ECT Is God Moral?

[Clete]

No time for editing this one! Please overlook the typos!

I said:

You were saying that morality exists because God is rational (or logical). In other words the fact that some actions are right and some wrong is because God is rational. If you asked a judge why some actions are wrong, he would say 'because the law says so'. He probably wouldn't say 'because God is logical'.

Who cares what a judge would say? I am not talking about matter of law but of right and wrong. More pointedly I am talking about whether it makes any sense to say that God is good and if so, how so.

Conversely, according to your argument, you would say that if God is illogical, then no actions are right or wrong.

I will go further than that! If God were illogical, as in irrational, He would be anti-life. To be rational simple mean to be consistent. Consistent with reality and consistent with yourself (i.e. not self-contradictory). If God is Life, which we know He is, then for Him to be self-contradictory would make Him anti-life (a.k.a. death). Thus if God is irrational then there could be no morality because there would be no life and matters of morality only apply to living beings.

I don't see that is a very saleable proposition. People know that some actions are right or wrong because the rightness or wrongness of the action speaks for itself, not because God is logical.

It can only "speak for itself" inside a thinking mind that is utilizing a rational process of thought. Thinking minds could not exist if God was not rational.

God could be completely illogical for all they care.

If He were, they would not exist in the first place. Their very existence is in thanks to the God of Life.

Now I am sure that judge would not stop there. He would add, 'but the law itself only upholds common sense', i.e. a common perception of the rightness or wrongness of actions. Or the occasional judge might say that the law is intended to uphold Christian values. Or Sharia or something similar. Most would say that the law has its own purpose, namely to ensure the protection and security of the country's citizens and that actions are right or wrong solely because of that purpose. None of this really equates to a general support of the theory that morality stems from the fact that God is rational.

I agree. It's an entirely different topic. I'm not at all talking about legal justice systems or upon what they should be based. Not that criminal justice isn't a branch of ethics that would find its foundations in the subject I am discussing which, as I've already said, has to do with whether God is actually, objectively good and if so, in what sense does it makes sense to say so.

I agree with you! But what we are looking for is a secure logical argument and this isn't one. Dictionaries tend to be descriptive of how words are used. The origin of the meanings is whole nuther story... And some would take issue with Rand's concept as being too individualistic. What happens when there is a choice between the life one person and the life of another? Rand's idea sounds like what I was warning against, namely an absoute rule that only works half the time in real life.

How so?

First of all, yes it is a secure logical argument. If you can refute a syllable of it, I'll hear it gladly!

Secondly, we live in a world of evil where such no win dilemmas can happen. They are products of previous immorality or are the result of accidents which God teaches us in His word are not moral situations (i.e. there is no guilt if someone dies as a result of an accident). Thus even your hypothetical choice between two people does not defeat or even contradict the idea that those things that are proper to life are the good and that which undermines or destroys it is the evil.

And as for Rand being too individualistic, people who utter such an objection haven't read Rand's books and are not familiar with her philosophy at all. Such objections are always red herrings.

Man gains enormous values from dealing with other men; living in a human society is his proper way of life—but only on certain conditions. Man is not a lone wolf and he is not a social animal. He is a contractual animal. He has to plan his life long-range, make his own choices, and deal with other men by voluntary agreement (and he has to be able to rely on their observance of the agreements they entered). - Ayn Rand Capitalism: The Unknown Ideal​

Again, I can agree with this, but it isn't an argument to say that the Bible says it so it must be right. I am looking for an argument that is permanent and self-justifying. These passages of scripture have contexts and so cannot be used to establish an absolute rule.

I didn't present them as the argument I presented them in support of the argument that I had already made.

You aren't suggesting that I quoted those passages out of context, are you? Do they not mean precisely what they say? Or are suggesting that there is a context in which Proverbs 19:11 could be said to be false?

