Is the god of the bible a moral being? [Spirituality & Religion]

@saintsong yeah, some where bad, so the omnipotent God had to kill everyone. During the plagues in Egypt he had the power to be super selective, but during the flood he just didn't want to bother to sort it all out. 😋

@Kwek00 If you actually read the account of the flood, you know that God only found 8 righteous people in the whole world. Estimates run that the population at the time of the flood was about 2 billion. 8 righteous out of 2 billion hardly qualifies as "some were bad"

@saintsong nobody kills babies, just in case they are going to turn out wicked
DO THEY?
Would you?

Let's not lose sight of the fact that these are made up stories . Otherwise humanity is doomed

@BiblicalWarrior
You are correct that I'm wrong. As you know, I'm not the best in theology.
But I don't think you are fully right either, doesnt Genesis 6:5-8 mention that God judged humanity as a whole "evil"?

6:5 reads: 5 The Lord saw how great the wickedness of the human race had become on the earth, and that [b]every[/b] inclination of the thoughts of the human heart was [b]only[/b] evil [b]all[/b] the time.

So Noah, doesn't really get a free pass here.

Then it goes on: 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."

That's true... but does not apply at the part when when the story actually takes place. If I'm correct, this is the introduction of a story of man who ended up a righteous man that walks with God. But when God choice Noah the bible reads:

6:11 Now the earth was corrupt in God’s sight and was full of violence. 12 God saw how corrupt the earth had become, for [b]all the people[/b] on earth had corrupted their ways.

When Noah at the point he was not choicen, was still part of "all of the people. So God gave him "Grace", and he ends up being what they say about him in 6:9. So maybe from all the others, there could be a few that could have gotten some Grace too? I don't believe why he mad this particulair choice is in there?

@Kwek00 no one can cite the good book like a devout atheist.
God bless you!

@Brianthesnail I'm not sure if I'm right tough. That's why I'm asking. But he's right about my joke, if you know your bible it doesnt make sense.

@Kwek00 I noticed you skipped over Gensis 6:8, and left out part fo verse 9. Genesis 6:8 "But noah found grace in they eyes of the Lord." Genesis 6:9 "These are the generations of Noah: Noah was a just man, and perfect in his generations, and Noah walked with God." Remember, if you go back a bit, you learn that Noah's great grandfather, Enoch, was the first man in history to enter heaven without dying because he walked so closely with God.

@BiblicalWarrior You are correct, but that doesn't change the argument. I left it out, because it doesnt change the time frame.

[b]6:8[/b]: But Noah found favor in the eyes of the Lord.

Finding "favor" in someones eyes, is not the same as being a good man. If Noah was a good a man from the start, he shouldn't need "favor". If Noah was adhering by the "norm" that God set out to evaluate man on being "good" or "evil" then Noah would be found "good". Since noah is good, he doesn't need "favor". It would be even more problematic that if you have to be good, and also need a "favor". That would mean that being "good" is not enough. Which (I think) the bible doesn't indicate in it's stories.

Hence the bible gives the read 6:5 and 6:11, wich are both constructed on "superlatives" (it doesnt give anny wiggle room at all). Meaning that "Noah" was not good, because he was part of humanity. But God favored him (for some reason 🤷‍♂️).

And then you can argue (because this is correct) that Noah descended from Enoch (who God apperently tought was A-okay). But then it's pretty strange that God find "favoritisme" as sort of a "friend of the family". But God still seems to be really condemning towards Noah (since all of humanity is bad), even though he reveals himself and tells Noah to build a ship.

[b]EDIT:[/b] I see you use another translation which says "grace". Which practically falls in line with what I said earlier in my last post. Point is that for some reason (that I don't think we really know, we can only guess, since it's not explicitly in there - that was my question btw in the last post) that God gave noah "grace" or "favored" him. It's still a "get out of the flood for free card" here. Since (as I showed) God deemed everyone bad at that time.

I'm pretty sure I quoted 6:9, but could be you are handling another translation there too.

@Kwek00 You are correct that I am using a different version of the Bible than you. I use the King James Version. To further the conversation. grace is defined as undeserved or unearned favour. None of us can earn, nor do we deserve God's favour or else it ceases to be grace and becomes wages owed. The plain and simple truth of Scripture, regardless of the version you use, is that God actually owes us nothing, but we owe Him everything.

@BiblicalWarrior So you agree with me that "Noah" found "Grace" (or favour). It feels that you are argreeing with me when you say: [i]"grace is defined as undeserved or unearned favour.".[/i]

Which I think makes my point? Because I don't really see a reason why this particular human being that was deemed "unworthy" got "grace". Because as you said, it's "undeserved" as in: there is no reason why Noah deserved favour.

