Why is it good that God is basically saying "You can either choose to serve me and be bound to /my/ standards or suffer eternal punishment without end"?

submitted by [deleted] from (self.whatever)

sorted by:
top
newinsightfulfun
you are viewing a single comment's thread.

view the rest of the comments →

[–][deleted] 5 insightful - 1 fun5 insightful - 0 fun6 insightful - 1 fun -  (5 children)

The biggest problem with that line of thinking is that God's not imposing His standards on anyone. Good is objective and absolute.

[–]Electronic_Antelope 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (4 children)

Eh. Theologically it's a problem either way. If good is defined absolutely, irrespective of god's actions, then god isn't actually needed for any kind of moral authority, and indeed can be morally assessed as sinful. (Drowning almost everyone on earth comes to mind, biblically.)

On the other hand, if good is defined as "whatever God does and decides," then it's all a bit philosophically hollow - moral rightness reduces to nothing more than obedience, and if god decreed it, cannibalizing one's children could be "good."

[–][deleted] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (3 children)

Good and God are coterminous. God doesn't "decide" what's good. He embodies it.

[–]Electronic_Antelope 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (2 children)

And what does that mean, precisely? Is he capable of committing evil? If he, hypothetically, commanded men to kill and eat their children, would following that command be righteous?

[–][deleted] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

No and no, though the latter hypothetical seems impossible.

[–]EddieC 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Here's what everything boils down too