Does God operate at a lower standard of morality/ethics than he requires of us?

[SabbathBlessings]

Do you use the definition of "God’s government" from Armstrongism?
(former Church of God, WCOG and RCOG - Herbert W. Armstrong)

I’m not familiar with him or his teachings so I couldn’t answer what his definition of God’s government is, my preference is scripture.

The earthy sanctuary was modeled after God’s heavenly sanctuary where He dwells. Hebrews 8:5. Hebrews 9:24

 

[Clare73]

But doesn't this make God out to be a tyrant?
This is the double standard that I have been talking about.

Shouldn't we expect a MORE godly character from God than even he expects from us?
One can answer, "No, we shouldn't.", which is what the quoted post seems to indicate.
Or would it be best to rethink it in that light?

Understanding of the sovereignty of God is sorely lacking here.

You've placed yourself on equal footing with him, equating your standards to his.

 

[Clare73]

Sorry for the delay @Saint Steven, I'm not really finding it useful to put a question into a comment without the ability to reply outwith the post - otherwise we could get into a debate within a post.
Thanks to @Rajni I've got a little workaround for replying to both our comments outwith the post, although it's not practical for daily use. I feel the option to quote comments would be helpful. @public hermit has already raised the issue in the New Upgrade Feedback forum.

I am unable to respond to your post in the comment section. . .what a mess!

 

[David's Harp]

But doesn't this make God out to be a tyrant?
This is the double standard that I have been talking about.

Shouldn't we expect a MORE godly character from God than even he expects from us?
One can answer, "No, we shouldn't.", which is what the quoted post seems to indicate.
Or would it be best to rethink it in that light?

Understanding of the sovereignty of God is sorely lacking here.

You've placed yourself on equal footing with him, equating your standards to his.

I've been trying to find the words in response to Steven's post Clare. You've put it into words much more simply and succinctly than I could have. I just want to add in this:
Isaiah 55:8-9 KJV — For my thoughts are not your thoughts, neither are your ways my ways, saith the LORD. For as the heavens are higher than the earth, so are my ways higher than your ways, and my thoughts than your thoughts.

 

[Saint Steven]

I've been trying to find the words in response to Steven's post Clare. You've put it into words much more simply and succinctly than I could have. I just want to add in this:
Isaiah 55:8-9 KJV — For my thoughts are not your thoughts, neither are your ways my ways, saith the LORD. For as the heavens are higher than the earth, so are my ways higher than your ways, and my thoughts than your thoughts.

No idea what Claire wrote, but...
I'm familiar with your argument, thanks.
Here's the problem...

God gave us a conscience to know right and wrong intuitively.
To claim that God's ways are higher than our ways in reference to things that we know are wrong,
is not having ways higher than our ways. It's a lower standard.

Romans 2:14-16 NIV
(Indeed, when Gentiles, who do not have the law, do by nature things required by the law, they are a law for themselves, even though they do not have the law. 15 They show that the requirements of the law are written on their hearts, their consciences also bearing witness, and their thoughts sometimes accusing them and at other times even defending them.) 16 This will take place on the day when God judges people’s secrets through Jesus Christ, as my gospel declares.

 

[Clare73]

No idea what Claire wrote, but...
I'm familiar with your argument, thanks.
Here's the problem...

But as Clare points out, you aren't familiar with the sovereignty of God. . .and that's the problem.

 

[David's Harp]

God gave us a conscience to know right and wrong intuitively.
To claim that God's ways are higher than our ways in reference to things that we know are wrong,
is not having ways higher than our ways. It's a lower standard.

I agree with what you're saying, but I would say this pertains to what happens here, and how we live our life in this worldly domain. When it comes to the deeper things of God - such as we're discussing - then we can only rely on the Word and Spirit to guide us. I don't think one's conscience can be equated with God's ultimate wisdom. For me, the clue is in Isaiah 55:9 "as the heavens are higher than the earth".

 

[Saint Steven]

I agree with what you're saying, but I would say this pertains to what happens here, and how we live our life in this worldly domain. When it comes to the deeper things of God - such as we're discussing - then we can only rely on the Word and Spirit to guide us. I don't think one's conscience can be equated with God's ultimate wisdom. For me, the clue is in Isaiah 55:9 "as the heavens are higher than the earth".

