That did not happen.

Kinda silly to talk about whether or not that would make God a bad guy, since if he even existed he is already a liar. It’s obvious that it didn’t happen.

Report comment to moderator

That’s why I said I personally wouldn’t compare God’s sovereignty to human property ownership. If I did anything to a kitten it’s not a parallel to God doing something to His creation because, as you pointed out, I didn’t create the kitten.

The real question is: do the kittens think they’re getting a raw deal, and do you think it really matters what they think?

I’m not suggesting that God is beyond judgment. We judge the creator based on whether his creation was fitting, and whether it displays his righteous character or not.

But not by how He treats His creation?
I ask this because links in with that earlier query, which SteveG has reiterated in #40: why does so much of what the Biblical God is portrayed as doing repel us?

Report comment to moderator

So why does so much of what the Biblical God is portrayed as doing repel us? Even apologists who argue that God was right to wipe out a race of people, or to kill infants, or to flood the entire world, have to admit that those acts demand justification, because they are horrifying to our own sense of right and wrong.

Why would the ultimate Source of our moral sense behave in ways that contradict what we inherently know is right?

(My answer as a Deist is somewhat different than those that come from the Christian/atheist divide, but the question remans nevertheless.)

Report comment to moderator

Roger — What would they say if you CREATED the kitten?

You see, the fallacy we make is to compare ourselves to the creator as if we could be like him: if we were just a little more powerful, a little bigger, a little smarter, etc. We aren’t his peer and we will never be his peer.

Flaming — We can semanticise (I know semanticise is not a real word but it works!) God’s behaviour beyond the reach of any culpability.

Roger — I’m not suggesting that God is beyond judgment. We judge the creator based on whether his creation was fitting, and whether it displays his righteous character or not.

Report comment to moderator

Mea culpa.

Report comment to moderator

We can semanticise (I know semanticise is not a real word but it works!) God’s behaviour beyond the reach of any culpability. But that only serves to remove any act, or behaviour, from the realm of moral judgement and leaves only the circumstance of the act up for moral judgement.

For example, God wipes out a race and it’s good. Some dictator wipes out a race and it’s bad. So, wiping out a race can be good, or it can be bad. The difference is in the circumstances (and consequences) of the act, not the act itself. Which means that the morality, or immorality, of an act, is relative to the situation. Uh-oh, did I say relative? Um, yes.

God, however, has the right to destroy his own work as anyone has the right over his own property to dispose of it any way he sees fit.

Personally, I’d avoid making parallels between God’s sovereignty and human property ownership. I’m sure peoples’ sense of moral revulsion would hit the roof if I started throwing kittens through a garden mulcher.

Report comment to moderator

Roger — One thing to keep in mind is the fact that terms like “genocide” and “infanticide” already presuppose evil intent and culpability. But, not all homicides are murder.

While it is true that God ordered the killing of an entire race, we must not automatically assume that his killing an entire race is genocide. Theoretically, it may have been genocide or it might not have been genocide. To judge God’s killing of an entire race of people as genocide, we must know for a fact that God was acting with malicious aforethought.

If I understand MIM, his point is NOT to suggest that genocide is acceptable if God does it, but rather, in the case of God’s killing a race of people, it isn’t genocide. He isn’t saying God gets to do evil because he is God. He isn’t saying God gets to commit genocide because he is God. I believe the point is that if God kills off a race of people, it isn’t in fact genocide when he does it. In order to convict God of genocide, we must prove that he did it with “malice aforethought and the lack of lawful justification.”

MIM speaks to the second issue when he suggests that God is the creator of all. The right over life is the logical implication of creating life in the first place; if he didn’t create us we wouldn’t exist.

Secondly, by analogy, murder is a violation of God’s “author rights”, in which he has “the right to be identified as the author of the work and the right to object to any distortion or mutilation of the work which would be prejudicial to his or her honor or reputation.” (Wikipedia) MIM brings this out when he lists God as the “owner” of all things. When one man murder’s another man, he violates God’s exclusive right to protect his work from mutilation, distortion, or destruction. God, however, has the right to destroy his own work as anyone has the right over his own property to dispose of it any way he sees fit.

