Question for Theists
- Thread starter n9newunsixx5150
- Start date
I agree in terms of a relative good-evil duality, but what I am referring to is a transcendental standard of goodness in God. That is, if anything can be deemed objectively good, it must be God by the fact that God is the ultimate reciprocator of desired qualities.
I would think that logically, theists would realize this transcendental standard God sets, but I have ran into some theists who, although posing themselves as intelligent, demand that God meets some external standard.
I would think that logically, theists would realize this transcendental standard God sets, but I have ran into some theists who, although posing themselves as intelligent, demand that God meets some external standard.
Required by who? Us? God is not "required" to do anything. The problem (and yes there is a problem) is caused by us thinking God is required to do something or us promoting the belief (within ourselves) that God is required to be a certain way. We spend our days (and nights) trying to maintain an image, but if God is eternal and his attributes are eternal, where then is the process of maintaining?
"Good" is not something God learned over the past couple of hundred thousand years. God has always been good, but due to our misunderstanding and lack of knowledge, we misinterpret Gods "goodness" which brings me to this point. What is "good?"
"Good" is not something God learned over the past couple of hundred thousand years. God has always been good, but due to our misunderstanding and lack of knowledge, we misinterpret Gods "goodness" which brings me to this point. What is "good?"
If God says, "do this," then this is the good thing to do. If God then turns around and says, "do that," then that is the good thing to do, even if the latter order contradicts the former.
In other words, there is no actual set of laws. There is only the dynamic will of God.
The only exception I would make to this is the order that we are to love God and love each other. Love is understood as an eternal desire of God's. Therefore it does not fall under circumstance.
In other words, there is no actual set of laws. There is only the dynamic will of God.
The only exception I would make to this is the order that we are to love God and love each other. Love is understood as an eternal desire of God's. Therefore it does not fall under circumstance.
Definitely - Good always has a very subjective definition. Well, the definition is always the same, but the specifics of what constitutes a good deed/person etc. varies depending on who is asked.
So you would suggest that these theists who demand that God meet an external standard, as 916 stated previously, are simply highlighting their ignorance for not accepting something that they don't understand - such that whatever God does or says is good, and if they don't consider it to be good, that doesn't make it bad - it just makes them ignorant. i.e. their definition of good does not fit with that of Gods (and thus they are wrong). I can see it. If God is the one true form of perfection, then he can never be wrong and therefore, if anyones views contradicted Gods, then they are wrong by default.
So you would suggest that these theists who demand that God meet an external standard, as 916 stated previously, are simply highlighting their ignorance for not accepting something that they don't understand - such that whatever God does or says is good, and if they don't consider it to be good, that doesn't make it bad - it just makes them ignorant. i.e. their definition of good does not fit with that of Gods (and thus they are wrong). I can see it. If God is the one true form of perfection, then he can never be wrong and therefore, if anyones views contradicted Gods, then they are wrong by default.
There is actually one individual I have in mind when asking this question. His position is that God set certain ways that are deemed "good" and that God will never disobey these rules. He doesn't specify what exactly these rules are, but it is simply fallacious to think that God must conform to some rules. For example, God tells us not to kill, yet God kills (i.e. Sodom and Gomorrah). So does this mean that God is now "bad"? Absolutely not. Also, just because God does something does not mean it is okay for us to do. These might be problems that this individual is having with the idea of accepting God as good by default. He continually implies that God has a position to maintain.
Anyway, if you want to check out this other website, it's www.aiwor.com (aiwor = am I wrong or right) People post a statement and then vote and/or discuss the topic. It is a cool website, but it needs more intelligent people over there.
Anyway, if you want to check out this other website, it's www.aiwor.com (aiwor = am I wrong or right) People post a statement and then vote and/or discuss the topic. It is a cool website, but it needs more intelligent people over there.
But who is to say things are actually contradicting? Also, God seems to be consistant when it comes to us, but again, we misconstrue things and think contradictions etc exist due to our limited thinking.
That actually depends on what you define as "set of laws", and what you consider dynamic.
