God, perfection, good and evil

[dumernmud]

Howdy unred,

try this. God is good. I’m not sure if you can turn that around and say good is God, but I don’t think you can destroy good anyways. Anything you do in true goodness is done in God, who is in Christ. When you die, the spirit or the good God gave you and any good you have done, returns to God. You rest in the grave until the judgment and then, your good is weighed and if you are found to be of some measure in Christ, you are rewarded with eternal life, commensurate with the good you have done. I’m not sure if that might be eternal life as a baby or adult or eternal life as a slug or something else.

Begging some definition, I wouldn't disagree with your assessment, unred. But you've launched into doctrinal methodology, and i'm trying to look past doctrine to the ethical question beneath it. Disregarding how God's method works itself out, is it safe to say that it would violate God's perfection to destroy good? Think of good not in any of its expressions in this reality, but considering any true goodness in and of itself.

from your first post....

Abraham is saying that justice demands that God should not destroy the good with the evil, not because of perfection but because his justice is tempered with mercy.

But isn't Abraham suggesting that if God does destroy good with evil, His justice would lack perfection? And if God's thoughts, acts, words, character lacks perfection in any single thing, would He be the God Christianity has come to understand Him to be as revealed in the Bible?

[unred typo]

Begging some definition, I wouldn't disagree with your assessment, unred. But you've launched into doctrinal methodology, and i'm trying to look past doctrine to the ethical question beneath it. Disregarding how God's method works itself out, is it safe to say that it would violate God's perfection to destroy good? Think of good not in any of its expressions in this reality, but considering any true goodness in and of itself.

Hmmmn. If that were true (that it would violate God's perfection to destroy good) how would you account for the deaths of millions of good people?

unred said: “Abraham is saying that justice demands that God should not destroy the good with the evil, not because of perfection but because his justice is tempered with mercy.”

But isn't Abraham suggesting that if God does destroy good with evil, His justice would lack perfection? And if God's thoughts, acts, words, character lacks perfection in any single thing, would He be the God Christianity has come to understand Him to be as revealed in the Bible?

I’ve already dared to say what I thought Abraham thought he meant. I don’t think it’s advisable to put words in his mouth or thoughts in his head. Isn’t this whole idea a rather unsubstantiated conclusion to draw? I don’t want to douse your fire, but I just can’t see it. If Abraham thought such a thing, so what? If this is what Christianity has come to understand Him to be, so what? It obviously isn’t what he is all about, since he destroys good people every day. Maybe not as dramatically as the people in S&G but they die, nonetheless. That’s how we get from here to heaven, isn’t it? Maybe I have missed your point entirely. If so, I’m sorry but can’t hep it and meta said I could post here, so it’s technically his fault.

[Metacrock]

Why can’t it be that God didn’t know how they would treat angelic beings, so he sent a couple? From Lot’s rather bizarre offer of his daughters, I would think,( and yes, I know thinking is risky, in some forums, prohibited) that he knew these were at the very least, messengers from God, if it was not apparent they were angels. Besides, I give him the benefit of the doubt (my personal doubt) and say that he really said, “I would rather give you my virgin daughters than these messengers from God.”

I would think that God doesn't have to actually go to a place physically to ascertain the skin on it's level of moral turpitude.

This is true but he would have to send angels to determine what they would do to angels if he sent them.
*insert whaddaya think smilie*

he's suppossed to be all knowing

[unred typo]

Metacrock wrote:
he's suppossed to be all knowing

He is all knowing. He knows everything there is to know. The future doesn’t exist (yet) so there is nothing to know or not know (yet) so not knowing it isn’t a deficiency. Uncaused free will actions are future events that can‘t be known (until they are decided upon at least.) I believe this is the way the Bible reads, that God doesn’t know for sure how man will act in this or that situation, so he tests them. Man’s free will is the wild card in every situation. That’s probably one of the reasons why he became one of us, so he would be better able to predict the probabilities or our erratic, irrational behavior. Even though we were created in his image, we don’t act like he would in many instances. That's why we keep seeing that 'wut the...???' expression on God's face in the Old Testament, ("neither did it enter into my mind")and hear the frustration in Jesus' voice when he stands and says... no, cries, "Oh Jerusalem, Jerusalem..."

