WHAT IS GOOD?

[Archangel__7]

But you do bring a valid question. How then can humanity recognize goodness when he sees it? The question appears to presume the Tabula Rasa theory-- that we're all born as "clean slates" devoid of any inherent knowledge. The Christian worldview, however, furnishes the philosophical justification for an intuitive sense of an imbalance of justice. But beyond this, how does one refine his intuition? This is a problem I think is well documented in the first book of the Bible. Note how many main characters seem to behave in ways that are apparently "sinful" and condemned later on. How do we account for this? Does this imply God condoned their acts one moment and condemned it the next? Herein we invoke a biblical principle, which goes like this: "To whom much is given, much is required." Applied to the Judeo-Christian theory of ethics, one is judged on the basis of what he or she knows to be true. The law of Moses was not given until after hundreds of years, and so yes, acts considered despicable today were done until that moment came. However thereafter, we see a very strict code of ethics employed upon the Hebrews. Many things in the Old Testament have been questioned as to their utility in practice... why did God forbid such a seemingly inane thing such as boiling a goat in its mother's milk? Or how about the mixing of different fabrics?

This has been the source of much derision for the believer, however I think it is this critical period that humanity was getting its first taste of the absolute nature of God's Holiness. The human race was simply not ready yet to grasp a greater concept of God's goodness beyond strict adherence to moral law, and without first appreciating the crushing weight of damage sin can bring.

One only need to observe the concept of Freedom to understand this. No other nation in the world prides itself on the notions of freedom, but as mentioned before, with freedom comes great responsibility. Freedom in its genuine expression does not grant us license to exercise full autonomy from moral restraint simply for "freedom's" sake. This sort of “freedom” becomes an illusion and merely engenders a tyranny by imprisonment of the conscience.

But why the harshness? Allow me to offer another illustration from past experience. I am currently serving as U.S. servicemember overseas. During my time in basic training, I was made to perform mundane yet stringently regulated tasks to complete perfection. Mediocrity often brought severe consequences, and the punishment never fit the crime. Folding towels in sharp angles... arranging socks in meticulous patterns...creasing underwear into perfect squares... Many questioned what possible use would any of this serve in the field!!

May I make a suggestion? Severity is often warranted when lives are at stake. Within the military, we well understand that a failure to follow instructions can lead to deadly consequences, and though at times our orders will make little sense to us, our limited perspective precludes our seeing the broader picture. In this light, it didn't matter that I had less than five hours' sleep in one week, or how many pushups I was made to do, how many miles I was made to run... it didn't matter that I wouldn't always understand why I would be made to perform seemingly menial tasks. Similarly, when eternity is at stake, God was willing to take the long route so that we would see from History the full meaning of His ultimate plan --to have a relationship with his creation-- and the inescapable consequences of deviating from that plan.

We see this same scenario played through the biblical history of humanity. Yet, they were failing miserably at adhering to the law faithfully. Contrary to what you've suggessted, we cannot acheive goodness simply by following his commands. The apostle Paul wrote of the Law in grave terms. It condemns us. No matter how much one tried, he could never achieve the perfection Holiness demanded. It has been said that the Law is like a mirror. It reveals to us that we're dirty, but we do not rub our face on the mirror to clean it! Thankfully, humanity was not left to languish in their failures alone. For the law served simply to indicate that there IS a moral law, and that we are powerless to keep it entirely. Mankind was about to learn that the guiding principle behind God's goodness is Love itself.

Now was the time to reveal not just the requirement of "holiness", but the intent of it. God's "goodness" was about to be revealed in a very understandable measure by His example, but it wasn't until at that point in time that mankind had developed the capacity to understand the gravity of what was about to take place. Without the historical understanding of sin and its consequences through the ages, Jesus’ sacrifice would have been seen as without value and meaningless. As mentioned before, The qualities and actions of what is good would now be most vividly demonstrated in the life and teaching of Jesus as he layed out by speech and example how one can identify with the true intent of goodness. As a result of God’s interaction with humanity, we have an observable example of what Characterizes "good" and its effects. For three years, he taught his disciples precious illuminations to their history and revealed a grander purpose in life than one of strict obedience. He set the moral standard on a higher plane, driving ethics from the highest motive - love itself. Ever since period, mankind never had a better demonstration of what "goodness" is.
To the church’s critics I would suggest they get their eyes off the shortcomings of institutions and people and history's dark spots. Level your scrutiny at the person of Christ, and you will see the One who demonstrates goodness very well. Pilate said of Him, "I find no fault in this man," The thief on the cross said, "We receive the due reward of our deeds, but this man has done nothing wrong." Jesus looked at His fiercest opponents and said, “Which one of you convinces me of any sin?" That last challenge could not have been made by any other religious leader, founder, or prophet. The sinfulness of each one of them is readily visible and undeniable. Jesus alone stands without moral blemish.

