Can God be moral?

[halbhh]

I said there doesn't seem to be a golden rule.

It's objectively testable.

There isn't anything more objective than testing and observation --

Regardless of how willing one individual is to be objective, testing/observation is the most objective possible general process to detect reality that is independent of our individual viewpoints.

So, we have actually a plausible rule that is also testable: one can actually repeatedly test it in varied situations (in real life for instance) to see whether it results in an increase or decrease of the Universally valued human goals people agree about (posted just above in post #289, as illustrated by Maslow's hierarchy).

The rule in full, proactive form:
Matthew 7:12

 

[Nimos]

It's objectively testable.

There isn't anything more objective than testing and observation --

Regardless of how willing one individual is to be objective, testing/observation is the most objective possible general process to detect reality that is independent of our individual viewpoints.

So, we have actually a plausible rule that is also testable: one can actually repeatedly test it in varied situations (in real life for instance) to see whether it results in an increase or decrease of the Universally valued human goals people agree about (posted just above in post #289, as illustrated by Maslow's hierarchy).

The rule in full, proactive form:
Matthew 7:12

But it is not objective in regards to how we decide these things, we can objectively assess whether our rules apply to the subjective rules we have agreed on, but that doesn't make them objectively true.

The needs you refer to, could be used as guidelines for how we ought to structure our moral reasoning, but have nothing to do with morality as such. Whether one group of people doesn't get their needs met, while others do. Doesn't tell us whether it is objectively right or wrong.

 

[halbhh]

But it is not objective in regards to how we decide these things, we can objectively assess whether our rules apply to the subjective rules we have agreed on, but that doesn't make them objectively true.

The needs you refer to, could be used as guidelines for how we ought to structure our moral reasoning, but have nothing to do with morality as such. Whether one group of people doesn't get their needs met, while others do. Doesn't tell us whether it is objectively right or wrong.

Do you mean the values that are "universal", as I've characterized them? Do you think that's not objective? (that they don't exist world wide, in any nation, and in any time period, as the always consistent things people want) If you doubt that, then try to find out, I suggest. Find out what polls say people want in different nations, and compare to the list from Maslow, for category. The easy way to disprove an idea is to find a strong counterexample. So, you could try to find any clear and strong counterexample -- like a majority in a nation (one larger than only a small town) definitely not wanting a thing in the bottom 3 levels of the hierarchy. That would be truly surprising and interesting. I've already done some looking, long ago.

 

[halbhh]

Here, I'll post it again for convivence

The objective basis for objective morality: Shared Human Traits all peoples have in common:

 

[Nimos]

Do you mean the values that are "universal", as I've characterized them? Do you think that's not objective? Try to find out, I suggest.

No, im saying you are mixing things together.

Maslow's hierarchy of needs is a theory of motivation which states that five categories of human needs dictate an individual's behavior. Those needs are physiological needs, safety needs, love and belonging needs, esteem needs, and self-actualization needs.

I have no issues with these needs, as I said, they could be used for how to structure our moral reasoning. But the needs themself, does not tell us anything in regards to whether something is morally right or wrong.

Meaning whether its morally right for me, to only make sure my needs are met, while at the same time actively working on making sure your needs ain't met.

It also doesn't tell you how you ought to fulfill your needs, whether you would be correct in stealing all your food from children, to fulfill such need or whether that would be wrong.

These are universal needs, not universal moral rules.

 

[halbhh]

No, im saying you are mixing things together.

Maslow's hierarchy of needs is a theory of motivation which states that five categories of human needs dictate an individual's behavior. Those needs are physiological needs, safety needs, love and belonging needs, esteem needs, and self-actualization needs.

I have no issues with these needs, as I said, they could be used for how to structure our moral reasoning. But the needs themself, does not tell us anything in regards to whether something is morally right or wrong.

Meaning whether its morally right for me, to only make sure my needs are met, while at the same time actively working on making sure your needs ain't met.

It also doesn't tell you how you ought to fulfill your needs, whether you would be correct in stealing all your food from children, to fulfill such need or whether that would be wrong.

These are universal needs, not universal moral rules.

Any rules that objectively result in the best overall human success in meeting the objective needs of humans, as shown in Maslow's hierarchy, are of course objectively beneficial.

I define 'moral' as what is beneficial to humans, according to what humans all want in common (as shown in Maslow's hierarchy).

The rules that result in the best living conditions for all of us together.

Thus, as we can then see, it follows there must exist an objective morality for humans.

 

[Nimos]

Any rules that objectively result in the best overall human success in meeting the objective needs of humans, as shown in Maslow's hierarchy, are of course objectively beneficial.

I define 'moral' as what is beneficial to humans, according to what humans all want in common (as shown in Maslow's hierarchy).

