Wilgrea7:

If someone can do no wrong, or rather, if the things someone does can never be considered wrong, then how then can they be considered right?

Twisting snake! "It is not if someone can do no wrong but if someone has a right.

And you have already said that He has a Right!

So case closed!

Dtruthspeaker:


Twisting snake! "It is not if someone can do no wrong but if someone has a right.

And you have already said that He has a Right!

So case closed!

You've made up your mind to evade my questions and focus on things not related to the discussion.

This isn't about the rights... It's about the possibility of the actions a person commits, being right or wrong.

No one is arguing if your God has the right to do so. It's about if his actions can ever be considered wrong. To which you've said no.

And I'm saying if his actions cannot be considered wrong regardless of what they are, then they can't be considered right also.

This is my last response to you on this topic, because you've decided to cherrypick arguments, ignore points, as well as make reference to things unrelated to the discussion.

Have a nice day

MaxInDHouse:

Both works together, you can't prove someone has IQ whereas his thinking faculty is impure!

When we talk about what is pure it simply means what you can't find it's equivalent, it's value is of the highest degree.

Impurities are found everywhere!
When two person speaks the same language but failed to live peacefully that language is NOT PURE.
When a man and a woman had sexual relations and end up with STDs it means their relationship is NOT PURE!
When a pandemic occur due to a certain experiment it means such activity is NOT PURE!
I can go on and on to tell you so many impurities affecting our lives on this planet negatively and my God has proved that His is free from all these by setting standards that will promote sound health {Act 15:28-29} but since we live among people who don't believe in my God they infect everyone in our neighborhood including us.
In fact that's why my own God promised that He is coming to remove those ruining our planet home: EARTH! Revelations 11:18

You somehow managed to squeeze your peace narrative into a very simple and straightforward question.

Hats off to you sir.

So if I'm STD free, and don't spend my time creating viruses, does that mean I'm also as Holy as your God? Or are there other criteria I don't know about?

Wilgrea7:

You somehow managed to squeeze your peace narrative into a very simple and straightforward question.
Hats off to you sir.
So if I'm STD free, and don't spend my time creating viruses, does that mean I'm also as Holy as your God? Or are there other criteria I don't know about?

There are lots and lots of other criteria!

That's why the true God who claims He is Holy proved it with action, remember i said:

MaxInDHouse:
When we talk about what is pure it simply means what you can't find it's equivalent, it's value is of the highest degree.

So the God who claims He is Holy used His active force to gather people from different races throughout the earth, infused in them His idea which is PUREST and they're speaking the same language of peace despite their differences {Zephaniah 3:9} He made certain rules about sex that will help them prevent STDs among them {Matthew 5:27} He gave His own worshipers the best career ever so that there can never be any pandemic if all people are involved! Act 1:8

I want you to know that there's no sense in any the school of thought you can ever think of if PEACE is not achieved in the gathering of the students of such a faculty!

Wilgrea7:

Thanks. Calling me unreasonable does nothing to strengthen your argument.

My argument is intact especially as we all see that it is because you could not validly and reasonably oppose my argument which made you start omplaining unreasonably about my argument which followed the very same course you took.

Wilgrea7:

I defined strength based on the ability to lift heavy stuff, and gave lifting 100 tonnes as an example. You defined holiness as the absence of impurities and constantly avoided my question to clearly define what the impurities are, and how your god is devoid of them. And I'm the one who's unreasonable?

See, lying snake! It is you who said "absence of impurities" and not I.

My words were clear and on the record and I said

"Holiness refers to purity and cleanliness of the highest quality and kind.

And God's Holiness is of a very fine pure matter that is full of Burning Power which is intolerable of anything and everything that is unclean, even of the slightest atom of dirt."

And then I based it on its power as shown in the Bible passages I gave you.

So, you see, it is you who was a lying fraud who because of your unreasonable belief in lies and deceit, you evily attached your own corrupt understanding and tried to pass it as my own.

And all lying frauds cannot be reasoned with.

Wilgrea7:

This thread is about the claim that your god is holy. It literally says that in the title.

And when you talk about God you talk about Life and Death and The Laws of Life and Death!


Holiness refers to purity and cleanliness of the highest quality and kind.

Wilgrea7:

What are you saying? Are you not the one that said he is not subject to the laws he created? Then how can his holiness be based on that? If his holiness is based on his actions, and whatever he does, regardless of what he does is considered holy, then how does the word holiness have any meaning in respect to him?

See how crazy you are becoming because you have notbing to say such that you forget you said?

"Wilgrea7:

Then he is subject to the definition. If that's the case, then he is subject to the criteria by which he defines Holiness."

