Straightforward, hard-to-answer-questions about the Bible/Christianity

"Hi Slevesque
I have a general question about the biblical depiction of God. It's one I've asked before on this site but didn't get an answer.If God is perfect, how did he make us imperfect (in his eyes) and why does that make him angry?If God was perfect, he'd be happy all the time because he wouldn't make anything that was imperfect or, if he did, it could only have been deliberate. He would deliberately make everything exactly as he wanted.He can't be both perfect and angry.Hi Slevesque
I have a general question about the biblical depiction of God. It's one I've asked before on this site but didn't get an answer.If God is perfect, how did he make us imperfect (in his eyes) and why does that make him angry?If God was perfect, he'd be happy all the time because he wouldn't make anything that was imperfect or, if he did, it could only have been deliberate. He would deliberately make everything exactly as he wanted.He can't be both perfect and angry."There are some errors in the above statement. Firstly that God created an imperfect man, which is not true. God created man in his image, which is perfect. Imperfections came from eating the fruit of good and evil.Second, God isn't always angry. In fact, the Bible teaches that God is forgiving. God does not like sin, but he loves us completely. Like when you are feeding your baby boy a bottle, and he is kicking your ribs. You forgive him, because you love him enough not to chop him up and feed him to the dog for minor errors, that usually cannot be helped, because it is in his nature.We are similar to babies. Generally, we don't know what to do, we don't know whats going on, and the big picture will remain a mystery until our dad comes and takes us with him.Corny answer. I know. But this isn't science, it's spiritual (we are assuming that there is a God, and not debating the subject), thus it requires a spiritual answer.Dennis.

"when they did it, they didn't know it was a bad thing to do."Wrong. God warned them. Satan convinced Eve to eat it anyways appealing to her human nature. God clearly set a rule, and it was broken, they knew is was wrong because God commanded them not to."Second, imperfections coming from the fruit just pushes the issue back a step. When God made humans presumably he knew that they would end up eating the fruit later (omniscience biting him in the arse), so he was making perfect beings that would "break" after a period of time. Furthermore he created the tree, the agent of their imperfection, something he might as well not have done. It isn't like the existence of the garden or anything else hinged on the tree existing there."God knew in advance this would happen. But God created man in his image, giving them the right to choose, be it good or bad. Stopping this from happening would remove this gift. Good question about the requirement of the tree. I'm not really sure why God put it there. I would suppose that without it, we wouldn't be here today. We would all be in the garden of Eden (supposing adam and eve reproduced without eating the fruit). God shows an important aspect of man here though. And since He had knowledge of good and evil, man would almost HAVE to eat it to be completely in his image.Interesting point...never thought of that before."Not quite like that; after all, God won't forgive you unless you ask. God would chop that baby up and feed him to the dogs for eternity if the baby was incapable or unlucky enough to not learn about the "get out of jail free" ritual."HAHAHAHAHA. Well, that would depend on the parents. This is a matter of some debate among christians, but I personally believe that if the parents are christian, and the baby died, it would go to heaven, and vice versa. Others believe all babies go to heaven because they are too young to have the choice.I don't believe in 'fire insurance' either. Acts don't make a christian, but a christian will have acts." If someone doesn't know about it, they can hardly reject it right?"Those who don't know about it go to hell. Accepting Jesus as your lord and saviour, asking for forgiveness, and meaning it is the only way to heaven."The Christian god is ridiculously arrogant, prideful, and jealous."Actually, the Bible portrays God as loving, but vengeful. He teaches to be humble, love your enemies, and if one strikes you on one cheek, to offer the other. And as far as being jealous...what or who does he have to be jealous of? He has infinite power (supposing I'm right of course).Being recognized for hard work and sacrifice is not limited to God. We are created in his image, remember? We want to be appreciated for the things we do as well (sob story).

