Contradicting Quotations in the Bible

Commenting on an answer to a question on Quora:

Phantom Contradictions in the Bible

This was hard for my formerly fundamental KJV-Only Baptist self to admit. But as I read the gospels in harmony format, I have to concede that the gospel writers were more like NIV translators than like Berean Literal Bible translators.

Anybody who picks on the exact wording of quotes in the Bible is applying grammatical rules that do not seem to have existed anywhere when the Bible was written.

I have seen passages that disagree in inconsequential ways. For example, in parallel accounts, Matthew has Jesus saying “kingdom of heaven” whereas other gospel writers have Him saying “kingdom of God.”

(You may have to open the graphic in a separate window to make it large enough to read.)

Whether it is the kingdom of God’s heaven or the kingdom of heaven’s God makes no difference.

Other examples happen when one writer says Jesus spoke a sentence one way and another writer says says Jesus used the same phrases but in an opposite order.

However, the sense of the quotes are always the same. Reportedly, that was adequate by the standards of the day. Before the 1500s, quotes were merely indicated by multi-use marks in the margins; and I couldn’t find any reference to that practice before the third century. Quotation marks that set off direct quotes weren’t invented until the 1500’s. Clear rules for distinguishing between direct, word-for-word quotation and indirect, paraphrased quotation seem to have come even more recently.

And I have never seen a substantial contradiction.

People who see “contradictions” invariably have jumped to that conclusion. They want contradictions to exist. They are willing to ignore not only logical explanations, but also the logical rule that, if a discrepancy can be rationalized, then persisting in calling it a contradiction crosses into intellectual dishonesty.

Copyrights 2020 Richard Wheeler. Permission granted for non-remunerated use, and please give credit where credit is due.

When Prophecy and Knowledge Are Idled

From a question on Quora:

What does 1 Corinthians 13:9-12 mean?

You won’t catch the meaning if you leave out 13:8 and 14:20–22.

The Corinthians church abused a spiritual gift of speaking in human, foreign languages (“tongues”) that a person had never learned.

The writer, the apostle Paul, included several relevant messages in chapters 12–13. One point was that believers should always practice faith, hope, and love, but revelatory gifts such as prophecy, tongues, and knowledge would become redundant. The Holy Spirit distributed gifts for specific purposes; so when a gift’s purpose was fulfilled, the Holy Spirit would stop distributing it.

Verse 8 uses different verbs to separate the causes of tongues’ ceasing from what caused prophecy and knowledge to cease.

• Love never fails; but if there are [spiritual] gifts of prophecy, they will be done away; if there are [spiritual gifts of] tongues, they will cease; if there is [a spiritual gift of] knowledge, it will be done away.

Prophecy and knowledge would be idled (passive form of καταργέω (katargeó) -- to render inoperative, abolish) whereas tongues would stop themselves (middle voice (something acting upon itself) form of παύω (pauó) -- to make to cease, hinder). If you miss this, then you miss how the remainder of chapter 13 and chapter 14 are organized.

Verses 9–12 deal with what would end the spiritual gifts of prophecy and knowledge. The reason for the spiritual gift of tongues ending is described in 14:20–22.

Verses 9–10, 11, and 12 explain, in three different ways, that gifts of prophecy and knowledge would become become redundant.

• Verses 9–10 describes speaking gifts as partial. For we know in part and we prophesy in part; but when the perfect comes, the partial will be done away. Speaking gifts give you a little revelation here and a little there. You never get the whole thing. When the whole verbal revelation comes in a recorded, written form, then you don’t need the partial revelations anymore.
• Verse 11 describes things that are needed by the immature. When maturity comes, then we put away the things of childhood. When I was a child, I used to speak like a child, think like a child, reason like a child; when I became a man, I did away with childish things. The infant church needed prophecy and knowledge. All they had was the Old Testament. But a degree of maturity would come when revelatory gifts would no longer be needed.
• Verse 12 describes seeing the full knowledge that comes from seeing directly as being superior to the partial knowledge that comes from looking in a first century mirror. For now we see in a mirror dimly, but then face to face; now I know in part, but then I will know fully just as I also have been fully known. Now we see but a dim reflection as in a mirror; then we shall see face to face. Now I know in part; then I shall know fully, even as I am fully known. In New Testament lingo, the mirror is verbal revelation from God.* Piecemeal revelation through prophecy and knowledge gives us but occasional glimpses of ourselves, whereas the completed scriptures made full knowledge available and at all times.
• * James 1:23–24, For if anyone is a hearer of the word and not a doer, he is like a man who looks at his natural face in a mirror; for once he has looked at himself and gone away, he has immediately forgotten what kind of person he was.

