"As iron sharpens iron, so a man sharpens the countenance of his friend." (Proverbs 27:17)
|
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
toure
Joined: 22 Jul 2005
Posts: 0
Location: GA
|
 Posted: Fri Jul 22, 2005 2:42 pm Post subject: The Moral Standing of a Diety |
|
|
As a logical yet spiritual thinker, I am constantly plagued with certain arguments concerning faith and reason, since, as we all know, the two do not always line up. But a particular argument by a theological philosopher named Bertrand Russell has me puzzled.
He argues that if one believes there is a difference between right and wrong, the question becomes: is that difference due to God's decision? If so, God sanctions what is right and what is wrong, and therefore God must exist outside of the right/wrong playing field, mkaing it innacurate to say that 'God is good' (as in right).
Some may think of God as a sort of divine judge, but that is a problematic view. Judges, as we know them, are so called because of their dedication to a predefined standard (which allows them to make just decisions), not their creation of standards. Judges are ardent followers of the rules of society.
Ohters may say God is infinitely wise. While this is not a point to be argued, wisdom does not equal morality. We believe it is wise to be moral because of the negative effects of immorality. God has no such effects.
I propose that maybe God is not good, but God is not bad, as we know it. God is what he is, and right and wrong are human standards.
What do you all think? |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
m273p15c
Joined: 28 Sep 1999
Posts: 499
|
| Posted: Fri Jul 22, 2005 10:36 pm Post subject: Re: The Moral Standing of a Diety |
|
|
This is challenging question. My comments are offered in response to 3 aspects of the question and its introduction.
| toure wrote: | | ... I am constantly plagued with certain arguments concerning faith and reason, since, as we all know, the two do not always line up. ... |
This is a valuable observation. By definition they do not "line up". If I fully understand an ideal, and I embrace it, because it makes sense to me, then it is no longer faith, but sight (II Corinthians 5:7). If someone "picks and chooses" the appealing parts of God's law, based on what makes good sense to him, then he is neither worshipping Him nor walking by faith. Does the evidence support the existence of God? Does the evidence support that He has spoken through His Son? If so, then we must trust and obey, because "He said so".
| toure wrote: | | ... is that difference due to God's decision? If so, God sanctions what is right and what is wrong, and therefore God must exist outside of the right/wrong playing field... |
I believe that the remainder of the argument in question presumes that God both created wrong and "sanctioned" it. Otherwise, the remainder is invalid. I believe this is where Russel went astray, which would invalidate the remaining concerns.
God alone is good (Matthew 19:17). This statement cannot refer to absence of sin, or moral perfection, because God has angels surrounding Him, who have never sinned (II Peter 2:4; Hebrews 2:16; Matthew 18:10); however, Jesus does not consider them "good" ("No one is good but One, that is, God").
| toure wrote: | | ... Some may think of God as a sort of divine judge, but that is a problematic view. Judges, as we know them, are so called because of their dedication to a predefined standard (which allows them to make just decisions), not their creation of standards. Judges are ardent followers of the rules of society. |
Again this is an undestimation of God's position.
| James by the Holy Spirit wrote: | "
Do not speak evil of one another, brethren. He who speaks evil of a brother and judges his brother, speaks evil of the law and judges the law. But if you judge the law, you are not a doer of the law but a judge. There is one Lawgiver, who is able to save and to destroy. Who are you to judge another?" (James 4:11-12) |
God alone is good, because He is the standard. His character is the definition of good. Good is law, not because it is a standard that God accepted or chose, but because it is part of Him. It is part of His character, and is, therefore, as eternal as Him. For God to deny good would be to deny Himself, which He cannot do (II Timothy 2:13). Truth is another quality of God's character, which He cannot deny (Titus 1:2). Love is another such characteristic of God (I John 4:8,16).
Consequently, unlike earthly judges, who have no power to issue law (except in America - note the sarcasm), God is both Lawgiver and Judge - the only Lawgiver and Judge (James 4:12). Therefore, He judges according to the Law, which is Himself. Good neither precedes nor follows God; rather, God is good and He alone. He has nothing to do with wrong (I John 1:5). He neither created it, nor sanctioned it. In fact He punishes it (II Peter 2:4-10; Revelation 21:8).
