It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


Here's a tough question:

page: 1
<<   2  3 >>

log in


posted on Nov, 14 2007 @ 01:31 PM
is something good because god commands it, or does god command it because it's good?

if the first one is true, the morality is totally arbitrary, god could make anything "good" just by saying so

if the second is true, then god is just reflecting a higher standard than himself, and morality would exist without god

(quoted from a line of a webcomic that can be found at

posted on Nov, 14 2007 @ 04:35 PM
Things are good according to God, God is law. Man is inferior, cannot uphold law, creates a mockery and reaps the harvest of an unjust creation.

posted on Nov, 14 2007 @ 04:53 PM
God and "Good" are one in the same.

The bible tells us that the only thing good is God, so all that we consider good in nature or action, comes from God or is God.

[edit on 11/14/2007 by kinglizard]

posted on Nov, 14 2007 @ 05:29 PM
reply to post by kinglizard

ok... but is it good because it comes from god or is it coming from god because it's good?

what you seem to be saying is that god is the same as the abstract concept of good... which i can't really understand as an answer to the question. could you please elaborate?

reply to post by depth om

i'm not talking about law, i'm talking about good
are you saying that it's good because god says it's good?

posted on Nov, 14 2007 @ 05:53 PM
i dont think goodness is hardwired or a gift from god, but rather a learnt social dynamic due to the evolutionary social changes we have undertaken as humans. i think "good" is evolutionary in a sense.

posted on Nov, 14 2007 @ 05:55 PM
Law is everything though, the laws of life, of death, of action... nature holds itself to law, it does what it is supposed to do. We are of nature... that is the nature of God. We break natural laws though, this doesn't only affect us physically, just as seeing a loved one die does not affect you physically, it affects the deepest parts of you first, your mind, your being. These ripples then proceed outward in the form of emotion and movement. Our thoughts, even though they may not be "acted" upon, move us, they alter our position in that inner space which string theory describes. Things are as small as they are big..

I'm saying these things good and bad are natural environmental law. Law being truths. Science is the study and acquisition of truths. God is good, good is law, law is truth. God is the father of law. God is the father of all. Jesus fell and rose, and in rising, allowed us ourselves to rise. A chemical reaction on the human magnitude.

posted on Nov, 14 2007 @ 05:57 PM
reply to post by mojo4sale

We would not create good, our minds would discover it, uncover it. Everything that will be is here now correct? Every piece of matter that makes up everything that will occur is here right now. Good was here from the start.

[edit on 14-11-2007 by depth om]

posted on Nov, 14 2007 @ 06:05 PM
reply to post by depth om

No, there was no good during the Earths birth from star stuff and detritus only chaos.
There was no good during mans rise from simian to homo sapiens only survival.
There is good now because social dynamics dictates it, our survival as a species dictates that we must "be good" as the world gets smaller. Imo.

posted on Nov, 14 2007 @ 06:48 PM
Chaos is relative though. What is chaotic to the mind is actually perfect harmony to the void, the changing medium. It is the self which has denoted things to be chaotic in this instance.

posted on Nov, 14 2007 @ 08:48 PM
reply to post by depth om

lol, i wont argue the point, i was really only replying to mims post to start with.
I dont argue religion anymore, i have more important things to waste my breath on, some are "good" things too.

I appreciate your beliefs though.

Take it easy, mojo.

posted on Nov, 14 2007 @ 08:50 PM
Good is relative anyway.

Some people find broccoli to be good but to me it is an abomination.

I think a peanut butter and grape jelly sandwich with a chunk of sharp cheddar on the side is extremely good; others are grossed out by it.

"God" used to think genocide is good, now he doesn't.

If god wanted us all to think the same things are good, you'd think he'd have made us all to find the same things good.

posted on Nov, 14 2007 @ 10:38 PM
True goodness is not relative. What we need, not what we desire, is good.

posted on Nov, 14 2007 @ 11:19 PM
reply to post by depth om

True goodness? huh?

I don't get why people say god = good. If god created the concept of good and evil then he/she/it would most likely be neutral. This is because the concept of good and evil wasn't there before god, so before that god is neutral. Not sure if you guys understand me but anyways, good is just a perspective(mentioned before). 'True goodness' is also a perspective. There's no universal definition and it's also abstract.

posted on Nov, 15 2007 @ 12:51 PM

This is not a tough question. However many of he posters here including you have a problem with it due to provincialness of thinking.

This occurs because we are often stuck in the "Human Rut." We cannot think long and hard on a concept outside of our human standards or beliefs.

The difference in the approach to understanding is "Sovereignty." Sovereignty is a concept with which humanists have great difficulty.

The concept is not whether God is good...but whether God is Sovereign.

The assumption so often made in many of these types of posts is whether men deserve good and goodness. This is the obvious starting point of humanists. That men deserve good and good nature/naturally.

Sovereignty cannot be measured as to good or bad in diety.

If one uses the begining..or starting point that men are basically good..and deserve goodness and good things..then men are sovereign.
Therefore are gods.and the absolute power or reality
in the are gods..demigods.

This is the essence of the two positions on this type of debate. I can spot this in just about any posts of this type.

