Another serious reason why these conversations are futile

[Spock]

I tried before to suggest that we should attempt to find common ground, by defining basic terms (existence, evidence, love, good, evil, and so on) in a mutually acceptable fashion. Those terms then could serve as a starting point to allow meaningful conversations. Those threads all fizzled out very quickly, which is unfortunate.

However, there is another obstacle, which is even more serious. During conversations it will inevitably pop up that we are not supposed to issue judgmental comments regarding God. Usually they are in the form of “who are you to criticize God?” or “how dares the pot question the maker?”. These comments are always the last resort, when there is no rational answer.

It is insisted that God, being the law-giver, should be exempt from the laws he allegedly issued. For humans it is morally unacceptable to wantonly kill, pillage or commit genocide. Posters say, that such behavior is acceptable when God commits, commands, or allows it. The generic principle is, of course, boils down to “might makes right”. God has the big stick, and therefore whatever he says / does / commands / allows is fine and dandy. The irony comes in is that those posters still insist that there is a universal and absolute moral code, which does not apply to God. So why is this moral code universal or absolute, if there is exception to it? Don’t you see that you contradict to your own definitions? If something is universal or absolute, it cannot have exceptions!

I don’t think that this post will change your minds. As before, these attempts to rational discourse are futile. If some of you would start to think about it, it would be great. But I don’t hold my breath.

 

[tonyrey]

It is insisted that God, being the law-giver, should be exempt from the laws he allegedly issued. For humans it is morally unacceptable to wantonly kill, pillage or commit genocide. Posters say, that such behavior is acceptable when God commits, commands, or allows it. The generic principle is, of course, boils down to “might makes right”. God has the big stick, and therefore whatever he says / does / commands / allows is fine and dandy. The irony comes in is that those posters still insist that there is a universal and absolute moral code, which does not apply to God. So why is this moral code universal or absolute, if there is exception to it? Don’t you see that you contradict to your own definitions? If something is universal or absolute, it cannot have exceptions!

1. God does not kill, pillage or commit genocide.
2. God’s commandments are not arbitrary but stem from love.
3. There is no universal and absolute moral code which applies to God.
4. God is the Source of the universal and absolute moral code!

 

[NE_Catholic]

I tried before to suggest that we should attempt to find common ground, by defining basic terms (existence, evidence, love, good, evil, and so on) in a mutually acceptable fashion. Those terms then could serve as a starting point to allow meaningful conversations. Those threads all fizzled out very quickly, which is unfortunate.

blah blah blah

I don’t think that this post will change your minds. As before, these attempts to rational discourse are futile. If some of you would start to think about it, it would be great. But I don’t hold my breath.

Why do you come here?
I just don’t unstand why you are here?

 

[Spock]

1. God does not kill, pillage or commit genocide.

Read the Old Testament.

1. There is no universal and absolute moral code which applies to God.

Then it is neither universal nor absolute. Don’t you know the meaning of these words?

 

[Charlemagne_II]

Spock

*Then it is neither universal nor absolute. Don’t you know the meaning of these words? *

I certainly do. So does God, since He created them. The only one here who doesn’t seem to understand them is YOU.

God makes the rules. God enforces the rules. God can change the rules at will.

But we cannot. We are absolutely bound to follow the will of God, even when it is contrary to our own.

This is what bugs atheists. They want to be God, but they don’t want God to be God.

 

[The_Exodus]

It is insisted that God, being the law-giver, should be exempt from the laws he allegedly issued. For humans it is morally unacceptable to wantonly kill, pillage or commit genocide. Posters say, that such behavior is acceptable when God commits, commands, or allows it. The generic principle is, of course, boils down to “might makes right”. God has the big stick, and therefore whatever he says / does / commands / allows is fine and dandy. The irony comes in is that those posters still insist that there is a universal and absolute moral code, which does not apply to God. So why is this moral code universal or absolute, if there is exception to it? Don’t you see that you contradict to your own definitions? If something is universal or absolute, it cannot have exceptions!

I don’t think that this post will change your minds. As before, these attempts to rational discourse are futile. If some of you would start to think about it, it would be great. But I don’t hold my breath.

These are good questions Spock. Do not despair over answers you find inadequate, or people who cannot meet you in honest intellectual dialogue. Keep searching for the truth.

Now, I see no parity in the relation of God to man, and so I don’t see how God can be bound to the same laws man is bound to.

For example, God, the author and giver of life, can of his own good pleasure revoke that life, wouldn’t you think? What is given out of gratuity is not owed, and therefore it is not unjust to revoke.

God does not act wantonly or maliciously in punishing others either, although Scripture may use certain metaphors to describe the wrath of God. God executes punishment through his justice, since he righteously abhors all sin whatsoever. I’m not sure I see how it is unjust to punish wickedness. Indeed, it seems to me God is bound to punish it, else he is not truly just. Perhaps you could flesh out in more detail your objections.

