How Would You Show That God Is Moral?

[Log]

But here's the issue with what you said and I ask you to consider it very seriously, please. If I am a police officer and I allowed a child to be prostituted when, at no cost, I could have stopped it or prevented it, do you think ANY price I pay back will make what I did right? Do you seriously think that I could give that child the most magnificent life after having allowed him to be violated like that and have what I did become ANY better?

Let me ask a counter question. Suppose the child had a spiritual pre-existence in which it had adult reasoning and emotional capabilities, and that the child was fully informed of the possible wrongs it could suffer at the hands of its siblings in the flesh, as well as the possible unpleasant conditions that could take place while in the flesh due to no overt action by its siblings, and the child nonetheless agreed to come down and experience this life anyways. Is God still indictable in your view, if we accept these suppositions for the sake of argument?

Edited December 1, 2011 by Log

[elguanteloko]

Let me ask a counter question. Suppose the child had a spiritual pre-existence in which it had adult reasoning and emotional capabilities, and that the child was fully informed of the possible wrongs it could suffer at the hands of its siblings in the flesh, as well as the possible unpleasant conditions that could take place while in the flesh due to no overt action by its siblings, and the child nonetheless agreed to come down and experience this life anyways. Is God still indictable in your view, if we accept these suppositions for the sake of argument?

Of course, because of the fact that God can still stop these evils from happening. If you agree to walking a mile barefoot in the hot pavement to save your father from sure death (let's say), God could have 1, made the pavement normal temp so you didn't have to suffer, 2, not put your father in such danger, 3, saved the father without the son having to walk the mile. Saying, "well, bud, you agreed with it, I'm clean" wouldn't be much of an excuse for God.

Edited December 1, 2011 by elguanteloko

[Log]

Saying, "well, bud, you agreed with it, I'm clean" wouldn't be much of an excuse for God.

If you agreed to it, that's the end of the matter.

[elguanteloko]

If you agreed to it, that's the end of the matter.

I told you why not. If you allow for ALL the conditions you know will lead to your son being in terrible pain, if your son agrees under your conditions to suffer it (the reasons for why someone would choose this you haven't stated, yet; I think you need to mention God is offering candy at the end), I don't see how you can't be called a sadist.

There are other problems, too, such as:

Why should we punish ANYONE under this plan (or why should God punish anyone under this plan of yours) when everyone chose their suffering?

Also, I don't understand how having chosen in a past life to suffer a lot in your next one can possibly justify the police not stopping crimes against you (a necessary consequence of your view). I suppose it would be perfectly fine with you that I allow people to commit crimes against humanity when I can perfectly stop it from happening because all those innocents chose it, correct?

And, again, God could have 1, made the pavement normal temp so you didn't have to suffer, 2, not put your father in such danger, 3, saved the father without the son having to walk the mile (in my previous example).

Edited December 1, 2011 by elguanteloko

[Log]

I told you why not. If you allow for ALL the conditions you know will lead to your son being in terrible pain, if your son agrees under your conditions to suffer it (the reasons for why someone would choose this you haven't stated, yet; I think you need to mention God is offering candy at the end), I don't see how you can't be called a sadist.

It really doesn't matter what God is called - if you agreed to it, and it is done, then you have no cause for complaint. If you do complain, then you are unjust, because you agreed to it. If you don't want to undergo it, then don't agree to it.

It's really so very simple.

[William Schryver]

Will's perspective is still Mormon, but also classically Christian and relativist ...

There is absolutely no question that my perspective on this question is classically Mormon, in that it is a perfect mirror of what Joseph Smith taught. Granted, there are nuances I might have included in my initial post on this thread--such as suggesting that God adheres to a code of morality defined at a higher order than that in which we presently exist--but I consider that concept to be essentially external to the question posed in the OP. The question upon which this thread is based is concerned with God's morality as viewed from our perspective, not His.

