The Problem Of Evil.

[Skepticaldude541]

So here is how I laid it out on my blog.

 

The Issue of Evil:

 

"Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able? Then he is not omnipotent.

Is he able, but not willing? Then he is malevolent.

Is he both able and willing? Then whence cometh evil?

Is he neither able nor willing? Then why call him God?" - Epicurus, famous Greek Philosopher

 

Essentially, the argument is:

 

"The amount of human suffering in the natural world is incompatible with a kind, caring, omnipotent father/creator God."

 

Now most Christians will be quick to say that all human suffering, evil, and all things imperfect are the result of sin, which was all man's fault. Unfortunately, there are a few problems with this that I know of.

 

1. The fall of man was partially Yahweh's fault. He placed the tree in the garden, foreknew Adam and Eve would eat of it, knew the consequences and did it anyway. (A good parent wouldn't put a sharp object in reach of their kids especially if they knew with absolute certainty that the kids would stab themselves with it.)

 

2. The Bible says flat out that Yahweh made evil in the first place! I talked about this in length here: Link. The creator is responsible for his creation.

 

3. There are SO MANY bad and imperfect things in this world! Hundreds of species of poisonous plants, thousands of species of insects that feed in a way that is absolutely dreadful, etc, etc, etc. The world seems hard wired to be a cruel and harsh place where only the toughest survive. Are you saying that every plant with thorns, every poisonous plant, every insect that feeds by sucking the guts out of it's host or plants it's babies inside another insect so they can feed on it, weather that is too cold or too hot, meteors, solar flares, everything that you can possibly imagine that is harmful or imperfect, came from two people eating a fruit?! Seriously?! I'd be interested in someone posting scripture to back up the doctrine of original sin in the first place.

[Legion]

SD, I like the third point better than the others. I think many Christians can twist the Bible to fit whatever notion of God they may have. So I think the evidence that nature provides for us is sturdier ground.

 

I always hold out the hope that if I can encourage a Christian to examine nature then we can find common ground.

[agnosticator]

I have a suggestion to add, if you like it. To me, the staggering AMOUNT of suffering in the past and present is not only unfair of God to allow (and cause), but is UNNECESSARY. It is not necessary to help anyone grow spiritually, or for anyone to appreciate the good. If the amount of suffering were minimized, it would not be an issue.

[Franko47]

I've always made the point (even when I was a Christian) about "what was so great about the state of Adam and Eve before they tasted of the apple-of-transformation" ?

 

Wandering around naked in a garden/orchard, where food and shelter are a given, with no knowledge of good or evil (meaning the higher brain functions); oblivious to the true nature of things; a so-called "perfected state" ? More like a lobotomized infantile state, from what it sounds like. How exactly where they going to preside over "offspring" ? Apparantly "child-bearing" was a result of this strange "fall", as was "sexuality". How are a man and woman ever going to bond and create a family unit without some kind of bio-sexual incentive ? How is culture and civilization and writing and *oh god* "science" going to happen ?

 

I guess without the serpent and the apple, there they would be, some thousands of years later, the same Adam and Eve, waltzing by themselves for all enternity in a never-ending loop of.... boredom.

 

We owe the serpent a great deal. Thanks, dude.

[Seeking]

3. There are SO MANY bad and imperfect things in this world! Hundreds of species of poisonous plants, thousands of species of insects that feed in a way that is absolutely dreadful, etc, etc, etc. The world seems hard wired to be a cruel and harsh place where only the toughest survive. Are you saying that every plant with thorns, every poisonous plant, every insect that feeds by sucking the guts out of it's host or plants it's babies inside another insect so they can feed on it, weather that is too cold or too hot, meteors, solar flares, everything that you can possibly imagine that is harmful or imperfect, came from two people eating a fruit?! Seriously?!

 

Ugh, this is exactly the way my parents think!! They live on a pretty nice spread of land with a forest and stream, and whenever I'm visiting them and make the mistake of commenting on how lovely the views/flowers/etc are, either my mom or dad will launch into this dreamy spiel of "As pretty as it is now, this is just a *shadow* of how wonderful it was before the fall. Can you imagine how amazing it must have been, with the talking animals and perfect creation? ...." I'm serious. This is what they say. It makes me CRAZY!!!!! (No, they don't know about my lack of belief, and hopefully they never will. So I have to put up with this jibberish for the next 20+ years.)

