Why does my God allow children to die? Is he evil?

[1robin]

I agree with this.
I think some have learned good from evil. I think there are some guidelines that the Bible can provide those who still are struggling with self-determination. However those guidelines are not universal. We at some point need to assume the responsibility of choosing "good".

It's true there was a time in man's ignorance they could not determine good from evil. I think we are beginning to get the idea though. Some perhaps are afraid of the responsibility. Man has historically not been very "good".

I had typed quite a bit but I hit he wrong button and it was deleted. So I will be brief.

1. The only way good and evil have any objective meaning is if God exists.
2. You can know right from wrong if God exists even if you do not believe but whatever world view you have, if he does not exist then morality (no matter what words are used to invent another foundation) perfectly equal - opinion. They do not correspond to a single existing moral fact whatever without God.
3. Do you actually think a society which has enough weapons aimed at each other to wipe out all known life and he moral insanity to have almost done so several times, has justified the systematic and industrial scale destruction of the most innocent human lives to ever exist and does so by inventing a right that does not exist for the one who kills which is denied to the life killed, and has just closed a century with more blood shed than all the previous ones together, to be a sign we are progressing morally? My God this is nuts.

If I was asked to hypothetically invent the worst case scenarios that would prove moral degradation every single thing I would invent has actually occurred in modern times. Your inability to recognize this obvious fact is still more evidence for my claims.

While an atheist can know right from wrong if God exists he very often gives plenty of evidence he does not and could not justify even if he did.

 

[CG Didymus]

The only way good and evil have any objective meaning is if God exists.

In the universe we can see, feel and touch, there are good things and bad things. Some things that are good can be bad if we get too much of them. Some things we are told are bad if done in the wrong way. Things grow. Things die. Some people rob, kill, and lie. Some people try and help others the best they can. A lot of opposites... hot/cold, something in the middle called warm. Which religion best explains what we really see around us? Judaism? Hindu? Islam? Buddhist? Christianity? Or, none of them? Does any view describe reality so well that we can all say, "Yes, that explains it"

Sure, omitting God from the equation isn't perfect either. But I say it's the fault of religion, in its lack of coming up with good explanations, that has led to its opposite, atheism.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

I had typed quite a bit but I hit he wrong button and it was deleted. So I will be brief.

1. The only way good and evil have any objective meaning is if God exists.
2. You can know right from wrong if God exists even if you do not believe but whatever world view you have, if he does not exist then morality (no matter what words are used to invent another foundation) perfectly equal - opinion. They do not correspond to a single existing moral fact whatever without God.
3. Do you actually think a society which has enough weapons aimed at each other to wipe out all known life and he moral insanity to have almost done so several times, has justified the systematic and industrial scale destruction of the most innocent human lives to ever exist and does so by inventing a right that does not exist for the one who kills which is denied to the life killed, and has just closed a century with more blood shed than all the previous ones together, to be a sign we are progressing morally? My God this is nuts.

If I was asked to hypothetically invent the worst case scenarios that would prove moral degradation every single thing I would invent has actually occurred in modern times. Your inability to recognize this obvious fact is still more evidence for my claims.

While an atheist can know right from wrong if God exists he very often gives plenty of evidence he does not and could not justify even if he did.

While I reject the divine command theory of morality (since I don't think that the whims of a god would have the power to define good and evil), I also recognize that even if God had the ability to set morality, it would by definition not be objective, since it would be as changeable and fluid as God wants it to be.

 

[Nakosis]

I had typed quite a bit but I hit he wrong button and it was deleted. So I will be brief.

1. The only way good and evil have any objective meaning is if God exists.

Lets me start by saying that while I may not agree with some of your views, that doesn't mean I don't respect them.

Personally I don't see a need for good and evil to have objective meanings. I believe good and evil are judgements pass solely by humans.

2. You can know right from wrong if God exists even if you do not believe but whatever world view you have, if he does not exist then morality (no matter what words are used to invent another foundation) perfectly equal - opinion. They do not correspond to a single existing moral fact whatever without God.

