wordy

God even forced Judas? (Don't know proper english name) to "betray" Jesus. God seems to be a bad role model.

dzim77

Thanks for explaining greyline... I understand your point now.

It seems we are not still talking about the question "Did Jesus really have to die according to the Bible?" We are now talking about why you don't believe in God. (which is fine of course, but i was a bit confused )

So, basically you're saying... "the God of the Bible is evil"

My short answer to this would be...

1. God demonstrated his love and desire for people to come to Him by Christ's death on the cross, while still maintaining his justice.

2. You are accusing God of being 'evil'. What then is your standard of 'evil'? Where did this standard come from? By using the term 'evil' you are implying that you think there is a real 'evil' and a real 'good'. If there is no God, how can we even know what good and evil is? What is the standard?

To say that God is 'evil' is not logical. It is a self-defeating argument.

greyline

I agree we've strayed a little OT, but my point isn't why I don't believe in God. The reason I don't believe is because I see no evidence, but for argument's sake I'm speaking here as if God exists, and I'm pointing out the inconsistencies in his alleged nature. When we magnify up standard words that everyone understands to divine proportions, the words suddenly seem to mean the opposite.



But he created the situation where they were separated from him in the first place, so this means little. And since everything happens according to God's will, he wanted that separation to occur.



I recently had this discussion in another thread and it's been had many times here before, I'm sure. We don't need divine revelation to know what's good and evil (I prefer "right and wrong" since "evil" implies a biblical concept of sin). Humans can figure it out for themselves and have been doing so for eons. We have a biologically evolved moral compass (although we frequently ignore it). Some animals have a primitive form of this moral compass as well.

Carin Nel

Thanks, dzim77 ,
Well said. I just don't know why they even discuss the Bible, since they do not believe in it.
English is not my native language, so I'm battling to put my thoughts to words.
Regards,
Carin Nel

dzim77

Actually the words don't mean the opposite. Your definition of justice, 'the righteous administering of deserved punishment or reward.' is acurate when applied to God's justice. The punishment does fit the crime. The difference is that you are assuming sin is a small offense, so you don't see the need for eternal punishment or for divine atonement. To a holy God, sin is infinitely offensive. The definition of 'just' has not changed... you are just saying the offense is 'not that bad'. The idea that Jesus had to die on the cross also shows us that our sins are so bad that God himself had to die in order for sins to be forgiven.

Now we're getting into the paradox of God's sovereignty vs. Human choice. I have a hard time wrapping my mind around this one too. But the reality is that we make real choices that we are responsible for.

Ok, so you believe that we have a 'biologiclly evolved moral compass'. This is still something that takes faith to believe. It all starts with your belief that there is no evidence for God so he does not exist. Now you must explain why people all over the earth, in general, have similar moral principals - a sense of 'right and wrong'. So because you believe in evolution you fill in the gaps to assume that we developed a common sense of 'right and wrong' by an evolutionary process. Now, using this 'naturally evolved moral compass' you, in turn, judge God and say that He does not exist because He does not fit into your 'moral compass'. It still is ultimately a circular argument in which you have presupposed that God does not exist and arrived at the conclusion that God does not exist.

So, in truth, as far as I can tell from what you've said... the reason you don't believe in God is because you don't see the evidence for God that you require. This actually negates the 'God is evil' argument as shown my the above paragraph.

So, if you presuppose God (for the sake of pointing out his inconsistencies in the Bible), you must also presuppose that He is the standard for good and evil - as the Bible says he is. In this case, the accusation that 'God is evil' is illogical as i previously stated. On the other hand, if you presuppose God (again, for argument's sake) but you do not presuppose the HE is the standard for good and evil, then you are inconsistent and your argument does not stand... you are not disproving the God of the Bible... you are disproving some other god, who must abide by your standard of good and evil... your standard of how severely sin should be punished.

greyline

I don't know where you stand on the whole Original Sin argument, but I was taught that the sin for which we required redemption is simply inherited from Adam. So, no, God's punishment does not fit that "sin".


As above, God's punishment is for a sin we didn't commit. Adam committed it.



No, it doesn't start there at all. It starts with empirical evidence - animal studies, child development, etc. God doesn't enter into this equation at all.



Not at all! I don't "judge" God in any way - how can I judge something that doesn't exist? As I said, I don't believe in God because there's no evidence he exists (and plenty that he doesn't), not because I don't like the way he's portrayed in the Bible. If I believed as you describe, then I would believe in God - I just wouldn't like him or consider him worthy of praise.


My argument also presupposes that mankind and the moral code weren't created by invisible faeries or supernatural penguins, either. It's illogical to make an argument that assumes God exists, while discounting out of hand the assumption that faeries or invisible penguins (or an infinite number of other possibilities) exist.


As I said, I was assuming for the sake of argument that he did exist. If there was convincing evidence he existed, I would certainly believe in him. I'd even toe the line and get down on my knees in worship if I knew the alternative was roasting in hell for eternity. I'd be stupid not to - self-preservation and all that. But that wouldn't mean I thought he was good or worthy.


Well, God might not actually be the god of the bible. Or the bible might not be inspired by God - it might be lying or misinformed about the nature of God.


I see what you're saying but it doesn't resolve the inconsistencies in the bible at all, and gives us no useful information. If good and evil don't mean what we commonly use the terms to mean, then any mentions of good and evil in the bible are useless. If God acts in a "good" way that is clearly not good, then the bible should use some other word to describe it.

I also find it morally repugnant to assume some authority is "good" regardless of their actual behavior, without using our own "God-given" reasoning to figure out whether that behavior is objectively good.

dzim77

i see your points. my point was that if you take the Bible as it is, you can't use the argument that 'God is evil'. It's illogical. You have to use other means to disprove it. eh... no time to write more. see you tuesday i guess.

greyline

You're saying, I think, "whatever God does is by definition good", which works for the OT although it does mean either the bible or we humans are using "good" to mean something other than its "correct" [biblical] meaning. People weren't supposed to act like the OT God; in fact, they were explicitly not supposed to act like God ("do not murder" - even though God frequently murders). God was very much a "do as I say, not as I do" kinda guy.

But for the NT there are problems, because Christians are supposed to act like Jesus, and Jesus = God = good. The concept of "good" is intertwined with human behavior in the NT - suddenly "good" means more like its current meaning, ie. moral human behavior, rather than being defined as "whatever God does".

So which God are humans supposed to emulate?

QRUEL

That's the first thing you've said that I agree with. Too bad you could not challenge yourself to scrutinize your beliefs and be open to reason ?

Amaleq13

It is absurd to suggest the death of the fleshy form temporarily taken on by one aspect of God to have been a genuine sacrifice let alone "the greatest sacrifice known to man".