Our Moral God

[Logikos]

This post was a pearl cast before swine that I'm pulling from the mud pit.

 

[Aunty Jane]

In John chapter one we are taught not simply that Jesus is God, nor simply that God became a man, but that God the Son is the Logos of God.

I can start with a simple disagreement in the translation of John 1:1, which in Greek does not say what most translations in English do.
Your definition of the word “logos” should be offset by the Greek definition of “theos”…because if you misunderstand the meaning of “theos” in a Greek context, the whole meaning of that verse changes in a much more serious way that mistranslating the word “logos”….we are not talking about a role here but the very nature of God himself. In the scriptures there is no such person as “God the Son”….

In Greek it reads…
In en the beginning archē was eimi the ho Word logos, and kai the ho Word logos was eimi with pros ·ho God theos, and kai the ho Wordl logos was eimi God theos. (Mounce)

Because the Greeks had no word for the monotheistic but nameless God of the Jews (all Greek gods had names) they used the definite article (“ho”) to identify Yahweh, (THE GOD) his name being unuttered by the Jews at that time.

In John 1:1 you can see the definite article (ho) for the first mention of “theos” but it is missing from the second, meaning that there are two “gods” mentioned in this verse.
Understanding the meaning of “theos” is therefore very important. So, along with the meaning of “logos”…
defined by Strongs as….
“of speech

1. a word, uttered by a living voice, embodies a conception or idea
2. what someone has said”

We can ascertain that “logos” can mean someone who speaks God’s words to others….IOW, a spokesman.
Jesus has always been “the Word” or spokesman for his God and Father. He acted as such long before his earthly sojourn.…but more so in his ministry did he speak on God’s behalf.
God’s word was also preserved in written form which is also referred to as “the word of God”.
So “logos” can mean more than one thing. Just as “theos“ can have more than one definition.

Greek had no capital letters, so translating “theos“ with a capital letter, in both instances clouds the meaning of the verse completely….“the Word was WITH God” but the word was not God (capital “G”) he was just “theos“…. “a god” or a “divine” one.
Strongs primary definition of “theos” is….

1. “a god or goddess, a general name of deities or divinities”

Jesus was certainly divine, but he is never once called Yahweh…..whom he always refers to as his God and Father.
At Rev 3: 12 Jesus refers to his God four times in that one verse…..he was in heaven when he gave John the Revelation……How can God have a God even in heaven?

Logos conveys the idea of communication or more specifically, discourse and more specifically than that, rational discourse and/or rational argument.

Indeed…when did Jesus ever utter an irrational word? He tested people out sometimes by saying things that shocked them, but he took note of who stayed around for an explanation…it was always his apostles.

So now, with this better understanding of the Greek, lets look at this passage again...

Please do in light of the information I have just provided…..

Over to you….

 

[Ronald David Bruno]

Continued from previous post.....

Okay, so what's the point? God is Logic, Logic is God - so what? Well, let's suppose someone, for whatever reason, rejects the Bible, Jesus Christ and the whole concept of God, a true atheist attempts to think through the issues of life and does so in such a way so as to stay as true to the principles of logic and sound reason is he possibly can. If, the Living God is Logic, what conclusions then should this person come too? Should they not be at least very similar to the teachings which are found in Scripture? If such an atheist existed and made such an attempt to use reason to formulate his philosophy of life, would he not be using God to formulate it, even if by accident and in ignorance?

Now, bearing that in mind, I want to look at John 1 again. This time verse 4...

John 1:4 In Him was life, and the life was the light of men.​

I find it interesting that the issue of life is brought up in the context of the Logos of God. It interests me because if one were to attempt to contemplate a rational basis for morality, life would have to be a necessary starting point because it is only to the living that issues of morality apply or matter. Ayn Rand, just the sort of atheist to which I've been referring, put it this way...

