Is God Moral?

[Logikos]

I didn’t answer your question because it’s a leading question that’s framed in a way to support your thesis.

Saying it doesn't make it so.

You want me to say that if God declared rape to be good, then it must be good.

No, that isn't what I want you to say at all.

However, God hasn’t declared rape to be good and never will because it’s contrary to His character and nature.

That is not in dispute and is utterly irrelevant to the question. The question has to do with WHY something is good or evil.

You believe these are meaningless; I do not.

I do not believe that you believed this when you wrote it. Do yourself a favor and stop trying to read my mind and or making stuff up out of whole clothe.

How else are we to know God but by His nature and character?

God's nature and character are not at question here.

The ancients were able to discern God’s holiness through His nature alone.

So are contemporaries. So what?

You accuse me of not knowing right from wrong when I assuredly do.

No sir, you do not. You think you do but I've proven that you don't. No one who knows WHY right is right and wrong is wrong would hesitate for one second to give the answer to my question because it would be obvious. The mere fact that you won't answer it means that your heart is as dark as pitch.

I do not base it on some fancy philosophical explanation or on human reason and logic, which are limited.

Yes, you do. You couldn't have written that sentence without logic and reason. There is no such thing as "human logic" by the way, unless it is use as a euphemism that refers to being irrational.

I base it on what the Word of God says.

Which you read and understood how, without using logic and reason, hmm?

When Moses asked God His Name, God simply said, “I AM WHO I AM." Moses needed no further explanation or reassurance. When God imparted the laws to Israel to distinguish between right and wrong, they took His Word at it.

God did not impart the law to Moses to distinguish right from wrong. More proof that you have no idea what you're talking about.

God didn’t have to explain it in philosophical terms to convince them. When God told Mary she would be the mother of the Messiah, she believed it. She had a biblical knowledge of the truth, and that was all she needed.

Not relevant.

We can know what is true through spiritual discernment, which transcends logic and reason.

How do you know this?

Please refrain from using logic or reason while attempting to answer.

It is the same with faith. Faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen.

Do you understand that verse? If so, by what means? Did you read it? By what means did you comprehend the words?

The fact is, that you do not understand that verse. You think it is saying the opposite of what it's actually saying. You think its equating faith with something mystical.

Discernment, like faith, has an intangible quality about it that cannot be quantified by logic.

How do you know this?

Please refrain from using logic or reason while attempting to answer.

We are created in the image of God, and He imparted us with a conscious.

That along with the ability to reason!

This gives everyone an innate sense of right and wrong, though our free wills can override it.

Irrelevant to the point.

I know God to be moral as certainly as I know that two plus two equals four.

No you don't. You're guessing! Your hoping. You want for God to be good but don't even know what the word good means!

And if God wasn’t moral, then none of us would stand a chance.

Why not?

Please refrain from using logic or reason when attempting to answer.

It’s the same as if someone asked who created God. The answer is no one, because He always was and always will be. It defies a rational explanation because God transcends our natural realm.

YOU JUST EXPLAINED IT!!!!

It’s as simple as that. Perhaps that may not be good enough for the atheist, but the carnal mind is enmity against God; for it is not subject to the law of God, nor indeed can be (Rom 8:7-9).

It is precisely REASON that the carnal mind is not subject to!

Go look up something called the Transcendental Argument for the Existence of God. God is the fountainhead of reason. Logic itself presupposes the existence of a rational God.

Your argument is a philosophical one that reduces God to mere logic and reason.

It does no such thing. I have not said anything remotely like God is MERELY anything. God is not merely love. God is not merely kind. God is not merely rathful. There are a list of God's attributes as long as your arm and Reason is MERELY one of them.

It’s an overly complicated approach that will get lost on most people.

It certainly got lost on you! That's for sure!

There is no question that God is a God of reason and logic, but is that all He is?

Idiotic question!

Is logic the end-all-be-all?

No one has suggested any such thing. Build any straw men lately?

I don’t believe so.

Do you have anything that you are willing to state emphatically? "You don't believe so"? Really?

I KNOW for a fact that it isn't so!

Logic can’t even save someone from damnation or get you to love your neighbor.

That's false! There isn't anything else other than logic that can do so. This comment of yours doesn't even make any sense. Just what is it that you think logic is, anyway?

Can a man believe in God without acknowledging His existence?
Can a man acknowledge his need of a savior without conceding his guilt?
Can a man call on Jesus if he has no knowledge of Jesus or any aspect of the gospel?

What is any of that if it isn't logical reasoning from precept to precept, from premise to conclusion?

