Morality of God

[Danmark]

JW and others calling themselves 'Christian' have advanced the argument that since God created the world and human beings, if he tortures, kills, or rapes his creatures; or tells people to do it, this is not evil because God created them and their world.

Are these acts of God therefore moral?

Consider, "Is a man who owns a house acting immorally if he tortures, rapes, or kills his guests or children inside his home?"

[Divine Insight]

[Replying to post 15 by JehovahsWitness]

If ownership wasn't the point, why did you push so hard on the point that God had the right to do whatever he liked to us?

Exactly. Christians often make this extreme error. Many of them think that their God has the right to do just anything he wants. That's totally wrong.

They are thinking of the Greek God Zeus. Zeus can indeed to anything he so desires because nowhere in Greek mythology is it claimed that Zeus is righteous, moral, trustworthy, or represents total goodness.

The Christians seems to be very anxious to allow their God to be as immoral as he likes.

They seem to forget that their God is supposedly be the epitome of moral perfection and righteousness.

In fact, this very observation proves beyond any shadow of a doubt that the Bible is nothing more than manmade superstitious folklore because the authors of the Bible have themselves often forgotten that their God is supposed to be the epitome of righteousness. Even they have their God doing things that only Zeus could do.

Christians are hypocrites because they claim that their God is all-righteous and trustworthy whilst simultaneously proclaiming that he can be as hideously evil as he likes simply because he's God.

Christians have proven that their theology is inconsistent and self-contradictory.

They demand that their God is simultaneously all-righteous and as evil as Satan.

It's a "have your cake and eat it too" theology.

The Christian God is simply impossible. It can't exist in the way that they need it to exist.

It has to simultaneously be an evil threat to anyone who doesn't believe in it whilst also being the most perfectly righteous entity we can imagine.

Sorry Christians, but that's an oxymoron.

[Danmark]

[Replying to post 21 by Divine Insight]

Correct! This problem of evil present in a world created by a 'good' god is addressed in many traditions by the device of an evil entity, a Satan or Devil in the Hebrew tradition. Thus it isn't God who tortures Job, God merely allows the evil one to inflict Job with his calamities.
Yet the theology of this god also insists 'he' is all powerful, that nothing can withstand his absolute power and perfection. This is of course completely contradictory; therefore, the apologist must somehow contort morality itself by declaring God's morality is separate and beyond our comprehension. With this logic, one could prove anything, no matter how absurd. It's a simple formula:
"You are limited and cannot understand this thing that only "appears" absurd and ridiculous." Thus a cockroach can be watermelon or a man can be a god, yet not be a god. There is no absurdity beyond the reach of this silly argument, which is merely another example of the 'argument from ignorance.'

[bluethread]

[Replying to post 14 by bluethread]

My view, in spite of ttrucott's protestations, is that Adonai and humans are different life forms and therefore subject to different standards of behavior, much like the computer programmer and the program character.

Leaving aside the fact the program character is not a separate entity, is not sentient, and does not even conscious,
You agree with JW that God is not moral by a standard of morality we can comprehend? Thus, by our standards of morality, God is immoral.

I acknowledge that you can establish a morality and hold another life form to that standard. However, that is not what people do in their daily lives, and I suspect you do not either. Of course, the analogy is not perfect, but I used it to make the creation connection. Is there any conscious sentient being that has been created by a human? So, the expectations that an inferior created being has of superior creator being is indeed similar to a programmer and a run program. That said, one can take the other tack and look at inferior life forms that we have not created. Humans routinely have expectations of inferior life forms, that they do not apply to themselves. So, the apples/oranges argument is not an argument from ignorance, but an application of observed interspecies interactions to humans and deities.

