If god doesn't follow his own rules, why should we?

Princess Luna On The Moon · Fri Jun 13, 2014 3:19 pm

*Let's assume the Christian god is real*

This is mostly about the Old Testament where many rules (the 10 Commandments for instance) are listed. If god so rarely follows his own rules and often switches character traits, why should we follow anything he says? Wouldn't his lack of consistency make him rather pathetic as a supreme leader?

Also, why should we follow something even if we find it immoral? Why is harming other humans in the name of god justified? Or, why is god allowed to get away with killing, harming, or ignoring us, yet whenever something good happens, he gets all the credit?

ttruscott · Post by **ttruscott** » Thu Dec 18, 2014 3:18 pm

Donray wrote: The god of the bible has murdered millions?

...

GOD does not murder; Exodus 20:13 "You shall not murder.

GOD judges the guilty. Psalm 7:11 God is a righteous judge, a God who displays his wrath every day.

Simple.

Peace, Ted

JonDarbyXIII · Post by **JonDarbyXIII** » Thu Dec 18, 2014 4:34 pm

ttruscott wrote: GOD does not murder; Exodus 20:13 "You shall not murder.

GOD judges the guilty. Psalm 7:11 God is a righteous judge, a God who displays his wrath every day.

and bin Laden didn't murder... he helped vanquish the infidels

ttruscott · Post by **ttruscott** » Thu Dec 18, 2014 7:00 pm

JonDarbyXIII wrote:
ttruscott wrote: GOD does not murder; Exodus 20:13 "You shall not murder.

GOD judges the guilty. Psalm 7:11 God is a righteous judge, a God who displays his wrath every day.
and bin Laden didn't murder... he helped vanquish the infidels

In acceptance of the premise that GOD kills people and so does bin Laden, I contend:

Where does it say that killing for a false religion is not murder? Of course it is - his pov is meaningless because HE is not a divine righteous judge with a perfect understanding of a man's motives.

To compare them is irrational given our premise that we are talking about GOD...

Peace, Ted

JonDarbyXIII · Post by **JonDarbyXIII** » Fri Dec 19, 2014 9:59 am

ttruscott wrote: Where does it say that killing for a false religion is not murder? Of course it is - his pov is meaningless because HE is not a divine righteous judge with a perfect understanding of a man's motives.

To compare them is irrational given our premise that we are talking about GOD...

Islam, however, is going to claim that Christianity is a false religion. Judaism says that Christianity is a false religion. In fact, almost every religion but Christianity claims that Christianity is a false religion. Therefore the opinion of true religion vs. false religion cannot really be used to justify which killings are ok.

As for God's killing people being justified by his knowledge of man's motivations, we only have to look to the account of the flood to see the problem with this. In Genesis 8:21 (after the flood) God says he will never again destroy the world because (in his judgement of man) man's heart is evil from its youth. However, this was essentially the same evaluation of man (in Genesis 6:5) that led to God wiping out the earth. Thus, man's heart and his motives were the exact same prior to the flood as after the flood. Therefore, not only did the flood seem to serve no purpose, but it also shows that God has two entirely different judgements (destroy the earth vs. never again destroy the earth) for the same offense.

ttruscott · Post by **ttruscott** » Sat Dec 20, 2014 11:45 am

JonDarbyXIII wrote:
ttruscott wrote: Where does it say that killing for a false religion is not murder? Of course it is - his pov is meaningless because HE is not a divine righteous judge with a perfect understanding of a man's motives.

To compare them is irrational given our premise that we are talking about GOD...
Islam, however, is going to claim that Christianity is a false religion. Judaism says that Christianity is a false religion. In fact, almost every religion but Christianity claims that Christianity is a false religion. Therefore the opinion of true religion vs. false religion cannot really be used to justify which killings are ok.

It can and must for the believer or no one could act on any religious impulse ever, anywhere.

If Christians take their religion as the definition of good then of course they can and should. Must we stop and get befuddled because we are opposed? Start condoning murder? I don't think so...

JonDarbyXIII wrote:As for God's killing people being justified by his knowledge of man's motivations, we only have to look to the account of the flood to see the problem with this. In Genesis 8:21 (after the flood) God says he will never again destroy the world because (in his judgement of man) man's heart is evil from its youth. However, this was essentially the same evaluation of man (in Genesis 6:5) that led to God wiping out the earth. Thus, man's heart and his motives were the exact same prior to the flood as after the flood. Therefore, not only did the flood seem to serve no purpose, but it also shows that God has two entirely different judgements (destroy the earth vs. never again destroy the earth) for the same offense.

The lessons:
1. A lesson of this magnitude has no need for repetition: HE proved HIMself as LORD over the world and the evil in the world and, like Cain whom HE refused to kill, evil is allowed to remain as a stimulus to HIS good seed to bring them to holiness and then the world will end...

2. Then, by HIS people seeing the repopulation the earth with tares and their evil as HE predicts will happen due to HIS knowledge of the evil in human hearts, v21, those who can repent are moved to cease thinking that the evil in the world can be solved or ended by political or social means and so turn to God, finally willing to accept HIS judgment against evil.

Peace, Ted

Peds nurse · Post by **Peds nurse** » Sun Dec 21, 2014 7:34 pm

JonDarbyXIII wrote:
ttruscott wrote: Where does it say that killing for a false religion is not murder? Of course it is - his pov is meaningless because HE is not a divine righteous judge with a perfect understanding of a man's motives.

To compare them is irrational given our premise that we are talking about GOD...
Islam, however, is going to claim that Christianity is a false religion. Judaism says that Christianity is a false religion. In fact, almost every religion but Christianity claims that Christianity is a false religion. Therefore the opinion of true religion vs. false religion cannot really be used to justify which killings are ok.

JonDarbyXIII wrote:As for God's killing people being justified by his knowledge of man's motivations, we only have to look to the account of the flood to see the problem with this. In Genesis 8:21 (after the flood) God says he will never again destroy the world because (in his judgement of man) man's heart is evil from its youth. However, this was essentially the same evaluation of man (in Genesis 6:5) that led to God wiping out the earth. Thus, man's heart and his motives were the exact same prior to the flood as after the flood. Therefore, not only did the flood seem to serve no purpose, but it also shows that God has two entirely different judgements (destroy the earth vs. never again destroy the earth) for the same offense.
We know that God said that the people were wicked. The men of God were marrying those who did not follow Him. They were choosing beauty and lust over God. I am not sure what else they were doing, but in God's eyes it wasn't good. He is the judge, and for Him, it was erasing all who did not follow Him.

Today, It is much the same, in that there are still those who are wicked, those who don't follow, and those who serve other Gods. The fate of those who ignore Him, is much the same as those who He destroyed earlier in the flood.

JonDarbyXIII · Post by **JonDarbyXIII** » Mon Dec 22, 2014 8:41 am

Peds nurse wrote: We know that God said that the people were wicked. The men of God were marrying those who did not follow Him. They were choosing beauty and lust over God. I am not sure what else they were doing, but in God's eyes it wasn't good. He is the judge, and for Him, it was erasing all who did not follow Him.

Today, It is much the same, in that there are still those who are wicked, those who don't follow, and those who serve other Gods. The fate of those who ignore Him, is much the same as those who He destroyed earlier in the flood.

However, if things are much the same today (and the Bible notes that this was the case even immediately afterward, wouldn't that mean that the flood--to blot out this evil--was all for naught? This would seem to indicate that God was either inept, or in the very least impulsive, destroying the world in anger while knowing that it would change nothing.

ttruscott · Post by **ttruscott** » Mon Dec 22, 2014 12:59 pm

JonDarbyXIII wrote:
...

However, if things are much the same today (and the Bible notes that this was the case even immediately afterward, wouldn't that mean that the flood--to blot out this evil--was all for naught? This would seem to indicate that God was either inept, or in the very least impulsive, destroying the world in anger while knowing that it would change nothing.

Since all we know of this story is in the bible, what part of the story are you using to support this contention HE was ending evil for ever by this flood?

I do not see that written in the story and I think it is more logical for a believer's interpretation to be in tune with the story than to assume the story teller exposes HIS inadequacy as if from a non-believers pov.

Peace, Ted

JonDarbyXIII · Post by **JonDarbyXIII** » Mon Dec 22, 2014 2:54 pm

ttruscott wrote: Since all we know of this story is in the bible, what part of the story are you using to support this contention HE was ending evil for ever by this flood?

I do not see that written in the story and I think it is more logical for a believer's interpretation to be in tune with the story than to assume the story teller exposes HIS inadequacy as if from a non-believers pov.

Genesis 6:5-7 wrote:5 The Lord saw how great the wickedness of the human race had become on the earth, and that every inclination of the thoughts of the human heart was only evil all the time. 6 The Lord regretted that he had made human beings on the earth, and his heart was deeply troubled. 7 So the Lord said, â€œI will wipe from the face of the earth the human race I have createdâ€”and with them the animals, the birds and the creatures that move along the groundâ€”for I regret that I have made them.

God's intent was to blot out the evil from the earth. However, as I showed earlier, it is immediately following the flood that God notes the evil in man from birth - the same assessment that preceded the flood. Therefore, it would seem that the flood changed nothing and did nothing to achieve God's plan.

ttruscott · Post by **ttruscott** » Mon Dec 22, 2014 3:49 pm

JonDarbyXIII wrote:
...

God's intent was to blot out the evil from the earth. However, as I showed earlier, it is immediately following the flood that God notes the evil in man from birth - the same assessment that preceded the flood. Therefore, it would seem that the flood changed nothing and did nothing to achieve God's plan.

Forcing me to be picky but it says â€œ...will wipe from the face of the earth the human race" for their evil, not all the evil on earth. Noah and his family were saved and they were sinners. They are separated in their sin from those who died by election, not perfect righteousness.

Gen 6:9 This is the account of Noah and his family: Noah was a righteous man, blameless among the people of his time, and he walked faithfully with God. This sentence does not exclude his family from being sinners, nor does this language force an interpretation of sinlessness on Noah as the story of Job proves.

For GOD to blot evil off the earth, HE'd have had to drown Noah and HIS family also. The people described in the terms describing Noah, describe a sinner who is in a family relationship with GOD, protected from his desires to sin by GOD's restraining hand upon him. His family are sinners but also elect. The rest of the world were sinners who rejected HIM as a false god and rejected HIS promise of election and salvation in Christ as lies.

HIS lesson was to prove that every bit of leaven must be put out, the whole house swept clean, before the promised land could be reached or sin will destroy the promised land, that is, heaven...it is a prophecy in real life of the necessity of hell by showing partial measures will not do.

The time for actually blotting evil from the earth is still in our future,

Peace, Ted