[Skepticaldude541]

A Christian wrote a blog in refutation! Wow! I feel special!

 

This post is a response to Marcus, the young blogger at Thoughts of a Marcus. He recently has become a self-proclaimed skeptic/agnostic/atheist. I’m specifically addressing his post in which he decided to attack the existence of the Christian God based on the problem of evil in the world.

 

Now here’s the short argument from him:

 

The amount of human suffering in the natural world is incompatible with a kind, caring, omnipotent father/creator God.

 

Now, in order to discover if this is true, we will have to discuss this rationally, logically, and in an adult manner. It is not enough to simply throw such statements out there, and expect others to accept them as true.

 

Marcus, I would presume, would agree that humans should be able to make free moral choices. In other words, each person should have free moral agency over their own actions. So with that in mind, does it not logically follow that each person should be able to choose between good and evil? I would assume that Marcus would say “yes”, here.

 

Now, is it possible, Marcus, for a person to have genuine moral freedom, and yet be incapable of choosing evil? In other words, could God give us genuine moral freedom, and yet prevent us from performing evil actions? Moral freedom requires that we be allowed to choose between evil and good.

 

So, to continue interacting with Marcus(hopefully), do you think that a “kind, caring God” would want to remove all possibility of evil? Well, based on our other questions and comments, no. God would want us to be able to choose, He would grant us free moral agency to perform moral actions as we see fit to do.

 

Now you might say “well shouldn’t God be powerful enough to prevent evil”? Well, based on our second point above, why should he do that? Do you want free moral agency or don’t you? You are now speaking of a logical contradiction. Do you think it is possible to create a free moral agent that only has the freedom to choose what you think he should be allowed to do?

 

Now, if the government of the United States came out with a brand new set of laws, telling you that you could only do certain things that they allowed, would you think that would be a good thing? What if they told you that all persons aged 25 and older had to be married(whether you wanted to be or not) to someone of the opposite sex, and all persons 21 and younger could not marry.

 

So, presuming that there is a God my friend Marcus, is it a bad thing that He created us with a choice to rebel against Him?

 

Now let’s move on to defining “evil”. Evil does not exist, at least as a thing. Evil is simply the absence of good. Darkness, does not exist. Darkness is only the absence of light. Cold, does not exist. Cold is simply the absence of heat. Donut holes(for a tastier example), do not exist. Donut holes are simply the absence of donut. Speaking of which, I now desire some Dunkin’ Donuts. Ah, to live in the Northeast again.

 

Simply because one experiences suffering, it does not mean that there is not a God. Hardship does not mean that God does not exist. I would argue that hardship and suffering exists because humans have rejected God, and have developed their own path.

 

Marcus, I must ask, if there is no God, then what is evil? And, what does atheism offer to bring hope out of evil or out of suffering? When a person is suffering, is it simply their tough luck? Is there anything redemptive in suffering? How do you respond to the problem of evil?

 

Anyone care to criticize his blog? I can defiantly use ideas.

[Andy]

His argument is basically saying that evil exists as a consequence of human free will. This has two major problems (that I can think of).

 

First, it does not account for non-manmade "evil", such as the type of thing you mentioned in point 3 in your original post. Natural disasters, poisonous plants, etc. I would only add that we live in a world where it is necessary for every living thing to kill and consume some other living thing for survival. I find it hard to believe that an all-powerful, all-loving creator could not come up with something better. For example, he could make it so we would get energy from the sun, like plants.

 

Second, free will does not necessarily mean that we have the ability to do anything. We as human beings can't fly, or breathe under water, kill people with our brains. Yet nobody considers these limitations on free will. Now how hard would it be for an all-powerful being to add the ability to harm others as one of those limitations?

[qadeshet]

There is no answer to the Problem of Evil. Christians always pull out the Free Will argument. Here is the refutation.

 

Ephesians 1:

1:4 According as he hath chosen us in him before the foundation of the world, that we should be holy and without blame before him in love:

1:5 Having predestinated us unto the adoption of children by Jesus Christ to himself, according to the good pleasure of his will,

1:11 In whom also we have obtained an inheritance, being predestinated according to the purpose of him who worketh all things after the counsel of his own will:

 

And don't forget that God hated Esau while he was still in his mother's womb. Where was Esau's free will?