Report comment to moderator

Thanks for the lengthy response, and I’ll know to not look for a reply before tomorrow.

I realize you don’t see a problem with good being whatever God says, but it sounds to me that what you’ve described is essentially a might-makes-right argument.

God can do whatever he pleases — we want to believe God is always good — so whatever God pleases to do, we must call that good.

To me the problem with that isn’t portrayals of God ordering genocide and the like. (Although some of those are indeed troubling.) It’s that “good” in that view is not objective, unchanging principle, it’s the whim and will of an omnipotent being.

The God of the Bible makes choices, deliberates over courses of action, renders judgment, grants mercy and so forth, and not always consistently. The book of Job shows a God who is cavalier enough about his people that he’s willing to make a bet with Satan about how much crap Job can take before losing his faith. The book of Exodus, in a sharp contrast to Job, shows a god who is faithful and merciful and patient with his stiff-necked people.

It is hard to see how a Christian can argue that the Bible’s God is the source of absolute moral truth.

But as I noted, the alternative is to say that God is always good based on some other measure of good. If we do that, however, then God is not the source of moral truth, but just another being to measured against it.

Report comment to moderator

…Also as creator then what he defines as good, is good. If he has created us “in his image”, then we naturally would have a concept of good and evil.

But this also begs the question; why would God create beings that are averse to His definition of good?

You can put it down to our “limited perspective” of God’s plan, or to sin having corrupted our views, or our free will to disagree. But why should our aversions be patronised as “fallible human understanding” just so God can be exhonerated? Why did He imbue us with a sense of fairness that we’re required to repress, or switch off, when contemplating, and only when contemplating, His actions?

I’m not railing against God here, by the way, I’m just pointing out that there are other possible reasons for why we find biblical genocide a “thorny issue”. For example, morality does not come from the God of the bible.

If the annihilation of people by God is so bad, then why not complain about death also?

Death isn’t immoral. Maybe you disagree but, as you say, let’s steer clear of original sin for the time being.

I would remind you that the infanticide of the Egyptian first born sons was in the context of…

Yes, there was a reason. Yes, it had a purpose and yes, the consequences of the action were a great benefit to God’s chosen. But you still can’t have non-infanticide infanticide. It was still an act of large-scale infanticide, therefore it remains that large-scale infanticide is not always wrong.

Report comment to moderator

In a nutshell. Yes. I know you think that presents a problem, but I do not.

This shall be an answer to both your question and to Flaming Icarus.

Flaming Icarus says that Christians dance around the issue of genocide and infanticide and wiping out the whole population of earth. I admit it is a thorny issue, but exhort you all to keep a few things in mind… bear with me if I repeat myself.

1) God is creator of all.
2) God is owner of all.
3) God is infinite and righteous.
4) Man is finite and not righteous.
5) All men die.
6) All men are condemned by God already. (I think we should limit the discussion to personal rather than original sin OK? I can’t debate every point you can bring up. I gotta sleep sometime.)

So if God is creator and owner of everything, God can do with his creation as he pleases. Also as creator then what he defines as good, is good. If he has created us “in his image”, then we naturally would have a concept of good and evil.

Also as finite and imperfect beings, our knowledge and judgment are impaired both by our inherent evil, and our limited knowledge. It would be hard to make an accurate judgment about the “questionable” actions of God based upon our limited perspective. If the annihilation of people by God is so bad, then why not complain about death also? Don’t we all die? Do you not expect that you will die also? Hey! Be an equal opportunity complainer…

One other thing I would point out as an aside. I would remind you that the infanticide of the Egyptian first born sons was in the context of God pointing out that all of Egypt’s gods were in fact, powerless in the face of the one true god. The plagues were all directed at a particular god in Egypt. The blood in the Nile? The river God was powerless to stop it. The locusts and frogs? Same thing. As the pharaoh was considered a god in Egypt, God had something pertinent to say about that too. Pharaoh’s son was no different than anyone else’ son.

It’s been nice debating with you guys today, and you brought up some good points. I’d like to stay up and see your responses, but I’m for bed. Catch y’all tomorrow.

Report comment to moderator