• 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!

Can the Christian god be all moral, Or even at all moral?

pandamonk

Active Member
Finnyhaha said:
When you talk about the Christian god, you're talking about something about which no two people have the same perception. The god of one Christian may be a completely different being from the god of another, simply because each person will interpret the Bible differently, and arrive at different beliefs concerning the character described within it as "God".

In my view, the god described in the Bible was ruthless, arogant, selfish, destructive, and ignorant. But most people don't worship that image of God anymore.

The "Christian god" and the "god of the Bible" (which is the one you describe in this post) are two seperate entities.

Most Christians worship a moral god.

Finny
Why do they still look to the bible then? The God of the bible is their god if the bible is their holy book.
 

pandamonk

Active Member
Mister Emu said:
Well on five,

You are not condemned because of your un-belief in Jesus. You are condemned because of your sin, if you were perfect, you would not need to ask for any forgiveness.
What sin? the one caused by adam and eve? hmm i could discuss about that. i will, if you wish.
 

Ryan2065

Well-Known Member
I am trying to remember this argument from philosophy class that stated something to the effect of....
If god is all powerful, he cannot be a moral god.
If god is moral, he cannot be all powerful.

The reasoning behind this was if god was able to make peace on earth but refused to do so, that would be immoral.
 

pandamonk

Active Member
pandamonk said:
What sin? the one caused by adam and eve? hmm i could discuss about that. i will, if you wish.
ok, the tree Adam and Eve ate from gave them knowledge of good and evil, so before the point where they ate from the tree they had no knowledge of good and evil. So before they ate the forbidden fruit, they would not of known that obeying God is good and disobeying God is evil. Ok, so when God told them not to eat from the tree they would not of known why and would not of seen anything wrong with the consequences of eating from the tree. They would of seen nothing wrong with disobeying God, they couldn't know anything would be wrong with it. God could not punish for the offence as he is wholly just and punishing them for doing something they could not have known to be wrong or evil would be unjust.
 

Aqualung

Tasty
Pah said:
You make assumptions here that are not found in scripture - "If they wanted sex ....", "...did not rape or mistreat their new wives"

Essentially, however, you are also making assumptions about things not written in the Bible. You are assuming that the Isrealites did brutally rape and torture their "spoils of war." I say that they did not.


pah said:
The point that makes this biblical rape is that there was no sense of consent nor even the customary following of marriage protocol. It is NOT charity to take in an orphan when you willfully kill the parents. That would be the kindest way to express the actions of God and the Isreali's.

The thing you seem to fail to realize is that the war and the killing the Isrealites were doing was so God could carry out his punishment on the other nations. While you may claim that God should never be able to do such a horrible thing, I say that it is entirely necessary that at certain points throughout history God would excersice his judgement upon those who aren't doing his will. As I said earlier (I think. I cant remember if that was a different thread or forum :)) God no doubt would have warned the people of this other nation that if they did not turn from their evil ways they would be visited with His wrath. He probably told them that the destruction would come in the form of an invading army which would kill off thier nation. He commanded the Isrealites to go against the other nation to exersise his judgemtnt on them, which is a necessary thing. Therefore it IS charity to take in the virgins. The men had already been warned of what would happen if they didn't right their ways, so they have no one to blame but themselves for thier death. The virgins, however, wouldn't have been that corrupted. They were still to young to have even been married, and therefore, by sparing thier lives, the Isrealites DID show mercy and compassion and kindness toward them, which are not the sort of emotions that are common amoung a group of rapists.

pah said:
They were seized as spoils of war by God's command - a war of genocide and infanticide (the male children). As disgusting as the story is, it is as much disgusting that apologetics are offered to put a good light on it. It is no different than any other barbaric war - today's and those others throughout history.

It is a disgusting story, there is no denying it. I, however, am not making "appologies" for my God in order to make Him sound better than He "obviously" is. I'm trying to explain things as I think they actually are. God had to punish the people who weren't doing His will. You can think this is barbaric if you want, but I contend that it is necessary, if unpleasant. Once again, (I think) I said earlier that He probably didn't take much pleasure in punishing the other tribe, but that's just the way things are. God is both loving and just.
 

pandamonk

Active Member
Ryan2065 said:
I am trying to remember this argument from philosophy class that stated something to the effect of....
If god is all powerful, he cannot be a moral god.
If god is moral, he cannot be all powerful.

