Religion and Morality - Poles apart.

Zillah

PDN wrote: »

Those with greater power and authority do have the right, morally, to do things that the rest of us don't.

You do realise that power and authority are different things, right?

The Minister for Finance has the right, in the budget, to impose a tax in order to increase Ireland's giving to the developing world. I would find that a very moral thing to do. However, if I personally start taking forcing everyone to give a percentage of their money for the same cause then I would be stealing - which is immoral.

He has that right because he was democratically elected, he acts with our consent. If he had seized power using force then no, he does not have the right, he has the power. God has the power to attack children with bears, burn cities from the sky and drown all life on earth, it doesn't mean that those things are just.

Since God is omniscient He can judge our thoughts, motives and intentions and so is more righteous than you or me in His judgements. He can, quite righteously, nip a mob attack in the bud with a couple of bears because he can see where it is leading.

The fact that God sees more than we do does not mean he is incapable of committing evil. A thief who steals money from a charity, knowing full well that the charity helps others, is still a selfish thief. God can see all things and still do horrible unfair things.

We, however, would have to wait until after a crime was committed and then pick up Elisha's corpse after the fact. This is because we might guess at where something is leading - but we can never be sure that our guess is correct.

This is curious. You are, once again, assuming that Elijah was going to be beaten to death by these young people who were mocking him. Which I can only interpret as a rational part of your brain rebelling against the absurd proposition that a bear attack is a fair response to mocking him. It's quite understandable...you have faith, which means that you can't concede that God is evil, you can't dismiss it as a bullshit story in a bullshit book...so you end up in this very awkward situation.

As a hypothetical, let's assume that the Bible did not forget to mention that the young people were going to attack Elijah, they were simply going to mock him some more and then go away...was the bear attack justified? Also, you haven't commented on my point that there were plenty of other options left open to God other than rending their flesh via bears. In much the same way that I don't have to kick a toddler in the ribs when they bully my son.

philologos

Wicknight wrote: »

The State doesn't have the right to send people to school because it has an army and a police force and can send people to school if it wants to. The State has the right to force your parents to send you to school not because the State is powerful and can therefore do what it wants, but because going to school is considered the best thing for you.

You've effectively answered your own question.

Accepting salvation through Jesus Christ, and putting yourself right with God is considered the best thing for you.

What's the difference? God wants us to do this because He wants what is best for us. As the creator of the world I somehow think that He knows how best to live in it.

robindch

PDN wrote: »

I'll leave the canine mind-reading to your good self.

No doubt, but you didn't answer the point

PDN wrote: »

He can, quite righteously, nip a mob attack in the bud with a couple of bears because he can see where it is leading.

So, in the grand scheme of things, a deity will righteously send a bear to attack a group of youths who slagged off an old bald guy, while the same deity will stand idly by and let 55 million people die in WWII.

Seems an extravagantly capricious deity to me -- not exactly the kind of god you'd want around your house or near your children, I have to say.

uncleoswald

PDN wrote: »

I don't allow my border collie to drive my car, to pay my mortgage, or to give my wife medicine when she's sick.

Would your dog like to pay my mortgage?

I just couldn't justify a God who seems to think that just because he created the universe he has the moral right to do as he pleases with it and us. I particularity have a problem with Him if he was going to damn me for all eternity in Hell because I didn't pass some abstract belief test in a life I didn't ask for. Even if I were to have belief in this God I would also believe that he has given me a consciousness and the ability to decide what I feel is right and wrong and this God would fail MY test, so how could I worship him unless he could explain why this hypocricy is ok? So therefore my lack of faith in the morals of the biblical God automatically makes any morality claim based on scripture seem irrelevant to me.

I understand that a believer will feel that I'm just not quite grasping the meaning of an All-Powerful God and perhaps they would be right but I still think we should expect a bit more respect from this God.

Zombrex

Jakkass wrote: »

You've effectively answered your own question.

Accepting salvation through Jesus Christ, and putting yourself right with God is considered the best thing for you.

What's the difference?

That is like saying the best thing for you to do is to give the robber with a gun all your money, therefore the robber with the gun has the right to take your money.

Again, simply because God is powerful does not mean (or should not mean) that he has the right to do what ever he likes with us.

The right he has to do something to us must be based on what he is doing not simply who he is and how powerful he is.

Goduznt Xzst

Zillah wrote: »

Exactly. You see, God is really really powerful and therefore is justified in anything he does.

Wicknight wrote: »

You guys seems to think of right and wrong simply in terms of authority, ending at the top with God who can do pretty much anything.

I think you'll find this is always the case, although getting PDN or Jakkass to admit their views of morality are messed up is another mountain to climb altogether.

How we define good and bad for ourselves as humans has no effect on how a Christian defines how God is good and not bad.

