I don't get the whole heaven thing

[Kuciwalker]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi
True, but to say that morality can exist without God, is making a moral statement in itself.

Uh, no, it's a completely true statement. It is quite possible to create a moral code that has nothing to do with the Judeo-Christian God. It has been done many, many times.

Is it immoral for God to kill people?

Not according to the Bible. According to my moral code, it is.

[Ben Kenobi]

Christianity's assumes "One ought to do what God says."* On what grounds do you say that? A libertarian believes "One ought not to do something that violates someone else's liberty." A utilitarian believes "One ought to do that which will result in the greatest total happiness." And so on.

This raises a point I tried to address earlier. Would God tell you to do something that is wrong? Christians do not obey God just because he tells people to do something, but because they believe goodness is an essential part of the nature of God. That by following God, they will be doing what is right. The two are intertwined, and cannot be severed. If people believed that God would order them to do wrong, then they would not obey him.

Nope, because heaven is basically a reward for doing good (or what God says is good). Other moralities emphasize doing good for the sake of doing good. Christianity says "do good because in the end it pays off BIG". In that, it really trivializes morality to self-interest.

Why then does Christianity emphasise that you must first trust in God, rather than doing good works in order to be saved? Good works, will not get you into heaven. Ergo, your critique fails because if Christianity did work as you assert, surely they would praise good works as getting you into heaven.

Instead, Christianity teaches something radically different. Rather than the common concept that we should strive for good acts to balance out the bad, found in Islam, and other religions, Christianity insists upon a higher standard. Christ insists upon perfection. No matter how many good works you do, they will not blot out your sins. We can only reach heaven through the grace of God, and by trusting in him, and not in our own works.

(If heaven is not intended as a reward for doing good, then why is it denied to bad people?

It is denied to "bad people", because they fall short of the standard of perfection. They have two choices. Try to reach heaven, on their own merits and fail, or to accept the grace of God.

Secondly, bad people means what? We are all sinners of some sort. Why should any of us be any better people than anyone else. There is no one truly good but God.

[Ben Kenobi]

it's a completely true statement.

morality! = false. When I say something is a meta-ethical claim, it just means that it is a different type of ethical claim from something that is normative. It implies that both are truths, but of different kinds.

It is quite possible to create a moral code that has nothing to do with the Judeo-Christian God. It has been done many, many times.

Dude, I just agreed with you. You should try to read what I just wrote.

Not according to the Bible. According to my moral code, it is.

Why is it wrong for people to kill each other, yet it could be right for God to do the same?

Consider this. We do not make ourselves. If God makes us, then he can also unmake us. Why would it be immoral for him to do so?

[St Leo]

You were there I guess.........?
In the mind of the early church fathers, and you saw them thinking: "What if tell them there's a hell....?"

You misphrase something, get a few positive comments, and stick with the idea. A few hundred years later, you've got an entire new concept hammered out. Eh.

[Kuciwalker]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi
This raises a point I tried to address earlier. Would God tell you to do something that is wrong?

He has (according to the Bible) told people to do things that I sure think are wrong.

Christians do not obey God just because he tells people to do something, but because they believe goodness is an essential part of the nature of God. That by following God, they will be doing what is right. The two are intertwined, and cannot be severed. If people believed that God would order them to do wrong, then they would not obey him.

In that case, if God told you to, for instance, kill a child, would you do it? In fact, why do you bother to say you're following God when you're really following some moral code that just happens to be the one that God follows?

Why then does Christianity emphasise that you must first trust in God, rather than doing good works in order to be saved? Good works, will not get you into heaven. Ergo, your critique fails because if Christianity did work as you assert, surely they would praise good works as getting you into heaven.

Except that trusting in God is part of your moral code, so my point stands.

Plus, God is a pretty insecure, self-centered ******* if he sends people to Hell just because they refuse to worship him...

It is denied to "bad people", because they fall short of the standard of perfection. They have two choices. Try to reach heaven, on their own merits and fail, or to accept the grace of God.

That's what I said. They do not obey the Christian moral code. And you've just shown that Heaven IS a reward for meeting this code. Thus, my objection stands, that Christianity really says, "one ought to obey God because it is in one's self-interest".

