• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Questions from an Atheist about God

Nimos

Well-Known Member
If you understand free will, you don't need to understand why there are laws.

In a free society, there is actually no such thing as absolute freedom. It is freedom of choice within the parameters of specific rules that modify human behavior so that everyone is NOT free to do as they wish. Abusing free will is deliberately breaking a set law. It comes at the expense of a stated penalty. That is called justice. We are programmed for justice. And we have a conscience.

A good person obeys the law, not because of the penalty, but because it's the right thing to do. They agree with the law, so obeying it causes no hardship. What causes problems in any free society is those who want to break the law and cause suffering to others because they don't agree with the law and don't care about causing problems for others. Who appreciates the presence of such people?

I agree with what you are saying here, there are very few, if any absolute truth as I see it and that even in a free society, freedom is restricted. However I think its important to make the distinction between what freedom we are talking about here. Because we are talking about two different ones:

1. Humans "free will" given to us by God
This is the claim given in the bible as I understand it, meaning we are free to do as we please, otherwise we can't really say that we have free will.

2. Free choices or free will defined by humans
This is what you refer to and what I agree with, as it is our choice within human societies to decide how we want to make use of our free will given to us by God. So we have chosen to restrict our selves in certain areas to increase security or safety for the majority rather than the few, put simply.

But according to the bible, God gave us the law and decided how they should be followed and punished. Which is what im referring to when I ask, if we have free will or free choices given to us by God, why does he demand that we follow his laws?

God stepped out of human life when they chose independence, and allowed us all the freedom to show him who we really are, with little intervention from himself. He has provided an instruction manual and guarantees that if we follow it, our lives will be free of the troubles that plague lawbreakers. The responsibility for harm will never be laid at our feet.
I think we look a bit differently at this :) Adding the law and deciding who should live and die, putting a clear favor towards the Jews helping them to defeat others. I wouldn't call that "little intervention" as he is changing the natural cause of history so to speak, had he not done it.

When you say that he allowed us all the freedom to show him who we really are, again he commanded or decided in large parts what should be done. Saying you have "all the freedom you want", but if "you don't do as I say you will be utterly destroyed or certainly destroyed". makes Its really difficult to talk about something being a free choice if certain things you might choose, leads to one being utterly destroyed and the other to eternal happiness.

Are we the kind of people God is looking for to become citizens of his incoming kingdom?
Again it depends if God want us to come to him through free will and through love, threats of destroying us if we don't, should logically not give God any answer to the question you are asking. Because some might choose to do it out of fear rather than free will.
 
Last edited:

Deeje

Avid Bible Student
Premium Member
1. Humans "free will" given to us by God
This is the claim given in the bible as I understand it, meaning we are free to do as we please, otherwise we can't really say that we have free will.

Then you are mistaken. The free will we have is the choice to agree to God's terms and conditions for life....or not. In any legal transaction, you have a choice to accept the terms or to reject them. If you don't enter into the arrangement then any benefits you might have gained will be forfeited.

We were not given the choice between heaven and hell.....only between life and death. Those who agree to abide by God's laws will live...those who don't will forfeit life altogether. Why is that unfair?

Deuteronomy 30:19-20
"I take the heavens and the earth as witnesses against you today that I have put life and death before you, the blessing and the curse; and you must choose life so that you may live, you and your descendants, 20 by loving Jehovah your God, by listening to his voice, and by sticking to him, for he is your life and by him you will endure a long time in the land that Jehovah swore to give to your forefathers, Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob.” (NWT)

We can choose life by obeying God, who is our Sovereign regardless of whether we acknowledge him as such or not.
We love him because we know him and we support his purpose for our being here. We love his laws because they cause no hardship for those who see the value of them. We love him because of his amazing promises and because he is the only being in existence who never breaks his word.

2. Free choices or free will defined by humans
This is what you refer to and what I agree with, as it is our choice within human societies to decide how we want to make use of our free will given to us by God. So we have chosen to restrict our selves in certain areas to increase security or safety for the majority rather than the few, put simply.

You think human societies created the idea of free will? I do not see free (1) will as any different to free will (2).

Each are exercised in a reward/punishment situation. Obey and be rewarded....disobey and be penalized.
The only difference is in who metes out the punishment.

But according to the bible, God gave us the law and decided how they should be followed and punished. Which is what im referring to when I ask, if we have free will or free choices given to us by God, why does he demand that we follow his laws?

You really don't understand God at all do you? I blame Christendom for all of the misinformation there is out there about the Creator.

