Is God Moral?

[VeritatisVerba]

I posted this essay in another thread and got a response that was disappointing, to say the least. I'm pretty sure the person didn't understand it. So, I decided that it would be good to give it it's own thread.

But, before you read the essay below, answer the poll. People might be surprised by the results! By the title of the essay, you can tell that my answer is "yes" but don't let that bias your answer. Just go with your gut and answer it the way you would if you were asked the question in some mundane context not associated with a Christian web forum and then read the essay and see if your position is modified at all (regardless of which answer you give to the poll which I intentionally made a binary choice). I'd also love it if you posted an explanation of your answer as well as any reaction you have to what I say in the essay.

Enjoy!

Our Moral God​

The question of God's morality might, to some, seem a ridiculous question. To some, the idea that God might not be moral is so ludicrous a thought that it would be downright blasphemous to even utter it aloud. After all, they say, if God is amoral (i.e. non-moral) then there can be no standard of right and wrong. But, to those who take such a position, it would come as quite a surprise to discover that there are at least as many, if not more, who think it an equally blasphemous thought to suggest that God is moral. After all, God is not subject to anyone or anything, including a moral standard - He is the standard! Right?

What is the source of such confusion? Well, there are many possible ways to answer that question, the most obvious of which has to do with the defining of terms and explaining in more detail what is meant when one says that God is, or is not, moral. But I don't believe that the problem can really be solved by a mere analysis of the semantics involved. This is not an issue of sophistry but rather it is a problem of philosophy. There is a more fundamentally philosophical issue involved here that I believe the vast majority of people on both sides of this issue do not understand nor do they even have any inkling of the issue's existence for that matter. The purpose of this short essay is to bring this issue to the attention of those on both sides of this issue and to explain how the God we serve is indeed moral but not because He follows or is subject to a set of rules nor because His nature defines morality, which is meaningless, but because God is rational.

In John chapter one we are taught not simply that Jesus is God, nor simply that God became a man, but that God the Son is the Logos of God. The New King James renders the passage this way...

John1:1 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.
6 There was a man sent from God, whose name was John. 7 This man came for a witness, to bear witness of the Light, that all through him might believe. 8 He was not that Light, but was sent to bear witness of that Light. 9 That was the true Light which gives light to every man coming into the world.
10 He was in the world, and the world was made through Him, and the world did not know Him. 11 He came to His own, and His own did not receive Him. 12 But as many as received Him, to them He gave the right to become children of God, to those who believe in His name: 13 who were born, not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God.
14 And the Word became flesh and dwelt among us, and we beheld His glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father, full of grace and truth.​

In this passage, everywhere you see the phrase, "the Word" the Greek word being used is "Logos". It is important to understand what this Greek word means because the use of "Word" as an English translation just does not convey what this passage is teaching. Logos conveys the idea of communication or more specifically, discourse and more specifically than that, rational discourse and/or rational argument. It is the word from which we get the suffix "-ology", as in Biology, Theology, Technology, Climatology, Cosmology, etc. Let's look at the word "biology". "Bio" means life and "ology" means to study. So, the study of living things is "Biology" and the processes in a living creature are said to be biological. Notice bio-LOGICAL. To apply logic to the processes in living things, and thus to understand them (i.e. to study them), is biology, it is the logos of life. This is the meaning conveyed by the word "Logos". It, like any other word, as a sphere of meaning that can vary depending on the specific context but this is the core meaning of the word in the Greek language.

So now, with this better understanding of the Greek, lets look at this passage again...

John 1:1 In the beginning was Logic, and Logic was with God, and Logic 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.
6 There was a man sent from God, whose name was John. 7 This man came for a witness, to bear witness of the Light, that all through him might believe. 8 He was not that Light, but was sent to bear witness of that Light. 9 That was the true Light which gives light to every man coming into the world.
10 He was in the world, and the world was made through Him, and the world did not know Him. 11 He came to His own, and His own did not receive Him. 12 But as many as received Him, to them He gave the right to become children of God, to those who believe in His name: 13 who were born, not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God.
14 And Logic became flesh and dwelt among us, and we beheld His glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father, full of grace and truth.​

Now, there are some who object to such a translation thinking it improper to equate the living God with some abstract concept such as logic. But it should be noted that those who make such an objection never object to God being equated with the abstract concept of "Word", nor are they typically capable of offering any explanation as to what exactly it means to say "the Word was God". In other words, people who object on the grounds of referring to God as an abstraction, typically have no real problem with abstractions so long as the abstraction being used makes no sense.
This is, however, quite a new idea to most of those reading this and so let me just cite a couple of others who have used and acknowledged the validity of such a translation. Not that doing so helps to prove anything other than that this teaching is not unique to, nor can it's genesis be attributed to me. Indeed, this idea is as old as Christianity. As evidence of both its veracity and its antiquity, I offer the following quotations, the likes of which there are many...

"...this translation––may not only sound strange to devout ears, it may even sound obnoxious and offensive. But the shock only measures the devout person's distance from the language and thought of the Greek New Testament. Why it is offensive to call Christ Logic, when it does not offend to call him a word, is hard to explain. But such is often the case. Even Augustine, because he insisted that God is truth, has been subjected to the anti–intellectualistic accusation of "reducing" God to a proposition. At any rate, the strong intellectualism of the word Logos is seen in its several possible translations: to wit, computation, (financial) accounts, esteem, proportion and (mathematical) ratio, explanation, theory or argument, principle or law, reason, formula, debate, narrative, speech, deliberation, discussion, oracle, sentence, and wisdom.
Any translation of John 1:1 that obscures this emphasis on mind or reason is a bad translation. And if anyone complains that the idea of ratio or debate obscures the personality of the second person of the Trinity, he should alter his concept of personality. In the beginning, then, was Logic." - Gordon H. Clark; Against The World. The Trinity Review, 1978-1988. [God And Logic, Gordon H. Clark, p. 52-56] John W. Robbins, Editor.

