Is God Self-Evident

PaulK writes:Answer the following questions and points please, if God is Evil.1. From a Humanistic or Agnostic standpoint, how do you decide what evil is or is not?2 Have you ever exterminated a colony of ants in your front yard?
If so, on what moral principle do you accomplish such actions.3. Have you ever eracticated a buch of flies in your house by insceticide or fly strip, or fly swat? If so, what gives you the right to take thier lives and more importantly, ON WHAT MORAL principle do you accomplish such actions. In other words, give a moral explanation that would allow you to accomplish such actions.4. Is it ok to take the lives of animals that create over population, on what moral principle do YOU agree with such actions and support it. In other words, it appears you are IGNORING your own self proclaimed immoral behavior and denouncing God.5. Place a check mark beside (or provide another)the actions that allow your actions but not Gods. Is it:A. Superior intelligence.
B. Superior Power
c. species tolerance, etc, etc, etc.As I see it you have only a few logical possibilites. You can become absolutely consistent in your own actions concerning all life.give up trying to decide what is eveil or not.Or you can quit condemining a God, which you dont even believe in and have no logical or moral principle to proceed with.which horn of the delima do you want?Careful how you answer you can get yourself in a world of hurt logically.EMAEdited by EMA, : No reason given.

HG writes: I agree but thats not the point. You cant denounce God or anyone as evil, if you dont have a standard for consistency in the concept> My point here was not to advance God, but to demonstrate a simple point of logic. beg to differ. my questions do have an answer in a logical setting. One can certainly demonstrate that if morals are relative there is no reason for accusation. if they are absolute then there is a standard Then why all the hoopla about My God.EMAI've come to find that there is a great paradox at hand here and that absolutes and relative morals only make sense in conjunction with one another, even if on the surface level they appear

HG writes:Lying is wrong in all instances, even Abrahams. But thats not the point. Look at the problems that ensued as a result of Sarah and Abraham trying to extricate God from a delima, we are still feeling the effects of it every single day.The point here is not morals but logical consistency. When denouncing God they say he is EVIL, this clearly a MORAL designation, not some relative secular term. When thier own doctrines and positions are in question they say, "it doesnt matter because its all relative anyway." They flip flop depending on whos under fireI wasnt talking to a Hindu I was talking to PaulK and forcing him and his cohorts to pick a side of a delima that buries thier position.A person has to have some standard moral or otherwise for thier actions. I was simply asking what allowed him to eradicate something without the simplest bit of concern, shame or guilt. There has to be something there that allows him to proceed with his actions. WHAT is it?EMAEdited by EMA, : No reason given.Edited by EMA, : No reason given.

Hg writes: I think what you are failing to realize in these instances is that if we take what we are reading at "face value", as you suggest, in the scriptures, is that there is a standard that suggests that "principle" is more inportant than the physical, or that which is a part of the physical world.As IANO suggests, life is not ours to take unless Gods gives us that right. God taking a life in whatever means or measure is pitted against a moraility and Principle you cannot fathon, for resons you cannot understand In like manner he does not allow you to murder, but he does allow you to kill and eat an animal. As human beings we set standards for ourselves we do not for our pets, rodents, insects, or even our children.Again without avoiding the question. What is it that allows you to do this. what moral principle lets you in your own mind carry this out with no shame or disgrace. When you answer this you will have your answer about Gods actions Again, you have now taken the conversation past what we were origially discussing. Logical consistency has nothing to do with belief in God or otherwise, when speaking of morals. Evil and its conotation can have no relevance if there is no standard. In every situation and every instance. God no more approved of Rahab's actions or anyothers anymore than he approves of any action of lying by myself or yours, simple because he has not presently punished us for it. Its wrong because it is not the TRUTH. If God punished immediately all actions contray to his will, no one would be in existence.EMAEdited by EMA, : No reason given.

I see no delemma here at all. Your assumption is that to lie or not in these situations makes the situation correct or not, it does not. If a person violates God laws in these instances, he has simply brought about a situation that would not have existed otherwise. It has nothing to do with Gods absolute law of not lying. You are thinking with your emotions not your mind.I would probably lie to the Nazi, but it would still be a violation of Gods law. And it would not describe me overall as a person and it does not speak to gods justice. David was a man after gods own heart and a problem child at the same time. Its illogical and a shame to reject its true source, then proclaim as evil that same source. Not when it is approched logically and without emotion. great, so then the God of the Bible is not Evil, correctEMA Edited by EMA, : No reason given.

yes and No. Comparatively yes, the fact that we have free will, No. I know this by the simple fact that you cannot answer a direct question. What is it in you that allows you to eradicate lower life forms without shame or guilt. Why, and why is it wrong if God does it in whatever fashion he decides? Sure I can. Gods law is absolute. But its a law of God that he does not immediatley and in every instance punish actions. Do you remember seeing that in the Book. Everyone deserves death, but he offers jusctice and mercy. the Athiest always seems to ignore these attributes of God. Death is not the end of it all.the scriptures says he will not hold blameless those that take his name in vain. But I cant remember a instance when he punished immediatley or killed anyone who did. Doesnt mean its not sinEMA Edited by EMA, : No reason given.

HG writes:Earlier you stated that you did not create this or that and that is correct. It seems you are starting to figure this out for yourself without my assistance. Having created things (if we are allowed to assume that)you move from one part of the argument to another without warning. He has a right to dispense justice in a way that we do not.What is in you, is the point at hand my simple friend. You seem to know that God is evil and an abomination and that man is the standard, but you cannot figure out why it is ok to eradicate a colony of ants and you will not provide me with the moral principle that allows such actions. When speaking about God your very clear about what is in you, how did you make this moral determination so clearly, if your not sure what is inside of you?Go back and read what I said. Even demonstrating that lying is always wrong is not in conflict with what I said about Gods justice and mercy. God does not have to approve of a persons actions in one situation to bless thier overall life if it is basically a good one.Yes, God always punishes sin, but he does nto have to it in a manner prescibed by you. Before the time of Christ the gentiles (Rahab) went by the law of the heart Romans 2:14-16. After that he punished sin or forgave it through Christ. Before or after christ he has always been overlooking sin, until all was fullfilled in Christ. One must still repent of sin to be forgiven. My guess is that rahab didYour son or daughter back talks you presently, you do not approve of the action immediately and address it. Do you stop treating them in a loving fashion over all, ofcourse not. Why do you wish to turn God into a machine.Question? Can God have a hard fast rule that something is wrong or a sin and not forgive or overlook it? my goodness man that is the basic theme of the scriptures. But you fellas key in on one aspect and beat into the ground to make God into a overall monster. I have now answered this several times and reinforced it with illustration both from scripture and life. You would do well to respond to them without all the attacks. "Whether or not God does any of that", is not an answer and it is the VERY POINT my simple friend. Please pay attention, you cant departmentalize God.Im not making stuff up that is not already in the book. Dont get mad HG, just respond logically. Your becoming irrational HG, swearing, making personal attacks and flip floping from one argument to another. At present we are discussing the nature of God and his attributes, not wehther the scriptures are reliable. Calm down and take one topic at a time. You know full well this is a misrepresentation of what I have said here. You drew immediate conclusions from my statment that lying is wrong in any and all situations. Simply because I atest to the fact that it is always wrong and will always be punished, is not to imply the method. And that is the beauty of Christ, he was made SIN for us, so we would not have to suffer the punishment, HE DID. Christ'S sacrafice covered even Rahabs sin of lying. However, some of the same people of her time would not repent and had become so evil with no signs of repentace that God took greater measures to deal with thier sins. Its always a twofold proposition, God's wishes and our desires. they will work in perfect harmony if you will let themEMAEdited by EMA, : No reason given.Edited by EMA, : No reason given.Edited by EMA, : No reason given.Edited by EMA, : No reason given.

HG writesTry to stay focused, you are discussing the God of the Bible, remember the one that smashes babies against rocks. Quit getting ahead of the discussion Lets just stick with your and mine interpretations of scripture. But since you derived your estimations about an illogical inconsistent God from the standard Bible, I think we all understand who we are talking about without becoming down right contrary. You answered it without saying a word, really. A persons or creatures actions of taking another life, animal or human involves a certain amount of decision making and responsibility. What source do you think humans used to decide it was ok to take human life? Since I have fully explained by scripture and illustration the example of Rahab, perhaps you could provide another example. Besides this, what would you call the taking of life of infants on Gods part? great we have now established that God is not evil, illogical or immoral. Further, now we see, there is no MORAL principle at all, god is therefore by your own logic, not blameworth AT ALL, correct? Would yopu call this a moral principle, or exacally what? Im impressed, you seem to have a good working knowledge of the scriptures. When I say basically good, I do not mean to imply that man is good in relationship to God and that is the context of those verses our standing in Gods eyes. What was meant is that God is patient, longsuffering, merciful and just. One can only be Just in Christ, which ofcourse is God in turn. "He is both the Just and the Justifier, for those that believe in him" Gods Mercy was retroactive to Rahab. Many are not punished immediatley due to Gods MERCY which is in complete accordance with his eternal Justice. Basically Good, was only to be understood in the respect that she was not beyond the point of no return in Gods eyes., ie, "Thier evil is not yet complete", as Joshua was instructed. Again, I am impressed. Lets get busy and get a little philosophical, what say ye? God is all there is in exsistence. there is only God and God material, Spirit or whatever his essence is. We are not God but are God material, eternal material reoganized. God does not change his morals. The changes you see and the different ways he does things are to meet the finite conditions of mans existence, that is his limited understanding and limited capabilities. Heb 1:1 and the ways in which God does things are for man not Gods purposes prmarily. When we view Gods changes and purposes as explained to man, we should understand this as anthropomophic in nature. There is no change or purpose where there
is eternal knowledge and eternal existence, its a steady unchanging state. the ways in which he does things changes for man but he does not. Therefore lying has always and eternally been wrong, its simply that God has more than one eternal characteristic about him."Im doing a new thing", should be understood as "anthro". The moral stays the same, but the way changes depending on mans understanding and choices., "God sent forth his son, in the FULLNESS OF TIME". Fullness of time for man not God. Had Christ never came and paid the price, Rahab and me surely would have died for our sins. The moral principle of sin, punishment and Mercy have never changed. This can only be true if God had only one characteristic to his nature, that is no what the scriptures suggest. Gods laws are ABSOLUTE, in Justice, Mercy and Patience, etc. there is absolutley no contradiction here. How in the world can you suggest that I am legalistic, when I am pointing out Mercy and Forgiveness?EMA

No he punish CONditionly and forgivess CONditionally, through Jesus Christ. Punishment is conditional only if we dont accept Christ. Forgiveness is Conditional depending on whether accept Christ. Sin is always sin, we make the choice or condition. remember he has more than one characteristic, IF WE CAN ASSUME HE EXISTS. Great Id like to see those discussions if you can point me to them HG if you say God is this or that, you are assuming his existence for argument sake, thats where we are at present. On ething at a time please You are a very good person Im sure and its going exacally as I expected This would only be true if you could demonstrate from the source you draw your knowledge about this God that he possess only one characteristic in the area of morals. That is not what the SOURCE suggests. Ive only used the source to demonstrate that your evaluations about God and his morality are in error. If you want to set up what God should do or be outside that source, from which you draw your conclusions about him, that is your choice.About Christ and Rahab HG writesDo you mean here references or reliabilty?EAM Edited by EMA, : No reason given.

HG writes No No this is not what I am asking. What do you think is the MOTIVATION if someone does it on thier ownapart from God. Do you think they think (or you) thier actions are evil or monstorous when they committhese actions against say, animals Do you think God would direct the painful death and sacrifice of his own son? Peter says "Consider himthat spared not his own son, how much greater will be our judgement. " To demonstrate the full circle(absolute nature)of Gods Justice along with his mercy, there will come a time when he will punish fianallyand eternally those unrepented sins of which you speak. Would you say this is philosophically logical andconsistent with absolute principles?now lets examine once again the consistency in our arguments. You say, there is no moral principle inyour actions, yet God is blameworthy or a monster for his. Do you believe the little creatures agony andpain in eradication is deminished by your lack of moral principle? Or there are moral principles that are the same as ours, but which you refuse to acknowledge in yourown action, with regard to the treatment of other creatures. Your logic is flawed or at best terribleinconsistent. In this instance and according to your own words ABOVE, you are now required to givereasons (moral explanation) for your action. You ascribe them to God, why not you? are you a monster,or will you still maintain there is no moral principle. You cant eat you cake and have it. Again my friend we are at present only discussing logical consistency, not the validity of this or thatdocument. In debating this is know as a smoke screen, designed to distract or cause prejudice to alogical position. Your honestly is refreshing, it is my desire that you choose the right path and think about it logically andpray about the matter As a Seminary student the one thing that gave me the most fits was the slaughtering of the innocence, until I realized three things, he spared not his own Son, God is the creator and holds sin in the highest and most ABSOLUTE degree possible as an abomination and that there are PRINCIPLES in his existence that superceed any PHYSICAL condition or painful situation and death is not the end of existence. Now thats easy for me to say because I have suffered nothing, but it makes sense spiritually and morally.Besides as IANO and others have said, that which we see inside ourselves is TOO EASY, to missMore in a minuteEAMEdited by EMA, : No reason given.

Not if the NT is to be believed about the final judgement, I would consider the one in the OLD TEST agentle giant compared to the one in the NT. Its the same God, but there was a need to instruct mangradually in Gods view., ie God instructed Moses not let the children of I to approach the mountain or they
would surely die. , to teach them of Gods holiness. The Law was a schoolmaster to BRING US TO CHRIST.,"IN THE FULLNESS OF TIME GOD SENT FORTH HIS SON INTO THE WORLD, ETC, ETC I agree essentially with what you are saying here, however, the one that determined what Sin is also provides Mercy and forgiveness. Hopefully the mind set of a person that accepts God is not going to be"unrighteous gain" None, it was not for thier sins that this was accomplished but thier parents, who had become dispicable beyond belief God woulndt do anything to others that he wouldnt do to his own, in this respect .Jesus Christ.He sent them Lawgivers, Judges, Kings and prophets, then finally his own self and Son. I can do all this logically but essentially Im going to TRUST that the only Real thing in existence knows what he is doing. I guess we have to choose our own path for our own reasonsI dont pretend to understand it all either, until I think about Jesus ChristEAM More later I look forward to your next responseEdited by EMA, : No reason given.Edited by EMA, : No reason given.Edited by EMA, : No reason given.

HG writes: So in your view there is moral release or obligation release when they commit such actions. They dont feel justified morally in these actions, they feel nothing at all, correctEMA writes: HG writes:How would the method have anything to do with the fact that you are taking thier life, seemingly unwarrentedly?E writes: H wreites Great. At this point would it would be a good place to ask again the question, what principle or moral or whatever ALLOWS you to swiftly inflict, buthcer, eradicate anything other than you species. I appreciate your answers like the one above, but you KNOW that is not what I am asking.Would the actions of lethal injection be justified (Morally correct) if there were a reason for it? Couldnt we just overlook the persons actions. Am I as an agent of the state justified in these actions in such instances? True, but if he is the one that gave the life in the first place doesnt he have the RIGHT to take it back, because there may be principles in existence that superceed even physical life itself., ie "greater love hath no man than this that he lay down his life for another", then it is logical that even the taking of life is justified in such instances. In other words, there is nothing illogical in it.E writes: HG writes:You have simply restated that God is guilty and I appreciate your response here and it is certainly a question that I am happy to entertain, but it is more evasion on your part to describe your actions in such instances. If God is blameworthy for whatever ASPECT, why is there no moral principle in your actions. Are you immoral in such cases , yes or no?Are you calling a "Moral Imparative" a moral principle? Beg to differ, you said, there is NO Moral principle. Your actions, not what you are thinking at the time are what are in question.E writes: H writes: The world you describe above as perfect is the one he created and desired. Should he simply overlook Satans and mans disobedience, wouldnt this make him a spinless unjust God? Exacally how much disobedience should he overlooked or LET GO, before he decides to take action. Now remember your imperfect and he is all the wonderful things you describe above. Wouldnt his wonderful qualites described above be a better MEASURING ROD than your imperfection.If God is blameworthy in such instances, shouldnt he be blamed for us not being created perfect to live forever, OR DID HE?H writes: I guarentee you I have questioned all of these matters and more, probaly more than yourself . I was where you seem to be presently, but the logic is beeter on this side, given all the facts in the source No infant has any Sin, Original or otherwise. You reconcile these actions for the reasons already stated by the Word of God, OVERALL and reasonI look forward to your next response, if you so desire.EAMEdited by EMA, : No reason given.Edited by EMA, : No reason given.

