ARGH!!! Open Theism makes me furious!!!

[elected4ever]

Why is everyone so afraid of God's ability to do evil? From my understanding God does evil perfectly. Can it be that what we humans consider an evil act may in fact be a righteous act by God? God has used evil and righteous men to do evil acts. I believe God has an agenda and God directs the affairs of men to accomplish that agenda. God is righteous, not moral. Man can only act in the situation that is limited so man only has limited free will. Man's ability to choose is not total even for those who think that it is. We are free to choose God's righteousness or man's morality If man chooses man's morality over God's righteousness, man will still do the will of God thinking all the time that he was acting as an independent agent. Man is so stupid!:freak:

 

[godrulz]

Originally posted by STONE

We have genuine freedom. We also have a perfect Father who knows how to guide man into all truth. Freedom is a necessary part of coming to that truth.

Genuine freedom means we can accept or reject God's leading into truth. It is possible to give mental assent to Christianity without trusting Christ as Lord and Savior (James: the devil 'believes').

 

[godrulz]

Originally posted by elected4ever

Why is everyone so afraid of God's ability to do evil? From my understanding God does evil perfectly. Can it be that what we humans consider an evil act may in fact be a righteous act by God? God has used evil and righteous men to do evil acts. I believe God has an agenda and God directs the affairs of men to accomplish that agenda. God is righteous, not moral. Man can only act in the situation that is limited so man only has limited free will. Man's ability to choose is not total even for those who think that it is. We are free to choose God's righteousness or man's morality If man chooses man's morality over God's righteousness, man will still do the will of God thinking all the time that he was acting as an independent agent. Man is so stupid!:freak:

Scripture and ethicists distinguish between moral evil and natural 'evil'. Moral evil is contrary to the nature, character, and laws of God. Man and demons are responsible for originating and perpetuating evil. God uses natural disasters (KJV 'evil') and evil nations for His righteous judgments. This is different than the evil of Hitler killing millions of Jews (man, not God is culpable for this).

 

[Clete]

Originally posted by godrulz

Scripture and ethicists distinguish between moral evil and natural 'evil'. Moral evil is contrary to the nature, character, and laws of God. Man and demons are responsible for originating and perpetuating evil. God uses natural disasters (KJV 'evil') and evil nations for His righteous judgments. This is different than the evil of Hitler killing millions of Jews (man, not God is culpable for this).

This is, of course, right on the money!
God does not do morally evil acts, period nor does He condone or orchestrate them.

Resting in Him,
Clete

 

[elected4ever]

Originally posted by Clete Pfeiffer

This is, of course, right on the money!
God does not do morally evil acts, period nor does He condone or orchestrate them.

Resting in Him,
Clete

I guess Samuel was a hurricane or earthquake or something.:kookoo:

 

[godrulz]

Originally posted by elected4ever

I guess Samuel was a hurricane or earthquake or something.:kookoo:

Huh? What do you mean?


When the state executes a criminal by capital punishment, it does a biblical, righteous act. The executioner or those who defend themselves with lethal force in self-defense are not evil. Those who kill in premeditated murder/cold blood are evil (Charles Manson; Hitler; Saddam).

There is a difference between a righteous, justifiable war and a crass political war.


There is a difference between a storm caused by the laws of nature, and one sent by God to pour out His wrath (Revelation).

There is a difference between God commanding Israel to destroy totally evil nations that would corrupt the earth (justice) and Saddam invading Kuwait.

 

[elected4ever]

God does not do moral acts. He does righteous acts. Man's openion (morals) does not matter.

 

[godrulz]

Originally posted by elected4ever

God does not do moral acts. He does righteous acts. Man's openion (morals) does not matter.

Are you making an artificial distinction between the two?

Morals (the moral law of God, free moral agency, etc.) is a technical term in theology that contrasts with metaphysics (substance, stuff, things). There is a secular understanding of morals (self-righteousness; situaltional ethics, etc.) and a biblical understanding (righteousness, holiness, values, 10 commandments, etc.).

'Morals' can be used in different senses. Motives, truth, revelation, character, free will, etc. come into play. There is a difference between an atheist doing a good 'moral' act, and a believer living a righteous life for the glory of God.

There are biblical, godly 'morals' and so-called secular morals. The study of ethics/morals can be approached from a Christian or secular perspective. Morals is not a bad word. We just have to recognize and clarify the meaning of the word in different setttings.

Moral depravity is a biblical concept. The old theologians used the word precisely in a biblical context. Just because the secular world uses the same word and adds its ideas to it, does not mean it is an invalid word.

Sin and righteousness is in the realm of morals (choices) vs metaphysics (things). Sin is a wrong moral choice, not a substance in our genes.

