I mean this in a respectful way, but this description seems very un-God like. The notion that God would have objective properties, even without our knowledge, seems to be a very earthly view. IMO it defeats the definition of the concept of God. Alpha and Omega is not objective, beginning and end is not objective, everywhere is not objective. It may be objective in an alternate reality - specifically the alternate reality which begins on the 'day of judgement'. But we don't know that reality, and we don't know that it exists. You have faith that it exists, and within that faith-based alternate reality, there may be a form of objectivity which can manifest surrounding God. But again, that theory is completely subjective. God's existance and properties are entirely subjective. Just a look at the OT/NT/Quran will reveal just how subjective God's properties are. What kind of objective properties are you talking about (in theory of course)?
Sure he does. God is hardly immutable, if he exists, and because of that any attempts to base an objective morality off of him falls flat. Remember, according to the Christian point of view, God had to sacrifice himself, to himself, in order to allow himself to change a rule which he, himself, had made. How do you base objectivity off of that sort of thing?
No offense, but I honestly have no idea what you are talking about. I think that maybe you think that I am trying to say that we can objectively know things about God. That is not what I am saying. All I am saying ifs that if there is a God, He would have objective properties, such as (possibly) being immaterial, timeless, etc... Once again I can't prove that God has these qualities, but if a God exists He has to have some sort of objective qualities. I think perhaps we were both talking about two different things.
You are stating supposed "facts" with no evidence. If you would have read the rest of the thread, you would see that I am arguing that objective morality doesn't have to be based off of the Christian God, but just a God, defined as a maximally great being. Also, I do not agree with your point of view of the Christian point of view. However, I do not want to argue about theology.
God just talked to me and says you are mostly right. He did create the earth as a test for humans. If you pass you go to heaven and if you fail you go to hell. God says you need to live a life of reason and kindness to get to heaven. He told me that you are failing the reason test and are currently on a path to hell. If I am right, you are going to hell. If I am wrong, you get nothing. Therefore you better start reading some books on philosophy and logic. It is your only path to salvation.
Coming back late to this thread and a lot of what I was going to respond too other posters have responded already. That said putting in some responses of my own. That is not a circular argument but an incomplete one since you have already predefined that morality must be objective. I think part of the problem we are having here is that you view God as an apriori where as others look at God as an open question. I think that is essential to a faith view but does lead to being tied up into philosophical knots at times.
I have read the whole thread, chunks at a time when I find the time, and your view of a god is the christian one and what you base things on, even if you toss the loophole there that says any maximally great (whatever that means) being. Almost everything you've posted related back to the christian ideals it seems. If there were no gods watching and judging would you behave any differently? You can't just say you disagree with my POV on the christian POV and then just drop it at that either. What do you find fault with, exactly?
Ya I am not going to try to defend that argument. It was more of an example showing the poster that what I was saying wasn't a circular argument. This shouldn't be an issue, as I am not viewing God as a given for the argument to work. It is actually an argument for God's existence. The argument is: 1) If God does not exist, objective moral values and duties do not exist. 2) Objective moral values and duties do exist 3) Therefore, God exists. Now apparently everyone is disagreeing with this argument lol, but the point is I am not trying to view God as an apriori for the argument to work.