From our perspective, I think your following statement expresses the heart of the matter quite succinctly:

There is no absolute standard of morality to which God is bound. Morality is simply what God, in his might, defines it to be: morality by fiat.

While I recognize that God's omnipotence is informed by his omniscience, His omniscience is beyond our comprehension, whereas His omnipotence is not, hence the fact that, at the second coming of Christ, he will not attempt to establish in the minds of the human race a logical, rational basis for his destruction of the wicked and the forceful establishment of his reign upon the earth. His meaning will be established on a much more easily comprehended basis than that:

Revelation 19

5 And a voice came out of the throne, saying, Praise our God, all ye his servants, and ye that fear him, both small and great.

6 And I heard as it were the voice of a great multitude, and as the voice of many waters, and as the voice of mighty thunderings, saying, Alleluia: for the Lord God omnipotent reigneth.

[KevinG]

I wrote a whole lot to you that you haven't responded to directly. It is rather clear that there is no justification for God allowing such terrible evils as the ones I already mentioned to you. I explained this to you already.

You wrote assertions about what you thought God did. Go back and find an instance in the Bible where God directly causes the suffering of innocents for no good reason and then we can discuss that - not your baseless assertions. Chapter and verse please so we are all on the same page when you describe how you would be more moral than God was in the specific instance.

...and please dont try to wiggle out of this Call For References by saying you already answered it, when you obviously didn't.

Edited December 1, 2011 by DaddyG

[Ares]

The point of an 'ad hominem' is to distract from the points given by someone. An ad hominem may or may not be an attack on one's character but most of the time it is. (there are ad hominem attacks and ad hominem fallacies; both different though they have stuff in common)

Be a better example by not using inflammatory language, insults and condescention before you start complaining about the response others give you.

[mfbukowski]

Of course, because of the fact that God can still stop these evils from happening. If you agree to walking a mile barefoot in the hot pavement to save your father from sure death (let's say), God could have 1, made the pavement normal temp so you didn't have to suffer, 2, not put your father in such danger, 3, saved the father without the son having to walk the mile. Saying, "well, bud, you agreed with it, I'm clean" wouldn't be much of an excuse for God.

But you are ignoring the fact that trials strengthen us.

Everything I have learned in life has been a trial, even if it was just doing my math homework. Some were big lessons, some were small, but each one of them made me a better person.

Anything we learn is a trial. Exercise is a trial but it makes us stronger.

If our mommies do everything for us, we become worthless lumps.

Edited December 1, 2011 by mfbukowski

[mbh26]

But you are ignoring the fact that trials strengthen us.

This is what stumps me when I go down this path. If we all have the same goal, to be like God, why are all our trials so different. Why do the trials seem so random. The test of this life itself seems to be up to human choice and corruption. It looks like I'm going to have a lot of complaints about the test when I go in for my life review.

Elguanteloko,

If God let people pull the trigger but miraculously stopped each bullet from hitting the victim, would the gunman really be committing the same sins? The first time it happened it might be questionable, but after firing 500 shots and nothing happening, wouldn't the gunman have an argument that he didn't really mean to kill the victim because he didn't think it would do the victim any harm?

[KevinG]

This is what stumps me when I go down this path. If we all have the same goal, to be like God, why are all our trials so different. Why do the trials seem so random. The test of this life itself seems to be up to human choice and corruption. It looks like I'm going to have a lot of complaints about the test when I go in for my life review.

The answers I have so far constructed/received to this quandry...

1. Because people are different and have different capacities for bearing good and evil.

2. Life is not fair - eternal justice is for the eternities not the present. Otherwise how could we prove ourselves fully righteous or wicked?

3. The godlike gift of agency (chosing to become like God) is so important to our eternal destiny that injustice in this life pales in comparison.

I'm sure there are more reasons, but I gained comfort in facing some of the inequities of my life in understanding Christ will balance all scales through His sacrifice and if I expect forgiveness of my sins I had better be willing to receive temporary mortal inequity on my end of the bargain.

In fairness I've been on the long end of the stick more than the short end. As is probably true of most of us in Western society.

