Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
1 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 0/13 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Is it moral for God to punish us?
Raphael
Member (Idle past 462 days)
Posts: 173
From: Southern California, United States
Joined: 09-29-2007


(1)
Message 31 of 145 (771085)
10-19-2015 6:41 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by Greatest I am
10-13-2015 7:56 PM


Hey there! Might I take a stab at it?
Greatest I Am writes:
Is it moral for God to punish us?
Is it moral for an all-knowing and all-powerful God to set in motion a history that he designs and then condemns others for?
Well you've already jumped the gun a little. We can't really say anything about ambiguous "God" until we know which one we're talking about. However, since I've been around here for years, and most of us live in the west, I'm going to assume you're speaking about the Judeo-Christian God, YHWH, and base my counter arguments around that God.
The first important thing to note is that God has mainly chosen to reveal himself via scripture (aka the Bible), so that's where we'll go to find information about him. Based on what you said, your main issue seems to lie not with the actual God as he presents himself in scripture but with some sort of random "a God named x" scarecrow that could be derived from philosophy but not scripture. You seem to mainly dislike one conception of God, perhaps what you assume about him, when there are really others that don't fit into the conception of God you have a problem with.
We live in a history that God has set up and is fully responsible for. God, punishing man, who can do nothing but follow God’s plan and the nature God has put in us, is having innocent people suffer for the wrongs God himself has pre-destined and which cannot be altered.
Again, these are a lot of interesting assumptions, but we don't find this information in scripture. For example, you wrote that God punishes man for "the nature God puts in us," but in the Bible we find the idea (Genesis 3) that sin, because of mankind's decision to choose self over God, has bent or twisted human nature so it is now in opposition to God. This was not something God did, but instead an act of rebellion mankind freely chose, and still chooses. Also, throughout scripture we find a God who does not arbitrarily "punish the innocent" as you said but actually is all about justice, and punishing those who take advantage of the innocent. Examples:
quote:
For I, the LORD, love justice; I hate robbery and wrongdoing. In my faithfulness I will reward my people and make an everlasting covenant with them. - Isaiah 61:8
and Jesus words in Luke:
quote:
The Spirit of the Lord is on me, because he has anointed me to proclaim good news to the poor. He has sent me to proclaim freedom for the prisoners and recovery of sight for the blind, to set the oppressed free...
Greatest I Am writes:
God chose to have Jesus sacrificed. God, in his planning book would also have decided who would kill Jesus. There would be no way for that man to not kill Jesus or God’s plan would fall off the rails and in this case, we would not have a messiah or scapegoat to ride into heaven.
I agree with your first statement, but nothing else from there. Again, these are assumptions made about God because you seem to subscribe to the Calvinistic conception of how God's sovereignty works, which is only one conception of God. I, on the other hand, prefer the Arminian perspective; that God allows humans to operate as free beings, meaning, humans have the power to make all their decisions independent of God. Therefore, the soldiers who mutilated and killed Jesus were not "puppeteered" into doing so but rather made the choice to follow orders.
Some will say we have free will but as shown in the example above, Jesus’ killer could not refrain from killing Jesus without derailing God’s plan. Further, to pre-destine any one action or condition within a history changes all other conditions and pre-destines all conditions within the plan. Think the butterfly effect.
This is a tough question and I can admit well said. There really are two responses, equal in relevance:
1) as humans infected with sin, we consistently place "self" above God, so the idea that God is actually sovereign, meaning, one to whom we, by our nature, owe our very existence and therefore allegiance, is offensive to us. Especially to those of us who live in the west, the idea (myth, really) of the "totally autonomous individual" has infected the way we see God.
2). There is a difference between "pre-destination" and "pre-knowledge." You have assumed that God predetermines/orders actions humans will take, but we don't find this idea blatantly in scripture, meaning it's not black and white. If, on the other hand, humans are free beings, and God had pre-knowledge that they would put Jesus to death, this does not stand to reason that God controlled humans into accomplishing His purposes, merely that it was something inevitable because sin, if it's carried to its full potential, wants to make the "self" into god, so therefore God must be killed.
Having said the above and having shown that we have no free will if anything is pre-destined, I think it would be quite immoral for God to judge or punish us for being and doing exactly what he pre-ordained for us in his plan. We have no choice and to punish us is immoral.
Unfortunately my friend, these have all just been arguments made from assumptions. Further, as a human, you have absolutely no reference point from which to accuse God of "abstract immorality," aside from your own conception of immorality, which may end up being different from anyone else's, thus resulting in relativism. So to accuse God of being "immoral" is actually a nonsense claim, it's like trying to describe a shadow when the object doesn't exist.
Regards!
- Raph

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Greatest I am, posted 10-13-2015 7:56 PM Greatest I am has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 32 by Greatest I am, posted 10-20-2015 12:41 PM Raphael has replied

  
Greatest I am
Member (Idle past 274 days)
Posts: 1676
Joined: 01-24-2007


Message 32 of 145 (771119)
10-20-2015 12:41 PM
Reply to: Message 31 by Raphael
10-19-2015 6:41 PM


Raphael
I agree that I make assumptions as to the reality of the mythical God portrayed in scriptures.
If I do not then there can be no discussion about his sacrifice of Jesus.
If you want to join in my assumption and discuss, well and good.
If you insist that God is a shadow and does not, I agree.
I don't think that should stop us from discussing the principles involved.
Are you familiar with the butterfly effect?
Butterfly effect - Wikipedia
Let me get more complicated.
Anthropic principle - Wikipedia
Note what it says of initial condition.
For simplicity, if I might quote Stephen Hawkins who paraphrases, --- things are as they are because we are.
Things were in Jesus' day because he was there.
If God pre-ordained that Jesus was to be crucified, that initial condition must be accompanied by all the conditions before and after that instant in time.
The butterfly, so to speak, was his birth which God would have had to insure happened and that is only one of the zillions things that his pre-ordinance of one condition forced him to pre-ordain and make happen.
Think of back to the future ands timer lines.
Regards
DL

This message is a reply to:
 Message 31 by Raphael, posted 10-19-2015 6:41 PM Raphael has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 33 by Raphael, posted 10-21-2015 6:00 PM Greatest I am has replied