The rules that result in the best living conditions for all of us together.

Thus, as we can then see, it follows there must exist an objective morality for humans.

Its fine, but it doesn't really make sense to talk morality, if you use a definition which I don't agree with and doesn't even remotely cover the standard definition of morality. I have already mentioned this two times and why it is causing confusion. I have no issue with you wanting to do this, but I can't talk morality based on this.

We are simply going to talk passed each other, which doesn't make for a very productive chat.

 

[halbhh]

Its fine, but it doesn't really make sense to talk morality, if you use a definition which I don't agree with and doesn't even remotely cover the standard definition of morality. I have already mentioned this two times and why it is causing confusion. I have no issue with you wanting to do this, but I can't talk morality based on this.

We are simply going to talk passed each other, which doesn't make for a very productive chat.

Ah, you have a logic about some carefully defined other stuff you want to present/lay out/argue, but I've departed from those, and instead of those, I've been talking about objective benefit to humans instead.



Ok.

 

[Nimos]

Ah, you have a logic about some carefully defined other stuff you want to present/lay out/argue, but I've departed from those, and instead of those, I've been talking about objective benefit to humans instead.



Ok.

I have no issue talking about what would benefit humans in general, or that we could even agree that these are universal needs. But it have nothing to do with morality.

 

[halbhh]

I have no issue talking about what would benefit humans in general, or that we could even agree that these are universal needs. But it have nothing to do with morality.

Well, 'morality' as a word with a meaning is what people decide it is, and when you talk with someone, they will have an idea of what the word is meaning exactly.

So, perhaps someone could crudely label me an 'utilitarian', and I would probably only try to modify their view on that some, probably trying to be sure they realize I consider it's not moral if it destroys some people for the benefits of others. So, perhaps a kind of modified utilitarianism where what is 'good' or 'moral' has to work for everyone, to improve everyone's lives, each person at a time.

 

[Nimos]

Well, 'morality' as a word with a meaning is what people decide it is, and when you talk with someone, they will have an idea of what the word is meaning exactly.

That is why we use and agree on definitions, so people don't make up their own ideas of what things is and isn't.

So, perhaps someone could crudely label me an 'utilitarian', and I would probably only try to modify their view on that some, probably trying to be sure they realize I consider it's not moral if it destroys some people for the benefits of others. So, perhaps a kind of modified utilitarianism where what is 'good' or 'moral' has to work for everyone, to improve everyone's lives, each person at a time.

If someone labelled you like that, you could tell them in which way you are not, but you see the issue that if they use another definition of the word, you have no way to really argue against it, because they are talking about something else, but using the word incorrectly.

We use definitions to clarify things, it would be impossible to have a chat about planets, if we don't even agree what a planet is

But if you see yourself as an utilitarian, why would you then oppose the idea subjective morality? Because in order to maximize or meet each person's happiness and avoid that they conflict with each other, isn't that a subjective judgement you would have to make?

Lets say a religious person say that to increase overall happiness one should accept Jesus, an atheist will disagree as well as a lot of other religious people. So maximizing each of these happiness, I don't really see how one would justify objectively?

 

[Sand Dancer]

It is often stated by religious people that objective morality comes from God (Biblical), but is it really possible for him to be moral under his own rules?

Simply using the Bible as example, but as far as I know it is the same for Islam in this case.

Im going to use this text as basis for this (If they are wrong, let me know and explain why they are):

The Ten Commandments

Moses received the Ten Commandments directly from God on Mount Sinai, written on two stone tablets. They assert the uniqueness of God, and forbid such things as theft, adultery, murder and lying. The Ten Commandments are equally important in Jewish and Christian traditions and appear in the Old Testament in Exodus and Deuteronomy.

Various Christian and Jewish traditions have different wordings for the Ten Commandments. They can be numbered differently. They appear in various forms in the Bible. This is a Christian version:

• I am the Lord thy God: thou shalt not have strange Gods before me
• Thou shall not take the name of the Lord thy God in vain
• Remember to keep holy the Lord's Day
• Honour thy father and thy mother
• Thou shalt not kill
• Thou shalt not commit adultery
• Thou shalt not steal
• Thou shalt not bear false witness against thy neighbour
• Thou shalt not covet thy neighbour's wife
• Thou shalt not covet thy neighbour's goods

The Qur'an does not list the Ten Commandments explicitly, but their substance appears in various places.

God is often referred to as being all good, all knowing etc. and obviously also the author of morality, more specifically objective morality.

Often there is some misunderstandings regarding what is meant by objective morality, so to quickly explain it, it simply means that morality apply regardless of humans being here or not. So when God say that killing is morally wrong, it is wrong regardless of whether not we we were here. Said in another way, in this context it means that God decides what is right and wrong.

