Our Moral God

marke

Well-known member
Why should anyone care what you believe?

Here, let's try something different.....

I'm going to make an argument in the form of a question and you respond by both answering the question AND explaining how it doesn't present any sort of problem for your position.

If A=B and B=C then does A=C?

Answer the question directly and then apply the answer to your stated position and explain why you think it doesn't imply the need to at least qualify your stated position (note that I know IN ADVANCE that you WILL NOT be persuaded to alter your position in ANY way by fourth grade level logical reasoning).

Clete
No, that equation does not always hold true in the physical world as it does in math. For example, If God is Jesus and Jesus is a man then it does not follow that God is a man. God is love but not all love can be said to be God.
 

marke

Well-known member
Wow! You could take Marke to school on how to at least make it look like you've made an argument to the point that it deserves a response! You get to come off my ignore list because of this post, not that you'd care about that. (Don't worry, I doubt very much that it will last long!)

So you make the following argument...

Premise 1: God is three persons in one.

This premise is a fact that is not in dispute and that is not germane (i.e. not relevant) to the question at hand.

Conclusion 1: Therefore the Father, Son and Holy Spirit are three distinct persons.

While this statement is another fact that is not in dispute, this conclusion does not follow from the previous premise, nor could it follow from any argument because there has been no argument made. You simply stated a premise and then went straight to stating a conclusion. The best you could accomplish here is to say that the two statements are equivalent to each other but there is nothing in either the premise or the conclusion to substantiate such a claim. Again, the factual truth of the statement is not in dispute but all you've really done here is to state two opinions that have nothing to do with the question being debated. If I thought you were skilled enough at debate I'd suspect you had done this intentionally in order to set your audience on a path of agreement with you. Make two statements in a row that everyone agrees with and sort of hope that the just keep on agreeing with you as you proceed. That's a real tactic that many people have employed in many debates to excellent effect but I seriously doubt that you were doing that. You somehow think that you've started a real argument with these two statements but you haven't. In reality you actual argument states with the next stated premise....

Premise 2: A person cannot be an inanimate force or concept.

This premise fails for several reasons. First of all, and most importantly, SAYING IT DOESN'T MAKE IT SO!!! What are we supposed to do, take your word for it that this premise is true?

It further fails because love is not an inanimate force or concept. Love, by definition, must be personal, relational and volitional. That's just about as opposite of inanimate you could conceivably get!

Further, this premise has already been responded to in the opening post where I stated the following in respond to basically this exact objection...

"Now, there are some who object to such a translation thinking it improper to equate the living God with some abstract concept such as logic. But it should be noted that those who make such an objection never object to God being equated with the abstract concept of "Word", nor are they typically capable of offering any explanation as to what exactly it means to say "the Word as God". In other words, people who object on the grounds of referring to God as an abstraction, typically have no real problem with abstractions so long as the abstraction being used can't be made any sense of at all."
So, let's continue with your post...

Conclusion 2: Therefore love cannot be God.

This premise fails because it is based on a false premise as established above but that's not the only reason it fails....

1 John 4:8 He who does not love does not know God, for God is love.​
1 John 4:16 And we have known and believed the love that God has for us. God is love, and he who abides in love abides in God, and God in him.​

The Greek in both sentences is "Theos este agape" and there is no other way to translate it or to even understand it. It does say flatly that "God is love." Thus, speaking of love in any sense in which you aren't also talking about God is to alter the meaning of the words as they are being used in this context and thus to change the subject. In other words, there are different kinds of love and therefore the word "love" has a wide sphere of meaning that is determined by the context in which the word is used. The Greeks had three different words that are translated into English as "love" and all three of those words have their own sphere of meaning, all of which we would simply call "love" in English. The point being that there is some effort required to remain in keeping with the intended message of the opening post and that it would be easy to take what I've said too far, especially if one wanted to find a reason - any reason - to disagree.

QED

The rest of your post is just repetitive restatements of previous premises/quasi conclusions and an ad hominem thrown in for flavor that need not be addressed.

