One specific man is God but not just any man can be God. God is love but perverted love is not God.
Our Moral God
- Thread starter Clete
- Start date
How is it even possible for such a simple thing to be the least bit controversial or difficult to understand?
Thank you Captain Obvious!
How many times have I already made these exact points you slobber mouthed moron!
I do not understand why you are so intent on condemning me when we so obviously agree on the point you seem to think we don't agree on. You are not very charitable, which is not a good testimony.
No, I haven't.
Well no kidding you drooling idiot!
There isn't anything I've said that the most retarded eight year old would have construed to be suggesting any such stupid thing as "any man could become God"!
This post is just yet another lie. The truth is that you've gotten caught with your pants down because you're too stupid to actually read my posts. You jump to asinine conclusions before even reading what I've said and then only barely respond to even your own idiotic twisting of what you think I'm saying and what it took to wake you up to the fact that you've had it wrong this whole time is for me to tell you straight that you've denied the whole Christian faith!
Well, I'm not buying it. The preponderance of the evidence strongly indicates that you're a wolf in sheep's clothing; a liar who is here pretending to be something he's not. Perhaps as time goes on that evidence will change but for now, I'm giving you the benefit of the doubt and will presume that you are the unbeliever that you've been acting like.
Clete
Is that anything like lying through your teeth?
Do you even understand the concept of "figures of speech"?
Can you blink your eyes without abiding in Christ?
Is blinking your eyes sin? How about breathing, is that a sin too? Maybe lifting your right arm over your head, can that be done by those who don't abide in Christ and He in them? Brushing your teeth! Is that a sin for the unbeliever too?! How about telling your wife "I love you!", that surely must be a sin for the unbeliever too, right? How about giving a gift to your children, is that wrong for the unbeliever or is that the singular exception to your mindless platitude? Did Jesus get it wrong when He said....
Matthew 7:11 If you then, being evil, know how to give good gifts to your children, how much more will your Father who is in heaven give good things to those who ask Him!
What you need to do is just stop. You need to completely start over from scratch and relearn biblical doctrine. Get the heck away from whatever loser it is that has made you the president of the Christian cliche of the week club and ask God to allow you to read the bible and to understand it for yourself and to give you the courage to reject ANYTHING that is irrational! The truth (whether biblical or otherwise) CANNOT contradict itself - ever - period.
Clete
James 4:11
Speak not evil one of another, brethren. He that speaketh evil of his brother, and judgeth his brother, speaketh evil of the law, and judgeth the law: but if thou judge the law, thou art not a doer of the law, but a judge.
It does not matter to God what humans want to think about sin. God has defined sin and those who are wise do not try to deny what God has said.
Romans 14:23
And he that doubteth is damned if he eat, because he eateth not of faith: for whatsoever is not of faith is sin.
Lon
Well-known member
Incorrect, it leads to moral absolute. An absolute is NOT up to discussion! JR! It isn't! (you say wrong, but I really have to wonder if we are communicating, because at the end of this we are in agreement, it means we are just correcting 'wording' if I grasp our conflict. Like most times, we simply have to listen to each other a bit more (I think). It is 'absolute' by definition EVEN if it doesn't look like it to you. It is VERY important, in this instance, to be bible-literate: Matthew 7:9 Or which one of you, if his son asks him for bread, will give him a stone?
Matthew 7:10 Or if he asks for a fish, will give him a serpent?
Matthew 7:11 If you then, who are evil, know how to give good gifts to your children, how much more will your Father who is in heaven give good things to those who ask him!
So, let me ask, are you and I 'evil.' Yes or no? What did Jesus mean? (morally culpable)
and honestly, it fails. It is a guy, some man who thinks he is brilliant and 'good' without God, trying to 'judge.' Who cares what that guy thinks? I don't. He's full of beans and wrong.
As I said previously: such believes a father, killing an intruder, is 'evil.' That is W-R-O-N-G!!!!!! (enough exclamation points? It is completely wrong and I can prove it!) That father, is morally good!!!! See here for a real story. It is not situational ethics. God alone is good. God alone "GETS" to call the shots. It is as simple and uncomplicated at that. You and I don't 'get' to verify 'good.' God gets to do so, A-L-O-N-E! Agree or not, fact.
