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

[JM2C]

In the my post just before yours, I ask if any Christians really care about what the Jewish commentaries say. I could also ask do Christians care what Hindus, Buddhists, Muslims, or Baha'is say? Do Protestants care what Catholics say? Probably not, because it would change how you view the Bible.

All these religious groups you mentioned were doctrinated or indoctrinated differently, and obviously for that reason, they can not or will never agree with each other, unless one compromises ones belief just for the sake of unity among religions for better understanding or ecumenism, then one beliefs when compromise with others is what you call syncretism, a belief of more than one systems of belief. You are suppose to sift the truth through a sieve by means of following the right doctrine written in the bible, but how can you if principles can be compromise by this unity of religions just for sake of better understanding or peace.

 

[JM2C]

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.

He answered correctly from your theory or hypothesis. He did not elaborate further because your question was just base on your theory. That’s why he said: “if” 3 times.

you said:
“let's assume for a moment that there really is such a thing as objective moral standard” and also let’s assume that “God is its source”

You want a definitive answer to a baseless theory or hypothesis. You know that there is no such thing as “objective moral standard” because you said: “despite the logical contradictions involved”

Therefore, he reasoned from logic, and logic says: follow premises to get a conclusion and he did that.

 

[1robin]

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

Ahhhhhhh!!! The I know you are but what am I defense. I have heard many scholars who state exactly what I have about it.

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.

Instead of getting of into personal commentaries let's stick with what is applicable. Your debating a Christina theist and so biblical moral theory (not divine command theory whatever it may be) is relevant. If you think divine command theory is different than what the Bible states then fine, in the interest of time let's stop bothering with divine command theory and debate what applies here.

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

There is no dilemma which needs an answer. The understanding of Christian moral foundations (in the traditional form which has been accepted for centuries by theologians and scholars alike) completely removes any role for Euthyphro to play at all. I do not have the burden you suggest. Churchill when visiting Africa once said "It is exhilarating to be shot at to such little effect".

Divine command theory - Iron Chariots Wiki

Since the only relevant issue if you think Christianity's moral theory differs from divine command theory in this context (and I certainly do not agree) is not divine command theory. If Christian doctrine differs from divine command theory why would I care to defend it? It would just be a waste of time.

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.

Objective is a well known to be elastic term. However the most basic core requirements are:

1. True.
2. Independent of the opinions of it's adherents.
3. Absolute.
4. Applicable to it's adherents.

God's morality is all 4 plus many more.

God is the absolute maximum that objective could ever be. His moral nature has always been true, is true for every place that exists, for every creature that exists, is true at every time or even in the absence of time, transcends every other moral source that could ever possibly exist (including your external source, which is quite odd because it would have been created by what you deny to begin with). If God is not an objective foundation then close up your objective tent and go home because the term no longer has any meaning.

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

However God is the maximum objective truth that could ever exist. Comparing him to anything else would be to compare the primary with the derivative which is incoherent. God never ever sat down and said well what should I make morality. There was never a time in all eternity where his nature did not produce the absolute moral standard by which everything is subject. I will give you a way out of this. If you can agree that if God is not thought to be objective then there is no potential for anything to ever be objective then I will claim we have a no contest here and let it go because your world view does not have the means by which this can be resolved. However since the objective existence of any object or being depends on that being's internal quality of existing I think God is objective.

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.

It most certainly can if that God does not change and he would potentially be the only thing that could ever be unchanging. The unchanging nature of a dependent constant is dependent on the nature of what is dependent on. God is not changing in his nature or essence so what is derived from it would never change.

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

Is that why God is more often than any other source known in human history to moral foundations? Is that why Christ is the most morally influential being to have ever existed in human history?

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?

