Does God have rules for themselves? Or is anything morally permissible for them?
-
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!
Is Creating Life a Moral Carte Blanche?
- Thread starter Left Coast
- Start date
Does God have rules for themselves? Or is anything morally permissible for them?
Spirit of Light
Be who ever you want
I can not speak for what rules God have in heaven, (not been there yet) but if our religious rules seems difficult to follow, i would believe the rules in heaven is a lot harder to follow.
But I can not know the answer of course
Thanks for the honesty!
Spirit of Light
Be who ever you want
The more i study about Allah, the more i realize how little i understand, so to be honest about what can or can not be understood is important
InChrist
Free4ever
I believe biblical God as the Creator has the right and the power to do as He chooses. Yet, because God is a God who the scriptures define as Love, Holy, Just, Righteousness and Merciful, I don’t believe God can act in a manner contrary to His own Nature and Being. Therefore, I believe everything God does He does based upon perfectly moral reasons grounded in His Love, Justice and other attributes.
“But God is infinite in power, so there must be nothing He can't do! Really? The very fact that He is infinite in power means He cannot fail. There is much else which finite beings do all the time but which the infinite, absolutely sovereign God cannot do because He is God: lie, cheat, steal, sin, be mistaken, etc. ”
“Because of His absolute holiness, it is impossible for God to do evil, to cause others to do evil or even to entice anyone into evil: "Let no man say when he is tempted, I am tempted of God: for God cannot be tempted, neither tempteth he any man..." (James:1:13-14)
What a Sovereign God Cannot Do
Truthseeker
Non-debating member when I can help myself
Honesty is indeed a good policy.The more i study about Allah, the more i realize how little i understand, so to be honest about what can or can not be understood is important
Heyo
Veteran Member
Is "species" really the criterion here? It is just a random fact that we only have one example of species capable of thinking and communicating (with us) about morality. Would we expect morality from aliens? Would we respect them to be targets of our morality?
I'd say that god (if it existed) would have to be at least on the same level of sapience and sentience as an average human to contemplate the morality of it's actions.
Moral seems to be very subjective matter. That is why I say only, the person who gives a gift, has right to decide what the gift is. If God sees that it is good to allow evil people to live only a limited length of time, He has right for that and I personally think it is good. I don’t see any good reason for God to give eternal life also for evil/unrighteous people. But, that is also just my subjective opinion. I understand that the evil person doesn’t like it.
A Vestigial Mote
Well-Known Member
To positively claim that God doesn't exist as a "truth" about reality, you are correct - without concrete, compelling evidence, there is no reason to believe that they know their statement to be correct. But this is no mark in your favor - that is - this fact does not bolster the argument of the theist that "God exists." Not in the slightest. If it did, then all the claims that "unicorns exist" are just as valid as any claim you might make that "God exists" - simply because your ability to provide evidence to the contrary is going to be lacking in exactly the same way as you are pointing out that atheists are unable. I doubt that you want your God cast into the same lot as unicorns. Am I right? Because that's where discussions like this lead to - and rightfully so.
So it sounds like your answer to my question is no, creating a life does not give someone the moral prerogative to do whatever they please with it. To be considered moral the creator would be constrained from doing some things to that life.
I'm unclear as to what your answer to my question is. Can someone do anything, no matter how cruel or violent or unjust, to a life they've created and still be considered moral?
So, someone creates a simulation, a computer game. A very realistic one. You play a character in this game. You have to make choices in this game. Some lead to torture, starvation, death, loss, pain. Other choices lead to success, happiness. You can never be 100% certain where your choices will lead you during this simulation. It's part of the adventure to make bad choices and trying to survive the consequences.
So after playing this simulation, getting immersed in the suffering or success of your character, the simulation ends with the death of your character. While still feeling the tragedies or joys of what you just experienced, you realize that none of it was real. It all felt very real in the moment but now you can return to your actual existence/life. Or maybe start another simulation/game.
How would you judge the morality of the creator of the game?
Wildswanderer
Veteran Member
Since we can not create life, and in fact have very limited knowledge of anything, how can we know what is permissible for God?
