Why Should God Be the Moral Authority?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Oreoracle
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
To relate that to the standard of Christ is what is wild imagination. How do you think is this related to “the standard of Christ”? Christ is perfectly pro-life!
Is jesus not the same god who ordered this inhumane slaughter (hint: if you answer no then you are a heretic)?
 
Hello everyone, I’m new to these forums. I don’t subscribe to any established religion, though I do have vague religious beliefs. I don’t believe that religion is a basis for ethical principles, though, so I’ll try my best to fit in here, despite the differences.

Now, to the question. Typically, I will hear three responses from Christians in this order (I know; predictable, right?). I’ll try to outline the situation:
  1. First, the typical Christian will say that it is only fitting that God be the moral authority because he did, after all, create all those subject to it. This seems to me to be evidently absurd. God should be able to demand anything of us just because he created us? What of our happiness or suffering? People tell me “You should be grateful. You want to live, right? He gave you that life.” Well, that’s the problem: I want to live because I’m alive. He didn’t fulfill a being’s interests by creating them. Instead, he created a being with a desire (of living) that will eventually fail to be satisfied, not even counting the living’s other interests.
  2. When the same person sees that argument failing, weakening, or simply not appealing to the opponent, they will fall back on God’s omniscience. It only makes sense that God set the rules, they say, because he knows everything, and thus can predict/foresee the exact results of such rules. This argument is weaker than the first. We see its weakness when we contrast it with Hume’s proposal of the is-ought gap, which claims that, since the properties of goodness and badness don’t seem to be natural (as compared to such adjectives used as fine sand or gnarled wood), and because they only seem to exist in one’s opinion of concrete items/circumstances, all sense of morality is subjective, or emotion-based. Moral knowledge is impossible. While I must agree that, if God can be proven to know more than any being (I don’t know how one can use inferior intelligence to discover a superior intelligence), and he shares our interests, he should be our moral authority. This is only true, of course, if God shares our interests, which, given that he is made out to be such an alien being, may be a bit of an ambitious assumption. In short, God has the infallible means to get whatever he wants, and we ought to follow him so long as our wants and his match. But just by flipping through the Bible, I doubt that’s the case.
  3. Lastly, and in desperation, the Christian proponent makes the ironically feeble claim that, because God is the most powerful (whatever you take that to mean), he should be the moral authority. I don’t think I even have to point out why this is not only a ridiculously unconvincing argument, but also a dangerous mindset. This is a “might makes right” philosophy that not only divides God and creatures, but society as well (because it asserts that power means everything). To make this post complete, I must evoke Hitler for a moment. Notice that he fit the bill in both arguments (2) and (3), but we wouldn’t consider him to have the moral high ground over almost anyone.
Am I right in my analysis? Are there additional proposals or objections?
No, your not!

jean
 
  1. First, the typical Christian will say that it is only fitting that God be the moral authority because he did, after all, create all those subject to it. This seems to me to be evidently absurd. God should be able to demand anything of us just because he created us? What of our happiness or suffering? People tell me “You should be grateful. You want to live, right? He gave you that life.” Well, that’s the problem: I want to live because I’m alive. He didn’t fulfill a being’s interests by creating them. Instead, he created a being with a desire (of living) that will eventually fail to be satisfied, not even counting the living’s other interests.
God does not demand just anything from us. He demands what would be good for us. Who would know best what would be best for us if not he who made us - who knew everything about us - our temperaments, characteristics, nature etc.? Just a simple analogy, don’t we consult the manufacturer first if we want to use some gadget appropriately? Similarly, who should we consult if we want to know how man can live his life well?

For the second part, you seem to have a preconceived notion that God is a sadist who created man to fail. I’m afraid (or rather, gladdened) that’s not true. Do you know the deepest desire God has placed in the human heart? It is the possession of God or union with him. God created man that he might share his divine life with him. 2000 years ago, Christ, the God-man, revealed this to us. And he desires to give us all the means to do so. He granted us the possibility of forgiveness of sins through his sacrifice at the Cross. He gives us the Church through which he lets himself known and which dispenses the graces we need to aid us to that path of union with him. He gives us all the means. All he asks for is our free cooperation.

