Deism Plus an Afterlife.

[David Sklansky]

Are there any religions that believe that God got the ball rolling but then doesn't interfere until after a conscious creature dies? (Besides Sklanskyanity of course).

[Aytumious]

[ QUOTE ]
Are there any religions that believe that God got the ball rolling but then doesn't interfere until after a conscious creature dies? (Besides Sklanskyanity of course).

[/ QUOTE ]

Why bother with the afterlife? It just muddies the issue and takes away from Sklanskyanity, IMO.

[David Sklansky]

"Why bother with the afterlife? It just muddies the issue and takes away from Sklanskyanity, IMO."

Sklanskyanity requires a belief that God will reward and punish in some way depending on whether the sum of your good behabviors outweigh your bad ones. Since there is scant evidence he does this while you live, it must be afterwards. But I can think of two mechanisms for this that are a lot less farfetched than heaven and hell (besides the fact that Sklanskians don't expect that the rewards or punishments need be infinitely great or terrible.)

One mechanism would somehow make use of the ideas I presented in my essay An Unexpecteded Ending. It is the last chapter of Poker Gaming and Life and I give my permission for it to be reproduced on this forum. (I have no scanner.)

The other method involves this idea that just before you die, or expect, to die you life flashes before your eyes. I know someone who is not religious who had this happen to them. If this does happen and if somehow this period seems infinitely long to you, it would be a sort of punishment or reward (for non sociopaths) as they contemplated their past actions for what seemed to them, to be an eternity.

[Aytumious]

I went back and reread the original Sklanskyanity post and am curious whether you think a system of reward/punishment in the afterlife is necessary for humanity to function. If you answer no, then an afterlife becomes unnecessary since its sole function is to reward or punish, at least in this case.

[Jake (The Snake)]

The appendix exists.

[David Sklansky]

Without it Sklanskyanity would not be a religion.

[Aytumious]

[ QUOTE ]
Without it Sklanskyanity would not be a religion.

[/ QUOTE ]

Fair enough, although I do think a religion could exist that did not rely on a belief in reward/punishment in the afterlife or in miracles.

Actually, Zeno just posted some quotes that would embody any religion I would be a part of:

" It was, of course, a lie what you read about my religious convictions, a lie which is being systemtically repeated. I do not believe in a personal God and I have never denied this but have expressed it clearly. If something is in me which can be called religious then it is the unbound admiration for the structure of the world so far as our science can reveal it."

-From Albert Einstein, The Human Side, ed. H. Dukas and B. Hoffman (Princeton, Princeton University Press, 1981).


" I cannot imagine a God who rewards and punishes the objects of his creation, whose purposes are modeled after our own - a God, in short, who is but a reflection of human frailty. Neither can I believe that the individual survives the death of his body, although feeble souls harbor such thoughts through fear or ridiculous egotism. It is enough for me to contemplate the mystery of conscious life perpetuating itself through all eternity, to reflect upon the marvelous structure of the universe which we can dimly preceive, and try humbly to comprehand even an infinitesimal part of the intelligence manifested in nature."

-Albert Einstein, from Living Philosophies A Series of Intimate Credos, Simon and Schuster, New York, 1933.

Perhaps Sklanskyanity could change it's core beliefs to better reflect the scientific bent of the majority of the posters on this site. I'd happily go on missions to promote such a religion.

[Jake (The Snake)]

David,

From what I know, there are some Deists who believe in an afterlife. I think in general most do not, but it is not required that a Deist not believe in the afterlife.

Also, does the afterlife of Sklanskyanity occur outside or somehow apart from our universe? It would seem the Law of Conservation would prevent it from occurring in our universe.

[David Sklansky]

Before I go to the trouble of fine tuning and establishing more details of Sklanskyanity (a religion that prides itself on not having to many precise details by the way). I need to find out something. Perhaps you theologians out there could help me with this.

Did Jesus Christ get laid a lot?

[daryn]

</font><blockquote><font class="small">In risposta di:</font><hr />
One mechanism would somehow make use of the ideas I presented in my essay An Unexpecteded Ending. It is the last chapter of Poker Gaming and Life and I give my permission for it to be reproduced on this forum. (I have no scanner.)


