Is God Moral?

  • 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!

Is God moral?

  • Yes

  • No


Results are only viewable after voting.

Rella ~ I am a woman

Well-Known Member
Jul 27, 2023
1,512
830
113
76
SW PA
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
I wasn't shouting. This isn't Facebook. Caps is intended for emphasis only.


Well, it's just that I'm having a difficult time comprehending that it's actually a rule. How is a Christian supposed to talk about God AND avoid discussing the Trinity? That makes no sense to me. It feels like trying to talk about light without mentioning color. I'll look it up and see what it actually says.


This does not sound to me like normal Christian doctrine, especially if you are saying these things absent any concept of the Trinity doctrine.


What are you talking about? Where did I ever tell you how to post?
Look, just leave the Trinity alone. I got called on it last week and ended up back tracking many replies of mine to remove my references. I don't know why and I don't understand but at least we can discuss Tripartite man.

I believe it might be acceptable to say God the Father, God the Son and God the Holy Spirit so long as they are not grouped under one term. It is necessary if you are taking about things the Holy Spirit does and Jesus does....

DO NOT QUOTE ME though for I may be wrong.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Logikos

PossibleThrowawayAccount

Active Member
Oct 1, 2022
128
84
28
30
Pittsburgh, PA
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
In a way it is a yes/no answer. While God is inherently good and moral, he can be seen as immoral from a mortal human's point of view. On one hand God is the ultimately moral being yet on the other hand humans have a higher and ever changing standard of morals which God does not follow (why should he though?).

In the Bible he killed a lot of people both directly and indirectly but most if not all were completely justifiable. Aside from that he neglects his people and all the sufferings of the world, plays favorites and does not punish the wicked.
 

RedFan

Well-Known Member
May 15, 2022
1,165
530
113
69
New Hampshire
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
The “voluntarism” of Luther and Calvin, and before them of William of Ockham, holds that morality and justice, even goodness, have no objective reality, but are simply whatever God declares them to be, i.e., God is free to establish any moral law He chooses, and that choice then serves as the very definition of morality or justice. There are no higher norms existing independently of God’s choice, no Platonic “forms” to which God’s commands must conform. If we humans entertain concepts of morality and justice that we think of as universals rather than as arbitrary divine commands, we deceive ourselves. If we attempt to apply those concepts to explain or to judge God’s sovereign laws, we inevitably will judge wrongly – for human reason cannot comprehend God’s ways.

Example: Suppose God had not stayed Abraham’s hand before he plunged a knife into Isaac. That would simply mean that Abraham would have acted morally and justly in sacrificing his son. We may applaud the staying of Abraham’s hand because it happens to conform to our notions of morality and justice, but in this case “our” notions just randomly happen to coincide with “His” notions, and it is His notions that define the genre and could have defined it differently. If we find it unjust when God “punishes the children for the sin of the parents to the third and fourth generation” (Num. 14:18, Ex. 34:6-7), we apply human notions of “justice” that do not coincide with His, and for that reason we do not apply true justice. God, in other words, cannot be unjust because His will is the test of justice rather than because He habitually chooses that which is independently just.

I have difficulty agreeing with the voluntarist viewpoint. The issue can be framed this way: Is goodness that which God ordains, or does God choose to ordain what is good because He is Himself good? In his Euthyphro, Plato explores whether the gods command something because it is right or whether it is right because they command it. He concluded that moral ideals, like other forms, exist independently.
 
  • Love
Reactions: Logikos

Logikos

Active Member
Jan 4, 2024
340
76
28
54
Tomball, TX
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
My no was in perfect response to OUR vernacular.
That's fine. I'm interested in them but don't really care one way or the other about your beliefs. Believe whatever you want! It's no skin off my nose. The only thing I'm really interested in is what you can defend rationally and I'm only interested in that much because it benefits my own ability to establish the truth of my own beliefs. Your personal opinions are fine but they don't amount to a hill of beans to me personally, as should be everyone's attitude toward anyone's personal opinions.

I believe God is supreme in ALL things and doesn't need our piddling definitions to explain his decisions nor who he is.
How about the definition that says "God is good"? Is that a piddling definition too or is it just the stuff that doesn't tickle your ears that you call "piddling"?

That's a real question.

