Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
You would have to prove the authority of the morality you are proposing as 'right' is in any way objective and not simply a subjective social indoctrination. Seeing how I've yet to meet anyone who can do that, you have no basis to call God 'immoral'. Subjectively, sure. Objectively? No.
God is the source of objective morality. Anything else is opinion.
I see you and Vizio fed at the same error-filled doctrinal trough.
Really? Where does this moral 'direction' come from? We can go at this for a long time before you reach the conclusion that I came to a long, long time ago. Your version of what is 'right' or 'wrong' or 'moral' or 'immoral' is simply your opinion, your taste, your preference and it means exactly nill. Hitler had a moral compass. What makes his compass less 'right' than yours. What makes my compass less 'moral' than yours? Nothing. Why? Because morality requires an authority in order for there to be a moral duty, or why something is an 'ought'.
You say, 'murder is wrong' and you think you are saying something concrete, but a careful examination reveals the statement to be impossibly ethereal.
The moral compass is supposed to come from God, of course (never mind 'which god' for the moment) but my answer to this is that the Bible contains stuff that we praise as right and good and stuff that we see as bad and the Christians have to excuse it as 'Men did that, not God' or 'God had to go along with the customs of the time' or 'it was regrettably necessary - they deserved it' or of course' who are you to question God?'
We are humans with a human -evolved morality and we and you apply it to the the Bible to decide which of God's doings are good and which need to be excused, explained away or blamed on someone else.
Thus the only valid morality is ours. God's has no reliability, uniformity or integrity. And in fact, it has to re-adjust every decade or so to avoid being left behind so much that it loses its customers. And each time it maintains the ridiculous fiction that its moral standpoint has never changed.
Human relative morality leads - religious morality shuffles along behind.
That sorted, where did it come from? It is evolved social survivor - behaviour, I am pretty sure. But it has been improved because of the more complex society, since farming and herding led to the first communities, which required rules to enable people to live together and disputes to be settled with law, not with family feuds.
To reiterate, your demand for a a concrete extra -human reliable authority for morality is not going to be satisfied, because we have had to develop it. But God is not only not an authority but as a convention is less good than human morality. Human morality is the best and only morality we have. God -based absolute morality is a faith -based demonstrable crock. let us have no more of it.
Really? Where does this moral 'direction' come from? We can go at this for a long time before you reach the conclusion that I came to a long, long time ago. Your version of what is 'right' or 'wrong' or 'moral' or 'immoral' is simply your opinion, your taste, your preference and it means exactly nill. Hitler had a moral compass. What makes his compass less 'right' than yours. What makes my compass less 'moral' than yours? Nothing. Why? Because morality requires an authority in order for there to be a moral duty, or why something is an 'ought'.
You say, 'murder is wrong' and you think you are saying something concrete, but a careful examination reveals the statement to be impossibly ethereal.
Why is any source of morality a better source than any other source? Why is a universe-creating, law of physics-constructing, life-instigating, eternal source of all things a better source of morality than a next door neighbor?
The answer is that it's not, necessarily.
Morality is a system of guidelines designed to benefit that which can experience.
We do not need an authority for there to be a sense of moral duty. We can simply think to ourselves: Does this behavior benefit that which can experience?
From that point things do get a little trickier. For example...Laveyan Satanists, from what I understand, tend to view it as morally wrong to help others who they do not perceive as deserving it, and vengeance on those who harm us should be sought.
I, however, tend to think we should maximize the number of positive experiences and minimize the number of negative experiences of beings that experience the universe, and that punishment should be used only to discourage actions that would cause more harm than good to the group. It should be used as negative reinforcement rather than vengeance. I view punishment as always a negative thing, but sometimes a negative thing that results in fewer losses than a lack of punishment would.
It gets even trickier when we start thinking about if there can be varying degrees of ability to experience the universe. I know some beings are said to be self-aware and others are not, but when we begin thinking about how much less worth does the life of a dog have compared to the life of a typical human...things get confusing.
However, one advantage of my morality, Laveyan Satanist morality, vegetarian morality, and meat-eating human morality...is that though those four perspectives can harm some beings that experience, they are all designed to assist at least assist some beings that experience the universe.
A major disadvantage of merely mimicking our morality from an authority, such as a god or next door neighbor, is that morality does not necessarily help anyone, or anything whereas if we construct our own morality with the goal of assisting some organism with the ability to experience...it will almost certainly at least help someone or something.
Self-constructed morality is not perfect, but it can act as a filter to separate some of the more bat-poop crazy ideas from the less crazy ideas. Morality mimicked from a higher authority just lets anything through...I'd think.
God is the source of objective morality. Anything else is opinion.
As I keep telling your pal Vizio, who obviously drinks from the same poisoned cup as you do, there can be no such thing as objective morality if God is exempt from having to adhere to it. By definition there is no such thing as an objective morality that says, "Morality is objective for everyone but me."
If God is not bound by his own moral code, then it isn't objective.
That's like saying a spoon is a spoon ... except when it's a fork.
Or genocide is immoral ... except when it's not (i.e. when God commits it).
There is no "except" in the definition of "objective."
Last edited by Shirina; 09-10-2014 at 09:43 AM..
Reason: My original post was exempt from objective spelling rules, so it was my subjective opinion that I start over.
To be human is experience.
To lie is to say it is perfect or imperfect.
The perfect experience is a choice.
That is Why God Shared existence.
It is not Good to be alone.
....Y....
To be human is experience.
To lie is to say it is perfect or imperfect.
The perfect experience is a choice.
