Why the sacrifice had to occur

[Dcopymope]

Sometimes believers and non-believers alike will ask certain philosophical questions about why God did this or that, which is why I am posting this in the Apologetic's forum. The typical types of questions I see asked that many Christians find themselves difficult to give a satisfactory answer to if they can answer them at all basically boils down to these:

1. If God only wanted Adam and Eve to eat from the tree of life, why bother planting the tree of the knowledge of good and evil to start with, especially knowing they were going to disobey since he is omniscient?

2. Since Adam and Eve disobeyed God, why didn't he just destroy them and start over? Why didn't he do the same to Satan?

In other words, "why did God allow the fall to occur?" is the question. I posted another thread about this subject before long ago, but I really wasn't satisfied with it, so I'm giving it another shot. Often, people end up going around the block to cross the street even though the answer is sitting right in front of their faces starting from the very beginning of the book. When speaking about the death and resurrection of Jesus, the true reason as to exactly why he had to be sacrificed is often overlooked in relation to the garden of Eden. There is a very good reason why the tree is called the "knowledge of good and evil".

Jesus himself makes it very clear that transgression against the law actually starts in the heart, not in action. The law says thou shalt not do this or that, but Jesus takes it even further from simply "doing" what is forbidden, to also thinking of doing what is forbidden, in your mind. From Gods point of view, you already sinned the moment you even thought about it. This explains why Satan already sinned the moment "iniquity was found within him", according to Ezekiel.

(Matthew 5:27-28) "¶ Ye have heard that it was said by them of old time, Thou shalt not commit adultery: {28} But I say unto you, That whosoever looketh on a woman to lust after her hath committed adultery with her already in his heart."

(Ezekiel 28:14-15) "Thou art the anointed cherub that covereth; and I have set thee so: thou wast upon the holy mountain of God; thou hast walked up and down in the midst of the stones of fire. {15} Thou wast perfect in thy ways from the day that thou wast created, till iniquity was found in thee."

This is the true reason why Jesus was sent, to eradicate the knowledge of good and evil, and it should be the basis for answering all of the more difficult questions people often ask, because I personally don’t see any other way to answer them convincingly. Assuming God decided not to plant the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, the only thing that would have done was postpone what God already knew was inevitable. The fall, or the knowledge of sin cropping up within Adam and Eve was going to happen regardless if there was a tree or not. We can know this for sure because the fall already occurred in heaven with Satan, and it doesn’t put the blame on a tree for his fall into iniquity. This also addresses the second question. Could God have started over with another Adam, Eve and new earth? Sure, but I am 100% certain that God wouldn’t have allowed things to continue as they were if he actually had a choice.

Yes, I said it, God didn’t have a choice in the matter, because the truth is, the whole creation is doomed without Jesus. I can appease the Hebrew Israelite/old testament only folks and take Jesus out of the picture for the sake of the hypothetical. We now only have old testament history, and perhaps revelation, minus Jesus. God judges every soul and destroys the old earth for a new heaven, earth and new Jerusalem. Those whose names were in the book of life are once again made sinless, or “perfect in thy ways” like Satan was, or “good” like Adam and Eve was. We can even take it a step further and say that God rewards all those in the book of life with the much vaunted “glorified body”, that contrary to popular opinion has nothing to do with being made sinless, but everything to do with being made immortal like angels are.

(Luke 20:34-38) "And Jesus answering said unto them, The children of this world marry, and are given in marriage: {35} But they which shall be accounted worthy to obtain that world, and the resurrection from the dead, neither marry, nor are given in marriage: {36} Neither can they die any more: for they are equal unto the angels; and are the children of God, being the children of the resurrection. {37} Now that the dead are raised, even Moses shewed at the bush, when he calleth the Lord the God of Abraham, and the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob. {38} For he is not a God of the dead, but of the living: for all live unto him."

Now understanding this, what exactly did God achieve in this hypothetical scenario? Was the knowledge of sin addressed by him simply creating a new earth and granting you immortality? The truth is it wouldn’t have accomplished a damn thing. Sooner or later, the knowledge of sin would have corrupted the creation in the new earth yet again. God didn’t need a tree of life for Adam and Eve to live forever, because he could have created them immortal like the angels in heaven from the get go if he really wanted to.

