ECT Is God Moral?

[genuineoriginal]

This completely ignores the context of the passage. John is flatly making the claim that Jesus is God and he is calling Jesus "Logos". A term with which John's readers would have been very familiar.

Not quite.

John's readers were more likely to understand the word "logos" in terms of Greek philosophy.

_____
logos
Greek philosophy and theology, the divine reason implicit in the cosmos, ordering it and giving it form and meaning.
_____​

Using the understanding of the word as used in the time it was written, provides a different meaning to John 1.

In the beginning was the "divine reason implicit in the cosmos", and the "divine reason implicit in the cosmos" was with God, and the "divine reason implicit in the cosmos" was God.

And the "divine reason implicit in the cosmos" was made flesh, and dwelt among us, (and we beheld his glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father,) full of grace and truth.​

The readers of John would have understood this to say that God is the "divine reason implicit in the cosmos" and that Jesus is the physical embodiment of the "divine reason implicit in the cosmos".

They would not have understood it as meaning that Jesus is the logos the way Christians have been taught to understand the verses.

 

[Clete]

I thought it was excellent. Whenever I've seen "Logic" substituted for the "Word" in the past, I've dismissed it as nonsense. But the way you described it, I finally understand....maybe not as clearly as I will once I get used to it, though.

It actually encompasses much more than just the "Word" does, because Word seems to be more a result of reason, and the way it's related to LIFE was really awesome.

Your trepidation concerning the idea that God is Logic is understandable. It's not something that is exactly commonly stated among mainstream Christianity (although it should be).
It should be kept in mind that I am not suggesting that we worship logic (small l) any more than we worship love or justice.

When we say that God is Love or that God is Justice, we understand intuitively that we are saying more than that God is loving or that God is just. We are saying something about God's essential nature and yet we say it without trepidation or any sort of fear that we've somehow reduced God to an abstraction or committed any sort of heresy. In the same way we all say that God is Love (capital L), I (and the Apostle John) say that God is Logic (capital L).

Resting in Him,
Clete

 

[genuineoriginal]

Saying it doesn't make it so.

I presented the whole argument. You rejecting the conclusion doesn't count as a refutation of the argument.

:think:
That counts as you refuting your own argument, simply by claiming that saying it does not make it so.

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

All of your arguments up to this point still fail to justify that statement.

The counter is that the adversary (satan) is real, the adversary is rational (you would probably disagree with that, but the logical argument presented in Job shows differently), therefore the adversary is moral (an obviously false statement).

A logical argument made in Job? What logical argument are you referring to? HOW does that argument refute a syllable of what I've said?

Your argument that God is moral breaks down to:
if the first then the second and if the second then the third
(if God is real then God is rational and if God is rational then God is moral)

Nothing in your arguments justify making that statement.
To prove this, substitute anything else into the equation.

(if Jeffrey Dahmer is real then Jeffrey Dahmer is rational and if Jeffrey Dahmer is rational then Jeffrey Dahmer is moral)
Well, we both know this is not true, since Jeffrey Dahmer was both irrational and immoral.

The example I provided first was the advesary, commonly known as Satan.
Satan is as real as God and Jeffrey Dahmer.
Satan is rational, as shown by the logical argument made in Job.
Satan is immoral.

Here is the logical argument made by Satan in Job:

Job 1:8-11 8 And the Lord said unto Satan, Hast thou considered my servant Job, that there is none like him in the earth, a perfect and an upright man, one that feareth God, and escheweth evil? 9 Then Satan answered the Lord, and said, Doth Job fear God for nought? 10 Hast not thou made an hedge about him, and about his house, and about all that he hath on every side? thou hast blessed the work of his hands, and his substance is increased in the land. 11 But put forth thine hand now, and touch all that he hath, and he will curse thee to thy face.​

This argument proves that Satan is a rational being.

 

[Clete]

Not quite.

John's readers were more likely to understand the word "logos" in terms of Greek philosophy.

