God in his wisdom would not treat us like puppets, hence where there is evil in the world it is because people act in that way, not because god wants it. I am happy enough with that argument as concerns our actions, essentially it is up to us how we act and that is freedom, however where the ‘puppet theory’ falls down is in what we have no say over; why cant god stop disease and cancers? …or tsunamis, earthquakes etc.
I think most things are causal and that this is necessary for the universe to work [hence evolution etc as part of that], but an omnipotent being could step in and stop disease and cancers without affecting our free will, in fact it would enhance that.
So how do you see it, is god moral? ~ in the greater respect that is.
Please add any other reason why you think he may be ultimately moral or immoral.
Probably similar to half a million similar debates but worth asking/reiterating at this time of year.
That’s the distinction between moral and natural evil. You can try to use free will to absolve god of moral evil, but you’re still faced with natural evil. To absolve god of natural evil requires guessing about God’s intentions, but that’s obviously problematic and it’s where some faith is required to continue assuming God is good and has good intentions even though he’s both responsible for causing natural evil, i.e., hurricanes, earthquakes, tsunamis, etc, and responsible for not preventing them. And that’s all assuming you take for granted that you know what morality is and that God is susceptible to morality or immorality. That’s the problem with religion. Taking about it’s tenets is a lot like talking about Star Wars. Assuming this, assuming that…you start talking about fantastical things that are relevant only because people believe and act upon those beliefs, not because the subject of the belief themselves are relevant.
I can speak for theists or uninquisitive bores when I say ‘god moves in mysteeeeerious waaays!’. You’ll never get round that argument.
Anyway, it’s pretty hard even to speak about what would be immoral fundamentally. God seems to have let animals mame eachother for food for hundreds of millions of years and given humans ‘inhumane’ impulses by nature, but is this really immoral? Nah. Just nature.
Nobody has given humans “inhumane” impulses by nature, not God, not anybody. When humans act inhumanly, that is the result of deep distress, insanity, mistreatment, abuse, and societal oppression.
Well we can trace causality and just about all of nature comes under that, right, so we have to presume god created the universe and that to create universe you have to create a singularity etc, etc.
So this for me absolves god from the natural evil, however he is omnipotent and in the bible he steps in and changes stuff ~ hence my questioning.
If we can go with the above there still emerges the basic question; is god moral.
Now some religious people may say that ‘it’s the gays fault’ lols, or more generally that humanities evil acts cause it or stop god from intervening. Yet I don’t want to be blamed for other peoples wrong doing because I have no say over what they do, and certainly cancer is a horrible disease as are most diseases, so surely only an immoral or amoral god would would not step in to change that?
As for mysterious ways, well the above questions are relevant no matter what the ultimate ethics are, unless we can think of an answer e.g. as I am attempting to do with the natural evil argument, which absolves him then he remains immoral?
Natural evil? No such thing. In fact, that distinction doesn’t exist even among theists [as far as I know]. A natural disaster [caused by ‘God’] would be a moral evil; no?
“Evil” is a purely moral notion. I supposed it can be used synonymously with “disastrous” or “oppressive” in a colloquial sense, but that still seem erroneous to me.
Based on your working definition of ‘God’, I’d say he is more like ‘supra-moral.’ Morality, as we know it, does not apply to ‘God’ [as in most religious texts]. He sets the standards for us, but is always justified if/when his behavior contradicts his own teaching. God is not moral, immoral, or even amoral in my opinion. This, to me, is like asking a computer programmer if he, himself, operates based on Java script or Flash. Neither, he just uses those tools to compose & organize what he creates.
If God made man.
If God is the Judge of man’s moral decision.
If God knows more than man.
Then God is inherently infallible by man by consequence of the preceding attributes.
Can’t argue with what seems erroneous to you, but I should think the tsunami that caused the needless death of about half a million people was evil, and if God exists he is responsible either because he caused it, or, if you want to say he didn’t cause it, because he could have but didn’t prevent it. I’d be held responsible if I could have saved 10 people from drowning if I had the power and opportunity to do so. Let’s say I was standing by a lever that would close the gate to an incoming river of water. If they drown, the law might not hold me responsible, but morally I would be considered bad, or evil, or what have you…
If your issue is with defining evil in terms that allow for a tsunami to be called evil, then think of it being evil because it’s ‘causing needless suffering and death’ or some such. That’s usually a standard definition, and fyi “natural evil” is a problem faced by theodicy.
