God is not moral: Cases against the 'objective' morality of the Christian god

[AnAmericanComposer]

The powerful debate between David Silverman and Frank Turek spurred me to think about how immoral the god of the Bible is. I encourage people to give their ideas, and discuss them.

 

I'll start with my favorite: Silverman's argument was this:

 

1. God is all-knowing, all-powerful, and controls everything.

2. God knows the outcome of any action he may ever take.

3. God put Adam and Eve in the Garden of Eden with knowledge that they would become sinners after eating from the Tree of Knowledge.

4. God put the Tree of Knowledge in its location, knowing full well that Eve and eventually Adam would be tempted, and fall.

5. God could have put the Tree anywhere, or not created it at all, and made a world without pain, death or sin, but chose to, knowing the consequences.

    Thus, God is malicious, and purposefully created a reality where there is pain and suffering.

 

To be intellectually honest, one either has to accept that God is evil, or they have to say that God doesn't exist! Perfect argument.

 

What are some of people's favorite argumentum contra Deum?

[Kikker]

The powerful debate between David Silverman and Frank Turek spurred me to think about how immoral the god of the Bible is. I encourage people to give their ideas, and discuss them.

 

I'll start with my favorite: Silverman's argument was this:

 

1. God is all-knowing, all-powerful, and controls everything.

2. God knows the outcome of any action he may ever take.

3. God put Adam and Eve in the Garden of Eden with knowledge that they would become sinners after eating from the Tree of Knowledge.

4. God put the Tree of Knowledge in its location, knowing full well that Eve and eventually Adam would be tempted, and fall.

5. God could have put the Tree anywhere, or not created it at all, and made a world without pain, death or sin, but chose to, knowing the consequences.

    Thus, God is malicious, and purposefully created a reality where there is pain and suffering.

 

To be intellectually honest, one either has to accept that God is evil, or they have to say that God doesn't exist! Perfect argument.

 

What are some of people's favorite argumentum contra Deum?

"To be intellectually honest, one either has to accept that God is evil, or they have to say that God doesn't exist! Perfect argument."

 

Not really, you can argue a bunch of things.

You can say god is almighty, all knowing but not good (as you implied).

You can say god is all-knowing, good but not almighty.

You can say god is good, almighty but not all-knowing.

You can argue that the biblical story isn't an accurate source for the deeds of god.

 

Although the argument would force you to admit one of these 4 things if you're religious and logically consistent.

[Will Torbald]

Stef's book "Against The Gods?" is full of rational arguments like this one, it really helped me. An empirical case that sealed it for me was the split brain people who overwent surgery for epilepsy that separated the two left and right brain hemispheres. This essentially creates two different and independent minds in one body. Some patients had one side believing in god, with the other side being atheist, and the doctor wondered if one side would go to heaven and the other to hell. It doesn't get more ridiculous than that for theists, so I just had to end the question there at that moment. There are many youtube videos on this, and I recommend looking them up just for how interesting they are.

[dsayers]

You can say god is almighty, all knowing but not good (as you implied).

Actually, you can't. Omnipotence and omniscience are mutually exclusive.

[Kikker]

Actually, you can't. Omnipotence and omniscience are mutually exclusive.

Well technically, omnipotence and omnipotence are mutually exclusive

That's why I use the term almighty, to avoid the omnipotence paradoxes.

 

Maybe that takes away from the original meaning though, so if Silverman actually made the argument with omnipotence in mind then his argument is indeed flawed from statement one.

[Livemike]

God gets the most BASIC moral fact wrong.  Morality is about what choices you should make and nothing else.  Therefore it is impossible t be born immoral or to have your immorality removed by another's act.  That attributing of moral value to things other than consensual acts* is the root of all evil.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

* That is where the thing is consented to by the actor whose morality we're evaluating.  Obviously if you don't consent to something the acts of those who impose it on you can still be morally significant.

[AnAmericanComposer]

Stef's book "Against The Gods?" is full of rational arguments like this one, it really helped me. An empirical case that sealed it for me was the split brain people who overwent surgery for epilepsy that separated the two left and right brain hemispheres. This essentially creates two different and independent minds in one body. Some patients had one side believing in god, with the other side being atheist, and the doctor wondered if one side would go to heaven and the other to hell. It doesn't get more ridiculous than that for theists, so I just had to end the question there at that moment. There are many youtube videos on this, and I recommend looking them up just for how interesting they are.

I haven't actually gotten to his book, yet, as I'm still working through my Kierkegaard (Fear and Trembling) and Plato (Allegory of the Cave), but I am very interested in reading his books. The split-brain idea is confounding to me, and so powerful. If we believe theists, the soul is consciousness, they're one and the same. A soul cannot be split, though, as it is a spiritual entity. If consciousness can be split and altered so drastically, then what argument can be made for a soul? Did the scientists 'create' a secondary soul by splitting the brain? If that is the case, then are the scientists gods?

 

"To be intellectually honest, one either has to accept that God is evil, or they have to say that God doesn't exist! Perfect argument."

 

Not really, you can argue a bunch of things.

You can say god is almighty, all knowing but not good (as you implied).

You can say god is all-knowing, good but not almighty.

You can say god is good, almighty but not all-knowing.

You can argue that the biblical story isn't an accurate source for the deeds of god.

 

Although the argument would force you to admit one of these 4 things if you're religious and logically consistent.

