Euthypro Dilemna

I thought I had escaped the condundrum by inserting the notion "aka". The original conundrum asks "how do you know what God does is good?". The answer is; "what God does" is aka "good". That's how I know. But we're not dealing with Chumbra, Rhumbra or even Chrumba. We're dealing with eg: God (a person) expressing (a concept we all understand) wrath (another concept we understand) against (in opposition to, contra) evil (evil=that which opposes God's will).Those ingredients, not at all Mumbo Chumbro, are aka 'good'- His nature, I am supposing. His nature seems to oppose that which is contra his nature. Like a positive wave tending to cancel a negative one. Our own idea of good seems to follow suit. Because we love children we hate that which is anti-loving children. We hate paedophilia thus. What motivates our doing as we do regarding paedophilia? Our natures, it seems (in the case we hate paedophilia)- By 'right' you presumably mean 'good'. But if we insert good as an 'aka' then we are left with "God does thing because they are the things he does". Which I suppose is the case - but it doesn't tell us anything useful.

Which leaves us with a different dilemma.The word good is meaningless outside the meaning attached to the words used to describe and define "good". Good becomes a shorthand symbol for that longer definition. But all the words used to describe and define good are themselves only shorthand symbols for longer definitions made up of yet more words. As far as language goes then, it’s either turtles all the way down without end. Or we end up with self-referencing definitions. Or we realise that words are elements of language that have no meaning - outside the physical/spiritual occurances to which they are attached.So at some point, there wasn’t a word for the physical occurance whereby a tear drop ran down a face (or a word for teardrop or a word for face). And at some subsequent point, the word crying was attached to that physical occurance. Crying has no meaning outside the physical occurance and it’s prime meaning isn’t the other words used to define it, the prime meaning is the physical occurance itself.Similarily, we are supposing, the word ‘good’ was attached to the flavour associated with Gods’ actions, with the physical occurance and flavour of Gods actions being the primary means of attaching meaning to the word ‘good’ - not other words such as "action" and "flavour".AKA "good" should be seen in that light.- That wasn’t really what I meant (although wanting to do things strikes me as the only reason anyone does anything at root - whatever the source of their want happens to be)I said that he is motivated by his nature. Well, if an aspect of God’s nature is love then that will form motivation for what he does - given that the nature of a nature tends towards self expression.Outside of that, you only appear to be asking why is God the way God is.- Gods definition seems a good one. I am what I am. We can go on to apply more words to expand on this but you can’t get more succinct than this when dealing with the source of everything.- Morally wrong is merely another way of describing ‘evil’ (from my perspective). God doesn’t hate evil because it’s evil (which would be circular). He hates evil because it is his nature to hate that which is contra-Gods will.There is a "because" involved in your case due to the fact that your position is a derivative of his. You hate because God hates. That this connection goes through various currency exhanges which appear to dissociate you from God doesn't alter that being the case.God hates because that is his nature. You share his nature. Therefore you hate. And you call the reason "morally wrong". But the title change doesn't alter the source of your hatred.- Because, like I say, it is his nature. God is love and loves because of that. God is wrath against that which is contra-God. And so he expresses wrath. God is creative, and so he creates. He says of himself I am that which I am
Which doesn’t leave a whole lot to say about that which might lie upstream of that statement. Which is what you’d expect when you arrive at the source.