Well said [better than me at least]. But, I think we are saying roughly the same thing – if God is infallible, morality is not applicable. Regardless of what moral term we ascribe them, his actions are inherently deemed necessary. So, with no option of immorality [which is incorrect], or amorality [indifference], we have no means by which to say he is moral.
We can only be moral if we have the ability to be equally immoral; no? The same that we can’t be “right” without an ability to be “wrong”. Necessity supersedes moral value.
By what measure? Death is absolutely necessary. Where it occurs, I would think those specific deaths, under those specific circumstances, to be necessity as well.
Then you are saying God is evil for his lack of interference, not nature.
Really? I didn’t know that. Natural evil is such a ridiculous concept to me. Causing needless suffering and death could be considered evil, but what is “needless” about a natural disaster and its consequences? If anything, that is the very epitome of a looming necessity – pain and suffering.
Is the Flu evil? How about normally “good” things that go awry, like a campfire that spreads? Is the fire evil?
Hey man, we’re talking star wars here. I couldn’t tell you why Yoda couldn’t sense wtf was going on before Sith got their revenge even though we’re talking about a million some storm troopers who were in on the plan, and I can’t resolve any of the problems inherent in this mythology. I don’t believe any of it. I just though to point out the technical terms and lay out the problem OP’s concerned with.
why is it that Selfridges don’t sell fridges ~ I just heard that on tv so I thought I would share
Hmm in antithesis to the thread basis; we could say that god is continually intervening, as I have said before sir Paul McCartney had one night a vague idea of a song, he woke up the next morning with the song and line; ‘yesterday, all my troubles seam so far away’…etc. now how many times do we and get inspired ideas, discoveries and inventions that in truth we have no idea where they came from?
We could argue that the brain is just a fantastic computer and that the ‘dumb soul’ inhabiting the human form thinks the vague ideas and the brain finishes it off. Not sure if I am buying that though.
God may know more than man, however what is in the realm of mans knowledge still has to be attested for. It doesn’t matter if god is the judge and knows more in the greater sphere, in mans sphere these questions remain to be answered.
Pretty much.
“Moral” is a term only applicable to man in the construct of the relationship between man and God.
It basically means, “Are you in line with God’s agreement of righteousness of man.”
If God was to be questioned for morality, then God would have to answer to another Judge higher than he that Judged whether his rule as God was moral or not.
Man is not outlined to be such a judge in the relationship.
That said, if we flip the subject to discuss YHVH…well then…the entire outline flips.
Man is allowed to challenge YHVH’s decision and even sway YHVH’s decision based on reason and moral logic.
There are multiple instances of YHVH being challenged on such.
However, today’s Christian “God” is not the same construct as this.
Today’s Christian “God” carries several attributes that YHVH did not: Omnipotence, Omnipresence, Infallibility, Perfection, Perfect Goodness, Perfect Mercifulness, and the like.
Let’s not forget that ancient Hebrew YHVH, unlike the Christian God, condoned killing little children because they were of the seed of the evil foes of YHVH; which by Christianity today these same little children would be considered innocent by most doctrines in existence currently.
Further, YHVH was alright with wiping out every man, woman, and child on the planet except for Noah and his kin, simply because everyone (including children) were seen as evil by YHVH.
Again, today’s current doctrines commonly would not agree; God of today does not commonly (according to current theologies and doctrines) hold children as capable of being evil due to a lack of conscious will.
Further, YHVH was alright with wiping out the second son of every Israelite as punishment for actions that took place in mass by the Israelites whether those second sons had anything to do with the actions or not; they were simply killed as sacrifice of penance.
God of Christianity today is not attributed with such taxes for insubordination.
YHVH issues wrath in blind rage; sometimes staved by Prophets/Kings.
God of Christianity issues judgement with a clear and just mind.
Honestly; YHVH allows for far more rational explanation of the state of the world.
God of Christianity, not being allowed to be any shade of temperamental, irrational, emotional, biased, truly jealous, and ruthless, suddenly brings around a strange hole that needs to be filled.
Why then, if God is not like YHVH (or no longer like that, if you want) do these terrible things take place?
What did the doctrines proposed historically?