"For not only among the Greeks did reason (Logos) prevail to condemn these things through Socrates, but also among the Barbarians were they condemned by Reason (or the Word, the Logos) Himself, who took shape, and became man, and was called Jesus Christ;" Justin Martyr: The First Apology of Justin Chapter V

Logos n. < Gr, a word: see Logic 1 Gr. Philos. reason, thought of as constituting the controlling principle of the universe and as being manifested by speech 2 Christian Theol. the eternal thought or word of God, made incarnate in Jesus Christ: John 1 - Webster's Dictionary​

Okay, so what's the point? God is Logic, Logic is God - so what? Well, let's suppose someone, for whatever reason, rejects the Bible, Jesus Christ and the whole concept of God, a true atheist, attempts to think through the issues of life and does so in such a way so as to stay as true to the principles of logic and sound reason is he possibly can. If the Living God is Logic then what conclusions should this person come too? Should they not be at least very similar to the teachings which are found in Scripture? If such an atheist existed and made such an attempt to use reason to formulate his philosophy of life, would he not be using God to formulate it, even if by accident and in ignorance?

Now, bearing that in mind I want to look at John 1 again. This time just verse 4...

John 1:4 In Him was life, and the life was the light of men.​

I find it interesting that the issue of life is brought up in the context of the Logos of God. It interests me because if one were to attempt to contemplate a rational basis for morality, life would have to be a necessary starting point because it is only to the living that issues of morality apply or matter. Ayn Rand, just the sort of atheist to which I've been referring, put it this way...

"...the first question is "Does man need values at all—and why?" According to Rand, "it is only the concept of 'Life' that makes the concept of 'Value' possible," and, "the fact that a living entity is, determines what it ought to do." Rand writes: "there is only one fundamental alternative in the universe: existence or non-existence—and it pertains to a single class of entities: to living organisms. The existence of inanimate matter is unconditional, the existence of life is not: it depends on a specific course of action... It is only a living organism that faces a constant alternative: the issue of life or death..." The survival of the organism is the ultimate value to which all of the organism's activities are aimed, the end served by all of its lesser values." Ayn Rand (1964). The Virtue of Selfishness (paperback ed.). p. 13 & 18 New York: Signet.​

Rand also said...

"Man's mind is his basic tool of survival. Life is given to him, survival is not. His body is given to him, its sustenance is not. His mind is given to him, its content is not. To remain alive he must act and before he can act he must know the nature and purpose of his action. He cannot obtain his food without knowledge of food and of the way to obtain it. He cannot dig a ditch––or build a cyclotron––without a knowledge of his aim and the means to achieve it. To remain alive, he must think." Rand, Ayn (1992) [1957]. Atlas Shrugged (35th anniversary ed.). p. 1012 New York: Dutton​

Now, according to Rand, rationality is the primary virtue in ethics (i.e. morality). For rand ethics is...

"the recognition and acceptance of reason as one's only source of knowledge, one's only judge of values and one's only guide to action." Rand, Ayn (1964). The Virtue of Selfishness (paperback ed.). p. 25 New York: Signet.​

All of which, if God is Logic, is entirely consistent with the common Christian teaching that morality is derived from and defined by God's nature. Which, by the way, is not to say that Ayn Rand was a godly person, nor that her philosophical conclusions were all correct. On the contrary, her rejection of the existence of God led to a great many errors, some of which are disastrous and grievously wrong. But, nevertheless, to the degree she stayed true to reason, her conclusions remained close to the truth, which means, by definition, that they remained close to God and His truth as taught in the pages of Scripture.

Rand's quintessential statement on morality is this ...

"Since reason is man’s basic means of survival, that which is proper to the life of a rational being is the good; that which negates, opposes or destroys it is the evil." Ayn Rand: Atlas Shrugged​

Now, since we now know that God is Reason, what could an atheist say that would be any more in line with the teachings of Scripture than that!?

I submit that in fact there is nothing an atheist or anyone else could say that would be more in line with the teaching a Scripture and that, in fact, we can find the answer to the confusion surrounding the morality of God in the fact the God is Logic. Morality is not simply defined by God's character as many Christians suppose, but rather that which is moral is so because it is rational, which, if you are following the line of thinking in this essay properly, you'll understand is the equivalent of saying that what is moral is so because it is God like. To say that God is moral, is not to say that God has a list of rules that He must follow but simply that God is Life and that He is consistent with Himself and therefore acts in way which is proper to Life. Thus, to say that God is moral is to say that God is rational. An amoral (non-moral) God would be non-rational and therefore non-personal, non-relational, non-thinking, non-living, non-real!

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

Clete Pfeiffer
3/24/2012

 

[Handmaid for Jesus]

I don't think any human being can judge the morality of our Heavenly Father. Shucks we would not even know what morality was if our Father had not told us.

 

[Josheb]

Yeah..... No.