_____
logos
Greek philosophy and theology, the divine reason implicit in the cosmos, ordering it and giving it form and meaning.
_____​

That's precisely what they would have understood! But that understanding would have included everything I've stated in my argument and more!
The greek word logos is where we get the English word "logic". We, in the English speaking world use the word 'logic' somewhat differently though. In English the word refers primarily to the rules of rational discourse, the laws of reason and the understanding of logical fallacies, etc. The use of the greek word is almost exactly synonymous with the English word "reason", as in "rational discourse" or "meaningful communication" or "argument".

Reason is man's only tool of understanding. It is the process of identifying entities through one's senses, integrating those perceptions into concepts, gaining knowledge through this integration, integrating that knowledge into the rest of one's knowledge, and evaluating and manipulating ideas and facts. If you attempting to say this same exact sentence in Greek, the first word of the sentence would be 'logos".

Using the understanding of the word as used in the time it was written, provides a different meaning to John 1.

In the beginning was the "divine reason implicit in the cosmos", and the "divine reason implicit in the cosmos" was with God, and the "divine reason implicit in the cosmos" was God.

And the "divine reason implicit in the cosmos" was made flesh, and dwelt among us, (and we beheld his glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father,) full of grace and truth.​

The readers of John would have understood this to say that God is the "divine reason implicit in the cosmos" and that Jesus is the physical embodiment of the "divine reason implicit in the cosmos".

They would not have understood it as meaning that Jesus is the logos the way Christians have been taught to understand the verses.

I basically agree with every syllable of this except that it pretends that the Greeks had a very rigid understanding of the word Logos to apply only to a divine cosmic mind. The term was used in regular parlance just as we use the word "love" to mean something other than strictly a divine characteristic.

As for what Christians have been taught, the English translation of Logos as "Word" is almost entirely meaningless and 99.9% of Christians never bother to even try to understand the words real meaning.

Resting in Him,
Clete

 

[genuineoriginal]

The greek word logos is where we get the English word "logic". We, in the English speaking world use the word 'logic' somewhat differently though.

Yep

In English the word refers primarily to the rules of rational discourse, the laws of reason and the understanding of logical fallacies, etc. The use of the greek word is almost exactly synonymous with the English word "reason", as in "rational discourse" or "meaningful communication" or "argument".

It is synonymous with "reason" but had a deeper meaning than that which included "divine purpose".

I basically agree with every syllable of this except that it pretends that the Greeks had a very rigid understanding of the word Logos to apply only to a divine cosmic mind. The term was used in regular parlance just as we use the word "love" to mean something other than strictly a divine characteristic.

When the word logos is used as it is used in John 1:1, the context forces the understanding of the word to apply to a divine cosmic mind, and not any of the other uses of the word.

Do you really believe καὶ Θεὸς ἦν ὁ Λόγος does not force an understanding of Λόγος (logos) as a characteristic of Θεὸς (God, divine)?

As for what Christians have been taught, the English translation of Logos as "Word" is almost entirely meaningless and 99.9% of Christians never bother to even try to understand the words real meaning.

I agree

 

[Nick M]

I presented the whole argument. You rejecting the conclusion doesn't count as a refutation of the argument.

Resting in Him,
Clete

This is why the socialists destroyed their raw data and instead gave us a glossed over conclusion about man made global warming. Different topic, same strategy from the wolves.

 

[Clete]

When the word logos is used as it is used in John 1:1, the context forces the understanding of the word to apply to a divine cosmic mind, and not any of the other uses of the word.

Do you really believe καὶ Θεὸς ἦν ὁ Λόγος does not force an understanding of Λόγος (logos) as a characteristic of Θεὸς (God, divine)?

I agree that it is referring to God but that doesn't fundamentally change the meaning of the word. Just as when we use the word 'love' in reference to God it doesn't not fundamentally alter the meaning of the word 'love'. It still means love even if it takes on additional connotations when used in reference to God, which takes me back to original point which is that nothing you've said contradicts a syllable of my stated position.

Resting in Him,
Clete

 

[Clete]

:think:
That counts as you refuting your own argument, simply by claiming that saying it does not make it so.

​

​

Your argument that God is moral breaks down to:
if the first then the second and if the second then the third
(if God is real then God is rational and if God is rational then God is moral)

Nothing in your arguments justify making that statement.
To prove this, substitute anything else into the equation.

