Does Almightiness confer Moral Uprightness?

[Received]

Received: "I disagree. God actualizes his own choices, but he doesn't actualize his own nature, so the two aren't the same."

Bogus distinction, since God's will and hence God's choices are expressions of His nature, which in turn can only be known from an understanding of His will and choices.

But that still doesn't mean his will and nature are the same, just as a house isn't the same as its foundation

"I don't follow how your third sentence follows from the second. Morality can indeed reflect the relative "mores" of a society, but there's no reason to think that some root of morality is founded in God, even if the society doesn't acknowledge it as such."

Ethics 101 begins with the impossibility of deriving an "ought" from "what is." Assume that evolution accurately reflects the morality of the universe. Then the Creator could be linked to the principle that might and adaptability is right in the sense that it determines who is and is not rewarded with survival of their genes. In that case, most people would assume that God is simply amoral, not that His morality differs from ours. That is because the only sense in which we can claim that God is moral is by projecting our own values (e. g. selfless love) onto God and hoping that our projection actually reflects God's nature and hence God's value system. But, of course, we cannot know whether our projection is true; we must accept its truth by faith. But if we are wrong, then morality is meaningless.

Few people believe in naturalistic evolution and a personal/interventionist God. And I think it's a bit the other way around: not just that we know what's good (here moral) because we come to faith, but also and maybe moreso that we know the true faith from a previous or intuitive knowledge of the good, which is something God stamped into the soul of human beings. Otherwise there's no standard we could use to know which faith or religion is worthy of being chosen.

 

[Stillicidia]

.

 

[Neogaia777]

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.

His Omniscience (all-knowingness) from beginning to end, and possessing all-knowledge and all wisdom, is what makes him "morally righteous" in whatever he does, even when it may not appear "morally righteous" or right to us... It is impossible for him to not do what is right, especially in the end, due to this...

God Bless!

 

[Received]

Righteousness is being right, correct, not wrong, or incorrect.

The almighty god has some of the best ideas you would ever see.

Morals-wise, he has a good side.

He is the loving god.

He's like unto a lion, slow to get up, but when he does his roar is mighty.

I think hidden in this is the idea that love doesn't have a roar.

 

[Stillicidia]

.

 

[Received]

What? What sins do you allow then in your life? Even you should roar.

I don't roar, I meow.

Any sins that invite a roar from God only reflect the degree to which we don't turn to his love. The roar is made in love; there is no justice without love as a motivator.

 

[Stillicidia]

.

 

[Received]

Then meow,

Oh I actually agree with what you said. Finally! Someone! This once anyway.

Well, I should say I used to meow. Since I've been married four years I now peep.

 

[Stillicidia]

.

 

[aiki]

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.

I don't have any good reason to think God is morally right simply because He is all-powerful. Might does not make right. Such thinking about God is susceptible to the Euthyphro Dilemma and seriously misunderstands the Bible's revelation of Him.

I have always despised the Q character(s) in the Star Trek series. Much of Star Trek is very badly written but Q was particularly awful. The writers clearly needed some schooling in philosophy and theology.

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.

I believe the Bible plainly teaches ECT but I've never used this sort of argument in support of it. God can't be in error because if He were, He would not be God. His rightness isn't a function of His power, however, but of His essential nature. God doesn't capriciously establish what is morally right and wrong. His Moral Law is a reflection of His own moral nature; it is not just what He has decided on a whim it should be.

ECT is not morally wrong. It is the appropriate response to our sin. We don't think so because we don't see God's holiness and our own unholiness properly. If we did, we would see that ECT is entirely just and right as a punishment of our sin. We have, though, a habit of second-guessing God, of trying to make Him in our own image. Denying His terrible, wrathful, eternal punishment upon sin is just another example of this.

Selah.

 

[Deadworm]

To answer the question, does God make decisions because they are "right" or are God decisions right because God so decrees, one must (to avoid vacuous gibberish) define "right" by also defining "ought" or by avoiding value terms like "ought." Such a task is futile and demonstrates that the point of the OP is epistemologically meaningless. "Right" can only be defined in terms of "what is," and so, the definition gets back to the question of accountability, without which moral value systems lack meaning.

 

[Neogaia777]

To answer the question, does God make decisions because they are "right" or are God decisions right because God so decrees, one must (to void vacuous gibberish) define "right" by also defining "ought" or by avoiding value terms like "ought." Such a task is futile and demonstrates that the point of the OP is epistemologically meaningless. "Right" can only be defined in terms of "what is," and so, the definition gets back to the question of accountability, without which moral value systems lack meaning.