I do not care how people value anything in this context. That is the unavoidable epistemological response to an ontological claim that non-theist seem to be powerless to resist. I care about the actual nature of X not how you perceive it. Since you claim above to think objective truth is not a viable truth category for morality there exists no grounds to resolve the issue or found a single moral truth. Your stuck with mere opinion based ethics that can't possibly be true. No matter how despicable that may be at least it is intellectually consistent and so I can leave it there if you want.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

He answered correctly from your theory or hypothesis. He did not elaborate further because your question was just base on your theory. That’s why he said: “if” 3 times.

you said:
“let's assume for a moment that there really is such a thing as objective moral standard” and also let’s assume that “God is its source”

You want a definitive answer to a baseless theory or hypothesis. You know that there is no such thing as “objective moral standard” because you said: “despite the logical contradictions involved”

Therefore, he reasoned from logic, and logic says: follow premises to get a conclusion and he did that.

His conclusions were based on a mix of premises: some mine, some his own. And the conclusion he arrived at violated my premises that he was using.

 

[1robin]

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?

This is the third apparently involuntary epistemological response to a ontological claim. If God exists every moral precept necessarily is traced back God (and that would be true regardless of whether I can trace any individual moral back to him specifically). If a thousand bolts fell out of a plane I would know gravity attracted them to the ground without backtracking a single one. The only thing that can't be tracked back to God specifically are non moral ethics and legality. As I have said the even the Greeks and Romans knew to separate these two issues.

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.

This one is quite easy but we need to clarify what slavery is. I assume you mean chattel slavery as it existed in the 19th century US. God is the only justification for stopping it which is why 300,000 Christians paid with everything in order to free another race. With God man has absolute equality before him. Human life has absolute sanctity and dignity. It has intrinsic worth that is only the case if God mandates it to be such. Life has a purpose and meaning which chattel slavery would contradict. Slavery would contradict our equality and value. We owe no other man for our dignity and worth, we are indebted to God alone for that only he deserves our lives (though he rarely asks for them).

Without God and stuck with social Darwinism I can easily justify slavery, racism, and species-ism. In fact species-ism is what grounds most moral edicts without God because it arrogantly assumes human life is worth more than other life without a foundation.

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?)

This is an appeal to popular vote just as I stated. If it actually was a moral foundation it would have rightly justified racism in the 1940 US, slavery in the 1850 US, Condemned Gandhi, Crucified Christ, Justified what the Nazis did, etc.... If popular opinion was actually a moral foundation then your morals would fade in and out like social fashions do and no matter how barbaric and act it would not be wrong just unfashionable. I would concede that without God this is the best we could do but no one actually lives as if this was true, not even you. If this was the best we can do then abandon all hope ye who enter in. Of course this would explain that since the secular revolution in the 19th century the 20th has been more bloody than all others combined. We are headed in the wrong direction in many areas at breakneck speed.

- 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).

That is circular and would justify the theft of food any time a person felt hunger. It has also set you up as your own (and in general our) moral authority, in fact your own God. I can't imagine what a society would look like if this law was codified and by the way why has no nation done so. Feeding the hungry is certainly a great principle and in fact Jesus did so but he did not justify it merely by hunger, that would produce chaos. How hungry? According to who? What does it justify the hungry person to do?

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.

IOW they were unpopular with certain groups who invented standards out of thin air and then hold others to them without justification. I do not disagree with your conclusions but your methodology would produce unresolvable chaos and abuse when applied.

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.

Do you think no one deserves to be killed. Would it not have saved millions of lives to have killed Stalin, Hitler, Mao, Pol Pot, Osama, etc.... So it would come down to an opinion. Who's? The ultimate moral authority in the universe or yours? Mine? If I asked mothers to sacrifice sons to stop those people I would hope to have a better reasons that popular opinion, Darwinian ethical fantasies, but to counter objective evil. That is why in every emergency no statesman appeals to any system you have posted but only to objective moral truths. Some may have been wrong but everyone recognizes the need.

 

[Nakosis]

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

Do I believe God is the source of a moral standard? No.
I'm just saying the scenario as presented defines it's own conclusion.

 

[1robin]

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?

You would need purpose, to know their ultimate fate, and volumes of contextual material. I have supplied many of these things in the past but to apparently no avail. Apparently plausible denial is more valuable than answers.

