How is Yahweh not immoral?

[Ryantology]

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.

Refer to the title of my thread for my concise answer.

Which question is that?

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

You answered why some do and some do not, which evades the point of the question. Evasion is a tactic I notice you using frequently when cornered.

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

You are rationalizing terrible things, which is what I am addressing.

Not our standards, your standards.

I am sorry, it was incorrect to imply that I include 'you' in 'our' standards. Your standards, as a Christian, consider rape, torture, slavery and genocide to be good and desirable acts.

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

God does not do this at all. He would not slaughter the innocent, the infants and children, with the 'guilty' if he held to that standard. The only way to reconcile this is if God believes that the infants he massacred were, thanks to their undeveloped minds, guilty of insufficient worship and thus deserving of slaughter.

If God is not the indiscriminate killer he appears to be, then the truth is even worse: he is targeting the helpless and innocent on purpose. Of course, this is definitely true.

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.

I would suggest not. God is more powerful than humanity, therefore he should be more responsible than we are. He should perform beyond the best of our standards, be more moral than any human. Instead, he's just a capricious maniac, beneath the worst of humanity's monsters.

[Aractus]

Also

---

John 8:1-11 but Jesus went to the Mount of Olives.

2 At dawn he appeared again in the temple courts, where all the people gathered around him, and he sat down to teach them. 3 The teachers of the law and the Pharisees brought in a woman caught in adultery. They made her stand before the group 4 and said to Jesus, “Teacher, this woman was caught in the act of adultery. 5 In the Law Moses commanded us to stone such women. Now what do you say?” 6 They were using this question as a trap, in order to have a basis for accusing him.

But Jesus bent down and started to write on the ground with his finger. 7 When they kept on questioning him, he straightened up and said to them, “Let any one of you who is without sin be the first to throw a stone at her.” 8 Again he stooped down and wrote on the ground.

9 At this, those who heard began to go away one at a time, the older ones first, until only Jesus was left, with the woman still standing there. 10 Jesus straightened up and asked her, “Woman, where are they? Has no one condemned you?”

11 “No one, sir,” she said.

“Then neither do I condemn you,” Jesus declared. “Go now and leave your life of sin.”

---

this passage is unusual. It isn't unusual for Jesus's merciful character, but isn't Jesus explicitly contradicting Yahweh here?

Okay this is an easy one so I'll address it first. John 7:53–8:11 isn't actually in the Bible, so addressing it or relying on it for any kind of wisdom is in err. This is why we have textual criticism!

I have pointed out that Jesus's and Yahweh's conflicting moralities suggest that they aren't really the same person. You assume that they must be. When god is in a good mood, he massacres people he doesn't like. When god is angry, he massacres...people who annoy him. Jesus preaches forgiveness and non-violence, whereas Yahweh leads brutal military campaigns and commands his followers to show no mercy. How do you reconcile this?

Again, the Christian God is known through Jesus, if He is immoral then prove Jesus was immoral. If you want to go to a more complicated argument surrounding the characterization of God in the Old Testament, then you need to first understand the character of Jesus in the New Testament. The Old Testament is very long and contains a huge amount of information, taking all the passages where God is angry and referring to only those passages is akin to cherry picking. If I'm not allowed to cherry pick from the Bible, then neither are atheists.

[957Chatterton]

Whenever a story of god's immorality surfaces, one of the following apologetic arguments is used as a retort:

1. That was the OT.
   
2. You just don't understand the customs of the day.
   
3. Who are you to judge god?
   

Let's look at the first one. What did Jesus really say?

---

Matthew 5:17-20
17 “Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them. 18 For truly I tell you, until heaven and earth disappear, not the smallest letter, not the least stroke of a pen, will by any means disappear from the Law until everything is accomplished. 19 Therefore anyone who sets aside one of the least of these commands and teaches others accordingly will be called least in the kingdom of heaven, but whoever practices and teaches these commands will be called great in the kingdom of heaven. 20 For I tell you that unless your righteousness surpasses that of the Pharisees and the teachers of the law, you will certainly not enter the kingdom of heaven.

