The Righteousness of God

[InChrist]

Do you agree that it is impossible for God to call himself righteous without the existence of objective (transcendent and independent) principles which He can use as a measure for His righteousness?

No, I don't agree since from my perspective and what I see revealed in the scriptures is that God Alone is the ultimate measure of all righteousness. There are no "principles transcendent or independent" apart from His Being. As the scriptures say...God is the Beginning and the End, the Alpha and Omega, the First and the Last.

 

[Thanda]

No, I don't agree since from my perspective and what I see revealed in the scriptures is that God Alone is the ultimate measure of all righteousness. There are no "principles transcendent or independent" apart from His Being. As the scriptures say...God is the Beginning and the End, the Alpha and Omega, the First and the Last.

Then God cannot call Himself righteous. He just is. Because if He says "I'm a good Person" the question will arise - how do you know you are good? What measure are you using to judge your own goodness?

If you were God and I put those questions to you, how would you answer?

 

[Thanda]

I'm disagreeing that atonement is a contradiction or 'riddle' in the context of omnipotence, purpose seeks purpose- it is consistent with a purposeful creator, that we are given that gift ourselves.

The recognition of, and choice between good and evil, is all that gives those things meaning.

My point is if God has no other principles that He must live by than those which He Himself makes, then it was obviously His own preference to make the sacrifice of His Son a necessary condition for salvation. Then it cannot be said that God had to sacrifice His Son in order to extend mercy to man. It can only be said that God wanted to sacrifice His Son before He was willing to save His own children.

Now this second proposition is one I have a hard time coming to terms with.

 

[Saint Frankenstein]

LOL! Nice try! But no poop!

Would you care to explain the logic of a force of "righteousness," beyond the control of YHVH, - even though your Bible says he created everything, - and that "righteousness" - forces him into an evil act like human sacrifice?

Where is the logic in claiming existent "righteousness" forces God to do evil? And he has no choice?

*

I think this thread is getting at the issues within Divine Command Theory. In Divine Command Theory, which philosophers like William Lane Craig use in their arguments, since God is the source of all good - Him being good in of itself - everything that God does or commands is automatically good. So if God orders killings, genocide, rape, slavery, etc. then it follows that those things are automatically good orders to follow since God ordered them. From our perspective, we would see those things in a negative light but Divine Command Theory doesn't give two ****s about what we think about it.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Divine_command_theory

 

[Thanda]

I think this thread is getting at the issues within Divine Command Theory. In Divine Command Theory, which philosophers like William Lane Craig use in their arguments, since God is the source of all good - Him being good in of itself - everything that God does or commands is automatically good. So if God orders killings, genocide, rape, slavery, etc. then it follows that those things are automatically good orders to follow since God ordered them. From our perspective, we would see those things in a negative light but Divine Command Theory doesn't give two ****s about what we think about it.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Divine_command_theory

And yet, without transcendent principles, it could just as well be argued that God is in fact the source of all evil and that everything He does, no matter how kind it may seem from our perspective, is in fact a manifestation of His malevolence.

So I still contend that without principles that exist independently of God there can be no real claim that He is either Good or Evil.

 

[Lyndon]

I definitely don't accept that God had anything to do with this whole "sacrifice his son" business, I think its all made up by man, just like the sacrifice of animals by the Jews in the Old Testament. One of the things I've learned by communing with God over the years is not everything people say comes from God actually has anything to do with God at all. God is moral, God is good, God is loving, caring, compassionate. And most the crap people say about God is just that, crap.

 

[viole]

The debt isn't going to pay itself.



It is your opinion that people will never see other people again. It is my opinion that everyone will see everyone one they have ever loved in life again once we are all dead.

Again, I feel our conversation is drifting into a discussion I've had often but which is not in the scope of this thread. I am interested in exploring the importance of transcendental laws and principles in order for any being to be able to call himself good.

Do you have any thoughts on this?

My thoughts on this?

Well, I do not believe in the existence of a trascendental goodness that is not embedded in a certain biological and natural context. For me, it is meaningless. i can, for instance, imagine an alien nation that despises helping the weak, and can still be called good, in their own environment. I believe that our "goodness" is mainly genetics and evolved rules of engagement that converge towards an equilibrium between selfishness and altruism. In the same way the leaves of plants follow a perfect angle between them in order to optimize light exposion, we developed love, empathy and altruism to contrast the obvious instabilities induced by a purely egoistical society.

i believe that societies where each individual depends on other individuals in order to survive, necessarily evolve some form of altruism or self-sacrifice. I believe that mothers prefer to die in lieu of their sons, in general, for purely genetic reasons that made their brains evolve that trait. Looks and feels awesome, but I see no logical reasons to promote it to metaphysics.