[Skepticaldude541]

Ah shit... Look like I've hit the big times. Now two blogs are reporting on my problem of evil post. Who knows who will next.

 

Titled "The Problem of Laziness"

The "problem of evil" is one of the more puzzling objections to Christianity. It rests on solely on emotions, and yet for some reason, it is usually one of the first tricks atheists try to pull when justifyng their disbelief. Take this atheist, Marcus. Despite his youth and seeming lack of knowledge regarding a sound, Christian retort to the "problem," he apparently regards it as death knell to Christianity, or at least one reason why he is an apostate. He states the "problem" as follows:

 

"The amount of human suffering in the natural world is incompatible with a kind, caring, omnipotent father/creator God."

 

Marcus obviously has the inside scoop. If only he would have shared how he could possibly know such a thing, perhaps he might have made a point. Surely as an "ex-Christian" he knows full well that his sin deserves no mercy or grace, and surely he understands - if not agrees with - the concepts of discipline and justice. As it is, the argument is just a string of smuggled assumptions. Just one more example:

 

"The Bible says flat out that Yahweh made evil in the first place!"

 

So what? I would say determinism is the solution to the problem of evil, as it implies God has a purpose in causing it. As for the "contradictions" Marcus goes on to tick off, several questions should be asked:

 

Would determinism imply God has broken His law? Which law? If not, how can one ascribe evil to God's character? Is the discussion not assuming the truth of all Christian doctrines and definitions, including morality (cf. 1 John 3:4)?

 

Also, to whom is God allegedly responsible for His actions? Has he ever read Romans 9:19-23?

 

Until Marcus or any other atheist can answer these questions, the "problem of evil" rather appears to be a problem of intellectual laziness.

 

Well, I can pretend I didn't see them, or waste precious time telling them why they are retarded. None of them actually addressed my points without going on rabbit trails. This is annoying.

[Deva]

So what? I would say determinism is the solution to the problem of evil, as it implies God has a purpose in causing it.

 

So there goes any notion of God being "good". Who cares if he has a purpose known only to himself?

 

to whom is God allegedly responsible for His actions? Has he ever read Romans 9:19-23?

 

To himself. To keep his word and his promises, which he does not. What it all boils down to is the excuse of God can just do any thing he wants to and who are we to question why? Yeah, that is a really intellectually satisfying answer.

 

Until Marcus or any other atheist can answer these questions, the "problem of evil" rather appears to

be a problem of intellectual laziness.

 

This statement is written by a moron. Yes, it is annoying.

[Skankboy]

Now, is it possible, Marcus, for a person to have genuine moral freedom, and yet be incapable of choosing evil? In other words, could God give us genuine moral freedom, and yet prevent us from performing evil actions? Moral freedom requires that we be allowed to choose between evil and good.

I've always loved it when Christians put limitation on their God. Why can't an omnipotent being do something that is logically impossible?

[Legion]

So let me get this straight. Suffering exists because people have been given a freewill by a good God and they have chosen evil which leads to suffering.

 

Maybe you could bring up Job. Supposedly Job was a faithful servant of God who chose good and yet he was made to suffer.

 

But personally I think it’s all a waste of time. They believe because they want to believe and nothing you can do will change that.

[bdp]

Allegedly 'god' needed a blood sacrifice to 'atone' for our 'sin' - he got it. Death was conquered - 'Jesus' allegedly came back, right? So if the conditions were met, then why wasn't 'game over' then and there? Evil in the world is 'god's fault because he got what he allegedly needed and yet let the old 'evil world' continue to exist.

[Shyone]

I despise these types of debates because the Christian is allowed to twist things to his/her liking and ignore that which they can't answer.

 

First, as noted above, Job did nothing wrong, but was the victim of God and Satan.

 

Second, if one person chooses evil and makes another person suffer, then what of that other person's free will? If they die as a believer, do they go to heaven? and If they would have believed next week, but then became agnostic the week after, would they have gone to heaven next week and hell the week after that?

 

Third, Determinism is the same as predestination - and implies that life is pointless. If going to heaven or hell is based on actions that we have no control over, then life has no purpose with respect to "earning" heaven or hell. In fact, determinism is the opposite of free will. One does note have "free will" to Only do what God has "planned" for us.

