Proof: God Isn't Moral

[Guest Seachmall]

That's why I think His laws changed, because we changed.

Surely an all-knowing god would not need to change his laws, he could encompass every possibility under one law. He does know what is going to occur, so why change? Boredom? Perhaps he wanted to spice things up a bit?

 

Of course I'm assuming here that god isn't just playing a game and that he needs to change laws because ultimately he has a purpose for us. He is testing us in this life, to what end I don't know because he already knows how this is going to turn out, right? Or can I trick him?

[Ouroboros]

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.

Hmm... I have to think about that.

[Abiyoyo]

That's why I think His laws changed, because we changed.

Surely an all-knowing god would not need to change his laws, he could encompass every possibility under one law. He does know what is going to occur, so why change? Boredom? Perhaps he wanted to spice things up a bit?

 

What should've been His laws, or law then? I'm curious. Now, keep in mind with your answer, that human beings are fallible and as God characterized us,'' stubborn and roughnecked'' people.

[agnosticator]

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.

 

...or maybe that just reflected people's changing and varied views of what they think god was like. God supposedly is not bound by laws, we are. People changed them as generations changed. Them youngsters never can see eye-to-eye with them ole codgers.

[Ouroboros]

Okay. I thought a little about it. I'm not sure where this is leading so this is more of an experimental train of thought.

 

Lets say God created the world and humans. He knew humanity would grow from a very little understanding of the world and then increase his knowledge over time, through science and philosophy, but also through theology and religion. He must therefore adjust the rules according to the era and social conditions. Now lets say that his conditions for morality changes, but also his rules what who/what/why a person would deserve to go to Heaven or deserve going to Hell. Does this mean that it's a matter of moral luck if I'm born in an era when it would be easier to go to Heaven? Or should I put it this way, if by pure chance I'm born in a family where they have the right (for the time period) view on morality and God's salvation plan, then I'm in the luck and will go to Heaven, because I just happened to be born in the right time in the right family and conditions? But then if I happened to be born in the wrong place for the time, lets say in a family who still adhere to an old way of salvation and/or morality, then I'm out of luck?

[Guest Seachmall]

What should've been His laws, or law then? I'm curious. Now, keep in mind with your answer, that human beings are fallible and as God characterized us,'' stubborn and roughnecked'' people.

I'm not claiming the omni-3, I'm admitting I'm ignorant on the subject and very fallible. God, however, should be able to come up with this law.

[agnosticator]

Yes, god is capricious.

[Abiyoyo]

...or maybe that just reflected people's changing and varied views of what they think god was like. God supposedly is not bound by laws, we are. People changed them as generations changed. Them youngsters never can see eye-to-eye with them ole codgers.

 

 

I accept that as possible as well. There are many different aspects of the whole thing Agnosticator. Another, is the gnostic view. Maybe,.. God of the OT was 'disobediently sparked' from the highest of the pleuroma, was hidden from them, and became ignorant to his own self, and said, Their are no other gods before me. ?

[agnosticator]

...or maybe that just reflected people's changing and varied views of what they think god was like. God supposedly is not bound by laws, we are. People changed them as generations changed. Them youngsters never can see eye-to-eye with them ole codgers.

 

 

I accept that as possible as well. There are many different aspects of the whole thing Agnosticator. Another, is the gnostic view. Maybe,.. God of the OT was 'disobediently sparked' from the highest of the pleuroma, was hidden from them, and became ignorant to his own self, and said, Their are no other gods before me. ?

 

Yeah, Yahweh thought he was tops, but I think Zeuss was cooler...

[Abiyoyo]

Okay. I thought a little about it. I'm not sure where this is leading so this is more of an experimental train of thought.

 

Lets say God created the world and humans. He knew humanity would grow from a very little understanding of the world and then increase his knowledge over time, through science and philosophy, but also through theology and religion. He must therefore adjust the rules according to the era and social conditions. Now lets say that his conditions for morality changes, but also his rules what who/what/why a person would deserve to go to Heaven or deserve going to Hell. Does this mean that it's a matter of moral luck if I'm born in an era when it would be easier to go to Heaven? Or should I put it this way, if by pure chance I'm born in a family where they have the right (for the time period) view on morality and God's salvation plan, then I'm in the luck and will go to Heaven, because I just happened to be born in the right time in the right family and conditions? But then if I happened to be born in the wrong place for the time, lets say in a family who still adhere to an old way of salvation and/or morality, then I'm out of luck?