Secondly, bad people means what? We are all sinners of some sort. Why should any of us be any better people than anyone else. There is no one truly good but God.

Obviously, bad people = does not obey the Christian moral code.

[Ben Kenobi]

In that case, if God told you to, for instance, kill a child, would you do it?

No, because how would I know that God was telling me to kill a child?

In fact, why do you bother to say you're following God when you're really following some moral code that just happens to be the one that God follows?

You think that's what happens during conversion? We just walk into Christianity, and find that everything God does is something we already agree with, right from the start?

There were plenty of things I did not understand, and many things I still do not. That does not make them wrong, but serve as evidence of my own ignorance.

Look at what Christ says about usury, or about the Jubilee years, that call for the forgiveness of debts every 7 years. What do I make of that, and how does this apply to today's world?

God is a pretty insecure, self-centered ******* if he sends people to Hell just because they refuse to worship him...

Hell, is the absence of God. If they do not want God, then where else would they go? Give them what they want, the complete absence of God for eternity. Seems rather merciful to me.

They do not obey the Christian moral code. And you've just shown that Heaven IS a reward for meeting this code.

Then no one goes to heaven, Skywalker. You do not properly understand the expectations of Christ. How can heaven be the reward for 'meeting expectations' when all of us fall short?

"one ought to obey God because it is in one's self-interest".

Now a man came up to Jesus and asked, "Teacher, what good thing must I do to get eternal life?"

"Why do you ask me about what is good?" Jesus replied. "There is only One who is good. If you want to enter life, obey the commandments."

"Which ones?" the man inquired.

Jesus replied, " 'Do not murder, do not commit adultery, do not steal, do not give false testimony, honor your father and mother,' and 'love your neighbor as yourself.'"

"All these I have kept," the young man said. "What do I still lack?"

Jesus answered, "If you want to be perfect, go, sell your possessions and give to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven. Then come, follow me."

When the young man heard this, he went away sad, because he had great wealth.

Then Jesus said to his disciples, "I tell you the truth, it is hard for a rich man to enter the kingdom of heaven.

Again I tell you, it is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter the kingdom of God."

When the disciples heard this, they were greatly astonished and asked, "Who then can be saved?"

Jesus looked at them and said, "With man this is impossible, but with God all things are possible."

Peter answered him, "We have left everything to follow you! What then will there be for us?"

Jesus said to them, "I tell you the truth, at the renewal of all things, when the Son of Man sits on his glorious throne, you who have followed me will also sit on twelve thrones, judging the twelve tribes of Israel. And everyone who has left houses or brothers or sisters or father or mother or children or fields for my sake will receive a hundred times as much and will inherit eternal life. But many who are first will be last, and many who are last will be first.

[Kuciwalker]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi
No, because how would I know that God was telling me to kill a child?

The same way you know God tells you to do anything else.

You think that's what happens during conversion? We just walk into Christianity, and find that everything God does is something we already agree with, right from the start?

That's what it is from your description. You've said you obey God because he gives commands that you agree with. Thus, you obey God in the same sense that the king in The Little Prince rules over everything:

"Ah! Here is a subject," exclaimed the king, when he saw the little prince coming.

And the little prince asked himself:

"How could he recognize me when he had never seen me before?"

He did not know how the world is simplified for kings. To them, all men are subjects.

"Approach, so that I may see you better," said the king, who felt consumingly proud of being at last a king over somebody.

The little prince looked everywhere to find a place to sit down; but the entire planet was crammed and obstructed by the king's magnificent ermine robe. So he remained standing upright, and, since he was tired, he yawned.

"It is contrary to etiquette to yawn in the presence of a king," the monarch said to him. "I forbid you to do so."

"I can't help it. I can't stop myself," replied the little prince, thoroughly embarrassed. "I have come on a long journey, and I have had no sleep . . ."

"Ah, then," the king said. "I order you to yawn. It is years since I have seen anyone yawning. Yawns, to me, are objects of curiosity. Come, now! Yawn again! It is an order."

"That frightens me . . . I cannot, any more . . ." murmured the little prince, now completely abashed.

"Hum! Hum!" replied the king. "Then I--I order you sometimes to yawn and sometimes to--"

He sputtered a little, and seemed vexed.

