God and Morality

[bilop]

There is no real distinction between that Divine Will and the Goodness which is the supreme standard of all moral acts. Therefore God is both free and infallibly morally good.

But God is also perfect reason. So, He can not contradict Himself, for example.

he is not pure will, as Islam would suggest. He can not “change His mind” and declare evil to be good from this day forward.

God Bless

 

[Aelred_Minor]

But God is also perfect reason. So, He can not contradict Himself, for example.

he is not pure will, as Islam would suggest. He can not “change His mind” and declare evil to be good from this day forward.

God Bless

Well, you could call God pure Will as well as you could call Him pure Intellect or Reason, since these are not distinct from each other in God. But you are right, God cannot “change His mind” or indeed change at all as this would imply imperfection either before or after the change, or indeed both before and after since it would logically mean that God is mutable and not outside of time (in the Scholastic sense of the word).

 

[bilop]

Well, you could call God pure Will as well as you could call Him pure Intellect or Reason, since these are not distinct from each other in God. But you are right, God cannot “change His mind” or indeed change at all as this would imply imperfection either before or after the change, or indeed both before and after since it would logically mean that God is mutable and not outside of time (in the Scholastic sense of the word).

I think “Will” is different.

Calvinist double predestination would have you believe that God simply wills some to be saved and some to damned, regardless of their faith or their sins.

We, however, know this is wrong. It would be illogical for God to give us instructions on how to achieve salvation, and then ignore our actions in following those instructions.

“Pure Will” implies that God can act capriciously. He can’t.

God Bless

 

[Charlemagne_II]

**bilop

“Pure Will” implies that God can act capriciously. He can’t.**

Since God is not a created being he is not subject to capricious actions. That does not mean that his will is not pure. He does not will evil; not because he “cannot” but because he “wills” not.

 

[Aelred_Minor]

I think “Will” is different.

Calvinist double predestination would have you believe that God simply wills some to be saved and some to damned, regardless of their faith or their sins.

We, however, know this is wrong. It would be illogical for God to give us instructions on how to achieve salvation, and then ignore our actions in following those instructions.

“Pure Will” implies that God can act capriciously. He can’t.

God Bless

We can differentiate between different kinds of willing done by God as they affect creatures. For example God wills the salvation of all men antecedently and of the elect alone efficaciously. However God’s faculty of will is, like everything proper to God, identical with His simple Essence/Existence. Otherwise God would be divisible into parts, and the sum of any parts is not infinite.

 

[fhansen]

God has given a morality for men in the Bible. However, that is a morality for men and does not apply to God Himself. We often see that argument used to justify some of God’s actions in the Old Testament: since God originated Biblical morality it does not apply to Him and He is not bound by its rules.

If we accept that argument, then there is an obvious question: what morality does God follow, if any?

Is God moral? Does He follow a morality? If so, then what morality does He follow, and what is the source of that morality?

Is God amoral? If so, then there is no morality that applies to God and He is free to act in any way He wishes?

Is God moral or amoral?

Discuss.

rossum

God is love and He cannot act outside of the standard that virtue would demand. He likewise desires the same for and from us. The Church defines His nature and will for us, not everything recorded in the OT.

 

[rossum]

There is no real distinction between that Divine Will and the Goodness which is the supreme standard of all moral acts. Therefore God is both free and infallibly morally good.

Which changes the definition of “good” from “that which is in accordance with morality” to “that which God does”.

That gets us straight back to all those arguments about the actions of God in the Old Testament, and all those dead babies.

rossum

 

[rossum]

He can not “change His mind” and declare evil to be good from this day forward.

Is it good to stone convicted adulterers to death? At one time God commanded it. Is it not good to stone convicted adulterers to death? At one time God stopped it.

God can obviously change His mind about at least one thing.

rossum

 

[rossum]

God is love and He cannot act outside of the standard that virtue would demand.

Then such a God is not omnipotent, since there are limits on His power to act: “… cannot act outside …”

rossum

 

[fhansen]

Then such a God is not omnipotent, since there are limits on His power to act: “… cannot act outside …”

rossum

He cannot only because He won’t will to “…act outside…”

 

[Bahman]

According to what standard?

First, God has its own absolute standard to recognize absolute good from absolute evil. If we accept God intervention so called fate as a reality then God action is based on creation standard as whole. The question of morality of God action is resolved if God doesn’t give fate since in this case God doesn’t act on creation.

Is there an external standard, which God follows or does God merely decide for Himself, without reference to any external standard?

Yes, it is creation standard of understanding evil and good.

The universe was not created perfect. Nowhere in Genesis is creation described as “perfect”. It is variously described as “very good”, “good” and “not good” in different places. Creation also contained the talking serpent and Lucifer before the Fall. Is Lucifer perfect? I do not accept a “perfect” creation.

See also Isaiah 45:7 “I form the light, and create darkness: I make peace, and create evil: I the LORD do all these things.” (emphasis added)
rossum

I am not Christian and I strongly believe that creation is perfect. We can discuss it longer if you wish.

 

[cerad2]

I think people are making this way more complicated that it has to be. God follows the same morality as the rest of us: Might Makes Right.

 

[davidv]

I think people are making this way more complicated that it has to be. God follows the same morality as the rest of us: Might Makes Right.

Not.

 

[tonyrey]

1. It is good to exist.
2. God is “He Who Is”, i.e. the Source of all existence,
3. The distinction between God and goodness is arbitrary and invalid.

 

[rossum]

First, God has its own absolute standard to recognize absolute good from absolute evil.

So, there is a standard. Let’s discuss this standard. Where does it originate? Did God create it to suit Himself, which makes God amoral, or is it external to God, in which case God is moral (assuming He follows it).

Yes, it is creation standard of understanding evil and good.

Then it is external to God?

I am not Christian and I strongly believe that creation is perfect. We can discuss it longer if you wish.

Reality is not “creation” since it was not created. It is probably perfect, but the problem is that our perception of it is imperfect. That is really a discussion for another thread.

rossum

 

[rossum]

1. It is good to exist.

Why? Why not “It is neither good nor bad to exist”?

1. God is “He Who Is”, i.e. the Source of all existence,

He cannot be the source of “all” existence, if He himself actually exists. He did not create himself, unless you believe in a created God.

rossum

 

[rossum]

He cannot only because He won’t will to “…act outside…”

Then His will, and hence His actions are constrained.

rossum

 

[inocente]

God has given a morality for men in the Bible. However, that is a morality for men and does not apply to God Himself. We often see that argument used to justify some of God’s actions in the Old Testament: since God originated Biblical morality it does not apply to Him and He is not bound by its rules.

If we accept that argument, then there is an obvious question: what morality does God follow, if any?

If God is all powerful then He makes the rules, since otherwise He’d be following someone else’s rules.

There are lots of folk who say God told them what the rules are. Unfortunately they disagree.

 

[Aloysium]

Then His will, and hence His actions are constrained.

rossum

He is constrained by His nature - He will not do what is not good, what is not beautiful and what is irrational.

Doesn’t morality boil down to doing His will? Doing so brings one closer to Him; opposing Him, you grow ever farther from Him.

As a Buddhist you may get a handle on this by considering Him as He who utters ॐ and thereby brings the universe into existence.
I hope this helps.
That’s my :twocents: anyway.

 

[fhansen]

Then His will, and hence His actions are constrained.

rossum

to act outside of His nature would be to say that God can be both God and not God at the same time-a logical contradiction. If you define omnipotence as the power to cease to exist then I guess He might not be omnipotent after all.