Is God proud of His work?

[Greatest I Am]

Is God proud of His work?

You should know that I do not ever expect God to return at some end time because I see His judgment at the beginning of our birth in Genesis as the only judgment that he need’s render.

Genesis 1:31
And God saw every thing that he had made, and, behold, it was very good. And the evening and the morning were the sixth day.

This very good included all that is, including sin, evil and the woes that were to afflict us, without which we could not develop our moral sense.

To have Him return, red faced, to fix a perfect world is beyond my definition of God. He gets things right the first time, every time.

I believe that when we left the garden we did so with God being proud of His perfect works and not ashamed that He had started us off on the wrong foot, so to speak, from the beginning of our journey.

Deuteronomy 32:4
He is the Rock, his work is perfect: for all his ways are judgment: a God of truth and without iniquity, just and right is he.

I know that many think of Genesis as the fall of man. This is false.
Man came out of Genesis only after the development of the moral sense that comes from the knowledge of good and evil.

God wanted man to have a moral sense and insured that this would happen by making sure that the talking snake/Satan was there to draw Eve out of any lethargy or laziness of mind and would be lead in the right direction.

I take the advice of the Pope and read the Bible allegorically and see Genesis as a right of passage for all humans from a state of innocence in the home/garden to a search for moral values in the greater society/talking snake.

It is this same society, with it’s differing values that hone our moral sense. It also draws us to sin. As God wants.

Why does God want us to sin?

2 Peter 3:9 KJ
The Lord is not slack concerning his promise, as some men count slackness; but is longsuffering to us-ward, not willing that any should perish, but that all should come to repentance.


New Jerusalem
9 The Lord is not being slow in carrying out his promises, as some people think he is; rather is he being patient with you, wanting nobody to be lost and everybody to be brought to repentance.

If we must all come to repentance then clearly we must all sin.
God makes this easy by creating us all with a sinning nature.

It is God’s will that all repent and none be lost and it must be so, if God’s will is supreme.

To think otherwise is to think that God’s will can be thwarted.
If it is then it is not God’s will at all.

So to those who await a second or third judgment from God, forget that silly notion.

He told us it was a good beginning and from good beginnings come good endings.
We are all to be saved which ends the notion of a hell. If you think about hell for just a moment, it is clear from a moral standpoint, that God would not ever invent or create such a place. It would be admitting that He has failed in saving all of us. This is against His will and must be a false interpretation of scripture.


Do you think that God is proud of His creations, or, do you think He will return in shame to -fix- His perfect works?

Regards
DL

[Jester]

Usefulness is not to be identified with good and evil as good and evil are already implied.

Then are the terms good and evil already implied?

I am trying to express the idea that good and evil are not religious or grounded in religion or God. Good and evil are something even we can see and experience.

This is a major reason why many have argued that all have had some sort of religious experience, whether by that name or not. To say that all have had this sense of an absolute moral law is similar to the religious idea that all know the divine law. I understand that you propose no concept of the divine, but without some alternative explanation (such as usefulness), I see no reason to reject a religious interpretation.

Good and evil according to the myths are something the gods and ourselves experience or know. Knowing means experience such as when Adam knew Eve.

I'm not certain of the myths to which you refer. Speaking for the Bible, however, I see no claim that this is how God understands good and evil.

Something is evil because it brings evil. Something is valued good because it brings good. Granted it sound circular but which is why I am trying to appeal to what we value and find good as being good rather then arbitrary commandments from what you might think is what God thinks or commands.

I would say that this is circular. One can't refer back to the word as part of the definition without creating a tautalogy.
I don't see how we can claim that "we value good for being good" is either a statement of content or not arbitrary.

God would do what is right because it is right and not do evil because it is evil and not because od his desires.

I did not claim that the religious concept of good and evil are based on God's desires. Rather, I think they are based on God's nature.
Beyond that "do what is right because it is right" is another tautalogy.

