The God of OT vs the God of NT? Are they the same?

[Blastcat]

So, I'm wondering...which position is more tenable? Worshipping an invisible killer of babies, or granting your neighbor the legal and moral right to be a killer of babies in utero?

At least, if I worship the invisible baby killer, I neither encourage nor help finance his conduct; so I'm in no way responsible for what he does.

amazing that you think open and public WORSHIP not an endorsement. .. ok.. worshiping implies impartiality.. got it.. weird incongruous use of language. Are there many words that you use in an almost contradictory way than most people that we should be aware of.. such as goodness or kindness?

But if my money subsidizes your girlfriend's friendly neighborhood gynecologist, and my political support helps legitimize his life-saving work, I think maybe I am a bit responsible for what he does.

Well, I guess you could WORSHIP the guy.. because that's neutral too.
In a democracy, you don't always get what you want. That's what happens when you live with other people. It looks like a lot of the time, the life of the MOTHER is taken into account, and not JUST the fetus, when it comes to abortion.

Have you discussed your views about abortion rights with any feminists in the last few decades? Is feminism something that you are also opposed to?.. Maybe you don't value women's rights as much as you do the rights of fetuses. I'd like to see you discuss that with my feminist friends. They might not agree with your ahh.. shall I say..patronizing views?

Women have views.. and they vote. Oddly, women vote more often for WOMEN'S rights. And a lot of my feminist friends remind me SO often how women have been subjugated in the past, and how much they have to CONTINUE to struggle as what they say as a plainly male dominated society.

So when a well meaning MAN wants to tell them what they can and cannot do with their own BODIES?.. It drives them ANGRY.. Imagine a woman being an autonomous person with equal rights ? Imagine THAT weird concept?

No, it should be WAY better for old priests to dictate to them .. after all.. women should obey men. RIGHT?

Is that what you recommend?

The whole question about abortion is VERY complex.. people of all kinds of beliefs are hotly debating the issues involved, so don't pretend to HAVE THE ONLY ANSWER AVAILABLE..

You apparently believe that killing babies is ALWAYS wrong AND that it is ALWAYS right if your god does it. So.. go figure that logic out and then come back. Come back with a feminist agreement with your views about abortion and come back to tell us about it.

People HAVE voted about abortion rights. Not all people DO agree with you. Not all of them are ALL immoral people. I know quite a few. I can guarantee you that their ethics are unimpeachable. Some of them TEACH morality. Go figure.

 

[Blastcat]

It is only antitheist who come up with adjectives like "baby killer" to apply to the Creator of heaven and earth.

Someone who has killed many babies can be called a baby killer.

Those who worship and trust the goodness of God realize that He is the Author of life and He alone has the right to take life when He knows it is time to do so.

So, in your way of seeing things, God is a JUSTIFIED baby killer. Ok.

When He does it is with wisdom and reason, not indiscriminate killing.

Yup, God MUST have had great reasons for killing all of them babies. Got it. Lots of babies to kill, lots of good reasons to do so.

Considering that the account describes the whole earth as filled with wickedness and violence prior to the flood it could very likely be that children and babies were suffering terribly in such a depraved and violent world.

Yup, lots of babies, lots of reasons to kill them, That's what a baby killer does, thinks up GOOD reasons to kill as many as possible of the little suckers.

 

[Unification]

Thank you for your NON emotional judgement. As opposed to my own, emotional judgement.
When I am expressing my emotional experience, I am stating the fact of my emotional experience, and not depending on an emotional plea as a substitute for argument. Just for your future reference. If I make a mistake, just point it out. I don't NEED to be lectured to.





Agreed. Somewhat..



Why would you imagine that? What I don't know is how everyone ELSE defines these words. But I can define them well enough. However, MY definition isn't very pertinent to a conversation about OTHER people's use of the terms.



Oh, of what it REALLY is.. you aren't talking here just about your own personal definition, but THE ONE TRUE REAL DEFINITION that we should ALL accept? .. what are you the word master of the universe?



I don't ever say that I KNOW that infinity exists, but ok.. I can't know EVERYTHING about the concept, or if it's even if some kind of infinity ( other than as a mathematical concept that I DO know exists ) actually exists in reality.



When you use the word "YOU", it almost gives me the impression that you are talking about ME.. But I don't know that. I don't think that.. you must be IMAGINING that I might agree with that.. but you should ask, instead of merely assuming that I believe in weird stuff like that. A question here would have saved us a lot of time.


NO idea whatsoever what you mean. But you sound authoritative.



