Does Almightiness confer Moral Uprightness?

[Radrook]

This thread is based on the following controversy which arose on another and which I feel deserves a thread all its own. Does being almighty grant the almighty moral righteousness? Is might right in such a cases simply because it is might? I disagree. Below is how the discussion went.

Exactly.Indeed.In case of God though, Might does make Right.
Simply because He is God.
God decides what is Right and He is always Right.
But there is no Righteousness in convicting the unsaved to ECT, therefore ECT is not true.None the less, we can not judge God, can we?
But ECT proponents do judge God, proclaiming He bestows ECT upon the unsaved, which is immoral.
They project the hate and vengefulness of their own hearts on God's Righteousness.

How does almightiness confer being right all the time no matter what on the one possessing almightiness? If indeed that were true, then it would be conceivable to have an almighty being who does use ECT and to view him as holy regardless simply because he is almighty. Please notice that in the series, Star Trek the New Generation, the Q, which are beings who possess almightiness, are not necessarily right all the time by virtue of that almightiness. Indeed they are very often depicted as morally fallible as is illustrated by one particularly obnoxious member.

In another episode, another being who was also described as almighty was discovered dwelling in isolation on a desolated world. This almighty being was continually plagued by an extremely bad conscience for having lost his temper under provocation and permanently annihilating a whole species of reasoning, albeit evil creatures.

Under no circumstances is almightiness assumed to confer moral infallibility.
Under no imagined scenario is it assumed that one is automatically righteous simply by virtue of being almighty. It just doesn't logically follow. The premise is seriously flawed.

 

[Hieronymus]

Here's my reply, copied from the other topic:

How does almightiness confer being right all the time no matter what on the one possessing almightiness?

I think it simply comes with the territory of being GOD.
His Will be done.
He allowed for rebellion too.
Look at what He allowed for and even endorsed in the Old Testament...
But, there is no Righteousness in ECT, but there will be righteousness in the heavens and on earth.
That's God's Will.

If indeed that were true, then it would be conceivable to have an almighty being who does use ECT and to view him as holy regardless simply because he is almighty.

In a way, yes.
But is there anything holy about ECT ?
I don't think so.

Please notice that in the series, Star Trek the New Generation, the Q, which are beings who possess almightiness, are not necessarily right all the time by virtue of that almightiness. Indeed they are very often depicted as morally fallible as is illustrated by one particularly obnoxious member.

Hmm... Star trek...

In another episode, another being who was also described as almighty was discovered dwelling in isolation on a desolated world. This almighty being was continually plagued by an extremely bad conscience for having lost his temper under provocation and permanently annihilating a whole species of reasoning, albeit evil creatures.

Ah, but that's annihilation, not ECT.
Makes you wonder though what the message is that Star Trek wanted to share...

Under no circumstances is almightiness assumed to confer moral infallibility.
Under no imagined scenario is it assumed that one is automatically righteous simply by virtue of being almighty. It just doesn't logically follow. The premise is seriously flawed.

Hmm.. Not really.
When you have One Almighty being who is the author of everything that exists, it is obvious that He decides what is right and what is wrong.
BUT, in case of YHWH Elohim there is this thing called Love (Agape).
ECT is quite the complete opposite of Agape, isn't it?
Let's give an example of God's Love:
John 3:16
And when God is Love, there is no ECT.

 

[Radrook]

Here's my reply, copied from the other topic:I think it simply comes with the territory of being GOD.
His Will be done.
He allowed for rebellion too.
Look at what He allowed for and even endorsed in the Old Testament...
But, there is no Righteousness in ECT, but there will be righteousness in the heavens and on earth.
That's God's Will.
In a way, yes.
But is there anything holy about ECT ?
I don't think so.Hmm... Star trek... Ah, but that's annihilation, not ECT.
Makes you wonder though what the message is that Star Trek wanted to share...Hmm.. Not really.
When you have One Almighty being who is the author of everything that exists, it is obvious that He decides what is right and what is wrong.
BUT, in case of YHWH Elohim there is this thing called Love (Agape).
ECT is quite the complete opposite of Agape, isn't it?
Let's give an example of God's Love:
John 3:16
And when God is Love, there is no ECT.

