This 'God' cannot be approved of and thus cannot be accepted and followed, for then what integrity would we have? Not much, for He is a bad role model. To accept is to approve.

"Thou shalt not kill" went underwater in the mass killing by the Great Flood."

I have a whole poetic list of such bad examples if you want to see it.

Well, presumably god has cosmic responsibilities that necessitate actions he cannot otherwise morally justify. Thats what I suspect a religious person might say. An appeal to some greater good, like sacrificing his son (immoral) to save the souls of all mankind. (Greater good).

I have a whole poetic list of such bad examples if you want to see it. — PoeticUniverse

No need, I get it.

Well, presumably god has cosmic responsibilities that necessitate actions he cannot otherwise morally justify. Thats what I suspect a religious person might say. An appeal to some greater good, like sacrificing his son (immoral) to save the souls of all mankind. (Greater good). — DingoJones

This then raises the question, "can't he save souls without the sacrifice?" Coz He (God) is the one performing the sacrifice. Then, He (God) is the one accepting the sacrifice. And, finally, He (God) is still the one who saves the souls. So what would I be missing? I would think it be easier to just skip to the part which concerns us and save us the trauma of whatever psychological complex seems to spur His unapologetic morbid streak.

Also, isn't a supreme being supposed to do the greatest good? Save all mankind including his son?

Sure, those seem like valid criticisms of incredulity. Certainly it doesnt seem like god is making much sense or being very moral but the believer will just pass the buck over to gods mysterious ways. Seems evil to us but we are not god and it all serves some greater good etc etc
Either that, or will get the metaphor/“bibles not literal” dodge.

Sure, those seem like valid criticisms of incredulity. Certainly it doesnt seem like god is making much sense or being very moral but the believer will just pass the buck over to gods mysterious ways. Seems evil to us but we are not god and it all serves some greater good etc etc
Either that, or will get the metaphor/“bibles not literal” dodge. — DingoJones

Seems we skeptics already know and expect that the firmer believers won't give up, as their belief-wires have already solidly wired together from firing too many times together, and so this should silence any remaining bafflement we may have.

"Mysterious ways" is a cover for "insane/bad ways" and the non-literal Bible dodge of a book supposedly written in plain language for the common man is another expected desperation.

In a larger sense, we all have to do what our will has come to be up to the instant, and if learning is no longer possible then there it stays in these areas.

Look to cognitive behavioral science for more.

Well, if you created humans and were not sure what would happen, then the purported Creator is in a spot of bother. Letting things happen without control.
But not without limits.

Just off hand, I can't tell you why God doesn't lead by example. I can tell you though that Judaism, Christianity, and Islam are descended from Abraham, not Moses. It was to Abraham that God made the promise of descendants more numerous than the sands of the sea. Something like that.

Moses is associated with the 10 Commandments, Exodus, and all that. God did tell one of his prophets, Hosea, to marry a whore.

When the Lord first spoke to Hosea, the Lord told him, “Marry a prostitute and have children with that prostitute. The people in this land have acted like prostitutes and abandoned the Lord.” 3 So Hosea married Gomer, daughter of Diblaim. She became pregnant and had a son. — God

So what happened? Hosea's wife behaved badly, like a whore -- pretty much what was expected. Why did God want Hosea to marry a whore? So Hosea could understand what it was like being the God of Israel.

3 Then the Lord told me, “Love your wife again, even though she is loved by others and has committed adultery. Love her as I, the Lord, love the Israelites, even though they have turned to other gods and love to eat raisin cakes.” — God

Apparently the other gods were handing out raisin cakes that year. Good PR move, no doubt. I like chocolate chip cookies better, but a very good raisin cookie is OK too.

That is the sort of thing God does to set an example. Well, there was the bit with Jesus too.

Just off hand, I can't tell you why God doesn't lead by example. I can tell you though that Judaism, Christianity, and Islam are descended from Abraham, not Moses. It was to Abraham that God made the promise of descendants more numerous than the sands of the sea. Something like that. — Bitter Crank

My apologies, my bad. Anyway, the significance of the question remains, I hope.

