God commanding death of innocent people

[MasterofPun]

Excellent thinking. I am glad you are thinking this through!

God is good b/c He describes Himself as good - and actually, it isn't hard to find this out from both my own personal experience and what we can see in His actions.
God is Creator - He defines what is and is not good. I use His definition. He is good.

If God said, "I am evil." Then we have to follow a god that has dictated he is evil. By God's grace, God is good and not evil. So the answer to Q2 is YES - we are obliged to follow what an Almighty being tells us to do whether it matches our definition of good or not. You can consider Abraham and Isaac for example.

[Blacksmith]

God really cannot commit murder - or genocide - or any other type of crime. I don't get it. Why can't god commit murder? If he would kill me then he would have killed me? or didn't he? Not only is it not in His character - but nothing He does can be wrong.

For example: If god struck me with lightnigh and killed me, He has done no wrong. He created me - He can destroy me. I belong to Him - so I don't really have any rights. God created the WHOLE WORLD - so the universe has no rights. God can justly command whatever He wants.I honestly don't get this reasoning.
If I was able to create stuff with emotions and then torture them how wouldn't that be wrong?

Furthermore if I created something independent does that necessarily mean I have the right to own them? Aren't they individuals of their own that has the right not to be interfered by me if they didn't want to. 

There's the start.

[OldTrees]

Excellent thinking. I am glad you are thinking this through!

God is good b/c He describes Himself as good ...

Unsupported by the previous conversation. We were and are talking about creator -> dictates morality for creations. Under this argument the creator does not dictate their own morality (it is the creator's creator if there is one that has that ability under this argument)

- and actually, it isn't hard to find this out from both my own personal experience and what we can see in His actions.

Unsupported by the previous conversation. Your ability to see His actions as consistent with what the creation ought to do is unrelated to what the creator ought to do in such a situation under the creator -> dictates morality for creations argument.

Those 2 comments are indicative of other moral theories than the one we are dissecting. (morality is as god says regardless of god being the creator & god behavior happens to be good respectively)

God is Creator - He defines what is and is not good. I use His definition. He is good.

That does not follow from creator -> dictates morality for creations.

Pretend God created me and I created a being(Darastrix). Under the argument we are examining I, not God, would dictate the morality for Darastrix. However my dictating the morality for Darastrix would not make me good merely by following the morality I dictated for my creation.

If God said, "I am evil." Then we have to follow a god that has dictated he is evil. By God's grace, God is good and not evil. So the answer to Q2 is YES - we are obliged to follow what an Almighty being tells us to do whether it matches our definition of good or not. You can consider Abraham and Isaac for example.

I agree our definitions of good do not trump what happens to be good. However if morality is merely a dictated code of conduct then it holds less weight than if it were an inherent/necessary truth about behavior. Ever more so if we frame the dictated code so that we can think about how the other kind of morality would apply to the being that gets to dictate.


Be careful when replying to this post. The creator (the being that did the creation in question regardless of their other divine/mortal traits) is a separate concept from "the god that happened to also create but really the creating was irrelevant to the issue at hand". If the act of creating is the morally significant detail, then we are talking about the first concept and not the second. To switch to the second concept is to put down the argument that the act of creating as the act of determining the morality for the creation.

[UTAlan]

It's not that by creating something God, therefore, had the right to dictate morality on those created beings. Rather, God has a particular nature. He is good, loving, just, merciful, gracious, compassionate, etc. I don't mean this in the way that you might say that your next door neighbor is a very compassionate person. God does not just exhibit these qualities on occasion - he perfectly reflects all of them at all times.

As the creator of all things ("for you created all things, and by your will they were created and have their being" -Revelation 4:11b), his imprint has been left on his creation. In particular, he created mankind in his own image and likeness. As a result, we all share a similar sense of what is right and wrong. We can tell that this is true by looking at the laws of various civilizations across many regions and time periods. Also, if someone were to say that it was morally okay to rape and murder children, most people would agree that this person was mentally disturbed or ill in some way.

So I guess I agree that it's not necessarily true that a creator inherently has the right to dictate morality. Instead, I believe that our understanding of morality is based on God's nature. When we say something is just (or unjust, for that matter), we are comparing it to some sense of perfect justice. The same for anything being morally good or bad, loving or unloving, etc. God doesn't "get" to dictate morality to us, but he chose to instill in us a sense of who he is and a desire to be like him/close to him. And since God is uncreated and has imprinted his nature on our created world, it would be nonsensical to say that God has done something "wrong".

