Does Almightiness confer Moral Uprightness?

[alexandriaisburning]

Then who or what did?

I don't think there is an objective, independently existing standard.

 

[Jezmeyah]

I am not attempting to excuse it. I am attempting to refute it. The examples provided were negative specifically for the purpose of refuting the claim that creatorship grants the creator full rights to do as he pleases.

Concerning unrighteous fallible examples, then I'd agree that Frankenstein was not using good morals concerning the person he created.
If you are intending to use immoral examples to argue the immorality of immoral people having the right to be immoral, then I'd object to that also.

But on the other hand, if you're not talking about that, but about God and His rights.. I don't see Frankenstein as an equal comparative to God and His righteous infallibility in using good morals concerning what and who He created.

The question was asked in Genesis 18:25, "Will not the Judge of all the earth do what is right?" Does not God have the righteousness to deal with immoral people (from a higher more perfect sense of righteousness) than the courts of law that deal judiciously with criminals?
Such an argument comes from Rm.3:4-6 "Let God be true and every man a liar. As it is written: “So that You may be justified in Your words, and prevail in Your judgments.” But if our unrighteousness highlights the righteousness of God, what shall we say? That God is unjust to inflict His wrath on us? I am speaking in human terms. By no means! In that case, how could God judge the world?".

God is not unjust when He makes judgements upon immoral people. In that, He does as He pleases according to His inerrant righteousness.

 

[Vicomte13]

This conversation cannot be had unless you first define the meaning of the word "morality".
For good measure, distinguish it from "ethics".
One cannot discuss the morality of almightiness unless one decides what "morality" means.

Without defining it beforehand, "morality" means "what I think is right and wrong". In which case God's almightiness establishes morality, from God's perspective - and given the solipsism of the human comparing God's morality to "objective" morality (i.e.: his own), one cannot go any further.

Only when one has decided what morality IS does the discussion have meaning.

 

[Deadworm]

The OP misstates a standard problem in ethics expressed by this question: Is a course of action that affects human pain, suffering, and hardship right because God decrees it such, or does God decree it such because it is right? The 2nd alternative is meaningless because it implies a standard apart from God, in which case God would not be God. But the first alternative is also problematic.

Suppose evolution were our only window into God's ethical nature. Then might and survivability would be right, but weakness and poor adaptation would be wrong and would be selected out of existence. On this reckoning, God would not be compassionate towards weak and disadvantaged humans, and so, God would be unethical by human standards. But that is just the point: the question, does God act because it is right. presumes a human standard against which His conduct is measured; and ethics depends on ultimate accountability. Since humans cannot hold God accountable, except by their own standards, morality on this understanding would be arbitrary and meaningless.

But what about the Christian God of love? On that model, God's actions can be evaluated on the basis of how well they fit His loving nature. However, any such assessment depends on a precise definition of divine love and the purposes it pursues, and we lack the ability to define "love" with sufficient precision to make such judgments. For example, we can establish neither a working definition of "divine omnipotence" nor how actively God micro-manages the chaos created by the laws of the universe. How, then, should we think about God morally? We give meaning to God's alleged love by celebrating His gracious acts in behalf of humans and His responsiveness to our faith and prayers. But we lack the information to meet this challenge. Therefore, the philosophical problem of the ethics of God's use of power cannot adequately be addressed.

 

[Vicomte13]

But we lack the information to meet this challenge. Therefore, the philosophical problem of the ethics of God's use of power cannot adequately be addressed.

In an absolute sense, that is likely so. But we don't have to treat things absolutely. We can define them for our purposes, and then use that standard as the yardstick by which we measure.

Indeed, Jesus tells us that we will, in fact, be judged by just such a relative scale. He said "You will be measured by the measure by which you measure." Those who are not demanding and judgmental in their measurements, will not be measured harshly by God. Those who are exacting and demanding, will be measured by that harsh and exacting standard (and will probably fail to measure up to it - Jesus regularly recommended mercy, because he know the hearts of men, how weak and hypocritical we are, and would save us from ourselves).

 

[Received]

Power is amoral; it needs a direction to earn a moral valuation. Worshiping God because he's all-powerful either means you have a hidden primary motivation for worshiping him (e.g., so he won't throw you into hell), or because you have sort of inferiority complex and really like displays of power.

