Our Moral God

[Derf]

Whomever that was, it certainly was not the immutable god of Aristotle, Augustine and Calvin.

I hate to put myself at complete (g)odds with Augustine and Calvin, recognizing that I won't be perfect in my theology either.

What other alternative to do see?


I confess that I do not understand what you're saying here. The analogy doesn't seem to fit at all. How many bottom-dwelling sea creatures have been created by, and in the image of, eagles? And, by what standard are you implying that eagles are superior bottom-swelling sea creatures? Are they not both merely creatures both made by the same Creator? Is either more or less perfectly designed and suited to their environment and purpose than the other?

Clete

My point was that to have communion, two beings need to share some of the same space, at least in some way. God walked in the garden with Adam and Eve. An eagle would have a hard time doing that with a bottom-dweller, whether one created the other or not.

 

[Clete]

I hate to put myself at complete (g)odds with Augustine and Calvin, recognizing that I won't be perfect in my theology either.

No one is looking for perfection, this side of Heaven. All one should expect and insist upon is a doctrine that is both biblically and rationally sound. Both of which criteria would preclude any doctrine which is based on the philosophy of a pagan who worshiped a modified version of Zeus.

My point was that to have communion, two beings need to share some of the same space, at least in some way. God walked in the garden with Adam and Eve. An eagle would have a hard time doing that with a bottom-dweller, whether one created the other or not.

So, are you agreeing with me or making a point in opposition to my comments? It feels like you could be doing either.

I'd say that it is undeniable that people have had "communion", to use your word, with God since righteous Abel walked the Earth. Wouldn't you agree? Isn't the greatest commandment to love God? Does that not presuppose that loving God is possible and wouldn't that in turn presuppose that we share some common ground with the God who issued that command?

Clete

 

[Lon]

Yet His scriptures describe changes in His plans for people and nations in some cases, and scripture says these things are in response to what that person/nation does/did.

That's mainly bluster on your part, since we're both trying to understand not so much about what God hasn't revealed, but what He has.

I don't have any trouble grasping that. Jesus affirmed that before Abraham existed, He existed as deity. The Pharisees had no trouble grasping it either.
John 8:59 KJV — Then took they up stones to cast at him


This is no doubt true that God is beyond our cognitive ability, but that doesn't mean we ignore or make mysterious those things which He reveals clearly to us.

Yet such doesn't offer that you or I in particular, have actually grasped the truth of it. If, for instance, your filter is 'that is tainted Greek philosophy' it will color your paradigm for all ensuing conversation, necessarily.

Says who?

I did but more later when you 'question my sincerity.'

That's because most people are practical Open Theists.

"As you understand it." I'm not. I pray according to His will. When I ask for a healing, I know He has a big picture in mind and 'if' He catered to my will, if in any way another would be negatively affected, I know He will say "No" Such is very much a part from Open Theism expectations. I fully believe God changes me, not me changing Him.

I don't see how that second one needs to be about impassibility. The first one is decidedly caveated in scripture.

Philosophically, right? since we don't understand infinite? Anytime you say we can't understand the infinite and then proceed to explain it to me makes me question your sincerity.

Because of an inability? If so, you are correct, some things are taken by faith but the 'attempt' is there to bring another beyond a block in reasoning. If not? Then yeah, I lament (so don't doubt the attempt or sincerity). I wrote a piece about the difference in basic math and algebra. There is never an 'ability' for the basic math kid to grasp algebra, until there is. This is the same.

I'm not sure that Open Theism denies any of that. But don't you think that if God can keep straight all the different requests, he can also keep straight the responses to them? Responses--that's an Open Theism concept, as you admitted above.

God meets you where you are at. "If" one is in basic math like understanding of God and theology, that is where God is at. I'm bringing Algebra to the discussion as it were.

I didn't realize jettisoning the Bible was even on the table.

In sincerity? Or is this just an incredulous and easy rebuttal?

How does that put a limit on things kings should be trying to understand?
Proverbs 25:2 KJV — It is the glory of God to conceal a thing: but the honour of kings is to search out a matter.

It is mostly a wrestling point between algebra and basic-math'ers. It is my observation that the discussion with Open Theists is akin. I do believe implicitly that a slight grasp of an eternal nonbeginning is one key to progressing toward algebra views of God's reality and nature.

I would think we need to be at least as careful when we dodge something due to the infiniteness of the answer, since we don't understand it well enough to know whether we need to dodge.

It ties back into the difference of basic math, algebraic paradigms. Whenever you see someone not an Open Theist discussing this, it is not to limit but to move beyond the simple answer. They are trying to get you to appreciate an algebraic equation. Algebra IS higher math. It introduces the unknown and gives you MUCH better tools for doing higher math. Without it, your window for discussion will always be 'basic.' For the most part, that will always be the sense of the attempt. If you miss it, it'll always be seen as not connecting or even 'dumbing down' that is not at all the attempt. In a very real and tangible way, logic is done on a basic and/or algebraic frame. Most people are seeing Open Theism as 'basic math.' Insistence on basic math is okay, but trying to get someone to understand the infinite past of God 'that is still going' by algebraic necessity, is difficult with one that only grasps 'past is past so over.' Algebra is essential because infinite requires a variable placement holder. No # can qualify it so "past is past" is stuck in numerals.

Is someone doing that? How would you know? Is it because you can tell the difference between conceiving God on a human level versus conceiving Him on some other level?

Scripture is a great start point. When God gives us terms for Himself in Algebraic terms, we should listen to Him. Isaiah 55:8,9 "Thoughts AND ways are so much higher..." Thus, you can do simple math and figure some, grasp some, or you can use algebraic terms that leave a variable. Variables eventually will/can be applied but scripture is clear we are living in algebraic terms.

Yet, when you draw your hand out, you don't suddenly see what your fish were doing yesterday

This doesn't even fit in an Open Paradigm. Open Theists believe God knows what we were doing yesterday. I need a better analogy to describe or dispel a truth you are trying to convey.

Isn't the Bible written in terms that we understand, which would normally not include infinitely unconstrained theology, or whatever the opposite would be.

Yes, both in basic AND algebraic terms. I don't want to rock Open Theists in their theology, simply intimate that there are algebraic equations God gives clearly about Himself.

Again, I think this is merely bluster. Do you really think all open theists have God constraint to be a passenger? Why do you think that?

It is the end to the logical direction. It is a way of saying: Your ideas, taken to their conclusion, lead here. It doesn't mean you believe God is a passenger but it does mean that the theology 'uses' God that way, at least in portrayal, and that it ends that way if it is followed to conclusion. It might help to do a bit of theology digging on what Mormons believe about God. They 'think' logically, like Open Theists.

Ok. Why is that important here in this discussion? I would suggest that it is merely a way to end the conversation without having to address the points being made.

