ECT Is God Moral?

[LoneStar]

God hates too. Does that mean he is immoral at times?

no

 

[Cross Reference]

God is never nor ever can be, immoral.

 

[revpete]

No, not the first Adam formed from the earth.


I see you capitalized His, which means you think that Adam was the image of God instead of Christ.

That's right only Jesus was given the Spirit without measure.







So are you now saying Lucifer and the angels were created in God's image?



I'd be glad to, as soon as you clarify what you believe Adam's morality was.[/QUOTE]

He was formed from the earth but created in God's image. The Hebrew words are different.

Genesis: 1. 27. So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them.

I capitalized "His" because I was referring to God not Adam as you thought.

Christ is: Hebrews: 1. 3. Who being the brightness of his glory, and the express image of his person, and upholding all things by the word of his power, when he had by himself purged our sins, sat down on the right hand of the Majesty on high.

The angels were the first created beings. So think, whose image could they have been created in? They were created perfect as God would not have created them flawed in any way. In other words, in the image of their creator, God.

Adam's morality was as I have already explained, perfect before he fell but corrupted after.

Pete

 

[Nick M]

God is never nor ever can be, immoral.

Can God write a new song?

 

[Cross Reference]

Delete. Too sensitive for some readers.

 

[genuineoriginal]

I want to look at John 1 again. This time verse 4...

John 1:4 In Him was life, and the life was the light of men.​

I find it interesting that the issue of life is brought up in the context of the Logos of God. It interests me because if one were to attempt to contemplate a rational basis for morality, life would have to be a necessary starting point because it is only to the living that issues of morality apply or matter.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

. Morality is not simply defined by God's character as many Christians suppose, but rather that which is moral is so because it is rational, which, if you are following the line of thinking in this essay properly, you'll understand is the equivalent of saying that what is moral is so because it is God like.

It is moral because it is rational?

_____
rational

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

_____​

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

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

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

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

To say that God is moral, is not to say that God has a list of rules He must follow but simply that God is Life and that He is consistent with Himself and therefore acts in way which is proper to Life (i.e. He acts morally).

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

Thus, to say that God is moral is to say that God is rational.

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

An amoral (non-moral) God would be non-rational and therefore non-personal, non-relational, non-thinking, non-living, non-real!

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

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

 

[Desert Reign]

Do you pick your nose when you should be wiping it?

Gross. Reported. Go take your mess elsewhere.

 

[Cross Reference]

Gross. Reported. Go take your mess elsewhere.

What mess?

 

[Clete]

My reply to you deserves an honest reply from you.

Thank you.

Which reply are you referring too?

 

[Clete]

I did.

I see you have identified that the summary statement of your argument is inadequate in summing up your argument.
That provides you the opportunity to correct your mistake and provide a better summary statement.


I see you have identified a different statement you made that would have been better as a summary statement, and that you have identified that your summary statement was inadequate because it wasn't summarizing the point of your argument, but was introducing an ancillary point.
That provides you with a way of fixing your argument so it ends on a strong summary statement instead of on a weak ancillary point.


It was already TLDR for this forum.
Making it three times as long would have made it even more difficult to find your point, which was already difficult to find, since it wasn't addressed in the opening or the closing statement.


I see you have managed to identify the real argument you were trying to make.
That provides you with the basis for making a strong opening statement (currently missing) to alert the reader on where the argument is heading and a strong ending statement (also missing) to tie up the argument and reinforce the opening statement.


This appears to be the real place we are having problems in reaching agreement.
You are claiming that I am making bald assertions.
How do you believe my statements are any more bald assertions than the "arguments" that you are making?
I don't see any difference between the statements I make from my own experience and research and the ones you make in your argument.


It appeared that you were having difficulty understanding the statements I made, so I spent time clarifying them.

If you wanted me to address a different part of your argument, such as the underlined sentence, you would have gotten a better response by simply asking, "What about this part where I state: "To say that God is moral, is not to say that God has a list of rules He must follow but simply that God is Life and that He is consistent with Himself and therefore acts in way which is proper to Life (i.e. He acts morally)."

Instead of doing that, you complained about my counter argument to your "ancillary point" without explaining that it was merely an "ancillary point" until now.