[mfbukowski]

Wow man, what if God made a rock so big he couldn't lift it, man?

I mean, like, would he still be God or what, man? Cool, huh?

[mfbukowski]

Nevermind. That was a carry over from my "other board" attitude.

Slow down.

Breathe slowly.

Count to ten.

[KevinG]

Nevermind. That was a carry over from my "other board" attitude.

Slow down.

Breathe slowly.

Count to ten.

[William Schryver]

/snip Kelly's Heroes embedded vid/

Great film! It could have been a classic with a little more editing. But still great. Ya gotta love the scene near the end with Eastwood, Savallas, and Sutherland walking down the street towards the tank, with the spaghetti western music playing ...

[elguanteloko]

Be a better example by not using inflammatory language, insults and condescention before you start complaining about the response others give you.

For the record, I'm not complaining. Clarifying what the difference is between a logical fallacy and an attack (which is what Stargazer thought I took it as) is NOT to complain about it. I also never complain about attacks, I just point out that they are distracting. They could call me all kinds of unimaginable stuff and I wouldn't complain... I find it rather funny when that happens, actually. I wouldn't mind if the boards were full of insults left and right as long as sight of the issues and discussion about them is not lost. Obviously, though, mods do mind and that's OK.

Edited December 1, 2011 by elguanteloko

[CV75]

For the record, I'm not complaining. Clarifying what the difference is between a logical fallacy and an attack (which is what Stargazer thought I took it as) is NOT to complain about it. I also never complain about attacks, I just point out that they are distracting. They could call me all kinds of unimaginable stuff and I wouldn't complain... I find it rather funny when that happens, actually. I wouldn't mind if the boards were full of insults left and right as long as sight of the issues and discussion about them is not lost. Obviously, though, mods do mind and that's OK.

And this is very similar to how the faithful do not complain about the unimaginable stuff done to us or others, and still see God as good (just as you still see the discussion as good). The faithful in our context also see a much bigger picture than the immediate harm and do not lose sight of the real issues.

The attitude is also very different in that the faithful will not assert that it is not OK for others to not complain.

P.S.

Telling others it not OK to not complain is very different than telling them it is OK to complain. A faithful person will not advocate complaining; complaints against evil are not cheer and applause for good, and the faithful will advocate the latter.

Edited December 1, 2011 by CV75

[KevinG]

Perhaps this was missed in all of the following discussion about complaints being distracting...

You wrote assertions about what you thought God did. Go back and find an instance in the Bible where God directly causes the suffering of innocents for no good reason and then we can discuss that - not your baseless assertions. Chapter and verse please so we are all on the same page when you describe how you would be more moral than God was in the specific instance.

...and please dont try to wiggle out of this Call For References by saying you already answered it, when you obviously didn't.

It is important to clarify how you think God could act morally using an example from the scriptures (not assertions) if you indeed feel He does not act morally.

Edited December 1, 2011 by DaddyG

[Cobalt-70]

There is absolutely no question that my perspective on this question is classically Mormon, in that it is a perfect mirror of what Joseph Smith taught. Granted, there are nuances I might have included in my initial post on this thread--such as suggesting that God adheres to a code of morality defined at a higher order than that in which we presently exist--but I consider that concept to be essentially external to the question posed in the OP. The question upon which this thread is based is concerned with God's morality as viewed from our perspective, not His.

I think that your approach has a lot going for it, in that it allows for an almost postmodern understanding of God's morality as an outgrowth of his power, like what Michel Foucault might have written if he were he a believing Mormon. You can't do the same thing with traditional Christianity, where God is an ex nihilo creator, because once you start assuming things are transcendent, all further discourse must stop.

You also cannot do the same thing with the more typical Mormon conception of a God layered upon an underlying absolute moral structure--a God who cannot break free from that hyper-eternal framework. But on the other hand, this latter, more typical understanding of Mormon morality is interesting as well, because the underlying moral scaffolding is, in a sense, the Mormon version of the ex nihilo creator, or the Unknowable God of Gnosticism.