I can ASSUME that, yes, the method has proved to be historically reliable, and the prior probability seems to indicate that, if nothing supersedes the scientific method, that it will continue to provide reliable conclusions in the future as well. But we just can't PREDICT the future. Even though we have a HIGH expectation that science will provide us with more correct information, we STILL don't have PERFECT or ABSOLUTE knowledge of anything, and that would include whatever might happen in the future.



Ok, yes, epistemological truth vs. ontological truth.

If say X is only going to be discovered in the future, and X is true, by our best standards, then , ontologically, the truth of X has nothing to do with the actual time it was discovered. X is true, independent on when it was discovered to be true.

Epistemologically, X can only be SAID to be true when we have the good REASON to say so. We could have GUESSED 5000 years ago , and have been RIGHT.. but if we didn't have any real way to verify the truth of X, back then, it would ONLY have been a guess.. with no greater probability of being true than pure chance.

Using pure chance is NOT a good method to KNOW if X is true or not. That's why we had to wait 5100 YEARS to get to KNOW that X was indeed true, or discover the truth of X.

So, you can say that X is true all day long. BUT UNTIL you have a reliable method to TEST that X is indeed true or false, you can't really say that you KNOW that X is true, or just be plainly mistaken about your claim to the truth of X.

And belief has nothing at all to do with the ontological truth of any proposition, including X.

So, if you present me BELIEF as the only reason or evidence for the truth of any proposition, including X or GOD or anything else, then, you are presenting me with a non sequitur. Belief isn't knowledge. And knowledge, if it isn't true, isn't very important to me.



Again, lots of words claiming such INTENSE evidence. But.. not so many words concerning what this evidence MIGHT BE.



And, pray tell, what is this "IT" that you refer to? I don't see any evidence, yes, that's right. If you have some, I'll gladly take a look at it.



I think I already repeated to you that I will accept any evidence at all .. as long as it's good and not bogus kinds of evidence. It really has to be relevant evidence. I have not SEEN where you actually PRESENT this evidence.

Help me out here.. since I'm so blind.. Write "HERE IS MY EVIDENCE:".. (then provide the evidence ) and then write "THAT WAS MY EVIDENCE".. and you might find creative formatting useful to get through my blindness.

At least, then, I wont be able to keep claiming that you never did provide any evidence. The only thing I could come back with is the QUALITY of your evidence. And that would be an entirely different debate. But you are right, I don't see your evidence.

Can you make it so plain that I can't deny you've presented some? Because right now, I have to tell you that I DIDN'T SEE any evidence for your claims yet.



I don't see the effects.. if I did THAT would be evidence.. so WHAT effects are you talking about?



What IS this something or nothing you've been talking about ? .. you don't even seem to have a definition going.. you even admit that you CANNOT define it.. or reason about it or know it... and YET you claim to know so much .. VERY ODD to me.



Finally something, Ok, THE FACT that I don't understand you is BECAUSE I am not real with myself. ... IF I were real to myself, then everything you say would make perfect sense. I am NOT REAL WITH MYSELF.. is that your conclusion now?

Define GET REAL TO YOURSELF... because I feel pretty real.



Sorry if I missed them. I'm a newbie in here and to forums in general... so I might miss a lot. It might be useful if I don't answer an important question that you simply repeat it.. I'll get better at this, for sure. Thanks for your patience



Good question. Easy answer.

I DO NOT believe that the Bible is true. I take MOST of it as some kinds of fictions. AND SO.. The "God" depicted is a fictional character for me. Like in the Lord of the Rings all the little hobbits aren't real.. BUT in the STORY they are real...

And in the story of the BIBLE God is real.. So, I am talking about the moral character of a fictional being within a BOOK.. that guy... is evil.

Like the ORKS are evil in the story of the Lord of the Rings.. And the evil wizards are real IN THE STORY.. But I don't think that orks are real or that Sauran is real...but in the story of the lord of the rings, Sauron can be seen as EVIL.. because he kills so many people.



Odd question. I remember ignoring it because I had no idea how to respond. I'm some super-genius with all the answers? .. We do know a lot about how the world works by way of the scientific method, but we don't know EVERYTHING.. in any case, I don't know what youre after with that question. We know a lot about how the world works, and we don't know a lot about how the world works.. and?...



Because I precisely DO NOT have preconceived imaginations and definitions of what God is... That's why I always ASK what believers believe. I ask questions. I ask YOU questions. I don't HAVE a belief. I am WITHOUT a belief. I can, however read books. I can, also think and have opinions.. As can everyone.
But if you think that I have a dogmatic and closed minded view of some god, you are just mistaken. I'm no dogmatist, I have no particular attachment to the STORY of some gods.. I am WAY WAY more interested in how humans FORM their beliefs about in this case.. gods.