For what the king fundamentally insisted upon was that his authority should be respected. He tolerated no disobedience. He was an absolute monarch. But, because he was a very good man, he made his orders reasonable.

"If I ordered a general," he would say, by way of example, "if I ordered a general to change himself into a sea bird, and if the general did not obey me, that would not be the fault of the general. It would be my fault."

"May I sit down?" came now a timid inquiry from the little prince.

"I order you to do so," the king answered him, and majestically gathered in a fold of his ermine mantle.

But the little prince was wondering . . . The planet was tiny. Over what could this king really rule?

"Sire," he said to him, "I beg that you will excuse my asking you a question--"

"I order you to ask me a question," the king hastened to assure him.

"Sire--over what do you rule?"

"Over everything," said the king, with magnificent simplicity.

"Over everything?"

The king made a gesture, which took in his planet, the other planets, and all the stars.

"Over all that?" asked the little prince.

"Over all that," the king answered.

For his rule was not only absolute: it was also universal.

"And the stars obey you?"

"Certainly they do," the king said. "They obey instantly. I do not permit insubordination."

Such power was a thing for the little prince to marvel at. If he had been master of such complete authority, he would have been able to watch the sunset, not forty-four times in one day, but seventy-two, or even a hundred, or even two hundred times, without ever having to move his chair. And because he felt a bit sad as he remembered his little planet which he had forsaken, he plucked up his courage to ask the king a favor:

"I should like to see a sunset . . . Do me that kindness . . . Order the sun to set . . ."

"If I ordered a general to fly from one flower to another like a butterfly, or to write a tragic drama, or to change himself into a sea bird, and if the general did not carry out the order that he had received, which one of us would be in the wrong?" the king demanded. "The general, or myself?"

"You," said the little prince firmly.

"Exactly. One must require from each one the duty which each one can perform," the king went on. "Accepted authority rests first of all on reason. If you ordered your people to go and throw themselves into the sea, they would rise up in revolution. I have the right to require obedience because my orders are reasonable."

"Then my sunset?" the little prince reminded him: for he never forgot a question once he had asked it.

"You shall have your sunset. I shall command it. But, according to my science of government, I shall wait until conditions are favorable."

"When will that be?" inquired the little prince.

"Hum! Hum!" replied the king; and before saying anything else he consulted a bulky almanac. "Hum! Hum! That will be about--about--that will be this evening about twenty minutes to eight. And you will see how well I am obeyed!"

Given what you've said, your claim to obey God is just as absurd as the king's belief that he is ruler of the universe.

Hell, is the absence of God. If they do not want God, then where else would they go? Give them what they want, the complete absence of God for eternity. Seems rather merciful to me.

So tell me, is Hell a nice place? What's it like there?

Then no one goes to heaven, Skywalker. You do not properly understand the expectations of Christ. How can heaven be the reward for 'meeting expectations' when all of us fall short?

Heaven is clearly a result of meeting expectations - that is, what is expected of you in order to enter Heaven. You yourself have said that to enter Heaven you must trust in God. Thus, trusting in God is the expection one has to meet in order to get in.

Now a man came up to Jesus and asked, "Teacher, what good thing must I do to get eternal life?"

"Why do you ask me about what is good?" Jesus replied. "There is only One who is good. If you want to enter life, obey the commandments."

I bolded a different section than you did. Notice how obeying the commandments is the prerequisite for "entering life" (I assume this means immortality in Heaven, right?), thus, one ought to obey the commandments because they allow one to "enter life". Ergo, one ought to obey the commandments because doing so is in one's self interest.

[Ben Kenobi]

The same way you know God tells you to do anything else.

And how is that?

You've said you obey God because he gives commands that you agree with.

No, I don't, actually. There are things I know I ought to be doing that I do not. Can it be said that I agree with him if I do not understand why?

I obey God, or at least I try to, because I believe Him to know better what is good, than I. That he knows me better than I know myself.

I trust in him because I know that he loves me. Even if I disagree, or do not understand why he wants me to do something, then I always have to fall back on his love.

Given what you've said, your claim to obey God is just as absurd as the king's belief that he is ruler of the universe.

God offers proof of himself, in knowing things that no one else could.