I think we look a bit differently at this :) Adding the law and deciding who should live and die, putting a clear favor towards the Jews helping them to defeat others. I wouldn't call that "little intervention" as he is changing the natural cause of history so to speak, had he not done it.

I don't believe what I am hearing. o_O God as Creator gets to call all the shots because he is Universal Sovereign. Who said any of us had a choice about the reward/punishment system?....if God supported the Jews in their defense of their homeland, it was for a reason. Foreign nations came to take their God-given land and he showed them which nation had the superior God. Nations fought in the name of their gods...Israel fought in the name of Jehovah. He backed his nation and protected them because of his covenant to produce their Messiah through Abraham's descendants. He did not, however interfere with individual choice.

When you say that he allowed us all the freedom to show him who we really are, again he commanded or decided in large parts what should be done. Saying you have "all the freedom you want", but if "you don't do as I say you will be utterly destroyed or certainly destroyed". makes Its really difficult to talk about something being a free choice if certain things you might choose, leads to one being utterly destroyed and the other to eternal happiness.

We have all the freedom we want within the parameters set by the Creator. We all have the freedom we want within the set parameters of our legal system too. Why should God grant the freedom to break his law without penalty if humans don't? Who wants to live in anarchy? Free will was never truly free.....it couldn't be....otherwise there could be no laws. Would you like to live in a world with no laws?

Again it depends if God want us to come to him through free will and through love, threats of destroying us if we don't, should logically not give God any answer to the question you are asking. Because some might choose to do it out of fear rather than free will.

Again, you fail to see that those of us who love God do so of our own free will. We have no dread of punishment because God's laws are perfect. If we obey God out of fear, then we do not know him at all and our worship would be futile....rejected by him.

2 Timothy 2:19....
"19 Nevertheless, the firm foundation of God stands, having this seal, “The Lord knows those who are His,” and, “Everyone who names the name of the Lord is to abstain from wickedness.” (NASB)

People who hate what God hates and love what he loves never have to make the wrong choice. Abstaining from wickedness comes naturally.
 

Nimos

Well-Known Member
Then you are mistaken. The free will we have is the choice to agree to God's terms and conditions for life....or not. In any legal transaction, you have a choice to accept the terms or to reject them. If you don't enter into the arrangement then any benefits you might have gained will be forfeited.
Ok, think I understand you now. :) So its have nothing to do with being able to do what we want. Its more of a choose me or die, free will? If that is the case, ain't that a bit horrible? :D

You think human societies created the idea of free will? I do not see free (1) will as any different to free will (2).

Each are exercised in a reward/punishment situation. Obey and be rewarded....disobey and be penalized.
The only difference is in who metes out the punishment.
No I believe we have always been free, it was not given to us by God, im an atheist :). Im referring to what the bible say about free will, which I might have misunderstood the meaning of..

You really don't understand God at all do you? I blame Christendom for all of the misinformation there is out there about the Creator.
No, that is why I ask questions and I agree with you, that Christendom and those in power of claiming that they can explain it, is to blame for it. Don't get me wrong, I am really trying to understand what people mean, and its not easy for me, having to understand what I consider to be conflicting statements and when I question them, gets told that its because I just don't get it. Its not really helpful for me getting closer to understanding it.

As mentioned before, I don't think I have misquoted or made any unreasonable claims, which is not supported by what is written in the bible.

I don't believe what I am hearing. o_O God as Creator gets to call all the shots because he is Universal Sovereign. Who said any of us had a choice about the reward/punishment system?....if God supported the Jews in their defense of their homeland, it was for a reason. Foreign nations came to take their God-given land and he showed them which nation had the superior God. Nations fought in the name of their gods...Israel fought in the name of Jehovah. He backed his nation and protected them because of his covenant to produce their Messiah through Abraham's descendants. He did not, however interfere with individual choice.
I can understand you now, as this have nothing to do with freely choosing God or seek him out of love. Its about submission. Which were what I misunderstood, so your position does make a lot more sense now.

We have all the freedom we want within the parameters set by the Creator. We all have the freedom we want within the set parameters of our legal system too. Why should God grant the freedom to break his law without penalty if humans don't? Who wants to live in anarchy? Free will was never truly free.....it couldn't be....otherwise there could be no laws. Would you like to live in a world with no laws?
Again, I thought it was about love for God.

Again, you fail to see that those of us who love God do so of our own free will. We have no dread of punishment because God's laws are perfect. If we obey God out of fear, then we do not know him at all and our worship would be futile....rejected by him.
I think it must be how we understand the word love and what that means, it seems we are quite far from each other when it comes to that. Which is fine, but it could explain why I don't really understand what you are saying.
 
