Is God Self-Evident

quote:

---

Sure I can. Gods law is absolute. But its a law of God that he does not immediatley and in every instance punish actions. Do you remember seeing that in the Book. Everyone deserves death, but he offers jusctice and mercy. the Athiest always seems to ignore these attributes of God. Death is not the end of it all.

---

Except that God is not self-evident. St. Thomas of Aquinas did not consider God to be self-evident.Without proof that God does exist, no laws can be attributed to God absolute or otherwise.Show that God is self-evident (perceived without proof or reasoning).

quote:

---

You know full well this is a misrepresentation of what I have said here. You drew immediate conclusions from my statment that lying is wrong in any and all situations. Simply because I atest to the fact that it is always wrong and will always be punished, is not to imply the method. And that is the beauty of Christ, he was made SIN for us, so we would not have to suffer the punishment, HE DID. Christ'S sacrafice covered even Rahabs sin of lying. However, some of the same people of her time would not repent and had become so evil with no signs of repentace that God took greater measures to deal with thier sins. Its always a twofold proposition, God's wishes and our desires. they will work in perfect harmony if you will let them

---

It isn't always wrong to lie. All you've shown in your posts is that morals are relative and God is not self-evident.When we remove emotions and feelings from the equation there are no logical reasons for morals and therefore no absolute morals. So if absolute morals are evidence that God is self-evident (which shouldn't be necessary), it just fell through.

---

"Peshat is what I say and derash is what you say." --Nehama Leibowitz

quote:

---

Your conflating what God decides to do himself with what God directs us not to do. God deciding to wipe out a nation using the Israelites as his weapon of choice is an altogether different matter to me deciding I'll kill my neighbour because I fancy possessing his goods. The gun (the Israelites in this case) can't be held responsible for the actions of the trigger-puller (God in this case)

​

I see no reason to skip over the righteousness of Gods actions. To repeat: God killing isn't murder (murder being defined as 'unrighteous taking of life') because the life belongs to him. Us killing without Gods say so is murder - the life isn't ours to take.

---

Explanations like that are what spark threads like Are Fundamentalists Inherently Immoral.All we really know is that the writers attributed the reason for their actions to God. When they won, God was with them. When they lost, God was against them. Since God is not self-evident, there is no proof that God directed their actions or that a master plan was or is in motion.

---

"Peshat is what I say and derash is what you say." --Nehama Leibowitz

quote:

---

I'm not arguing that God is self-evident because I don't think he is, in the sense demanded for self-evidence in this thread. I'm dealing with an objection from Teapot&unicorn which finds flaw in the mechanism of salvation posed which doesn't rely on God making himself evident. That mechanism supposes an absolute, unchangeable morality to which we have access. T&u says such a thing can't be because Gods own moral viewpoint (T&u claims) changes.

---

I see. Since God's own personal moral viewpoint is unknown to us, we can't say that God has changed his stance on anything since we don't know what this master plan is either. We only have what we are not allowed to do. Like parents who snack before a meal, but won't let their child snack before a meal. The do-as-I-say-not-as-I-do leadership style.IOW, when reason closes in, write a new back story. Of course, since we don't have evidence of God's moral viewpoint, he could very well be changing his mind and moral stance willy nilly.

---

"Peshat is what I say and derash is what you say." --Nehama Leibowitz

quote:

---

We are told by this God what moral behaviour we are to engage in in order to be holy. Then we are told "be holy for I am holy" he says. Which does give us links into his morality. We are also told that he is good and are given indications as to what goodness entails.

---

Actually we are told by writers who say that this God expects certain moral behaviors from us in order to be holy. We are told by writers that God is good; but the tales they tell, by our standards today, don't always show a good god.

quote:

---

You, as so many others, appear to be conflating God (eg killing with us killing when you suggest a "do as I say not as I do" style. A snack is a snack - a righteous killing is not an unrighteous killing.

​

Apples and pears.

