The depiction of God, and morals

[Colter]

The fear of God's punishment and the reward of His salvation is actually intended by God to be a means to leverage the believer and unbeliever alike into sustaining or entering into the salvation found in Jesus Christ. It is a matter of fact that all people, including Christians, are so cowardly and corrupt that they would never be able to do anything good except by the power and influence of God. As Christ said, "I am the vine; you are the branches. If you remain in me and I in you, you will bear much fruit; apart from me you can do nothing. If you do not remain in me, you are like a branch that is thrown away and withers; such branches are picked up, thrown into the fire and burned (John 15:5-6)." Notice that in this verse He both exclaims our absolute inability to bear fruit and a warning against not bearing fruit (once again using fear to leverage the sinner, saved or otherwise). This verse alone dismisses your view of this being an inappropriate method of influence, or that Christians have any power of their own.

Even the righteousness of those without Christ, which constitutes filthy rags (Isaiah 64:6), is able to be conducted on account of the power of God's influence through His law written on our hearts combined with the ministry of the Holy Spirit drawing them towards the Gospel through that law (John 16:7-11). This is why Paul says they have a form of godliness but deny its power (2 Timothy 3:5).

And to further dismiss this pretension that sets itself up against the knowledge of Christ, Jesus declared: "I tell you, my friends, do not be afraid of those who kill the body and after that can do no more. But I will show you whom you should fear: Fear him who, after your body has been killed, has authority to throw you into hell. Yes, I tell you, fear him." (Luke 12:4-5)




I will inform you that neither mockery nor anticipation of a detractors response disproves the point of your opposition. The answer is, in fact, that God employs Satan, as the Scriptures multiply attest, to accomplish nothing less than God's own will. This is precisely why Satan is required to ask, so that whatever Satan does inadvertently serves God in the scheme of events that culminate in a morally over-riding outcome (such as a person lead to Christ on account of the rippling effects of the influences of Satan). So yes, this is another example of God allowing Satan to effectuate God's will, the same way God has used godless nations to be a means by which He punishes His own people for national perversions (Jeremiah 25:8-11). Notice that God even calls the King of this godless nation "my servant." This is because all things will ultimately serve the righteous ends of God, whether it is their intentions or not. This is the craftiness of God: "to the pure you show yourself pure, but to the devious you show yourself shrewd (Psalms 18:26)." "The nations have sunk down in the pit which they made; In the net which they hid, their own foot is caught. The LORD is known by the judgment He executes; The wicked is snared in the work of his own hands (Psalms 9:15-16)."



This is a false dilemma. Morals are neither found in an arbitrary and changing will, nor are they something that God complies with outside of Himself. Rather, God's nature constitutes the good, and His nature can not be changed. This is why the Scriptures declare things such as: "God is not man, that He should lie, nor the son of man, that He should change His mind. Does he speak and then not act? Does He promise and not fulfill? (Numbers 23:19)"

God's nature constitutes the good, and God's commands are issued from His unchanging nature. Thus morals are found within God, but not arbitrarily.

We have some agreement on principle. More good came out of the Lucifer rebellion on behalf of those effected by it, but to imply that God partners up with the evil ones is foolishness. That may have been the reasoning of those who wrote their opinions that were adopted as scripture in that age, but that doesn't mean it's entirely true. Truth is relative. All sin contains within it the seeds of its own destruction. So much of what is blamed on the devil is actually mans own doing.

Jesus defeated Satan, he's gone.

 

[Thir7ySev3n]

We have some agreement on principle. More good came out of the Lucifer rebellion on behalf of those effected by it, but to imply that God partners up with the evil ones is foolishness. That may have been the reasoning of those who wrote their opinions that were adopted as scripture in that age, but that doesn't mean it's entirely true. Truth is relative. All sin contains within it the seeds of its own destruction. So much of what is blamed on the devil is actually mans own doing.

Jesus defeated Satan, he's gone.