I don’t believe we can fully comprehend God in such a context because God is beyond human understanding.
It will take an eternity for us to fully know Him.

This is not in dispute and thus not relevant to the question.

You posit that the Word (logos) implies that God is logic, but I take it in the more literal sense of the meaning.

I do NOT posit any such thing! It is not an implication. John wasn't implying it, he was stating it outright.

It was through God’s Word that the universe and everything in it were formed.

That would be to remove the passage from its context entirely. There isn't any indication whatsoever in the text that this is what John was talking about and I can guarantee you that this is for sure not what John's Greek audience would have understood him to mean.

It was through God’s Word that we learned about Him. It was through God’s Word that He prophesied the coming of the Messiah. And so, the Word became flesh. It's a demonstratation of God's power that He can bring anything into existence merely by speaking it.

John 1 is NOT talking about the bible, Jericho! The only reason you're even saying this has nothing to do with the original language but with the way the KJV translated Logos into English! That poor translation has directly caused you to completely misinterpret the passage altogether, precisely because "logos" and "word" do not mean the same thing!

So, we may both agree that God is moral, but we arrive at that conclusion from two totally different perspectives.

You don't arrive at it at all! You simply declare it to be true based on a desire to believe it as though your saying it makes it so!

That’s fine. It’s apparent we won’t come to a consensus, so I see no further reason to continue this discussion.

Bow out all you like. When your lying in bed at night and your mind gets quiet, remember that there's a guy out there who knows that you have no idea why good and good and evil is evil.

I’ve said all I have to say. Feel free to have the last word if you want, but I would appreciate if you dropped the condescending tone.

So you're the only one allowed to be condescending are you? Is everyone on this entire site a hypocrite?

 

[BlessedPeace]

God is God. He is the darkness and the light,the evil and the good. Isaiah 45.

Morality is not universal. Not for us.Or,God.

 

[Logikos]

God is God. He is the darkness and the light,the evil and the good. Isaiah 45.

Morality is not universal. Not for us.Or,God.

You are a blasphemer!

Good bye!

 

[BlessedPeace]

You are a blasphemer!

Good bye!

You are ignorant of scripture.

Hello.

 

[Stumpmaster]

This seems somewhat unresponsive.

The poll has two and only two answers for a reason. Is your answer yes or no?

The poll is not moral.

 

[Illuminator]

You are ignorant of scripture.

Hello.

For many and obvious reasons, pushing back against moral relativism is fundamental to the work of apologetics. And there’s no small amount of thorough refutations of the notion that every person is a moral island unto himself.

Amidst all of the debate, however, there is an area that doesn’t receive much attention. Since it involves questions about human nature itself, it isn’t as popular among the bumper sticker and meme crowd.

Here’s the claim: If moral relativism is true—if there are no such things as fundamental moral truths that all human beings share in common—then we’re all different kinds of beings. And if we’re all different kinds of beings, then we all don’t have the same kind of nature—human nature. Not all humans are equally human.

I assume that most people wouldn’t go so far as to say we’re not all equally human. So let’s see if we can make good on the claim that if moral relativism were true, then not all humans would be beings of the same kind—the human kind.

For many and obvious reasons, pushing back against moral relativism is fundamental to the work of apologetics. And there’s no small amount of thorough refutations of the notion that every person is a moral island unto himself.
Amidst all of the debate, however, there is an area that doesn’t receive much attention. Since it involves questions about human nature itself, it isn’t as popular among the bumper sticker and meme crowd.

Here’s the claim: If moral relativism is true—if there are no such things as fundamental moral truths that all human beings share in common—then we’re all different kinds of beings. And if we’re all different kinds of beings, then we all don’t have the same kind of nature—human nature. Not all humans are equally human.

I assume that most people wouldn’t go so far as to say we’re not all equally human. So let’s see if we can make good on the claim that if moral relativism were true, then not all humans would be beings of the same kind—the human kind.

Morality involves using our reason to make free choices in a way that achieves that which is truly good for us and avoids that which is bad. As Aquinas writes, “the first precept of law [is] that good is to be done and pursued, and evil [bad] is to be avoided” (Summa Theologiae I-II:94:6).

So the moral good is human behavior (acts that proceed from intellect and will) that facilitates the achievement of that which is good for us insofar as we’re human beings. Moral evil is human behavior that willfully directs us away from that which is good for us.

Moral relativism holds that there’s no objective truth about what’s morally good or bad. What’s good or bad for one person to do might not be good or bad for another. But given the definition of morality above, what’s good or bad for a person to do is dependent on what’s good or bad for a person, simply. Therefore, to say there’s no objective truth about what’s morally good or bad is to say there’s not objective truth about what’s good or bad for us, simply.

