Our Moral God

Gary K

New member
I disagree with Clete's hypothesis and agree with Derf. Here's why.

God is three persons in one. Therefore the Father, Son and Holy Spirit are three distinct persons. A person cannot be an inanimate force or concept. Therefore love cannot be God. That would make God an inanimate force or principle. That's called pantheism: God being a force that exists in all animate and inanimate objects but having no personality or personhood.

God has principles, but principles are not God. There's a profound difference between a principle and a person with principles.
 

JudgeRightly

裁判官が正しく判断する
Staff member
Administrator
Super Moderator
Gold Subscriber
I disagree with Clete's hypothesis and agree with Derf. Here's why.

God is three persons in one. Therefore the Father, Son and Holy Spirit are three distinct persons. A person cannot be an inanimate force or concept. Therefore love cannot be God. That would make God an inanimate force or principle. That's called pantheism: God being a force that exists in all animate and inanimate objects but having no personality or personhood.

God has principles, but principles are not God. There's a profound difference between a principle and a person with principles.

See Post #7.
 

Derf

Well-known member
You wouldn't like Bob's definition of life, either, then. But to say that logic is God, and love is God, is accurate, because they describe who/what God is, as He is the source of love, logic, and life.

Because:
A = B
Therefore:
B = A

True, there's more to it than just "God is love, therefore love is God." But it IS accurate, since true love describes the relationship between the Father and the Son, and between the Son and the Holy Spirit, and between the Holy Spirit and the Father.

Love is the commitment to the good of someone. This applies to God, and the three Persons of the Trinity can verify that neither of the other Persons have ever wronged Them.

As for life...

Here is Bob's definition of life:

"Life is God, and the property which He imparted to entities within creation that makes them either beings or organisms. The effects of this property may be further described, but it's nature, being tied up in the very nature of the essence of the Godhead, cannot be otherwise defined."

Jesus claimed to be... "the life."

Which is where Bob gets the first phrase in the above definition, because A = B = A. We, created beings, are life (living creatures, with man being created in the image of God, who is life), but Christ, being God, is THE life.
I missed this reply. Sorry about that, JR.

If God is something that He imparts to us, then we are Him if that thing He imparts is integral to our being.

And let’s take it to extremes to see how it works out. Is Satan alive? Will Satan be alive when cast into lake of fire? Then God, if He is life in the way Clete defines, is being cast into hell. (And that’s God (logic) I’m using to determine this. Not just God’s reasoning, but God Himself. )

Do you see where this leads? To nonsense.
 

JudgeRightly

裁判官が正しく判断する
Staff member
Administrator
Super Moderator
Gold Subscriber
I missed this reply. Sorry about that, JR.

No worries.

If God is something that He imparts to us, then we are Him if that thing He imparts is integral to our being.

Not necessarily.

The Bible says God created man in His own image and likeness.

Using the definition of life I gave above:

Spoiler
"Life is God, and the property which He imparted to entities within creation that makes them either beings or organisms. The effects of this property may be further described, but it's nature, being tied up in the very nature of the essence of the Godhead, cannot be otherwise defined."


.... life is the property He imparted to entities within creation that makes them either beings or organisms.

God is "the Life." We (all created creatures) are simply imitations of "the Life," called "life," with man being superior to all other creatures because He made us specifically in His image and likeness.

We are alive because He imparted His quality "life" into us.

That doesn't make us God, it simply makes us 1) alive, and 2) sons of God.

Consider: A man imparts his humanity to his son or daughter, but it doesn't make his son or daughter him.

In the same way, God imparted life to us, but it doesn't make us (parts of) God.

And let’s take it to extremes to see how it works out. Is Satan alive?

Define "alive."

Because depending on the meaning you want to use, Satan is either dead, or alive.

In one sense, Satan is alive. He is a living creature, with the property called "life" that God gave him when he was created.

In another sense, he is dead, because he has rebelled against God, the Life, the source of (all) life.

