What gives God the right to be "holy"?

You are arguing in circles Iano. You are saying that the reason we should want to associate with God is because he is good/anti-evil. Yet the very definitions of "good/evil" according to your book is God himself. This is circular reasoning.Providing a rational reason for following God only makes since if you break out a standard seperate from God himself i.e. "the reason I follow God is because ...". You cannot use the words good and evil, sin/ant-sin because in your definition they are defined by the definition of God himself.Edited by DevilsAdvocate, : No reason given.Edited by DevilsAdvocate, : No reason given.Edited by DevilsAdvocate, : No reason given.

---

One of the saddest lessons of history is this: If we've been bamboozled long enough, we tend to reject any evidence of the bamboozle. We're no longer interested in finding out the truth. The bamboozle has captured us. It is simply too painful to acknowledge -- even to ourselves -- that we've been so credulous. - Carl Sagan, The Fine Art of Baloney Detection"You can't convince a believer of anything; for their belief is not based on evidence, it's based on a deep seated need to believe." - Carl Sagan"It is far better to grasp the Universe as it really is than to persist in delusion, however satisfying and reassuring." - Carl Sagan, The Demon-Haunted World

Yes, that is a reason. But why agreeing with Yahweh's opinions on evil is seen as a good thing is kind of the question I was raising. Not really. I can call {Insert human genocidal maniac} a butcher while agreeing that he was acting in accordance with his view of cleansing immorality and evil from his people. I just don't agree with {Insert human genocidal maniac}'s views on what constitutes evil and the methods used to combat it. Just like with Yahweh and Holiness, I can't see why anyone would want to get closer to {Insert human genocidal maniac}. I'm pretty sure I hate Yahweh, the character written about the Bible. I'm not sure about God, the person - should it exist - but if he is anything like Yahweh, I suspect I feel the same way. The prediction that some people will strongly dislike a specified deity is not entirely shocking.

Is this a necessary requirement of the nature of the monotheistic creator deity? If yes, then clearly God cannot be omnipotent. If no, then God has been subject to some decision - if it didn't come from himself, then again, he is not omnipotent. Now I think we are getting somewhere

I'm sorry, Jaywill, but I had decades of peddling this pseudo-theological drivel, trying to convince myself that it actually makes some kind sense. In this thread I am trying to look at why an ultimate creator deity would have any interest in a "law of God", concepts such as "puchasing" and "custody", having an "enemy of God", etc. This is all just so much anthropomorphisation, and primarily regi-pomorphisation of the concept of deity that it just stinks of God as a construct of man.This thread is about tearing down the obfuscation of your theological babble to reveal it for the nonsense it is - and believe me, I believed the exact same things you do for a great long time.Edited by cavediver, : No reason given.

what does holy mean to you? what do you think it means?

OH NO YOU'RE NOT - (he's behind you!)Sorry, just getting into the season I agree completely, but I was talking of the Christian god, not Yahweh. But I don't mind conflating the two for the sake of this post Obviously, the Christian view of holiness has evolved and been co-opted (corrupted?) from the Judaistic. As you say, Yahweh required separation from the unclean and profane. But not from sin, interestingly. In the Garden, Yahweh is quite happily quizzing A&E face-to-face regarding their fall from grace. The question remains, why does Yahweh require such separation? And do all possible monotheistic creator deities come to the same conclusions regarding the need to be separated from shellfish?

the breaking of natural laws has disasterous consequences as im sure you'd agree.God has made all the laws in the universe, they are there and we must abide by them...ie, if we dont obey the law of our appetite, we die. And if we ignore the law of gravity and step off a cliff, we dieHis moral laws are no different - break them and we die. A&E broke a moral law and they died.Its not that God 'thinks' he is holy, its that he has created a universe that is goverened by laws. To ignore either the physical laws or the moral laws has serious consequences. Edited by Peg, : fix quote box

So, the "evil" we have is disobeying daddy's instructions and eating an "apple", and the wrath we have is eternal torment and suffering for billions of sentient creatures. This certainly makes me associate Hitler, Pot, Stalin, etc with God's wrath far more than with any "evil" carried out by A&E. I would find it very difficult to hate a concept so poorly and ill-defined as the Christian god. I hate God no more than I hate the UFOs I used to desperately believe in as a child. I'm just more annoyed at myself for carrying one of those beliefs well past its sell-by date.

For loose interpretations of the word 'breaking', yes I agree. So it is God's choice that these laws exist, and that breaking them has disastrous consequences? Again I ask, why did he choose this. If he had no choice, he is hardly omnipotent and he seems subject to the 'deep magic'. If he choose to make the world this way, then responsibility falls to his choices.

Let me answer you by asking you first to do the following. Choose one of the fundamental laws listed below.Law of Gravity
Law of Electomagnetism
Law of Procreation
Law of planetary motion
Law of the strong nuclear force
Law of the weak nuclear forceNow remove it from reality, take it away and tell me what would happen if it did not exist. Edited by Peg, : No reason given.

Cavediver,I was in the same boat as well.

---

One of the saddest lessons of history is this: If we've been bamboozled long enough, we tend to reject any evidence of the bamboozle. We're no longer interested in finding out the truth. The bamboozle has captured us. It is simply too painful to acknowledge -- even to ourselves -- that we've been so credulous. - Carl Sagan, The Fine Art of Baloney Detection"You can't convince a believer of anything; for their belief is not based on evidence, it's based on a deep seated need to believe." - Carl Sagan"It is far better to grasp the Universe as it really is than to persist in delusion, however satisfying and reassuring." - Carl Sagan, The Demon-Haunted World

a) If there is no omnipotent creator deity - you can't take it away - all are contingent on each other in our realityb) If there is an omnipotent creator deity - whatever he wants to happen

in his world, yes. There are no physical laws in his world as there is nothing physical to govern.but the physical universe is not in his world and it only exists because of the laws that make physical matter possible.this is why the physical world has laws. they are there to enable physical things to exist. We are physical and our existence is completely dependent upon those laws...they keep us alive.A&E chose to go contrary to the natural laws of the universe...the result is that it brought about their death... as their offspring, we also live contrary to Gods laws and this is why we die.So you see, its not because he cant abide by rule breaking...its because WE cant abide by rule breaking. Edited by Peg, : No reason given.

Who designed the physical world to be the way it is? Who designed it so that when you fall over, there's a chance you will break your neck and spend the rest of your life paralysed?

it matters not who made the physical worldit matters that we live in it according to the laws that govern it