Where in the Bible is the Christian God Cruel and/or Incompetent...

[epronovost]

Moral: concerned with the principles of right and wrong behavior and the goodness or badness of human character.
https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-1-d&q=moral+means

God is not a human, therefore God has no moral responsibility. Only humans have moral responsibility.
Logic 101.

You made a mistake. You added "human character" in the definition. note that the Oxford dictionnary provides four other definitions of moral and morality and neither makes morality the sole perview of humans.

mo·ral·i·ty
/məˈralədē/

1. principles concerning the distinction between right and wrong or good and bad behavior.
   "the matter boiled down to simple morality: innocent prisoners ought to be freed

Is that a lie you added there to strengthen your position or was it a genuine mistake? It also completely ignores the four other definitions which do not make such exception and distinction. If you believe that morality is objective or can be assessed according to an objective standard, then everything possessing consciousness can be morally judged which would include a deity. Even random events could be judged as various degree of good to evil depending on their influence on humans or other frame of reference.

Finally, if you imply that morality is only with human character then your God cannot be good nor evil. He would be amoral as in outside of morality. We can't say he loves nor that he cares for those are human emotions and human virtues. God cannot have virtues if he can't be moral. You can't have butter and the money for butter at the same time. That's logic 101.

Ether God is a moral agent and can be called good, evil or anything in between or God is amoral and is neither.

 

[Trailblazer]

What you believe or dont believe is irrelevant to the bible. The bible is the book under discussion, not your faith.

I know and that is why I said "carry on."

Oh and think the bible is just a book of mythology, what it represents is the belief of a small number of people at that time

And this old book of mythology represents the belief of a large number of people at this time... Ask yourself why.

 

[ChristineM]

I know and that is why I said "carry on."

And this old book of mythology represents the belief of a large number of people at this time... Ask yourself why.

Did you say carry on??


Gullibility?

People believe what they are told to believe as children. Most dont question that.

 

[halbhh]

Right, if that makes you feel better. Did you ir did you not copy it directly from my post?

There ya go with the ignorant condescending again. Yes, read the bible, read 3 of them cover to cover plus verses of several more. The bible is not a historical treatise, it it not proof of supernatural.

You seem to have a lot of anger about these issues. No matter how friendly I write in an attempt to be informative. Maybe it's best to give up on our discussion with each other for today. Hope you have a good evening.

 

[oldbadger]

I read the Bible, Quran, Gita, Book of Mormon, Hadith etc.
...and on the Bible I did so more than a dozen times. I actually summarised it too.
Yet, when ever I speak to non Christians, inclusive of Atheists, they try to turn the Christian philosophy of a loving God, especially Jesus, on its head with an argument that ...

Is the whole bible the word of God? Yes/No

Then do tell us about ourselves....:-
1 John 2:22} Who is a liar but he that denieth that Jesus is the Christ? He
is antichrist, that denieth the Father and the Son.

Well? So we, all who are not your kind of Christians ....are as the above?

 

[ChristineM]

It seems to me there is far too much antagonism and hostility for any discussion so far as I can imagine discussion working. Maybe some other day. Hope you have a good evening.

Thats essentially what i said about 10 posts ago, glad you have caught up

 

[oldbadger]

@SA Huguenot

How about:-
Revelation {21:8} But the fearful, and unbelieving, ....................................all liars,
shall have their part in the lake which burneth with fire and brimstone: which is the second death.

The word of your God?

 

[Trailblazer]

You made a mistake. You added "human character" in the definition.

No, I got that definition straight from the internet.

moral: concerned with the principles of right and wrong behavior and the goodness or badness of human character. https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-1-d&q=moral+means

note that the Oxford dictionnary provides four other definitions of moral and morality and neither makes morality the sole perview of humans.

mo·ral·i·ty
/məˈralədē/

1. principles concerning the distinction between right and wrong or good and bad behavior.
   "the matter boiled down to simple morality: innocent prisoners ought to be freed

Lol, Nice try, but God does not have behavior, so that definition cannot apply to God.

Morality is the belief that some behaviour is right and acceptable and that other behaviour is wrong. ... A morality is a system of principles and values concerning people's behaviour, which is generally accepted by a society or by a particular group of people.
Morality definition and meaning | Collins English Dictionary

Is that a lie you added there to strengthen your position or was it a genuine mistake? It also completely ignores the four other definitions which do not make such exception and distinction. If you believe that morality is objective or can be assessed according to an objective standard, then everything possessing consciousness can be morally judged which would include a deity. Even random events could be judged as various degree of good to evil depending on their influence on humans or other frame of reference.

