Is Christian Morality arbitrary?

[2001MustangGT]

This is your assumption which makes God a completely ridiculous notion - as God is in polytheism as shown in Euthyphro. The argument you presented from Eurethro assumes the inadequate gods of polytheism, of whom it can be conceived that they might approve of what is wrong. As seebs said earlier, you make the mistake of identifying what the Bible says about God and what God himself is - that is you make them logically the same, making God a construct of the Bible rather than already being and being described by the Bible. However you treat morality as pre-existing, and then it follows that morality was before God, who was created by us in Genesis, and therefore this God is to be judged by morality, when in fact it is only our concept which is so judged.

Are you trying to invalidate the Bible here? How am I making God a construct of the Bible? I thought that was what Christians did, Im just playing by their rules.

Morality either pre-exists, OR morality is dependent on God and arbitrary. Thats the only two ways about it.

Instead God and morality are intertwined.

Then morality is arbitrary.

Whatever God commands is right, and whatever is right is what God commands.

you just admitted it here.

So from the point of view of our comprehension, either can be prior. Is this the definition of what is right, or the definition of God? Either! But in the nature of things, God is prior as the one who commands is prior to what is commanded. (So yes, morality is arbitrary.)

and here comes the doublethink. I knew it would appear sooner or later.

Allow me to give you a "doubleplusgood" smiley if one existed LOL

 

[CSMR]

I never denied that morality is arbitrary. You seem to be assuming that I am arguing it isn't and then accuse me of doublethink when I explicitly say it is!

Are you trying to invalidate the Bible here? How am I making God a construct of the Bible?

No, only that the Bible is not arbitrary with respect to God. If the Bible were otherwise, then God would not be different; the Bible would be wrong. You corrected yourself earlier in this thread when Seebs pointed out that God precedes the Bible, but you still think of God not being absolute, which automatically makes morality's dependence on Him absurd. God is not an independent entity from morality.
You claimed that God is considered a conscious being (moreover one who changes his mind - please expound on this) - as soon as God is a conscious being moving through time we can ask things like what if God changes His mind; what if his views and commands are different from yesterday. This is the sort of God in Eurethro, not the absolute and eternal God.

The Problem of Abhorrent Commands:

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.

Here all you have done is assume your conclusion, in holding morality fixed and imagining God changing his mind. This is possible to imagine if God is a human, but not if the idea of God is as the commander of what is right - then it is not a possible thought experiment - because God commanding what is wrong is a contradiction.
As for the question what if God were to command such acts - perhaps people who think that morality would still be the same are in fact unable to conceive of it being different. In that case they should not have been able to conceive of God commanding otherwise - unless they do not believe in God!

 

[2001MustangGT]

I never denied that morality is arbitrary. You seem to be assuming that I am arguing it isn't and then accuse me of doublethink when I explicitly say it is!

Whoops! my mistake. it was a long night last night. :o

Your post confused me. It appeared that you were arguing on two sides or something. But now that I re-read your post, (and had some sleep) it is more clear to me.

 

[Philosoft]

Is the statement "you are a chair" an analytic one?

It depends. Are you offering "chair" as a definition of "you"?

So that means that by the same logic by which a world without God can be conceived, a world in which you are a chair can also be conceived? I don't think you will manage to do that, frankly!

Well, the world doesn't have to be identical to this one in all other respects. Pretty much all you need to conceive a possible world is that no proposition about the world entails a contradiction. There are notable exceptions, but they seem to be mathematical in nature.

 

[Carico]

How can Christian morality be arbitrary? Arbitrariness comes from each person deciding for himself what right and wrong is! God has told us what right and wrong is and His message NEVER, I repeat, NEVER changes! Men's morals change ,uch faster than the weather asnd they are all based on men's perceptions!

 

[Philosoft]

How can Christian morality be arbitrary? Arbitrariness comes from each person deciding for himself what right and wrong is! God has told us what right and wrong is and His message NEVER, I repeat, NEVER changes!

Unless you adhere to Old Testament behavior codes, this cannot be true.

In any case, God's morality is arbitrary because God is the arbiter of morality. If not, then God is merely recounting morality as something transcendent to even Himself. This is standard Euthyphro, and it is as valid a criticism now as it was in Plato's time.

 

[Carico]

Unless you adhere to Old Testament behavior codes, this cannot be true.

In any case, God's morality is arbitrary because God is the arbiter of morality. If not, then God is merely recounting morality as something transcendent to even Himself. This is standard Euthyphro, and it is as valid a criticism now as it was in Plato's time.

If you don't use the God of the bible then how can you even speak about God being the arbiter of morality or that morality transcends even Him?

 

[Philosoft]

If you don't use the God of the bible then how can you even speak about God being the arbiter of morality or that morality transcends even Him?

Euthyphro, my dear. This is philosophy that predates even Jesus. It has been regarded as a valid refutation of divine command theory for more than two millennia.

 

[2001MustangGT]

How can Christian morality be arbitrary? Arbitrariness comes from each person deciding for himself what right and wrong is! God has told us what right and wrong is and His message NEVER, I repeat, NEVER changes! Men's morals change ,uch faster than the weather asnd they are all based on men's perceptions!