True, it's a very POPULAR WORD with a LOT of baggage.. A WHOLE LOT of baggage. I use the word in order for people to know what I am talking about. I might use the word "god" as a generic word for some general concept as in "Can you explain to me how you consider YOUR god to be the one TRUE god?".. and so on. And sometimes I capitalize the word to mean the kind of god that a believer is talking about .. such as in " Why is God drowning all the babies?"..

The word has many possible meanings, and it IS extremely vague and complicated. I could go on and on.. I hope my two examples helped you understand why I WOULD use such a word.. Others use the word. Apparently, it's important in THEIR lives.. And I think the topic is important, so I have to use the word.



I can assure you , that if and when I do that, it's because I'm being excruciatingly sloppy. It's never my intention. And have to admit, I'm just not that perfect, as my perfection is a work in progress.



Lol, you SURE have a lot of questions. and that's good. It's a bit exhausting, but ok.. I try to answer each and every one of your questions. WHEW....

I don't think that using faith or belief is a good method to know anything. Yes, I would say that to use a poor method and expect good results is foolish to some degree.

But I am NOT choosing for others anything. I suggest that people use the BEST methods. Lets' talk about what those might be. I propose science and critical thinking.. what's your proposal... ahhh faith and belief?.. ok.. let's compare the two .. for another post perhaps.



Religion and god are two different words with many wildly different meanings.. yeah.. I don't assume that "religion" means "God".. I'm sorry if I gave you that impression.



Come from "collectively"?.. don't know what you mean by that. Evolution can explain where intelligence "comes from". from brains.. that's neuroscience, from medicine, from noticing that people without brains don't display much intelligence,.. and so on. I think I don't understand your question. Maybe you want to clarify.



I don't know if it's a need to feel pleasure, but I sure like it. I like good thinking. I WANT to be impressed by what people have to say.. that's why I'm so darned INTERESTED in other people. I am a great enjoyer of life. I LOVE to be impressed and I am not shy or hesitant to state is as a joyous FACT about me. So, when someone is disappointing me , and I am not impressed, that's sad.
I'm human, I have emotions.

What impresses me MOST in a forum like this is clear thinking put into the most poetic way possible. But garbled bad thinking .. yeah.. I have an emotional response. Can't be helped.



Ok, there are 8 billion people on the planet, I guess you can find someone who believes in pretty much ANYTHING we can imagine.. Your point? That some people are irrational? .. ok.. I guess..



I would agree with that , and it's a bit confusing .. you SOUND like an atheist.. and .. hmm you seem to make a lot of claims for the supernatural.. is this true, are you a believer in something that is beyond the natural, the reality that we can experience?

Thank you for the thorough response. Many good insights.

Getting real and honest with ourselves is always beneficial. The more consciously aware of what we individually dwell on, think of, etc is very important. Our intent and true motivations.

The brain receives knowlege, but what is its source? Intuition, random thought? Out of nowhere? Our physical bodies are not exempt from scientific law, it would have to derive from an external source, our environment. In order for anything to be "new" it would have to derive from outside of us. External stimuli. That leads back to, the question, where does knowledge, intelligence, inspiration, intuition, "new" ideas ultimately derive from? It's main source.

Imagination/delusion, and the 8 billion people, and we've seen just about anything believed in. How is this a possibility if we cannot create something out of nothing? The brain would only be able to duplicate what already exists. It would have to exist in the universe somewhere, essentially making there no such thing as a delusion and any imagination false. They'd all be true. Everything ever thought of or believed in would have to be true and already exist somewhere.

The basis for all mathematics is 0=0. Nothing. Reality may be based on mathematics but mathematics is based on nothing. No-thing. Yet nothing is everything, and everything is based on nothing. Nothing has all the effects on life, reality, everything, and we can not evidently "see" it with our eyes but we know that it exists.

If we are going to physically die any way what is the point in caring for knowledge and truth, to you?

What is the purpose for your life since you didn't choose to exist and had zero control of the selective process in establishing your life? Why do you carry out creation with purpose?

Belief and faith as commonly perceived by the mind, has no choice but to exist with ourselves being able to do nothing about it. I would say that the words "belief" and "faith" are highly labeled just as the word "God" is because the first thing most's train of thought thinks is that it automatically has something to do with supernatural and religion. Assumptions. When we all live with belief and faith in much more than we are consciously aware of in many different ways, excluding anything religion or supernatural.