First, the appeal to what "most people" or "some people" think or believe is an appeal to the majority or an appeal to consensus and such appeals are always fallacious. This is an ironic condition given the subsequently occurring discussion about logic!. It is irrational, illogical to begin a conversation on logic with irrational, logically fallacious argument. This same condition exists with the opening sentence of the argument's comment about seeming "ridiculous question." Unwarranted or unevidenced labeling is logically called an appeal to ridicule. The artcile opens with an appeal to ridicule using the label ridiculous! It's not just fallacious, it's ironically fallacious.

Second, and here I will provide some affirmation lest the readers think me one-sided and unduly critical, it is true the word "word" is not an adequate alternative to the Greek "logos." However, "logic" is NOT a better alternative. Logos does not mean logic. The problem here has to do with the condition of language itself. Hebrew is a very idiomatic language. Greek is a less idiomatic language, but still idiomatic. English is a blunt language, not very idiomatic. This is why we have two schools of thought in Bible translation; the formal (word-for-word) approach and the dynamic (concept-for-concept) approach. There is always being more said in the manuscript languages than we read in our English Bibles. Most of it isn't wholly necessary for a basic understanding of salvation and Christian practice but it is the reason maturity requires deeper study.

So I affirm the statement "word" is not a very accurate translation of "logos," but I repudiate the attempt to replace "word" with "logic."

Third, the word "logos" is more holistic and encompassing. It not only has to do with reason but carries with it the larger connotations of plan or planning and knowledge and knowing and order, form, and meaning.





Most important, though - and this is foundational - the fundamental truth of scripture is that God and Christ pre-exist creation. This means we don't make attempts to understand the nature of God (capital "T" Theology), through post-sin post-creation conditions. That's like trying to understand soap with goggles made of fecal matter. God is moral. God doesn't just act morally. Even that sentence doesn't adequately communicate reality from God's position. This is because it is impossible for God to act immorally. the question moral, amoral or immoral simply does not exist in pre-creation.

Morality is a function of God having created creation!

It's like trying to view the concept of "time" from God's position in eternity. The word, the concept, our human experience of time is meaningless outside of the causal structures of creations. God is The Uncaused Cause! There is no "time" in eternity. Or think of the concept of direction. If we're floating in outer space and someone radios to us to head "north," or "turn west," or "head upwards," these are meaningless terms without some objective point of reference. Terms of direction have meaning on earth because there is an objective reference point (magnetic north, for example).

So to speak of God as moral is to necessarily imply some comparative alternative when none exists. There is no not-moral condition prior to God having created creation.

Remember, according to Genesis 1:31, everything God made was good. There was nothing not-good in creation. God created a good and sinless world. God created a good and sinless world full of unrealized potential. God created a good and sinless world full of unrealized dialectic potential. In other words, there was no bad by which good would be measured. There was no sin by which righteousness would or could be measured. For the finite Adam the good could be understood by way of contrast: anything that was not-good would be understood as such simply and solely because it was not good. The hyphen or lack of hyphen is critical in understanding this.

That ALL changed at Genesis 3:7. Through the disobedience of one man sin entered the world (Rom. 5). From that moment on the human ability to reference the objective moral reference poiint of "good" or "sinlessness" was lost. None of us understand what it is like to have ever lived a fraction of a nanosecond in an sinless unadulterated existence. We are all beginning from a point of corruption. We are all trying to understand the inherently moral God with goggles made of refuse.

So to address the (inherent, and inextricably inherent) moral nature of God we must first understand the human experience of right-and-wrong and trial-and-error are 1) bad tools for such measurements and 2) all we have. We have to try to imagine what a sinless existence might be like and that's always going to be speculative to one degree or another large or small.


Ultimately, the article has the cart before the horse: God is rational because He is righteous, not the other way around. Being moral is ontological and existential, not a function of His having reasoned out the matter and decided, "Okay, I think I'll be moral; I've decided to be a moral God." An amoral or immoral God is a contradiction in terms. God is moral because that is all a big-G omni-attributed God could be to use. Logically (irony intended) we understand this because we wouldn't even know of any big-G omni-attributed God's existence unless or until S/He/It revealed Her/Him/Itself to us. The finite does not know of the Infinite. It is like the amoeba having awareness of the elephant or Saturn. What knowledge the amoeba has of an elephant is only that which the elephant reveals of himself. We know of God (which is not the same thing as knowing God) only because 1) God has made Himself known, and 2) God has made us with the capacity to know the knowable.

As was reported in the op, any immoral god's disclosure couldn't be trusted or relied upon because it might be deceptive (a lie). So we wouldn't and couldn't know God was immoral without some means of objective measure. Because immorality contains both morality and immorality there is no objectivity possible.

So for any of this thing we call existence to exist there's only one logical possibility ontological moralness. It's not rational moralness. And it is therefore the morality that informs the rationale, not the other way around.

We don't come close to grasping any of this if we view the matter from the state of sinfulness living in a sinful world. We must start with some awareness of what it is like to exist sin-free never having ever been sinful; never having been imperfect, unrighteous, lawless, or faithless. This article the op references does not do that.


Clark, van Til, and Schaeffer expound upon this so Clark was a good place to start because of the presuppositional aspects of this subject. Rand? Not so much.

 

[VeritatisVerba]

I don't think any human being can judge the morality of our Heavenly Father. Shucks we would not even know what morality was if our Father had not told us.

I pretty sure that you're wrong about that!

Romans chapter one is all about how right and wrong can be known and even God Himself can be known (same thing) because of the creation itself. In other words, no special revelation is required.

Plus, totally atheistic philosophers who trully hate God and anything that has to do with Christianity have come up with systems of ethics that in most aspects are entirely consistent with what the bible actually teaches, as I alluded to in my essay.

