• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Can God be moral?

Clara Tea

Well-Known Member
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?

Morality is for mortals, not Gods.

Morality is for the masses, not kings (nor their sisters, and their cousins, whom they reckon up by dozens, and their aunts). (Gilbert and Sullivan, Mikado). The king of Saudi Arabia pays a fortune for his spawn to buy prostitutes around the world, and they brag that American women are sexually easy and therefore, American morals are much lower than Saudi morals (which pay for the easy morals). Drinking, slutting, and gambling their way around the world, they brag about their fine morals.

Golden Rule (he who has the gold makes the rules).

"Thou shalt not covet thy neighbor's wife," and "thou shalt not commit adultery," but God had sex with Mary (married to Joseph at the time), and had Jesus. I wonder what kind of STDs you might get from one who has been around since the dawn of time?

"Thou shalt not kill" (God flooded the earth during Noah's time)(God wiped out Sodom).

We've been told that Moses was given the 10 commandments. But suppose God had those 10 stone tablets laying around and Moses stole them?

The 10 Commandments are not "equally important" they were the law of the Jews, and those were borrowed by Christians (first), the later by Moslems.

Keep holy the lord's day (that's Friday night to Saturday night, right?).

God is in favor of the Jews? You wouldn't think that they were the chosen ones, in light of Nazi Germany. Couldn't God choose someone else for a change?

Man was made in God's image. But there are many races, at least two sexes, different heights, and different weights (I figure by weight, alone, I should be very blessed).

Could it be that we are not made in the physical image of God (since we each have different physical images)? Could it be that we are, instead, made in the moral image of God? That is....flawed? Can God expect us to be less flawed that he is? Can God expect to put temptation in the Garden of Eden, then tell us that not only did Adam and Eve sin, but that sin will carry down through the various thousands of generations to those who had nothing at all to do with the sin?

Theists ask for God's forgiveness. Should theists, instead, try to forgive God for his various sins?

Nimos said: "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."

You mean "thou shalt not covet the dog's mom?" I feel lucky if I can get their doggie dad from climbing on me.

I've seen egregious breaches of morality by theists (such as Reverend Schuller's (Crystal Cathedral) son photographed in public with a bottle of booze in one arm, scantily clad blonde in another arm, and his pants down and his penis sticking out). Yet, theists claim that they are more moral than atheists.

Atheists have their own set of morals, and those have nothing to do with the fear that God will see and punish.
 

Brian2

Veteran Member
And parents should do that, but there is a difference between raising your child and owning your child. If you are in your good right to kill your child, if they curse you, then something is wrong in my opinion.

There certainly is an element of ownership in being a parent and that of course comes with responsibilities.
God allowed parents in Israel to have the say of life and death because He did not want evil in Israel. It was part of trying to get a holy nation.

God as the creator, at least in my opinion, should be judged equally in that regard. Simply because you are a creator doesn't give you the right to do whatever you please, without also being responsible for your actions. The reason it applies to God even more so, is because people claim that he is treating people equally all around the world, that he weren't only for the Jews, yet he kills a lot of people that goes against them, shouldn't he value all humans life equally, if he is God of everyone?

God also has judged the Jews.
 

night912

Well-Known Member
God is above our understanding in morality so even God do things we can not understand, it is Gods rules. So when we think it must be wrong, it does not mean God do imoral

Going by your reasoning, then two things can be said.

1. Objective morality doesn't exist.
2. You're ignorant of and/or don't care about morality, making you a nihilist.

So that would make you unqualified to judge whether or not the actions of god is moral or immoral.
 

Trailblazer

Veteran Member
God in the Bible breaks many of his own commandments so no, God is a poor and contradictory example of the biblical version of morality.
There is no such God, the Bible God is just an anthropomorphism.
Why the real God allowed Himself to be misrepresented that way is anyone's best guess. o_O
 

Trailblazer

Veteran Member
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.
I believe some of the Bible, but not all the anthropomorphic stories in the OT. :rolleyes:
 

rational experiences

Veteran Member
Morality human owned.

Human information before my life as life is not my life. Human by form by consciousness and behaviour.

Humans own conditions to express morality. To assess morality. Human man motivated first to do assessments.

States moral God as status God by equals term two. = Says balances.

