Does God accept bribes, ransoms, indulgences and sacrifice of Jesus?

[Edtharan]

As interesting as these arguments in logic are, I will give God the benefit of the doubt (it doesn't have to be the God of the bible) . We have to learn about evil via experiences, just as we learn about goodness.

Yes, my arguments are specifically against the God of the bible. These arguments wouldn't apply to a God such as Loki or Quetzalcoatl. However, as this thread is not about those Gods, and is about the God of the bible, I have made my arguments against that one in particular.

 

Surely 'logic' only exists via a mind, and so God (if we assume He has a mind) would always have logic, ie logic is eternal, as God is. How could you create logic, without emplying logic in order to create it? I'm not going to go down that road. If there is a God, then I would argue that logic is an eternal part of His being, just as love, evil, power is.

If God is subject to logic, then via logic we can disprove His existence. In fact, my arguments would remain: If God, although subject to logic, has the power to create Heaven free of suffering, then He can create our universe free of suffering. In fact, all He woudl have had to do is not create our universe at all.

 

And besides, if you use logic as applied to evidence, then God is not necessary and there is no evidence that He exists. But a God that wants us to believe in Him (so that we go to a place without suffering) would have to give us evidence of His existence.

 

The bible tells us of faith, but it doesn't state that the faith must be blind faith.

 

The Bible claims, that God can make a universe that does not contain suffering (the new Heavens and Earth in Revelation) so the problem we have is why didn't He 'end up' with this evil free universe/creation in the first place?

Exactly. The only answer is that God wanted us to have suffering, and because it didn't need to have suffering, then all suffering is unnecessary. As a God who forces unnecessary suffering on those it creates would be considered evil, then God must be evil.

 

This made me chuckle, not because I found it funny but because it's very interesting and 'way out', but then, so are many of the claims of the bible lol.

It is, it is also similar to how MMOs work with instancing. Think about an MMO where every time you tried to grief someone, you were transported to an exact replica world where your actions had no impact. Once you the griefing action is finished you are transported back to the main world again. You get nothing from it and the victim is not impacted by it.

 

If we as mere mortals can actually set up something like this that follows the laws of logic, then it doesn't matter if God is subject to logic or not, He still would be able to set up such a system. The fact that we don't have such a system either means

1) God does not exist

2) God wants us to suffer unnecessarily (and is therefore evil and not the God of the Bible)

3) God is not powerful enough to make the universe (and thus not the god of the bible, and probably could not be considered a real God)

 

The bible is clear about God's dealings in evil: 'the man has become like one of us, knowing good and EVIL', gen 3:22 and 'The One forming light and creating darkness, Causing well-being and creating calamity (Hebrew word for calamity is 'ra' evil); I am the LORD who does all these.' Isaiah 45:7 just to quote two examples. So a universe containing evil is not inconsistent with the Bible.

 

Evil exists and must have always existed and will always exist, if God is eternal and 'knows good and evil' then He has always known about evil. I get the impression from the Bible, that evil will become an idea (again??) not a reality (being acted out) like it is now. That sounds like a long shot though, a fairy tale.

Even if God knows evil, He could still be Good by not acting evil. Knowing something does not make you that. I might know how to cook pasta, but I am not made of pasta (nor am I Italian ).

 

To be Good, you would have to know Evil. If you didn't know the difference between Good or Evil, then you can not be said to act with Evil (as evil is based on intent - that is why an accident is not an evil act).

 

This means that even now, evil is an idea. You can't just point to an action and say that it is evil. Imagine a far out scenario:

 

There is a self destruct button for a secret lair. If someone pressed the self destruct button out of ignorance (think of this guy as Homer Simpson) and blows up the base killing everyone, is that an evil act? No. It is an unfortunate act, and an act of ignorance, but it is not evil.

 

Now imagine the same base, but instead of someone pressing the button out of ignorance, they instead press the button with the intent to blow it up and kill everyone (call this guy Monty Burns). Is this an evil act? Yes, it is the intent, the idea that they are doing that act as deliberate attempt to kill.

 

So, Homer, although ignorant, could still be seen as a good person, but Monty, due to the idea of killing all the people in the base would be considered evil.

 

The same act, the same outcomes, but the only thing that is different is the intent, the idea of a deliberate act.

 

Therefore: Evil is only an idea.