[/ QUOTE ]

yes! someone do this, i've been dying to read it ever since drudman recommended it to me a long time ago. yeah yeah, i should buy the book.

[PairTheBoard]

[ QUOTE ]
Are there any religions that believe that God got the ball rolling but then doesn't interfere until after a conscious creature dies? (Besides Sklanskyanity of course).

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't think it's necessary for a Creator God to break the laws of nature or physics in order to do "miracles". In fact, if there were a diety who did such things, I would consider him to be an inferior trickster of a diety and look for a better one. The kind of miracle that impresses me is the loaves and fishes kind. No, not produced by a trickster diety who magically created loaves and fishes out of nothing just to impress people. But the miracle of people who came late to the gathering being inspired to share what they brought with those who had been there before and were now out of food and hungry. It's funny, but there are many who say that this view of the loaves and fishes miracle takes all meaning out of it. While for me, it's the only view that does have meaning. A God who can produce such a miracle is one worth knowing imo. A trickster diety is just a Joker as far as I'm concerned.

PairTheBoard

[Chairman Wood]

[ QUOTE ]
Did Jesus Christ get laid a lot?

[/ QUOTE ]
I don't know, but he kept company with a lot of whores.

[Alex/Mugaaz]

I think it's hard to believe in a real reward/punishment in the afterlife if you are a deist. It just doesn't add up. It's certainly a possibility, but if God got the ball rolling and left us to our own devices, why would he be likely to punish or reward after death? Wouldn't he be more likely to still remain far away?

Unless you view life as one giant test where you are graded at the end. The problem I have with that is that questions in life don't have anwers which are clearly right or wrong.

When people say the goal in life is to "help people" I want to throw up in my mouth. Help them do what? Let's say we solved war, famine, poverty, and prejudice. Now what? Are we all going to heaven if we don't break any laws? How would you help people now? Help them to be happy? Why? Is joy a virtue?

[Shakezula]

The sexual exploits would have been repressed by the leaders of the establishment. Certainly can't have your savior going about and talking about the expression of love through the sexual act: not how they wanted their messiah to be perceived by the masses; doesn't fit in with their ideas of the sinful self. Pleasure? what's that? Keep you head bowed and walk the tightrope of church law---that kind of thing.

He and his disciple John sure did spend alot of time together though. Who knows? Maybe there was something there also, but YOU KNOW that the masses weren't ready for that back then. Repress that for sure. You see where it got us: the attempt to repress such a physical act of love, either way, in time has caused the over-exagerations to come forth. The natural-ness of physical love and its many expressions cannot be denied. The people will not be denied, nor can expression be denied. It may be buried, hidden for awhile, but time will reveal that which has been secreted away. All this of course is mere speculation.

That said, maybe one day a "lost book" may come forth that details the sexual adventures of the Christ and even his disciples. Not likely in our lifetime though. Not even a one-outer I would say.

If he didn't have sex, then that would explain the reports of miracles! Some people believe that repression of sexual energy gives them greater strength and stamina, and power. Think of all the monks and hermits, or even a boxer before a big fight: "I want you to knock it off, Rock. Quit playing with that girl of yours. Women make weak legs." Or something like that.

[NotReady]

[ QUOTE ]

Did Jesus Christ get laid a lot?


[/ QUOTE ]

Your inability to debate and lack of understanding are causing you to descend into rank mediocrity. You are approaching the level of those who pulled out His beard and spit in His face.

[sexypanda]

David,

In The Da Vinci Code, it's speculated that Jesus and Mary Magdeline were together and had a child. It also speculates that this blood-line still exists and is kept alive by an old cult (much like the one depicted in Eyes Wide Shut). I don't think anyone can answer your question 100% accurately, but it is speculated that he "got laid". How much, I don't know.

[Spladle Master]

[ QUOTE ]
Before I go to the trouble of fine tuning and establishing more details of Sklanskyanity (a religion that prides itself on not having to many precise details by the way). I need to find out something. Perhaps you theologians out there could help me with this.

