Proof: God Isn't Moral

[Guest KSS]

Let's imagine a code of behavior called Morality that applies to conscious beings like humans and God.

 

We will define three states of Morality:

 

 

1) Fully Moral: the conscious being will always act completely morally in all circumstances, without exception.

 

2) Fully Immoral: the total opposite of 1) above.

 

3) Neutral: neither fully moral nor fully immoral.

 

 

To be Fully Moral (1) removes freedom of choice from the conscious being. The being (God or human) must always perform the fully moral option at all times. Freewill cannot operate. This means God becomes deterministic: God will reliably "do the right thing", always. Proof of God's existence would be apparent by perfect moral intervention at all times. Because of this reliability, faith in God is not required because there would be no uncertainty. God would be a fact by His moral action.

 

 

Now three points:

 

a ) The majority of Christians believe that God has freewill. But this conflicts with a fully moral God, above, who cannot have freewill if He always does right.

 

b ) The Bible says that to be pleasing to God, He requires Christians to have faith in Him (book of Hebrews). This also conflicts with a fully moral God because "faith in the unseen" is not required when God always acts.

 

c ) Humans report that they do not observe perfect moral intervention by God in human lives everywhere at all times. This observation suggests that God does not always act fully morally at all times.

 

 

These three points indicate that God is not fully moral. God appears to be neutral: He is sometimes moral and sometimes immoral. He is never fully moral.

 

I think this would be troubling for believers in an omnipotent, absolutely moral God.

 

Alternatively, morality is relative not absolute, and it changes. God may be 100% consistent with His own moral code. He may change his morality over time, just like humans do. His moral code isn't clear to us.

 

 

Is this nonsense?!

 

-- KSS

 

 

(Found this on the web somewhere and added to it ... wish I could find the original web page.)

[Guest Seachmall]

Well you are judging God's morals from the human perspective of what morals are. Perhaps God has different views of what being moral means, maybe we are too short-sighted to see how the negative occurrences in the world benefit us in the long run, of course this presents 2 problems;

 

1) If God must allow, or cause, pain now to benefit us in the future he is not omniscient, an all-knowing God would know how to overcome these problems with causing suffering.

 

2) If God does not follow our moral system why label him as omnibenevolent? By our morals he is not, he chooses to allow, or cause, suffering.

 

God may be 100% consistent with His own moral code. He may change his morality over time

 

Well if he changes his morals once again he is not omniscient, nor omnipotent (he needs to change his morals, he can't abide by just one structure).

 

Of course that supposes that God follows the omni-3 guidelines, but if he doesn't then he's not really God. He's as fallible as anyone of us, and perhaps a lot crueller.

[Ouroboros]

You're both right. Morality is a human concept, and it applies to humans. Some religious people realize that you can't say God is moral or not, because morality can't apply to God, which makes him/her/it amoral. But this also means that we can't apply attributes like "good" to God. God would be neither good nor bad, nor moral or immoral, so God is just "is." He/she/it would be yin-yang in other words, or Tao (Dao).

[Looking4Answers]

However, Christians claim that humans have morality because they are an extension of who god is. Because the Bible says that man was made in the very image of god, the Christian assumes that part of this "imageness" is derived from god's own morals. So while god, according to the Bible and to the Christian, may be vastly different than man (higher than man?) a sense of god's morality should be a part of the human makeup.

 

Morality implies understanding/knowing what is good and what is evil (using Bible terms here). The Bible says that god placed the tree of the knowledge of good and evil in the garden, that mankind ate from this tree and their eyes were opened so that they knew good and evil and god himself states, after the fact, that the man has become like god knowing good and evil. This would indicate that the Bible story is trying to tell us that our sense of morality is like god's own sense of morality. As a result, I think it is fair to judge the supposed actions of the Bible god by our basic understandings of morality. For example, most people and cultures would agree that murder is wrong, yet the Bible god murders. Therefore, we should be able to judge him in this (or at least question him concerning this). Etc. Etc.

[Ouroboros]

However, Christians claim that humans have morality because they are an extension of who god is. Because the Bible says that man was made in the very image of god, the Christian assumes that part of this "imageness" is derived from god's own morals. So while god, according to the Bible and to the Christian, may be vastly different than man (higher than man?) a sense of god's morality should be a part of the human makeup.

