Is the moral standard of humanists better than God's?

[shmogie]

Back to you: "And the LORD God said, “The man has now become like one of us, knowing good and evil. He must not be allowed to reach out his hand and take also from the tree of life and eat, and live forever.” Gen 3:22. Ergo, Adam and Eve successfully become judges of morality in contrast to the beliefs of Egyptians. They are free at the price of mortality, but it is a price worth paying.

OK, clearer now. No, they, aren't "judges of morality". By their exercise of free will they are have locked themselves into evil, which is inherently immoral, Further, provision was made for them to have eternal life.

 

[arthra]

You can have any type of God who is claimed to be all knowing and perfect, but he needs to have the perfectly righteous moral standard. For example, if it were claimed that there was a perfect God who created this universe and his moral standard was the absolute worst standard of all such as one set by a psychopath or even Hitler, then just because you believe such a God exists does not justify his moral standard as also being perfect. Therefore, for Christians to believe God exists does not justify his moral standard as being perfectly righteous. His moral standard could very well be one of a psychopath and this is what I am thinking here.

You probably already know this but among the first humanists were also religious people... such as Thomas More who was also venerated as a Saint.

Humanism in my view had values derived from the teachings of Jesus...

Jesus Was a Humanist

Christian Humanism

 

[crowfeather]

Jesus Was a Humanist

He certainly wasn't a Christian
An obvious fact that goes right by many Christians.

I've even had Christians inform me that God is a Christian.

 

[Father Heathen]

It isn't a question of God's morals vs. man's morals, but rather ancient man's morals (using their concept of "god" as a sock puppet) vs. modern man's morals.

 

[Father Heathen]

"That much is apparent."

You wouldn't be capable of doing this very simple thing, would you?
You're not alone. The steep rise in mental illness is a direct result of an inability to quiet the mind.

Reason and compassion, which is a far better reason than blind adherence to irrational, unsubstantied, and completely arbitrary crap out of fear of punishment and desire for reward in the afterlife.

 

[Grandliseur]

I hear horrible things regarding the moral standard set by the God of the bible such as that we are flawed sinful human beings worthy of condemnation and judgment. According to God, I, as a kind and respectful human being, am a corrupt individual worthy of condemnation since I do not believe in this God and do not serve my life to him. This really makes me wonder if my moral standard is better than God's. What if God's moral standard is not perfectly righteous?

What if he really is the type of God that Richard Dawkins and Matt Dillahunty make him out to be? In which case, if this God is real, then he would not be an all loving, all just, and perfectly righteous being. Therefore, as for those types of Christians who claim that God's moral standard is perfectly righteous, how do you know? The idea that he had his son sacrificed isn't enough to justify his claimed perfect righteousness because anyone can make a sacrifice for you. But that doesn't make them a perfectly righteous person.

You can have any type of God who is claimed to be all knowing and perfect, but he needs to have the perfectly righteous moral standard. For example, if it were claimed that there was a perfect God who created this universe and his moral standard was the absolute worst standard of all such as one set by a psychopath or even Hitler, then just because you believe such a God exists does not justify his moral standard as also being perfect. Therefore, for Christians to believe God exists does not justify his moral standard as being perfectly righteous. His moral standard could very well be one of a psychopath and this is what I am thinking here.

Unbelievers who judge God the way you do, I find their judgment unworthy. Why?
Most people on earth go about their business without considering this one God. They get to live their lives and die as all others without God harassing them in any way. Where in this is your supposed divine judgmental infringement? It is absent.

The judgment you speak of then would be for the general masses after their death, something atheists and anti-theists do not believe in, and which in fact the Bible doesn't teach, though churches do. So, if God's supposed judgment is a metaphysical one (in this supposed case), what do you care, if you don't believe in it?

I would suggest that you study what the scripture teaches, not churches, to understand what exactly is going on, how God's judgment and righteousness works. It is a subject filled with irony to me, that on one hand, God judges us after we die, but that death is the total destruction of everything that makes us human, soul and body is gone - for many, forever, and that death is likened to sleep. There is much to learn yet.

 

[Araceli Cianna]

It isn't a question of God's morals vs. man's morals, but rather ancient man's morals (using their concept of "god" as a sock puppet) vs. modern man's morals.

Nothing to add but I think this is an extremely insightful answer!

 

[Valjean]

What principles and regulations ?

Religions are full of regulations that don't make any sense; that are cruel, harmful or absurd. Just consider Leviticus. 76 Things Banned in Leviticus (and their penalties) - ***Dave Does the Blog
Again, what is the purpose of morality? What's it trying to achieve? Is morality blind obedience to apparently arbitrary rules of propriety, justified by appeal to God's will?
Is morality prescriptive and deontological or consequentialist?