Did Jesus Christ get laid a lot?

[/ QUOTE ]

Yeah, the chicks dug him because he was hung.

[Spladle Master]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

Did Jesus Christ get laid a lot?


[/ QUOTE ]

Your inability to debate and lack of understanding are causing you to descend into rank mediocrity. You are approaching the level of those who pulled out His beard and spit in His face.

[/ QUOTE ]

And as for you . . . well, I just plain don't like you.

[David Sklansky]

I guess no one realizes I was making fun of MYSELF with that question. I could have just as easily substituted Abraham or Mohammed or Joseph Smith or your buddy Calvin, for Jesus in that post.

[NotReady]

[ QUOTE ]

I guess no one realizes I was making fun of MYSELF with that question.


[/ QUOTE ]

You're right. I didn't realize that.

[evil_twin]

[ QUOTE ]
Your inability to debate...

[/ QUOTE ]

You decided to reply to his obvious humor with more humor? You obviously can't be serious.

[sexypanda]

Looks like my sarcasm detector's a little off today.

[Zygote]

[ QUOTE ]
Are there any religions that believe that God got the ball rolling but then doesn't interfere until after a conscious creature dies? (Besides Sklanskyanity of course).

[/ QUOTE ]
What would hold me back from giving credence to Sklanskyanity (and many other religions) is the teaching that the universe centers around the human race. Given that humans are easily capable of making up religions, often lucrative ones, and are very likely to do so for their own benefits, including their ego. Then, a fabricated religion would likely have a biased creator who includes himself and/or his race as the universe's main purpose. Also, in a sense, to center the universe around humans would be to deny any further evolution or natural destruction (without purpose) of the human race.

To summarize, i think it is very unlikely, based on what we know, that humans have a large role in the universe's meaning, if there is one. Therefore, I am unlikely to adhere to any seemingly man-made religion because i highly doubt the validity.

I don't know of any religions that preach what you're asking, but if there is one that said that god basically got the ball rolling and judged all creatures that would manifest, i would be much more inclined to believe.

[pheasant tail (no 18)]

[ QUOTE ]
Did Jesus Christ get laid a lot?

[/ QUOTE ]

Define "a lot".

[BluffTHIS!]

And what will be the basis for determining which behaviours are good or bad so that an appropriate reward/punishment can be made? A moral code of some kind? If the creatures don't know what the standard is then how can they conform? And if there is some code, then isn't that interference prior to death?

And regarding the question is there a religion based upon deism, there seem to be only philosophies. A link appropriately titled moderndeism is here (http://moderndeism.com/) .

[David Sklansky]

"What would hold me back from giving credence to Sklanskyanity (and many other religions) is the teaching that the universe centers around the human race."

Unless I'm mistaken I have previously said that it applies to all conscious creatures in the universe. That includes aliens and perhaps soon, dolphins.

[BluffTHIS!]

Maybe Flipper and his pals have their own religion.

[Zygote]

[ QUOTE ]
"What would hold me back from giving credence to Sklanskyanity (and many other religions) is the teaching that the universe centers around the human race."

Unless I'm mistaken I have previously said that it applies to all conscious creatures in the universe. That includes aliens and perhaps soon, dolphins.

[/ QUOTE ]

You're right. Maybe my memory decayed since i last read your post and allowed me to misassociate a flaw in other religions with yours. Now that i've re-read your post and notice the absence of this flaw, i have a much greater appreaciation for Sklanskyanity

[Jman28]

[ QUOTE ]
Before I go to the trouble of fine tuning and establishing more details of Sklanskyanity (a religion that prides itself on not having to many precise details by the way). I need to find out something. Perhaps you theologians out there could help me with this.

Did Jesus Christ get laid a lot?

[/ QUOTE ]

POTM

[IronUnkind]

Even less than you -- further proof of his ability to perform miracles.

[IronUnkind]

There is not a shred of historical evidence to suggest this, even if bad fiction writers speculate otherwise.

