A question about the morality of God

[Evointrinsic]

This question has been plaguing my mind ever since I learned more about the bible when I was younger. No one seems to be able to answer it, quite soundly at least, and thus the reason why I am creating this topic.

In the bible God is said to be all knowing. During the creation of the universe, planet earth, Man and animals comes a troubling event. That is the additional - and seemingly unnecessary - creation of the forbidden fruit.

Surely, if God is all knowing then he would have known that the forbidden fruit were to be eaten. At the very least the fruit could have been something a bit less tantalizing. Perhaps "do not drink from the stinking bog of acid that burns flesh at the very touch of it's liquid."

It seems a bit irresponsible to place something that would essentially destroy that which man had at the time of creation and in the garden that god also knew they would consume, ultimately bringing their doom upon them. The same goes for the great flood and the destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah. If he knew that these people would be so evil in their hearts and so wrong, why allow their creation in the first place?

The worst of it all is that the people who commit these acts - of which could have been prevented - burn in hell for their sins. For eternity! Constant torture day after day for ever. Infinity is quite the scale of time. So long that our minds have a massive difficulty trying to comprehend it's vastness.

What could possibly be so needed as to let these events and lives come to this level without intervention or preventative measures?

[Wootah]

Actually CNorman was quite rightly chided for posting an off topic answer.

I missed the chiding.

It was in the reply post from the OP. CNorman is yet to be on topic.

Can I ask - since we are here - do you think CNorman's posts should be challenged by atheists or that since they attack Christianity they should get a pass. For my part I am choosing to ignore them right now but I would rather someone non-Christian ask CNorman the obvious questions based upon what he has said.

To wit:
'Apparently, in the literary heritage of the Jewish people, God was capable of injustice and evil.' - why does CNorman worship an evil God?
The star marked post by CNorman - What part of the OT Bible is true for CNorman?

But those questions don't belong in this thread as it would continue an off topic discussion. But he is long overdue in being confronted with those views by critical minded forum goers.

[cnorman18]

Actually CNorman was quite rightly chided for posting an off topic answer.

I missed the chiding.

It was in the reply post from the OP. CNorman is yet to be on topic.

If you insist that the only way to read the Bible is literally and dogmatically, no doubt that is your opinion. It isn't mine, and the only person here who thinks my posts are "offtopic" is, apparently, you.

Can I ask - since we are here - do you think CNorman's posts should be challenged by atheists or that since they attack Christianity...

My posts attack nothing, most especially Christianity; I disagree with a literalist approach. That does not constitute an "attack," just freedom of thought. Christianity and Biblical literalism ate not synonymous.

...they should get a pass. For my part I am choosing to ignore them right now but I would rather someone non-Christian ask CNorman the obvious questions based upon what he has said.

Thanks so much for choosing not to ask the questions you're asking...

To wit:
'Apparently, in the literary heritage of the Jewish people, God was capable of injustice and evil.' - why does CNorman worship an evil God?

I don't. Read the rest of the post you quoted. The literary character called "God" in the Bible is not necessarily the same as the real God. Or did you think God walked in the Garden like a man and couldn't find Adam because he was hiding?

The star marked post by CNorman - What part of the OT Bible is true for CNorman?

All of it -- but read my signature.

Did you read the post to which I've posted links elsewhere? It's called "The Bible as it IS," and you'll find it in the Tolerant & Respectful subforum. "History or fiction" is a false dichotomy, as I said.

But those questions don't belong in this thread as it would continue an off topic discussion. But he is long overdue in being confronted with those views by critical minded forum goers.

Oh, I have been confronted MANY times. More than once by you, if memory serves. I have over 6,000 posts here. Why, I have even occasionally admitted to being wrong; but not about simplistic, dogmatic thinking about the Bible.

Everyone is free to believe in his own way -- but no one has the right to dictate the proper beliefs of others. Old American principle. It's called "freedom of religion."[font=Comic Sans MS][/font]

[Wootah]

Eco - we humans have children, knowing full well that they will suffer and die. In fact the known outcome is bad for our children so is it immoral to have children?

[Quath]

Eco - we humans have children, knowing full well that they will suffer and die. In fact the known outcome is bad for our children so is it immoral to have children?

A big difference is that we fight against suffering and death for our children. We try to give them a good life. We don't set them up for suffering and if we had it in our power, we would try to keep them from suffering.

But that is because we don't have the power to change how the universe works. In the sorry, God does have this power.

[Thatguy]

Can I ask - since we are here - do you think CNorman's posts should be challenged by atheists or that since they attack Christianity they should get a pass. For my part I am choosing to ignore them right now but I would rather someone non-Christian ask CNorman the obvious questions based upon what he has said.