The moral law of God (10 commandments, love God/neighbour, etc.) is righteous. "Moral laws" about drunk driving, etc. are in a different category. Moral laws in the OT contrast with ceremonial laws for the Jews.

So, I just your elimination of 'morals' is simplistic and needs clarification.

 

[elected4ever]

Originally posted by godrulz

Are you making an artificial distinction between the two?

Morals (the moral law of God, free moral agency, etc.) is a technical term in theology that contrasts with metaphysics (substance, stuff, things). There is a secular understanding of morals (self-righteousness; situaltional ethics, etc.) and a biblical understanding (righteousness, holiness, values, 10 commandments, etc.).

'Morals' can be used in different senses. Motives, truth, revelation, character, free will, etc. come into play. There is a difference between an atheist doing a good 'moral' act, and a believer living a righteous life for the glory of God.

There are biblical, godly 'morals' and so-called secular morals. The study of ethics/morals can be approached from a Christian or secular perspective. Morals is not a bad word. We just have to recognize and clarify the meaning of the word in different setttings.

Moral depravity is a biblical concept. The old theologians used the word precisely in a biblical context. Just because the secular world uses the same word and adds its ideas to it, does not mean it is an invalid word.

Sin and righteousness is in the realm of morals (choices) vs metaphysics (things). Sin is a wrong moral choice, not a substance in our genes.

The moral law of God (10 commandments, love God/neighbour, etc.) is righteous. "Moral laws" about drunk driving, etc. are in a different category. Moral laws in the OT contrast with ceremonial laws for the Jews.

So, I just your elimination of 'morals' is simplistic and needs clarification.

The distention between the two is not artificial but distinct. Morals are of man. Man's laws are basted on man's morals and not God's righteousness. The law of God is basted on God's righteousness and man cannot keep it. Indeed if man adapts morals that he later finds to tough for him he will adopt a less stringent moral. God's law does not change and cannot be changed by man. God's law is absolute as is God's righteousness upon which they are basted.

 

[godrulz]

If we define morals as you suggest, I agree with the distinction in principle. I am suggesting that morals is a technical term that can be defined in another way (18-19th century theologians) that includes the Moral Law of God based on His righteous character vs man's subjective morality. This contrasts with other areas of study such as science, origins, math, language, etc. So, morals can be used in a broad, varied sense or specifically about man's efforts. God governs free moral agents by His moral law. He governs animate creation by the law of instinct. He governs inanimate objects by the law of cause and effect (vs morals). God is the Moral Governor of the universe. This does not have the negative connotation of man's self-righteous morals (word used in a different sense).

 

[Clete]

gorulz,

I believe that you are giving e4e to much credit on this one. Not only does he not have the authority to remake the English language to suit his fancy but if my intuition is correct, he is restating the old Zman heresy. e4e is saying that had Hitler been God then the holocaust would have been a good thing; that the only reason that what Hitler did was wrong was because Hitler happened not to have been God. He is saying that the things God does aren't good because they are virtuous, not because they are done in the best interests of others but simply and only because God did them. This is a position that cannot be defended Biblically in any way whatsoever. His position rips all meaning from the words moral, good, evil etc. The only reason to have such a position is because the word of God makes him nervous. He is unable to reconcile what the Bible seems to say about what God does and his own perceptions about what God is supposed to be like. Thus he redefines the word "moral" and God knows how many other words so that he can maintain this image of God that is in open conflict with what the Bible plainly teaches.

Resting in Him,
Clete

 

[Balder]

Clete,

If Hitler's extermination of Jewish people (and homosexuals, by the way) was objectively wrong, and yet God's extermination of nearly an entire planet of beings (including lots and lots of infants, toddlers, and pre-adolescents) is not objectively wrong, what is it that morally distinguishes the acts, if not the "Who" who did it?

Peace,
Balder

 

[Clete]

Originally posted by Balder

Clete,

If Hitler's extermination of Jewish people (and homosexuals, by the way) was objectively wrong, and yet God's extermination of nearly an entire planet of beings (including lots and lots of infants, toddlers, and pre-adolescents) is not objectively wrong, what is it that morally distinguishes the acts, if not the "Who" who did it?

Peace,
Balder

Only homos that weren't German. Ever heard of the brown shirts? (nevermind that's a different topic)

The answer to your question in a word is "authority".

Bob Enyart addressed this question in round 10 of Battle Royale VII here's what he had to say....