I'm sure PDN would be happy to say that a person who witnessed a child being raped and proceeded to do nothing about it would be morally wrong. But God sees all the children in this world being raped and is doing nothing about it, yet he is morally right. Under all definitions God does not fit any of them as being good, his actions clearly show this. If Christians are redefining "good" to accommodate his authority, then what else can be redefined by God due to his authority?

Which leads to the Euthyphro dilemma, are morals above God or is God above morals?

I'd say Christians would, in general, accept the latter. That, being all powerful, God defines morality and not vice versa. This being accepted, God can not be said to be good in any sense known to man, as regardless of his actions he can define them as "good". i.e. God is good because he allows children to be raped, it matters not that we find this wrong as God is perfect and if he has no problem with it then it must be good.

I understand why PDN and Jakkass have no problem with Gods horrendous (in)actions towards humanity because it is my main motivation for wanting this warped sense of justice and morality to be removed from this world. It is from this that people find the motivation to take on Gods sense of right and wrong and act on his behalf.

philologos

Wicknight wrote: »

That is like saying the best thing for you to do is to give the robber with a gun all your money, therefore the robber with the gun has the right to take your money.

You claim that God in Christianity is robber, despite being depicted as having given us the world, everything that is in it, forgiveness for our transgressions and eternal life should you choose to accept Him? Surely this doesn't make sense.

Wicknight wrote: »

Again, simply because God is powerful does not mean (or should not mean) that he has the right to do what ever he likes with us.

Who said this? He has the right to punish others for their wrongdoing however, as is said "Vindication is mine, says the Lord" (Romans 12). God created the universe and we are under His juristiction, hence He has the right to judge us as His creation. We are the citizens of the State, the State governs us, we are under the States juristiction, hence the State has the right to judge us as it's citizens.

Wicknight wrote: »

The right he has to do something to us must be based on what he is doing not simply who he is and how powerful he is.

I haven't argued this, and I don't think PDN has either. However, God has created the world and everything in it, what He has commanded us through Christ is more in our best interests rather than anything else.

Naz_st

From the back and forth posts on Divine vs Human Morality, it reminds me of the same questions raised by the Book of Job. I'll summarise the story since it's 40 or so chapters long (cue posts on various interpretations and the semantics of certain words and context etc):

There was an very pious man named Job who was very prosperous and had seven sons and three daughters. Constantly fearing that his sons may have sinned and "cursed God in their hearts" he habitually offered burnt offerings as a pardon for their sins. And he's so spotlessly good, even God admits "There is none like him on the earth, a blameless and upright man, who fears God and turns away from evil". So what does God do to this pinnacle of faith & loyal believer? Well he basically has a bit a wager with Satan to see if Satan can inflict so much suffering on Job (short of killing him) that he will eventually turn away from God, freely admitting that this is pointless suffering "thou movedst me against him, to destroy him without cause".

So, marauders steal his oxen, asses, and camels, and slay servants. Fire from heaven consumes his sheep and more servants. A great wind destroys the house in which his children are feasting. All perish. Job is inflicted with “loathsome sores from the sole of his foot to the crown of his head." And when Job finally gets to put his case to God as to how come all of these things have happened to him, God simply points out that he's the divine one can can basically do what he wants: Can Job lay the foundations of the earth? Fashion the ocean or the sun? Create snow and rain? Send forth lightning? Make an ostrich or a wild ass? Design the Behemoth or the Leviathan? Vanquish death? No, unfortunately he can't, he's merely a lowly mortal so tough sh*t.

In the end though, God relents and restores Job's riches & "replaces" his children with prettier ones (to make up for the senseless deaths of his uglier original children).

Ah yes, God is a paragon of moral rectitude.

PDN

robindch wrote: »

No doubt, but you didn't answer the point :)So, in the grand scheme of things, a deity will righteously send a bear to attack a group of youths who slagged off an old bald guy, while the same deity will stand idly by and let 55 million people die in WWII.

Seems an extravagantly capricious deity to me -- not exactly the kind of god you'd want around your house or near your children, I have to say.

Which says more about your limited knowledge and understanding than it does about God.

We are not equipped to judge whether one act is more dangeroussignificant than another. For example, 80 years ago a fat English eejit escaped death by a fraction of an inch on the streets of New York because he was stupid enough to look the wrong way while crossing the road. He ascribed his survival to divine providence - which would seem a rather outrageous claim given that providence allowed thousands to die in apparently much more significant earthquakes and floods that very same year.

However, with the benefit of hindsight, we may well agree that Winston Churchill's survival was indeed the more important event because he would later play a key role in preventing most of the world coming under the control of Hitler.

robindch

Goduznt Xzst wrote: »

Which leads to the Euthyphro dilemma, are morals above God or is God above morals? I'd say Christians would, in general, accept the latter.

