Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.1 6/24/83; site utcsstat.UUCP
Path: utzoo!utcsstat!laura
From: laura@utcsstat.UUCP (Laura Creighton)
Newsgroups: net.religion
Subject: Re: Premises for the morals of God
Message-ID: <1669@utcsstat.UUCP>
Date: Mon, 16-Jan-84 17:03:18 EST
Article-I.D.: utcsstat.1669
Posted: Mon Jan 16 17:03:18 1984
Date-Received: Mon, 16-Jan-84 17:21:42 EST
References: <491@ihuxn.UUCP>
Organization: U. of Toronto, Canada
Lines: 40

Ed, this isn't going to work. this may be a position that David Norris
would like to see Tim and I heading for, but we are too smart for that.

Look -- assume that there is only one God, and it is the Biblical one.
now  -- assume that God is good, by definition.

Therefore the killing of the Midianites are good by definition, and the
argument ends.

*BUT* -- I know that the killing of the Middianites was not good.
	 Therefore my definition of good is independent of the Biblical God.
	 Therefore, this is my God (even if I don't choose to call it that,
	 which I don't because most people think of the old guy with the
	 beard and the throne in the clouds) as in the most fundamental thing
	 around. "The Good" if you will.

This is implicit in any arguing I could do about the "morality of Yahweh".
What I would need to be shown to demonstrate the I should worship Yahweh is
that He/She/It is Good. If there is an equivalence relation then I am fine.
If killing the Middianites is actually good, then I am justified in worshipping
Yahweh. But I do not think that this can be done. You can all try to convince
me of this.

What you cannot do is say that I have to accept that God is good when I 
accept the Bible for the purpose of argument. This will not wash, unless
you can tell me that there is come way in which I must be constrained to
do this. If you do this, then you will have changed the original premise
of the argument from my point of view, and I will have to say that I cannot
accept the Bible, even for the purpose of argument, in that sense. However,
I can accept the Bible as a valid historical document for the purpose of
argument.

I think that among other things, David Norris is trying to demonstrate
that God is good, by justifying his action. In short, he is trying to
make me see that constraint. If he can convince me that God is good, then
he wins the argument. But he is going to have to work harder at it,
because he hasn't got me believing it yet...

Laura Creighton
utzoo!utcsstat!laura