If you think that human life seems a miserable failure considering only all these fleeting pleasures of the world, I agree with you. They do not fully satisfy the yearnings of the heart, which longs for the infinite. But God is a substantial part of the picture. He is that infinite which the heart longs for. And He seeks to give himself to us. He wants our deepest desire fulfilled. I suggest that you look more into the Catholic faith for a better understanding of this.
 
Does having dominion over the earth not include moral dominion?

I think so therefore man, not God is to be the authority here. God proclaimed it.

Don’t mess with God’s will.

Regards
DL
 
Ok, you tell me. Where did the christian concept of eternal damnation originate?
I don’t know where. But sure, Jesus did not invent it. Eternal damnation is what we call hell. And hell was already recognized even before Jesus was born. Here,

Amos 9:2,
Though they go down even to hell, thence shall my hand bring them out: and though they climb up to heaven, thence will I bring them down. scripturetext.com/amos/9-2.htm
 
Does having dominion over the earth not include moral dominion?

I think so therefore man, not God is to be the authority here. God proclaimed it.

Don’t mess with God’s will.

Regards
DL
No. Man’s dominion did not include the power to make own moral laws according as he likes
Here,
Genesis 1:28 (New International Version)
28 God blessed them and said to them, "Be fruitful and increase in number; fill the earth and subdue it. Rule over the fish of the sea and the birds of the air and over every living creature that moves on the ground."
biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Genesis+1:28
 
Is jesus not the same god who ordered this inhumane slaughter (hint: if you answer no then you are a heretic)?
Jesus ordered human slaughter? This must be another wild imagination. There may be slaughters in history, but certainly Jesus did not order them.

What do you know about heretics? As far as I know, the way to determine who is a heretic is not in the way you presented here. You would be judging a person as heretic without fair trial.
 
Genesis 1:26
And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth.

This tells me that man is to rule here. Not God not Satan. Man.

Our first God or ruler was then a man and at end times, it will be a man again that will be God.

Regards
DL
But what is meant here by “dominion?” Does it mean abandoning man to control creation at whim? Obviously, this is not the case, as in the subsequent books of the Bible, we see God intervening to lay down a set of commands for the people.

Who assigned man to have dominion over the earth? It is God. By appealing to God’s command that man be the steward of creation, you agree that God is the ultimate authority, not man. Man has authority insofar as it is given by God to him.

This given authority means that man is in-charge of creation, not in an absolute manner, but to rule in accordance with God. He gave it with an accompanying responsibility. It’s like electing a president. We vote a candidate in order that he may rule the country in accordance with good governance. It is possible though for that candidate not to rule it well.
 
Jesus ordered human slaughter? This must be another wild imagination. There may be slaughters in history, but certainly Jesus did not order them.

What do you know about heretics? As far as I know, the way to determine who is a heretic is not in the way you presented here. You would be judging a person as heretic without fair trial.
Ok, perhaps you need an update of christian theology. Jesus, according to YOUR beliefs, is god and has been god since…well forever. There were slaughters described in the OT that god ordered…jesus is god.

As far as the hertic comment, believing that Jesus is not god is a christian heresy. Not that I should talk, I don’t believe that god’s is god.
 
Ok, perhaps you need an update of christian theology. Jesus, according to YOUR beliefs, is god and has been god since…well forever. There were slaughters described in the OT that god ordered…jesus is god.

As far as the hertic comment, believing that Jesus is not god is a christian heresy. Not that I should talk, I don’t believe that god’s is god.
Let us see what slaughter in the OT you are referring to.
 
No. Man’s dominion did not include the power to make own moral laws according as he likes
Here,
Genesis 1:28 (New International Version)
28 God blessed them and said to them, "Be fruitful and increase in number; fill the earth and subdue it. Rule over the fish of the sea and the birds of the air and over every living creature that moves on the ground."
biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Genesis+1:28
This quote confirms my point. Are we not living creature that moves on the ground?
Yes we are and are to have dominion. That includes moral rules.