 

[tonyrey]

                 [

](http://forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?p=7319047#post7319047)
Read the Old Testament.

Learn how to interpret the Old Testament!

Then it is neither universal nor absolute.

Since God is the Source of the universal and absolute moral code it must be!

 

[Spock]

God makes the rules. God enforces the rules. God can change the rules at will.

In other words, you say that might makes right. I don’t accept this concept as a foundation for “morality”. Not even when you probably say that this concept is only applicable to God, and not to us. All you do is introduce a special pleading on behalf of God, and then still attempt to maintain that the rules are “universal and absolute”… and refuse to see your own contradiction.

A prime example why these conversations are futile.

 

[Spock]

Learn how to interpret the Old Testament!

There is nothing to “interpret” in the command: “Kill all the men, women and male children, but keep the virgins for yourself”. There is nothing to “interpret” in: “I am a jealous God”. Also “I create good and evil”. Or “vengence is mine”… or innumerable other commands and actions. You should ask the Church to give an official, infallible interpretation of the Bible, verse by verse, chapter by chapter. And then you would at least have something to point to, instead of the vacuous and irrelevant “comeback” like the one above.

Since God is the Source of the universal and absolute moral code it must be!

Since you maintain that the code is not applicable to God himself, it is obviously not universal and not absolute. It is not such a difficult concept to understand: any code or rule, which has exceptions is not universal and not absolute…

Yours is just another prime example of nonsensical, empty communication.

 

[Spock]

These are good questions Spock. Do not despair over answers you find inadequate, or people who cannot meet you in honest intellectual dialogue. Keep searching for the truth.

Thank you!

Now, I see no parity in the relation of God to man, and so I don’t see how God can be bound to the same laws man is bound to.

I did not say that God must to be held to the same norms and standards. If you wish to establish or create a whole separate code for God, that is fine. But if you do that, then be consistent, and do not try to apply the same adjectives to God, for a completely different type of behavior (action or inaction). And do not attempt to say that the moral code extablished by God is either universal or absolute. That would be attempting to blow both hot and cold from your mouth.

For example, God, the author and giver of life, can of his own good pleasure revoke that life, wouldn’t you think? What is given out of gratuity is not owed, and therefore it is not unjust to revoke.

Actually, I don’t think so. If you give a gift to someone, then you relinquish all control over that gift, you have no say-so considering how that gift is used or abused. If you still retain control over it, then it cannot be called a “gift”, it is just a loan, payable back on demand. The trouble with this picture is that we are not in the position of refusing to accept that “gift”, it is thrown at us whether we want it or not. And then we are demanded to take good care of that “loan”, we have obligations to carry out, but have no control over it. It is very unfair - in my book.

God does not act wantonly or maliciously in punishing others either, although Scripture may use certain metaphors to describe the wrath of God. God executes punishment through his justice, since he righteously abhors all sin whatsoever. I’m not sure I see how it is unjust to punish wickedness. Indeed, it seems to me God is bound to punish it, else he is not truly just. Perhaps you could flesh out in more detail your objections.

As I said in the post above, it would be the absolute duty of the Catholic Church to create a counterpart to the Skepitcs Annotated Bible, in which the Church would establish, officially, dogmatically and infallibly, which verses must be accepted verbatim, and which ones are to taken allegorically, and explain how the allegorical ones are to be interpreted. Since there is no such Catholics Annotated Bible, many of you (all of you, really) play hide and seek and create your own interpretations. That is why it is so frustrating to attempt to communicate.

You asked for an example. Here is one: it is considered good and moral behavior to help those who are in dire need of help (see the parable of the Good Samaritan). When we see someone in distress, we are expected to render help to our best ability. If someone is observed to be able to help, and still refuses to give help, that person will not be praised and called an upright and moral person. Does this apply to God, too? Obviously not. God knows about the distress, could render help just by “wishing” it, and yet God does nothing. So far, so good. You say that God does not have the same obligations as we do. But then, why do you praise God as the fount of morality? You use two different standards, but wish to use the same evaluation. And that simply does not wash.

 

[OvrlapnMagstria]

An interesting question to ponder if you believe that God is the source of moral code:

What if God decided to change His mind on some aspect of morality? For example, what if He decided that stealing is not a problem anymore? Would it still be wrong to steal? *

If God is the giver of morality, the answer should be yes. He is the moral code, and the moral code is changed. However, I think most people would still think it is wrong to steal. If it is still wrong to steal, then there is something outside of God that determines the morality of theft. And if there is something outside of God that determines morality, does it apply to God as well? Why or why not?

*I am anticipating that some people will object to this example saying “God would never do that.” This is a hypothetical. If God is the giver of moral law, that he CAN decide in whatever way He chooses.

