Our Moral God

[Bradley D]

So you think a person, for God is a person, is a principle. Your equation of logic is therefore: principle == person and the reverse: person == principle. == equals "is equal to". By your logic you are a principle. Is that really how you see yourself?

You see God as a person. God is spirit. God is concerned with peoples souls and spirit. A principle is a belief/value that one lives by. My principle is the Word.

 

[Gary K]

You see God as a person. God is spirit. God is concerned with peoples souls and spirit. A principle is a belief/value that one lives by. My principle is the Word.

1. A principle is a belief or value by which a person lives. That I agree with you on.

2. God says He experiences emotions. Anger, love, hatred, etc.... A principle does not express emotions. It cannot. Only a person can express emotions. They are attributes of persons, not attributes of principles.

3. Let us make man in our image, after our likeness. The Hebrew word translated as likeness, according to Strong's Concordance, is as follows:

H1823 דּמוּת demûth dem-ooth'
From H1819; resemblance; concretely model shape; adverbially like: - fashion like (-ness as) manner similitude.

God made us in His shape. We physically resemble Him. Do you know what personal pronouns are? He, Him, our? The Bible always uses personal pronouns or personal names for God. That strongly implies personhood. Did Jesus have a Father? What did Jesus tells His disciples to call His Father when they prayed?

Luke 11:2 And he said unto them, When ye pray, say, Our Father which art in heaven, Hallowed be thy name. Thy kingdom come. Thy will be done, as in heaven, so in earth.

Notice all the words indicating personhood Jesus uses when He tells His disciples how to address His Father? Jesus is not telling His disciples to address a principle or a concept. He is telling them to address His Father as a person and to think of His Father as their own father. That is highly personable.

Jesus followed that up immediately by the following analogy which is again highly personable in which He refers to our heavenly Father as our friend.

Luke 11:5 And he said unto them, Which of you shall have a friend, and shall go unto him at midnight, and say unto him, Friend, lend me three loaves;
6 For a friend of mine in his journey is come to me, and I have nothing to set before him?
7 And he from within shall answer and say, Trouble me not: the door is now shut, and my children are with me in bed; I cannot rise and give thee.
8 I say unto you, Though he will not rise and give him, because he is his friend, yet because of his importunity he will rise and give him as many as he needeth.
9 And I say unto you, Ask, and it shall be given you; seek, and ye shall find; knock, and it shall be opened unto you.
10 For every one that asketh receiveth; and he that seeketh findeth; and to him that knocketh it shall be opened.
11 If a son shall ask bread of any of you that is a father, will he give him a stone? or if he ask a fish, will he for a fish give him a serpent?
12 Or if he shall ask an egg, will he offer him a scorpion?
13 If ye then, being evil, know how to give good gifts unto your children: how much more shall your heavenly Father give the Holy Spirit to them that ask him?

Notice that Jesus always refers to His Father as a person.

 

[Gary K]

Reality does that.
Logic is not determined, it is discovered. Asking "Who determines what is logical?" is like asking who determines how much energy the sun is depositing onto the Earth. No one determines it. It is what it is. Logic and sound reason is nothing more than conforming your mind to the limits of reality.

No. God determined what is logical and what is real. You cannot find that outside of Him. Logic and sound reason are defined by God. He is the creator of the entire universe. Nothing exists that He did not create. Just because humanity discovers things doesn't mean God wasn't already there and accomplished His work of creation.

 

[Clete]

No. God determined what is logical and what is real.

That is flatly false and is incompatible with any flavor of Christian doctrine. When it comes to right and wrong and God's character, God truly is wholly and absolutely immutable. As such God does not determine what right and wrong is.

God is righteous. He didn't decide to become righteous nor did He ever define righteousness and subsequently apply the term to Himself.

God is not only righteous (i.e. logical) He is real! Did God determine Himself to be real? Obviously not! Any such idea is so outside the pale of orthodoxy that it borders on blasphemy.

You cannot find that outside of Him. Logic and sound reason are defined by God. He is the creator of the entire universe. Nothing exists that He did not create. Just because humanity discovers things doesn't mean God wasn't already there and accomplished His work of creation.

