Is it wrong to judge the morality of God's actions?

[Sarkus]

You may think it sophistry, James R. That doesn't mean that it is to those that believe other than you do. So calling it sophistry is really just you saying that you don't understand/comprehend/acknowledge what they believe, and their position. That's okay. You don't need to. But then you can't legitimately talk about their God as if you do. You can only look at it from an external p.o.v. and treat it as other than the God it is believed to be.

As for the question you ask, it's a loaded question: there's no scriptoral evidence that God would ever punish someone in the manner you ask. There is mention of eternal punishment, but not "burning in fire". Then there is mention of "lakes of fire" (Revelations) but nothing with regard eternity. So, where are you getting this idea of God punishing people in such a manner? Man-made threats to make people behave, perhaps?

But then let's have a look at what religions actually believe with regard such a punishment: it is actually only a minority that believe in a literal burning in hell for eternity. To many sects, the "burning" is metaphorical, to reflect their separation from God. Catholics, Eastern Orthodox, many mainstream Protestants believe this interpretation. Some believe hell is self-chosen, not something God inflicts, as people freely reject God, etc. Again, Catholics, Protestants etc. Some sects don't believe that it is "eternal", and that it is temporary and purifying. There are some who believe that the "burning in hell for eternity" is a metaphor for simply ceasing to exist.
So the answer one gives, even granting the premises, really does depend on what one believes in this matter.

Then, even if one accepts that premise that God does punish some by sending them to burn in hell for eternity, the question is one of whether the punishment is just. If one rejects the infinite (God), can any punishment ever reach the level of being unjust?

Every Christian religion will likely have answers to such questions. They've had 2,000 years to work on them, after all. You, nor I, may find them particularly convincing, but, frankly, so what. We don't believe God even exists. And, no, I don't have all the answers.

 

[James R]

Sarkus:

You may think it sophistry, James R.

Thanks for giving me your permission to think my own thoughts, Sarkus. Much appreciated. I don't know what I'd do without you.

That doesn't mean that it is to those that believe other than you do.

I think you vastly overestimate the sophistication of your average Christian, when it comes to considering God's morality.

So calling it sophistry is really just you saying that you don't understand/comprehend/acknowledge what they believe, and their position.

You are trying to insult me again. I understand it just fine, I assure you, and I also understand what motivates you to be so insulting. Do you?

I also acknowledge that a few Christians have rationalised things this way over the centuries.

I think that, really, you are saying that you don't understand the problem, without even realising that is what you're saying.

So, there we are. Now we're at an impasse.

Do you want to wave your penis at me some more and double down on your claim that I'm too dumb to understand this properly? That would be consistent with your usual behaviour. I notice that, the minute I wrote a one-line comment on somebody else's post to this thread, you felt like you had to jump in, as if you somehow felt personally slighted that I would post again to this thread.

But then you can't legitimately talk about their God as if you do. You can only look at it from an external p.o.v. and treat it as other than the God it is believed to be.

I don't see why I should accept poor rationalisations and apologetics for a god that is almost certainly not even real. You go right ahead and do that, though, if it makes you happy.

As for the question you ask, it's a loaded question: there's no scriptoral evidence that God would ever punish someone in the manner you ask.

A lack of scriptural evidence has never stopped Christians from believing whatever they want to believe about their God. Besides, that was just one example, and I only mentioned it because it was mentioned in one of the sources I referred to.

We could look at any number of evil acts of Yahweh, most of them very well attested to in the "scripture". I have directed you towards a few specific examples previously. You were unwilling to engage in a discussion of any of them.

So, where are you getting this idea of God punishing people in such a manner?

It's a very long tradition in certain strands of Christianity.

Christianity is not a single edifice, Sarkus. Why do you think there are so many separate denominations and sects of Christianity? The answer is simple: they all diverge in certain aspects of what they believe about Jesus and God, about what is required to get into heaven, and more.

Man-made threats to make people behave, perhaps?

The Old Testament is more or less a continuous threat by God to try to get the Israelites to behave. Have you read it?

But then let's have a look at what religions actually believe with regard such a punishment: it is actually only a minority that believe in a literal burning in hell for eternity. To many sects, the "burning" is metaphorical, to reflect their separation from God. Catholics, Eastern Orthodox, many mainstream Protestants believe this interpretation.