That is a lot of options that frankly I didn't even think to get into, but you're entirely right. Everyone says that God is everything, and anything, and is perfect and holy and good, and yet one can't be all those things, because they contradict each other. To take a pantheistic view of God, that means that Hitler and Madeline Murray O'Hair (I'm certainly not equating the two!) are extensions of God. It reminds me of the cryptic video that Stefan had with a caller who tried to disprove the law of non-contradiction. God is everything and nothing? That simply doesn't make sense.

 

Thank you for your thoughts, everyone!

[castus]

This is why many of the above arguments fail:

 

God being omniscient, omnipotent, omnipresent omni-x...., must meet certain qualifications in regards to His legit divinity and thus as THE judge:

 

That he cannot contradict himself.

 

This does not mean he cannot make a thing he cannot move. Rather he could make an 'unmovable object' move, of what we would understand as unmovable - which, our knowledge is inherently limited on anyway. In other words, God could make a lever to move an unmoveable rock (as a n aside, that's kind of a leading example of Christ... or you could make that correlation.... methinks).

 

What we can garner from this principle is that God can only reveal the portion we can understand, this is why:

 

If we could know God entirely, then it would mean that we must be omniscient to accomplish such a fantastic feat, thus, we cannot ever be equal to God to express/ascertain the entire knowledge of him. So the only choice we are left with is an understanding that there must remain a side knowable of God, and a side unknowable.

 

Now after understanding this, we can then dwell on the matter of his nature abstractly:

 

That the Unknowable mind must perceive all things, all times, and all contingencies to satisfy omniscience. Then, if such a mind, being entirely efficient, thus entirely Just, must satisfy any contingency in which a contingency is worthy to be made manifest. In our consideration, it would bring in the matter of the material universe, thus the matter of humanity, thus the matter of the human condition. From this point we could ask, why such a flawed creation,

 

However, this is a leading question all too commonly entertained and sometimes I wonder why it is so repeated. So, instead of asking why such a flawed creation, one should consider, why such a worthy creation (its a logically more consistent question)?

Further, if God did indeed create bad, as a byproduct of the good, then why condemn the good with the bad? Well, does not the good deserve existence? Wouldn't an all perceiving mind play out the story of the universe to satisfy the creation of those worthy?

 

Being a Just God, He must create those who are worthy of creation. However, humanity alone is not worthy by itself (which the beginning story of genesis dwells upon... the whole lie about being like God... which led to the logical effect: death; It satisfies a logical statement)

 

Further, the God revealed out of the Bible not only fills the logical component of a divine being the best, but one that engages something beyond many worldviews: the essence of a person who is inviting. Out of all religions, The God out of the Bible actually relates to Himself as a person, vs a concept. This further satisfies an expectation that I could probably dwell on further, but I'll stop for now.

 

questions?

[AncapFTW]

Well technically, omnipotence and omnipotence are mutually exclusive

That's why I use the term almighty, to avoid the omnipotence paradoxes.

 

Maybe that takes away from the original meaning though, so if Silverman actually made the argument with omnipotence in mind then his argument is indeed flawed from statement one.

Well, technically, they can't be exclusive, as Omnipotence would give you the power to gain any knowledge perfectly and instantly, ie. Omniscience, and Omniscience would mean that you knew how to do everything possible, ie, omnipotence.

[dsayers]

Omniscience would mean that you knew how to do everything possible, ie, omnipotence.

Knowing how to do something isn't the same as (being able to be) doing it.

 

To be all knowing is to know what's going to happen in the future, which denotes the inability to change it. If you have the ability to change it, you can't know the way it will go.

 

Before somebody goes for the trap of being able to know you will change it, the knowing makes it not a change at all. They are literally mutually exclusive.

[AncapFTW]

Knowing how to do something isn't the same as (being able to be) doing it.

 

To be all knowing is to know what's going to happen in the future, which denotes the inability to change it. If you have the ability to change it, you can't know the way it will go.

 

Before somebody goes for the trap of being able to know you will change it, the knowing makes it not a change at all. They are literally mutually exclusive.

Yes, it is.  If I know how to do something, and have the resources to do it, then I am able to do it.  The only thing that could change that is if I couldn't get the resources to do it, which would make it not possible.

 

I know that if I put a loaded gun to my head and pull the trigger, I will die.  I can, however, not do it and not die from it.  The fact that I know what will happen and the fact that I have the power to stop it are both true.

[dsayers]

I know that if I put a loaded gun to my head and pull the trigger, I will die.  I can, however, not do it and not die from it.  The fact that I know what will happen and the fact that I have the power to stop it are both true.

Omniscience is all knowing, not just self-knowing.

 

If knowing how to do something was the same as being able to do it, we wouldn't have competitions of any stripe because everybody would be the same.

[AncapFTW]

Dear Everyone:

 

Please forgive my earlier post.  I try not to feed trolls, and purposely didn't respond to "dsayer"'s post, but rather the post of someone who responded to him, in order to try and avoid this.  When he responded, however, I posted without thinking about it.  I was going to remove the post when I realized that, but he responded before I had a chance to delete it.

 

I marked through the post so you know what I was talking about, but left it up.

[ClearConscience]

1. God is all-knowing, all-powerful, and controls everything.

I didn't read anything in this post.  I noticed there was a premise/conclusion format to the argument, at first glass, so I skipped directly to the first premise.  This is a false premise.  god may be all knowing and all powerful, but certainly God does not control everything.  Although the vast majority of Christians believe God has the capacity to control everything, I know of zero Christians who would ever subscribe to the belief that God chooses to control everything.  In fact, the Bible strictly denies that God controls everything.

 

So I'm not going to continue reading anything from this point until you amend your argument.

