ECT Is God Moral?

[Cross Reference]

For subscribers, the woodshed is on the right hand of the Home page and Active Topics page. It shows a list of the recent reported posts and infractions that are given out.

Thanks! So how does one protest a "report" especially made by an unlearned predudiced nut case?

 

[Nick M]

God is never nor ever can be, immoral.

Can God write a new song?

 

[genuineoriginal]

Thanks! So how does one protest a "report" especially made by an unlearned predudiced nut case?

If you are protesting a report, simply report the same post and state your protest that way.

If you are wanting to protest a report that has earned an infraction, don't do it unless you just want to go red and take a vacation from TOL.

Heed the words of the moderators:

Do not argue with me in the PM box about this. It will only get you another infraction.

That warning applies to protesting in the PM box, protesting on a user's profile page, protesting in the chat box, protesting in the woodshed, and protesting in one or more threads.
I have seen people get multiple-point infractions for trying each one of those things.

 

[Cross Reference]

If you are protesting a report, simply report the same post and state your protest that way.

If you are wanting to protest a report that has earned an infraction, don't do it unless you just want to go red and take a vacation from TOL.

Heed the words of the moderators:

That warning applies to protesting in the PM box, protesting on a user's profile page, protesting in the chat box, protesting in the woodshed, and protesting in one or more threads.
I have seen people get multiple-point infractions for trying each one of those things.

Ok. However, the accusation is false. Post 115 is what vindictive "Dazed" seized upon as an opportunity to silence the opposition against her cult way of thinking. If she succeeds then the forum is in danger of falling victim to biased censorship.

OMT: Banning me won't unsettle me. There is life after TOL. Dishonesty by the accusing individual is the greater offense.

 

[Clete]

People like you never cease to amaze me. And yet, you don't because you come on these forums with your own brand of religious agenda wrapped in commentary speak birthed religious bigotry.

Yeah, okay. Whatever you say.

Without qualifying your assertions you make claims about Jesus that are not in full agreement with His life while on Earth and before His death and by the way, had He been God He could not have died. Secondly, He would have known all things which He didn't. Thirdly, He would have not needed to be tempted, nor could He have been given He was God, correct? Fourthly, Only a man could redeem, man. A perfect one? Yes! But, a man nevertheless. A man made equal to the Godhead but, not the Godhead. . . . . not as yet. At this point, I am not going to waste my time with you any further until you argue out the above with yourself.

If Jesus had been simply a man his death would have been sufficient to pay for another man, one other man, not the whole of mankind throughout history. It is precisely His divinity, the fact that He was the second person of the Trinity, God the Son, the Logos of God, who was with God "in the beginning" and who "created all things that were created" (John 1) that make His death of sufficient value to balance the scales of justice and afford us the opportunity of reconciliation with God.

Further, your understanding of death appears to be faulty.

Death is separation. Physical death is when you soul/spirit is separated from your physical body. Spiritual death is separation from God the Father. In Jesus' case both occurred, thus Jesus died both physically and spiritually. (Matthew 27:46 & 50)

"For it became him[/B] [God], for whom are all things, and by whom are all things, in bringing many sons unto glory [again, God], to make the captain of their salvation perfect through sufferings [Jesus]."[/I] Hebrews 2:10 (KJV)

"That we should be to the praise of his glory [God], who first trusted in Christ [Jesus]."
Ephesians 1:12 (KJV)

Excellent pro-Trinity verses.

Over in your other thread, you wrote this:



Followed by your contradiction with the following religious proclamation:



Opinion based issues resolved using whose opinion???!! . . . . . . more agenda ridden religious opinion, completely at odds with your above "My whole arguemnt boils down to . . . . ", a lie!!!

You are amazingly stupid.

I had actually JUST taken you off my ignore list but now I'm all but certain that doing so was a mistake!

In that EXACT SAME POST I said the following...