People say I cannot worship with God who would kill people, as if he didn't have the right to decide who was worthy of life in the first place.
Just to be clear, we do not create our children, so that's not a valid comparison.
But we have no problem killing an ant colony if they are invading our house, and we choose to kill lots of creatures for our own needs, so it seems a little silly to judge God for doing the same when God decided he needed obedience and didn't get it.
So are you saying that it is morally permissible for a creator to do anything to their creation, or that you're not sure?
Shakeel
Well-Known Member
I don't think that has anything to do with what I said (after the part you quoted, which was really my whole point).
A Vestigial Mote
Well-Known Member
So, in other words, you are more interested in discussing the idea that you can't deny the existence of something without first knowing what it is you are denying? Is that it?
Then here's the problem you still have on that front - I am not in the business of "defining Allah" (for example). That's the Muslim's job. And this is because I can go about my existence, without a single thought toward something called "Allah" - even without a single thought toward a monotheistic God of any type (working from a very loose definition of "Allah" here) and not encounter any impedance to my life or livelihood. There is nothing real and present in the world that is compelling me to be seeking or "defining" Allah. All there is is the word of some people. That is literally the only evidence one will encounter. And since that is the only evidence to go on, and the only "encounter" with Allah to be had, that necessarily means that the "definition" of this thing called "Allah" MUST come from the people who claim it is even a thing to be concerned over in the first place.
And then, once you define it, still lacking any presence in the world whatsoever, it is all too easy to simply not believe your claims. Some may take it to denying the existence of the thing called Allah altogether - but it doesn't necessarily need to go that far. One need only inform the claimant that they see no good reason to believe their claims, and leave it at that. The onus on providing BOTH the definition and the evidence rests on the person trying to convince others of this thing. Even the person who denies the existence altogether isn't going to be interested in providing evidence one way or the other, to be sure, because by all accounts and impressions, going about the business of looking for such evidence very much seems to be a complete waste of time - ESPECIALLY considering the definitions one might encounter. Not to mention that they are likely not invested in convincing others of the non-existence of something most people don't even tacitly accept anyway! Whether or not they are "acting fallaciously" in their denial is pretty much a moot point. Nothing is going to happen because of their denial of this information - unless you can demonstrate that there are consequences. But then, if you could do that, then things change quite drastically in the equation from all angles.
Heyo
Veteran Member
Bad analogy. The creator of the game didn't create your character, you did.
Another thing would be if were in a simulation, not a game. I.e. you are simulated, not moved by an outside player. How would we judge the morality of the programmers of the simulation?
@Left Coast I'm not of the belief that God would ever dispense from His own universal moral law, binding on His creatures, in relation to us - without that violating His very essence and being.
For Him to do so would make for an essentially amoral and arbitrary Deity, which doesn't conform with the fundamental Christian doctrine that: "Whoever does not love does not know God, for God is love", as stated in the First Epistle of John.
In the Trinitarian understanding, this is no mere literary flourish or figure of speech: the universe is literally the work of art - the creative and generative fruit - of a 'communion of self-giving love' (communio personarum) within the Godhead Itself, in the eternal relations of origin and perichoresis (necessary being-in-one-another) of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit.
For us, this is the root of moral truth and the model of loving human relationships (since we are created in the image and likeness of God: "called into existence through love, He called [humanity] at the same time for love.")
So, we find that the second century apostolic father who authored Epistle to Diognetus (circa. 130 - late second century CE) wrote:
CHURCH FATHERS: Epistle to Diognetus (Mathetes) (newadvent.org)
Other monotheistic conceptions God don't introduce this kind of plurality of 'relations' within His perfect unitary being, so I could appreciate perhaps that for those belief systems *morality* may be associated more with the Divine Will and Command rather than the Divine Nature and essence of God Itself (His Inmost Being as a loving mutual self-giving of divine persons), such that they could conceive of God in his omnipotence "doing whatever He pleases" with His creation, whereas I cannot because it would violate Who He Is as the Holy Trinity.
(Although, granted, Divine Command Theory sadly has currency though in some quarters of Evangelical thought, in particular, which has always displeased me given that they are a Trinitarian Christian denomination.)
