Seperating The Dogma from the Truth!

Wibbs

Medina wrote:

Also there's a big difference between algebra and religion.
There's a difference between someone proving something to you and someone giving you ideas with circumstantial evidence

Is that not the problem with all faiths? That's where the faith bit comes in I would have thought.

Indeed all faiths have "contradictions" to those outside them. To those inside them the text is often squeezed to fit the concept. In many ways I have no problem with that approach. The problem comes when the readers take everything as Gospel(so to speak), without considering the overall impact. Not seeing the wood for the trees kinda thing. Any religious text by it's very nature is both open to interpretation and sometime accusations of contradiction. Trying to set apart the texts as uncorruptable and perfect is liable to be fruitless.

Medina

Wibbs wrote:

Is that not the problem with all faiths? That's where the faith bit comes in I would have thought.

Indeed all faiths have "contradictions" to those outside them. To those inside them the text is often squeezed to fit the concept. In many ways I have no problem with that approach. The problem comes when the readers take everything as Gospel(so to speak), without considering the overall impact. Not seeing the wood for the trees kinda thing. Any religious text by it's very nature is both open to interpretation and sometime accusations of contradiction. Trying to set apart the texts as uncorruptable and perfect is liable to be fruitless.

Can I ask (not sarcastically) if you have studied many other religions and what those would be?

wolfsbane

Wicknight said:

Only to a point that is necessary. The purpose of putting some in prision is to remove them from society where they will do harm to others. There is little purpose to torturing someone beyond the lust for revenge.

So the mother of a murdered child should only want the perpetrator imprisoned so that he cannot reoffend? Not also to punish him? Justice is about vengeance - retribution on the wicked. That's the Biblical view and I'm happy to say it. I'm not sure what modern society thinks justice is. Evidently not much.:(

According to the Bible God uses immoral, unnecessary and cruel forms of punishment. Which was my original point. It is immoral. It doesn't matter if it is a prision guard, a soldier or a god doing it. The morality of an action is defined by the action, not the person or being carrying it out.

Really? It is as moral for you to imprison your neighbour as it is for the State?
For you to shoot an foreign soldier as it is for your army to do so?

What's moral for God may not be moral for you. He is concerned with His own business - rewarding and punishing the good and evil men do. He knows their thoughts and secret actions, perfectly. His justise is perfect.

I know. That doesn't stop that being an immoral position to take. Especially considering God invented sin in the first place.

God is not the inventor of sin. His creatures invented it.

God by definition can't suffer and your definition of what is "merciful" is quite a bit different to mine.

Long-suffering means to bear long with provocation. And I agree that my definition of merciful is not yours.

God doesn't have patience, He is aware of everything you will do from the moment of creation. God doesn't wait for you see the error of your ways, since God can tell what you will or will not do from day one.

Knowing what one will do does not involve patience. Patience is a response to unpleasant events. Every sinner reading this is enjoying God's patience.

Like I said, God doesn't "wait" ... if He did He wouldn't be a god. Which makes the claim that his patience ran out even more nonsensical as a justification for His actions.

A strange definition of a god. Why can't a god wait?

While I certain would never claim to have perfect morality, even a simple reading of the Old Testement shows that most people in the modern world, including myself, would have much higher moral standards over what is acceptable and not acceptable in terms of punishment. Mass genocide is generally not considered an acceptable term of punishment. Neither is punishing the son for the sins of the father, or the harming an innocent as punishment for a guilty person. God does all these things in the Old Testement.

God only punishes sinners. Some are greater sinners than others. The only innocent He ever punished was His Son, Jesus. And that was with Jesus' full acceptance, as the means of saving His people from their sins. Jesus bore their sins Himself, took the punishment that was their due, so that they would be forgiven and made His sons and daughters.

ISAW

Medina wrote:

See ISAW what would it take for you to decide something 'stands up'?

whether it stands up to scrutiny of historical and scientific evidence means it can be estabished historically or scientifically based on reason. whether in hindsight it was moral is based on what one believs to be moral.

Why couldn't you just take that leap of faith you were describing here:
http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?p=52320588#post52320588

and decide 'I'm going to believe this today?'

please dont try to judge me here. I am not on trial. asking me why i do or do not believe not progressing the argument. My points are not based on the fact of whether I believe or not. they are based on what people can mutually agree upon. I am not telling you I believe something therfore you must also believe it. I am asking you to reason things out for yourself.