Logic and sound reason could not have been defined by God. The irrational cannot create logic. It is a contradiction. The process of creation requires logic and reason to accomplish it. Thus to suggest that logic and reason were created commits a stolen concept fallacy and defeats itself.

And yes, something does exist that God did not create.

God did not create Himself!
He, therefore, also did not create His attributes.
The bible teaches, as the opening post establishes, that God is Reason.
Therefore, God did not create reason.

Try as you might, you cannot undermine the veracity nor the supremacy of reason. Your every attempt will have the same result because you must use, and thereby tacitly endorse, the very thing you're trying to undermine. Reason is simply the most irrefragable concept that there is. It will crush you the moment you open your mouth to utter any intelligible word against it.

Clete

 

[Derf]

I do not know that answer and I submit that you do not either. What we do know and what you have conceded is that Jesus is the incarnation of Love itself. How that works and just what it means is a mystery that we will not fathom in this life.

On the contrary! John's explicit point is to equate Jesus Christ with the abstraction know to the Greeks as "Logos" and to say that Jesus Christ is the physical incarnation of that abstraction. That was his EXACT point and anyone reading it at the time John wrote it would have had no question at all that this was what he was saying.

Further, our English bibles translate 'logos' as 'word', which is a very nearly, if not entirely meaningless way to translate it. There is no concept in the English language that is communicated through the use of the word "word" in this context, at least none that doesn't require additional explanation which ends up effectively making the word "word" synonymous with "reason". So, if someone is going to object to equating Christ with an abstraction, where is the advantage to equating Him with a meaningless abstraction instead of one that actually conveys some sort of meaning when you say it? And, if your going to use a word that is meant to be substantially synonymous with 'reason' or 'logic', why not just use the word 'reason' or 'logic'?

Clete

I’m not convinced “word” is more meaninglessness than”logic”. “Word” allows for more options than”logic”, for one thing. Just because you haven’t chosen the correct abstraction related to “word” doesn’t prevent their being one that works. “Logic” is pretty limited in its possible abstractions.

For instance “the word of God” doesn’t just mean some speech, but denotes commands, or truth, or blessing, or some such spoken or revealed by God directed at mankind or His people or some other target of His communication.

“The logic of God” carries no such connotation.

 

[Derf]

That is flatly false and is incompatible with any flavor of Christian doctrine. When it comes to right and wrong and God's character, God truly is wholly and absolutely immutable. As such God does not determine what right and wrong is.

God is righteous. He didn't decide to become righteous nor did He ever define righteousness and subsequently apply the term to Himself.

God is not only righteous (i.e. logical) He is real! Did God determine Himself to be real? Obviously not! Any such idea is so outside the pale of orthodoxy that it borders on blasphemy.


Logic and sound reason could not have been defined by God. The irrational cannot create logic. It is a contradiction. The process of creation requires logic and reason to accomplish it. Thus to suggest that logic and reason were created commits a stolen concept fallacy and defeats itself.

And yes, something does exist that God did not create.

God did not create Himself!
He, therefore, also did not create His attributes.
The bible teaches, as the opening post establishes, that God is Reason.
Therefore, God did not create reason.

Try as you might, you cannot undermine the veracity nor the supremacy of reason. Your every attempt will have the same result because you must use, and thereby tacitly endorse, the very thing you're trying to undermine. Reason is simply the most irrefragable concept that there is. It will crush you the moment you open your mouth to utter any intelligible word against it.

Clete

You’re allowing reason to usurp God’s rule over all.

 

[Gary K]

That is flatly false and is incompatible with any flavor of Christian doctrine. When it comes to right and wrong and God's character, God truly is wholly and absolutely immutable. As such God does not determine what right and wrong is.

God is righteous. He didn't decide to become righteous nor did He ever define righteousness and subsequently apply the term to Himself.

God is not only righteous (i.e. logical) He is real! Did God determine Himself to be real? Obviously not! Any such idea is so outside the pale of orthodoxy that it borders on blasphemy.


