Religion is good because it gives the believer an objective and absolute standard of morality

[Vivacia]

(This idea was introduced in another thread, but it felt like an unfair tangent for that thread to be taking in my humble opinion, but one I'd be interested in discussing).

Firstly, I absolutely disagree with the statement.

Secondly, I feel as an atheist I have an objective morality, if not an absolute one.

head ... when people heard the Isaac story at the time, the major surprise would have been that this god doesn't actually want child sacrifice. That you are appaled by the Isaac story shows how useful it has been in changing people's attitudes.

I agree. I mentioned up-thread that the argument is that the EXISTENCE of God provides an objective standard, not the BELIEF in one.

my question is how? and why? if god is capable of nasty things (as in the OT) why should we do what he says?

My point is that god gives his moral decisions authority (like a king) but not objectivity. If god says to go do something bad, I should disagree.

head ... when people heard the Isaac story at the time, the major surprise would have been that this god doesn't actually want child sacrifice. That you are appaled by the Isaac story shows how useful it has been in changing people's attitudes.

Where is the logic in doing something to show you find it despicable. Would you ever accept that logic anywhere else? Imagine you read a headline that said "Man found about to rape child, says he was doing it to demonstrate to child how much he hates paedophilia?"

How do you transmit your disgust for things? Do you get people to think you are all for it?

Are you actually saying that the Isaac story is somehow pivotal in us not sacrificing children? In the same way god used the bible to show his utter contempt for slavery?

What appals me is the hypocrisy of Yahweh. And that I was able to justify this at some point.

caps stated earlier that she would not carry out orders from god that she was very uncomfortable with. If she is happy to use her own sense of morality to override god's commands about big things, then why doesn't she trust herself on an everyday basis? She obviously acknowledges that her own internal moral compass is superior.

I also look at Jesus for a perfect example of morality - he's the only one I can point to as having perfect goodness.

Apart from the casual racism though, and cursing trees because they didn't have any fruit on when you fancied a snack. Oh and the bit where he backed up the notion that people with mental health illnesses were possessed by demons. Thanks, but I think I can work out what is good myself.

head I believe God knows me, inside out, my beginnings and end, ultimately I believe He knows me better than I know myself. So I believe He would not ask me to do something I was so deeply uncomfortable with that I could not do it. I believes He loves me and Matthew 12:20 says, "A bruised reed shall he not break, and smoking flax shall he not quench, till he send forth judgment unto victory." (KJV). So if something seemed to be suggesting to me, to do something I was morally deeply uncomfortable with, I do not believe this would be coming from God.

And I think too many people have a medieval imagination concerning spirits and demons. I don't believe them to be as depicted in artistic impressions, necessarily.

If you look functionally how the word is used, they could be describing wrong thinking, mind sets, viruses, emotions. Not necessarily something to be offended by.

People are also described as being 'evil' simply because we have flaws. However it does not mean we cannot be wholly redeemed or that we should be condemned. What happened was, Jesus was able to miraculously heal.

^like people talk of 'having their own demons' today - meaning emotional 'baggage'. Or talk about the 'demon drink'.

To Abraham, this was a test of obedience

There is nothing moral about obedience. When you are obedient you are turning off your own morals, you are not acting as a moral agent in any capacity, I thought god hated the idea of people just being flesh puppets a reasoning oft used to explain why he doesn't make us believe in him.

As a parent would you consider commanding your child to sacrifice their baby brother as a way of highlighting to the older child how obedient they were to your every command? What benefit would this have to your child? 'Yay, I'll do ANYTHING my dad asks me to, how good am I!'

head in Abraham's time a significant proportion of people did sacrifice their children to other gods. It was not unusual, would have been considered an act of devotion, an honour and to them demonstrated how powerful their gods were. They could have looked at Abraham and thought he was rebellious and his God did not have any true power, otherwise Abraham would have been punished.

So Abraham was asked to bring Isaac for a sacrifice and complied, demonstrating the power of God and Abraham's devotion. However God showed that by not requiring the sacrifice of Isaac, He was different to other Gods, he loved Abraham and Isaac and provided the sacrifice Himself, blessing them.

A modern day equivalent would have to include a widespread practice, that is considered the norm by many, but one which God does not require. A narrative could only bring this into sharp focus by the protagonist being willing to do the action in question themselves, against their own preferences, for God to not require it. Otherwise people could just say they were acting out of their own selfish motivations.

A narrative could only bring this into sharp focus by the protagonist being willing to do the action in question themselves, against their own preferences, for God to not require it. Otherwise people could just say they were acting out of their own selfish motivations.