Last edited:

1213

Well-Known Member
…But what question would Adam and Eve ask God? And how should he answer, as he can't explain or even suggest anything that is connected to good and evil as they wouldn't understand it?

Interesting thing is, Bible doesn’t really give any reason to believe they couldn’t know good or evil. It is only said by the “serpent” that “for God doth know that in the day of your eating of it--your eyes have been opened, and ye have been as God, knowing good and evil.'”. It is possible that they understood what good means, because Eve for example says in Genesis 3:6 “And the woman seeth that the tree is good for food”.

They were not stupid. They were able to understand if something is good. So, by what I see, it was really about how to know and about to become like God.

And they could have asked for example “what does this mean, the serpent says that…. …?”. Or they could have asked “what is good and evil”?. But I think it was not really what Eve was interested, I think she wanted to become like God.

Most parents experience stubborn kids, its a rather common thing. I doubt that the majority of parents if asked, how they would describe their stubborn son, would use the word evil and that they saw no issues trying to change the behavior of the son with threats of killing them if they didn't.

I agree and I think the case was not about small child, who just has made few mistakes. It was about person who was drunkard and glutton. That indicates the person was not small kid and that it was not just some small thing.

Im not really sure if the bibles explain whether the judgement's should be as describes or simply guidelines.

Bible tells that God set judges, to judge according to the Law. And it was given orders how to judge, for example:

"Thus has Yahweh of Hosts spoken, saying, 'Execute true judgment, and show kindness and compassion every man to his brother.
Zechariah 7:9

I charged your judges at that time, saying, Hear the causes between your brothers, and judge righteously between a man and his brother, and the foreigner who is living with him. You shall not show partiality in judgment; you shall hear the small and the great alike; you shall not be afraid of the face of man; for the judgment is God's: and the cause that is too hard for you, you shall bring to me, and I will hear it.
Deuteronomy 1:16-17

"You shall not spread a false report. Don't join your hand with the wicked to be a malicious witness. You shall not follow a crowd to do evil; neither shall you testify in court to side with a multitude to pervert justice; neither shall you favor a poor man in his cause.
Exodus 23:1-3

At the mouth of two witnesses, or three witnesses, shall he who is to die be put to death; at the mouth of one witness he shall not be put to death.
Deuteronomy 17:6

Not all people have the right to give the judgments. And those who had, I believe had also the understanding how they should judge correctly. Perhaps we don’t have those judges anymore, because people are too evil to judge righteously.
 

Hawkins

Well-Known Member
It's always a bad habit to ask too many questions in a single thread. People won't bother answering them most of the times.

If you truly want an answer, you should try to regroup the related one, and ask as less as possible in a thread. Unrelated questions should be asked in another new thread.
 

Hawkins

Well-Known Member
1. Is it possible for a person to distinguish between right and wrong, without knowing the difference between good and evil?

Your comprehension is wrong on what it is said. The story basically says that Law (good and evil) has already been in place, and Law is applicable to both humans and angels alike.
Instead of teaching Adam and Eve the details of Law such as what raping is, what murdering is, the best way to protect them is to keep them as innocent as possible. This worked until Satan stepped to to tempt them to break the law.
 

Hawkins

Well-Known Member
2. It is written in the Bible Genesis "3 Now the serpent was more crafty than any of the wild animals the Lord God had made."

Why do you believe God made the serpent more crafty than all the other animals? Why is it important for it to be highlighted in the text?

This is metaphorically said. God created Satan and Satan is more crafty than anyone else. You may need to learn some probabilities and statistics to know what expected outcome is and what the bell curve is about.

When freewill is applied and Law is enforced, human (or angel) behavior as an expected outcome will be like a bell curve. There is always those more crafty than the rest.


3. The above text say that God created the serpent and its believed that this is Satan

why do you think God allowed Satan do to evil in the Garden of eden?

Similar to the answer above. As a mathematical expected outcome, freewill signifies division. God has to provide an environment for such a division to occur. It starts with Eden which is more like an emulated future Heaven when God and angels and humans are to be living with each other. Eden shows that without such a mathematically expected division to occur before hand, the final Heaven cannot be established.
 
Last edited:

Hawkins

Well-Known Member
3. The above text say that God created the serpent and its believed that this is Satan

why do you think God allowed Satan do to evil in the Garden of eden?
4. The following is from Genesis 1 6,6: "6 The Lord regretted that he had made human beings on the earth, and his heart was deeply troubled."

if God knows everything and can do anything he wants, how is it possible for him to regret, wouldn't he be able to foresee this?

