Why would God create immoralities and sin if we are told not to indulge in it at all?
well ???
shareAre you from moviedb?
share
MovieChat Forums > Religion, Faith, and Spirituality > Why would God create immoralities and si...
Who says God created sin and immorality? Because that's wrong. He didn't create those things, we did.
shareAnd where did human nature come from?
shareGod didn't create those things, they started happening when Adam and Eve disobeyed him and ate the fruit of the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil.
shareActing on a curiosity and desire which God gave them. They were powerless to do otherwise.
shareCuriosity and desire in and of themselves not sinful. Adam and Eve also had the power to make choices. They were not powerless against their own curiosity and desires. They chose to believe the serpent over God and disobey. They were like children and rebelled against their Father. That's what truly separates humans from animals; the ability to make choices, to go against instincts and feelings.
shareCuriosity and desire in and of themselves not sinful. Adam and Eve also had the power to make choices. They were not powerless against their own curiosity and desires. They chose to believe the serpent over God and disobey.
Of course they did. They had no reason not to believe the serpent (and the serpent told the truth!). God provided them not only with the desires to go against his own will, he also provided them with the opportunity to do so - AND he had deprived them of any possible resistance against it. They were blameless, because they had no way of knowing what they did was wrong.
They were like children and rebelled against their Father. That's what truly separates humans from animals; the ability to make choices, to go against instincts and feelings.
No, just the opposite: this was precisely acting on their instincts, just like animals. You said it yourself: they were like children. Who is to blame when children disobey? Why, the parents who raised them, of course - because they are not mature enough to decipher right from wrong. This is why it isn't enough to tell children not to touch the hot plate - you keep them away from the hot plate. If you leave them unsupervised around things that can break or hurt them, YOU are to blame if they do something they shouldn't - even if you explicitly told them not to. You're the adult, it's your responsibility. They are only children, they don't know any better. If you try to blame them, you are insane. share
When my mom introduced me to hot burners on the stove as a child, she had me hold my hand over them so I could see for myself they were hot and dangerous.
God told Adam and Eve the rules, they didn't listen, they chose not to trust what God had told them, so he was forced to punish them and throw them out of the Garden. He gave them one rule, and they refused to listen. You can't force your kids to obey the rules all the time. You may as well have them chained up in a room all the time with bubble wrap on the walls if you don't want them to do bad stuff. God's not like that. He gave Adam and Eve a chance to be good people on their own. You make it sound like He set them up. He didn't. He didn't abandon them either. He was watching the whole time, but still asked questions of His children later on. Satan knew that and used that against Him and Adam and Eve. This situation was also a test, and they failed, miserably.
I know you want to debate and be the Devil's Advocate, and join Lucifer's army of dimwits (he's had many over the millennia) that labeled God as the bad guy, but honestly, you're not gonna win this battle. You and I can debate this until the cows come home, but the point is, God set up some rules, His first children were tested, they disobeyed, and they were punished. That's how it happened. God didn't make them sinners. They chose to sin because they believed the lies the Serpent told them, just like you believe the lies the Serpent whispers in your ear now.
I know you don't like the story, I know you want to argue in favor of Satan and say God is a bad guy, or that the Bible is flawed, but the Word is the Word, and no amount of misguided whining on your part is gonna change how the story goes. If you want to go write your own Bible, go ahead, but not only will nobody read it, they'll call you a blasphemer, an idiot, and your book will be a flop and earn you nothing other than snickering. So please, take your misguided crap elsewhere.
When my mom introduced me to hot burners on the stove as a child, she had me hold my hand over them so I could see for myself they were hot and dangerous.
And after that, she left you alone with them? Regardless, she did not simply tell you, did she? God did not show Adam and Eve anything, he merely told them.
God told Adam and Eve the rules, they didn't listen, they chose not to trust what God had told them,
They had no reason to doubt the serpent. And once again, the serpent told them true, and God had indeed lied to them: the serpent told Eve that if they ate of the tree, they would not die but become like gods, knowing good and evil (note that this means they did not know evil before! Meaning they were innocent even in disobedience.). And God confirms this when he tosses them out, lest they also eat of the Tree of Life and live forever.
so he was forced to punish them and throw them out of the Garden.