Secondly, I do not claim to obey God properly. No one can. All I can say is why I trust in him.

So tell me, is Hell a nice place? What's it like there?

Go read Milton. He's thought about this longer than I. All that I know is that we do not understand just how large a role God plays in our lives. When he is gone, that will drastically change everything.

yourself have said that to enter Heaven you must trust in God. Thus, trusting in God is the expection one has to meet in order to get in.

But this is different than earning Grace, or salvation. In order to trust in God, you must first admit that you need his help. It is taking a hand offered to you by God.

[Ben Kenobi]

I bolded a different section than you did. Notice how obeying the commandments is the prerequisite for "entering life" (I assume this means immortality in Heaven, right?), thus, one ought to obey the commandments because they allow one to "enter life". Ergo, one ought to obey the commandments because doing so is in one's self interest.

That brings us right back to our earlier point. How can one live up to the standard of the commandments, such that one will enter the kingdom of heaven?

That's why I bolded the parts I did, because these are the points that Christ is trying to make clear to the rich man. That with men, such things are impossible, but through God, all things are possible.

[trickey]

Ok, I'll have to admit I haven't read through the entire thread, just the first few pages.

Now, it was always my understanding that heaven is our gift to loose. We can't buy our way into heaven. We can only loose the gift of heaven by commiting a mortal sin, and not truthfully repenting before our death.

[Kuciwalker]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi
And how is that?

You're the believer, you tell me.

No, I don't, actually. There are things I know I ought to be doing that I do not. Can it be said that I agree with him if I do not understand why?

The fact that you sometimes violate your moral code doesn't mean anything.

I obey God, or at least I try to, because I believe Him to know better what is good, than I. That he knows me better than I know myself.

Non sequiter.

Plus, how does he "know better what is good"? You can't somehow observe some moral code ingrained into the universe; your moral code is what you believe. It is impossible for you NOT to know what your moral code is. Maybe you haven't thought it out fully, but having a moral code IS knowing it.

I trust in him because I know that he loves me. Even if I disagree, or do not understand why he wants me to do something, then I always have to fall back on his love.

This is random nonsense. "Knowing he loves you" is trusting in him! You trust that he loves you. Plus stop bringing random theological garbage into this. It's simple:

Obey God (trust him, follow his moral code, whatever) = you get into Heaven

Don't obey God (don't trust him, break his moral code, whatever) = you go to Hell

Obviously, Heaven is a good place to be and Hell is a bad (or at least not-as-good) place to be. Thus, obeying God is in one's self-interest. Now, if Heaven is NOT meant as a reward for obeying God, why the hell aren't the disobediant let in?

If you claim the reason is that "Heaven is being in God's presence and trusting him etc" and the rest of that theological garbage (basically boiling down to "heaven is the state of obeying God"), then clearly there is no reason why Heaven would be any better than Hell. Then why was Jesus preaching about it like it was the be-all and end-all?

God offers proof of himself, in knowing things that no one else could.

And that has what to do with anything?

Secondly, I do not claim to obey God properly. No one can. All I can say is why I trust in him.

I never said "properly". You know that I'm not implying perfect compliance, I'm talking about your general belief. The fact that you try to "obey" God. My point is that your (attempted) "obedience" is NOT. Would you say I'm obeying some random guy on the street if he told me to breath and I did?

Go read Milton. He's thought about this longer than I. All that I know is that we do not understand just how large a role God plays in our lives. When he is gone, that will drastically change everything.

You can't even give me a straight answer about a fundamental part of your entire religion. That makes me doubt that there's any coherency at all.

But this is different than earning Grace, or salvation. In order to trust in God, you must first admit that you need his help. It is taking a hand offered to you by God.

You said that if you trust in God, you earn his "Grace". Unless God makes exceptions to this, the two are for all practical purposes one and the same.

[Ben Kenobi]

You're the believer, you tell me.

So then, whatever I claim comes from God, is the truth?

The fact that you sometimes violate your moral code doesn't mean anything.

Not the point. There are some things I'm not really sure of, that I don't understand. How can I properly obey something I don't understand?

Plus, how does he "know better what is good"?

He has greater knowledge than I.

