You guys know that moment when maybe two or three guys in a bus are discussing something they find puzzling about women and there are two young ladies near them when they come to certain absurd (not to the guys though) conclusions concerning those things and the ladies have themselves a laugh? Well, this is one of them moments for me. You imagine some really very absurd things about God just cos you don't like Him, or whatever your problem is.

I'm not really intending to digress here, I want to prepare the grounds for something I have to say.

Did God order the wiping out of whole nations that did not worship Him? Yes He did. Was He right to do so? Absolutely. How so? He's God, He owned them and could do as He wished with them. Therefore if He had expectation of them that they were neglecting to fill, He had every right in the book and beyond to wipe them out of existence. That's what being God means, guys. It means being boss. Yeah! You don't like it, you can go howl at the moon.

Has God changed? Absolutely not. Does He still wipe out nations? Not yet. Why? He has never ever wished to destroy the sinner, so He has brought about a way to lengthen their sentencing in case they repent. What'll He do if they don't? Oh, wipe them out just like He did before.

Is all the foregoing like meek, mild Jesus Christ? Hehehehe...sure, boys. Let me tell you, that kitty cat's got very sharp teeth and a fearsome roar. Today, He's pleading for everyone to repent, just like He used to with the Law and the sacrifices and the Temple and the Prophets. But just like what happened when everyone turned up their noses at His warnings and pleadings, tomorrow... oh my, believe me you don't wanna hear His roar.

My point? Oh, God hasn't changed. He can't. He's very much the same. His mercy was as evident under the Old Covenant as it is under the New. In fact, you know what your plans and schematics are to the actual thing you put on ground? That's what the Old Covenant or Testament was to the New.

Finally, what kind of God would God be if He were courting your favors, guys? God as God is not your leader. He's your owner and you better do what He says or else... But God in Christ? Now, there's another matter altogether. That's God coming down and becoming one of us. That's where you can rightly demand that God lead by example. And did He? Boy, oh boy, He sure as heck did! Did I hear someone say, "I can't emulate Christ". Well, sure you can't. But dare you say now that God has no moral right to demand this and that of you? Hasn't He led by example? Better follow o, dude, for your own good. Being the best you can be was not the standard you set for God. You demanded He be absolutely good and never do wrong (though like my bro, Mr Anony said, you guys conveniently skipped the part of saying what you defined good and evil as and by). Now, you gotta keep your own part of that deal. Follow the example.

Sum? Per the criteria, Yahweh met the requirement for being unchanging, barring any disagreements with my submissions above. If you disagree, boys, say why!

Ihedinobi: You guys know that moment when maybe two or three guys in a bus are discussing something they find puzzling about women and there are two young ladies near them when they come to certain absurd (not to the guys though) conclusions concerning those things and the ladies have themselves a laugh? Well, this is one of them moments for me. You imagine some really very absurd things about God just cos you don't like Him, or whatever your problem is.

I'm not really intending to digress here, I want to prepare the grounds for something I have to say.

Did God order the wiping out of whole nations that did not worship Him? Yes He did. Was He right to do so? Absolutely. How so? He's God, He owned them and could do as He wished with them. Therefore if He had expectation of them that they were neglecting to fill, He had every right in the book and beyond to wipe them out of existence. That's what being God means, guys. It means being boss. Yeah! You don't like it, you can go howl at the moon.

Has God changed? Absolutely not. Does He still wipe out nations? Not yet. Why? He has never ever wished to destroy the sinner, so He has brought about a way to lengthen their sentencing in case they repent. What'll He do if they don't? Oh, wipe them out just like He did before.

Is all the foregoing like meek, mild Jesus Christ? Hehehehe...sure, boys. Let me tell you, that kitty cat's got very sharp teeth and a fearsome roar. Today, He's pleading for everyone to repent, just like He used to with the Law and the sacrifices and the Temple and the Prophets. But just like what happened when everyone turned up their noses at His warnings and pleadings, tomorrow... oh my, believe me you don't wanna hear His roar.

