God-rejectors: They have nothing – Morality
One argument that has been used by those who reject God and the Torah is that he is evil. Some atheists are so adamant about this that they’ll boldly state that even if it would be convincingly demonstrated that God existed, they would still disrespect him and not worship him. And why?
Some will attempt to play the philosophy card and, based on an ancient Greek philosopher, Epicurus, will say that the fact that there is evil in the world means that God is evil as he must allow its continued existence. Some will look at God’s law or the things he does and commands others to do in the Jewish Bible and judge them as evil, like when he orders the Israelites to decimate cities and their inhabitants, or when he prohibits homosexual intercourse which is accepted and right in this day and age, or when he destroys the vast majority of human life with the Deluge or Catastrophe (more commonly known as “the flood of Noah).
For such people, when the accounting of God’s acts in the Jewish Bible clashes with an individual’s morality, it is God that is labelled immoral.
There’s an otherwise good guy called Larken Rose, an anarchist (meaning one who rejects the legitimacy of rulers and authority), who says that he likes the god of the “new testament” but … oh, let me just show you.
So Larken accuses the God of the Jewish Bible as teaching war-mongering, torture and murder and blind obedience to authority. That is definitely painting him as evil.
The anti-theist, Richard Dawkins, said the following in his book, The God Delusion.
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.
I was watching a debate between Matt Dillahunty, an atheist and a promulgator of that way of thinking, and Cliffe Knechtle, a christian who thinks God died as a man (the bad vs the worse, yet which is which?). And in that debate, whilst dealing with the question of whether all religions lead to God, Dillahunty proclaimed that if the character depicted in the Bible is the God judging everyone, then he is morally superior to that God and would want nothing to do with that God. In his view, he cares more about people than God does. He continued that at least he (Dillahunty) didn’t sanctioned slavery and genocide.
Other modern anti-theists and their acolytes are no different in voicing their complaints about the morality of the God of “the old testament.” If I can find it, I’ll add a clip here of atheists being asked whether they would worship God if they were convinced by the evidence and those same atheists refusing using the morality argument.
Let’s not also forget those who bring up natural disasters and the deaths of living creatures and humans seemingly without purpose or justice as another reason why God and his existence are rejected.
So do these God rejectors have any substance to their argument when they bring up these accusations?
With confidence, knowledge and experience, I can say that these accusations come from such a lack of truth, from such a lack of consistency that to even give them the time of day, to take them seriously is both laughable and disheartening when it is seen just how many people actually absorb them into their thoughts, accept them and use them to deliberately cut themselves of from the Source of life.
The first thing I’ll point out is that in order for these people to argue morality against God, they must reject him as God. Please, I humbly ask that you take on board what I just said. I did not say that a person sees the supposed immorality and then uses that to find reason to reject God. No, that’s not what happens! They must first reject him as God and then bring the case of immorality against … against what? An inevitable straw man, that’s the best answer.
Let me explain! According to Torah, who is God? He is the uncaused First Cause. He knowingly created everything in the universe. He created time, space and life; he’s the foundation of it all. So that, by very definition, puts him in the place to make the rules, as with the harmonious relationships between matter, and matter and energy, so it is with the harmony of human interactions with the world and universe.
If this absolute and objective God, the very source of reality and the rules that exist within it, if he is as the Torah describes, then how can one justifiably place he who created the limits under those same limits? A person can not force the One who created time and thus is outside of its influences into the confines of time. A person cannot judge the God who is not limited by space as if he were a certain size. How can the Person who owns all because he created all be charged with theft? He can only loan parts of his property to people who are also his property, so it never leaves his hand. Everything is in him (metaphorically) and there is no outside, no other. How can the God to whom all life belongs be guilty of murder? He took nothing that wasn’t already his.
So here’s the big one. How can the Source of morality, the one who actually makes objective morality possible, without whom objective morality is impossible, … wait, with what morality exactly could a person judge him? There is no command he gives where he commands himself to do or refrain from something. (Is it possible for someone to be above himself to command himself?) He gives his objective morality to an otherwise subjective creation. He is not under humans for us to command him. The creator is not beneath or under the power of his creation. So the notion of him being under human morality is preposterous. And he didn’t command himself.
So since it is nonsense to judge the author and substance of objective morality immoral, the only way to judge God is for him not to be the God described in Torah. Only then he can be under someone to judge, under a morality with which to impeach him. But then it wouldn’t be the God of Torah, so that’s irrelevant.
It should be noted as well that since God knows all things and in comparison … ha! Compared to God? That’s not a valid statement. Anyway, whereas God knows all things, human awareness is oh so limited, our perceptions coloured and biased. In light of that, it’s impossible to say to God in a real sense “such and such is unfair.”
So, to reiterate, people have to do the backwards thing: they must first reject him as God and then judge him. But then, as I’ve said, they’re not judging him but something not him.
