God is love, Love is not Jealous, God is a Jealous god???

[Bradskii]

without an objective standard for goodness then goodness is relative. What is good today may not be good tomorrow. the concept of God would provide that objective standard and it will be silly to argue that. Goodness is a qualitative standard and that standard is measured by something. If there is nothing to measure it then what's the point of trying to define it? using a scale to measure goodness through humanism has a goal where humans are exalted on the highest level. using a scale to measure goodness through God has a goal where God is exalted on the highest level.

Just check my answer to Mark in post 359. You can respond to that.

 

[Bradskii]

In the 'IF God' hypothetical, there most definitely is objective good, and your question to me about something being good or not is moot. My interpretation and opinion is irrelevant.

If there are divine instructions as to what is good and what is not, my accepting them is irrelevant as to whether they are good, and as to whether they are objective.

You say, "there must be some things which you personally think are bad but which you define as good because that's what you believe you are supposed to do. If that is true, do you have any examples?" No, they are irrelevant.

What is funny to me though, is that you ask me to 'tell on myself', to tell you what I think is bad but define as good because I am supposed to? Wow. You want ME to defend YOUR argument or something?

I don't want you to defend my argument. I want you to clarify yours.

If there are divine commands then either:

1. You have accepted them as being correct after an internal debate. In which case you have made a personal decision as to their validity.
2. You have accepted them as being correct with no internal debate as to whether you consider them valid. God says it is so and that's good enough for me.
3. You haven't accepted them as being correct but you will hold to them anyway.

For the life of me I can't think of any other options. So I guess it's one of those three. My money is on 2.

 

[DamianWarS]

Just check my answer to Mark in post 359. You can respond to that.

All of this boils down to the same argument. "Is there a God?" If there is a God then it matters and if there is no God then is doesn't matter. To say objective goodness doesn't exist is tantamount to saying God doesn't exist. This is fine but it is only a product of your position not evidence of it.

Obviously if you don't believe in God then you don't believe in objective goodness but that's not the point. The point is the the existence of God provides the framework for goodness so it is consistent of an atheist to reject obejctive goodness and it is consistent of a theist to accept objective goodness.

In a theistic space goodness is objective but it is still used subjectively and quite often defined by our own personal vacuum of what benifites self in that moment and this is just a human condition. This is also talked about lots the bible.

So there are two definitions here of goodness which is obejctive goodness measured by God, and subjective goodness measured by self. An atheist would reject the former and assume the latter, where a theist would accept the latter as the default but the former as the goal.

 

[Bradskii]

All of this boils down to the same argument. "Is there a God?" If there is a God then it matters and if there is no God then is doesn't matter. To say objective goodness doesn't exist is tantamount to saying God doesn't exist. This is fine but it is only a product of your position not evidence of it.

Obviously if you don't believe in God then you don't believe in objective goodness but that's not the point. The point is the the existence of God provides the framework for goodness so it is consistent of an atheist to reject obejctive goodness and it is consistent of a theist to accept objective goodness.

In a theistic space goodness is objective but it is still used subjectively and quite often defined by our own personal vacuum of what benifites self in that moment and this is just a human condition. This is also talked about lots the bible.

So there are two definitions here of goodness which is obejctive goodness measured by God, and subjective goodness measured by self. An atheist would reject the former and assume the latter, where a theist would accept the latter as the default but the former as the goal.

My decision as to whether there is an objective good is not predicated on my lack of belief. There may be objective good without God. Or there may be objective good defined as such from within another religion's belief system. So it's not obvious 'if you don't believe in God then you don't believe in objective goodness...'. If so you are excluding every non Christian on the planet from believing it. I'm sure you don't want to go there.

Notwithstanding, your post to which I first replied was one in which you suggested it was possible to know if God was good (it's part of the op). Yet you defined God as good. It's not really a search that needs to be done if the characteristic you are looking for is the actual definition of that which might posess it.

I'm sure you'd agree.

 

[DamianWarS]

My decision as to whether there is an objective good is not predicated on my lack of belief. There may be objective good without God. Or there may be objective good defined as such from within another religion's belief system. So it's not obvious 'if you don't believe in God then you don't believe in objective goodness...'. If so you are excluding every non Christian on the planet from believing it. I'm sure you don't want to go there.

