Is God immoral?

[Terrywoodenpic]

God is AMORAL.

Bible stories are the stories of man not God.
For the entire length of modern times, God has not acted in the way suggested in the Old Testament.
Things that happened, were then, ascribed to God.

God gives Guidance, on which man can act on or reject.
Man can and does ascribe his own desires as "Directions" from God.
There is no evidence that God acts either for us or against us.

Most religions have developed a set of "Morals" derived from their understanding of how God wishes for us to live in peace and equality.
The greatest influence in the modern world Come from only a few great "Gurus"...

Moses
Jesus
Mohamed
Buddha
and from the more ancient Indian religions.

Each of these have established teachings from which we derive our Morals... they are not derived directly from God.... they portray values that are not equal in all religions.

All communication with God is interpretative, never direct, never perfect.
Man is unable to separate his own understanding and thoughts, from those of God.
At best we distort the word of God, at worst we defile it.

The Concept of a universality of Morals is beguiling, and if true, would reflect the wishes of God.
However such a concept is as yet unachieved and perhaps unachievable.

[filthy tugboat]

Originally Posted by Pegg

it actually has something to do with the hebrew language itself as to how the hebrew language is employed. The things that God permits to occur are said to be done by him.

I suppose in the grand scheme of things, everything that happens is a direct result of God because he (apparently) could have done it differently. This argument should help;

Premise 1;
There are an infinite amount of possible universes.
In each possible universe there are an infinite amount of possibilities that could occur.
If every possible universe existed all possible events would be actualized in individual universes.

Premise 2;
God exists.
God is able to do anything and everything logically possible.
God knows everything that could ever be, every possibility.
God created one universe.

Conclusion;
Following premises 1 and 2, God's action of creating one universe was a deliberate decision that determined the entirety of that universe, everything that happens within that universe was chosen by God to happen because he picked this one universe out of all of the other possibilities. Things could have been different but God decided that everything should happen this way.

So God caused every event that ever occurred with intention and knowledge of how it will turn out. So in a way, God caused all things, good and bad, to occur.

Originally Posted by Pegg

and example is seen in the curse on Eve. Gen 3:16 “I shall greatly increase the pain of your pregnancy; in birth pangs you will bring forth children.”

this apparently doesnt mean God deliberately made birthing painful...but it was permitted by him so it is said that he caused it. Maybe a hebrew speaker can shed more light on this form of expression?

In their English translation, it appears that God deliberately made birthing painful. Just as in Samuel, God deliberately and directly killed that child.

[Mestemia]

Originally Posted by fallingblood

Well, if we take the Biblical idea of God, then God is moral. The moral code that he formed in the Bible was not a moral code for gods. It was a moral code for humans. He never talks about a particular moral code for himself. And as we can see in the Bible, he is able to change the moral code from time to time, or circumvent it.

Personally, I think if we take the idea that God exists, then we can't really hold that being to our subjective moral code. Our morals change over time. Things that were considered moral a thousand years ago, aren't always considered moral today. What is considered moral today, may not be considered moral a thousand years down the road. Our moral code is not perfect, and changes. More so, we don't apply this moral code to other beings. Animals do many things that we could consider to be immoral if humans did them. But for animals, it is simply natural. So, God being a different being, I don't think we could hold him up to human moral codes that are designed for humans, and that change.

Personally, I find the whole "do as I say not as I do" argument far to hypocritical for me.

[839311]

Originally Posted by Levite

As finite beings whose nature is timebound, perceiving only the physical universe, and not even in all of its dimensions and the full extent of its nature, we can never really grasp the nature, circumstances, and moral boundaries of an infinite and transcendant being, unbound by either space or time.

I don't see why not. Humans are bright. Some of us very bright. We can understand ideas and concepts and circumstances, even complex ones.

Originally Posted by Levite

No matter how bright, how insightful, how broad our view may be, by definition we are so very much limited and ignorant compared to the eternal Creator, no level of optimistic overestimation of human intellect and empathy could even begin to approach actually bridging the gap between what we think we might be able to know and comprehend versus what God knows and comprehends.

I think your making reality out to be something that is far more complex than it actually is. Many people understand the concepts of dimensions, big bangs, multiuniverses, eternity, infinity etc. These things aren't as overwhelming as they might seem.

