ten to the eleventh

Or, more to the point, can a biblical fundamentalist / literalist believer be expected to admit the possibility that any action of God, hypothetical or biblical, could be wrong?

I began this thread as a split from the "Another cute little story from Judges"
http://www.iidb.org/vbb/showthread.php?t=94331
thread, and as a result of pm's between LP675 and me. From the arguments given by the God-defenders in that thread, I began to wonder if before we could begin to attempt a judgment of the morality of God's actions and inactions in the story of Japtheth and his sacrificed daughter, we must first determine the possibility of God's ever being judged "guilty" by His own creation. Otherwise, any discussion of God's morality in a specific incident would be pointless.

I think this point should be discussed by referring to the more literal interpretations of the bible, and to common literalist apologetics, such as those found at Tektonics.

As God is found "innocent" by literalists of all accusations made by non-believers, I doubt there are any hypothetical accounts, that if added to the bible, could not be justified the same way that existing accounts are, or could not be fairly equated with existing accounts. Therefore, I doubt that any literalist could ever be expected to fairly judge the morality of God in light of any account.

To counter my current position, I invite anyone to postulate a scenario in which God would be judged by a literalist to have done wrong.

ZooMom

I think I understand your question, and the answer is 'No'. God cannot do 'wrong'. That doesn't meant that people of faith will always agree with or understand God's actions, or inactions ATCMB, but as the source of morality (according to believers) God cannot be wrong or do wrong.


Does that answer the question, or have I misunderstood something? :wave:


Peace be with you!

Sandy

ten to the eleventh

Well, your answer at the least illuminates my question, and the problem that makes me ask it. By your answer, I would take it as pointless to begin a discussion of the culpability of God in the case of Japtheth,or any other instance, because you have already stated, essentially, that the ethics of any action by God are not something to be discussed.

However, I would ask you to clarify what you mean when you say, "that doesn't meant that people of faith will always agree with ... God's actions." That sounds like a judgment of God's action, does it not? I can see how you can say that you do not "understand" what God does, but when you say that you don't agree with what He did, then you have made a judgment, and God, in your view, is wrong. So, please clarify that for me.

Thank you for your response.

edit: What does ATCMB mean? Also, how does your position jibe with the literalist's usual position that morality is objective and absolute, if God, as the source of morality, is not bound by it as well, and, if, moreover, we are to determine our morals, in part, by following the example of God?

ZooMom

Not neccessarily. There isn't anything that can't be discussed. It might prove very frustrating for you, but it can be discussed.

Sure. When I say that a person of faith may not agree with or understand God's actions, that isn't a judgement of God, but rather of humanity. Just because our finite intellect cannot fathom God's plan, that doesn't mean that there isn't one. When something happens that I don't like, or that I don't see as 'fair', I don't blame God. Although that can be very easy to do, and many believers fall into that mindset, even if only temporarily. It doesn't mean that they think God is wrong, but rather that they are angry that God did not do what they wanted Him to do. Kind of like a spoiled child.


Is that more better?


Peace be with you!

Sandy

ZooMom

As the case may be.


Hmm. Well, I would say that God cannot be bound by morality, as He is the source of morality. God cannot be immoral. What we might perceive as an immoral action, or inaction, on God's part may only appear that way because of our own limited understanding. We are not in the position to judge God. The clay does not judge the potter. God gave us the Law. It is written in the heart of every man. Our natural morality. Our guide to conscious morality is given to us in the Deposit of Faith. Public Revelation given to us by God through the Prophets and Apostles, and of course our Lord, Jesus Christ. The Ten Commandments, and later the succint condensation of those commandments by Christ, Love God and love thy neighbor. A sincere discernment of all that those two commandments entail leads one to a right morality in keeping with God's Will.


I hope I am making sense here, and not coming across as just sounding preachy.


Peace be with you!

Sandy

ten to the eleventh

Here's an analogy: How useful would it be to an airplane designer to discuss the merits of a design with someone who has an absolute conviction that flight is impossible? It's not frustrating, it's futile and pointless. There is no discussion to be had without the essential agreed-upon premises.

As another analogy, imagine a prospective juror who cannot possibly imagine that anyone who is accused of a crime could be innocent. Should that person be allowed on the jury? No, because no matter the power of the reasoning, the outcome must be the same. Why would we have discussion at all if such jurors were allowed?

No, that doesn't help much. If one maintains the position that anyone who judges God negatively is wrong, then one cannot have the position that one's negative judgement of God is correct. A position cannot be believed and simultaneously not believed. Someone may "feel" betrayed or bitter, but how can they consciously judge God to be wrong while simultaneously maintaining that any such judgement is impossible? It can't be done. It is not frustrating or difficult, it is a basic logical impossibility. A person cannot say, "I make this claim, but I know it is wrong," and make any sense.

I can not design a building to stand under lateral loads if I believe that any lateral force acting on a building will cause it to collapse.

If "a person of faith" holds as axiomatic that God cannot be wrong, then she cannot disagree with God, even temporarily. She can "feel" betrayed, but to consciously make a negative judgement of God would be an absolute contradiction.

Consider your statement: "When I say that a person of faith may not agree with or understand God's actions, that isn't a judgement of God, but rather of humanity."

You are confusing subjects, here. The person who is disagreeing with God's action is making a judgment of God. It is the observer of the person making the judgement who is judging the observed negatively, and generalizing to humanity. The person making the judgment of God cannot simultaneously hold that such judgment is impossible.

Otherwise we are just dealing with meaningless platitudes concocted to obfuscate an otherwise clear dilemma. Please try to understand the difference in "feeling" wronged and consciously judging as wrong, the first being a visceral reaction, the second being a rational judgment.

Any response to my two other questions? edit: whoops, I see you've answered

Toto

I think this will be a better fit in GRD.

ten to the eleventh

I was debating that, initially, and as it is proceeding, I agree with you.

ZooMom

Well, I didn't say it would be productive, I just said it could be discussed.



Well, I wasn't confused until I tried to read the second to the last paragragh. :Cheeky:

Ok, look. I think we are confusing each other, and I am apparently not using the right words to get my meaning across. When I say that a believer may disagree with God's actions, that doesn't mean that I am saying that they think God is 'wrong'. It means that they are in denial or rebellion against God's Will. It means that they don't WANT God to be right, because whatever happened or didn't happen caused them pain, grief, suffering, whathaveyou. They either can't or won't put aside pride and humble themselves to God's Will. Not a rational process? Well, no, it really isn't, but people in that position (pain, grief, suffering) aren't in a state of mind to be rational, are they?


Peace be with you!

Sandy

ten to the eleventh

Here are two scenarios proposed by a literal apologist to suggest that God could conceivably be judged to have acted immorally:

Comments?