Justufy, I went through several pages with Skye on precisely this point and you are still asking at the end of your post the most childish of ethical questions.
I think you are not understanding fully, what would be the problem trusting in what God says and obeying him?
If you believe that a God exists, and believe that he declares to you things like, say murder, rape, theft and violence to others as wrong - then I have no problem whatsoever in your obedience to this God.
However, if you happen to believe this God you have you believe and support that the state you live in should be controlled by his will, that people's lifestyles should fall under the guidance or direction of lifestyles only he finds 'acceptable', then there is a issue because the direct consequences of your obedience to God is leading you to believe that others should be oppressed.
That is what the problem is. People believe that they have divine mandate to tell others what to do with their lives and the obedience they so decree as virtuous is the catalyst for this. There are several specific examples of users on this forum that hold exactly true to this (Amadeus85 is a good one).
please note that God is a perfect omnipotent omnibenevolent Being, so what would be wrong in trusting what this omnipotent omnibenevolent says to do?
From my perspective, absolutely nothing so long as this omniscient and omnibenevolent (how you determine that is suspect) arbiter didn't tell you things like homosexuals must lose equal rights, that the state should be governed by Christianity, that people who don't believe in this God go to hell etc.
Now I'm not saying that you do believe this or believe that a God would dictate such things, but other people
do and for the exact same reasons that you are proposing: because God says so. Once you have declared God as omniscient, omnipotent and omnibenevolent you lose the capacity to look at moral issues in a considerate way. Everything by consequence cannot be anything more than obedience to authority. If you really, truely believe that X is only right if God proposes X then it honestly does not matter what 'X' even is. If you were to discover that God was to declare that murder, or rape, or theft was morally acceptable or permissable you would have no mechanism to disagree with this God. You would have no actual valid reasoning process to declare this God as morally wrong because you've already made the biggest concession: something is right only if God says it is.
By consequence, good becomes obedience, bad becomes disobedience. Terms like 'justice' have no valid humanist meaning anymore. In fact, none of anything you say can have anything to do with humanism anymore. It is all about God. It is all about what God wants and humanity becomes a tool for this end.
If this entity is as such (Omnipotent omnibenevolent and good) what evil could come from obeying its laws?
Well, yes, precisely.
I mentioned earlier that your claim this being is omnibenevolent is suspect and now, I also suspect it is arbitrary. You have however merely self-declared this entity as omnibenevolent. You have merely decreed this entity is a representation of all good. I don't even know what you consider 'good' to be. What exactly do you think 'good' is?
However if you trust yourself, a human imperfect being, of course there is a chance that some evil may come from it, because humans are not perfect such as God up above who himself is perfect.
This is begging the question. It has to assume that God exists, and is morally perfect. The very essence of my problem with 'theistic morality' is that none of its claims of perfection, objectivity and rationality have ever in any meaningful way shown themselves to me to be anything other than a manifestation of self-interest, a problem with the human condition and a consequence and an obedience to authority mentality.
How exactly do you declare something to be 'evil'?
. And how can you then objectively say that something is right or wrong? If you subbmit to your own moral code there is no way of saying that the holocaust is objectively wrong, or that raping and stealing are objectively wrong. Psycopaths may think otherwise! And who are you to tell them its objectively wrong to rape/kill and steal?
People often don't notice, but theists tend to have the same problem. A non-explanation, a fanciful empty remedy is invoked to resolve it and to many seems superficially acceptable (not to me). You have already told me that your morality is nothing more than obedience and disobedience to God. Terms like 'good' and 'evil' by necessary consequence of this have no meaning outside this. This is your objective criteria? Your absolute world view? A system based wholly on obedience to a prevailing voice is not objective, it is arbitrary. It is to the whim of the self-declared dictator. How is your moral world view anything but this?
In any case, I don't declare objective morality, not anymore. All actions can only be viewed morally in terms of their consequence to others. Humans are, by the way a social species. This is the first and effectively only reason why we put moral value on decisions we make in life. I said morality earlier was derived from humanism - and it is. Morality is about what we ought and ought not do in the environment of other humans, and indeed more recently other animals. It is an adaptable and by definition completely subjective setup that changes with new attitudes, new situations and new populations.
We now however, many of us - live in multi-cultural, multi-ethnic and multi-religious societies. We learn very quickly that the majority of us will benefit unmeasurably so if things such as theft, murder and rape are considered unacceptable. (Remember, a thief has no gain if there is no value held in private property.) It would be the collapse of society if we simply legalised them and so it is in all of our interests to condemn them, and deal with those who would soon commit them.
Another reason is a specifically humanitarian reason. Morality means
nothing if the individual is ignored or used (which is part of the reason why theocratic states, no matter how wonderful their streets look fail). We have learned that despite the leanings of the sadist psychopaths (those who lack empathy, and by definition cannot be moral arbiters in any case) that you appeal towards - nobody wants to be raped or murdered. They by definition involve actions where one person does not consent to what is happening to them. It would be a reasonable response in terms of the persistency of society to declare murder and rape unacceptable for not only the good of society, but for the interests of the individual.
In fact the above is why we have human rights. Have you read them? Do you consider them valid? They're an entirely secular and humanistic document based on interest in other human beings.
Picture this: if some aliens would invade our planet and that it was morally correct for them to Rape, there would be no way of saying that there raping here is objectively wrong that is, wrong no matter what.
Okay. How would that devalue the relevance of any resistance?
. Is it really necesarry to complicate matters any further?