Why else do you think we were given the tree of knowledge to learn from? Just for show?

Regards
DL
 
Jesus ordered human slaughter? This must be another wild imagination. There may be slaughters in history, but certainly Jesus did not order them.

What do you know about heretics? As far as I know, the way to determine who is a heretic is not in the way you presented here. You would be judging a person as heretic without fair trial.
Are you saying that Jesus/God did not initiate Noah’s genocidal flood?
That was the slaughter of millions including children and babies too many to count.

What about all those poor animals as well? I certainly call that a slaughter.

Regards
DL
 
But what is meant here by “dominion?” Does it mean abandoning man to control creation at whim? Obviously, this is not the case, as in the subsequent books of the Bible, we see God intervening to lay down a set of commands for the people.

Who assigned man to have dominion over the earth? It is God. By appealing to God’s command that man be the steward of creation, you agree that God is the ultimate authority, not man. Man has authority insofar as it is given by God to him.

This given authority means that man is in-charge of creation, not in an absolute manner, but to rule in accordance with God. He gave it with an accompanying responsibility. It’s like electing a president. We vote a candidate in order that he may rule the country in accordance with good governance. It is possible though for that candidate not to rule it well.
You are slightly confused but can be saved.

If I say to you, here is a world and I give you dominion of it and perhaps some advise in terms of a list of commandments that I used before and then I go away to leave you to your dominion; then that means that I relinquish all control to you. If you screw up that is your problem. If you do well that is your good.

If I come back at end time and see a mess, can I blame you? Yes but at the same time I have to blame myself for placing you in charge. In other words I gave up the right o punish you because I put you there. Not your fault for my decision.

See what I mean?

Man is to rule and be wise or fool for his efforts.

Regards
DL
 
Yes. I think that knowing what God wants is critically important simply because this is the most pressing question in our day-to-day life. This is somewhat axiomic, but I am sure you would agree with me that this is a valid observation.
I don’t think it’s the most pressing question in everyone’s life (it’s not going to make or break one of my decisions). But I think knowing what people in general want is a persistent question that is important to me.
Goodness is a little more tricky. The link above explains why God must be completely simple (not having any composition of different things). “Now it is clear that an infinite being cannot be substantially composite, for this would mean that infinity is made up of the union or addition of finite parts”
I’m a bit slow on the concept of God, so you’ll have to forgive me. I think I can agree with why God must be simple if he is infinite, but why must he be infinite?
This means that God cannot be partly good and partly bad, or any similar combination. God needs to be either completely good or completely bad. I believe that God is completely good because I have observed much good and beauty in the world, and I think that goodness is the most probable explanation. God creating the world out of selfless love (since He needs nothing) seems more plausible to me than God creating the world out of pure hatred.
You’re making goodness an objective, observable quality. Do you really think that we can say that God is good in the same way that we can say a basketball player is 7 feet tall? The subjective “sense” you speak of is required. You include the fruits of this “sense” as one of your premises in your logical arguments. Someone else could just as easily have a different result come from their sense and also have a logical argument. You can’t just ignore the fact that all your ethical conclusions sprout from emotions simply because you deem them unreliable. That’s like saying that you didn’t have parents because their advice was unreliable. Like it or not, you share their DNA, just as ethical conclusions share the subjectivity of their parent: emotions.
Do you want me to go into the existence of God?
Yes. I have to admit that I’m confused about why God must have infinite qualities.
Hope you feel better!
Thanks. The week before spring break is always a killer. 😉
 
And the devil could do worse?
…or the slaughter of all that lived in the city of Jericho (man, woman, child and animal). No…eternally torturing those who fail to worship him properly must be it.
You mean the inventor of the concept of eternal torture? Yes, if that’s not love then I’m not sure what is.
Have you ever read the OT? I quote just one of them earlier in this thread.
You are officially my hero. 👍

The only semi-reasonable response to why God, who is supposedly the epitome of goodness, posited eternal torture that I’ve heard is “well…those parts are symbolic”.
 