When I tell someone or my children something is bad I should be able to offer a reason why it is bad not some statement like “I don’t want you to.�. We can’t help but use metaphors.

I agree that a statement of opinion is not helpful. Rather, parents usually appeal to the child's sense of ethics: "It's not good to make other people to feel bad" and the like. I agree with this, but it doesn't establish ethics; it relies on the idea that the children already have some sense of wanting to be good.
With respect to God, I'd only reiterate that I make no claim that this is a matter of God's preference.

I started out suggesting something should be useful. It is hardly a ethical system I am trying to endorse and I suspect we got off on this tangent because you have some desire to support you idea of God and ethics while presenting obvious and common criticisms of utilitarianism because I mentioned usefulness.

I had thought, apparently incorrectly, that this is what you meant with this comment.

Something is good if it makes sense, works, fits in or does what it is supposed to do.

If you are not taking this position, fair enough. But what should I understand your position on the logical root of ethics to be?

Granted not everything is useful but then even beauty has its uses and something just go along for the ride.
If I were to think about ethics I would include social bonding, justice, beneficence, universality and of course reason.

These are all things I support very strongly. I would argue, however, that I see no logical imperative that these are the source of ethical behavior - that there is some universal "should" attached to them outside of human opinion, or a concept of God.

If I wanted to defend utilitarianism I would but I am familiar with many of the agreements and there are reasons to reject it. You seem to be flying off the handle because I tend to think usefulness is important but hardly center.

I cut a bit, but let me at least correct that. I honestly thought that you were arguing that utilitarianism was center.
That said, what would you say is center?

I see not need to run down utilitarianism so you can toss in vague notions of God as the center of your ethical methods which see rather arbitrary and with a god outside of time and space where many Christian seem to place him is hardly even relevant to ethics.

Whether or not it is relevant to ethics is being debated. More immediately, however, would you mind not making comments on my personal motivations? I assure you that you are a bit off, and don't consider it to be terribly polite in any case.

It isn’t making you ethics of god look better because you found a straw man to attack.

This is also uncalled for. Simply state your actual position on ethics, that we might discuss that instead.

I'm not arguing what people believe is right and wrong, I'm arguing that such beliefs about right and wrong cannot be logically established within a secular paradigm. This does not, however, prevent secular people from having ethics. I find that they are every bit as ethical as religious individuals.

Yet they do as you state non-theists and secularists can be and are ethical.

I completely agree.
Beyond that, what of the earlier part of my comment? Do you believe that there is a secular way to logically establish belief in ethics as true?

On what logical grounds do we claim that the average person is right and the sociopath is wrong, however? "Our experience tells us it's wrong" is an argument from authority, a logical fallacy. "Everyone knows it's wrong" is a variation on the same. "It works better" depends entirely on the purpose for which we think something ought to work. A gun works wonderfully for killing innocents and robbing banks, but it's utilitarian value does not make it inherently ethical.

I am not arguing that and it is straw man as you try to make your god ethical.

Then please let me know what you are arguing.
Do you believe that the average person is right, and the sociopath is wrong? Why or why not?

I suggest you might try looking into ethical and moral development in children.

Asking me to research is not generally considered support. If you know of a good site I might visit, however, please post a link. I do like the topic of development.

I suggest we can see things are wrong by simply reflecting other the pain and suffering of others

This can be a great guideline, but it is not a proof. This can tell us a great deal about how to avoid hurting others, as well as give us an emotional motivation to do so. What it does not do, however, is logically establish it as imperative.

where your god can command anything and by definition it is right. How is that ethical?

If a God exists that can weave a reality that reflects his nature, then God can certainly establish ethics as real. How is God ethical? Because he holds himself to those same principals which he established.

I believe the judge of all the earth should do right.

As do I.

Even God could see it is wrong. Many are convinced that God has ordered the killing of innocents and he didn’t use a gun he used believers.