Because (continuing from just above), if God has to change to me (Open Paradigm) and "I'm" the one who is imperfect, what does it profit for God to 'meet me' as it were if He doesn't bring me back to where He is? I've NO comfort in a God who meets me where I am without the caveat: "to bring me back to Him." The first part is great: He saves me but if not to make me more like Him, to be with Him, then am I really saved or just building a theology that is stuck exactly where He found me? Christlikeness is my desire, a desire I find disturbingly lacking in some individuals on TOL AND I believe, due to exactly this theology, a theology that doesn't have them wanting anything to do with Jesus nor to be anything like Him. Who CARES if I'm saved if I'm the same exact punk I always used to be? It isn't just a future in heaven. I'm not into life-insurance policies lest He say "depart, I never knew you." Rather, I want to 'be' like Jesus today. I want to be 'with' Jesus today. For Christ, I've been saved, He is my focus. That at least, is basic enough. Summary: If the best Open Theism can do is make me "realize God meets me at my need," it tends to convey 'what I, a man needs and wants' and leaves me there. I do not need comfort that God moves to my desires as the end of the story. I want the part where I am brought from/to, thus a God who is constant, stable, Holy, unchanging in nature, etc. etc. is of greater promise and hope than a god who merely caters and comes to meet me. When I am raised daily to meet Him. When I am promised to be changed to His glory. Those are earmarks of my faith that are subdued in Open discussion and circles. Show me the thread on TOL that was started by an Open Theist "Why I love Jesus!" or "I cannot wait to be like Him and see Him for Who He is!" Our theology forces our discussion. If after the service we immediately talk about football, what was on our minds the whole sermon? How our theology changes US is huge in giving indicators of the focus of our theology. One main point of my theology is "Dear Lord Jesus, I want to be like you today and bless others." Your theology shapes who you are. Open Theology has a lot of God coming to me and catering to me but I NEED "Lord make me like You today, fill me, give me strength, grace, love and mercy to reach others and serve."

If something we "know" of God's character/being is ever wrong, doesn't some damage need to be done to it?

To us, and our concept (and how this ties in to the thread) If, according to this thread, God is moral, it is 'higher' and algebraic in connection with our 'basic' understanding so the algebraic term is necessary. It isn't 'as simple as that' afterall. The subject of God's morality:

1. Of or concerned with the judgment of right or wrong of human action and character.
2. Teaching or exhibiting goodness or correctness of character and behavior.
3. Conforming to standards of what is right or just in behavior; virtuous.

1) "Human" God isn't subject to 'human' morality. He was subject to humanity, but for a short time.
In this context, and to answer the thread: God supersedes morality. He is 'more' than so 'moral' by human standards would be seen as a limitation.
2) Exhibiting Goodness Yes, in this sense, God is moral, but the point of my entrance in thread, was to discuss the difference as well as question whether 'morality' is the best descriptor. "Good" and 'Correct" may have been better terms for starting a thread.
3)"Conforming" Is God having to 'conform'? Can He? Isn't he already THE standard? In a larger sense, I agree with Clete God is good and moral, but man is not the yardstick to measure or ascertain God's goodness. 1) Rule #1 God is moral as an absolute. 2) Rule #2 If it looks like God has done something immoral, refer to rule #1 because a)I'm not the standard nor b)have the standard. God is good, I am not but for Christ in me.

Agreed.

But we should also determine which of our ideas aren't quite as well supported by scripture and allow the damage to be done to them.

Yes, our ideas need to be assailable.

Lon, I haven't really reviewed the conversation that went before, and some time has passed, so I hope I haven't just reiterated stuff in attempting to address your post.

I believe you did well and ty.

 

[Derf]

Yet such doesn't offer that you or I in particular, have actually grasped the truth of it. If, for instance, your filter is 'that is tainted Greek philosophy' it will color your paradigm for all ensuing conversation, necessarily.

Which filters are ok by you? Are there any except the bible itself?

I did but more later when you 'question my sincerity.'

Ok.

"As you understand it." I'm not. I pray according to His will. When I ask for a healing, I know He has a big picture in mind and 'if' He catered to my will, if in any way another would be negatively affected, I know He will say "No" Such is very much a part from Open Theism expectations.

I don't see how. Open Theists believe God says No sometimes when No is the better answer. And Open Theists also "pray according to His will," like one famous Open Theist said: [Luk 22:42 KJV] 42 ...Father, if thou be willing, remove this cup from me: nevertheless not my will, but thine, be done.

I fully believe God changes me, not me changing Him.

Ok. I ask God to change me. Do you think He answers that prayer, or is the prayer superfluous? I'm not sure why you think I'm trying to change God. I may be trying to change your view of God, but that seems a stretch, maybe even blasphemous, to equate the two.

Because of an inability? If so, you are correct, some things are taken by faith but the 'attempt' is there to bring another beyond a block in reasoning. If not? Then yeah, I lament (so don't doubt the attempt or sincerity). I wrote a piece about the difference in basic math and algebra. There is never an 'ability' for the basic math kid to grasp algebra, until there is. This is the same.

What I think you are saying is that I'm not grasping your algebraic theology because it is well beyond me at this time. I don't see it that way. I'm actually questioning your algebraic theology in favor of biblical simplicity. The problem I've run into is that algebraic theology tends to lead people to say the bible means something different from what it says. That's not really algebraic...that's deceptive.

God meets you where you are at. "If" one is in basic math like understanding of God and theology, that is where God is at. I'm bringing Algebra to the discussion as it were.

Please see algebra discussion above.

In sincerity? Or is this just an incredulous and easy rebuttal?

Well, for me it's not on the table. Is it for you? If not, then aren't you questioning MY sincerity by bringing it up?

It is mostly a wrestling point between algebra and basic-math'ers. It is my observation that the discussion with Open Theists is akin. I do believe implicitly that a slight grasp of an eternal nonbeginning is one key to progressing toward algebra views of God's reality and nature.

That might seem to be helpful for you. But is it the best way to proceed?

It ties back into the difference of basic math, algebraic paradigms. Whenever you see someone not an Open Theist discussing this, it is not to limit but to move beyond the simple answer.

You are assuming the simple answer is incorrect, or at least incomplete. I'm not ready to do that yet.

They are trying to get you to appreciate an algebraic equation. Algebra IS higher math. It introduces the unknown and gives you MUCH better tools for doing higher math. Without it, your window for discussion will always be 'basic.' For the most part, that will always be the sense of the attempt. If you miss it, it'll always be seen as not connecting or even 'dumbing down' that is not at all the attempt. In a very real and tangible way, logic is done on a basic and/or algebraic frame. Most people are seeing Open Theism as 'basic math.' Insistence on basic math is okay, but trying to get someone to understand the infinite past of God 'that is still going' by algebraic necessity, is difficult with one that only grasps 'past is past so over.'

Can you name a couple things in God's past that are "still going on", so I can understand what you mean by this?

