He was questioning God and God answered in Job 38-42. God asks Job where he was during creation, if he was the one giving the birds the knowledge of how to migrate and build their nests in inaccessible places, if he was the one who told the morning when to begin and the sun when to set (etc. etc. for 5 chapters). Job 40:1-4 says, “Then the LORD said to Job, "Will the faultfinder contend with the Almighty? Let him who reproves God answer it."

Does might make right?

However, His justice will not allow Him to destroy something that did not justly deserve to be destroyed.

Really? So every animal that was destroyed in the flood deserved it? How about the fact that animals die at all, do they sin and therefore deserve to die? I know, you are a Xian and probably of the mind that animals don't matter, since they don't have souls and such. So, how about this. You do probably believe that a soul enters a body at conception, right? So, do you think that there were any pregnant women when god flooded the world? Did the fetus deserve to die?

I disagree. I have already chosen to follow God here on earth. You make it seem as though once I get to heaven I would want to change my mind (wanting to do evil) and be unable to. Why would I want to change my mind if God is truly all powerful, knowing, loving, holy, just, etc.? The people in heaven are those who have already chosen to serve God on earth.

Ah, but you did not answer the question, did you? What if you, or someone else, did decide to change their mind?

And therefore if there be any being that we are under infinite obligations to love, and honour, and obey, the contrary towards him must be infinitely faulty.

Love and honor certainly should not be obligatory...for anyone or anything.

This was my personal opinion on what would happen. I’m not saying it would for certain.

And, you sidestepped the question. Would all people choose to sin or wouldn't they? If the former, then did they really have a chance? If the latter, then why would you state that it is fair to condemn all without giving them the chance?

I realize this is a tangent, but could they comprehend what death was? Paul says that death was a result of sin, and so first there must be sin, and then death. At this point in time, could Adam/Eve comprehend what death was? Could that type of death even sink in, or was it too abstract?

In their interaction with the serpent, they seem to recognize it as a punishment to be avoided. Whether they fully comprehended cannot, I think, be easily understood from the text.

I have not been following the discussion closely and I do not know how relevant the idea is to the whole. I just jumped in on one thought. I do not think the matter relates closely to the POE as a whole.

Cheers,

Matt

**God did tell Adam and Eve that they would die if they ate the fruit. I think that is a pretty strong warning. It seems as though if Adam and Eve were not moved by a threat on their very life, then it is possible that they would not be moved by anything. **

I realize this is a tangent, but could they comprehend what death was? Paul says that death was a result of sin, and so first there must be sin, and then death. At this point in time, could Adam/Eve comprehend what death was? Could that type of death even sink in, or was it too abstract?

“{Whatever} is under the whole heaven is Mine.” Clearly this must be true if He is the Creator. He has the right to this authority. Previously, you used the example of a sculptor and his sculpture. Wouldn’t you say that the sculptor deserves everything the sculpture can give- because he is worthy of it?

A sculpture in real life would be inanimate. By contrast, in every situation where we cause conscious beings to come into existence, the obligation is not from the created to the creator but rather the other way around. If you bring children into the world, you are responsible for their upbringing unless that resposibility is formally handed to someone else. I would argue that the owners of dogs and cats have a responsibility either to stop their pets from breeding or to try their hardest to find good homes for the puppies and kittens that ensue. So if God created us, then I would argue that He has an obligation toward us. He is responsible for us. As an all-knowing, all-powerful being, it seems to me He ought to be perfectly capable of dealing with that responsibility.

Perhaps God is not as omnipotent as some think. Perhaps, if there is a life after this, it has "natural" laws as this life does. Perhaps there are certain things which make people unable to take part in the afterlife. Perhaps it is not a punishment that some may face but a natural consequence, much like hitting the ground is a natural consequence of falling off the roof.

