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?

[EduChris]

...The term 'murder' would apply to a God when He kills based on an unjustified reason...

Death is an inevitable consequence of life on this earth. God alone, and no other, can use death and stipulate the means and the timing of any person's death if and when it serves some purpose which God intends for greater good. To argue the point is to engage in emotionalism rather than reason. God is not obligated to anyone other than to ensure that a sentient being will not suffer, on balance, more evil than good. A natural correlary is that when we observe what appears to be unjustified evil, then either: 1) the evil is not objectively greater than the good, or 2) God will compensate the individual in the afterlife.

[Adamoriens]

One could challenge the high value you place on the redemption of the suffering of a few, expanding the envelope of worlds which shouldn't have been created.

Ought people who will enjoy the beatific vision give up their existence because there are others who refuse to enjoy it? Should people give up nice things because some insist on being miserable?

I thought that at one time we were in agreement that uncreated persons, despite their having futures tangible to God, had no frustrated or satisfied potentialities one way or another whether God created them or not. Therefore the intuition that some set would be better off created despite the damnation of the majority or the few is not strictly one about whether we have moral obligations toward the uncreated persons, but about something else. Is it purely aesthetic? It does seem as if a damned person, despite damnation being their own damned fault, shouldn't have been created, all things being equal. Perhaps it comes down to the relative moral weight of justice and mercy.

Nevertheless, I wonder if viewing persons as complex collections of contingencies and maintaining that they are distinctively persons is conceptually confused itself. My understanding of a commonsense notion of persons includes the idea that some part of a human preserves (or at least changes much slower) in spite of the contingencies of life, and that this core is the person or soul.

The principle of absolute contingency is stated from the perspective of atemporal existence. A person can only be who they are as exemplified over their lifetime. There is indeed a "core" which persists, but speaking about a person as if they could be a person in any other world than their own just doesn't make sense. God cannot actualize the existence of an individual except that individual's own.

The kind of existence we possess (in terms of significant choices) are our own choice.

That has some odd implications. You may not refer to me as Adamoriens the person, because I am only the temporal instantiation of the actual lifelong person. Is there any time in my life at which I am Adamoriens the person? If not, then why should God value our final state of mind in deciding whether to extend salvation? Why do we refer to ourselves as persons when we are only referring to an temporally- immediate individual?

Where do my own moral obligations lie, to your concept of the person or to the present individual? If my obligations are a function of how the potentialities of persons are affected, it seems that my obligations are out of my view at all times.

Also, given your own emphasis on how conceivability correlates with actual logical possibility, isn't it conceivable and therefore possible for Adamoriens to exist in other worlds? Isn't it conceivable for Adamoriens to not exist and his family receive the beatific vision?

[Adamoriens]

Given theism (involving conscious, rational volition) it would be irrational to suppose that our world exhibits unjustified suffering.

Of course. But then, theism is the thing in question.

[EduChris]

...theism is the thing in question.

I have demonstrated elsewhere that theism is the only epistemically justified explanation for our universe and our selves.

Until someone comes up with an epistemically justified non-theistic explanation, theism can be reasonably assumed.

[Adamoriens]

...theism is the thing in question.

I have demonstrated elsewhere that theism is the only epistemically justified explanation for our universe and our selves.

Until someone comes up with an epistemically justified non-theistic explanation, theism can be reasonably assumed.

My apologies. The problem of evil only demonstrates that VUR is probably not morally perfect and perhaps not even very good. At least I think it does, if my modal intuitions do as much for me as yours do for you.

[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?

I in general do not see that God must follow the same rules as mortals. Which rules He must follows depends on your definition of God, and their could be variances even within Christianity.


However, whatever one's definition of God, it typically includes God not being human, not having a physical nature, being eternal, being omniscient and omnipotent or at least orders of magnitude more knowledgeable and powerful than we are, etc., etc.

Under these assumptions, I am not sure why God would or should follow usual standards of human morality.


To make an analogy, government or judicial officials or police officers, at least in the performance of their duties, often do not need to follow the same rules as everyone else. Police officers can carry guns anywhere, can detain individuals, can perform violent acts including killing, all legally and presumably morally justified. Governments, through eminent domain and other means, can acquire property that is not theirs.

Would you consider any of those examples of unfairness?

I agree with you for the most part and it's only because of the basis for those differences that you mentioned. I don't deny that God would have different rules to follow (although it would be nice to know what they are so I know what to expect) but he also has rules to follow that are the same for us. For example, not lying is a moral standard that applies to everyone, God included (according to the Bible -Leviticus 19:11 and Hebrews 6:18).

