I do no such thing.If you are going to call it a contradiction then you are making “good” synonymous with God and rendering it a tautology rather than a description of God to say that God is good.
What I mean is that God does stuff (as you say) but he also is stuff or at least he is the source of everything good. Because he is eternal and immutable he doesn’t perceive any distinction between his being good and his doing good. He simply is.I’m not sure what you mean by “existence and essence are the same thing.” Isn’t that just the traditional view of essences?
I’m pretty sure that’s a heretical idea (that there is both good and evil in God). By definition there can be no evil in God, since God is the source of everything good.I do no such thing.
The statements I provided as examples, once the conclusion is reached from reason, show that there is both evil and good present in God; thus contradicting the claim that God is all good.
peace,
Michael
The answer is in the Natural Law, the ten commandments written on the hearts of men (a term which includes women), and is the reason given to the question of whether people who haven’t heard the gospel will be saved. They can if they follow the natural law inscribed on their heart.These last two statements contradict one another. If saying God is good is saying no more than God is God, then to say God is good adds nothing as a description of God.
What is “good”? How can we know goodness if we don’t define it first?
Here’s the question. How did Abraham know justice required that God not treat the wicked and the righteous alike? As of yet, no commandments had been handed down.
Abraham knew goodness not by prior definition or by some decree of God, but through moral intuition. He didn’t need God to define justice (divine command). He knew it directly. His moral knowledge was built in.
Even the atheist understands what moral terms mean. He doesn’t need God in order to recognize morality. He needs God to make sense of what he recognizes. "
This is what Carl Jung proposes and is completely wrong. Please read the catechism if you want to know about what God has revealed to man. From the catechism:I do no such thing.
The statements I provided as examples, once the conclusion is reached from reason, show that there is both evil and good present in God; thus contradicting the claim that God is all good.
peace,
Michael
By natural reason man can know God with certainty, on the basis of his works. But there is another order of knowledge, which man cannot possibly arrive at by his own powers: the order of divine Revelation.1 Through an utterly free decision, God has revealed himself and given himself to man. This he does by revealing the mystery, his plan of loving goodness, formed from all eternity in Christ, for the benefit of all men. God has fully revealed this plan by sending us his beloved Son, our Lord Jesus Christ, and the Holy Spirit.
I’m pretty sure that’s a heretical idea (that there is both good and evil in God). By definition there can be no evil in God, since God is the source of everything good.
What statements do you suppose I was referring to and what is my position? I thought it was obvious but I’ll be more explicit.This is what Carl Jung proposes and is completely wrong. Please read the catechism if you want to know about what God has revealed to man. From the catechism:
Sorry. I’ve been involved in not reading far enough back in another thread, involving leela too, as I remember.What statements do you suppose I was referring to and what is my position? I thought it was obvious but I’ll be more explicit.
The statements (not my statements):
A - “God killing an innocent (ie. murder)”
B - “It is possible for God to kill an innocent”
These statements (A & B) lead to a contradiction that “God is all good” and that “there is evil in God”. To resolve this contradiction one or more of these two latter statements must dropped.
My position is that it is obvious that “there is evil in God” must be dropped, and therefore both statements A & B should be dismissed as nonsense.
I hope there is no more confusion of heresy or Jungian philosophy (a tautology?).
peace,
Michael
I agree that Natural Law is the answer for theists here, and I don’t know why others don’t seem to see that. There must be a standard of good that is independent of God for it to be descriptive of God to call God good. Otherwise all it would be saying is that God does what God does and whatever God does we call good.The answer is in the Natural Law, the ten commandments written on the hearts of men (a term which includes women), and is the reason given to the question of whether people who haven’t heard the gospel will be saved. They can if they follow the natural law inscribed on their heart.
What renders relativistic interpretation of morality or ethics contrary to reason is that doing immoral or unethical acts to others is contrary to what you would want to be done to you. Of course saying you don’t mind if others do wrong unto you is no excuse for doing wrong, it is just a selfish standard of justification.