There's really no such thing as an atheist. Life is supernatural yet can be viewed as natural. Its natural yet super. It's how we individually assign definitions and labels for words. I just did. An "atheist" is a human being. A "theist" is a human being. All life, collectively, is governed by the same laws of nature and they can't do anything about it. One objective truth for all is the same, whether we like it or not, or are aware of it. As you've stated, 8 billion people... Have subjective truths. One objective mind and one subjective mind as the same mind in each human being. Fits in with science and the universe of opposites wonderfully, our minds would in no way be exempt from the laws of opposites. Conscious and subconscious or however we wish to call the opposites of mind.

 

[Unification]

So, a story about the drowning of every living thing on earth is NOT about the drowning of every living thing on earth.. We have to READ into it.. so the actual drowning depicted is something else, the the god is something else and goodness is something else, because if everything inconvenient to your belief can be something else, then your belief can be something else.

I can play games like this all day long, too. This game is a purification, this put down is an uplifting of your mind. Black happens to be white, and what is up is actually down. I can interpret everything that you say some OTHER way than you mean it.

Look I get it.. God can ONLY do good things, so if he happens to drown every living thing on earth, that's a good thing. DUH...

And then yeah, we can invent what kind of a good thing it is.. it's a PURIFICATION... whoopeeee.. lets all get drowned.
Your purely personal interpretation of the fiction has been noted. And it is as valid as ANY other personal interpretation if internally consistent. You might want to PROVE that your purely subjective personal interpretation is internally consistent with the entire narrative, but hey.. why not just grant you all of THAT while were at it.

God does ONLY good.. so our moral categories go OUT the door when we try to evaluate the story of god. But.. that is merely YOUR personal interpretative take on the narratives. I don't need to have yours. I can have MY OWN. thank you very much.

And since, there are 8 billion people on the planet, there could be 8 billion such personal interpretations claiming ascendency. I'll put yours on the list, but won't offer you a guarantee that you actually do have the best such subjective personal narrative.

But I can see how you would be enthused by your own brand. I am not so easily impressed. I have other brands I am evaluating.

Noah means "rest" or "to settle down."
Take note of that.

It's evident that great divide and problems arise from taking stories literally, as such that you are doing. If you want to knock religion, don't partake in religion by doing the same thing, taking stories literally.

The literal rendition of this story yields some pretty amazing and highly improbable events. Imagine being tossed around in a boat for forty days and forty nights sitting on an ocean that covered the highest mountains on earth. Not only would the air be so thin that it would be impossible to breathe, but you would literally freeze to death since Mt. Everest sits at about 30,000 feet. At its summit, temperatures can drop to 60 below zero, and in the summer it never gets above freezing. Break out the oxygen tanks and thermal blankets.

The problem with the lower ego-driven mind is that it is not very conscious, this type of mind goes through life by reacting to situations instead of acting. The individual has little control, and even though he or she thinks they are making their own decisions, they are usually just acting from emotion and instinct. This is natural for the lower mind.

It's also evident throughout the world that mankind's mind has created a mess, surely then the subjective mind is part of the problem.

You aren't spiritually or consciously ready, for the internalized meaning. That is evident.

 

[Unification]

Someone who has killed many babies can be called a baby killer.



So, in your way of seeing things, God is a JUSTIFIED baby killer. Ok.



Yup, God MUST have had great reasons for killing all of them babies. Got it. Lots of babies to kill, lots of good reasons to do so.



Yup, lots of babies, lots of reasons to kill them, That's what a baby killer does, thinks up GOOD reasons to kill as many as possible of the little suckers.

Noah means "rest" and "to settle down."

Take note of that.

 

[Unification]

amazing that you think open and public WORSHIP not an endorsement. .. ok.. worshiping implies impartiality.. got it.. weird incongruous use of language. Are there many words that you use in an almost contradictory way than most people that we should be aware of.. such as goodness or kindness?



Well, I guess you could WORSHIP the guy.. because that's neutral too.
In a democracy, you don't always get what you want. That's what happens when you live with other people. It looks like a lot of the time, the life of the MOTHER is taken into account, and not JUST the fetus, when it comes to abortion.

Have you discussed your views about abortion rights with any feminists in the last few decades? Is feminism something that you are also opposed to?.. Maybe you don't value women's rights as much as you do the rights of fetuses. I'd like to see you discuss that with my feminist friends. They might not agree with your ahh.. shall I say..patronizing views?

Women have views.. and they vote. Oddly, women vote more often for WOMEN'S rights. And a lot of my feminist friends remind me SO often how women have been subjugated in the past, and how much they have to CONTINUE to struggle as what they say as a plainly male dominated society.

So when a well meaning MAN wants to tell them what they can and cannot do with their own BODIES?.. It drives them ANGRY.. Imagine a woman being an autonomous person with equal rights ? Imagine THAT weird concept?

