I have a site that raises the question: "If God is love, why does he punish innocent people?"
Mere Atheism wrote:This site aims to test the Christian claim that God is love (1 John 4:16)... we'll examine an overlooked evil: intrinsically evil acts that are recorded to have been committed by God himself.
The essay then proceeds to list three clear cut cases in the Bible in which God is acting in an unfair way that seems to contradict the claim that God is love. Namely, the essay profiles the plague of the firstborn in Egypt, entrapment in Garden of Eden, and the destruction of Midian. The site also establishes a psychological profile for God, debunks common Christian responses, and explains the different possible alternatives to the god of the Bible.
The essay is only around 5000 words (large part are quotes from the Bible) and is hopefully not too dry. Thanks for reading and I look forward to replying to all messages!
Confused wrote:You seem to see my dilemma. Can we know the nature? If one does exist, we can't know anything because the method He has chosen to educate His flawed creation is apparently just as flawed.
How so? The Bible give us plenty of information about the nature of God. And since his final work is a heaven where good people will live happily ever after, then how are you to fault that?
ZAROVE wrote:
This is my first post, but Ive debated a while.
By the misspelled words, I presume under the name METACROCK.
ACTUALLY I always post under the name Zarove. I know Metacrock though.Didn't knwo you would.
Half of it are direct quotes from the Bible.
And the other half is juvinile commentary not base don the slightest effort to udnerstand the text, but to intead direct the reader to a predetermiend conclusion.
ZAROVE wrote:
It also seems laced with Juvinality, which betrays the intent, which is to slant ones view, not to anylise properly.
I think the domain name and huge MERE ATHEISM header betrays the intent, but okay.
The Domain name "Mere Atheism: doesnt automatically, to my min at leats, mean that one is going to put fourth bad arguments base don poorly thoguht out constircts and use a personal perjorative as a eman of assault on a topic.Nor does it mean one has to automaticlaly impose self-serving biases onot a text without acutal analysis.
What is the pinnacle of creation if not man according to the Christian?
No Pennacle of creation is ever mentioned int he Scriptures.Therefore, I am under no real obligation to say what such a pennacle woudl be.
The definition of flawed is imperfect.
No, the definition fo flawed is contianign error.Their is a distinction.
The definition of perfect is without flaws.
That woudl make it circular.And you are mistaken.The definiton of "Perfect" is twofold.
1: To be complete unto onesself.
2: To be free from fault.
Is there a middle ground I'm unfamiliar with here?
It seems the definition is unfamiliar with you. However, you did not address my main point. Man need not have been created flawed, to nonetheless sin.
ZAROVE wrote:
IE, the Eastern Orthodox saw man as beign created wiht the potential for perfection, btu nto yet perfect.Man is created ot sek union with God.
Right. So God created something that wasn't perfect. Moving on.
It's this sort of dismissive attitude, with no real attempt to actually understand what I've just said and no attemot to discuss the point I just raised, that tells me you aren't intereste din logic, reaosn, or truth, and simply want to attack somethign by making snide comments and thus makign it appear silly.
Again, the Eastern Orthodox beleif is that Adam and Eve where mde able to develop and grow. Then where given the task to develop into somehting ontheir own, guide dby God,and with the goal of ultimate reunification with God in the proccess of deification.
You cannot dismiss this by simply saying "God made siemthign imperect" as if htis somhow proves anythign you have listd as a critisism valid.
ZAROVE wrote:
Mormins also see mankinds origins as a means of trainign their soul, to develop.
Ditto.
Accordign to Mormon beleif, Adam and Eve where children fo God, who need to grow and develop into their full potential. Thus they where sent to mortality in an immature state to develop.
Will you address this at all?
Given that your argument rest son God makign imperfect beigns and thus beign culpable of entrapment, you'd think that its germane to look at alternate theologies. This is somethign you refuse to do.
ZAROVE wrote:
Bth of these views acocrd with classical Christainity that our life is lead to learn lessons in how to lvoe one another and God.This world then is invisioned as a Shchool, in which we learn from. C.S.Lewis elaborate don tbis in "Mere Christianity", the book whose name was used ot make your own "Mere Atheism" sites name. We live to learn the virtues. We ae mad elimited and weak so we can learn to overcome these obsticles. We are given choices and are then givne a chance ot learn form our choices, even our mistakes.
This is relevant to Mere Atheism because _____________.
Because it woudl serve to explain precicely the problems you encountered in the Genesis creation narrative.
If, for instance, mankind was created prior to this life, and given a mortal life to learn valuable lessons of love, charity, hope, and valur, by givign them limits and confines they mist work aroudn or accept, then the whole purpose of plantign the tree of the Knowlege of Good and Evil in the garden becomes much more evident as simply part of this proccess.
ZAROVE wrote:
All this woudl indicate mankind's life on Earth is simply a pilgrimage toward reunification with God, and some get lost, ontheir own, along the ay.
The evidence for this, apart from sincere assertions, is _____________.
Listed throuhout the Bible,and other mystical texts. Really, I was on my firts post, id you expect me to list hundreds of samples and link to essayson my firts post of a discussion?
