The morality of God

Hey me again.

I just think we should put all this religious hub dub in some sort of evolutionary context.

The evolution from superstition and fear of the unknown
(unknowable) to a world that is continuing to evolve both physically and morally.

And as always is the case the evolutional changes needed can be sometimes painful and frustrating.

WE are all evolving and religion is to, the more rejection or denial of necessary change the more painful it is.

As I am sure Jenya is experiencing whether admitted to or not.
 
If you had made a circle...

An omnipotent god is present at the execution by drowning, of a great multitude of men, woman and children he has created in his own image. As the people were created in his image, he has a total understanding of human emotion and physical pain. Having free will himself, he has endowed his people with the same attribute. Some of his people have disappointed him in their sinfulness according to the laws laid down by him. He feels the best possible solution to this problem is to wipe the slate clean by executing his people, and starting again. The rising floodwaters create a painfully visible fear, anguish and terror in the intended victims. This macabre spectacle is extremely agonizing to observe.

What should this god do?

a) Let the execution go ahead.
b) Show mercy and find a less severe solution.

What would you do?

a) Let the execution go ahead.
b) Show mercy and find a less severe solution.
 
the sin of not believing is no sin at all.
Do the sins of the drowned deserve death? What vile crime did they commit.
 
stretched:

If I was God and I had created all of these eternal souls that had become mired in an out of control society. I would wipe them out and let the souls have another chance in a better environment. I am sure that God would take care of all of those people with far more care than I would.

If you belive in eternal souls and a loving God then death is not a big problem. Even the worst suffering experienced on earth could easily be comforted by God. After all what is 80 years compared to billions of years?

If you do not believe in God and/or the eternal soul than 80 years is all we have and there is no consolation for the suffering of the world.
 
Originally posted by Quantum Quack
the sin of not believing is no sin at all.
Do the sins of the drowned deserve death? What vile crime did they commit.
Click to expand...

If I recall, the Bible states that "god" destroyed them because the were "evil", well all but Noah and family. Every little baby, child, woman, man, and animals too.

In my opinion they do not deserve this death at all- their crime was because they weren't righteous enough in "god's" eyes.
 
What should this god do?

a) Let the execution go ahead.
b) Show mercy and find a less severe solution.

What would you do?

a) Let the execution go ahead.
b) Show mercy and find a less severe solution.
Click to expand...

Both B
 
Originally posted by heart
If I recall, the Bible states that "god" destroyed them because the were "evil", well all but Noah and family. Every little baby, child, woman, man, and animals too.

In my opinion they do not deserve this death at all- their crime was because they weren't righteous enough in "god's" eyes.
----------
M*W: I wonder if "evil" could simply mean "different?" Isn't it peculiar that the word "evil" describes the Christian definition of the "serpent" as in "Eve-l?"
Click to expand...
 
It could be suggested that God was only trying to remove his own evil. The flood being a way that he could visciously attack himself.

Funny thought.....may be he doesn't even know humanity exists and is some being in another dimension going through some belly gazing and self change and the events this inspired here are just an out come of his own personal development.

Actually in a way this is how I tend to look at the bible etc. as a cryptic example of mankinds inner struggle with himself, and his place in the reality he exists in.
 
God has choices...

Thanks dudes,

The response to the situation I describe in my first post should be very simple. Indeed it is simple. Under any circumstances the answer should be B. Any compassionate human being would opt for B. rather than witness the pain and terror they would be confronted with. This would be deemed “normal” behaviour. If we then take the Biblical flood, as a direct comparison to my scenario, the god of the Bible seems to have acted in a very cruel manner. The debate over the definition of the word “evil” is pointless, as babies are included.

No matter what the circumstances surrounding the event, the moral choice in my opinion should be B. The essence of the choice is simple. No amount of background history, what ifs, information or wrong deeds committed by the victims (including the babies and children) should change the choice. The fact that the Biblical god opted for choice A. sums up his morality in a nutshell. God had a choice. He chose A.

Quote Quantam Quack:
/Actually in a way this is how I tend to look at the bible etc. as a cryptic example of mankinds inner struggle with himself, and his
place in the reality he exists in./

Yup, but it seems mankind is pretty messed up. Maybe its time for mankind to change its image.
 
true and this is also inevitable. Just a lot of pain in the process.

It is our nature to trry and escape our suffering and as a global community we are always trying to do just this. Slowly as mankind developes he will achieve a lesser state of moral sufferance I think.
 
Re: God has choices...