He wasn't forced to punish them. Adam and Eve did what even a child would have predicted they had to do - it was only a matter of time - and God chose to punish them. He could just as easily have chosen not to. But he did not want them to be his equals, so he chucked them out - again, as the Bible points out, to prevent them from eating from the Tree of Life. Why didn't he prevent them from eating from the Tree of Knowledge to begin with?
You can't force your kids to obey the rules all the time.
No, but you can prevent them from making stupid mistakes that could kill them, mistakes you know kids are prone to do. That's your JOB as a parent.
You may as well have them chained up in a room all the time with bubble wrap on the walls if you don't want them to do bad stuff.
Or how about just being a good parent and make sure they don't have opportunities to drink poison, play too close to traffic, run with scissors etc. etc.
God's not like that. He gave Adam and Eve a chance to be good people on their own.
No, he didn't. Kids have to be taught to be good. God just told them "don't do that" and then he was absent. It's the worst kind of negligence.
You make it sound like He set them up. He didn't. He didn't abandon them either. He was watching the whole time, but still asked questions of His children later on.
But of course he set them up. He would have to be an idiot not to predict the consequences of allowing them access to that knowledge, but he placed them in that position anyway. God was in charge every step of the way, and calamity ensued. No one except God was to blame. Remember that he had created Adam and Eve without the ability to discern right from wrong - that was how he designed them. "They were naked, but they were not ashamed." Nothing they could possibly do would have been sinful. Adam could have murdered Eve, and it would not be a sin, because Adam couldn't possibly know it was wrong. But after eating of the Tree of Knowledge, however, that's when their eyes were opened - they were now damaged goods, innocent no more. Not because of what they had done, but because of what they now knew.
Satan knew that and used that against Him and Adam and Eve. This situation was also a test, and they failed, miserably.
The satan is nowhere to be found in Genesis. The Bible makes it very clear that the serpent was just an animal. It was the craftiest of all the beasts, and that's why it was able to seduce Eve.
I know you want to debate and be the Devil's Advocate, and join Lucifer's army of dimwits
There are only two people ever referred to as "lucifer" in the Bible. One is a king of Babylon, and the other is Jesus.
(he's had many over the millennia) that labeled God as the bad guy, but honestly, you're not gonna win this battle.
Because you have your fingers in your ears?
You and I can debate this until the cows come home, but the point is, God set up some rules, His first children were tested,
Why were they tested? If God knows everything, what's the point of testing?
they disobeyed,
An act for which they were blameless.
To be continued... share
Cont'd...
and they were punished. That's how it happened. God didn't make them sinners.
Yes, he did. By depriving them from essential knowledge, the outcome was a foregone conclusion.
They chose to sin
At no point did they choose sin. That's like saying someone winning the lottery chose to win. They chose to eat of the Tree of Knowledge, but they knew no sin. Only after the Fall were they in a position to choose sin. Now they knew they ought to cover up. "Who told you you were naked?"
because they believed the lies the Serpent told them,
The serpent told them no lies. They did not die, and could indeed have lived forever. God, however, chose to step in to prevent this. Mark this: when Adam and Eve were in a position to doom themselves, God did nothing. When Adam and Eve were in a position to make themselves immortal, God intervened.
just like you believe the lies the Serpent whispers in your ear now.
Snakes can't talk, you know. It's a fable which you choose to believe, for some weird reason. share
Shiva?
shareBecause it is a game to give you consequences for your actions. I think that it is a bunch of crap most of the time because people are generally FAKE ass hell anyway.
shareGod didn't invent sin. God gave human beings a free will, and we naturally choose sin. Why free will? Because God wanted us to be able to love Him, but love isn't love if it's compelled. So we have the free will.
People like to look at the world and say all of man's inhumanity to man is God's fault. But it's what man chooses.
So sin is still God's fault, because his immense ego demands that he create lesser beings for the sake of loving him.
