ECT Is God Moral?

[Cross Reference]

Whose morality is He subject to? If any other than His own, how is He God? If His own then He is, by definition, moral (unless He can change).

Is/was innocence ever subjected to anything other than, "vanity"?

 

[Cross Reference]

Can't think of any. Ecclesiastes chapter 3 tells us there is a time for both love and hate, peace and war, and so on. This may tie into Clete's post about logic/wisdom. While there is a time for everything under the sun, it takes wisdom to know which of the responses would be the best for a given situation >>>> love or hate. Both would be moral depending on the situation.

You can't because, as with sin, immorality is a result of a poor/improper, relationship. Likewise is holiness and morality a result of a perfect relationship. That is why innocence must guided to make "holy" choices. In this, think of Adam and then of a baby.

 

[Nick M]

I don't know how you can read something I never (and never intended to) put in my post.

I said what is exactly in the post, no less and no more. And there is no an "all" anywhere in my post.

Read again till you realize the above.

I don't know where you stand, but you are talking to one (Crossreference) that doesn't believe a good chunk of the Bible and to him you have to interpret its meaning. Rather than just believe it.

 

[Cross Reference]

I don't know where you stand, but you are talking to one (Crossreference) that doesn't believe a good chunk of the Bible and to him you have to interpret its meaning. Rather than just believe it.

\


. . . . . . . and that is why you have difficulties is figgerin' out what Jesus is all about when you read about Him and I don't. Bible boasters + nothing, never make the cut.

Name me one time you ever asked a question of me from the want to know rather than mock, as you are now doing?

 

[Clete]

Well I must say that I am stunned.

I mean, I've spent quite a long time thinking through what I wrote in post 68 and I feel like its all pretty solid but I never would have expected to not have to defend it!

I'm not sure what's going on here. Its as if everyone read the post and said, "Oh! Is that all he was getting at? - Boring!" and then left!
Surely there has to be someone who thinks I've lost my mind or that I never had one in the first place or at least has a question or sees some point that needs clarification, something!

 

[genuineoriginal]

Well I must say that I am stunned.

I mean, I've spent quite a long time thinking through what I wrote in post 68 and I feel like its all pretty solid but I never would have expected to not have to defend it!

I'm not sure what's going on here. Its as if everyone read the post and said, "Oh! Is that all he was getting at? - Boring!" and then left!

I am sure most people thought TLDR (too long didn't read).

 

[Cross Reference]

Well I must say that I am stunned.

I mean, I've spent quite a long time thinking through what I wrote in post 68 and I feel like its all pretty solid but I never would have expected to not have to defend it!

I'm not sure what's going on here. Its as if everyone read the post and said, "Oh! Is that all he was getting at? - Boring!" and then left!
Surely there has to be someone who thinks I've lost my mind or that I never had one in the first place or at least has a question or sees some point that needs clarification, something!

All of that to come to the "universal" consensus of what everyone would agree on that God is moral? <scratching head>

 

[genuineoriginal]

All of which, if God is Logic, is entirely consistent with the common Christian teaching that morality is derived from and defined by God's nature.

Actually, John 1:1 says that the Logos is God, not God is Logos.
This is not a two way equation like math.
It is a one way equation.

Logos is not merely "logic", but more specifically "purpose".
John 1:1 says that in the beginning was God's purpose (logos), and God's purpose (logos) was with God, and God's purpose (logos) was God.

In other words, God never existed without God's purpose and God's purpose defines God's existence.

Rand's quintessential statement on morality is this ...

"Since reason is man’s basic means of survival, that which is proper to the life of a rational being is the good; that which negates, opposes or destroys it is the evil." Ayn Rand: Atlas Shrugged​

That is not quite true about man, and definitely does not apply to God.

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

All of your arguments up to this point still fail to justify that statement.

The counter is that the adversary (satan) is real, the adversary is rational (you would probably disagree with that, but the logical argument presented in Job shows differently), therefore the adversary is moral (an obviously false statement).

Surely there has to be someone who thinks I've lost my mind or that I never had one in the first place or at least has a question or sees some point that needs clarification, something!

Did this post help?

 

[glorydaz]

Well I must say that I am stunned.

I mean, I've spent quite a long time thinking through what I wrote in post 68 and I feel like its all pretty solid but I never would have expected to not have to defend it!