Originally Posted by Levite

We don't even know why God created the universe, much less what the moral nature of God's duties to His creations look like when the existence of the universe from inception to termination is gauged holistically, in the fullness of its scope and content arrayed for comparison and contrast, examination and analysis.

Thats a lot of fancy words, but your not really saying much here. Again, your making these concepts seem overwhelming, whereas I don't think they are hard to understand. The universe has a beginning and an end. Ok. The universe is big and theres a lot going on. Ok. Therefore when God commits genocide Im sure he has a good reason. Wait... what?

Originally Posted by Levite

What might appear to be morally problematic might be perfectly defensible when viewed in context.

Perhaps, although I feel like I have to stretch myself to say even that.

Theres only one way to find out for sure whether or not Gods actions are perfectly defensible - have God explain it to us. Then we'll find out two things. Whether or not we even understand his perspective, and whether or not his defense is valid.

Originally Posted by Levite

We don't even have a clear idea of what our importance in the universe might be, among the uncounted myriads of planets in the universe, many of which, no doubt, have life and beings with histories of their own.

The way I see it, everyone matters. Whether its me or you, or some alien on another planet, or a pet. Some life forms arent as developed as others. But that doesn't justify abusing them.

Originally Posted by Levite

Maybe us judging God's morality is as reasonable and accurate as moral evaluations of human actions might be if made by amoebas or plankton.

No. Humans are intelligent beings capable of understanding very, very complex concepts.

Originally Posted by Levite

We have no precedent, no referent, no clue at all about judging ethics on the scale of the entirety of human history, much less the history of Earth, much less the history of the universe.

Why would you want to judge morals on the scale of human history, much less the history of the universe? What does that have to do with morality?

Originally Posted by Levite

God still gets the benefit of the doubt because He's God and we're not

Thats one of the worst answers you could have come up with. Its like saying Charles Manson should get the benefit of the doubt for all the murders he committed because hes Charles Manson. No, the benefit of the doubt is undeserved in this case. What do you know about God? Im willing to bet you know as much as I do. Nothing. How do you know God isn't a violent lunatic?

Originally Posted by Levite

The answer that He gives Job is, ultimately, the best answer we've got: we just can't know or understand. That's not a punishment or a denigration, just a statement of fact. Since we can't know, we shouldn't be quick to judge.

Who says? You went into quite a detailed explanation of why you think so in the post. But, as I see it, you didn't come up with anything tangible.

I think we definitely could understand. There are a lot of very, very intelligent people on our world. Im sure they would have no problem listening to God explain his perspective. What exactly couldnt we understand? What could God come up with that we wouldn't be able to get? I can't think of anything myself.

Originally Posted by Levite

Even presuming that one reads all those things with uncritial literalism-- which mostly should not be done.

Uncritical litealism?

Do you simply pick and choose what you want to interpret literally or metaphorically? Who decides whats the right interpretation in a world full of subjective opinions?

Originally Posted by Levite

But it probably also doesn't hurt to remember that God gave us life in the first place: He might be the only one qualified to know when it deserves to be taken away. And He might have the sole right to do so, especially considering that He was under no obligation to create us to begin with.

Ever hear of evolution?

[fallingblood]

Originally Posted by 9-10ths_Penguin

Placing God beyond morality doesn't make God moral; it makes him amoral.

Though I'm not really convinced that God would be beyond morality anyhow. The only way I could see to do it is through Divine Command theory, but IMO, Divine Command is an invalid pile of rubbish.

I'm not really placing God beyond morality, but placing him beyond our perception of morality. Levite says this much better than what I did.

Basically, since God is not human, and we don't really know why he does what he does, we can't judge whether he is moral or not moral. Not to mention, what may be moral for humans, may not be moral for other entities.

And if we take the Bible straightforward, it argues that God is a moral god (whether or not his actions fall into our conception of morality). Now, honestly, I don't believe the Bible is a good source to know about God, that is if he does exist.

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Originally Posted by fallingblood

I'm not really placing God beyond morality, but placing him beyond our perception of morality. Levite says this much better than what I did.

Basically, since God is not human, and we don't really know why he does what he does, we can't judge whether he is moral or not moral. Not to mention, what may be moral for humans, may not be moral for other entities.