The examples provided in Star Trek involve issues of morality which are very relevant to human existence. During my college logic course, the professor would use fiction film examples to illustrate the curriculum's main points. So the premise that because it appears on film or in written fiction it is automatically is silly and totally devoid of moral lesson value is flawed. The same applies to all other entertainment genres.

Also, postulating ONE and only ONE almighty doesn't automatically mean that he need be morally upright. Again the premise is seriously flawed. Since when does uniqueness guarantee moral uprightness? I am right in violating all human rights or declaring that they have no human rights because I am unique and there is or never will be any other like me? How would that stand up in a court of law. I ran rampant and plowed everyone in my way under my SUV because I am unique.

Simply comes with the territory?
Once more the premise is flawed.
Why did you crush your wife's head with a hammer? It comes with the territory o being a husband.

That actually happens in some cultures. the man feels justified in beating his wife to death or amputating one or several of her limbs because he feels that it traditionally comes with the being a man and husband territory. One fellow amputated both his wife's arms when she failed to have his dinner ready when he arrived from work.

Another shattered his wife's skull with a hammer blow simply because she responded to him in what he viewed as disrespectful. Thus he proudly recounted before the TV cameras during a brief interview. Sorry but that excuse just doesn't fly.

 

[Hieronymus]

Also, postulating ONE and only ONE almighty doesn't automatically mean that he need be morally upright.

He decides what is morally upright.
It's GOD.

Simply comes with the territory?
Once more the premise is flawed.
Why did you crush your wife's head with a hammer? It comes with the territory o being a husband.

Do you really think that's a valid comparison?

 

[alexandriaisburning]

This thread is based on the following controversy which arose on another and which I feel deserves a thread all its own. Does being almighty grant the almighty moral righteousness? Is might right in such a cases simply because it is might? I disagree. Below is how the discussion went.

How does almightiness confer being right all the time no matter what on the one possessing almightiness? If indeed that were true, then it would be conceivable to have an almighty being who does use ECT and to view him as holy regardless simply because he is almighty. Please notice that in the series, Star Trek the New Generation, the Q, which are beings who possess almightiness, are not necessarily right all the time by virtue of that almightiness. Indeed they are very often depicted as morally fallible as is illustrated by one particularly obnoxious member.

In another episode, another being who was also described as almighty was discovered dwelling in isolation on a desolated world. This almighty being was continually plagued by an extremely bad conscience for having lost his temper under provocation and permanently annihilating a whole species of reasoning, albeit evil creatures.

Under no circumstances is almightiness assumed to confer moral infallibility.
Under no imagined scenario is it assumed that one is automatically righteous simply by virtue of being almighty. It just doesn't logically follow. The premise is seriously flawed.

No, almightiness does not confer righteousness upon God. However, we do not conceive of God as holy because God is morally righteous. God is holy because God is God. That which is considered "righteous", then, is not based on a standard external to the eternal nature and being of God, but is rather derived from reflections upon that which God does. Therefore, if God were, from the perspective of limited human understanding, to do "evil" things, this does not mean that God has ceased to be "righteous" or "holy"; God is incapable of acting contrary to God's own righteousness. However, this inability is not based in a lack of opportunity or a deficiency in ability; rather, it is a simple and logical conclusion stemming from the starting premise that God's actions are not adjudicated as "good" or "evil" because of their alignment with a standard external to God, but exclusively because it is God doing them. As all that God does is necessarily "right" by virtue of the act being performed by God, it is therefore impossible that God could do "other-than-right", since that would necessitate the non-existence of God, which is absurd.

 

[alexandriaisburning]

He decides what is morally upright.

God "deciding" what is right and wrong suggests that God has a list of possible options that are external to (and therefore necessarily concomitant with) the eternal self-existence of God from which to choose. So then, the determination of what is "holy" and "righteous" is not based on an arbitrary decision by God, but is rather rooted exclusively in that which God does. God does not "decide" between "right" and "wrong"; God acts, and by virtue of this is right in all that God does, because it is God that is acting.

 

[Hieronymus]

God "deciding" what is right and wrong suggests that God has a list of possible options that are external to (and therefore necessarily concomitant with) the eternal self-existence of God from which to choose.

Why?
It's "His Will be done".
Isn't it?
If you prefer to call it "acting" in stead of "deciding", that's fine by me.

