God’s law versus secular law. Which is moral?

[there4eyeM]

I know this is a little off topic, but why would "God's laws" be the very definition of moral?

I did think this obvious, but because if God existed God would, by definition of the term, be the supreme arbiter of all good, bad, evil, just and other laws, including moral. As the only truly objective standard, God would be the reference to which all would have to yield.

As it is, we have to accept that this word, moral, comes from humans as do all words and concepts and, so, is totally and can only be relative to us.

I don't see it as obvious at all. I will agree that such a being might have the power to enforce any standard it pleases, but why does that power make it moral?

YOU may want to argue with the Almighty, but it could be deleterious to your health and eternal life!

Just kidding, but for God to be God, God has to be Good itself. It comes with the job description. There is no dispute possible. What God is is good and all good comes from God.
Otherwise, it's an impostor.

 

[Lonestar_logic]

The US Constitution seems to coincide with what we understand as the Christian version of "God's law". Most Christians have been raised with moral values that don't conflict with the law of the land. I don't see any problem except when the radical jihadists advocate a version of 6th century skewed sharia morality.

Total BULL SHIT.

When the Constitution was written the Founders were running from ANY AND ALL religious influences in government.The laws then in ALL OF EUROPE were based on divine right and the monarchs had the calling of God to rule by that.
The Founders specifically voting down any religious references of any kind in The Constitution.
We are a nation of law, not men and their various religious beliefs.

Moral values that do not conflict with the law? Of course there are many as ALL moral values should NEVER conflict with the law.
NO matter what religion they are from.

That's why they began each session with prayer.

 

[PratchettFan]

I did think this obvious, but because if God existed God would, by definition of the term, be the supreme arbiter of all good, bad, evil, just and other laws, including moral. As the only truly objective standard, God would be the reference to which all would have to yield.

As it is, we have to accept that this word, moral, comes from humans as do all words and concepts and, so, is totally and can only be relative to us.

I don't see it as obvious at all. I will agree that such a being might have the power to enforce any standard it pleases, but why does that power make it moral?

YOU may want to argue with the Almighty, but it could be deleterious to your health and eternal life!

Just kidding, but for God to be God, God has to be Good itself. It comes with the job description. There is no dispute possible. What God is is good and all good comes from God.
Otherwise, it's an impostor.

Interesting. But aren't you saying that God must therefore meet your standards or it is not God? Does that not then make you the final arbiter of morality?

 

[there4eyeM]

I don't see it as obvious at all. I will agree that such a being might have the power to enforce any standard it pleases, but why does that power make it moral?

YOU may want to argue with the Almighty, but it could be deleterious to your health and eternal life!

Just kidding, but for God to be God, God has to be Good itself. It comes with the job description. There is no dispute possible. What God is is good and all good comes from God.
Otherwise, it's an impostor.

Interesting. But aren't you saying that God must therefore meet your standards or it is not God? Does that not then make you the final arbiter of morality?

May I humbly point out that you missed the 'if' clause; if God existed. It is not my claim at all. I speak only about the meaning of words. You are free to speak of God in other terms, but it could alter the original meaning of the term. We can call black yellow if we want, by why would we do that?

P.S. Until God makes an undisputed appearance, humans are the ultimate arbiter.

 

[Jimmy_Jam]

When the Constitution was written the Founders were running from ANY AND ALL religious influences in government.

Nothing could be farther from the truth.
Not only did those men get down on their knees at home and their place of worship, when they congregated to form this nation, they got down on their knees together to ask God for guidance.
What they did was make sure that pilgrims from this country never had to leave due to religious persecution from our government.

Here is the opinion our first Supreme Court Justice:

"Providence has given to our people the choice of their rulers, and it is the duty, as well as the privilege and interest of our Christian nation to select and prefer Christians for their rulers."

Reality is somewhere in the middle. The founders were predominantly Protestant Christian. Everybody knows this. The general spirit of the Enlightenment was also present through the minds of people like Jefferson, Paine, Adams, Franklin, oh, and there was a Catholic in there somewhere.

To say that the founders were trying to get away from AND AND ALL religious influence in government is a typical gross exaggeration of the Establishment Clause, but then so is the claim by the Christian right that they were trying to establish a Christian nation. Doubtless there were those among them that felt both of those things, but the majority of them simply wanted a free nation, to live their lives free of tyranny. That is the important message of our founders, but extremists never fail to focus on the far edges of the spectrum, as usual.

 

[PratchettFan]

YOU may want to argue with the Almighty, but it could be deleterious to your health and eternal life!

Just kidding, but for God to be God, God has to be Good itself. It comes with the job description. There is no dispute possible. What God is is good and all good comes from God.
Otherwise, it's an impostor.

