Hypocrisy starts at the top?

[AlexanderG]

I'm wondering how theists, particular those within the Abrahamic traditions, deal with the apparent double standard between god and his creations for what qualifies as moral behavior. For example:

1. God says to love your enemies and turn the other cheek if you are struck, but god eternally tortures those who offend him.
2. God says not to kill, but kills people for a multitude of reasons when they displease, inadvertently offend him, or even sometimes when they do obey him. Plus multiple ethnic genocides.
3. God says not to envy or be jealous, but is violently enraged by people worshipping other gods.
4. God forces himself on an unmarried girl, with no personal or legal consequences.
5. Corinthians 13:4 describes the attributes of love, and god is by all appearances the diametric opposite of these attributes.

What does it mean when god's moral commandments for humans, to instruct them how to be good, are laws that he routinely violates? When a law applies to one person but not another, isn't that moral relativism? Isn't a moral system that's dependent on a particular person's opinion (i.e. god's opinion) the definition of subjective morality?

How do you tell the difference between an evil god, and a god that declares itself to be good while it constantly violates all of the laws it establishes to delineate good behavior and also simultaneously violates human intuitions about moral goodness?

 

[Lain]

I'm wondering how theists, particular those within the Abrahamic traditions, deal with the apparent double standard between god and his creations for what qualifies as moral behavior. For example:

1. God says to love your enemies and turn the other cheek if you are struck, but god eternally tortures those who offend him.
2. God says not to kill, but kills people for a multitude of reasons when they displease, inadvertently offend him, or even sometimes when they do obey him. Plus multiple ethnic genocides.
3. God says not to envy or be jealous, but is violently enraged by people worshipping other gods.
4. God forces himself on an unmarried girl, with no personal or legal consequences.
5. Corinthians 13:4 describes the attributes of love, and god is by all appearances the diametric opposite of these attributes.

What does it mean when god's moral commandments for humans, to instruct them how to be good, are laws that he routinely violates? When a law applies to one person but not another, isn't that moral relativism? Isn't a moral system that's dependent on a particular person's opinion (i.e. god's opinion) the definition of subjective morality?

How do you tell the difference between an evil god, and a god that declares itself to be good while it constantly violates all of the laws it establishes to delineate good behavior and also simultaneously violates human intuitions about moral goodness?

There is no double standard, and He doesn't violate His own Laws. Simple as that in my opinion. And I'd simply disagree with your list saying it is manifestly false.

 

[exchemist]

I'm wondering how theists, particular those within the Abrahamic traditions, deal with the apparent double standard between god and his creations for what qualifies as moral behavior. For example:

1. God says to love your enemies and turn the other cheek if you are struck, but god eternally tortures those who offend him.
2. God says not to kill, but kills people for a multitude of reasons when they displease, inadvertently offend him, or even sometimes when they do obey him. Plus multiple ethnic genocides.
3. God says not to envy or be jealous, but is violently enraged by people worshipping other gods.
4. God forces himself on an unmarried girl, with no personal or legal consequences.
5. Corinthians 13:4 describes the attributes of love, and god is by all appearances the diametric opposite of these attributes.

What does it mean when god's moral commandments for humans, to instruct them how to be good, are laws that he routinely violates? When a law applies to one person but not another, isn't that moral relativism? Isn't a moral system that's dependent on a particular person's opinion (i.e. god's opinion) the definition of subjective morality?

How do you tell the difference between an evil god, and a god that declares itself to be good while it constantly violates all of the laws it establishes to delineate good behavior and also simultaneously violates human intuitions about moral goodness?

What makes you think that "theists" all subscribe to the beliefs in your list? It reads like an unsympathetic selection of supposed beliefs taken from Christianity. If you want to challenge the beliefs of Christianity by all means do so, but please don't tar all "theists" with the same brush.

 

[Kooky]

One could argue that all these laws are only there for mortals, not gods.

 

[Kooky]

There is no double standard, and He doesn't violate His own Laws. Simple as that in my opinion. And I'd simply disagree with your list saying it is manifestly false.

Where do you see errors in their list?

 

[Lain]

Where do you see errors in their list?

That God is offended as if struck on the cheek and as if damnation is a cessation of love and that it is Him torturing anyone, that there is a general Law forbidding killing at all, that He can be violently enraged as if He had passions, that He forced Himself on anyone, that God lacks attributes of love. The whole thing really.

 

[Aštra’el]

A mere human... lecturing a cosmic super-intelligence who creates universes about how to govern those universes, and about what behavior is acceptable when operating within those universes... as if the nature of man and God even compares.

 

[epronovost]

A mere human... lecturing a cosmic super-intelligence who creates universes about how to govern those universes, and about what behavior is acceptable when operating within those universes... as if the nature of man and God even compares.

