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

Author: ludofl3x ,

Topic's posts

Posts in total: 47
  • ludofl3x
    ludofl3x avatar
    Debates: 0
    Forum posts: 1,288
    2
    2
    2
    ludofl3x avatar
    ludofl3x
    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?

  • Mopac
    Mopac avatar
    Debates: 4
    Forum posts: 7,758
    3
    4
    7
    Mopac avatar
    Mopac
    --> @ludofl3x

    I'm pretty sure the "God told me to do it" is not a defense that will hold up in court.



  • Polytheist-Witch
    Polytheist-Witch avatar
    Debates: 1
    Forum posts: 1,932
    2
    2
    3
    Polytheist-Witch avatar
    Polytheist-Witch
    More importantly the "God told me to do it' doesn't hold up with other theists. 
  • keithprosser
    keithprosser avatar
    Debates: 0
    Forum posts: 3,289
    2
    3
    3
    keithprosser avatar
    keithprosser
    --> @ludofl3x
    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?
    Can you clarify if the dream is an actual communition from an actual god?  or was it due to eating cheese for supper?

    Really you can't ask if X is a moral act without specifying what makes an act 'moral'.   Command theory defines a moral act as an act in conformance with god's will, so if the dream was a genuine divine command then killing the dog was moral act simply by definition.   It might not be moral according to some other definition of moral, but then you're not tlking about command theory any more.
  • oromagi
    oromagi avatar
    Debates: 97
    Forum posts: 3,796
    7
    9
    11
    oromagi avatar
    oromagi
    Well, God waited until Abraham commited his filicide before staying his hand, right?  Morality is a human construct irrelevant to god’s will. If god is real then obedience  is due and morality is little more than useless human critique on god’s irrefutable plan. If God is not, then your vivid dream is delusion & a sustainable moral code is essential  for dodging self-delusion
  • WisdomofAges
    WisdomofAges avatar
    Debates: 5
    Forum posts: 354
    0
    1
    2
    WisdomofAges avatar
    WisdomofAges
    G O D ?  an acronym = G genius  O of  D  deception....GOD is a human construct..a TOOL 
    designed for assimilation and hypnosis psychosis into slavery and servitude of petty CULTS...

    There is NO NEED for some totally OBSOLETE imbecile GOD of a long gone era...an era
    of unprecedented IGNORANCE and ILLITERACY...

    Only a FOOL would fall for this absurd Jesus-jew-Allah GOD Comic Book idiocy....these
    GODS are the fabrication of wandering tribal imbeciles who innovated NOTHING...
    who engineered NOTHING...who built NOTHING other than in SLAVE MODE...

    They have no great Cities-Art-Philosophy-Science-Math-Engineering-....NOTHING
    just petty thieves seeking to hypnotize weak minds into slavery of retarded CULTS....

    These Jesus-Jew -Allah God inventors are clever con artists...nothing more...let them ROT
    with their contaminated minds....no human ever needs to be validated and approved to 
    EXIST by some dumbed down hypnotized Church-Mosque-Temple CLOWN PREACHER
  • Mopac
    Mopac avatar
    Debates: 4
    Forum posts: 7,758
    3
    4
    7
    Mopac avatar
    Mopac
    God's word is The Truth.

    What that means is that The Truth is what is good, and Christian morality is about abiding in The Truth.

    The alternative is idolatry, which is put before The Truth. 

    For example..



    Pride
    Envy
    Greed
    Sloth
    Gluttony
    Wrath
    Lust




    A sin is to "miss the mark", and what is it that these sins cause js to miss the mark from? Abiding in The Truth.

  • Deb-8-a-bull
    Deb-8-a-bull avatar
    Debates: 0
    Forum posts: 1,049
    2
    2
    3
    Deb-8-a-bull avatar
    Deb-8-a-bull
    --> @ludofl3x
    Mopac and the rest are only one god moral. 
    Myself, I'm a Jewish Muslim Christian and one third scientologist ( i follow allllllllll the books. ) so ummmmm, i doubt you'll find someone more moral then i. 
    So like if anyone has any question on ( IS IT MORAL OR NOT) I'm your guy. 
    Oh and I also collect stamps.

    The Waking from a dream thing. No. strangling a dog is immoral. 

    Hey lud can you atlest insult me or something, just some acknowledgement? 
    I tell you whats a trip . Denounce your religion today right. Then bammmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm waking up the next morning with not a single morel in ya.
    WARNING : Don't do this around kids....
    See it takes a while for your ' living with no rules morality system ' to like ummmmmm kick in. 
    Kids, especially babies are sooooooooo edible in this period and well ,  JUST DONT DO IT...
    Good day. 