[Danmark]

I acknowledge that you can establish a morality and hold another life form to that standard. However, that is not what people do in their daily lives, and I suspect you do not either. Of course, the analogy is not perfect, but I used it to make the creation connection. Is there any conscious sentient being that has been created by a human? So, the expectations that an inferior created being has of superior creator being is indeed similar to a programmer and a run program. That said, one can take the other tack and look at inferior life forms that we have not created. Humans routinely have expectations of inferior life forms, that they do not apply to themselves. So, the apples/oranges argument is not an argument from ignorance, but an application of observed interspecies interactions to humans and deities.

Thank you. When I write that this argument about a moral standard that we cannot understand, THAT is the argument I claim is 'from ignorance.' I say this because it requires an assumption of something we know nothing about. It says, "it would be different if X were true." 'X' represents ignorance; it is some unknown quantity we do not know exists. So 'ignorance' seem an appropriate label.

I grant that every life form probably has different form of consciousness, a different way of thinking, a different way to process abstractions, if indeed they are capable of abstract thought at all. The dog provides a well known example. We have certain expectations of our pets. As they grow older, those expectations increase. We didn't expect the puppy not to bite, but after training we expect the dog will not bite at all. Tho' the dog is our inferior intellectually [according to our values], we impose an exception on him, a morality if you wil. Tho' more limited, this morality we expect from a dog is not qualitatively different from what we expect from fellow Homo sapiens.

Except for his power, God seems less different from us than we are from dogs. There is nothing in the Bible that demonstrates this God thinks any differently than we do. 'He' seems subject to the same emotions we are. His logic appears no different than ours. There is nothing in the Bible that is more [or 'as'] profound than what Shakespeare or Plato or Kant wrote.

So it seems unlikely that God operates on [or his held to] a moral plane [or standard] different from ours or different from the one he has instructed us to follow. I find it difficult to accept, and impossible to believe, that this God of the Bible would think "You have to be held to THIS standard, but I can violate that standard and act the opposite of what I told you to do."

[rikuoamero]

[Replying to post 13 by liamconnor]

Let me ask you this: if you were examining Abraham in court against God, and Abraham himself said, "God stayed my hand; the command was given to enlighten me, and I am grateful for the lesson" how would you respond? Would you dismiss the witness?

If in this scenario, the charge is against God, and the charge is, oh I dunno, attempted murder? The charge would stick. Any competent prosecutor would be able to point out that there was conspiracy to murder Isaac, that one agent (God) gave an order to another agent (Abraham) and that Abraham went through with it wholeheartedly and only stopped when God told him to stop.
Now of course, God could get off scot free if we declare him to be above the concept of a court, being ya know, the creator of the universe and everything else...but then...that wouldn't be justice would it? That would mean that your question was not made in total honesty, since as you said it was "in court against God". If now suddenly God doesn't and can't even have charges laid against him...
Shouldn't alarm bells be ringing? If your go to move to have God to win in court is to declare him a winner by default, or that he is not bound by a court's ruling...then of what use is legalistic thinking for you?

[rikuoamero]

[Replying to post 23 by bluethread]

Is there any conscious sentient being that has been created by a human? So, the expectations that an inferior created being has of superior creator being is indeed similar to a programmer and a run program. That said, one can take the other tack and look at inferior life forms that we have not created.

Here is where your reasoning breaks down. Here, have a watch of this.

[YOUTUBE][/YOUTUBE]

I've done what's shown above a few times myself, in my own playthroughs of The Sims. I create the characters, plonk them into a house, and then at some point, have them suffer all sorts of calamities.

Have you played the Sims? Assuming you have, do you share the same attitude and relationship that Bible God supposedly has with us humans?
When I talk to Christians, I'm told that Bible God loves us, he wants only the best for us, they use terms like children and refer to God as a Father, etc.
Does a Father burn his children? Would a Father defend the right to burn his children?

Or are we actually just Sims? Characters in some sort of game, acting out scenarios for God's amusement?

Can you convince me via argument that when I create a Sim and then have him burn to death for my amusement, that I am being loving towards him?

[ttruscott]

[Replying to post 3 by ttruscott]

I contend that GOD created the Earth as a Prison to keep the demons out of heaven.

