Does god have morals?

[nobspeople]

Morality is highly subjective to time and geography as well as the individual:
some say stealing is immoral while others make exceptions for what's stolen and the reason;
some say being gay is immoral while others say it's only the act while others say neither is immoral and still others say it's immoral (or at least unacceptable when it's men with men, but not women with women);
at one point, some said it immoral to marry a different race when today, it's mostly seen as a non-issue.
The list continues, but you get the point.

This makes me wonder if god is moral?
The quick answer is either yes (normally said by the faithful because that's what they're supposed to say) or no (mostly by 'the others'). But isn't that judging god's actions by human standards?
What if god has its own moral code, different from humanity's? After all, god didn't think it immoral to wipe out a whole city or drown 99.99% of the population (including babies and women in the middle of giving birth - what did those babies do to you, o god?!?!) as well as almost all living land animals. And god didn't see it immoral to kill various armies in the bible.

For discussion:
Is god, by human standards, moral or no?
Or does god have its own moral code which we can't access?

[EarthScienceguy]

[Replying to nobspeople in post #96]

At one point, it was immoral for marriages to include different races. In some places it still may be, but not everywhere.
Morality changes from person to person and from time to time and from location to location. What's moral in one place may not be in another. Thus, it's subjective, depending on the circumstance.

Are you saying this is good or is this bad? And how can you know whether it is good or bad?

[JoeyKnothead]

[Replying to nobspeople in post #96]

At one point, it was immoral for marriages to include different races. In some places it still may be, but not everywhere.
Morality changes from person to person and from time to time and from location to location. What's moral in one place may not be in another. Thus, it's subjective, depending on the circumstance.

Are you saying this is good or is this bad? And how can you know whether it is good or bad?

What with the lacking a basis for morality, we gotta wait us on the preachers to come in and tell us.

[William]

[Replying to nobspeople in post #96]

At one point, it was immoral for marriages to include different races. In some places it still may be, but not everywhere.
Morality changes from person to person and from time to time and from location to location. What's moral in one place may not be in another. Thus, it's subjective, depending on the circumstance.

Are you saying this is good or is this bad? And how can you know whether it is good or bad?

What with the lacking a basis for morality, we gotta wait us on the preachers to come in and tell us.

That is the point of morality...and why it has to shift as new evidence presents itself...checks and balances...

[Diogenes]

[Replying to nobspeople in post #96]

At one point, it was immoral for marriages to include different races. In some places it still may be, but not everywhere.

Are you saying this is good or is this bad? And how can you know whether it is good or bad?

This is so easy to answer, I wonder why it is even asked. First, there is no such thing as 'race,' except as a social or tribal construct. People are born into their perceived 'race,' so it is not a choice. Any system of morality which blames people for their status, particularly a status they did not choose, is itself immoral.

We see this kind of tribal and genetic bigotry in the Old Testament which condoned slavery and condemned people who had "defects."

For no one who has a blemish shall draw near, a man blind or lame, or one who has a mutilated face or a limb too long, or a man who has an injured foot or an injured hand, or a hunchback or a dwarf or a man with a defect in his sight or an itching disease or scabs or crushed testicles.

Leviticus 21:18-20

[nobspeople]

[Replying to nobspeople in post #96]

At one point, it was immoral for marriages to include different races. In some places it still may be, but not everywhere.
Morality changes from person to person and from time to time and from location to location. What's moral in one place may not be in another. Thus, it's subjective, depending on the circumstance.

Are you saying this is good or is this bad? And how can you know whether it is good or bad?

What 'this' and 'it' are you referring?

[JoeyKnothead]

What with the lacking a basis for morality, we gotta wait us on the preachers to come in and tell us.

That is the point of morality...and why it has to shift as new evidence presents itself...checks and balances...

Good call, my friend, good call.

I can always trust you to see angles I miss.

[EarthScienceguy]

[Replying to Diogenes in post #104]

This is so easy to answer, I wonder why it is even asked. First, there is no such thing as 'race,' except as a social or tribal construct. People are born into their perceived 'race,' so it is not a choice. Any system of morality which blames people for their status, particularly a status they did not choose, is itself immoral.

Why is it immoral? Because you say so? What makes your beliefs any better than anyone else?

[Diogenes]

[Replying to Diogenes in post #104]

This is so easy to answer, I wonder why it is even asked. First, there is no such thing as 'race,' except as a social or tribal construct. People are born into their perceived 'race,' so it is not a choice. Any system of morality which blames people for their status, particularly a status they did not choose, is itself immoral.

Why is it immoral? Because you say so? What makes your beliefs any better than anyone else?

A basic sense of morality is something we are born with. We see it in babies. It takes adults to teach us bigotry and unfairness.

Morality is not just something that people learn, argues Yale psychologist Paul Bloom: It is something we are all born with. At birth, babies are endowed with compassion, with empathy, with the beginnings of a sense of fairness.

https://www.scientificamerican.com/arti ... of-babies/

The 'Golden Rule' was preached long before the New Testament. Despite many of the tribal references and bigotry we see in the Old Testament, we see these same principles reflected in the wisdom literature of the Bible.

We see these principles reflected in...

UNIVERSAL DECLARATION OF HUMAN RIGHTS
Adopted by UN General Assembly Resolution 217A (III) of 10 December 1948

WHEREAS recognition of the inherent dignity and of the equal and inalienable rights of all members of the human family is the foundation of freedom, justice and peace in the world,

WHEREAS disregard and contempt for human rights have resulted in barbarous acts which have outraged the conscience of mankind, and the advent of a world in which human beings shall enjoy freedom of speech and belief and freedom from fear and want has been proclaimed as the highest aspiration of the common people....

https://www.un.org/chinese/center/chbus ... nglish.htm

No individual culture or tribe survives without this basic morality because it would tear itself apart without it. We can even observe it in animals. Mammals at least, share this same sense of empathy, fairness and reciprocity. There's a well known Ted Talk with Frans de Waal that has been published on this forum several times:


For some reason there is cultural-centric notion argued here many times by evangelicals that insists morality can only come from their God. This is just plain wrong, as I have just demonstrated.

[William]

What with the lacking a basis for morality, we gotta wait us on the preachers to come in and tell us.

That is the point of morality...and why it has to shift as new evidence presents itself...checks and balances...

Good call, my friend, good call.

I can always trust you to see angles I miss.

Thank You Brother.

I think this is why YHWH stays Her Hand.

FOLK are learning...and You love me, despite my affliction for all things GOD. I could ask for nothing better....

[William]

[Replying to Diogenes in post #108]

For some reason there is cultural-centric notion argued here many times by evangelicals that insists morality can only come from their God. This is just plain wrong, as I have just demonstrated.

What they do not easily see therein, is that this idea makes monkeys out of them, and they are determined to become gods.

The confusion caused is a response to the dilemma of God being within an Animal, at the same time god is within a Human - mostly because of the incredible chasm between the two positions of form.

It is the knowledge we are capable of collecting and the ability to use the knowledge any which way we want to, which causes the confusion, when it is aimed at the only god-like entity we know of and collective seem to have a love-hate relationship for/with.

It is as if we all resent the fact of the life we are within...whereas the Animals just get about getting on with it without all that fuss...