Also there's a big difference between algebra and religion.
There's a difference between someone proving something to you and someone giving you ideas with circumstantial evidence

Only because algebra is part of aformal language called mathematics. theology also has a formal logical part. My point was abut instruction into discovery of what was already discovered and not about the nature of the knowledge itself. But lets say "physics" or "biology" which are not necessarily inductive. Why shouldnt someone listen to what an instructor has to say? Why should they have to discoverit all by themselves?

ISAW

wolfsbane wrote:

Wicknight said:

So the mother of a murdered child should only want the perpetrator imprisoned so that he cannot reoffend? Not also to punish him? Justice is about vengeance - retribution on the wicked. That's the Biblical view and I'm happy to say it. I'm not sure what modern society thinks justice is. Evidently not much.:(

I think you are mising a bit here. Peace is based on justice but justice is based on reconcilliation. If people cant forgive you will ultimately have no peace.

I am reminded of the mother of a murdered child at the south african truth and reconcillation commission. she was asked if she had anything to say to the court or the perpetrator. She could barely stand but she did so and she walked over to him and stared him in the face.
she told him she now had no child.
she said it was a chance for her in court to show she believed in the message of christ.
she told him he had done great wrong but that she forgave him
then she asked the court if they had the authority to allow her to adopt this man. she wanted to show him what a mothers love was and she wanted to find something to put in the place of that which was lost.

then she walked back over to sit down.
Not a sound was heard as she shuffled back to her seat. then suddenly from the whole audience a song rang out.
amazing grace
how sweet the sound
that saved a wretch like me
I once was lost but now im found
was blind but now i see.

NO! It isnt all about vengenge and the message of Christ isnt that!

Wibbs

Medina wrote:

Can I ask (not sarcastically) if you have studied many other religions and what those would be?

Yep of course you can. I've read up Principally on Christianity, Buddhism, Islam, Hinduism, Judaism and Shamanism. Even Atheism gets a look in, though I found the Wiccan thing a bit hard to get into, misogynist that I must be :) . Interesting perspective in all I must say. One of the few things I've learned from such study* is that one can often get lost in the details too much. The other thing I've learned is the basic precepts are pretty much the same. What has impressed me is the basic humanity in much of it. Basic humanity is all to oft underrated IMHO. I have far more faith in people than religion. If one believes that God is responsible for that I say fair play to God. If not the result should be much the same.



*Study may suggest long dark evenings bent in prayer and contemplation. Not quite. That said the breath of the subjects in question can't fail but make a mockery of my intellect anyway.

Wibbs

ISAW wrote:

I am reminded of the mother of a murdered child at the south african truth and reconcillation commission. she was asked if she had anything to say to the court or the perpetrator. She could barely stand but she did so and she walked over to him and stared him in the face.
she told him she now had no child.
she said it was a chance for her in court to show she believed in the message of christ.
she told him he had done great wrong but that she forgave him
then she asked the court if they had the authority to allow her to adopt this man. she wanted to show him what a mothers love was and she wanted to find something to put in the place of that which was lost.

Bloody hell! Now that's what I mean about the Humanity I spoke of in the last post. That's an example of a heroine all would do well to follow, regardless of her faith.

Dades

wolfsbane wrote:

God only punishes sinners. Some are greater sinners than others. The only innocent He ever punished was His Son, Jesus.

I'm pretty sure the bible would support the suggestion that there has been "collateral" damage from God's purges. Drowning the entire planet bar one family, anyone?

JimiTime

ISAW wrote:

So if you have a child in school then they shouldnt learn about algebrq from a teacher telling them "look this is what the Greeks did and this is how they came to this conclusion"? They should work out the theorems for themselves and "rediscover" what people may have spent a life time discovering.

I have no problem in people looking at what Jehovas Witnessess say or evangelicals or Born Agains. the question is "Does it stand up"? Indeed many of those questions are asked here.

I also think it is worth looking at the differences between a valid religion a sect and a cult.

Firstly I want to compliment you on 2 posts. One being the post telling us that Jesus' message was Love and forgiveness not vengence. The other (on another discussion) about we should stop just talking Christ, but living him also. 2nd point could be a thread of its own, maybe you could look after that.:)

Now onto your post above. I second what medina said about spirituality being completely different to Mathematics. To use your analogy, I would not like to be thought history by a patriot as he will be biassed to a certain view, e.g. Learning Irish history in Ireland, and learning Irish history in England. I understand your sentiments, that there is no problem asking people for their interpretations. However, in my experience, religious 'types' have an agenda, to 'give you a fish' rather than 'teaching you to fish'. You get where I'm coming from?