My question or issue is whether a person or God in this case can be said to be moral consistent, unless they themself can uphold their own moral rules.

If I tell you that it is morally wrong to steal and I punish you for doing so, but then decide to steal something myself, would you consider me to be morally justified since I made the rule?

Same can be asked about God, "Thou shalt not kill" yet we know that God kills and orders the killing of many people in favour of the Jews. So does God's objective moralities applies to him as well, as they do to me in the above example or not?

Despite him being the creator of everything, objective morality is rules decided by God to be true and therefore arguably part of his nature. But is it possible for someone, God or human to be moral, if they can't uphold their own moral standards?

I want you to take into consideration that, simply because you create or is seen as the caretaker of something, does that mean that you are not morally responsible for said creation? By caretaker I mean, let's imagine you own a dog and it have puppies, and you are morally against killing puppies, are you then not morally obligated to treat all puppies according to your own moral rules, if you want to stay morally coherent, under the concept of objective morality?

If not, God must obviously follow subjective moral ideas and therefore objective morality is likely to be an illusion applied to us by God as if they were, and therefore seen more as divine laws, which God himself apparently doesn't seem a need to uphold himself. Wouldn't that make God immoral, under the general human understanding of morality?

Because I would argue, that a person can't be morally consistent, if they can't uphold their own moral standards. For instant most people will agree that under most circumstances stealing is wrong, yet most people have probably stolen something at some point that they weren't legally entitled to. (Doesn't have to be anything major) But still this would be considered morally inconsistent in my opinion, if we claim that stealing is objectively wrong.

So can God be moral? And if so why?

The Hebrew god is a "do as I say, not as I do" kind of deity. That is immoral.

 

[halbhh]

That is why we use and agree on definitions, so people don't make up their own ideas of what things is and isn't.


If someone labelled you like that, you could tell them in which way you are not, but you see the issue that if they use another definition of the word, you have no way to really argue against it, because they are talking about something else, but using the word incorrectly.

We use definitions to clarify things, it would be impossible to have a chat about planets, if we don't even agree what a planet is

But if you see yourself as an utilitarian, why would you then oppose the idea subjective morality? Because in order to maximize or meet each person's happiness and avoid that they conflict with each other, isn't that a subjective judgement you would have to make?

Lets say a religious person say that to increase overall happiness one should accept Jesus, an atheist will disagree as well as a lot of other religious people. So maximizing each of these happiness, I don't really see how one would justify objectively?

I'm too far from 'utilitarian' to want to use the label.

Here's a useful modeling example:

In straight ultilitarian model, one could ask everyone after 20 years if a certian law helped make their life better, or worse, or had no effect.

Then you could give each vote a number, in order to later sum up the results.
Like so:

"Better" = +1
"Worse" = -1
"Little effect" = 0

And then add up all of the values, to get the utilitarian outcome.

That would produce a result different than what I think is ideal.

I think having bad outcomes from a law is more impactful than having some good outcome from a law, pretty often.

So, therefore I'd instead assign values to voting like this:

"Much Better" = +5
"Better" = +2
"Slightly Better" = +1
"Little effect" = 0
"Slightly Worse" = -1
"Worse" = -10
"Much Worse" = -25

So, as you can see, I'd strongly weight negative results. If a law harms one person significantly, it would usually need to benefit 10-20 people to make up for that to only break even (which would not yet be enough to recommend it).

To really be recommended, I think a law would need a high positive normalized score == the total score divided by the number of people, a per-capita score. I'd look to strike down laws with negative scores, but also I'd reconsider laws with per capita scores under 2, to review for removal or to modify.

 

[Nimos]

I'm too far from 'utilitarian' to want to use the label.

Here's a useful modeling example:

In straight ultilitarian model, one could ask everyone after 20 years if a certian law helped make their life better, or worse, or had no effect.

Then you could give each vote a number, in order to later sum up the results.
Like so:

"Better" = +1
"Worse" = -1
"Little effect" = 0

And then add up all of the values, to get the utilitarian outcome.

That would produce a result different than what I think is ideal.

I think having bad outcomes from a law is more impactful than having some good outcome from a law, pretty often.

So, therefore I'd instead assign values to voting like this:

"Much Better" = +5
"Better" = +2
"Slightly Better" = +1
"Little effect" = 0
"Slightly Worse" = -1
"Worse" = -10
"Much Worse" = -25

So, as you can see, I'd strongly weight negative results. If a law harms one person significantly, it would usually need to benefit 10-20 people to make up for that to only break even (which would not yet be enough to recommend it).