Yes I do believe in the Christian God as I have said repeatedly. But me believeing the Christian God is the real God has nothing to do with whether or not the argument is true. God can be defined as a maximally great being, as in if anything is greater than what we believe is God, then that greater thing is actually God. There is nothing greater. I don't believe this has relevance to the discussion, but since you asked... WARNING: BIBLE TALK: You assume that I view God as a harsh judge, critiquing my every move. I do not. I am sorry if you do, but I do not believe this is the God that Christianity offers, despite what some believers would have you believe. I believe that God is love. The Bible doesn't say that God was so mad at humanity that He killed His son just so He could see some humans that don't believe in Him go to hell. It says that God loved the world and gave His son for it. (It being you and me) In essence, I believe that the Gospel is that Jesus died for you, to give His life to you, to live His life through you. I am sorry if you have heard something else, but I wholeheartedly disagree with the approach of scaring someone into believing. It fosters a wrong (IMO) view of God, and does nothing to show God's love. I believe that the Bible teaches that men are born spiritually dead into sin, or at least spiritually die when they sin, and need a way out. Jesus offers that way by dying for us and as us, not to satisfy some arbitrary rule, but both to satisfy God's justice, and to bring life to humanity. And He did this out of love because that is who He is. He did all the work, and just asks us to believe Him. Not out of fear but out of love. That is essentially what I believe Christianity to be. END OF BIBLE TALK
Where did I ever talk about a harsh, judging god? I said, "Remember, according to the Christian point of view, God had to sacrifice himself, to himself, in order to allow himself to change a rule which he, himself, had made." That's just showing he's not unchanging and that he did the whole jesus thing (jesus=god (and his son)=holy spirit (dead jesus and god)=holy trinity=all same thing in essence) to allow him to make the change between the god of the old testament and the new. And he certainly did change between the old and new testament. That's it. I said nothing about love, or lack thereof, or judging or any of the other things you seem to have attributed to my simple statement about god not being some unchanging (objective?) thing. For someone who chastised me for not reading the whole thread you seem to have not read my two posts that contained nine whole sentences...
15 pages and while there has been controversial discussion, nobody has called anyone else Hitler yet. Good.
I really have no idea why you are getting so defensive. This thread has gone on for quite a while with everyone keeping their cool fairly well on a controversial topic. The judging part I took from the sentence "If there were no gods watching and judging would you behave any differently?" I would argue that the point of view that this sentence conveys is one where God is constantly watching someone and waiting to judge them for their bad deeds. If I was wrong in assuming that then I am sorry. I also don't agree that God changed between the Old and the New Testament. But this is one of the reasons I didn't want to talk about theology. The conversation could devolve into me trying to convince you of my view of the Bible, with you trying to convince me of yours. And since you sound like you do not believe or agree with the Bible, and I do, this would seem to put us on a street headed nowhere, with plenty of chances for wrecks on the way.
I'm just now entering this thread, haven't read through it all but thought I'd engage the dialogue a little since this was an interesting topic to me. If I understand your point of view you're asserting that God isn't unchanging because 1) He changes forms (Jesus, Father, Holy Spirit) 2) He changes the rules (Damnation in Old Testament, Salvation through Christ in New) Correct me if I'm wrong or if I missed a supporting point. All I can say is what I believe Christian Orthodoxy to say about these things On the first point, Trinitarian theology is quite complex. Orthodoxy states that God exists in perfect tension between unity (Gods Oneness) vs diversity (God in Thee Persons). Leaning too much on either of those tensions results in an errant view of God. Therefore understanding that perfect tension is impossible as imperfect creatures. But hey we can try right? To say that God changes because He changes persons is to err too far on the side on God's oneness, as though He manifests Himself at different times in different forms. The Father is not the Son, the Son is not the Spirit. The Father did not die on the cross, and the Spirit is not the fount from which all things are created. If we make the error to say all three are the same and interchangable then the gospel falls apart. This isn't an uncommon or new error though, heresies have been built on this premise since the beginning of the church era. Orthodox trinitarianism states that God has always existed as Triune. One God, three persons existing all at the same time with individual thought, affection, and volition. This theology is, IMO, the basis for understanding unity and diversity in marriage, family, and community. We can be One as He is One, yet different and diverse as He is as well. As far as God being different in the OT and NT, I think that's more of an issue of understanding the differences in the covenants. The covenants have always changed throughout the Bible. That doesn't mean the God who established them changes with them too. For example, the covenant a couple has when their dating changes when they get engaged and even more so when they wed. Even though they are changing and growing (because they're not God), the point is that the covenants or the expectations/promises of the relationship change over time as the relationship developes. Another example would be the changing expectations and relationship for a parent. A father deals with his child very much different than how he deals with him as a teenager and likewise as a grown adult. The father doesnt "change" in who he is or in his love, but he certainly changes how he raises his child and the kind of relationship he expects to have with his child. Parents of a 8 year old can seem quite strict and mean, even unforgiving in their discipline. Those same parents can seem quite different (perhaps more loving or forgiving) to that same child as a 30 year old. We change, grow, and mature...God does not. You might think different, but this is at least what orthodoxy says.