Originally posted by stretched
Thanks dudes,

The response to the situation I describe in my first post should be very simple. Indeed it is simple. Under any circumstances the answer should be B. Any compassionate human being would opt for B. rather than witness the pain and terror they would be confronted with. This would be deemed “normal” behaviour. If we then take the Biblical flood, as a direct comparison to my scenario, the god of the Bible seems to have acted in a very cruel manner. The debate over the definition of the word “evil” is pointless, as babies are included.

No matter what the circumstances surrounding the event, the moral choice in my opinion should be B. The essence of the choice is simple. No amount of background history, what ifs, information or wrong deeds committed by the victims (including the babies and children) should change the choice. The fact that the Biblical god opted for choice A. sums up his morality in a nutshell. God had a choice. He chose A.
Click to expand...
The flood prefigures final judgment. Whether God or you like it or not, justice must be served. God was wiping out evil, not people. The consequences was upsetting and should be eye-opening to you. But people would rather defend the innocence if people they don't know than admit they would have been guilty if they were there. Look at it as a warning: at the last judgment nobody will escape its finality either. If the flood doesn't point to you it points to nothing, and discussing it is equally pointless.

Calling on the suffering and "injustice" of the flood makes it an emotional argument. Choice B is the judge feeling sorry for him and looking for an alternative (and afterwards you'll see the story on CNN and protests all over America about the lack of objective justice. Next thing the blindfold over the Statue of Justice's eyes is removed...). Have you ever seen a convicted criminal make an emotional argument? Does it change anything about his accountability or guilt? When Judgment is passed, justice must be served. But that is where our analogy must end, because only God can forgive and give life back.

Your case rests heavily on this life as the end-all and be-all of existence. It isn't. The flood might seem harsh to you, and it was. God didn't like doing it and promised He never would judge the earth on its own terms (natural law = indiscriminate = nature = flood) again. He would let everybody live, whether good or evil. That solves half the problem of where suffering comes from: God's mercy after the flood. The other half is just nature running its course, mindless of age or guilt or whether justice is being done or not. And that is why God is your only hope.
 
Last edited:
What would Jenyar do?

Hi Jenyar Brother,

What would you do?

a) Let the execution go ahead.
b) Show mercy and find a less severe solution.

Before I respond to your post, what would you do in the given scenario?
 
Re: What would Jenyar do?

Originally posted by stretched
Hi Jenyar Brother,

What would you do?

a) Let the execution go ahead.
b) Show mercy and find a less severe solution.

Before I respond to your post, what would you do in the given scenario?
Click to expand...
If I had to judge, I'd do what God did: warn everbody it was coming, provide a way to escape safely, and grant complete mercy to those who would accept it. Not much more I could do.
 
Jenyar ... you`re not a lawyer are you?

Jenyar,

Imagine you are not in any way religiously inclined and obligated to think doctrinally and dogmatically. If confronted by babies crying, children of age two, three, in terror, woman and men in anguish, and it was within your power to show mercy. Keep it this simple.

What would you do?

a) Let the execution go ahead.
b) Show mercy and find a less severe solution.


Points I have a problem with.

Quote Jenyar:
“If the flood doesn't point to you it points to nothing, and discussing it is equally pointless.”

It points to a scenario of hitting the “undo” button. Keypoints – man is created in gods image, man is deemed evil by god, destroyed by god. Conclusion – undo due to imperfect creation.

Quote Jenyar:
“Calling on the suffering and "injustice" of the flood makes it an emotional argument. Choice B is the judge feeling sorry for him and looking for an alternative”

I am happy to include emotion into the scenario. Christianity and Christian apologetics is based on emotional responses and rhetoric. The flood was base cruelty. Period. Babies and children in a court of law should make the judge feel sorry and look for alternative punishment. (God help us if not)

Quote Jenyar:
“Your case rests heavily on this life as the end-all and be-all of existence.”

Unless proven otherwise this life is all we have.

Quote Jenyar:
“The flood might seem harsh to you, and it was. God didn't like doing it and promised He never would judge the earth on its own terms (natural law = indiscriminate = nature = flood) again.”

The flood was harsh. God has choices. Saying “never again” sounds like regret. Regret indicates mistakes or failure.

Quote Jenyar:
“God's mercy after the flood.”

An omnipotent moral god would show mercy before the flood.

As ever, only my humble opinion.
 
hey guys, you don't really seriously take the flood and the ark as a serious story that is anything other than fiction, do you. I mean to say two animals of every kind blah blah blah, the whole world flooded. no land visible etc etc

You would have to be quite simple minded surely to believe that the story is not some sort of nursery rhyme used to help instill the fear of God in people.

When looking at the diversity of life you can not really accept this story in any context other that as a fairytale and to think it as worth argueing about is just justifying the ridiculous.

Alice in wonder land would be a better story to discuss than this one.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top