Those who believe this are wrong.

I have even heard some argue for God’s commands for any reason they could come up with such as he saved them from sinning more or some such nonsense and rather then find something wrong in their Bibles they would rather make God look like a monster.

If you catch me doing this, call me on it. If not, I don't see what it has to do with this debate.

I have been trying to explain that useful is only a dimension.
When we see things from the view of others we can see where things are useful to the group or the whole as well as ourselves. A person living all by themselves doesn’t really need to be ethical. Other people are needed to be ethical and you seem to leave others out with your straw man utilitarianism.

Let me deal with the two dimensions I see here. Please feel free to point out others that I've missed.
With regard to usefulness, I believe that my earlier comments apply. In fact, I need not leave out others. Entire groups have used utilitarianism to get what they want by subjugating other groups.
You don't seem to be arguing this so much as the idea that we ought to see things from the point of view of others. To that, my question is "why ought we?" I agree that we should, of course, but don't yet see a logical support for that claim without bringing God back into this.

Tell us what has intrinsic value and what logical ground do you have besides a book says God said….? How is that not arbitrary?

If God exists, then reality does have any ethics within it that he chose to create and follows himself. These are actually quite utilitarian, but with a goal that is established as part of reality: the formation of loving relationships (aka social bonds).

I am not arguing the world is an illusion but how we perceive it is or has been a useful illusion.

To begin, I do not consider any illusion useful for my purposes. If you consider them to be useful for yours, this is your choice, but I do not personally think that looking to an illusion as a tool is either wise or ethical.

It isn’t my argument. Even intrinsic value needs to be perceived if we are going to value it. You seem to be implying that things have value even if there is no one to value it. What gives something intrinsic value?

God.
If you believe that things have intrinsic value, what would you say gives it this value?

Maybe creative symbols or metaphorical images is better then illusion. Words are not the things the represent but that doesn’t mean there are no things. My poor choice of words is not a good reason to go on about God being the only grounds for good and evil.

I would have had the same response to those words, actually. There is no value in creative symbols or metaphorical images unless they reference something that does have intrinsic value. Otherwise, we are back to arguing utilitarianism.
In that case, what do you believe gives things intrinsic value?

The myth seems to indicate good and evil are something the gods recognize as they experience it.

Which myth? I'm currently assuming you're referring to be Bible. (If so, I would love it if you would refrain from using an inflammatory and needlessly vague term like myth). If that is the case, how does it make this claim?
If not, which myth is it - and how does this relate to the discussion?

There is an arbitrary dimension as valuing is relational.

If it is arbitrary, then we are back to the idea that "good" and "evil" are not really meaningful terms outside of religion.

You have not shown then to be meaningful to us even with your appeal to God unless they are somehow related to how we value. There are values we gain fro our experiences and what we have been given through our language and culture. That hardly makes them arbitrary.

The idea that such things are not meaningful within religion depends on insisting upon a specific view of God that cannot be squared with the Bible. Specifically, the God of the Bible can create such meaning. We may choose not to believe it, but we cannot claim that this is not the Bible's position.
The idea that things which come to us through language and culture refutes any accusation of an arbitrary nature seems wrong. The beliefs of some cultures that women are inferior to men strikes me as not only wrong, but arbitrary. It is not based on reality, but merely a cultural belief. Why isn't the same true of our cultural beliefs?

Why wouldn’t there be some intrinsic value?

This strikes me as logically identical as asking the question "why wouldn't God exist". I do not mean to demand absolute proof, but would some sort of evidence to support the idea before reaching it as a conclusion.

I am asking for you reasons something is valued. What is an intrinsic value and how is it unrelated to the one valuing?

At the risk of redundancy, God weaving intrinsic value for things into reality.
Now, getting back to my question, is there any reason to believe that there is intrinsic value outside of this?