It was not a lie or a mistake; as noted above, it came from the internet.
You can judge God if you want to but you cannot judge the God who created the entire universe and still consider yourself logical. Think about why.

Finally, if you imply that morality is only with human character then your God cannot be good nor evil. He would be amoral as in outside of morality. We can't say he loves nor that he cares for those are human emotions and human virtues. God cannot have virtues if he can't be moral. You can't have butter and the money for butter at the same time. That's logic 101.

You are right about that, and that is why I do not attribute human virtues to God. You won't catch me saying that God is loving and caring. That is a Christian gig.

Ether God is a moral agent and can be called good, evil or anything in between or God is amoral and is neither.

God sets the standards for human morality but God is not subject to those standards because God is not a human who has "behavior." People got these false ideas from the anthropomorphisms of the Old Testament. Some of us know better because we have moved on to what God has revealed in this new age.

 

[oldbadger]

@SA Huguenot

How about:-
2 Peter
{2:4} For if God spared not the angels that
sinned, but cast [them] down to hell, and delivered [them]
into chains of darkness, to be reserved unto judgment; {2:5}
And spared not the old world, but saved Noah the eighth
[person,] a preacher of righteousness, bringing in the flood
upon the world of the ungodly; {2:6} And turning the cities
of Sodom and Gomorrah into ashes condemned [them] with
an overthrow, making [them] an ensample unto those that
after should live ungodly;

Ouch!!

 

[Trailblazer]

People believe what they are told to believe as children. Most dont question that.

That is true for most people but not all people. I was not told to believe anything as a child. My parents were both ex-Christians.
I only questioned whether there was a God much later and the answer was yes.

 

[oldbadger]

@SA Huguenot

1 Corinthians
{7:8} I say therefore to the unmarried and widows, It is
good for them if they abide even as I. {7:9} But if they
cannot contain, let them marry: for it is better to marry than
to burn.


All these promises........

 

[oldbadger]

@SA Huguenot

Revelation
{1:15} And his feet like unto fine brass, as if they
burned in a furnace; and his voice as the sound of many
waters. {1:16} And he had in his right hand seven stars: and
out of his mouth went a sharp twoedged sword: and his
countenance [was] as the sun shineth in his strength. {1:17}
And when I saw him, I fell at his feet as dead. And he laid
his right hand upon me, saying unto me, Fear not; I am the
first and the last: {1:18} I [am] he that liveth, and was dead;

?????

 

[epronovost]

No, I got that definition straight from the internet.

moral: concerned with the principles of right and wrong behavior and the goodness or badness of human character. https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-1-d&q=moral+means
Lol, Nice try, but God does not have behavior, so that definition cannot apply to God.

Morality is the belief that some behaviour is right and acceptable and that other behaviour is wrong. ... A morality is a system of principles and values concerning people's behaviour, which is generally accepted by a society or by a particular group of people.
Morality definition and meaning | Collins English Dictionary

It was not a lie or a mistake; as noted above, it came from the internet.
You can judge God if you want to but you cannot judge the God who created the entire universe and still consider yourself logical. Think about why.

You are right about that, and that is why I do not attribute human virtues to God. You won't catch me saying that God is loving and caring. That is a Christian gig.

God sets the standards for human morality but God is not subject to those standards because God is not a human who has "behavior." People got these false ideas from the anthropomorphisms of the Old Testament. Some of us know better because we have moved on to what God has revealed in this new age.

Well if your god has no behavior, no agency (moral or otherwise) and you don't qualify him as good then we share the exact same opinion. It's illogical to say that there is a god that is both omnipotent and good. A god that doesn't have behavior cannot be a moral agent and thus cannot be good. I would also say that such a god cannot be potent at all since it would imply he doesn't do anything ever, but that's another queston.

 

[blü 2]

when ever I speak to non Christians, inclusive of Atheists, they try to turn the Christian philosophy of a loving God, especially Jesus, on its head with an argument that ...

"If Jesus is one of the Trinity, then it was Him who comitted atrocities, genocide, murder etc."

The Trinity is mentioned or implied nowhere in the bible, for the good reason that the Trinity doctrine wasn't invented till the 4th century CE, where it arose as a result of early church politics.

However, if the Trinity doctrine is accepted (contradicting the express denials that Jesus is God in Paul, Mark, Matthew, Luke and John but accepting the claims found in Paul and John but not the others that Jesus pre-existed in heaven with God and created the universe) then Jesus must indeed plead guilty to all the atrocities attributed to God in the Tanakh ─ invasive war in order to grab land, massacre of populations, mass rape, human sacrifice, murderous religious intolerance, slavery ─ and so on.