My point? Oh, God hasn't changed. He can't. He's very much the same. His mercy was as evident under the Old Covenant as it is under the New. In fact, you know what your plans and schematics are to the actual thing you put on ground? That's what the Old Covenant or Testament was to the New.

Finally, what kind of God would God be if He were courting your favors, guys? God as God is not your leader. He's your owner and you better do what He says or else... But God in Christ? Now, there's another matter altogether. That's God coming down and becoming one of us. That's where you can rightly demand that God lead by example. And did He? Boy, oh boy, He sure as heck did! Did I hear someone say, "I can't emulate Christ". Well, sure you can't. But dare you say now that God has no moral right to demand this and that of you? Hasn't He led by example? Better follow o, dude, for your own good. Being the best you can be was not the standard you set for God. You demanded He be absolutely good and never do wrong (though like my bro, Mr Anony said, you guys conveniently skipped the part of saying what you defined good and evil as and by). Now, you gotta keep your own part of that deal. Follow the example.

Sum? Per the criteria, Yahweh met the requirement for being unchanging, barring any disagreements with my submissions above. If you disagree, boys, say why!

Wow, said it like it is sledgehammer style. His universe, His rules. If you don't like it, Go and create your own.

cyrexx:

but why not emulate his father Yahweh, how do you separate a son's character from his father's especially when the father has not disowned his son and the son never condemned his father's actions?

By all means, emulate the character of the Father as well. They are one and the same

Jenwitemi: I can't emulate Jesus[b](even though i admire what he stood for)[/b] but the only thing i can do is be the best i can possibly be as a human being. More i cannot do. I am definitely not going to worship him. That's for sure.

Moreover, just for the record, i do neither believe nor accept that Jesus was the return of the butcher god Yahweh. Jesus was his own man and that showed in his ways which was far far away from that of the bloodthirsty butcher god of the OT.

Lol, you are contradicting yourself. That so called "bloodthirsty old testament butcher" was exactly everything Jesus stood for. Jesus was never His own man.

Philip said, "Lord, show us the Father and that will be enough for us."
Jesus answered: "Don't you know me, Philip, even after I have been among you such a long time? Anyone who has seen me has seen the Father. How can you say, 'Show us the Father'?
John 14:8-9

You cannot have it both ways. it is either you accept God through Christ for your benefit or you reject Him at your peril.
It is impossible to be good without God. "Trying your best" just doesn't cut it I'm sorry.

Mr_Anony:
Wow, said it like it is sledgehammer style. His universe, His rules. If you don't like it, Go and create your own.

From what I ve learnt from you, God is not good in the sense of an external validation, it is what we label his nature as.

My question is this: why should I be good?

Ihedinobi: You imagine some really very absurd things about God just cos you don't like Him, or whatever your problem is.

to clear your misunderstanding, we never say anything about yahweh that is not recorded in the bible (not that we believe bible to be a 100 % a reliable book, even the muslims you recently debated showed you that).

besides, a fictional Jewish conceptualisation of god that means the whole world to you doesn't have to be for everyone else. So to say i dont like him is meaningless since he is not real. i'm just being a little sarcastic, the same way you mock other religion's gods like Allah and African Gods (reminds me of the cool story of Elijah and prophets of Baal).

you get it now?

Ihedinobi: .
I'm not really intending to digress here, I want to prepare the grounds for something I have to say.

Did God order the wiping out of whole nations that did not worship Him? Yes He did. Was He right to do so? Absolutely. How so? He's God, He owned them and could do as He wished with them. Therefore if He had expectation of them that they were neglecting to fill, He had every right in the book and beyond to wipe them out of existence. That's what being God means, guys. It means being boss. Yeah! You don't like it, you can go howl at the moon.

Has God changed? Absolutely not. Does He still wipe out nations? Not yet. Why? He has never ever wished to destroy the sinner, so He has brought about a way to lengthen their sentencing in case they repent. What'll He do if they don't? Oh, wipe them out just like He did before.