Logic and sound reason could not have been defined by God. The irrational cannot create logic. It is a contradiction. The process of creation requires logic and reason to accomplish it. Thus to suggest that logic and reason were created commits a stolen concept fallacy and defeats itself.

And yes, something does exist that God did not create.

God did not create Himself!
He, therefore, also did not create His attributes.
The bible teaches, as the opening post establishes, that God is Reason.
Therefore, God did not create reason.

Try as you might, you cannot undermine the veracity nor the supremacy of reason. Your every attempt will have the same result because you must use, and thereby tacitly endorse, the very thing you're trying to undermine. Reason is simply the most irrefragable concept that there is. It will crush you the moment you open your mouth to utter any intelligible word against it.

Clete

God defines what is right and wrong. He also defines what is moral. The Bible makes this very clear as the Biblical definition of sin, that which is wrong and immoral is the breaking of God's law. It's second definition of sin in the Bible is that which is not of faith. Meaning lack of trust in God is sin.

The Bible tells us that God alone is supreme. Your assertion says God is not supreme. I'll stick with the Bible rather than finite human logic. God is so far beyond anything a human is capable of doing or thinking that the difference between the very greatest human reasoning and logic and God's reasoning and logic is infinite. You can continue to glorify human thinking if you so desire. I will not. God is so far beyond us we can't even begin to see the depth of His thinking, reasoning, knowledge, and logic. My faith lies in God. Not man.

I find your arguments to be a close corollary to Calvinistic thought. They make Him subject to His own sovereignty.

 

[JudgeRightly]

God defines what is right and wrong. He also defines what is moral.

Are you asserting that God arbitrarily, as some point in the past, determined that something like murder is bad?

The Bible makes this very clear

And yet you don't quote the Bible here. Why?5

as the Biblical definition of sin, that which is wrong and immoral is the breaking of God's law.

Is God's law arbitrary?

It's second definition of sin in the Bible is that which is not of faith. Meaning lack of trust in God is sin.

Was that true before God created creatures that could trust Him?

The Bible tells us that God alone is supreme. Your assertion says God is not supreme.

Saying it doesn't make it so. Please explain for us.

I'll stick with the Bible rather than finite human logic.

"Human logic" doesn't exist. It is simply "logic" that Clete is using.

God is so far beyond anything a human is capable of doing or thinking that the difference between the very greatest human reasoning and logic and God's reasoning and logic is infinite.

So?

That doesn't change the fact that God is not arbitrary.

You can continue to glorify human thinking if you so desire.

Where has Clete done so? Because all I've seen in this post is you posturing.

I will not. God is so far beyond us we can't even begin to see the depth of His thinking, reasoning, knowledge, and logic.

That doesn't mean we can't see the surface levels of it.

God is not illogical.

God is not arbitrary.

Even humans can grasp those things.

My faith lies in God. Not man.

Your faith seems to lie in your own reasoning, at least on this subject.

I find your arguments to be a close corollary to Calvinistic thought. They make Him subject to His own sovereignty.

Whatever that means....

 

[Clete]

I’m not convinced “word” is more meaninglessness than”logic”. “Word” allows for more options than”logic”, for one thing. Just because you haven’t chosen the correct abstraction related to “word” doesn’t prevent their being one that works. “Logic” is pretty limited in its possible abstractions.

I didn't choose the abstraction. Logos is a Greek word that has a meaning and just as in any language, the word has a sphere of meaning that varies with and is determined by the context in which the word is used.

The best word to use to translate the use of "Logos" in John chapter one into English is probably "Reason" but since "Logic" is both very often synonymous with "Reason" and is more phonetically similar to "Logos" it is both understandable and very acceptable to translate it as "Logic".
Either way, the meaning is identical and does an excellent job of communicating the meaning intended by John.

There is no sense in which the English word "Word" conveys any sort of similar meaning at all. In fact, by itself it does not convey any meaning whatsoever. It is left to people with some understanding of the original language to explain to English speaking people what is being said. And that might be fine in a situation where there isn't any good word in English to translate it to but that just isn't the case with "Logos".

For instance “the word of God” doesn’t just mean some speech, but denotes commands, or truth, or blessing, or some such spoken or revealed by God directed at mankind or His people or some other target of His communication.