But what if you follow the God of the O.T., and you are given orders to smite someone? Would that be the same as loving them with all your heart and doing to them as you would have them do to you?
That actually depends on what you define as "set of laws", and what you consider dynamic.
But what if you follow the God of the O.T., and you are given orders to smite someone? Would that be the same as loving them with all your heart and doing to them as you would have them do to you?
I would never say the contradiction lies in God. He is consistent. The contradiction pertains to changing circumstances. If at one time God says that we should ring the bell twice on thursday after the last sheep is gathered, then we should do that. If at some other time God orders that we are not to do this, then the new order supercedes the former. In themselves, one contradicts the other, but as far as God's intent goes, that is the same. It may just be that we do not understand what a particular act has to do with His intent, and we similarly may not know how that act may be discarded according to His intent.
Dynamic will of God means that one act may be forbidden in one circumstance, but permitted in another. God remains one in intent, nonetheless. Being no set of laws refers to the act that was once forbidden.
I take up the position, as it also follows in logic, that latter statements take precedence/supercedence over former ones. I just got through speaking to some JW's who came to my door and they brought up this very point. They referred to how in the OT God would have us stone a person for doing certain things, but in the NT that was changed. So the dynamic will of God is practically understood.
No. I wouldn't say that smiting someone is the same as loving them with all my heart and is doing to them what I would wish upon myself. Those circumstances could be different for another person, though. Some people are truly masochistic and will consider giving pain to be out of love and something they desire upon themselves.
Dynamic will of God means that one act may be forbidden in one circumstance, but permitted in another. God remains one in intent, nonetheless. Being no set of laws refers to the act that was once forbidden.
I take up the position, as it also follows in logic, that latter statements take precedence/supercedence over former ones. I just got through speaking to some JW's who came to my door and they brought up this very point. They referred to how in the OT God would have us stone a person for doing certain things, but in the NT that was changed. So the dynamic will of God is practically understood.
No. I wouldn't say that smiting someone is the same as loving them with all my heart and is doing to them what I would wish upon myself. Those circumstances could be different for another person, though. Some people are truly masochistic and will consider giving pain to be out of love and something they desire upon themselves.
This is where we may disagree. God doesn't sin, not because He chooses not to sin out of His holiness, but because it is not logically possible for Him to sin. Sin means to go against God. God cannot go against Himself. His intent is His action. He does not commit mistakes. I agree that God is righteous regardless if man agrees or not. That is my very point. God is righteous and holy by His own standard, and no other standard exists.
When discussing God's default goodness, one of the JW's opened to Mark 10:18, which states, "And Jesus said unto him, Why callest thou me good? there is none good but one, that is, God." (KJV)
Of course, they didn't use the KJV version, but nonetheless...
When discussing God's default goodness, one of the JW's opened to Mark 10:18, which states, "And Jesus said unto him, Why callest thou me good? there is none good but one, that is, God." (KJV)
Of course, they didn't use the KJV version, but nonetheless...
Correct.
But a changing of circumstances should not come to mean contradiction. It should mean exactly what it is--a change of circumstance.
Yes, God's intent is the same, but I wouldn't call that a contradiction. It is simply doing what is right or commanded at the moment. If ringing the bell twice was some type of law/rule that God required that would be a different circumstance.
Correct.
Correct.
I agree with you but not the JW's. The God presented in the NT does the same thing as the God of the OT, only less of it. The people still tried to stone one another, people were still stricken dead by God, etc. However, I do understand your point.
Which brings us to the next question. Is masochistic behavior "normal?" An even better question would be is it "godly?"
But a changing of circumstances should not come to mean contradiction. It should mean exactly what it is--a change of circumstance.
Yes, God's intent is the same, but I wouldn't call that a contradiction. It is simply doing what is right or commanded at the moment. If ringing the bell twice was some type of law/rule that God required that would be a different circumstance.
Correct.
Correct.
I agree with you but not the JW's. The God presented in the NT does the same thing as the God of the OT, only less of it. The people still tried to stone one another, people were still stricken dead by God, etc. However, I do understand your point.
Which brings us to the next question. Is masochistic behavior "normal?" An even better question would be is it "godly?"