The Righteousness of God

[sayak83]

How many lifetimes do you imagine it would take you to find all the principles and (importantly) implement all of them in your life?

A few years of education is enough. All principles are unnecessary, only those that apply to situations I can face as a human being in a 21st century world. And they are a mere handful and very obvious as far as I can see. morality is not quantum mechanics. Its very simple to understand, but practicing it is the more difficult part.

 

[Pudding]

If on the other hand God did not create everything, and there are principles that exist independent from Him and which transcend Him; therefore if He lives by these principles then He can lay claim to being good and righteous. The commandments of God then make more sense as it is not God just telling us what to do, but it is Him teaching us how to be righteous

What are the principles which exist independent from God and which transcend God?
Have God lives by these principles? Which principles?

- principles which exist independent from God and which transcend God
- God lives by these principles
How does the above two points connect and imply to the statement "commandments of God then make more sense" ?

Is the "commandments of God" a "principles which exist independent from God and which transcend God" ?
Aren't commandments of God also is self create by God Himself and self proclaim by himself to be righteous?

The commandments of God can be said it is God telling us what to do while also it is Him teaching us how to be righteous, two concept is not mutually exclusive, I don't see how it leads to the conclusion that it make more sense.
Non sequitur?

For the Christian this also goes a long way to solving the riddle of the atonement. The question often asked is why did God have to send someone to suffer and die for the sins of others? Why didn't He just forgive them? After all it is just His own laws that have been broken so He has every right to simply forgive whoever He feels like forgiving without having to go through a heart breaking ceremony (sacrificing His own Son).

But if the laws that man breaks and which qualify him as sinful are not God's arbitrary rules but rather beyond Him then there remains that possibility that those principles required God to sacrifice someone perfect to suffer for the sins of the imperfect in order to allow Him to grant them mercy.

That means God is limit by rules which is beyond Him (whether create by Him or not), this limit to God does question the omnipotence of the said God.

 

[Thanda]

A few years of education is enough. All principles are unnecessary, only those that apply to situations I can face as a human being in a 21st century world. And they are a mere handful and very obvious as far as I can see. morality is not quantum mechanics. Its very simple to understand, but practicing it is the more difficult part.

If morality was so simple to understand, why is the world in so much turmoil - I would hazard to guess it would be easier to teach the whole world quantum physics than to teach the whole world morality and (again very importantly) have them live it.

 

[Thanda]

What are the principles which exist independent from God and which transcend God?

There are many. I have previously used being humble as an example. This principle would exist as a true principle even if God did not exist. We know God lives this principle because, for example, he teaches His doctrine to man in man's own languages and using methods and symbols man understands (e.g. parables). A proud teacher expects students to rise to his level and understand what he says. A humble teacher brings himself down to the level of his student. If God were a proud teacher he would be unable to save anyone by persuasion.

- principles which exist independent from God and which transcend God
- God lives by these principles
How does the above two points connect and imply to the statement "commandments of God then make more sense" ?

It does not make sense for a being to a being to come up with an arbitrary set of rules (which he doesn't even live himself) and then deal out an eternal punishment to those who can't keep them. This sounds more like a autocratic tyrant than a "Father in Heaven".

Is the "commandments of God" a "principles which exist independent from God and which transcend God" ?
Aren't commandments of God also is self create by God Himself and self proclaim by himself to be righteous?

No. God's commandments are his own and do not transcend him. Let me give an example: You are an engineering lecturer at a university. You have been a engineer yourself so you understand from both a theoretical and practical stand point what is required to be a great engineer. You will decide what type of lessons to teach in each class. You will decide what real-world examples to use, what symbols to relate the information to and what homework to give and what tests to hand out. The examples, symbols, homework and tests you give out are your own and do not transcend you. But the principles the student must have learnt by the time you are done teaching him are not your own and do transcend you - they exist independently of you. These principles govern both the teacher and the student.

I hope this makes sense.

The commandments of God can be said it is God telling us what to do while also it is Him teaching us how to be righteous, two concept is not mutually exclusive, I don't see how it leads to the conclusion that it make more sense.
Non sequitur?

I said it is not just God telling us what to do.

That means God is limit by rules which is beyond Him (whether create by Him or not), this limit to God does question the omnipotence of the said God.

Power must be exercised within an environment. In any given environment there are certain skills and abilities are necessary in order to be the most powerful person in that environment. Anybody, therefore, who desires to be powerful must gain this particular skills and abilities.

The universe(s) are the environment. God has learnt the principles necessary to become the most powerful type of being in the environment. He is trying to teach us to become like him.