"Logos" is not the word in Greek that one would use in such a case. The English phrase "the word of God" has come to mean "scripture" or "the bible" in most cases. There are exceptions to that, of course, but the point is that "Logos" is not a term the Greek language would use to refer to scripture.

“The logic of God” carries no such connotation.

I disagree! Think your claim here through for a moment. Could not "the logic of God" mean exactly the same thing as you rightly claim that "the word of God" means? Isn't it true that the only reason that "the word of God" means what you say is because that's the phrase we use to convey that meaning and that it could just as easily have been the phrase "the logic of God"?

In other words, the only reason "the logic of God" carries no such connotation is because no such connotation has been assigned to it. There isn't anything about the words themselves that would preclude such a meaning. There isn't anything contradictory about the use of "the logic of God" to denote a command or a truth or a revelation, etc from God.

Clete

 

[Clete]

You’re allowing reason to usurp God’s rule over all.

Saying it doesn't make it so.

Make the argument.

 

[Derf]

Saying it doesn't make it so.

Make the argument.

I didn't think I needed to, since you did it so well yourself. Go look back at your post.

 

[Derf]

I didn't choose the abstraction. Logos is a Greek word that has a meaning and just as in any language, the word has a sphere of meaning that varies with and is determined by the context in which the word is used.

The best word to use to translate the use of "Logos" in John chapter one into English is probably "Reason" but since "Logic" is both very often synonymous with "Reason" and is more phonetically similar to "Logos" it is both understandable and very acceptable to translate it as "Logic".
Either way, the meaning is identical and does an excellent job of communicating the meaning intended by John.

There is no sense in which the English word "Word" conveys any sort of similar meaning at all. In fact, by itself it does not convey any meaning whatsoever. It is left to people with some understanding of the original language to explain to English speaking people what is being said. And that might be fine in a situation where there isn't any good word in English to translate it to but that just isn't the case with "Logos".


"Logos" is not the word in Greek that one would use in such a case. The English phrase "the word of God" has come to mean "scripture" or "the bible" in most cases. There are exceptions to that, of course, but the point is that "Logos" is not a term the Greek language would use to refer to scripture.



I disagree! Think your claim here through for a moment. Could not "the logic of God" not mean exactly the same thing as you rightly claim that "the word of God" means? Isn't it true that the only reason that "the word of God" means what you say is because that's the phrase we use to convey that meaning and that it could just as easily have been the phrase "the logic of God"?

In other words, the only reason "the logic of God" carries no such connotation is because no such connotation has been assigned to it. There isn't anything about the words themselves that would preclude such a meaning. There isn't anything contradictory about the use of "the logic of God" to denote a command or a truth or a revelation, etc from God.

Clete

If our wording in today's translations carries the connotation, and "logic" doesn't, then you've just proven my point for me. Thanks!

 

[Clete]

God defines what is right and wrong. He also defines what is moral.

Repeating your position does not make the refutation of it go away.

The Bible makes this very clear as the Biblical definition of sin, that which is wrong and immoral is the breaking of God's law. It's second definition of sin in the Bible is that which is not of faith. Meaning lack of trust in God is sin.

Category error.

Man is under God's authority. As such we are subject to His commands and it would be sinful for us to disobey Him. God can and has given laws that have nothing to do with morality per se. Laws concerning circumcision, tithing, sabbath observance and marriage are but a few examples. These laws are not arbitrary because they serve a specific purpose but they are not about moral right and wrong. That's why it wasn't a sin for Noah not to be uncircumcised and why it would have been sinful for Peter not to be and why it would be sinful now for you to be (if done for religious purposes)! It is not immoral to pick fruit off of a tree on Saturday UNLESS God has told you not to do it for whatever reason. It si the disobedience to God is that is immoral, not the act of harvesting.

This sort of morality is not what we are talking about. God is not subject to the law but He is still righteous. When we say that God is righteous that means something real. It doesn't mean that God follows the rules, it means He acts in a manner that is good, which means that He acts in a manner that is consistent with, and proper to, life. For example, He is always honest and He is always just, Etc, etc, etc. and He has always been that way. He didn't decide that honesty and justice would be the good and lying and cheating would be the evil. HE DID NOT DECIDED THAT!!! If you believe He did then you believe in a amoral God, by definition. As I said before, that is not compatible with any form or flavor of Christianity.

