ECT Is God Moral?

[Cross Reference]

I find the title offensive and irreverent, do not wish to read whatever "mentality" is behind it. There are better ways to ask if sinful people have a right view of God. To my mind, you don't ask if God is moral, and I stand on that view. You do as you wish, just don't expect to drag everybody with you, because the primary difference between you and I is that I am not you. The question, itself, is offensive to me. Period. It's even a poll, in judgment of God: you don't do this.

It's just more message board irreverent vileness, of no fear of God. In addition, it's a subtle device of tares to impugn the character of God, and this goes clear back to Satan in the Garden of Eden, the same sort of evil question. If you can look at everything going on here and see much real Christianity, I'd advise you walk away for a good long while and learn about your Holy God, that He's not some football for vain disputing and other vile foolishness that goes on here, everyday.

Amen!! On all accounts! Preach it, Brother!

 

[TIPlatypus]

Could you say that God created a moral standard at the beginning (that is not a predefined set of rules necessarily) and has since stuck to it and will always be consistent with it.

 

[Clete]

Could you say that God created a moral standard at the beginning (that is not a predefined set of rules necessarily) and has since stuck to it and will always be consistent with it.

No.

Saying such a thing would render God arbitrary (amoral).

 

[Clete]

I find the title offensive and irreverent, do not wish to read whatever "mentality" is behind it.

You then are a fool, by definition.

Why, after reading this single sentence should I give a rat's fart about anything you have to say at all?

Get off my thread!

I wouldn't want to burden you with it, fool!

 

[WonderfulLordJesus]

You then are a fool, by definition.

Why, after reading this single sentence should I give a rat's fart about anything you have to say at all?

Get off my thread!

I wouldn't want to burden you with it, fool!

Showing a bit too much fang there? That's pretty clear. So, are you planning on dying a tare, or think maybe you'll get saved at some point? In any event, thank you for helping to illustrate and affirm my point as to your true mentality. You really need to work on your anger management issues and angel of light gig.

Matthew 5:22 But I say unto you, That whosoever is angry with his brother without a cause shall be in danger of the judgment: and whosoever shall say to his brother, Raca, shall be in danger of the council: but whosoever shall say, Thou fool, shall be in danger of hell fire.

 

[WonderfulLordJesus]

Amen!! On all accounts! Preach it, Brother!

Thanks! Just telling it like it is, even getting help from the cubit zirconias around here. It's better than visiting the circus!

 

[Cross Reference]

Thanks! Just telling it like it is, even getting help from the cubit zirconias around here. It's better than visiting the circus!

I believe how you put it should be a "headsup" for the unlearned nominal Christians here and a warning to those who are in agreement; those not crucified with Christ Jesus who wish to protect their rights of themselves, irrespective of any anointed reasoning presented them.

"Heresy in method may be as deadly as heresy of message" A.W. Tozer.

 

[WonderfulLordJesus]

I believe how you put it should be a "headsup" for the unlearned nominal Christians here and a warning to those who are in agreement; those not crucified with Christ Jesus who wish to protect their rights of themselves, irrespective of any anointed reasoning presented them.

"Heresy in method may be as deadly as heresy of message" A.W. Tozer.

You sometimes see things you have a rebuke for worth pursuing, but you can't expect much from a message board. It's the devil's playground. Lord willing, we can help some newer Christian, but we must not ever forget the power of God. The Holy Spirit will guide the true Christian. I believe all the monkey business from tares accomplishes a whole lot of nothing, deceivers deceiving each other, but never deceiving the true child of God, for long. We know the truth when we see and hear it. All the continual disputing is nowhere, for this reason. We don't sort these things out, rather the Lord does, by His Spirit, in the true Christian. It's not a proper perspective to take these things so seriously as to endlessly dispute with them, as trolls will be trolls. This is what they want! Not only are they doing the devil's work, they have sociopathic issues they vent online, some severely ill. I've never seen a Christian once give up truth over anything some web tare has ever said. They are only legends in their own minds, wasting their own time.

2 Timothy 3:13 But evil men and seducers shall wax worse and worse, deceiving, and being deceived.

 

[Desert Reign]

This discussion us interesting but ultimately pointless.

Do right and wrong exist independently of God? If yes, who or what created a moral code that God is subject to? If yes, there exists something that God did not creat and exists outside His control.

If no then if God were anything than He is, how would we ever know? We are His creation and we know right and wrong because God determined what is right and what is wrong. If God had decided that right and wrong were something different then we would only know that different moral code.

