Statue of limitations for God to punish you?

[cosmosdan]

@Voyager

Perhaps you missed where I said “if God truly said that.” The response would be to someone saying to do evil because god commands it, not to god. So your response totally misses the point.

Now, many religions incorporate the notion that certain people are more qualified to interpret and spread the word of god than others, such as Catholicism. If you are calling for religious anarchy, that is cool with me. Millions of churches of one would probably be better for the world. But at least some of these churches are run by jerkwads, right? Surely not every religious opinion is of equal validity!

Personaly I hope more people will see the church of one as a good thing, but I doubt it will happen anytime soon. I think the simple things Jesus taught, love thy neighbor, go well with his admonition to not let any man tell you what God wants of you. It seems to be a part of the spiritual path to want some person to tell you what it all means. I just wish more leaders and teachers would encourage people to think for themselves and tell them it’s perfectly okay if we don’t all see the great mysteries the same.

I once wrote a little fantasy where I died, went to heaven, and had god ask what I felt about the flood. I answered that if God did it, I’d punch him in the face. God answers, “right answer! Anyone thinking I could do such a thing is not using the moral sense I gave him and goes to hell. Welcome to heaven.”

Interesting. I’m working on one in which a sincere well intentioned fundamantalist has a vision that really shakes up his world.

The point of this is that god doing it does not make it right. If you think it does, you have no moral basis to argue that the Flood is wrong, or that a religious leader ordering his followers to do evil based on god’s commands is necessarily wrong.

BTW, your view of the Bible, which I agree with factually, leads to problems also. God belief, and least in the Judeo-Christian god, is based on the Bible. (We don’t have any independent reason to believe in this type of god, right?) Yet when you yank away the Bible, you leave your God belief hanging in the middle of the air just like the Coyote after running off the cliff. Just like him, you’re held up by faith. I’m trying to get you to look down, so you can hold up a sign saying “oops” and plunge downward into the canyon of atheism. Happily, you’ll land in a lovely pool, and spend the rest of your Sunday mornings sunning yourself in luxury, never again to chase the elusive Roadrunner of god.

*** This imagery brought to you by Voyager Studios.

Funny It’s an interesting thought but spirituality has grown as society has changed. From the first questions about the source of thunder and early mythology to now. People are being influenced not only by the Bible but now {fortunatly} by many spiritual resources and ideas. Not all that long ago we didn’t have that. People were told what they had to believe with no way other than a gut instinct to help them sort things out. The more people are exsposed to alternative ideas the more spirituality will change. I think Atheism and science plays an important role in that. ONe thing I’ve learned here on the SDMB is that we do our minds a great disservice if we don’t give consideration to well articulated opposing views. Still, growth can be a painfully slow process.

[cosmosdan]

@Voyager

Excellent point. Let me expand on this, since I think our theist friends won’t get it.

Can god change morality - in other words, is it dependent on time? He must be able to, since if not we have the following problems:

• his power is limited, therefore he is not god.
• If he cannot, there must be an independent moral authority which he cannot violate, thus morality comes from this undefined moral absolute, not god.

So he must be able to change what is moral. But then, how can you call a changing morality absolute? Perhaps you are following what you think is moral, only to find that he changed it on you, and you are not not acting morally after all. God is not very good about getting the memo on these changes out, after all.

Therefore, god and absolute morality are mutually contradictory. One gotta go (or both.)

I think you’re right. I’m not sure I get it.

Since God is timeless I’m not sure how that relates. I believe the nature of God is Love and truth. These things seem to be moral don’t they? I don’t think it’s an issue morality for God but more a question of aligning ourselves with that nature. We struggle because we are not aligned and it isn’t clear to us what love is or what the truth is. That’s what we’re trying to figure out. …IMHO of course.

You might ask if God being Omnipotent, can change his own nature? I’m not sure a question like that has any purpose other than semantics.

[Voyager]

@cosmosdan

Personaly I hope more people will see the church of one as a good thing, but I doubt it will happen anytime soon. I think the simple things Jesus taught, love thy neighbor, go well with his admonition to not let any man tell you what God wants of you. It seems to be a part of the spiritual path to want some person to tell you what it all means. I just wish more leaders and teachers would encourage people to think for themselves and tell them it’s perfectly okay if we don’t all see the great mysteries the same.

