Is The Biblical God Morally Better Than Humans

Is the biblical God morally better than humans? Before we can try to answer such a question we first first point out a few things with regards to this question. Before I begin let me point out that I'm not trying to prove God's existence. The premise of this debate is based upon the assumption that God does indeed exist. The question is about His morality when compared to humans. First, this question assumes that there's a moral standard that is higher than God that He Himself must answer to but if God has to answer for anything including His own morals, then I think it would be safe to say that God isn't really a god at all. Second, this question assumes that God is not the absolute standard of morality but if that is truly the case, then once again how can God be called God if He's not the absolute standard of morality? Now, I can try to argue and show evidence for how God is indeed the absolute standard of morality but at the moment I don't think that's necessary based on the following argument. Since my opponent's profile proclaims him to be an "outspoken atheist" let us examined why an atheists cannot justify not only their morality but the morals of others....including God. Atheism is built on the premise that since there is no god(s) of any kind, then by default morals are subjective since there is no absolute objective moral standard outside of humanity but there are problems with that premise that I hope to address. Now, I'm not saying that atheists cannot be moral people. I'm saying that they cannot justify their morals because they believe that morals are subjective and if that's true and morals truly are subjective, then how can they or anyone else call someone's morals good or bad including God's morals? The following info comes from: https://carm.org... As a worldview, atheism is intellectually bankrupt and is wrought with philosophical problems. Let's look at the inability for the atheistic worldview to offer objective morality. First I need to clarify that atheists can be morally good. They can even be people of integrity. But that isn't the issue. Having good morals doesn"t mean you have objective morals. One atheist"s good morals might only be coincidentally consistent with true objective morality where another atheist"s isn"t. Objective morals are those that are based outside of yourself. Subjective morals are those that depend on you, your situation, culture, and your preferences. Subjective morals change, can become contradictory, and might differ from person to person. This is the best that atheism has to offer us as a worldview. Think about it, in atheism, there is no moral right and wrong. There is no moral "should and shouldn't". Why? Because when you remove God, you remove the standard by which objective moral truth is established. In atheism morality is up for grabs. In an atheistic worldview, lying, cheating, and stealing are neither right or wrong. They are phenomena to which, if the atheist so decides, moral values can be assigned. Sure, the atheist might say that we all should want to help society function properly, and it does not benefit society as a whole to lie, cheat, and steal. But, this is weak intellectual reasoning. Let me put some flesh and blood on this and show you why. What if there were a global economic meltdown and social turmoil ensued so that robbing people at gunpoint to get food became common place. Robbery would then be a social norm. Would such a norm be wrong? If it is not wrong, then you affirm situational ethics and can"t complain when the situation suits somebody else"s fancy, and you get robbed at gunpoint. Of course, this would lead to anarchy. If you say such theft is wrong, then why is it wrong? If it is your opinion that it is wrong, that is nice; but opinions don"t make ethical standards. If you said it is wrong because it is wrong, you are just begging the question. Besides, that would mean there was a moral standard outside of yourself to which you must answer, and that would imply a Moral-Law Giver. Anyway, some atheists maintain that the best moral system is that which brings the greatest happiness, the least amount of suffering, and the greatest freedom for as many people as possible. That is a nice sentiment, but it doesn"t work. Take a look at slavery, for example. The greatest happiness for the greatest number of people means that a minority of people should suffer in bondage. This way, the greatest amount of freedom for the majority is ensured. But if the atheist says that it is wrong to enslave a minority to benefit the majority, then why is it wrong? Because he said so? If he says it"s wrong because the minority is suffering, so what? Why is suffering wrong? It may be unpleasant. It may not be nice. But, from an atheistic worldview, why is it morally wrong to oppress a minority to benefit the majority? Atheism can"t help us here. It just