ewp@ihuxn.UUCP (Ed Pawlak) (01/16/84)
Sorry Laura, I have to disagree with the addition of the premise allowing for other gods. The original article asked something like 'if it could be proved that God exists as presented in the Bible, would you worship him' (I can't quote directly, I didn't save the original or any followups). The Bible not only doesn't allow other gods, it denies their existence. You may disagree but that wasn't the question. Ed Pawlak ihnp4!ihuxn!ewp
laura@utcsstat.UUCP (Laura Creighton) (01/17/84)
Ed, this isn't going to work. this may be a position that David Norris would like to see Tim and I heading for, but we are too smart for that. Look -- assume that there is only one God, and it is the Biblical one. now -- assume that God is good, by definition. Therefore the killing of the Midianites are good by definition, and the argument ends. *BUT* -- I know that the killing of the Middianites was not good. Therefore my definition of good is independent of the Biblical God. Therefore, this is my God (even if I don't choose to call it that, which I don't because most people think of the old guy with the beard and the throne in the clouds) as in the most fundamental thing around. "The Good" if you will. This is implicit in any arguing I could do about the "morality of Yahweh". What I would need to be shown to demonstrate the I should worship Yahweh is that He/She/It is Good. If there is an equivalence relation then I am fine. If killing the Middianites is actually good, then I am justified in worshipping Yahweh. But I do not think that this can be done. You can all try to convince me of this. What you cannot do is say that I have to accept that God is good when I accept the Bible for the purpose of argument. This will not wash, unless you can tell me that there is come way in which I must be constrained to do this. If you do this, then you will have changed the original premise of the argument from my point of view, and I will have to say that I cannot accept the Bible, even for the purpose of argument, in that sense. However, I can accept the Bible as a valid historical document for the purpose of argument. I think that among other things, David Norris is trying to demonstrate that God is good, by justifying his action. In short, he is trying to make me see that constraint. If he can convince me that God is good, then he wins the argument. But he is going to have to work harder at it, because he hasn't got me believing it yet... Laura Creighton utzoo!utcsstat!laura
speaker@umcp-cs.UUCP (01/18/84)
Look -- assume that there is only one God, and it is the Biblical one. now -- assume that God is good, by definition. Therefore the killing of the Midianites are good by definition, and the argument ends. *BUT* -- I know that the killing of the Middianites was not good. Therefore my definition of good is independent of the Biblical God. Therefore, this is my God (even if I don't choose to call it that, which I don't because most people think of the old guy with the beard and the throne in the clouds) as in the most fundamental thing around. "The Good" if you will. This is implicit in any arguing I could do about the "morality of Yahweh". What I would need to be shown to demonstrate the I should worship Yahweh is that He/She/It is Good. If there is an equivalence relation then I am fine. If killing the Middianites is actually good, then I am justified in worshipping Yahweh. But I do not think that this can be done. You can all try to convince me of this. Your train of logic mystifies me. All you can conclude at this point is that your definitons of good are different. The fact that your belief system is independent of God's does not show him to be "The Good." No, it only displays the fact that you have differing belief systems. From here you may conclude that either... 1) God is "The Good" and your good is lacking. or... 2) Both definitions describe valid belief systems. God is good, but not the ultimate good. or... 3) Laura Creighton is the ultimate good which we can say is false for the purpose of argument. It is not sufficient to show that God is good for you to start worshiping him... you must be shown that he is "The Good." An equivelence relation is not sufficient... you might as well worship yourself in this case. You said it yourself a few articles back, if you can't love this God then you can't worship him. I would equate both love and worship as the same thing. To show the the justice of this one act neither excuses your love or worship of this God. -- - Speaker speaker@umcp-cs speaker.umcp-cs@CSnet-Relay