The top of the previous post to Modulous above should address this. If "the flavour of Gods doings" is defined by the word "good" then the problem lies in your dilemmas set up (which doesn't accept this definition: a problem for you, not me.)Indeed, there is a certain flaw pervading all your posting in this matter - having to do with insisting on your definition of good as a way of countering mine. Watch for it here.- According to the general flow of language, there appears to be no objecting to the notion that some word or other is inserted as a shorter way of expressing that made up by a longer string of words. "good" as a way of expressing the action of God above was Gods choice, it seems.It wouldn't matter if he had chosen 'zog' instead of 'good'. In that case, God expressing wrath again evil would be a "zog" thing to do.- Who am I to judge God? And would my deciding to erect a standard against which to judge him matter a jot? I'm subject to him. Not him to me.And given that he is the source of everthing (even evil, in the once step removed manner of creating a free will) how could we manage to erect a standard to judge other than he would judge himself. Without being mistaken I mean?- Remember that what I think of as moral doesn't differ with what God says is moral. There is no me as a human/me as a Christian divide. Whilst you are correct to say that I am confined to doing as God says (assuming it is him doing the telling) you are free to do whatever you like whilst calling it moral. Which extends to eating your children if you like..Who's to argue with you - other folk who happen to disagree with your view on morality. I think not. - Good has taken on a meaning equating to words like "positive", "beneficial", "feels nice" etc. In other words, "goodness" is something experienced along the lines indicated by those words. And so we say what God does is good because we experience his actions in that way - even if at times the goodness of his actions is masked by apparent unpleasantness (in the case of his disciplining us)Edited by iano, : No reason given.

Because language is completely circular - you only have to follow it along long enough to find yourself back where you started - it became necessary to step outside it in order to convey my position. I'll post the core of my last post here as a reminder of what we're working off.

quote:

---

Similarily, we are supposing, the word ‘good’ was attached to the flavour associated with Gods’ actions, with the physical occurance and flavour of Gods actions being the primary means of attaching meaning to the word ‘good’ - not other words such as "action" and "flavour".

​

AKA "good" should be seen in that light.

---

- Okay, but we already have an overarching principle derived from the above 'aka'. We might describe it as "the flavour of that which God does or approves of when it's us doing it". No comment necessary at this stage, I'm just bearing what has already been said in mind.- But aren't we just in the same position as we were with language? Good derived this way is (without Gods imprimateur) ultimately circular or else turtles all the way down. There are all these loose ends too: what makes people happy is a measure of goodness - whereas we recognise that very often what's good for us might not make us happy at that moment.And it's not that we haven't an adequate working basis for deciding on good anyway - the aka above being relatively clear and simple. My head isn't as clear as I'd like it to be so forgive me if I'm not seeing your point outright.- But that isn't my argument — at least, one could easily misconstrue my argument from that set up. My argument is founded upon the notion that good is aka God's will. And so loving your neighbour is good — simply due to good aka Gods will.
I think much of the problem in understanding what I’m saying arises from the fact that the word good is automatically tied to connotations - connotations much philosophised over to boot. If you do free the word from all those connotations however (and merely see it as a symbol representing something else), then you'll see no flaw in the "argument" at the start of the paragraph. It's not even an argument to be honest - it's simply English.
- You might be striking out here without me, Mod. I’ve simply gotten to the point where we have a tag which attaches to what Gods will/what the flavour of God/what the motivation of God is. And that tag is good. It jumps the gun a bit to rush straight to moral philosophies and the like. For example:
To the question why should you love your neighbour? I would first attach a rider: are you a believer or are you an unbeliever. The answer to each kind of person would be dramatically different. Clearly the believers sense of good stems from their accepting the Father definition so why they should love their neighbour is clear enough. For the unbeliever though? Well, I wouldn’t say they should love their neighbour or not love their neighbour. I would say they should do as they feel fit — whatever they do is entered into the mix determining whether or not they are saved. If they love their neighbour - yet are damned — their good won’t count for anything. If they do evil — yet are saved — their evil won’t count for anything.
You can see that good fits into a larger piece of machinery which isn’t necessarily connected to moral philosophy. And certainly I wouldn’t say you should love your neighbour because otherwise negative consequences will occur. Everybody is born hell bound — loving their neighbour or no. In the case of sinners? But one central reason: to enable them to conclude for themselves that they cannot love their neighbours. Not all of the time. And because man has been programmed with a sense of what’s right and what’s wrong (again, just words — to which attach yet more words - which connect finally, to real, physical/spiritual occurances: guilt, shame, clear conscience, peace, etc), his lawbreaking will induce pain. And pain is God’s way of telling man that there is something up with him. Something amiss. Something not quite right. That pain is utilised in bringing a man back to God. It's an aid to his salvationAs to justification? God is our creator, he is entitled to our obedience. That he gave us the choice not to be obedient doesn't alter our obligation in that regard.

Not if you stop right there you can't. But the intention wasn't that we stop there, it was to (begin to) indicate why there is no dilemma.We have seen that the word "good" is considered, in the very first instance, to be a symbol attached by God to a particular flavour. To his flavour and his flavour only (a flavour appears to be the most useful device to go forth with, given that this is how people invariably experience the essence of goodness - the descriptive words defining goodness not being goodness itself).As far as practical application goes? All that needs doing now (given the above) is to cite examples of what God finds good (ie: that to which his flavour attachs when he does it, or when that of him in us expresses itself in our actions). You now have your practical examples: the flavours we call kindness, selflessness, fairness, patience, love, etc. All 'good' - all of God.- The argument isn't so much circular as it is terminal. Goodness (as we experience it) stems from Gods nature. That's the essence and it requires no explanation (eg: as to why God is the way he is). After that, there is only acceptance of that standard of good or no - if you want to tell whether an action is good or not. For the one who believes, there is clearly no dilemma - they have arrived at the terminus.I expressed myself poorly when I said that good could not be arrived at through non-God-terminating philosophy. Clearly it can - it'd just wouldn't be the 'good' as defined by God.- Okay. Sorry. Let's have a look- The only dilemma I can see here (given the working basis of 'good' being applied) is; "what is Gods will on the matter?". If you knew that then you'd know what the good thing to do was. Now that might mean the patient suffering for a longer period than would be the case where euthanisia invoked. Suffering, it must be noted however, is a tool employed (though not necessarily powered) by God in the salvation of lost sinners, the sanctification of found sinners and the punishment/discipline of all sinners.God permitting suffering shouldn't automatically be seen in as a negative thing.For the believer there is a route to a decision (that is less complex than the heavy-gauge philosophical/emotional/legislative/medical/etc discussion that the secular world attaches to the issue of euthanasia) and so the dilemma can be resolved for the believer by seeking out God's will in the matter.It's worth remembering too that God sees the heart and isn't at all a legalist in this (or any other) matter. An unbelievers heartfelt compassion for the suffering of a loved one - love that would perhaps risk jail - rather than let the suffering continue - is a different motivation to the cold calculating move to wrest an inheritance from a wealthy aunt. Indeed, God being the source of our loving is the driving force for our love-motivated action. He's hardly likely to consider that which he motivates and drives out of his goodness as anything but good.- Don't you understand that the essence is an attribute. And that that attribute of God has a particular flavour and that that flavour goes under a particular name. When there is no further distilling down possible, when all you're left with is an experiential flavour, then you have arrived as the essence. No?Perhaps you could explain what problems cannot be solved from this starting point.- We already have what good actually is, expressed in various ways: an attribute of God, the flavour of God's doings, the flavour of your doings when they are in alignment with Gods will and so forth. It's possible to pick one or other formulation to apply to the specific matter of whether or not a particular action is good. We do this by comparing to the standard. For example, we can reference the law of God (and the spirit in which it is given)The only issue I can see is failure to accept 'good' in the manner defined. Which is a matter of belief - a separate thing.- Better said: it depends on your position before God.An unbeliever doing 'the morally correct thing' doesn't occur out of an act of his own will (I'd hold). And so no credit accrues to the unbeliever for doing so ("all your righteousness are as filthy rags" it is said of such 'work'). Instead, their will (considered to be capable of only that which offends God - if left only to it's own devices) remained silent in the face of Gods effort (expressed via the power of conscience) and so the morally correct thing was done via the unbeliever - by God's power/will.The reason for the moral good is the same in both cases; God's will exercised through the person. Knowingly, in the case of the believer, unknowingly in the case of the unbeliever.- Congruency? The believer has been translated from the kingdom of darkness to the kingdom of God. And a war rages between those two kingdoms. It wouldn't strike me as congruent for a believer to wage war against his own side. No, to fight against one's own side would be illogical, irrational..Stepping back a step: the believer has surrendered his will to the will of the father in the process of becoming a believer. And so God takes up residence within the believer "to will and to act according to His good (oops) purpose". This doesn't mean automaton-territory but it does mean an urging from God to progress in a certain direction with blessing possible and discipline possible. Harmony and peace come when your will is aligned with God as a believer. And these things are pleasant/positive. Discipline, on the other hand, isn't pleasant.There are other things I can think of but I suppose the ultimate reason has to do with the believer partaking of the divine nature, i.e. becoming divine themselves (which is, incidently, God's loves goal w.r.t. humankind. His desire is to make us like-order with him, to make us his children). Because the believer has become divine-in-waiting and because his divinity infuses them, things shift with regards to your question. The shift tends away from a question: "why should I?". For that question suggests a looking to some or other external source for guidance/justification/rationale for our acting morally. Because the believer partakes of the divine, the should element of the question dissolves away and the answer becomes:"I (also) AM - that's why I love my neighbour"The moral realm is a Fall-based realm (morality; a knowledge of good and evil came in at that point), one in which the believer has no further citizenship (although they still reside here temporarily). There is no "should" about the reasons why the divine does good. Goodness is, as we have seen, part of the divine nature.- . Then the above must be also. Oh well..- Folk have this drive installed in them - that is the why behind their trying - whenever they try. It's their failing that assists in their salvation (in the case they are saved) or their damnation (in the case they are lost. Their failure is the result of their own wills expressoion.As to why such a thing is God's will? I can think of a few reasons having to do with Gods general providence and care, and in the larger scheme regarind his plan of salvation:- God loves us - all of us - with a passion. Our not loving our neighbours hurts our neighbours and thus God('s love). And so God wills as he does.- He wills it of us because that which is in alignment with God can have harmony with God and God's love wants that harmony to be established- Ultimately? As mentioned already, he wills us to be like him, to be like order with him. Him as father, us as children (adopted). He is selfless and so wills that we be selfless as a reflection of that like-orderedness.- The original question had to do with God's justification for imploring us to love our neighbour.There's a rationale (rather than justification) given above for him imploring so (having to do with a) what's appropriate for sons of God to be doing or b)bringing unbelievers to be sons of his). The justification for his demanding that we love our neighbours has to do with his being Sovereign, desiring things to be a certain way and having the right to demand that they be that way.- God is inherently relational ("let us make man in our image and likeness") and by nature is selfless and meek (testified to by his dying for us). And selflessness is the very essence of love (agape). Whilst having no objection to our building a house of seashells, his purposes involving us have a high level. And that level has to do with, as I say, conversion from what we are now (sinners, imperfect, fallen) into holy, whole, pure sons of God - or not. His command issued to us isn't at all passive - it is issued with motive power that we experience as an aspiration, a drive, an urge ...to be good. And it's our failing to achieve that aspiration, our failure to respond to that urge that will hopefully lead us to the only solution God has for our dilemma."The law is a schoolteacher to lead you to Christ"Why "love thy neighbour?" Because we can't love our neighbour. We can't because we are unholy (anti-the divine nature) and as long as we remain unholy we cannot be God's sons. And the offer: become a son of God (or not) is the object of God's plan regarding all of mankind. Instructing us to build houses of seashells couldn't possibly inform us that we are unholy. Instructing us to be holy can."The law (or more precisely, you're inability to obey it) is a schoolteacher to lead you to Christ"Edited by iano, : No reason given.Edited by iano, : No reason given.Edited by iano, : No reason given.Edited by iano, : No reason given.