Clete


Now, you see Marke?! That's how substantive debate works. It can be accomplished with even the feeblest attempts at actual argumentation and it is far more interesting than just stating your position and then repeating yourself endlessly like some sort of broken record.
It is wrong to say love is God because love is variable, not a fixed entity. There are different types of love - some good and some bad. Here is good love:
Song of Solomon 1:2
Let him kiss me with the kisses of his mouth: for thy love is better than wine.

Song of Solomon 4:10
How fair is thy love, my sister, my spouse! how much better is thy love than wine! and the smell of thine ointments than all spices

Here is bad love:

Ezekiel 23:17
And the Babylonians came to her into the bed of love, and they defiled her with their whoredom, and she was polluted with them, and her mind was alienated from them.
 

Lon

Well-known member
"If you are quite sure there is a difference between right and wrong, you are then in this situation: Is that difference due to God’s fiat or is it not? If it is due to God’s fiat, then for God Himself there is no difference between right and wrong, and it is no longer a significant statement to say that God is good. If you are going to say, as theologians do, that God is good, you must then say that right and wrong have some meaning which is independent of God’s fiat, because God’s fiats are good and not good independently of the mere fact that he made them. If you are going to say that, you will then have to say that it is not only through God that right and wrong came into being, but that they are in their essence logically anterior to God." - Bertrand Russell, Why I Am Not a Christian
There is no dilemma to those who have been enlightened by the Lord. Let me quote you. (the issue is) "one that has direct bearing on whether Christianity ... is true or false." Bertrand Russel was a fool. He apparently never came to the knowledge of the truth in spite of all his worthless learning.

2 Timothy 3:6-8​

King James Version​

6 For of this sort are they which creep into houses, and lead captive silly women laden with sins, led away with divers lusts,
7 Ever learning, and never able to come to the knowledge of the truth.
8 Now as Jannes and Jambres withstood Moses, so do these also resist the truth: men of corrupt minds, reprobate concerning the faith.
Just arguing with Caino, who is like Russell in that both think 'good' must meet their 'outraged' measure of good. For them, a God that commands ANYBODY to kill another, is automatically 'evil.' There is no way to argue against such a point: They have NO ROOM for a policeman, father protecting his children, or Soldier. All of them are evil and 'end of story.' You can't even talk rationally to somebody that has become the sole proprietor of good and evil: That person has become 'god' and 'good.'

“Why do you call me good?” Jesus answered. “No one is good—except God alone." Mark 10:18 Matthew 19:17 Luke 18:19 If only God is good, alone, then men have no ability, whatsover (Him being good ALONE) to qualify what 'good' is, yet many like Russell and Caino think they are the 'good' ones :( AND presume to tell God how 'good' He must be, before they will 'judge' Him good. That is a HUGE ouch!
 

Lon

Well-known member
God is good, because His actions follow His nature, all He does is good. While any action may 'seem' like it isn't good, we cannot/do not judge a pure Being's motives, especially when He is all-wise as well Romans 16:27. Actions always comes from love. It may never be understood 'how' but that isn't the answer. It isn't 'situational' ethics: God doesn't have situational ethics, He is always good. "How then could He..." "How then can He..." Are 1) representation of not being 'proprietors' of what is good (had to ask). It is rather saying "I don't know what good is, it doesn't look like what I think good is supposed to look like." and 2) put us in our proper place: Asking instead of judging or demanding. We are not on 'par' with God. He is alone, stands alone, is Holy alone, is good alone. "NO ONE is good, BUT God." Either that is true, or it is a lie, then who are we, who are not good, to try and qualify or quantify what is God's alone???? 🤔
 

marke

Well-known member
Just arguing with Caino, who is like Russell in that both think 'good' must meet their 'outraged' measure of good. For them, a God that commands ANYBODY to kill another, is automatically 'evil.' There is no way to argue against such a point: They have NO ROOM for a policeman, father protecting his children, or Soldier. All of them are evil and 'end of story.' You can't even talk rationally to somebody that has become the sole proprietor of good and evil: That person has become 'god' and 'good.'