Now, of course, whether the system actually does [resolve all those issues] is, in your mind, still an open question and as I've said many times already, establishing these claims is a task well beyond what can be effectively done in a forum such as this.​

I never once suggested that any of that was a matter of opinion.

Now, since you've tacitly admitted to being something other than a real Christian, I'll not be responding to any more of your posts on this thread. I'm simply not interested in debating these issues with people who can't even understand the simplest aspects of issues as fundamental to the Christian faith as what happened at Calvary.

Resting in Him,
Clete

P.S. For the record - I saw nothing in your post that was particularly offensive to me. Just sayin'

 

[Grosnick Marowbe]

Ok. However, the accusation is false. Post 115 is what vindictive "Dazed" seized upon as an opportunity to silence the opposition against her cult way of thinking. If she succeeds then the forum is in danger of falling victim to biased censorship.

OMT: Banning me won't unsettle me. There is life after TOL. Dishonesty by the accusing individual is the greater offense.

Ah, stop your belly-aching.

 

[Grosnick Marowbe]

CR, you're gonna talk your way into a vacation.

 

[Cross Reference]

If Jesus had been simply a man his death would have been sufficient to pay for another man, one other man, not the whole of mankind throughout history.

Your mistake is not understanding Jesus paid the price to cancel out Adam's transgression which affected ALL of his progeny AND posterity; ALL of the human race. It also released ALL the captives held by sin and death in Abraham's blossom, Paradise.

As it was the tainted blood of one man which condemned ALL of mankind to sin and death, so it was the "Sinless Blood of the Lamb of God", that rectified the situation! Universal Atonement was made for ALL mankind.

It is precisely His divinity, the fact that He was the second person of the Trinity, God the Son, the Logos of God, who was with God "in the beginning" and who "created all things that were created" (John 1)

The "Word of God", a Son? Who was His Mother??

Please explain because only a sinless man was needed, the "Word of God" provided for. Look up the verses on subject.

The fact that Jesus was the son of God was the ONLY way a sinless being could enter Adam's race. He had to come into it from the outside and yet still be considered of Adam's race. That is where Mary comes into the picture. Jesus, the man, also had to prove Himself by suffering and testing by temptations much as was expected of Adam. . While the Word of God indeed was within/of Jesus, He submitted Himself to the human life of Jesus and visa versa. Union in the Father was maintained by Him per John 17:3-22. Read it for the first time.

In that EXACT SAME POST I said the following...

Now, of course, whether the system actually does [resolve all those issues] is, in your mind, still an open question and as I've said many times already, establishing these claims is a task well beyond what can be effectively done in a forum such as this.​

I never once suggested that any of that was a matter of opinion.

OK. But it nevertheless remains your opinion every bit as its remains mine! The difference I see is yours in of biased commentary. I threw mine away, read my Bible, and now write my own.

Now, since you've tacitly admitted to being something other than a real Christian, I'll not be responding to any more of your posts on this thread. I'm simply not interested in debating these issues with people who can't even understand the simplest aspects of issues as fundamental to the Christian faith as what happened at Calvary.

Again, opinion based upon biased commentary.

Question and answer: Is Jesus Christ, God in flesh now? YES! He revealed it t His Disciples. He earned it! He was the Christ of God and remained the Christ of God by protecting the very Word of God of Himself even unto the cross, with now even a greater Name above any other in heaven given Him by God! The form of the "Word of God" who Moses saw in Exo 33:22 is now been permanently made, Glorified "FLESH AND BONE".

 

[genuineoriginal]

Ok. However, the accusation is false. Post 115 is what vindictive "Dazed" seized upon as an opportunity to silence the opposition against her cult way of thinking. If she succeeds then the forum is in danger of falling victim to biased censorship.

OMT: Banning me won't unsettle me. There is life after TOL. Dishonesty by the accusing individual is the greater offense.

I told you that you shouldn't protest the infraction in one or more threads, and yet you still did it.