 

[Received]

The OP misstates a standard problem in ethics expressed by this question: Is a course of action that affects human pain, suffering, and hardship right because God decrees it such, or does God decree it such because it is right? The 2nd alternative is meaningless because it implies a standard apart from God, in which case God would not be God. But the first alternative is also problematic.

God might make decrees according to his own nature, which isn't therefore outside him. The alternative is by definition the idea that God makes choices with no criteria or standard at all, which is the definition of an arbitrary, and therefore meaningless, choice. It also makes things meaningless in a second way: if good is what God does, then saying God is good means God is what he does. This makes any mention of calling God "good" meaningless and redundant. Therefore, goodness reflects an essence.

Suppose evolution were our only window into God's ethical nature. Then might and survivability would be right, but weakness and poor adaptation would be wrong and would be selected out of existence. On this reckoning, God would not be compassionate towards weak and disadvantaged humans, and so, God would be unethical by human standards. But that is just the point: the question, does God act because it is right. presumes a human standard against which His conduct is measured; and ethics depends on ultimate accountability. Since humans cannot hold God accountable, except by their own standards, morality on this understanding would be arbitrary and meaningless.

There's no reason our human standard can't have its roots in a divine standard. Consider the morphology of the term conscience: "knowledge with," i.e., knowledge with God. It might be oldschool, but the idea is totally palpable that God shares his standard of goodness with us. Actually, if our standards don't line up with God's at all, then we're blameless for any actions that we do, seeing how we can't evaluate them according to any standard. So even if the standard is made purely by revelation, we can know right from wrong and measure God according to his own standard, especially if he is defined as such, and he is: God's nature is defined only in one place in scripture, which is love (1 John 4:8). Love is given the highest value, is considered the end of the law, and is even defined according to 1 Corinthians 13.

But what about the Christian God of love? On that model, God's actions can be evaluated on the basis of how well they fit His loving nature. However, any such assessment depends on a precise definition of divine love and the purposes it pursues, and we lack the ability to define "love" with sufficient precision to make such judgments. For example, we can establish neither a working definition of "divine omnipotence" nor how actively God micro-manages the chaos created by the laws of the universe. How, then, should we think about God morally? We give meaning to God's alleged love by celebrating His gracious acts in behalf of humans and His responsiveness to our faith and prayers. But we lack the information to meet this challenge. Therefore, the philosophical problem of the ethics of God's use of power cannot adequately be addressed.

Love is will-to-good, or benevolence. The good is that which is the completion or end of something. Sometimes we need revelation to know what a complete idea of something is, but many times we don't because it's intuitive.

 

[Vicomte13]

Power is amoral; it needs a direction to earn a moral valuation. Worshiping God because he's all-powerful either means you have a hidden primary motivation for worshiping him (e.g., so he won't throw you into hell), or because you have sort of inferiority complex and really like displays of power.

Having a motive does not preclude admiration. I pay taxes to the government because if I don't they'll put me in jail. That does not mean that I hate the government. It's true: if taxes were voluntary, I would not pay them. It is indeed the threat of force that causes me to pay the taxes. But just because I pony up the cash to keep the government running out of fear of punishment does not mean that I am a North Korean trapped in a system I despise and bludgeoned around by force.
Not at all. I rather like my country, and I don't hate the government. I don't love it enough to pay for it, but I did like it enough to be willing to fight for it, to risk myself over it - as long as I got a paycheck. I would not have served for free. That doesn't mean I was a mercenary either.

There is a place between love and hate. Things are not so binary.

The universe is, and God - whether sentient or insentient blind laws of Nature - made it and runs it. And that's pretty cool to contemplate regardless of the actual nature of God.

 

[Vicomte13]

Sometimes we need revelation to know what a complete idea of something is, but many times we don't because it's intuitive.

And perhaps intuition IS revelation. Perhaps that is the "natural" mechanism of most revelation.

 

[Radrook]

Concerning unrighteous fallible examples, then I'd agree that Frankenstein was not using good morals concerning the person he created.
If you are intending to use immoral examples to argue the immorality of immoral people having the right to be immoral, then I'd object to that also.

But on the other hand, if you're not talking about that, but about God and His rights.. I don't see Frankenstein as an equal comparative to God and His righteous infallibility in using good morals concerning what and who He created.

