What gives God the right to be "holy"?

One reason might be the conviction that God expressing his wrath against that which is evil is a good thing. The focus in that case is less on his action and more on the object of his wrath. If being convinced that sin in all it's forms and manifestations is throughly ugly then one has reason to take pride in being associated with the source of that which is anti-sin.It's all comes down to your view on sin I suppose. If having no problem in principle with that which you yourself consider evil being punished, then your "butcher/plaguebearer" slur is rendered a toothless attack.Your knowing this already, yet partaking in the slur, is indicative of God-hatred - something predicted as forming the nature of the lost. Edited by iano, : No reason given.

You've got that slightly skewed cavediver. His wrath was the actual contents of the box her choice opened so there isn't a way for her to have opened that box without releasing the contents. In other words, his wrath formed the consequences promised - which formed one of the very options open to her.There is no problem with giving someone the promised consequences attaching to their choice - surely?And whilst some of those consequences involve our suffering (which doesn't make them any less just - they are simply promised consequences), the overarching gig wrt us isn't our suffering - it's our response to something God installed in each one of us: a knowledge of good and evil.If we (not she) know we are doing evil then surely you'd have no problem with our being punished, eventually, for it. It's our knowledge, our choice .. to do evil. Eve hasn't anything directly to do with it.

I was dealing with the objections raised in your post - not the OP.That response dealt with the why of wrath coming to Eve/us, ie: it was not primarily that her choice was 'an affront' to God, it was because the wrath of God visited upon her was one of the choices available to her. It wasn't looking at "why wrath..full stop".Why wrath at all? It seems reasonable enough to me that God is going to have a nature and that that nature is fixed-at-root. Even if it didn't seem reasonable to me, so what: God is just the way God is and there is little pointing turning ourselves inside out as to 'why' he is the way he is.Suffice to say that if he finds some things objectionable and worthy of exercising wrath against (in the just and fair fashion outlined above: Eve choose wrath) then I can't see much problem with it.Edited by iano, : No reason given.

Because he's great! Kind, gentle, patient, loving, considerate...And I'd like to be like that.

..oh, and because he hates evil too. And because he promises to put infinite distance between me and it. Even though I do evil, I hate it too.Edited by iano, : No reason given.

Great! indicates I find those qualities admirable/attractive/worthy of emulation. It doesn't mean they are in any absolute sense (given the pointlessness of subjective/abolute discussions)

Precisely (although that does kick the ball to the touchline of "purity" and what that might be - for those so inclinded to cling to the liferaft objection called "subjectivity").Suffice for us to agree that the merest hint of unkindness, selfishness, envy, malice (in their unattractive sense - as commonly agreed upon by man) is "evil".- Either their choice was weighted to ensure they'd choose to eat. Or they had a balanced choice. We can't tell from the text. If balanced then all that follows is just (as commonly agreed upon by man). If not, then not.Remember that it's an assumption you're relying on here. That's a thin-ice objection.- Could you elaborate? What has our not being able to obtain to the standard got to do with evil being evil?- Unfortunately for this position, God has provided an alternative to our having to fulfill his expectation. That alternative is freely available to all men at all times anywhere in the world whether they've heard of God/Christ/the Bible or not.Could you reformulate your objection to take account of this element?- In other words: it must be God who blinks - not man.Surely you'd recoil at the idea of having a stinking, flea-ridden dog take up residence in your house. And wonder at the flea ridden dog insisting you blink. If that flea-infested hound refused the treatment you were offering him you'd show him the door - shaking your head as his accusing you of being a tyrant.- The peanut gallery might be impressed but you've not provided much substance to the "any sane view" view. Most sane folk have no problem with folk receiving the consequences of choice. Most sane folk have no problem seeing grace behind the offer to supply something you've no obligation to supply. Most sane folk understand that evil is objectionable.Most sane folk turn all this sanity on it's head when the issue turns to God the evil is their own and God refuses to blink first. Most sane folk want God to kneel before them. Not the other way around.There's nowt to be done cavediver: God is God, you're the created. You're subject to him - not him to you.