Next point. In order to judge God, he must be subject to or below someone else. The thing superior to God to judge him, the thing or person judging God, would be the true God. But normally when atheists and God-rejectors judge God, they normally do it under their own morality, their own interpretation of that morality or the morality of another group of humans that they accept: God has to be subordinate to their own judgement!
Do you get what I’m driving at?
Let me put it in other terms. The God-rejector must make himself a god to judge God. That’s why the following insight is so true.
The atheist, too, has a god, and it is himself.
The idolater at least understands there is something greater than him, something beyond the grasp of his physical senses, some external forces to which he is subject.
But for the atheist, all the universe is defined by his own understanding, all ethics are subject to his approval, and even he himself is an artifact of his own mind. He is a self-made man, for he creates his own universe and squeezes himself inside it. (“The Atheist – Based on letters and talks of the Rebbe, Rabbi M. M. Schneerson,” compiled and condensed by Rabbi Tzvi Freeman, http://www.chabad.org/library/article_cdo/aid/147754/jewish/The-Atheist.htm)
Remember, a person has to reject God first before they judge him. If a person doesn’t reject God first and yet feels the “moral” compulsion to judge his world and his deed, then that person becomes the highest authority, the judge and superior of God, therefore a god.
But then again, even if he does reject God, he’s still making his judgement the ultimate authority, therefore, the above insight still applies.
So that’s two points: first, a person must reject who God is before they judge him; and secondly, that person sets himself or herself as the higher authority, and therefore as a god, to judge God. Both of these points show some of the rank stupidity or screwed up thinking that must occur for a God-rejector to condemn God as immoral. They cannot properly judge the Torah because they’ve already rejected what it says; and then they raise themselves to a level that is ridiculous for humans. The next point will further explain the futility of their stance.
The morality of one who rejects God, by its very nature, is subjective and hence has no objectivity to it, no justification to change one’s own worldview as it is limited to the brain of the person making the conclusions. That’s the result of rejecting the only source of objective truth.
That atheist, Dillahunty, in that same debate, claimed to stand for objective or absolute truth. Yet look at the untenable or baseless position he finds himself in! Without the absolute, transcendant and therefore objective God, he is lost in a sea of subjectivity. The moral statements he makes are simply a by-product of his slightly more “evolved” simian (ape) brain. His agreement or disagreement to anything is simply his personal fizz of matter and energy, his DNA and brain chemistry. It has no bearing on anyone else. It’s just his individual flawed perception. Even his claim to supporting objective truth is subjective, only relevant to him, no one else need have any compulsion to think he’s said anything of any worth. Without God, there is no “out” of this situation. His worldview gives him no out. Even if he or anyone like him should try to formulate a statement to contradict this point, just the very formation of the idea in his brain-mass inevitably finds itself in the realm of subjectivity.
That’s the way it is for God-rejectors.
So think about this with me! How can such a subjective blob of supposed differently arranged pond scum even hope to shake a fist at the transcendent source of objective truth and morality and judge that source to be guilty? What leg does it have to stand on? None whatsoever! None whatsoever! (Yes, I said it twice.) This pond scum has to steal the concept of objective morality from the Deity in order to pretend there is something to measure God and his acts up against.
Do you see the impudence? The God-rejector uses the life, strength, will, energy, air, and the possibility of making rules of morality, everything, all of which was given to him by his Creator, he uses all that to condemn the Creator? This isn’t about gratitude or the lack thereof. This is about the total lack of grounding for his own position. He can’t even give himself life yet, his mind is so limited, yet he has the nerve, the pomp, to make God out to be the criminal?!?!? He couldn’t even have his anti-God stance without God!!!
So let’s conclude this part.
The person who rejects God and claims to use a standard of morality to judge him to be guilty and evil does a number of retarded things.
1) He (or she) rejects God as the way the Torah describes him first! And then they attack the straw-man. If God is the one who sets up the rules for his creation, his possession, then there is no meaningful justification for using another morality, since there is no other objective morality.
2) The one who condemns God puts himself or herself above God, as the judge of the Judge. Therefore, they make themselves the highest or higher authority, i.e., a god. The arrogance, the delusional pride, of the position is astounding.
3) The morality of the God-rejector is inevitably subjective, it can only be that person’s flawed opinion based on limited information and perception. Such a morality is nothing and counts as worthless when speaking about objective morality. Opinion is nothing in relation to facts unless they agree with the facts. Subjective morality is nothing in relation to objective morality unless the subjective agrees with the objective.
The God-rejector does not have a worldview that can account for objective morals. So it has no chance at all.
In the next part, I’ll stay with morality and give examples of the God-rejector’s accusations against God and show why they either show utter ignorance of the Jewish Bible and Torah or hold no water at all due to the inherent weakness in the God-rejector’s stance.
I know this was long but I hope you can see the points I’m making.