Orginally posted by Bob Enyart
Zakath also accuses the God of the Bible of murder and genocide, as in the flood and in His command to kill the Canaanites. As an atheist, of course, Zakath does not believe in absolute morality, yet He implies that He has found deeds by which He can absolutely show that the God of the Bible is unrighteous. Of course, if Zakath were right, there are only disagreements over what should be acceptable, but no ultimate standard. However, Zakath is wrong. The NAZIs cannot be condemned by their evolutionary worldview of survival of the fittest, because evolution has no morality. But Christians, including prophets and apostles, can be judged by Christian morality. And even the actions of God can be looked at for consistency with absolute morals. Zakath accuses God of murder (but probably excuses Hillary for slaughtering unborn children by abortion). But God is the Creator who made creatures (us) to live life in two stages, in this life, and then the next life. If God chooses, without any question of impropriety whatsoever (let alone morality), God can bring one of his creatures from stage one to stage two. We call that process death. At the same time, God is not under any requirement to delegate to men the authority to dispatch any person they please into stage two. God made us to live our lives in an initial short stage, as on the porch of a home, and then in death, we go through the front door and enter the living room, to settle into our permanent residence. It is inane to suggest that a Creator in that scenario somehow would be evil to do that. And it is also completely unreasonable to demand that he then delegate that authority, to send people into the afterlife, to every creature (human). God could kill people directly (as with Er), or by a natural mechanism (as in the Flood), or by commanding His people to kill those He selects, or by delegating to governments authority to execute capital criminals. When we look at God not with the spite of a rebel, but with the humility of a servant, we see that He is righteous. I challenged Zakath to a debate on the Bible to deal with his accusations, but then he dropped out.

Resting in Him,
Clete

 

[Balder]

How are you not contradicting your recent post to Godrulz, then, if the "Who" who does the acts is what distinguishes the acts? By the argument above, God could have carried out the Holocaust and you would have excused him and even called him righteous because of his authority.

 

[Clete]

Originally posted by Balder

How are you not contradicting your recent post to Godrulz, then, if the "Who" who does the acts is what distinguishes the acts? By the argument above, God could have carried out the Holocaust and you would have excused him and even called him righteous because of his authority.

What? No!!!

Balder! This is beneath you. You are much smarter than this.
Hitler killed all those people because he thought that he was superior and that they were vermin. He believed it was his absolute right and privilege to exterminate the Jewish and Christian infestation of Germany (and the world if he could get control of it). He couldn't have cared less about the welfare of anyone but himself, he wasn't looking out for the best interests of anyone but himself, he had no vision of a greater good he was simply murdering people by the millions. He was taking (stealing) lives which he had no right (authority) to take nor would he ever have been given such authority to take lives in that manner and for the reasons for which he took them. There is simply no way that God could ever do anything that is remotely similar to the actions of Hitler and even if He did, they would not be consistent with a current description of His character and would therefore be wrong.

Resting in Him,
Clete

 

[Balder]

Clete,

I'm again butting into an "Exclusively Christian" conversation, so I will now butt out. I agree that what Hitler did was despicable, and I also do not believe a good God would ever do such a thing, although I also think Hitler thought he was acting in the best interests of the German people. Or at least many of the Germans who helped him thought they were doing what was best for their nation, getting rid of those who did not fit into their plans for themselves or their conception of their own well-being. That is not an excuse, by any means.

Perhaps it is a shortcoming or blind spot in my own thinking, but I happen to find a number of the killings attributed to God in the Bible to be morally unacceptable and out of keeping with the character of a good being. Pastor Enyart suggests that those who object to the mass murder in the Bible will nevertheless hypocritically support the slaughter of infants in abortion, but that is not the case with me. I do not support abortion, nor do I support the death penalty, nor do I support genocide under any aegis, Biblical or not. I may be wrong about this, but at least I'm consistent!

Peace,
Balder

 

[godrulz]

God is God and we are not.

God is not fickle or arbitrary. His ways and laws are based on His holy character and what is intrinsically wise and right.

Motive is also a factor. God seeks His highest good and glory as the most valuable being in the universe. He is also a responsible Moral Governor of the universe. Hitler was demonically inspired and sought his own good. His actions were inherently evil and contrary to God's moral laws.

 

[Yorzhik]

I hope we aren't slowing down here...

 

[STONE]

Originally posted by Clete Pfeiffer
Thus he redefines the word "moral" and God knows how many other words so that he can maintain this image of God that is in open conflict with what the Bible plainly teaches.

Do not forget that the Lord teaches we should recompense no man evil for evil.

But the LORD says "vengeance is mine I will repay, saith the LORD".

The ways and righteousness of the LORD can often seem mysterious and unsearchable to man.
This is also likely the gist of what e4e was saying.

 

[elected4ever]

Can we agree that God's righteousness is absolute? Sense God's law is an exact verbalization of the righteousness of God then God's law is also absolute. If one wonts to call the acts of God in this world morals then those acts or morals if you prefer are absolutely righteous. It is God's righteousness that never changes and God acts according to His righteousness regardless of our opinion of the effect of those actions or morals. Human beings cannot stand in judgment of Gods acts or give God instruction on how something should be done. God always follows His own council.:think: