Morality of God

[Darnoc]

Peregrine:

 

Yes, of couse free will is a good thing. But if you accept the bible as true, he has involved himself in our world. So lets add limiting free will to the list of his crimes.

 

 

Ah, so you didn't read the bible very well. God only interferes after he has given the people a choice. In fact god only does what the government does. We have the choice to do something evil or good. But when we do what is evil, we will have to suffer the consequences (the punishment). You are saying therefore that the government takes away your free will, when you are put into prison for your crimes.

 

 

Yes you can. If my culture says murder is right, and I kill you, are you suddenly unable to judge my actions? Should I be forgiven because nobody else can understand me? No, I shouldn't. If God hadn't been involved in our world, then you might have a point. But that isn't the case, so his actions in our world can be judged by our laws.

 

 

You are speaking of a human. Any human is on the same step of hierarchy. If god exists, he is on the top of the hierarchic ladder. So therefore he is making the laws by which somebody (including himself) has to be jugded. And he is jugding us by the laws he invented (because he is on the top). Can you judge your own government without the law? No, you can't. You can jugde your government and try to look if it broke its own law. So we can jugde god if he has broken his law or not (because when he is god, only his law matters).

 

Translation: mass murder of innocent people is justified as long as you're God. Not every person was guilty of those major crimes. God could have easily punished the people guilty of the most serious crimes and left the others alive. Instead, people guilty of minor sin (at most) are killed. That isn't justice. No reasonably system of justice executes people for minor crimes. In any civilized society God would be found guilty of murder.

 

God's law states that even the most little evil action (only thinking of doing something evil) has to be punished by death. As said, light and darkness can't exist at the same place, as can't holiness and unholiness ("holy" is what is in gods law, so therefore you could just say, holy is what or who didn't break the law of god). When there is even the slightes unholy thing in gods presence, he wouldn't be holy anymore.

By this law, there were no innocent people. (except newborn children; but when they die, they'll get a better life and don't have to go through the suffering of this world; in fact, they just go back where they came from: to god). "And the lord saw that the malice of men was great and all his thoughts in his heart were only evil the whole day." (Genesis 6, 5) And also this verse: "Then every flesh had corrupted its way on earth" (Genesis 6, 12). So the bible states that no one was innocent when god punished the humans, except Noah and his family.

 

So God destroys free will in contradiction to your introduction. Free will would mean that humans are able to live as they want. But instead, God splits them because they aren't living as he wants them to. So God's love of free will only exists when he feels like it? God will ignore free will if he doesn't think we deserve power, but if we do evil things, he won't?

 

As said above, god first gives the humans free way to choose, and when they choose to do what is evil (act against the law of god), he punishs. Perhaps the punishment was even a blessing. God says in Genesis 11, 6: "Now nothing will be impossible for them, what they think of doing". Just imagine, god probably just postponed our self-extinction. Then this is what we would have done, if we had the possibility. Look what we are doing now. We already have the abbility to extinct humanity several times, if we wanted to. Now someone just has to pull one little trigger...

 

So God punishes innocent people for 400 years. Where is this justice you're talking about?

 

God didn't this without purpose. When they wouldn't have been slaves in Egypt, they never would have wanted to go away. You know that they said several times on their trip through the desert "Why didn't we stay in Egypt?". Just think about it, they were slaves in this country just some years ago and now they already want to go back! It is a wonder that they wanted to go away at all! If god wouldn't have made them slaves, they would never have left and all of god's plans would have failled. So he had to "encourage" the Hebrews to go. No one wants to live in slavery. So they chose to leave Egypt, when they got the chance and went to Canaan. God's plan worked perfectly (of course not for the Canaanites; they would have been a lot happier, when the Hebrews would have stayed in Egypt)

 

So now failure to believe in God is a crime worth execution? That's not a crime at all! But despite his "mercy," he still makes them suffer for 40 years. That's what you call free will?

 

God is a criminal with a universe sized ego.

 

Firstly don't forget that you aren't making the laws, god is. And it is his law that praying to another god or being is a crime (a sin). And when you look at the problem with reason (without this talk about god making laws), the Hebrews didn't acctually belief: They knew. And refusing the truth (they saw all the wonders and Moses even saw god himself; also the Hebrews saw several manifestations of god) is a crime. Perhaps not in itself, but in what will happen if you do refuse the truth. A lot of evil things are allowed to happen because some people hide from the truth. Just think about the exploitation of the Third World, the destruction of nature and global warming.

Free will. He gave them a choice. They choose to do what is wrong (break the law) and therefore had to suffer the punishment. This way it happens everywhere in this universe. If it wouldn't happen, we would have anarchy (even when some people think that this is good, I think it wouldn't work at all).

 

But still innocent people died. The entire civlization could not possibly be evil worthy of death. So now it's justice to destroy an entire civilization for the crimes of a few of its members?

 

Every human is guilty, "because they all have sinned" (Roman 5, 12). The only punishment for sin is death. Live and death is like light and darkness. Sin is unholiness, is darkness. Therefore who sins must die, because he can't live (then life is holiness and light). And no one can follow the law of god, then when you only once break it, you are guilty. So when everyone of us has sinned and therefore is guilty, we all have to suffer the penalty of death. So god only punished those people a little earlier (they would have received their punishment anyway) to make room for the Hebrews (furfill the punishment on all people who are condemned to death in order to make room for the new prisoners also condemned to death).

 

That is pure evil and a massive ego problem. I'll say it once again, failure to believe in God is not a crime. And especially not a crime that should be punished by death. And this sacrifice claim is a joke. God saved us from his own wrath! That doesn't give him the right to demand worship or death!

 

Why do you think this? You just say that it is not a crime, but give no reason. If god exists, if he is a all powerful being and nothing else exists, that he didn't create himself, then it is a crime not to aknowlegde him. When you say: "I don't aknowlegde this government! I'll start a rebellion/revolution imediatly! I don't follow the law of this government!" you are considered a criminal, at least in every normal country with laws and a constitution.

In the view of god, every crime has to be punished by death, because no evil can be in front of him and live is good, death is evil. In gods point of view, no shades of gray exist. Either you follow the law or you break the law. Breaking the law leads to the punishment, which is death. Don't look at me this way, I don't make the laws :blink: !!!

 

God is not absolutely holy. God does not have the right to judge like that. God's idea of justice is evil.

 

To be god includes that you are holy. "God" is defined an all powerful, all knowing, all good, all holy being. You can say that another human has no right to jugde you. I understand this, any human has the same value. But god is on a higher step of hierarchy, you can't compare him jugding us to a human jugding another human, it is something completly different.

Who does define justice? When god created us, then he has the right to jugde us (when I create something, I can do with it whatever I want). He could have made helpless marionettes who can't think for themselves. But the fact that we are discussing this matter at the moment shows that he didn't, he created us so that we could think for ourselves. Perhaps we should at least show some gratitude for this. When he created everything, he also created justice. Therefore anything you think is just, must originate from god.

 

Condemned by God. God made those rules. He condemned us, and decided that he was pure holiness. God has a massive ego problem.

 

Everything right until the last sentence. An allpowerful, allknowing being doesn't need to be egoistic. It doesn't have any concurrence and it knows that it can do everything it wants. An ego-problem. So when you our government makes laws and then we are condemned because we don't follow them, the government has an ego-problem? Laws are needed to keep everything in order. I understand the principle of seperation of powers concerning us humans. Humans aren't perfect. But god is perfect (or he wouldn't be god), so therefore he can be everything the same time. So therefore he can invent his own laws and jugde his creations by these laws. If you want to go through those laws and look if any of them aren't just, be my guest.

 

Because his ego refuses to accept anything other than himself as perfection. That's not a good thing!

