A question that was first presented by Socrates.

quote:

---

If that is your answer, what do you think prevents god from changing its mind... or is it entirely possible that it will change its mind and today's evil could be tomorrow's good?

---

It is possible that God could change his mind, but that doesn't entirely get to the conclusions that Socrates was trying to reach. The question is really where do morals come from. Do they rest entirely with the Godhead, or does the Godhead relay these morals to humans from another source? And the ultimate question, if these morals are separate from God what prevents man from distinguishing these morals as well without God's help?The story of Adam and Eve in the Garden seems to address this problem. After eating of the Tree of Knowledge, God says something to the effect "Now they know what We know". It seems to indicate that Man knows of morality from the same source that God derived his knowledge of morality. Theologically, this doesn't prevent God being necessary to guide man through morality, but it doesn't prevent man from relying on God for knowledge of right and wrong.So it would seem to me that Man does know right from wrong, according to christian theology, but needs God for guidance. It is not Good or Bad because God says so, but rather we are incapable of being perfectly Good without help.This message has been edited by Loudmouth, 09-23-2004 02:35 PM

quote:

---

In other words, what you are saying is that "the good" is entirely seperate from god. Am I right?

---

Heheh, I guess my posts can get a little wordy at times. Yeah, the good is separate from God according to christian theology, at least from my readings.I am a little sketchy on the details, but there was an early christian movement called gnosticism. Their beliefs were tied into this idea to the point of only looking at scripture as mere guidlines. They believed that knowledge was directly accessible, a more drastic theology than what most modern christians accept. You can still find a few gnostics still practicing, but they are few and far between, mostly in Greece if I remember correctly. Many of Pauls writings seemed to focus on discrediting this early movement, saying that only through God can one have complete knowledge of God and morality. It has been 12 years since I took a New Testament class, so I may have a few details wrong.

quote:

---

Actually it creates a problem. If it is true that when man gains access to the true good, he comes to an OPPOSITE conclusion than what God had been telling them (with regard to how they should live), then how can God be the transmitter of good?

---

From Genesis 3:5 "For God knows that when you eat of it your eyes will be opened, and you will be like God, knowing good and evil."And the serpent seems to be correct:Genesis 3:22 And the LORD God said, "The man has now become like one of us, knowing good and evil. He must not be allowed to reach out his hand and take also from the tree of life and eat, and live forever."It would seem to me that man does know good from evil. However, according to theology, man lacks the knowledge to appropriately apply these concepts. Also, man still has to be guided in his relationship with God, which would seem to be separate from knowing good and evil. It is a fine line, I will grant you that, between knowing good and evil and BEING good.Also, it is the tree of knowledge of good and evil, not the tree of all knowledge. Therefore, man would not carry away the knowledge to make themselves immortal flesh. And again, this is my understanding of christian theology, not necessarily my opinion on the reality of morals. I myself believe that basic morality, those ethics that every culture shares, are ingrained into each person. An instinctual moral code, so to speak. However, there are morals that not every culture shares and those seem to be memetic, an ethos passed down from generation to generation.

quote:

---

So if nakedness was bad, why had God made and kept them in that condition? Doesn't that set a dichotomy between Good and good?

---

Actually, I don't see a problem here. Nakedness is not wrong, but feeling shame about one's nakedness and doing nothing about it is wrong. Before they ate of the fruit they did not feel shame and therefore it was not wrong. I think this is a model of how we sense morality. If we feel shameful about a certain act then most likely it is a sin. This gives christians a "sin" barometer, if you will. When making decisions about what is right or wrong christians are to look inward and listen to what their sense of morality is telling them.

quote:

---

Him that is wicked, in times past God has visited those sins upon him. Oh if only they had only hearkened unto God's commandments, then their peace would have been as a river.

---

To tell you the truth Mike, I have always had a problem with this. Here in the states there is a silly little saying, "What Would Jesus Do?" Well, it appears that if we are to follow His Father that we are to smite our enemies with utter disregard. If it is right to destroy those who do not follow God's Word, then shouldn't the church be sending soldiers instead of missionaries. I know that the New Covenant changed things, but the switch from a vengeful God to a forgiving Intercessor almost looks like an admission of guilt.