Interesting. I’m working on one in which a sincere well intentioned fundamantalist has a vision that really shakes up his world.

The original had God speaking in a Justin Wilson Cajun accent.

I agree that churches of one would be cool, if only because it would be hard to get up a mob from a church of one. I’d of course would consider the beliefs of everyone of these churches to be incorrect, but some would be incorrect for more interesting reasons than others. Some would be “incorrect” through not being verifiable and testable in principle, not from being actually wrong.

Just think how interesting a purely intellectual discussion would be amongst all these churches!

[Voyager]

@cosmosdan

I think you’re right. I’m not sure I get it.

Since God is timeless I’m not sure how that relates. I believe the nature of God is Love and truth. These things seem to be moral don’t they? I don’t think it’s an issue morality for God but more a question of aligning ourselves with that nature. We struggle because we are not aligned and it isn’t clear to us what love is or what the truth is. That’s what we’re trying to figure out. …IMHO of course.

Though god is supposedly timeless, he provides guidance to us in time. Being timeless, how could he change his moral position? Yet if you believe that the Bible is even slightly inspired, he seems to have changed what is moral.

Now, even a timeless god could send different moral messages based on the state of the recipient. For instance, god could tell us not to get too upset about turning on lights during the Sabbath, since he never mentioned it was okay 3,000 years ago. So, if there was an absolute moral code, we might have been given only subsets of it. No contradiction there.

But, some of the messages are contradictory. Either the Sabbath is holy enough that you can stone people working on it to death, or it is for man, not god. That’s an example of what seems to be time based morality. If there is absolute morality, which falls under it? If God lied to us, or just made up a rule that had nothing to do with absolute morality, how can we tell which of god’s pronouncements represent morality and which don’t? Damn confusing.

You might ask if God being Omnipotent, can change his own nature? I’m not sure a question like that has any purpose other than semantics.

Interesting. He can’t change his omnipotence, since that might be logically impossible, and omnipotentence does not cover logical impossibilities.

But say he can, and can change himself from nasty OT god to sweet NT god. (I reject those characteristics, by the way, since I’d rather deal with a nasty OT god who makes me dead than a sweet NT god who sends me to eternal torment. But I’m Jewish. ) If these two states come with different moral codes, which is right? Are they both right? Is morality state based rather than time based?

If god is perfect, can a state change make him more or less perfect? Or is perfection, like morality, defined as whatever god is?

I don’t have an answer, since I never grew up with the idea that god changed stripe about 2,000 years ago, and I’ve never understood that concept, except as evidence that Christianity didn’t make sense.

[yo_no_se]

@StewieGriffin420

The other day I was thinking about something I did like 7 years ago that was wrong. I got to thinking, if God was going to punish me for this, would he have done it all ready? How long until you are “in the clear”?

Perhaps your ‘punishment’ has already been administered – you’re not able to forget.

Now, if you were Catholic and confessed it to a Priest you’d pretty much be in the clear. So I’ve been told time and time again.

[cosmosdan]

@Voyager

The original had God speaking in a Justin Wilson Cajun accent.

Ha…I seriously laughed out loud. Rather than a covenant with the Lord we have more of a Gar-un-tee.

I agree that churches of one would be cool, if only because it would be hard to get up a mob from a church of one. I’d of course would consider the beliefs of everyone of these churches to be incorrect, but some would be incorrect for more interesting reasons than others. Some would be “incorrect” through not being verifiable and testable in principle, not from being actually wrong.

Just think how interesting a purely intellectual discussion would be amongst all these churches!

