Am I More Moral Than God?

[angellous_evangellous]

Since I am an atheist, the following comments are hypothetical.

This morning I rescued a creepy-crawley bug (It had way to many legs to be classified as an insect) on the carpet of my apartment. Instead of killing it, I managed to get it to crawl onto a paper towel and released it out on my balcony. I cared enough about that bug to save its life. Did God care about it at all? I doubt it. Does God care about any of the creatures he allegedly created? I doubt it.

Many people consider atheists to be immoral people. I know that isn't true.

My question is: Am I more moral than God?

In this case as in many others I think that we can argue that people are more humane than God. Indeed, if I had the power that God has, I would effortlessly end all suffering and save all of humanity. In that respect, I am more humane than God because I am human.

I suppose on this basis we can judge God for not being humane.

I wonder what will happen when God judges us for not being Divine.

Christian responsibility to beg for mercy
God's Judgement
Angellous' Reaffirmation of the Divine

 

[lunamoth]

This morning I rescued a creepy-crawley bug (It had way to many legs to be classified as an insect) on the carpet of my apartment. Instead of killing it, I managed to get it to crawl onto a paper towel and released it out on my balcony. I cared enough about that bug to save its life. Did God care about it at all? I doubt it. Does God care about any of the creatures he allegedly created? I doubt it.

Many people consider atheists to be immoral people. I know that isn't true.

My question is: Am I more moral than God?

God did save the bug.

 

[michel]

When I intentionally create something, I want that thing to be compatible with my values. So, if God intentionally created nature, why isn't nature in line with his values (his values as professed by the OT)? It seems to me that nature is amoral, while God is moral (or, God is moral according to the values of God). Help me out if I haven't elaborated well, and I'll try again. I need more coffee this morning!

I'm still not up to speed (it's me, and I am being unbelievably slow today); I still am struggling for a propper understanding.

If we take the O.T at face value, God isn't a very nice guy. I mean, just because Adam ate a granny smith passed onto him by Eve just because a sneaky snake came along and told her to do so seems to me a bit rough on the rest of us, for eternity.

Now, I know I have said this before, but I think the O.T is much too innacurate and full of parables, and has been written in such a way as to maker the writer's interpretations flaw the writings.

You say " if God intentionally created nature, why isn't nature in line with his values ?" I ma not sure why you think that it isn't. I was watching a programme last night about Sperm Whales, in which auntie stayed with the young male at a shallow depth while Mum went to feed. There was also an etraordinary scene where the little guy was totally surrounded by 'the grown ups' when killer sharks came in and decided to try to feed on the young one.

Apparently, Ostriches lay their eggs in a communal 'squat' and the fathers take it in turn to do the nesting. Ever watched young pups with their Mum ? It strikes me that nature at it's roots is probably a lot more moral than we humans are.

 

[retrorich]

God did save the bug.

Like hash, he did! I saved it! Funny how God seems to get all the credit for good things that happen, and none of the blame for bad things that happen. Horse hockey!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

 

[retrorich]

In this case as in many others I think that we can argue that people are more humane than God. Indeed, if I had the power that God has, I would effortlessly end all suffering and save all of humanity. In that respect, I am more humane than God because I am human.

I suppose on this basis we can judge God for not being humane.

I wonder what will happen when God judges us for not being Divine.

Christian responsibility to beg for mercy
God's Judgement
Angellous' Reaffirmation of the Divine

Super post! Frubals to you.

 

[lunamoth]

Like hash, he did! I saved it! Funny how God seems to get all the credit for good things that happen, and none of the blame for bad things that happen. Horse hockey!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Apologies retro--I was just yanking your chain a bit. No argument intended.

luna

 

[retrorich]

Apologies retro--I was just yanking your chain a bit. No argument intended.

luna

And I apologize for my strong language.

 

[MaddLlama]

My question is: Am I more moral than God?

“Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able? Then he is impotent. Is he able, but not willing? Then he is malevolent. Is he both able and willing? Whence then is evil?”

-Epicurus

 

[retrorich]

“Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able? Then he is impotent. Is he able, but not willing? Then he is malevolent. Is he both able and willing? Whence then is evil?”

-Epicurus

Do you have answers for those questions?

 

[MaddLlama]

Do you have answers for those questions?

Since I am neither a philosopher nor a theist, no.

 

[Fowvay]

Does God care?

Of course he does.

How do we know that for sure?