The question was asked in Genesis 18:25, "Will not the Judge of all the earth do what is right?" Does not God have the righteousness to deal with immoral people (from a higher more perfect sense of righteousness) than the courts of law that deal judiciously with criminals?
Such an argument comes from Rm.3:4-6 "Let God be true and every man a liar. As it is written: “So that You may be justified in Your words, and prevail in Your judgments.” But if our unrighteousness highlights the righteousness of God, what shall we say? That God is unjust to inflict His wrath on us? I am speaking in human terms. By no means! In that case, how could God judge the world?".

God is not unjust when He makes judgements upon immoral people. In that, He does as He pleases according to His inerrant righteousness.

That you suggest that I might be arguing for the right of immoral people to be immoral shows that you have not read or else have read but have totally misunderstood my post.

I have absolutely no doubt that God does what is right. That is why I am convinced that he doesn't send people to be roasted alive forever. So I guess we have different concepts of what is moral in terms of punishment.

BTW
There was this mother in NY who placed her daughter alive in an oven and when the girl's father heard what she had done he fainted.

 

[tickingclocker]

This thread is based on the following controversy which arose on another and which I feel deserves a thread all its own. Does being almighty grant the almighty moral righteousness? Is might right in such a cases simply because it is might? I disagree. Below is how the discussion went.




How does almightiness confer being right all the time no matter what on the one possessing almightiness? If indeed that were true, then it would be conceivable to have an almighty being who does use ECT and to view him as holy regardless simply because he is almighty. Please notice that in the series, Star Trek the New Generation, the Q, which are beings who possess almightiness, are not necessarily right all the time by virtue of that almightiness. Indeed they are very often depicted as morally fallible as is illustrated by one particularly obnoxious member.

In another episode, another being who was also described as almighty was discovered dwelling in isolation on a desolated world. This almighty being was continually plagued by an extremely bad conscience for having lost his temper under provocation and permanently annihilating a whole species of reasoning, albeit evil creatures.

Under no circumstances is almightiness assumed to confer moral infallibility.
Under no imagined scenario is it assumed that one is automatically righteous simply by virtue of being almighty. It just doesn't logically follow. The premise is seriously flawed.

You cannot separate out God's attributes from the others, then manipulate it at will or even criticize them individually. That's not how it works. All His attributes work in perfect harmony, all at once in perfect holiness, displaying perfect truth. God IS truth. Therefore, how can you, a mere fallible human, generate any "progress report" on God when it comes to your assessment of Him? It would be like the rocks you thoughtlessly kick aside making an assessment that humans cannot be who they are.

.... let God be true but every man a liar.... (Rom 3:4) Sage advice you can count upon.

We all understand its hard to envision God as HE IS by a divine view... with a limited fallible human mind. Humans will never be divine, not even in heaven, so even with the Holy Spirit's help He still is confronted by the fact that He must interpret the unfathomable through sinful, damaged equipment. Us. Still, it counts toward faith for us to try.

http://www.theopedia.com/list-of-gods-known-attributes

 

[Radrook]

You cannot separate out God's attributes from the others, then manipulate it at will or even criticize them individually. That's not how it works. All His attributes work in perfect harmony, all at once in perfect holiness, displaying perfect truth. God IS truth. Therefore, how can you, a mere fallible human, generate any "progress report" on God when it comes to your assessment of Him? It would be like the rocks you thoughtlessly kick aside making an assessment that humans cannot be who they are.

.... let God be true but every man a liar.... (Rom 3:4) Sage advice you can count upon.

We all understand its hard to envision God as HE IS by a divine view... with a limited fallible human mind. Humans will never be divine, not even in heaven, so even with the Holy Spirit's help He still is confronted by the fact that He must interpret the unfathomable through sinful, damaged equipment. Us. Still, it counts toward faith for us to try.

http://www.theopedia.com/list-of-gods-known-attributes

The title of GOD does not place the holder above criticism if criticism is warranted.
You are using a false premise. Claims of righteousness are cheap. If the righteousness claims contradict the evidence then we are justified in reaching the conclusion that something is seriously amiss.

Your argument sounds like the pre Enlightenment, despotic Monarch claim that the will of the king was the will of God and therefore the king could do no wrong. So people approved of all kinds of atrocities based on that assumption until that pernicious assumption was trashed and human rights which classified cruel and unusual punishments as immoral were finally instituted.

