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

[Evie]

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.

Keep in mind, that the Bible states. That all mankind is corrupt. So don't feel too bad, we are all in the same boat. Our inherited corrupt mind deems we are of corrupt nature. And no good behaviour, no type of self- supposed righteous living can ever be seen by God as being good. Only through belief in Jesus and the gospel can God see us as righteous. But this is of course a matter of belief. Many do not even believe Jesus ever existed, let alone believe what the Bible says. So there you have it.

 

[neologist]

I hear horrible things regarding the moral standard set by the God of the bible . . .

Consider the source of the things you have heard.

Inasmuch as the moral standard of most humanists is set without hope of reward, your query has merit, But if one's moral standard is set to provide license, your query is suspect.

Perhaps you really do not truly understand the moral sovereignty of our creator. Taking into account the lies and excesses of those claiming to be his representatives, I would say the majority of mankind is basking in the false security of the "angel of light". (2 Corinthians 11:14)

 

[Brickjectivity]

Yes, but you are assuming that human nature is consistent from creation till now.

Actually no. You are assuming their nature changed, but what changed was what they ate.

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.

Genesis does not say that is the beginning of evil. Genesis says they don't know good from evil but gain that ability

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.

It says they gain knowledge and a death sentence along with it.

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.

Remember he says the law is good but sin within him makes it deadly for him.

 

[Krishna Chaitanya]

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.

If it helps, I am presenting the below based on my understanding of sanatana dharma (concocted today as Hinduism) based on the Bhagavad Gita (The song of God):

1. God is absolute, but our perception of him* is always relative to our state of consciousness.
2. God is all loving and therefore his display of love is loving (considerate/compassionate). He is impartial in that he reciprocates as per how living beings approach him.
3. Morals are meant to influence the living beings to contribute to universal harmony. In this regard, God sets the governing principles and humans deduce morality metrics in relation to those governing principles - so as to result in a harmonious world around us. For example, he sets up law of karma (universal causal mechanism or we reap what we sow), and we living beings execute a sequence of actions that lead to a corresponding con-sequence of reactions.
4. God's moral standard can be understood as the law of karma, or the law that assigns appropriate effects to a given cause (for example, sowing a seed yields a plant, conditioned upon the environmental factors). Therefore, it is impartial to all living beings, irrespective of their belief systems - atheists, agnostics, or theists.

* - God is beyond the scope of gender, but I am referring to God as 'him' without justification here. It is another topic in and of itself.

 

[shmogie]

Actually no. You are assuming their nature changed, but what changed was what they ate.

Genesis does not say that is the beginning of evil. Genesis says they don't know good from evil but gain that ability

It says they gain knowledge and a death sentence along with it.

Remember he says the law is good but sin within him makes it deadly for him.

Your last point, true, but remember, God has provided a way out of the conundrum, whereby that inherent sinful flesh can be made perfectly righteous. That is Pauls entire message. NO, their nature changed. Look at their children, shortly after the events. If their nature had not changed, their children would have been brought up perfect, as they were. Not even 20 years later one was a murderer. The knowledge of evil is inherently evil to the point we think about it, let alone act on it, which all humanity does. Yes, they knew of the death sentence but chose evil anyway. The knowledge of evil, and doing what was proscribed for their own protection, brought the death sentence. The knowledge corrupted them

 

[shmogie]

Keep in mind, that the Bible states. That all mankind is corrupt. So don't feel too bad, we are all in the same boat. Our inherited corrupt mind deems we are of corrupt nature. And no good behaviour, no type of self- supposed righteous living can ever be seen by God as being good. Only through belief in Jesus and the gospel can God see us as righteous. But this is of course a matter of belief. Many do not even believe Jesus ever existed, let alone believe what the Bible says. So there you have it.

Yep ! Choices, choices, choices

 

[Shlomoh]

We have our ways of thinking and He has His and never the Twain shall meet, and SO WHAT?


What if he really is the type of God that Richard Dawkins and Matt Dillahunty make him out to be?
His moral standard could very well be one of a psychopath and this is what I am thinking here.[/QUOTE]

 

[Thunderfoot]

Crocodiles have higher moral standards than the god of the OT.

 

[shmogie]

We have our ways of thinking and He has His and never the Twain shall meet, and SO WHAT?


What if he really is the type of God that Richard Dawkins and Matt Dillahunty make him out to be?
His moral standard could very well be one of a psychopath and this is what I am thinking here.

[/QUOTE]
Dawkins, hitchens and the new atheists et al show total ignorance in their ranting nonsense. Clearly pointed out by old atheists who actually reason and think rather than vent emotion and rage as a substitute for knowledge

 

[Nakosis]

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.

What is the moral standard of a humanist?

 

[shmogie]

What is the moral standard of a humanist?

As important, where did it come from ?

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

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.

And we've about had it with this gods. What use are such ideas?

Let's see who prevails: Rational man, or the gods the irrational ones keep throwing our way.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

Because nobody is happy unless they are the top dog.

Wrong in my case for one.

 

[Kemosloby]

Wrong in my case for one.

Yes, you have proved me wrong, you are top dog now.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

Yeah Very carefully; John, Paul and Simon are purposefully made up to deceive everyone who doesn't pay attention.

Where do Ringo and Garfunkel fit in?

 

[Kemosloby]

And we've about had it with this gods. What use are such ideas?

Let's see who prevails: Rational man, or the gods the irrational ones keep throwing our way.

Know anyone who's lived past 120 years and proved it wrong?

 

[Valjean]

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

Au contraire. Realizing the regulations were unworkable or bad for business, Christians immediately began changing and ignoring them, even though Christ had said He wasn't changing things even a jot or tittle.

 

[Robert Landbeck]

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.

Whatever notions of idealism a people, culture or nation have built upon, whatever the sum of human knowledge, achievement and understanding, whatever cultural veneer arts contribute or religious claims pretend the world is none the better. And what choices exist between any political, religious, philosophical or intellectual tradition, when like a 'slow reckoning', the planet's very capacity to sustain existence is coming under threat?

 

[hilguy]

Much talk about duality here, duality is of this material world and all its images to which Christ said "images are revealed to the people the Light within them is hidden in the image of the Fathers Light, He shall be revealed, His image is hidden in His Light" to experience this Light is a divine experience - a revelation, in ACIM a revelation, amongst other things, is described as; "Revelation induces complete but temporary suspension of doubt and fear. It reflects the original form of communication between God and His creations, involving the extremely personal sense of creation sometimes sought in physical relationships. Physical closeness cannot achieve it." It must be extremely doubtful if anyone criticizing God will ever come close to him (If I give criticism, sometimes nasty to you like calling you a psychopath) would you want my company? Seek only God as in the 1st Christian commandment or as in Hinduism; "If men thought of God as much as they think of this world, who would not find liberation." Think intensely about God because "God is Love"
As far as someone living over 120 years an inspiring read is 'The Long Pilgrimage' by J G Bennett if my memory serves me well.

 

[shmogie]

Au contraire. Realizing the regulations were unworkable or bad for business, Christians immediately began changing and ignoring them, even though Christ had said He wasn't changing things even a jot or tittle.

Please, he said until all was fulfilled. What ? The very law you are talking about. When was it fulfilled, at the cross. What was the law, the first covenant between God and Israel that never applied to Christians.