[quote]None of us can earn, nor do we deserve God's favour or else it ceases to be grace and becomes wages owed.[/quote]

Exactly, grace is given by the grace of however gives it. It's not an obligation, it's granted. So the question stays open why for the 8 milion people, God decided to give "grace" to "favour" this one man with his family above all others even tough there is no line of text showing us that this man was diffrent then all the others. He ends up being diffrent, but when judgement was cast (as in, when God decided to flood his creation) there is no reason why this guy would be better then the other one. The only thing we have is the fact that he descends from Enoch, in which case we agree that god just likes Enoch family and has a problematic relationship with everyone else. We don't know this for sure, because it's not explicitly in the text, but the God of the bible does condemn Noah just like anny other human from that time, but for some reason gives "Grace".

This part also doesnt change my argument.

The last part:

[quote]The plain and simple truth of Scripture, regardless of the version you use, is that God actually owes us nothing, but we owe Him everything.[/quote]

Needs a way longer argument to flesh out. Because this has nothing to do with passing "Grace". What argument would you use to give foundation to the idea that we owe God everything? Cause this is something that can be discussed, even tough I'll probably have to start reading some more. But from the sources that I read, that is also a verry unclear position to take. But I can be wrong.

@Kwek00 To further explain my last point, as per your request: Without God, we would not exist, we could not breathe, we could not think, we could not act, our hearts could not beat. All that we are and have is from God, and as such is His, we are just caretakers, or to use a more modern term, managers of things that belong to God.

@BiblicalWarrior If find that a strange position to take. I'll tell you why. Since we are talking about the "origin" of mankind and the fact that we were bestowed with life as a a reason to ow someone everything. Don't you think that we need a bit more then that? That life alone is not enough to be trully thankfull. Isn't the way how you treat what you have given life also something to take in consideration?

To look at why God bestowed life, you actually have 2 accounts. You have the first and the second chapter of Genesis. And if we agree that the bible is consistent (which I actually do, to have a good story even tough you have to think about certain things and how they are able to relate) then you have to look at the two accounts as being consistent.

In Gensis 1, "God" shapes everything. But he didn't shape mankind for being His servant.

[quote][b]Genesis 1:26-29:[/b] 26. Then God said, "Let Us make man in Our image, according to Our likeness; let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, over the birds of the air, and over the cattle, over all the earth and over every creeping thing that creeps on the earth." 27. So God created man in His own image; in the image of God He created him; male and female He created them. 28. [b]Then God blessed them, and God said to them, "Be fruitful and multiply; fill the earth and subdue it; have dominion over the fish of the sea, over the birds of the air, and over every living thing that moves on the earth."[/b] 29. And God said, "See, I have given you every herb that yields seed which is on the face of all the earth, and every tree whose fruit yields seed; to you it shall be for food. [/quote]

God creates "man" in his "image". To subdue the earth, to dominante and to be fruitfull and multiply (which I guess is saying: have some fun you all). He also gives them everything, as a gift.

This narrative changes in the second chapter which sometimes feels like a totally diffrent story. But it's also the chapter that is incredibly important to understand the concept of "sin" in religions that build their church upon this narrative.

"God" also becomes "Lord God" from Genesis 2:4 and becomes "God" again later on. Which I don't believe is insignificant. It almost feels at times that these 2 are two diffrent individuals. But we know (because we agree the bible is consistent) that this is not the case. It's one being, but that being is heavily conflicted, almost to the point that it's scizophrenic at times.

This second account is also way more specific. It tells how man was made (by dust on the ground and he breathed life into him (2:7)), it talks about how the woman was made. It puts a lot more emphasis on certain aspects of the story. And it says about man:

[quote][b]Genesis 2:15-17:[/b] 15. [b]Then the Lord God took the man and put him in the garden of Eden to tend and keep it.[/b] 16. And the Lord God commanded the man, saying, "Of every tree of the garden you may freely eat; 17. but of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil you shall not eat, for in the day that you eat of it you shall surely die." [/quote]

Mans' nature changes. In the first part he was granted the earth and everything on it. In this part he was granted to "tend" the garden. It's not his, but he has to take care of it. And then God also says something that is not important to the argument, but you should at least think about which is: "in the day that you eat of it you shall surely die". Because if you take that sentence in it's literal sense then God lies to mankind. Because when they eat from the apple they did not die. But in a non-literal sense you can argue that what dies when you eat it, is mans purity because when God says this thing man has not yet eaten from the fruit. And so man doesn't know "good" from "evil". This part however, that man doesn't know "good" from "evil" is important to the rest of the story, because things just become more difficult once you start taking that into account.

God commands "man" to "not do something". A command to "not do something" only makes sense if the person that you say it too grasps the idea that by doing something that they "ought" not to do, is the same as crossing a moral line for the person that commands it. It's perceived "bad" to cross that line. But God says this to two human beings that have no perception of what is "bad" or "good". They are both innocent and not bestowed with the knowledge of "good and evil".