On a related note, if there were such transcendent moral laws, what is the use of God? We seem to do fine with other, possibily, metaphysical laws, like the laws of logic, without invoking a God to enforce them or to serve as a role model thereof. So, why do we need God to enforce this particular set of laws?

Ciao

- viole

 

[viole]

First God did not sacrifice some random anyone. He gave Himself, God the Son in the human flesh of Jesus Christ as our human representative, paid the penalty for all the sins of all humanity. Secondly, the death of the Son of God was or is not about an effort to make people's lives more compatible with true principles, it is about justice and paying the penalty for sin, A criminal does not stand before judge in a courtroom and say, "Well, I have now realized what is right and wrong so you can just forgive me for my past crimes and forget any consequences or sentencing". What judge would go for that? Justice does not work that way. When a crime is committed there is a penalty. In the case of human sin against an eternal God that penalty is eternal. Only an eternal Being could pay such a penalty and offer true pardon and freedom to those who receive such a gift..

Honestly, if I knew that I get my money back after three days with infinite interest rate, I would be ready to pay anyones debt.

Am I also perfectly good?

Ciao

- viole

 

[ImmortalFlame]

I definitely don't accept that God had anything to do with this whole "sacrifice his son" business, I think its all made up by man, just like the sacrifice of animals by the Jews in the Old Testament. One of the things I've learned by communing with God over the years is not everything people say comes from God actually has anything to do with God at all. God is moral, God is good, God is loving, caring, compassionate. And most the crap people say about God is just that, crap.

I just wanted to ask: how do you determine that what you've learned by supposedly communicating with God is true while what many others have learned by supposedly communicating with God is crap?

 

[Lyndon]

Cause the people that talk crap about God do not have a close relationship with God, they are mostly going off what they have been told.

 

[Ingledsva]

I think this thread is getting at the issues within Divine Command Theory. In Divine Command Theory, which philosophers like William Lane Craig use in their arguments, since God is the source of all good - Him being good in of itself - everything that God does or commands is automatically good. So if God orders killings, genocide, rape, slavery, etc. then it follows that those things are automatically good orders to follow since God ordered them. From our perspective, we would see those things in a negative light but Divine Command Theory doesn't give two ****s about what we think about it.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Divine_command_theory

Indeed, it is very - very - strange - to call such evil - good.

*

 

[Ingledsva]

And yet, without transcendent principles, it could just as well be argued that God is in fact the source of all evil and that everything He does, no matter how kind it may seem from our perspective, is in fact a manifestation of His malevolence.

So I still contend that without principles that exist independently of God there can be no real claim that He is either Good or Evil.

The problem with this - is that the Bible says he created everything. Thus he would need nothing outside himself to be evil, or good. Also he would have had to create evil, for it to be in existence.

So in that Bible light, - If YHVH didn't create evil, - then no YHVH created Satan, - would know what evil was, - to commit it, and cause a fall from Eden. This brings the whole Christian Bible concept crashing down.

Why would there then be a source? Especially one that FORCES him to what is obviously evil? The torture and murder of a human sacrifice?

Human sacrifice was in the Hebrew past, - and was forbidden. It makes no logical sense for torture/human sacrifice, - (which actually isn't anyway, as supposedly he is a God and rises) - meaning no one died for other people's sins anyway.

Nor is human blood sacrifice logical - to take away other people's sins. The Hebrew left that in the past, - and Jesus was a Jew. Such an action would be against the law.

*

 

[InChrist]

Honestly, if I knew that I get my money back after three days with infinite interest rate, I would be ready to pay anyones debt.

Am I also perfectly good?

Ciao

- viole

The physical suffering and death of Christ on the cross does not compare to the eternal suffering He and His Father bore as only and eternal God could possibly bear. I doubt you are perfectly good and I know you have no capability nor desire to eternally bear the weigh and suffering of the sins of all humanity forever.

http://www.ldolphin.org/sixhours.html

 

[InChrist]

Then God cannot call Himself righteous. He just is. Because if He says "I'm a good Person" the question will arise - how do you know you are good? What measure are you using to judge your own goodness?

If you were God and I put those questions to you, how would you answer?

Well, I'm not God. I'm a human with God as my higher authority. God on the other hand has no higher authority and as the Source of goodness to begin with there is no good higher than Himself. So He is not measured at all against anything. He is the definition of goodness. He is goodness.

 

[Thanda]

My thoughts on this?