Unsurprisingly.It wasn't given in an attempt to explain why it is good to do as God commands. It was given as part of the reason why God commands us to love our neighbour (in the context of explaining the mechanism of salvation).- It is inarguably a good thing (at least, I've not seen any argument yet that circumvents it being a good thing) given that the definition of good being utilised by me is "the particular flavour eminating from that which God does, commands, thinks,..etc". By that definition, following Gods commands (which instruct goodness - by definition) cannot be anything but good.You'll note that there is no reference anywhere in this definition to our opinion having anything to say on the issue.- I seem to have circumvented the supposed dilemma through my choice of definition. "Good" is but the name given to a flavour and that flavour happens to eminate from God. By definition, it's good if God says so.After that, I appear to be left only with objections from folk who have other definitions of good which disagree with this one. Or who pose non-sense questions (in the light of the definition above) such as "but how do you know it's good?"- God's view on what is good and evil doesn't appear to change. So I'm not inclined to suppose his standard arbitrary or unreliable. It is his standard however. And you are free to disagree with it and do what you find good (contrary to his labelling it otherwise)- I see no problem attaching particular consequences onto particular behaviours. If you are intent on having folk operate in fashion x then attaching negative consequences onto behaviour y strikes me as a reasonable thing to do.- The issue of goodness is merely one of definition - with my definition releasing me from the clutches of the OP's supposed dilemma.Proving things like Gods existance isn't on the agenda in this thread - we suppose God exists for the sake of argument.As to his rights? Well, assuming for the sake of argument he exists, we can conclude we are his property. And unless he has given us some rights (which would allow us to do what we see fit - irrespective of what he says to the contrary) I can see no reason for supposing we have them. Talk of the "inalienable rights of sentient creatures" sounds very grand. But from whence did that mouthful come? And on which foundation is such a notion built. I can only see turtles the whole way down..- That's fightin' talk. Perhaps you could do a bit more reflection on your first question though - and come back with an answer that's other than fightin' talk? Something more rational perhaps?Theologically speaking we haven't free will btw. Adam had and lost it when he fell. He became a captive, an addict, a slave to... sin. We sin because we are sinners - not because we have free will and chose to do so.Edited by iano, : No reason given.

