Is it?

[DangerousBeliefs]

These are divine, not human orders

Today... people who hear voices that tell them to kill are locked up.

Here's an exercise for you... if you started hearing a voice in your head that said it was God and it wanted you to kill all the first born children, would you obey it?

 

[Cello Man]

Whatever he commands, even if it is genocide is good simply by the virtue of being said by god.

I think that sentiment tops the list of the most terrifying words ever spoken. You're talking about happily going along with orders to kill people, given to you by a being that has not been proven to exist.

Seek professional help. No, I'm not kidding...I wish I was.

 

[Bri]

Leaving aside the issue, of god's existance, if I have a belief that god is good, but in the bible, he commanded immoral things, is it rational to conclude that these acts are actually moral, (because of my belief that he is good), or that even though they are immoral, they should be done (because we are obliged to our creator)?

Let's assume as a premise that God exists and is good. If God were also all-knowing, he might not be subject to the same morality that we are since he can forsee all consequences of his actions. However, WE are still subject to morality, and therefore God could not ask us to do something immoral without our knowing for absolute certain that he exists. Therefore, unless you are claiming to have absolute and direct proof of God's existence, God could not command you to do anything immoral.

That said, the Bible contains passages where God commands individuals to do things that we would consider immoral. Christians justify this in many ways, including: (1) the person who was commanded had absolute and direct proof of God's existence and therefore knows that the act is moral, or (2) that although the act would be considered immoral in most modern circumstances it was not actually immoral in the specific context of the situation described in the Bible.

Before I become the target of ad-hom attacks, let me state for the record that I'm not defending the above justifications -- I am only pointing out that Christians can and do defend them (I'm not a Christian).

-Bri

 

[Bri]

I don't see how god can take the moral high ground when he says it is a sin for us to kill each other, but it's ok for him to kill us or to have us kill each other at his command.

Most Biblical scholars would agree that the commandment is to refrain from murder, and not to refrain from killing altogether. There are many instances where killing is justified (punishment for a crime and self-defense are two examples).

By some definitions, yes, these acts are by definition moral because they are god's will.

Of course, such a definition undercuts everything else we ever use "morality" or "goodness" for, so morality and goodness immediately cease being reasonable expectations or guidelins for our behavior. No need to "do good works", because true morality is arbitrarily decided by a god with a track record of capricious behavior.

So you can have one of the two, but not both--either a morality determined by god's will, or a morality we can use to guide our interactions with our fellow humans. I personally prefer the latter.

If God is all-knowing, then he knows all consequences of his actions, and therefore his rules of morality would necessarily be different from ours. Specifically, he would be compelled to do things for the greater good that we might consider to be immoral given that we can predict only the relatively short-term consequences of our actions.

-Bri

 

[Bri]

But we do it sometimes in our daily life - come to a conclusion, and then judge evidence, knowing that the conclusion we came to is a good one.

For example, we come to the conclusion that gravity exists (or at least that things fall down). So, if someone would tell us that he flies, we would conclude that he is lying because it contradicts our knowledge.

There is actual, physical evidence of gravity. There is no similar evidence of God's existence. (If God is all-powerful, then he must have a reason for not wanting us to know for certain of his existence -- otherwise he could certainly ensure that we would know of his existence). However, the fact that we don't know for certain of his existence precludes us from assuming his existence as a basis of morality.

-Bri

 

[KingMerv00]

These are divine, not human orders

How is that different?

 

[JoeEllison]

These are divine, not human orders

That's not a claim you can logically make. All those orders come from people.

 

[JetLeg]

How is that different?

First, a god is divine, so there must be something good about his orders.

Second, if he is omnibenevolent, then in the end, the results are good somehow.

 

[Bri]

JetLeg, are you referring to someone who receives an order from God today, or are you referring to passages in the Bible? It can be argued that according to the Bible, various people had direct knowledge of God's existence. That can be used to justify God requesting of them what would seem to be immoral behavior.

But if God exists, then for whatever reason he doesn't tend to make it known for a fact today. The fact is that we don't know for a fact that God exists. Specifically, if God were to talk to only you and nobody else heard it, it is more likely that you're insane than that God is really speaking to you. Therefore, I doubt your argument can be used to justify immoral behavior nowadays since it is based on your premises (that God exists, that God is omnibenevolent, that you know fact that God is speaking to you, etc.) which are actually unknown.

-Bri

 

[JoeEllison]

First, a god is divine, so there must be something good about his orders.

Second, if he is omnibenevolent, then in the end, the results are good somehow.

Since there's no evidence of a god, everything you are claiming about that god is invented by people. Plus, of course, you're so illogical it makes my head spin.