"17But of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat of it: for in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die. "God warned them in advance that it was wrong, and that they would DIE. Read your Bible."Or apparently in your view, dying ignorant with Christian parents."So, because my parents hold a certain belief, I`m wrong. In fact, I was raised christian, but turned at around 17. I was a strong evolutionist for 6 years. I debated christians online commonly, attempting to show that belief is not a substitute for evidence. But some christians are not lead around by their tails (few and far between, I`ll admit). I was beaten on many different scientific points. It was my personal decision to accept christianity again, due to the message it teaches compared to other religions."After all, you do know that there were thousands of years before Christianity developed, right?"This is only accurate if you are correct. If my view is correct, then it`s been around since the beginning, when God created man."And apparently God doesn't give a crap about our works, so why should we care about his?"You are right, he doesn`t. Even the worst of the worst can go to heaven, so long as they repent. God looks at the heart, not at a mans works.And you make a good point, why should we care what He has done. We shouldn`t. If The Bible is not true. If it is, we should.

"By the way, many atheists don't own Bibles. Adjust your world view accordingly."Phage, if you consider yourself an atheist, then the Bible holds no merit. Debating when sin entered into the world is irrelevant, if you don't believe what the Bible says in the first place.Next, if you don't own a Bible, how can you debate the subject. Would you build a bridge before going to school?Now, even though before they ate from the tree of knowledge of good and evil, they still understood right from wrong. God warned Adam and Eve not to eat from the tree. If God IS in existance, then why would he warn them if they couldn't decide right from wrong? This supposes that God is not all knowing. If you take the Biblical account to be true, and God is all knowing, then he would have created man in his image, with the ability to choose right from wrong. He sends Adam a very strong message, that if you eat of the tree, you will surely DIE. This clearly shows that Adam does not want to die, as with Eve. If Adam didn't care if he died, then the threat by God would be meaningless."That does seem to be what you are saying; that the beliefs of the parents will save or damn their children that die before being able to make an informed choice."Again, this is a matter of some debate amoung christians. However, I am in the minority here. Let me explain. Many christians believe that before you are old enough to understand who Jesus was, and what he did, you can't make a decision to accept him or reject him. This is what leads most christians to believe that they are still pure in Gods eyes. Myself, I'm in the minority. But the Bible teaches that children are born with the sins of their father. If the father is not saved, then his sins are not forgiven. This is why Jesus (if I'm correct of course) did not have an earthly father. God was his father, who was without sin. He was the only person ever to walk the earth that carried no sin. Just an opinion though."Then can you provide any explanation why the Native Americans had not heard of Christianity before missionaries arrived?"I can try. I wasn't there though. God spread mankind all over the world, and confused their language when man tried to build the tower of Babel. This would explain the different cultures worldwide. Given enough time, each group of people would change, and though some may stay true to their faith in God alone, others would (and more likely would) be angry with God for separating the population. In my personal OPINION, all nations were christian before the tower of Babel was built. However, much like when the commandments were brought down from Mount Siani (I hope thats spelled correct), and the people were worshiping a golden calf, man in general tends to lean towards carnal nature. Putting your hopes, beliefs, and trust in something that cannot be seen or heard is difficult at best. Just my opinion though. I haven't read much about Native American culture and history. I should read up more though."If God is all-powerful then he is also all-responsible. Sin is therefore God's responsibility."Yes and no. You kind of worded that funny. Each sin commited by an individual human is their own. You have the freedom to choose whether or not you will kill your neighbor, or screw your nanny. These are choices we make. Sin was intentional, would be more accurate, since God knew in advance that Adam and Eve would eat of the tree because of Satan.Hmm. Now I'm not sure. God knew it would happen, but Satan (in the form of a serpent) convinced Eve to break Gods commandment to them. Yea, I'm willing to go as far as saying that God knew that sin and death would come into the world before he even created earth. But free will gives each individual the ability to choose whether or not to sin.

