Is Christian Morality arbitrary?

[2001MustangGT]

Christian morality (morality based on Biblical doctrine) is arbitrary. Why? Because morality relies on the whims of God.

God could easily decide that killing is moral, and therefore morality is far from absolute. What if God commanded murder? wouldnt that be an example of arbitrary, conflicting morality?

Suffer not a witch to live

Dash the little ones against the stones

What I mean is, how can morality be concrete or stable when its based not on an idea or principle, but a conscious entity (especially one with mood swings like in the Bible)?

If you try to claim that "God wouldnt order killing because it is wrong", then youve only argued that morality exists beyond Gods will.

 

[Christler]

That's a mean looking horse. Do you wan't to know something that you may feel is ironic. I work at the Ford Plant. I build Ford F-150's.
Nevertheless, Can any human being truly assign a flawless interpretation of what is and what is'nt moral Moral is an imperfect term that is popular for use amongst the human race. There is a difference between moral, and Holy.
There is a difference between moral and Sovriegn. If you ever get the chance; read Isaiah Chapter 5 verses 8,18,20,21,22. The Prophet Isaiah keeps saying "Woe unto them!" "Woe unto them!", But in Chapter 6 Isaiah see The Lord.
What He encountered was far from the Imagination of his mind. The Lord was High and Lifted up,and the train of his robe filled the temple (Building capacity of billions), (That's one mighty big robe!!!) smoke was everywhere!, and one creature sounded loud enough to shake the door post in Heaven!!! That mighty Loud, and powerfull!!! Isaiah fell to the floor in great fear. And for the first time in his life he saw himself for the feeble being he was in the presence of such a powerful God. Could you Imagine some astronuat saying "I'm going to travel to the sun, and when I get there I'm going to show it who's Boss!"
Don't that sound crazy
Alot of human beings think more highly of themselves than what they ought to. Complaining, and figuring to be wiser than God. God is not like us. God is not a slave to time as we are. We can only see the present. God exhist in the past, present,and future all at the same time. That is the difference between finite, and eternal.
We say "why did God allow all those kids to get blown up? either God is mean,or dose'nt really exhist."
While God might would consider how foolish we sound not knowing that those kids were going to grow up and destroy the earth.
God is Just,and being that all belongs to him; He has a right to do as he pleases. You would'nt like someone comming in your yard telling you what you need to do with your mustang
And If you don't believe in God..............
It is not convienient to believe that some atoms just by chance got together,and caused an explosion, and we have all of this.
Please take note that someone paid attention to detail. ( i know a man like you can relate to that.)
It's not hard to see that the sun is not too close( so that we don't burn up)
It's not hard to see that the sun is not too far (so that we don't freeze)
The seasons come like clock work
rain feeds the grass, vegetation,livestock, and us.
food grows out of the soil.
Man, It' easy to see that we human beings are being taken care of, like a parent takes care of a child.

 

[Buzz Dixon]

God authorized the destruction of Israel's enemies only when those enemies refused to co-exist peacefully with Israel but rather dedicated themselves to the destruction of the Jewish people. Since those peoples had put themselves directly opposite the will of God and the good He was trying to bring to the world, God allowed them to be destroyed.

In the secular world, it's been mathematically proven that "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you" is the best social philosophy. Check out Douglas Hofstdater's book METAMAGICAL THEMAS (not an occult title but a book on mathematics) and read the chapter on game theory and The Prisoner's Dilemma.

 

[Shane Roach]

I think that people can imagine a set of morals that they would then argue are superior to those of God. I question whether or not that could ever be proven. I guess I see God's morals as things that can be separated from God and inspected on their own merits, but there again, it is just one person't opinion from another as to which is "better".

I find God's ways superior to those I have seen from any human being I have met yet. That's all I can say about that.

 

[Mish]

Christian morality (morality based on Biblical doctrine) is arbitrary. Why? Because morality relies on the whims of God.

That is not the reason they are arbitrary. They are arbitrary because they are based on a particular system of beliefs as are all morality. But so are all morals. There are eight (main) theories of ethics, and religion is one of them, each is arbitrary in its own way.