Will Satan be alive when cast into lake of fire?

In the sense that he is a living being, yes.

In that he will be cut off from the source of life? No, at that moment He will be utterly dead (not a dogmatic term), separated from God.

Then God, if He is life in the way Clete defines, is being cast into hell. (And that’s God (logic) I’m using to determine this. Not just God’s reasoning, but God Himself.)

See my comments above in this post, which resolve this problem.

Do you see where this leads? To nonsense.

Only when you don't follow the logic.
 

Clete

Truth Smacker
Silver Subscriber
Who determines what is logical and reasonable?
Reality does that.
Logic is not determined, it is discovered. Asking "Who determines what is logical?" is like asking who determines how much energy the sun is depositing onto the Earth. No one determines it. It is what it is. Logic and sound reason is nothing more than conforming your mind to the limits of reality.
 
Last edited:

Clete

Truth Smacker
Silver Subscriber
If God is life itself, that could mean either that God is the source of life for all creatures or God is all alive creatures. I don't with the latter, do you?
I don't know exactly what it means to say that God is life and I don't need to know just exactly what it means. I just know that it is the truth by the same means that I know that Jesus loves me so.

I know that the bible teaches me that God is life and I know that I am alive because God created me and gave me my life.
I know that as righteousness leads to life and sin leads to death.

Proverbs 11:19 As righteousness leads to life, So he who pursues evil pursues it to his own death.

I know that the only two things in scripture that have a ministry of death are the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil and the Law. (Genesis 2:17, 2 Corinthians 3:7)
I know that I was alive once without the law but when the law came, sin revived and I died. (Romans 7:9)
I know that I have been raised from the dead in Christ because He chose to die on a tree and then rose from the dead three days later. (Galatians 3:13, Galatians 3:13)

And on and on I could go! The bottom line is this....

From beginning to end the bible give us a choice between God and some alternative to God, between good and evil which is the choice between life and death. The theme of the whole bible is. "That which is proper to life is the good, that which negates, opposes or destroys it is the evil." and He implores us to choose the the good, the right, to choose life, to choose Him!

Clete
 

Clete

Truth Smacker
Silver Subscriber
But love is not the very incarnation of Jesus. That is, when we love, Jesus is not transubstantiated in us, is He? And His love is not an abstraction, but an active, visible love--in that while we were yet sinners, Christ died for us.
I do not know that answer and I submit that you do not either. What we do know and what you have conceded is that Jesus is the incarnation of Love itself. How that works and just what it means is a mystery that we will not fathom in this life.
Because it defines the logos as a person--he--rather than as an abstraction or concept. I don't think you have made that distinction.
On the contrary! John's explicit point is to equate Jesus Christ with the abstraction know to the Greeks as "Logos" and to say that Jesus Christ is the physical incarnation of that abstraction. That was his EXACT point and anyone reading it at the time John wrote it would have had no question at all that this was what he was saying.

Further, our English bibles translate 'logos' as 'word', which is a very nearly, if not entirely meaningless way to translate it. There is no concept in the English language that is communicated through the use of the word "word" in this context, at least none that doesn't require additional explanation which ends up effectively making the word "word" synonymous with "reason". So, if someone is going to object to equating Christ with an abstraction, where is the advantage to equating Him with a meaningless abstraction instead of one that actually conveys some sort of meaning when you say it? And, if your going to use a word that is meant to be substantially synonymous with 'reason' or 'logic', why not just use the word 'reason' or 'logic'?

Clete
 

Derf

Well-known member
Define "alive."

No, at that moment He will be utterly dead (not a dogmatic term), separated from God.
These two quotes from your post eloquently encapsulate the issue.

You define death as "separated from God". But then you have to add “utterly” to it. Why? Was he just mostly dead before that? I think you’ve been watching too much Princess Bride.

Is Satan ever described as dead in the Bible? How about “utterly dead”? If not, then are you possibly going too far using that term with him?
 