 

He doesn't need to do this, because of the reasons stated above. An already perfect being doesn't have to show that it is perfect (only we, the unperfect humans, have to do this). It simply is perfect and it knows that. Therefore it also knows that it is the only perfect thing and anyone saying something else is lying. Anything not so perfect as this being would make it no longer perfect. So it can not tolarete anything not made perfect in its presence. The being made laws to jugde what is perfect. This perfect being can't break its own laws, or it would no longer be perfect.

 

Translation: God decided that we couldn't be holy. He decided that we couldn't enter his realm by our own actions. Therefore he had to give himself the punishment that he had decided we should get.

 

God is insane!

 

God is the absolute perfect being. Perfectness includes uniqueness. Only one perfect being can exist (multiple perfect beings would make it less perfect). Everything else is less perfect. This includes humans. The perfect being loves its own work (who doesn't?) and wants to save it. Because this being is perfect, it also has the perfect love. The only way the perfect being can do this, without breaking its own law (and by this making it no longer perfect) it has to punish itself instead of its creation. The principle of mercy and self-sacrifice is included in the law of god; one life for another. In order to save its whole creation, only one sacrifice was big enough: The perfect being itself. What god did wasn't insanity but simply following his own law.

 

Your example makes no sense. The judge is sacrficing himself to remove a punishment ordered by someone else. God is sacrificing himself to remove a punishment he ordered! Why does he have to bother with this insanity? Why not simply decide not to punish them?

 

The law of god states that punishment can't be just taken away. Who commits a sin, has to be punished. God can not break his own law (or he would no longer be perfect). But there is something included in this law: Someone else can suffer the punishment for the guilty one and with this the guilty one can go free. For his whole creation, only god himself was sacrifice enough.

 

This is the most unfair, evil, system of "justice" I've ever heard of. How can you possibly claim that every sin, no matter how minor, deserves death and eternity in Hell? God's idea of justice is absolutely immoral by the standards of any civilized society.

 

Sin is unholy, sin is death and sin is darkness. God is the opposite. As light can not exist where darkness is (and vice versa), nothing unholy can exist where there is holiness. Either you are holy (you never sined) or you are unholy (you sined). You can't be half-holy. Either you are perfect or you are not. God is perfect. Anything unperfect in his presence would make him unperfect.

Why is god's idea of justice immoral? Who says that our system of justice is moral? What is morality? Morality isn't defined by humans, as isn't justice or anything else. When god really created everything, he also created morality and justice and therefore defined it. When he created and defined it, only his point of view matters and we have to adjust our point of view to his.

You act moral when you act good. You act immoral when you act evil. God punishs evil. To punish evilness is not immoral, but the highest standard of morality. We are the ones with a flawed morality, because we let crimes unpunished. God punishs every crime, so therefore he possesses the perfect morality. He also punishs evil with the only really moral punishment: death. Live is only existing where there is light and holiness, death exists where there is darkness and unholiness. When we are unholy (we have broken gods law) we are under penalty of death and will receive our punishment (sooner or later).

 

In the end the discussion in itself is senseless. When god really created everything, then he also defined everything. When god defined justice to be everything we think now is evil, then to do evil things would be just. So it doesn't matter what we think is just, evil, moral, good etc. because he defined, created and inplanted it into us. When he says it is just to kill innocent people, then it is just. Of course he didn't, just is to do what is right and good. When god says that everything what he does is just and holy, then it is so, because he created everything (including justic).

 

 

edit: fixed quote tags

-Peregrine

[Peregrine]

Ah, so you didn't read the bible very well. God only interferes after he has given the people a choice. In fact god only does what the government does. We have the choice to do something evil or good. But when we do what is evil, we will have to suffer the consequences (the punishment). You are saying therefore that the government takes away your free will, when you are put into prison for your crimes.

 

Free will is not free will if you only have it when you do what someone wants you to.