Then comes the entire "snake" episode who kinda debunks Gods literal-claim that they would surely die when they would eat the fruit. And the eyes of man opened and they knew "Good" from "Evil", because they sinned against Gods' command. Something they were unable to distinguish before, because they didn't have the knowledge? You would think that God would have given "man" this knowledge so that they at least would understand that they would be doing something wrong if they disobeyed. But this is not the case in the story as I read it. But please elaborate where I'm wrong because I'm not a christian and I don't do bible studies.

God comes back from his trip (who knows where he went) and calls out for man, because he doesnt know where they are (which is a bit theatrical for an omnipotent being, but okay, it reads like a good story so I'm all for it). Then you have something that is not in the first part of the story. God lashes out. Like passionatly. It's not poetry, it's just pure rage. He curses the snake, the woman and the man. But he starts with the snake.

Cursing of the snake: Genesis 3:14-15
Cursing of the woman: Genesis 3:16
Cursing of the male: Genesis 3:17-19

What is strange is that in the last part of the cursing, he also says that mankind will die and return to the ground. But this was already part of the plan since man wasn't meant to live forever. Genesis 3:22 reads:

[quote]22 Then the Lord God said, "Behold, the man has become like one of Us, to know good and evil. And now, lest he put out his hand and take also of the tree of life, and eat, and live forever"[/quote]

Which implicates that man was going to die annyway, unless he eats from the tree of life. Now man gets granted "eternal life" in the "afterlife" later on in the story if man abides by certain rules. But eternal life on earth was never in the plan. But it's nice of God to put some emphasis on the fact that we need to die (Genesis 3:19), so it's not really part of the curse more like saying what we should already know. But since it's the 2nd chapter of a story, the reader has to be made clear that we are talking in this perception of reality.

And then, after the passion, after the rage subsided and God did what he had to do. He takes pitty on his creation. He goes from "seriously angry" to "was this really nescesary" (what a lot of people experience btw after an emotional outburst). And then he does this:

[quote]21. Also for Adam and his wife the Lord God made tunics of skin, and clothed them.[/quote]

So instead of cooping with the fact that he ordered mankind to do something really strange: "obeying an order, if you don't know good from evil". And appologising for this strange twist in logic. He curses them in a fit of rage. But then he also seems to be aware that this is not the best way to go about it. Because he makes them clothes directly afterwards. As if there is some awareness here somewhere between the lines, but we can only "assume" because it's not explicitly in the story.


Hence why I argued earlier that there are people that argue "God" set it all up so man could fail the test. And the rest of the story can continu. If man just obeyed God, the story was over after chapter 1. No one needed to be casted out, and man inherrited the earth. But in chapter 2 we go on, and some strange things start to happen, some complexities turn up that makes people wonder if this wasn't all intended. If you think the bible is consistent (as I agreed we would do in the beginning) then this idea isn't so far fetched. If god in chapter 1 grants mankind the entire earth, then the complexity of chapter 2 has to get mankind out of the garden. How else are you ever going to do annything with the earth if you are stuck in the garden? Since God didn't gave human beings the complexity of evaluating "good" from "evil", how did mandkind ever understand that they were making a mistake by eating the fruit? Eating the fruit matures mankind, it goes from "infancy" to "maturity" by commiting sin and understanding "good" from "evil" as mankind becomes like "God" who also understands "good" from "evil". Man therefore becomes more a reflection of Gods image then it was at the beginning of the story. This entire process needs to be taken place because it seems (and this is the debate) that it was intended to happen.



Annyway... now I want to come back to your point, we need to thank God for everything because God gave us everything. I'm okay with the fact that if we reason within the dataset of the story that God indeed gave us everything (chapter 1) but he also gave us all the curses (chapter 2). After that God displays diffrent amounts of favouritism (sometimes without good reason) treats mankind pretty bad at times (like killing off 8 milion people in the flood alone). ... I mean at what point do we have to stop being thankfull for the theatrics? Some people are born in a family of which one or both of the parents are "disfunctional". You can still be thankfull that mom and dad gave you life, but this is not "everything". People still need to make it on their own (as God commanded us to do by cursing us and throwing us out of the garden). Some of the developments we made as human beings (even within the story) are not things God gave us, it's things we did by ourselves. Certain things are not there because of God but because we developed talents, learned to reason, learned to progress, etc.

And while in chapter 1, mankind seems like some sort of "companion" to God, in chapter 2 we become merely servants? Do we have to thank someone because we are there slave? That's a strange mentality to have, even if the master treats you well. And I think we can have a serious debate if the master treatened us well? He seems to fail at the moment he gives his first command, by giving a command to a creation (his creation) that doesn't understand that breaking the command is a "bad" thing to do?