I agree, but we are not discussing the existence of God at the moment. I am merely suggesting that we subject the concept of ethics to the same logical tests as we subject God. Is there a reason to conclude that they are intrinsic, or are they simply common opinions.

I suggest reason rather then logical tests as it seem logical tests of God have not proven God nor proven God doesn’t exist. Are you suggesting there are some “normal� people out there that don’t value?

No, I suggest no such thing. I merely point out that I believe people can be logically shown to have value via God. As you reject this idea, I was asking you why you believe people to have value.
Beyond that, what is the difference between reason and logic as you use them here?

I hold humans in high regards with or without God. I believe you hold humans in high regard and therefore think God does too. Sometimes God is a reflection of what we think is the best in us. I find it hard to believe the only reason to have a high regards for humans is because God does. I suggest they are valuable and so we assume God does too.

This is an interesting idea, but seems to be outside the point we are discussing. God, as defined in the Bible, has a high regard for humans. If you wish to discuss some other concept of God, let's open another topic.
Also, I am aware that you hold humans in high regard (and appreciate that fact). I am not suggesting that one can't do that without belief in God. Many do as much. I am suggesting that one can't logically do it without belief in God. It is to this that I was hoping for a response.

So we might get people that think if God orders them to kill their child it is good and the person doing it might even be considered righteous and believe they are doing a good think even when their guts tell them it isn’t.

I completely agree that this is wrong because of the fact that this is the opposite of what the God of the Bible claims.
On what logical basis, however, do you believe that this was wrong? If it got this person to their goal of being more fanatically religious, is that an inferior goal to yours? Why?

Because I don’t want to be killed and I don’t want my loved ones killed. How many parents have said to their children; “how would you like that if it happened to you�?

I wouldn't like it at all.
That wasn't the question, however. I did not mean to ask whether or not you would like it. I wanted to ask how you logically establish it as wrong - or logically establish that what you don't like as wrong.

Is that worse then God doesn’t like it or is God doesn’t like it better?

Given that God can weave ethics into reality, I would say that there is a qualitative difference there.

I suspect that we attribute what we see as right and wrong as being from God where it is developed and learned in our lives and attributed to God.

Many have suggested this, but I don't see that it is really part of the discussion - it doesn't provide any secular reason to establish ethics logically.

I don't see how this could rightly be called evil unless God exists and says it is. If all we are concerned about is utilitarianism, then we should ask ourselves if these people can actually accomplish this goal. If not, then (by this paradigm) they are doing evil; if so, they are doing good. It is only when one insists that there are real ethics, that are true regardless of personal opinion, that this becomes intrinsically evil.

I find it hard to believe that if someone came to your town and killed everyone that you wouldn’t say it isn’t evil yet some seem to think if they think God commands it is good.

I would call it evil. I've never claimed that I don't believe in ethics, or that I support a purely utilitarian point of view.
The fact that some try to claim that evil acts are commanded by God is horrible, but beside the point.

Why don’t we kill our children? Do you think it is because of a law?

It is because ethics and the value of people were established as a part of reality during it's creation by God.

In ethics, however, we aren't talking about experiences, but about reactions to experiences. A reporter tells us what happened, but we decide whether that was good or bad. The event, apart from personal opinion, is neither good or bad from a purely utilitarian point of view. It is only productive or harmful for a given use a person happens to have.

What?

Sorry about that.
You have maintained that what causes good is good. That seemed to me to be the position that that which has results that we perceive as being good are good. The decision over something being good or bad, in this view, is not in the event, but in how we react to the event. It centers around whether we view it as good or bad.
This seems to me to be a concept of ethics that is based in the viewers goals and emotions. That is, desires. What a person desires will determine whether he or she perceives something as good or bad. This strikes me as a position having all the same problems as the utilitarian view.

Ethics by definition includes others and how we should live with others. You man with a gun story isn’t relevant.

My man with a gun story was meant to raise the question: "why are ethics, as you have defined them, not arbitrary?"

