I thought you said ‘that perfection is the attribute that governs the way God acts,’ and if that is so, instead of, for instance, his sovereignty or his mercy or his love, that would mean that you would read the Bible through those ‘perfection colored’ lenses. I guess it’s not a bad thing, if it’s true. I would rather think it is his love that is the attribute that supervises all of God’s actions.dumernmud wrote:
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?
Do you want to make a distinction between good and righteous here? Babies have a quality of good, but they can’t be considered ‘righteous.’ Unless the cities of S&G were so completely gay they had no children or infants, there would have been innocents killed there in the destruction.dumernmud wrote:
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.
I read ahead to what you said to Wordgazer. You’re quite right. We are going to have some problems relating to one another because, while I’m not an OT and I’m fairly sure they would not own me, (I think the similarity ends in that we both believe the future is unknown) I can’t accept the idea that God has written the Bible in such a way that ordinary people couldn’t grasp it, which would be the case if it is woven throughout with layers of secret private messages for the privileged few.
Jesus specifically said God would hide from the very learned and reveal his word to babes. I’m not saying you have to be dumber than mud to understand it, but there is a simplicity in taking things at face value that I have beat my forehead bloody when trying to get self accredited very brilliant theologists to recognize some simple facts in scripture, presented in a straightforward fashion. (Of course they would say the same thing about me, except they leave out ‘brilliant,’ and ‘theologist’ for ‘heretic‘)
I think I already said that good, the quality, can’t be destroyed so I guess I still agree with myself and wordgazer. And I still wonder why you think it is a lesson to show that “it is antithetical to His character, essence and nature to destroy good on any level.” That doesn’t make sense to me, since God did destroy any good that was left there in the innocent people with the evil ones in the S&G incident. Maybe not in the sense that you’re presenting it, the quality of good, but certainly in the way Abraham viewed it (good in innocent people, ie, children, infants, those too timid to resist the evil of the city, puppy dogs, baby harbor seals, etc.)dumernmud wrote:
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"?
Are you saying that God is trying to teach Abraham, and us, that he isn’t destroying the essence of good when he destroys innocent children/people since the good cannot be destroyed, or are you saying that he is showing us that there was nothing good in the people in S&G, not even in the babies and children, the feeble minded and the meek?