That's right, that's why the Christian view on God and morality is corrupt. Gnostics got the concept better, or Zurvanism, etc. Where God is a combined forced, neither good nor bad. If God is everything, then God must be all things. Christianity is trying to make God to be one thing and maintain him to be another and contradictory thing. God can't be the source of everything, and yet not be the source of evil as well as the good. This is why Christians are confused and end up having a corrupt view of reality.

 

Morality implies understanding/knowing what is good and what is evil (using Bible terms here). The Bible says that god placed the tree of the knowledge of good and evil in the garden, that mankind ate from this tree and their eyes were opened so that they knew good and evil and god himself states, after the fact, that the man has become like god knowing good and evil. This would indicate that the Bible story is trying to tell us that our sense of morality is like god's own sense of morality. As a result, I think it is fair to judge the supposed actions of the Bible god by our basic understandings of morality. For example, most people and cultures would agree that murder is wrong, yet the Bible god murders. Therefore, we should be able to judge him in this (or at least question him concerning this). Etc. Etc.

We can look at "what is good and what is evil" in many different ways, one way is to look at what is good and bad for the whole Universe, or what is good and bad for our planet, or what is good and bad for mankind. Morality traditionally is applied to what is good and bad for mankind (or humans), and not for what is good and bad for the planet or the animals, but these things are changing. Morality requires some form of interaction. It needs two parties. There's no morality when one person lives alone on a planet in a distant galaxy. He can't murder, rape, etc. But he can do things to himself, but are self-mutilation or masturbation immoral? Or isn't it that morality really applies when it's what one person does to another person or entity? So God's action towards men would be a question about morality, but then, it's similar to how our morality applies in respect to how we treat animals. If I kill an ant, is that immoral? Or is it only immoral to kill another person with intent? What I'm saying is that morality as a function is more complex than to just apply human form of morality unto God.

 

But I agree that the problem is definitely with the idea that our morality is based on the nature of God's morality, because that is definitely making the argument that God's morality is the same as ours, since ours is the same as God's! Hence, Christian view on morality is extremely contradictory and confused. And the answer is to realize that God must be amoral (without moral boundaries), but that makes God not to be good, and Christians can't accept that. They can't have it both ways. Either morality is based on reason and God is neither good or bad. Or morality is based on God's moral nature, and God must be held to same standards as us.

[Looking4Answers]

It also seems that the Bible god must have morals (and not be amoral) because he tells humans what is right and what is wrong (or what he believes to be right or wrong). So his commandments, for example, reveal his morals. While the full range of the Bible god's morals may not be revealed, mankind should at least get a glimpse into them via what he says we, as his people, created in his image, can and cannot do. So the Bible god commands mankind not to steal. This indicates that the Bible god's morals find something "wrong" with theft. Again, the Bible god commands that a man does not murder/kill. This should be an indicator that, at the least, there is a moral sense of wrong with certain types of killing in the mind of the Bible god.

 

We can then use these examples in the Bible, claimed to be the book revealing god to men, to find inconsistencies in the Bible god and how he reveals himself to mankind in that same book. The Bible god makes it plain that it is wrong for mankind to kill, but he himself kills and also orders tribes of men to kill other tribes. The Bible god orders mankind to be forgiving, says that he is forgiving, but he himself will refuse to forgive men and torment them for an eternity.

 

While it would make sense, to some degree, to try to paint a picture of god being an amoral being, I don't believe the Bible is trying to paint that picture at all. As a result, the god of the Bible should be judged by the morals portrayed in that book and by the human concepts of morality since mankind is supposedly made in his image.

[Ouroboros]

While it would make sense, to some degree, to try to paint a picture of god being an amoral being, I don't believe the Bible is trying to paint that picture at all. As a result, the god of the Bible should be judged by the morals portrayed in that book and by the human concepts of morality since mankind is supposedly made in his image.

I agree with what you're saying, I'm just making the point that there's other views of God that doesn't have this problem just because they solve it the way I explained. The Bible God is one kind of God concept, and the Bible God is by its own definition contradictory, since it say God is good, but at the same time allow God to be evil. So what I'm doing is setting up two different views of God (in general, like compared to Gnostics, Zurvanists, etc) and how the Christians must drop one or the other attribute of God to allow their view to be complete. To say, as Christians do, that God is good is putting God in the morality box. If God is to be good, and good is a measurement, then there must be some form of measure, and morality is that measure stick for good and bad. So saying God is good is saying that God must be moral (by the same principles as us). So if a Christian can admit that God is neither good or bad, they have solve the problem, but then they have to admit the Bible isn't correct.

