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

Tomorrow you wake up from a very, very vivid dream in which what you take to be god has commanded you to go outside, and suffocate every dog you see, no matter what. The instant you see the dog, if you don't strangle it, you are in violation of god's command. Is strangling the dog a moral act?

THis came up in a topic earlier and would derail an entire conversation. I thought why not give it its own topic to derail! 

Divine command theory, put very simply, is the idea that any act god commands is a moral act, because god is the arbiter of all morality unchanging forever. Is this the case? Or is a moral act moral of its own merits? Example:

Tomorrow you wake up from a very, very vivid dream in which what you take to be god has commanded you to go outside, and suffocate every dog you see, no matter what. The instant you see the dog, if you don't strangle it, you are in violation of god's command. Is strangling the dog a moral act?

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. 

with absolutes - and science

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. 

So you believe in divine command, if god does it it's moral like infanticide, genocide and human sacrifice.

with absolutes - and science

Oh lordy lordy, you do get confused. There is nothing scientific in your beliefs or your morality.

Whatever God does is good. He is always holy and just. I don't consider that he committed infanticide, genocide, or human sacrifice. In every case you can cite, it is always the human who does any of these things.

If you are correct and God does not exist, then it is simply humans attempting to blame God for commanding them to do so. If I am correct and God exists, then each of these humans still has free will not to do any of these things if it were considered to be immoral.

On the other hand, given that morality seems in human terms to be determined by the culture at any particular time,it might well be that people in those times did not have any moral concerns with these matters. 

If that is the case, then you are being culturally insensitive and take the arrogant view that the 21st century is somehow more moral than these ones. This of course is a nonsense, isn't? 

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. 

As for my views and science - if you took the time to read my post you would have observed that there are three views - divine command, modernist, and post modern. I linked science and absolutes with the modern view - not the divine command system. Idiot. 

I love it when you guys try so desperately and ineffectually to justify your totally conflicted beliefs.

Allegedly at your god's command. Ever heard of the Amalekites

If you are correct and God does not exist, then it is simply humans attempting to blame God for commanding them to do so. If I am correct and God exists, then each of these humans still has free will not to do any of these things if it were considered to be immoral.

Which is more immoral, disobeying a command from god or infanticide?

On the other hand, given that morality seems in human terms to be determined by the culture at any particular time,it might well be that people in those times did not have any moral concerns with these matters. 

Even though your god had set moral standards for them for decades. Which is more immoral disobeying your god's command or genocide?

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. 

As for my views and science - if you took the time to read my post you would have observed that there are three views - divine command, modernist, and post modern. I linked science and absolutes with the modern view - not the divine command system. Idiot. 

And what makes you think those claims mean anything to anyone but you.

You'll be running away and claiming victory shortly. You stayed resolutely away from the human sacrifice, any particular reason.LOL

When did the Hebrew people ever attack a nation without provocation?

Human sacrifice was not practised in accordance with the Hebrew bible. the episode of Abraham and Isaac is a very isolated incident - and one where the child was not even sacrificed. You can use it if you want but I don't find it an incident of child sacrifice.

you don't mention the story of Jephthah who sacrifices his daughter in exchange for victory over the Ammonites.

Judges 11

11 Jephthah the Gileadite was a mighty warrior....  And Jephthah made a vow to the Lord: “If you give the Ammonites into my hands, whatever comes out of the door ... I will sacrifice it as a burnt offering.”

32 Then Jephthah went over to fight the Ammonites, and the Lord gave them into his hands...

34 When Jephthah returned to his home in Mizpah, who should come out to meet him but his daughter, dancing to the sound of timbrels! She was an only child. Except for her he had neither son nor daughter. 35 When he saw her, he tore his clothes and cried, “Oh no, my daughter! You have brought me down and I am devastated. I have made a vow to the Lord that I cannot break.”

39 ... and he did to her as he had vowed.

--> @Tradesecret

Reply

I don't care about Jephthah - what was his daughter being punished for?  

> @keithprosser

Reply

She was being punished for her father's hastiness to make a vow. And no, it wasn't right. In a way, he was being punished for doing such a thing.

And his daughter went down very bravely and with dignity. 

Christians are not really supposed to make vows, because all vows are like a vow to God. We have to keep them. In fact, we Orthodox don't even exchange vows when we get married! That said, we of course take marriage very seriously. The priest will pray a blessing, but we don't really do vows. It's not necessary to us.

That said, presbyters might make vows when they take up that cross. I am not too sure. I could be wrong.

It is my understanding that the people of Canaan were full of quite evil and repugnant people -

It is my opinion -

Obviously from not primary sources,

I don't know wise guy? how about you tell us? As I said, if God does not exist, you are merely repeating human excuses and if God does exist, the human did not have to obey. Morality is what? 

I am not saying you have - but can you legitimately put 21st century morals on a society before AD? I would say that was pretty dumb. 

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

And even if he did, so what?

I have not stayed away from any topic

In court, at a wedding, ordination, baptism, when civil servants are swearing allegiance to the country and the people they represent. 

Can you legitimately transfer bronze age morality into the 21st century? I've already told you that I don't operate under 21st century morals, whatever they are.

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

So the word of your god lies again?

And even if he did, so what?

Here is the morality of this christian, evil beyond compare.

I have not stayed away from any topic

The human sacrifice in question is the Jesus character who saved you from your god.

The Bible is a primary source for me.

that is not what I said, don't twist my words. I said that humans did not have to obey him - if they thought God was asking them to do something immoral. Of course they would have to deal with the consequences of disobedience.

God's command was not immoral because God is  neither modernist nor post modern. Morality is not something that just exists out there. No angel nor anyone else should ever disobey God. But that does not mean that they cannot do so. Free choice is something that God gave humanity. Of course freedom also has consequences. 

You simply make your own morals up as you go along. Hence why everything you say makes no sense. I do  not think we should transfer bronze age morality onto the 21st Century. I do think however that the substance of God's morality is eternal and timeless. 

come on wise guy - show me in the Bible where God says - on an unqualified basis - "to stone non-virgin wives" simply because they are non-virgin wives. Everywhere judgement is commanded by God it is in response to sinfulness. The very fact that God does not allow sinfulness to go unpunished is the essence of morality. The fact that you don't understand this is pathetic. 

the point is - you keep asserting things - but you never ever provide any evidence to support your absurd statements. If you are just going to assert things - I will only just deny them. Prove me wrong. 

Jesus - human sacrifice - dying on a cross. Is that what you are getting at? Perhaps you could be so bold as to explain what human sacrifice is? You might also while you are at it - show anywhere in time or space or story or legend or myth where the one who is allegedly is being appeased is the very one who is doing the dying as a sacrifice. That might be very interesting. God demands satisfaction of justice because humanity has sinned against God. Yet humanity does not have the capacity to actually satisfy God - so God himself organises that he GOD truly represents humanity and dies as the satisfaction. That really is a strange kind of human sacrifice. It is at odds with any kind of human sacrifice in history or legend. If this really what it is. 

There is no doubt that Jesus died. 

There is also no doubt that he died as a representation of humanity.  But what was his death about? It was as a covenantal head representing his people so that they could be reconciled back to God.  It was not a sacrifice in the ordinary sense because he rose from the dead. But was it human sacrifice or something more than that? You know I don't know - but I do find it important to realise that God never demanded human sacrifice prior to this time unless you are talking about capital punishment.