How Do Christians Reconcile The Following Question Regarding Their Faith?

[Sunstone]

Held accountable? How silly.
God made us. He made the world. So who, exactly, would God be accountable too? You?
The problem with questions like these is you automatically assume you have the moral high-ground, but you don't.

It's fascinating in a pathological sort of way to see you assert deity is above legitimate moral judgement. That, in effect, deity can do no wrong regarding its creation.

Just out of curiosity, would you also assert that a parent is above the legitimate moral judgement of her child? That, in effect, she can do no wrong regarding her child?

 

[serp777]

That's a good question. My understanding is like a mother and child. When a mother gives birth, she is not expecting her child to be a murderer. The child is not a murderer until he actually kills someone with intent to kill. Basically the mother created a perfect child and because of his enviornment (hopefully not psychological and/or upbringing), he had some motivation to take a life.

It isn't the mother's fault; because, she didn't give him the gun. That's how I hear justifications from believers.

On the other hand, putting the tree in the garden is like putting the gun in the child's presence. If another child came up to him and said "don't worry, your mom says its okay to play with this toy" and the other child doesn't know what the toy is no matter if he was told not to touch it or not, of course he shouldn't be punished for his lack of knowledge.

If anything, the only punishment would be if the child used the gun and it harmed someone. The gun shouldn't be there in the first place.

However, I think believers are coming from the mother-child perspective rather than the gun perspective. Guess we'll wait to see if any believers will add to the convo.

False analogy. God knows all, and so he knows what the child would do before its even conceived. God could have created the child a different way or intervene to prevent the child to kill someone by showing him the consequences of his actions. So in essence God created that child in particular way so that the child would murder someone. he also knows exactly what it would take to persuade the child. So not only does God create a murderer with full knowledge of what will happen, but he also doesn't stop the child when its infinitely easy for him to prevent the child from taking that action.

 

[serp777]

Held accountable? How silly.
God made us. He made the world. So who, exactly, would God be accountable too? You?
The problem with questions like these is you automatically assume you have the moral high-ground, but you don't.

Right so God can do whatever he want and its automatically moral because he's God. No matter what God does he's moral. God could torture all of humanity for eternity and still be 100% moral.

The correct answer is that God should be accountable to himself and his set of morals. he should have empathy and consider what it would be like if Uber God did the things God does to humans. If God isn't accountable to himself or his morals then morality is arbitrary and relative to whatever God decides in a particular instant.

 

[Unveiled Artist]

False analogy. God knows all, and so he knows what the child would do before its even conceived. God could have created the child a different way or intervene to prevent the child to kill someone by showing him the consequences of his actions. So in essence God created that child in particular way so that the child would murder someone. he also knows exactly what it would take to persuade the child. So not only does God create a murderer with full knowledge of what will happen, but he also doesn't stop the child when its infinitely easy for him to prevent the child from taking that action.

Which is sad and I dont know how anyone can find inspiration out of that.

 

[Thana]

So God gets a free pass?
Or is it to say that God is not to be held to his own standards?
So much for leading by example, eh?

So you think you can judge a being your mind can't even fathom? The motives of a creature that created the concept of motives and morals?
Seriously... Did you at any point in time think maybe that's just not very logical?

 

[Thana]

It's fascinating in a pathological sort of way to see you assert deity is above legitimate moral judgement. That, in effect, deity can do no wrong regarding its creation.

Just out of curiosity, would you also assert that a parent is above the legitimate moral judgement of her child? That, in effect, she can do no wrong regarding her child?

If you had of been born even less than 100 years ago your own personal morality would be very different.
So why would something so fickle be applied to an eternal, omniscient being?

And why do people think that the parent/child analogy is applicable to God in such a broad capacity? The analogy is used to 'dumb down' the concept of our relationship with God, it's not supposed to be considered an accurate portrayal.

 

[Deathbydefault]

Hmm, your argument seems to define your God (or whatever God you are referencing) as a psychopath.

 

[Thana]

Hmm, your argument seems to define your God (or whatever God you are referencing) as a psychopath.

Only if you think of God as a human, Which you guys can't seem to help but do.
What is so hard to understand about a being that you can't understand. If He's beyond you then He's beyond you, so why would you think it appropriate to keep anthropomorhizing Him and using human precepts to put Him in a box.

 

[Laika]

I was a devoted Christian for a very long time, 25 years or more - a Trinity believing Protestant taught that our creator God is omniscient (all-knowing) omnipotent (all-powerful) and omnipresent (present everywhere at the same time). This creator designed and created men and women fully and completely all by 'himself'.

What I don't understand, is if this creator purposefully designed and unleashed upon the earth a creature capable of rape and murder, why isn't 'He' to blame for these atrocities? Why would you construct a being with the potential to do so much harm to his fellow humans? What was the motive?