I suspect what you mean is that it is arbitrary that Christians claim to have absolute morality based on an unsupported belief? Am I wrong?

 

[Mekkala]

God authorized the destruction of Israel's enemies only when those enemies refused to co-exist peacefully with Israel but rather dedicated themselves to the destruction of the Jewish people. Since those peoples had put themselves directly opposite the will of God and the good He was trying to bring to the world, God allowed them to be destroyed.

That is completely untrue. Read your Bible, man! God specifically commanded the Israelites more than once to slaughter peoples who did nothing to them in case they or their descendants might do something later, or sometimes just because the Israelites needed a bit of land that somebody else lived on. A very good example is Jericho. The Jerichoans had virtually no dealings with Israel at all before they were unceremoniously attacked and every living thing in the city slaughtered, at God's command. They were "sinful" (i.e., they were occupying land that the Israelites wanted).

 

[Buzz Dixon]

God knows the hearts of people. He knew the hearts of the people He authorized the Israelites to slaughter. There would be no peace possible with these people (look at how the Philistines, who committed numerous atrocities against Israel but never attempted outright genocide, were spared despite their animosity towards the Jews).

The Hebrews did not kill everyone they encountered. Those tribes that left them alone or blessed them were in turn left alone or blessed.

 

[2001MustangGT]

God knows the hearts of people. He knew the hearts of the people He authorized the Israelites to slaughter. There would be no peace possible with these people (look at how the Philistines, who committed numerous atrocities against Israel but never attempted outright genocide, were spared despite their animosity towards the Jews).
The Hebrews did not kill everyone they encountered. Those tribes that left them alone or blessed them were in turn left alone or blessed.

God commanded killing. You said it.

Therefore, if you rely on Gods will to set morality, then killing can be good or bad. Stealing can be good or bad. etc...

There is no concreteness. There is no absouteness. The morality is whimsical and unreliable and arbitrary when its based on God and the Bible.

See? It is a totally inappropriate basis for morality.

 

[Christler]

The Jerichoans had virtually no dealings with Israel at all before they were unceremoniously attacked and every living thing in the city slaughtered, at God's command. They were "sinful" (i.e., they were occupying land that the Israelites wanted).

God created The Jerichoians,and God created The land. All belong To Him. We must except what God allows. We can't say that God is not fair. We don't know what state the Jerichoians were in. Whose to say that they were living in direct opposition to God, and would never get themselves in line with God's law. And It has been warned that the wages of sin is death.
Does it matter when death comes, and how. The Bible says God is not willing that any should perish,but that all would come to the knowledge of the truth. I truly believe that if you perish without God, God knew that you were never going to get your life in line with his will anyway.
Also you need to know that the Old Testament is showing you the history of man when he was under the law (Romans 8:3) The law was about Justice, and Justice has no mercy.
But we are no longer under the law, and Old Testament, but we are under grace of the New Testament. That is why the same things that were happening in the Old testament are'nt Happening today. That is why it would be a poor example to use the Old Testament to discuss the ways of God today. For God has made a new contract with man, full of grace &truth

 

[Mish]

Here is something;

God can command killing, it can be wrong, and yet he can still be wholly good.


I go for: God does not violate free will except on rare occasions.
Hence the wholly good course of action may not be perfecty Good, but in performing the most Good action and fullfilling the non-violation of free will, God has effectively performed a perfectly Good action, as no other action could possibly be and better, and everything else is worse.

That argument is shoody and held together with tape, but you probably get the drift of the inexpert words.

 

[Mekkala]

God created The Jerichoians,and God created The land. All belong To Him. We must except what God allows. We can't say that God is not fair. We don't know what state the Jerichoians were in. Whose to say that they were living in direct opposition to God, and would never get themselves in line with God's law. And It has been warned that the wages of sin is death.
Does it matter when death comes, and how. The Bible says God is not willing that any should perish,but that all would come to the knowledge of the truth. I truly believe that if you perish without God, God knew that you were never going to get your life in line with his will anyway.
Also you need to know that the Old Testament is showing you the history of man when he was under the law (Romans 8:3) The law was about Justice, and Justice has no mercy.
But we are no longer under the law, and Old Testament, but we are under grace of the New Testament. That is why the same things that were happening in the Old testament are'nt Happening today. That is why it would be a poor example to use the Old Testament to discuss the ways of God today. For God has made a new contract with man, full of grace &truth

Why do so many people do this? I find it extremely irritating and counterproductive. What purpose do you think it serves to "prove" that God is right by saying that we shouldn't question God? If we believed that God is unquestionably right in everything, we wouldn't be debating it to begin with, now would we?

