Of another world

[davem]

Originally Posted by littlemanpoet

So God judges humans based on our choices, and our deeds. Adam chose their own way rather than obedience. Each of us chooses whether to believe God or disbelieve God. We mustn't be misled about this. Belief or unbelief are choices. To say "I cannot bring myself to believe in God because: (fill in the blank)", is to say "I'm making a choice based on this set of standards or principles." We're setting up standards by which we are judging the veracity of God's claims. This is to place our understanding in a superior position vis-a-vis God. And this is precisely the same choice Adam made.

Belief is a choice.

As to the Flood - I think the problem we have is not simply that God killed evil people, but that He killed everybody & everything - including children & animals.

To your final point, I think that one could argue that God must be bound by a moral code of right & wrong, & that He cannot simply set aside those rules. If killing en masse, holocausts, 'ethnic cleansing' are wrong they are wrong - whoever does them. If those rules, that moral code, has been laid down by God He cannot simply ignore it when it suits. Jesus exhorts his followers to 'be like their Father in Heaven'. God cannot simply start over by mass slaughter of sentient beings. Giving free will to his children places a responsibility on Him.

I'd say its perfectly valid to judge God by the standards of Good & evil which He Himself set down or He is being hypocritical.

Perhaps the easiest explanation is that the Hebrews had inherited the tale of the Flood & attempted to account for it by involving God in it. Unfortunately, it makes God look bad. Or rather, it required them to make the victims look bad, so that they 'deserved' what they got.

In other words, we are not 'setting up standards by which we are judging the veracity of God's claims', we are simply requiring God to abide by the standards He Himself gave us.

What we come back to is the question of whether whatever God does is 'Good' simply because He does it, or whether there is an objective standard of morality which God also is bound - ie, not 'whatever God does is Good', but 'God only does Good because He acts within the moral code'. But what if He doesn't act within the Moral code - can His actions still be considered 'good'?

The problem I have with your argument is that we can never know where we stand with God, or what constitutes 'Good' at all. It makes God an amoral, arbitrary figure, who just does whatever the hell He wants & declares it 'Good'.

Belief or unbelief are choices.

No they aren't - unless belief is irrelevant to anything. Belief/unbelief is not like the choice between coffee or tea. Belief is a response, not a choice, & therefore it must be a response to something. It is a spiritual state or it is nothing worth bothering about. To just sort of shrug your shoulders & say 'Oh well, why not - I've nothing better to do' trivialises the whole thing. For me to decide now 'I'll believe in God' when I feel nothing of the sort is as valueless as my deciding 'I'll believe in aliens' or 'I'll believe in reincarnation' or 'I'll believe the moon's made of green cheese' ('whatever the scholars or the evidence says').