How about adding this:

1a)God says homosexuality is bad.

Followed by your full list.

5) God wants every person who contracts HIV to have it, irrespective of mitigating factors (like a family or age)

Here is why: I think that *if* God exists and *if* God created humans then it is reasonable, though not necessary, to think that God cares about humans

If only the same logic applied to parents who beat their kids, abandoned them, or never took care of them. Just because you created something doesn't mean that you care about it or want to take care of it (applies to both living and non-living things). Likewise, punishing or hurting one's creations with no explaintion why doesn't exactly move me as a moral thing to do; most especially when punishments are things like death, from which one cannot even try to learn.

Of course, it also would take us back to the point of if god wanted us to behave morally, why would he allow us to not and then punish those people (or even others who are actting morally - it all seems kind of arbitrary who supposedly gets punished and why) who didn't?

A quick real life example; I'm realitively sure you're not one of these people, but there are those who use your same general standpoint to justify this. The people who say AIDS is god's punishment for homosexuality. Follow the logic of this:
1) God allows for homosexuality to exist
2) God punishes homosexuals with aids
3) God also punishes heterosexuals with aids (since HIV doesn't care who it infects)
4) God then punishes homosexuals again with hell

Now I understand that's not your view, but it is the view of people using the same book you are; many times their intrepretion is just a bit more literal. Yes, if god created people and if god did care about them, he also created the hiv virus, and seems to care about them too. He also created cancer, and cares about it, along with every other disease and illness you can think of. If god truly cared about humans more than them, why would he allow them to effect us?

So where's the morality in that? Where can learning happen? How do we know what's a punishment and what isn't?

Well, if you feel that you were not making a strawman, then I will not argue because that would be "straw-manning" you! :) I will withdraw my remark.

I still wish to learn how you can assert that god must have high moral standing.

I don't feel that I can prove this as a fact, but conditionally, I think it makes sense. Here is why: I think that *if* God exists and *if* God created humans then it is reasonable, though not necessary, to think that God cares about humans. Therefore if God cares about humans, then God would want humans to behave kindly toward one another. Since this is generally accepted concept of "morality" then I think that it makes sense, under stated conditions, that God is moral.

and that "evidence" points to a creature that is not moral by any standard that we have.

Isn't life a pickle!

Further, if might does not make right, then why should we follow god's morality?

I guess that would depend on whether one agreed with God's morality.

cheers,

Matt

I think that I should write more clearly in the future. My intent in my original comment on this thread was not necessarily to make a concrete statement about God, but to point out a possibility or a conditional statement. I can understand, given the course of this argument, and the constraints of the written word, how my intent has not been clear.

Therefore, I am not suggesting that we abandon our morality, only that we consider the possibility that our morality may not be the only morality by which actions may be measured, due to the subjectivity of morality. This really has little bearing on whether God exists or what Gods attributes may or may not be.

Regarding free will and the systematic theology of modern popular Christianity, yes there is the issue of coercion. I agree with much of what you say that giving someone a choice between worship and hell is a poor example of a choice. I guess the only way out of that one is that since there is little concrete evidence that people who don't worship God go to hell, hell is not a very good threat. It would be like a man holding up an empty fist to you and telling you there is an invisible gun there which you can neither see, touch, or perceive in any other way. Not much of a threat there.

If god isn't omniscient, then how can he be sure that he is punishing the right people? And doesn't that cast further doubt on his morality?

You are definitely asking the wrong person. I am not convinced of eternal punishment or reward. My view of God is much less concrete than the average Christian's. This is because of my difficulties with the Bible.

It is a pleasure discussing with you and I appreciate your courtesy and writing style. Regarding brevity, the geniuses can have it! I prefer to be verbose!

Cheers,

Matt

You use arguments against me which only work if one holds a certain view of the Bible which I do not hold. Regarding morality, you are certainly right.

I fail to see how this constitutes putting words in your mouth or making strawman arguments.

Further, I protest that I do no such thing. I still wish to learn how you can assert that god must have high moral standing. The only thing you have to go off of in the way of "evidence" is your holy books. Beyond that, what? If you reject your holy books, then what do you use to determine that god is indeed moral? In short, your assertion of god's morality is entirely made from thin air if it is not based on the only "evidence" you have, and that "evidence" points to a creature that is not moral by any standard that we have.

Further, if might does not make right, then why should we follow god's morality? There is no reason to, especially since none of us can lay claim to exactly what it is, unless we accept the scriptures as "evidence" which leads us back to immorality.

One last quick (I promise) thought:

If god isn't omniscient, then how can he be sure that he is punishing the right people? And doesn't that cast further doubt on his morality? Just a thought.

No problem with abbreviations. It is rather a clunky name.

To your questions:

"I am interested to read why you think that my statement may call into question the purpose of a conscience."

As I understand it, in Christian theology the purpose of the conscience is to inform the feeler that his or her actions is wrong. Having been raised a SoB (if you don't mind my abbreviating Southern Baptistry :D ) I was taught that the conscience is indeed the holy ghost inhabiting us. (Admittedly, I'm not sure of the general acceptance of this idea in Christianity). Given that understanding, in arguing that we had ought to disregard our morality you would seem to be arguing that we should disregard god's morality, especially since you elsewhere state that "I generally judge based on what Ebon ocassionally refers to as "empathy" or by the "do unto others" standard . . . . I think that if God exists, this would mostly likely be God's measure of morality because it seems the simplest and most universal.", thus equating our measure of morality with god's. This seems to contradict your statement that "I do not see that a creator which possesses a certain idea of morality should necessarily produce creations which possess the same idea.", because, given empathy, one can project not only moral implications but other thought processes, like how others arrive at conclusions (such as "what is right and wrong to me?").

Insofar as free will is concerned, I must say that the only thing which saves your position is your doubt of god's omniscience -- a mighty rare position indeed. Only if god has limited knowledge is free will possible at all. However, that still doesn't address the immorality of threatening me with eternal suffering lest I refuse to worship him. I cannot judge by god's morals as, as OMGF and others have pointed out, they are utterly inscrutable. I can only judge by my own morals, which argue that taking hostages and compelling behavior by threatening violence are evil acts. And though deciding not to jump off a bridge due to the pain of a sudden stop is indeed a choice, your example is no denial of free will, as many readers of the San Francisco Chronicle might tell you. People do it all the time because of the stop. However, that is a different thing than a robber poking a .45 at your piehole and demanding your legal tender. Is it really your will to give him the money? No. It is HIS will. Likewise with the demand to worship. (As an aside, wouldn't this worship be more fulfilling if it were freely given? Just wondering).

Sorry about the length of this response. Wasn't it Wilde who said that brevity is the hallmark of genius? Hmph.

And thanks for your kind words. The struggle to encapsulate our differences without tendering offense makes me a better writer; I thank you for helping out.

It made sense to me. (regarding where I got the idea of "do unto others..." as an appropriate moral code. Furthermore, as you certainly know, I am not the originator of the idea as a moral code. I cannot remember now who developed it, but it has been around for a long time.

Cheers,

Matt