I think it's less subtle than "accepting the latter".

Seems to me that most religious assert the latter, and so we find a deity conjured up who defines what is morally good and bad and whose actions are the principal guide to what he views as morally good and bad. In such a case, as deity cannot, by definition, do anything which is morally bad. It's rather like the "lives outside of time and space" escape clause that's built into many religions regarding the beginning of cause and effect, whereby the religious believe that they can ignore the logic that they believe nobbles their opponents.

But as you say, the main problem with all of this is that people believe it and are prepared, frequently ecstatically so, to act as their deity's executioners, doing whatever they like for no reason other than they agree with themselves that it needs to be done.

robindch

PDN wrote: »

We are not equipped to judge whether one act is more significant than another.

You seem quite sure about abortion and homosexuality though?

And whatever about Winston ascribing his life to a deity reaching a finger down into a New York street and grandly pushing him to safety, one really has to wonder long and hard why the same omnipotent finger failed to cause a certain Austrian corporal to die from inhalation of poison gas, or from a shell splinter that could have become gangrenous, but sadly didn't.

Mark Hamill

Jakkass wrote: »

You've effectively answered your own question.

Accepting salvation through Jesus Christ, and putting yourself right with God is considered the best thing for you.

What's the difference? God wants us to do this because He wants what is best for us. As the creator of the world I somehow think that He knows how best to live in it.

So when god sent the bears to maul those youths that where mocking elijah, he was doing that because that was what he thought was the best for them?

PS: you seem to have missed my last post, post 166, can i get some responses, thanks.

jimbling

wow.... just wow :eek:

philologos

Mark Hamill wrote: »

Is there such a thing as non biblical sin?

I just said that to make clear what I was discussing. Non biblical sin could be disobeying the law of the State, although the Bible says to do this, the legislation is set by parliament.

Mark Hamill wrote: »

Surely the one who has been forgiven the most has sinned the most and probably isnt very sorry if they keep sinning.

I'd argue that if someone who has a lot of sin, is forgiven they would make a more ardent effort to seek God and to put themselves right with Him before the judgement than someone who has been forgiven something that they consider relatively minor and as such value their forgiveness less.

Mark Hamill wrote: »

You just quoted a piece that states that governing authorites have been put in place by god and yet these governing authorities are the same ones that put people in jail for crimes that they have already been forgiven for by god. Has god knowingly given authority to a governing body who will just contradict him?

Different leaders could have different purposes in certain populations even if they are transgressing God's commandments. For example Nebuchadnezzar encouraged people to worship idols in the book of Daniel and even committed three of Daniels Jewish friends to fire for not bowing down to a golden statue. Yet Nebuchadnezzar was sent to bring punishment on Judah for their sins in the land of Israel. However this is certainly another field of discussion that could be had in the Christianity forum.

Mark Hamill wrote: »

Ok, you seem to be saying that as long as people believe in Jesus they are forgiven of their sins and thats why we know longer need to use the old biblical punishments, am I right?

Believe and repent of their sins truly in their heart.

Mark Hamill wrote: »

Well what if someone doesn't believe in Jesus? What if your (non-Christian) buddhist brother works on the sabbath, or your atheist child disrespects you? Should they be put to death for sinning, seeing as they wont be saved in the long run as they deny Jesus?

No, the Torah law was the civil law of the State at the time. There is no Sanhedrin, and no High Priest in Christianity except Christ alone. Christ will return to judge the world, and we will all come before His judgement seat (2 Corinthians 5). Vindication is God's. We are under grace, therefore we must have mercy for other people. Hence the teaching by Christ, "Forgive so that you may too be forgiven". An explanation of this is in Romans 12 after dealing with what the signs of being a good Christian are.

Mark Hamill wrote: »

If it was concensual, why would the man need to seize or lay hold of her? The link you gave has 22 translations of that passages and all but the last (the contemporary english version which doesn't actually seem to be based on any translations of the word taphas, given earlier in the link) use the words "seize", lay hold on" or "take" as well as the words lie down.

What reasoning do we have to suggest that it is to do with rape. The term can also have numerous other renderings such as wield. It is very easy to believe that that could describe consensual sex. The word "seize" could very much be a normal action in normal relations. The punishment for rape is dealt with in the previous verses so I don't see why on earth they would need to repeat themselves later on down the page. The first part concerns rape, the next part concerns premarital sex / having relations with the fiancée of another.

Even reading the clause "and they are caught in the act" implies that they are both involved, rather than one person raping another who doesn't consent at all.

Deuteronomy 22 effectively deals with 3 different scenarios:
1) What happens when a young woman who is to be engaged has sex with another man or is raped in an urban area.
2) What happens when a young woman who is to be engaged has sex with another man or is raped in a rural area.
3) A man meets a virgin who is not engaged to anyone, if they have premarital sex they are to be arranged to be married.