God made us in his image. So we get to go through the same emotional rollercoaster God does. We just do not get the Omnipotent part so we often miss the BIG picture.

However he cares the same way we care about our children. We would do anything for our child but sometimes the kindest thing to do looks incredibly cruel from the outside. Life isn't fair but that doesn't mean I don't care.

Reality is this. The Animals of this Earth sometimes need to eat another animal to survive. If nothing died ... ever.... well then we would be burried in bugs, people and animals all the way to the stratosphere by now.

Are Athiests Immoral?

Sure some are but some aren't just like any other human being on this planet.

 

[Sunstone]

I'm still not up to speed (it's me, and I am being unbelievably slow today); I still am struggling for a propper understanding.

If we take the O.T at face value, God isn't a very nice guy. I mean, just because Adam ate a granny smith passed onto him by Eve just because a sneaky snake came along and told her to do so seems to me a bit rough on the rest of us, for eternity.

Now, I know I have said this before, but I think the O.T is much too innacurate and full of parables, and has been written in such a way as to maker the writer's interpretations flaw the writings.

You say " if God intentionally created nature, why isn't nature in line with his values ?" I ma not sure why you think that it isn't. I was watching a programme last night about Sperm Whales, in which auntie stayed with the young male at a shallow depth while Mum went to feed. There was also an etraordinary scene where the little guy was totally surrounded by 'the grown ups' when killer sharks came in and decided to try to feed on the young one.

Apparently, Ostriches lay their eggs in a communal 'squat' and the fathers take it in turn to do the nesting. Ever watched young pups with their Mum ? It strikes me that nature at it's roots is probably a lot more moral than we humans are.

In the first place, Michel, I agree that the OT is not nearly as accurate about the nature of deity (if deity even exists) as the NT. I think the message that God is love (agape) is almost certainly a more accurate description of deity (again, if deity exists) than the message God is irrational, petty, etc. The deity of the OT doesn't even seem to have sound psychological health, let alone a rational morality. I mean what can one make of a thing that prohibits wearing cloth of two fabrics, as if civilization will fall should anyone do that? A neurotic or psychotic might make such a prohibition! So, you and I seem to be in agreement that the OT deity is more human interpretation than divine inspiration.

However, I was originally discussing the OT deity, and didn't intend that my remarks be taken to refer to the NT deity. In the NT case that God is love (agape), I find more reason to believe that God could be a creator of nature. After all, agape is unconditional. Therefore, it accepts everything. It does not pick and choose what to accept based on a petty morality. Nature, in its immensely interconnected diversity, seems more likely to have been created by Love, than by Neurosis, assuming it was created at all.

BTW, that sounds like a fascinating program you were watching the other night.

 

[angellous_evangellous]

In the first place, Michel, I agree that the OT is not nearly as accurate about the nature of deity (if deity even exists) as the NT. I think the message that God is love (agape) is almost certainly a more accurate description of deity (again, if deity exists) than the message God is irrational, petty, etc. The deity of the OT doesn't even seem to have sound psychological health, let alone a rational morality. I mean what can one make of a thing that prohibits wearing cloth of two fabrics, as if civilization will fall should anyone do that? A neurotic or psychotic might make such a prohibition! So, you and I seem to be in agreement that the OT deity is more human interpretation than divine inspiration.

However, I was originally discussing the OT deity, and didn't intend that my remarks be taken to refer to the NT deity. In the NT case that God is love (agape), I find more reason to believe that God could be a creator of nature. After all, agape is unconditional. Therefore, it accepts everything. It does not pick and choose what to accept based on a petty morality. Nature, in its immensely interconnected diversity, seems more likely to have been created by Love, than by Neurosis, assuming it was created at all.

BTW, that sounds like a fascinating program you were watching the other night.

I don't think that the people who preserved the testimonies of God in the Hebrew Bible thought that God was irrational, petty, etc.

Let's not seperate the two as Marcion did. The writers of the NT were not theologizing on a new god but were explicitly giving additional testimony to YHWH, the God of the OT.

 

[Khale]

Since I am an atheist, the following comments are hypothetical.

This morning I rescued a creepy-crawley bug (It had way to many legs to be classified as an insect) on the carpet of my apartment. Instead of killing it, I managed to get it to crawl onto a paper towel and released it out on my balcony. I cared enough about that bug to save its life. Did God care about it at all? I doubt it. Does God care about any of the creatures he allegedly created? I doubt it.

