What makes god moral?

[N4mddissent]

What makes god moral? .

You’ve demonstrated the conundrum that religionists face. Probably the only response you’ll get from religionists (at least those who get the point) is that god is beyond any ideas of humanity, god is supernatural and humans are natural and we can never know the mind of god and that’s that.

But a response that we can never know the mind of god doesn't solve the conundrum. The fact that we cannot know the mind of god means that the will of god can only be interpreted and not perfectly understood- thus making it subjective. Demonstrably it is not perfectly understood by differences in moral assessments among believers.

 

[Diuretic]

What makes god moral? .

You’ve demonstrated the conundrum that religionists face. Probably the only response you’ll get from religionists (at least those who get the point) is that god is beyond any ideas of humanity, god is supernatural and humans are natural and we can never know the mind of god and that’s that.

But a response that we can never know the mind of god doesn't solve the conundrum. The fact that we cannot know the mind of god means that the will of god can only be interpreted and not perfectly understood- thus making it subjective. Demonstrably it is not perfectly understood by differences in moral assessments among believers.

Believers don't need logic.

 

[Sky Dancer]

You’ve demonstrated the conundrum that religionists face. Probably the only response you’ll get from religionists (at least those who get the point) is that god is beyond any ideas of humanity, god is supernatural and humans are natural and we can never know the mind of god and that’s that.

But a response that we can never know the mind of god doesn't solve the conundrum. The fact that we cannot know the mind of god means that the will of god can only be interpreted and not perfectly understood- thus making it subjective. Demonstrably it is not perfectly understood by differences in moral assessments among believers.

Believers don't need logic.

That's a negative stereotype. It suggests that people who have a spiritual life don't use their minds.

What if the mind and the heart are not separate?

 

[AllieBaba]

Excellent thread, and I'm very interested in the answers you'll receive. Though I'm sure there will be some who'll accuse you of bait threading, or Christian-bashing, or some other such thing or who will completely misunderstand the motive, the language, or the ideas involved. Oh, wait, it already happened. Anyway, good luck. I'll back you up if you need it. Ha!

No, dumbass. We only accuse the actual CHristian bashers of that. This is a philosophical discussion with no evident intent of discrediting, humiliating, or simply trashing Christians. It's a discussion of the nature of God, with apparently no ulterior motive.

I find it a bit ponderous myself, but I see no evidence of bashing or baiting.
Until you chimed in.

 

[AllieBaba]

God is righteous, and perfect. He is therefore the source of morality and cannot be immoral himself. Because he is righteous, he is also a judge, because a righteous being cannot tolerate unrighteousness....

Which is where Jesus Christ comes in.

So morality originates with the righteousness of God. We attempt to emulate but all fall short. God is the judge of our morality in heaven, and Christians apply his tenets here on earth imperfectly...so it is subjective among mankind, but ultimately, objective and perfect in God. We can only achieve righteousness, i.e., morality, in God's eyes through the intervention of Christ.

 

[Diuretic]

But a response that we can never know the mind of god doesn't solve the conundrum. The fact that we cannot know the mind of god means that the will of god can only be interpreted and not perfectly understood- thus making it subjective. Demonstrably it is not perfectly understood by differences in moral assessments among believers.

Believers don't need logic.

That's a negative stereotype. It suggests that people who have a spiritual life don't use their minds.

What if the mind and the heart are not separate?

My few little words could be interpreted many ways I suppose but context is important. N4 has revealed some conundrums. Heck I had a hard time getting my head around them but I think I began to understand them, the later posts were helpful.

The effect of the conundrums, I think, were to raise a doubt about the logic of belief about the origins of morality. My response was to indicate that people who are religious believers aren't concerned with the logic of belief, they will continue to believe, doubt is their enemy. I don't think that's a stereotype either way, I think it's an objective assessment of the situation. Even in a non-religious situation belief doesn't need logic.

The mind and emotion ("heart") are intertwined - the "mind" is the name we give to the effect of the brain's (primarily the cerebral cortex) function. "Emotion" is part of the mind, part of the brain function and not necessarily located only in the cerebral cortex, for example, fear - an emotional state - is produced in a far more primitive part of the brain than the cerebral cortex.

Now I sound like a pale version of Mr Spock

 

[Coloradomtnman]

God is righteous, and perfect. He is therefore the source of morality and cannot be immoral himself. Because he is righteous, he is also a judge, because a righteous being cannot tolerate unrighteousness....

Which is where Jesus Christ comes in.

So morality originates with the righteousness of God. We attempt to emulate but all fall short. God is the judge of our morality in heaven, and Christians apply his tenets here on earth imperfectly...so it is subjective among mankind, but ultimately, objective and perfect in God. We can only achieve righteousness, i.e., morality, in God's eyes through the intervention of Christ.