ZAROVE wrote:
Genesis 2:8-9, 15-17 NIV
Now the LORD God had planted a garden in the east, in Eden; and there he put the man he had formed. And the LORD God made all kinds of trees grow out of the ground - trees that were pleasing to the eye and good for food. In the middle of the garden were the tree of life and the tree of the knowledge of good and evil. The LORD God took the man and put him in the Garden of Eden to work it and take care of it.
God: "You are free to eat from any tree in the garden; but you must not eat from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, for when you eat of it you will surely die."
Someone forgets to call the exterminator man and the story quickly escalates as God's perfect creation has an infestation of Satan in the form of a snake:
Actually that's another presumption.Neither Judaism, nor classical Christanity before the third century, identify the Serpent as Satan.Nor does the Biblical text in Genesis or any aprt of the New Testament, refer to the tempter as Satan in the form of a Serpent. ( Or, possessing the bodyof one.)
How does this change a single thing?
It does show shoddy reasoning.It also shos Satan didnt tempt Adam or Eve.
The serpent has the intention of tricking the humans.
THis still doesnt address the problem. Should somehtign be punished for their intentions before they commit a crime, or only after they commit a crime? The Serpent was punished, recall, later, afte r he had commited his act. But it woudl be unjust to punish anyhting before the act is given.
If I have the intention of murdering someone even if I had not committed the actual murder, am I perfect? I don't think so.
But you did not ask about perfection.You asked hy God didnt simply remove the serpent.Indeed, you said soemone "FOrgot to call the exterminator", and htus indicated that God erred in not killing the serpent.
Again, the statements I have made where base don this. Punishign the serpent prior to the crime commited is wrong.
The Serpent has free agency just as man does, and is not to be punished for mere intention, but for actual deeds.
No. They only knew they had done wrong AFTER they had eaten from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil.
No, this is not true.They knew it was wrong to partake of the fruit because God had told them so. Their is a distincitn between knowign good and evil, which is possesion of a Moral concience, and distinguishigng between right and wrong, or, common snece tellign you what deeds are punishable or hamrful.
They did not know the knowledge of good and evil BEFORE eating from the tree. It's really that simple.
But is it rllay that simple? You presume all knowledge of rigt and wrong is equivolent to knowledge of good and evil. This isnot so.Animals know right and wrong. One can train an animal, and give them instructions, and htey will know what bounds you set for them.THus, Animals can and do know the difference between right and wrong.Animals however lakc a moral concinece.
They do not know good and evil.
These are not the same thing.
ZAROVE wrote:
God then finds out, which shouldn't come as a surprise since you've read this story before and God is all-knowing (I guess he was testing himself).
THis is the sort of shaklow mokery that prevents me form seeing this as a serious attemot at anything.
No, it raises a rather serious question: why would God knowingly do this if he knows what's going to happen?
Foreknowledge is not equel to predestinaiton. God knows because God can see the future.However, as with many isuses, their are alternate theological points, none of which you iwll consider as you will, I am araid, simply seek the answerwhich suits you best in mokcign the tiopic you choose to attack.
IE, Open theism would argue that God doesnt know everything.Likewise, one cna say their where many equelly valid, equelly true alternate futures. Or else, God, after creation, saw the future, but did not direct it, leavign man his free will.
I doubt you will take the time to undertsand any of these though, as you want to retain the problem...
Why does a perfect God do anything?
Why not?
He knows the outcome, he knows everything. It must be truly a bore for him.
Now you presume a lenir, and for he most part human, outlook, and are, of couse, lookign at it form a limited, and poitnless, perspective.Ill explain it, in another thread, abou this topic, if you like.
ZAROVE wrote:
Gid essened the punishment and they didnt die.Seems fair tome.
One more time: They only knew they had done wrong AFTER they had eaten from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil.
No they didn't. They where fully aware of God's admonition agaisnt eatign fo the fruit beforehand, and fully undertsood that they where not to. As recorded int eh same conversaiton between Eve and the Serpent. Eve was awae that it was wrong.
They did not know the knowledge of good and evil BEFORE eating from the tree. It's really that simple.
And again, the difference between "Good and Evil" and "Right and wrong" are nto conidered. Soemone can know somehtign is wrong and still not be aware of the nature of evil.
ZAROVE wrote:
Party's over. God, for reasons unknown,
The reasons aren't Unknown, and are clealry stated int he text. God gave a direct order. Do not eat form this one, spacific tree.They did so.THe punishment was Death. Yt God showed mercy and didnt kill them.
Another time: They only knew they had done wrong AFTER they had eaten from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil. They did not know the knowledge of good and evil BEFORE eating from the tree. It's really that simple.
Another time. Not knowing the difference between Good and evil does not mean they wher eignorant of the difference betwen right and wrong.
They are not the same thing.
ZAROVE wrote:
But the reaosns ar eplain and evident to anyone readign the text.
Yet another time: They only knew they had done wrong AFTER they had eaten from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil. They did not know the knowledge of good and evil BEFORE eating from the tree. It's really that simple.
And again, the knowledge of Good and Evil was not nessisary. They did know right and wrong, and undertsood Gods commandments.They did not knwo ti was evil to act agaisnt htem, but did know it was wrong.
