When is it okay to contradict or disobey a prophet?

[elguanteloko]

That doesn't really answer my question.

This other answer I gave in the same post does: I would say that I don't know God's character in the first place.

[Jason]

So you see my reasoning as circular only because you don't accept one of the base premises - that God is moral.

[elguanteloko]

So you see my reasoning as circular only because you don't accept one of the base premises - that God is moral.

No. You were going in circles because you assumed the same thing you were trying to show (that God is moral or that His actions can be described as moral or good).

[Jason]

No. You were going in circles because you assumed the same thing you were trying to show (that God is moral or that His actions can be described as moral or good).

I was trying to show that it is wrong to place limits on what one will do for God, not that God is moral.

[elguanteloko]

I was trying to show that it is wrong to place limits on what one will do for God, not that God is moral.

we were discussing if one of God's actions (ordering the killing of small children) was good or moral. We were trying to determine if your reasons for giving God credit of "good" or "moral" (trustworthy) were valid. It seems like they were not. I don't accept that God is moral because I see no reason to. I never debated if we should put limits on what we will do for God or not but I guess I answered it indirectly.

[Ahab]

I don't accept that God is moral because I see no reason to.

Try seeing what is moral by seeing what God does. Everything he does is moral, and morally good.

If you don't think so, then perhaps you are confusing God with Satan.

Remember this: God is the good guy, so to speak, and Satan is the evil one.

By that definition, everything God does is good because "God" is the term we use for the good guy.

... the very best good guy there is.

[semlogo]

Marginally no. Rape is a lesser sin than murder according to scripture, but not by much.

Good question. What do you think?

Note that Hagar doesn't seem to have been free to make up her mind who she married.

It isn't clear what Haggar thought. But we can assume, given the great sin that rape is, that Abraham didn't force himself on her. Unless you think Abraham was a rapist? I rather doubt it.

[Jason]

we were discussing if one of God's actions (ordering the killing of small children) was good or moral.

Only indirectly. The topic is "when is it okay to disobey?" not "is God moral?"

Your answer would seem to be "when God commands something immoral." I feel that shows a preference of your own moral judgement over that of God, and you seem to be confirming this by further questioning whether God is in fact moral.

We were trying to determine if your reasons for giving God credit of "good" or "moral" (trustworthy) were valid. It seems like they were not. I don't accept that God is moral because I see no reason to. I never debated if we should put limits on what we will do for God or not but I guess I answered it indirectly.

But you said earlier that you do trust God. Why do you trust him if you don't accept that He is moral?

[semlogo]

So since you view it as murder, if you were in the bridgeman's place, and your son somehow got out despite your having kept a closer eye on him, would you not hold down the lever, save your son, and kill everyone on the train?

It's a ridiculous question, and I won't dignify it with an answer. It's like one of those hypothetical questions such as: if a sadist had your family and made you chose which one would die, who would you chose? I have no interest in such fictional moral dilemmas.

Then why does the Church object to aborting these balls of cells except in cases of rape, incest, or the health of the mother?

Because while it isn't homicide, it's still wrong.

[Jason]

It isn't clear what Haggar thought.

The narrative says that Sarai gave Hagar to Abram, and that after she conceived she got uppity with Sarai and Abram basically said "she's your maid (not "my wife") - if you're upset with her, do what you like." When Sarai treated her harshly she ran away, and the Lord had to command her to go back.

But we can assume, given the great sin that rape is, that Abraham didn't force himself on her. Unless you think Abraham was a rapist? I rather doubt it.

Well you seem to think he was a murderer, since he was perfectly willing to sacrifice Isaac (an act you say would be murder). Why not a rapist also?

[Jason]

It's a ridiculous question, and I won't dignify it with an answer. It's like one of those hypothetical questions such as: if a sadist had your family and made you chose which one would die, who would you chose? I have no interest in such fictional moral dilemmas.

Fictional moral dilemmas can be useful in determining what is moral. Thought experiments are commonly used tools to clarify our thinking.

If you refuse to think about the question, however, then you don't get any real benefit. All I'm asking is for you to seriously think about the question instead of going with your knee-jerk emotional reaction.

Given a situation where you can either sacrifice an innocent who is near and dear to you or allow a hundred strangers who have indirectly entrusted their safety to you to die; which is the most moral choice?

Because while it isn't homicide, it's still wrong.

