Why don't the faithful hold God morally accountable?
Joker
Veteran
Joined: 19 Mar 2011
Age: 36
Gender: Male
Posts: 7,593
Location: North Carolina The Tar Heel State :)
13 Apr 2012, 1:50 pm
Rocky wrote:
Ragtime wrote:
Rocky wrote:
ruveyn wrote:
Rocky wrote:
If the faithful are the ones who believe that the Bible is literally true, they might not want to risk criticizing the biggest mass murderer in known history.
Criticism might also be mistaken for disbelief, which according to the New Testament, leads to an eternity of torture in Hell. I may have some of the details wrong, since it was quite some time ago that I read that book.
Criticism might also be mistaken for disbelief, which according to the New Testament, leads to an eternity of torture in Hell. I may have some of the details wrong, since it was quite some time ago that I read that book.
Poor Job attempted to criticize God and he got a tongue lashing.
ruveyn
If the god of the Bible treated a good man like Job the way he did, the faithful have one more reason not to push their luck. I agree.
How utterly unsurprising that you'd both end the story while Job is at his worst condition, rather than alluding to how things turned out:
From Job 42:
Quote:
10 After Job had prayed for his friends, the LORD restored his fortunes and gave him twice as much as he had before.
11 All his brothers and sisters and everyone who had known him before came and ate with him in his house. They comforted and consoled him over all the trouble the LORD had brought on him, and each one gave him a piece of silver and a gold ring.
12 The LORD blessed the latter part of Job’s life more than the former part. He had fourteen thousand sheep, six thousand camels, a thousand yoke of oxen and a thousand donkeys.
13 And he also had seven sons and three daughters.
14 The first daughter he named Jemimah, the second Keziah and the third Keren-Happuch.
15 Nowhere in all the land were there found women as beautiful as Job’s daughters, and their father granted them an inheritance along with their brothers.
16 After this, Job lived a hundred and forty years; he saw his children and their children to the fourth generation.
17 And so Job died, an old man and full of years.
11 All his brothers and sisters and everyone who had known him before came and ate with him in his house. They comforted and consoled him over all the trouble the LORD had brought on him, and each one gave him a piece of silver and a gold ring.
12 The LORD blessed the latter part of Job’s life more than the former part. He had fourteen thousand sheep, six thousand camels, a thousand yoke of oxen and a thousand donkeys.
13 And he also had seven sons and three daughters.
14 The first daughter he named Jemimah, the second Keziah and the third Keren-Happuch.
15 Nowhere in all the land were there found women as beautiful as Job’s daughters, and their father granted them an inheritance along with their brothers.
16 After this, Job lived a hundred and forty years; he saw his children and their children to the fourth generation.
17 And so Job died, an old man and full of years.
Wow, God sure is cruel.
I was referring to what he was put through before that. I would say the same about Abraham and Issac. How traumatic would it be to know that your father would be willing to kill you, even after the point that he didn't. If this invisible god changes his mind, Issac would still have been in danger of his life.
The old testement isn't very mainstream for most christians you will find that many of us disagree with things in the bible. We are not all one in the same.
13 Apr 2012, 1:56 pm
Joker wrote:
Rocky wrote:
Ragtime wrote:
Rocky wrote:
ruveyn wrote:
Rocky wrote:
If the faithful are the ones who believe that the Bible is literally true, they might not want to risk criticizing the biggest mass murderer in known history.
Criticism might also be mistaken for disbelief, which according to the New Testament, leads to an eternity of torture in Hell. I may have some of the details wrong, since it was quite some time ago that I read that book.
Criticism might also be mistaken for disbelief, which according to the New Testament, leads to an eternity of torture in Hell. I may have some of the details wrong, since it was quite some time ago that I read that book.
Poor Job attempted to criticize God and he got a tongue lashing.
ruveyn
If the god of the Bible treated a good man like Job the way he did, the faithful have one more reason not to push their luck. I agree.
How utterly unsurprising that you'd both end the story while Job is at his worst condition, rather than alluding to how things turned out:
From Job 42:
Quote:
10 After Job had prayed for his friends, the LORD restored his fortunes and gave him twice as much as he had before.
11 All his brothers and sisters and everyone who had known him before came and ate with him in his house. They comforted and consoled him over all the trouble the LORD had brought on him, and each one gave him a piece of silver and a gold ring.
12 The LORD blessed the latter part of Job’s life more than the former part. He had fourteen thousand sheep, six thousand camels, a thousand yoke of oxen and a thousand donkeys.
13 And he also had seven sons and three daughters.
14 The first daughter he named Jemimah, the second Keziah and the third Keren-Happuch.
15 Nowhere in all the land were there found women as beautiful as Job’s daughters, and their father granted them an inheritance along with their brothers.