The actual words you said that got you the infraction from Sherman is, "had He been God He could not have died".
Sherman told you to keep this kind of statement out of ECT threads.
There are other threads that you are allowed to make that kind of statement in.

glorydaz reported this, but is not responsible for your infraction, you brought that on yourself by not recognizing that you were posting in an ECT thread and not understanding how quick Sherman is in handing out infractions for anti-Trinity statements.

It may be too late to stop yourself from earning another infraction, but I highly recommend that you do so.

 

[Cross Reference]

Yeah, okay. Whatever you say.


If Jesus had been simply a man his death would have been sufficient to pay for another man, one other man, not the whole of mankind throughout history. It is precisely His divinity, the fact that He was the second person of the Trinity, God the Son, the Logos of God, who was with God "in the beginning" and who "created all things that were created" (John 1) that make His death of sufficient value to balance the scales of justice and afford us the opportunity of reconciliation with God.

Further, your understanding of death appears to be faulty.

Death is separation. Physical death is when you soul/spirit is separated from your physical body. Spiritual death is separation from God the Father. In Jesus' case both occurred, thus Jesus died both physically and spiritually. (Matthew 27:46 & 50)




Excellent pro-Trinity verses.


You are amazingly stupid.

I had actually JUST taken you off my ignore list but now I'm all but certain that doing so was a mistake!

In that EXACT SAME POST I said the following...

Now, of course, whether the system actually does [resolve all those issues] is, in your mind, still an open question and as I've said many times already, establishing these claims is a task well beyond what can be effectively done in a forum such as this.​

I never once suggested that any of that was a matter of opinion.

Now, since you've tacitly admitted to being something other than a real Christian, I'll not be responding to any more of your posts on this thread. I'm simply not interested in debating these issues with people who can't even understand the simplest aspects of issues as fundamental to the Christian faith as what happened at Calvary.

Resting in Him,
Clete

P.S. For the record - I saw nothing in your post that was particularly offensive to me. Just sayin'

Thank you, Clete. I sincerely appreciate that.

 

[Lon]

Yes,
No squirming here.

The Calvinists probably have a harder time answering without squirming. Because according to them, God only ever makes/made one act, namely the act of creating everything in all of history all at once. So, aside from any questions of explicit morality like did God ordain the Sandy Hook massacre (discussed already here somewhere), there is simply nothing logically to compare this one act to. If you only ever do one thing in all your existence, I would hardly say it was an appropriate question to ask so I would guess the average Calvinist would have to answer no.

"Whose morality?" Is God "moral like a man?" :nono: God is the 'standard' of morality but, without our 'ability' to qualify it, as fallen poorly moral creatures.
So God is rather the 'standard' of 'morality' rather than complying to some other's standard called 'morality.'

That might sound a little long-winded to some. Here is another way of looking at it: Jesus said 'be perfect as your heavenly father is perfect.' But if, as the Calvinist believes, God is perfect because of the fact that he is God, then how can we possibly carry out this command?

ONLY through being in Jesus Christ (God). If you think you can figure out 'perfect' on your own, you are kidding yourself. The command is God's standard. Getting there is impossible but in and through Our Lord Jesus Christ.

So yes, God is moral but that morality is NOT subject to your or my conceptions of it.

 

[csuguy]

Only meaningful if you define love.

Care to give it a shot?

Love is a kind of action, something done for another because you care about them and their well-being, especially when such an act requires personal sacrifice. Altruism. The greatest act of love is to give one's life to save another.

 

[Lazy afternoon]

Love is a kind of action, something done for another because you care about them and their well-being, especially when such an act requires personal sacrifice. Altruism. The greatest act of love is to give one's life to save another.

Yes. It is a way to test ones own actions and words.

Is it for the sake of someone else, or is it for oneself.

LA

 

[Clete]

Your mistake is not understanding Jesus paid the price to cancel out Adam's transgression which affected ALL of his progeny AND posterity; ALL of the human race. It also released ALL the captives held by sin and death in Abraham's blossom, Paradise.