The Bible tells us that God alone is supreme. Your assertion says God is not supreme.

How so?

I'll stick with the Bible rather than finite human logic.

Contradiction!

You cannot stick with the bible without the use of logic.

There is no such thing as "human logic", by the way. Any time you hear the term used, it is referring to the irrational, not some lower form of reasoning that humans do and that God doesn't. One is either consistent with reality or not. There is no inbetween. In fact, that is one of the laws of logic. It's called the law of excluded middle. A truth claim, including any that the bible might make, is either true or it false given a specific context.

God is so far beyond anything a human is capable of doing or thinking that the difference between the very greatest human reasoning and logic and God's reasoning and logic is infinite.

How do you know this?

You can continue to glorify human thinking if you so desire. I will not. God is so far beyond us we can't even begin to see the depth of His thinking, reasoning, knowledge, and logic. My faith lies in God. Not man.

You just used logic to write that nonsense. I'm not glorifying human thinking. On the contrary, I just got through telling you that there is no such thing as "human logic". It's a fabrication of theologians who want a way to keep their irrational doctrines by telling the mindless herd of human debris that cannot think for themselves that they aren't supposed to be able to understand it.

I find your arguments to be a close corollary to Calvinistic thought. They make Him subject to His own sovereignty.

Then make the argument! Am I supposed to just be convinced because you don't like it? Am I supposed to react to your comparing what I've said to Calvinism and come running away from it because I can't stand to have anything make such a statement? I think you know already that suggesting that anything I say is Calvinistic is laughable in the extreme! Just who is it that you're trying to convince with such a ludicrous comment?

The bottom line is that this is a debate forum. We aren't here to agree with each other about every detail of our doctrine. What we are here for is to debate it. Debate requires arguments be made, not statements to be declared. If you're right and I'm wrong then great! Make the argument and I'll recant. Otherwise, I don't know you. I don't know anything about you education or your relationship with God or anything else. As such your personal opinions will have no effect on my doctrine and will not succeed in moving me an inch away from it. If you can make the argument then I'm quite literally happy to debate it all day long but I'd prefer that you keep your unsupported opinions to yourself.

Clete

 

[Clete]

I didn't think I needed to, since you did it so well yourself. Go look back at your post.

Nope. I don't see it. You'll have to spell it out for me.

My thesis is that God Himself is Reason. How can God be used to usurp Himself?

 

[Clete]

If our wording in today's translations carries the connotation, and "logic" doesn't, then you've just proven my point for me. Thanks!

That seems backward to me. I am saying the opposite. It is our English translations that do not carry the connotation that "logic" does carry. It's impossible to tell for sure what you even mean because all you can be bothered with is one sentence posts.

Regardless of whether I've understood your point or not, saying it does not make it so.

Either make the argument or go away.

 

[Gary K]

Are you asserting that God arbitrarily, as some point in the past, determined that something like murder is bad?



And yet you don't quote the Bible here. Why?5



Is God's law arbitrary?



Was that true before God created creatures that could trust Him?



Saying it doesn't make it so. Please explain for us.



"Human logic" doesn't exist. It is simply "logic" that Clete is using.



So?

That doesn't change the fact that God is not arbitrary.



Where has Clete done so? Because all I've seen in this post is you posturing.



That doesn't mean we can't see the surface levels of it.

God is not illogical.

God is not arbitrary.

Even humans can grasp those things.



Your faith seems to lie in your own reasoning, at least on this subject.



Whatever that means....

I'm only going to respond to one thing you say here for it is the foundation of our disagreement.

Do I really have to point out to you that which ought to be well-known passages of scripture to every Christian?

1John 3:4 Whosoever committeth sin transgresseth also the law: for sin is the transgression of the law.

Ergo. God defines morality, that which is wrong, with the 10 commandments.