A metaphorical eternal punishment. Okay. If you say so.

Some believe hell is self-chosen, not something God inflicts, as people freely reject God, etc.

That's poor thinking. After all, God has the ultimate power and control in the situation. If he wanted to end eternal punishment - or prevent it from happening in the first place - he could.

Some sects don't believe that it is "eternal", and that it is temporary and purifying.

I'm sure they have some kind of "scriptural" justification for that view, as well.

There are some who believe that the "burning in hell for eternity" is a metaphor for simply ceasing to exist.

What of heaven, then, and being with the Father after death? Simply ceasing to exist kind of obviates the whole Christian project, does it not?

So the answer one gives, even granting the premises, really does depend on what one believes in this matter.

Indeed. You're in for a hard uphill battle if you're going to keep trying to defend Christian morality.

Then, even if one accepts that premise that God does punish some by sending them to burn in hell for eternity, the question is one of whether the punishment is just. If one rejects the infinite (God), can any punishment ever reach the level of being unjust?

Why would an infinite God give two hoots about whether a mortal human (that he caused to be created) rejected him? Is his ego really so fragile?

But let us suppose that God's ego really is that fragile. Is it then just to punish a person for eternity, for a "crime" committed in a short and brutish mortal lifetime? Is that your idea of justice?

Every Christian religion will likely have answers to such questions.

Yes. Sophistry such as the example we have just explored.

They've had 2,000 years to work on them, after all.

2000 years of vested interests and cultural imperialism.

You, nor I, may find them particularly convincing, but, frankly, so what.

So, it makes sense to dispense with faulty notions and to try to promote more sensible ones. It increases net human wellbeing.

We don't believe God even exists. And, no, I don't have all the answers.

Your humbleness greatly impresses me. Perhaps other readers will be similarly impressed.

 

[Sarkus]

Thanks for giving me your permission to think my own thoughts, Sarkus. Much appreciated. I don't know what I'd do without you.

??? I was simply stating a comparison: you may do this, others may do that. Standard English language. Why do you choose to pick an interpretation of "may" that you feel slight's you, rather than any other interpretation that makes more sense in cotext?? It wouldn't be to pick a fight, would it? "May" in this context is merely expressing that you are doing one thing out of many options. Nothing to do with permission. So stop trying to pick a fight.

I think you vastly overestimate the sophistication of your average Christian, when it comes to considering God's morality.

I'm talking about classical theism and the religions that follow it. I can't and don't speak with regard individual people. For the religions in question, there is no sophistry. You may call it that, but to them it is not.

You are trying to insult me again.

No insult intended. If you did understand it, you would accept the arguments as they relate to classical theism, rather than disputing them. But you don't accept them. So no insult, just a statement of fact, as evidenced by you calling them sophistry.

I understand it just fine, I assure you, and I also understand what motivates you to be so insulting. Do you?

Again, you're just looking to pick a fight, James R. Please don't. Nothing I have said warrants you trying to do so.

I also acknowledge that a few Christians have rationalised things this way over the centuries.

"A few". I am referring to the actual religions in question. Those religions that follow classical theism. I.e. Catholics, the majority of protestants, etc. I can not and do not speak with regard individuals.

I think that, really, you are saying that you don't understand the problem, without even realising that is what you're saying.

So, there we are. Now we're at an impasse.

Whereas my criticism was evidenced by your referring to the arguments of classical theism as sophistry, your criticism of me is self-sealing. It can be thus ignored as such.

Do you want to wave your penis at me some more and double down on your claim that I'm too dumb to understand this properly? That would be consistent with your usual behaviour. I notice that, the minute I wrote a one-line comment on somebody else's post to this thread, you felt like you had to jump in, as if you somehow felt personally slighted that I would post again to this thread.

Please stop looking to pick a fight, James R. Nothing I wrote above warrants it.

I don't see why I should accept poor rationalisations and apologetics for a god that is almost certainly not even real. You go right ahead and do that, though, if it makes you happy.

