Does God operate at a lower standard of morality/ethics than he requires of us?

[Fervent]

Here's what I said:

If a grand narrative states that absolute goodness created beings destined for eternal torment, we can reject that narrative based on absolute goodness.

If you think I need additional premises to show the inconsistency in absolute goodness creating beings destined for eternal torment, then I question your ability to understand the terms. And, frankly, that's being nice. The real question would concern one's moral sensibilities that didn't allow one to see the inconsistency.

But, if you think there's nothing inconsistent there, then you will need to provide a premise showing its consistency. As it stands, its glaringly inconsistent.

I do think you need additional premises, because there's no reason to suspect that there isn't a higher good coming from the creation of beings that ultimately find themselves deestined for eternal torment. Though I suppose part of the issue may turn on how we understand the word "destined."

 

[public hermit]

I do think you need additional premises, because there's no reason to suspect that there isn't a higher good coming from the creation of beings that ultimately find themselves deestined for eternal torment. Though I suppose part of the issue may turn on how we understand the word "destined."

If you suspect such a reason exists, you need to provide it. I have no such suspicions and have no reason, given the terms, to think I should.

 

[Fervent]

If you suspect such a reason exists, you need to provide it. I have no such suspicions and have no reason, given the terms, to think I should.

I am not in the mind of God, nor am I forwarding the claim that it is definitely the case. You, on the other hand, are claiming that absolute good precludes such a thing and so it is your responsibility to demonstrate that there is no such possibility. Otherwise all you are saying is that God cannot act contrary to your personal sense of right and wrong, and that claim is absurd on its face.

 

[public hermit]

I am not in the mind of God, nor am I forwarding the claim that it is definitely the case. You, on the other hand, are claiming that absolute good precludes such a thing and so it is your responsibility to demonstrate that there is no such possibility. Otherwise all you are saying is that God cannot act contrary to your personal sense of right and wrong, and that claim is absurd on its face.

I said the absolute good would not destine a creature to eternal conscious torment. If you think that is absurd, you need to make an argument. At this point, it is clear that either you don't understand the terms or your moral sensibility is warped by a preconceived notion. I will not keep repeating the obvious so either make your argument or live with it.

 

[Fervent]

I said the absolute good would not destine a creature to eternal conscious torment. If you think that is absurd, you need to make an argument. At this point, it is clear that either you don't understand the terms or your moral sensibility is warped by a preconceived notion. I will not keep repeating the obvious so either make your argument or live with it.

And as I said, that question hinges upon how we define "destine" which is an entirely separate question from ECT. I'm glad you think so highly of yourself that someone disagreeing with your sense of right and wrong is automatically "warped." I guess I'm in good company since you've deemed yourself fit to be God's judge.

 

[public hermit]

And as I said, that question hinges upon how we define "destine" which is an entirely separate question from ECT. I'm glad you think so highly of yourself that someone disagreeing with your sense of right and wrong is automatically "warped." I guess I'm in good company since you've deemed yourself fit to be God's judge.

Would you say that the end result of whatever the absolute good destines would be absolutely good?

 

[Hmm]

I'm glad you think so highly of yourself that someone disagreeing with your sense of right and wrong is automatically "warped."

My third-party view is that you are now making ad-homs simply because you (clearly) don't have a plausible answer to the very simple question you were asked.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

Would you say that the end result of whatever the absolute good destines would be absolutely good?

Y'know, the only 'absolute' I know comes in a bottle.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

And as I said, that question hinges upon how we define "destine" which is an entirely separate question from ECT. I'm glad you think so highly of yourself that someone disagreeing with your sense of right and wrong is automatically "warped." I guess I'm in good company since you've deemed yourself fit to be God's judge.

Well, brother Fervent, why can't I make up my own version of Christianity? I'm an Existentialist, after all, and I believe in freedom of thought. Why do any of us have to be pinned down to the term 'Orthodox' or 'Catholic' or whatever other favored terms float about in the vernacular of any one denomination or person?

 

[Servus]

Well, brother Fervent, why can't I make up my own version of Christianity? I'm an Existentialist, after all, and I believe in freedom of thought. Why do any of us have to be pinned down to the term 'Orthodox' or 'Catholic' or whatever other favored terms float about in the vernacular of any one denomination or person?

I run across those who do that. I usually can't understand what they're talking about because they're so far off in outer space.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

I run across those who do that. I usually can't understand what they're talking about because they're so far off in outer space.

Yeah, but we don't call those guys Universalists or Existentialists. At least, I don't.

 

[Servus]

I do think you need additional premises, because there's no reason to suspect that there isn't a higher good coming from the creation of beings that ultimately find themselves deestined for eternal torment. Though I suppose part of the issue may turn on how we understand the word "destined."

It seems a lot of your arguments are based on how a word is supposed to be used.

 

[Hmm]

I'm an Existentialist, after all, and I believe in freedom of thought. Why do any of us have to be pinned down to the term 'Orthodox' or 'Catholic' or whatever other favored terms float about in the vernacular of any one denomination or person?

So... it's okay for you to pin yourself down and constrain yourself as an Existentialist, with a capital 'E' no less, but others aren't allowed to apply a different label to themselves? What's wrong with this picture?...

 

[2PhiloVoid]

So... it's okay for you to pin yourself down and constrain yourself as an Existentialist, with a capital 'E' no less, but others aren't allowed to apply a different label to themselves? What's wrong with this picture?...

Whaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa-tuh?! Would you care to explain how this makes any sense at all, brother Hmm?

Either I'm as dense as a black hole, or you're just trying to tickle my ribs.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

I do think you need additional premises, because there's no reason to suspect that there isn't a higher good coming from the creation of beings that ultimately find themselves deestined for eternal torment. Though I suppose part of the issue may turn on how we understand the word "destined."