16 After this, Job lived a hundred and forty years; he saw his children and their children to the fourth generation.
17 And so Job died, an old man and full of years.
11 All his brothers and sisters and everyone who had known him before came and ate with him in his house. They comforted and consoled him over all the trouble the LORD had brought on him, and each one gave him a piece of silver and a gold ring.
12 The LORD blessed the latter part of Job’s life more than the former part. He had fourteen thousand sheep, six thousand camels, a thousand yoke of oxen and a thousand donkeys.
13 And he also had seven sons and three daughters.
14 The first daughter he named Jemimah, the second Keziah and the third Keren-Happuch.
15 Nowhere in all the land were there found women as beautiful as Job’s daughters, and their father granted them an inheritance along with their brothers.
16 After this, Job lived a hundred and forty years; he saw his children and their children to the fourth generation.
17 And so Job died, an old man and full of years.
Wow, God sure is cruel.
I was referring to what he was put through before that. I would say the same about Abraham and Issac. How traumatic would it be to know that your father would be willing to kill you, even after the point that he didn't. If this invisible god changes his mind, Issac would still have been in danger of his life.
The old testement isn't very mainstream for most christians you will find that many of us disagree with things in the bible. We are not all one in the same.
Sweetleaf says we are. He believes all Christians, no matter how diverse, share the same fundamental flaws in their beliefs.
_________________
Christianity is different than Judaism only in people's minds -- not in the Bible.
Joker
Veteran
Joined: 19 Mar 2011
Age: 36
Gender: Male
Posts: 7,593
Location: North Carolina The Tar Heel State :)
13 Apr 2012, 1:58 pm
Ragtime wrote:
Joker wrote:
Rocky wrote:
Ragtime wrote:
Rocky wrote:
ruveyn wrote:
Rocky wrote:
If the faithful are the ones who believe that the Bible is literally true, they might not want to risk criticizing the biggest mass murderer in known history.
Criticism might also be mistaken for disbelief, which according to the New Testament, leads to an eternity of torture in Hell. I may have some of the details wrong, since it was quite some time ago that I read that book.
Criticism might also be mistaken for disbelief, which according to the New Testament, leads to an eternity of torture in Hell. I may have some of the details wrong, since it was quite some time ago that I read that book.
Poor Job attempted to criticize God and he got a tongue lashing.
ruveyn
If the god of the Bible treated a good man like Job the way he did, the faithful have one more reason not to push their luck. I agree.
How utterly unsurprising that you'd both end the story while Job is at his worst condition, rather than alluding to how things turned out:
From Job 42:
Quote:
10 After Job had prayed for his friends, the LORD restored his fortunes and gave him twice as much as he had before.
11 All his brothers and sisters and everyone who had known him before came and ate with him in his house. They comforted and consoled him over all the trouble the LORD had brought on him, and each one gave him a piece of silver and a gold ring.
12 The LORD blessed the latter part of Job’s life more than the former part. He had fourteen thousand sheep, six thousand camels, a thousand yoke of oxen and a thousand donkeys.
13 And he also had seven sons and three daughters.
14 The first daughter he named Jemimah, the second Keziah and the third Keren-Happuch.
15 Nowhere in all the land were there found women as beautiful as Job’s daughters, and their father granted them an inheritance along with their brothers.
16 After this, Job lived a hundred and forty years; he saw his children and their children to the fourth generation.
17 And so Job died, an old man and full of years.
11 All his brothers and sisters and everyone who had known him before came and ate with him in his house. They comforted and consoled him over all the trouble the LORD had brought on him, and each one gave him a piece of silver and a gold ring.
12 The LORD blessed the latter part of Job’s life more than the former part. He had fourteen thousand sheep, six thousand camels, a thousand yoke of oxen and a thousand donkeys.
13 And he also had seven sons and three daughters.
14 The first daughter he named Jemimah, the second Keziah and the third Keren-Happuch.
15 Nowhere in all the land were there found women as beautiful as Job’s daughters, and their father granted them an inheritance along with their brothers.
16 After this, Job lived a hundred and forty years; he saw his children and their children to the fourth generation.
17 And so Job died, an old man and full of years.
Wow, God sure is cruel.
I was referring to what he was put through before that. I would say the same about Abraham and Issac. How traumatic would it be to know that your father would be willing to kill you, even after the point that he didn't. If this invisible god changes his mind, Issac would still have been in danger of his life.
The old testement isn't very mainstream for most christians you will find that many of us disagree with things in the bible. We are not all one in the same.
Sweetleaf says we are. He believes all Christians, no matter how diverse, share the same fundamental flaws in their beliefs.