I'm basing my analysis on what we are being told will happen. If that is false, as I believe it is, then I agree with you 100 percent.

So, in reality my objection is to what is claimed. I'm trying to wake people up to the problem with the common belief.
I don't have a problem with God. I have a problem with the monster god that the common belief creates.

Saint Steven said:
God gave us a conscience to know right and wrong intuitively.
To claim that God's ways are higher than our ways in reference to things that we know are wrong,
is not having ways higher than our ways. It's a lower standard.

 

[Fervent]

So, in reality my objection is to what is claimed. I'm trying to wake people up to the problem with the common belief.
I don't have a problem with God. I have a problem with the monster god that the common belief creates.

Setting aside the propriety of the beliefs in question, how have you arrived at the god that your beliefs have created? Through what God has chosen to reveal about Himself without editorializing away large swaths of material, or through cobbling together a picture of how God must act and then dismissing material that challenges that view?

 

[Servus]

Do you use the definition of "God’s government" from Armstrongism?
(former Church of God, WCOG and RCOG - Herbert W. Armstrong)

There's some distinct similarities between Armstrongism and Sda.

 

[David's Harp]

I'm basing my analysis on what we are being told will happen. If that is false, as I believe it is, then I agree with you 100 percent.

So, in reality my objection is to what is claimed. I'm trying to wake people up to the problem with the common belief.
I don't have a problem with God. I have a problem with the monster god that the common belief creates.

Saint Steven said:
God gave us a conscience to know right and wrong intuitively.
To claim that God's ways are higher than our ways in reference to things that we know are wrong,
is not having ways higher than our ways. It's a lower standard.

Steven, I've read quite a few posts of yours now and one thing I've noticed you've mentioned quite a few times is the aspect of the fire of hell. Is this the problem?
Or are you okay with a God who lets some be tormented for an 'age', rather than an eternity?

 

[Servus]

But as Clare points out, you aren't familiar with the sovereignty of God. . .and that's the problem.

Does the sovereignty of God mean that he's done or will do whatever some say he's done or will do because he can?

 

[bling]

The obvious answer is no.
But I suppose that depends on who you ask.

Of course, it would be unusual for someone to state it as bluntly as I have, but the inference is epidemic. IMHO

My favorite example is what Jesus taught us about godly behavior toward our enemies. See Matthew 5:43-48 below.
If we are required to love our enemies, why would God incinerate his enemies? Sounds like a double standard.
And worse than that, a lower standard for God. Which puts pagans and tax collectors (traitors) at a higher level.
That can't be right.

Does God operate at a lower standard of morality/ethics than he requires of us?

Matthew 5:43-48 NIV
“You have heard that it was said, ‘Love your neighbor and hate your enemy.’ 44 But I tell you, love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you, 45 that you may be children of your Father in heaven. He causes his sun to rise on the evil and the good, and sends rain on the righteous and the unrighteous. 46 If you love those who love you, what reward will you get? Are not even the tax collectors doing that? 47 And if you greet only your own people, what are you doing more than others? Do not even pagans do that? 48 Be perfect, therefore, as your heavenly Father is perfect.

God Loves even those He destroys, so the question is then: “How does this work?”

The only ones God destroys (hell and annihilates) are those who refuse His Love for them to the point they would never accept that Love of their own free will.

God does not send to hell and annihilate anyone to help them (He has already done all He can for them), God is annihilating these, to help others to go on and humbly accept His Love as pure undeserved charity. Some people like myself need the threat of hell knowing God will go through with His threat to both understand the significance of my sins and to move quickly in accepting His charitable forgiveness as pure undeserved charity.

Sending people to annihilation does allow some “good” to come from their existence, it just does not help those being annihilated. There is heaven and hell with annihilation (second death) and really no other place talked about in scripture, so what would this nonexistent place look like where refusers of God’s Love could exist in to obtain Godly type Love?

This messed up world appears to be the very best place for willing individuals to fulfill their earthly objective.

 

[Clare73]

Does the sovereignty of God mean that he's done or will do whatever some say he's done or will do because he can?

Sovereignty is about doing what he wills and chooses to do because he has the absolute right to do so.

 

[Halbhh]

The obvious answer is no.
But I suppose that depends on who you ask.