[ClearConscience]

The powerful debate between David Silverman and Frank Turek spurred me to think about how immoral the god of the Bible is. I encourage people to give their ideas, and discuss them.

 

I'll start with my favorite: Silverman's argument was this:

 

1. God is all-knowing, all-powerful, and controls everything.

2. God knows the outcome of any action he may ever take.

3. God put Adam and Eve in the Garden of Eden with knowledge that they would become sinners after eating from the Tree of Knowledge.

4. God put the Tree of Knowledge in its location, knowing full well that Eve and eventually Adam would be tempted, and fall.

5. God could have put the Tree anywhere, or not created it at all, and made a world without pain, death or sin, but chose to, knowing the consequences.

    Thus, God is malicious, and purposefully created a reality where there is pain and suffering.

 

To be intellectually honest, one either has to accept that God is evil, or they have to say that God doesn't exist! Perfect argument.

 

What are some of people's favorite argumentum contra Deum?

I have no knowledge of what your arguments could possibly be.  I have not read your post whatsoever.  I have only quoted it and am responding to what I believe is most likely your initial claims based on experience alone.  The reason why I am doing this is because I want to clear the air before I receive responses.  The most important aspect of Christianity is to understand that Christianity is not a vacuum.  Christianity is a sect of Judaism.  To further this explain this OBJECTIVE FACT, Christianity is the replacement (in the book, Jesus calls it the "fulfillment") of the Davidic covenant (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Covenant_(biblical)#Davidic_covenant).

 

Regardless of what you want to call it, quoting Old Testament scripture as a representation of Christian ethics is entirely a strawman argument.  I really wanted to preface everything I have to say with this statement, and I wanted to support it with commonly accepted facts... a wikipedia article.  Many will scoff at the fact that it's wikipedia, but there are a lot of Christians, and Christians read wikipedia and agree to what that wikipedia article says... because Wikipedia is edited by many Christian scholars all the time.. so it's the most common, most well-accepted, most universal statements.  So I require you to grant me the fact that the Old Testament is a HISTORICAL CONTEXT for which we should use to interpret the New Testament, which demonstrates Christian values.  The Old Testament SOLELY demonstrates NOTHING BUT Jewish values.

 

That being said, I find issue with none of your premises.  The single, solitary, problem with you argument is simply that it doesn't follow from your premises.  Simply by stating that fact that God wholeheartedly and intentionally created the capcity, fully knowing that we would fail, to sin does not in any way mean that God is malicious in so far as he "purposefully created a reality where there is pain and suffering."  I agree that God created pain and suffering.  I do not dispute this fact.  I dispute that its malicious.  Jesus underwent pain and suffering for his righteousness, correct?  And I believe that is the point to all of this.  The pain and the suffering is temporary and a result of our own sin, each and every one of us.  Think about  the free society that Stefan describes in his idealized "FREE SOCIETY" that he glosses over but never truty discusses in depth.  It's exactly the society that God intended, isn't it.  It's a society without judgement, where little tiny babies are treated as slightly less educated, less experienced, adults... but otherwise no different... right?  No judgement, and that is exactly what Jesus prescribed, is it not?

 

 Google what Jesus said about treatment of children.  I'm going to leave that to you.  I want you to discover it for youreslf.  What did Jesus say about how we should treat children, and then compare that to what Stefan describes.  Please inform me.  This isn't a rhetorical assignment.  Please, I beg you, inform us of your findings.

[whirlingmerc]

God is good  and will do good but it can be in a greater overarching manner.   

 

There may be a fall  but it may lead to a greater good in terms of 

1.   man realizing more His dependency on God

2.   opportunity for man to show mercy to man

3.   seeing a side and depth of the mercy and love of God not otherwise possible

 

http://www.slideshare.net/MichaelScaman/right-hand-of-god-in-psalms

[Nathan Metric]

Here are 2 more arguments against this claim that religion can give us objective morality.

 

1)A God gives us commandments.

B He either he gives us commandments because a)his commandments are attuned to what is objectively good or b)God simply has to the power to give us commandments and wants to give us commandments for incomprehensible reasons.

C)If the former is true then God has no moral reason for intervening in the lives of humans in such an esoteric manner because divine intervention via a prophet results in a relativism where other people can pretend to be prophets and invent their own contradictory set of divine commandments. How does that serve the goal getting humans to act morally? If morality is objective then man's reason alone can discover it. Man does not need God to discover morality for him.

D)If the latter is true then God's commandments have no moral significance. God is evil and tyrannical.

 

This next one applies to Christianity only.

 

1)Christ died on the cross.

2)Either there was an objective moral reason to die on the cross or there was no objective moral reason to die on the cross.

3)If the former is true that begs the question, what right does Christ have to die for our sins? If one commits a sin isn't it the duty of that sinner to suffer the consequences for that sin? If I commit an act of murder don't I deserve to be executed? What right does Christ have to die for my murder?

4)If the latter is true then there is no moral significance in Christ dying on the cross. His death on the cross is purely self-serving.

[Donnadogsoth]

The powerful debate between David Silverman and Frank Turek spurred me to think about how immoral the god of the Bible is. I encourage people to give their ideas, and discuss them.

 

I'll start with my favorite: Silverman's argument was this:

 

1. God is all-knowing, all-powerful, and controls everything.

2. God knows the outcome of any action he may ever take.

3. God put Adam and Eve in the Garden of Eden with knowledge that they would become sinners after eating from the Tree of Knowledge.