 

[Jezmeyah]

That you suggest that I might be arguing for the right of immoral people to be immoral shows that you have not read or else have read but have totally misunderstood my post.

I don't think that you are arguing for the right of immoral people to be immoral. Respectfully, you are mistaken in what I posted if you thought that I said that you were.

I have absolutely no doubt that God does what is right. That is why I am convinced that he doesn't send people to be roasted alive forever. So I guess we have different concepts of what is moral in terms of punishment.

Since people who die in sin are not sent to hell in their flesh bodies, then how can anyone have the idea that they are roasted alive? Or perhaps you are simply using a common expression usually used when speaking of food, to say that they are roasted.

BTW There was this mother in NY who placed her daughter alive in an oven and when the girl's father heard what she had done he fainted.

That is tragic and deeply sorrowful for me to even read. Of course you have no idea how reading of such a horrible thing can effect others.

I from one angle can see that my reaction is exactly what you intend to stir up. But I wonder that you strive too far and end up in emotionally traumatizing others on some level. Such traumatizing is to me something near to immoral torture. But, perhaps I'm overstating it in order to impact your thinking.

I can understand that you want to appeal to a person's sense of outrage in what any immoral person is capable of doing to another. But, those outraging, traumatizing examples are still those of an immoral person doing it, whereas God is not immoral in punishing the unrepentant who by sin rebel against God, and do horrible things to their victims.

If their punishment was not something of painful in some way, then that to me, diminishes the great love, mercy and grace that God demonstrated in giving His only begotten Son to die and be punished in the place of every sinner who ever lived.

Does that read that I am justifying their due punishment? If you think so then I can figure that you consider your horrible examples to justify your reason for using them if it convinces anyone to shun the eternal punishment in hell theology.

Maybe if you used a different method to argue your position? but as it is, I cannot take up your position, nor be among your side of the issue when there's you using your method to attempt to sway those of us e.p.t'rs.

The following is the basic e.p.t. so stop reading here if you prefer.

It's safe to say that most know that Hell is horrible, and Hell is eternal. The phrase is used by sinners toward anyone they don't like or are angry at, to 'go to hell', and I dare say that the idea of the person being tortured in hell satisfies them to no end.

But the love of God does not rejoice at iniquity.

Hell is a horrible place because it's appropriate for the rebellious demons, and those who are influenced by them to be rebellious and, to do evil. It is a place that is totally void of God's goodness which makes it an appropriate place for those to go who don't believe that God exists. See guys and gals?.. Hell is what you get when there is no good and loving effect of God there.

The horrors of hell are not for the purpose to outrage the decent people and therefore come up with a theology that is more comfortable to one's conscience.

The horrors of hell are to move us Christians to pray fervently for sinners to be saved. For them to accept the message of redemption and not reject it.

The horrors of hell are for the purpose to warn, to wake up the hardened in sin, and unrepentantly rebellious people, so that they realize that God so loved them that He sent Jesus there to buy redemption then offer it to them so that they can realize God's goodness and love, and make the choice to accept what Jesus did for them, and thereby rejoice to no end that they do not go there.

Whether to wake up the hardened in sin, rebellious people, or to incarcerate them there along with satan and all demons.. Hell serves it's purpose either way.

If any have read this far, I declare that this ends my participation in this thread. Mostly because I doubt that I can post more of the same as what I've stated here. I'm just not that voluminous of vocabulary to achieve it. So, there is now one less poster for you to reply to, or ignore.

We'll just agree to disagree.

 

[fhansen]

This thread is based on the following controversy which arose on another and which I feel deserves a thread all its own. Does being almighty grant the almighty moral righteousness? Is might right in such a cases simply because it is might? I disagree. Below is how the discussion went.




How does almightiness confer being right all the time no matter what on the one possessing almightiness? If indeed that were true, then it would be conceivable to have an almighty being who does use ECT and to view him as holy regardless simply because he is almighty. Please notice that in the series, Star Trek the New Generation, the Q, which are beings who possess almightiness, are not necessarily right all the time by virtue of that almightiness. Indeed they are very often depicted as morally fallible as is illustrated by one particularly obnoxious member.

In another episode, another being who was also described as almighty was discovered dwelling in isolation on a desolated world. This almighty being was continually plagued by an extremely bad conscience for having lost his temper under provocation and permanently annihilating a whole species of reasoning, albeit evil creatures.