The reason why he didn’t is simple, he knew the future and he planned accordingly, God is not a moron. This is the crucial point of doctrine that the old testament only crowd and many Christians alike are not getting. When the Bible speaks of the “regeneration”, it is not really referring to you personally becoming sinless in this life, but is in fact referring to the end times creation of a new heaven and earth, and the old earth passing away along with sin, never again coming to mind, keyword being mind. None of this would be possible without Jesus, because he is the "regeneration", it is only his Resurrection that truly makes everything new. When people understand this, they will begin to see just how profound his death and resurrection really was.

(Isaiah 65:16-19) "That he who blesseth himself in the earth shall bless himself in the God of truth; and he that sweareth in the earth shall swear by the God of truth; because the former troubles are forgotten, and because they are hid from mine eyes. {17} ¶ For, behold, I create new heavens and a new earth: and the former shall not be remembered, nor come into mind. {18} But be ye glad and rejoice for ever in that which I create: for, behold, I create Jerusalem a rejoicing, and her people a joy. {19} And I will rejoice in Jerusalem, and joy in my people: and the voice of weeping shall be no more heard in her, nor the voice of crying."

(Revelation 21:1-5) "And I saw a new heaven and a new earth: for the first heaven and the first earth were passed away; and there was no more sea. {2} And I John saw the holy city, new Jerusalem, coming down from God out of heaven, prepared as a bride adorned for her husband. {3} And I heard a great voice out of heaven saying, Behold, the tabernacle of God is with men, and he will dwell with them, and they shall be his people, and God himself shall be with them, and be their God. {4} And God shall wipe away all tears from their eyes; and there shall be no more death, neither sorrow, nor crying, neither shall there be any more pain: for the former things are passed away. {5} And he that sat upon the throne said, Behold, I make all things new. And he said unto me, Write: for these words are true and faithful."

 

[DNB]

Sometimes believers and non-believers alike will ask certain philosophical questions about why God did this or that, which is why I am posting this in the Apologetic's forum. The typical types of questions I see asked that many Christians find themselves difficult to give a satisfactory answer to if they can answer them at all basically boils down to these:

This is the true reason why Jesus was sent, to eradicate the knowledge of good and evil, and it should be the basis for answering all of the more difficult questions people often ask, because I personally don’t see any other way to answer them convincingly. Assuming God decided not to plant the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, the only thing that would have done was postpone what God already knew was inevitable. The fall, or the knowledge of sin cropping up within Adam and Eve was going to happen regardless if there was a tree or not. We can know this for sure because the fall already occurred in heaven with Satan, and it doesn’t put the blame on a tree for his fall into iniquity. This also addresses the second question. Could God have started over with another Adam, Eve and new earth? Sure, but I am 100% certain that God wouldn’t have allowed things to continue as they were if he actually had a choice.

The reason why he didn’t is simple, he knew the future and he planned accordingly, God is not a moron. This is the crucial point of doctrine that the old testament only crowd and many Christians alike are not getting. When the Bible speaks of the “regeneration”, it is not really referring to you personally becoming sinless in this life, but is in fact referring to the end times creation of a new heaven and earth, and the old earth passing away along with sin, never again coming to mind, keyword being mind. None of this would be possible without Jesus, because he is the "regeneration", it is only his Resurrection that truly makes everything new. When people understand this, they will begin to see just how profound his death and resurrection really was.

Hi Dcopymope, excellent post, a very critical question, with an extremely reasonable response!
Excuse my naiveté on the issue, as I haven't spend a great deal of time attempting to work the perceived conundrums out, that you very insightfully addressed.
In short, I always offered this type of response, in attempt to understand the meaning behind this somewhat antithetical plan of God's.
Love can only be sincere, if it is free and uncoerced. Thus, man has free will.
But, any mortal, finite and fallible creature will always try to surpass the boundaries, defy his limitations, attain to the lofty. He will never appreciate such profundity of existence and love, gifts freely given by God, until forced to do so.
And thus, God's plan was not meant to entrap Adam & Eve, but to expose their shortcomings. For, had you asked them a day before the Fall, if they would ever do such a thing, there answer would have been a definitive 'no'. Just as all the Apostles emphatically did, hours before Christ's passion.
Secular creatures, must learn the hard way of their intrinsically subordinate position, in any type of universe.
So for God to play out history in the manner that he did, reveals the creature's defiance, and subsequently and especially, God's mercy.