It is ALSO the character (reality) of His being. We are blessed God is 'good' else whatever such God made us, could declare anything. As it sits, we are products of a 'fallen' and 'warped' sense of what is right and wrong. Do you get that? We don't 'know' what is good (0ther than as we've been redeemed, prior, Not a chance!).
There is something to this, BUT God alone is self authenticating AS the source of everything: It is a generosity (in a sense, it is actually the expression of good, to denote itself). So I agree, but also would say that God, AS God, is alone in authenticating Himself. In a way, you negate your own premise here: Only God can authenticate 'good' and you confirm my whole premise if you will, on this point by your triune emphasis.
WHOLLY (emphasis for the agreement) agree! You are entirely with me on such a powerful statement!
For me, this enjoins, rather than debates my points. You'd need to express your debate points more clearly if you wanted to do more debate rather than shoring up my points, at this venture. I couldn't be happier obviously
Will do so and get back to you, bro. Lon
Last edited:
Lon
Well-known member
I'll start here with an important point: Good is simply 'good' because 'good' seeks the well being of another. It is the definition. While it is awkward to try and prove such in philosophy, we just embrace it at that point. While I've said God alone is the Arbiter, that doesn't mean we don't recognize something: We see love and its expression as 'good' in the sense that good means 'well-being' of another. "Good" would mean 'desirable benefit of another' at that point, but it is other-centered in 'expression.' God was/is good even if another doesn't exist, simply because His own character is that that puts others as important (not sure of all the ramifications/scope of good with such). "Good" is hard to define, as such and as I said, if "only God is 'good' "then only He is capable of making that definition plain. "Good" really is 'God's' definition alone, if you follow. IOW, 'good' is the definition of God's character and aligns with His being. Such is completely separated from our grasps of things. "Good" is simply 'good' because 1) it is His perogative to state and give definition, 2) because anything that resembles that defined character is by definition 'identity' and 3) the expression of that characteristic in as much as we are 'able' to reflect it. At that point, any philosopher challenging, isn't really up to the task and I don't have to meet his/her expectation, simply because I know by self-authenticating source (God) that that person isn't capable of defining the term when only the Other is. Hope that makes sense if a bit circular (necessarily). -Lon
Last edited:
I have no good evidence that you are a brother, Marke. Like I said, I'm giving you the benefit of the doubt and presuming, unless and until further evidence comes in, that you are not.
I had already explicitly told you multiple times that which you decided needed "clarification". It isn't possible to be that stupid and still be able to type and use a computer. I conclude, therefore, that you are a liar, as has been in evidence repeatedly throughout multiple discussions. It may turn out that you are just colossally lazy to the point that you wrote responses to posts you couldn't be bothered to actually read. If that's the case and you want your reputation back then I recommend you repent and start demonstrating that you're capable of being honest because until that happens I will remain convinced that you're just here playing some sort of stupid game.
Whether you're a lazy Christian or a lying fool, either way, I get to practice making arguments in defense of that which I believe. What you're getting out of it is impossible to discern.
Clete
"It doesn't matter to God what humans want to think about sin."
Really? Is that what you really believe?
And I have denied nothing that God has said about anything. It's what you say that I deny.
The reason that the plowing of the wicked, the kindnesses of the wicked, the good deeds of the wicked, and so forth are sin is that everything the wicked does is for impure reasons and with an unclean spirit. Nothing the wicked does is by faith and whatsoever is not of faith is sin.
Proverbs 12:10
A righteous man regardeth the life of his beast: but the tender mercies of the wicked are cruel.
You're changing the subject and are basically stating that these single sentence proof texts are, in fact, figures of speech that take some effort to understand beyond the simple surface reading of the out of context sentence.
And now, once again, want to pretend like what I've been saying the whole time and what you've been arguing against the whole time is somehow now your entire position and has been all along.