But we actually don't have free will. We make our choices based on our personalities, but we do not choose our personalities. If you have two people, A and B, where A wants to commit adultery but B doesn't, who is the better person if both refrain from adultery? A refrains because he knows adultery is wrong, because he loves his wife, and so fights against his own urges. He refrains because he wants to be a good person. If he could, he would choose to be aroused by his wife only, but we can't choose what to want or what not to want. Person B doesn't want to fool around anyway, so for him it's no struggle at all.
The vast majority of violent crime is perpetrated by men. This is because violence is closer to male nature than female. This is nature, not "free will". If God made man, then he also made testosterone. And he knew what the consequences would have to be, especially considering he made humans into two genders (he didn't have to), and gave each to be dominated by different sets of hormones. If we act on our nature, who is to blame for that? We didn't ask for our nature.
And if you've watched the Terminator movies... Who is to blame for Skynet?
It's your free will. You're just trying to do what Adam did: And the man said, "The woman whom thou gavest to be with me, she gave me of the tree, and I did eat." (Gen. 3:12) It's not your fault you freely chose to sin. God did it. No, you freely choose to sin. If you admit it your part in it, you know you like it. It's like a brat who doesn't want to be punished screaming, "I didn't ask to be born!" So the brat shouldn't be held accountable for microwaving the cat because he didn't ask to be born?
Grow up.
Like so many religious folk you seem to think that the absence of free will implies the absence of responsibility, but that is sheer nonsense. If your roof starts leaking, it's the roof that needs fixing, even though the roof is not to blame. That's what consequences in life are, too: repairs. The criminal is not to blame for his own personality or background, but he is still the one who needs fixing: for his own benefit, and that of society.
Now, it would be nice if you would address my points when replying to me, and not some imaginary point I never made. You reply as if you either haven't read, or haven't comprehended, anything I wrote. I'll post some very easy questions for you:
1. Who was to blame for Skynet? If God has no responsibility for his creations, then the people who created Skynet are likewise blameless.
2. Have you ever deliberately chosen contrary to your own wishes? By that I do not mean made sacrifices for some other benefit, like eg. abstaining from unhealthy foods for the sake of your health or foregone luxuries for yourself in order to better provide for your children. I put it to you that you act on your personality, same as everybody else. That is all anyone can ever do. Which leads me to my next question:
3. When did you choose your personality? Why is there such a thing as adultery, if people can freely choose what to want?
4. Bonus question, not directly related to the mythical concept of "free will": God deliberately made Adam and Eve without the knowledge of good and evil, in other words, they had no concept of right or wrong. So how were they supposed to know it was wrong to disobey God?
A criminal is not just predisposed to commit a crime because of his background. Im curious to know why you think a criminal is not to blame for their own actions?
shareA criminal is a criminal because of the circumstances he finds himself in, combined with his personality. Do you really disagree with this?
Even if you look at things statistically: do you think it is random that crime is concentrated amongst the poor, instead of evenly distributed amongst all strata of society? Is it equally random that men are far overrepresented when it comes to violent crime, instead of being evenly distributed across genders?
A criminal chooses to be a criminal by way of his actions. His background is irrelevant. Yes, your likelihood of being a criminal increases if you are born into poor socioeconomic areas but it doesn´t mean you are doomed to commit crime, otherwise we would see 100% causality. There are plenty of poor, less educated people out there, and the majority of them don´t commit crimes, so why are the ones that do immune from responsibility, according to you? Likewise, there are rich, educated people that commit crimes. Are the rich, privileged criminals, more culpable because they didn´t have a "hard life"?
Im sorry, yes I disagree with it because poverty is not an excuse to commit crimes, nor does it give you a pass on culpability...
A person's background is most certainly not irrelevant. On the contrary, it is precisely what makes a person who he or she is.
And I never said that poverty is an *excuse* - we must all be held accountable for our actions. But poverty is still an explanation. Sure, person A may be law abiding despite being just as poor as person B, who is a criminal, but then person A doesn't have the same background as person B. Not in upbringing, and certainly not in personality. It stands to reason that two people with identical personalities will make identical choices if placed in identical circumstances. The way we choose is entirely deterministic.
"The criminal is not to blame for his own personality or background.."
That sounds like an excuse to me.
As for determinism, interesting theory but not a believer. If every choice you ever made was determined in advance, what would be the point of your life?