“Why do you call me good?” Jesus answered. “No one is good—except God alone." Mark 10:18 Matthew 19:17 Luke 18:19 If only God is good, alone, then men have no ability, whatsover (Him being good ALONE) to qualify what 'good' is, yet many like Russell and Caino think they are the 'good' ones :( AND presume to tell God how 'good' He must be, before they will 'judge' Him good. That is a HUGE ouch!
Clearly, there are good people on earth but only because those good people are under the influence of God's Spirit.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Lon

Clete

Truth Smacker
Silver Subscriber
No, that equation does not always hold true in the physical world as it does in math. For example, If God is Jesus and Jesus is a man then it does not follow that God is a man.
Oh yes it absolutely does follow that God is a man! God, THE CREATOR GOD, became a man, lived a sinless life, laid down His life in payment for the sins of the entire human race, past present and future. He then took His life up again after having been in the grave for three days and then, being in His glorified human body, ascended into Heaven where He remains a man to this day and forever more!

If you deny this then you are not a Christian at all, which goes the entire distance toward explaining your behavior on this website.

God is love but not all love can be said to be God.
I already said that there is more than one kind of love and that if you change the context then you change the subject that it is easy, if your goal is to intentionally misconstrue and to be intentionally disagreeable then there's plenty of room in the English word "love" to make that happen. It does NOTHING to refute a single syllable of what I said.

It is embarrassingly pathetic that this post counts as your most responsive.

It is wrong to say love is God because love is variable, not a fixed entity. There are different types of love - some good and some bad. Here is good love:
Song of Solomon 1:2
Let him kiss me with the kisses of his mouth: for thy love is better than wine.

Song of Solomon 4:10
How fair is thy love, my sister, my spouse! how much better is thy love than wine! and the smell of thine ointments than all spices

Here is bad love:

Ezekiel 23:17
And the Babylonians came to her into the bed of love, and they defiled her with their whoredom, and she was polluted with them, and her mind was alienated from them.
I already said that there is more than one kind of love and that if you change the context then you change the subject that it is easy, if your goal is to intentionally misconstrue and to be intentionally disagreeable then there's plenty of room in the English word "love" to make that happen. It does NOTHING to refute a single syllable of what I said.

When the bible says that God is love, the word it uses is agape, not eros or philia. Therefore, your post here was a waste of time. Did you even bother to read my post where I already made this point? If so then you knew this post wasn't relevant and once again prove yourself to be an INTENTIONAL liar.

Also, God is alive. He existed through eternity past as a Spirit and then He created and then He became a man and then He was dead and then He rose from the dead. Doesn't sound like a "fixed quantity" to me! His character and personality are fixed but He is not. God is alive, personal, relational, loving and righteous. He is not the stone idol of Plato, Augustine and Calvin.

Clete
 
Last edited:

Clete

Truth Smacker
Silver Subscriber
God is good, because His actions follow His nature, all He does is good. While any action may 'seem' like it isn't good, we cannot/do not judge a pure Being's motives, especially when He is all-wise as well Romans 16:27. Actions always comes from love. It may never be understood 'how' but that isn't the answer. It isn't 'situational' ethics: God doesn't have situational ethics, He is always good. "How then could He..." "How then can He..." Are 1) representation of not being 'proprietors' of what is good (had to ask). It is rather saying "I don't know what good is, it doesn't look like what I think good is supposed to look like." and 2) put us in our proper place: Asking instead of judging or demanding. We are not on 'par' with God. He is alone, stands alone, is Holy alone, is good alone. "NO ONE is good, BUT God." Either that is true, or it is a lie, then who are we, who are not good, to try and qualify or quantify what is God's alone???? 🤔
If you think that "either [it] is true, or it is a lie" that God is alsways good AND that we have no ability to make that judgment then on what basis do you say that He is always good?
 
Last edited:

Hawkins

Active member
The difference between God's morality and that of men is that, we are given the morality based on whether an innocent is harmed. We consider something is not moral if an innocent is hurt. God on the other hand, bases His morality on whether a soul can be saved. In order to save more souls, He can order Israel to eradicate the Canaanites or else Israel may not be able to settle down and focus on learning God's Law to bring forward God's salvation plan for today's humans. If the pace of Israel is delayed, more souls will be lost. The Canaanites are the already dead.

