How Do Christians Reconcile The Following Question Regarding Their Faith?

[Thana]

So now we are no better than puppies?

You tell me.

ouch.
So you merely accept where you were told he "belongs"?

No, it's just where He is.
Are you implying that I can't think for myself?

You mean as you claim he is...
actually, I see it as bringing him up to a level to discuss, but to each their own.

What debate?
You are merely declaring your beliefs.

No, where He is. If I asked you what Theists believe their God concept to be you would repeat to me what I said to you because that is the Abrahamic Monotheistic God concept. You don't have to accept it, of course, but it's weird that you won't admit that other people accept it as true.

And if you don't see this as a debate why do you keep responding?

 

[prometheus11]

And if you don't see this as a debate why do you keep responding?

I wonder if he considers it a discussion?

 

[Sand Dancer]

I was a devoted Christian for a very long time, 25 years or more - a Trinity believing Protestant taught that our creator God is omniscient (all-knowing) omnipotent (all-powerful) and omnipresent (present everywhere at the same time). This creator designed and created men and women fully and completely all by 'himself'.

What I don't understand, is if this creator purposefully designed and unleashed upon the earth a creature capable of rape and murder, why isn't 'He' to blame for these atrocities? Why would you construct a being with the potential to do so much harm to his fellow humans? What was the motive?

If my son murdered a human and I supplied the gun knowing ahead of time he'd shoot someone, I'm held accountable for my part in the homicide. How much more so should God be held accountable for DESIGNING a creature that he KNOWS ahead of time (he's omniscient, remember) will murder a fellow human?

I was reading a book and it mentioned that the earlier religions' gods were not seen as perfect and all good, so when something bad happened, there was no problem. With an all knowing, all good god, you either have to make up a devil character, which was done, since you can't make more than one god. They didn't quite think that one out I guess.

 

[Buttercup]

Actually, I've heard it described as being similar to reincarnation by many people -- just none of them LDS. I honestly don't know all that much about reincarnation, so it may be more similar than I've always thought. I think the main thing to understand about Mormon theology in this regard is that we believe the human spirit is eternal. Yes, it was created by God, but the material from which He created it has always existed. So, the next point is that the spirit is the essence of life. It can exist within the confines of a physical body, but it does not need to. The thing is that the spirit itself never really changes. Its attributes are pretty much constant over time. We believe that each of us started our existence in spirit form, came into this world as mortal beings at birth, at which time the spirit that had previously been living in God's presence entered into the physical body giving it life. At death, the individual's brain functions cease and the physical part of us dies. The spirit, however does not die, but continues to exist as a fully cognizant entity at that point and resides in an intermediate realm -- neither Heaven nor Hell -- until the resurrection, when it re-enters a newly perfected and immortal body, never to leave it again. That new body, however, is still essentially the same in appearance as it was during mortality (in other words, I would be recognizable to people who knew me here). The body is different in that it is no longer subject to aging, disease, deformity or death. If I understand reincarnation correctly, someone can live one life as a worm, another as a frog, another as a chimpanzee (I threw that in there just for you) and another as a human. This would be impossible according to Mormon thought. I was "me," Katzpur, during my premortal existence (before I had a mortal body). I am "me," Katzpur, now, complete with my totally imperfect body and all. I will be "me," Katzpur, after my spirit leaves my body after my body stops working completely, and I will be "me," Katzpur when I have a new, immortal body where the very same spirit I possessed during my pre-mortal life will reside forever.

Anyone I've known who's a serious adherent to reincarnation doesn't believe you can come back as a chimp (dang). Basically, your spirit is always the same but each time you chose to come back to the earth plain, your motive is to continue to perfect your spirit toward being all good or pure. Sounds like LDS doctrine teaches you only visit earth once instead of multiple times?

I'm skipping over the paragraph before this one below because while it was very interesting, I'm wanting to stick as much to the OP as possible. Thanks for some background on doctrine and LDS theology and I hope we can pick that up in another thread.