  
Raphael
Member (Idle past 462 days)
Posts: 173
From: Southern California, United States
Joined: 09-29-2007


Message 33 of 145 (771174)
10-21-2015 6:00 PM
Reply to: Message 32 by Greatest I am
10-20-2015 12:41 PM


Greatest I am writes:
I agree that I make assumptions as to the reality of the mythical God portrayed in scriptures.
If I do not then there can be no discussion about his sacrifice of Jesus.
I mention that only to note which God we are actually discussing. But I am glad you have admitted to assumptions, and of course I make them as well since I am also human.
My counter would be, you actually can't have a search for "truth" here if you go in already assuming that the God of scriptures is mythical. In order to be fair, we both need to doubt our own convictions, what we know to be true, and embrace doubt, or this really doesn't go anywhere. I am willing, are you?
If you insist that God is a shadow and does not, I agree.
I don't think that should stop us from discussing the principles involved.
Well I actually meant that God is the real, and morality is the shadow. Meaning that within who God is, his nature, lies what humans would call morality. To God, those things are just who He is, what he naturally desires and is like. So to accuse God of immorality is a nonsense claim, because God, by his existence, dictates what objective morality even is.
Things were in Jesus' day because he was there.
If God pre-ordained that Jesus was to be crucified, that initial condition must be accompanied by all the conditions before and after that instant in time.
I read both of those pages, thanks for the info!
If we are discussing the God of scripture, then we have to consider his nature. When asked His name, God replies that he is "I AM" (Exodus 3:14), meaning in Hebrew/Greek) "I am existing continually." (I can provide a source for this translation, not enough time now lol)
If God is continually existing, meaning that at every point in history God is concurrently "there," satisfying an initial condition for the crucifixion would be a simple task because He would know exactly which subsequent changes within the timeline must take place. Moreover, the systematic conclusions of Christianity point to the observation that the birth, life, and especially crucifixion of Jesus are the climax and centerpoint of human history. Therefore, it makes even more sense that God would definitely intricately be involved in making sure it happens, since it was God's plan since the fall of humanity.
Finally, we can pretty accurately suspect that the crucifixion was a contingency plan and did not necessarily need to happen, had humanity not fallen. God initiated this plan in order to save humanity from themselves, since self-centeredness always ends in self-destruction.
The butterfly, so to speak, was his birth which God would have had to insure happened and that is only one of the zillions things that his pre-ordinance of one condition forced him to pre-ordain and make happen.
When we look at the account of Jesus' trials and crucifixion, we find that nowhere along the line is anyone manipulated into doing something to achieve his death. This is odd, since there are other places within scripture where God openly claims that He manipulated the circumstances to achieve his own purposes. Take for example Pharaoh:
quote:
...Pharaoh sent, and behold, not one of the livestock of Israel was dead. But the heart of Pharaoh was hardened, and he did not let the people go. - Exod. 9:2
Shockingly, we see that most of Jesus accusers actually knew he was innocent. Take for instance the account of Jesus' conversation with Pilate:
quote:
...Pilate entered his headquarters again and called Jesus and said to him, Are you the King of the Jews? 34 Jesus answered, Do you say this of your own accord, or did others say it to you about me? 35 Pilate answered, Am I a Jew? Your own nation and the chief priests have delivered you over to me. What have you done? 36 Jesus answered, My kingdom is not of this world. If my kingdom were of this world, my servants would have been fighting, that I might not be delivered over to the Jews. But my kingdom is not from the world. 37 Then Pilate said to him, So you are a king? Jesus answered, You say that I am a king. For this purpose I was born and for this purpose I have come into the worldto bear witness to the truth. Everyone who is of the truth listens to my voice. 38 Pilate said to him, What is truth?
After he had said this, he went back outside to the Jews and told them, I find no guilt in him. 39 But you have a custom that I should release one man for you at the Passover. So do you want me to release to you the King of the Jews? 40 They cried out again, Not this man, but Barabbas!... - John 18:33-40
Now perhaps you might respond, "well of course the text doesn't say God is manipulating people," but this would only be you misunderstanding what scripture says about itself. The Bible makes the claim that it is not merely the written words of people (it is that), but is, simultaneously, the words and will of God made into physical reality. The conclusions are thus:
The Bible is the story of God beginning and inserting Himself into human history. While not being perfect or infallible, it contains the account of God Himself becoming human and intentionally allowing sin-infected humanity to carry out what His pre-knowledge told him sin-infected humanity would always do, which is attempt to murder Him.
Do you see how this affects what we're talking about? God actually didn't need to manipulate anyone in order to accomplish His goal of saving humanity, which is what I sense your issue is behind what you're talking about on the surface. Did God have fore-knowledge? Of course. He's God. Did He need to use humans to accomplish His goal? Of course not. He's God. Did humans, because of our innate desire for independence and autonomy, murder our creator? Yes. BUT. Did God save humanity from themselves regardless, promising eternal life for absolutely any rapist, murderer, (including his own) child molester, thief, liar, and internet porn-watcher who believes? Definitely. He's God.
Regards!
- Raph
Edited by Raphael, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 32 by Greatest I am, posted 10-20-2015 12:41 PM Greatest I am has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 34 by Greatest I am, posted 10-21-2015 9:06 PM Raphael has replied

  
Greatest I am
Member (Idle past 274 days)
Posts: 1676
Joined: 01-24-2007


Message 34 of 145 (771188)
10-21-2015 9:06 PM
Reply to: Message 33 by Raphael
10-21-2015 6:00 PM


