Jack the Bodiless

You are contradicting yourself (again). A choice based on empathy is not a FREE choice, because empathy is a constraint on free choice: it drives the empathic person towards the "humane" option.

Similarly, weighing arguments isn't FREE will, because the process involves predictably selecting the "best" option. The option selected is dictated by the circumstances.
In other words: God is not omnipotent. There are "things and situations in the spiritual dimension" that conveniently interfere to absolve God from the charge that he is simply incompetent.
This is doubly false.

The Amalekites were NOT killed for what they had done. They were killed for who they were: the DESCENDANTS of those who had done what God disapproved of.

Similarly, the Jews were killed largely for being the DESCENDANTS of those who had done what God disapproved of: rejecting and executing Jesus. They were also killed as an act of jealousy and greed, for something they had done: making money.

Hitler claimed to be "doing the Lord's work". His killing of the Jews was just as "legitimate" as the massacre of the Amalekites, according to the rules of Christian morality.
Obeying Christ "out of love for him" is an EMOTIONAL reason. It is not a RATIONAL reason.

But my worldview remains superior to yours because it provides an entirely rational explanation for WHY we have these emotions. "The existence of a moral God with an objective moral character and standard" is not an answer to the question of WHY God supposedly has these characteristics.

Therefore I will ask you again:

WHY IS GOD GOOD?

Your inability to answer this question is proof that you have no rational explanation for the existence of morality: hence, no rational basis for morality.
However, the Bible contains many contradictory statements on moral issues (e.g. the punishment of innocents for the crimes of others) and fails to provide guidance on many others (e.g. slavery, abortion). As a result, Christians can do pretty much anything they like, as they can find the verses which support them.

I suggest you have a look at the Ten Commandments again. Look at what the FIRST commandment is, and how much space is given to it compared to the others. Even Jesus, who reduced the list to TWO commandments, placed worship of God ahead of "love thy neighbor". This is the handle that allows the priesthood to control the population: above all else, the people must be mindless sheep ready to obey "God" (the priesthood) above all else.

So the only real constraint on Christian morality is the morality of whichever type of "spiritual authority" that particular Christian chooses to recognize (or has been brainwashed into following).

tommyc

God is limited by logic and his moral character? Well he's not omnipotent then. He's just very powerful. Just like say, a super advanced alien civilisation. Ok, I can work with that.

By the way I don't believe that means the analogy wasn't flawed though. God could still neutralise the nutter with the bomb.
Where do you get this information from Ed?

tommyc

Sorry Jack, do you mind if I answer this one?
God is good because he says he is and.....BY JOVE IF YOU DISAGREE YOU'RE ALL GOING TO BURN IN HELL YOU HEATHENS!

Ed

God is good because of His moral character.

winstonjen

So if I drown everyone in a mass artificial flood, I would not be justified in doing it because God did it? So what if he vowed never to drown everyone again?

tommyc

1. God is Good because of his moral character.
2. Morals come from God.
3. Go to 1.

Im getting dizzy.

Jack the Bodiless

"God is good because of his moral character" is NOT an explanation.

Try again.

WHY does God have a "moral character" which makes him "good"?

Why doesn't God have a moral character which makes him evil instead?

Gary Welsh

Yes, we recognize that there is some flexibility to morality, and that it has changed somewhat over time. But that doesn't make it simply a "matter of preference," as if it were a favorite flavor of ice cream. It's not purely subjective, in that trivial sense. We can't just wake up tomorrow and decide something is now "right" that was "wrong" yesterday, by fiat. Morality arises out of a need for people to be able to get along with each other. And since we're social creatures, we need codes of behavior if we're going to have anything resembling civilization. Personally, I find that recognizing this -- what I have just said -- is much more 'rational' than believing it all comes from some invisible, undetectable spiritual law-giver.

Do you really believe this? That this is 'legitimate captital punishment'? Do you realize what a precedent this sets? By using your reasoning we can justify executing the grandchildren of the Nazis, for what their ancestors did. After all, we'd only be acting as "God's arm of justice," doing his will by following the example of his Holy Word.

I've often seen this asserted, and it looks reasonable enough, at least on the surface. But can you back this up, at all? Do we have any evidence that atheists are less moral than theists? Are they, statistically, more likely to commit crimes and less likely to help little old ladies across the street?

NOGO

I nearly died laughing.
Surely you are not talking about Yahweh?

I will skip over the on-going discussion about the massacre of innocent people for crimes dating back 400 years (Amalekites), skip over Jesus' statement about filling up with the guilt of your fathers, skip over the massacre of the egyptian children in order to punish Pharaoh and many others ....

Ed, is it not your claim that God defines what is moral and what is not?

OR

Are you subscribing to the idea that morality exists outside of God?


If you say that God defines morality then he cannot be good because of his moral character. Whatever God does is moral by definition according to you.

Let me give you an analogy.
Let's say that I am a dictator in country xyz.
My word is law.
I can then claim that I am the most law abiding person on earth.
I have never broken the law and cannot break the law.
I am good because I am law abiding.

:banghead: :banghead: :banghead:

Ed

That's right Tommy, there isn't any. Thanks for admitting that,
unlike many atheists on this board.

I am a biologist and I will give you a hand. Yes, you have given the standard viewpoint but there is no reason for it to occur gradually over a period time. There is nothing magical about time. No amount of time can turn soup into you and me.