Well, I do not believe in the existence of a trascendental goodness that is not embedded in a certain biological and natural context. For me, it is meaningless. i can, for instance, imagine an alien nation that despises helping the weak, and can still be called good, in their own environment. I believe that our "goodness" is mainly genetics and evolved rules of engagement that converge towards an equilibrium between selfishness and altruism. In the same way the leaves of plants follow a perfect angle between them in order to optimize light exposion, we developed love, empathy and altruism to contrast the obvious instabilities induced by a purely egoistical society.


i believe that societies where each individual depends on other individuals in order to survive, necessarily evolve some form of altruism or self-sacrifice. I believe that mothers prefer to die in lieu of their sons, in general, for purely genetic reasons that made their brains evolve that trait. Looks and feels awesome, but I see no logical reasons to promote it to metaphysics.

Thanks for this response. I think you have actually hit the nail on the head. What you describe is perfectly what I had in mind. You see, according to my beliefs, matter and intelligence is co-eternal with God. And as a result of their existence there exist, by nature, principles by which all this matter and intelligence can co-exist in a manner that brings the greatest amount of peace, order and contentment.

My belief is that God is a master of these principles. Not only does He know them all He also lives them all. As the perfect embodiment of these principles He is able to order and organise the universe in wisdom and truth. He is able to instruct every form of life in the universe with as much of these principles as they can handle in order to help them advance and eventually reach their potential. It is further my belief that human beings are the highest form of life with the greatest potential to understand and live all these principles. And it is also my belief that God desires that we should obtain a full knowledge of all these principles in order that we can become like Him and we can also assist Him in His eternal work.


As for your question on Metaphysics: Joseph Smith said "There is no such thing as immaterial matter. All spirit is matter, but it is more fine or pure, and can only be discerned by purer eyes. We cannot see it; but when our eyes are purified we shall see that it is all matter."


Thus while some conceive of God as a mysterious being who lives outside time and reality itself, I believe “God exists both in time and in space, and has as much relation to them as man or any other being. He has extension, and form, and dimensions, as well as man. He occupies space; has a body, parts and passions; can go from place to place—can eat, drink, and talk, as well as man.” Therefore God is as much a part of this universe and reality as we are. So when I speak of God in relation to these principles I am not elevating the discussion to obscure metaphysics but I am talking about the very nature and universe you and I are experiencing.

On a related note, if there were such transcendent moral laws, what is the use of God? We seem to do fine with other, possibily, metaphysical laws, like the laws of logic, without invoking a God to enforce them or to serve as a role model thereof. So, why do we need God to enforce this particular set of laws?

I am glad you think so highly of the human race as to think we are doing fine with metaphysical laws. I assure you though, if we really were doing fine with all the principles I believe form part of those "metaphysical laws" the world we live in would be very different.

From time to time we have people born into the world who have helped us look at things differently and the world has been better for it. It may be tempting for some to assume that those who did so (Confucius, Buddha, Ghandi etc) were just biologically more intelligent than others. However I am of the firm opinion that such people possessed knowledge and understanding that was clearly given to them so that they may share it with the world. And who is it that gave them this knowledge? It is the very God whose importance and relevance you question.

We may as well believe any competent group of engineers we meet today figured out all the principles of their field by themselves without any teachers as to belief the human race's understanding of metaphysical laws or principles was unaided by a being with knowledge concerning these things.

 

[Thanda]

The problem with this - is that the Bible says he created everything. Thus he would need nothing outside himself to be evil, or good. Also he would have had to create evil, for it to be in existence.

I disagree, he would certainly need something outside himself to be good or evil. If nothing existed outside Him against what would you judge Him to be good or evil?

So in that Bible light, - If YHVH didn't create evil, - then no YHVH created Satan, - would know what evil was, - to commit it, and cause a fall from Eden. This brings the whole Christian Bible concept crashing down.

The Bible does not say God created all things out of nothing. If I say there were no cars until I created them does that then lead to the conclusion that I created cars out of nothing? We can certainly see what God has created and we know it is not by luck that the conditions on this earth are perfect for life. However none of that leads to a conclusion that God created the earth, the Sun, moon and stars out of nothing.

Now if God did not create the universe out of nothing then clearly God did not create everything - for He did not create the things He used to create the things we see.

And if God did not create everything then there can be no assumption that He created evil. No I know you may quickly want to jump to Isaiah 45:7 to prove that God did in fact create evil. Now let us reason together: in the same verse He says He created light and darkness. Now we know that darkness need not created. It exists naturally as a condition inherent when light is absent. And we know that God created the light when he said "let there be light". Thus by creating one thing, light, he by extension created its opposite since the opposite exists naturally when that thing is not present. In the same way God made laws that needed to be obeyed. Obedience to those laws create constitute good or righteousness. Clearly disobedience to those laws would result in evil or sin. Thus with one act God created both good and evil. But He did not create evil in the way you would like to suggest He did. It was created by default.