isn"t up to the task of providing solid answers. Let me reiterate by saying that atheism offers a subjective moral system that is based on human experience, human conditions, and human reason. By its very nature, such moral evaluation is relativistic, dangerous, can change, can become self-contradictory and can lead to anarchy. True morality is not merely a collection of concepts agreed upon because it helps stop the guy with the gun from taking your food. There is something more, and the Bible offers us more. It offers us an objective set of morals: do not lie, do not steal, do not commit adultery, do not bear false witness, etc. These morals don"t change depending on your opinion, your situation, or your personal preferences. They are based on God"s character; and since God doesn"t change, these morals don"t either. Therefore, it is always wrong to lie, to steal, to commit adultery, and to bear false witness but not so in atheism"s empty moral vacuum because morality is formed in a subjective manner. So, after an economic meltdown when an armed stranger is approaching you on a dark road and you are taking food home to your hungry family, who would you rather the stranger be: a Christian who believes stealing is wrong and that God is watching or the atheist who sees a need and points his gun at you as he adapts his ethics to suit the moment? (end of quote) With that being said, I'm sure my opponent is going to pull verses out of the Bible (out of context) in the attempt to prove that God does indeed behave badly and unjustly. But, in order to do such a thing my opponent must first explain what moral standard is he adhering too and why does he believe that moral standard is good enough to judge the moral standard of others including God? Since my opponent is not the absolute standard of morality (unless he can show evidence to the contrary) then how can he or anyone else say that the Biblical God is indeed immoral or is not justified in His actions? The following comes from: http://www.apologeticspress.org... Dan Barker and many of his atheistic colleagues claim that atheism offers the world a superior system of morality when compared to the moral system presented in the Bible. In fact, near the end of Dan"s ten-minute rebuttal speech during our debate, he stated: "We can know that the atheistic way is actually a superior intellectual and moral way of thinking" (Butt and Barker, 2009). One primary reason Dan gave for his belief that the Bible"s morality is flawed is that the Bible states that God has directly killed people, and that God has authorized others to kill as well. In Dan"s discussion about Abraham"s sacrifice of Isaac, Dan said that Abraham should not have been willing to obey God"s command. Dan stated: "By the way, Abraham should have said, "No, way. I"m better than you [God"KB], I"m not going to kill my son"" (Butt and Barker, 2009). In his book godless, Barker said: "There is not enough space to mention all of the places in the bible where God committed, commanded or condoned murder" (2008, p. 177). The idea that God is immoral because He has killed humans is standard atheistic fare. In his Letter to a Christian Nation, Sam Harris cited several Bible verses in which God directly or indirectly caused people to die. He then stated: "Anyone who believes that the Bible offers the best guidance we have on questions of morality has some very strange ideas about either guidance or morality" (2006, p. 14). In his landmark atheistic bestseller, The God Delusion, Richard Dawkins wrote the following as the opening paragraph of chapter two: The God of the Old Testament is arguably the most unpleasant character in all fiction: jealous and proud of it; a petty, unjust, unforgiving control-freak; a vindictive, bloodthirsty ethnic cleanser; a misogynistic, homophobic, racist, infanticidal, genocidal, filicidal, pestilential, megalomaniacal, sadomasochistic, capriciously malevolent bully (2006, p. 31, emp. added). After listing several Old Testament verses pertaining to the conquest of Canaan, Dawkins referred to God as an "evil monster" (p. 248). Christopher Hitchens wrote that God"s actions and instructions in the Old Testament had caused "the ground" to be "forever soaked with the blood of the innocent" (2007, p. 107). Is it true that atheism offers a superior morality to that found in the Bible? And is the God of the Bible immoral for advocating or directly causing the deaths of millions of people? The answer to both questions is an emphatic "No." A close look at the atheistic claims and accusations will manifest the truth of this answer. ATHEISM CANNOT MAKE "MORAL" JUDGMENTS The extreme irony of the atheistic argument against God"s morality is that atheism is completely impotent to define the term "moral," much less use the concept against any other system. Since I'm pressed for space, people can finish reading the argument here at the above link. Thank you.