How and why can people ignore their God’s immoral ways?

[Pat Mustard]

If you have read any of the critical books on God, you will have seen God described with some rather disingenuous terms that, if applied to a man, would see that man executed by any moral government in quick order.

See bolded. God isn't a man, so your point falls apart.

Why should we not hold god to the same standards as man? Is he that useless, that without morals or guidance that we must by necessity hold him to a lower standard?

I am with Vetinari on this one, if a creator does exist it is our essential duty to show that we are more moral than it. Given the way the unvierse works, that shouldn't be a hard task.

[Chad32]

Also, CL, if you believe Jesus was real, and Jesus is either the same guy as the god of the old testament, or worshiped him, then how can you say the old testament is just allegorical? I know it's the jewish part of the bible, and all, but it does take up the majority of your holy book, and is the first impression we get of this deity you worship. So it's a little hard to ignore here. It never sat well with me to just claim that the old testament was simple allegory, even when I was a christian. It's a big part of why I stopped being one.

Also why I spent a lot of time firmly believing the Jesus and Yahweh were seperate entities entirely. Because believing they're one kind of destroys my opinion of Jesus.

[LadyForCamus]

Because he told people to stay obedient to cruel masters. He sends mixed signals from time to time.

Was he talking to cruel masters and telling them that it  was ok to do cruel things? That wasn't the point of what he was saying.

Well, he certainly never told them not to.

[Edwardo Piet]

In all seriousness, if Jesus was real, and if he was really followed and looked up to, over 2000 years ago . . . then he no doubt owned slaves himself.

[Catholic_Lady]

Was he talking to cruel masters and telling them that it  was ok to do cruel things? That wasn't the point of what he was saying.

Well, he certainly never told them not to.

I think he made it pretty clear that He doesn't endorse cruelty when he gave His speeches instructing everyone to love their enemies, do good for others, etc.

---

In all seriousness, if Jesus was real, and if he was really followed and looked up to, over 2000 years ago . . . then he no doubt owned slaves himself.

He was poor and a carpenter. He was a Jew in a place that was ruled by the Romans. He didnt own slaves lol.

[Chad32]

Well, he certainly never told them not to.

I think he made it pretty clear that He doesn't endorse cruelty when he gave His speeches instructing everyone to love their enemies, do good for others, etc.

---

In all seriousness, if Jesus was real, and if he was really followed and looked up to, over 2000 years ago . . . then he no doubt owned slaves himself.

He was poor and a carpenter. He was a Jew in a place that was ruled by the Romans. He didnt own slaves lol.

Except for the verses that bring those statements into question. Though I suppose part of the problem is Paul had different ideas on how christianity should be taught than the early christians did. It makes Jesus come off as a bit scatterbrained. This is also a guy that told people they would go to hell for having too good a life on earth.

[Cyberman]

He was poor and a carpenter. He was a Jew in a place that was ruled by the Romans. He didnt own slaves lol.

What happened to all that gold and expensive spice he got for his birth day?

[Godscreated]

 I did not say anything about kids and animals, you're trying to add untruth to my post. Burning down your house because it's roof leaks would be stupid and your analogy doesn't even come close to a representation of why God did what He did.

GC

Well you were talking about creations and ownership. Children, animals, and houses are examples of things we create, or living things that we own. 

Didn't god kick Adam and Eve out into a world he cursed because they disobeyed him one time? I used the analogy of setting a house on fire because the roof leaks as an example of the kind of extreme solution to a minor problem that your god inflicts from time to time. Or disproportionate retribution. I'd like to think the example is pretty accurate. Can I get additional feedback from someone?

 Their sin cost God a perfect creation and His Son as Christ was. God paid the ultimate price for that sin and we have reaped the evil it brought into the world, disproportionate not hardly. Those who will live in hell for eternity will see that even there self imposed punishment is proportional to how they reacted to God and rejected His gift.

GC

---

  God cures people all the time and I would suspect since you do not believe in god you can't see what He does. God is the creator and care taker of His people and does as His will requires. Wiping out a whole nation for it's attacks on His people is God's right, He did create them. Just as you have the right to destroy anything you make. Wiping out the entire world with a flood holds the same as I described above. God will protect His plan against anything that would try and prevent them, whether they are aware of what they are doing or not, their intent was evil nonetheless.
 
 How do you cure a people that refuses to believe in God, who would do everything they can to go against His people, atheist should give this serious thought before condemning God for exercising His rights as the creator and savior of man.
 God should always be adored, because His will is for the salvation of those who will choose to believe in Christ Jesus and he will defend against all who stand in the way. Jesus said if you are not for me you are against me and it is the later that God will defend His people from when He deems it the best thing to do.
 GC

The part in bold seems to be indicative of limited, win-lose (binary) thinking.  IMO, it would seem reasonable to be open to the possibility that the middle ground between any two choices can effectively reshape the various positions that people will take on any given issue, provided that such issues are approached with an open mind.  Hence, given the part in bold, since your deity is believed to be the ultimate source of love and goodness, then does it make sense that a more open-minded/mutually beneficial approach toward any given issue is in greater accordance with this being's loving nature than a close-minded, win-lose approach? Thanks.

 Good to hear from you again, I enjoy answering sensible questions even though you may disagree with what I say, I can only respond as I understand God.
I believe what I stated to be absolutely true, I didn't say God would always protect His children from harm, many of the best Christians have endured many great troubles. God's defense of His children would take in many things that men could never comprehend because we are not omniscient. As for what Jesus said, it's been the same through all of time God doesn't deal in the gray areas because for Him there are no gray areas, being omnipresent and omniscient eliminates those gray areas. Hope this answers your question if not please let me know.

GC

---

In all seriousness, if Jesus was real, and if he was really followed and looked up to, over 2000 years ago . . . then he no doubt owned slaves himself.

God owns all His creation, He doesn't need our permission to act upon what He owns. Jesus didn't and doesn't own slaves, Christians bind themselves to Jesus in a slave like way to serve him without question, saying this all Christians wish they had the courage to serve without question. I guess we can take solace in knowing that even Moses and Abraham were in the same boat with us.

GC

[Chad32]

Your mindset is so alien to me that I'm not even sure how to carry on a discussion with you.

[Kernel Sohcahtoa]

The part in bold seems to be indicative of limited, win-lose (binary) thinking.  IMO, it would seem reasonable to be open to the possibility that the middle ground between any two choices can effectively reshape the various positions that people will take on any given issue, provided that such issues are approached with an open mind.  Hence, given the part in bold, since your deity is believed to be the ultimate source of love and goodness, then does it make sense that a more open-minded/mutually beneficial approach toward any given issue is in greater accordance with this being's loving nature than a close-minded, win-lose approach? Thanks.

 Good to hear from you again, I enjoy answering sensible questions even though you may disagree with what I say, I can only respond as I understand God.
I believe what I stated to be absolutely true, I didn't say God would always protect His children from harm, many of the best Christians have endured many great troubles. God's defense of His children would take in many things that men could never comprehend because we are not omniscient. As for what Jesus said, it's been the same through all of time God doesn't deal in the gray areas because for Him there are no gray areas, being omnipresent and omniscient eliminates those gray areas. Hope this answers your question if not please let me know.

GC

Thanks for your response, GC.  I asked you this question, because as a student of mediation, an art which I studied at a Christian university, I've learned that it is essential to be aware of the gray areas of any issue and to be able to re-frame it and construct an impartial third story.  Hence, since the best Christian mediators are able to accomplish this feat, then it would seem that they would be getting their inspiration from their deity and following its example.  Well, thanks for your thoughtful response and enjoy your Thanksgiving holiday.