Originally posted by LemonJello
Uhm, even if true, so what?

So what are you bemoaning? That the jurisdiction of God extends to all of
God's creation? That the justice of God isn't what you feel is it should be
because it offends your morals?
Kelly

Originally posted by KellyJay
So what are you bemoaning? That the jurisdiction of God extends to all of
God's creation? That the justice of God isn't what you feel is it should be
because it offends your morals?
Kelly

We are bemoaning that it offends our morals - and yes, if it offends our morals, then the justice of God isn't what we feel it should be.

Originally posted by KellyJay
So what are you bemoaning? That the jurisdiction of God extends to all of
God's creation? That the justice of God isn't what you feel is it should be
because it offends your morals?
Kelly

I'm not bemoaning anything. I was pointing out through rhetoric that your comments there have nothing to do with addressing the central question of this thread: even if what you say there is true, it is irrelevant.

Originally posted by KellyJay
So what are you bemoaning? That the jurisdiction of God extends to all of
God's creation? That the justice of God isn't what you feel is it should be
because it offends your morals?
Kelly

KellyJay... [EDIT: also interested in any other theists position on this issue, although probably less interested if not actually prepared to pin your colours to the mast and actually answer the question]

Can you answer me this question?


Imagine the worst, most despicable, act of gross immorality and evil you
can think of. An act which turns your stomach even to think of and if
someone perpetrated that act you would despise them for it...

Would you accept that same horrible act as being good and wonderful,
if your god came down and told you that that act was morally good?



Please note I am not asking whether you think your god would do that.
I am asking IF they did, would you accept that that act you currently
consider to be abominable, to now be moral and good.



And so you know exactly where I am going with this, so I am not setting you up.

This is the Euthyphro Dilemma.

If you truly believe that your god is the SOURCE of morality. If you believe
that what your god declares to be moral is moral simply because your god
says that it is so...

Then you must answer that you would indeed consider the most vile act you
or we can possibly imagine could be made to be moral and good if your god
decreed that it should be considered so.


If you can't do that, If there are things that you would, and indeed could, never
accept as being morally good. Then god is not, and cannot, be the source of your
morality. As there is something else you are using to determine whether or not
gods commands are moral.




Naturally I, and I suspect most here, would come down on the side that says that
there are acts we could never consider to be moral even if a god commanded that they
be considered so.

Thus we are committed to a secular morality of some sort, and how you determine what
is or is not moral is an interesting and important question without a glib and easy answer.

However, where we can measure the effect of different moral choices we can objectively
compare different moral strategies to determine which ones work best.

For those who believe that morality is the diktat of a god, they are stuck with a subjective
morality. Obliged to go with the whims of their respective deities.


This has nothing whatsoever to do with gods abilities to enforce their views through sheer
might. It's even irrelevant to this argument whether gods actually exist or not.
It's whether or not gods actions or commands can be tested against an external yard
stick, or not.

Originally posted by googlefudge
Imagine the worst, most despicable, act of gross
immorality and evil you can think of. An act which turns
your stomach even to think of and if
someone perpetrated that act you would despise them for it...

Would you accept that same horrible act as being good and wonderful,
if your god came down and told you that that act was morally good?
[/b]

Isnt this the story of Abraham and Isaac?

Originally posted by LemonJello
I'm not bemoaning anything. I was pointing out through rhetoric that your comments there have nothing to do with addressing the central question of this thread: even if what you say there is true, it is irrelevant.

I've been addressing the question that sits in the name of the thread.
No matter, as each thread can take on a life of its own and hit many
targets each person can shift the discussion as they bring up points about
this, that, or the other thing. I've practically begged you to spill share what
it is exactly you going on about, yet you just give me this dribble about
missing the op, how many threads have you been that have morphed into
other discussions?
Kelly

Originally posted by wolfgang59
Isnt this the story of Abraham and Isaac?

Well it's related.

I would certainly think that murdering your own children counts as
one of the horrible acts that god couldn't decree to be morally good.

In fact when I think of this problem, I often think of a scene from the
Powerful film "Downfall". http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0363163/

[Spoilers?]

In it there is a scene where the Goebbels who have brought their children
into the bunker, give them a drink to make them fall asleep, and then give
them each one by one a cyanide pill as they slept.... Before they themselves
commit suicide. And believe me when I say (for those that haven't seen the
film) these words do not do justice to how awful and painful that scene is to
watch. [because of the content. The acting and direction ect is superb]

Of all the things in the film that piss me off (and there are many) that gets me
the most. I have to watch this film in the middle of a bright sunny day and then
watch something light and fluffy afterwards, otherwise I end up too pissed off
to be able to sleep.

Now what any given person will think of as their 'worst possible evil thing' when I
ask the question of what they would accept god declaring to be moral.

However that is the example I give, of what you would have to allow if you believe
that god can command anything be moral.

Originally posted by KellyJay
I've been addressing the question that sits in the name of the thread.
No matter, as each thread can take on a life of its own and hit many
targets each person can shift the discussion as they bring up points about
this, that, or the other thing. I've practically begged you to spill share what
it is exactly you going on about, yet you just give me this ...[text shortened]... missing the op, how many threads have you been that have morphed into
other discussions?
Kelly

To save time, I am just going to repost what I told you waaaaaay back on page 7 of this thread:

I think you have clearly failed to understand what is at issue. If you look back to the beginning of this thread, galveston75 asked if God has the 'right' to kill and then asked by extension, in the OP, if we have any thoughts as to why He would do such things. So, you see, in context the question goes to investigating a sort of legitimacy to the action; and the exercise here is to understand if there are reasons (or not) for those actions that would serve in some capacity as justifiers or legitimizers.