I agree with all this, especially the bolded part. And this understanding does form a big part of my own reasoning on the subject.But it doesn't seem to me to lead to a conclusion that actions are moral or immoral because God is rational.

You seem to be skipping over the premise that God is life. It isn't merely that God is consistent but that God is Life AND is consistent with Himself and therefore acts in a manner consistent with life and can by virtue of that we can correctly and objectively say that God is good!

Again, I agree. But if God is rational, then one would expect that his thoughts are also logical.

That would be a tautology. One cannot be rational AND violate the rules of logic. The rules of logic define what it means to be rational.

One would expect that good thinking is logical thinking. Or at least is not illogical. It doesn't seem to answer the question: God reasons, therefore some actions are right or wrong. I don't see a proper argument here. There is a missing premise.

The premise you've overlooked is that God is Life.

Here's the whole thing in syllogism form...

• That which is proper to life is the good, that which is not proper to life is the evil.
  
• God is Life.
  
• God is consistent with Himself. (i.e. He is not self-contradictory - He is rational).
  
• Therefore God acts in a manner proper to Himself.
  
• Therefore God acts in a manner proper to life.
  
• Therefore God is good.

I don't think you understand the consistency argument. The argument that God is a consistent person was proposed precisely to overcome the objection you just mentioned. If God one day decided that building houses was great and the following day decided that burning them was just as great, then this would be an argument against the idea that morality comes from God. So the argument that God was consistent in his character and actions overcame this objection. It took away the arbitrariness of the argument.

However, it only pushes back the problem to a different level, that of who God is. We can imagine that God is consistent and that he always thinks that burning houses is great. This argument therefore depends on a presumption that God exists and relies on a pure coincidence that his character just happens to be in favour of building houses. Morality then is still derived from a pure coincidence that God's nature happens to be what it is. Again, this isn't a compelling argument at all. Again, our general perception, at least with some actions, is that the rightness or wrongness of an action speaks for itself. It doesn't require any belief in God or any belief that God has a certain kind of character.

Actions cannot speak for themselves per se. What you mean by "speak for themselves" is that people are able to figure it out. Well figuring it out requires a rational mind that chooses to think and to think rightly.
Further, being rational, as I said before, is the process of conforming your mind to reality. If God exists, there can be no correct code of morality that ignores that fact of reality.
Further still, if, by whatever means, a code of morality is deduced (i.e. figured out) in what way does that code apply to Him who created those that did the figuring?
In other words, it sounds like you are attempting to find some argument in favor of a code of ethics that is entirely divorced from God. You won't find one! The very act of reasoning itself can only occur because God is rational.

Exactly. So how does your statement that God is rational, therefore some actions are right or wrong, make logical sense? Your above statement would imply that you are of the view that morality is external to God.

Well hopefully part of this question has already been answered but in regards to whether morality is external to God is a matter of perspective. God is Reason (John 1) God is Life (John16) therefore God is Good. Given that line of reasoning is it false to say that morality is based on God's character? No! I wouldn't say it was false but the devil is in the details, as they say. In other words, it matters just what you mean when you say it. If you aren't careful you'll end up stating a meaningless tautology but so long as we are being mindful of what is meant by the things we say then can have a rationally coherent doctrine that boldly declares that God is morally perfect!

Suely it is foundational to logic that the argument is decided on the basis of correct logic, not whether the premises are true or false? The principles of good logic, like law, must be blindfolded to the parties. It must give unbiased results, otherwise it will only ever be biased. I am actually surprised you say this. It sounds unlike you.

WHAT?

You cannot, except by accident, end at a true conclusion based on false premises, I don't care how within the bounds of logic the arguments themselves are.

• If you ring the door bell and no one answers the door, no one is home. (premise)
  
• You ring the door bell and no one answers the door. (premise)
  
• Therefore no one is home. (conclusion)

The first premise is false (i.e maybe they're asleep or just don't like you or whatever) therefore the conclusion might be false even though the form of the argument is completely valid.