Eph:6:5: Servants, be obedient to them that are your masters according to the flesh, with fear and trembling, in singleness of your heart, as unto Christ Col:3:22: Servants, obey in all things your masters according to the flesh; not with eyeservice, as menpleasers; but in singleness of heart, fearing God: Ti:2:9: Exhort servants to be obedient unto their own masters, and to please them well in all things; not answering again; 1Pt:2:18: Servants, be subject to your masters with all fear; not only to the good and gentle, but also to the froward. Apparently, we are supposed to obey our slave masters with fear. Silly god and his "morality"...
Cherry-picking verses from the Bible, completely out of context, with no regard for the historical setting, and attempting to show how immoral God is does not prove that God is immoral. I am guessing that you are also aware that Paul, the same person who wrote most of the verses you cite, also wrote a letter asking a slave owner to release his slave, even though the slave had ran away and stole money. Apparently the slave had become a Christian, and Paul wanted the slave owner's former master to now consider him a brother. I think sometimes people forget that most of the New Testament were real letters written to real groups of people dealing with real problems.
Oh, it doesnt? Shall I go grab some factual instances of children being born with internal organs OUTSIDE their bodies? (Living for a few gruesome, painful moments before inevitable death) The problem with all religious books, is that cherry-picking is necessary to not look like a complete dunce, because morality has evolved IN SPITE of the book. "I say quite deliberately that the Christian religion, as organized in its churches, has been and still is the principal enemy of moral progress in the world." Bertrand Russell How about good old woman's rights as portrayed in the bible. Shall we cherry pick some "god awful" morality from that subject? Ephesians 5:22-24 Wives, submit to your husbands as to the Lord. For the husband is the head of the wife as Christ is the head of the church, his body, of which he is the Savior. Now as the church submits to Christ, so also wives should submit to their husbands in everything. Exodus 21:20-21 If a man beats his male or female slave with a rod and the slave dies as a direct result, he must be punished, but he is not to be punished if the slave gets up after a day or two, since the slave is his property. 1 Peter 2:13 Submit yourselves for the Lord’s sake to every authority instituted among men. 2:18 Slaves, submit yourselves to your masters with all respect, not only to those who are good and considerate, but also to those who are harsh. Leviticus 25:44-45 Your male and female slaves are to come from the nations around you; from them you may buy slaves. You may also buy some of the temporary residents living among you and members of their clans born in your country, and they will become your property.
Except what you have laid out has to assume an apriori that objective morality only exist in regard to God. The assumptions you have set up in this argument and the prior one I was responding do not allow for any other views. You have just substituted one apriori for another in this argument. Further you jump to the conclusion that Object morality exist without any consideration of the possibility of alternative. Now that is fine for a faith argument and I am not criticizing you for that belief but I don't find it makes for much of a rational argument since you have already decided your position and ruled out alternatives by how you frame it.
That's some very interesting insights into Christian views. It almost seems like that the nature of God and what we see as changing is more a matter of human perception of an entity that is greater than our understanding.
Interesting. I suppose I got erm...defensive (if further explaining your obviously missed point is defensiveness then so be it) after you seemingly put words in my mouth. I had no idea where you got the idea that I said the things you attributed to me and to be honest I still don't know how you reached that interpretation based on that question, given the current subject of the thread - think about it in the context of your argument and the discussion at hand (god is objective and morality can only be based on an objective god, etc). Now, go back to the question I posed: If there were no gods watching and judging would you behave any differently? Do you see how it fits and how I make no mention of a harsh god (yes I did say judge, but god does that at least to some degree, no?), or any of the other bits you seem to get from that sentence? It's a simple question related to your point of view on the source of morality - would you behave any differently without an outside source of objective morality? That's it.
Interesting points of view, both on the trinity/oneness and covenants. It seems to be intentionally obfuscated and flexible to fit any particular needs, which is both impressive and expected. You contradict yourself there a bit when you say the father doesn't change who he is, etc. but then at the end you say that we do change and grow and mature. As a father, I'd argue that I do change as a parent. I learn and I grow and indeed, even change, as does my daughter. Neither of us are unchanging as people and it affects how we deal with each other. My amount of love for her doesn't change (or does it grow daily?), but the way I perceive and feel it does. Not much in this world is unchanging, which is why I suppose some people find a lot of comfort in the thought of an eternal, unchanging god.
