Can God be moral?

[Heyo]

God is often referred to as being all good, all knowing etc. and obviously also the author of morality, more specifically objective morality.

Often there is some misunderstandings regarding what is meant by objective morality, so to quickly explain it, it simply means that morality apply regardless of humans being here or not. So when God say that killing is morally wrong, it is wrong regardless of whether not we we were here. Said in another way, in this context it means that God decides what is right and wrong.

More precisely, objective is something that doesn't hinge on a subject (human or other). E.g. laws of nature are considered objective.
That alone poses a problem for a personal god. With it being a person, all morals created by it are its subjective morals.
"10 Commandments? Well that is, like, your opinion, man."

 

[Wildswanderer]

So can God be moral? And if so why?

Of course. Being that he is all knowing, he would know when killing was the only option. And keep in mind that the actions you would say make God immoral were caused by humans disobedience. So who is really being immoral? The human or God for punishment of the human?

 

[Twilight Hue]

Gods morality is so high that humans would not be able understand. So yes our human moral is lower than God

I don't buy the higher understanding bit.

People tend to put things on the top shelf for which the entirety of God is exclusive, sourced only to the human mind.

It's an attempt to make it look mystique by attributing the quality of the unexplainable to make it look impressive and intriguing.

 

[Nimos]

When is God killing people? At the final judgment of the unsaved? Or do you think God kills people on earth?

Well when God orders the killing of people in the bible, to me he might as well pull the gun himself or you could take the flood which is him directly.

 

[Brian2]

It is often stated by religious people that objective morality comes from God (Biblical), but is it really possible for him to be moral under his own rules?

Simply using the Bible as example, but as far as I know it is the same for Islam in this case.

Im going to use this text as basis for this (If they are wrong, let me know and explain why they are):

The Ten Commandments

Moses received the Ten Commandments directly from God on Mount Sinai, written on two stone tablets. They assert the uniqueness of God, and forbid such things as theft, adultery, murder and lying. The Ten Commandments are equally important in Jewish and Christian traditions and appear in the Old Testament in Exodus and Deuteronomy.

Various Christian and Jewish traditions have different wordings for the Ten Commandments. They can be numbered differently. They appear in various forms in the Bible. This is a Christian version:

• I am the Lord thy God: thou shalt not have strange Gods before me
• Thou shall not take the name of the Lord thy God in vain
• Remember to keep holy the Lord's Day
• Honour thy father and thy mother
• Thou shalt not kill
• Thou shalt not commit adultery
• Thou shalt not steal
• Thou shalt not bear false witness against thy neighbour
• Thou shalt not covet thy neighbour's wife
• Thou shalt not covet thy neighbour's goods

The Qur'an does not list the Ten Commandments explicitly, but their substance appears in various places.

God is often referred to as being all good, all knowing etc. and obviously also the author of morality, more specifically objective morality.

Often there is some misunderstandings regarding what is meant by objective morality, so to quickly explain it, it simply means that morality apply regardless of humans being here or not. So when God say that killing is morally wrong, it is wrong regardless of whether not we we were here. Said in another way, in this context it means that God decides what is right and wrong.

My question or issue is whether a person or God in this case can be said to be moral consistent, unless they themself can uphold their own moral rules.

If I tell you that it is morally wrong to steal and I punish you for doing so, but then decide to steal something myself, would you consider me to be morally justified since I made the rule?

Same can be asked about God, "Thou shalt not kill" yet we know that God kills and orders the killing of many people in favour of the Jews. So does God's objective moralities applies to him as well, as they do to me in the above example or not?

Despite him being the creator of everything, objective morality is rules decided by God to be true and therefore arguably part of his nature. But is it possible for someone, God or human to be moral, if they can't uphold their own moral standards?

I want you to take into consideration that, simply because you create or is seen as the caretaker of something, does that mean that you are not morally responsible for said creation? By caretaker I mean, let's imagine you own a dog and it have puppies, and you are morally against killing puppies, are you then not morally obligated to treat all puppies according to your own moral rules, if you want to stay morally coherent, under the concept of objective morality?

If not, God must obviously follow subjective moral ideas and therefore objective morality is likely to be an illusion applied to us by God as if they were, and therefore seen more as divine laws, which God himself apparently doesn't seem a need to uphold himself. Wouldn't that make God immoral, under the general human understanding of morality?

Because I would argue, that a person can't be morally consistent, if they can't uphold their own moral standards. For instant most people will agree that under most circumstances stealing is wrong, yet most people have probably stolen something at some point that they weren't legally entitled to. (Doesn't have to be anything major) But still this would be considered morally inconsistent in my opinion, if we claim that stealing is objectively wrong.

So can God be moral? And if so why?