I'm still going to have to disagree with you on Scriptural grounds, as well as with your position on the comprehensive reliability of Scripture (which I obviously affirm). That aside, I do agree that a lot of the evil conducted in the world is done without the pressures of any demonic influence, and some people erroneously blame such influences as an excuse for their failures. Even in the cases of demonic influence, the person is still at fault because in Christ we are given the power to resist the devil and submit to God (James 4:7).

Also, Satan is already defeated, but not ultimately removed until after the last two rebellions. One before the reign of Christ on earth in the millennial Kingdom (2 Thessalonians 2:3-4), and once more after the thousand years of this Reign when all who remained rebellious despite the direct presence of Christ resist the King alongside the devil for the last time (Revelations 20:7-10).

 

[Colter]

I'm still going to have to disagree with you on Scriptural grounds, as well as with your position on the comprehensive reliability of Scripture (which I obviously affirm). That aside, I do agree that a lot of the evil conducted in the world is done without the pressures of any demonic influence, and some people erroneously blame such influences as an excuse for their failures. Even in the cases of demonic influence, the person is still at fault because in Christ we are given the power to resist the devil and submit to God (James 4:7).

Also, Satan is already defeated, but not ultimately removed until after the last two rebellions. One before the reign of Christ on earth in the millennial Kingdom (2 Thessalonians 2:3-4), and once more after the thousand years of this Reign when all who remained rebellious despite the direct presence of Christ resist the King alongside the devil for the last time (Revelations 20:7-10).

When I hear that kind of reasoning, it sounds like you're saying that it makes sense to you that a convicted child molesting teacher is sent back into the classroom to do more damage.....but its the kids fault for allowing themselves to be abused. The school board will leave him there for a while, take him out for say ten years....but then put him back.

Its difficult enough to processes the fall of Satan from is former faithful duties, then we have the second default of Eve and Adam. But that's not enough, even though Jesus defeated the rebels, they were allowed to keep fighting!?!? That's just another inconsistency in the scripture.

This is why I categorically reject the ideology of the apocalyptic writers who rewrote John revelation of Patmos. It is beyond the consistency portrayed by Christ.

 

[FatalHeart]

Not being able to process something does not invalidate its relevance. Can't God defend Himself? What's the difference for a God that controls all things? Doesn't the scriptures talk about agents of wrath, testing of faith, and reaping what you sow? Isn't there good reason for evil? Do we not deserve this type of life?

 

[Thir7ySev3n]

When I hear that kind of reasoning, it sounds like you're saying that it makes sense to you that a convicted child molesting teacher is sent back into the classroom to do more damage.....but its the kids fault for allowing themselves to be abused. The school board will leave him there for a while, take him out for say ten years....but then put him back.

Its difficult enough to processes the fall of Satan from is former faithful duties, then we have the second default of Eve and Adam. But that's not enough, even though Jesus defeated the rebels, they were allowed to keep fighting!?!? That's just another inconsistency in the scripture.

This is why I categorically reject the ideology of the apocalyptic writers who rewrote John revelation of Patmos. It is beyond the consistency portrayed by Christ.

The entire function of Satan's effects somehow escaped you despite the clarity of my communication and Scriptural references. Your example is interesting because rather than being like the child who is abused at the hands of Satan, the example would properly have the child molester being influenced by Satan and then claiming he has no responsibility on account of the devil encouraging him.

And two points to your concluding complaint: One, the rebels the Scriptures are designating here -- if you would pay more attention and be less impulsive -- are the willful sinners who reject Christ both before His Reign and after the thousand years. Willful is the key word. complaining about the consequences people cause for themselves despite the grace of God is absurd, as God repeatedly clarifies a person is either placed in their time and place to result in their salvation, or placed within it to play a role in the salvation of one who would freely accept salvation. Both groups are given the grace of God; God simply foreknows who will accept it and who will reject it, and allots them their positions accordingly for the greatest possible outcome of souls freely saved.

Second, Satan stands defeated and continues fighting, because he is defeated for those in Christ. The Scriptures are clear that all outside of Christ are still subject to the devil's influence which wages war for their souls (1 John 5:19, James 4:7) but that no effect can occur on account of Satan except that which is necessary to sustain a believer or to sift a willful rebel who chooses the way of Satan by his own accord, whether consciously or unconsciously (in case the unconsciously part was going to be a trigger for you, what I mean specifically is that some follow in the way of Satan without thinking of themselves as belonging to Satan, i.e., the godless who don't identify as satanists).