Joshua 5:20, 24-27? Nothing there says that God ordered slaughter.
Your Lord ordered numerous merciless slaughters. The bold verses are the best examples of god’s love.

*Joshua 6:2 Then the LORD said to Joshua, “See, I have delivered Jericho into your hands, along with its king and its fighting men. 3 March around the city once with all the armed men. Do this for six days. 4 Have seven priests carry trumpets of rams’ horns in front of the ark. On the seventh day, march around the city seven times, with the priests blowing the trumpets. 5 When you hear them sound a long blast on the trumpets, have all the people give a loud shout; then the wall of the city will collapse and the people will go up, every man straight in.” *

numbers 31:1 The LORD said to Moses, 2 “Take vengeance on the Midianites for the Israelites. After that, you will be gathered to your people.”
3 So Moses said to the people, “Arm some of your men to go to war against the Midianites and to carry out the LORD’s vengeance on them. 4 Send into battle a thousand men from each of the tribes of Israel.” 5 So twelve thousand men armed for battle, a thousand from each tribe, were supplied from the clans of Israel.

7 They fought against Midian, as the LORD commanded Moses, and killed every man. 8 Among their victims were Evi, Rekem, Zur, Hur and Reba—the five kings of Midian. They also killed Balaam son of Beor with the sword. 9 The Israelites captured the Midianite women and children and took all the Midianite herds, flocks and goods as plunder. 10 They burned all the towns where the Midianites had settled, as well as all their camps. 11 They took all the plunder and spoils, including the people and animals, 12 and brought the captives, spoils and plunder to Moses and Eleazar the priest and the Israelite assembly at their camp on the plains of Moab, by the Jordan across from Jericho. [a]

13 Moses, Eleazar the priest and all the leaders of the community went to meet them outside the camp. 14 Moses was angry with the officers of the army—the commanders of thousands and commanders of hundreds—who returned from the battle.

**15 “Have you allowed all the women to live?” he asked them. 16 "They were the ones who followed Balaam’s advice and were the means of turning the Israelites away from the LORD in what happened at Peor, so that a plague struck the LORD’s people. 17 Now kill all the boys. And kill every woman who has slept with a man, 18 but save for yourselves every girl who has never slept with a man. **
19 “All of you who have killed anyone or touched anyone who was killed must stay outside the camp seven days. On the third and seventh days you must purify yourselves and your captives. 20 Purify every garment as well as everything made of leather, goat hair or wood.”

21 Then Eleazar the priest said to the soldiers who had gone into battle, "This is the requirement of the law that the LORD gave Moses: 22 Gold, silver, bronze, iron, tin, lead 23 and anything else that can withstand fire must be put through the fire, and then it will be clean.

32 The plunder remaining from the spoils that the soldiers took was 675,000 sheep, 33 72,000 cattle, 34 61,000 donkeys 35 and 32,000 women who had never slept with a man.

36 The half share of those who fought in the battle was:
337,500 sheep, 37 of which the tribute for the LORD was 675;

38 36,000 cattle, of which the tribute for the LORD was 72;

40 16,000 people, of which the tribute for the LORD was 32.
(note 32 virgins were sacrificed to the lord).


1 Samuel 15:Samuel said to Saul, "I am the one the LORD sent to anoint you king over his people Israel; so listen now to the message from the LORD. 2 This is what the LORD Almighty says: ‘I will punish the Amalekites for what they did to Israel when they waylaid them as they came up from Egypt. 3 Now go, attack the Amalekites and totally destroy [a] everything that belongs to them. Do not spare them; put to death men and women, children and infants, cattle and sheep, camels and donkeys.’ "