I’ve heard rumors that there have been a few historic societies where different religions coexisted peacefully and many religious and intelectual discussions flourished. One was a predominantly Muslim society is Spain I think. My brother tells me of two famous Christian theologians who disagreed over a particular doctrine{if you can imagine that} and when one was concerned that their freindship would be damaged by the disagreement the other replied “Think and let think” A good concept.
I have an ole school friend who is still a faithful member of the church I used to belong to. We’ve had many discussions which she in turn would discuss with some of her more scripturally knowledgeable friends. One friend advised her to stop talking to me because my ideas were “dangerous”
She had the good sense to respond. “I’m studying and thinking more now than I have in years. Exactly how is that dangerous?”
In the end our discussions faded because we both realized neither of us was going to convince the other of much. I firmly believe for many people it’s their relationship with their particular group that makes them lean heavily toward accepting certain things that they probably wouldn’t embrace otherwise. The fact that so many good Christian people accept it seems to give it a lot of weight. The unknown consequences of rejecting certain concepts also serve as a deterent from examing things too closly.

[Der_Trihs]

@cosmosdan

I believe the nature of God is Love and truth. These things seem to be moral don’t they?

Depends on the circumstances. Telling the Nazis the truth about where Anne Frank is hiding is not moral; loving a mass murderer isn’t, either.

@cosmosdan

I’ve heard rumors that there have been a few historic societies where different religions coexisted peacefully and many religious and intelectual discussions flourished.

I’ve often heard that was normal in premonotheism societies. It could just be another “noble savage” style PC mth, however.

[Der_Trihs]

@Der Trihs

It could just be another “noble savage” style PC mth, however.

“myth”

< dratted no edit > mutter mutter

[cosmosdan]

@Voyager

Though god is supposedly timeless, he provides guidance to us in time. Being timeless, how could he change his moral position? Yet if you believe that the Bible is even slightly inspired, he seems to have changed what is moral.

Now, even a timeless god could send different moral messages based on the state of the recipient. For instance, god could tell us not to get too upset about turning on lights during the Sabbath, since he never mentioned it was okay 3,000 years ago. So, if there was an absolute moral code, we might have been given only subsets of it. No contradiction there.

But, some of the messages are contradictory. Either the Sabbath is holy enough that you can stone people working on it to death, or it is for man, not god. That’s an example of what seems to be time based morality. If there is absolute morality, which falls under it? If God lied to us, or just made up a rule that had nothing to do with absolute morality, how can we tell which of god’s pronouncements represent morality and which don’t? Damn confusing.

Ohhh, I see. Just from what I’ve read in the OT I reject the idea that OT Jewish law somehow pointed toward Jesus and was part of God’s plan. It’s a mystery to me how anyone can read through Levitcus and think “Yes, God really said that having a girl child left a woman more unclean than having a boy child.” I find it an insult to intelligence that anyone who can read and think can somehow still rationalize that away.

Interesting. He can’t change his omnipotence, since that might be logically impossible, and omnipotentence does not cover logical impossibilities.

But say he can, and can change himself from nasty OT god to sweet NT god. (I reject those characteristics, by the way, since I’d rather deal with a nasty OT god who makes me dead than a sweet NT god who sends me to eternal torment. But I’m Jewish. ) If these two states come with different moral codes, which is right? Are they both right? Is morality state based rather than time based?

If god is perfect, can a state change make him more or less perfect? Or is perfection, like morality, defined as whatever god is?

I think you touched on it here. Morality is a state rather than time based. If God is love and truth, even omnipotence, wouldn’t allow that to change. Morality then is what is in line with Love and truth. since our understanding of these two things is imperfect, and different societies have different views, our morality is imperfect as well.

I don’t have an answer, since I never grew up with the idea that god changed stripe about 2,000 years ago, and I’ve never understood that concept, except as evidence that Christianity didn’t make sense.

As a Christian I always saw God as unchanging. I wonder how that happened? These conflicts were never brought up.

[cosmosdan]

@Der Trihs

Depends on the circumstances. Telling the Nazis the truth about where Anne Frank is hiding is not moral; loving a mass murderer isn’t, either.

I’ve no interest in a hijack here. Being truthful does not have to include a compulsion to answer every question directly. Honesty can be tempered with wisdom and intelligence, as well as awareness of the situation.

One mild example; Someone once asked me a personal question. My response was “that’s really none of your business” I didn’t answer their question directly but my answer was completely honest.

I’ve often heard that was normal in premonotheism societies. It could just be another “noble savage” style PC mth, however.