Correction (and I mean this sincerely).You are currently a complete fucktard - albeit it one in denial (wriggling away from that conclusion by supposing yourself 'not such a bad chap' compared to .......... (insert bottom feeder of choice here)).After you accept Jesus as Lord you'll find your desire to be a complete fucktard interfered with by the one whose taking up residence in you you have accepted. Your being under new management doesn't mean you won't engage in fucktard activity. But you won't be a happy bunny doing so. Not any more.You would not be your own - you would have been bought at a price.Edited by iano, : No reason given.

I was giving you Christianities view on things: me, you and everyone else ever born are evildoers of extreme degree. Evildoers, sinners, fucktards - call us whatever you like.Christianities view on things isn't that Christianity gives you licence to be a fucktard (which you seemed to feel). Rather, Christianities view on things is that you are a fucktard already and need rescuing from your fucktardiness.Christianities view on things is that anyone who rejects Gods attempt to save them will remain fucktards until the day they die and that then they will face Judgement.I wasn't identifying you to be a fucktard in any personal sense. My apologies if I gave that impression

1) Not everyone who considers themselves Christian are Christians (as defined by God) - whether the self-identifying tag happens to be "priest" or "evangelical".This makes it as difficult to throw mud as it is to clean it off.2) Assuming some of those priests were Christians (as defined by God)? Their having qualms or not isn't easy to ascertain. Suffice to say, having qualms isn't always sufficient to prevent sin. The fact that Christians sin is evidence for that.Were it that being a Christian was a guarentee of sinless perfection. Edited by iano, : No reason given.

Your study seems to possess gaping holes. Christianities 'followers' are:1) Considered righteous in Gods sight.2) Are considered to have evil residing only in the vehicle around in which they move, to whit: the mortal flesh.Far from denigrating it's followers, Christianity exalts them to the very highest of (admittedly undeserved) places. A(n adopted) child of God? There can be no more exalted position than that. Bar being God yourself.- Er..no.Last I heard, I worshipped God because I wanted to, because it is a way for me to express "how great thou art". Wouldn't it be terrible if you thought someone was fantastic but there was no means to express that? Last I also heard, if I never worshipped God between now and my dying breath it wouldn't make any difference to the fact that I'm going to meet him and spend all eternity with him.As it is, it would be a lot more difficult not to worship that worship him. So I do. Perhaps the reason you don't is that you've never met him. In that case, there'd be little point in being a 'follower' of Christianity. You might as well plough another furrow as this one.

It's one thing telling a grown adult who engages in discussion regarding such things that they are dead in their sins. It's quite another to brainwash a child with such stuff.I'd view exposing a child to the gospel (and the need for it) in the same way as I'd view exposing a child to sex and sexuality: one page at a time > at a pace suitable for the childs stage of development. They might be born sinners but their children all the same.- ..if you had the kind of upbringing you described above then I'm not surprised you freed yourself from it.It's all very well to have life-affirming thoughts but if that life is spend on a sinking Titanic then the enjoyment of the playing band only masks the icy waters to come.You'd agree that what matters is what's true. Not what's personally most satisfying?- I believe the same thing. Indeed, it's because I believe man is made in the image and likeness of God and that he has an awareness of good and evil that he can love and be moral (at times)- You don't believe he exists because you've never met him. If you did you would believe he exists - naturally.At least you might agree that it is reasonable to worship someone who you've met who you find worthy of it?

