Is the Christian God Moral?

[Sentinel]

Creation Damnation and Salvation (Shortened)

The Christian God is omnipotent and omniscient and knows everything that will unfold.  God created everything that exists.  He created the universe and Man was created in His own image. He created the tree of good and evil as well as Satan and therefore created evil and sin itself.  He then created Hell as a means of punishing “sinners” in the afterlife.

The purpose of punishment in our society can be morally classified as a means for rehabilitation, separation or to serve as a deterrent from certain behavior.  Immoral punishment would be to sadistically punish people for one’s own pleasure.  Prison sentences also serve the majority of the community who obey the common law.  An eternity in Hell cannot serve as a means for rehabilitation. Most religions claim that only a few people will go to heaven and the masses will go to hell.  Hell therefore serves God, and not mankind.

God then sent Himself, in the form of Jesus Christ, in order to ritually sacrifice Himself to Himself. This would save the few from eternal torment in His own torture chamber for the crime of committing “sin” which He created and caused.

Since God knows the outcome of every situation before it happens, it is clear what His objective was when creating sin, the method in which sin was to be committed and the punishment thereof.  This premeditated and sadistic plan was put into action and fulfilled in order to attain a status “worthy” of worship, praise and obedience and to torture most of us.

In the unlikely event that God’s Holy Scriptures was more than it can be proven to be, a myth, the world and mankind would be in serious trouble.  It is not a comforting thought that there could be a manipulating, malevolent and sadistic voyeur in the sky that is obviously not a moral being.

Sentinel - Let's not even get started on "The Ten Commandments"

[bluegray V]

Hehe, you should know better than to apply logic to religious beliefs

But it's an interesting question. Most people equate religion with morals and atheism with no morals. In reality, morality and religiousness have nothing to do with each other.

[Anacoluthon64]

Most people equate religion with morals and atheism with no morals. In reality, morality and religiousness have nothing to do with each other.

Indeed.  In fact, if such things as the Crusades, the Inquisition, witch hunts, jihads, etc. are any indication, then strong religious beliefs appear to make amoral behaviour much easier to justify; i.e. religious belief tends to polarise moral judgements as either absolutely good or absolutely bad with very little in between and with considerable ease and clarity for the believer.

Another dominant feature that is often overlooked by those who argue for god's existence by crediting him/her as the only possible wellspring of our morality is that our morality is not and never has been absolute, eternal or immutable.

But yes, the christian god is an arbitrarily sadistic, infanticidal and cowardly deceiver.

'Luthon64

[bluegray V]

But yes, the christian god is an arbitrarily sadistic, infanticidal and cowardly deceiver.

Sure, but I would also like to add that to most christians, this is probably not how they view God. As an ex NG christian, this is certainly not how I experienced him when I grew up. And this argument will be useless in most debates where christians are involved.

"God is good. God is love. He sacrificed his son for our sins." This is how most christians experienced God. Therefore he must be moral, if he is good.

[Anacoluthon64]

Sure, but I would also like to add that to most christians, this is probably not how they view God.

Well, yes, but that's sort of obvious, I think: if they did view him in such a light, s/he wouldn't be quite so "nice" to believe in, and the belief would probably never have gained the foothold it has in our culture.

And this argument will be useless in most debates where christians are involved.

It was meant much more as an observation than as an argument.

"God is good. God is love. He sacrificed his son for our sins." This is how most christians experienced God. Therefore he must be moral, if he is good.

Yeah, and the circularity and absurdity of that stance usually escapes them: if god is the source of our understanding of good and evil, then it is totally meaningless to say, "god is good" because that would be like saying, "god is what god is" (i.e. it's a tautology); on the other hand, if there is an absolute measure for good and evil that exists outside god, then there is something greater than god that s/he is subject to.  Neither alternative finds much favour with christians and faces them with something of an ontological dilemma.

'Luthon64

[Anacoluthon64]

Whether the christian god is good or not is given an answer of sorts here (which, oddly enough, doesn’t quite tally with this).  Then, there’s this, too.

Maybe s/he just doesn’t like being asked to give special favours, especially by his/her most ardent adherents…

'Luthon64

[Anacoluthon64]

Yet another fine example of how religion ensures moral behaviour…

'Luthon64

[johnno777]

Would you give us a definition as to what you perceive morality to be?

[Anacoluthon64]

If you are addressing me, johnno777, my own perception has very little to do with it.

• [N]ormatively to refer to a code of conduct that, given specified conditions, would be put forward by all rational persons.

Read more here.

'Luthon64

[ArgumentumAdHominem]

Would you give us a definition as to what you perceive morality to be?

If you are addressing me, johnno777, my own perception has very little to do with it.

• [N]ormatively to refer to a code of conduct that, given specified conditions, would be put forward by all rational persons.

