Actually, no. God can't have done it because it was good, since the only comparison for whether it was good or not is whether God has done it. God can't consult some external chart to see if killing the tribe is 'good'.
But if the definition of good used runs along lines such a good = pours from God's nature, good = what God does, God = what God wills/wants, etc. then there is surely no problem with the self-referencing? There would be no need to reference and external chart if, by definition, what God does is good.
Suppose we insert the appropriate version of the definition (good = Gods will) into the sentence posited earlier.
"God killed the tribe because it was his will".
God killing because he wanted to (as opposed to his being cornered into it, killing by mistake, killing by act of omission, etc) is a reason. We can't tell whether that reason was a whimsical one or not from this sentence. We can only say it is good. Per definition.
-
Most people get a little uneasy with morality being defined by the whims of another. I say it again - if you don't feel that this is a problem then you won't feel the dilemma. If you are comfortable with 'just following orders' kind of amorolism then it won't bother you at all.
There are all kinds of standards we can hang our hats one. God's is but one and I haven't yet seen how his standard can be considered whimsical (given that the 'or' option in your original tribe killing condundrum hasn't yet been rendered). And if not choosing his standard you'll inevitably choose 'the whims of another'. We're all in the same boat in that regard: we choose what standard of good to hang our hats on. Ultimately, your standard of good is your own - taken no doubt from the menu of options laid before you.
God's standard vs. your own personal one (that happens to agree with both God's standard and others peoples standard in places)
I don't have to follow God's orders btw - indeed my not doing so won't even result in my damnation. I
choose to try to follow his lead because I find his standard the best of all - and not at all consisting of his condoning rape, murder etc. as contortedly supposed in thread.
-
I'm not using one. I'm asking you about yours.
Fair enough, the above lays it out in some respects. I ask for your definition of good because I don't know what to insert when you speak of good/morality etc. Without a definition I can only insert a blank into the space.
-
But why is God prepared to tolerate sin for only so long? Is it because doing so is good? Or is doing so good because God does so?
We have seen that all God does is good per definition.
-
I still don't understand the dilemma - which appears (silently) to set what God finds good against what mankind generally finds good.
That's only one element.
An element which raises no dilemma.
-
The other is that it turns god into a whimsical being that doesn't do something because it is xxxx, but just because it wants to and we are all obliged to be yes-men about it.
Lacking a definition for what you mean by 'good' I can't make head nor tail of this sentence. I've already pointed out that whimsy need not be behind Gods actions.
You are not obliged to be a yes-man. You can also say No!. A No! answer (finally) attracts certain consequences.. as does a Yes! answer (God being entitled to attach consequences to our choices - indeed choice wouldn't be choice without them).
There's little point in objecting "but if we say No! we'll go to Hell" given that Hell is but a consequence of the No! choice. You are not obliged to finally answer No! btw.
So; Hell is a consequence effectively chosen by you - should you choose to continue saying No! I cannot see how one can object to receiving the consequences of one's choice.
-
Edited by iano, : No reason given.
Edited by iano, : No reason given.
Edited by iano, : No reason given.
Edited by iano, : No reason given.
Edited by iano, : No reason given.
™ Version 4.2
