Jenya, so you are saying that if Christ didn't come to mankind we were all destined for hell?
The morality of God
- Thread starter Quantum Quack
- Start date
Well It's partly terminolgy, and I think it's not too different than sin itself. We choose to sin or not-- God has created the choices, and we face the consequences where anger, pride, and lust will consume us. Sin causes death and eternal seperation from God . But did God create death? No, we know that Satan is the father of death and of all lies. Likewise, God has only allowed Satan to torment man. God does not cause the feelings of anger, pride, and lust. Death would have never entered the world until Adam ate the tree of the knowledge of good and evil allowing evil to enter into the world and this evil to cause death. Sure Satan was allowed to speak to Adam but his words did nothing because Adam had no knowledge of evil. There is also extra-bibical evidence fore this view. Father Amoth decribes a demon in an exorcism that "corrected" him but I'm uncertain of how valid this is. Those who are possessed are said to expierence a hell of sorts. They don't describe physical agony but spiritual.
Yes, I'm pretty sure that was the "death" God warned Adam and Eve about. But instead of leaving people to inherit the hell reserved for the devil and his angels, God devised a plan of salvation. Christ was only the fulfilment of God's mercy that was shown from the beginning, but without Him it would not have been possible for us to be sure of it.
There are of course many many layers to it. For instance, God in effect had to "choose himself" for all to see (and testify about) as the instrument of salvation, because in their mortal and chosen separation from Him, people might remain fatally unaware of their desperate state and unable to know Him. God chose "himself" like this in different ways, and these choices were seen as prophetic or messianic. The interesting thing is that God's choice of who He is, is also the image of who his chosen are! Jesus was the synthesis of both Saviour and saved - He brought the two together.
God said "this is me" (I AM), so that people could ultimately recognize Him, and therefore also their own guilt in separation from Him - but it was a long process of reconciliation and recognition leading up to the crucifixion, where injustice and justice finally met and was exposed for judgment.
Remember, even hell was not always recognized for its significance. But most religions came to its conclusion one way or another; most notably the Greeks and Romans, with Hades and the underworld - at the same stage the Jews were becoming Hellenised after returning from exile. So hell became synonymous to secularized notions and practices - such as human sacrifice (giving an unwilling person over to death is in direct contradiction to a person freely giving a himself over to life with God) - and with this polarization, dualism became a useful paradigm in secular and religious thought.
But life doesn't give you equal choices; existence is not an equal choice between life vs. death. It's life, life, life, with death constantly barking at its heels. And it's only the giver of life who can give it again. Jesus proved this.
Last edited:
Jenyar,
Well, you and I certainly have different views. LOL
Bottom line, if god really wanted people to go to heaven, he'd never create hell/Lake of Fire to begin with. I can see him looking at life on earth as an opportunity to grow spiritually etc... but, not to be penalized for our shortcomings and or disbeliefs etc.. What is more important to him is that his ego be stroked.
Well, you and I certainly have different views. LOL
Bottom line, if god really wanted people to go to heaven, he'd never create hell/Lake of Fire to begin with. I can see him looking at life on earth as an opportunity to grow spiritually etc... but, not to be penalized for our shortcomings and or disbeliefs etc.. What is more important to him is that his ego be stroked.
You're still making an error of reasoning. You're suggesting the equivalent of "if God didn't want people to fly He shouldn't have created the sky". Hell is just the other side of the coin.
You need to make a paradigm shift. If people really believed heaven existed, hell would just have been "the bad place on the other side of the railway, so don't go there". The pool of Fire is only a threat to people who don't recognize God's authority, in whose case heaven is no better a place than hell. Anyway, I doubt that the kind of hypocrisy required for a person who never believed in God or heaven, who now have no choice but to praise Him for eternity, would be be fun to maintain even in heaven.