4. God put the Tree of Knowledge in its location, knowing full well that Eve and eventually Adam would be tempted, and fall.

5. God could have put the Tree anywhere, or not created it at all, and made a world without pain, death or sin, but chose to, knowing the consequences.

    Thus, God is malicious, and purposefully created a reality where there is pain and suffering.

 

To be intellectually honest, one either has to accept that God is evil, or they have to say that God doesn't exist! Perfect argument.

 

What are some of people's favorite argumentum contra Deum?

 

Your game here, as an Atheist, is to insist that you stubbing your toe means God doesn't exist, because why didn't God stop you from stubbing your toe?  In other words, you insist that you be created in a permanent Heroin high.  Anything less than that and "God is evil".

 

But you're wrong, because God can't do "anything," he can only do what can be done.  He can't create a legal $20 bill, for instance, because only the MINT can create a legal $20 bill.  God's $20 bill, no matter how artful, would be a COUNTERFEIT.

 

And that's what you're asking God to do:  create a counterfeit Universe where nothing means anything, nobody stubs their toe,  love doesn't exist, and everybody lives in a Heroin coma forever.  God cannot make a world without pain, death, or sin, because these things are the fruits of bad choices, and if humans have no meaningful choices, why create them?  And if he's not going to create humans, why bother creating the rest of the Universe?

[junglecat]

Here are 2 more arguments against this claim that religion can give us objective morality.

 

1)A God gives us commandments.

B He either he gives us commandments because a)his commandments are attuned to what is objectively good or b)God simply has to the power to give us commandments and wants to give us commandments for incomprehensible reasons.

C)If the former is true then God has no moral reason for intervening in the lives of humans in such an esoteric manner because divine intervention via a prophet results in a relativism where other people can pretend to be prophets and invent their own contradictory set of divine commandments. How does that serve the goal getting humans to act morally? If morality is objective then man's reason alone can discover it. Man does not need God to discover morality for him.

D)If the latter is true then God's commandments have no moral significance. God is evil and tyrannical.

 

This next one applies to Christianity only.

 

1)Christ died on the cross.

2)Either there was an objective moral reason to die on the cross or there was no objective moral reason to die on the cross.

3)If the former is true that begs the question, what right does Christ have to die for our sins? If one commits a sin isn't it the duty of that sinner to suffer the consequences for that sin? If I commit an act of murder don't I deserve to be executed? What right does Christ have to die for my murder?

4)If the latter is true then there is no moral significance in Christ dying on the cross. His death on the cross is purely self-serving.

All archaic religions are about two things: prohibitions and sacrifice. Perhaps Jesus forgave his executors from the cross to show us, once and for all, that neither of these are effective for ordering society any longer.

I have no knowledge of what your arguments could possibly be.  I have not read your post whatsoever.  I have only quoted it and am responding to what I believe is most likely your initial claims based on experience alone.  The reason why I am doing this is because I want to clear the air before I receive responses.  The most important aspect of Christianity is to understand that Christianity is not a vacuum.  Christianity is a sect of Judaism.  To further this explain this OBJECTIVE FACT, Christianity is the replacement (in the book, Jesus calls it the "fulfillment") of the Davidic covenant (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Covenant_(biblical)#Davidic_covenant).

 

Regardless of what you want to call it, quoting Old Testament scripture as a representation of Christian ethics is entirely a strawman argument.  I really wanted to preface everything I have to say with this statement, and I wanted to support it with commonly accepted facts... a wikipedia article.  Many will scoff at the fact that it's wikipedia, but there are a lot of Christians, and Christians read wikipedia and agree to what that wikipedia article says... because Wikipedia is edited by many Christian scholars all the time.. so it's the most common, most well-accepted, most universal statements.  So I require you to grant me the fact that the Old Testament is a HISTORICAL CONTEXT for which we should use to interpret the New Testament, which demonstrates Christian values.  The Old Testament SOLELY demonstrates NOTHING BUT Jewish values.

 

That being said, I find issue with none of your premises.  The single, solitary, problem with you argument is simply that it doesn't follow from your premises.  Simply by stating that fact that God wholeheartedly and intentionally created the capcity, fully knowing that we would fail, to sin does not in any way mean that God is malicious in so far as he "purposefully created a reality where there is pain and suffering."  I agree that God created pain and suffering.  I do not dispute this fact.  I dispute that its malicious.  Jesus underwent pain and suffering for his righteousness, correct?  And I believe that is the point to all of this.  The pain and the suffering is temporary and a result of our own sin, each and every one of us.  Think about  the free society that Stefan describes in his idealized "FREE SOCIETY" that he glosses over but never truty discusses in depth.  It's exactly the society that God intended, isn't it.  It's a society without judgement, where little tiny babies are treated as slightly less educated, less experienced, adults... but otherwise no different... right?  No judgement, and that is exactly what Jesus prescribed, is it not?

 

 Google what Jesus said about treatment of children.  I'm going to leave that to you.  I want you to discover it for youreslf.  What did Jesus say about how we should treat children, and then compare that to what Stefan describes.  Please inform me.  This isn't a rhetorical assignment.  Please, I beg you, inform us of your findings.

You are right! But you didn't read the sub-heading for this category: "We are all godless".  You and I obviously don't exist here.

[Nathan Metric]

All archaic religions are about two things: prohibitions and sacrifice. Perhaps Jesus forgave his executors from the cross to show us, once and for all, that neither of these are effective for ordering society any longer.

 

 

Jesus does not need to forgive a sin to show that something is a sin......

