Nominee Posted December 2, 2011 Posted December 2, 2011 (edited) No need to take anything out of the Bible or of the BoM; no need to get controversial in those areas. Let's simply assume (and you'll agree with me) that God has permitted many many many crimes to be committed against innocents. That's enough for the moment.I absolutely do not agree with you. How can you blame God for what people do to one another?! God permitted us to have free agency which we have repeatedly used to bring about our own demise by committing many, many, many crimes against each other!edit:Oh. You know what? I have not read through this thread. It is late and I'm not entirely clear so if this fact has already been covered, I do apoligize. In fact, with this thread being eight pages in I am sure someone must have brought up how free agency may be working against us when bad things happen by now. Again, sorry for coming in off the hook. Edited December 2, 2011 by Nominee
elguanteloko Posted December 2, 2011 Author Posted December 2, 2011 (edited) I absolutely do not agree with you. How can you blame God for what people do to one another?!I do not. I'm talking about God allowing stuff he could stop being so powerful but doesn't. Why and how to reconcile that with a 'good' God are the questions.God permitted us to have free agency which we have repeatedly used to bring about our own demise by committing many, many, many crimes against each other!OK, have you read anything I've been saying here? The point is that the 'free agency' excuse doesn't work and I explain why very clearly. This starts at about page 5.In few words, however, and don't take this as an excuse to not read what I'm asking you to if you want to participate meaningfully here, God wouldn't be taking ANY free will away by stopping bullets you shoot to innocents or by stopping bombs dictators throw at innocents. "We" (the innocents who don't deserve being shot at or killed or raped or tortured) didn't bring those crimes against us, other evil people brought it upon us. The point is God could have easily stopped that with no decrease of free will at all.Please, read the arguments that have been presented here. Again, they start at page 5 of this thread, roughly. Edited December 2, 2011 by elguanteloko
elguanteloko Posted December 2, 2011 Author Posted December 2, 2011 edit:Oh. You know what? I have not read through this thread. It is late and I'm not entirely clear so if this fact has already been covered, I do apoligize. In fact, with this thread being eight pages in I am sure someone must have brought up how free agency may be working against us when bad things happen by now. Again, sorry for coming in off the hook.No problem but I invite you to read on when you have time, I hope you'll find it kind of interesting. Cheers!
Nominee Posted December 2, 2011 Posted December 2, 2011 I do not. I'm talking about God allowing stuff he could stop being so powerful but doesn't. Why and how to reconcile that with a 'good' God are the questions.OK, have you read anything I've been saying here? The point is that the 'free agency' excuse doesn't work and I explain why very clearly. This starts at about page 5.In few words, however, and don't take this as an excuse to not read what I'm asking you to if you want to participate meaningfully here, God wouldn't be taking ANY free will away by stopping bullets you shoot to innocents or by stopping bombs dictators throw at innocents. "We" (the innocents who don't deserve being shot at or killed or raped or tortured) didn't bring those crimes against us, other evil people brought it upon us. The point is God could have easily stopped that with no decrease of free will at all.Please, read the arguments that have been presented here. Again, they start at page 5 of this thread, roughly.Yikes. And I'm laughing at me not at you. At least we can see that my edit took place 1 minute before you posted. Again, and from the bottom of my heart, I apoligize for jumping in like that. I usually know better. I don't know what came over me! I will certainly read through this thread before acting out like a hot head again.
elguanteloko Posted December 2, 2011 Author Posted December 2, 2011 Yikes. And I'm laughing at me not at you. At least we can see that my edit took place 1 minute before you posted. Again, and from the bottom of my heart, I apoligize for jumping in like that. I usually know better. I don't know what came over me! I will certainly read through this thread before acting out like a hot head again.happens to the best. again, no worries. come back when you have time.
Nominee Posted December 2, 2011 Posted December 2, 2011 happens to the best. again, no worries. come back when you have time.
elguanteloko Posted December 2, 2011 Author Posted December 2, 2011 And this is very similar to how the faithful do not complain about the unimaginable stuff done to us or others, and still see God as good (just as you still see the discussion as good). The faithful in our context also see a much bigger picture than the immediate harm and do not lose sight of the real issues.The attitude is also very different in that the faithful will not assert that it is not OK for others to not complain.That you see God as good doesn't mean you have good reasons to think he is. Whether you see him as good or not is irrelevant by itself. Support your view. What are the so-called 'real issues'? Etc
elguanteloko Posted December 2, 2011 Author Posted December 2, 2011 I think that your approach has a lot going for it, in that it allows for an almost postmodern understanding of God's morality as an outgrowth of his power, like what Michel Foucault might have written if he were he a believing Mormon. You can't do the same thing with traditional Christianity, where God is an ex nihilo creator, because once you start assuming things are transcendent, all further discourse must stop.God's morality might be a product of his power. The problem is whether or not that 'morality' is something we can make sense of as really moral. It seems to me that we can't. If God's 'morality' that stems from his power is so devoid of link to what we understand to be basic good and bad actions, then he simply can't be taken to be moral except on faith and not on reason or understanding.