No one is asking you to accept them on a personal level. The point is that if you don't accept them then you're not judging the morality of their God. And if you do accept them then there is no point in judging the morality of their God.
It's no more complex than that.

A lack of scriptural evidence has never stopped Christians from believing whatever they want to believe about their God. Besides, that was just one example, and I only mentioned it because it was mentioned in one of the sources I referred to.

Sure, and your example has been answered.

We could look at any number of evil acts of Yahweh, most of them very well attested to in the "scripture". I have directed you towards a few specific examples previously. You were unwilling to engage in a discussion of any of them.

You beg the question by referring to "any number of evil acts". Classical theism disputes this premise from the outset. To them there are zero "evil acts" by Yahweh, as I have been explaining. Discussing any of individually will not alter the metaphysics behing their view, will not alter one jot that their God is good, and does not do anything other than good. Yes, people not adhering to the same metaphysics will arrive at different views on the matters, but then if you're not adhering to the same metaphysics you're not referring to the same God that they believe in. So to look at individual examples is pointless, as it doesn't further the issue at all.

It's a very long tradition in certain strands of Christianity.

Some small sects, perhaps. Within classical theism the vast majority do not believe in a literal burning in a literal hell as being a punishment from God. Most believers in the literal interpretation are not adherents to classical theism.

Christianity is not a single edifice, Sarkus. Why do you think there are so many separate denominations and sects of Christianity? The answer is simple: they all diverge in certain aspects of what they believe about Jesus and God, about what is required to get into heaven, and more.

I don't disagree. I am, and have been, referring to classical theism. I have made this quite clear throughout, have I not? It covers the vast majority of Christians. It does not, however, include all Christians. If Christians of non-classical theism want to believe in literal burning in hell for all eternity, that's up to them, and I'll let them answer the matter from their perspective.

The Old Testament is more or less a continuous threat by God to try to get the Israelites to behave. Have you read it?

I have read it, James R. Your point being?

A metaphorical eternal punishment. Okay. If you say so.

Flippancy doesn't help.

That's poor thinking. After all, God has the ultimate power and control in the situation. If he wanted to end eternal punishment - or prevent it from happening in the first place - he could.

So what if God has that power? If he has given people freewill, and people self-choose, why should he intervene?

I'm sure they have some kind of "scriptural" justification for that view, as well.

They do. Malachi 3:2-3, 1 Corinthians 3:13-15, for example.

What of heaven, then, and being with the Father after death? Simply ceasing to exist kind of obviates the whole Christian project, does it not?

FYI: Annihilationists may be Christian, but they aren't classical theists. It is actually incompatible with classical theism. I gave their view just to show that there is a diverse range of interpretations.

Indeed. You're in for a hard uphill battle if you're going to keep trying to defend Christian morality.

Vacuuous.

Why would an infinite God give two hoots about whether a mortal human (that he caused to be created) rejected him? Is his ego really so fragile?

In classical theism, God has no ego. He doesn't "care" in the way one human might care for another. God's feelings can not be hurt, he needs no validation, has no pride etc. He "cares" because he is goodness itself. If you want an analogy, it is somewhat like a doctor caring that a patient refuses medicine. It is not because the doctor feels slighted. There is no ego involved. No offence taken. They "care" because the patient is harming themselves by not taking the medicine.
So, no, nothing to do with ego.

But let us suppose that God's ego really is that fragile. Is it then just to punish a person for eternity, for a "crime" committed in a short and brutish mortal lifetime? Is that your idea of justice?

Classical theism rejects the premise of the question. God has no ego.

Yes. Sophistry such as the example we have just explored.

I refer you to #241,

2000 years of vested interests and cultural imperialism.

2000 years of philosophical thinking. From Plato, Aristotle to Anshelm, Aquinas, and beyond.

So, it makes sense to dispense with faulty notions and to try to promote more sensible ones. It increases net human wellbeing.

You are assuming that they all start with the same metaphysics that you do. They do not. What you might consider to be "faulty notions" under your metaphysical outlook might be nothing of the sort under theirs.

 

[Sarkus]

To return the thread to the actual question posed...

Let me ask: to what end does one judge the morality of God’s actions? If God’s actions are necessarily good, as classical theism asserts, what purpose is served by declaring them "evil"?