Romans 14:23 And he that doubteth is damned if he eat, because he eateth not of faith: for whatsoever is not of faith is sin.

Ergo. Doubting God is sin. Why?

Hebrews 11:6 But without faith it is impossible to please him: for he that cometh to God must believe that he is, and that he is a rewarder of them that diligently seek him.

If we come to God trusting in our own logic, our own human reasoning we will not please God. In other words we can not be reconciled to God while trusting in our own selves, our own reasoning, etc.... We must trust revelation from God to know Him. Meaning we have to trust God to know God. Jesus said:

John 17:3 And this is life eternal, that they might know thee the only true God, and Jesus Christ, whom thou hast sent.

Notice the very strong implication of personal relationship found in Jesus' words. We have to know God personally to have eternal life. We cannot know someone by reason alone. We can know about them, but knowing about God isn't good enough. Besides, the Bible tells us the following.

Job 11:7 Canst thou by searching find out God? canst thou find out the Almighty unto perfection?

The answer to that question, and the following one is the same. No.
The Hebrew word translated as searching according to Strong's Concordance is as follows:

H2714 חקר chêqer khay'-ker
From H2713; examination enumeration deliberation:- finding out number [un-] search (-able -ed out -ing).

Examination, enumeration, deliberation. In other words reasoning. We can't know God through reason alone. We must have a personal relationship with Him to truly know Him. God is beyond our knowing on our own. He must reveal Himself to us personally. A finite mind can not by reasoning figure out an infinite mind. That's by definition for an infinite mind is infinitely beyond any finite mind. I don't care if you have an IQ of 300 God's mind is still infinitely greater. Ergo, human reason cannot know God but God can reveal as much of Himself to us as we can understand. We are dependent upon revelation, not reason, to know God.

 

[Clete]

I'm only going to respond to one thing you say here for it is the foundation of our disagreement.

Do I really have to point out to you that which ought to be well-known passages of scripture to every Christian?


Ergo. God defines morality, that which is wrong, with the 10 commandments.



Ergo. Doubting God is sin. Why?



If we come to God trusting in our own logic, our own human reasoning we will not please God. In other words we can not be reconciled to God while trusting in our own selves, our own reasoning, etc.... We must trust revelation from God to know Him. Meaning we have to trust God to know God. Jesus said:


Notice the very strong implication of personal relationship found in Jesus' words. We have to know God personally to have eternal life. We cannot know someone by reason alone. We can know about them, but knowing about God isn't good enough. Besides, the Bible tells us the following.



The answer to that question, and the following one is the same. No.
The Hebrew word translated as searching according to Strong's Concordance is as follows:

Examination, enumeration, deliberation. In other words reasoning. We can't know God through reason alone. We must have a personal relationship with Him to truly know Him. God is beyond our knowing on our own. He must reveal Himself to us personally. A finite mind can not by reasoning figure out an infinite mind. That's by definition for an infinite mind is infinitely beyond any finite mind. I don't care if you have an IQ of 300 God's mind is still infinitely greater. Ergo, human reason cannot know God but God can reveal as much of Himself to us as we can understand. We are dependent upon revelation, not reason, to know God.

You aren't talking about the same thing, freeloader.

See post #53

 

[Gary K]

You aren't talking about the same thing, freeloader.

See post #53

I've been speaking to the same thing from my first post. God is a person, not a concept/idea/principle and God defines morality, right and wrong. He does that through His moral law.

You aren't talking about the same thing, freeloader.

See post #53

That's funny. I was responding to post #48 not post #53. If you'll bother to look I was responding directly to the question asked.

 

[Gary K]

Repeating your position does not make the refutation of it go away.


Category error.

Man is under God's authority. As such we are subject to His commands and it would be sinful for us to disobey Him. God can and has given laws that have nothing to do with morality per se. Laws concerning circumcision, tithing, sabbath observance and marriage are but a few examples. These laws are not arbitrary because they serve a specific purpose but they are not about moral right and wrong. That's why it wasn't a sin for Noah not to be uncircumcised and why it would have been sinful for Peter not to be and why it would be sinful now for you to be (if done for religious purposes)! It is not immoral to pick fruit off of a tree on Saturday UNLESS God has told you not to do it for whatever reason. It si the disobedience to God is that is immoral, not the act of harvesting.