Morality is my sense/feeling of what is right and wrong. I feel that I don't particularly control my morals. They are as much a result of my environment as much as influence by things like Christian ethics for example.

3. Do you actually think a society which has enough weapons aimed at each other to wipe out all known life and he moral insanity to have almost done so several times, has justified the systematic and industrial scale destruction of the most innocent human lives to ever exist and does so by inventing a right that does not exist for the one who kills which is denied to the life killed, and has just closed a century with more blood shed than all the previous ones together, to be a sign we are progressing morally? My God this is nuts.

I can't account for society, I can only account for myself. I have also have come across several individuals that show a lot of compassion for their fellowman, enough to be more motivate by that compassion than their personal gain. Admittedly this is on a anecdotal level but I had not meant to imply otherwise.

If I was asked to hypothetically invent the worst case scenarios that would prove moral degradation every single thing I would invent has actually occurred in modern times. Your inability to recognize this obvious fact is still more evidence for my claims.

People find what they seek. If you look for "evil" in people you will find it. There is also good. I think one has to look for it, acknowledge it and support it. Judging people for their "evil" is of no benefit except that of supporting what you already believe. Judging them for their good can affect change in that person.

While an atheist can know right from wrong if God exists he very often gives plenty of evidence he does not and could not justify even if he did.

They probably couldn't. Most I don't think really understand the source of their own morality. People justify their morals based on humanitarian reasons. Or the justify them on religious reasons. Personally I don't see one having any greater validity then the other.

Christians believe God is on their side in this. I think they are mistaken. At least not in the sense that if they "act" according to God will this "act" will pass muster.

 

[kjw47]

Who do true Christians trust then if not the writers of the NT?

The trinity teachers don't trust the writers of the nt. Jesus,Paul,Peter, and John all in agreement--Jesus has a God like we do his Father--John 20:17,rev 3:12---2Cor 1:3,1Cor 8:6,1Cor 15:24-28----1Peter 1:3---Rev 1:6--- Either these 4 are wrong or the trinity teachers are wrong.

 

[1robin]

In the universe we can see, feel and touch, there are good things and bad things. Some things that are good can be bad if we get too much of them. Some things we are told are bad if done in the wrong way. Things grow. Things die. Some people rob, kill, and lie. Some people try and help others the best they can. A lot of opposites... hot/cold, something in the middle called warm. Which religion best explains what we really see around us? Judaism? Hindu? Islam? Buddhist? Christianity? Or, none of them? Does any view describe reality so well that we can all say, "Yes, that explains it"

State one good objective value that any molecule or collection of them has and how you know. Things have absolute moral neutrality. It is only if we have an objectively grounded proper usage for them founded outside opinion that any act or misuse is bad. Even if I used uranium to kill every form of life in existence the universe does not care. I did not violate a single moral law because no moral lawgiver exists. You may not like it, no one may like it, but no one could justify saying it was wrong if God does not exist. How is death wrong to begin with? Is your or my opinion about what we like the arbiter of moral fact?

It is a whole other argument which religion best grounds morals. It is a fact that without a God very similar in type to the Judeo Christian God moral truth can't possibly exist. Any theistic system has the potential for grounding morality in truth but the absence of at least one being true dooms moral truth to impossibility. It was not my primary claim that God explains moral reality as Humans practice it (though it may very well do so). I said the only way moral claims can possibly be true is if a moral agency higher than ourselves exists.

Sure, omitting God from the equation isn't perfect either. But I say it's the fault of religion, in its lack of coming up with good explanations, that has led to its opposite, atheism.

It never ever fails. I have even stated in detail up front that my claims are ontological not epistemological. Yet every single time I get epistemological responses that are irrelevant. It is so expected that apologists teach students that it is inevitable and you will have to work hard to keep the debate where it was begun. I do not care who's morals are right or even if every single one was wrong. I am claiming that not a single moral claim could even have any potentiality to ever be true unless God exists. Every moral claim has the burden of a higher standard by which to ground it. This is not only absent but can't ever be present unless God exists. If you tell even a child not to do x, most of the time even a small child recognizes this and responds "oh yea, who says". Only in the case that who says X is wrong is also who determines and grounds moral fact, is any moral claim ever even possibly true. Even the Greeks and Romans knew this thousands of years ago in spite of having a single God that could justify it. Their God's are created and derivative beings who can't ground morality any more than we can.