Now, when we use the terms good and bad we don’t use them to refer to good and bad as such. Rather, we use them to refer to a good or bad so-and-so, appealing to the nature or essence of something and what’s perfective of it.

For example, we say it’s good for an oak tree to spread its branches out from its trunk, sink its roots deep into the ground, take in nutrients from the soil, perform photosynthesis, and so on because that’s what an oak tree does given the kind of thing it is. It would be bad for an oak tree if it were to fail to do these sorts of things.

But we don’t say it’s good for an oak tree to have two eyes and trot and gallop. Nor do we say it’s bad for an oak tree to lack two eyes and be unable to trot and gallop. Why? Because these sorts of perfections don’t belong to what makes for a good oak tree; they belong to what makes for a good horse. This is why if a horse were to lack an eye, or be unable to trot and gallop due to a deformed or missing leg, we could speak of it as a bad or defective member of its kind.

So what’s good or bad for a horse is not the same as what’s good or bad for an oak tree because they are entirely different kinds of beings with different natures. On this account, the concepts of good and bad are indeed relative, but relative to what a thing is—a thing’s nature or essence.

As we’ve shown above, moral relativism necessarily entails the claim that there’s no objective truth about what’s good or bad for us, so good and bad are merely relative to an individual or group of individuals. But if that were true, then that would entail that each of us (or the individuals of each group) is a different kind of being with a different nature.

We explained above that what’s good or bad for an oak tree is not the same as what’s good or bad for a horse because they’re different kinds of beings, beings with different natures or essences. This means the concepts of good and bad are intelligible only relative to what a thing is by its nature.

Here’s what follows: if we say the concepts of good and bad are intelligible only relative to an individual human being (or group of individuals), then that means each individual (or the individuals of each group) has a different nature or essence, or is a different kind of being. And if that’s true, then no individual (or group of individuals) is equally of the human kind—that’s to say, we’re not all human.

A moral relativist might retort, “But you too believe that some things are good or bad only relative to an individual? Surely, you don’t believe it’s good for your dentist to study philosophy and theology for an entire workday like it’s good for you to do. Should we say that you and your dentist are different kinds of beings?”

No, we shouldn’t say this. And the reason is that the good considered in this example is a good for me as an apologist and not for me insofar as I’m a human being. Similarly, the good considered for the dentist (practicing dentistry and not spending his day studying philosophy and theology) is a good considered for him as a dentist and not for him insofar as he’s a human being like me.

Contrast the good of studying philosophy and theology for an entire workday with the good of truth itself. Truth is the end or goal of an intellect. And the achievement of the end or goal of a power is its good (or perfection), along with the good (or perfection) of the individual whose power it is. So to say that truth is a good for me is to acknowledge that I have an intellect.

But to say that truth is not a good for my dentist is to imply that he doesn’t have an intellect. And if he doesn’t have an intellect, he’s not a human.

Moral relativism says there’s no good whatsoever that every human being ought to pursue, which means there’s no good, like truth, that’s commonly perfective of what we are. This means there’s nothing more fundamental than being a dentist or an apologist that unites my dentist and I as members of the same kind, the human kind.

So, to be a moral relativist in an absolute sense is to deny that all humans are the same kinds of beings. And if that’s true, then we all don’t have the same kind of nature, human nature.

That’s a conclusion that we can’t accept. For if we’re not all human, then perhaps those stronger beings that we call “humans” are superior and their might makes right. Let’s hope that’s an idea that most people of good will are willing to reject.
source

 

[Logikos]

You are ignorant of scripture.

Hello.

Saying it doesn't make it so!

Welcome to my ignore list.

 

[Logikos]

The poll is not moral.

By what standard?

 

[BlessedPeace]

Saying it doesn't make it so!

You don't actually believe that.

Welcome to my ignore list.

As you proved there. You are uneducated of scripture. And are adamantly obstinate and refuse to change this.

That's too bad.
You won't have a very good time among Christians here who are aware of scripture.

You shall create a huge ignore list if you are true to form.

That's too bad.

 

[Big Boy Johnson]

God is God. He is the darkness and the light,the evil and the good. Isaiah 45.

Twisted translators claim God is evil.

1 John 1:5
This then is the message which we have heard of him, and declare unto you, that God is light, and in him is no darkness at all.

John 10:10
The thief cometh not, but for to steal, and to kill, and to destroy: I am come that they might have life, and that they might have it more abundantly.

James 1:13
Let no man say when he is tempted, I am tempted of God: for God cannot be tempted with evil, neither tempteth he any man: