Tony\'s God (Introduction)

by dhw, Thursday, November 24, 2011, 18:53 (4749 days ago) @ Balance_Maintained

First things first. I believe that stories such as Adam & Eve are pure fabrication, as are many other biblical tales, and I neither believe nor disbelieve in God. It’s important to reiterate this, because my discussions with you are based on your premise that God exists and that the bible generally represents a true record. What follows is therefore a discussion on the nature of God as if he exists, and as revealed both in the world and in the biblical “record”, as if this were true.

You say people “are quick to blame for the bad, yet slow to acknowledge the good.” I have always been at pains to acknowledge both. I’ve repeatedly stressed the theory that man is in God’s image, and hence is a mixture, and if anything I think I have a more positive attitude than you do towards the good in humans (= a reflection of God’s good). In my experience, far too many conventional theists are quick to blame humans for being bad and slow to acknowledge how good they are. Such theists are also quick to acknowledge God’s good, and often totally unwilling to acknowledge even the possibility of his bad.

TONY: God said point blank that people would die. Not that he would directly cause their death.

This particular post concerns my reference to “the slaughter of the innocents”. I have no choice here but to return to the bible: the flood and the killing of the Egyptians’ firstborn are instances of God’s directly causing death through what we might otherwise explain as natural disasters. You have made it clear that all humans have inherited “sin”, which in your post to BBella you say is equivalent to “compounded mistakes” – “an incorrect idea passed down from teacher to student”. My point is that babies (the most innocent of the innocent, of whom no doubt many were killed in both incidents) can hardly be accused of sinning. Your only answer to that was that God was fast-tracking them to a better life, and sparing them the problems of this one. Parents should, apparently, thank God if their children die prematurely.

Natural disasters may or may not be necessary for the sustenance of life, though I’d be surprised if your Garden of Eden was subject to floods, tornadoes, volcanic eruptions etc. If it was, God would have needed to offer a bit more protection than helmets, pads and training wheels. If it wasn’t, the implication would be that God is perfectly capable of creating a disaster-free environment if he wants to.

I like your statement that “the idea of sin is not one of ‘offense against God’", though I don’t know why – in your post to BBella – you say it has no context of morality. As I see it, sin and evil are actions that cause harm to our fellow creatures, and if morality does not entail distinguishing between good and bad treatment of others, I don’t know what it can mean. This is not peeing on an electric fence – which is indeed a ‘mistake’, and a damn stupid one at that – but pushing someone else into the fence and peeing on them and it. All credit to God for giving us a code of conduct to protect ourselves and others. No credit to those who break the code. We can agree on that. But the subject of this thread is God’s nature, and I would suggest that the bible is simply bursting with evidence of what BBella has called God’s (human like) preferences, ideas and “needs”. Not surprising, since he made us in his image.