 

[Handmaid for Jesus]

I pretty sure that you're wrong about that!

Romans chapter one is all about how right and wrong can be known and even God Himself can be known (same thing) because of the creation itself. In other words, no special revelation is required.

Plus, totally atheistic philosophers who trully hate God and anything that has to do with Christianity have come up with systems of ethics that in most aspects are entirely consistent with what the bible actually teaches, as I alluded to in my essay.

Man! I hate to break this to you. You and nobody living has ever had an original thought. Everything we know,we learned from somewhere or someone.

 

[VeritatisVerba]

So this post turned out to much longer than I expected! Please don't feel the need to respond to it all and while I've check a few things, I don't have time for a full proof read so please overlook any typos!

Thanks!

Yeah..... No.

First, the appeal to what "most people" or "some people" think or believe is an appeal to the majority or an appeal to consensus and such appeals are always fallacious.

The term for the fallacy is "argumentum ad populum" and I did not make any such argument.

This is an ironic condition given the subsequently occurring discussion about logic!. It is irrational, illogical to begin a conversation on logic with irrational, logically fallacious argument.

I agree that it would be but I didn't do that so...

In fact, I can't image what you could be referring too. The fact that I used a poll, perhaps? If so then you misunderstand the purpose of the poll. You'd be amazed how many people think that God is not moral; that morals only apply to mankind. The purpose of the poll is to see if there are any of those folks around here.

This same condition exists with the opening sentence of the argument's comment about seeming "ridiculous question." Unwarranted or unevidenced labeling is logically called an appeal to ridicule. The artcile opens with an appeal to ridicule using the label ridiculous! It's not just fallacious, it's ironically fallacious.

Nice! The problem for you is that I wasn't calling it ridiculous, I said..

"The question of God's morality might, to some, seem a ridiculous question."

And that is an entirely true statement! It's an observation that is entirely accurate and which was not used as a premise for a single argument I made.

Second, and here I will provide some affirmation lest the readers think me one-sided and unduly critical, it is true the word "word" is not an adequate alternative to the Greek "logos." However, "logic" is NOT a better alternative.

Saying it doesn't make it so. The translation I presented is my opinion and I sited several sources to back up it's validity.

Logos does not mean logic.

As stated this is true. The English word "logic" usually refers to the rules surrounding sound reason. The better English word for "logos" is "reason". But, words have a sphere of meaning and since the English 'logic' is nearly a transliteration of the Greek 'logos' along with the fact that in English the word 'logic' is often used as a synonym for 'reason', the use of 'logic' in the translation is both justified and far superior to "word".
This point along with several other excellent related points are discussed in some detail by Dr. Clark, whom I cited as a reference.

The problem here has to do with the condition of language itself. Hebrew is a very idiomatic language. Greek is a less idiomatic language, but still idiomatic. English is a blunt language, not very idiomatic. This is why we have two schools of thought in Bible translation; the formal (word-for-word) approach and the dynamic (concept-for-concept) approach. There is always being more said in the manuscript languages than we read in our English Bibles. Most of it isn't wholly necessary for a basic understanding of salvation and Christian practice but it is the reason maturity requires deeper study.

With all of this I completely agree.

So I affirm the statement "word" is not a very accurate translation of "logos," but I repudiate the attempt to replace "word" with "logic."

Well, you're certainly free to reject it if you want but your doing so doesn't mean it isn't valid.

Third, the word "logos" is more holistic and encompassing. It not only has to do with reason but carries with it the larger connotations of plan or planning and knowledge and knowing and order, form, and meaning.

All of which was acknowledged in my essay via direct quotes from Dr. Clark, Martyr and Webster

Most important, though - and this is foundational - the fundamental truth of scripture is that God and Christ pre-exist creation. This means we don't make attempts to understand the nature of God (capital "T" Theology), through post-sin post-creation conditions. That's like trying to understand soap with goggles made of fecal matter.

Why? Because you say so?

Was God any different before creation than He is now?

More importantly, this sort of objection defeats itself. You are saying something about the nature of God by telling us that we can't hope to understand the nature of God. If the nature of God is so unknowable then who told you that, how did you understand it and how did they know it in the first place?

Further, Romans chapter one tells us that we can know right from wrong and even the righteousness and power of the very Godhead itself by means of His creation and as such all are without excuse. (Romans 1:18-32)

Besides all of that, what have I said about the nature of God that isn't stated in the God's word itself anyway?

God is moral. God doesn't just act morally. Even that sentence doesn't adequately communicate reality from God's position. This is because it is impossible for God to act immorally. the question moral, amoral or immoral simply does not exist in pre-creation.

So exactly one sentence after you tell me that you can't know anything about the nature of God you state flatly that God is moral.

What was it you were saying about irrational arguments, again?

Morality is a function of God having created creation!

Ooh! Bold letters! This is probably really really true!

Forgive the sarcasm. This bolded comment just reminds me of when a pastor is preaching something that is questionable at best and he writes himself a note in the margins of his sermon notes that reads, "Pound pulpit here - biblical material is weak - then ask for an "Amen!""

In short, saying it doesn't make it so. Just think that comment through a moment. It implies that God was amoral before creation. Is that really what you believe?

It's like trying to view the concept of "time" from God's position in eternity. The word, the concept, our human experience of time is meaningless outside of the causal structures of creations. God is The Uncaused Cause! There is no "time" in eternity. Or think of the concept of direction. If we're floating in outer space and someone radios to us to head "north," or "turn west," or "head upwards," these are meaningless terms without some objective point of reference. Terms of direction have meaning on earth because there is an objective reference point (magnetic north, for example).