I absolutely disagree that using his method the only way! What it is is a very sick and disturbed way that makes no logical sense when you try and imagine using the same system elsewhere.

The tale doesn't make me think 'wow, he is soooo against child sacrifice (obviously he isn't because he killed his own child), it makes me think 'eugh'.

Can you think of a practice that you find abhorrent that most people don't, and can you think how pretending you love it to people would help.

I have heard people on this board use child sacrifice to explain the atrocities in the OT, they were so bad god needed them to be wiped out. So the child sacrifice did or didn't bother him? And as for saying 'look, god is so good he doesn't require child sacrifice' that doesn't make him good. There were countless other logical ways god could have illustrated his abhorrence for child sacrifice (which he did himself with Jesus).

So talk me through this. God hates child sacrifice. Who was doing child sacrifice at that time? To show his disgust he sets Abraham up to think that he want's him to do it, even though abraham knows god won't go through with it. How is that anything but sick farce. I would lose all respect for someone who thought I wanted something I was actually disgusted by, and that they went along with it out of obedience. That's not desirable in anyone. These, extremists, they think they are doing what god wants, and that that is good. How could you say, 'no, that IS bad' without undermining your whole argument.

head but Jesus was also God. He sacrificed Himslf.

As I said before, child sacrifice was widely practiced in Abraham's time. So culturally, not considered abhorrent by many people, at the time. You cannot divorce the narrative from its context, if you want to truly comprehend it.

So today it would be the equivalent of being asked to do something that many people do and value doing, which God does not require.

Can you think of a practice that you find abhorrent that most people don't, and can you think how pretending you love it to people would help.

Yes, back to education, and distorting a child's needs, as in painting a picture which is 'worse case scenario' in order to obtain funding. I believe in an accurate balanced profile being recorded. I believe more strongly in teaching to strengths, in the main.

I did put myself and my DC through the Statementing process, which looked for difficulties, to some extent, in that I agreed to assessments, which was in order to obtain additional funding. Although I knew my DC could achieve I felt I had to listen to, and fully consider what the professional's were saying. They painted a very bleak picture, which I never allowed myself to believe. I was right not believing it as subsequently there has been much progress, in terms of level of SEN and the Statement has ceased.

Not quite life and death, as with Abraham and Isaac. But I felt like I was being asked to sacrifice my DC's reputation, and achievements, in order to secure funding, which was not solely being used for my DC's needs (other children benefited from the 1 to 1 assigned through the Statement). Effectively my DC could be viewed as a 'cash cow'. So my DC's whole life could have potentially been seriously affected, if acheivements were never accurately reported. I was not encouraged to report positively at all. But I am glad I did.

I often see on here people saying that professions have^ to paint a 'worse case scenario' in order to secure additional support, which they see as being only beneficial.

I can understand the view but my experience is different.

^ And spreading the resource, secured through, from individual funding, is seen as justified by many, as adding value, in terms of managing the available resource well.

If god's morality depends on the culture at the time, it's not absolute is it?

Why are there no Muslims joining in this discussion?

I've seen muslims on this sort of thread before, I guess those people just happen to not be around or not get hooked into this one. Though to be fair the OP did pose the question in the context of Christianity in one of the early posts.

I thought the OP is about religion, but it seems most posters on both sides of the discussion know more about and therefore base their discussions on Christianity.

It would be interesting to hear similar from an Islamic point of view.

cat
Yesterday I posted this:

Eternal measurement of goodness? Well for a start I believe goodness is non quantifiable. However eternal would suggest it is only and always good. If you try and imagine goodness as a force, it could be a certain unchanging force that affects matter differently, that is , it manifests in diverse ways, according to context in linear time.

Which would mean God can be eternally good but this can look different according to context. He can be objective but as we don't know everything we can only appreciate Him subjectively, in individual contexts.

Eternal? The question posed is about an absolute measure. If goodness is measured relative to culture at the time then surely it's the culture that's defining the concept of morality, not the deity.

Which would mean God can be eternally good but this can look different according to context.

So how can you determine if what god is asking you to do is actually god or not your own mind? You said before that you would only do something that you were comfortable with, so there may be a disconnect between the two. So it was good that that man had rocks thrown at his head then, but it wouldn't be now.

Oh I agree queen it would be interesting to have an Islamic perspective, or any other religion come to that; but you can't expect the atheists to discuss all religions at all times, they're just talking to the people who're talking to them (us, but I haven't been doing much talking, more reading with interest). I think OP mentions in the third or fourth post in the thread that the question was raised by Christians in this instance.