Under no circumstances is almightiness assumed to confer moral infallibility.
Under no imagined scenario is it assumed that one is automatically righteous simply by virtue of being almighty. It just doesn't logically follow. The premise is seriously flawed.

As others may have contributed, love is what confers-or implies-righteousness. God always knows and does and demands what is right simply because God is love. 1 John 4:8 Hell is the persistent and adamant choice to not align ourselves with that love-to reject and exist apart from it. God could just force all humanity to do the right thing, from the beginning, but instead He allowed men to go their own way, falling into sin, and later when the time was ripe He demonstrated what true love consists of when He, Himself, allowed sinful man to hang Him on a cross rather than force obedience. He seeks to draw us into His love, and away from the attraction to sin that opposes it. But it's our choice in the end.

 

[VanillaSunflowers]

As others may have contributed, love is what confers-or implies-righteousness. God always knows and does and demands what is right simply because God is love. 1 John 4:8 Hell is the persistent and adamant choice to not align ourselves with that love-to reject and exist apart from it.

If we arrive at the question of any of God's attributes wouldn't we have to identify what is meant by the title of, God?
Before we confer upon that one bearing the title attributes we comprehend through our own lesser mortal consciousness that is not God?

 

[fhansen]

If we arrive at the question of any of God's attributes wouldn't we have to identify what is meant by the title of, God?
Before we confer upon that one bearing the title attributes we comprehend through our own lesser mortal consciousness that is not God?

We cannot approach full understanding of God, not even close. Any deep understanding we do have of Him-the "knowledge of God" which Jesus came to reveal, more than mere intellectual knowledge or knowledge about Him-is a gift.

As He demonstrates His love, by grace, we learn of that love, and by accepting and responding back to Him we grow in it, again by grace, grace leading unto grace. "We love because He first loved us." 1 John 4:19 So, only with His help, comprehension of His nature is increasingly obtained, as we participate in it. In the end, in the next life, we will fully know as we are fully known. ref 1 Cor 13:12

 

[Thir7ySev3n]

That is exactly the argument that those who are proposing the ECT argument use.
God is right in using ECT because if he uses it can't be wrong because he is the one who sets the standard for what is right or wrong. Since you agree with that premise, of course you cannot argue against their claim because you will be countered by the very argument you support.. It reminds me of a dental tech place worked in once where the tech who had been assigned to supervise my articulations which involved using plaster o Paris to set up the artificial stone models for false teeth set up would always find flaw with my work. Finally, after approx. six months of pompously pontificating he smilingly revealed this:

"It isn't right until I say it's right!"

In other words he shifted standards as he went along and was always right within those standards.
Which means that you couldn't really say he was wrong since his standards kept shifting.
To me that sounds like cunning gobbledygook.

Clearly there are things that we as humans who have been made in God's image have been psychologically hardwired to find inherently repulsive. To say that God can and does pronounce such things acceptable and that when he does we should acquiesce because he is God and is therefore always right goes completely contrary to all logical reasoning..

So I guess we disagree on that point.

There is, in fact, a comprehensive answer to this question that should satisfy anyone genuinely seeking an understanding and a certainty of the goodness of God. I have established a scripturally sound cumulative argument that approaches the question with three logically successive points:

1. The human capacity to apprehend objective moral values and duties.
2. The Providence of God in creating the world which would produce the greatest potential good, and,
3. The incarnation and life, death and resurrection of Christ.

Presumably, from your Faith selected, you are a Christian, so I will omit my third point in this argument which I developed for non-Christians to demonstrate the personal involvement and relatability of God with our suffering (though Christ's incarnation, life, death and resurrection do have a significant role in demonstrating the goodness of God and His absolute and comprehensive moral nature, as follows from the reconciliation and satisfaction of His justice and mercy through His Son, who is our justification and our mercy). Thus, I will also skip the question of competing claims to ostensible sources for morality and answer how we may know specifically that God has revealed Himself truthfully to us as perfect in moral knowledge, character and authority. Pay very close attention to the logic of the following points and their order in this case, designated by numbers that correspond to the first two above listed:
----------
(1.) Since God created us, the universe that surrounds us and everything extrinsic to Himself, everything in all existence derives it's being from God in its entirety. This includes the entity inside of our flesh we call the brain, which was created to be our fleshly device by which we process our thoughts, emotions and the world around us in our mental interactions with it. This brain in which we contain all of our cognitive capacities and functions was provided by God all of its abilities, not only in its range of apprehensions of truths but also in its ability to apprehend categories of truth.

