Motivation in Morality

[Mark Quayle]

Are you suggesting that God is required to do unjust things to us, in this life, so that we can have a better one in the future?

That's asinine

God is not EVER required to cause harm in order to achieve a greater good!

God never does unjust things, nor is he required to do ANYTHING.

God is not EVER required to cause harm in order to achieve a greater good!

Not that you are ready to accept this, but in the end, it is not harm, to those to whom he shows mercy. In comparison, it is like a vapor, gone, dissolved.

Ridiculous

To claim that a so-called 'crime' against God is infinite because God, Himself, is infinite is no different than claiming that one who transgresses against God must be omnipotent because God, Himself, is omnipotent

I've heard that one before too, like, maybe even yesterday. If you can demonstrate that logic, I'll be happy to listen.

Your answers keep showing your anchor in this mortal, temporal existence, and not on the Creator. You value according to your conscience, or even less, according to your reasoning, and not according to objective fact.

*And let's not forget that dying without having placed one's faith in Jesus Christ is NOT even an actual crime to begin with!

That is correct. That is not the crime.

Is it?

There is only ONE sin that God cannot / will not forgive and that is the 'sin' of not recognizing and glorifying Him

Who made that up?

 

[Treeplanter]

God never does unjust things, nor is he required to do ANYTHING.

God sends people to Hell for eternity for the 'crime' of dying without faith in Jesus Christ
Not only is this unjust - this is evil

Not that you are ready to accept this, but in the end, it is not harm, to those to whom he shows mercy. In comparison, it is like a vapor, gone, dissolved.

Are you saying that God should not be held accountable for His unjust treatment of some because He treats certain others justly?

I've heard that one before too, like, maybe even yesterday. If you can demonstrate that logic, I'll be happy to listen.

It's YOUR logic - not mine!

Crimes against God are no more infinite because He is infinite than the perpetrators of crimes against God are omnipotent because He is omnipotent

Your answers keep showing your anchor in this mortal, temporal existence, and not on the Creator.

100% true!

My anchor is in this world and my ultimate trust is in myself {my conscience and my reasoning}

Who made that up?

Christianity 101

Genuinely repent of your sins and remove ultimate trust from self to Christ = Heaven
Failure to do so = Hell

 

[Mark Quayle]

God sends people to Hell for eternity for the 'crime' of dying without faith in Jesus Christ
Not only is this unjust - this is evil

Not only is it unjust and evil —it is bogus. That is not why God sends people to hell.

I just finished telling you that is not the crime; according to Scriptures, the wages of sin is death. Not the wages of dying without faith.

Are you saying that God should not be held accountable for His unjust treatment of some because He treats certain others justly?

Of course not. I'm saying he treats nobody unjustly. It might be interesting to see you try to hold him accountable, though, for anything at all!

He treats us all justly. Except for some who deserve what Christ took in our place. Justice is: we all die, infinite death, payment for our sin.

It's YOUR logic - not mine!

Crimes against God are no more infinite because He is infinite than the perpetrators of crimes against God are omnipotent because He is omnipotent

You already said that. Repeating it doesn't buttress your position. You are displaying some really loose logic, more poetic than intellectually rigorous. And, no, it was your logic —not mine.

One breaking the law in one regard, has broken the whole law. That doesn't mean a child envying another's toy will pay a payment equal to that of an adult murderer, but it means his sin is sin against God. Almighty God. It is a matter of who the sin is against, not a matter of the magnitude of the deed in and of itself, nor of the sinner.

100% true!

My anchor is in this world and my ultimate trust is in myself {my conscience and my reasoning}

Well, at least that is honest enough.

Christianity 101

Genuinely repent of your sins and remove ultimate trust from self to Christ = Heaven
Failure to do so = Hell

That isn't Bible 101.

 

[Ken-1122]

And I stand by my exact words!

Like I said, most every human being is in full agreement as to what is ultimately beneficial / moral

So popularity determines what is right? And when what is popular today changes tomorrow, morality changes tomorrow as well? No it doesn't work that way.