If we go by the Bible and we see God being defined as a God of 'justice' and as 'love' and the lengths that He often goes through trying to reinforce those aspects, then we can also say that God should not 'murder'. I don't believe that God should punish the 'innocent' or righteous based on His characteristics of 'justice' and 'love' so I've chosen to focus on various places in the Bible where I believe God committed murders. Examples, God bringing on plagues on Egypt including killing all Egyptian firstborns, when it comes to any innocent babies in Sodom and Gomorrah, etc. I've already had some try to explain to me that some of these passages are not to be taken literally but then i find EduChris still defending the acts of baby killings even if they those baby killings did take place in real life. This is what I question.

[AquinasD]

I thought that at one time we were in agreement that uncreated persons, despite their having futures tangible to God, had no frustrated or satisfied potentialities one way or another whether God created them or not.

We are agreed on this. However,

Therefore the intuition that some set would be better off created despite the damnation of the majority or the few is not strictly one about whether we have moral obligations toward the uncreated persons, but about something else. Is it purely aesthetic? It does seem as if a damned person, despite damnation being their own damned fault, shouldn't have been created, all things being equal. Perhaps it comes down to the relative moral weight of justice and mercy.

I don't agree that there is any reason to consider the "moral weight" of damned persons. The damned be damned.

That has some odd implications. You may not refer to me as Adamoriens the person, because I am only the temporal instantiation of the actual lifelong person. Is there any time in my life at which I am Adamoriens the person? If not, then why should God value our final state of mind in deciding whether to extend salvation? Why do we refer to ourselves as persons when we are only referring to an temporally- immediate individual?

To exist is to be instantiated at some point. Temporal existence is a real existence; I only mean that, in terms of contingency, as a whole a person cannot be other than they are. What that whole is is decided over time in that person's own temporal frame of reference.

Also, given your own emphasis on how conceivability correlates with actual logical possibility, isn't it conceivable and therefore possible for Adamoriens to exist in other worlds? Isn't it conceivable for Adamoriens to not exist and his family receive the beatific vision?

Nope. Just semantical confusion. You are bound to your world. To say "I might be in another possible world" is like saying "This world might not be the world that it is." Just a contradiction to the law of identity.

[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?

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.

Angel you are arguing against a system you say doesn't exist. If there is no God, then your argument is pointless. You are trying to find fault with "nothing". For the sake of argument let's say that God does not exist. Let's say that the bible is just a bunch of made up hog wash. With that premise in mind would you say it is wrong for soldiers of other countries to kill innocent babies if their moral code justifies it? Whose moral law should apply here? Yours or theirs?

[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.

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.

I think you are using this tactic as a red herring. You are sucker punching to make a point, and then hiding behind unbelief. The bottom line is this. Should you have the right to condemn the moral code of Christians, yes or no?

[Fuzzy Dunlop]

...You are arguing that we would be unable to learn the consequences of our "evil actions" if Yahweh did not order people to commit genocide? Can you explain how that follows?...

God gives us a world for interaction and growth and development and moral choice. Humans misuse our freedom; we habitually choose evil. God steps into the mess as sparingly as possible, at critical junctions where decisive action is necessary in order to ensure that over the long haul, humankind can be brought to increasingly greater levels of moral development. In other words, I don't think God's continual planetary-scale micromanaging is consistent with genuine human freedom. Decisive action may be required in extreme circumstances, but as the Bible itself demonstrates, such actions will be infrequent and limited mostly to a the dealings of one particular chosen people, from whom eventually blessings will go out to all people. God has every right to act as he does, and we "messy humans" are in no position to second-guess God.

I see many assertions but no explanation. But how could there be an explanation? It is hard to imagine the world being much different now if history had one less genocide or one more loving (rather than wrathful) divine intervention. "Yahweh had to order his followers to kill babies or else we would be unable to learn the consequences of our actions" seems a statement of faith and a pretty clear non sequitur at that.

I mean, you're arguing that Yahweh's intervention is absolutely required for human freedom and that continual micromanagement is inconsistent with human freedom in the same breath. You're asserting that Yahweh only acts as sparingly as possible, therefore the genocide commands were necessary (circular reasoning, I believe). And you top it off the Job 38-esque nonanswer of "we are not worthy to question Yahweh's mysterious ways."

I'm sure that whatever I or anyone else might say, you will remain unconvinced. So be it.

This is poisoning the well in lieu of debate. You aren't required to respond but this sort of thing is uncalled for.