So let me ask the child's question. For any X you might say is wrong or right. "oh yeah who or what says". Without God every single answer you may give will equal opinion and be subjective.

Would you like me to predict what you will ultimately appeal to in response? It will be wrong but it is the next in line in the trusty old non-theistic tool box.

I'm not picking on you but arguments rarely are this absolute and clear. It's exasperating to see that even something this absolute will be fought, and to our eternal shame and detriment.

 

[1robin]

The trinity teachers don't trust the writers of the nt. Jesus,Paul,Peter, and John all in agreement--Jesus has a God like we do his Father--John 20:17,rev 3:12---2Cor 1:3,1Cor 8:6,1Cor 15:24-28----1Peter 1:3---Rev 1:6--- Either these 4 are wrong or the trinity teachers are wrong.

What? That is where the doctrine comes from. The trinity is not emphatically spelled out by them but it is not an inconsistent conclusion from them. I find the issue not worth the trouble as I need to do exactly the same thing to be saved regardless but every necessary justification for believing in the trinity can be found in the Gospels and Paul's teachings. Read any history concerning a council that discussed the trinity and it will primarily rely exhaustively on the NT. Do not know if it is true nor have I the need to but it is justified by the bible.

 

[1robin]

Lets me start by saying that while I may not agree with some of your views, that doesn't mean I don't respect them.

I must have said what I am about to say to you hundreds of times to others. Review my posts if you are skeptical. I even said it five minutes ago. No more how emphatically ontological the Christians moral claim is the non-theist will respond with epistemologically. I and others even spell it out upfront this way and there is no stopping it. I'm not picking on you it is just so predictable it's almost predictable.

1. I am not discussing who's morals are right. Though I certainly can.
2. I am not even claiming whether morality is true or not.
3. My claim is conditional.

a. If anyone ever held a moral view that is true then God must exist because we nor a single molecule in nature have the slightest capacity to create moral truth.
b. If God does not exist then all morals are contrived opinions made in exclusion to truth. This is not morality it is legalism or ethics. That is all that is possible without God. Now you may be happy with that or accept it however it is the almost universal conclusion (not proof) that objective values do exist. You, I, and even all non-psychopathic criminals act as if they exist.

Personally I don't see a need for good and evil to have objective meanings. I believe good and evil are judgements pass solely by humans.

Then you are an intellectually justified moralist within your world view.

Morality is my sense/feeling of what is right and wrong. I feel that I don't particularly control my morals. They are as much a result of my environment as much as influence by things like Christian ethics for example.

Ravi Zacharias once asked a famous atheist philosopher how he knew right from wrong. He responded by feelings what else. Ravi said some cultures love their enemies and some eat them, both based on feelings. Did he have a preference. Your feelings are an opinion that is wholly unsuitable to what humans need for a just society. Christian ethics unlike your feelings have the potentiality to reflect objective truth. That is the infinite possible difference. Your moral opinions have nothing to do with truth because without God there exists no external moral truth for them to line up with. Who's feelings do we go with? Yours, Hitler's, Mother Theresa's, Stalin's, Billy Grahams? How do you choose? By popular vote. If so then killing Jews was perfectly moral in Germany in 1941, Gandhi was a traitor, MLK was a dissident, and Jesus was a rebel who deserved death. No thanks. I do not share your confidence in man for obvious and endless reasons.

I can't account for society, I can only account for myself. I have also have come across several individuals that show a lot of compassion for their fellowman, enough to be more motivate by that compassion than their personal gain. Admittedly this is on a anecdotal level but I had not meant to imply otherwise.

People find what they seek. If you look for "evil" in people you will find it. There is also good. I think one has to look for it, acknowledge it and support it. Judging people for their "evil" is of no benefit except that of supporting what you already believe. Judging them for their good can affect change in that person.