In order for a conclusion to be true you have to have BOTH! The premises must be true AND the form of argument must be valid. Not only that but the conclusion you draw must follow logical from the argument.

I don't really mind what name you call it. It doesn't justify it. First order logic is pure. It is true that first order logic is so simple that it is almost useless in ordinary human conversation but the fact is that in first order logic, the premises to an argument are accepted by the parties to an argument. They are givens. And most human debate and conversation is based on higher order logics dealing with sets and definitions and often the premises of first order logic statements are the real subject matter of discussion. But none of this nullifies the first order logic on which all the other logics are based. All the arguments, however complicated, are predicated on the principle that if somehow you can work out all the disagreements and lack of clarity down to a pure first order logic argument, then there would be an agreement.

What do you mean "premises are givens"?

Premises are not givens, unless you are making an argument based on hypotheticals, which I am not.

Premises must be established. But I don't have the time nor the inclination to establish every premise whether stated or implied in such an argument as I've presented in this thread. Nor is it necessary to do so. This is the reason I put this thread in the exclusively Christian forum. There are certain things that Christians automatically agree on. The existence of God, the notion that God is Life and that God does not contradict Himself are all ideas that Christians do not typically object to nor ask me to establish. But I haven't left even those ideas completely without support in that I've quoted scriptures that state virtually the exact same ideas. Of course quoting scripture is itself a form of argument which has the idea that scripture is true as it's major premise. A premise which can be established but that I don't feel the need to establish in an discussion with Christians about the God of scripture. Perhaps this general agreement is what you mean by "premises are givens".

In any case, I don't understand your objection here. Which premise have I used that you think needs established? Which premise have I used that isn't a widely accepted and even vital aspect of biblical Christian doctrine?

Resting in Him,
Clete

 

[Lon]

Rand never taught that the survival of the fittest produces a morality from logic.

I don't think nonChristians realize that when they are logical, they are borrowing from God to be so. I do believe the world can be logical at times (they are correct that 2+2=4).

False!

Explain. I'd say it again this way to help: Man's morality is flawed, God's is not. Thus, imho (correctable by you), God's morality is different than man's. Look forward toward your comments.

This is flatly false. Where would you have gotten such a notion?

It depends which side you fall on regarding the nature of God. Do I disagree with you? No, but even you have said God's "Character" is moral. That means, as far as I see, that it isn't primarily relational, but first an expression of who He is. The opposite is true for man, we MUST be in fellowship with God to be Moral.

Do you suppose that the Father has ever acted in manner other than in the best interests of the Son, or that the Son has ever acted in a manner contrary to a proper relationship with the Father? God is relational right down to His very essence and perfectly righteous (i.e. morally good) both in that context and in every other.

Resting in Him,
Clete

I see where you are coming from, not quite the same concern as mine was when I gave the postulation. Again, in order for us to be moral, we must get it relationally, from God. For God, it is His nature/character.

In Him, Lon

 

[Clete]

I don't think nonChristians realize that when they are logical, they are borrowing from God to be so. I do believe the world can be logical at times (they are correct that 2+2=4).

Of course people can be logical. That's the entire point of my using Rand's arguments. She was not only logical but eloquent. Her errors had mostly to do with false premises rather than errors in her form of argument (logic).

And unbelievers are almost universally unaware that they are borrowing from a Christian worldview when they think clearly.

Explain. I'd say it again this way to help: Man's morality is flawed, God's is not. Thus, imho (correctable by you), God's morality is different than man's. Look forward toward your comments.

Reality is reality, Lon! Right is right and wrong is wrong. The only things that are different for us vs. God have to do with our rank in the universe. It is wrong for us to refuse to worship God, for example. But that's all part and parcel of a correct moral code. God does not have a separate code of morals.

As for our inability to be morally perfect says something about us, not the moral code.