 

[Nakosis]

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.

If God is the source then God is the only authority. In being the only authority there exists no higher authority God is subject to. Therefore morals are entirely subjective to God's whim. In then scenario why would it matter if God contradicts himself?

I know my own morals have changed over time. Why wouldn't God be capable of changing his morals as well? If God is not capable of changing his morals then he has not the authority your scenario has given him.

 

[1robin]

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.

How in Holy heck is your ethic opinion the source of moral fact? Since you have not placed your faith in God you have been forced to make yourself into him. That was not an insult BTW, it can't be helped. The existence of God is the only possible way anyone's moral opinion has the slightest chance of ever being moral truth. We are without God biological anomalies composed of atoms. Since no atom is equipped with moral truth then no matter how many are globed together not what the arrangement is moral truth can't be founded by it, only perceived by it if God exists.

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.

This is not a discussion about how anyone perceives another or how we can come to know morals. It is about what is true of morals given X or denying X.

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.

I am not interested in whether your morals agree with man's opinion. I am interested in whether your morals agree with moral truth or whether that is even possible without God. Where is your external foundation and standard by which you could ever know a single moral opinion you have was right or not?

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.

So you would tell my mother she needs to risk my life on the basis that in your opinion your compassionate? would hope you have a better explanation than that. Have you ever noticed that no one, even atheist states men, justify wars or great causes by the standards you mention. They invariably abandon their world view and appeal to absolutes which do not exist without God. Your views may or may not be ok for you but they are completely unfit for societal needs which is why our BOR found all rights in God.

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.

It was not a commentary on you specifically. I imagine no atheist meets every claim made in that poem but it is in general and accurate commentary on modern secular morality as a whole. How many innocent children must die in the womb for their parents mistakes and convenience? How many millions do atheistic and secular utopias have to kill to come to the conclusion something has gone dreadfully wrong? Some say embracing homosexuality is moral progress, when the 4% of us that are gay produce 60% of the aids cases that is the most immoral position possible. This is not reason it is moral insanity.

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

It was not a commentary on you specifically but secular morality in general.

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.

Without God you have opinions that have nothing whatever to do with moral truth because moral truth does not exist, the entire truth categories of evil and good no longer have any meaning. With God you may or may not have morals that may be true, but at least the truth exists to allow the possibility.

Moral hat do not correspond to truth are not morals, they are ethics and legality. You cannot smuggle the credibility that the term morality implies when the term has no application without God. Without God have an opinion (no matter how you got there or what it is based on) that can't possibly be morally true. Without God that is the best we can possibly do, so your stuck and to be intellectually consistent you must admit your stuck with opinion alone.

 

[1robin]

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.

You left the 99.9% of the foundation for morality out. Bin Laden, Stalin, and Hitler acted. It depends entire on what act you do when compared to an objective criteria. By the way nothing Hitler or Stalin did can be condemned objectively without God. They both used Nietzsche and social Darwinism as justifications.

 

[1robin]

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.

If your referring to me I did so out of courtesy. You ventured into semantic technicalities concerning objectivity which I completely reject but thought I would respond to out of courtesy. Let me restate part of that. Morals do not apply to God in the same way they do to us. He can't violate moral truth. God does not bind himself by moral declaration because he always acts according to his nature. We however do not act consistent with moral truth (which is why your opinion based morals are so frightening) and so must be bound under moral authority completely. IOW morals are just as true for both God and man but for different reasons and they bind us in different ways. God is bound by his nature, we are bound to a moral truth founded externally.

 

[Clear]

Though I am more interested in historical Christianity and have little interest nor much qualifications to enter into philosophical discussions, I did want to make a single piont.

I have seen this sort of argument that morals originate with and are defined by deity. However, if I might point out, historically, the early traditions describe a God who created physical and material things by virtue of using pre-existing matter (i.e. he did not create the matter out of “nothing’ – ex nihilo, but it had a prior existence as well). In terms of spirit for example, the pistis Sophia describes the spirit-intelligent as “self-willed matter”, which type of matter also had existence and was not an ex-nihilo creation.