Is the goal truly “to correct faulty notions and promote more sensible ones”? If so, on what metaphysical foundation can one determine which notions are faulty? Each person’s beliefs and arguments are built upon a metaphysical framework. If these frameworks are internally consistent and not demonstrably false, then simply standing across from one another and shouting “you are wrong, your notions are faulty” simly ignores the very foundations of the other’s position. To have any meaningful dialogue, one must surely first understand the metaphysics upon which the other’s beliefs are built, and appreciate how their conclusions follow from that framework. This is true for both sides.
It is not enough to claim understanding, and then ignore them. E.g. to claim that you acknowledge their metaphysical position that "God is good" and then turn round the next moment with a loaded question about the "evil actions of Yahweh".

So is the aim to persuade someone to abandon their foundational beliefs? But how could one do that? And even if one could, by what standard is one person’s metaphysics superior to another’s? Is it simply “might makes right,” or an appeal to popularity?

Or is it really just an excuse to "bash" religions and religious adherents? "Look, your God is evil!" sort of thing.


Ultimately, is there any point in judging the morality of God's actions?
The vast majority of believers in God hold that God is good, that God can do no evil. There is thus no value in a judgement, as the judgement is a given. The only value lies in understanding why the action is good: the reasoning, the purpose, or other metaphysical principles behind it.

The minority of believers who think God can do evil? They are extremely rare. While theoretically such positions could exist, they constitute a tiny minority, and I am not aware of any significant examples in the mainstream. For them, sure, I'll accept that a judgement of the the morality of God's actions might have value.

For non-believers, any judgement of God's morality is made from outside the metaphysical framework in which God's actions are defined. If the believer’s framework is internally consistent and logically coherent, the non-believer is not evaluating God objectively, but rather measuring God against their own assumptions. As a result, such moral judgments are not assessments of God, but effectively attacks on the religion and its adherents. The judgement tells us more about the non-believer’s metaphysical assumptions than about that which they are ostensibly judging.

So is there any point? There doesn't seem to be: either it is redundant, too rare to consider, or just a proxy for bashing religions rather than engaging meaningfully.

But, heck, maybe that is the point?

 

[James R]

Let me ask: to what end does one judge the morality of God’s actions? If God’s actions are necessarily good, as classical theism asserts, what purpose is served by declaring them "evil"?

Let me ask: to what end does one judge God if classical theism asserts that, as far as God is concerned, black is white? If God is necessarily the perfect being, as classical theism asserts, what purpose is served by pointing out that black isn't, in point of fact, white?

 

[Sarkus]

Let me ask: to what end does one judge God if classical theism asserts that, as far as God is concerned, black is white?

Wow. Four informal fallacies in a single question. Not bad.

Strawman (whodathunkit). Classical theism does not assert that God can be contradictory, but rather the opposite, that He can not be. Therefore to ask how He can be is to argue not against God/classical theism but against your ongoing caricature version thereof.

Loaded question. You are asserting a premise that is not true (namely that God can make contradictions) that must be accepted in any direct answer. Since this premise is not granted, the statement is loaded, and can thus be ignored.

Begging the question. Your question assumes that which it is trying to prove: that classical theism is unintelligible (through contradiction).

Category error. Treating a moral judgement as if it is a matter of objective fact, divorced from metaphysical framework.

And these are just off the top of my head. There may be more, but I'll stick with these four.


TL;DR: your question is fallacious: God does not say that black is white, nor does classical theism say that God does.

If God is necessarily the perfect being, as classical theism asserts, what purpose is served by pointing out that black isn't, in point of fact, white?

This question, if intended as a separate one, suffers the same flaws as your first. If it was intended simply as a reframing of the first, well, the comments above should suffice.


Maybe start with the assumptions that they start with, their metaphysical framework. Then try to look at God's actions through their lens. That's the only way to really understand their position. You don't have to accept it. I don't. You might question why they hold to such a metaphysical framework (that would be an entirely different thread, of course), but just obstinately refusing to do anything but look at things through your own framework is going to get you nowhere in understanding them. Of course, that presupposes that you are even interested in understanding them, which is certainly not a given.

But please at least stop asking such fallacious questions.