Why can't god commit murder? If he would kill me then he would have killed me?

This doesn't make sense. Murder is not the same as killing. Killing is taking a life. Murder is killing someone illegally and with forethought/planning. Hence why God can't commit murder - he cannot do anything that is illegal because that would be against his nature and nonsensical.

[Aves]

It's not that by creating something God, therefore, had the right to dictate morality on those created beings. Rather, God has a particular nature. He is good, loving, just, merciful, gracious, compassionate, etc. I don't mean this in the way that you might say that your next door neighbor is a very compassionate person. God does not just exhibit these qualities on occasion - he perfectly reflects all of them at all times.

As the creator of all things ("for you created all things, and by your will they were created and have their being" -Revelation 4:11b), his imprint has been left on his creation. In particular, he created mankind in his own image and likeness. If that is the case, then why did God not create beings that perfectly reflect goodness, love, justice, mercy, grace, compassion, etc?

As a result, we all share a similar sense of what is right and wrong. We can tell that this is true by looking at the laws of various civilizations across many regions and time periods. How so? If you mean with institutions such as the United Nations ratifying various resolutions about human rights, then I'd argue that the current universally adopted standards come more from centuries of conquest and colonization (and later, industrialization and the effects of that combined with the former) and the aftereffects of dealing with that than anything else. It arises from from the vehicles of cultural exchange (trade, war, communication, conquest, etc)-- not some inherent human nature. If no Europeans crossed the Atlantic ocean, would the people of the Iroquois Confederacy or the Aztec Empire have similar moral policies, either compared to us today or to each other? Alternatively, slavery was legal throughout most known societies until very recently, say the past century or two. Today, we would find the concept of owning slaves repugnant. If humanity collectively has a similar sense of right and wrong, whether it came from a God or not, then why does it have such a large variation over distance and time?
Also, if someone were to say that it was morally okay to rape and murder children, most people would agree that this person was mentally disturbed or ill in some way. In the modern age with the novel concept of human rights, sure. That concept has been seen and adopted by most societies. What of societies before the Universal Declaration of Human Rights? In World War II, nations approved of mass killings of civilians. We have events like the Rape of Nanking, the Battle of Britain, the Atomic Bombs, bombings of Tokyo, Munich, Berlin, and so many more. Go further a few hundred years, and we see entire continents subject to conquest and cultural eradication or subjugation, and countless other atrocities. Alright, those may or may not include the case being made by "rape and murder children." What of the Romans? Their founding mythos with the "Rape of the Sabine Women?" Granted, the term refers more to the abduction itself than the modern usage, though I do believe it actually leads to the creation of the modern usage. The story of Queen Boudicaa of the Iceni, and the reasons behind her revolt against the Romans? More things like this, ad infinitum.

So I guess I agree that it's not necessarily true that a creator inherently has the right to dictate morality. Instead, I believe that our understanding of morality is based on God's nature. When we say something is just (or unjust, for that matter), we are comparing it to some sense of perfect justice. The same for anything being morally good or bad, loving or unloving, etc. God doesn't "get" to dictate morality to us, but he chose to instill in us a sense of who he is and a desire to be like him/close to him. And since God is uncreated and has imprinted his nature on our created world, it would be nonsensical to say that God has done something "wrong".
My takeaway from your position is the concept of God as an ideal-- one defined to be the ultimate 'good.' And I can agree with the reasoning behind that-- your first paragraph makes perfect sense to me-- but then we can go full circle and we ask why in the Bible God commands things that we today would deem as atrocities to be committed. tl;dr Why would a 'good' God create/command otherwise bad things(imperfection, suffering, etc)? If it is evil for humans to do it, then why is it not evil for a God to do or command it?
Tangentially related question: If God is omnipotent and omnipresent, could God create another God?

Why can't god commit murder? If he would kill me then he would have killed me?

This doesn't make sense. Murder is not the same as killing. Killing is taking a life. Murder is killing someone illegally and with forethought/planning. Hence why God can't commit murder - he cannot do anything that is illegal because that would be against his nature and nonsensical.

Apologies if I sound abrasive here, I wasn't sure how to express my points in a less aggressive manner.

[MasterofPun]

The Creator (being the sole creator) can describe Himself as He pleases. Who are we to disagree with His analysis?
He must be able to dictate His own attributes, as He did so on multiple occasions.

You cannot separate the two aspects: God created the moral code (and therefore morality, right, and wrong). We perceive this moral code. God said that He is on the righteous side. My observations agree with His statements (not that they needed to).