---

The snack wasn't the point. The point was hidden information, which is what you are implying with God. The parent doesn't want the child to snack because the child won't eat dinner if they snack. The parent knows they themselves will still eat dinner even if they snack. They don't necessarily disclose that to the child. The parent's master plan is for the child to eat a nutritious dinner and grow up healthy. The child doesn't necessarily know this master plan and just wants to snack.The style is the important part, not that it was a snack. Parents don't always tell their children the whys of the rules they implement. That's what you are implying for God. You're saying we don't really know his moral viewpoint or his master plan; so what he does looks unfair or immoral to us because we don't have all the information, just like a child watching his parents' actions.That is the do-as-I-say-not-as-I-do leadership style.If the master plan and God's moral viewpoint are unknown to us, we really have no way of knowing if the killing was in accord with a divine or moral law or not. God is responsible whether he orders and supports the killings, or he does the killings himself.Since we don't know the master plan, we have no idea if the salvation you speak of is a good deal or not, or whether it will also change to suit the master plan that is unknown to us. Christians could all be cast aside once the Jews act in accordance with his master plan. We may be expendable. No guarantees.From Message 74

quote:

---

God takes something belonging to him (a life) we, if we kill unrighteously, take something not belonging to us. The only righteous killing we can do is killing sanctioned by God. Some suppose war to involve righteous killing. They may be right, they may not be. We'll all find out in the end.

---

Since God is not self-evident, then one would need to show that all life actually belongs to the God of the Bible. The lives of people who believe in another god would belong to that god, not the God of the Bible. What right does he have to take a life that belongs to another god? That makes the killing unrighteous by your definition.Edited by purpledawn, : Msg 74

---

"Peshat is what I say and derash is what you say." --Nehama Leibowitz

quote:

---

It is clearly being assumed, for the sake of presenting a mechanism of salvation not requiring Gods self-evidency, that the Bible reveals his will. If God is completely other than (it is assumed) he is revealing himself in the Bible, then of course all of this is moot.

​

The mechanism explains why our standards might vary from his. That doesn't alter him being good. (good being defined as that which conforms to Gods will and evil defined as that which doesn't)

​

I'm saying we do know his morality and his masterplan - when he condemns as evil/unholy certain actions they are so because they run counter to who he is and what he's about. It looks unfair to the unbeliever because ... well because the unbelievers is geared towards running counter to who God is and what he's about.

---

I don't ever want to step into a church full of people who actually believe that what you just dished out is real.Anything said to be the will of the God of the Judeo/Christian Bible is good. Anything contrary is bad. The problem is that there are other religions who worship other gods and odds are their holy writings imply the same thing.

quote:

---

Again, the assumptions on which the mechanism posed is based aren't being taken into account.

---

Why does the mechanism need to be based on assumptions? Either it exists or it doesn't.With all these assumptions, you're really just writing a back story to fit your story. The story changes to fit the needs of the writer. I don't see anything based in reality.Only in your story are the nonbelievers geared towards running counter to who God is and what he's about.

quote:

---

Again my friend we are at present only discussing logical consistency, not the validity of this or that document.

---

But your arguments aren't logically consistent. If you disagree, show me the logical consistency in your argument.Like Iano, you're basing your whole premise on a very big assumption concerning one book.Let's assume nothing in the Bible is real or true. The stories are all exaggerated and politically skewed.Morals are a creation of humanity. They come from the human mind. They are imposed or followed by humans. Emotions, usually fear, are a big part of creating morals.Looking through history we can see that morals change over time and vary from civilization to civilization.The Bible writers use fear to impose the morals of their time, whether it is fear of physical death, plagues, or eternal death. Our lawmakers today use fear to impose new laws or to gain compliance.Why can people kill non-humans without guilt or shame? Lack of emotion.To imply that your God lacks emotion towards people is contrary to the teaching that God loves all people.

---

"Peshat is what I say and derash is what you say." --Nehama Leibowitz

quote:

---

Some definition of good has to be applied to the discussion. It happens to be this one. What one would YOU apply?

---

Why not use the actual definition of the English word "good"?

quote:

---

Given the above..so?