If my son murdered a human and I supplied the gun knowing ahead of time he'd shoot someone, I'm held accountable for my part in the homicide. How much more so should God be held accountable for DESIGNING a creature that he KNOWS ahead of time (he's omniscient, remember) will murder a fellow human?

if your prepared to take a step back, it is clear that the "creature" capable of murder is not unique to man, but is true of the animal kingdom. consequently, I would say that this is not therefore an "accidental" feature in the design but is one consistent with the law of natural selection that god himself would have designed.

nor is there anything unique about the evils of man, as we also experience natural disasters that kill people too, such as earthquakes and volcanoes, the asteroid that wiped out the dinosaurs, etc. it was part of god's plan, that in the Old testament he was displeased with mankind and so brought about noahs flood.

I'm not a christian but Man isn't the centre of creation (as we understand it), so perhaps we should ask what creation is for, rather than just the suffering of man as a fraction of it. that may be a better way to grasp god's intentions. our perception of reality and god's may well be very different. if god has been at work for 13.82 billions years since the creation of the universe, and the observable universe is 93 billion light years accross, its unlikely he will percieve atrocities in the same personal way as we humans may do. this is of course, assuming that earth is the only planet with intelligent life capable of moral judgement. "evil" takes on a different meaning in that context as does our moral significance as individuals.

 

[Deathbydefault]

Only if you think of God as a human, Which you guys can't seem to help but do.
What is so hard to understand about a being that you can't understand. If He's beyond you then He's beyond you, so why would you think it appropriate to keep anthropomorhizing Him and using human precepts to put Him in a box.

First of all, I deny such a thing even exists.
Second, I'm applying this God under a definition. Human or not, if it applies then it applies.

 

[Deathbydefault]

Might I also add that such a God is responsible for murder, rape, torture, hate, genocide, heartbreak, mindbreak, childbreak, baby killing, hate groups, racism, and so on.
Sure there are plenty of good things, but there are plenty more bad things.
Disease, mental disorders, still births, starvation, poverty, and it continues still.

It's above all this? It can literally just torture anyone it wants and still be called moral.
**** this God. I deny its existence and if it exists then I deny it respect.

 

[Thana]

Might I also add that such a God is responsible for murder, rape, torture, hate, genocide, heartbreak, mindbreak, childbreak, baby killing, hate groups, racism, and so on.
Sure there are plenty of good things, but there are plenty more bad things.
Disease, mental disorders, still births, starvation, poverty, and it continues still.

It's above all this? It can literally just torture anyone it wants and still be called moral.
**** this God. I deny its existence and if it exists then I deny it respect.

That's a very emotional response...
Aren't you supposed to atleast feign objectivity?

I don't call God moral. I call Him Holy.
And if God were truly cruel and evil, then why would He have even bothered to create us? Better yet, why would He have bothered to create things that are good, let alone our ability to experience peace and happiness.

 

[Deathbydefault]

That's a very emotional response...
Aren't you supposed to atleast feign objectivity?

Hm, when it comes to more fundamentalist Christian views my true colors show, I suppose.

 

[Thana]

Hm, when it comes to more fundamentalist Christian views my true colors show, I suppose.

I'm not sure how considering God as good could be thought of as fundamentalism?

And I'm sure you'll get the hang of it eventually. It seems to be an integral Atheistic ideal.

 

[Nurion]

Might I also add that such a God is responsible for murder, rape, torture, hate, genocide, heartbreak, mindbreak, childbreak, baby killing, hate groups, racism, and so on.
Sure there are plenty of good things, but there are plenty more bad things.
Disease, mental disorders, still births, starvation, poverty, and it continues still.

It's above all this? It can literally just torture anyone it wants and still be called moral.
**** this God. I deny its existence and if it exists then I deny it respect.

Sure, I'm 100% on your side there. It's not very moral of a god to do, at least not from our point of view. But maybe we were created in a way that has the potential to be great. The potential where we as a species we can become as good as Him. Is it unmoral to let your kid touch a hot stove and burn itself? Yes it is. But maybe the kid needs to learn that touching hot stuff is not a great idea.
Maybe we humans are just in a phase where we need to learn how to treat our fellow humans. And God is simply watching because He knows we will get there eventually.

 

[Buttercup]

Held accountable? How silly.
God made us. He made the world. So who, exactly, would God be accountable too? You?
The problem with questions like these is you automatically assume you have the moral high-ground, but you don't.

My morals standards are that I would not purposefully create a creature capable of murder and then sit back and watch as it happens and not intervene. You don't see the issue I want to discuss?