Read more here.

'Luthon64

I think that I'd question that definition from the Stanford Encyclopædia because many moral acts are not always rational (for a given value of rational - LOL). Consider some irrational acts such as altruism that fly in the face of rational thoughts for self-preservation.  So where am I going with this?  I think that Nietzsche's definition of morality is closer to the truth (my underlining).

116

Herd instinct.— Wherever we encounter a morality, we also encounter valuations and an order of rank of human impulses and actions. These valuations and orders of rank are always expressions of the needs of a community and herd: whatever benefits it most—and secondmost, and thirdmost—that is also considered the first standard for the value of all individuals. Morality trains the individual to be a function of the herd and to ascribe value to himself only as a function. The conditions for the preservation of different communities were very different; hence there were very different moralities. Considering essential changes in the forms of future herds and communities, states and societies, we can prophesy that there will yet be very divergent moralities. Morality is herd instinct in the individual.

Okay, so now we have (what I think is) a measurable definition of morality.  If sombody is moral then that person puts the herd's interests as a primary concern before self-interest, once the herd's interests have been served then the self-interests can be addressed as a secondary concern.  Also, for the purpose of this discussion, we can refer to humankind as his herd.  Does the Christian god act in such a way as to promote the herd?  Does he place his own concerns as an individual aside in favour of promoting actions which benefit the herd?

I think not. 

• There are countless examples of god asking for us to pay attention to him first before our own interests.  Following any of the other gods is a no-no (who knows, perhaps they are team players?)
• Slavery (especially of the "weaker" sex) is whole-heartedly encouraged.  A move, it is hard to imagine, which has any positive aspects for the human race at all.
• Tribalism is the norm.  God will support your team and smite the other guys who, it is presumed, do not follow god's morality nor are members of his herd.  How this helps all of human kind is another mystery.  The boundaries of "us" and "them" is very vague, even within his own followers as exemplified by the centuries-old conflict in Northern Ireland between Catholics and Protestants (both Christian groups) or the centuries of European in-fighting, also P's versus C's.

... and so on.

[Anacoluthon64]

I think that I'd question that definition from the Stanford Encyclopædia because many moral acts are not always rational (for a given value of rational - LOL).

Let’s please be really cautious here.  Apart from the very real risk of derailing this thread into an interminable tit-for-tat back-and-forth over what is and what is not moral or morality, for a subject about which probably more has been written than any other, the S.E.P. definition is pretty good – actually, it’s superb – considering it’s only twenty words long, each single one of which words has no doubt been carefully and vigilantly selected, as is always the case with the S.E.P.  The leading specifier “normatively” and the almost parenthetical rider “given specified conditions” (both of which are explored in much greater depth in the subsequent entry) meet your objections (and Nietzsche’s rather narrow contentions): we are, after all, only altruistic in certain circumstances; meanwhile, you would, I am quite sure, doubt the sanity, if not the morality, of a person who altruistically protects an enemy at the expense of his/her own family.  Moreover, altruism (whatever that might actually be), while rarely mediated or prompted by reason directly, need not be irrational or even antithetical to reason.

The real trouble with morality is that as soon as you have two (or more) substantively different moral prescriptions, you will be able to conceive without too much difficulty of a situation in which one (or more) run(s) afoul of the other(s), and you will be forced to rank one (or more) of them as more important than the other(s).  Even with a single such directive that is sufficiently inclusive, trouble-free moralising is not guaranteed.  A terrorist who makes a point of targeting women and children directly will, I think, be viewed by most people as much more morally reprehensible than one who targets, say, only power stations and water purification plants even though focussing on such latter objectives results in just as many or even more deaths of women and children, e.g. through disruption of essential and/or health and/or life support systems.

'Luthon64

[johnno777]

I think that morality constitutes, essentially, a compass which determines polar opposites between concepts of good and evil, right and wrong. We are discussing God’s morality, or moral code here, so most other definitions and prescriptions, which may in some cases resemble elements of His moral code, or not, are superfluous to a forensic, or philosophical scrutiny and examination of His moral code.
 
“Argumentum AdHominem” says: “I think that Nietzsche's definition of morality is closer to the truth (my underlining).”

I must say that that I think “ArgumentumAdHominem”’s quoting Nietzsche, as being one who had a grasp of the meaning of morality, is a bit rich and  at once, both comical and tragic. He (Nietzsche) certainly did not have a clue what he was thinking about, even though he had pretensions of knowing something about philosophy, philology and theology. He would not have known what morality meant, even if he was mugged by it. Unfortunately, nor was Nietzsche even a liberal who was mugged by reality.

