Simple questions. Who defines what is Good? Who is the definition of Good? If you disagree with the definition and definer of Good, what are you? You don't have to like it, but until you create a universe and become the very definition of Good I'm not much interested in your labels.
There was a reason for the commands given, and it was good. Don't like it? Tough. Repent.

Same bishop. Different topic.

Q: Can a Christian deny God's wrath?

A: I do not pretend to understand fully the Old Testamental vision of God, if taken alone, but I do know that it is a vision that is turned from fear to love, wrath to loving sacrifice, and violence to peace in the Light of Jesus Christ, Who is God revealed on earth and in human form and time. If God had to seek man within man's own fallen passions and through his primitive, sinful nature in Old Testamental times, in the New Testament the God Who was looking for man man in the Old Testament is revealed as the God that man (including the Old Testamental Fathers and Prophets) was all the while seeking in his heart. In the mystery of His Providence, God revealed Himself in full as what He always was, even if He mysteriously tried to reach man in ways that I, at least, do not, again, fully understand. In any event, taking on our nature, communing with the tarnished image of His Light within us, and sacrificing Himself for us, He proved that He is certainly not a God Who wishes by His wrath to destroy us.

God does not wish to destroy sinners, whom He loves and forgives, and has no desire to destroy His own creation. He by nature withdraws from our world and from us when we indulge in and perpetuate sin; but He wills none of this. We will it, ultimately. And what happens when we destroy our world and lose our souls? God renews the world, restores us, and frees us from sin and death, if we freely desire that and voluntary accept Him. As for those who reject him and earn damnation, what about them? Even in Hell His love is present, though it serves to torment sinners for their choices and for having distanced themselves from Him.

What I said before, as a closing remark, I quote again from the Prophet Amos, whose prophecies are filled with the language of wrath and retribution, to find words that, wholly independently of their provenance, speak to me about the Old Testamental view of God: "Ye have changed judgment into gall, and righteousness into hemlock."

You misunderstand the word mystery there. The mystery he speaks of is not that of difficult to understand but the mystery of the Incarnation.

Edit sorry you were talking about the second I was talking about the first. Meh.

JJ85 Reveille said:

---

Simple questions. Who defines what is Good? Who is the definition of Good? If you disagree with the definition and definer of Good, what are you? You don't have to like it, but until you create a universe and become the very definition of Good I'm not much interested in your labels.
There was a reason for the commands given, and it was good. Don't like it? Tough. Repent.

---

This is a position of moral relativism. If infanticide can be good, depending solely on who orders it, then the morality of infanticide is relative.

Not to mention, the command to slaughter innocent babies is diametrically opposed to the exact revelation of God's nature through Christ.

Quote:

---

This is a position of moral relativism. If infanticide can be good, depending solely on who orders it, then the morality of infanticide is relative.

Not to mention, the command to slaughter innocent babies is diametrically opposed to the exact revelation of God's nature through Christ.

---

I completely agree that Christians should do better than just shrug our shoulders and say that genocide is fine if it's God's Will. That gets you into pretty murky territory really fast, especially with a lot of the cult of personality churches.

I also am not a all comfortable saying these parts were man-made, but the rest of the Bible wasn't. Just look at Jericho in Joshua 6. God gave specific instructions to Joshua and performed a miracle so the walls would fall. In the same passage He instructs them to completely wipe out the city except Rahab's family. If God didn't really want the Israelites to wipe out the city, all He had to do was not miraculously knock down the wall.

If you look into it, the historicity of the Joshua conquest is pretty poor. Several cities he's said to have conquered don't even fit the timeline. That's the fortunate thing about this portion of the bible. The jews show no signs of being conquerors from Egypt.

I was thinking about this a little more. There's a big difference between saying "I don't understand fully but I know that Christ is God" and saying "the God of the OT is a demiurge". Not the least of which is the resulting denunciation of the material as evil.

