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]

As far as I'm concerned you can share anything (or nothing) just be prepared for both agreements/approvals and or disagreements/challenges.

Okay, well before I begin let me first state for the record ...

NOTE All posts I write represent my personal faith based beliefs as one of Jehovah's Witnesses

And on the presumption (for the sak of argument ) that God does exists* . ..

I usually use conditionals ( ... or suppositions, hypothesis etc ) when discussing God in this subforum in order to respect forum guidelines while also avoiding making any absolute claims in this regard.This hopefully avoids being sidetracked by challenges to prove God's existence when that is not the point of discussion.

I believe what the bible says on the topic, namely that God sets the absolute standards of what is moral and what is not. And that that He adheres to his own standards of absolute excellence at all times.

Biblically imperfect humans have a warped sense to what is moral, so if they'judge God badly, they are always, without exception, wrong.




JW

[nobspeople]

As far as I'm concerned you can share anything (or nothing) just be prepared for both agreements/approvals and or disagreements/challenges.

Okay, well on the presumption that God does exists* . ..

I usually use conditionals ( ... or suppositions, hypothesis etc ) when discussing God in this subforum in order to respect forum guidelines while also avoiding making any absolute claims in this regard.This hopefully avoids being sidetracked by challenges to prove God's existence when that is not the point of discussion.

I believe what the bible says on the topic, namely that God sets the absolute standards of what is moral and what is not. And that that He adheres to his own standards of absolute excellence at all times.

Biblically imperfect humans have a warped sense to what is moral, so if they'judge God badly, they are always, without exception, wrong.




JW

There were questions that came to mind but I already know the answer
Thanks for participating.

[1213]

...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?

Moral seems to be just a subjective opinion. However, if we believe what the Bible tells, God has given life. That means, He has the right to decide how long life He gives. He doesn't have any moral obligation to give more than what He gives. If you disagree, please tell why should He give more?

But, by what the Bible tells, God's moral, or idea of what is good and right is based on love. All the commandments can be seen to come to "love your neighbor as yourself". I think that is also God's own standard. That leads to question, what loving means, does it accept all evilness, or does it make end to it at some point. I believe and hope that love ends all evil at some point. But, I think it is nice that God is patient.

It's always refreshing to have a Christian bite the bullet and say that 'Whatever God says, is good. Even if it's plainly Bad'.
....

I didn't say, and I don't say 'Whatever God says, is good".

[Purple Knight]

It is my assertion and Dogma that Religion has Hi -jacked human morality and pretended that they should take the credit for it and more, they assert that without religion, we would have no morality.

I think where religion should get at least some credit is that it organises morality. Unfortunately people very often disagree, and even if it's relatively bad judgment at the forefront, telling us which of us are just wrong and should sit down and shut up, the harmony produced offers a benefit over constant fighting.

We all want a world where our innate morality is enough, but then we get this, and for some bloody reason people think this is wrong. (I actually couldn't tell you if it's wrong or not; I can simply tell you it's the result of people acting on their innate morality, which people want people to do.) But without morality being organised and telling people no, don't do this, even if you think it's right, where exactly is that going to come from? This fellow thinks it's right.

Moral seems to be just a subjective opinion. However, if we believe what the Bible tells, God has given life. That means, He has the right to decide how long life He gives. He doesn't have any moral obligation to give more than what He gives. If you disagree, please tell why should He give more?

It's hard to imagine that we're somebody's livestock - their property - and that however they want to treat us is moral because that's all we are. It's difficult because we see ourselves as sentient beings deserving of rights, but that's not actually the case; we just happen to be on the top of the totem pole that we can currently see.

And it says a lot about us as a species that we draw the line directly below us so that we have rights and nothing else does. Convenient much?

(And the fact that we kill other lifeforms to eat does fit into this. I think it's a necessity but that doesn't make it right.)

If there were some other lifeform that drew the line directly below itself and treated us like cattle, we'd only be getting as good as we give.

Why does a human have rights and not a monkey? We cite our greater intellectual capacity. So if something above us decided, soup-Nazi-style, "NO RIGHTS FOR YOU!" then we wouldn't be able to say a word against it, short of genuine hypocrisy.

[brunumb]

It's hard to imagine that we're somebody's livestock - their property - and that however they want to treat us is moral because that's all we are.