 

Let me try to clarify in a different way: I'm not saying that you are wrong, I am saying that you are right only in a certain context. But in a different context or view of God's nature (which would be contradictory to Christian belief and the Bible), the problem of God's morality and evil actions can be resolved. But for a Christian it would require to deny fundamental dogma.

[Abiyoyo]

Again, the Bible god commands that a man does not murder/kill. This should be an indicator that, at the least, there is a moral sense of wrong with certain types of killing in the mind of the Bible god.

 

Maybe he just knew what the outcome would be of murder, killing, in the human realm. Vengeance would be one, as God also goes into what a person should do, ...if he kills, murders someone.

[Abiyoyo]

Well if he changes his morals once again he is not omniscient, nor omnipotent (he needs to change his morals, he can't abide by just one structure).

Of course that supposes that God follows the omni-3 guidelines, but if he doesn't then he's not really God. He's as fallible as anyone of us, and perhaps a lot crueller.

 

Well that's not rational. Because God changes His moral code, and morality on earth; He is fallible? Did I read that correctly?

[Looking4Answers]

Let me try to clarify in a different way: I'm not saying that you are wrong, I am saying that you are right only in a certain context. But in a different context or view of God's nature (which would be contradictory to Christian belief and the Bible), the problem of God's morality and evil actions can be resolved. But for a Christian it would require to deny fundamental dogma.

 

Oh, I agree with you and I think I was getting this. I was just having a bit to much fun exploring this topic .

 

But you bring up a good point: Before we go and try to talk about god being moral, we need to first define which god we are talking about? Is it the Christian/Jewish god? The Muslim god? One of the god's of one of the other myriad of religions on planet earth? Or is it just the concept of a possible creator being? Once we have a basis to work from then the argument becomes easier as we all know our boundaries (or lack thereof) .

 

Maybe he just knew what the outcome would be of murder, killing, in the human realm. Vengeance would be one, as God also goes into what a person should do, ...if he kills, murders someone.

 

That, in and of itself, implies a moral. If the god of the Bible was outlawing murder among humans because it would lead to vengeance, then that implies that the moral of the Bible god is one that finds vengeance wrong. If this was the case, though, it would display something else about the Bible god. It might indicate that god is not against murder at all, but against some things that murder produces (like the previously mentioned vengeance). So if the god of the Bible does not find fault with murder in and of itself, that also says something about this god's morals.

[Looking4Answers]

Well that's not rational. Because God changes His moral code, and morality on earth; He is fallible? Did I read that correctly?

 

The Bible states rather emphatically that the god of that Bible does not change and that he is the same, yesterday and forever. Therefore, if the moral principles of this being changed then this would be further evidence that the Bible god is not who the Bible says he is (an unchanging, immutable, god). A moral change, especially a significant one, could indicate the fallibility of this being. It could indicate that a previously held moral belief was wrong or it could indicate that the new moral held is wrong if the previous one was incorrect.

[Ouroboros]

But you bring up a good point: Before we go and try to talk about god being moral, we need to first define which god we are talking about? Is it the Christian/Jewish god? The Muslim god? One of the god's of one of the other myriad of religions on planet earth? Or is it just the concept of a possible creator being? Once we have a basis to work from then the argument becomes easier as we all know our boundaries (or lack thereof) .

Exactly.

 

I know that the OP was about the Christian/Bible God, but I wanted to bring this issue up anyway, because I have seen from experience on this site that one has to be prepared for the different twists and spins some of the Christians take.

 

For instance, LNC argued that Free Will is the Greater Good. In other words, God doesn't act "good" in the sense of how we judge good. Or lets put it this way, "good" when applied to God, is not the same as "good" when applied to humans. That way, God can act immoral in the view of human morality, but still be acting "good" from the perspective of God's morality. But this is just a fancy way of saying that God does whatever he wants, and we must assume that what he does is good in some greater sense, and in a sense we can't understand. So even if it seems like God acts evil in our view, in the God view it is still good. But I think that is a matter of playing with the ambiguity of the word "good". It lost its meaning of how we usually see it when we say "Whatever God does is good." I could say, whatever my pet rat does is good, and make just as much sense. Or whatever Lady Luck does is good. If I lose in a game, it's still good, because Lady Luck always have good intentions in the greater scale of things. This just makes God to nothing but a non-entity. He's just acting at the role of the dice, and it wouldn't make any difference to us. The measure with what we call "good" is lost when we say there is no measure for God's good.