To wit:
'Apparently, in the literary heritage of the Jewish people, God was capable of injustice and evil.' - why does CNorman worship an evil God?
The star marked post by CNorman - What part of the OT Bible is true for CNorman?

But those questions don't belong in this thread as it would continue an off topic discussion. But he is long overdue in being confronted with those views by critical minded forum goers.

Sorry not to reply to your question earlier, I tend to use this site in spurts and often forget to check various older posts when I return.
If it's ok with you, I'll let CNorman speak for himself. He can apparently read your posts and respond to them directly. Don't ask me how, life's a mystery.

Where a poster such as CNorman takes the material as a complex blend of history, sociology, literature, etc. compiled by the people of the time to understand and organize their world and reflect their understanding of their God, I am not inclined to debate. I'm much more inclined to pull up a chair and ask for explanation so I can learn new and thoughtful points of view. But this is more of a debate forum so i have to limit my inclination to become a student rather than a debater.

Where I disagree with another user but that user's views seem non-threatening to me, I'm disinclined to tie things up with debate. If everyone held the views of many of the theists here, there'd be no restrictions against people living as I figure they have the right to live. So just as they are likely to have a live and let live attitude toward my views, I'm likely to feel the same about theirs. When their views cross an imaginary line and pose a potential threat to what I value, I'll then explore my differences with them.

I am sometimes more inclined to disagree openly with people I find otherwise generally agree with me. Partly because I'm contrary by nature, but also because we have a lot in common that we agree on so the same types of evidence is important to us.

I would like to know what CNorman takes literally in the Bible, but that would have been detracting from the topic even by my loose standards.

I don't see people like him as attackers of Christianity at all. I think Christianity would become stronger, more flexible, more humane if it had more dialogues with people like him instead of circling the wagon at his appearance. There are fundamentalist Jews who would also see his views as threatening. Just as I feel threatened by fundamentalism of all faiths. Not necessarily fundamentalists, though, many of them are really nice, well meaning people who, honestly, I would trust with my life.

[Wootah]

Eco - we humans have children, knowing full well that they will suffer and die. In fact the known outcome is bad for our children so is it immoral to have children?

A big difference is that we fight against suffering and death for our children. We try to give them a good life. We don't set them up for suffering and if we had it in our power, we would try to keep them from suffering.

But that is because we don't have the power to change how the universe works. In the sorry, God does have this power.

Every action God has taken from the beginning of the fall is interpreted completely as fight(ing) against suffering and death for (His) children. Indeed our salvation and the actions God would have to take were planned from before the beginning.

Actually it is not true that we don't set our children up for suffering. We know exactly what things are likely to befall them.

I don't think God has the power to create free willed creatures and prevent them from failing.

[Thatguy]

Eco - we humans have children, knowing full well that they will suffer and die. In fact the known outcome is bad for our children so is it immoral to have children?

A big difference is that we fight against suffering and death for our children. We try to give them a good life. We don't set them up for suffering and if we had it in our power, we would try to keep them from suffering.

But that is because we don't have the power to change how the universe works. In the sorry, God does have this power.

Every action God has taken from the beginning of the fall is interpreted completely as fight(ing) against suffering and death for (His) children. Indeed our salvation and the actions God would have to take were planned from before the beginning.

Actually it is not true that we don't set our children up for suffering. We know exactly what things are likely to befall them.

I don't think God has the power to create free willed creatures and prevent them from failing.

A parent that, say, left a note for its child saying "Eat what you want in the refrigerator except the poisoned apple" would be judged a horrible parent for including a poisoned apple in the refrigerator. If the parent knew that the child would, in fact, eat the poisoned apple yet still left the apple, the parent would be a monster. If the parent could, at any time, have stopped the child from eating the apple or from dying of it, but instead permitted it in the name of "free will" the parent would be an even more criminal monster.

The comparison to a parent is one of the worst ways to try to defend the morality of the god in the story. It simply isn't the same to say that a parent knows a child will someday have to face horrors. The parent didn't create the horrors. The parent can't protect a child from the horrors. The horrors are not of the parent's choosing, nor are they usually of the child's choosing. It's not like an all powerful god at all.

[Wootah]

I don't think your fridge example applies because you need to explain how the poisoned apple is necessary. I'll be interested to see you do that.

I think you are again under appreciating what a parent does know about reality for their child and yet they still choose to have them.

God didn't create the downside aspects of reality either and can evil be created is another philosophical issue.

[Thatguy]

I don't think your fridge example applies because you need to explain how the poisoned apple is necessary. I'll be interested to see you do that.