ZAROVE wrote:
gets uptight about Adam and Eve living forever if they ever eat from the tree of knowledge.
I like how so many who are critical of the text tepresent the sin as "Gettign knowledge". They didnt eat of the tree of Knoweldge.They ate of the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil. Their is a Distinction.
Yes, the distinction is that they didn't know BEFORE eating from that tree that it was an evil act. Only eating from the tree gave them that knowledge.
But its still not "The Tree of Knowledge".
ZAROVE wrote:
Genesis 3:22-24 NIV
God: "The man has now become like one of us, knowing good and evil. He must not be allowed to reach out his hand and take also from the tree of life and eat, and live forever."
So the LORD God banished him from the Garden of Eden. After he drove the man out, he placed on the east side of the Garden of Eden cherubim and a flaming sword flashing back and forth to guard the way to the tree of life.
True. But this is fitting.
For the umpteenth time: They only knew they had done wrong AFTER they had eaten from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil.
THis is not true, and the part you fail to understand. They knew, and expressed that they knew, that the act was wrong. Reading Genesis CHapter 3, Eve tells the Serpent that God told them not to eat of the tree. She was aware of the restirction.She knew right and wrong. She simply did not understand the nature of good and evil. These are nto truely the same things.
They did not know the knowledge of good and evil BEFORE eating from the tree. It's really that simple.
No one said they did.But they did know right and wrong, a more basic, and more readily evident and less philosophical, point.
ZAROVE wrote:
1. God allows the evil serpent to live in his garden.
WHich is a problem why? Keep in midn that you woudl have him kil the Serpent.But the Serpent, until he tempted Eve, was not evil.
No. The serpent was the "most crafty" creature, aka created by God. Ergo, the serpent was evil from the get go and knew what was doing was wrong. Crafty implies such.
Most Bibles do not use the word "Crafty", and relince on the NIV is not nessisarily a good hting. IE, the KJV uses the term "SUbtle". Others use the term "Intellegent: or "Knoweldgeble".
Likewise, crafty does not imply evil, and many good prsons are nonetheless described as Crafty.
No one said "The Seprent was evil formt he get go', and in fac thtis is not possible.Nothign is evil form the get go.Evil is not an active property, and is wholly contengent upon ones behaviours and htoughts, and is the product of will.
Evil is, after all, nothign but spoiled good.
ZAROVE wrote:
The Serpent was merley a Serpent.Evil itsself is simply doing that which is not good or right, and has no objective existance.It is confined ot actiosn and thoughts. Nothign is in itsself evil, in fact.
All this beign said, the Seprent, along with Adam and Eve, had free will to make such a determination.
And God had the free will to plant the "most crafty" of creatures in the garden fully knowing how it would turn out.
Again, this is a far mofe invovled topic, Ill discuss it, if you are truely iopen for the discusion.I doub you are both form the blog entry, and from youyr current relies.
But I will if asked. An if promised you will address such points.
ZAROVE wrote:
And it seems your perfectly fine wiht the idea that the Swprent cna be killed before comittign any sins, and yet you complain about hte Egyptian firstborn who, for all you kmow, woudl have gorown up and commited the same crimes or worse on the Hebrew slaves?
One more time: the serpent was the "most crafty" of the creatures.
Which does nto imply "Most evil of creatures."
Beign intllegent is not a warrnt of death.
ZAROVE wrote:
Based on foreknowledge of the Seprents actiosn, God shoudl have killed the Seprnt, which still may not have roevented Mankinds fall, and may have lead ot a worse situation.
Yes, a loving God would not allow "most crafty" criminal access to innocents who did not at the time know the difference between good and evil.
At this point its clar you simply want to bolster your arguments. You dotn care abotu anythign but proving how bad God is.
Again, crafty is not the same as evil, and again, God allows testign to happen to improve our soul.
ZAROVE wrote:
Yt soemhow Killing the Egyptian firtsborn as wrong because you, personally dotn know what they woudl have done in the future and presume that this makes htme innocnent?
Were the children "crafty" from the start?
Soem may have been.Crafty just means intellegent, after all.
ZAROVE wrote:
It seems your judgement is absed on your own limited view and youmake no attmeot whatsoever of seeing it form Gods perspective.
God's perspective is to let a crafty creature roam in his perfect creation.
Which is a problem why?
ZAROVE wrote:
2.God does not want Adam and Eve to know the difference between good and evil.
Actulaly thats an oversimplification as well. The Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil, mistakenlyu seen as a tree of basic knowledge overall, was rooted in guilt and shame. Soemthign they coudl eaisly have lived without was the personal, direct knowledge of guilt and shame.
Oh, does this appear anywhere in the Bible?
Read Genesis chapter three, again.Its basically right their.
You correct me for noting that Satan was made synonymous with the serpent, but is your interpretation anywhere in the Bible? No, I don't think so: you're just making it up.
I'm not.My intepetationsi also roote dint he Proverbs, and in he books such as Sirach.
ZAROVE wrote:
3.God plants the temptation himself, neglects to tell Adam and Eve about the serpent (who is "more crafty than any of the wild animals"), knows the outcome, yet he permits the situation to unfold. In the justice system, this is called a set up or entrapment.