HG this is a very nice response and I will get to it as quickly as I can tommorrow. You brought up some very good points which I am happy to address, thanks again and thanks for the scriptures.EAM

HG writesLets start with the verses first today.I remember a discussion but not a pissing contest with Job, but you types do always have a way of misrepresenting Gods Word anyway, ha haTrust me there is no contradiction in God or these verses. Ezekiel was exacally correct through inspiration not surprisingly. Sins is an act that seperates one from God, an action that involves both reason and on ones part only.John says, "Sin is transgression of the Law" and Calvinism notwithstanding, one needs to comprehend the law to transgress it, children do not, they therefore cannot sin. I do not share in the actual Sin of Adam, for when I was born I was sinless until accountability. I did however share in the results of Adams sin by being born into sinful world., IE, "We are by nature the children of wrath."Secondly, what a omnipotent judge decides to do in response to sin or its consequences is his decision based on perfect knowledge. While the SINS may have separated the adults from God eternall y, there is no reason believe the children were, even though they diedThe soul that sins will die SPIRITUALLY, not always physically. Adam died Siritually first and immediately and not physically, but later as a result of the SAME sin he died physicaaly as well. The sin was twofold.God visits punishment on the generations physically immediatley at times and over time as he sees fit as a divine judge. I am not spiritually and eternally responsible for my fathers sins, nor he mine. But I can CERTAINLY share the consequences of his sin, whether he violates Gods laws of SIN or drinks all the rent money away.Surely you can see this simple point and that there is no copntradiction in these verse. NO, Gods morality does not change. He always punishes SIN SPIRITUALLY and then physically, but not always with death, take cain for example, his punishment was not met with physical death immediatley You are assuming that the physical act of disaster is an EVIL thing, it is not. The only true evil (immorality) is intrinsic evil, that which is produced by the mind and heart from a human. This why Jesus said"It is not that which goes into a mant that DEFILES him, but that which prooceeds out of his heart"(mind)
Paul said, "Nothing (physical) is evil in and of iteself". The physical act of a tree falling on someone and killing them is not evil, its very unfortunate but not evil.Jesus said, "I have not come to bring PEACE, but a Sword" I dont think Jesus ever used a sword but his teachings would arose evil out of a freewill heart when it disobeyed him and his words.Indirectly being involved in something where freewill is involved is not the same as being guily for that persons actions of the heart or mind. .In argumentation or debate one cannot simply ignore or override a point with the "wave of the Hand". I know you dont like the answer that God is the omnipotent judge, but you must deal with this point logically to demonstrate it is not true, or that it is logically inconsistent. Think about it, how can an omnipotent all knowing, omniscient God be wrong about anything, atleast from a logical standpoint. You are only part of the equation as judges. Now lets say, that you son or daughter commits murder, does the judge have the right to control thier life or TAKE THIER LIFE, I think so.EMA writes: HG writes: Could you explain the difference pleaseIll get to the rest of this later this evening, Labor day and all that you understandEAM Edited by EMA, : No reason given.