No, you don't get it.
I do have other things I could do, but I thought it was important to provide you some feedback on your argument to help you identify the weaknesses in it so you could create a stronger argument the next time.
So far we have identified that the closing statement doesn't belong, since it is an "ancillary point", the opening does not lead the reader into finding the main argument, and that the main argument is hidden by an unnecessarily long discussion about logos being logic instead of a better word (reason or purpose come to mind).
These are merely three places identified in our discussion where your argument can be refined and made stronger.


You spent much more time complaining about the nature of the feedback than you did accepting it for its intended purpose.
When you ask someone for feedback, and don't like the direction the feedback is going, it is up to you to redirect the feedback into the path you are wanting.
Even then, the person giving feedback may have a different purpose in giving the feedback than you are expecting, so the feedback may appear to be completely off track from your expectations.

Have fun hanging out with Cross Reference on my ignore list.

 

[Cross Reference]

Which reply are you referring too?

The one that got me an undeserved infraction . . . #115!

 

[genuineoriginal]

Have fun hanging out with Cross Reference on my ignore list.

You have proven that you really didn't want anyone to address the points in your argument.

If you didn't want anyone to address them, why did you complain when nobody was addressing them?

 

[Cross Reference]

You have proven that you really didn't want anyone to address the points in your argument.

If you didn't want anyone to address them, why did you complain when nobody was addressing them?

I did and he had me written up! Nice fellow.

 

[genuineoriginal]

I did and he had me written up! Nice fellow.

That is not true.
The report came from glorydaz objecting to some anti-Trinitarian statements you made.
The infraction came from Sherman who told you to stop posting in ECT because you can't stop making anti-Trinitarian statements.

Clete had nothing to do with that.
His report was about something patrick jane posted.

 

[genuineoriginal]

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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


It is moral because it is rational?

_____
rational

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

_____​

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

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

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

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


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


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


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

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

Anyone want to tear this apart?
I won't put you on ignore.
:chuckle:

 

[Cross Reference]

That is not true.
The report came from glorydaz objecting to some anti-Trinitarian statements you made.
The infraction came from Sherman who told you to stop posting in ECT because you can't stop making anti-Trinitarian statements.

Clete had nothing to do with that.
His report was about something patrick jane posted.

Thank you. Then he has my apology when he takes me off "ignore'. How did you find that out because coming from her it shouldn't have any weight given her religious bent which is apart from the gospel of Jesus Christ?

OMT: I thought the rules for posting had been relaxed to accommodate even non -Christians. What gives??

 

[genuineoriginal]

Thank you. Then he has my apology when he takes me off "ignore'. How did you find that out because coming from her it shouldn't have any weight given her religious bent which is apart from the gospel of Jesus Christ?

You are a subscriber and have just as much access to the woodshed as I do.

 

[Cross Reference]

You are a subscriber and have just as much access to the woodshed as I do.

I don't know how to work it and besides that, my mind doesn't travel in those directions.

 

[genuineoriginal]

I don't know how to work it and besides that, my mind doesn't travel in those directions.

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

 

[Clete]

I can't see how deferring the issue to God's nature solves the question. Don't get me wrong, I am sure we are working towards the same goal and what you have said is important. But it seems to me that you leave unanswered two important questions:
1) Why does God being logical entail that some actions should be moral and some immoral?

I do not understand the question.
What do you mean by "some actions"? Who's actions, God's?

None of God's actions are immoral, which I have no doubt you agree with and so I'm lost, I don't understand what you are asking me.

2) Even if you can show that 1) is true, this still doesn't tell us why shooting school children is a bad thing and not a good thing.

Good and bad are words that have meaningful definitions. Shooting school children would not fall under the definition of good. What is the definition of good, you ask? Well note the quote of Rand that I have in my post...

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

I'm not sure that I would have put "of a rational being" in that statement but since good and evil have no meaning outside of reason it doesn't really damage the definition. Further, the bible teaches the exact same thing...