I have found that when people judge God for what He does in the Bible they ignore who God is and why He is doing what He does.
He is the creator and owner of all His creation and is it's judge.
You may as well say that a judge in a court of law is immoral when he judges someone guilty and sentences them to death. (even if many these days see the death sentence as immoral, that is not how God sees it, especially when He is the one judging and knows all the facts etc and is not making a wrong judgement about someone's guilt, or a nation's guilt)
When God told Israel to go to war and kill the Canaanites, He was doing that as the King and protector of Israel, knowing the consequences of Israel's association with the Canaanites and their customs.
In that case also God was judging the Canaanites for their evil practices.
God gave the land to the Canaanite nations and God was taking it away and giving it to the Israelites.

 

[Nimos]

Of course. Being that he is all knowing, he would know when killing was the only option. And keep in mind that the actions you would say make God immoral were caused by humans disobedience. So who is really being immoral? The human or God for punishment of the human?

When is killing ever the only option for God? Under which circumstances do you see this applying to him, just wondering.

 

[Nimos]

I have found that when people judge God for what He does in the Bible they ignore who God is and why He is doing what He does.
He is the creator and owner of all His creation and is it's judge.

That was one of the issues I mentioned in the OP. So would this logic apply to humans as well? And if not why, we can also be the creators or caretaker of others, like our children for instance? It's wrong for parents to kill them, but if God did it, it would be perfectly acceptable?

 

[Heyo]

I don't buy the higher understanding bit.

People tend to put things on the top shelf for which the entirety of God is exclusive, sourced only to the human mind.

It's an attempt to make it look mystique by attributing the quality of the unexplainable to make it look impressive and intriguing.

I would buy that higher understanding bit if those using it as an excuse for irrational or immoral behaviour of their god character would be so consistent to also apply it to those actions they seem to do understand.
If god acts in mysterious ways, you have no way to know anything about it, especially not what it wants you or others to do.
But that doesn't happen. If it's convenient, they know gods ways, if it's inconvenient they have an excuse.

Tagging @Conscious thoughts for discussion.

 

[Twilight Hue]

I would buy that higher understanding bit if those using it as an excuse for irrational or immoral behaviour of their god character would be so consistent to also apply it to those actions they seem to do understand.
If god acts in mysterious ways, you have no way to know anything about it, especially not what it wants you or others to do.
But that doesn't happen. If it's convenient, they know gods ways, if it's inconvenient they have an excuse.

Tagging @Conscious thoughts for discussion.

The idea that whatever is sourced to the human mind stays on the human level of understanding.

To say there is a 'higher understanding' beyond human understanding is a slight of hand mental trick that really goes nowhere when compared to the reality that goes on in contrast to those mental projections.

I fell for it myself in the past before I conceded that the source of that elusive 'higher understanding' is nowhere else, except whatever a person's mind thinks up in that regard.

Lol. It's just like Buddhist 'enlightenment'*.

*Can 'O' worms now I'll bet. Wousers!

 

[Spirit of Light]

I think it would mean that, no?

If morality is a set of rules that God defines, and then God doesn't follow those rules, then this would make God immoral.

The best you could do, I think, is to argue that it's somehow okay that God is immoral.

Humans are imoral, not God

 

[firedragon]

It is often stated by religious people that objective morality comes from God (Biblical), but is it really possible for him to be moral under his own rules?

Simply using the Bible as example, but as far as I know it is the same for Islam in this case.

Im going to use this text as basis for this (If they are wrong, let me know and explain why they are):

The Ten Commandments

Moses received the Ten Commandments directly from God on Mount Sinai, written on two stone tablets. They assert the uniqueness of God, and forbid such things as theft, adultery, murder and lying. The Ten Commandments are equally important in Jewish and Christian traditions and appear in the Old Testament in Exodus and Deuteronomy.

Various Christian and Jewish traditions have different wordings for the Ten Commandments. They can be numbered differently. They appear in various forms in the Bible. This is a Christian version:

• I am the Lord thy God: thou shalt not have strange Gods before me
• Thou shall not take the name of the Lord thy God in vain
• Remember to keep holy the Lord's Day
• Honour thy father and thy mother
• Thou shalt not kill
• Thou shalt not commit adultery
• Thou shalt not steal
• Thou shalt not bear false witness against thy neighbour
• Thou shalt not covet thy neighbour's wife
• Thou shalt not covet thy neighbour's goods

The Qur'an does not list the Ten Commandments explicitly, but their substance appears in various places.

God is often referred to as being all good, all knowing etc. and obviously also the author of morality, more specifically objective morality.

Often there is some misunderstandings regarding what is meant by objective morality, so to quickly explain it, it simply means that morality apply regardless of humans being here or not. So when God say that killing is morally wrong, it is wrong regardless of whether not we we were here. Said in another way, in this context it means that God decides what is right and wrong.