Suppose God in His omniscient state of having total knowledge, considers the "wrong things" everybody does sometimes, along with the resulting damage upon His universe and creation as atrocious? You seem to feel that you have the ability of superior knowledge and judgment and the right to trivialize sin.

If God has superior knowledge He needs to explain Himself. There are a thousand different systems out there, all equally plausible. Moreover, the rules in these systems are anything but intuitive. They appear capricious, counter-productive and often absurd. How can God hold us responsible for adhering to a system when the origins and authority of the system are hidden?

 

[Brickjectivity]

OK, clearer now. No, they, aren't "judges of morality". By their exercise of free will they are have locked themselves into evil, which is inherently immoral, Further, provision was made for them to have eternal life.

They choose knowledge, first Eve then Adam. Eve is deceived by the lie that she will not die, but Adam knows it will bring death to both of them. Despite this he eats it, because he wants to know.

 

[Jeremiahcp]

"That much is apparent."

You wouldn't be capable of doing this very simple thing, would you?
You're not alone. The steep rise in mental illness is a direct result of an inability to quiet the mind.

So if I don't agree with you then I must be crazy.

 

[The Transcended Omniverse]

Suppose God in His omniscient state of having total knowledge, considers the "wrong things" everybody does sometimes, along with the resulting damage upon His universe and creation as atrocious? You seem to feel that you have the ability of superior knowledge and judgment and the right to trivialize sin.

Again, the idea that God is omniscient and all powerful does not automatically mean that he is also morally righteous. I already stated this in my opening post and gave an example in my last paragraph of that opening post.

 

[The Transcended Omniverse]

Unbelievers who judge God the way you do, I find their judgment unworthy. Why?
Most people on earth go about their business without considering this one God. They get to live their lives and die as all others without God harassing them in any way. Where in this is your supposed divine judgmental infringement? It is absent.

The judgment you speak of then would be for the general masses after their death, something atheists and anti-theists do not believe in, and which in fact the Bible doesn't teach, though churches do. So, if God's supposed judgment is a metaphysical one (in this supposed case), what do you care, if you don't believe in it?

I would suggest that you study what the scripture teaches, not churches, to understand what exactly is going on, how God's judgment and righteousness works. It is a subject filled with irony to me, that on one hand, God judges us after we die, but that death is the total destruction of everything that makes us human, soul and body is gone - for many, forever, and that death is likened to sleep. There is much to learn yet.

Just the very fact that God judges almost everything we do as sinful and condemns that is enough to justify this God's morals as atrocious regardless of the situation.

 

[shmogie]

They choose knowledge, first Eve then Adam. Eve is deceived by the lie that she will not die, but Adam knows it will bring death to both of them. Despite this he eats it, because he wants to know.

He wants to know, and the knowledge degrades and debases he and humanity. I suspect that some people who jump off of cliffs want to know what the experience feels like, but it always ends badly. Better to heed the law of gravity above the desire to know and the resultant disaster.
/QUOTE]

 

[shmogie]

Religions are full of regulations that don't make any sense; that are cruel, harmful or absurd. Just consider Leviticus. 76 Things Banned in Leviticus (and their penalties) - ***Dave Does the Blog
Again, what is the purpose of morality? What's it trying to achieve? Is morality blind obedience to apparently arbitrary rules of propriety, justified by appeal to God's will?
Is morality prescriptive and deontological or consequentialist?

Looked at your list, and clearly your blogger lacks the understanding of the regulations as specific symbols or how they apply to health in a society 3,000 years ago. What I find interesting is that people addressing Christians trot these things out not realizing that Christians HAVE NEVER been under these regulations. A nomadic society as Israel was at the time had no jails and disruptive behavior could be dangerous and totally counter productive for the society. You are using the hindsight of the 21 st century to judge a culture in an environment and situations you cannot relate to. Unfair

 

[Augustus]

Humans are capable of observing the results of their actions and adjusting their moral standard accordingly. Thus the human standard for morality improves and progresses, "the arc of history bends towards justice".

Hmm, very debatable.

I'd say history shows we never learn from our mistakes and the 'arc of history' is really a circle. Some times we are a bit better, and other times we get worse.

Progress is a myth, our nature is still our nature, and that nature has capacity for both kindness and cruelty. When the environment around us changes for the worse, that 'moral progress' disappears in an instant. The 20th C is pretty clear evidence for that

 

[Brickjectivity]

He wants to know, and the knowledge degrades and debases he and humanity. I suspect that some people who jump off of cliffs want to know what the experience feels like, but it always ends badly. Better to heed the law of gravity above the desire to know and the resultant disaster.