It depends which side you fall on regarding the nature of God. Do I disagree with you? No, but even you have said God's "Character" is moral. That means, as far as I see, that it isn't primarily relational, but first an expression of who He is. The opposite is true for man, we MUST be in fellowship with God to be Moral.

You are going to have to flesh this out more. There isn't enough here for me to figure out what you mean.

Again, to whatever extent God is relational, He is moral in His relationships and to whatever degree He is personal and private, He is privately moral.

I see where you are coming from, not quite the same concern as mine was when I gave the postulation. Again, in order for us to be moral, we must get it relationally, from God. For God, it is His nature/character.

In Him, Lon

It just seems like you are making a distinction without a difference. God is moral in every way - period. We are God's creation and thus a relationship with God is proper to the life of a human being and is therefore moral. But God is, by nature, relational as well! There is, and has always been, the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit. This three way relationship has existed for eternity and each member of the Trinity has always loved the other two.

Resting in Him,
Clete

 

[CabinetMaker]

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.

 

[Desert Reign]

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.

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.

 

[Lon]

For those that may have been following mine and Lon's discussion: he sent me some pos rep after doing some more research and conceded that I had made some valid points at least in so far as line segments are concerned - but suggested that I maybe wrong if we move beyond line segments specifically into other kinds of segments. He said that this discussion was bringing out the worse in us and decided to put me on ignore for the time being. I'll leave the discussion where it's at - and sorry to Clete for going off track.

A bit overstated. The mathematics question anyone can look up and the way it applies to God's eternality and infinite nature (different with similarity). They both are linked in posterity for thread, and I told you both I and my daughter, a mathematics major, disagreed with you. A line-segment is not a line, she said. Her point? It is both finite but with infinite expression. God is eternal, and time is a finite limitation. God is also infinite, but that is different than eternal, which is timeless. God is both infinite, and eternal. What is important is what is actual and glorifying to God. You are correct on the disagreement, however, as well as wanting to leave it with me. I'm not sure it is the 'worst' in us, but the extent of stubbornness, pride. You can have any wrap up needed, I just wanted to clarify the cease-fire on the rhetoric. -Lon

 

[Lon]

Of course people can be logical. That's the entire point of my using Rand's arguments. She was not only logical but eloquent. Her errors had mostly to do with false premises rather than errors in her form of argument (logic).

Gotcha.

And unbelievers are almost universally unaware that they are borrowing from a Christian worldview when they think clearly.

:up:

Reality is reality, Lon! Right is right and wrong is wrong. The only things that are different for us vs. God have to do with our rank in the universe. It is wrong for us to refuse to worship God, for example. But that's all part and parcel of a correct moral code. God does not have a separate code of morals.

As for our inability to be morally perfect says something about us, not the moral code.

I thought that's where you were headed. The problem, as I see it, and my concern: Many try to match their morality to God. For instance, the "There is no hell" thread is one cultist, imposing his 'immorality' upon God's. "If God sends people to eternal hell and doesn't save all mankind, He would be immoral." Similarly, btw, this is applied to Calvinists regarding a limited atonement. I've no problem with you assessing that it would make me incorrect,but Romans 9, to me, assures that God is certainly able to do with His creation as He sees fit, in absolute morality. I always assume, I need to change, not God. I 'think' I'd be crazy and not rational to do otherwise. Oddly, you and I do not subscribe to the same systematic theology, when we likely agree on most of this paragraph. :think:

You are going to have to flesh this out more. There isn't enough here for me to figure out what you mean.

It goes back to here:

Do you suppose that the Father has ever acted in manner other than in the best interests of the Son, or that the Son has ever acted in a manner contrary to a proper relationship with the Father? God is relational right down to His very essence and perfectly righteous (i.e. morally good) both in that context and in every other.

I had said, God's morality, in a previous agreement with you, was part of nature and character and not 'primarily' relational (secondarily). You disagreed. Perhaps a better way to say it, morality of for us - extrinsic; morality for God - intrinsic.