Zombrex

wolfsbane wrote:

So the mother of a murdered child should only want the perpetrator imprisoned so that he cannot reoffend?

THe mother of a murdered child should not decide either way. Sentencing by the victim went out with the middle ages.

wolfsbane wrote:

Justice is about vengeance

No, it isn't.

wolfsbane wrote:

What's moral for God may not be moral for you. He is concerned with His own business - rewarding and punishing the good and evil men do. He knows their thoughts and secret actions, perfectly. His justise is perfect.

God doesn't have a blanket right to do anything He likes just because He is a god. His actions can and frequently are (if you believe the Bible) immoral.

wolfsbane wrote:

God is not the inventor of sin. His creatures invented it.

No actually God invented it, because God invented everything. God new that Adam and Eve would take the apple before He made either Adam or Eve or the apple. God created them knowing that they would take the apple. God made sin.

wolfsbane wrote:

Long-suffering means to bear long with provocation.

Long suffering means to suffer over a long period of time. Since a "long period of time" is meaningless to a good, and since a God cannot suffer, it is ridiculous to state that God was long-suffering.

wolfsbane wrote:

Knowing what one will do does not involve patience.

Patience implies endurence. God doesn't endure anything, as He is external to time.

wolfsbane wrote:

A strange definition of a god. Why can't a god wait?

Because time exists as a single object to a god. God does not wait because He can and is at every point in time at the time instance.

wolfsbane wrote:

God only punishes sinners.

Well considering everyone is a sinner that would imply God punishes everyone.

wolfsbane wrote:

And that was with Jesus' full acceptance, as the means of saving His people from their sins. Jesus bore their sins Himself, took the punishment that was their due, so that they would be forgiven and made His sons and daughters.

God took punishement so that He could then forgive them? Why didn't He just forgive them?

Medina

Wicknight wrote:

God doesn't have a blanket right to do anything He likes just because He is a god. His actions can and frequently are (if you believe the Bible) immoral.

:eek: :eek: :eek:

ooh can't agree with the 'doesn't have a blanket right' piece Wicknight. Are you not telling God what he does and doesn't have a right to do?

Immorality (almost wrote immortality ) and morality is changeable and really varies from person to person never mind society to society.

Justice I don't think is about vengeance Wolfbane, its about getting an acknowledgement of error and probably an apology (although victims of anything might disagree with me) . As we are taught forgiveness then I don't think its about gloating over the punishment of a person who hurt you, more like being asked to publicly or better -in front of God - admit that you did bad.
God then might punish buts that not necessarily vengeance. Maybe thats justice if the person doesn't feel sorry...did I just go round in a circle ??:D

Wicknight wrote:

No actually God invented it, because God invented everything. God new that Adam and Eve would take the apple before He made either Adam or Eve or the apple. God created them knowing that they would take the apple. God made sin.

I think what ye both are meaning to say is this:
God created the opportunity to sin
Humans created sin by availing of the opportunity
In theory sin didn't actually exist until Eve bit the apple. That was the first sin.

Wicknight wrote:

Patience implies endurence. God doesn't endure anything, as He is external to time.

Didn't God say something in the bible to one of the prophets about as long as there are 5 men who believe, he wouldn't destroy the earth? But he knows already the time when there will be less than 5 men. He also has known from the creation of the world and time, when (I have to use temporaral language sorry) he would end it.

So both of you seem right, because I think God must have patience not to destroy me now as a sinner...

wicknight wrote:

God took punishment so that He could then forgive them? Why didn't He just forgive them?

Good question. It does seem like God is appeasing himself by sacrificing his only son..if Christianity is to be believed. And yet if Jesus is part of God, God is sacrificing Himself to appease Himself so that he will forgive us?

This is like spaghetti junction

Zombrex

Medina wrote:

Are you not telling God what he does and doesn't have a right to do?

I am

Even if God exists (btw I don't personally think he does) I fail to see why He has a exclusive rights to decide what is and what is not immoral. The "because He made you" excuse doesn't hold up, any more than a parent has the right to do what they wish to their child.

Medina wrote:

I think what ye both are meaning to say is this:
God created the opportunity to sin
Humans created sin by availing of the opportunity
In theory sin didn't actually exist until Eve bit the apple. That was the first sin.

