I think just about everyone would agree that it’s immoral to sit idly by and watch an innocent person be hurt or victimized if we had the power to easily prevent it. Yet God apparently does this all the time. There would seem to be only two possibilities: either God is behaving immorally, or it’s not immoral to sit back and refuse to help people. So which is it?
Does God behave immorally?
- Thread starter Nasor
- Start date
Nasor: I think just about everyone would agree that it’s immoral to sit idly by and watch an innocent person be hurt or victimized if we had the power to easily prevent it. Yet God apparently does this all the time. There would seem to be only two possibilities: either God is behaving immorally, or it’s not immoral to sit back and refuse to help people. So which is it?
************
M*W: Neither. Since the time of ancient humans, they imagined there were higher powers that controlled the universe (or at least their immediate universe). They thought the sun was god. If this were true, the sun wouldn't be able to step in and help in a situation such as you mentioned. Neither would the sun sit back and refuse to help people, because it doesn't have that kind of being. Early humans then anthropomorphized the sun as their god and it sprouted arms and legs and had a mind that would sooner or later walk with them and judge them. So, to answer your question I will assume this god is like the one I mentioned, so it would be up to the consciousness of another human being to step in when the need arose. If there is a god, humanity would be the eyes, hands and feet and mind of god. There is no creator-destroyer god. God was created in human imagination.
************
M*W: Neither. Since the time of ancient humans, they imagined there were higher powers that controlled the universe (or at least their immediate universe). They thought the sun was god. If this were true, the sun wouldn't be able to step in and help in a situation such as you mentioned. Neither would the sun sit back and refuse to help people, because it doesn't have that kind of being. Early humans then anthropomorphized the sun as their god and it sprouted arms and legs and had a mind that would sooner or later walk with them and judge them. So, to answer your question I will assume this god is like the one I mentioned, so it would be up to the consciousness of another human being to step in when the need arose. If there is a god, humanity would be the eyes, hands and feet and mind of god. There is no creator-destroyer god. God was created in human imagination.
it's not likely, that any xian will answer. because they know theres no justification?.
Muhlenberg
Registered Senior Member
Nasor...More than two ways to approach this: Suffering might be an illusion. God might be a duality (hence only 50% of God is immoral). It is a mystery man is incapable of understanding.
Oh, well let's just pack it up and stop discussing philosophy then! And, "Suffering might be an illusion"? Please tell me you are not justifying God on that basis! Suffering may be an illusion, but when you are the person suffering, it sure don't feel like it! And this, after all, is the ultimate basis for any viable moral code, or at least one based on concepts of absolute Right and Wrong. Invariably, what causes suffering for other people is considered morally wrong. Considering that suffering might be an illusion (presumably of God's making) does not change the morality. In any case everything we experience is an illusion.
In any case, that's human morality. Divine morality is different. Remember, everything in the Bible is defined as good or bad according entirely to God's whim. God saw what he had made and it was good. God saw what man had wrought and it was not good. And God waxed wroth.
Therefore it is impossible for God to behave immorally, since anything God does is, ipso facto, moral. That does not, however, extend the morality of all God's acts to human morality. In other words we cannot wipe out entire populations except at God's direct Command. After all, one phrase that automatically implies bad behaviour, ironically, not good behaviour is "playing God".
Yet another way of looking at it is to consider that God, having created the world, done this and that, walked in the Garden of Eden etc., subsequently enacted upon himself a strict rule: no direct interference. God is all-powerful and utterly omnipotent so any kind of action on his part will disturb the system He devised in the first place. He created Man and gave to Man free will. Some people are bad and some people are good. He is watching to see if Good will ultimately triumph over Evil. But to actually interfere would negate the gift of Free Will, and would be a highly immoral act, even if the only intention in acting was a good one. If you have power over and above other beings, use of that power becomes progressively less moral the more of your power you wield. God is UTTERLY omnipotent, so anything he does would be INFINITELY immoral. So he does not interfere. In the case of the first post, God is not helping the innocent sufferer. But it would not be good for the sufferer if God stepped in and "helped", for where then would everything that it means to be a human being, end up?
Some minor writer years ago talked about losing his faith in God because his friend had died in a mountaineering accident. My immediate thought, as a proud atheist, was, "What a pathetic reason for not believing in God!"
In any case, that's human morality. Divine morality is different. Remember, everything in the Bible is defined as good or bad according entirely to God's whim. God saw what he had made and it was good. God saw what man had wrought and it was not good. And God waxed wroth.
Therefore it is impossible for God to behave immorally, since anything God does is, ipso facto, moral. That does not, however, extend the morality of all God's acts to human morality. In other words we cannot wipe out entire populations except at God's direct Command. After all, one phrase that automatically implies bad behaviour, ironically, not good behaviour is "playing God".
Yet another way of looking at it is to consider that God, having created the world, done this and that, walked in the Garden of Eden etc., subsequently enacted upon himself a strict rule: no direct interference. God is all-powerful and utterly omnipotent so any kind of action on his part will disturb the system He devised in the first place. He created Man and gave to Man free will. Some people are bad and some people are good. He is watching to see if Good will ultimately triumph over Evil. But to actually interfere would negate the gift of Free Will, and would be a highly immoral act, even if the only intention in acting was a good one. If you have power over and above other beings, use of that power becomes progressively less moral the more of your power you wield. God is UTTERLY omnipotent, so anything he does would be INFINITELY immoral. So he does not interfere. In the case of the first post, God is not helping the innocent sufferer. But it would not be good for the sufferer if God stepped in and "helped", for where then would everything that it means to be a human being, end up?
Some minor writer years ago talked about losing his faith in God because his friend had died in a mountaineering accident. My immediate thought, as a proud atheist, was, "What a pathetic reason for not believing in God!"
Muhlenberg
Registered Senior Member
Silas. . .Sorry, I wasn't clear. My point was the question of this thread is flawed. There are several ways religion deals with the problem of evil. I listed several but didn't take a position. Suffering as an illusion refers to some Eastern religions. God as a duality is, of course, manichæism. Suffering as a mystery is found in Christianity.