The Euthyphro Dilemma and the Sacrifice of Isaac by Abraham

[tonyrey]

]That our ancestors chose evil at some point in history.

And that the consequences of their actions remained with everybody else.
We inherit the effects of the misdeeds and defects of our predecessors.

Do you take the OT literally?

Not in its entirety.

Redemption is not limited by time and space.

So Jesus’ sacrifice was true for everybody, even those that died before the ‘sacrifice’?

Of course…

But as you said, people are still not born with the right to share heaven with God, why not?

Because we fail to love others and cause unnecessary suffering - deliberately or by neglect.

 

[ddarko]

I am not being dishonest. You are seriously misguided:
Please explain why these statements are heretical:

1. If Adam had not sinned he would not have been isolated from God.
2. **Adam’s sin harmed himself and the human race.
3. Children are not born are in the same state as Adam before his fall.
4. ** The whole human race is affected by Adam’s sin and is able to rise through the love, power, suffering, death and resurrection of Christ.
**5. Jesus perfected the Mosaic Law.
6. Every human being ****has been affected by original sin except the Mother of Jesus who was immaculately conceived.

Do you accept evolution as it is accepted by the Church?
**

Tony, don’t joke around.

Your statements above ARE NOT your statements that you made prior to it. In fact, they are contradictory to what you’ve been saying on this thread.

So take a look at my previous post which shows for citations to remind yourself what you ACTUALLY DID say? ALRIGHT?

No offense but you are being blatantly dishonest.

And I don’t even know what your last question means. I accept that Adam and Eve were the first HUMANS and the whole human race comes from them. The church has not dogmatic pronunciation apart from that on how Adam and Eve were created, i.e. Evolution or some other mechanism. So stop trying to attack me to cover up your erroneous statements earlier. That shows a lack of humility.

God Bless

 

[tonyrey]

Tony, don’t joke around.

Your statements above ARE NOT your statements that you made prior to it. In fact, they are contradictory to what you’ve been saying on this thread.

So take a look at my previous post which shows for citations to remind yourself what you ACTUALLY DID say? ALRIGHT?

No offense but you are being blatantly dishonest.

And I don’t even know what your last question means. I accept that Adam and Eve were the first HUMANS and the whole human race comes from them. The church has not dogmatic pronunciation apart from that on how Adam and Eve were created, i.e. Evolution or some other mechanism. So stop trying to attack me to cover up your erroneous statements earlier. That shows a lack of humility.

God Bless

You are infringing forum Rule 1:
Messages posted to this board must be polite and free of personal attacks, threats, and crude or sexually-explicit language.

 

[Prodigal_Son]

Why are those things desirable though? Because we desire them? How does that make them intrinsically desirable?

The fact that, say, everyone desires happiness ought to give us some indication that happiness is objectively desirable. Likewise, with the fact that just about everyone desires friendship. These desires are not socialized into us.

Of course, from the fact that people desire something, it does not logically follow that that thing is desirable. But it’s the best evidence we have of the objective desirability of things, that these things (1) are commonly desired, and (2) lend themselves to fulfilling the apparent functions of actual people. In most of this, I am roughly following Aristotle, although some of his teleological reasoning is considered outmoded. Outmoded does not equal wrong, however.

I would think that if God can recognize good that he would permit us to also recognize good rather than have to tell us what good is. Now assuming the Bible has some truth in regards to what good is, there are some big things that are considered good and bad and they mostly agree with survival instincts and cultural development, like the whole no murder and stuff. Then theres the smaller ones like not wearing more than two fabrics at once. Or not working on Sunday/Saturday, or homosexuality being a bad thing. Those aren’t recognizable as good or bad, or at least not to me and they certainly require reading the Bible before understanding the Bibles perspective on the matter.

As for not working on Sunday, surely science would agree that people need a break from work, and the Sabbath rest is one way of providing such a break. I do not deny that there might be other ways of doing this – nonbelievers are not morally bound by the laws of believers, until they believe. Nonbelievers are, however, bound by the moral law, which is knowable without revelation.

How do we know such a law? We look at the typical consequences of actions. Actions that tend to be directly associated (short-term or long-term) with unhappiness for oneself or others are bad. People who consider homosexual activity wrong might argue that it is wrong “because God says so”, but this is a poor excuse for a moral reason. Why does God say so? The answer here might be that homosexual acts damages the self or others, or at least tends to do so. (You will notice that this reasoning does not justify saying that “being homosexual” is wrong, because being homosexual is not an action.) Arguments from natural law seek to find the reason behind prohibitions, on the theory that God gave us minds so that we could understand the reasons behind actions.