And if we take the Bible straightforward, it argues that God is a moral god (whether or not his actions fall into our conception of morality). Now, honestly, I don't believe the Bible is a good source to know about God, that is if he does exist.

The Bible also says that humanity has knowledge of good and evil, and that our moral sense is good enough for us to be held accountable for our moral choices. I think what you're arguing - i.e. that we don't know enough about God to say that torturing a baby to death is wrong when he does it - relies on some fairly unbiblical ideas itself.

[fallingblood]

Originally Posted by jamesmorrow

i understand your point. but it is a point of double standard. in other words "do as the preacher says, not as he does" much like a parent telling his child not to smoke tobacco, all while smoking a big fat cigar. i guess that means God does not care about setting a good example for us??

It isn't necessarily a double standard. We can take an example of drinking alcohol. On occasion, I do like having a few drinks. I'm older than 21, my developing is basically done, and I drink responsibly. I know the dangers.

My son is about 2. I'm not going to let him drink. There are obvious reasons. It can effect his development as he is still in that period of his life. He would have no concept of doing it responsibly. And he has no idea of the dangers. I don't think this is a double standard though.

Somethings are find for older (I'm assuming they are more mature) people to do. It may require explaining the difference to those children, but it isn't a double standard. It is realizing that there is a difference. It's the same reason I wouldn't let my son drive. He's not nearly old enough, or informed.

secondly, you have esentially thrown the bible's moral code under the bus by describing it as a subjective, everchanging, human moral code. not as God's ultimate, divine and eternal moral code... if, as you say, god changes the moral code he gives us from time to time, or circumvents it then there is no eternal god given moral code. it is always subject to change either by god or humans.... this is a position most christians would strongly disagree with.

this is my understanding of your position. let me know if i misunderstood something.

I don't know if there was ever supposed to be a definite, unchanging, God given moral code. We can look at Jewish literature down the centuries, and see that there has been a need to review the laws. According to Jewish though, the written Torah went along with the Oral Torah. That and it was a "living" book, as it grew and changed. So I see no problem with the moral code changing.

[Mestemia]

Originally Posted by fallingblood

I'm not really placing God beyond morality, but placing him beyond our perception of morality. Levite says this much better than what I did.

Yes, you are basically saying that god is to good for gods own rules.
It is nothing more than the "do as I say, not as I do" argument.

Originally Posted by fallingblood

Basically, since God is not human, and we don't really know why he does what he does, we can't judge whether he is moral or not moral. Not to mention, what may be moral for humans, may not be moral for other entities.

This is a most excellent argument against absolute morality.

Originally Posted by fallingblood

And if we take the Bible straightforward, it argues that God is a moral god (whether or not his actions fall into our conception of morality). Now, honestly, I don't believe the Bible is a good source to know about God, that is if he does exist.

I am not much into circular reasoning.

[fallingblood]

Originally Posted by 9-10ths_Penguin

The Bible also says that humanity has knowledge of good and evil, and that our moral sense is good enough for us to be held accountable for our moral choices. I think what you're arguing - i.e. that we don't know enough about God to say that torturing a baby to death is wrong when he does it - relies on some fairly unbiblical ideas itself.

Maybe that child would be evil incarnate? Maybe the death of that child would save millions? Maybe that child had to die so that others could live, or so that our world would end up being better?

We may be able to tell the difference between good and evil, but we are still humans. We can see what is evil or good among humans. It does not necessarily mean we can tell between what is good and evil among supernatural beings who are alien to us. And even among humans, we know that telling the difference between good and evil is not an exact science either.

We can't know what motivated God to do what he did. We don't get an insight to his thought process, or to what he may know.

We can relate this to a moral question. Is stealing okay? Most would say no. However, what if that stealing meant that many people would be able to fight off starvation? It becomes a little more difficult to answer.

[fallingblood]

Originally Posted by Mestemia

Yes, you are basically saying that god is to good for gods own rules.
It is nothing more than the "do as I say, not as I do" argument.

I see nothing wrong with that sometimes. Parents do it all the time to protect their children. I tell my son not to walk across the street without holding either my or his mom's hand. I certainly do obey that same command myself.

I am not much into circular reasoning.

I really am not either, but it happens when looking at the Bible.

Personally, I don't think the Bible relates anything about God besides how people have perceived him. And this perception is many time contradictory. But the OP did state that it was a discussion about the Biblical God.