Can God commit evil acts?

[Valmoon]

Just wondering what position the majority of religious adherants on this board espouse.

Can God commit evil?
Is God the standard of morality so that any act he commits is rendered moral?
Does moral law exist independently of God?

I'm sure there are a lot more positions being held. I'm interested in them.

[AtheistArchon]

- Tricky. I like it.

- If god kills a child, is it evil? Perhaps there is a greater purpose in such an act. What might that purpose be?

- If every single thing that god does is good, including the things we view as evil, then I daresay we have a pretty shoddy concept of right and wrong.

[Valmoon]

Would love to hear any opinions on this.

[Brian]

Hello!

Can God commit evil?

Depends on how you define "evil." However, I am going to make an assumption as to what you mean and answer: No.

Is God the standard of morality so that any act he commits is rendered moral?

This may be too broad. Are all acts moral acts? Once again, I will make an assumption as to what you mean and answer: Yes.

Does moral law exist independently of God?

Keeping with the same assumptions as above: No.

Sincerely,

Brian

[Valmoon]

Brian thanks for the reply and I think your assumptions were on target.

I'm not out to offend anyone but I'm trying to get a little more specific on "Is God the standard of morality so that any act he commits is rendered moral?" so:

Could God order that Christian men rape *insert other religion* women? If not what is it that binds his ability to do so?

[TheFiveSolas]

God's inherent (and revealed) nature is the standard by which actions are judged to be morally good or evil. Therefore, moral standards do not exist outside (autonomously) of God.

In addition, an act isn't moral (I'm sure you mean morally good) just because God does it. Or to put it another way, is anything God does morally good just because He is the one doing it? The answer is no. God always acts according to His inherent nature, which He has revealed is good (among other attributes). Therefore, since God does not act contrary to His nature it follows that He cannot do morally evil acts.

[Valmoon]

So does God have "free will" to commit evil? Is he able to act contrary to his very inherent nature?

[Socrates]

AtheistArchon:If god kills a child, is it evil? Perhaps there is a greater purpose in such an act. What might that purpose be?And since when did Christianity depend on the omniscience of a Christian apologist. Rather, the anti-Christian is the one who has to usurp omniscience for himself, because he is, in effect, claiming that there could not POSSIBLY be any greater good to follow from it.

Also, God is the creator of the child, so He has the right to take the child's life. We do not.

[Butters]

"In addition, an act isn't moral (I'm sure you mean morally good) just because God does it. Or to put it another way, is anything God does morally good just because He is the one doing it? The answer is no. God always acts according to His inherent nature, which He has revealed is good (among other attributes). Therefore, since God does not act contrary to His nature it follows that He cannot do morally evil acts."

Let's see, an act isn't morally good just because God does it, but God cannot do morally evil acts, therefore any act God does MUST BE morally correct.

So when God commanded the murder of men, women, and children, this MUST have been a morally correct act.

So if God reveals himself to me and says, "I'm tired of all the stuff these apologists are saying about me, I command you to hunt them down "have their wives in broad daylight", kill their male children, kill them, and take their virgin daughters for your self."

That would be morally correct.
My refusing to do this would be morally incorrect, an act of evil.

I love Christian Objective morality!

"Also, God is the creator of the child, so He has the right to take the child's life. We do not."

Of course, might makes right. God is mighty, he claims to be all good, so we have to take his word for it, because instead of explaining himself to us, he will just send us to hell for not believing him.

[Valmoon]

Bumping in the hopes of more replies. (sorry I waited awhile to do this)

[Bartholomew]

04-12-2003 @ 10:40 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=64054#post64054)
Butters:

"In addition, an act isn't moral (I'm sure you mean morally good) just because God does it. Or to put it another way, is anything God does morally good just because He is the one doing it? The answer is no. God always acts according to His inherent nature, which He has revealed is good (among other attributes). Therefore, since God does not act contrary to His nature it follows that He cannot do morally evil acts."

Let's see, an act isn't morally good just because God does it, but God cannot do morally evil acts, therefore any act God does MUST BE morally correct.

Sounds good.

So when God commanded the murder of men, women, and children, this MUST have been a morally correct act.

Precisely. Abraham was considered righteous for being willing to sacrifice his son, and Rahab for lying about the location of the spies, simply because they were obeying the commands of God. It is interesting to note that these actions would normally be deemed reprehensible by Christians today.

The bottom line? God's rule is moral.

So if God reveals himself to me and says, "I'm tired of all the stuff these apologists are saying about me, I command you to hunt them down "have their wives in broad daylight", kill their male children, kill them, and take their virgin daughters for your self."

That would be morally correct.
My refusing to do this would be morally incorrect, an act of evil.

Yes. It would be moral. If He does tell you that, give me a call so I can leave the country.

I love Christian Objective morality!

Me too. It is quite logical.

"Also, God is the creator of the child, so He has the right to take the child's life. We do not."

Of course, might makes right. God is mighty, he claims to be all good, so we have to take his word for it, because instead of explaining himself to us, he will just send us to hell for not believing him.

And what would be wrong with that?

~Matt

[Valmoon]

Can God at one moment in time say that it is immoral for a woman to sleep with a man she is not married to but at another moment in time say that it is moral for a woman to sleep with a man she is not married to?

[Bartholomew]

Today @ 09:30 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=66937#post66937)
Valmoon:

Can God at one moment in time say that it is immoral for a woman to sleep with a man she is not married to but at another moment in time say that it is moral for a woman to sleep with a man she is not married to?

How are you defining God?

I would answer this question with a "yes," simply because he is not telling the same woman that sleeping with a man is at the same time moral and immoral.

God's law says not to lie, yet that is exactly what Rahab did when she hid the spies.

The bottom line is that the law is not black-and-white; God's commandments to his people, whatever they may be at that time, are.

~Matt

[Valmoon]

I take it that you would not believe in absolutes in regards to morality then. Am I understanding your correctly?

[Bartholomew]

Today @ 10:44 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=67050#post67050)
Valmoon:

I take it that you would not believe in absolutes in regards to morality then. Am I understanding your correctly?

From where did you deduce this absurd idea? I am sure that you know the lack of absolutes with regards morality is a self-defeating principle.

The one moral absolute I adhere to is that God's word is the final say.

I'm sorry that I was not clear in my previous response to you,
~Matt

[Valmoon]

Aren't absolutes unchanging?

In reply to this question I asked:

"Can God at one moment in time say that it is immoral for a woman to sleep with a man she is not married to but at another moment in time say that it is moral for a woman to sleep with a man she is not married to?"


You said:

"How are you defining God?

I would answer this question with a "yes," simply because he is not telling the same woman that sleeping with a man is at the same time moral and immoral."


This seems to argue against the idea of absolutes.


Could Jesus have chosen to murder or rape a woman or was he bound in some way from carrying out such an act?

Is saying that his nature prevents him from doing so just another way of saying he has no choice in the matter? If not please explain.

[Bartholomew]

Today @ 06:38 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=67301#post67301)
Valmoon:

Aren't absolutes unchanging?

That would be correct.

In reply to this question I asked:

"Can God at one moment in time say that it is immoral for a woman to sleep with a man she is not married to but at another moment in time say that it is moral for a woman to sleep with a man she is not married to?"


You said:

"How are you defining God?

I would answer this question with a "yes," simply because he is not telling the same woman that sleeping with a man is at the same time moral and immoral."


This seems to argue against the idea of absolutes.

Perhaps your absolutes, but how is it arguing against the absolute?

Could Jesus have chosen to murder or rape a woman or was he bound in some way from carrying out such an act?

If God told Him to do it, Jesus would have to obey.

Is saying that his nature prevents him from doing so just another way of saying he has no choice in the matter? If not please explain.

He nature prevents him from doing that because his nature is God's nature. But, God does have choice in the matter. The question is if He will choose that evil course of action, and God, being the ultimately rational being, would not choose it.

I guess you could say He can't do anything against his reasoning...anyway, I'm off to class.

btw. I don't think Jesus would ever do the act in question; I don't think God would ordain it.

~Matt