Perhaps. If it was a Muslim society that is montheistic. I’ll see if I can find any info on it.

[Fish]

The statue of limitations didn’t help Lot’s wife, either.

[Whack-a-Mole]

@Voyager

Now I might ask why you believe that the Bible, full of made up stories, offers any insights into God at all?

I don’t. I thought I was clear in saying I thought the Bible was written by humans. At best the Bible may be used as a resource for some various ideas on what “good” is and what “God” is and what “morality” is…a sort of philosophical textbook albeit not a very good one.

Part 2. Your response does not answer the main thrust of my comment, which is: if the Flood did happen, was it moral? You see, the answer that it couldn’t happen because god is too good is limiting god based on your morality, and is thus invalid by your argument that God creates morality. So, this is purely hypothetical, but of crucial importance in understanding the origin of morality.

Huh?

Why does a flood have to have any morality (or lack of) assigned to it? It just is. May as well ask if the color blue is moral. You could choke on your Fruit Loops tomorrow morning…does that make Fruit Loops immoral?

It sounds like you are suggesting anything that causes harm is immoral IF there is a God who could have prevented it. Or more accurately God is immoral for not intervening and/or creating the universe in such a way that we might exprience harm.

You also don’t quite get the problem of natural evil. It is not saying that no disasters should happen - just that their cost should be minimal to meet god’s purpose. I think it would be hard to argue that the cost of the tsunami was minimal.

Ahh…perhaps this answers my issue just above. Exactly how many is “just enough” deaths in a flood or earthquake? I agree a staggering number of people died to that flood and it is very sad but what number is a “good” number to you?

The funny thing is you suppose to know God’s mind with this. By your take God cannot exist and/or cannot be moral because too many people died in the flood. On what possible basis can you make that decision? Is it not entirely possible that exactly as many people died as needed to die in order to meet God’s purpose and you simply cannot fathom what that purpose might be? (Note: I am not arguing for anyone’s death and most times feel that even one death is one death too many.)

[cosmosdan]

I did find several references to a golden age Muslim society in Spain. such as

Despite its remoteness from the 'Abbasid center at Baghdad, Spain experienced a parallel flowering of literature during its Muslim period, one that flourished under its own Umayyad caliphate. The culture of the Western land contains some of the greatest names in Islamic literature.
Prominent in the field of philosophy were Avicenna and Averroës. The outstanding work of Avicenna in philosophy, science, and medicine was highly regarded in the rest of Europe.

There was a time when the Islamic Civilization was considered the most advanced, tolerant and progressive civilization in the world. This was due to its accomplishments in practically all disciplines of knowledge.
History and Sprea By the time of Muhammad’s death, many people of the Arabian Peninsula had begun to follow Islam. A series of caliphs and dynasties led the Muslim community after Muhammad’s death, creating an Islamic empire that expanded as far as modern-day Pakistan in the east, Spain in the north, and North Africa to the south. This was a period of great intellectual, cultural and spiritual vitality. In Spain, Islamic civilisation lasted until 1492 when the Christian monarchs regained power.

The session examined the legacy of Islamic Spain, an age of rich and profound thought across cultures. Speakers highlighted the patterns of cross-cultural interaction and religious coexistence that have inspired historians and diplomats, philosophers, and poets. The question was also asked whether the age of three seminal thinkers from different civilizations–Ibn Rushd, Maimonides, and Thomas Aquinas–provides historical roots for pluralism today.

The history of interaction between the Islamic and Jewish communities is rich and long.This includes the shining examples of Jewish communities coexisting in harmony withinIslamic societies in Cordova, Baghdad, Istanbul and Bokhara, contributing to a rich mosaicof culture and traditions. Many Jewish historians have referred to the days of Muslim Spainas the “golden period”, when Jewish communities flourished intellectually, politically and economically in an environment of religious tolerance and scholarly inspiration.The subsequent wrath of the Inquisition was suffered jointly by Muslims and Jews. Indeed,over the centuries, Jewish communities and Islamic societies from Central Asia to Spain,have not only lived together and shared prosperity, but also suffered together.