Now I have shown you that His Words (Commands) and Actions (Examples) have defined it, and now you are feign lack of comprehension! o you are crazy mad as most atheists tend to become !

Wilgrea7:

You have constantly dodged questions, and ignored rebuttals to your points, simply to regurgitate the points all over again. And yet I'm the unreasonable one.

All questions and statements that are out of point are invvalid and therefore they must be ignored!

Wilgrea7:

You've not. I've been asking you to define holiness, but you've been running round in circles. The farthest you went, was to say holiness was the absence of impurities.

See the bold, your golden lie and fraud! Whereas I said

"Holiness refers to purity and cleanliness of the highest quality and kind.

And God's Holiness is of a very fine pure matter that is full of Burning Power which is intolerable of anything and everything that is unclean, even of the slightest atom of dirt."

Liars will always have bad memories! hahaha

Wilgrea7:

When asked to further define what constitutes uncleanliness, you begin to run round in circles. And yet, I'm the unreasonable one.

And I referred you to the events where you can see it in action (just like your guy lifting 100 tonnes) and with a cry of pain and lamentation, you ran away from seeing it, and after that you started speaking unreasonably.

No Road! And this case is Closed! You have nothing valid to say!

Wilgrea7:
...This isn't about the rights...
It's about the possibility of the actions a person commits, being right or wrong.

No one is arguing if your God has the right to do so. It's about if his actions can ever be considered wrong. To which you've said no.

And I'm saying if his actions cannot be considered wrong regardless of what they are, then they can't be considered right also

hahaha O boy are you getting crazier by the post! .

You say it is not about Rights yet from the beginning of the thread, your interest is in the imagined Wrong that you think God has done which in your stupid mind does not make Holy.

Boy, you are insane and obviously your anti-Godness is driving you crazy

Take this advice, just sign out completely out of all this God matters and concentrate on passing your exams, getting a job, filling your stomach and covering your unclothedness as far as you can do.

These matters are way too advanced and complicated for your puny little head.

Wilgrea7:

This is my last response to you on this topic, because you've decided to cherrypick arguments, ignore points, as well as make reference to things unrelated to the discussion.

Have a nice day

Not my problem! I will never partake in foolish unending arguments where people stupidly think that every thing said must be responded to. No child, I will never do that. Never have, never will.

And since you people don't know how to have a written argument, I would continue to teach youthat argument is on the point and not on the talk-talk supporting the point. So make your point and your opponent shall respond to the point. No talk-talk.

So, you are properly not ceasing from arguing because you truly have no tangible thing to say!

Dtruthspeaker:


hahaha O boy are you getting crazier by the post! .


Boy, you are insane and obviously your anti-Godness is driving you crazy

Take this advice, just sign out completely out of all this God matters and concentrate on passing your exams, getting a job, filling your stomach and covering your unclothedness as far as you can do.

These matters are way too advanced and complicated for your puny little head.

Not my problem! I will never partake in foolish unending arguments where people stupidly think that every thing said must be responded to. No child, I will never do that. Never have, never will.

Is that all, or do you have more insults to throw my way? When you're done insulting me, let me know. Then if you're willing to be logical, and even slightly intellectually honest, then we'll continue from where we stopped.

But until then, feel free to call me all the names you want, and add a million emojis to make yourself feel better. Cheers my man

KnownUnknown:
God, spirit, soul, thetan, jinn, orisha, saints, holiness and all other things called “sacred” or “divine” have arbitrary definitions based on the intellect, knowledge base, and vocabulary of the person making the claim.

Not an interesting answer but it is the truth that you can observe yourself.

Let me go eat a steak, meanwhile people who like to paint red dots on their foreheads think cows are “holy” or “sacred”.

Apologies for not seeing this earlier.

It does seem that way, that the definition of holiness depends on the person making the claim. That's why I asked the theists here how exactly their God is holy. Unfortunately, I've not gotten any clear answer.

MaxInDHouse:

There are lots and lots of other criteria!

That's why the true God who claims He is Holy proved it with action, remember i said:

So the God who claims He is Holy used His active force to gather people from different races throughout the earth, infused in them His idea which is PUREST and they're speaking the same language of peace despite their differences {Zephaniah 3:9} He made certain rules about sex that will help them prevent STDs among them {Matthew 5:27} He gave His own worshipers the best career ever so that there can never be any pandemic if all people are involved! Act 1:8

I want you to know that there's no sense in any the school of thought you can ever think of if PEACE is not achieved in the gathering of the students of such a faculty!

Ok. So if I'm to understand you correctly, your God is holy because of the actions he has taken. If we can agree on this, then we can move forward to the next stage.