[Ouroboros]

Well that's not rational. Because God changes His moral code, and morality on earth; He is fallible? Did I read that correctly?

You're right, that doesn't seem to follow. However, I think it ties into the idea that morality is somehow absolute and immutable (unchangeable). If morality changes with God's mood, then morality is relative to God's temperament rather than absolute and timeless. And it means that God changes its mind, and doesn't that mean he changes it because he was mistaken before? Just like the Flood, God regretted doing it. But how can an infallible being regret something? Fallible means: capable of making mistake or being erroneous. So can God make mistakes?

[Abiyoyo]

Morality implies understanding/knowing what is good and what is evil (using Bible terms here). The Bible says that god placed the tree of the knowledge of good and evil in the garden, that mankind ate from this tree and their eyes were opened so that they knew good and evil and god himself states, after the fact, that the man has become like god knowing good and evil.

 

Correct, except one thing. Then, He cursed us to toil the earth, and have pain during childbirth, unlike God. So, yes, the capacity of God's image is among us, yet we are product of the environment as well. That is why we are extremely different from all other creatures, because we are more than just a part of an ecosystem, we are God's creation bound on earth. My opinion. The why of why's for God sending us to 'dwell' in flesh on earth, is beyond me. So what if we could see good and evil, maybe we were sent to hell from the very beginning? Maybe, God, in His creation being disobedient, sent us down here to the earth, which is where Satan roams, and rules. Now, we have two entities Satan, and God. I almost said deity, because as far as I am concerned, demons aren't human, which would make them gods, right? So, all throughout history, really, we have had two deity among us, Biblically. One claims to be more powerful than the other, and we worship one, whereas the other is cunning, deceitful, full of lies etc.

 

We are monotheistic because we worship one God really, not because we only believe there 'is' one god, that would be absurd. Unless, God created Satan as well, and God let's him roam around with demons etc violating God's own will, and causing human disobedient even further. Why would an omni-whatever God do that? Seems, throughout the OT, God's 'moral code' had failed numerous times. Does that make Him not God, or just a shifting God that adapts to all behavior, times, circumstances etc?

[Looking4Answers]

For instance, LNC argued that Free Will is the Greater Good. In other words, God doesn't act "good" in the sense of how we judge good. Or lets put it this way, "good" when applied to God, is not the same as "good" when applied to humans. That way, God can act immoral in the view of human morality, but still be acting "good" from the perspective of God's morality.

 

However, the problem with this view is that the Bible god is condemning men based on something. It seems that the Bible god is condemning men based on a judgment of right and wrong (i.e. morality). Which, in and of itself, would indicate that man has been judged to be morally corrupt. If the Bible god's morals are so vastly higher than man that mankind cannot fathom these morals (not even in their seed form) then how can the Bible god judge mankind? How can he expect mankind to adhere to an approved set of moral rules that he himself provides, then violate those rules himself (expecting us to know that he transcends these laws) and then claim to be a righteous judge? How can the Bible god create man without the ability to know god's morals and then hold us ultimately accountable to them?

 

Constantly in the Bible god is comparing the morals of man to his own and then telling us how utterly short we have all come ... that we just don't, in any form or fashion, measure up. He is said to be absolutely righteous. We are said to be absolutely depraved. These are all moral judgments.

 

In fact, if the Bible god can do whatever he likes and call that moral then that itself is immoral (in my mind).

[Looking4Answers]

Correct, except one thing. Then, He cursed us to toil the earth, and have pain during childbirth, unlike God. So, yes, the capacity of God's image is among us, yet we are product of the environment as well.

 

By why should that affect morals? If someone were to imprison me (justly or unjustly) that would not necessitate me changing my morals (one way or the other). It would just mean my circumstances have changed.

 

That is why we are extremely different from all other creatures, because we are more than just a part of an ecosystem, we are God's creation bound on earth. My opinion.