 

Fourth, innocent people suffer as a result of natural disasters, diseases and wars over which they have no control. Such suffering has no connection with free will. It is by "nature" arbitrary, but exists. Why should the innocent suffer?

 

Fifth, diseases in particular happen to those with belief or disbelief in the same relative proportions. There is no divine plan that determines who gets the diseases or who suffers. Or even who dies and when.

 

Ah, what's the point. I hate christian apologetics that make such suffering seem like the nicest thing on earth.

A good dose of common sense tells you that beliefs that have no verification until after death are necessarily not only unprovable but likely to be false.

[Taphophilia]

I have a rule. The only place I will bother to reply to a Christian is on Ex-C. I've even had Christians email me because I won't reply to them. Although, I will reply to other ex-Christians. I tell the Christians who email me, "I don't debate Christians or holocaust deniers. Only a fool argues with a fool." They tend to get ticked off and call me names after I tell them that.

[Skepticaldude541]

I've decided not to respond for numerous reasons. The greatest being that both bloggers are strangers that I have no reason to debate. I have enough things to deal with right now.

[Skepticaldude541]

(Sorry double post)

[Tabula Rasa]

Now, is it possible, Marcus, for a person to have genuine moral freedom, and yet be incapable of choosing evil? In other words, could God give us genuine moral freedom, and yet prevent us from performing evil actions? Moral freedom requires that we be allowed to choose between evil and good.

I've always loved it when Christians put limitation on their God. Why can't an omnipotent being do something that is logically impossible?

 

Exactly. My biggest argument against the christian god is that for an omnipotent being, he sure doesn't act it. They really need to stretch their brains a bit. An omnipotent being can do anything, as reality is subject to it's whims. It could have made humans where our mouths were on our abdomens and nourishment went directly into our stomachs.It could make it where our heads could turn 360 with no harm to us. But that's small potatoes. It could have made humans able to change their bodies or parts to whatever shape, form or size was beneficial and back again.

 

Such a being could have the laws of nature completely opposite. One could warm themselves with a blazing campwater, and put out a blazing wet building with fire.

 

They sure love to limit their god don't they.

[Guest I Love Dog]

So let me get this straight. Suffering exists because people have been given a freewill by a good God and they have chosen evil which leads to suffering.

 

Maybe you could bring up Job. Supposedly Job was a faithful servant of God who chose good and yet he was made to suffer.

 

But personally I think it’s all a waste of time. They believe because they want to believe and nothing you can do will change that.

 

A loving, caring, wonderful god gave humans free will so they could make their suffering of choice! That is so retarded! How can people seriously believe such rubbish! I wouldn't debate the existence of such a god because it so obviously doesn't exist. Imagine, you are an amazing, wonderful creator, so you build the planets, and planet earth, you wait 4.5 billion years then you decide to create humans after having created all the nasty things that are going to prey on your next creation: humans. Wow! what fun, watching the humans run from all the nasty, viscious creatures!

 

Adam and Eve, the first humans/humanoids wouldn't have needed fig leaves, because they were covered in long protective hair, anyway. Which brings me to the first humans being created in god's image. Which version of human was created in god's image? Neanderthal, hominid? Whichever version it was, it wouldn't have been very intelligent, couldn't talk, just grunts, and would have been very hairy, barely able to walk on two legs. Is that what god is really like?

[Ouroboros]

 

This post is a response to Marcus, the young blogger at Thoughts of a Marcus. He recently has become a self-proclaimed skeptic/agnostic/atheist. I’m specifically addressing his post in which he decided to attack the existence of the Christian God based on the problem of evil in the world.

 

Now here’s the short argument from him:

 

The amount of human suffering in the natural world is incompatible with a kind, caring, omnipotent father/creator God.

 

Now, in order to discover if this is true, we will have to discuss this rationally, logically, and in an adult manner. It is not enough to simply throw such statements out there, and expect others to accept them as true.

That he starts his response with a personal attack and bad attitude doesn't really help his argument.

 

Marcus, I would presume, would agree that humans should be able to make free moral choices. In other words, each person should have free moral agency over their own actions. So with that in mind, does it not logically follow that each person should be able to choose between good and evil? I would assume that Marcus would say “yes”, here.

