My Argument

[the_proletariat]

Try to find a hole in it, please.

A sin is something that goes against the will of God. Therefore, if God wants to do something, or wants something to happen (or not happen) it can not be a sin since it is within the will of God. That is why God can not sin, and that is why holiness (being free from sin) is such an integral part of God. It would

Comments

[ducey_the_jew]

Ockham beleived much the same thing, saying that god did not choose his laws because they were virtuos, but the laws he chose were virtuous because they were chosen by god. Oh, and I found a hole. Jesus isn't god. Nah, just kidding I'll play by the rules of the argument. Hmmm. As god jesus couldn't do those things, and there the argument falls apart. God is incorruptible, and so if he was so corrupted it would stand to reason not that the laws of god had changed, for they are perfect and would in no circumstances need to change, but it would rather prove that he wasn't god. If we accept god as incorruptible, the only thing which he could be held accountable to would be his own laws already in place, and so by that same token he can not disobey them. That is part of his integral being by our dogma.

[the_proletariat]

Well, let's just look at the first part of the argument. My point is that God can do as he wishes, lie cheat steal murder, whatever. It is all holy actions in the end.

You say that God is incorruptible. However, what is the standard of corruptness? At what point does God go from being just to being corrupt? God has a history of bending his own rules:

God asks Abraham to sacrifice Isaac.(Genesis 23)*

God rewards a prostitute for lying. (Joshua Chapter 2, and Chapter 6 verse 23)*

God accepts a human sacrifice. (Judges Chapter 11 verses 30-40)*

*All of my scriptural references are out of a Christian Catholic Bible. I do not know whether Judaism organizes the books differently (and I'd guess it does). In any case, I hope you recognize the passages anyway.

[ducey_the_jew]

The abraham thing is in there, the other two are Christian Dogma, and so I willl ignore it. Aw Hell, I don't beleive any of that organized religious bilge anyhow, so why not play the Devil's Advocate completely. I guess what we have to assume is that any action god does that goes against the laws which he set down for man will eventually be for the greater good of man (as they would have to be for an omnibenevolent deity to perform them). Otherwise he might allow more suffering merely to appease the sense of fairness in mankind. So yes, god can do whatever he wills (according to the dogma of western religion) but it would be for the greater good of man in the end. There can be no argument on that. An omnibenevolent being could not do something for any other reason than being benevolent.

[the_proletariat]

Is that so? I was under the impression that Joshua and Judges... and the rest of the Old Testament for that matter were Jewish texts. I know they're not part of the Torah, but I thought they still played some role.