Support NeoGAF

[TaeOH]

This sort of argument is hard for a lot of people to understand. I don't just mean like "oh that's cruel" sort of thing, but I actually can't wrap my head around it.

Its hard for me to wrap my mind around it because I am always thinking of the now. God sees the eternal. The big picture can certainly be lost on us.

Essentially, a simpler version would just be "If god said it, it has to be right, end of story" - correct?

Well God is what defines good, so in a sense you are correct. But I think it would be illogical to say that God could somehow change his mind and something was once good is no longer good. Because God IS good. That is what needs to be grasped. We do not have Good without God, for good is defined by His nature.

Does that make sense?

 

[TaeOH]

Thanks, but you didn't really address my main source of confusion. I don't want to get into original sin, because I'm a skeptic on that too, but assuming as a given that I've got a death sentence on my head as you say, how exactly does punishing something else pay for my sins?

Maybe you need to expand on this, because the term sacrifice is fairly well understood. I am sure you have sacrificed for someone else at some point in your life? I hope?

 

[legend166]

No I understand the arguments about Christ abrogating the law. What I am talking about is that no Christian is in a place to denounce anything in the Bible as immoral, even if they do not believe they are held to it currently, because it was commanded by God at one point in time.

That's the key point, though. It was commanded by God at one point in time, to one group of people (the Israelites).

It was not commanded to all people, for all times. So if someone killed an apostate today, I would have absolutely no problems calling it immoral, and I believe it to be so. We are not apart of a fledgling Israelite nation. You look at all the laws in Deuteronomy, Leviticus, etc, a lot of them are in place to ensure the survival of the nation and to ensure they didn't turn to the idols of their neighbours.

 

[Slo]

We do not have Good without God, for good is defined by His nature.

Do we have evil without God?

 

[Slo]

Maybe you need to expand on this, because the term sacrifice is fairly well understood. I am sure you have sacrificed for someone else at some point in your life? I hope?

Sure, I guess I have sacrificed for other people by doing them favors, and taking less for myself. The part of sacrifice that I have trouble with is the concept of transferring punishment from one thing to another. I have kids, and while I'd literally take a bullet for each of them, I don't believe I can figuratively take a bullet for any of them in the way the Bible describes ceremonial sacrifices. If my kids commit a crime and are sentenced to jail, I can't just say "take me instead."

I just don't get that part.

 

[TaeOH]

Do we have evil without God?

We cannot have ANYTHING without God. There is a doctrine that unfortunately I am not as familiar with, that states that we exist by the active will of God. God holds everything together. So God allows even evil to exist as he allows us to exist. If he did not allow evil to exist, we would not exist.

 

[TaeOH]

Sure, I guess I have sacrificed for other people by doing them favors, and taking less for myself. The part of sacrifice that I have trouble with is the concept of transferring punishment from one thing to another. I have kids, and while I'd literally take a bullet for each of them, I don't believe I can figuratively take a bullet for any of them in the way the Bible describes ceremonial sacrifices. If my kids commit a crime and are sentenced to jail, I can't just say "take me instead."

I just don't get that part.

Really? You would not lay down your life for your child? If they were actually sorry for what they did and you knew that?

 

[Slo]

Really? You would not lay down your life for your child? If they were actually sorry for what they did and you knew that?

I don't understand what you're talking about. In my example, if I were to say "take me instead" (as I gladly would), I'd be ignored. The police would literally ignore me and arrest my kid. Because sending anyone other than the criminal to jail is not justice in anyone's eyes.

I feel like I'm not being very articulate. Sorry for that.

 

[Slo]

We cannot have ANYTHING without God. There is a doctrine that unfortunately I am not as familiar with, that states that we exist by the active will of God. God holds everything together. So God allows even evil to exist as he allows us to exist. If he did not allow evil to exist, we would not exist.

Okay, I think I understand the idea that if God did not create evil, there would be no free will. I can buy that, but at the same time it's a saddening concept that God is the root of all evil.

 

[Orayn]

We cannot have ANYTHING without God. There is a doctrine that unfortunately I am not as familiar with, that states that we exist by the active will of God. God holds everything together. So God allows even evil to exist as he allows us to exist. If he did not allow evil to exist, we would not exist.

So those "gravity," "atomic bonding" and "strong nuclear force" affairs were just goofs? Okay.