[selek1]

Just for grins and giggles. I wanted to quote what I consider the three most salient posts of the entire thread.

When I was a child, I trusted my parents that they were moral. They were my moral reference and so at that stage, I could justifiable say "My parents said so". I'm an adult now and I know that they are fallible. But the many years of living with them has given me trust in them. I've seen them do things that I thought were unmoral at the time but have now learned more about it and accept them to be moral. There are still situations in life that I've never encountered but they have. In those situations, since I trust my parents, I believe I can justifiably say "My parents said so" until I've personally lived them or until I've taken the time to reason them out.

I see the same with God. I'm still just a child compared to Him. In the situations that I don't understand or haven't taken the time to figure out for myself, I trust God that He's moral and so I feel justifiable in saying "God says so".

This doesn't mean that I can say "God says so" and expect others to accept that definition. In those cases, I need to be able to explain why it is moral according to the moral law (which I believe is absolute and universal and one that God obeys). And if I can't explain it, then I rarely bother to be involved in any such discussion (except maybe to learn and see the different sides).

But the "God says so" definition is relevant in a religious discussion, because God is explicitely in the discussion and so He can be invoked. It would be the same as a discussion wth my siblings and being able to say "Our parents say so". In that context, we all agree with the authority and so can invoke it.

Don't make the mistake of judging God's morality by the actions of those who disobey God.

God does not cause the suffering of children.

God seeks to prevent the suffering of children through obedience to His commandments.

God respects our agency and does not prevent us from disobeying Him causing harm to children.

If you suggest a moral God should prevent His children from sinning you are in dubious company.

Moses 4:3 Wherefore, because that ^aSatan ^brebelled against me, and sought to destroy the ^cagency of man, which I, the Lord God, had given him, and also, that I should give unto him mine own power; by the power of mine Only Begotten, I caused that he should be ^dcast down; 4 And he became ^aSatan, yea, even the ^bdevil, the father of all ^clies, to ^ddeceive and to blind men, and to lead them ^ecaptive at his will, even as many as would not ^fhearken unto my voice.

It is very telling you would credit God for Satans work and then imply Satans plan is a solution.

“Whatever” does not merit a response, so you’ll understand if I don’t reply again. But because I’m such a nice guy:

You are simply wrong in this assessment. You asked how faith having served me well is enough to show that God is good. The five ways I listed are not part of showing that God is good, but rather part of how faith serving me well is enough to show that God is good. It is enough because it is all I have and all I have needed. Acting without faith has not served me well in my experience. Perhaps you can re-read them with this in mind:

How (or 5 ways that) faith having served me well is enough to show that God is good:

1. My experience (which includes my interpretation of experiences of those around me) is all I have (hence my experience with faith is enough);

2. This experience has more meaning to me that anything else (hence it is enough);

3. Doctrine resonates with and supports the validity of my experience (“second opinion” or “second witness” confirms that it is enough);

4. There are no such things in my experience as “more than real” or “more than good” (hence my experiences that “God is real” and “God is good” are enough);

5. Faith in people is less complete than faith in God (hence faith in God serving me well is enough).

You must be reading with some serious prejudices and other mistaken assumptions. I have never stated that God favors me. On the contrary, He favors all His children equally. How is God favoring some and not others by His actions or by what He allows to happen? It simply doesn’t work that way, at least in my experience.

Yes, I believe that all things I experience, including all things I perceive others experiencing, are for my good and theirs. Not sure how I can make this plainer. All evils do affect me directly or indirectly, and God regards all His children equally, so there is no egocentrism about it. Sharing my or others' horror stories would be egocentric. Sharing the end product of my life experience as a whole, along with others', is not egocentric.

Well, it does appear that I think my reason works, as do the ways that support how my reason is enough. Are you trying to make a point that a certain perspective on morality is enough for you without producing such a workable alternative?

