Is God the standard of morality according to your theology? Is God (or God's 'nature') the standard of what is moral and/or immoral?
If so, then you have a direct contradiction.
No I don't.
You are hypocritically trying to apply two different standards of morality (one for yourself and one for God)
No I'm not. I believe it would be wrong for me to burn my children. It simply does not logically follow that it would be wrong for God to do so. I could list many examples to demonstrate that an action is wrong by one person but not by another.
Everything else you posted is superfluous to the point I am making, kind of disappointing too given I took the trouble to stress that I sought only to address a specific piece of logic. The actual morality of burning kids is irrelevant to the faulty logic of "X cannot do Y, therefore Y cannot do Y"
Actually, you have (once again - as is so often the case) misrepresented my argument (straw man fallacy). I did not say
, "X cannot do Y, therefore Y cannot do Y" and you are bearing false witness by misquoting me this way (btw). What I stated was that if God is the standard of morality, and you are to follow this 'standard', then God acts immorally by breaking his own nature/rules (which are supposedly "the standard"). Can God be the standard of morality and not be the standard of morality
at the same time? MY ARGUMENT:
P1 - If God's nature is the standard of morality, then anyone at all who breaks his rules (which are in accordance with his nature) has acted immorally
P2 - So too, anyone who follows God's rules is moral
P3 - God has broken his own stated rules (which are supposedly in accordance with is 'nature')
C - Therefore, God has acted immorally
By your own admission God is the standard of what is moral. Yet at the same time, you think God can perform actions which are immoral and still have them be moral? When I pointed out you have a direct contradiction (and all you said was "No I don't."
) you didn't somehow magically resolve the contradiction by denying it. You have presented a God who violates his own rules (i.e. - violates "objective" morality) yet somehow tells you to be like him (i.e. - be Christlike/Godlike etc) by following his alleged example. That is a direct conflict.
Can you think of ANY scenario, whatsoever, for any person (at all anywhere) by which it would be justified to torture children with fire? How about to own other human beings as property? Is there ANY circumstance whatsoever where owning another human being as property, and beating them severely to near death, is moral? The bible very clearly states that this thing 'God' cannot lie (Hebrews 6), that he cannot deny himself (2 Timothy 2), and that he cannot be tempted by evil or tempt anyone with evil (James 1). Do you think that God (who is supposedly 'holy') can commit sins??
If you think that morality, as you define it, is such that specific actions can be deemed 'moral' when performed by a God yet 'immoral' when performed by human beings then God, and its alleged 'nature', necessarily cannot be the standard of what is moral. If, for example, torturing your children in the basement with fire is not morally wrong for the reason that it is against God's nature to do so then the standard of morality is not
found in God's nature.
This renders the Christian response to the Euthyphro Dilemma completely falsified. THE DILEMMA: Is something moral because God commands it, or does God command it because it is moral?
No longer can you attempt to use the "it's Gods nature" argument (as shown above). So which is it? Divine Command Theory (where God is a big dictator mafia-boss who can violate his own rules and cause tons of suffering, or change the rules anytime), or
a morality that exists outside of this 'God' things 'nature' (whereby then God itself is subject to that morality)? You can't have it both ways and still be rational.