"When did you choose your personality? Why is there such a thing as adultery, if people can freely choose what to want?"
Curious as to what exactly you´re asking here?
"That sounds like an excuse to me."
Sure, if you take it out of context like that.
"As for determinism, interesting theory but not a believer. If every choice you ever made was determined in advance, what would be the point of your life?"
Why would the point of your life be affected by determinism?
"Curious as to what exactly you´re asking here?"
The questions were pretty straightforward. Why do you want the things you want? When did you choose your personality? The answer is, you didn't. Your personality was shaped by two big factors: your biological makeup and your environment. You never *chose* what sort of personality you were going to have.
Personality doesn´t affect every decision you ever make. And I was referring to your question about adultery. What does people choosing to do what they want have anything to do with adultery?
shareOf course personality affects every decision we ever make. We are powerless to choose anything without it.
And what does people choosing to do what they want have to do with adultery? Well, everything. When people fool around, they are doing what they want to do. People who don't fool around also do what they want to do - their urge to be a good person simply trumps their urge to misbehave.
I disagree. People don´t "urge to be good people". Denying yourself temptation is not "doing what you want". If it was really not what you wanted, it wouldn´t be a temptation. Someone who chooses to do the "right thing", is not doing what they want but doing what they should do.
In addition, humanity has an inherent nature to sin so making the right moral choices is not really what we "want to do".
Of course denying yourself temptation is doing what you want. If you like chocolate, but say "no thanks", it is because you want to mind your health more than you want the short term pleasure of the chocolate. Likewise, someone doing the right thing does so out of a desire to be a good and respectable person, as that is more important to them than the short-term pleasure which will have long-term consequences.
As for humanity having an inherent nature to "sin"... who gave us that nature, according to you? But you are only telling half the story, anyway: humans are social animals, meaning we seek each other's respect and admiration. And that means we want to be moral, we want to do good, we want to be useful members of society. Selfish impulses to satisfy our own personal needs, and screw everybody else, are not the only desires we have. Only psychopaths fit that description. Normal people have empathy, and want for other people as well - not just themselves. This is true not just for us, but for all social animals.
"humans are social animals, meaning we seek each other's respect and admiration. And that means we want to be moral, we want to do good, we want to be useful members of society."
We were specifically talking about adultery. In which case, you can make morally correct choices without anyone knowing about it and without receiving any type of reward for it. If you choose to not have a one night stand because you are married, you are not "gaining" anything out of staying obedient to your wife.
I would also say if you are purely making morally correct choices for the sake of gaining admiration, you are not exactly morally virtuous.
"As for humanity having an inherent nature to "sin"... who gave us that nature, according to you?
When Adam disobeyed, as descendants, we inherited his original sin.
We were specifically talking about adultery. In which case, you can make morally correct choices without anyone knowing about it and without receiving any type of reward for it. If you choose to not have a one night stand because you are married, you are not "gaining" anything out of staying obedient to your wife.
Sure you do. You get to feel better about yourself for doing the right thing, for being strong enough to resist temptation.
I would also say if you are purely making morally correct choices for the sake of gaining admiration, you are not exactly morally virtuous.
I did mention empathy.
When Adam disobeyed, as descendants, we inherited his original sin.
How could Adam disobey without sin-nature already in place?
In any case, Adam and Eve were not punished for their actions, but for their knowledge. Therein lies the sin. They had been free to do whatever they wanted, and anything they did would have been met with immediate pardon, because they did not know any better. "They were naked, but they were not ashamed". It is when they gained the knowledge of right and wrong - ie. when they were able to commit acts they knew to be wrong (something they could not do before), that they were cursed forever more. They did nothing wrong in disobeying God, but knowing that they had done wrong made them damaged goods. "Who told you you were naked?" They were banished from Eden, lest they also eat from the Tree of Life and live forever, and then truly be like gods. The whole arrangement was a ticking bomb. share
"How could Adam disobey without sin-nature already in place?"
Sin didn´t exist in men until after the fall. He had total free will and was made perfect before the fall.
"Adam and Eve were not punished for their actions, but for their knowledge."