Raphael
In order to be fair, we both need to doubt our own convictions, what we know to be true, and embrace doubt, or this really doesn't go anywhere. I am willing, are you?
I do not mind as I have an open one but reading below, you do not seem to write with a lot of doubt.
---------
You used the term objective morality
First, I know of only one tenet that might be objective. All the others I know of are subjective. Do you have a couple of objective example for me to try to refute and show to be subjective.
Second, I do not see God as moral at all. Neither do these moral and intelligent men. Or the writers of that movie actually.
PBS: God on Trial, the Verdict on Vimeo
---------
Therefore, it makes even more sense that God would definitely intricately be involved in making sure it happens, since it was God's plan since the fall of humanity.
You make my point that one change needs many changes right to infinity.
-------------
Finally, we can pretty accurately suspect that the crucifixion was a contingency plan and did not necessarily need to happen, had humanity not fallen.
??
What happened to God’s omnipotence?
He does not need contingencies when he knows exactly what is to happen. That is why he chose Jesus before even creating the earth or the potential for sin.
As a quick aside. You do know that to the Jews who wrote this myth, there was no fall and that they saw Eden as man’s elevation. Right?
Jews do not have an Original Sin concept. Only Christianity saw becoming as Gods in the knowing of good and evil as evil. Stupid of them, eh?
-------------
God initiated this plan in order to save humanity from themselves, since self-centeredness always ends in self-destruction.
LOL. Why create us that way if he did not want us that way?
God does not seem too bright.
----------
When we look at the account of Jesus' trials and crucifixion, we find that nowhere along the line is anyone manipulated into doing something to achieve his death.
??
Have you forgotten Jesus manipulating Judas at the last super?
Look up the word sop. That was what Jesus gave Judas. It is a bribe or favor that one gives to ones best or most trusted friend to pay for or ask for a great favor. That was Jesus begging Judas to turn him in. The other disciples know that and that is why not one of them said anything or tried to stop Judas.
-------------
Did He need to use humans to accomplish His goal? Of course not.
What a strange comment.
How could Jesus die if not at the hands of humans?
He would have had to sacrifice himself all by himself. That is not a sacrifice it is a suicide.
Regards
DL

This message is a reply to:
 Message 33 by Raphael, posted 10-21-2015 6:00 PM Raphael has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 35 by Raphael, posted 10-22-2015 2:31 AM Greatest I am has replied

  
Raphael
Member (Idle past 462 days)
Posts: 173
From: Southern California, United States
Joined: 09-29-2007


Message 35 of 145 (771191)
10-22-2015 2:31 AM
Reply to: Message 34 by Greatest I am
10-21-2015 9:06 PM


Greatest I am writes:
I do not mind as I have an open one but reading below, you do not seem to write with a lot of doubt.
I appreciate this. I write trying to base my claims and arguments based on scripture. If I have not seemed open-minded, I will work on being so!
You used the term objective morality
First, I know of only one tenet that might be objective. All the others I know of are subjective. Do you have a couple of objective example for me to try to refute and show to be subjective.
Well I am speaking of morality only in response to your main thesis/title of this thread. You asked, "is it moral for God to punish us?" And my response is: as humans, we have no reference point from which to accuse God of being immoral, what you wrote above illustrates this, you said you "only know of one tenet that might be objective."
Of course, as a believer, I would say that at an absolute basic level, God's law is objective. But what I wrote earlier was attempting to explain that without some sort of objective standard, without something that is outside yourself or your culture, you can't sensibly accuse the God of scripture, YHWH, of being immoral, when God himself necessarily is morality and the standard, and by his nature lives up to the standard because that is who He is. Therefore when faced with things that might put his morality in question, we cannot just quickly assume "oh God is immoral." Since it is a nonsense claim, a better, more robust answer must exist.
Second, I do not see God as moral at all. Neither do these moral and intelligent men. Or the writers of that movie actually.
I watched this clip and it is very sobering. Thank you. However, this film only illustrates what it's writers intended it to illustrate, which of course is their position, and yours. Much is left out of the main speaker's monologue and assumptions are made (God sending a famine, for instance, is an assumption not found in scripture).
You make my point that one change needs many changes right to infinity.
Indeed. My argument, though, is that God:
1) is omnipresent ("I AM") so this would be no issue
2) didn't need to make many changes, since humans would eventually attempt to murder God without prompting
What happened to God’s omnipotence?
He does not need contingencies when he knows exactly what is to happen. That is why he chose Jesus before even creating the earth or the potential for sin.
So here I ask the question, where do you get this information from? Your question sort of opens a huge box haha that may be off topic, but going there is necessary to answer.
That said, scripture claims that God is love. This means that God must at all times operate under the principle of love (non-manipulative sacrifice for the benefit of others) in his dealings with humans. Love cannot exist when the freedom to choose also does not exist. If you are married or have a significant other, you know this. This is why a marriage produced out of fear or manipulation would not produce real, healthy love from the other individual, because love is a choice one makes.
All this to say, yes, God is omnipotent, but is essentially limited by His own nature of love. Therefore, he will not at any point force humans to make a choice. So, the way I see it is that God can see literally all outcomes of any given situation, make 98% accurate guesses as to which one will take place, but actually does not know exactly what is going to happen.
Also, God did not "choose" Jesus before the earth began, God is Jesus. There is no separation in scripture. I may have created misunderstanding with the term "contingency." Apologies. I meant that since God knows the potential outcome of every situation, He already had in place the plan if that potential became reality.
As a quick aside. You do know that to the Jews who wrote this myth, there was no fall and that they saw Eden as man’s elevation. Right?
Well, the authorship of the Pentateuch (first five books of the Old Testament/Torah) is commonly attributed to the biblical figure Moses, who does not give any sort of account of how "he viewed the fall," so I don't know where this information is from. According to Wikipedia, Jewish interpretations of the Fall in Eden vary, with scholars on both ends of the spectrum, so this claim cannot really be substantialized.
Jews do not have an Original Sin concept. Only Christianity saw becoming as Gods in the knowing of good and evil as evil. Stupid of them, eh?
I see what you are saying, and to be fair, it would make sense that they would not. However to make such a claim that "Jews" did not have an Original sin concept is a stretch, especially considering the first Christians essentially were Jews! They saw Christ as the fulfillment of their heritage and religion. Take for instance the Apostle Paul, who writes in Romans:
quote:
Therefore, just as sin came into the world through one man, and death through sin, and so death spread to all men because all sinned 13 for sin indeed was in the world before the law was given, but sin is not counted where there is no law. 14 Yet death reigned from Adam to Moses, even over those whose sinning was not like the transgression of Adam, who was a type of the one who was to come... - Romans 5:12-14
Paul was a Jew, moreover a Pharisee, a teacher of the Torah and religious leader. While this is not fully the christian theology of "Original Sin," we can see that what Paul, and Jew through and though, believed about the Fall closely lines up with what Christians believe.
LOL. Why create us that way if he did not want us that way?
God does not seem too bright.
You must not have read my earlier response at all my friend. If you had you would have noted that I already responded to this. Here it is again: God did not create us this way. Choosing sin and selfishness was a human choice.
Have you forgotten Jesus manipulating Judas at the last super?
Look up the word sop. That was what Jesus gave Judas. It is a bribe or favor that one gives to ones best or most trusted friend to pay for or ask for a great favor. That was Jesus begging Judas to turn him in. The other disciples know that and that is why not one of them said anything or tried to stop Judas.
I literally don't know what you're talking about? Again, where does this information come from? I am curious.
I am going to assume you are speaking about either Luke or John's account. Here they are so we can't make anything up:
Luke's account:
quote:
Then Satan entered into Judas called Iscariot, who was of the number of the twelve. 4 He went away and conferred with the chief priests and officers how he might betray him to them. 5 And they were glad, and agreed to give him money. 6 So he consented and sought an opportunity to betray him to them in the absence of a crowd....
and later, at the meal:
.....And likewise the cup after they had eaten, saying, This cup that is poured out for you is the new covenant in my blood. 21 But behold, the hand of him who betrays me is with me on the table. 22 For the Son of Man goes pas it has been determined, but woe to that man by whom he is betrayed! 23 And they began to question one another, which of them it could be who was going to do this. - Luke 22:
John's account:
quote:
...Truly, truly, I say to you, one of you will betray me. 22 The disciples looked at one another, uncertain of whom he spoke. 23 One of his disciples, whom Jesus loved, was reclining at table at Jesus' side,[e] 24 so Simon Peter motioned to him to ask Jesus[f] of whom he was speaking. 25 So that disciple, leaning back against Jesus, said to him, Lord, who is it? 26 Jesus answered, It is he to whom I will give this morsel of bread when I have dipped it. So when he had dipped the morsel, he gave it to Judas, the son of Simon Iscariot. 27 Then after he had taken the morsel, Satan entered into him. Jesus said to him, What you are going to do, do quickly. 28 Now no one at the table knew why he said this to him. 29 Some thought that, because Judas had the moneybag, Jesus was telling him, Buy what we need for the feast, or that he should give something to the poor. 30 So, after receiving the morsel of bread, he immediately went out. And it was night. - John 13:21-30
Where is the story you talked about? I don't see it anywhere. I also looked through the greek translation and I don't see the word "sop" anywhere in either stories. Could you offer a little clarification of the word study so I can understand what you mean?
How could Jesus die if not at the hands of humans?
He would have had to sacrifice himself all by himself. That is not a sacrifice it is a suicide.
My friend, throughout all of this, you miss the entire point of the death of Christ. It was not some hyper intricate scheme by God in order to manipulate a way to punish humans. It was the method by which He could be totally loving and merciful while remaining totally just simultaneously. Of course God planned His own death, and of course humans would do it, God knew this.
I'm afraid much of your issues with the whole thing seem to be with misunderstandings of scripture and assumptions you, or perhaps other who you have spoken to, have made. I have honestly tried to understand where you are coming from but a lot of what you've responded hasn't really been substantiated. Maybe there's something I'm missing. I'm still open to learn!
Regards!
- Raph
Edited by Raphael, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 34 by Greatest I am, posted 10-21-2015 9:06 PM Greatest I am has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 36 by Pressie, posted 10-22-2015 8:31 AM Raphael has not replied
 Message 37 by New Cat's Eye, posted 10-22-2015 9:20 AM Raphael has not replied
 Message 41 by Greatest I am, posted 10-22-2015 1:42 PM Raphael has replied