  • Mopac
    Mopac avatar
    Debates: 4
    Forum posts: 7,758
    3
    4
    7
    Mopac avatar
    Mopac
    --> @Deb-8-a-bull
    Watch out dude, it's the Sunday of The Publican and The Pharisee. Lol
  • Tradesecret
    Tradesecret avatar
    Debates: 0
    Forum posts: 1,215
    3
    2
    6
    Tradesecret avatar
    Tradesecret
    --> @ludofl3x
    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?

    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. 

    The alternates views are either 1. that morality exists independent from God - some kind of natural law or 2. that morality is simply a reflection of a culture at any time in history - in other words, it is a simply a construct of convenience for those living in a particular area at a particular time - and that which can change if the society or community in which it exists. This second form might even extend to their being no morality except in the mind of the individual wanting it. 

    Modernism probably takes the first view whereas postmodernity takes the second. The former working more with absolutes - and science whereas the latter more with relatives and pseudo-science / mysticism.  the former being the product of the rational West. the latter the product of the East - and more recently the mixture of multi-cultural western /  eastern views. the first is Plato / Aristotle / Socrates. The latter - Edward De Bono and others. 
  • disgusted
    disgusted avatar
    Debates: 0
    Forum posts: 4,959
    2
    3
    3
    disgusted avatar
    disgusted
    --> @Tradesecret
    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.
  • Tradesecret
    Tradesecret avatar
    Debates: 0
    Forum posts: 1,215
    3
    2
    6
    Tradesecret avatar
    Tradesecret
    --> @disgusted
    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. 




  • disgusted
    disgusted avatar
    Debates: 0
    Forum posts: 4,959
    2
    3
    3
    disgusted avatar
    disgusted
    --> @Tradesecret
    I love it when you guys try so desperately and ineffectually to justify your totally conflicted beliefs.

    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.
    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?
    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? 
    Perhaps not the 21st century's morals but mine certainly are, I've never committed 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. 
    So you still practice stoning non virgin wives to death as commanded by your god? Amazing how your contradictory beliefs always come back to destroy your contradictory beliefs.
    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


  • Tradesecret
    Tradesecret avatar
    Debates: 0
    Forum posts: 1,215
    3
    2
    6
    Tradesecret avatar
    Tradesecret
    --> @disgusted
    I love it when you guys try so desperately and ineffectually to justify your totally conflicted beliefs.
    Gee I missed the part when I was trying to justify anything. I responded to your illogical and ill-informed logic.


    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.

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

    You did read my post, didn't you? Obviously not. Idiot. Yes, I have heard of the Amalekites. I am surprised that you have. Obviously from not primary sources, though. Let me repeat it for you. 

    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?
    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? 


    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?
    Where did God ever command his people not to defend themselves when they were being attacked? When did the Hebrew people ever attack a nation without provocation? what is more immoral? Letting the Amakalites sacrificing their children or putting the parents to death? It sounds pretty evil to let them live when killing them could prevent evil against their children. 

    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? 
    Perhaps not the 21st century's morals but mine certainly are, I've never committed genocide.

    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. 

    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. 
    So you still practice stoning non virgin wives to death as commanded by your god? Amazing how your contradictory beliefs always come back to destroy your contradictory beliefs.

    How am I contradictory any of my beliefs? You don't even know what I believe. God did not command anyone to stone non-virgin wives to death per se. And even if he did, so what? I certainly do not hold to the view that what an ancient culture thinks was moral is what I think is moral. But if God did command non-virgin wives to be stoned for adultery, I would not have a particular issue with it. Why would I? Many people in our so called modern progressive society condone the murder of babies everyday. I hardly find that very moral. whereas you probably approve of it. Re-defining a human life as an embryo or a foetus is a word game - and ultimately immoral - to justify murder. 
    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

    I have not stayed away from any topic. I responded to what you talked about. 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. As for claiming victory, duh, what is the point of such a thing. I am not trying to score points. For me it is not a game. Even though for you it is. 

    modernism is an absolutism position. I note you are not even attempting to prove it. Post modernism which I actually think is what you do agree with - does not give you any legs to fight this debate which is why you avoided referring to it. To claim that the 21century morals is higher than those in the pre BC time is what you are saying - but the brutal truth is - you don't even agree with absolutes. I don't have to claim victory - your ignorance and your silence reveals to any who reads this - where your discussion leads to logically. But - what do you say " don't confuse me with logic. facts just get in the road". Idiot. 
  • keithprosser
    keithprosser avatar
    Debates: 0
    Forum posts: 3,289
    2
    3
    3
    keithprosser avatar
    keithprosser
    --> @Tradesecret
    When did the Hebrew people ever attack a nation without provocation?
    When they invaded and conquered Canaan under Joshua because it was 'the promised land'.   The Hebrews were invaders and they massacred any town or and city that dared to defended themselves.

