Divine Command Theory - Any Takers? (Another Abrahamic Centric Thread)

So you admit that these humans were acting under the command of your god and didn't do of their own free will but did under threat from your god the most powerful thing in existence. That's your argument for godly innocence shot down in flames.

I don't understand your final paragraph. But the idea of divine command theory sounds intriguing.  I certainly take the view that God Almighty is a moral being. But not moral in that he can do right and do wrong. But moral in the sense that he determines what is right and wrong. I take the view that morality is truly following God's morality. 

It is absurd to place 21st century morals on any culture prior to it, unless you believe that morals are self existent apart from one's own culture. Hence you take either the command divine view - which you don't or you believe that absolutes exist apart from time and culture. And if that is the case, I would love to see your theory to support such a thing. 

Mopac, you are incorrect. She was not punished. She was the victim, the innocent victim here. He made a foolish vow - and then went through with it.

I don't need too. kidnapping, putting children through fire, sacrificing and eating children were all common. 

I am not sure it was without provocation. Certainly, it was the promised land by God to the Israelites. By all accounts the people in Canaan were fighting with each other anyway and war was inevitable with or without the Jews attempting to settle.  

Still, you might have a point. Although I am sure the people in Canaan were not going to simply let Israel settle in the land near them.  

It is my understanding that the people of Canaan were full of quite evil and repugnant people - and were essentially nations that God had allowed mercifully to remain for an extra generation, until their time was done. 

It is my opinion - that God would not have requested Israel to take over the land if the people were god fearing people who cared for the land and the other people. Still that is my view based upon a particular view I hold too. 

God did not command anyone to stone non-virgin wives to death

So the word of your god lies again?

go and get the verses from the bible and show it to all of us. Or are you having trouble finding them? 

If you had an ant farm you could do whatever you wanted to it.  

If you wanted to kill 3/4 of the ants just to see what happens, are you morally obliged not to?  Your desire to kill 3/4 of the ants is all the justification needed to do it.

I used ants because the difference between you and an ant is probably less than the difference between an infinite god and a person.  An intelligent robot may be too close to our own level.

I don't think one can prove command theory 'wrong'.  If it is true then some of our intutions about what is and what is not moral are incorrect.  My view is that there is no such thing as morality, which is what moral nihilism really means - morality does not exist.

That is to say it is not a matter of whether morality is subjective or objective, absolute or relative.  Morality can't be any of those because morality does not exist at all. 

Consider a rape.  The violence objectively exists, the suffering objectively exists, it's forced nature objectively exists.  But that it is immoral is a subjective judgement.  That is to say it is a matter of objective fact that violence is involved - it is a matter of subjective judgement that it is immoral.  

Put clearly, morality does not exist - only moral judgements exist.  So what makes my judgement that rape is bad correct and a rapists opinion wrong?  Aren't I commited to moral indifference?

I don't think so.   I think rape is bad and I want it to be my view that prevails.   I am (and those like me are)in a battle of wills with those who see rape differently and I will do whatever I can to see they lose.    But it's not because my opinion is 'has morality' and the rapist opinion 'has immorality' - it is because I want my will to triumph.

Let me see if I can help. It sounds like above, you ARE a divine command theory person: whatever god does, it has to be right, it literally CANNOT be wrong. Wipe out the whole earth with a flood because your plan went exactly as you foresaw it? Moral, because that's what god did. It's an extreme example, but in essence, divine command theory removes the 'why' anything is moral, and boils it down to 'that' it is moral because god said so. In other words, actions are not in and of themselves moral or immoral, except by divine decree. That's where the dog comes in: if you woke up tomorrow and were sincerely convinced that god commanded you to strangle every dog you saw, then suddenly NOT STRANGLING THE DOG is the immoral act. Your answer seems to be, at least here, that you'd enthusiastically strangle the dogs. A true believer, but I'm glad I'm not your neighbor :). I kid! But then things get confusing for me. You say:

If it is absurd to place our morals onto the morals of iron age shepherd culture (I'm not sure I agree, but more on that in a moment), then why is it not absurd to do the inverse? To expect their morals to comport with our society? Several have pointed out other examples, but let's take the easiest one. Was it ever MORAL to own another person like you'd own a mule? Not was it ALLOWED. Was it MORAL. Or, the central one: is it ever MORAL to send someone to their execution for a crime that you know YOU committed? 

Mopac, you are incorrect. She was not punished. She was the victim, the innocent victim here. He made a foolish vow - and then went through with it.

As to the story of Jephtha, I'm afraid this seems inconsistent: by divine command, she was NOT an innocent victim at all, she was simply collateral damage. God knew when Jephtha made the vow what he'd send out of the house first, right? It wasn't the goat or the pig. God was certain as author of all things that it was the daughter who'd get burned alive. But it's OKAY. In fact, burning her alive is moral! Because that's what god said would happen. There can be no innocent victims under divine command. 

Hence it is part of image, nature, written indeed on our hearts. Some might call it intuition - others subjective morality - but whatever we label it - it is there. 

Although I am not sure that I agree with thinking it is intriguing. subjective morality - but no objective morality - yet you think rape is bad and you really want your view to prevail. sounds to me like intuitively you know it is objective but can't figure out how to get there. 

I would take the view that without God there is only subjective morality.

God tells us rape is wrong. 

f divine command theory leaves the why out then I am not sure that I am in agreement with it totally. I do take the view that God determines morality - it flows out of his character.

I don't think we should take the morality of the 21st century and apply it to other times and cultures as a means of judging them good or bad... I think it is incorrect to apply their culture's morality to our own time. 

You talk about slavery. the bible never talks about owning people like mules. Its slavery was very different in nature to the many other forms of slavery throughout history. For example, a slave could work his way out of slavery - it was debentured slavery. I am not saying it is right or wrong - but it certainly was not the same as owning a mule. I am not sure what you are referring to in relation to sending someone to death for a crime you committed. 

God did not make Jephtha make this oath / The bible does put god in control of all things. 

God is the author of all things - but God also gave humanity free will

Of course if rape was objectively wrong then it wouldn't exist because everyone would know that it was wrong.

This is a morally repugnant character who had the power to send out Jephtha's favorite dog, right?