Enduring Problems in Philosophy

[o2b]

As uncomfortable as it is for me to say yes so simply, but yes. It's the only probable logic I can hold for sins to be logically forgiveable.

Hey mintoots,

We are actually so far apart on this subject that to a large degree I am unsure how to proceed, but I definitely want to address this portion.

I am really curious about what it might be for you that logically God cannot forgive sin.

My sense of things is that a (the?) way to approach this is to identify what the wages of sin is. To be philosophical, I can only think of three possibilities.

1. Legal
2. Inherent
3. Both 1 and 2 (there is a legal and an inherent component).

Realizing 1 and 2 are mutually exclusive.

Legal is like God's system of justice requires payment for sin. And as long as that payment is satisified and the sinner accepts that payment in his behalf, he is "justified." This is the long-standing model for much of orthodoxy. This view includes a high level of substitution.

Inherent is like sin's wage stems organically from evil itself. Judas is an excellent example. His undoing was not due to God being like Zeus and hurling thunderbolts at Judas as just payment for his recent, heinous sin. No, the penalty came from within. My guess is, Judas was like, "My God! What have I done?" and the more he realized the heinousness of what he had just done, the more wracked with painful emotions he was, such as guilt.

Now, I am fully in the #2 camp. I don't think God has any need to be appeased/propitiated. I think it is we who need to be appeased. The alienation is in our minds.

All this being said, I think probing the underlying basis for right-standing when one has faith even though one's faith is imperfect and one is still a sinner, is crucial. With my understanding of gospel theory, that subject requires a couple other blocks to be laid (other issues to flesh out).

But anyway, mintoots, between 1,2, and 3, where do you sit?

 

[Wyote]

I've definitely maybe decided that God might be an enduring problem in philosophy as well as my own life

 

[Ren]

I've definitely maybe decided that God might be an enduring problem in philosophy as well as my own life

lol. He is a very enduring problem... Even just the Christian God is so tricky to unpack. It's enough to look at the number of Christian denominations, the endless number of heresies and controversies through the ages...

I think the closest creed for me would be semi-Pelagianism. Interestingly, I learned yesterday that it was apparently developed in Marseille (!)

 

[mintoots]

I've definitely maybe decided that God might be an enduring problem in philosophy as well as my own life

LMAO you made me chuckle

 

[Wyote]

Pelagianism

Had never heard of this before but upon a quick search it seems reasonable

I still consider myself most closely aligned with Jainism probably.
But yeah all those "heresies through the ages" (lol) makes me hesitant to make any assertions other than to say I am a theist of some sort, not even in the traditional sense of the word necessarily.

IDK!

 

[Ren]

As an aside, I'm happy we have found a space where theology/philosophy of religion can be discussed peacefully and respectfully.

It's not always easy to achieve.

 

[Wyote]

LMAO you made me chuckle

 

[Wyote]

As an aside, I'm happy we have found a space where theology/philosophy of religion can be discussed peacefully and respectfully.

It's not always easy to achieve.

Indeed.
Though peace reigns, chaos is around the corner.

 

[mintoots]

Hey mintoots,

We are actually so far apart on this subject that to a large degree I am unsure how to proceed, but I definitely want to address this portion.

I am really curious about what it might be for you that logically God cannot forgive sin.

My sense of things is that a (the?) way to approach this is to identify what the wages of sin is. To be philosophical, I can only think of three possibilities.

1. Legal
2. Inherent
3. Both 1 and 2 (there is a legal and an inherent component).

Realizing 1 and 2 are mutually exclusive.

Legal is like God's system of justice requires payment for sin. And as long as that payment is satisified and the sinner accepts that payment in his behalf, he is "justified." This is the long-standing model for much of orthodoxy. This view includes a high level of substitution.

Inherent is like sin's wage stems organically from evil itself. Judas is an excellent example. His undoing was not due to God being like Zeus and hurling thunderbolts at Judas as just payment for his recent, heinous sin. No, the penalty came from within. My guess is, Judas was like, "My God! What have I done?" and the more he realized the heinousness of what he had just done, the more wracked with painful emotions he was, such as guilt.