But as long as you see hell as some kind of penalty for your shortcomings - and disbelief as a shortcoming - you are forced to come to the erroneous conclusion that God is unfair. Life on earth is more than just an opportunity to grow spiritually - it is an opportunity to be reconciled with God and to resume the life He has already given you.
Jenya,
I think from what I’ve read since posting this thread that the greatest complaint about the morality of God or should I say the Christian form of God is that he appears to be less moral than what we would like to be. In that he is not considered to be the moral ideal.
The bible and what actually happens in reality suggest an God lacking in morality.
As a child this was the issue that turned me away from the Christian church as I found it full of immoral propagation. And for some reason as a child I found this to be absurd, that government and institutions were believing in something so immoral.
I often measure or compare my morality with that of “God” and as much as I feel inadequate to say so, I find that “God” is some what lacking in morality.
So this can only lead me to believe that humanity consistently relies on a morality that is far from the ideal and thus we have an immoral world based on these beliefs.
Islamic, Hindu, Christian all rely on their ideologies to show them the path towards
a better world and in doing so fail because the examples of morality they are using are inferior.
Humanity has a capacity to know what is moral and what isn’t and the various churches seem only to pull the people down and not up.
It is true that the weak amongst us need some form of moral guidance and a modern Church could very well be necessary to help them. But let us not delude ourselves and preach a morality that makes us as inferior as the so called “ideals” we preach.
I think that if we take the Bible and put it in a historical context we can accept that in it’s time it was relatively ideal as a method of instruction.
Today, however it is not the case. The world is not flat The sun does not orbit the earth. The unknown world is becoming very known. Most superstitions are debunked.
When you take something like the bible ( completed 2000 odd years ago) and try to apply it to today you are bound to have difficulty. If I took early computer programming and tried to apply it today I would also have incredible difficulty etc.
So maybe this is a way for Christianity to move forward and that is to put the bible into a more historical context.
I think from what I’ve read since posting this thread that the greatest complaint about the morality of God or should I say the Christian form of God is that he appears to be less moral than what we would like to be. In that he is not considered to be the moral ideal.
The bible and what actually happens in reality suggest an God lacking in morality.
As a child this was the issue that turned me away from the Christian church as I found it full of immoral propagation. And for some reason as a child I found this to be absurd, that government and institutions were believing in something so immoral.
I often measure or compare my morality with that of “God” and as much as I feel inadequate to say so, I find that “God” is some what lacking in morality.
So this can only lead me to believe that humanity consistently relies on a morality that is far from the ideal and thus we have an immoral world based on these beliefs.
Islamic, Hindu, Christian all rely on their ideologies to show them the path towards
a better world and in doing so fail because the examples of morality they are using are inferior.
Humanity has a capacity to know what is moral and what isn’t and the various churches seem only to pull the people down and not up.
It is true that the weak amongst us need some form of moral guidance and a modern Church could very well be necessary to help them. But let us not delude ourselves and preach a morality that makes us as inferior as the so called “ideals” we preach.
I think that if we take the Bible and put it in a historical context we can accept that in it’s time it was relatively ideal as a method of instruction.
Today, however it is not the case. The world is not flat The sun does not orbit the earth. The unknown world is becoming very known. Most superstitions are debunked.
When you take something like the bible ( completed 2000 odd years ago) and try to apply it to today you are bound to have difficulty. If I took early computer programming and tried to apply it today I would also have incredible difficulty etc.
So maybe this is a way for Christianity to move forward and that is to put the bible into a more historical context.
Jenyar,
If you were god, would you penalize others for not believing you are god? Would you hold them accountable for not having the understanding that you are who you say you are, in terms of eternal torture and eternal life? Which would be more important to you- others doing as you command or the well being and eternity for their very souls?
Look past ones life on earth and see the bigger picture of eternity. If one will not have the capability of "sin" after the physical life has past away, what does it matter? It only means that after death they will have the opportunity to learn and grow.
Nobody is perfect, Jenyar. To hold someone accountable for imperfections is kind of petty when it comes to eternity.
