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?

[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?

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.

Subjective morality gives us the right to condemn or approve of our own actions, but it restricts us from venturing outside of ourselves, and finding fault with others. Any time we attempt to find fault with, or condemn the actions of someone other than us we are using an objective standard of rule to measure them by whether we are aware of it or not. If we remove God from the picture, we at the same time must remove the possibility of an objective standard. Let me ask you this. Evidently at that time these babies were killed, the law supported those that killed those babies. In fact these were soldiers that were given orders to do so by military officials, who in fact had the support of the legislative body. If the law itself permitted the killing of these babies how is it that you find fault with it? Whose objective moral law are you measuring them by?

[Adamoriens]

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.

There are objective moral values implicit in your criticism. The idea that we should at least be consistent with our subjective moral boundaries, or that we should have justifiable reasons to transcend them, are artefacts of moral realism.

[Goat]

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.

Or, I could have been contracted to build that bridge.. and that bridge is now public property.

Sorry, but your response about 'God made us, he has the right to destroy us', I personally find immoral.

[AquinasD]

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

The principle of double effect is different from blas consequentialism.

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.

Why should we believe that avoidance of pain is the highest, most ethical end of action?

Nobody stated that God needs to cause pain; only that there might be relevant reasons for pain to be an understandable double effect. Short of God choosing to just not create this world, God is going to have to allow pain to befall His creatures, since the capacity for pain is an essential potency of our natures. The only question is whether pain is worth existence. Is it better to exist despite pain, or to not exist in order to avoid any potential pain?

If existence is a good worth having in spite of pain, then God is just to put us in existence.

[Angel]

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.

Subjective morality gives us the right to condemn or approve of our own actions, but it restricts us from venturing outside of ourselves, and finding fault with others. Any time we attempt to find fault with, or condemn the actions of someone other than us we are using an objective standard of rule to measure them by whether we are aware of it or not. If we remove God from the picture, we at the same time must remove the possibility of an objective standard.

You are taking my point the wrong way. I'm not claiming if the morals of the Bible are true or not. I'm judging Bible followers using THEIR OWN moral standards and not some outside standard. Those standards still exist to those people and to Israel back then even if they weren't objective - they're just non-objective standards that people and a society followed.

Let me ask you this. Evidently at that time these babies were killed, the law supported those that killed those babies. In fact these were soldiers that were given orders to do so by military officials, who in fact had the support of the legislative body. If the law itself permitted the killing of these babies how is it that you find fault with it? Whose objective moral law are you measuring them by?

I'm not aware of any law given to Moses that instructs on killing babies. To the contrary, I find that killing babies would conflict with the law of ""thou shall not murder".

You mention the Israelites soilders of tha ttime being given a command. That's true that soilders should follow commands but at the same time shouldn't they also follow to not 'murder" or follow commands to the point that they don't conflict with other moral laws? And by murders i'm referring to the killing of the INNOCENT. If a soilder is given a command to commit adultery, would he be justified via biblical standards?

You asked again by what objective measure am I judging the Bible's morals? My response again is I'm using their own standards to judge them. I'm not using some outside standard or my own personal standards.

[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.

There are objective moral values implicit in your criticism. The idea that we should at least be consistent with our subjective moral boundaries, or that we should have justifiable reasons to transcend them, are artefacts of moral realism.

Well it's possible for a subjective moral system to have as a standard to be consistent in following the moral standards of the given system. That's not the same as saying that that moral system is true in reality which is the point of objective morals.

Objective morals is about a set of values that are true whether or not anyone believes/agree or doesn't believe. Where these morals come from or how they exist or how we can know them is a different debate.

My goal in creating this thread was to use Bible believers own standards to judge them (the bible believers). I am not inserting any standard outside of those standards. In fact, God's standards mentions that all should follow His standards and consistently.

[Zetesis Apistia]

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.

So are you creating an objective moral standard that those countries should adhere to? Why should your opinion matter to them if they approve of it? If that country had no problem punishing innocent people, and their government stood behind their actions, why are you condemning them just because they violated your subjective moral standard?

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.

Again, you are interfering with the the moral code of other countries. Who says they should be consistent? Consistent with who?

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.

So what moral law says a dictator should not abuse his power?