The perfect, complete, sufficient verbal revelation came as the New Testament scriptures were completed. The church passed from infancy to adulthood. Full knowledge of God’s words would replace going to the prophet to get verbal revelation bit-by-bit. As the scriptures reached completion, the spiritual gifts that delivered the same subjects would become redundant. The gifts of knowledge and prophecy would be idled by the completion of the New Testament.

The cause of tongues ceasing is a tangent, so I’ll be brief. Chapter 14 explicitly says “tongues are for” a purpose. Verses 20–22 refer to an Old Testament prophecy: Tongues was a sign to unbelieving Jews. The sign meant that God would soon punish the Jews for rejecting their Messiah. Paul wrote 1 Corinthians in 53 AD. In 66 AD, Israel rebelled against Rome. Rome swept over Israel and destroyed Jerusalem and the Temple in 70 AD. Rome again warred against the Jewish remnant in 132–136. So as you read verses 20–22 in light of the prophecy’s significance, you find that tongues were for a particular audience:

• Not believers (14:22). 14:4 says, The one who speaks in a tongue edifies himself, but the one who prophesies edifies the church. Anybody who thinks speaking in tongues to edify yourself is a good thing has completely missed the point. Chapter 12 says the gifts are to edify the church, and no gift is given to everybody. Chapter 13 says the gifts are for loving others, and love does not seek its own (13:5). Chapter 14 says to seek better gifts and keep things orderly. Even 14:4 contrasts (“but”) tongues and prophecy in a way that puts tongues in a negative light.
• Unbelievers; more specifically…
• Unbelieving Jews educated in Old Testament prophecy
• Unbelieving Jews that the prophecy of Jerusalem’s destruction might apply to — in other words, first century Jews.

When Rome fulfilled the prophecy for which tongues was a sign, tongues became redundant. Similarly, as the scriptures were completed and circulated, the gifts of prophecy and knowledge became redundant. Logically, the Spirit would no longer distribute redundant spiritual gifts.

All Bible references are from the New American Standard Bible.

Copyright 2020, Richard Wheeler. Permission granted for non-remunerated use. Remember to give credit where credit is due.

God's Name: Holy, But Not Magic

Another question from Quora

Why are some words capitalized in the Bible?

Which Bible? Which words?

A. Others have explained how words such as pronouns are capitalized out of reverence when the words refer to God. Sometimes that practice is helpful because ancient writers were not always clear about whom a pronoun referred to. If a sentence referred to a prophet, a king, and God, figuring out which one of them “he” refers to might be difficult. When the pronounce is capitalized, you know that at least the translator believes it refers to God.

B. The New American Standard Bible uses all-capitals to identify quotations, particularly quotations from the Old Testament.

C. But I think what you really want to know about is the word LORD, in all capital letters.

Before the time of the exodus from Egypt, those who worshiped God referred to Him descriptively as “God” or “Lord.” Egypt had many gods, so after God told Moses to lead the Israelites out of Egypt, Moses wanted a name so he could tell the Israelites who sent him to them. God answered, “Tell them I AM has sent you.” That name was spelled YHWH. Hebrew did not have vowels, so if you did not learn Hebrew by hearing it, you would not know how to pronounce the name.

A thousand years later, Israel had departed from worshiping YHWH. God removed His protection, so other nations destroyed Israel and deported the leaders for seventy years. When the leaders were sent back to Israel a few years before 530 BC to re-establish the nation, they had learned their lesson and become extremely serious about worshiping God.