Algebra is essential because infinite requires a variable placement holder. No # can qualify it so "past is past" is stuck in numerals.

Scripture is a great start point. When God gives us terms for Himself in Algebraic terms, we should listen to Him. Isaiah 55:8,9 "Thoughts AND ways are so much higher..." Thus, you can do simple math and figure some, grasp some, or you can use algebraic terms that leave a variable. Variables eventually will/can be applied but scripture is clear we are living in algebraic terms.

Maybe you can help me understand why "my thoughts/ways are not your thoughts and ways" equals "past is NOT past".

This doesn't even fit in an Open Paradigm. Open Theists believe God knows what we were doing yesterday. I need a better analogy to describe or dispel a truth you are trying to convey.

I was trying to understand YOUR paradigm. It was your illustration. I agree you need a better analogy.

Yes, both in basic AND algebraic terms. I don't want to rock Open Theists in their theology, simply intimate that there are algebraic equations God gives clearly about Himself.

But I DO want to "rock" you in your theology...because I think you are wrong. And I think you think I am wrong, and are being disingenuous in saying you don't want to "rock Open Theists in their theology".

It is the end to the logical direction. It is a way of saying: Your ideas, taken to their conclusion, lead here. It doesn't mean you believe God is a passenger but it does mean that the theology 'uses' God that way, at least in portrayal, and that it ends that way if it is followed to conclusion.

Perhaps, but I don't think so. And I could say the same about ANY theology I think is wrong.

It might help to do a bit of theology digging on what Mormons believe about God. They 'think' logically, like Open Theists.

That's an odd thing to suggest. Let's say for just a moment that what OTers believe about lined up with what Mormons believe about God in an area are two? Would that make OTers wrong? Let's confine it to one particular belief from Mormonism, say, that Jesus is God the Father's son. Should I now NOT believe that Jesus is God's son because Mormon's believe it? Are you now going to stop believing that?

I didn't think so. If you want to explain how Mormon's and OTers believe alike and wrongly, I'd like to hear it. Until then, let's minimize the superfluous guilt by association, shall we?

Because (continuing from just above), if God has to change to me (Open Paradigm) and "I'm" the one who is imperfect, what does it profit for God to 'meet me' as it were if He doesn't bring me back to where He is?

Is that the Open Paradigm? Can you quote someone (with adequate context) who says that?

But is it even wrong to suggest that God has to "meet me"? Didn't Jesus actually become a man to "meet us" where we are? And only then could He bring us back to where He is?

I've NO comfort in a God who meets me where I am without the caveat: "to bring me back to Him." The first part is great: He saves me but if not to make me more like Him, to be with Him, then am I really saved or just building a theology that is stuck exactly where He found me? Christlikeness is my desire, a desire I find disturbingly lacking in some individuals on TOL AND I believe, due to exactly this theology, a theology that doesn't have them wanting anything to do with Jesus nor to be anything like Him. Who CARES if I'm saved if I'm the same exact punk I always used to be? It isn't just a future in heaven. I'm not into life-insurance policies lest He say "depart, I never knew you." Rather, I want to 'be' like Jesus today. I want to be 'with' Jesus today. For Christ, I've been saved, He is my focus. That at least, is basic enough. Summary: If the best Open Theism can do is make me "realize God meets me at my need," it tends to convey 'what I, a man needs and wants' and leaves me there.

If you're saying you won't believe any theology that is ascribed to by a person who acts like he isn't really saved, then you're going to have to ditch all theologies, including your own.

I do not need comfort that God moves to my desires as the end of the story. I want the part where I am brought from/to, thus a God who is constant, stable, Holy, unchanging in nature, etc. etc. is of greater promise and hope than a god who merely caters and comes to meet me. When I am raised daily to meet Him. When I am promised to be changed to His glory. Those are earmarks of my faith that are subdued in Open discussion and circles. Show me the thread on TOL that was started by an Open Theist "Why I love Jesus!" or "I cannot wait to be like Him and see Him for Who He is!" Our theology forces our discussion. If after the service we immediately talk about football, what was on our minds the whole sermon? How our theology changes US is huge in giving indicators of the focus of our theology. One main point of my theology is "Dear Lord Jesus, I want to be like you today and bless others." Your theology shapes who you are. Open Theology has a lot of God coming to me and catering to me but I NEED "Lord make me like You today, fill me, give me strength, grace, love and mercy to reach others and serve."

You sound very "I" oriented. Why do we base our theology on anything but what the bible describes about God? Why do your needs drive anyone's theology, including your own? Don't we understand God by what He reveals to us, not by what we think or feel? If this is your algebraic theology, you need to go back to basic math.

To us, and our concept (and how this ties in to the thread)

Good job getting us back on topic!

If, according to this thread, God is moral, it is 'higher' and algebraic in connection with our 'basic' understanding so the algebraic term is necessary. It isn't 'as simple as that' afterall. The subject of God's morality:

1. Of or concerned with the judgment of right or wrong of human action and character.
2. Teaching or exhibiting goodness or correctness of character and behavior.
3. Conforming to standards of what is right or just in behavior; virtuous.

1) "Human" God isn't subject to 'human' morality. He was subject to humanity, but for a short time.
In this context, and to answer the thread: God supersedes morality. He is 'more' than so 'moral' by human standards would be seen as a limitation.
2) Exhibiting Goodness Yes, in this sense, God is moral, but the point of my entrance in thread, was to discuss the difference as well as question whether 'morality' is the best descriptor. "Good" and 'Correct" may have been better terms for starting a thread.
3)"Conforming" Is God having to 'conform'? Can He? Isn't he already THE standard? In a larger sense, I agree with Clete God is good and moral, but man is not the yardstick to measure or ascertain God's goodness. 1) Rule #1 God is moral as an absolute. 2) Rule #2 If it looks like God has done something immoral, refer to rule #1 because a)I'm not the standard nor b)have the standard. God is good, I am not but for Christ in me.

God holds Himself to standards. Can we not do the same? Abraham did:
[Gen 18:25 KJV] 25 That be far from thee to do after this manner, to slay the righteous with the wicked: and that the righteous should be as the wicked, that be far from thee: Shall not the Judge of all the earth do right?

If God sets the standard, then does God need to obey the standard He Himself set? In most things, the standard doesn't make sense for Him. He can't really murder humans, because He created humans. He can destroy His creation if He wants to, but why would He want to, if they are righteous (Abraham's argument). He can't commit adultery or disobey His parents or steal. The one thing God might possibly be able to do is lie, and He sets Himself above lying.

Yes, our ideas need to be assailable.

ok.

I believe you did well and ty.

Blessings, Lon.

Derf

 

[Clete]

To us, and our concept (and how this ties in to the thread) If, according to this thread, God is moral, it is 'higher' and algebraic in connection with our 'basic' understanding so the algebraic term is necessary. It isn't 'as simple as that' afterall.