They were punished for their disobedience unless you read a different Bible and they were warned if they ate from the tree, they would die. They gained further knowledge but they weren´t completely stupid before eating the fruit.
God wouldn´t have punished them (or us) if there was no culpability on their behalf. Unless, of course you believe in a different God which does seem to be the case.
Sin didn´t exist in men until after the fall. He had total free will and was made perfect before the fall.
You will contradict yourself in just a minute.
They were punished for their disobedience
Why, when it was not a sin? The disobedience came before the fall. Since Adam and Eve had no concept of right and wrong, they could not possibly know it was wrong to disobey.
unless you read a different Bible and they were warned if they ate from the tree, they would die.
And the serpent told Eve otherwise, and she had no reason to doubt it. Case in point: she did not doubt it. And indeed, God had lied to them and the serpent spoke the truth. As God says in Gen. 3:22: And the Lord God said, “The man has now become like one of us, knowing good and evil. He must not be allowed to reach out his hand and take also from the tree of life and eat, and live forever.”
This is just what the serpent said would happen: they would not die, but be like God, knowing good and evil. And no interpretation of "die" to make God truthful fits, because they could still have eaten from the tree of life and lived forever. This is why they were banished from Eden. And they were indeed cursed for their knowledge. The Bible doesn't say "because you have disobeyed me", it says "because you have done this". They were already doing other sinful things, like frolicking about in the nude, without it being sinful. The reason it wasn't sinful was because they had no knowledge of sin.
And regardless of this interesting but tangential discussion, the fact remains that if you believe the Bible, you must also believe that God made our nature. It was with God's "perfect" nature that Adam and Eve disobeyed, before the fall. share
They were warned of the consequences of disobedience. The consequence was that they would die. Not sure how it makes God untruthful since the punishment was death. Hypothetically if they hadn´t have eaten, they could have lived forever. Death not being immediate doesn´t make God a liar.
"They were already doing other sinful things, like frolicking about in the nude, without it being sinful. The reason it wasn't sinful was because they had no knowledge of sin."
Being naked was not sinful when only two people ever existed. The only reason being naked in public now is because of the law. When two people existed there was no law, nor was there reason for law, because sin did not exist.
It does not say that Adam and Eve didn´t know right from wrong. If they weren´t worthy of punishment, God wouldn´t have punished them.
You are analysing it from a paradigm where God, based on your morally corrupt and fallible perspective, is unfair and a liar. The Bible says he is morally perfect therefore your analysis will always be flawed.
They were warned of the consequences of disobedience. The consequence was that they would die.
Why would they know what death was? And at any rate, the serpent correctly pointed out that the warning was not true. In fact, the serpent told Even exactly what would happen if she ate of the tree.
Not sure how it makes God untruthful since the punishment was death. Hypothetically if they hadn´t have eaten, they could have lived forever. Death not being immediate doesn´t make God a liar.
Sure it does, because not only did they not die, but God himself clarifies that they wouldn't have to. He banished them from Eden so that they would not also eat of the Tree of Life, and so live forever. Meaning they could have eaten of the Tree of Knowledge, and then eaten of the Tree of Life, and they would not have died, ever.
Of course, it is rather silly to debate the finer points of an obvious fable, which was clearly meant to be an allegorical truth rather than a literal one. If a literal truth, one would have to conclude that God set Adam and Eve up for the fall, because why would those trees even be there in the first place? Or the serpent? And isn't God's schtick supposed to be that he sees all, knows all, and is everywhere at once? Yet conveniently absent when the serpent was allowed to seduce Eve, and when Eve was allowed to seduce Adam... Taken literally, the story is one big plot hole from start to finish.
Being naked was not sinful when only two people ever existed.
Yes it was. They covered up as soon as they knew it was sinful. Remember God's question: "Who told you you were naked?"
The only reason being naked in public now is because of the law. When two people existed there was no law, nor was there reason for law, because sin did not exist.
Decency laws are religious in origin. It was sinful for Adam and Eve to be naked because they knew it was sinful - that's the whole point of the story. How many people are around is immaterial. Adam and Eve are allegories for infants, who cannot be blamed for their actions because they do not know right from wrong. With knowledge comes responsibility, because once you know what is right you have no excuse to do wrong. That's the message here. Adam and Eve, with knowledge, could be blamed for their sinful actions. The same actions by Adam and Eve, without knowledge, were not sinful because they didn't know any better.