 

And yes, the government takes away free will when they do that. It's a necessary sacrifice for the good of the world. But in that case, the loss of freedom applies to people who are guilty of reasonable crimes. God's "justice" does not meet the standard of reasonable actions.

 

You are speaking of a human. Any human is on the same step of hierarchy. If god exists, he is on the top of the hierarchic ladder. So therefore he is making the laws by which somebody (including himself) has to be jugded. And he is jugding us by the laws he invented (because he is on the top). Can you judge your own government without the law? No, you can't. You can jugde your government and try to look if it broke its own law. So we can jugde god if he has broken his law or not (because when he is god, only his law matters).

 

Translation: God has a massive ego problem. And yes, I can judge my government without its laws. If my government makes an evil law, the law is not any less evil because of its origin. If my government insists on enforcing that law, it becomes evil. Remember this statement, you will see it more:

 

Authority/power to make a law does not make that law right.

 

There is a higher standard that even God must be judged by. And he fails this test of morality.

 

God's law states that even the most little evil action (only thinking of doing something evil) has to be punished by death.

 

Then that law is morally wrong by the standards of any civilized society. God's "justice" is not justice. Death for minor crimes is punishment far out of proportion to the crime. God's excuses do not make murder any less evil.

 

As said, light and darkness can't exist at the same place, as can't holiness and unholiness ("holy" is what is in gods law, so therefore you could just say, holy is what or who didn't break the law of god). When there is even the slightes unholy thing in gods presence, he wouldn't be holy anymore.

 

Translation: God has a massive ego problem. By his own actions, God should already be considered unholy. This is just an excuse to justify the unjustifiable.

 

By this law, there were no innocent people.

 

Then this law is immoral. It's that simple.

 

As said above, god first gives the humans free way to choose, and when they choose to do what is evil (act against the law of god), he punishs. Perhaps the punishment was even a blessing. God says in Genesis 11, 6: "Now nothing will be impossible for them, what they think of doing". Just imagine, god probably just postponed our self-extinction. Then this is what we would have done, if we had the possibility. Look what we are doing now. We already have the abbility to extinct humanity several times, if we wanted to. Now someone just has to pull one little trigger...

 

Again, then we do not have free will. God manipulates us and punishes us for "crimes" that are not crimes by any civilized system of justice.

 

God didn't this without purpose. When they wouldn't have been slaves in Egypt, they never would have wanted to go away. You know that they said several times on their trip through the desert "Why didn't we stay in Egypt?". Just think about it, they were slaves in this country just some years ago and now they already want to go back! It is a wonder that they wanted to go away at all! If god wouldn't have made them slaves, they would never have left and all of god's plans would have failled. So he had to "encourage" the Hebrews to go. No one wants to live in slavery. So they chose to leave Egypt, when they got the chance and went to Canaan. God's plan worked perfectly (of course not for the Canaanites; they would have been a lot happier, when the Hebrews would have stayed in Egypt)

 

Translation: evil acts by God are justified as long as the result is what he wants.

 

Please tell me you see the problem with this argument.

 

Why do you think this? You just say that it is not a crime, but give no reason. If god exists, if he is a all powerful being and nothing else exists, that he didn't create himself, then it is a crime not to aknowlegde him

 

By God's idea of "justice" perhaps. By any moral system of justice, merely having the wrong belief is not a crime with execution as the punishment. Therefore God's "justice" is immoral.

 

When you say: "I don't aknowlegde this government! I'll start a rebellion/revolution imediatly! I don't follow the law of this government!" you are considered a criminal, at least in every normal country with laws and a constitution.

 

If the government is evil, rebellion is not only acceptable, but the right thing to do. Governments, like God, must answer to a higher law.

 

In the view of god, every crime has to be punished by death, because no evil can be in front of him and live is good, death is evil. In gods point of view, no shades of gray exist. Either you follow the law or you break the law. Breaking the law leads to the punishment, which is death. Don't look at me this way, I don't make the laws!