 

[Treeplanter]

So popularity determines what is right? And when what is popular today changes tomorrow, morality changes tomorrow as well? No it doesn't work that way.

No, popularity does NOT determine what is right
Nor did I ever say that it did!

What I said is this:

1. What is right is that which refrains from the conscious and purposeful infliction of needless harm upon others

2. What is wrong is the conscious and purposeful infliction of needless harm upon others

3. The vast majority of human beings happen to be in full agreement where #s 1 & 2 are concerned

4. There is sometimes disagreement as to what constitutes "conscious", "purposeful", "needless", and "harm"

 

[Treeplanter]

Not only is it unjust and evil —it is bogus. That is not why God sends people to hell.

You're splitting hairs

It is a FACT, per Christian teaching, that those who die having genuinely repented of their transgressions against God and having removed trust from self to Christ will receive eternal salvation - regardless of their many sins

And it is a FACT, per Christian teaching, that those who die without having genuinely repented of their transgressions against God and having removed trust from self to Christ will receive eternal damnation - even regardless of a scarcity of sin

It is a FACT, per Christian teaching, that the ONE AND ONLY basis on which God determines one's eternal fate is faith in Christ {i.e. repentance of sin & removal of trust from self to Jesus}

He treats us all justly.

God drowned babies and young children in The Great Flood

Explain how that was just?

sin is sin against God. Almighty God.

Agreed - "sin IS sin against God"

This does not mean, though, that the sin, itself, becomes infinite just because it is against an infinite being

If I sacrifice a goat to God, does the goat, itself, become infinite because it is FOR an infinite being {God}?

No, of course not!
And by this same token, sin against an infinite being does not magically become infinite, itself

That isn't Bible 101.

Perhaps not
Then again, I didn't say that it was

What I said is that this is Christianity 101

 

[Mark Quayle]

You're splitting hairs

It is a FACT, per Christian teaching, that those who die having genuinely repented of their transgressions against God and having removed trust from self to Christ will receive eternal salvation - regardless of their many sins

And it is a FACT, per Christian teaching, that those who die without having genuinely repented of their transgressions against God and having removed trust from self to Christ will receive eternal damnation - even regardless of a scarcity of sin

It is a FACT, per Christian teaching, that the ONE AND ONLY basis on which God determines one's eternal fate is faith in Christ {i.e. repentance of sin & removal of trust from self to Jesus}


God drowned babies and young children in The Great Flood

Explain how that was just?


Agreed - "sin IS sin against God"

This does not mean, though, that the sin, itself, becomes infinite just because it is against an infinite being

If I sacrifice a goat to God, does the goat, itself, become infinite because it is FOR an infinite being {God}?

No, of course not!
And by this same token, sin against an infinite being does not magically become infinite, itself


Perhaps not
Then again, I didn't say that it was

What I said is that this is Christianity 101

You are fighting the air, then; the Christianity you contest is only Christendom.

It is a FACT, per Christian teaching, that those who die having genuinely repented of their transgressions against God and having removed trust from self to Christ will receive eternal salvation - regardless of their many sins

"Will receive" is not the same as the "equal" you used in your earlier post. Nor does it imply causation.

And it is a FACT, per Christian teaching, that those who die without having genuinely repented of their transgressions against God and having removed trust from self to Christ will receive eternal damnation - even regardless of a scarcity of sin

"Will receive" is not the same as the "equal" you used in your earlier post. Nor does it imply causation.

It is a FACT, per Christian teaching, that the ONE AND ONLY basis on which God determines one's eternal fate is faith in Christ {i.e. repentance of sin & removal of trust from self to Jesus}

Where does the Bible say that "faith in Christ" is the same as "repentance of sin & removal of trust from self to Jesus"? The fact that salvific faith necessarily causes repentance from sin and dependence on Christ, does not make faith equal to them.

Where does the Bible teach this is the basis? Define "basis". After all, couldn't one just as easily say "the basis on which God determines one's eternal fate is" God's election? There are several passages that sound just as prescriptive, that can be taken as "the one and only basis." Read the book of James and tell me God doesn't determine based on works! Lord knows how many arguments on this site roil around James!

God drowned babies and young children in The Great Flood

Explain how that was just?

Do you know the end of the story? You can be sure God would not create for unjust reasons. There is no point in the Almighty to create for the mere purpose of harm. If there is harm, it is for another greater purpose. "Will not the judge of all the world will do what is right?"

Agreed - "sin IS sin against God"

This does not mean, though, that the sin, itself, becomes infinite just because it is against an infinite being

If I sacrifice a goat to God, does the goat, itself, become infinite because it is FOR an infinite being {God}?

No, of course not!
And by this same token, sin against an infinite being does not magically become infinite, itself

What has magic to do with it? But sin against The One and Only Infinite Being is by definition therefore infinite. This isn't even the same thing as saying that sin against the Almighty is therefore Omnipotent.

Your logic is merely words playing with you. The Goat does not pay for anyone's sin. The sacrifice (not even the goat itself) was a "sign pointing to Christ's work on the Cross." Christ's work was infinite, in paying for the infinite sins of those upon whom God had mercy.

 

[Ken-1122]

No, popularity does NOT determine what is right
Nor did I ever say that it did!

What I said is this:

1. What is right is that which refrains from the conscious and purposeful infliction of needless harm upon others

But that isn’t the only thing that is right, there are countless other things that fit under the category of Right

2. What is wrong is the conscious and purposeful infliction of needless harm upon others

That is not the only definition of wrong; there are countless other things that fit under the category of wrong also

3. The vast majority of human beings happen to be in full agreement where #s 1 & 2 are concerned

There are countless other things called right/wrong that the majority of human beings agree on other than what you listed.

 

[Treeplanter]

You are fighting the air, then; the Christianity you contest is only Christendom.

Can I go to Heaven even though I die without faith in Jesus Christ?

Yes or no?

"Will receive" is not the same as the "equal" you used in your earlier post.

Sure it is!

Die without faith in Christ and you will receive eternal damnation
is the exact same thing as saying:
Dying without faith in Christ equals eternal damnation

You're quibbling over half a dozen of one and six of the other!

Where does the Bible say that "faith in Christ" is the same as "repentance of sin & removal of trust from self to Jesus"?

The whole of scripture testifies to the fact that faith in Christ entails genuine repentance of sin and removal of ultimate trust from self to Jesus

The fact that salvific faith necessarily causes repentance from sin and dependence on Christ, does not make faith equal to them.

Can one be said to possess faith in Christ without repenting of sin and placing trust in Jesus?

Yes or no?

If the answer is "no" - then it has been established that repentance and trust ARE equal to faith

Where does the Bible teach this is the basis?

Can I go to Heaven even though I die without faith in Jesus Christ?

Yes or no?

If the answer is "no" - then it has been established that the basis upon which God decides one's eternal fate IS faith in Christ

After all, couldn't one just as easily say "the basis on which God determines one's eternal fate is" God's election?

And who are the 'elect'?

The elect are simply those whom God predestined to genuinely repent of their sin and remove ultimate trust from self to Christ

Again, you are quibbling over half a dozen of one and six of the other

There are several passages that sound just as prescriptive, that can be taken as "the one and only basis." Read the book of James and tell me God doesn't determine based on works! Lord knows how many arguments on this site roil around James!

You're introducing biblical contradiction in an attempt to establish biblical inerrancy...

Doesn't this strike you as...odd?

Do you know the end of the story? You can be sure God would not create for unjust reasons. There is no point in the Almighty to create for the mere purpose of harm. If there is harm, it is for another greater purpose. "Will not the judge of all the world will do what is right?"

Like you said - God is not required to do anything!
God does not have to inflict harm in order to achieve a greater good

God can achieve any and every end that He desires WITHOUT causing harm in the process

We, human beings, sometimes have no other choice except to cause harm in order to achieve a greater good

For example, if we are to remove a cancer we oftentimes have no other choice except to cut a person open {inflicting harm}

God, on the other hand, IS NEVER REQUIRED to cut a person open in order to remove a cancer

This is the difference between NEEDFUL harm and NEEDLESS harm
Do you understand?

Anytime God causes harm it is, by definition, needless because He can achieve His every end WITHOUT causing harm in the process!

And again, to consciously and purposefully inflict needless harm upon others is immoral

This is why God is not just - He consciously and purposefully inflicts such needless harm upon us as drowning babies

I'll give God the benefit of my doubt and assume that the reason He drowned babies was to save them from a fallen world and resurrect them to a better one

That said, this does not change the fact that God could have saved and resurrected those babies WITHOUT drowning them in the process

Instead, God consciously and purposefully chose to inflict the needless harm of drowning upon them...

Christ's work was infinite, in paying for the infinite sins of those upon whom God had mercy.

Since when does God require that a transgression be of an infinite manner before He is able to offer an infinite forgiveness?

Like you said - God is not bound by requirements
{with the exception of remaining true to His own nature and possibly maintaining a logical consistency}

 

[Treeplanter]

That is not the only definition of wrong; there are countless other things that fit under the category of wrong also

So what?

There are countless other things called right/wrong that the majority of human beings agree on other than what you listed.

Such as?

 

[Ken-1122]

So what?


Such as?

First I need to correct myself. You said
What is right is that which refrains from the conscious and purposeful infliction of needless harm upon others
To refrain from inflicting endless harm on others is not right, that is neutral. The fact that I did not rob a bank, stab an innocent person, or harm others today does not make me good, right, moral, etc. to not do something is neutral, not good or bad.
As far as what constitutes good/bad, there is no single standard. Different cultures, different religions, different societies will disagree on what they consider good/bad.

 

[Treeplanter]

To refrain from inflicting endless harm on others is not right, that is neutral. The fact that I did not rob a bank, stab an innocent person, or harm others today does not make me good, right, moral, etc. to not do something is neutral, not good or bad.

To consciously and purposefully inflict needless harm upon others is immoral

Addendum:
{Anything else is either moral or, at worst, morally neutral}

I don't always include the addendum because I think it obvious...

As far as what constitutes good/bad, there is no single standard. Different cultures, different religions, different societies will disagree on what they consider good/bad.

I don't see the problem?

Of course different people in different cultures/societies/religions will have different opinions as to what is good and what is bad

I imagine every Christian on this forum believes that it is 'bad' to take the name of the Lord in vain
I do not
Presumably, nor do you

So what?
What is the problem?

The Christian thinks it's wrong
I see nothing at all wrong with it
Life goes on
The world continues spinning

My claim is that most every human being on earth agrees with me that to consciously and purposefully inflict needless harm upon others is immoral and evil

I am NOT claiming that this is the ONLY thing that people think is immoral and evil

People think all sorts of stupid things on top of and in addition to our shared standard of basic human decency

 

[Ken-1122]

I don't see the problem?

Of course different people in different cultures/societies/religions will have different opinions as to what is good and what is bad

I imagine every Christian on this forum believes that it is 'bad' to take the name of the Lord in vain
I do not
Presumably, nor do you

So what?
What is the problem?

So do you now agree with me that morality is not universal?

 

[Treeplanter]

So do you now agree with me that morality is not universal?

I don't recall ever stating that morality is 'quote/unquote' universal...

The only claim that I recall having made is that the vast, overwhelming majority of human beings are in full agreement that to consciously and purposefully inflict needless harm upon others is immoral

{that some take it further and additionally hold as immoral that which does not reflect a conscious and purposeful infliction of needless harm upon others is entirely irrelevant to my claim!}

This is a claim that I continue to stand by
Are you in agreement with this?

 

[Ken-1122]

I don't recall ever stating that morality is 'quote/unquote' universal...

The only claim that I recall having made is that the vast, overwhelming majority of human beings are in full agreement that to consciously and purposefully inflict needless harm upon others is immoral

Go back to post #564. I said

As far as universal, a quick look into the real world and you will see human morality is not universal.
You responded:
I have to disagree here - I believe that most every human being is in full agreement as to what is ultimately beneficial {i.e. moral} and detrimental {i.e. detrimental}

I took this to mean you disagreed with my claim that morality is not universal. Did I misunderstand you?

