Full disclosure:  I am an atheist who is fascinated by theological proofs and ontological debate.  Not a troll  

I've heard many arguments for and against god; paradox of the stone, the clock and the mystery clock maker, etc, but this one is new to me.  It's not really a proof or an argument, but rather a simple question that I found to be a pretty interesting thought experiment.


The hypothetical scenario:
You wake up tomorrow to a divine revelation from god.  This revelation makes it clear that your interpretation of god and the holy book is wrong.  God tells you that the only way to gain acceptance into heaven (and avoid hell/purgatory/whatever) is actually to commit your life to being "immoral" (as you would define it now).  What you considered sin yesterday is now salvation and vice versa.  Do you tell god that what he demands of you is wrong and turn your back on him (accepting the punishments after death) and continue to lead your life with your previous morals and ethics? Or do you accept what god is telling you and modify your behavior to fit his will?  Is it good/virtuous simply because God says it is?


I have an idea of what I would do, but I recognize my bias as an atheist.  I'm curious what you all think and any insight/counter arguments you may have.

As humans we are fallible. The gist of the scenario is based on a personal revelation from God not on His Word. Since the Holy Book is the WORD of God given to us by God, and serves as a means to know Him I would be doubtful that this "revelation" would not have to be denied. Not saying that locutions don't happen. The entire scenario is impossible since God cannot deny Himself in such a manner.  





Salvation through lying murder destruction adultery thievery perversion sloth addiction  and every kind of ill gotten darkness we would perpetrate on each other as a means to salvation? Never.. that is by definition pure evil and defies the nature of God.
 

I'm not sure that "God is good, so it's a pointless question" is a fair response.  The argument is asking more if you would do the immoral for god.  Like Abraham and his son.  God says kill your son to prove yourself and then spares the son after he tries to do god's will.  From abrahams perspective, god was being cruel/evil/immoral but did it because god is god.  Granted, old testament stuff, but it's still a valid question I think.  What if god just has really different values than us and expects us to beat up red-heads in his name?

I believe Angelfire answered your question quite well and others in G.D. have also. Or, are you trolling, because you've listed this in 2 different thread sections ? Also, as the Creator of all things, God has only one set of values; HIS. He does give us the ability to have our own set of values and it's the difference in an atheist and someone that believes.

When I posted the 2nd topic in GD, no one had yet replied to this one; I was impatient for a discussion.  Still not being a troll  

I understand my friend and good luck because this thread could go for 20 to 30 pages...! In other words you'll probable get your moneys worth.

Yep, this should be fun haha.  I'm beginning to regret the post in GD.   It's beginning to devolve

What was asked of Abraham was a "test" of his obedience to the will of God and that too is your answer. In the end.. God spared Abraham's son and even provided a ram so Abraham could fulfill sacrifice and remain obedient in all things. Abraham knew that his son was given to him because of Gods will and his son belonged to God. It's one of the hardest passages to read.
You asked if we would do the immoral for God. But the proposed scenario included private revelation that included an impossible juxtaposition for Christians. I would propose some more realistic events.





Such as a soldier who goes to war and must kill on behalf of his country. Some would argue that killing is killing and it can never be justified. While we know that there are times in defense of what is "right" and for the sake of many sometime violence has to happen. We also know that sometimes for the preservation of self (someone attacking you) we must inflict harm on the perpetrator. For the Christian this create a a grave paradox. When entrusted with protecting others, legitimate defense, can not only be "right" but a grave duty.
I was trying to point out the absurdity of the scenario. When is it ever right to rape or commit adultery with another mans wife and HOW will that  ever lead to salvation or entrance into heaven. These things cannot be reconciled with God or in society for that matter. Sin (which is what the scenario proposes) is against humanity and detrimental to society as a whole. How can that ever be good? There is no "reasonable" discussion.
ETA: your title is also quite deceiving.
 

Thanks for your insight.  I'm just looking for a discussion.

Great answer.

The scenario you describe is an impossibility created in the mind of someone who does not understand the nature of God. This is ironic as you claim atheism likely because you've not seen empirical evidence for God, but then show us that you don't really know the being for which you claim to have no empirical evidence for. This tells me that you've actually never searched for Him and are likely an atheist out of convenience and ease rather than actual seeking. To find God one must honestly and humbly seek Him. To not do this and then claim atheism is lazy and foolish. I hope you can see that, and see that my intent is not to insult, but to gently scold and encourage you to rectify that situation.

