The Moral Argument

[Moral Orel]

I am just going by what you told me. Remember?

No, I don't remember. You said that I've only read a few verses, and that is false.

 

[anonymous person]

No, I don't remember. You said that I've only read a few verses, and that is false.

If that is false, then you should know that God is merciful, longsuffering, kind, patient, Good, gentle, loving, caring, and near to all who call upon Him in addition to being Just, and Holy and righteous.

Additionally, giving the Israelites superpowers may have protected them, but the Amalekites would still have been plundering and pillaging people. They still would have been sinning before God with their abominable practices. They still would have been unrepentant and ripe for judgment.

I think the issue here is righteousness and judgment.

It is hard to relate to those who suffered from such people because we are living thousands of years later in the comfort of our homes.

If we had been on the receiving end of the Amalekites wickedness, we would be crying out for God to judge them.

 

[Moral Orel]

If that is false, then you should know that God is merciful, longsuffering, kind, patient, Good, gentle, loving, caring, and near to all who call upon Him in addition to being Just, and Holy and righteous.

You forgot that he is a God of war.

Additionally, giving the Israelites superpowers may have protected them, but the Amalekites would still have been plundering and pillaging people. They still would have been sinning before God with their abominable practices. They still would have been unrepentant and ripe for judgment.

So no matter what alternative solution I come up with, there is a reason that the one God did is better?

 

[quatona]

He wanted to preserve their freedom while simultaneously executing judgment on them after giving them 500 years to get their act straight. So He ordered them to be killed and those who for all their lives were subject to their barbarous machinations rejoiced along with Israel for having taken vengeance on them for the evil they did and were intent on doing.

So (unchanging, eternal, atemporal) God´s objective "greater good" changes after 500 years?

 

[anonymous person]

You forgot that he is a God of war.


So no matter what alternative solution I come up with, there is a reason that the one God did is better?

If you have any alternatives in mind that would take into account all that God had intended to accomplish then we can have a look at them.

 

[Moral Orel]

If you have any alternatives in mind that would take into account all that God had intended to accomplish then we can have a look at them.

So you concede that there is a possibility that there was a better solution? Does that mean that God might have chosen to do something that created more evil than good? And the only thing that makes me wrong is if I can't think of anything myself?

 

[anonymous person]

So (unchanging, eternal, atemporal) God´s objective "greater good" changes after 500 years?

God's immutability does not preclude Him from executing judgment on a people He has been longsuffering with for 500 years.

Please reference the pertinent works related to this issue.

 

[anonymous person]

So you concede that there is a possibility that there was a better solution? Does that mean that God might have chosen to do something that created more evil than good? And the only thing that makes me wrong is if I can't think of anything myself?

Better to who?

You?

I think we have already seen that you think there were better courses God could have taken.

 

[Moral Orel]

Better to who?

Better to morality. I'll concede that I don't have the best understanding of morality. So if God does have the best, is it possible for Him to act in a way that goes against it?

 

[Moral Orel]

Better to who?

You?

I think we have already seen that you think there were better courses God could have taken.

Let me try to clarify more. You said that God doesn't want babies to be put to the sword, but you're saying that it had to be done to achieve "all that God had intended to accomplish". If God didn't "intend to accomplish" the mere act of putting babies to the sword, then is there a possibility that God could accomplish everything He intended without having babies be put to the sword?

 

[anonymous person]

Better to morality. I'll concede that I don't have the best understanding of morality. So if God does have the best, is it possible for Him to act in a way that goes against it?

Never, since God cannot contradict Himself.

Check this out and see if it makes it easier to understand:

I think of God as the embodiment of the moral good. He is the paradigm of goodness. He defines what goodness is. Think by way of analogy of judging music in terms of being hi-fidelity. We used to hear the term that a recording was hi-fidelity, which meant that it approximated to the sound of a live orchestra. But a live orchestra wouldn’t itself be hi-fidelity because it doesn’t have anything to approximate to – it is the standard. In the same way, moral values are defined by God. He is the standard of goodness. His character is the paradigm of goodness. Whether or not our actions are good or bad will be based upon how faithful they are to the standard. Whether they are morally hi-fidelity or not or whether they fall away from the standard and are therefore evil.

So God, in his moral nature, is the paradigm of goodness. He is by nature essentially good, loving, kind, faithful, just, loyal, truthful, and so forth. So I see moral values as defined paradigmatically in God; that is to say, God is the standard. Then that moral nature issues in divine commandments to us. It is out of that nature that God commands us that we should love our neighbors as ourselves; that we should love the Lord our God with all our heart and soul and strength and mind and so forth. These moral commandments then constitute our moral duties. This is the source of moral obligation for us that we are commanded by God, the paradigm of goodness, to do certain things.

