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

[shmogie]

Let me point out, since you refer specifically to 'The God of the Bible' that in the Bible Adam and Eve triumph and become like gods. They escape their garden childhood and become fully enabled judges of morality without the need for gods at all. I point this out to make it clear to you that you have been referring to a niche view of the Bible, and it is better to clarify than to repeat the confusing and oppressive view that you have heard or at least point out your source.

What in the world are you talking about ? With respect, your post is nonsense and certainly not reflected in the Bible. Have you ever read it ?

 

[crowfeather]

Good heavens. Listen to yourselves.
Morals are things born in human minds, and are therefore not real.
Any morals assigned to God are not God's morals, because God is not human, and God hasn't got a human mind.

Religions are a general guide to how their adherents may wish to live their lives. Their Truths are few and far between.
No religion is ever to be taken literally, for the simple reason that spiritual matters are not describable in linguistic terms, and so consist entirely of metaphor and parable.

But to get back to the OP: Are human morals better than God's?
Are you kidding me?
When was the last time you came across a moral human?

 

[Jeremiahcp]

Interesting. Then where do their morals come from, and what makes their morals moral ?

If you think about it really hard I am sure you can answer that question yourself.

 

[Jeremiahcp]

Good heavens. Listen to yourselves.
Morals are things born in human minds, and are therefore not real.
Any morals assigned to God are not God's morals, because God is not human, and God hasn't got a human mind.

Religions are a general guide to how their adherents may wish to live their lives. Their Truths are few and far between.
No religion is ever to be taken literally, for the simple reason that spiritual matters are not describable in linguistic terms, and so consist entirely of metaphor and parable.

But to get back to the OP: Are human morals better than God's?
Are you kidding me?
When was the last time you came across a moral human?

"Morals are things born in human minds, and are therefore not real."

The human mind and its functions is very real.

 

[Valjean]

Interesting. Then where do their morals come from, and what makes their morals moral ?

By their fruits shall you know them. Do the principles and regulations enhance happiness and prosperity, or do they lead to hardship, conflict and insecurity?

 

[crowfeather]

The human mind and its functions is very real.

You might ponder your statement for a while. In what way is anything that happens in the mind real?

I can appreciate that you believe that they are, but that does not make it so.

Real is what-is, with or without your presence.
Believing what happens in your mind to be real, is the root of mental illness. Neurosis is a given.
The mind simulates what is real. Beyond that, it is a storage medium.
That so many have come to believe that their thoughts are real, is the root cause behind all that ails the Western world.

 

[shmogie]

By their fruits shall you know them. Do the principles and regulations enhance happiness and prosperity, or do they lead to hardship, conflict and insecurity?

What principles and regulations ?

 

[The Transcended Omniverse]

Every way of a man is right in his own eyes,
But the Lord weighs the hearts. Proverbs 21:2

Everyone thinks they are kind respectful nice human beings, but God knows our self-serving motives and sees secret sins.
I am not sure where you came up with what you said above, but according to the Bible you and everyone else is corrupt and worthy of condemnation, NOT because of they don't believe, but because of the unkind, disrespectful, wrong things they have done and will not be honest about to God who says we have all sinned.

This is what I was wanting to debate because, according to my opening post, only a morally atrocious God would deem such people as wicked and worthy of condemnation. As long as you have a humanistic moral standard that treats others with kindness and dignity, then that is morally righteous. Everybody does wrong things sometimes. However, if you live your life with a humanistic moral standard, then that shouldn't be punished or condemned.

 

[shmogie]

This is what I was wanting to debate because, according to my opening post, only a morally atrocious God would deem such people as wicked and worthy of condemnation. As long as you have a humanistic moral standard that treats others with kindness and dignity, then that is morally righteous. Everybody does wrong things sometimes. However, if you live your life with a humanistic moral standard, then that shouldn't be punished or condemned.

 

[shmogie]

If you think about it really hard I am sure you can answer that question yourself.

Oh, I can answer it, I would like to hear how others answer it.

 

[Brickjectivity]

What in the world are you talking about ? With respect, your post is nonsense and certainly not reflected in the Bible. Have you ever read it ?

Let me point out, since you refer specifically to 'The God of the Bible' that in the Bible Adam and Eve triumph and become like gods. They escape their garden childhood and become fully enabled judges of morality without the need for gods at all. I point this out to make it clear to you that you have been referring to a niche view of the Bible, and it is better to clarify than to repeat the confusing and oppressive view that you have heard or at least point out your source.

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.

 

[Stevicus]

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.

I suppose it's possible, although I would think a lot of it would depend on what God's "morality" actually is and what kind of afterlife one gets. If the afterlife is some kind of wonderful paradise, then the fact that God may kill people doesn't seem so bad, since they're assumed to be in a far better place. If "man was born to suffer," then I suppose it may be part of a training process for some greater reward in the afterlife. You know how they say, "no pain, no gain." At least, that's how I might read the theology, but it's all just speculation and conjecture. Who can say for certain?

Then again, I often wonder if God might be a character in the Star Trek episode "The Squire of Gothos," who was part of a powerful alien race, but was still a child who acted childishly. Maybe God is evil, or perhaps just indifferent, just as humans might be indifferent to an ant.

Maybe "God" actually is a child in some extra-dimensional "classroom" where each of the kids is learning how to create their own universe. But the God of our universe may be one of the slower kids in the class, which would explain some of the deficiencies. He got a D-minus, a barely passing grade, yet wrecked the curve for the whole class.

 

[leibowde84]

Better for humans maybe. But Gods morality is better for God. God says it like this "men are mortal, I will not strive with them forever, therefore their days shall be 120 years." Not because humans want it that way, but because God wants it that way.

What does that quote mean? 120 years?

 

[Jeremiahcp]

You might ponder your statement for a while. In what way is anything that happens in the mind real?

I can appreciate that you believe that they are, but that does not make it so.

Real is what-is, with or without your presence.
Believing what happens in your mind to be real, is the root of mental illness. Neurosis is a given.
The mind simulates what is real. Beyond that, it is a storage medium.
That so many have come to believe that their thoughts are real, is the root cause behind all that ails the Western world.

"You might ponder your statement for a while. "

With real thoughts or non-real thoughts?

 

[Jeremiahcp]

Oh, I can answer it, I would like to hear how others answer it.

"I would like to hear how others answer it."

I already did.

 

[crowfeather]

Best done without thought. To ponder: to let sit. To observe what arises.

 

[CogentPhilosopher]

Because nobody is happy unless they are the top dog.

Speak for yourself.

 

[InChrist]

This is what I was wanting to debate because, according to my opening post, only a morally atrocious God would deem such people as wicked and worthy of condemnation. As long as you have a humanistic moral standard that treats others with kindness and dignity, then that is morally righteous. Everybody does wrong things sometimes. However, if you live your life with a humanistic moral standard, then that shouldn't be punished or condemned.

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.

 

[Jeremiahcp]

Best done without thought. To ponder: to let sit. To observe what arises.

Did you think of that with your non-real thoughts?

 

[crowfeather]

I don't think. In fact I don't write. I type. The words appear by themselves. I won't even try explaining it.