?

If you could have but failed to alert these people on the beach of the tsunami and they were swept to their deaths, how would you feel & how do you think others would feel about you for not alerting the people who died?

Same question for God. If God could have but failed to alert the people of Haiti and they were crushed to their deaths, how would God feel & how do you think others would feel about God for not alerting the people who died? Would God be concerned about how others perceive him for allowing so many people to needlessly die?

 

[elman]

If I understand you correctly, you are saying God would not be morally bound to inform the people that a tsunami is about to sweep the people to their deaths. That being said, God is obviously holding himself to lower moral standards than man holds himself. Why then should we worship a being that doesn't even have the same moral standards as us?

God loves us. That is the highest of moral standards--to be loving toward others. Our understanding of things is limited so we are just not in position to be able to judge God. For us to fail to inform people of a tsunami would be an unloving action. We cannot be sure the same is true for God. I believe we can always trust God to do the loving thing. I don't think God causes the tsunami and I don't think God is required to warn us of a tsunami to be loving toward us. People die in tssunamis because they chose to live near the ocean and for any number of reasons. I don't think they die because God fails to warn them.

 

[Cieza]

God loves us. That is the highest of moral standards--to be loving toward others.

Please!!! Do you really expect me to believe that if God knows everything, can do anything but doesn't even have morals high enough to alert people -that he loves - that an earthquake is about to cause buildings to crush them to their deaths?

Ponder this: Let's say your children - who you love dearly - are playing on the railroad tracks. You see a train approaching them on the tracks and your children seem oblivious to the approaching train. It would be your moral obligation and your obligation out of your love for your children to alert your children to get off the tracks. If you could have but failed to alert your children to get off the tracks and they were hit by the train, how would you feel & how do you think others would feel about you for not alerting your children? Could you honestly say, "well I loved them" and have others accept that as a rationale for not alerting them of the train which killed them?


Our understanding of things is limited so we are just not in position to be able to judge God. For us to fail to inform people of a tsunami would be an unloving action. We cannot be sure the same is true for God. I believe we can always trust God to do the loving thing. I don't think God causes the tsunami and I don't think God is required to warn us of a tsunami to be loving toward us. People die in tssunamis because they chose to live near the ocean and for any number of reasons. I don't think they die because God fails to warn them.[/QUOTE]

 

[elman]

Please!!! Do you really expect me to believe that if God knows everything, can do anything but doesn't even have morals high enough to alert people -that he loves - that an earthquake is about to cause buildings to crush them to their deaths?

Ponder this: Let's say your children - who you love dearly - are playing on the railroad tracks. You see a train approaching them on the tracks and your children seem oblivious to the approaching train. It would be your moral obligation and your obligation out of your love for your children to alert your children to get off the tracks. If you could have but failed to alert your children to get off the tracks and they were hit by the train, how would you feel & how do you think others would feel about you for not alerting your children? Could you honestly say, "well I loved them" and have others accept that as a rationale for not alerting them of the train which killed them?


Our understanding of things is limited so we are just not in position to be able to judge God. For us to fail to inform people of a tsunami would be an unloving action. We cannot be sure the same is true for God. I believe we can always trust God to do the loving thing. I don't think God causes the tsunami and I don't think God is required to warn us of a tsunami to be loving toward us. People die in tssunamis because they chose to live near the ocean and for any number of reasons. I don't think they die because God fails to warn them.

[/QUOTE]

You just cannot seem to pick up on the fact there may be differences between us and God can you?

 

[Cieza]

You just cannot seem to pick up on the fact there may be differences between us and God can you?

I gather you advocate the worship of a being who doesn't hold himself to as high a moral standard as man holds himself.

 

[elman]

I gather you advocate the worship of a being who doesn't hold himself to as high a moral standard as man holds himself.

You gather wrong. I advocate the worship of a Creator who can be trusted to be loving all the time. I don't know how creating a world in which God does not show Himself personally anytime a person is in danger to warn them fits into the being loving, but I believe it does. Your being unable to understand that is not really a problem for me--nor is my inability to understand everything about God and what He does.

 

[GrayAngel]

I don't think God choses who is going to live and die and when. Everyone dies including the righteous.

Believe it or not, that's what the Bible says. God has a plan, and not a single bird will die until He says it is time. It has nothing to do with being righteous or not. God had a time set for Jesus' death, as well as Judas' death.

 

[salida]

God is infallable-man isn't. Plus, to show how infallable you and I are ask yourself this.

Are you a good person? www.livingwaters.com/good/
Can you keep the 10 commandments 100% of the time all the time? So, have you ever lied or steal something or break any of these commandments once in your life? If the answer is yes-than you are guilty.
Only Jesus kept these.

God's standards are so high that the only way to enter heaven is by his grace and through Christ.

 

[elman]

Believe it or not, that's what the Bible says. God has a plan, and not a single bird will die until He says it is time. It has nothing to do with being righteous or not. God had a time set for Jesus' death, as well as Judas' death.