I don't understand this Modulous.You've already understood (you say) the position that 'good' is merely a word-symbol assigned by God to describe the flavour His will has. You'd agree God's will will have a particular flavour and you'll agree there is no problem assigning a symbol ('good') to represent that flavour. In that case, there should be no posing of the question above: "what makes a thing good" is dealt with "what Gods will is". They are one and the same.Why does God's will have the flavour it has? - perhaps that's what your asking? I can only suggest it arises from his nature. He is what he is - flavour and all.- Precisely. That's how an a.k.a. works!- Failing insight into your definition of good I can't but agree.Hopefully I've resolved the euthanasia dilemma from my perspective. "What's God's will" is all I need enquire after to arrive at what's good.- There's not much profit in following this tack, Mod. The issue isn't the possible dilemma involved in arriving at what God's will is - each believer has access to the Father and can avail of that access in arriving at a conclusion and so can potentially escape that dilemma in that fashion.The issue to hand is the supposed Euthypro Dilemma.- Clearly not necessarily - according to our aka. The measure of goodness is the degree of actual alignment of ones actions with Gods will - not merely believing that your actions align with God's will. If the belief regarding the actuality of Gods will matches the actually of God's will then you're in business - whether you're Hitler or anyone else. If not, then clearly not - according to our aka.The earnestness of a belief contrary to God's will translates into earnest alignment with the will of satan (the other influence in the scheme of things). A person is culpable for that which they sign up for, so Hitler (if we're supposing his earnest beliefs contrary to Gods will) is in deep trouble on this one.If our intention is God-powered (I said previously) then it is good - irrespective of what the world thinks of it. And I gave an example of this in the case of euthanasia - where "the world" might consider permitting extended suffering a morally "bad" thing.- As an unbeliever? I'm not sure it matters all that much where you look. What will happen is that a decision(s) WILL be made one way or the other. And that decision will be guided by your God-given conscience/God influenced others in your life .. and/or your Sin/Satan influenced nature. And God will see the precise make up of the resulting motivation (which will likely involve a mix of God/Sin influence).- As a believer? I've no idea - I'd imagine I'd have to be in the situation to be driven to find out Gods will in the matter. When it comes to killing, I don't suppose God's will to forbid all killing in all circumstance. If the issue was selfishness however then I'd be confident I could say what God's will was.My point here wasn't so much that God wills us to pick his side (in the sense of browbeating us). Rather, he leaves us to the pressure applied by the principle of congruency. We can decide to be incongruent if we like (which we frequently are, given that Christians sin all the time), in which case we suffer the disharmony that arises whilst threading an incongruent path.-BTW. Did you like that returning-from-whence-we-started w.r.t. your question: "why should a believer love his neighbour?" I found it neat that the 'should' element of the question looses relevancy due to the believer becoming divine. It just occurred to me whilst writing it and it ties in nicely with the concept of goodness promoted in this thread. It ties in nicely to to the idea that there will be a 'time' for the believer when there will be no more need for morality (which involve access to both good and evil). The believer won't be able to chose to do evil anymore.Edited by iano, : No reason given.Edited by iano, : No reason given.Edited by iano, : No reason given.