Some people willingly put Jehovah/Yahweh/God in that position, at the top of the totem pole, and allow him to do whatever he pleases with impunity while regarding themselves as his slaves or property. He can smite and cause suffering because we are little more than his livestock, although he does allegedly love us regardless.

If there were some other lifeform that drew the line directly below itself and treated us like cattle, we'd only be getting as good as we give.

There you go. God.

[Diogenes]

[Replying to nobspeople in post #1]sses
No. The 'god' of the Bible demonstrated he does not have personal morality. "He" has told us this plainly, declaring it outright when he dismisses those who question him (Job, for one). 'God' declares it in his action also; showing he cares for obedience to himself, over the very moral laws he claimed we should follow.

An obvious example us the binding of Isaac where he tells Abraham to kill his son as an act of obedience to god, thus breaking his own law against murder and declaring obedience is more important than morality.

[TRANSPONDER]

As far as I'm concerned you can share anything (or nothing) just be prepared for both agreements/approvals and or disagreements/challenges.

Okay, well before I begin let me first state for the record ...

NOTE All posts I write represent my personal faith based beliefs as one of Jehovah's Witnesses

And on the presumption (for the sak of argument ) that God does exists* . ..

I usually use conditionals ( ... or suppositions, hypothesis etc ) when discussing God in this subforum in order to respect forum guidelines while also avoiding making any absolute claims in this regard.This hopefully avoids being sidetracked by challenges to prove God's existence when that is not the point of discussion.

I believe what the bible says on the topic, namely that God sets the absolute standards of what is moral and what is not. And that that He adheres to his own standards of absolute excellence at all times.

Biblically imperfect humans have a warped sense to what is moral, so if they'judge God badly, they are always, without exception, wrong.




JW

That is either plainly denialist about what the Bible says about God's actions or Biblegod is working according to a morality that isn't like the one He supposedly gave us.

...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?

Moral seems to be just a subjective opinion. However, if we believe what the Bible tells, God has given life. That means, He has the right to decide how long life He gives. He doesn't have any moral obligation to give more than what He gives. If you disagree, please tell why should He give more?

But, by what the Bible tells, God's moral, or idea of what is good and right is based on love. All the commandments can be seen to come to "love your neighbor as yourself". I think that is also God's own standard. That leads to question, what loving means, does it accept all evilness, or does it make end to it at some point. I believe and hope that love ends all evil at some point. But, I think it is nice that God is patient.

It's always refreshing to have a Christian bite the bullet and say that 'Whatever God says, is good. Even if it's plainly Bad'.
....

I didn't say, and I don't say 'Whatever God says, is good".

Then we have question, don't we, that asks why a god that is (supposedly) Good does things that are bad.

It is my assertion and Dogma that Religion has Hi -jacked human morality and pretended that they should take the credit for it and more, they assert that without religion, we would have no morality.

I think where religion should get at least some credit is that it organises morality. Unfortunately people very often disagree, and even if it's relatively bad judgment at the forefront, telling us which of us are just wrong and should sit down and shut up, the harmony produced offers a benefit over constant fighting.

We all want a world where our innate morality is enough, but then we get this, and for some bloody reason people think this is wrong. (I actually couldn't tell you if it's wrong or not; I can simply tell you it's the result of people acting on their innate morality, which people want people to do.) But without morality being organised and telling people no, don't do this, even if you think it's right, where exactly is that going to come from? This fellow thinks it's right.

Moral seems to be just a subjective opinion. However, if we believe what the Bible tells, God has given life. That means, He has the right to decide how long life He gives. He doesn't have any moral obligation to give more than what He gives. If you disagree, please tell why should He give more?

It's hard to imagine that we're somebody's livestock - their property - and that however they want to treat us is moral because that's all we are. It's difficult because we see ourselves as sentient beings deserving of rights, but that's not actually the case; we just happen to be on the top of the totem pole that we can currently see.

And it says a lot about us as a species that we draw the line directly below us so that we have rights and nothing else does. Convenient much?

(And the fact that we kill other lifeforms to eat does fit into this. I think it's a necessity but that doesn't make it right.)

If there were some other lifeform that drew the line directly below itself and treated us like cattle, we'd only be getting as good as we give.