Note: sometimes, we do not know the reason, and yet we still ought to follow our consciences. But we always need to be educating our consciences.

Yes but morality is a about conduct in all situations where as faith, trust and love are all about a single relationship. If morality were more valued by God, perhaps the would would be a better place.

Gee, it’s not everyday you hear people complaining that God’s not scrupulous enough!

My understanding of the Christian concept of faith is this; now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen.

The Greek word for “faith” is pistis: literally, trust. It is not fundamentally about belief, but about relationship.

Depends on the rule, there are some rules I value more than trust and love, one of them being, no murder.

But if everyone loved, of course, there would be no murder. Rules are only as good as the people who are ruled by them.

 

[Prodigal_Son]

Good is not an evaluative or normative sentence.

Huh? “God is good” is clearly a normative sentence.

First, I am not sure why you claim there is Voluntarism in this view. If there is Voluntarism, then there must be a possible world where God does BAD. But such a world logically impossible. Why?

I think a distinction is in order here, between logical truth and necessary truth. It is a necessary (conceptual) truth that all equilateral triangles are equiangular, but this is not a logical truth. If you question this, consider the following argument:

1. Triangle A is equilateral.
2. Therefore, Triangle A is equiangular.

This argument is invalid: it is *logically *possible that 1 is true while 2 is false. We see this by substituting in some other terms for “equilateral” and “equiangular”.

1. Triangle A is blue.
2. Therefore, Triangle A is large.

The second sentence clearly does not follow from the first. Logical truth is merely a matter of form, *not *of conceptual definitions.

All this is just to say that God might be necessarily good without being good by definition.

As the maximally great being, Good must be an essential property of God.

This is where I feel that Anselm’s Ontological Argument creeps into our discussion. Here are the problems I see with that argument: (1) It moves from language to reality, instead of the other way round. You cannot simply define a being into existence. (2) Aristotle created the concept of an “essential property” to explain how things change – an essential property is a criterion for that which undergoes change. Since God does not undergo change, there is no problem of identifying the “substance” of God.

Nevertheless, I agree that there is a “fashion” of God’s existence: He is good. We might call this a property, but – since God is timeless – it is not an essential property. It is true that “anything that is not good is therefore not God” but this would be true of non-essential properties too. I have an orange shirt on; therefore, anyone who does not have an orange shirt on is not me.

But if Good is an essential property of God, there is no possible world where God exists and he does something not Good.

Well, this would certainly be true if we just said, “Anything that does bad isn’t God”, thereby rigging the deal by defining our way out of any difficulty. But I think something much more remarkable is at work. I think God and good are conceptually, not linguistically, linked. We can imagine a way that God would be that is bad, just as we can imagine a staircase that went upward but terminated underground. But, in point of fact, up and down are metaphysically contrary to one another, just as God and evil are metaphysically contrary.

By thing, I do not mean a physical object. If one is to say “Murder is Evil” such a truth must be ontologically grounded. So either you have to say that “Murder is Evil” is just something we arbitrarily decided on or you cannot escape the need to ontologically ground the truth.

Consider the statement “the Pope is Catholic”. This sentence is true, right? When I say that it is true, I am describing something about the sentence – namely, its relationship to the world. Must we say, then, that there is some entity, Truth, without which the sentence would neither be true or false? The claim that truth is some entity – or even that truth has some ontological status – just seems utterly incomprehensible to me. And this is how I feel about goodness, as well.

What I would like to say is that the Good proceeds from the nature of God, but is not defined by God – as you said, God is the paradigm of goodness. But God does not determine what goodness is; otherwise, it would be meaningless to say that God is good.

 

[ddarko]

You are infringing forum Rule 1:
Messages posted to this board must be polite and free of personal attacks, threats, and crude or sexually-explicit language.

If it is incorrect to point out when a member is being dishonest and denying what he said in previous posts, well then let me be guilty.

I wouldn’t care less for being blocked/banned or whatever they want to do for pointing out heresy and dishonesty on your part which now you want to pretend like it never happened. Unfortunately you forget that your posts are on display for anyone to see and understand whose telling what.

God Bless

 

[ddarko]

Huh? “God is good” is clearly a normative sentence.

Ok I think you are using normative here not in the sense I understood it. I was thinking you were saying it along the lines of ‘what everyone agrees with’.