 

[Thir7ySev3n]

Not being able to process something does not invalidate its relevance. Can't God defend Himself? What's the difference for a God that controls all things? Doesn't the scriptures talk about agents of wrath, testing of faith, and reaping what you sow? Isn't there good reason for evil? Do we not deserve this type of life?

This is what is not being understood, that God is so good and so wise that not even any evil can serve to be gratuitous in escaping His will to redeem through all circumstances. With God, the good serves the good and the evil serves the good; the only difference is the former was willing and the latter was thwarted.

 

[Colter]

The entire function of Satan's effects somehow escaped you despite the clarity of my communication and Scriptural references. Your example is interesting because rather than being like the child who is abused at the hands of Satan, the example would properly have the child molester being influenced by Satan and then claiming he has no responsibility on account of the devil encouraging him.

And two points to your concluding complaint: One, the rebels the Scriptures are designating here -- if you would pay more attention and be less impulsive -- are the willful sinners who reject Christ both before His Reign and after the thousand years. Willful is the key word. complaining about the consequences people cause for themselves despite the grace of God is absurd, as God repeatedly clarifies a person is either placed in their time and place to result in their salvation, or placed within it to play a role in the salvation of one who would freely accept salvation. Both groups are given the grace of God; God simply foreknows who will accept it and who will reject it, and allots them their positions accordingly for the greatest possible outcome of souls freely saved.

Second, Satan stands defeated and continues fighting, because he is defeated for those in Christ. The Scriptures are clear that all outside of Christ are still subject to the devil's influence which wages war for their souls (1 John 5:19, James 4:7) but that no effect can occur on account of Satan except that which is necessary to sustain a believer or to sift a willful rebel who chooses the way of Satan by his own accord, whether consciously or unconsciously (in case the unconsciously part was going to be a trigger for you, what I mean specifically is that some follow in the way of Satan without thinking of themselves as belonging to Satan, i.e., the godless who don't identify as satanists).

The function of Satan's effects (based on the theory you are promoting) didn't escape me, I just disagree with the odyssey that you are promoting. Previously, Satan had been delegated powers and authority for good in his administrative duties and chain of command which, after the disastrous self contemplation and consequent pride, he abused it in fooling the whole world. He rebelled against the will of God the Father as represented by the Creator Son, his boss aka Jesus of Nazareth.

There was a time lag of justice in hopes that Satan and his supporters would repent and be saved. Further, had Satan been summarily stopped perhaps more would have been lost as this would have been seen as proof of Satan's theory that their is no Universal Father of the Son. The Son lived out the truth for all the hosts of heaven to see, he revealed the Father in his triumphant life on earth.


At the completion of his successful incarnation, the Son achieved "all power and authority in heaven and on earth". Christ doesn't share that with a Satan God falsely so called. Only the meme or legacy and confusion of the rebellion lives on. Eventually, the original Gospel of The Kingdom of Heaven will subdue all mankind.

 

[Strivax]

This is a false dilemma. Morals are neither found in an arbitrary and changing will, nor are they something that God complies with outside of Himself. Rather, God's nature constitutes the good, and His nature can not be changed. This is why the Scriptures declare things such as: "God is not man, that He should lie, nor the son of man, that He should change His mind. Does he speak and then not act? Does He promise and not fulfill? (Numbers 23:19)"

God's nature constitutes the good, and God's commands are issued from His unchanging nature. Thus morals are found within God, but not arbitrarily.

OK, I think you are proceeding along the right sort of lines. But even if God's nature is good, and even if His preferences are good, and even if they are not arbitrary but systematic, the dilemma still insists we need to decide whether the essence that of that goodness is internal to God (in which case He could have decided on some other systematic account of goodness, and that would replace His goodness as we know it with a different type of goodness, which would be good instead) or external to God (in which case He is bound by some superior moral imperative). If His preference for one non-arbitrary system of goodness over another is not whim, but reason, (because one system of goodness is better than another) that would suggest you are impaled on the second horn of the dilemma, that God wills the good because it is good, and so we can perfectly well dispense with God, and pledge our allegiance to the good, instead.