 

Christians say Jesus died on the cross for our sins, but Jesus has no right to die for our sins. We are to blame for our sins so therefore we should suffer for them. In fact, we all eventually do suffer for our sins. It's called death. We all get what we deserve in the end. All the people that acquire power eventually lose all their power. All the people that mindlessly pursue wealth will eventually lose all their wealth. Those who acquired fame in life will have their fame negated by time. And the best of all, those people who pursue a life full of hedonistic pleasure will surely get the fullest pain and terror of a meaningless death. There is nothing that evil grants you in this world that death will not take away. Only those that commit themselves to virtue get to keep anything at all (death does not take away virtue) Only those that suffer by choice will be able to smile in the face of death, but even they are sinners.

 

We die because we are ignorant and sinful. If we were not ignorant of the causes of death and did not sin we would never die.

 

This is why Stefan said "philosophers are the only REAL doctors".

 

Your game here, as an Atheist, is to insist that you stubbing your toe means God doesn't exist, because why didn't God stop you from stubbing your toe?  In other words, you insist that you be created in a permanent Heroin high.  Anything less than that and "God is evil".

 

But you're wrong, because God can't do "anything," he can only do what can be done.  He can't create a legal $20 bill, for instance, because only the MINT can create a legal $20 bill.  God's $20 bill, no matter how artful, would be a COUNTERFEIT.

 

And that's what you're asking God to do:  create a counterfeit Universe where nothing means anything, nobody stubs their toe,  love doesn't exist, and everybody lives in a Heroin coma forever.  God cannot make a world without pain, death, or sin, because these things are the fruits of bad choices, and if humans have no meaningful choices, why create them?  And if he's not going to create humans, why bother creating the rest of the Universe?

No no no, the argument isn't evil exists therefore God doesn't exist. The argument is that evil exists therefore a ALL-GOOD God doesn't exist.

 

Oh by the way, not everyone who disagrees with Christianity is an atheist. Some of us have yet stranger ideas like pandeism.

[junglecat]

Jesus does not need to forgive a sin to show that something is a sin......

 

Christians say Jesus died on the cross for our sins, but Jesus has no right to die for our sins. We are to blame for our sins so therefore we should suffer for them. In fact, we all eventually do suffer for our sins. It's called death. We all get what we deserve in the end. All the people that acquire power eventually lose all their power. All the people that mindlessly pursue wealth will eventually lose all their wealth. Those who acquired fame in life will have their fame negated by time. And the best of all, those people who pursue a life full of hedonistic pleasure will surely get the fullest pain and terror of a meaningless death. There is nothing that evil grants you in this world that death will not take away. Only those that commit themselves to virtue get to keep anything at all (death does not take away virtue) Only those that suffer by choice will be able to smile in the face of death, but even they are sinners.

 

We die because we are ignorant and sinful. If we were not ignorant of the causes of death and did not sin we would never die.

 

This is why Stefan said "philosophers are the only REAL doctors".

 

No no no, the argument isn't evil exists therefore God doesn't exist. The argument is that evil exists therefore a ALL-GOOD God doesn't exist.

 

Oh by the way, not everyone who disagrees with Christianity is an atheist. Some of us have yet stranger ideas like pandeism.

Did you read my post before you replied to it? 

[Nathan Metric]

What makes you think I didn't read it?

[junglecat]

What makes you think I didn't read it?

Because I can't see the relation to what I said.  Beside that, your reasoning is flawed. Jesus was not ignorant of the causes of death and did not sin. He still died.  If you were a philosophical doctor I'd sue you for malpractice.

[Nathan Metric]

You said Jesus stopped the sins of sacrifice and prohibition by forgiving his executors (which makes no sense. Christianity is all about the virtue of sacrifice and refraining from indulgence). In order for his executors to value his forgiveness they would of had to been shown somehow that what they were doing was a sin in the first place. Jesus did no such thing. Jesus was not a philosophy. He made no arguments for his ethics. Just a bunch of commands coupled with some magical sorcery which probably didn't happen.

 

Jesus was a man. He was not omniscient and he committed the sin of dying for our sins (a right he does not have). So therefore he deserved to die.

And even if Jesus did do all those magical things it would have no bearing on what is moral. An omniscient all-powerful being cannot be trusted. Would you trust an all-knowing all-powerful human? If not then why on earth would you would you put your faith in an all-seeing all-powerful God? An all-powerful being can choose to act evil or good. There is no reason to expect that he MUST act good. This God of yours could very well be a Great Demon luring you to the abyss. Perhaps Heaven is for those that DISOBEY God's word and hell is precisely for those that are lured by his lies. Wouldn't that be interesting?

 

So no. Morality can never come from religious teaching. It must come from logic. From the inherent virtue of logic; from the inherent virtue of the truth must we derive morality.

[Donnadogsoth]

No no no, the argument isn't evil exists therefore God doesn't exist. The argument is that evil exists therefore a ALL-GOOD God doesn't exist.

 

Oh by the way, not everyone who disagrees with Christianity is an atheist. Some of us have yet stranger ideas like pandeism.

 

I've already addressed this.  Your mistake is in misdefining the word "all-good".  "All-good" doesn't mean "put everyone in bliss for aeternity, regardless of all other considerations."  That wouldn't be good that would be evil because it destroys the capacity for people to be good and do good.  It would not be good it would be pleasurable at a very base level.  It would create a universal bliss-farm as horrifyingly un-good in its way as a universal torture-farm.  God is not interested in either, he is interested in having his imago creations experience the highest good, which is freely willed communion with him, something impossible if he were as jejune as you imagine him to be.