  
Pressie
Member
Posts: 2103
From: Pretoria, SA
Joined: 06-18-2010


(1)
Message 36 of 145 (771195)
10-22-2015 8:31 AM
Reply to: Message 35 by Raphael
10-22-2015 2:31 AM


It was interesting to follow the conversation, but I really don't understand these.
Raphael writes:
All this to say, yes, God is omnipotent, but is essentially limited by His own nature of love. Therefore, he will not at any point force humans to make a choice. So, the way I see it is that God can see literally all outcomes of any given situation, make 98% accurate guesses as to which one will take place, but actually does not know exactly what is going to happen.
Limited. Therefore not omnipotent. 98% accurate guesses. Therefore not not omniscient. Doesn't sound omni-everything at all. I take it that, unlike Faith, you're not a True Christian.
Edited by Pressie, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 35 by Raphael, posted 10-22-2015 2:31 AM Raphael has not replied

  
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


Message 37 of 145 (771199)
10-22-2015 9:20 AM
Reply to: Message 35 by Raphael
10-22-2015 2:31 AM


as humans, we have no reference point from which to accuse God of being immoral,
We have our own human empathy as a reference point.
Of course, as a believer, I would say that at an absolute basic level, God's law is objective. But what I wrote earlier was attempting to explain that without some sort of objective standard, without something that is outside yourself or your culture, you can't sensibly accuse the God of scripture, YHWH, of being immoral, when God himself necessarily is morality and the standard, and by his nature lives up to the standard because that is who He is.
In Genesis 18, when Abraham was pleading for Sodom, he pretty much did exactly that:
quote:
20 Then the Lord said, The outcry against Sodom and Gomorrah is so great and their sin so grievous
21 that I will go down and see if what they have done is as bad as the outcry that has reached me. If not, I will know.
22 The men turned away and went toward Sodom, but Abraham remained standing before the Lord.
23 Then Abraham approached him and said: Will you sweep away the righteous with the wicked?
24 What if there are fifty righteous people in the city? Will you really sweep it away and not spare the place for the sake of the fifty righteous people in it?
25 Far be it from you to do such a thingto kill the righteous with the wicked, treating the righteous and the wicked alike. Far be it from you! Will not the Judge of all the earth do right?
The Lord did change his position after haggling with Abraham.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 35 by Raphael, posted 10-22-2015 2:31 AM Raphael has not replied