Is all the foregoing like meek, mild Jesus Christ? Hehehehe...sure, boys. Let me tell you, that kitty cat's got very sharp teeth and a fearsome roar. Today, He's pleading for everyone to repent, just like He used to with the Law and the sacrifices and the Temple and the Prophets. But just like what happened when everyone turned up their noses at His warnings and pleadings, tomorrow... oh my, believe me you don't wanna hear His roar.

O, boy, i really want to hear his roar, he has been silent for so so long, the only words we hear from him are what you christians say for him. let him talk for himself for once at least. pls tell him to speak and roar at us unbelievers, thats louder and more convincing than all your fairy tales scare tactics

As an hindsight, i cant believe i used this cleverly devised fables (IIPet 1:16) to evangelise and scare people into christianity. its funny just to remember it. hmmm. so many waters under the bridge

cyrexx:

to clear your misunderstanding, we never say anything about yahweh that is not recorded in the bible (not that we believe bible to be a 100 % a reliable book, even the muslims you recently debated showed you that).

Nope they didn't. And turning the Bible on its head is a very weird way of subscribing to its authority.

cyrexx:
besides, a fictional Jewish conceptualisation of god that means the whole world to you doesn't have to be for everyone else. So to say i dont like him is meaningless since he is not real. i'm just being a little sarcastic, the same way you mock other religion's gods like Allah and African Gods (reminds me of the cool story of Elijah and prophets of Baal).

Bolded part's news to me. Plus, just like my analogy subtly pointed out, not being a Christian means not being a Christian. Nothing I said requires or implies that Yahweh mean everything to you.

cyrexx:
you get it now?

Nope.

cyrexx:
O, boy, i really want to hear his roar, he has been silent for so so long, the only words we hear from him are what you christians say for him. let him talk for himself for once at least. pls tell him to speak and roar at us unbelievers, thats louder and more convincing than all your fairy tales scare tactics

As an hindsight, i cant believe i used this cleverly devised fables (IIPet 1:16) to evangelise and scare people into christianity. its funny just to remember it. hmmm. so many waters under the bridge

You'll hear it, dude. And you don't even need to keep your ears primed. As for His being silent, that right there's your opinion, man. You remind me of tone-deaf people. They can hear...everything but music. Their ears can't sense those tiny inflexions and whatnots that make such a sweet harmony of sounds. So when you sing, they wonder, "why's he talking like that? Why's he talking funny?" They've got zero appreciation for music. Now, that's you guys. Except that in your case because you can't hear it, you swear music doesn't exist. As far as YOU are concerned, Jesus has been silent. I protest that the problem's with your ears, dude.

However, haven't we got off the point? Thought your response was gonna show me how dense I am. Cyrexx, do you have no solid arguments against my previous submission in line with the goal of the debate?

Kay 17:

From what I ve learnt from you, God is not good in the sense of an external validation, it is what we label his nature as.

My question is this: why should I be good?

I'm hard put to it to see how this rolls with the argument currently running. Weren't we trying to establish whether or not Yahweh fit the bill as a moral authority? When did the focus shift to His being good, however you define that, of course?

You guys find it really difficult to pursue a thought to its logical conclusion, don't you?

Ihedinobi:
Now, that's you guys. Except that in your case because you can't hear it, you swear music doesn't exist. As far as YOU are concerned, Jesus has been silent. I protest that the problem's with your ears, dude.

bros, anybody can hear whatever they want to hear, i can claim i still hear my dead grandfather talk to me and there is nothing you can do to convince me otherwise. the problem is with your ears, not mine

I still manitain that an Almighty should be able to effectively demonstrate his existence to his creatures without any confusion found in religions; otherwise its just humans trying to make sense of this complex world and conceptualise an imaginary God who cannot do what they say he did in their fairy tales. QED

Ihedinobi:
However, haven't we got off the point? Thought your response was gonna show me how dense I am. Cyrexx, do you have no solid arguments against my previous submission in line with the goal of the debate?

sorry, which point of your solid arguments have we not addressed?
can you please simplify and outline them one by one for clarity. thanxx

and by the way, i have NEVER thought of you as dense. No, you're not. infact you are in the ranks of few theists i respect on nairaland for your sensible posts. my goal is not to show how dense anybody is but to show that religion is man-made mind control mechanisms https://www.nairaland.com/985567/mind-control-mechanisms-religions

cheers and have a wonderful church service today in your church

Kay 17:

From what I ve learnt from you, God is not good in the sense of an external validation, it is what we label his nature as.