And that is a very common belief if indeed it was true you and I would be dressed the same way Jesus and his apostles did this how ever isn't true.
13 Apr 2012, 1:59 pm
Joker wrote:
Rocky wrote:
Ragtime wrote:
Rocky wrote:
ruveyn wrote:
Rocky wrote:
If the faithful are the ones who believe that the Bible is literally true, they might not want to risk criticizing the biggest mass murderer in known history.
Criticism might also be mistaken for disbelief, which according to the New Testament, leads to an eternity of torture in Hell. I may have some of the details wrong, since it was quite some time ago that I read that book.
Criticism might also be mistaken for disbelief, which according to the New Testament, leads to an eternity of torture in Hell. I may have some of the details wrong, since it was quite some time ago that I read that book.
Poor Job attempted to criticize God and he got a tongue lashing.
ruveyn
If the god of the Bible treated a good man like Job the way he did, the faithful have one more reason not to push their luck. I agree.
How utterly unsurprising that you'd both end the story while Job is at his worst condition, rather than alluding to how things turned out:
From Job 42:
Quote:
10 After Job had prayed for his friends, the LORD restored his fortunes and gave him twice as much as he had before.
11 All his brothers and sisters and everyone who had known him before came and ate with him in his house. They comforted and consoled him over all the trouble the LORD had brought on him, and each one gave him a piece of silver and a gold ring.
12 The LORD blessed the latter part of Job’s life more than the former part. He had fourteen thousand sheep, six thousand camels, a thousand yoke of oxen and a thousand donkeys.
13 And he also had seven sons and three daughters.
14 The first daughter he named Jemimah, the second Keziah and the third Keren-Happuch.
15 Nowhere in all the land were there found women as beautiful as Job’s daughters, and their father granted them an inheritance along with their brothers.
16 After this, Job lived a hundred and forty years; he saw his children and their children to the fourth generation.
17 And so Job died, an old man and full of years.
11 All his brothers and sisters and everyone who had known him before came and ate with him in his house. They comforted and consoled him over all the trouble the LORD had brought on him, and each one gave him a piece of silver and a gold ring.
12 The LORD blessed the latter part of Job’s life more than the former part. He had fourteen thousand sheep, six thousand camels, a thousand yoke of oxen and a thousand donkeys.
13 And he also had seven sons and three daughters.
14 The first daughter he named Jemimah, the second Keziah and the third Keren-Happuch.
15 Nowhere in all the land were there found women as beautiful as Job’s daughters, and their father granted them an inheritance along with their brothers.
16 After this, Job lived a hundred and forty years; he saw his children and their children to the fourth generation.
17 And so Job died, an old man and full of years.
Wow, God sure is cruel.
I was referring to what he was put through before that. I would say the same about Abraham and Issac. How traumatic would it be to know that your father would be willing to kill you, even after the point that he didn't. If this invisible god changes his mind, Issac would still have been in danger of his life.
The old testement isn't very mainstream for most christians you will find that many of us disagree with things in the bible. We are not all one in the same.
Doesn't the New Testament teach that if you can't make yourself believe in Jesus' divinity and the god of the Bible that you will be tortured forever in Hell? George Orwell might have been thinking about this situation when he wrote about "Room 101" in his novel "1984."
13 Apr 2012, 1:59 pm
Ragtime wrote:
Joker wrote:
The old testement isn't very mainstream for most christians you will find that many of us disagree with things in the bible. We are not all one in the same.
Sweetleaf says we are. He believes all Christians, no matter how diverse, share the same fundamental flaws in their beliefs.
So, do you have to lump her in with the unworthy?
Joker
Veteran
Joined: 19 Mar 2011
Age: 36
Gender: Male
Posts: 7,593
Location: North Carolina The Tar Heel State :)
13 Apr 2012, 2:02 pm
Rocky wrote:
Joker wrote:
Rocky wrote:
Ragtime wrote:
Rocky wrote:
ruveyn wrote:
Rocky wrote:
If the faithful are the ones who believe that the Bible is literally true, they might not want to risk criticizing the biggest mass murderer in known history.
Criticism might also be mistaken for disbelief, which according to the New Testament, leads to an eternity of torture in Hell. I may have some of the details wrong, since it was quite some time ago that I read that book.
Criticism might also be mistaken for disbelief, which according to the New Testament, leads to an eternity of torture in Hell. I may have some of the details wrong, since it was quite some time ago that I read that book.
Poor Job attempted to criticize God and he got a tongue lashing.
ruveyn
If the god of the Bible treated a good man like Job the way he did, the faithful have one more reason not to push their luck. I agree.