"God's position in eternity" is a false concept that is not in the bible. The bible never talks about God being outside of time nor is there any mention of Him creating it. And that's a good thing too because it would falsify the bible if it did. The very concept is self-contradictory and cannot be true.

Time, like distance or direction, are just concepts, not ontological things. They are ideas and like distance and direction, which you rightly point out are meaningless without a point of reference, time is also meaningless without a point of reference. Time is a convention of language used to convey information about the duration and sequence of events. That's all it is! There is no way to exist outside of it because there is no "it" to exist outside of. Not only that but even the idea of existence outside of time is a stolen concept fallacy because the concept of existence presupposes duration and duration is all time is.

If you believe that God exists outside of time you have Augustine to thank for it (primarily) who imported all sort of pagan Greek philosophical ideas about the nature of God into Christianity.

So to speak of God as moral is to necessarily imply some comparative alternative when none exists. There is no not-moral condition prior to God having created creation.

Again this implies that God became moral when He created the universe and was amoral before that.

This is false for obvious reasons, not the least of which is that God's character does not change but also because you've fail to even provide evidence that your supposition might be true, never mind proved it. In other words, to speak of God as moral doesn't imply some comparative alternative just because you say it does. Why would a comparative alternative be necessarily implied? God has either always acted in manner that is rationally consistent with life or He hasn't. And not only that but we have the testimony of all three members of the Trinity as well as the word of God that each has treated the other in a consistently righteous, loving manner.

Remember, according to Genesis 1:31, everything God made was good. There was nothing not-good in creation. God created a good and sinless world. God created a good and sinless world full of unrealized potential. God created a good and sinless world full of unrealized dialectic potential. In other words, there was no bad by which good would be measured. There was no sin by which righteousness would or could be measured. For the finite Adam the good could be understood by way of contrast: anything that was not-good would be understood as such simply and solely because it was not good. The hyphen or lack of hyphen is critical in understanding this.

So if this convoluted line of thinking is correct then by what measure was it called good to begin with?
Good is not dependent on evil nor does it derive it's meaning from evil. You've flipped it all upside down and made evil the foundation of the good or at the very least its equal.

That ALL changed at Genesis 3:7.

Through the disobedience of one man sin entered the world (Rom. 5).

Well, if we want to be picky, Satan was in the garden and Eve has already sinned, so maybe Genesis 3:1 (Perhaps that's what you meant to type anyway.)

From that moment on the human ability to reference the objective moral reference poiint of "good" or "sinlessness" was lost. None of us understand what it is like to have ever lived a fraction of a nanosecond in an sinless unadulterated existence. We are all beginning from a point of corruption. We are all trying to understand the inherently moral God with goggles made of refuse.

This is just such an overstatement! At least in the context of what we're talking about.
First there's Romans 1 which I've already pointed out contradicts this idea but even without that, if what you are saying were true then there'd be no way for us to know anything about God at all. I mean, if you really believe this then by what means to do say that God is good?

So to address the (inherent, and inextricably inherent) moral nature of God we must first understand the human experience of right-and-wrong and trial-and-error are 1) bad tools for such measurements and 2) all we have. We have to try to imagine what a sinless existence might be like and that's always going to be speculative to one degree or another large or small.

Not only Romans 1 but also the existence of a great many moral codes that parallel biblical teaching to one degree or another testify against your proposition. People are not so blind as you'd like for us to believe.

Ultimately, the article has the cart before the horse: God is rational because He is righteous, not the other way around.

What?

This sentence flies directly in the face of everything you've been saying up to this point!

In addition to that, the point of the essay, among other things, is that being rational and being moral is the same thing! It's the premise of life that's the key! If God is life and He is consistent then He will be both rational and moral at the same time and for the same reason. It's all saying the essentially the same thing.

Being moral is ontological and existential, not a function of His having reasoned out the matter and decided, "Okay, I think I'll be moral; I've decided to be a moral God."

I did not suggest otherwise. If you think I did, you misunderstood.

An amoral or immoral God is a contradiction in terms. God is moral because that is all a big-G omni-attributed God could be to use.

Why?

That question is serious as a heart attack. You won't be able to answer it in any meaningful way. It will amount to, "God is good because we say so." Go ahead and try it. You'll just be the latest in a long line that stretches back at least 3000 years.

Logically (irony intended) we understand this because we wouldn't even know of any big-G omni-attributed God's existence unless or until S/He/It revealed Her/Him/Itself to us.

You mean like the creation does as God states explicitly in Romans 1?

Do you know what general revelation is?

The finite does not know of the Infinite.

How do you know that?

That question is rhetorical. It answers itself. The point being that if your claim were true you'd not be able to know it. It's a self-defeating thing to say.

It is like the amoeba having awareness of the elephant or Saturn. What knowledge the amoeba has of an elephant is only that which the elephant reveals of himself. We know of God (which is not the same thing as knowing God) only because 1) God has made Himself known, and 2) God has made us with the capacity to know the knowable.

That capacity has a name, its called reason.

And, by the way, God only knows the knowable too! That's sort of what it means to be knowable.

As was reported in the op, any immoral god's disclosure couldn't be trusted or relied upon because it might be deceptive (a lie). So we wouldn't and couldn't know God was immoral without some means of objective measure. Because immorality contains both morality and immorality there is no objectivity possible.

My essay proves otherwise (or at the very least makes strong arguments), your claim to the contrary doesn't count as a rebuttal.