 

Hans, it's like this. Maybe, God's idea through the Jewish law was to the Jews,and they likened him through their writings as infallible. Possible? Yet, as far as mankind, He would have been very fallible. So, we come to the time of life on Earth were as you stated, man's knowledge is more learned. Populations are growing, etc. Jesus comes into play. Salvation is merited through the same Laws, except the greatest is to love the Lord with all thy heart, thy soul, and thy mind. Same as before, right?

[Ouroboros]

Hans, it's like this. Maybe, God's idea through the Jewish law was to the Jews,and they likened him through their writings as infallible. Possible? Yet, as far as mankind, He would have been very fallible. So, we come to the time of life on Earth were as you stated, man's knowledge is more learned. Populations are growing, etc. Jesus comes into play. Salvation is merited through the same Laws, except the greatest is to love the Lord with all thy heart, thy soul, and thy mind. Same as before, right?

How could the Jews love Jesus of all their heart before Jesus came? And how can native tribes in jungle of the Amazons love Jesus of their whole heart? So the rules change, and it's pure luck if you are at the right place at the right time to be right about God. That's why I think if there is a God, God can't judge based on luck. (And actually it's not luck either, since God supposedly intend a person to be born in the wrong or right place. Calvinism sneaks in every time. )

 

Isn't it better to view God as more just and righteous than the Bible God? A God who judges people based on the situation he placed them in, rather which belief they have? Shouldn't he consider and take into account a persons experience and his feelings about things based on those experiences?

[Abiyoyo]

How could the Jews love Jesus of all their heart before Jesus came? And how can native tribes in jungle of the Amazons love Jesus of their whole heart? So the rules change, and it's pure luck if you are at the right place at the right time to be right about God. That's why I think if there is a God, God can't judge based on luck. (And actually it's not luck either, since God supposedly intend a person to be born in the wrong or right place. Calvinism sneaks in every time. )

 

I meant His moral code or whatever from Israel was carried into Christ, who came for the Jews, yet made a light to Gentiles. Love the lord......was in the OT a good bit. Moses said it much to the people as the greatest commandment.

 

Isn't it better to view God as more just and righteous than the Bible God? A God who judges people based on the situation he placed them in, rather which belief they have? Shouldn't he consider and take into account a persons experience and his feelings about things based on those experiences?

 

I think He does, I just think with Jesus and OT code, it was His eventual foundation for humanity on Earth. Think about it, His throne still exists, it's still seeded, through Christianity; it is present. The God of Old kept His promises throughout the OT it seems. I mean, I know this or that happened through history, and Christianity branched off to be dominant, as well as Islam in it's areas, and both still have the belief of the OT God. Sounds like a Omni whatever God's plan for oneness, yet we screw it up. But, we can't screw it up but so much! That's why I am happy in Christ, because He was my way to the Father. Allah may be an Islam's way, and Jew's have their traditions. But, if their was no Jesus, then I probably wouldn't know God at all! Because I live in the US, and I am not Jewish.

[Neon Genesis]

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?

But if we were created and all the bad things happen because of the false god, why doesn't the true god just use its all-powerful magic to get rid of the false god? If the true god is all-knowing, why didn't it realize ahead of time the mischief the false god would have caused and prevented it from happening? Doesn't this just mean that the true god is irresponsible? I'm reminded of something Dawkins said in The God Delusion that if God is real, he might not be evil but the worst you could say about God is that he's an under-achiever, and that's hardly a god I find worthy of worship.

[Abiyoyo]

But if we were created and all the bad things happen because of the false god, why doesn't the true god just use its all-powerful magic to get rid of the false god? If the true god is all-knowing, why didn't it realize ahead of time the mischief the false god would have caused and prevented it from happening? Doesn't this just mean that the true god is irresponsible? I'm reminded of something Dawkins said in The God Delusion that if God is real, he might not be evil but the worst you could say about God is that he's an under-achiever, and that's hardly a god I find worthy of worship.

 

As far as Satan, I usually have always seen it as maybe God is hoping He will stop being Satan, yet He knows He won't. So, I see God more handling the problem, because at the end, He puts Satan away for good, Biblically that is. So, if anything, sounds like God keeps trying to give Satan more time to repent.?