God did tell one of his prophets, Hosea, to marry a whore.... So what happened? Hosea's wife behaved badly, like a whore -- pretty much what was expected. Why did God want Hosea to marry a whore? So Hosea could understand what it was like being the God of Israel. — Bitter Crank

Again, it's like God is seeking some kind of validation and He isn't clearly setting out the rules. If the whore is acting like a whore,... I think I'm missing where the problem lies. If humans have free will and they can make whichever choice suits them, doesn't it mean they can follow whomever they choose, God or not.

Also, God seems to always want something from us. Being a supreme being, shouldn't He be less wanting and more giving? It always seems like God is the one with the unfulfilled expectations.

Isn't God supposed to resolve issues with the least violence, the most intelligence and compassion? — BrianW

You may be confusing peace with pacifism.

Pacifism does not lead to peace. Pacifism only leads to contempt. Peace can only exist in mutual respect, and all respect is ultimately always based on the fear for reprisals.

It often takes a hell of a lot of reprisals to finally bring peace.

I don't know what God's expectations are, actually. I know the prophets who spoke on behalf of God had very high standards. But every now and then, some prophet will boil it down and come up with something like.

... what does the LORD require of you? To do justice, to love mercy, and to walk humbly with your God (Micah 6:8).

Or "Love your neighbor as yourself."

That's it. Simple enough, and difficult enough.

I'm just wondering why God (a being of supposedly supreme intelligence, wisdom and love) isn't held to a greater standard than humans. Isn't God supposed to resolve issues with the least violence, the most intelligence and compassion? — BrianW

I'm not an Abrahamist but I think there are parallels in behavior we accept in humans with extra authority and power. Children are often told not to do things that parents can decide to do in certain circumstances where they deem it necessary. Ordering the children around, using force in extreme situations with the children - forcing them to use a seatbelt as a mild example, pulling one forcefully back from the street. Police can use violence, courts can do things to people that others cannot - this would be precisely not vigillante violence, vengeance is mine says the court system (lol) and all that. Military leaders making horrible choices, bombing targets with known or heck intended civilian casualties (WW2) had a lot of that. Individual citizens deciding to bomb the mafia would do prison time.

Not that any of this need be morally simple, but most of us allow that people with extra skills, positions of power, special knowledge get to do stuff that would be 'sinful' if kids or regular citizens or the unskilled did it.

You may be confusing peace with pacifism.

Pacifism does not lead to peace. Pacifism only leads to contempt. Peace can only exist in mutual respect, and all respect is ultimately always based on the fear for reprisals.

It often takes a hell of a lot of reprisals to finally bring peace. — alcontali

So how long do we still have to wait until the peace is achieved? Also, is God involved in this peace process and why isn't He working faster? (He just happened to create everything in a week but it's going to take forever to bring peace... ?)

I'm not an Abrahamist but I think there are parallels in behavior we accept in humans with extra authority and power. Children are often told not to do things that parents can decide to do in certain circumstances where they deem it necessary. — Coben

That's the point I'm making - that, the 'do as I say' teaching is inadequate when the teachers don't do as they say.

Ordering the children around, using force in extreme situations with the children - forcing them to use a seatbelt as a mild example, pulling one forcefully back from the street. Police can use violence, courts can do things to people that others cannot - this would be precisely not vigillante violence, vengeance is mine says the court system (lol) and all that. Military leaders making horrible choices, bombing targets with known or heck intended civilian casualties (WW2) had a lot of that. Individual citizens deciding to bomb the mafia would do prison time. — Coben

None of them claim to be perfect or above censure. Unless we accept that the "abrahamic/mosaic" God is just another being liable to faults just like all the other beings we have encountered.

Not that any of this need be morally simple, but most of us allow that people with extra skills, positions of power, special knowledge get to do stuff that would be 'sinful' if kids or regular citizens or the unskilled did it. — Coben

We allow but we still know it is wrong and we still define the limits of such allowances. When we get down to brass tacks, the only reason we give such allowances is when it benefits us more than it harms us. So, again, this has the implication that the "abrahamic/mosaic" God isn't really special but we allow Him for the sake of benefits, right?