One final note and I'll close... Are there any indications that such "goodness" is even cross-culturally recognizable? What about people from other religions and systems of thought? It is so fascinating when you walk into Mahatma Gandhi’s home in Central India today... you'll see a huge absolutely stunning banner. On it is a quote by noted atheist Bertrand Russell:

"It is doubtful that the Mahatma's efforts would have succeeded, except he was appealing to the conscience of a Christianized people."

So those are the words of an atheist, referring to a pantheist, who appealed to a theist. Christ offers humanity an accounting for the highest pattern of virtue to be emulated by all who want to align themselves with what is good. "God is good" is often the simplest means of conveying volumes of teaching, for it's not merely a hollow descriptive statement, but a statement of metaphysical essence and substance. Therefore, because God literally IS good, good necessarily exists eternally. As a result, good existed even when there was no universe in existence.

[Added Question Below]

Corvus, I fully understand that we have a life beyond this message board, and that anyone else is welcome to offer a response as they desire. However, this writing has been outlined on the basis of our discussion hitherto. The question I want to ask then is does anyone have any disagreements on this issue they wish to bring forward?

[Quarkhead]

Do you have a question to debate? Sounds like you need a blog, man - if you want to start a debate, please pose a question. If you want to answer an already posed debate question, you may do so in the appropriate thread.

[Archangel__7]

Thanks!

Actually, this --along with the four other threads I started-- is a continuation of a discussion that began here.(Note the description below the thread title of this page).

Though they may well fall under the category of universal good and evil, My response would have just been much too monstrous for a single post...

[Added Comment Below]

Please note: My motive is not to try to bury my interlocutors in a sea of text; to have placed it into a singularly large post might surely have conveyed a more sinister intent that was never there. These are broad and equally weighty issues that have been raised, each deserving of their own thread to adequately focus our attention on a more manageable scale of content. Otherwise, it might have been much like trying to take a drink from a fire hydrant, as it were. Secondly, I think this allows us to deal with the relevant issues we wish to address rather than wading through all of them just to focus on the intended question we wish to pose.

Be that as it may, however, I recognize that does not grant me the legitimacy of moving beyond the established rules of decorum. Therefore, I've altered my writings to include a question of agreement at the end of each writing to satisfy the requirement, even if in a somewhat crude manner.

[Corvus]

It is for this reason that goodness can never be defined in mere human terms. So when one turns to God with an air of omniscience and demands why he doesn't stop "needless suffering", would we be out of line to ask such a person how he came to know that suffering is needless? I think even on an epicurean viewpoint, even one can appreciate that some pain is warranted for a greater good. But until we know for sure that isn't the case, we lack the philosophical legitimacy to call any suffering meaningless.

To which I ask that if it’s difficult to discern whether suffering is meaningful or meaningless, how are we to know whether to end it?

If goodness can never be defined in human terms, why are the relativists at fault? If one cannot define something, one cannot claim any moral high ground, and so the Christian is no less confused as the atheist.

But you do bring a valid question. How then can humanity recognize goodness when he sees it? The question appears to presume the Tabula Rasa theory-- that we're all born as "clean slates" devoid of any inherent knowledge.

No, not exactly. I don’t believe the blank slate theory. I do believe that our intuitions aren’t shaped towards good and evil, but seeking pleasure and avoiding suffering – that the development of any animal should incorporate these two things. The problem is that environment usually has far more power in shaping an individual than instinct has in controlling actions. The best example would be the disgrace at the prison in Iraq.

Let me say that studies have been undertaken in the US where two groups of college students simulated life in a prison. One group were the prisoners, the others were the gaolers. What eventually transpired follows the same pattern as we have seen in that particular prison (which probably has caused you some alarm as a member of the armed forces). In fact, those college students took pictures almost identical to the ones seen in every newspaper across the world. These sorts of studies had to be discontinued due to ethical reasons.