I think a distinction is in order here, between logical truth and necessary truth. It is a necessary (conceptual) truth that all equilateral triangles are equiangular, but this is not a logical truth. If you question this, consider the following argument:

1. Triangle A is equilateral.
2. Therefore, Triangle A is equiangular.

This argument is invalid: it is *logically *possible that 1 is true while 2 is false. We see this by substituting in some other terms for “equilateral” and “equiangular”.

What? Obviously if 1 is true, 2 is true. And OBVIOUSLY if you sub in different terms in to the premises of an argument, the conclusion does not follow. I am not sure what you are trying to do there

All this is just to say that God might be necessarily good without being good by definition.

What you are essentially trying to say is the following. We can say God is good without ontologically grounding GOOD in God. My point is that this is not possible.

When one says GOOD, it means creatures doing what they are ordered towards. At this point, to say GOOD is outside of God is like saying God conformed his creation, NOT according to his nature, BUT according to something already declared somewhere else outside of him. God is merely adopting what it means to be Good. That is unacceptable for a theist.

This is where I feel that Anselm’s Ontological Argument creeps into our discussion. Here are the problems I see with that argument: (1) It moves from language to reality, instead of the other way round. You cannot simply define a being into existence. (2) Aristotle created the concept of an “essential property” to explain how things change – an essential property is a criterion for that which undergoes change. Since God does not undergo change, there is no problem of identifying the “substance” of God.

These problems with the Ontological argument MAY WELL BE VALID.

BUT, I think you might have confused me using the term “Maximally Great Being” to me trying to use the Ontological Argument. I am not. We already agree that God exists. So we already agree that the maximally great being EXISTS.

The question here is that by saying Good lies somewhere outside of God and in saying he has to conform to it, God is no longer a maximally great being. He is no longer omnipotent since he must follow some external rule.

God Bless

 

[Filthy_Tugboat]

We inherit the effects of the misdeeds and defects of our predecessors.

Why? You said yourself that God does not punish those for their ancestors crimes but here we have that in the world he created that a process exists where ancestors crimes and punishments are reflected on the descendants. If that process was not created by God then what causes it?

Not in its entirety.

But you do in parts yes? For example, the invasion into Canaan by the Israelites? I presume as much because it is told as if it were literal history, I personally doubt that it happened due to the lack of supporting evidence but most of the Christians/Jews/Muslims are quite confident that it did occur just as described.

Of course…

So if it is for everyone then it does not require belief in Jesus or any prerequisites? If it does, why?

Because we fail to love others and cause unnecessary suffering - deliberately or by neglect.

Why do we do that? Are we naturally inclined towards selfish behavior? I certainly think we are and it was an evolutionary drive that made us this way but if God exists and created us with the instinctive selfish attitude you have to ask why? Why would he create beings that he wanted and commanded to love each other and him and act selflessly, why would he create them with this naturally selfish outlook on life?

 

[Filthy_Tugboat]

The fact that, say, everyone desires happiness ought to give us some indication that happiness is objectively desirable. Likewise, with the fact that just about everyone desires friendship. These desires are not socialized into us.

If anything, that shows that we only have this desire subjectively, if all we can provide is subjective opinions of happiness then how could we conclude that it is objective or how could we conclude that it has anything to do with objectivity?

Of course, from the fact that people desire something, it does not logically follow that that thing is desirable. But it’s the best evidence we have of the objective desirability of things, that these things (1) are commonly desired, and (2) lend themselves to fulfilling the apparent functions of actual people. In most of this, I am roughly following Aristotle, although some of his teleological reasoning is considered outmoded. Outmoded does not equal wrong, however.

I wouldn’t suggest it’s the best evidence we have for objectivity because it isn’t evidence of objectivity at all, it is a shared subjective opinion. The majority does not determine what is objectively true or false, good or bad and it never has.

As for not working on Sunday, surely science would agree that people need a break from work, and the Sabbath rest is one way of providing such a break. I do not deny that there might be other ways of doing this – nonbelievers are not morally bound by the laws of believers, until they believe. Nonbelievers are, however, bound by the moral law, which is knowable without revelation.

You might have to elaborate on this moral law.

How do we know such a law? We look at the typical consequences of actions. Actions that tend to be directly associated (short-term or long-term) with unhappiness for oneself or others are bad. People who consider homosexual activity wrong might argue that it is wrong “because God says so”, but this is a poor excuse for a moral reason. Why does God say so? The answer here might be that homosexual acts damages the self or others, or at least tends to do so. (You will notice that this reasoning does not justify saying that “being homosexual” is wrong, because being homosexual is not an action.) Arguments from natural law seek to find the reason behind prohibitions, on the theory that God gave us minds so that we could understand the reasons behind actions.

