muidiri

This is an interesting topic...

I've just finished reading through it, and I'd like to ask a question. If I'm thread-jacking, let me know.

Consider that morality is a code which all humans should follow, and that we have the ability to judge the morality of our own acts, as well as the acts of others. If someone actis in an immoral manner, we can look to them and say "That is immoral because..." So then... if god acts in a manner which is immoral by our conventions, how then is it moral to worship him?

God is "above morality" simply because he said he is. He is the only god because he said so. Everything in this religion is taken as true because god said so. Last time I checked "Because I said so" wasn't generally a good excuse.

Boy how embarrasing if God turns out to be a liar!

Valmont

Not at all. You seem to be right on topic.

Why should it not be moral?

If an act is advantageous to some without being disadvantageous to others then, I think, it is perfectly reasonable to describe it as moral. Christian worship, I believe, fulfils this criterion. I'd also add that, whilst we can call God's actions amoral, it has certainly not yet been shown they are immoral.

I don't think I have ever argued that God is above morality because "He says He is". Rather it seems to me to be a logical deduction from the nature of morality. If nothing else, for it to have any meaning at all, for someone to be immoral entails a certain degree of censure and sanction. Part of the compulsion of moral obligation is that it is disadvantageous to be considered immoral. But, even if we were to decide that God was immoral what censure or sanction could we employ against Him to make Him change His ways.

In other words, He is above our morality because He is above our judgement.

muidiri

We may be unable to change god's ways (provided we believe he exists), but we certainly do not have to support his ways.

If god is supposed to be the height of goodness, and by definition, everything he does is right, then he is the model of morality. We should all try to emmulate him. Unfortunately, god's "actions" and behavior are significantly different from our understanding of moral. You can call it "amoral" if you want, but I think it would have to be interpreted as immoral. These actions from any other being would be considered immoral. But because it is god, you make excuses for his behavior and say it is "amoral" instead. Although our power to judge and to decide is one of our greates strengths as humans, you argue that we cannot judge god. The only way to prevent god from being seen as an immoral being is to completely divorce him from all aspects of reality.

If we accept god as omnibenevolent then we must accept his standards as the goal. The entire argument behind jesus-worship is that his sacrifice was made so that we could be forgiven, becaues god won't allow sin in his presence. Indeed we are told that god is the only being without sin - thus he is perfectly moral.

If our understanding of morality differs from the actions of god... then our understanding must be wrong. Sounds like we need to redefine our morals to include a little more random pain and suffering, maybe start engaging in some petty genocide to make a point.

The only other alternative is to accept that the crhistian god is an immoral god by any reasonable understanding of morals.

Valmont

I don't think I have ever argued this about God.

I don't think this is right. I am not granting God a special exemption because He is God. I am arguing that the category of things upon which rests a moral obligation is a narrow one. You would not argue that a tornado or earthquake was immoral. We do not describe animals as immoral, regardless of how cruel their actions seem to us. In fact, the only beings that we regard as having the potential to be immoral are human ones.

I think the current Christian understanding of the death and Resurrection of Jesus Christ is a little more sophisticated. We are told by Paul that we cannot be saved by works alone. It is clearly, then, erroneous to argue that it is our immorality alone that prevents us from being saved.

Sin and immorality should not be conflated. Sin is an inseparable aspect of humanity. Immorality is the consequence of the choices we make.

No. As I have already explained, and which you have not addressed, I think, to declare a being immoral you must first show that it is under a moral obligation. Unless you can demonstrate the existence of that moral obligation upon God then you cannot reasonably claim that God is immoral.

Avatar

I've been looking over this thread, and I think I've been missing something.

There are numerous passages in the Bible, both OT and NT in which God is described as either condoning, ordering, or outright committing murder, mass murder and genocide.

Several thiests on this thread have outright denied that these passages exist. Perhaps they have not read their own Bible?

My own questions are: Are these passages in the Bible or not? If so, are they accurate descriptions of God's actions? If they are in the Bible, and they are accurate, then how can anyone possibly claim that the entity that commanded or committed such acts is in any way loving, just, merciful, or any of the other words used to describe it? How is it just to exterminate a world of life? How compassionate is it to deliberately slaughter the first born of every family in Egypt? How loving is it to blast two cities off the face of the Earth...cities that no doubt contained childen, babies, and other innocents? How merciful is it to cast souls of people who do not kiss God's ring properly into eternal torment?

Something that Christians seem to be completely blind to: GOD IS THE ONE WHO SET UP THIS SYSTEM IN THE FIRST PLACE! A grotesquely unjust, unmerciful, utterly unloving system in which the one and only thing in the universe that can save a person from damnation (or non-existence, take your pick) is properly stroking God's incredibly fragile ego.