---

He does not appear to have made any attempt to overturn them. Now, what if he did overturn them? This could only mean that god had made imperfect laws before.

A pretty weak straw man argument...

How is that a strawman?

[Aractus]

^I already explained in detail. Link.

[Kirbmarc]

God equates the thought with the deed.

I was wrong, the Christian god isn't Biff Tannen, it's the Big Brother.

Equating thought with the the deed is a insane standard.

[Drich]

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).

Nothing has been condraticted. The old Law demanded Death to attone for sin. Christ died. With His death comes freedom from the Law as the only way to obtain righteousness.

[Minimalist]

With His death comes freedom from the Law as the only way to obtain righteousness.

That is not what your dickhead of a god said, old bean. Or perhaps you are simply a very poor follower.

King James Bible (Cambridge Ed.)
For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled.

[Drich]

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

Are you truly ignorant of the Law of God? Nothing has changed since it was issued.

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.

Morality is MAN'S Standard not God's. God's Standard is refered to as Righteousness. Righteousness is the perfect standard of God. 'Morality' is man's version of righteousness that allows for the sins he is willing to live with.

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

So giving you a just the the failed logic, and outlining how it fails is not enough? Are you ignorant and lazy? Or is it you foolish hope that I am? Again If I have identified or defined the fallacy where does it leave your 'hope?'

If you still need the fallacy identified (and for whatever reason you have access to this website but can not do a google search) then take what I wrote and compare it to these definations. One of them will stand out: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fallacy

So why would god have any authority?

Asked and answered already. God's authority stems from being the creator of everything.

Sin without morality? How is that even possible?

Sin is anything not in the Expressed Will of God. If God at that point only issued one command, and it was to be followed or it wasn't. Morality was a none issue because their was no understanding of Evil.

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?

You're presupposing that Their is a God, and that thier is a Final judgement with this statement. thus giving you the grounds to refuse judgement. If as you suppose their is a God, (My God as you put it) then He did create everything, and as the God of Everything, He has the 'right' to do with any part of His creation as He see fit. So why are you judged? Because He said so.

[Ryantology]

So, what makes God's judgment valid is that he (supposedly) is more powerful than we are. God's "goodness" is predicated on his ability to destroy everything if he wants or is bored.

That is the mandate of beasts, of a being too base and stupid to create anything.

[genkaus]

Are you truly ignorant of the Law of God? Nothing has changed since it was issued.

So how many neighbors have you stoned to death for working on a Sunday?

Morality is MAN'S Standard not God's. God's Standard is refered to as Righteousness. Righteousness is the perfect standard of God. 'Morality' is man's version of righteousness that allows for the sins he is willing to live with.

Consult a dictionary. Righteousness means morality. Thus god's standard is his morality - and its nowhere near perfect.

So giving you a just the the failed logic, and outlining how it fails is not enough? Are you ignorant and lazy? Or is it you foolish hope that I am? Again If I have identified or defined the fallacy where does it leave your 'hope?'

If you still need the fallacy identified (and for whatever reason you have access to this website but can not do a google search) then take what I wrote and compare it to these definations. One of them will stand out: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fallacy

Nope, I'm saying that the logic you pointed to as faulty was not - in fact - faulty. Which is why you chose to put it as "fallacy of logic" instead of naming it. It is your ignorance of logic and your laziness to correct it that are being indicated by that phrase.

Asked and answered already. God's authority stems from being the creator of everything.

The creator would not have automatic authority over his creation.

Sin is anything not in the Expressed Will of God. If God at that point only issued one command, and it was to be followed or it wasn't. Morality was a none issue because their was no understanding of Evil.

So your god did not understand evil?

You're presupposing that Their is a God, and that thier is a Final judgement with this statement. thus giving you the grounds to refuse judgement. If as you suppose their is a God, (My God as you put it) then He did create everything, and as the God of Everything, He has the 'right' to do with any part of His creation as He see fit. So why are you judged? Because He said so.

Again being a creator does not give one the right over his creation. Especially if the creation is a sentient, rational and self-aware being.