You've given examples of some of the actions your God took, which to you makes him holy, like

1. Gathering people from all over the world and making them speak the language of peace
2. Preventing STDs by making some rules
3. Giving his worshipers the best careers

So clearly, holiness is based on action. In the beginning of this thread, I made reference to some of the things your God also allegedly did in the bible, like commanding the genocide of entire communities, killing babies to prove a point, destroying cities, and according to some people's beliefs, planning to barbecue people in hell for eternity.

Now, my question was, Is your God holy, because he only does good things, or is he holy because everything he does, regardless of what it is, must be considered good?

Wilgrea7:


Apologies for not seeing this earlier.

It does seem that way, that the definition of holiness depends on the person making the claim. That's why I asked the theists here how exactly their God is holy. Unfortunately, I've not gotten any clear answer.

You are just trying to console yourself over your choice as an atheist!

Holiness can only be measured through the activities of those adhering to what is called Holy {Matthew 7:16} so if you think nothing is Holy then you can hold onto your own opinion because Holiness connotes purity and purity is the highest degree of IQ that you can't find it's match!

MaxInDHouse:


You are just trying to console yourself over your choice as an atheist!

Wow.. I had no idea. Thanks for letting me know.

Holiness can only be measured through the activities of those adhering to what is called Holy {Matthew 7:16} so if you think nothing is Holy then you can hold onto your own opinion because Holiness connotes purity and purity is the highest degree of IQ that you can't find it's match!

I'm sorry... Am i the only person seeing how circular this is?

Holiness can only be measured through the activities of those adhering to what is called holy? What then is called holy? And what makes it holy? Also.. i asked you a question on my last mention. I look forward to your response

Wilgrea7:


Ok. So if I'm to understand you correctly, your God is holy because of the actions he has taken. If we can agree on this, then we can move forward to the next stage.

You've given examples of some of the actions your God took, which to you makes him holy, like

1. Gathering people from all over the world and making them speak the language of peace
2. Preventing STDs by making some rules
3. Giving his worshipers the best careers

So clearly, holiness is based on action. In the beginning of this thread, I made reference to some of the things your God also allegedly did in the bible, like commanding the genocide of entire communities, killing babies to prove a point, destroying cities, and according to some people's beliefs, planning to barbecue people in hell for eternity.

Now, my question was, Is your God holy, because he only does good things, or is he holy because everything he does, regardless of what it is, must be considered good?

I told you that holiness connotes purity as in the highest degree of IQ you cannot find it's match.
So lets go LOGICAL!

My God claimed He is the CREATOR of this planet and His purpose is for mankind to inhabit all the earth {Genesis 1:26-28} but some ungrateful ones due to their pride are becoming a disturbance so He decided to handle the situation with the HIGHEST degree of IQ. He will not destroy them instantly that later generations may learn from what occurred so he allowed the rebellious to continue living along with exemplary ones.
Then He wanted to make a nation a shining example for others to learn from them, but in other for them not to be greedy he allowed them to be enslaved for 400 years so that all of them will be EQUAL by the time He is ready to free them. And for all other nations to know that He is the Almighty (mightiest of all deities) He journeyed to Egypt with two feeble 80 years old men to demand for the release of over 1,000,000 people serving under the world's most powerful nation of that time!

According to the story He was able to bring them out then He took them through the wilderness for 40 years instead of 40 days due to their stubbornness.
Please which nation do you think supposed to stand in the way of such a nation after hearing these? Joshua 2:8-13
Well LOGICALLY all the nations that choose to either stop or prevent this people coming with the Most High God deserves to die!
That's why a nation who proved WISE quickly used their sense. What did the Gibeonites do?

They put on sackcloths and worn-out shoes then pretended they're coming from a very far place so after the Israelites had sworn an oath with them the Gibeonites got to their own land which is exactly within the lands Israelites were to destroy all the stubborn inhabitants.
Joshua 9:3-21
Of course the Israelites can't harm them after their oath and did you know what my God did when an Israelite King dealt treacherously with the Gibeonites? Well my God punished the Israelites with a dreadful famine for mistreating this humble people! 2Samuel 21:1-9
What about Rahab who proved faithful to the Most High God and His people?
My God blessed Rahab and her family, not only that my God made sure that Rahab's name appeared in the history of God's people and more to that my God made sure that Rahab's name was also included in the lineage of the greatest man who ever lived Jesus of Nazareth! Matthew 5:5

Now instead of arguing blindly please can you present a better way (IQ) to handle matters than the way the Holy One of Israel did there?

Wilgrea7:


But isn't that exactly what makes it arbitrary? If it was based on clearly well-defined parameters, then it would be a fixed thing. But you said it is measured according to God's will. Whatever God wills is considered perfect. If we wills the torture of humans, that also would be considered perfect. If he turned around and willed the enjoyment and bliss of humans, that also would be considered perfect.