You may deny an agenda but I wonder...........
No, you don't. You had your mind made up from the word go. I've giving you no reason at all to think that I'm doing anything other than what I've said I was doing. What other possible agenda could I even have, anyway?

To clarify; if this is your form of discussion then I'll refrain from participating in your threads.

Thanks
Oh, for crying out loud. Just please do, okay? I don't need the sort of heart burn your ilk brings to my life. If you simply must be offended by me then just save us all the grief and leave me alone.
 
Last edited:

Logikos

Active Member
Jan 4, 2024
340
76
28
54
Tomball, TX
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
The “voluntarism” of Luther and Calvin, and before them of William of Ockham, holds that morality and justice, even goodness, have no objective reality, but are simply whatever God declares them to be, i.e., God is free to establish any moral law He chooses, and that choice then serves as the very definition of morality or justice. There are no higher norms existing independently of God’s choice, no Platonic “forms” to which God’s commands must conform. If we humans entertain concepts of morality and justice that we think of as universals rather than as arbitrary divine commands, we deceive ourselves. If we attempt to apply those concepts to explain or to judge God’s sovereign laws, we inevitably will judge wrongly – for human reason cannot comprehend God’s ways.

Example: Suppose God had not stayed Abraham’s hand before he plunged a knife into Isaac. That would simply mean that Abraham would have acted morally and justly in sacrificing his son. We may applaud the staying of Abraham’s hand because it happens to conform to our notions of morality and justice, but in this case “our” notions just randomly happen to coincide with “His” notions, and it is His notions that define the genre and could have defined it differently. If we find it unjust when God “punishes the children for the sin of the parents to the third and fourth generation” (Num. 14:18, Ex. 34:6-7), we apply human notions of “justice” that do not coincide with His, and for that reason we do not apply true justice. God, in other words, cannot be unjust because His will is the test of justice rather than because He habitually chooses that which is independently just.

I have difficulty agreeing with the voluntarist viewpoint. The issue can be framed this way: Is goodness that which God ordains, or does God choose to ordain what is good because He is Himself good? In his Euthyphro, Plato explores whether the gods command something because it is right or whether it is right because they command it. He concluded that moral ideals, like other forms, exist independently.
This is the single best post on this entire thread up to this point!

The only disappointing thing about your post is that you seem to have ended it prematurely. That third paragraph leaves open enough room for you to answer the poll either way.

Do you answer as Luther, Calvin and the Neo-Platonists would or not?

......................................

After writing the above, I just noticed a 2nd "No" on the poll. I can't but assume that it was your answer. Very disappointing! Your instincts are good and so there's hope. There's very good reason you have difficulty agreeing with the Luther and Calvin and it has everything to do with the fact that the basis of most of their doctrine doesn't come from scripture but from Socrates, Plato and Aristotle.
 
Last edited:

Eternally Grateful

Well-Known Member
Feb 27, 2020
14,559
8,248
113
58
Columbus, ohio
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
This is the single best post on this entire thread up to this point!

The only disappointing thing about your post is that you seem to have ended it prematurely. That third paragraph leaves open enough room for you to answer the poll either way.

Do you answer as Luther, Calvin and the Neo-Platonists would or not?
You going to give us your answer.. Or just continue the nonsense?

These types of threads never go well in a chatroom. They just get everyone on each others nerves.. because everyone is trying to guess what the op wants. and then all you know what breaks lose.
 
  • Love
Reactions: Pearl

RedFan

Well-Known Member
May 15, 2022
1,165
530
113
69
New Hampshire
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
This is the single best post on this entire thread up to this point!

The only disappointing thing about your post is that you seem to have ended it prematurely. That third paragraph leaves open enough room for you to answer the poll either way.

Do you answer as Luther, Calvin and the Neo-Platonists would or not?

......................................

After writing the above, I just noticed a 2nd "No" on the poll. I can't but assume that it was your answer. Very disappointing! Your instincts are good and so there's hope. There's very good reason you have difficulty agreeing with the Luther and Calvin and it has everything to do with the fact that the basis of most of their doctrine doesn't come from scripture but from Socrates, Plato and Aristotle.
I am with Plato on this one. And I haven't participated in the poll. The "no" isn't from me.