So why on earth when rape has been addressed already in the first two, would it also be dealt with in the third.

Mark Hamill wrote: »

Why would the divinely inspired version of the bible you hold too (KJV i presume) use a turn of phrase that so unambiguously points to rape if that isn't what it means?

I have a couple of Bibles that I use, I mainly use the NRSV which is the advised translation of Anglicanism, I also have NIV also commonly used amongst my friends and in church, Good News, and finally the King James Version. The KJV as good as it can be is rather archaic and new Bible codexes have been found since then, the modern translations are more likely to be accurate. So, I'm not a KJV-aloner, I respect developments in archaeology and in translation since then. Asides, the KJV language can be a bit heavy at times, so it's best to have another Bible also, and a commentary just incase. I'd use the New Jerome Bible Commentary which is more geared towards Catholicism but would be a pretty strong source to use.

Actually it might be profitable to quote from it on Deuteronomy 22:28:

virgin (betula) more precisely, a sexually mature female. Onece again the main concern is with the economic rights of the father. The penalty for the seducer is the same as in Exodus 22:16-17, except the bride price is now fixed at 50 shekels, and the father may no longer veto the marriage: cf the similar Assyrian law

Interesting that it mentioned the cross reference with Exodus 22:16-17, it might be good to cite that too:

Exodus 22:16-17 wrote:

When a man seduces a virgin who is not engaged to be married, and lies with her, he shall give the bride-price for her and make her his wife. 17But if her father refuses to give her to him, he shall pay an amount equal to the bride-price for virgins.

Now interestingly, this involves seduction, leading towards having sex. Now if this law is a repetition of the law in Exodus, why on earth would it be dealing with a different context.

You mightn't be aware that the theological position on the Torah is that there were 4 writers. Moses didn't write the Torah, but rather 4 different sources did. Many Orthodox Jews and conservative Christians hold the view that Torah was written by Moses, but textual research indicates that this really couldn't have been the case. How possibly can you write about your own death? How commonly do you write about yourself in the third person? Kind of like how the Gospels are. Namely, the Yahwist, the Elohist, Deuteronomist, and the Priestly Source (Leviticus). So a few incidents are repeated in them like in the Gospels, the recounting of the complaining at Meribah and Massah when the Israelites complained about water, as well as the way the laws are written down. So it is reasonable given this research in theology to suggest that the same context from Exodus 22 can be applied to Deuteronomy 22 on premarital sex.

Mark Hamill

Jakkass wrote: »

Different leaders could have different purposes in certain populations even if they are transgressing God's commandments.

So god sometimes wants people to violate his commandments? How do you know when?

Jakkass wrote: »

What reasoning do we have to suggest that it is to do with rape. The term can also have numerous other renderings such as wield.

Maybe the term can have numerous other meanings, but the meanings given in 21 out of 22 of the translations given by your link are seize, take or lay hold on.

Jakkass wrote: »

It is very easy to believe that that could describe consensual sex. The word "seize" could very much be a normal action in normal relations. The punishment for rape is dealt with in the previous verses so I don't see why on earth they would need to repeat themselves later on down the page. The first part concerns rape, the next part concerns premarital sex / having relations with the fiancée of another.

Here is deuteronomy 22:22-29 [KJV]:

22If a man be found lying with a woman married to an husband, then they shall both of them die, both the man that lay with the woman, and the woman: so shalt thou put away evil from Israel.

23If a damsel that is a virgin be betrothed unto an husband, and a man find her in the city, and lie with her;

24Then ye shall bring them both out unto the gate of that city, and ye shall stone them with stones that they die; the damsel, because she cried not, being in the city; and the man, because he hath humbled his neighbour's wife: so thou shalt put away evil from among you.

25But if a man find a betrothed damsel in the field, and the man force her, and lie with her: then the man only that lay with her shall die.

26But unto the damsel thou shalt do nothing; there is in the damsel no sin worthy of death: for as when a man riseth against his neighbour, and slayeth him, even so is this matter:

27For he found her in the field, and the betrothed damsel cried, and there was none to save her.

28If a man find a damsel that is a virgin, which is not betrothed, and lay hold on her, and lie with her, and they be found;

29Then the man that lay with her shall give unto the damsel's father fifty shekels of silver, and she shall be his wife; because he hath humbled her, he may not put her away all his days.

So you have what to do with a married woman having an affair (22) an engaged virgin having an affair(23,24), a man who rapes an engaged woman in the countryside (25,26 & 27) and a man who rapes a single woman in the countryside. So its actually extramarital sex in the first part, followed by rape.

Jakkass wrote: »

Even reading the clause "and they are caught in the act" implies that they are both involved, rather than one person raping another who doesn't consent at all.