Originally posted by googlefudge
Well it's related.

I would certainly think that murdering your own children counts as
one of the horrible acts that god couldn't decree to be morally good.

In fact when I think of this problem, I often think of a scene from the
Powerful film "Downfall". http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0363163/

[Spoilers?]

In it there is a scene where the Go ...[text shortened]... I give, of what you would have to allow if you believe
that god can command anything be moral.

Bah. I appear to have mangled the penultimate sentence. It was supposed to read thus...

Now what any given person will think of as their 'worst possible evil thing' when I
ask the question of what they would accept god declaring to be moral, is going to
vary.


However that is the example I give, of what you would have to allow if you believe
that god can command anything be moral.

Apologies for not catching this, It's what happens when you read what is supposed to
be there and not what is actually there.

Originally posted by LemonJello
To save time, I am just going to repost what I told you waaaaaay back on page 7 of this thread:

I think you have clearly failed to understand what is at issue. If you look back to the beginning of this thread, galveston75 asked if God has the 'right' to kill and then asked by extension, in the OP, if we have any thoughts as to why He would do su ...[text shortened]... not) for those actions that would serve in some capacity as justifiers or legitimizers.

Yes, I remember that, and it still at least in my mind center around does
God have the right to kill which goes back to jurisdiction of God's justice
in my opinion. God has the right within His kingdom to do as he wills.

What question is there with legitimacy, there is a king being king in his own
kingdom? He is either king or not.

I do not believe that is the question you are really asking! You seem to be
more upset by some of God's judgments or actions, which is not a question
of is God in His right to act, but is God good in how He does act. Which is a
different question.
Kelly

Originally posted by KellyJay
Yes, I remember that, and it still at least in my mind center around does
God have the right to kill which goes back to jurisdiction of God's justice
in my opinion. God has the right within His kingdom to do as he wills.

What question is there with legitimacy, there is a king being king in his own
kingdom? He is either king or not.

I do not believe ...[text shortened]... in His right to act, but is God good in how He does act. Which is a
different question.
Kelly

Can you, and will you, please answer my question, 3rd down on page 16?



As for what you just said... I think there is a difference in the interpretation
of the word 'right'...

Our interpretation could be phrased as "Moral right", as opposed to you, who seem
to be interpreting it as "legal right".

Both interpretations could be considered valid, and argued for.
However that's a boring argument, and benefits nobody.


So lets discuss our actual question, which is as you say about whether god is
good [moral] in how he acts. And whether god's acts are moral simply because
it is god doing them.


EDIT: And He's [god] not king anywhere around here.
And as someone who lives in a kingdom, it should be noted that kings had to
learn what they could and could not do in 'their kingdoms', because if they
just tried to do anything they liked it turned out they could loose their heads.

Originally posted by KellyJay
Yes, I remember that, and it still at least in my mind center around does
God have the right to kill which goes back to jurisdiction of God's justice
in my opinion. God has the right within His kingdom to do as he wills.

What question is there with legitimacy, there is a king being king in his own
kingdom? He is either king or not.

I do not believe ...[text shortened]... in His right to act, but is God good in how He does act. Which is a
different question.
Kelly

Yes, I remember that, and it still at least in my mind center around does
God have the right to kill which goes back to jurisdiction of God's justice
in my opinion. God has the right within His kingdom to do as he wills.

Do you have any thoughts on why He would do these things, like sanctioning genocide and the like? Answer: no, you do not. In fact, you've already stated that you think such insight will only be divulged to you on judgment day. So, there we go: you simply have no relevant input toward the question in the OP. On that question, you have no insight to add.

I do not believe that is the question you are really asking!

Well more's the pity for you, then, because that in context is the question at issue. Do you have any reasons in virtue of which God, in His supposedly infinite wisdom on all matters, would carry out such actions as the sanctioning of genocide? The answer seems to be no you do not. I think you have already established that.

Originally posted by LemonJello

Yes, I remember that, and it still at least in my mind center around does
God have the right to kill which goes back to jurisdiction of God's justice
in my opinion. God has the right within His kingdom to do as he wills.

Do you have any thoughts on why He would do these things, like sanctioning genocide and the like? Answer: no, you d ...[text shortened]... of genocide? The answer seems to be no you do not. I think you have already established that.

"Do you have any thoughts on why He would do these things, like sanctioning genocide and the like? Answer: no, you do not. In fact, you've already stated that you think such insight will only be divulged to you on judgment day. So, there we go: you simply have no relevant input toward the question in the OP. On that question, you have no insight to add."

No one knows why God does anything outside of God, you cannot even
reach inside of my mind and know why I'm doing anything. You may guess,
but if that is the standard for me to stay in this conversation as far as your
concern I guess I'll just drop out, and leave it to you who I assume does
know why God does everything.
Kelly

Originally posted by KellyJay
[bNo one knows why God does anything outside of God, .... and leave it to you who I assume does
know why God does everything.
Kelly[/b]

If I believed in a god or gods I may well concede that mere mortals
could never fully understand the minds of such deities, however that
would make me even more curious and I would attempt to know the mind
of my god, discuss it at every opportunity and be involved in every debate.

For the life of me I cannot understand such a pitiful
attitude - such as yours - towards knowledge.
Particularly knowledge of something you
presumably are interested in.