[RedManPlus]

[ QUOTE ]

depending on whether the sum of your good behaviors outweigh your bad ones

[/ QUOTE ]

This is the classic mindset of most Catholics...
And anyone who is not serious about their faith.

Underlying this belief...
Is a confidence that one can outsmart God...
Defy him 49.9% of the time...
But then force Him to reward you when you show 50.1%

See how silly that is? The Bible uses the term "mock".

Also underlying this belief...
Is desire to get away with doing bad things or to "love the world"...
And a lack of desire to grow in character.

It's really a subset of the "Good Man" philosophy...
Which is what most people REALLY believe:

I am a "good man" by my own carefully, crafted standards...
And, therefore, God approves of me.

This will never work.
You have to subscribe fully to a 3rd party belief system...
Or you are just conning yourself.

rm+

/images/graemlins/cool.gif /images/graemlins/cool.gif /images/graemlins/cool.gif

[Aytumious]

[ QUOTE ]

I am a "good man" by my own carefully, crafted standards...
And, therefore, God approves of me.

This will never work.
You have to subscribe fully to a 3rd party belief system...
Or you are just conning yourself.

rm+

/images/graemlins/cool.gif /images/graemlins/cool.gif /images/graemlins/cool.gif

[/ QUOTE ]

So can a person live up to the standard of what they consider to be a good person with god not ever being part of the equation? Through the study of various ethical systems I have come up with my own definition of how a man should live, and approval from a god never enters the equation. God is irrelevant.

[PairTheBoard]

"You have to subscribe fully to a 3rd party belief system...
Or you are just conning yourself."

--rm+

I think I'd rather con myself than be conned by a 3rd party belief system.

PTB

[Zygote]

[ QUOTE ]
"You have to subscribe fully to a 3rd party belief system...
Or you are just conning yourself."

--rm+

I think I'd rather con myself than be conned by a 3rd party belief system.

PTB

[/ QUOTE ]

Okay, so thats what you'd rather, but how will that now help you make a life decision?

[MMMMMM]

^

[Mayhap]

Satanists buy into this idea.

[kurosh]

[ QUOTE ]
Sklanskyanity requires a belief that God will reward and punish in some way depending on whether the sum of your good behabviors outweigh your bad ones.

[/ QUOTE ]

Define "good" behavior. Good according to who? And how does one know what is good?

[BluffTHIS!]

As I have stated before, I believe that a strong rational arguement can be made for the existence of some type of God because there had to be an uncreated first cause. However deism+an afterlife, the belief in a god who "got the ball rolling" and then doesn't "interfere", does not seem rational for several reasons:

1) Deism doesn't answer the question, 'why did God create anything in the first place'? Christianity and other religions have an answer for that.

2) Believing that God "got the ball rolling and then doesn't interfere" would logically seem to me to infer either that He doesn't care all that much about His creatures (is not a personal god as Christianity believes, or that He lacks the power to "interfere" in the way that other religions believe. But a god who creates, either directly, or indirectly through evolution of species, intelligent creatures (us), is the same as a father begetting children. Such a father surely must care enough about those children's welfare to influence their life here and now, where their future status in the posited afterlife is determined by their actions. And as to God not having the power to "interfere", this surely is not rational as the infinite power is to create something from nothing, with influencing the subsequent creation being a lesser act.

3) Deism's belief in non-interference presupposes that such "interference" if it did occur would happen in supernatural ways only and thus be readily indentifiable.

4) Deism + an afterlife defines that God will act a a judge to mete out reward and punishment for our present behaviour without providing any means to aid in good behaviour, or even specify exactly what 'good' behaviour is.

[David Sklansky]

"But a god who creates, either directly, or indirectly through evolution of species, intelligent creatures (us), is the same as a father begetting children. Such a father surely must care enough about those children's welfare to influence their life here and now, where their future status in the posited afterlife is determined by their actions."

Big time problem with this argument. Especially if the father in question had infinite power. Such a father might very well decide that he had the choice of guiding all his children to a good afterlife or failing that, let them completely on their own. It is entirely reasonable that he would prefer that second alternative to one of taking half measures.