Deuteronomy 22 effectively deals with 3 different scenarios:
1) What happens when a young woman who is to be engaged has sex with another man or is raped in an urban area.
2) What happens when a young woman who is to be engaged has sex with another man or is raped in a rural area.
3) A man meets a virgin who is not engaged to anyone, if they have premarital sex they are to be arranged to be married.

So why on earth when rape has been addressed already in the first two, would it also be dealt with in the third.

Again, you have it wrong, there are 4 scenarios. The first was a married woman having an affair, the second an engaged woman, the third an engaged woman being raped and the last a single woman being raped.

Jakkass wrote: »

I have a couple of Bibles that I use, I mainly use the NRSV which is the advised translation of Anglicanism, I also have NIV also commonly used amongst my friends and in church, Good News, and finally the King James Version. The KJV as good as it can be is rather archaic and new Bible codexes have been found since then, the modern translations are more likely to be accurate. So, I'm not a KJV-aloner, I respect developments in archaeology and in translation since then. Asides, the KJV language can be a bit heavy at times, so it's best to have another Bible also, and a commentary just incase. I'd use the New Jerome Bible Commentary which is more geared towards Catholicism but would be a pretty strong source to use.

I cant find the New Jerome Bible online, but deuteronomy, as translated in the NRSV goes

Deuteronomy 22:28,29 NRSV wrote:

If a man meets a virgin who is not engaged, and seizes her and lies with her, and they are caught in the act, 29the man who lay with her shall give fifty shekels of silver to the young woman’s father, and she shall become his wife. Because he violated her he shall not be permitted to divorce her as long as he lives.

(site here) which uses the word "seizes" and the NIV says:

Deuteronomy 22:28,29 NIV wrote:

If a man happens to meet a virgin who is not pledged to be married and rapes her and they are discovered, 29 he shall pay the girl's father fifty shekels of silver.

(site here) The NIV even uses the word "rapes", it doesnt look like you have much of a leg to stand on.

Jakkass wrote: »

Interesting that it mentioned the cross reference with Exodus 22:16-17, it might be good to cite that too:

Exodus 22:16-17 wrote:

When a man seduces a virgin who is not engaged to be married, and lies with her, he shall give the bride-price for her and make her his wife. 17But if her father refuses to give her to him, he shall pay an amount equal to the bride-price for virgins.

Now interestingly, this involves seduction, leading towards having sex. Now if this law is a repetition of the law in Exodus, why on earth would it be dealing with a different context.

You mightn't be aware that the theological position on the Torah is that there were 4 writers. Moses didn't write the Torah, but rather 4 different sources did. Many Orthodox Jews and conservative Christians hold the view that Torah was written by Moses, but textual research indicates that this really couldn't have been the case. How possibly can you write about your own death? How commonly do you write about yourself in the third person? Kind of like how the Gospels are. Namely, the Yahwist, the Elohist, Deuteronomist, and the Priestly Source (Leviticus). So a few incidents are repeated in them like in the Gospels, the recounting of the complaining at Meribah and Massah when the Israelites complained about water, as well as the way the laws are written down. So it is reasonable given this research in theology to suggest that the same context from Exodus 22 can be applied to Deuteronomy 22 on premarital sex.

So a divinely inspired text not only has repetitions, but repetitions inaccurate enough to cause two completely different readings of the same situation? Not very reassuring.

philologos

Mark Hamill wrote: »

So god sometimes wants people to violate his commandments? How do you know when?

I don't think I said that. I think I said that God in the Biblical text uses rulers to punish people who had violated His law consistently, particularly the covenant nation of Israel who had been bound to His law. I think God would have wanted for all nations to come to Him. The Psalms and particularly Isaiah speak of the nations (the Gentiles) coming to faith in Him. I believe this was fulfilled through Jesus Christ.

I don't think that God wants people to violate His law, however when they do it can often turn out for good as is written in Romans 8:28.

Romans 8:28 wrote:

We know that all things work together for good[URL="javascript:void(0);"]*[/URL] for those who love God, who are called according to his purpose.

Now, one would assume that all things mean both good and bad. In the context of the passage it goes on to say that nothing can separate a true believer from Christ Jesus.

Mark Hamill wrote: »

Maybe the term can have numerous other meanings, but the meanings given in 21 out of 22 of the translations given by your link are seize, take or lay hold on.

Indeed 21 out of 22. This is rather important to note as I go through your quote.

Mark Hamill wrote: »

Again, you have it wrong, there are 4 scenarios. The first was a married woman having an affair, the second an engaged woman, the third an engaged woman being raped and the last a single woman being raped.

Apologies. People do make mistakes occasionally.