No, it should be WAY better for old priests to dictate to them .. after all.. women should obey men. RIGHT?

Is that what you recommend?

The whole question about abortion is VERY complex.. people of all kinds of beliefs are hotly debating the issues involved, so don't pretend to HAVE THE ONLY ANSWER AVAILABLE..

You apparently believe that killing babies is ALWAYS wrong AND that it is ALWAYS right if your god does it. So.. go figure that logic out and then come back. Come back with a feminist agreement with your views about abortion and come back to tell us about it.

People HAVE voted about abortion rights. Not all people DO agree with you. Not all of them are ALL immoral people. I know quite a few. I can guarantee you that their ethics are unimpeachable. Some of them TEACH morality. Go figure.

The entire basis of scripture is based on opposites and the spiritual and conscious, internalized meaning. A woman subjecting to her husband is the subconscious/subjective mind submitting to the conscious/spirit. You seem to have equality down, that is good.

 

[RossRonin]

You apparently believe that killing babies is ALWAYS wrong AND that it is ALWAYS right if your god does it.

No, not really. I was just trying to illustrate the moral hypocrisy of those who call God a baby-killer, as if it's some awful crime. Baby-killing is a respectable profession and a lucrative business in 21st century civilization, and only the lunatic fringe of the religious Right decries abortion-performing gynecologists as 'murderers'.

The rest of us are pretty cool with it.

So cool that we're willing to pay highly educated, highly skilled people to do the killing for us, because babies are such a damned nuisance. Yet we are unwilling to give God license to do fundamentally the same thing, free-of-charge and at his own discretion. I say, live and let live. Nobody who wants to rid the world of babies should be stigmatized, be he god or man.

 

[Blastcat]

No, not really. I was just trying to illustrate the moral hypocrisy of those who call God a baby-killer, as if it's some awful crime. Baby-killing is a respectable profession and a lucrative business in 21st century civilization, and only the lunatic fringe of the religious Right decries abortion-performing gynecologists as 'murderers'.

The rest of us are pretty cool with it.

So cool that we're willing to pay highly educated, highly skilled people to do the killing for us, because babies are such a damned nuisance. Yet we are unwilling to give God license to do fundamentally the same thing, free-of-charge and at his own discretion. I say, live and let live. Nobody who wants to rid the world of babies should be stigmatized, be he god or man.

I am sorry that you can equate abortion rights with genocide.

 

[RossRonin]

I am sorry that you can equate abortion rights with genocide.

More like infanticide within the context of genocide. And I make no effort to equate God's infanticidal acts with abortion rights, just with the general concept of killing unborn babies.

Honestly, I have nothing against a woman who has an abortion for non-life-threatening reasons. If she's inclined to get rid of the little parasite that's set up camp in her tummy, it works out for the best all around. Parents should not have to be forced to bring up kids they neither want nor love. And no kids deserve parents who neither love nor want them.

So abortion is a beautiful solution. It rescues both parents and children from future grief.

All that aside, the point I hoped to make was that if humans have some objectively moral right to kill healthy babies, so should God. It is unfair and hypocritical to condemn God for conduct we condone among ourselves (regardless of irrelevant technicalities like whether the baby-killing is done in or out of the womb).

God is no less moral for his killing of babies than we are.

 

[Thief]

More like infanticide within the context of genocide. And I make no effort to equate God's infanticidal acts with abortion rights, just with the act itself of killing unborn babies.

Honestly, I have nothing against women who want abortions for non-life-threatening reasons. If she's inclined to get rid of the little parasite that's set up camp in her tummy, it works out for the best all around. Parents should not have to be forced to bring up kids they neither want nor love. And no kids deserve parents who neither love nor want them.

So abortion is a beautiful solution. It rescues both parents and children from future grief.

All that aside, the point I hoped to make was that if humans have some objectively moral right to kill healthy babies, so should God. It is unfair and hypocritical to condemn God for conduct we condone among ourselves (regardless of irrelevant technicalities like whether the baby-killing is done in or out of the womb).

God is no less moral for his killing of babies than we are.

Let's see.....God as Creator......with so many of us boo-hooing about what God should or should not do.

From His position...extensive destruction may be the best tool in Hand.
Man as a corrupted creature.....flood the land....kill all but a few.
Man as decadent.....rain fire upon that population until it disappears.
Man as sovereign....kill the first born.

He hasn't moved to complete extinction maneuvers yet...but so many think it's pending.

so....do we agree?