To really be recommended, I think a law would need a high positive normalized score == the total score divided by the number of people, a per-capita score. I'd look to strike down laws with negative scores, but also I'd reconsider laws with per capita scores under 2, to review for removal or to modify.

But isn't that sort of like how we already do things?

In a society there might be an issue with high crime rates, so the politicians ask themselves how do we lower them in a way that is effective and doesn't cost to much money? And then they get into a huge debate and can't agree on anything, the usual stuff. With each side argue why their way is the best solution, and then they vote for it.

But we also know that in a lot of cases this doesn't always lead to the best solutions, as it assumes that everyone know what they are talking about, have the same agenda and so forth.

Like for instance, some will argue that if you just cut the taxes for the rich then everything will be good. And others will argue that this doesn't work and that it simply increases inequality and doesn't give the results that is needed. Despite both sides arguing that their solution is the best for the society as a whole.

Did I misunderstand what you are saying or is your suggestion different from this?

 

[halbhh]

But isn't that sort of like how we already do things?

Bingo. What I've described is much like (most of the time very much alike) how America does its law making. We only tend to pass laws that most people want as long as the smaller minority that doesn't like the law doesn't oppose it too strongly.... If the smaller minority does oppose it with enough energy, often the law cannot get passed.

This results in somewhat of an evolving law, gradually progressing, trial and error, correction, improvement. It's most often 1 or 2 steps forward, and occasionally a step backward.

Then along comes a really dangerous demagogue like Trump that wants to upend the Rule of Law and give people a more simple thing that is less complex, easier to understand or get behind, a strongman or a king. Then it's a real test.

 

[Fallen Prophet]

Sorry for the wait.

I've had your post on my back-burner - willing to respond - but stressing about the "heaviness" of the topic.

I consider this subject matter to be "deeper" territory - not places I usually go - because its the realm of pure speculation based on my study and observation.

Not everything is hashed out completely.

That is an interesting idea, but wouldn't the Universe or whatever is governing these law have to be sentient then? The reason I ask, is because unlike natural laws, which I guess you would agree with, are not sentient, like gravity is not leaning in a specific moral direction, such as "Gravity is evil" and "No gravity is Good". The laws you speak of, which God chooses to align with, would need to follow the same principle for when we humans make such judgement, in order to even make for the possibility of the absolute "God is all good"?

For instance imagine we lived on a strange Earth, where "Murdering were the only option, there simply is no alternative to it." then we wouldn't judge it as being either Good or Evil, it would simply be like Gravity. We can refer to gravity as a good thing, because we don't float into space, but we wouldn't refer to it as being morally Good, even if we at some point develop an anti gravity device, we still wouldn't do it.

I do not consider the Law to be sentient - I look at it - and morality - as a concept akin to natural laws.

I believe that Good should be viewed as a force - like Gravity - and it effects us differently here on Earth than it would in eternity - just like Gravity would if we were in space.

Gravity would effect us differently in space depending on where we were, how fast we were going, how much mass we have - but it is one of the prime forces out there.

However - there are rules that Gravity follows - and someone who knows those rules can navigate and even harness it - use the force of Gravity.

These rules or "natural laws" concerning Gravity are like the Law I have mentioned concerning Good.

And just like an astronaut in space - whose knowledge of Gravity helps them pilot the stars - God uses His knowledge of the Law to create and reign.

An example I thought of was Star Trek - these people in the "future" have accumulated so much knowledge of the universe - and the means to affect it - through their technology.

The things they do on their show would be considered miraculous to us today - but it comes from knowledge of natural laws that we are not currently aware of and the means to follow those laws effectively.

They don't change the natural laws - but apply their knowledge of these laws and with their technology - do all kinds of stuff.

So - to me - the Law is absolute throughout the Universe - only those who adhere to this Law can traverse the cosmos and be as God is - applying their knowledge and affecting change.

However - while we sojourn in mortality - some of the effects of the Law are suspended - out on hold - because God has given us a probationary state - a time for us to repent - to change ourselves.

This is why we cannot remember living with God before coming here. We cannot remember the Law.

Because - according to this "Law of Morality" - if a creature is unaware of the Law - it is possible for them to avoid its effects.

It is our doubt of God and the Law - our ignorance - that allows the Lord Jesus Christ to offer us mercy - as well as the fact that He volunteered to accept all the punishments of the Law that the human race has accumulated.

This is why they ask us to live by faith while in mortality - and not a perfect knowledge - because if we had perfect knowledge - we would have no choice but to follow the Law - and since we sin regardless of what we know - we would stand condemned before the Law forever.