 

Then God's system of justice is clearly wrong. Any reasonable system recognizes that not all crimes are equally evil. God's system fails this test.

 

To be god includes that you are holy. "God" is defined an all powerful, all knowing, all good, all holy being. You can say that another human has no right to jugde you. I understand this, any human has the same value. But god is on a higher step of hierarchy, you can't compare him jugding us to a human jugding another human, it is something completly different.

 

And there is an even higher set of standards that even God must be judged by. God fails their test, and is evil.

 

Who does define justice? When god created us, then he has the right to jugde us (when I create something, I can do with it whatever I want). He could have made helpless marionettes who can't think for themselves. But the fact that we are discussing this matter at the moment shows that he didn't, he created us so that we could think for ourselves. Perhaps we should at least show some gratitude for this. When he created everything, he also created justice. Therefore anything you think is just, must originate from god.

 

Bad argument. If God created us with free will, then our systems of justice are our creation, and only our creation. If all justice has God as its origin, then we do not have free will.

 

Everything right until the last sentence. An allpowerful, allknowing being doesn't need to be egoistic. It doesn't have any concurrence and it knows that it can do everything it wants. An ego-problem. So when you our government makes laws and then we are condemned because we don't follow them, the government has an ego-problem? Laws are needed to keep everything in order. I understand the principle of seperation of powers concerning us humans. Humans aren't perfect. But god is perfect (or he wouldn't be god), so therefore he can be everything the same time. So therefore he can invent his own laws and jugde his creations by these laws. If you want to go through those laws and look if any of them aren't just, be my guest.

 

God is perfect by his definition only. By any reasonable standard, he is badly flawed. His assumption of perfection and justice are signs of an ego problem.

 

He doesn't need to do this, because of the reasons stated above. An already perfect being doesn't have to show that it is perfect (only we, the unperfect humans, have to do this). It simply is perfect and it knows that. Therefore it also knows that it is the only perfect thing and anyone saying something else is lying. Anything not so perfect as this being would make it no longer perfect. So it can not tolarete anything not made perfect in its presence. The being made laws to jugde what is perfect. This perfect being can't break its own laws, or it would no longer be perfect.

 

Again, God is not perfect. The fact that he declares himself to be perfect is an ego problem, not truth. And in any case, your argument is flawed. If God breaks his own laws, he is simply redefining perfect.

 

By your own definition, God breaking his own laws is a perfect act.

 

God is the absolute perfect being. Perfectness includes uniqueness. Only one perfect being can exist (multiple perfect beings would make it less perfect). Everything else is less perfect. This includes humans. The perfect being loves its own work (who doesn't?) and wants to save it. Because this being is perfect, it also has the perfect love. The only way the perfect being can do this, without breaking its own law (and by this making it no longer perfect) it has to punish itself instead of its creation. The principle of mercy and self-sacrifice is included in the law of god; one life for another. In order to save its whole creation, only one sacrifice was big enough: The perfect being itself. What god did wasn't insanity but simply following his own law.

 

See above. God can redefine his laws without losing perfection. His insistence on doing things this way is insane.

 

The law of god states that punishment can't be just taken away. Who commits a sin, has to be punished. God can not break his own law (or he would no longer be perfect). But there is something included in this law: Someone else can suffer the punishment for the guilty one and with this the guilty one can go free. For his whole creation, only god himself was sacrifice enough.

 

Once again, God can redefine his laws. And you still don't answer the question.... why did God create a flawed law to begin with? Could it be because God is evil?

 

Sin is unholy, sin is death and sin is darkness. God is the opposite. As light can not exist where darkness is (and vice versa), nothing unholy can exist where there is holiness. Either you are holy (you never sined) or you are unholy (you sined). You can't be half-holy. Either you are perfect or you are not. God is perfect. Anything unperfect in his presence would make him unperfect.