That's exactly what I'm saying. I don't see how that isn't arbitrary. If perfection, or right and wrong is dependent on whatever he does, or says it is, rather than a fixed standard, then that in itself, is the definition of arbitrary.



I really love this example. You mentioned the purpose, or reason for disassembling the computer. So let's say for example, the family of computers don't know why you disassembled it. So to them, it would be evil. But the only reason that would make your disassembling of the computer good, or evil, would be your reason behind it. Let me give a few instances

1. You disassembled the computer simply because you don't like how it looks
2. You disassembled it because you found a dangerous component that could cause it to explode and destroy others
3. You disassembled it because you wanted to burn it to ash for your amusement.

In all these situations, I'm not disputing the fact that you ARE the owner of the computer and have the ability to do with it as you desire. What I'm arguing is whether or not your actions, or at least the motive behind them, would qualify you to say if you were a good computer engineer or not.

Let me take it a step further. Let's say the reason you dismantled the computer was not known to the family of computers. In that case, then on what basis would they, or anyone else call you a good computer engineer?

The word good means something. If you were to call yourself that name, there would have to be a reason behind it. If the reason is unknown, then why should anyone call you good?



I understand, but that's exactly what I'm saying. If you alone decide what is right and wrong, and whatever you do is considered right, then the words have no meaning in respect to you. If nothing you do can be considered wrong, then what then is right, and what then is wrong? If wrong cannot exist in respect to you, then how can right exist?

If whatever God does is automatically Holy, and nothing he does or could possibly do, can be considered unholy, then how can holiness and unholiness exist in respect to him? Those words can only have meaning in respect to the creation, who are bound by what he sets as right and wrong, not him.

That's why i said earlier, that the way I see it, it seems God lacks the capacity to be holy, or unholy, since nothing he does can be considered unholy. Without the possibility of unholiness, holiness has no meaning. Without the possibility of wrong, how can right have meaning?

This topic is far much more simple and straightforward than you are taking it.

1. The STANDARD of good and evil is only for God to decide. WHATEVER God does or doesn't is GOOD!
2. Human perception is IRRELEVANT with respect of Goodness or Evil : except it Aligns with exactly what God's Purpose and Will is.

The two above are completely separate things.
Check out these two scenarios:
ONE:
A Child has a genetic disorder of EATING, the child is so fat that he cannot stand on his feet. He is going to die within a week if something drastic is not done. This child is crying bitterly for more food
1. Parent A: pities this crying child and gives him his desire.
2. Parent B: locks the child in a room with only water for a week.

Which of these parents are EVIL?
Is your choice of Evil arbitrary?
TWO:
A sick child has to be given an rabies Injection. The child is scared of injection and therefore is crying, begging and pleading not to be given the injection.
1. Loving mother A: says, "well, I can't bear seeing my child this sad , let's go home!"
2. Loving mother B: holds down the child with FORCE so that the Nurse could administer the rabies Injection.

Which of these loving Mothers are EVIL?
Is your choice of Evil arbitrary?

What is evil or good is NOT black and white. It depends on a higher PURPOSE, a higher OBJECTIVE.


In the case of God,
He OWNs everything!
He MADE everything!
Everything God made was for HIS OWN PURPOSE!
Therefore, there cannot be a higher purpose other than God's purpose for Everything.
Hence, whatever He does is PERFECT!

We Humans become Good or Evil only to the extent we align ourselves with God's PURPOSE and WILL.

Let me give you another illustration:
Do you regularly wash and disinfect your toilet?
Is that a good thing to do or evil thing to do?

Do you realize that anytime you wash and disinfect your toilet, you MURDER millions of innocent bacteria?

Will you realising this genocide you are committing stop washing and disinfecting your toilet?

If you don't get this, you are beyond help.

If God was to be physical like us humans, we would be less than the size of bacteria to Him!

The parameters with which to judge good or evil does NOT belong to the preview of the bacteria. You as the owner of the toilet defines what is good and what is evil with respect to the bacteria in your toilet!

God Himself is the STANDARD of PERFECTION as everything depends on His PURPOSE!

Wilgrea7:

Is that all, or do you have more insults to throw my way? When you're done insulting me, let me know. Then if you're willing to be logical, and even slightly intellectually honest, then we'll continue from where we stopped.

But until then, feel free to call me all the names you want, and add a million emojis to make yourself feel better. Cheers my man

Boy, till the world ends, little children would always say and think stupid things and they shall be insulted. Which is why they learn to think properly and know a lot of things as they grow before they open their mouths to talk.