JudgeRightly

裁判官が正しく判断する
Staff member
Administrator
Super Moderator
Gold Subscriber
These two quotes from your post eloquently encapsulate the issue.

You define death as "separated from God". But then you have to add “utterly” to it. Why? Was he just mostly dead before that? I think you’ve been watching too much Princess Bride.

RE: Highlighted sentence:
Correction: I define death as "separation."

Satan is not physically dead, as he does not have a physical body to be separated from. (Not to say that he cannot manifest himself physically.)

He is not dead in the sense that he no longer has the property called "life" given to him by God.

He IS spiritually dead, not that he, as a spirit, is dead, but in that he has become separated from his Creator, no longer in fellowship with Him.

Note that the two portions you quoted from my post aren't everything I said.

RE: Underlined sentence:
This is why I said "not a dogmatic term."
I was simply adding emphasis, trying to distinguish it in a significant way.

Is Satan ever described as dead in the Bible?

No, but he IS described, in Revelation, as being cast into the Lake of Fire.

Which is a place that is separate from God.

Hence, in that case, we could rightly say he is truly dead to God.

How about “utterly dead”?

Supra.

If not, then are you possibly going too far using that term with him?

Supra, as you asked:

Is Satan alive? Will Satan be alive when cast into lake of fire?

And I gave two answers, to answer depending on how you define "alive."

In the sense that he is a living being, yes.

In that he will be cut off from the source of life? No, at that moment He will be utterly dead (not a dogmatic term), separated from God.

And that was after providing two different aspects of "alive" that are presented in the Bible:

Define "alive."

Because depending on the meaning you want to use, Satan is either dead, or alive.

In one sense, Satan is alive. He is a living creature, with the property called "life" that God gave him when he was created.

In another sense, he is dead, because he has rebelled against God, the Life, the source of (all) life.

Rebellion against God causes one to be separated from Him. This is a biblical principle that I thought you were aware of.

This is why I asked you to define what you meant by "alive."

So, if you would please, define what you mean by, or at the very least, the context in which you are using, the word "alive."
 

Derf

Well-known member
Does not read like it? They seem to be opposite. Yours looks like God is not love.
Consider this: trees are made of wood.

Then consider the corollary: anything made of wood is a tree.

The first statement is a connection between a specific and a general thing. The second reverses the connection. This reversal (the corollary) works in some cases but not all.

It doesn't work in the case of God and love, because God is more than love and love is less than God. To describe God as love is powerful, but incomplete, since God is also holy and just and rational. To describe love as God elevates a concept to deity.
 

Derf

Well-known member
RE: Highlighted sentence:
Correction: I define death as "separation."

Satan is not physically dead, as he does not have a physical body to be separated from. (Not to say that he cannot manifest himself physically.)

He is not dead in the sense that he no longer has the property called "life" given to him by God.

He IS spiritually dead, not that he, as a spirit, is dead, but in that he has become separated from his Creator, no longer in fellowship with Him.

Note that the two portions you quoted from my post aren't everything I said.

RE: Underlined sentence:
This is why I said "not a dogmatic term."
I was simply adding emphasis, trying to distinguish it in a significant way.



No, but he IS described, in Revelation, as being cast into the Lake of Fire.

Which is a place that is separate from God.

Hence, in that case, we could rightly say he is truly dead to God.



Supra.



Supra, as you asked:



And I gave two answers, to answer depending on how you define "alive."



And that was after providing two different aspects of "alive" that are presented in the Bible:



Rebellion against God causes one to be separated from Him. This is a biblical principle that I thought you were aware of.

This is why I asked you to define what you meant by "alive."

So, if you would please, define what you mean by, or at the very least, the context in which you are using, the word "alive."
That's difficult. We know that God is alive ("the living God"). He thinks and acts willfully. Humans, animals, and angels and demons all seem to do the same. Death is a little easier--it's not the opposite of life but the cessation of life. A rock is not dead, because it has never been alive. A dead animal was once a live animal.