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.

the sad thing about religion is is that it relies much on interpretation of scripture. If some wacko interprets the bible in order to justify his selfish agenda, should we condemn the bible or should we condemn the interpretation? America has only been around for a little over two hundred years, and our own supreme court still can't agree on the proper interpretation of our laws. How much more a book that has been around for thousands of years?

You are taking my point the wrong way. I'm not claiming if the morals of the Bible are true or not. I'm judging Bible followers using THEIR OWN moral standards and not some outside standard. Those standards still exist to those people and to Israel back then even if they weren't objective - they're just non-objective standards that people and a society followed.

Israel was a theocracy, and levitical law was legislated in order to govern a country not a church. America executes people all of the time, and god didn't tell us to do it. btw. you are refering to Judaism, not Christianity.

I'm not aware of any law given to Moses that instructs on killing babies. To the contrary, I find that killing babies would conflict with the law of ""thou shall not murder".

Deuteronomy20:16 The Hebrew word for murder is not the same as the Hebrew word kill. Murder is used to describe criminal intent. Let me ask you this.

You mention the Israelites soilders of tha ttime being given a command. That's true that soilders should follow commands but at the same time shouldn't they also follow to not 'murder" or follow commands to the point that they don't conflict with other moral laws? And by murders i'm referring to the killing of the INNOCENT. If a soilder is given a command to commit adultery, would he be justified via biblical standards?

Again murder implies criminal intent. Soldiers following orders are not criminal.
As far as Christian instruction is concerned. We are commanded to love our enemies. Jesus legislated a whole new set of rules and got killed for it.

You asked again by what objective measure am I judging the Bible's morals? My response again is I'm using their own standards to judge them. I'm not using some outside standard or my own personal standards.

Again, the Torah was intended to govern a country. The new testament was given to govern the church. Show me one place in the new testament where Christians are commanded to kill anyone.

[Angel]

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.

So are you creating an objective moral standard that those countries should adhere to? Why should your opinion matter to them if they approve of it? If that country had no problem punishing innocent people, and their government stood behind their actions, why are you condemning them just because they violated your subjective moral standard?

You took my statement out of context. The response of mine you just quoted was in response to your reponse to my question regarding GOD's morals and not my personal morals. Refer to page. 2, post #19. So I'm not judging a nation of baby killers based on my morals but rather, I'm assuming that a nation had Bible-based morals, and that they were killing babies.

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.

Again, you are interfering with the the moral code of other countries. Who says they should be consistent? Consistent with who?

I'm assuming you're also referring to the killing of babies or the innocent, overall.
If a nation follows God's morals as described by the Bible, which are supposed to be followed consistently (with a given that you may stray but are expected to repent and return right back on track), then yes, 'murder' would be wrong. I'm not sure what you call 'interfering' because I'm all doing is using God's own standards against God and his people. I'm not inserting my standard or any other outside standard.

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.

So what moral law says a dictator should not abuse his power?

You have a point when I'm judging nations based on MY standards, but when I'm referring to a theocracy based on GOD's morals, then my point is very valid. The moral law that says leaders should not abuse their power or do wrong is God's own morals and his nature, by definition.

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.

the sad thing about religion is is that it relies much on interpretation of scripture. If some wacko interprets the bible in order to justify his selfish agenda, should we condemn the bible or should we condemn the interpretation? America has only been around for a little over two hundred years, and our own supreme court still can't agree on the proper interpretation of our laws. How much more a book that has been around for thousands of years?

This does not apply to me.

You are taking my point the wrong way. I'm not claiming if the morals of the Bible are true or not. I'm judging Bible followers using THEIR OWN moral standards and not some outside standard. Those standards still exist to those people and to Israel back then even if they weren't objective - they're just non-objective standards that people and a society followed.

Israel was a theocracy, and levitical law was legislated in order to govern a country not a church. America executes people all of the time, and god didn't tell us to do it. btw. you are refering to Judaism, not Christianity.

Whether the wrong occurred in the NT era or in the OT era, it's still a WRONG. So examining God's past is just as relevant as his modern-day actions, if we are talking about how he and his followers have acted in the context of their moral standards.

You bring up executions in America. Does America execute BABIES or PURPOSELY execute the innocent (KNOWING that they are innocent) with the guilty?