The only morality that he deemed having any merit for was an übermoralität for an Übermensch (which that newspaper reader Adolf Hitler latched onto) which seems rather immoral to me. He despised and criticized every other form of morality that his confused mind had conjured up, of which some were Christian, Kantian, European and utilitarian morality.

Let’s then engage is the aspects of God’s (yes capital G, there is only one real one) foundational tenets which constitute his definition of morality, namely His ten Words, or ten commands, or as we know it today, as: “The Ten Commandments”, which covers all aspects of morality relating to humankind.

I notice you guys apparently love reason and logic. So, let us reason together. It would be great if you would make a concerted and sustained effort to stick closely to the topic “Is the Christian God moral?”

I would like to posit that He is the only reliable and legitimate author and constructor of a moral code for all humankind, which is perfect and unsurpassable over any other man-made moral/ethical system devised by the same. As author and originator of a perfect moral code, He is perfect and habituates the very code that He has given humankind to live by.

[Anacoluthon64]

Well, if we are to accept your position that (1) “we are discussing God’s morality, or moral code here,” (2) we “engage is [sic] the aspects of God’s … foundational tenets which constitute his definition of morality,” (3) we “make a concerted and sustained effort to stick closely to the topic ‘Is the Christian God moral?’,” and (4) “god is the only reliable and legitimate author and constructor of a moral code for all humankind, which is perfect and unsurpassable over any other man-made moral/ethical system devised by the same,” then we are faced with a very thorny problem.

To wit: if, as you suggest, your god is the author of that which “determines polar opposites between concepts of good and evil, right and wrong” and thus allows us to make such distinctions, the question you seek an answer to is entirely meaningless.  Briefly, if your god defines what’s good and what’s evil, it is meaningless to say that your god is “good” because s/he defined the meaning of the term in the first place.  If, on the other hand, “good” and “evil” are defined beyond your god’s reach, then s/he isn’t the author of our moral code, as you would claim.

In either case, the problem of evil in the world is a very strong reason to suppose that your god doesn’t adhere to his/her own moral code, assuming, just for the sake of argument, that all of what you claim is true.  Such deviance is in and of itself already immoral because it is no less than a violation of bearing false witness.

Moreover, the christian bible includes, apart from the decalogue (of which, BTW, there are two versions, namely Exodus 20 and Deuteronomy 5), several other moral prescriptions such as putting to death those who work on the sabbath or that eating shellfish is, like homosexuality, an abomination.  As human beings, most would view these edicts with a twinge of scepticism, horror even, which suggests that we have a moral sense quite apart from that decreed by the christian god.

So, no, all in all the verdict comes out quite strongly against your god being moral.

'Luthon64

[ArgumentumAdHominem]

I must say that that I think "ArgumentumAdHominem"'s quoting Nietzsche, as being one who had a grasp of the meaning of morality, is a bit rich and  at once, both comical and tragic. He (Nietzsche) certainly did not have a clue what he was thinking about, even though he had pretensions of knowing something about philosophy, philology and theology. He would not have known what morality meant, even if he was mugged by it. Unfortunately, nor was Nietzsche even a liberal who was mugged by reality.

The only morality that he deemed having any merit for was an übermoralität for an Übermensch (which that newspaper reader Adolf Hitler latched onto) which seems rather immoral to me. He despised and criticized every other form of morality that his confused mind had conjured up, of which some were Christian, Kantian, European and utilitarian morality.

As 'Luthon said earlier, using Nietzsche' definition is too restrictive for our purposes here and I didn't argue against that at all.  So I have not pursued Nietzsche's definition of morality since.

But what I did notice from your response is that your analysis of Nietzsche does show a trend in fallacious thinking.  You did not address the quoted passage from The Gay Science but chose, instead, to venture into genetic fallacy by finding something somewhere that he said that you disagree with.  It is a form of ad hominem attack and can be equated to discounting all of Newtonian physics because (in later life) Newton studied (the undeniably unscientific world of) alchemy.  It's throwing the baby out with the bath water.  This genetic fallacy you have provided is specifically the argumentum ad Nazium attacks we hear in most topic posts from Christians.  Hitler took a misguided version of the concept of Übermensch as justification of his Aryn race, which, if you read the discussion in Thus Spoke Zarathustra, has nothing to do with a master race but rather a transcendent man who gives-up on the need for imaginary gods (among other things).  The way to highlight the misappropriation of the idea by the Nazis would be to notice that Nazi uniforms included the statement "Gott Mit Uns" (god with us).  You will agree that this is a misappropriation from Christianity and so you must recognise that most of Hitler's ideas were twisted distortions of their original meaning. 

This concept (Übermensch) from Nietzsche is one I don't agree with, being a Secular Humanitarian, I don't agree that we should ignore the suffering of others in order to become a transcendent "Superman".  Now that I have cleared-up that fallacy, I agree that from now on (also  to remain on topic) we don't need to talk about Nietzsche's philosophy.  But you are welcome to start a new discussion about Nietzsche if you would like to delve deeper into his philosophy.

