Another way to put it is that morality is based on God's nature an all of God's laws are His instructions for how to act in accordance with God's nature, so they are all inherently moral laws. This is why the Bible often uses the same terms to describe aspects of the nature of God as it does to describe aspects of the nature of God's law, such as with it being holy, righteous, and good (Romans 7:12), or with justice, mercy, and faithfulness being weightier matters of God's law (Matthew 23:23). The way to God is by acting in accordance with aspects of His nature, so everything that God specifically chose to command was to teach us how to love different aspects of His nature, which is why the Bible says repeatedly in both the OT and the NT that the way to love God is by obeying His commandments. God did not arbitrarily command anything and something is not moral just because He commanded it, but everything that He specifically chose to command has moral meaning. If God didn't think that we ought to do something, then He wouldn't have commanded it. Sin is the transgression of any God's laws, not just a subset.
Is God Moral?
- Thread starter Logikos
- Start date
-
Welcome to Christian Forums, a Christian Forum that recognizes that all Christians are a work in progress.
You will need to register to be able to join in fellowship with Christians all over the world.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!
Ronald David Bruno
Well-Known Member
@Logikos
It doesn't seem like you are getting any traction on your other related thread, "Our Moral God", so I will ask you on this one,
Why would you use any knowledge and quotes from an atheist ( Mr. Ayn Rand) to write a " thesis" to describe any aspect of God's nature? There is plenty material in the Bible, which is God's message to us about who He is.
And yes, it is offensive to refer to Jesus (Logos) as merely logic. Jesus is the exact "expression" of God. The glorious illumination of God. In Him lies all knowledge, wisdom, love, power, truth, the entire substance of God, not just logic. To before encompassing, "In Him all things consist" (are held together).
Logic by itself is reasoning, using a rational thinking mind. But let's be careful not mix some atheist's view about logic, which likely came from the "Age of Reason" with the nature of God, that we all feel quite comfortable searching the scriptures to receive enlightement about the WORD.
Morality points to His love and righteousness.
Another question: Before Adam sinned, before any angel sinned, evil must not have existed. So before evil, could the concept of a Moral God be defined?
A moral code is what mankind was given when the fruit of the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil was eaten. We would not know, understand or appreciate good unless we were exposed to it's opposite. Light shines in the darkness.
So morality is a quest for mankind to discover and so we now know the goodness of God. Darkness was a necessary part of the plan.
And on that note I'll leave a scripture:
"I form the light, and create darkness: I make peace, and create evil: I the LORD do all these things". Isaiah 45:7
"Evil" in other translations means (calamity, disaster, troubles).
It doesn't seem like you are getting any traction on your other related thread, "Our Moral God", so I will ask you on this one,
Why would you use any knowledge and quotes from an atheist ( Mr. Ayn Rand) to write a " thesis" to describe any aspect of God's nature? There is plenty material in the Bible, which is God's message to us about who He is.
And yes, it is offensive to refer to Jesus (Logos) as merely logic. Jesus is the exact "expression" of God. The glorious illumination of God. In Him lies all knowledge, wisdom, love, power, truth, the entire substance of God, not just logic. To before encompassing, "In Him all things consist" (are held together).
Logic by itself is reasoning, using a rational thinking mind. But let's be careful not mix some atheist's view about logic, which likely came from the "Age of Reason" with the nature of God, that we all feel quite comfortable searching the scriptures to receive enlightement about the WORD.
Morality points to His love and righteousness.
Another question: Before Adam sinned, before any angel sinned, evil must not have existed. So before evil, could the concept of a Moral God be defined?
A moral code is what mankind was given when the fruit of the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil was eaten. We would not know, understand or appreciate good unless we were exposed to it's opposite. Light shines in the darkness.
So morality is a quest for mankind to discover and so we now know the goodness of God. Darkness was a necessary part of the plan.