1: Why warn them of the Serpent?
The same reason you'd want to be warned if a rapist was on the loose.
Except the seprent is not a rpist, and agin, you arent relaly lookign at why they where created on earht in the firts palce.If the purpose was to test the souls of the created beings, and to have him expeirnce such things, then a arnign woudl be superfluous.
ZAROVE wrote:
2: The Genesis creaiton accoutn isnt 100% consise, and he may have told themn of the Serpent.
Yeah and he could have baked them a nice cake too. It still doesn't explain how people without the knowledge of good and evil can be held responsible for not doing the difference between good and evil.
They aren't. They are beign held responcible for disonbeyign God when they knew they where disobeying God.
This is what you do not undertsand.
ZAROVE wrote:
3: The Justice system where? You judge another culture by th standards of the modern westenr world?
Yeah, what tough standards: don't blame people for something they cannot possible know.
Thats not the definition fo Entrapment though.Likewise, he didnt punish them for what they coudn't posisbley know.He had told them, and hty had understood.
ZAROVE wrote:
4: Its not veen entrapment by the US Justice departments definition. To entail entrapment one has to prove that the party invovled, in this case God, direclty lead them to partake of the fruit after prohibiting it. Foreknowledge of an event that will transpir is not identical to responcibility for it. Its not entrapment because God didnt make it happen. (Again, knowing it will happen is not identical to making it happen.)
God planted the tree, created the humans as little toys and pets, and then allowed the crafty serpent to take it to them. That's entrapment, sorry.
No its not.Entrapment woudl mean that God personally and direclty lad them tothe plant, and made them take of it. Or else, that he personally todl the serpent to manipulat ehtme into it.
In order for it to be Entrapment, it woudl have to be direclty Gods fualt. As in, God wanted it to happen and took steps to make it happen.
Likewise, you still arent considering what I said about why we liv eint he firts place.
ZAROVE wrote:
4.God is threatened by the notion that Adam and Eve could live forever if they eat from the tree of life.
No he's not.Nor will you find this in the text.
"He must not be allowed to reach out his hand and take also from the tree of life and eat, and live forever." Seems like paranoia to me.
What it seems liek to you is not really relevant, though.You cannot prove that Gid was threatened by anything.
ZAROVE wrote:
5.Worst of all: Adam and Eve know that they have done something evil only after eating from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil. When God commands Adam not eat from the tree, he simply does not have the capacity to understand the command as he is given the faculty to discern the difference between good and evil only after eating from the tree of knowledge.
This isnt true either. Adam and Eve had the capacity to udnerstand Gods simple commandment "DO not do this", just as my cats know the rule sof my house. What they lacked was the ability to discern good and evil, not right and wrong, which is a more basic concept.
Good and evil ARE right and wrong!
Yes and no. Good and evil are a more advanced awareness of right and wrong, and are far more aware o the ramifications and of the effectiveness, and o the natures, of these things.But right and wrong are basic constructs evey livign crerature needs to be able to live.IE, to tell himself ot drink ater as it si "Right" because the creature needs to live. Or when to play with other animals, and what behaviours the social animals will and will not accept.
Right and wrong are, as I said, far moe basic.
Good and Evil deal in the Metaphysical and philosophical realm of justice, and accountability. Right and wrogn merely deal in rpactical, everyday matters.
What is good is right, what is right is good; what is wrong is evil, what is evil is wrong. It's SIMPLE definitions, Metacrock.
I'm not metacrock. And by the way, your oversimplyfiing again.
ZAROVE wrote:
1.Why does God allow the serpent to roam free in the Garden of Eden? Why doesn't he tell Adam and Eve about the serpent?
The erpent had as much a right to life as anyone else, and you cannot punish sins until they are commited. And you do not really know what God told them of the Seprent.
Is plotting to kill the president a crime? Does it only become a crime after the assassin pulls the gun?
At the same time, the Serpent was not guilty of anu crime right off.
ZAROVE wrote:
2.Why does God not want Adam and Eve to know the knowledge of good and evil in the first place? Does God want Adam and Eve to be ignorant robots?
Because the Knowledge of good and evil is a moral concience that allows a sence of guilt, shame, and reproach and lends itsself tot he culpability in acts that ar enot right.
This text appears in Genesis _:_?
It appears in the form of the bookof Ecclesiastes and several mentisn in Proverbs.It also appears in the realm of Philosophy, and how peopel have always understood the distinction betweenright and worng, and good and evil. Its harldy liek I announced the Bible as self-contianed.
ZAROVE wrote:
And again, not knowing the fdifference between good and evil is not the same thign as not understanign right and wrong. Likewise, one cna lack a moral concience and still have free will. Animals lack moral concience, and yt ar enot mindless robots.
Are you saying animals know the difference between right and wrong, but don't know the difference between good and evil?
Yes.
ZAROVE wrote:
3.What does God go through with this exercise despite the fact that he already knows the outcome? Is he testing his omniscience?
For the benifit of the created beings.In this case mankind and the serpent. Besides, no oen ever said everyhtign in tiem was static and their wa sonly one outcome possible.
The benefit? Man suffers from this! If he had never been created it would have been less suffering.
