Is God held to a different moral standard?

[Angel]

The Bible mentions several acts of God that if a human did would be considered wrong. Some examples would be when the Bible mentions God killing babies and ordering others to do so. I wonder if God is obligated to follow the same morals as us. One common response I get from some Christians is that God is God so he can do what he wants. If we try to do some of the objectionable things on our own that he's done then we're guilty of playing God. For example, if a human kills an innocent baby, the human would be guilty of murder, but if God does it, some Christians defend it as being right since it's God. Christians with that position see no wrong in it just as long as the child goes to a better afterlife but they don't factor in the means of the baby's death which is by 'murder' as far as I could tell. Why the double standard?


Debate Question:
1) Does God have a different set of morals to follow or does he follow the same ones that he expects humans to follow?

2) If God does not follow the rules he expects us to follow, is that fair to his followers? Why or why not?

[AquinasD]

"It's cool for God to flood an entire planet, killing untold millions, but it ain't cool for humans to be a-doing it" is proof positive there's some double standarding going on - for right or wrong, good or bad.

See my lynch mob vs. jury of peers example. Do you think that there are no different moral standings for individuals under different circumstances?

[JoeyKnothead]

From Post 11:

"It's cool for God to flood an entire planet, killing untold millions, but it ain't cool for humans to be a-doing it" is proof positive there's some double standarding going on - for right or wrong, good or bad.

See my lynch mob vs. jury of peers example. Do you think that there are no different moral standings for individuals under different circumstances?

I was merely commenting on the topic of the OP...

"Is God held to a different moral standard?"

Notice too, I said that applying a different standard could be for right or wrong, or for good or bad.

About the only concern I have for how theists apply their moral standards is when they try to legislate that I should follow their version of morality as opposed to my own, or perhaps more importantly, when their version of morality is objectionable or abhorrent.

[David 2.0]

As a non-believer, I would imagine that there is the possibility that God would be held to a different moral standard than man.
Being the creator and all.

Potter and clay type of argument.

Just because I make a snake that relies on poison to live, does not mean that I am a snake or that I am poisonous.

Gods moral requirements seem up in the air to me?

[JohnPaul]

So from this I gather that not only can God arbitrarily take the life of another human, but He can also do so in the most horrible ways like drowning babies or ordering others to put them to the sword. I can see if God used a pain-free means to end the life of an 'innocent' person but that is not the case all the time, apparently.

Is this compatible with a 'loving' God? Isn't 'love' suppose to involve doing no 'harm' (or at least harm to the innocent)? Or does God only love some babies and not others?

Comfort is also God's, and it is His freedom to give and take away comfort.

But since when is comfort the highest end? This would require some sort of obscure deontic ethics to rule out "no being may ever cause pain in others." Though I don't think this is usually agreed to; for instance, surgery may cause pain, but the pain is permissible under double effect, i.e. the pain is allowed to be caused because a good thing, namely the health of the individual, is the end.

Could God arbitrarily cause ceaseless suffering to individuals? I'm not sure, since the question doesn't seem to make a lot of sense. Any action taken by a being has an end. Only if pain is a good in-itself would God cause it for itself; but causing pain isn't taken as a good in-itself. Causing pain is okay under double effect. So, if God is causing pain to some individual, there is a good reason for this. The particular reason may not be knowable at the time.

So "The end justifies the means"? I believe the Jesuits used that one, and so did the Nazis.

A surgeon would not cause pain if he could avoid it. An all-powerful God could certainly avoid it. Christians are fond of explaining away pain and evil by saying these things are necessary for God to achieve some greater good, but I have known 8-year-old kids to see the fallacy in that. Nothing is "necessary" for an all-powerful God to achieve anything he wants. The only possible reason for an all-powerful God to cause pain or evil is because he chooses to do so. Such a God might be feared, but certainly not trusted, loved, or worshipped.

John

[Zetesis Apistia]

Debate Question:
1) Does God have a different set of morals to follow or does he follow the same ones that he expects humans to follow?

Israel was a theocracy. Those were governmental laws. Those laws are no different then many countries use even today. People still get executed, people still get their hands cut off for stealing. Besides, you are traveling through time and cultures to question what may well have been an acceptable practice at that time. Do we condemn other cultures for their practices? If so what objective standard should we use?

2) If God does not follow the rules he expects us to follow, is that fair to his followers? Why or why not?