God placed them in a world where both good and evil existed. They would have to learn to discern between the two and make good choices, as each of us must do. If no one were permitted to make poor choices, how would any of us learn anything about evil? How is good even good if there is nothing with which to compare it? You ask why would God create someone who "rapes, murders and dismembers a child, all the while sitting back, watching and doing nothing about it." Have you asked yourself when, exactly, He should step in and stop this from happening? Should He prevent the evil before it happens? If so, how? By simply zapping the monster before he ever did anything monstrous? Or by zapping him immediately afterwards? If He were to miraculously keep the murderer from committing his crime, wouldn't people then be justified in saying, "What's up with God anyway? That man didn't do a thing, and God just struck him dead for no reason?" It's not as if the monster is ultimately going to get off Scot free. Justice will eventually be served.

I'm not proposing a God should step in and do anything. I'm more concerned with the original design of humans - the behavioral choices He modeled and expected to be used. If God wants us to experience sorrow so that we can also experience the opposite emotion of joy, do you think it's necessary to allow a scenario where parents are overjoyed at the birth of their daughter and then experience extreme sorrow when their child is murdered? It's sad enough when a loved one dies from natural causes, we experience sorrow then. Why design a human being who harms another human by murder? It seems way over the top as far as design. It's more like God wanted to create a monster. Because, he DID design us with that capacity. Sure, it's choice and free will but the murder button was designed into the object - man.

Another thought... Are you suggesting that God not allow men to commit any evil at all, or would you just somehow restrict it to "less evil"? Where would He draw the line? Would it be okay for a parent to verbally abuse his kid? Could he get away with slapping his kid across the face? How about beating him up? How about torturing him? How about killing him? I'm assuming that you'd say that one of these things crosses the line between acceptable and unacceptable. Are you absolutely sure where that line should be drawn? We see this life as a mere spec on a timeline of our existence that's going to never, ever end. The trials we experience in mortality will be like a single drop of water in the ocean when we've moved on to the next part of our existence. Our existence is about becoming perfect, not as starting out that way.

If God's motive was to create this fallen world where men and women are to learn various lessons to eventually become more pure and perfect like HIM, it seems as though he really enjoyed tweaking the game to include lots of twists and turns that aren't very fun for us. I understand that it's necessary (sometimes) to experience sorrow to appreciate joy. I get it. I've been there. However, to some, the Abrahamic God seems like a sadistic megalomaniac. I don't see how anyone, Christian or not, cannot agree that God designed man to murder. Yes, it's a choice to murder, but he allows us to have that choice. I can't forgive Him for that. I don't really know what to say about other forms of evil or violence there are too many to contemplate. I'm just a one trick pony in this thread, I guess. I'm only concerned that we can take a precious life away from someone else. It's horrible.

 

[Hockeycowboy]

So, the tree of the knowledge of good and evil gave no insight whatsoever to Adam on the concepts of good and evil?

If your answer is "yes," then you must also admit that it was a lie for God to name the tree as he did.

Why did God lie in naming the tree the way he did?

We have to understand one Scriprure -- any Scripture -- in the light of other Scriptures, since a correct understanding of what the Bible's saying allows a person to see its harmony. Since the Bible says "it is imposslible for God to lie", God could not have lied about it.

So, what does calling tree, "the knowledge of good and bad", mean? Jehovah called it “the tree of the knowledge of good and bad” because it represented his right to determine what was good or bad for humans. By not eating the fruit of that tree, Adam would have shown not just his obedience but also his appreciation for the One who created him and who had blessed him so richly.

And what did happen after eating from it? Their eyes were "opened", and they realized they were naked, a situation not "bad" in itself, but it was immodest. They had lost their innocence.

