How Do Christians Reconcile The Following Question Regarding Their Faith?

[Buttercup]

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.

I give up. We're just running circles around each other and aren't able to get past the free will hurdle. It's ok. Thanks for participating!

 

[Hockeycowboy]

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.

It is the simplest explanation (that agrees with the rest of the Scriptures), it does make sense, and what does 'literary protocol' have to do with this? If you mean semantically and grammatically....well, since this was written in ancient Hebrew, sometimes it's difficult to translate into English to get the exact meaning, as in many languages.

But what I wrote, fits with the entire Biblical context, whether you accept it or not. I can tell that you don't have an open mind toward it, anyways. (It's probably christendom's fault, with all their false teachings and blood guilty reputation -- if that's all I knew, I'd think the Bible was hooey, too.)

Let's discuss other Scriptures, if you want! You can find out what I was taught, I can find out what you believe.

 

[Guy Threepwood]

I give up. We're just running circles around each other and aren't able to get past the free will hurdle. It's ok. Thanks for participating!

I don't think there is any getting around free will, awareness, choice, is what makes us human, allows love and hate. God created life, death, mortal challenges, for humans and millions of kinds of animals, but only we are discussing right and wrong.
- I appreciate the civil debate though..

 

[Sunstone]

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.

The notion that people reject your Bible or your God out of free will is kind of cute, like one of those vapid, meaningless slogans about life that someone prints on a picture of kittens and then posts on the internet without really thinking too much about it.

How would you define free will?

 

[Kartari]

Hi there Buttercup,

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?

This is indeed a very strong logical flaw in Christian theology imho. It is clear that God, when defined as an omniscient and omnipotent creator of all existence, must of course be fully responsible for the state of existence in which all living beings find themselves in.

All arguments to the contrary that I've seen are fallacious. The "who are you to judge God" argument, the "good can't exist without evil" argument, and others are all fundamentally flawed viewpoints when examined more closely. The only two reasonable conclusions we can draw are that this deity is either (a) insane or (b) malevolent. Otherwise, we must abandon God's claim to omniscience and/or omnipotence.

If I, a mere human, can easily think of better ways to have created a universe and sentient species to inhabit it, all the more reason to believe an infinitely superior mind should not have had any trouble thinking of a better way. Alas, given such a deity exists, it has clearly failed to do so.

 

[Buttercup]

Hi there Buttercup,



This is indeed a very strong logical flaw in Christian theology imho. It is clear that God, when defined as an omniscient and omnipotent creator of all existence, must of course be fully responsible for the state of existence in which all living beings find themselves in.

All arguments to the contrary that I've seen are fallacious. The "who are you to judge God" argument, the "good can't exist without evil" argument, and others are all fundamentally flawed viewpoints when examined more closely. The only two reasonable conclusions we can draw are that this deity is either (a) insane or (b) malevolent. Otherwise, we must abandon God's claim to omniscience and/or omnipotence.

If I, a mere human, can easily think of better ways to have created a universe and sentient species to inhabit it, all the more reason to believe an infinitely superior mind should not have had any trouble thinking of a better way. Alas, given such a deity exists, it has clearly failed to do so.

Thank you for that breath of fresh air. I leave feeling hopeful tonight.

 

[Hockeycowboy]

Well if they gained nothing why even be temped to eat?

My goodness! The account tells you (Genesis 3:1-6). Because the Devil, who was using the serpent (Revelation 12:9), misled and lied to Eve, telling her they'd be like God.

If They already knew evil why punish them?

Excuse me? Are you saying we shouldn't punish people when they know what they've done is bad? Because that's what you've just asked!

We die now too. We're (sic) A and E always meant to die?

No, they were designed with perfect bodies, probably with rejuvenating telomeres, made to live forever,

 

[Guy Threepwood]

Hi there Buttercup,



This is indeed a very strong logical flaw in Christian theology imho. It is clear that God, when defined as an omniscient and omnipotent creator of all existence, must of course be fully responsible for the state of existence in which all living beings find themselves in.

All arguments to the contrary that I've seen are fallacious. The "who are you to judge God" argument, the "good can't exist without evil" argument, and others are all fundamentally flawed viewpoints when examined more closely. The only two reasonable conclusions we can draw are that this deity is either (a) insane or (b) malevolent. Otherwise, we must abandon God's claim to omniscience and/or omnipotence.

