Why Killing Puppies, Kittens and Babies is "Good" According to Yahweh

Recently, I came across a blog called "The Gospel According to Erik" where Erik, as a Christian, attempted to show that the Euthyphro dilemma really is not a dilemma at all, and that for the Christian believer, there is no quandary. I disagree however, and I have already done so in a posting on Objective Morality. In this post, I will elaborate by illustrating why it is a dilemma.

The Euthyphro Dilemma is a one of the classic arguments raised against God, and origniated via the writings of Plato, in which Socrates asks Euthyphro: “Is the pious loved by the gods because it is pious, or is it pious because it is loved by the gods?” Which translates to: “Is what is morally good commanded by God because it is morally good, or is it morally good because it is commanded by God?”

This is a "Catch-22" for theists, because as Eric himself says, it would mean that:"

1. "God could command any arbitrary thing that popped into his head – like killing kittens – and we’d be obligated to obey and call it good because God says so. Or
2. God answers to some sort of higher moral standard outside of himself, thus he cannot be the basis for our morality."

Let's take Erik's 1 & 2, and relate them to the bible. Now, according to the bible:


1.  Yahweh killed millions of kittens, and puppies, babies and pregnant mothers in the so-   called "flood" of Noah--and according to Christianity, his murdering all of those kittens, puppies, babies and pregnant mothers would be called "good."

or

2. Yahweh answers to some sort of moral standard outside of himself and cannot be the basis for our morality. It is true that Yahweh is NOT the basis for morality, as I have already explained in a previous post. Humans develop morals and ethics within societies themselves, and those groups (such as Buddhists and Taoists) that do not posit a god of any kind, do have moral and ethical guidelines. Therefore, it can be said that morality need not come from any god, let alone the Abrahamic god.

Eric goes on to say that God is "light" and god is "love," but again, I can illustrate using biblical passages that logically, Yahweh is NOT love:

"But anyone who does not love does not know God, for God is love." 1 John 4:8

"Love is patient and kind. Love is not jealous or boastful or proud " 1 Corinthians 13:4

"You shall not worship them or serve them; for I, the LORD your God, am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers on the children, on the third and the fourth generations of those who hate Me," Exodus 20:5

In the logical form of Modus Tollens, the following is the conclusion drawn from the above passages:  IF god is love, THEN god is not jealous. God IS jealous. Therefore god is NOT love.

Eric goes on to explain that god is "triune," which I have also shown is illogical in a previous posting.  He also claims his god is eternal by quoting John:

“In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. He was with God in the beginning. Through him all things were made; without him nothing was made that has been made.” Jn. 1:1-3

It can be said that "In the beginning was the Word" but this is an Egyptian reference. Long before the time of Jesus, Thulis, an Egyptian pharaoh, was in the habit of consulting an oracle. On one such occasion, Thulis asked him if there was anyone before him, or that will come after him that was or would be greater than him. His oracle replied:

"First God, afterward the Word, and with them the Holy spirit, all these are of the same nature and make but one whole, of which the power is eternal. Go away quickly moral, thou who has but an uncertain life."

Calling Jesus the "Word" or the "Logos" is an Egyptian reference which Christianity adopted  after his supposed death, and is just another example of the Christian plagiorization of other, older religious texts and beliefs.  (Bible Myths and Their Parallels in Other Religions, TW Doane, p. 373)

Eric also made the claim that:

"So if God is light and he is unchanging, then He cannot on a whim become a “dark god” and command torture of little babies."

Now, anyone that has read the Old Testament, would know that Yahweh does command the murdering of little babies, and would, according to Erik, be a "dark god." (I will call this torture, as killing defenseless "first born" would be torturous) In Exodus, which is the beginning of the Jewish passover, Yahweh "smites" the first born, and goes as far as ordering the killing unborn fetuses in Hosea 13:16:

“On that same night I will pass through Egypt and strike down every firstborn—both men and animals—and I will bring judgment on all the gods of Egypt. I am the Lord." Exodus 12:12

"The people of Samaria must bear their guilt, because they have rebelled against their God. They will fall by the sword; their little ones will be dashed to the ground, their pregnant women ripped open." Hosea 13:16

Every first born, whether they were kittens, puppies, babies, teens or men were "smited" by this god, who is claimed to be the "god of love." The same god that drowned all of the kittens, puppies, babies and pregnant women in the flood. I see no "love" in those actions--especially since this same god is said to be all-powerful, and could do anything he wants, including freeing his people without resorting to murdering innocent children, puppies and kittens. Please note that the flood was a wasted effort in eradicating "sin." Assume that Yahweh is god.  If Yahweh is "all-knowing," then Yahweh knew ahead of time that killing the kittens, puppies, babies, and pregnant women would be for nothing, as it did nothing to eradicate sin.  Yahweh is all-knowing. Therefore, Yahweh murdered all of the kittens, puppies babies and pregnant women for nothing--most certainly not the actions of an "all-loving" god.