Now, what is a possibility is that God might command someone through revelation to do something that *seems* contrary to His prior commands. The case of Abraham is an interesting one that would seem to fit this bill. Notice that Abraham was not being asked to commit to a life contrary to righteousness but to do one thing as both a test, and possibly so that one other person on the Earth might have an inkling of what it would be like to sacrifice a pure and beloved son. It is a foreshadowing of the sacrifice of the Son of God. Also, God already knew what Abraham would do, Abraham however didn't know what Abraham would do, which turned this into a test of trust, and obedience.

But that is not the only thing that Abraham did by the command of God that is contrary to our 'modern morality'. Abraham had wives and concubines. In a very real sense if your current morality suggests that monogamy is the superior law, then Abraham, a righteous man, was not condemned by God for having sex with multiple women who were not his monogamous wife. The same God who told Abraham to sacrifice his son, and then to not sacrifice his son surely could have also told him not to have multiple wives and concubines. But he didn't. Here in lies what you need to understand about the nature of God. God knows best...always. To suggest otherwise is utterly conceited and foolish. God stands on the mountain and see's the whole of creation. He comprehends things you or I do not and cannot. To try and apply our puny understanding in a game of moral equivocation against His omniscience is complete foolishness and someone that suggests otherwise has no idea of the nature of God. So in answer to the altered question of if I were asked to do something by God I would do it.

Now the hard part. I am not Abraham. Abraham was a prophet or someone authorized to speak for God. Someone like that, has been divinely trained from an early age to listen for and be obedient to the voice of God. He knew unequivocally the difference between God and spiritual manifestations that were not of God. He was trained and taught by God. So when God spoke he knew it was God speaking, and that he could trust Him even though what God was asking him to do *seemed* immoral. Not just immoral, but cruel. Sariah had been barren, Isaac was born to them by a miracle when Sariah was nearly 100 years old. Abraham had been promised that his seed, or his offspring would be as numerous as the stars, yet his wife was barren, and well beyond her child rearing years. Now clearly the other wives and concubines were a part of that solution, but in the face of all of that Abraham, who trusted God, who knew God, chose obedience. This lesson of Abraham's obedience to God in such an extreme manner is probably the reason that Abraham was asked to endure it, and why it is included in holy writ. Your asking then the question of 'if God commanded you to do something that *seemed* wrong (I know I'm rephrasing your actual question) would you do it?' Shows again how spiritually ignorant you are about the nature of God and the nature of those who believe in Him. Again, which is fine, everyone needs to start somewhere, but please stop thinking you have all the answers in your atheism when you actually have very little, and start seeking God.

Obedience to God's commands is ALWAYS the right thing to do. However, I submit to you that extremely few people have a relationship sufficiently developed with God to KNOW that it is He who speaks and that they're not being deceived. Few people in the history of the world have developed a relationship with God sufficient to even be put in such a position by God.  The few that have would not be where they are unless they trusted both their ability to discern the voice of God, and to do as He commands. You cannot arrive in such a position without being a diligent seeker of God, and a diligent seeker of righteousness.

Hope this helps.

No longer a Christian, but if I were in that situation I would disobey and probably check myself into a hospital.

AGAIN !!!!!!




You are Trolling


Mod. Before you ban me.
OP did this thread already. He was giving typo.
Given
answers.

Now he is just trolling.

I'm not exactly sure what you're irked about.  I posed the question in the religion forum, didn;t get any responses, then posted in GD. Afterwards a few responses trickled in on this thread but most of the discussion happened in GD.  I think all sides have made good points here and it was a somewhat decent discussion by most participants.  If I was trolling, I think I'd be able to come up with a better way to do it.  Clearly some people got super upset (possibly yourself included) but that wasn't the intent.

Also, I don't know what you mean by "he was giving answers"

SMH.. just so you know.. reading this response came off as a computer generated cyborg voice. You are dismissive. You asked for discussion but as you know you can't have a discussion if you don't entertain the reality of the response back. I'm not irked but I call TROLL.



 

If I had a dream where I was convinced I saw God and he told me to do things ontologically inconsistent, I'd get psychiatric treatment.