We can offer a utilitarian explanation and we often do.
I think you analogy fails because we are not talking about instructions; we are talking about valuing. I mention useful and you decided it is the only point and attack it as if I was claiming only usefulness is what counts. As I mentioned before it is the means that justifies the ends. Good in something or something good is the goal and means.

Fair enough, but this still tells us nothing about which goals are good, and which are evil. Nor does it tell us anything about which values we have are good, and which are evil. What is the process by which we decide these things, and how do we logically establish that as valid?

I don’t know why you got on this tangent of usefulness.
I make a small rather insignificant comment and you pretend it is my main point.
Utilitarianisms assumes good and evil and such things like Act Utilitarianism desires acts to produce the greatest good to the greatest number or a balance of good over evil. Good and evil are implied already and to argue that it doesn’t have a purpose or goal is to not understand the theory or understand it as a reaction to deontological and egotistical ethics. When I mention usefulness purpose and value already assumed or understood. All I was saying was our rules need to also be useful.

The fact that you aren't supporting usefulness as the support behind ethics is noted. Please let me know what you consider the logical proof of ethics to be.

As you read the prophets some are concerned with the bonds the people have with God which they see as broken much like the bonds of family members or friends are broken Later prophets after the laws of Deuteronomy and the reforms or inventions of Hezekiah and Josiah, are about a covenant and where morality became one with good. Holy and good are not the same thing.

I agree that holy and good are different words with different meanings - though I'm surprised to run across someone else who knows the real definition of the word Holy, that's not common.
In any case, I am aware that the prophets have different individual emphases, but don't see that this is significant. All of them fall within the concept of ethics as defined in the Bible, and am not otherwise sure what this has to do with this discussion.

[Science101]

What's with glasses? What's the catch?
"There is no such thing as 'sexy liberian look'?"

Personally, I love the sexy librarian look. Even after everyone gets perfect eyesight, I hope glasses stick around.

Haha, okay...
Any chance you might be an anime fan or had once hit on some chicks from chess club in high school?

[TXatheist]

What's with glasses? What's the catch?
"There is no such thing as 'sexy liberian look'?"

Personally, I love the sexy librarian look. Even after everyone gets perfect eyesight, I hope glasses stick around.

Haha, okay...
Any chance you might be an anime fan or had once hit on some chicks from chess club in high school?

What has that got to do with anything?

[Jester]

I think perhaps there are two different analogies here.
The first is claiming that something good can be broken. The second is claiming that something which is broken is no longer good. I don't see any contradiction between these claims.
As for the claims of the Bible, it seems that the narrative presents the world as something as good that was later broken, rather than something that was broken at the time it was called good.

Matthew 7:17
Even so every good tree bringeth forth good fruit; but a corrupt tree bringeth forth evil fruit.


Matthew 7:18
A good tree cannot bring forth evil fruit, neither can a corrupt tree bring forth good fruit.

I don't see that this contradicts my statements above. Once a tree is corrupt, its fruit is bad. This does not seem to be attempting to make the case that good fruit can't eventually go bad.

Also, I noticed that you did not respond to most of my last round of comments, are you no longer interested in the subject?

Haha, okay...
Any chance you might be an anime fan or had once hit on some chicks from chess club in high school?

Alas, no chess club at my high school, but I do like anime, and I'm married to a nerd (whom I adore). I keep trying to get her to wear her glasses more often.

[Jester]

Duplicate post, please ignore.

[Greatest I Am]

I think perhaps there are two different analogies here.
The first is claiming that something good can be broken. The second is claiming that something which is broken is no longer good. I don't see any contradiction between these claims.
As for the claims of the Bible, it seems that the narrative presents the world as something as good that was later broken, rather than something that was broken at the time it was called good.

Matthew 7:17
Even so every good tree bringeth forth good fruit; but a corrupt tree bringeth forth evil fruit.