Best wishes, Strivax.

 

[Strivax]

Whenever anyone presents on the subject of Hell there are those who are bound to ask, "How do you reconcile the doctrine of Hell with the fact that God is a God of love?" I answer with this question, "How do we know that God is love?" We know this only from the Bible. If the Bible is not true we have no proof that God is love. If you reject what the Bible says about Hell you must in simple logic give up your belief that God is love. If the Bible is not true, we have no real proof that there is either a Heaven or a Hell. If the Bible is true about Heaven, it is also true about Hell....

Not at all. One can perfectly well believe that some parts of the Bible are accurate, and some parts inaccurate, and some parts more accurate than others, and some parts less accurate than others. And this would be a wholly more sophisticated, nuanced, and realistic assessment of a complex text than insisting we must either believe all the scriptures, or none of them, in some 'take it or leave it' ultimatum.

Best wishes, Strivax.

 

[Strivax]

Reason is necessary but fallible. Without humility (which is simply honesty about our limitations) we cannot access the most important truths because we are relying too much upon our own faulty equipment. This is why we must depend upon other authorities, like the scriptures and 2000 years of agreed upon doctrine (the latter of which is also limited by assorted disagreements due to human fallibility). Even the scientific establishment is about consistent agreement concerning truth claims.

I agree with a lot of this, except the bit about authorities. I think authorities are all very fine, when they make quality arguments based on quality evidence. But when someone comes up with a better argument, and/or contrary evidence, then I think we need ditch the veneration in which authorities are held, and proceed on the basis of investigating the new 'truth claim'. That is how progress happens, in science, and in society.

As for 'faulty equipment', then yes, we all have our biases and prejudices, and these affect the quality of our reasoning. But the great thing about free speech and democratic debate is that we do not all have the same biases and prejudices, and in open discussion we compensate for each other's faults, and so, hopefully, converge collectively on the real truth.

Best wishes, Strivax.

 

[FatalHeart]

Striv, perhaps a second question will answer your first. "What is good without God?" The Bible states, of course, nothing. "He who does not sow with me scatters," and, "He who does not have the son, does not have life. " Earlier it states that "(He) ... works all things to the counsel of His own will." When you refer to good, you wish to know it in principle, but the delight of it is that it is a person.

 

[Thir7ySev3n]

OK, I think you are proceeding along the right sort of lines. But even if God's nature is good, and even if His preferences are good, and even if they are not arbitrary but systematic, the dilemma still insists we need to decide whether the essence that of that goodness is internal to God (in which case He could have decided on some other systematic account of goodness, and that would replace His goodness as we know it with a different type of goodness, which would be good instead) or external to God (in which case He is bound by some superior moral imperative). If His preference for one non-arbitrary system of goodness over another is not whim, but reason, (because one system of goodness is better than another) that would suggest you are impaled on the second horn of the dilemma, that God wills the good because it is good, and so we can perfectly well dispense with God, and pledge our allegiance to the good, instead.

Best wishes, Strivax.

I specified, as the Bible does, God's nature is unchanging. Morality is internal to God because it's who He is; morality is description of God's nature, so that when we talk about what is good we are simply talking about what is God. God is the great I AM and He possesses His nature immutably, being as He is necessarily. There is no alternative to the way God exists, and He exists that way eternally without cause. Therefore "what if?" questions are vacuous hypotheticals equivalent to asking," what if the immutable changed, the immovable moved and the unstoppable was stopped?" By the very nature of God, God is as He is, and it is this unchanging nature of God that constitutes morality. Adding to the absurd list of questions, the question of the morality of God's nature is equivalent to asking "but how moral is morality?" In reference, you would have to compare God to Himself in judging His nature by His nature.

 

[Strivax]

I specified, as the Bible does, God's nature is unchanging...

