WHAT makes a person saved in Christ Jesus?

[bluehillside Retd.]

Andy,

If god only does good and god is the reason why everything exists, then the existence of everything is good. This means there is nothing in existence that is not good, which removes all contrast and any frame of reference. It's a bit like if everything was the same temperature, hot and cold would be meaningless.

Though Alien would presumably claim that some things are objectively morally bad on their own terms, only they're less bad than the alternative when set against a supposedly bigger moral picture that his god (but we're told only his god) knows about. 

It requires an incompetent god (otherwise presumably he'd just have figured out an answer in which no-one got hurt) who's also a moral consequentialist, and it's the basic "it's a mystery" cop out when the logic becomes too difficult, but that seems to be where he's pitched his tent nonetheless.

[Nearly Sane]

All actions are right in this position with omni god. Everything can only happen as it does. The holocaust was a miracle, it was meant to happen, there was no way it could be avoided. The omni god chose it.

I disagree. God didn't choose it because he can only do what is good.

Yep, Fair point, there is no choice with an omni, everything is the only way it could be
 Call me Pangloss!

[Andy]

Andy,

If god only does good and god is the reason why everything exists, then the existence of everything is good. This means there is nothing in existence that is not good, which removes all contrast and any frame of reference. It's a bit like if everything was the same temperature, hot and cold would be meaningless.

Though Alien would presumably claim that some things are objectively morally bad on their own terms, only they're less bad than the alternative when set against a supposedly bigger moral picture that his god (but we're told only his god) knows about. 

It requires an incompetent god (otherwise presumably he'd just have figured out an answer in which no-one got hurt) who's also a moral consequentialist, and it's the basic "it's a mystery" cop out when the logic becomes too difficult, but that seems to be where he's pitched his tent nonetheless.

To be bad (I prefer to use not good) on it's own terms, it would therefore have to be something that doesn't rely on god for existence.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Andy,

To be bad (I prefer to use not good) on it's own terms, it would therefore have to be something that doesn't rely on god for existence.

I'm reluctant to fall into the hall of mirrors logic of Alien, but as I understand it he'd say that, say, raping the nine-year-old was morally bad, but as his god ordered or allowed it it must have entailed less net moral badness than any alternative this god was capable of thinking up. In other words it's still morally bad even with his god calling the shots, only even greater net moral badness would have ensued if "He" hadn't.

[Andy]

Andy,

To be bad (I prefer to use not good) on it's own terms, it would therefore have to be something that doesn't rely on god for existence.

I'm reluctant to fall into the hall of mirrors logic of Alien, but as I understand it he'd say that, say, raping the nine-year-old was morally bad, but as his god ordered or allowed it it must have entailed less net moral badness than any alternative this god was capable of thinking up. In other words it's still morally bad even with his god calling the shots, only even greater net moral badness would have ensued if "He" hadn't.

Which would be to completely miss dealing with the point.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Andy,

Which would be to completely miss dealing with the point.

You do know it's Alien we're talking about here right?

[Gordon]

I'm reluctant to fall into the hall of mirrors logic of Alien, but as I understand it he'd say that, say, raping the nine-year-old was morally bad, but as his god ordered or allowed it it must have entailed less net moral badness than any alternative this god was capable of thinking up. In other words it's still morally bad even with his god calling the shots, only even greater net moral badness would have ensued if "He" hadn't.

Which suggests, using Alan's approach, that in allowing the Holocaust his omni-God didn't act because to do so would have resulted in something morally worse in this divine big picture scenario - such as? This also implies that any disasters you can ever cite: Aberfan, various natural disasters throughout history, Hillsborough, Ebola - the list is endless - were all less bad that would have happened otherwise if the omni-God had intervened.

When you get right down to it this type of thinking is primitive nonsense, and burying this nonsense in the fallacious arguments, such a those involving authority, tradition and incredulity on which the dogma of organised religion is built, doesn't make the omni-God idea any less nonsensical.

Stephen Laws once described the Problem of Evil as perhaps the strongest argument against religious dogma involving an all-loving God, and I think he is right.   

[wigginhall]

Neither as they've lost their meaning.

I do not know what that means.

Had you been in a concentration camp, one option would have looked much better than another.

If god only does good and god is the reason why everything exists, then the existence of everything is good. This means there is nothing in existence that is not good, which removes all contrast and any frame of reference. It's a bit like if everything was the same temperature, hot and cold would be meaningless.

Formidable!  I suppose you could say that some things are superficially bad, but go back to a good source, or a good reason, or a good cause.  Hence the holocaust is all for the best, and could not be improved upon.  Must go and check out Leibniz, who talks about the best of all possible worlds, but in a different way? 