I believe that Gid determines good and evil. As the creator of everything, God is inherently moral. It is impossible for him to be otherwise.

If God had decided that burning houses was great instead of building houses, then he would be immoral, not moral. And being immoral would be great for us too. But it would still be immoral, not moral. And yet you just said that it would be impossible for him to be otherwise. If you know this (that it is impossible for him to be otherwise) how do you know it, when you just said that if God were anything different you would not know it? Your position sounds good but when I look at the actual words you use, it falls apart.

You don't understand your own argument.

Thanks for saying that.

If burning houses is always wrong but God decides it's right, then morality exists independently of God. Do you believe this to be the case?

However, I wasn't making 'my own argument'. I was responding to your own argument, which I quoted above. Your own argument was utterly self-contradictory because in the same post you said

If no then if God were anything than He is, how would we ever know?

but then you went on to say

As the creator of everything, God is inherently moral. It is impossible for him to be otherwise.

From not knowing whether God is moral or immoral, you leap to being certain that he is moral. And by criticising my supposed 'own argument' you have avoided dealing with the contradiction in your own argument. But don't worry, your atittude is very Biblical: didn't Jesus say something like 'When your neighbour points out a plank in your own eye, be sure to make a big fuss about the splinter in your neighbour's eye and then you won't have to sort out your own plank'?

Would you ask the same question if the hypothetical "burning houses" was replaced with "sexually assaulting children", something we know is always wrong no matter what the context?

Quite. Though I chose the less contentious example in the hope people would see it as synechdoche. So that would avoid any particular discussion about burning houses.

This is false! It's just flatly false! If God declared the immoral to be righteous, it wouldn't work! God cannot do the irrational! He could no more declare the immoral to be righteous than He could make perfect spheres with sharp edges. Its a contradiction. Contradictions do not exist. Contradictions CANNOT exist. If God were to attempt to declare the immoral to be righteous, all that would happen is that God would become immoral, regardless of whether He called it that or not.

I am glad you agree. The Gospel would be compromised otherwise. And like I said to CM, if God decided tomorrow that burning houses was great, it would be great for us too but it would still be immoral.

Quite right! As I said in my last post, just because someone has some broken code of morality that declares God to be unrighteous, doesn't mean He actually is. But how do you escape the trap of rendering God arbitrary? In other words, if right and wrong are defined by God's decree, then how is it not a tautology to say that God is good? What I've presented in the opening post is the closest thing to an answer to that question that I've ever been exposed to.

One of the problems I have noticed in this discussion is the dual meaning of moral.
1) Acting righteously
2) Having the capacity to make right and wrong actions.
In the second sense, Man became a moral being after he ate from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil. In another post you explicitly avoided getting into specific rules that define moral and immoral. And the poll question came with a note from you that a surprising number of people would answer no to the question because God is God and he cannot be judged. Which implies meaning 2. For the sake of the poll question, 1) implies 2), but 2) does not imply 1). I do think though, that by asserting that sexually assaulting children is absolutely wrong in every situation, you have started going against your own principle of not trying to establish an absolute rule for moral and immoral conduct.

I find the title offensive and irreverent, do not wish to read whatever "mentality" is behind it. There are better ways to ask if sinful people have a right view of God. To my mind, you don't ask if God is moral, and I stand on that view. You do as you wish, just don't expect to drag everybody with you, because the primary difference between you and I is that I am not you. The question, itself, is offensive to me. Period. It's even a poll, in judgment of God: you don't do this.

It's just more message board irreverent vileness, of no fear of God. In addition, it's a subtle device of tares to impugn the character of God, and this goes clear back to Satan in the Garden of Eden, the same sort of evil question. If you can look at everything going on here and see much real Christianity, I'd advise you walk away for a good long while and learn about your Holy God, that He's not some football for vain disputing and other vile foolishness that goes on here, everyday.

The Lord Jesus is indeed wonderful. It is a shame I cannot say the same of you. If you don't like the thread, go somewhere else.

Could you say that God created a moral standard at the beginning (that is not a predefined set of rules necessarily) and has since stuck to it and will always be consistent with it.

You could say that. But why does God need any moral standard that he remains consistent with? Surely God is perfectly righteous in his character and being and would always know in any situation how to act righteously, without having to refer back to a set of rules or standards he thought of previously?

Lon,

It does sound like we are mostly, if not entirely in agreement on this issue. Whether someone calls God good or not is not what determines whether He is in fact good.