For more info:
http://wol.jw.org/en/wol/d/r1/lp-e/1200004195#h=22:0-24:568

 

[prometheus11]

We have to understand one Scriprure -- any Scripture -- in the light of other Scriptures, since a correct understanding of what the Bible's saying allows a person to see its harmony. Since the Bible says "it is imposslible for God to lie", God could not have lied about it.

So, what does calling tree, "the knowledge of good and bad", mean? Jehovah called it “the tree of the knowledge of good and bad” because it represented his right to determine what was good or bad for humans. By not eating the fruit of that tree, Adam would have shown not just his obedience but also his appreciation for the One who created him and who had blessed him so richly.

And what did happen after eating from it? Their eyes were "opened", and they realized they were naked, a situation not "bad" in itself, but it was immodest. They had lost their innocence.

For more info:
http://wol.jw.org/en/wol/d/r1/lp-e/1200004195#h=22:0-24:568

Not accepted.

Occam's razor, common sense, and literary protocol demand the simple, obvious interpretation that you have to jump through numerous hoops to avoid.

Yep, you want it to mean something different. No surprise there.

...........

Twice in the last five years I have discussed scriptures with believers who actually, seriously argued that a given verse meant the EXACT OPPOSITE of its meaning. It is an amazing thing to behold.

 

[Forgemaster]

Yeah....it was pretty easy to follow, wasn't it? He did it, because Eve had already eaten from it, and he didn't want to lose her. Or live without her. He chose her over God.



What? Animals die now, they've always died. God's purpose for them wasn't to live forever. Besides, how would Adam know what death was, if he hadn't seen it?

Well if they gained nothing why even be temped to eat? If They already knew evil why punish them? We die now too. We're A and E always meant to die?

 

[Guy Threepwood]

I was a devoted Christian for a very long time, 25 years or more - a Trinity believing Protestant taught that our creator God is omniscient (all-knowing) omnipotent (all-powerful) and omnipresent (present everywhere at the same time). This creator designed and created men and women fully and completely all by 'himself'.

What I don't understand, is if this creator purposefully designed and unleashed upon the earth a creature capable of rape and murder, why isn't 'He' to blame for these atrocities? Why would you construct a being with the potential to do so much harm to his fellow humans? What was the motive?

If my son murdered a human and I supplied the gun knowing ahead of time he'd shoot someone, I'm held accountable for my part in the homicide. How much more so should God be held accountable for DESIGNING a creature that he KNOWS ahead of time (he's omniscient, remember) will murder a fellow human?

free will, choice

Love, kindness means nothing unless it is chosen over an alternative

To paraphrase another poster, it's not that **** happens, but that **** matters

 

[Buttercup]

free will, choice

Love, kindness means nothing unless it is chosen over an alternative

To paraphrase another poster, it's not that **** happens, but that **** matters

I'd prefer you answer the question about God designing man with the capacity to murder. Why did he do that?

I'd love to hear answers with more meaning than, "free will".

 

[Guy Threepwood]

I'd prefer you answer the question about God designing man with the capacity to murder. Why did he do that?

I'd love to hear answers with more meaning than, "free will".

Point being: Free will is what precisely what gives meaning to good, love. If you had a chip implanted that meant you could only be 'good' could you ever be truly 'good' again? You would only destroy this capacity. It has to be a choice, from your own free will, or it is meaningless.

Moreover good cannot exist without evil, any more than left can exist without right, they are relative terms defined by each other.

 

[Buttercup]

Point being: Free will is what precisely what gives meaning to good, love. If you had a chip implanted that meant you could only be 'good' could you ever be truly 'good' again? You would only destroy this capacity. It has to be a choice, from your own free will, or it is meaningless.

Moreover good cannot exist without evil, any more than left can exist without right, they are relative terms defined by each other.

Sorry, I don't mean to sound rude but I've heard that many times before. If you've read the OP, I'm VERY acquainted with free will.

What does murder give meaning to? Does a woman or man have to be murdered for me to understand love?