 

[EtuMalku]

There is a problem faced by every theory of God as someone who created the entire universe out of nothing and who is the source of all laws and principles of nature and existence.


The problem this kind of formulation brings up is that if God is the source of everything then there is no rational justification for calling Him good or righteous.


Generally if you're going to call someone good or righteous it is because there is a particular standard of behavior (which transcends them) to which they adhere. A citizen who obeys the laws of His country is often called a "good citizen". A soldier who obeys instructions from commanding officers and discharges His duty in a manner expected of a dedicated soldier is called a "good soldier".


On the other hand a dictator who makes up his own laws according to his own pattern of behaviour cannot be called good when he is found to live by those laws. As it happens, many people's conception of God leads to precisely that conclusion about him. If God created everything and what is good and bad originates entirely from what He says is good and bad then clearly He cannot be called good. Clearly He just is. Others who obey His laws can be called good - but He himself cannot be called good.


If on the other hand God did not create everything, and there are principles that exist independent from Him and which transcend Him; therefore if He lives by these principles then He can lay claim to being good and righteous. The commandments of God then make more sense as it is not God just telling us what to do, but it is Him teaching us how to be righteous.

For the Christian this also goes a long way to solving the riddle of the atonement. The question often asked is why did God have to send someone to suffer and die for the sins of others? Why didn't He just forgive them? After all it is just His own laws that have been broken so He has every right to simply forgive whoever He feels like forgiving without having to go through a heart breaking ceremony (sacrificing His own Son).


But if the laws that man breaks and which qualify him as sinful are not God's arbitrary rules but rather beyond Him then there remains that possibility that those principles required God to sacrifice someone perfect to suffer for the sins of the imperfect in order to allow Him to grant them mercy.

Agreed for the most part . . . but, your question / hypothesis relies on one's definition of "God"

 

[wizanda]

The problem is, we don't understand who or what required a sacrifice of an innocent in order to be appeased. Therefore asking me whether I would agree to it is a moot point. My belief is only that there appears to exist principles by which God is bound which required Him to offer a perfect sacrifice in order to be able to extend mercy.

Your whole theory is based on God required it to happen, what if it wasn't God; yet man, and other evils....Accusing God of first degree murder is quite a hefty charge.

Doesn't sound a good foundation for questioning reality, based on assigning God as evil to begin with.

 

[Pudding]

There are many. I have previously used being humble as an example. This principle would exist as a true principle even if God did not exist. We know God lives this principle because, for example, he teaches His doctrine to man in man's own languages and using methods and symbols man understands (e.g. parables). A proud teacher expects students to rise to his level and understand what he says. A humble teacher brings himself down to the level of his student. If God were a proud teacher he would be unable to save anyone by persuasion.

"This principle would exist as a true principle even if God did not exist."

How do you know that?

It does not make sense for a being to a being to come up with an arbitrary set of rules (which he doesn't even live himself) and then deal out an eternal punishment to those who can't keep them. This sounds more like a autocratic tyrant than a "Father in Heaven".



No. God's commandments are his own and do not transcend him. Let me give an example: You are an engineering lecturer at a university. You have been a engineer yourself so you understand from both a theoretical and practical stand point what is required to be a great engineer. You will decide what type of lessons to teach in each class. You will decide what real-world examples to use, what symbols to relate the information to and what homework to give and what tests to hand out. The examples, symbols, homework and tests you give out are your own and do not transcend you. But the principles the student must have learnt by the time you are done teaching him are not your own and do transcend you - they exist independently of you. These principles govern both the teacher and the student.

I hope this makes sense.


I said it is not just God telling us what to do.



Power must be exercised within an environment. In any given environment there are certain skills and abilities are necessary in order to be the most powerful person in that environment. Anybody, therefore, who desires to be powerful must gain this particular skills and abilities.

The universe(s) are the environment. God has learnt the principles necessary to become the most powerful type of being in the environment. He is trying to teach us to become like him.

Thanks for explain.

 

[viole]

No. But I've met someone who I (and many others) considered to be very close.

Someone I know?

Ciao

- viole

 

[viole]

I most certainly do not have the love of God in me .

And yes. The only logical explanation for a sacrifice - assuming it happened - is that it must be a moral value that God must live up to if he is to remain perfect.

I wonder how you can be perfect if you run the risk of losing that attribute. I could imagine a "more" perfect being that does not need to remain perfect.

