What if God is a Warmonger?

[liamconnor]

Atheists often attack the God of the O.T. as blood-thirsty.

Some of these same atheists will argue against the Christian apologetic based on common morality; they will say moralities differ and therefore there is no objective morality.

So, what if there were a God; in fact, the God of the O.T.? Moralities differ, none are objective. So on what grounds do atheists attack the O.T. God's behavior?

Is their logic nothing more than the following: There is no objective morality; still, if there were a God, he would, unlike the O.t. god, behave according to my objective standards.?

Note, the question requires altercation for agnostics; they reject the god of the o.t. but not necessarily a deity. However, they reject the god of the o.t. often on moral grounds. Does this not necessitate them to posit a moral deity?

[Divine Insight]

Is their logic nothing more than the following: There is no objective morality; still, if there were a God, he would, unlike the O.t. god, behave according to my objective standards.?

Note, the question requires altercation for agnostics; they reject the god of the o.t. but not necessarily a deity. However, they reject the god of the o.t. often on moral grounds. Does this not necessitate them to posit a moral deity?

I'm agnostic on the question of a possible "God". I have thought about these questions in great depth for many years. Here are my answers:

To begin with, if there is a God, then there probably is a absolute standard of morality. I have no problem with that. In fact, as far as I'm concerned Buddhism has solved that problem. I have absolutely no problem with the morality of the God of Buddhism. Including the fact that the world contains animals that eat each other, as well as all other "apparently" immoral feature of our universe. Buddhism solves all these problems. I won't go into how it does this here. It's sufficient for this post to simply say that Buddhism solves these problems. Therefore the God of Buddhism "could" be real.

Note also: Just because Buddhism solves these problems does not mean that its God is real.

By the way, I should also add that the God of Buddhism is in harmony with my own personal idea of perfect morality. So the bottom line for me is that the God of Buddhism does not conflict with my own subjective sense of morality. In short, if morality is objective (or absolute), then from my perspective, my subjective sense of morality must also be the same as God's absolute morality.

Now, let's turn to the Biblical God. The Biblical God does not satisfy my sense of morality. That is sufficient right there for me to reject the Biblical God.

Why?

Because I am being asked to believe in the Biblical God on pure FAITH. Therefore I would need to have faith that God (my creator) is in total disagreement with my personal sense of morality. Why would I want to do that?

Also, I am told that the Biblical God is the epitome of righteousness, wisdom, and love. Yet I don't see these characteristic in the stories of the Biblical God. So why should I believe as a matter of pure faith that the Bible describes my creator?

I certainly have no compelling reason to place my faith in such a dismal reality.

On top of all this I am told that I deserve damnation. And that I hunger and thirst after evil and that I reject all that is good. Nothing could be further from the truth.

The very idea that the Biblical God will condemn me to either death or far worse if I refuse to believe in him pushes this God's immorality to even further extremes. And once again, why should I care to place my FAITH in the idea that such a dismal God exists?

I'm told that the "Good News" is that if I cower down to this horrible God and confess that I deserve to be damned I'll be "saved" from his wrath only serves to make this God an even greater monster.

It's just not an appealing religion to me at all. So it's not something I'm going to chose to believe in pure FAITH.

If this God actually does exist and I have no choice but to accept that, then I'd be stuck wouldn't I?

But that's not the case. This is a purely faith-based religion that has absolutely no evidence that this God exists at all. In fact, when I personally look into the Bible I see countless problems and self-contradictions in these stories indicating to me that the stories are nothing more than very poorly-thought-out superstitions. Superstitions written by men who didn't even have moral values as high as my own. They have the Biblical God condoning things and doing things that I personally find to be both ignorant and immoral.

So the bottom line for me is that there simply is no reason for me to believe in this picture of "God" on pure FAITH.