And on that note I'll leave a scripture:
"I form the light, and create darkness: I make peace, and create evil: I the LORD do all these things". Isaiah 45:7
"Evil" in other translations means (calamity, disaster, troubles).
Last edited:
God is the one who distinguishes between what is right and what is wrong. He set the boundaries.
Well, restating your position doesn't refute what I just got through saying, does it?
Not all of God's laws were "inherently moral", they just weren't.
God's character is immutable, the law is not. What does that tell you?
Oh yes, He did!
Saying it doesn't make it so.
Disobedience to God is sin, that much is not in dispute, in fact I said as much in my last post.
I ask you again....
Is God Himself moral? If so, by what standard?
And to be as transparent as possible, I am asking that question precisely because I don't think you can answer it, at least not without contradicting yourself. Which I don't intend as an insult of any kind. It's just that I think you're making an important error. There is a standard! We can know, without any doubt that God is indeed, objectively righteous and we can make that claim without contradiction.
And so God is arbitrary? Is that really what you believe?
What if God wanted to declare forcible rape to be a good thing? Would that make rape good or would such a decree make God evil?
I try to respond to both.
All of the above was responded too over on the other thread.
Morality points to any aspect of His character or any action that He performs that promotes, protects or is otherwise conducive to life.
Of course! Evil is merely the negation of the good. Further, the bible clearly defines good as that which leads to life. God is Life!
No, the eating of the Tree was the first breaking of a moral code. Actually, perhaps the second. Lucifer's temptation of Eve to eat of the Tree was likely the first.
This is so wrong that I can't even believe you said it. Do you suppose that God didn't understand or appreciate good prior to the existence of sin?
Adam and Eve, as well as the whole of creation was created "very good". Good is NOT the negation of evil, but evil the negation of good. Death does not come before life, but life before death.
Foolishness. Evil is not a necessary condition of good anymore than death is a necessary condition for life.
The caveat there is the only thing that prevented the quoting of that verse from being blasphemous in the context of this discussion.
GOD IS NOT THE AUTHOR OF EVIL!!!!
The use of the term "evil" in the translation of Isaiah 45:7 is an incorrect English translation, as your comment makes clear, and which is one of a thousand reasons why the King James Bible is an archaic translation. In any case, the verse does not apply to this discussion.
Ronald David Bruno
Well-Known Member
They did not have knowledge of good or evil prior to that. So they became aware of morality.
God knows, they didn't. God didn't need knowledge of good evil or a lesson. He is omniscient.
God, after He finished, said it was good. But Adam and Eve did not know good. The Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil was placed there for a purpose, so that we would know good and evil. Elohim even stated, Behold, man has become like Us, knowing good and evil".
God knew they would eat of it and so goes the story of history, good and evil were realized and evil was necessary.
You really wouldn't understand what faith, forgiveness, mercy, healing, love, life, truth, hope, joy until you went without them, experienced their opposites. Would you need faith, hope, forgiveness, mercy in heaven?
When people are depressed, miserable, destitute, starving, diseased, in fear, without hope and someone comes along with love, food, healing medicine, all there provisions needed, gives them a secure home, then shares the gospel, then they know what good is.
God is sovereign. Isaiah 45:7 says something different then what you perceive. People that experience bad things happening to them view them as evil. Stories throughout history tell the same tales about the battle between good and evil. If someone is shot and killed you might perceive that as evil. But God allowed it. He is sovereign so he allows it. His plan factors in evil, yet it remains a perfect plan. God chastises those He loves, yet we might view it as a bad thing. "God causes all things to work for good for those who love the Lord for those who are called to His purpose." That means any evil that came into your life served a purpose. What about those who don't love the Lord and are not called to His purpose? He uses them and when He determines, cuts them off.
Your view of God cannot realistically be sovereign if evil happens outside of His control.
So, I said my piece, nothing more to say. We disagreed without insults and rudeness ... this time.