[BluffTHIS!]

And how is it that influencing them while allowing them degrees of freedom, is a half-measure, when leaving them on their own without any guidance/encouragement isn't?

[Zygote]

[ QUOTE ]
I believe that a strong rational arguement can be made for the existence of some type of God because there had to be an uncreated first cause.

[/ QUOTE ]

Betrand Russel:
[ QUOTE ]

If everything must have a cause, then God must have a cause. If there can be anything without a cause, it may just as well be the world as God, so that there cannot be any validity in that argument. It is exactly of the same nature as the Hindu's view, that the world rested upon an elephant and the elephant rested upon a tortoise; and when they said, "How about the tortoise?" the Indian said, "Suppose we change the subject." The argument is really no better than that. There is no reason why the world could not have come into being without a cause; nor, on the other hand, is there any reason why it should not have always existed. There is no reason to suppose that the world had a beginning at all. The idea that things must have a beginning is really due to the poverty of our imagination.

[/ QUOTE ]

[ QUOTE ]
1) Deism doesn't answer the question, 'why did God create anything in the first place'? Christianity and other religions have an answer for that.

[/ QUOTE ]

Deism doesn't require a specific purpose for the universe's creation. Perhaps we're a sceince-project.

BTW, what answers does a Judeo-Christian religion have? I'd be very interested in this.





[ QUOTE ]
2) Believing that God "got the ball rolling and then doesn't interfere" would logically seem to me to infer either that He doesn't care all that much about His creatures (is not a personal god as Christianity believes, or that He lacks the power to "interfere" in the way that other religions believe.

[/ QUOTE ]

Before i answer this according to Deism, i would like you to attempt to defend why the Christian god does not interfere on acts of evil.

[David Sklansky]

Forget the word "half measure". That wasn't my point. It was simply that your contention, that a few intercessions here and there, makes a lot more sense for God, than no intercessions at all, is simply and obviously not true.

[BluffTHIS!]

Since it is not simple and obvious to me, please explain further, perhaps using an analogous example like a father and his 10 year old son.

[BluffTHIS!]

[ QUOTE ]
Before i answer this according to Deism, i would like you to attempt to defend why the Christian god does not interfere on acts of evil.

[/ QUOTE ]

Free Will

[David Sklansky]

"Since it is not simple and obvious to me, please explain further, perhaps using an analogous example like a father and his 10 year old son."

You can't use that analogy because the father isn't omnipotent. God's omnipotence makes total non intervention as reasonable, if not more reasonable, than partial intervention.

And as long as I have you. Don't know story of prodigal son. Was he going to be punished for doing wrong or simply for not loving his father? If it is the latter my comment is that good human fathers should never act that way. Its different for your wife, your friend, your sibling, or even your parent. But you created your child and he didn't ask you to. If he doesn't love you but merely treats you and everyone else properly, he should get no punishment.

[BluffTHIS!]

The prodigal son was one of two sons. The first son did as his father wished and served him on his estate. The second son asked for his share of the inheritance in advance and left to squander it, ending up as an ill-treated servant for someone else. He then realized that his father's own servants were treated better, and returned home in sorrow and only asking to be treated as a hired hand. His father instead clothed him finely and had the fatted calf killed to celebrate the return of his lost son. There is more to the parable regarding the 'good son' and his reaction. The point is the father always welcomes back a repentent loving son.

In the case of a son who does not love his father and does not return, then his punishment is the self chosen one of eternal separation from his father, who in this lifetime would only have been gladly willing to receive him back.

[David Sklansky]

You Catholics really do flirt with sanity.

[vulturesrow]

[ QUOTE ]
You Catholics really do flirt with sanity.

[/ QUOTE ]
The prodigal son story is straight of the Bible David, so its not just we Catholics. /images/graemlins/wink.gif

[Zygote]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Before i answer this according to Deism, i would like you to attempt to defend why the Christian god does not interfere on acts of evil.

[/ QUOTE ]

Free Will

[/ QUOTE ]

According to the bible god split the sea and drowned the egyptian army. Why he can't he do something like that to prevent evil? Was evading free will allowed back then?