What I mean by ranges of apprehension is our brains capacity to be used to process information at certain speeds, the amount of information our brain can hold simultaneously, how efficient our thought processes are, how much access we have to our subconscious, etc.; our quantitative abilities. What I mean by categories of apprehension is what we can apprehend to exist at all, which we can extend the range of our capacities through to apprehend knowledge about such matters. To provide an example, the range of our cognitive capacities concerning moral truths would be applied to discriminating between events and actions to determine the moral quality of those events and actions; our cognitive capacity of categorical apprehension of truth in this instance would be the ability to understand that their even is a moral realm to apprehend at all.

Thus, if God wanted to deceive us, being the designer of our cognitive functions and capacities in their entirety, He would not even have to try. All God would have to do to deceive humankind is provide them cognitive capacities so limited that they would be absolutely unable to apprehend His deception if He were to flaunt His malevolent motives before their eyes all day long. So what you have to ask yourself is this: If God wanted to deceive me, why would He provide me the cognitive ability to discriminate between truth and falsehood with such accuracy that I would be able to discover His deception? The truth is, doubt exists for only two reasons: Ignorance and free agency. Either we are simply lacking in knowledge and unable to understand why God is abundantly worthy of our absolute trust, or we simply choose to deny Him and His testimony. This decision or ignorant response of doubt never results from rational investigation.
In summary, God is the author of the same cognitive functions that we must use to doubt Him or impose our perspectives onto His creative decree (how we think things ought to be), wholly by the use of the tools provided by His decree of our minds. When you consider this, it should occur to you that there is literally no more of an absurd use of our minds than to use them against the one who constituted them, to doubt what He has revealed of Himself or the perfection of His will.
----------
It could then be asked, "Why, then, would God create a world that is pervaded by so much evil?" To address this potential confusion if it arises from the first point, we would then demonstrate the providence of God in creating a world of free moral agents from the plethora of options available to Him.
----------
(2.) In creating a universe that would accommodate truly free moral agents, God would have an infinite number of options available to Him with an equally infinite amount of possible outcomes. From what we know about the nature of God, He would naturally choose to create the world which would produce the greatest possible outcome. What is the greatest possible outcome? There is none other than that world which provides the circumstances which leads the largest number of souls to freely accept the grace of God through the salvation provided in Jesus Christ. From what we know about God's nature, particularly that God is omnibenevolent, omniscient and omnipotent, this can be deductively inferred as follows:

1. Because God is omnibenevolent, He would be desire to create the world which would produce the greatest potential good
2. Because God is omniscient, He would know which world would produce the greatest potential good
3. Because God is omnipotent, He would be able to create the world which would produce the greatest potential good

Therefore the world in which we exist is that which would produce the great potential good. To repeat, this greatest good is the largest number of souls that would freely surrender themselves to God and receive His grace.
To repeat, God would have had a literally infinite number of options present of worlds to create with an equally infinite number of outcomes. By His perfect nature, however, God would not create a world at random in which His will to create concurrently free and absolutely loved creatures was not accomplished. So God would have to narrow His options to feasible worlds which accommodate creaturely freedom and yet lovingly provides the circumstances that permits each person who would freely choose God to do so. Knowing God, once He had narrowed the options to the assortment of great results, He would naturally choose the greatest of these possible outcomes. This is not to say God is predestining our decisions, but the creation of the world which would provide the social, environmental and personal circumstances that are necessary for each individual, in their own times and places as God foreknew, to interact with each other, their environment and God in a way that corresponds to their psychology/personality, ultimately and inevitably leading to the salvation of those who would freely respond affirmatively to God's grace in whatever circumstance they find themselves. In this sense, then, God can literally be said to have elected those who are saved, though their choices as well as those who reject God are entirely free.

