How is it even possible for such a simple thing to be the least bit controversial or difficult to understand?There's a difference between actions that are good, even by evil people, and a "being" that is good.
What Jesus said was correct, and what Clete said was correct.
There is only one [being] who is good, that's God.
And yet, even evil people can do good things, as Clete described above.
Thank you Captain Obvious!There needs to be some clarity introduced here. God is love but God is not corrupted love. And God became "a" man, but not just any man can claim to be God.
God became "The man" but it is not true that "a man" can become God.
I do not understand why you are so intent on condemning me when we so obviously agree on the point you seem to think we don't agree on. You are not very charitable, which is not a good testimony.Thank you Captain Obvious!
How many times have I already made these exact points you slobber mouthed moron!
No, I haven't.You misjudge me.
Well no kidding you drooling idiot!I believe Jesus is God the Savior, but I do not believe that if God can be said to be a man that any man can be said to be God.
Do you even understand the concept of "figures of speech"?When Jesus said that without Him no sinner can do anything right, He was not lying, no matter how good the plowing of the wicked may seem to some.
I am the vine, ye are the branches: He that abideth in me, and I in him, the same bringeth forth much fruit: for without me ye can do nothing.
James 4:11No, I haven't.
Well no kidding you drooling idiot!
There isn't anything I've said that the most retarded eight year old would have construed to be suggesting any such stupid thing as "any man could become God"!
This post is just yet another lie. The truth is that you've gotten caught with your pants down because you're too stupid to actually read my posts. You jump to asinine conclusions before even reading what I've said and then only barely respond to even your own idiotic twisting of what you think I'm saying and what it took to wake you up to the fact that you've had it wrong this whole time is for me to tell you straight that you've denied the whole Christian faith!
Well, I'm not buying it. The preponderance of the evidence strongly indicates that you're a wolf in sheep's clothing; a liar who is here pretending to be something he's not. Perhaps as time goes on that evidence will change but for now, I'm giving you the benefit of the doubt and will presume that you are the unbeliever that you've been acting like.
It does not matter to God what humans want to think about sin. God has defined sin and those who are wise do not try to deny what God has said.Do you even understand the concept of "figures of speech"?
Can you blink your eyes without abiding in Christ?
Is blinking your eyes sin? How about breathing, is that a sin too? Maybe lifting your right arm over your head, can that be done by those who don't abide in Christ and He in them? Brushing your teeth! Is that a sin for the unbeliever too?! How about telling your wife "I love you!", that surely must be a sin for the unbeliever too, right? How about giving a gift to your children, is that wrong for the unbeliever or is that the singular exception to your mindless platitude? Did Jesus get it wrong when He said....
Matthew 7:11 If you then, being evil, know how to give good gifts to your children, how much more will your Father who is in heaven give good things to those who ask Him!
What you need to do is just stop. You need to completely start over from scratch and relearn biblical doctrine. Get the heck away from whatever loser it is that has made you the president of the Christian cliche of the week club and ask God to allow you to read the bible and to understand it for yourself and to give you the courage to reject ANYTHING that is irrational! The truth (whether biblical or otherwise) CANNOT contradict itself - ever - period.
Incorrect, it leads to moral absolute. An absolute is NOT up to discussion! JR! It isn't! (you say wrong, but I really have to wonder if we are communicating, because at the end of this we are in agreement, it means we are just correcting 'wording' if I grasp our conflict. Like most times, we simply have to listen to each other a bit more (I think). It is 'absolute' by definition EVEN if it doesn't look like it to you. It is VERY important, in this instance, to be bible-literate: Matthew 7:9 Or which one of you, if his son asks him for bread, will give him a stone?Wrong. And your answer leads to moral relativism.
and honestly, it fails. It is a guy, some man who thinks he is brilliant and 'good' without God, trying to 'judge.' Who cares what that guy thinks? I don't. He's full of beans and wrong.The above is Euthyphro's Dilemma (as presented to the Christian)
Here is the correct answer:
Is something good because God commands it so (i.e., because He decides that a certain trait, like honesty, will be good rather than bad)? No. Scripture reinforces the judgment of the conscience that God put within man, both of which indicate that morality, like truth, is non-contradictory and could not survive even the potential of embracing immorality.