[BluffTHIS!]

Just because God allows free will doesn't mean He doesn't interfere to benefit one person or group over another. Both the Israelites and the Egyptians freely took their actions, with God only affecting the results. I will give a caveat however regarding free will in this case. The bible says that God "hardened" pharoah's heart. What this means is that after the pharoah had taken a certain attitude and course of action, that God hardened his heart to keep him in that attitude. As NotReady has said, even if I wouldn't agree with him totally on the topic, free will is a complicated subject and such free will is not totally unlimited. What I do not believe is the extremely limited view of free will which is typical of Calvinist theology that puts more emphasis on predestination.

[Zygote]

[ QUOTE ]
Just because God allows free will doesn't mean He doesn't interfere to benefit one person or group over another. Both the Israelites and the Egyptians freely took their actions, with God only affecting the results. I will give a caveat however regarding free will in this case. The bible says that God "hardened" pharoah's heart. What this means is that after the pharoah had taken a certain attitude and course of action, that God hardened his heart to keep him in that attitude. As NotReady has said, even if I wouldn't agree with him totally on the topic, free will is a complicated subject and such free will is not totally unlimited. What I do not believe is the extremely limited view of free will which is typical of Calvinist theology that puts more emphasis on predestination.

[/ QUOTE ]

okay, then why didn't god strike hitler down with lightning? if god is allowed to interfer, why doesn't he and prevent evil? according to your post, god can intervene without infringing on free will so why does god allow evil? free-will can't be used as the excuse anymore.

[BluffTHIS!]

Just because He can, doesn't mean He always will interfere, or free will wouldn't really be free will. If evil acts were not allowed by God's permissive will, then there is no free will. Plus you miss the fact that to us believers, it is eternal life with God that is most important, not having the most happy existence possible in this life.

[Zygote]

[ QUOTE ]
Just because He can, doesn't mean He always will interfere, or free will wouldn't really be free will. If evil acts were not allowed by God's permissive will, then there is no free will. Plus you miss the fact that to us believers, it is eternal life with God that is most important, not having the most happy existence possible in this life.

[/ QUOTE ]

so lets say i'm walking down the street and see a burning house with a baby inside. if i know the fire will burn and kill the baby if i don't help and i know that i can save the baby withouth harming myself and I also claim that i am essentially good, how would i defend not saving the baby? another question, if I choose not to save the baby, according to your beliefs, would that be considered a sin?

[BluffTHIS!]

You are taking these matters in directions very off topic to this thread. However, regarding your two questions which are related, in the conditions that you state, I would personally believe that such a failure to act would be sinful since I believe you have a moral duty to help others avoid serious harm when you possess the means to do so, though not necessarily to the point of endangering your own life, even though taking it to such an extent would be laudable and in the true spirit of the gospel.

[Zygote]

[ QUOTE ]
You are taking these matters in directions very off topic to this thread. However, regarding your two questions which are related, in the conditions that you state, I would personally believe that such a failure to act would be sinful since I believe you have a moral duty to help others avoid serious harm when you possess the means to do so, though not necessarily to the point of endangering your own life, even though taking it to such an extent would be laudable and in the true spirit of the gospel.

[/ QUOTE ]

now the million dollar question is:

if god is held to at least the same moral standard as we are, why does god often stand by and watch us "burn"? If god is sinful then god can't be essentially good!

[NotReady]

[ QUOTE ]

if god is held to at least the same moral standard as we are


[/ QUOTE ]

God is not held to any standard, He is the standard. For a debate on this topic
see here (http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/showthreaded.php?Cat=&amp;Number=1987571&amp;page=&amp;view=&amp;s b=5&amp;o=&amp;vc=1)

[Zygote]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

if god is held to at least the same moral standard as we are


[/ QUOTE ]

God is not held to any standard, He is the standard. For a debate on this topic
see here (http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/showthreaded.php?Cat=&amp;Number=1987571&amp;page=&amp;view=&amp;s b=5&amp;o=&amp;vc=1)

[/ QUOTE ]

now you're not making much sense. if it is a sin for me as person to do, then i must be acting on god's standard of good and evil?

when you say god is good, which i'm sure you do, what standard are you refering to? whatever your answer, i'm saying he doesn't meet that criteria because he watches us burn.