It does not say that Adam and Eve didn´t know right from wrong. If they weren´t worthy of punishment, God wouldn´t have punished them.
That's precisely what it says. They were forbidden from eating of the Tree of Knowledge, because that would rob them of their innocence. Not because they disobeyed, but because it was the Tree of Knowledge. Do you think it's random that it was this tree in particular, and not the Tree of Mirth, the Tree of Patience or any other such flora? It's not the disobedience itself, but the knowledge they now possessed. That knowledge allowed them to know good from evil, in other words right from wrong. That is why they were punished: for possessing this knowledge. Prior to this knowledge, no act of disobedience could ever be sinful, because they could not possibly know it was evil.
You are analysing it from a paradigm where God, based on your morally corrupt and fallible perspective, is unfair and a liar. The Bible says he is morally perfect therefore your analysis will always be flawed.
This merely proves that the Bible is wrong. I can actually demonstrate my position with logic. Your argument is simply "the Bible says he is morally perfect" (it actually never says anything of the kind), which is merely a claim for which there is absolutely no evidence whatsoever. share
Where does it say they didn´t know what death was? They were innocent but they weren´t stupid. There is clearly an understanding of death since when the serpent tried to convince Eve, she challenged him by saying that they would die. The serpent convinces her they won´t. This would be an awfully short/redundant conversation if Eve did not know what death was.
For someone seemingly so proud of his "logic" you didn´t think this one through too well.
Banishing them as a result of disobedience, caused their deaths, so no he wasn´t lying.
So your point about Adam and Eve being naked really is pointless. You say its sinful but it wasn´t. I said sin didn´t exist until the fall. The fall happened when they disobeyed God, so my point still stands that sin didn´t exist even while Adam and Eve were naked.
"Prior to this knowledge, no act of disobedience could ever be sinful, because they could not possibly know it was evil."
Whatever knowledge they had prior to eating the fruit, they were warned by God about disobedience, they must have had a knowledge of death, otherwise God wouldn´t have explained it to them. They couldn´t be exculpated and claim innocence since God punished them and is the perfect arbiter.
"I can actually demonstrate my position with logic."
Your logic is flawed since it is based on your own presuppositions about God. To you he is an immoral character, the Bible says otherwise.
"the Bible says he is morally perfect" (it actually never says anything of the kind), which is merely a claim for which there is absolutely no evidence whatsoever."
There is plenty of scripture that supports God´s perfect character, whether you believe it is a different story.
Matthew 5:48
Romans 2:1-11
Romans 3:23
James 1:13
Mark 10:18
1 John 1:5
Psalm 12:6
Psalm 19:8
Rev 4:8
Verses that contradict your assertion/false assumption that God is a liar:
1 John 5:20
Numbers 23:19
Isaiah 45:19
Romans 1:25
Hebrews 6:18
Jeremiah 10:10
Where does it say they didn´t know what death was? They were innocent but they weren´t stupid. There is clearly an understanding of death since when the serpent tried to convince Eve, she challenged him by saying that they would die. The serpent convinces her they won´t. This would be an awfully short/redundant conversation if Eve did not know what death was.
True enough. They still would have no reason not to trust the serpent, however.
Banishing them as a result of disobedience, caused their deaths, so no he wasn´t lying.
Sure he was. First of all, God said that they would die the very day they ate of the fruit. Second, he had to take extra steps to ensure they would eventually die. So they did not die from eating the fruit, they died through God's actions. Had they eaten of the Tree of Life before God caught up with them, I suppose there is nothing God could possibly do about the situation - that's certainly how the story is laid out.
So your point about Adam and Eve being naked really is pointless. You say its sinful but it wasn´t. I said sin didn´t exist until the fall. The fall happened when they disobeyed God, so my point still stands that sin didn´t exist even while Adam and Eve were naked.
The reason sin did not exist was because they were innocent: the lacked the knowledge of good and evil. That is why sinful acts were not sinful. That is why sin did not exist. They could have committed murder, and it would have been no sin - because they did not know right from wrong.
