Does 'Goddidit' constitute an explanation?

[Skaloop]

Then by combining the two halves they are all right.

No. Each man is half right on their half, meaning overall each is a quarter right. There are four options, two by each man. Each is right on one of their options. That makes two out of four. Still half right.

What you're saying is like if there are four quarters; two are legit, and two are counterfeit, but you still have a dollar. Taking the two real quarters does not make a dollar.

 

[CoderHead]

This is precisely why there is a set definition of good and evil as presented in the garden.

What definition was presented in the garden? "Don't eat of the tree?" That's all there is to it, huh? I haven't personally eaten from the tree, so I guess anything else I do is insignificant.

 

[Doveaman]

I don't fail to recognize this. You fail to recognize that this makes morality trivial and the opposite of absolute. God can simply change his will and good and evil are turn downside.

"God is not a man, that He should lie, nor a son of man, that He should change His mind. Does He speak and then not act? Does He promise and not fulfill?" - Num 23:19.

NO!

At least when its tied to a culture it has some meaning or reason when looking at history.

You mean like human depravity leading to more and more human depravity?

 

[Doveaman]

Satan used to be good. Satan used to be the opposite of evil.

If the definition of your supposed absolutes can change, then I don't think they rate very highly.

Satan was not absolute. God is.

 

[BananaSlug]

"God is not a man, that He should lie, nor a son of man, that He should change His mind. Does He speak and then not act? Does He promise and not fulfill?" - Num 23:19.

Genesis 15:18 In the same day the LORD made a covenant with Abram, saying, Unto thy seed have I given this land, from the river of Egypt unto the great river, the river Euphrates:

Hebrews 11:13 These all died in faith, not having received the promises, but having seen them afar off, and were persuaded of them, and embraced them, and confessed that they were strangers and pilgrims on the earth.

Exodus 33:2 And I will send an angel before thee; and I will drive out the Canaanite, the Amorite, and the Hittite, and the Perizzite, the Hivite, and the Jebusite:

Joshua 15:63 As for the Jebusites the inhabitants of Jerusalem, the children of Judah could not drive them out; but the Jebusites dwell with the children of Judah at Jerusalem unto this day.

NO!

Yes.

You mean like human depravity leading to more and more human depravity?

Calling people depraved tends to make them act depraved.

 

[Cabal]

Satan was not absolute. God is.

No. You were trying to tie an absolute scale to something that you knew not to be and now you're backtracking on it.

 

[Cabal]

"God is not a man, that He should lie, nor a son of man, that He should change His mind - Num 23:19.

The word "Flood" springs to mind.

 

[Doveaman]

False Dichotemy.

You have A and B.
Because you are not A, you're B.
There can be C, D, E, F, G, H, I, J, K, L, M, N, O, P, Q, R, S, T, U, V, W, X, Y, Z, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9......

Nope.

A = The Good will of God.

B = The Evil will of Satan.

There is no in between, above, or below.

There is no fairly good or fairly evil.

There is no mostly good or mostly evil.

There is no partly good or partly evil.

There is no "C, D, E, F, G, H, I, J, K, L, M, N, O, P, Q, R, S, T, U, V, W, X, Y, Z, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9......"

We are either completely good or completely evil.

Two choices, and only one is acceptable:

"This day I call heaven and earth as witnesses against you that I have set before you life and death, blessings and curses. Now choose life, so that you and your children may live." - Deut 30:19.

 

[Doveaman]

"Right" and "wrong" are just as fabricated as "good" and "evil."

Saying that God is good and Satan is evil doesn't do anything to define "good" and "evil,"

God and Satan (good and evil) are defined by their actions.

God does good. Satan does evil.

Those who follow what God does are good.

Those who follow what Satan does are evil.

 

[pgp_protector]

...snip...
We are either completely good or completely evil.

Two choices, and only one is acceptable:

"This day I call heaven and earth as witnesses against you that I have set before you life and death, blessings and curses. Now choose life, so that you and your children may live." - Deut 30:19.

So are you 100% Good 100% of the time?

 

[Freodin]

God and Satan (good and evil) are defined by their actions.

God does good. Satan does evil.

Those who follow what God does are good.

Those who follow what Satan does are evil.

If good and evil are defined by actions, in what regard is light "good" then?

 

[Doveaman]

What definition was presented in the garden? "Don't eat of the tree?" That's all there is to it, huh? I haven't personally eaten from the tree, so I guess anything else I do is insignificant.

There was nothing wrong in itself with eating of the tree.

The wrong was in disobeying God's command not to eat.

There is nothing wrong with a young son eating cookies from the cookie jar. But he would be wrong if he disobeyed his father's instruction not to eat. And his father would have the right to punish him for his disobedience.

We all disobey God, just as Adam did. And we all deserve to be punished for our disobedience. But thanks be to God for Jesus who chose to be punished for us so we wouldn't have to be.