That is, I'm not convinced that God's gift of life and love, that he has offered to all mankind, would ever be appreciated to the extent that it should be, by merely 'spoiling' someone with it, without the opportunity to reject it. God had to expose to us, exactly where such fallible creatures stand with such a transcendent and omnipotent being as God.

But my understanding of the situation has more depth to it. Christ was the first-born of creation. God did not want a family and sent his Son to save us, as is often said. But rather, God wanted a Son, and for his Son he created us, but, chronologically speaking, he played this out in history in reverse order. The mystery is in Christ's chronology, not his ontology.

Therefore, Christ did not earn his eminence by dying on the cross, but proved it, by his total obedience and unadulterated love for God. Thus, he proved Adam guilty by showing that God's demand to refrain from the tree, was not beyond Adam's ability to obey, and consequently, neither was it unjust on God's part to tempt them.
And because Jesus loved God in a manner that none of us have been able to, but is reasonable and incumbent upon us to do so, our admiration for him is fully warranted and justified.

 

[Dcopymope]

Hi Dcopymope, excellent post, a very critical question, with an extremely reasonable response!
Excuse my naiveté on the issue, as I haven't spend a great deal of time attempting to work the perceived conundrums out, that you very insightfully addressed.
In short, I always offered this type of response, in attempt to understand the meaning behind this somewhat antithetical plan of God's.
Love can only be sincere, if it is free and uncoerced. Thus, man has free will.
But, any mortal, finite and fallible creature will always try to surpass the boundaries, defy his limitations, attain to the lofty. He will never appreciate such profundity of existence and love, gifts freely given by God, until forced to do so.
And thus, God's plan was not meant to entrap Adam & Eve, but to expose their shortcomings. For, had you asked them a day before the Fall, if they would ever do such a thing, there answer would have been a definitive 'no'. Just as all the Apostles emphatically did, hours before Christ's passion.
Secular creatures, must learn the hard way of their intrinsically subordinate position, in any type of universe.
So for God to play out history in the manner that he did, reveals the creature's defiance, and subsequently and especially, God's mercy.

That is, I'm not convinced that God's gift of life and love, that he has offered to all mankind, would ever be appreciated to the extent that it should be, by merely 'spoiling' someone with it, without the opportunity to reject it. God had to expose to us, exactly where such fallible creatures stand with such a transcendent and omnipotent being as God.

Right, well the age old discussion of free will is what people immediately jump to when having these types of discussions. The thing is, we can't even begin to understand the nature of free will without understanding how knowledge is obtained first from Gods perspective. From his perspective, there is a difference between free will and knowledge. In the new heaven and earth, we will still very much have free will, nothing in scripture states the contrary. The only thing about our free will that changes is our ability to obtain the knowledge of sin. Some people have proposed that Adam & Eve already had the ability to judge what was right and what was wrong on reason of Gods command on what they were and were not allowed to eat in the garden.

They propose that the issue being described with the Eden story was that Adam and Eve decided for themselves what was good or bad based on their own understanding instead of letting God decide for them. My argument is this, me being commanded to do something doesn't mean I actually understand why. All Adam and Eve was told was that they would die if they ate from that tree. It wouldn't have been possible for them to conceptualize what sin was, because, for one, they were made without sin, or "good", and for two, it didn't even exist in the six day creation from the get go, as Paul states below. At that point, the only being in existence that could have understood the full ramifications of sin was God.

(Romans 5:11-12) "And not only so, but we also joy in God through our Lord Jesus Christ, by whom we have now received the atonement. {12} Wherefore, as by one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin; and so death passed upon all men, for that all have sinned:"

So it wasn't necessarily our ability to make judgement's on what is good or evil that God had an issue with, but our ability to gain the knowledge of it in the first place. Its about understanding what comes first when discussing free will, the chicken or the egg. The egg is our ability to freely judge what is good and evil, and the chicken is the very knowledge of it. This is why the prophet Isaiah states that this current world and the sin in it won't even come to mind in the new world to come. So our ability to judge what is good and evil will no longer be of concern to God since the very knowledge of it won't even come to mind to begin with.

But my understanding of the situation has more depth to it. Christ was the first-born of creation. God did not want a family and sent his Son to save us, as is often said. But rather, God wanted a Son, and for his Son he created us, but, chronologically speaking, he played this out in history in reverse order. The mystery is in Christ's chronology, not his ontology.