First emotion occurs at the time things happen. Even the doctor told you before hand that your mother will die. You will cry after but not before her death.
You speak to your dogie in a special tone with simple words to reflect how you are emotionally connect to it and for it to understand you. Similarly when God speaking to ancient humans, He may choose to express in an emotion which humans can understand. For example, He said that He's a jealous God instead of of introducing a length doctrine to tell why idols should not be worshiped because it may need to take hundred years to firmly develop such a concept among the Jews.
 

Hawkins

Well-Known Member
5. God is commonly referred to as being ultimately good and unable to lie. In Deuteronomy 21,18-21 the law says the following: "18 If someone has a stubborn and rebellious son who does not obey his father and mother and will not listen to them when they discipline him,19 his father and mother shall take hold of him and bring him to the elders at the gate of his town. 20 They shall say to the elders, “This son of ours is stubborn and rebellious. He will not obey us. He is a glutton and a drunkard.” 21 Then all the men of his town are to stone him to death. You must purge the evil from among you. All Israel will hear of it and be afraid."

Given the ability to distinguish good from evil, do you think this is a good way of dealing with such issue or a bad way?

Why do you believe that God, which is all good, thought that death were the best solution to this problem?

Do you agree with the statement that a son per definition should obey their parents, regardless of how the parents might behave?

Do you consider the punishment of death for being stubborn and rebellious towards your parents, justified or a murder?

a. If you consider it murder, doesn't it conflict with one of the ten commandments?

b. If you believe it is justifiable, why do you think that such law is not in effect today, at least in most countries and would you support such law, knowing that God is only good and unable to do evil?

First, Jewish laws serve the fundamental purpose of education. Not all of the written laws are for practical crimes. The above law is for the purpose of education. The parents won't kill their own unless they are in an angry impulse. However the law specifies that they need to bring their son before the elders. This actually stops their killing by impulse. The elders know clearly that it's family dispute that they will try the best to persuade the son to give up being stubborn. Practically this will not lead to and stoning especially after the parent's emotion is settled. Even to an extreme situation that everyone agrees for a stoning, then it's not a bad thing. This leads to a second point which you don't know.

Second, what you are saying here is whether it's moral if a son is stoned (as an extreme rare situation practically) this way. God holds a morality different than that expected from humans. God's morality says that He needs to save as many savable souls as possible. If that boy is potential leader but with his rebellious nature he would lead away the Jews as a whole, such that God's plan for saving mankind comes to an end, it's not a bad thing to have that boy killed. Israel is for God to train them up for the carrying forward to His message to reach today's humans to save their souls. The issue of rebellion is thus dealt with educationally since the Jews childhood. An actual execution is just an extremely rare situation, but justifiable for the long run of how the Jews can be faithful to God such that human souls across the history of humanity can be savable.
 
Last edited:

Hawkins

Well-Known Member
6. Also in Deuteronomy 25, 11 it says the following: "11 If two men are fighting and the wife of one of them comes to rescue her husband from his assailant, and she reaches out and seizes him by his private parts, 12 you shall cut off her hand. Show her no pity."

Of all the things God can do, why do you think this topic were so important that it needed to be added to the law? And do you think that the punishment for it is justifiable?

Once upon a time, God commanded the early Jews that they shouldn't marry and outsiders with a firm foreign religion. This command goes with an issue that for a period of time the Jews didn't reproduced enough population. It's developed as a culture that they set up rules to protect reproduction. It's yet another law which is never practical but serving the educational purpose. Jews study laws in the early age of their childhood.
 

Nimos

Well-Known Member
Interesting thing is, Bible doesn’t really give any reason to believe they couldn’t know good or evil. It is only said by the “serpent” that “for God doth know that in the day of your eating of it--your eyes have been opened, and ye have been as God, knowing good and evil.'”. It is possible that they understood what good means, because Eve for example says in Genesis 3:6 “And the woman seeth that the tree is good for food”.

They were not stupid. They were able to understand if something is good. So, by what I see, it was really about how to know and about to become like God.

And they could have asked for example “what does this mean, the serpent says that…. …?”. Or they could have asked “what is good and evil”?. But I think it was not really what Eve was interested, I think she wanted to become like God.