And again, why are we holding God to the same standards we have for humans? Isn't God supposed to be above that? What happened to being perfect, all-powerful, faultless, etc, etc?

Why make excuses for what is clearly unacceptable behaviour regardless of who or what does it? Can't we just demand the perfection promised?

"Mosaic" should have a capital "M", unless you're talking about a God of small tiles.

That's the point I'm making - that, the 'do as I say' teaching is inadequate when the teachers don't do as they say. — BrianW

Right but my point is that we accept that already at the human level.

None of them claim to be perfect or above censure. Unless we accept that the "abrahamic/mosaic" God is just another being liable to faults just like all the other beings we have encountered. — BrianW

Right. But that doesn't really affect my argument. My argument is that we accept that experts/leaders/adults make decisions and perform acts that non-experts/non-leaders/children are not allowed to make, and so the idea that there is a God who does not act like he tells us to act, cannot be considered immoral or hypocritical per se.

We allow but we still know it is wrong and we still define the limits of such allowances. — BrianW

I disagree that we 'know it is wrong'. Unless we are complete pacifists we allow people to knowingly kill even innocents in wartime. We allow police powers we do not allow other citizens, powers most do nto consider wrong at least in many types of instances. We allow parents to do things we do not allow kids to do, both in relation to kids and in relation to things, other adults, and more.

If there is a God who has incredibly more knowledge than us, and presumably perception also, the fact that such a God does certain things that seem immoral to us cannot be ruled out as immoral or hypocritical, since we, if this is the case with God, do not know what God knows. And sure, we limit those powers - thougn in wartime those limits are far out there: Hiroshima, Dresden and then a lot of smaller acts where innocent people were killed.

Parents often make decisions that to children with their limited knowledge find reprehensible. And some of these decisions are ones that children would not be allowed to make, even with their pets or belongings.

And again, why are we holding God to the same standards we have for humans? Isn't God supposed to be above that? What happened to being perfect, all-powerful, faultless, etc, etc? — BrianW

I haven't said anything about holding God to a different standard. If it is true that God knows vastly more than us, God may be doing perfectly.

Right. But that doesn't really affect my argument. My argument is that we accept that experts/leaders/adults make decisions and perform acts that non-experts/non-leaders/children are not allowed to make, and so the idea that there is a God who does not act like he tells us to act, cannot be considered immoral or hypocritical per se. — Coben

So there's nothing inconsistent with a supposedly perfect God acting in ways which we know to be less than perfect... ?

If there is a God who has incredibly more knowledge than us, and presumably perception also, the fact that such a God does certain things that seem immoral to us cannot be ruled out as immoral or hypocritical, since we, if this is the case with God, do not know what God knows. And sure, we limit those powers - though in wartime those limits are far out there: Hiroshima, Dresden and then a lot of smaller acts where innocent people were killed. — Coben

Like I said, to some extent we do allow but we also set limits, for example, since WW2 the succeeding wars have been greatly monitored to avoid such occurrences. Also, proving that we know that it's wrong. Humans get to do such things because if they're reasonable they become hail marys and if they're not they become life lessons. And because we're faulty, such logic fits in with our progression from ignorance to knowledge. I don't think it should be the same for a supposedly perfect God.

I haven't said anything about holding God to a different standard. If it is true that God knows vastly more than us, God may be doing perfectly. — Coben

So, God may be doing perfectly what is questionable or outright wrong for us to do? Hmm, No. Not buying that. Outside of thoughtless allegiance to such a God, nothing about some of His actions could be designated as perfect. And, from human experience through every narrative ever given, the allegiance to the Abrahamic/Mosaic God is not automatic. I would even dare say it's been bought by whatever razzmatazz was used to influence people the most. But I can't speak of that God's rationale, intelligence, composure, love, etc, etc, at all times. And, to me, that's a pretty big "faith-gap" in the trade between wholehearted trust and someone's life. Infact, we have a word which may be said to fit perfectly with the representation of the Abrahamic/Mosaic God - TYRANT.