 

But you are gathering that opinion from the Bible. In other words, you are assuming the Bible's account is true (to some degree) and that we as people are different than all the other creatures. In many ways each creature is different form others (a horse is not a dog, etc) but in many ways they are quite the same as well. Are the morals of humans so different from the morals of some animals? Maybe we can articulate them and they cannot, but it seems that the more advanced animals have some sense of morality or are at least developing them. Some groups of monkeys live in groups, have certain boundaries within the group that they do not cross, have a sense of property and the like ... could not these types of things be at least the seed form from which morality springs?

 

I almost said deity, because as far as I am concerned, demons aren't human, which would make them gods, right?

 

That is where you will have to define what you mean by "god." If you mean the Judeo-Christian god then, no, demons would not be god. However, if you use the word "god" (as derived from the Hebrew word elohim) then the answer might be yes.

 

Seems, throughout the OT, God's 'moral code' had failed numerous times. Does that make Him not God, or just a shifting God that adapts to all behavior, times, circumstances etc?

 

Again, this is going to depend on one's definition of "god." The Judeo-Christian god is one that is all-powerful, all-knowing, never changes, never sleeps, etc, etc. If this is your definition of "god" and the Bible god is found to NOT exhibit ALL of these attributes, then he would fail the test and not be god (by definition). If by "god" one means anything that is greater than mankind (as an example) then, yes, there could be many gods.

[Ouroboros]

However, the problem with this view is that the Bible god is condemning men based on something. It seems that the Bible god is condemning men based on a judgment of right and wrong (i.e. morality). Which, in and of itself, would indicate that man has been judged to be morally corrupt. If the Bible god's morals are so vastly higher than man that mankind cannot fathom these morals (not even in their seed form) then how can the Bible god judge mankind? How can he expect mankind to adhere to an approved set of moral rules that he himself provides, then violate those rules himself (expecting us to know that he transcends these laws) and then claim to be a righteous judge? How can the Bible god create man without the ability to know god's morals and then hold us ultimately accountable to them?

Yes, you're absolutely right. When it comes to God's right to judge, it means he must be righteous himself, or at least the judicial system he represents must be righteous. A corrupt judge doesn't undo the law or justice, but a corrupt law would undo justice. Since God is both the judge and his nature is the law with which he judges, he must be (his nature must be) uncorrupted. Good point.

 

In other words (based on transcending rules) the rules, if they're absolute and part of God's nature, the God must also act accordingly. If he doesn't it only proves that either this is not his nature, or he is not the God from where the absolute morality came from.

 

Constantly in the Bible god is comparing the morals of man to his own and then telling us how utterly short we have all come ... that we just don't, in any form or fashion, measure up. He is said to be absolutely righteous. We are said to be absolutely depraved. These are all moral judgments.

Yup. The Bible is the one that creates the conflict. A God belief outside of the Bible is possible, while inside Christianity it is the source of confusion.

 

In fact, if the Bible god can do whatever he likes and call that moral then that itself is immoral (in my mind).

Right. At least we can say that morality, if it's based on God's temperament, is not static or absolute, but it's relative and all changing. It becomes subjective in the view of God's current position of things. Whatever God feels like being the right thing today, is the right thing. It's all God-subjective, and not absolute or immutable.

[par4dcourse]

If we're made in gawd's image, maybe it's just that his holy pecker did the thinking during his teen eons, and now supporting all the gawd Jr.'s takes all his time and resources.

[Abiyoyo]

Well that's not rational. Because God changes His moral code, and morality on earth; He is fallible? Did I read that correctly?

 

The Bible states rather emphatically that the god of that Bible does not change and that he is the same, yesterday and forever. Therefore, if the moral principles of this being changed then this would be further evidence that the Bible god is not who the Bible says he is (an unchanging, immutable, god). A moral change, especially a significant one, could indicate the fallibility of this being. It could indicate that a previously held moral belief was wrong or it could indicate that the new moral held is wrong if the previous one was incorrect.

 

Question. How many times, literally, in the Bible is the greatest commandment from Jesus applied in the OT? To be able to evaluate God's morality we would have to assume that the Bible is legitimate, dates according to the writings, etc, not the fragments, or scrolls we have right now. So, Moses was around about the 18th dynasty of the Egyptians supposedly; and Jesus, early AD. That's a pretty long time for the same connection. Circumcision would be a better pointer toward God changing up moral code. That was Abrahamic, dating back long time, and this moral code was ''let go''. His moral law was not the issue, in determining whether he is immutable or not. It was just a layout for a multiple deity generation, paganism, etc to set His people up different than the rest, whether He was the Only God or not. God of the OT, also made known of the everlasting seat for His people that He would send, that would be a light unto Him.