[Whack-a-Mole]

@Voyager

Now, many religions incorporate the notion that certain people are more qualified to interpret and spread the word of god than others, such as Catholicism. If you are calling for religious anarchy, that is cool with me.

Yes and no. The notion that some are more qualified to interpret religion works for me only to the extent that some people may be considered teachers of philosophy/theology. If a person has devoted a great deal of their time to studying philosophy (I am purposely leaving out theology here as it smacks of indoctrination) then I would respect such a person to help enlighten me. That does NOT mean I check my brain at the door but acknowledge someone who is expert in their field because they devoted more time than I am able to exploring all the ins and outs and can aid in my understanding.

That said I think one of the best things that could happen for human civilzation would be if all organized religion disappeared overnight (and stayed gone and I do mean all of it). A few billion churches of one works for me. People often raise an eyebrow when they ask my religion and I answer “The Church of Whack-a-Mole” (substituting my real name of course).

The point of this is that god doing it does not make it right. If you think it does, you have no moral basis to argue that the Flood is wrong, or that a religious leader ordering his followers to do evil based on god’s commands is necessarily wrong.

I think God doing it does make it right by definition as I cannot conceive of an arbitrary or capricious or evil God. That said I do not think God actually does anything…certainly not overt. God set the ball that is out universe in motion however many billions of years ago and has been content to sit back and watch it go without interference. If that means at some point you are sitting under a rock rolling down a mountain well…that’s just life. For God to be evil God would have had to put you under that rock and/or drop the rock on your head for no reason. Just as I would not be evil for building a swimming pool in which someone drowned at some later point.

And anyone doing evil is just that…evil. No appeal to “God made me do it” or such nonesense gets you out of it.

Yet when you yank away the Bible, you leave your God belief hanging in the middle of the air just like the Coyote after running off the cliff. Just like him, you’re held up by faith. I’m trying to get you to look down, so you can hold up a sign saying “oops” and plunge downward into the canyon of atheism. Happily, you’ll land in a lovely pool, and spend the rest of your Sunday mornings sunning yourself in luxury, never again to chase the elusive Roadrunner of god.

I do not need the Bible to support my faith. My faith is my own. I am a self described agnostic and not an atheist. For all my insistence on “proof” of whatever in life in the end I cannot help but feel there is a bit more to it all than can be explained or known. There is more to me than a collection of water and carbon and other miscellaneous junk (beer and pretzels come to mind). The Universe is just too amazing in its clockwork operation and nothing ever seems truly wasted. For whatever it is that is “me” to arbitrarily pop into existence and then at some point become utterly lost to the Universe is appalling to me and a terrible waste (no, I am not overstating my own importance…I belive this of anything that has existed). Do I have any proof for this? Nope. Do I have any clue what happens after this life? Nope. Do I allow that I may indeed end up being nothing more than worm food in the end? Yep. Nevertheless I can hope there is something more.

[Whack-a-Mole]

@Der Trihs

Wrong again. We are not ants; ants have no mind, and can have no opinion on their own situation. We can; we can judge our own world and natures and declare them flawed. Humans can’t understand god-things, but we can understand human things just fine.

I would say on the continuum of consciouness/intelligence there is a bigger gap between you and God then there is between you and an ant. Part of this misconception may lie in the judeo/christian writings that have us made in god’s image and had god chatting up humans. They made God comprehensible.

And of course ants have minds…not much but they have them. But if it’ll help you to focus on the gist of the point and not nitpick then substitute lemming for ants.

Beside which, it contradicts your own claims that God is “good”, as “good” is a human concept. If he’s so incomprehensible we can’t judge his actions evil, then you can’t logically claim he’s good either. If you can claim he’s good, then that means he can also be judged evil.

This may have something to it. I agree that applying our notions of good and evil to God’s actions may be meaningless. That said I do not think God can be defined as “evil”. As screwy and awful as this world can be I can certainly conceive of much worse. There are good things in this world and I cannot see why an evil God out to just fuck with us would bother with anything decent to be had here. But as I just mentioned who am I to suppose I would understand what an evil God would do? “Good” is a much more difficult concept to nail down though and leaves a lot of wiggle room for a fundamentally unknowable god to get around in.