Christian? Christian!Children aren't born Christians. Neither are they raised Christians. So by the time these children get to adulthood they can be unbelievers who'll have (hopefully) heard the gospel in appropriate manner. Or they'll be Christians because the power of the gospel has resulted in their being born again. Two possible situation only to which I'd say:1) If they are Christians at this point then your point stumbles over my point made previously. Any Christian who majors on their being dirt on Gods shoe is a seriously mis-guided Christian. "You are a child of the living God man - start living like one!" ...says the gospel of God which has reinstated fallen man.2) If they are not Christians then they will be unbelievers who have heard the gospel (hopefully) appropriately. That will mean that they will have heard about themselves as sinners, as evil doers, as lost. And will have heard that there is a remedy for their situation should they ever come to be convinced of that. It doesn't mean they'll have been brainwashed from childbirth to consider themselves dirt. You say you've studied Christianity prior to rejecting it but seem to have missed the glaring point: man doesn't convince man of the message of the gospel - God doesn. There's no point in beating a child over the head with it their whole life through. And no need.- I'm not surprised - if it's the kind of legalistic, repressive regieme you've been outlining.My wifes training to be a counselling psychologist. She see's unbelief bring lots of people in.- Your study of Christianity should have instructed you on the chief pitfall of man: man going his own way, relying on himself and getting into trouble. The parable of the Prodigal Son, the rebelliousness of the Israelites, Adam and Eve ... it's a Bible drumbeat.And here we have another example: you relying on you for arrival at truth. You relying on you to decide what is true and what is not. You relying on you to decide this god proved or that God proved.Whereas God is the one who needs to prove himself to you. God, the truth, needs to reveal himself to you so that you can observe truth. You're not in a position to arrive at Truth yourself, Kitsune. You're a subjective creature or don't you know that?(ps: aren't there Christians who don't believe in a literal floood, a literal Adam and Eve? You must have rejected Christianity for other reasons)- I'm becoming more and more inclined to suppose you haven't actually studied Christianity at all. That, or Pauls statement about "the things of God being mere foolishness" to those who are blind can be writ very large. I mean no insult, but surely you know the basic position is that people aren't born children of God. That they have to be re-born in order to be "given the right to become children of God"?It won't be children of God who are condemned, if condemned. The Bible describes those who'll be condemned variously: the wicked, children of satan, God haters, enemies of God.Everlasting torment is the state of those who opt to spend their existance outside the love of God. Jaywill made the point well elsewhere: if God is the source of all our blessings (whether we are currently lost or found) then what else would we expect an existance to be like were we to chose to remove ourselves totally and everlastingly from his presence. If not everlasting torment I mean.If our being made in the image and likeness of God (albeit sullied by sin) is the reason why we; create, love, laugh, relate, enjoy, hope, feel peace ... and that image taken away is one consequence of our chosing to reject God and what he entails then where's the objection. We chose for it: what possible objection can there be to our receiving the consequences of our choice?By all means believe something else if you like - but if objecting to Christianity then do get your objections straight. You might find you can't - which might prove a blessing at some point.- Personally, I'm inclined to believe that for which I have evidence. Evidence that convicts me. Whether it be the world is round, or God exists. If you've that evidence then fair enough.- I think that anyone who provides a means whereby people who love them can express that love knows a thing or two about love. It is fitting that God be worshipped by people who love him - considering what he's done for those people, considering how low he stooped to pick them up.Perhaps you've never been loved absolutely and unconditionally. In so far as you have been, can I suggest you worshipped the ground that person walked on?Edited by iano, : insert the word (hopefully) twice near the top

Your posts are sailing further and further from the shores of substance hooah and this reaction above is but a few more oar strokes in the wrong direction. Support your objections with reasoned argumentation or we won't be conversing for very long more.Alright?- And if your not good (which implies sin - which implies a potential end result not= heaven?)..? Seems you've implied at the same conclusion as me. Question now is: can you be good enough?- Do you see the word 'if' in my sentence?- Perhaps you're not good enough?

A borderline reading comprehension disorder (on your part) fits the bill a tad better.God punishes man for mans' willingly doing what he knows to be evil. That's but one consequence of chosing an existance outside the love of God: the just penalty for your sin is visited upon you. We can see then, that a man isn't punished for not accepting God's love and that saying so is but a semantical spin applied to things.The torment I had in mind in my post had more to do with losing beneficial aspects we currently enjoy due to our being made in Gods image and likeness. No God for eternity? Then no image of God in which you were made - for eternity. And that will be a torment. Something chosen for by those who will occupy Hell. Edited by iano, : No reason given.