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?

[JehovahsWitness]

Well, that would depend on what is meant and what that entailed. Mistreatment and abuse of a person is of course abhorrent to me but if what is being referenced was protective and beneficial then yes.

One can be protective and offer beneficial treatment without requiring that someone else be owned as personal property.

Did I claim otherwise ?

To learn more please go to other posts related to ...

THE MOSAIC LAW , SLAVERY and HOMOSEXUALITY

[brunumb]

Well, that would depend on what is meant and what that entailed. Mistreatment and abuse of a person is of course abhorrent to me but if what is being referenced was protective and beneficial then yes.

One can be protective and offer beneficial treatment without requiring that someone else be owned as personal property.

Did I claim otherwise ?

The way I have read your posts is as a defense of slavery. I find the defense of any form of slavery abhorrent.

[Miles]

You favor killing such homosexuals? Of course you do. . . . . .

Please be so kind as to not speak on my behalf; I don't presume to tell you what you do or not favor and expect the same courtesey from my fellow posters on this forum.

I certainly didn't see you deny the morality of killing practicing homosexual males, but did, in fact, see you affirm it by not only failing to condemn the practice, but by pawning its morality onto god's use of Mosaic law to disseminate it. So why wouldn't I, or anyone else, conclude you favor killing practicing homosexual males?

1. God announces a binding order
2. You don't deny its soundness
3. You even imply it is sound by citing god's use of Moses's announcement to support it.

4. Please tell us where my logic has gone awry in concluding you favor killing practicing male homosexuals.


.

[nobspeople]

Well, that would depend on what is meant and what that entailed. Mistreatment and abuse of a person is of course abhorrent to me but if what is being referenced was protective and beneficial then yes.

One can be protective and offer beneficial treatment without requiring that someone else be owned as personal property.

Did I claim otherwise ?

The way I have read your posts is as a defense of slavery. I find the defense of any form of slavery abhorrent.

I recall I saw once, someone ask (all paraphrased, of course) 'would you kill your child if god asked' and it was said 'yes, in a heartbeat - I'd lite the match'.
That being said, it comes as no surprise that one would not be 'against slavery' or any numerous terrible things outlined in the bible if they're willing to burn 'lite the match' and kill their own child.
Belief and what it instills in people is a weird and powerful thing.

[Diogenes]

Well, that would depend on what is meant and what that entailed. Mistreatment and abuse of a person is of course abhorrent to me but if what is being referenced was protective and beneficial then yes.

One can be protective and offer beneficial treatment without requiring that someone else be owned as personal property.

Did I claim otherwise ?

The way I have read your posts is as a defense of slavery. I find the defense of any form of slavery abhorrent.

I recall I saw once, someone ask (all paraphrased, of course) 'would you kill your child if god asked' and it was said 'yes, in a heartbeat - I'd lite the match'.
That being said, it comes as no surprise that one would not be 'against slavery' or any numerous terrible things outlined in the bible if they're willing to burn 'lite the match' and kill their own child.
Belief and what it instills in people is a weird and powerful thing.

This thread is a year and a half old, yet during that interval, no Christian apologist has responded. Is this a concession that Christianity has no argument against slavery, or killing one's own child, or rape, torture, or murder IF 'God' so commands?
Over and over on this forum apologists have argued that morality must ultimately come from God. Yet their 'god' appears to have no morality except what pleases him; no ethic apart from "Do what I say."

[JehovahsWitness]

This thread is a year and a half old, yet during that interval, no Christian apologist has responded.

I do believe I have responded to this post. I am one of Jehovah's Witnesses.

Is this a concession that Christianity has no argument against slavery, or killing one's own child, or rape, torture, or murder IF 'God' so commands?

Yes, that is I personally believe, correct.

To learn more please go to other posts related to...

RAPE, SLAVERY and ...WAR CAPTIVES

Over and over on this forum apologists have argued that morality must ultimately come from God.

That is simply a logical inevitability if by "God" one means the originator of all things including morals. If God created everything, then God must have created (or at least been the originator of that which became) morals. It might be likened to a car that had a light on the dashboard which starts flashing to signal when something is wrong with the engine. Who but the maker of the car made the light warning? Who (and this is a question , not a CLAIM) who... but the maker of humans would be at the origins of morals? Logic!

