What gives God the right to be "holy"?

I was using the comparison to indicate the inappropriateness of fast forwarding to a point unsuitable for the childs stage of development. Talking of Hellfire and Brimstone isn't suitable teaching for a young child. Nor is talk of the intricacies of how babies are made. Talk of either isn't an abuse at the right time in the persons development.That was the point, your abhorrance needs another vehicle to ride around in. God knows there are vehicles aplenty for the unbeliever to whet his beak on.- You're a spiritually blind man, hooah (according to the Bible). You can't describe the quality grey to a physically blind man. Nor God to a spiritually blind one.

In the sense of our being made in it? Not necessarily.If you're supposing that because an object shaped in a particular image is altered, then the object on which is is based must also alter - then I'd question your reasoning.

How do you figure that? That it doesn't conform to the image of God any longer doesn't mean it ceases to exist.We're good (in so far as the image of God in which we are made, influences our actions). We're also evil (in so far as the image of God in which we are made, doesn't influence our actions). Remove the image of God bit and you're left with...?

I suppose not, but in this case it will - without the imprint of God upon it. A horrendous thought: a person left only with their ugliness, stripped of all redeeming features. If you've ever seen a lifeless face you'll appreciate why it's called the 'second' death.- The 'good' arises from following and not rejecting the call of conscience, ultimately. And since the voice of conscience is supplied by God... In one sense no. They are considered righteous by God. In the other sense, yes; they will be disciplined by God (unto death) and there is the sense of differing levels of heavenly reward attaching to our behaviour here.- 1) We sin and are responsible for our sin. And so it is 'necessary' that we suffer (if paying the price ourselves). Suffering is punishment and punishment is fitting. I'm done arguing the temporal sin vs. eternal punishment objection and merely note:a) we, the offenders, are eternal creatures
b) time is a subset of eternity
c) God, the offendee, is eternal
d) the 'currency' of the sin, in all aspects, is eternal. So too must the currency of the punishment be.2) Eternity without God is a choice made by the heart. It is made by loving that which is anti-God instead of loving the alternative: truth. Consequences follow choice and it would be unjust to refuse to give a person the consequences of the choice offered them simply because the person decides they now don't want them.The choice is existance with God/ existance without* God and that is all we get to choose from. There is no injustice in not offering us a myriad of other options.*I'm assuming the wrath of God to be applied exquisitely merely by his withdrawing his beneficial presence and influence (including the image of God in which we are made) He need not do a thing positively in order that our existance-in-sin be experienced as hell-ish.Edited by iano, : No reason given.

I wouldn't agree with that. Assuming God is good (my position) then no decision is involved.- I was listening to a Radio4 programme profiling Simon Cowell recently. They played a piece of an interview he gave with Sue Lawley where she asked the standard Desert Island question: What item would you bring to a desert island? Cowell replys: "that's easy. A mirror". Supposing Cowells self-absorption as motivating the answer, a flabbergasted Lawley stutters "do you really want us to broadcast that?!"Remembering that you're supposing God to exist for the sake of argument and supposing that you're facing him in your sin. Do you really suppose you would stand in front of your Creator, the one who "fearfully and wonderfully" made you, the eye, the Universe, et al .. and find that the above view would be the basis whereby he prounounces Judgment on you for your sin. That the basis for his Judgement of you would rise no higher than that of a banana-republic dictator.Do you really want to broadcast that?It's not difficult Larni: God creating freewill and providing options permits God being only good and us capable of evil. If you've a problem with evil being punished (for it's own sake and without recourse to might is right) then you might mention what that problem is.

Those who 'don't line up with his ideals' are, we can also say "wilfully doing evil". If you insert that rendition into your query, the objection dissolves quite naturally. Assuming you believe that it is a good thing to punish those who wilfully do evil, that is.There are no good people Rick. All people sin. All people wilfully do what they know to be wrong. All people deserve punishment for their evil doing.Punishing evil is, in my reckoning (and the reckoning of nigh on all the world - bar sociopaths and the like) a good thing.- Again, a more rigorous setting up of the supposed dilemma would resolve the supposed dilemma. Try it this way:"Negative consequences" formed the contents of the package chosen. In other words, exercising free choice opened the relevant box and released the (promised) consequences it contained. Those consequences were curses.It is good that God keeps his promises. It means we can rely on him.- Why not?Edited by iano, : No reason given.Edited by iano, : No reason given.Edited by iano, : No reason given.

Everyone has encountered God for everyone has a God-given conscience. Everyone suppresses what their conscience says they ought to do at some time or other in order to do the opposite (evil).And so, there is no hypothesis to deal with. Only Christ never sinned. And he was punished in our place.- We haven't got free will. I was referring to the choice of Adam and Eve - who had. The positive consequence, for them had they chosen otherwise, was to remain under Gods blessing. They had no absolute right to it apart from his giving them a choice regarding it: "blessing/curses - you decide".Our will (yours and mine and A&E's post-fall), if left to own devices would yield only sin. Our will is, the Bible says, captive (or addicted) to sin. If that was the end of the story you'd be right in objecting to our being punished - we cannot do any differently than do what God hates. But our will isn't left to own devices. Opposing our sinful tendency is the restraining force of God - delivered to us via conscience. So, when we do 'good' in a particular instance it's because our own will is passive and God's will (or force) drives the action. Note my putting our good in parentheses - for it is not good derived from us but from God. When we do evil, our will suppresses the restraining force of God in order to have it's own way. It, our will, drives the action. And so I need not put our evil in parenthesis - for it truly is ours.And so it can be rightly punished.- No. But if you can make a case for same ..or dismantle mine then perhaps.- It's not a flaw in any system that sees a free will chose. Nor is giving the widest range of options a flaw - the wider the reach of the options the freer the will. So far so good wrt Adam and Eve.In our own case God has responded to the skewing introduced by Adam and Eve so that we all get an effectively free choice. It's a slightly different free choice from the A&E one but no matter. So long as things our balanced equally one way or the other.In this world we are exposed to truth and we are exposed to lie and we know the difference between them (even if we cannot prove it to everyones satifaction - as if that altered anything). And we enjoy the fruits of both. But which one will we set our heart on at root.That's our choice. Our God-given choice. And the consequences are precisely the same as ever: blessing or curses.Edited by iano, : No reason given.