 

[OttomanScribe]

That's the key point, though. It was commanded by God at one point in time, to one group of people (the Israelites).

It was not commanded to all people, for all times. So if someone killed an apostate today, I would have absolutely no problems calling it immoral, and I believe it to be so. We are not apart of a fledgling Israelite nation. You look at all the laws in Deuteronomy, Leviticus, etc, a lot of them are in place to ensure the survival of the nation and to ensure they didn't turn to the idols of their neighbours.

So you are saying that it is immoral. Even though God commanded to do it? Or it was only moral when God commanded it, but it was not generally moral? So God is inconsistant? :S

It is commanded in the bible how can you call something commanded in the Bible immoral?

 

[TaeOH]

I don't understand what you're talking about. In my example, if I were to say "take me instead" (as I gladly would), I'd be ignored. The police would literally ignore me and arrest my kid. Because sending anyone other than the criminal to jail is not justice in anyone's eyes.

I feel like I'm not being very articulate. Sorry for that.

But you would, if you had the choice. God has the choice and if you, an imperfect creature can express love this way, I would think God could even more so.

 

[TaeOH]

So those "gravity," "atomic bonding" and "strong nuclear force" affairs were just goofs? Okay.

Why would you say that?

 

[TaeOH]

So you are saying that it is immoral. Even though God commanded to do it? Or it was only moral when God commanded it, but it was not generally moral? So God is inconsistant? :S

It is commanded in the bible how can you call something commanded in the Bible immoral?

Now you are just baiting because I am pretty sure you don't even believe that.

 

[OttomanScribe]

Now you are just baiting because I am pretty sure you don't even believe that.

Don't believe what?

 

[legend166]

So you are saying that it is immoral. Even though God commanded to do it? Or it was only moral when God commanded it, but it was not generally moral? So God is inconsistant? :S

It is commanded in the bible how can you call something commanded in the Bible immoral?

God commanded Abraham to sacrifice his son Issac.

Does that mean God commanded all people to sacrifice their sons?

 

[TaeOH]

Don't believe what?

You are purposely creating a false dilemma.

 

[Slo]

But you would, if you had the choice. God has the choice and if you, an imperfect creature can express love this way, I would think God could even more so.

You're dodging my point.

Of course God has the choice to forgive my sins or not, that doesn't change the fact that the method makes absolutely no sense. In this case, God is the judge, jury, executioner, and executionee. That would be like me grounding my son as a punishment, but then I instead ground myself as a sacrifice. Would my son's sins be absolved if I didn't watch TV for a week?

 

[OttomanScribe]

God commanded Abraham to sacrifice his son Issac.

Does that mean God commanded all people to sacrifice their sons?

That is not the question. The question is whether you can describe something that God commanded as being 'immoral'. I understand that God used the command of the sacrifice to show how deep Abraham (alayhis salaam)'s faith was, and what faith was. He did not need to go through with it.

However if I understand it correctly, this was a command (death for apostasy) that was not cancelled before it could be upholded.

 

[OttomanScribe]

You are purposely creating a false dilemma.

It seems pretty clear. One cannot describe something done or commanded by God as 'immoral' for that is holding God to the ideas of humans right?

 

[Orayn]

Why would you say that?

Because you more or less explicitly stated that the continued existence of all things hinged on some vague God-force. That's not exactly a trivial claim.

 

[TaeOH]

You're dodging my point.

Of course God has the choice to forgive my sins or not, that doesn't change the fact that the method makes absolutely no sense. In this case, God is the judge, jury, executioner, and executionee. That would be like me grounding my son as a punishment, but then I instead ground myself as a sacrifice. Would my son's sins be absolved if I didn't watch TV for a week?

So your problem is with the penalty? Or with the solution? They go hand in hand.

How would you have handled the problem of sin?


And I am not trying to dodge anything. I am chatting on a message board.

 

[TaeOH]

Because you more or less explicitly stated that all of those hinged on some vaguely referenced God-force?

I did state that there is a doctrine that everything exists by the will of God. That does not explain HOW it exists, that is why we need science.

 

[JGS]

That is not the question. The question is whether you can describe something that God commanded as being 'immoral'. I understand that God used the command of the sacrifice to show how deep Abraham (alayhis salaam)'s faith was, and what faith was. He did not need to go through with it.