Seems to me that is an imposition upon the text of the story. It does not say that it debases them. The Christian commentary in Romans 7 implies the tree is not the problem but their own nature, and that they ought to be able to eat without dying. So if I bring Romans 7 in as perspective, it implies that they already need improvement even before they eat the fruit.

Here is the tree of knowledge in action:
"But sin, seizing the opportunity afforded by the commandment, produced in me every kind of coveting. For apart from the law, sin was dead." Romans 7:8

 

[shmogie]

Seems to me that is an imposition upon the text of the story. It does not say that it debases them. The Christian commentary in Romans 7 implies the tree is not the problem but their own nature, and that they ought to be able to eat without dying. So if I bring Romans 7 in as perspective, it implies that they already need improvement even before they eat the fruit.

Here is the tree of knowledge in action:
"But sin, seizing the opportunity afforded by the commandment, produced in me every kind of coveting. For apart from the law, sin was dead." Romans 7:8

Yes, but you are assuming that human nature is consistent from creation till now. That isn't the case. The Genesis narrative makes clear that originally human nature was not corrupted by evil, because they could not know evil. Evil was not part of their original nature because it didn't exist in their minds, their environment, they were not recipients of a society of long standing steeped in evil and tolerant of it. Of all the choices they had, only one was forbidden, because it would open pandora's box. Once they freely chose it, without any conception of wrong, just that disobedience was wrong on this issue they were immersed in the knowledge, saw it, their nature and that of all subsequent humans was changed. Paul is talking of sinful humans who were doing evil by nature and not considering it such, being condemned by the law, which clearly reflected their evil. Paul also says the law was a schoolmaster that taught us of our evil.

 

[shmogie]

Nothing to add but I think this is an extremely insightful answer!

According to the new athesists, dawkins, hitchen, et. al. there is no such thing as morality. ( new atheists despise religion, especially Christianity and bash it endlessly, because they are totally ignorant of it and make ignorant claims about it. You see mostly new atheists here. Old atheists, though not believing in God, recognize the immense amount of good done by Christianity and recognize that much that is moral is derived from Christian morality). To dawkins, we simply, to use his term, "dance to our genes". Everything in our behavior is driven by the genetic need to reproduce, eat, survive etc. To dawkins rape isn't immoral, it is wrong in it's disruption of society and should be controlled. To the new atheists, rape is the result of the genetic drive on a male that has been unable to mate. Which begs the question, What if a man, driven by his genes to mate uses a date rape drug to render a woman unconscious, is very careful of protection and protection of her from physical harm, why is this wrong or "immoral". ? She is unconscious,doesn't know what has happened, he has danced to his genes and followed their drive, she isn't harmed. So this is in perfect harmony with the new atheists since of "morality" right ?

 

[shmogie]

According to the new athesists, dawkins, hitchen, et. al. there is no such thing as morality. ( new atheists despise religion, especially Christianity and bash it endlessly, because they are totally ignorant of it and make ignorant claims about it. You see mostly new atheists here. Old atheists, though not believing in God, recognize the immense amount of good done by Christianity and recognize that much that is moral is derived from Christian morality). To dawkins, we simply, to use his term, "dance to our genes". Everything in our behavior is driven by the genetic need to reproduce, eat, survive etc. To dawkins rape isn't immoral, it is wrong in it's disruption of society and should be controlled. To the new atheists, rape is the result of the genetic drive on a male that has been unable to mate. Which begs the question, What if a man, driven by his genes to mate uses a date rape drug to render a woman unconscious, is very careful of protection and protection of her from physical harm, why is this wrong or "immoral". ? She is unconscious,doesn't know what has happened, he has danced to his genes and followed their drive, she isn't harmed. So this is in perfect harmony with the new atheists since of "morality" right ?

SENSE !!!!!!!!!, sorry

 

[Valjean]

nChrist said: ↑
Suppose God in His omniscient state of having total knowledge, considers the "wrong things" everybody does sometimes, along with the resulting damage upon His universe and creation as atrocious? You seem to feel that you have the ability of superior knowledge and judgment and the right to trivialize sin.

If God has superior knowledge He needs to explain Himself. There are a thousand different systems out there, all equally plausible. Moreover, the rules in these systems are anything but intuitive. They appear capricious, counter-productive and often absurd. How can God hold us responsible for adhering to a system when the origins and authority of the system are hidden?