 

[Guy Threepwood]

Sorry, I don't mean to sound rude but I've heard that many times before. If you've read the OP, I'm VERY acquainted with free will.

What does murder give meaning to? Does a woman or man have to be murdered for me to understand love?

If you take away any possibility of harming another person- what meaning is there in choosing to be kind? what meaning to morality, empathy?

God created a world with no murder, no hate, no pain, no fear, grieving, or challenges of any kind- for Jellyfish right?- and hence no love, joy, triumph, growth, learning either. Would you trade places?

 

[Buttercup]

If you take away any possibility of harming another person- what meaning is there in choosing to be kind? what meaning to morality, empathy?

I have never known anyone who has murdered another. I have known many people who are very unkind to each other. That hurts enough. It's not necessary for God to program a murderous option into man to realize what kindness means.

 

[Guy Threepwood]

I have never known anyone who has murdered another. I have known many people who are very unkind to each other. That hurts enough. It's not necessary for God to program a murderous option into man to realize what kindness means.

And that goes for the vast majority of us thankfully, and it is rare, but we are aware of murder for what it is, precisely because it is so abhorrent to most of us yes? We don't turn a blind eye. It hurts because we have morality, empathy, would you trade for ambivalence?

But I take your point, that it is not easy, if the victim were in my own family- would I say the same? I think untimely death, by any means, is always the most difficult to reconcile

 

[Buttercup]

But I take your point, that it is not easy, if the victim were in my own family- would I say the same? I think untimely death, by any means, is always the most difficult to reconcile

But, what are your thoughts about God for programming us with the murder option? I know it's a choice to kill. Let's leave that out of the equation. We can know love, goodness, pain, empathy, evil, all without having to commit murder. Do you believe God designed us from top to bottom?

 

[Guy Threepwood]

But, what are your thoughts about God for programming us with the murder option? I know it's a choice to kill. Let's leave that out of the equation. We can know love, goodness, pain, empathy, evil, all without having to commit murder. Do you believe God designed us from top to bottom?

Yes, he gave us free will, to learn for ourselves what is right and wrong- how else is this leaned?

As parents do we solve every problem for our children? Or do we recognize that their own personal growth is of far greater value?

Murder, suicide, the abuse of our own bodies are all options, and hence so are kindness, love, the will to live, and make the most of what we are given. (And I'm no where near achieving this!)

Yes I think God designed us and all life, and the entire universe with us as primary intended beneficiaries. I don't think accidental explosions and mutations can account for it!

 

[Buttercup]

Yes I think God designed us and all life, and the entire universe with us as primary intended beneficiaries. I don't think accidental explosions and mutations can account for it!

If you agree that God designed us, does it disturb you in the least that he created a murderous monster? Straight out of the gate Cain murdered Abel. A human took advantage of this murder option immediately. I have a real problem with a creator who would release such a faulty creature. You'd think he would have sent out a recall immediately and redesigned the whole being!

 

[Hockeycowboy]

You're saying that Adam gained ZERO knowledge of good and evil from eating of the tree?

Why were A & E banished from Eden?

1st A: I didn't say that. Read the account, you'll see what they learned.

2nd A: Disobedience.

 

[Hockeycowboy]

You're saying that Adam gained ZERO knowledge of good and evil from eating of the tree?

Why were A & E banished from Eden?

1st A: I didn't say that. Read the account, you'll see what they learned.

2nd A: Disobedience.

 

[Guy Threepwood]

If you agree that God designed us, does it disturb you in the least that he created a murderous monster? Straight out of the gate Cain murdered Abel. A human took advantage of this murder option immediately. I have a real problem with a creator who would release such a faulty creature. You'd think he would have sent out a recall immediately and redesigned the whole being!

He created you, are you a murderous monster? Moreover he gave us these lessons in the Bible, guides to living, wisdom, and yet the free will to reject them all, and him if we choose.