How utterly unsurprising that you'd both end the story while Job is at his worst condition, rather than alluding to how things turned out:
From Job 42:
Quote:
10 After Job had prayed for his friends, the LORD restored his fortunes and gave him twice as much as he had before.
11 All his brothers and sisters and everyone who had known him before came and ate with him in his house. They comforted and consoled him over all the trouble the LORD had brought on him, and each one gave him a piece of silver and a gold ring.
12 The LORD blessed the latter part of Job’s life more than the former part. He had fourteen thousand sheep, six thousand camels, a thousand yoke of oxen and a thousand donkeys.
13 And he also had seven sons and three daughters.
14 The first daughter he named Jemimah, the second Keziah and the third Keren-Happuch.
15 Nowhere in all the land were there found women as beautiful as Job’s daughters, and their father granted them an inheritance along with their brothers.
16 After this, Job lived a hundred and forty years; he saw his children and their children to the fourth generation.
17 And so Job died, an old man and full of years.
11 All his brothers and sisters and everyone who had known him before came and ate with him in his house. They comforted and consoled him over all the trouble the LORD had brought on him, and each one gave him a piece of silver and a gold ring.
12 The LORD blessed the latter part of Job’s life more than the former part. He had fourteen thousand sheep, six thousand camels, a thousand yoke of oxen and a thousand donkeys.
13 And he also had seven sons and three daughters.
14 The first daughter he named Jemimah, the second Keziah and the third Keren-Happuch.
15 Nowhere in all the land were there found women as beautiful as Job’s daughters, and their father granted them an inheritance along with their brothers.
16 After this, Job lived a hundred and forty years; he saw his children and their children to the fourth generation.
17 And so Job died, an old man and full of years.
Wow, God sure is cruel.
I was referring to what he was put through before that. I would say the same about Abraham and Issac. How traumatic would it be to know that your father would be willing to kill you, even after the point that he didn't. If this invisible god changes his mind, Issac would still have been in danger of his life.
The old testement isn't very mainstream for most christians you will find that many of us disagree with things in the bible. We are not all one in the same.
Doesn't the New Testament teach that if you can't make yourself believe in Jesus' divinity and the god of the Bible that you will be tortured forever in Hell? George Orwell might have been thinking about this situation when he wrote about "Room 101" in his novel "1984."
While we do believe such things as I have stated we are not all one in the same. For example not all us of agree with the trinity some do I how ever put more importance on the New Testement then I do the Old Testement which I view as historical but I do not follow such laws I am not a fundie either.
Joker
Veteran
Joined: 19 Mar 2011
Age: 36
Gender: Male
Posts: 7,593
Location: North Carolina The Tar Heel State :)
13 Apr 2012, 2:03 pm
shrox wrote:
Ragtime wrote:
Joker wrote:
The old testement isn't very mainstream for most christians you will find that many of us disagree with things in the bible. We are not all one in the same.
Sweetleaf says we are. He believes all Christians, no matter how diverse, share the same fundamental flaws in their beliefs.
So, do you have to lump her in with the unworthy?
I didn't lump her at all.
13 Apr 2012, 2:04 pm
Joker wrote:
shrox wrote:
Ragtime wrote:
Joker wrote:
The old testement isn't very mainstream for most christians you will find that many of us disagree with things in the bible. We are not all one in the same.
Sweetleaf says we are. He believes all Christians, no matter how diverse, share the same fundamental flaws in their beliefs.
So, do you have to lump her in with the unworthy?
I didn't lump her at all.
Ragtime. I really say names, but geez man, give the girl some room to think.
Joker
Veteran
Joined: 19 Mar 2011
Age: 36
Gender: Male
Posts: 7,593
Location: North Carolina The Tar Heel State :)
Gravechylde
Pileated woodpecker
Joined: 17 Mar 2012
Age: 37
Gender: Male
Posts: 196
Location: Funeralopolis
13 Apr 2012, 2:14 pm
Ragtime wrote:
Gravechylde wrote:
Well, for one, who has said that they don't have any problems with satan?
Lots. I even posted a poll on here several years ago, and more people voted for Satan than for God.
I guess I can't speak for others, or for an old thread I haven't seen, but almost every time I have seen someone "root for satan" it's generally not meant literally. Even in the Black Metal community, which as far as I know has the most satanic related beliefs. They use the term satan figuratively, not literally.
Ragtime wrote:
Gravechylde wrote:
Secondly, no one goes around trying to force satan's laws onto people who don't believe in him. No one who has any political/social merits at least.