  
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


Message 38 of 145 (771200)
10-22-2015 9:21 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by Greatest I am
10-13-2015 7:56 PM


Is it moral for an all-knowing and all-powerful God to set in motion a history that he designs and then condemns others for?
We live in a history that God has set up and is fully responsible for.
Do you contend that God does not have the power to, say, play a game of chance?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Greatest I am, posted 10-13-2015 7:56 PM Greatest I am has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 39 by ringo, posted 10-22-2015 12:42 PM New Cat's Eye has not replied
 Message 40 by Greatest I am, posted 10-22-2015 12:47 PM New Cat's Eye has replied

  
ringo
Member (Idle past 412 days)
Posts: 20940
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005


Message 39 of 145 (771212)
10-22-2015 12:42 PM
Reply to: Message 38 by New Cat's Eye
10-22-2015 9:21 AM


Cat Sci writes:
Do you contend that God does not have the power to, say, play a game of chance?
Would He ever be tempted to, say, roll a million sixes in a row?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 38 by New Cat's Eye, posted 10-22-2015 9:21 AM New Cat's Eye has not replied

  
Greatest I am
Member (Idle past 274 days)
Posts: 1676
Joined: 01-24-2007


Message 40 of 145 (771213)
10-22-2015 12:47 PM
Reply to: Message 38 by New Cat's Eye
10-22-2015 9:21 AM


Cat Sci
No.
I do not believe in the bible God. To us Gnostic Christians, he is a vile demiurge.
Our beliefs are that all Gods are myths and that is why we do not fear criticizing them and calling a prick of a God a prick.
That is why Christianity decimated us in ancient days. Basically for telling the truth and trying to teach Christians proper morals.
Their use of Jesus we found to be quite immoral because we believe that having another innocent person suffer for the wrongs someone has done, --- so that they might escape responsibility for having done them, --- is immoral.
Christians decided that human sacrifice and the punishment of the innocent instead of the guilty was somehow moral.
Regards
DL

This message is a reply to:
 Message 38 by New Cat's Eye, posted 10-22-2015 9:21 AM New Cat's Eye has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 42 by New Cat's Eye, posted 10-22-2015 2:01 PM Greatest I am has replied

  
Greatest I am
Member (Idle past 274 days)
Posts: 1676
Joined: 01-24-2007


Message 41 of 145 (771219)
10-22-2015 1:42 PM
Reply to: Message 35 by Raphael
10-22-2015 2:31 AM


Raphael
Nice reply. Thanks.
"Well I am speaking of morality only in response to your main thesis/title of this thread. You asked, "is it moral for God to punish us?" And my response is: as humans, we have no reference point from which to accuse God of being immoral,"
??
We have a reference point where God himself says that we have the same moral sense that he has.
They have become as Gods in the knowing of good and evil. ---- How else could we do as Jesus asked and write the laws of God in our hearts.
-----------
" what you wrote above illustrates this, you said you "only know of one tenet that might be objective."
I wrote that yes but I find it strange that you did not put any down at all. Seems my 1 trumps your 0. If you wish to add to your 0 and make your point, that would be nice. Otherwise my view of morals being subjective stands.
----------------
"(God sending a famine, for instance, is an assumption not found in scripture)."
??
Who else could have sent it?
----------
"2) didn't need to make many changes, since humans would eventually attempt to murder God without prompting"
Not if Jesus had not prompted the whole thing by throwing his fit at the temple or bribing Judas as I will show below.
That was Jesus and the butterfly effect. He knew people would be pissed off at his fit.
---------
My ---
That is why he chose Jesus before even creating the earth or the potential for sin.
Your ---
So here I ask the question, where do you get this information from? Your question sort of opens a huge box haha that may be off topic, but going there is necessary to answer.
I get that from your bible of course.
1Peter 1:20 0 He was chosen before the creation of the world, but was revealed in these last times for your sake.
-----------------
"That said, scripture claims that God is love. This means that God must at all times operate under the principle of love (non-manipulative sacrifice for the benefit of others)"
Scriptures also claim that serpents and donkeys can speak human speech. Do you believe that as well?
But let's look at God is love.
Scriptures say that in the beginning, there was only God and that everything that is and can be emanated from him. Scriptures also confirm that God created evil. That would mean that, using your logic,
God must also be hate and "This means that God must at all times operate under the principle of hate.
If your description is true of love then it follows that mine is true of hate.
If not, why not?
--------
"God is Jesus."
Give chapter and verse that says God can die.
Please listen to this first.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B-91mSkxaXs
---------
"Well, the authorship of the Pentateuch (first five books of the Old Testament/Torah) is commonly attributed to the biblical figure Moses, who does not give any sort of account of how "he viewed the fall," so I don't know where this information is from. According to Wikipedia, Jewish interpretations of the Fall in Eden vary, with scholars on both ends of the spectrum, so this claim cannot really be substantialized. "
Not really as Jews know that a dead man cannot write of his own death.
Further.
Bill Moyers Journal . Watch & Listen | PBS
Rabbi Hillel, the older contemporary of Jesus, said that when asked to sum up the whole of Jewish teaching, while he stood on one leg, said, "The Golden Rule. That which is hateful to you, do not do to your neighbor. That is the Torah. And everything else is only commentary. Now, go and study it."
Please listen as to what is said about literal reading.
"Origen, the great second or third century Greek commentator on the Bible said that it is absolutely impossible to take these texts literally. You simply cannot do so. And he said, "God has put these sort of conundrums and paradoxes in so that we are forced to seek a deeper meaning."
Also ---
The Original Meaning Of Original Sin – The Dish
And lastly ---
http://www.raceandhistory.com/...calviews/doubtingexodus.htm
The key to understanding the moral of the story of Eden, as to whether it was a fall or our elevation, you will have to decide based on your own intelligence and thinking. If you can Ignore your tradition and dogma that is and think for yourself.
If you think it was a fall, then tell us what is wrong with, as God himself said, we, through A & E, becoming as Gods in the knowing of good and evil.
What is wrong with getting closer to God's thinking?
Were A & E not following this scripture.
Matthew 5:48 Be ye therefore perfect, even as your Father which is in heaven is perfect.
--------------
"first Christians essentially were Jews! They saw Christ as the fulfillment of their heritage and religion."
Eh, no. The first Christians were not Jews. They, IMO, were gentiles. Although there were likely some few Jews in that mix.
I think the original Chrestians is what came from the belief in the Nazarene Jesus who might have been the model for all the other archetypal Jesus' and Christs in scriptures. There is more than 1.
We Gnostic Christians favor the more Eastern esoteric one and not the Roman ass kisser that Rome invented.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=r...
-----------------
"God did not create us this way. Choosing sin and selfishness was a human choice."
Yes and a good choice it was but if God did not create us as is, who did?
Before you try to reply, please view what follows.
Christians are always trying to absolve God of moral culpability in the fall by whipping out their favorite "free will!", or it’s all man’s fault.
That is "God gave us free will and it was our free willed choices that caused our fall. Hence God is not blameworthy."
But this simply avoids God's culpability as the author of Human Nature. Free will is only the ability to choose. It is not an explanation why anyone would want to choose "A" or "B" (bad or good action). An explanation for why Eve would even have the nature of "being vulnerable to being easily swayed by a serpent" and "desiring to eat a forbidden fruit" must lie in the nature God gave Eve in the first place. Hence God is culpable for deliberately making humans with a nature-inclined-to-fall, and "free will" means nothing as a response to this problem.
If all sin by nature then, the sin nature is dominant. If not, we would have at least some who would not sin. That being the case, for God to punish us for following the instincts and natures he put in us would be quite wrong.
Psalm 51:5 "Surely I was sinful at birth, sinful from the time my mother conceived me."
----------------
I like that you say you are willing to learn.
You wrote this of the fall.
"I see what you are saying, and to be fair, it would make sense that they would not."
Learn that you should go with what makes sense to you and not the idiotic dogma that Christianity invented by reversing what the authors of the original myth thought.
If it does not make sense to you, it is probably because it is senseless and illogical.
I apologise for all the links I put but writing everything down would have taken a week.
I said above I would show you something on the sop and Judas. here it is. Please go with your sense and not what you have been taught by your church.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=znOw0XKldxc
John 13:26 Jesus answered, He it is, to whom I shall give a sop, when I have dipped it. And when he had dipped the sop, he gave it to Judas Iscariot, the son of Simon.
John 13:27 And after the sop Satan entered into him. Then said Jesus unto him, That thou doest, do quickly.
John 13:30 He then having received the sop went immediately out: and it was night.
Regards
DL