Lon,

Algebra is logic. It is not "higher logic" it's just logic. It works BECAUSE its logic. Yes, algebra is more complex than simple counting but so is adding and subtracting. Multiplication and division are still more complex than adding and subtracting but its all still math and math is nothing at all other than sound reason. It is simply one form of logic. The point here being that "higher math" is not "supra-mathmatical" and by the same token, just as there are some aspects of reason that are more complex than others, it's all still logic. There isn't any such thing as "super-logic". A concept is either consistent with reality (i.e. true) or it isn't.

The subject of God's morality:

1. Of or concerned with the judgment of right or wrong of human action and character.
2. Teaching or exhibiting goodness or correctness of character and behavior.
3. Conforming to standards of what is right or just in behavior; virtuous.

1) "Human" God isn't subject to 'human' morality. He was subject to humanity, but for a short time.
In this context, and to answer the thread: God supersedes morality. He is 'more' than so 'moral' by human standards would be seen as a limitation.

As for your proposed definition of morality, by what authority do you (or whomever) add the word "human" in the first definition and why is it excluded in definitions two and three? I reject its use outright and I do so on the basis, not only of sound reason but on the basis of God's own word, as described in the opening post. Thus, morality is "Of, or concerned with, the judgment of right or wrong of a person's action and character."

You do accept the idea that God is a Person, don't you?

2) Exhibiting Goodness Yes, in this sense, God is moral, but the point of my entrance in thread, was to discuss the difference as well as question whether 'morality' is the best descriptor. "Good" and 'Correct" may have been better terms for starting a thread.

What other sense is there?

Don't think that question to be trite or trivial, it is not. It is a question that you cannot answer without rendering the meaning of morality meaningless when applied to God. The result of which would be to tacitly state that God is amoral.

3)"Conforming" Is God having to 'conform'? Can He? Isn't he already THE standard?

No, God is not THE standard. At least, not in the sense that you mean it. It's a very ancient issue that people have grappled with for millennia. I invite you to read the following....

A Christian Answer to Euthyphro's Dilemma​

In a larger sense, I agree with Clete God is good and moral, but man is not the yardstick to measure or ascertain God's goodness.

Who in the world ever suggested that man was the yardstick?
If you think that I've suggested any such thing, you've very badly misunderstood.

1) Rule #1 God is moral as an absolute.

This seems to contradict your assertion that God's morality equates to some undefined variable akin to something one would encounter in an algebraic equation.

Indeed, I cannot imagine what you mean by this. What does it mean for "God is moral" to be an absolute?

Do you mean that it is a presupposition? If so, why? There are some things that we are indeed required to accept as presuppositions and that the bible itself presupposes. Things like God's existence, for example. But we can understand WHY such things must be presupposed. We don't presuppose them just because we decide we want to. There's good reason why doing so is required (i.e. rationally necessary). Do you know of any such reason that God being moral is such a rationally necessary presuppositional concept?

2) Rule #2 If it looks like God has done something immoral, refer to rule #1 because a)I'm not the standard nor b)have the standard. God is good, I am not but for Christ in me.

If this is your rule number two, then why don't you follow it?

Or do you mean that when you see something that "looks like God has done something immoral", that you're supposed to turn off your brain?

Wouldn't the correct way to follow rule #2 be to reject the notion that God did whatever immoral thing that He's being accused of?

Put another way, if you have a thought process that leads to the conclusion that God is immoral, shouldn't you do more than simply reject the conclusion? Shouldn't you question the premises upon which the conclusion is based? If not, then it isn't merely the conclusion that you're rejecting, it is reason itself that is being rejected. If you reject the conclusion but cling to the doctrines that lead to that conclusion then you are tacitly accepting that your doctrine does not have to be rational. In which case, there isn't any doctrine that is out of bounds, including one that says that God does immoral things and your own two rules go flying out the window.

Clete

 

[Clete]

The one thing God might possibly be able to do is lie, and He sets Himself above lying.

This is a rabbit trail but I can't resist....

Given your statement above, what do you do with the following passage...

I Kings 22:19 Then Micaiah said, “Therefore hear the word of the Lord: I saw the Lord sitting on His throne, and all the host of heaven standing by, on His right hand and on His left. 20 And the Lord said, ‘Who will persuade Ahab to go up, that he may fall at Ramoth Gilead?’ So one spoke in this manner, and another spoke in that manner. 21 Then a spirit came forward and stood before the Lord, and said, ‘I will persuade him.’ 22 The Lord said to him, ‘In what way?’ So he said, ‘I will go out and be a lying spirit in the mouth of all his prophets.’ And the Lord said, ‘You shall persuade him, and also prevail. Go out and do so.’ 23 Therefore look! The Lord has put a lying spirit in the mouth of all these prophets of yours, and the Lord has declared disaster against you.”​

​

Clete

 

[Right Divider]

@Derf

Titus 1:2 (AKJV/PCE)
(1:2) In hope of eternal life, which God, that cannot lie, promised before the world began;

 

[Derf]

This is a rabbit trail but I can't resist....

Given your statement above, what do you do with the following passage...

I Kings 22:19 Then Micaiah said, “Therefore hear the word of the Lord: I saw the Lord sitting on His throne, and all the host of heaven standing by, on His right hand and on His left. 20 And the Lord said, ‘Who will persuade Ahab to go up, that he may fall at Ramoth Gilead?’ So one spoke in this manner, and another spoke in that manner. 21 Then a spirit came forward and stood before the Lord, and said, ‘I will persuade him.’ 22 The Lord said to him, ‘In what way?’ So he said, ‘I will go out and be a lying spirit in the mouth of all his prophets.’ And the Lord said, ‘You shall persuade him, and also prevail. Go out and do so.’ 23 Therefore look! The Lord has put a lying spirit in the mouth of all these prophets of yours, and the Lord has declared disaster against you.”​

​

Clete

@Derf

Titus 1:2 (AKJV/PCE)
(1:2) In hope of eternal life, which God, that cannot lie, promised before the world began;

Do you boys need to take this outside?

 

[Nick M]

He is moral. And right and wrong are absolutes. In another tangent I’m seeing people make an argument that murder is wrong because God said it is wrong. And that is bizarre to say. But that might be another topic altogether. And maybe not.

I’m sure some of you have seen Frank Turek talk logic and reason with brain dead millennials and Gen Z. He says that and says to say otherwise is making right and wrong a point of view. When it isn’t.

 

[Bradley D]

In another tangent I’m seeing people make an argument that murder is wrong because God said it is wrong. And that is bizarre to say.

Murder is an "unjustified homicide." "Thou shall do no murder!"

 

[Clete]

He is moral. And right and wrong are absolutes. In another tangent I’m seeing people make an argument that murder is wrong because God said it is wrong. And that is bizarre to say. But that might be another topic altogether. And maybe not.