In the twilight hours when the complexity and beauty of life and the myriad coincidences in my own life and seemingly prevalent throughout the world press themselves upon my mind I think I can imagine that there is some kind of a higher intelligence at the helm charting our course. But, then the reality of the awful plight of man and animal rush back in as the rays of light from the advancing sun encroach upon the seat of my silent reveries. The bloodletting of this planet testifies to the total indifference of whatever is at the heart of creation. Then I put aside any hope of rescue or love from the great beyond. It's morning and I am now fully awake.

I tried to see some kind of reason why a loving god would go about it this way, and the only thing I can come up with is that religious beliefs are designed to find meaning in a cruel and heartless world and to propagate themselves. It seems far more likely that religion is the invention of primitive man, not the invention of even an average intelligence (by today's standards). Much of the "wisdom" present in the Bible is the result of many intelligent people thinking about it and reading wisdom into it, just as one can find deep meaning in really dumb poetry.

Matt, I'm not as much responding as reacting. Forgive me for this non-sequitor.
Carry on. I'm just following along.

Two thoughts,

Certainly. If you've ever read Paradise Lost, there's a very good example. Near the end, an angel takes Adam up to a hilltop and shows him all the events of theological history - the flood, the Egyptian captivity, the apocalypse, and so on - that will occur as a result of his disobedience. The only problem is, the angel doesn't do that until after the fall, when it's too late for that information to affect Adam's decision. Why not show him that before eating from the tree, so he'd know in advance what the results would be, rather than expecting him to comprehend a concept he'd never heard of and could not possibly visualize?

According to Genesis, God did tell Adam and Eve that they would die if they ate the fruit. I think that is a pretty strong warning. It seems as though if Adam and Eve were not moved by a threat on their very life, then it is possible that they would not be moved by anything. What do you think?

Do you mean to tell me that if God exists, he will punish me, not for being perverse, but simply for being wrong?

This is not intended to scare you into anything, but just as an idea which may pique your interest. I offer it as a hypothetical idea as I will not be offering any reasoning or evidence to support it. It is just something for you to mull over.

Perhaps God is not as omnipotent as some think. Perhaps, if there is a life after this, it has "natural" laws as this life does. Perhaps there are certain things which make people unable to take part in the afterlife. Perhaps it is not a punishment that some may face but a natural consequence, much like hitting the ground is a natural consequence of falling off the roof.

Cheers,

Matt

Could you give me some examples of ‘evidence’ he should have given them to make a more ‘informed’ decision?

Certainly. If you've ever read Paradise Lost, there's a very good example. Near the end, an angel takes Adam up to a hilltop and shows him all the events of theological history - the flood, the Egyptian captivity, the apocalypse, and so on - that will occur as a result of his disobedience. The only problem is, the angel doesn't do that until after the fall, when it's too late for that information to affect Adam's decision. Why not show him that before eating from the tree, so he'd know in advance what the results would be, rather than expecting him to comprehend a concept he'd never heard of and could not possibly visualize?

Remember- they did not have the knowledge of evil until they ate, so this would not be possible.

If you choose to take up that argument, are you conceding my point that it would be unfair to expect anyone to make a choice between good and evil, and punish them for choosing wrongly, if they do not have knowledge of the difference between good and evil?

Where do you get the idea that God is angry? The passage certainly does not say that.

Okay, you got me: I was extrapolating. I guess I just assumed that if I ever threw two people out of the beautiful, perfect paradise I had created for them, and sentenced them to a life of backbreaking work, agonizing pain, sorrow, old age, debility, and inevitable death, it would be because I was somewhat upset at them.

Well, I thought that He being God was a good enough reason, but maybe I can give you more. I think Job had this very question after he was being put through trials.

I hate to say this, Mollie, but you're proving my point for me. Yes, the Book of Job does pose the same question I'm asking: if God creates, or even allows, evil and disaster, why is he worthy of our worship? But notice that Job does not answer this question. Instead, it does the exact thing you did that I objected to: asserting that because God is far above us, we have no right to question his ways. That's not an answer to my question, but the exact opposite. It's the refusal to give an answer!