---

If actions of each inevident god are always considered good just because they are actions of a god and anything contrary is bad, then humans will always be caught in the middle.So while humans are trying to do their respective god's will, they are also going against the will of another god.Within their own respective holy writings the situation is explained by saying that when they win, their god is with them and when they lose, their god isn't with them and he uses others to chastise us.This really just sets humans up as chess pieces when the inevident gods instruct their people to retaliate. People die at the whim of the gods. How is that good?

quote:

---

Too vague PD. You need to follow the mechanism suggested in order to pick holes in it.

---

But there is no mechanism. You said yourself you can't prove the existence of it. So you're supposing (guessing) based on writings over 2000 years old, which contain as much, if not more, fiction as fact.

quote:

---

Er.. that's the definition of a non-believer (leaving aside the saved persons ability to sin for the moment)

---

Yes, in your story. Non-believer just means one who doesn't believe in whatever you present. Their actions may or may not be running contrary to who God is or what he is about. Of course if their non-belief is the will of God, then they are not running contrary. They are right on target. Part of that master plan.

quote:

---

It's a matter of garbage-in, garbage-out in that whatever the bible says they assume beforehand that it is truth. We're instructed to take it all on faith, but other religions require the same thing. If the beliefs fundamentally contradict one another, then faith in which direction wins out?

---

IMO, that what's wrong with theocracies. The leader is not self-evident. The only thing evident is the human middleman. What isn't evident is whether the middleman actually has contact with the inevident leader. So when power corrupts, the gods battle, and the peons suffer.While the God of the Bible as viewed today is not self-evident, I think the gods as originally viewed were self-evident.The gods were personifications of their environment and human traits, what they could see and feel. God is that which sustains us. As humans started to gain knowledge of their environment and humanity, gods were moved to the untouchable realm of imagination and took on a life of their own independent of reality. Hence the backstories.Oddly enough, civilization tends to abuse that which sustains them. The planet. Religions around here seem to want bigger and better churches. More cement over the dirt, lights on all night, etc. I guess when one expects a new place later, there's no reason to take care of the current one.

---

"Peshat is what I say and derash is what you say." --Nehama Leibowitz

quote:

---

Yes, and what exactly makes it any different than the worship of Baal or Molech?

---

Exactly!Paul pulled the Ephesian women away from their Goddess Diana/Artemis who they believed protected them during childbirth. So from their god's standpoint Paul was enticing them away.If we had religious writings from the perspective of the believers in those religions, would they put for the same idea that whatever their god does is good? I don't know if any exist.It is common for one group to demonize another group. Gentiles did so concerning the Jews and their practices and even made some up. So how much of what the Bible writers say about another religion is true and how much is just bad mouthing?

---

"Peshat is what I say and derash is what you say." --Nehama Leibowitz

IMO, EMA thinks you need to be saved from yourself. You're the target of EMA's responses and the responses aren't dealing with the topic of the thread.It is a shame since this is an interesting topic, but it ran off into another discussion on morals and contradictions. I've tried three times to engage EMA and get back to the topic of the discussion, but apparently EMA thinks you have a weakness that can be exploited to bring you "back to the fold."Hopefully you can get EMA back to the topic.

quote:

---

Besides this I thought we were on track when discussing morals and principles

---

Except that morals and principles are not the topic of the thread. What is your point concerning the topic of the thread. Do you feel that God is self-evident or not?Even though you won't respond to me, the following information may benefit Hyroglyphx.

quote:

---

We actually have two separate issues here. One is wehther these two verses contradict eachother and whether or not a God has the right to punish someone else for someone elses sins.

---

God is not self-evident so God doesn't actually punish anyone. Man's actions or acts of nature are attributed to God as punishment.As far as Exodus 20:5 and Ezekiel 18:20. Exodus 20:5, according to the Documentary Hypothesis, is a Priestly writing probably written between 722-587 BCE. So the writer may have been a contemporary of Isaiah, Jeremiah, or even Ezekiel. Concepts of the resurrection of the dead and afterlife are a later development in Judaism. These two writers were not talking about the afterlife or spiritual death. Don't abuse creative writing. The word Hebrew word nephesh refers to a living being.

quote:

---

Is it possible that the two writers are addressing two different issues? Yes or No

​

If they are, then it it is possible that they dont contradict each other, to which you have admitted the possibilty, Yes or No?