I think L. argued that God produces the best combination of things in the world - as others have said, there is actually no choice here, since he is the best and his world is the best.   Hence, the existence of some evil and suffering must be part of that combination, hence the holocaust is all for the best (not Leibniz's argument, obviously).   I think Bertrand Russell had a crack at this, but I'm getting sleepy now. 

[Andy]

Andy,

Which would be to completely miss dealing with the point.

You do know it's Alien we're talking about here right?

Well, to be fair, it's your caricature of him.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Wiggs,

Formidable!  I suppose you could say that some things are superficially bad...

You could say that, but the badness would be anything but superficial for the nine-year-old.

...but go back to a good source, or a good reason, or a good cause.  Hence the holocaust is all for the best, and could not be improved upon.

Yes, that's the argument. The omniscient, omnipotent, omnibenevolent god couldn't work out a way to prevent six million and one jews from dying, so he opted instead for the Holocaust so that "only" six million jews would die instead.

Must go and check out Leibniz, who talks about the best of all possible worlds, but in a different way?

No, I think he talks about it in the same way. Alien is a Leibnizian - to get around the problem of bad things happening to good people ("the problem of evil") he has to conclude that god knows best, it's all a mystery, and "never mind nine-year-old, your sacrifice has helped others". It's morally corrosive stuff - you can post-rationalise anything that way, however foul but it gets less thinking theists off the hook. Several other moral philosophers took Leibniz apart on this I think.     

[bluehillside Retd.]

Andy,

Well, to be fair, it's your caricature of him.

Actually I'm pretty sure it's not a caricature - that's what he really thinks. No doubt in due course he'll tell us though.

[Andy]

Neither as they've lost their meaning.

I do not know what that means.

Had you been in a concentration camp, one option would have looked much better than another.

If god only does good and god is the reason why everything exists, then the existence of everything is good. This means there is nothing in existence that is not good, which removes all contrast and any frame of reference. It's a bit like if everything was the same temperature, hot and cold would be meaningless.

Formidable!  I suppose you could say that some things are superficially bad, but go back to a good source, or a good reason, or a good cause.  Hence the holocaust is all for the best, and could not be improved upon.  Must go and check out Leibniz, who talks about the best of all possible worlds, but in a different way? 

There is no improving on or getting worse. Things are the way they are because god only does things how god is constrained to do them. You can't even blame him (or praise him) for anything. Morality is dead.

[Owlswing]

Person A is as morally perfect as can possibly be, yet doesn't recognise that they deserve god's judgement and that they require god's forgiveness for their sins.
Person B is as immorally perfect as can possibly be, yet does recognise that they deserve god's judgement and that they require god's forgiveness for their sins.

Who is getting saved?

Neither description is possible. To be as "morally perfect as can possibly be" would mean that they are morally perfect. No-one is morally perfect (except God). As for B, no-one is as "immorally perfect as can possibly be". If they were morally perfect, they would not need saving.

Also, it is not just a recognition of deserving judgement and forgiveness. That is necessary, but not sufficient. People on the Titanic recognised they needed saving, but it was not a lot of help for many of them.

And yet your god allows evil to exist and  fails to stop pain and suffering even though you think it could.

You think some things are always objectively morally wrong, and yet your god allows them the happen.

In what way then is your god moral?

Those things which are objectively morally wrong, God will not do. The one we talk about most here is "Torturing a child to death just for fun". Note the "just" in there, as in "solely", "for the sole purpose". If God allows an evil, it is for a greater good.

For whose "greater good"?

Evil - Islamic State - for whose "greater good" does your god allow this?

Evil - Childhood Cancers - for whose "greater good" does you god allow these?

Evils -  Drought and famine - for whose "greater good" does your god allow these?

The only reason that he allows these evils, as far as I can see, is to teach non-believers that the only way to avoid these evils is to do precisesly and exactly what he says!

On a smaller scale the same can be said of Hitler, Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot, and every other dictator that your goid has allowed to flourish. And it has been men of ALL religious persuasions who have rid the world of these evils NOT your god.


   

[Owlswing]

Person A is as morally perfect as can possibly be, yet doesn't recognise that they deserve god's judgement and that they require god's forgiveness for their sins.
Person B is as immorally perfect as can possibly be, yet does recognise that they deserve god's judgement and that they require god's forgiveness for their sins.

Who is getting saved?

Neither description is possible. To be as "morally perfect as can possibly be" would mean that they are morally perfect. No-one is morally perfect (except God). As for B, no-one is as "immorally perfect as can possibly be". If they were morally perfect, they would not need saving.

Also, it is not just a recognition of deserving judgement and forgiveness. That is necessary, but not sufficient. People on the Titanic recognised they needed saving, but it was not a lot of help for many of them.

And yet your god allows evil to exist and  fails to stop pain and suffering even though you think it could.