Again, to whatever extent God is relational, He is moral in His relationships and to whatever degree He is personal and private, He is privately moral.

Probably sums up an agreement and in a way, that communicates more effectively than my first-drafts attempt.

It just seems like you are making a distinction without a difference. God is moral in every way - period. We are God's creation and thus a relationship with God is proper to the life of a human being and is therefore moral. But God is, by nature, relational as well! There is, and has always been, the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit. This three way relationship has existed for eternity and each member of the Trinity has always loved the other two.

Resting in Him,
Clete

You said similar in your initial post. I think I see where you are coming from but it also steered my thoughts from my first post until now. I am not sure if the extrinsic for us, intrinsic for God works. Again, I am looking at a few conversations going on, on TOL, that imho, aren't 'logical' or 'moral' (quotes just to emphasize words). The Hell is not real thread is mostly gushy sentimentality against a supposed 'good god' against the creation of,' to them, 'an unconscionable eternal torment.'

They would intimate that 'their morality' therefore, is "God's morality."

I've told them "Wrong! You are immoral, God is not, regardless of what expectations you throw upon Him because you need to become moral, not Him!"

In such light, your thread is certainly timely if it addresses such concerns.
In Him -Lon

 

[Clete]

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. Whatever code of morality by which some idiot might declare God to be unrighteous, that code could not be defended rationally and would almost certain lead to arguments that were the equivalent to "It doesn't feel right to me, therefore it's wrong.", which, of course, is not a logically valid argument.

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.

Resting in Him,
Clete

 

[Clete]

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 you want to discuss this, I invite you to read the opening post before doing so. It'll save a lot of time.

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.

The problem with making such a statement and the problem which I believe the opening post resolves is that you've render God arbitrary. God is not arbitrary, He is just! He cannot be both! Let me repeat, HE CANNOT BE BOTH! The two are contradictory! One is either just (i.e. righteous) or one is arbitrary. Or put another way, one is either moral or amoral.

This is not a new problem and it is anything but pointless because the scripture repeatedly makes the claim that God is good. You have no way of explaining how such an assessment is anything but a meaningless tautology. For you, saying that God is good is more no meaningful than saying that the boss is in charge or that ice is frozen.

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.

You just contradicted yourself. God cannot determine morality and be moral. The proof is in the following question. Was it moral for God to determine morality? See how meaningless it is? It's circular reasoning at it's finest.

Again, read the opening post. It won't be a waste of your time. If you see a flaw in my logic, point it out and we'll discuss it.

Resting in Him,
Clete

 

[Nick M]

And just for fun, I am not sure that God is capable of coveting. Everything is actually his.

 

[Clete]

And just for fun, I am not sure that God is capable of coveting. Everything is actually his.

Don't be so sure!

Hebrews 4:15 For we do not have a High Priest who cannot sympathize with our weaknesses, but was in all points tempted as we are, yet without sin.​

 

[CabinetMaker]

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. 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?

If God is the source of morality and God decides that burning houses is moral them, as we are His creation, we would know that burning houses is moral and have no way to determine otherwise. ( Though we do have the nicer than God crowd that does try to difine morality according to themselves.)

 

[Clete]

You don't understand your own argument. 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?

The opening post addresses this question. This question is the purpose of the opening post.

Have you read it?

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?

If God is the source of morality and God decides that burning houses is moral them, as we are His creation, we would know that burning houses is moral and have no way to determine otherwise.

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.

( Though we do have the nicer than God crowd that does try to difine morality according to themselves.)

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.

Resting in Him,
Clete

 

[CabinetMaker]

The opening post addresses this question. This question is the purpose of the opening post.

Have you read it?

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?

You question here reveals a fundamental flaw in your reasoning. You are making assumptions that you don't even know your making. Why/how do we know sexually assaulting children is always wrong?