**7 Then Saul attacked the Amalekites all the way from Havilah to Shur, to the east of Egypt. 8 He took Agag king of the Amalekites alive, and all his people he totally destroyed with the sword. 9 But Saul and the army spared Agag and the best of the sheep and cattle, the fat calves ** and lambs—everything that was good. These they were unwilling to destroy completely, but everything that was despised and weak they totally destroyed. **
**10 Then the word of the LORD came to Samuel: 11 “I am grieved that I have made Saul king, because he has turned away from me and has not carried out my instructions.” Samuel was troubled, and he cried out to the LORD all that night. **

13 When Samuel reached him, Saul said, “The LORD bless you! I have carried out the LORD’s instructions.”

14 But Samuel said, “What then is this bleating of sheep in my ears? What is this lowing of cattle that I hear?”

15 Saul answered, “The soldiers brought them from the Amalekites; they spared the best of the sheep and cattle to sacrifice to the LORD your God, but we totally destroyed the rest.”

16 “Stop!” Samuel said to Saul. “Let me tell you what the LORD said to me last night.”
“Tell me,” Saul replied.

**17 Samuel said, “Although you were once small in your own eyes, did you not become the head of the tribes of Israel? The LORD anointed you king over Israel. 18 And he sent you on a mission, saying, ‘Go and completely destroy those wicked people, the Amalekites; make war on them until you have wiped them out.’ 19 Why did you not obey the LORD ? Why did you pounce on the plunder and do evil in the eyes of the LORD ?” ****
 
I don’t think it’s the most pressing question in everyone’s life (it’s not going to make or break one of my decisions). But I think knowing what people in general want is a persistent question that is important to me.
The question of eternal salvation or damnation is ultimately going to be of utmost importance in our day-to-day decisions.
I’m a bit slow on the concept of God, so you’ll have to forgive me. I think I can agree with why God must be simple if he is infinite, but why must he be infinite?
"Now we assert that God is infinitely perfect in the sense explained, and that His infinity is deducible from His self-existence. For a self-existent being, if limited at all, could be limited only by itself; to be limited by another would imply causal dependence on that other, which the very notion of self-existence excludes. But the self-existing cannot be conceived as limiting itself, in the sense of curtailing its perfection of being, without ceasing to be self-existing. "

Italics and underline refer to two different things, for the sake of clarity:

What this means is that the self-existent being (God) (the source of all other being, the uncaused cause) cannot be limited in any way. If the self-existent being was limited by some existent thing outside of itself, then the self-existent being (God) requires some form of existence outside of itself, which is contradictory to the nature of a self-existent being.

It is important to note that Catholics worship this self-existent being, not some lesser created spiritual creature (like angels).
You’re making goodness an objective, observable quality. Do you really think that we can say that God is good in the same way that we can say a basketball player is 7 feet tall? The subjective “sense” you speak of is required. You include the fruits of this “sense” as one of your premises in your logical arguments. Someone else could just as easily have a different result come from their sense and also have a logical argument. You can’t just ignore the fact that all your ethical conclusions sprout from emotions simply because you deem them unreliable. That’s like saying that you didn’t have parents because their advice was unreliable. Like it or not, you share their DNA, just as ethical conclusions share the subjectivity of their parent: emotions.
Judgment calls are not necessarily based on emotions. When I make the judgment call that I will believe God is good, I use reason to examine my experiences. Experiences are not synonymous with chemical emotions.

How do you define emotions? If you define emotion as simply subjective judgment calls, I agree that “emotion” is needed at some stage. While the moral law of God exists outside of man, and God reveals this law to us, every person needs to make a personal decision in regards to what they will observe as moral. This is a subjective choice, but it is a choice about objective laws. Furthermore, simply observing that people need to make a subjective decision about objective laws does not mean that we should let subjectivism serve as a replacement for the objective laws.

I agree that we must make a personal choice and judgment call as to what God’s will is and whether we will follow it, but I do not agree that this observation means that subjectivism should be our standard. We do have to reach the standard through subjectivism, but we should not replace the standard with subjectivism as Utilitarianism does.

If you define “emotions” as chemically induced feelings in the brain, rather than personal choices and judgment calls, then I will address this aspect as well.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top