I just removed all the weeds in order to lay a lawn. God actually did the same by removing the Canaanites in order to lay Israel for human salvation.
 

ffreeloader

Well-known member
The difference between God's morality and that of men is that, we are given the morality based on whether an innocent is harmed. We consider something is not moral if an innocent is hurt. God on the other hand, bases His morality on whether a soul can be saved. In order to save more souls, He can order Israel to eradicate the Canaanites or else Israel may not be able to settle down and focus on learning God's Law to bring forward God's salvation plan for today's humans. If the pace of Israel is delayed, more souls will be lost. The Canaanites are the already dead.

I just removed all the weeds in order to lay a lawn. God actually did the same by removing the Canaanites in order to lay Israel for human salvation.
I will register only one caveat to your entire argument.

God looks at eternity and what ultimately ends up happening. His understanding and His resulting actions take in every aspect of what is going on. As He sees every aspect of everyone's life and the results of everyone's actions His view of things morally can be based on the exact same morality as taught in the Bible, yet come to a completely different conclusion than we, who only see a small fraction of the whole, can conclude morally.
 

Clete

Truth Smacker
Silver Subscriber
The difference between God's morality and that of men is that, we are given the morality based on whether an innocent is harmed. We consider something is not moral if an innocent is hurt. God on the other hand, bases His morality on whether a soul can be saved. In order to save more souls, He can order Israel to eradicate the Canaanites or else Israel may not be able to settle down and focus on learning God's Law to bring forward God's salvation plan for today's humans. If the pace of Israel is delayed, more souls will be lost. The Canaanites are the already dead.

I just removed all the weeds in order to lay a lawn. God actually did the same by removing the Canaanites in order to lay Israel for human salvation.
Utter nonsense! If this were so then it would be meaningless to say that God is good. God does not get to pick and choose when to be righteous and when to be arbitrary and an arbitrary (i.e. unjust) action would not become just by virtue of the fact that God is the one who performed it. On the contrary, if God did the unjust, He would no longer to be righteous, by definition.

What is moral for God that is different than what would be moral for anyone else has only to do with God's authority, not some sort of different standard. It is not within the purview of a Sergeant to declare war but it is within the purview of the Commander in Chief. This does not mean there are two standards of practice within the military. The same code of conduct grants the CiC more authority than it does non-commissioned officers. Likewise, God has the authority to end a person's physical life at whatever point He sees fit. All men deserve death, Hawkins, every breath we take is a mercy. God does not owe the world an opportunity for salvation and it is not out of bounds (i.e. unjust) for the Judge to call a person's debt due, especially when that debt is owed to the Judge!

Clete
 
Last edited:

JudgeRightly

裁判官が正しく判断する
Staff member
Administrator
Super Moderator
Gold Subscriber
The difference between God's morality and that of men is that, we are given the morality based on whether an innocent is harmed. We consider something is not moral if an innocent is hurt. God on the other hand, bases His morality on whether a soul can be saved. In order to save more souls, He can order Israel to eradicate the Canaanites or else Israel may not be able to settle down and focus on learning God's Law to bring forward God's salvation plan for today's humans. If the pace of Israel is delayed, more souls will be lost. The Canaanites are the already dead.

I just removed all the weeds in order to lay a lawn. God actually did the same by removing the Canaanites in order to lay Israel for human salvation.

1) Is something (like humility) good because God recognizes it as good? Or,
2) Is something good because God commands that it is good (as Socrates put it, because God loves it)?
 

Clete

Truth Smacker
Silver Subscriber
Marke,

In your last post you quote me as having said, ""Saying God is a man does not justify saying a man is God. " and then said nothing else.

I never made any such quote and, as stated, it would not be technically correct because a class is not defined by any single member of that class. So, in other words, you have to keep the singular and the plural separated here.

Thus...

If the singular God became a singular man then that singular man is the singular God. If A=B then B=A.
This does not mean, of course, that man (i.e. mankind) is God or even godly for that matter.
 