Yet man form this also learned, and has ne challenges.You are simply looking at htis life, and its woes, and not the soul.We live to improve our soil, and learn virtues.
Keep this in mind.
ZAROVE wrote:
4.Why does God feel threatened that Adam and Eve could live forever if they eat from the tree of life?
He didnt.Nor does the text say he did.This is presumption on your part.
Um, no: "He must not be allowed to reach out his hand and take also from the tree of life and eat, and live forever." Why not?
THi still dosnt say "And God felt threatened by them knowing Good and Evil".
And simple. TO perpetually live in he state they where in would be a disaster.
ZAROVE wrote:
5.Most importantly: How are Adam and Eve supposed to know what is good and what is evil if they have not eaten from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil?
They wheren't, this is the point. But they coudl still know right and wrong.
Your distinction between good/evil and right/wrong is incoherent.
No its not.
Can you find anything written by anyone that makes this difference?
Yes.Not right now, as Im in a hurry. But Ill post it later.
Or is this some ad hoc, thrown together explanation? I'd love to look at it.
You again make callous presumptions.
ZAROVE wrote:
Note that God originally does not forbid Adam and Eve from eating from the tree of life. So why does an all-knowing God fear Adam and Eve's immortality only after they have been banished from the garden?
Can you demonstate that he's afriad?
"He must not be allowed to reach out his hand and take also from the tree of life and eat, and live forever." It sounds like its out of some low-budget movie.
Thsi seems to be you projectign on the text. It's not the same hting as actual evidence though, as the eference doe snot say " And God was afraid".
Metacrock, weren't you banned from this site?
I'm not Metacrock. Nor even a TExan. I'm from England and grew up in Tennessee.
Confused wrote:Well argued. You seem to see my dilemma.
Unfortunately, I don't!
Confused wrote:Can we know the nature? If one does exist, we can't know anything because the method He has chosen to educate His flawed creation is apparently just as flawed.
Well, I don't think you could have a god that wants to connect using a flawed method... or at the very best you have a god that's not really worthwhile discussing.
Confused wrote:The rebuttal you will hear will be that we, being such an imperfect sinning creation, can't possibly understand God because we are so inherently sinful that His goodness can't be comprehended by us.
Yeah, I do hear that. The problem is that such extreme skepticism is not an argument for Christianity! It could be an argument for bewildered agnosticism (if not taken to such extremes) or nihilism, etc. One thing is certain: "We can't know anything, therefore God could be, therefore God is, therefore follow God or go to Hell" doesn't seem to be something that's even remotely persuasive in the apologist arsenal.
Confused wrote:I will take a stab in the dark here and give a very general answer to your overall OP: God doesn't punish innocent people because all man is born sinful. Because of this clause, it would appear that He isn't punnishing anyone innocent.
Yeah, original sin. I love it. You're doomed to be sinful... because of what other people did... but you're still 100% responsible. Christianity's quite the roller coaster.
Confused wrote:You seem to see my dilemma. Can we know the nature? If one does exist, we can't know anything because the method He has chosen to educate His flawed creation is apparently just as flawed.
How so? The Bible give us plenty of information about the nature of God.
What standard do you use to judge whether or not that information is reliable?
Easyrider wrote:And since his final work is a heaven where good people will live happily ever after, then how are you to fault that?
What does one do for an eternity? That sounds like Hell quite frankly.
ZAROVE wrote:What is the pinnacle of creation if not man according to the Christian?
No Pennacle of creation is ever mentioned int he Scriptures.Therefore, I am under no real obligation to say what such a pennacle woudl be.
So humans are not the pinnacle? If so, does that make us on the level of earthworms? Please explain.
ZAROVE wrote:The definition of flawed is imperfect.
No, the definition fo flawed is contianign error.Their is a distinction.
Dictionary.com: "flawed: characterized by flaws; having imperfections:"
(You can contact them to correct the definition using their contact page.)
ZAROVE wrote:The definition of perfect is without flaws.
That woudl make it circular.And you are mistaken.The definiton of "Perfect" is twofold.
1: To be complete unto onesself.
2: To be free from fault.
I'm sure it's fun to make up your own definitions, but the dictionary says this: "perfect: entirely without any flaws, defects, or shortcomings:"
Note: I am not going to argue with you about simple definitions. I am not a lawyer, Bill Clinton, or someone who has that much time on his hands.
ZAROVE wrote:Is there a middle ground I'm unfamiliar with here?
It seems the definition is unfamiliar with you. However, you did not address my main point. Man need not have been created flawed, to nonetheless sin.
A serial rapist is not flawed just because he has a predisposition to raping people. Right!
ZAROVE wrote:Again, the Eastern Orthodox beleif is that Adam and Eve where mde able to develop and grow. Then where given the task to develop into somehting ontheir own, guide dby God,and with the goal of ultimate reunification with God in the proccess of deification.
But if God made them in such a way so they wouldn't be able to do "bad" things then there wouldn't NEED to be any sort of process, etc.
ZAROVE wrote:Accordign to Mormon beleif, Adam and Eve where children fo God, who need to grow and develop into their full potential. Thus they where sent to mortality in an immature state to develop.