Sorry that I missed your post - I'm sure what you say is due a response. I'll try to get back to it tomorrow okay? I'm interested in seeing what this circle I'm stuck in is..

We do?How can the God of Christianity (who grants salvation to men as a gift and by no other means) be the same as the god of Islam (who grants salvation to men as a reward for work done)?(I'd agree the worship-rationale of the Christian will be markedly different from that of the muslim. The above is a clue as to why that might be.)

...that's off topic. The topic has to do with a dilemma the believer (a Christian in this case) is supposedly faced with. That dilemma hasn't to do with what God finds good vs. what mans finds good.- The passage you quote talks of both man and woman who engage in consentual adulterous sex (for such is implied in the passage) being subject to the penalty of death. There is nothing in the NT that indicates that the eternal destination for such people will be any different. Death - lasting for all eternity - it shall be.God hasn't changed his opinion in this regard whether the person be a man or a woman.

The internal state of someone who is operating contrary to God (whilst believing they are acting in accordance with God) is addressed in two ways.a) It is not God they are believing. They might be believing in a false view of the Abrahamic God (as per Judaism or Islam). Or they might be believing in a false god of another name.b) they are doing evil whilst believing they are doing good. A person arrives at this point when their conscience (that which provides a knowledge of good and evil - as per God's view) isn't operating/operating effectively. With nothing left to guide them to Gods' good they are at the mercy of Satan (who can entice them to believe all sorts)- From the above, yes. Conscience is suppressible. And with repeated suppression, it's still, soft voice can be silenced. Sincerity of wrongdoing follows. But the culpability remains with the person for bringing themselves to that state: like a drunk driver imbibing of that which will later have him act irresponsibly and taking to the wheel. He can't blame the drink that caused him to act so.- If the person isn't a believer I'm not sure they'd give a hoot what God's will is. When it comes to believers, sure there's disagreement. But I don't see how it matters very much in the heel of the hunt - it's the individual Christian who gets to stand before God and give an account of their actions and views, not a committee who happen to come to a consensus on the matter.- That's all very fine and dandy - were it not for the fact that you can't attach these principles to anything concrete. Call what you call good 'good' if you like. Without concrete moorings you're as much at sea as you suppose I am.There is no absolute resolution of this debate - short of your death or Christs return.- Objective? My firm conviction is that the same non-concrete moorings will attach to such findings (should they ever be found) as attach to these objective principles of yours above. God's/Satans influence manifests in the physical at some point (it would be held) so little wonder that a physical 'cause' be identified for good/evil behaviour.- When you're supposing a hierarchy of personhood along the lines Spirit > Mind > Body then the "mainstream" won't have reason to find room for anything. The room is already there and cannot be filled.- You'll forgive me if I don't find this supposed objectivity anything but bootstrap by nature.

