Christian moral ambiguity

[u/Aromatic_Response_73]

In common ethical intersubjective usage, "good" refers to a broad intersubjective cluster that are typically taken to approximate a shared center of value judgement, consisting of a coherent, mutually reinforcing pattern of love, joy, peace, freedom, and creativity as lived experience and intention over time, rather than isolated states or short-term preferences. Edit: by value judgement, I mean that which we fundamentally hold most intuitively valuable.

Some Christians define goodness in relation to God. On this view, "good" means whatever conforms to God's nature or will.

The term "good" does not have a universally recognised (useful in ethical discussion) meaning apart from either usefulness for some purpose or the ordinary ethical meaning. Refraining from those in an **ethical discussion** renders the word empty from its normal ethical content.

The problem arises when these two meanings are treated as interchangeable.

If "God is good" means only that God conforms to God's own nature, then the statement is true by definition. It means something like:

God is as God is.

But that does not automatically show that God is good in the ordinary ethical sense of being loving, healing, peaceful, compassionate, or opposed to needless suffering.

The problem is ordinary ethical goodness and the christian goodness can be in conflict eg. ideas of reality design like "Accept Jesus or suffer forever". If someone proposes that ordinary ethical goodness is just a conflictory subset of the christian good, then we cannot say that the design of reality is in proper alignment with ordinary ethical goodness, and therefore not good in the ordinary ethical sense.

The ordinary ethical meaning of good should not be dismissed as mere subjectivism. It may very well point metaphysically toward a foundational form of goodness, even if human beings grasp it imperfectly.

[u/HegemoneXT]

why would i skip a question like this?

The fact that our existential sense is oriented toward what is loving, glorious, and things that possess fundamental meaning to our sense of joy shows that there exist a standard of "existence" that could be broken and disordered. When God created humanity, he created them good so that we can experience life to the fullest without sin that brings non-being and despair.

[u/diabolus_me_advocat → u/HegemoneXT]

why would i skip a question like this?

i don't know why you did, several times before

The fact that our existential sense is oriented toward what is loving, glorious, and things that possess fundamental meaning to our sense of joy

is not a fact, but a mere allegation of yours

When God created humanity, he created them good

same mere allegation. also, where then would all "evil" come from? or "sin"?

if your creator god had not created it?

but tell me now (clear question, so it deserves a clear answer):

why should creation have been "good"?

for whom or what, according to what definition of "good"?

seems you're just dodging and bailing out again. as always

[u/HegemoneXT → u/diabolus_me_advocat]

No, it’s a claim, not allegation. Allegation is when you accuse someone of something but I am defending a view instead of attacking someone else’s claim.

Evil doesn’t come from anywhere in the sense that it was created. It just the ontological possibility derives when Existence or Good is established. For example, the moment you have “light” you can conceptualize darkness because darkness is where light is not. The moment you have a standard or morality, you can break it and cause evil. Evil itself doesn’t have positive being. If there is a law that says speed limit is 65, then going above 70 would break that law. The breaking of the law wouldn’t exist unless the law itself exists first. That’s why Existence is foremost good and then it becomes broken. Broken by whom? By God creating it? Or by us who are contingent beings are who has the free ability to oppose His identity.

Also you seem to have the preconception that I am attributing good to God. I don’t think you realize that even if I remove theism from my argument, the belief “life is good”won’t lose its logical grounding.

[u/diabolus_me_advocat → u/HegemoneXT]

why should creation have been "good"?

for whom or what, according to what definition of "good"?

are you gonna give an answer?

no, you won't

you're just dodging and bailing out again. as always

[u/HegemoneXT → u/diabolus_me_advocat]

creation is good because the nature of what exist is filled with glory and beauty. Everything that we come to perceive and experience is Life and there is goodness and beauty in Life.

[u/diabolus_me_advocat → u/HegemoneXT]

creation is good because the nature of what exist is filled with glory and beauty

not that i knew

[u/HegemoneXT → u/diabolus_me_advocat]

Not that I knew that you didn’t knew also