Another argument is that Christians believe in a loving God, but turns this thinking of God around with the question...

Why would a loving God create people, just so that they should die, get cancer, suffer..." and so on.

The problem of pain (as it's sometimes called) has been noted since antiquity. Epicurus is said to have said that human suffering shows either that God is not benevolent, or that God is not omnipotent, or that God is neither of those, or that God doesn't exist. I've never seen a satisfactory refutation of that argument. In particular I reject Aquinas' 'freewill' argument as mere rationalizing.

I have been thinking of these accusations and can not agree that the "Christian God" is accountable for these heardships and pain. The Bible actually gives the answers, and I found that it is only a very superficial reasoning that is claimed by people who never read the Bible on these questions, to find an answer.

I don't claim to have read the bible cover to cover ─ I'm not a masochist ─ but I've looked in various parts of it.

Perhaps someone would supply me with a simple example, to enable me to see what they are talking about. If it is true that God is this immoral being, I want to know about such evidence.

God is the immoral being I mentioned above ─ the Tanakh spells it out.

And Christian orthodoxy favors Trinitarianism, even though the doctrine has the problems I mention above, and even though ─ as the churches themselves admit ─ the Trinity doctrine is incoherent (and if it's to be coherent, must be read as creating three gods).

 

[ChristineM]

That is true for most people but not all people. I was not told to believe anything as a child. My parents were both ex-Christians.
I only questioned whether there was a God much later and the answer was yes.

perhaps i am just the opposite, my parents are christian and i was raised christian. I began to question the existence of god in my teens and the answer was no.


Between us we are perhaps extremes of a spectrum that encompasses almost 2.5 billion people, more if you take other religions unto account.

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

I read the Bible, Quran, Gita, Book of Mormon, Hadith etc.
...and on the Bible I did so more than a dozen times. I actually summarised it too.
Yet, when ever I speak to non Christians, inclusive of Atheists, they try to turn the Christian philosophy of a loving God, especially Jesus, on its head with an argument that ...

"If Jesus is one of the Trinity, then it was Him who comitted atrocities, genocide, murder etc."
Another argument is that Christians believe in a loving God, but turns this thinking of God around with the question...

Why would a loving God create people, just so that they should die, get cancer, suffer..." and so on.

I have been thinking of these accusations and can not agree that the "Christian God" is accountable for these heardships and pain. The Bible actually gives the answers, and I found that it is only a very superficial reasoning that is claimed by people who never read the Bible on these questions, to find an answer.

Perhaps someone would supply me with a simple example, to enable me to see what they are talking about. If it is true that God is this immoral being, I want to know about such evidence.

Here's some hints for you...

 

[halbhh]

The Trinity is mentioned or implied nowhere in the bible, for the good reason that the Trinity doctrine wasn't invented till the 4th century CE, where it arose as a result of early church politics.

However, if the Trinity doctrine is accepted (contradicting the express denials that Jesus is God in Paul, Mark, Matthew, Luke and John but accepting the claims found in Paul and John but not the others that Jesus pre-existed in heaven with God and created the universe) then Jesus must indeed plead guilty to all the atrocities attributed to God in the Tanakh ─ invasive war in order to grab land, massacre of populations, mass rape, human sacrifice, murderous religious intolerance, slavery ─ and so on.
The problem of pain (as it's sometimes called) has been noted since antiquity. Epicurus is said to have said that human suffering shows either that God is not benevolent, or that God is not omnipotent, or that God is neither of those, or that God doesn't exist. I've never seen a satisfactory refutation of that argument. In particular I reject Aquinas' 'freewill' argument as mere rationalizing.
I don't claim to have read the bible cover to cover ─ I'm not a masochist ─ but I've looked in various parts of it.
God is the immoral being I mentioned above ─ the Tanakh spells it out.

And Christian orthodoxy favors Trinitarianism, even though the doctrine has the problems I mention above, and even though ─ as the churches themselves admit ─ the Trinity doctrine is incoherent (and if it's to be coherent, must be read as creating three gods).

"atrocities" -- would be that way...except if...

... -> God simply reverses all death, and and gives everyone not having heard the gospel a chance at repentance:

18 For Christ also suffered once for sins, the righteous for the unrighteous, to bring you to God. He was put to death in the body but made alive in the Spirit. 19 After being made alive, he went and made proclamation to the imprisoned spirits—
....
For this is the reason the gospel was preached even to those who are now dead, so that they might be judged according to human standards in regard to the body, but live according to God in regard to the spirit."
1rst Peter chapters 3 and 1 Peter 4 NIV

Ergo, the objections about genocide, atrocities, and so on just simply assume God isn't doing what the bible says He is doing....