But God created the opportunity to sin knowing that we would sin. God knew we would sin before He created the opportunity for us to sin, so the opportunity to sin was created with the fully knowledge that we would avail of it. If that isn't being responsible for sin I don't know what is.

Medina wrote:

Didn't God say something in the bible to one of the prophets about as long as there are 5 men who believe, he wouldn't destroy the earth? But he knows already the time when there will be less than 5 men. He also has known from the creation of the world and time, when (I have to use temporaral language sorry) he would end it.

Welcome to the wonder world of God paradoxes ...

Medina wrote:

So both of you seem right, because I think God must have patience not to destroy me now as a sinner...

Patience implies he endures your sinful behaviour, choosing not to punish you. But God doesn't endure anything, as he is external to time. And his choice to punish you at the moment of judgement is the same as if He were to punish you now, so He doesn't actually choose not to punish you. You just don't get punished now, but "now" is an irrelivent concept to God, since everything past or future is "now" to Him.

Medina wrote:

And yet if Jesus is part of God, God is sacrificing Himself to appease Himself so that he will forgive us?

Yeah I don't get it either. The only accuse I've heard from Christians is that God choose to do it like this to give humans a message and inspiration through Jesus. But as has been pointed out a number of times its not like he moved the planets to spell out GOD in the sky.

wolfsbane

ISAW said:

I think you are mising a bit here. Peace is based on justice but justice is based on reconcilliation. If people cant forgive you will ultimately have no peace.

You are confusing justice with mercy and forgiveness. Justise is the deserved reward for good or evil. Mercy and forgiveness are undeserved response to an inflicted wrong.

I am reminded of the mother of a murdered child at the south african truth and reconcillation commission.

Moving indeed. Mercy and forgiveness. But not justice.

NO! It isnt all about vengenge and the message of Christ isnt that!

The message of Christ is about both. Our response to wrongs done us should be merciful and forgiving, usually in response to repentance.

God exercises mercy and forgiveness toward all for a time, in sending so many good things to them even though they are naturally sinners. In justise He could rightly wipe us all out. But His mercy and forgiveness are supremely seen in His dealings with those who repent. Justise demands they pay for their wickedness, but God sent His Son to be their substitute, to pay for their sins Himself. That is how He can both be just and the justifier of those who come to Him.
http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=isaiah%2053;&version=50;

God is a God of justice as well as mercy and forgiveness. That is the reason Christ sent us to preach the gospel, to warn men and women to flee from the wrath to come. To tell them God has made a way back to Himself for sinners like us. For those who continue in their rebellion, no mercy will be found:
2 Thessalonians 1:7 and to give you who are troubled rest with us when the Lord Jesus is revealed from heaven with His mighty angels, 8 in flaming fire taking vengeance on those who do not know God, and on those who do not obey the gospel of our Lord Jesus Christ. 9 These shall be punished with everlasting destruction from the presence of the Lord and from the glory of His power,

wolfsbane

The Atheist said:

I'm pretty sure the bible would support the suggestion that there has been "collateral" damage from God's purges. Drowning the entire planet bar one family, anyone?

Not really. The entire planet, bar this righteous man and his family, were so wicked that God wiped them out. It was not aimed at a particular group of really evil people, but at the whole race, for they were really evil.

wolfsbane

Wicknight said:

THe mother of a murdered child should not decide either way. Sentencing by the victim went out with the middle ages.

That's by the way. The point is has she the right to desire his punishment rather than just his inability to reoffend?

God doesn't have a blanket right to do anything He likes just because He is a god. His actions can and frequently are (if you believe the Bible) immoral.

It is your idea of morality that you wish to impose on God. As I pointed out before, things that proper authorities may morally do, you may not. So too, to an much greater extent, with God.

No actually God invented it, because God invented everything. God new that Adam and Eve would take the apple before He made either Adam or Eve or the apple. God created them knowing that they would take the apple. God made sin.

God certainly knew what man would do. You say that means He is responsible for their sin. God says He is not. I think I'll go with God.

Consider this also: I knew my children would commit various sins when they came into the world, yet my wife and I went ahead with their conception. Am I responsible for their sin?

Long suffering means to suffer over a long period of time.

Check these definitions: http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/Long-suffering

Since a "long period of time" is meaningless to a good, and since a God cannot suffer, it is ridiculous to state that God was long-suffering.