---

Ah the possibility game. You yourself would have to actually show proof that the actual writers were not referring to the same thing. If we read more than just the one verse, we see that they are referring to the same thing. Ezekiel is countering the proverb: "The fathers eat sour grapes, and the children's teeth are set on edge?" (Ezekiel 18:2)It is logically inconsistent to say that God can punish generations for the sins of one ancestor, but each person dies for their own sin. Even trying to make one of these about the afterlife is inconsistent since the afterlife was a later development.Even the disciples of Jesus associated physical afflictions with sin of the individual or their ancestors. In this case it was neither. God was just flexing his muscles.You're projecting backwards the beliefs of a later group.

quote:

---

If there are two different types of punishment (Rev and the second death, etc)one eternal and final and one earthly and temporal, then why would God not be able to administer punishment as he sees fit in
each instance?

---

The if game also. Followers of a self-evident God would not need to say if. Followers of a god who is not self-evident have no bird in the hand.

quote:

---

If I can show a clear distinction between the two things discussed, two different types of punishment involved, two different sets of circumstances in the passages, it would follow that you are not warrented in being as specfic as you are trying to be in this circustancem, correct, Yes or No?

---

Show it, don't just ask. You're trying to get agreement before you present anything.

quote:

---

Now since we have cleared that up with both logic and scripture, perhaps you would like to discuss why an Ominpotent and Omniscient God does not have a right to do this in the first place.

---

No, because the god is not self-evident, omnipotent, or omniscient. Even we know it is immoral for a master to abuse a slave. How much worse is it then for a father to abuse his own children.Christians should use the same concept presented in Ezekiel 18. Instead of trying to present a god who is right no matter what he does, present a god who has stopped wrong behavior and is now righteous. Of course that puts a crack in absolutism.IOW, the god reflects the changing morals of civilization.

quote:

---

However, you need to be specific, for, while I am clear on what you are doing and your confusion, I think you are confusing some of the readers.

---

Actually, you are confusing the readers. Why aren't you addressing the topic of the thread? What does absolutism versus relativism have to do with whether God is self-evident?

quote:

---

So therefore the author is speaking as if God is ordering a command to slaughter children, but God wouldn't actually do that? Not only is that not true, but it brings the whole infallibility question in to disrepute.

---

I wondered where the baby smashing issue was pulled from. I agree with Bailey in that this song is not an order from God. It is a lament.The Psalmist is writing from the perspective of having returned home and looking back at the exile. The Psalmist gave up his music making occupation in captivity.The line about the baby bashing is a poet's expression of anger. Just as Edom was happy the day Jerusalem was destroyed, this poet will be happy to see their captors received the treatment he describes, which makes one wonder if that's what happened to some of the Jewish children when Jerusalem fell.This song does not contain an order from God. Just a angry poet wishing bad things upon those who ruined their lives.

---

"Peshat is what I say and derash is what you say." --Nehama Leibowitz

The prophets wrote poetically in many instances, but claim to be speaking for God. The Psalms are nothing more than songs written by the people to express their feelings etc. The same reason we write songs today. They don't claim to be speaking for God.Leviticus is a Priestly writing.

---

"Peshat is what I say and derash is what you say." --Nehama Leibowitz

Well you didn't respond to my Message 137, but you did mention my name. BTW, do you know Peg?

quote:

---

Further and that which buries your case even more, people did not die immediately when they did sin
in these instances, Ezekiel was not talking about physical death, or physical punishment, something that Moses or God WAS talking about in THE EXODUS text. there is no contradiction and there is certainly no ambiguity, it is to easy to mis for someone that is actually looking.

---

Good grief, do you really not understand reality? Death was not the penalty for all transgressions. If you disagree and bother to answer, then show in reality that physical death was the penalty for all sins. The people are writing creatively and dramatically.

quote:

---

PurpleDawn writes:

​

It is logically inconsistent to say that God can punish generations for the sins of one ancestor, but each person dies for their own sin. Even trying to make one of these about the afterlife is inconsistent since the afterlife was a later development.