My point is, that for such early Judeo-Christians, there were other things that had eternal existence as well as God himself (matter, spirit, etc). If the scientific maxim is true, that matter is not created or destroyed (from an absolute standpoint), then the matter itself may have has attributes associated with it that were not “created”. (i.e. mass, takes up space, etc...)

IF, “self willed matter” (or spirits, intelligence, etc) also has attributes that are inherent to it's existence, then it may have moral attributes that also simply are part of it’s existence.

Does either side of your two premises change if these early judeo-christians were correct that certain things, such as matter exist independently of God?

For example, if the early judeo-christians were correct that matter of different types (i.e. base matter/spirit/intelligence) and even God himself are simply part of existence itself, then can there be moral verities that are also simply part of existence?

For example, if God “creates” all things from “nothing”, (i.e. ex-nihilo), then he presumably can arbitrarily change conditions and say that, “the old evil is now good”, rape and murder and lying are now “good” and the things that used to be “good” are now “evil” and now rape and torture will now produce "joy" and "harmony", whereas before they produced pain and fear and suffering and unhappiness.

IF, however, there are moral verities that exist external to God then God cannot arbitrarily say that Rape and torture of an innocent child are now “good”. That is, he cannot change these moral rules arbitrarily and, if he did so, moral realities would not change, but instead, he would simply be an “evil” god like the other Gods he denounced for immoralities.

I’m not trying to say the early Christians were correct or incorrect in their belief that things are created from matter rather than from "nothing" /ex-nihilo or that the later Christians were correct in their belief that things are created from “nothing”, merely that the base beliefs change base premises. For example, Robin1 is, if I am correct, arguing from the standpoint of God having created all things ex-nihilo? (Please understand Robin1 that I really think your points are wonderfully well made and this is not meant as a critical point, merely an observation). Whereas, in this early Judeo-Christian tradition, God himself, must obey certain moral principles in order to remain a "good" god (i.e. he is bound externally as well).

Clear
φθνεφιφιειω

 

[Nakosis]

The Christian view, from what I understand is that God is just. His morals are absolute and not subject to the morals of man. Meaning you don't get to say whether they are right or wrong.

Man neither has the knowledge nor authority to question God's morality. That we do in the first place is the result of or own ignorance.

Children do die. We may not understand the morality nor see the justice in this fact. This is because of our own ignorance, not because God is immoral.

For the Christian, God is a reality. Not the strawman of some ethical scenario. To know God's will requires first belief in the Bible as God's standard for man.

So I think the question would be, what do you not understand about the Bible which makes it seem immoral to you?

 

[1robin]

Though I am more interested in historical Christianity and have little interest nor much qualifications to enter into philosophical discussions, I did want to make a single piont.

Who cares post away.

I have seen this sort of argument that morals originate with and are defined by deity. However, if I might point out, historically, the early traditions describe a God who created physical and material things by virtue of using pre-existing matter (i.e. he did not create the matter out of “nothing’ – ex nihilo, but it had a prior existence as well).

First your premise has nothing to do with your conclusion. Morals have no other possible foundation than God. Without him you have opinion based ethics. That BTW is the consensus understanding of scholars on either side. I will quote one:

“The total amount of suffering per year in the natural world is beyond all decent contemplation. During the minute that it takes me to compose this sentence, thousands of animals are being eaten alive, many others are running for their lives, whimpering with fear, others are slowly being devoured from within by rasping parasites, thousands of all kinds are dying of starvation, thirst, and disease. It must be so. If there ever is a time of plenty, this very fact will automatically lead to an increase in the population until the natural state of starvation and misery is restored. In a universe of electrons and selfish genes, blind physical forces and genetic replication, some people are going to get hurt, other people are going to get lucky, and you won't find any rhyme or reason in it, nor any justice. The universe that we observe has precisely the properties we should expect if there is, at bottom, no design, no purpose, no evil, no good, nothing but pitiless indifference.”

http://www.goodreads.com/quotes/22201-the-total-amount-of-suffering-per-year-in-the-natural

BTW without God Dawkins is necessarily correct.