So what happened? Hosea's wife behaved badly, like a whore -- pretty much what was expected. Why did God want Hosea to marry a whore? So Hosea could understand what it was like being the God of Israel. — Bitter Crank

Nice. I have learned a lot of different Bible verses and stories, but that one is new to me, thanks. However, that sounds much more like a human analogy than an attempt at divine justice. Unless divinity hides itself behind irony for some reason (does a being of infinite power actually believe us lowly ants understand them from some funny analogy? Isn't it the infinite power that I struggle to relate to, more than whiny Israelites?). To me, this almost feels like a moment where biblical authors are saying, "hint, hint, we made this stuff up."

"hint, hint, we made this stuff up." — ZhouBoTong

Hint, hint: they did -- all of it. Presumably. Unless YHWH was actually dictating the text.

That would be fine by me if they made it up (which is what I think happened). The texts weren't "written" the way a novelist turns out a new book. The texts were first an oral tradition, gradually taking shape over time, being used, being refined, becoming 'sacred'. Then, at some point, they were written down. The texts became fixed, and we have a copy. The timeline is complicated.

The closest we can come to most of the whole Hebrew Bible is a Greek translation, the Septuagint. I suppose there are bits and pieces of older Hebrew or Aramaic texts.

whiny Israelites — ZhouBoTong

Whiny Israelites, whinging Romans, bitching Greeks, sniveling Christians, peculiar pagans -- to hell with the lot of them.

So there's nothing inconsistent with a supposedly perfect God acting in ways which we know to be less than perfect... ? — BrianW

The whole point of my argument is we may not be in a postion to know. Just as a child might not know. Just as a civilian might not know what was necessary. Just as a non-expert might not know.

Like I said, to some extent we do allow but we also set limits, for example, since WW2 the succeeding wars have been greatly monitored to avoid such occurrences — BrianW

We haven't had a world war. I doubt we'd be all nicey in a broad conflict, especially since other countries wouldn't be, at least eventually either. And besides our drone kill civilians all the time. The embargo on Iraq killed thousands of children.

I don't think it should be the same for a supposedly perfect God. — BrianW

Many theological defenses of evil, iow answers to the problem of evil, imply or state outright that to achieve the best of all possible worlds, there has to be suffering and death. That this is inherent in perfection. That we can't see this but God can. Yes, he could make a bunch of perfect people who live in a big room with cushions, but actually our seemingly more horrifying world - with the attendant afterlifes - allows for something even better.

So, God may be doing perfectly what is questionable or outright wrong for us to do? Hmm, No. Not buying that. — BrianW

And neither do kids and teenagers in relation to their parents, even regarding things where the parents are right on the button. Groups without medical science would look on certain medical interventions as tortures carried out by evil demons. Etc.

I am not saying you should buy it. The truth is I don't. But we are running on gut feelings and we certainly can't demonstrate this logically to someone else. For all we know, we are missing some bigger picture we, with our limited knowledge, can't possibly even grasp. You can't mount an argument that eliminates that possbility.

And your argument that it must appear right to us or an authority is wrong, is countered by the way we relate to experts/leaders/parents in all sorts of situations here on earth.

I'm just wondering why God (a being of supposedly supreme intelligence, wisdom and love) isn't held to a greater standard than humans — BrianW

There's a C S Lewis book called God in the Dock. It's a collection of essays, but the meaning of the title is that it implies a "God on Trial", based on an analogy made by Lewis suggesting that modern human beings, rather than seeing themselves as standing before God in judgement, prefer to place God on trial while acting as his judge. Which is exactly what I think the OP does. It my view, it's related to the (false) modern, anthropological conception of deity, which sees God as a kind of super-manager or ultimately responsible agent, in the same way as a CEO or executive is responsible.

The whole point of my argument is we may not be in a postion to know. Just as a child might not know. Just as a civilian might not know what was necessary. Just as a non-expert might not know. — Coben

My personal experience is different because I used to call out my parents on their nonsense, for example, I asked my dad how he thought he could impart to me the notion that smoking was bad when I knew for certain that he began smoking while in high school. In the end, he fessed up that such lessons were an attempt to have one's kids do better than the parents but were not necessarily definitive lessons on morality.

And, for the record, children do know. It's just that their knowledge processes (conscious and sub/un-conscious minds) have yet a ways to go in terms of integration, but they always suspect or intuit certain hints about their parent's actions.