The reasoning behind this was if god was able to make peace on earth but refused to do so, that would be immoral.
yeh an easy one. God has to be both all moral and all powerful to be considered a god. God being both would have to wipe out all evil as it is all good, (wants nothing but goodness) and all powerful (has the power to do whatever it wants) So God cannot let evil exist as it contradicts with his morality and his power and yet evil exists, so therefore God cannot.
 

Aqualung

Tasty
Ryan2065 said:
The reasoning behind this was if god was able to make peace on earth but refused to do so, that would be immoral.


A: It's not immoral. It is necessary for us to come under trial for us to learn and grow. How else could God know if we really loved him and wanted to follow him if we were in a constant state of happiness and peace? Then it's all fine and dandy to say, "Sure, I'll follow God, because He gives me gifts that I can see right now!" It's much different than saying, "Sure, I'll follow God, because even though my life is hard right now, I know that if I do He will reward me in the end." How could we prove our devotion if we weren't tested?

B: God will make peace on the earth, just not until A is accomplished. He has a plan for us. It doesn't jsut involve us living in a constant state of peace in which we never have to grow, adapt, change, or learn. That would be immoral and unloving. He wants us to grow, and we need trials to do that.
 

Ryan2065

Well-Known Member
Aqualung said:
How could we prove our devotion if we weren't tested?
Why do we need to prove our devotion at all? Oh right, to avoid hell. To me, a just and moral god would do everything in his power to make people believe in him if those that didn't spent forever in hell. People say that god does do everything he can to keep people from making the wrong choices... but if he is doing everything he can, then we need to re-define all-powerful. If god came down from heaven right now, looked at me and said, "Hey, dude, the Christians are right, go to church, read the bible and you will be saved." Then I would, of course, do everything he said. Instead the christian god threatens us with hell but gives no real evidence of himself, he just says to have faith. So if god was really a moral god, he would come down and prove he existed. This would save millions of people from hell.
 

Aqualung

Tasty
Ryan2065 said:
Why do we need to prove our devotion at all? Oh right, to avoid hell. To me, a just and moral god would do everything in his power to make people believe in him if those that didn't spent forever in hell. People say that god does do everything he can to keep people from making the wrong choices... but if he is doing everything he can, then we need to re-define all-powerful. If god came down from heaven right now, looked at me and said, "Hey, dude, the Christians are right, go to church, read the bible and you will be saved." Then I would, of course, do everything he said. Instead the christian god threatens us with hell but gives no real evidence of himself, he just says to have faith. So if god was really a moral god, he would come down and prove he existed. This would save millions of people from hell.

He doesn't do everything He can to keep us from making the wrong choice - He does everything He can while still preserving our free will and allowing us to grow. We are His children. I'm not sure how old you are, but your parents either will or already have allowed you to go off on your own to make your own choices. They cerainly could have raised you to stay under their watchful care your entire life, but that wouldn't have been very good for you. It's true that you can make the wrong choices, but that's just part of being your own man. That's what God is doing. He's allowing us to be our own men in order that we may learn and grow.

And I would say that He gives a lot of evidence of himself.
 

Mister Emu

Emu Extraordinaire
Staff member
Premium Member
What sin? the one caused by adam and eve? hmm i could discuss about that. i will, if you wish.
Your sins, not Adam nor Eve's, though I do thank you for going into a discourse on it before allowing me to reply.

Have you ever lied? Even a white lie? If so, you are not good enough to get into heaven. I could ask many questions, if you have ever broken the OT Law once, you are not good enough to get into heaven.

Instead the christian god threatens us with hell but gives no real evidence of himself
There are miracles(I am not speaking of the mary-in-bread versions). If you choose not to believe that they occur... well that is your choice.
 

Ryan2065

Well-Known Member
Aqualung said:
He doesn't do everything He can to keep us from making the wrong choice
He really doesn't do much to keep us from making the wrong choice. I am off on my own, but I still talk with my parents on the phone. Hell, I at least know my parents exist! Lets say for example god appeared to everyone in a mass vision and said I am god, read the bible and follow it and you will be welcome in heaven. Do you not think that he would still be preserving our free will and be taking an active role in keeping us from going to hell?
 