As explained by the theologian Christopher West:
(continued...)
For Him to do so would make for an essentially amoral and arbitrary Deity, which doesn't conform with the fundamental Christian doctrine that: "Whoever does not love does not know God, for God is love", as stated in the First Epistle of John.
In the Trinitarian understanding, this is no mere literary flourish or figure of speech: the universe is literally the work of art - the creative and generative fruit - of a 'communion of self-giving love' (communio personarum) within the Godhead Itself, in the eternal relations of origin and perichoresis (necessary being-in-one-another) of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit.
For us, this is the root of moral truth and the model of loving human relationships (since we are created in the image and likeness of God: "called into existence through love, He called [humanity] at the same time for love.")
So, we find that the second century apostolic father who authored Epistle to Diognetus (circa. 130 - late second century CE) wrote:
CHURCH FATHERS: Epistle to Diognetus (Mathetes) (newadvent.org)
Was it then, as one might conceive, for the purpose of exercising tyranny, or of inspiring fear and terror [that God sent Christ]? By no means, but under the influence of clemency and meekness. As a king sends his son, who is also a king, so sent He Him; as God He sent Him; as to men He sent Him; as a Saviour He sent Him, and as seeking to persuade, not to compel us; for violence has no place in the character of God. As calling us He sent Him, not as vengefully pursuing us; as loving us He sent Him, not as judging us. For He will yet send Him to judge us, and who shall endure His appearing? Malachi 3:2
Other monotheistic conceptions God don't introduce this kind of plurality of 'relations' within His perfect unitary being, so I could appreciate perhaps that for those belief systems *morality* may be associated more with the Divine Will and Command rather than the Divine Nature and essence of God Itself (His Inmost Being as a loving mutual self-giving of divine persons), such that they could conceive of God in his omnipotence "doing whatever He pleases" with His creation, whereas I cannot because it would violate Who He Is as the Holy Trinity.
(Although, granted, Divine Command Theory sadly has currency though in some quarters of Evangelical thought, in particular, which has always displeased me given that they are a Trinitarian Christian denomination.)
As explained by the theologian Christopher West:
A 'common union' (communion) of persons is established to the degree that persons mutually give themselves to one another in sacrificial love... The Father eternally 'begets' the Son by giving himself to and for the Son. In turn, the Son (the 'beloved of the Father') eternally receives the love of the Father and eternally gives himself back to the Father. This ever-shared, ever-spirating love is the Holy Spirit who, as we say in the Nicene Creed, 'proceeds' from the Father and the Son.' ....Perfect love-----perfectly and eternally given, perfectly and eternally received, perfectly and eternally returned ----that's God.
(continued...)
Last edited:
@Left Coast
Also, looking through this thread - it's interesting to see quite a few of our RF friends referring to the 'abominable conduct and character' attributed to the Abrahamic God.
They speak in terms extraordinarily similar, in my judgment, to what the Early Church Fathers had to say about the Graeco-Roman gods of their era. And for rejecting the amoralism of these deities, the early Christians were of course condemned as atheists by the majority pagan community of the Empire, somewhat ironically.
Consider the North African father Arnobius (died c. 330) writing in his book ''Against the Pagans":
CHURCH FATHERS: Against the Heathen, Book III (Arnobius) (newadvent.org)
We shall bring forward Mars himself, and the fair mother of the Desires; to one of whom you commit wars, to the other love and passionate desire.
My opponent says that Mars has power over wars; whether to quell those which are raging, or to revive them when interrupted, and kindle them in time of peace? For if he claims the madness of war, why do wars rage every day?
But if he is their author, we shall then say that the god, to satisfy his own inclination, involves the whole world in strife; sows the seeds of discord and variance between far-distant peoples; gathers so many thousand men from different quarters, and speedily heaps up the field with dead bodies; makes the streams flow with blood, sweeps away the most firmly-founded empires, lays cities in the dust, robs the free of their liberty, and makes them slaves; rejoices in civil strife, in the bloody death of brothers who die in conflict, and, in fine, in the dire, murderous contest of children with their fathers.