So for any of this thing we call existence to exist there's only one logical possibility ontological moralness. It's not rational moralness. And it is therefore the morality that informs the rationale, not the other way around.

This made no sense whatsoever.

There can be no concept that precedes reason, by definition.

We don't come close to grasping any of this if we view the matter from the state of sinfulness living in a sinful world. We must start with some awareness of what it is like to exist sin-free never having ever been sinful; never having been imperfect, unrighteous, lawless, or faithless. This article the op references does not do that.

Because it is not relevant!

Do we accept that God is good or don't we? When we say that God is righteous do we say something meaningful or do we spout a meaningless tautology? If the former and not the latter then by what means of not sound reason?

Clark, van Til, and Schaeffer expound upon this so Clark was a good place to start because of the presuppositional aspects of this subject. Rand? Not so much.

What is that, your opinion? Was Rand so bad an example because you say so? Do you even know anything about Rand other than what you've read about her in my essay? Of the things I quoted from her, what of it doesn't follow logically from my premise? In what way does a syllable of it depart from what the bible itself says is good or evil?

Nothing! That's what! And that was the entire point of even quoting her in the first place. I wasn't using her as any sort of authority. I simply point out what sort of moral code one comes up with when you use sound reason and the premise of life as your starting point and how similar it happens to be to biblical morality because the bible uses the same method (sound reason) and the same premise (life).

Clete

 

[VeritatisVerba]

Man! I hate to break this to you. You and nobody living has ever had an original thought. Everything we know,we learned from somewhere or someone.

That is both false and not responsive to what I said. I can't even figure out how it's even relevant to what I said.

 

[Josheb]

So this post turned out to much longer than I expected! Please don't feel the need to respond to it all and while I've check a few things, I don't have time for a full proof read so please overlook any typos!

Thanks!


The term for the fallacy is "argumentum ad populum" and I did not make any such argument.

Yes, I know and understand the formal Latin terminology. Whether you made it or the author of the original article made it the appeals to what others do or do not believe, think, and/or know is in fact an argumentum ad populum and as such should be discarded from this conversation. What others may or may not do is irrelevant to the veracity of the position asserted. And you'll either affirm that truth or go on record saying what others believe is relevant and commit to the appeal to the populace. This conversation will work either way for me. Win-Win. For you only one of those two choices wins for the discussion and effort to prove this op.

So let's get that matter out of the way right here and now.

 

[Josheb]

I agree that it would be but I didn't do that so...

Are you responsible and accountable for all that you post or not? If you reference another party then aren't you responsible for having done so, whether you do in agreement or dissent?

Let's get this matter decided before we proceed.

 

[Josheb]

Gotta go. I'll attend to the rest of your response when I get a few minutes.

 

[JAL]

Yes God is moral but, as for the translation of the The Word as "The Logic":

So now, with this better understanding of the Greek, lets look at this passage again...

John 1:1 In the beginning was Logic, and Logic was with God, and Logic was God.
​

Horrible translation. The passage is clearly ontological, it refers to the very substance (and presumably Personhood) of God, such that this "Word became flesh" (verse 14). I'm a materialist, and The Word in my view refers to the (material) divine substance constituting Father, Son, and The Holy Breath/Wind. Thus for example God speaks a command, thereby exhaling the divine Word from His mouth, to go forth and fulfill the command - the whole point of Isaiah 55:11. The noted evangelical commentary Keil and Delitzsh remarked that Isaiah 55:11 clearly denotes a substance released from God's mouth to perform the miracle, after which it returns to Him.

The divine Word often appears in the form of a physical metamorphosing Fire. Therefore a faint parallel for this Word-concept was a Greek philosopher by the name of Heraclitus, a materialist who defined the The Word (Logos) as Fire. In this view, The Word is the base material substance out out of which all material things have been formed/shaped. Thus Heraclitus had in mind intelligent, reasoning, conscious matter. Unfortunately Heraclitus was a pantheist - but at least, in the materialistic aspect, he captured the OT and NT sense of The Word (divine Fire) better than that citation of the opening post. As Daniel recorded:

"As I looked, thrones were set in place, and the Ancient of Days took his seat. His clothing was as white as snow; the hair of his head was white like wool. His throne was flaming with fire, and its wheels were all ablaze. 10A river of fire was flowing, coming out from before him"(Daniel 7)​

 

[1213]

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

Yes, it depends on what definition one uses for “moral”. I think moral is not very good word, because for different people it can have different meanings. That is why I don’t like to use the word. And I personally would rather say, God is righteous, God is truthful, God is love… And personally, I think God is good in every way, but I understand that those who hate God, could have a different opinion.

 

[VeritatisVerba]

Yes, I know and understand the formal Latin terminology. Whether you made it or the author of the original article made it the appeals to what others do or do not believe, think, and/or know is in fact an argumentum ad populum and as such should be discarded from this conversation. What others may or may not do is irrelevant to the veracity of the position asserted. And you'll either affirm that truth or go on record saying what others believe is relevant and commit to the appeal to the populace. This conversation will work either way for me. Win-Win. For you only one of those two choices wins for the discussion and effort to prove this op.

So let's get that matter out of the way right here and now.

I wrote the entire thing myself. I'm pretty familiar with it. There is no such argument. If you think there is then point it out specifically. Quote it directly.