H writes: E writes: E writesH writes: I thought I had, but ok Ill try again. They are not in contradiction. Man is a twofold being. Spirit and physical. "fear not him that can destroy the body, but him that can destroy the body and the soul in hell" I thought I clearly stated with scriptural support that man immediatley dies spiritually when he sins, or separates himself from God. the physical death process started with Adam but was not immediate. Ezekiel was not speaking primarily about physical death, you notice he said the Soul that sins, that s the part of the thinking rational man, the body is something else.We as humans only suffer separation from God When we Sin, regardless of what Adam did. Remember where I quoted the Apostle John in Chapter 3, where he states, Sin is transgression of the law. I am not responsible for Adams or Eves, specific sin, but he set in motion a sequence which now involves me, much in the same way a father that drinks, squanders away the rent and food money. Gods visits the iniquites of the fathers to the third and fourth generations, because sin is dealt with individually and from a judges standpoint collectively. Am I not now paying for the sins of my fathers through taxes that provide money and assistance to tribes and nations of native Americans, because of what my forefathers did?I am not sure what your concept of debating is, but it is usually customary to actually deal with the material presented to you instead of crying contradiction, where it has clearly been shown not to exists. You seen to skip from one point to another, bring new accusations and never seem to deal with the specific arguments that relate to the so-called contradictions., IE,E writes: Then H writes: Try and atleast deal with some of it. One would be forced to admit that there is no immediate contradiction between Ezekiel and MosesE Writes:H writes: Yes we still sin after salvation, but listen to these verses: "If we (Christians) say we have no sin we decieve ourselves and make God a liar, but if we confess our sins he is faithful and just to (continuously) forgive our sins, because we have an advocate withthe father, Jesus Christ the righteous"...."For IF we walk in the light as he is in the light we have fellowship one with another and the blood of christ cleanses us from all sin"It keeps on cleansing if we are trying to be faithful according to his word.Paul puts it this way. "There is NOW (presently) no Condemnation (Spiritual death) to them that are in Christ Jesus (NOW WATCH), to them that walk NOT after the flesh but after the Spirit" Its a perfect plan but its not unconditional.Paul makes it clear that even though Spiritual death is a result of individual sin, we presently have no sin overall through Jesus Christ. If you thought you were confused berfore watch this. He says at another point, "We are MADE perfect in Christ Jesus', that is presently. So now you have beings that are both PERFECT PRESENTLY, which still have the possibility and do sin. We are perfect and imperfect all at the saame time.So do John and Paul contradict eachother, not at all. Both say we still have sin and both point to the way to be perfect at the same time. again no contradictionE writes: H writes: Wrong again, no contradiction. They did die physically and Spiritually. The physical death was progressive and finally realized, the Spiritual death was immediate but was forgiven Jesus Christ, not universally with no conditions. Adam was much like a Gentile in that he operated much from the law of the heart, remember Romans 2:14-16, which i presented that you never dealt with. Adam was different from the Gentiles in that he had specific laws from God, but was not under the law of Moses. the law of Moses was fullfilled in Christ. Col 2:14-16. Paul further states, "there is niether Jew, nor Greek, bond or free, all are ONE in Christ".Again, no contradiction is involved here if you are willing to look at the TOTALITY of what the source you are quoting has to say and offer. No cherry picking allowed.God visits punishment on the generations physically immediatley at times and over time as he sees fit as a divine judge. I am not spiritually and eternally responsible for my fathers sins, nor he mine. But I can CERTAINLY share the consequences of his sin, whether he violates Gods laws of SIN or drinks all the rent money away.H writes The punishment in these verse is not a punishment of eternal separation from God, of which Ezekiel is speaking. think about it logically, If there are two types of death and two types of punishment which the Source clearly indicates and i have now demonstrated with scripture and reason and to which you pay no attention, then there is no contradiction in these passages, depending on what the writer is speaking about. As revelations states:"death and hades were cast into the lake of fire along with the devil and his angels, which is the SECOND DEATH"Surely you can see this simple point and that there is no copntradiction in these verse. NO, Gods morality does not change. Your cherry picking and need to read what it says overall. primarily however, you need to deal with the passages and arguments attached to those arguments before you can be taken seriouly as a debater. saying I dont like that and repeating that is not what the passages says i not a legitamte response and cannot be taken seriousEAMEdited by EMA, : No reason given.