As it was the tainted blood of one man which condemned ALL of mankind to sin and death, so it was the "Sinless Blood of the Lamb of God", that rectified the situation! Universal Atonement was made for ALL mankind.




The "Word of God", a Son? Who was His Mother??

Please explain because only a sinless man was needed, the "Word of God" provided for. Look up the verses on subject.

The fact that Jesus was the son of God was the ONLY way a sinless being could enter Adam's race. He had to come into it from the outside and yet still be considered of Adam's race. That is where Mary comes into the picture. Jesus, the man, also had to prove Himself by suffering and testing by temptations much as was expected of Adam. . While the Word of God indeed was within/of Jesus, He submitted Himself to the human life of Jesus and visa versa. Union in the Father was maintained by Him per John 17:3-22. Read it for the first time.



OK. But it nevertheless remains your opinion every bit as its remains mine! The difference I see is yours in of biased commentary. I threw mine away, read my Bible, and now write my own.



Again, opinion based upon biased commentary.

Question and answer: Is Jesus Christ, God in flesh now? YES! He revealed it t His Disciples. He earned it! He was the Christ of God and remained the Christ of God by protecting the very Word of God of Himself even unto the cross, with now even a greater Name above any other in heaven given Him by God! The form of the "Word of God" who Moses saw in Exo 33:22 is now been permanently made, Glorified "FLESH AND BONE".

When you get back, post something in a new thread and we'll discuss it further.

 

[Clete]

genuineoriginal,

I didn't see the following post before having given up on you. I've decided its worth giving you another chance. Just please don't go all stubborn on me again. I actually do want to discuss this with whoever is willing but it has to be a real discussion, not a diatribe.

In the absolute sense, you are right in stating, "it is only to the living that issues of morality apply or matter."

Paul, on the other hand, makes a point in equating mortality to immorality.

Ephesians 2:1 1 And you hath he quickened, who were dead in trespasses and sins;​

Colossians 2:13 13 And you, being dead in your sins and the uncircumcision of your flesh, hath he quickened together with him, having forgiven you all trespasses;​

If immorality equals death and morality equals life, then what ability do the living have to determine what is immoral?

No, the living are concerned with both immorality and morality, and death or life is the ultimate consequence of immorality or morality, respectively.

Okay, lets define terms. When I refer to morality I am talking about the whole topic of ethics. That is to say that when I (or Rand) say "it is only to the living that issues of morality apply or matter.", I'm saying that "it is only to the living that issues of right and wrong apply or matter."

Thus the point you make and the passages you cite are making the same point that I am. It is because of immorality (wrong) that people are spiritually dead and it is because of righteousness (right) we are made alive.

Thus, as Rand put it...

"...that which is proper to the life of a rational being is the good; that which negates, opposes or destroys it is the evil."​

That is a hasty remark from Ayn Rand, since it presupposes that anything done to sustain life is moral, whether it is working for wages or it is stealing food to survive.

No, morality is not morality based on surviving in this life.
Morality is morality based on whether it leads to life everlasting.

PRECISELY!!

Please keep in mind that I have not, do not and would not endorse Rand's philosophy. I merely am using her quotations because her philosophy attempts to be strictly rational and to the extent that it succeeds it remains close to the truth because God is Reason. She made a great many errors, not the least of which was her presupposition that God does not exist. We have not made that error and so by essentially the same line of reasoning Rand used in her atheism we can use in our theism to arrive at just what you said, "Morality is morality (i.e. the right) is based on whether it leads to life everlasting."

Matthew 16:25 25 For whosoever will save his life shall lose it: and whosoever will lose his life for my sake shall find it.​

It is moral to lose your life for the sake of Jesus the Messiah.
It is immoral to forsake Jesus the Messiah in order to save your life.
This is something that an Atheist can not understand.

You've got it exactly!

Again, I am not here promoting an atheistic worldview. I am merely using the same arguments an atheist used. The arguments Rand used were entirely valid, what she got wrong was the atheistic premise from which she started. Otherwise, she too would have seen that it does not profit a man to save his physical life and lose his soul.