 

[Saint Frankenstein]

Yes, they are the same. Quoting random verses out of context is not helpful. Also, the Bible contains a certain evolution in how people viewed God. It's very much a journey. Plus, you also have things like folk tales and morality tales thrown in the mix that aren't necessarily supposed to be taken literally but have a spiritual truth underlying it. It's something you have to think more deeply about.

 

[Blastcat]

More like infanticide within the context of genocide. And I make no effort to equate God's infanticidal acts with abortion rights, just with the general concept of killing unborn babies

.....

Honestly, I have nothing against a woman who has an abortion for non-life-threatening reasons. If she's inclined to get rid of the little parasite that's set up camp in her tummy, it works out for the best all around. Parents should not have to be forced to bring up kids they neither want nor love. And no kids deserve parents who neither love nor want them.

Oh, thank you for being precise. So, you don't think that killing babies is bad? I do. I think that a woman having to have an abortion is an extremely sad event, but that sometimes, it WOULD be the better way. I know a few teenage mothers, and I can tell you how much of a tragedy that has been. For everyone concerned, including the baby. You want to depict abortions in a way.. that is less than human.. getting rid of a parasite? Is THAT what you think pregnant mothers feel about abortions? What world are you living in?

Some people MIGHT be so callous and unfeeling, that MIGHT be true... but to think that this extreme case of detachment is what normally happens is a leap of imagination I won't be able to take with you. You've might not ever had to endure the extremely anguished feelings of a woman who has to decide to terminate what could be a new life. It's not pretty to see. There is no "Oh, I created it, so I can just go ahead and kill it" callousness you seem to imagine. From what I've seen personally, heard from other people, and read about.. a woman facing an abortion is in deep anguish at least a LOT of the time.

So abortion is a beautiful solution. It rescues both parents and children from future grief.

Beautiful? Are you kidding?.. is that why we see so many after abortion parties because everyone is so happy? .. Beautiful? What universe are you pretending to live in? It's a TRAGEDY in most cases...

All that aside, the point I hoped to make was that if humans have some objectively moral right to kill healthy babies, so should God. It is unfair and hypocritical to condemn God for conduct we condone among ourselves (regardless of irrelevant technicalities like whether the baby-killing is done in or out of the womb).

Well, good point. That's one side of the equation. I would agree, that , as an atheist who has NO belief whatsoever in any god, that there is ONLY human morality. All that invoking god and the story of the flood is all imagination. I did NOT make up the ultimately good god.. that was not MY doing. So, I am confronted by the Christian claim of a perfectly good god AND the narratives in the Bible the Christians base their morality on.. and so forth. Some of these stories are .. not really taken as literal, but if you ask KEN HAM about the flood.. some Christians do.

I think it goes the other way around for Christians.. I think Christians want to consider God as good. I also heard that God grounds their objective morality, at least as described in the Moral Argument for the Existence of God.. that without God, there can BE no objective moral laws or duties.. well, at least that's the premise to the argument. So, I'll go with that.. and if you don't agree.. ok. Maybe you can tell me how it really goes.

So, GOD... being good and the GROUND for your morality.. drowns every living thing on earth INCLUDING babies and fetuses and moms and dads and children, and uncles, and all cats and dogs that aren't on a boat. Fine. well, THAT'S good.. because God did it... And that is moral because he did it.. nothing wrong with that at all because God did it. But it's ONLY good IF god does it.

It's for sure a case of "Don't do as I DO, just do as I SAY."... Again, not the best morality system ever invented.

It's ONLY GOOD WHEN God does it.. but not humans, for some reason. And we are NEVER given that reason or reasons. EVER.. it's just DO AS YOUR TOLD.. and that's morality.

OBEY the god, whatever it says in the BIBLE that god says.. just do whatever you think THAT commandment is.. and I'd like to find a passage in the Bible being specific about ABORTIONS.. but ok.. let's assume you interpret it right.. as long as you are TOLD that something is ok to do, you can do it. IF GOD FORBIDS YOU.. that's morality. You can't do it.. BECAUSE and only because you need to obey.

That's Christian morality.. you NEED to obey.. and you don't GET a reason, you can't even ASK.. as in Job.. don't THINK of asking why... just do it.. NIKE. And, conveniently, you NEVER have to think about morality. Just look it up in a book.. or ask a preacher.. that's IT.. just figure out for yourself what GOD wants you to do.. and obey that.. I could not IMAGINE a more subjective kind of morality. A lot of people JUST ask God directly...read a few passages in a book, and then GOD gives them an answer.. do this or that and OBEY it...

Fly a plane into a building?... Why YES LORD.... What are THEY delusional?... maybe.. and no Christians are delusional about talking directly to god in the same way as other crazy religious people?... Apparently NOT.. apparently, when a true Christian talks to god.. that's for SURE true. Amen to that. But I'm not so convinced.