Why does a human have rights and not a monkey? We cite our greater intellectual capacity. So if something above us decided, soup-Nazi-style, "NO RIGHTS FOR YOU!" then we wouldn't be able to say a word against it, short of genuine hypocrisy.

Perhaps simply because of Past authority and control, religions could take some credit for learning, social morality and even philosophy. It's been an argument in the past that understanding God's work was the impetus for science. But of course science showed that the world worked without any need for a god.

Now what is coming out (since science is penetrating those areas once declared to be the preserve or Religion or philosophy) is that, while recognising the good that religions have done, we have to see that it was human achievement all along. Religion might have organized and enforced moral codes alongside rulership and a police -force, but it can no longer claim any moral authority. Morals are a matter of human thought and reason, not a divine command, even if the command was good and made sense, which it doesn't.

It doesn't matter in the least that this is all human devising. Based on some animal instincts of course. So is mathematics, language and music, none of which would exist (other than as physics properties with implications) without humans. We devised them and they are of value. More so, in fact, than if they had been dumped on us by a god for obscure reasons of its' own.

[JehovahsWitness]

That is either plainly denialist about what the Bible says about God's actions or Biblegod is working according to a morality that isn't like the one He supposedly gave us.

That is neither plainly denialist about what the Bible says about God's actions nor is YHWH (Jehovah)* the God of the Bible working according to a morality that isn't like the one He supposedly gave us.








JW

* If for the sake of argument He exists

PLEASE NOTE: I usually use conditionals ( ... or suppositions, hypothesis etc ) when discussing God in this subforum in order to respect forum guidelines while also avoiding making any absolute claims in this regard.This hopefully avoids being sidetracked by challenges to prove God's existence when that is not the point of discussion.

RELATED POSTS

Does God violate his own moral standards?
http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v ... 20#p840620

Is God good ?
http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v ... 5#p1005835

Is God always right?
http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v ... 4#p1007594

Is God JEALOUS?
viewtopic.php?p=782386#p782386

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

GOD, THE DIVINE NAME and ...THE DIVINE PERSONALITY

[Diogenes]

JW wrote:

I believe what the bible says on the topic, namely that God sets the absolute standards of what is moral and what is not. And that that He adheres to his own standards of absolute excellence at all times.

Biblically imperfect humans have a warped sense to what is moral, so if they'judge God badly, they are always, without exception, wrong.

and

I didn't say, and I don't say 'Whatever God says, is good".

Yet the third statement inescapably leads to the conclusion "Whatever God says, is good." Can you explain how it could be otherwise?
When God sets the absolute standard for morality, then it must follow that whatever he says is good, simply because he says it. Otherwise, this 'absolute standard' of goodness, may utter evil things.

This is not a matter of logic alone. As mentioned earlier, this 'God' orders Abraham to murder his own son to show obedience to Him. This is horrifically evil. The same god also smites Uzzah for disobedience despite the act being done to protect the Ark of the Covenant. This god "Jehovah" is a petulant, insecure, very human like tyrant who prizes obedience over love, understanding, and what by any measure is the central moral point, "Do not murder."
As argued before, this same attitude is clearly spelled out in Job where God essentially says, "If I do it, it is good and who are you to question ME?!"

This 'god' is like any tyrant. They all base their morality on "MIGHT MAKES RIGHT."
There may be a good and all powerful god in the universe, but the one pictured in the Bible ain't him.

[Miles]

I believe what the bible says on the topic, namely that God sets the absolute standards of what is moral and what is not. And that that He adheres to his own standards of absolute excellence at all times.

Then it's moral to own other human beings (slaves) and pass that ownership down to one's children (Leviticus 25: 44-46). And an owner of a salve may beat his slave, male or female, without consequences as long as the slave recovers after a day or two (Exodus 21:20-21). Moreover, one can even sell his own daughter into slavery (Exodus 21:7)----"Thanks dad . And thank you God for your absolute standards of what is moral and what is not. We can always count on you to know what the loving thing to do is."



Then, of course, there's god's moral order to kill practicing male homosexuals. (Leviticus 20:13)

13 "If a man has sexual relations with another man as with a woman, they have committed a terrible sin. They must be put to death. They are responsible for their own death."

Can we assume, JehovahsWitness, that you've killed your quota of gays, or is there no quota?



.