I think we're approaching this from two completely different angles. Correct me if I'm wrong, but I think you're saying that because God is all-loving, any evidence that would seem to suggest otherwise must be attributed to our imperfect understanding. But I would point out that this is going about the process of belief-formation completely backwards. Rather than drawing conclusions from the evidence, it starts with a conclusion and then tries to dismiss or deny the evidence that doesn't support it.

This returns to my earlier point about double standards. The standard you use with God, you would never, ever use with any action by any human being. If you saw a mugger attack an elderly woman, you wouldn't automatically assume that he had some reason unknown to you that justified what he did. And you certainly wouldn't accept the mugger's assertion that he did have such a reason and therefore it was not your place to question him, particularly if he refused to tell you what that reason actually was.

I don't think any atheist is disputing that if there was a god who was supremely loving and benevolent, he would be worthy of our devotion. I don't dispute that. What we're disputing is whether there is any such being - and we're arguing that, based on the evidence available to us, we cannot rationally believe that there is. Even if there is a god, based on the evidence available to us, I think we'd have to conclude that he was at best indifferent, at worst malevolent. The facts to support any other conclusion simply don't exist. Again, if I'm wrong - if there is a god and he is all-loving - then I'm not opposed in principle to believing that. But I have to have reasons why I should believe it to be true. The idea that I should just believe whatever God allegedly says about himself, take it all at face value, and disregard any fact that would seem to indicate otherwise - the willingness to do that is not a positive or praiseworthy character trait. On the contrary, it is the seed from which all forms of tyranny and evil spring forth. A request for proof is the sign of a wise and ethical servant, not of a disloyal lack of faith.

In the same way, God has the ability to make choices (perhaps that isn’t a good word… not sure), but His holiness will not allow Him to make evil choices.

Okay, fine. So, again, why not create humans in the same way? Clearly you don't believe that God lacks any form of freedom worth wanting. Clearly, you don't believe that his inability to do evil counts as a flaw or an imperfection in him. Why would the lack of that ability be a defect in humans if it isn't a defect in God? Do you see the double standard you're using here?

Why would I want to change my mind if God is truly all powerful, knowing, loving, holy, just, etc.?

I find that a very strange statement. Are you saying that Christians, once converted, never change their mind, never fall away? (I have pages of deconversion stories that say otherwise, if you are - and please don't bring up the tired and frankly insulting claim that anyone who walks away from Christianity was never a real Christian in the first place. I would be very disappointed if you said that.) Are you saying that believing Christians never commit any sin? I'm sure you're not saying that. But if God's holiness will not allow any sin to exist in his presence, how could he permit fallible humans to stay there, even if they did make one right choice?

I realize the standard Christian response to this is that Jesus' perfect sacrifice allows God to overlook the sin of human beings. Again, fine. I can accept that for the sake of argument. What I don't then understand is why he wouldn't extend that forgiveness to all people. By his sacrifice Jesus paid the penalty for our sins, right? Doesn't that mean God's justice and holiness have been satisfied, and if so, what would prevent him from extending his mercy to all of us?

If you were able to wade through that (sorry!), his point is that any obligations we have toward God- infinite love, obedience, etc., that are not met deserve infinite punishment.

Again, I see how we're coming at this debate from different directions. I think a crime can only consist of harm, and if you have not harmed someone - if you haven't done them any injury, nor taken away anything they need - then it is by definition impossible to have committed a crime against them. Clearly, you don't agree with that. So let me try a different tack.

Let's say for the sake of argument that you're right and there is an infinite god. Wouldn't that, then, make him infinitely above us - so that it would literally be a matter of infinite insignificance how or whether we responded to him? To put it another way, do you think God actually cares whether we praise him? Do you think he craves our worship or hungers for our flattery? What a curious notion, if so! What a petty, small-minded creature that god would be! (I realize that the God of the Bible proclaims himself to be jealous. Perhaps he wasn't aware that that is not generally considered a positive character trait.)

