Weah96:
That's why ISIS and BOKO exist. They claim to be doing God's work by killing and r.aping.
But you don't agree with them. You call them liars.

finofaya:
I guess you're finally admitting that morality with God is arbitrary, being subject to the whims and caprices of your deity. There is arguably no such thing as morals with God given that his actions have no moral value and what we call moral law issuing from God is merely a list of things God likes or dislikes at the moment, not things that have any moral value of their own.

asalimpo:

God can't and will not lie - isnt that morality?

finofaya:
I guess you're finally admitting that morality with God is arbitrary, being subject to the whims and caprices of your deity. There is arguably no such thing as morals with God given that his actions have no moral value and what we call moral law issuing from God is merely a list of things God likes or dislikes at the moment, not things that have any moral value of their own.

asalimpo:

I'm saying that morality with a "God" - any entity with the power and capability to create life , create a world etc is arbitrary by reasons i stated earlier.
Same applies to the Bible God. But the Bible God, chose to limit Himself,by Himself i.e using his Word.
Also His very nature is Holiness and Love but in the case this wasnt so, He would still be legally justified
for whatever kind of God he chose to be - good or bad.

finofaya:


The problem now is that holiness and love do not have any moral value different from that of sinfulness and hatred, given that there is no basis for choosing any one over any other and that any of them is the right choice for a God. You might as well say God's nature is full of sin and hatred.

God limiting himself therefore amounts to nothing more than saying "I believe or declare that there are good things and bad things and I will only do those things which I believe or declare to be good." The belief or declaration is not based on the actual existence of objectively good things and bad things since nothing is actually good or bad.

This brings us back to your starting point, addressing questions about the supposed goodness of God.

asalimpo:

Isis is'nt of God. Not the Bible God - the true God.

lepasharon:


Who told you the Bible God is the true God?

asalimpo:


First,the bible God is Holy. There's no evil in Him.
So He isnt full of sin.

Your argument is skewed. If there's nothing objectively good or bad, then they'd be no issue of evil.
And they'd be no basis for comparing the two and therefore no basis for criticising evil or praising good.

But if he were evil, by virtue of the fact that He is God, He is legally justified in his actions-whether those
acts are good or evil.
Much like you can buy a laptop and throw it into the fire just because it you dont like the color-stupid but
legally justified!
Wasteful but legally justified.

finofaya:



But if holiness has any moral value, it is an arbitrary value. God can decide to be evil and still be right, as you say.
Yes. by right , i mean legally unblameable. Not morally justified.
He will be right, or justified, in the legal sense because of the power of the law and His office as "a God".
Just like you are right to use your best shirt to wipe the floor and still not be guilty.
Yow own, the shirt, you do as you like with it.
a God, owns creation. He can do as He likes with His creation.


This means that being either holy or unholy have the same moral value or at best arbitrarily different moral values.
This doesnt mean that. I'm not even implying that.
I'm expressing the authority and scope , legally , that a God can have.


God can be good even if he is full of sin, because what is good is merely provisionally good. That's why I said it doesn't make any difference to God's goodness if he is full of sin.

First, I hope you catch my argument about the entity that qualifies as a God.
The Bible God , is a God. But has qualities inherent to Him . Love, Holiness.
By His nature then, He (the Bible God) cannot be full of sin and goodness at the same time.
He , according to the bible, has no trace of 'darkness' in Him. No sin. No evil streak.

But for a God, hypothetical God here, this doesnt need to be the case.
a God could be as evil as hitler. a tyrant. and still be legally justified.
Infact, if you look at the old testament, you'll find out that an 'alternative God'
, would have wiped out the isrealites and started all over again. And that alternate
God could still be Holy and Love! suprised?
The isrealites , were showered with love,protection and deliverance. Right out of egypt,
and into the promise land. And what did they do next? set up an idol (actually satan worship).
We humans see an idol, God sees His people, bowing to His arch enemy! Dont you think that rankles?!
Think of it as your wife taunting you with her adulterous affair , right in your face and daring you to divorce her. This is the closest i can get to it.
God would have had legal grounds on that action alone to wipe out the entire people!
Their sins were ripe for judgement by that single act alone.
But He restrained Himself!


Your position is actually one that rules out objective good and evil since, firstly, one same action can be good or bad depending on whether it was carried out by God or man and next, an act is only bad if God says it is bad.
An objectively bad thing is bad no matter who does it or decrees it. That's why I said we have come back to your starting point of addressing the supposed goodness of God.


If i ruled out objective good, then i wont be able to qualify my statements with words like
wicked , wasteful etc.
I am saying, that a God, isnt legally culpable for being evil or morally bound to be good.
Two, our sense of morality, is from a standard. First our conscience.
You talk of objective good, they can be no standard of goodness or evil which all men instinctively
recognize without being taught, from mere matter.
Why then do we have a sense of goodness or evil? Because, we have a conscience and that is from God.
And God is Holy and good, that's why our conscience, built in His image, beeps when evil is done.
Even in fallen man.
But if it were an alternative God, and he were Evil, or blase, our conscience would mirror His.
We can only talk of objective good /evil (i.e untaught/unlearnt standards of morality) because
our God is good and rejoices in goodness not evil.


I suppose you are now comparing laptops to human beings. God sees us as laptops, abi?

I'm likening laptops to property. Which is what all created objects are to a creator.
It doesnt matter that the laptop is inanimate. It is still property.
By being property, the owner of the property can do with it as He deems fit.
The legal definition of property allows this. (assuming a God could be brought to trial before His creatures
legal system).


Our having consciousness does not make us entitled to better treatment than laptops, does it?

The direct rights of a property owner supersedes the demand of conscience in this matter.
Dynamism, is inadmissible.
The closest example i can make is to the way people treat their animals.
Some treat them cruelly, some outrightly torture them, some treat them like fellow humans
(including them in their wills).
But , I most societies, cruelty to an animal one owns doesnt make one legally culpable.


God is only interested in how much mightier than us he is.
The God of the bible isnt so.
But , my contrast is to show that we, who believe in God, really have it so much better.
It could've been the other way round and we would be able to make any accusation that would stick.


Since issues of legality are not appropriate to a supernatural deity I'm assuming you mean moral justification.

You are putting words in my mouth.
I said earlier. a God could do evil and be justified legally but that would make him a wicked/evil God.
How could you read such a statement and say i implied moral justification/


I have to disagree that one person is morally justified in treating another person anyhow they please, even torturing and killing said person, just because one is in a position of power over the other.
You jumped to conclusions and misinterpreted my point.


That is a rather psychopathic justification for bad conduct and I should be surprised that you're willing to excuse your deity with it but I know better.

Hey, easy man. "excuse my diety"! . what kinda statement is that!
Dont you know the difference between a scenario and a fact.
I said, a God is legally justified , even in his immorality.
I never said the God of the Bible, "my diety", is so.
The bible God, is holy and Love.
I also never said such acts, evil from a God, are right . i.e morally right.
But they are legally right. i.e He has a legal right to.

You're either a psychopath yourself or you're in so much fear of Yahweh, who you say is love, that all you can manage is sycophancy.

ha ha ha.
You couldnt divorce the possibility from the reality. You associate a hypothesis with the object compared against.

Shollyps:
yea...that's why many people believe in hell fire...n still feel okay about it that it is right for god to throw people in hell fire forever...according to Christians...only god has the right to commit crimes...lol