But the good is all down to him?What's on offer is that you become a partaker of him and that your will and his will harmonise in partnership. The player and the instrument combine. Or not.You chose.

We're also endowed with the ability not to sin. All our will has to do to achieve this is .. nothing. When it does nothing, God's will is the only will driving events. In which case, good will be done.Our responsibility? Well, we aren't forced into having our will act unto sin. No, no. Our will has to first cut the ties (of conscience) restraining it from sin in order to be released into sin. Which makes us responsible for the cutting.And so we see a choice for sinners which is set up differently than the classic freewill choice. Our sin-loving will silent or our sin-loving will active? What will it be?- It would seem you're more interested in rearranging my argument to construct appealing-to-God-knows-who soundbites.On your own time Rick.Edited by iano, : No reason given.

From an earlier post of mine. Note the very first sentence and go back to that post if you want more detail on the kind of will post-fall humans (including Adam and Eve post-fall) have.

quote:

---

We haven't got free will. I was referring to the choice of Adam and Eve - who had. The positive consequence, for them had they chosen otherwise, was to remain under Gods blessing. They had no absolute right to it apart from his giving them a choice regarding it: "blessing/curses - you decide".

---

Message 116The conclusion of yours you say isn't refuted is this: The refutation is that we don't have to cut the restraint which holds us back from sinning (conscience). We all detect this at work: the desire in us to do what we know to be wrong - and the restraint which holds us back urging us not to do it. If we do the wrong, it is only by wilfully suppressing the restraint, ignoring it, telling ourselves it doesn't actually apply in this case, etc.Which is the point of our responsibility you were asking for.How can you suggest that a wilful decision on our part, one which we are not forced to take (although we are tempted to) refutes the notion of our being responsible for the wilful decision.Remember that if our evil-loving will doesn't act. If it remains silent in a particular instance of potential evil, then the restraint stays in place and the evil isn't done. No credit accrues to us for our will remaining silent in this case (you don't get credit for doing nothing at all) - God is the one powering the restraint that prvents the evil being done.- The reference was to "partakers" not partnership.The God/man relationship is variously described in the Bible: soldiers (who's duty it is to follow commands), children (who ought to obey their parents), heirs (indicating a giver .. and a receiver who has done nothing to warrant parity/partnership)We do evil for which we are rightly held responsible (see above). That evil rightfully attracts punishment/Hell. Love desires to restore our fallen selves so that we can partake of the divine nature (instead of our evil ones). I see no muddle.Edited by iano, : No reason given.

We talking from the point of view of supposing God exists and the Bible his word. The above steps outside that boundary

God created freewill and presented freewill with options. No evil is created in that. Then the freewill choose and in doing so created evil (evil cannot occur without an act of will). God cannot be tied to the creation of evil directly. A freewill stands in the way. A freewill holds responsibility.Now I don't quite know how God can create a freewill whose will is completely independent from operating deterministically. But I am assuming for the sake of argument that God can and did this. If you don't want to assume the same the the discussion ends - you don't agree that such a thing as a freewill exists.- Thus not.Not that this conclusion makes anything but comic-book sense. Why would God be bothered with a transparent attempt at justifying a desire to punish - when he can wave a magic wand and we'll all truly believe he is justified in punishing.Really, RickEdited by iano, : No reason given.

It comes from an act of freewill - freewill being a creation of God.God creates freewillGod instructs x not be done (because it is against his will)x is done in spite of God instructing it not be done.x is done because a freewill is free to do what God instructs not to be done.x needn't necessarily be done - the will is free not to do x.x = evil, evil being defined as that which opposes Gods will.x isn't created by God directly, it's created by God indirectly, via something else which God creates, freewillthe buck for x (insofar as promised negative consequences are laid at someones feet) stop at the freewill who chose to do x.God, as I say above, cannot be tied to the creation of evil directly. The buck stops with freewill.- Because, you will see from the above, evil is an intrinsic part of what it is to be able to choose in the ultimate sense. All evil is, in essence, is choosing against God. And if God is intent on giving us choice, a magic wand cannot both provide it and not provide it.In Adam and Eves case, their choice involved their being equipped with a classic understanding of freewill: they were faced with choice X or choice Y without any predisposition to go in either direction.In our case our choice is modified to take account of the fact that our will is predisposed towards choosing evil. Our choice involves an act of our will (choice X) or our will remaining unexpressed (in which case Gods choice occurs: choice Y).- Sorry.Edited by iano, : No reason given.Edited by iano, : No reason given.

I am. And that driver towards good, and that thing which informs us as to whether we have done good or not is God sourced. Says the Bible - from which we are arguing.If you want to suppose the conscience a godless trait then that's okay - it just doesn't have a relevance to this discussion.