God as an ultimate source of morals?

[Catherineanne]

That's fine, God is the source of morals because morality reflects his nature. When we say something is good, it is good because it is a part of God. So how do we know that which if good? God has told it to us. Wouldn't that require God to self-introspect and say "This is My nature, this is Good." And, again, that would mean that the source of our knowledge of good comes from God. That doesn't solve the dilemna; even if that's true it is not unreasonable to think that God could have a different nature (which we would then also, necessarily, call good), or even that God could have chosen to reveal other acts as moral (than making those good as well).

God has chosen to reveal acts as moral that are beyond most people's ability to achieve. He always challenges us to do more, and to become more like Christ; he never allows us to become complacent and to think that in terms of morality we have arrived.

The standard is not the average of the behaviours around us. The standard is Christ himself, whose nature was indeed Good.

 

[Metaphysicalwonderer]

That doesn't answer the question, though perhaps I was unclear. I will wait for you to respond to my previous post so I understand your position better before asking new questions to clear up the new misunderstandings.

 

[razeontherock]

For how can we say God's very nature is good without comparing it to The Good.

False dichotomy. Your concerns in this thread are addressed in the book of Judges. Have you read it? (HINT: you are on very shaky ground.)

 

[Catherineanne]

But I ask again, if it is simply part of His nature, you can not then qualify it as good and proclaim that as a solution. To say God's very nature is good is to refer to some outside principle. For how can we say God's very nature is good without comparing it to The Good.

From what I recall of ancient Greek philosophy, this is ancient Greek philosophy; that there is something referrred to as Beauty, which is outside anything we see, but to which we refer when saying someone or something is beautiful. So, you want to reconcile Christian morality with Greek philosophy? Good luck with that.

So, I will repeat the initial question--one which I think every true Christian should be capable of answering--is God the source of Morality? If so, how are His proclamations anything other than arbitrary? If God isn't the source of morality, then what reprecussions does this have on the Christian faith? Please answer.

Bizarre that you feel qualified to determine what a true Christian should be capable of. However, leaving that aside, Christianity does not agree that there is an external concept of Beauty (or anything else) to which God has to measure up. God does not answer to anyone or anything. If he did, then that thing would then be God; that much is obvious. If there were an outside source of Morality, that outward source would be God. There isn't.

God is not the source of our morality, but he is the benchmark by which our morality is measured, and always found wanting. In a sense what the Greeks had in theoretical form, we have in God himself. He is himself Truth, Goodness, Love, Mercy, Compassion etc. He does not have to refer to a standard outside himself, because those things are inherent to himself.

God sets the standard of morality, and we aspire to it. The repercussions for the Christian faith are that none of us will ever actually get there, because we are fallible and human, and he is not. God's morality will always be beyond our reach, but we can still try.

So, we look to Christ, we aim to emulate his standard, we use him as the benchmark for our lives. The source of our morality is his example; his life, his teachings, combined with Grace from God to allow us to follow that example. Christ is the best example we have, so we follow him. And, as I have already said, there is no society on earth capable of living by the same morality as Christ teaches; it is very much a morality of the individual before God, searching his or her heart daily for anything that would dishonour the Lord.

 

[Metaphysicalwonderer]

It was imprudent of me to use the term The Good. Instead, lets simply say an objective morality; ie. there really are things that are good and there really are things that are bad. It was never my intent to reconcile Greek philosophy with Christianity (though the problems that we are now discussing do date back to the Greeks).

Bizarre that you feel qualified to determine what a true Christian should be capable of.

Christianity is supposed to help us become moral, is it not? If a Christian can't even defend this aspect of their faith then should they really be practicing it?

God is not the source of our morality, but he is the benchmark by which our morality is measured

What is the source of morality then? If morality does not spring from theology, then you, as a Christian, have a serious problem. I'm not sure how seriously I should take this because there are so many contradictions throughout your reply.

God is not the source of our morality

He is himself Truth, Goodness

God sets the standard of morality

and from an earlier post...

It cannot be the case that all morality is therefore derived from God

These are very confused claims. Can you reconcile them?