"Close" to Marcion is kind of stretching it, I think.

JJMt said:

---

Aggrad08 said:

---

If you look into it, the historicity of the Joshua conquest is pretty poor. Several cities he's said to have conquered don't even fit the timeline. That's the fortunate thing about this portion of the bible. The jews show no signs of being conquerors from Egypt.

---

I have been told that if one were to "jigger" the traditional timeline by a few hundred years that there is abundant evidence for the historicity of the Joshua conquest. In other words, the evidence is there, it's just in the wrong time.

---

There was a major Egyptian campaign in Canaan during the 16th century BC. Is that what you would change the dates to?

I think part of the problem is we try to read ancient "historical" literature as though they wrote w/ the same views on objectivity and historical accuracy as we do (or at least claim to do) today.

There are burned cities from a well-known Egyptian campaign in the 1500s, including Jericho. Nothing, however, suggests that Hebrews did the conquering.

JJ85 Reveille said:

---

Simple questions. Who defines what is Good? Who is the definition of Good? If you disagree with the definition and definer of Good, what are you? You don't have to like it, but until you create a universe and become the very definition of Good I'm not much interested in your labels.
There was a reason for the commands given, and it was good. Don't like it? Tough. Repent.

---

In what way is god the definition of good?

Other than a silly circular definition, I mean.

JJMt said:

---

RetiredAg said:

---

I think part of the problem is we try to read ancient "historical" literature as though they wrote w/ the same views on objectivity and historical accuracy as we do (or at least claim to do) today.

---

Perhaps. But it may be an equal problem to read them through the interpretive lens of modern culture, including science, as well. We shouldn't make the error of discounting their truth or accuracy simply because we can't presently understand or explain it.

---

Oh, I don't read them through the lens of modern culture, although genocide is and always has been immoral regardless of what a particular culture says. I try to read them through the lens of the crucified Christ and His exact revelation of God's nature, and if it doesn't look like Christ, then I try to dig below the surface of man's culturally-conditioned depiction of God to see how it does testify to Christ.

Woody2006 said:

---

JJ85 Reveille said:

---

Simple questions. Who defines what is Good? Who is the definition of Good? If you disagree with the definition and definer of Good, what are you? You don't have to like it, but until you create a universe and become the very definition of Good I'm not much interested in your labels.
There was a reason for the commands given, and it was good. Don't like it? Tough. Repent.

---

In what way is god the definition of good?

Other than a silly circular definition, I mean.

---

If there is a God he must be infinite in his perfections.
He must be infinitely strong, knowing, good, in all times and places, just, righteous, etc. There can only be one God, and he can't need anything.
Atheists say he doesn't exist. Jews and Christians say he is our God. Other religions will not participate in this logic debate.
This God must be the First Cause, the uncaused Cause. He can't be created, he just IS, and always has and always will BE.
This God created the universe.
He is the definition of good, because he is infinitely good. He can not do anything that is not good.
So if he says to kill these women and children, speaking through his anointed prophet, it is good.
He is so beyond our understanding that we can not judge him, and especially not by the arguments you would apply to a human.
This isn't a circular argument, it's a definition.
To say God isn't good is to miss the definition. Saying God isn't good, or did something evil is like saying 2+2 is 5, it's just not possible.
You may not like what he commanded. I don't, honestly, because I don't understand everything that was behind it. You don't either. If a human ordered this we'd probably agree it was very bad. But it wasn't a human that ordered, but a being so incomprehensibly good and beyond our ability to judge that all we do is say "Yes Sir." It's not like God ordered this as a pattern, or asked his people to do this on a continuing basis. It was a specific command for a specific occasion for reasons we aren't privy to. I suspect those reasons have to do with the trouble those people spared have been causing throughout history, but that's conjecture on my part.
Anyway, that's why God is the definition of good. If you don't believe in him you will have to find your own definition. It's interesting that those that understand logic at the deepest level, atheist or Jew, agree on what God's character must be. You should try to understand that before you make a choice on which way to go.
I pray that you wil choose to believe.