Then, what is the source of wrong? You, me, and every morally free-will agent, was given a choice to walk after the pattern of our Creator, or after our own will. We chose to follow our own standard, instead of God's standard - His own character - good (Romans 3:23 - "fall short of the glory of God"; Ecclessiastes 7:29). In our sphere, we are the source of wrong (Genesis 3:1-24; Romans 5:12-14). God has made this world a reflection of us, in hope that we might recognize what we have done and turn to Him (Ecclessiastes 7:21-23; Romans 8:19-21).
Because God is good, He cannot justly accept us as sinful creatures. Our sins separate us from God (Isaiah 59:1-2). Therefore, He will ultimately punish us in the second, and final death - separation from Him (James 2:26; Revelation 21:8), unless we accept His gracious second chance to choose Him (Luke 13:3, 5; Acts 2:37-38).
Who but God could redeem us, satisfying His eternal character of love, mercy, justice, and sovereignty, all at the same time - never infringing on our freedome to choose? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
will
Joined: 16 Jul 2005
Posts: 7
|
| Posted: Sat Jul 23, 2005 12:09 pm Post subject: "The Moral Standing of a Diety" |
|
|
The 22 July writer from Georgia identifies Sir Bertrand Russell as a | Quote: |
theological philosopher. |
. The truth is Russell was a British philosopher, logician, and mathematician of uncanny brilliance of intellect, wit, and observational powers. He was not likely considered a | Quote: |
theological philosopher. |
, as you may see further below.
He was a committed lifelong atheist or agnostic - consequently,he addressed all religious subjects w/ a view to disparaging belief in God. He made speeches and wrote a Treatise entitled | Quote: | | Why I Am Not a Christian: And Other Essays on Religion and Related Subjects |
in which he attacks most major aguments on the existence of god - the GA writer would be cautioned that he should consider the many valid responses that have been made to Russell's arguments.
Russel in living for almost 98 years( he died in 1970) wrote prolifically - on a truly vast array of subjects. His writings on sexuality(particularly as he lived in regards to this philosophy as to himself), eugenics( racial bigotry w/ a lot of racial cleansing thrown in), communism and pacifism and a one world government are revealing.
I haven't had time to research the GA writer's query in particular, but it appears to likely be an express application of . If this is the case, the writer should inform himself so as to understand this logical, set theory Paradox (set forth by Russell in 1901) and of the existence and nature of several response arguments of logic to Russell's Paradox.
A revealing quote often mentioned in the media from about 35-40 years ago from Russell that I recall and here paraphrase (but am unable to track down, yet) is in one of Russell's last interviews a short while before his death was.. | Quote: | | I have always believed in God, but I denied God all of my life because to have admitted His existence and His reality in my life would have meant I could not have lived my life as I wanted .. |
.
The GA writer would do well to appeciate that the Bible is the true, God inspired, producer of faith because it does provide reason and reasoning for a faith in what it tells us. The scriptures | Quote: | | thoroughly furnish us ..II Tm 3-15-17 |
and the scriptures warn us ..[in Colossians 2: 2b,c thru 2: 11 . Note especially Colossians 2: 8 and the warning of the appeal of .. | Quote: | | philosophy and vain deceit |
and danger of the.. | Quote: | | pride of life..I Jn 2: 16 |
.
From a recent article by a Townhall.com columnist, Dennis Prager on 21 June 05, I provide this quote for the writer's further consideration | Quote: | .It is almost impossible to overstate how radically different Old Testament thought was from the thought of the rest of its contemporary world. And it continues to be, given how few societies affirm Judeo-Christian values and how much opposition to them exists in American society, the society that has most incorporated these values.
Among the most radical of these differences was the incredible declaration that God is outside of nature and is its creator.
In every society on earth, people venerated nature and worshipped nature gods. There were gods of thunder and gods of rain. Mountains were worshipped, as were rivers, animals and every natural force known to man. In ancient Egypt, for example, gods included the Nile River, the frog, sun, wind, gazelle, bull, cow, serpent, moon and crocodile.