Except that he says not to covet, then admits he gets jealous.

Then he says not to kill, and he murders innocent babies in egypt.

Then he demands sacrifice in OT, then changes his ways in the NT.

is that, to quote you, "NEVER" changing will? ? ? ?? ? ?

 

[Buzz Dixon]

Do a Google search on "dispensationalism."

 

[2001MustangGT]

Do a Google search on "dispensationalism."

done. thanx for the info, wow this is great!

the first link that appeared, http://www.dispensationalism.com/, has this to say:

Definition
A Dispensation - The system by which anything is administered. In Christian terms, looking back, it refers to a period in history whereby God dealt with man in a specific way. (Conscience, Law, Grace)
Dispensationalism - A system of theology that sees God working with man in different ways during different ages. While 'Dispensations' are not ages, but stewardships, or administrations, we tend to see them now as ages since we look back on specific time periods when they were in practice.
Dispensationalism is distinguished by three key principles.
1 - A clear distinction between God's program for Israel and God's program for the Church.
2 - A consistent and regular use of a literal principle of interpretation
3 - The understanding of the purpose of God as His own glory rather than the salvation of mankind.

So it appears that God did things differently in different times and that he did it for his own glory.

Well it doesnt get much more arbitrary than that! Ego, changing actions, different standards for different people, its all consistent with my OP.

It truly is arbitrary.

 

[Mekkala]

You can't make an omlet without breaking eggs, you can't make saurkraut without chopping cabbage.

That's right, I can't, nor can you. But God can, if he's omniscient and omnipotent.

You can't have free will without the chance of people choosing wrong behaviors and attitudes.

You may be right that I couldn't set up a way for us to have free will without having to slaughter countless innocents, or you. But God could, if he's omniscient and omnipotent.

You are projecting your own weaknesses on a God who purports to be omnipotent. Tell me, Buzz, if God can't do anything we can't do, then what does "omnipotent" mean? If God has our limitations, then I suppose we're all omnipotent, is that right?

You're using human limitations as an excuse for God to do what he did, and in the next breath you claim that God has no human limitations. You don't see a contradiction?

 

[Mekkala]

2) is using a different meaning of will from 1). 1) is using will as command; 2) is using will as do
3) is therefore false. God created the world, but that isn't morality. Morality isn't what God does but what God commands us to do. Even there, what God commands us to do, and what God has us do in his omnipotence are not necessarily the same.

Not so. Substitute "whatever God chooses to command" for "whatever God chooses to do" and my argument still works. Your objection is spurious, trivial, and not very well-thought-out.

 

[Buzz Dixon]

That's right, I can't, nor can you. But God can, if he's omniscient and omnipotent.

You may be right that I couldn't set up a way for us to have free will without having to slaughter countless innocents, or you. But God could, if he's omniscient and omnipotent.

You are projecting your own weaknesses on a God who purports to be omnipotent. Tell me, Buzz, if God can't do anything we can't do, then what does "omnipotent" mean? If God has our limitations, then I suppose we're all omnipotent, is that right?

You're using human limitations as an excuse for God to do what he did, and in the next breath you claim that God has no human limitations. You don't see a contradiction?

Who are you to judge God? Were you present when the universe was created? Are you in full possession of all the facts?

It's easy to be critical when one is not responsible. I forget the philosopher who said it (some French guy, I think), but it's been said that any human saddled with God's power and responsibility would be paralyzed into inaction.

 

[Philosoft]

Who are you to judge God? Were you present when the universe was created? Are you in full possession of all the facts?

No. Reason, however, dictates that we assume that any being described as "all-powerful" can indeed perform all logically possible acts, until such time as we have reason to believe there are acts said being cannot perform.

It's easy to be critical when one is not responsible. I forget the philosopher who said it (some French guy, I think), but it's been said that any human saddled with God's power and responsibility would be paralyzed into inaction.

Anthropomorphization is probably the easiest way to render God intelligible by analogy. Unfortunately, it has the side effect of making us think we understand more than we really do.

 

[The Bellman]

Who are you to judge God? Were you present when the universe was created? Are you in full possession of all the facts?

It's easy to be critical when one is not responsible. I forget the philosopher who said it (some French guy, I think), but it's been said that any human saddled with God's power and responsibility would be paralyzed into inaction.

It's easy to be critical when what one is being critical of has been done so badly. The job God has done of creating the universe is awful. The philosopher who said that was wrong; virtually any human with god's power and responsibility would be able to do a far better job than he has done.

 

[CSMR]

Not so. Substitute "whatever God chooses to command" for "whatever God chooses to do" and my argument still works. Your objection is spurious, trivial, and not very well-thought-out.

I wasn't saying that your argument cannot be amended - it can as you say, and then your argument works. I was objecting only to your use of the word "do", which is not a trivial objection since several people in this thread are trying to judge God (trying to say that His actions have to be moral) and subject his actions to morality which is impossible if command and action are rightly understood.