It is ALSO the character (reality) of His being. We are blessed God is 'good' else whatever such God made us, could declare anything. As it sits, we are products of a 'fallen' and 'warped' sense of what is right and wrong. Do you get that? We don't 'know' what is good (0ther than as we've been redeemed, prior, Not a chance!).Is something good because God recognizes it as good? Yes. Then to clarify:
● Is the standard He judges by anterior or superior to Himself? No.
● Is He Himself the standard that He judges by? Yes. Righteousness is the description of God's own nature.
There is something to this, BUT God alone is self authenticating AS the source of everything: It is a generosity (in a sense, it is actually the expression of good, to denote itself). So I agree, but also would say that God, AS God, is alone in authenticating Himself. In a way, you negate your own premise here: Only God can authenticate 'good' and you confirm my whole premise if you will, on this point by your triune emphasis.It If the standard is Himself, how could God know it is valid? By the eternal concurring witnesses of the Trinity.
WHOLLY (emphasis for the agreement) agree! You are entirely with me on such a powerful statement!● How does God reveal His standard to men? This and so many other questions go beyond Euthyphro's Dilemma.
But see Battle Royale VII, Does God Exist?, Bob Enyart vs. Zakath for more information, available for free online at TheologyOnline.com's Coliseum or in print at KGOV.com.
Thus the Christian answers the skeptic with a logically consistent explanation of how morality can flow from God Himself without requiring that God arbitrarily decide what kinds of traits will be considered “good,” by showing how the triune God can objectively know righteousness.
Will do so and get back to you, bro. LonFrom https://theologyonline.com/threads/a-christian-answer-to-the-euthyphro-dilemma.7272/.
I recommend you fully read the entire article, but the above is the conclusion.
I'll start here with an important point: Good is simply 'good' because 'good' seeks the well being of another. It is the definition. While it is awkward to try and prove such in philosophy, we just embrace it at that point. While I've said God alone is the Arbiter, that doesn't mean we don't recognize something: We see love and its expression as 'good' in the sense that good means 'well-being' of another. "Good" would mean 'desirable benefit of another' at that point, but it is other-centered in 'expression.' God was/is good even if another doesn't exist, simply because His own character is that that puts others as important (not sure of all the ramifications/scope of good with such). "Good" is hard to define, as such and as I said, if "only God is 'good' "then only He is capable of making that definition plain. "Good" really is 'God's' definition alone, if you follow. IOW, 'good' is the definition of God's character and aligns with His being. Such is completely separated from our grasps of things. "Good" is simply 'good' because 1) it is His perogative to state and give definition, 2) because anything that resembles that defined character is by definition 'identity' and 3) the expression of that characteristic in as much as we are 'able' to reflect it. At that point, any philosopher challenging, isn't really up to the task and I don't have to meet his/her expectation, simply because I know by self-authenticating source (God) that that person isn't capable of defining the term when only the Other is. Hope that makes sense if a bit circular (necessarily). -LonFrom https://theologyonline.com/threads/a-christian-answer-to-the-euthyphro-dilemma.7272/.
I recommend you fully read the entire article, but the above is the conclusion.
I have no good evidence that you are a brother, Marke. Like I said, I'm giving you the benefit of the doubt and presuming, unless and until further evidence comes in, that you are not.
"It doesn't matter to God what humans want to think about sin."
The reason that the plowing of the wicked, the kindnesses of the wicked, the good deeds of the wicked, and so forth are sin is that everything the wicked does is for impure reasons and with an unclean spirit. Nothing the wicked does is by faith and whatsoever is not of faith is sin."It doesn't matter to God what humans want to think about sin."
Really? Is that what you really believe?
And I have denied nothing that God has said about anything. It's what you say that I deny.