As is stated in Acts 17, God placed us within our context because He knew that if given that context we would freely choose to accept Him by the testimony and in-dwelling of the Holy Spirit. It could then be rightly asked "well then could God have not provided a precise set of circumstances that would be those which are necessary to win the soul of every person?", and the answer would be no. For some people, there is no such set of circumstances that would be sufficient for them to freely receive the salvation of Christ by the Holy Spirit's testimony. This is affirmed doubly in the Scriptures. First, in Daniel 12:10 concerning the course through to the end times Jesus says: "Many will be purified, made spotless and refined, but the wicked will continue to be wicked. None of the wicked will understand, but those who are wise will understand." Again, concerning God's providence Paul says in Romans 9:22: "What if God, although choosing to show his wrath and make his power known, bore with great patience the objects of his wrath—prepared for destruction?"

It may also seem confusing to think that God has among His human creation "objects of wrath" which He prepares for destruction, until you comprehend these points and Scriptures collectively. There are some souls which God would create that will freely reject Him under any and all circumstances, but are still necessary in the grand scheme of world history to play a role in drawing all those who will be freely saved into that salvation. God Himself illustrates this wonderfully in His statement to Pharaoh in Exodus 9:15-16: "For by now I could have stretched out my hand and struck you and your people with a plague that would have wiped you off the earth. But I have raised you up for this very purpose, that I might show you my power and that my name might be proclaimed in all the earth."

See Acts 17:26-27, Genesis 50:20, Jeremiah 25:8-14 and Judges 14:4 for more Scriptural examples on the providence of God and how it works.

 

[Deadworm]

Received: "God might make decrees according to his own nature, which isn't therefore outside him."

Your point in no way advances the discussion; it is simply a different way of claiming that moral decisions are right because God says so; or, the decisions coincide with God's nature. No difference!

"The alternative is by definition the idea that God makes choices with no criteria or standard at all, which is the definition of an arbitrary, and therefore meaningless, choice."

Precisely my point. But if we project our human standard of love onto God's criterion, then if our projection has the good fortune of being consistent with His nature, we have a grounding for our morality. So epistemologically morality winds up being an anthrophmorphic projection. Conversely, if God were merely the God of evolution--the God who degrees that might and adaptability are right, we would reject the notion of morality in any sense of the term.

 

[Received]

Received: "God might make decrees according to his own nature, which isn't therefore outside him."

Your point in no way advances the discussion; it is simply a different way of claiming that moral decisions are right because God says so; or, the decisions coincide with God's nature. No difference!

I disagree. God actualizes his own choices, but he doesn't actualize his own nature, so the two aren't the same.

"The alternative is by definition the idea that God makes choices with no criteria or standard at all, which is the definition of an arbitrary, and therefore meaningless, choice."

Precisely my point. But if we project our human standard of love onto God's criterion, then if our projection has the good fortunate of being consistent with His nature, we have a grounding for our morality. So epistemologically morality winds up being an anthrophmorphic projection. Conversely, if God were merely the God of evolution--the God who degrees that might and adaptability are right, we would reject the notion of morality in any sense of the term.

I don't follow how your third sentence follows from the second. Morality can indeed reflect the relative "mores" of a society, but there's no reason to think that some root of morality is founded in God, even if the society doesn't acknowledge it as such -- and is free to wither from this root depending on the health of the society.

 

[Deadworm]

Received: "I disagree. God actualizes his own choices, but he doesn't actualize his own nature, so the two aren't the same."

Bogus distinction, since God's will and hence God's choices are expressions of His nature, which in turn can only be known from an understanding of His will and choices.


"I don't follow how your third sentence follows from the second. Morality can indeed reflect the relative "mores" of a society, but there's no reason to think that some root of morality is founded in God, even if the society doesn't acknowledge it as such."

Ethics 101 begins with the impossibility of deriving an "ought" from "what is." Assume that evolution accurately reflects the morality of the universe. Then the Creator could be linked to the principle that might and adaptability is right in the sense that it determines who is and is not rewarded with survival of their genes. In that case, most people would assume that God is simply amoral, not that His morality differs from ours. That is because the only sense in which we can claim that God is moral is by projecting our own values (e. g. selfless love) onto God and hoping that our projection actually reflects God's nature and hence God's value system. But, of course, we cannot know whether our projection is true; we must accept its truth by faith. But if we are wrong, then morality is meaningless.
Precisely my point. But if we project our human standard of love onto God's criterion, then if our projection has the good fortune of being consistent with His nature, we have a grounding for our morality. So epistemologically morality winds up being an anthropmorphic projection. Conversely, if God were merely the God of evolution--the God who degrees that might and adaptability are right, we would reject the notion of morality in any sense of the term.