The Righteousness of God

[GoodbyeDave]

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.

The problem is your definition of "good" as "obeying laws": what is known as the deontological theory of ethics. This is an assumption born out of a background in Abrahamic religions, where goodness is the same as obeying God.

An alternative is virtue ethics, which defines being good as behaving in a manner that proceeds from natural excellence and so leads to well-being. This explains why we use the same term for a good man and a good book. Can we define a creator as good in this way? Well, a good house-builder is one who builds good houses, so a good creator would be one who makes the best possible universe. If we are going to say that this is not the best possible world, we have to show how things could be done better. For example, should God intervene every time a human tries to commit murder? If he did, where would our free will be? And if there is no free will in the universe, if it can never behave in a way that God cannot predict, then how can it be a good example of a universe? It would be nothing more than an extension of God.

 

[rusra02]

I believe there is an ultimate authority and universal Sovereign, Jehovah God. The fact that he is all powerful means he can do whatever he wants, and no one can stop him. I believe what makes Jehovah good is that he always uses his power for a beneficial purpose, and love governs all his actions. He never misuses his authority as absolute monarch, but always acts justly, even when it costs him a great deal. Rather than circumvent his own laws, I believe Jehovah follows his righteous laws and principles, while he shows mercy to deserving ones. As Deuteronomy 32:4 affirms; "The Rock, perfect is his activity,For all his ways are justice. A God of faithfulness who is never unjust;Righteous and upright is he."

 

[viole]

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.

Interesting. But it does not hold a lot of water, I am afraid.

It makes the implicit assumption that vicarious punishement is a moral value that exists independently from God. It is objective and universal. In other words: it is a good thing, or an acceptable thing, to let a (willing) innocent pay the debt of the guilty. And objectively so.

Is that true? Should we introduce the notion in our justice system?

Would you release a terrorist, if her old and innocent loving mother decides to be executed instead of him? Would you accept the exchange?

If not, why not?

Ciao

- viole

 

[sayak83]

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.

Please show this to be the case using non-circular logical reasoning.

 

[sayak83]

The problem is your definition of "good" as "obeying laws": what is known as the deontological theory of ethics. This is an assumption born out of a background in Abrahamic religions, where goodness is the same as obeying God.

An alternative is virtue ethics, which defines being good as behaving in a manner that proceeds from natural excellence and so leads to well-being. This explains why we use the same term for a good man and a good book. Can we define a creator as good in this way? Well, a good house-builder is one who builds good houses, so a good creator would be one who makes the best possible universe. If we are going to say that this is not the best possible world, we have to show how things could be done better. For example, should God intervene every time a human tries to commit murder? If he did, where would our free will be? And if there is no free will in the universe, if it can never behave in a way that God cannot predict, then how can it be a good example of a universe? It would be nothing more than an extension of God.

How about not making mosquitoes?
Making all water fresh water rather than salty?
Creating a law of conservation of entropy so that amount of order is conserved?
Making worm holes possible to make space travel easier?
Making empty space less deadly for human beings?
Making all living beings autotrophic, getting energy directly from the sun so that there is no predations. Humans then would be like Ents tending walking trees?

 

[Thanda]

The problem is your definition of "good" as "obeying laws": what is known as the deontological theory of ethics. This is an assumption born out of a background in Abrahamic religions, where goodness is the same as obeying God.

Laws are more than just arbitrary rules. The principles of which I speak are like the laws of physics. They are made by no-one - but they are discovered. And they are incontrovertible. My belief is that the commandments God gives to man are calculated to instill principles in him which are eternal and unchangeable.

 

[Thanda]

Interesting. But it does not hold a lot of water, I am afraid.

It makes the implicit assumption that vicarious punishement is a moral value that exists independently from God. It is objective and universal. In other words: it is a good thing, or an acceptable thing, to let a (willing) innocent pay the debt of the guilty. And objectively so.

Is that true? Should we introduce the notion in our justice system?

Would you release a terrorist, if her old and innocent loving mother decides to be executed instead of him? Would you accept the exchange?

If not, why not?

Ciao

- viole

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.

Without the existence of principles that are independent of God then good and evil have no meaning.

 

[viole]

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.

Without the existence of principles that are independent of God then good and evil have no meaning.

I think you should agree, if we assume you have the love of God inside you. But maybe you do not have it either, who can say?