This message is a reply to:
 Message 35 by Raphael, posted 10-22-2015 2:31 AM Raphael has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 45 by Raphael, posted 10-22-2015 9:49 PM Greatest I am has replied

  
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


Message 42 of 145 (771220)
10-22-2015 2:01 PM
Reply to: Message 40 by Greatest I am
10-22-2015 12:47 PM


Is it moral for an all-knowing and all-powerful God to set in motion a history that he designs and then condemns others for?
We live in a history that God has set up and is fully responsible for.
Do you contend that God does not have the power to, say, play a game of chance?
No.
So He does have the power to play a game of chance. That leaves room for Him not having set up, and not being fully responsible for, the history we live in.
I don't see why we must believe that God is controlling every instance of every thing that happens.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 40 by Greatest I am, posted 10-22-2015 12:47 PM Greatest I am has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 43 by Greatest I am, posted 10-22-2015 2:42 PM New Cat's Eye has replied

  
Greatest I am
Member (Idle past 274 days)
Posts: 1676
Joined: 01-24-2007


Message 43 of 145 (771227)
10-22-2015 2:42 PM
Reply to: Message 42 by New Cat's Eye
10-22-2015 2:01 PM


Cat Sci
If you could not dither out that I read your negative statement as a positive on and that my no could not possibly match the statements I put after it then----------
Regards
DL

This message is a reply to:
 Message 42 by New Cat's Eye, posted 10-22-2015 2:01 PM New Cat's Eye has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 44 by New Cat's Eye, posted 10-22-2015 3:03 PM Greatest I am has not replied

  
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


(1)
Message 44 of 145 (771230)
10-22-2015 3:03 PM
Reply to: Message 43 by Greatest I am
10-22-2015 2:42 PM


If you could not dither out that I read your negative statement as a positive on and that my no could not possibly match the statements I put after it then----------
What did you just say to me?
Is that English?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 43 by Greatest I am, posted 10-22-2015 2:42 PM Greatest I am has not replied

  
Raphael
Member (Idle past 462 days)
Posts: 173
From: Southern California, United States
Joined: 09-29-2007


Message 45 of 145 (771257)
10-22-2015 9:49 PM
Reply to: Message 41 by Greatest I am
10-22-2015 1:42 PM


You're welcome! Also, my friend, in the most non-arrogant and non-patronistic way possible, it may be easier to understand you if you used the quote system build within EvCForum. You can go to this page to see a list of code commands. Perhaps you already know this, and in that case, let us continue.
Greatest I am writes:
We have a reference point where God himself says that we have the same moral sense that he has.
They have become as Gods in the knowing of good and evil.
Interesting. To say that humans became like God, knowing good and evil, I can see and accept. It is in the text. But to say that humans "have the same moral sense" as God seems like quite a stretch. Rather, what eating of the tree did was open the human mind to the idea that there is an option, a way, other than God's way that exists. But without God's standard, humanity still cannot tell definitively what is good and what is evil. In fact, we find confirmation of this in Paul's writings in Romans:
quote:
What then shall we say? That the law is sin? By no means! Yet if it had not been for the law, I would not have known sin. For I would not have known what it is to covet if the law had not said, You shall not covet. - Romans 7:7
How else could we do as Jesus asked and write the laws of God in our hearts
Actually, we have no record of Jesus saying this at all. The promise that the law would be written on our hearts was God's plan to make a new covenant/promise with His people through the death of himself, words written hundreds of years before Jesus was born (Jeremiah 33:31, Ezekiel 36:26). The idea of the New Covenant was (and is!) that God himself would live in people, changing their corrupted (by sin) nature back into the one He originally intended.
I wrote that yes but I find it strange that you did not put any down at all. Seems my 1 trumps your 0. If you wish to add to your 0 and make your point, that would be nice. Otherwise my view of morals being subjective stands.
Apologies, I could have been a little more clear. I thought I had written that at the most basic level, the standard of God can be seen in the Ten Commandments found in Exodus 20 and Deuteronomy 4. But there are other places too, and one must look at the entire picture of God's character presented in scripture to come a full conclusion.
Who else could have sent it?
A better question is, why do you assume it was God? Why do you assume God caused and causess all destructive weather? Let's break this down. Scripture tells us that God created a perfect world at the start, one devoid of basically anything negative, aside from the Tree of Knowledge... (Genesis 1-2). We also can justifiably assume that up until the time of Noah, rain was scarce or even non existent in weather (Gen 2:5-6) so we can conclude that destructive weather was not created by God and did not exist, at least up until the Fall. The logical conclusion would be to say we don't know what caused the famine, but we do know that we live in a broken world, also affected by sin, that is in need of healing itself. We simply have no evidence to accuse God of causing the famine, especially since, within the context of the story we find that God leads Joseph to rise in power in order to save both his people and all the people of Egypt during the famine. (Gen. 41)
Not if Jesus had not prompted the whole thing by throwing his fit at the temple or bribing Judas as I will show below. That was Jesus and the butterfly effect. He knew people would be pissed off at his fit.
If you think Jesus prompted his whole death by "throwing his fit at the temple" or even by somehow bribing Judas (which I will offer a rebuttal of below) then you are vastly mistaken. What caused Jesus death was that he literally claimed to be God. And not merely the Son of God either, he blatantly and openly claimed to be one with YHWH, the Jewish God that was supposed to be the only God. (John 10:30). His own people were so incensed by this that they attempted to kill him at least twice before his crucifixion, simply for claiming divinity. Are you beginning to see how his death really required no manipulating of timelines/people on God's part? There was no need.
1Peter 1:20 0 He was chosen before the creation of the world, but was revealed in these last times for your sake.
I appreciate you reminding me of this verse. However, I do not think this disproves my argument: that God had/has in place a course of action for any and every potentiality that might exist. Rather, that verse confirms this idea.
Scriptures also claim that serpents and donkeys can speak human speech. Do you believe that as well?
If Jesus was a real historical character, and truly resurrected from the dead, and therefore was and is still God, and Jesus spoke of scripture as an authoritative and real source of truth, then yes, of course I do.
If He didn't, then who cares?
What's so hard to believe about such simple things? The majority of people today believe in the supernatural, whether that be ghosts, demons, spirits, aliens. Why should I buy into the non-miracle bias our post-modern historical method has adopted?
Scriptures say that in the beginning, there was only God and that everything that is and can be emanated from him. Scriptures also confirm that God created evil. That would mean that, using your logic,
God must also be hate and "This means that God must at all times operate under the principle of hate. If your description is true of love then it follows that mine is true of hate. If not, why not?
Well first off, the "I created evil" verse has been quoted here before, and I will give the same answer: The verse you're talking about is Isaiah 45:7, and the hebrew word "evil" is a word, "ra" (רַע ) and means more along the lines of "bad, adversity, or calamity." "Evil" works too but Hebrew is an incredibly robust and vivid language with a wide range of meanings. It's not black and white like you suggest.
Second, I do not know of where you speak of in scripture about "All things emanating from God." This sounds more like some philosophical idea. In John we have some similar language, but not quite:
quote:
In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. 2 He was in the beginning with God. 3 All things were made through him, and without him was not any thing made that was made. 4 In him was life,[a] and the life was the light of men. 5 The light shines in the darkness, and the darkness has not overcome it. - John 1:1-5
The problem is that here the author specifically denotes that anything of the darkness does not come from God. Also, even if there were a verse saying what you are trying to make the text say, one isolated verse does not communicate an entire theological concept, one must look at the entire scope of the Bible, at the character of God portrayed throughout the entire thing, and then come to a conclusion about a verse. Otherwise it's just lazy eisegesis, reading your own presuppositions into the text.
You asked, "why not?" and my answer is because there is nothing in scripture that blatantly confirms that God is also the God of hate. It is not black and white, sure. But the overwhelming case is that God is love. (1 John 4:8). Further, scripture as a whole takes great pains to emphasize that God is a God of love, that He loves the world (John 3:16), that He came in human form and operated under the ethic of sacrificial love in the person of Jesus, and that he willingly died, forgiving his enemies.
Give chapter and verse that says God can die.
Unfortunately, this sounds like a question based on another assumption. What many do not understand is the idea of the dual nature of Christ, aka, that Jesus was totally God, and totally human simultaneously. It is understandable that this doctrine is difficult to grasp and borderline incomprehensible, but it does account for His death. This is not a made up doctrine, rather it is a logical conclusion from observing the facts in scripture: Jesus claimed to be God. God cannot die. But Jesus did. He also was born, ate, slept, was tempted, and had a body of flesh and bones. My question is: would not the dual nature of Christ logically account for his death and resurrection better than any other explanation? If it is the most logical explanation, what is the roadblock?
I also watched this whole video. Interesting, and things I have read/heard before. Excellent and difficult questions nonetheless. What I noticed though, is that many of the speaker's issues have to do with not fully understanding, or never really getting, a cogent answer, and basing many of her conclusions on misunderstandings of christian doctrine.