Mark Hamill wrote: »

I cant find the New Jerome Bible online, but deuteronomy, as translated in the NRSV goes
(site here) which uses the word "seizes" and the NIV says: (site here) The NIV even uses the word "rapes", it doesnt look like you have much of a leg to stand on.

Indeed, NRSV does use the word seizes. I have yet to see the significance though to your argument.

As for the NIV, didn't you say that 21 out of the 22 translations use the word "seize", or "take". Yet because one says "rapes", you accept it blindly. I don't think that's good research somehow. We've already gone through what the Hebrew word is, and if most English modern day translations render it as "seizes" or "takes", I think one would deem that most reasonable. Actually it should cause you to question why does the NIV use the word "rapes" rather than the other common translations.

BTW as for the New Jerome Bible Commentary, it isn't a bible in itself, it's just a reference when you get stuck for anything. It's quite a hefty one at that (5,000 pages).

Mark Hamill wrote: »

So a divinely inspired text not only has repetitions, but repetitions inaccurate enough to cause two completely different readings of the same situation? Not very reassuring.

I don't really think they are all that different:

Exodus 22 says that when a man seduces a young virgin and has sexual relations, he shall give the bride price to her father and they shall be married if the father approves, but if the father does not approve he will keep the money.

Deuteronomy 22 says on the same issue, that the man who has relations with the virgin, shall pay the bride price of 50 shekels, to the father and they shall become married.

There are two differences:
1) The bride price in Deuteronomy 22 is 50 shekels, in Exodus 22 it merely mentions the bride price. Logically could one assume after reading it that the bride price in Exodus 22 could well have been 50 shekels?

2) The fathers consent isn't included in Deuteronomy 22. Exodus 22 provides extra information in this regard. I'm starting to see why the Jewish Rabbinate saw that it was necessary to include the other Torah writers when they were compiling it.

PDN

robindch wrote: »

You seem quite sure about abortion and homosexuality though.

What on earth is the relevance of that?

I point out that we can't tell which historical events are more significant than others, so you try to somehow link that with the fact that I interpret Scripture as teaching that certain acts are wrong?

Is this some kind of word association game? I can't see any other reason why you would make such an irrelevant comment.

Zombrex

Jakkass wrote: »

You claim that God in Christianity is robber

No, my point was that simply because God holds torture in a lake of fire over us, and because it would be in our best interests not to end up in a lake of fire, that doesn't mean it is moral, any more than it being in your best interest to follow the instructions of the robber makes it moral for him to rob you.

Jakkass wrote: »

, despite being depicted as having given us the world, everything that is in it, forgiveness for our transgressions and eternal life should you choose to accept Him? Surely this doesn't make sense.

The robber doesn't shoot you if you choose to do as he says. That doesn't mean it is moral for him to rob you.

Jakkass wrote: »

Who said this? He has the right to punish others for their wrongdoing however, as is said "Vindication is mine, says the Lord" (Romans 12). God created the universe and we are under His juristiction

Again that is not how most of us here view morality. Having jusristiction over something does not nullify rights.

For example a woman has the right not to be raped. That is a right because of what she is, and based on the idea that rape is cruel and unusal punishment that is never justified.

The right of protection against this is based on what she is and the action involved.

Notice that who is punishing her by raping her is utterly irrelevant. The authority or jurisdiction of who has decided that rape is a punishment is irrelevant.

It is not that a woman has the right not to be raped by someone who does not have the authority or jurisdiction not to rape her, but she can be raped by someone who does.

That is not what we consider to be rights.

So ultimately there is a fundamental difference here, and to be honest your way of viewing how morality and rights work is rather worrying.

Jakkass wrote: »

, hence He has the right to judge us as His creation. We are the citizens of the State, the State governs us, we are under the States juristiction, hence the State has the right to judge us as it's citizens.

No the State does not have the right to judge all it's citizens. The State can no more decide that a woman should be raped as punishment for a crime than you or me can, or God for that matter.

Jakkass wrote: »

I haven't argued this, and I don't think PDN has either.

That is exactly what you have argued, that God has the right to do with us as he pleases because of who he is. What he does is irrelevant.

Mickeroo

hang on now,there's no logic to any of these arguments, are you saying that someone in a position of power/authority can do whatever the hell they like and be answerable to nobody over the moral implications of anything they do??

philologos

Mickeroo wrote: »

hang on now,there's no logic to any of these arguments, are you saying that someone in a position of power/authority can do whatever the hell they like and be answerable to nobody over the moral implications of anything they do??

I definitely haven't said that anyway. I have argued on the following line of reasoning:

1. God created the world.
2. God is omniscient.
3. God knows how what he created works.
4. Therefore given that we live in the earth He created, and He knows how what he created works, we trust that He knows what is best for us.

I don't think that is an argument from power, but rather an argument from superior knowledge.

JC 2K3

Knowledge is power.

