Can God be moral?

[firedragon]

Prove that claim of yours

Alright. Have you understood something like the Ontological argument?

 

[Hockeycowboy]

Do you mean that, in Islam, Allah doesn't have enemies who deserve being killed if they are threatening the existence of his believers? I am not saying this is wrong or right, I simply point a fact which I use hearing from my Muslim friends.

On the other hand, Jesus says clearly on the today's Gospel: "Love your enemies... etc." This is also a fact.

Big difference, between God taking vengeance, and His followers doing so on their own. (“ ‘Vengeance is mine,’ saith the Lord”)

You could just as well ask: “Do you mean that, in Judaism, Yahweh / Jehovah doesn't have enemies who deserve being killed if they are threatening the existence of his believers?”
I mean, Yahweh had quite a few enemies — and killed them — to protect His people.

How did Yahweh treat His people? Note what Moses stated that others would say, @ Deuteronomy 4:6-8.

But regarding Jesus, please read 2 Thessalonians 1:6-8. In part, it states “the revelation of the Lord Jesus from heaven with his powerful angels in a flaming fire, as he brings vengeance on those who do not know God and those who do not obey the good news about our Lord Jesus.”
-NWT, revised edition

Have you read the story? Just want to be sure.

Also a clarifying question:

Imagine a room with two small children in it. I have a loaded gun with the safety off and I throw it into the room for them to play with. One of the children gets shot and dies. Would you say that I did something morally wrong or should the children have know better?

Yes, I’ve read it at least 5 times.

The analogy doesn’t fit....God didn’t load the gun...Satan did.

Who “removed Job’s tribulation’, healed him? (Job 42:10) Who increased his longevity an extra 140 yrs.?

And a promise (from God) that almost everyone either forgets or simply misunderstands — the Resurrection — will restore back to Job, all the 20 children he & his wife had.

In fact, virtually all relationships - familial, platonic & otherwise - that existed throughout the last 6 millennia will be restored.

Would you like to get to know your GGGGrandparents? You’ll get the chance.

And the injustices that so many have endured within their 70-to-80-yr lives?
It is the Resurrection (Acts of the Apostles 24:15) which will begin to right all the wrongs individuals....really, all of mankind....have suffered.


And most had / have no idea about these things!

 

[Heyo]

No. Explain.

One tool biologists use to determine the intelligence of animals (specifically the self-consciousness) is the mirror test. Most primates pass the test, some cats do, even some of the brighter dogs.
Mirroring an argument is a technique in a debate where one interlocutor use the same structure of an argument his opponent used with a sleight variation to show the flaw in the argument.
You failed the mirror test.

 

[firedragon]

One tool biologists use to determine the intelligence of animals (specifically the self-consciousness) is the mirror test. Most primates pass the test, some cats do, even some of the brighter dogs.
Mirroring an argument is a technique in a debate where one interlocutor use the same structure of an argument his opponent used with a sleight variation to show the flaw in the argument.
You failed the mirror test.

Thanks for the commentary.

 

[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.

Tell me something. In subjective theory, well-being depends on the person whose well-being it is. Right? So within the framework of the subjective theory, one that identifies well-being with value fulfilment. Moral psychology calls this Eudaimonism in some of the definitions. So where do you get this value from, if there is no yardstick or relativity?

Can you explain?

 

[Spirit of Light]

What do you think makes someone moral or immoral?

Their action words and thoughts toward others

 

[Spirit of Light]

Yawwwwn. Assertions like this are so meaningless. If you are going to make assertions, with zero reasoning, let's all do the same. Snorkel is morality. Coffee table is morality. Socks = morality.

You are free to have your own view, i have mine

 

[Spirit of Light]

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.

I do not judge God or people, only my self

 

[Meow Mix]

So can God be moral? And if so why?

One thing is for sure, and that is that God can't be the source of morality (if there are objective moral truths). This is because of Euthyphro's Dilemma.

Either God's commands are moral because God commands them, or God commands things because they are good.

In the first scenario, there isn't objective, mind-independent moral truth: there is just God's whim. If what God commands is moral because God commands it, then God could command to punch babies in the face and that would be "good." This clearly flies in the face of most of our moral intuitions, so I'll come back to this later as there's more to say about it*.

In the second scenario, if what God commands is good because it is good, then God isn't the source of that goodness: God is just following morality in the same way mere mortals might rather than causing it. Somebody could argue, of course, that God does this perfectly and without error; but it would remain true that morality is transcendental to God.

So, to answer the question, "can God be moral?," it depends on which horn of Euthyphro's Dilemma we want to take. If anything God whims is "good" (the first horn, also called Divine Command Theory), then the question itself is wrong: God wouldn't be moral, God would arbitrate morality. But then God could do any number of monstrous things and it would by definition be "good." Prima facie, our intuitions would not like this.

If we take the second horn (that God is subject to morality as much as we ostensibly are), then yes, God could be good; or God could not be good. It would be exactly the same situation for God as it is for us.

---------

(* -- OK, to speak more on Divine Command Theory/the first horn of Euthyphro's Dilemma, there is also this: some people object to the notion that God would command to punch babies in the face because "it's not in God's nature to do that." But this is really just a bait and switch with the first horn for the second: if God has a nature to be good, then God is subject to that nature. This just means that again we're in a situation where God is following something transcendental to Himself rather than being the arbiter. So while the arguer has started by claiming the first horn, they've wound up at the second!

There are those who claim there is a "third horn" of Euthyphro's Dilemma, also arguing from God's nature, but there is no third horn. All such arguments still whittle down into the first or second horn; as they must. It's a consequence of the aseity-sovereignty paradox, which I won't get into here unless asked as it's lengthy.)

 

[Trailblazer]

Either God's commands are moral because God commands them, or God commands things because they are good.

I believe it is both.

 

[Meow Mix]

I believe it is both.

If it is both, then the second takes priority: ultimate morality would be transcendental to God commanding it, if God is commanding it because it is good.

A human analogy would be this:

Either what Erin says is lawful because Erin says it, or what Erin says is lawful because it is lawful.

Let's say that I indeed say something lawful: "The speed limit on the highway near my house is 70 mph"

Say that I'm a super-lawyer, and I'm very good at saying what is lawful or not. That doesn't mean I'm the source of the law.

So we would have "both:" it is lawful because Erin said it (and boy is she good at reciting laws), but it's lawful because of the law. We find that the ultimate source of lawfulness in this situation is transcendental to Erin, despite the fact that she's very good at accurately parroting the law.

Similarly, if "both" are true with God, it really just means the second is true: that God commands what is good because it is good; meaning morality is transcendental to God and God is following it rather than creating it.

Edit: I'm not at all a lawyer, just making an analogy. ^.^

 

[Nimos]

No.

Since you said "obviously", can you present "death to homosexuals" in the Quran? Otherwise you are just making things up.

They identify as Muslims, you disagree with that. Which is fine. Do you think they would agree with you and maybe argue that you are the one not following the Quran?

Don't bring me into this as if I make up things, it is a fact that these identify as being Muslims. Where did you get the authority to decide who and who isn't a Muslim? They use the Quran to justify their position just as you do.

Given that terrorist blow up a lot of other Muslims, again it is a fact, do you think they would do that, if they thought that these people were true Muslims? I have no issue with you being offended about these terrorists that misuse the Quran, but who decide that they are not correct?

So please stop asking me to keep look it up in the Quran, do you deny that there are terrorists using the Quran as justification for their actions and that some Islamic countries treat homosexuals as stated earlier? And therefore it doesn't matter whether or not I can find it in the Quran, if they believe it is justified.

 

[firedragon]

The identify as Muslims, you disagree with that. Which is fine. Do you think they would agree with you and maybe argue that you are the one not following the Quran?

See, a hypothetical situation could be "they wouldn't agree". There could also be a hypothetical that "they would agree". So asking questions like "would they" can only be answered after an encounter. I think as you probably know since it was you who brought that up, and said "obviously it is in the Quran" it is your burden of proof to provide the verses that says so.

 

[firedragon]

So please stop asking me to keep look it up in the Quran, do you deny that there are terrorists using the Quran as justification for their actions and that some Islamic countries treat homosexuals as stated earlier? And therefore it doesn't matter whether or not I can find it in the Quran, if they believe it is justified.

When you say something in the Quran is used by someone to justify something, you must provide the references. Now you have moved from the topic of morality, to the famous topic "terrorism".

Maybe I can address that too if you quote the specific so called "terrorist" and which verses of the Quran they used in which document of these terrorists that you have seen.

Thanks.

 

[Nimos]

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

If a definition is clear and describe what I mean, why wouldn't I quote it? (Besides that, I did actually give a quick explanation in the OP about what I meant as well.)

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?

From my perspective I would agree that it is morally wrong. To kill a child and to rape someone. But it is not objectively wrong to do so.

As mentioned earlier to someone else in this thread, we know from earlier human cultures that human sacrifice, including children have been done. Do you think that these cultures would agree that it was wrong or that it was beneficial for them and their society to do so?