But for God to make a moral judgement of Good and Evil and him being a perfect being. These laws must have alternatives that he can judge, exactly like we can do it when talking about something like "murder", because it's not only the act of murder that is in play here, it's a whole range of moral issues, like someone being wrongfully stolen their life, treated unfair etc. And when enough of these goes against what we think, we make a final judgement that "Murder" in a given case is considered unjustified and therefore wrong or an evil act. I want to make sure you see what I mean, so exactly like natural evil, this is a term used to describe victims of non human caused suffering. Like an earthquake destroying and killing a lot of people etc. The only reason, we might refer to it as natural evil is because of God. If two atheists talk about these things and the chat have nothing to do with religion or God, the term natural evil is not relevant, we have extremely good explanations of why they occur in nature. So it is only when a being such as God is said to be all good and it still happens, that we would term it like that.

So wouldn't these laws you talk about have to be judge that way as well to make sense for God, and therefore they would also need to have a sentient cause that God could judge?

This is a great distinction and I want to clarify that I believe that it is the Lord Jesus Christ - not God the Father - who is our Judge.

Since the Lord Jesus Christ has already taken upon Himself all the punishments for our violations of the Law - His judgement now supersedes the Law - for the justice that the Law demands has already been met by Him.

And He has given us the Laws of Faith and Mercy. And since He has suffered for all of our sins individually - He has come to know us on a deeply personal level.

Therefore - in the case of your examples of murder - the Lord Jesus Christ will be able to know all the inner feelings of motivations of everyone involved - and He can make a perfectly Just and Merciful judgment.

As tot he case of "natural evil" - I don't think that concept exists - because suffering and death - in and of themselves - are not Evil - in my opinion.

 

[Fallen Prophet]

I understand what you mean with this, but I fail to see how it is for the good of all, clearly those trapped under a building after an earthquake, would probably have a hard time understanding that them being there is for the greater good.

I do not believe that God is constantly micro-managing everything that happens on Earth.

I just don't see any evidence of that in the scriptures or any other source.

I believe that God - for the most part - has set things in motion and allows them to run their course.

It is a good thing that He is not constantly intervening in our lives - because that would be a conflict of interest.

He wants us to make our own choices and to suffer the consequences of our actions - good or bad.

He wants us to live in imperfect and finite mortality - to know pleasure as well as pain - life as well as death.

And death - to Him - is like leaving one room and walking into another.

Also as mentioned earlier to another person in this thread, is the issue with animal suffering in the wild, because I don't see how animals killing each other and suffering at the hand of nature is for the good of all. If you take a hunter in general (obviously not an everyone), they practice and learn how to shoot an animal so they know where to hit it so it dies as fast as possible. Even if you are against hunting, at least humans doing this, will try to minimize suffering. So if we can do it, you would expect God to also be able to do it, yet animals can really kill each other in horrible ways. I don't get the impression that humans in general around the world have some wish or desire or see a benefit in animals killing each other like they do, so I think it's kind of difficult to explain how that is for the good of all? You would have a good argument, if people were really enjoying seeing animals suffer.

I believe that we agreed to all the terms of mortality - to live according to the imperfect conditions - long before we were ever born.

I also believe that members of the Animal Kingdom agreed to the conditions of mortality before coming here.

I believe that animals have spirits - have their origins in eternity - just like us - but they are not the children of God as we are - and they understand that their roles in mortality is to - generally - support Man.

While in the wild they need to eat - they need to survive - and all mortal life subsists on other mortal life.

I agree, but in that case how would you make an argument that something is right and not wrong? Obviously we would have to rely on God telling us what is and isn't. Which causes some issues. Because according to God, slavery is not wrong, he made rules for how you ought to treat them and he also told us how to rightfully punish people that breaks his laws, yet we don't follow them and if we know we can't trust our judgement of Good and Evil, there ought to be no discussion of how to deal with these things, because God already told us and we know he is all good and works for the greater good of all.

God cannot command in everything - because then that would eliminate us exercising our mind and will - we would be automatons.

God allowed ancient Israel to have slaves for many reasons I can think of - and many more that I am probably unaware.

First - Israel was going to be fighting its neighbors. That's just what was going to happen. So - rather than completely destroy all those who were captured in war - the Lord told Israel that they could spare them and make them servants.

Slavery in Israel was different than what we are expecting - because every seven years slaves were given the choice to be free or to continue serving their masters.

Not only this - but any slave who fled from their master in Israel was given full-citizen status and was considered free.

Also - considering that their neighbors used slave labor and used slave in their armies - Israel would have ceased to exist if they did not also use that resource.

Their enemies would have destroyed them in every respect.

It was just different. A "slave" we picture today is not the same as a "slave" back then - they were treated differently.

This is obviously only one issue, another one which is probably much worse, is that Christians which are the largest religion in the world, have thrown God's law out the window, and said that it doesn't apply anymore, which leaves us to completely rely on our own lack of ability to judgement right from wrong.