Note: sometimes, we do not know the reason, and yet we still ought to follow our consciences. But we always need to be educating our consciences.

I can generally agree with this.

 

[Prodigal_Son]

If anything, that shows that we only have this desire subjectively, if all we can provide is subjective opinions of happiness then how could we conclude that it is objective or how could we conclude that it has anything to do with objectivity?

I wouldn’t suggest it’s the best evidence we have for objectivity because it isn’t evidence of objectivity at all, it is a shared subjective opinion. The majority does not determine what is objectively true or false, good or bad and it never has.

What on Earth could you base an objective moral system on, if not on human happiness and thriving?

 

[tonyrey]

If it is incorrect to point out when a member is being dishonest and denying what he said in previous posts, well then let me be guilty.

I wouldn’t care less for being blocked/banned or whatever they want to do for pointing out heresy and dishonesty on your part which now you want to pretend like it never happened. Unfortunately you forget that your posts are on display for anyone to see and understand whose telling what.

God Bless

You are assuming you are correct in your opinion that I am being dishonest and denying what I said in previous posts. I believe you are making false allegations and I am delighted everyone can see and understand what is happening. It is not for you but the moderators to decide whether I am a dishonest heretic…

 

[ddarko]

You are assuming you are correct in your opinion that I am being dishonest and denying what I said in previous posts. I believe you are making false allegations and I am delighted everyone can see and understand what is happening. It is not for you but the moderators to decide whether I am a dishonest heretic…

At this point in time, I would like to say, bring on any moderator. The evidence is there to see.

---

In Post #99 tonyrey said the following:-

“We do not deserve to die because we didn’t ask to be born! We have done nothing to deserve death but neither do we deserve to share life with God.”

“God is not unloving because death is the natural consequence of the biocycle He created through the laws of nature”

To my Statement: “Everyone was deserving of death due to sin and it was only due to God’s mercy that he spared anyone.”

tonyrey’s reply: “No one deserves to die nor does anyone deserve to live. Life is a free gift. It is the natural consequence of the biocycle created by God”

In Post #108 tonyrey said the following

My statement: “Again, this not proper theology. The result of Adam’s sin was death.”

tonyrey’s reply: “Animals died before man existed. The result of Adam’s sin was spiritual death.”

---

Now if you will excuse me, I am ending this conversation with YOU. I have better things to do than spend hours on a forum trying to convince you of your dishonesty or of things you said yourself.

If you feel the above things were said without much thought, just admit it and move on. It’s not like I said you were a heretic. I merely pointed out the heresy in what you said. But pretending like you never said it is not very Christian of you.

God Bless

 

[tonyrey]

We inherit the effects of the misdeeds and defects of our predecessors.

Why? You said yourself that God does not punish those for their ancestors crimes but here we have that in the world he created that a process exists where ancestors crimes and punishments are reflected on the descendants.

God does not punish anyone. We punish ourselves because our misdeeds incur their own punishment. We punish others because we are not isolated individuals. What we do affects others. By their misdeeds our ancestors have made us suffer and our descendants will also suffer because of them and because of our misdeeds:

“The evil that men do lives after them; the good is oft interred with their bones”.

• Julius Caesar by William Shakespeare

If that process was not created by God then what causes it?

The process was created by God. You are overlooking the fact of free will.

Not in its entirety.

But you do in parts yes? For example, the invasion into Canaan by the Israelites? I presume as much because it is told as if it were literal history, I personally doubt that it happened due to the lack of supporting evidence but most of the Christians/Jews/Muslims are quite confident that it did occur just as described.

The interpretation of Scripture is not the topic.

So if it is for everyone then it does not require belief in Jesus or any prerequisites? If it does, why?

Jesus has **redeemed **everyone but whether we are saved depends on us.

Because we fail to love others and cause unnecessary suffering - deliberately or by neglect.

Why do we do that?

We choose not to love others.

Are we naturally inclined towards selfish behavior? I certainly think we are and it was an evolutionary drive that made us this way but if God exists and created us with the instinctive selfish attitude you have to ask why? Why would he create beings that he wanted and commanded to love each other and him and act selflessly, why would he create them with this naturally selfish outlook on life?

Because we are capable of overcoming our instincts.

 

[Filthy_Tugboat]

What on Earth could you base an objective moral system on, if not on human happiness and thriving?