So how would you demonstrate that rape is objectively wrong? because I can show you sea lions raping penguins and there are lots of other animals that also express "rape" like behaviour towards each other.

To me you face the same issues as those atheists that also support objective morality does, when asked by religious people to tell where these should originate from, they also have a very difficult time answering that. And since you said you would have to demonstrate objective morality without the use of scriptures, which all religious people do, which is why they remotely have a chance of making the argument as I see it, because it allows them to throw it on God.

 

[Nimos]

When you say something in the Quran is used by someone to justify something, you must provide the references. Now you have moved from the topic of morality, to the famous topic "terrorism".

Stop, I didn't at any point say that it is in the Quran. I said that these people identify as Muslims and whatever they do, they use the Quran as a justification for it. I don't care whether it is in the Quran or not, the fact is that THEY believe it is and that they are following the rules. That you disagree with them, is fine, which is why I asked you where you got the authority to say who and who isn't a muslim?

I mentioned the terrorists because they also uses the Quran to justify their beliefs. I don't care and they surely don't care, whether I can find it in the Quran or not, because they believe they are true muslims and that the rest of the muslims that don't support them, are not.

Im not attacking or making up things about the Quran, I haven't at any point said that anything was in the Quran, so do you disagree that these people uses the Quran to justify their cause, regardless of whether or not you agree with them?

 

[firedragon]

If a definition is clear and describe what I mean, why wouldn't I quote it? (Besides that, I did actually give a quick explanation in the OP about what I meant as well.)


From my perspective I would agree that it is morally wrong. To kill a child and to rape someone. But it is not objectively wrong to do so.

As mentioned earlier to someone else in this thread, we know from earlier human cultures that human sacrifice, including children have been done. Do you think that these cultures would agree that it was wrong or that it was beneficial for them and their society to do so?

So how would you demonstrate that rape is objectively wrong? because I can show you sea lions raping penguins and there are lots of other animals that also express "rape" like behaviour towards each other.

To me you face the same issues as those atheists that also support objective morality does, when asked by religious people to tell where these should originate from, they also have a very difficult time answering that. And since you said you would have to demonstrate objective morality without the use of scriptures, which all religious people do, which is why they remotely have a chance of making the argument as I see it, because it allows them to throw it on God.

So since earlier some cultures made human sacrifice including children, are you saying killing a 3 and a half year old baby is not morally wrong since they did it?

 

[blü 2]

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?

First point, there's no such thing as objective morality. "Good" means beneficial for me and mine and the causes I support; and "bad" means detrimental to those.

Second point: we're gregarious primates, and we've evolved moral tendencies appropriate for that, and not least cooperation. our great strength. The tendencies are child nurture and protection, dislike of the one who harms, like of fairness and reciprocity, respect for authority, loyalty to the group, and a sense of self-worth through self-denial. We've also evolved with a conscience and a capacity for empathy. We get the rest of our morality, all the rules of behaving in society, from our upbringing, culture, education and experience.

Im going to use this text as basis for this [...]

• 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 first three look like the work of the Religious Practitioners' Union, but I guess they can be defended as promoting tribal solidarity.

And judging by the way God behaves and ordains in the Tanakh, it's Do as I say, not as I do.

In particular God ─

kills (2 Samuel 6:7),
commits adultery (though not till the NT),
takes away,
tells lies (1 Kings 22; 2 Chronicles 18; Jeremiah 4; Jeremiah 20:7; Ezekiel 14:9; 2 Thessalonians 2:11),
condones coveting neighbor's wife (David, Bathsheba, the arranged death of Uriah (2 Samuel 11:4+)
and in general, but expressly, does evil (Isaiah 45:7).​

So can God be moral? And if so why?

Given God is omnipotent, then it follows [he] can act (a) in accordance with human morality, and equally (b) in accordance with the Decalogue ─ but only if [he] wants to.

Which on the evidence above, is not something you can rely on.

 

[firedragon]

Stop, I didn't at any point say that it is in the Quran.

Yes you did.

But these people, muslims obviously, uses the Quran to justify these laws and to punish certain people based on their sexsuality

But you can of course retract it and make a new position. No problem.

 

[firedragon]

To me you face the same issues as those atheists that also support objective morality does, when asked by religious people to tell where these should originate from, they also have a very difficult time answering that.

Of course. Various people will have various ideas. But saying "these people say that, the other people say this" is not a response to what I asked, nor is it an argument.

Anyway, so since you speak about atheists and their argument about where morality originates from, can you explain where morality originates from and what is your argument for it?