Again, if we know that we can't correctly judge these from each other, what basis do we have to say that one thing is Good and not Evil?

I believe that every single human being has the Light of Christ in them.

This Light is the "enmity" God spoke of and placed in the "seed of the woman" to deny evil spirits the ability to possess our bodies.

This Light is what allows our spirits to control our bodies.

This Light is what allows us to discern Good from Evil.

Now - this Light can be dim or bright in each of us depending on our thoughts and choices - some of us see gray - some of us may delight in the shadows cast by that Light - but it is there in each of us nonetheless.

Those among us who do Evil know they are doing Evil - they either just don't care or they delight in it.

Any gray area in life can be proven to be black or white by studying the Word of God.

I believe that our current generation of Christians are not willing to study the Word of God.

We have to believe that under the circumstances that God did it for the greater good of all, including those ancient inhabitants. So clearly it was Good to get rid of them.

It is often argued that God gave us free will because he didn't want us to be mere mindless robots, but im honestly not sure what is worse, being mindless robots or robots with free will, unable to know right from wrong. That seems like a disaster of unavoidable death and suffering just waiting to happen, to be honest.

Death and suffering are going to happen regardless of what we do - this is mortality - what I believe we signed up for.

No matter what happens to us in this life - good or evil - I believe we were willing to suffer it because we knew it would be for our good and enhance us in eternity.

 

[Nimos]

It is our doubt of God and the Law - our ignorance - that allows the Lord Jesus Christ to offer us mercy - as well as the fact that He volunteered to accept all the punishments of the Law that the human race has accumulated.

This is some very unique view of God, good and morality, not sure I have heard that before

Just wondering what about all those that don't accept Jesus?

As tot he case of "natural evil" - I don't think that concept exists - because suffering and death - in and of themselves - are not Evil - in my opinion.

But if God created everything, he must have designed it so natural disasters can cause a lot of suffering to humans and animals. Whether its those that directly suffer from it or those left behind. That is what is meant by natural evil, nothing really prevents God from making sure that we don't suffer or die from these, or he could have designed these things differently.

It is a good thing that He is not constantly intervening in our lives - because that would be a conflict of interest.

Conflict of interest? Isn't the goal to be saved, that is what God wants from us and also what Christians wants, isn't it?

While in the wild they need to eat - they need to survive - and all mortal life subsists on other mortal life.

And God couldn't have made all animals just eat plants? Sort of like the lion playing with the lamb kind of thing etc.? Or was he forced to make it so animals kill each other in horrible ways?

First - Israel was going to be fighting its neighbors. That's just what was going to happen. So - rather than completely destroy all those who were captured in war - the Lord told Israel that they could spare them and make them servants.

Slavery in Israel was different than what we are expecting - because every seven years slaves were given the choice to be free or to continue serving their masters.

Not only this - but any slave who fled from their master in Israel was given full-citizen status and was considered free.

Also - considering that their neighbors used slave labor and used slave in their armies - Israel would have ceased to exist if they did not also use that resource.

Their enemies would have destroyed them in every respect.

It was just different. A "slave" we picture today is not the same as a "slave" back then - they were treated differently.

You are aware that there are different rules for slaves/servants in the bible? Some are for Hebrew slaves (servants) and then some for none hebrews. Only the hebrews are to go free, the others are your property. You are not allowed to keep hebrew slaves according to God. So there is a good chance that those slaves that escape their masters are the hebrews one's only.

Deuteronomy 15:12
12 - “If your brother, a Hebrew man or a Hebrew woman, is sold to you, he shall serve you six years, and in the seventh year you shall let him go free from you.

Deuteronomy 24:7
7 - “If a man is found stealing one of his brothers of the people of Israel, and if he treats him as a slave or sells him, then that thief shall die. So you shall purge the evil from your midst.

Leviticus 25:39-44
39 - “If your brother becomes poor beside you and sells himself to you, you shall not make him serve as a slave:
40 - he shall be with you as a hired worker and as a sojourner. He shall serve with you until the year of the jubilee.
41 - Then he shall go out from you, he and his children with him, and go back to his own clan and return to the possession of his fathers.
42 - For they are my servants, whom I brought out of the land of Egypt; they shall not be sold as slaves.
43 - You shall not rule over him ruthlessly but shall fear your God.
44 - As for your male and female slaves whom you may have: you may buy male and female slaves from among the nations that are around you.

I believe we were willing to suffer it because we knew it would be for our good and enhance us in eternity.