There was no morality before God created it. He defines it and the fact that the Almighty One demands it is enough to make morality important to me - irrelevant of its time or priority of origin.

[MasterofPun]

Glad you aren't being aggressive, Aves. I've had people come for my head dozens of times before presenting an argument or discussion.

If God forced all His creations to be perfect in reflection of Him, He could not be honored as He deserves by them. He gave humans a certain reign of free will with which they can choose to honor Him or not honor Him. That is why humans are far from perfect - even though they did start off free of err and sin.

You make a good point - moral and legal codes swing back and forth from nation to nation and are effected by colonization and conquest. God's Word, the Bible, is subject to none of these things. I will follow God's Law - even if it means breaking the law of my country. God's Law never changes, so it is a standard that we can follow.

Sadly, it is increasingly "ok" in the mind of my nation and society to allow things that the Bible forbids. The tide of morality may ebb and flow - but God's commands do not falter. God's Word condemns many things that society allows - like sex before marriage, homosexuality, and abortion. Therefore, I oppose these things even though my nation does not.

If there is a single Almighty Creator - the One of the Bible - He has all rights and we have no ability to deny Him any rights or abilities. Our consciences may be subject (and are subject) to error bred by our environments - so they are not the ultimate form of morality. God's Word is not subject to change or environment - so it is superior to our consciences.

God has commanded many things that appear wrong to your conscience and mine. We must take for granted, however, that our consciences are flawed fundamentally. We may not question the character of God if it appears to disagree with His description. His description is better than our perception.

God could kill the Canaanite and order their death simply because His command defines what is right and wrong. To disobey our Creator is wrong. To obey Him is right. The actions the Israelites took (in the measures God dictated) were right as they were the order of God. God could kill the entire planet without doing wrong - it's His will. Allowing some of the Canaanites to enter Israel and have a relationship is a profound example of His outstanding love that echoes through the ages. What mercy! What kindness! That God would spare any man, woman, or child and give them an opportunity to come to Him!

This is mercy. This is love. God sent His Son to die for us and if you believe, you will be saved. (Acts 16:31 + John 3:16). That's an offer He didn't have to give - it's His love. Above and beyond what was necessary.

[Aves]

Glad you aren't being aggressive, Aves. I've had people come for my head dozens of times before presenting an argument or discussion.
It's always good to be able to have a nice, thoughtful discussion with people you vehemently disagree with ^^
If God forced all His creations to be perfect in reflection of Him, He could not be honored as He deserves by them. He gave humans a certain reign of free will with which they can choose to honor Him or not honor Him. That is why humans are far from perfect - even though they did start off free of err and sin.
Alright. Let me reframe it slightly differently then. Can a perfect being create flawed things? If the answer is yes, then surely by creating an imperfection, the perfect being was not perfect in that particular design? If the answer is no, then is God not a perfect being?
You make a good point - moral and legal codes swing back and forth from nation to nation and are effected by colonization and conquest. God's Word, the Bible, is subject to none of these things. I will follow God's Law - even if it means breaking the law of my country. God's Law never changes, so it is a standard that we can follow.
What happens when you put the sentence "The quick brown fox jumps over the fence" through Google translate? Let's say, from English into French. Then from French into Italian. From Italian into Latin into Greek into Hebrew? Would a Bible in Navajo or Chinese be able to convey the same cultural references, the same implicit meanings, the same aura as the original Hebrew version does? The meaning of a word changes over time in a single language; the meaning of a group of words should thus change even more! And that's not even taking into account the literally thousands of years that these languages have been evolving. Even something as young as the United States Constitution has a lot of controversy over interpretation because of these changes. "A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed." Does the first clause mean that only a militia should bear arms? That only in periods where a militia is necessary should? Does 'arms' refer to the armaments of the 18th century, or to all terms that the term currently encompasses? All of this ambiguity comes from a single sentence in one document of one language for one nation over a short three hundred odd years. How much ambiguity, meaning changes, information loss, etc, must then come from a text that has been retranslated and modified over thousands of years through countless languages and cultures? It takes a large leap of faith to assume that the modern English version of the Bible is the exact version people were using in the late Roman Empire, that nothing has been changed or lost or added or misinterpreted.
Sadly, it is increasingly "ok" in the mind of my nation and society to allow things that the Bible forbids. The tide of morality may ebb and flow - but God's commands do not falter. God's Word condemns many things that society allows - like sex before marriage, homosexuality, and abortion. Therefore, I oppose these things even though my nation does not.