So it isn't wrong when the clump of cells were created by a rape or incest?

[wenglund]

I think that God is more moral than I am. Perhaps you disagree?

No. I dont' disagree. But, I believe God's ways are not always our ways, and thus his morality is not always our morality. In his infinite wisdom and love, he may rightly see things in a way that is as yet incomprehensible to our limitied minds. As such, humility teaches us to let God tell us what is moral and right in his eyes, rather than dictating to him or for him what is morally right. You seem to be doing the latter. Instead of letting God tell you what portions of the scriptures are real or fictional, you have set your fallible self up as judge and jury, and you seem to base your judgements on your own fallible and finite perceptions of what is right and wrong and who and what God should be. Again, that is the very definition of idolatry (making God into the image of man, rather than the other way around).

I don't say this to criticize, but by way of letting you know that your black/white and absolutist view of things may be limiting your capacity to fully and rightly understand God in all his rhich and wonderous colors.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[semlogo]

The narrative says that Sarai gave Hagar to Abram, and that after she conceived she got uppity with Sarai and Abram basically said "she's your maid (not "my wife") - if you're upset with her, do what you like." When Sarai treated her harshly she ran away, and the Lord had to command her to go back.

That says what Hagar thought of Sarai, but not Abraham.

Well you seem to think he was a murderer, since he was perfectly willing to sacrifice Isaac (an act you say would be murder). Why not a rapist also?

No, he was willing to murder. If you'll recall, God didn't actually intend for him to do it.

[semlogo]

Fictional moral dilemmas can be useful in determining what is moral. Thought experiments are commonly used tools to clarify our thinking.

If you refuse to think about the question, however, then you don't get any real benefit. All I'm asking is for you to seriously think about the question instead of going with your knee-jerk emotional reaction.

Given a situation where you can either sacrifice an innocent who is near and dear to you or allow a hundred strangers who have indirectly entrusted their safety to you to die; which is the most moral choice?

I disagree that it's in any way useful. If you can't find a real situation to justify your moral relativism, don't resort to thought experiments.

So it isn't wrong when the clump of cells were created by a rape or incest?

In either case it's no disservice to the clumps of cells, which have neither thought or will. I don't think the wrongness lies in that. The wrongness is in thwarting the potential, but it's not so great as to supersede the trauma of allowing a rapist's act to result in a child nine months later.

[semlogo]

No. I dont' disagree. But, I believe God's ways are not always our ways, and thus his morality is not always our morality. In his infinite wisdom and love, he may rightly see things in a way that is as yet incomprehensible to our limitied minds. As such, humility teaches us to let God tell us what is moral and right in his eyes, rather than dictating to him or for him what is morally right. You seem to be doing the latter. Instead of letting God tell you what portions of the scriptures are real or fictional, you have set your fallible self up as judge and jury, and you seem to base your judgements on your own fallible and finite perceptions of what is right and wrong and who and what God should be. Again, that is the very definition of idolatry (making God into the image of man, rather than the other way around).

I don't say this to criticize, but by way of letting you know that your black/white and absolutist view of things may be limiting your capacity to fully and rightly understand God in all his rhich and wonderous colors.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

This all sounds like a very elaborate justification to allow God to be excused for committing all kinds of atrocities, or to order His followers to do so in His name. I'll stick to my black and white world where God can be counted on to act beneficently at all times. Any other God, in my opinion, is not worth worshiping.

[Ahab]

This all sounds like a very elaborate justification to allow God to be excused for committing all kinds of atrocities, or to order His followers to do so in His name. I'll stick to my black and white world where God can be counted on to act beneficently at all times. Any other God, in my opinion, is not worth worshiping.

The point is not whether God "can be counted on to act beneficently at all times", to use your own words.

The point is whether or not YOU can determine that God is acting beneficently at all times, given the fact that there are some things you may not be able to understand that God can and does understand.

Just try this: Whenever someone claims God has done something which you don't think God could have done, based on your own ideas of what is right and wrong, ask God if he did what someone else claim he did while also asking God to help you understand how God could justify that act.

If you just think to yourself something like: "Oh, I know God wouldn't do something like that, for any reason", you may later find out that God actually did that and he had a good reason for it which you just didn't understand then.

[elguanteloko]

Only indirectly. The topic is "when is it okay to disobey?" not "is God moral?"