In the end, you know what is wrong if you listen to your conscience and use reason and intellect. Cutting yourself off from this by selfish reasoning and selfish desires is the problem we all have and the remedy is God’s Grace that restores the ability to live according to God’s nature, our greatest Good.
But this is a very different view than the typical one of God as an intelligence that has a will and needs to be worshipped and that we can pray to and have our prayers answered through intervention in the natural order. Something immutable can’t become incarnate in the person of Jesus, be influenced by animal sacrifices, decide to destroy all of humanity in a Great Flood, and later decide never to do that again.What I mean is that God does stuff (as you say) but he also is stuff or at least he is the source of everything good. Because he is eternal and immutable he doesn’t perceive any distinction between his being good and his doing good. He simply is.
So trying to pit him (his existence) against the objective standard of morality (his essence) as Bertrand Russell seeks to do is futile. The distinction dissovles in the light of the fact that his existence and his essence are the same. He’s not a being who works in the same way as you and I do.
That’s the “existence” part. I’m saying there is more to the classic theistic view of God than just that.But this is a very different view than the typical one of God as an intelligence that has a will and needs to be worshipped and that we can pray to and have our prayers answered through intervention in the natural order.
Unless God is both immutable and active. Just like light is both a particle and a wave.Something immutable can’t become incarnate in the person of Jesus, be influenced by animal sacrifices, decide to destroy all of humanity in a Great Flood, and later decide never to do that again.
This discussion isn’t about Bertrand Russell, is it? I thought is was about his argument against divine command theory of ethics which is what we’ve been discussing all along with the exception of the posts where you chimed in to make ad hominem attacks on Russell.Leela
*But this is a very different view than the typical one of God as an intelligence that has a will **and needs to be worshipped ***…
Clearly, it isn’t God who needs to be worshipped, but rather we who need to worship Him.
I’m wondering when Bertrand Russell gets back into the discussion.
I am not aware of any ad hominem attacks made by Russell against God and Christians.Leela
*I thought is was about his argument against divine command theory of ethics which is what we’ve been discussing all along with the exception of the posts where you chimed in to make ad hominem attacks on Russell. *
Ah, you mean as opposed to the many *ad hominem *attacks Russell makes against God and Christians in “Why I am Not a Christian”?
Isn’t that a bit of the old “pot calling the kettle black” fallacy?
There is no standard for good outside of God because there is no reality outside of God.I agree that Natural Law is the answer for theists here, and I don’t know why others don’t seem to see that. There must be a standard of good that is independent of God for it to be descriptive of God to call God good. Otherwise all it would be saying is that God does what God does and whatever God does we call good.
But only because if we don’t we’ll burn in hell forever…right?Leela
Clearly, it isn’t God who needs to be worshipped, but rather we who need to worship Him.
In other words: God exists because we know he exists, and we know he exists because we have faith. The fact that there is no evidence to support any of my asserions is irrelevant as faith will provide all the proof you need. Faith doesn’t require evidence, just a honest heartfelt desire to believe whatever you want to believe…faith is what makes it true! Ergo: god can be whatever we say he is because we have faith.There is no standard for good outside of God because there is no reality outside of God.
What ever God does we call good because it is His nature, He is, He is reality. For proof one must see through faith, to have faith you must ask God for it since He is the purpose of faith. “Ask and you shall receive”. This isn’t about money or power or fame, it is about faith.
Russell judges God by his standards, we must judge ourselves by God’s standard as He is the standard as He is the cause of all and sustains us and gives us our being.
Don’t forget about reason; the same God made both.In other words: God exists because we know he exists, and we know he exists because we have faith. The fact that there is no evidence to support any of my asserions is irrelevant as faith will provide all the proof you need. Faith doesn’t require evidence, just a honest heartfelt desire to believe whatever you want to believe…faith is what makes it true! Ergo: god can be whatever we say he is because we have faith.