Like I say, if I wanted to believe in a God on pure faith Buddhism wins hands-down. But even then I see no reason to believe in Buddhism on pure faith. Fortunately Buddhism does not claim that God will punishment for not believing in Buddhism, or even believing that a God exists at all. Therefore it doesn't even matter whether I believe in Buddhism or not.

~~~~~~

Finally,

Would I need to change who I am if a decent moral God exists?

My answer to this is no, I would not. Therefore it can't be important to believe in a God in terms of moral behavior. At least not for me.

I also don't even see how this could be true for someone who would behave differently if they don't believe in a God. If the only reason a person is being good is because they think there is a God watching over them, and if they thought that there was no God they would do all manner of bad things, then as far as I'm concerned the latter is who they truly are anyway.

Think about it. If there is no God and I knew it and I would still be just as good as I am right now, then that must be the real me right?

So it would seem to me that if there is a God who values moral behavior and TRUTH, then that God would see a good atheist who truthfully confesses that they don't believe there is a God as being the ultimate successful creation.

Yet Christianity would have God condemning this person to hell for not believing in Jesus Christ.

It's just absurd. I just don't know what else to say about it.

Christianity (Judaism and Islam) are authoritative religions created by men to try to keep people in line with a specific cultural tribe. They are still doing this to this very day and we can clearly see this in the Middle East where all three of these man-made religions are at each others throats in the name of their single yet separate jealous Gods.

And these religions even preach and support male-chauvinism, as well as cultural tribalism.

Why would I want to join ANY of these divisive cults on pure FAITH?

Like I say, if I were going to believe in a religion on faith, it would have to be Buddhism.

[Tiberius47]

Atheists often attack the God of the O.T. as blood-thirsty.

Some of these same atheists will argue against the Christian apologetic based on common morality; they will say moralities differ and therefore there is no objective morality.

So, what if there were a God; in fact, the God of the O.T.? Moralities differ, none are objective. So on what grounds do atheists attack the O.T. God's behavior?

Is their logic nothing more than the following: There is no objective morality; still, if there were a God, he would, unlike the O.t. god, behave according to my objective standards.?

Note, the question requires altercation for agnostics; they reject the god of the o.t. but not necessarily a deity. However, they reject the god of the o.t. often on moral grounds. Does this not necessitate them to posit a moral deity?

First: The God of the OT is very differnt to the God of the NT. It almost appears that they are not the same God.

Second, this logic would suggest that there can be no objective morality, thus demolishing a fairly popular argument for God which states that the fact that Humans agree that murder is wrong is proof that there is an objective morality, and that it must have come from God.

[rikuoamero]

[Replying to post 1 by liamconnor]

So on what grounds do atheists attack the O.T. God's behavior?

Is their logic nothing more than the following: There is no objective morality; still, if there were a God, he would, unlike the O.t. god, behave according to my objective standards.?

Liam, I'm going to have to ask you whether or not this is an actual honest question. You've been on this site two and a half years, two and a half thousand posts, so you've been around the block.
In all that time, surely you've talked to us atheists and heard that we do not claim an objective morality.
I NEVER say, and WILL NEVER say that X is wrong, "according to my objective standards".

If this is an honest question, why are you under the impression that atheists say "according to my objective standards" (or words to that effect)?

[Divine Insight]

If this is an honest question, why are you under the impression that atheists say "according to my objective standards" (or words to that effect)?

I can understand the misunderstanding here. I often say that IMHO, the God of the Bible is extremely immoral. So a theist who is convinced that morality is objective automatically thinks that I am laying claim to having the ultimate objective moral truth.

That is actually a mistake on the part of the theist. An understandable mistake considering their worldview.

What they fail to realize is that I am being asked to believe in this God of the Bible as a matter of PURE FAITH. Therefore my point is simple. Why should I place my faith in a theology that has a God who appears to me to be in extreme opposition to my own personal subjective views of what I feel morality should be?

In short, I am basically being asked to place my "faith" in a God that totally disagrees with my moral values. My moral values don't need to be "objective", they only need to be my own personal views of what I consider to be moral (i.e. subjective).

But the theists have difficulty in understanding this, so they mistakenly think that I am claiming to have the ultimate truth of absolute morality. That's because they can't even begin to imagine that there is no such thing as absolute morality.

They even use examples like, "Surely everyone will agree that it's absolutely immoral to bash babies against rocks".

The only problem is that if they truly believe that, then they too should be rejecting the Biblical God as being immoral since he condoned and directed that very act.

In fact, if they believe in absolute morality and in the Bible, then they have no choice but to also believe that bashing babies against rocks is not an immoral thing to do - absolutely!

