IF he biblical picture of God be accurate, then given the things He has done (by all accounts, vicious, even barbaric, vindictive things to judge Israel for her sin), or commanded to be done (genocide, including infants and children...of whom Jesus said, 'Let them come to Me, for of such is the kingdom of heaven'), then clearly "Good" is whatever GOD says it is. i.e. If "murder" be wrong when initated by us, it is SIN. But if GOD commands it, as in Joshua, it is good, not sin etc
Absolutely, even if we assume Anselm to be correct (and let's be honest their are many objections doing the rounds) it is still effectively a tautological statement on what is 'good' and says nothing about what 'good' actually is. Of course these christians are doing the exact opposite: the very fact that they appeal to the unknown to provide justification for God's actions (or lack of action) means they are not accepting whatever God does as good at face value.
@noelplum99 ironicly, you are correct here. The very appeal to the presence of "mystery" in this life, with respect to the problem of evil and suffering (personally and subjectively, or seen in others objectively), along with the call for "trust" and or "faith", to "walk by faith, not by sight", all give unmistakeable support to your statement above. The fact is. God does or allows to be done to even His "own" children, things which no loving human parent (Christian or not) would or could.
This is the bit I get conused at don't atheists also have to show that morality is objective because how could they question god's goodness in the first place?
questions such as Why do's god alow suffering also asumes an objective morality do's it not?
@greenelf 12 Yes, if morality is subjective (I should note that there may be a case for morality to still be absolute) then there is no logical necessity for God to be good. In which case God escapes the problem of evil by either denying good and evil completely or by accepting that God is either amoral or evil.
This means that the argument from evil does not refute God's existence but it does refute the traditional concept. Theists lose something either way.
@ANIideas that's where pantheism comes in :o) Thier is also a bit in the book "converstions with god" (a very intresting book regardless of your perspective.) where "god" states their is no such thing as good or evil. I think you'll find a lot of non dogmatic perspectives takle the problem that way.
IF he biblical picture of God be accurate, then given the things He has done (by all accounts, vicious, even barbaric, vindictive things to judge Israel for her sin), or commanded to be done (genocide, including infants and children...of whom Jesus said, 'Let them come to Me, for of such is the kingdom of heaven'), then clearly "Good" is whatever GOD says it is. i.e. If "murder" be wrong when initated by us, it is SIN. But if GOD commands it, as in Joshua, it is good, not sin etc
Desmond8043 6 months ago
Absolutely, even if we assume Anselm to be correct (and let's be honest their are many objections doing the rounds) it is still effectively a tautological statement on what is 'good' and says nothing about what 'good' actually is. Of course these christians are doing the exact opposite: the very fact that they appeal to the unknown to provide justification for God's actions (or lack of action) means they are not accepting whatever God does as good at face value.
noelplum99 1 year ago
@noelplum99 ironicly, you are correct here. The very appeal to the presence of "mystery" in this life, with respect to the problem of evil and suffering (personally and subjectively, or seen in others objectively), along with the call for "trust" and or "faith", to "walk by faith, not by sight", all give unmistakeable support to your statement above. The fact is. God does or allows to be done to even His "own" children, things which no loving human parent (Christian or not) would or could.
Desmond8043 6 months ago
This is the bit I get conused at don't atheists also have to show that morality is objective because how could they question god's goodness in the first place?
questions such as Why do's god alow suffering also asumes an objective morality do's it not?
greenelf12 1 year ago
@greenelf 12 Yes, if morality is subjective (I should note that there may be a case for morality to still be absolute) then there is no logical necessity for God to be good. In which case God escapes the problem of evil by either denying good and evil completely or by accepting that God is either amoral or evil.
This means that the argument from evil does not refute God's existence but it does refute the traditional concept. Theists lose something either way.
ANIideas 1 year ago
@ANIideas that's where pantheism comes in :o) Thier is also a bit in the book "converstions with god" (a very intresting book regardless of your perspective.) where "god" states their is no such thing as good or evil. I think you'll find a lot of non dogmatic perspectives takle the problem that way.
greenelf12 1 year ago