[Guest Seachmall]

So, if anything, sounds like God keeps trying to give Satan more time to repent.?

At our expense? We're given until we die to repent yet the sum of all evil is given eternity to repent?

[Looking4Answers]

As far as Satan, I usually have always seen it as maybe God is hoping He will stop being Satan, yet He knows He won't. So, I see God more handling the problem, because at the end, He puts Satan away for good, Biblically that is. So, if anything, sounds like God keeps trying to give Satan more time to repent.?

 

Again, not the "standard" definition of god, here. The god you present, YoYo, is not an all-knowing god at all. If god does not know if Satan will repent or not, then he is not all-knowing.

 

So far, you have a god that is not immutable (your god changes) and he is not all-knowing (he is not certain what Satan will do and, thus, is giving him more time to sort through his issues). What god-attribute are we going to hit next? If you keep this up then you will be worshiping a man .

[Looking4Answers]

Oh, and a god that would allow Satan to run amok causing all the pain and suffering that he supposedly has caused to god's own creation would indicate, at best, that such a god is irresponsible and perhaps does not really care about his creation after all. It seems more like the Bible god does not have the power to really deal with this Satan fellow. And if that is the case, then we can scratch omnipotence off our list as well.

[Abiyoyo]

Oh, and a god that would allow Satan to run amok causing all the pain and suffering that he supposedly has caused to god's own creation would indicate, at best, that such a god is irresponsible and perhaps does not really care about his creation after all. It seems more like the Bible god does not have the power to really deal with this Satan fellow. And if that is the case, then we can scratch omnipotence off our list as well.

 

It's all in the book L4A. Job's Satan walking about during one of God's 'meetings' in heaven. Satan tempting Jesus. It's just an obvious observation of the Bible. If God isn't letting it happen, which would imply His omniwhatever, then God is in competition with Satan, which would make God, ...one of the other gods, and also Satan as a god. How is this logic confusing?

 

God should already know Satan is to no avail. Would he be just letting him be as He was created, in nature so to speak? Satan supposedly was a fallen angel, so he is an angel, a bad angel now, right? Does God care less for his angelic host than His human creation? Think about it. Where would Satan have come from? We should go alot further back if we are going to use Satan as example of God's lack of omni whatever. Why did he ever create him? or humans, that fail for that matter?

[Looking4Answers]

It's all in the book L4A. Job's Satan walking about during one of God's 'meetings' in heaven. Satan tempting Jesus.

 

Yep. Read it. Know about it.

 

then God is in competition with Satan, which would make God, ...one of the other gods, and also Satan as a god.

 

And with that statement, another attribute of god goes down the tubes. The Bible declares that god is holy. The definition of what god is includes holiness. The word holy means unique. It comes from the Hebrew word meaning separated, as in separated from everything else and, therefore, there is nothing like him. If there are other gods, then god is not holy because he would not be unique. Also, since the Bible declares that there are no other gods and none like him (Isaiah 46:9).

 

So far, you have single-handedly taken away god's omniscience, omnipotence, his immutability and, now, his holiness. If you keep posting there will not be much of god left .

 

Does God care less for his angelic host than His human creation? Think about it.

 

There is one Satan (if you believe in him), but there are billions of humans currently alive and untold billions that have gone before us. If god gives equal care to Satan as to all of humanity from the beginning until the end, then that is really screwed up, wouldn't you think?

 

We should go alot further back if we are going to use Satan as example of God's lack of omni whatever. Why did he ever create him? or humans, that fail for that matter?

 

Yep. From the very beginning of the story we find an incompetent god that fowls up what he makes and does not really know what is going on.

 

Oh, if you are struggling with the "omni" words, just let me know. I can define them for you .

[Guest KSS]

Thanks to everyone who commented on this.

 

I hadn't looked at the "philosophical logic" of God and morality, but most of the above comments make sense to me.

 

Faith seems to be coming apart. God seems to be hamstrung - either He can't act, He isn't fully moral, or morality is changeable.

 

Interesting.

 

-- KSS.

[Abiyoyo]

 

And with that statement, another attribute of god goes down the tubes. The Bible declares that god is holy. The definition of what god is includes holiness. The word holy means unique. It comes from the Hebrew word meaning separated, as in separated from everything else and, therefore, there is nothing like him. If there are other gods, then god is not holy because he would not be unique. Also, since the Bible declares that there are no other gods and none like him (Isaiah 46:9).

