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

[Cieza]

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?

If God loves us all, is fully omniscient (or knows everything) and fully omnipotent (or can do anything), then when 200,000 people in Haiti die because of an earthquake, in what way is he not like the mother identified as 'Y' in the above scenario?

 

[ptomwebster]

Death is a fact of life!

 

[Iakobos]

If God loves us all, is fully omniscient (or knows everything) and fully omnipotent (or can do anything), then when 200,000 people in Haiti die because of an earthquake, in what way is he not like the mother identified as 'Y' in the above scenario?

He is mother Y. I don't see how it's hard to see that. He could have warned people about a tonne of things, perhaps He has? The basic reasoning i am seeing here is that God doesn't answer to man. He can let as many people as he wants die however he pleases. We can only nod our heads and smile. I think people think it damages God's reputation to think of him in this light but so what? The sooner everyone faces the scary facets of God rather than just the lovey dovey ones, the sooner we can all get on with it. From a human viewpoint it seems messed up but from a God's viewpoint who knows?

 

[Cieza]

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?

He is mother Y. I don't see how it's hard to see that. He could have warned people about a tonne of things, perhaps He has? The basic reasoning i am seeing here is that God doesn't answer to man. He can let as many people as he wants die however he pleases. We can only nod our heads and smile. I think people think it damages God's reputation to think of him in this light but so what? The sooner everyone faces the scary facets of God rather than just the lovey dovey ones, the sooner we can all get on with it. From a human viewpoint it seems messed up but from a God's viewpoint who knows?

In my scenario, is mother Y as worthy of praise as is mother X? If so, why?

In my scenario, does mother Y appear to care for and love her child as much as does mother X? If so, why?

 

[Cieza]

Death is a fact of life!

Does every living thing eventually die?

 

[elman]

Does every living thing eventually die?

In this physical world, apparently.

 

[elman]

If God loves us all, is fully omniscient (or knows everything) and fully omnipotent (or can do anything), then when 200,000 people in Haiti die because of an earthquake, in what way is he not like the mother identified as 'Y' in the above scenario?

Life and death are the end all here--perhaps not to God.

 

[Cieza]

In this physical world, apparently.

Can something without organic life be living?

Can a non-physical thing be living?

If so, do all non-physical living things eventually die (or cease to live)?

 

[elman]

Can something without organic life be living?

Can a non-physical thing be living?

If so, do all non-physical living things eventually die (or cease to live)?

I don't think death is part of the spirtual realm. Is that your question?

 

[Cieza]

I don't think death is part of the spirtual realm. Is that your question?

I think my questions were fairly clear:

Can something without organic life be living?

Can a non-physical thing be living?

If so, do all non-physical living things eventually die (or cease to live)?

 

[ptomwebster]

Does every living thing eventually die?

Yes, physically, every living thing dies.

Can something without organic life be living?
Can a non-physical thing be living?
If so, do all non-physical living things eventually die (or cease to live)?

God is non-physical, He is Spirit and is everlasting. He had no beginning and He will never die. Angels were created 160 million or so years ago (Job 40:15) and can only be destroyed by God (Mat 10:28).

 

[Cieza]

Yes, physically, every living thing dies.

Is God living?
If God is living and every living thing dies, what happens after God dies?

 

[elman]

Is God living?
If God is living and every living thing dies, what happens after God dies?

God is a spirit. God does not die.

 

[Cieza]

I suspect God was not born and is not subject to time which was also created by God.

If God created time, then he must have existed before time existed. If he existed both before and after something happened (time coming into existence) then by definition, he is subject to time.

 

[razeontherock]

Highly illogical Captain. [/Spock)

He exists before and after time, so is therefore NOT subject to time. And He is not "held to" any standard; He IS the standard. This works because He does not change. He is also the only One that is self-sufficient.

 

[razeontherock]

Or to put it even more simply, Cieza's flawed premise states the Creator [of time] is subject to His creation. [Time]

Clearly flawed! If you make a clay flower vase on a potter's wheel, are you subject to it?

 

[razeontherock]

G-d created the universe, which in turn results in time, but G-d didn't create time? Hhmmm ...

 

[Cieza]

G-d created the universe, which in turn results in time, but G-d didn't create time? Hhmmm ...

As L-R-L-R-L said, if there was creation involved for time to start, then the presence of the verb create or creation indicates that some sort of time was necessary to create time. Therefore, in order for time to have been created, time must have existed prior to it being created.

 

[FreeinChrist]

MOD HAT

This thread has undergone a thread clean up.


Per the guidelines for this forum, the ONLY non-Christian (Christian per the definition of this site) who can post is the OP
​

 

[lesliedellow]

There is a huge qualatative difference between Creator and creature. For the creatures he created, whether they like it or not, God is the legislator. On the other hand, there is no god higher than him to whom he is accountable, and so he is sovereignly free to do what he likes with his creation.