[junglecat]

You said Jesus stopped the sins of sacrifice and prohibition by forgiving his executors (which makes no sense. Christianity is all about the virtue of sacrifice and refraining from indulgence). In order for his executors to value his forgiveness they would of had to been shown somehow that what they were doing was a sin in the first place. Jesus did no such thing. Jesus was not a philosophy. He made no arguments for his ethics. Just a bunch of commands coupled with some magical sorcery which probably didn't happen.

 

Jesus was a man. He was not omniscient and he committed the sin of dying for our sins (a right he does not have). So therefore he deserved to die.

And even if Jesus did do all those magical things it would have no bearing on what is moral. An omniscient all-powerful being cannot be trusted. Would you trust an all-knowing all-powerful human? If not then why on earth would you would you put your faith in an all-seeing all-powerful God? An all-powerful being can choose to act evil or good. There is no reason to expect that he MUST act good. This God of yours could very well be a Great Demon luring you to the abyss. Perhaps Heaven is for those that DISOBEY God's word and hell is precisely for those that are lured by his lies. Wouldn't that be interesting?

 

So no. Morality can never come from religious teaching. It must come from logic. From the inherent virtue of logic; from the inherent virtue of the truth must we derive morality.

No, I didn't say,

 

"Jesus stopped the sins of sacrifice and prohibition by forgiving his executors"- which I agree with you makes little sense

 

What I said was,

 

"All archaic religions are about two things: prohibitions and sacrifice. Perhaps Jesus forgave his executors from the cross to show us, once and for all, that neither of these are effective for ordering society any longer."

 

I think the misunderstanding is that you're coming to this discussion with a priori beliefs about what Christianity is about and not actually engaging me when you post to me. Imagine if I started off by telling you what you believe or don't believe as an atheist. You'd most likely be pretty pissed off.  What I said makes plain sense if you stop to think about it. The problem is you're stuck in a "penal substitution" atonement theory and you're not even a Christian.

 

It's right to say Jesus had to die. Through this Jesus revealed 'things hidden since the foundation of the world." Namely, the revelation of the innocence of the victim. The gradual unfolding and embodiment of this revelation is what Christians call the Holy Spirit. So in a roundabout way you can say that Jesus' death has the power to save us. 

 

I hate to say it, but your entire understanding of theology is a straw man from my point of view. I agree it makes no sense but that is not what I believe. You can whip that straw man all day long if you want. That's your choice. If you want to talk to me then you need to address what I'm saying and not assume what I believe.

[Nathan Metric]

I've already addressed this.  Your mistake is in misdefining the word "all-good".  "All-good" doesn't mean "put everyone in bliss for aeternity, regardless of all other considerations."  That wouldn't be good that would be evil because it destroys the capacity for people to be good and do good.  It would not be good it would be pleasurable at a very base level.  It would create a universal bliss-farm as horrifyingly un-good in its way as a universal torture-farm.  God is not interested in either, he is interested in having his imago creations experience the highest good, which is freely willed communion with him, something impossible if he were as jejune as you imagine him to be.

 

Let's say ending death is good. That means ending ALL death is good right? It doesn't make sense to believe that ending death is good and then to believe that ending all death is bad. That is a contradiction. You can't have it both ways.

 

We can say the same to other goals. if order is good then achieving perfect order must also be the highest good. That means if God does not create perfect order then he is not all-Good.

If ending undeserved suffering is good then ending all undeserved suffering is the highest good. That means if God does not prevent all undeserved suffering he is not actually all-Good. He is to some extent evil.

 

If giving people bliss is evil then the very idea of Heaven is evil. He might as well not give us Heaven since giving people eternal bliss is obviously bad. God might as well kill himself since there is no moral justification for him to exist since perfecting the lives of mankind is evil. We might as well lose and win in this purgatory called Earth forever since eternal bliss is immoral.

"All archaic religions are about two things: prohibitions and sacrifice. Perhaps Jesus forgave his executors from the cross to show us, once and for all, that neither of these are effective for ordering society any longer."

 

My interpretation of this passage is this.

 

A)that Christianity transcends archaic religions like Judaism.

B)That Christ created some new paradigm (by his death and his forgiveness) where prohibitions and sacrifice were no longer the way to organize society.

 

Please explain how my interpretation is wrong. Because my response is based on this interpretation of what you're saying.

 

 

The problem is you're stuck in a "penal substitution" atonement theory and you're not even a Christian.

 

 

Just because I am not a Christian doesn't mean I cannot claim knowledge of what Christians typically believe.

 

 

It's right to say Jesus had to die. Through this Jesus revealed 'things hidden since the foundation of the world." Namely, the revelation of the innocence of the victim. The gradual unfolding and embodiment of this revelation is what Christians call the Holy Spirit. So in a roundabout way you can say that Jesus' death has the power to save us. 

 

Jesus had to die, but not for the reason Christians think. Jesus died because he was a primitive man ignorant to the causes of death (as we all are) and because he committed the sin of commiting suicide for someone else's sins. Something he does not have a right to do.

 

Not sure what victim your talking about, but whatever abstract victim you speak of you do not need to die to prove they are innocent.

[Tyler H]

The OP requested our favorite arguments for why the God of the Bible would be immoral if he existed, here's mine: God says it is immoral to murder, yet he repeatedly does so in a fashion that would moisten the panties of history's most evil dictators. By His own standards He is immoral. Abiding by moral rules set by someone who excludes themselves from those rules make you a slave.