 

Translation: God has such an ego problem that he has to declare anything other than himself to be unholy and evil.

 

Why is god's idea of justice immoral? Who says that our system of justice is moral? What is morality? Morality isn't defined by humans, as isn't justice or anything else. When god really created everything, he also created morality and justice and therefore defined it. When he created and defined it, only his point of view matters and we have to adjust our point of view to his.

 

There is a higher definition of morality that even God is not immune to. God's definition is barbaric, unjust, and evil. It is not acceptable for any civilized society. If a human society, without God's influence, had made his laws, the society would be judged evil, and its evil corrected. If God's laws would be evil in this case, they are evil no matter who creates them.

 

You act moral when you act good. You act immoral when you act evil. God punishs evil. To punish evilness is not immoral, but the highest standard of morality. We are the ones with a flawed morality, because we let crimes unpunished. God punishs every crime, so therefore he possesses the perfect morality. He also punishs evil with the only really moral punishment: death. Live is only existing where there is light and holiness, death exists where there is darkness and unholiness. When we are unholy (we have broken gods law) we are under penalty of death and will receive our punishment (sooner or later).

 

Then God fails his own test! God himself forgives sin and evil by allowing anyone into heaven. The fact that he gives an excuse for doing so does not change this fact.

 

In the end the discussion in itself is senseless. When god really created everything, then he also defined everything. When god defined justice to be everything we think now is evil, then to do evil things would be just. So it doesn't matter what we think is just, evil, moral, good etc. because he defined, created and inplanted it into us. When he says it is just to kill innocent people, then it is just. Of course he didn't, just is to do what is right and good. When god says that everything what he does is just and holy, then it is so, because he created everything (including justic).

 

God must answer to a higher law. If God were human, and a member of our society, he would be judged evil. This judgement can not be changed simply because he has more power.

[ThetaOrionis01]

Darnoc, your answer, and explanation, is contradictory within itself.

 

If, as you state, god made the rules, and every slight breach of the rules is sin which god then punishes, then there is no such thing as free will.

 

Free will implies the freedom to choose without coercion.

 

The free will offered by your god is about the same as that in a fascist dictatorship - comply or suffer -, or the free will you can exercise with a gun held to your head. It is not free.

 

 

This raises the question whether sin can exist without free will.

 

If true free will does not exist, then sin does not exist either, and so god's punishments are arbitrary - like the excesses of an insane dictator.

[Darnoc]

OK, my government example wasn't so good. But every government is made by humans. And god isn't a human being. When he created everything (this includes justice, laws, morality, good, evil etc.) then only what he says is just or unjust matters. He created and defined those things. So therefore when we think something is just or unjust, this thought originates from god (as everything does). To say god is unjust is a paradox. When god says that he is just, then he is just. He created justice, he knows perfectly what justice is. When he defines justice to be his actions, then his actions are just. When I create a picture and say: "I call this picture "Blah"", then this picture bears this name. If god says justice is this, then justice is what he says, because he created justice.

 

Then that law is morally wrong by the standards of any civilized society. God's "justice" is not justice. Death for minor crimes is punishment far out of proportion to the crime. God's excuses do not make murder any less evil.

 

You say that death penalty is far out proportion. How do you acctually know that this is the case? Do you say this because of some feeling inside you which tells you that such a thing is bad? Or is it reasoning? The argument of the bible seems more logical, because it isn't based on feelings. No crime=No punishment. Crime=punishment. Holy=has not sinned. Unholy=has sinned. Punishment=death. Why? Either you are guilty or you are not. You can't be half-guilty. Why then make multiple punishments, when everyone who commits a crime is guilty? God is alive forever, because he is holy. He gave live to beings which were holy at the beginning (made after his image). They became unholy so therefore couldn't be alive forever anymore. Unholiness is the opposite of holiness. When you are unholy, then you must be everything that god isn't. He is alive forever. When you are the opposite of god, you can't live for ever anymore. Simple logic.