In other words, that's a 'god' unlike the one in the bible, when people are just killed and it's the final death, and they didn't even hear the gospel message or such.

You can see that version of 'god' was (accidentally) a strawman, in essence. But, that's really good news -- it shows how very gracious He is, as illustrated here:

If God is that Gracicious even to those whom:

"every intention of the thoughts of their hearts were only evil continually." (Genesis chapter 6)

Then people like you or me have a chance too. Which is called the 'good news' -- that even all of us that did plenty of wrongs can be redeemed if we merely trust in Christ with faith in repentance for forgiveness for all we have done wrong, in all our lives until now(!)....

 

[Subduction Zone]

Did you say carry on??


Gullibility?

People believe what they are told to believe as children. Most dont question that.

And let's nor forget how it is reinforced through various fear tactics.

 

[Trailblazer]

Well if your god has no behavior, no agency (moral or otherwise) and you don't qualify him as good then we share the exact same opinion. It's illogical to say that there is a god that is both omnipotent and good. A god that doesn't have behavior cannot be a moral agent and thus cannot be good.

What does it mean to be a moral agent?

A moral agent is any person or collective entity with the capacity to exercise moral agency. It is suggested that rational thought and deliberation are prerequisite skills for any agent. In this way, moral agents can discern between right and wrong and be held accountable for the consequences of their actions.
Moral Agency - Physiopedia

God is not a moral agent because God is not a person or a collective entity. However, when it comes to human behavior, God can discern right from wrong. Logically speaking, since God created humans with a purpose in mind, God sets the standards for right and wrong human behavior. God sets those standards through His Messengers who reveal scriptures. God cannot be held accountable for anything or answerable to anyone because God is at the the top.of the totem pole.

God isn't subject to moral behavior since God has no behavior, since God is not a person, but God can still be good. God has a Will and God's Will for humans is revealed through the Messengers of God. If God has good Will towards humans then God is good.

Why is it illogical to say that there is a God that is both omnipotent and good? Why can't an omnipotent God also be good?

I would also say that such a god cannot be potent at all since it would imply he doesn't do anything ever.

Anything ever? Aside from sending Messengers in every age, God is the almighty creator who has fashioned the universe, the non-created cause of all existence by which all existence is ruled and maintained. Seems to me God has a lot on His plate.

 

[epronovost]

However, when it comes to human behavior, God can discern right from wrong.

Logically speaking, since God created humans with a purpose in mind, God sets the standards for right and wrong human behavior. God sets those standards through His Messengers who reveal scriptures. God cannot be held accountable for anything or answerable to anyone because God is at the the top.of the totem pole.

God isn't subject to moral behavior since God has no behavior, since God is not a person, but God can still be good. God has a Will and God's Will for humans is revealed through the Messengers of God. If God has good Will towards humans then God is good.

You just presented a circular argument that makes the entire qualification of the morality of your god pointless. You claim that God cannot be judged which is hilariously false, your god is a monster in my opinion. He makes little baby animals murder each other in a constant and desperate race for survival. I just judged your deity so he can be judged. What makes it so meaningless is that on one hand you claim that your od can't be judged yet you judge him good based on the fact your messenger told you that your god has goodwill toward humans in some vague fashion.

Why is it illogical to say that there is a God that is both omnipotent and good? Why can't an omnipotent God also be good?

Because there is such a thing as a bad thing happening to conscious beings, be they human or other species of animals. Since bad, undesirable, harmful and terrible things happen to these and that your deity would have the power to save them all (or at the very least one) without any effort and at no risk for himself and does not, he can't be good in any meaningful sense of the term. You certainly can read on the premise of Epicurus dilemma. That's why he believed that the gods were not good. They were alien beings whose sense of morality is foreign to humans and don't care much, if at all, about humans or other living creatures.

Anything ever? Aside from sending Messengers in every age, God is the almighty creator who has fashioned the universe, the non-created cause of all existence by which all existence is ruled and maintained. Seems to me God has a lot on His plate.

Then he is a moral agent with a moral agency and behavior because he does stuff and for specific reasons, with a specific objectives. That gives him a personnality and makes your god a person in a wide sense of the term. Animals have behavior and they are not humans. Hell, bacterias and plants also have behaviors.