Why not be given the choice between good and good? Why is choosing between good and evil something good in itself (the higher good)? Does that also mean "choosing" is an act of doing good, while "not-choosing" is an act of evil?

 

I wonder, can there be levels of evil? Why does evil has to be rape, torture, murder, tsunamis, cancer ...? Why can't it be broken toenails, hair loss, and just missing a single breakfast instead of no food--ever?

 

Now, is it possible, Marcus, for a person to have genuine moral freedom, and yet be incapable of choosing evil? In other words, could God give us genuine moral freedom, and yet prevent us from performing evil actions? Moral freedom requires that we be allowed to choose between evil and good.

If it is true that moral freedom is the higher standard and the higher good, then doesn't it follow that all humans must be given the same options and the same circumstances to be able to make the same moral choices?

 

If a person is put into a situation where they can only choose between something bad and something else bad, who should we blame? If the person was forced into the situation, is he without guilt? But what about the good and evil in a situation like that? If the person is put into the situation just through circumstances, and not someone making them, who should we blame? Who is evil? What is evil?

 

And where does moral freedom play in when it comes to tsunamis, earthquakes, and tornadoes? Why did God give us those destructive things? To remind us of our inability to choose our own destiny?

 

So, to continue interacting with Marcus(hopefully), do you think that a “kind, caring God” would want to remove all possibility of evil? Well, based on our other questions and comments, no. God would want us to be able to choose, He would grant us free moral agency to perform moral actions as we see fit to do.

Right. God built a machine. He pressed the button to start it. Then left it alone.

 

If a serial killer murders an atheist woman. She goes to Hell, not for being evil, but being an unbeliever. The serial killer goes to life in prison, converts to Christianity, and goes to Heaven. The moral freedom doesn't really explain why this is a good outcome.

 

Now you might say “well shouldn’t God be powerful enough to prevent evil”? Well, based on our second point above, why should he do that? Do you want free moral agency or don’t you? You are now speaking of a logical contradiction. Do you think it is possible to create a free moral agent that only has the freedom to choose what you think he should be allowed to do?

Or the simpler answer is: God doesn't exist or is completely absent, so there's no need to explain why God would or wouldn't do anything.

 

Now, if the government of the United States came out with a brand new set of laws, telling you that you could only do certain things that they allowed, would you think that would be a good thing? What if they told you that all persons aged 25 and older had to be married(whether you wanted to be or not) to someone of the opposite sex, and all persons 21 and younger could not marry.

How about that gays can't marry because the Christians demand that the law follows their own view of morality? Is that good or evil? Since by your argument freedom to choose is the higher standard, then this law is evil. But then again, it's based on your moral, which you consider a higher standard, so somehow this law to you must be good and evil at the same time.

 

So, presuming that there is a God my friend Marcus, is it a bad thing that He created us with a choice to rebel against Him?

 

Now let’s move on to defining “evil”. Evil does not exist, at least as a thing. Evil is simply the absence of good. Darkness, does not exist. Darkness is only the absence of light. Cold, does not exist. Cold is simply the absence of heat. Donut holes(for a tastier example), do not exist. Donut holes are simply the absence of donut. Speaking of which, I now desire some Dunkin’ Donuts. Ah, to live in the Northeast again.

Northeast doesn't exist either, since Northeast is the absence of Southwest. You live in limbo.

 

Simply because one experiences suffering, it does not mean that there is not a God. Hardship does not mean that God does not exist. I would argue that hardship and suffering exists because humans have rejected God, and have developed their own path.

That's right. It doesn't mean that there is no God, but it does mean that Epicurus was right. Either God can't, doesn't care, isn't holy enough to be praised, or doesn't exist. There are multiple choices. But your counter arguments aren't good enough to argue that the Christian God exists and that he is good.

 

Marcus, I must ask, if there is no God, then what is evil? And, what does atheism offer to bring hope out of evil or out of suffering? When a person is suffering, is it simply their tough luck? Is there anything redemptive in suffering? How do you respond to the problem of evil?

So basically, suffering is equal to evil. If a person suffers a rare disease, the Christian comforts the victim by saying, "it's all good, since you have a moral freedom." It doesn't work, does it? Freedom of choice doesn't comfort the suffering person. So this is a red herring. The fox is running of the track. Doesn't really have anything to do with the argued points above.