I'm not saying there isn't or couldn't be another side to this coin but, any reasonable being should hold everything to proper analysis and critique. Not only do we question our parents but we also often act out against them when they try to play two-face. From my evaluation of religions, morality (especially from those of the Abrahamic/Mosaic religions), I find a near perfect analogy with respect to its failings as I observe with human parenting. Coincidence... ? I think not.

My personal experience is different because I used to call out my parents on their nonsense, for example, I asked my dad how he thought he could impart to me the notion that smoking was bad when I knew for certain that he began smoking while in high school. In the end, he fessed up that such lessons were an attempt to have one's kids do better than the parents but were not necessarily definitive lessons on morality. — BrianW

Sigh. I mean, sure. I am not arguing that parents are infallible. Mine weren't. But the truth is you, when you were younger, had to listen to your parents or you would probably be dead. You would have wandered out in the road. And you probably did not understand why they were right. If there is a deity with knowledge vastly greater than ours, then we may be wrong about the best ways to run a universe. I am not telling you what to do, or how to relate to authroity figures. I am on the rebellious side myself. My point is that if there is a deity, vastly more knowledgeable than us, than just like toddlers or even older children, we may mistakenly think that this 'parent' is wrong, because we lack the knowledge.

If we go back to the original reason I brought in parents and other types of experts it had to do with you presenting it as if

one cannot accept another entity telling us to do one thing but doing other things themselves. If that was the situation, according to you, it must be wrong.

I disagree.

I presented many situations where most of us allow experts, people with more knowledge, to do things we would think was wrong if regular people or people without extpertise or children did them.

This has morphed into....you must not question or analyze. Or God must be good in my opinion. Or I am saying parents are infallible.

No, I am saying we all allow some people to do things we do not allow others to do and still consider that first group potentially moral.

That is the argument I am putting forward.

I am not telling you how to feel about floods and war. I am focused on your argument.

which does not mean I am, either, putting forward the opposite argument that if it happens it must be good because God is good. I think that argument is weak also.

And, for the record, children do know. It's just that their knowledge processes (conscious and sub/un-conscious minds) have yet a ways to go in terms of integration, but they always suspect or intuit certain hints about their parent's actions. — BrianW

I don't think so. I think I was quite convinced my parents were wrong about anything from bedtime to the importance of certain kinds of interpersonal behavior. The truth is as a middle aged person I am still realizing nuances of things where I am just now realizing they were right. There is absolutely no way a kid can understand that eating more sugar, wandering out in the street, putting her hands through the cage at the zoo. playing with fire in certain ways are just plain dangerous. Left to their own devices they will do all sorts of things over and over until statistics catch up with them. Or we could leave them alone. We're not deer, who know a lot of the rules when they pop out of the womb and start walking, near mom.

I'm not saying there isn't or couldn't be another side to this coin but, any reasonable being should hold everything to proper analysis and critique. Not only do we question our parents but we also often act out against them when they try to play two-face. From my evaluation of religions, morality (especially from those of the Abrahamic/Mosaic religions), I find a near perfect analogy with respect to its failings as I observe with human parenting. Coincidence... ? I think not. — BrianW

Sure. I do this too. Now you are saying what you do. That you want to analyze and judge. Fine.

That's different from presenting the case as if you have shown that we can be sure there is a problem with God if there is one.

One is saying how you want to live and why. And I happen to live that way also.
The other is saying that we can demonstrate that God is fallible or not good.

I do the former. I do not think we can do the latter. The latter is a claim to infallibility also on an issue where we are pretty limited.

Ok, I think we're digressing from the original point: If God did as humans do, and played the deniability card or masked His actions under probabilities and possibilities, then I wouldn't have a problem with it. But, as presented in the respective scriptures, God's actions are definitive and intentional and God is depicted as absolute in power and knowledge. I'm not referring to cosmic/universal situations, just the human interactions, only activities within the human range of abilities and the fact that God seems to act against the standards He wants to set.
Can anyone impart discipline which they do not adhere to? The answer, from human experience, has been a resounding NO. If only that God possessed that knowledge.

