• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

The Righteousness of God

Thanda

Well-Known Member
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.
 

A Vestigial Mote

Well-Known Member
Most people's concept of God being "good" are built upon what they feel He does to specifically benefit humans/themselves. This view doesn't necessarily fit with your model of "good", nor does it have to. The perspective is then not as things are seen from from God's level (or God's potential "superiors'" level(s)), but as seen from the perspective of the underling - the human. To call Him "good", they simply need to feel that God has done something beneficial in their life.

However, it is a very narrow view to base whether or not something is "good" only on whether or not it benefits yourself - so I feel throwing around the term "good" with respect to God is still the expression of an irrelevant notion in the grander scheme.
 

Tumah

Veteran Member
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.
Based on what you are saying there is an existence that transcends the Christian God. It follows then, that these principles existed first, otherwise, how could the Christian God be bound by them? If the Christian God existed after the principles, then we also have sequence and then, time that he is also bound by.
 

Thanda

Well-Known Member
Based on what you are saying there is an existence that transcends the Christian God. It follows then, that these principles existed first, otherwise, how could the Christian God be bound by them? If the Christian God existed after the principles, then we also have sequence and then, time that he is also bound by.

That seems to be the only logical conclusion in my mind.
 

Thanda

Well-Known Member
Why are those principles good rather than evil?

Because they work. Basically it is like growing up. As you grow up (even if no one tells you) you realise that being respectful to people leads to less problem in life in the long term than being brash. Basically the principles simply exist - and it is for intelligent beings to study them, understand them and then live them. I believe God was the first to do this. Now he is trying to help other intelligent beings do the same.
 

sayak83

Veteran Member
Staff member
Premium Member
Because they work. Basically it is like growing up. As you grow up (even if no one tells you) you realise that being respectful to people leads to less problem in life in the long term than being brash. Basically the principles simply exist - and it is for intelligent beings to study them, understand them and then live them. I believe God was the first to do this. Now he is trying to help other intelligent beings do the same.
Could there be other logically possible worlds where they do not?
 

sayak83

Veteran Member
Staff member
Premium Member
I dont't think so. There seems to be no logical reason why the real world/universe/ reality itself doesn't consist of one infinite whole.
So let us espouse what you consider an example of such a rule and investigate it.
 

sayak83

Veteran Member
Staff member
Premium Member
Be humble / willing to learn.
This does not seem to be a moral principle but more of a desirable virtue. An arrogant headstrong person is certainly not transgressing any moral law by being that way.
 

Thanda

Well-Known Member
This does not seem to be a moral principle but more of a desirable virtue. An arrogant headstrong person is certainly not transgressing any moral law by being that way.

Moral laws are transgressed by those who lack desirable virtues. And evil tree brings forth evil fruit. If a person has the love of God in them they they will never transgress any moral law.
 

sayak83

Veteran Member
Staff member
Premium Member
Moral laws are transgressed by those who lack desirable virtues. And evil tree brings forth evil fruit. If a person has the love of God in them they they will never transgress any moral law.
So this rules out an atheist like me?
 

Thanda

Well-Known Member
So this rules out an atheist like me?

Sort of. But by love of God I didn't really mean loving God. Rather I meant having the kind of love God has.

But indeed it is impossible to posses it without God's help and it is impossible to have it and hate God.
 

sayak83

Veteran Member
Staff member
Premium Member
Sort of. But by love of God I didn't really mean loving God. Rather I meant having the kind of love God has.

But indeed it is impossible to posses it without God's help and it is impossible to have it and hate God.
Good to know your views. I disagree completely. I am quite capable of what works and does not work in my day to day life and thereby lead a very satisfactory life.
 

viole

Ontological Naturalist
Premium Member
So this rules out an atheist like me?

Not necessarily. If having the love of God prevents from acting evil, that does not entail that lacking the love of God causes acting evil. iow, having the love of God is a sufficient condition for not causing evil acts, at least according to the claim.

But it is not a necessary condition.

Ciao

- viole
 

Thanda

Well-Known Member
Good to know your views. I disagree completely. I am quite capable of what works and does not work in my day to day life and thereby lead a very satisfactory life.

I hear you. I'm sure many people live satisfactory lives. The kind of life God lives is far more than "satisfactory" however.
 

Thanda

Well-Known Member
Not necessarily. If having the love of God prevents from acting evil, that does not entail that lacking the love of God causes acting evil. iow, having the love of God is a sufficient condition for not causing evil acts, at least according to the claim.

But it is not a necessary condition.

Ciao

- viole

Having the type of love God possesses is the only way to be morally perfect. Put differently a morally perfect individual has the love of God.
 

viole

Ontological Naturalist
Premium Member
Having the type of love God possesses is the only way to be morally perfect. Put differently a morally perfect individual has the love of God.

Do you know a morally perfect, mortal, being?

Are you morally perfect?

Ciao

- viole
 
Top