[NotReady]

[ QUOTE ]

when you say god is good, which i'm sure you do, what standard are you refering to?


[/ QUOTE ]

There is no standard external to God that rules over God. If there was He would not be God. He allows evil for His own good reasons, not all of which are revealed to us. Part of the reason is that death and suffering are a punishment for sin. People die because the human race has rebelled against God. We have difficulty in this life because of the same reason. God is not obliged to us for anything.

"But He shows His own love towards us in that while we were yet sinners, Christ died for us."

[Zygote]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

when you say god is good, which i'm sure you do, what standard are you refering to?


[/ QUOTE ]

There is no standard external to God that rules over God. If there was He would not be God. He allows evil for His own good reasons, not all of which are revealed to us. Part of the reason is that death and suffering are a punishment for sin. People die because the human race has rebelled against God. We have difficulty in this life because of the same reason. God is not obliged to us for anything.

"But He shows His own love towards us in that while we were yet sinners, Christ died for us."

[/ QUOTE ]

Wow. Thats some pretty wild stuff to believe.

I'm still confused about one thing. You can't say god has no standard of good and evil and still claim that he is good.

[NotReady]

[ QUOTE ]

You can't say god has no standard of good and evil and still claim that he is good.


[/ QUOTE ]

He is the standard. He is good in His nature. He defines good. The standard is Himself.

Fallen humanity has always tried to establish a standard of good and evil independent of God. The reason is that God can then be judged by that standard, and He will never measure up. It's really just an attempt to deny that God exists, or that He is the final authority, which is the same thing.

To anticipate an objection usually made at this point, the above doesn't mean that God is arbitrary and could then say that lying is good and telling the truth is evil. God cannot sin, He cannot deny Himself. To say that God could have done otherwise is really to deny any ultimate authority exists. Why couldn't an abstract, independent moral standard have been otherwise? Why couldn't this standard say that lying is good and telling the truth is evil? There either is or is not a final authority. If there isn't, then the concept of good and evil is meaningless. If there is, then I believe that authority is God.

[RxForMoreCowbell]

[ QUOTE ]
He is the standard. He is good in His nature. He defines good. The standard is Himself.



[/ QUOTE ]

If God is the standard, and God watches as people burn, then wouldn't this imply that watching the baby burn is, in fact, the moral thing to do?

[NotReady]

God's law prohibits humans from murdering other humans. If He allows one human to murder another human He does so for a good reason.

[Zygote]

[ QUOTE ]
To say that God could have done otherwise is really to deny any ultimate authority exists. Why couldn't an abstract, independent moral standard have been otherwise?

[/ QUOTE ]


Because an abstract, indepent moral standard, according to you, can possibly dictate anything. So maybe hitler was right. Maybe doing good things is actually bad? how can we be rewarded by this higher authority for telling the truth if the truth is actually harmful? so you admit that god, according to our independent moral standard, is sinful and evil and this is the evidence you use to infer that his higher moral standard looks out for our good? Also, why should we bother adhering to our independent morals if they aren't going to be the final authority?

[Zygote]

[ QUOTE ]
God's law prohibits humans from murdering other humans. If He allows one human to murder another human He does so for a good reason.

[/ QUOTE ]

how do you know that he does so for a good reason? if I said his reasons were bad, how would you dispute my claim? wouldn't doing something for a good reason be apart of our moral standard and not necessarily god's?

just so i'm clear, god, according to you, is responsible for every evil act in our world, but is doing so for good reasons?

[NotReady]

I don't really follow what you're saying here. But I'll give it a shot.

[ QUOTE ]

how can we be rewarded by this higher authority for telling the truth if the truth is actually harmful?


[/ QUOTE ]

Again, if there is a standard higher than God, there is no God, and in truth there can be no ultimate standard either.