 

[Radrook]

No, almightiness does not confer righteousness upon God. However, we do not conceive of God as holy because God is morally righteous. God is holy because God is God. That which is considered "righteous", then, is not based on a standard external to the eternal nature and being of God, but is rather derived from reflections upon that which God does. Therefore, if God were, from the perspective of limited human understanding, to do "evil" things, this does not mean that God has ceased to be "righteous" or "holy"; God is incapable of acting contrary to God's own righteousness. However, this inability is not based in a lack of opportunity or a deficiency in ability; rather, it is a simple and logical conclusion stemming from the starting premise that God's actions are not adjudicated as "good" or "evil" because of their alignment with a standard external to God, but exclusively because it is God doing them. As all that God does is necessarily "right" by virtue of the act being performed by God, it is therefore impossible that God could do "other-than-right", since that would necessitate the non-existence of God, which is absurd.

That is exactly the argument that those who are proposing the ECT argument use.
God is right in using ECT because if he uses it can't be wrong because he is the one who sets the standard for what is right or wrong. Since you agree with that premise, of course you cannot argue against their claim because you will be countered by the very argument you support.. It reminds me of a dental tech place worked in once where the tech who had been assigned to supervise my articulations which involved using plaster o Paris to set up the artificial stone models for false teeth set up would always find flaw with my work. Finally, after approx. six months of pompously pontificating he smilingly revealed this:

"It isn't right until I say it's right!"

In other words he shifted standards as he went along and was always right within those standards.
Which means that you couldn't really say he was wrong since his standards kept shifting.
To me that sounds like cunning gobbledygook.

Clearly there are things that we as humans who have been made in God's image have been psychologically hardwired to find inherently repulsive. To say that God can and does pronounce such things acceptable and that when he does we should acquiesce because he is God and is therefore always right goes completely contrary to all logical reasoning..

So I guess we disagree on that point.

 

[alexandriaisburning]

That is exactly the argument that those who are proposing the ECT argument use.

No, it's not the same whatsoever. If you compare your presentation of their viewpoint (well, your understanding of it) with what I wrote above, you should notice pretty blatant and important philosophical differences.

God is right in using ECT because if he uses it can't be wrong because he is the one who sets the standard for what is right or wrong.

That's not an argument against my position; I specifically mentioned that I don't believe God "sets the standard for what is right or wrong".

Since you agree with that premise, of course you cannot argue against their claim because you will be countered by the very argument you support..

Are you actually reading? I specifically denied the premise that "God sets the standard for what is right or wrong". Honestly...

In other words he shifted standards as he went along and was always right within those standards.
Which means that you couldn't really say he was wrong since his standards kept shifting.
To me that sounds like cunning gobbledygook.

You're entitled to that opinion. I'm not sure why you're mentioning it to me, as your attempt at an amusing anecdote has no relevance to the points I am making.

Clearly there are things that we as humans who have been made in God's image have been psychologically hardwired to find inherently repulsive. To say that God can and does pronounce such things acceptable and that when he does we should acquiesce because he is God and is therefore always right goes completely contrary to all logical reasoning..

So I guess we disagree on that point.

You're disagreeing with some other person. This position you are attacking is not one that I hold. Perhaps you should read more carefully next time.

I never said that God pronounces "this" or "that" as acceptable or not acceptable. My argument is that God does what is right because God acts. God's actions are not "right" because they align with a standard external to the eternal self-existence of God. It also has nothing to do with God choosing between available options and arbitrarily defining them as "right" or "wrong"; such a scenario would presume that the standards were already set (over and against the eternal self-existence of God) whereby God's pronouncement of them as something different would signify a meaningful change. However, this is clearly not the case, so the objection is completely misplaced.

 

[Radrook]

No, it's not the same whatsoever. If you compare your presentation of their viewpoint (well, your understanding of it) with what I wrote above, you should notice pretty blatant and important philosophical differences.



That's not an argument against my position; I specifically mentioned that I don't believe God "sets the standard for what is right or wrong".



Are you actually reading? I specifically denied the premise that "God sets the standard for what is right or wrong". Honestly...



You're entitled to that opinion. I'm not sure why you're mentioning it to me, as your attempt at an amusing anecdote has no relevance to the points I am making.



You're disagreeing with some other person. This position you are attacking is not one that I hold. Perhaps you should read more carefully next time.