Of course you can. In fact it was done as early as Genesis, but occurs throughout the Bible. Like so much about human thought, it was an incorrect view. That's the point.

It's human nature to question stuff especially if it means a detriment to us. This has nothing to do with whether God is right about a matter. The example you gave is a perfect example of looking at things in hindsight despite having all the clues in front of you. If you knew that verse, you should have know the verses surrounding.

Back on point to make sure the question is answered: God does not forbid us from questioning his actions.

 

[TaeOH]

It seems pretty clear. One cannot describe something done or commanded by God as 'immoral' for that is holding God to the ideas of humans right?

But who described anything in the Bible as immoral? You seem to be the one claiming that.

...
Well based on the above post, maybe I do not understand the conversation. Forgive me for butting in.

 

[TaeOH]

Okay, I think I understand the idea that if God did not create evil, there would be no free will. I can buy that, but at the same time it's a saddening concept that God is the root of all evil.

God did not create evil. He created creatures capable of evil. The fact that he let us keep our existence is an expression of his loving nature.

 

[OttomanScribe]

Of course you can. In fact it was done as early as Genesis, but occurs throughout the Bible. Like so much about human thought, it was an incorrect view. That's the point.

It's human nature to question stuff especially if it means a detriment to us. This has nothing to do with whether God is right about a matter. The example you gave is a perfect example of looking at things in hindsight despite having all the clues in front of you. If you knew that verse, you should have know the verses surrounding.

Back on point to make sure the question is answered: God does not forbid us from questioning his actions.

I am kind of confused, does the fact that God does not forbid us from questioning his actions mean that we can say that God made an immoral command and be correct in that assertion? God is always right, at least that is what I believe. God is rightness itself.

We can question Him, but we are wrong in thinking that our questioning is right.

But who described anything in the Bible as immoral? You seem to be the one claiming that.

That's the key point, though. It was commanded by God at one point in time, to one group of people (the Israelites).

It was not commanded to all people, for all times. So if someone killed an apostate today, I would have absolutely no problems calling it immoral, and I believe it to be so. We are not apart of a fledgling Israelite nation. You look at all the laws in Deuteronomy, Leviticus, etc, a lot of them are in place to ensure the survival of the nation and to ensure they didn't turn to the idols of their neighbours.

 

[Slo]

So your problem is with the penalty? Or with the solution? They go hand in hand.

Both, actually, but right now we're just talking about the solution part.

How would you have handled the problem of sin?

Me? Well as a parent (but not quite a God) I regularly have to chose between punishing my kids to teach them a lesson and hopefully change their behavior, or just flat out forgiving them if I decide it's not worth punishing. The whole "I'm going to punish you, unless you kill a goat, then you're forgiven" concept really makes no sense to me. I'd love for someone to explain it to me in simple terms, because I am actually open to changing my mind.

And I am not trying to dodge anything. I am chatting on a message board.

Fantastic! Out of curiosity, does God's method make sense to you?

 

[TaeOH]

Quoted a bunch of stuff

Yes I see. Carry on. I disagree with them as I believe if God commanded something, it makes it moral in that situation. It does not make it and objective moral law that we are obligated to follow today as it has not been commanded of us.

 

[Slo]

God did not create evil. He created creatures capable of evil. The fact that he let us keep our existence is an expression of his loving nature.

I'm pretty sure you're just trolling me now. There was no evil until God created creatures capable of it, but God did not create evil? I'm not sure what to say to that.

 

[Count Dookkake]

God did not create evil. He created creatures capable of evil. The fact that he let us keep our existence is an expression of his loving nature.

I didn't create the wreckage, I just built the bomb.

 

[OttomanScribe]

Yes I see. Carry on. I disagree with them as I believe if God commanded something, it makes it moral in that situation. It does not make it and objective moral law that we are obligated to follow today as it has not been commanded of us.

This is not so much about whether or not you are obligated to follow it or not, but whether or not you would be in a position to condemn someone else for doing it today on the basis that it was objectively immoral, as opposed that it was against the current law or whatever.

 

[TaeOH]

I'm pretty sure you're just trolling me now. There was no evil until God created creatures capable of it, but God did not create evil? I'm not sure what to say to that.

How am I trolling you? The definition of evil is rebellion against God, it is not a thing to be created.