Can any man, who has accepted the first principles even of reason, be found to mar or dishonour the unchanging nature of Deity with morals so vile?
why should we pray them to avert from us misfortunes and calamities, if we find that they are themselves the authors of all the ills by which we are daily harassed? Call us impious as much as you please, contemners of religion, or atheists, you will never make us believe in gods of love and war, that there are gods to sow strife, and to disturb the mind by the stings of the furies. For either they are gods in very truth, and do not do what you have related; or if they do the things which you say, they are doubtless no gods at all.
When these early Christians studied the Bible, of course, they found certain things detailed there too that seemed to conflict - at least on a surface reading - with their doctrine of God as this supremely good, loving communion in Himself, such as the narratives in Deuteronomy and Joshua in the Old Testament where God was described as sanctioning annihilation of peoples, or in Exodus sending a plague that killed all the firstborn children of the Egyptians.
And while this seems to go unrecognized by modern commentators, for instance on this thread, these ancient theologians were as disturbed by these descriptions of God as we are today.
One of the earliest 'heresies' to become widespread in the early church, that of Marcionism (emerging circa. 140–155 A.D.), "preached that the benevolent God of the Gospel who sent Jesus Christ into the world as the savior was the true Supreme Being, different and opposed to the malevolent Demiurge or creator god, identified with the Hebrew God of the Old Testament. The premise of Marcionism is that many of the teachings of Christ are incompatible with the actions of the God of the Old Testament".
The fact that such a movement rose against the mainstream proto-orthodox position that one and the same creator God had revealed both Testaments, is emblematic of the unease which some of these early Christians felt about God being described, for example, as seemingly ordering massacres.
In rebutting Marcionism as heresy and defending the integrity of the Bible, the church fathers were compelled to grapple with these unsavoury passages and moreover recognise (contra Marcion) that the New Testament was not itself entirely unfree of some troubling imagery, even if it lacked the actual violence in the Old Testament.
To quote one scholar, Mark Sheridan:
The patristic hermeneutical principles that were conceived in response to this problem, were that the meaning given to a biblical text must "be worthy of God" and useful to people as guiding motifs. If unworthy of God, then the literal sense was to be rejected so as to retain the Christian conception of Him as Love.
As Origen stated in his basic work On First Principles (4.2):
And St. John Cassian: "And so, since these things cannot without horrible sacrilege be literally understood of him who is declared by the authority of Holy Scripture to be invisible, ineffable, incomprehensible, inestimable, simple, and uncomposite, the disturbance of anger (not to mention wrath) cannot be attributed to that immutable nature without monstrous blasphemy." (John Cassian, Institutes 8.4).
A stark example of this exegetical approach, is offered by St. Gregory of Nyssa (c. 332-395) in his The Life of Moses. The narrative of the death of the firstborn as found in Exodus 12 is a disturbing one for Gregory, and he feels the need to stress this point. Moreover, he argues that it can be accepted that the 'historical events' perhaps did not actually occur (i.e. the plagues), and that if this were the case, his own allegorical interpretation would still hold true:
"How would a concept worthy of God be preserved in the description of what happened if one looked only to the history?
The Egyptian acts unjustly, and in his place is punished his newborn child, who in his infancy cannot discern what is good and what is not. His life has no experience of evil, for infancy is not capable of passion. He does not know to distinguish between his right hand and his left. The infant lifts his eyes only to his mother’s nipple, and tears are the sole perceptible sign of his sadness. And if he obtains anything which his nature desires, he signifies his pleasure by smiling. If such a one now pays the penalty for his father’s wickedness, where is justice? Where is piety? Where is holiness? Where is Ezekiel, who cries: The man who has sinned is the man who must die and a son is not to suffer for the sins of his father? How can history so contradict reason?...
Do not be surprised at all if both things – the death of the firstborn and the pouring out of the blood – did not happen to the Israelites and on that account reject the contemplation which we have proposed concerning the destruction of evil as if it were a fabrication without any truth.
[O]ne ought not in every instance to remain with the letter (since the obvious sense of the words often does us harm when it comes to the virtuous life), but one ought to shift to an understanding that concerns the immaterial and intelligible, so that corporeal ideas may be transposed into intellect and thought when the fleshly sense of the words has been shaken off like dust."