Hahaha, you'd be surprised how subtle, accepted, and "normal" some of Satan's laws are. Infanticide is one of them, and people willingly practice it in this country by the tens of millions. Child sacrifice was commonly practiced by pagans in the ancient world, and today the gods to which the children are sacrificed are just a bit different: convenience, money, and selfishness. Adultery is another of Satan's laws, and it is comparably popular. Lying is of course ubiquitous. Stealing, murder, you get the idea. And yes, people are coerced into all of these by other people every single day in America alone.
I don't know about you, but I've never heard someone with any sort of social/political merit come out and say:
"Infants/people should be killed in the name of satan"
"Go out and cheat on your spouse because satan said so"
"Lie all the time because satan wants you to"
"Stealing is okay because our lord satan allows it"
(and no I am not referring to tribes that worship "false idols")
I also wasn't aware that pagan automatically meant "satan worshipper"
Yes, people do these things, BUT they do not do them in the name of Satan, or in praise of him. Yes, satan may encourage these actions but he is not associated with these actions by any of the criminals that commit them (yes, i know there are exceptions). And even the people who do these crimes (other than sociopaths/psycopaths) knew that they were wrong to commit the crime, but did it anyway. Which I guess you could say is satan's doing, but how could that truly be known unless the criminal says that is why he/she did it?
_________________
I speak with a whisper and feel with a shout
13 Apr 2012, 2:27 pm
Lord_Gareth wrote:
No, really. It sounds like a simple question, doesn't it? One that might admit an easy answer? But it doesn't. The best one I've gotten was from our very own Shrox, who (to paraphrase) said, "He came down to Earth to let us kill Him - sounds like moral accountability to me," (a note to Shrox and others: I'm paraphrasing because I'm too lazy to hunt for the exact quote in the archives. My apologies, and I'll hunt it down if you would like me to).
The essential question is this: why is God considered just, moral, and/or merciful when many of his supposed teachings, commandments and actions are unjust (eternal punishments for finite transgressions, slaughter in response to relatively small provocation, commanding his followers to murder gentiles in order to steal and/or rape their women), unmerciful (creation of suffering in response to original sin, death/hell in general) or just straight up immoral (go ahead, check out the OT's policies on rape. No, go on. I will wait while you read)? Starting from a standpoint that God exists and actually Does Stuff with His great omnipotence, why is it that those who choose to believe in Him fail to hold Him morally accountable for His own actions? Aside from Shrox's (rather refreshing) answer, the only one I've ever gotten boils down to, "Well, He works in mysterious ways," which sounds to me like a cop-out method of avoiding thought on one's own theology. Can anyone give me an answer on this? Anyone at all?
The essential question is this: why is God considered just, moral, and/or merciful when many of his supposed teachings, commandments and actions are unjust (eternal punishments for finite transgressions, slaughter in response to relatively small provocation, commanding his followers to murder gentiles in order to steal and/or rape their women), unmerciful (creation of suffering in response to original sin, death/hell in general) or just straight up immoral (go ahead, check out the OT's policies on rape. No, go on. I will wait while you read)? Starting from a standpoint that God exists and actually Does Stuff with His great omnipotence, why is it that those who choose to believe in Him fail to hold Him morally accountable for His own actions? Aside from Shrox's (rather refreshing) answer, the only one I've ever gotten boils down to, "Well, He works in mysterious ways," which sounds to me like a cop-out method of avoiding thought on one's own theology. Can anyone give me an answer on this? Anyone at all?
Great questions. Let's address them one by one:
1. His commandments and actions are unjust? Well, let's get after those few examples-
It is common among Evangelicals, but the typical Christian understanding of hell is that God doesn't actively punish people in hell. Moreover, hell is not necessarily like Dante Alghieri described it, you know: fire and brimstone (if you didn't know, brimstone has sulfur in it, so it smells like someone passed gas). Without being saved, we are incompatible with God's presence. The worse we were in life, the harder we run, you could say. This is because of the shame. You could say that we hold ourselves accountable.
As for the other two examples there, if you would cite some scriptures, I would certainly enjoy going over them for you. I've heard such claims before, but this isn't my usual fare.
2. Unmerciful? Well, your examples don't necessarily represent all Christians. Original sin is a belief held to by the older order churches, such as the Catholic Church, and I would contend heavily on scholarly grounds that that idea is not present in the scriptures. I've already addressed heaven/hell/death a little bit.
3. The OT policy on rape, that I am assuming you have referred to, is from the Law, in Deuteronomy, where it is said that rapists would be required to marry their victims? That policy was actually made in favor of the victim, it being a law that is typically understood better by people familiar with Semitic culture and history. God, knowing that it would be difficult for the victim to find a suitable bachelor, after being raped, took into account that during those times you counted your wealth in people.