Let's not forget the atheist position. We're not saying that we believe in a god but choose to shirk our duties to him. We're saying we don't believe that there is such a being, and that (...tying back to the beginning of my post...) there isn't the evidence to convince us otherwise. Even if I'm wrong about that, that's what I sincerely think. Do you mean to tell me that if God exists, he will punish me, not for being perverse, but simply for being wrong?

The post above still doesn't answer the question of who created man with the ability to sin? You mention here: ***In the same way, God has the ability to make choices (perhaps that isn’t a good word… not sure), but His holiness will not allow Him to make evil choices.** Man in the garden wasn't given that at all. Man wasn't created holy, then, because man was allowed to make evil choices. And the only reason why one makes a choice is because that choice has appeal, which means man was created to find something appealing about evil. And then punished for it.

**This goes back to the- we can’t use the same reasoning when dealing with God. **
All we have when dealing with anything is our reasoning in order to determine if something is good or just. So if we can't use the same reasoning on God that we use on anything else, how do we determine anything about God? If the answer is simply that he's God and that reasoning is good enough, then how can you determine if the God you are following is good? Or loving? Or just? What standard do you apply?

**And therefore if there be any being that we are under infinite obligations to love, and honour, and obey, the contrary towards him must be infinitely faulty.** Except we are being held to a standard that we will never live up to -- how is that fair or just? We are told that we are under an infinite obligation to love something when we are finite beings. We can't love infinitely or obey infinitely. We don't have the power to do that. Especially if one throws in the concept of Original Sin. Let's put it this way: would you take your five year old child, give him a calculus problem and then punish the child for failing to solve it? Even if the answer here is that God has provided the answer through Jesus -- you are still left with the fact that the child was expected to solve the calculus problem, which is considered unjust, because it is beyond that child's ability.

He could have given them [the first humans] all the evidence of it [God’s goodness] they could possibly expect and all the understanding necessary to grasp that evidence.

Could you give me some examples of ‘evidence’ he should have given them to make a more ‘informed’ decision? Are you thinking like- a projector and video screen showing the saga of human life- how death and destruction would occur if they should choose to eat the fruit, but goodness (which was what they were currently experiencing) would continue on if they obeyed? Remember- they did not have the knowledge of evil until they ate, so this would not be possible. What kind of evidence are you thinking of?

I want a reason, not just an assertion that God's ways are higher than ours and so I shouldn't even question them.

Well, I thought that He being God was a good enough reason, but maybe I can give you more. I think Job had this very question after he was being put through trials. He was questioning God and God answered in Job 38-42. God asks Job where he was during creation, if he was the one giving the birds the knowledge of how to migrate and build their nests in inaccessible places, if he was the one who told the morning when to begin and the sun when to set (etc. etc. for 5 chapters). Job 40:1-4 says, “Then the LORD said to Job, "Will the faultfinder contend with the Almighty? Let him who reproves God answer it." Then Job answered the LORD and said, "Behold, I am insignificant; what can I reply to You? I lay my hand on my mouth. "Once I have spoken, and I will not answer; Even twice, and I will add nothing more."” And later in 41:11 God gives a reason for His authority, “{Whatever} is under the whole heaven is Mine.” Clearly this must be true if He is the Creator. He has the right to this authority. Previously, you used the example of a sculptor and his sculpture. Wouldn’t you say that the sculptor deserves everything the sculpture can give- because he is worthy of it? As Paul says, the sculpture has no right to question the sculptor’s reasons for things (like it or not). Job 42:1-6 shows a proper response to this reason by God. “Then Job answered the LORD and said, "I know that You can do all things, And that no purpose of Yours can be thwarted. 'Who is this that hides counsel without knowledge?' "Therefore I have declared that which I did not understand, Things too wonderful for me, which I did not know." 'Hear, now, and I will speak; I will ask You, and You instruct me.' "I have heard of You by the hearing of the ear; But now my eye sees You; Therefore I retract, And I repent in dust and ashes."”