Law is depicted space womb owns holds all balances.

Our God heavens held on a spatial plane.

Two status.

Burning gas the highest radiating status in womb space.
Immaculate cold clear highest non radiating coldest.

Moral balances for a living human brain mind moral consciousness.

Human stated for human self.

Why they said O is not our heavens.

Science uses O falsely.

Space is a one of empty flat plane cold.

Any form of one diverse radiating body in that space is self owned.

Multi bodies inhabit the same space was a teaching. Heavens is its own body type.
 

firedragon

Veteran Member
Sure, I use the standard definition, I guess you can call it.

Objective morality, in the simplest terms, is the belief that morality is universal, meaning that it isn't up for interpretation. ... Religious people will define objective morality according to the commandments of their god(s). Other people may look at some universal laws, such as murder, as inherently bad.

I would prefer you say your understanding because cut and pastes mean you have not engaged but gone googling for everything.

Anyway I would like to add that objective morality has the feature that morality that are universal as said above in the Stanford encyclopaedia of philosophy, these morals are not influenced by anyone. They just exist and its universal. In this description you would note that it transcends human subjectivity.

Now do you agree for these two things?

1. Killing a 3.5 year old is child is morally wrong.
2. Rape is morally wrong.

What do you think? Do you think this is objective morality or subjective morality? How would you explain this kind of morality is objective or subjective?
 

night912

Well-Known Member
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.
Now you know how pathetic your previous argument was. ;)
 

We Never Know

No Slack
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?

... Parents lie to their kids while teaching their kids lying is wrong. Is that moral?
 

firedragon

Veteran Member
Exodus 20:13
(AFV) You shall not murder.
(ASV) Thou shalt not kill.
(BBE) Do not put anyone to death without cause.
(Bishops) Thou shalt not kyll.
(Darby) Thou shalt not kill.
(DRB) Thou shalt not kill.
(ERV) "You must not murder anyone.
(Geneva) Thou shalt not kill.
(GNB) "Do not commit murder.
(ISV) "You are not to murder.
(KJV) Thou shalt not kill.
(KJV+) Thou shalt notH3808 kill.H7523
(KJV-1611) Thou shalt not kill.
(KJVA) Thou shalt not kill.
(KJV-BRG) Thou shalt not kill.
(LEB) "You shall not murder.
(LITV) You shall not murder.
(LSV) You do not murder.
(MKJV) You shall not kill.
(RV) Thou shalt do no murder.
(TLV) Do not murder.
(TS2009) “You do not murder.
(WEB) “You shall not murder.
(WEBA) “You shall not murder.
(Webster) Thou shalt not kill.
(YLT) 'Thou dost not murder.​

-----------------------------------------------------------------


Nice list. Very good.
 

night912

Well-Known Member
Subjective morality is based on an individual, so if you say that it's impossible for one being to be subjective, then it would also be impossible for two individuals.

So basically you got "subjective morality" wrong. Then in your attempt at logic, you gave explanation that consists of illogical reasoning.
 

night912

Well-Known Member
No. Explain.
Why don't you ask yourself that question since you're the one who thinks that your argumentative structure was pathetic. ;)

If you have a problem with your argument being pathetic, then you should take it up with the one who said it was pathetic, and with someone who was simply pointing out what was observed.
 

firedragon

Veteran Member
Subjective morality is based on an individual, so if you say that it's impossible for one being to be subjective, then it would also be impossible for two individuals.

So basically you got "subjective morality" wrong. Then in your attempt at logic, you gave explanation that consists of illogical reasoning.

Absolutely wrong. Please read up on subjective morality.
 

firedragon

Veteran Member
Why don't you ask yourself that question since you're the one who thinks that your argumentative structure was pathetic. ;)

If you have a problem with your argument being pathetic, then you should take it up with the one who said it was pathetic, and with someone who was simply pointing out what was observed.

You have not understood the post you were responding to.
 

night912

Well-Known Member
You have not understood the post you were responding to.
Prove that claim of yours. Or is it that you're just saying this because you just realize what you were calling as being pathetic?

But if you want resolution to this dilemma, try talking with the one who thinks that the structure of your argument was pathetic. Both of you might just learn something new. ;)
 
Top