God's Perfection

[OldTrees]

Your analogy has lots of holes maverixk

I know my analogy has a lot of holes, I was just trying to create an analogy that was different than the robot analogy because it is used so much. I was hoping that you would understand what I was trying to portray and look past the holes because I don't think that the holes are really that big or important.

Even as an agnostic I thought the Creator:Creation detail was important to maintain. If you really think that such a detail is small or unimportant I am worried. Most of God's actions are done in the context of being in the privileged position of being the creator. Whether such a position should/does grant such privilege is a more relevant question and more in line with your query.

I only pointed out the 2 holes that would impede communication and investigation. I think that such problems would be relevant.

I think that the fact that he is the creator doesn't really matter that much. Yes, in a different debate it would matter a lot more. What I'm trying to do is measure his morality by our own standards(I know, that differs from person to person). What I'm trying to ask, is by your standards, do his actions portray someone who is perfect. Or to bring it down, moral? I'm trying to get people to look at him as a person. Sure, for the sake of argument, he created us, but look at his actions, do they seem like the perfect role model?

IMHO:
A creator has complete authority over their creations unless that creation was gifted to another free will.

By this standard God would be immoral IF God killed Humans without their consent AND IF Humans have Free Will.

[BluePriest]

To answer it in a word, yes, I believe God is in essence, perfect. I welcome people to bring SPECIFIC EXAMPLES WITH REFERENCES of a reason to think otherwise however, and I will show why I believe him to be moral in those situations, or who knows, I may not have an answer after all. To me I havent seen a reason to think otherwise though.

[maverixk]

To answer it in a word, yes, I believe God is in essence, perfect. I welcome people to bring SPECIFIC EXAMPLES WITH REFERENCES of a reason to think otherwise however, and I will show why I believe him to be moral in those situations, or who knows, I may not have an answer after all. To me I havent seen a reason to think otherwise though.

Ok:
Exodus 20:5-6
I, the LORD your God, am a jealous God, punishing the children for the sin of the fathers to the third and fourth generation of those who hate me, but showing love to a thousand generations of those who love me and keep my commandments.
Deuteronomy 24:16
Fathers shall not be put to death for their children, nor children put to death for their fathers; each is to die for his own sin.
Ezekiel 18:20
The soul who sins is the one who will die. The son will not share the guilt of the father, nor will the father share the guilt of the son. The righteousness of the righteous man will be credited to him, and the wickedness of the wicked will be charged against him.

Besides the fact that the first one, a direct quote from God, conflicts with the others(which is the only reason I included the others) the first one says that God will punish the children for the sins of the father. And while he does spread the love/hate by blessing a thousand(I know, exaggeration) generations, I still cannot say that someone who punishes sons for the sins of the father is moral.

[johannhowitzer]

Logically speaking, there's no contradiction; the first reference states that the children will be punished, not that they will be put to death, nor share their fathers' guilt.

I tend to be a bit of a "logic cop," I know, but this is an important distinction, since the verses only appear to disagree, at least in this particular translation.  It could also be argued that punishment of the children is a side-effect of punishing the fathers... that the punishment of the fathers would be so severe that the effects would be felt four generations down the line, or that the children will inherit their fathers' sinful tendencies.  If a father is put to death, I think we would all agree his children will likely be negatively affected, especially if they are old enough to grieve.

There's another line of reasoning, too; "hating god" is described in the Bible as a sin, and if we're talking about "generations of those who hate god," then we may be talking about people who deserve this punishment.  Also, grammatically speaking, the word "all" is not implied here; it doesn't say "punishing all children for the sins of the fathers."  Not to mention the fact that we're not reading this in the original Hebrew, nor with regard to the appropriate historical and cultural contexts.

There may in fact be logical contradictions in the Bible, or aspects of the Biblical deity which are not perfectly just by our standard, but I'm not sure either is found in this spot.  It does seem a little sketchy, but we don't dismiss things because of how they seem - we investigate.

[maverixk]

Logically speaking, there's no contradiction; the first reference states that the children will be punished, not that they will be put to death, nor share their fathers' guilt.

I tend to be a bit of a "logic cop," I know, but this is an important distinction, since the verses only appear to disagree, at least in this particular translation.  It could also be argued that punishment of the children is a side-effect of punishing the fathers... that the punishment of the fathers would be so severe that the effects would be felt four generations down the line, or that the children will inherit their fathers' sinful tendencies.  If a father is put to death, I think we would all agree his children will likely be negatively affected, especially if they are old enough to grieve.

There's another line of reasoning, too; "hating god" is described in the Bible as a sin, and if we're talking about "generations of those who hate god," then we may be talking about people who deserve this punishment.  Also, grammatically speaking, the word "all" is not implied here; it doesn't say "punishing all children for the sins of the fathers."  Not to mention the fact that we're not reading this in the original Hebrew, nor with regard to the appropriate historical and cultural contexts.