Naz_st

Jakkass wrote: »

I definitely haven't said that anyway. I have argued on the following line of reasoning:

1. God created the world.
2. God is omniscient.
3. God knows how what he created works.
4. Therefore given that we live in the earth He created, and He knows how what he created works, we trust that He knows what is best for us.

I don't think that is an argument from power, but rather an argument from superior knowledge.

No, it's not an "argument" at all. It a set of subjective beliefs that you hold, which, as demonstrated by other posters, don't even coherently fit together to add weight to your contention that God cannot be judged on moral grounds by anyone because he is the arbiter of morality in the first place.

Zillah

Jakkass wrote: »

I definitely haven't said that anyway. I have argued on the following line of reasoning:

1. God created the world.
2. God is omniscient.
3. God knows how what he created works.
4. Therefore given that we live in the earth He created, and He knows how what he created works, we trust that He knows what is best for us.

I don't think that is an argument from power, but rather an argument from superior knowledge.

So you believe that a week old African infant that dies of cholera had what is best for her occur, even in the face of our total inability to rationalise it?

Also, as I said earlier, the fact that he has superior knowledge gives him the power to do what is best for us...it by no means ensures that he has the will. He could just be a horrible tyrannical misogynist, or disinterested.

Mickeroo

Jakkass wrote: »

I definitely haven't said that anyway. I have argued on the following line of reasoning:

1. God created the world.
2. God is omniscient.
3. God knows how what he created works.
4. Therefore given that we live in the earth He created, and He knows how what he created works, we trust that He knows what is best for us.

I don't think that is an argument from power, but rather an argument from superior knowledge.

Right thats fair enough, you're saying because god created us he decides whats best for us.

I accept the logic behind this but to me it seems kind of submissive, I mean my parents created me but if they treated me the way god treats some of his creations in some bible stories i wouldn't hesitate to tell them they're wrong. I would consider myself morally superior and most likely smarter than my parents.

philologos

Naz_st wrote: »

No, it's not an "argument" at all. It a set of subjective beliefs that you hold, which, as demonstrated by other posters, don't even coherently fit together to add weight to your contention that God cannot be judged on moral grounds by anyone because he is the arbiter of morality in the first place.

Please, just read the thread, and see how many people you have let off for doing the exact same as I have done.

If you are going to discuss how moral or immoral religion is it will involve assuming God's existence in certain arguments.

Wicknight in particular has done this a few times. I personally think it's a rather good technique to avoid getting into arguments on God's existence when we are meant to be discussing morality.

Yes, there are assumptions in there:
1) God exists.
2) God is omniscient.
3) God created the world.

However with these three assumptions if they are indeed true, the conclusion does follow.

philologos

Zillah wrote: »

So you believe that a week old African infant that dies of cholera had what is best for her occur, even in the face of our total inability to rationalise it?

Also, as I said earlier, the fact that he has superior knowledge gives him the power to do what is best for us...it by no means ensures that he has the will. He could just be a horrible tyrannical misogynist, or disinterested.

That depends on whether you believe that God has done that, or that is the result of tyrannical dictators not providing adequate resources. I personally would argue the latter.

However, I think discussing the presence of evil in the light of God's existence is another kettle of fish more to do with the philosophy of religion than with morals. Any good textbook on philosophy of religion will provide you with countless perspectives on this, atheist and theist (mostly Christian). It was one of the modules I studied in my first semester.

Mickeroo wrote: »

Right thats fair enough, you're saying because god created us he decides whats best for us.

I accept the logic behind this but to me it seems kind of submissive, I mean my parents created me but if they treated me the way god treats some of his creations in some bible stories i wouldn't hesitate to tell them they're wrong. I would consider myself morally superior and most likely smarter than my parents.

People submit to authority every day of the week. The law, the workplace, institutions of education. Why is God's authority considered any different? Oh and then some people don't and get punished.

As for you telling God He would be wrong if you believed in Him, provide some examples and walk me through your reasoning this could be a good line of discussion to go down.

I consider God morally superior to you though, and smarter. I can't possibly consider a human being who has finite knowledge and intelligence to be superior to another albeit non-corporal being who has infinite knowledge and intelligence.

Mickeroo

Jakkass wrote: »

People submit to authority every day of the week. The law, the workplace, institutions of education. Why is God's authority considered any different? Oh and then some people don't and get punished.

As for you telling God He would be wrong if you believed in Him, provide some examples and walk me through your reasoning this could be a good line of discussion to go down.

I consider God morally superior to you though, and smarter. I can't possibly consider a human being who has finite knowledge and intelligence to be superior to another albeit non-corporal being who has infinite knowledge and intelligence.