There is, of course, the possibility that God used you to rescue the bug. An idea not that farfetched if you consider him to be omnipotent/omniscient. However, even if that was not the case and the bug had died what would make that uncaring?

Many people consider atheists to be immoral people. I know that isn't true.

You seem to have gone on a bit of a tangent here...

My question is: Am I more moral than God?

The above scenario assumes that God is real (otherwise comparing your morality would be difficult). So, if we assume that God is the all-powerful deity then, at least for this scenario, we assume that morality is based off of him. If that is the case then God himself is ammoral. What he does defines the rules of morality.

In conclusion, you are more morale if only because God has no morality.

 

[SoyLeche]

Since I am an atheist, the following comments are hypothetical.

This morning I rescued a creepy-crawley bug (It had way to many legs to be classified as an insect) on the carpet of my apartment. Instead of killing it, I managed to get it to crawl onto a paper towel and released it out on my balcony. I cared enough about that bug to save its life. Did God care about it at all? I doubt it. Does God care about any of the creatures he allegedly created? I doubt it.

Many people consider atheists to be immoral people. I know that isn't true.

My question is: Am I more moral than God?

You assume that putting it out on your balcony was the best thing that you could do. For all you know that creapy-crawly had contracted a virus in your carpet, and you allowed it to go home and share it with all of it's kinsfolk. You single handedly exterminated an entire colony of creapy-crawlies... possibly more than that! You're a jerk!

 

[angellous_evangellous]

If that is the case then God himself is ammoral. What he does defines the rules of morality.

I agree to some extent, however it seems that if whatever God does defines morality, then God is not ammoral because whatever God does is moral, assuming that God is also righteous and does not violate his own standard of morality. If God's omnipotence is completely unrestricted (which I think is poor theology), then God can both establish morality by what God does as well as be able to violate morality at the same time.

It is the testimony of Christianity that God is also righteous and just, which would be limitations on omnipotence. Christians would not confess that God is able to violate his righteousness.

In conclusion, you are more morale if only because God has no morality.

That is, only if God is limited in God's power and able to violate God's own standards.

I think that retrorich has made a fine point. That God does not act according to human morality is a major problem for theism.

 

[retrorich]

You assume that putting it out on your balcony was the best thing that you could do. For all you know that creapy-crawly had contracted a virus in your carpet, and you allowed it to go home and share it with all of it's kinsfolk. You single handedly exterminated an entire colony of creapy-crawlies... possibly more than that! You're a jerk!

Good one, Soy!

 

[retrorich]

There is, of course, the possibility that God used you to rescue the bug. An idea not that farfetched if you consider him to be omnipotent/omniscient. However, even if that was not the case and the bug had died what would make that uncaring?

I do not believe that God exists. But I used a common theistic perception of God when posting this thread.

You seem to have gone on a bit of a tangent here...

How so? The topic is morality, and I am an atheist.

The above scenario assumes that God is real (otherwise comparing your morality would be difficult). So, if we assume that God is the all-powerful deity then, at least for this scenario, we assume that morality is based off of him. If that is the case then God himself is ammoral. What he does defines the rules of morality.In conclusion, you are more morale if only because God has no morality.

I guess that makes sense, in a convoluted sort of way.

 

[CaptainXeroid]

...Reality is this. The Animals of this Earth sometimes need to eat another animal to survive. If nothing died ... ever.... well then we would be burried in bugs, people and animals all the way to the stratosphere by now...

:clap Frubals for a most excellent post, and I think this point needed extra emphasis.

Every time I see that my good buddy Rich started a thread:slap:, I take a deep breath and say an extra prayer.:bible: For someone who professes to beleive that God does not exist, you sure seem to do a lot of pondering about what God is up to.

...I cared enough about that bug to save its life...

Perhaps God cared enough about the bug to place it where it would be taken care of. Perhaps God cared enough about some baby birds to place that bug where you would find it and deliver it to the momma bird who picked it up to feed her brood.

Consider the words to this classic hymn.

Why should I feel discouraged, why should the shadows come,
Why should my heart be lonely, and long for heaven and home,
When Jesus is my portion? My constant friend is He:
His eye is on the sparrow, and I know He watches me;

 

[retrorich]

Hi, Glen. We miss you in NB chat!

His eye is on the sparrow, and I know He watches me.

Well, I have no problem with His keeping His eye on the sparrows; but I really wish He would stop eyeing ME stalker-style! It's really starting to creep me out.