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

Deuteronomy 30:15 “See, I have set before you today life and good, death and evil, 16 in that I command you today to love the Lord your God, to walk in His ways, and to keep His commandments, His statutes, and His judgments, that you may live and multiply;

And elsewhere
​

Thus, if that which negates, opposes or destroys life is evil, killing school children would be evil.

The rules of logic are clear: an argument only follows from premises. Being consistent, wouldn't you say that God is subject to the same constraints of logic as we are?

Of course!

Sound reason is not so much constraining your thoughts to the rules of logic as it is containing your thoughts to the limitations of reality. The rules of logic only define what those constraints happen to be. In other words, the rules of logic are not made up or invented, they are discovered. Thus if God is real then He is, by definition, part of reality. The Law of Identity therefore must apply to God or else to say that God is would be meaningless.

And that therefore if we are to speak of God's nature, we are more talking about the premises that control his nature (i.e. his own characteristics) than about the process of logic itself.

I feel the need to make a clarification here. As I've stated in an earlier thread, the word logos is where the English word logic comes from but we use the word logic differently than the Greeks used logos. The best single word translation of logos into English is the word 'Reason'. "Logic" implies the rules that reason follows. Logos refers more to the actual act of reasoning rather than to the rules which govern it.

Not sure that addresses your point here though. I'm not sure there's a substantive difference between speaking of God vs. God's attributes. Perhaps I've missed your point.

Which brings us back to the problem I mentioned earlier that you are only postponing the problem a level. It amounts to the statement that morality is whatever God is.

No!

The notion that morality is whatever God is would mean (logically) that if God were to do something that is currently evil then evil would become good.
If, on the other hand, if the good is that which is proper to life then if God where to do something evil, evil wouldn't become good, God would become evil and destroy Himself in the process.

Of course you might say that I'm talking in circles because God is Life and thus to say that the good is that which is proper to life is effectively the same thing as saying that the good is godliness. Well, it okay for that sort of thing to happen because we are talking about these issue LOGICALLY. In other words, we already know that God would never do anything evil and thus part of this discussion is unavoidable hypothetical. The difference is that while it might sound to untrained ears to being saying the same thing in another way, the fact is that it really isn't the same thing at all because saying that the good is whatever God is renders it meaningless to call God good.

By the way, for clarity's sake we should refrain from using the term "morality" in place of the more specific "morality good" or simply "good" vs. "evil". It can get confusing if we don't because even when you're talking about evil, you're still talking about morality.

I mean, for example, there have been lots of justifications given of things that you regard as evil. The South Africans used the Bible to justify apartheid. Stalin used communist principles espoused by Marx to justify slaughtering millions of his own people. There was always logic involved in these atrocities. And I am sure that at least in some cases, the logic was correct. It was just the premises were wrong.

Well if the premises were wrong then so was the logic.

Its called the Law of Rational Inference. The issue, like any other, can get rather complex but the point is that just because you begin with a premise and go through a process of thought that lead you to draw a conclusion does not mean your conclusion is right. The premises must be valid, germane and true. The form of your argument must also be valid and the conclusion must actually follow from both the premises and the arguments. Errors can be made all along the way by us human beings but not by God who is infinitely knowledgeable, intelligent and wise.

I think it is great that you come to an acceptance that right and wrong actions depend on their context. However, this principle has been derided as giving no direction for future action. I said before that moral rules would give you incorrect guidance 50% of the time if you followed them legalistically. But the opposite is also surely incorrect too: if you have no rules at all and rely purely on context, then you cannot judge any action at all. Don't worry, I am getting to my own answer as well. But as it is Clete's thread, I wanted to ensure he got first bite of the cherry. Also, this is truly a difficult issue, as I also previously stated. So it helps to understand why some of our views on the subject are wrong before being able to appreciate what may be right.

This is a rabbit trail but I thought I'd just throw in that there are moral absolutes. It is never - ever - anything other than evil to murder, rape, commit adultery, molest children or be a homo, etc.

LOL! I think some people did think it was a bit long. But as for me, I just needed a bit more time. Patience!

I really was only finding something to say so that I could get the thread back up on the active threads list.

And if you will permit, I promise that I will set out the premises on which my thought is based at the start so that it is completely clear.

I look forward to it!

Resting in Him,
Clete