We can distinguish between values and duties in this way. Values concern the moral worth of something – whether it is good or bad. Duties concern whether something is obligatory for us – whether it is right or wrong. I see moral duties as rooted in the commandments, moral values is rooted in the nature of God.



Read more: http://www.reasonablefaith.org/how-are-morals-objectively-grounded-in-god#ixzz45MKTIC4Q

 

[quatona]

God's immutability does not preclude Him from executing judgment on a people He has been longsuffering with for 500 years.

Your claim implied that his "objective greater good" changed.
What´s, btw., the "objective" significance of 500 years, as opposed to, say 400, 600, 200, or 50?

 

[Moral Orel]

Okay, so let's put it all together.

So God, in his moral nature, is the paradigm of goodness. He is by nature essentially good, loving, kind, faithful, just, loyal, truthful, and so forth.

God's nature is goodness, and He only acts according to his nature.

Never, since God cannot contradict Himself.

God cannot act against His nature.

You seem to think that because God commanded the Amalekites to be destroyed that that was something He wanted to happen.

He did not want it to happen.

He didn't want to have all the Amalekites killed, including their babies, but He had to because it was the best thing (even if we can't see all the reasons).

Do I have it right so far?

 

[anonymous person]

Your claim implied that his "objective greater good" changed.

My claim implied that these people had ample time to repent. They didn't.

God, in the way He relates to us, or the way He related to the Amalekites for that matter, is consistent, though His relating to us or them, can manifest itself in different ways.

God was no less perfect or Holy for judging the Amalekites than He was while He was longsuffering toward them.

A judge is no less a man because he sentences the repeat offender to 10 years in prison after having given him probation. He is still a man.

God is God whether He have mercy on us or whether He judges us for our sins.

What´s, btw., the "objective" significance of 500 years, as opposed to, say 400, 600, 200, or 50?

You keep using the word objective for some reason. Why?

The significance of 500 years is that God gave these people a long time to repent.

He did not warn them one day and then the next day order their destruction.

 

[anonymous person]

Okay, so let's put it all together.


God's nature is goodness, and He only acts according to his nature.

Right.

God cannot act against His nature.

Right.

He didn't want to have all the Amalekites killed, including their babies, but He had to because it was the best thing (even if we can't see all the reasons).

Do I have it right so far?

God speaking to Ezekiel asks a rhetorical question. He asks:

"Do I have any pleasure in the death of the wicked," declares the Lord GOD, "rather than that he should turn from his ways and live?

He then says:

"For I take no pleasure in the death of anyone, declares the Sovereign LORD. Repent and live!

And it is written again:

"Say to them, 'As surely as I live, declares the Sovereign LORD, I take no pleasure in the death of the wicked, but rather that they turn from their ways and live. Turn! Turn from your evil ways! Why will you die, people of Israel?'

And...

"Who is a God like you, who pardons sin and forgives the transgression of the remnant of his inheritance? You do not stay angry forever but delight to show mercy."

God wanted the Amalekites to repent from the path of destruction they were headed on. That path which led them to attack the elderly and the babies and the children Moses was leading up out of Egypt. God did not want them to do that. He created them with a conscience. With an ability to know right from wrong. They chose to harden their hearts and live a life of hatred and ruthlessness.

So no, God did not want the Amalekites to do what they did, nor did He take pleasure in having to destroy them. We trust that God knew what was best and had good reasons for doing what He did, even though we may not know all of the reasons.

You got it right pretty much thus far.

 

[Moral Orel]

You got it right pretty much thus far.

When we think about God's actions, should we also even consider the butterfly effect as well? Not only do we not know exactly what will happen as a direct result of one action, we don't know what effects it will have 1000 or even 2000 years from now because of the chain of events that happen as a result? So when considering the entire universe and every particle in it, for every second that it exists, there is one best solution to any given problem that only God can know?

 

[quatona]

My claim implied that these people had ample time to repent. They didn't.

So what is God´s unchanging "greater good" that outlasted his former behaviour, his change of course, and his later behaviour?

A judge is no less a man because he sentences the repeat offender to 10 years in prison after having given him probation. He is still a man.

But you we aren´t talking about men.

You keep using the word objective for some reason. Why?

Because that´s what you claim God´s value and morality are.

The significance of 500 years is that God gave these people a long time to repent.

That doesn´t answer my question (50, 100, 213, 1034 years are a long time, too). Is that because you can´t answer it? Or did you not understand it?