If you were god, would you penalize others for not believing you are god? Would you hold them accountable for not having the understanding that you are who you say you are, in terms of eternal torture and eternal life? Which would be more important to you- others doing as you command or the well being and eternity for their very souls?
Look past ones life on earth and see the bigger picture of eternity. If one will not have the capability of "sin" after the physical life has past away, what does it matter? It only means that after death they will have the opportunity to learn and grow.
Nobody is perfect, Jenyar. To hold someone accountable for imperfections is kind of petty when it comes to eternity.
The penalty is not because of our imperfections, or even our ignorance. The consequence of rejecting God is death with no hope of life. Faith in God makes us perfect. If you really wanted to understand who He is in the face of eternal torture, you would have tried to find out. But even the possibility of eternal torment has only intimidated you to the point where even the possibility that God doesn't want you to be lost is repugnant to you. Please explain me how that is possible? I can understand that you don't want to believe out of fear, nobody does. But you aren't afraid of death, yet you easily accept it as an unavoidable fact. It's just a little inconsistent that you would accept an eternity of death without a second thought, that your life on earth is just a chance event among billions of years, but the idea that God exists and that an eternity without Him might not be fun is unacceptable.
The command of God is to live this life as if it has bearing on eternity. Life it as if love actually means something even if it doesn't pay. It's a guarantee of a new life if (when) this one fails. If you drive a car without acquainting yourself with what is necessary to sustain it, it isn't punishment if it breaks down - it isn't even your fault, really - but that changes nothing about the fact that you could have done something about it. You are "guilty" of not taking care of your car, but the guilt only means you have to live without it. You can pay for that guilt with the money to fix it, but what if you only have one car?That we live life as God expects us to is not important for His gratification, what we do with our lives would have had no bearing on Him if He didn't love us. He wouldn't have promised us a new car - in an uncorrosive environment He approves of.
Last edited:
The church is just as prone to corruption and bad influence as any other human endeavor. To expect any different is naive. But your chances of finding people who actually know and live in a sincere relationship with Him inside the church is much better that outside. The propagation should not be a problem if the church sincerely holds to the Bible as the word of God. If you don't like the presentation, try a different church until you find one you feel comfortable in. It's just a place - the real decision is in the hearts and intentions of people.
It's definitely absurd and disturbing when anybody - church or individual - propagates immorality in the name of God. Conflict is inevitable, but how we deal with it is what makes "morality" count for anything.
We often don't understand why God does certain things in the Bible - but it's only a moral problem if you think you know better. If you are certain of your own moralilty, then you have nothing to fear from God, as Job illustrated. Being moral just doesn't mean nothing bad will ever happen to you - in a just world that would not be the case, but in this world morality makes you vulnerable. I think God wants to show us that believing in Him means believing that justice will eventually prevail, but while on earth we should prove that we really believe in justice and mercy. Because if we don't believe in it unconditionally, how can we expect it? Hypocrisy is also immoral.
Humanity consistently relies on a morality it doesn't really believe in. If you don't believe you yourself will ever be held accountable for the way you live, then how can you enforce others to be accountable? We will always stumble on the road to perfection, because we have no idea what perfection really means. For a criminal, perfection means getting away without being caught, for a politician it means ultimate power - but we have to deal with the fact that we share this planet with other people. No wave in the sea can really rise above the others, it will always be part of the great unity called "ocean" - to rise above it means rising above its nature. And that is something you can only believe in if you believe in God - if you believe your nature can conform to His and be perfect. That means you have to get to know Him.
And God will judge everyone equally according to whether they lived up to their capacity. The knowledge of what is good and bad is what makes us decide between what God wants and what the world wants.
Which ideals in the Bible do you consider so inferior? At which point do you pass the point where love is the greatest commandment and God the Judge, and need something more?
