“Human decency is not derived from religion. It precedes it.”

[Diogenes]

It is a common topic on this forum, variously phrased, that morality not only comes from God, but comes from the god 'I believe in.'
Christopher Hitchens famously challenged people to find a moral statement that could not be sincerely uttered by an atheist.
"No takers," he claimed.
Stated another way, Hitchens wrote, “Human decency is not derived from religion. It precedes it.”
― Christopher Hitchens
Conversely, Hitchens and many others can easily find many examples of immoral statements made in the name of God or of religion.

The question for debate is whether either of these statements can be refuted.

[1213]

I don't think it's evil for bullies to be stopped, with force if necessary. A god that says, "Let him hit you," is not a fair and just god. He's a god that loves the bully, and doesn't give a fig for anyone else.

So, if God one day stops evil people, it is fine for you?

I think patience is good and can cause more good than answering evil with evil.

[1213]

...
Apparently you have not read the Bible.
You could start with the book of Job where God lets Satan torture Job to win a bet.
and...

I have read it, that is why I can say there is not even the word "bet" in there. Why should I take you seriously, when you insert own words into what is said in the Bible?

But, in this case, God's "sin" is to give freedom. And apparently you think God tortures others with freedom.

I think it is good that you notice it is Satan who tortures, after God allowed it. It tells a lot about Satan. He tried to show all knowing God wrong, and instead showed that he doesn't know and that he is evil person who is ready to torture others to prove God wrong.

I believe God allowed all that, because by that way Satan would expose how evil and wrong he is. And I believe God allowed that also, because He knew Job can stand it and He will compensate it to Job at the end.

As for Abraham, 'God' commanded him to kill his own innocent, blameless son as a 'test.' How can you better torture a man than by making him kill his own beloved son?

By what is said in the Bible, Abraham believed God's promise and therefore knew that his son can't die, which is why the test was no problem for him.

Show me where Jesus said "kill your enemies" or "take beautiful women as your 'wives,' or 'bind your blameless son and kill him to show your loyalty to God.'

But, also Jesus shows the end of evil is coming.

[1213]

...
Without that proof you'd have to admit that...

Why should I admit anything without proof?

[TRANSPONDER]

I don't think it's evil for bullies to be stopped, with force if necessary. A god that says, "Let him hit you," is not a fair and just god. He's a god that loves the bully, and doesn't give a fig for anyone else.

So, if God one day stops evil people, it is fine for you?

I think patience is good and can cause more good than answering evil with evil.

So it seems you are better than those who see decent Christians splattered in That State and say "That happened because God was annoyed with Evil People in That State". It certainly makes you look better to sit back and let evils happen and say "God will sort it out in his time".. It is why Theism with authority fails. Bottom line, it seems to me - people are a problem. We may struggle to explain how our effortsat ethics work, but they are better than the utter failure of any theism to make things any better (though they try to claim the credit) and the frankly smug excuses and evasions as to why it doesn't.

Bottom line of the bottom line - the world apparently works as it would if there was no god there. Theist apologists get reduced to funny feelings or unexplained stuff like the moving stones for instance,even trying to argue the science explanation away with the 'I can't understand that, so it can't be true; line. The constant pointing to the evils of humans merely point up the problem of Evil. How is God's moral system any better?

I has a discussion with an Irish Catholic in my working days, and after my dismissing a claim that I'd killed Jesus by not believing in him, he responded to my point about the failure of Christianity with "'Christianity has not been tried".

"We've had it for near 2,000 years;The Bible is the world's best seller, the greatest nation of the earth plus the Latin Americans, are Christian.The later Roman empire was Christian. The Spanish empire was Christian, the British empire was Christian. How how much more do you need to 'try' Christianity?"

"Everyone needs to do what Jesus taught."

"That's like the soviet excuses for the failure of the system "If everyone did what they were told to it would work". Any system can claim it hasn't failed but hasn't been tried because people don't do it properly. That's the failure."

[1213]

... It certainly makes you look better to sit back and let evils happen and say "God will sort it out in his time"....

Not answering evil with evil is not the same as not doing anything, or accepting evil.

... the world apparently works as it would if there was no god there. ...

I disagree with that.

... failure of Christianity with "'Christianity has not been tried".

"We've had it for near 2,000 years;The Bible is the world's best seller, the greatest nation of the earth plus the Latin Americans, are Christian.The later Roman empire was Christian. The Spanish empire was Christian, the British empire was Christian. How how much more do you need to 'try' Christianity?"

"Everyone needs to do what Jesus taught."...

How do you measure something being Christian? What do you think it means when a country is Christian, that it's leader says he is a Christian?

[TRANSPONDER]

... It certainly makes you look better to sit back and let evils happen and say "God will sort it out in his time"....

Not answering evil with evil is not the same as not doing anything, or accepting evil.

... the world apparently works as it would if there was no god there. ...

I disagree with that.

... failure of Christianity with "'Christianity has not been tried".

"We've had it for near 2,000 years;The Bible is the world's best seller, the greatest nation of the earth plus the Latin Americans, are Christian.The later Roman empire was Christian. The Spanish empire was Christian, the British empire was Christian. How how much more do you need to 'try' Christianity?"

"Everyone needs to do what Jesus taught."...

