Why do we exist,GOD or BIG BANG theory?

[Sri Lumpa]

DélioPT said:

But God didn`t fail. In a way, knowing how we were at the time, He chose not to impose, given our limitations. Doing otherwise would have probably been pointless.

We will have to disagree as we are going in circle. You think that god giving bad laws is not a failure, whereas i think it is.

But it is more then moral. Doing good is one thing, but loving or hating someone is beyond morality. Those who hate God: it`s beyond morality, but is still a sin. So, you see, there are sins that are outside of morality, most likely because they exist even if there isn`t a situation where you can apply morality or not. For instance, suicide is a sin. It`the rejection of life.

We will have to disagree on that too (as we are going in circles here too) as I see the non-moral parts as diminishing the whole and you see them as doing the opposite.

 do equate morality with God. I just read the other way around.
And no, i don`t find anything coming from God as immoral. So to me there aren`t two sets of morals as God is the absolute morality.

So are there no acts originating from god (and thus moral by definition) that you would find immoral if not coming from him?

In the case of the mass murder of the inhabitants of the city of Jericho there are 4 choices that you can think:

1. You think that it was moral (as it was a command from god) and that a similar mass murder by humans with no divine approval is also moral.

2. You think it was moral (as it came from god) but that the same act carried out by humans with no divine approval is immoral.

3. You think that it was immoral despite the divine command to do it and that the same act carried out by humans with no divine approval is also immoral.

4. You think that it was immoral with the divine approval but moral without it -- I think we can forget that possibility but I just listed it for completeness.

If you believe 1 then IMO you are not a moral person as you can view immoral acts as moral as long as you believe that god ordered them (like muslim terrorists).

If you believe 2, then you are a moral relativist as you apply a different moral standards for the same acts depending on whether it came from god or not (in other words you apply a moral standard to god that is different than the moral standard that you apply to humans).

If you believe 3 (I do) then god can't be the absolute morality as he issued immoral orders.

You can judge God through His actions, of course. But please remember that you aren`t seeing another person and not even one that thinks like you - that is human as you. There`s a lot of God that no one knows.

I do not judge him by his thought, only by his (claimed) actions and there are plenty of them that are immoral (especially in the old testament).

About good people, yes, you can say there`s a risk of said person not believing. But as i said, his damnation is not my fault. It`s his decisions and actions that will give him heaven or hell.

If you teach him something that by default sends him to hell then it is as much your fault as if you pushed somebody in front of a car. How do you think it would work in court if you said "Your honor, while I did push him in front of the car it is his fault that he is dead as it was his decision not to move out of the car's path".

It was your action that caused him to risk hell and thus it is your fault if he goes there.

Also, when you speak of proof, it`s fairest (spelling) if you say that the proof you have is not the one you want or accept. Because other people find it more than enough.

They accept it through faith, not through proof.

Me teaching someone about God is no different than telling someone what is moral and immoral according to people around the world. It`s the same situation.

You said earlier that there were parts that were not about morality; if you think about it, the parts that are not about morality but about belief are the parts that put people in jeopardy and you do not need to teach them about biblical cosmology to teach them about morality so yes, it is different, though the former (teaching about god) encompasses the latter (teaching about morality).

Teaching the ways of man will give him a path for either fates as much as speaking to him about God opens a path for either fates. 

But one does not put him in danger of being tortured by default while the other does (according to your belief).

In that way, everyone is responsible for everyone`s demise in hell. Because everyone puts everyone at risk when they show something immoral or a sin.

For the former (immoral) I agree, for the latter I disagree as it is not my fault if an immoral being chooses to arbitrarily torture people for doing things that are not immoral and thus should not result in torture for doing them. 

I don`t see that as a responsability of mine but of that who goes the wrong way. It`s still 50/50 before and after the word of God.

Nope, because you changed the default case from going to heaven to going to hell and you bear the responsibility for that. Like if a person pushes someone in front of a car they changed the default from "not getting killed by a car" to "getting killed by a car" and if the default happens then the person doing the pushing is responsible for the outcome. 

You are also starting from the point where you have someone who is good and will remain good for the rest of his life. No one can be positively sure that said person is good and also that he will still be good for life.

No, I am starting from the point that if a person does good or not then that is their responsibility but when you put them in a situation where even if they keep doing good they still get tortured then it becomes your responsibility. If they become immoral later on then the blame is shared between them and you because two wrongs do not make a right and their subsequent immorality does not excuse yours when you taught them thing that put them in peril.

And as i said, there`s more to the word of God than the concern of salvation or damnation. It`s about teaching how you can find yourself in God; it`s about a Father be known by their sons and a Father showing their sons how much He loves them.

By torturing them even if they are good persons? Strange love that.

 You can`t take appart the word of God.

You can teach the moral part without teaching the other parts. If they ask to know more even after you warn them of the danger, then it is their decision, if you teach them without warning them and giving them an opportunity not to hear then their blood is on your head.