|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 Posted: Mon Feb 14, 2005 5:04 pm
First off, we will start with the assumption that there is a god, the second assumption will be that this god defined good.
Now, with those two assumptions comes this question; is it good because god thinks it is good, or does god think it is good because it is good?
|
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Tue Feb 15, 2005 7:24 am
it can be both.
god can make a thing that is intrinsically good, so it is then good in otself and also because of God's action.
that's kind of how i read the first creation tale in Genesis.
then we get to human reason; can we judge the inherent value of things using our own intellect alone or must we rely upon some external authority?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Tue Feb 15, 2005 11:57 am
I say its good because god thinks its good. God thought the world was created that it was good, and since we don't know any different about what other options there were for god to make, its good. If that even makes any sense. sweatdrop
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Fri Feb 18, 2005 4:35 pm
matter of opioin. people have freewill, and this means we can make all our own choices. i left the christian church because they tried to make some for me. good intentions, but the road to hell is paved with those.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Fri Feb 18, 2005 4:49 pm
Schildkrote matter of opioin. people have freewill, and this means we can make all our own choices. i left the christian church because they tried to make some for me. good intentions, but the road to hell is paved with those. ((I never to hear the phrase "good intentions" ever again, it has ruined my life.)) Getting on with the topic, Why does everyone see things as simply good or bad anyway? More "things" are neutral than youd think. Nothing is pure good or evil. I dont much like it when people label it that way. They do it to help the general public understand, although it only confuses others. They simply had good intentions ((see, it haunts me)).
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Fri Feb 18, 2005 6:24 pm
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Fri Feb 18, 2005 6:25 pm
i agree that many things are neutral.
i always used to try to seek our God's will, like what courses should i take, how should i look, all kinds of things large and small.
finally i realized that except for a few crucial decisions, god wants me to use my own good judgment, the mind i was born with.
if a choice is not obviously evil, it's probably permissable. it may not be the best choice ever, but it's okay.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Fri Feb 25, 2005 2:29 am
hmm..
i think its good because (someone.. not necessarily God but most likely) says it is... if you cut off a being from the world.. it will not know what the difference is between good or bad unless it is taught... lets say, by its mother... therefore, to that being, this is good/bad because 'my mother said so' or because 'my mother said god(or maybe the devil) said so' ...
depends on the 'teachers' point of view on what is good in contrast to what is good in the eye of society... (which is most likely the 'god is good' option).. meaning, a child can be taught something is good but in the eyes of the society it may be considered evil... but to that child it is still good...(unless, however, its opinion is altered by the influence of the society)
my explaination isnt completely organized or very well thought out how i wanted to present it (which is common with me) sweatdrop ... so lets just say i go with the whole 'god is good' opinion... 3nodding
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Mon Feb 28, 2005 6:33 am
But good and evil cannot exist.
Each side has it's own story... each side belives the opposite to be evil and itself to be good. In reality, we just do what we think is the best thing to do at the moment. We all make misjudgments and mistakes. What benefits some people will be detrimental to the lives of others, and it doesn't matter how good it seems, this will always hold true.
The only thing that could be totally good is something that helps someone and hurts no one. Likewise, the only thing that could ever be totally evil is something that hurts someone and helps absolutely no one. But that cannot happen. This is why according to my own philosophy, extremes always breed chaos, and middle ground and compromise is always the best path to take.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sat Mar 05, 2005 3:27 pm
Since God created everything, in my opinion only actions can be termed good or bad.Objects are nuetural. God termed good in bad (in the most general terms) as good being what benifits others, and bad what hurts others or leads to moral degridation. So, God must have decided what was good and bad, since God created everything, He gave us the means to choose whether to be "good" or "bad."
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Tue Mar 08, 2005 11:44 am
wow...that's one way to confuse the heck outta me sweatdrop
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Tue Mar 08, 2005 1:06 pm
Schildkrote matter of opioin. people have freewill, and this means we can make all our own choices. i left the christian church because they tried to make some for me. good intentions, but the road to hell is paved with those. Yes and no. It is both a matter of opinion and not a matter of opinion. Working with the assumption that there is a god, who will get involved with our lives, if it deems so necessary, meaning that freewill is nonexistent for us, because, when god deems it necessary, it will interfere with our lives and force us to do what it wants; thus, no freewill. (we have a thread for freewill, entitled freewill or destiny, we can debate the existence of freewill there). Secondly, we are also working with the assumption that god defined good and bad. Now, is it good because god thinks it is good, or is it good because it is good? Allow me to rephrase the question this way, you see something that is in line with your definition of good, now, is that thing good because you think it is good, or is it good because it is good?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Wed Mar 09, 2005 7:17 am
because you think it is, you believe its good. a murderer thinks what he does is right, but so does the cop that arrests him. so whos right? i think the cop, but this mans family will probably think he was framed or justified in what he did, and think the murderer was right. its all a matter of opinion.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Wed Mar 09, 2005 7:25 pm
Schildkrote because you think it is, you believe its good. a murderer thinks what he does is right, but so does the cop that arrests him. so whos right? i think the cop, but this mans family will probably think he was framed or justified in what he did, and think the murderer was right. its all a matter of opinion. does the murderer really think he does the right thing? i doubt that. usually they are just a-moral; they don't think about or care about questions of right or wong. terrorists would be an exception.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Wed Mar 09, 2005 9:46 pm
chessiejo Schildkrote because you think it is, you believe its good. a murderer thinks what he does is right, but so does the cop that arrests him. so whos right? i think the cop, but this mans family will probably think he was framed or justified in what he did, and think the murderer was right. its all a matter of opinion. does the murderer really think he does the right thing? i doubt that. usually they are just a-moral; they don't think about or care about questions of right or wong. terrorists would be an exception. But how can one judge what is amoral? Is amoral simply that which does not follow our morals? Moreover, how does one define morals, do we realize that they are subjectve ideals, because as of yet they have yet to be proven true/false, or do we set up a form of morals for society to follow? If we choose the latter, who chooses the morals, and why do they get to choose?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Reply
