Hyndis

If you take the Bible literally, then compare all of the acts done by god with those acts done by folks like Hitler, Stalin, Pol Pot, Saddam, and a host of other dictators, I think god takes the cake for some of the most heinous and callous acts done.

For instance, killing all of the first born children of Egypt. Just to spite the Pharaoh. That seems just a tad bit immoral....

Or what about killing almost every single animal, plant, and human on the planet? What did all of these animals do to deserve being drowned? And what about all of the human babies and unborn that were slain? Because if folks are using a religious justification as to why abortion is bad, and if god killed ALL pregnant women...


I just have a very hard time seeing why this deity deserves any sort of moral authority whatsoever. Infact, it seems that satan is less evil than god!

Valmont

Acting morally is part of what fulfills us as human beings. It is not for His good that Jesus Christ taught us to love our neighbour but for ours.

Certainly you can find more pragmatic explanations of why you would want to live in a moral society. However, it is much harder to explain why you yourself would want to act morally. Eventually, I think you are forced to accept that there is a human moral desire (which it is advantageous for us to possess as a species).

There is no need to invoke God to explain that desire. I am not attempting to present a moral argument for God. But, as Jesus Christ taught moral truths as well as spiritual ones, as a Christian, I should account for morality within my theology. But it is theology that requires an account of morality not morality that requires an account of theology.

Well just as God does not actively intervene in His creation for our benefit so does He not intervene to our detriment. So we are not likely to be called upon to defend ourselves against Him. We do not have to pardon Him. That would imply that there was a moral culpability in the first place. Your last sentence however I agree with entirely.

I should start by pointing out that I have been misusing agape slightly as Matthew uses exactly the same word to describe the love we should feel toward the Lord our God. Nevermind, I will use the term as I have defined, as distinct from spiritual love.

The more specific a love, the more strongly it is expressed. Love of our children is expressed often and pronouncedly. Love of our fellow men, in general, less so. Love of our fellow creatures less so again. Implicit within this selectivity of love is the act of selection against love. We might kill a rabbit to feed our children, for instance.

Love of the Creator, however, is a reflection of the Creator's all-encompassing love of His creation. It is for this reason that Jesus taught that it is the greatest of loves. As it is directed beyond creation, it does not require that we select one creature over another. We select the Creator over all creatures and His sufficiency does not require of us acts of 'un-love' to His creatures. It is for this reason that I describe spiritual love as perfect.

But he still relies on what is below him to enforce his will. He does not do so by his strength alone.

Well I do not believe that He demands infant sacrifice. Earthquakes are part of God's creation too. He does not intervene to prevent them because that would be an act of selective love.

I do not think it is the same to say that God is benevolent as it is to say He is loving. But, yes, He is loving but He is above morality. Morality exists between fellows, not between a sufficient Creator and His creation.

Silent Acorns

It does if God exists, is conscious, and interferes with human society. If it does, is and does things then we are free to judge its morallity. I also fail to see how our being its "creatures" makes it free of any moral obligation toward us. If anything our being its creatures makes it more so. I'm far more morally responsible for my son than I am for a child in Thailand.

Agnostic Theist

Not that sado-masochism is ever considered in the Bible


I don't think so. Any desire to act morally may be drawn to psychological (as opposed to standard ethical) egoism. Therefore, we may desire to do what is considered moral for ourselves, not agape love.

I think the two should stay apart. Give unto God what belongs to God and give unto the people what belongs to the people.

Anyway, that last sentence is a little confusing. Theology needs morality, but morality doesn't need theology? So, ethics does not require belief in God, but belief in God requires us to be moral? This seems like an unjustified assertion, IMO, though if of course I have committed a strawman then I apologise.

But failure to act can be, indeed is, as immoral as acting immorally. It's simple immoral passitivity.

The only thing that sets God above our pardoning, or not pardoning Him, is His rulership. As you said, He is above us, and above morality. The picture you are painting is one of a despot, who's rationale is 'Do as I say, for ye are but insects'

Thus we are brought to another problem, not strictly apropos of this thread. The problem is, of course, the omnimax God in the face of Himself. If we get into that, though, I suspect the thread will derail into another PoE thread or anti-theist thread.

Very well.

Love is not made stronger by it being specific. One could love five of their children above their one neighbour, or their 47 relatives above the 3 spoilt brats at the top of the street.

The rabbit analogy is interesting. If I may, it draws parallels between our relation with animals and the relationship you claim we hold with God. It may be beneficial to our discussion if we can extend upon these parallels, albeit with a chance of anthropomorphising God. You don't have to deviate from your original argument, mind.