It depends on just what you mean by "that is a bizarre thing to say". It seems bizarre to say it concerning murder but "because God said so" isn't an invalid reason to accept something as being immoral, including murder. Of course, that is only so because God is good and so it gets somewhat circular if one isn't careful about making clear the point you're trying to make.

Take "right and wrong are absolutes", for example. Just what does that mean? Taken too strictly, one would find themselves in agreement with the Jews who accused Jesus of breaking the Sabbath for picking grain to eat on a Saturday and for having healed a man on the Sabbath and then telling the man to pick up his bed and carry it home on the wrong day of the week.

Right and wrong are what they are, primarily, because of the nature of reality, which includes but it not exclusive to the nature of God Himself. There are things that support, enhance, improve and otherwise promote life. This is the good. There are things that undermine, diminish, hinder and otherwise destroy life. This is the evil. God is the very Fountainhead of life itself. He is Himself, Life itself and as such is the standard of the right. In this way, right is an absolute in that God Himself is an absolute. However, the degree to which your action is in accordance with, or in opposition to God (life), it is either good or evil. Thus, there are degrees of good and evil, which we know, not only from common sense but from scripture (Luke 12:47-48, John 19:11 and elsewhere). So from one perspective we can talk about morality in terms of absolutes and from another perspective morality can be spoken of in terms of degree. The two are not mutually exclusive.

Clete

 

[Derf]

It depends on just what you mean by "that is a bizarre thing to say". It seems bizarre to say it concerning murder but "because God said so" isn't an invalid reason to accept something as being immoral, including murder. Of course, that is only so because God is good and so it gets somewhat circular if one isn't careful about making clear the point you're trying to make.

Take "right and wrong are absolutes", for example. Just what does that mean? Taken too strictly, one would find themselves in agreement with the Jews who accused Jesus of breaking the Sabbath for picking grain to eat on a Saturday and for having healed a man on the Sabbath and then telling the man to pick up his bed and carry it home on the wrong day of the week.

Right and wrong are what they are, primarily, because of the nature of reality, which includes but it not exclusive to the nature of God Himself. There are things that support, enhance, improve and otherwise promote life. This is the good. There are things that undermine, diminish, hinder and otherwise destroy life. This is the evil. God is the very Fountainhead of life itself. He is Himself, Life itself and as such is the standard of the right. In this way, right is an absolute in the God Himself is an absolute. However, the degree to which your action is in accordance with, or in opposition to God (life), it is either good or evil. Thus, there are degrees of good and evil, which we know, not only from common sense but from scripture (Luke 12:47-48, John 19:11 and elsewhere). So from one perspective we can talk about morality in terms of absolutes and from another perspective morality can be spoken of in terms of degree. The two are not mutually exclusive.

Clete

There appears to be an element of goodness in the distinction between right and wrong, goodness meaning what is good for the person, The family, the world, mankind, etc. Aborting babies is bad for the babies, but also for the mothers, the fathers, society, the elderly, etc. Murder is bad for the victim, but also bad for society, mankind, the relatives of the deceased, etc. Many things might be bad for us in the long run that we don't have the foresight to understand at the time we are in history, but God knows how they will play out.

So the reasoning that "God said to do it, so it is moral", is not faulty or circular, but it displays a trust in God's superior knowledge, just like we expect our children to obey us "because I said so", which really means, "because I have the maturity and wisdom to know what's good for you, and at 2 years old, you're not ready to make these decisions in your own."

 

[Clete]

There appears to be an element of goodness in the distinction between right and wrong, goodness meaning what is good for the person, The family, the world, mankind, etc. Aborting babies is bad for the babies, but also for the mothers, the fathers, society, the elderly, etc. Murder is bad for the victim, but also bad for society, mankind, the relatives of the deceased, etc. Many things might be bad for us in the long run that we don't have the foresight to understand at the time we are in history, but God knows how they will play out.

So the reasoning that "God said to do it, so it is moral", is not faulty or circular, but it displays a trust in God's superior knowledge, just like we expect our children to obey us "because I said so", which really means, "because I have the maturity and wisdom to know what's good for you, and at 2 years old, you're not ready to make these decisions in your own."

I agree that it is not circular given that context. My point was only that context is important and that, if it isn't paid attention too, things can get circular very easily.

Also, the degree of the impact of a moral act, is one way to gauge the degree to which it is either good or evil. Generally, the reason something rises to a capital crime is precisely because there is no way that the guilty party could possibly make his victim whole and/or pay any form of restitution. If your crime undermines not only a single person's life but the life of their entire family and extends even to the very fabric of a civilized society, then that act is clearly more evil than if someone takes a tic-tac from their mother's purse without permission.

Conversely, publically executing such criminals has a possitive effect on every man woman and child in the entire society, often including the criminal himself, and thus is an extremely righteous act.

Clete

 

[Clete]

 

[Lon]

When we first discussed in 2016 "Is God Moral?" we actually ended on the same page so I'm going to apologize for this a year ago. I forgot we left agreeing. That being the case, this likely is just because we start on a project thinking differently.

Lon,

Algebra is logic. It is not "higher logic" it's just logic.

Put in place of 'logic'' math. Math is just logic of numbers. There is math and there is higher math. Further, you were just in a thread recently where the other guy was/is/seems completely unable to get your logic. I get it.

It works BECAUSE its logic. Yes, algebra is more complex than simple counting but so is adding and subtracting. Multiplication and division are still more complex than adding and subtracting but its all still math and math is nothing at all other than sound reason.

I believe I see where you are coming from and I'd say "yes, you are right, it is all 'mathematics' that is correct.

It is simply one form of logic. The point here being that "higher math" is not "supra-mathmatical" and by the same token, just as there are some aspects of reason that are more complex than others, it's all still logic. There isn't any such thing as "super-logic". A concept is either consistent with reality (i.e. true) or it isn't.

Well, back to my other observation for a second: There are definitely times we've both explained something until we are blue in the face. Perhaps we differ? --> I wouldn't always say 'stupid' just 'unable' (maybe the same thing, :idunno: ). I'd think this was me last year, just wasn't paying attention and apologies.

As for your proposed definition of morality, by what authority do you (or whomever) add the word "human" in the first definition and why is it excluded in definitions two and three? I reject its use outright and I do so on the basis, not only of sound reason but on the basis of God's own word, as described in the opening post. Thus, morality is "Of, or concerned with, the judgment of right or wrong of a person's action and character."

It is really what started the confusion and disagreement in the first place, I had, back then, saw 'human' in the definition of 'morality' and at that point it it was, well, here where we are at. Moreover, we both were in agreement in 2016 on the definition, just that 'my' grasp of the term included that definition from a dictionary! Meh! Sorry! It is why I had a hard time with the premise of the thread. Rereading 'us' from 2016 (thank you for including the link to a few people lately, it helped), we were in agreement. You'd come back on me as have what seemed to be exasperation over what I was attempting to discuss concerning logic. Such however, isn't wasn't the thread thrust. I should have just agreed with the idea of Morality (barring the 'human' portion of a definition that I'd gotten. The rest would be a good discussion later.