Now, I am fully in the #2 camp. I don't think God has any need to be appeased/propitiated. I think it is we who need to be appeased. The alienation is in our minds.

All this being said, I think probing the underlying basis for right-standing when one has faith even though one's faith is imperfect and one is still a sinner, is crucial. With my understanding of gospel theory, that subject requires a couple other blocks to be laid (other issues to flesh out).

But anyway, mintoots, between 1,2, and 3, where do you sit?

Okay, I guess we're going into particulars of the scripture here but sure let's go.

To me, sin is that which takes us away from being loving. I say this is in the context of what sin is relative to God and the faith I have resolved to have in God. I see your point about legal sin, which I perceive to be too mundane so I guess perhaps with God in mind, I am more inclined with the number two, too. However I don't think that being more inclined to this fully discredits the logic of God as I described in the aforementioned.

Upon this statement:

I am really curious about what it might be for you that logically God cannot forgive sin.

That's a good point of clarification. I am not saying per se that God can not forgive sin but more that I am trying to explore the logic of how God could forgive sin. It's more of an attempt to understand God's love and propensity to forgive and the machinations inherent to it. I don't think I'll ever understand of course. I know I'll never know but I'm trying to explore the possibilities.

 

[o2b]

Hey John K,

Because of the semantics, we maybe very easily slip into thinking of God as splitting into two or three, each with their own personality and (sort of) independence, when in fact each is really fully the One as well, otherwise we lie outside what Jesus said above.

I kind of think it is important to delineate the reason aspect of coming to grips with this subject as well as the biblical aspect, though appreciating there is much overlap (both being employed together).

Correct me if I am wrong, but I see that you understand the Son of God and the Holy Spirit as being a part of the One (God).

The thing is, the theos study I carried out absolutely forbids such an understanding. And for me, the only thing that could cause my reason to be violated by what Scripture seems to say is if my conception of God's character of love is violated, which it is not regarding this subject.

My understanding retains Christ's divinity. For God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten [monogenes] Son. Mono is where the only comes from and genes is where the begotten part comes from. Speaking of genes:

Genetics is the study of heredity, or how certain features pass from parents to their offspring, or young. Every kind of plant and animal produces young of its own species, or type. The young resemble their parents.

Someone wrote the following:
Some men say that they will not believe anything till every objection is removed, and every point cleared up. But I believe wherever I see the weight of evidence. Just give me the weight of evidence and I am there. Judges, justices, and courts, have to decide questions upon the weight of evidence, and why not we? I dare not wait until every objection is answered, and every difficulty taken out of the way. It is a fearful thing to stand back mulishly until every possible chance to doubt is removed. Show me the weight of evidence, from the Bible, from experience, from the influence of the spirit of God, and I think I am always safest on that side. When I take a position like that, as it usually involves some self denial and cross-bearing, I believe I meet the approbation of my Lord. I may expect to meet the blessing of God, sufficient to see all things clearly.

The Bible can be quite cryptic. No matter the subject, some texts that appear to be relevant to the subject may seem to support an alternative view than what the majority of texts may appear to support. This really happens a lot. However, if the preponderance of evidence is vastly supportive of a specific position, for me, the texts cannot override such support. I just figure I lack a correct understanding of such texts and I forge ahead with my conclusion as to what the truth of the matter is. To quote the above - I dare not wait until every objection is answered, and every difficulty taken out of the way. It is a fearful thing to stand back mulishly until every possible chance to doubt is removed.

As a result of my study, which is an extremely simple study except that it is laborious, this is by far the most one-sided study I have ever carried out. I've got 1151 theos texts that say the Father alone is God. I have maybe one text that says Jesus is God. The Holy Spirit is never referred to as God. Never! Never does the word theos apply to God.

I illustrated how one-sided the Bible is on the matter.