I never said that God pronounces "this" or "that" as acceptable or not acceptable. My argument is that God does what is right because God acts. God's actions are not "right" because they align with a standard external to the eternal self-existence of God. It also has nothing to do with God choosing between available options and arbitrarily defining them as "right" or "wrong"; such a scenario would presume that the standards were already set (over and against the eternal self-existence of God) whereby God's pronouncement of them as something different would signify a meaningful change. However, this is clearly not the case, so the objection is completely misplaced.

My attempt at an amusing anecdote is an attempt at describing exactly how it is that your attempts at profound philosophical albeit vague declarations are coming across. So it definitely is relevant to the discussion. Unless you prefer not to know exactly how your explanations are being perceived. Then of course might as well lecture yourself before a mirror while nodding in agreement.

BTW
My understanding of ECT doesn't jive with many understandings of ECT.
However, as I can see by the repeated objections from ECT proponents concerning your concept of ECT, neither does yours.

 

[Radrook]

No, almightiness does not confer righteousness upon God. However, we do not conceive of God as holy because God is morally righteous. God is holy because God is God. That which is considered "righteous", then, is not based on a standard external to the eternal nature and being of God, but is rather derived from reflections upon that which God does. Therefore, if God were, from the perspective of limited human understanding, to do "evil" things, this does not mean that God has ceased to be "righteous" or "holy"; God is incapable of acting contrary to God's own righteousness. However, this inability is not based in a lack of opportunity or a deficiency in ability; rather, it is a simple and logical conclusion stemming from the starting premise that God's actions are not adjudicated as "good" or "evil" because of their alignment with a standard external to God, but exclusively because it is God doing them. As all that God does is necessarily "right" by virtue of the act being performed by God, it is therefore impossible that God could do "other-than-right", since that would necessitate the non-existence of God, which is absurd.

No, almightiness does not confer righteousness upon God. However, we do not conceive of God as holy because God is morally righteous. God is holy because God is God. That which is considered "righteous", then, is not based on a standard external to the eternal nature and being of God, but is rather derived from reflections upon that which God does. Therefore, if God were, from the perspective of limited human understanding, to do "evil" things, this does not mean that God has ceased to be "righteous" or "holy"; God is incapable of acting contrary to God's own righteousness.

I never postulated that God is governed by laws exterior to himself so that is straw man.
You are defending issues I have never brought up.


But to let you know that I understand your view:

Righteousness, in relation to men, is their conformity to a standard. Unlike men, God is not subject to anything outside of Himself. No one states this better than A.W. Tozer:

It is sometimes said, ‘Justice requires God to do this,’ referring to some act we know He will perform. This is an error of thinking as well as of speaking, for it postulates a principle of justice outside of God which compels Him to act in a certain way. Of course there is no such principle. If there were it would be superior to God, for only a superior power can compel obedience. The truth is that there is not and can never be anything outside of the nature of God which can move Him in the least degree. All God’s reasons come from within His uncreated being. Nothing has entered the being of God from eternity, nothing has been removed, and nothing has been changed.



https://bible.org/seriespage/6-righteousness-god

 

[VanillaSunflowers]

For clarity since this thread appears to have been created to have a separate place for a couple of members to continue their disagreement on the topic itself, what are you meaning when you use "ECT" in this discussion?

 

[Radrook]

For clarity since this thread appears to have been created to have a separate place for a couple of members to continue their disagreement on the topic itself, what are you meaning when you use "ECT" in this discussion?

This thread is for anyone who wishes to participate.
ECT = Eternal Conscious Torment

 

[VanillaSunflowers]

This thread is for anyone who wishes to participate.
ECT = Eternal Conscious Torment

Yes, I'm aware of that being it is displayed in the public forums. I was commenting on the tenor of the thread being the subject matter here had started elsewhere in another thread. As the OP informs us.
Thank you for the ETC explanation .

 

[Radrook]

He decides what is morally upright.
It's GOD.Do you really think that's a valid comparison?

Aybody can decide what is morally upright.
The Devil decided that it was morally upright to disobey God.
Mankind decides what is morally upright and goes about its mutual slaughter business.
Yes it is a valid comparison because the premise is identical.

 

[Radrook]

Yes, I'm aware of that being it is displayed in the public forums. I was commenting on the tenor of the thread being the subject matter here had started elsewhere in another thread. As the OP informs us.
Thank you for the ETC explanation .