[Charm]

 

If God is subject to logic, then via logic we can disprove His existence. In fact, my arguments would remain: If God, although subject to logic, has the power to create Heaven free of suffering, then He can create our universe free of suffering. In fact, all He woudl have had to do is not create our universe at all.

 

And besides, if you use logic as applied to evidence, then God is not necessary and there is no evidence that He exists. But a God that wants us to believe in Him (so that we go to a place without suffering) would have to give us evidence of His existence.

 

The bible tells us of faith, but it doesn't state that the faith must be blind faith.

 

How can our LIMITED understanding of logic 'prove' God exists or doesn't exist? I don't think it can. God would have to be far more complex than us mere mortals who only have limited brain power. I am very wary of using logic to prove things about God, the way you are. I do think your reasoning is in many parts correct though and we should reason about these things. I agree that a God would want us to believe in Him and would give us evidence of His existence. It also says in the Bible that faith is a gift. I can't conjure up faith in God, anymore than I could decide to levitate off my chair.

 

 

As a God who forces unnecessary suffering on those it creates would be considered evil, then God must be evil.

 

This is where I give God the benefit of the doubt: if God can do anything, and knows everything, then suffering even if only temporary, must be necessary. Are we 'necessary'? Did God 'have' to make us? I don't know. It boggles the mind.

 

Even if God knows evil, He could still be Good by not acting evil. Knowing something does not make you that. I might know how to cook pasta, but I am not made of pasta (nor am I Italian ).

 

To be Good, you would have to know Evil. If you didn't know the difference between Good or Evil, then you can not be said to act with Evil (as evil is based on intent - that is why an accident is not an evil act).

 

This means that even now, evil is an idea. You can't just point to an action and say that it is evil. Imagine a far out scenario:

 

There is a self destruct button for a secret lair. If someone pressed the self destruct button out of ignorance (think of this guy as Homer Simpson) and blows up the base killing everyone, is that an evil act? No. It is an unfortunate act, and an act of ignorance, but it is not evil.

 

Now imagine the same base, but instead of someone pressing the button out of ignorance, they instead press the button with the intent to blow it up and kill everyone (call this guy Monty Burns). Is this an evil act? Yes, it is the intent, the idea that they are doing that act as deliberate attempt to kill.

 

So, Homer, although ignorant, could still be seen as a good person, but Monty, due to the idea of killing all the people in the base would be considered evil.

 

The same act, the same outcomes, but the only thing that is different is the intent, the idea of a deliberate act.

 

Therefore: Evil is only an idea.

 

 

If an action that we considered 'evil' (e.g you shoot someone in a fit of rage) could be 'reversed' as if it had never happened, then the evil would no longer 'exist'. So if Jesus is going to reconcile all creation to God, ie resurrect dead people, abolish death and suffering, then the 'evil' becomes an idea again. There are two 'stories' in the Bible that really disgust me: the one about a guy who was walking with the priests while they were carrying the ark of the covenant in the desert. The priests who were carrying the ark stumbled and it looked like the ark was going to fall, so the nice guy instinctively reached out to steady it. He gets struck down and killed by lightning or something like that, by God for touching His holy ark. How unfair is that? The biggest problem I have with the God of the Bible, is when He tells the Israelities to kill by the sword all the Caananite men, women and children and suckling babies. I thought His ways were meant to be 'higher' than our ways. If the Caananites were that depraved, then why not zap them out of existence peacefully and instantly, thus leaving the 'land' nice and empty for the Israelities? God ordered them to kill (murder) in a most violent way. This is a big stumbling block for me, that I can't reconcile with a God of love. However, if the claims of the Bible and Jesus are correct, then that poor guy who tried to stop the ark falling will be resurrected to eternal life, as will all people who have ever lived e.g the Caananites, regardless of how they died, or how 'good'or 'bad' they were. It sounds like a fantastical fairy tale. I don't know. The fact is: evil is a reality not just an idea so if there is an Intelligent Designer, then He knew that evil would be an 'ingredient' in His creation. As I believe there is sufficient 'evidence' to infer an Intelligent Designer, and since I believe this Designer would have 'contact' with His creation, of all the alleged claims of who God is, the God of the Bible and Jesus, make the most sense in my opinion. The bible describes God as creating evil and using it but also of a future time when He won't use evil anymore, because all things 'evil' will no longer be realities. I'm not completely convinced - some days I think 'what you see is what you get- there is nothing else'. Unless God 'zaps' me with a strong faith or experience like Saul on the road to Damascus, then I'll no doubt keep wondering til the day I die.

