A moral God?
Farrell Till errancy@infidels.org
Thu, 27 May 1999 12:08:57 -0700 (00927850137, 2.2.32.19990527190857.008d1844@midwest.net)
At 07:45 AM 5/27/99 -0500, you wrote:
>> Dave G.
>> It would be much more difficult for skeptics to argue against the
>> morals of God, if Christians would just admit we are nothing more than
>> God's little playthings. Whatever pleases God, is moral. God may
>> torture, love, exterminate, defile, save or doom whomever he pleases
>> with no requirement to answer for his crimes.
>>
>> If God kills, it is always moral.
>
SHAWN B
>Killing is not immoral. The Bible says that you should not murder.
>
TILL
Shawn, you just joined the list, so you may not have noticed yet that we
have a protocol that we ask all members to observe. Please type an ID tag
above whatever comments you add to a thread. If this is not done, after it
has been bounced around a few times, no one can tell who has said what.
As for your comment above, would you please tell us where the Bible says you
should not murder. The word translated "kill" in the "10 commandments" was
"ratsach," and it is the same word that was used in Deuteronomy 4:41-42,
which says, "Then Moses set apart on the east side of the Jordan three
cities to which a homicide could flee, someone who UNINTENTIONALLY KILLS
[ratsach] another person, the two not having been at enmity before; the
homicide could flee to one of these cities and live." If someone should
unintentionally kill another person, that would not be murder, yet the same
word was used here as in the commandment not to kill.
I, of course, agree with you that killing isn't necessarily immoral, because
the circumstances would determine whether the killing was morally justified,
but I doubt if you are a situational moralist. At any rate, would you tell
us if you believe that it would be "murder" if an invading army
indiscriminately killed the civilian population. For example, is the
"ethnic cleansing" in Kosovo that the Serbians are engaged in "murder"? If
so, would the ethnic cleansing be morally right if God had commanded that it
be done? Please justify your answers.
DAVID G
>>
>> If God has sex with an unmarried virgin, it is always moral.
>
SHAWN
>God didn't have sex. He is a spirit. He simply willed she become
>pregnant.
>
TILL
>Luke 1:34 Mary said to the angel, "How can this be, since I am a virgin?"
>35 The angel said to her, "The Holy Spirit will come upon you, and the
power of the Most High will overshadow you; therefore the child to be born
will be holy; he will be called Son of God.
>
This sounds very much like more than just "willing" that Mary become
pregnant. If this was just something that God "willed," why did the Holy
Spirit have to come upon her and overshadow her?
DAVID G
>> If God exterminates all life, it is always moral.
>
SHAWN B
>Sin has consequences. The Bible declares, "For the wages of sin is
>death."
>
TILL
Okay, if the wages of sin is death and if God killed some people for their
sins (if this is what you are arguing in the case of the Amalekites), then
he would be obligated to kill everyone who sins or else he would be guilty
of partiality, and this would make God's character inconsistent, since the
Bible teaches in many places that God is no respecter of persons.
Furthermore, the orders were given to kill even the Amalekite babies. What
sins had they committed?
DAVID G
>> If God changes the rules for salvation, it is always moral.
>
SHAWN B
>He never changed the rules. Jesus became the last and ultimate sacrifice
>for man. Thus burnt offerings were no longer needed.
>>
TILL
I'll give you a chance to retract this statement, Shawn, because if you
stick with it and insist that God never changed rules, I'll nail your hide
to the wall on this point. Do you want to take it back?
DAVID G
>> If God lies, it is always moral.
>
SHAWN B
>God can't lie. It is against his nature of goodness and truth.
>>
TILL
Yes, this is what Titus 1:2 claims, but it is inconsistent with what the
Bible teaches. Just yesterday, I sent to the list a posting entitled "Can
God Lie?" Perhaps you would like to reply to it.
DAVID G
>> If God created the Jesus myth, just to watch the death and carnage it
>> would cause and laugh his ass off over the result, it would be moral.
>
SHAWN B
>If Jesus is a myth to you, then why do you even care? Again, Jesus was
>sent to sacrifice himself but he arose from the grave after three days.