Would this love be inherent within us? If so, surely we are being forced to love God?! That does not seem appropriate for a loving creator.

Except the sparrows. How many of them are we worth, again? More than ten? More than a hundred? We have authority over the earth and its creatures, so I understand from Genesis.

The question is, do we have a choice in the matter? Is forced lvoe truly perfect, or just consistent and inescapable?

Of course, there are many people who would disagree with you, and say that they do not love God. Atheists, satanists, pagans, antitheists, everyone except the theist, or the devout theist.


Indeed, and what is the manner in which God enforces His will?

If you're going to use the Bible, will you at least use the Biblical God, or perhaps let us know exactly what you believe God to be, so we might avoid future run ins like this?

Why didn't He just not make them?

Benevolence involves being good to others, even at the cost of one's own welbeing. If benevolence is not loving, or love is not benevolent, then what is?

This loving God can get into fuck all trouble, creates no court to convict Him and forces us to love Him back. At the same time He is loving and above morality?! What determines that God is all-loving and all-good, except the fact that no power exists to try Him for His ways?

Valmont

But you have yet to establish the nature of that moral obligation. Why does that moral obligation exist in the first place. You simply assume that it does.

As I said, I think it is perfectly possible to construct interpretations of morality that do not rely on theology. Therefore, I don't have any problem with your interpretation.

I don't think it is quite a strawman. I am not saying that belief in God requires us to be moral. I am saying that Jesus Christ taught that we should be moral. Having faith in Jesus Christ, I therefore believe that there are good theological reasons for me to be moral. I am not saying there are not other, perfectly good reasons for being moral. But they are not the reasons of Christianity.


Rulership is, I think, the wrong word. He makes no demands of us. He has shown us the way to Him which we are free to choose or not choose. It is simply that He is separate from the context that creates morality just as the earthquake, the tiger or the countless stars. Most things indeed are outside of morality.

Please feel free to expand.


No. We do not have to love God any more than we have to love our neighbour. It is just that, in not doing so, we are lacking something that would fulfill us.

Clearly, if He is above morality it is foolish to describe Him as all-good. All-loving, I think, I have already explained. He loves all equally and infinitely.

Agnostic Theist

So then, theism is another reason to encourage or enforce morality, not co-requisitive of morality as such. On what grounds do you assert it is justifiable for an amoral being to give us any advice on morality?

I'm quite sure it will be shown to be apropos of the discussion.

Can the same not be said of a despotic state or nation? We don't have to obey the dictator, but he shall punish us accordingly. Likewise with God, we don't have to commit to Him, but we will be judged and punished accordingly if we do not.

Freedom of choice is not the problem here. God's nature and status is.

They are amoral because they do not, nor do they hold a capacity to, commit moral or immoral acts. A being becomes moral or immoral as soon as it commits an act relating to ethics. Since God has committed acts that can be related to morality, He has brought Himself into the context of morality.

I'm also starting to wish there were a suitable synonym for morality, since I'm using that word too much.


I think it would be in your best interests if you could lead the expansion, since it may support your theory that God is beyond morality (and perhaps other 'human' concepts), though evidently it will raise new problems that you'll have to tackle.


An answer to this would require one to throw in the concept of free will vs omniscience. I think that may overcomplicate this thread, so I'll leave it for the moment.

How might love of God be fulfilling? Personal development, mentally and physically, is fulfilling. Social development is fulfilling. Relationships can be fulfilling. Indeed all things that are potentially fulfilling seem to be derived from concerns about ourselves or each other, not God.


Ethically irrelevant, then?

If God is beyond morality, He becomes ethically irrelevant. If He is not, then we may class Him as immoral. I hold that, since He has committed acts of immorality, He has placed Himself within the laws of ethics, ergo He may be, and indeed is, immoral.

The question now is, can God repent? Yes or no, the ball will land in the atheist's court.

Valmont

Because, moral or amoral, God knows what will fulfill us. He does not have to be exactly like us to know or tell us that.

The soteriology to which I subscribe is Pauline. That is [I}the wages of sin are death[/I]. I do not believe that we are punished by God. We are saved from death through God as Jesus Christ.

I am not sure what you mean here. What acts do you think that God has performed that relate to morality?

Some people, of course, do not seek fulfilment in God. I have no issue with that observation. But I think, in discussing spiritual fulfilment, we are in danger of departing from the main thrust of the thread. Shall we leave this one?