The only answers I have ever heard to any of those questions is a collection of rationalizations, circular reasoning, and apoligetics? Does anyone have anything at all that can possibly answer these questions coming from an irritable man who has spent years searching for answers and has yet to find any that do not have glaring holes in them?

Valmont

Yes.

No.

Love is a very different kettle of fish to mercy or justice.

It isn't. But God didn't.

It isn't. But God didn't.

It isn't. But God didn't.

It isn't. But I do not believe that this is what God does. Paul writes, "THe wages of sin are death." This does not imply eternal torment so much as simply not being.

Hyndis

We're drifting into the nature of Christianity, god, and whatnot.

So, off to GRD.

If things switch back to ethics, then the mods there can boot it back to here.

Avatar

Funny...that's not what your Bible says. It's pretty clear about who ordered what and who did what, and according to your Bible, God did do all these things and worse.

If you beleive that the Bible is the word of God, how can you deny that God did what he claimed to have done? If they are not accurate descriptions of God's actions, by all means enlighten me.

Yahzi

Then he is irrelevant.

Your God is so distant and impersonal that he is not bound by morality - but only because he is not bound, by anything, to anything, or engaged or related in any way. Like an anthropologist, he simply observes. But the problem with this is that no anthropologist expects to be labeled the ultimate good, the source of all meaning, and a loving parent to the object of his study. The anthropologist puts himself outside the social sphere so that he may observe; he exempts himself from moral action for the advancement of knowledge. God does not need to advance his knowledge, so what's his excuse?

Imagine if an anthropologist treated his own child the way he treated the objects of his study. We'd send him to jail for neglect.


I agree with you that morality is intimately bound up with accountability, and that God is not accountable to anyone. My point is that makes him not moral. He cannot simultaneously be above and exempt from morality and moral. At best, his removal from all accountability makes him amoral; at worst, immoral; but in either case, he is not moral.

You cannot be a championship tennis player if you don't play tennis.

Indeed I do, although I would not have expected a servant of the Prince of Peace and King of Love to consider it a weak link.

I assert that the sole moral imperative is ability; if you are capable of the moral act, then you are required to do it. Conversely, if you are not capable, you are not required. I assert this as a moral axiom, a premise, an underlying assumption of what morality means. If you disagree, I can't argue; I can only say that any system that lacks this feature doesn't strike me as a moral code.

If God can recognize our suffering, and do something about it, then I think he is morally bound to do what he can, exactly as I would expect another person to, regardless of whether that person was ever going to be held accountable to me or anyone I knew. If that person failed to act, I might not necessarily hate them as immoral; but I certainly wouldn't worship them as the exemplar of morality.

Because to me, ability is obligation. Note: before writing and asking me for money, keep in mind that I very liberally interpret what constitutes "ability." I'm not expecting anyone to give away everything they have, or even compromise their own life and comfort to any significant degree for a trivial discomfort on someone else's part.

Satan seems to think there's a chance in opposing God... and God was scared enough of him to respond. Food for thought.

On the surface, this sounds perfectly reasonable. However, by the time I get done with it, it turns into ignoring the root causes of airplane terrorism so you can feel better about your imaginary friend who's going to punish all those people that mocked your hairpiece.

Seriously, you have yet to demonstrate any "advantage," save for a personal psychological effect; the disadvantages of belief (not yours in specific, but jut belief in general) are well-known and devestating; and finally, why bother? If God is as remote and unconnected to us as you posit, of what possible value could your worship be to him? Isn't there fundametally something wrong in worshipping something in vain? How is it logical to exempt God from all human interaction and responsibility, but still assert that God is good, loves you, and deserves worship?

Ultimately, isn't love about relationships? Isn't love bound up with accountability, too, just like morality? If God cannot participate in our moral life, or our social life, then in what sense can we claim to be loved or to love him? And I am certain you reject worship without love as an abomination, a simple genufluction of fear.

In other words, God cannot be both transcendant and immanent, anymore than circles can be square.

Yahzi

Not quite: you don't have to be human, just sentient. It's true we don't actually know of any sentient beings that aren't human, but if space aliens showed up tommorrow and started stealing candy bars, we would not hesitate to label them immoral.

Sin is the one unique idea of Christianity; that disobeying God was, in and of itself, a crime. Not merely unwise, or foolish, or ultimately futile; but criminal. Obedience becomes elevated to a virtue in and of itself.

Not actually a good thing, in my book.