 

[CoderHead]

There is nothing wrong with a young son eating cookies from the cookie jar. But he would be wrong if he disobeyed his father's instruction not to eat. And his father would have the right to punish him for his disobedience.

He wouldn't have the right to punish the child for the rest of his life and extend that punishment to the child's children, grandchildren, and so on unto the third and fourth generations. A smack on the hand is fine. Condemning all of his descendants is not.

Anyway, back on the subject of the garden, God lied. He told them that the moment they ate of the fruit they'd die. They didn't. There is no definition of "good" and "evil" in the garden, especially so because the two humans were purposely denied the knowledge of good and evil. They couldn't have known it was wrong.

 

[MoonLancer]

God and Satan (good and evil) are defined by their actions.

God does good. Satan does evil.

Those who follow what God does are good.

Those who follow what Satan does are evil.

And if Satan healed a child that would be evil? relying on the actions of two prominent individuals is a major folly for determining good and evil. Why? before the NT God was a killer. does that mean killing is good? Killing babies is good?

You do see the problem here right?

Your definition is twisted and flawed

 

[Freodin]

And if Satan healed a child that would be evil? relying on the actions of two prominent individuals is a major folly for determining good and evil. Why? before the NT God was a killer. does that mean killing is good? Killing babies is good?

You do see the problem here right?

Your definition is twisted and flawed

It is indeed.

Good is, what God does. Evil is, what Satan does.
Simple? Not quite.
Dove said that there is either complete good or complete evil. But if these terms are defined by the actions, it would be possible for Satan to destroy this distinction. Do what God does, and good and evil become identical!

Of course this is impossible to accept in this version of good and evil. So it is not the actions which define, but the actors. An act is good because God does it, the same act would be evil if Satan does it.

Leading people to make false conclusions based on insufficient data and fallible processing is evil. It is what Satan does, usually called "lying".
Creating people to make false conclusions based on insufficient data and fallible processing is good. It is what God does, usually called "punishing".
Making false conclusions based on insufficient data and fallible processing is also evil. It is what humans do, usually called "sinning".

And there´s the rub: if the actors define what is good and evil, there can, as Jesus said, be no good except for God. Only God can do what God does, because only he IS God.

So when he called his creation "good", he was lying. It cannot be good. It is not God.

On the other hand, creating all this "evil" stuff: Satan, humans, light, earth, the whole universe... this must be "good", because God does it.

Doing evil, being evil is good, because God did it.

 

[LifeToTheFullest!]

It is indeed.

Good is, what God does. Evil is, what Satan does.
Simple? Not quite.
Dove said that there is either complete good or complete evil. But if these terms are defined by the actions, it would be possible for Satan to destroy this distinction. Do what God does, and good and evil become identical!

Of course this is impossible to accept in this version of good and evil. So it is not the actions which define, but the actors. An act is good because God does it, the same act would be evil if Satan does it.

Leading people to make false conclusions based on insufficient data and fallible processing is evil. It is what Satan does, usually called "lying".
Creating people to make false conclusions based on insufficient data and fallible processing is good. It is what God does, usually called "punishing".
Making false conclusions based on insufficient data and fallible processing is also evil. It is what humans do, usually called "sinning".

And there´s the rub: if the actors define what is good and evil, there can, as Jesus said, be no good except for God. Only God can do what God does, because only he IS God.

So when he called his creation "good", he was lying. It cannot be good. It is not God.

On the other hand, creating all this "evil" stuff: Satan, humans, light, earth, the whole universe... this must be "good", because God does it.

Doing evil, being evil is good, because God did it.

Well said.

 

[Doveaman]

No. You were trying to tie an absolute scale to something that you knew not to be and now you're backtracking on it.

Huhh!!

 

[Doveaman]

The word "Flood" springs to mind.

Keep it in context, please.

"God is not a man, that He should lie, nor a son of man, that He should change His mind. Does He speak and then not act? Does He promise and not fulfill?" - Num 23:19.

NO!

 

[pgp_protector]

Repost.

...snip...
We are either completely good or completely evil.

Two choices, and only one is acceptable:

"This day I call heaven and earth as witnesses against you that I have set before you life and death, blessings and curses. Now choose life, so that you and your children may live." - Deut 30:19.

So are you 100% Good 100% of the time?

 

[Cabal]

Huhh!!

Please stop evading the point.

You said that what God does is good, what Satan does is evil. What about the times when Satan was doing good? The mere fact that Satan was able to change his place on the scale renders it useless given how absolutist you're being.

If you could respond this time, that would be great :wave;

Keep it in context, please.

"God is not a man, that He should lie, nor a son of man, that He should change His mind. Does He speak and then not act? Does He promise and not fulfill?" - Num 23:19.

NO!

The context doesn't really matter - the flood did involve a change of mind, one that involved genocide. Pretty poor going for someone claiming omnipotence.