I'm not sure what's going on here. Its as if everyone read the post and said, "Oh! Is that all he was getting at? - Boring!" and then left!
Surely there has to be someone who thinks I've lost my mind or that I never had one in the first place or at least has a question or sees some point that needs clarification, something!

I thought it was excellent. Whenever I've seen "Logic" substituted for the "Word" in the past, I've dismissed it as nonsense. But the way you described it, I finally understand....maybe not as clearly as I will once I get used to it, though.

It actually encompasses much more than just the "Word" does, because Word seems to be more a result of reason, and the way it's related to LIFE was really awesome.

 

[Cross Reference]

Actually, John 1:1 says that the Logos is God, not God is Logos.
This is not a two way equation like math.
It is a one way equation.

Logos is not merely "logic", but more specifically "purpose".
John 1:1 says that in the beginning was God's purpose (logos), and God's purpose (logos) was with God, and God's purpose (logos) was God.

In other words, God never existed without God's purpose and God's purpose defines God's existence.

Lets see: The Word of God; God's heart given expression is a, purpose?

 

[genuineoriginal]

Lets see: The Word of God; God's heart given expression is a, purpose?

_____
logos
From Ancient Greek λόγος ‎(lógos, “speech, oration, discourse, quote, story, study, ratio, word, calculation, reason”).

(philosophy) In Ancient Greek philosophy, the rational principle that governs the cosmos.
_____​

 

[Cross Reference]

_____
logos
From Ancient Greek λόγος ‎(lógos, “speech, oration, discourse, quote, story, study, ratio, word, calculation, reason”).

(philosophy) In Ancient Greek philosophy, the rational principle that governs the cosmos.
_____​

Yeah? The expression of God's Heart. What have you posited that changes what I wrote with regards to the expression of God's heart vocalized? Where do we go from here?

 

[genuineoriginal]

Lets see: The Word of God; God's heart given expression is a, purpose?

_____
logos
From Ancient Greek λόγος ‎(lógos, “speech, oration, discourse, quote, story, study, ratio, word, calculation, reason”).

(philosophy) In Ancient Greek philosophy, the rational principle that governs the cosmos.
_____​

Yeah? The expression of God's Heart. What have you posited that changes what I wrote with regards to the expression of God's heart vocalized? Where do we go from here?

You appeared to be asking if I was correct in identifying logos as a purpose (indicated by the question mark after the word purpose).
I provided the wikitionary definition of logos so you could determine for yourself if my statement was justifiable.

Purpose is a synonym for reason, but includes an additional meaning of intent.

_____
purpose
the reason for which something exists or is done, made, used, etc.
an intended or desired result; end; aim; goal.
_____​

"The expression of God's Heart" appears to be an attempt to make logos into an emotional principle instead of a rational principle.

It is a stretch to claim that logos is "the expression of God's Heart", but it is not a stretch to claim that logos is God's purpose.

 

[Nick M]

Soooo....

I can take the lack of argument as an indication of universal agreement then, yes?

After some thought, you can count on some red herrings mixed with a possible strawman. If you come right out and say it, you will get objection.

Murder is wrong whether God declared it to be wrong or not. The evil and wicked (wolves in sheep's clothing) will object, and already did. Note the response.

Absolute right and wrong exist.

Really? In an lawless mindset, right/wrong is, 'whatever'. So what or who regulates such a mindset?

 

[Cross Reference]

​

​

You appeared to be asking if I was correct in identifying logos as a purpose (indicated by the question mark after the word purpose).
I provided the wikitionary definition of logos so you could determine for yourself if my statement was justifiable.

Purpose is a synonym for reason, but includes an additional meaning of intent.

_____
purpose

the reason for which something exists or is done, made, used, etc.
an intended or desired result; end; aim; goal.
_____​

"The expression of God's Heart" appears to be an attempt to make logos into an emotional principle instead of a rational principle.

It is a stretch to claim that logos is "the expression of God's Heart", but it is not a stretch to claim that logos is God's purpose.

Are not your lips; is not your mouth, those physical parts of you, giving voice to what your heart desires to be expressed? What should anyone suspect the intent is other than . . the union is preserved between the two?