No it is not and I have demonstrated this without question?

---

Actually, you haven't. You've just made assumptions and written fiction.No, one is not addressing the totality of and end result of sin. You're putting a later spin on the writings. They do not complement each other.Exodus deals with the corporate view. Ezekiel deals with the individual view. If the corporate view punishes for sins of the ancestors, then individuals are suffering for the sins of their ancestors. It isn't consistent.Yes you've made assumptions and have God speaking from the afterlife, but that is fiction.

quote:

---

I will address PDs statements here since they fit into the conversation. Even given the idea that the after life may have been a later concept, you are assuming he was not influnced by the direct operation of the Holy Spirit, which makes known information not otherwise available. Since we are clearly talking about God and the afterlife, since he resides in the afterlife and reveals this information to those writers, perhaps you could provide evidence he was not speaking through inspiration of God.

---

Which he? No the authors are not talking about the afterlife. You're writing fiction. Stick to the text.

quote:

---

Hmmmm look at Ezekiel 2 verse 2. "And the Spirit entered into me and spake unto me"........ I doubt these people were not aware of such concepts but then we would have to get rid of nearly the whole book wouldnt we PD.

---

Ezekiel is a prophet, they get visions. What's your point? Your assumption that God lives in the afterlife or that God is talking from the afterlife is not supported by the Bible. You're writing fiction.

quote:

---

Lets assume he is not talking about spiritual death, which from Gods concept and Ezekiels through inspiration his is. But lets assume for a moment he is not. Ezekiel is speaking about the end result of the iniquity the totality and summation to the point of death or the result of the sin RESULTING IN DEATH, due to continual sin without repentance, it would not change the point. God will hold the Father accountable finally for his sins, yet this would have nothing to do with what God can and will do presently as well. Ezekiels focus is the totality and finality of a persons life and what will happen as a result of that, whether it is death physically or as I believe death spiritually,, a JUDGEMENT.

---

No need to assume.

quote:

---

At bare minimum these verse are not in violation or conflict and I defy any person to show otherwise, excluding saying "I dont Like That"

---

Already did that and I didn't even say I don't like that. It has nothing to do with like, it has to do with the text.

quote:

---

Ah but they dont contradict. Ezekiel says the SOULLLLLLLL that sinneth it will die.

---

And I showed you that the word translated as soul means a living person. You haven't shown otherwise. The author of Revelation has nothing to do with the OT writers.You're creating your own story and not addressing the text.
Just as many have been trying to explain, laws change over time. Morals change over time. So what does any of your argument have to do with whether God is self-evident or not?

quote:

---

but after all of this it is your responsibility to show how an omnipotent omniscient God can be wrong about anything.

---

God is not omniscient.
Genesis 18:21 - I, the Lord, 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.
Job 1:7 - The Lord said to Satan, "Where have you come from?"Even though the book of Job is fiction, the writer did not understand God to be omniscient and neither did the author of Genesis.Why would an omniscient God lose his temper?
Judges 3:8 - "The anger of the Lord was hot against Israel...
2 Kings 13:3 - "The anger of the Lord was kindled against Israel"
2 Samuel 24:1 - "Again the anger of the Lord was kindled against Israel"God does make mistakes and learns from them.Genesis 2:18 - "It is not good that the man should be alone"
God didn't make an appropriate mate for Adam. God then had to rectify that mistake by creating Eve.An omniscient being would have known before he created Adam that it was not good for Adam to be alone. God had already made mates for the rest of the animals.Genesis 6:5 - The LORD was grieved that he had made man on the earth, and his heart was filled with pain.
So the flood was God's way of fixing his mistake. An omniscient being would have foreseen the potential problem. Unfortunately it didn't work since evil continues throughout the Bible.God is not omnipotent.
God is unable to stop mankind from misbehaving.

---

"Peshat is what I say and derash is what you say." --Nehama Leibowitz