Ah, OK - I smell equivocation again; the "No trueYour focus is on the intelligence displayed in resolving the problematic nature of a persons interaction with mortal people and perishable nature. But true intelligence is displayed in how we live out our relationship with an Eternal God.
If I'd mentioned perfection that might be an apposite response; but I didn't. Perfection is an abstraction, belonging in the conceptual realm of Platonic forms.actually it is pretty objective to say that noone is perfect except God.
Judging by the bible, it's a forlorn hope.Which is why the only hope of mankind is with a God who forgives and prefers to offer grace and mercy.
OK, I notice you chose not to explain how my Q&A was incorrect... Never mind, let's have a closer look:you clearly did not understand what I said about God or you would not restate your strawman dichotomy between 2 abstractions.
"There are no morals without God so we cannot posit God obeying a higher morality than Himself." - Here you deny the first horn of the dilemma, which is fine; so we move to the 'OR', the second horn:
"Nor are his commands arbitrary and moral simply because he commands them. They are an expression of who He is" - Here you seem to be saying that God's commands are moral because they're an expression of who He is, i.e. His nature. But this doesn't really help. Another syllogism will point out why:
P1. Actions consistent with God's nature are moral, while actions inconsistent with God's nature are immoral.
P2. God's actions are always consistent with God's nature.
P3. (from 1 & 2) God's actions are always moral.
P4. (from the bible) God has intentionally terminated the lives of innocent humans (e.g. infants).
C. It is moral to intentionally terminate the lives of innocent humans.
This seems to present another dilemma - the biblical commandments to man says that it is wrong to kill, i.e. immoral. So either the bible is self-contradictory or plain wrong, or God's actions are moral for God but not for us (i.e. do as I say, not as I do). If the latter is the case, God's nature is not the epitome of morality for us - do I smell moral relativism?
The circularity of the appeal to God's nature remains, for example:
Q. Why is honesty morally better than dishonesty?
A1. Because honesty reflects God's nature while dishonesty doesn't.
Q. So why is God's nature one of honesty rather than dishonesty?
A2. Because honesty is morally better than dishonesty.
Q. And why is honesty morally better than dishonesty?
A3. See A1.
Saying that God is morally perfect is a meaningless tautology if the standard you use to assess moral perfection is God. Saying 'God is good' is just saying 'God is God', and saying 'God's actions and commands are moral' is just saying 'God's actions & commands are his actions and commands'. It's vacuous and can be applied to anything, e.g:
My sister is morally perfect
Q. What does it mean to be morally perfect?
A. To have the moral character of my sister
Q. Why does being morally perfect mean having the moral character of my sister?
A. Because my sister is morally perfect...
Anything God does is good because, by definition, anything God does is good. That's what I mean by arbitrary.
Freewill is a different can of philosophical worms altogether.Actually my understanding has to incorporate a level of freewill wrestling with Gods ways which has characterised my own walk with Him. In the end I realise that it would have been better if I had just done as he said in the first place.
Upvote
0