The comment "Your instincts are good so there's hope" is offensive to me.
 

quietthinker

Well-Known Member
May 4, 2018
11,855
7,757
113
FNQ
Faith
Christian
Country
Australia
You going to give us your answer.. Or just continue the nonsense?

These types of threads never go well in a chatroom. They just get everyone on each others nerves.. because everyone is trying to guess what the op wants. and then all you know what breaks lose.
You just need to be confident of this, that he who began a good work in you will be faithful to complete it.
 
  • Love
Reactions: Ritajanice

Logikos

Active Member
Jan 4, 2024
340
76
28
54
Tomball, TX
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
Okay, I think that's enough of this preliminary portion of the discussion.

I have to say that I am amazed at the numbers! I've asked this question a number of times over the years. Most often in groups of people where it was done by a show of hands and so I don't have good hard numbers on those instances but I can tell you that it's usually only about 5% or so who answer "No". This group has produced a full 15% on the "No" column! That's far more than I would have ever expected.

The correct answers is, of course, that God is moral and I mean that explicitly. It is the CORRECT answer to the question and now I think it's time to present reasoning that establishes that claim. I have, however, decided not to post it on this particular thread. This thread is full of ridiculous posts by people who are just Hell bent on being offended by any perceived slight their imagination can conjure and have filled the thread with a bunch of junk that no one wants to read. There was one person who started to get offended and seems to have gotten a hold of themselves after I explained the misunderstanding. The rest of the needlessly offended people just keep doubling down, no matter what I say, two of which landed on my ignore list less than eight hours after my arrival on the forum - simply ridiculous.

So, what I'm going to do is to start a new thread with my thesis as the open post. I'll keep this thread open in case someone desires to add their answer to the poll (Actually, come to think of it, I'm not even sure if this forum allows users to close threads.)

I'll post a link both here at the end of this post and in the opening post of this thread to the new thread as soon as I get the new thread posted.

The new thread can be found here...

Our Moral God
 
Last edited:
  • Haha
Reactions: Ritajanice

Logikos

Active Member
Jan 4, 2024
340
76
28
54
Tomball, TX
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
I don't want to be offended. Nobody wants to be offended. Your tone is objectively offensive.
My tone? You're reading text! If I wanted to offend you, you'd know it, okay?

How do you even live your regular life if such things offend you? There isn't any way any normal person could have a conversation of any substance if you're offended this easily! If such a simple statement offends you maybe go to your mother's house and discuss doctrine with her. Otherwise, put some man pants on and quit being such a fragile butterfly. I've never in my life seen a group of people so thin skinned in my entire life!

If you all think I'm going to walk around on egg shells worried about what random comment is going to offend someone, you'd better think again.
 

RedFan

Well-Known Member
May 15, 2022
1,165
530
113
69
New Hampshire
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
My tone? You're reading text! If I wanted to offend you, you'd know it, okay?

How do you even live your regular life if such things offend you? There isn't any way any normal person could have a conversation of any substance if you're offended this easily! If such a simple statement offends you maybe go to your mother's house and discuss doctrine with her. Otherwise, put some man pants on and quit being such a fragile butterfly. I've never in my life seen a group of people so thin skinned in my entire life!

If you all think I'm going to walk around on egg shells worried about what random comment is going to offend someone, you'd better think again.
Saying that there is "hope" for me implies that my thinking is presently deficient. If someone accused you of being a deficient thinker, would you not find that offensive?
 

Logikos

Active Member
Jan 4, 2024
340
76
28
54
Tomball, TX
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
Saying that there is "hope" for me implies that my thinking is presently deficient. If someone accused you of being a deficient thinker, would you not find that offensive?
Your thinking is deficient. You disagree and I'm willing to argue the point. That's why they call this a debate forum. If everyone who thinks your thinking is deficient is going to offend you, you need to find a different hobby.
 

L.A.M.B.

Well-Known Member
Mar 22, 2022
4,383
5,792
113
USA
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
I don't want to be offended. Nobody wants to be offended. Your tone is objectively offensive.
Sounds like an arrogant _____ I've met before in forums, went by **2 Timothy Group.

He was a real psycho!

Glad to be engaging one sec the next all were hypocrites & against him, as IF he were the only one that knew God......hmmm attitude.
Bears watching but not worth engaging further !