Christians too can believe they are acting according to the will of God when they are not. They do sin, afterall.Non-Christians can certainly act in accordance with Gods will (all men have a God-given guide called 'conscience').- I haven't made a founded argument. I'm merely stating the Christian position.- The above comment applies here too: a position stated (not "well founded") for the purposes of extracting from you (or anyone else) what the dilemma for ME is supposed to be. That you don't believe and have no access to that which permits me to hold the position that I do is not a dilemma for ME.That's the topic here.- There are a lot of different opinions on what constitutes "most desirable". Rendering such a thing purely subjective. Which puts you in the same boat as you suppose I'm in.Listen Otto, there doesn't seem much point in progressing in this vein, the topic isn't about proving Christianity true. As I say, only death will add concrete to either of our positions (although when it comes to your position, you'll never know whether it was true or false )- You'd accept that if God exists as commonly understood then there would be no problem with him making his existance known to a person? Such would render objections such as "how do you know it's God and not a delusion" objections void.In which case, the potential exists that the entity God isn't imaginary. And so the debate will never close. Not this side of death/Christs return.It's back to topic henceforth, okay? The Supposed Euthypro Dilemma and how it can be attached to a Christian.

God instructed so for a particular people at a particular time for a particular reason. And that is fine with me: I understand Gods aim and rational. God has changed tack and now hands men over to their sin; for a particular time for a particular reason. This too I find fine; I understand God's aim and rational.I'm not in favour of the death penalty for adultery. Man hasn't been, I don't think, given permission by God to act so.- I can't say I agree. There is a particular order in the relationship between men and woman as designated by God. That order does involve mans headship over a woman but I'd understand the problems that have arisen with that to derive from mans sinfulness - not from the order so set up.Women are told to submit to their husbands headship. And much affront is taken by women (and fair minded men) from that. What you never see quoted however is the instruction given to men in that same passage "sacrifice yourselves for your wives". This doesn't mean throw yourself in front of an oncoming truck. It means laying down your entire self-centred approach to life to serve your wife. As one woman in my Bible study quipped when we discussed this Ephesians passage recently "it wouldn't be hard to submit to a man like that"Edited by iano, : No reason given.

That's hardly the case. Rather than plumping for "god's will" I've suggested something along the lines of "the flavour of God's doings (whether by him or through us because we're made in his image and likeness" We could have gone on to discuss what those doings are (for we would find wide ranging agreement on the flavour associated with doings such as kindness, patience, justice, etc).Suffice to say that that discussion would be secondary to the supposed dilemma of the OP.- God willing you to love your neighbour (in the sense of having that notion delivered to you with power-to-effect-that-result (ie: conscience) places you in the position of choice. Your sin-loving nature can do one of two things in response to this "ought to". It can have it's own, anti-God way (which involves suppressing the suggestion as to what you ought to do so as to clear the way for what your sin-nature would have you do). Or your will can remain unexpressed in the face of conscience. In which case you will do what you "ought to do". You do it because of the power supplied by conscience (God's power if you like).The war is between your (contra-God) will and God's will. Your choices (involving compliance with his will or suppression of his will and expression of your own) are the blows struck in that war. It's not that ambigious. If you want to know what good is then look at God's will of you: that you be kind, loving, patient, generous, selfless. Not that that's the point really - the point is that you can't be good. Not all of the time - or anything like it. Edited by iano, : No reason given.