You can't somehow observe some moral code ingrained into the universe;

No, but there are observations that seem to work better. Such as when you do something, that you really don't know why you did this, then see later that it actually works out better than your original plans. I've had that numerous times in my life, where I've taken one path, even though I don't know if it is the best one, and later on it makes much more sense.

And I've seen times where I've gone against this because I want to be in charge, and found myself in a bind.

your moral code is what you believe. It is impossible for you NOT to know what your moral code is.

I didn't say that. All I said is that my moral code cannot be the same as God's, because there are things that I do not fully understand, which is contrary to what you just assumed, that there are no differences between the moral code of a believer, and Christianity.

All this says is that I have my work cut out for me.

This is random nonsense. "Knowing he loves you" is trusting in him! You trust that he loves you. Plus stop bringing random theological garbage into this. It's simple:

I love him, because he has already loved me. That's the key distinction I wanted to make. It's not 'random theological garbage, but the truth.

Obey God (trust him, follow his moral code, whatever) = you get into Heaven

There's a difference between adhering to a moral code, and trusting in God.

Obviously, Heaven is a good place to be and Hell is a bad (or at least not-as-good) place to be. Thus, obeying God is in one's self-interest.

What does it mean to be self-interested? This is the hardest thing for Christians is to acknowledge that their self cannot be in control. 'He who finds his life shall lose it, and he who loses his life for me shall find it.'

You have to submit your self to Christ, which means the death of self-interest. You do things for the glory of God, and not for your own benefit.

Yes, it works out for you in the end, but don't you see how hard this is?

Self-interest is more about doing things for your own benefit, for your own reward here on earth, and not in heaven.

Now, if Heaven is NOT meant as a reward for obeying God, why the hell aren't the disobediant let in?

Because the disobedient would be less happy in Heaven, then they would be in Hell.

Yes, it's a reward, but the reward cannot be 'self-interested.'

then clearly there is no reason why Heaven would be any better than Hell. Then why was Jesus preaching about it like it was the be-all and end-all?

Eternal salvation seems a pretty big deal. Again, you don't acknowledge the blessings in your own life, that God has provided, so you do not fear their loss.

My point is that your (attempted) "obedience" is NOT. Would you say I'm obeying some random guy on the street if he told me to breath and I did?

That comes back to the point you so casually dismissed. We follow Christ, because he offers evidence in favour of being God. He is not 'some random guy' because throughout the gospels, he tells people details that no one else would know of their own lives. He understands our suffering, and offers forgiveness for those who are willing to accept.

You can't even give me a straight answer about a fundamental part of your entire religion. That makes me doubt that there's any coherency at all.

Is hell pleasant? What do the scriptures say of hell? Hell is described as the total absence of the presence of God, lasting for eternity.

You said that if you trust in God, you earn his "Grace". Unless God makes exceptions to this, the two are for all practical purposes one and the same.

How can you earn what is given freely?

[Capt Dizle]

Originally posted by trickey
Ok, I'll have to admit I haven't read through the entire thread, just the first few pages.

Now, it was always my understanding that heaven is our gift to loose. We can't buy our way into heaven. We can only loose the gift of heaven by commiting a mortal sin, and not truthfully repenting before our death.

We are born into sin and require faith in order to be reconciled to God.

[Robert]

Berzerker:

Why? Does not a moral sense require intelligence? Animals seemingly lack this intelligence (although I'd be hardpressed to say animals do more evil than us ), and people (most anyway) don't.

Animals lack the intelligence to think that they can know what is good and what is evil. We think we can, and that's why we try. But we lack enough knowledge to come up with a good moral code, hence, in all centuries and all nations people have never agreed on the one and only good moral code.

And what purpose does any moral code have? In the end we all die, and all moral things we have done appeared to be nothing. In one million years there's no difference between hitler and mother teresa. They both will be gone and forgotten, and so are their deeds.

People help each other because they feel good about their deeds... No God is required...

That's true. We long to make people happy because it makes us happy, since we would be happy if other people would try to make us happy.
But from what comes that desire to be happy?

What purpose has our happyness if we'll all be gone and forgotten in 1000 years? What's the difference between me living on happily for 50 years or shooting a bullet through my brains today? There is no difference.