You think some things are always objectively morally wrong, and yet your god allows them the happen.

In what way then is your god moral?

Those things which are objectively morally wrong, God will not do. The one we talk about most here is "Torturing a child to death just for fun". Note the "just" in there, as in "solely", "for the sole purpose". If God allows an evil, it is for a greater good.

But you also think it is morally wrong to NOT stop these things happening when you could easily stop them.

Your god does not stop them, therefore he is immoral.

If you think otherwise, explain how it is moral.

If you cannot do that then you are just hoping that your god is good, and you are just guessing.

I explained earlier in the thread. #Sorry, that was another thread. I have explained it elsewhere though and this thread is about what makes a person saved in Christ Jesus. If you want to discuss theodicy, I'll see you on another thread (a new one?).

SUPER COP OUT!

[wigginhall]

Neither as they've lost their meaning.

I do not know what that means.

Had you been in a concentration camp, one option would have looked much better than another.

If god only does good and god is the reason why everything exists, then the existence of everything is good. This means there is nothing in existence that is not good, which removes all contrast and any frame of reference. It's a bit like if everything was the same temperature, hot and cold would be meaningless.

Formidable!  I suppose you could say that some things are superficially bad, but go back to a good source, or a good reason, or a good cause.  Hence the holocaust is all for the best, and could not be improved upon.  Must go and check out Leibniz, who talks about the best of all possible worlds, but in a different way? 

There is no improving on or getting worse. Things are the way they are because god only does things how god is constrained to do them. You can't even blame him (or praise him) for anything. Morality is dead.

I was thinking that Leibniz's 'the best' is meaningless.   Even the notion of 'possible worlds' becomes redundant, since there is only this world, and there could be no other.

Remarkable stuff really, when you draw it out to its conclusions.

I remembered that one of the traditional counter-arguments is about free will, so God will not frustrate our free will, e.g. by stopping the rapist, since free will is more important.   Hence, again, the holocaust is all for the best, except there is no best.

[Owlswing]

. . .  Things are the way they are because god only does things how god is constrained to do them.

According to Hope, Sassy et al their god is all powerful! He has power without contraint.

[floo]

. . .  Things are the way they are because god only does things how god is constrained to do them.

According to Hope, Sassy et al their god is all powerful! He has power without contraint.

Power without constraint makes a tyrant out of a human or a god!

[Nearly Sane]

To the tune of Galveston

Calvinism, oh Calvinism
I can hear your cold heart praying
Predestination's saying
No free will in Calvinism'

[Nearly Sane]

. . .  Things are the way they are because god only does things how god is constrained to do them.

According to Hope, Sassy et al their god is all powerful! He has power without contraint.

Except the point here is he acts in his nature. He may have power but it cannot be used in any other way.

[Andy]

. . .  Things are the way they are because god only does things how god is constrained to do them.

According to Hope, Sassy et al their god is all powerful! He has power without contraint.

And according to others, god cannot do something that is not good. Shall we come back when they can all get their stories straight with one another first?

[wigginhall]

I'm dredging up various traditional arguments here, and as well as the free will one, there is the magic one, that if God kept intervening, that would disrupt nature, and produce a magical universe.   This would be unintelligible for humans, and too inconsistent for animals, possibly.   In other words, nature would become irregular. 

A  problem here is that this is indistinguishable from a universe with no God at all, as many atheists have commented.   If there are no interventions, there is in effect, no God.   This is how many people see it!  If there are small interventions, as some Christians argue (somebody's ankle is healed, or God whispers in your ear), why not bigger ones, e.g. stop the holocaust?

[Andy]

I'm dredging up various traditional arguments here, and as well as the free will one, there is the magic one, that if God kept intervening, that would disrupt nature, and produce a magical universe.   This would be unintelligible for humans, and too inconsistent for animals, possibly.   In other words, nature would become irregular.

This implies that god needs to create non-god in order for us to make sense of anything, meaning god alone is unintelligible.

 Anyway, the opposite works the same, though. You could just as easily argue that god does keep intervening to keep it intelligible.

[Hope]

According to Hope, Sassy et al their god is all powerful! He has power without contraint.

Yet power without constraint doesn't mean that said God can't choose not to exercise that power at any given point in time.

[BeRational]

According to Hope, Sassy et al their god is all powerful! He has power without contraint.

Yet power without constraint doesn't mean that said God can't choose not to exercise that power at any given point in time.

And when he does not intervene to stop a 9 year old being raped, we can say that your god is immoral.

[Nearly Sane]

According to Hope, Sassy et al their god is all powerful! He has power without contraint.

Yet power without constraint doesn't mean that said God can't choose not to exercise that power at any given point in time.

But if your god acts in the best way possible, he can't