(March 18, 2013 at 3:56 pm)Drich Wrote: Because they do not understand the relationship with absolute righteousness and man's morality. The brothers who have difficulty trying to discern God's expressed will with any 'moral standard' credits that brand of morality for more than what it is worth. That is why God deals in absolute righteousness, as it sides with God each and every time. Absolute Righteousness makes the unchanging God the authority/standard and not whatever pop culture deems is right and wrong.Their confusion is understandable, though, isn't it? They are expected to accept --and even defend-- some very disturbing deeds as being righteous because the one who committed or commissioned them is exempt from moral judgment. It also means that they cannot have full faith in god. If any of his actions are righteous, and he has shown a willingness to take action that men would deem immoral, what stops him from betraying his followers? To do so would not be wrong, as this is not possible for god. Arbitrarily damning a loyal follower would be the righteous course, by definition.
Drich Wrote:Again, no. For that is what this life is all about. The judgement of God. In that do you want to spend an eternity with Him or eternally seperated from Him?Well, based on what I just wrote, I'm not sure I'd have that choice. What if I've led a fairly immoral life and wronged others, but god decides that I'll get into heaven anyway? His action would be righteous. What if I've led an exemplary life and served god faithfully, and he decides, oh I dunno... to let the devil wipe out my possessions, murder my children, afflict me with an awful sickness, cause my wife to advise suicide, and my trusted friends to rub my face in the dirt? And what if I remain loyal, expecting that a just and kind god would explain my plight, only to have him lecture me on how small and insignificant I am, a verbal lashing that forces me to apologize for my arrogance? His actions would be righteous.
I'm thinking that I might be better off eternally separated from him. There's some consistency in that.
"Well, evolution is a theory. It is also a fact. And facts and theories are different things, not rungs in a hierarchy of increasing certainty. Facts are the world's data. Theories are structures of ideas that explain and interpret facts. Facts don't go away when scientists debate rival theories to explain them. Einstein's theory of gravitation replaced Newton's in this century, but apples didn't suspend themselves in midair, pending the outcome. And humans evolved from ape- like ancestors whether they did so by Darwin's proposed mechanism or by some other yet to be discovered."
-Stephen Jay Gould
-Stephen Jay Gould