"...the first question is "Does man need values at all—and why?" According to Rand, "it is only the concept of 'Life' that makes the concept of 'Value' possible," and, "the fact that a living entity is, determines what it ought to do." Rand writes: "there is only one fundamental alternative in the universe: existence or non-existence—and it pertains to a single class of entities: to living organisms. The existence of inanimate matter is unconditional, the existence of life is not: it depends on a specific course of action... It is only a living organism that faces a constant alternative: the issue of life or death..." The survival of the organism is the ultimate value to which all of the organism's activities are aimed, the end served by all of its lesser values." Ayn Rand (1964). The Virtue of Selfishness (paperback ed.). p. 13 & 18 New York: Signet.​

Rand also said,

"Man's mind is his basic tool of survival. Life is given to him, survival is not. His body is given to him, its sustenance is not. His mind is given to him, its content is not. To remain alive he must act and before he can act he must know the nature and purpose of his action. He cannot obtain his food without knowledge of food and of the way to obtain it. He cannot dig a ditch––or build a cyclotron––without a knowledge of his aim and the means to achieve it. To remain alive, he must think." Rand, Ayn (1992) [1957]. Atlas Shrugged (35th anniversary ed.). p. 1012 New York: Dutton​

Now, according to Rand, rationality is the primary virtue in ethics (i.e. morality). For rand ethics is...

"the recognition and acceptance of reason as one's only source of knowledge, one's only judge of values and one's only guide to action." Rand, Ayn (1964). The Virtue of Selfishness (paperback ed.). p. 25 New York: Signet.​

All of which, if God is Logic, is entirely consistent with the common Christian teaching that morality is derived from and defined by God's nature. Which, by the way, is not to say that Ayn Rand was a godly person, nor that her philosophical conclusions were all correct. On the contrary, her rejection of the existence of God led to a great many errors, some of which are disastrous and grievously wrong. But, nevertheless, to the degree she stayed true to reason, her conclusions remained close to the truth, which means, by definition, that they remained close to God and His truth as taught in the pages of Scripture.

Rand's quintessential statement on morality is this ...

"Since reason is man’s basic means of survival, that which is proper to the life of a rational being is the good; that which negates, opposes or destroys it is the evil." Ayn Rand: Atlas Shrugged​

Now, since we now know that God is Reason, what could an atheist say that would be any more in line with the teachings of Scripture than that!?

I submit that in fact there is nothing an atheist or anyone else could say that would be more in line with the teaching a Scripture and that in fact we can find the answer to the confusion surrounding the morality of God in the fact the God is Logic. Morality is not simply defined by God's character as many Christians suppose, but rather that which is moral is so because it is rational, which, if you are following the line of thinking in this essay properly, you'll understand is the equivalent of saying that what is moral is so because it is God like. To say that God is moral, is not to say that God has a list of rules He must follow but simply that God is Life and that He is consistent with Himself and therefore acts in a way which is proper to Life (i.e. He acts morally). Thus, to say that God is moral is to say that God is rational. An amoral (non-moral) God would be non-rational and therefore non-personal, non-relational, non-thinking, non-living, non-real!

God is real, therefore God is rational, therefore God is moral!

Logikos
3/24/2012

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?
And yes, it is offensive to refer to Jesus as merely logic. Logos is Jesus, Who is the exact "expression" of God. So He od all knowledge, wisdom, love, all power, truth, the entire substance of God, not just logic.
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.

 

[Logikos]

I can start with a simple disagreement in the translation of John 1:1, which in Greek does not say what most translations in English do.
Your definition of the word “logos” should be offset by the Greek definition of “theos”…because if you misunderstand the meaning of “theos” in a Greek context, the whole meaning of that verse changes in a much more serious way that mistranslating the word “logos”….we are not talking about a role here but the very nature of God himself. In the scriptures there is no such person as “God the Son”….

In Greek it reads…
In en the beginning archē was eimi the ho Word logos, and kai the ho Word logos was eimi with pros ·ho God theos, and kai the ho Wordl logos was eimi God theos. (Mounce)

Because the Greeks had no word for the monotheistic but nameless God of the Jews (all Greek gods had names) they used the definite article (“ho”) to identify Yahweh, (THE GOD) his name being unuttered by the Jews at that time.

In John 1:1 you can see the definite article (ho) for the first mention of “theos” but it is missing from the second, meaning that there are two “gods” mentioned in this verse.
Understanding the meaning of “theos” is therefore very important. So, along with the meaning of “logos”…
defined by Strongs as….
“of speech

1. a word, uttered by a living voice, embodies a conception or idea
2. what someone has said”

We can ascertain that “logos” can mean someone who speaks God’s words to others….IOW, a spokesman.
Jesus has always been “the Word” or spokesman for his God and Father. He acted as such long before his earthly sojourn.…but more so in his ministry did he speak on God’s behalf.
God’s word was also preserved in written form which is also referred to as “the word of God”.
So “logos” can mean more than one thing. Just as “theos“ can have more than one definition.

Greek had no capital letters, so translating “theos“ with a capital letter, in both instances clouds the meaning of the verse completely….“the Word was WITH God” but the word was not God (capital “G”) he was just “theos“…. “a god” or a “divine” one.
Strongs primary definition of “theos” is….

1. “a god or goddess, a general name of deities or divinities”

Jesus was certainly divine, but he is never once called Yahweh…..whom he always refers to as his God and Father.
At Rev 3: 12 Jesus refers to his God four times in that one verse…..he was in heaven when he gave John the Revelation……How can God have a God even in heaven?


Indeed…when did Jesus ever utter an irrational word? He tested people out sometimes by saying things that shocked them, but he took note of who stayed around for an explanation…it was always his apostles.

Please do in light of the information I have just provided…..

Over to you….

There is only one God. Jesus is that God who became a man and dwelt among us.

If you deny that, you are not a Christian and will die in your sin unless you repent.

If you don't deny it then say so now, without qualification.

 

[Logikos]

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?

Several reasons....

• Because Ms. Rand was right.
• Because atheists borrow from our worldview literally every time they open their mouths.
• Because its a good thing to use an enemy's own words against them.
• Because the testimony from a hostile witness carries more weight.

And yes, it is offensive to refer to Jesus as merely logic.

I never used the word "merely". That's you reading stuff into what I said.

Logos is Jesus, Who is the exact "expression" of God. So He od all knowledge, wisdom, love, all power, truth, the entire substance of God, not just logic.

No one has suggested otherwise. It is the Apostle John who said that Logic was God, not me. He said in Greek but he did say it. It isn't necessary to list every aspect of God's character anytime you happen to be discussing a particular one of them.

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 enlightenment about the WORD.

No enlightenment is possible without reason and where a truth "came from" is not relevant so long as it is actually true. Atheists are not barred from stating things that are true nor are they barred from using sound reason! Indeed, the whole point of using an atheist the way I did was to demonstrate just how close even an unbeliever can come to God's truth in spite of their unbelief merely by properly employing the very thing that God Himself inspired the Apostle John to record is God Himself. Just as when an atheist loves his own children, he is emulating God Himself, the same is true when any unbeliever employs sound reason, or any other form of righteousness for that matter. If a man who worships Vishnu despises a thief, is his hatred of theft somehow ungodly or isn't he right in spite of his unbelief?


Would you like to attempt to refute anything I quoted from Ayn Rand? Do you even disagree with anything I quoted from her?

 

[Aunty Jane]

There is only one God. Jesus is that God who became a man and dwelt among us.

I believe that Jesus is who HE said he was....”the son of God”. (John 10:31-36)

There is no such person as “God the Son” in any passage of scripture.
I do not deny Christ’s divinity at all......but I do deny his deity, because he never once said he was God. Please show me where he ever did? Show us where God shares his deity with anyone....

If you deny that, you are not a Christian and will die in your sin unless you repent.

My understanding is that it is a breach of the First Commandment to put another god in the place of the Father. (Exodus 20:3; Deut 6:4)
Having said that, I believe that all who break that law, will not be forgiven unless they repent....it was a capital offence.

If you don't deny it then say so now, without qualification.

I would be lying if I did that....I worship the same God that Jesus has always worshiped.....even now in heaven, Yahweh is still his God. (Rev 3:12)

Jesus is our “High Priest” (Heb 3:1) who serves his God by leading others in worship...so how can he be God?

Jesus is also called “God’s holy servant” (Acts 4:27)...can God be his own servant?