God is not a superstition - to make Him out as one is exactly what makes the Bible fail as a moral guide. If God carries no authority, then any directive that depends on His authority will fail. If you never take the law seriously, even the most competent Judge in the world will not be able to convince you to change your ways. You'll just think you know better and continue breaking the law, even if upholding the law is not really the point - improving life is.
Christianity must definitely move forward, and it has. You would be surprised with what is going on among people who are sincere about living up to its ideals.
People who learn computer programming still start out with the most primitive principles, like sorting and referencing. The logarithms that were established at the beginning of pragramming will still work in the most advanced programmes. Think of the Bible as a lesson in OOP, where the objects are explained within a primitive context so that you can follow their interaction and learn how they work and how to apply them. That's of course just a simplification, but it's a valid way to start. If you don't learn from history it will have no use to you in the present, but you run the risk of having to repeat history to learn the same lessons. That's why events like Noah's flood is presented in such universal and apocalyptic language: to ephasize that the implications shouldn't be underestimated even after the context has changed. All myths display this characteristic. So does all truth.
I think It's worth noting that God is not limited to the bible.
The bible should not limit God.
The bible shows in many ways Gods moral evolution and thus that of mankinds. However it stops 2000 odd years ago.
Many examples of God's immoral behaviour are shown in the bible. Even sacrficing his own son in such a fashion when other ways are possible I find immoral. Jesus suffered unecessarilly and this I find immoral.
An omnipotent entity that needs to perform a human sacrifice is not in my view moral. An omni potent entity would know of many other ways to achieve the same result.
The bible should not limit God.
The bible shows in many ways Gods moral evolution and thus that of mankinds. However it stops 2000 odd years ago.
Many examples of God's immoral behaviour are shown in the bible. Even sacrficing his own son in such a fashion when other ways are possible I find immoral. Jesus suffered unecessarilly and this I find immoral.
An omnipotent entity that needs to perform a human sacrifice is not in my view moral. An omni potent entity would know of many other ways to achieve the same result.
OK, I think I can help you with this one. The Bible only describes what we know about God - we can know more, but we can't know less. It doesn't limit God in any way - in fact, one thing that is very clear from the Bible is that God does not permit us to have limited views about Him. That is also true for limiting Him to your understanding of morality.
Moraliyy is at its heart a decision to live by rules that govern your life for the greater good. But we never have the amount of information available to us to be able to decide what is good for everybody in the world. Our morality is limited by our knowledge of ourselves and of what God wants.
You say that sacrificing Jesus was "immoral". What does that say about us? There are many people here who are still sacrificing Him. They have the same attitude that condemned Him then. God put himself at our mercy to expose our immorality and our unwillingness to recognize Him. It was a moral decision that God made. The story of Abraham and Isaac already tells us about God's attitude towards sacrifice. But 2000 years ago, Jesus was the substitute God provided in our place. Is it immoral for one man to die for the sake of all humanity? Is it immoral for God to love us enough to be willing to make that sacrifice?
But that's not the end of the story. God also showed that He could not be limited by our sins. He would gladly bear our inequities, but by overcoming them He also established His supreme authority over our lives and our death (no immoral behaviour can continue past death). That means where our immorality ends, God is willing to take over. He bought our lives with His blood, and is continuing to give us a chance to recognize Him. He raised Jesus from the dead to show that justice will prevail, because He is the final judgement.
The only other way to achieve the same result is for God to choose only those who know Him (which He did with Noah, then Abraham, then Israel, etc.) and are fit to enter his presence (which was possible through atoning for sins and repenting them).But all of these options are included in Jesus. God didn't need to do anything - He created us, He could destroy His creation without giving them a chance, whether we thought it was "immoral" or not. But for those who sincerely want to be saved, there is only one option: God. And there's nothing God can do about being God.
