Mageth

You really haven't read and understood the posts on this thread, have you?

"The universal and unchanging standard for goodness and righteousness"??? You have provided no support for this on this thread. What you've described are non-universal, changing "standards" that are given to different people in different situations. The only "standard" you've supported is "If god says do it, it's good; if god says don't do it, it's bad; and what god tells some people to do he may tell other people not to do". That's anything but universal and unchanging.

The same arbitrary rule is not applied to humans; humans have developed moral systems that are used to control behavior; only under these moral systems is anything morally "right" or "wrong". These moral systems actually include the human-invented god "standard" that you advocate (if there were such a single "standard" - as shown on this thread, such a single "true, valid, and practical" standard does not actually exist. If it does, tell us what it is, and what we should and should not do according to this standard).

Biff the unclean

Luvluv I'm under the impression that He choose not Israel but ABRAHAM, the person, as a result of Abraham's righteousness before God. I feel that this was because of personal qualities that Abraham possessed and his location in history.

Well, let's check shall we? God sure like Abraham, even had Himself called "The God of Abraham." And it does say that Abraham was justified by his deeds, which apparently no one else was.
But let's see how moral he was. He whored out his wife at Pharaohs court. He owned slaves. He rapped one, and got her pregnant. He got his own aged wife pregnant at great risk to her health. He neglected his older son. He attempted to murder his younger son. He rustled and killed livestock.
So today the FBI, Child Welfare and the SPCA would all be after this guy with their guns drawn…but to God he is THE most moral guy around.
Doesn't say much for god's morals, does it?

Keith: "If you are using this verse to show that God's nature is evil in some way, all I can tell you is that you do not interpret the bible in a very scholarly way. It might be helpful to consider the context rather than just to isolate one verse from the rest of the bible."
I'll match my scholarship against yours any day of the week. In Isaiah 45 god is boasting that he created everything. Everything including evil, he makes a point of saying. There have been plenty of other examples already posted where god commits evil deeds or orders them to be done. Isaiah 45 is if you missed all the dead women and children and rapped virgins, that the context of the rest of the bible.
In this verse god is boasting to Cyrus the Great. Cyrus is an actual historic figure, he freed the Jews from Babylon. But Cyrus was not Jewish he was Zoroastrian. Instead of a thank you god says 45:5 I am the LORD, and there is none else, there is no God beside me: I girded thee, though thou hast not known me: …Taking credit where none is due him.

So it's god almighty talking there, boasting that he is the creator of evil. If you weren't too lazy to read your own silly book you would have known that. Why must Atheists explain your own bible to you?

luvluv

Abraham was justified by faith, because he believed the promise of God.

But the relevant point was the one about the location in the world and in history. The people of Isreal are perfectly situated to get the word out to everyone in the world, particularly the ancient world. It would have to have been someone in that area.

Keith

Keith: "Arbitrary? Can you support that? As I've pointed out in my scenario with the two sons and the different rules given to them, the fact that God sometimes gives different instructions to different people doesn't make God inconsistent or arbitrary."

Biff the unclean: "You gave your sons two different sets of rules because one is handicapped. He has a brain lesion for christ's sake. If you just picked one to be your 'chosen' son you would be arbitrary. God has a "chosen people" the Jews. How are they any better people than the Hawaiians or the Peruvians? Are they physically handicapped somehow and need to be protected?
If he picked out one group of people for a different morality than everyone else in the world he was arbitrary."

Keith: "You haven't supported it. Is it wrong or arbitrary for God to have a "chosen people? How do you know? The fact that YOU don't know why God sometimes commands or chooses certain things for certain people doesn't mean God doesn't know why He did this. Does God need to tell you WHY He does everything? Does God have a duty to justify His actions to you? Why?

Yes, if I just picked one son to be my "chosen" son, I would probably be arbitrary. Why does that also apply to God? Anyone can make the claim that God is inconsistent and arbitrary. Now its about time you prove it."