How do you measure something being Christian? What do you think it means when a country is Christian, that it's leader says he is a Christian?

'evil with evil' is an example of why Christianity - indeed religion - is no better and often worse than human morality. It scrabbles for the moral high ground by advocating tame submission to aggressors, never taking issue with 'your brother' (non brothers another issue, I suppose) when religious infighting suggests it doesn't really work.

The soundbite 'evil for evil' has a point - revenge isn't always the right answer, but responding to evil with justice is not the same thing. Doing nothing and saying 'God will sort it out' is not and never has been, the answer.

I know you won't agree that the world works as it would if there was no God there. How would you like to start a thread on 'Why does the world look or work like there is as god there?' Or post some reasons (faithbased denial is not a reason) why.

It's for Christians - not me - to say whether a person or country is Christian or not. If they say they are Christian but none of them now or ever has been able to make Christianity work as it is supposed to - that is why 'Christianity has failed'.

[Purple Knight]

I don't think it's evil for bullies to be stopped, with force if necessary. A god that says, "Let him hit you," is not a fair and just god. He's a god that loves the bully, and doesn't give a fig for anyone else.

So, if God one day stops evil people, it is fine for you?

No. It's not his place. It is ours.

I see what you're saying and I agree with it. It would be meaningless if evil people remained evil, and knew that they had better pretend to be good, otherwise an all-powerful God would stop them and punish them. It's equally meaningless if good people have to act evil, just to get along. Hence the flood. Free will by itself doesn't do much. People have to have meaningful choices. This is what I argue with Libertarians, who say it's perfectly moral for it to turn out that Bob has to work for Kevin, or starve to death, as long as no government force is involved. If the way it works out is, there is only one viable choice, we might as well not have any free will.

I think patience is good and can cause more good than answering evil with evil.

If you think this, then why fight slavery? Why go to war with the Nazis? Why have a justice system at all? Why reach for better and more just conditions now? It'll all turn out right in the end.

[Purple Knight]

As for Abraham, 'God' commanded him to kill his own innocent, blameless son as a 'test.' How can you better torture a man than by making him kill his own beloved son?

The most worrisome part about this, is that the right answer was to blindly just accede to the request. At best, it's teaching obedience, and not morality.

[TRANSPONDER]

As for Abraham, 'God' commanded him to kill his own innocent, blameless son as a 'test.' How can you better torture a man than by making him kill his own beloved son?

The most worrisome part about this, is that the right answer was to blindly just accede to the request. At best, it's teaching obedience, and not morality.

Apologists sidestep this. They say that God never intended the son to be killed (though he let Jephtha's daughter be killed, as payment for a favor right?) but was a test see whether he'd be willing to do it. The extent to which obedience to do the ultimate social crime counts more than morality or justice is a basic problem.

One could have had a story where Abraham says, 'I will obey you in all things, Lord, other than atrocity". And God should have commended him for putting love and morality above blind obedience. But then, were are dealing with religious tales from the age of Assyria, not the age of Plato.

[Diogenes]

...
Apparently you have not read the Bible.
You could start with the book of Job where God lets Satan torture Job to win a bet.
and...

I have read it, that is why I can say there is not even the word "bet" in there. Why should I take you seriously, when you insert own words into what is said in the Bible?

Thank you for confirming you have not read the Bible, or at least have not read it with comprehension. Job is blameless, perfect, loves God. Satan taunts God, saying the only reason Job loves God is because God protects him ("has built a hedge around him [Job] )."
God accepts the 'bet.' What would you call it? A "challenge?" Fine, I won't quibble about the label. Just try to read, and read with comprehension:

There was a man in the land of Uz whose name was Job, and that man was blameless and upright, one who feared God and turned away from evil. There were born to him seven sons and three daughters. He possessed 7,000 sheep, 3,000 camels, 500 yoke of oxen, and 500 female donkeys, and very many servants, so that this man was the greatest of all the people of the east. His sons used to go and hold a feast in the house of each one on his day, and they would send and invite their three sisters to eat and drink with them. And when the days of the feast had run their course, Job would send and consecrate them, and he would rise early in the morning and offer burnt offerings according to the number of them all. For Job said, “It may be that my children have sinned, and cursed God in their hearts.” Thus Job did continually.
Satan Allowed to Test Job

Now there was a day when the sons of God came to present themselves before the Lord, and Satan also came among them. The Lord said to Satan, “From where have you come?” Satan answered the Lord and said, “From going to and fro on the earth, and from walking up and down on it.” And the Lord said to Satan, “Have you considered my servant Job, that there is none like him on the earth, a blameless and upright man, who fears God and turns away from evil?” Then Satan answered the Lord and said, “Does Job fear God for no reason? Have you not put a hedge around him and his house and all that he has, on every side? You have blessed the work of his hands, and his possessions have increased in the land. But stretch out your hand and touch all that he has, and he will curse you to your face.” And the Lord said to Satan, “Behold, all that he has is in your hand.

Job 1:1-12
So, because of Satan's argument and challenge, [to win the bet] God allows Satan to ruin Job's health, destroy his wealth, torture him with disease, kill Job's children, making Job so miserable that Job "laments" his very birth.

Perhaps you need to reread the entire book of Job?