I have to admit that, I have been wondering about Genesis 3:6 my self and how exactly she would be able to do that. Also its first when the serpent mentions it to Eve that see realizes or desires it. But being an important tree to God in the garden. I think its reasonable to assume they have walked passed it before. So why didn't they desire it there. So it could be something about temptation and loyalty maybe. Also God tells Adam (or man) about the tree before Eve is even created, yet he is not tempted to go for it, but first when he is presented by it from Eve. So the story doesn't really go into a great length of details of what exactly happened or how it should be understood as I see it. Except that, they have done something wrong in the eyes of God. So I would agree that you might have a point that this is not about "good" and "evil" in the sense that we might commonly talk about it, but rather something else. Im not really convinced that, Eve wanted to be like God, mostly because, I would expect to find passages in the bible stating that more clearly. There are those that when God time after time, make sure to mention that he is God etc. But at least to me, it doesn't really seem to connect or mean the same as in the Genesis story.

I don't think the story should be taken literally, but is a symbolic one.

Bible tells that God set judges, to judge according to the Law. And it was given orders how to judge, for example:

"Thus has Yahweh of Hosts spoken, saying, 'Execute true judgment, and show kindness and compassion every man to his brother.
Zechariah 7:9

I charged your judges at that time, saying, Hear the causes between your brothers, and judge righteously between a man and his brother, and the foreigner who is living with him. You shall not show partiality in judgment; you shall hear the small and the great alike; you shall not be afraid of the face of man; for the judgment is God's: and the cause that is too hard for you, you shall bring to me, and I will hear it.
Deuteronomy 1:16-17

"You shall not spread a false report. Don't join your hand with the wicked to be a malicious witness. You shall not follow a crowd to do evil; neither shall you testify in court to side with a multitude to pervert justice; neither shall you favor a poor man in his cause.
Exodus 23:1-3

At the mouth of two witnesses, or three witnesses, shall he who is to die be put to death; at the mouth of one witness he shall not be put to death.
Deuteronomy 17:6

Not all people have the right to give the judgments. And those who had, I believe had also the understanding how they should judge correctly. Perhaps we don’t have those judges anymore, because people are too evil to judge righteously.

I think you are correct in that at least some of the laws are to be judged. But to me at least some of them, is just set in stone, as Its hard to modify a sentences of "utterly destroyed" I think. :)
 

Hawkins

Well-Known Member
7. Deuteronomy 22, 28-29 it says the following: "28 If a man happens to meet a virgin who is not pledged to be married and rapes her and they are discovered, 29 he shall pay her father fifty shekels[c] of silver. He must marry the young woman, for he has violated her. He can never divorce her as long as he lives."

Do you believe that a women or father experiencing something as described above, would agree with this being the definitely best way to solve the issue?

Do you think rape (only if discovered) as a crime ought to be considered worse than being stubborn?

Again, this piece of law also has a practicality issue.
First, most if not 100% families will have to hide their unmarried daughters very much securely. This habit was developed when the Jews were slaves in Egypt. As slaves the Egyptian masters can take their daughters anytime they see them on sight. The Jews thus will hide their unmarried daughters, and possibly with the culture of women being fully covered up with cloths.
Under most circumstances where there's dispute claiming a raping of a virgin, it's because of dating rejected by parents of both sides. That's why the judges choose to rely on whether the victim screamed or not to define raping (actually may not for the virgin case). As a practical result, the law demands the male kid to take a life time responsibility as the dating has already given a bad reputation to the girl. The boy also needs to compensate the girl's family with money.

Second, another factor for the development of such a law is that, before leaving Egypt the Jews can't actually execute anyone, as everyone is a property of his Egypt master. Thus after leaving Egypt death penalty starts with where God is believed to be severely offended, not yet to other areas.
 

Nimos

Well-Known Member
Your comprehension is wrong on what it is said. The story basically says that Law (good and evil) has already been in place, and Law is applicable to both humans and angels alike.
Instead of teaching Adam and Eve the details of Law such as what raping is, what murdering is, the best way to protect them is to keep them as innocent as possible. This worked until Satan stepped to to tempt them to break the law.
Ok, I think I could, maybe accept that a law of good and evil is in effect. So if we run with that, then I still don't really see how you fit things into the story. Why is it the tree of good and evil, if its already in effect and Adam and Eve know the different already? And if God doesn't want them to know, why plant it there?

This is metaphorically said. God created Satan and Satan is more crafty than anyone else. You may need to learn some probabilities and statistics to know what expected outcome is and what the bell curve is about.

When freewill is applied and Law is enforced, human (or angel) behavior as an expected outcome will be like a bell curve. There is always those more crafty than the rest.
I not really sure, how to relate that to a bell curve, as far as I understand it, is about not being able to predict something with certainty or that something will deviate from a norm. Is that close to being correct?