"That being the case, what sense does it make to say it's wrong to eat of the fruit if they have no concept of right and wrong? "They didn't eat from the tree of right and wrong, they ate from the tree of knowledge of good and evil. Why would God threaten them with death, if He knew they didn't know what that means? This makes no sense."There are plenty of theistic evolutionists."Anyone who believes that God and evolution can co-exist email me personally. I will make you feel stupid."Obviously not since not even Judaism was around during this time, and when Christianity did come about it was met with hostile force and persecution."Let me be more specific. I do not consider myself a catholic, penticostal, gentile, jew, or any other labels that separate christians that have conflicting beliefs. Like my dad, I choose to be a Biblical christian. Which means that before our belief system was labelled as christian (during the time of jesus' life on earth), we still held the same values, and understanding as before Christ. The same God still ruled (of course, supposing christianity is true)."If your reason for saying we should care is in the bible then you are giving authority to the bible as the means of knowing God. But if the bible has proven inconsistencies then you have no reason to either trust God, trust that the bible is from God and not fallible man, or not to trust that such a being exists at all."I completely, 100% agree with you. Please, give me some examples of inconsistancies, and I will examine them. If the Bible is from God, then any inconsistancies would prove me wrong. I agree."I would think God is more than a book, because as I see it, many Christians treat the bible itself as an idol. "Anyone who does that is mental. The Bible is the history book of our belief. In order to know where you're going, you have to know where you have been (no pun intended). I personally, don't think that you NEED the Bible to be a christian. You simply have to believe that Jesus was a real person, that he died on the cross for your sins, and want forgiveness for those sins. The Bible is the most valuable tool to understanding what God is, what he expects, and how much he loves you. More valuable than the church these days.

"We've heard people drivel out this nonsense often. But in six years you would have learned something about the subjects you're now being wrong about."Since this forum discusses the Bible, I would expect that I wouldn't have learned much during my evolution years. I'm a christian by default. Christianity teaches the highest moral standards (so of religions, it's more likely to be from God). If a scientific view is proven to be true in the future, I will accept it more than likely. Evolution is poppycock as far as I'm concerned.Now, understand this. Everything I've learned is from books. I'm not a biologist, evolutionist, geologist, chemist, etc. I work in the oilfield for a living. I read information, and form an opinion.But because you don't believe me, let me be specific. I was raised christian until I was 17. I started drinking (my dad does not agree with this), and was kicked out of the house. I probably turned from God because my dad rejected me. I took on a scientific view mostly because I didn't understand how my dad could teach all this 'love' BS, then kick me out. I drank (and consumed many drugs) for 2 years. After I ran out of money and friends, I quit (couldn't afford it), and got a job and a place. I started reading into evolution more, and debated christians because I didn't believe in some invisible entity running the earth like the game of life. Again, as christians bested me on subjects, I turned from evolution. Since no other scientific theory exists (thats plausible to my knowledge), I was forced to concede that life was too complex to have happened by accident, no matter what the timeline.Detailed enough for you pooper?