 

[Treeplanter]

Go back to post #564. I said

As far as universal, a quick look into the real world and you will see human morality is not universal.
You responded:
I have to disagree here - I believe that most every human being is in full agreement as to what is ultimately beneficial {i.e. moral} and detrimental {i.e. detrimental}

I took this to mean you disagreed with my claim that morality is not universal. Did I misunderstand you?

Perhaps I didn't explain my position as best I could...

I do not believe that morality is universal in that every person agrees with every other person on every single thing that is to be considered good or evil

Of course not!

I do, however, believe that our shared standard of basic human decency
{i.e. - to consciously and purposefully inflict needless harm upon others is immoral}
is more or less universal in that it is shared by most every human being
{minus the odd socio/psychopath}

 

[Mark Quayle]

Can I go to Heaven even though I die without faith in Jesus Christ?

Yes or no?

Of course not. Does that mean faith is THE basis? Btw, I'm not saying faith is not the basis. I'm arguing about your point for saying it is THE basis.

Sure it is!

Die without faith in Christ and you will receive eternal damnation
is the exact same thing as saying:
Dying without faith in Christ equals eternal damnation

You're quibbling over half a dozen of one and six of the other!

No, it's nowhere near the same thing. 'Equals' is not the same as 'entails' is not the same things as 'identifies' is not the same thing as 'causes' or 'results in' which is not the same thing as 'demonstrates' etc.

The whole of scripture testifies to the fact that faith in Christ entails genuine repentance of sin and removal of ultimate trust from self to Jesus

Of course it does! And guess WHY!! Because salvific faith is generated by the Spirit of God, who has regenerated the believer.

Can one be said to possess faith in Christ without repenting of sin and placing trust in Jesus?

Yes or no?

If the answer is "no" - then it has been established that repentance and trust ARE equal to faith

Everywhere my mouth goes my tongue goes too. But it is silly to say they are the same thing.

Can I go to Heaven even though I die without faith in Jesus Christ?

Yes or no?

If the answer is "no" - then it has been established that the basis upon which God decides one's eternal fate IS faith in Christ

I can prove 20 different ways from Scripture that faith is the basis upon which God decides one's eternal fate. But I can do the same for Election.

And who are the 'elect'?

Who are the 'elect'? Those God predestined for salvation.

And who are the ones with faith? —those God elected.

The elect are simply those whom God predestined to genuinely repent of their sin and remove ultimate trust from self to Christ

Close enough. So what is your problem?

You're introducing biblical contradiction in an attempt to establish biblical inerrancy...

Doesn't this strike you as...odd?

If I say that some take something you say to mean something else, but that you say the other thing in different ways, would that mean you had contradicted yourself?

The Bible doesn't contradict itself. Nothing I said indicated such a thing. The fact people ignore the meaning, in favor of their agenda, doesn't show a Biblical contradiction. The contradiction is between different people.

Nevertheless, my point is that your saying "Faith equals

Like you said - God is not required to do anything!
God does not have to inflict harm in order to achieve a greater good

God can achieve any and every end that He desires WITHOUT causing harm in the process

How do you know he can? See, it is like saying he can make a rock too big for him to pick up. It is self-contradictory. It is not a question of whether he can, but whether it is possible, to have the same result he will have by going this route to accomplish it, by going a different route, that does not involve suffering. The one result that he will get, is only possible with temporal suffering involved.

We, human beings, sometimes have no other choice except to cause harm in order to achieve a greater good

For example, if we are to remove a cancer we oftentimes have no other choice except to cut a person open {inflicting harm}

God, on the other hand, IS NEVER REQUIRED to cut a person open in order to remove a cancer

This is the difference between NEEDFUL harm and NEEDLESS harm
Do you understand?

Anytime God causes harm it is, by definition, needless because He can achieve His every end WITHOUT causing harm in the process!