There may in fact be logical contradictions in the Bible, or aspects of the Biblical deity which are not perfectly just by our standard, but I'm not sure either is found in this spot.  It does seem a little sketchy, but we don't dismiss things because of how they seem - we investigate.

Well said. Although, I don't know Hebrew, so I can't really do anything on that point except to learn Hebrew.
On that...I think I'll think about it a while and post something new in the morning.

[Belthus]

Logically speaking, there's no contradiction; the first reference states that the children will be punished, not that they will be put to death, nor share their fathers' guilt.

How about Adam, Eve, and Original Sin? Is that not an inheritance of a death sentence based on the sins of ancestors in the distant past? There may be a way out (i.e., salvation through Jesus), but that hardly negates the injustice of inheriting sin.

[BluePriest]

Logically speaking, there's no contradiction; the first reference states that the children will be punished, not that they will be put to death, nor share their fathers' guilt.

How about Adam, Eve, and Original Sin? Is that not an inheritance of a death sentence based on the sins of ancestors in the distant past? There may be a way out (i.e., salvation through Jesus), but that hardly negates the injustice of inheriting sin.

He already covered this as well.

n.  It could also be argued that punishment of the children is a side-effect of punishing the fathers... that the punishment of the fathers would be so severe that the effects would be felt four generations down the line, or that the children will inherit their fathers' sinful tendencies.  If a father is put to death, I think we would all agree his children will likely be negatively affected, especially if they are old enough to grieve.

All have sinned and fallen short of the glory of God. I would hardly call our sins Adam and Eves fault.

[johannhowitzer]

How about Adam, Eve, and Original Sin? Is that not an inheritance of a death sentence based on the sins of ancestors in the distant past? There may be a way out (i.e., salvation through Jesus), but that hardly negates the injustice of inheriting sin.

According to the Biblical account, Jehovah did not cause the rest of the human race to inherit sin; that was a direct result of original sin, not a punishment.  You may as well blame a jury for the effects suffered by the victim of a crime.

All have sinned and fallen short of the glory of God. I would hardly call our sins Adam and Eves fault.

If the Biblical account is true, then their betrayal would represent a "proximate cause" of their descendants' corruption.  In other words, it wasn't intended, but it did result.

[Belthus]

How about Adam, Eve, and Original Sin? Is that not an inheritance of a death sentence based on the sins of ancestors in the distant past? There may be a way out (i.e., salvation through Jesus), but that hardly negates the injustice of inheriting sin.

According to the Biblical account, Jehovah did not cause the rest of the human race to inherit sin; that was a direct result of original sin, not a punishment.  You may as well blame a jury for the effects suffered by the victim of a crime.

No. It was a curse, not an automatic effect like burning your hand on the stovetop.

16 To the woman he said,

   “I will make your pains in childbearing very severe;
   with painful labor you will give birth to children.
Your desire will be for your husband,
   and he will rule over you.”

 17 To Adam he said, “Because you listened to your wife and ate fruit from the tree about which I commanded you, ‘You must not eat from it,’

   “Cursed is the ground because of you;
   through painful toil you will eat food from it
   all the days of your life.
18 It will produce thorns and thistles for you,
   and you will eat the plants of the field.
19 By the sweat of your brow
   you will eat your food
until you return to the ground,
   since from it you were taken;
for dust you are
   and to dust you will return.”

20 Adam[c] named his wife Eve,[d] because she would become the mother of all the living.

 21 The LORD God made garments of skin for Adam and his wife and clothed them. 22 And the LORD God said, “The man has now become like one of us, knowing good and evil. He must not be allowed to reach out his hand and take also from the tree of life and eat, and live forever.” 23 So the LORD God banished him from the Garden of Eden to work the ground from which he had been taken. 24 After he drove the man out, he placed on the east side[e] of the Garden of Eden cherubim and a flaming sword flashing back and forth to guard the way to the tree of life.

As you can see, the punishments were not instantaneous. They happened only after God found out about the fruit. God was actively cursing and forbidding.

There is also the curious matter of punishing people who didn't know good and evil before eating the fruit.

[BluePriest]

There is also the curious matter of punishing people who didn't know good and evil before eating the fruit.

You mean the fruit that they were told not to eat? They were completely aware that they were not suppose to eat it. Not necessarily that it was "evil" but they had the knowledge to know not to eat it.

[johannhowitzer]

No. It was a curse, not an automatic effect like burning your hand on the stovetop.

Nowhere in the verses you quoted do I see "and God caused Adam and Eve's descendants to sin," which is what I was talking about.  I never addressed the curse.  How well did you read my post?

[Belthus]

There is also the curious matter of punishing people who didn't know good and evil before eating the fruit.

You mean the fruit that they were told not to eat? They were completely aware that they were not suppose to eat it. Not necessarily that it was "evil" but they had the knowledge to know not to eat it.

If you don't know right from wrong, then you don't know that disobedience is wrong.