Last edited:
I'm not sure what argument you're trying to make or why you're trying to make one at all. I don't think I've said anything that wasn't factual or contrary to Christian theology. God makes the rules, period. Whether we agree with them or not is irrelevant. At the end of the day, His is the only opinion that matters.
This is false. You're deriving such an idea from the name of the Tree but that isn't the reason the Tree was called that. Ayn Rand made the same ridiculous error and made a truly insurmountable argument against Christianity based on it. It is very very false. They understood, as did Lucifer, that it was wrong, as in evil and sinful to eat of that Tree in defiance of God's command. Otherwise, it would not have been a sin and it would have been unjust to punish it as such and it would falsify the bible because the bible itself called it a sin (Romans 5:12-14).
Neither you nor God get to have your cake and eat it too!
If evil must exist in order for good to have meaning then that logic applies to God just as much as it does anyone else.
They knew God, therefore they knew good. Indeed, they were so good that they were able to stand in the direct presence of God Himself!
It was there for a purpose but that wasn't it. It's a colloquialism!
By your logic, their having become like God would mean that God has sinned in the likeness of Adam's transgression! That AND that having eaten of the Tree was a godly and good thing to do because it made Adam and Eve more like God!
Don't you see that that's Lucifer's lie! And it's in YOUR mouth!
God knew no such thing. Not in the way you mean it here. He fully expected it and had even planned for it but it was not a forgone conclusion that both Adam and Eve would eat of that Tree. It was a real possibility that one or both would choose to obey God.
Whether you intend it or not, this is blasphemously heretical doctrine! It literally places death in a position superior to life. It is precisely the opposite of the truth.
You flatly have no idea what you're talking about. It's pretty clear that you've not really spent any time thinking these things through. You believe that opposite of Christianity. The opposite of faith. The opposite of love!
An existence were no forgiveness was necessary, no pain had been experienced, no disease suffered, etc is a superior existence, not a lesser one.
God is not sovereign in the way you mean it here and Isaiah doesn't teach otherwise.
God is the highest authority in existence and He is therefore Sovereign, by definition. But Calvinists, and likely you here, do not mean "Sovereign" in its actually meaning but in a twisted doctrinal version of the word that turns God into an arbitrary tyrant that is utterly foreign to anything depicted in scripture or even compatible with it.
You sir, are not a Christian! Not in the real meaning of that word. You worship an freakishly unjust god that does not exist! You might as well be praying to Zeus or Amun Ra!
If you type even so much as one single additional syllable along these blatantly blasphemous lines, you'll end my reading of anything else you ever type.
God is just! Therefore, Calvinism is FALSE!!!!
Every heretical idiot that finds himself in a church thinks his doctrine is "Christian theology". Not that your either heretical or an idiot. The point is that just because you think it's right doesn't mean that it is, and I'm trying to get you think it through for yourself.
Just answer the question!
What if God wanted to declare forcible rape to be a good thing? Would that make rape good or would such a decree make God evil?
You're dealing in hypotheticals using loaded questions. Debating the "what ifs" will only lead to conjecture. I'm not trying to prove anything, I'm just stating an obvious fact: I don't make the rules (and neither does anyone else). Only an omniscient, omnipotent God can do that.
Look Jericho, it isn't a loaded question. It isn't any sort of a trick question at all. Any child old enough to know what rape is could answer it in 1/10th of a second. The fact that you are scared of it means that you have made a very seriously wrong theological turn!
You literally do not know right from wrong!
And it is precisely and ONLY because of your doctrine! You were born knowing better! Someone had to teach you how to be this dumb!
If you think I'm wrong, go ask your pastor the same question! You're pastor will likely do even worse than you've done! At least there is something deep down inside of you that knows not to say that it would make rape a good thing but there's every likelihood that your pastor's heart has been seared to a total crisp and he would probably say without hesitation or embarrassment that God's decree would make forcible rape a good thing. This is because he believes and has taught you to believe that God is arbitrary rather than just and amoral rather than righteous.