Yes, so God created them in an immature state. You just said it right there.
ZAROVE wrote:If, for instance, mankind was created prior to this life, and given a mortal life to learn valuable lessons of love, charity, hope, and valur, by givign them limits and confines they mist work aroudn or accept, then the whole purpose of plantign the tree of the Knowlege of Good and Evil in the garden becomes much more evident as simply part of this proccess.
And you're getting all this information about alternate universes from what?
ZAROVE wrote:Listed throuhout the Bible,and other mystical texts.
Why should I take anything the Bible or other mystical texts say at face value?
ZAROVE wrote:How does this change a single thing?
It does show shoddy reasoning.It also shos Satan didnt tempt Adam or Eve.
One more time: this changes anything crucial in the story because ___________.
ZAROVE wrote:THis still doesnt address the problem. Should somehtign be punished for their intentions before they commit a crime, or only after they commit a crime? The Serpent was punished, recall, later, afte r he had commited his act. But it woudl be unjust to punish anyhting before the act is given.
Only if attempted murder and attempted anything else is not a crime. There's a difference between thought crime and attempting a crime. The serpent was not just thinking about it. And God knows whether or not something is just a thought or actual has anything behind it. He's omniscient!
ZAROVE wrote:The Serpent has free agency just as man does, and is not to be punished for mere intention, but for actual deeds.
But God knows whether or not a thought will become an actual deed. So why didn't God take the serpent out of the picture beforehand?
ZAROVE wrote:But is it rllay that simple? You presume all knowledge of rigt and wrong is equivolent to knowledge of good and evil. This isnot so.
Is this something you just made up? The dictionary is once again rather clear on this:
right: in accordance with what is good, proper, or just
wrong: that which is wrong, or not in accordance with morality, goodness, or truth; evil
There is absolutely no difference between the two pairings: right/wrong and evil/ is the same. You're just completely pulling this from thin air.
ZAROVE wrote:IE, Open theism would argue that God doesnt know everything.
Then he's not exactly worthy of the title?
ZAROVE wrote:Likewise, one cna say their where many equelly valid, equelly true alternate futures. Or else, God, after creation, saw the future, but did not direct it, leavign man his free will.
That's a possibility. Unfortunately, it's in the same realm as teacups orbiting Pluto. What could be is not what is.
ZAROVE wrote:I doubt you will take the time to undertsand any of these though, as you want to retain the problem...
We can think of plenty of alternate theologies to take away contradictions from and to rationalize Bronze Age myths written by a war-mongering people justifying their savagery. Unfortunately, just because you can think of some scenario under which genocide is okay does not make it true or worthy of consideration.
ZAROVE wrote:
Now you presume a lenir, and for he most part human, outlook, and are, of couse, lookign at it form a limited, and poitnless, perspective.Ill explain it, in another thread, abou this topic, if you like.
No need to. Just read the Divine Exceptionalism part of my site where this nonsensical excuse is given objections: http://www.mereatheism.com/#divine
ZAROVE wrote:And again, the difference between "Good and Evil" and "Right and wrong" are nto conidered. Soemone can know somehtign is wrong and still not be aware of the nature of evil.
You just MADE UP the difference between right/wrong and good/evil. You're making up an ad hoc excuse.
ZAROVE wrote: Most Bibles do not use the word "Crafty", and relince on the NIV is not nessisarily a good hting. IE, the KJV uses the term "SUbtle". Others use the term "Intellegent: or "Knoweldgeble".
Subtle means: cunning, wily, or crafty in that context. Please use a dictionary.
Other words still imply an imbalance between the humans and the snake.
cunning, wily, or craftyLikewise, crafty does not imply evil, and many good prsons are nonetheless described as Crafty.[/quote]
NO! Use a dictionary!
crafty: skillful in underhand or evil schemes; cunning; deceitful; sly.
ZAROVE wrote:Which does nto imply "Most evil of creatures."
Only if you use a dictionary.
ZAROVE wrote:Soem may have been.Crafty just means intellegent, after all.
No, it doesn't. Stop making stuff up. This is really ridiculous.
ZAROVE wrote:Read Genesis chapter three, again.Its basically right their.
Nope! I want chapter and verse number for where it says anything about guilt and shame. The words and good and evil. There's nothing about guilt and shame. You're simply making it up as you go.
ZAROVE wrote:I'm not.My intepetationsi also roote dint he Proverbs, and in he books such as Sirach.
Chapter and verse number as it relates to the tree being shame and guilt. Thanks!
ZAROVE wrote:Except the seprent is not a rpist, and agin, you arent relaly lookign at why they where created on earht in the firts palce.If the purpose was to test the souls of the created beings, and to have him expeirnce such things, then a arnign woudl be superfluous.
To test souls? Why would God want to do that?
ZAROVE wrote:I'm not Metacrock. Nor even a TExan. I'm from England and grew up in Tennessee.
The essay then proceeds to list three clear cut cases in the Bible in which God is acting in an unfair way that seems to contradict the claim that God is love. Namely, the essay profiles the plague of the firstborn in Egypt, entrapment in Garden of Eden, and the destruction of Midian. The site also establishes a psychological profile for God, debunks common Christian responses, and explains the different possible alternatives to the god of the Bible.