My question is this: why should I be good?

Dude you've just made a very weird statement. I don't know what to call it but I'll call it "the fallacy of seeking unnecessary explanation of a sufficient explanation".
By your statement, you are assuming that good should be something else other than God's nature (you have not provided this elusive something else) and then based on that we are saying God is good.

I'll answer you like this:
"Red is not red in the sense of external validation, it is just something we label the colour as. My question is this; Why should blood be red?"

Or I can give you a simpler answer:
"You should be good because you are made in the image and likeness of God. To not be good is to deviate from your true nature.


You can choose to accept either of the two answers. Whichever one works for you

Ihedinobi: You guys know that moment when maybe two or three guys in a bus are discussing something they find puzzling about women and there are two young ladies near them when they come to certain absurd (not to the guys though) conclusions concerning those things and the ladies have themselves a laugh? Well, this is one of them moments for me. You imagine some really very absurd things about God just cos you don't like Him, or whatever your problem is.

Actually, the conclusions many of us arrive at about the Christian God is based on what he did in the Bible.

Ihedinobi:
I'm not really intending to digress here, I want to prepare the grounds for something I have to say.

Did God order the wiping out of whole nations that did not worship Him? Yes He did. Was He right to do so? Absolutely. How so? He's God, He owned them and could do as He wished with them. Therefore if He had expectation of them that they were neglecting to fill, He had every right in the book and beyond to wipe them out of existence. That's what being God means, guys. It means being boss. Yeah! You don't like it, you can go howl at the moon.

Yet you don't see such an act as being immoral? Would it be right for God to kill them for no reason at all?
How can God have the expectation you're talking about if he hadn't informed them of what he wanted? What you're saying there is that God is a tyrant and that might makes right.

Ihedinobi:
Has God changed? Absolutely not. Does He still wipe out nations? Not yet. Why? He has never ever wished to destroy the sinner, so He has brought about a way to lengthen their sentencing in case they repent. What'll He do if they don't? Oh, wipe them out just like He did before.

Actually, it looks as if he no longer wipes out nations. Or do you know of any other nations that God wiped out that were outside of the Middle East?

Ihedinobi:
Is all the foregoing like meek, mild Jesus Christ? Hehehehe...sure, boys. Let me tell you, that kitty cat's got very sharp teeth and a fearsome roar. Today, He's pleading for everyone to repent, just like He used to with the Law and the sacrifices and the Temple and the Prophets. But just like what happened when everyone turned up their noses at His warnings and pleadings, tomorrow... oh my, believe me you don't wanna hear His roar.

He doesn't seem to be pleading well enough given his capabilities. One could say that he is deliberately doing nothing.

Ihedinobi:
My point? Oh, God hasn't changed. He can't. He's very much the same. His mercy was as evident under the Old Covenant as it is under the New. In fact, you know what your plans and schematics are to the actual thing you put on ground? That's what the Old Covenant or Testament was to the New.

I don't know about you but someone going from drowning the entire earth and destroying cities with fire from the sky to begging people to repent and doing nothing sounds like a drastic change to me.

Ihedinobi:
Finally, what kind of God would God be if He were courting your favors, guys? God as God is not your leader. He's your owner and you better do what He says or else... But God in Christ? Now, there's another matter altogether. That's God coming down and becoming one of us. That's where you can rightly demand that God lead by example. And did He? Boy, oh boy, He sure as heck did! Did I hear someone say, "I can't emulate Christ". Well, sure you can't. But dare you say now that God has no moral right to demand this and that of you? Hasn't He led by example? Better follow o, dude, for your own good. Being the best you can be was not the standard you set for God. You demanded He be absolutely good and never do wrong (though like my bro, Mr Anony said, you guys conveniently skipped the part of saying what you defined good and evil as and by). Now, you gotta keep your own part of that deal. Follow the example.