But I believe that things we do HAVE lasting values, and that's why we long to live in happyness.
Things would make no sence if we would live for today. Than we would live like animals.

But we do not, for some reason we care.

In fact, I'm a bit more impressed by the atheist who does good without the expectation of some heavenly reward or fear of a God angered by evil deeds...

So am I.

It makes me wonder: WHY WHY WHY would any atheist give up his live to serve starving children in Africa?
I think there is only one reason: his deeds have lasting value. If his deeds would die with him and the children he helped there is no reason why he would perform these deeds. They would be empty and he'd better go home and party on for the rest of his life.

Telling people they should do good deeds because they will be rewarded or punished takes even more away from the act of doing good than the "selfish" feeling of enjoyment one has from helping others...

True. Moral Code is the key to happyness.
If we would know the right moral code and we would all stick to it, we could have paradise right here.

It would be insane to perform to any moral code because you will be rewarded for it. The moral code is the reward itself. It's living in pure harmony.

If we would only know the true moral code......
Does anybody think that we'll ever find it out?

Why does life have no value or sense for the atheist? I value life because I enjoy living, it's pleasurable... Rather sensible if you ask me...

pherhaps they do not agree with me that it has no value. But in the end it does have no value imho.

What value does any life have if no-one remembers it? As I said before, what's the difference between living and dying in 50 years or living and dying in one day.
Life only has value if it would not end.

Life is the thing that keeps all things together. No good will exist without life. Thus if life stops, the goods things will stop as well. And if value is connected to life as well, and it is since how can we value anything if we do not exist, than the value will be gone as soon as we're death.

Who's going to give any value to your life in 1000.000 years? NOBODY. Thus is has no value in 1000.000 years. Thus it has no value from the moment you're death. Thus there's no difference between death in 1 second or death in 50 years.

He died because he pissed off some religious fundies who didn't like the competition.

That's thrue from their perspective.
But from God's perspective he died to take the burden of sin.

Right as opposed to wrong. Why do you assume God invented it?

I do not assume God invented it.
I assume that God created us, and He knew how we would be 100% perfect. How we would be ultimately happy.

But we thought that we knew what is good for us better ourselves. We thought we knew ourselves better than God does. And now we say that "The only way to be ultimately happy" is a moral code.

And people even claim that living to the moral code will be rewarded. But why would God reward living to the moral code? Why would God create a game, in which some people will be rewarded and some not?

That's a human-type invented God.
All religions come with a code, and the code will be rewarded. Pherhaps with budhism as an exception, but in fact that's not a religion, it's more a philosophy.

But christianity doesn't come with a code. Christianity shows that we are broken. And when people say: "I am not broken" God shows how we should be. He shows us the "factory design" of humans, and He says: "See, you ARE broken"

Now it's up to you, do you A. believe you are broken and B. if so, do you think you can remake yourself and C. if not, do you want God to remake you?

Can you answer those questions in your reaction?

If you answer question A. with 'no', that means that you'll stay as you are. Broken forever. And God doesn't want broken people to be among remade people on the new earth. Thus He'll cast you away.

If you answer question A. with 'yes' and B. with 'no' you can try to fix yourself. I think that will never work, thus the result will be like if you answered A. with 'no'.
You're still broken thus God will not allow you on the new earth.

Only if you want God to fix you, you will be perfect. And if you're perfect you do'nt have to live up to the moral code since the 'moral code' is incorperate with you. But it appears not to be a moral code. A moral thing is a good thing in itself. But living to the 'factory design' is not a good thing in itself. It's just the way you are most happy.

God does want to FIX EVERYBODY. He doesn't want to cast anybody away. But you can not expect God to let broken people enter the new earth and spoil things overthere again.

If there is a God, the "invention" of morality was hardwired into us.

True. We do 'remember' the factory design more or less. We disagree on how it was, and we for sure lost most of it. But we still have it somewhere, and most people agree that humanity does not live up to the design.

We try to tweak the design, to improve it, to rewrite parts etc. etc. But in the end it will not work.
We don't know it, and since we're broken we cannot rewrite it. How can a broken machine fix another broken machine? And if he can't fix another broken machine, how can he fix itself?