Bravo Zulu to these posters for their excellent contribution!

I also want to note one of the more amusing side-effects of ElLoko's "cattle-chute" logic.

He has spent the last three pages now arguing that in order for God to be moral- according to his(ElLoko's) lights- is to remove all of the consequences from our choices.

ElLoko's sophistry has him demanding the repeal of the Law of Cause and Effect!

Edited December 2, 2011 by selek1

[elguanteloko]

Just for grins and giggles. I wanted to quote what I consider the three most salient posts of the entire thread.

why am I not seeing any of mine there?

He has spent the last three pages now arguing that in order for God to be moral- according to his(ElLoko's) lights- is to remove all of the consequences from our choices.

nope. All I said was that there is a conflict between a police officer being able to stop the murderer 1 second before completing his deed and not doing it, and thinking that the police did good by not stopping it.

ElLoko's sophistry has him demanding the repeal of the Law of Cause and Effect!

lol Good one.

not really. gave you a rep point for being funny, though.

Edited December 2, 2011 by elguanteloko

[Ares]

why am I not seeing any of mine there?

nope. All I said was that there is a conflict between a police officer being able to stop the murderer 1 second before completing his deed and not doing it, and thinking that the police did good by not stopping it.

lol Good one.

not really. gave you a rep point for being funny, though.

Try ansering the questions posed to instead of mocking other posters. Your act is getting old.

[KevinG]

You mean the crazy glove visited and didn't return my love?

Too bad. I was looking forward to a cogent response.

- - -

DaddyG, on 01 December 2011 - 12:13 PM, said:

You wrote assertions about what you thought God did. Go back and find an instance in the Bible where God directly causes the suffering of innocents for no good reason and then we can discuss that - not your baseless assertions. Chapter and verse please so we are all on the same page when you describe how you would be more moral than God was in the specific instance.

...and please dont try to wiggle out of this Call For References by saying you already answered it, when you obviously didn't.

- - -

It is important to clarify how you think God could act morally using an example from the scriptures (not assertions) if you indeed feel He does not act morally.

No pestering! -Ares

[elguanteloko]

Try ansering the questions posed to instead of mocking other posters. Your act is getting old.

I did clarify the only point he made which was, clearly, a misunderstanding of what I said: "All I said was that there is a conflict between a police officer being able to stop the murderer 1 second before completing his deed and not doing it, and thinking that the police did good by not stopping it."

He said I somehow didn't want people to suffer consequences for their actions, that's not what I said and, if he read what I wrote carefully, neither does this follow from what I said. I also gave no lack of examples to show this with cops, for example. Unless you want to take stopping a bullet you shot at an innocent victim a block to your free-will, neither is what I'm saying a potential block to free will and neither does stopping the bullet make you any less guilty (sure, not for murder so you won't get charged with it, but with attempted murder; it would be rather strange to say that we should allow murderers with as horrible crimes as they can do only to later on punish them in harsher ways than they would otherwise be punished for a lesser, incomplete crime due to someone stopping full damage).

Edited December 2, 2011 by elguanteloko

[elguanteloko]

You mean the crazy glove visited and didn't return my love?

Too bad. I was looking forward to a cogent response.

- - -

DaddyG, on 01 December 2011 - 12:13 PM, said:

You wrote assertions about what you thought God did. Go back and find an instance in the Bible where God directly causes the suffering of innocents for no good reason and then we can discuss that - not your baseless assertions. Chapter and verse please so we are all on the same page when you describe how you would be more moral than God was in the specific instance.

...and please dont try to wiggle out of this Call For References by saying you already answered it, when you obviously didn't.

- - -

It is important to clarify how you think God could act morally using an example from the scriptures (not assertions) if you indeed feel He does not act morally.

No pestering! -Ares

No need to take anything out of the Bible or of the BoM; no need to get controversial in those areas. Let's simply assume (and you'll agree with me) that God has permitted many many many crimes to be committed against innocents. That's enough for the moment.