Quote:

---

He can not do anything that is not good.

---

Agreed, which is why it's clear, IMO, that He didn't command genocide and infanticide.

Quote:

---

So if he says to kill these women and children, speaking through his anointed prophet, it is good.

---

Do you not see how this is a position of moral relativism?

Quote:

---

You may not like what he commanded. I don't, honestly, because I don't understand everything that was behind it. You don't either. If a human ordered this we'd probably agree it was very bad.

---

No, if a human ordered it, we'd absolutely call it evil. Why? Because it is evil. Which is more likely? God is a god of moral relativism and the standards of "good" and "evil" are changing upon His whim, or God is infinitely good and looks like Jesus Christ and these depictions of God commanding evil are the result of man, not God?

If we can simply label something we'd universally call "evil" as "good" because we claim God ordered it, yet every other time it is rightly called "evil", then "good" and "evil" have no meaning.

JJ85 Reveille said:

---

Woody2006 said:

---

JJ85 Reveille said:

---

Simple questions. Who defines what is Good? Who is the definition of Good? If you disagree with the definition and definer of Good, what are you? You don't have to like it, but until you create a universe and become the very definition of Good I'm not much interested in your labels.
There was a reason for the commands given, and it was good. Don't like it? Tough. Repent.

---

In what way is god the definition of good?

Other than a silly circular definition, I mean.

---

If there is a God he must be infinite in his perfections.
He must be infinitely strong, knowing, good, in all times and places, just, righteous, etc. There can only be one God, and he can't need anything.
Atheists say he doesn't exist. Jews and Christians say he is our God. Other religions will not participate in this logic debate.
This God must be the First Cause, the uncaused Cause. He can't be created, he just IS, and always has and always will BE.
This God created the universe.
He is the definition of good, because he is infinitely good. He can not do anything that is not good.
So if he says to kill these women and children, speaking through his anointed prophet, it is good.
He is so beyond our understanding that we can not judge him, and especially not by the arguments you would apply to a human.
This isn't a circular argument, it's a definition.
To say God isn't good is to miss the definition. Saying God isn't good, or did something evil is like saying 2+2 is 5, it's just not possible.
You may not like what he commanded. I don't, honestly, because I don't understand everything that was behind it. You don't either. If a human ordered this we'd probably agree it was very bad. But it wasn't a human that ordered, but a being so incomprehensibly good and beyond our ability to judge that all we do is say "Yes Sir." It's not like God ordered this as a pattern, or asked his people to do this on a continuing basis. It was a specific command for a specific occasion for reasons we aren't privy to. I suspect those reasons have to do with the trouble those people spared have been causing throughout history, but that's conjecture on my part.
Anyway, that's why God is the definition of good. If you don't believe in him you will have to find your own definition. It's interesting that those that understand logic at the deepest level, atheist or Jew, agree on what God's character must be. You should try to understand that before you make a choice on which way to go.
I pray that you wil choose to believe.

---

Rarely do I see so much written yet so little explained. There is nothing here other than conjecture and mere assertions.

This isn't true, you can fix a few cities with this (although the "jiggering" causes other problems but the data misses in such a way that nothing lines appropriately. There is actually a very large amount of evidence against this, much of it found by jewish archaeologist. Basically, none of the exodus narrative shows historicity and that continues into the joshua narrative. The davidic kingdom and exile are when you start to get some matches.

Israel finklestien has a good book on the topic.

Which is why I say close. You recognize the evil intellectually, but don't really admit it as a matter of faith. The "I don't understand" is only so far as you try to reconcile the dissonant views. The evil is clear as day, and so is your faith in christ. Marcion was much the same, he simply called evil acts evil and not mysterious.