Pah

Uber all member
Aqualung said:
Essentially, however, you are also making assumptions about things not written in the Bible. You are assuming that the Isrealites did brutally rape and torture their "spoils of war." I say that they did not.
I said and it should have been understood that the marriage was immoral. It did not have the consent that we would expect today nor follow the customs of that time and therefore the spoils of war were merely stolen property that WAS used for sex/procreation. THAT is immoral. That you excuse it for any reason shows that your faith is given to a barbaric, cruel God. I never said "brutally" rape nor did I say "torture". God's action and the acquisition of the Isreali's is bad enough without those accusations. Numbers 29 specifies that a woman may not marry unless a father gives consent or the woman takes an oath. No where is it written that that happened. The 32,000 virgins were forcibly married (if that is what you're contending is "save for yourselves") contrary to all custom at the time.

It was at least admitted in Numbers 31 that the troops who killed were unclean.


The thing you seem to fail to realize is that the war and the killing the Isrealites were doing was so God could carry out his punishment on the other nations. While you may claim that God should never be able to do such a horrible thing, I say that it is entirely necessary that at certain points throughout history God would excersice his judgement upon those who aren't doing his will. As I said earlier (I think. I cant remember if that was a different thread or forum :)) God no doubt [no doubt?]would have warned the people of this other nation that if they did not turn from their evil ways [no, see below] they would be visited with His wrath. He probably[probably?] told them that the destruction would come in the form of an invading army which would kill off thier nation[no, see below]. He commanded the Isrealites to go against the other nation to exersise his judgemtnt on them, which is a necessary thing. Therefore it IS charity to take in the virgins.[no, see below] The men had already been warned [no, see below] of what would happen if they didn't right their ways, so they have no one to blame but themselves for thier death. The virgins, however, wouldn't have been that corrupted. They were still to young to have even been married, and therefore, by sparing thier lives, the Isrealites DID show mercy and compassion and kindness toward them,[no, see below] which are not the sort of emotions that are common amoung a group of rapists.
Numbers 31 does not support a warning being given.

Joshua 10 shows that the taking of virgins was NOT neccessary
34 Then Joshua and all Israel with him moved on from Lachish to Eglon; they took up positions against it and attacked it. 35 They captured it that same day and put it to the sword and totally destroyed everyone in it, just as they had done to Lachish.
38 Then Joshua and all Israel with him turned around and attacked Debir. 39 They took the city, its king and its villages, and put them to the sword. Everyone in it they totally destroyed. They left no survivors. They did to Debir and its king as they had done to Libnah and its king and to Hebron.
If this be God's "charity" in saving virgins, where was the seemingly inconsitant "charity" in Joshua?

Virgins were spared because the were "pure"? And what of the little boys - the really young ones, the ones that were not grown enough to be warriors against the Isrealites? Couldn't have sex with them could they. They would have made as good a slave as the females if that was the reason for "save for yourselves".

"32,000 women who had never slept with a man." (Numbers 31:35)
[to the soldiers] "16,000 people, of which the tribute for the LORD was 32." (Numbers 31:40)
16,000 virgins remained for the Isrealites (Numbers 31:46)

Of these 16,000 "From the Israelites' half, Moses selected one out of every fifty persons...gave them to the Levites"(Numbers 31:47)

Sickening! just sickening that those numbers imply that so many were killed in genocide and infanticide.



It is a disgusting story, there is no denying it. I, however, am not making "appologies" for my God in order to make Him sound better than He "obviously" is. I'm trying to explain things as I think they actually are. God had to punish the people who weren't doing His will. You can think this is barbaric if you want, but I contend that it is necessary, if unpleasant. Once again, (I think) I said earlier that He probably didn't take much pleasure in punishing the other tribe, but that's just the way things are. God is both loving and just.
What you think is not supported by scripture.

There is no getting around it, even with your sugar coating, the facts tell of the barbaric cruelty of God. In the Wild Wild West, God would have been called a "hanging judge" but on a much more massive scale.
 

pandamonk

Active Member
Mister Emu said:
Your sins, not Adam nor Eve's, though I do thank you for going into a discourse on it before allowing me to reply.
But you do not know me. You merely assume i sin. Ok i may "sin" in the religious sense, but that's because I am not part of any religion so am not told not to do things religious people are told are sinful, eg. sex, i see nothing wrong with sex whereas many religious people do. I am not sinning in my sense of the word but in a religious sense. So there's no way of knowing if i have sinned. It just depends on what you consider is sinful. Who says a white lie is sinful? Most white lies are to avoid upset. eg. you don't tell a pregnant woman she's fat when she asks, you say she looks great to make her feels good about herself(what is sinful about that?)
Mister Emu said:
Have you ever lied? Even a white lie? If so, you are not good enough to get into heaven.
Who says a white lie is sinful? Most white lies are to avoid upset. eg. you don't tell a pregnant woman she's fat when she asks, you say she looks great to make her feels good about herself(what is sinful about that?)
Mister Emu said:
I could ask many questions, if you have ever broken the OT Law once, you are not good enough to get into heaven.
the OT Law?