>>
TILL
Without begging the question of NT accuracy, please present credible
evidence that Jesus rose from the dead. After you have done that, we can
discuss the merits of your statement above.
Why should David care if Jesus is a myth? Well, we care because a concerted
effort is being made by fundamentalist Christians to impose this myth on
everybody by legislative action. If such a concerted effort was being made
to impose Hindu mythology on the general public, do you mean to say that you
wouldn't care, because, after all, it is just mythology?
DAVID G
>> If God creates a soul for the simple purpose of watching it suffer for
>> etermity, it is moral.
>
SHAWN B
>We have the choice. If we never hear the name of God, he is evident from
>our creation, conscience, circumstances and the Canon (Bible).
>>
TILL
This statement makes the "sacrifice" of Jesus completely unnecessary,
because if people who never hear the name of God could be saved because of
believing evidence of his existence in "our creation," then no Bible and no
"savior" was necessary. Besides, the position you have stated is in
disagreement with Paul's arguments in the book of Romans. You should read
this book.
At any rate, God is not evident in "our creation" as far as I'm concerned.
To the contrary, I find in "our creation" reasons to believe that no deity
had anything to do with making us. If we are the result of divine creation,
this deity must have been a practical joker.
DAVID G
>> If God makes someone sin, then holds them responsible for the sin, it
>> is always moral.
>
SHAWN B
>HE CANNOT MAKE ANYONE SIN. Nor will he tempt us.
>>
TILL
He can't? Well, take it up with your inspired word of God.
>Exodus 7:3 But I will harden Pharaoh's heart, and I will multiply my signs
and wonders in the land of Egypt.
>
>Exodus 9:12 But Yahweh hardened the heart of Pharaoh, and he would not
listen to them, just as Yahweh had spoken to Moses.
>
>Exodus 10:1 Then Yahweh said to Moses, "Go to Pharaoh; for I have hardened
his heart and the heart of his officials, in order that I may show these
signs of mine among them...."
>
>Exodus 10:20 But Yahweh hardened Pharaoh's heart, and he would not let the
Israelites go.
>
>Exodus 10:27 But Yahweh hardened Pharaoh's heart, and he was unwilling to
let them go.
>
>Exodus 11:10 Moses and Aaron performed all these wonders before Pharaoh;
but Yahweh hardened Pharaoh's heart, and he did not let the people of Israel
go out of his land.
>
So here are six different scriptures that clearly say that Yahweh hardened
the heart of Pharaoh. If Pharaoh sinned in not letting the Israelites go,
then Yahweh caused him to sin by hardening his heart. Still not convinced?
Well, here's more.
>Deuteronomy 2:30 But King Sihon of Heshbon was not willing to let us pass
through, for Yahweh your God had hardened his spirit and made his heart
defiant in order to hand him over to you, as he has now done.
>
>Joshua 11:19 There was not a town that made peace with the Israelites,
except the Hivites, the inhabitants of Gibeon; all were taken in battle.
>20 For it was the Lord's doing to harden their hearts so that they would
come against Israel in battle, in order that they might be utterly
destroyed, and might receive no mercy, but be exterminated, just as Yahweh
had commanded Moses.
>
SHAWN B
>You are so far off. You can't understand the rules because you do not
>know the players.
>
TILL
You're new to the list, Shawn, so let me give you some advice. I can
already tell from your postings that you are just another would-be apologist
who thinks that recycling simplistic arguments that you have heard spewed
from pulpits to gullible audiences whom the preachers know will not bother
to examine will be sufficient to send the skeptics on this list running for
cover. Let me assure you that this will not be the case. Most of us on
this list are ex-Christians who became such after very seriously examining
the Bible. We are familiar with the Josh McDowell/Norman Geisler/Gleason
Archer/John Haley/William Arndt/R. A. Torrey type of apologetics, and you
are going to find that these simplistic defenses of the Bible can be easily
shot down. My advice to you is to lurk for a while to get a feeling for the
type of opposition you will encounter if you continue to recycle the
worn-out "arguments" that you sent in this posting.
Farrell Till
Skepticism, Inc.
jftill@midwest.net