 

[TaeOH]

This is not so much about whether or not you are obligated to follow it or not, but whether or not you would be in a position to condemn someone else for doing it today on the basis that it was objectively immoral, as opposed that it was against the current law or whatever.

But these are not objective moral commands that you are posting. The law was given to Israel for a purpose and that purpose was fulfilled in Christ.

 

[TaeOH]

I didn't create the wreckage, I just built the bomb.

So you going to explain yourself or do you just wish to be snarky, and therefore ignored.

 

[JGS]

I am kind of confused, does the fact that God does not forbid us from questioning his actions mean that we can say that God made an immoral command? God is always right, at least that is what I believe. God is rightness itself.

We can say anything we want. it doesn't make it the correct answer nor does it make it matter. Whether you accept that worship of God is a life or death decision means absolutely nothing since you don't control the rules.

Human nature means we question things we either don't understand or don't agree with. What the heck does that have to do with God's actions? Nada.

This would hold true even if God was some kind of cruel tyrannical ruler which he's not. He simply cares more for people that care about him than he does about ones who don't like him. Sounds fair especially when you consider the majority of people that have never worshipped him have lived normal, mundane lives before they croaked- even in Bible times. What's immoral about that exactly?

The nice thing about Scripture is it is almost always plainly clear why an action, even one we may perceive as "immoral" is not so- especially when it involves people who agreed to the terms.

 

[Slo]

How am I trolling you? The definition of evil is rebellion against God, it is not a thing to be created.

That's not the definition in my dictionary.

In the beginning there was only God. Now evil exists. Therefore, God created evil. I'm not even saying that he wasn't justified in doing it, just saying that he did it.

 

[Count Dookkake]

So you going to explain yourself or do you just wish to be snarky, and therefore ignored.

I'm not omniscient.

If you have a question, ask it.

Feel free to ignore me if you have a penchant for crying.

 

[OttomanScribe]

We can say anything we want. it doesn't make it the correct answer nor does it make it matter. Whether you accept that worship of God is a life or death decision means absolutely nothing since you don't control the rules.

Human nature means we question things we either don't understand or don't agree with. What the heck does that have to do with God's actions? Nada.

This would hold true even if God was some kind of cruel tyrannical ruler which he's not. He simply cares more for people that care about him than he does about ones who don't like him. Sounds fair especially when you consider the majority of people that have never worshipped him have lived normal, mundane lives before they croaked- even in Bible times. What's immoral about that exactly?

The nice thing about Scripture is it is almost always plainly clear why an action, even one we may perceive as "immoral" is not so- especially when it involves people who agreed to the terms.

I am still confused about the point you are making in relation to my question about the whole death for apostasy thing :S

 

[JGS]

That's not the definition in my dictionary.

In the beginning there was only God. Now evil exists. Therefore, God created evil. I'm not even saying that he wasn't justified in doing it, just saying that he did it.

This is incorrect since evil existing involved far more than God's existence.

It's also incorrect unless you view the lack of standards as the only thing to combat evil.

I am still confused about the point you are making in relation to my question about the whole death for apostasy thing :S

I don't recall ever involving myself in the death of apostasy thing.

The question I was answering was far more generic than something that specific.

EDIT: NVM, I read it wrong. It's death FOR apostasy.

My response answers that, but I'll get more specific.

 

[TaeOH]

I'm not omniscient.

If you have a question, ask it.

Feel free to ignore me if you have a penchant for crying.

I missed your post about Mary. She was still a virgin as no cherry popped, so no cuckold.

 

[Count Dookkake]

I missed your post about Mary. She was still a virgin as no cherry popped, so no cuckold.

No, Joseph was a cuckold. He raised another man's kid, that was conceived during his marriage. Virginity (lost, restored, etc) doesn't matter. He still raised the cuckoo's egg.

 

[OttomanScribe]

I don't recall ever involving myself in the death of apostasy thing.

The question I was answering was far more generic than something that specific.

EDIT: NVM, I read it wrong. It's death FOR apostasy.

My response answers that, but I'll get more specific.

That is what we are discussing. Whether or not a Christian should be denouncing death as a punishment for apostasy on the grounds of it being immoral, as it was something commanded by God.

 

[TaeOH]

That's not the definition in my dictionary.