My question or issue is whether a person or God in this case can be said to be moral consistent, unless they themself can uphold their own moral rules.

If I tell you that it is morally wrong to steal and I punish you for doing so, but then decide to steal something myself, would you consider me to be morally justified since I made the rule?

Same can be asked about God, "Thou shalt not kill" yet we know that God kills and orders the killing of many people in favour of the Jews. So does God's objective moralities applies to him as well, as they do to me in the above example or not?

Despite him being the creator of everything, objective morality is rules decided by God to be true and therefore arguably part of his nature. But is it possible for someone, God or human to be moral, if they can't uphold their own moral standards?

I want you to take into consideration that, simply because you create or is seen as the caretaker of something, does that mean that you are not morally responsible for said creation? By caretaker I mean, let's imagine you own a dog and it have puppies, and you are morally against killing puppies, are you then not morally obligated to treat all puppies according to your own moral rules, if you want to stay morally coherent, under the concept of objective morality?

If not, God must obviously follow subjective moral ideas and therefore objective morality is likely to be an illusion applied to us by God as if they were, and therefore seen more as divine laws, which God himself apparently doesn't seem a need to uphold himself. Wouldn't that make God immoral, under the general human understanding of morality?

Because I would argue, that a person can't be morally consistent, if they can't uphold their own moral standards. For instant most people will agree that under most circumstances stealing is wrong, yet most people have probably stolen something at some point that they weren't legally entitled to. (Doesn't have to be anything major) But still this would be considered morally inconsistent in my opinion, if we claim that stealing is objectively wrong.

So can God be moral? And if so why?

You cannot bring in religious scripture to discuss a philosophical discussion about establishing God and morality. Thats an argument from a empirical premise in a fundamental discussion which is an oxymoron.

Nevertheless now you have done your oP so I presume you cannot or won't change it.

Now you have made an inference that the Ten Commandments is mentioned in the Quran in various places. Can you show me where the Quran says "Do not kill"?

 

[firedragon]

More precisely, objective is something that doesn't hinge on a subject (human or other). E.g. laws of nature are considered objective.
That alone poses a problem for a personal god. With it being a person, all morals created by it are its subjective morals.
"10 Commandments? Well that is, like, your opinion, man."

One God. God is one. To have subjective morality within God, he has to be at least two. Otherwise it cannot be subjective.

Thus your argument is a logical impossibility like a square circle.

 

[Colt]

Well when God orders the killing of people in the bible, to me he might as well pull the gun himself or you could take the flood which is him directly.

Oh, I see. I don’t believe the vastly exaggerated history of the Israelites. Noah’s flood is silly and never happed as depicted. But if the OT was true then you would have a good point. The OT is terribly inconsistent. Jesus didn’t behave anything like the OT God!

 

[McBell]

One God. God is one. To have subjective morality within God, he has to be at least two. Otherwise it cannot be subjective.

Thus your argument is a logical impossibility like a square circle.

Since there is no objective morality, this means, by way of your argument, god cannot exist, right?

 

[A Vestigial Mote]

When is God killing people? At the final judgment of the unsaved? Or do you think God kills people on earth?

Please tell me you are not this naive.

• The Flood
• The night of Passover
• The UN-parting of the red Sea
• Sodom and Gomorrah
• A bunch of kids who made fun of some bald guy and were mauled by bears when he cursed them in the name of the lord

I could probably come up with some more. This is the reason the writer of the OP talked about God killing as a simple fact. It is written in the Christian's books plainly and obviously. If you believe The Bible, then God kills people. Plain and simple and undeniable. If you don't believe The Bible - then I am proud of you, but we may need to talk about some other things you DO believe that you have no business believing.

 

[firedragon]

Since there is no objective morality, this means, by way of your argument, god cannot exist, right?

No. How do you say "Since there is no objective morality"? With what empirical evidence? Since you are an empiricist?

 

[Heyo]

One God. God is one. To have subjective morality within God, he has to be at least two. Otherwise it cannot be subjective.

Thus your argument is a logical impossibility like a square circle.

One Heyo. Heyo is one. To have subjective morality within Heyo, he has to be at least two. Otherwise it cannot be subjective.
Therefore my morals are objectively true.

 

[firedragon]

One Heyo. Heyo is one. To have subjective morality within Heyo, he has to be at least two. Otherwise it cannot be subjective.
Therefore my morals are objectively true.

Heyo is a name that represents 1 out of 7 billion people. So Heyo is not one. Prior to making absurd arguments like this, understand the concept of God addressed in the topic.

Sorry mate. That was truly pathetic.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Humans are imoral, not God

What do you think makes someone moral or immoral?

 

[firedragon]

What do you think makes someone moral or immoral?

What do you think?