 

[VeritatisVerba]

Yes God is moral but, as for the translation of the The Word as "The Logic":

Horrible translation. The passage is clearly ontological, it refers to the very substance (and presumably Personhood) of God, such that this "Word became flesh" (verse 14). I'm a materialist, and The Word in my view refers to the (material) divine substance constituting Father, Son, and The Holy Breath/Wind. Thus for example God speaks a command, thereby exhaling the divine Word from His mouth, to go forth and fulfill the command - the whole point of Isaiah 55:11. The noted evangelical commentary Keil and Delitzsh remarked that Isaiah 55:11 clearly denotes a substance released from God's mouth to perform the miracle, after which it returns to Him.

The divine Word often appears in the form of a physical metamorphosing Fire. Therefore a faint parallel for this Word-concept was a Greek philosopher by the name of Heraclitus, a materialist who defined the The Word (Logos) as Fire. In this view, The Word is the base material substance out out of which all material things have been formed/shaped. Thus Heraclitus had in mind intelligent, reasoning, conscious matter. Unfortunately Heraclitus was a pantheist - but at least, in the materialistic aspect, he captured the OT and NT sense of The Word (divine Fire) better than that citation of the opening post. As Daniel recorded:

"As I looked, thrones were set in place, and the Ancient of Days took his seat. His clothing was as white as snow; the hair of his head was white like wool. His throne was flaming with fire, and its wheels were all ablaze. 10A river of fire was flowing, coming out from before him"(Daniel 7)​

This is weird, unsubstantiated and unnecessary convolution of Christian doctrine (if indeed it is Christian doctrine), almost none of which is responsive to the opening post at all. You answered the poll question, which primarily serves as bait to catch people's attention in the hopes that they'll read the essay and you declared the translation of Logos as 'logic', which I fully substantiated, as "a horrible translation", to which I respond...

Saying it doesn't make it so!

You seem like a pretty intelligent guy. Rather than finding convoluted ways to interject your pet doctrinal ideas that only you believe into any and all discussions, if you'd care to actually make a coherent rebuttal argument to any single point I've made in the opening post, my bet is that we could have a substantive two way conversation which edifies us both even if neither is persuaded of anything. In other words, while I'm very much interested in reading and responding to actual arguments, I really couldn't care less about your personal opinions. If you think 'logic' is a "horrible translation" then that's great, tell me why its a bad translation. And "Because I'm a materialist." doesn't count as the sort of argument that anyone means by "sound reason" or a "coherent rebuttal". In fact, "I'm a materialist." rings in my ears as "I'm an atheist." which really puts a giant damper on your credibility when discussing anything having to do with God or Christianity.

Clete

 

[Josheb]

The question of God's morality might, to some, seem a ridiculous question."

And that is an entirely true statement! It's an observation that is entirely accurate and which was not used as a premise for a single argument I made.

Perhpas, but 1) there's no evidence of that supposed fact and 2) it is irrelevant and superfluous to the point being attempted.

Saying it doesn't make it so. The translation I presented is my opinion and I sited several sources to back up it's validity.

Oh, the irony. You cited several sources but no evidence. Saying something doesn't make it so. Furthermore, the veracity of those claims isn't being questioned, the logical relevant is what is being questioned. All those baseless (non-evidenced) statements do absolutely nothing to support the case we should substitute the word "logos" with the word "logic" and understand what is being said in the preamble of God is something to the effect of "the logic of God became flesh."

Well, you're certainly free to reject it if you want but your doing so doesn't mean it isn't valid.

(grins)

Non sequitur. My freedom has nothing to do with topic of discussion.
Straw man: It isn't my freed that makes the dissent valid; it is the evidence of fallacy that makes the dissent valid.

With all of this I completely agree.

Then all the rest of this nonsense would never have been posted.

Why? Because you say so?

No.... because scripture says so!

And if you do not understand God exists external to that which He created you're not qualified to discuss your own op!
If you don't understand the finit limitations of the created relevant to the lack thereof in regard to the infinite pre-existing Creator then, again, you are not qualified to discuss your own op.
If you deny the effects of sin that further compromise the already finite limits of humanity then you're not qualified to discus your own op.
If you deny or do not sufficiently understand God's word then you are not qualified to disuss your own op and should put yourself in a position to learn from God's word and not make this about posters or their opinions.
If you don't understand what I posted came directly out of scripture then you're not qualified to discuss your own op.
If you do not understand the basics of logic and logical reasoning then you are not qualified to discuss your own op.

I gave you scripture and a scripture-based rationale and you did not see it for what it was and incorrectly imagined it mere opinion. Fail.

That fleshly and rhetorical question was a Fail. I am happy to walk with you through the scriptures and the rationale supporting my dissent and the specifics of what you incorrectly imagine is my "say so." I assumed you'd understand because you supposedly have read both scripture and Clark. Apparently I was incorrect about that.

 

[Josheb]

Was God any different before creation than He is now?

No, God is immutable and concepts like "before" and "after" are not applicable to God. The question is also off-topic. This discussion is about the moralness of God and the veracity of replacing the word "logos" with the word "reason."

More importantly, this sort of objection defeats itself. You are saying something about the nature of God by telling us that we can't hope to understand the nature of God. If the nature of God is so unknowable then who told you that, how did you understand it and how did they know it in the first place?

Straw man. What I said was we could not understand the nature of God if He does not reveal Himself and make Himself knowable. Unles you have the ability to see beyond creation then you cannot see God if He hasn't revealed Himself. The facts of scripture are that God has in fact revealed Himself and He has made creatures with the ability to know the knowable and He has revealed Himself in several ways in creation (the moral design, the complexity of design, the written law, the person of Christ, the Spirit, etc.) and I am happy to discuss any and all of this.... once you demonstrate you have some ability to acknowledge the many errors in this op and the tolerate the right and just replacing of those errors with fact and truth as God in His word has revealed them, not based on my opinion but based upon what is stated plainly, clearly or objectively logically inferrable in His word.