 

And to what you said, Theta, we do have free will. When god would be visible for every human being and everyone would know that he existed, it would be like a dictator ruling by force. But we don't know, we have to believe. And as long as this is the case, we have a free will. We don't know if there is a god to punish us. If we belief that one exists (we choose to believe from our own free will), then we have to do as he says or suffer the consequences. If we don't believe in god, nothing will acctually happen. Until the day it is either proven that god exists or that he doesn't exist. Perhaps we will know when we die. Free will includes that we do not know. If a being knows that its live has been forseen and planned and this plan is revealed to this being, this being no longer possesses a free will. But as long we do not know, we will have this free will.

[Casuir]

Some ------- up logic floating about here. God is a higher being, you are lower beings, you're wasting your time trying to understand him/her/it, especially when you're trying to do it from a book written by humans 2000 years ago. If you really want to know what hes like, go kill yourselves.

[Peregrine]

Casuir, you're a Senior Dev, but that doesn't mean you're immune to the rules. Language and spam like that isn't acceptable.

[ThetaOrionis01]

Darnoc, you have missed my point about free will. According to your own scripture, god denies humans free will. 'Thou shalt not have any other gods...etc etc' - believe this or die horribly and suffer forever. This is not free will, this is intimidation and coercion. Ergo there is no such thing as free will.

 

If we don't believe in god, nothing will acctually happen

 

False statement - during the Flood, believers and unbelievers alike were killed. And that's just one example of genocide committed by this god. This invalidates your argument.

 

 

Another point you raised was that god created everything. In that case, god also created evil. Is he not therefore responsible for all evil acts committed? As an analogy, think of parents keeping a loaded gun in the house. If their infant child plays with the gun and injures and kills somebody, who is to blame? IMO, the parents who left the gun for their child to find. If god created evil for humans to discover, then punishing humans for using this evil he has created is hypocritical at best.

 

 

Regarding the argument that 'god created justice' etc: In human society, the lawgivers themselves are subject to the law. Presidents can be impeached, war criminals tried by international tribunals, dictators extradited, ministers jailed. However, god puts himself outside the laws he made for everyone else. He repeatedly breaks his own commandment 'thou shalt not kill', yet mass-murder by god goes unpunished. And as I recall, god commanded one of his servants, Abraham, to commit adultery - yet is adultery not also sin, according to this god?

[Malchik]

The bible as people are talking about it has been translated many times with marginal reinterpretations in each. And rather as Chinese whispers will transform the spoken message, so has the bible changed over time. Take into account also that the bible is a mixture of oral history written down long after the event (hence the reference to Chinese whispers), parables to explain the reason behind a socially desirable code of ethics (human) and an attempt to prevent opposition to this code by attributing it to an inchoate, unprovable higher power.

 

Allowing for all this, whether or not you believe in the higher power, it is utterly beyond belief that the bible can be taken literally today. At best the history has some factual base but even that is difficult to establish. Whether 'The Word' began as god given or not (and I'm one of the or nots) today's bible cannot possibly be an accurate rendition.

 

Even if god does exist, to attempt to establish his/her/its morality from such a flawed source is meaningless.

 

If, in spite of all reason, you accept the bible at face value, the inconsistencies pointed out by Peregrine and Theta among others prove beyond doubt that god was an intolerant bigot who delighted in causing pain, a criminal sadist. (I think to suggest madness would give him a get out of jail free card and I won't go along with that).

 

Unfortunately the moment anyone starts to admit one part of the bible might have been 'interpreted', the whole basis for belief falls apart. Thus a believer is caught in the trap of having to be unquestioning.

 

If you believe, there is no opportunity to debate since, as Theta points out, there is no free will. All believers can do is repeat what someone else has told them. How is this a basis for serious discussion?