Therefore, Christ did not earn his eminence by dying on the cross, but proved it, by his total obedience and unadulterated love for God. Thus, he proved Adam guilty by showing that God's demand to refrain from the tree, was not beyond Adam's ability to obey, and consequently, neither was it unjust on God's part to tempt them.
And because Jesus loved God in a manner that none of us have been able to, but is reasonable and incumbent upon us to do so, our admiration for him is fully warranted and justified.

To clarify, the way I understood Christ being the first born of every creature is that it wasn't referring to him being the first in a literal sense. John states that Jesus was God, and with God in the very beginning, so he couldn't have been born, since his existence goes back into infinity, and he certainly couldn't have been created because of it with him being "the word". By first born, Paul meant the first creature to be redeemed from captivity in sin.

(Colossians 1:12-20) "Giving thanks unto the Father, which hath made us meet to be partakers of the inheritance of the saints in light: {13} Who hath delivered us from the power of darkness, and hath translated us into the kingdom of his dear Son: {14} In whom we have redemption through his blood, even the forgiveness of sins: {15} Who is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of every creature: {16} For by him were all things created, that are in heaven, and that are in earth, visible and invisible, whether they be thrones, or dominions, or principalities, or powers: all things were created by him, and for him: {17} And he is before all things, and by him all things consist. {18} And he is the head of the body, the church: who is the beginning, the firstborn from the dead; that in all things he might have the preeminence. {19} For it pleased the Father that in him should all fulness dwell; {20} And, having made peace through the blood of his cross, by him to reconcile all things unto himself; by him, I say, whether they be things in earth, or things in heaven."

And while I agree that Jesus proved Adam guilty by his obedience, showing that Adam was really without excuse, I do not agree that God tempted them, because God does not tempt. I don't consider the threat of death for disobeying his command as tempting them, but quite the exact opposite. It was Satan that led them into temptation with his lies.

(James 1:13-15) "Let no man say when he is tempted, I am tempted of God: for God cannot be tempted with evil, neither tempteth he any man: {14} But every man is tempted, when he is drawn away of his own lust, and enticed. {15} Then when lust hath conceived, it bringeth forth sin: and sin, when it is finished, bringeth forth death."

Also, notice how this scripture further strengthens my viewpoint on the knowledge of sin, the true reason for the sacrifice. James clearly states that sin doesn't just pop into existence from nowhere. It has to have a beginning, it has to be conceptualized, which is something that is done in the mind. God won't have to worry about this happening ever again in the world to come.

 

[DNB]

Sorry, it's late, I'm going to write very abruptly....

Some people have proposed that Adam & Eve already had the ability to judge what was right and what was wrong on reason of Gods command on what they were and were not allowed to eat in the garden.
My argument is this, me being commanded to do something doesn't mean I actually understand why. All Adam and Eve was told was that they would die if they ate from that tree. It wouldn't have been possible for them to conceptualize what sin was, because, for one, they were made without sin, or "good"

Simple obedience to their Creator would have sufficed to allay God's wrath. Appreciating the full ramifications of the prohibition, should not have been requisite to seek God's approval. Just as a child should implicitly trust their parent's precepts, without comprehending the consequences.

At that point, the only being in existence that could have understood the full ramifications of sin was God.

For the sake of argument, ...and the whole heavenly host, including Satan, the serpent.

So our ability to judge what is good and evil will no longer be of concern to God since the very knowledge of it won't even come to mind to begin with.

I'm from the position that we will know good and evil, but perfect wisdom, will always desire the good and disdain the evil. Wickedness only tempts the naive mind, for wise and mature people recognize the hedonism, vice, and subversiveness of sin. It's not an attraction to those made perfect.

John states that Jesus was God, and with God in the very beginning, so he couldn't have been born, since his existence goes back into infinity, and he certainly couldn't have been created because of it with him being "the word".

John was using the literary form of antanaclasis i.e. using the same word several times in a sentence, but each time with a different meaning. John is explaining that after 4,000 years of history, God is finally revealing what He intended from the beginning. Christ was not an afterthought, and the Garden of Eden was not a failed attempt of God, to create a paradise for man. John is affirming that this man, born in the 1st century, was God's first-born, not Adam.

By first born, Paul meant the first creature to be redeemed from captivity in sin.