You're changing the subject and are basically stating that these single sentence proof texts are, in fact, figures of speech that take some effort to understand beyond the simple surface reading of the out of context sentence.The reason that the plowing of the wicked, the kindnesses of the wicked, the good deeds of the wicked, and so forth are sin is that everything the wicked does is for impure reasons and with an unclean spirit. Nothing the wicked does is by faith and whatsoever is not of faith is sin.
A righteous man regardeth the life of his beast: but the tender mercies of the wicked are cruel.
Actually, I appreciate both of your points here: I recognize the 'tender mercies' of the wicked that are cruel: a lot of times, the unbeliever tells me that the 'tender mercies of God' are cruel (and why, they say, they don't believe). Proverbs often gives comparison, Hebrew was often written with a poetic comparison: like comparing a woman who constantly talks, like dripping water: both irritated the writer. For me, the application is 'prattle' when someone says a bunch but really says nothing. Matthew 7 is very much on my mind coming to this thread.The bottom line is that bad people do good things all the time (duh), as Jesus Himself openly and explicitly acknowledged (Matthew 7:9-11 - a passage that you were all together ignorant of until I posted it here, by the way).
Matthew 7You're changing the subject and are basically stating that these single sentence proof texts are, in fact, figures of speech that take some effort to understand beyond the simple surface reading of the out of context sentence.
And now, once again, want to pretend like what I've been saying the whole time and what you've been arguing against the whole time is somehow now your entire position and has been all along.
The bottom line is that bad people do good things all the time (duh), as Jesus Himself openly and explicitly acknowledged (Matthew 7:9-11 - a passage that you were all together ignorant of until I posted it here, by the way).
If Marke is like me, it'd be a question of their purpose for being/showing 'good.' Question: If it isn't from a pure person, is 'good' arbitrary at that point? If someone has a wicked father who happened to provide $ for Christmas one year, was he 'good' to the child? I sometimes do think it can be difficult. Your thread goes 9 pages as a testament to it needing discussion and further inquiry. I can envision it going many more pages. So while I believe I've a grasp and counter on how I think about the goodness of God, I've a lot of room for contemplation as you all present counterpoints.How is it even possible for such a simple thing to be the least bit controversial or difficult to understand?
9 Or what man is there of you, whom if his son ask bread, will he give him a stone?
10 Or if he ask a fish, will he give him a serpent?
11 If ye then, being evil, know how to give good gifts unto your children, how much more shall your Father which is in heaven give good things to them that ask him?
I don't think that passage suggests that people are judged to be good by God for giving good gifts.
It's the motive that makes an action good or bad, Lon! And Jesus gives us the motive anyway. A father gives his kids good gifts because they were in need and asked for a piece of bread or a fish. All men have sinned and have need of a savior. Indeed, we really have no idea just how dispicable we really are and won't have any idea until we see Him who is righteous face to face but that doesn't mean that every action we take is evil and a man who would neglect his own son has attained to a special kind of evil. When the bible talks about plowing being evil, its using a figure of speech. The idea is that even the good, productive things that an unbeliever does are terrible in comparison with true righteousness and they won't profit him anything in the end. It's hyperbole.If Marke is like me, it'd be a question of their purpose for being/showing 'good.'
That implies a contradiction. "Good" cannot be 'arbitrary' by definition, at least not in this context. That which is arbitrary is either amoral or it is unjust, depending on the what you're talking about but generally, righteous and arbitrary are opposites.Question: If it isn't from a pure person, is 'good' arbitrary at that point?
That depends entirely on why he did it.If someone has a wicked father who happened to provide $ for Christmas one year, was he 'good' to the child?
Well, challenging topics are the funnest topics to discuss!I sometimes do think it can be difficult. Your thread goes 9 pages as a testament to it needing discussion and further inquiry. I can envision it going many more pages. So while I believe I've a grasp and counter on how I think about the goodness of God, I've a lot of room for contemplation as you all present counterpoints.