TAO Posted December 2, 2011 Posted December 2, 2011 (edited) Doesn't matter. We agree enough to get to an agreement on another issue (the issue is NOT the definition of morality). If we are discussing whether or not a certain car suspension is more efficient, we don't need to try to define what a suspension is, that would be kind of pointless and impractical.Yes, but that is the point; if we are not in agreement on the definition, there is no way we can come up with an applicable use for it that is universal.That is the problem... your OP tried to say 'how do you know God is moral'... when we haven't even decided the definition of morality yet.It's kind of like asking 'Is D&D actually a game', when you haven't decided what constitutes the definition of a game is yet. (And believe me, there are some pretty strange arguments on the D&D-game subject). Edited December 2, 2011 by TAO
TAO Posted December 2, 2011 Posted December 2, 2011 LOL What? I said that because it is self-refuting it doesn't work. Google what self-refuting means.Nah, you misunderstood. I am trying to convince you. I'm not saying my way is universally correct; I'm trying to appeal mine individually to you based on other premises you accept.TAO is sneaky in this aspect ;-).Good! Then that's how you do it and you and I don't disagree about it. That's how it should be, I think.Okay.
TAO Posted December 2, 2011 Posted December 2, 2011 ...a valid reason to determine that he is good? his actions in light or understanding.Yes, but what is it that validates his actions in light or understanding is good, if we have a different definition for what good is?For example, I might find abortion wrong, whereas someone else might find it right. A third person who is going to be judged could choose to support either side, but in one way or another, one of us would disagree with him. Because we have different ideas about 'right' and 'wrong', from our perspective (this doesn't mean there isn't a universal right and wrong, merely, that we disagree about what it actually is).That is why ultimately 'just' and 'good' are personal opinions... and you can only have them when you apply it to a law of some sort. I view things according to one law; others view things according to another. And we judge others upon this law, I guess =P.Following reason and understanding. It is clear why the reasons provided until now don't work and I show you guys why. Humans differ less than you think in our capacity to reason and understand. It is only when people want to muddy the waters that they forget about reason and start asking questions like this one. The best you can do is all you can do. You might be wrong but it was the best one. If a better one is presented then you adopt it because now you have more understanding and see why your previous view was wrong. Again, you could have been wrong but it was the best you could do. I'm showing you guys why your views are definitely NOT the best ones you can find.Of course humans differ less than one thinks in some ways, but they also differ far more than one thinks in others. Life is strange that way; we think much in common, and yet the slightest differences can come across to be great conclusional differences.And yes, you are right, the best you can do is all you can do. But, best, even in and of itself, is also a relative variable; we don't all agree on what is 'best' at any one moment. What is best is determined by the same law that determines what is good. Because what is the most good is nearly always the best.Unfortunately for us though, I think our worldviews differ, so I don't think we will come to much unity on the subject of best; we will come to some agreements, but in terms of the conclusional universals, I don't think we will find much in common. That isn't unexpected, of course. Life is a very complex and mysterious thing, with so many different ways to do things.I guess you could say that the relatively small amount of differences between person's have a gigantic effect on their choices. =PBest of Wishes,-TAO
Deborah Posted December 2, 2011 Posted December 2, 2011 The point is that the 'free agency' excuse doesn't work and I explain why very clearly. This starts at about page 5.Actually you haven't. All you've done is shown you don't understand what agency means. If God interferes it isn't agency. 1
Rivers Posted December 2, 2011 Posted December 2, 2011 We can show that God is moral by being moral ourselves. If we show love and compassion in this horrible nasty world we live in, then that proves that God has given us the capacity to do good. 1
lachrymolotov Posted December 2, 2011 Posted December 2, 2011 That does not prove God has given us the capacity to do good. Even dogs and monkeys can be trained to be good.