Time has no effect on God, but it is used with reference to us. He bears with our sins a long time, thankfully. You would know the difference if He did not. And for the meaning of 'suffering' in this context, see above.

Patience implies endurence. God doesn't endure anything, as He is external to time.

He puts up with, does not quickly respond to with its just deserts, our provocations. That is nothing to do with God being above time.

Because time exists as a single object to a god. God does not wait because He can and is at every point in time at the time instance.

Again, the waiting is with reference to us. It is our measure of time.

Well considering everyone is a sinner that would imply God punishes everyone.

Your logic is wobbling. I did not say He punishes every sinner. I said He only punishes sinners. Your conclusion cannot be drawn from that.

The fact is that all sin will be punished, but not all sinners. Most will be punished for their own sins, but many will be pardoned, their sins having been borne by another - Christ.

God took punishement so that He could then forgive them? Why didn't He just forgive them?

Because that would make Him unjust.

wolfsbane

Medina said:

God then might punish buts that not necessarily vengeance. Maybe thats justice if the person doesn't feel sorry...did I just go round in a circle ??

God deals with man in two ways: disciple and punishment. Discipline is inflicted suffering with a view to correcting the offender. Punishment is to pay back the evil on the offender, without seeking his correction.

God is a God of vengeance, for He is just:
Hebrews 10:30 For we know Him who said, “Vengeance is Mine, I will repay,” says the Lord. And again, “The LORD will judge His people.” 31 It is a fearful thing to fall into the hands of the living God.

and

Romans 2:2 But we know that the judgment of God is according to truth against those who practice such things. 3 And do you think this, O man, you who judge those practicing such things, and doing the same, that you will escape the judgment of God? 4 Or do you despise the riches of His goodness, forbearance, and longsuffering, not knowing that the goodness of God leads you to repentance? 5 But in accordance with your hardness and your impenitent heart you are treasuring up for yourself wrath in the day of wrath and revelation of the righteous judgment of God, 6 who “will render to each one according to his deeds”: 7 eternal life to those who by patient continuance in doing good seek for glory, honor, and immortality; 8 but to those who are self-seeking and do not obey the truth, but obey unrighteousness—indignation and wrath, 9 tribulation and anguish, on every soul of man who does evil, of the Jew first and also of the Greek; 10 but glory, honor, and peace to everyone who works what is good, to the Jew first and also to the Greek.

It does seem like God is appeasing himself by sacrificing his only son..if Christianity is to be believed. And yet if Jesus is part of God, God is sacrificing Himself to appease Himself so that he will forgive us?

Correct. Being just, He cannot simply ignore our sins. But we could not atone for them. So God Himself provided the atonement:
Hebrews 10:12 But this Man, after He had offered one sacrifice for sins forever, sat down at the right hand of God, 13 from that time waiting till His enemies are made His footstool. 14 For by one offering He has perfected forever those who are being sanctified.

Son Goku

Even if God exists (btw I don't personally think he does) I fail to see why He has a exclusive rights to decide what is and what is not immoral. The "because He made you" excuse doesn't hold up, any more than a parent has the right to do what they wish to their child.

I personally would like to see this addressed by a Christian. I've never heard a reason as to why God gets to decide what is moral.

Zombrex

wolfsbane wrote:

That's by the way. The point is has she the right to desire his punishment rather than just his inability to reoffend?

No she doesn't. Society decides what should or should not happen to him, using the system of law.

wolfsbane wrote:

It is your idea of morality that you wish to impose on God.

Yes, it is. Because my idea of morality is more moral and just that His.

wolfsbane wrote:

As I pointed out before, things that proper authorities may morally do, you may not. So too, to an much greater extent, with God.

Two problems with that

1 - It assumes that doing something and thinking something are the same. I believed divorce was moral before it was made legal. I could not perform a divorce because I did not have to the power to, but that did not means I did not believe it moral and society wrong for making it immoral
2 - It assumes God is a proper authority of morality in the first place
God certainly knew what man would do. You say that means He is responsible for their sin. God says He is not. I think I'll go with God.

wolfsbane wrote:

Consider this also: I knew my children would commit various sins when they came into the world, yet my wife and I went ahead with their conception. Am I responsible for their sin?

Yes.

If you know something will happen, and only happen, by a creation on your part, you are responsible, fully or partly. Since nothing exist that was not created by God the way it is He is fully responsible for the results of His creation.

wolfsbane wrote:

Time has no effect on God, but it is used with reference to us. He bears with our sins a long time, thankfully.