They became so serious that they refused to pronounce that holy name, YHWH. Consequently, later generations forgot how to pronounce it! By the time of Christ’s birth, it had become regular practice to add the vowels from Adonai (“Lords”) to YHWH to make YaHoWaH.

Since the actual pronunciation was lost, this new pronunciation stuck. Over time, the name was Hellenized for Greek translations. Then that was Latinized for Roman translations. Then that was Anglicized for English translations. That’s how it came to be pronounced Jehovah. Sometimes, some translations use the name Jehovah; other times, they use LORD in its place.

LORD is still used in place of YHWH in many modern translations. Sometimes LORD is used for Adonai, too, especially in compound names such as Adonai Elohim (literally, “Lords Gods,” but often translated “LORD God”). It’s done partly out of respect, partly out of tradition, and partly because we have no confidence that Yahowah is the correct pronunciation. It’s just assumed that readers know; but obviously, not everybody does.

Watch out for organizations of movements that stress knowing God’s “name” such as Yah, Yahweh, Ehyeh asher Ehyeh, or Jehovah. They take advantage of people who lack biblical education. It’s good to learn the meanings that words and names convey. However, God understands all human languages, even when we mispronounce His name. Biblical faith is not a religion of sorcery and incantations wherein the words themselves have power. Our goal is to know and experience God, not magical words.

Copyright 2020, Richard Wheeler. Free for non-remunerated use, but please give credit where credit is due rather than committing plagiarism.

Omniscience Is No Paradox for God

Answering a question on Quora

Sometimes, the answers on Quora are so bad, you have to add your own answer, even if the question is so elementary that any diction should give an adequate answer, because people who post questions tend to be most influenced by the first answers they read.

What does it mean to be "omniscient"?

Omniscient combines the prefix omni-, “all,” with the Latin root word scientia, “knowledge.” To be omniscient is to know all knowable information. For a more complete definition, watch the opening of the video below, titled, “Omniscience Paradox Debunked.”

Contrary to some objections, a Being with omniscience does not take away free will. Suppose you see someone whose face has lost its color, their eyes have become glassy and unfocused, and their body has started wobbling; and he says, “I’m going to faint.” You now have good reason to believe (“know”) that he’s going to faint. Has your knowledge taken away his choice to either continue standing or to lie down before he loses consciousness? Of course not. Similarly, an omniscient Being’s knowledge of what we decide to do or believe does not limit the freedom of our wills.

It could be argued that, if you knew the consequences of every option you do or do not choose, there would be no meaning to anything. This argument assumes that meaning comes from ignorance of future success or failure. Human motivation peaks when the ratio of success to failure calculates at around 2/3 — significantly higher for some, significantly lower for others. Motivation fades if one either succeeds too often or fails too often. But it is presumptuous to project a human tendency onto a Being who has attributes of perfection such as omniscience. Such a Being could derive meaning from other factors such as demonstrating justice, love, and an unimaginably intricated level of planning.

Some see a paradox in knowing even one’s future choices. If you already knew in the past what you were going to choose now, then you aren’t making a choice now. But this merely shows the falsehood of the assumption that you will make choices in the future. Any choices would already have been made through the same mechanism that endowed omniscience. Imagine the gears of a mechanical watch. The gears firmly enmesh so that all move together. Similarly, choices and knowledge could enmesh so that, if one exists, so does the other.

Further reading (or listening):

• What does it mean that God is omniscient?
• What Determines the Future?
• Doctrine of God (Part 13): Systematic Study of God’s Omniscience | Reasonable Faith
• God's Omniscience and Man's Free-will (William Lane Craig)
• Omniscience Paradox Debunked
• You might want to read answers to questions already on Quora, “What is omniscience?” and “Does an omniscient being know it's omniscient?”

Copyright 2020 Richard Wheeler. Permission granted for non-remunerated use, and please give credit where credit is due.

Bible Contradictions About Eating Pagan Sacrifices

Answering a question on Quora:

Does 1 Corinthians 10:18-22 contradict 1 Corinthians 8:4-13?

