I don't answer questions that assume I made a claim I didn't make. You made the claim that there is a higher standard outside of God.
Upvote
0
Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
No I am not, you are. So for the third time of asking, from whence cometh the higher morality, against which God's actions can be judged either right or wrong.
It does to some degree. We can never know whether our intuition is constructed entirely from our previous experiences, current schemas, and other things, or whether there's something objective leaking through our intuition. I think that if you look at, say, fear as a psychological mechanism, this is a very reliable (although far from foolproof) indicator of something dangerous around the corner which often works without conscious awareness ("I feel like I don't trust this person but I don't quite know why...").
I can go along with that.
Some people not reacting against Calvinism just means that those people think it has support.
It does if you can read. It wasn't only Calvin who thought so. So did Luther and Thomas Aquinas.
I don't answer questions that assume I made a claim I didn't make. You made the claim that there is a higher standard outside of God.
Aquinas?
There is no answer for fallacies, correct.
Yes Aquinas where?
God's actions can be right or wrong, correct?
Then please tell me where the standard comes from against which God's actions can be judged as right or wrong.
In the Summa Theologica. There are some technical differences between Aquinas and Calvin, but nothing which is likely to give an Arminian any encouragement.
I dunno. ST is a massive tome, of course, but Aquinas is more on the Catholic side against protestantism, which is historically Calvinistic. (I know Augustine is considered Calvinistic, but he's an exception.)
Aquinas is Catholicism's answer to Calvin (and Luther).
Molina is Catholicism's answer to Arminius.
Okay, thanks. You're presupposing God has a standard outside itself. IOW, it's a false dichotomy to think that God's behavior determines the standard (which actually wouldn't be a standard at all, because if God is like Hitler, then anyone who becomes like Hitler isn't good) or that there is a standard outside of God (which implies it was created by someone other than God). The third way is both/and. Goodness is understood in the Aristotelean sense as being the end point or maturity point of things, and God's goodness is his behaving in a way that lines up with this.
Which would make you think that Aquinas wasn't Calvinist, then.
Quote:
"The alternative, which prevents all this, is to say as the verse does: that God does good, that in a sense goodness is something 'outside' God "
And no, you can't wriggle out of it by putting quotation marks around "outside".
Either it is something outside of God, in which case please tell me what that something is, or it isn't outside of God, in which case you have lost the argument.
Since you don't want to answer the question, it seems to me that you have lost the argument anyway.
I answered it here.
No you flaming well did not. You are being downright dishonest, and frankly, I have had enough of it.
And google "excluded middle".
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?