I think secular morality HAS reasons..That's all a secular morality HAS is reason. We aren't all LIKE children to be told to obey and not question their adults.. I AM an adult and I CAN think for myself, and I know that sometimes it IS the best thing to do to have an abortion. And that should be UP to the woman, always first, because she is the ONE actually HAVING the baby IN her body, and nobody ELSE. And then all the rest of us can have our wonderful opinions about that. And GOD.. or whatever god or demon or whatnot.. all that stuff.. all of it... should come after the woman's decision. But that's a THINKING and REASONING kind of morality, and NOT one dependent on obeying old books or imagined talking gods.

So, you equate GOD killing babies with abortions, which you also call killing babies. One is for human reasons, which you always disapprove of in any circumstance, and the other is for God reasons which you approve of in any circumstance.

Is that right?

So, BECAUSE you give God a moral pass in all circumstances, whatever God does is fine, morally. And since humans are just sinners, you can't ever give them a pass morally.

Looks like it's not about killing babies.. it's just that God gets to do whatever he wants and humans don't, in your view.

And THAT'S morality to you. God is just good and humans are just evil. Amen, I suppose.

 

[RossRonin]

From His position...extensive destruction may be the best tool in Hand...He hasn't moved to complete extinction maneuvers yet...but so many think it's pending.

But God can destroy selectively and strike surgically if he wants to. Maybe mass destruction is simpler (kill good and bad alike, sort 'em out later), but with a heavenly entourage numbering in the millions (according to Daniel 7:10) God could just as easily send out a crew to dispatch with certain ones. Like here, in Ezekiel chapter 9:

5 ...Go ye after him through the city, and smite: let not your eye spare, neither have ye pity:
6 Slay utterly old and young, both maids, and little children, and women: but come not near any man upon whom is the mark; and begin at my sanctuary.

Why then does God destroy life en masse? He did it in Old Testament times, and in Revelation he promises to do it again. How is he justified?

There is one answer, but it affronts our self-image: there are none righteous, no not one.

Before God wiped out Sodom, Gomorrah, Admah and Zeboim, Abraham asked him, "Wilt thou also destroy the righteous with the wicked?" God answered Abraham's subsequent questions about how many righteous residents it would take, in order for God to abort his plans; but God did not answer the question first posed.

I think maybe God does destroy the righteous with the wicked, because their righteousness is not enough to get them an exemption. Righteousness is relative; and relative to God our righteousness is filthy rags, regardless of how many past sins we were forgiven. When God destroyed Sodom the scripture says "he remembered Abraham, and sent Lot out of the midst of the overthrow." See, God would have destroyed the righteous with the wicked except for Abraham's intervention. It takes something more than righteousness to have God's favor. I believe God wants friends.

Abraham was called "the friend of God" and "Abraham my friend." Likewise Jesus told his apostles, "you are my friends;" and what qualifies friendship is not righteousness. We are all righteous (at least in our own eyes, to some degree) but not many of us are friends with God and Jesus. Living righteously (whatever you take that to mean) and being a "friend of God" are not the same thing.

John 15:14 Ye are my friends, if ye do whatsoever I command you.

Doing "whatsoever I command you" excludes most of humanity no matter how righteous a person is. Walking in the Spirit, being led of the Spirit, abiding in Christ: these are terms that describe a state of continual obedience (not obedience to a list of commandments or precepts, but to an individual). Who in the world lives like that? Few if any. The rest of us are apt to suffer the fate of Lot, unless someone of Abraham's stature begs mercy for us.

 

[RossRonin]

Beautiful? Are you kidding?.. is that why we see so many after abortion parties because everyone is so happy? .. Beautiful? What universe are you pretending to live in? It's a TRAGEDY in most cases...

Hey man, gimme a break. I was just using sarcasm to make a point. I agree with you: Abortion is a tragedy. And God's mass killing of babies is an even bigger tragedy.

But I have to believe that God is just, and that he could offer us a rational justification for the killing of innocents. Are they ultimately better off? It's possible. Are they awarded some heavenly recompense for their brief suffering? It's conceivable. Should they be grateful that God killed them before maturity, whereas they otherwise would have grown to be sinners and rebels against God, reaping eternal destruction instead? Yeah, maybe they should be grateful. I don't know for sure.

But we should allow those possibilities, before we judge God harshly.

 

[InChrist]

Someone who has killed many babies can be called a baby killer.

So, in your way of seeing things, God is a JUSTIFIED baby killer. Ok.