You're still making emotional appeals to fear. That isn't a good reason for doing what someone else wants. Was Christ human or divine? I ask because when one examines things closely, the best conclusion is that a God cannot actually be a man.

Ihedinobi:
Sum? Per the criteria, Yahweh met the requirement for being unchanging, barring any disagreements with my submissions above. If you disagree, boys, say why!

I disagree and have given my reasons above.

Mr_Anony:

. . . .
Oh sorry,(about referring to your previous comment) I was mistaking you for thehomer.

@thehomer, see lagerwhenindoubt's post following yours. It brings across the point I was trying to pass across.

Sorry to take you back but I don't see how lagerwhenindoubt's post shows this point because based on what I'm saying, one can say that killing someone for falling in love with the wrong person is actually wrong.

thehomer:

Actually, the conclusions many of us arrive at about the Christian God is based on what he did in the Bible.

Not quite. Your basis is more what you think of what you think the Bible said He did.

thehomer:
Yet you don't see such an act as being immoral? Would it be right for God to kill them for no reason at all?
How can God have the expectation you're talking about if he hadn't informed them of what he wanted? What you're saying there is that God is a tyrant and that might makes right.

He hadn't? Now, what do you mean by that? Even though God being God is not obliged to explain anything to anyone, He still did tell just like He's doing today what His expectations were.

thehomer:
Actually, it looks as if he no longer wipes out nations. Or do you know of any other nations that God wiped out that were outside of the Middle East?

Sure it doesn't. Like I said, He's giving a much longer grace period now than He ever did. Doesn't mean He won't. Matter of fact, He promises He will and that when He does this time, it'll be final and irrevocable.

thehomer:
He doesn't seem to be pleading well enough given his capabilities. One could say that he is deliberately doing nothing.

Your opinion entirely. Have you never met Christians that begged you to flee th wrath to come? Or that told you of the goodness of God? That was Him, dude.

thehomer:
I don't know about you but someone going from drowning the entire earth and destroying cities with fire from the sky to begging people to repent and doing nothing sounds like a drastic change to me.

How many generations passed as wickedness filled the earth and "God did nothing" before the Flood? Or before He blotted out the nations He destroyed? God has always given a grace period...and those who lived in it thought just like you do right now. But grace periods always end.

thehomer:
You're still making emotional appeals to fear. That isn't a good reason for doing what someone else wants. Was Christ human or divine? I ask because when one examines things closely, the best conclusion is that a God cannot actually be a man.

Dude, if you knew a little of what I know you may give up sleep to see if soimehow you could get one or two people to listen to you and be saved.
The latter part of your statement needs fortification. How can God not be man?

thehomer:
I disagree and have given my reasons above.

Well, there's my counter to your reasons.

Ihedinobi:

Not quite. Your basis is more what you think of what you think the Bible said He did.

Do you agree that he commanded a certain group of people be killed because he wanted to take their land?

Ihedinobi:
He hadn't? Now, what do you mean by that? Even though God being God is not obliged to explain anything to anyone, He still did tell just like He's doing today what His expectations were.

If God doesn't tell people that they're to worship him, how can you fault them for not worshiping him? Especially when his entire aim was to take their land and to avoid any mixing between the tribes? Do you know of any prophets that God sent to those people that he killed?

Ihedinobi:
Sure it doesn't. Like I said, He's giving a much longer grace period now than He ever did. Doesn't mean He won't. Matter of fact, He promises He will and that when He does this time, it'll be final and irrevocable.

In other words, you don't know of any other tribes that he has wiped out since then.

Ihedinobi:
Your opinion entirely. Have you never met Christians that begged you to flee th wrath to come? Or that told you of the goodness of God? That was Him, dude.

No I haven't met any Christians that begged me to flee. Some have tried to talk about the goodness of God but what I've noticed is that we don't share a common conception of goodness.

Ihedinobi:
How many generations passed as wickedness filled the earth and "God did nothing" before the Flood? Or before He blotted out the nations He destroyed? God has always given a grace period...and those who lived in it thought just like you do right now. But grace periods always end.