It matters not. At some point, perhaps before He ever created the universe, God must have decided what is moral, and what is not. He must have decided how His nature was to be. Whether you think the moral is moral because that is the nature He chose and He wills it the moral be so (ie, it was an arbitrary choice), or whether you think God wills the moral because it is moral, (ie, it was a systematic, rational decision), the dilemma persists. If the former, anything could have been moral, and we just have to make the best we can of His decisions on the matter. If the latter, God is scarcely relevant, and the ultimately moral that even God obeys is more important.

Best wishes, Strivax.

 

[Thir7ySev3n]

It matters not. At some point, perhaps before He ever created the universe, God must have decided what is moral, and what is not. He must have decided how His nature was to be. Whether you think the moral is moral because that is the nature He chose and He wills it the moral be so (ie, it was an arbitrary choice), or whether you think God wills the moral because it is moral, (ie, it was a systematic, rational decision), the dilemma persists. If the former, anything could have been moral, and we just have to make the best we can of His decisions on the matter. If the latter, God is scarcely relevant, and the ultimately moral that even God obeys is more important.

Best wishes, Strivax.

You are either not grasping the fundamental and overt point, or you have developed an emotional attachment to this objection. God's nature constitutes morality and His nature is unchanging. There is no selection process as there is no possible alternative to the way God is; He exists necessarily and eternally as He is.

Your problem is transparently an aversion to the reverence of God, and there is nothing that makes that more manifest than the hilariously ironic objection you've posed. It is ironic that you demonstrate that you have no problem admitting to the eternal consistency and nature of something, as long as the something is not God, which has been aptly called the "taxicab fallacy." You clearly apprehend that morality can not be arbitrary and meaningful, so you assert the eternal constant of moral values as the rational alternative, only abandoning this understanding when it is connected to the nature of God. It is a moronic display of cognitive dissonance and betrays that your motives are not intellectual, but emotional. You have no difficulty understanding the meanings of unchanging, constant and eternal until the nature of God is addressed.

So let me attempt to clarify this to you once again, with the recognition that you know full well what I am talking about with these terms. The nature of God constitutes morality, and His nature is eternal and unchanging. There is no alternative to the way God exists, as He exists eternally as He is so that there is no emergence of His nature as one thing or another; it just as it is. Morality is therefore a description of God's eternal and unchanging nature, and is defined by who He is. To ask what is good is simply to ask what is of God. Moral values and duties do not exist apart from God anymore than God exists apart from God. I hope you are grasping the point you already otherwise do by now.

 

[Strivax]

I understand what you are saying, just beg to disagree. Who or what decides what is moral? Either God does, or it just is. I don't much care which of the two it is, just that the dilemma be addressed directly. To say God's nature is moral (which I agree with) and to say God's nature is unchanging (which I agree with) is to avoid, not answer, the question put.

Best wishes, Strivax.

 

[Thir7ySev3n]

I understand what you are saying, just beg to disagree. Who or what decides what is moral? Either God does, or it just is. I don't much care which of the two it is, just that the dilemma be addressed directly. To say God's nature is moral (which I agree with) and to say God's nature is unchanging (which I agree with) is to avoid, not answer, the question put.

Best wishes, Strivax.

That you think the solution is avoiding rather than answering shows you're not comprehending what is meant by God's nature being moral. Anyone who can admit that morals are eternal in their values in presenting this false dilemma is ontologically separating God's nature from God. To admit that morals must be what they are unchangingly, one demonstrates that they already grasp and believe what is necessary to understand the way God exists Himself, so that to ontinue to say "it's either always good or always arbitrary" in response to morals being ontologically grounded in God's nature is to arbitrarily reject reverence of God as the Ground of value. Ontologically, morality is simply the term used to describe God's will, which extends from His eternal and unchanging nature.

God existing eternally and immutably means there is no alternative to the way He exists. So objecting with alternatives God could have chosen between is just not comprehending the implications of His nature, which preclude any such possibility. God is as He is, and who He is is literally the Ground of moral values. It is not outside of God, as morals do not exist absent of God, and it is not arbitrary because God has always existed and has always existed the way He is.