JJ85 Reveille said:

---

Woody2006 said:

---

JJ85 Reveille said:

---

Simple questions. Who defines what is Good? Who is the definition of Good? If you disagree with the definition and definer of Good, what are you? You don't have to like it, but until you create a universe and become the very definition of Good I'm not much interested in your labels.
There was a reason for the commands given, and it was good. Don't like it? Tough. Repent.

---

In what way is god the definition of good?

Other than a silly circular definition, I mean.

---

If there is a God he must be infinite in his perfections.
He must be infinitely strong, knowing, good, in all times and places, just, righteous,


Anyway, that's why God is the definition of good. If you don't believe in him you will have to find your own definition. It's interesting that those that understand logic at the deepest level, atheist or Jew, agree on what God's character must be. You should try to understand that before you make a choice on which way to go.
I pray that you wil choose to believe.

---

Why must god being infinitely knowing and good? There is no logical contradiction from an evil god. And again, look up euthyphro's dilemma, it shows the weakness in what you are trying to argue (divine command theory).

"If there is a God he must be infinite in his perfections.
He must be infinitely strong, knowing, good, in all times and places, just, righteous, etc. There can only be one God, and he can't need anything."

Why?

RetiredAg said:

---

Quote:

---

He can not do anything that is not good.

---

Agreed, which is why it's clear, IMO, that He didn't command genocide and infanticide.

Quote:

---

So if he says to kill these women and children, speaking through his anointed prophet, it is good.

---

Do you not see how this is a position of moral relativism?

Quote:

---

You may not like what he commanded. I don't, honestly, because I don't understand everything that was behind it. You don't either. If a human ordered this we'd probably agree it was very bad.

---

No, if a human ordered it, we'd absolutely call it evil. Why? Because it is evil. Which is more likely? God is a god of moral relativism and the standards of "good" and "evil" are changing upon His whim, or God is infinitely good and looks like Jesus Christ and these depictions of God commanding evil are the result of man, not God?

If we can simply label something we'd universally call "evil" as "good" because we claim God ordered it, yet every other time it is rightly called "evil", then "good" and "evil" have no meaning.

---

A human can't morally order the death of an infant or a people group because they can't know the potential and future of those executed. So for them it's evil. God knows with absolute certainty their future and that the greater good of the world would be served by eliminating, then it is not an evil command. You can't apply human standards to God (at least not in a valid logical way, you can do what you want of course).

I see no moral relativism in this.

Quote:

---

Rarely do I see so much written yet so little explained. There is nothing here other than conjecture and mere assertions.

---

I'll alert the philosophy department that centuries of deep thought by masters of logic both Christian and atheist are no longer valid because you don't want to think it through or accept it. I've presented nothing new or original here, merely condensed and abstracted (poorly, I'll admit) the logical argument on the nature of God and the source of ethics if God exists.

schmendeler said:

---

"If there is a God he must be infinite in his perfections.
He must be infinitely strong, knowing, good, in all times and places, just, righteous, etc. There can only be one God, and he can't need anything."

Why?

---

There are volumes (literally) written about this. The short answer is - if he's not perfect then he's not God, he's not the First Cause, the Uncaused Cause - he's just a somewhat powerful limited being. That's not my God. That's not the God of Jews and Christians. That's not the God that logic demands he must be if he exists. I believe God is real, and that he is vastly beyond our comprehension. I can describe some of his character, but none of us can really comprehend it fully.

JJ85 Reveille said:

---

RetiredAg said:

---

Quote:

---

He can not do anything that is not good.

---

Agreed, which is why it's clear, IMO, that He didn't command genocide and infanticide.

Quote:

---

So if he says to kill these women and children, speaking through his anointed prophet, it is good.

---

Do you not see how this is a position of moral relativism?

Quote:

---

You may not like what he commanded. I don't, honestly, because I don't understand everything that was behind it. You don't either. If a human ordered this we'd probably agree it was very bad.