(if Jeffrey Dahmer is real then Jeffrey Dahmer is rational and if Jeffrey Dahmer is rational then Jeffrey Dahmer is moral)
Well, we both know this is not true, since Jeffrey Dahmer was both irrational and immoral.

What?

Look, you need to step back and start over again. Jeffery Dahmer may be one of the best examples you could name to prove MY position! The whole reason he was evil was because he acted in manner that was NOT consistent with life! He was deadly and is now dead BECAUSE he was irrational!

If God were irrational, He'd also be dead (i.e. non-existent, i.e. non-real).

Proverbs 11:19 As righteousness leads to life, So he who pursues evil pursues it to his own death.​

The example I provided first was the advesary, commonly known as Satan.
Satan is as real as God and Jeffrey Dahmer.
Satan is rational, as shown by the logical argument made in Job.
Satan is immoral.

And as such he is the Anti-Christ. But not even perfectly that! Lucifer was created by God and was at one time righteous. The fact that he is now morally evil doesn't render him amoral, it renders him immoral. In other words, he's still a moral being just negatively so. Similarly, just because Satan has chosen an irrational course does not render his mind unable to utilize logic. Indeed, his continued ability to understand reason only convicts him of his evil.

Here is the logical argument made by Satan in Job:

Job 1:8-11 8 And the Lord said unto Satan, Hast thou considered my servant Job, that there is none like him in the earth, a perfect and an upright man, one that feareth God, and escheweth evil? 9 Then Satan answered the Lord, and said, Doth Job fear God for nought? 10 Hast not thou made an hedge about him, and about his house, and about all that he hath on every side? thou hast blessed the work of his hands, and his substance is increased in the land. 11 But put forth thine hand now, and touch all that he hath, and he will curse thee to thy face.​

This argument proves that Satan is a rational being.

Except that Satan was proven WRONG!

Look, just because you can make a rational argument does not mean that you are perfectly rational. Nor does it mean that one cannot do anything even half way correctly if one happens to be evil.

This is all very simple stuff. You're arguing in my favor, not against it. It would be just as meaningless to call Satan evil as it would be to call God righteous if they were not moral beings. Good and evil are both moral concepts.

Resting in Him,
Clete

 

[genuineoriginal]

What?

Look, you need to step back and start over again. Jeffery Dahmer may be one of the best examples you could name to prove MY position! The whole reason he was evil was because he acted in manner that was NOT consistent with life! He was deadly and is now dead BECAUSE he was irrational!

Maybe you should take a few breaths, calm down, and look over your argument with a critical eye.
Your argument is not what you seem to think it is.

If God were irrational, He'd also be dead (i.e. non-existent, i.e. non-real).

That is an unfounded statement.

Look, just because you can make a rational argument does not mean that you are perfectly rational. Nor does it mean that one cannot do anything even half way correctly if one happens to be evil.

I see you are trying to change your argument from rational = moral to a True Scotsman fallacy version of it (perfectly rational = moral).

This is all very simple stuff.

Apparently it is not as simple as you hope it is, since you haven't been able to make a valid argument for God being moral because He is logical.

While I agree that God is real, rational (logical), and moral, none of these three naturally follow from any of the others, and you have failed to make a case that they do.

 

[Clete]

Jesus, the man, being the LOGOS was not sealed deal until He resurrected and presented Himself to the Father..

Blasphemy!

I put this thread in the EXCLUSIVELY CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY forum on purpose!

If you do not acknowledge that Jesus was, is and always has been fully God, the Eternal Creator of all things, then you are not only not welcome on this thread, you are not a Christian. If Jesus was not God on the cross then His death was that of a mere man and the whole plan of salvation crumbles to dust and we are all lost and to be pitied most among men.

Besides, how hard is it to figure out that John chapter 1 comes BEFORE John chapter 20!

Resting in Him,
Clete

 

[Clete]

Maybe you should take a few breaths, calm down, and look over your argument with a critical eye.
Your argument is not what you seem to think it is.

Saying it doesn't make it so!

Make an argument or go away. You stating that I've not made the argument doesn't mean I haven't.

The fact is that I have. Its right there for the whole world to read!

That is an unfounded statement.

NOPE! I not only made a rational argument for it in post 68 but Proverbs makes the same statement.

I see you are trying to change your argument from rational = moral to a True Scotsman fallacy version of it (perfectly rational = moral).

You are very close to finding yourself on my ignore list.

You're either being intentionally antagonistic or you are too stupid to follow the conversation.

Apparently it is not as simple as you hope it is, since you haven't been able to make a valid argument for God being moral because He is logical.

Once again, saying that I haven't made the argument doesn't make the argument I made go away. It's there for the whole internet to read.

While I agree that God is real, rational (logical), and moral, none of these three naturally follow from any of the others, and you have failed to make a case that they do.

Saying it doesn't make it so. I made the argument. Your rejection of the conclusion does not count as a counter argument, nor does your claim that the argument hasn't been made.

Now either make a real argument or I'll simply ignore you. You pick.

Resting in Him,
Clete

 

[Desert Reign]

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 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!
Clete Pfeiffer
3/24/2012

I can't see how deferring the issue to God's nature solves the question. Don't get me wrong, I am sure we are working towards the same goal and what you have said is important. But it seems to me that you leave unanswered two important questions:
1) Why does God being logical entail that some actions should be moral and some immoral?
2) Even if you can show that 1) is true, this still doesn't tell us why shooting school children is a bad thing and not a good thing. The rules of logic are clear: an argument only follows from premises. Being consistent, wouldn't you say that God is subject to the same constraints of logic as we are? And that therefore if we are to speak of God's nature, we are more talking about the premises that control his nature (i.e. his own characteristics) than about the process of logic itself. Which brings us back to the problem I mentioned earlier that you are only postponing the problem a level. It amounts to the statement that morality is whatever God is.

I mean, for example, there have been lots of justifications given of things that you regard as evil. The South Africans used the Bible to justify apartheid. Stalin used communist principles espoused by Marx to justify slaughtering millions of his own people. There was always logic involved in these atrocities. And I am sure that at least in some cases, the logic was correct. It was just the premises were wrong.

Can't think of any. Ecclesiastes chapter 3 tells us there is a time for both love and hate, peace and war, and so on. This may tie into Clete's post about logic/wisdom. While there is a time for everything under the sun, it takes wisdom to know which of the responses would be the best for a given situation >>>> love or hate. Both would be moral depending on the situation.

I think it is great that you come to an acceptance that right and wrong actions depend on their context. However, this principle has been derided as giving no direction for future action. I said before that moral rules would give you incorrect guidance 50% of the time if you followed them legalistically. But the opposite is also surely incorrect too: if you have no rules at all and rely purely on context, then you cannot judge any action at all. Don't worry, I am getting to my own answer as well. But as it is Clete's thread, I wanted to ensure he got first bite of the cherry. Also, this is truly a difficult issue, as I also previously stated. So it helps to understand why some of our views on the subject are wrong before being able to appreciate what may be right.

Well I must say that I am stunned.

I mean, I've spent quite a long time thinking through what I wrote in post 68 and I feel like its all pretty solid but I never would have expected to not have to defend it!

I'm not sure what's going on here. Its as if everyone read the post and said, "Oh! Is that all he was getting at? - Boring!" and then left!
Surely there has to be someone who thinks I've lost my mind or that I never had one in the first place or at least has a question or sees some point that needs clarification, something!

LOL! I think some people did think it was a bit long. But as for me, I just needed a bit more time. Patience! And if you will permit, I promise that I will set out the premises on which my thought is based at the start so that it is completely clear.

 

[genuineoriginal]

You're either being intentionally antagonistic or you are too stupid to follow the conversation.

No, I am merely pointing out that your argument is so weak that it shouldn't even classify as an argument.

Make an argument or go away.

make a real argument or I'll simply ignore you. You pick.

We both agree that God is moral.

I have already made my argument on that.

You were asking for someone to address the points you made in your argument, so I did that for you.
I did it so well that I ended up poking holes in your argument big enough to float an aircraft carrier through them.
This seems to have upset you.

I believe that if you examined your argument with a critical eye, you could make a better argument than you have.

If you think your argument is the best argument ever, with sprinkles on top, then I have nothing more to add.

 

[csuguy]

Love is the basis for for all that is good, for all that is moral. And God is love. Therefore God is good and moral.

 

[Cross Reference]

Blasphemy!

I put this thread in the EXCLUSIVELY CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY forum on purpose!

If you do not acknowledge that Jesus was, is and always has been fully God, the Eternal Creator of all things, then you are not only not welcome on this thread, you are not a Christian. If Jesus was not God on the cross then His death was that of a mere man and the whole plan of salvation crumbles to dust and we are all lost and to be pitied most among men.

Besides, how hard is it to figure out that John chapter 1 comes BEFORE John chapter 20!

Resting in Him,
Clete

People like you never cease to amaze me. And yet, you don't because you come on these forums with your own brand of religious agenda wrapped in commentary speak birthed religious bigotry.

Without qualifying your assertions you make claims about Jesus that are not in full agreement with His life while on Earth and before His death and by the way, had He been God He could not have died. Secondly, He would have known all things which He didn't. Thirdly, He would have not needed to be tempted, nor could He have been given He was God, correct? Fourthly, Only a man could redeem, man. A perfect one? Yes! But, a man nevertheless. A man made equal to the Godhead but, not the Godhead. . . . . not as yet. At this point, I am not going to waste my time with you any further until you argue out the above with yourself.

"For it became him[/B] [God], for whom are all things, and by whom are all things, in bringing many sons unto glory [again, God], to make the captain of their salvation perfect through sufferings [Jesus]."[/I] Hebrews 2:10 (KJV)

"That we should be to the praise of his glory [God], who first trusted in Christ [Jesus]."
Ephesians 1:12 (KJV)

In all of this, I have let the scriptures say what they say.

[Emphasis mine]
____________________________________________________________________

Over in your other thread, you wrote this:

My whole argument boils down to this. The less interpretation that is needed, the better. The more you can just read the bible and let it say what it seems to say without parsing words or it causing theological conflicts, either real or imagined, the better. If a theological system could be found that resolves many diverse and seemingly unrelated theological conflicts in an eloquent manner (i.e. simple to understand and explain), that system would be objectively superior than any system that could not do so or that did the reverse.

Followed by your contradiction with the following religious proclamation:

Acts 9 Dispensationalism effortlessly resolves the following doctrinal issues....

Opinion based issues resolved using whose opinion???!! . . . . . . more agenda ridden religious opinion, completely at odds with your above "My whole arguemnt boils down to . . . . ", a lie!!!

 

[Clete]

No, I am merely pointing out that your argument is so weak that it shouldn't even classify as an argument.


We both agree that God is moral.

I have already made my argument on that.

You were asking for someone to address the points you made in your argument, so I did that for you.
I did it so well that I ended up poking holes in your argument big enough to float an aircraft carrier through them.
This seems to have upset you.

I believe that if you examined your argument with a critical eye, you could make a better argument than you have.

If you think your argument is the best argument ever, with sprinkles on top, then I have nothing more to add.

I was asking people to address the arguments I made but that isn't what you did. You focused on the last sentence and PRETENDED like that was my argument, ignoring that the actual argument is what that last sentence was merely based upon.
The sentence before the one you focused on was closer to being an actual argument but even that wasn't a fleshed out argument because that was making a closing, ancillary point. In short, I was trying to bring the essay to a close because, had I wanted to, I could have made it three times as long as it is!

The real argument is summed up in a single sentence, which I underlined so as to make it hard to miss. You managed to miss it anyway. Congratulations!

And, finally, people poking holes in my arguments is the primary reason that I'm here. It doesn't make me angry for people to debate me. What makes me angry is when I repeatedly point out that all you've done is make bald assertions and basically beg you to make an actual counter argument and then you respond by stubbornly and intentionally doing nothing AT ALL but repeat the same bald assertions! What in the world is the point of doing such a thing? Don't you have anything to do that's more important than completely wasting your time making pseudo arguments and then claiming victory against someone who just got through practically begging you to make an actual counter argument? I just don't get it!