So, till whenever you speak sensibly and normally, do expect what you would call an insult.

While you are at it hold this message

"There are only two people who can tell you the truth about yourself - an enemy who has lost his temper and a friend who loves you dearly."

Antisthenes

TenQ:

God Himself is the STANDARD of PERFECTION as everything depends on His PURPOSE!

imagine, the numbers in a Ruler are the ones complaining about how the Ruler is the standard of measurement!

Dtruthspeaker:


imagine, the numbers in a Ruler are the ones complaining about how the Ruler is the standard of measurement!

The created doesn't realise that he has no say in his being nor his purpose in life. Everything depends on His Creator!

TenQ:

This topic is far much more simple and straightforward than you are taking it.

1. The STANDARD of good and evil is only for God to decide. WHATEVER God does or doesn't is GOOD!

2. Human perception is IRRELEVANT with respect of Goodness or Evil : except it Aligns with exactly what God's Purpose and Will is.

That's what I've been trying to get at from the beginning. What you're basically saying is that your god is the one who determines what is good, and what is evil. Which means the definitions of what good and evil are, are dependent on what he says they are. To you, the "fixed point" of what good and bad are, is God.

But this very thing you see as fixed, is what I see as arbitrary. Not arbitrary in the sense that they are not defined at all, but arbitrary in the sense that they have to be defined in the light of whatever actions your God takes.

If your God can take ANY action, and that action must be considered good, doesn't that make the good and bad dependent on your God's actions? And if the actions of your god can literally be anything, then doesn't that make the definition of good and bad, which is based on the actions which can literally be anything, arbitrary?

The two above are completely separate things.
Check out these two scenarios:
TWO:
A sick child has to be given an rabies Injection. The child is scared of injection and therefore is crying, begging and pleading not to be given the injection.
1. Loving mother A: says, "well, I can't bear seeing my child this sad , let's go home!"
2. Loving mother B: holds down the child with FORCE so that the Nurse could administer the rabies Injection.

Which of these loving Mothers are EVIL?
Is your choice of Evil arbitrary?

What is evil or good is NOT black and white. It depends on a higher PURPOSE, a higher OBJECTIVE.

Let me just start by saying that I think these are very good examples. That being said, I don't think they can be used to determine the arbitrariness of good and evil with respect to your God. Let me explain.

In both examples, we both judge them based on a fixed concept of what good is supposed to be. We see things that involve the child's well-being on the long run as good. That's why we can say denying them their short-term requests, for their long-term well-being, is good. Their overall well-being is the higher purpose here.

In respect to a god, who as you've said determines what good and bad is, and of which good and bad are defined by their actions, then we're not judging from a fixed point anymore.

It would be like saying the action, of locking the child in the room, in of itself, was good, regardless of the situation, because whatever action the parent took, be it locking their child, holding them down for injection, or tossing them off a roof HAS TO BE considered good.

In your examples, good and evil are based on the long-term well-being of the child, not the actions of the parents. The actions of the parents are judged as good or bad, in respect to the fixed standard/higher purpose, which is the long-term well-being of the child. I hope you get my point.

Sorry... Noticed my response was getting too long.. so i had to break it down into 2

TenQ:

In the case of God,
He OWNs everything!
He MADE everything!
Everything God made was for HIS OWN PURPOSE!
Therefore, there cannot be a higher purpose other than God's purpose for Everything.
Hence, whatever He does is PERFECT!

We Humans become Good or Evil only to the extent we align ourselves with God's PURPOSE and WILL.

Ok.. So now I'm a little bit confused. If I'm understanding you correctly, good and evil are based on the purpose/reason which God decides to do things. And his actions will always be based on his reasons. So in that sense, his actions can never be wrong, since regardless of the actions he takes, there will always be a reason behind it.

But if that's the case, then how can he also be right? If his actions are intertwined with his reasons, then how can they be viewed as right or wrong? Let me give an example.

Let's say I make a shoe. And due to something i noticed, let's say a design flaw, I decide to want to destroy the shoe. If i destroy the shoe, it is based on the purpose/reason which i chose. BUT... If i then like the shoe and choose not to destroy it, have I done wrong? I certainly have another reason/purpose, for not wanting to destroy the shoe. The new reason is because I like it. My decision to keep the shoe is because of a reason, which is me liking it. Now, regardless of what i do, there is a reason behind it.

I, the maker of the shoe, decide the reasons for which I carry out an action. No matter what action I take, there will always be a reason behind it. In that case, how can my actions ever be right or wrong?

Let's say i have subordinates, and one of them decides to destroy the shoe in accordance with my first reason. They've acted in line with the reason. If my reason is the standard of what is good, then my subordinate has done good.