People also revolt against unjust authority, it happened in this country for example. If i am unfairly treated in the workplace,an educational institute or by the law i wouldn't bend over an take it and neither should anybody else.....but that's another matter

I think the bible is unquestionably a work of fiction also i think if something had infinite knowledge and intelligence it would not be as concerned with human affairs as the god of the bible, I dare say it would find our petty squabbles uninteresting, I think the god of the bible is far too human to be plausible, it demands our allegiance and our odediance, there's nothing respectable about that, something with unlimited knowledge and intelligence wouldn't particularly care. We're really not that interesting

What i'm trying to say is I think people in general are morally superior and smarter than the god of the bible,not a being of unlimited intelligence.

philologos

Mickeroo wrote: »

People also revolt against unjust authority, it happened in this country for example. If i am unfairly treated in the workplace,an educational institute or by the law i wouldn't bend over an take it and neither should anybody else.....but that's another matter

Are you having a laugh? God an unjust authority? So unjust that He even offered you forgiveness so you can start afresh when you mess up? I have yet to see the case that you have for God being unjust in any shape or form.

Mickeroo wrote: »

I think the bible is unquestionably a work of fiction also i think if something had infinite knowledge and intelligence it would not be as concerned with human affairs as the god of the bible, I dare say it would find our petty squabbles uninteresting, I think the god of the bible is far too human to be plausible, it demands our allegiance and our odediance, there's nothing respectable about that, something with unlimited knowledge and intelligence wouldn't particularly care. We're really not that interesting

Woah woah. Take it easy there, I thought you guys weren't the dogmatic type?

Mickeroo wrote: »

What i'm trying to say is I think people in general are morally superior and smarter than the god of the bible,not a being of unlimited intelligence.

We'll have to agree to disagree then. I think God is so superior to humans that there isn't really any comparison to be had.

Naz_st

Jakkass wrote: »

Please, just read the thread, and see how many people you have let off for doing the exact same as I have done.

If you are going to discuss how moral or immoral religion is it will involve assuming God's existence in certain arguments.

Wicknight in particular has done this a few times. I personally think it's a rather good technique to avoid getting into arguments on God's existence when we are meant to be discussing morality.

Yes, there are assumptions in there:
1) God exists.
2) God is omniscient.
3) God created the world.

However with these three assumptions if they are indeed true, the conclusion does follow.

You could have a legitimate argument about any one of your assumptions. Why would I bother "accepting" so many obviously unsupported assumptions so that we can argue about how your assumptions lead or not to your conclusions on the morality and authority of God when it so much easier to stop at the first assumption and be done with it. No God, no biblical authority, morals are formed naturally in a human society, no God and moral authority dilemmas.
Much easier.

Even so, others have consistently demonstrated that even with accepting your assumptions, for the sake of argument, they still lead to a morally repugnant God. He's All-knowing and all-powerful but doesn't stop the constant and consistent inhumane suffering throughout human history. To paraphrase one of Christopher Hitchens favourite arguments:

Humans have existed on Earth for between 100k and 200k years. Up until the last 3-4k years, God sat back with indifference and did nothing while men died from various diseases, famine, tribal wars; where life expectancy was in the 20s. Then a few thousand years ago, he "revealed" himself to a bronze age people in a geographically specific area.

Why did he not see fit to stop the suffering of all the people in the first ~100k years or so? And how are the souls of the millions of people over the last ~100k years prior to Jesus going to be saved anyway? How about the souls of all the chinese people around Jesus' time who couldn't have heard about him for hundreds of years so could not have accepted their salvation through him? And simplest of all, why do bad things happen to good Christian people if God is all-knowing and all-powerful?

Whatever way you cut it, there are moral paradoxes if you make your first assumption. There aren't if you don't.

Mickeroo

Jakkass wrote: »

Are you having a laugh? God an unjust authority? So unjust that He even offered you forgiveness so you can start afresh when you mess up? I have yet to see the case that you have for God being unjust in any shape or form.

I don't see the point in discussing this, no matter how well i argue my point you will twist everything i say in a bid to try and justify your own logic. I think theres been enough talk of god being lousy(not to mention sullying the reputation of the noble bear) on this thread already.

I've gone off trying to reason with christians for lent :P

Jakkass wrote: »

Woah woah. Take it easy there, I thought you guys weren't the dogmatic type?

I accept there may have been a jesus, but i doubt he was anything but a man. I don't think the Qu'ran or the teachings of the mormon church are fact either, does that make me dogmatic too. Oh wait,they're not the right religion,my mistake.

Jakkass wrote: »

We'll have to agree to disagree then. I think God is so superior to humans that there isn't really any comparison to be had.

In a way i agree with you, if there is some sort of supreme being it's undoubtedly not comparable to humans, which is why i think the god of the bible is so implausible. A supreme being would not be jealous for a start. This is a human trait, even a trait of animals, not a trait befitting a god, even humans can overcome jealousy.