That doesn't make the critique any less pertinent or accurate. Unless you believe might makes right of course.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

I'm wondering how theists, particular those within the Abrahamic traditions, deal with the apparent double standard between god and his creations for what qualifies as moral behavior. For example:

1. God says to love your enemies and turn the other cheek if you are struck, but god eternally tortures those who offend him.
2. God says not to kill, but kills people for a multitude of reasons when they displease, inadvertently offend him, or even sometimes when they do obey him. Plus multiple ethnic genocides.
3. God says not to envy or be jealous, but is violently enraged by people worshipping other gods.
4. God forces himself on an unmarried girl, with no personal or legal consequences.
5. Corinthians 13:4 describes the attributes of love, and god is by all appearances the diametric opposite of these attributes.

What does it mean when god's moral commandments for humans, to instruct them how to be good, are laws that he routinely violates? When a law applies to one person but not another, isn't that moral relativism? Isn't a moral system that's dependent on a particular person's opinion (i.e. god's opinion) the definition of subjective morality?

How do you tell the difference between an evil god, and a god that declares itself to be good while it constantly violates all of the laws it establishes to delineate good behavior and also simultaneously violates human intuitions about moral goodness?

Well, yes. Old news. So what is your moral system and do you justify it or is it just your opinions/beliefs?

In other words what do you want the theists to replace their moral systems with? That is where the fun starts.

 

[Kooky]

That God is offended as if struck on the cheek and as if damnation is a cessation of love and that it is Him torturing anyone, that there is a general Law forbidding killing at all, that He can be violently enraged as if He had passions, that He forced Himself on anyone, that God lacks attributes of love. The whole thing really.

1. The Catholic Church defines Hell as being away from God (and by extension, God's love).
2. The traditional view of Eternal Damnation is even worse, with graphic depictions of physical and psychological torture, either to be taken verbatim or as a metaphor for the horrific suffering a damned soul is going to be subjected to.
3. Many versions of the Bible, including the very popular KJV translate the 5th commandment as being opposed to killing. (I agree with you that it is not, and would further argue that it is philosophically speaking, a nonsensical tautology that says nothing at all; but that is hardly the most popular opinion among devout Christians)
4. God is indeed ascribed a wide range of passions, down to phrases such as "I am a jealous god".
5. The Israelites did not choose to become chosen by God, and neither did the world choose to become Saved by his Self-Son. Nor is consent required to take people into the Covenant, to cleanse their souls, to save or condemn them.
(And indeed, it would be highly surprising if it was, since the ethical concept of informed consent significantly post-dates every single text in the Bible by more than one-and-a-half millenia)

 

[Kooky]

A mere human... lecturing a cosmic super-intelligence who creates universes about how to govern those universes, and about what behavior is acceptable when operating within those universes... as if the nature of man and God even compares.

This authoritarian and oppressive take on God's laws seems to mirror the authoritarian, oppressive nature of Protestant theocracy.

 

[Lain]

1. The Catholic Church defines Hell as being away from God (and by extension, God's love).
2. The traditional view of Eternal Damnation is even worse, with graphic depictions of physical and psychological torture, either to be taken verbatim or as a metaphor for the horrific suffering a damned soul is going to be subjected to.
3. Many versions of the Bible, including the very popular KJV translate the 5th commandment as being opposed to killing. (I agree with you that it is not, and would further argue that it is philosophically speaking, a nonsensical tautology that says nothing at all; but that is hardly the most popular opinion among devout Christians)
4. God is indeed ascribed a wide range of passions, down to phrases such as "I am a jealous god".
5. The Israelites did not choose to become chosen by God, and neither did the world choose to become Saved by his Self-Son. Nor is consent required to take people into the Covenant, to cleanse their souls, to save or condemn them.
(And indeed, it would be highly surprising if it was, since the ethical concept of informed consent significantly post-dates every single text in the Bible by more than one-and-a-half millenia)

1) There is no "by extension" there. God loves all things that exist.
2) Okay.
3) How it is translated is irrelevant to what is. It can be translated that way or any other way as long as it is understood.
4) Doesn't mean He has them.
5) I have no idea what you personally mean by "consent" here really, it's not a word I think in terms of and from my perspective it's a confused concept. Moreover these are many different things spoken of.

 

[sun rise]

As a non-Christian theist:

1. God says to love your enemies and turn the other cheek if you are struck, but god eternally tortures those who offend him.

Wrong.

2. God says not to kill, but kills people for a multitude of reasons

It's "murder" not "kill". To me there's nothing wrong in killing a lunatic who is about to murder 20 people, for example.

3. God says not to envy or be jealous, but is violently enraged by people worshipping other gods.

Wrong.

4. God forces himself on an unmarried girl, with no personal or legal consequences.

Wrong.

5. Corinthians 13:4 describes the attributes of love, and god is by all appearances the diametric opposite of these attributes.

"all appearances" to those who distort the meaning of one scripture to try to justify a stance.

 

[Link]

I'm wondering how theists, particular those within the Abrahamic traditions, deal with the apparent double standard between god and his creations for what qualifies as moral behavior. For example:

1. God says to love your enemies and turn the other cheek if you are struck, but god eternally tortures those who offend him.
2. God says not to kill, but kills people for a multitude of reasons when they displease, inadvertently offend him, or even sometimes when they do obey him. Plus multiple ethnic genocides.
3. God says not to envy or be jealous, but is violently enraged by people worshipping other gods.
4. God forces himself on an unmarried girl, with no personal or legal consequences.
5. Corinthians 13:4 describes the attributes of love, and god is by all appearances the diametric opposite of these attributes.

