DeletedUser8396
Guest
Why is lying wrong? Morally wrong, that is? Murder? Rape? Why is that wrong? If we operate under the assumption that there is a God and further assume that it is the Christian God, then the answer becomes clear on the surface: He gave us rules to follow.
But why are His rules good and why do we have to follow them? What authority does He have to establish a moral code and why are the things listed in that moral code good or bad? Allow me to explain:
First, let me establish God’s authority in establishing rules and His authority to tell us to obey those very rules. In the world where this God exists, He would be the Supreme Being. The most powerful being to exist. This alone allows him to set a moral standard and tell others to obey it due to the fact no one can usurp Him or claim a higher level of intellect to challenge the rules given. Furthermore, assuming this same God created the individuals He is giving the rules to, He then has ownership over the created thing. As His possession, He can do with His possession whatever He wishes. His authority is present.
Secondly, we were given the rules. The 10 Commandments, Leviticus, and others. We were told to obey these rules. Since He has the authority to create them and tell us to obey, we must obey or face the consequences of disobeying His rules.
But why would we be punished? What makes deception, theft, or murder wrong? Are the acts wrong in and of themselves? If so, then why did the actions in Leviticus suddenly become acceptable once again after Christ (if the God is consistent, the morality of the act cannot be changed)? Since the moral code did change, the actions in and of themselves cannot be morally wrong. However, they are wrong because we were told not to do them and that alone. As long as the command that they are wrong is sustained, the acts continue to be wrong. If the command changes, the act is then alright.
Thus, sin is defined as disobeying a command from the Supreme Being, not a moral definition applied universally to an act that applies to God whether He wants the particular act to be considered evil or not. Sin is disobedience.
This then means that anything NOT commanded by the God is not evil. If we then apply this to God, we can see that actions by God Himself are not limited whatsoever by the morality we have applied to us, unless God applied the same commands to Himself.
The argument cannot be used that God is omnibenevolent (all good) and thus would never murder because of the omnibenevolence if He never specifically commanded Himself to murder. If He has not commanded it that He cannot murder, if God murders someone he has committed no wrong and maintains the omnibenevolence.
Therefore, God can apply any code of conduct to Himself which is completely distinct from the code given to humanity. Some would argue this is wrong and immoral- a double standard. In human terms, yes. But if God has not commanded Himself that double standards are morally wrong for Him to commit, He remains perfectly moral in His nature when giving a double standard.
Finally, this means that God is capable of anything Humans deem evil, but He remains good and perfect in doing so because He has not violated a code of conduct given to Himself.
This poses a problem. A significant problem in the eyes of most Christians. If God can commit things we consider vile and evil such as lying, murder, cheating and the like, how can we possibly trust and praise Him for loving us and having our best interests at heart? For this, I turn to a part of the Molinism theory.
The idea is that God, by being perfect, aims to create the best possible world. This best possible world is determined by Him and by His own morality (which, remember, usurps both our own morality and our comprehension). If He then manages to make the best world, even by doing things we would consider evil based on the code of conduct supplied to us, we cannot rightfully judge Him on even our own moral code for any other world created would be worse than the one we live in.
But why are His rules good and why do we have to follow them? What authority does He have to establish a moral code and why are the things listed in that moral code good or bad? Allow me to explain:
First, let me establish God’s authority in establishing rules and His authority to tell us to obey those very rules. In the world where this God exists, He would be the Supreme Being. The most powerful being to exist. This alone allows him to set a moral standard and tell others to obey it due to the fact no one can usurp Him or claim a higher level of intellect to challenge the rules given. Furthermore, assuming this same God created the individuals He is giving the rules to, He then has ownership over the created thing. As His possession, He can do with His possession whatever He wishes. His authority is present.
Secondly, we were given the rules. The 10 Commandments, Leviticus, and others. We were told to obey these rules. Since He has the authority to create them and tell us to obey, we must obey or face the consequences of disobeying His rules.
But why would we be punished? What makes deception, theft, or murder wrong? Are the acts wrong in and of themselves? If so, then why did the actions in Leviticus suddenly become acceptable once again after Christ (if the God is consistent, the morality of the act cannot be changed)? Since the moral code did change, the actions in and of themselves cannot be morally wrong. However, they are wrong because we were told not to do them and that alone. As long as the command that they are wrong is sustained, the acts continue to be wrong. If the command changes, the act is then alright.
Thus, sin is defined as disobeying a command from the Supreme Being, not a moral definition applied universally to an act that applies to God whether He wants the particular act to be considered evil or not. Sin is disobedience.
This then means that anything NOT commanded by the God is not evil. If we then apply this to God, we can see that actions by God Himself are not limited whatsoever by the morality we have applied to us, unless God applied the same commands to Himself.
The argument cannot be used that God is omnibenevolent (all good) and thus would never murder because of the omnibenevolence if He never specifically commanded Himself to murder. If He has not commanded it that He cannot murder, if God murders someone he has committed no wrong and maintains the omnibenevolence.
Therefore, God can apply any code of conduct to Himself which is completely distinct from the code given to humanity. Some would argue this is wrong and immoral- a double standard. In human terms, yes. But if God has not commanded Himself that double standards are morally wrong for Him to commit, He remains perfectly moral in His nature when giving a double standard.
Finally, this means that God is capable of anything Humans deem evil, but He remains good and perfect in doing so because He has not violated a code of conduct given to Himself.
This poses a problem. A significant problem in the eyes of most Christians. If God can commit things we consider vile and evil such as lying, murder, cheating and the like, how can we possibly trust and praise Him for loving us and having our best interests at heart? For this, I turn to a part of the Molinism theory.
The idea is that God, by being perfect, aims to create the best possible world. This best possible world is determined by Him and by His own morality (which, remember, usurps both our own morality and our comprehension). If He then manages to make the best world, even by doing things we would consider evil based on the code of conduct supplied to us, we cannot rightfully judge Him on even our own moral code for any other world created would be worse than the one we live in.
Last edited by a moderator:
