Does Might Make Right?

[cvanwey]

So you are arguing that God's might and his determination of what is right are independent. Do you support this argument with faith, personal revelation, Scripture, or some other means?

It's all 'personal revelation' for him. I have proof

 

[Tree of Life]

So you are arguing that God's might and his determination of what is right are independent. Do you support this argument with faith, personal revelation, Scripture, or some other means?

I would say that God’s determination of what is right is not arbitrary. It’s based on his unchanging character. He does not arbitrarily determine good and evil and then enforce an arbitrary or capricious determination by his power.

 

[Ophiolite]

I would say that God’s determination of what is right is not arbitrary. It’s based on his unchanging character. He does not arbitrarily determine good and evil and then enforce an arbitrary or capricious determination by his power.

That's semantically self contradictory. (A polite way of saying nonsense.)
I never said his determination of what is right was arbitrary. Quite the reverse. Of course it would be based on his character. That's the point. The identification of right and wrong arose from his character and was imposed by his character. Might determined Right.

 

[Tree of Life]

That's semantically self contradictory. (A polite way of saying nonsense.)
I never said his determination of what is right was arbitrary. Quite the reverse. Of course it would be based on his character. That's the point. The identification of right and wrong arose from his character and was imposed by his character. Might determined Right.

I would not put it like that because it sounds misleading. Usually when we say “might makes right” we mean that “right” is determined only by power. But in this case “right” is determined by God’s character. If that fits into your understanding of “might makes right” then fair enough. But I wouldn’t use that terminology.

 

[cvanwey]

I would not put it like that because it sounds misleading. Usually when we say “might makes right” we mean that “right” is determined only by power. But in this case “right” is determined by God’s character. If that fits into your understanding of “might makes right” then fair enough. But I wouldn’t use that terminology.

You never asked me about how I would put it. That is also how I would put it.... Now that we have clarified 'proper terminology', care to engage now?

I answered your above concern, in post #38, and even referenced you.

And we are already aware of [your] terminology:

Post #29:

"If you disagree with the righteousness of God’s commands then you are in the wrong in some way. You’re either misinformed, misunderstanding, or perhaps simply morally corrupt. There could be no truly sound reasoning against God’s commands because they are most reasonable and wise."

I asked a follow up question. One for which you completely ignored. Though this is your right, I find this rather poor 'apologetics', if the apologist is here is to defend their faith - which you look to do only when it is convenient.

I would like to discuss post #29. I will ask you again, using differing 'terminology'.

Why should we trust what is asserted in the Bible, verses any other opposing book of claims, which also makes the same claims to exclusivity about 'god'?

 

[Ophiolite]

I would not put it like that because it sounds misleading.

I did put it like that because it sounded accurate and precise.

Usually when we say “might makes right” we mean that “right” is determined only by power.

That may be what you mean. I take it to mean that those with power have the ability to defined what is right. It would be similar to the phrase "history is written by the victors".

But in this case “right” is determined by God’s character.

Certainly. No dispute. And his right is imposed by his might. The two are inseperable.

 

[Tree of Life]

You never asked me about how I would put it. That is also how I would put it.... Now that we have clarified 'proper terminology', care to engage now?

I answered your above concern, in post #38, and even referenced you.

And we are already aware of [your] terminology:

Post #29:

"If you disagree with the righteousness of God’s commands then you are in the wrong in some way. You’re either misinformed, misunderstanding, or perhaps simply morally corrupt. There could be no truly sound reasoning against God’s commands because they are most reasonable and wise."

I asked a follow up question. One for which you completely ignored. Though this is your right, I find this rather poor 'apologetics', if the the apologisti here is to defend their faith - which you look to do only when it is convenient.

I would like to discuss post #29. I will ask you again, using differing 'terminology'.

Why should we trust what is asserted in the Bible, verses any other opposing book of claims, which also makes the same claims to exclusivity about 'god'?

As far as moral norms are concerned, there is a happy agreement between nearly all religious texts on the basics. Everyone agrees that murder is wrong, for example. No need to get into the uniqueness of the Bible here.