What does it mean when god's moral commandments for humans, to instruct them how to be good, are laws that he routinely violates? When a law applies to one person but not another, isn't that moral relativism? Isn't a moral system that's dependent on a particular person's opinion (i.e. god's opinion) the definition of subjective morality?

How do you tell the difference between an evil god, and a god that declares itself to be good while it constantly violates all of the laws it establishes to delineate good behavior and also simultaneously violates human intuitions about moral goodness?

If you present things from Satanic view and phrase things against God, you won't see God as good. But if you let him present himself from holy books and listen properly, you will know he is good.

 

[PureX]

I'm wondering how theists, particular those within the Abrahamic traditions, deal with the apparent double standard between god and his creations for what qualifies as moral behavior. For example:

1. God says to love your enemies and turn the other cheek if you are struck, but god eternally tortures those who offend him.

God also tortures those who don't offend him (as in the story of Job). The point of those stories (and keep in mind that they ARE stories, not a historical record of God) was to help the readers to grasp and keep in mind the awesome and inexplicable power of their God. They believed in a single, all-powerful, all-knowing God in a time and place in the world when most humans believed in many demigods with limited powers that dwelled in temples made by men. Those old biblical texts were not intended to give anyone answers or explanations or excuses. they were intended to keep their readers in mind of a God that is beyond human reasoning, and certainly beyond human reproach.

What does it mean when god's moral commandments for humans, to instruct them how to be good, are laws that he routinely violates?

It means that we are not God.

In that same Bible the very first story is about mankind's primary and original sin. That sin was to presume ourselves to be God's equals, and to presume ourselves to possess the knowledge of good and evil. But we are not God's equals, and we do not possess the knowledge of good and evil. So we presumed this unto ourselves, falsely, and we have falsely stood in judgment of all creation (and of ourselves and each other) ever since. Causing no end of division, animosity, and strife.

How do you tell the difference between an evil god, and a god that declares itself to be good while it constantly violates all of the laws it establishes to delineate good behavior and also simultaneously violates human intuitions about moral goodness?

We can't. Because we are not gods. An we do not possess the divine knowledge of good and evil.

 

[AlexanderG]

A mere human... lecturing a cosmic super-intelligence who creates universes about how to govern those universes, and about what behavior is acceptable when operating within those universes... as if the nature of man and God even compares.

Interesting. Do you think that being a cosmic super-intelligence that creates universes would somehow prevent that person from being evil or malicious? Or imperfect? Or hypocritical? As @PureX said, many Christians consider their god to be "inexplicable," and it seems any number of vices could hide within a mysterious inexplicability.

The responses I'm getting are most either 1) I have the wrong interpretation of scripture, or 2) god gets to live by his own standard (which would by definition entail a double standard, which to me seem like hypocrisy.) If it's bad if a human does it, then it should be bad if anyone does it.

 

[Shaul]

You talk about Abrahamic faith and then state things specific to Christianity.

 

[Twilight Hue]

There is no double standard, and He doesn't violate His own Laws. Simple as that in my opinion. And I'd simply disagree with your list saying it is manifestly false.

Even if the Bible shows its the case itself in its own writing?


One example of many..


1) Revelation 20:10
And the devil who deceived them was thrown into the lake of fire and brimstone, where the beast and the false prophet are also; and they will be tormented day and night forever and ever.

Source: 35 Bible verses about Hell

 

[Spirit of Light]

I'm wondering how theists, particular those within the Abrahamic traditions, deal with the apparent double standard between god and his creations for what qualifies as moral behavior. For example:

1. God says to love your enemies and turn the other cheek if you are struck, but god eternally tortures those who offend him.
2. God says not to kill, but kills people for a multitude of reasons when they displease, inadvertently offend him, or even sometimes when they do obey him. Plus multiple ethnic genocides.
3. God says not to envy or be jealous, but is violently enraged by people worshipping other gods.
4. God forces himself on an unmarried girl, with no personal or legal consequences.
5. Corinthians 13:4 describes the attributes of love, and god is by all appearances the diametric opposite of these attributes.

What does it mean when god's moral commandments for humans, to instruct them how to be good, are laws that he routinely violates? When a law applies to one person but not another, isn't that moral relativism? Isn't a moral system that's dependent on a particular person's opinion (i.e. god's opinion) the definition of subjective morality?

How do you tell the difference between an evil god, and a god that declares itself to be good while it constantly violates all of the laws it establishes to delineate good behavior and also simultaneously violates human intuitions about moral goodness?

God created us, by that God has the right to give life or take away life. God understand why something has to be done even humans can not see or understand the reason behind it.

 

[PureX]

Interesting. Do you think that being a cosmic super-intelligence that creates universes would somehow prevent that person from being evil or malicious? Or imperfect? Or hypocritical? As @PureX said, many Christians consider their god to be "inexplicable," and it seems any number of vices could hide within a mysterious inexplicability.

Or that what appear to be "vices" to us may not be in the grand overview, which we do not have.