Im not especially interested in suffering, just saying I think God could have made it some other and better way. And also im not particular interested in spending an eternity with him either, so it would have been nice if he had made it so atheists could have chosen from the start

 

[Fallen Prophet]

This is some very unique view of God, good and morality, not sure I have heard that before

Glad to be of service.

Just wondering what about all those that don't accept Jesus?

Great question.

First off - I don't believe that we would even be here at all if the Lord Jesus Christ did not decide to be our Creator, Judge, Advocate, etc.

However - if we by some miracle (no pun intended ) did somehow come to exist without Him - we would have been miserable forever - since we would have immediately been condemned before the Law.

Therefore - not only would we be required to endure instant punishment for any and all of our violations of Law (sins) - but we would have also been unable to return to God the Father - for He is perfect and no unclean thing can dwell in His presence.

We would have been forced to be devils - servants to a devil - miserable forever.

Now - to your question - the Lord Jesus Christ has already suffered the consequences of the Law for every human being who has lived - is living - and will ever live.

That places the Lord Jesus Christ in the position as our creditor - since He has taken our debts upon Himself.

Therefore - He can now set the terms for how we are to pay our debts.

And He has decreed that "all manner of sin and blasphemy shall be forgiven unto man" - save one - which He refers to as the "blasphemy against the Holy Ghost".

Now - it is my belief - that the Lord Jesus Christ wants us to be forgiven of sin in this life - during mortality - and that would require us accepting Him - of course - but also doing what He has commanded us to do.

So - simply claiming, "I accept Jesus as my personal Lord and Savior" - in my opinion - isn't enough for anyone to be forgiven of anything in this life.

If someone does not accept Him - or does not do what He has commanded (repentance) - in this life then they will not be forgiven of their sins while in this life.

They will need to wait until after they have paid the penalties of their sins before being forgiven.

I believe that there are three possible places our spirits can go upon death - Paradise, Prison or Hell - to await the time of their forgiveness, Resurrection and Final Judgment.

Paradise is where those who did as the Lord Jesus Christ commanded them and received forgiveness in this life will dwell - unencumbered by the sins they have already been forgiven of.

These are they who will be engaged in missionary efforts to the spirits in Prison - preaching repentance and forgiveness - as well as fulfilling missions in mortality as "guardian angels" and such.

Prison - which I know sounds awful - is a place where the spirits of those who did not accept the Lord - yet were not willfully rebellious - will go.

It is called Prison because - unlike the spirits in Paradise and Hell - they are not free to leave and interact with other Beings outside of Prison.

While in Prison they will bear the weight of their sins - the memory and guilt of them.

However - these spirits will be visited by emissaries from both Paradise and Hell - each teaching their doctrine and trying to entice them to accept their message.

Depending on which message they accept - they can eventually be forgiven of their sins and be released to Paradise or mire deeper into their sins and become converted to Hell.

Hell - like Prison and Paradise - is a temporary condition placed upon those spirits who were willfully rebellious - often referred to as wicked - and they will bear the weight of their sins - the memory of them - but they will delight in them - yet they will also be heavily influenced and tormented by Satan and his minions.

These are the spirits who will go as emissaries to Prison to try and convince the spirits there to reject the message of repentance and forgiveness as well as fulfill missions in mortality as tempting spirits and such - in some vain attempt to relive their own sins.

Once the Final Battle is fought - every spirit in Prison and Hell will be forgiven of their sins - because they have suffered the consequences of them - and then they will inherit a bodily Resurrection - a permanent and perfect rejoining of spirit and physical body - and then they will receive their Final Judgment.

All save those who commit the "unpardonable sin" a.k.a. "the blasphemy against the Holy Ghost" (very few) will be received somewhere into God's Kingdom - the others - which also include the devil and his minions - will be cast out into the "great pit" or "lake of fire" a.k.a. "outer darkness".

Sorry for the long answer.

 

[Fallen Prophet]

But if God created everything, he must have designed it so natural disasters can cause a lot of suffering to humans and animals. Whether its those that directly suffer from it or those left behind. That is what is meant by natural evil, nothing really prevents God from making sure that we don't suffer or die from these, or he could have designed these things differently.

I believe that God does not intervene because He promised that He would not.

And that promise binds Him - because He is perfectly Lawful.

Also - His intervening would negate many of the reasons for why we chose to come to mortality.

In order for us to experience pleasure - we need to experience pain. Courage and fear. Health and sickness.

We need to experience mortality to learn that everything has it's opposite.

And consider the Son of God - beaten and scourged, spat upon, crucified and all the while suffering great pains of both body and spirit that caused Him to bleed from every pore - the punishments of our sins.

God the Father allowed His Son to suffer the worst of all things - so that He could overcome them - and I believe that He did.

We are not greater than the Son of God - therefore - we should not expect God to intervene on our behalf.