 

[Windwalker]

I was a devoted Christian for a very long time, 25 years or more - a Trinity believing Protestant taught that our creator God is omniscient (all-knowing)

Here's the first problem. Define omniscience. Do you think omniscience entails such things as God knowing how to fly an airplane, or fix a computer problem? If one could plug themselves into the G-O-D omniscience database they would walk away knowing Kung Fu and being able to fly helicopters? Does it means there is this "being" out there somewhere who can read thoughts and predict next week's winning lottery ticket numbers?

To me these are all very naive, childlike notions of what "all-knowing" might mean. To me, all-knowing would much more entail being able to see through to the true nature of everything as it is, rather than through the illusion of limited perceptions imagining what is real or true when it is but a reflection of our own selves. This omniscience is not some ginormous computer database of facts and figures and technical knowledge, of all personal histories past, present, future. The G-O-D infinity data warehouse? I don't think so.

Once you remove modify this Santa Claus type idea of omniscience, the rest of the arguments based on that notion become moot.

omnipotent (all-powerful)

Same thing. What does omnipotent actually mean? To me it means it is a matter of unconditional being. It is being without cause or effect. Therefore nothing can create or destroy it, as there is nothing above or below or outside it. It is the power of everything that is. This is a very different understanding than some comic-book version of a god with bolts of lightning coming out of his eyes and a giant foot that crushes everything it steps on. Wouldn't you agree?

Again, once you change the understanding of these terms to something a little more sophisticated, the rest of the arguments become moot points.

omnipresent (present everywhere at the same time).

Same thing again. What does omnipresent really mean? Some form of entity that exists non-locally in a quantum-level reality? But that would not be God then, but some universal mathematical equation. Nor would it look like Santa Claus again that can magically hit every house in the word traveling faster than Flash Gordon on his way to a date. Many do imagine God in such magical terms however.

To me omnipresent means something along the lines of the Ground of all Being. It would be in terms that God is not separate from creation, neither inside nor outside, but is the "being" of "being". It is therefore not "up there" or "out there", nor "in here", but inside and outside, future and past, etc, are not places nor spaces where this "being" moves from or to.

A way to imagine this is like a map that is drawn out on a piece of paper with lines and curves, dots and letters, etc, which represent all time and history. God is the piece of paper itself all is drawn upon. It is not other to anything, but is part and present in everything that is. Now add to this "omniscience and omnipotence" as I described. This paper is living and not apart from or separate to. It transcends the lines, and is the fabric on which the lines are drawn. The lines and fabric are not separate.

One other thought to add to this, these lines are not predetermined lines either which the fabric planned out in advance nor is drawing them out for us. I do not see "the creation" as something that happened historically. Creation is a constant. Creation is happen in each and every moment. Nothing is predetermined. The only constant is the paper on which these living lines are being created, moment to moment, in repeating patterns, and novel, evolving forms.

In short, getting rid of the Santa Clause notions of God helps in dealing with these larger questions that the logical mind natural will see. Questions like, "If God is all powerful, can he create a rock he cannot lift?" become moot points. They're only valid questions when you think of God in those terms. Get rid of those terms. Move beyond them. I prefer developing a better understanding of God, rather than chucking it all out because we all know logically that a Mighty Mouse can't be real.

 

[Katzpur]

I was a devoted Christian for a very long time, 25 years or more - a Trinity believing Protestant taught that our creator God is omniscient (all-knowing) omnipotent (all-powerful) and omnipresent (present everywhere at the same time). This creator designed and created men and women fully and completely all by 'himself'.

What I don't understand, is if this creator purposefully designed and unleashed upon the earth a creature capable of rape and murder, why isn't 'He' to blame for these atrocities? Why would you construct a being with the potential to do so much harm to his fellow humans? What was the motive?

If my son murdered a human and I supplied the gun knowing ahead of time he'd shoot someone, I'm held accountable for my part in the homicide. How much more so should God be held accountable for DESIGNING a creature that he KNOWS ahead of time (he's omniscient, remember) will murder a fellow human?

Hey there, Buttercup! Long time no see!

It sounds to me like you think God should have taken away our freedom of choice. Am I understanding you correctly? I mean, the "creature He unleashed" is capable of great goodness, too. If we were incapable of doing bad, and only capable of doing good, we'd be nothing more than puppets. I don't personally see "good" as being very meaningful if there is no other option.

 

[Buttercup]

Do you think that maybe God should have created a human that cannot be tempted?

I'm currently agnostic and can't foresee myself changing this view anytime soon. My thought is that there's only a very slight chance of a creator as described in the Bible being real. So, I'm not sure how to answer your question other than that.

 

[Buttercup]

Only if you think of God as a human, Which you guys can't seem to help but do.
What is so hard to understand about a being that you can't understand. If He's beyond you then He's beyond you, so why would you think it appropriate to keep anthropomorhizing Him and using human precepts to put Him in a box.

I'm a little confused as to who your God is? Could you describe "It" and then tell me where you get your definitions from? Are you Christian?