Hard to pin-point the crux of disagreement. But allow me to try.
1. Can we take as a given that morality does not exit until we have two morally culpable agents? Right? I mean if it's just me with no living creatures on a desert island, can I act immorally?
2. If we accept that give, than God in his existence pre-creation was not a moral being in the given sense. He's just a being; just existing. Morality doesn't even spring into being a concept until that God creates other creatures.
3. We have some scraps of Scripture that intimate God created at least some angels before he created man. (Certainly, there was at least one angel created be the time Adam and Eve were frisking in the Garden, and from what we read that angel was able to convince a bunch of angels to rebel against God. So there were, at least a bunch of angels.)
4. We're not sure what sort of words God spoke, what sort of Scripture those angel beings got from God's mouth.
5. We know that God condemned such angels for their rebellion. We can only assume that those condemned angels knew God and rebelled anyway. But maybe they didn't know God, maybe they weren't intimate with God; maybe their rebellion was an assertion of their own morality, arrived at through consort among themselves. We don't know.
6. We know that God condemned half the first generation of the sons of Adam and Eve. We know that a few generations later, God condemned almost the whole of the human and animal and plant creation he'd pronounced "good." We know that a few generations later, he's picked one guy produce the seed that will whoop up on the rest of the human seed that he's saved.
7. God's non-PR version of his history with mankind is replete with what any of us moderns would consider immoral. His "law" back in the day had women who were raped being made whole by being married to her rapists. It included slavery as part of economic justice. It killed thousands (millions?) of babies to make a point. (Weird how the pro-life folks now want to claim God gives a shit about babies? He didn't back in the day.)
8. So what's changed? Has God changed? Why is that such an anathema? If God desired to created a race that would come out of the gate with rebellion, why would we not assume that he desires man to teach him morality as much as he teachers us?
The Bible is all over the place with relationship -- RELATIONSHIP! Hello that's no one-way street. God created man with a purpose, and it's not just to have some tawdry soap opera to spy on beneath the clouds. It's because God was a lonely being, amoral (by definition) and we wanted more. He wanted to create a being who would be capable of relating. When WE came on the scene, MORALITY came on the scene.
God, then, contended with what He wanted, a real relationship with real creatures who wouldn't just go all oh-because-you-said-it. You can call that faith, and I'm guessing God will be all oh-another-one-of-those-pansies. Then He gets a David or a Saul or a Luther or a Jana who curses God's current agenda. And God goes, "Un-huh, that's what I mean."
The Bible is replete with men and woman who call God out, who are in real relationship, as they were created to be.
A pox on get-along with God types. That's no-where and no-way what God created us to be. Real relationships. Not some shamefaced-Oprah-I'm-just-consigned-to-be-co-dependent crap. We are designed, created, by God to be contenders. We shape God; for the very fact that he created us because he was bored being the end all beat all. He admitted us into his trajectory. We are cowards if we don't accept the challenge. Contend with your God. That's what God created you to do.
The Daily Paul is a community website with no official affiliation with Ron Paul. The content of posts and comments on the Dai