One thing that has been the source of some confusion when I've presented this in the past is the fact that I'm not making any sort of argument about what the specifics of a correct moral code would include. I'm not, for example, making any effort to defend the notion that lying is immoral or that private property rights are a good idea or whatever. I am simply and only presenting what I believe to be a rationally sound path by which we can say that God is good without uttering a meaningless tautology.

See my above comments. But it seems to me that you have already determined what the basic code for goodness is, following Ayn Rand. So in a sense you are imposing your own standard on God. Not that I have too much beef with it as a standard, but there are other possible standards that could just as easily contend with Ayn Rand's as a principle for determining morality.

I am a little busy these days so I am not going to respond to any more posts until I set out my own presuppositions leading to a view of morality that breaks out of the Euthyphro dilemma.

 

[Cross Reference]

You sometimes see things you have a rebuke for worth pursuing, but you can't expect much from a message board. It's the devil's playground. Lord willing, we can help some newer Christian, but we must not ever forget the power of God. The Holy Spirit will guide the true Christian. I believe all the monkey business from tares accomplishes a whole lot of nothing, deceivers deceiving each other, but never deceiving the true child of God, for long. We know the truth when we see and hear it. All the continual disputing is nowhere, for this reason. We don't sort these things out, rather the Lord does, by His Spirit, in the true Christian. It's not a proper perspective to take these things so seriously as to endlessly dispute with them, as trolls will be trolls. This is what they want! Not only are they doing the devil's work, they have sociopathic issues they vent online, some severely ill. I've never seen a Christian once give up truth over anything some web tare has ever said. They are only legends in their own minds, wasting their own time.

2 Timothy 3:13 But evil men and seducers shall wax worse and worse, deceiving, and being deceived.

Yes. I recognized that along time ago. However, having said that, it has been somewhat of a rewarding learning experience for me inasmuch as it has challenged me to express what I know to be the truth of the Bible, all of it, to own it while being open to rectification as needed. Finding words of expression hasn't been easy for me because I must find the words for doing so. God has been faithful in teaching me and revealing my error to me. Coupled with that is the caution that much misunderstanding, lack of understanding and purposed ignorance would be forthcoming from those outside the camp. Handling that has not been easy as well but has been a lesson. As a result, I have been enriched for being a help in other spiritual situations in which I otherwise would not have had words nor disposition. . . . So it is that to God belongs all the glory even though I am still a work in progress!
. . . .

 

[CabinetMaker]

Thanks for saying that.

However, I wasn't making 'my own argument'. I was responding to your own argument, which I quoted above. Your own argument was utterly self-contradictory because in the same post you said

but then you went on to say
From not knowing whether God is moral or immoral, you leap to being certain that he is moral. And by criticising my supposed 'own argument' you have avoided dealing with the contradiction in your own argument. But don't worry, your atittude is very Biblical: didn't Jesus say something like 'When your neighbour points out a plank in your own eye, be sure to make a big fuss about the splinter in your neighbour's eye and then you won't have to sort out your own plank'?

And you completely failed to understand what I said. I presented two possibilities; morals exist independently of God or God is the source of morals. I then explored some implications of either position. I then stated what I belive about God and morals. There is nothing inherently contradictory in what I said.

 

[WonderfulLordJesus]

Yes. I recognized that along time ago. However, having said that, it has been somewhat of a rewarding learning experience for me inasmuch as it has challenged me to express what I know to be the truth of the Bible, all of it, to own it while being open to rectification as needed. Finding words of expression hasn't been easy for me because I must find the words for doing so. God has been faithful in teaching me and revealing my error to me. Coupled with that is the caution that much misunderstanding, lack of understanding and purposed ignorance would be forthcoming from those outside the camp. Handling that has not been easy as well but has been a lesson. As a result, I have been enriched for being a help in other spiritual situations in which I otherwise would not have had words nor disposition. . . . So it is that to God belongs all the glory even though I am still a work in progress!
. . . .

Same here, one thing the web has helped with defending truths, at least I, seldom had to defend against attack. Christians aren't doing this in any body of believers I've known in the real world. There's an apparent unanimity in the Reformed Christian community I've always been a part of, tares not having a pulpit. In fact, I've never seen the junk on message boards in real life. But it has also pointed out, to me, that, like that real life community, you present the truth to the unsaved and leave it there, don't argue back and forth over it. Truth is accepted, or rejected. You can try to persuade, but, in the final analysis, you aren't going to debate somebody into salvation, who's obstinate in their error. What I see on the web is the opposite of spiritual seeking, the false not seeking truth, rather seeking to suck others into error, or a lot of derailed blabbering of amateur philosophers who spend too much time on crackpot websites. What they don't understand, and couldn't, is that you can't really suck in a true Christian of any maturity. It's not possible, all a wasted effort. Most of what goes on here is a whole lot to do over nothing, people who enjoy listening to themselves, more than anything else, narcissists and sociopaths of no real congregation, trolling. But we works in progress? You know it! The Lord be with you.