It has nothing to do with being "scared". God has not declared rape to be good and never will. Creating an argument around hypothetical questions is moot and is clearly designed to lead someone at a conclusion that you want them to reach.
I think I do, and you haven't given a compelling argument otherwise.
Then tell me, what do you base right and wrong on then? How do you even distinguish between right and wrong to begin with?
Ad hominem attacks are for people who don't have an argument.
Of course it does! There's no other motive to avoid answering such an obvious question. You cannot give ANY answer that doesn't contradict either your doctrine or your conscience and so you don't answer.
That is not in dispute and would be irrelevant to the question, except that you can't explain to me why God will never do so, nor will you because you don't know right from wrong. Any attempt you made to explain why would become obvious, even to you, that all you're doing is answering my question that you idiotically say is moot!
No it isn't! What are you even talking about?
You couldn't even live you life if asking hypothetical questions was a moot thing to do!
Maybe try not to say things about stuff you don't know anything about. It helps keep you from looking like a complete imbecile!
Nope! It's just a question!
A question designed to demonstrate a flaw in your doctrine, which it succeeded in doing, by the way. Everyone reading this knows it. Including you!
You provided the argument yourself, Jericho! All I did was expose you for what you are. A man who has no idea why he believes what he believes and hasn't ever had anyone present to him any serious challenge to a syllable of his doctrine nor spent any time longer than it takes to sneeze thinking through the implications of his theology proper.
Life
Read the opening post.
Simply stated, that which is proper to life is the good that which destroys it is the evil.
Deuteronomy 30:15 “See, I have set before you today life and good, death and evil,
Says the guy who doesn't know right from wrong!
By the way, making the observation that someone is dumb, isn't what an ad hominem is. If you think otherwise, maybe go read a book instead of learning how to think from television or Instagram.
If you think about it that way, then God doesn't care what is going on in our world.
The Lord establishing what is right and what is wrong... does not mean He does not care about what's going on in the world... drawing that conclusion is very odd
Worse than that! It wouldn't matter if He cared or not! It would mean that God was arbitrary rather than just; amoral rather than righteous. In which case, who cares what God says about anything? Why would anyone put any effort into understanding an amoral and arbitrary god? By what standard would such a god be worthy of worship? What motive, other than fear, would drive anyone to serve such a god?
I didn’t answer your question because it’s a leading question that’s framed in a way to support your thesis. You want me to say that if God declared rape to be good, then it must be good. However, God hasn’t declared rape to be good and never will because it’s contrary to His character and nature. You believe these are meaningless; I do not. How else are we to know God but by His nature and character? The ancients were able to discern God’s holiness through His nature alone.
You accuse me of not knowing right from wrong when I assuredly do. I do not base it on some fancy philosophical explanation or on human reason and logic, which are limited. I base it on what the Word of God says. 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 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.
We can know what is true through spiritual discernment, which transcends logic and reason. It is the same with faith. Faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen. Discernment, like faith, has an intangible quality about it that cannot be quantified by logic. We are created in the image of God, and He imparted us with a conscious. This gives everyone an innate sense of right and wrong, though our free wills can override it.
I know God to be moral as certainly as I know that two plus two equals four. And if God wasn’t moral, then none of us would stand a chance. 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. 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).
Your argument is a philosophical one that reduces God to mere logic and reason. It’s an overly complicated approach that will get lost on most people. There is no question that God is a God of reason and logic, but is that all He is? Is logic the end-all-be-all? I don’t believe so. Logic can’t even save someone from damnation or get you to love your neighbor. 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.
You posit that the Word (logos) implies that God is logic, but I take it in the more literal sense of the meaning. It was through God’s Word that the universe and everything in it were formed. 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.
So, we may both agree that God is moral, but we arrive at that conclusion from two totally different perspectives. That’s fine. It’s apparent we won’t come to a consensus, so I see no further reason to continue this discussion. 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.
Last edited:
Similar threads