That other thread concerns the morality of ECT.
This one is about the proposal that might makes right.
It was being repeatedly offered as a justifiability for ECT.
Or, if God does it-then it is OK by default.
My question is how the heck does being powerful justify anything?

 

[VanillaSunflowers]

That other thread concerns the morality of ECT.
This one is about the proposal that might makes right.
It was being repeatedly offered as a justifiability for ECT.
Or, if God does it-then it is OK by default.

Understood.
If ECT is the reality of the damned and their afterlife, then it would make for a question about omni-benevolence as pertains to an omniscient Being wouldn't it? Hell was created initially for Satan and his fallen angels. It was then opened as a punishment for unrepentant humans. And yet, again, an omni-benevolent omniscient being that also resides in Hell, Psalm 139:7-12,having "said" through His inspired word (breath) , that all things are predetermined, predestined, according to that omni-benevolent, omniscient, omni-present beings will, would have foreseen all who would enter into that torturous domain. Being He "said" that those who avoid Hell as the sinners dead in their sins, damned to Hell unless redeemed, did repent because he called those whom he chose unto repentance. And all people , damned and redeemed alike, per the Psalms, he knew before the womb.

Therefore, would omni-benevolence be a valid characteristic in light of the existence of Hell at all?

If there is no eternal conscious torment for the damned, what would be the purpose of Hell? And if there is a Hell as described in the new testament, fire and brimstone, etc.... why would it be created for its initial purpose, expanded for its later purpose, by an omni-benevolent omniscient God that predetermined everything He created out of nothing?

 

[Radrook]

No, almightiness does not confer righteousness upon God. However, we do not conceive of God as holy because God is morally righteous. God is holy because God is God. That which is considered "righteous", then, is not based on a standard external to the eternal nature and being of God, but is rather derived from reflections upon that which God does. Therefore, if God were, from the perspective of limited human understanding, to do "evil" things, this does not mean that God has ceased to be "righteous" or "holy"; God is incapable of acting contrary to God's own righteousness. However, this inability is not based in a lack of opportunity or a deficiency in ability; rather, it is a simple and logical conclusion stemming from the starting premise that God's actions are not adjudicated as "good" or "evil" because of their alignment with a standard external to God, but exclusively because it is God doing them. As all that God does is necessarily "right" by virtue of the act being performed by God, it is therefore impossible that God could do "other-than-right", since that would necessitate the non-existence of God, which is absurd.

With all due respect but to me that argument sounds like: "You can't blame a piranha for devouring you if you fall into its tank because after all, it is a piranha and piranhas do what piranhas do."

 

[Radrook]

Understood.
If ECT is the reality of the damned and their afterlife, then it would make for a question about omni-benevolence as pertains to an omniscient Being wouldn't it? Hell was created initially for Satan and his fallen angels. It was then opened as a punishment for unrepentant humans. And yet, again, an omni-benevolent omniscient being that also resides in Hell, Psalm 139:7-12,having "said" through His inspired word (breath) , that all things are predetermined, predestined, according to that omni-benevolent, omniscient, omni-present beings will, would have foreseen all who would enter into that torturous domain. Being He "said" that those who avoid Hell as the sinners dead in their sins, damned to Hell unless redeemed, did repent because he called those whom he chose unto repentance. And all people , damned and redeemed alike, per the Psalms, he knew before the womb.

Therefore, would omni-benevolence be a valid characteristic in light of the existence of Hell at all?

If there is no eternal conscious torment for the damned, what would be the purpose of Hell? And if there is a Hell as described in the new testament, fire and brimstone, etc.... why would it be created for its initial purpose, expanded for its later purpose, by an omni-benevolent omniscient God that predetermined everything He created out of nothing?

Well, we obviously don't share the same theological perspectives in reference to the word "hell". But within the parameters of your view of it, yes, benevolence of the creator would be suspect.

BTW
Why do you imagine God creating things from nothing?
http://biblehub.com/isaiah/40-26.htm

 

[VanillaSunflowers]

Well, we obviously don't share the same theological perspectives in reference to the word "hell". But within the parameters of your view of it, yes, benevolence of the creator would be suspect.

BTW
Why do you imagine God creating things from nothing?

What is your perspective of Hell?

Re:Out of nothing. A figure of speech being God is the first source of all that exists, seen and unseen. There is no thing that God did not create. Therefore there is no thing that can not be God.