Matthew 7:18
A good tree cannot bring forth evil fruit, neither can a corrupt tree bring forth good fruit.

I don't see that this contradicts my statements above. Once a tree is corrupt, its fruit is bad. This does not seem to be attempting to make the case that good fruit can't eventually go bad.

Also, I noticed that you did not respond to most of my last round of comments, are you no longer interested in the subject?

quote]

Sure am but we are not usually speaking the same language and where you argue for the sake of argument and like to go long, while I argue to win and go short.

That and our basic values are too different.

You think it is ok for an alien God to drown us by the millions and I do not.

I see God's perfection and that of His works still here and now while you see His perfect works turning to imperfection.

We are just too far apart.

Regards
DL

[Jester]

Also, I noticed that you did not respond to most of my last round of comments, are you no longer interested in the subject?

Sure am but we are not usually speaking the same language and where you argue for the sake of argument and like to go long, while I argue to win and go short.

I don't ever recall claiming to argue for the sake of argument. I'd say that mutual education is closer to my goal.
I do, however, try to explain myself fully, and this can lead to long posts.
But going short doesn't have to mean not responding to things.

You think it is ok for an alien God to drown us by the millions and I do not.

I have never claimed this, nor does this have the slightest bit to do with the discussion we were having. If you are hoping to win, you need to to do it by discussing the subject.

I see God's perfection and that of His works still here and now while you see His perfect works turning to imperfection.

That, I did claim.
The way I see it, if God wants things to be as they are, he wouldn't have spent half the Bible telling people to change how we're doing things.

We are just too far apart.

Let's work on bridging that gap, then.
It's always good to understand each other better.

[Science101]

Haha, okay...
Any chance you might be an anime fan or had once hit on some chicks from chess club in high school?

Alas, no chess club at my high school, but I do like anime, and I'm married to a nerd (whom I adore). I keep trying to get her to wear her glasses more often.

Hmmmkay.

[Greatest I Am]

Also, I noticed that you did not respond to most of my last round of comments, are you no longer interested in the subject?

Sure am but we are not usually speaking the same language and where you argue for the sake of argument and like to go long, while I argue to win and go short.

I don't ever recall claiming to argue for the sake of argument. I'd say that mutual education is closer to my goal.
I do, however, try to explain myself fully, and this can lead to long posts.
But going short doesn't have to mean not responding to things.

You think it is ok for an alien God to drown us by the millions and I do not.

I have never claimed this, nor does this have the slightest bit to do with the discussion we were having. If you are hoping to win, you need to to do it by discussing the subject.

I see God's perfection and that of His works still here and now while you see His perfect works turning to imperfection.

That, I did claim.
The way I see it, if God wants things to be as they are, he wouldn't have spent half the Bible telling people to change how we're doing things.

We are just too far apart.

Let's work on bridging that gap, then.
It's always good to understand each other better.

Tried that with our discussion on Noah's genocide.

If I recall, I spoke of genocide and you took off on evolution and did not give a straight answer.

If you want to end that discussion then go post there and if you speak to the topic I will answer.

Regards
DL

[Jester]

Let's work on bridging that gap, then.
It's always good to understand each other better.

Tried that with our discussion on Noah's genocide.

If I recall, I spoke of genocide and you took off on evolution and did not give a straight answer.

If you want to end that discussion then go post there and if you speak to the topic I will answer.

I recall giving you multiple answers, explaining why I felt that the God of the Bible does not support genocide. Perhaps you had a great reason for disagreeing, but you never let me know what that was.
I have no objection discussing that topic at all. I'm actually still waiting for a response to my last post there. I'd love it if you would follow that link, and explain your objections to my earlier explanation.

That, however, is that topic. For this topic, winning would require giving a response to this:

I see God's perfection and that of His works still here and now while you see His perfect works turning to imperfection.

That, I did claim.
The way I see it, if God wants things to be as they are, he wouldn't have spent half the Bible telling people to change how we're doing things.