As to our creation. We are dualistic beings. Some add a third dimension but it is unnecessary here. We have bodies made from the common elements in the universe that cannot ever produce a single moral fact. We are also spirits/souls/minds which are created in God's image, meaning we are moral agents, spiritual, and personal. This is not a source for moral truth either but it can recognize moral truth if a God exists.

In terms of spirit for example, the pistis Sophia describes the spirit-intelligent as “self-willed matter”, which type of matter also had existence and was not an ex-nihilo creation.

My point is, that for such early Judeo-Christians, there were other things that had eternal existence as well as God himself (matter, spirit, etc). If the scientific maxim is true, that matter is not created or destroyed (from an absolute standpoint), then the matter itself may have has attributes associated with it that were not “created”. (i.e. mass, takes up space, etc...)

Our laws concerning matter are conditional. We have to have it first and they only apply to naturalistic mechanism. Despite these laws we have discovered that:

Vilenkin’s verdict: “All the evidence we have says that the universe had a beginning.”

The universe being all naturalistic forces and beings. IOW space, time, energy, and matter began to exist and does not have a naturalistic explanation.

IF, “self willed matter” (or spirits, intelligence, etc) also has attributes that are inherent to it's existence, then it may have moral attributes that also simply are part of it’s existence.

Does either side of your two premises change if these early judeo-christians were correct that certain things, such as matter exist independently of God?

Self willed does not imply the ability to accomplish logical impossibilities. It is logically impossible in our case to produce moral truth, only to perceive it.

For example, if the early judeo-christians were correct that matter of different types (i.e. base matter/spirit/intelligence) and even God himself are simply part of existence itself, then can there be moral verities that are also simply part of existence?

Even if everything is part of the existence normally meant by the word God would be independent from it. He would exist as a primary and everything else as a derivative. This is suggestive that morality would be derivative. At least the declarations concerning morality. Morality in Christianity is not produced by God it is a reflection of God's character.

For example, if God “creates” all things from “nothing”, (i.e. ex-nihilo), then he presumably can arbitrarily change conditions and say that, “the old evil is now good”, rape and murder and lying are now “good” and the things that used to be “good” are now “evil” and now rape and torture will now produce "joy" and "harmony", whereas before they produced pain and fear and suffering and unhappiness.

Not if God must deny his own nature to do so because that would disqualify him as God as defined by Christian doctrine. God can't act or declare anything inconsistent with his nature.

IF, however, there are moral verities that exist external to God then God cannot arbitrarily say that Rape and torture of an innocent child are now “good”. That is, he cannot change these moral rules arbitrarily and, if he did so, moral realities would not change, but instead, he would simply be an “evil” god like the other Gods he denounced for immoralities

.See above. Your premise is off track. God did not decide what morals are. He is what morals are.

I’m not trying to say the early Christians were correct or incorrect in their belief that things are created from matter rather than from "nothing" /ex-nihilo or that the later Christians were correct in their belief that things are created from “nothing”, merely that the base beliefs change the argument of certain premises, even the moral premises.

Christianity is unique among the religions as it posits a God who creates ex-nihilo. I am sure that some have disagreed but that is the mainstream Christian belief. Scripture says God created the universe from nothing by the power of his word. Where is there even a hint of reshaping pre-existent matter there. I do not even know a single verse that even if tortured and mangled could be used to suggest that. Your reasoning is logical but it is based on a flawed premise so arrives at a flawed conclusion.

Welcome!!!

 

[Mycroft]

The Christian view, from what I understand is that God is just. His morals are absolute and not subject to the morals of man. Meaning you don't get to say whether they are right or wrong.

So this is Justice? This is absolute morality? You can shove it up your ***.

Man neither has the knowledge nor authority to question God's morality. That we do in the first place is the result of or own ignorance.