 

[Charlemagne_II]

Spock

*In other words, you say that might makes right. I don’t accept this concept as a foundation for “morality”. Not even when you probably say that this concept is only applicable to God, and not to us. All you do is introduce a special pleading on behalf of God, and then still attempt to maintain that the rules are “universal and absolute”… and refuse to see your own contradiction.

A prime example why these conversations are futile. *

No, the reason there is no communication here is that you don’t believe in God in the first place. Why would you accept a God whose might is right when you don’t even accept any God? It seems rather strange to me that you are even making the points you make. Are you trying to prove that God does not exist by saying that the God we believe in is absurd just because you think that if He can change the rules then he can’t be absolute?

Good luck with that “proof”!

*The trouble with this picture is that we are not in the position of refusing to accept that “gift”, it is thrown at us whether we want it or not. And then we are demanded to take good care of that “loan”, we have obligations to carry out, but have no control over it. It is very unfair - in my book. *

The trouble with your picture is that you do not recognize the situation we are all in. We have all received a gift. It does not say well of us that we deny the existence of the Giver. Nor does it serve us well when we spit in the face of the Giver. The gift is not given without a purpose. God’s purpose in giving us the gift is not relinquished when He gives it. He still has a claim on our friendship. It is ingratitude of the first order when we take the gift and then spit in the face of the Giver. That is what is **very unfair **in my book.

 

[mellowcalico]

Hi Spock (love the forum name BTW).

When it comes to rule making, God is “Our Father” and we are “Children of God.” In that light, I see it as a parental role. God makes laws to keep us from harm, but like a parent, he doesn’t necessarily have to follow all the rules he makes for his children.

For example, I impose an 8:30 bedtime on my little girl–but I don’t go to bed then. She is not allowed to cook on the stove, but I can. She has to sit in the backseat, in a car seat. I can sit anywhere in a car. But we both follow the rules of saying “I’m sorry” to each other if we’ve done wrong… neither of us is allowed to steal something… etc. I am not picking and choosing to be a bully, I am picking what makes sense–even if my daughter doesn’t understand why.

I see God in the same way.

As for Old Testament commands to kill people and such, I honestly don’t have an answer or know why (or what they mean).

 

[tonyrey]

There is nothing to “interpret” in the command: “Kill all the men, women and male children, but keep the virgins for yourself”. There is nothing to “interpret” in: “I am a jealous God”. Also “I create good and evil”. Or “vengeance is mine”… or innumerable other commands and actions.

You seem unaware that it is not a doctrine of the Church that every sentence in the Old Testament is to be interpreted literally.

You should ask the Church to give an official, infallible interpretation of the Bible, verse by verse, chapter by chapter.

Such an absurd enterprise is quite unnecessary because any statement which is inconsistent with the teaching of Christ is clearly not to be taken literally.

And then you would at least have something to point to, instead of the vacuous and irrelevant “comeback” like the one above.

Such a remark does nothing to further the discussion and simply throws light on your character…

Since God is the

Source of the universal and absolute moral code it must be!
Since you maintain that the code is not applicable to God himself, it is obviously not universal and not absolute.

A non sequitur, given that the nature of God is absolute…

It is not such a difficult concept to understand: any code or rule, which has exceptions is not universal and not absolute…

It should not be too difficult to understand that the Source of morality is not an exception but the Model on which all rules are based.

Yours is just another prime example of nonsensical, empty communication.

Such a remark does nothing to further the discussion and simply throws further light on your character…
http://forums.catholic-questions.org/newreply.php?do=newreply&p=7322230

 

[Spock]

No, the reason there is no communication here is that you don’t believe in God in the first place. Why would you accept a God whose might is right when you don’t even accept any God? It seems rather strange to me that you are even making the points you make.

Nonsense. I don’t have to believe in astrology (or any other pseudo-science) to conduct a meaningful conversation with an astrologer - as long as we can agree of basic definitions. And this is still the problem. The believers use the words in human context one way, and in a totally different way when they talk about God.

Are you trying to prove that God does not exist by saying that the God we believe in is absurd just because you think that if He can change the rules then he can’t be absolute?

If the rules change, then they are not absolute. It should be obvious. If the rules do not apply to everyone, they are not universal. Is that so hard to understand?

 

[Neil_Anthony]

It is insisted that God, being the law-giver, should be exempt from the laws he allegedly issued. For humans it is morally unacceptable to wantonly kill, pillage or commit genocide. Posters say, that such behavior is acceptable when God commits, commands, or allows it. The generic principle is, of course, boils down to “might makes right”. God has the big stick, and therefore whatever he says / does / commands / allows is fine and dandy. The irony comes in is that those posters still insist that there is a universal and absolute moral code, which does not apply to God. So why is this moral code universal or absolute, if there is exception to it? Don’t you see that you contradict to your own definitions? If something is universal or absolute, it cannot have exceptions!

