How is Yahweh not immoral?

[Darkstar]

[Rev. Rye]

But that doesn't mean he was God. Even if the evidence for someone whose life roughly corresponded with the accounts in the Gospel, that's still no guarantee that he's God. Remember that people (even centuries after his birth) claimed that Alexander the Great was also literally the son of a God.

All Greek rules were "gods". None of the previous Biblical prophets were "gods".

And this is where the Gospels would have been fabricated.

[Drich]

[genkaus]

Righteousness is an unchanging absolute standard.

Nope. Since it only refers to your god's self0righteousness, it is neither unchanging nor absolute.

Actually no. The predominate apologetic states as follows: Man's morality and self righteousness are one. Meaning self righteousness is a standard man creates to be 'righteous' or 'moral' apart from God's righteousness. So to judge God immoral is the logical conclusion of having a standard apart from God. The only problem is 'we' do not have the power or authority to impliment our standard beyond our social groupings. Meaning our 'morality' is the crap standard and will mean nothing on the day of our final judgement.

So, do you agree that if god was bound by human morality, he should receive the death penalty?

This is a fallacy of logic. I have already demonstrated that morality is an ever changing standard. No one can ever be deemed 'perfectly moral' if every generation has a different understanding of what 'morality is.' For if one culture says 1, 2 ,3 is morality and another says no A, B, C is moral then how can anyone ever be considered "perfectly moral?"

Then we can establish that not even your god is perfectly moral. Further, since you have proven that morality is an ever changing standard, then you cannot claim that only your god's morality is unchanging.

And by the way, saying "fallacy of logic" is insufficient, you have to point out which fallacy is it.

Agreed. If one does not wish to align himself with the righteousness of God then the bible has no authority in that persons life. For the bible does not feed the self righteous behaivor that morality springs up from.

So why would god have any authority?

No God deemed it a sin. At this point 'morality' was not an issue.

Sin without morality? How is that even possible?

It seems you are bent in claiming a term (morality) that Christ described as a failure of man to obtain God's righteousness, and turn it to mean something more than what it is. Despite what you might say to me or anyone else know in your heart of hearts that your 'morality' means nothing. That your 'morality' is like "Used menstral rags" to God. And whether you like it or not it is to this God and his standard that you will be judged, Not whatever 'morality' you decide for yourself.

Sounds about right - since god's morality is akin to "Used toilet paper" to me. And what exactly gives your god the right to judge me?

[Darkstar]

[quote='Darkstar' pid='364949' dateline='1353469759']

Sometimes I have heard theists (mainly Drich) say he is 'righteous'. From how the word has been used, one can only draw the conclusion that 'righteous' = objectively moral.

Righteousness is an unchanging absolute standard.

Oops, I keep forgetting that one. You are right, there is a fourth argument.
There is just one [major] problem: Righteousness being objective does not make it objectively good.
Scratch that, there are two problems. The one where Jesus contradicts one of Yahweh's laws. (as in my previous post) If the law was objectively good, then why would Jesus prevent it from being carried out? (Note: I'm going to be gone for a few days, so I'll get back to this later).

[John V]

How is it that the god of the bible (Yahweh) is called a moral being?

1. Short answer: Some people think he’s moral, so they call him that. You disagree. That’s the nature of morality.

2. Christians tend to accept that God has rights over us which we don’t have over each other.

3. Christians tend to accept that God is the ultimate judge, and see things like the flood or military conquests as acts of just judgment, not murder.

4. Christians tend to accept that God has higher standards than we do. God equates the thought with the deed. This is shown in several well-known places: the flood, the ten commandments, and the sermon on the mount. By that standard, most every person is guilty of crimes greatly exceeding those of what we consider to be the worst criminals.

5. Christians put God’s actions into the perspective of eternity. With an age of accountability doctrine, the young in those judgments went on to eternal happiness.

You can disagree all you want. Heck, plenty of prisoners think their treatment was unfair and gripe about it. That generally doesn’t get them out of prison though.