"Not if it affects your actions and conclusions. If I can make you understand how the story of Adam and Eve is an account of an immoral god then perhaps you will examine your beliefs with a critical eye. I think what you will find will dramatically change your outlook.Besides, debate is a joy unto itself."Well put. But first you have to tell me what is moral, and immoral. Because putting the Bible aside, morality is subjective. My wife may think it is perfectly fine to screw the neighbor, whereas I may have a problem with this. But who am I to push my morality on her. She has done nothing illegal, in the worlds eyes. There are no laws against cheating.Since morality is subjective, and so is the law in many cases, who chooses what is moral and immoral? What makes you think that God is immoral? If there is a God, wouldn't anything he did be considered moral to Him?Define morality."I know about many things, and can reference many more sources, that I don't own books about. The Bible is easily available online, a format that is actually much more accessible given that it can be searched."I can search online how to build a bridge. Google it. This doesn't mean I can.This is exactly the reason that many people think the Bible talks about space ships and dragons. Because they read a little bit, and take it how they want."Nope! This quote shows that you are wrong:Genesis 3:22 - King James Translation
"And the LORD God said, Behold, the man is become as one of us, to know good and evil:..." "I have no idea what you are getting at here...man became like God because he CHOSE to eat the fruit. What is the point here?Oh I see, sorta. No God created man in his image, in that he had the right to choose. God did not prevent them from eating the fruit. Man was the only creation capable of choice."You also cannot argue that they already conceptually knew about sin"And I won't. I will argue that they knew that God was the creator of all, and that he commanded them not to eat of the tree, or they would die. If Adam was created in Gods image, he would probably understand this."but I do see how your position puts you in the minority "Again, not many people believe what I do in this case. But the Bible does teach that you are born with the sins of your father, so I, personally, assume that no babies are innocent in the eyes of God, only innocent in the eyes of a human, because they are cute."God confused the languages and caused the knowledge to be lost, then God is taking away people's free will."Interesting point. But wrong. In fact, confusing the language was Gods doing. He did not cause their knowledge to be lost of Him. Every person was christian up until that point. Over time, each group would have decided to turn from their original beliefs. But this would have been a CHOICE. Every human today has the freedom to choose. Missionary work specifically targets those groups that would have turned from their original beliefs in the past, to give a choice to those who were not taught christianity.You yourself have to right to choose. I have been on many missions trips (to mexico mainly) for this reason alone. Does it seem fair that someone lives their whole life a good person, but dies and goes to hell because they were never offered a choice? No. But thats my opinion, and thats my morality. It's not fair to ME, but perfectly fair to GOD, who offered his son in earthly form to die.

"The point is that the tree provided the knowledge of good and evil. So if they committed an "immoral" act BEFORE they knew the difference between right and wrong, did they actually do anything immoral?"Good question. Since morals are subjective, they may or may not have. But they did do something immoral in Gods eyes. Like any father who attempts to teach their personal views on morality to their children, it was wrong to the father. If God is real, and knows all, then it should be in our best interests to follow his view of morality, correct?"Not if we take a literal interpretation of the bible. The bible says that death entered the world during the Fall of Man. There was no death, so inferentially they could have no concept of what death is. They also did not know it was wrong to eat of the fruit since eating the fruit was the only way to know right from wrong! See the theological problem?"I do, but you are misunderstanding what knowledge was gained. They did not gain the knowledge of right and wrong, but the knowledge of good and evil. When they ate of the fruit, sin entered the world. Before this there was no sin. God made man in his image (it's interesting to note that God created everything in the Biblical text, but only breathed life into man; everthing else created was just alive). This is not very descriptive, either physically or mentally. But if the biblical God is correct and right, then the bible describes God as being just and fair. So it would not make sense that God would expose his most important creation to an unfair life obstacle. Remember, the main reason the tree of knowledge of good and evil was put there was to test Satan, who at the time was a high ranking angel in heaven. The tree shows us two things:1. The true nature of Satan.2. The carnal nature of man.Exodus 20:5 is God delivering the ten commandments. These are the commandments of the Lord, and if broken, are considered sin.Deut. 24:16 is not. The entire chapter (if you read it) Speaks about what it means to be a Christian. God is saying that no man shall be punished in Gods eyes for the sin his child commits. And no child will have to answer for any sin his father commits.What I am talking about is mans sin generically. A baby does not go to hell because his/her father committed any specific sin, but because he is sinful in nature, so is the child. Either the father or mother must believe in Christ for any child or baby to be saved, and you can find this described in great detail in 1 corinthians 7. But specifically:1 Corinth. 7:14 For the unbelieving husband is sanctified by the wife, and the unbelieving wife is sanctified by the husband: else were your children unclean; but now they are holy.Romans 5 also tells us that sin rules all mankind, from Adam to Moses (before the ten commandments were given).Taking references from the old testiment is tricky. Since sin required a price. Christians offered clean sacrifices for their sins. There are major differences in teaching from before Christ and after. Although the books of the old testiment offer wisdom and history (as well as the books of law), the new testiment teaches more towards mankind after Christ. The first 8 chapters of Romans is a good place to start."The bible in no way indicates that. Please provide scripture if you feel otherwise."Gen. 11:6 And the lord said, Behold, the people is one, and they have all one language; and this they begin to do: and now nothing will be restained from them, which they have imagined to do.Also Noah lived 350 years after the flood, so he would have been around to teach and tell the stories. Also before the flood, the bible says that God found righteousness in Noahs generations. If they were not Christian, God would not have seen them as righteous.