The two passages reveal overlapping principles in different contexts. They do not contradict.

Before continuing, follow the first rule of Bible interpretation: Never read a Bible verse; read it in context.

• 1 Corinthians 8 NASB
• 1 Corinthians 10 NASB

Note that if you continue reading after 10:22, the meaning of that passage becomes clearer. So always read at least one previous paragraph, the current passage, and one following paragraph when somebody gives you a passage to read. Preferably more.

As a brand new Christian I drove a girl named Wanda home from a youth activity. I offered to turn on the radio to fill the silence. I would have put it on the station that played “adult” music of the 50s and 60s. It was tamer than “easy listening” is today. But she said “No, I don’t listen to that kind of music.” I looked up to her, so for a long time, I listened only to classical or Christian music.

However, she did something that created cognitive dissonance for me. We happened to attend the same Grad Night at Disneyland. When I saw her a few days later, she expressed delight about the Olivia Newton-John concert, which I had avoided. She had set my standards high and then undermined them.

That incident gnawed at my conscience. After a few years, I started listening to instrumental rock. Gradually, that bar lowered to classic rock, and then only restriction was a matter of taste. After somebody has set a high standard for you, it doesn’t take much of a poor example to erode that standard until you drop it altogether. 

In the Hellenic culture of the ancient Greeks and under Roman rule, much of the food was presented as sacrifices in the pagan temples and then sold in the market places. In some places it was difficult to find food that had not been dedicated to idols. Additionally, on some occasions, traditions such as civic ceremonies required eating in the temples. This posed a practical problem for new Christians who feared that eating such food would bring a curse on them. It also posed a problem for recent converts from the pagan religions who might be tempted to return to worshiping idols.

Many of the Corinthian believers used to be worshipers of the Hellenist or Roman gods. In their minds, eating sacrificed foods, especially in the temples, meant sharing in the sacrifices. That would tempt them to return to their previous pagan cultures. So the passage in Chapter 10 begins by warning young or weak Christians not to take part in pagan sacrifices, especially in any ceremonies that constitute worship of the pagan gods. Then the chapter goes on to teach something for more mature Christians….

Both chapters state that any dedication to the idols holds no actual effect. In chapter 8, the apostle wrote that sacrificed food “will not commend us to God; we are neither the worse if we do not eat, nor the better if we do eat” because “we know that there is no such thing as an idol in the world, and that there is no God but one.” So not only did the sacrifice not do anything, but even the temple and idol had no power of their own.

Chapter 10 agrees, saying, “What do I mean then? That a thing sacrificed to idols is anything, or that an idol is anything? Rather [meaning “no”]…. All things are lawful, but not all things edify” (10:19–20,23b).

Since the sacrifice of food to an idol does nothing to the food, both passages allow eating such food. A Christian even had the freedom to eat it in the temple. However, both passages command that out of love, the strong Christian with this freedom should abstain from eating such food if it will cause somebody to stumble.

Chapter 8 focuses on avoiding offending weaker Christians who would be upset to see Christians they looked up to eating in temples. Such weaker Christians might see that as an endorsement of the pagan religion and return to it. Chapter 10 teaches a parallel principle but instead focuses on avoiding offending unbelievers.

The principle taught in both is that it does not matter that I know the sacrifice has no effect; if the other person believes the sacrifice has power, then I must set aside my right so they do not stumble.

Can you see how the prime principle is loving others? Can you think of other issues that might have similar applications? Imagine how much better society would be if we all were willing to give up our rights for the sakes of others.

Copyright 2020 Richard Wheeler. Permission granted for non-remunerated use, but please don't offend me by forgetting to give credit where credit is due.

How to Defeat Any Curse

From a question on Quora:

Do you believe curses or hexes exist?

A hex is just a curse made by a witch, so I’m going to just call them curses.

Curses can come from two sources: humans and God.

A curse from a human has no power of its own. It’s just words. Words can influence persons, but they have no force of their own. However, a curse can incite a listener to act. Curses can have a nocebo effect, which is the opposite of a placebo's positive effect. That is, the fear of a curse produces its own negative results or perception of negative results. Curses can also invite demonic forces into people's lives.