Lucifer. (I’ll stave from my normal discourse of how such a creature doesn’t exist in the Biblical text, and just go with doctrinal standards)
And where did that bring us?
If God is Omnipotent, Omnipresent, Infallible, Perfect, Perfectly Good, Perfectly Merciful, and the like, then why would God allow Lucifer to exist at all?
The answer of the doctrines generally?
Lucifer is allowed to allow for free will to exist in man so that man may, in some fashion, chose to follow God.
All of the terrible things that take place, God does not like; it hurts God, but Lucifer has the reigns over Earth for now (at least in some part) and is allowed to destroy and cause suffering and pain to push and test man’s faith in God.
Essentially; the response was to whip out Job and apply it to man ten fold and then some.
And what is the problem with that today according to where the questioning has lead?
Why is God an idiot?
(summarizing the general assertions that find far more easy methods than destroying random crap with suffering and pain for accomplishing the option of free will)
The answer?
Because this shit ain’t real.
Even by the text that inspired the development of these doctrines…it ain’t real.
The switch came along and people felt that God wasn’t like YHVH; that’s not how they felt God was.
So the doctrinal holding of God switched from that of YHVH into what is now the Saint God, instead of just the god YHVH; one tough mother fucker with a bigger stick than all y’all mother fuckers!
Instead of God punishing everyone for not following along, the responsibility for everything is handed to an asshole, Lucifer, that beats the shit out of everyone in hopes of sucking down their souls to hell in a population control contest, and one day hopes to kill God and take over, but instead will be killed and obliterated into nothingness (along with all the souls that he sucked into hell) at some point way off in the future (or really soon, depending on the interpretation).
In short…we’ve had this shit for too long and constructed non-sense out of something that originally made some sense.
Ergo, the response to this today by many Christians is to counter this back by asserting that a large majority of the construct is figurative and instead is a metaphor for the construct of the righteousness of man and his struggles with that condition.
All that is wrong in the world today is an absence of God, and the natural disasters are just part of the life we are gifted to live and experience.
It doesn’t really solve the problem, but it softens the direct charge of blame and decreases the direct interaction of God and Lucifer into the daily actions of humans.
It’s somewhere between Deism and personal Monotheism.
In fact, a portion, though not persistently large as of yet, of Christians are starting to move towards Hebrew restoration Christian movements that consider God to be more like YHVH and less like the newer Christian God.
I am not aware of any that hold to YHVH quite like the old Hebrew Judaism did, which not even all of Rabbinic Judaism today (main form of Judaism) hold, but they are indeed reducing the Saint God image in their restorationist movements.
So if I put cancer and disease in people I would be being moral? Or if I didn’t do anything about it when I could? Basically this is saying that god is immoral and he is allowed to be because what he thinks is moral is moral, regardless of weather or not it actually is. A rather infantile ethic for a supreme being I would say.
Well no the question is if he is moral as this is paramount, the bible would just be a set of instructions otherwise. We act like ‘x’ or get punished, that kind of thing.
I don’t think good actions are good because a good person does them [e.g. god], that would mean if a good god done bad things they would be good, yet surely a good god can only do good but not in a bad way!
I don’t think religion makes any sense at all if we just accept there are no basis to morality in it.
It is probably so that god cannot do anything about disease and cancers, there has to be such things in existence in order for life to occur. Creation has to happen in a given way and god is not omnipotent, in that he may be initially omnipotent then he creates the universe and all that goes within that construct [evolution etc], but because he has created it then he cannot change it without creating a new universe. …which if he did then he would either have one devoid of life or he would create the very same premise upon which he first built this universe!
In which case he remains moral! He hasn’t intervened physically [the bible is wrong in that respect], he has only interacted on the mental plane so as to help us be good.
I have an (hopefully) interesting addition to make to the conversation. Nearly everybody who argues this shit seems to work on the assumption that God is good, and that all suffering in the world is caused by an evil force; possibly the Devil; interfering with God’s general plan for a ‘good’ world. How about the equally plausible possibility: that God is evil, created the world for evil purposes centred around suffering, and the Devil is the interferer, trying to ease people’s suffering the world over wherever/whenever he can?
Personally I don’t believe in a God of any sort, and I think the above argument helps highlight the absurdity of such a belief. And if there exists no God, then he cannot have a moral value. Just my thoughts.