"Subjective morality is not a problem if it is the truth."there is no truth in morality. Morality is a personal belief."you are not forcing your morality on her, you are reacting to her behavior based on your own morality."Actually, by divorcing her I would be forcing my morality (and Gods, since infedility is grounds for divorce by biblical standards), because it influences her negitively. Since I am not perfect, how is it logical to consider what she did immoral?"Now this is the trickier question. God is immoral because his actions don't conform to our ideas of morality. By making you realize that God's actions conflict with *your* ideas of morality I can show you that you don't actually get your morality from God."No, in doing that you show that I do not always follow the path God wants for all of us. But by correcting mistakes, my actions can find favour in Gods eyes.You seem to confuse subjective truths with objective truths. Morality is a subjective truth. I can say the best movie in the world is The Notebook. You can say the best movie in the world is The Matrix. And we are both right. Subjective truth is irrelevant to evolution vs creation. We cannot both point out that a light is two different colors, when the light in question is red. One person, or more importantly both of us, must be wrong. This is objective truth.Defining if something is immoral is generally based on popular morality. Most people believe it is immoral to kill or rape. Subjects like abortion cause a moral firestorm on the other hand. Since morality is not concrete anywhere in the world, I fail to see the relevance. I will say this however. If there is a supreme entity, I think it's level of morality on any subject would be given more weight than mine or yours."perfectly moral."I believe this is self refuting. Define perfectly moral."Can you provide objective proof that one interpretation of the Bible is better than another? "generally, yes. Deuteronomy teaches that no teaching or prophet will conflict with any other, or it is not from God. So if an interpretation conflicts with other scriptural teaching, then it has been interpreted incorrectly."My point (which I thought I had already made) is that if they became like God in knowing good and evil because of the choice, they couldn't have known about it beforehand. How can God punish them for making a choice like that before they understood good and evil?"hmmm let's think about this for a moment. Did God say that they would gain knowledge of good and evil after they ate the fruit? No. Satan did. They did not become like God from eating the fruit. God created them in his image. They were already like God before eating the fruit."There, *that* is what I am getting at. God is not, in your view, completely moral. Once you admit that you can judge for yourself if such a concept is worthy of worship, and assess the claim critically."again morality is subjective. Just because I believe it's not fair, it does not mean it it true. The bible also teaches that if you forget to cut some of your crops, to leave them, and do not pursue them, for they are for the strangers and your neighbors. And not to go asking for the stuff back that you lend out, but to let it be, because it is better to keep favour with your brother than to gain worldly possessions. Personally, if I forgot 500 bucks on the tablesaw at work, I would want it. And when I lend stuff out, I want it back, and in a timely fashion. But why should I force my morality on my brother by saying he has had whatever I lend him too long? How long is too long? Why is my morality more important than his? Is it in my best I interests to back my morality no matter the cost?Gods teachings are moral, because they appeal to the higher nature of man. They teach to be humble, wise, loving, loyal, and to love your enemies. This is one of the main reasons I became a christian again at 24 (raised christian, turned evolutionist in school, researched little by little over thr years, became Christian again).