But if I decided to keep the shoe, based on the reasons of me liking it, and my subordinate then destroys it, then they've acted in opposition to the reason i wanted to keep the shoe. They've done bad.

But the very actions of me keeping or destroying the shoe, regardless of whatever action I take, will always have a reason behind it. And therefore, cannot be right or wrong, since I, the maker of the shoe, will always have reasons for my actions. It is the subordinates that have to align their actions with my reasons. So they are the only ones who can be right or wrong.

For something to be right, it has to not be wrong. If something cannot be wrong, how then can it be right? If my actions can never be in opposition to my reasons, because all my actions would have reasons behind them, then how could by actions be considered good or bad based on my reasons for them?

Let me give you another illustration:
Do you regularly wash and disinfect your toilet?
Is that a good thing to do or evil thing to do?

Do you realize that anytime you wash and disinfect your toilet, you MURDER millions of innocent bacteria?

Will you realising this genocide you are committing stop washing and disinfecting your toilet?

If you don't get this, you are beyond help.

If God was to be physical like us humans, we would be less than the size of bacteria to Him!

The parameters with which to judge good or evil does NOT belong to the preview of the bacteria. You as the owner of the toilet defines what is good and what is evil with respect to the bacteria in your toilet!

God Himself is the STANDARD of PERFECTION as everything depends on His PURPOSE!

Once again, another wonderful analogy. I think one thing I picked up from this, is the perception of the creation, as opposed to the perception of the creator.

Sure, I would disinfect my toilets, and i would consider that a good thing. That's because my definition of good, in that context, is one which supports my health and hygiene. That's the criteria by which i define good. And the death of the bacteria is in line that criteria. In that sense, disinfecting the toilet would be good.

If the criteria by which i defined good, were to be the life of the bacteria, regardless of how small they were, then disinfecting it would be bad. But In this analogy, my actions can actually go in contrary to what the criteria for good and bad are, and therefore, can be considered either be good, or bad.

I think your analogy of purpose trumps this one, since it shows that the purpose, or reason behind an action, are the criteria by which good and bad are defined. And since the actions of God and the reasons behind the actions are intertwined and cannot be in opposition to each other, then in that sense, God cannot be seen as good or bad. As holy, or unholy

Wilgrea7:
Sorry... Noticed my response was getting too long.. so i had to break it down into 2



Ok.. So now I'm a little bit confused. If I'm understanding you correctly, good and evil are based on the purpose/reason which God decides to do things. And his actions will always be based on his reasons. So in that sense, his actions can never be wrong, since regardless of the actions he takes, there will always be a reason behind it.

But if that's the case, then how can he also be right? If his actions are intertwined with his reasons, then how can they be viewed as right or wrong? Let me give an example.

Let's say I make a shoe. And due to something i noticed, let's say a design flaw, I decide to want to destroy the shoe. If i destroy the shoe, it is based on the purpose/reason which i chose. BUT... If i then like the shoe and choose not to destroy it, have I done wrong? I certainly have another reason/purpose, for not wanting to destroy the shoe. The new reason is because I like it. My decision to keep the shoe is because of a reason, which is me liking it. Now, regardless of what i do, there is a reason behind it.

I, the maker of the shoe, decide the reasons for which I carry out an action. No matter what action I take, there will always be a reason behind it. In that case, how can my actions ever be right or wrong?

Let's say i have subordinates, and one of them decides to destroy the shoe in accordance with my first reason. They've acted in line with the reason. If my reason is the standard of what is good, then my subordinate has done good.

But if I decided to keep the shoe, based on the reasons of me liking it, and my subordinate then destroys it, then they've acted in opposition to the reason i wanted to keep the shoe. They've done bad.

But the very actions of me keeping or destroying the shoe, regardless of whatever action I take, will always have a reason behind it. And therefore, cannot be right or wrong, since I, the maker of the shoe, will always have reasons for my actions. It is the subordinates that have to align their actions with my reasons. So they are the only ones who can be right or wrong.

For something to be right, it has to not be wrong. If something cannot be wrong, how then can it be right? If my actions can never be in opposition to my reasons, because all my actions would have reasons behind them, then how could by actions be considered good or bad based on my reasons for them?

Let me use your analogy of the shoemaker to restate this:

A shoemaker made a special shoe (to commemorate an event). He ended up not using the shoe because he found a flaw with it
1. He could decide to destroy the shoe.
2. He could decide to keep the shoe and even put it in show glass for public viewing.

Whatever he does with HIS show is his BUSINESS and would be HIS GOOD thing to do.

As a Third party, I could FEEL that the Shoe's flaw is grievous and so DESTROY (when the Maker had chosen to keep the shoe). My ACTION of destroying the Shoe is thus EVIL/BAD!