I am sure that by now someone would have pointed out that such people who were punished were not innocent. Personally I have been constantly doubting that there is such a thing as innocence. You'd have to prove to me first that there is such a thing, if you'll pardon my callousness.
I would also like to add that whether God punishes someone or not doesn't stop him from being a loving God. The Egyptians enslaved his people, and he got darn well angry enough to set out several plagues against them. That is because he cared. If a person claims to be loving yet doesn't get angry or punish people who harm those you care about, how can that really be loving? Sometimes it's right to be violent I'm afraid. Sometimes it's the lesser evil.
'Belief is never giving up.'- Random footy adverisement.
Sometimes even a wise man is wrong. Sometimes even a fool is right.
I am sure that by now someone would have pointed out that such people who were punished were not innocent. Personally I have been constantly doubting that there is such a thing as innocence. You'd have to prove to me first that there is such a thing, if you'll pardon my callousness.
I would also like to add that whether God punishes someone or not doesn't stop him from being a loving God. The Egyptians enslaved his people, and he got darn well angry enough to set out several plagues against them. That is because he cared. If a person claims to be loving yet doesn't get angry or punish people who harm those you care about, how can that really be loving? Sometimes it's right to be violent I'm afraid. Sometimes it's the lesser evil.
This is a strikingly scary theodicy. Exactly what harm did any infants of the OT do to "God's people" that made them worthy of a death sentence from God? You say you're skeptical of innocence; so what were the crimes of babies and mothers who did nothing to the Jews? Is it really your argument that they were born deserving to be punished? Really? Original Sin? REALLY??? The reason they died is simple... they weren't Jews. The Jews of the OT suffered from a severely dualistic way of looking at the world, and coming out of a cruel exile, needed to reestablish themselves as a powerful nation.
People were either Jews or not, good or bad, chosen or damned. This us/them out/in mentality is how the religious organize their conceptions of reality, mentally and functionally. This is especially the case of adherents to monotheistic religions. This is also why it's so easy for so many to justify any and all actions of their tyrannical supernatural creator being, God. Using rampant circular logic firmly supported on a foundation of self-delusion, people justify rape, murder, pillage, sacrifice, slavery etc. as God's divine will.
Further, you argue that God punished the Egyptians because he cared for "his people." Where was his care when they were taken into bondage in the first place? Was it a test? Is God so uncaring of humanity that he would impose such a test? (Think Akedah) Would a loving God allow the continual abuse and neglect of humans to prove a point? Ok, so God's concerns are out of our purview. How convenient... this must be the case or else we'd have to actually struggle with the plethora of contradictions in the Bible, and thus of our faith. Or, ok, we don't have the capacity to judge God as evil being lowly mortals.... then how do we know God is good?? Though we can't impose a standard of good/evil that tells of if God is evil, we can certainly tell that God is good. What kind of sense does this make? How can this be justified?
Sometimes it's right to be violent? Sometimes it's the lesser evil? Lesser evil than what? Violence is the most base of human actions. Religious violence is so sad because it is needless and could be prevented if humanity would somehow grow up. Christians for the most part do not believe in Santa, or Zeus and the other Greek Gods. They do not believe in Krishna, or that Thor will smite them with his hammer. Most Christians realize these beliefs are ridiculous and can be dangerous to the rest of society. In this respect they know what it's like to be an atheist. And yet, when faced with the reality that their beliefs are just as ridiculous and possibly dangerous for the rest of society, they, using circular logic like those of other religions, justify these beliefs on the basis of faith in the truth of their message from their God.
Sorry for the rant...
Men at ease have contempt for misfortune
as the fate of those whose feet are slipping.
scorpia wrote:
I would also like to add that whether God punishes someone or not doesn't stop him from being a loving God. The Egyptians enslaved his people, and he got darn well angry enough to set out several plagues against them. That is because he cared. If a person claims to be loving yet doesn't get angry or punish people who harm those you care about, how can that really be loving? Sometimes it's right to be violent I'm afraid. Sometimes it's the lesser evil.
So if you hurt my son and get really angry to show my anger I killed your children instead of killing you. You would see that as me being loving. COME ON you people kill me at least make some effort to have you arguments be sensible.
The loving God loved his creation so much that we arent even really into the bible before he is killing all of his creation. Upset that he had even created them. This alone shows a lack of caring seeing that he created them knowing that he would regret creating them.
He created them knowing that in a few hundred years he would be so upset with them that he would kill them all. The Christian GOd sounds mad. Why created thousands of people knowing that in a few years you are going to drown them.
That would be like having a baby knowing I am going to kill it. And could he think of a worst death DROWNING dag. Why didnt he just blink them out of existence? Wouldnt that have been more HUMANE?
Or does GOD like to watch people suffer, watch babies drown and what the hell did the animals do...lol ?
scorpia wrote:
I am sure that by now someone would have pointed out that such people who were punished were not innocent. Personally I have been constantly doubting that there is such a thing as innocence. You'd have to prove to me first that there is such a thing, if you'll pardon my callousness.
Yes callousness the Christian way. Callousness must mean loving right? Because are Christians supposed to be loving as well?
But let look at the definitions for some of these words people just keep throwing around.
Dictionary.com wrote:
in-no-cent adjective
1. free from moral wrong; without sin; pure: innocent children.
2. free from legal or specific wrong; guiltless: innocent of the crime.
3. not involving evil intent or motive: an innocent misrepresentation.
4. not causing physical or moral injury; harmless: innocent fun.
5. devoid (usually fol. by of): a law innocent of merit.
6. having or showing the simplicity or naivet of an unworldly person; guileless; ingenuous.
7. uninformed or unaware; ignorant.
noun 8. an innocent person.
9. a young child.
10. a guileless person.
11. a simpleton or idiot
Well the firsat thing I notice is that an inocent is defined as a young child, innocent children draws my eyes.
But I know a Christian debater will automatically go to "without sin" and say that we all are sinner, the whole Original Sin Doctrine. But then lets define sin.
According to the bible sin is the transgression of the law.
John 3:4 wrote:
1 John 3:4
Whosoever committeth sin transgresseth also the law: for sin is the transgression of the law.
If sin is the transgression of the law then tell me how does a baby or young child transgress the law? Unless just being Born qualifies as breaking hte law. Even then that wouldn't be somethng the child has control over. And last I saw be fruitful and multiple was one of the laws YOU ARE SUPPOSED TO KEEP.
Also where Does God Layout this Original Sin Doctrine I keep hearing about and for goodness sakes you think He would have told Adam and Eve that them eating that Damn Apple would result in the mass murders of the grand children to be, not once twice but many times over.
Further more we see that the bible says that children will be punished for the sins of their fathers not their own sin. Yet in another verse its says that children will not die for the sins of their fathers, but EVERY MAN MUST DIE FOR THEIR OWN SINS.
bible wrote:
Exodus 34:7
Keeping mercy for thousands, forgiving iniquity and transgression and sin, and that will by no means clear the guilty; visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children, and upon the children's children, unto the third and to the fourth generation.
Third and Fourth generations these children havent even been born yet and already will be paying the price for their great great grandaddy's so called sins.
Bible wrote:
Ezekiel 18:20
The soul that sinneth, it shall die. The son shall not bear the iniquity of the father, neither shall the father bear the iniquity of the son: the righteousness of the righteous shall be upon him, and the wickedness of the wicked shall be upon him.
Tell God to make up his mind. And Christians always ask where do you get your judgements or reasoning for whats evil or good right or wrong. Well there you are most of the same judgements are right in the bible. This later quote says it is wrong to punish children for the sins of their fathers. PERIOD
But Then GOD is above his OWN determinations on right and wrong. Right?
RELIGION IS A PRISON FOR THE SEEKERS OF WISDOM Simplicity is Profundity Simply put if you cant prove it, you cant reasonably be mad at me for not believing it
scorpia wrote:I am sure that by now someone would have pointed out that such people who were punished were not innocent. Personally I have been constantly doubting that there is such a thing as innocence. You'd have to prove to me first that there is such a thing, if you'll pardon my callousness.
"You got mad yesterday, therefore I have a right to kill you today." Can you explain to me how that one works out?
scorpia wrote:I would also like to add that whether God punishes someone or not doesn't stop him from being a loving God. The Egyptians enslaved his people,
No, the Egyptian children did not enslave anyone. You are plain wrong. Children are not capable of enslaving any group of people.
scorpia wrote:and he got darn well angry enough to set out several plagues against them. That is because he cared. If a person claims to be loving yet doesn't get angry or punish people who harm those you care about, how can that really be loving?
Once again, the Egyptian children had absolutely nothing to do with harming anyone.
scorpia wrote:Sometimes it's right to be violent I'm afraid. Sometimes it's the lesser evil.
So not killing children is a worse evil than killing children? Did you read the site, btw?
scorpia wrote:I would also like to add that whether God punishes someone or not doesn't stop him from being a loving God.
This sounds not that much different from most abusers' rationalizations.
In July 1209, the crusaders surrounded the town of Bziers and demanded that the Cathars be handed over; the demand was refused. Although Bziers is believed to have held no more than 500 Cathars, the whole population was slaughtered. According to the Cistercian writer Caesar of Heisterbach, one of the leaders of the Crusader army, the Papal legate Arnaud-Amaury, was asked by a Crusader how they might distinguish the Cathars, their enemies, from other citizens. He answered: "Kill them all! Surely the Lord discerns which ones are his." Contemporary sources give estimates of the number of dead that range between seven and nearly twenty thousand. [sarcasm]Certainly the lesser of two evils.[/sarcasm]
scorpia wrote:The Egyptians enslaved his people, and he got darn well angry enough to set out several plagues against them. That is because he cared.
He cared perhaps about the children of Israel. There is no evidence in the text that He cared about the Egyptians. At this phase of the development of the idea of God, YHWH is a tribal god of a nomadic people. He even hardened Pharaoh's heart, in order that He could show how powerful He was. In no stretch of the imagination, can this attitude be considered love towards the Egyptians.
Examine everything carefully; hold fast to that which is good. First Epistle to the Church of the Thessalonians The truth will make you free. Gospel of John