That is Why God Shared existence.
It is not Good to be alone.
....Y....
That certainly is a nice way of looking at it.
It's better than some of the alternatives - that we were glorified gardeners, workers, etc. for the gods. "You had one job, Adam. ONE JOB!"
Assuming the story of Genesis 2-3 as a beginning, it's a nice touch that Yahweh gets his hands dirty in the account, and like a divine craftsman plants the garden, forms man from the clay, performs surgery and then builds a woman from a now missing part (if Ziony Zevit's recent examination is correct, a baculum: Baculum - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia), and spends time walking around the garden enjoying it. A very human god in this account, with human motivations peeking through the cracks. He certainly does express some very human emotions by the end of the story, though it is a bit sad that he does not wish for the divide between humanity and the divine to be breached. The opportunity for supreme fellowship, by becoming fully divine, is half-thwarted:
YHWH, God, said:
Here, the human has become like one of us, in knowing good and evil.
So now, lest he send forth his hand
and take also from the Tree of Life
and eat
and live throughout the ages...!
So YHWH, God, sent him away from the garden of Eden, to work the soil from which he had been taken.
He drove the human out
and caused to dwell, eastward of the garden of Eden,
the winged-sphinxes and the flashing, ever-turning sword
to watch over the way to the Tree of Life.
(Genesis 3:22-24, SB Fox)
So half-divine humanity lost the opportunity to become fully divine, and Yahweh lost his gardener and the chance to have companions close to him in divine status. Perhaps the prospect of having glorified gardeners ascending to the rank of gods did not please him too much, and a streak of jealously marred his actions. Or perhaps he always intended humanity to be glorified gardeners of the earth? Hard to say... Perhaps his prohibition of the Trees was meant to protect humanity from the drawbacks of being divine, and he never meant for us to be companions to him in the same equal status, with the crushing responsibility that morality brings to humans. Unlike the animals, the humans were now open to a state of judgment, since they could no longer plead innocence of what was "good and bad", most likely a merism that meant basically "everything". Humanity may have traded in it's possible divine status for knowledge, for wisdom. I suppose, in the Biblical author's mind, the two were exclusive in humanity. One or the other - not both.
As I keep telling your pal Vizio, who obviously drinks from the same poisoned cup as you do, there can be no such thing as objective morality if God is exempt from having to adhere to it. By definition there is no such thing as an objective morality that says, "Morality is objective for everyone but me."
If God is not bound by his own moral code, then it isn't objective.
That's like saying a spoon is a spoon ... except when it's a fork.
Or genocide is immoral ... except when it's not (i.e. when God commits it).
There is no "except" in the definition of "objective."
Can one not make a set of rules that applies to an external phenomenon, without having to include oneself in the standards of that close system?
While I agree with your basic approach, I think it could be argued that what applies to the goose isn't always good for the gander. I can make a set of laws that apply to immigrants, for example, and not be bound by those same laws - not being an immigrant, as the first obvious reason.
To play devil's advocate for God, a lot of these issues of justice pop up in the Book of Job. The over-zealous and arrogantly self-righteous Elihu makes this statement on the question of God's Justice:
So, you sensible men, hear me.
Far be it from God to do evil,
From Shaddai to do wrong. (10)
Nay, he pays a man for his work,
Brings home a man's conduct to him. (11)
Surely God would not do evil,
Nor Shaddai pervert justice. (12)
Who entrusted the earth to him?
Who assigned [him] the whole world? (13)
If he took it in his mind
To take back his spirit and breath, (14)
All flesh would expire together,
And man return to the dust. (15)
Now, if you have intelligence, hear this;
Give ear to the sound of my words. (16)
Can one who hates justice govern:
Will you condemn the Just and Mighty One? (17)
Does one say to a king, 'Scoundrel'?
'Criminal' to nobles? (18)
He pays no respect to princes,
Nor favors rich over poor.
They are all the work of his hands. (19)
In a moment they die, at midnight;
Gentry are shaken and pass away,
The mighty are removed without hand. (20)
(Job 34:10-20, AB Pope)
There are many critiques that could be raised against Elihu, but he basically states the principle of "Might Makes Right" - at least, in the case of God.
From this view, can we demand Justice from such a powerful being? The entire Book of Job is about the futile attempt of a human to take God to court for Injustice, and how in the end God basically embodies the principle of "Might Makes Right". A pretty bleak outlook, but a brave book by religious standards. God basically points out that because he is God, he is not bound to a close system of ethics. He is not controlled by the restraints that such a system would put on his will and power. It seems to be an issue of divine power being bound up in such a system.
As I said, I'm playing devil's advocate for God at this moment, but I wonder what I would do when faced with a powerful angry deity that I felt was unjust? Would I, as Job's wife suggested, "curse God and die" (by his hand, most likely) or would I "repent in dust and ashes" and pretend to go along with the program out of pure self-interest? It's funny, how the investigation into Job's character began because the Satan claimed that Job only worshipped God out of pure self-interest. By the end of the book, Job's "repentance" raises the very real question of whether he was being genuine or smart in the fact of the angry storm-god raging at him from the whirlwind.
Actually the principle of Job that wins is humility.
The enemy wanted to implant pride with all the death and accusations around Job. The enemy wanted Job to believe his bonds with family and friends were of more value than his bond with the Heavenly Father.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
where did it come from? It is evolved social survivor - behaviour, I am pretty sure. But it has been improved because of the more complex society, since farming and herding led to the first communities, which required rules to enable people to live together and disputes to be settled with law, not with family feuds.