Therefore, offering a perfect sacrifice in order to enable extending mercy (to the guilty ones) is an objective and universal moral value that exists independently of God.

Is that correct?

Ciao

- viole

 

[Thanda]

Please show this to be the case using non-circular logical reasoning.

God is the perfect personification of all righteousness - that is, all the eternal principles I have alluded to. Therefore whenever someone possesses any aspect of righteousness he possess a part of God. And whoever possesses all aspects of righteousness possess all aspects of God. Therefore he himself is also God. This is how Jesus is both the Son of God and is himself God.

Therefore since God has beat you and I to being perfect. We have no choice but to become like him if we are to become perfect.

 

[Thanda]

I think you should agree, if we assume you have the love of God inside you. But maybe you do not have it either, who can say?

Therefore, offering a perfect sacrifice in order to enable extending mercy (to the guilty ones) is an objective and universal moral value that exists independently of God.

Is that correct?

Ciao

- 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.

 

[sayak83]

God is the perfect personification of all righteousness - that is, all the eternal principles I have alluded to. Therefore whenever someone possesses any aspect of righteousness he possess a part of God. And whoever possesses all aspects of righteousness possess all aspects of God. Therefore he himself is also God. This is how Jesus is both the Son of God and is himself God.

Therefore since God has beat you and I to being perfect. We have no choice but to become like him if we are to become perfect.

In your worldview, God is irrelevant. Anybody who is able to understand the principles and follow them is morally good. There is no need to allude to God whatsoever.

 

[Thanda]

In your worldview, God is irrelevant. Anybody who is able to understand the principles and follow them is morally good. There is no need to allude to God whatsoever.

How do propose someone in my world view could learn and succeed in applying all these principles. Where would he find them?

 

[Jiddanand]

Humans make rules to benefit themselves (Selfish). However God's rules are beneficial to all (Non Selfish).

 

[GoodbyeDave]

Making worm holes possible to make space travel easier?
Making empty space less deadly for human beings?

So a universe with easy space travel would be an improvement? Can you explain why, other than to say that you'd like it? Or perhaps you are just being facetious?

 

[sayak83]

How do propose someone in my world view could learn and succeed in applying all these principles. Where would he find them?

The same way you presume that you can know that God's principles are in fact objectively moral and good? If being beneficial is what the criteria is, then like any technological knowhow, one can test various mortal systems and see which is most beneficial under what conditions etc.

 

[Robert Landbeck]

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.

You bring up what I think is often called the Theodicy question, which has burdened 'christian' thinkers for many years, particularly in more recent times as radical atheists use the question of evil as an argument against the existence of God. And I regard it as a valid argument, contrary to the expectations of the Incarnation. But personally, confronted with the same conundrum have oped for third way of resolving the question.

While religion exists, whether it has anything to do with God remains unproven by tradition and unconfirmed by God. I have concluded that what exists in the name of religion is no more than an all too human theological counterfeit. That is to say I don't believe that true religion has even started yet! http://www.energon.org.uk

 

[sayak83]

So a universe with easy space travel would be an improvement? Can you explain why, other than to say that you'd like it? Or perhaps you are just being facetious?

For us certainly. Why is travelling through the universe not an improvement. Is travelling the world by planes an improvement over doing so by walking or swimming? Same idea.

 

[Thanda]

The same way you presume that you can know that God's principles are in fact objectively moral and good? If being beneficial is what the criteria is, then like any technological knowhow, one can test various mortal systems and see which is most beneficial under what conditions etc.

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

 

[Thanda]

You bring up what I think is often called the Theodicy question, which has burdened 'christian' thinkers for many years, particularly in more recent times as radical atheists use the question of evil as an argument against the existence of God. And I regard it as a valid argument, contrary to the expectations of the Incarnation. But personally, confronted with the same conundrum have oped for third way of resolving the question.

While religion exists, whether it has anything to do with God remains unproven by tradition and unconfirmed by God. I have concluded that what exists in the name of religion is no more than an all too human theological counterfeit. That is to say I don't believe that true religion has even started yet! http://www.energon.org.uk

Interesting thoughts. Do you perhaps have an idea as to what this true religion may look like?

 

[Thanda]

Do you know a morally perfect, mortal, being?

Are you morally perfect?

Ciao

- viole

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