If there is a single Almighty Creator - the One of the Bible - He has all rights and we have no ability to deny Him any rights or abilities. What are Rights? Or rather, which Rights do you refer to here? Do you refer to Human Rights, regarding moral norms about human behavior which were mostly established in the 1950s? For example, the right to own property. If God holds dominion through the act of creating, is that a property right? Is God human, then? If not, then what sort of Rights are we talking about? If God is an omnipotent being, we certainly don't have the ability to deny Him anything. If we go along that track, why should an omnipotent being make demands of such limited sapiences? Why require anything of lesser beings? In addition, does me claiming that an almighty being requires you to paint your house red differ from you claiming that an almighty being wants me to go to a different house on Sunday and think good things?Our consciences may be subject (and are subject) to error bred by our environments - so they are not the ultimate form of morality. God's Word is not subject to change or environment - so it is superior to our consciences. Going back to what I said above-- how is the Bible not subject to change, when it is expressed in human language? Our language changes as we do, assimilating ideas from other cultures, dropping old ones, creating new ones. The ideas we express depend on our ability to express them in language-- in Chinese, there's an association of the number four with death because they have a similar sound. How does that idea carry across in English? In Latin? Similarly, it would be preposterous to assume that any idea or text from any culture you come across does not have its own idiosyncrasies-- and that goes for each successive translation of the Bible as well.

God has commanded many things that appear wrong to your conscience and mine. We must take for granted, however, that our consciences are flawed fundamentally. We may not question the character of God if it appears to disagree with His description. His description is better than our perception.
Why? Is there ever a reason not to think, to consider or wonder why an event happens? "God commanded us to kill them because there were space parasites growing in their heads!" is a better reason than "God commanded us to kill them, so we make absolutely no questions as to why and follow them like mindless puppets!" Consider something like the Milgram experiment, where people-- actual people in our society-- are willing to cause significant harm to other people when given orders by authority figures. This blind faith in authority is more akin to what I would expect from a fascist regime than a modern democracy.
God could kill the Canaanite and order their death simply because His command defines what is right and wrong. To disobey our Creator is wrong. To obey Him is right. The actions the Israelites took (in the measures God dictated) were right as they were the order of God. God could kill the entire planet without doing wrong - it's His will. Allowing some of the Canaanites to enter Israel and have a relationship is a profound example of His outstanding love that echoes through the ages. What mercy! What kindness! That God would spare any man, woman, or child and give them an opportunity to come to Him!And what of the thousands of other societies and cultures of that time, who had no belief in that particular God? What of the worshippers of Zeus or Odin or Ra? The Buddhists and Animists and countless other societies that never had such a concept enter their worldview? You've just condemned the vast majority of everybody who's ever lived to... whatever it is that God does with unbelievers. Well. In your worldview, at least. ^^

This is mercy. This is love. God sent His Son to die for us and if you believe, you will be saved. (Acts 16:31 + John 3:16). That's an offer He didn't have to give - it's His love. Above and beyond what was necessary.Now, how would that phrase be taken in Ye Olde English? ^^

[OldTrees]

The Creator (being the sole creator) can describe Himself as He pleases. Who are we to disagree with His analysis?
He must be able to dictate His own attributes, as He did so on multiple occasions.

You cannot separate the two aspects: God created the moral code (and therefore morality, right, and wrong). We perceive this moral code. God said that He is on the righteous side. My observations agree with His statements (not that they needed to).

There was no morality before God created it. He defines it and the fact that the Almighty One demands it is enough to make morality important to me - irrelevant of its time or priority of origin.

1) For something to be the sole creator you must be using a different meaning of "create" than the colloquial meaning of creator (since I can clearly create a table using the colloquial meaning). As such my objection to "the creator(colloquial meaning) of a creation dictates the morality for that creation" is unrelated to your position(but your position cannot rely on what I am objecting to unless you engage my objection).

2) If a being is the sole creator and is an uncreated being, then their nature existed prior to their ability to create. Therefore everything that must have already existed due to their nature cannot have been created by them. Since a being with the ability to act existed prior to the first act, inherent judgement about acting existed prior to the first act. It may be the case that these inherent judgement are the null set, however if we hold there was an uncreated sole creator then we cannot attribute all of morality as their creation. So does this mean you are proposing that this sole creator created themselves?

3) Let's presume that by moral code you are only refering to the part of the moral code that an uncreated sole creator can create. Why would I care about the created morality more than the morality that dictated what morality to create?

[MasterofPun]

God intentionally created a perfect creation with the option of becoming flawed. God is not flawed. He is holy.