Ridiculous. Everyone agrees that allowing children to die if you have the power to stop it is wholly unacceptable. If you saw a child starving to death would you sit idly by and say, "It's not up to me to do anything, it's your parent's fault."

Children do die. We may not understand the morality nor see the justice in this fact. This is because of our own ignorance, not because God is immoral.

That is because there is no morality or picture behind it. god is a fiction.

For the Christian, God is a reality. Not the strawman of some ethical scenario.

You're the one who just claimed god is loving, moral and just. We see no evidence to back this up in the world. That's not straw-man, that's just calling you out on your BS.

So I think the question would be, what do you not understand about the Bible which makes it seem immoral to you?

How about pretty much all of leviticus?

 

[1robin]

The Christian view, from what I understand is that God is just. His morals are absolute and not subject to the morals of man. Meaning you don't get to say whether they are right or wrong.

Man neither has the knowledge nor authority to question God's morality. That we do in the first place is the result of or own ignorance.

Children do die. We may not understand the morality nor see the justice in this fact. This is because of our own ignorance, not because God is immoral.

For the Christian, God is a reality. Not the strawman of some ethical scenario. To know God's will requires first belief in the Bible as God's standard for man.

So I think the question would be, what do you not understand about the Bible which makes it seem immoral to you?

Did you just convert? I agree with everything you said here, which makes me uncomfortable. Just kidding.

 

[1robin]

So this is Justice? This is absolute morality? You can shove it up your ***.

Thanks for making my day a little darker. God never ever ever ever promised justice in this world. He in fact stated over and over again why injustice will occur, it's source, commissioned his people to attempt to alleviate it where they can, did so himself as proof of it's eventual eradication in totality, and promised that in the end he would rectify all such tragedy. We are left with this child either way, but on your view justice is never served. Annihilating hope is the most illogical effort a human can make. As depressing as that picture is I can hope for eternal restoration and thousand of children like this are alleviated in this world by Christianity every year. You can only say "Oh well".

If your attempting to blame God as if he desires this type of thing then why in the world does he alleviate every occurrence of it eternally? Why does he not continue this misery he is so fond of forever instead of paying the highest price possible to enable it's eventual restitution? BTW it is only if God exists that the objective morality exists in order to conclude this is wrong or evil to begin with. The best you can say is you do not like it or it is bad according to your opinion.

 

[Mycroft]

Thanks for making my day a little darker.

I apologise if reality interferes with your happy-clappy comfortable western religious view of things.

God never ever ever ever promised justice in this world. He in fact stated over and over again why injustice will occur, it's source, commissioned his people to attempt to alleviate it where they can, did so himself as proof of it's eventual eradication in totality, and promised that in the end he would rectify all such tragedy. We are left with this child either way, but on your view justice is never served. Annihilating hope is the most illogical effort a human can make. As depressing as that picture is I can hope for eternal restoration and thousand of children like this are alleviated in this world by Christianity every year. You can only say "Oh well".

The poster I quoted claimed God was Just (2 Thessalonians 1:6), Loving and Absolutely Moral. I think I disproved that. Even so. If he has the power to act on these injustices in the world and doesn't, he's not only a pretty awful god, but a terrible person.

If your attempting to blame god as if he desires this type of thing then why in the world does he alleviate every occurrence of it eternally? Why does he not continue this misery he is so fond of forever instead of paying the highest price possible to enable it's eventual restitution? BTW it is only if god exists that the objective morality exists in order to conclude this is wrong or evil to begin with. The best you can say is you do not like it or it is bad according to your opinion.

I'm attempting to blame god for nothing. He doesn't exist. Therefore cannot be blamed. I'm simply saying to those that believe he does, that those who do not act on injustice when it is within their power to do so cannot be just or moral.

 

[Nakosis]

How in Holy heck is your ethic opinion the source of moral fact? Since you have not placed your faith in God you have been forced to make yourself into him. That was not an insult BTW, it can't be helped. The existence of God is the only possible way anyone's moral opinion has the slightest chance of ever being moral truth. We are without God biological anomalies composed of atoms. Since no atom is equipped with moral truth then no matter how many are globed together not what the arrangement is moral truth can't be founded by it, only perceived by it if God exists.

