Biblical Ethics and Moral Dilemmas: God is the Answer Essay

God cannot determine the outcome of our free choice. So either there is no omniscient god or we are created without free will and therefore are forced/unable to avoid doing evil. Again this shows that god is not benevolent, nor omniscient, therefore he is non-existent. Theists may argue the following reason for god to have granted humans free will. It is possible that god raised homo sapiens to rationality giving the gift of abstract thought, language and disinterested love. And so it is arguable that god gave us free will to allow for love, as free will is necessary for love. Although this may be one of many reasons that god granted us free will, it is one that we may understand. Free will is necessary for both erotic and platonic love. One may argue that evil is only trumped by love. And that the existence of evil, although in its masses is worth it for the sake of

Jonathan Edwards's sermon, "Sinners in the Hands of an Angry God" is moving and powerful. His effectiveness as an eighteenth century New England religious leader is rooted in his expansive knowledge of the Bible and human nature, as well as a genuine desire to "awaken" and save as many souls as possible. This sermon, delivered in 1741, exhibits Edwards's skillful use of these tools to persuade his congregation to join him in his Christian beliefs.

However it is absurd to think that such needless killing, raping, stealing, and torturing could be morally permissible. Moreover, to believe that God could have commanded these things is to destroy whatever grounds one might have for praising or worshiping him. And if in accord with the definition of tyrants, justice consists in that which is pleasing to the most powerful? Besides it seems that every act of willing supposes some reason for the willing and this reason, of course, must precede the act.

Susan has being trying for many years to have a child but she couldn’t concide at any other time but the one that God choiced for her. It’s unfortunate that the doctors told her that her baby will be born with down syndrome, however that those not give her the right to distroye something that God has created in his own image. One way she can handle this issues is to pray to God for him to restore the health of child before delivery or she can listen to Richard whom, obvious does not believe in a God and regret her decision forever. This can be a difficult call to make for a non believer, because most of them think of the physical aspect of life, like Richard said it is be to end the misory of both the child and the mother.

Edwards' creative choice of words that he uses describes the power of God and the terrible Hell awaiting sinners. These words easily infiltrate into the minds of his congregation and frighten them beyond belief. These choices of words and his use of such vivid images are mostly successful in their intent, to scare and put fear into his audience. Edwards held his audience locked up with his promises of eternal damnation if proper steps were not taken. The congregation felt the intense impact of his rhetorical strategies and lived on the fear of the power of God. In this way, he was able to keep his followers from sin and away from the fiery pits of Hell.

The conflict between the Divine Command Theory and the Euthyphro objection come with questions about who sets the rules of morality, and how it can be assumed that these rules are justifiable. On one hand, the Divine Command Theory defends the idea that an act is morally right because God commands it and wrong because He commands against it. This sets God’s will as the foundation of ethics, making morally good actions those that comply with His commandments. This religion-based concept becomes problematic when it runs into the Euthyphro dilemma, founded from Plato’s Euthyphro dating back to 395 BC. The argument centralizes on why it is that God commands rightful actions, bringing in the question of, “Are moral acts commanded by God because they are morally good, or does God command things to be right because He has good reasons for them?” The Euthyphro argument creates its foundation on the idea that either God has reasons for His commands, or that He lacks reasons for them. This divides up the Divine Command Theory in two ways, either making the theory wrong or portraying God as an imperfect being. If God does have reasons for His commands, then these reasons are what would make the actions right or wrong. God’s reasons would stand as the basis of morality, instead of God’s commandment itself. God having reasons would insinuate that goodness existed before any direction from God because otherwise, there wouldn’t be any commandment. Morality would have to stand independent

The second question poses the thought that if god commands it, then it is good. But the issue here is that you run into the arbitrariness problem, which, is based on the whims of god. God’s commands can’t, be formed or sanctioned by morality. In other words there is nothing to justify Gods decisions making it a problem of divine arbitrariness. Any choice is arbitrary because essentially God could say murder and evil is morally good, but we know its not. However, with DCT we would have to agree with Gods command. People that may agree with the DCT might try to challenge Socrates dilemma by saying “but god is good” he would never agree to harm. But we return ask “but why is god good” you end up going in circles not really answering a definite reason. To defend the DCT by just saying God is good, he would never command a harmful act is not enough to prove that statement. We lack an understanding of moral goodness with this theory. And like any theory, there needs to be a fundamental argument with premises and a conclusion to support your

Our thought process and our framework of how we choose to go about our day are shaped by our beliefs and morals. What is the difference between the two? How do we choose which one is right? Plato’s Euthyphro dilemma challenges that idea, he asked a timeless question of “It’s morally good and God recognizes it as morally good so it’s morally good or is it morally good because God wills it to be morally good?”