Also, looking through this thread - it's interesting to see quite a few of our RF friends referring to the 'abominable conduct and character' attributed to the Abrahamic God.
They speak in terms extraordinarily similar, in my judgment, to what the Early Church Fathers had to say about the Graeco-Roman gods of their era. And for rejecting the amoralism of these deities, the early Christians were of course condemned as atheists by the majority pagan community of the Empire, somewhat ironically.
Consider the North African father Arnobius (died c. 330) writing in his book ''Against the Pagans":
CHURCH FATHERS: Against the Heathen, Book III (Arnobius) (newadvent.org)
We shall bring forward Mars himself, and the fair mother of the Desires; to one of whom you commit wars, to the other love and passionate desire.
My opponent says that Mars has power over wars; whether to quell those which are raging, or to revive them when interrupted, and kindle them in time of peace? For if he claims the madness of war, why do wars rage every day?
But if he is their author, we shall then say that the god, to satisfy his own inclination, involves the whole world in strife; sows the seeds of discord and variance between far-distant peoples; gathers so many thousand men from different quarters, and speedily heaps up the field with dead bodies; makes the streams flow with blood, sweeps away the most firmly-founded empires, lays cities in the dust, robs the free of their liberty, and makes them slaves; rejoices in civil strife, in the bloody death of brothers who die in conflict, and, in fine, in the dire, murderous contest of children with their fathers.
Can any man, who has accepted the first principles even of reason, be found to mar or dishonour the unchanging nature of Deity with morals so vile?
why should we pray them to avert from us misfortunes and calamities, if we find that they are themselves the authors of all the ills by which we are daily harassed? Call us impious as much as you please, contemners of religion, or atheists, you will never make us believe in gods of love and war, that there are gods to sow strife, and to disturb the mind by the stings of the furies. For either they are gods in very truth, and do not do what you have related; or if they do the things which you say, they are doubtless no gods at all.
When these early Christians studied the Bible, of course, they found certain things detailed there too that seemed to conflict - at least on a surface reading - with their doctrine of God as this supremely good, loving communion in Himself, such as the narratives in Deuteronomy and Joshua in the Old Testament where God was described as sanctioning annihilation of peoples, or in Exodus sending a plague that killed all the firstborn children of the Egyptians.
And while this seems to go unrecognized by modern commentators, for instance on this thread, these ancient theologians were as disturbed by these descriptions of God as we are today.
One of the earliest 'heresies' to become widespread in the early church, that of Marcionism (emerging circa. 140–155 A.D.), "preached that the benevolent God of the Gospel who sent Jesus Christ into the world as the savior was the true Supreme Being, different and opposed to the malevolent Demiurge or creator god, identified with the Hebrew God of the Old Testament. The premise of Marcionism is that many of the teachings of Christ are incompatible with the actions of the God of the Old Testament".
The fact that such a movement rose against the mainstream proto-orthodox position that one and the same creator God had revealed both Testaments, is emblematic of the unease which some of these early Christians felt about God being described, for example, as seemingly ordering massacres.
In rebutting Marcionism as heresy and defending the integrity of the Bible, the church fathers were compelled to grapple with these unsavoury passages and moreover recognise (contra Marcion) that the New Testament was not itself entirely unfree of some troubling imagery, even if it lacked the actual violence in the Old Testament.
To quote one scholar, Mark Sheridan:
"A major problem for early Christian writers was posed by the repeated commands attributed to God in Deuteronomy, Joshua and Judges to wipe out, destroy utterly, put to the sword the inhabitants of the Promised Land. The ethnocentric in-group morality expressed in these books was in sharp contrast to the universalist outlook of the gospel. The portrait of a violent and vengeful God could not easily be reconciled with the preaching of Jesus Christ. The language itself of “utterly destroy them,” “put all its males to the sword,” “not leave any that breathed” was as shocking to ancient sensibilities as it is to modern ones....The principal Christian response to these texts was to transfer everything on to the plane of the spiritual life through moral or spiritual allegory" (Language for God in Patristic Tradition, p.149)
The patristic hermeneutical principles that were conceived in response to this problem, were that the meaning given to a biblical text must "be worthy of God" and useful to people as guiding motifs. If unworthy of God, then the literal sense was to be rejected so as to retain the Christian conception of Him as Love.