Interesting. But aren't you saying that God must therefore meet your standards or it is not God? Does that not then make you the final arbiter of morality?

May I humbly point out that you missed the 'if' clause; if God existed. It is not my claim at all. I speak only about the meaning of words. You are free to speak of God in other terms, but it could alter the original meaning of the term. We can call black yellow if we want, by why would we do that?

P.S. Until God makes an undisputed appearance, humans are the ultimate arbiter.

I understand. It is a given that we are talking about a hypothetical here. I really didn't miss the "if", but I am not sure whether that matters. You are still saying that if there is a God then it must fit your concept of God. Otherwise, it is not God.

Let us assume, just for the sake of argument, that there is such a being. I think what you are arguing is that the morality of the laws of that being is based upon the ability of that being to impose those laws. This is the concept I am having trouble with because it is easy enough to equate it to human relations. All you need do is substitute "King" for "God". In essence, it is the old argument that might makes right.

If there is a God and that God commands you to burn your children alive, does that make the act moral? If you refuse on the basis that the true God would not give such a command, are you not then making yourself the final arbiter of morality? Establishing a moral parameter under which God must operate or be ignored.

You see, my point here is that God is not the final arbiter of morality. The final arbiter is the person making the choice.

 

[there4eyeM]

I think the point may be being missed about the definition of God. If you ever find that God is not good (moral, etc.), then either you are wrong or it is not God.

 

[rosends]

I don't see it as obvious at all. I will agree that such a being might have the power to enforce any standard it pleases, but why does that power make it moral?

YOU may want to argue with the Almighty, but it could be deleterious to your health and eternal life!

Just kidding, but for God to be God, God has to be Good itself. It comes with the job description. There is no dispute possible. What God is is good and all good comes from God.
Otherwise, it's an impostor.

Interesting. But aren't you saying that God must therefore meet your standards or it is not God? Does that not then make you the final arbiter of morality?

if god's actions can be compared to any higher, even more transcendent standard, then god is not the ultimate power. Of course, if I hold god up to my personal standards that is a flaw in my thinking, not god's omnipotence.

 

[PratchettFan]

I think the point may be being missed about the definition of God. If you ever find that God is not good (moral, etc.), then either you are wrong or it is not God.

I disagree with the idea behind this statement. If the definition does not fit reality, it is the definition which is wrong. Not the reality. If there is a God, then it is what it is regardless of how you define it.

 

[PratchettFan]

YOU may want to argue with the Almighty, but it could be deleterious to your health and eternal life!

Just kidding, but for God to be God, God has to be Good itself. It comes with the job description. There is no dispute possible. What God is is good and all good comes from God.
Otherwise, it's an impostor.

Interesting. But aren't you saying that God must therefore meet your standards or it is not God? Does that not then make you the final arbiter of morality?

if god's actions can be compared to any higher, even more transcendent standard, then god is not the ultimate power. Of course, if I hold god up to my personal standards that is a flaw in my thinking, not god's omnipotence.

You use the words "power" and "omnipotence". All of which equate to force. However, we are not discussing force or power. We are discussing morality. The two are not the same. Force is easy, but you are the only source available to you to determine morality. You cannot control the actions of God, but only you control your own actions. God might well be able to command, but you must choose to obey. The responsibility is yours.

I would offer, therefore, that to not question the morality of God is itself an immoral act.

 

[rosends]

Interesting. But aren't you saying that God must therefore meet your standards or it is not God? Does that not then make you the final arbiter of morality?

if god's actions can be compared to any higher, even more transcendent standard, then god is not the ultimate power. Of course, if I hold god up to my personal standards that is a flaw in my thinking, not god's omnipotence.

You use the words "power" and "omnipotence". All of which equate to force. However, we are not discussing force or power. We are discussing morality. The two are not the same. Force is easy, but you are the only source available to you to determine morality. You cannot control the actions of God, but only you control your own actions. God might well be able to command, but you must choose to obey. The responsibility is yours.

I would offer, therefore, that to not question the morality of God is itself an immoral act.

I can use words like omniscience and omnipresence as well. How about "perfect in all his ways"? I can label god as "the highest" in any context.

 

[PratchettFan]

if god's actions can be compared to any higher, even more transcendent standard, then god is not the ultimate power. Of course, if I hold god up to my personal standards that is a flaw in my thinking, not god's omnipotence.

You use the words "power" and "omnipotence". All of which equate to force. However, we are not discussing force or power. We are discussing morality. The two are not the same. Force is easy, but you are the only source available to you to determine morality. You cannot control the actions of God, but only you control your own actions. God might well be able to command, but you must choose to obey. The responsibility is yours.

I would offer, therefore, that to not question the morality of God is itself an immoral act.