Notwithstanding, your post to which I first replied was one in which you suggested it was possible to know if God was good (it's part of the op). Yet you defined God as good. It's not really a search that needs to be done if the characteristic you are looking for is the actual definition of that which might posess it.

I'm sure you'd agree.

objective goodness needs to have an objective measuring stick. God is an example of that objectivity as he would be the most objective thing in all the universe. this is an inherent system of God to begin with. if we define objectivity outside of God then fine, what is the measuring stick? I'm sure there is an argument there but God being this measuring stick is not complicated as the nature of God is eternal, unchanging, preexisting our space-time continuum and creator of it, he is a prime candidate for objective truth, and virtues of this are goodness.

but this may be an issue of semantics and perhaps we are talking about two different kinds of goodness. one of God and one of humanity. But in a vacuum where there is a God then of course goodness according to God is of greater importance. but every nuanced system will have its own subjective goodness one for the better of humanity but I suppose for the worm there is goodness for the better the worm. the point of objective goodness is to have goodness that is the same with or without the subject. so for both the human and the worm goodness is the same. in the case of God there is never a case where there was no God and so goodness is set by God because he source of all things. once subjects are introduced that goodness remains the same.

 

[Bradskii]

objective goodness needs to have an objective measuring stick. God is an example of that objectivity as he would be the most objective thing in all the universe.

Who says we need something against which to measure it? The definition of objective simply means that which is not determined by personal feeling or interpretation. We don't need God to investigate that.

My problem is that if you can't find a universally accepted moral law that isn't determined by personal feelings or interpretation then you will simply revert to divine commandments. Which, as I say, discounts objective morality for the greater proportion of the planet.

 

[Neogaia777]

Who says we need something against which to measure it?

I think we need the "two extremes", etc, the two extremes for which two members of the Trinity represent, and then the objective morality, or whatever, is the middle ground that can be found, or is the balance between the two, etc...

(See post #351)

It is also the two sides that exist in this world also, or also, our own duality within also, etc, for they are very much the same, and are pretty much the same thing, etc, that have been, or stood, and/or existed, etc, for a very long time, etc...

And if we continue to remain divided by it, we will most certainly fall or fail, etc...

And of that I can most certainly 100% guarantee you every single time, etc...

Because none have mastered it yet, etc...

God Bless!

 

[Bradskii]

I think we need the "two extremes", etc, the two extremes for which two members of the Trinity represent...

So absolute morality can't be determined by over 70% of the people on the planet. Any way you know of whereby we can all join in to help? Or do we have to leave it to you guys?

 

[Neogaia777]

So absolute morality can't be determined by over 70% of the people on the planet. Any way you know of whereby we can all join in to help? Or do we have to leave it to you guys?

Who's "we" and "you guys" and the 70/30%, etc...?

And I believe absolute right morality is a bit like judgement, and not exactly absolute, but has to be custom tailored to each situation and/or circumstance, especially when they are not exactly peaceful or normal, etc...

And this world is not "normal" right now...

And you can see some of my posts on judgment here:

What level of hard is it to achieve Salvation?

is it wrong to assume someone went to hell?

Also, morality does not equal truth, which is never relative, etc, because truth, is just facts, etc...

God Bless!

 

[Neogaia777]

So absolute morality can't be determined by over 70% of the people on the planet. Any way you know of whereby we can all join in to help? Or do we have to leave it to you guys?

For example, you take the morality/ideas/ideals of say, Hitler, and then someone like maybe, Gandhi, and you find the in-between, etc, because neither works or is sustainable, or is truly fair/just, all on it's own or all by itself, etc...

The wisdom would be found in the in-between, etc...

At least with the way the world, this world, currently is right now anyway, etc...

But that might be different in a "perfect" one maybe, etc...

God Bless!

 

[Bradskii]

Who's "we" and "you guys"...?

And I believe absolute right morality is a bit like judgement, and not exactly absolute, but has to be custom tailored to each situation and/or circumstance, especially when they are not exactly peaceful or normal, etc..., etc...

'We' are the non Christians who can't relate absolute morality to the trinity. 'You' are the ones that can.

And whoa...absolute morality isn't actually absolute? Like someone is not actually pregnant? It's an either/or choice, Neo. If it ain't absolute then it's qualified. It relates to the situation. 'Custom tailored' as you said. And I thought that was my position...

Looks like we agree.

 

[Neogaia777]

Any way you know of whereby we can all join in to help?