If I, a mere human, can easily think of better ways to have created a universe and sentient species to inhabit it, all the more reason to believe an infinitely superior mind should not have had any trouble thinking of a better way. Alas, given such a deity exists, it has clearly failed to do so.

By that same rationale, a parent who ever withholds help, letting the child solve a problem for themselves, is insane or malevolent.

we too can be entirely omniscient, benevolent, omnipotent with regards to the child's problem, yet chose to allow the greater gift of self growth for that child.

And likewise not all children appreciate this at the time!

 

[Kartari]

Hi Guy,

I don't think there is any getting around free will, awareness, choice, is what makes us human, allows love and hate. God created life, death, mortal challenges, for humans and millions of kinds of animals, but only we are discussing right and wrong.
- I appreciate the civil debate though..

Given a God, defined as an omniscient and omnipotent creator of all existence, free will could have been easily preserved without needing to create humans as limited as they are. God simply could have created us with the innate wisdom to regard harmful thoughts and actions as foolishness. Had God done so to begin with, all the suffering and loss of life humanity has experienced over the millennia would not have occurred.

Does doing so void free will? No. We would still be free to make choices in life. The difference is, we would just regard choices to do harm as foolish and not worth experiencing.

What does it say about God that God opted for a world filled with unfathomable ignorance, pain, and suffering instead? Either God is (a) insane, (b) malevolent, or (c) a fairy tale imagined (as only He could have been) by bronze age tribal people. Imho, (c) is the most reasonable choice.

 

[Kartari]

We've cross-posted, Guy. Lol.

By that same rationale, a parent who ever withholds help, letting the child solve a problem for themselves, is insane or malevolent.

we too can be entirely omniscient, benevolent, omnipotent with regards to the child's problem, yet chose to allow the greater gift of self growth for that child.

And likewise not all children appreciate this at the time!

But God could have created us with the wisdom to avoid experiencing such torment in the first place...

God is not analogous to a human parent because human parents are not omniscient and omnipotent creators of all. They didn't make the rules up, they do their best to help their children deal with the world as it is. God, defined as an omniscient and omnipotent creator of all, however, is not at all limited to this and could have opted for a far less painful means of "teaching His children."

 

[Neo Deist]

My goodness! The account tells you (Genesis 3:1-6). Because the Devil, who was using the serpent (Revelation 12:9), misled and lied to Eve, telling her they'd be like God.

Actually, the term ha-satan (Hebrew) correctly translates into "the adversary" in Revelation. It is a title of a being, not a name. Furthermore, the Book of Revelation is highly prophetic, as John appeared to be delusional or on an acid trip. It almost did not make canon. So in essence, the serpent in Genesis was indeed an adversary, but in no way does that mean that the serpent was this evil, arch enemy of God. Besides, the GoE story was not meant to be taken literally.

God already stated that He was responsible for all the evil: Isaiah 45:7

 

[Kartari]

Hi Thana,

Held accountable? How silly.
God made us. He made the world. So who, exactly, would God be accountable too? You?
The problem with questions like these is you automatically assume you have the moral high-ground, but you don't.

Let's look at one of the events this particular God is written to have commanded His people to do:

"Samuel said to Saul, 'I am the one the Lord sent to anoint you king over his people Israel; so listen now to the message from the Lord. This is what the Lord Almighty says: ‘I will punish the Amalekites for what they did to Israel when they waylaid them as they came up from Egypt. Now go, attack the Amalekites and totally destroy all that belongs to them. Do not spare them; put to death men and women, children and infants, cattle and sheep, camels and donkeys.'"

We have here a deity that considers the genocide of a people a righteous act. And not only the people, but the children and infants... and even their animals.

How much "moral high ground" can we reasonably say such as God as this one has, exactly? Imho, this God makes even the likes of Adolf Hitler seem a better person by comparison. At least Hitler spared the animals when he committed genocide against the Jewish people.

And to wave away our right to criticize such an egregious act of malevolence on the grounds that this God is beyond our accountability is merely either an appeal to authority or to ignorance, a logical fallacy either way. Not only is genocide genocide regardless of who commands or enacts it, but such a line of thinking only serves to make acceptable that which should instead be utterly reviled.

Indeed, I am personally incapable of even considering genocide a moral good. That fact alone imo makes me quite qualified to judge a genocidal being, deity or otherwise.

