|
|
|
|
#1
11-03-2007, 04:16 PM
|
|||
|
|||
Re: I would NOT do God\'s will if he were immoral
[ QUOTE ]
Im pretty sure God's morals are more important than your "morals" [/ QUOTE ] only in the sense that the concentration camp guards morals are more important than the inmates. chez 
|
|
#2
11-03-2007, 05:11 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: I would NOT do God\'s will if he were immoral
This debate is massively dependant on people's definitions of 'god', 'god's will', and the like. Also their definition of whether god=omnipitent+good, if this is the case then obv it would be wrong to deny him any request.
Although, that also depends upon your definition of 'wrong'.
|
|
#3
11-03-2007, 05:24 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: I would NOT do God\'s will if he were immoral
[ QUOTE ]
This debate is massively dependant on people's definitions of 'god', 'god's will', and the like. Also their definition of whether god=omnipitent+good, if this is the case then obv it would be wrong to deny him any request. Although, that also depends upon your definition of 'wrong'. [/ QUOTE ] If God is both omnipotent and good, then he can't authentically make any immoral request. Because God is omnipotent, he never has to incur any cost in order to achieve a goal. Because God is good, he can only desire "bad" when it's a necessary cost in order to achieve a greater good. But I think the problem of evil renders an omnipotent benevolent God impossible, regardless. If there is a God, that God must be either imperfect in power or imperfect in love.
|
|
#4
11-03-2007, 06:06 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: I would NOT do God\'s will if he were immoral
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] This debate is massively dependant on people's definitions of 'god', 'god's will', and the like. Also their definition of whether god=omnipitent+good, if this is the case then obv it would be wrong to deny him any request. Although, that also depends upon your definition of 'wrong'. [/ QUOTE ] If God is both omnipotent and good, then he can't authentically make any immoral request. Because God is omnipotent, he never has to incur any cost in order to achieve a goal. Because God is good, he can only desire "bad" when it's a necessary cost in order to achieve a greater good. But I think the problem of evil renders an omnipotent benevolent God impossible, regardless. If there is a God, that God must be either imperfect in power or imperfect in love. [/ QUOTE ] That was mostly my point.
|
|
#5
11-03-2007, 06:08 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: I would NOT do God\'s will if he were immoral
"imperfect in power or imperfect in love. "
Unless he willingly does not fully utilize his power in order to allow his creation free will. And if he is omniscient then he knows that it is better to have free will and evil than no free will and no evil.
|
|
#6
11-03-2007, 06:15 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: I would NOT do God\'s will if he were immoral
wow you suck at logic
|
|
#9
11-03-2007, 02:20 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: I would NOT do God\'s will if he were immoral
I think this is the most courageous and the most logical position. It may also be the most correct position (if we were to learn that a wrathful God does exist, that God could very well be demiurgic). Of course, it would be a [censored] situation to be in, under the imminent threat of hell.
|
|
#10
11-03-2007, 03:32 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: I would NOT do God\'s will if he were immoral
quote: Similarly, I would not kill my child as a testament of my faith.
If this is some kind of glancing stab at the crucifixion of Jesus I'd just like to note that most religious people don't see it like that. God knows how to reconcile the problem of sin for mankind. Its through the person of his perfect and blameless Son. God knows if his Son can do what he did that all of mankind that believe on Jesus will be reconciled to God. Jesus as a man had free will. In the Garden of Gethesmane he prays a prayer that not his will but that his father's will be done. Why does he allow his father's will to be substituted for his own? Because he knows God is good, he loves God and he loves his fellow men. He didn't seek primacy. He could have refused to do what he did and stayed as the only child of God, but instead he made all who believed on him fellow brothers and sisters as "children of God". Why? Because "man has no greater love than to give his life for a friend". God in sending his Son knew it was only a temporary situation. That his Son could do it, that his Son would be resurrected. In effect his Son could die a physical but not a spiritual death and prove that God can defeat death. Jesus is now much higher than any angel in heaven. If it simplifies things think of God as the father of a fireman. A fireman knows he can get killed doing what he does but he does it anyways. The father of the fireman knows its a risky occupation for his son but he's proud of him. In the case of God he knew he was getting his son back in even better than his original condition and he was getting a lot more "children" along with him.
|
 |
|
|
Hybrid Mode