---

No, if a human ordered it, we'd absolutely call it evil. Why? Because it is evil. Which is more likely? God is a god of moral relativism and the standards of "good" and "evil" are changing upon His whim, or God is infinitely good and looks like Jesus Christ and these depictions of God commanding evil are the result of man, not God?

If we can simply label something we'd universally call "evil" as "good" because we claim God ordered it, yet every other time it is rightly called "evil", then "good" and "evil" have no meaning.

---

A human can't morally order the death of an infant or a people group because they can't know the potential and future of those executed. So for them it's evil. God knows with absolute certainty their future and that the greater good of the world would be served by eliminating, then it is not an evil command. You can't apply human standards to God (at least not in a valid logical way, you can do what you want of course).

I see no moral relativism in this.

---

Then "good" and "evil" have absolutely no meaning. If you say God must be "good", and all He commands must be "good", then that standard of what is "good" cannot change even when applied to humans because His truths are universal. If it does, then the standard is meaningless. It's the epitome of moral relativism.

This isn't about applying human standards to God. It's about judging actions by the standards of God, and according to your comments, according to God's standards, infanticide is moral.

Of course, considering Christ is the exact representation of God's nature and full radiance of His glory, anything that does not look like Christ is not God. Infanticide and genocide look nothing like Christ. In fact, they are utterly incompatible with the full revelation of God through Christ.

Aggrad08 said:

---

Why must god being infinitely knowing and good? There is no logical contradiction from an evil god. And again, look up euthyphro's dilemma, it shows the weakness in what you are trying to argue (divine command theory).

---

You keep throwing out Plato's dilemma like your personal idol. I tell you what logic dictates God must be like. If you want to throw up a strawman, then we're not talking logic anymore. God can not be evil anymore than 2+2 can be 5. If you want to twist definitions have fun but I'm not playing that game. You have a very simple choice, believe in the God that created the universe and defines all ethics, or don't believe and fill your emptiness with strawmen or whatever else lets you sleep at night.

You can't come to God on your own terms. It doesn't work that way. It never has. He's real. Believe or don't.

" The short answer is - if he's not perfect then he's not God, he's not the First Cause, the Uncaused Cause"

Why? You've not supported your statement, just repeated it. Why does the existence of an all powerful god necessitate he be perfect, or good, to refer back to my original question?

Quote:

---

Of course, considering Christ is the exact representation of God's nature and full radiance of His glory, anything that does not look like Christ is not God. Infanticide and genocide look nothing like Christ. In fact, they are utterly incompatible with the full revelation of God through Christ.

---

Does the Flood look like Christ? What about the Egyptian plagues?

What about Passover? The Passover has tons of Christ imagery, and to any Christian it is a clear foreshadowing of Christ's sacrifice. However, a huge part of that imagery is the death of the firstborn sons of Egypt. That final plague mostly consisted of the direct killing of children and infants by God, but that is the foreshadowing of the death of God's own firstborn son. The Passover also involves the eating of bitter herbs so that we remember the price of our liberation. In the OT case it was the price of liberation from Egypt, in the NT it is to remember the price of liberation from sin.

I can buy that the picture of a perfect human is the peaceful self-sacrifice of Christ, but I don't think you can generalize that to God's character in general. After all, I think Christ's behavior on Earth was the perfect model for human behavior, not necessarily an extensive representation of the nature of God.

You claim logic dictates but have made no argument. None. Make a logical argument demonstrating this because the claim is quite weak. You claim to be quoting philosophers, but I've never found one dumb enough to claim his must logically be of a certain character.

So, rather than make a banal assertion, make an actual argument. Support the statement logically.

Quote:

---

God can not be evil anymore than 2+2 can be 5.

---

Yet your position is that God commanded evil, but since He's God, then the "evil" immediately becomes "good". Hence, moral relativism.

God cannot look differently than Christ. Infanticide is incompatible w/ Christ. To claim God commanded infanticide is to claim that God looks different than His exact representation, Christ crucified.