This appears to be a problem that they refuse to face. If they want to claim that there exists an absolute morality AND that the Biblical God defines what is absolutely moral, then they are going to need to support a lot of things that most sane people today would subjectively see as being extremely immoral - INCLUDING - the buying, selling, and beating of slaves.

If the Bible represents absolute morality then keeping slaves must be absolutely moral.

And if anyone subjectively disagrees with this, then they are just wrong.

[Willum]

Hi Liam,
I think if you just asked the right questions, you would be greatly illuminated.

You ask, "What if God were a warmonger?"

When asking "What if God were peace-loving," reveals so much more.

Forget the freewill "hand-cuffs" that Christian Apologetics necessitate him having (that's not anywhere in the Bible), what if this all-powerful entity really were what his press-agents made him out to be?

Would even mankind's free will and evil be sufficient to fetter this creature?
Has it no power, no subtlety or will?

Ask what if God were good? and envision what this world would be like. You won't find Nettanyahus or Hitlers in that world.

Doesn't that really answer your question?

[JehovahsWitness]

they mistakenly think that I am claiming to have the ultimate truth of absolute morality. That's because they can't even begin to imagine that there is no such thing as absolute morality.

So would you say that if someone disagrees with your subjective morals (for whatever reason) they MUST be wrong? I understand you can personally believe they are wrong but can you say catagorically that they ARE wrong? If so, by what standard? Can you say there is any action that is wrong (yes there are actions you and others, maybe all humans on earth believe are wrong, but can you say there is any single action which is actually objectively and universally wrong? If so by what standard is this action judged to be "wrong"?)

[Willum]

[Replying to post 7 by JehovahsWitness]

Subjective morality is a certainty.
Absolute morality requires proof.

I think that answers your question.

[Divine Insight]

So would you say that if someone disagrees with your subjective morals (for whatever reason) they MUST be wrong?

Nope. You are still thinking in terms of absolutes. You need to get out of that rut.

What I'm saying is that I simply disagree with them. Period.

I understand you can personally believe they are wrong but can you say catagorically that they ARE wrong? If so, by what standard?

You are stuck in the rut of absolutism. I'm simply saying that I disagree with their views. That's all. I don't lay claim to be the ultimate absolute moral authority. In fact, I don't believe any such absolute moral authority even exists.

Having said this, there is a religion that has a God who's moral compass is in harmony with mine. And that would be the God of Buddhism. So I'm actually in harmony with at least the God of one religion.

Can you say there is any action that is wrong (yes there are actions you and others, maybe all humans on earth believe are wrong, but can you say there is any single action which is actually objectively and universally wrong? If so by what standard is this action judged to be "wrong"?)

No. In fact, I reject the very idea that actions could be said to be wrong at all.

From my perspective morality isn't about actions, it's about intent. And even our legal system recognizes this.

Consider the following question: Is stabbing someone in the back an immoral act?

Well if the reason you stabbed them was "unjustified", then what you did would be considered murder and you would be judged to have committed an immoral act (certainly an illegal act).

However, suppose you managed to break into the room where a man was shooting hundreds of people at a rock concert out of a hotel window, and you ran up and stabbed him in the back killing him. What do you think the courts would have to say about that? They would probably place you on a pedestal and proclaim that you are a hero.

So the act of stabbing someone in the back can be good or bad depending on the circumstances and the intent.

So there are no such thing as "immoral actions". All that can exist is "immoral intent"

So that's my "standard" for evaluating what I consider to be moral or immoral.

And I don't hold my opinions on morality up as an objective absolute. I simply stand by them as my personal views.

They are also subject to re-evaluation if additional information is produced that I was not previously aware of. So my moral values are definitely not absolute because I don't claim to be omniscient.

~~~~~

Now I already know that a theist is then going to run off and start claiming that I can't know everything about the Biblical God therefore I can't say that anything he ever does is immoral because I lack information.

But the problem with this is that if the Bible doesn't provide that information, then I have no reason to believe in the Bible.

Where theists make a grave mistake is in giving the Biblical God the benefit of the doubt on everything. They will often even say, "I can't understand why God would have done that, but I have faith that God had good reasons".

But that's not believing in the Bible. To the contrary, that's believing in a God that has excuses for things the Bible can't even explain.

In fact, that view of the Bible is the same as mine, MINUS the willingness to reject it on the grounds that it makes no sense in and of itself.

Even many theists recognize that the Bible is immoral, but they continue to support it by claiming that God might have excuses that we just don't know about or understand.

That's a horrible defense for a failed doctrine.

[JehovahsWitness]

Can you say there is any action that is wrong ...?

No. In fact, I reject the very idea that actions could be said to be wrong at all.

Is it wrong to bash babies heads against rocks?










JW