 

[Thana]

Hi Thana,



Let's look at one of the events this particular God is written to have commanded His people to do:



We have here a deity that considers the genocide of a people a righteous act. And not only the people, but the children and infants... and even their animals.

How much "moral high ground" can we reasonably say such as God as this one has, exactly? Imho, this God makes even the likes of Adolf Hitler seem a better person by comparison. At least Hitler spared the animals when he committed genocide against the Jewish people.

And to wave away our right to criticize such an egregious act of malevolence on the grounds that this God is beyond our accountability is merely either an appeal to authority or to ignorance, a logical fallacy either way. Not only is genocide genocide regardless of who commands or enacts it, but such a line of thinking only serves to make acceptable that which should instead be utterly reviled.

Indeed, I am personally incapable of even considering genocide a moral good. That fact alone imo makes me quite qualified to judge a genocidal being, deity or otherwise.

You do realize God created death, right?
That means that everyone who dies does so by His will. So technically He murders every single human being anyway.

 

[Intojoy]

But Satan isn't in that story. The NT authors who claimed this either have non-canon stories referenced or are lying.

The only thing A&E did was learn how to make stuff up.


God told me humans wrote it. It's verifiable because all the books are attributed to human authors. Is God lying to me?


We taught our dogs to have respect (with arguable results, LOL), be kind to smaller dogs (especially puppies), take turns, etc. We raised them with (simplified) morals we would have taught kids had we had any. It's worked out rather well so far. I expect us to have similar morals as an entire family. It's amazing just how much we have in common despite being different species.


Well, He DID make a heaven that can supposedly host a rebellion by a greedy archangel or whatever. If Paradise can't keep it's stuff together, why assume Earth can?


Is there evidence in Genesis the author of Revelations is correct?


Imagine if Abraham were a woman and successful in child-icide.

But that's between her and God. God could've gone all Book of Job on her and it ticked her off.


Technically, Eve is created AFTER the rule was given not to eat from the tree.


So God is competent to provide salvation for humans but is incompetent to sign off on angels?

Stick to dog training and leave theology to the adults.

 

[Kartari]

Hi Thana,

You do realize God created death, right?
That means that everyone who dies does so by His will. So technically He murders every single human being anyway.

...which all the more illustrates my point.

There is a Buddhist story about a serial killer named Anguli Mala. Some here may have heard of it already. Basically, the story goes that this serial killer was a jungle dweller who murdered travelers in order to collect 1,000 finger bones for a necklace he was making. One day when he had managed to collect 999 bones, Anguli spotted a monk. The thousandth finger bone, at last! Anguli Mala rushed up to slay the monk... but stopped dead in his tracks. He felt the inner tranquility of this monk, indeed his rageful desire to kill was entirely absent. Overcome by this sense of peace, he asked, "Who are you that you can quell my inner fires?"

"I have quelled my own inner fires," the Buddha replied.

The murderer knelt down, confessed his wrongdoing through tears of regret and remorse, and begged the Buddha to accept him as a monk so that he could try to make restitution with the rest of his days, and perhaps find inner peace for himself. For in that moment, Anguli Mala felt for himself what it was like to truly be at peace. He saw through his self-made delusions, saw the truth of his own evil, and in seeing the truth, wanted a wiser and more compassionate legacy to prevail.

I bring this story up because, if an ordinary man of extraordinary insight (i.e. the Buddha) can conceivably inspire even a serial killer to abandon his evil ways and spend his remaining days trying to make up for his past, what does this redemptive insight say about a God that regards murder, warfare, and genocide as a valid course of action? Or who considers eternal hellfire as the best way to deal with "sinners?"

Ultimately, I think the ancient Hebrews simply imagined and wrote about their conceptions of God based on the limitations of their own insights for their time and place. They did not see the more enlightened view found in this Buddhist story, and their God concept reflected the best they could conjure up in its stead. I think that throughout history, the various God concepts conceived of by the various Jewish, Christian, and Islamic sects have been a form of Rorschach test: I believe the God concept of each individual throughout time tells us far more about that individual than it does about what this God (if it even exists) is really about.

 

[Thana]

Hi Thana,



...which all the more illustrates my point.