I suggest that sacrificing an innocent to pay the debt of the guilty is NOT a moral value worthy of pursue. You said that your opinion about this does not count. But you must have some objective way to realize that sacrificing an innocent to release the terrorist is something that makes us more perfect. Otherwise the rest of the discussion is moot. I could make a case for Hitler being a perfect man, if our opinion did not count.

But the dilemma does not stop here. First, it is in my opinion immoral to release the guilty and punish the innocent. And second, even if we assume that this is some mysterious moral "ought", then God was unable to accomplish it consistently. If we consider that Jesus was alive and kicking after a few days. Would I have been more perfect if I organized things so that my sacrifice really stayed down for good?

Ciao

- viole

 

[Guy Threepwood]

There is a problem faced by every theory of God as someone who created the entire universe out of nothing and who is the source of all laws and principles of nature and existence.


The problem this kind of formulation brings up is that if God is the source of everything then there is no rational justification for calling Him good or righteous.


Generally if you're going to call someone good or righteous it is because there is a particular standard of behavior (which transcends them) to which they adhere. A citizen who obeys the laws of His country is often called a "good citizen". A soldier who obeys instructions from commanding officers and discharges His duty in a manner expected of a dedicated soldier is called a "good soldier".


On the other hand a dictator who makes up his own laws according to his own pattern of behaviour cannot be called good when he is found to live by those laws. As it happens, many people's conception of God leads to precisely that conclusion about him. If God created everything and what is good and bad originates entirely from what He says is good and bad then clearly He cannot be called good. Clearly He just is. Others who obey His laws can be called good - but He himself cannot be called good.


If on the other hand God did not create everything, and there are principles that exist independent from Him and which transcend Him; therefore if He lives by these principles then He can lay claim to being good and righteous. The commandments of God then make more sense as it is not God just telling us what to do, but it is Him teaching us how to be righteous.

For the Christian this also goes a long way to solving the riddle of the atonement. The question often asked is why did God have to send someone to suffer and die for the sins of others? Why didn't He just forgive them? After all it is just His own laws that have been broken so He has every right to simply forgive whoever He feels like forgiving without having to go through a heart breaking ceremony (sacrificing His own Son).


But if the laws that man breaks and which qualify him as sinful are not God's arbitrary rules but rather beyond Him then there remains that possibility that those principles required God to sacrifice someone perfect to suffer for the sins of the imperfect in order to allow Him to grant them mercy.

I don't see a contradiction between a good God, and the existence of evil, and sacrifice. Because a person cannot truly be 'good' , unless there is an option to be otherwise right?. Good/ love must be willfully chosen over bad/evil to have any meaning. Where that choice involves sacrifice, it has all the more meaning does it not?

 

[viole]

I don't see a contradiction between a good God, and the existence of evil, and sacrifice. Because a person cannot truly be 'good' , unless there is an option to be otherwise right?. Good/ love must be willfully chosen over bad/evil to have any meaning. Where that choice involves sacrifice, it has all the more meaning does it not?

The same can be said about an evil God. Antisimmetrically.
And that is why the existence of evil is ineffective against the existence of a god. It is only somewhat effective against the existence of a good god. But there is no known, non question begging argument, that shows that god must be good. Unless we define as good what god wants, independently from what he wants.

True. The problem of good can be used as an argument against the existence of an evil god, as well.

What about a morally neutral god?

My impression is that an amoral god hurts our sensitivity. But why, considering that it actually, slightly, increases His plausibility?

Ciao

- viole

 

[Ingledsva]

There is a problem faced by every theory of God as someone who created the entire universe out of nothing and who is the source of all laws and principles of nature and existence.


The problem this kind of formulation brings up is that if God is the source of everything then there is no rational justification for calling Him good or righteous.


Generally if you're going to call someone good or righteous it is because there is a particular standard of behavior (which transcends them) to which they adhere. A citizen who obeys the laws of His country is often called a "good citizen". A soldier who obeys instructions from commanding officers and discharges His duty in a manner expected of a dedicated soldier is called a "good soldier".


On the other hand a dictator who makes up his own laws according to his own pattern of behaviour cannot be called good when he is found to live by those laws. As it happens, many people's conception of God leads to precisely that conclusion about him. If God created everything and what is good and bad originates entirely from what He says is good and bad then clearly He cannot be called good. Clearly He just is. Others who obey His laws can be called good - but He himself cannot be called good.


If on the other hand God did not create everything, and there are principles that exist independent from Him and which transcend Him; therefore if He lives by these principles then He can lay claim to being good and righteous. The commandments of God then make more sense as it is not God just telling us what to do, but it is Him teaching us how to be righteous.