 

Aside from that - either the Bible is the word of God, and you should accept all of it as such and stop cherry picking what you like so you don't have to stone your daughter when she gets raped, or it is poisoned by the hands of men who want to enslave you and therefore you cannot rely on any of it as truth. If the latter is the case and God has not corrected this error and revealed to the world in what ways he wants us to live to avoid hell - then he's kind of an asshole.

[junglecat]

The OP requested our favorite arguments for why the God of the Bible would be immoral if he existed, here's mine: God says it is immoral to murder, yet he repeatedly does so in a fashion that would moisten the panties of history's most evil dictators. By His own standards He is immoral. Abiding by moral rules set by someone who excludes themselves from those rules make you a slave.

 

Aside from that - either the Bible is the word of God, and you should accept all of it as such and stop cherry picking what you like so you don't have to stone your daughter when she gets raped, or it is poisoned by the hands of men who want to enslave you and therefore you cannot rely on any of it as truth. If the latter is the case and God has not corrected this error and revealed to the world in what ways he wants us to live to avoid hell - then he's kind of an asshole.

You're comparing "God's standard" to what? Man's standard? Atheists don't believe in God so what you're really saying is that man is immoral. Agreed.  Since the beginning of recorded history man has been proven to be immoral. Yet, in the Bible we see a progression. Mankind's culture is definitely evolving. With the Bible we have the "invention" of history. (atheists gasp in indignation) Yes, I can hear the complaints. Before you respond vitriolically, show me one other book or compilation of books of equal antiquity that show the progression of culture like the Bible does. In the Bible we have the first recording of the transition from human to animal sacrifice. That's a huge step forward. By the time of the later prophets all sacrifice was deemed useless and ineffectual. The monumental achievement of Jesus was to reveal once and for all the uselessness of prohibitions and sacrifices. Most of the world knows the truth of this now, except maybe Islam. It's quite plainly visible in the atheist who says 'religion is responsible for all the evil in the world'. He is right in that all religion is fundamentally about prohibition and sacrifice.

[junglecat]

Let's say ending death is good. That means ending ALL death is good right? It doesn't make sense to believe that ending death is good and then to believe that ending all death is bad. That is a contradiction. You can't have it both ways.

 

We can say the same to other goals. if order is good then achieving perfect order must also be the highest good. That means if God does not create perfect order then he is not all-Good.

If ending undeserved suffering is good then ending all undeserved suffering is the highest good. That means if God does not prevent all undeserved suffering he is not actually all-Good. He is to some extent evil.

 

If giving people bliss is evil then the very idea of Heaven is evil. He might as well not give us Heaven since giving people eternal bliss is obviously bad. God might as well kill himself since there is no moral justification for him to exist since perfecting the lives of mankind is evil. We might as well lose and win in this purgatory called Earth forever since eternal bliss is immoral.

My interpretation of this passage is this.

 

A)that Christianity transcends archaic religions like Judaism.

B)That Christ created some new paradigm (by his death and his forgiveness) where prohibitions and sacrifice were no longer the way to organize society.

 

Please explain how my interpretation is wrong. Because my response is based on this interpretation of what you're saying.

 

 

 

 

Just because I am not a Christian doesn't mean I cannot claim knowledge of what Christians typically believe.

 

 

Jesus had to die, but not for the reason Christians think. Jesus died because he was a primitive man ignorant to the causes of death (as we all are) and because he committed the sin of commiting suicide for someone else's sins. Something he does not have a right to do.

 

Not sure what victim your talking about, but whatever abstract victim you speak of you do not need to die to prove they are innocent.

That's very different from, "Jesus stopped the sins of sacrifice and prohibition by forgiving his executors". First, sacrifice and prohibitions are not equivalent to 'sin'. Second, Jesus doesn't stop sin in a general or specific way at all.

 

You can claim knowledge to what you believe is typical Christianity. It's still a straw man argument. Christianity has to be squared with itself, not with what you think a majority think. The majority could be wrong. Being in the majority doesn't make anything correct. In any case, you were not replying to a majority of anything. You were replying to me. In that case, have the common courtesy to address me and not an amorphous imaginary crowd behind me.  I'll do the same with you. That way we can have a civil conversation that actually can take us to a new understanding.

 

"Jesus had to die, but not for the reason Christians think"-- do you see what I mean? You've magically moved into the minds of an amorphous group you call "Christians". 

 

What do you believe 'sin' is? Please don't tell me what you think Christians believe, ok? If it has no meaning to you as an atheist, that's ok too. Just be honest and speak for yourself.

[Donnadogsoth]

Let's say ending death is good. That means ending ALL death is good right? It doesn't make sense to believe that ending death is good and then to believe that ending all death is bad. That is a contradiction. You can't have it both ways.

 

We can say the same to other goals. if order is good then achieving perfect order must also be the highest good. That means if God does not create perfect order then he is not all-Good.

If ending undeserved suffering is good then ending all undeserved suffering is the highest good. That means if God does not prevent all undeserved suffering he is not actually all-Good. He is to some extent evil.

 

If giving people bliss is evil then the very idea of Heaven is evil. He might as well not give us Heaven since giving people eternal bliss is obviously bad. God might as well kill himself since there is no moral justification for him to exist since perfecting the lives of mankind is evil. We might as well lose and win in this purgatory called Earth forever since eternal bliss is immoral.

 

Ending death, achieving perfect order, and ending undeserved suffering all sound nice, but how can they all be the highest good? There must be something that is even higher than they, to which they are subordinate. I propose meaning is the highest good. So even if I agree to your three goods' desirability and their mutual compatibility, I ask how can they be achieved without experiencing absolute meaning?