1 Timothy 6

1 Let as many servants as are under the yoke count their own masters worthy of all honour, that the name of God and his doctrine be not blasphemed.
2 And they that have believing masters, let them not despise them, because they are brethren; but rather do them service, because they are faithful and beloved, partakers of the benefit. These things teach and exhort.
3 If any man teach otherwise, and consent not to wholesome words, even the words of our Lord Jesus Christ, and to the doctrine which is according to godliness;
4 He is proud, knowing nothing, but doting about questions and strifes of words, whereof cometh envy, strife, railings, evil surmisings,
5 Perverse disputings of men of corrupt minds, and destitute of the truth, supposing that gain is godliness: from such withdraw thyself.

2 Timothy 3

1 This know also, that in the last days perilous times shall come.
2 For men shall be lovers of their own selves, covetous, boasters, proud, blasphemers, disobedient to parents, unthankful, unholy,
3 Without natural affection, trucebreakers, false accusers, incontinent, fierce, despisers of those that are good,
4 Traitors, heady, highminded, lovers of pleasures more than lovers of God;
5 Having a form of godliness, but denying the power thereof: from such turn away.

 

[Cross Reference]

Same here, one thing the web has helped with defending truths, at least I, seldom had to defend against attack. Christians aren't doing this in any body of believers I've known in the real world. There's an apparent unanimity in the Reformed Christian community I've always been a part of, tares not having a pulpit. In fact, I've never seen the junk on message boards in real life. But it has also pointed out, to me, that, like that real life community, you present the truth to the unsaved and leave it there, don't argue back and forth over it. Truth is accepted, or rejected. You can try to persuade, but, in the final analysis, you aren't going to debate somebody into salvation, who's obstinate in their error. What I see on the web is the opposite of spiritual seeking, the false not seeking truth, rather seeking to suck others into error, or a lot of derailed blabbering of amateur philosophers who spend too much time on crackpot websites. What they don't understand, and couldn't, is that you can't really suck in a true Christian of any maturity. It's not possible, all a wasted effort. Most of what goes on here is a whole lot to do over nothing, people who enjoy listening to themselves, more than anything else, narcissists and sociopaths of no real congregation, trolling. But we works in progress? You know it! The Lord be with you.

1 Timothy 6

1 Let as many servants as are under the yoke count their own masters worthy of all honour, that the name of God and his doctrine be not blasphemed.
2 And they that have believing masters, let them not despise them, because they are brethren; but rather do them service, because they are faithful and beloved, partakers of the benefit. These things teach and exhort.
3 If any man teach otherwise, and consent not to wholesome words, even the words of our Lord Jesus Christ, and to the doctrine which is according to godliness;
4 He is proud, knowing nothing, but doting about questions and strifes of words, whereof cometh envy, strife, railings, evil surmisings,
5 Perverse disputings of men of corrupt minds, and destitute of the truth, supposing that gain is godliness: from such withdraw thyself.

2 Timothy 3

1 This know also, that in the last days perilous times shall come.
2 For men shall be lovers of their own selves, covetous, boasters, proud, blasphemers, disobedient to parents, unthankful, unholy,
3 Without natural affection, trucebreakers, false accusers, incontinent, fierce, despisers of those that are good,
4 Traitors, heady, highminded, lovers of pleasures more than lovers of God;
5 Having a form of godliness, but denying the power thereof: from such turn away.

Amen! I have not seen it to be otherwise. I especially wonder at it all when the many forums on the internet are mostly owned by those of an intolerant subjective Reformed Christian persuasion. TOL being somewhat of an acceptation. Objective Spiritual perspectives aside from their own, made so by an "easy believism" an thus unable to get beyond the issue redemption and unto the reason of "so great salvation" are, prohibited. To believe for more in their thinking is either to be labeled heretical or at the least an attempt at persuading to salvation by works theology which, sooner than later, works itself around to them declaring it all, heresy. For such a time as this in the land, it is to be pitied and yet a time for brothers to be thankful.

 

[TIPlatypus]

You could say that. But why does God need any moral standard that he remains consistent with? Surely God is perfectly righteous in his character and being and would always know in any situation how to act righteously, without having to refer back to a set of rules or standards he thought of previously?

I did not say that God has a set of rules he follows. If God is perfectly righteous, then he has a moral standard, a perfectly good moral standard. But God could have created righteousness along with the rest of the world.

 

[Cross Reference]

I did not say that God has a set of rules he follows. If God is perfectly righteous, then he has a moral standard, a perfectly good moral standard. But God could have created righteousness along with the rest of the world.

Righteousness was the creator.

 

[Desert Reign]

I promised earlier that I would offer my own view of why God is moral.
However, I've written (or begun to write) my response in my own Big Picture thread. Links below, cick on the blue buttons. Feel free to comment here or in my thread.

Hi All, again.
In this post, I am going to try to answer Clete's question 'Is God Moral?'

OK, so I will try to answer two basic questions.
1. Why is it that some actions can be judged in terms of morality? Why do we think it right to judge actions at all?
2. When we make such judgements, where do we get the criteria to use for them? Answering this question also answers a related question: why do we perceive certain actions as intrinsically right or wrong? In other words why do some actions speak for themselves as to their rightness or wrongness?

 

[7djengo7]

Thought-provoking post. Glad to see the Gordon H. Clark/John W. Robbins reference, too.

Yes. God is moral.

The way I see it, if God were not moral, then who (or what) is (or could be) moral? And, were nobody, nor anything, moral, I can't see how it could ever be meaningful to say 'x is moral'--nor even how it could be meaningful to say 'x is not moral', or (in other words) 'x is immoral'. I take it that something has to be moral for something else to be immoral--although, I don't take it that, just because something is moral, something else has to be immoral.

God is real, therefore God is rational, therefore God is moral!

I agree that God is real, and that God is rational, and that God is moral. But I have a bit of difficulty with the "therefore"s, here. For, is not Satan real, also? Yet, who'd be willing to say "[Satan] is real, therefore [Satan] is rational, therefore [Satan] is moral"? Or, who'd be willing to say, of (say) Mt. McKinley (which, I take it, is real), "[Mt. McKinley] is real, therefore [Mt. McKinley] is rational, therefore [Mt. McKinley] is moral"?

...what is moral is so because it is God like.

True. And what is more God-like than God, Himself?

 

[7djengo7]

Is the Pope Catholic?

Which Pope do you mean?

And, are you asking if he, himself, believes and practices the things which he promulgates, "ex cathedra", calls "Catholicism", and expects everybody else to believe and practice?

 

[7djengo7]

Do you not consider God to be good?

Or is that not our call either?

In another thread, certain things that transpired prompted me to ask a particular TOL poster:

"Is God good? Yes or No?"​

Though he never answered, "No, God is not good", nevertheless, he also absolutely refused to answer, "Yes, God is good". And, in his performance of stonewalling against my question, one of his reactions to my asking it was to say some pretentious thing like, "It's not my place to judge the character of God." His persistent refusal to answer my simple, yes-or-no question, "Is God good?", with a prompt "Yes!", I took to be him answering my question in the negative. That is, I took him, therein, to be judging the character of God as not good--while he was hypocritically pretending that he does not judge the character of God.

 

[Clete]

In another thread, certain things that transpired prompted me to ask a particular TOL poster:

"Is God good? Yes or No?"​

Though he never answered, "No, God is not good", nevertheless, he also absolutely refused to answer, "Yes, God is good". And, in his performance of stonewalling against my question, one of his reactions to my asking it was to say some pretentious thing like, "It's not my place to judge the character of God." His persistent refusal to answer my simple, yes-or-no question, "Is God good?", with a prompt "Yes!", I took to be him answering my question in the negative. That is, I took him, therein, to be judging the character of God as not good--while he was hypocritically pretending that he does not judge the character of God.

People are so infinitely creative at swallowing gnat free camels!

Was it David's place to judge the character of God when he said...
`

"The goodness of God endures continually." -Psalms 52
"Oh, give thanks to the Lord, for He is good! For His mercy endures forever." - Psalms 119 & 136
"Teach me to do Your will, For You are my God; Your Spirit is good." - Pslams 143​

`
And that's just one author in just one book of the bible that I found is ten seconds with a word search of "God good" on BibleGateway! Imagine what I'd find if I spent some real time looking for it!
Further, does he think it good to not call God good? If we cannot say that God is good then what can be called good?

And besides all that, just the sentiment that it isn't his place to judge the character of God implies that God is in some way better than or above him. In other words, he is, as you said, tacitly judging the character of God.

How is it possible for people to get themselves twisted into such convoluted knots?

Clete