Mageth

What was so special, again, about the people in that area of the ancient world? Were the Australian Aborigines, the Native Americans, the Polynesians, the people of the Indian Subcontinent, and the people of China and southeast Asia (none of which were particularly impacted by Abraham's promise until it was forced on them in the last few hundred years, often with devastating effects, and sometimes with little actual effect on their beliefs) simply not as critical in God's plan?

Abraham is more than likely a mythical or legendary character written into Jewish History to establish for them a "promise" from YHWH to justify their forceful "reclamation" of land from its native inhabitants. Revisionist history, in other words. The fact that the various Abrahamic religions have become more or less "successful" is due to the power of the religion's memes (and too often the sword) rather than any foresight on the part of their non-existent deity.

Mageth

Anyone can make the claim that God is inconsistent and arbitrary. Now its about time you prove it.

You've already done that for us on this thread, thank you.

Biff the unclean

Abraham was justified by faith, because he believed the promise of God.
And he was by present day standards totally immoral.

But the relevant point was the one about the location in the world and in history. The people of Isreal are perfectly situated to get the word out to everyone in the world, particularly the ancient world. It would have to have been someone in that area.
The location sucks. It's as far as you could get from any center of civilization. No paved roads, no communications system, no publishing industry like any of the four civilizations around them. The people were completely xenophobic. They hated everyone who wasn't a member of their tribe. They lived next to the sea, in good swine country. Everyone around them ate shell fish and pork yet they forbid it to themselves…the only possible reason was so that they wouldn't be tempted to eat with non-Jews.

Keith

Yes, and we have seen how under YOUR human moral standard, the Nazi's were (according to you) morally RIGHT to gas millions of Jews under their own system, and that (according to you) they were morally WRONG to gas millions of Jews under their own system.

The fact that you repeatedly and blatently contradict yourself (without explanation) on what is/isn't moral is only part of your problem. You have no way to even BEGIN an attempt to form a coherent human morality because:

1. The consensus of the crowd doesn't make something good or right. This is just repeatedly asserted by you, and blindly accepted by some atheists, on faith alone. I have given some examples showing where it leads.

2. Humans have never been in agreement on what is "good" for society, or for the world.

3. Humans (according to you) do not agree on what is/isn't morally right.

4. Might doesn't equal right. The fact that a particular government has the ability to enforce its laws doesn't mean its laws are morally right. (Nazi Germany, Cambodia, under Pol Pot)

At this point, it appears that I've ground your "moral" philosophy into an exceedingly fine dust.

winstonjen

Quit it with the strawmen. Mageth never said it was right under his moral code, only under the 'moral' code of the Nazis.

Nor have Christians.

LOL! That's rich! Pull the other one! The bible's CENTRAL THEME is that might makes right.

Keep claiming false victory, and watch your credibility disappear down the gurgler.

Biff the unclean

Keith: "You haven't supported it. Is it wrong or arbitrary for God to have a "chosen people? How do you know?
Because I have morals. Why don't you know?

The fact that YOU don't know why God sometimes commands or chooses certain things for certain people doesn't mean God doesn't know why He did this.
Perhaps you don't know what the word arbitrary means. It's an adjective and means using only one's own wishes or whim

Does God need to tell you WHY He does everything? Does God have a duty to justify His actions to you? Why?
Yes, of course he does if he intends to include me in his plans

Yes, if I just picked one son to be my "chosen" son, I would probably be arbitrary. Why does that also apply to God?
You (not any of us) are saying that god is the source of morals. If he does not follow these morals then he is immoral

Anyone can make the claim that God is inconsistent and arbitrary. Now its about time you prove it."
As Mageth pointed out, you have already done this.

This god of yours is fictional. His "morality" is nothing but taboos for primitive goatherds who would frighten one another with stories about god while sitting around campfires of dried camel dung. Stop fooling yourself, it's degrading.