The Righteousness of God

[viole]

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.

Point taken.

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.

This is even worse. Why does God need to sacrifice an innocent so that people making an effort to live lives compatible with true principles inherit the earth? We are talking, I assume, about people who realized by themselves what is right and wrong and pursue the right path.

Under this premise, the sacrifice seems completely useless.

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.

This is the question. If i was poor, stole a lot of money, and then realize I was wrong, give all that money to the poor, is it moral to allow another willing person to give his own money to the person I stole it from?

No. It isn't. Or it is not obvious that it is. After all Robin Hood was a hero, but that would not save him from jail terms in any of the judicial systems I know of. independently from others pay for him what he stole or whatnot.

In case of Jesus it is even worse, because the people I stole from will never see their money. The families of the people killed by that terrorist will never see their dear ones again. It is, in my opinion, immoral to expect that the deal with Jesus settles everything. A nice repent and that's it? Now that we know he is a good person, we can execute her willing mother and everthing is hunky dory again? Too easy, I am afraid.

Ciao

- viole

 

[Ingledsva]

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.

Again - You brought the Christian God and atonement into the discussion.

GOD - 1. (in Christianity and other monotheistic religions) the creator and ruler of the universe and source of all moral authority; the supreme being.

What you are describing does not fall under the normal definitions of a god.

If it doesn't have control - then it isn't a god.

Are you saying there is a god, above the earth god YHVH, making him do things against his will?

Are you LDS?

*

 

[InChrist]

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.

Finite human minds can come up with many and various ideas about God, but I think all such ideas are nothing more than our own vain imagination. Humans really are not capable of accurately knowing anything about a spiritual, transcendent Being as God, if not based on the revelation God gives of Himself. According to His revelation in the scriptures He is the source of perfection and goodness and the laws He has given reflect His perfect character. I agree with you that He cannot be judged because He is the ultimate Judge and therefore the foundation of righteousness. But we can know He is good because He has revealed His goodness.

"The Bible’s standard of human righteousness is God’s own perfection in every attribute, every attitude, every behavior, and every word. Thus, God’s laws, as given in the Bible, both describe His own character and constitute the plumb line by which He measures human righteousness."
http://www.gotquestions.org/righteousness.html

"The righteousness of God, one of the most prominent attributes of God in the Scriptures, is also one of the most elusive. Initially, distinguishing the righteousness of God from His holiness or His goodness seems difficult. In addition, the righteousness of God is virtually synonymous with His justice:"
https://bible.org/seriespage/6-righteousness-god

 

[Ingledsva]

...

This is even worse. Why does God need to sacrifice an innocent so that people making an effort to live lives compatible with true principles inherit the earth? We are talking, I assume, about people who realized by themselves what is right and wrong and pursue the right path.

Under this premise, the sacrifice seems completely useless...

Ciao

- viole

I agree.

And the claim is that Jesus is God.

Gods don't die, and in the story he actually doesn't, he rises. So there is no actual sacrifice.

This idea of archaic human sacrifice being required - is ridiculous.

*

 

[InChrist]

This is even worse. Why does God need to sacrifice an innocent so that people making an effort to live lives compatible with true principles inherit the earth? We are talking, I assume, about people who realized by themselves what is right and wrong and pursue the right path.



- 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..

 

[Ingledsva]

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..

Except that in this story he doesn't actually die.

You folks claim he is God. According to you folks he goes through a ceremony, and rises like the God he supposedly is. No actual death.

This God idea puts the ridiculous in the "sacrifice" story - as there is no actual sacrifice.

*

 

[Thanda]

This is even worse. Why does God need to sacrifice an innocent so that people making an effort to live lives compatible with true principles inherit the earth? We are talking, I assume, about people who realized by themselves what is right and wrong and pursue the right path.

Under this premise, the sacrifice seems completely useless.

The debt isn't going to pay itself.

This is the question. If i was poor, stole a lot of money, and then realize I was wrong, give all that money to the poor, is it moral to allow another willing person to give his own money to the person I stole it from?

No. It isn't. Or it is not obvious that it is. After all Robin Hood was a hero, but that would not save him from jail terms in any of the judicial systems I know of. independently from others pay for him what he stole or whatnot.

In case of Jesus it is even worse, because the people I stole from will never see their money. The families of the people killed by that terrorist will never see their dear ones again. It is, in my opinion, immoral to expect that the deal with Jesus settles everything. A nice repent and that's it? Now that we know he is a good person, we can execute her willing mother and everthing is hunky dory again? Too easy, I am afraid.

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?

 

[Thanda]

Finite human minds can come up with many and various ideas about God, but I think all such ideas are nothing more than our own vain imagination. Humans really are not capable of accurately knowing anything about a spiritual, transcendent Being as God, if not based on the revelation God gives of Himself. According to His revelation in the scriptures He is the source of perfection and goodness and the laws He has given reflect His perfect character. I agree with you that He cannot be judged because He is the ultimate Judge and therefore the foundation of righteousness. But we can know He is good because He has revealed His goodness.