As Origen stated in his basic work On First Principles (4.2):
"Then, again, the heretics, reading what is written in the Law, ‘A fire has been kindled from my anger’, and, ‘I am a jealous God, repaying the sins of the fathers upon the children unto the third and fourth generation’...and reading many other passages of Scripture similar to these they did not dare to say that these are not Scriptures of God... but that when the Saviour had come, he proclaimed to us a more perfect God, whom they say is not the creator of the world … Yet also not a few of the more simple of those who appear to be enclosed within the faith of the Church esteem that there is no greater than the creator God, holding in this a correct and sound belief, but believe such things about him and would not be believed even of the most unjust and savage of human beings.
[The simple] think of Him [God] things such that they would not attribute to the most cruel and unjust human being. The reason why all those we have mentioned have mistaken, impious, and vulgar conceptions about the divinity derives from the incapacity of interpreting spiritually the Scriptures, which are accepted only according to the literal sense....whenever we read of the anger of God, whether in the Old or the New Testament, we do not take such statements literally, but look for the spiritual meaning in them, endeavoring to understand them in a way that is worthy of God” (deo dignum).”
[The simple] think of Him [God] things such that they would not attribute to the most cruel and unjust human being. The reason why all those we have mentioned have mistaken, impious, and vulgar conceptions about the divinity derives from the incapacity of interpreting spiritually the Scriptures, which are accepted only according to the literal sense....whenever we read of the anger of God, whether in the Old or the New Testament, we do not take such statements literally, but look for the spiritual meaning in them, endeavoring to understand them in a way that is worthy of God” (deo dignum).”
And St. John Cassian: "And so, since these things cannot without horrible sacrilege be literally understood of him who is declared by the authority of Holy Scripture to be invisible, ineffable, incomprehensible, inestimable, simple, and uncomposite, the disturbance of anger (not to mention wrath) cannot be attributed to that immutable nature without monstrous blasphemy." (John Cassian, Institutes 8.4).
A stark example of this exegetical approach, is offered by St. Gregory of Nyssa (c. 332-395) in his The Life of Moses. The narrative of the death of the firstborn as found in Exodus 12 is a disturbing one for Gregory, and he feels the need to stress this point. Moreover, he argues that it can be accepted that the 'historical events' perhaps did not actually occur (i.e. the plagues), and that if this were the case, his own allegorical interpretation would still hold true:
"How would a concept worthy of God be preserved in the description of what happened if one looked only to the history?
The Egyptian acts unjustly, and in his place is punished his newborn child, who in his infancy cannot discern what is good and what is not. His life has no experience of evil, for infancy is not capable of passion. He does not know to distinguish between his right hand and his left. The infant lifts his eyes only to his mother’s nipple, and tears are the sole perceptible sign of his sadness. And if he obtains anything which his nature desires, he signifies his pleasure by smiling. If such a one now pays the penalty for his father’s wickedness, where is justice? Where is piety? Where is holiness? Where is Ezekiel, who cries: The man who has sinned is the man who must die and a son is not to suffer for the sins of his father? How can history so contradict reason?...
Do not be surprised at all if both things – the death of the firstborn and the pouring out of the blood – did not happen to the Israelites and on that account reject the contemplation which we have proposed concerning the destruction of evil as if it were a fabrication without any truth.
[O]ne ought not in every instance to remain with the letter (since the obvious sense of the words often does us harm when it comes to the virtuous life), but one ought to shift to an understanding that concerns the immaterial and intelligible, so that corporeal ideas may be transposed into intellect and thought when the fleshly sense of the words has been shaken off like dust."
Last edited:
In some games but not all. Some games start you with a race/gender/background.
More to my point, what if you realized none of the moral choices/dilemmas you made during the simulation were real. They had no impact/consequences outside of the context of the simulation.
You can be as evil as you want to be or as good. No penalty or rewards other than the experience.
However yes, do you judge the programmer for creating a simulation where evil can exist?