There are some absolute moral rules that even God follows.

But, not all rules that govern humans in an absolute way will apply the same way to God. The difference is that humans are equal, and God is above humans. Many of the so-called absolute rules are based in some way on the notion of equality. One person must respect another person’s rights because we are all equal. But God is not equal to us. The rules of justice are different between unequal beings than between equal beings.

Hope that clears it up!

 

[Spock]

Hi Spock (love the forum name BTW).

When it comes to rule making, God is “Our Father” and we are “Children of God.” In that light, I see it as a parental role. God makes laws to keep us from harm, but like a parent, he doesn’t necessarily have to follow all the rules he makes for his children.

For example, I impose an 8:30 bedtime on my little girl–but I don’t go to bed then. She is not allowed to cook on the stove, but I can. She has to sit in the backseat, in a car seat. I can sit anywhere in a car. But we both follow the rules of saying “I’m sorry” to each other if we’ve done wrong… neither of us is allowed to steal something… etc. I am not picking and choosing to be a bully, I am picking what makes sense–even if my daughter doesn’t understand why.

I see God in the same way.

Yes, this is sensible - to a certain extent. The acceptable behavior might be different in certain respects, as you pointed out. But there are some common behavioral patterns, which must be common, even considering the differences. Now, the analogy is not perfect, of course. If you do something that your daughter does not understand, then it is your duty to try and explain the why’s and wherefore’s at a level she can understand. The “because I said so!” is never acceptable. But even that would be preferable to the total “silent treatment” we receive from God.

And there is another problem. You, as the parent must take responsibility to care for your child until she grows up. Your responsibility ends when she becomes an adult. However, compared to God we shall never be “grown ups”. So either God owes us food-clothing-whatever - if we are children, or owes us an explanation - if we are “adults”. But, guess, what? We get neither.

As for Old Testament commands to kill people and such, I honestly don’t have an answer or know why (or what they mean).

Thank you. Your intellectual honesty is refreshing and commendable! The answer of “I don’t know” is always acceptable.

 

[DCNBILL]

Yes, this is sensible - to a certain extent. The acceptable behavior might be different in certain respects, as you pointed out. But there are some common behavioral patterns, which must be common, even considering the differences. Now, the analogy is not perfect, of course. If you do something that your daughter does not understand, then it is your duty to try and explain the why’s and wherefore’s at a level she can understand. The “because I said so!” is never acceptable. But even that would be preferable to the total “silent treatment” we receive from God.

And there is another problem. You, as the parent must take responsibility to care for your child until she grows up. Your responsibility ends when she becomes an adult. However, compared to God we shall never be “grown ups”. So either God owes us food-clothing-whatever - if we are children, or owes us an explanation - if we are “adults”. But, guess, what? We get neither.

Thank you. Your intellectual honesty is refreshing and commendable! The answer of “I don’t know” is always acceptable.

God does not owe, He provides, we in turn, like spoiled children, lack the charity to share.

Note that from the believers perspective He did this in the Incarnation.

 

[Spock]

There are some absolute moral rules that even God follows.

Please enumerate them. I think it is a very important point. And a question: where do these rules come from? And another one: “is God obliged to follow these rules”? A side story: after the Holocaust the Jews set up a court and accused God for breaking the covenant he had with them. During the proceedings they found God guilty, and convicted him - in absentia, of course.

But, not all rules that govern humans in an absolute way will apply the same way to God. The difference is that humans are equal, and God is above humans. Many of the so-called absolute rules are based in some way on the notion of equality. One person must respect another person’s rights because we are all equal. But God is not equal to us. The rules of justice are different between unequal beings than between equal beings.

Excellent. This is a valid argument, the kind I am always looking for.

But I have some remarks and questions. We are supposed to be created in the image of God, that is able to tell right from wrong, to be able to evaluate circumstances rationally. It does not mean that we are equal to God in all respects, but as rational beings we are equal to him. We might not have God’s knowledge and power, but we are allowed and even expected to use our rational powers according to the information we have. So, how do we evaluate God’s actions (or inactions) based upon the information we have?

Also, take the example of animals. We are clearly superior to animals. From that it does not follow that it is OK for us to torture animals, if that would be our desire. Despite the differences, we are not supposed to wantonly kill animals, are we?

 

[Spock]

God does not owe, He provides, we in turn, like spoiled children, lack the charity to share.

If he is a parent, then he does. That was the point. You picked part of my answer, and neglected the rest. And, no he does not “provide”. He does not even provide a little rain, which would allow us to grow the necessary crops to provide sustenance. No “special” miracle needed. Just a bit of rain!