Note that agents of darkness may not be welcome in the life of the person who is cursed. For example, they might have the protection of the Holy Spirit of God. However, by invoking agents of darkness, people pronouncing curses invite demons’ influence into their own lives. So cursing can be more dangerous for the person cursing than for the person cursed.

The ways demons might influence or control people are a separate subject.

A curse from God is a pronouncement of judgment. The pronouncement may merely predict the consequences of evil action, such as when God cursed cities to be destroyed and never rebuilt. Two, three, of four thousand years after the destruction of such cities, their ruins are found by satellite photos, buried in the sands. Such pronouncements may also reflect God’s influence over humans to prevent anybody from ever re-established such cities.

God’s curse is far worse than curses coming from witches, shamans, demons, or anything else. Because we fall short of the moral standard based on God’s perfect holiness, God’s verdict of guilty and sentence of everlasting separation from God falls on all of us. If you don’t see yourself that way, just read the Ten Commandments and keep in mind that the violation need not be physical. God is Spirit, and the thoughts of our spirits are just as real to Him as physical actions are to each of us.

God offers to lift that curse. As Creator of the universe — time, space, energy, and matter — God used His creative power to enter, experience, and act in time and space as three Persons. The three Persons, while have identical natures, voluntarily assumed three distinct roles: Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. The Son voluntarily took on a human body called Jesus of Nazareth. He preached and performed miracles that validated His identity, and then He took our curse upon Himself.

God offers freedom from the curse as a gift, but the gift comes with three costs. The first cost is abandoning the pride and self-righteousness that leads us to either deny that we are under the curse or to think we can do enough good to justify ourselves. We can’t do good to make up for wrong thoughts and actions because we already owe it to our Creator to do good. We cannot pay with what we already owe.

The second cost is the flip side of the first. We need to depend completely on God’s gift. We cannot insult the Giver by depending on our own merit or by mixing our merit with His gracious generosity. The gift must be received as a gift.

Underlying this dependence is an acknowledgment that God (specifically the Son), adding to His own nature the nature of a man, Jesus of Nazareth, bore our curse by dying on a cross; but being God, could not be held by death; and so He restored life to that body and physically rose from the dead on the third day. That resurrection sealed the validation of His identity as the Creator of life. It proved the sufficiency of His death as payment for our moral crimes. And it served as a down payment for the continuation of our lives in heaven and the eventual resurrection and transformation of our physical bodies.

The third cost is the practical side of abandoning self-righteousness and receiving the gift of redemption from the curse. People who do that are called believers or Christians. They are also called disciples because, if they are sincere, they begin learning about and loving the things that God loves and hating things that God hates. They start abandoning old practices and start doing things, not to justify themselves, but to demonstrate their sincerity, out of gratitude to God, and out of love for others. When their lives and choices change, some people will be happy for them, but others will think them strange or even hate them.

Most people will not pay the cost. Accepting guilt and its deserved consequences and then depending entirely on God for freedom from the curse offends our pride. Not all have the courage to enduring what family, friends, or enemies of God will say and do. Those who accept freedom from the curse, however, will receive rewards in heaven that far outweigh any cost.

When people accept the cost, repent over their moral crimes or bad beliefs, and put their trust entirely in the Gift of Gifts, the Holy Spirit enters their lives and intercedes with the Father for them. Where the Holy Spirit dwells, dark forces lose all their power. The Son also welcomes them as beloved siblings and intercedes for them. And the Father welcomes them as beloved children.

Over such, no curse has power.

Copyright 2020, Richard Wheeler. Feel free to use for non-remunerated purposes, but if you fail to give credit where credit is due, a pox be upon you!

Kingdom of God Within? Luke 17:21

From answering a question on Quora:

What did Jesus mean when He said “the kingdom of God is within you”? Does the Kingdom of God only exist in our hearts and minds?