Human sacrifice was in the Hebrew past, - and was forbidden. It makes no logical sense for torture/human sacrifice, - (which actually isn't anyway, as supposedly he is a God and rises) - meaning no one died for other people's sins anyway.

Nor is human blood sacrifice logical - to take away other people's sins. The Hebrew left that in the past, - and Jesus was a Jew. Such an action would be against the law.

There are many countries with laws that don't appear logical to one group of people or another. However they must still be obeyed. Therefore it does not matter if to you or any other person the suffering of a willing innocent being to set free the repentant but guilty does not make logical sense. If that is what these principles require then it must be done.

 

[Guy Threepwood]

My point is if God has no other principles that He must live by than those which He Himself makes, then it was obviously His own preference to make the sacrifice of His Son a necessary condition for salvation. Then it cannot be said that God had to sacrifice His Son in order to extend mercy to man. It can only be said that God wanted to sacrifice His Son before He was willing to save His own children.

Now this second proposition is one I have a hard time coming to terms with.

I think you, I and most Christians would agree on the first part then, it was a willing sacrifice for the good of mankind.

On the second part, there can be no good without evil, any more than right without left, they are relatives, defined by each other.

How could a person be truly good if they had no choice?

 

[Thanda]

I think you, I and most Christians would agree on the first part then, it was a willing sacrifice for the good of mankind.

On the second part, there can be no good without evil, any more than right without left, they are relatives, defined by each other.

How could a person be truly good if they had no choice?

Indeed. Good and evil exist independently of God. God chooses to be good. The devil chooses to be evil.

 

[Bird123]

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.

Everybody wants to rule the world. Mankind makes judgments, places labels then attempts to get everyone to go by their views. Are their views really right? Is the thinking really at a higher level?

First , let us examine good. Who decides what is good? Some say God does, but does He? Has God ever defined good or even told anyone what our choices should be? Of course not and God never will. Sure holy books all over the world tell people what God wants, however all these books are written by mankind. That's not God. Once again, everybody wants to rule the world.

So what is reality? Take a few steps back and really think. Does God really need to make any rules? Sure, the physical laws of the universe must exist in order for things to run smoothly. Wouldn't it be just a mess to make any other rules? What a mess would it be to do the policing, judging, and condemning, further there is a question of fairness. Frying kids is not intelligent either.

We have our freedom to choose. God does not care what our choices are. All God has to do is return our choices back to us then what happens? We understand what our choices really mean. When one acquires enough knowledge from seeing all sides, intelligence will always make the right choice. Think Mathematics.

Given enough lifetimes, one learns and grows reaching to a higher and higher level. There is no judging, hating, condemning. There is only Unconditional Love with High intelligence and wisdom. One must look at the results of things.

Since life is a multilevel classroom, the diversity of lessons being learned is great. On the other hand, that allows us all to teach each other lessons we have already learned. Interaction is important. A wide view also helps. Someone labeled bad might just have knowledge that could change the world.

So is God good? Each should decide for themselves. From my experience, God has Great Knowledge and Intelligence. This hungry student walks toward God just to learn. The more I learn, the better things get and that is good.

 

[Thanda]

Given enough lifetimes, one learns and grows reaching to a higher and higher level. There is no judging, hating, condemning. There is only Unconditional Love with High intelligence and wisdom. One must look at the results of things.

I have a huge issue I have with the Buddhist type theory of multiple lifetimes invariably leading to a person achieving perfection. I reject the notion because the assumption that the more time people are given the better they will get is one that has no basis in reality. From reality we can see that given more time some people get better and make better choices while others get worse and make worse choices. So as romantic as it sounds to say that if everyone simply got more time they would eventually reach perfection this is plainly not true.

So the question is, what is a loving God to do about those who clearly will never reach perfection no matter how many lives or chances they are given? Should he force them to continue living multiple lives for eternity? Or should he make a call (a judgement if you will) and give them a position within his kingdom that will suit their abilities?

I would choose the latter.

Sure, the physical laws of the universe must exist in order for things to run smoothly. Wouldn't it be just a mess to make any other rules?

It would be a mistake to think that the laws of God are not ultimately physical. In the end I believe God's ultimate goal is to bring order and allow all creatures in the universe a chance at happiness according to their measure. As for man he desires that we may assist Him in his work. Therefore all the commandments he gives us are calculated to allow us to learn the skills and develop the abilities to do this. Thus there is nothing theoretical or mystical about the commandments of God. They are as physical and practical as the laws of physics.