The reason I don't follow you, is that God can do what he want, so he didn't have to create anything crafty?

Similar to the answer above. As a mathematical expected outcome, freewill signifies division. God has to provide an environment for such a division to occur. It starts with Eden which is more like an emulated future Heaven when God and angels and humans are to be living with each other. Eden shows that without such a mathematically expected division to occur before hand, the final Heaven cannot be established.
So God essentially created evil as he allowed it to be like that, if I understand you correct?

First emotion occurs at the time things happen. Even the doctor told you before hand that your mother will die. You will cry after but not before her death.
You speak to your dogie in a special tone with simple words to reflect how you are emotionally connect to it and for it to understand you. Similarly when God speaking to ancient humans, He may choose to express in an emotion which humans can understand. For example, He said that He's a jealous God instead of of introducing a length doctrine to tell why idols should not be worshiped because it may need to take hundred years to firmly develop such a concept among the Jews.
I understand what you are saying and agree depending on the characteristics of God. If God doesn't know all, pass, present and future. I would agree with what you are saying. And some other people here have expressed that this is what they believe, which you might as well. But if God is omniscient, I don't think it explains it.

So as I see it, it comes down to whether God is one or the other.

First, Jewish laws serve the fundamental purpose of education. Not all of the written laws are for practical crimes. The above law is for the purpose of education. The parents won't kill their own unless they are in an angry impulse. However the law specifies that they need to bring their son before the elders. This actually stops their killing by impulse. The elders know clearly that it's family dispute that they will try the best to persuade the son to give up being stubborn. Practically this will not lead to and stoning especially after the parent's emotion is settled. Even to an extreme situation that everyone agrees for a stoning, then it's not a bad thing. This leads to a second point which you don't know.

Second, what you are saying here is whether it's moral if a son is stoned (as an extreme rare situation practically) this way. God holds a morality different than that expected from humans. God's morality says that He needs to save as many savable souls as possible. If that boy is potential leader but with his rebellious nature he would lead away the Jews as a whole, such that God's plan for saving mankind comes to an end, it's not a bad thing to have that boy killed. Israel is for God to train them up for the carrying forward to His message to reach today's humans to save their souls. The issue of rebellion is thus dealt with educationally since the Jews childhood. An actual execution is just an extremely rare situation, but justifiable for the long run of how the Jews can be faithful to God such that human souls across the history of humanity can be savable.
I agree that you at least in some of the laws would be able to argue a good case for what you are saying. But that others clearly do not support it.

For instant, the law that homosexuals should be killed if they are together as man and women, and it is their own fault is not really educational or correct either, except in the eyes of God. I would go as far as to say that it is the exact opposite of education. If God means that its their own fault, why would a sentences less than death be reasonable?

The law that a sorcerer should be killed is also quite hard to see much educational value in and I think we can assume that the people living during that period of time, were no better at spotting witches than those that tried it later in history were.

Even if some laws are considered to be educationally to the Jewish people at the time. I don't think it will get one closer to the question of why its reasonable to call God ultimately good, while the rest is still around?

Once upon a time, God commanded the early Jews that they shouldn't marry and outsiders with a firm foreign religion. This command goes with an issue that for a period of time the Jews didn't reproduced enough population. It's developed as a culture that they set up rules to protect reproduction. It's yet another law which is never practical but serving the educational purpose. Jews study laws in the early age of their childhood.
What I don't understand is, what if it were that man that kicked the others in the private parts or were it really that huge a problem with women running around grabbing mens parts whenever they fought. Maybe it were, Its just a very weird law for a God to make. Don't get me wrong, I understand your logic and even that you might actually be correct, as I do think its a very good explanation to a very strange law.

Again, this piece of law also has a practicality issue.
First, most if not 100% families will have to hide their unmarried daughters very much securely. This habit was developed when the Jews were slaves in Egypt. As slaves the Egyptian masters can take their daughters anytime they see them on sight. The Jews thus will hide their unmarried daughters, and possibly with the culture of women being fully covered up with cloths.
Under most circumstances where there's dispute claiming a raping of a virgin, it's because of dating rejected by parents of both sides. That's why the judges choose to rely on whether the victim screamed or not to define raping (actually may not for the virgin case). As a practical result, the law demands the male kid to take a life time responsibility as the dating has already given a bad reputation to the girl. The boy also needs to compensate the girl's family with money.