And the whole argument has gone WAY over your head so let me dumb it down a little for you, Allie.

So, God is righteous and perfect, right?4

But human's aren't right?

And where human's learn morality is The Bible, right?

And the Bible is God's word, right?

But human beings aren't perfect so their interpretation (The Bible) of God's word is imperfect, right? And because it was written by men, God's word was made from objective to subjective.

Most Christians think genocide is immoral, right?

Didn't God commit genocide against certain peoples?

Most Christians think murder is wrong, right? Didn't God kill a lot of people? Like Lot's wife (ok, technically he turned her into a pillar of salt, but I think that killed her).

Most Christians think abortion is wrong, but didn't God kill Egypt's first born of each non-Jewish family?

So if its moral when God did it, why isn't moral if we do it? Oh! Cause we're not God!

So, therefore morality for believers is just as relativistic and subjective as it is for non-believers, right?

Can you understand the argument now Allie?

Probably not, but thanks for at least trying. Now go read some philosophy and educate yourself before you post again on this thread and insult someone far more knowledgeable than you are about the particular subject at discussion. It will save you from looking like an ass, and will save me from your ignorance and insults.

Ps. Read Cecilie's posts before you assume no one accused the OP of Christian-bashing or attacking religion. I sure as hell didn't accuse anyone of Christian-bashing.

 

[neurosport]

morality is defined by punishment

that's why Americans are saints ! because we have the most weapons !

 

[Newby]

As we are already seeing, most fundamentalists I've spoken to about this issue will say that God being omnipotent gets to make the rules and therefore God is moral and just by definition, despite doing some very immoral things in the Bible if done by anything other than God (genocide, mass murder, slaughter of babies, that sort of stuff).

It's a version of "might make right" or the golden rule - he who has the gold makes the rules.

Sorry, but no. Again, you're assuming a human role for God in this. To say, "He gets to make the rules because He's stronger" is to assume that there was a playing field already in existence upon which both God and humanity were placed, and He's circumventing the preset rulebook.

God doesn't "get" to make the rules in an already existing universe. He made the universe, and when He did so, He also created the rules that govern it. They're simply part of the fabric of the creation. If you don't like it, then go create your own universe and weave any rules into it that YOU like. But trying to set yourself up as a moral arbiter to God - and using the moral standard He set to do it - is just ludicrous.

This concept is not novel, of course. One might suspect that less than scrupulous individuals, knowing this, would invoke God's authority for their actions or propositions because then it endows these actions or propositions with an unassailable moral authority. It's been going on from Moses (the genocidal mass murderer) to today's televangelists in invoke God for political purposes like abortion (even the Bible is pretty silent on the issue).

The Bible is not silent on abortion. Would that you used the same scrupulous standard of "the word doesn't appear, so it doesn't apply" when talking about the Constitution as you do for the Bible.

I'll give you a rep for that one...

 

[Newby]

You don't understand a lot of things. In this case, it would be the difference between responding to the thread and declaring that the thread shouldn't exist because I don't believe in the premise.

You'll notice, if you pull your head out, that I've never gone to a thread and said, "You're all stupid for discussing this at all." If I think it's a stupid thread, I just don't go there.

Thank you for taking the time to post an attack that's utterly apropos of nothing I said, though. I can always count on you.

I note, by the way, that you yourself have contributed nothing substantial to this topic, saying only, "Any disagreement from religious people will be viewed by me as an attack on you, and I will jump in to crow about how mean they are." Did you have anything real to contribute, or are you just like Huggy?

I thought N4mddissent pretty much said everything that needed to be said in his OP and his response to your first posting here. I agree with his point of view. I also think its futile to communicate with you as you see any argument against religion or Christianity as an attack, not to mention that you insult people and get personal in your responses. Then you misrepresent what you said in an earlier post when someone uses what you said in that post against you. And you call them an idiot for somehow misunderstanding what you wrote.

When you can post something that's relevant, discussable; and isn't dripping with dogmatic blindness, insults, and contempt; and when you understand what the OP was actually saying so that communicating with you isn't a complete waste of time and effort, then I would gladly do so. However, that isn't the case.

In other words, you have nothing.

 

[Newby]

That is what I meant when I said it is pretty silent on the issue. The claim that God prohibits abortion is an inference men make, and then use the moral authority of God to promote their political agenda.

So God is not applicable to use as a 'moral authority' to promote a political agenda? What basis does your moral authority originate from in order to promote your political agenda? And why is it any more relevant?

 

[Newby]

I think this thread and the OP may have went way over the heads of a good number of people on USMB. I think the subject involved might've been too abstract and you're language too sophisticated for most people with a US public school education to fully comprehend. That or when the subject of God is brought up, reason flies out the window and emotions cloud the mind. Or a mixture of both and maybe some other contributing factors.