As I've said a few times He doesn't bear with our sins for a long time.

That is like saying "man you had to wait for the bus for ages, you must have been bored out of your head standing there for the entire 34 seconds till the bus arrived"

wolfsbane wrote:

He puts up with, does not quickly respond to with its just deserts, our provocations.

He doesn't "put up with it" wolfsbane because He is knew it would happen before it did and it happened as a direct response to what He did. He knew Adam would sin when He created Adam.

And as I said "quickly" has no meaning to God. God does not quickly or slowly respond to anything.

wolfsbane wrote:

Again, the waiting is with reference to us. It is our measure of time.

That doesn't change the fact that He doesn't wait.

wolfsbane wrote:

Your logic is wobbling. I did not say He punishes every sinner. I said He only punishes sinners. Your conclusion cannot be drawn from that.

Then surely you mean "God only punishes some sinners." Saying He only punishes sinners is rather pointless since everyone is a sinner.

I would imagine that you believe you do not fall into the group of "some" ...

wolfsbane wrote:

Because that would make Him unjust.

How? If God suffered for the sin that implies His responsibility for it. If not and God suffered for sin He had no responibility for then that isn't justice.

Zombrex

wolfsbane wrote:

Not really. The entire planet, bar this righteous man and his family, were so wicked that God wiped them out.

But God knew this would happen when He created Adam and Eve, so why create humans as He did in the first place, only to wipe them out a thousand years later and start again?

judomick

wolfsbane wrote:

I did not say He punishes every sinner. I said He only punishes sinners. .

exactly what sins do stillborn babies and kids who die in infancy commit? surely there dying a long time before there supposed to, or is he punishing there parents by taking them? surely then hes a bit sadistic killing babies to punish people?

Sir Digby Chicken Caesar

um.. haven't you ever read the bible? or heard creeping death by metallica? God is a baby killer, and christians and jewish people love him for it.

ISAW

judomick wrote:

exactly what sins do stillborn babies and kids who die in infancy commit? surely there dying a long time before there supposed to, or is he punishing there parents by taking them? surely then hes a bit sadistic killing babies to punish people?

Ever heard of the Original sin of Adam?

judomick

ISAW wrote:

Ever heard of the Original sin of Adam?

Indeed but why then do all babies not die? why only some? did these foetuses have impure thoughts or worship other gods in the womb?

JimiTime

Guys, I think this is going too far off topic! As for the comments by Mordeth. Why bother come here to cast stones. Comments like yours have no place anywhere, nevermind in the midst of a Christian forum.

ISAW

judomick wrote:

Indeed but why then do all babies not die? why only some? did these foetuses have impure thoughts or worship other gods in the womb?

Ah but the question was not about why dont all sinners die? The question was what sin are "innocent" children born with!

Also the assumption is that all sin is punishable by death. that seems ludicrous but in a way it can be claimed it is true. One can claim that the reason for death IS sin! "the wages of sin is death"

In fact all babies die! Some just die later when they are adults.

Medina

Son Goku wrote:

Even if God exists (btw I don't personally think he does) I fail to see why He has a exclusive rights to decide what is and what is not immoral. The "because He made you" excuse doesn't hold up, any more than a parent has the right to do what they wish to their child.

I personally would like to see this addressed by a Christian. I've never heard a reason as to why God gets to decide what is moral.

Our relationship with God as far as I see it, is only like that of a child and parent in terms of love. It is used for very many analogies, which it should not. The reason being that a child will eventually grow up to be an adult, maybe a parent, they will become equal to the parent.

We can never be equal to God.

A person who does not believe in God will of course fail to see why God has exclusive rights, because they don't believe in God in the first place, and their attitude is already predetermined before asking the question of why?

Basically what I'm getting at is that if you accept that there is one Creator whom I call God, you may call something else, who created all except sin, then of course that Creator has the exclusive rights to do as He pleases. Everything is subserviant to Him, either willingly or unwillingly, knowingly or unknowingly. Most men want to be masters of their own destiny, and to some extent they are, but God has the exclusive rights as the owner of us all to do with as He pleases.
As Elton John sang ' I just allow a fragment of your life to wander free'.

p.s. 'good' is based on individual perception

judomick wrote:

exactly what sins do stillborn babies and kids who die in infancy commit? surely there dying a long time before there supposed to, or is he punishing there parents by taking them? surely then hes a bit sadistic killing babies to punish people?