That’s what I base my morals on but that doesn’t mean we can conclude that these things are objectively good

 

[Filthy_Tugboat]

God does not punish anyone. We punish ourselves because our misdeeds incur their own punishment. We punish others because we are not isolated individuals. What we do affects others. By their misdeeds our ancestors have made us suffer and our descendants will also suffer because of them and because of our misdeeds:

“The evil that men do lives after them; the good is oft interred with their bones”.

• Julius Caesar by William Shakespeare

The process was created by God. You are overlooking the fact of free will.

Well actually free will is not a fact, with or without God, determinism is the likely option. Paul certainly didn’t think we had free will, he spoke in detail about how God controls everything. Romans 9 : 14-24 should explain my point.

As you’ve written it, you say that we punish others with our own sins, you try to pin it on is and then at the end, you say that God designed the process for this to happen? Doesn’t that make it ultimately God’s responsibility as he didn’t have to make the system that placed babies, the most sinless that a human can be, back in the Garden or in a place where they don’t suffer? Why did God design it so that people’s actions effected their descendants?

The interpretation of Scripture is not the topic.

No it is about your opinion that God does not use people as executioners yet the Bible massively disagrees with you as God ordered people to execute millions of men, women and children. You brought up literal reading of scripture so unless you don’t think that these things happened then you should explain your original comments in contrast with the statements I proposed.

Jesus has **redeemed **everyone but whether we are saved depends on us.

If we are redeemed that means our shortcomings are atoned, we must have no problems and our evils are atoned for if we really are redeemed. That’s what redemption means unless you don’t think Jesus redeemed us for everything, only specific things which makes us still have to do something to be considered “perfect”?

We choose not to love others.

How does choice factor into love?

Because we are capable of overcoming our instincts.

So God made life challenging for us? He gave us the instinctive nature for self preservation and self gratification and then told us to try and overcome it? Given we are supposedly “made in God’s image” does that mean he also has an instinctively selfish nature?

 

[tonyrey]

At this point in time, I would like to say, bring on any moderator. The evidence is there to see.

---

In Post #99 tonyrey said the following:-

“We do not deserve to die because we didn’t ask to be born! We have done nothing to deserve death but neither do we deserve to share life with God.”

“God is not unloving because death is the natural consequence of the biocycle He created through the laws of nature”

To my Statement: “Everyone was deserving of death due to sin and it was only due to God’s mercy that he spared anyone.”

tonyrey’s reply: “No one deserves to die nor does anyone deserve to live. Life is a free gift. It is the natural consequence of the biocycle created by God”.

In Post #108 tonyrey said the following

My statement: “Again, this not proper theology. The result of Adam’s sin was death.”

tonyrey’s reply: “Animals died before man existed. The result of Adam’s sin was spiritual death.”

---

1. “It was only due to God’s mercy that he spared anyone” (from physical death) is obviously false because everyone dies physically - even Jesus and His mother.
2. By the power of His love Jesus has given us spiritual life with Him in heaven.
3. “Do not be afraid of those who kill the body but cannot kill the soul. Rather, be afraid of the One who can destroy both soul and body in hell.”
4. The fact that God has created us in His image and likeness with a soul, free will and the capacity for love implies that death is never the end of our existence.
5. Physical death is not evil but an essential element of life on earth:
6. “This antithesis is absurd because, on the one hand, there are so many scientific proofs in favour of evolution which appears to be a reality we can see and which enriches our knowledge of life and being as such. But on the other, the doctrine of evolution does not answer every query, especially the great philosophical question: where does everything come from?”

vatican.va/holy_father/benedict_xvi/speeches/2007/july/documents/hf_ben-xvi_spe_20070724_clero-cadore_en.html

 

[tonyrey]

God does not punish anyone. We punish ourselves because our misdeeds incur their own punishment. We punish others because we are not isolated individuals. What we do affects others. By their misdeeds our ancestors have made us suffer and our descendants will also suffer because of them and because of our misdeeds:

You can prove anything from one isolated text. Jesus made it clear that our destiny depends on our choices.

As you’ve written it, you say that we punish others with our own sins, you try to pin it on is and then at the end, you say that God designed the process for this to happen? Doesn’t that make it ultimately God’s responsibility as he didn’t have to make the system that placed babies, the most sinless that a human can be, back in the Garden or in a place where they don’t suffer? Why did God design it so that people’s actions effected their descendants?

Can you explain how people could be created so that their actions could not affect their descendants?

The interpretation of Scripture is not the topic.