Jesus is the “mediator between God and men” (1 Tim 2:5-6) A mediator is the facilitator of communication between two estranged parties.....he cannot be one of the parties.

Jesus also said that he is “the beginning of God’s creation” (Rev 3:14) Confirmed by the apostle Paul at Colossians 1:15 calling Jesus “the firstborn of all creation”. IOW, the Son was God’s first and only direct creation, making him unique. As Paul goes on to say....”because by means of him all things were created in the heavens and on the earth, the things visible and the things invisible, whether they are thrones or lordships or governments or authorities. All other things have been created through him and for him. 17 Also, he is before all things, and by means of him all things were made to exist”.

Note that all creation came “through” the son....not “from” him.....he is not the Creator...his Father created all things “by means of him”.

Scripturally there is a lot arguing against your favoured belief.....there is no direct statement from either Yahweh or his son that they share equality as deity. The son worships his Father, but the Father does not worship the son.....nowhere in all of scripture is the holy spirit called “God”.

Since Jesus is also the judge of all of us, we will allow him to make the judgments as to who are the genuine “Christians”, and who only think they are. (Matt 7:21-23)

If this essay somehow offends you personally then you're overly emotional to the point of delusion and I don't care and don't want to hear about it.

LOL.....

 

[Logikos]

I believe that Jesus is who HE said he was....”the son of God”. (John 10:31-36)

There is no such person as “God the Son” in any passage of scripture.
I do not deny Christ’s divinity at all......but I do deny his deity, because he never once said he was God. Please show me where he ever did? Show us where God shares his deity with anyone....

My understanding is that it is a breach of the First Commandment to put another god in the place of the Father. (Exodus 20:3; Deut 6:4)
Having said that, I believe that all who break that law, will not be forgiven unless they repent....it was a capital offence.

I would be lying if I did that....I worship the same God that Jesus has always worshiped.....even now in heaven, Yahweh is still his God. (Rev 3:12)

Jesus is our “High Priest” (Heb 3:1) who serves his God by leading others in worship...so how can he be God?

Jesus is also called “God’s holy servant” (Acts 4:27)...can God be his own servant?

Jesus is the “mediator between God and men” (1 Tim 2:5-6) A mediator is the facilitator of communication between two estranged parties.....he cannot be one of the parties.

Jesus also said that he is “the beginning of God’s creation” (Rev 3:14) Confirmed by the apostle Paul at Colossians 1:15 calling Jesus “the firstborn of all creation”. IOW, the Son was God’s first and only direct creation, making him unique. As Paul goes on to say....”because by means of him all things were created in the heavens and on the earth, the things visible and the things invisible, whether they are thrones or lordships or governments or authorities. All other things have been created through him and for him. 17 Also, he is before all things, and by means of him all things were made to exist”.

Note that all creation came “through” the son....not “from” him.....he is not the Creator...his Father created all things “by means of him”.

Scripturally there is a lot arguing against your favoured belief.....there is no direct statement from either Yahweh or his son that they share equality as deity. The son worships his Father, but the Father does not worship the son.....nowhere in all of scripture is the holy spirit called “God”.

Since Jesus is also the judge of all of us, we will allow him to make the judgments as to who are the genuine “Christians”, and who only think they are. (Matt 7:21-23)


LOL.....

I am starting to see why the discussion of the Trinity is forbidden on this website. The people running it don't believe in it, do they? This whole site is infested with you fakers!

Welcome to my ignore list!

Not that it matters, I can't image staying here much longer.

 

[Aunty Jane]

If this essay somehow offends you personally then you're overly emotional to the point of delusion and I don't care and don't want to hear about it.

Says it all really....I cant imagine you would gain too many followers with that attitude anyway....

 

[Ronald David Bruno]

I am starting to see why the discussion of the Trinity is forbidden on this website. The people running it don't believe in it, do they? This whole site is infested with you fakers!

Welcome to my ignore list!

Not that it matters, I can't image staying here much longer.

No, there were too many heated discussions. There are non-Trinitarians ( JW's, Unitaritarians) trying to argue their beliefs while the Trinitarians won't have it. 97% of Christianity are Trinitarians so the 3% have to make a loud noise to be noticed.(Aunty Jane is a JW btw).
People were getting rude and ugly. Since it is easy to get that way online, when normally face to face we would restrain ourselves, we start throwing stones at eachother, flailing insults, demeening. The flesh shows it's true colors. And then finally , "That's it , I'm going to add you to my ignore list". Forgiveness is golden and people should just drop it after a couple rounds and agree to disagree since their wall is evidently impenetrable.
I thought you were going to put me at that list the other day with our discussion about time.
Stick around.

 

[Ronald David Bruno]

I never used the word "merely". That's you reading stuff into what I said.

I only meant the word logic is grossly insufficient.

No one has suggested otherwise. It is the Apostle John who said that Logic was God, not me.

I think when introducing God as in " In the beginning was the Logos, the Logos was with God and the logos was God" is a profound, deep, meaning. The glory and majesty, the omnipotence, omnipresence and omniscience is expressed on logos. We refer to the Bible as the word as well. Would you merely describe the Bible as logical or reasonable.

The Word is then described as the CREATOR "All things were made through Him, and without Him nothing was made that was made"
THE SOURCE OF LIFE ."In Him was life, and the life was THE LIGHT OF MEN".
A PERSON WHO WAS REJECTED BY MANY
" He came to His own, and His own did not receive Him".
SAVIOR As many who received Him, He made them children, born of God.
He became a man and dwelt among us,
GLORY "we beheld His glory"
FULL OF GRACE AND TRUTH.

Those words describe LOGOS, JESUS.

Atheists are not barred from stating things that are true nor are they barred from using sound reason!

RICHARD Dawkins and Stephen Hawking had reason and logic too and they are fools.

 

[Aunty Jane]

There are non-Trinitarians ( JW's, Unitaritarians) trying to argue their beliefs while the Trinitarians won't have it. 97% of Christianity are Trinitarians so the 3% have to make a loud noise to be noticed.(Aunty Jane is a JW btw).
People were getting rude and ugly.

It was not the JW’s who got rude and ugly....just to clarify.
Since we are in the “minority” on this issue, I find rather comforting in a way, since it is the hated and persecuted minority whom Jesus said are on the road to life....the “majority” are traveling the “other” road. (John 15:18-21; Matt 7:13-14)
Just because the majority accept something as true, doesn’t make it so....the majority of Jews rejected Jesus, who with his followers, were a hated and persecuted minority.....just sayin’....

 

[Logikos]

Stick around.

I'm trying!

I make a policy, although I do choose to break it from time to time, but by and large, I do not debate Christian doctrine with unbelievers and you can't sling a dead cat around here without hitting a faker right in the face on this website. I guarantee you there's more than 3% of the active participants here that deny the deity of Christ! Every time I turn around, another one pops up! They seem to be everywhere!

 

[Logikos]

I only meant the word logic is grossly insufficient.

I think when introducing God as in " In the beginning was the Logos, the Logos was with God and the logos was God" is a profound, deep, meaning. The glory and majesty, the omnipotence, omnipresence and omniscience is expressed on logos. We refer to the Bible as the word as well. Would you merely describe the Bible as logical or reasonable.

Again, no one has even suggested using or even implying the term "merely". Would you agree to refer to God as merely love?

I wouldn't!

In other words, you are reading more into my words than the words themselves will support. There's a whole list of things that derive their meaning from the person of God, reason is only one of them.

The Word is then described as the CREATOR "All things were made through Him, and without Him nothing was made that was made"
THE SOURCE OF LIFE ."In Him was life, and the life was THE LIGHT OF MEN".
A PERSON WHO WAS REJECTED BY MANY
" He came to His own, and His own did not receive Him".
SAVIOR As many who received Him, He made them children, born of God.
He became a man and dwelt among us,
GLORY "we beheld His glory"
FULL OF GRACE AND TRUTH.

Those words describe LOGOS, JESUS.

Of course! There's no argument there from me!

RICHARD Dawkins and Stephen Hawking had reason and logic too and they are fools.