Secondly,

As a Third party, I could FEEL that even though the Shoe has flaws that is grievous the shoe could be exhibited because it was made for commemorating an even (when the Maker had chosen to completely destroy the shoe as unfit). My ACTION of keeping the Shoe is thus BAD!

With respect to God: It is my actions and inactions that turn to be good/bad , evil or excellent if and only if it aligns with the WILL of the Creator!

Wilgrea7:

Once again, another wonderful analogy. I think one thing I picked up from this, is the perception of the creation, as opposed to the perception of the creator.

Sure, I would disinfect my toilets, and i would consider that a good thing. That's because my definition of good, in that context, is one which supports my health and hygiene. That's the criteria by which i define good. And the death of the bacteria is in line that criteria. In that sense, disinfecting the toilet would be good.

If the criteria by which i defined good, were to be the life of the bacteria, regardless of how small they were, then disinfecting it would be bad. But In this analogy, my actions can actually go in contrary to what the criteria for good and bad are, and therefore, can be considered either be good, or bad.

I think your analogy of purpose trumps this one, since it shows that the purpose, or reason behind an action, are the criteria by which good and bad are defined. And since the actions of God and the reasons behind the actions are intertwined and cannot be in opposition to each other, then in that sense, God cannot be seen as good or bad. As holy, or unholy

There are TWO frames of Reference for our understanding of good and evil.

1. God's own REFERENCE
2. Human Reference.

Unfortunately, humans are limited so that oftentimes their good is God's evil.

Let me give a little illustration:
A young man and woman love themselves and they are sexually attracted to each other.
1. God's own Reference:
Sex is permitted only within the confines of Marriage.

2. Human perspective:
But they are both adults who are genuinely sexually attracted to each other, and sex is another means by which the show love to themselves. And they will even put on condoms to prevent pregnancy and STIs! Both will enjoy the act and no one is getting hurt!

Which of these two positions is RIGHT and which is WRONG!

TenQ:

The created doesn't realise that he has no say in his being nor his purpose in life. Everything depends on His Creator!

That is the source of his foolishness. He even thinks he is has a right to say "I no gree or I no want" to whatever his Owner does.

Yet he has not returned himself to his Owner so that he can tell the Owner I no gree o or I no want o.

I don't know whether it is delibrate or not, I find it offensive when GOD is written as "god". If you can't capitalize the first letter, then I assume you refer to something else. If Wilgre7 is a name, then wilgrea7 is an insult!

Wilgrea7:


That's what I've been trying to get at from the beginning. What you're basically saying is that your god is the one who determines what is good, and what is evil. Which means the definitions of what good and evil are, are dependent on what he says they are. To you, the "fixed point" of what good and bad are, is God.

True

Wilgrea7:

But this very thing you see as fixed, is what I see as arbitrary. Not arbitrary in the sense that they are not defined at all, but arbitrary in the sense that they have to be defined in the light of whatever actions your God takes.

If your God can take ANY action, and that action must be considered good, doesn't that make the good and bad dependent on your God's actions? And if the actions of your god can literally be anything, then doesn't that make the definition of good and bad, which is based on the actions which can literally be anything, arbitrary?




Let me just start by saying that I think these are very good examples. That being said, I don't think they can be used to determine the arbitrariness of good and evil with respect to your God. Let me explain.

In both examples, we both judge them based on a fixed concept of what good is supposed to be. We see things that involve the child's well-being on the long run as good. That's why we can say denying them their short-term requests, for their long-term well-being, is good. Their overall well-being is the higher purpose here.

In respect to a god, who as you've said determines what good and bad is, and of which good and bad are defined by their actions, then we're not judging from a fixed point anymore.

God has given us rules by which to measure our actions as good or evil.
1. Your conscience
2. The Scripture
-Love the Lord your God with everything
-Love your Neighbor as yourself
-Direct commands (ten commandments, forgiveness etc)
3. Common sense

The use of these three make you ALWAYS be on the side of GOODNESS.

Wilgrea7:

It would be like saying the action, of locking the child in the room, in of itself, was good, regardless of the situation, because whatever action the parent took, be it locking their child, holding them down for injection, or tossing them off a roof HAS TO BE considered good.

In your examples, good and evil are based on the long-term well-being of the child, not the actions of the parents. The actions of the parents are judged as good or bad, in respect to the fixed standard/higher purpose, which is the long-term well-being of the child. I hope you get my point.

The highest purpose with respect of Creations is SET and DEFINED by God. God's creation were made only by Him and for Himself alone.