Whatever knowledge they had prior to eating the fruit, they were warned by God about disobedience, they must have had a knowledge of death, otherwise God wouldn´t have explained it to them. They couldn´t be exculpated and claim innocence since God punished them and is the perfect arbiter.
Of course they could claim innocence. Because they were, by every definition of the word, innocent. The reason they were no longer innocent was not because they had disobeyed, it was because they now had knowledge of good and evil. If God had said, "cover your nakedness" and they had disobeyed, this would have been fine. But eating from the Tree of Knowledge, they were now damaged goods.
"I can actually demonstrate my position with logic."
Your logic is flawed since it is based on your own presuppositions about God. To you he is an immoral character, the Bible says otherwise.
I have made no presuppositions about God whatsoever. Everything I have said about God, I have based on the Bible.
There is plenty of scripture that supports God´s perfect character, whether you believe it is a different story.
Matthew 5:48
Romans 2:1-11
Romans 3:23
James 1:13
Mark 10:18
1 John 1:5
Psalm 12:6
Psalm 19:8
Rev 4:8
Addresses to crowds of people do not count as evidence for God's perfect morals. Nor do psalms glorifying God. The closest you come is Mat. 5:48, but here Jesus is clearly not being literal. After all, humans can't be perfect, so if godly perfection is something that we can even strive towards, it's not very perfect.
Verses that contradict your assertion/false assumption that God is a liar:
1 John 5:20
Numbers 23:19
Isaiah 45:19
Romans 1:25
Hebrews 6:18
Jeremiah 10:10
How is any of that supposed to prove that God does not lie? "God does not lie, because God says so. And that's no lie, because God does not lie." I guess George Washington never lied once in his life, for after all, he proclaimed that "I cannot tell a lie".
Numbers 23:19 is particularly amusing, as it is contradicted multiple times in the Bible. Did God not repent of having created man, and so send a deluge to kill all but eight? Did God not change his mind several times in debate with Lot? Did Moses not change God's mind about the punishment he had in store for the Hebrews because of the golden calf? And how do you account for the enormous discrepancy in moral values from the Old to the New Testament? share
Well you said "it never says anything of such kind", referring to God´s perfect character. Now you are saying that it doesn´t count because God is proclaiming himself perfect. You are moving the goalposts.
Please elaborate on what you mean by "discrepancy in moral values"?
Moses "changing God´s mind" cannot be adequately explained even with scripture because it is beyond our understanding. It is one of the many paradoxes in scripture that comes down to Arminianism v Calvinism. God knows everything that will ever happen and yet encourages us to pray. This is a mystery to us too. If God knows every decision he will ever make, it seems redundant that we pray and yet we are commanded to do just that.
Same with salvation, we are chosen for salvation by God and yet God holds people accountable for rejecting Christ. There is a human responsibility to get saved, (repent and believe) and yet we know no one can come to Christ unless the Father draws him. John 6:37. And that he chose who he would save before the foundation of the world. Ephesians 1:1-5.
Just because there are things in the Bible that go beyond our human understanding, God´s eternal nature is another, doesn´t make them untrue.
Well you said "it never says anything of such kind", referring to God´s perfect character. Now you are saying that it doesn´t count because God is proclaiming himself perfect. You are moving the goalposts.
No, that's not what I said. You're mixing up the two claims "God is perfect" and "God does not lie". God never claims to be perfect in the Bible. Only New Testament preachers do, and they're on a propaganda mission. The one instance of Jesus saying God is perfect is obviously not literal.
Please elaborate on what you mean by "discrepancy in moral values"?
If you truly cannot see the difference between OT morals and NT morals, I don't know how to help you. But at any rate, I'll give you a couple obvious ones:
The OT: an eye for an eye
The NT: an eye for an eye is WRONG
The OT: death penalties galore, for just about anything
The NT: "Let he who is without sin cast the first stone."
The OT: divorce permitted
The NT: divorce not permitted
The OT: some foods are inherently unclean
The NT: no foods are inherently unclean
The OT and NT are as day and night.