Right is "what is" "best"... God "ought" to do "what is" "best"... And I argue that he does, even when it may not seem that way to us...

As for "accountability", God took care of that already, see this: http://www.christianforums.com/threads/the-divine-court-case-the-blame-game-blame-shifting.7963354/

God Bless!

 

[ken777]

The righteousness of God is based in His omniscience as well as His omnipotence. It is also based in Him being the source not only of love but also of justice.

Many make the mistake of assessing God's nature by looking at the evil in the world that comes from humankind's evil actions.

 

[Received]

To answer the question, does God make decisions because they are "right" or are God decisions right because God so decrees, one must (to void vacuous gibberish) define "right" by also defining "ought" or by avoiding value terms like "ought." Such a task is futile and demonstrates that the point of the OP is epistemologically meaningless. "Right" can only be defined in terms of "what is," and so, the definition gets back to the question of accountability, without which moral value systems lack meaning.

You'll have to expand on how right can only be defined in terms of "what is". The is/ought problem refers to extrapolating ethical statements ("oughts") from observations of what is ("is"). This doesn't mean that we can't access any ethical "ought" at all, only that we can't create oughts from observations -- which seems to be the opposite of what you're saying, that right can only be defined according to "what is".

"Right" can be defined as what ought to be. Pick your metaethical framework, whether consequentialist, virtue ethics, or deontology; in any case there's a determination of "ought" according to a standard.

 

[Neogaia777]

You'll have to expand on how right can only be defined in terms of "what is". The is/ought problem refers to extrapolating ethical statements ("oughts") from observations of what is ("is"). This doesn't mean that we can't access any ethical "ought" at all, only that we can't create oughts from observations -- which seems to be the opposite of what you're saying, that right can only be defined according to "what is".

"Right" can be defined as what ought to be. Pick your metaethical framework, whether consequentialist, virtue ethics, or deontology; in any case there's a determination of "ought" according to a standard.

We are so confused on "right" and "wrong"... We don't know what "ought" to be "right", or what is right, so, we cannot "cause it to become" (so)... But God does... And he will "make it come to be", and he is "causing it to become" (so, in the end) right now... We just don't "trust" God and the "steps" it takes for this to become so, but he knows... We should "trust" that and not lose faith...

He does, has done, and will always do, what's "best" for us in the end, but, we have to trust him in the "steps" it takes to get there...

What's "best" for us, is to be and become like God is, and Christ is now, that is who and what he is "after" his death and resurrection... The "steps" it most of time "takes" to get there, are shown us, by YHWH/Son of God, and God, Son of Man, in the Old and New testaments in the Bible... The Books after the Four Gospels and the people in them, can give us some insight in to what we "ought to be or be like" and also show us some of what The Son of God is/was like or became "after" his death and resurrection...

God Bless!

 

[Blade]

Logic? Mans logic. Where its clearly written HIs ways are not our.. His thoughts are not ours .. higher so forth so on. Try as you might you will never ever grasp come close. Ah but.. come at this as a child ..its as if you can see forever

 

[Neogaia777]

Logic? Mans logic. Where its clearly written HIs ways are not our.. His thoughts are not ours .. higher so forth so on. Try as you might you will never ever grasp come close. Ah but.. come at this as a child ..its as if you can see forever

You don't think God communicates to us with "higher logic"? Or gives us logic, especially if leads us to conclude that it could not have been ours and leads us to acknowledge and worship and honor and venerate him?

I believe the scriptures you are referring to says "My (God's) ways are higher than your (own) (man's) ways" and "My (God's) thoughts are higher than your (own) (man's) thoughts." And, "My (God's) thoughts are not your (own, a man's) thoughts. But, I believe "his thoughts" can become "our thoughts", if we know that those thoughts are not our own...

"If a man is having thoughts, especially after praying about it, and is having thoughts that are clearly "higher" than his own thoughts or that perhaps has not been conceived of previously by man, are they "man's" or his own, or are they God's? And is this God speaking to him?

You do not think God has superior logic or that God is not logical? Or can be understood or is capable of communicating logically?

 

[Stillicidia]

I learned but a day ago that righteousness is moral uprightness.

Of course he's morally upright.