 

[razeontherock]

If morality does not spring from theology, then you, as a Christian, have a serious problem.

No, it is you that has a serious misunderstanding of what Christianity IS, as you demonstrate with your statement here. There's an old saying, "2 + 2 always = 4." The Bible is not supposed to replace our common sense!

 

[Metaphysicalwonderer]

Are those quotes not outright contradictions then? Please explain how if they are not.

Also, please explain why Christianity is not directly threatened by an objective morality (of the kind that has been alluded to during this conversation; ie. God uses the obective morality to set a "benchmark")

If this does not fundamentally undermine the teachings of Christianity, then I do misunderstand the religion. Though, I think the history of Christian theology supports my interpretation. If you have another view-point, please explain it.

 

[Catherineanne]

It was imprudent of me to use the term The Good. Instead, lets simply say an objective morality; ie. there really are things that are good and there really are things that are bad. It was never my intent to reconcile Greek philosophy with Christianity (though the problems that we are now discussing do date back to the Greeks).

There are indeed things that are good, and things that are not good. In our faith we measure these against God's standard, as most perfectly revealed in Christ. Outside our faith, these are measured against cultural mores. Society may be founded in Christianity, but even Christian societies decide their own laws and moral codes on a lesser basis than that which Christ taught, for the reason already given; Christ's morality is individual, and makes demands on individual believers that no society makes of its people.

Needless to say, therefore, the two are not always - perhaps even not even mostly - the same.

Christianity is supposed to help us become moral, is it not? If a Christian can't even defend this aspect of their faith then should they really be practicing it?

You can look for any definition on any denomination you like, I doubt if you will find anywhere that Christianity is supposed to help us to become moral. I would say it is more the case that Christianity helps us to recognise how far from God we are; how little we measure up to his standard.

I have been a Christian a long time. I do not regard myself as more moral today than I was ten or twenty or thirty years ago. It is far more important for me to learn to accept God's will for my life, and not to rail against it. Morality is really not part of the equation.

What is the source of morality then? If morality does not spring from theology, then you, as a Christian, have a serious problem. I'm not sure how seriously I should take this because there are so many contradictions throughout your reply.

I think you are misunderstanding what is being said. I am not a Christian because of its morality; that really is a side issue. Certainly I want to live in a way that honours God, certainly I have a priest, and if I sin very seriously I will go to confession, but this is not a matter of morality. It is a matter of relationship.

 

[Catherineanne]

Are those quotes not outright contradictions then? Please explain how if they are not.

Also, please explain why Christianity is not directly threatened by an objective morality (of the kind that has been alluded to during this conversation; ie. God uses the obective morality to set a "benchmark")

Our God is a God of relationship. He does not need to give us a theoretical benchmark of morality, because he gave us a practical demonstration, and left us gospels testifying to it.

As I have already said, the morality which Christ demonstrated and which God sets as the standard for us is far beyond the morality of any present day society.

I will expand this one. As I said above, Christ said that having anger in our hearts against our brother is the SAME as murder. I am sure you will see that in social terms it would be totally impossible to enforce this as a law; every single person would need to be convicted of anger and sent to prison for 10 - 20 years every time they get angry.

Therefore God's morality, as revealed in Christ, does not accord with our own human morality, which accepts that we can put away those who actually commit murder, but not everyone who gets angry.

This does not let Christians off the hook, however. A Christian who is angry with their brother must search their heart to find out what God thinks of this. If there is resentment that needs to be sorted out, we are forbidden from partaking of the Eucharist, and told to go and sort out that relationship first, and then come to the Eucharist. The standard which God demands of us, and which the Holy Spirit convicts us of, is far above that of the society around us.

The objective is not to create a moral people. The objective is to create a people who have a relationship with the Living God, and who treat those around them as Christ would treat them. Morality is neither here nor there; it is relationship that matters.

 

[Metaphysicalwonderer]

Are the most serious issues we face in life not moral issues? Should I lie to my spouse about something I am ashamed of? Is it wrong to hurt someone that has hurt me? If no one will find out, is it alright to steal? Does the Christian faith not proclaim to have the answers to questions like these (in addition to a great number of others)? Did Jesus not spend a great deal of his time preaching about moral issues? Aren't we sent to hell for comminting immoral sins? It seems that you don't have a very good understanding of your own religion if you think morality is meerly a "side issue."

