Valmont

Admittedly, it would get difficult at that point.

Good to hear from you again, Yahzi.

I think we agree that God is not moral. We differ over whether or not He is subject to moral obligation. That is to say, we differ over whether God is amoral or immoral.

I do disagree but I do not think I am alone. Most modern theories of ethics do not require or recognise your assumption. My own problem with your definition of morality is that it seems merely to be an arbitrary definition. That is, some actions are immoral. If you commit an immoral act, the consequence is that you are immoral. But we could apply such labels to any set of acts and the definition would hold good. Something of the fundamental nature of morality seems to be missing.

But, of course, a personal psychological effect is an advantage. And, if my faith is well-placed, there is a far greater advantage as well. Your argument about disadvantages is an equivocation fallacy. It is not wrong to worship God, it is wrong to fly planes into buildings.

Of course, I do not believe that God is completely uninvolved. I believe that He became man in the form of Jesus Christ, suffered and died for us and was Resurrected that we might be saved. That is the expression of His love and that is why He is deserving of our worship.

I have a somewhat different understanding of sin. It represents a state of separation from God. It does not carry any moral weight, however. It is wrong to categorise it as criminal or indeed unwise, foolish or futile. It simply is how we are, intrinsically. And it is through faith in Jesus Christ that we are saved from that state.

muidiri

I've got to agree here - but I would say sapient instead of sentient - discerning as opposed to simply self-aware. Sapience is required. To be moral or immoral you must be able to discern a difference between right and wrong actions (presumably based on the consequences of those actions or inactions) and you must be able to choose an action. A being which can discern right and wrong, but has no choice in its actions can be amoral. A creature that has no ability to judge right or wrong can be amoral.

According to the bible, god (and only god) has the ability to judge us - he has the ability to discern right and wrong (else why the ten commandments and all the other rules?). He is also supposed to be omnipotent... so obviously he has the ability to make decisions. Thus god should be bound by some moral constraints.

Heathen Dawn

This is just a reinstatement of the doctrine of “might makes right”, or its no less black-hearted siblings “coming first makes right” or “creatorhood makes right.”

I know one thing from my three years of army service: the officer who kept saying to his soldiers “you’re not in a position to judge me” would be obeyed, feared, but never loved or respected.

Valmont

I think my argument is a little more subtly nuanced than that. I am not arguing that God is 'right' to act as He does. I am saying that it serves no purpose whatsoever to make moral judgements about God. They are meaningless. And as they are, it seems right to admit that God is above morality.

Heathen Dawn

The nuance is different but the essence isn’t.

If God is in any way an actor in human affairs, then moral judgements about Him are as meaningful as those about any human. The only way of getting God out of moral discourse is Deism, in which there is no interaction between God and humans.

muidiri

Why would it not serve a purpose to make moral judgements about god? If I decide that god is immoral, the result of this decision is a refusal to worship him - I refuse to condone his immoral acts in any way I can. Furthermore, I would then actively seek to discourage anyone else from condoning his immoral behavior.

By adoring that which is immoral, you condone immorality and accept it as just. In exxence, this immorality will pass on to you. The result is that worshipping an immoral god makes you an immoral person. Just as supporting an immoral government makes you immoral. I'm willing to bet that civil disobedience will work on god. And if not... well he'll just flood the world and kill all us ungrateful sons-of-b!+43$ anyway :devil3:

Gawen

My 2 cents...
If God is above morality, He has no right to dictate morality to anyone. Judges are not outside the law. "Do as I say and not as I do" has never been a good saying for a role model.

muidiri

EXACTLY!

Yahzi

Actually, not quite: what we are really disagreeing about is whether it is moral for you, a human, to worship/serve/admire/give a fig about an amoral entity like God.

I assert that all I need to do is show that God is not moral for me to show that your doing his will is not moral.

The Golden Rule is what I consider the essence of morality. Now, if God were a limited human being, would he want God to ignore his pain and suffering? Why, no. Therefore, God should not ignore our pain and suffering.

Of course, if one is unable to imagine being the in the other person's shoes, then one can hardly be held to account for not putting oneself in the other's shoes. This is why God's ability to understand our pain matters: it shows he is capable of implementing the Golden Rule. Since he is capable, he is morally required. This is what makes one a moral agent: the ability to follow the Golden Rule. Not being able to makes one amoral; being capable but choosing not to makes one immoral.

If you want to assert that the Golden Rule is not the essence of morality, then I have no idea what you mean by morality.

Much to my surprise, I must completely agree with Heathen Dawn on this: if God is not involved, he does not matter; but if he is involved, then his involvement can be judged.

And given God's capablities, the action he took is wholly inadequate. If your God had extremely limited power, then your position might be justifiable: God did as much as he could. But that wouldn't be God; just a god, and then you'd have to explain how he's better than any of the other hundreds of gods who have done as much for man. What about Prometheus? He gave us fire and other secrets of the gods, and suffers eternal torment for it. Or Odin, who sacrificed an eye at the well of wisdom, and who will fight and die for mankind against the old ones, the giants, who want their planet back. And so on, and so on.

Your somewhat different understanding does not seem to accord with the Bible, which invariably presents sin as a moral consequence of Adam's disobedience. But one has to ask: if it is simply how we are, intrinsically, then why do we need to be saved from it? Why has God created us in a state that requires saving? Isn't that just inane - that God can create us as sinners, and yet get the credit for removing what he made us as? Why do we need faith in Jesus? Given that sin is some kind of state imposed upon me by God, if God wants it to go away, isn't it God's responsibility to make it go away? I mean, being a sinner isn't bothering me; it only seems to bother God. So why should I have to do anything about it? Why doesn't God just make it go away, if it bugs him so much? Why do I have to clean up after God's mistakes?

Well, I could go on like this forever, but the real issue is:

Is it moral for a human to serve/worship a non-moral entity?

Yahzi

I think you have me on ignore, HD, but you still deserve a:

:notworthy