THIS EARTH IS A PARADISE, and becoming more so everyday.
How much better are the parameters of this world for hypothetical creatures of the spirit whom do not suffer our hardships?

If this world is a prison, God's madness is quite aligned with the rest of the Bible, sending his traitors to a fantastic place, that grows more incredible by the day.

Bless you, TS. Join the blessed.

Well, Wum, please remind those who castigate GOD for all the horrors and evils of this world...

[ttruscott]

So it seems unlikely that God operates on [or his held to] a moral plane [or standard] different from ours or different from the one he has instructed us to follow.

Of course HE operates on a moral plane / standard far above ours:
- HE is perfectly righteous, we are evil.
- HIS standard to us is to do no murder, not to refrain from the execution of psychotic criminals. Death confirms our criminal status not HIS torture of the innocent.

Your pov that HE breaks the standards HE has given to us has not been proved so is ignored just as you ignore the Christian pov that we are all sinners, worthy of death and indeed all going to die.

[bluethread]

I grant that every life form probably has different form of consciousness, a different way of thinking, a different way to process abstractions, if indeed they are capable of abstract thought at all. The dog provides a well known example. We have certain expectations of our pets. As they grow older, those expectations increase. We didn't expect the puppy not to bite, but after training we expect the dog will not bite at all. Tho' the dog is our inferior intellectually [according to our values], we impose an exception on him, a morality if you wil. Tho' more limited, this morality we expect from a dog is not qualitatively different from what we expect from fellow Homo sapiens.

No, it is quite different. For example, we nutter dogs without their consent. Also, dogs have a pack social structure. Therefore, subservience to a human or humans is a capital offense for dogs. Also, in Asia some dogs are pets and others are livestock. That said, you have chosen a best case species, which I guess is ok, if one considers humans to be the best case with regard to deities. The point being that you appear to be minimizing significant differences between biologically similar and sociologically symbiotic life forms. How much greater would be the differences between biologically dissimilar life forms where one life form is not dependent on the other.

Except for his power, God seems less different from us than we are from dogs. There is nothing in the Bible that demonstrates this God thinks any differently than we do. 'He' seems subject to the same emotions we are. His logic appears no different than ours. There is nothing in the Bible that is more [or 'as'] profound than what Shakespeare or Plato or Kant wrote.

Well, you are speaking from the prospective of the dog. We are told by the dog whisperer that he does not train dogs. He trains humans. That is to say he trains people to talk to dogs in the dog' language from the dog's prospective. The Scriptures are written the same way, they state things about Adonai using imagery that we are familiar with. That does not mean that Adonai actual fits that imagery perfectly. It is also presented in the context of the initial audience. A common mistake is to presume modern language and thinking onto the Scriptures. The various parts of the Scriptures were written to various peoples, who lived at diverse times, under diverse conditions. Though there are thematic similarities in how Adonai presents Himself, that presentation differs given the audience that is being addressed.

So it seems unlikely that God operates on [or his held to] a moral plane [or standard] different from ours or different from the one he has instructed us to follow. I find it difficult to accept, and impossible to believe, that this God of the Bible would think "You have to be held to THIS standard, but I can violate that standard and act the opposite of what I told you to do."

Regardless of how it seems to you, that is how we treat other life forms. So, I see no reason why a deity should exist according to our standards, when we don't live according to the standards we require of dogs, cats, cows or horses.

[Tired of the Nonsense]

JW and others calling themselves 'Christian' have advanced the argument that since God created the world and human beings, if he tortures, kills, or rapes his creatures; or tells people to do it, this is not evil because God created them and their world.

Are these acts of God therefore moral?

Consider, "Is a man who owns a house acting immorally if he tortures, rapes, or kills his guests or children inside his home?"

The Bible orders the slaughter of children and babies by being hacked to death with swords, and justifies if as "cleansing." The Bible condones slavery. I stopped taking my morality from Bible believers decades ago.