By that definition, Hitler is p. cool.
Now you’re going to move the goalpost?
Yes, God commands people to do things. If you think that’s the same as tempting another, especially when taking the above passage in context, good for you.
How did I move the goalpost?
The end of the Abraham passage states that it was a test of Abrahams faith.
Testing/Tempting is equivalent in this regaurd - I could say “God is testing my faith by tempting me with murdering my first born son”
Is that short for pretty cool?"
If Hitler genuinely thought that his actions were good and he claimed the same, then he wasn’t lying. Why what I said makes him “p. cool” is beyond me.
I’ve made it clear that what I was arguing is that God wasn’t necessarily lying when He claimed he doesn’t temp anyone to do evil.
I think it’s clear when you take the passage in context what God meant by tempting.
Temptation here is about temptation to do “evil” such as when an opportunity in life tempts one do do something they think God is against, not something He has commanded. The passage even goes on to define temptation: “but each person is tempted when they are dragged away by their own evil desire and enticed.” Again, if you believe God is saying the equivalent to “I have no commandments” because listening to commandments are tempting, good for you. I don’t think you’ll be successful in convincing many people that it’s the same thing when taking the passage in context.
You;re shifting the blame - James statement about what God does ends with “God does not tempt anyone” - he then goes on to explain that when a person is tempted to do evil, it comes from within.
This has nothing to do with what God would (or would not) Tempt someone with. It is your own interpetation that ‘temptation’ can only be for evil. You can certainly tempt people with rewards for good works - isn’t that what heaven is all about?
I’ve made it clear that any untruth in the bible is an intentional lie by God -
The words are written at the direction of God.
God ‘knows’ all.
Any false statement is an intentional lie.
We can table the ‘tempt vs test’ debate if you like.
I read the passage in context and have concluded the claim that God doesn’t tempt is specifically talking about temptation to do evil. You’re free to keep trying to convince me otherwise, but you’re going to have to provide a different argument than you’ve repeated to be successful.
I’ve also made myself clear and if I repeat that you’d have to prove that God’s actions were objectively evil to make your case, we’d be going around in more circles than we have been. Unless you have a different argument to make, I think we’re done here.
I thought that too. He isn’t powerful as people say. What a fraud!
The debate is not “were God’s actions objectively evil” - the debate from the OP is “did God LIE”.
You can lie for good purposes too - still a lie.
So if lies make baby Jesus cry…
OP, has your friend actually read the Bible? Even Genesis? It includes (in all mainstream versions) two contradictory versions of creation. It’s hard to know if the God of the Bible lied if we can’t even be sure if he created man first or animals first; which is true?
But since you seem to be asking about whether the character God ever lies, then the Sarah story is a pretty good example. OK, it’s a white lie, but it’s still a lie.
In the fictional universe of the Bible, everything God does is good. Therefore, if he tempts you to do it, it’s not tempting you to evil.
The OP asks if God lies. If he says he wont tempt but he does anyway, for good or evil he lied.
Isn’t the specific line about tempting you to evil? It’s not evil if God says for you to do it, because God is not evil.
This is the God who killed millions in a flood, so it’s not like he’s against baby-killing per se. It just has to be for the right reason.
That’s being debated above - I say that the line is ambigous as to the ‘intent’ of the temptation - it ends with ‘God will not tempt you’ - its a fair point that the rest of the passage is about ‘evil’ temptations, but the author is seperating those specifically from “god will not tempt you”.
Tempt == Test (2nd dictionary definition) - God tests folks all the time. We usually associate that with bad things - but there is no specific reason it cannot also be said that he tests and/or tempts with good things.
You are also making the jump that “god is good, therefore anything he asks is by definition good” - and while not the subject of the debate, that is questionable - clearly Abraham had issues with the request - even if he did start to follow thru - so even Abraham did not equate “all god command == good commands”.
Correction to my third paragraph - nothing in the passage suggests that Abraham took issue with God’s request.
If you don’t mind my asking, what are you talking about? I’m always on the lookout for good commentaries to help guide me (or more often motivate me) toward reading the Bible. Asimov’s guide was compelling enough to get me through Ezekial, but I haven’t been able to stomach the post-Exile writings at all.
My god doesn’t lie, I mean I haven’t yet worked out what I want him to say but when he does it will be the goddamn truth!