[Ouroboros]

Ah shit... Look like I've hit the big times. Now two blogs are reporting on my problem of evil post. Who knows who will next.

 

Titled "The Problem of Laziness"

 

The "problem of evil" is one of the more puzzling objections to Christianity. It rests on solely on emotions, and yet for some reason, it is usually one of the first tricks atheists try to pull when justifyng their disbelief. Take this atheist, Marcus. Despite his youth and seeming lack of knowledge regarding a sound, Christian retort to the "problem," he apparently regards it as death knell to Christianity, or at least one reason why he is an apostate. He states the "problem" as follows:

Another guy who starts his argument with a personal attack. I get pissed when they do that, and easily retort with accurate reciprocal parlay.

 

"The amount of human suffering in the natural world is incompatible with a kind, caring, omnipotent father/creator God."

 

Marcus obviously has the inside scoop. If only he would have shared how he could possibly know such a thing, perhaps he might have made a point. Surely as an "ex-Christian" he knows full well that his sin deserves no mercy or grace, and surely he understands - if not agrees with - the concepts of discipline and justice. As it is, the argument is just a string of smuggled assumptions. Just one more example:

First of all, Marcus, you were not smug in your argument, but this Christian is.

 

He doesn't define what "sin" is, so why does this undefined, abstract term deserve punishment?

 

"The Bible says flat out that Yahweh made evil in the first place!"

 

So what? I would say determinism is the solution to the problem of evil, as it implies God has a purpose in causing it. As for the "contradictions" Marcus goes on to tick off, several questions should be asked:

Determinism is the solution? How? He seems to be mixing up words here. What does he mean with "determinism" here? Is he a Calvinist? Or is he talking about the scientific view of determinism? Or mathematical? What?

 

Would determinism imply God has broken His law? Which law? If not, how can one ascribe evil to God's character? Is the discussion not assuming the truth of all Christian doctrines and definitions, including morality (cf. 1 John 3:4)?

 

Also, to whom is God allegedly responsible for His actions? Has he ever read Romans 9:19-23?

I guess I kind of agree with him there though. God doesn't create laws for himself to follow. He creates laws for his creation to follow.

 

Until Marcus or any other atheist can answer these questions, the "problem of evil" rather appears to be a problem of intellectual laziness.

And more personal attacks. Doesn't answer the questions. It only raises the temperature. Basically, this Christian is arguing from pathos more than ethos or logos. So who cares? His response is flawed.

 

Well, I can pretend I didn't see them, or waste precious time telling them why they are retarded. None of them actually addressed my points without going on rabbit trails. This is annoying.

You most likely will waste your time. I gave you some responses above, just to give you something to think about, but in reality, your response will only bring on more personal attacks and pretentious language.

[SairB]

Interestingly enough, I have just succumbed to an old demon and weighed in to a debate on the Catholic Answers forum about exactly this subject.

 

The guy who started the thread (a most odious man, I might add, whose breathtaking arrogance comes through in just about every post he makes on the forum) claimed that basically, the problem of evil doesn't exist because, obviously, god is acting with knowledge we couldn't possibly possess, and from motives we couldn't possibly comprehend. His argument, in a nutshell, is that there is no problem of evil because what we perceive to be evil may not actually turn out to be evil if we knew what god knows.

 

Once I thought this through, I realised that what he had actually done, though he would probably never admit it, was to demonstrate the pointlessness of belief in god - if suffering and evil are going to exist anyway, and we can't know god's reasons and motives, what else is there to do other than just deal with the world as best we can with our limited knowledge? What need to graft a god onto our experience?

 

What do you folks think?

[Loren]

Would determinism imply God has broken His law? Which law? If not, how can one ascribe evil to God's character? Is the discussion not assuming the truth of all Christian doctrines and definitions, including morality (cf. 1 John 3:4)?

 

Also, to whom is God allegedly responsible for His actions? Has he ever read Romans 9:19-23?

I guess I kind of agree with him there though. God doesn't create laws for himself to follow. He creates laws for his creation to follow.