Separation seems like a poor definition. And one not found in scripture, imho. Rebellion against God causes death to humans--whether it also causes seperation is perhaps superfluous.

Second death is not the same as first death, because first death was defeated by Jesus on the cross and will be forever defeated at the end.
 

Gary K

New member
See Post #7.

There is a large difference between principles and persons. Yes, God is love but that is because He always practices love. God is self-existent life. God is merciful. God is truth. God is justice. He has all these attributes and more. But His attributes are not He Himself. God is first and foremost a person. And He has the attributes we've listed because He always acts that way. But the personhood of God is not simply a list of His attributes. If God is not a person first, His actions are meaningless.

Love does not have a body. God does. Let us make man in our image, after our likeness. God made man to look like Himself, bodywise. Love has no body as it is a concept, a principle. Therefore it cannot be God.

Jesus said, if you have seen me you have seen the Father. Was Jesus a concept/idea/principle or a person? Did He live, love, laugh, weep, show affection, become angry? Or was He just an idea? Concept? Principle? Since Jesus is God Jesus could not have been anything more than a disembodied idea/concept/principle if you are correct.
 

Bradley D

Well-known member
Consider this: trees are made of wood.

Then consider the corollary: anything made of wood is a tree.

The first statement is a connection between a specific and a general thing. The second reverses the connection. This reversal (the corollary) works in some cases but not all.

It doesn't work in the case of God and love, because God is more than love and love is less than God. To describe God as love is powerful, but incomplete, since God is also holy and just and rational. To describe love as God elevates a concept to deity.
God's Love:
agapé: love, goodwill
Original Word: ἀγάπη, ης, ἡ
Part of Speech: Noun, Feminine
Transliteration: agapé
Phonetic Spelling: (ag-ah'-pay)
Definition: love, goodwill
Usage: love, benevolence, good will, esteem; plur: love-feasts.

Is different from human love:
agapaó: to love
Original Word: ἀγαπάω
Part of Speech: Verb
Transliteration: agapaó
Phonetic Spelling: (ag-ap-ah'-o)
Definition: to love
Usage: I love, wish well to, take pleasure in, long for; denotes the love of reason, esteem.

I read to have agape it must be practiced.
 

Gary K

New member
God's Love:
agapé: love, goodwill
Original Word: ἀγάπη, ης, ἡ
Part of Speech: Noun, Feminine
Transliteration: agapé
Phonetic Spelling: (ag-ah'-pay)
Definition: love, goodwill
Usage: love, benevolence, good will, esteem; plur: love-feasts.

Is different from human love:
agapaó: to love
Original Word: ἀγαπάω
Part of Speech: Verb
Transliteration: agapaó
Phonetic Spelling: (ag-ap-ah'-o)
Definition: to love
Usage: I love, wish well to, take pleasure in, long for; denotes the love of reason, esteem.

I read to have agape it must be practiced.
Could you expand on this thought? I am not sure at all what you are saying.
 

Right Divider

Body part
God's Love:
agapé: love, goodwill
Original Word: ἀγάπη, ης, ἡ
Part of Speech: Noun, Feminine
Transliteration: agapé
Phonetic Spelling: (ag-ah'-pay)
Definition: love, goodwill
Usage: love, benevolence, good will, esteem; plur: love-feasts.

Is different from human love:
agapaó: to love
Original Word: ἀγαπάω
Part of Speech: Verb
Transliteration: agapaó
Phonetic Spelling: (ag-ap-ah'-o)
Definition: to love
Usage: I love, wish well to, take pleasure in, long for; denotes the love of reason, esteem.

I read to have agape it must be practiced.
One is a NOUN and the other a VERB.

You are trying to compare apples and oranges.
 

Gary K

New member
Derf wrote "just like love is not God." I disagree "God is love."
So you think a person, for God is a person, is a principle. Your equation of logic is therefore: principle == person and the reverse: person == principle. == equals "is equal to". By your logic you are a principle. Is that really how you see yourself?
 
Top