For the Christian this also goes a long way to solving the riddle of the atonement. The question often asked is why did God have to send someone to suffer and die for the sins of others? Why didn't He just forgive them? After all it is just His own laws that have been broken so He has every right to simply forgive whoever He feels like forgiving without having to go through a heart breaking ceremony (sacrificing His own Son).


But if the laws that man breaks and which qualify him as sinful are not God's arbitrary rules but rather beyond Him then there remains that possibility that those principles required God to sacrifice someone perfect to suffer for the sins of the imperfect in order to allow Him to grant them mercy.

My first question is what God are you talking about?

If it is the Abrahamic one, - well, - according to the Bible that is one nasty character. (Murders babies, etc.)


*

 

[Thanda]

Someone I know?

Ciao

- viole

No, someone I know personally.

 

[Thanda]

I wonder how you can be perfect if you run the risk of losing that attribute. I could imagine a "more" perfect being that does not need to remain perfect.

Your second sentence, if you really think about, makes no sense at all. I did not say God would ever become imperfect. Nor did I say he has a hard time being perfect. I simply said that is perfect on account of his living by true principles. And I have said that it would have been impossible for him to be perfect without living by the true principles.

I suggest that sacrificing an innocent to pay the debt of the guilty is NOT a moral value worthy of pursue. You said that your opinion about this does not count. But you must have some objective way to realize that sacrificing an innocent to release the terrorist is something that makes us more perfect. Otherwise the rest of the discussion is moot. I could make a case for Hitler being a perfect man, if our opinion did not count.

But the dilemma does not stop here. First, it is in my opinion immoral to release the guilty and punish the innocent. And second, even if we assume that this is some mysterious moral "ought", then God was unable to accomplish it consistently. If we consider that Jesus was alive and kicking after a few days. Would I have been more perfect if I organized things so that my sacrifice really stayed down for good?

The dilemma you see is caused only by the fact that your understanding of the atonement seems to be slightly incorrect. It seems you believe that the sacrifice was done so that bad people could escape punishment and go to heaven. And yet the scriptures teach the wicked will not inherit heaven. "Blessed are the pure in heart, for they shall see God". "Blessed are the meek, for they shall inherit the earth". These and many other scripture show that those who will benefit from the atonement of Jesus Christ will be those who have made every effort to live lives that are compatible with true principles.

The issue of the atonement comes up because everybody has a past, even good people. So a person who is now a dedicated campaigner for children's rights may have once been the terrorist of whom you speak. So the question you should be asking is not whether it would be just or moral to punish an innocent person in order to let a bad person go free; but rather you should ask whether it is moral to allow a willing innocent person to bear the punishment or pay the debt for a man who has now reformed his ways but has no way of paying the debt or has not the strength to bear the punishment that would be meted out to him. This is a more accurate representation.

 

[Thanda]

I don't see a contradiction between a good God, and the existence of evil, and sacrifice. Because a person cannot truly be 'good' , unless there is an option to be otherwise right?. Good/ love must be willfully chosen over bad/evil to have any meaning. Where that choice involves sacrifice, it has all the more meaning does it not?

I do not understand the point you are trying to put across. Are you agreeing with me or are you disagreeing?

 

[Thanda]

My first question is what God are you talking about?

If it is the Abrahamic one, - well, - according to the Bible that is one nasty character. (Murders babies, etc.)


*

The purpose of this thread is not really to discuss whether we think God is good or evil. It is to discuss whether it is even possible to God to be good or evil if there are no principles which transcend Him.

 

[InChrist]

There is a problem faced by every theory of God as someone who created the entire universe out of nothing and who is the source of all laws and principles of nature and existence.


The problem this kind of formulation brings up is that if God is the source of everything then there is no rational justification for calling Him good or righteous.


Generally if you're going to call someone good or righteous it is because there is a particular standard of behavior (which transcends them) to which they adhere. A citizen who obeys the laws of His country is often called a "good citizen". A soldier who obeys instructions from commanding officers and discharges His duty in a manner expected of a dedicated soldier is called a "good soldier".


On the other hand a dictator who makes up his own laws according to his own pattern of behaviour cannot be called good when he is found to live by those laws. As it happens, many people's conception of God leads to precisely that conclusion about him. If God created everything and what is good and bad originates entirely from what He says is good and bad then clearly He cannot be called good. Clearly He just is. Others who obey His laws can be called good - but He himself cannot be called good.