[Metacrock]

Metacrock wrote:
he's suppossed to be all knowing

He is all knowing. He knows everything there is to know. The future doesn’t exist (yet) so there is nothing to know or not know (yet) so not knowing it isn’t a deficiency. Uncaused free will actions are future events that can‘t be known (until they are decided upon at least.) I believe this is the way the Bible reads, that God doesn’t know for sure how man will act in this or that situation, so he tests them. Man’s free will is the wild card in every situation. That’s probably one of the reasons why he became one of us, so he would be better able to predict the probabilities or our erratic, irrational behavior. Even though we were created in his image, we don’t act like he would in many instances. That's why we keep seeing that 'wut the...???' expression on God's face in the Old Testament, ("neither did it enter into my mind")and hear the frustration in Jesus' voice when he stands and says... no, cries, "Oh Jerusalem, Jerusalem..."

I agree! I applaud your statement! Yeah! I think omniscience is an outmoded concept, the future is not a done deal. so there's nothing to know but he should be able to know if there are good people in Sodom. I don't think his knowledge was the point there in that text.

[unred typo]

I agree! I applaud your statement! Yeah! I think omniscience is an outmoded concept, the future is not a done deal. so there's nothing to know but he should be able to know if there are good people in Sodom. I don't think his knowledge was the point there in that text.

Am I off topic? Still in the doctrinal mode? I guess I just don’t have a good metaphysical understanding of numinous yet. Sorry. Well, every sailing vessel should have sails and anchors and a crow‘s nest but it doesn‘t need a crow. Let me look at the text in the OP again:

'Wilt Thou indeed sweep away the righteous with the wicked?...Far be it from Thee to do such a thing, to slay the righteous with the wicked, so that the righteous and the wicked are treated alike. Far be it from Thee! Shall not the Judge of all the earth deal justly?'" (vv. 23, 25)
I want to focus on the metaphysical/ethical aspect of this passage, leaving aside doctrinal disserations on the evils of S&G and so forth. I propose the following....
1) The attribute of perfection necessarily supervises all God's other characteristics or traits--love, mercy, justice, etc.
2) Abraham reacted as he did because #1 is true. I.e., it would violate God's perfection to destroy good in any instance.

Reasoned responses to the above, anyone?

OK, so I did go off on a tangent. I just didn’t know how to apply that to my small pile of nuts and bolts view and it made me think of the other thing which made me think of something else. I wasn’t just being nice when I said I was probably dyslexic too. Except I swap around entire threads and not just a few letters. Sorry.

Maybe perfection is the attribute that governs the way God acts and by accepting that as truth, you can hold the rest of scripture in that constrict. If you do take it that way, I still don’t see how it will get you over those dead righteous people lying around like annoying speed bumps in your smooth reading experience, though.

[dumernmud]

Hello unred,

Code: Select all

Maybe perfection is the attribute that governs the way God acts and by accepting that as truth, you can hold the rest of scripture in that constrict. If you do take it that way, I still don’t see how it will get you over those dead righteous people lying around like annoying speed bumps in your smooth reading experience, though.

Curious, how would the idea that God is perfect in all He does cause one to hold Scripture in "that constrict"? Is this a bad thing in your thinking?

Maybe clarifications are in order.

Good: Being positive or desirable; having qualities that are desirable or distinguishing in a particular thing; of high quality or worth; valid or true

Good, because it is by nature a value dependent upon a 'valuer' or creator is fought for ad nauseum in theist/atheist arguments as owned by God (absolute standards/values) or man (relatively and subjectively). The OP assumes the former.

This said, good and its antithesis evil can be further reduced to two spheres in the material world, organic and inorganic. About the only value of good to be found in inorganic arrangements is that of beauty. A thing may be considered by either God or man to have the good of beauty, but this is not the good addressed in the OP. Matter can't be desroyed by human hands, only made to change states, so we can ignore good in this respect.

Organic (life-bearing) entities are another thing altogether. We "see" good in vital organisms intuitively. Imagine for the sake of demonstration of this principle:
1) a man holding a baseball bat
2) same man, striking with said ball bat in the following order:
a. a rock
b. a grasshopper
c. a baby seal
d. a human infant

Upon being struck with the ball bat, what you felt, on a rising scale throughout the mental exercise, was an increase in tension and resistance to that good being considered in the OP. The good inherent in life-bearing entities is the focus of this thread. It is, I believe, what Abraham rightly reacted to in the Gen 18 quotes. Further, I believe God arranged this passage to illustrate a principle, that it is antithetical to His character, essence and nature to destroy good on any level.

Considering good in this regard, examining it purely in and of itself outside of its attachment to any complex organization or circumstances, would it violate the perfection of God to destroy the quality, property or feature we call "good"?

[KR Wordgazer]

Considering good in this regard, examining it purely in and of itself outside of its attachment to any complex organization or circumstances, would it violate the perfection of God to destroy the quality, property or feature we call "good"?

Considering "good" like that-- as an absolute value-- can any true good really be "destroyed"? I'm thinking of a passage I can't quite locate right now, but I'll paraphrase, "The righteous perish, and no one takes it to heart, that they are taken away from trouble, and enter into peace."

It is true that God's judgment is shown in the Old Testament as being on whole cities or nations-- and sometimes the innocent are swept away with the wicked-- but if you believe in eternal life, then is physical death really "destruction"? I do not think it is. Good cannot be destroyed, though "good" beings may undergo physical death.

I see that whole passage with Abraham as God's interaction with this man that He has chosen to enter into a special relationship with. God is setting up a situation where He allows human beings to intercede and influence God's actions in this world. God set up the whole interaction so that Abraham would have a chance to change God's mind. I don't know what would have happened if Abraham had gone further and asked God not to destroy the cities for the sake of just one righteous person. That whole question is subject to speculation.

Abraham's question to God was a very human question, set in human understanding of temporal justice and a human view of what "destruction" means. God's perspective is eternal. But God is still willing to listen to human prayer and even encourages us to wrangle with Him.

[dumernmud]

Hello KRW,

Thanks for responding.

Considering "good" like that-- as an absolute value-- can any true good really be "destroyed"? I'm thinking of a passage I can't quite locate right now, but I'll paraphrase, "The righteous perish, and no one takes it to heart, that they are taken away from trouble, and enter into peace."

First, I don't contend for good being considered an absolute value. I believe truth in its purest form is absolute. Good is a derivative of truth. What I intended to convey in the previous post was that all and any true goods are derived from absolute truth; hence, it would be inconsistent with God to destroy good for in doing so, He would be enacting an evil, which is contrary to His essence and nature.

The verse you refered to stands outside the view of the OP because it refers to individuals instead of examining good on its own merits. The righteousness found in human beings is not an absolute characteristic or property, it is a judicial title. We're all a mixed bag of truth and falsity. When we move the focus from good per se as a stand-alone property to its existence in complex organisms (people, for instance), the proper focus is lost.

I really don't want to let this thread go spinning off into an open theism debate, but since you and others here appear at heart to be proponents of OT thought and continue bringing this thinking into the thread, it may become nigh impossible to continue this discussion.

Reducing the Gen 18 [and, if one is to be consistent, all Biblical accounts] to an 'open' view effectively disintegrates the nature of Biblical investigation as to its possession of spiritual truth, imo. In omniscience, God is sovereignly in control of His creation, including His word. Here, He weaves truth into the fabric of His word to be gleaned by His children, in axioms, types, etc. I believe He has endued the Gen 18 account with the spiritual principle I contend for, which is metaphysical and ethical in nature. If God doesn't know the future, it's hard to see how any typology or the implementation of spiritual truths via figurative language can come to exist by God's hand in the Bible--if perceived at all, they must, if I understand the open view correctly, exist by pure accident. By accepting the truth of His omniscience, the path is open to inspecting the Scriptures to see what God is saying. Conversely, by modifying God's omniscience to an open methodology one seems to necessarily remove oneself from considering any such manipulation of history (and by association, the Bible's truth) in this or any spiritual topic. OT thus, if omniscience is truth, rewrites the meaning (truth) of Scripture to suit her tastes (man's autonomy). In short, it appears the OT interpretive methodology precludes reading the Bible as a spiritually endued book.

Hence, if God does endue Scripture with truth in those ways tradition has come to understand and teach that He does--by His sovereignty and omniscience--and OT insists that history unfolds blindly on its own, and the Bible be investigated with this presupposition, we stand, it seems to me, at a fork in the road. I suspect this thread is fast drawing to its end. Thanks to those who contributed!

[KR Wordgazer]

I'm sorry, Dumernmud, but you've lost me. I'm no theologian, just a humble reader of the Bible for the best sense I can make of it. What is "open theism"? If it's related to God not having foreknowledge, I'm pretty sure I don't hold to that view, as there are too many places in Scriptures where God's foreknowledge is mentioned. On the other hand, how He exercises this foreknowledge is something I'm not sure of. I'm sure it's in such a way as to allow free will into the equation.

I'm not saying that God was leaving the outcome entirely up to Abraham! Just that the passage reveals that God's sovereignty is able to encompass human prayer.

What do you mean by "OP"? Would you mind, um, dumbing this down a bit for me?