"In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God."
John 1:1 (ESV)

 

[genuineoriginal]

Are not your lips; is not your mouth, those physical parts of you, giving voice to what your heart desires to be expressed? What should anyone suspect the intent is other than . . the union is preserved between the two?

Or not.

Isaiah 29:13 13 Wherefore the Lord said, Forasmuch as this people draw near me with their mouth, and with their lips do honour me, but have removed their heart far from me, and their fear toward me is taught by the precept of men:​

 

[Cross Reference]

Or not.

Isaiah 29:13 13 Wherefore the Lord said, Forasmuch as this people draw near me with their mouth, and with their lips do honour me, but have removed their heart far from me, and their fear toward me is taught by the precept of men:​

Totally irrelevant. Does not change a thing inasmuch the "heart is deceitfully wicked". Does not God see such a heart that would render his speech worthless?

 

[Clete]

Actually, John 1:1 says that the Logos is God, not God is Logos.
This is not a two way equation like math.
It is a one way equation.

This completely ignores the context of the passage. John is flatly making the claim that Jesus is God and he is calling Jesus "Logos". A term with which John's readers would have been very familiar.

Logos is not merely "logic", but more specifically "purpose".
John 1:1 says that in the beginning was God's purpose (logos), and God's purpose (logos) was with God, and God's purpose (logos) was God.

In other words, God never existed without God's purpose and God's purpose defines God's existence.

Again, this ignores the context.
Further, saying that Logos means "purpose" doesn't make it so.

Who says it means purpose?

Even if it does mean or can be used to mean purpose, I can guarantee you that it absolutely does mean 'logic" and have provided citations to establish that fact.

Further, if your translation is correct, in what way would that refute a word of what I said?

That is not quite true about man, and definitely does not apply to God.

Saying it doesn't make it so.

I presented the whole argument. You rejecting the conclusion doesn't count as a refutation of the argument.

All of your arguments up to this point still fail to justify that statement.

How so?

The counter is that the adversary (satan) is real, the adversary is rational (you would probably disagree with that, but the logical argument presented in Job shows differently), therefore the adversary is moral (an obviously false statement).

There is nothing here but a bald claim with which to agree or disagree.

Look, if you want to refute my position you're going to have to do more than make assertions. Make an argument for crying out loud!

A logical argument made in Job? What logical argument are you referring to? HOW does that argument refute a syllable of what I've said?

Did this post help?

It would have made a good opening paragraph! You gotta flesh it out or else its just unsubstantiated personal opinion.

Resting in Him,
Clete

 

[Clete]

After some thought, you can count on some red herrings mixed with a possible strawman. If you come right out and say it, you will get objection.

Murder is wrong whether God declared it to be wrong or not. The evil and wicked (wolves in sheep's clothing) will object, and already did. Note the response.

The "lawless mindset' comment in response to what you said really baffles me. Sin isn't sin because the Law says so, quite the reverse! I'll never understand why people can't figure out that the law was there to make sin (i.e. evil) abound, not create it!

I agree with you! Evil was evil before the law! The law is not the standard its merely a shadow of it. Logos (i.e. God) is the substance!

Resting in Him,
Clete

 

[Cross Reference]

This completely ignores the context of the passage. John is flatly making the claim that Jesus is God and he is calling Jesus "Logos". A term with which John's readers would have been very familiar.


Again, this ignores the context.
Further, saying that Logos means "purpose" doesn't make it so.

Who says it means purpose?

Even if it does mean or can be used to mean purpose, I can guarantee you that it absolutely does mean 'logic" and have provided citations to establish that fact.

Further, if your translation is correct, in what way would that refute a word of what I said?


Saying it doesn't make it so.

I presented the whole argument. You rejecting the conclusion doesn't count as a refutation of the argument.


How so?


There is nothing here but a bald claim with which to agree or disagree.

Look, if you want to refute my position you're going to have to do more than make assertions. Make an argument for crying out loud!

A logical argument made in Job? What logical argument are you referring to? HOW does that argument refute a syllable of what I've said?


It would have made a good opening paragraph! You gotta flesh it out or else its just unsubstantiated personal opinion.

Resting in Him,
Clete

Jesus, the man, being the LOGOS was not sealed deal until He resurrected and presented Himself to the Father..