Now having been questioned by the Pharisees as to when the kingdom of God was coming, He answered them and said, "The kingdom of God is not coming with signs to be observed; nor will they say, 'Look, here it is!' or, 'There it is!' For behold, the kingdom of God is in your midst." (Luke 17:20-21, NASB; Feel free to read the whole chapter in a chapter of your choice.)

“Within you” loses a bit in the translation due to our changing language. In current English, a better preposition would be among. Let’s get a bit of context.

Over what is God the King? Although God does not assert His sovereignty yet, He is King over all. And here, all means all. There is no jurisdiction outside of His sovereignty. All realms are subject to Him, even if He does not micromanage His kingdom. So, whether we bow to Him as citizens of His kingdom, ignore Him, or rebel against Him, we are in His kingdom.

We might call God’s kingdom “the universe” when talking about the kingdom itself. When talking about it in its relationship to God, we can call it the kingdom of God or the kingdom of heaven. Those two terms are used interchangeably in Matthew.

The preposition translated within can also mean inside, among, or in the midst of. Since Jesus was addressing unbelieving Pharisees, we can test the interpretation, within each of you now, by considering what Jesus said about non-believers.

For example, Jesus told some Jewish leaders that they were of their father, the devil (John 8:44). The Old Testament speaks of our hearts being, by default, lifeless, such that God needs to (figuratively) replace our hearts of stone with hearts of flesh (Ezekiel 36:26). And the New Testament epistles explicitly teach that the Spirit of God indwells believers (Romans 8) but not unbelievers (1 Corinthians 2:14); and some unbelievers are even controlled by demons.

So saying that the kingdom of God is already within everybody is not a possible interpretation. That leads us to test the other interpretation: The kingdom of God was among them and is among us.

The men questioning Jesus were looking for a political kingdom. Look at the preceding verse: 20 Now having been questioned by the Pharisees as to when the kingdom of God was coming, He answered them and said, "The kingdom of God is not coming with signs to be observed 21 nor will they say, 'Look, here it is!' or, 'There it is…!' (Luke 17:20,21, NASB).

That does not mean that God will not one day assert His sovereignty in a military, civil, or political sense; it just means that we don’t have to wait. For the people who heard Jesus, it was present in a new way anticipated for centuries: The King of Kings had taken on a human body. God was giving face-to-face access to God to those who followed Him.

And an even more wonderful phase was to soon follow. Whereas the Holy Spirit of God had come upon a select few people to accomplish specific tasks such as governing or preaching verbal revelation, the Holy Spirit would permanently indwell, empower, preserve, reform, and intercede for all believers, joining believing Jews together with believers from among all races, cultures, and levels of society.

That is why both John the Baptist (Matthew 3:2) and Jesus (Matthew 4:17) preached, “Repent, for the kingdom of God is near.”

The Jewish leaders of the day wanted a political kingdom that gave them power or an ecclesiastical kingdom that rewarded their self-righteousness. They failed to enter into participation in God’s kingdom.

Instead, God’s kingdom is among us, welcoming the entry of all who relinquish self-righteousness, cease attempting to escape accountability for offending God, and trust instead in God’s sacrifice as our substitute.

Women Saved Through Childbearing

1 Timothy 2:15 -- But she will be saved through childbearing, if they abide in faith and love and holiness, with self-restraint. -- Berean Literal Bible

This verse has always been a bit of unresolved business in my mind. At first read, it seems to say that women are saved (from sin) by bearing children. That would contradict the many explicit passages teaching that salvation comes through faith alone. A wise interpreter does not let contradictions stand and does not allow ambiguous verses outweigh explicit verses. So we dig and put faith in the knowledge that an explanation exists.

The meaning of "saved" is not explicit. If you ask, "saved from what," you realize that "saved" does not always refer to the salvation of our souls. It can have a more general meaning. 

Similarly, "childbearing" is probably a synecdoche (sin-NEK-tuh-kee), a figure of speech in which a term for a part of something refers to the whole of something (or vice versa). Childbearing probably refers to the whole of rearing children, since the word is followed by a code of lifelong behaviors.