I am not sure I understand. What do you mean by ethically irrelevant? What acts of immorality has He committed?

I think you first have to establish that God has anything to repent. Until you do, my answer is likely to be "No".

Agnostic Theist

How does he know? If you answer omniscience, this discussion may become even more complicated.

But didn't God make death, or did He not at least foresee it as a consequence of His actions? In either case, it is His responsibility and still serves, even if only indirectly, as a punishment. I assume you were thinking of natural sin as well, here, in which case what chance do stillborn babies or miscarried foetuses have?

He has committed an act of genocide in Exodus. I am tempted to mention His hypocrisy, in not forgiving Adam and Eve but Adam's Apocalypse infers that they are, in actuality, forgiven. He has lied, in the creation story and to Abraham concerning the apparent sacrifice of his son, Isaac. He has created a world rank with evil, be it moral or natural. Whether you hold belief in the Biblical God or just God, as is, it would be naive of you to deny His immorality.

If you wish. I would like to point out that there are many issues being raised that could cause this discussion to go off on a tangent, unless of course we can relate them to the original topic, and maintain that relation.


If He is beyond morality, what right has He to tell us what is or isn't right? If He does have knowledge of morality, surely He should know that some of the acts He has committed are immoral. In this case He should respect our position and reconsider these acts (by not committing them or repenting)

If God cannot repent, He cannot be moral. Whether or not He is immoral or amoral is, at the moment, being argued (and I'm starting to wish you had made this a formal debate). What you have to remember, is that I said 'can', not 'should'. It would be easy to say He should not repent, since I'd be stuck with the Burden of Proof, but since you said He can't, you have raised massive implications on His capacities as a supreme being.

Can God repent?
No
Then He has no concern for His morality. Even if He is amoral, there are things He may do which can affect us, even harm us, and for that He should repent.

Yes
Then He Himself has acknowledged His position as a being bound by morality.

Maybe, it could be said, that God's immorality derives from His amorality. He setys Himself above the ethical maxims,He has no capacity to repent. He is, as you said, above morality. Consequently, He is not above us but below us in terms of moral worth. Ultimately then, He can only be immoral.

Valmont

I'm going to pick on this couple of points for the moment. I have no doubt we'll get back round to the others in due course. But these two seem to embody the crux of the difference.

To address the first, it is interesting that you said, "He should respect our position". This seems to assume that God has a moral obligation towards us. But, of course, that is exactly what is in contention.

I think we also need to clarify our terms. By amoral I mean without moral significance - if it is an act - or moral obligation - if it is an agent. By immoral I mean in violation of a moral obligation. Thus describing God as immoral implies that He is under some moral obligation. It is my contention that He is not and therefore cannot be immoral. However, I am interested in how you are using the terms.

So, I might be inclined to agree with you about God's 'moral worth' as you put it. We do not have a moral obligation to Him. We have a spiritual impulse towards Him. But I do not think that makes Him immoral.

Mordy

Playing the devil's advocate for a moment....

Assuming for a moment the christian god is omniscient... the christian would simply respond with: All men are sinners and fall short of the glory of god, in gods eyes god knows the results of those children having lived if he chose not to destroy them.

It's kind of a catch-22, for instance: Say God knows your 'good son' will become a mass murderer (say stalin) but god allows him to live. So is god a murderer by proxy?

The other argument being that god gives the liscense to live and has the power to revoke it. Since god created food, the sun, all life on the planet and the systems in the body that sustain a human being. You are walking around in gods intellectual property. He owns the matter he creates and you are made of matter. You do not exist independent of god (according to the bible). God sustains everything, even evil people for a short time. Babies aren't innocent because they have already strayed from god. Not to mention babies don't become self-aware (like you and I are when we are awake) until their brain develops the capability to do so ~3 years old. So these 'poor babies' died not even having known or had the capability to feel pain/awareness like we do when we are awake. In gods eyes these people did not even yet possess the capacity of self-aware existence.

Another problem: Because women menstrate every month, does that mean god is a killer having not saved all those unfertilized eggs? Just where do you stop at accusing god of immorality? In the words of monty python: is "every sperm sacred"? Or what about "every egg"? Those are all 'potential' human beings waiting to be constructed/realized.

I think pro-lifers arguments against stem cell research are flawed since a human baby is not aware of it's existence like you are I are when we wake up from sleeping, until they are around ~3 years old. Though this depends on the speed of brain development. Ask anyone if anyone remembers there first few years and 99.99% will respond with no memory of having even existed before around then.