They probably couldn't. Most I don't think really understand the source of their own morality. People justify their morals based on humanitarian reasons. Or the justify them on religious reasons. Personally I don't see one having any greater validity then the other.

Christians believe God is on their side in this. I think they are mistaken. At least not in the sense that if they "act" according to God will this "act" will pass muster.

That was mostly an epistemological response so let me sum up with something I always find meaningful.

My claim was without God morals are not true and opinion based ethics not morality to begin with. I think you agree with that so the ontological question was not contended. You instead are saying that you think humans are a good enough foundation for morals. First only true morals are good enough for what morals do and cost people. If I ask a mother to sacrifice her sons to stop Hitler I would hope it was because Hitler was objectively wrong , not merely acting against Americas social fashions. Here is where human based morality winds up every time it is relied upon. It is sensational and has a modern slant but has timeless core elements that always ring true. It is an extraordinarily accurate look at the modern secular moral inevitability and current reality in many places.




“Creed” on the World
By Steve Turner

We believe in Marxfreudanddarwin

We believe everything is OK

as long as you don’t hurt anyone

to the best of your definition of hurt,

and to the best of your knowledge.

We believe in sex before, during, and

after marriage.

We believe in the therapy of sin.

We believe that adultery is fun.

We believe that sodomy’s OK.

We believe that taboos are taboo.

We believe that everything’s getting better

despite evidence to the contrary.

The evidence must be investigated

And you can prove anything with evidence.

We believe there’s something in horoscopes

UFO’s and bent spoons.

Jesus was a good man just like Buddha,

Mohammed, and ourselves.

He was a good moral teacher though we think

His good morals were bad.

We believe that all religions are basically the same-

at least the one that we read was.

They all believe in love and goodness.

They only differ on matters of creation,

sin, heaven, hell, God, and salvation.

We believe that after death comes the Nothing

Because when you ask the dead what happens

they say nothing.

If death is not the end, if the dead have lied, then its

compulsory heaven for all

excepting perhaps

Hitler, Stalin, and Genghis Kahn

We believe in Masters and Johnson

What’s selected is average.

What’s average is normal.

What’s normal is good.

We believe in total disarmament.

We believe there are direct links between warfare and

bloodshed.

Americans should beat their guns into tractors .

And the Russians would be sure to follow.

We believe that man is essentially good.

It’s only his behavior that lets him down.

This is the fault of society.

Society is the fault of conditions.

Conditions are the fault of society.

We believe that each man must find the truth that

is right for him.

Reality will adapt accordingly.

The universe will readjust.

History will alter.

We believe that there is no absolute truth

excepting the truth

that there is no absolute truth.

We believe in the rejection of creeds,

And the flowering of individual thought.

If chance be

the Father of all flesh,

disaster is his rainbow in the sky

and when you hear

State of Emergency!

Sniper Kills Ten!

Troops on Rampage!

Whites go Looting!

Bomb Blasts School!

It is but the sound of man

worshipping his maker.

Steve Turner, (English journalist), “Creed,” his satirical poem on the modern mind. Taken from Ravi Zacharias’ book Can Man live Without God? Pages 42-44

 

[1robin]

While I reject the divine command theory of morality (since I don't think that the whims of a god would have the power to define good and evil), I also recognize that even if God had the ability to set morality, it would by definition not be objective, since it would be as changeable and fluid as God wants it to be.

I think you misunderstand divine command theory. We do not say X is right because God says so. We say he said so because X is right and it is right because he is the locus of morality. God does not dictate morality into being, he does not find it outside himself and then adopt it (no dilemma here), he is morality. No moral truth exists that is not found in him necessarily from eternity. I love how you smuggled in condemnation and triviality by using the word "whim" when it has no role in anything I said or in the bible. You also do not understand objectivity. Objective in this context means independent of the opinions of it's subjects. It is not even theoretically subjective. It is not created, it is not a whim, it is not an opinion. It is a statement that reflects the factual, unchanged, unchangeable, absolute, and never untrue moral nature of the creator of everything including us and the universe. Who's commands are the highest possible objective even in theory.