Second, another factor for the development of such a law is that, before leaving Egypt the Jews can't actually execute anyone, as everyone is a property of his Egypt master. Thus after leaving Egypt death penalty starts with where God is believed to be severely offended, not yet to other areas.

I think you might be correct here as well, but how come raping is not considered a worse crime than for instant being a witch or homosexuals, I mean two men that decide to be together don't really hurt anyone do they?
 
Last edited:

Muffled

Jesus in me
1. I believe it is not a matter of knowing right or wrong but a question of belief. Adam believed God when He said don't eat of that tree but Eve did not believe Him.

I believe a better question is why didn't Eve believe God. I believe it is due to previous notions developed in a previous life. That would mean that sin did not begin with Adam and Eve.
 

Muffled

Jesus in me
@Nimos It is an interesting batch of questions (obviously N/A to me though), have you considered getting a Jewish perspective on it? as they're the other major religion that believes in the Torah (seeing as all your questions quote books from the Torah).

Peace bro, hope you keep exploring :)

I believe Jews do not have the Holy Spirit so they wouldn't be much help.
 

Nimos

Well-Known Member
1. I believe it is not a matter of knowing right or wrong but a question of belief. Adam believed God when He said don't eat of that tree but Eve did not believe Him.

I believe a better question is why didn't Eve believe God. I believe it is due to previous notions developed in a previous life. That would mean that sin did not begin with Adam and Eve.
I don't think its a better question to ask why Eve didn't believe God. There is not really anything in the story that would suggest that only Eve would not believe God, remember Adam eats the moment Eve offers it to him without any objections to her having done it, So wouldn't it make more sense if it were both of them then?
 

Deeje

Avid Bible Student
Premium Member
Ok, think I understand you now. :) So its have nothing to do with being able to do what we want. Its more of a choose me or die, free will? If that is the case, ain't that a bit horrible? :D

How can it be horrible when the Sovereign is not corrupt and only has good things that he wants to give his human children? If he was a malevolent dictator, then we would never want to obey him. Fear is all we would know. This is his creation and he wants the very best for us.....he proved that in Eden....what did the humans lack? They lacked nothing in the provisions God gave them as a brilliant start....what they lacked was appreciation for why they were there and what obedience meant for themselves and their future offspring.

It's a lesson we all needed to learn.....but some of us never will.

No I believe we have always been free, it was not given to us by God, im an atheist :). Im referring to what the bible say about free will, which I might have misunderstood the meaning of..

I think you have completely misunderstood what 'biblical' free will means. How many laws were humans subjected to in the beginning? Just one.....and not even a difficult one.

As mentioned before, I don't think I have misquoted or made any unreasonable claims, which is not supported by what is written in the bible.

Anyone can read the Bible and many misread it or take quotes out of context to support their own views. I believe that scripture explains itself. You just have to know what it says in context with its overall theme. You have to know why we are here.

I can understand you now, as this have nothing to do with freely choosing God or seek him out of love. Its about submission. Which were what I misunderstood, so your position does make a lot more sense now.

Not exactly correct......when you understand who God is, and what is original purpose was in putting us here, then you love the entire concept and it resonates with many individuals in accord with what is in their own heart. A person with a haughty spirit making demands on God to provide them with answers to their challenges will never get anywhere. God is seeking the humble ones who see his mark on everything in nature and his love expressed in so many amazing ways.....it makes us want to submit to such a benevolent Sovereign as ruler over us.

In case you hadn't noticed, humans were not designed to rule each other.....power corrupts them every time. We are designed to be ruled by our Maker and once he has sorted out the issues associated with the abuse of free will, all will return to the way it was meant to be. God will have the nucleus of the new world population chosen because they will not be rebellious about being told what to do. Isn't that what chafes people....they want to do what they want.....not what God wants. So why would he let them stay to mess things up again?
There is no place for rebels in his household.

Again, I thought it was about love for God.

It is about love for God....."agape" is the word in Greek. Its not the empty, transient stuff of love songs.....it is so much deeper than that.

I think it must be how we understand the word love and what that means, it seems we are quite far from each other when it comes to that. Which is fine, but it could explain why I don't really understand what you are saying.

The love that the Bible talks about is "self-sacrificing".....

John 15:12-13...
"This is my commandment, that you love one another just as I have loved you. 13 No one has love greater than this, that someone should surrender his life in behalf of his friends."

The love that humans know does not really have too much of that component. It is selfish and that is why it is never satisfying.
 