I think the real issue here is that you don’t think God is all-loving (although it’s a premise you begin with in your argument, so it should be able to stand). If you really thought God was all-loving (which you don’t believe, according to many other posts I’ve seen on your interpretation of O.T. events), then Him having his ways higher than ours wouldn’t be a problem. So- that’s another battle to fight. :)

Would you be angry at your child?

Where do you get the idea that God is angry? The passage certainly does not say that. I would not equate anger with justice.

Then God is an "automaton"; Despite all the perfections you attribute to him, do you believe that human beings are superior to him in at least that one respect, that we have that choice and he does not?

This goes back to the- we can’t use the same reasoning when dealing with God. Would you say that being able to choose evil makes humans superior? My answer to this question continues below.

They would have to issue a blanket denial that such comparisons can ever apply, precisely because the way God is said to have acted, according to the Bible, would so clearly be irrational and immoral if a human being ever did the same things.

If a king over a country was capable of being perfectly loving (doing the absolute best) to all of his subjects and was asking them to follow him completely and was exercising perfect justice, it might not hurt to follow him. However, we would say that he has no absolute ‘right’ to do so, because he is a human, just like his subjects. The subjects would have to submit to that king’s authority of their own will- agreeing that the king was no better or more worthy, but for the case of order and sanity, they would follow. In the case of God, we can still choose to submit, but to not submit would be high treason. We would say that God, as Creator, does have this right to assert authority. In this example, it breaks down because God has rights that we don’t. This is why comparisons break down with God.

God also has ‘constraints’ if you will- constraints within His character. For instance, His power would allow Him to destroy things. However, His justice will not allow Him to destroy something that did not justly deserve to be destroyed. His love would allow Him to have relationships with his creation. However, His holiness will not allow Him to have relationship with anything tainted by sin. In the same way, God has the ability to make choices (perhaps that isn’t a good word… not sure), but His holiness will not allow Him to make evil choices.

Of course, if your beliefs are correct, you yourself will become an automaton by that point, so maybe you won't mind.

I disagree. I have already chosen to follow God here on earth. You make it seem as though once I get to heaven I would want to change my mind (wanting to do evil) and be unable to. Why would I want to change my mind if God is truly all powerful, knowing, loving, holy, just, etc.? The people in heaven are those who have already chosen to serve God on earth.

"Sin" tells me that I am somehow accountable to a supernatural being I cannot see or talk to; that I can do something wrong even if I never harm or inconvenience anyone in any way.

I am going to make full use of this sculpture/sculptor analogy. If the sculptor made several sculptures (which he spent lots of time and care on) and they were somehow able to harm each other (one might get pushed over and shatter to pieces- thus destroying it), would this not harm the sculptor? Of course, he was not personally ‘damaged’ as you say, but something has harmed his creation. He has a personal vested interest in the wellbeing of this sculpture. How could he not feel like this was not only a crime against his creation, but also against himself? This speaks only to sins committed by humans against each other. The next section deals with sins directly in opposition to God.

[regarding sin] If there is a God, he needs nothing from us, and we cannot harm him. I reject that word and all its shameful connotations.

Clearly I have been vague on this issue. If you will allow, I will quote someone who is able to put it in more ‘rational’ and ‘philosophical’ terms- J. Edwards. This is a bit long, but, I think, necessary to lay groundwork for why it is possible to sin against God.