Rivers Posted December 2, 2011 Posted December 2, 2011 That does not prove God has given us the capacity to do good. Even dogs and monkeys can be trained to be good.And dogs and monkeys are trained by us.I would actually say that the atonement is the best proof that God is moral. The fact that He made such a great sacrifice for us shows how much he loves and cares about us. 1
lachrymolotov Posted December 2, 2011 Posted December 2, 2011 And what proof of the Atonement is there?
Darth_Bill Posted December 2, 2011 Posted December 2, 2011 I've often wondered, and maybe I misunderstand, how Psalm 82 fits into this. LDS use this as a prooftext of divinity, but it is God scolding other gods about their unjust dealings with men. So....how does this fit in with God (or his underlings) being a moral authority? Evidently the other gods were dealing unjustly with men.
Nominee Posted December 2, 2011 Posted December 2, 2011 And what proof of the Atonement is there?The Holy Spirit and the proof I carry inside me. If you want the proof, just humble yourself and ask God for it with a sincere heart.
lachrymolotov Posted December 2, 2011 Posted December 2, 2011 Tried that. Nothing happened. Many other people have had varying results, none of which constitute proof. 1
Nominee Posted December 2, 2011 Posted December 2, 2011 (edited) Tried that. Nothing happened. Many other people have had varying results, none of which constitute proof.It worked for me. Nothing could be more real or proven if it was placed directly in front of me. It is because of the Holy Spirit that I know the truth of the atonement. It would not be more real to me if I were to witness it with my mortal eyes.add:I believe we have to want the truth and not be afraid of it. And the heart does not lie to God. Edited December 2, 2011 by Nominee
lachrymolotov Posted December 2, 2011 Posted December 2, 2011 Would a message from the Holy Ghost hold up in a court of law as evidence?
William Schryver Posted December 2, 2011 Posted December 2, 2011 (edited) God's morality might be a product of his power. The problem is whether or not that 'morality' is something we can make sense of as really moral. It seems to me that we can't. If God's 'morality' that stems from his power is so devoid of link to what we understand to be basic good and bad actions, then he simply can't be taken to be moral except on faith and not on reason or understanding.PRECISELY!This is the correct answer--at least as I understand it within the context of the doctrine of God as revealed by the Prophet Joseph Smith.God's "morality" has no relationship to what we understand to be basic "good" and "bad" actions, and our powers of reason are insufficient to understand the mind of God.Isaiah 55For my thoughts are not your thoughts, neither are your ways my ways, saith the Lord.For as the heavens are higher than the earth, so are my ways higher than your ways, and my thoughts than your thoughts.Moses 1... Moses called upon God, saying: Tell me, I pray thee, why these things are so, and by what thou madest them?... And the Lord God said unto Moses: For mine own purpose have I made these things. Here is wisdom and it remaineth in me.And worlds without number have I created; and I also created them for mine own purpose ...But only an account of this earth, and the inhabitants thereof, give I unto you. For behold, there are many worlds that have passed away by the word of my power. And there are many that now stand, and innumerable are they unto man; but all things are numbered unto me, for they are mine and I know them.Moses 1 is, in my judgment, the bookend to the King Follett sermon. It is popular among some students of Mormonism to suggest that Joseph Smith's theology evolved over time. I thoroughly dispute that notion, and I submit that the concepts of the King Follett sermon from 1844 are discernible in the Book of Moses from 1830.At any rate, I concur 100% with your rumination that it is by faith alone that we can rely upon God to guide us right. Edited December 2, 2011 by William Schryver
William Schryver Posted December 2, 2011 Posted December 2, 2011 Would a message from the Holy Ghost hold up in a court of law as evidence?It depends upon the jurisdiction.
Storm Rider Posted December 2, 2011 Posted December 2, 2011 How can I prove to another that God is moral? Of my self, I can do nothing. I cannot prove to anyone that God is moral or good. The most that I can do is to try to share my experience with God. That when I have spent time in prayer or reading scripture I have felt motivated to serve others, to want to put their needs above my own, and to love others. I compare this to times when I do not pray often or read scripture and I find myself acting more selfishly and more prone to ignore the needs of others. If sharing that experience motivates them to try the same path I walk, great. if not, that is fine too. For me, the whole question about God is really about happiness. If you are happy the way you are, great. However, if you aren't and you have found your life to be hollow and unfilling, try God. He will lead you into happiness and peace.
lachrymolotov Posted December 2, 2011 Posted December 2, 2011 Is murder immoral? If yes, God is immoral because God has murdered.I think the evidence to suggest God is immoral is plentiful.What jurisdiction allows Mormon revelation as evidence?
Recommended Posts