Originally posted by FetchmyjunkThat still leaves you in the morally vacuous position that God wiping out most of humanity was morally justifiable, and yet a man telling a lie, even if to prevent harm to others, is not morally justifiable.
The author of life can take it whenever he so pleases. Everyone in our day is going to die, everyone in Noah's day was going to die.
If there is an almighty God, and he has ultimate control over who lives and who dies, then it's not like a human being who goes out and commits genocide. God doesn't commit genocide.
People are going to die anyway, so ...[text shortened]... f. Humanity was killing both itself and God's world. What if the best option was to start again?
And to be blunt, the explanation that the creator can do whatever he wants with his creation just doesn't cut it, especially when we are meant to follow his example.
1 edit
Originally posted by Ghost of a DukeThis is the entire issue that was raised after the rebellion in the garden of Eden, Gods universal sovereignty - that is whether God has the right to expect his creation to adopt his morality or whether creation is justified in exercising moral independence. To reduce this to a kind of dilemma where one act of morality is justified and another not because of its magnitude and severity is to fail to see the whole picture.
That still leaves you in the morally vacuous position that God wiping out most of humanity was morally justifiable, and yet a man telling a lie, even if to prevent harm to others, is not morally justifiable.
And to be blunt, the explanation that the creator can do whatever he wants with his creation just doesn't cut it, especially when we are meant to follow his example.
Has the last six thousand years of moral independence been of benefit to humanity?
Originally posted by Ghost of a DukeI would argue that God is not a moral agent and therefore we cannot judge his actions. God is the Master of life and death, no matter who's life He takes, when He takes it, how He takes it, or why He takes it, it is good. We are not sovereign over human death, which is why we need moral laws to govern our actions in situations that would cause it.
That still leaves you in the morally vacuous position that God wiping out most of humanity was morally justifiable, and yet a man telling a lie, even if to prevent harm to others, is not morally justifiable.
And to be blunt, the explanation that the creator can do whatever he wants with his creation just doesn't cut it, especially when we are meant to follow his example.
The larger debate is over natural law and divine arbitration, whether they are both true, or if one is true.
Originally posted by FetchmyjunkA 'moral agent' is a being who is able to "make moral judgements based on some notion of right and wrong and to be held accountable for these actions. A moral agent is "a being who is capable of acting with reference to right and wrong." (Dictionary definition).
I would argue that God is not a moral agent and therefore we cannot judge his actions. God is the Master of life and death, no matter who's life He takes, when He takes it, how He takes it, or why He takes it, it is good. We are not sovereign over human death, which is why we need moral laws to govern our actions in situations that would cause it.
The ...[text shortened]... ebate is over natural law and divine arbitration, whether they are both true, or if one is true.
By saying 'God is not a moral agent' you are saying He is not able to make moral judgements, doesn't know right from wrong, is not accountable for his actions, and further is not even capable of acting with reference to right and wrong?
Is that really what you are saying and would you like to take this moment to retract your statement that God is not a moral agent? (I know you like quoting dictionary definitions, so will be interesting to see if you reject this one due to it not supporting your argument).
Please note, if you respond to these questions by merely asking a question of your own it will be summarily ignored.