Sure, help, after all, it's not like I am saying I know it all, or all of it all in all it's every exact and all full specific details right now anyway, and I think all of us could use all of the help we can all get, etc...?

God Bless!

 

[Neogaia777]

'We' are the non Christians who can't relate absolute morality to the trinity. 'You' are the ones that can.

And whoa...absolute morality isn't actually absolute? Like someone is not actually pregnant? It's an either/or choice, Neo. If it ain't absolute then it's qualified. It relates to the situation. 'Custom tailored' as you said. And I thought that was my position...

Looks like we agree.

Most moral rules are correct most of the time, mostly, etc, but in order to be truly and fully just, and 100% always just for everyone, it must also allow for some, maybe graded on a curve, "exceptions" sometimes to be meted out in all the specific details sometimes, etc...

And did you even look at what I linked, etc...?

Because I ask that you do before you assume anything about me maybe, etc...

Because morality is just like judging and judgement to me, etc...

Anyway,

God Bless!

 

[Neogaia777]

'We' are the non Christians who can't relate absolute morality to the trinity. 'You' are the ones that can.

Well, the "we" to me, is that we are all one people, and all human beings, etc...

So, sorry if I was confused, etc, but/and/or because I think a lot of trouble comes in when it's always the "us and them" or the "us versus or against them" mentality, etc...

And that being or starting on "either side", etc...

Anyway,

God Bless!

 

[Bradskii]

Most moral rules are correct most of the time, mostly, etc, but in order to be truly and fully just, and 100% always just for everyone, it must also allow for some, maybe graded on a curve, "exceptions" sometimes to be meted out in all the specific details sometimes, etc...

And did you even look at what I linked, etc...?

Because I ask that you do before you assume anything about me maybe, etc...

Because morality is just like judging and judgement to me, etc...

Anyway,

God Bless!

Then we're on the same page. We both agree there is no absolute morality.

 

[Neogaia777]

Then we're on the same page. We both agree there is no absolute morality.

Not if we want perfect justice...

And perfect justice in a still as of yet still fallen world/reality, etc...

And sorry if I was in any way confrontational, I try not to be, but am still human sometimes, etc...

Anyway...?

Peace.

God Bless!

 

[DamianWarS]

Who says we need something against which to measure it? The definition of objective simply means that which is not determined by personal feeling or interpretation. We don't need God to investigate that.

My problem is that if you can't find a universally accepted moral law that isn't determined by personal feelings or interpretation then you will simply revert to divine commandments. Which, as I say, discounts objective morality for the greater proportion of the planet.

you speak of humanism, a relative goodness based on the better of humanity. The existence of God establishes objectivity. If you reject God then obviously you will come to different conclusions but for those who do accept God, accepting objective truth coming from God is consistent with this.

 

[Andrewn]

If there are divine commands then either:

1. You have accepted them as being correct after an internal debate. In which case you have made a personal decision as to their validity.
2. You have accepted them as being correct with no internal debate as to whether you consider them valid. God says it is so and that's good enough for me.
3. You haven't accepted them as being correct but you will hold to them anyway.

Yes, of course, every person that ever existed belongs in one of these categories, even those who reject the One God have God's commands:

Heb 8:10 This is the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel
after those days, says the Lord:
I will put my laws in their minds,
and write them on their hearts,
and I will be their God,
and they shall be my people.

 

[Bradskii]

Yes, of course, every person that ever existed belongs in one of these categories, even those who reject the One God have God's commands:

Heb 8:10 This is the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel
after those days, says the Lord:
I will put my laws in their minds,
and write them on their hearts,
and I will be their God,
and they shall be my people.

And you don't perhaps see the problems associated with each of them? Which one do you most align with?

 

[Mark Quayle]

I don't want you to defend my argument. I want you to clarify yours.

If there are divine commands then either:

1. You have accepted them as being correct after an internal debate. In which case you have made a personal decision as to their validity.
2. You have accepted them as being correct with no internal debate as to whether you consider them valid. God says it is so and that's good enough for me.
3. You haven't accepted them as being correct but you will hold to them anyway.

For the life of me I can't think of any other options. So I guess it's one of those three. My money is on 2.

4. I accept them as correct, since they are objective and from God, but sometimes wonder just what they actually mean or how they actually apply. For example, some people might consider it a sin to play "I doubt it", or to drive 56 mph. I don't, but there was a time I wondered.