[Voyager]

@Whack-a-Mole

I don’t. I thought I was clear in saying I thought the Bible was written by humans. At best the Bible may be used as a resource for some various ideas on what “good” is and what “God” is and what “morality” is…a sort of philosophical textbook albeit not a very good one.

Okay, if you’re an atheist, we can stop now. If however you believe in some semblance of the Christian god, the question was why?

Why does a flood have to have any morality (or lack of) assigned to it? It just is. May as well ask if the color blue is moral. You could choke on your Fruit Loops tomorrow morning…does that make Fruit Loops immoral?

Not a flood the Flood - the Noachian one, sent by god. And my question is not whether you thinkl it happened, which I gather you sensibly don’t. My question was, hypothetically, if it did happen, would it be moral. And by happen I mean caused directly by God, since that Flood is physically impossible, and requires miracles. Got me now?

Ahh…perhaps this answers my issue just above. Exactly how many is “just enough” deaths in a flood or earthquake? I agree a staggering number of people died to that flood and it is very sad but what number is a “good” number to you?

The funny thing is you suppose to know God’s mind with this. By your take God cannot exist and/or cannot be moral because too many people died in the flood. On what possible basis can you make that decision? Is it not entirely possible that exactly as many people died as needed to die in order to meet God’s purpose and you simply cannot fathom what that purpose might be? (Note: I am not arguing for anyone’s death and most times feel that even one death is one death too many.)

I have no idea of how many is the right amount, not being god. But I would rather suspect there are a bunch of babies who died for no reason. I rather doubt God kills babies who will grow up bad - if he did he missed a few the last century. If you’re a Christian, you might be interested in the speculation that god probably killed some people who would have converted and thus have been saved.

You have two choices. You can either try to justify each of these deaths, or say that they are all for a good cause because God is good, and you know this because he doesn’t kill anyone unnecessarily. And you know this because God is good. It is a textbook example of circular reasoning.

It may be just me, but I’d much rather think that a baby died from the blind workings of nature than the direct hand of god. But if you want to think that baby killing is okay so long as there is a very good, if unknown, reason, go right ahead. I’m just an eeevil atheist and I don’t have that type of morality.

[Voyager]

@Whack-a-Mole

That said I think one of the best things that could happen for human civilzation would be if all organized religion disappeared overnight (and stayed gone and I do mean all of it). A few billion churches of one works for me. People often raise an eyebrow when they ask my religion and I answer “The Church of Whack-a-Mole” (substituting my real name of course).

I don’t know - Church of Whack-a-Mole sounds pretty good.

I think God doing it does make it right by definition as I cannot conceive of an arbitrary or capricious or evil God. That said I do not think God actually does anything…certainly not overt. God set the ball that is out universe in motion however many billions of years ago and has been content to sit back and watch it go without interference. If that means at some point you are sitting under a rock rolling down a mountain well…that’s just life. For God to be evil God would have had to put you under that rock and/or drop the rock on your head for no reason. Just as I would not be evil for building a swimming pool in which someone drowned at some later point.

I don’t have a problem with deism in general. I’ve never heard of a deist who tried to make someone convert. However, is your god omniscient? Did he set things up in such detail that he knew or caused a rock to fall, or did he set up general laws, and let things play out. In the former case he is responsible - not for the rock in your example, since that might or might not kill someone depending on who was sitting there which depends on free will, but for major disasters which are guaranteed to kill. If the latter he is nature’s god, doesn’t interfere, and is thus not morally responsible.

And anyone doing evil is just that…evil. No appeal to “God made me do it” or such nonesense gets you out of it.

But if morality comes from god, and evil is only that which is against god’s will, how can we tell?

Does your morality come from god? If so, from where do you get it?

I do not need the Bible to support my faith. My faith is my own. I am a self described agnostic and not an atheist. For all my insistence on “proof” of whatever in life in the end I cannot help but feel there is a bit more to it all than can be explained or known. There is more to me than a collection of water and carbon and other miscellaneous junk (beer and pretzels come to mind). The Universe is just too amazing in its clockwork operation and nothing ever seems truly wasted. For whatever it is that is “me” to arbitrarily pop into existence and then at some point become utterly lost to the Universe is appalling to me and a terrible waste (no, I am not overstating my own importance…I belive this of anything that has existed). Do I have any proof for this? Nope. Do I have any clue what happens after this life? Nope. Do I allow that I may indeed end up being nothing more than worm food in the end? Yep. Nevertheless I can hope there is something more.