Read the bible. God knew in advance Satan was jealous of God. he created the tree to expose him to the Angels. Like I said before, God is just, and would not punish Satan for a crime he didn't commit.And God freed people from slavery in the Bible. The only times God alowed his people to be enslaved was when they did not obey him, and he always freed them after.

"Are you trying to say that Noah was a christian? If so please try to explain how the heck that works. Are you saying there didn't need to be a christ in order for there to be christianity?"Christianity is a labelled name. Remember that Christians did not choose to be called this. When Paul when to Antioch, a few years after Jesus' death, he was called it. This was a name given to believers by people OUTSIDE the church. So when I refer to any believers as christians, I simply am calling them believers by a name that is recognized. I myself (in previous posts, not sure if on this thread) have said I do not consider myself any form of labelled christian, but a believer in the Bible, and in Christ.

"So, god, disaproving of slavery so greatly, did not go and tell the Isrealites that they can't keep slaves, no he goes and tells them they can and as long as they don't beat them so severely that they die"You are misunderstanding what he is saying completely. Slavery was not, in most cases FORCED. Since the most recent form of slavery (blacks) was forced, not allowing them to educate, or own any possesions of any kind, we view slavery as brutal, and demeaning to the person or race. This is not the case. Slaves in the Bible sometimes initiated the agreement. In fact, Kings would refer to anyone working under them as slaves, even though they were free men.Exodus 21:5 But if the servant plainly says, 'I love my master, my wife, and my children; I will not go free,' 6 then his master shall bring him to the judges. He shall also bring him to the door, or to the doorpost, and his master shall pierce his ear with an awl; and he shall serve him forever.Ever heard of a slave that did NOT want to be free? Thats because modern slavery is different from previous. Even the Encyclopedia Brittanica talks about slaves, and how they produced much of the worlds cotton, and other commodities.Exodus 21:16 He who kidnaps a man, whether he sells him or he is found in his possession, shall surely be put to death.Proverbs 29:21 He who pampers his slave from childhood Will in the end find him to be a son.All this aside. Slavery is irrelevant. God does not see his creations as slaves.Galatians 3:28 There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free, there is neither male nor female; for you are all one in Christ Jesus.

"Evidence please."Lev 25:39 'And if one of your brethren who dwells by you becomes poor, and sells HIMSELF TO YOU, you shall not compel him to serve you as a slave. 40 As a hired servant and a sojourner he shall be with you, and shall serve you until the year of the Jubilee.(my capitals)"but now you adjust your stand because slavery produced a lot of cotton? WTF??"No, my point is that slavery was never the negitive, racial thing we see it as today. In the 1700's and 1800's, there were no social 'nets' to catch those who lost possessions or money, and would work as slaves. This was a common practice worldwide, in that this only ment that one human was owned by another. By selling yourself, you were given security, and protection.

"Then thou shalt bring her home to thine house"This is different from common slavery, in that the rules of war apply to the victor."and shall remain in thine house, and bewail her father and her mother a full month: and after that thou shalt go in unto her [i.e. rape her or engage in consensual sex], and be her husband"Wrong. Once again, a section of the Bible is misread. God CLEARLY states that if any man takes a wife of the defeated tribe, he cannot touch her for one MONTH. This is for the mourning process. When he goes to her, this means that she is finished mourning, and the man may be with her. God in NO way indicates rape.

"It was forced on the slaves. That's what I meant. Nobody was forced to take slaves, but you can't say that a slave was not forced into slavery. It was forced on the slaves. That's what I meant. Nobody was forced to take slaves, but you can't say that a slave was not forced into slavery."Actually, you are wrong.When Joshua was waging war on the land, the Gibeonites fooled Joshua by dressing in old clothes and telling him that they were from a far land, and that Joshua should make a pact with them. Joshua agreed, and because he gave them his word, God did not let Joshua destroy Gibeon. Instead, God commanded Joshua to take the Gibeonites as his slaves. People have been forced to take slaves. This can all be found starting in Joshua 9:3.You should read your Bible next time.