It would be great if you would make a concerted and sustained effort to stick closely to the topic "Is the Christian God moral?"

Oops, sorry, okay I will do so 

I would like to posit that He is the only reliable and legitimate author and constructor of a moral code for all humankind, which is perfect and unsurpassable over any other man-made moral/ethical system devised by the same. As author and originator of a perfect moral code, He is perfect and habituates the very code that He has given humankind to live by.

I do not want to detract from 'Luthon's response (and I hope that you respond to her argument) but I would like to ask why you choose to follow the ten commandments and only some (very few) of the hundreds of other commandments (some which were highlighted by 'Luthon)?  The Jewish faith recognises three hundred and sixteen commandments that the strictest Hasidic Jews follow unquestioningly as a moral code.  Are they acting more morally than you?  Among these "moral" pronouncements from god are the stoning to death of disobedient children and the murder of rape victims for their part in the immoral act of rape.

[johnno777]

                               Part One

Firstly, I would like to deal with “Anacoluthon64”’s  response to my post.

Thanks for the “engage is [sic]” which was a typo and should have read “in”. Let me know if we’re going to comment on each other’s typographical, grammatical, semantic, or malaproposic errors, as well as the substance of our argumentation. It could be an interesting side-game, very different to your playing with the "meise2"s and your "kenny g"s.

On your first point; you say that if you were to accept my posit that God is the author, encoder and definer of what constitutes morality, then we are faced with very thorny problem. I hope that by we, you mean yourself and those who agree with your theses and perspectives. I have no problem with such an assertion. Further, you say that if what I say about God, with respect to Him being the aforementioned author of a moral code, is true, or to be accepted by you, then: “the question you seek an answer to is entirely meaningless”. I do not seek an answer to the topic question which I have answered in the affirmative. You apparently seek an answer (notwithstanding your prior presuppositions). I affirm that God is moral by virtue of being the author of a moral code as well as being perfect.

You say: “Briefly, if your god defines what’s good and what’s evil, it is meaningless to say that your god is “good” because s/he defined the meaning of the term in the first place.  If, on the other hand, “good” and “evil” are defined beyond your god’s reach, then s/he isn’t the author of our moral code, as you would claim.”

If Einstein declares that within his theory of relativity, the equation that demonstrates Mass-energy equivalence is articulated in E = mc², and that that energy and mass are equivalent and transmutable, then so it is; until someone can demonstrate empirically, that he is wrong. His thesis is no less valid because he alone declares it to be valid, without validation from outside sources. It is incumbent on anyone who disagrees with, or doubts his thesis, to prove him to be wrong. It is no different with the assertion made by myself that God is the author of morality and that He is perfect, therefore He is indeed a moral God. If you don’t believe it, or don’t like it, it is incumbent on you to prove such an assertion wrong or just say you don’t like the idea.

You say: “In either case, the problem of evil in the world is a very strong reason to suppose that your god doesn’t adhere to his/her own moral code, assuming, just for the sake of argument, that all of what you claim is true.  Such deviance is in and of itself already immoral because it is no less than a violation of bearing false witness.”

How do you come to the reductio ad absurdum that the problem of evil in the world is a strong reason to suppose that God does not adhere to His own moral code?
His moral code was constituted for humankind, not for Himself. He knows how to live without sin, because sin has no effect on Him. He is sinless. It is sinful humankind that needs a moral compass to know how they should live, not only to please God, but so that they may know how to live harmoniously with each other.

He has given every one of His human creation a free will. That is why you and your like –minded associates have the ability to accept, or to reject what God proffers, as well as to cobble and conjure up any philosophy you wish, and to align yourselves with any philosophy cobbled, or conjured up by anyone else. If He created robots who could not think, or reason for themselves, or who could not do anything they wanted to, except for what God instructs them to do, then you could logically and justifiably apportion blame to Him for being unfair. Evil in the world is present because evil people have exercised their free wills to do and to propagate evil. Our very first parents, Adam and Eve, chose, of their free wills, to disobey a direct command from God. From that moment, all their progeny, right down to today, were born with a virus more virulent than Aids, called sin. Aids causes physical death and sin causes physical, as well as spiritual death. It was because of His love for His human creation that he devised a moral code so that they may live in peace and safety among each other and with Him. It was a de facto rejection of some, or all of the constituent parts of that moral code, by most of His human creation, that caused evil to flourish throughout the world. If we had no choices, God could easily have a world of robots marching together in harmony without strife. God is not a liar. Unlike your contention, He bears no false witness just because the world does not choose to live according to His moral code.That is a logical malapropism.