 

For one thing, when he sees that Marcus posits that Christian doctrines and definitions are true, he's doing so for the sake of discussion, with the purpose of showing various kinds of incompatibility. Incompatibility with foundational inference, incompatibility with other "true" doctrines, and so forth. Marcus must start with this position. This idiot seems to think that since these positions were put forth in the first place, that it's a tacit admission that Marcus believes in the truth of them.

 

As Bugs Bunny said, "What a maroon!"

 

The whole business of God's actions being moral by dint of the fact that God did them was one of the nooses that stretched the neck of Christianity for me. The obverse of this argument is clearly that there is no such thing as an action which is inherently moral in and of itself. It absolutely shoots the concept of, "absolute morality," in the head and pisses on it.

 

What this corrupt approach does is reduce all possible virtues to a single thing: The "law" of obedience.

 

It also removes all possibility of any human having any reliable method of determining what action actually is moral in daily life. We can't even look to God's recorded actions in order to try to find moral pattern so that we can learn morality. Everything is reduced to, "Don't worry about it. Just obey."

 

There is a current fad among apologists and Christian "scholars" of demonizing modern culture's acknowledgment that different people have different perspectives on what's right by redefining it as, "moral relativism." It's a real whipping boy these days. Every imaginable atrocity is laid at it's feet. Instead of responding to what moral relativism actually is, which is an act of humility, it's described as a philosophical argument that not only permits, but actually encourages unrestrained license. These apologists say that it means nothing other than, "Do whatever you want to. There is no such thing as, 'wrong.'" The thing is, in all the many times I've heard these jackasses regurgitating this propaganda, they never talk about the other kind of moral relativism: The moral relativism of determining morality by who does it, rather than what it is.

 

If the only true morality is founded on the power and authority, in other words, the social position of the doer of the action, rather than the inherent rightness of the action itself, then that's a moral relativism of the most vile and corrupt kind. If that argument is true, then morality is determined by who does the deed, rather than the rightness of the deed itself.

 

And that's just another way of saying, "There is no morality."

 

The, "It's moral because God did it," argument completely short-circuits the ability of the human being to make the evaluations necessary to come to cogent conclusions about a moral course of action, and that in turn, utterly undermines the justice of holding people to account for their actions.

 

If actions themselves cannot be seen as inherently moral or immoral, and there is also no practical way to look to the decisions of the authority figure for discernible patterns as a guide, then how could the individual be held to account and it still be called, "justice?"

 

This is nothing other than pure, unadulterated moral capriciousness, and that's one of the places it reconnects to what was said of Calvinism and God's own moral accountability.

 

It's certainly true that God would not be morally accountable to any higher authority.

 

But the idea that this is about God answering to a higher authority is a complete red herring. This isn't about God answering to a higher authority, it's about God answering to me!

 

If I'm going to be held accountable for my decision to follow God's directions or not, then I must, in some way, make an evaluation. That's my decision.

 

The fact remains that I am at least accountable to myself. And if I am allowed no way of evaluating the morality of an authority figure by the very system which that authority figure set up, then I can see clearly that morality is truly not what's important to that authority. That being the case, I can't escape being in the position of knowing that said authority figure has lied to me. If the only true morality is obedience to an amoral authority figure, then it could only lead to amoral followers.

 

How could there possibly be any other outcome?

[Ouroboros]

That's right.

 

Either absolute morality exists, and God must adhere to it.

 

Or God creates morality for humans to follow, and morality is not absolute.

 

Some apologists try to make up some kind of middle ground by using the term "God's nature," and with this they intend to argue that God is moral because it is his nature to be moral, he doesn't have to follow it, but he can't refuse it either. In other words, morality is absolute, and it is in God's nature to follow it. But then, it would mean that genocide and all these other atrocities in the Bible are in fact approved by God as moral, and we know that it is not. So which ever way we turn it, there is a gaping hole of logic in the concept of the Christians God.

[thefriendlyghost]

So what it all boils down to is god made us, gave us freewill, AND put evil in the world to ROYALLY MINDFUCK US. Life- the game where NOBODY wins! Jesus, what a swell guy. Making us suffer so he can be the hero and 'rescue' us from the evil HE created in the first place. Sounds like my abusive, sociopathic ex-boyfriend. Seems like Mr.God was just really bored one day, and wanted to stir shit up, just for fun! How's about just buying sea monkeys if that's the case? Pretty hard to fuck up sea monkeys.