In America, we live in a limitless goods society. Instead of bartering goods, we trade using currency, and do so with the confidence that we will get what we just paid for, and that the products we buy aren't going to run out any time soon. Go back to the ancient Near East, and you are entering a limited goods society. They couldn't go to the supermarket and get some produce. They weren't at all confident that the goods they had would always be there. In fact, life could be quite harsh. When you don't have an abundance of goods and when you can't just easily access those goods, you count your wealth in people. The more people you have, the more people there are who are pooling their resources towards your household.
That is why the book of Ruth truly is a look at pure destitution. They were women without sons or husbands, unable to provide for themselves.
So, God willed it that the rapist would take responsibility for his actions and take on the burden of providing for his victim. He would be pulled into a new family without a choice, now owing his existence to their hospitality. He wronged them, and he threatened their daughter's future, so now it is up to him to make good and work for them for the rest of his life. Of course, this isn't the only dynamic involved. This is simply the punishment doled out by the Law (while the family must be royally pissed, too). Displacement from one's family, responsibility for one's victim, and being in a dishonorable position in this new household, are just a few elements of the punishment.
4. Why do I hold not hold Him morally accountable? Because I believe He is God, and thus I submit to His authority. However, I also feel that He is a moral exemplar, who has in fact been very good to us.
Here are some of my views in light of the material here-
God made several concessionary Laws. He was working with people from a not so civil Near Eastern environment. He could not simply command them to think and act using post Enlightenment ideals. He had to work with them from where they were at, which is why we see the Law happening as a progress throughout the OT, changing according to the needs of the people. The Law was a historical process, not an absolute legal code.
_________________
There is no wealth like knowledge, no poverty like ignorance.
Nahj ul-Balāgha by Ali bin Abu-Talib
Last edited by Lukecash12 on 13 Apr 2012, 2:32 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Joker
Veteran
Joined: 19 Mar 2011
Age: 36
Gender: Male
Posts: 7,593
Location: North Carolina The Tar Heel State :)
13 Apr 2012, 2:30 pm
Lukecash12 wrote:
Lord_Gareth wrote:
No, really. It sounds like a simple question, doesn't it? One that might admit an easy answer? But it doesn't. The best one I've gotten was from our very own Shrox, who (to paraphrase) said, "He came down to Earth to let us kill Him - sounds like moral accountability to me," (a note to Shrox and others: I'm paraphrasing because I'm too lazy to hunt for the exact quote in the archives. My apologies, and I'll hunt it down if you would like me to).
The essential question is this: why is God considered just, moral, and/or merciful when many of his supposed teachings, commandments and actions are unjust (eternal punishments for finite transgressions, slaughter in response to relatively small provocation, commanding his followers to murder gentiles in order to steal and/or rape their women), unmerciful (creation of suffering in response to original sin, death/hell in general) or just straight up immoral (go ahead, check out the OT's policies on rape. No, go on. I will wait while you read)? Starting from a standpoint that God exists and actually Does Stuff with His great omnipotence, why is it that those who choose to believe in Him fail to hold Him morally accountable for His own actions? Aside from Shrox's (rather refreshing) answer, the only one I've ever gotten boils down to, "Well, He works in mysterious ways," which sounds to me like a cop-out method of avoiding thought on one's own theology. Can anyone give me an answer on this? Anyone at all?
The essential question is this: why is God considered just, moral, and/or merciful when many of his supposed teachings, commandments and actions are unjust (eternal punishments for finite transgressions, slaughter in response to relatively small provocation, commanding his followers to murder gentiles in order to steal and/or rape their women), unmerciful (creation of suffering in response to original sin, death/hell in general) or just straight up immoral (go ahead, check out the OT's policies on rape. No, go on. I will wait while you read)? Starting from a standpoint that God exists and actually Does Stuff with His great omnipotence, why is it that those who choose to believe in Him fail to hold Him morally accountable for His own actions? Aside from Shrox's (rather refreshing) answer, the only one I've ever gotten boils down to, "Well, He works in mysterious ways," which sounds to me like a cop-out method of avoiding thought on one's own theology. Can anyone give me an answer on this? Anyone at all?
Great questions. Let's address them one by one:
1. His commandments and actions are unjust? Well, let's get after those few examples-
It is common among Evangelicals, but the typical Christian understanding of hell is that God doesn't actively punish people in hell. Moreover, hell is not necessarily like Dante Alghieri described it, you know: fire and brimstone (if you didn't know, brimstone has sulfur in it, so it smells like someone passed gas). Without being saved, we are incompatible with God's presence. The worse we were in life, the harder we run, you could say. This is because of the shame. You could say that we hold ourselves accountable.