You do accept the idea that God is a Person, don't you?

Yes.

A Christian Answer to Euthyphro's Dilemma​

GIve me a bit.

 

[Lon]

Lon,

Look man, I'm sorry to be so direct and this won't be easy for you to hear but if you are a pastor, you need to resign. You literally do not know right from wrong! How could you possibly lead a congregation?

Wasn't easy to hear.

I simply could not believe what I was reading when you were talking about wrestling with whether it was better to allow people to be murdered so that they could go be with God rather than to stop the murderer from taking their lives.

Wise as serpent/gentle as doves. "Do not resist an evil man." As I'd read scripture, see more just below.

Can you not think past those individual lives and realize the pain and anguish and sorrow that the victim's families would be put through?

This hurt back then. You'd placed all of my work in a church on a rejection slip. I 'was' a good pastor (carpentry now, I make more $ at it and had to care for my family, do ministry as a tent-maker now). I watched a believer stand up and take out a shooter of his brothers and sisters in Christ on a news feed and had a crisis over this not too long after we talked. God is/was wholly able to stop that guy, ala Jesus telling Peter to put away His sword but I missed the virtue in 'not having lost one of them!' Hard lessons and super hard discussion even today. Peter had the sword, Jesus didn't. Maybe I'd just have a 'you' in my congregation (you wouldn't want a pastor with a gun if he was a bad shot anyway). Thus, I 'think' 1) that it doesn't have much to do with a qualification of a pastor, just where his position is on the matter? 2) Have rethought my particulars and thank you. It hurt. I didn't like it. Have come to own my own need to answer to this. Also apologies and thank you. I wasn't ready back then. JR rightly gave me a warning, and 3) Think that it isn't so much an issue that a pastor be able, but how he approaches it. Would I, for instance, tell a congregation not to? No, even then it wasn't that, I was talking about myself specifically and STILL have a lot of issues with necessary evil (your further comments on good and evil here actually touch on this). HARD topic for me. I was not receptive a year and a half ago. I think "Shouldn't be a pastor" exacerbated it. I appreciate the challenge but I was NOT READY yet! Today I appreciate it and have taken some steps, so be encouraged God used you and others. Again, a very hard conversation. I could talk to you a bit in private or would appreciate a thread on specifically this kind of thing.

We, as believers, will always have Jesus. If Jesus can wait for our presence in Heaven then so can we, don't you think? Besides that, it isn't the murder's right to decide that it someone's time to go meet Jesus and Jesus certainly did not predestine the murderer to go destroy dozens of lives and families so as to bring those individuals up to meet Him. The murderer, by virtue of committing murder, has forfeit his right to live. It is not immoral in any sense of the word to remove his life from him in the defense of innocent victims.

Still hard stuff. I think every pastor should wrestle over the protection of his flock. There are some old protestant histories of hooligans coming into disrupt church services and the pastor and elder getting into a brawl with them. At the time I said you had not credentials and in so doing likely proved your point. Pastors also have to be teachable and that was (still kind of is) a tough pill and I missed the love you were trying to convey back then.

Lastly, (sorry I'm so short on time) I want to address the way you answered my hypothetical. My goal here is to hopefully show you something about not only God and His word but about how right and wrong works...

In the Law of Moses there are several laws (obviously). Some of these laws were religious in nature, some of them were moral in nature. Now, to be clear, it was always a moral issue if you were going to break one of these laws. Sometimes a person was forced to break a law and other times they weren't forced but it was done for good reason (e.g. Matthew 12:1-8). Let's look at a situation where one was forced to violate the law because it gives us a view of how law works and also how morality works and why your answer to my hypothetical was very wrong...

The law required that male children be circumcised on the eighth day of their life. The law also required that no work of the flesh be done on the Sabbath. Circumcision was obviously an act of the flesh. What then are you to do when a child's eighth day landed on a Saturday (or any other sabbath for that matter)? Well, you went ahead and circumcised the child because circumcision preceded the law and in fact was a symbol of it. Thus, you would rightly break one law in order to keep another.

I agree.

Now, the reason that is important is because matters of morality generally cannot conflict in this manner. There is never - I repeat - NEVER - a situation where you are forced to rape a woman in order to save her life (or her soul). You will never be faced with dilemma of robbing your neighbor or burning his house down with him in it. You won't ever have to slap a man's wife across the face in order to prevent yourself from stealing his watch.

On a side note: There are situations, almost all of which are hypothetical in nature by the way, where one might be forced to choose between two moral issues but they are few and far between and generally not difficult to judge with a little distance from the situation. For example, do I flip this lever to keep dozens of people safe but at the expense of my daughter's life because she's wondered into a dangerous location where she'd surely die if I did flip the switch? For me, that's easy. My daughter will not die by my hand. If it costs a thousand other lives, including my own, so be it. I am not God and I am not those people's savior. If their safety costs the life of my daughter - to bad for them. In that case, I can't say with certainty that such a decision would be the "right decision". Perhaps there is no "right decision" in such a case. Perhaps such situations are a consequence of living in a fallen world and that salvation from such things is a key part of what the gospel is all about. Either way, I'll let God make that decision when the time comes for me to stand before His judgement and I'll be leaning very heavily indeed on His grace.​

​

Getting back to the point at hand...

My hypothetical, I had hoped, was of sufficient gravity that you couldn't possibly have any difficulty answering it but you found a way to quibble anyway. This tells me that you do not know right from wrong. I picked a crime that there could be no justification for and I picked a totally ARBITRARY time frame during which the crime could be committed. What does a blue moon month have to do with anything? It doesn't! And whether God uses an evil act, such as a rape, as an opportunity to get a woman saved does not imply that He sanctioned her rape, nor would it ever enter into the mind of God to do such a horribly wicked thing! An eventual good that come as a result of an evil action does not turn the evil into good. God's sacrifice of His Son at Calvary was a good thing which came as a result of Adam's sin. Does that make Adam's sin good? Is God's universe better because of Adam's sin? Certainly not!

Paul agrees with you in Romans for grace abounding.

If God sanctioned the rape of women in her 20s during blue moon months, then it wouldn't mean that rapes that happened once every blue moon would be good, it would mean that God is evil. Why? Because there is no way for such a God to be consistent, either with Himself or with any code of conduct that is conducive to life (see opening post on why such consistency is important). It would mean that God was arbitrary! You cannot be both just (i.e. righteous) and arbitrary. The two are opposites.

That's all the time I have! This is a bit all over the place and I'd normally edit things and reword/rearrange things but this is all I have time for for now.

Clete

Initially, other than as you suggest with 'once in a blue moon' I believe there is agreement. At the time was an idea in my head from Stanford philosophy:

1. descriptively to refer to certain codes of conduct put forward by a society or a group (such as a religion), or accepted by an individual for her own behavior, or
2. normatively to refer to a code of conduct that, given specified conditions, would be put forward by all rational people.