I'm not aware of any law given to Moses that instructs on killing babies. To the contrary, I find that killing babies would conflict with the law of ""thou shall not murder".

Deuteronomy20:16 The Hebrew word for murder is not the same as the Hebrew word kill. Murder is used to describe criminal intent. Let me ask you this.

Deuteronomy 20:16 does not mention the word 'kill' or 'murder'. This also does not take away from the fact that the 10 commandments mentions to not 'murder'. So yes, the Bible does have as a moral standard to not murder. I question why when you failed to locate it in Deut. 20 that you didn't consider looking at other passages.

You mention the Israelites soilders of tha ttime being given a command. That's true that soilders should follow commands but at the same time shouldn't they also follow to not 'murder" or follow commands to the point that they don't conflict with other moral laws? And by murders i'm referring to the killing of the INNOCENT. If a soilder is given a command to commit adultery, would he be justified via biblical standards?

Again murder implies criminal intent. Soldiers following orders are not criminal.
As far as Christian instruction is concerned. We are commanded to love our enemies. Jesus legislated a whole new set of rules and got killed for it.

As for the 1st 2 sentences here, I disagree with you. A murder is murder no matter who does it or at least the Bible makes no distinction. God clearly mentions the reason he wanted the Canaanites exterminated and it's clear that those reasons of idolatry did not apply to the babies. What you're leaving out here is that it's a wrong on the COMMANDER, as well. The commander is not only violating his own standards but also leading others to do the same.

Adultery is clearly wrong in the Bible. Are you going to tell me if God or some follower of his ordered the Israel army to rape or commit adultery that that would be moral?

You mention Christian instructions. If God was not consistent with following the OT morals why should I trust he'd be consistent in following the NT instructions? Skipping to the NT just means to me that all the bad stuff in the OT should be ignored or swept under the rug, and just accept the NT with no questions asked. That's not going to work with me.

You asked again by what objective measure am I judging the Bible's morals? My response again is I'm using their own standards to judge them. I'm not using some outside standard or my own personal standards.

Again, the Torah was intended to govern a country. The new testament was given to govern the church. Show me one place in the new testament where Christians are commanded to kill anyone.

I'm sorry but this is not going to work with me. I was a former Christian so I know many tricks to dodge the tough questions. I'd rather call it like it is. Whether God did a wrong in the OT or in the NT, it is still a wrong, period. Those wrongs confirm that God and his followers were not moral based on their own moral standards.

[JohnPaul]

Zetesis Apistia wrote:

Subjective morality gives us the right to condemn or approve of our own actions, but it restricts us from venturing outside of ourselves, and finding fault with others. Any time we attempt to find fault with, or condemn the actions of someone other than us we are using an objective standard of rule to measure them by whether we are aware of it or not. If we remove God from the picture, we at the same time must remove the possibility of an objective standard. Let me ask you this. Evidently at that time these babies were killed, the law supported those that killed those babies. In fact these were soldiers that were given orders to do so by military officials, who in fact had the support of the legislative body. If the law itself permitted the killing of these babies how is it that you find fault with it? Whose objective moral law are you measuring them by?

So you are blaming "military officials" for the orders to slaughter babies during the Israelite invasion of Canaan? Here is the text of the order itself. Please note the source of the order!

But of the cities of these people, which the Lord thy God doth give thee for an inheritance, thou shalt save alive nothing that breatheth: But thou shalt utterly destroy them; namely, the Hittites, and the Amorites, the Canaanites, and the Perizzites, the Hivites, and the Jebusites; as the Lord thy God hath commanded thee: (Deuteronomy 20:16-17)

God committed many atrocities himself personally. Apparently he enjoyed it.

John

[Adamoriens]

Why should we believe that avoidance of pain is the highest, most ethical end of action?

Nobody stated that God needs to cause pain; only that there might be relevant reasons for pain to be an understandable double effect. Short of God choosing to just not create this world, God is going to have to allow pain to befall His creatures, since the capacity for pain is an essential potency of our natures. The only question is whether pain is worth existence. Is it better to exist despite pain, or to not exist in order to avoid any potential pain?

If existence is a good worth having in spite of pain, then God is just to put us in existence.

It's not the capacity for pain that exacerbates the problem of evil, but the experience of it.