He did not warn them one day and then the next day order their destruction.

Even though he knew the outcome from the beginning, he waited a certain amount of time until he did that which he knew would be unavoidable, all along. He didn´t order to kill AmalektiteA, even though he knew AmalektiteA would contribute to evil big time. He ordered to kill AmalektiteB for that very reason.
Amalektite B hadn´t been warned for 500 years. He had, at most, been warned for his lifetime, just like AmalektiteA.

 

[anonymous person]

When we think about God's actions, should we also even consider the butterfly effect as well? Not only do we not know exactly what will happen as a direct result of one action, we don't know what effects it will have 1000 or even 2000 years from now because of the chain of events that happen as a result? So when considering the entire universe and every particle in it, for every second that it exists, there is one best solution to any given problem that only God can know?

Much research has been undertaken when it comes to chaos theory. The theory that deals with how seemingly insignificant events can have enormous importance in the future. The butterfly effect is one such notion. A butterfly flapping its wings outside my window in North Carolina may set in motion certain events that 10 years from now will cause a Tsunami off the coast of Japan, for example.

The appeal is made to this notion by Christian philosophers who respond to the argument that God could not have morally sufficient reasons for allowing or causing certain things to happen. The appeal is made to point out the fact that we as finite human beings simply are not in a good position when it comes to saying God could not have morally sufficient reasons for doing something or allowing something.

Going back to the butterfly outside of my window. I, being finite in knowledge and perspective, simply have no way of knowing that a Tsunami would result as an effect of a series of causes and effects tracing back to the butterfly outside of my window. There is no way I could know that.

Likewise, when we look at the few instances in the OT where God commands something that initially makes us recoil, we simply are not in a position to say, "It is impossible that God could have morally sufficient reasons for commanding x." We are not privy to the knowledge of what would happen had x not been commanded. Nor are we privy to all of the knowledge that will happen after x is carried out.

But if we come to know God through personally experiencing Him and His love and His compassion and His concern for us, then we have that assurance that even though we may not understand why He allows or causes certain things to happen, we can trust Him because we personally know He has our best interest at heart.

Now with regards to whether or not God always does what is the best thing to do, I think it helpful to remember that what is "best" will be determined by God, not us. God will always do what He wills to do. But what He wills to do may not always be what he delights in or takes pleasure in doing.

 

[quatona]

Interestingly, the way anonymous argues here, completely refutes his solution of the moral dilemma he posted.
We do not know whose death results in "greater good" (we do not know if and who of the guys on the railtracks are Amalektities, Hitler´s eventual parents; we do not know what effect they will have in regards to the "greater good" God pursues "objectively").
One day it´s "do not kill them, I want them to have free will", the next day it´s "kill them, I´m out of patience".
So it´s all guesswork, and - unless God gives me a direct command for each single action - his "objective" morality doesn´t help one iota with anything.
Heck, to go by ap´s responses, we can´t even identify God´s "greater/greatest good", to begin with.
We are left to our human devices, our human values, our human standards, opinions and estimations.

 

[anonymous person]

So what is God´s unchanging "greater good" that outlasted his former behaviour, his change of course, and his later behaviour?

One greater good accomplished that the scripture is clear on, is that the nation of Israel was preserved as a remnant from the evil intentions of her enemies, from which the Messiah would later come, who would be Savior of the world.

But you we aren´t talking about men.

We were talking about what being unchanging and perfect and eternal means. These terms are referent to God's nature, i.e. what He is intrinsically, irrespective of the extrinsic.

Likewise a judge is a man and is still a man regardless of what he does or how he relates to a criminal today and how he relates to him after he has proven incorrigible after 10 years.

That doesn´t answer my question (50, 100, 213, 1034 years are a long time, too). Is that because you can´t answer it? Or did you not understand it?

God's will included Him waiting the time He did until He executed judgment. He had His reasons. I don't know specifically what they were.

Even though he knew the outcome from the beginning, he waited a certain amount of time until he did that which he knew would be unavoidable, all along. He didn´t order to kill AmalektiteA, even though he knew AmalektiteA would contribute to evil big time. He ordered to kill AmalektiteB for that very reason.
Amalektite B hadn´t been warned for 500 years. He had, at most, been warned for his lifetime, just like AmalektiteA.

God knowing what will happen in the future does not mean that what happens is unavoidable. The Amalekites did not have to attack the helpless and weak of Israel coming up out of Egypt. God's foreknowledge is what He knows, not what He does.

I can know that if I open a can of tuna and place it on the floor that my cat will gobble it up, but my mere knowing this does not cause the cat to eat it.