 

[JetLeg]

Why should religion provide evidence for its claims? As long as there are no contradictions, religion is "an alternative point of view on reality", a personal viewpoint. Eliminating contradictions is the important part.

 

[uruk]

These are divine, not human orders

Do as I say. not as I do.

So where does the "in his image" thing come in?

JetLeg
First, a god is divine, so there must be something good about his orders.

To the holy all things are holy

Second, if he is omnibenevolent, then in the end, the results are good somehow.

The ends justifies the means.

So it comes down to "god can do whatever he want because he's god."

Why are we forced hold ourselves to a higher level of standards of behavior than god holds to himself?

 

[jond]

Why should religion provide evidence for its claims? As long as there are no contradictions, religion is "an alternative point of view on reality", a personal viewpoint. Eliminating contradictions is the important part.

Because in order to say something is true, you must provide evidence for those claims. And, while it might be a personal point of view to the believer, as soon as he/she/it acts on another person in the name of that point of view, they need to have evidence to support that action.

 

[Bri]

Why should religion provide evidence for its claims? As long as there are no contradictions, religion is "an alternative point of view on reality", a personal viewpoint. Eliminating contradictions is the important part.

Simply eliminating contradiction is not enough to justify an immoral act. I can easily eliminate contradiction by holding the "alternative point of view" that the entire universe exists only in my mind, which is a personal viewpoint (and entirely possible) without any contradiction.

So am I therefore justified in doing anything I want to you because there is no real consequence to my action (after all, you are only a figment of my imagination)? Or would you prefer that I prove that you're not real before doing something immoral to you?

-Bri

 

[Mashuna]

First, a god is divine, so there must be something good about his orders.

Second, if he is omnibenevolent, then in the end, the results are good somehow.

So you were only obeying orders, and the end justifies the means?

 

[Bri]

Why are we forced hold ourselves to a higher level of standards of behavior than god holds to himself?

That's not entirely a valid argument. Morality would involve refraining from performing actions that might foreseeably result in harm to others. If you were all-knowing, that would inevitably compel you to behave according to a different (not higher or lower) standard of behavior than those who are not all-knowing since ALL consequences of your action would be forseeable (in other words, you would understand the full implications of every action). Therefore, you would not only have to act differently, but in some cases in ways that would seem to be immoral to those who are not all-knowing.

Still, your point holds that it would be immoral for us to act in a way that would forseeably harm others, even if we thought that we were being directed by God to do so.

-Bri

 

[Foster Zygote]

First, a god is divine, so there must be something good about his orders.

Really? You can't imagine a god of evil? Many pantheons include gods who's intent is to do evil.

Second, if he is omnibenevolent, then in the end, the results are good somehow.

What good should we be looking for in Biblical descriptions of the complete slaughter of whole kingdoms? The Bible makes the claim that the populations of several kingdoms were utterly destroyed in the name of God. It clearly makes the claim that no one was left alive. Can you picture a soldier slashing open a young mother with his sword, then doing the same to her four year old daughter and finally taking an infant boy from the dead mother's arms and smashing him against the ground? Are you really so keen to avoid doubt about the "omni-benevolence" of the described god that you would rather justify such actions than question the veracity of these religious claims about the nature of God?

 

[Ichneumonwasp]

That's not entirely a valid argument. Morality would involve refraining from performing actions that might foreseeably result in harm to others. If you were all-knowing, that would inevitably compel you to behave according to a different (not higher or lower) standard of behavior than those who are not all-knowing since ALL consequences of your action would be forseeable (in other words, you would understand the full implications of every action). Therefore, you would not only have to act differently, but in some cases in ways that would seem to be immoral to those who are not all-knowing.

Still, your point holds that it would be immoral for us to act in a way that would forseeably harm others, even if we thought that we were being directed by God to do so.

-Bri

Do you envision that this oculd explain the problem of natural evil? I still have a hard time understanding how a child dying of overwhelming parasitic infestation could be considered good or relate to some other master plan.

 

[Bri]

Ichneumonwasp,

Yes, the "greater good" argument (usually in combination with the possibility of free will) can be used to explain the so-called Problem of Evil. There are other explanations as well. The Problem of Evil is fairly well-known, and a good article on the topic can be found here.

-Bri

 

[JoeEllison]

Why should religion provide evidence for its claims? As long as there are no contradictions, religion is "an alternative point of view on reality", a personal viewpoint. Eliminating contradictions is the important part.

So you're saying it is an imaginary fantasy, adding absolutely nothing to our knowledge. Why are you wasting everyone's time with your make-believe games?