Siteadmin, Check users, nsTeam1RO, nsTeam1RW, nsTeam1_talkRO, nsTeam1_talkRW, oversight, Administrators
30,650
edits
Changes
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Line 2:
Line 2: + + + +
some additional ideas, but not debating or arguing; looks like you've already hit the nail on the head
:I think I've got a solution. The Bible says, ''"In the beginning, the Word was with God and the Word '''was''' God."'' In other words, moral law doesn't control God, and God doesn't control moral law, God is moral law, and therefore defines it. Does this seem like a viable solution? [[User:DavidBG|David]] <sup>[[User talk:DavidBG|Talk]]</sup> 16:20, 2 November 2010 (EDT)
:I think I've got a solution. The Bible says, ''"In the beginning, the Word was with God and the Word '''was''' God."'' In other words, moral law doesn't control God, and God doesn't control moral law, God is moral law, and therefore defines it. Does this seem like a viable solution? [[User:DavidBG|David]] <sup>[[User talk:DavidBG|Talk]]</sup> 16:20, 2 November 2010 (EDT)
::Good question, but I think it's a false dilemma. [[Unificationism]] defines good and evil in terms of benifits (or harm) to other people. It's good to benefit another person, and especially noble to do so self-sacrificially: "Greater love hath no man than to lay down his life for ..." While evil would be to exploit another person for one's own benefit.
::Moreover, God has willed us (human beings) to lead a good life, as conceived by Him for our benefit and his delight (see Gen. 1:28). --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] <sup>[[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]]</sup> 17:16, 2 November 2010 (EDT)