Dr. Andrew Farley has given an explanation that unlocked the verse for me. (The video also explains verse 14.) I would feel comfortable giving this explanation even to people who use it in an attempt to slander Paul and denigrate the scriptures.

The teachings of the pagan religions, especially those of the cult of Diana, had left women who converted to faith in Christ feeling insecure. For example, the cult taught women that focusing on family instead of on career achievement would make them lesser people. Also, Diana was the goddess of fertility and childbearing, so women probably feared that renouncing Diana had removed her protection and made motherhood more dangerous. 

Paul intended to reassure them that God's blessing was still on them if they devoted themselves to crafting the next generation instead of focusing on careers. Faith, love, holiness, and propriety do not save us, but they are the evidence that a sincere conversion produces. 

That reassurance still applies. Society pressures women to abandon family in pursuit of career achievement.

Aside from learning that the passage merely reassures women that they lose nothing by abandoning the mindsets of their former religions, finding this interpretation also gives an example of hermeneutical principles. 

• Words have multiple meanings and levels of meaning.
• Ambiguous passages do not cancel or override explicit passages.
• "Context" in which a verse is interpreted has multiple levels, including sentence, paragraph, book, author, testament, and especially important in this passage, cultural.

The most important hermeneutical principle illustrated for many is that when explanations escape us, we do not choose a doubtful one, conclude that there is a contradiction, or give up. Rather, we keep an open mind, keep digging, and keep gathering background information, even if it takes decades.

Copyrighte 2020, Richard Wheeler. Permission granted for non-remunerated use. Please give credit where credit is due.

Moral Monsters: Deviants from Objective Morality

From a question on Quora:

If God the Father of life is All-Holy and objectively moral, then wouldn’t the definition of a true monster be anything that is subjectively moral and anti-life or anti-God?

I would start with a dictionary definition of monster. Most definitions are subjective. I like the definition from biology given on Dictionary.com because it implies a standard:

an animal or plant of abnormal form or structure, as from marked malformation or the absence of certain parts or organs; a grossly anomalous fetus or infant, especially one that is not viable.

We can apply this definition to morality. Monster: a personal being having a set of principles, thoughts, or behaviors, from lacking or deviating from objectively moral principles.

I wanted to say that a hypothetical person’s subjective morality could coincide with the objective morality that is based on God’s character. Such a person would not be a monster. However, basing morality on the wrong foundation, personal opinion, would make one a monster because ignoring objective morality requires rejecting God’s sovereignty; and rejecting God’s sovereignty is immoral. So it would be impossible to be subjectively moral without deviating from objective morality.

Is every person that is not objectively moral subjectively moral? One could say that because, if morals are not based on an objective standard, then they are based on a subjective one. Ah, but there are monsters who have no morals at all. They may have a personal code based on what is convenient, profitable, or pleasurable. That is emotional or pragmatic, not principled, so it would be incorrect to call it “morality.”

The grammar describes a true monster as subjectively moral and anti-life or as subjectively moral and anti-God. In this context, and requires that both be true. The construction implies that people who are pro-life but subjectively moral and people who are pro-God but subjectively moral are not monsters.

Furthermore, the anti-life and anti-God positions are subjective morals, so they are redundant. The phrase is like saying a motorcycle is not a car and tires or a car and bumpers when the tires and bumpers are part of the car.

Does it flow from If God the Father of life is All-Holy and objectively moral that subjective morality is monstrous? If objective morality is based on God’s character, specifically, His holiness, then the link that contrasts God’s holiness against subjective morality is indirect. That means that God’s holiness is background information rather than part of the premise.

It is necessary for objective morality to exist in order for subjective morality to be anomalous. There’s no such thing as an anomaly without such a thing as normal. It is also necessary that normality is desired or intended, which requires an agent who desires or assigns a goal or purpose. However, desire or intent, like God’s holiness, is not directly related to whether one meets the objective requirements.

So refining the original statement should include:

• Account for the worst monster, the amoral person.
• Restate anti-life or anti-God as examples of subjective morals (and perhaps be a bit more specific).
• Treat as background or trim information about God being holy (and imposing a requirement that His creatures be objectively moral.
• Use attitudes about God and the sacredness of life as examples rather than as requirements.