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?

 

[Thanda]

If it doesn't have control - then it isn't a god.

"If it doesn't have control - then it isn't a god". This is your opinion. A very unique opinion since most definitions of God include the idea that He has given free will to other beings which means those beings are able to do things He doesn't want them to do - (E.g. the devil, and ourselves when we sin).

Are you saying there is a god, above the earth god YHVH, making him do things against his will?
*

You are completely missing the gist of my argument. I am not talking about principles made by someone and imposed on someone else. I am talking about principles that are self-existent - that are not created by anyone and that consequently cannot be done away by anyone..even God.

I made the example of an engineer earlier. Let me return to that example. A transcended principle in that sphere is gravity and its effects. Gravity was not created in any university nor was it created by any genius. It cannot be set aside, or wished away and so every engineer who builds anything has to do it with this principle mind. Their structures must be strong enough to withstand the forces of Gravity.

Likewise I am contending that any conception of God as being good or righteous can only be on account of there being principles that he likewise cannot wish away. And if He respects and lives by these principles then, and only then, can he have claim to be righteous.

 

[Ingledsva]

"If it doesn't have control - then it isn't a god". This is your opinion. A very unique opinion since most definitions of God include the idea that He has given free will to other beings which means those beings are able to do things He doesn't want them to do - (E.g. the devil, and ourselves when we sin).

Him giving free will to others, - has nothing to do with HIM not having ultimate power.

You are completely missing the gist of my argument. I am not talking about principles made by someone and imposed on someone else. I am talking about principles that are self-existent - that are not created by anyone and that consequently cannot be done away by anyone..even God.

Again - why would there be "self existant" human blood sacrifice - floating around out there - waiting to glob unto a supposed God - whom has no power to resist it?

I made the example of an engineer earlier. Let me return to that example. A transcended principle in that sphere is gravity and its effects. Gravity was not created in any university nor was it created by any genius. It cannot be set aside, or wished away and so every engineer who builds anything has to do it with this principle mind. Their structures must be strong enough to withstand the forces of Gravity.

Likewise I am contending that any conception of God as being good or righteous can only be on account of there being principles that he likewise cannot wish away. And if He respects and lives by these principles then, and only then, can he have claim to be righteous.

If there is an IF - he is no God.

There also is no "principle" of human sacrifice, - locking a God into that action.

Also - even if there were guiding "principles" out there, - it would be totally illogical that they make a God murder, or require murder by human sacrifice.

*

 

[Thanda]

Him giving free will to others, - has nothing to do with HIM not having ultimate power.



Again - why would there be "self existant" human blood sacrifice - floating around out there - waiting to glob unto a supposed God - whom has no power to resist it?



If there is an IF - he is no God.

There also is no "principle" of human sacrifice, - locking a God into that action.

Also - even if there were guiding "principles" out there, - it would be totally illogical that they make a God murder, or require murder by human sacrifice.

*

I am going to have to bring our discussion to an end. You seem completely unwilling to discuss the topic at hand. It seems you are only interested in trying to convince me that God is evil - a futile exercise.

Enjoy your day.

 

[Ingledsva]

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?

I'm not sure why you keep asking this.

The Bible shows that YHVH is NOT righteous. It says he murders the innocent, and his laws allow rape, murder, slavery, etc.

So I guess there was no "objective (transcendent and independent) principles" causing him to be righteous, or requiring human sacrifice.

*

 

[Thanda]

I'm not sure why you keep asking this.

The Bible shows that YHVH is NOT righteous. It says he murders the innocent, and his laws allow rape, murder, slavery, etc.

So I guess there was no "objective (transcendent and independent) principles" causing him to be righteous, or requiring human sacrifice.

*

You're beginning to troll now.

 

[Ingledsva]

You're beginning to troll now.

NO I am not.

YOU - connected your "transcendent principles" to Christianity, - and the atonement = human sacrifice of Jesus.

You don't like my arguments against, - so I am now a troll?

As I said - the argument is illogical. Even if such principles of righteousness exist, - how do you turn that "righteousness" into God having no choice but to require evil? A human sacrifice?

It is not logical for principles of righteousness - to lead to forced evil.

*

 

[Lyndon]

This is a discussion about the attributes of God, since you don't believe in God, you don't really have a part in the discussion, except if you're here to troll..........

 

[Ingledsva]

This is a discussion about the attributes of God, since you don't believe in God, you don't really have a part in the discussion, except if you're here to troll..........

I will assume you are posting to me?

Your reply is pure bull.

This is a debate site - and I don't have to believe in the Christian God to put forth a logical rebuttal to an idea, or post.

*

 

[Lyndon]

Well try to have something intelligent to say if you are going to post.

 

[Ingledsva]

Well try to have something intelligent to say if you are going to post.

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?

*

 

[Lyndon]

What possible point would there be to argue about it with someone that doesn't believe in God. Since you have no belief then your stated opinions have no importance either, why not stick with the atheists debates.

 

[Guy Threepwood]

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

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.