Ok, after you said i was condemned because of my sin you said I would not need to ask for forgiveness. Lol, I'm an atheist, I ask for no forgiveness. I do not believe in the existence of God, any god, to ask forgiveness from. The only sin you know i commit is not believing in the existence of God, which is exactly what you said i am not condemned for. This is why i assumed you meant the sin passed on from Adam and Eve.
 

pandamonk

Active Member
Xaero4 said:
God is mysterious. Nothing will ever change that.
There's something wrong with this statement. "God is" you are assuming God exists. it should read "God, if such a being exists, is mysterious. This may change."
 

Aqualung

Tasty
Ryan2065 said:
He really doesn't do much to keep us from making the wrong choice. I am off on my own, but I still talk with my parents on the phone. Hell, I at least know my parents exist! Lets say for example god appeared to everyone in a mass vision and said I am god, read the bible and follow it and you will be welcome in heaven. Do you not think that he would still be preserving our free will and be taking an active role in keeping us from going to hell?

You need to be free to make your own choices; that's why you're on your own. Let's say for example He did come down in a mass vision. Have you ever read the New TEstament? That's exactly what Jesus did, complete with awesome healings and other miracles. He even brought people back to life. Did everybody who saw him beleive? Absolutely not. Even some of the people who did beleive at first quickly reverted to their old ways, which was the cause of wiritng the epistles. Dpo you really think that if He did that it wouldn't be a waste of time? I think it would. And He does show signs that he exists, but, as Net Doc said, you just don't notice or beleive.
 

Aqualung

Tasty
pah said:
Numbers 31 does not support a warning being given

Of course Numbers 31 doesn't support it. Numbers is a history of the Isrealites and is nowhere near being a complete history of all the people in the world at the time. To site the lack of documentation as evidence that it didn't occure is rediculous.

As for you thinking he's brutal and barbaric, I still say that He warned the other tribes about thier imminent destruction if they did not change their ways. Punishment is always a tough thing to go through. It has to be, or it wouldn't be punishment. Even though there is no Biblical support of a warniing, I beleive that one was given. That's not really something we can argue about, though, because that's my pure beleif, with no actual "support".

pah said:
Virgins were spared because the were "pure"? And what of the little boys - the really young ones, the ones that were not grown enough to be warriors against the Isrealites? Couldn't have sex with them could they. They would have made as good a slave as the females if that was the reason for "save for yourselves".

The little boys had to suffer because they were in a period of judgement. That's just the way it goes sometimes. I beleive that this punishment did not extend beyond death. I don't think they were punished for their sins beyond being killed, which really isn't that bad when you consider that they then went into an eternity that is fit for a pure boy like that.
 

chuck010342

Active Member
Finnyhaha said:
I stand by my previous statement. Once we condone "torturing people for their views", we are doomed to live in a society where thoughts can be crimes. 1984 anyone?

If you honestly believe that killing people is good won't you go and do it?

Finnyhaha said:
Ok, so if God was going to go around killing people because he knew they were going to be evil when they grew up, then why did Hitler and Stalin and countless others survive into full adulthood?

WE are under a different covenant right now then at the time of the Isralites

Finnyhaha said:
And besides that, what ever happened to free will? You DO believe in free will don't you?

what do you mean by free will?

Finnyhaha said:
Firstly, because dismissing "the ancient pagans" as being genocidle would be making a blanket judgement about a large group that spanned the entire world, rather than a judgement about the individuals and groups who did practice infant sacrifice.

The concept of individual right did not exsist back then. In the ancient near east people lived in groups. Very rarely would individuals break off.

Finnyhaha said:
Secondly because I have only the word of the Bible that those people who were occupying the land that became Israel were sacrificing their children. This record is obviously very biased.

if you don't believe the bible check secular historical writings on that era. I have and it confirms what the bible says.

Finnyhaha said:
Thirdly, because even if the entire pagan world was sacrificing children left and right, they would still not be guilty of genocide, but of infanticide.

same thing.