    Num 13 1-2 The Lord spoke to Moses, saying, “Send men to spy out the land of Canaan, which I am giving to the people of Israel."

    joshua 12 8-24; The Israelites defeated the kings of the following towns west of the Jordan River:
    Jericho, Ai near Bethel, Jerusalem, Hebron, Jarmuth, Lachish, Eglon, Gezer, Debir, Geder, Hormah, Arad, Libnah, Adullam, Makkedah, Bethel, Tappuah, Hepher, Aphek, Lasharon, Madon, Hazor, Shimron-Meron, Achshaph, Taanach, Megiddo, Kedesh, Jokneam on Mount Carmel, Dor in Naphath-Dor, Goiim in Galilee, and Tirzah.
    There were thirty-one of these kings in all. (CEV)



  • keithprosser
    keithprosser avatar
    Debates: 0
    Forum posts: 3,289
    2
    3
    3
    keithprosser avatar
    keithprosser
    --> @Tradesecret
    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
    Tradesecret avatar
    Debates: 0
    Forum posts: 1,215
    3
    2
    6
    Tradesecret avatar
    Tradesecret
    --> @keithprosser
    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. 


  • Tradesecret
    Tradesecret avatar
    Debates: 0
    Forum posts: 1,215
    3
    2
    6
    Tradesecret avatar
    Tradesecret
    --> @keithprosser
    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.
    You are correct, I did not mention this story. But even though you have raised it - it would not change my mind. This is not an example of God ordering or condoning child sacrifice. It is a story of a foolish man making a vow he should have known better to make. God held him to it - but that is a separate issue to child sacrifice. 
  • keithprosser
    keithprosser avatar
    Debates: 0
    Forum posts: 3,289
    2
    3
    3
    keithprosser avatar
    keithprosser
    --> @Tradesecret
    I don't care about Jephthah - what was his daughter being punished for?  


  • Mopac
    Mopac avatar
    Debates: 4
    Forum posts: 7,758
    3
    4
    7
    Mopac avatar
    Mopac
    --> @keithprosser
    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.


  • Tradesecret
    Tradesecret avatar
    Debates: 0
    Forum posts: 1,215
    3
    2
    6
    Tradesecret avatar
    Tradesecret
    --> @keithprosser
    --> @Tradesecret
    I don't care about Jephthah - what was his daughter being punished for?  
    I don't think the Bible is punishing his daughter. I think Jephthah foolishly made a promise he ought never to have rashly made. I think it is him who was punished. His daughter was clearly a victim, but not of God, of Jephthah. 

    After all, did God demand that he sacrifice his daughter? Did God request it at all? And if Jephthah had not fulfilled his vow - would God have required it of him? 

    We do see innocents in the bible as it were being the victim. I don't think the bible condoned what Jephthah did. I have never heard any Christian person condone what he did. I don't recall anywhere in the bible where Jephthah is lifted up as some kind of model for his foolish actions here.  




  • Tradesecret
    Tradesecret avatar
    Debates: 0
    Forum posts: 1,215
    3
    2
    6
    Tradesecret avatar
    Tradesecret
    --> @Mopac
    > @keithprosser
    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.
    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. 

    You are correct in that Christians, indeed anyone should not make a rash vow.  I don't agree that Christians ought not make vows. There are many occasions when a vow or an oath is quite acceptable. In court, at a wedding, ordination, baptism, when civil servants are swearing allegiance to the country and the people they represent. 
  • disgusted
    disgusted avatar
    Debates: 0
    Forum posts: 4,959
    2
    3
    3
    disgusted avatar
    disgusted
    --> @Tradesecret
    It is my understanding that the people of Canaan were full of quite evil and repugnant people -
    From whence comes this "understanding"?


    It is my opinion -
    Have you rewritten the bible yet to include the extra biblical beliefs you profess?
  • Tradesecret
    Tradesecret avatar
    Debates: 0
    Forum posts: 1,215
    3
    2
    6
    Tradesecret avatar
    Tradesecret
    --> @disgusted
    It is my understanding that the people of Canaan were full of quite evil and repugnant people -
    From whence comes this "understanding"?

    The bible. 

    It is my opinion -
    Have you rewritten the bible yet to include the extra biblical beliefs you profess?

    I don't need too. kidnapping, putting children through fire, sacrificing and eating children were all common. 
  • disgusted
    disgusted avatar
    Debates: 0
    Forum posts: 4,959
    2
    3
    3
    disgusted avatar
    disgusted
    --> @Tradesecret
    Obviously from not primary sources,
    The bible which is the only source claiming the existence of your god is not a primary source. woohoo.

    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? 

    The humans should have disobeyed your god because his command was immoral? I agree. What about the Angels, should they have disobeyed for the same reason?

    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. 
    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.