 

[Tree of Life]

I did put it like that because it sounded accurate and precise.

That may be what you mean. I take it to mean that those with power have the ability to defined what is right. It would be similar to the phrase "history is written by the victors".

Certainly. No dispute. And his right is imposed by his might. The two are inseperable.

Fair enough, but even when we say that history is written by the victors, we imply that it may not be totally accurate. It’s sympathetic to the victors. That’s what I want to avoid here. God’s commands are wise, true, and good.

 

[cvanwey]

As far as moral norms are concerned, there is a happy agreement between nearly all religious texts on the basics. Everyone agrees that murder is wrong, for example. No need to get into the uniqueness of the Bible here.

Um, I believe we do. You state that: "If you disagree with the righteousness of God’s commands then you are in the wrong in some way."

YHWH deems one worthy of salvation, by a specific way. If I do not comply, because I feel belief is not something one can control, and I do not believe because I find the presented evidence lacking, and God disagrees, then what will He do?

Alternatively, the way another claimed god(s) deems one worthy of salvation, differs.

Hand-waving the entire topic away, and hiding behind 'moral norms', which would also be a subjective statement, seems like avoidance.

Furthermore, you do not need any holy book, to come to the basic conclusions about murder, theft, trespassing?

 

[cvanwey]

God’s commands are wise, true, and good.

And if this poster disagrees?

 

[Tree of Life]

Furthermore, you do not need any holy book, to come to the basic conclusions about murder, theft, trespassing?

No the Bible itself says that the Bible is not strictly necessary in order to determine basic moral truths.

 

[Tree of Life]

And if this poster disagrees?

Then you’re wrong.

 

[cvanwey]

No the Bible itself says that the Bible is not strictly necessary in order to determine basic moral truths.

Then why bring up 'moral norms'? You state that if I disagree with anything God is said to say, I must be wrong.

I gladly admit I concur with "don't murder, don't steal, don't trespass."

But what about ALL the other assertions, which are unique or exclusive to Christianity?

 

[Tree of Life]

Then why bring up 'moral norms'? You state that if I disagree with anything God is said to say, I must be wrong.

I gladly admit I concur with "don't murder, don't steal, don't trespass."

But what about ALL the other assertions, which are unique or exclusive to Christianity?

I thought this thread was about moral norms. I’m confused because you seem to be trying to make it about the Bible.

 

[cvanwey]

I thought this thread was about moral norms. I’m confused because you seem to be trying to make it about the Bible.

Yes, it is you whom are either confused, or in continued avoidance. This is what I quoted, from you, in post #1:

"Anything that's contrary to the character of God or that violates God's commands as they are laid out in Scripture." --- is apparently not deemed 'moral'. "

Please let it soak in, and marinate for a bit.... I made some choice words of yours, in bold.

Now I will repeat.

What about ALL the other assertions, which are unique or exclusive to Christianity?

 

[Larniavc]

Rather than "might makes right", I propose that "the creator defines what is right within that creation".

Yeah but that’s only true because no other entity is able to take control of reality. And that’s because God has the biggest metaphysical stick.

 

[Tree of Life]

What about ALL the other assertions, which are unique or exclusive to Christianity?

What about them?

 

[Ophiolite]

Fair enough, but even when we say that history is written by the victors, we imply that it may not be totally accurate. It’s sympathetic to the victors. That’s what I want to avoid here. God’s commands are wise, true, and good.

Emphasis added.

That's precisely what I don't want to avoid and what I recognise is, for you, important, perhaps vital to avoid. But I'll avoid it here if it makes you uncomfortable. Your choice.

 

[Tree of Life]

Emphasis added.

That's precisely what I don't want to avoid and what I recognise is, for you, important, perhaps vital to avoid. But I'll avoid it here if it makes you uncomfortable. Your choice.

Thanks.

 

[Larniavc]

Economics are objective.

Completely untrue. Economics is based on people and people are not rational actors.