[Charm]

I've just read my last post and boy, can a lot change in a couple of weeks. I stopped 'messing about' and sitting on the fence, a few weeks ago and rededicated my life to Christ. I'm never going to understand things like 'evil' but I do have faith that 'the Judge of the Earth will do right' and that God is reconciling the world to Himself, so that one day, evil will no longer be 'made'.

 

God IS NOT evil, He IS love. If I have said or implied that God is in some way 'evil' because He creates 'evil', then I ask God's forgiveness for my ignorance in Jesus' name.

[A Tripolation]

God IS NOT evil, He IS love.

 

He may be. But if you read the Bible, you will find a God that commits many atrocities and evils.

[Brainteaserfan]

He may be. But if you read the Bible, you will find a God that commits many atrocities and evils.

I don't ever remember the justice being carried out being undeserved, and even if it was, we'll be paid fairly for it in the end (e.g., murder of babies would, when God did it, presumably be an act of kindness, seeing that they'd be orphans and die anyway, and God could make it less painful for them while still sending them to heaven)

[A Tripolation]

I don't ever remember the justice being carried out being undeserved, and even if it was, we'll be paid fairly for it in the end (e.g., murder of babies would, when God did it, presumably be an act of kindness, seeing that they'd be orphans and die anyway, and God could make it less painful for them while still sending them to heaven)

 

Or...you know, since the Judeo-Christian God is omnipotent and all...he could've NOT murdered the babies and alleviated their suffering anyways.

 

Anyways, this whole topic is far-removed from the OP. There's no point pursuing it. And there are many threads here about the questionable morality of the OT God.

[Brainteaserfan]

Edit: Posted in wrong topic, sorry.

Edited November 22, 2011 by Brainteaserfan

[ponderer]

Does God accept bribes, ransoms, indulgences and sacrifice of Jesus?

 

Eze 18 20

The soul that sinneth, it shall die. The son shall not bear the iniquity of the father, neither shall the father bear the iniquity of the son: the righteousness of the righteous shall be upon him, and the wickedness of the wicked shall be upon him.

 

 

Psa 49 7

None of them can by any means redeem his brother, nor give to God a ransom for him:

 

Man has worked hard to try to put in place a system of justice where the guilty pay for their crimes/sin and the innocent go free. This actually seems to follow the scriptures above and if you are doing unto others what you would like done to you, then you will applaud our present legal forms.

 

God on the other hand, and those theists that want to ride their scapegoat Jesus as a sacrifice for their sins and not step up to their responsibilities, seem to prefer to have the innocent punished and let the guilty walk.

 

Scripture says that God cannot be bribed and will not accept a ransom of an innocent party to redeem another. Yet that is exactly what God is said to have done when he intentionally had his son murdered. Some call it a sacrifice. God wanting or needing a blood sacrifice also goes completely against scriptures but he and his followers don‘t seem to know that.

 

The other bribes or ransoms that God seems to accept are indulgences given by the church and were ironically what created the reformation movement and sects that now somehow embrace that immoral notion. Martin Luther must be spinning in his grave. I will grant that that practice is not as widespread as it once was, but to me, the idea that a man can sin against another man, and by just placing a few $$$ in a church strong box without even having to seek forgiveness from his victim, and expect with church guarantee a shorter stay in purgatory, is just too immoral for me.

 

All these bribes, ransoms and indulgences are for the forgiveness of sins.

 

His murder or sacrifice of his son is for the same reason and also has the innocent being punished while the guilty go free.

 

As the great law maker and executor of justice, do you think it moral for God to accept and demand such instead of making the guilty pay and letting the innocent live?

 

Secular law generally follows the bible’s idea of justice, in many cases, as shown in the verses above. Should secular law reverse itself and follow God’s ideas of justice instead in accepting bribes, ransoms and sacrifices of innocent men?

 

Regards

 

DL

 

 

People have propensities. It is the propensities of a person that show their true inner character or spirit if you will.

 

These propensities are your honest compulsions, and not self control over your compulsions. These propensities change over time as people have new experiences.

 

This can lead a sinner to repent and change his ways, having developed new and more righteous propensities.

 

However, if the spirit does not change in its propensities, no indulgence or bribe, or whatever you wish to call it, is going to appease God.

 

That's my take on it.