Another part of the issue also turns on how we understand de wurd zuh "Biblical Criticism" and that other that there "H" word that no one likes to say ...

No, no, no! The other "H" word ... !

 

[public hermit]

Y'know, the only 'absolute' I know comes in a bottle.

There is a long, established tradition that God is the absolute good, and this tradition includes those who were thoroughly apophatic in theological approach, e.g., the Cappadocians.

In the spirit of Gregory of Nyssa, if we assume that God is Good along with creation ex nihilo, which is also a very traditional doctrine, then we can say the beginning and end are the same. God, who is absolute good will be all in all so that the end is the same good with which God began.

I agree that God is not a moral agent as we understand human moral agency. We are limited beings subject to error and must navigate discreet states of affairs. It's hard enough to make proper judgments about human choices because our understanding of individuals, their conditions and motives are not wide open for us to see. But when we are talking about grand narratives about God, and the assumption of the narrative begins with the idea that God is goodness with no admixture of evil, then we can accept or reject conclusions that are inconsistent with that starting point. Hence my rejection of the following narrative:

Absolute goodness has created creatures destined for conscious eternal torment.

All I am asking of my fellow poster is that if that is going to accepted as consistent, then some premise must be added to make it work. I was accused of having a hidden premise, which I reject. The inconsistency of that grand narrative is obvious, unless one wants to assert that creating creatures for the end of eternally tormenting them is good.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

There is a long, established tradition that God is the absolute good, and this tradition includes those who were thoroughly apophatic in theological approach, e.g., the Cappadocians.

In the spirit of Gregory of Nyssa, if we assume that God is Good along with creation ex nihilo, which is also a very traditional doctrine, then we can say the beginning and end are the same. God, who is absolute good will be all in all so that the end is the same good with which God began.

I agree that God is not a moral agent as we understand human moral agency. We are limited beings subject to error and must navigate discreet states of affairs. It's hard enough to make proper judgments about human choices because our understanding of individuals, their conditions and motives are not wide open for us to see. But when we are talking about grand narratives about God, and the assumption of the narrative begins with the idea that God is goodness with no admixture of evil, then we can accept or reject conclusions that are inconsistent with that starting point. Hence my rejection of the following narrative:

Absolute goodness has created creatures destined for conscious eternal torment.

All I am asking of my fellow poster is that if that is going to accepted as consistent, then some premise must be added to make it work. I was accused of having a hidden premise, which I reject. The inconsistency of that grand narrative is obvious, unless one wants to assert that creating creatures for the end of eternally tormenting them is good.

I understand your logic in your semantic handling of 'absolute.' I'm not knocking it. I know you don't have a hidden premise. I might disagree with its veracity, but I wouldn't accuse you of intending to hide it. I'm not like that. Fervent might be like that, but I'm not.

 

[Hmm]

Whaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa-tuh?! Would you care to explain how this makes any sense at all, brother Hmm?

Either I'm as dense as a black hole, or you're just trying to tickle my ribs.

Well, you seem to be saying:

"I'm an Existentialist -> this is a label I apply to myself -> but that's okay because Existentialism means that I have freedom of thought. "

This is logic error 1 as I see it is: your thought has to stay within the confines of Existentialism and so is not really free...

Which is fine, or at least harmless, but you then go on to say essentially:

"You are Orthodox/Catholic or whatever -> this is a label you have applied to yourself -> this is a bad thing because it means you do not have freedom of thought".

This is logic error 2: labels are bad but my label is good.

Or am I misunderstanding you, which is entirely possible?

 

[public hermit]

I understand your logic in your semantic handling of 'absolute.' I'm not knocking it. I know you don't have a hidden premise. I might disagree with its veracity, but I wouldn't accuse you of intending to hide it. I'm not like that. Fervent might be like that, but I'm not.

I know you're not. I'm just throwing all that out there to clarify what I'm trying to say. Which is basically, I don't think ECT is consistent with the starting point of traditional orthodox thought. And when I look at the ad hoc arguments that have been made throughout the centuries in hopes of making it appear consistent, the inconsistency becomes even more glaring. I'm just waiting for those arguments to be put forward so their inconsistency can see the light of day...again.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

Well, you seem to be saying:

"I'm an Existentialist -> this is a label I apply to myself -> but that's okay because Existentialism means that I have freedom of thought. "

This is logic error 1 as I see it is: your thought has to stay within the confines of Existentialism and so is not really free...

Which is fine, or at least harmless, but you then go on to say essentially:

"You are Orthodox/Catholic or whatever -> this is a label you have applied to yourself -> this is a bad thing because it means you do not have freedom of thought".

This is logic error 2: labels are bad but my label is good.

Or am I misunderstanding you, which is entirely possible?

You are misunderstanding me. But that's ok. Really, it's ok. You wouldn't be the first to do so, brother Hmm.

As for Existentialism, I'd say that it essentially (pun intended) releases me from addressing essentials. So, I don't have to operate within an enclosed box of expectations, other than the fact that Reality is Other and that it's bigger than I am; this implies I get to have my cake and eat it too because I take the 'risk' of attempting faith in Christ without the usual accompanying safety bubble placed around me or the conceptual force fitting dogmatics that are often postuled by [other] Christians to ensure the certainty of a whole lot of stuff ...

So, no, I'm not "confined" by Existentialism. My freedom is found in my response to the limits that Reality places upon me. This also means that I don't think other people have to conform in their minds to my religious thinking all the way around; it's just that the upshot of this is that I'm not going to necessarily agree that I have to conform to all aspects of their religious thinking, either. Some aspects we'll concede to share with each other, yes, but not all. See how this works? My label is neither good nor bad, and I don't expect others to clone themselves by what I think. I just tell others what I think is 'real.' Others like to rely instead on 'logic.'