Of course - I would be remiss not to mention that there are times when God does intervene - or at least allows us passages of escape - like what happened with the Lord Jesus Christ so many times before He was ultimately arrested.

But - when our time comes - it comes - and there is nothing evil about it.

Conflict of interest? Isn't the goal to be saved, that is what God wants from us and also what Christians wants, isn't it?

I believe that salvation is the most basic blessing He is offering us - one that literally almost everyone is going to enjoy - save those who commit the unpardonable sin.

But - yes - He is our God and our Father - and His intervening would be a conflict of interest.

Any parent who wants their child to succeed and will do everything they can to help - but there are times when parents should not be involved - such as - if their child is standing trial and the parent is either the judge or jury for that case?

That parent would need to recuse themselves - to avoid a conflict of interest.

Fortunately for us - we have the Lord Jesus Christ - who came into the world just as we did and is able to be both our perfect Judge and Mediator.

And God couldn't have made all animals just eat plants? Sort of like the lion playing with the lamb kind of thing etc.? Or was he forced to make it so animals kill each other in horrible ways?

I can only imagine all the reasons for this - but the first that comes to mind is that there wouldn't be enough plants on Earth to feed all the animals of the planet.

I mean - are most plants even edible?

And even if there were enough plants to go around - then there would be issues with overpopulation of species.

Which would then lead to conflict - over food and resources - so animals would be fighting and killing each other anyways.

You are aware that there are different rules for slaves/servants in the bible? Some are for Hebrew slaves (servants) and then some for none hebrews. Only the hebrews are to go free, the others are your property. You are not allowed to keep hebrew slaves according to God. So there is a good chance that those slaves that escape their masters are the hebrews one's only.

Deuteronomy 15:12
12 - “If your brother, a Hebrew man or a Hebrew woman, is sold to you, he shall serve you six years, and in the seventh year you shall let him go free from you.

Deuteronomy 24:7
7 - “If a man is found stealing one of his brothers of the people of Israel, and if he treats him as a slave or sells him, then that thief shall die. So you shall purge the evil from your midst.

Leviticus 25:39-44
39 - “If your brother becomes poor beside you and sells himself to you, you shall not make him serve as a slave:
40 - he shall be with you as a hired worker and as a sojourner. He shall serve with you until the year of the jubilee.
41 - Then he shall go out from you, he and his children with him, and go back to his own clan and return to the possession of his fathers.
42 - For they are my servants, whom I brought out of the land of Egypt; they shall not be sold as slaves.
43 - You shall not rule over him ruthlessly but shall fear your God.
44 - As for your male and female slaves whom you may have: you may buy male and female slaves from among the nations that are around you.

Sure - but Deuteronomy 23-25-16 states that,

"Thou shalt not deliver unto his master the servant which is escaped from his master unto thee:

He shall dwell with thee, even among you, in that place which he shall choose in one of thy gates, where it liketh him best: thou shalt not oppress him."

There is no distinction between Israelite and foreigner in this regard.

If any foreign slave to an Israelite leaves and does not wish to return - the Law declared that they would not be taken back to their master, but that they were free to dwell where they would and that they were not to be oppressed.

This gave the slaves a lot of power and motivated the masters to prepare comfortable, safe and healthy places for them to live and work.

Unlike their neighbors who were sacrificing their slaves and stuff.

It was just a lot different there and then.

Im not especially interested in suffering, just saying

Sure - but what if you needed to experience suffering in order to ever experience pleasure?

Before we came to this world we were just spirits - no physical bodies - and even though we had second-hand knowledge of suffering and pleasure - we lacked experience.

I believe that we were willing to risk any and all suffering in order to experience pleasure.

And honestly - logically - we need to know pain in order to know pleasure.

If everything was pleasurable - wouldn't it lose it's meaning and effect?

I think God could have made it some other and better way.

I honestly believe this is the best and only way.

And also im not particular interested in spending an eternity with him either, so it would have been nice if he had made it so atheists could have chosen from the start

That's the kicker - you don't have to.

I promise that our God and Father is fully aware that there are those among His children who do not wish to become like Him or to live with Him again.

That was another reason for why we entered into mortality after forgetting all beforehand - to have a period of time set aside to prove to both ourselves and to Him what we want in eternity.

If you are living your life in a way that tells God you don't want to live with Him - don't worry - you won't.

And this isn't some veiled threat or anything - I'm not claiming that you are going to "outer darkness" or anything like that.

I believe that there are many kingdoms and mansions within God's Kingdom - those which are closer to God and those which are further away.

All depending on the wants and desires of His children.

So I honestly believe - that no matter what - you are going to be pleasantly surprised by the outcome.