As for the other two examples there, if you would cite some scriptures, I would certainly enjoy going over them for you. I've heard such claims before, but this isn't my usual fare.
2. Unmerciful? Well, your examples don't necessarily represent all Christians. Original sin is a belief held to by the older order churches, such as the Catholic Church, and I would contend heavily on scholarly grounds that that idea is not present in the scriptures. I've already addressed heaven/hell/death a little bit.
3. The OT policy on rape, that I am assuming you have referred to, is from the Law, in Deuteronomy, where it is said that rapists would be required to marry their victims? That policy was actually made in favor of the victim, it being a law that is typically understood better by people familiar with Semitic culture and history. God, knowing that it would be difficult for the victim to find a suitable bachelor, after being raped, took into account that during those times you counted your wealth in people.
In America, we live in a limitless goods society. Instead of bartering goods, we trade using currency, and do so with the confidence that we will get what we just paid for, and that the products we buy aren't going to run out any time soon. Go back to the ancient Near East, and you are entering a limited goods society. They couldn't go to the supermarket and get some produce. They weren't at all confident that the goods they had would always be there. In fact, life could be quite harsh. When you don't have an abundance of goods and when you can't just easily access those goods, you count your wealth in people. The more people you have, the more people there are who are pooling their resources towards your household.
That is why the book of Ruth truly is a look at pure destitution. They were women without sons or husbands, unable to provide for themselves.
So, God willed it that the rapist would take responsibility for his actions and take on the burden of providing for his victim. He would be pulled into a new family without a choice, now owing his existence to their hospitality. He wronged them, and he threatened their daughter's future, so now it is up to him to make good and work for them for the rest of his life. Of course, this isn't the only dynamic involved. This is simply the punishment doled out by the Law. Displacement from one's family, responsibility for one's victim, and being in a dishonorable position in this new household, are just a few elements of the punishment.
4. Why do I hold not hold Him morally accountable? Because I believe He is God, and thus I submit to His authority. However, I also feel that He is a moral exemplar, who has in fact been very good to us.
Here are some of my views in light of the material here-
God made several concessionary Laws. He was working with people from a not so civil Near Eastern environment. He could not simply command them to think and act using post Enlightenment ideals. He had to work with them from where they were at, which is why we see the Law happening as a progress throughout the OT, changing according to the needs of the people. The Law was a historical process, not an absolute legal code.
LukeCash12 I think I am a fan of yours.
13 Apr 2012, 2:33 pm
Joker wrote:
Lukecash12 wrote:
Lord_Gareth wrote:
No, really. It sounds like a simple question, doesn't it? One that might admit an easy answer? But it doesn't. The best one I've gotten was from our very own Shrox, who (to paraphrase) said, "He came down to Earth to let us kill Him - sounds like moral accountability to me," (a note to Shrox and others: I'm paraphrasing because I'm too lazy to hunt for the exact quote in the archives. My apologies, and I'll hunt it down if you would like me to).
The essential question is this: why is God considered just, moral, and/or merciful when many of his supposed teachings, commandments and actions are unjust (eternal punishments for finite transgressions, slaughter in response to relatively small provocation, commanding his followers to murder gentiles in order to steal and/or rape their women), unmerciful (creation of suffering in response to original sin, death/hell in general) or just straight up immoral (go ahead, check out the OT's policies on rape. No, go on. I will wait while you read)? Starting from a standpoint that God exists and actually Does Stuff with His great omnipotence, why is it that those who choose to believe in Him fail to hold Him morally accountable for His own actions? Aside from Shrox's (rather refreshing) answer, the only one I've ever gotten boils down to, "Well, He works in mysterious ways," which sounds to me like a cop-out method of avoiding thought on one's own theology. Can anyone give me an answer on this? Anyone at all?
The essential question is this: why is God considered just, moral, and/or merciful when many of his supposed teachings, commandments and actions are unjust (eternal punishments for finite transgressions, slaughter in response to relatively small provocation, commanding his followers to murder gentiles in order to steal and/or rape their women), unmerciful (creation of suffering in response to original sin, death/hell in general) or just straight up immoral (go ahead, check out the OT's policies on rape. No, go on. I will wait while you read)? Starting from a standpoint that God exists and actually Does Stuff with His great omnipotence, why is it that those who choose to believe in Him fail to hold Him morally accountable for His own actions? Aside from Shrox's (rather refreshing) answer, the only one I've ever gotten boils down to, "Well, He works in mysterious ways," which sounds to me like a cop-out method of avoiding thought on one's own theology. Can anyone give me an answer on this? Anyone at all?