Moses "changing God´s mind" cannot be adequately explained even with scripture because it is beyond our understanding. It is one of the many paradoxes in scripture that comes down to Arminianism v Calvinism. God knows everything that will ever happen and yet encourages us to pray. This is a mystery to us too. If God knows every decision he will ever make, it seems redundant that we pray and yet we are commanded to do just that.
This is only a paradox if you take it at face value that God knows all - which there really is no good reason to assume. But if you do assume as much, then that makes God directly culpable for anything and everything caused by his own creation - including all sin.
Just because there are things in the Bible that go beyond our human understanding, God´s eternal nature is another, doesn´t make them untrue.
It certainly doesn't make them true. What you say is "beyond human understanding", I would call an unresolved plot hole. If the Bible is true, then the Bible exists as a guide for man - isn't it rather stupid, then, to include stuff in this all-important guide which is beyond human understanding? share
I absolutely agree with you. very deep thoughts that respond within me. Recently I have been thinking a lot about God, about religion and about faith. About God I think through the prism of the idea of free will. I am interested in the ratio of religious views on this issue and the biological aspects of our body, the structure of our brain and the like. On the page https://writingbros.com/essay-examples/god/ I read a very interesting study in the form of essays about God which they advise you to pay attention to. In my understanding, human free will does not exist and everything is determined. But this, in turn, does not appoint or prove that God exists.
shareCan you explain determinism? I am a Calvinist, I don´t believe humans have complete free will either. It is in our nature to sin for example. We can´t avoid sinning but we can choose which sins we partake in. That is all before coming to Christ of course.
shareGod didnt invent these things, as these things are a result of man abusing free will and straying from God's intention.
shareHow would it be possible for man to "abuse" free will, when free will is supposed to be we can do whatever we want? If it turns out we're not allowed to anyway, what's the point of free will?
And indeed, how is it possible to act according to free will except via our nature? And who created our nature? Who gave men an overdose of testosterone? People don't break rules unless they want to, so why make them want to?
"How would it be possible for man to "abuse" free will, when free will is supposed to be we can do whatever we want? If it turns out we're not allowed to anyway, what's the point of free will?"
The point of free will, in my humble opinion, is the right to choose.
"how is it possible to act according to free will except via our nature? And who created our nature? Who gave men an overdose of testosterone? People don't break rules unless they want to, so why make them want to?"
Forgive me if my answer seems a bit long winded, but you ask really good questions and I'm going to try to give you the best answer I can. Whether you believe the bible to be true or not has nothing to do with my answer. I'm answering according to the canon of the christian bible. So, according to the canon of the christian bible, man has already fallen and cannot be redeemed, regardless of free will. Our nature is to sin, but that's not by God's design. The entire message of the christian bible is about God redeeming man, all sinners. God knows we cannot earn our salvation ourselves, which is why (in the bible) he died for all sins to make man perfect. We are not perfect because we try to do what is right, but we are made perfect because God was born into a man, lived the perfect life (without sin), and paid our fines and penalties so we can all be made perfect, regardless of what we decided to do with our free wills.
I hope my answer was relevant to your questions. If not, I really do apologize as I tried my best.
"The entire message of the christian bible is about God redeeming man, all sinners. God knows we cannot earn our salvation ourselves, which is why (in the bible) he died for all sins to make man perfect. We are not perfect because we try to do what is right, but we are made perfect because God was born into a man, lived the perfect life (without sin), and paid our fines and penalties so we can all be made perfect, regardless of what we decided to do with our free wills."
I disagree with this. He did not die to make men "perfect". 1 Corinthians 6:9-10 came after Christ and specifically says, that various sinners will not inherit the kingdom of heaven. So Christ´s work on the cross is irrelevant to those who do not repent and become believers. His blood was to atone for the sins of the repentant. What you said, is basically Universalism. 1 John 3:9 says no child of God will make a practice of sinning, by this the children of God are distinguished from the children of the devil.
Not a Biblical scholar but
Free Will.
Could it be that God does not exist at all and "he" didn't "create" any of it, but rather, humanity perhaps had made it all themselves not to mention humans just have words for those things and a wide range of emotions etc etc etc to be able to classify those things as such.
share