First, you never have to worry about insulting me. Second, my feeling about what is right and wrong is the source of my own morals. I certainly don't expect them to be the source of your morals.

Third,...
I agree

God is the only possible way anyone's moral opinion has the slightest chance of ever being moral truth.

However I see no reason to believe some other human being has the authority to speak on God's behalf. They may or may not but trusting that they do is a matter of faith.

This is not a discussion about how anyone perceives another or how we can come to know morals. It is about what is true of morals given X or denying X.

I am not interested in whether your morals agree with man's opinion. I am interested in whether your morals agree with moral truth or whether that is even possible without God. Where is your external foundation and standard by which you could ever know a single moral opinion you have was right or not?

My presumption is that God is capable of letting man know his will. Unfortunately there are a lot of people claiming to have God's authority to dictate that will to everyone else. That view IMO has never shown itself to be successful.

So you would tell my mother she needs to risk my life on the basis that in your opinion your compassionate? would hope you have a better explanation than that. Have you ever noticed that no one, even atheist states men, justify wars or great causes by the standards you mention. They invariably abandon their world view and appeal to absolutes which do not exist without God. Your views may or may not be ok for you but they are completely unfit for societal needs which is why our BOR found all rights in God.

I would not venture to tell your mom to do anything other then what she feels it is right for her to do. People justify wars in order for them to presume their own righteousness. They appeal to absolute to justify themselves to other men.

Obviously individual morality is unfit for society. Unless that individual has the power to enforce that morality. Like in a dictatorship. For a society/government to exist doesn't require their laws to be founded on absolutes, only the the law, whatever it is can be enforced. In a democratic society, claiming such laws are founded on absolutes, whether they are or not, only helps to encourage agreement. It's salesmanship. Whether one wants to sale God or other absolutes. Real or imaginary doesn't matter as long as sufficient belief exists.

It was not a commentary on you specifically. I imagine no atheist meets every claim made in that poem but it is in general and accurate commentary on modern secular morality as a whole. How many innocent children must die in the womb for their parents mistakes and convenience? How many millions do atheistic and secular utopias have to kill to come to the conclusion something has gone dreadfully wrong? Some say embracing homosexuality is moral progress, when the 4% of us that are gay produce 60% of the aids cases that is the most immoral position possible. This is not reason it is moral insanity.

It was not a commentary on you specifically but secular morality in general.

It's not insanity, it just support the reality of what I'm saying. The morality of man is arbitrary except to the extent a standard is enforced.

The problem with the Christian standard is there is no apparent enforcement. Outside of, of course, what can be passed into law and enforced.

If there in no apparent enforcement of "God's" standard then there exists no standard.

Without God you have opinions that have nothing whatever to do with moral truth because moral truth does not exist, the entire truth categories of evil and good no longer have any meaning. With God you may or may not have morals that may be true, but at least the truth exists to allow the possibility.

Ok, however you through faith accept that the biblical authors have the authority to dictate that standard. I'm saying that standard whether the authority exists or not is meaningless without enforcement. So where is God in all of this who has the responsibility of enforcement?

Moral hat do not correspond to truth are not morals, they are ethics and legality. You cannot smuggle the credibility that the term morality implies when the term has no application without God. Without God have an opinion (no matter how you got there or what it is based on) that can't possibly be morally true. Without God that is the best we can possibly do, so your stuck and to be intellectually consistent you must admit your stuck with opinion alone.

Morals are personal feelings of what is right and wrong. There is no other truth. If God wants the morality of man to change then it is up to God to make that happen, not man.

 

[Nakosis]

Did you just convert? I agree with everything you said here, which makes me uncomfortable. Just kidding.

I listen. I'm not the smartest person around but even I am capable of understanding the Christian position without the need of creating some inane scenario.