I can use words like omniscience and omnipresence as well. How about "perfect in all his ways"? I can label god as "the highest" in any context.

Yes, you can. It still comes down to the same thing - force. Which is not the same thing as moral.

 

[there4eyeM]

from Wikipedia, but typical:
"God usually refers to the single deity in monotheism or the monist deity in pantheism.[1] God is often conceived of as the supernatural creator and overseer of humans and the universe. Theologians have ascribed a variety of attributes to the many different conceptions of God. The most common among these include omniscience (infinite knowledge), omnipotence (unlimited power), omnipresence (present everywhere), omnibenevolence (perfect goodness), divine simplicity, and eternal and necessary existence.

God has also been conceived as being incorporeal (immaterial), a personal being, the source of all moral obligation, and the "greatest conceivable existent"."

This is what I meant by the definition of the term, the word 'God'. So, 'moral' and 'morality' issue from God (accepting God's existence). It is a contradiction of thought to say God is or could be immoral.

You are talking about arguing with this presence if existent. That is another matter.

 

[rosends]

You use the words "power" and "omnipotence". All of which equate to force. However, we are not discussing force or power. We are discussing morality. The two are not the same. Force is easy, but you are the only source available to you to determine morality. You cannot control the actions of God, but only you control your own actions. God might well be able to command, but you must choose to obey. The responsibility is yours.

I would offer, therefore, that to not question the morality of God is itself an immoral act.

I can use words like omniscience and omnipresence as well. How about "perfect in all his ways"? I can label god as "the highest" in any context.

Yes, you can. It still comes down to the same thing - force. Which is not the same thing as moral.

by the same token, you cannot judge the actions of god because to do so would be to impose your version of what is right and wrong on the being which ostensibly created and codified the system. so god's behavior must needs be the measuring rod of morality simply because there cannot, by definition, be any system of arbitrating good outside of god. that god lets me choose my path in terms of emulating that code is irrelevant. god establishes the moral through his actions and how he communicates both the code and the keys to understanding the code to mankind.

 

[GreatestIam]

[

I dont know too many christians that are christians. Omish live by them.

I agree with your first but as to the last, I have not heard of any Amish who have stoned anyone of late so they cannot be using God's punishments.

Regards
DL

 

[GreatestIam]

[
there are, I feel, 2 versions of morality, and confusing these two is a problem.

1 type of morality is the human construct -- the sense of propriety of things that allows us to coexist in a society. We often make laws to police this type of morality.

the other type is the (often religious) notion of a transcendent morality which drives god's behavior and laws. Sometimes these come into conflict with man's morality and we have to reconcile the contradiction.

But both, to 2 different definitions, are templates of morality.

No argument but which is more moral either in their laws or in their punishments which is a large part of the law?

Whose law would you prefer living under?

Regards
DL

 

[GreatestIam]

Religious law can never truly speak to all people where everyone gets the same rules. Religious law is about inclusion and exclusion.

Secular law speaks to an entire population and provides and avenue for redress without qualification.

Indeed, by design morality is a contrivance in both religious law and secular law.

Well put.

Regards
DL

 

[GreatestIam]

Religious law can never truly speak to all people where everyone gets the same rules. Religious law is about inclusion and exclusion.

Secular law speaks to an entire population and provides and avenue for redress without qualification.

Indeed, by design morality is a contrivance in both religious law and secular law.

Secular law is also about inclusion and exclusion -- rules for citizens and non-citizens, or lawful subgroups and those beyond the law (felons can't vote I believe).

But do you think that there is a transcendent morality which, if not god-based is somehow innate and encoded in our genetic make up?

Is man's state of nature infused with any moral law or is it all construct?

Yes and yes.

It is a part of our genetics and survival mechanism and many other animals share it but only man has the intelligence to give it that word and take it to the level we have.

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HBW5vdhr_PA]Magazine - Can Babies Tell Right From Wrong? - nytimes.com/video - YouTube[/ame]

They call it good and evil above but the good is just defaulting to cooperation instead of competition as cooperation is more valuable in survival terms.

Regards
DL

 

[GreatestIam]

God’s law versus secular law. Which is moral?

Niether, and both. It merely depends on how it is used and what goals it endeavors to achieve.

What are the goals and show the two goals if not the same please and indicate which goal is more worthy?

Regards
DL

 

[GreatestIam]

The same spirit of truth and justice
fulfills both the sacred laws of scripture
and the secular/natural laws including civil laws.

What is right and moral universally
is going to meet both standards.

What is wrongful, harmful or unjust
is going to contradict one or the other or both.

Christianity believes in substitutionary atonement where I know of no government that does. They consider that unjust.

Which system is moral and why?

Regards
DL