Eh, no. The first Christians were not Jews. They, IMO, were gentiles. Although there were likely some few Jews in that mix. I think the original Chrestians is what came from the belief in the Nazarene Jesus who might have been the model for all the other archetypal Jesus' and Christs in scriptures. There is more than 1.
"IMO?" Actually, it is fact that the first Christians were, indeed, Jews. You probably have heard of the 12 Disciples? In Acts 2, after Pentecost, Peter preaches a sermon in Jerusalem and 2000 are baptized, and his audience? Almost entirely made up of Jews. Here is the text:
quote:
...Now there were dwelling in Jerusalem Jews, devout men from every nation under heaven. 6 And at this sound the multitude came together, and they were bewildered, because each one was hearing them speak in his own language. 7 And they were amazed and astonished, saying, Are not all these who are speaking Galileans? 8 And how is it that we hear, each of us in his own native language? 9 Parthians and Medes and Elamites and residents of Mesopotamia, Judea and Cappadocia, Pontus and Asia, 10 Phrygia and Pamphylia, Egypt and the parts of Libya belonging to Cyrene, and visitors from Rome, 11 both Jews and proselytes, Cretans and Arabianswe hear them telling in our own tongues the mighty works of God. - acts 2:5-11
While these people were from different nations, all were Jews. As it was Passover, many Jews would have come from different places to Jerusalem, as was the custom. For more evidence, here is the wikipedia page on early christianity. Check out the very first paragraph. If you require, I can supply more scholarly evidence as well. I have the textbooks in my house, I can scan one in and post it here if you need haha.
We Gnostic Christians favor the more Eastern esoteric one and not the Roman ass kisser that Rome invented.
I don't really know how to respond here, other than to say that I'm sorry. You seem to have been fed an incorrect version of early church history. Here are a couple sources of great, peer-reviewed, real history done by recent scholars: The Story of Christianity, Vol. 1: The Early Church to the Dawn of the Reformation by Gonzalez, and Introduction to New Testament Textual Criticism by Greenlee is also good. I hope you take some time to investigate history for yourself rather than relying on youtube videos and assumptions!
Christians are always trying to absolve God of moral culpability in the fall by whipping out their favorite "free will!", or it’s all man’s fault...... this simply avoids God's culpability as the author of Human Nature. Free will is only the ability to choose. It is not an explanation why anyone would want to choose "A" or "B" (bad or good action). An explanation for why Eve would even have the nature of "being vulnerable to being easily swayed by a serpent" and "desiring to eat a forbidden fruit" must lie in the nature God gave Eve in the first place...God is culpable for deliberately making humans with a nature-inclined-to-fal....
If I understand correctly, your problem seems to be that free will does not account for what seems like the innate desire of humans to choose evil. You blame God for making humans with the nature that might even allow for sin to be attractive to them, and then think it unfair that he would punish those who choose the nature he put in them from the start. A valid concern, and one which I have also wrestled with in my own life. What I have concluded (this is backed up by both scripture and real life) is: that is the danger of sin. It is intrinsically enticing, and of course it would be, when the opposite of love is self/selfishness. This was the danger of the Tree of Knowledge... , and this was the danger in humans "becoming like God." Now, humans know that a way other than God's way exists, and it is automatically enticing, because selfishness is always gratifying.
Now, to answer the question about God punishing people for simply having this sinful nature: This is what the whole plan of salvation was about. We learn from Paul (Romans 5-7) that Jesus supplanted Adam as our original heritage, and that because of His death God can now live within people! What this does is exactly what we discussed earlier, the New Covenant that God had promised hundreds of years before Jesus; that as long as we believe it's true, he would change our nature from what it is not, bent and twisted, back into what He originally intended! This is the gospel my friend! That God does not count sins against people, and God does not count our sinful nature against us (2 Cor 5:19).
The key to understanding the moral of the story of Eden, as to whether it was a fall or our elevation, you will have to decide based on your own intelligence and thinking. If you can Ignore your tradition and dogma that is and think for yourself.
As this is getting quite long , I don't think I'll directly respond to everything posted here. Only enough to say that
1) Good, healthy exegesis means that we look at what the author meant in the text, and not read our own interpretations/emotions/perspective into the text (eisegesis).
2). Origin, while being a patriarch of the church and close to the Apostolic Fathers, did just that, eisegesis; he read his own meaning into the text and interpreted almost everything allegorically. I do not believe in reading everything literally, but in balance, and healthy exegesis. Most contemporary scholars would say the same thing, so Origin's opinion can really be taken with a grain of salt. Just because something is said by someone with prestige, does it make it right or correct? Are people like Origin above reproach or a second look at his conclusions? Of course not.
I said above I would show you something on the sop and Judas. here it is. Please go with your sense and not what you have been taught by your church.
I watched a little of this mans presentation. Thanks for sharing! Unfortunately it's basically chalk full of misinformation and strange/baseless interpretations. I do not consider myself someone who has been brainwashed by my church and so therefore I will logically, and with evidence, demonstrate why you are incorrect.
Before I explain, a little context. . I am a senior theology major completing my studies at university with minors in Psychology and Biblical Languages. I have already completed my Greek and Hebrew studies and so all requirements for my Biblical language minor. The verses you quoted above are an interesting translation. I am curious as to which one it is? The one I will use is the ESV, which is not a paraphrase (like the Message or NLT) or even a smoothed translation like the NIV, but a borderline word-for-word committee translation such as the KJV and NASV. All this to say: I can assure you, I have read the Greek, and it's extremely close to perfect.
The word you mentioned "sop," is a word that does not exist in the original Greek New Testament. The Greek word is "ψωμίον."
After looking it up, I did see that the word "sop" is used as a translation in some cases, but as "sop" is basically a meaningless word in current English, a better translation would be "a bit, morsel, mouthful." In the context, the ESV has chosen to translate it as "a piece of bread." Further, within the context it simply does not make sense for Jesus to be giving Judas a "mouthful" of coin or a "morsel" of money, since Jesus first dips the "morsel" into a cup. All the language used in the situation is food and eating related. Even if it were possible to construe the text to make it seem like Jesus was bribing Judas, you have to admit that it is a HUGE stretch and pretty ridiculous. If you need more information I am happy to continue defending this point as well.
In conclusion, it seems you have been given misinformation and I would encourage you to actually seek out meanings for yourself by familiarizing yourself with the text instead of relying on what others have told you. I am not relying on "what I have been taught by my church," here. I have shown, with evidence, that your interpretation and assumptions are incorrect. Please respond with evidence of your own so I can understand where you got your information.
Regards!
- Raph
Edited by Raphael, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 41 by Greatest I am, posted 10-22-2015 1:42 PM Greatest I am has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 46 by Raphael, posted 10-22-2015 9:50 PM Raphael has not replied
 Message 48 by GDR, posted 10-24-2015 10:47 PM Raphael has not replied
 Message 52 by Greatest I am, posted 10-26-2015 9:19 AM Raphael has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024