So why would you want to make an argument like this? What does it contribute to the thread? What good could it possibly do anyone here? There are two kinds of people here -- the ones who agree with you and the ones who don't. The ones who agree with you aren't going to get anything out of your post, because it's just preaching to the choir. The ones who don't agree aren't going to get anything out of your post, because to do so one has to already agree with your post.

What is the point of making an argument that only works if the listener already agrees with it? Tell me, please!

 

[2001MustangGT]

The Euthyphro Dilemma

(1) If divine command theory is true then either (i) morally good acts are willed by God because they are morally good, or (ii) morally good acts are morally good because they are willed by God.
(2) If (i) morally good acts are willed by God because they are morally good, then they are morally good independent of God’s will.
(3) It is not the case that morally good acts are morally good independent of God’s will.
Therefore:
(4) It is not the case that (i) morally good acts are willed by God because they are morally good.
(5) If (ii) morally good acts are morally good because they are willed by God, then there is no reason either to care about God’s moral goodness or to worship him.
(6) There are reasons both to care about God’s moral goodness and to worship him.
Therefore:
(7) It is not the case that (ii) morally good acts are morally good because they are willed by God.
Therefore:
(8) Divine command theory is false.​

 

[Shane Roach]

The Euthyphro Dilemma

(1) If divine command theory is true then either (i) morally good acts are willed by God because they are morally good, or (ii) morally good acts are morally good because they are willed by God.

(2) If (i) morally good acts are willed by God because they are morally good, then they are morally good independent of God’s will.
(3) It is not the case that morally good acts are morally good independent of God’s will.
Therefore:
(4) It is not the case that (i) morally good acts are willed by God because they are morally good.
(5) If (ii) morally good acts are morally good because they are willed by God, then there is no reason either to care about God’s moral goodness or to worship him.
(6) There are reasons both to care about God’s moral goodness and to worship him.
Therefore:
(7) It is not the case that (ii) morally good acts are morally good because they are willed by God.
Therefore:
(8) Divine command theory is false.
​

I don't pretend to know a lot about formal logic, but it appears as if (5) aboves is nothing more than a personal opinion, and ditto for step (6). In order to make either of these claims, one would already have to have a moral grounds.

I also take issue with (3) for that matter on similar grounds.

 

[Christler]

So why would you want to make an argument like this? What does it contribute to the thread? What good could it possibly do anyone here? There are two kinds of people here -- the ones who agree with you and the ones who don't. The ones who agree with you aren't going to get anything out of your post, because it's just preaching to the choir. The ones who don't agree aren't going to get anything out of your post, because to do so one has to already agree with your post.

1 Corinthians 2:14

 

[Buzz Dixon]

Elsewhere the Bible states there's a time for everything, including a time to make war and a time to make peace.

If you see a child molestor about to rape your child, you smash his head in with a baseball bat; you don't worry about his poor upbringing or see if you can reason with him.

Whenever the Israelites encountered foes who were were not determined to eradicate them, God permitted those people to live. God spared the Phillistines, the Persians, and the Romans (yeah, the Romans obliterated Judea as a nation, but they didn't destroy the Jewish people; they sold them into bondage).

The Jewish people were the vessel through which God would manifest himself in the world through Jesus Christ. Genocide against the Jews before the birth of Christ was an attempt to prevent God from coming into the world in order to save it.

Put it another way: A doctor is on his way to a sick village with the knowledge necessary to save their lives. An incurably crazy man is determined to kill the doctor and can not be stopped short of lethal means.

What kind of morality says let the crazy man kill the doctor and thus allow the entire village to die?