Of course, it would be unusual for someone to state it as bluntly as I have, but the inference is epidemic. IMHO

My favorite example is what Jesus taught us about godly behavior toward our enemies. See Matthew 5:43-48 below.
If we are required to love our enemies, why would God incinerate his enemies? Sounds like a double standard.
And worse than that, a lower standard for God. Which puts pagans and tax collectors (traitors) at a higher level.
That can't be right.

Does God operate at a lower standard of morality/ethics than he requires of us?

Matthew 5:43-48 NIV
“You have heard that it was said, ‘Love your neighbor and hate your enemy.’ 44 But I tell you, love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you, 45 that you may be children of your Father in heaven. He causes his sun to rise on the evil and the good, and sends rain on the righteous and the unrighteous. 46 If you love those who love you, what reward will you get? Are not even the tax collectors doing that? 47 And if you greet only your own people, what are you doing more than others? Do not even pagans do that? 48 Be perfect, therefore, as your heavenly Father is perfect.

It would not be love to allow those unrepentant in harming others (those in 'unrepentant sin') into heaven, where they would continue to harm others (as they don't even want to change for the better...).

When individuals reject the only possible good way for people to live together in peace and bliss -- with love/forgiveness/mercy/kindness -- then having rejected God (since "God is Love"), the only possible good eternal outcome for that refusal to live in love with others is they be mercifully allowed to cease existing, when they 'perish' in the 'second death' which 'destroys body and soul'.

 

[Servus]

Sovereignty is about doing what he wills and chooses to do because he has the absolute right to do so.

Right, it's about what God wills. But not all of us agree on what God wills, do we? Some believe the scriptures tell us that God wills for all mankind to have free will in choosing salvation. While others believe the scriptures tell us God wills that only the predestined elect be saved. Some believe the scriptures tell us God wills that all shall be saved. While others believe the scriptures tell us God wills everyone except the elect to suffer eternal torment.

 

[Servus]

Setting aside the propriety of the beliefs in question, how have you arrived at the god that your beliefs have created? Through what God has chosen to reveal about Himself without editorializing away large swaths of material, or through cobbling together a picture of how God must act and then dismissing material that challenges that view?

This strikes me as being like what I pointed out before when it comes to opposing a doctrine. The holder of the opposed doctrine is routinely accused of eisegesis, not rightly dividing the word, rewriting the bible and so on. And or of ignoring scripture. It's one of those "if only I had a dollar every time" things imho.

 

[Clare73]

Right, it's about what God wills. But not all of us agree on what God wills, do we? Some believe the scriptures tell us that God wills for all mankind to have free will in choosing salvation. While others believe the scriptures tell us God wills that only the predestined elect be saved. Some believe the scriptures tell us God wills that all shall be saved. While others believe the scriptures tell us God wills everyone except the elect to suffer eternal torment.

And?

The Scriptures state both.

Dt 29:29 can reconcile them.

 

[Fervent]

This strikes me as being like what I pointed out before when it comes to opposing a doctrine. The holder of the opposed doctrine is routinely accused of eisegesis, not rightly dividing the word, rewriting the bible and so on. And or of ignoring scripture. It's one of those "if only I had a dollar every time" things imho.

My pointed question is not based on his conclusions, it is from twisting like:

Thanks for joining the discussion.

You may be onto something here, but the basis is wrought with theological problems.

Based on what we know about God's character attributes from the rest of the Bible, the statements made about him in the Flood account are more narrative than informative.

For instance, we know that God is omniscient, so how could he be surprised and saddened by how things turned out before the Flood? As if he had no prior knowledge that it would happen? Or that his planning was flawed to the point of scrapping the whole idea? And then in order to "correct' the problem, engaged in global genocide as the solution? Wow. Like I said, wrought with theological problems.

Does that make sense?

I would like to hear more from you on this. Could you address the topic title question more directly? Thanks.

This is clear editorializing to minimize the flood account, as it assumes the flood is out of character rather than part of the data set in establishing what God's character is.

So as I repeatedly have said, my objection is not to universalism but the repeated abuses I see by self-proclaimed universalists.

 

[Servus]

And?

The Scriptures state both.

Dt 29:29 can reconcile them.

Non responsive.