 

So far, you have single-handedly taken away god's omniscience, omnipotence, his immutability and, now, his holiness. If you keep posting there will not be much of god left .

 

His people declare that He is the adjectives, in the Book they wrote about Him. If we use the Book to characterize God, then it is what I just said. People characterizing God through a Book. That doesn't mean God is those characteristics, just wrote about in that manner. You say the Hebrew word such and such means this or that, yet that Hebrew word was transcribed by a Hebrew that believed these characters of God were true. It's like me writing a book and saying how great, powerful, all seeing God is, then 2000yrs later, someone reads my ancient writing and determines that God is this character, because I wrote it as a ''Christian". They were Hebrew, Israel, God's chosen, so the attributes have followed and recently been enhanced by modern evangelicals.

 

Does God care less for his angelic host than His human creation? Think about it.

 

There is one Satan (if you believe in him), but there are billions of humans currently alive and untold billions that have gone before us. If god gives equal care to Satan as to all of humanity from the beginning until the end, then that is really screwed up, wouldn't you think?

 

Remember, God will spare the whole place if there is one left that is righteous that dwells there, right? Maybe in His sparing time, He letting Satan come clean

 

We should go alot further back if we are going to use Satan as example of God's lack of omni whatever. Why did he ever create him? or humans, that fail for that matter?

 

Yep. From the very beginning of the story we find an incompetent god that fowls up what he makes and does not really know what is going on.

 

Oh, if you are struggling with the "omni" words, just let me know. I can define them for you .

 

I am up on my omni's L4A, I just don't like emphasis on it because most get set on one particular thing.

[Looking4Answers]

I am up on my omni's L4A

 

I figured you were. That is why I added the afterward .

 

His people declare that He is the adjectives, in the Book they wrote about Him.

 

However, you declare yourself to be a Christian. Your own title under your avatar says, Christian, not Paulian. To be a Christian means to follow the Christ. And that Christ is told to us in writings. While you may go for writings outside of the Bible (and who can blame you), what people claim to know about god normally comes from writings such as those found in the Bible. If there was never a New Testament (no Gospels, no Revelation, etc) and if there were no other writings to declare to us who and what god is, then you would never be able to call yourself a Christian at all. None of us would even know what one was.

 

You, yourself, use the Bible from time to time or refer to it. Yet, when others refer to it you simply point out that the passage in question is based off of men's ideas about god. Well, the same can be said for any other book, ancient or modern. Men's ideas. As such, your ideas are as valid as mine and vice versa. However, one difference might be is that some ideas can be tested and tried. Others cannot (and, no, I was not speaking of any of your ideas in particular ... just any idea in general).

[Neon Genesis]

It's all in the book L4A. Job's Satan walking about during one of God's 'meetings' in heaven. Satan tempting Jesus. It's just an obvious observation of the Bible. If God isn't letting it happen, which would imply His omniwhatever, then God is in competition with Satan, which would make God, ...one of the other gods, and also Satan as a god. How is this logic confusing?

 

God should already know Satan is to no avail. Would he be just letting him be as He was created, in nature so to speak? Satan supposedly was a fallen angel, so he is an angel, a bad angel now, right? Does God care less for his angelic host than His human creation? Think about it. Where would Satan have come from? We should go alot further back if we are going to use Satan as example of God's lack of omni whatever. Why did he ever create him? or humans, that fail for that matter?

But that means God is not all-powerful and what's the point in worshiping a God that can't take care of its own creation? Your god sounds pathetically weak to me. I think Thomas Paine explains the absurdity of it all perfectly in The Age Of Reason.

Putting aside everything that might excite laughter by its absurdity, or detestation by its profaneness, and confining ourselves merely to an examination of the parts, it is impossible to conceive a story more derogatory to the Almighty, more inconsistent with his wisdom, more contradictory to his power, than this story is.

 

In order to make for it a foundation to rise upon, the inventors were under the necessity of giving to the being whom they call Satan, a power equally as great, if not greater than they attribute to the Almighty. They have not only given him the power of liberating himself from the pit, after what they call his fall, but they have made that power increase afterward to infinity. Before this fall they represent him only as an angel of limited existence, as they represent the rest. After his fall, he becomes, by their account, omnipresent. He exists everywhere, and at the same time. He occupies the whole immensity of space.