In the beginning there was only God. Now evil exists. Therefore, God created evil. I'm not even saying that he wasn't justified in doing it, just saying that he did it.

Well I really do not know how to respond to that logic because I do not understand it. Sorry. Evil is rebellion against God. Yes, if he chose not to create creatures with free will then there would be no evil. But then there would also be no us and you are complaining about that?

 

[TaeOH]

No, Joseph was a cuckold. He raised another man's kid, that was conceived during his marriage. Virginity (lost, restored, etc) doesn't matter. He still raised the cuckoo's egg.

She was not unfaithful so you are not making any sense.

 

[soul creator]

Well I really do not know how to respond to that logic because I do not understand it. Sorry. Evil is rebellion against God. Yes, if he chose not to create creatures with free will then there would be no evil. But then there would also be no us and you are complaining about that?

Q: Is there a heaven?

 

[Count Dookkake]

She was not unfaithful so you are not making any sense.

Yeah, she was.

Replace God with any other dude, keep everything else the same.

 

[JGS]

Is it permissable for Christians to denounce anything commanded in the Old Testament?

I'm thinking about this:

This scripture fleshes out the 1st Commandment agreed to by God's nation.

The very first law mandating worship to God only. If some idiot then decided to worship some other god, then it was God's right as the rule setter to kill them for false worship. Again, anyone who was stupid enough to do that did indeed deserve death or should have just stayed in Egypt where false gods were plenty.

There was also a common sense to this because if one's family started practicing false worship, it often led to others practicing it rather than a shunning. Considering at the time that God was the ruler of this nation, it was tantamount to treason. Considering that plenty of countries condemn traitors to death, God's law on it is not even remotely unusual.

So again, why on Earth would a Christian feel the need to denounce something that not only was God's right, but made moral sense for the benefit of the entire nation? IT IS A MORAL THING TO ENSURE GOD'S SOVREIGNTY IS UPHELD.

Now if you told me this law was based on ones who were devout followers of God and they got struck by lightening for nothing, you may have a more valid point. As it stands, you don't unless you were the one that wanted to go worship Ba'al. This is where it goes back to human nature contradictory what is truly right.

Christians do not have a physical nation to concern ourselves with so it's never a real issue to consider with Christian Doctrine. All we have to do give the boot to the causing a ruckus and he gets to do what he wants. If someone comes along and starts killing people in the name of God, we should logicaly condemn it since that's not our place and it waould indeed be an immoral act.

 

[TaeOH]

That is what we are discussing. Whether or not a Christian should be denouncing death as a punishment for apostasy on the grounds of it being immoral, as it was something commanded by God.

Yes we can denounce it as it is not commanded of us today. So it falls under the objective moral law and considered murder. The passage in the old testament are commands for Israel and were for the purpose keeping them separate or holy. While we can judge what we see as murder today as immoral(which is what I think the others may be saying), they are made moral in that circumstance by God's direct command.

 

[OttomanScribe]

This scripture fleshes out the 1st Commandment agreed to by God's nation.

The very first law mandating worship to God only. If some idiot then decided to worship some other god, then it was God's right as the rule setter to kill them for false worship. Again, anyone who was stupid enough to do that did indeed deserve death or should have just stayed in Egypt where false gods were plenty.

There was also a common sense to this because if one's family started practicing false worship, it often led to others practicing it rather than a shunning. Considering at the time that God was the ruler of this nation, it was tantamount to treason. Considering that plenty of countries condemn traitors to death, God's law on it is not even remotely unusual.

So again, why on Earth would a Christian feel the need to denounce something that not only was God's right, but made moral sense for the benefit of the entire nation? IT IS A MORAL THING TO ENSURE GOD'S SOVREIGNTY IS UPHELD.

Now if you told me this law was based on ones who were devout followers of God and they got struck by lightening for nothing, you may have a more valid point. As it stands, you don't unless you were the one that wanted to go worship Ba'al. This is where it goes back to human nature contradictory what is truly right.

Christians do not have a physical nation to concern ourselves with so it's never a real issue to consider with Christian Doctrine. All we have to do give the boot to the causing a ruckus and he gets to do what he wants. If someone comes along and starts killing people in the name of God, we should logicaly condemn it since that's not our place and it waould indeed be an immoral act.

Thanks for the answer, I'm not really debating the point.