[ QUOTE ]

so you admit that god, according to our independent moral standard, is sinful and evil and this is the evidence you use to infer that his higher moral standard looks out for our good?


[/ QUOTE ]

If there is a standard higher than God there is no God.

[ QUOTE ]

Also, why should we bother adhering to our independent morals if they aren't going to be the final authority?


[/ QUOTE ]

You shouldn't if they conflict with God's moral law, because He is the final authority.

[NotReady]

[ QUOTE ]

how do you know that he does so for a good reason?


[/ QUOTE ]

The Bible says so.

[ QUOTE ]

just so i'm clear, god, according to you, is responsible for every evil act in our world, but is doing so for good reasons?


[/ QUOTE ]

God is not the author of sin. But certaily sin would not exist if God had not created man and allowed him to sin. Much of the reason that something is sinful goes to motive. Two people can do the same thing, such as give to charity, and one can be sinful and the other doing what is good.
With God, all His motives are just and righteous, therefore He cannot do anything wrong. He is omnipotent and so He can use the evil motives and evil deeds of evil people to bring about good.

[Zygote]

[ QUOTE ]
You shouldn't if they conflict with God's moral law, because He is the final authority.

[/ QUOTE ]

How do i know what conflicts with god's moral law?

If your answer is the bible, then i will say the bible says that i should save the baby so god is sinning and god is denying himself and, therefore, there is no god.

[NotReady]

[ QUOTE ]

then i will say the bible says that i should save the baby so god is sinning and god is denying himself and, therefore, there is no god.


[/ QUOTE ]

If you believe something is sinful because the Bible says so, then you should believe the Bible when it says God is good and doesn't sin. If you believe something is sinful because you say so, then you have placed yourself above God.

[SheetWise]

Let's stipulate God. If we are created by God (as opposed to being an incidental self-absorbed by-product) then, collectively, we represent Gods plan. Why would God want to interfere with His plan? If free choice is not a part of our lives, I'd quit just as soon as now. Being that I believe it is, I'm willing to accept the day of reckoning (when it comes).

SheetWise

[Zygote]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

then i will say the bible says that i should save the baby so god is sinning and god is denying himself and, therefore, there is no god.


[/ QUOTE ]

If you believe something is sinful because the Bible says so, then you should believe the Bible when it says God is good and doesn't sin. If you believe something is sinful because you say so, then you have placed yourself above God.

[/ QUOTE ]

Lets say I believe something in the bible is sinful because the bible says so and i also believe the bible says that god is good and is not sinful. Now if i conclude that god commits that specific sin, according to his own definition of that sin, then the bible loses its validity and i stop believing.

[NotReady]

As I've said God doesn't sin. Read my post about motive. Man can so something that is sinful for him to do because he has evil motive, while if God does the same thing it isn't evil because He has pure motives. This can be true of humans, see my example about giving to charity.

[Zygote]

[ QUOTE ]
As I've said God doesn't sin. Read my post about motive. Man can so something that is sinful for him to do because he has evil motive, while if God does the same thing it isn't evil because He has pure motives. This can be true of humans, see my example about giving to charity.

[/ QUOTE ]

Okay, i now understand your view point much better.

Heres what i still don't understnad:
To believe what you've explained takes a lot of faith. The problem is that several faiths preach this identical message. Judaism, christanity and islam, for example, all agree with every point you've so far made. If i was born into an atheist home and came to agree with you on what you've already explained as the necessary conditions for god, which book do i then choose to listen to? They can't all be right at the same time.

[NotReady]

Islam is not even close to Christianity. The God represented in the Koran has many differences from the God of the Bible.

Christianity and Judaism both believe the Old Testament is the Word of God. The difference between the two is Christ and the New Testament.

As to why you should believe, if you are a serious questioner, the Bible says that if you seek Him you will find Him. The Christian message, the Gospel, is unique. It says that mankind has fallen and is guilty before God. God has Himself provided the remedy by becoming man in the Person of Christ and offering Himself as a sacrifice for our sins. By trusting in Him for salvation, you receive forgiveness.

"For God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son, that whoever believes in Him shall not perish but have life everlasting."