 

Without meaning life loses its savour. A favourite food eaten too long becomes drab. A favourite painting can be seen only so many times before it turns invisible. And the tragedy of history sooner or later unspools itself into comedy, and then into disinterest.

 

Christianity supplies absolute meaning to history through the intervention and death of Jesus. In this we have the way opened to Heaven, by reconciling the will of God with the will of Man. There is the possibility of ending death, achieving perfect order, and ending undeserved suffering. Without Jesus, history has no immortal meaning, and without meaning, the goods you mention will not last.

[Nathan Metric]

When I mean by something being the "highest good" I meant to say "higher good". That was bad grammar. If ending undeserved suffering is good then ending all undeserved suffering would be the maximally good or higher good. Does that make sense?

 

 

 

I propose meaning is the highest good. So even if I agree to your three goods' desirability and their mutual compatibility, I ask how can they be achieved without experiencing absolute meaning?

 

Sorry, but I am not exactly sure what you're saying here.

 

My interpretation of what your saying is "I propose that doing what you should do is the highest good". Which I agree with of course. The purpose of our lives is to do what we should do.

 

 

Without meaning life loses its savour. A favourite food eaten too long becomes drab. A favourite painting can be seen only so many times before it turns invisible. And the tragedy of history sooner or later unspools itself into comedy, and then into disinterest.

Not sure what your point is. Are you saying eternal bliss is bad or impossible? If yes, then what moral right does God have to offer you an eternal bliss? What right does God have to try to perfect the lives of mankind? If something is good (such as ending undeserved suffering) is good then maximally ending undeserved suffering must also be good otherwise there is no reason to believe the former is good.  So if eternal goodness is bad then this benevolent God of yours has no moral right to offer you Heaven. (in fact, he wouldn't even be "benevolent" by your logic)

 

Anyway, I don't think it is actually possible to achieve perfect virtue anyway. We will always be immoral and trying to pursue virtue. Ending all undeserved suffering is just a theory.

 

Christianity supplies absolute meaning to history through the intervention and death of Jesus. In this we have the way opened to Heaven, by reconciling the will of God with the will of Man. There is the possibility of ending death, achieving perfect order, and ending undeserved suffering. Without Jesus, history has no immortal meaning, and without meaning, the goods you mention will not last.

Even if this Jesus character did "show us the way" so to speak it wouldn't change the fact that we have an innate proneness to sin. So no there is nothing absolutely meaningful about Christ's death. Man is just as prone to sin after Christ's death as he was before Christ's death. So Christ didn't actually accomplish anything other than give us bad selfish reasons for acting morally.  Have you read the book of Job? Although the metaphysics behind that book are problematic, the message of it is really good. A truly moral man does not need the bribe of Heaven to act good. He acts good because his reason cannot allow himself to have a self-interest outside of what is moral. For that would be arbitrary.

 

That story in the book of Job is probably the only thing about the Bible I like. It is sad that practically nobody understands the esoteric wisdom of that story. A person who acts good because the universe (God) is going to give him happiness does not deserve happiness.

[junglecat]

When I mean by something being the "highest good" I meant to say "higher good". That was bad grammar. If ending undeserved suffering is good then ending all undeserved suffering would be the maximally good or higher good. Does that make sense?

 

 

 

 

Sorry, but I am not exactly sure what you're saying here.

 

My interpretation of what your saying is "I propose that doing what you should do is the highest good". Which I agree with of course. The purpose of our lives is to do what we should do.

 

Not sure what your point is. Are you saying eternal bliss is bad or impossible? If yes, then what moral right does God have to offer you an eternal bliss? What right does God have to try to perfect the lives of mankind? If something is good (such as ending undeserved suffering) is good then maximally ending undeserved suffering must also be good otherwise there is no reason to believe the former is good.  So if eternal goodness is bad then this benevolent God of yours has no moral right to offer you Heaven. (in fact, he wouldn't even be "benevolent" by your logic)

 

Anyway, I don't think it is actually possible to achieve perfect virtue anyway. We will always be immoral and trying to pursue virtue. Ending all undeserved suffering is just a theory.

 

Even if this Jesus character did "show us the way" so to speak it wouldn't change the fact that we have an innate proneness to sin. So no there is nothing absolutely meaningful about Christ's death. Man is just as prone to sin after Christ's death as he was before Christ's death. So Christ didn't actually accomplish anything other than give us bad selfish reasons for acting morally.  Have you read the book of Job? Although the metaphysics behind that book are problematic, the message of it is really good. A truly moral man does not need the bribe of Heaven to act good. He acts good because his reason cannot allow himself to have a self-interest outside of what is moral. For that would be arbitrary.

 

That story in the book of Job is probably the only thing about the Bible I like. It is sad that practically nobody understands the esoteric wisdom of that story. A person who acts good because the universe (God) is going to give him happiness does not deserve happiness.

I'm not sure what you are saying about Job. Are you saying that because God allowed Satan to take away Job's things this meant that God thought Job did not deserve them?

 

From my view an element of the story might be Job's motivation but it is secondary or tertiary to Job's so-called friends and their determination of his guilt. Job struggles and vacillates about his guilt but in the end God vindicates Job.

[Tyler H]

You're comparing "God's standard" to what?

Comparing God's standards to God's actions.

[junglecat]

Comparing God's standards to God's actions.

God does not exist to the atheist. What are YOU comparing?