[Darnoc]

@Malchik: I don't repeat what someone else has told me. I do take a book (the bible) and then try to understand what it wants to tell. There are, as you said, many arguments for the bible not to be litteraly true. But in this discussion it isn't the subject if the bible is literally true, the discussion is, if god's actions are moral (when we assume that what is said in the bible is true). And there is no prove beyond all doubt such far, becaus I still can doubt what Peregrin and Theta Orionis said (as you will see).

 

@Theta Orionis: God says this in his law. Now you read this and then you can make a choice. Either you believe, what is written there and try to live by this law or you don't believe this. God didn't state that he would strike you down imedialty (then you wouldn't have any choice at all). He only said that any human had to suffer death (no longer be immortal), because every human broke his law. So as long no one can prove that what god said is true and that he exists, you will have this free will. He says that humans were immortal once (which we can't prove), but at the moment they are mortal (and we don't know if this was the case for all times). And because we don't acctually know, we still can make a choice. The fact that most people do make choices proves that they have a free will.

 

Also what you said about the flood. God says in the bible that he did this. But he also says that he would never do such a thing again. And the fact is that we have no possibility (at least at the moment) to prove him right or wrong. And as long as we are "sitting in the dark" we still can make a choice.

 

Evil is the opposite of good. Light can not exist when darkness doesn't exist at the same time. The same applies to good and evil. When god made "good", "evil" automatically came into being, because it is the exact opposite of good. God didn't just let the "gun in the house so that the children could play with it". He gave humans a free will. As you remember, free will includes having the choice between good and evil. Humans choose evil, despite they knew that they shouldn't follow this path. Humans didn't just find evil lying around and then played a little with it. God clearly stated that they shouldn't do it. They knew that he didn't wanted them to do evil. When someone keeps a gun in the house and clearly tells his children, not to touch this gun, then the parents aren't guilty, the children are when they don't obey, take the gun and shoot someone. When now this parent locked away this gun, those children wouldn't have a free will anymore. Perhaps it would have been better for them not to have this free will. But there's also the other argument that you can't clearly understand "good" when you haven't seen "evil". The sama as you don't know what is truth when you never heard a lie or as you don't know what light is when you never saw darkness. So in order to really understand good, humans had to experience evil.

[ThetaOrionis01]

Darnoc, the whole point of this debate is to assume that the bible is true, and that therefore god does exist. You have therefore just proven my point that there is no free will.

So as long no one can prove that what god said is true and that he exists, you will have this free will.

 

Whether the punishment is immediate or postponed does not come into this - a thread of violence is still intimidation.

 

Also what you said about the flood. God says in the bible that he did this. But he also says that he would never do such a thing again

 

So genocide is all right as long as you promise you won't do it again? Come on, surely you must concede that this is absurd! So if the Nazi regime had promised to be good and not start another holocaust they should have been left in charge? I don't think so - and I don't think you'd find many people who would agree with you on that.

 

 

When someone keeps a gun in the house and clearly tells his children, not to touch this gun, then the parents aren't guilty, the children are when they don't obey, take the gun and shoot someone

 

This is assuming that the children are capable of distinguishing between right and wrong. If, as you claim, god made good and evil, then only god is capable of distinguishing between the two. Humans, as lesser beings, are by definition not capable of understanding good and evil in the absolute terms set out by this god. Therefore they are not able to distinguish good from evil in those same absolute terms. Therefore they are not accountable - it is god who is responsible in the same way as parents are responsible for their children.

And to punish humans for doing something the significance of which they cannot understand is like punishing an infant. God's excessive punishments are akin to child abuse in that analogy.

 

To sum up:

 

- If what is written in the bible is true, then humans have no free will, and are therefore incapable of sinning.

- If humans are lesser beings than this god than they cannot fully understand the nature of good and evil and are therefore not accountable - god, having created this evil, is ultimately responsible

 

The morality of god in that case is that of a criminal - guilty of, among others, genocide.

 

- If, however, what is written in the bible is not true, then Christianity is built upon a flawed base