The obvious question Jenya is why do you think God didn't just show as himself instead of using his "son". Why not just get down here in human form 2000 years ago and do the job himself instead of going to all the trouble of sacrificing his son and leaving himself open to the cynics. ( Jews)
There are a few possibilities. If God to showed himself in all his glory it would mean instant death. You can't even look at the sun with your bare eyes, and the sun is just a creation. As the sun is to your eyes, God is to your life. Jesus was the veil that was needed to "soften the blow". That, and God wanted people to believe in his love for them, not just to see Him. Also remember that Jesus was God in human form. He did do the job himself. The "trouble" was that cynics sacrificed Him - just like cynics won't believe in God no matter what He does.
If you mean God should have shown himself beyond any doubt, what do you think would happen to those people who did not accept Him? They would lose their lives immediately because they do not belong to Him. It will eventually happen - on Judgement Day. Therefore, sending Jesus was a act of mercy, not of judgement. Judgement is postponed so that more people have a chance to be saved.
Actually with all due respect to Jenya, if one reads over all the posts including from other posters and highlights all the circular and self-justification logic one would see a pattern of insanity I guess.
Maybe it's worth saying at this junctiour that the logic and the words we use are by nature incapable of truely describing how we feel. Jenya is only trying to explain a belief and is having difficulty in doing so. WE are also having difficulty in understanding the feelings that Jenya is trying to tell us about.
Logic is a bit like statistics in that it can be used to justify just about everything. Maybe we should realise it's the feelings we have that count and not the logic that describes them.
Maybe it's worth saying at this junctiour that the logic and the words we use are by nature incapable of truely describing how we feel. Jenya is only trying to explain a belief and is having difficulty in doing so. WE are also having difficulty in understanding the feelings that Jenya is trying to tell us about.
Logic is a bit like statistics in that it can be used to justify just about everything. Maybe we should realise it's the feelings we have that count and not the logic that describes them.
Jenyar,
Your quote below:
You are expecting people to take things for face value regarding the bible. You expect them to believe what was written in it is 100% accurate and expecting them to believe that the translation is inerrant. On top of that you are expecting people to believe that the biblical god and JC are real and the only way to salvation.
How is one to base morality, Jenyar, in relation to "god"? I happen to think killing children is immoral, you on the other hand condone it, as long as "god" is behind it. (which I find odd) You accept "god" killing them without having to know the reason why. (I'm not speaking in terms of natural causes, I'm speaking in regard to "god" ordering it done) You seem to think it's wrong to question why "god" would do these things- instead you blindly accept these brutal actions by giving this blanket answer
While I mean no disrespect to you, that answer seems very rehearsed- Much like the automatic response of one who has been programmed to do so.
Your quote below:
You are expecting people to take things for face value regarding the bible. You expect them to believe what was written in it is 100% accurate and expecting them to believe that the translation is inerrant. On top of that you are expecting people to believe that the biblical god and JC are real and the only way to salvation.
How is one to base morality, Jenyar, in relation to "god"? I happen to think killing children is immoral, you on the other hand condone it, as long as "god" is behind it. (which I find odd) You accept "god" killing them without having to know the reason why. (I'm not speaking in terms of natural causes, I'm speaking in regard to "god" ordering it done) You seem to think it's wrong to question why "god" would do these things- instead you blindly accept these brutal actions by giving this blanket answer
While I mean no disrespect to you, that answer seems very rehearsed- Much like the automatic response of one who has been programmed to do so.
Hey, MW, nice to hear from you! I believe your statement above has truth to it. Although I also would like to add that I feel there are some who are in this "christian line dance" just following what was taught with little thought to the darker side the Bible paints of "god". Reminds me of rose colored glasses.
----------
M*W: Good to hear from you, too, heart! I agree, and I like your term "Christian line dance." Personally, I would be ashamed of myself if someone died for me. I would feel terribly responsible, yet, Christians worship Jesus because they think he died for them. I would say that as a group of people (now <1/3 of the world's population), they have very low self-esteem, feeling that they are "unworthy," and that passes down from generation to generation. I fail to see how that could be psychologically positive.