There is a Buddhist story about a serial killer named Anguli Mala. Some here may have heard of it already. Basically, the story goes that this serial killer was a jungle dweller who murdered travelers in order to collect 1,000 finger bones for a necklace he was making. One day when he had managed to collect 999 bones, Anguli spotted a monk. The thousandth finger bone, at last! Anguli Mala rushed up to slay the monk... but stopped dead in his tracks. He felt the inner tranquility of this monk, indeed his rageful desire to kill was entirely absent. Overcome by this sense of peace, he asked, "Who are you that you can quell my inner fires?"

"I have quelled my own inner fires," the Buddha replied.

The murderer knelt down, confessed his wrongdoing through tears of regret and remorse, and begged the Buddha to accept him as a monk so that he could try to make restitution with the rest of his days, and perhaps find inner peace for himself. For in that moment, Anguli Mala felt for himself what it was like to truly be at peace. He saw through his self-made delusions, saw the truth of his own evil, and in seeing the truth, wanted a wiser and more compassionate legacy to prevail.

I bring this story up because, if an ordinary man of extraordinary insight (i.e. the Buddha) can conceivably inspire even a serial killer to abandon his evil ways and spend his remaining days trying to make up for his past, what does this redemptive insight say about a God that regards murder, warfare, and genocide as a valid course of action? Or who considers eternal hellfire as the best way to deal with "sinners?"

Ultimately, I think the ancient Hebrews simply imagined and wrote about their conceptions of God based on the limitations of their own insights for their time and place. They did not see the more enlightened view found in this Buddhist story, and their God concept reflected the best they could conjure up in its stead. I think that throughout history, the various God concepts conceived of by the various Jewish, Christian, and Islamic sects have been a form of Rorschach test: I believe the God concept of each individual throughout time tells us far more about that individual than it does about what this God (if it even exists) is really about.

All that story did for me is make me realize that Buddhism really is no different to any other religion. The serial killer saw his inner peace? Exactly how does one see anothers inner peace? Is that story really trying to persuade people that ones demeanor can stop serial killers?

I don't know much about Buddhism, to be honest, but from all the talk I've heard it's supposed to be some enlightening, intelligent philosophical system but if thats what Buddhism considers wisdom then I think I've grossly overestimated it.

But I digress.

In this thread we've been talking about whether or not we should hold God to the standards that He holds us at. I, personally, think we should not but many think we should. But really, can murder be applied to God? Can one really murder something that it creates? The bible has an analogy about the potter and the clay.

Romans 9-21
"Will the thing which is formed say to him who formed it, “Why have you made me like this?” Does the potter not have the right over the clay, to make from the same lump [of clay] one object for honorable use and another for common use"

I think it's an interesting question. What do you think, Can the potter murder the clay?

 

[prometheus11]

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

God's not powerful and creative enough to find a way to have love and kindness without choices and alternatives? Hmm. Sounds pretty weak.

 

[prometheus11]

It is the simplest explanation (that agrees with the rest of the Scriptures), it does make sense, and what does 'literary protocol' have to do with this? If you mean semantically and grammatically....well, since this was written in ancient Hebrew, sometimes it's difficult to translate into English to get the exact meaning, as in many languages.

But what I wrote, fits with the entire Biblical context, whether you accept it or not. I can tell that you don't have an open mind toward it, anyways. (It's probably christendom's fault, with all their false teachings and blood guilty reputation -- if that's all I knew, I'd think the Bible was hooey, too.)

Let's discuss other Scriptures, if you want! You can find out what I was taught, I can find out what you believe.

Not accepted. You're dancing and dodging. The simplest reading is that the tree of knowledge of good and evil iwas the tree of knowledge of good and evil. I have no compulsion to make out God to be either stupid or a liar in naming the tree for something it didn't do.

 

[prometheus11]

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

2nd A: Disobedience.

Scripture says something else entirely.

Have you even read the third chapter of Genesis, lately? I mean, seriously, it's like you can just fill in the blanks on what the tree does, how it changed A&E and why God banishes them. It's extremely simple without inserting chutes and ladders.

 

[Windwalker]

You do realize God created death, right?
That means that everyone who dies does so by His will. So technically He murders every single human being anyway.

I thought Christian theology says that sin brought death into the world, that nothing died before Adam and Eve brought all of creation into chaos. So you are saying that God created death, that death is part of the perfect design? Than why all this other business about destroying death in Christian theology? Isn't that Anti-God then? That doesn't fit the myth from my understanding.