hundinman Posted February 12, 2004 Share Posted February 12, 2004 There is nothing else to understand in this scenario. As long as you understand the meaning of the words in that statement and their implications, they mean exactly what they say. That God is all-knowing and that God gives us free will. The only thing I can think of then is that God did not tell the whole truth (he perhaps intentionally left it a mystery for us to wonder about, or to filter the weak of faith from the chosen), or that perhaps the writers of those segments of the bible misinterpreted or did not understand God's complete message on the matter. After all they were written by two different human beings at two different times in the history of the world. Nice approach. Yes, the Bible can be taken literally, if you know what the words imply. Satan tried to test Jesus by telling him to jump off of a temple and he will not be hurt because God said that the angels will not let his foot dash upon a stone. This is true. you may ask, "Why would the angels have to save Jesus. If he is God, then he could fly away, right?" WRONG! When Jesus came to earth, he was mortal. He would need the angels to save him. My point is, is that you may think that by taking this passage literally it means Jesus needs angels to save him, but you need to understand the implication. Angels would have been needed to save Jesus (or God would do it) because at this time, Jesus was mortal, as stated 3 or 4 times already. About the second part of your post, I agree with the point that Jesus left out some truth. He did leave out the exact day and hour of his return. This is because people should be ready for his coming at any time. That means that you are a dedicated follower and you don't repent at the last moment just to got to heaven instead of hell. I believe that there is a lot more that Jesus left out because 1. Our human minds would not be able to comprehend it's vastness and greatness.2. Knowing everything might make more confusion in interpretations and such. HM Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Peregrine Posted February 12, 2004 Author Share Posted February 12, 2004 Nice story, but it's completely irrelevant. This says nothing about the morality of God, only the accuracy of the bible: a question that has already been answered. Since you're ignoring the topic... shall I consider that your concession? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hundinman Posted February 12, 2004 Share Posted February 12, 2004 MY FOOT! I am not conceding. Give the argument at hand. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Peregrine Posted February 12, 2004 Author Share Posted February 12, 2004 You know perfectly well what the argument is. The accuracy of the bible is irrelevant. Either post something relevant to the question "Is God morally good?", according to the initial conditions of the debate, or concede. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Breton Thief Oriana Posted February 12, 2004 Share Posted February 12, 2004 Let's accept that God is immoral. First, if the bible is true, all evidence points that he is immoral. If the bible is false, he is still immoral because all the miracles he claimed to do are false facts. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Darnoc Posted February 12, 2004 Share Posted February 12, 2004 But this would lead to a paradoxon, because god defines himself as absolute good. So if he is not good, he is not god. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Eltiraaz Posted February 12, 2004 Share Posted February 12, 2004 Under the boundaries and conditions of this debate, the only correct answer to this question is stating that, Yes, God is immoral. I concede. However the conditions of this debate are not accurate to those of the actual scenario. But this would lead to a paradoxon, because god defines himself as absolute good. So if he is not good, he is not god. No. The answer to this debate is: God is Immoral. It does not matter if that makes Him God or not god. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Peregrine Posted February 12, 2004 Author Share Posted February 12, 2004 But this would lead to a paradoxon, because god defines himself as absolute good. So if he is not good, he is not god. Ugh, what is so hard to understand about this? God says he is good. His goodness is just a delusion caused by his own ego. Hitler claimed to be good and justified, but does that make his words true? Under the boundaries and conditions of this debate, the only correct answer to this question is stating that, Yes, God is immoral. I concede. However the conditions of this debate are not accurate to those of the actual scenario. The conditions are entirely appropraite. The debate is about the morality of the God presented by the bible. If you don't follow those conditions, you're talking about a God of your own invention. The God in the bible is the important one since all other interpertations are based on it. The fact that you are even bringing up these questions of the appropriateness is concession of God's immorality. The only way to have a morally justified religion is to simply ignore God's evil actions. But even if you ignore the worst, the theme is still there. It is because of this immorality of the bible's God that Christianity is responsible for so many evil acts. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Eltiraaz Posted February 12, 2004 Share Posted February 12, 2004 No. You said yourself that within the boundaries of this debate we cannot question the validity of the bible, that it is to be taken as a literal truth. In actual fact that is not true. We can take some parts of the text as metaphorical truth, or as just intruth, due to some error in the process of the thousands of oratings, writings, rewritings and translations of the ancient text. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Darnoc Posted February 12, 2004 Share Posted February 12, 2004 Ugh, what is so hard to understand about this? God says he is good. His goodness is just a delusion caused by his own ego. Hitler claimed to be good and justified, but does that make his words true? This isn't the same and can't be compared. Hitler is a personal name. "God" is a being, a definition, a word, like "human", "love", "knowlegde". And in order to define what something is, characteristics have to be found by which this word is defined. Now the word "god" is defined by the following (I already stated this earlier): - Allknowing- Allpowerful- Everywhere at the same time- Absolute good- Absolute perfect- Absolute holy- Nothing is impossible for him If any being matches these characteristics, it must be god. So, when we say that the being we call "god" lacks one of those characteristics (absolute good), then it can't be god. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.