I think you are again under appreciating what a parent does know about reality for their child and yet they still choose to have them.

God didn't create the downside aspects of reality either and can evil be created is another philosophical issue.

It's true that my analogy does assume that the parent had both the free will and the power to choose whether or not to include the poisoned apple. It further assumes that the parent had the free will and the power to stop the child from eating the apple. It could further assume that the parent has the free will and the power to stop the apple from killing that child (a plan to let many of his children die but someday save a few of them wouldn't alter the view that the parent was criminally immoral. If the whole process was necessary for God and he lacked the free will or the power to change any of it to prevent the outcome then it's true that the fridge example, and the use fo the parent analogy as a whole, don't really apply. After all, moral people don't decree that the life's purpose of the child is, objectively speaking, to adore and obey the parent and, if the child should fail to do so properly, the child has chosen, and is deserving of, death.

In judging morality we do have to consider whether the moral actor in question had any choice. If God was helpless to alter the course of events then we can't really assign any moral blame to God for the events of the story. If God, as you said, didn't create the downside aspects- the rule that they'd die if they ate the fruit, the presence of the fruit to tempt them, the presence of the miraculously talking snake to tempt them, the natural inclination for curiosity and temptation, etc., then we can hardly blame God morally for that which some other being must have co-created and which God was powerless to veto.

[cnorman18]

Can I ask - since we are here - do you think CNorman's posts should be challenged by atheists or that since they attack Christianity they should get a pass. For my part I am choosing to ignore them right now but I would rather someone non-Christian ask CNorman the obvious questions based upon what he has said.

To wit:
'Apparently, in the literary heritage of the Jewish people, God was capable of injustice and evil.' - why does CNorman worship an evil God?
The star marked post by CNorman - What part of the OT Bible is true for CNorman?

But those questions don't belong in this thread as it would continue an off topic discussion. But he is long overdue in being confronted with those views by critical minded forum goers.

Sorry not to reply to your question earlier, I tend to use this site in spurts and often forget to check various older posts when I return.
If it's ok with you, I'll let CNorman speak for himself. He can apparently read your posts and respond to them directly. Don't ask me how, life's a mystery.

Yes, isn't it? I did respond directly. My response was ignored. Life is indeed a mystery.

Where a poster such as CNorman takes the material as a complex blend of history, sociology, literature, etc. compiled by the people of the time to understand and organize their world and reflect their understanding of their God, I am not inclined to debate. I'm much more inclined to pull up a chair and ask for explanation so I can learn new and thoughtful points of view. But this is more of a debate forum so i have to limit my inclination to become a student rather than a debater.

Where I disagree with another user but that user's views seem non-threatening to me, I'm disinclined to tie things up with debate. If everyone held the views of many of the theists here, there'd be no restrictions against people living as I figure they have the right to live. So just as they are likely to have a live and let live attitude toward my views, I'm likely to feel the same about theirs. When their views cross an imaginary line and pose a potential threat to what I value, I'll then explore my differences with them.

I am sometimes more inclined to disagree openly with people I find otherwise generally agree with me. Partly because I'm contrary by nature, but also because we have a lot in common that we agree on so the same types of evidence is important to us.

I would like to know what CNorman takes literally in the Bible, but that would have been detracting from the topic even by my loose standards.

How much of the Iliad should be taken literally? How about the works of Dickens or Shakespeare or Dante or Aristophanes? How much of those books was INTENDED by the authors to be taken literally? How rational or useful would it be to do so?

Should we simply discard them all as worthless -- because BOOKS ought to be objects of WORSHIP, and are otherwise without value?

Looking for literal truths at the superficial, historical and/or narrative level of a surface reading of the Biblical text makes no sense. Period, full stop. "Debates" like this one are as pointless as "debating" the old nonsense question of how many angels can dance on the head of a pin.

And THAT was my point, and my contribution to this discussion.

I don't see people like him as attackers of Christianity at all. I think Christianity would become stronger, more flexible, more humane if it had more dialogues with people like him instead of circling the wagon at his appearance. There are fundamentalist Jews who would also see his views as threatening. Just as I feel threatened by fundamentalism of all faiths. Not necessarily fundamentalists, though, many of them are really nice, well meaning people who, honestly, I would trust with my life.

100% agreed, all the way around.

There is the actual practice of actual, living religion, which consists largely of being the kind of person that one can trust with one's life, and then there is superficial theoretical and sectarian bickering and preaching. I've never thought that these two approaches to religion were related. The first is essential, and essentially good; the second is irrelevant, trivial, and generally worthless.