If on the other hand God did not create everything, and there are principles that exist independent from Him and which transcend Him; therefore if He lives by these principles then He can lay claim to being good and righteous. The commandments of God then make more sense as it is not God just telling us what to do, but it is Him teaching us how to be righteous.

For the Christian this also goes a long way to solving the riddle of the atonement. The question often asked is why did God have to send someone to suffer and die for the sins of others? Why didn't He just forgive them? After all it is just His own laws that have been broken so He has every right to simply forgive whoever He feels like forgiving without having to go through a heart breaking ceremony (sacrificing His own Son).


But if the laws that man breaks and which qualify him as sinful are not God's arbitrary rules but rather beyond Him then there remains that possibility that those principles required God to sacrifice someone perfect to suffer for the sins of the imperfect in order to allow Him to grant them mercy.

I think the problem with your conclusion is that you are comparing God the Creator to a finite human dictator who creates good and bad laws, whereas according to the scriptures God the Creator is THE SOURCE of holiness, righteousness, and goodness. There is no bad in God or from God. The bad in the world comes about through the actions of humans behaving in ways apart from God's goodness. Such behavior cannot simply be forgiven as if there is no consequnce or justice.

 

[Thanda]

I think the problem with your conclusion is that you are comparing God the Creator to a finite human dictator who creates good and bad laws, whereas according to the scriptures God the Creator is THE SOURCE of holiness, righteousness, and goodness. There is no bad in God or from God. The bad in the world comes about through the actions of humans behaving in ways apart from God's goodness. Such behavior cannot simply be forgiven as if there is no consequnce or justice.

The laws of God divide good from evil. But they only do so for those to whom his laws are given. God Himself (if He is the creator of all things as well as all principles) is neither good nor evil. He just is. And being neither good nor evil he cannot be said to be either righteous or unrighteous. For if you were to attempt to call God righteous, by what standard would you be judging Him? You cannot use His own commandments to judge Him since His commandments are subordinate to Him rather than He to them (that is why He was able to institute the Law of Moses and then do away with it later on). Therefore if there is no independent set of principles by which God's actions can be judged then he can never be called good - nor indeed can He be called evil. He just is.

Consider this passage:

And if ye shall say there is no law, ye shall also say there is no sin. If ye shall say there is no sin, ye shall also say there is no righteousness. And if there be no righteousness there be no happiness. And if there be no righteousness nor happiness there be no punishment nor misery. And if these things are not there is no God. And if there is no God we are not, neither the earth; for there could have been no creation of things, neither to act nor to be acted upon; wherefore, all things must have vanished away.​

If there are no principles which transcend God and by which He governs Himself then not only is He neither good nor evil He is also neither happy nor miserable.

 

[Ingledsva]

*

My first question is what God are you talking about?

If it is the Abrahamic one, - well, - according to the Bible that is one nasty character. (Murders babies, etc.)

The purpose of this thread is not really to discuss whether we think God is good or evil. It is to discuss whether it is even possible to God to be good or evil if there are no principles which transcend Him.

Actually you took it to a specific God.

"For the Christian this also goes a long way to solving the riddle of the atonement. The question often asked is why did God have to send someone to suffer and die for the sins of others? Why didn't He just forgive them? After all it is just His own laws that have been broken so He has every right to simply forgive whoever He feels like forgiving without having to go through a heart breaking ceremony (sacrificing His own Son).

But if the laws that man breaks and which qualify him as sinful are not God's arbitrary rules but rather beyond Him then there remains that possibility that those principles required God to sacrifice someone perfect to suffer for the sins of the imperfect in order to allow Him to grant them mercy.

What you put forward would in no way solve atonement.

"...not God's arbitrary rules but rather beyond Him ..."

Why would there be a need for horrific human blood sacrifice just floating around in space - making YHVH require a human sacrifice?

Also what would make him murder the innocent, and do other evil deeds?

Is the need for him to commit evil deeds - floating around out there - "beyond him?"

*

 

[Thanda]

Actually you took it to a specific God.



What you put forward would in no way solve atonement.

"...not God's arbitrary rules but rather beyond Him ..."

Why would there be a need for horrific human blood sacrifice just floating around in space - making YHVH require a human sacrifice?

Also what would make him murder the innocent, and do other evil deeds?

Is the need for him to commit evil deeds - floating around out there - "beyond him?"

*

Again, you are arguing something that is beyond the scope of this thread. This thread is not seeking to find out what the universal principles are or where they came from. It is merely seeking to explore whether it is possible for God to be called good or evil without there being principles that transcend Him and exist independently of Him.