Therefore, even if you don't agree with God's decisions, it's your cup of tea as ultimately, WISDOM and FOOLISHNESS is defined by aligning your WILL and DEEDs with God's!

TenQ:

God doesn't call Himself Good or Evil, Holy or Unholy!

Really? So it wasn't your god supposedly speaking here:

Leviticus 11:45
For I am the Lord that bringeth you up out of the land of Egypt, to be your God: ye shall therefore be holy, for I am holy.

Dtruthspeaker:


That is the source of his foolishness. He even thinks he is has a right to say "I no gree or I no want" to whatever his Owner does.

Yet he has not returned himself to his Owner so that he can tell the Owner I no gree o or I no want o.

At Humans wicked for disinfecting their toilets thereby killing off hundreds of millions of Innocent bacteria!?

The community of bacteria could hate it all they want. They can protest it all they want : Does it change anything about the Evilness or Goodness of Humans!?

Atheists want to reduce God to the level of man and there is where the problem is. Any god that can be measured is an idol.

Unfortunately, it's is a different case if ONE bacteria out of a million decided to commit genocide against other bacteria in the colony: this would be EVIL!

TenQ:

At Humans wicked for disinfecting their toilets thereby killing off hundreds of millions of Innocent bacteria!?

The community of bacteria could hate it all they want. They can protest it all they want : Does it change anything about the Evilness or Goodness of Humans!?

Atheists want to reduce God to the level of man and there is where the problem is. Any god that can be measured is an idol.

Unfortunately, it's is a different case if ONE bacteria out of a million decided to commit genocide against other bacteria in the colony: this would be EVIL!

What do you mean innocent bacterias? Don’t you know what happens when bacterias are in your toilet? What makes them innocent?

And besides humans didn’t create the “innocent bacteria”. Why create it when you’ll eventually kill it?

LordReed:


Really? So it wasn't your god supposedly speaking here:

Leviticus 11:45
For I am the Lord that bringeth you up out of the land of Egypt, to be your God: ye shall therefore be holy, for I am holy.

My error please!

Thanks

TenQ:

At Humans wicked for disinfecting their toilets thereby killing off hundreds of millions of Innocent bacteria!?

The community of bacteria could hate it all they want. They can protest it all they want : Does it change anything about the Evilness or Goodness of Humans!?

Atheists want to reduce God to the level of man and there is where the problem is. Any god that can be measured is an idol.

Unfortunately, it's is a different case if ONE bacteria out of a million decided to commit genocide against other bacteria in the colony: this would be EVIL!

TenQ:

At Humans wicked for disinfecting their toilets thereby killing off hundreds of millions of Innocent bacteria!?

The community of bacteria could hate it all they want. They can protest it all they want : Does it change anything about the Evilness or Goodness of Humans!?

Atheists want to reduce God to the level of man and there is where the problem is. Any god that can be measured is an idol.

Unfortunately, it's is a different case if ONE bacteria out of a million decided to commit genocide against other bacteria in the colony: this would be EVIL!

Wilgrea7 has repeatedly said he is not an atheist.

Maynman:


What do you mean innocent bacterias? Don’t you know what happens when bacterias are in your toilet? What makes them innocent?

And besides humans didn’t create the “innocent bacteria”. Why create it when you’ll eventually kill it?

I am sure you know that only a few families of bacteria are harmful to humans.

Unfortunately, in disinfecting a toilet, we don't do selective "genocide" we completly exterminate ALL bacteria; good or bad.

Are Humans wicked?

TenQ:

I am sure you know that only a few families of bacteria are harmful to humans.

Unfortunately, in disinfecting a toilet, we don't do selective "genocide" we completly exterminate ALL bacteria; good or bad.

Are Humans wicked?

Are this non harmful bacterias found in the toilet? Name them.
Did humans create the harmful bacteria?

Dtruthspeaker:

if ONE bacteria out of a million decided to commit genocide against other bacteria in the colony: this would be EVIL!

What if LordReed decides to murder hundreds of millions of Bacteria in his toilet, would that be Evil?

Maynman:


Are this non harmful bacterias found in the toilet? Name them.
Did humans create the harmful bacteria?

That's not the point!

Are ALL bacteria harmful?
If the answer is no!

Then are you Evil by commiting genocide against ALL bacteria in your toilet?

TenQ:

That's not the point!

Are ALL bacteria harmful?
If the answer is no!

Then are you Evil by commiting genocide against ALL bacteria in your toilet?

That’s the point.
Since you want to use that logic, you must use it to the end.
Now, you are not talking about bacterias but unharmful bacterias. As an educated man are unharmful baterias found in the toilet?

Once again, you are not talking about bacterias but unharmful bacterias, get that clear.

Are ALL bacterias found in the toilet?