Is there a way in which you might want to simplify your argument? That could help.

I do so love your subtle insults to those that have different beliefs than you. I'll give you kudos for being an excellent insulter however.

 

[HUGGY]

The imorality of "god" is the difermant of one's own responsibility in making moral decisions.

 

[Cecilie1200]

I think this thread and the OP may have went way over the heads of a good number of people on USMB. I think the subject involved might've been too abstract and you're language too sophisticated for most people with a US public school education to fully comprehend. That or when the subject of God is brought up, reason flies out the window and emotions cloud the mind. Or a mixture of both and maybe some other contributing factors.

Is there a way in which you might want to simplify your argument? That could help.

I do so love your subtle insults to those that have different beliefs than you. I'll give you kudos for being an excellent insulter however.

I won't. "You disagree with me, so clearly, you just didn't understand the topic and I've been too brilliant for your tiny mind" isn't even original. It's page one of the liberal "Pretend you're debating" handbook.

 

[Newby]

I think this thread and the OP may have went way over the heads of a good number of people on USMB. I think the subject involved might've been too abstract and you're language too sophisticated for most people with a US public school education to fully comprehend. That or when the subject of God is brought up, reason flies out the window and emotions cloud the mind. Or a mixture of both and maybe some other contributing factors.

Is there a way in which you might want to simplify your argument? That could help.

I do so love your subtle insults to those that have different beliefs than you. I'll give you kudos for being an excellent insulter however.

I won't. "You disagree with me, so clearly, you just didn't understand the topic and I've been too brilliant for your tiny mind" isn't even original. It's page one of the liberal "Pretend you're debating" handbook.

Well, that's why I was laughing at what he said. You basically own his ass.

 

[Cecilie1200]

I do so love your subtle insults to those that have different beliefs than you. I'll give you kudos for being an excellent insulter however.

I won't. "You disagree with me, so clearly, you just didn't understand the topic and I've been too brilliant for your tiny mind" isn't even original. It's page one of the liberal "Pretend you're debating" handbook.

Well, that's why I was laughing at what he said. You basically own his ass.

Geez. And I thought my storage room was full of useless junk before.

 

[Diuretic]

That is what I meant when I said it is pretty silent on the issue. The claim that God prohibits abortion is an inference men make, and then use the moral authority of God to promote their political agenda.

So God is not applicable to use as a 'moral authority' to promote a political agenda? What basis does your moral authority originate from in order to promote your political agenda? And why is it any more relevant?

God mit uns

Poor old God, been used and abused throughout human history.

 

[Coloradomtnman]

I won't. "You disagree with me, so clearly, you just didn't understand the topic and I've been too brilliant for your tiny mind" isn't even original. It's page one of the liberal "Pretend you're debating" handbook.

Wrong. Not only do I not care that you disagree with me, but I wanted to actually see what someone who believed in God would have to say. However, you didn't address the argument put forth by N4mddissent, and, instead, you made angry and meaningless (in regards to the OP) statements. Where your reply was coherent, you argued about something else altogether, thereby not only demonstrating your lack of comprehension of the OP but also validating my comments.

I would be interested in what you have to say if you would address Nmddissent's argument and not what you "think" his argument is.

 

[Coloradomtnman]

I thought N4mddissent pretty much said everything that needed to be said in his OP and his response to your first posting here. I agree with his point of view. I also think its futile to communicate with you as you see any argument against religion or Christianity as an attack, not to mention that you insult people and get personal in your responses. Then you misrepresent what you said in an earlier post when someone uses what you said in that post against you. And you call them an idiot for somehow misunderstanding what you wrote.

When you can post something that's relevant, discussable; and isn't dripping with dogmatic blindness, insults, and contempt; and when you understand what the OP was actually saying so that communicating with you isn't a complete waste of time and effort, then I would gladly do so. However, that isn't the case.

In other words, you have nothing. [/QUOTE]

Try re-reading the post, Newby. Or, if you need to, read my response above to AllieBaba's response. I simplify things for those whose only reading material is The Bible.

 

[Cecilie1200]

That is what I meant when I said it is pretty silent on the issue. The claim that God prohibits abortion is an inference men make, and then use the moral authority of God to promote their political agenda.

So God is not applicable to use as a 'moral authority' to promote a political agenda? What basis does your moral authority originate from in order to promote your political agenda? And why is it any more relevant?

God mit uns

Poor old God, been used and abused throughout human history.

I told someone the other day that if I knew that (I forget what it was), I'd be God. She said, "I wouldn't take that job. It's thankless." I said, "True. When things go wrong, it's your fault, and when they go right, it would have happened anyway."

I hear it pays well, but I really doubt it's worth it.