Counting with the Bible, the grace period is still much shorter than say 2000 years.

Ihedinobi:
Dude, if you knew a little of what I know you may give up sleep to see if soimehow you could get one or two people to listen to you and be saved.
The latter part of your statement needs fortification. How can God not be man?

Well, there's my counter to your reasons.

What is it that you know that you think may make me give up sleep? I've heard, read and watched a lot of those Christian claims but you see, I've become immune to them.
Your God cannot be a man because e.g Christians would say their God is omnipotent, omniscient and omnibenevolent while humans have none of those features. How can a God have all six features?
It violates the law of non-contradiction that says according to Aristotle: "one cannot say of something that it is and that it is not in the same respect and at the same time"

Ihedinobi:

I'm hard put to it to see how this rolls with the argument currently running. Weren't we trying to establish whether or not Yahweh fit the bill as a moral authority? When did the focus shift to His being good, however you define that, of course?

You guys find it really difficult to pursue a thought to its logical conclusion, don't you?

I noted you wrote God isn't bound by the moral rules he set, right? And given that his rules flow from his Nature, which is described good. Invaribly, God is bound by his own rules/Nature and can't act outside them.

Mr_Anony:
Dude you've just made a very weird statement. I don't know what to call it but I'll call it "the fallacy of seeking unnecessary explanation of a sufficient explanation".
By your statement, you are assuming that good should be something else other than God's nature (you have not provided this elusive something else) and then based on that we are saying God is good.

I'll answer you like this:
"Red is not red in the sense of external validation, it is just something we label the colour as. My question is this; Why should blood be red?"

Or I can give you a simpler answer:
"You should be good because you are made in the image and likeness of God. To not be good is to deviate from your true nature.


You can choose to accept either of the two answers. Whichever one works for you

Your God doesn't have the singular attribute of good unlike Red, right? Why did you equate God = good, when God is a bundle of attributes??

If I was created in God's image and Nature, then I am good morally!

Kay 17:

Your God doesn't have the singular attribute of good unlike Red, right? Why did you equate God = good, when God is a bundle of attributes??

God's nature = Good. I haven't ever said that the nature of God has a bundle of other attributes.

If I was created in God's image and Nature, then I am good morally!

It is not an "is", it is an "ought". God has given you freewill and a conscience to prod you towards good.
Since you are created in Gods image and nature, you ought to be good morally!

Mr_Anony:
What are we arguing about? Please if you can, please read the thread from the beginning so you can argue in context.
The task was to find a moral standard by which we can say something is good or something is evil. It is not a moral standard to find what is "gooder" and what is "badder". If we do this, we are smack back into the realm of subjective morality which is no morality at all. That is the context in which those criteria were formed.
You are creating a strawman here by arguing over methods instead of what is morally right or morally wrong.

The text is very clear: The wavering shown there is on what is right vs wrong and not how it is punished or rewarded. The bracketed is even there to further clarify exactly what that criteria is.

Please don't change the meaning of the text just to force in your argument or lack thereof.

About what many "Christians" think, that is besides the point. Many christians think many different things.

I've been following this thread since its inception. You're the one grasping at straws here. Once you've been called out on your fallacious reasoning, you then attempt to give the impression that your opponent has not been following the discussion by telling them to read from the beginning. You've done this a lot of times on this thread (just to let you know that I'm really following), but it won't work this time.

The indubitable fact remains that Yahweh CHANGED in his judgment of situations. His sense of morality kind of evolved. This is a good thing, but it disqualifies him as a moral authority on account of your own criteria. Once, he felt that stoning adulterers was the way to go. Then several years later, he had a re-think and decided to go softer. This is all too glaring for all to see; you absolutely cannot deny this. If that is not "wavering", then you tell me what it is.

Simple question for you (and please, no gimmicks or word play here, just give a straight answer): Was it ever RIGHT to stone adulterers? Is it still RIGHT today?