What is the point of the laws of nature if not "no point" - according to your naturalistic view. Yet there they are. Perhaps it would help if you were to see goodness (the flavour of God) in the same light - pointless until such time as God decides to assign a point to it. Until then God is simply as God is - without there needing to be a point to his being the way he is.That said, one point of goodness has already been furnished you: it's use as a tool in the setting up of choice for us. Which will we love: God's flavour or the flavour of anti-God? The point of furnishing choice having to do with whether we are to become son's of God or not.Perhaps your post will counter this application of "love thy neighbour" later on. We'll see.- That different people have different moralities is neither here nor there: all men have a knowledge of good and evil (as defined by God) and all men suppress that knowledge in this way and that and to this degree and that as it suits them. And so you end up with different 'moralities' (or different degrees of departure from the absolute standard which men are given knowledge of). What men will be judged against is the knowledge supplied them - not the morality they have made up for themselves (whether individually or by consensus)You might begin to appreciate that it's not all that relevant that you can classify good and evil (as God sees it) so as to be able to look at any particular action (yours or others) so as to decide whether it sits on this side or that side of Gods will. There are so many influences to be taken into account before you can extract that element of the action involving a mans own heart alone. That's the bit that God is interested in. That's the bit for which you will be judged. Truly, only God could carry out the distillation process to arrive at mans heart.But to give an indication along the lines you're looking for:Goodness (God-style) has at it's source, love. Love in this case being that which is selfless (agape). If a man's action (or element thereof) has this as it's motivation then that element of the action would be considered good (even if other non-selfless motivations drove other elements of the same action). Selflessness is the central property attaching to the biblical God's view of goodness. And so we can say that meekness, servitude, humility are subsets of the overarching notion called 'good'. I'm sure you can add your own examples to this- Attributes given above. The why has to do with God's nature. He simply has that flavour s'all. There's no more reason to ask why he's omnipotent as ask why his flavour is the way it is. God is love (selfless)- Assuming you accept that at some point you must expect to come up against a brick wall ("I AM what I AM") then hopefully the attribute given will prove an assistance to progressing the discussion.- God demanding that you obtain to his standard of good will result in one of two things. Either;- you'll be convinced that you can't obtain to God's standard (don't worry too much how this manifests in practice to an as-yet-unbeliever) in which case you'll be faced with no option but to seek God's salvation. You will then be saved and God's loving desire regarding you (that you become a son of his) will be accomplished.- you'll suppress God's attempt to convince you that you can't obtain to his standard and so won't meet that standard. And so you will be justly condemned for the wilful evil you have carried out. In which case God's wrathful desire concerning you and your wilful sin will be satisfied.A result satisfying to God in both cases.If God demanded that you hate your neighbour (by, for example, removing the constraint of conscience and leaving you to your capable-of-only-evil-only will) then you could neither be saved nor condemned. Not saved because you aren't righteous. And not damned because you had no option but to do that which God finds objectionable. Which would kind of miss the point of the exercise: that you get to chose whether to be a child of God or not.- Expressing you're will independently from God involves suppressing God's will regarding what you do. That isn't good. And penalties attach to that - eventually to be paid in full. It is good (obviously ) that God permitted you the potential to act contra his will - for it made possible for God's will to be done with regard to a greater goal. That he would have son's of God. In other words, without the potential that created beings turn finally from God, there could be no potential that created beings (some at least) turning to God and so becoming sons.Consider it permitting the temporary existance of evil in order to achieve a greater good. With the temporary evil itself being cancelled out by the suitable punishement being executed at some point - cancelling it out as it were. Which is also good*.And so all that remains is good.-* The general sense we have that evil be punished = good (leaving aside the problem of who's standard we apply) arises from our being made in God's image and likeness: his will is, in a sense, installed in us via conscience. And there is this general sense that what constitutes evil is, (as indicated earlier if comparing with good), that which involves greed, selfishness, pride. Edited by iano, : No reason given.Edited by iano, : No reason given.Edited by iano, : No reason given.