This is all conditional on there being a God like mine. Like I said if he is out then no moral fact whatever is in. The only thing that can't be true is the existence of objective moral truth without God.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

I think you misunderstand divine command theory. We do not say X is right because God says so. We say he said so because X is right and it is right because he is the locus of morality. God does not dictate morality into being, he does not find it outside himself and then adopt it (no dilemma here), he is morality. No moral truth exists that is not found in him necessarily from eternity.

Sounds like you're the one who doesn't understand divine command theory.

What you describe very well may be what you believe, but it's not divine command theory... or at least it's not just divine command theory. Sounds like it's divine command theory with a bunch of stuff (mainly circular arguments) glommed onto it.

You're using a word salad to dance around the fact that you haven't actually answered the Euthyphro dilemma.

Thomas Aquinas believed that God's commands come from his own (unchanging?) essence and thus were not arbitrary pronouncements. This is irrelevant to the problem. Either there is a single objective, necessary code of morals that governs everything, in which case God's commands merely reflect (or fail to reflect) this standard, or else there is no such code, and so the commandments of God cannot reflect an objective morality. Either way, it gets you nowhere to say that actions are good for no other reason than because God approves of them.

Divine command theory - Iron Chariots Wiki

I love how you smuggled in condemnation and triviality by using the word "whim" when it has no role in anything I said or in the bible.

It was implied. If morality is rooted in nothing outside of God, then it cannot have a rational objective basis. It would be nothing more than a preference of God... IOW, God's whim. If it was anything more, then we'd have something outside of God that we could point to as the basis of morality.

You also do not understand objectivity. Objective in this context means independent of the opinions of it's subjects. It is not even theoretically subjective.

Exactly. So "subjective to God" is not objective, since it is not independent of the opinion of one subject (i.e. God).

It is not created, it is not a whim, it is not an opinion. It is a statement that reflects the factual, unchanged, unchangeable, absolute, and never untrue moral nature of the creator of everything including us and the universe. Who's commands are the highest possible objective even in theory.

If something is unchangeable and absolute, then it can't be contingent on anything... not even God. If a supposed moral standard depends on God, then it's contingent and therefore not an objective moral standard.

This is all conditional on there being a God like mine. Like I said if he is out then no moral fact whatever is in. The only thing that can't be true is the existence of objective moral truth without God.

Regardless of whether "objective moral truth" can exist without God, invoking God doesn't do anything for it. God is irrelevant to morality.

Personally, I think your quest for "objective moral truth" is a snipe hunt, anyhow. Morality is a matter of value judgements. Do you think everyone is supposed to value everything exactly the same?

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Ravi Zacharias once asked a famous atheist philosopher how he knew right from wrong. He responded by feelings what else. Ravi said some cultures love their enemies and some eat them, both based on feelings. Did he have a preference. Your feelings are an opinion that is wholly unsuitable to what humans need for a just society. Christian ethics unlike your feelings have the potentiality to reflect objective truth. That is the infinite possible difference.

What exactly is this "objective truth" that's reflected in Christian ethics? If morality is really rooted in God, then you should be able to trace every single moral precept back to God. Can you?

Tell you what: please give me the basis in Christian ethics for concluding that slavery is wrong. Use any argument you want as long as you tie things back to the Christian God as the ultimate foundation.

Your moral opinions have nothing to do with truth because without God there exists no external moral truth for them to line up with. Who's feelings do we go with? Yours, Hitler's, Mother Theresa's, Stalin's, Billy Grahams? How do you choose? By popular vote. If so then killing Jews was perfectly moral in Germany in 1941, Gandhi was a traitor, MLK was a dissident, and Jesus was a rebel who deserved death. No thanks. I do not share your confidence in man for obvious and endless reasons.

For starters, we can discard the moral systems that are internally contradictory.

Let's start with a few basic premises:

- people generally prefer life to death, lack of suffering to suffering, and freedom to lack of freedom. Hopefully, you can agree that we can deduce this from exploring our own thoughts and talking to other people (right?)

- arguments often have wider implications. Whatever basis I use to argue for rights for myself applies to others as well (e.g. if I argue "I should get food because I'm hungry", then I imply that hunger justifies food... IOW that any hungry person should get food).