Everyone, every single man woman and child has reason. Even the stupidest, lazy minded dullard cannot grunt for alms without using reason. Reason is THE ONLY means by which your mind works. Every thought, feeling, emotion or mood has it's genesis in your mind. Your mind is a reason machine. The only question is whether its proper reasoning that conforms to reality or not and the only way to tell which is by reason itself.

In short, every unbeliever, every question begging atheist, every self-contradictory Muslim, every try as hard as you can to be mindless Taoist, ALL OF THEM barrow from the Christian worldview every time they open their mouths to utter a single meaningful syllable, including when those syllables add up to denying the God of Christianity exists.

Which is a primary point of the whole thesis! If you think there is a such thing as true and false, moral and immoral it is because the God who is Reason itself created you with a mind that works! The very fact that you understand what the word "true" means, turns out to be proof that the God of the bible is real.

There are, of course, detailed arguments that establish this, (perhaps the most succinct of which in known as the "Transcendental Argument for the Existence of God"), which I have not detailed in this thread but it is a subject that is closely related and worth your time to investigate.

 

[Ronald David Bruno]

I'm trying!

I make a policy, although I do choose to break it from time to time, but by and large, I do not debate Christian doctrine with unbelievers and you can't sling a dead cat around here without hitting a faker right in the face on this website. I guarantee you there's more than 3% of the active participants here that deny the deity of Christ! Every time I turn around, another one pops up! They seem to be everywhere!

Well, just like the LGBTQ group, they have a loud voice, parading down the streets, clanging their cymbals. Such a small group influenced the SCOTUS to legalize Gay Marriage.
These Non-Trinis or Binatarians won't change the nature of Jesus or the Holy Spirit.

 

[Ronald David Bruno]

Again, no one has even suggested using or even implying the term "merely". Would you

Reason is THE ONLY means by which your mind works.

Not only. God guides us whether we can reason or not to go His way.
Also, without God, the mind sometimes works impulsively without reason, ordering knee jerk reactions that result in foolishness and sin. Since man is born a slave to sin, his reason is maligned, blind. Blind reason is deadly.
My former world view was completely different before I was a Christian. What happened? I began to see the world differently. How? I was given spiritual sight, hence my reasoning had a new program and was now assisted by the Holy Spirit.
Unbelievers, (especially these liberal ones), seem to live in an alternate universe. Are they reasonable? Like I said, Stephen Hawking blind reason, that led him to destruction. His reason was summed up in scripture: "The fool says in his heart, there is no God."

If you think there is a such thing as true and false, moral and immoral it is because the God who is Reason itself created you with a mind that works!

Yes, but you can't leave out the spiritual dimension that brings enlightenment and illumination, where prior to the new birth, reason can't accomplish much except worldly things.
So, my point was not to diminish God's mindful righteous decisions which are great, it was to disagree that "logos" merely meant logic. The WORD IS the exact expression of God, which is much more than reason. As the Bible ( the WORD) describes who Jesus is, it is the expression of God and description of God.
Moses asked God, who shall I say sent me? God said tell them I AM sent you.
The "I AM" is likened to LOGOS.

 

[RedFan]

Well, just like the LGBTQ group, they have a loud voice, parading down the streets, clanging their cymbals. Such a small group influenced the SCOTUS to legalize Gay Marriage.

Not so!

I've been a lawyer for nearly 45 years, and a careful student of the Supreme Court for my entire career. I'm thoroughly familiar with the Obergefell case. Justice Kennedy, who was the swing vote, is someone I have particularly followed, through his pro-gay opinions in Romer v. Evans and Lawrence v. Texas, right up to the Obergefell opinion.

One sentence in his 2009 commencement speech at Stanford University gives the finest exposition of his jurisprudence: "For us the law is not an obstacle but the instrument of progress; not a command to be feared but a hope to be embraced; not a threat but a promise."

And I am 100% certain that neither he nor any of the other four Justices in the majority gave a rat's ass about the LGBTQ paraders. Their influence on the Court was ZERO. NONE. NADA. I can't imagine why you would think otherwise. It's insulting to the Justices.

 

[Logikos]

Not only. God guides us whether we can reason or not to go His way.

That's my line!

God is Reason, remember?

Also, without God, the mind sometimes works impulsively without reason, ordering knee jerk reactions that result in foolishness and sin. Since man is born a slave to sin, his reason is maligned, blind. Blind reason is deadly.

No. The mind NEVER works absent reason. It may be faulty reason. It may be based on completely foolish and totally wrong premises, but there was some sort of reasoning process that took place to initiate any action, whether in thought word or deed.

My former world view was completely different before I was a Christian. What happened? I began to see the world differently. How? I was given spiritual sight, hence my reasoning had a new program and was now assisted by the Holy Spirit.

The term for this is a paradigm shift. It isn't that you started using reason when this happened, its that your premises were changed.

Unbelievers, (especially these liberal ones), seem to live in an alternate universe. Are they reasonable? Like I said, Stephen Hawking blind reason, that led him to destruction. His reason was summed up in scripture: "The fool says in his heart, there is no God."

We are not talking about the same thing. You are drawing a distinction between the wise and the foolish, whereas I am saying that even the most foolish atheist is FORCED to borrow from my Christian worldview to even open his mouth to deny the existence of God.

Yes, but you can't leave out the spiritual dimension that brings enlightenment and illumination, where prior to the new birth, reason can't accomplish much except worldly things.

There is no such thing as an irrational truth and you have no means by which to evaluate the truth of any claim, whether spiritual or otherwise, other than by the use of reason. You cannot understand a single syllable of a spiritual truth without the use of your mind and your reasoning faculty. You cannot interpret or understand a spiritual experience without the use of your mind and your reasoning faculty. You cannot understand anything without reason. Reason is to your mind as light is to your eyes.

John 1:4 In Him (i.e. in the Logos) was life, and the life was the light of men. 5 And the light shines in the darkness, and the darkness did not comprehend it.​

So, my point was not to diminish God's mindful righteous decisions which are great, it was to disagree that "logos" merely meant logic.

It meant divine reason, both to him who wrote it and to his audience, as well as to Him Whom it was written about and inspired by.

The WORD IS the exact expression of God, which is much more than reason.

There is no dispute here except that this misses the point of the passage. John wasn't making any attempt to fully describe God. He was equating God with the Greek notion of the Logos, the organizing force that created and sustains the rational universe that we can clearly see all around us. A point echoed by Paul....

Romans 1: 20 For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even His eternal power and Godhead, so that they are without excuse, 21 because, although they knew God, they did not glorify Him as God, nor were thankful, but became futile in their thoughts, and their foolish hearts were darkened.​

As the Bible ( the WORD) describes who Jesus is, it is the expression of God and description of God.

More than that! It IS God!

Moses asked God, who shall I say sent me? God said tell them I AM sent you.
The "I AM" is likened to LOGOS.

Likened?

The I AM is the Logos! As Jesus Himself boldly stated....

John 1:1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.​

John 8:58 Jesus said to them, “Most assuredly, I say to you, before Abraham was, I AM.”​

Same author, same Jesus, same point that John makes repeatedly through his portion of the New Testament. Jesus is God become flesh!

 

[Logikos]

Not so!

I've been a lawyer for nearly 45 years, and a careful student of the Supreme Court for my entire career. I'm thoroughly familiar with the Obergefell case. Justice Kennedy, who was the swing vote, is someone I have particularly followed, through his pro-gay opinions in Romer v. Evans and Lawrence v. Texas, right up to the Obergefell opinion.

One sentence in his 2009 commencement speech at Stanford University gives the finest exposition of his jurisprudence: "For us the law is not an obstacle but the instrument of progress; not a command to be feared but a hope to be embraced; not a threat but a promise."

And I am 100% certain that neither he nor any of the other four Justices in the majority gave a rat's ass about the LGBTQ paraders. Their influence on the Court was ZERO. NONE. NADA. I can't imagine why you would think otherwise. It's insulting to the Justices.

I'm reasonably sure that he didn't mean to suggest that their influence was direct as though the Justices cared what was going on outside the courthouse that particular day.

 

[Ronald David Bruno]

Not so!