How about this: In the Bible, 1 Corinthians 13:4-7 New International Version (NIV), it says:-

4 Love is patient, love is kind. It does not envy, it does not boast, it is not proud. 5 It does not dishonor others, it is not self-seeking, it is not easily angered, it keeps no record of wrongs. 6 Love does not delight in evil but rejoices with the truth. 7 It always protects, always trusts, always hopes, always perseveres.

After reading that I'm thinking, there's no way the biblical God could claim to be love, right... ?

I'm a big believer in circumspect and perspective but I'm having a hard time reconciling God with the definition of love given in that verse.

Ok, so, yeah, God is superior to humans and has reasons and purposes beyond what humans could comprehend. But, still, this is a human 'playground' with human interactions. He should know best of all the consequences of His actions as well as our reactions from His influences. The narratives of the respective scriptures are not just a testament of God's might but more pronouncedly of His failure to reach human hearts and minds. With all that power and knowledge, one would assume, expect, nay believe in automatic success... how terribly mistaken they would be.

God has the superior task of guiding humanity, much like a parent guides their child. And just like a child must sometimes be spanked, so must God sometimes discipline humanity. Not because it is desirable, but because it is necessary.

Whiny Israelites, whinging Romans, bitching Greeks, sniveling Christians, peculiar pagans -- to hell with the lot of them. — Bitter Crank

haha, indeed. Don't forget those grousing atheist philosophy amateurs with vaguely Chinese sounding user-names.

Hint, hint: they did -- all of it. Presumably. Unless YHWH was actually dictating the text. — Bitter Crank

I respect your reasoning/knowledge/thought process (in general, not just this thread), but I don't quite understand your Christianity. You almost seem to be culturally christian, but less so on the supernatural (but not entirely absent?). Are your beliefs anything like Thomas Jefferson who took all the miracles out of his bible? That does not seem quite right.

If this does not seem overly personal, I am interested...but as I can't say for sure what I will learn and how it will help me going forward...I will understand being ignored :smile:

Can anyone impart discipline which they do not adhere to? The answer, from human experience, has been a resounding NO. — BrianW

Of course, they do this. In school I was not allowed to defend myself physically. The teachers, at least many of them would if they were attacked on the street. A fight between kids, both kids got suspended, period. Parents can give orders which children must follow. They on the other hand need not follow the orders of children. Police can decide to put me in the back of a car in handcuffs and cart me off overnight. I cannot decide to do that to them. They can even make and error but not be punished if they followed their rules. I cannot do it to them even in many situations where it would not be an error. There is no situation where I can kill a lot of people including innocent ones. Governments and military leaders can do this. I am mentioning examples where I think most people see this and most people consider this to often be correct, though sometimes it can be wrong.

I won't repeat this again. I don't understand why you cannot see this phenomenon. All over the earth in every culture ever, some people get to do things they can tell others not to do, and people go along with this. Not always. They can hate this dictator, etc. But there is absolutely no rule. We humans, as a rule, as a rule, have many situations where because of age, knowledge, skills, roles, we allow people to do things most people are not allowed to do. And these people are leaders on various scales.

The concept is not considered wrong per se. It is all over the place.

Can anyone impart discipline which they do not adhere to? The answer is a resounding yes. And what I mean here is not only that they can and do, but even that most humans think this is ok in many circumstances.

But I will stop here. I feel like I am pointing at something so obvious and it keeps getting denied in new wordings.

Have I now proved that God must be good? no. Have I now proved that there is no problem of evil? no.

Have I demonstrated that the idea that this is incorrect...
Can anyone impart discipline which they do not adhere to? The answer, from human experience, has been a resounding NO

Oh, yeah.

Your response has been that we are critical in many cases. Well, sure, humans are not gods. Humans will make mistakes in the application of a general principle that we accept. IOW sometimes they will do this in ways that are not good. But then humans are not deities. Have I proven there are deities? no. Have I proven that if there is a deity, he must be a good one? No.

Have I demonstrated that ruling out per se that one cannot impart discipline which they do not adhere to? Oh yeah. I've even gone a step beyond. We not only all accept this, with people with certain skills, roles, experience, etc. we see it as necessary.