Great questions. Let's address them one by one:
1. His commandments and actions are unjust? Well, let's get after those few examples-
It is common among Evangelicals, but the typical Christian understanding of hell is that God doesn't actively punish people in hell. Moreover, hell is not necessarily like Dante Alghieri described it, you know: fire and brimstone (if you didn't know, brimstone has sulfur in it, so it smells like someone passed gas). Without being saved, we are incompatible with God's presence. The worse we were in life, the harder we run, you could say. This is because of the shame. You could say that we hold ourselves accountable.
As for the other two examples there, if you would cite some scriptures, I would certainly enjoy going over them for you. I've heard such claims before, but this isn't my usual fare.
2. Unmerciful? Well, your examples don't necessarily represent all Christians. Original sin is a belief held to by the older order churches, such as the Catholic Church, and I would contend heavily on scholarly grounds that that idea is not present in the scriptures. I've already addressed heaven/hell/death a little bit.
3. The OT policy on rape, that I am assuming you have referred to, is from the Law, in Deuteronomy, where it is said that rapists would be required to marry their victims? That policy was actually made in favor of the victim, it being a law that is typically understood better by people familiar with Semitic culture and history. God, knowing that it would be difficult for the victim to find a suitable bachelor, after being raped, took into account that during those times you counted your wealth in people.
In America, we live in a limitless goods society. Instead of bartering goods, we trade using currency, and do so with the confidence that we will get what we just paid for, and that the products we buy aren't going to run out any time soon. Go back to the ancient Near East, and you are entering a limited goods society. They couldn't go to the supermarket and get some produce. They weren't at all confident that the goods they had would always be there. In fact, life could be quite harsh. When you don't have an abundance of goods and when you can't just easily access those goods, you count your wealth in people. The more people you have, the more people there are who are pooling their resources towards your household.
That is why the book of Ruth truly is a look at pure destitution. They were women without sons or husbands, unable to provide for themselves.
So, God willed it that the rapist would take responsibility for his actions and take on the burden of providing for his victim. He would be pulled into a new family without a choice, now owing his existence to their hospitality. He wronged them, and he threatened their daughter's future, so now it is up to him to make good and work for them for the rest of his life. Of course, this isn't the only dynamic involved. This is simply the punishment doled out by the Law. Displacement from one's family, responsibility for one's victim, and being in a dishonorable position in this new household, are just a few elements of the punishment.
4. Why do I hold not hold Him morally accountable? Because I believe He is God, and thus I submit to His authority. However, I also feel that He is a moral exemplar, who has in fact been very good to us.
Here are some of my views in light of the material here-
God made several concessionary Laws. He was working with people from a not so civil Near Eastern environment. He could not simply command them to think and act using post Enlightenment ideals. He had to work with them from where they were at, which is why we see the Law happening as a progress throughout the OT, changing according to the needs of the people. The Law was a historical process, not an absolute legal code.
LukeCash12 I think I am a fan of yours.
Why, thank you, monsieur.
_________________
There is no wealth like knowledge, no poverty like ignorance.
Nahj ul-Balāgha by Ali bin Abu-Talib
13 Apr 2012, 2:58 pm
So lets suppose the universe had a creator.
Like the rest of universe we are his creations.
So working backwards we can surmise that this creator created us on purpose with the traits we have.
One of these traits is mortality.
Even if you live to be a 100 you still die- a victim of God's planned obsolesence.
So does that make you a "murder victim"?
We are not immortal- so does that make god the biggest mass murderer of all time?
On the other hand there would be no people for god to murder if he hadnt created them in the first place. And none would survive as long as we do without having a habitable planet created by god to live on. So even ifyou dub god the world's worse mass murderer he cant be compared to Ted Bundy or to Hitler or stalin et al.
And thats even in a religion without an afterlife.
In a religion with an after life even if god strikes you dead before your time you dont really die.
So comparing the morality of a universe-ruling diety to that of a mortal human is impossible. Its peaches and pears.
There is no violation of internal logic for a diety to be judged differently than the inhabitants of his universe.
There are plenty of possible angles of attack on religion, but this question is just plain juvenile.
13 Apr 2012, 3:03 pm
shrox wrote:
Ragtime wrote:
Joker wrote:
The old testement isn't very mainstream for most christians you will find that many of us disagree with things in the bible. We are not all one in the same.
Sweetleaf says we are. He believes all Christians, no matter how diverse, share the same fundamental flaws in their beliefs.
So, do you have to lump her in with the unworthy?
Unworthy for what? In her own words, she'd rather burn in hell than get along with God, so, in that sentiment, she (so far) lumps herself in with a certain group. It doesn't mean that's the end for her at all -- my extremely spiritual Christian friend used to have a much worse attitude toward God.
_________________
Christianity is different than Judaism only in people's minds -- not in the Bible.