I've been a lawyer for nearly 45 years, and a careful student of the Supreme Court for my entire career. I'm thoroughly familiar with the Obergefell case. Justice Kennedy, who was the swing vote, is someone I have particularly followed, through his pro-gay opinions in Romer v. Evans and Lawrence v. Texas, right up to the Obergefell opinion.

One sentence in his 2009 commencement speech at Stanford University gives the finest exposition of his jurisprudence: "For us the law is not an obstacle but the instrument of progress; not a command to be feared but a hope to be embraced; not a threat but a promise."

And I am 100% certain that neither he nor any of the other four Justices in the majority gave a rat's ass about the LGBTQ paraders. Their influence on the Court was ZERO. NONE. NADA. I can't imagine why you would think otherwise. It's insulting to the Justices.

They legalized Gay Marriage. From what I learned about the Judicial System was that the Men in Black weren't supposed to legislate. We have a Legislative Branch that handles that. There are three branches, a separation of powers, checks and balances so that no one branch over reaches their powers. The system has been corrupted. If you don't see that there is severe corruption in government, likely you're a liberal.

Sen. Ted Cruz says Supreme Court 'clearly wrong' in decision legalizing same-sex marriage

The Texas Republican's remarks came just weeks after Justice Clarence Thomas said the Supreme Court “should reconsider” past rulings, including Obergefell v. Hodges.

www.nbcnews.com

I have to add that Marriage was designed by God, specifically between a male and a female. Any other combo is a perversion of His plan. So then the SCOTUS is perverted in their ruling. Honestly, when that happened, I really thought the end was near, that this act was the straw that would break the camel's back - Judgment Day was certainly around the corner. Not yet though ... pretty soon ... a few more years left

 

[Ronald David Bruno]

That's my line!

God is Reason, remember

No, I said God guides us whether we have reason or not. And you have been pushing man's reason without God. Matter of fact, you used an atheists ideas to write your thesis about God's morality - go figure?

No. The mind NEVER works absent reason.

Yet you just agreed with what I said and claimed it was your line.

It may be faulty reason. It may be based on completely foolish and totally wrong premises, but there was some sort of reasoning process that took place to initiate any action, whether in thought word or deed.

Faulty, foolish reason? I agree but that kind of reason is not valuable.
When God puts a thought in your head, "Go this way" ..."Do that", it was not self generated reasoning, it was received and accepted, likely thought of as your own.m idea.
The truth is, we can't do anything good without Him.

>>Is this some sort of attempt to promote the 18th Century Age of Enlightenment/ Reason philoshy popularized by Thomas Paine?

The term for this is a paradigm shift. It isn't that you started using reason when this happened, its that your premises were changed.

Yeah, well exactly, a blind world sinful nature transformed into a glorious spiritual new creature led by the Holy Spirit. I'll say that is some paradigm shift.

I am saying that even the most foolish atheist is FORCED to borrow from my Christian worldview to even open his mouth to deny the existence of God.

They reject our Jesus and ways. "Forced" is a bit strict, maybe; but I like to think that the atheist is persuaded by God, that is when He draws this person to Himself. But left to himself, he's got squat, to reason his way to Hades.

There is no such thing as an irrational truth and you have no means by which to evaluate the truth of any claim, whether spiritual or otherwise, other than by the use of reason.

Never made the claim if irrational truth. ???
The means I have to evaluate truth is discernment from the Holy Spirit. Now are times there are mixed signals and I get it wrong. In others words my reasoning is wrong, especially I'd I chose my self generated logic over God's thoughts.

John 1:4 In Him (i.e. in the Logos) was life, and the life was the light of men. 5 And the light shines in the darkness, and the darkness did not comprehend it.

See, the darkness ( man's reason without God) did not comprehend. You are proving my point.

The I AM is the Logos! As Jesus Himself boldly stated....

John 1:1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.John 8:58 Jesus said to them, “Most assuredly, I say to you, before Abraham was, I AM.”
Same author, same Jesus, same point that John makes repeatedly through his portion of the New Testament. Jesus is God become flesh!

Glad you agree with that and I didn't even have tiblist all the "I am" scripture in John to make the point.
Maybe we should stop here, on a agreeable note?