All attempts of men to play through on this type of debate ,by default, are based on mans logic and reason...and wind up using this type of pattern I mention above. This is why the reasoning must be based on good verses evil through mens eyes..not based on the Sovereignty of God.

If one understands the Sovereignty of God...than the concept of mans version of good and evil become moot.

This is the essence of the struggle from the begining as recorded in the Word. Mans attempt by mans logic and reason to supplant the Sovereignty of God with the traditions/logic and reason of men.

No difficulty or problems here. This is not a tough question.


posted on Nov, 15 2007 @ 02:37 PM
I think this question go's to the very heart of religion and human social interaction.

I think I can only answer by saying that I choose to try to live my life by a set of values and morals which results in me trying to treat everyone with the same respect and dignity which I expect from others and that I try to ensure that no-one suffers as a direct result from any of my actions.

Of course I fail quite miserably at times, that is because I am human.

But it is no God given edict that determines it "good" to help a person in need or that it is "bad" to kill someone for no reason at all.
These are just basic, instinctive characteristics that ensure human co-existence.

Don't know if I've explained myself very well here, but it is certainly one of the basic, fundamental questions of man and his purpose or reason for existence.

I think I've ended up being more confused than I was before I started this post.:shk:

posted on Nov, 15 2007 @ 03:34 PM
No Freeborn,

Your post is not confusing. Most of us of any moral fabric at all try to live to such a pattern. Nothing wrong with this.

However..for some of us stated in my previous post take this further in the concept of good and evil. This was the crux of my earlier post.

We want to be mostly left alone and to bother no one. Nothing wrong with that most certainly.

We simply do not bring praise and glory to our human qualities. Our human qualities are not the crux of who and what we are. In us who know a Soverign God these qualities come from Him..not ourselves or our glory.
THe Praise and Glory are to Him.

We understand this concept because we also understand that man..including we our natural state are in fact evil. We can on our own..on our best days evil continuously. WE cannot glory in ourselves.

This is so foreign to most today. Foreign amazingly even
to even to many of those who claim His name above their own.

Another note Freeborn..even us who claim His name..often fail misesrably ..every day.

This is why your post is not confusing to me..

Good post you have made..thanks for it.

Gotta shove off now.

[edit on 15-11-2007 by orangetom1999]

posted on Nov, 15 2007 @ 11:39 PM
Free will goes hand in ahnd with grace.

Grace is love. Its like a movement in a soul of compassion. You know when some one sees another person being beaten or innocence being hurted, that feeling of compassion is grace.

some people dont have this, and ive seen it and its scary.

Now, madness.

God makes a soul good by grace. The man has free will to accept love or not, so yes God makes it good, but (only) with the help of free will.

One saint said, and this sums it up.

" It is not I alone, nor Gods grace alone, but we work together one with the other."

Hes talking about his salvation to perfection, not by himself or Gods grace alone, but cooperative.

I hope that explains alittle.

Madness, im telling you I grew up with evil freinds. One would hit his dog in the face for no reason, just out of the blue, and you know when you see wickedness, its a complete deprivation of grace and dilligence.

I know when I was younger I would yell and throw things at mother, calling her curses and so on...... I was literally a possesed child, completely different then I am now..

Its all Gods grace.

Now what some do is try and think they are good by their selves, and they get so built up by pride, its almost unconvertable.

These are the type that wants all the audience directed at them, they dont want to be last, always first, always first in line, never silent or humble, always obnacious, disrupters, and just built up by pride...

Now theres one thing I noticed lately.

Animals have a natural affection and innocence, but they dont have what we have.

(santifying grace)

Now, when they are hungry they act on instinct, and they dont say to themselves, well since I dont want to harm this animal, I wont eat. They cant love that outside of their instinct.

But us, we have this grace, and just like that feeling I get when killing a bug of heartbreak, This is the grace of sonctifying love.

I hope that helped.


posted on Nov, 16 2007 @ 03:22 AM
reply to post by JesusisTruth

you didn't answer the question...

the question at hand is whether something is good because it is a command of god or whether god commands it because it is good

posted on Nov, 16 2007 @ 09:11 AM
You can't say something is good because God commanded it, God made it to us that certain things would be good. This doesn't mean that God arbitrarily sets what is good to do. A human doing something good has no benefit to God, it is for that person's own benefit, and the benefit of their society as a whole.

I mean, why is it bad to hurt someone? The logical answer to that might be "Because they might hurt you in return", but that is just plain logic, and greed/selfishness. Not hurting someone because they might hurt you in return might be a logical reason, but it is not 'goodness'. A good person wouldn't think "I won't hurt this person because they might hurt me in return", they'd think "I won't hurt this person, because it is not good to hurt people". Good comes from something else entirely. Something innate.

When a person who doesn't know God does something good, this is not because they're thinking "God commanded this, so it must be good", they're doing it because God MADE that thing a good to do, and humanity is instilled with a natural 'goodness', that should lead them towards doing good things.

[edit on 16-11-2007 by babloyi]

posted on Nov, 16 2007 @ 10:38 AM
Just an FYI for those interested, this question is the central dilemma in Plato's dialogue Euthyphro:

new topics

top topics

<<   2  3 >>

log in