Language certainly does create a barrier, but do you realize that English has been influenced by Greek, and that translations of the Bible come directly from Greek, Hebrew, and Aramaic. We don't need a third step - just straight from text to English.
Using the US Constitution is as bad example - as it was written by flawed men without the inspiration of a flawless God (It is also shamefully ignored - not unlike the Bible, actually). It would seem unlike God to leave the majority of humanity unable to effectively read His Word.

You are correct when you say God is Omnipotent. So yes - we really do need to follow His commands laid out in His Word, the Bible. Lesser beings like humans were created to serve God. God commands us to do things - I do not see why it matters why He chooses to command us.
Also - the sole and only reason that humanity has any hope of accomplishing God's commands is through His Word, the Bible. This Book tells us how to live our lives in a way to honor Him as He commands. I don't command you not to steal or murder or lie or commit adultery (if I did - I was in error and have no power to say such a thing): God commands you.

Languages do have idiosyncrasies. Similarly - the number 7 has a significance in Hebrew tradition of being the number of completeness. But we don't need to know that to understand the Bible or follow its commands.

What is wrong with being a mindless puppet? Also - God may have had reasons that He chose not to tell us. God is not asking your permission or anyone's opinion - He is issuing commands. You have proved my point for me - God is the Ultimate Authority and therefore I want to follow all His commands. But by this time we must surely recognize both that no one is innocent and that God can issue commands without any restrictions.

I have not condemned nor can I condemn anyone. That is between them and God. Romans 3:23 For all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God. That's me and you, sir or maam. It is your choice to accept God's offer of salvation so that you will not perish and you will have everlasting life. I want you to think seriously, Aves, about what your choice is.

[MasterofPun]

I thought I did make it clear that I meant something different than building when I said create. I'll repeat it here to avoid confusion - or maybe I outright forgot. When God created the universe - He did so without any mass, energy, or anything before He created it. You build a table from wood and/or metal or other substances - God could create a table out of nothing. Humans do not create - we build - rearrange - reorganize - and design. But we can't create anything new by that definition. Am I being clear?

Where do you get point 2 from? I can't make heads or tails of out what you are asking - so it's probably better if you make it clearer before I respond.

Where do you get the idea that there was an uncreated morality?

[OldTrees]

I thought I did make it clear that I meant something different than building when I said create. I'll repeat it here to avoid confusion - or maybe I outright forgot. When God created the universe - He did so without any mass, energy, or anything before He created it. You build a table from wood and/or metal or other substances - God could create a table out of nothing. Humans do not create - we build - rearrange - reorganize - and design. But we can't create anything new by that definition. Am I being clear?

Where do you get point 2 from? I can't make heads or tails of out what you are asking - so it's probably better if you make it clearer before I respond.

Where do you get the idea that there was an uncreated morality?

1) So by "create" you mean "create from absolutely nothing". Please justify why that would matter, because as far as I can see, both kinds of creation result in the same cause-effect relationship rather than a moral dictator relationship.

2) A being's nature comes into existence with the being. If one is uncreated then so too is the other uncreated. Thus one cannot both have an uncreated being and claim said being created its own nature. More explicitly, if God is inherently good by their nature & is an uncreated being then God is not the cause of God being inherently good.

3) When you started talking about an uncreated moral agent. Obviously the answer to how ought one act (said answer is symbolized by the word "morality") comes into existence at the same time as one comes into existance. If an uncreated moral agent (remember, every being that can be described as "good" is necessarily a moral agent) always existed then uncreated morality always existed.


Perhaps I should condense my threads of inquiry. Feel free to reply to either set since there are slight differences (the 123 are direct replies while the ABC are written clearer)
A) You believe that the action of creating from nothing, which you believe is unique to God but can be examined outside of that belief, allows the creator to dictate the answer to "What ought one do?" for one =  the created moral agent. So far you have not convinced me of this claim.

B) You believe this "creator dictates morality for creations" moral theory is sufficient & compatible with an uncreated moral agent (God as you believe in it) being described as good. This conclusion seems contradictory (so either I am misstating one of the premises or a premise/the conclusion is flawed).

c) I am proposing that for all moral agents there is by definition an answer to the question "What ought one do?" and thus such an answer would exist for any and all moral agents prior to their first action. This implies that if God is to be described as a moral agent, then the answer to "What ought God do?" existed prior to God's first action and thus cannot be one of God's creations. This should hold true for all hypothetical Gods that are also moral agents be they created/uncreated, always existed/finite past, or sole creators/not sole creators.