The rest of your response is based on you believing that absolute morality exists independently of God. It goes back to my first post on this thread: does morality exist independently of God or is God the source of morality?

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.


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.

Resting in Him,
Clete

 

[CabinetMaker]

If you want to discuss this, I invite you to read the opening post before doing so. It'll save a lot of time.


The problem with making such a statement and the problem which I believe the opening post resolves is that you've render God arbitrary. God is not arbitrary, He is just! He cannot be both! Let me repeat, HE CANNOT BE BOTH! The two are contradictory! One is either just (i.e. righteous) or one is arbitrary. Or put another way, one is either moral or amoral.

This is not a new problem and it is anything but pointless because the scripture repeatedly makes the claim that God is good. You have no way of explaining how such an assessment is anything but a meaningless tautology. For you, saying that God is good is more no meaningful than saying that the boss is in charge or that ice is frozen.

I don't agree with your reasoning. What I said does not make God arbitrary, it makes Him sovergien. By His own declaration, He never changes. For me saying God us good means that God is good and can always be trusted to be holy and just. The morals that God gave us are an integral part of who He is.

You just contradicted yourself. God cannot determine morality and be moral. The proof is in the following question. Was it moral for God to determine morality? See how meaningless it is? It's circular reasoning at it's finest.

Its not a contradiction. God did not sit down one day and make a list of morals. Gods nature is moral. As His created beings, created in His image, we inherent those morals.

Again, read the opening post. It won't be a waste of your time. If you see a flaw in my logic, point it out and we'll discuss it.

Resting in Him,
Clete

I'll read this as soon as I have some extra time.

 

[WonderfulLordJesus]

Not only is God moral, God is Holy. That aside, why don't you do a poll on the most abjectly stupid thread title, include this one, first?

 

[glorydaz]

Not only is God moral, God is Holy. That aside, why don't you do a poll on the most abjectly stupid thread title, include this one, first?

Had you bothered to read the thread, you'd see there is nothing stupid about the title.

 

[Clete]

Not only is God moral, God is Holy. That aside, why don't you do a poll on the most abjectly stupid thread title, include this one, first?

You wouldn't believe the number of times I've debated people about whether God is moral!

Catholics do not believe that God is moral and neither to Calvinists nor most Arminians!

I'm quite shocked at the poll results really! The only reason they came out as they did is because I asked the question in too simplistic a manner. Had they understood that to be moral means to conform to a standard, the results would have been flipped from what they are now.

So, it's not half as stupid a question as you suppose. Virtually the whole Christian world denies that God is moral. They readily admit that God is good but they insist that that's somehow different than saying He's moral. They don't care about the contradiction, especially Calvinists.

Resting in Him,
Clete

 

[Clete]

I don't agree with your reasoning. What I said does not make God arbitrary, it makes Him sovergien.

The term 'soveriegn' has several potential theological meanings. You'll need to clarify just what you mean here.

By His own declaration, He never changes.

Again, it depends on what you mean by "He never changes". If you are saying that in the Calvinistic sense, then you're wrong. He never makes any such declaration. If you mean that God's personality and character never changes (i.e. WHO God is) then you're on track but how would that have anything to do with the topic?

For me saying God is good means that God is good and can always be trusted to be holy and just. The morals that God gave us are an integral part of who He is.

I understand but I'm telling you, there's thousands of years worth of Christian philosophy that will tell you that saying such a thing is a tautology. You've said nothing more meaningful than that ice is frozen.

Its not a contradiction. God did not sit down one day and make a list of morals. Gods nature is moral. As His created beings, created in His image, we inherent those morals.

Yes, it is a contradiction but I agree that God's nature is moral. My opening post is all about how saying so is NOT a tautology.

I'll read this as soon as I have some extra time.

I look forward to it.

Resting in Him,
Clete

 

[WonderfulLordJesus]

Had you bothered to read the thread, you'd see there is nothing stupid about the title.

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.