They have no sins Judomick.
Mark 4 "As soon as the grain is ripe, he puts the sickle to it, because the harvest has come."
Why are you equating death with punishment? or sin? He's not 'killing babies' like a murderer. Maybe He's releasing their souls for kinds of reasons that are hard for us to know.
Perhaps He wants to save them from something bad someone else might do to them later in their life?
Or perhaps he wants to save them from themselves...isn't that a great gift..to award paradise to a sinless person, rather than this dreary life on earth where they may make bad choices?
Death of itself (not the way of dying) for a sinless person would be delightful I would imagine.

Medina

Wicknight wrote:

Yes, it is. Because my idea of morality is more moral and just that His.

So You do recognize He exists then, but you think you are more clever, more moral?

wolfsbane

Wicknight said:

No she doesn't. Society decides what should or should not happen to him, using the system of law.

I did not say decide, I said desire.

Yes, it is. Because my idea of morality is more moral and just that His.

I your humble opinion. You will not be surprised I go with God, the Creator of the Universe and all in it, including you.

Two problems with that

1 - It assumes that doing something and thinking something are the same. I believed divorce was moral before it was made legal. I could not perform a divorce because I did not have to the power to, but that did not means I did not believe it moral and society wrong for making it immoral

The point is, (assuming divorce is moral) it would be morally wrong of you to issue a divorce, but not so for the State. So it is morally wrong of you to kill a sinner, but not for God.

2 - It assumes God is a proper authority of morality in the first place
God certainly knew what man would do. You say that means He is responsible for their sin. God says He is not. I think I'll go with God.

You seem a bit confused here. I agree with the last two sentences, but the one prior seems to describe your position, not mine.

Yes.

If you know something will happen, and only happen, by a creation on your part, you are responsible, fully or partly. Since nothing exist that was not created by God the way it is He is fully responsible for the results of His creation.

I sure hope you never gain political power in any country I'm a citizen of. I'm all for punishing the wicked, but you would throw their mums and dads in jail too! Any family relationship to Saddam Hussein?

As I've said a few times He doesn't bear with our sins for a long time.

That is like saying "man you had to wait for the bus for ages, you must have been bored out of your head standing there for the entire 34 seconds till the bus arrived"

Let's say it wasn't a bus, but your wife being raped for 34 seconds. Would that seem a long time to you? So with God and all our sins.

He doesn't "put up with it" wolfsbane because He is knew it would happen before it did and it happened as a direct response to what He did. He knew Adam would sin when He created Adam.

And as I said "quickly" has no meaning to God. God does not quickly or slowly respond to anything.

He did indeed know what they would do. But He did not respond with all the wrath they deserved. He punished them but also provided a means of escape from His ultimate wrath. Even on those who refused that, He did not immediately destroy them.

Then surely you mean "God only punishes some sinners." Saying He only punishes sinners is rather pointless since everyone is a sinner.

It was to point out that He does not punish the innocent - only sinners. So, Yes, everyone is a sinner. And, Yes, it is only some sinners God will punish eternally, for Christ has taken on Himself the punishment of His people.

I would imagine that you believe you do not fall into the group of "some" ...

Thank the Lord.

How? If God suffered for the sin that implies His responsibility for it. If not and God suffered for sin He had no responibility for then that isn't justice.

He is the one who determines how a sinner can be pardoned. He has shown that sin cannot just be overlooked, but also that His Son willingly took on Himself the punishment for all who come to Him.

wolfsbane

Wicknight said:

But God knew this would happen when He created Adam and Eve, so why create humans as He did in the first place, only to wipe them out a thousand years later and start again?

He doesn't say, but we may speculate. To show the depths of sin man will reach if he is not stopped? To show the righteous judgement of God? To show how He can deliver the righteous while destroying the wicked?

wolfsbane

judomick said:

exactly what sins do stillborn babies and kids who die in infancy commit?

Their death is unrelated to any sins they could commit. Like the rest of life on earth, they have inherited physical death from the Fall. That they are born with original sin, the corrupt human nature of Adam, is true, but it is not a cause of their premature death.

surely there dying a long time before there supposed to, or is he punishing there parents by taking them? surely then hes a bit sadistic killing babies to punish people?

Only God knows the reason in each instant. For some, like King David, the death of his baby was God's chastisement for his sin. For others, it may be no more than the sorrows common to all mankind, and a providence of God ultimately for their good - to cause them to walk closely with Him and not depend on outward circumstances.