Last edited:

Clete

Truth Smacker
Silver Subscriber
Clearly, there are good people on earth but only because those good people are under the influence of God's Spirit.
So when the Satanist, who actively hates God, feeds his children and is kind to his neighbor is doing so under the influence of God's Spirit?

Who teaches you this nonsense and why would anyone believe it?
 

marke

Well-known member
Marke,

In your last post you quote me as having said, ""Saying God is a man does not justify saying a man is God. " and then said nothing else.

I never made any such quote and, as stated, it would not be technically correct because a class is not defined by any single member of that class. So, in other words, you have to keep the singular and the plural separated here.

Thus...

If the singular God became a singular man then that singular man is the singular God. If A=B then B=A.
This does not mean, of course, that man (i.e. mankind) is God or even godly for that matter.
Let's do the math. God = a man, therefore a man = God. That kind of math is an error.
 

marke

Well-known member
So when the Satanist, who actively hates God, feeds his children and is kind to his neighbor is doing so under the influence of God's Spirit?

Who teaches you this nonsense and why would anyone believe it?
What seems to be good to men does not always seem good to God. A Christian farmer does good while plowing his field. A rebel against God does evil by plowing his field.

Proverbs 21:4
An high look, and a proud heart, and the plowing of the wicked, is sin.
 

JudgeRightly

裁判官が正しく判断する
Staff member
Administrator
Super Moderator
Gold Subscriber
Let's do the math. God = a man, therefore a man = God.

God the Son, Jesus, who is God, became a man. God = a Man.

The Man, Christ Jesus, is God. A Man = God.

Yes, that checks out.

That kind of math is an error.

No, Mark, it's not.

A = B, therefore B = A.

The Man, Jesus, IS IN FACT GOD!
 

marke

Well-known member
God the Son, Jesus, who is God, became a man. God = a Man.

The Man, Christ Jesus, is God. A Man = God.

Yes, that checks out.



No, Mark, it's not.

A = B, therefore B = A.

The Man, Jesus, IS IN FACT GOD!
No, it doesn't. A man cannot be God, but One man is God, so the analogy breaks down just like the analogy that suggests that if God is love then love is God. Perverted love is not God. The only correct analogy is that God is godly love - period.
 

Lon

Well-known member
If you think that "either [it] is true, or it is a lie" that God is alsways good AND that we have no ability to make that judgment then on what basis do you say that He is always good?
Him, Clete, we don't get to make those valuations, if Jesus was right (He was). If ONLY God is good (Jesus said so) then 'good' is wholly in the one that ALONE is good, yes? If such by virtue of the declaration, means we aren't 'good' thus incapable of actually valuing 'good,' we are only as good as our proximity and own image of our Creator. "Come let us reason together" the Lord says, because we have to talk to Him about what is good and what is not. If you get from God, what is good, you then can 'better' evaluate (such is the scope of all who walk with Him). God is good, simply because (it is His nature), not only can't we second-guess His motives, but we don't because we know on faith, that those motivations are pure, holy, and "good."

What then do we do, when we see something that doesn't look 'good' but believe in faith, God is nothing but good? Answer? For me, that He is good and I'll figure it out OR wait until I see Him to have Him explain it to me, if He wishes. We are talking, at this point, about something God DID do, mostly in the O.T. Our answers are both good answers (for us respectively or we wouldn't be following Him), but mine tend to be a bit given to faith where I may not always know the answer. The reason (for me) is because everytime I've had to wrestle and ask, to date, there has been a sufficient answer from His goodness. I simply assume after that, the next issue necessarily is the same: that I'll know one day or at least know I can rest in faith regarding His character.
 

Lon

Well-known member
1) Is something (like humility) good because God recognizes it as good? Or,
2) Is something good because God commands that it is good (as Socrates put it, because God loves it)?
Both, because all 'our' even warped sense of good, is imago deo (OUR image that reflects Him). It doesn't mean we get it right, it simply means we recognize what is good to some extent and greater extent as we grow closer to Him (not sure if I answered what you were wanting, just a meaningful attempt).
 
Top