[Ryantology]

3. Christians tend to accept that God is the ultimate judge, and see things like the flood or military conquests as acts of just judgment, not murder.

Just judgement would target only the specific offenders. If you decide to just kill them all (animals included) and sort the bodies out, you are not being just. If you punish the rules of Egypt by targeting, specifically, innocent firstborn children, you are a callous murderer. It says a lot about Christians that they think genocide of innocent children is 'just judgement'.

4. Christians tend to accept that God has higher standards than we do. God equates the thought with the deed. This is shown in several well-known places: the flood, the ten commandments, and the sermon on the mount. By that standard, most every person is guilty of crimes greatly exceeding those of what we consider to be the worst criminals.

The Ten Commandments prioritizes slavish devotion to God over refraining from theft and murder. Those are not 'higher standards' from a just and righteous God. Those are 'fucked-up priorities' of a selfish and insecure God.

5. Christians put God’s actions into the perspective of eternity. With an age of accountability doctrine, the young in those judgments went on to eternal happiness.

It also says a lot about Christians that they will always bend over backwards to justify the mass murder of children, all the while ignorant to how shallow it makes their 'pro-life' positions look to everyone else.

You can disagree all you want. Heck, plenty of prisoners think their treatment was unfair and gripe about it. That generally doesn’t get them out of prison though.

God doesn't run prisons. He runs extermination camps.

[John V]

First I note that you skip points 1 & 2.

Just judgement would target only the specific offenders. If you decide to just kill them all (animals included) and sort the bodies out, you are not being just. If you punish the rules of Egypt by targeting, specifically, innocent firstborn children, you are a callous murderer. It says a lot about Christians that they think genocide of innocent children is 'just judgement'.

These objections were addressed in points 4 & 5.

The Ten Commandments prioritizes slavish devotion to God over refraining from theft and murder. Those are not 'higher standards' from a just and righteous God. Those are 'fucked-up priorities' of a selfish and insecure God.

This complaint is a red herring. The prohibition of coveting places thoughts on par with deeds, as does the sermon on the mount. By his standards, we’re all murderers, thieves, etc. many times over.

It also says a lot about Christians that they will always bend over backwards to justify the mass murder of children, all the while ignorant to how shallow it makes their 'pro-life' positions look to everyone else.

This complaint is addressed in point 2, which you failed to address.

[Ryantology]

First I note that you skip points 1 & 2.

Actually, I have addressed point 2 in considerable detail.

I'll address point 1 after you answer, rather than evade, the question Darkstar asked which prompted you to make point 1.

These objections were addressed in points 4 & 5.

As I objected directly to both points, you have not actually addressed a single thing.

This complaint is a red herring. The prohibition of coveting places thoughts on par with deeds, as does the sermon on the mount. By his standards, we’re all murderers, thieves, etc. many times over.

And by our standards, he is worse than any of us, individually, and all of us, combined. Wiping out almost all life on earth on a whim is a crime unequaled by humanity.

There is no reason whatsoever to view God's standards as higher than our own, or even to admit that his standards are valid.

This complaint is addressed in point 2, which you failed to address.

Good luck.

[John V]

Actually, I have addressed point 2 in considerable detail.

Then it should be easy to give a concise response in the thread we're actually in at the moment. We could probably point to dozens of threads which charge that God is immoral.

I'll address point 1 after you answer, rather than evade, the question Darkstar asked which prompted you to make point 1.

Which question is that?

As I objected directly to both points, you have not actually addressed a single thing.

You posted red herrings after those points. That's not addressing them.

And by our standards, he is worse than any of us, individually, and all of us, combined. Wiping out almost all life on earth on a whim is a crime unequaled by humanity.

Not our standards, your standards.

There's no reason whatsoever to view God's standards as higher than our own,

Equating thoughts with deeds is a higher standard than most humans hold.

or even to admit that his standards are valid.

Yes, as previously noted, Christians tend to accept that God has rights which humans don't, and critics tend to reject that. I would just suggest that such rejection is ad hoc, considering humans' treatment of each other and other species.