It is moral because it is rational?

_____
rational

• agreeable to reason; reasonable; sensible
• having or exercising reason, sound judgment, or good sense
• proceeding or derived from reason or based on reasoning
• being in or characterized by full possession of one's reason; sane; lucid

_____​

This could mean it is moral because it makes sense, it is moral because it is derived from the logical process of reasoning, or it is moral because it comes from sane thoughts.

There isn't any better way to state that than the way I stated it.

That which is moral (morally good) is so because it is rational.

Your argument appears to be that it is moral because it is derived from the logical process of reasoning, which is the argument that was destroyed in my earlier posts.

It is not possible to destroy an argument you never addressed. I can hardly believe I'm having to explain this to you but it seems necessary...

To refute an argument one must address the argument as it has been made. That is, you must demonstrate either than one or more of the argument's premises are false or that the form of the argument was fallacious or that the conclusion does not follow.

And here's the real key point - SAYING IT DOESN'T MAKE IT SO!

In other words, claiming that a premise is false is not proving it false, declaring the form of argument fallacious does not prove it to be fallacious and insisting that the conclusion does not follow doesn't force it to not follow. You HAVE to make an actual counter argument!

Claiming it is moral because it makes sense appears to be begging the question, not stating a tautology, and this thought would need to be developed further before it would be able to be presented as such.

Do you know what "begging the question" means?
Do you know what a tautology is?

This statement of yours seems disconnected from the rest of your post, as though you threw it in as an after thought.

I have made no argument similar to "the right is that which makes sense "to me"". Which is the only form of argument that this pseudo objection would apply to. I'm not making arguments suggesting that issues of right and wrong are matters of opinion or person preference, I'm saying that morality emerges rationally from a single premise - Life.

Claiming it is moral because it comes from sanity presumes that it could be proven that insanity by definition leads only to immorality and that no immoral act can be done by a person that is not insane.
Clearly this is not easily proven.

First of all I've made no such 'sanity' argument but even if I had your objection would not follow because no such presumption as you suggest would be logically necessary in any such argument. The only presumption MIGHT be that insanity is immoral but even that would depend on the actual argument being made. All of which is irrelevant as no such argument has been made in the first place.

The Law was given to the children of Israel by God as a list of rules that they were to follow because God determined that this list would produce a moral society if they were followed.
God Himself does not need such a list, as He is quite capable of determining what is moral and immoral.
God makes judgments about whether a person's actions are moral or immoral based on being able to read the intentions of a person's heart as well as know the circumstances surrounding a person's decision, and not whether the actions are on a list.

The purpose of the Law of Moses was multifaceted and can be discussed elsewhere. The point being that it was right to love your neighbor and wrong to murder him before the Law of Moses was given and thus morality is not defined by the Law. Indeed, it is quite the reverse.

You haven't quite made a good argument to claim that "rational equals moral" is a tautology.

Sure I have!

Morality is that which is consistent with life (i.e. promotes, extends or is in anyway proper to life).
God is Life.
God is consistent with Himself.
Therefore God is moral.

That is basically my whole essay in syllogism form.

You are claiming that an amoral being is non-rational, presuming that all rational beings have a sense of morality and immorality (knowledge of good and evil).

Romans chapter 1 says the same thing.

This is a one-sided argument that you have attempted to flip backwards.
The statement "all men are humans" is a true statement.
The statement "all non-rational beings are amoral" is also a true statement, since having a sense of morality and immorality is precluded on the ability to have rational thought.

The statement "all humans are men" is a false statement, since some humans are children and other humans are women.
The statement "all amoral beings are non-rational" is also a false statement, since it is possible for a rational being to be amoral.

In what way is a rational being able to be amoral?