It would have been GREAT, really honestly great if all you had done was to ask me to clarify just what my argument was. But NO! That's surely beneath you!

I'm very disappointed.

Resting in Him,
Clete

 

[Clete]

Love is the basis for for all that is good, for all that is moral. And God is love. Therefore God is good and moral.

Only meaningful if you define love.

Care to give it a shot?

 

[Cross Reference]

Only meaningful if you define love.

Care to give it a shot?

My reply to you deserves an honest reply from you.

Thank you.

 

[genuineoriginal]

I was asking people to address the arguments I made

I did.

but that isn't what you did. You focused on the last sentence and PRETENDED like that was my argument, ignoring that the actual argument is what that last sentence was merely based upon.

I see you have identified that the summary statement of your argument is inadequate in summing up your argument.
That provides you the opportunity to correct your mistake and provide a better summary statement.

The sentence before the one you focused on was closer to being an actual argument but even that wasn't a fleshed out argument because that was making a closing, ancillary point.

I see you have identified a different statement you made that would have been better as a summary statement, and that you have identified that your summary statement was inadequate because it wasn't summarizing the point of your argument, but was introducing an ancillary point.
That provides you with a way of fixing your argument so it ends on a strong summary statement instead of on a weak ancillary point.

In short, I was trying to bring the essay to a close because, had I wanted to, I could have made it three times as long as it is!

It was already TLDR for this forum.
Making it three times as long would have made it even more difficult to find your point, which was already difficult to find, since it wasn't addressed in the opening or the closing statement.

The real argument is summed up in a single sentence, which I underlined so as to make it hard to miss.

I see you have managed to identify the real argument you were trying to make.
That provides you with the basis for making a strong opening statement (currently missing) to alert the reader on where the argument is heading and a strong ending statement (also missing) to tie up the argument and reinforce the opening statement.

And, finally, people poking holes in my arguments is the primary reason that I'm here. It doesn't make me angry for people to debate me. What makes me angry is when I repeatedly point out that all you've done is make bald assertions

This appears to be the real place we are having problems in reaching agreement.
You are claiming that I am making bald assertions.
How do you believe my statements are any more bald assertions than the "arguments" that you are making?
I don't see any difference between the statements I make from my own experience and research and the ones you make in your argument.

and basically beg you to make an actual counter argument and then you respond by stubbornly and intentionally doing nothing AT ALL but repeat the same bald assertions! What in the world is the point of doing such a thing?

It appeared that you were having difficulty understanding the statements I made, so I spent time clarifying them.

If you wanted me to address a different part of your argument, such as the underlined sentence, you would have gotten a better response by simply asking, "What about this part where I state: "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 way which is proper to Life (i.e. He acts morally)."

Instead of doing that, you complained about my counter argument to your "ancillary point" without explaining that it was merely an "ancillary point" until now.

Don't you have anything to do that's more important than completely wasting your time making pseudo arguments and then claiming victory against someone who just got through practically begging you to make an actual counter argument? I just don't get it!

No, you don't get it.
I do have other things I could do, but I thought it was important to provide you some feedback on your argument to help you identify the weaknesses in it so you could create a stronger argument the next time.
So far we have identified that the closing statement doesn't belong, since it is an "ancillary point", the opening does not lead the reader into finding the main argument, and that the main argument is hidden by an unnecessarily long discussion about logos being logic instead of a better word (reason or purpose come to mind).
These are merely three places identified in our discussion where your argument can be refined and made stronger.

It would have been GREAT, really honestly great if all you had done was to ask me to clarify just what my argument was.

You spent much more time complaining about the nature of the feedback than you did accepting it for its intended purpose.
When you ask someone for feedback, and don't like the direction the feedback is going, it is up to you to redirect the feedback into the path you are wanting.
Even then, the person giving feedback may have a different purpose in giving the feedback than you are expecting, so the feedback may appear to be completely off track from your expectations.

 

[Nick M]

Love is the basis for for all that is good, for all that is moral. And God is love. Therefore God is good and moral.

God hates too. Does that mean he is immoral at times?