Who Made the Ruels? Why Must there be Conseqeunces form My Actions?

There's a whole range of questions here that atheists ask about why did Jesus have to die on the cross? Sometimes they ask things like "what did he sacrifice?" In an attempt to emphasize the the fallacious understanding that "God could do it any way he wanted to" one CARM atheist (Ron Webb) puts it in terms of "who made the rules?"

Who makes the rules?

One thing I've never understood about the monotheist religions, and Christianity in particular, is the strange and arbitrary rules under which God apparently operates. Here are a few examples:

1. Apparently somebody decided that "the wages of sin is death", i.e. that people deserve to die for even the most trivial of sins. Who came up with that, and why? Was it God? And if so, why would He be so cruel -- especially considering that He Himself created us and surely knows that it is unreasonable to expect anyone to completely avoid sin?

2. Apparently somebody also decided that I no longer need to be punished for my sins if somebody else dies in my place. Again, who decided that, and does this make sense to anybody? If God wants to forgive my sins, why doesn't He just do it? How does somebody else's death "pay" for my sins?

3. Throughout the Christian religion there is a general theme of the sins of the parents being passed down to their children. Why? Is this fair? Why am I the inheritor of "original sin" just because Adam and Eve did something wrong ages ago? Would an reasonable and loving God judge me by what my ancestors did, "even unto the third and fourth generation" (Exodus 20:5)?

It almost seems that the Gnostics were right, that the God of the Bible is actually just a demigod, operating within the constraints of an unknowable Supreme Creator. In other words, God makes the rules, but Someone Else tells God what rules He can make.

Here's my original answer:

Originally Posted by Ron Webb

One thing I've never understood about the monotheist religions, and Christianity in particular, is the strange and arbitrary rules under which God apparently operates. Here are a few examples:

That's becuase Christianity is based upon a 4000 year old religion with a set of documents that are no younger 2000 years old, from an ancient far away culture in a language very few Christians actually know (two languages actually). It's been cultivated by some of the most brilliant minds in human history.

makes it hard to understand the perspective it's coming form.

1. Apparently somebody decided that "the wages of sin is death", i.e. that people deserve to die for even the most trivial of sins. Who came up with that, and why? Was it God? And if so, why would He be so cruel -- especially considering that He Himself created us and surely knows that it is unreasonable to expect anyone to completely avoid sin? 

 It puzzles me why atheists think that having consequences to actions is cruel? We are given free will so we can avoid making the wrong choice, yet we make it out of our own selfish desires then say "why does that have to be consequences?"

It's the way things work. It's not something God set out and said "I'm going make sinners really suffer forever." It's just a fact of the workings of being, that if make God our enemy are separated from him and cease to be. If we cease to be we are going forever. God is not trying to save us from that, we have our own selfish pride that doesn't want saving unless its on our terms.

If you were Moral and just and the basis of all that is would you really let a bunch of selfish babies dictate how you run the universe?

2. Apparently somebody also decided that I no longer need to be punished for my sins if somebody else dies in my place. Again, who decided that, and does this make sense to anybody? If God wants to forgive my sins, why doesn't He just do it? How does somebody else's death "pay" for my sins?

that's just an over simplification. It works like this:

(1) Christ's death on the cross is a statement of solidarity that shows us graphically that God is on your side. He is willing to identify with us and our problems to the extent of becoming one of us and dying as we die.

(2) When we accept God's solidarity we make our own statement of solidarity with God by committing our lives to his service.

(3) the making of solidarity between the two parties creates the ground upon which forgiveness is possible. In Biblical terms this is called "covenant." With solidarity comes amnesty. But that only comes when we are willing ot make the commitment. that's the phrase "New Testament" (covenant) means. Its' an agreement.

3. Throughout the Christian religion there is a general theme of the sins of the parents being passed down to their children. Why? Is this fair? Why am I the inheritor of "original sin" just because Adam and Eve did something wrong ages ago? Would an reasonable and loving God judge me by what my ancestors did, "even unto the third and fourth generation" (Exodus 20:5)? 

You are not. the notion of original sin originally pertained to the capacity to sin, not the actual guilt. We inherit the capacity as part of our human nature, which is inherited.

It almost seems that the Gnostics were right, that the God of the Bible is actually just a demigod, operating within the constraints of an unknowable Supreme Creator. In other words, God makes the rules, but Someone Else tells God what rules He can make. 

But you are reacting to simplified teachings that don't really capture to the full meaning. It's not your fault you are just going by what you have been given. Most people are not through and unfortunately most religious people are more into emotion than analysis.

here's the final round where I answer the answers he made to this post:

Originally Posted by Ron Webb

Well, maybe I misunderstood you. I thought you were saying that if I am separated from God I will suffer somehow in this life. That's just not happening.

No! I don't think that because I'm suffering!

But if you're saying that if I am separated from God then God won't let me into heaven in the next life, then again I have to ask, who made up that rule and why? Wouldn't it be more fair to judge me on whether I have actually lived a good life, been kind to others, etc., rather than simply whether I am able to believe a two thousand year old tall tale? 

1) I'm saying that the automatic force of reality will take the enemy of God into non existence. Its' not some plan God had to set up, like gravity will take you off a cliff, God doesn't have to make special angels to push you off.

(2) You think you know what good is but rejecting God is by definition the antithesis of a good life. So in being an atheist and encouraging others to abandon their faith you are making yourself an enemy of God in a major way and living the opposite of a good life. The garbage and lies that angry atheism spews over the net do a hell of lot of damage to people's souls and cause them to abandon their fiath and drift away form God. Some atheists are actually causing people to sin and to risk going over the cliff.

(3) when you start thinking that "I know what good is. I don't God to tell me that" it's just almost a virtual certainty that your moral compass is screwed. we can't help but be mixed up morally becasue we are sinful creatures. What seems good to us is seemingly good because we are filtering ot through a messed upon moral sense.

(4) it's undoubtedly that there's an overlap between the "good" moral sense and the "messed up" moral sense. I'm sure that you get some things right. But wouldn't you like to get it all right? not that we can but to have a shot at it, to do the best the very best a person can do. you are missing out on knowing the source of all love and goodness, how can you have a valid moral compass?

"Overtures"? When I wanted to solidify my relationship with the woman who eventually became my wife, I would meet with her for coffee, talk with her, do things together, etc. That's how I "made overtures". I suppose having myself nailed to a cross would have impressed her, but not in a good way.

so rather than meet with the creator of you soul you call him names, spit in his face, mock and ridicile all who believe in him, and work at derailing the faith of anyone who cares about truth. that's brilliant. how do I know you are mocking ridiucling?

(1) you are an atheist right?
(2) your lips are moving (I'm kidding1 I'm kidding) ;-)

I kid because I love!

Either Christ's suffering and death was necessary or it was not. If it was necessary, then I'm asking why, and who made up that rule. If it was unnecessary -- well, that takes this discussion in a totally unexpected direction for me. I've never heard a Christian suggest that.

It was necessary to make the most powerful statement of solidarity possible and that was it.

Adam and Eve obviously could sin because they did sin, didn't they?

A/E are mythological archetypes. you can't read the story as a literal history of real humans you have to understand the theological implications.

If you would cite the actual Biblical reference then we could compare them, but Exodus 20:5 is pretty clear. I don't see how you could dispute it.

to what?


Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

What exactly do you mean by "automatic force of reality" here? It doesn't seem to be a logical necessity that the enemies of God (or even those who just don't see any reason to believe he exists) should have to eventually cease to exist. So how is this "automatic force of reality" not a limitation of his alleged omnipotence? Isn't God supposed to be able to do anything which doesn't imply a contradiction?

Sure but having your cake cake and eating it too is a contradiction. By that I mean God can't have a moral universe and make everyone be a robot. "moral" means one chooses of one's own free will, but chooses the values of the good. So no free will, no moral choice, no moral universe.

That implies that there are consequences to choosing wrongly. Those consequences have to be allowed if the wrong choice must be allowed. the wrong choice must be allowed if we are to have a moral universe.

If God said 'Ok I'll just let everyone in no matter what they have done and how they feel about it" then where's the moral nature in that? Now evil is rewarded along with good? Or suppose he did that now all the evil people live forever, but they have to punished, hence eternal conscious torment. which is more humane and loving? you expect to cease to be anyway right? that's the consequence of believing there's no God isn't it? What are you complaining about?

Why, for instance, couldn't God have arranged it so that his enemies would end up in a sub-universe of chocolate and marshmallow for eternity instead?

It rewards evil choices. Why shouldn't people who choose evil have to embrace the consequences of their actions?

God is the basis of being. reject the basis of being you rect your own existence. It's just gravity. like stepping off the cliff.