Finnyhaha said:
I am the one more trustworthy than all the buddahs and the sages.

your wiser then a sage?
Finnyhaha said:
I am the one who believes that God should be held to the same standards as men, if not higher.

man didn't create the heavens and the earth, man didn't take the dust of earth and form a man, even if he could what would he breathe into his chest? cause the only thing that comes from our breathe is the breathe of death. prepare for emmanuels mega burst there is only room for one sherrif in the universe
Finnyhaha said:
I am the sole authority for myself, my actions and my beliefs.

When you stand before the almighty God be sure to tell him that
 

Pah

Uber all member
Aqualung said:
Of course Numbers 31 doesn't support it. Numbers is a history of the Isrealites and is nowhere near being a complete history of all the people in the world at the time. To site the lack of documentation as evidence that it didn't occure is rediculous.

As for you thinking he's brutal and barbaric, I still say that He warned the other tribes about thier imminent destruction if they did not change their ways. Punishment is always a tough thing to go through. It has to be, or it wouldn't be punishment. Even though there is no Biblical support of a warniing, I beleive that one was given. That's not really something we can argue about, though, because that's my pure beleif, with no actual "support".



The little boys had to suffer because they were in a period of judgement. That's just the way it goes sometimes. I beleive that this punishment did not extend beyond death. I don't think they were punished for their sins beyond being killed, which really isn't that bad when you consider that they then went into an eternity that is fit for a pure boy like that.
You are the one making the claim that a warning was given. Cite the evidence that it was given or stop putting words in God's mouth. Without that evidence, there is no justification for making the assumption you've pushed as an apology for God's barbarism. Show me that you are not inventing truth.

A period of "judgement' for "little boys"? For what? Why were young males judged and not young females.

Killing somebody for a future "heaven" is the ends justifying the means. Are you pushing that claptrap now? Hitler used that in establishing the purity of the Third Reich. Hitlers end was the glory of a German state and he thought nothing of the extermination of a large portion of Jews. The very same can be said of God and the nations he massacered. Many neo-nazis consider Hitler god-like. The same can be said of Christians that accept as moral the destruction of Isreal's ancient enemies. The difference? - the shape of the cross each chose to symbolize their cause.

There is a solution to the quandry the Bible presents - that it is a history of a nation written to provide a cover for the sins and evil of ancient man and bring a touch of the divine into the acts of otherwise godless men. But I don't think you'd like that either.
 

Aqualung

Tasty
Pah said:
You are the one making the claim that a warning was given. Cite the evidence that it was given or stop putting words in God's mouth. Without that evidence, there is no justification for making the assumption you've pushed as an apology for God's barbarism. Show me that you are not inventing truth.

Well, I guess I can't really "prove" it other than by saying that the fair and just God in which I beleive woudn't just go killing without a warning, and by saying that the Bible is definitely and obviously not even a complete record of the Jews, so that I think it's rediculous to use the fact of it not being there as proof that it didn't happen. He also gave warnings to the people the Bible does write about, and I don't think He would have that sort of double standard.

pah said:
A period of "judgement' for "little boys"? For what? Why were young males judged and not young females.

"For what" is for there disobedience to God's law. The young females were judged just as much as the young females. The females were given a place amoung the Isrealites, and I appearanlty can't describe about the men because that would be "pushing that claptrap" which appearantly you don't want to hear.

pah said:
Hitler used that in establishing the purity of the Third Reich. Hitlers end was the glory of a German state and he thought nothing of the extermination of a large portion of Jews. The very same can be said of God and the nations he massacered. Many neo-nazis consider Hitler god-like. The same can be said of Christians that accept as moral the destruction of Isreal's ancient enemies. The difference? - the shape of the cross each chose to symbolize their cause.

You could say that God is just like Hitler, but that would be a far stretch. First of all, God killed the people by using an army, and the other tribe chose to fight back to their destruction. If they had chosen to switch sides, they wouldn't have been killed. I'm not saying that the Jews should have started kililng thier countrymen for Hitler. Hitler was not led by God, and he was a very brutal man. He didn't give Jews a warning from God to turn around. He didn't kill them inn a war in which they chose to take up their weapons and fight back. He killed them by taking peaceful dissenters out to torture, starve, do inhumane tests on, &c., not the sort of thing God would command anyone to do. Maybe you can't see a difference between killing peaceful Jews and killing another nation that is set to war against you, but I can, and it's a very large difference.
 
Top