But I believe that where the balance of power is more or less equal, the collective influence of an instinct for self-preservation and gratification is what allows societies to work.

This is not an ethical system I am discussing here, but developmental psychology.

I do believe that the blank slate assumption is most frequently made when Christians argue against secular humanism. The assumption that the worth of a human cannot be recognised by a human unless an appeal to a higher being is made is one that most humanists, and I, find surprising and false. Why can't a natural miracle have the same value and command the same respect as a divine one?

Every morality systems begin with the inherent value of a human life. The Greeks theorised that this value was something that could be deduced by observation, or was known by instinct. Unfortunately they thought slavery was perfectly fine.

We see this same scenario played through the biblical history of humanity. Yet, they were failing miserably at adhering to the law faithfully. Contrary to what you've suggessted, we cannot acheive goodness simply by following his commands. The apostle Paul wrote of the Law in grave terms. It condemns us. No matter how much one tried, he could never achieve the perfection Holiness demanded. It has been said that the Law is like a mirror. It reveals to us that we're dirty, but we do not rub our face on the mirror to clean it! Thankfully, humanity was not left to languish in their failures alone. For the law served simply to indicate that there IS a moral law, and that we are powerless to keep it entirely. Mankind was about to learn that the guiding principle behind God's goodness is Love itself.

This is fascinating, but I doubt it’s a view shared by every Christian denomination, although I believe they acknowledge it in one way or another. Would you disagree if I suggested, with the abolition of slavery, women’s suffrage movements, and other similar equality movements only occurring fairly recently, this particular interpretation of the bible is also fairly recent one? (at least to the public) Furthermore, if these OT rules were all made in order to prepare for the true Truth, can they all be ignored? I believe Christianity has a severe identity crisis. It is torn between identifying with the severity of the OT writers and loud angry preachers like Paul and the pacific and loving nature of Jesus’ message, coupled with the influence of Hellenistic philosophy on the early church. Christianity today is the relatively inert core of a once highly reactive body, incorporating teachings and absorbing the philosophies that existed when it sprung into being.

I laugh every time I sit through a church ceremony because I see the ghost of old Rome and Her rituals.


No matter, I will deal with your beliefs.

In a different topic, you address the failings of a completely self-serving philosophy. Would you disagree if I said that selfless love, in some forms, can be just as dangerous? Ignoring the fact that if everyone was selfless, the self could be lost, I will present a hypothetical situation.

You no longer are completely in love with your girlfriend. She is a girl with many problems, and has an obsessive and impulsive nature that you find difficult to bear. But you remain in this relationship even though the romantic love you feel for her has dwindled and only platonic feelings remain. You cannot break the relationship because, with her obsessive nature, you fear she will probably do something you will regret, like suicide. So, in short, is this a good relationship? Is a selfless lie, selfless reassurance at the expense of the truth and to the benefit of saving a life, truly worth it? Yes, perhaps, but it’s not goodness, is it?

One of my novel projects that is gestating deals with altruism gone awry. This is where I get the situation from.

Therefore, because God literally IS good, good necessarily exists eternally. As a result, good existed even when there was no universe in existence.

But if the principle behind God’s goodness is love, then his goodness only exists with the necessary component of other beings. Love, in any form, must have an object. So God is essentially reliant on the existence of its creation in order to be good.

But basing love as the principle behind an ethics system is no different from basing one on man as a unit of worth.

Excuse me if this seems bold or offensive, but if you are a soldier (I may be mistaken as you may be an army surgeon) do you feel that you are following God's principle or seeking to imitate the character of God in your occupation?

[noreason]

What is good? The state of satisfaction after the fulfillment of an aim.

some examples.
The game was a good game(i am satisfied my emotional aim is achieved).
You did good work(i am satisfied in your work).
God has been good to me(i have this feeling of satisfaction of what just happened. Some aim must have been achieved)



In truth, not lies. If I am a good man that would mean I am of standard or satisfaction. I hope this will help you.

[Nameless]

"The assassination was a good one." Successful!

Peoples notion of 'good', I've found, are most often tied to their personal comfort levels. Hardly universal!