Further, Romans chapter one tells us that we can know...

Yes, and the reason it says we can know is because God has revealed Himself.


You just proved my case and defeated your dissent.

Romans 1:18-19
"For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men who suppress the truth in unrighteousness, because that which is known about God is evident within them; for God made it evident to them."​

the book of Romans is a revelation by, to, and for those who know God, not just know about God. I Romans 1:18-19 God reveals the fact God has revealed Himself even to those who deny His existence.



Now, are you ready to settle down and discuss the problems in this op? If so then either start with a comment or inquiry pertaining to something I actually posted in my op reply.

 

[VeritatisVerba]

Yes, it depends on what definition one uses for “moral”. I think moral is not very good word, because for different people it can have different meanings.

What word doesn't have that problem?

That is why I don’t like to use the word. And I personally would rather say, God is righteous, God is truthful, God is love… And personally, I think God is good in every way, but I understand that those who hate God, could have a different opinion.

Okay, well, there's two things that are wrong with this statement.

First, to be righteous, truthful, loving, etc is what it means to be moral. It would a terrible condition to be in if one was forced to have to list all the things that are moral every time you wanted to discuss the topic! That's why there are words like "moral" that we can use to reference an entire category of things rather than have to list them all out. If you're worried about being misunderstood by using the word "moral" then why doesn't the same worry occur to you about the use of the word "righteous" or "love"? Not everyone thinks those words mean the same thing, either!
Thus, the solution to being misunderstood in any rational discourse is not to avoid the use of perfectly good words but rather to define terms when or if such confusion is detected.

Secondly, whether God is righteous, truthful or loving is not a matter of opinion. If one's "opinion" is that God is unrighteous, that "opinion" is no more valid than if they held the opinion that ears were for smelling or that they we see through telescopes with our tongues. It wouldn't even count as an opinion, it's just stupidity.
In other words, you should avoid dropping facts down to the level of opinions because any moron can say something stupid and call it his "opinion" and you if start by rendering fact as opinions, you've lost any debate before it gets off the ground.

 

[VeritatisVerba]

Perhpas, but 1) there's no evidence of that supposed fact and 2) it is irrelevant and superfluous to the point being attempted.

Why? Because you say so?

Are you denying that SOME MIGHT think that it's a ridiculous question?
If so, on what basis? If not, then how it is an innacurate thing to say?

And just what point do you think was "being attempted" by my having introduced my essay with a perfectly obvious observation besides it being just that, an introductory observation about how some might react to the question even being asked?

Oh, the irony. You cited several sources but no evidence. Saying something doesn't make it so.

Look man, I do not respond well to hypocricy or lies.

One single more sentence like this coming from the man who hasn't substantiated a single syllable of one solitary objection he's presented, will very suddenly end the discussion.

In fact, never mind.

Welcome to my ignore list. Don't waste your time responding to anything I ever say again. I won't read it.

 

[Josheb]

This is weird, unsubstantiated and unnecessary convolution of Christian doctrine (if indeed it is Christian doctrine), almost none of which is responsive to the opening post at all.

The evidence says otherwise and you should be cautious about such baseless accusations because they are easily disproved.

You seem like a pretty intelligent guy.

You do not. The posts are filled with bon sequiturs (like comments about others' seeming level of intelligence that have absolutely nothing to do with the op), logical fallacies, self-acknowledged "bait," factual errors, a dearth of scripture, and evidence the tools of reason, exegesis, and the simple ability to stay relevant to the point being asserted is replete.

...if you'd care to actually make a coherent rebuttal argument to any single point I've made in the opening post, my bet is that we could have a substantive two way conversation which edifies us both even if neither is persuaded of anything.

Again, the evidence indicates otherwise.

The evidence shows there are at least two places, maybe three, where we have complete agreement: the incorrectness of "logic" as a replacement for "logos," and the immutable nature of God.

But you've wasted a lot of space complaining off-topically, incorrectly, and baselessly. None of that is on me. I bring it to your attention so you'll stop, not so you'll do more of it. I do it as bait to see how well you tolerate correction because I won't collaborate with posters who don't, won't, and can't take responsibility for their own content. We'll end up endless digressing over every point of disagreement and/or error.

So realize something very fundamental here, Clete: This is your op! The onus is first and foremost upon you, not others, to stay relevant to your own op, and to make the case for it. That s not on anyone else. Just you.

And you're not doing a very good job so far.

So log, not speck. You could disprove everything I post but that would not mean the op is correct.



I suggest you reiterate your thesis. A single sentence clearly and concisely (re-)stating the answer to the question, "Is God moral?" because all of us answer that question in the affirmative.

And then stick to that.

 

[Josheb]

Okay, well, there's two things that are wrong with this statement.

First, to be righteous, truthful, loving, etc is what it means to be moral.

No, that's the cart before the horse. God is moral because He is righteous, not the other way around. The other poster and I can point to clearly stated scripture plainly, explicitly stating God is righteous but there is no scripture stating "God is moral." Furthermore there is a distinction between character and conduct, nature and the behavior that nature begets, ontology and action. The answer to the questions asked by this op, "Is God moral?" necessarily discriminates these conditions and attributes.

And you ought to pay attention to this because several posters here are telling you this and you are not giving credence to any of it.