On the basis of these two premises, we can recognize that the moral systems of people like Hitler and Stalin are logically inconsistent and therefore incorrect.

A person who believes they should not be rounded up and killed but supports rounding up and killing Jews is engaging in an illogical double standard. Their moral system doesn't hold up. It can be safely rejected.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

To get back to the subject of the thread, let's assume for a moment that there really is such a thing as objective moral standard and that - despite the logical contradictions involved - God is its source.

What does this objective moral standard say about allowing children to die? Is it right or wrong?

 

[Nakosis]

I must have said what I am about to say to you hundreds of times to others. Review my posts if you are skeptical. I even said it five minutes ago. No more how emphatically ontological the Christians moral claim is the non-theist will respond with epistemologically. I and others even spell it out upfront this way and there is no stopping it. I'm not picking on you it is just so predictable it's almost predictable.

1. I am not discussing who's morals are right. Though I certainly can.
2. I am not even claiming whether morality is true or not.
3. My claim is conditional.

a. If anyone ever held a moral view that is true then God must exist because we nor a single molecule in nature have the slightest capacity to create moral truth.
b. If God does not exist then all morals are contrived opinions made in exclusion to truth. This is not morality it is legalism or ethics. That is all that is possible without God. Now you may be happy with that or accept it however it is the almost universal conclusion (not proof) that objective values do exist. You, I, and even all non-psychopathic criminals act as if they exist.

I think I have a lot of explaining to do....

Morals are not necessarily contrived nor based on any truth. Morals are what you personally feel is right and wrong. However they can be contrived and assumed to be based on "truth". The existence or non-existence of God is not necessarily a factor.

Then you are an intellectually justified moralist within your world view.

Nope, I don't justify my morals. People do that to try to convince other people that there is not something wrong with them. I'm not that concerned about how others judge me.

Ravi Zacharias once asked a famous atheist philosopher how he knew right from wrong. He responded by feelings what else. Ravi said some cultures love their enemies and some eat them, both based on feelings. Did he have a preference. Your feelings are an opinion that is wholly unsuitable to what humans need for a just society. Christian ethics unlike your feelings have the potentiality to reflect objective truth. That is the infinite possible difference. Your moral opinions have nothing to do with truth because without God there exists no external moral truth for them to line up with. Who's feelings do we go with? Yours, Hitler's, Mother Theresa's, Stalin's, Billy Grahams? How do you choose? By popular vote. If so then killing Jews was perfectly moral in Germany in 1941, Gandhi was a traitor, MLK was a dissident, and Jesus was a rebel who deserved death. No thanks. I do not share your confidence in man for obvious and endless reasons.

Depends on the government. In the US, the law (ethical code) is determine by representatives who hopefully represent your interests. My personal morals may or may not agree with the law, however enforcement causes me to obey or be willing to face the consequences. People may feel it is based on "truth" be really it is based on agreement.

That was mostly an epistemological response so let me sum up with something I always find meaningful.

My claim was without God morals are not true and opinion based ethics not morality to begin with. I think you agree with that so the ontological question was not contended. You instead are saying that you think humans are a good enough foundation for morals. First only true morals are good enough for what morals do and cost people. If I ask a mother to sacrifice her sons to stop Hitler I would hope it was because Hitler was objectively wrong , not merely acting against Americas social fashions. Here is where human based morality winds up every time it is relied upon. It is sensational and has a modern slant but has timeless core elements that always ring true. It is an extraordinarily accurate look at the modern secular moral inevitability and current reality in many places.

I would act against Hitler because I am a compassionate person. My compassion influences my morals. Another person would be Hitler who's morals allowed him to act in the manner he acted. My morals are right for me because that is who I am. Hitler was someone else, his morals were not right for me. Objectivity is not needed.

“Creed” on the World
By Steve Turner

We believe in Marxfreudanddarwin

We believe everything is OK

I don't believe everything is ok. I would act according to what I believe is ok. I would expect you to act according to what you believe is ok. I don't believe this has to be the same thing.