In this paper, I will discuss about the Divine Command Theory and Euthyphro Problem and show how the Euthyphro Problem makes the Divine Command Theory morality arbitrary. Also, I will discuss why one does not have to reject the belief in God due to the Divine Command Theory cannot give a satisfactory answer to the Euthyphro Problem. First, I will define what the Divine Command Theory is and discuss its attractive features that answer the problem about the objectivity of ethnics. Second, I will define the Euthyphro Problem. Also, I will discuss how the Euthyphro Problem makes the Divine Command Theory morality arbitrary and show how it makes the doctrine of God’s goodness meaningless. Finally, I will discuss why one does not have to reject the belief in God just because one rejects the Divine Command Theory.

In his work Euthyphro, Plato introduces a religiously based moral code. This code, the divine command theory, stresses the pleasing of god in one’s moral actions. Plato’s characters, Euthyphro and Socrates, take turns in a debate defending and criticizing this theory. Its flawed nature is uncovered and we as readers are able to notice its advantages and disadvantages. Using these criticisms, revisions to the divine command theory have been made. After analyzing the divine command theory and noting both its advantages and its critiques, I largely agree with the criticisms that are made about it. However, with certain revisions, it can be transformed into a reliable and successful philosophy.

In the movie God on Trial, director Andy de Emmony has the actors in the setting of the concentration camp, Auschwitz, where they have to face the challenging and controversial issue of God’s goodness. The characters hold a trial to judge God, the room is full of tension and division where some of the prisoners defend God and the others accuse God with murder and evil. Those who come to God’s defense restate numerous biblical stories which are full of miracles and beautiful natural stories full of hope. On the other hand, the others accuse God with devastating personal experiences and horrendous biblical stories. The movie is not the only time people tried to defend or question God’s goodness. In the article, “ Did God Command Genocide?”

Genesis 1-3 offered the very first outline of societal norms and therein introduced interpretations of norms related to family, gender, and sex. In our now-progressive society, the constraints of indubitable religion are removed and the differing interpretations of gender, sex, and family within religion are freely debated. Since the text of creation is divine and human logic cannot fully interpret or understand God’s word, there are copious, varying interpretations of the text. An essential starting point for interpreting the Bible is the understanding that misinterpretations are bound to happen. The difference in time and context alone is causation, let alone the factors of translation and transcription. Susan T. Foh and Carol Meyers, both graduates of Wellesley College, have very differing strategies regarding how to interpret divine texts. Meyers, a professor at Duke, directed attention towards the context in which the text was written. Since our societies are constantly in flux, the context from when the text was written is often different from the context in which predominant and accepted interpretations were fabricated. Foh’s strategy of interpreting and understanding the text is to utilize latter parts of the text, which were written with more recent contexts, in order to understand the text. Both of these methodologies set up the text to be re-interpreted, however, Foh’s methodology is more complete because it allows the text to speak for itself rather than bring in

Morality only exists if we believe in God; therefore if God doesn’t exist there is no morality. There have been so many evil acts committed in the name of God that it is difficult to maintain that a belief in God equates to morality. There are situations that happen every day where decisions are made based off of human rights that contradict the word of God. Morality comes from within, it is an understanding of right versus wrong and the ability to choose what is right. Knowing all this a belief in God is not a requirement for a person to be moral. (Mosser, 2011)

Have you ever asked yourself where your conscience comes from? The feeling that takes a hold of you when you do what you feel is wrong. This feeling is almost like a consequence when you tell a lie or commit a crime. Your conscience helps you sort out the good and bad and feels your mind with sorrow when you see a sad story on the news or gives you the initiative to donate money to a contribution. But where does it come from. Is it something you are naturally born with, taught over time or given to you by a higher power? This argument leads to the existence of moral values by many philosophers including William Lane Craig. One of his excerpts argues that if there is an existence of moral values, which some people agree,

When conflicts such as moral contradictions and inconsistencies arise, conversations including ethics and moral reasoning is the only way to solve these inconsistencies. Those who are genuine devotees of a certain religion may question if their religion’s moral instructions make sense according to one another. In these distinct cases, intelligent resolution of the claims can only be sorted out by putting in place an unbiased standard that can classify the competing viewpoints. This is where ethics comes in as the neutrality in the form of critical thinking, proficient arguments, and careful analysis.