To learn more on this topic please see my earlier post ...Does God violate his own moral standards?
http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v ... 20#p840620

Yet their 'god' appears to have no morality except what pleases him; no ethic apart from "Do what I say."

When was the last time you asked your car where it wanted to drive? Biblically* speaking, God is under no compulsion to offer his creation any explanation at all for his commands. In many cases (and I am making no claim here, just offering a bible based point of view) ... in many cases, scripturally, he condesended to explain his actions and ask kindly we comply. In the cases where he does not, we are expected to TRUST His better judgement.








JW

[ * ] I am ONLY mentioning the bible to show what Christianity says in line with subforum guidelines, not to prove that a statement or story therein is true. ​I am not presenting the bible as authorative or proof of truth and have no intention to add an argument to that end in this subforum See LINKS for details: viewtopic.php?p=213491#p213491

[2ndpillar2]

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?

It is the Marxist Progressives who believe their morality surpasses that of God. As for the Marxist historically, their agenda wound up killing 10s of millions of people in China, and Russia. No telling the amount of suffering in North Korea or Venezuela. The difference with God, is he is quite patient, but in the end, the wicked, lawless, self righteous, the woke, will pay the piper. As for the Law of God, the 10 Commandments, they are the standard. For the Progressives, the standard is what makes them feel good, and more righteous than all others, and therefore they ration information, as with the fascist burning of books, or the Progressives cutting off information that does not match their twisted views. The Progressives have the ability to burn the aborted, and corrupt and prey on children, but they do not have the freedom to escape judgment. Good mental and physical health will escape them in the present, and life will be lost in the future, but they certainly have the freedom to go ahead and try and lead the "many" down the wide path to "destruction" (Mt 7:13) It is not wise for the pot to judge the potter. But if it makes the pot feel good, well they should be forewarned as to the consequences, and to note, that Obamacare nor their leader Biden, will be able save them from deterioration now and destruction in the future.

[Athetotheist]

This goes back to the ancient question, "Is something good because the gods love it, or do the gods love it because it's good?"

Empathy is a natural evolved social instinct, but Reasoning allows humans (if not other primates) to apply it to others. That's how I'd feel - so how does She feel?

Rather, empathy applies itself to others. "I can tell from observing you that you feel bad, and you feeling bad makes me feel bad." That's empathy. Reasoning comes in when we tell ourselves why we should feel empathy.

[Diogenes]

Is this a concession that Christianity has no argument against slavery, or killing one's own child, or rape, torture, or murder IF 'God' so commands?"

Yes, that is I personally believe, correct.

I thank you for your candor, but this is a horrifying concession and perfectly supports my argument about the moral bankruptcy of this imaginary and all too human 'god' created by an ancient tribe lusting for land and power.
I can't think of a better reason to totally reject "Jehovah's Witnesses" and any form of Christianity the puts obedience to their ruler over morality.

So if God is a rapist, a torturer, a slaver, that is just fine, because he is the one with the ultimate power?

[Diogenes]

When was the last time you asked your car where it wanted to drive? Biblically* speaking, God is under no compulsion to offer his creation any explanation at all for his commands. In many cases (and I am making no claim here, just offering a bible based point of view) ... in many cases, scripturally, he condesended to explain his actions and ask kindly we comply.

This is such an inapt analogy, it deserves special mention. Its failure as an analogy is pointed out inadvertently by your own post and in even the same paragraph where you agree (inherently) humans are sentient and even your version of God reasons with them through 'condescension and 'explaining.' One does not reason with a car.

As for 'his' 'kindly' requests, these are rare, if they exist at all. More often this tyrant 'god' murders people by drowning, instantaneous death (think Uzzah for steadying the Ark), dashing babies on rocks, Sodom and Gomorrah, plagues....
This is a violent, angry, jealous God of wrath. He kills innocent babies because of the sins of their parents. This is a god to be utterly rejected, even if this fictional character actually existed. "He" is also an idiot of colossal proportions, who creates homo sapiens, calls them 'good,' then calls them wicked and kills them all, only to change his mind again when a 'mere creature,' Noah asks him to.

Your 'God' is an idiotic monster, not a god at all; yet you look to him as a moral standard. This is not just wrong, it is an obscenity.