No it is about your opinion that God does not use people as executioners yet the Bible massively disagrees with you as God ordered people to execute millions of men, women and children. You brought up literal reading of scripture so unless you don’t think that these things happened then you should explain your original comments in contrast with the statements I proposed.

This is a Catholic forum and not everything in the Bible is interpreted literally by the Catholic Church.

Jesus has redeemed everyone but whether we are saved depends on us.

If we are redeemed that means our shortcomings are atoned, we must have no problems and our evils are atoned for if we really are redeemed. That’s what redemption means unless you don’t think Jesus redeemed us for everything, only specific things which makes us still have to do something to be considered “perfect”?

We have to respond to His love if we are to be united to Him.

How does choice factor into love?

“If you love me keep my commandments”.

Because we are capable of overcoming our instincts.

So God made life challenging for us? He gave us the instinctive nature for self preservation and self gratification and then told us to try and overcome it? Given we are supposedly “made in God’s image” does that mean he also has an instinctively selfish nature?

You are equating self-interest with selfishness. They are not identical.

 

[Filthy_Tugboat]

You can prove anything from one isolated text. Jesus made it clear that our destiny depends on our choices.

Paul made his point abundantly clear in that isolated text. are you suggesting that that section of Romans does not fit in with Jesus’ theology.

Can you explain how people could be created so that their actions could not affect their descendants?

I shouldn’t have to, are you proposing that God could not create a universe where ancestors actions do not effect descendants? What about punishments from God effecting those descendent’s because of their ancestors actions? Is God unable to do it any other way?

This is a Catholic forum and not everything in the Bible is interpreted literally by the Catholic Church.

I realise this but since you declined informing me what you do or do not consider literal and still have avoided that question, then I have to pressure the point assuming you do interpret it as it is written. Until you give me information I cannot make a conclusion so I am presenting the more likely option.

We have to respond to His love if we are to be united to Him.

Why?

“If you love me keep my commandments”.

That has nothing to do with choice concerning the love though, that is when love is already there.

You are equating self-interest with selfishness. They are not identical.

No but the human race and other species are naturally selfish and it makes perfect sense without a God that decides he wants them to not be selfish.

 

[tonyrey]

You can prove anything from one isolated text. Jesus made it clear that our destiny depends on our choices.

Not your interpretation of it!

Can you explain how people could be created so that their actions could not affect their descendants?

I shouldn’t have to, are you proposing that God could not create a universe where ancestors’ actions do not affect descendants? What about punishments from God affecting those descendants because of their ancestor**s’ **actions? Is God unable to do it any other way?

God is not inconsistent. Having give us the power to choose it would be absurd to interfere with our choices.

This is a Catholic forum and not everything in the Bible is interpreted literally by the Catholic Church.

I realise this but since you declined informing me what you do or do not consider literal and still have avoided that question, then I have to pressure the point assuming you do interpret it as it is written. Until you give me information I cannot make a conclusion so I am presenting the more likely option.

What precisely do you want me to explain what I consider to be literal or not literal?

We have to respond to His love if we are to be united to Him.

Why?

Love implies unity.

“If you love me keep my commandments”

.
That has nothing to do with choice concerning the love though, that is when love is already there.

Love is always a matter of choice.

You are equating self-interest with selfishness. They are not identical.

No but the human race and other species are naturally selfish and it makes perfect sense without a God that decides he wants them to not be selfish.

Human beings and other species are social as well as having self-interest. Selfishness is excessive self-interest which ignores the interests of others.

 

[Filthy_Tugboat]

Not your interpretation of it!

How do you interpret Paul’s writings in Romans 9?

God is not inconsistent. Having give us the power to choose it would be absurd to interfere with our choices.

Are you suggesting God is incapable of creating a universe where ancestors’ actions don’t interfere with descendants’ position in life without God interfering with the choices made?

What precisely do you want me to explain what I consider to be literal or not literal?

The deaths commanded or directly caused by God throughout the Bible, do you consider it literal or not literal. How does this reflection your comments about God not using anyone as an executioner?

Love implies unity.

How so?

Love is always a matter of choice.

Now instead of explaining your point you’re just reiterating yourself.

Human beings and other species are social as well as having self-interest. Selfishness is excessive self-interest which ignores the interests of others.

I am well aware of what selfishness is and am also aware of it’s large presence in human societies of all kinds. It is naturally instinctive for humans to watch out for number one as a priority and sometimes that includes disregard for others. Whether everyone is as selfish as everyone else is debatable but it is certainly instinctive.