 

[2001MustangGT]

I don't pretend to know a lot about formal logic, but it appears as if (5) aboves is nothing more than a personal opinion, and ditto for step (6). In order to make either of these claims, one would already have to have a moral grounds.

Premise (5) states the consequences of the divine command theorist affirming the second of the options offered to him in premise (1). It states that if the second option is true then there is no reason either to care about God’s moral goodness or to worship him. The first claim is supported by an argument known as the emptiness problem, the second by an argument known as the problem of abhorrent commands.​

(6) states that we do have reason both to care about God’s moral goodness and to worship him. Again, this is used as a premise to which the divine command theorist is committed, rather than as a premise that the critic of divine command theory believes is true.​

The second subconclusion, (7), is the rejection of the second option offered to the divine command theorist in premise (1). It follows from premises (5) and (6).​

I also take issue with (3) for that matter on similar grounds.

The third premise denies that the morally good is morally good independent of God’s will. Of course, the critic of divine command theory does not believe this premise to be true; he believes that morality is independent of God’s will. However, the divine command theorist is committed to accepting this claim because divine command theory just is the theory that all moral truths are dependent on God’s will. Though critics of divine command theory disbelieve this premise, then, they can still use it against the divine command theorist.​

 

[2001MustangGT]

What kind of morality says let the crazy man kill the doctor and thus allow the entire village to die?

Gods moral code would, if he so desired. That is the whole point:

Gods morality is arbitrary and whimsical. Leaving the village to die is only wrong because God says its wrong. God can easily (and in the Bible he often has) change his mind on this kind of thing and pronounce that leaving the village to die is GOOD.

Morality is not concrete or absolute in any way when it relies on a conscious mood swinging god (like, for example, a Biblical God)

The Problem of Abhorrent Commands:

The Euthyphro dilemma is introduced with the question, “Are morally good acts willed by God because they are morally good, or are they morally good because they are willed by God?” Each of these two possibilities, the argument runs, leads to consequences that the divine command theorist cannot accept. If the divine command theorist gives the first answer to the question, then he faces the independence problem. If the divine command theorist gives the second answer to the question, then he faces the emptiness problem and the problem of abhorrent commands. Either way, then, the Euthyphro dilemma claims, divine command theory is refuted.​

​

The second answer that the divine command theorist might give to the Euthyphro dilemma is that morally good acts are morally good because they are willed by God. As has been said, giving this answer results in the problem of abhorrent commands. The problem of abhorrent commands is the problem that divine command theory appears to entail that even morally abhorrent acts such as rape, murder and genocide could possibly be morally good.​

God, being all-powerful, could possibly command rape, murder and genocide. As it happens, he chooses not to, the theist will say, but it does seem to follow from God’s omnipotence that he could issue such commands.​

If God were to command rape, murder and genocide, then divine command theory appears to imply that rape, murder and genocide would be morally laudable. The fact that it is possible for God to command such acts therefore implies that it is possible for such acts to be morally laudable.​

However, it just doesn’t seem to be true to most people that if God commanded such abhorrent acts as rape, murder and genocide then those acts would be morally laudable. This thought experiment--”What if God were to command such acts?”--therefore seems to show that divine command theory is false. This is the problem of abhorrent commands.​

 

[Buzz Dixon]

God wants life.

He permits the taking of life only to preserve other life.

No peaceful person ever has to fear God's judgment in this world.

Those who hate beyond reason, who turn themselves into instruments of evil bent only on destruction will eventually have the same metted unto them.

 

[2001MustangGT]

God wants life.

then why did he invent "death"?

He permits the taking of life only to preserve other life.

scripture?

No peaceful person ever has to fear God's judgment in this world.

so 99.999% of the human race will get into heaven, even though only approx. 33% of those people are Christian?

Those who hate beyond reason, who turn themselves into instruments of evil bent only on destruction will eventually have the same metted unto them.

Hell must be a pretty empty place compared to heaven then, huh?

 

[neocon]

................What if God commanded murder? wouldnt that be an example of arbitrary, conflicting morality?

....................................

Nope that would simply be an example of your rebellion against God by attempying to declare wrong what he declares Right.

God does NOT change but human attempts to twist His Words go though all sorts of fads and phases.