Erik also tells us that Christians have a "special advantage." They benefit by having their sins forgiven, but they also have God’s very own Spirit living within them, enabling them with divine grace to keep God’s commands.

"I will give you a new heart and put a new spirit in you; I will remove from you your heart of stone and give you a heart of flesh. And I will put my Spirit in you and move you to follow my decrees and be careful to keep my laws.  Ezekiel 36:26-27

The problems with this claim are many. Number one, is the claim that the death of Jesus is said to have absolved Christians from the law. (Jesus said the laws stand until "heaven and earth pass away" in Matt 5:18, however most Christians follow Paul when he said the blood of Christ revoked the laws, as he did in Romans 3:27) That being said, Yahweh made it known in Deuteronomy 7:12 that he would only love his followers IF they followed ALL his laws and commands--just like it implies in the passage Erick cited from Ezekiel.

Having their sins forgiven is a ONE TIME deal for Christians according to Hebrews 10:26-27, as once a believer has the laws written on their hearts and they are saved, there is NO MORE sacrifice for sins. If they sin willfully after being saved--they go to the pit of fire. No repentance. And no, this does not apply to "apostates" as many apologists now claim--it applies to believers who have the laws "written on their hearts."

Moreover, the false belief of Christians that they can continue to sin, repent, sin, repent, and repeat when necessary, has resulted in a society full of Christians who believe they are "born sinners" who cannot help but do bad things. But they have a fall guy in Jesus, so they do not have to take responsibility for their own actions. This belief leads to what Pelagius called "moral laxity" where Christians commit adultery, rape, murder, incest, child abuse, etc. at higher rates than other groups because they believe they are born bad, and can't help but be bad--and they do not have to take responsibility for their "badness", as Jesus does that for them.

Finally, Eric claims that we are "hard wired" to recognize the commands of this god, and that we know internally that we ought "love our neighbors as ourselves."  But this is just the Normative Ethical Theory known as "The Divine Command Theory," which states that whatever God says is right, is right.  But the major flaw of the Divine Command Theory is the epistemological problem, in that we do not know what, if anything any god has ever said. For example, Andrea Yates claims god told her to kill her children to save them from Satan, but Christians would say she is crazy, and by doing so, they dismiss the Divine Command Theory in favor of a different ethical theory.   If we were in fact "hard wired" to recognize the commands of god, then there would be no disagreements about such issues as whether one can or cannot be divorced, or what constituted adultery, etc.--but Christians cannot agree amongst themselves on such issues, so therefore, they cannot be "hardwired." 


 Not only is Erik's claim an epistemological problem, but the "golden rule," has been around for much longer than the bible, as Buddha himself said:

"Hurt not others in ways that you yourself would find hurtful."—Udanavarga 5:18

Therefore, we are not "hard-wired" to recognize the commands of god, but we may be "hard-wired" to find ways of living together amicably.--and no gods are required for that, as the Buddhists and Taoists, atheists, and others that live amicably together without gods will tell you.

Dr. William Lane Craig Defeated - No God is Required for Objective Morality

Yesterday, at NCU, William Lane Craig and Lawrence Krauss took it upon themselves to debate the possible evidence for God. Dr. Craig lists 5 premises which he believes points to the existence of a god, with #5 pointing to the existence of his particular god.  These premises are:

1. The existence of contingent beings.

2. The origin of the universe.

3. Objective moral values and duties in the world.

4. The fine tuning of the universe.
5. The historical "facts" of Jesus' resurrection.

For this post, I am concentrating on number 3, although I would like to mention that Dr. Krauss is wise enough to admit that science does not understand the beginning or the cause of the universe, just that it did begin, and it began with a bang, and he claims that using god as explanation for that which we do not understand is "intellectually lazy"--which I fully agree with.  I myself do not claim to understand how the universe came into existence.

This is Dr. Craig's argument for morality in the world:

P1.  If god does not exist, objective moral values and duties would not exist.

P2.  Objective moral values and duties do exist.

C.   Therefore, god exists.

This argument commits the fallacy of necessity as it assumes that objective moral values are contingent on a god existing, when this is not necessarily so.  No gods or goddesses for that matter are required for morality to exist, as ethics and morals in reality come from Normative Ethical Theories such as Utilitiarianism--which means doing what is right for the overall good.