There are indeed things that are good, and things that are not good. In our faith we measure these against God's standard, as most perfectly revealed in Christ

In another passages you have said God is NOT the standard. Which is it? Are you not sure? If you are not sure whether Christian morality is correct, should you really be a Christian until you are sure?

 

[Metaphysicalwonderer]

As I said above, Christ said that having anger in our hearts against our brother is the SAME as murder. I am sure you will see that in social terms it would be totally impossible to enforce this as a law; every single person would need to be convicted of anger and sent to prison for 10 - 20 years every time they get angry.

Here you are confusing morality with law.

 

[Catherineanne]

Here you are confusing morality with law.

Nice try but no cigar.

Law derives from the morality of the culture in which it exists. Laws are constructed to try to prevent people from breaking the norms of that culture. Nobody ever bothers to construct a law against that which nobody is doing.

There is a societal norm that says that murder is one of the most serious of wrongs. There is not a norm that says that being anger is equally wrong.

Christ says they are the same, therefore his morality is set at a higher level than the societal norm, upon which our laws are founded.

 

[Metaphysicalwonderer]

You were comparing the morality Christ has instructed us to adopt vs. enforcible laws. That is a massive confusion of topic, I was simply pointing this out. Please return to the point.

Are the most serious issues we face in life not moral issues? Should I lie to my spouse about something I am ashamed of? Is it wrong to hurt someone that has hurt me? If no one will find out, is it alright to steal? Does the Christian faith not proclaim to have the answers to questions like these (in addition to a great number of others)? Did Jesus not spend a great deal of his time preaching about moral issues? Aren't we sent to hell for comminting immoral sins? It seems that you don't have a very good understanding of your own religion if you think morality is meerly a "side issue."

There are indeed things that are good, and things that are not good. In our faith we measure these against God's standard, as most perfectly revealed in Christ
​

In another passages you have said God is NOT the standard. Which is it? Are you not sure? If you are not sure whether Christian morality is correct, should you really be a Christian until you are sure?

 

[Catherineanne]

You were comparing the morality Christ has instructed us to adopt vs. enforcible laws. That is a massive confusion of topic, I was simply pointing this out. Please return to the point.

I never left it.

The point is, Christian morality is based on Christ, and is higher than societal morality.

In other words, whatever it is that you call morality, will not be the same morality as Christ's.

 

[Metaphysicalwonderer]

In other words, whatever it is that you call morality, will not be the same morality as Christ's.

I am not discussing whether or not we are able to ever be completely moral. I doubt we are. I am discussing the SOURCE of morality. Is there an OBJECTIVE morailty. Christian theolgy says yes, it comes from God. I do not think this is possible and I would like to be shown how.

So far, no one has been able to answer this question.

 

[elopez]

You contradict yourself. First you say:

1.) "God does not just make up what morality is"

This necessarily means that morality is independent of God. Then you go on to say:

The rest of your argument falls apart on account of you falsely assuming something here in 1. That God does not make up morality does not imply morality is independent of God, in fact it means the very opposite. If God does not make up morality it is indispensable to His existence.

2.) "He has always deemed what morality was because morality is indispensable to His existence."

This means that morality does, in fact, come from God. But then you switch back to the former view, and say:

I never switched anything. You just got confused in what I was originally saying in 1 which is no different from what I have said in 2.

3.) "What God says then is good because it is good."

Here again, you clearly show that what is good is not dependent on God telling us that it is good, it is good in and of itself. Which view is correct than? View 1 and 3, or view 2?

When I say something God says is good because it is good I mean it is good because good is essential to God. This again is no different from 1 or 2.

 

[Metaphysicalwonderer]

When I say something God says is good because it is good I mean it is good because good is essential to God. This again is no different from 1 or 2.

Thank you for clarifying your position, I believe I understand now. God is good by necessity. He cannot be anything other than good, and by extension all of His proclamations will be good. Now please explain, if, do to His very nature all of His proclamations are good, why couldn't any arbitrary command also be considered good/moral. For instance, if God told us hitting children was moral, why should we not hit children?