The bottom line is that bad people do good things all the time (duh), as Jesus Himself openly and explicitly acknowledged (Matthew 7:9-11 - a passage that you were all together ignorant of until I posted it here, by the way).
Lon
Well-known member
Actually, I appreciate both of your points here: I recognize the 'tender mercies' of the wicked that are cruel: a lot of times, the unbeliever tells me that the 'tender mercies of God' are cruel (and why, they say, they don't believe). Proverbs often gives comparison, Hebrew was often written with a poetic comparison: like comparing a woman who constantly talks, like dripping water: both irritated the writer. For me, the application is 'prattle' when someone says a bunch but really says nothing. Matthew 7 is very much on my mind coming to this thread.
I've intimated a bit of my concern in conversation above: Does that 'wicked' unbeliever have a leg to stand on when he/she insists that 'the mercies of God are cruel' when Numbers 26:10 ...the earth opened her mouth, and swallowed them up, and their houses, and all the men that appertained unto Korah, and all their goods. (I miss the old feature that linked these for us).
Numbers 16:30
But if the LORD make a new thing, and the earth open her mouth, and swallow them up, with all that appertain unto them, and they go down quick into the pit; then ye shall understand that these men have provoked the LORD.
"Provoking" a righteous, loving, good God, seems (at least) like it must be taken as to an action, rather than thinking He makes emotionally based decisions.
While I appreciate emotions of God are important, I believe I always separate the two, because my emotions are always under suspicion (as are all other men's emotions). So, in discussion, I often separate the two for initial discussion.
The other reason, is I have to be able to answer an unbeliever for his/her query. I try to stay out of accusations, they are on their own and have to meet God on His level at that point AND it illustrates, itself, why the ground opened up. Both the unbeliever and the men of Korah confronted God, the challenge required and requires a face to face meeting. I'd simply tell that guy/gal the only way to get past their objection is an immediate confrontation, because they pushed the issue.
As far as your and Marke's discussion, I appreciate the points. It is a needed discussion because our own views concerning a Good God then, trying to discuss issues of the Old Testament, present a huge theological need. The thread itself is important for the need of many conversations I've had. As always, my prayer is God is proved good, kind, loving, and holy, whether we are capable ourselves.
Matthew 7
9 Or what man is there of you, whom if his son ask bread, will he give him a stone?
10 Or if he ask a fish, will he give him a serpent?
11 If ye then, being evil, know how to give good gifts unto your children, how much more shall your Father which is in heaven give good things to them that ask him?
I don't think that passage suggests that people are judged to be good by God for giving good gifts.
Lon
Well-known member
If Marke is like me, it'd be a question of their purpose for being/showing 'good.' Question: If it isn't from a pure person, is 'good' arbitrary at that point? If someone has a wicked father who happened to provide $ for Christmas one year, was he 'good' to the child? I sometimes do think it can be difficult. Your thread goes 9 pages as a testament to it needing discussion and further inquiry. I can envision it going many more pages. So while I believe I've a grasp and counter on how I think about the goodness of God, I've a lot of room for contemplation as you all present counterpoints.
Why do you not take Jesus at His word?
It's the motive that makes an action good or bad, Lon! And Jesus gives us the motive anyway. A father gives his kids good gifts because they were in need and asked for a piece of bread or a fish. All men have sinned and have need of a savior. Indeed, we really have no idea just how dispicable we really are and won't have any idea until we see Him who is righteous face to face but that doesn't mean that every action we take is evil and a man who would neglect his own son has attained to a special kind of evil. When the bible talks about plowing being evil, its using a figure of speech. The idea is that even the good, productive things that an unbeliever does are terrible in comparison with true righteousness and they won't profit him anything in the end. It's hyperbole.
That implies a contradiction. "Good" cannot be 'arbitrary' by definition, at least not in this context. That which is arbitrary is either amoral or it is unjust, depending on the what you're talking about but generally, righteous and arbitrary are opposites.
That depends entirely on why he did it.
Well, challenging topics are the funnest topics to discuss!
I just wish I could get people to make an actual argument. If I'm wrong I really do want to know it but personal opinions and one liners is mostly all I get.