First-born from the dead, or first-fruits, are the expressions that convey that principle.

For as in Adam all die, so also in Christ shall all be made alive. But each in his own order: Christ the first fruits, then at his coming those who belong to Christ. (1 Corinthians 15:20)

He is the head of the body, the church. He is the beginning, the firstborn from the dead, that in everything he might be preeminent. (Colossians 1:18)

Grace to you and peace from him who is and who was and who is to come, and from the seven spirits who are before his throne, and from Jesus Christ the faithful witness, the firstborn of the dead, and the ruler of kings on earth. (Revelation 1:4)

For those whom he foreknew he also predestined to be conformed to the image of his Son, in order that he might be the firstborn among many brothers. (Romans 8:29)

He is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of all creation. (Colossians 1:15)

And while I agree that Jesus proved Adam guilty by his obedience, showing that Adam was really without excuse, I do not agree that God tempted them, because God does not tempt. I don't consider the threat of death for disobeying his command as tempting them, but quite the exact opposite. It was Satan that led them into temptation with his lies.

God stipulated the prohibition, therefore it was He who placed the first humans in a position of obedience or defiance. Like I said, i don't consider it entrapment, for God does not allow temptation beyond one's means. But it was for exposure.
Creatures have to know whee they stand with their Creator. Thus, the knowledge of disobedience and contempt, truly defines where one' heart lies. It's one thing for a man to be loved by a woman, when there's no other men around. But, thicken the plot with more options, and soon we will see the true fidelity of the person. So that, to not place Adam & Eve in a position where they have to display where their true desires lie, would be deceptive in a way. We'd never know where God stood with them, in their eyes. Just as the Apostles were with Jesus in the Garden before his arrest. For had they not been there, they would be denying their abandonment of him, to this day.

 

[Episkopos]

The easy answer....to destroy the work of the devil. To win back mankind to God.

 

[Dcopymope]

The easy answer....to destroy the work of the devil. To win back mankind to God.

Yes, that's the straightforward answer, but its often not an answer good enough specifically for the non-believer in my experience. The problem with this answer is the buck stops with Satan. They will then ask why God didn't end Satan the moment he started getting uppity to start with. My answer to that is simple, its because the issue is in fact far bigger than Satan. It doesn't address the knowledge of sin arising within the heart or in the mind of the creation, which brings forth its fall into iniquity. Because of this, destroying Satan wouldn't guarantee another one rearing his ugly head later on. It would be an effort in futility, even in our current timeline with Jesus in the narrative. The answer to why this is the case is in the O.P, as long as this world exists, so will sin. In the end, the only thing that matters is the regeneration event, which is not the Lords resurrection, or the Lords second coming, but when heaven and earth passes away in replacement for the heaven and earth to come, which again, is only truly a "new" creation because of his resurrection making everything new, not in spite of it.

 

[Truth OT]

The fall, or the knowledge of sin cropping up within Adam and Eve

You are equating the knowledge of sin with the fall as opposed to the fall being the disobedience to a direct command of God. What is the basis for you to come to such a conclusion?

This explains why Satan already sinned the moment "iniquity was found within him", according to Ezekiel.

In the NT, it definitely says the enemy was a liar fro the beginning, but Ezekiel 28 doesn't mention the devil.

I don't consider the threat of death for disobeying his command as tempting them, but quite the exact opposite. It was Satan that led them into temptation with his lies.

I try to refrain from pointing to God's flaws, so instead of doing that I will use this as an example of how the writers of the scriptures cannot be trusted in their depictions of God. This garden narrative is just not well thought out, has plot holes, and makes one question the competency of God. If indeed a god does exist, it would find much of what is written in scripture blasphemous and a stain to its charactor! SO much of what is in scripture wreaks of man's inspiration.

 

[Dcopymope]

You are equating the knowledge of sin with the fall as opposed to the fall being the disobedience to a direct command of God. What is the basis for you to come to such a conclusion?

Well giving a direct command doesn't guarantee it will be followed, we were created with free will after all (there goes the discussion of free will again). If God was really that concerned about their disobedience, knowing full well what was going to happen being omniscient, he might as well had just made us more like automatons, unthinking beings, who only perform whatever action we are programmed to do like he programmed the tree in your backyard to only react to certain stimuli from the environment. But then, that would contradict the statement that we were made in his image, after his likeness, because God is obviously not an automaton. We can know for certain that the arrangement was never going to last no matter what. The reason why is in fact directly stated in scripture, its just a matter of understanding the full ramifications of the knowledge of sin when reading scriptures like this.