Also, this is not really about methods and you know it, and even if it were, it still proves my point. You CANNOT deny that God commanded certain things in the Old Testament, but then underwent a drastic change in nature and attitude in the New Testament. You say that the wavering shown there is on what is right vs wrong and not how it is punished or rewarded. I don't think I've really argued otherwise, except to really buttress my points. Yes, while many of the evils still remain the same, the fact remains that God himself has had a change of thought on many other issues, hence the so-called new covenant.

Going by the list you created for your God, he has failed to meet one of them, thus disqualifying him as a moral authority. I am also willing to demonstrate how he failed #5 repeatedly in the bible, but let's settle this one first.

Since God is good, and i'm created from him, then I'm good. Same thing, same thing.

So by being good by nature, I'm can do anything and still be Good like God.

Purist:

Simple question for you (and please, no gimmicks or word play here, just give a straight answer): Was it ever RIGHT to stone adulterers? Is it still RIGHT today?

You ask for no gimmicks but you ask the question out of context.
The sin here is adultery. The sin today is still adultery and not the stoning. The stoning is the punishment
Find something better

Kay 17: Since God is good, and i'm created from him, then I'm good. Same thing, same thing.

Kay 17: So by being good by nature, I'm can do anything and still be Good like God.

Nonsense, If I make a copy of a teacup from the mold of another teacup, the copy doesn't remain the same as the original if I break it.

Sin is an imperfection. God is perfect

I didn't say I was the exact same as God, but being with his substance/Nature: I'm Good.

Kay 17: I didn't say I was the exact same as God, but being with his substance/Nature: I'm Good.

But you have to keep to that nature. You cannot remain good irrespective of what you do. You must behave like God behaves

Mr_Anony:
But you have to keep to that nature. You cannot remain good irrespective of what you do. You must behave like God behaves

God has to conform to his Nature, right?

Kay 17:

God has to conform to his Nature, right?

You are dancing around again. How do you conform to your own character? How you behave is simply how you behave. You can only conform to a character that is not distinctly yours.
The thing with you is that you refuse to accept that God is perfect so you are trying to divorce Him from perfection. For you to successfully do that, you must provide a more-perfect-than-God entity that God must conform to.

I'm not dancing around, but following the compelling reason you provide.

It only means awarding an attribute of good intrinsi to a freewilled being will cause issues. My conclusion is the basis of good is not defined by a moral agent, rather by the value of the action. îe genocides by itself is bad because of the destructive effect on humanity, while self defence is good, because of its a position of necessary self preservation.

Whereas God has the true free will, emotions and interests, it would be a distortion of the sense good to attribute it to everything he does, and like wise bind God to a moral sphere.

But your bible god isn't perfect, so how do you expect her to accept what is basically false? You are a confused human being.

Mr_Anony:
You are dancing around again. How do you conform to your own character? How you behave is simply how you behave. You can only conform to a character that is not distinctly yours.
The thing with you is that you refuse to accept that God is perfect so you are trying to divorce Him from perfection. For you to successfully do that, you must provide a more-perfect-than-God entity that God must conform to.

Kay 17: I'm not dancing around, but following the compelling reason you provide.

It only means awarding an attribute of good intrinsi to a freewilled being will cause issues. My conclusion is the basis of good is not defined by a moral agent, rather by the value of the action. îe genocides by itself is bad because of the destructive effect on humanity, while self defence is good, because of its a position of necessary self preservation.

Whereas God has the true free will, emotions and interests, it would be a distortion of the sense good to attribute it to everything he does, and like wise bind God to a moral sphere.

In a sense, I kind of see where you are going.

Correct me if I am wrong, You seem to be saying that since God has free will, for God to be good, then He must have to do good Himself. God is not just some "goodness machine" which everything He does is automatically good. i.e. If God is a "goodness machine" He won't then have free will and therefore He cannot be good.
Is this what you are saying?

Part of it. By virtue of his freewill, he has a very wide discretion, which if labelled as good would result to unsavoury conclusions.

Kay 17: Part of it. By virtue of his freewill, he has a very wide discretion, which if labelled as good would result to unsavoury conclusions.

Please explain what you mean by "very wide discretion". Be a bit more specific or give instances.