And again, to consciously and purposefully inflict needless harm upon others is immoral

This is why God is not just - He consciously and purposefully inflicts such needless harm upon us as drowning babies

It is not needless, except to your thinking...

I'll give God the benefit of my doubt and assume that the reason He drowned babies was to save them from a fallen world and resurrect them to a better one

That said, this does not change the fact that God could have saved and resurrected those babies WITHOUT drowning them in the process

Instead, God consciously and purposefully chose to inflict the needless harm of drowning upon them...

Since when does God require that a transgression be of an infinite manner before He is able to offer an infinite forgiveness?

Like you said - God is not bound by requirements
{with the exception of remaining true to His own nature and possibly maintaining a logical consistency}

God doesn't 'require' that sins be anything. But transgressions are (apart from any 'requirement') against God, therefore infinite.

This strikes me funny —hear you are making jumps in logic to show that one thing being related to another makes them equal, and you want to tell me that sin against infinite God is not necessarily infinite in definition.

 

[Ken-1122]

Perhaps I didn't explain my position as best I could...

I do not believe that morality is universal in that every person agrees with every other person on every single thing that is to be considered good or evil

Of course not!

I do, however, believe that our shared standard of basic human decency
{i.e. - to consciously and purposefully inflict needless harm upon others is immoral}
is more or less universal in that it is shared by most every human being
{minus the odd socio/psychopath}

I think we are pretty much in agreement here; I suspect we were discussing two different issues. I agree with you; most reasonable people (myself included) would consider it immoral to inflict needless harm on another. I think the Golden Rule would also fit into this category; (don’t do to someone else that which you wouldn’t want done to yourself, and to treat others the way you would want to be treated) and of course there are always gonna be exceptions to any rule. My disagreement was that there isn’t a single moral standard for all of mankind; theists will often point to their unsubstantiated holy text (Bible, Koran, Vedas, etc) as said standard; but it sounds like you are not trying to defend this position, so I think we are in agreement.

Ken

 

[Treeplanter]

Of course not. Does that mean faith is THE basis? Btw, I'm not saying faith is not the basis. I'm arguing about your point for saying it is THE basis.

I believe it is perfectly reasonable for me to assert that faith is THE basis on which some of us receive eternal salvation and others of us receive eternal damnation

I don't understand what you are saying - "arguing about my point for saying it is THE basis"?

No, it's nowhere near the same thing. 'Equals' is not the same as 'entails' is not the same things as 'identifies' is not the same thing as 'causes' or 'results in' which is not the same thing as 'demonstrates' etc.

Yes,
'Equals'
'Entails'
'Identifies'
'Causes'
'Results'
& 'Demonstrates'
are all different words that carry with them different meanings

That said:
"Die without faith in Christ and you will receive eternal damnation"
and
"Dying without faith in Christ equals eternal damnation"
mean the exact same thing!

The Bible doesn't contradict itself.

Of course it does!

Ephesians 2:8-9
"For it is by grace you have been saved, through faith—and this is not from yourselves, it is the gift of God - not by works, so that no one can boast"

James 2:24
"You see that a person is considered righteous by what they do and not by faith alone"

These two verses contradict one another

How do you know he can?

Because He is Almighty
God is omnipotent

If God is incapable of saving and resurrecting babies by non-harmful means then He is NOT Almighty and omnipotent

If God is incapable of saving and resurrecting babies by non-harmful means then He is NOT worthy of our devotion

 

[Treeplanter]

I think we are pretty much in agreement here; I suspect we were discussing two different issues. I agree with you; most reasonable people (myself included) would consider it immoral to inflict needless harm on another. I think the Golden Rule would also fit into this category; (don’t do to someone else that which you wouldn’t want done to yourself, and to treat others the way you would want to be treated) and of course there are always gonna be exceptions to any rule. My disagreement was that there isn’t a single moral standard for all of mankind; theists will often point to their unsubstantiated holy text (Bible, Koran, Vedas, etc) as said standard; but it sounds like you are not trying to defend this position, so I think we are in agreement.

Ken

Sounds good