Your answer would seem to be "when God commands something immoral." I feel that shows a preference of your own moral judgement over that of God, and you seem to be confirming this by further questioning whether God is in fact moral.

my own personal moral judgment is all the morality that exists (for me). the same goes for everyone of us. if something goes out of that field of morality we call it immoral (or progressively less moral). This is because God's morality is completely irrelevant since you can never know His reasons to act; thus, you can't count with it. what you seem to view as "God's morality" is really just a void of morality... there is nothing in there that you can assess.

But you said earlier that you do trust God. Why do you trust him if you don't accept that He is moral?

because I have faith in that He is indeed moral (hope in things not seen) and I apply this to myself. at the minute I start imposing my views on others (making things illegal for which I have no justification other than my religious views, killing those I see no reason to, etc) then that is where I draw the line. to say "trust" or "no trust" really is a false dichotomy; there is a whole range in between... and if you pardon the political term, I tend to go to the extreme left while you go to the extreme right.

[semlogo]

The point is not whether God "can be counted on to act beneficently at all times", to use your own words.

The point is whether or not YOU can determine that God is acting beneficently at all times, given the fact that there are some things you may not be able to understand that God can and does understand.

Just try this: Whenever someone claims God has done something which you don't think God could have done, based on your own ideas of what is right and wrong, ask God if he did what someone else claim he did while also asking God to help you understand how God could justify that act.

If you just think to yourself something like: "Oh, I know God wouldn't do something like that, for any reason", you may later find out that God actually did that and he had a good reason for it which you just didn't understand then.

If I'm unable to discern right from wrong, or to understand that there's no justification for murdering a child, I'd be a pretty poor Christian anyway, and there wouldn't be much point to my religion.

Have you asked God about the rightness of rape and murder? Genocide? Theft? Extortion? Torture? Animal abuse?

[Jason]

my own personal moral judgment is all the morality that exists (for me). the same goes for everyone of us. if something goes out of that field of morality we call it immoral (or progressively less moral).

Semlogo - THIS is moral reletavism, not my position. Please take note.

because I have faith in that He is indeed moral (hope in things not seen) and I apply this to myself. at the minute I start imposing my views on others (making things illegal for which I have no justification other than my religious views, killing those I see no reason to, etc) then that is where I draw the line.

What about helping others? Giving to charities, protecting the weak, voting for someone who mandates that my taxes pay for the health insurance of others, etc. Wouldn't that also be imposing your moral views on others, and thus something you "draw the line" against?

[elguanteloko]

Semlogo - THIS is moral reletavism, not my position. Please take note.

you can always defend your position, though. Certainty does not really guarantee you are being correct. btw, I am almost certain you didn't really understand my position.

What about helping others? Giving to charities, protecting the weak, voting for someone who mandates that my taxes pay for the health insurance of others, etc. Wouldn't that also be imposing your moral views on others, and thus something you "draw the line" against?

helping others, giving to charities, protecting the weak are all the results of you exercising your freedom and in no way are you imposing anything on others there. the act of voting by itself does not impose anything on others... but obligatory taxes (and other laws you may vote for) are indeed imposition through force (with the threat of jail). I am talking about imposing someone's view through force; making things illegal against others' freedoms (assuming they are not themselves imposing through force like in rape and murder) is imposing your views through force.

If my religious leaders advise me to restrict someone's freedoms and they offer no good reasons for it (as with SSM, abortion, drugs, adult prostitution, pornography, etc) I will not support them in such violent acts. This also applies to God.

To be clear, not all impositions through force are wrong but all of them must be justifiable.

[Jason]

you can always defend your position, though. Certainty does not really guarantee you are being correct. btw, I am almost certain you didn't really understand my position.

And I have a sneaking suspicion that you don't either.

I am talking about imposing someone's view through force; making things illegal against others' freedoms (assuming they are not themselves imposing through force like in rape and murder) is imposing your views through force.

But why object to the use of force? Isn't it just your own morality that insists that using force is wrong?

Do you also have a similar prohibition against convincing others to subscribe to your morality through internet forums?

Why is an internet forum acceptable but force is not?

If my religious leaders advise me to restrict someone's freedoms and they offer no good reasons for it (as with SSM, abortion, drugs, adult prostitution, pornography, etc) I will not support them in such violent acts. This also applies to God.

You can't think of good reasons to restrict drugs and adult prostitution?

Are you arguing that abortion isn't about disposing of the unwanted through force?