(Jeremiah 31:31-34) "¶ Behold, the days come, saith the LORD, that I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel, and with the house of Judah: {32} Not according to the covenant that I made with their fathers in the day that I took them by the hand to bring them out of the land of Egypt; which my covenant they brake, although I was an husband unto them, saith the LORD: {33} But this shall be the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel; After those days, saith the LORD, I will put my law in their inward parts, and write it in their hearts; and will be their God, and they shall be my people. {34} And they shall teach no more every man his neighbour, and every man his brother, saying, Know the LORD: for they shall all know me, from the least of them unto the greatest of them, saith the LORD: for I will forgive their iniquity, and I will remember their sin no more."

This is why the whole thing was fubar from the get go right here. The "law" was never written in the heart of Adam and Eve. Normally when we speak of "the law", its always in relation to Moses receiving it on mount Sinai, as if "the law" never existed before that. The law is not just something written down on a piece of paper, or written in stone. He got it from God to start with, because God is the law, he is the standard we are to live by. Adam and Eve may have been made "good", without sin like God is, but that didn't make them impervious to sin like him. Satan may have been made sinless like the rest of the angels, it doesn't mean they were bullet proof. This is where Jesus comes into the picture, to make us bullet proof, by writing the law in our heart, where transgression against the law begins.

I try to refrain from pointing to God's flaws, so instead of doing that I will use this as an example of how the writers of the scriptures cannot be trusted in their depictions of God. This garden narrative is just not well thought out, has plot holes, and makes one question the competency of God. If indeed a god does exist, it would find much of what is written in scripture blasphemous and a stain to its charactor! SO much of what is in scripture wreaks of man's inspiration.

Nothing wrong with the narrative at all as I see it. To say there is a flaw is to also claim that God has flaws with him being the central figure in the entire story. This also indicates a flaw in the way we were designed. The design was in fact fine exactly as it was, and will in fact remain the same way in the new earth to come, minus the saints since they are promised a new body, which again, is not intended to address our ability to sin. Nothing about our free will changes, or our ability to make decisions for ourselves. The only thing that changes that actually matters is our ability to gain the "knowledge of good and evil", which most people don't realize is exactly what the entire book is about at its core. Once this is understood, the rest of the book becomes much easier to comprehend.

 

[Stumpmaster]

Could God have started over with another Adam, Eve and new earth? Sure, but I am 100% certain that God wouldn’t have allowed things to continue as they were if he actually had a choice.

 

[Dcopymope]

View attachment 8736

What is the heart of man? I liken the heart of man to a computer without an antivirus system, and the antivirus system is "the law". Since there was no antivirus system, or "law" installed on the heart of Adam and Eve preventing the very knowledge of sin from being conceptualized, it was only a matter of time for it to be compromised by a virus, or sin. The computer may have been designed "perfect in thy ways", without any infections, but that in itself doesn't make it impervious to malware. Likewise, Adam and Eve may have been designed as "good", and Satan may have been designed as "perfect", doesn't make it impervious to sin, like God is. Yes, we all sin because we can, but since we now have an antivirus system, that being Jesus, our ability to sin will no longer be of concern to God on the new earth to come. God restarting with a new creation without Jesus is like performing a clean install of your computers operating system without a good antivirus program installed. It would be a waste of time, because there is nothing there in place to stop the same thing from happening again.

 

[Truth OT]

God is the law, he is the standard we are to live by.

Actually, God would have to be above the boundary of law. He could cause calamity that no man could get away with causing. God is by no means the standard, but instead is depicted as the arbiter that has the priviledge of saying "do what I say, don't do what I do."

 

[Justadude]

Actually, God would have to be above the boundary of law. He could cause calamity that no man could get away with causing. God is by no means the standard, but instead is depicted as the arbiter that has the priviledge of saying "do what I say, don't do what I do."

I'm always surprised to see Bible-believing Christians argue that the God of the Bible is a moral standard we should try and live by. It makes me wonder if they've even read the Bible.

 

[Dcopymope]

Actually, God would have to be above the boundary of law. He could cause calamity that no man could get away with causing. God is by no means the standard, but instead is depicted as the arbiter that has the priviledge of saying "do what I say, don't do what I do."