 

Not content with this deification of Satan, they represent him as defeating, by stratagem, in the shape of an animal of the creation, all the power and wisdom of the Almighty. They represent him as having compelled the Almighty to the direct necessity either of surrendering the whole of the creation to the government and sovereignty of this Satan, or of capitulating for its redemption by coming down upon earth, and exhibiting himself upon a cross in the shape of a man.

 

Had the inventors of this story told it the contrary way, that is, had they represented the Almighty as compelling Satan to exhibit himself on a cross, in the shape of a snake, as a punishment for his new transgression, the story would have been less absurd—less contradictory. But instead of this, they make the transgressor triumph, and the Almighty fall.

 

His people declare that He is the adjectives, in the Book they wrote about Him. If we use the Book to characterize God, then it is what I just said. People characterizing God through a Book. That doesn't mean God is those characteristics, just wrote about in that manner. You say the Hebrew word such and such means this or that, yet that Hebrew word was transcribed by a Hebrew that believed these characters of God were true. It's like me writing a book and saying how great, powerful, all seeing God is, then 2000yrs later, someone reads my ancient writing and determines that God is this character, because I wrote it as a ''Christian". They were Hebrew, Israel, God's chosen, so the attributes have followed and recently been enhanced by modern evangelicals.

Isn't this just a round about way of using the Christian cliche that God's ways are mysterious and above understanding? If the bible is just the opinions of humans, why should any of its writings be considered reliable to worship? Why not just go all the way and convert to liberal universalism theology or become a deist since you're basically cherry picking? At least try to be consistent with your cherry picking if you're going to do it at all. Why worship a god you can never understand?

[Abiyoyo]

Isn't this just a round about way of using the Christian cliche that God's ways are mysterious and above understanding? If the bible is just the opinions of humans, why should any of its writings be considered reliable to worship? Why not just go all the way and convert to liberal universalism theology or become a deist since you're basically cherry picking? At least try to be consistent with your cherry picking if you're going to do it at all. Why worship a god you can never understand?

 

Well Neon, because there is just as much or more positive from the OT God as there is negative. If I took the Bible Apples for Apples so to speak. Then, as far as converting to deist, Why would I do that? If anything, I would convert to Gnostic, but then I would have to accredit the OT God as incompetent and a stupid God, which would then land me in a polytheist role. I usually stick to God made Satan, Satan turned against God, and why God lets Satan run around doing this or that is beyond me.

 

But, then, that isn't very rational either. So, study on, there are part's of the Bible where it is just so, that some things are not able to be understood. It's not really cherry picking, or saying it's a mystery; it's just the truth if you are a believer. We have what we have, and that's it.

[Neon Genesis]

Well Neon, because there is just as much or more positive from the OT God as there is negative. If I took the Bible Apples for Apples so to speak. Then, as far as converting to deist, Why would I do that? If anything, I would convert to Gnostic, but then I would have to accredit the OT God as incompetent and a stupid God, which would then land me in a polytheist role. I usually stick to God made Satan, Satan turned against God, and why God lets Satan run around doing this or that is beyond me.

But how does the positive things of God justify the negative when the majority of negative actions God does in the bible outweighs the positive? Surely if there was something good about the OT god worth worshiping, he wouldn't he have done more positive things than negative? It just seems to me like you're believing for emotional reasons rather than because of evidence. I can understand why people believe for emotional reasons having once believed myself, but I don't understand if it's just emotional reasons, why do you try to justify those emotions through the bible if you admit it's all purely emotional? That's why it would make more sense to me to convert to a pure unadulterated faith like deism where you don't have to go through so many apologetics for it.

 

But, then, that isn't very rational either. So, study on, there are part's of the Bible where it is just so, that some things are not able to be understood. It's not really cherry picking, or saying it's a mystery; it's just the truth if you are a believer. We have what we have, and that's it.

But it does seem like cherry picking to me. You accept some atrocities in the OT as literal truth without evidence like the Flood story but then try to rationalize others through cherry picking like the story of Cain and Able and I don't understand this. Simply saying that's just the way it is doesn't explain it to me how that works, either. I've been attempting to read the entire bible and so far I'm up to the book of Ezra and it still doesn't make sense to me. In fact, the more of the bible I read, the more certain I am of my disbelief. If God exists and he's really worth worshiping and he desires our worship, why doesn't he try to make himself more understandable?