Thus was planted a wrong idea about what you were trying to convey in thread. You rejected both of these as definitions in the interim. They have 'man' deciding what is moral, and that was problematic "God is 'moral.'"

Euthyphro's dilemma both from Socrates and Euthyphro was problematic in that they could only come up with two ways in which any good is good: on its own or declared good. I haven't finished Enyart's post yet, but 'good' is not just 'recognized' but 'is' who God is, thus the command comes from 'being.' Example: We are to 'love our enemies and do good to them' simply because "God loves our enemies and also does good" and is 'perfect' (thus from His being) and we are to be also 'perfect and holy' as He is. I'd think that IS your point about God being moral, not that he 'declares' morality from recognition, nor by arbitrary means, but from the character of His being.

Upon this I'm guessing your whole thread point is: "God is Moral" because it is "His character" and His character is Good.

 

[Clete]

Wasn't easy to hear.

Wise as serpent/gentle as doves. "Do not resist an evil man." As I'd read scripture, see more just below.


This hurt back then. You'd placed all of my work in a church on a rejection slip. I 'was' a good pastor (carpentry now, I make more $ at it and had to care for my family, do ministry as a tent-maker now). I watched a believer stand up and take out a shooter of his brothers and sisters in Christ on a news feed and had a crisis over this not too long after we talked. God is/was wholly able to stop that guy, ala Jesus telling Peter to put away His sword but I missed the virtue in 'not having lost one of them!' Hard lessons and super hard discussion even today. Peter had the sword, Jesus didn't. Maybe I'd just have a 'you' in my congregation (you wouldn't want a pastor with a gun if he was a bad shot anyway). Thus, I 'think' 1) that it doesn't have much to do with a qualification of a pastor, just where his position is on the matter? 2) Have rethought my particulars and thank you. It hurt. I didn't like it. Have come to own my own need to answer to this. Also apologies and thank you. I wasn't ready back then. JR rightly gave me a warning, and 3) Think that it isn't so much an issue that a pastor be able, but how he approaches it. Would I, for instance, tell a congregation not to? No, even then it wasn't that, I was talking about myself specifically and STILL have a lot of issues with necessary evil (your further comments on good and evil here actually touch on this). HARD topic for me. I was not receptive a year and a half ago. I think "Shouldn't be a pastor" exacerbated it. I appreciate the challenge but I was NOT READY yet! Today I appreciate it and have taken some steps, so be encouraged God used you and others. Again, a very hard conversation. I could talk to you a bit in private or would appreciate a thread on specifically this kind of thing.

Still hard stuff. I think every pastor should wrestle over the protection of his flock. There are some old protestant histories of hooligans coming into disrupt church services and the pastor and elder getting into a brawl with them. At the time I said you had not credentials and in so doing likely proved your point. Pastors also have to be teachable and that was (still kind of is) a tough pill and I missed the love you were trying to convey back then.

I agree.

Paul agrees with you in Romans for grace abounding.

Initially, other than as you suggest with 'once in a blue moon' I believe there is agreement. At the time was an idea in my head from Stanford philosophy:

1. descriptively to refer to certain codes of conduct put forward by a society or a group (such as a religion), or accepted by an individual for her own behavior, or
2. normatively to refer to a code of conduct that, given specified conditions, would be put forward by all rational people.

Thus was planted a wrong idea about what you were trying to convey in thread. You rejected both of these as definitions in the interim. They have 'man' deciding what is moral, and that was problematic "God is 'moral.'"

Euthyphro's dilemma both from Socrates and Euthyphro was problematic in that they could only come up with two ways in which any good is good: on its own or declared good. I haven't finished Enyart's post yet, but 'good' is not just 'recognized' but 'is' who God is, thus the command comes from 'being.' Example: We are to 'love our enemies and do good to them' simply because "God loves our enemies and also does good" and is 'perfect' (thus from His being) and we are to be also 'perfect and holy' as He is. I'd think that IS your point about God being moral, not that he 'declares' morality from recognition, nor by arbitrary means, but from the character of His being.

Upon this I'm guessing your whole thread point is: "God is Moral" because it is "His character" and His character is Good.

Holy cow, what a post! You've made my whole month! I mean, Merry Christmas to me! Wow!

This long term reaction to things stated over a year ago is precisely what is being talked about when the bible speaks about planting seeds. We would all do ourselves a great service by consciously reminding ourselves that some of the things we say may take a long time to sink in and take root.

Two specific responses....

1: Matthew 5 is Jesus teaching people how to live during the tribulation and was not intended as a general teaching for regular people living in regular times. That probably just made your head explode! Its a dispensational thing. We can start a thread to discuss it in detail if you like.

2: As for discussing something via private message or starting a new thread on a particular question or issue, I'm game for it any time. You can ask me any question you want whenever you'd like!

 

[Idolater]

Euthyphro's dilemma both from Socrates and Euthyphro was problematic in that they could only come up with two ways in which any good is good: on its own or declared good. I haven't finished Enyart's post yet, but 'good' is not just 'recognized' but 'is' who God is, thus the command comes from 'being.' Example: We are to 'love our enemies and do good to them' simply because "God loves our enemies and also does good" and is 'perfect' (thus from His being) and we are to be also 'perfect and holy' as He is. I'd think that IS your point about God being moral, not that he 'declares' morality from recognition, nor by arbitrary means, but from the character of His being.

This's from Greek philosophers. They're the ones who first taught that God and the Good are the same being or entity, that Goodness isn't just an attribute of God but that God is Goodness itself (whatever that means). It's an idea derived from, conjectured, deduced from just reason. The problem with it is that it appears to constrict or delimit God's freedom though, how do you reconcile it? Meaning to say, which is stronger? God? or the Good? Seems that it's the Good which prevails, unless we have a way to check on God to make sure He's always being good somehow. And so, we ask could God be wrong? And if God is wrong, how could we even know? He gave us our eyes and our mind. If anybody could ever brainwash and mesmerize us it would be our Creator, so how can we check on Him that He isn't just messing with us?

 

[JudgeRightly]

This's from Greek philosophers. They're the ones who first taught that God and the Good are the same being or entity, that Goodness isn't just an attribute of God but that God is Goodness itself (whatever that means). It's an idea derived from, conjectured, deduced from just reason. The problem with it is that it appears to constrict or delimit God's freedom though, how do you reconcile it? Meaning to say, which is stronger? God? or the Good? Seems that it's the Good which prevails, unless we have a way to check on God to make sure He's always being good somehow. And so, we ask could God be wrong? And if God is wrong, how could we even know? He gave us our eyes and our mind. If anybody could ever brainwash and mesmerize us it would be our Creator, so how can we check on Him that He isn't just messing with us?