Only living beings can be rational, by definition, and reason is that beings only means of survival. A living being that attempts to be amoral will die thus his attempt to be amoral is itself immoral because it leads to death. Thus an amoral, rational being is a self-defeating concept that cannot exist. Rand put it this way...

“Man’s mind is his basic tool of survival. Life is given to him, survival is not. His body is given to him, its sustenance is not. His mind is given to him, its content is not. To remain alive, he must act, and before he can act he must know the nature and purpose of his action. He cannot obtain his food without a knowledge of food and of the way to obtain it. He cannot dig a ditch – or build a cyclotron – without a knowledge of his aim and of the means to achieve it. To remain alive, he must think.
“But to think is an act of choice. The key to what you so recklessly call ‘human nature,’ the open secret you live with, yet dread to name, is the fact that man is a being of volitional consciousness. Reason does not work automatically; thinking is not a mechanical process; the connections of logic are not made by instinct. The function of your stomach, lungs, or heart is automatic; the function of your mind is not. In any hour and issue of your life, you are free to think or to evade that effort. But you are not free to escape from your nature, from the fact that reason is your means of survival – so that for you, who are a human being, the question ‘to be or not to be’ is the question ‘to think or not to think.’ . . .
“Man has no automatic code of survival. His particular distinction from all other living species is the necessity to act in the face of alternatives by means of volitional choice. . . Man must obtain his knowledge and choose his actions by a process of thinking, which nature will not force him to perform. Man has the power to act as his own destroyer – and that is the way he has acted through most of his history. Ayn Rand - Atlas Shrugged​

Resting in Him,
Clete

P.S. This was SO MUCH better of a post! If you continue like this, you'll quickly see what I mean when I say that my essay could easily have been three times as long! There is so much depth here its amazing! And we aren't far away from each other on these issues at all. This could turn out to be an amazing thread!

P.S.S. I've added the contents of post 68 (my essay) to the opening post of the thread to make it easier to find and reference in future posts.

 

[Nick M]

God is never nor ever can be, immoral.

Can God write a new song?


I realize he can't answer now, but anybody else can. It directly relates to the point Clete is making. I just want to know where CR is coming from.

 

[LoneStar]

Can God write a new song?


I realize he can't answer now, but anybody else can. It directly relates to the point Clete is making. I just want to know where CR is coming from.

You guys ask some weighty questions. I had to scratch my brain cap on that one too. My initial answer would be yes. But I can see how this would fit into the 'time' issue with God. If it was 'new', it never existed before. Not even in God's mind.
:think:

 

[Nick M]

You guys ask some weighty questions. I had to scratch my brain cap on that one too. My initial answer would be yes. But I can see how this would fit into the 'time' issue with God. If it was 'new', it never existed before. Not even in God's mind.
:think:

Why is that weighty? The Bible explicitly states there is no time issue and that things don't come to his mind. CR was shifting his argument. Moving the goal posts, so to speak. Him not answering tells me he has no interest in what is right, only in promoting his agenda. Whatever that may be.

 

[Clete]

Why is that weighty? The Bible explicitly states there is no time issue and that things don't come to his mind. CR was shifting his argument. Moving the goal posts, so to speak. Him not answering tells me he has no interest in what is right, only in promoting his agenda. Whatever that may be.

This is obviously off the topic but....

If God is unable to create a new song, on what basis do you believe Him capable of creating a new Heaven and a new Earth?

And what do you mean there is no time issue and that things don't come to God's mind? I don't even understand how the time issue would be relevant in the first place. God can do whatever He likes whenever He decides He wants to do it. Who's to stop Him? And how would God do anything without Him first thinking of it? And how did this even come up in the first place? It doesn't seem to make any sense or be relevant to anything concerning the righteousness of God.

Resting in Him,
Clete

 

[csuguy]

I've always found the idea that God is outside of time silly. It is clear from scripture that God interacts with us, who are in time, responding to our actions and prayers. This would be impossible if God had no sense of time. Nor could he have created everything in a sequence of 'days' - doing one thing and then another, building on top of what was previously done.