I don't see it saying that. Yes God knows when the sparrow falls. No that does not mean God killed it.

 

[Cieza]

You gather wrong. I advocate the worship of a Creator who can be trusted to be loving all the time. I don't know how creating a world in which God does not show Himself personally anytime a person is in danger to warn them fits into the being loving, but I believe it does. Your being unable to understand that is not really a problem for me--nor is my inability to understand everything about God and what He does.

Earlier, you said:

God loves us. That is the highest of moral standards--to be loving toward others. Our understanding of things is limited so we are just not in position to be able to judge God. For us to fail to inform people of a tsunami would be an unloving action. We cannot be sure the same is true for God. I believe we can always trust God to do the loving thing. I don't think God causes the tsunami and I don't think God is required to warn us of a tsunami to be loving toward us. People die in tssunamis because they chose to live near the ocean and for any number of reasons. I don't think they die because God fails to warn them.

Why is it a loving action if God fails to warn the people of the tsunami, but it's an unloving action for us to fail to warn the people of the tsunami. Why do we hold a moral standard of warning the people of the tsunami, but God doesn't? Weren't we created in the image of God? If so, why the difference between us and God when it comes to this moral standard?

 

[Hakan101]

Earlier, you said:

God loves us. That is the highest of moral standards--to be loving toward others. Our understanding of things is limited so we are just not in position to be able to judge God. For us to fail to inform people of a tsunami would be an unloving action. We cannot be sure the same is true for God. I believe we can always trust God to do the loving thing. I don't think God causes the tsunami and I don't think God is required to warn us of a tsunami to be loving toward us. People die in tssunamis because they chose to live near the ocean and for any number of reasons. I don't think they die because God fails to warn them.

Why is it a loving action if God fails to warn the people of the tsunami, but it's an unloving action for us to fail to warn the people of the tsunami. Why do we hold a moral standard of warning the people of the tsunami, but God doesn't? Weren't we created in the image of God? If so, why the difference between us and God when it comes to this moral standard?

You assume that because you cannot conceive a good reason for God to not warn them, there cannot possibly be one.

 

[Cieza]

You assume that because you cannot conceive a good reason for God to not warn them, there cannot possibly be one.

If man warns others when there is a tsunami about to arrive, yet God doesn't, then God isn't holding himself to as high a standard as man.

 

[Hakan101]

If man warns others when there is a tsunami about to arrive, yet God doesn't, then God isn't holding himself to as high a standard as man.

Again this is just opinion and it falls hard on the philosophical answer.

 

[omegadk1]

God can judge all people and situations with full knowledge. He knows why these things have happened in the first place. God allows things to happen, but can intervene when his children ask him. We do not always get a yes though.

I trust God, that he will have good come out of any disaster.

 

[Cieza]

If man warns others when there is a tsunami about to arrive, yet God doesn't, then God isn't holding himself to as high a standard as man.

Again this is just opinion and it falls hard on the philosophical answer.

Let's say there are two mothers. We'll call them X and Y. X and Y each have a child. X and Y each outwardly proclaim they love their child. On each end of town, X and Y each have a child who is playing in the middle of the railroad tracks. Each mother sees a train rapidly approaching their child as the child seems to be oblivious to the trains approach. Each mother also has plenty of time to alert their child of the approaching train such that the child can get out of harms way. X alerts her child of the approaching train and the child gets off the tracks. Y willfully chooses to not alert her child of the approaching train and the child gets hit by the train.

In the above scenario, which mother do you think actually loves her child more?

In the above scenario, which mother will be held by the common people to a higher moral standard?

In the above scenario, which mother will feel less guilt over her actions?

 

[Hakan101]

Let's say there are two mothers. We'll call them X and Y. X and Y each have a child. X and Y each outwardly proclaim they love their child. On each end of town, X and Y each have a child who is playing in the middle of the railroad tracks. Each mother sees a train rapidly approaching their child as the child seems to be oblivious to the trains approach. Each mother also has plenty of time to alert their child of the approaching train such that the child can get out of harms way. X alerts her child of the approaching train and the child gets off the tracks. Y willfully chooses to not alert her child of the approaching train and the child gets hit by the train.

In the above scenario, which mother do you think actually loves her child more?

In the above scenario, which mother will be held by the common people to a higher moral standard?

In the above scenario, which mother will feel less guilt over her actions?

Where does God fit into this scenario? How does this pertain to the topic?

 

[Cieza]

You assume that because you cannot conceive a good reason for God to not warn them, there cannot possibly be one.

Please share with me a good reason for God to not alert the people of Haiti about the earthquake which hadn't yet occurred.

 

[Cieza]

God can judge all people and situations with full knowledge. He knows why these things have happened in the first place. God allows things to happen, but can intervene when his children ask him. We do not always get a yes though.

I trust God, that he will have good come out of any disaster.

What good came out of 200,000 people dying in the Haiti earthquake? Could God have saved those people by alerting them ahead of time? Did God love those people?