Then came Genesis, which announced that a supernatural God, i.e., a god who existed outside of nature, created nature. Nothing about nature was divine. |
.
When Mr. Prager refers to nothing about nature being divine, he is explaining that nothing in nature is worthy of our worship and only that Creator being that was outside of nature is divine and worthy of our worsip and worthy of our seeking for reasons as to the why and the how and the what of our morality.
I believe , clearly, this quote from D. Prager both agrees w/ the Bible in regards to God and likely answers in a significant way some of Mr. Russell's reasoning that the GA writer has inquired about. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
toure
Joined: 22 Jul 2005
Posts: 0
Location: GA
|
| Posted: Mon Jul 25, 2005 7:58 pm Post subject: Re: Re: Moral Standing |
|
|
I should definitely start posting here more often . . .
Thanks guys for the in-depth analysis of my query. Interesting points are made from both, and I was immediately pushed to respond;
To m273p15c:
| m273p15c wrote: |
Then, what is the source of wrong? You, me, and every morally free-will agent . . . Our sins separate us from God . . .
|
This brings light to the next logical step in the argument. If God created us, did God not in turn create sin? Are we not capable of sin due to the potential for decision-making God gave us? From where did God draw such potential if not from within Godself? Should your argument suggest that God created sin without having any concept of what he was creating?
I believe that our sins do push us away from our divine role, and God wants us to make the "right" decision, but deciphering what is the right decision demands a "wrong" decision. And unless we teach God what is wrong, he must have some way of knowing (which brings me back to my original dilemma). I could not find a verse that says God did not create sin, or that he had nothing to do with it. You mentioned John 1:5, which I suppose defines clear boundaries, but I am unclear how God created sinful creatures, even sinful angels (2 Peter 2:4), yet has nothing to do with sin. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
m273p15c
Joined: 28 Sep 1999
Posts: 499
|
| Posted: Sat Jul 30, 2005 2:44 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| toure wrote: | | This brings light to the next logical step in the argument. If God created us, did God not in turn create sin? Are we not capable of sin due to the potential for decision-making God gave us? From where did God draw such potential if not from within Godself? Should your argument suggest that God created sin without having any concept of what he was creating? ... but I am unclear how God created sinful creatures, even sinful angels (2 Peter 2:4), yet has nothing to do with sin. |
I think there are three keys to unlocking this dillemma:
- Draw attention to the free in "free moral agent" - When God created all free moral agents, they were free to make their own choices. Therefore, when man chose to sin, he did so of his volition. God gave him that freedom. Man made the choice; therefore, man is the inventor of "evil things", not God (Romans 1:30).
- God made man upright - Man, and angels as well, were created good. God did not make them sinful. We are born innocent (compare Deuteronomy 1:29 with Genesis 3:22), but more than that, we are born good, even upright (Ecclessiastes 7:29; Genesis 1:25, 31). God created us neither sinful, nor with a disposition to sin. We have done that to ourselves, and continue to do so. Therefore, we are responsible, not God.
- Foresight != Foreordination - Just because God created us with the freedom to choose sin, and even though He foresaw that we would sin (I Peter 1:19-20), these facts do not necessitate that we had to sin. God is a being that is eternal, existing outside of time ("I AM THAT I AM" - Exodus 3:13-15). His knowledge of us is past tense. He is the one who sees the end from the beginning (Isaiah 46:9), not because He sees what is yet to occur, but because He has already been there. This is the significance of His name. He is a timeless being. Therefore, His knowledge of our sin is "past tense", not "future tense". It does not define what will be, but acknowledges what has been. This necessarily follows from His eternal nature.
Maybe it was a typo, but I noticed that you mis-referenced a passage from the last post. I quote it here, because of its plainess and its necessary implication upon our discussion:
| John by the Holy Spirit wrote: | | This is the message which we have heard from Him and declare to you, that God is light and in Him is no darkness at all. If we say that we have fellowship with Him, and walk in darkness, we lie and do not practice the truth. (I John 1:5-6) |
Since God contains "no darkness at all", He therefore could not have fathered it. Parents are not responsible for the decisions of their children, just as parents are not responsible for the decisions of their children (Ezekiel 18; Numbers 26:9-11). Therefore, God is not responsbile for our rebellion. However, His justice and sovereignty demands that our wickedness ultimately be "cleaned up" and reckoned.