The answer lies within the Triune nature of the Godhead.

God Himself is a three-fold witness that He IS GOOD!

The Father and the Son testify that the Holy Spirit has never wronged either of them.
The Father and the Holy Spirit testify that the Son has never wronged either of them.
The Son and the Holy Spirit testify that the Father has never wronged either of them.

God is good because HE IS GOOD!

He has never been evil. And the members of the Trinity testify to that.

This is why unitarianism fails, for ANY religion, because there is no way to verify that a deity has always been good without there being "two or three witnesses" having always been around along with the deity in question to verify that that deity has always been good.

It's also why Open Theists, who assert that God is free, can boldly proclaim that we trust God to be good even though He COULD do otherwise, because He is and has always been and always will be GOOD, BECAUSE He says so as the Triune God!

 

[Idolater]

That's false, Idolater!

It isn't that ambiguous at all. It isn't difficult to understand what the Greek's were talking about when they used "logos" any more than it is to figure out what the word, "agape" meant or any other Greek word.


No it didn't and yes, I've already given you the biblical reason and I stated the biblical reason in the opening post as well.

Here it is again....


Why stop at verse three?

Keep going and the context of the passage itself will argue my side of this debate...

John 1:1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. 2 He was in the beginning with God. 3 All things were made through Him, and without Him nothing was made that was made. 4 In Him 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.​

Do you "see" it?


The "light" here is not the "let their be light" sort of light. It's the light of your mind. It is understanding, it is comprehension, it is REASON!
There can be NO DOUBT that John made such a parallel on purpose and ANY Greek would have instantly understood the connection as would you if the verse was translated into "logic" or "reason" as it should be.

I made an additional biblical argument when I pointed out John 12:48....

The Greek word "rhēma" moves us closer still. Its sort of half way between the act of speaking and what logos actually means. The best way I know of to explain what I mean there is to show a passage of scripture that uses both words in the same sentence....​

​

​

​

John 12:48 He who rejects Me, and does not receive My words (rhema), has that which judges him— the word (logos) that I have spoken will judge him in the last day.​

​

In the above statement, rhema refers to the actual spoken words Jesus spoke from His mouth (i.e. His SPEECH) while logos refers to something far deeper and more important that the actual words. It refers to the meaning and I don't mean the dictionary definitions but the fact that the people Jesus spoke to UNDERSTOOD the point of His words and it is that understanding that will convict them on judgment day.​

No, you don't and even if you did, the passage itself is all the clarification you need.

Besides that, in what way would the use of the term "word" clear anything up? In other words, this argument you're trying to make is as least as big a problem for you as it is me, if not more so because there isn't any use of the ancient term "logos" that coincides with the modern use of the term "word". The passages that translate it that way literally make no sense until someone who is familiar with the Greek comes along to explain it to you.


This is simply not so. I don't know where you're getting this from but it just is the opposite of the truth. What word in any language has this ever been true of? None!

Logos is the origin of the suffix "-ology" as in "biology" or "meteorology" or "geology". "geo" is earth "ology" is science or study or the logic of, thus geology is the logic of the earth. "Bio" is "life" thus biology is the logic of life. That's what the word means and that's what the word has always meant. It was used in all sort of contexts and so it had a sphere of meaning but it's definition hasn't ever been so vague that we have to guess at its meaning.

Think of the English word "right" as an example. You can talk about your right hand or the right answer or the political right or declare that something feels right or let someone know that you'll be right back. All of those are different ways to use the same word and each time there is a subtle difference in the specific definition but the difference isn't so great that you can't know that the word "right" basically means "correct". Most languages have entirely different words for each of these uses of "right" (including Greek, by the way) but that's beside the point. The point being that even though there's more than one way to use the word "right" doesn't mean that there is this nebulous ambiguity about what the word means and it's the same with Logos, probably even more so given the weird nature of the English language.


Again, it simply false. So false that it's tantamount to wishful thinking and even if it were true, WHICH IT ISN'T, it doesn't do any harm to my position that it doesn't also do to yours.


Logos isn't ambiguous and the Hebrew word that would rightly be translated into the English term "word" is entirely irrelevant to the discussion because John didn't write his gospel in Hebrew, he wrote it in Greek with a Hellenistic audience in mind which would have known intuitively what Logos referred to.


I've said it once and I'll say it again, no translation is more authoritative than the original language.

This is true but not without qualification. The Septuagint translation was literally quoted in the New Testament here and there, so at least those passages actually are authoritative translations from Hebrew to ancient Greek. If you disagree with that, then let's have it. The Septuagint was the Bible for many, especially Gentiles but also dispersed Jerusalemites who could read Greek easier than Hebrew, during the Apostolic era.

Why [ ... ] does it matter so much to you that logos cannot mean "reason"? What's wrong with the notion that John was equating Jesus with reason?

I concede that I have reasons against translating it "reason" or "logic" for similar reasons that you have for not liking "Word." You don't like Word because it's too fragmented, more like the bits and pieces that make up logic and language and thought, and so you're wanting to call it "logic" or "reason" because these are structured and integrated and not just interjections. And I agree with your concern there too, I do see it, and I do think it is perhaps better to call it something else, and while speech might not be right, because it doesn't necessarily convey that it must also be logical or rational speech, and not just speech without qualification, it is also Biblical, because the Septuagint without ambiguity or controversy translates the Hebrew word for speech in Psalm 33:6 with "logo" which is the same word as Logos.

So for John to write In the beginning was the Logos, he is not only alluding to Genesis 1:1 from the Septuagint, which is literally the same start, but he's alluding to Psalm 33:6 from the Septuagint, which is also alluding to Genesis 1:1.

Why is that so unacceptable while his equating Jesus with a near totally meaningless abstraction as "word" is perfectly fine?

As I said above it's completely Biblical to translate the Hebrew word for speech into the Greek Logos, since John alludes to Psalm 33:6 and Genesis 1:1 when he wrote John 1:1-3

But to your point and in somewhat agreement with you, while Word might be an inferior translation because it signifies something simpler than a Person would need to be, I also find the possibility of it being "Logic" or "Reason" problematic because they too appear to be too impersonal, to be made flesh and blood and bone man, and have that mean anything. He would be like Spock from Star Trek, and that's not what I read in the Gospels about Him.

Beyond it though I think logic and reason imply or signify too much. In another post here you got into how math and higher math are different things, and I think the words logic and reason for me also mean too much. Did you know there are literally multiple logics? Which one logic is Logos supposed to mean?

So I've been working with the term "order" recently, and this lends itself to abstractly thinking about the most simple form of order possible, that which yields all logics and maths and language. I think if we can agree on the concept we mean to convey with our terms here perhaps we can find some common ground.

I'm thinking what you mean to say with Logic and Reason is stripped down, fundamental logic or reason, and not different logics or higher maths or anything complicated like that. If this is so, then maybe we can find agreement.