One can make any wild claim as Dr. Craig does in his argument.  Let me make a substitution in Dr. Craig's argument to illustrate:

P1.  If humans do not exist, objective moral values and duties would not exist.

P2.  Objective moral values and duties do exist.

C.   Therefore, humans exist.

Just like William Craig's argument, there is no proof for P1.  The argument is valid, but whether it is sound or not is questionable.  In the case of Craig's argument, as I have already shown, we have another viable option for objective moral values, and that is the use of Normative Ethical Theories.

On another note, my argument is valid, but is contingent on humans existing, so it too commits the fallacy of necessity, as we have no way of knowing whether or not morality and duty is dependent on the existence of humans.  Many animals have exhibited moral behaviors, so it is not necessarily so that morality only exists in the realm of humanity.

For the sake of argument, let's assume his argument works.  Dr. Craig himself admits that this argument alone does not prove the Christian god. The reason for this is that every non-Christian culture, has/had their own standards and moral guidelines that they follow, and therefore their morals and duties are not contingent on the christian god Yahweh existing.   Hindu's have a moral code.  Sumerians had a moral code. The Native Americans had moral codes long before the White Christians came along, and many Christian missionaries made note of the fact the Indians had "no sin. " Orthodox Buddhists do not even posit a god, but they too have a moral code/standard etc. William Lane Craig uses premise #5 as being the "best" explanation for the Christian god being the one true god.--I will refute this below.

  

As I already mentioned, we use Normative Ethical Theories (NET's), which are devices used to produce specific moral judgments.  One of these NET's is the Divine Command Theory, which  in ethics states that whatever god says is right is right.  This seems to be the NET that Craig says is necessary for objectivity and morality.  As I have already shown, this is not the case as we have many competing NET's.  In fact, the Divine Command Theory is one of the weakest NET's because it has an epistemological problem as we have no way of knowing what a god has said, if he has said anything at all.  For example, in the case of Hinduism, Manu was given the Dharma which was given to him by the god Vishnu, and it gives instructions which uphold private and public life, and establishes social, moral, and religious order.  So who are we to believe; Moses or Manu?  How do we know whether a god told Moses, or a god told Manu, or a god told any other human anything at all for that matter?

The answer is that we do not; hence we have an epistemological problem.

Dr. Craig provides premise 5 to distinguish his god as the one true god as opposed to all the others. Number 5 however, also fails, as there are multiple gods who are claimed to have been resurrected from the dead.  In fact, numerous gods such as Bacchus, Hercules were said to have been resurrected from the dead.  Also,  Asclepius, was killed by Zeus only to be resurrected and transformed into a major deity. Achilles, after being killed, was taken from his funeral pyre by his divine mother Thetis, and resurrected, brought to an immortal existence in either Leuce, the Elysian plains, or the Islands of the Blessed. Memnon, who was killed by Achilles, was said have experienced  a similar fate. Alcmene, Castor, Heracles, and Melicertes were also among the figures sometimes considered to have been resurrected to physical immortality.  Quetzalcoatl, a South American god, is also claimed to be resurrected; and in Hinduism Krishna was resurrected, and in fact, according to Hinduism, EVERYONE is claimed to be resurrected. The concept of resurrection is found in the writings of some ancient non-Abrahamic religions in the Middle East. Some Egyptian and Canaanite writings claim there are dying and rising gods such as Osiris and Baal.  Therefore, premise 5 does not provide sufficient evidence for the Christian god, as opposed to any other gods or goddesses.  The fact that the bible CLAIMS there were "eyewitness" accounts is no more proof of the fact than the claims made by other non-Christian sources for their gods and goddesses.  The other religions could also "cherry pick" their scriptures in a similar fashion.

Let's assume however, that Yahweh exists and that we received moral values from this particular god.  Let's say for example that a father murders his children because he claims god told him to in order to save them from Satan.  Most christians would claim that Yahweh would never tell anyone to do such a heinous thing, and the man who killed his children is just crazy.  The reasoning that concludes that it was not Yahweh who told the man to kill his children allows another conclusion to be drawn.  This would be a moral test in which the conclusion that was drawn came from our own moral knowledge, and not from what a god said. Yahweh has, after all, according to the bible, spoken through others, ordering them to slaughter the innocents, so it would be inductively valid to assume that Yahweh ordered the man to murder his children. (Hosea 13:16)

Are actions in any case right or wrong then because god says they are; or are they right or wrong because they are right or wrong?  The Divine Command theory in ethics states that whatever god says is right is right--in this case the Christian god Yahweh-- which would mean the slaughter of innocent children, pregnant women and their unborn fetuses would be considered right.  If this is the case then, there is no standard for good, as murder would be considered "good."  Therefore, true objective morality cannot come from such a god.