Steve Turner, (English journalist), “Creed,” his satirical poem on the modern mind. Taken from Ravi Zacharias’ book Can Man live Without God? Pages 42-44

The majority of the rest of this creed doesn't apply to me or my morals.

I still have morals with or without God. I act according to my morals except where the threat of force make doing so not worth it. I don't believe morals have anything to do with or need anything to do with "truth". People like to believe otherwise however so they won't be judged immoral.

 

[Nakosis]

To get back to the subject of the thread, let's assume for a moment that there really is such a thing as objective moral standard and that - despite the logical contradictions involved - God is its source.

What does this objective moral standard say about allowing children to die? Is it right or wrong?

If you get to that point then God is the source of moral standards. If God says children must die then it is morally right. If God contradicts "himself" it doesn't matter since God is the source of moral standards. What God decrees cannot be wrong.

He can kill everyone in the world, which he almost did. It's morally ok because God is the source of moral standards.

 

[adi2d]

If you get to that point then God is the source of moral standards. If God says children must die then it is morally right. If God contradicts "himself" it doesn't matter since God is the source of moral standards. What God decrees cannot be wrong.

He can kill everyone in the world, which he almost did. It's morally ok because God is the source of moral standards.

Sometimes the meaning of a post eludes me. Excuse me if this is one of those tines

Do you honestly believe this?

Again no offense meant

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

If you get to that point then God is the source of moral standards. If God says children must die then it is morally right. If God contradicts "himself" it doesn't matter since God is the source of moral standards. What God decrees cannot be wrong.

He can kill everyone in the world, which he almost did. It's morally ok because God is the source of moral standards.

You're dancing around the issue. If God is the source of moral standards (and if God exists, of course), then there IS a moral standard. The fact he could change his mind and make the moral standard something else tomorrow doesn't mean it doesn't say something specific today.

So what does it say today? Right here and right now, is it moral or immoral to let a child die?

 

[Mycroft]

So what does it say today? Right here and right now, is it moral or immoral to let a child die?

I think it's immoral not to act when you have the power to do so. I think anyone in civilised society can agree to that. It's one of the founding tenets of the US Constitution, even.

 

[JM2C]

The trinity teachers don't trust the writers of the nt. Jesus,Paul,Peter, and John all in agreement--Jesus has a God like we do his Father--John 20:17,rev 3:12---2Cor 1:3,1Cor 8:6,1Cor 15:24-28----1Peter 1:3---Rev 1:6--- Either these 4 are wrong or the trinity teachers are wrong.

From the O.T., Deuteronomy 6:4 "Hear, O Israel: Jehovah our God is one Jehovah" -ASV or English translation, but in the original Hebrew its very clear that trinity existed long before the N.T.; "Jehovah our Elohim is one Jehovah" the word “Elohim” being plural shows that God the Lord, is more than one, yet is "ONE Jehovah".

Did Moses see the trinity already back then in the O.T.? Yes!

 

[JM2C]

Sometimes the meaning of a post eludes me. Excuse me if this is one of those tines
Do you honestly believe this?
Again no offense meant

If you follow his statement, the 3 ifs, it says;

If you get to that point then God is the source of moral standards.
If God says children must die then it is morally right.
If God contradicts "himself" it doesn't matter since God is the source of moral standards.

What God decrees cannot be wrong.

He can kill everyone in the world, which he almost did.
It's morally ok because God is the source of moral standards.

His conclusion came from 9-10ths_Penguin premises or he did not say anything other than confirming what 9-10ths_Penguin was saying about that“God is the source of moral standards”

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

If you follow his statement, the 3 ifs, it says;

His conclusion came from 9-10ths_Penguin premises or he did not say anything other than confirming what 9-10ths_Penguin was saying about that“God is the source of moral standards”

Actually, he went beyond what I talked about. "God is the source of moral standards" does not imply "God is not subject to the moral standards he institutes." IOW, Nakosis' claim that it doesn't matter if God contradicts himself is not based on anything I said; that's all him.

In fact, I disagree with his claim, since we're talking about objective morality. If a moral standard doesn't apply to God, then it can't be objective.