A question for theists

[En_Route]

Is it possible that any of  the laws laid down by God are immoral?

[Ecurb Noselrub]

Is it possible that any of  the laws laid down by God are immoral?

From my perspective, by definition, no. It is possible that some or many of the laws claimed by man to be laid down by God are immoral, however.

[AnimatedDirt]

Is it possible that any of  the laws laid down by God are immoral?

Define Immoral.

Edit:  Define God.

[En_Route]

Is it possible that any of  the laws laid down by God are immoral?

Define Immoral.

Edit:  Define God.

This is question for theists, so you should answer my reference to your god and your belief as to what is right and wrong/ moral and I moral.

[AnimatedDirt]

This is question for theists, so you should answer my reference to your god and your belief as to what is right and wrong/ moral and I moral.

Is it possible that any of  the laws laid down by God are immoral?

From my perspective, by definition, no. It is possible that some or many of the laws claimed by man to be laid down by God are immoral, however.

Then my answer is much the same as Bruce's. 

[Stevil]

Is it possible that any of  the laws laid down by God are immoral?

From my perspective, by definition, no. It is possible that some or many of the laws claimed by man to be laid down by God are immoral, however.

How would one know the difference between the god's law and laws claimed by man to be laid down by god?

[AnimatedDirt]

Is it possible that any of  the laws laid down by God are immoral?

From my perspective, by definition, no. It is possible that some or many of the laws claimed by man to be laid down by God are immoral, however.

How would one know the difference between the god's law and laws claimed by man to be laid down by god?

One good way is those laws claimed to have been written by God's own hand.  Know the god in question.

[fester30]

If the theists are right and there is a god, and he created the universe, then he owns it.  He can bend the laws of physics, he can make the rules, and morality also belongs to him.  In other words, whatever god chooses to do or not do is moral.  If we do not agree, then that is just our short-sightedness in his great plan.  It is foolish that we even try to explain or justify the happenings of the world or the people in it.

If the theists are wrong and there is no god, then morality belongs to us as a species, I suppose.

[Stevil]

If the theists are wrong and there is no god, then morality belongs to us as a species, I suppose.

Or, we could simply ditch the concept/belief of morality. Live our own lives rather than worry about how others live their lives.
Focus on a functional society and create rules (laws) to make us safe from ourselves, e.g. laws against murder, rape, theft etc.
Don't create laws against things that don't make society unsafe e.g. working on national holidays, prostitution, gay sex, polygamy, abortion.
Don't worry about the morality of our own actions, e.g. is it moral to eat meat? is it moral to manipulate DNA.

If these things present dangers on society then create laws, but if your only argument is whether it is moral or not then who cares?

[Stevil]

How would one know the difference between the god's law and laws claimed by man to be laid down by god?

One good way is those laws claimed to have been written by God's own hand.  Know the god in question.

Let's say we are talking about the Christian god, let's call him YHWH (that's what the bible calls him)
Which laws were claimed to be written by YHWH's own hand?

[technolud]

A few weeks back I got involved in a thread with Stevil concerning morality, he basically saying no absolute morality exists, I arguing the opposite.  He convinced me.  There for, the original question of this thread would be moot.  Gods law can't be immoral if morality is all relative.

I'm not saying that right and wrong must come from a god. I was merely pointing to a belief in god and god's law as an analogy.

What I am saying is that right and wrong are beliefs and hence morality is a belief.
If you start trying to objectively measure other people or other animals against a specific morality then your measurements are fundamentally flawed. Whose moral believe system are you going to use to measure behaviours against?

There was once an article claiming that a survey proved atheists were more likely to be immoral than theists. And of course the moral standard was a religious belief in morality hence actions such as viewing pornography was classified as immoral behaviour.
Well if an atheists was allowed to set the moral standard for the survey then the atheists would likely have fared better, with theists failing on actions such as respecting homosexuals.

If we humans try to observe animals with regards to adherance of a moral standard, then whose moral standard are we to use? If we use a theistic standard then animals will be deemed as amoral, given that theists belief animals are amoral. I too would provide a moral standard containing a blank sheet thus the animal observations would produce amoral results. Now depending on which atheist you choose to define the moral standard, the results will all be different. The idea of measuring morality is ridiculous.
Morality doesn't even exist.

[En_Route]

If the theists are wrong and there is no god, then morality belongs to us as a species, I suppose.

Or, we could simply ditch the concept/belief of morality. Live our own lives rather than worry about how others live their lives.
Focus on a functional society and create rules (laws) to make us safe from ourselves, e.g. laws against murder, rape, theft etc.
Don't create laws against things that don't make society unsafe e.g. working on national holidays, prostitution, gay sex, polygamy, abortion.
Don't worry about the morality of our own actions, e.g. is it moral to eat meat? is it moral to manipulate DNA.

If these things present dangers on society then create laws, but if your only argument is whether it is moral or not then who cares?

I agree in principle, though protection against danger should include curbing economic exploitation and preventing the perpetuation of social inequalities.

[AnimatedDirt]

Let's say we are talking about the Christian god, let's call him YHWH (that's what the bible calls him)
Which laws were claimed to be written by YHWH's own hand?

...and you claim to have read, understand and interpret the bible?

[xSilverPhinx]

Let's say we are talking about the Christian god, let's call him YHWH (that's what the bible calls him)
Which laws were claimed to be written by YHWH's own hand?

...and you claim to have read, understand and interpret the bible?

Hmmm...interpret...such a tricky word.

[AnimatedDirt]

Let's say we are talking about the Christian god, let's call him YHWH (that's what the bible calls him)
Which laws were claimed to be written by YHWH's own hand?

...and you claim to have read, understand and interpret the bible?

Hmmm...interpret...such a tricky word.

Yes it can be.  A more accurate interpretation of a work takes into account all the available information of that work.