As long as this "commandment" recognises that acts like murder prevents the victim from doing as they like and therefore the act of murder violates this commandment, that seems quite moral to me (as opposed to the alternative anyway).

Now we lost the original factory design about ourselves, moral codes come into sight. Human moral codes.
And those codes do surely improve live on earth for as long as it lasts. But it's silly to think that living up to any of these broken moral codes will be rewarded by God.

It's not a game. And if it would be a game, why would God judge us upon broken rules?

Paul says in the Bible that the law of Moses (the commandments are part of that) came to show that we are sinners (= broken)
And that we cannot fix ourselves by living to the law. And that the law even breaks us more, since we are broken and cannot live up to the law, but tend to break the law.

paul continues to say that that's not bc of the law, sÃnce that's a good law. Though it's not a good law for broken people. In fact the law of moses is a law for broken people, though broken people still cannot live to it.

The law of moses is NOT the original design.
But for the purpose of telling broken people that they are broken it's a good law.
Read the letter to the romans, chapter 6/7.

If that makes you happy, aren't you following the commandment you just indicted in your last sentence?

A wheel rolls since that's the purpose of the wheel.
What am I going to do? Tell the wheel to roll, and if it rolls I'm going to tell him that he's happy because he listened to my commandment?

CyberShy: How can you decide on what is moral or not, if you hardly know the facts, the results, the circumstances and the things that would have happened if the act would not have happened?

Berzerker: Why am I responsible for knowing all that?

Well, if you judge God, you should know all those things. How can any judge be a fair judge if he doesn't know everything about the case?

Thus, if you say: "God is immoral" you should know all the facts, otherwise your statement is hollow.

Are you suggesting God was moral when he wiped out virtually all land life in a flood because of some allegedly immoral people?

To my standarts: no. But I know that my standarts are incomplete and fallable.
To God's standards: obviously not.

As Ben Kenobi said: if God creates people, He's allowed to remove them as well.
And there's much more reasons, and I do not know 0.1% of them.

Do you?

Did that "solution" solve the problem of immoral people? Nope...

Indeed not. But for that He gave another solution.
This was an 'in-universe' solution, a broken solution (death = broken) for a broken situation. Like any law is a broken-solution for a broken-situation. It's a temporarily solution. An in-universe solution.

And if God created us, then immorality was a product of God's actions.

God gave us a choise. Is that immoral?
And how can we judge if that is immoral if we don't know the facts around that decisions.

Why did God slaughter the first born of Egypt? Because of Pharaoh's hardened heart and desire to screw Moses and the Hebrews!

seven times God gave pharaoh the choise to let the israelistes go, the 8th, 9th and 10th time he hardened the hart of pharao.

I can, God didn't issue the orders. People then did what people do now, they claimed God ordained their crimes.

You have an opinion on something that happened 3000 years ago, based on your own idea on how it was?
That's quiet interesting!

But you do have a clue or you wouldn't have reached the correct conclusion.

My conclusion is that we have no clue.
I have one clue, and that is that we have no clue.
Oh wait, I have another clue, and that is that God has all clues. That's why I trust God.

Did not Jesus tell his disciples that they were like God and that they would achieve even greater good than Jesus himself?

When we are 'remade' we will.

Did not Jesus tell people to judge others but to do so wisely and without hypocrisy?

We have to live our lives in this broken world.
Jesus gave us things to do during this life as well.
But those 'rules' are not to get into heaven or anything.

Wisdom and consistency is what we need, not divine omniscience or words allegedly written by "God".

We need to be renewed.

How moral was God when he was bragging to Satan about how good Job was only to accept a bet that put Job through a mess of pain just to prove a point?

God gave everything to Job, and satan claimed Job loved God for that Reason. God knew that that was not the case, and He proved it.
Why is it immoral for God to give things to Job and to take things from Job. Job himself thought it was the moral thing for God to do.

You have a different opinion than Job, 4000 years later? While you do'nt know God, you do'nt know Job, you hardly know the circumstances in which it happened....

quiet impressive!

more to come later!

CyberShy

[TheStinger]

What happens to beleif in God if super intelligent beings from far away come along with no such belief in their entire history. They would surley indicate that God doesn't exist otherwise some of them would surely beleive int he same craetor of all of us.