I am a christian, i and i strongly belive in my lord jesus christ, and i also belive that if you belive in him and except him as your savior, u will go to heaven. and i also believe that he created the world, not the big bang, or that we came from stupid apes.
1.Is what is moral, moral because it's commanded by God? or 2. Is what is moral commanded by God because it is moral?
If 1 is the case then God could just as easily change his mind about what is and is not moral. As per the example used on you he could say decide that molesting children is moral and not doing so immoral.
If 2 is the case then God is not the source of morality.
There is no clear set on what's good and what's evil, even if such points are coming from God. It all comes around as being very subjective.
I'd say it's clear enough at that point, and the other verse I mentioned. Is there something you'd like me to clear up?
You had to say "it's reasonable enough to assume" I would like a holy book where that phrase isn't necessary in a discussion setting. The bible serves extraordinarily well as a moral guidebook but, as with all holy texts, it leaves a lot to the imagination.
If freewill can be taken as the ability to choose between right and wrong, without being forced, then why do you say it's a lack of creativity that makes it this way?
I'm saying that God should be able to, in his infinite wisdom, create a way for freewill to exist without causing all that is wrong with the world.
I suppose it is true that God is a jealous god. So?
Being jealous to the point of killing others is a sin is it not?
That's fairly awesome. I'm sad to say I didn't think of it myself.
I'm curious then, where did you hear it?
Does that make sense?
Yes but at the same time saying that begs the question is "God" really just a moral code.
I have a question. It is an old question, but it is worthy nonetheless. If god created everything, and knew everything that would happen in human history then why did he bother if he was going to kill people, judge people and pretty much disregard his own commandments? I mean what's the point? Why create something if you know the consequences of creating it? And those consequences are negative.
Why create something if you know the consequences of creating it? And those consequences are negative.
Something along the lines of creating a child even though you know one day it's have sex in your bed. Well maybe not, but all the same would you rather be alive in this world of death or non-existent?
Something along the lines of creating a child even though you know one day it's have sex in your bed. Well maybe not, but all the same would you rather be alive in this world of death or non-existent?
The difference here is that the parent does not know for sure. Further more the parent is not simply going to condemn the child for not worshiping the parent.
The difference here is that the parent does not know for sure. Further more the parent is not simply going to condemn the child for not worshiping the parent.
Yeah, well seeing as how I've debated as a Christian on this thread before and I seem to be the only one around.
You had to say "it's reasonable enough to assume" I would like a holy book where that phrase isn't necessary in a discussion setting. The bible serves extraordinarily well as a moral guidebook but, as with all holy texts, it leaves a lot to the imagination.
The verse that Jeol brought up was one of the many verses talking about what is necessary to be saved. Prayer was not the central theme of that verse, so saying it's ambiguous on prayer isn't very gracious.
I probably shouldn't have tried to take any conclusions from it on prayer, either.
From there, you seem to be asserting that the Bible is a very ambiguous book. It doesn't look that way to me, especially not based on that verse.
I'm saying that God should be able to, in his infinite wisdom, create a way for freewill to exist without causing all that is wrong with the world.
That he should be able to does not mean that he should choose to. I don't think it's a necessarily safe assumption to assume that things would simply be better that way. There are many good things that can come about only because evil exists.
And further, God has a very different perspective on the universe, and may have reasons we can't even imagine for allowing the universe to function as it does. So long as the possibility exists that he has a reason for what he does, I can't assume that he's wrong for doing so.
Being jealous to the point of killing others is a sin is it not?
Murdering people just for the sake of jealousy is a sin for us, yes. But even before guessing as to what His reasons could be for doing so, it's fair to ask why you expect God to be held by the same moral commandments he passed on to us? He could have very good reasons why we are forbidden to do something ourselves, on our own, but He is within his rights to command it.
I'm curious then, where did you hear it?
From a Christian Apologetics organization called Stand To Reason. In fact, I heard it in this video of their's. I'd recommend searching their videos for 'evil', because he talks about a lot of what we're debating now.
Yes but at the same time saying that begs the question is "God" really just a moral code.
I suppose you could say that, if you could also say that the Bible is just a history book. But morality isn't the only thing that comes from God, so why do you think that's all he is?
Why create something if you know the consequences of creating it? And those consequences are negative.
Because evil isn't the only consequence you're getting out of this. Good and evil will both take place.
And God didn't choose what people would do. He made the choice to create humanity, and it is up to us to make our own choices. Just like a parent raising a child, like Samy brought up.
Because I moral code allows freedom of thought. It allows you to take responsibility and not simply say "Well god must have a plan for me." In religion it is all to easy to fall back on god as the excuse. Without god we must live up to our own morality and be held responsible by ourselves, which is much more difficult.
From there, you seem to be asserting that the Bible is a very ambiguous book. It doesn't look that way to me, especially not based on that verse.
Your correct in saying that the verse itself was fairly clear (although room for debate was still there) and, in fact, a lot of the New Testament is fairly straightforward. The problem is when you get to comparing the Old and New testaments where God seems to be two completely different beings. Contradictions and ambiguity abound.
There are many good things that can come about only because evil exists.
Such as?
So long as the possibility exists that he has a reason for what he does, I can't assume that he's wrong for doing so.
And yet you must question or else you leave yourself as an ignorant sheep. Not all Christians are as some have questioned and made it to the other side but the questioning is of utmost importance when it comes to religion.
That he should be able to does not mean that he should choose to.
But why wouldn't he? Having Free will and no death sounds like a sweet deal to me.
He could have very good reasons why we are forbidden to do something ourselves, on our own, but He is within his rights to command it.
Then he himself is not good, this causes me to assume that the moral code must be separate from God meaning it's existence doesn't depend on his no?
But morality isn't the only thing that comes from God, so why do you think that's all he is?