If god gave the orders it would appear that he approves.

[JohnPaul]

Debate Question:
1) Does God have a different set of morals to follow or does he follow the same ones that he expects humans to follow?

Israel was a theocracy. Those were governmental laws. Those laws are no different then many countries use even today. People still get executed, people still get their hands cut off for stealing. Besides, you are traveling through time and cultures to question what may well have been an acceptable practice at that time. Do we condemn other cultures for their practices? If so what objective standard should we use?

2) If God does not follow the rules he expects us to follow, is that fair to his followers? Why or why not?

If god gave the orders it would appear that he approves.

Yes, it would appear that God approved of the orders which you admit were acceptable only to an ancient primitive society. So why have we not now discarded the Bible and the ancient primitive God along with it?

John

[1213]

So, if I build a bridge, I have the right to destroy that bridge??

Nope.. doesn't work that way.

What could be the reason, why you don't have right to destroy that bridge? Does Bible deny that? Or is it forbidden in your law?

I think in this the problem could be if Bible gives different rules for human than he has himself. If Bible doesnt deny destroying own creations, then I think it is not moral problem in what Bible teaches in comparison to what is claimed to be Gods immoral act.

[Wootah]

The Bible mentions several acts of God that if a human did would be considered wrong. Some examples would be when the Bible mentions God killing babies and ordering others to do so. I wonder if God is obligated to follow the same morals as us. One common response I get from some Christians is that God is God so he can do what he wants. If we try to do some of the objectionable things on our own that he's done then we're guilty of playing God. For example, if a human kills an innocent baby, the human would be guilty of murder, but if God does it, some Christians defend it as being right since it's God. Christians with that position see no wrong in it just as long as the child goes to a better afterlife but they don't factor in the means of the baby's death which is by 'murder' as far as I could tell. Why the double standard?


Debate Question:
1) Does God have a different set of morals to follow or does he follow the same ones that he expects humans to follow?

2) If God does not follow the rules he expects us to follow, is that fair to his followers? Why or why not?

I think God has a different moral standard to ours otherwise we wouldn't need Jesus. If the bible is true and God acted as he did and is also loving then clearly God was in the right in those actions.

[Angel]

Debate Question:
1) Does God have a different set of morals to follow or does he follow the same ones that he expects humans to follow?

Israel was a theocracy. Those were governmental laws. Those laws are no different then many countries use even today. People still get executed, people still get their hands cut off for stealing. Besides, you are traveling through time and cultures to question what may well have been an acceptable practice at that time. Do we condemn other cultures for their practices? If so what objective standard should we use?

Which countries have laws that mention punishing innocent people, like babies? I can understand punishing someone, even if it's in a horrific way (although I wouldn't agree with that), when they actually break a law, but not when they don't break a law.

I understand that there may not be a way to confirm that objective morals exists or which ones, but people should at least be consistent in the laws that they come up with as a society at large. There's no point or justice in having the lawmaker(s) whether it be God or others, to say not to do this or that, and then for no justified reason (since sometimes the lawmaker does have to follow the same laws) goes on to violate their own laws. That can lead to an abuse of power among many other things. And one valid way to judge the morals of the Bible is based on if they were at least followed consistently. As it appears so far, sometimes those laws were not followed by some and it's worse when the lawmaker is one of them.

I'm open to changing my mind of course but I haven't gotten a good reason to yet that wouldn't create reasonable doubt.

[Zetesis Apistia]

Debate Question:
1) Does God have a different set of morals to follow or does he follow the same ones that he expects humans to follow?

Israel was a theocracy. Those were governmental laws. Those laws are no different then many countries use even today. People still get executed, people still get their hands cut off for stealing. Besides, you are traveling through time and cultures to question what may well have been an acceptable practice at that time. Do we condemn other cultures for their practices? If so what objective standard should we use?

2) If God does not follow the rules he expects us to follow, is that fair to his followers? Why or why not?

If god gave the orders it would appear that he approves.

Yes, it would appear that God approved of the orders which you admit were acceptable only to an ancient primitive society. So why have we not now discarded the Bible and the ancient primitive God along with it?

John

we haven't discarded the bible. Levitical law applied to Judaism. I am a Christian and we are under different marching orders. Isn't that why Jesus and Paul for example were killed? Because they were attempting to change the law?