This sort of morality is not what we are talking about. God is not subject to the law but He is still righteous. When we say that God is righteous that means something real. It doesn't mean that God follows the rules, it means He acts in a manner that is good, which means that He acts in a manner that is consistent with, and proper to, life. For example, He is always honest and He is always just, Etc, etc, etc. and He has always been that way. He didn't decide that honesty and justice would be the good and lying and cheating would be the evil. HE DID NOT DECIDED THAT!!! If you believe He did then you believe in a amoral God, by definition. As I said before, that is not compatible with any form or flavor of Christianity.


How so?


Contradiction!

You cannot stick with the bible without the use of logic.

There is no such thing as "human logic", by the way. Any time you hear the term used, it is referring to the irrational, not some lower form of reasoning that humans do and that God doesn't. One is either consistent with reality or not. There is no inbetween. In fact, that is one of the laws of logic. It's called the law of excluded middle. A truth claim, including any that the bible might make, is either true or it false given a specific context.


How do you know this?


You just used logic to write that nonsense. I'm not glorifying human thinking. On the contrary, I just got through telling you that there is no such thing as "human logic". It's a fabrication of theologians who want a way to keep their irrational doctrines by telling the mindless herd of human debris that cannot think for themselves that they aren't supposed to be able to understand it.

Then make the argument! Am I supposed to just be convinced because you don't like it? Am I supposed to react to your comparing what I've said to Calvinism and come running away from it because I can't stand to have anything make such a statement? I think you know already that suggesting that anything I say is Calvinistic is laughable in the extreme! Just who is it that you're trying to convince with such a ludicrous comment?

The bottom line is that this is a debate forum. We aren't here to agree with each other about every detail of our doctrine. What we are here for is to debate it. Debate requires arguments be made, not statements to be declared. If you're right and I'm wrong then great! Make the argument and I'll recant. Otherwise, I don't know you. I don't know anything about you education or your relationship with God or anything else. As such your personal opinions will have no effect on my doctrine and will not succeed in moving me an inch away from it. If you can make the argument then I'm quite literally happy to debate it all day long but I'd prefer that you keep your unsupported opinions to yourself.

Clete

All you displayed in that which I emphasized, Clete, is a major misunderstanding of the Bible. The Sabbath is moral because God says it is moral by including it in His moral law. Right there you find yourself in complete opposition to God's logic. Both Jesus and Paul tells us that our bodies are the temple of God and that God will destroy whoever destroys His temple.

John 2:19 Jesus answered and said unto them, Destroy this temple, and in three days I will raise it up.
20 Then said the Jews, Forty and six years was this temple in building, and wilt thou rear it up in three days?
21 But he spake of the temple of his body.

1Corinthians 6:18 Flee fornication. Every sin that a man doeth is without the body; but he that committeth fornication sinneth against his own body.
19 What? know ye not that your body is the temple of the Holy Ghost which is in you, which ye have of God, and ye are not your own?
20 For ye are bought with a price: therefore glorify God in your body, and in your spirit, which are God’s.

Read God's health laws. He gave them for a practical reason. For the health of the body, for the body is the temple of God and God will destroy anyone who destroys His temple, we are to take every precaution to keep our bodies in good health. The best way to do that is through what we eat. Nutrition is the greatest tool we have for keeping our bodies healthy, and repairing them.

1Corinthians 3:16 Know ye not that ye are the temple of God, and that the Spirit of God dwelleth in you?
17 If any man defile the temple of God, him shall God destroy; for the temple of God is holy, which temple ye are.

 

[Right Divider]

All you displayed in that which I emphasized, Clete, is a major misunderstanding of the Bible.

You're wrong.

The Sabbath is moral because God says it is moral by including it in His moral law.

Are you a sabbath keeper?

Right there you find yourself in complete opposition to God's logic.

Nope.

Both Jesus and Paul tells us that our bodies are the temple of God and that God will destroy whoever destroys His temple.

The passage that you quoted does not support your claim.