I understand your position - though I don’t quite get why you think this god you don’t know much about is moral by definition. As for purpose, none of us become utterly lost to the Universe . That may be overstating it, perhaps lost to humanity is better. Each of us affects thousands of others in ways we cannot begin to comprehend. That’s good enough for me.

[Whack-a-Mole]

@Voyager

Not a flood the Flood - the Noachian one, sent by god. And my question is not whether you thinkl it happened, which I gather you sensibly don’t. My question was, hypothetically, if it did happen, would it be moral. And by happen I mean caused directly by God, since that Flood is physically impossible, and requires miracles.

If you read back somewhere I said I do not believe in any of the miracles of the Bible…good or bad ones. Ancient times were rife with tall tales that grew taller with each telling (Oracles, mermaids, minotaurs, faeries…the list is long). For my money I buy the explanation of the Mediteranean Sea breaching the Bosphorus Straits and filled what is now the Black Sea. To people who rarely got more than 10 miles from their homes in their entire lives I can see how that would seem as if the world just flooded and certainly that would have counted as one of the granddaddies of all floods.

I have no idea of how many is the right amount, not being god. But I would rather suspect there are a bunch of babies who died for no reason. I rather doubt God kills babies who will grow up bad - if he did he missed a few the last century. If you’re a Christian, you might be interested in the speculation that god probably killed some people who would have converted and thus have been saved.

You have two choices. You can either try to justify each of these deaths, or say that they are all for a good cause because God is good, and you know this because he doesn’t kill anyone unnecessarily. And you know this because God is good. It is a textbook example of circular reasoning.

Your mistake here and through much of this is that it is God killing people. God hasn’t killed anyone…at least not directly. Unless your supposition is that since God created the Universe anything bad that happens in it is therefore God’s fault. To me that is wrongheaded. It’d be like saying I built a house and at some point someone fell down the stairs and broke their neck so it is my fault for building it in the first place. Silly.

[Whack-a-Mole]

@Voyager

However, is your god omniscient? Did he set things up in such detail that he knew or caused a rock to fall, or did he set up general laws, and let things play out. In the former case he is responsible - not for the rock in your example, since that might or might not kill someone depending on who was sitting there which depends on free will, but for major disasters which are guaranteed to kill. If the latter he is nature’s god, doesn’t interfere, and is thus not morally responsible.

I think by definition God is omniscient but omniscience is a dicey thing. If God knows everything that will happen am I devoid of free will? I mean if at the beginning of time God knew precisely what I would do at every moment in my life 15 billion years later doesn’t that make my life a closed book? I prefer to think I do have free will and think that God wants us to have free will (actually if we do have free will then God must have wanted it that way else God wold have made thigns differently). It would seem kind of pointless to create a whole universe where everything is a done deal a bare moment after it had started. Rather I think an omniscient God can see all possibilities…every branch that every decision can take. So, God may well know there is a route in a person’s life that will see them sitting under a falling rock but it is not a foregone conclusion and God will let your life play out based on your decisions and not intervene.

But if morality comes from god, and evil is only that which is against god’s will, how can we tell?

We can’t tell. We can only try to noodle out what we think morality is and hope we get it right. There may well be an absolute moral code to which God is privvy to but so far God has been silent on the matter. Indeed my guess is God sees our journey through life reaching for such profound answers as the important part.

[Der_Trihs]

@Whack-a-Mole

Your mistake here and through much of this is that it is God killing people. God hasn’t killed anyone…at least not directly. Unless your supposition is that since God created the Universe anything bad that happens in it is therefore God’s fault. To me that is wrongheaded. It’d be like saying I built a house and at some point someone fell down the stairs and broke their neck so it is my fault for building it in the first place. Silly.

If the house is poorly constructed, of course you would be to blame. The universe is a poorly made environment for people; if God made it, he screwed up.