A better phrasing would be: God the Father of life requires of moral beings an objective morality based on His holy character. Since objective morality exists and is part of our original, intended design, a moral monster is any person who is amoral or subjectively moral. Examples of subjectively moral principles might include promoting atheism or non-medically-necessary abortion.

The elephant in the room includes a practical application of the definition.

Although some of us aspire to match our morality to God’s objective standard, we all retain subjective morals and fall short even of those. We are all moral monsters. None of us is born with the moral perfection intended in God's children. We are all spiritually deformed and spiritually non-viable. For all have sinned and come short of the glory of God. 

God took responsibility for allowing us to bring moral monstrosity into the world by providing for redemption at His own expense. If we recognize our monstrosity, agree that we have earned the consequences, and entrust ourselves solely to the One who redeems us from our moral debt, then God will begin the process of transforming us from monsters back into the works of art that He originally designed us to be. 

Copyright 2020, Richard Wheeler. Feel free to use for non-remunerated purposes, but please remember to give credit where credit is due.

Another Silly Question about God's Origin

From answering a question on Quora:

Does God know where he came from?

The question assumes that God “came from” somewhere. According to Christian scriptures, theology, and philosophers, God created the universe. Without a universe, no “then,” “there,” “source,” or “cause” existed from which God could come. So the question is broken.

Perhaps the asker meant, “What was the source or origin of God?” Again, without time, sequences such as going from non-existence to cause, to creation, to existence are nonsensical. Nevertheless, many Atheists ask the same question differently, asking, “Who created God?”

If God had a creator, who created him? And who created the Creator’s creator? And who created the Creator’s creator’s creator? Once you insist that the Creator had to have a creator, you create an infinite regression. It doesn’t work. If you started at a time infinitely in the past, and then pass through time, you could never get to our “now” because that would take an infinite length of time. In an infinite length of time, no matter how much time passes, there’s still more time that needs to pass before you can get to our “now.” Similarly, if you start with an infinitely precedent creator, you could never get to the current Creator. The assumption that God had a creator creates a mathematical impossibility.

The above analysis brings us to another problem. If God created the universe, then He created all the attributes and artifacts of the universe, including time, which cosmology and physics tell us had a beginning in the Inflationary period that became the Big Bang. If God created time, then He has an existence outside of time. And if God exists outside of time, then saying that He must have had a beginning and a creator is like saying that the number seven must have a color and a temperature. “Beginning” is meaningless without time, so, again, the assumption that God had a beginning creates a practical impossibility.

The question is in the class of questions such as “Why did God do this?” and “Why didn’t God to that?” It requires knowing the mind of God. Such questions require either God revealing His knowledge or reasoning to us, speculating, or reading god’s mind. I’m not a god, and I don’t believe anybody else who uses Quora is a god, either, so reading the memories in God’s mind is out of the question. That leaves us with either revelation or speculation. According to revelation through the Christian scriptures, God is self-existent and created the universe. From that, we can say that God does not "know" the incorrect assumption that He had an origin. If you reject revelation, then giving an authoritative answer is impossible. And the impossibility of giving an answer can only prove, at best, human limitations.

There’s a common practice of posing rhetorical questions as a substitute for actual arguments. Rhetorical questions can be used to hide false assumptions and faulty logic. The person answering the question has to restate the question as a claim and then detect the assumptions and logic and their flaws. So, if the intent is to discourage belief in God, the question is more specious than logical. (I don’t assume that the asker had that intent. I’m just pointing it out because others do use such flawed rhetoric.)

To sum up, the question is a non sequitur, meaning that it assumes facts not in evidence. And the concise answer is, no, God would not “know” something that is impossible and meaningless.

For further background:

• https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PL3gdeV4Rk9EfL-NyraEGXXwSjDNeMaRoX

Copyright 2020, Richard Wheeler. Feel free to use for non-remunerated purposes, but please give credit where credit is due.