How is Yahweh not immoral?

[Ryantology]

No, but how does a God atone?

Well, hypothetically (since we're talking fiction here) he could do so much more.

Cure cancer, or every other delibitating, life-threatening illness (or at least, since he's omniscient, give us a cure). Prevent people from dying from hurricanes and earthquakes (by warning them, if he doesn't feel like stopping earthquakes and hurricanes altogether). Even if he's not ominipotent or omniscient, he should have the power to cure the ill or see the future, otherwise he'd be a sad excuse for a god.

The fact that he doesn't bother to do even that means that his "atonement" is shallow and meaningless.

I agree on all points, I'm merely trying to fit 'atonement' theists can sell into the narrative we already have.

Maybe I'm wrong and Drich has the right idea: worship a psychopath out of mortal terror, be completely forthright about it and do not apologize on his behalf.

[Darkstar]

No, but how does a God atone?

You could say that his easing of restrictions and (relative to the OT) conciliatory manner would constitute some form of atonement, even if "I'll never be a murderous psycho to you again" is admittedly poor atonement.

But didn't he plan to ease them all along? He never shows remorse, but sometimes regret:
Genesis 6:6-7 The Lord regretted that he had made human beings on the earth, and his heart was deeply troubled. 7 So the Lord said, “I will wipe from the face of the earth the human race I have created—and with them the animals, the birds and the creatures that move along the ground—for I regret that I have made them.”

And about never being a murderous psycho again:
Genesis 8:21 The Lord smelled the pleasing aroma and said in his heart: “Never again will I curse the ground because of humans, even though" every inclination of the human heart is evil from childhood. And never again will I destroy all living creatures, as I have done.

Now, we know how people like to bend words in the bible, so wouldn't "as I have done" imply that he could use another method? Not to mention that this only applies to wiping out all things. He can still kill 99% without breaking his word. (Not to mention that this was prior to many other OT genocides that he ordered...maybe using people to do his dirty work is a loophole?)

[Faith No More]

Oh, Oh Let me go now, Let me Go...
(In my best "Cinjin" or "Faith no more" voice)

"That is 25 point for preaching! How many times must we post the rules on preaching? Derpa, derpa, Stop being a martyr! Herpa, Derpa, We have been nothing but fair and understanding..."

---

---

[The Grand Nudger]

Maybe I'm wrong and Drich has the right idea: worship a psychopath out of mortal terror, be completely forthright about it and do not apologize on his behalf.

The first part may be Drich's idea, but the second and third definitely aren't. Ignoring whether or not it's the "right idea" completely, of course.

[Undeceived]

"I love those who love me

That's the root of the problem. Anyone loves people who love him. Even Adolf Hitler loved Eva Braun. The problem is not about whom you love or you don't love (you're free to love or not love anyone you want) but what you do to people you don't love.

Does it say "I love only those who love me"? Rather, the word for "love" attributed to God here is an active, giving love in response to our openness. 1 John 4:19 says, "We love because he first loved us." If you don't see the connection, take Romans 5:6-8:

You see, at just the right time, when we were still powerless, Christ died for the ungodly. Very rarely will anyone die for a righteous person, though for a good person someone might possibly dare to die. But God demonstrates his own love for us in this: While we were still sinners, Christ died for us.

By most accounts, the idea of loving your enemies originated from the Bible. That's what agape is--sacrificial love. In most religions there is a "golden rule"-

Confucianism: “Do not impose on others what you do not wish for yourself.”
Buddhism: "Hurt not others in ways that you yourself would find hurtful."
Hinduism: "One should never do that to another which one regards as injurious to one’s own self."
Humanism: "Do not do to others what you would not want them to do to you."
Jesus: "So in everything, do to others what you would have them do to you, for this sums up the Law and the Prophets."

Do you see the difference?

However, when I judge him as a character, I see that he is portrayed as a vengeful, petty psychopath, who on top of that is also a hypocrite.

Keep in mind that God is not human, and does not have the same motivations and emotions for his creation that a man would have for his equal. Do you see any reason why an all powerful creator would be vengeful? Do you see why an omniscient God would act without the moral code he instilled in his creation? What you propose is an illogical character. Even in analyzing fiction, the critic must always assume the author is keeping things consistent in order to understand the work (more so if the work is deep and hard to understand). If you followed the path of a novel critic, you would judge the book by its own principles. Do God's actions make sense given the Bible's description of him? Let's see, he is all-just and all-good. Nothing non-good can enter his presence. Any lives terminated had carried non-good and were unwilling to give the non-good up. God saw that no one could completely give non-good up, so he sent a sacrifice to take that non-good away from us. Like all gifts, we must consent or agree to it (lest free will becomes compulsion). Or here's an analogy: Martha's son Tim jumps in a mud puddle. Martha tells him, "You cannot come back in the house until you spray yourself off with that hose." Tim refuses. She walks outside and turns the hose on. The boy runs away across the street. In doing so, he is hit by a car and dies, because it was dark and the driver couldn't see him with all that mud on. Now who's the rational character in this story? If you say the mother, the Bible checks out just fine.

---

It is not my fault that God could only choose to 'forgive' by submitting his 'son' to a horrifying death.

Of course it's not your fault. But death was the only way God could remove your sin from you. Jesus already did the deed, out of his own choice. All you have to do is accept it.

[Darkstar]

However, when I judge him as a character, I see that he is portrayed as a vengeful, petty psychopath, who on top of that is also a hypocrite.

Keep in mind that God is not human, and does not have the same motivations and emotions for his creation that a man would have for his equal. Do you see any reason why an all powerful creator would be vengeful?

---

Exodus 20:4-5
“You shall not make for yourself an image in the form of anything in heaven above or on the earth beneath or in the waters below. 5 You shall not bow down to them or worship them; for I, the Lord your God, am a jealous God, punishing the children for the sin of the parents to the third and fourth generation of those who hate me

---

Nope. So maybe you should ask him.

Do you see why an omniscient God would act without a moral code he instilled in his creation?

Hypocrisy? Oh, wait, he didn't instill a moral code in his creation.

---

Genesis 2:15-17
15 The Lord God took the man and put him in the Garden of Eden to work it and take care of it. 16 And the Lord God commanded the man, “You are free to eat from any tree in the garden; 17 but you must not eat from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, for when you eat from it you will certainly die.”

---

Genesis 3:5
“For God knows that when you eat from it your eyes will be opened, and you will be like God, knowing good and evil.”

---

Genesis 3:7 Then the eyes of both of them were opened, and they realized they were naked; so they sewed fig leaves together and made coverings for themselves.

---

Genesis 3:22
22 And the Lord God said, “The man has now become like one of us, knowing good and evil. He must not be allowed to reach out his hand and take also from the tree of life and eat, and live forever.”

---

So...they didn't have knowledge of good and evil, and thus could not even grasp the concept of immorality.

What you propose is an illogical character.

Ding ding ding ding ding, we have a winner!

Even in analyzing fiction, the critic must always assume the author is keeping things consistent in order to understand the work (more so if the work is deep and hard to understand). If you followed the path of a novel critic, you would judge the book by its own principles. Do God's actions make sense given the Bible's description of him? Let's see, he is all-just and all-good. Nothing non-good can enter his presence. Any lives terminated had carried non-good and were unwilling to give the non-good up. God saw that no one could completely give non-good up, so he sent a sacrifice to take that non-good away from us. Like all gifts, we must consent or agree to it (lest free will becomes compulsion). Or here's an analogy: Martha's son Tim jumps in a mud puddle. Martha tells him, "You cannot come back in the house until you spray yourself off with that hose." Tim refuses. She walks outside and turns the hose on. The boy runs away across the street. In doing so, he is hit by a car and dies, because it was dark and the driver couldn't see him with all that mud on. Now who's the logical character in this story? If you say the mother, the Bible checks out just fine.

It's called reading between the lines. The bible is pretty bad literature in that regard, by the way. Also, god punishes people directly, so it would be more accurate that the mother shot the kid rather than him being hit by a car. Look at what happens after Adam and Eve eat the fruit - god. Genesis 3

---

7 Then the eyes of both of them were opened, and they realized they were naked; so they sewed fig leaves together and made coverings for themselves.

---

And now god adds in his two cents:

---

16 To the woman he said,


“I will make your pains in childbearing very severe;
with painful labor you will give birth to children.
Your desire will be for your husband,
and he will rule over you.”

17 To Adam he said, “Because you listened to your wife and ate fruit from the tree about which I commanded you, ‘You must not eat from it,’


“Cursed is the ground because of you;
through painful toil you will eat food from it
all the days of your life.
18 It will produce thorns and thistles for you,
and you will eat the plants of the field.
19 By the sweat of your brow
you will eat your food
until you return to the ground,
since from it you were taken;
for dust you are
and to dust you will return.”

---

[The Grand Nudger]

Jesus already did the deed, out of his own choice. All you have to do is accept it.

Anyone who would accept such a "gift" doesn't deserve forgiveness for whatever it is they would like to shirk. Anyone who offers such a gift doesn't deserve the complicity accepting it would confer. A god that loved me wouldn't offer such a horrid exchange, let alone have the balls to call it a gift. I've got to ask, don't you think that the supposed source and creator of dignity might just appreciate seeing a little dignity present in it's creations?

Really, whats the fucking deal here. "father, please forgive me...I am soooo repentent of what I have done that I'm willing to allow -someone else- to be punished in my stead." Yeah, real repentant right there, sounds like the kind of guy you wanna throw back a beer with too...

[catfish]

Jesus did not "do the deed" for us. He offered God's forgiveness and reconciliation while he was ALIVE!!!

[Cinjin]

Jesus did not "do the deed" for us. He offered God's forgiveness and reconciliation while he was ALIVE!!!

Isn't the Bible pretty clear about Jesus dying for our sins?

[catfish]

Jesus did not "do the deed" for us. He offered God's forgiveness and reconciliation while he was ALIVE!!!

Isn't the Bible pretty clear about Jesus dying for our sins?

Obviously I don't think so or else I wouldn't have written what I did...