If God had made us depraved or with a proclivity to sin, then He would bear responsibility for us fulfilling the direction in which He pushed us. However, if He guided us towards good, but we bucked and ran towards the bad, then He cannot be held responsible. We chose contrary to His will, not according to it. Therefore, we are the creators of sin and responsbile for its consequences. Consequently, we will be cast in hell, if we do not repent - not God.
Although I am sure that you would not consider yourself a Calvinist, some of the arguments that you mentioned sound like close relatives of Calvin's reasoning on the total, hereditary depravity of man. In fact, many of the arguments that I offered here were taken from this article on the main site. You might enjoy reading these for further investigation into this topic of sin, man's nature, and God's nature:
http://www.insearchoftruth.org/articles/depravity.html
http://www.insearchoftruth.org/articles/notcalvinism.html |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
sid
Joined: 24 Oct 2005
Posts: 9
Location: Granite City, IL
|
| Posted: Mon Oct 24, 2005 10:42 pm Post subject: To: m273p15c -- God Pronounced Future Sins |
|
|
To: m273p15c
"Therefore His knowledge of our sin is "past tense", not "future tense. It does not define what will be, but acknowledges what has been".
We are told that God looked down and saw sin (present tense); and He repented that He had made man (Gen 6).
Then prophecy is God declaring future sins. 1) He told Abram his seed would be punished (Gen 15); and this happened 215 years later.
2) God predicted the death of the nation of Israel, by Moses (Deut 2 ; and this happened in their war with Rome (AD 66-73). This was 1600 years later. 3) Isaiah, speaking for God (727 BC) predicted that Judah would fall because of sin. This happened in 588 BC.
sid
_________________
The New Covenant Is In Revelation |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
m273p15c
Joined: 28 Sep 1999
Posts: 499
|
| Posted: Wed Oct 26, 2005 11:24 am Post subject: Re: To: m273p15c -- God Pronounced Future Sins |
|
|
| sid wrote: | To: m273p15c
"Therefore His knowledge of our sin is "past tense", not "future tense. It does not define what will be, but acknowledges what has been".
We are told that God looked down and saw sin (present tense); and He repented that He had made man (Gen 6).
Then prophecy is God declaring future sins. 1) He told Abram his seed would be punished (Gen 15); and this happened 215 years later.
2) God predicted the death of the nation of Israel, by Moses (Deut 28); and this happened in their war with Rome (AD 66-73). This was 1600 years later. 3) Isaiah, speaking for God (727 BC) predicted that Judah would fall because of sin. This happened in 588 BC. |
I believe you misunderstood my post. Please notice that I acknowledged both God's ability to foretell sins and manifest practice of such events, which are future to us:
| m273p15c wrote: | | 3. Foresight != Foreordination - Just because God created us with the freedom to choose sin, and even though He foresaw that we would sin (I Peter 1:19-20), these facts do not necessitate that we had to sin. God is a being that is eternal, existing outside of time ("I AM THAT I AM" - Exodus 3:13-15). His knowledge of us is past tense. He is the one who sees the end from the beginning (Isaiah 46:9), not because He sees what is yet to occur, but because He has already been there. This is the significance of His name. He is a timeless being. Therefore, His knowledge of our sin is "past tense", not "future tense". It does not define what will be, but acknowledges what has been. This necessarily follows from His eternal nature. |
My reference to both I Peter 1:19-20 and Isaiah 46:9 indicate that God transcends time and exhibits His ability to foretell the future (including sins). In fact, He can even prepare for it and circumvent its unchecked consequences, as evidenced in His redemptive offering of His Son upon the cross (I Peter 1:19-20).
The question is not whether God can, or did prophesy sin; but rather, the question being addressed was, "Does God's foretelling of sin foreordain its occurrence?" We were addressing the party who is responsibility for sin - Man or God?
I believe you and I are in aggreement on the first question. God has clearly evidenced His ability to foretell the future, including sins. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group
|
In Search Of Truth
FAQ
Search
Register
Log in