Yup, God MUST have had great reasons for killing all of them babies. Got it. Lots of babies to kill, lots of good reasons to do so.

Yup, lots of babies, lots of reasons to kill them, That's what a baby killer does, thinks up GOOD reasons to kill as many as possible of the little suckers.

I believe God is the Giver and Taker of life and at some point and in some manner He calls every life back to Himself. The timing and the method of each person's death is up to Him. Since He is the Creator of life in the first place it is God's prerogative to take life when He chooses and how He chooses. Whether it's by disease, or mishap, or hailstones, or an angel, or the sword, the means is up to Him. It's His prerogative.

I think in an attempt to find fault with the character of God the skeptic like you say that if it is true that God caused the death of innocent baby, then it is impossible for a moral person to consider that God as loving. The skeptical argument goes something like this: (1) A good and loving God would not kill an innocent child; (2) the God of the Bible kills innocent children; (3) therefore the God of the Bible cannot be good and loving.


This appears to make sense at first glance, but within this argument there is a faulty assumption. The assumption is that death is always bad or evil, especially of innocent children. This assumption stems from the skeptic’s adherence to pure naturalism. If this physical life and material world are all that exist, then to take an innocent person out of this physical world is inherently wrong, from the skeptics view. But the same Bible which says God caused the flood, struck David’s son, or took any life also says that this life is not all there is and that eternity lies ahead for each person. The same Bible also says God is Love. Because God is Love and the Giver and Taker of physical life everything He does related to life and death is based on His love with eternity in mind.

 

[Blastcat]

Hey man, gimme a break. I was just using sarcasm to make a point. I agree with you: Abortion is a tragedy. And God's mass killing of babies is an even bigger tragedy.

Sarcasm. Oh. Maybe next time.. less sarcasm. Good. We have agreement. Sorry for reading your text so literately.

But I have to believe that God is just, and that he could offer us a rational justification for the killing of innocents.

Why would anyone feel that they HAVE to believe something about this god?.. And why in particular should anyone HAVE TO believe the god is just?.. Or is this.. more sarcasm?

Yeah, maybe they should be grateful. I don't know for sure.

You say you don't know for SURE.. but I'd have to ask you how you think you even know .. at all?

But we should allow those possibilities, before we judge God harshly.

Why should we? Why should we NOT judge the character of this supposedly "all good " god? I don't feel that need.. Why do you feel that need?

 

[RossRonin]

Why should we NOT judge the character of this supposedly "all good " god? I don't feel that need.. Why do you feel that need?

I refrain from judging God harshly (or by humanistic standards, however noble) because God declares himself to be good, just, merciful, righteous, holy and perfect: therefore as soon as I admit the slightest inequity or malice to God's dealings with mankind, I am obligated by plain reason to cease believing his testimony.

Of course I have serious questions that remain unanswered. But I am always forced to return to the verifiable empirical data my own experience has amassed over time in my own mind, that compels me to believe and trust in who appears to be the same God the scriptures testify to. So in a sense, it's impossible for me to go backward, having witnessed sufficient evidence manifested in my own life to dispel the doubts that hard questions occasionally bring.

If God has established himself to my mind as a real person, and if Jesus' words are also established as being the "spirit and life" he claimed them to be, it follows logically that I should accept the unknown or unfathomable judgments of God as inscrutable, and leave unanswered such questions as how a good God can send innocent babies to a miserable death. I don't exactly know how he justifies that, but I do firmly believe his justification is sound.

 

[paarsurrey]

[QUOTE="Servant_of_the_One1, post: 4269150, member: 56651
The God of OT vs the God of NT? Are they the same?
... ... ...
[/QUOTE]

G-d of Moses and G-d of Jesus was the same.
OT or NT might have failed to depict and identify Him exactly due to corruptions made by the clergy/narrators/priests.

Regards

 

[RossRonin]

You know, God says "I am the LORD (Jehovah), I change not."

But what if God changed something exterior? Not about himself, but about his methods of dealing with humanity. I think that may be a valid answer to the seeming disparity between the Hebrew God and the Christian God.

2 Corinthians 5:19 says, "God was in Christ, reconciling the world unto himself, not imputing their trespasses unto them;" and if that means exactly what it says then John Baptist was accurate in calling Jesus "the lamb of God, which takes away the sin of the world."

So if by Jesus'life and death the whole world is reconciled to God, so that God no longer imputes their trespasses to them, wouldn't we expect to receive better treatment now than Israel received under Moses' law?

 

[metis]

How can the death of a man supposedly make the world "reconciled to God", regardless of what Paul may think? What evidence is there that they have supposedly received better treatment?