Every crime or fault deserves a greater or less punishment, in proportion as the crime itself is greater or less. If any fault deserves punishment, then so much the greater the fault, so much the greater is the punishment deserved. The faulty nature of any thing is the formal ground and reason of its desert of punishment; and therefore the more any thing hath of this nature, the more punishment it deserves. And therefore the terribleness of the degree of punishment, let it be never be so terrible, is no argument against the justice of it, if the proportion does but hold between the heinousness of the crime and the dreadfulness of the punishment; so that if there be any such thing as a fault infinitely heinous, it will follow that it is just to inflict a punishment for it that is infinitely dreadful.
A crime is more or less heinous, according as we are under greater or less obligations to the contrary. This is self-evident; because it is herein that the criminalness or faultiness of any thing consists, that it is contrary to what we are obliged or bound to, or what ought to be in us. So the faultiness of one being hating another, is in proportion to his obligation to love him. The crime of one being despising and casting contempt on another, is proportionably more or less heinous, as he was under greater or less obligations to honour him. The fault of disobeying another, is greater or less, as any one is under greater or less obligations to obey him. And therefore if there be any being that we are under infinite obligations to love, and honour, and obey, the contrary towards him must be infinitely faulty.
Our obligation to love, honour, and obey any being, is in proportion to his loveliness, honourableness, and authority; for that is the very meaning of the words. When we say any one is very lovely, it is the same as to say, that he is one very much to be loved. Or if we say such a one is more honourable than another, the meaning of the words is, that he is one that we are more obliged to honour. If we say any one has great authority over us, it is the same as to say, that he has great right to our subjection and obedience.
But God is a being infinitely lovely, because he hath infinite excellency and beauty. To have infinite excellency and beauty, is the same thing as to have infinite loveliness. He is a being of infinite greatness, majesty, and glory; and therefore he is infinitely honourable. He is infinitely exalted above the greatest potentates of the earth, and highest angels in heaven; and therefore he is infinitely more honourable than they. His authority over us is infinite; and the ground of his right to our obedience is infinitely strong; for he is infinitely worthy to be obeyed himself, and we have an absolute, universal, and infinite dependence upon him.
So that sin against God, being a violation of infinite obligations, must be a crime infinitely heinous, and so deserving of infinite punishment.- Nothing is more agreeable to the common sense of mankind, than that sins committed against any one, must be proportionably heinous to the dignity of the being offended and abused; as it is also agreeable to the word of God, I Samuel 2:25. Genesis 39:9; Psalm 51:4. The eternity of the punishment of ungodly men renders it infinite: and it renders it no more than infinite; and therefore renders no more than proportionable to the heinousness of what they are guilty of.
If there be any evil or faultiness in sin against God, there is certainly infinite evil: for if it be any fault at all, it has an infinite aggravation, viz. that it is against an infinite object. If it be ever so small upon other accounts, yet if it be any thing, it has one infinite dimension; and so is an infinite evil. Which may be illustrated by this: if we suppose a thing to have infinite length, but no breadth and thickness, (a mere mathematical line,) it is nothing: but if it have any breadth and thickness, though never so small, and infinite length, the quantity of it is infinite; it exceeds the quantity of any thing, however broad, thick, and long, wherein these dimensions are all finite.

If you were able to wade through that (sorry!), his point is that any obligations we have toward God- infinite love, obedience, etc., that are not met deserve infinite punishment.

How can you possibly believe that if you also believe that literally any person put in that situation would do exactly the same thing?

This was my personal opinion on what would happen. I’m not saying it would for certain.

p.s. Maybe you should retract your post about atheists not being angry. :) I will concede that not all who post here are, but there are definitely some! I don’t feel like I’ve offended or personally attacked anyone, but there are some strong words and language being used against Christians. Don’t worry- I take Luke 6:27 literally. :)

If your god wants us to serve him, why would he just not make us servants? what is the point of free will if he's going to get all bent out of shape for us using it? OH wait, I forgot; this is god we're talking about it. Being it's god, all understanding about who or what it is must breakdown. By now, we've established that god works in mysterious, cruel, and REMARKABLY ineffiecent ways. I can't begin to wrap my mind around anything rationally; I need to spend my life in blind obedience to something I don't understand and could never even begin to understand. Why didn't I take your advice sooner; my lifetime of rational thought has all been for naught when I could have been sitting around praying my whole life. What a waste huh?