[elguanteloko]

And I have a sneaking suspicion that you don't either.

...

But why object to the use of force? Isn't it just your own morality that insists that using force is wrong?

I don't object the use of force; I object the use of unjustified force. My moral intuitions tell me, as did Christ, that I should treat others as I would have them do unto me. I agree with Peter Singer here in that our sense of morality and empathy towards others arise when we put ourselves in the shoes of others.

Do you also have a similar prohibition against convincing others to subscribe to your morality through internet forums?

Why is an internet forum acceptable but force is not?

I am not threatening anyone with jail (or with anything) if they don't subscribe to my positions. again, trying to convince people with words is not imposition through force.

You can't think of good reasons to restrict drugs and adult prostitution?

I can but after inspecting them they become unjustified.

Are you arguing that abortion isn't about disposing of the unwanted through force?

abortion does indeed kill innocent human beings... but it is still most of the times justified. If my wife did it, though, I would not like to be with her anymore. She should be free to do it but she can't make me stay with her... not that I would not try to convince her but, again, that is not imposing anything through force. The same goes if she wants to cheat on me: I would not stop it (through force) but I would leave.

[wenglund]

This all sounds like a very elaborate justification to allow God to be excused for committing all kinds of atrocities, or to order His followers to do so in His name.

It may seem that way to fallible mortals, such as yourself, who arrogantly presume themselves to be in a position to judge God, and who presume to judge God, rather than humbly learning from God.

I'll stick to my black and white world where God can be counted on to act beneficently at all times. Any other God, in my opinion, is not worth worshiping.

And, I'll stick to letting God beneficially teach me the rich colors of his world. I will let him conform me to his image, rather than the other way around. Any other kind of worship isn't, in my opinion, fully worthwhile worshipping.

But, to each their own.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[semlogo]

It may seem that way to fallible mortals, such as yourself, who arrogantly presume themselves to be in a position to judge God, and who presume to judge God, rather than humbly learning from God.

And, I'll stick to letting God beneficially teach me the rich colors of his world. I will let him conform me to his image, rather than the other way around. Any other kind of worship isn't, in my opinion, fully worthwhile worshipping.

But, to each their own.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

I learned my morals from God. I seem to remember something about turning the other cheek, do violence to no man, don't harm children, don't steal, don't lie, don't commit adultery, etc.

Maybe those were just suggestions.

Your reasoning, however, reminds my of one of several exchanges like this one in the novel Small Gods.

"I would like to ask you a question."

"Do so."

"What happened to Brother Murduck?"

There was the merest suggestion of hesitation in the rhythm of Vorbis's stick on the cobbles. Then the exquisitor said, "Truth, good Brutha, is like the light. Do you know about light?"

"It ... comes from the sun. And the moon. and stars. And candles. And lamps."

"And so on," said Vorbis, nodding. "Of course. But there is another kind of light. A light that fills even the darkest places. This has to be. For if this metalight did not exist, how could darkness be seen?"

Brutha said nothing. This sounded too much like philosophy.

"And so it is with truth," said Vorbis. "There are some things which appear to be the truth, which have all the hallmarks of truth, but which are not the real truth. The real truth must sometimes be protected by a labyrinth of lies."

He turned to Brutha. "Do you understand me?"

"No, Lord Vorbis."

"I mean, that which appears to our senses is not the fundamental truth. Things that are seen and heard and done by the flesh are mere shadows of a deeper reality. This is what you must understand as you progress in the Church."

"But at the moment, lord, I know only the trivial truth, the truth available on the outside," said Brutha. He felt as though he was at the edge of a pit.

"That is how we all begin," said Vorbis kindly.

[wenglund]

I learned my morals from God. I seem to remember something about turning the other cheek, do violence to no man, don't harm children, don't steal, don't lie, don't commit adultery, etc.

Maybe those were just suggestions.

I certainly don't consider them as just "suggestions", though I don't presume to think that I am above having God expand my black/white understanding of what is moral in his eyes. Unlike you, I don't view myself in a position to confine God to the narrow and fallible box of my current or past limited understanding.

Your reasoning, however, reminds my of one of several exchanges like this one in the novel Small Gods.

My reasoning is very simple: seek not to judge God, but to humbly listen to what God declares to us about himself. I don't see how this reasoning fits very well the quoted portion of the "Small Gods" novel. Perhaps you are confusing me with something made of straw.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-