 

If God was unable to change, and adapt to today's generation, then He isn't God.

[par4dcourse]

Circumcision would be a better pointer toward God changing up moral code.

Isn't that another way of gawd saying "I fucked up. The pecker is all wrong, cut the end off it."

[Abiyoyo]

Well that's not rational. Because God changes His moral code, and morality on earth; He is fallible? Did I read that correctly?

You're right, that doesn't seem to follow. However, I think it ties into the idea that morality is somehow absolute and immutable (unchangeable). If morality changes with God's mood, then morality is relative to God's temperament rather than absolute and timeless. And it means that God changes its mind, and doesn't that mean he changes it because he was mistaken before? Just like the Flood, God regretted doing it. But how can an infallible being regret something? Fallible means: capable of making mistake or being erroneous. So can God make mistakes?

 

One word Hans. Regret. Determines that God is fallible. I vote writer embellishment. Now, I could see the actual conversation more to the effect. I will not destroy the earth in this manner again, and here is a rainbow to remind you of this.... ( because the earth couldn't handle such a horrific events anyway)

[Looking4Answers]

Question. How many times, literally, in the Bible is the greatest commandment from Jesus applied in the OT? To be able to evaluate God's morality we would have to assume that the Bible is legitimate, dates according to the writings, etc, not the fragments, or scrolls we have right now. So, Moses was around about the 18th dynasty of the Egyptians supposedly; and Jesus, early AD. That's a pretty long time for the same connection. Circumcision would be a better pointer toward God changing up moral code. That was Abrahamic, dating back long time, and this moral code was ''let go''. His moral law was not the issue, in determining whether he is immutable or not. It was just a layout for a multiple deity generation, paganism, etc to set His people up different than the rest, whether He was the Only God or not. God of the OT, also made known of the everlasting seat for His people that He would send, that would be a light unto Him.

 

If God was unable to change, and adapt to today's generation, then He isn't God.

 

Again, YoYo, that depends on your definition of "god." In order for you to make the statements you are making, you must first define your god. Again, the Judeo-Christian god is one that is immutable. Therefore, if even one of god's morals changed over time, then this would cause the being, by definition, to not be god because he would not fit the definition. Your view is very far from what must Christians think of god because, once again, they think of him as immutable. Because of this, it becomes necessary for you to define your god and then to backup your definitions (i.e. explain where you get your information so: why you accept/exclude information, etc).

[Abiyoyo]

Again, YoYo, that depends on your definition of "god." In order for you to make the statements you are making, you must first define your god. Again, the Judeo-Christian god is one that is immutable. Therefore, if even one of god's morals changed over time, then this would cause the being, by definition, to not be god because he would not fit the definition. Your view is very far from what must Christians think of god because, once again, they think of him as immutable. Because of this, it becomes necessary for you to define your god and then to backup your definitions (i.e. explain where you get your information so: why you accept/exclude information, etc).

 

Never changing God of the Bible. I don't think God changes His Godness, yet He said Himself, His spirit could not strive with man, so I believe He implements 'things', call it whatever you will, that direct His called, chosen, etc at whatever time He choses to do so. Example, Jews were chosen by God, still are. Gentiles were shown a great light by His Son, still are. Right? You understand my position?

[Ouroboros]

Never changing God of the Bible. I don't think God changes His Godness, yet He said Himself, His spirit could not strive with man, so I believe He implements 'things', call it whatever you will, that direct His called, chosen, etc at whatever time He choses to do so. Example, Jews were chosen by God, still are. Gentiles were shown a great light by His Son, still are. Right? You understand my position?

I see. It's basically saying that some things about God does not change, but some things do change. Right?

[Abiyoyo]

I see. It's basically saying that some things about God does not change, but some things do change. Right?

 

Why was Michael Jordan so great? Because he could adjust to every situation. Change is not a factor in the human world, it's a guarantee. So, we change, which means that if God is truly God, then it would be pretty stupid to have just one avenue of belief on Him, right? Maybe more simplistic, nut for me, not rational. That's why I think His laws changed, because we changed.