Nimos

Well-Known Member
How can it be horrible when the Sovereign is not corrupt and only has good things that he wants to give his human children? If he was a malevolent dictator, then we would never want to obey him. Fear is all we would know. This is his creation and he wants the very best for us.....he proved that in Eden....what did the humans lack? They lacked nothing in the provisions God gave them as a brilliant start....what they lacked was appreciation for why they were there and what obedience meant for themselves and their future offspring.

It's a lesson we all needed to learn.....but some of us never will.

I think we have to establish what we mean when we are talking about love and good, as it seem that our view on this is not the same. To me love is expressed through our behaviors towards one another

So a small child that take a cookie, even though it have been told not to by its parents might correct the child that they should not do it when told not to. Meaning the parents explain to the child, why their action is wrong and might even take the cookie away from the child.

This is an action out of love as its teaches the child that it can not just do whatever it feel likes, as it need to learn how to function in a society with other humans. How is it reasonable to compare a child taking a cookie with functioning in a society? Because to the child society at this point have little meaning, anyone that have experience two small children having a go at each other, will have notice the things they can fight about. Such as wanting an item, purely so the other wont have it, even though they only reacted to it, the moment the first one showed interest in it. To adults this seems "stupid", which is why we correct them, not only because its stupid, but to learn them the lesson that sharing is good. I think this make a lot of sense and at least to me would be an expression of love for the child, as you are not punishing them, but expanding their ability to behave in a way that will make life easier for them.

Now comparing that to the story of the Bible, using the same example as above. God again have told them not to do it, but rather than explaining to the child why it shouldn't take the cookie, or assume that it have complete faith in him when told not to. He goes straight to punishment, not like simply yelling at them or beating them senseless, no he punish them with eternal suffering, in order to teach them this lesson.

Now the reason I think we look at this differently, is because of the extreme way that this lesson is learned. A parent, if sensible, would escalate the punishment should the child keep doing it, so next time they might "threaten" the child, with something like they will never buy cookies again, and in some cases they might slap them, which some think is a good idea, or if the parents are really clever, they move the cookie jar out of reach of the child. So even God doesn't escalate, he goes to expelling them from their "home" with eternal suffering and cloth, straight way. Remember the cookie jar could have been moved at any point.

Furthermore, love is also about forgiveness, so even though the child continually want cookies or take them, most parents would forgive their child out of love. This kind of forgiveness is not really to be found in the bible, well God sort of does it when he forgive the Jews at least in the OT, but I think its commonly accepted, even though I might be wrong. That we are to asked for forgiveness for our sins.

Obviously this does not proof that God did not love them, but his way of expressing and showing love, is quite different from how most parents choose to show it, wouldn't you agree with that?

I think you have completely misunderstood what 'biblical' free will means. How many laws were humans subjected to in the beginning? Just one.....and not even a difficult one.

I can agree that "free will" do not share the same meaning.

Anyone can read the Bible and many misread it or take quotes out of context to support their own views. I believe that scripture explains itself. You just have to know what it says in context with its overall theme. You have to know why we are here.

It funny your saying this, because those other JW I have spoken with have said the exact same thing, not in relation to what we are talking about here. But that scriptures explain themselves. Which is really not something I agree with :) If that were the case, there wouldn't be so many different interpretations of them. I am as certain as I can be, that the way you understand them and believe that they explain your position perfectly is no different from others that do not share your views are that you are wrong.

Nothing is self explaining and definitely not scriptures, there is a reason why science were invented and why the scientific method is the preferred way of explaining things. Which is because things doesn't explain themselves. If what you were saying is true, you wouldn't need the Watchtower, and most people working with these scriptures, either by telling others what they think they mean or study them, would be out of a job.

So you have to at least be very specific when you claim that they explain themselves, and what exactly that means, i think?

In case you hadn't noticed, humans were not designed to rule each other.....power corrupts them every time.
As far as I understand from those JW I have spoken to, the Watchtower have a governing body, which does pretty much what you say is not required?

From your own website:

The Governing Body is a small group of mature Christians who provide direction for Jehovah’s Witnesses worldwide. Their work is twofold:

The Governing Body follows the pattern set by “the apostles and elders in Jerusalem” in the first century, who made important decisions on behalf of the entire Christian congregation. (Acts 15:2) Like those faithful men, the members of the Governing Body are not the leaders of our organization. They look to the Bible for guidance, acknowledging that Jehovah God has appointed Jesus Christ as the Head of the congregation.—1 Corinthians 11:3; Ephesians 5:23.

Isn't that pretty much what is meant by ruling others? To guide and take care of important decisions on their behalf?
 
Last edited:
Top