Luther: You never answered my question.
Is something put forth as moral because God says it is moral, or does god put it forth because it is moral?
Oh boy...this is one that cannot be done briefly! Watch me run out of time tonight...
The question
as stated is formulated in a manner where it will generate an untenable answer either way it is answered, and obviously the intent was to get Luther to either choose one of the answers, or to answer in a manner that does not address the dilemma the question poses and thus be called on for evading the question.
If one takes option A, then the counter-charge is that God's laws are arbitrary and could thus be ordained in a different fashion at any time and therefore we cannot count on Him for any reliable definition of good and evil. Such a god fits the description of the Olympian deities and the like, and commands no other respect but that given to a stronger power.
If one takes option B, then one presupposes a morality outside of and above God, which negates Him as first cause, as well as voiding the claims of omnipotence and omniscience. God in effect becomes a servant and a mouthpiece rather than a power unto Himself.
There are many steps that have to be taken in order to address why the question is not formulated correctly, and ultimately it is going to come down to an alignment of ultimate values--and it is that alignment where the fundamental difference of viewpoints truly lies.
First we have to look at the formulation of the question. It is hinged upon the presupposition that morality is one of two things: a separate construct from God, or a subordinate construct to God. Again, as stated, either option will lead to a "damning" conclusion. The Christian contention, however, is that they are
not separate constructs.
Luther started to go there, but did not connect this to the question. The statement found in the Bible that "God is love" indeed alludes to the idea that morality and God are not separate constructs, but inherently united. (The first chapter of John also addresses this as well, but the succinct statement makes the point just as well.) One must be careful here, for it is easy to then make the statement, if you stop here, that ALL God is is a conglomeration of laws much as the laws of physics are, rather than a source and a
being with personality. The thing is, though, that love by definition does indeed require a personality and a will behind it; it cannot simply be an amorphous, unsentient thing like midicholorians (Obligatory Geek Metaphor (TM)).
We then have to understand the rest of the nature of love. Love requires a sentient, knowing personality--a true will. Also--though the strict dictionary definition tends to omit this requirement--love is inherently
relational in nature. A will must also be on the other end to accept it in full understanding. Now, the concept of the Trinity does allow for there to be such an interchange while there is also unity, and the idea that love is indeed inherent in God's nature.
We then have to address the question of creation before we go any further (I will be returning to the discussion of the nature of love soon--this digression is necessary, though). Why create something separate? Why not simply allow this nature to be good enough? True, genuine love (I speak of something of which romantic love is only one small part) is
overflowing in its nature...it gives selflessly and wishes to continue giving. This is where creating other beings comes in. Some say that we were made for the purpose of worship (which as it is
meant to be, is the expression of love). That's just half the story. We were also made to
be loved.
There is one thing love requires, though...and that is free will. We must enter into the relationship knowingly and without coercion, for where coercion is found, love is not. If the possibility to choose wrongly is not there, if we do not have free will, then there is no love, only a mockery thereof. As we well know, rape is not love. Coercion is the mental equivalent of rape, and against the definition of love.
The risk of things going wrong is inherent in free will. Pain happens and so does death, if the wrong choice is made. But to remove free will is wrong to a degree that makes even these pale in comparison. I assert that free will, being the integral component of love that it is, as a value trumps even physical life itself, as well as trumping the absence of pain.
Now THIS is the question of values I promised I was headed for. One must give serious thought to this: whether one believes the ultimate (highest) value to be love, as I believe it is, or to be simple life or absence of pain. And THAT, I think, is a question worth addressing.
Now, what I have just outlined is NOT a complete proof of faith or why the Christian faith--this is an analysis of a specific question posed. There are several, several other elements I would have to tie into this in order to construct the full argument, that would carry forward from the new question that has just been posed. (I might have to write a book...though I would say others have done better, such as C.S. Lewis, in THAT regard.
) However, for the purposes of THIS question, we have now moved from a logic problem formulated with the purpose of being unanswerable in a reasonable manner (basically something formulated to be a "gotcha" question) to a fundamental question that really does demand us to think about what we believe about God and the universe.
