Our Moral God

[Keiw1]

All of God's truth is in an untrustworthy bible? Then we would have to have a priest of some sort explain it to us, to tell us which parts are fact and which fiction. That's what those reformers were trying to reform from, so the common man could read the Bible in his own language without the priest. Your position reverses the good parts of the reformation, where they said we can trust the bible, since God has preserved it, even if we can't trust the priests.

The bible is fact. trinity translations are altered( removal of Gods name against his will) and errors translated by Catholicism to fit false council teachings. One must be taught by these( Matt 24:45) or many deep truths and symbolism cannot be understood. They are found in 1 single religion claiming to be christian.

 

[Keiw1]

You're not answering the question.

What if you're wrong, @Keiw1?

Are you even willing to consider the possibility? Let alone what it entails...

I don't need to consider that. I know 100% Jesus' religion is the JW,s. The ones hated by the world.

 

[Keiw1]

There's an even bigger problem, specifically regarding this.

God cannot be viewed as a "deity of deception," otherwise He would, rationally speaking, be no different than a "demon of deception."

This video is worth a listen, yes, even being over 3 hours long.

God doesn't deceive, but the whole world lies in the power of the wicked one. He deceives. Like this-2Cor 11:12-15

 

[JudgeRightly]

The bible is fact.

Yes.

trinity translations are altered (removal of Gods name against his will)

What are these "Trinity translations" you speak of?

and errors translated by Catholicism to fit false council teachings.

I'm not aware of anyone appealing to a single council teaching in this current discussion.

One must be taught by these (Matt 24:45) or many deep truths and symbolism cannot be understood.

And you just so happen to be willing to condescend to us to tell us about it?

They are found in 1 single religion claiming to be christian.

Jehovah's Witnesses are not Christian, despite their claims.

Jesus warned His followers about those who would come in His name teaching a different message.

 

[JudgeRightly]

I don't need to consider that. I know 100% Jesus' religion is the JW,s. The ones hated by the world.

So you're claiming to hold to a belief that is unfalsifiable. Lovely.

Good bye.

 

[JudgeRightly]

God doesn't deceive, but the whole world lies in the power of the wicked one. He deceives. Like this-2Cor 11:12-15

You're gone now, but I'm going to address this anyways, for future reference:

You're the one who claimed that we couldn't trust the Bible as it was originally written, and that your cult somehow magically now has the corrected one.

The fact remains at the proper time means-over time truth would be revealed, But the other fact remains all of Gods truth is in the bible, thus before it was revealed all those matters were taught on by every religion using Gods bible. Thus the ones who had holy spirit and truth was revealed at the proper time then made corrections. All of creation has watched the corrections over the last 150 years or so. Condemned by the ones who never make correction. New light will come still, especially at the very end of how God will save his through the tribulation and Armageddon.

That makes God a deity of deception, because He intentionally misled billions of people into believing falsehoods.

 

[Bladerunner]

The bible is fact. trinity translations are altered( removal of Gods name against his will) and errors translated by Catholicism to fit false council teachings. One must be taught by these( Matt 24:45) or many deep truths and symbolism cannot be understood. They are found in 1 single religion claiming to be christian.

Then you know what situation you are in...It seems only GOD can help you. Have a good day.

 

[Lon]

I don't need to consider that. I know 100% Jesus' religion is the JW,s. The ones hated by the world.

 

[Lon]

I don't need to consider that. I know 100% Jesus' religion is the JW,s. The ones hated by the world.

 

[Lon]

Wrong. And your answer leads to moral relativism.

Was revisiting in the other thread. There is a difference between 'morality' and 'absolute morality.' We 'tend' to think of morality as 'absolute' but it isn't until 'absolute' is placed as the qualifier (seems like the point of discussion to me).

I believe there are a few necessities/formalities necessary in preliminary:

If you believe God always acts 'properly,' what do you mean by that? In the thread "Our Moral God" the problem is in definition and eye-of-the-beholder understanding of any given 'moral' idea. Some for instance, believe it is 'immoral' for God to send anybody to hell. There are all kinds of assumptions that need to be unpacked and addressed: Does it have to mean God is immoral? (Nope, has to be proved/connected - for one instance).

Definitions: If Morality is: "Proper behavior" then 'no.' It is not absolute. It cannot be. If it is 'proper' to belch in Japan and 'rude' in America, obviously then, it'd not be true. You'd have to qualify such with something at least like "Absolute moral" because 'moral' itself does not intimate/necessitate 'absolute.'

You can argue 'til you are blue in the face that God has to be 'moral' but if morality itself isn't absolute (appears initially and under scrutiny that it is not) then you cannot argue 1) that one being is or isn't (Japanese vs American by proof) nor 2) that it is anything but an expression of a certain value that 'doesn't have to be shared' to be considered 'moral.'

In a nutshell 1) Morality is not and probably cannot be demonstrably absolute thus 2) Imposition of morality likewise cannot be a tangible litmus for anybody in particular except as circumstance portrays. A need for qualification like 'absolute moral' must be stated in order to push this thread forward.

_________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

Thus suggestion for thread:

1)An 'absolute' moral is by definition 'absolute.'
2) God as a perfect Being would only and ever exibit 'proper behavior' as the expression of a perfect character. Such 'might' portray as immoral to one who does not possess perfection, but 'morality' in this case is the expression. When Scripture says God will 'bring evil upon' those who disobey, it may confuse those who do not realize 'morality' is not absolute but in the sense that God will 'act properly' toward all things, regardless of how such might look to a people who do not possess absolute perfection nor morality.

 

[MarrionBallentine]

Was revisiting in the other thread. There is a difference between 'morality' and 'absolute morality.' We 'tend' to think of morality as 'absolute' but it isn't until 'absolute' is placed as the qualifier (seems like the point of discussion to me).

I think the word morality can have different connotations when viewed from a personal subjective position, which may be in agreement or different from anothers perspective.
However I do believe that when using the word moral as a descriptor relating to God, than yes, absolute morality (objective moral truth) is to be understood as the criterion.

 

[Clete]

I think the word morality can have different connotations when viewed from a personal subjective position, which may be in agreement or different from anothers perspective.
However I do believe that when using the word moral as a descriptor relating to God, than yes, absolute morality (objective moral truth) is to be understood as the criterion.

Said another way....

All words have a range of meaning. The actual meaning is determined by the context in which it used.

In short, changing the topic of discussion doesn't count as a rebuttal of an argument.

 

[Lon]

In short, changing the topic of discussion doesn't count as a rebuttal of an argument.

I think it can. There is a difference (and confusion) between 'absolute' vs arbitrary and "morals," at least in this thread: it provided for tertiary discussion.