In your explanation, please do not appeal to the judgments or actions which we call moral, since these are the very principles which our current inquiry is analyzing. To appeal to these principles would inevitably lead to circular reasoning. For instance, " God's commands are good. Why? Because God is necessarily good. Why is He necessarily good? Because his commands are good." This is nonsensical.

Again, to be clear, the question is why wouldn't any arbitrary command by God also be considered good?

 

[elopez]

Thank you for clarifying your position, I believe I understand now. God is good by necessity. He cannot be anything other than good, and by extension all of His proclamations will be good.

No problem, and yes, that is the jest of what I'm saying.

Now please explain, if, do to His very nature all of His proclamations are good, why couldn't any arbitrary command also be considered good/moral. For instance, if God told us hitting children was moral, why should we not hit children?

Well think about what goodness being essential to God's existence implies. It implies that there is no possible world in which God would not be good or change His standard or conception of goodness. Morality is grounded in God's very nature and as God is immutable, morality is not subject to change.

In your explanation, please do not appeal to the judgments or actions which we call moral, since these are the very principles which our current inquiry is analyzing. To appeal to these principles would inevitably lead to circular reasoning. For instance, " God's commands are good. Why? Because God is necessarily good. Why is He necessarily good? Because his commands are good." This is nonsensical.

Right. My explanation is that if morality is rooted in God's nature, and if God is immutable, then morality is not able to be changed. It's not specifically because God is necessarily good, but also because He is immutable as is His will.

Again, to be clear, the question is why wouldn't any arbitrary command by God also be considered good?

On account of the immutability of God's nature.

 

[Metaphysicalwonderer]

On account of the immutability of God's nature.

This brings up an interesting problem concerning God's foreknowledge and free will which I hope to find the time to post about, but...
Back to the topic.

Well think about what goodness being essential to God's existence implies. It implies that there is no possible world in which God would not be good or change His standard or conception of goodness. Morality is grounded in God's very nature and as God is immutable, morality is not subject to change.

I think if you dig deeper here it will become apparent there is still a problem of arbitrariness. When you consider the nature of God, you reflect on His love, compassion, wisdom, forgiveness, etc. One is lead to say God is good because these traits are maximal in Him (and for Christians were witnessed in Jesus). These traits are an integral part of God, or as you put it, immutable.

I ask you to take a moment here to examine what it is we are doing when we say God is good for these reasons (if you would prefer not to focus on the particular aspects of His good nature, i.e. love, wisdom, etc., it will work just as well to say benevolence). The only reason we are able to affirm these aspects of his nature is good, is because we already have a preconceived notion of what it means to be good.

It seems clear that once we come to understand this, there is no better reason for making God the source of morality and goodness, then there is for making some objectice moral principle like the Golden Rule, or a Platonic Form.

I'm curious about your thoughts on this.

 

[Hakan101]

This brings up an interesting problem concerning God's foreknowledge and free will which I hope to find the time to post about, but...
Back to the topic.

I think if you dig deeper here it will become apparent there is still a problem of arbitrariness. When you consider the nature of God, you reflect on His love, compassion, wisdom, forgiveness, etc. One is lead to say God is good because these traits are maximal in Him (and for Christians were witnessed in Jesus). These traits are an integral part of God, or as you put it, immutable.

I ask you to take a moment here to examine what it is we are doing when we say God is good for these reasons (if you would prefer not to focus on the particular aspects of His good nature, i.e. love, wisdom, etc., it will work just as well to say benevolence). The only reason we are able to affirm these aspects of his nature is good, is because we already have a preconceived notion of what it means to be good.

It seems clear that once we come to understand this, there is no better reason for making God the source of morality and goodness, then there is for making some objectice moral principle like the Golden Rule, or a Platonic Form.

I'm curious about your thoughts on this.

Because we believe morality comes from God, we believe the idea of the Golden Rule comes from God as well. If not having come from an ultimate God, what is the Golden Rule other than human subjective morality? There is no moral obligation for us to follow it, as socially advantageous as it may be.