I'm always surprised to see Bible-believing Christians argue that the God of the Bible is a moral standard we should try and live by. It makes me wonder if they've even read the Bible.

Yes, I clearly have read the Bible, and this is a response to both of you.

(1 Peter 2:21-25) "For even hereunto were ye called: because Christ also suffered for us, leaving us an example, that ye should follow his steps: {22} Who did no sin, neither was guile found in his mouth: {23} Who, when he was reviled, reviled not again; when he suffered, he threatened not; but committed himself to him that judgeth righteously: {24} Who his own self bare our sins in his own body on the tree, that we, being dead to sins, should live unto righteousness: by whose stripes ye were healed. {25} For ye were as sheep going astray; but are now returned unto the Shepherd and Bishop of your souls."

And by Jesus Christ being the word made flesh who was God and with God in the beginning, if you claim to be Christian, if you are going to claim to have the holy spirit within you, then you are claiming that Jesus is your Lord and Savior, therefore, you are expected to live up to his standard. If you have the spirit of God himself, then it shouldn't be too hard for you do the following, otherwise you have no business calling yourself a christian to start with.

(Galatians 5:19-25) "Now the works of the flesh are manifest, which are these; Adultery, fornication, uncleanness, lasciviousness, {20} Idolatry, witchcraft, hatred, variance, emulations, wrath, strife, seditions, heresies, {21} Envyings, murders, drunkenness, revellings, and such like: of the which I tell you before, as I have also told you in time past, that they which do such things shall not inherit the kingdom of God. {22} But the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, longsuffering, gentleness, goodness, faith, {23} Meekness, temperance: against such there is no law. {24} And they that are Christ’s have crucified the flesh with the affections and lusts. {25} If we live in the Spirit, let us also walk in the Spirit."

You might as well call yourself something else and quit it with the pretense because God is in fact not your standard. You aren't fooling me, and you sure as hell ain't fooling God.

 

[Justadude]

Yes, I clearly have read the Bible, and this is a response to both of you.



And by Jesus Christ being the word made flesh who was God and with God in the beginning, if you claim to be Christian, if you are going to claim to have the holy spirit within you, then you are claiming that Jesus is your Lord and Savior, therefore, you are expected to live up to his standard. If you have the spirit of God himself, then it shouldn't be too hard for you do the following, otherwise you have no business calling yourself a christian to start with.



You might as well call yourself something else and quit it with the pretense because God is in fact not your standard. You aren't fooling me, and you sure as hell ain't fooling God.

You may be missing the point. Neither I nor @Truth OT are claiming to be Christian. I questioned the notion of looking to the God of the Bible as a "moral standard", given some of the truly awful things that God is depicted as doing.

 

[Dcopymope]

You may be missing the point. Neither I nor @Truth OT are claiming to be Christian. I questioned the notion of looking to the God of the Bible as a "moral standard", given some of the truly awful things that God is depicted as doing.

Yes, well aware you are calling yourself "Agnostics". And "awful" according to who exactly? On one hand, God destroys the enemies of man, and his plan for salvation, and people whine like little wimps about it, calling God a psychopath for doing what needed to be done. Now here we are today, and now God is a monster because he doesn’t destroy the laundry list of monsters like Hitler, Stalin, Tojo, Isis, etc. Which one is it? God is damned if does, damned if he doesn't. Really, you can save that double minded foolishness for another thread, its off topic anyway.

 

[Justadude]

Yes, well aware you are calling yourself "Agnostics". And "awful" according to who exactly?

Most of humanity sees going into towns and killing every man, woman, and child, while keeping the young girls you find attractive for your own use, as "awful". Downright monstrous and evil in fact.

On one hand, God destroys the enemies of man, and his plan for salvation, and people whine like little wimps about it, calling God a psychopath for doing what needed to be done. Now here we are today, and now God is a monster because he doesn’t destroy the laundry list of monsters like Hitler, Stalin, Tojo, Isis, etc. Which one is it? God is damned if does, damned if he doesn't. Really, you can save that double minded foolishness for another thread, its off topic anyway.

See above. I'm pretty sure if a group came to your town and said God had commanded them to kill everyone, no one would just say "Okay then, since God has commanded you to do so and since God is always moral, go right ahead".