This is from my manuscript (as was the above excerpt by the way!):

In the movie The Ten Commandments, Moses, played by Charlton Heston, is arguing with Pharaoh played by Yul Brynner. Moses tells Pharaoh the Jewish slaves need to be permitted to rest on the Sabbath in order to be more productive. Pharaoh thinks otherwise. They must work every day for maximum productivity.

Nearby is a weighing scale, the type with two platforms hung from each end of a rod. It is similar to a seesaw. The rod is connected at its middle and can freely pivot from that point. Attached at each end are weighing platforms. If there is no weight on either platform, the rod stands in a horizontal position. An object is weighed by placing it on one platform and then putting known weights on the other platform until the rod is horizontal.

Pharaoh thinks to make his case as he puts a small weight on one of the platforms, causing the rod to move down on the side of that platform (just like a child sitting on one end of a seesaw with no one on the other end). Moses then states his case and places a brick on the other platform, causing that platform to come crashing down.

The result of the theos study concluded with 1151 Bible texts that state the Father is God and one text that might be taken to say that Christ is God (Hebrews 1:8).

Let’s let a one-ounce weight represent one Bible verse. So, one ounce is placed on one platform. How much weight is placed on the other platform? 1151 ounces equals 72 pounds. So, a 72 lb weight is then placed on the other platform, causing the scale to violently crash down.

That is how one-sided this study is.
[end of excerpt]

So, John, while I certainly value everyone's personal belief system, I kind of don't have a horse to play on the matter. For me, the biblical evidence is absolutely settled and as I do not see how my conception of reason is violated with my belief, my reason is happy (settled) as well.

To reiterate a couple facets of my understanding.

The term "God" as it is used in the Bible denotes not just divine, it also denotes He who is the Source of all things. As I confess that Christ is the Son of God, I confess that Christ is not the Source of all things and that the Father alone is the Source of all things and that includes He being the Source of His Son by virtue of being His Father.


White, James, The Throne of Grace (sermon), March 5, 1870,

 

[mintoots]

As an aside, I'm happy we have found a space where theology/philosophy of religion can be discussed peacefully and respectfully.

It's not always easy to achieve.

It's because we are awesome.

 

[o2b]

However I don't think that being more inclined to this fully discredits the logic of God as I described in the aforementioned.

...

That's a good point of clarification. I am not saying per se that God can not forgive sin but more that I am trying to explore the logic of how God could forgive sin. It's more of an attempt to understand God's love and propensity to forgive and the machinations inherent to it. I don't think I'll ever understand of course. I know I'll never know but I'm trying to explore the possibilities.

Hi Again mintoots!

So just to logically parse things out, your conception of who or what God is, such as with your glass partially filled with water analogy, is not a necessary construct with respect to this specific subject. Is that a true statement?

Now, as to God forgiving sin, might the following be another way of putting it that you may see as viable or rplausible?

Let's deduce from Position #2 (inherent).

Now, I suggest a model for such a position is a healing model. There is something inherently unwell about a conscience within which is some evil. Now, something that complicates this is that folks may have some immorality in them and live, but a reason they live is that a perception of the evil that such folks are is almost entirely concealed from them. We walk about in darkness. This is all a perceptual science and what discloses to the sinner his evil is subjection to its contrast, holiness. Here are two texts that inidcate this.

1 Corinthians 3:12-13
12 Now if anyone builds on this foundation with gold, silver, precious stones, wood, hay, straw, 13 each one’s work will become clear; for the Day will declare it, because it will be revealed by fire; and the fire will test each one’s work, of what sort it is.

Isaiah 28:17-20
17 Also I will make justice the measuring line,
And righteousness the plummet;
The hail will sweep away the refuge of lies,
And the waters will overflow the hiding place.
18 Your covenant with death will be annulled,
And your agreement with Sheol will not stand;
When the overflowing scourge passes through,
Then you will be trampled down by it.
19 As often as it goes out it will take you;
For morning by morning it will pass over,
And by day and by night;
It will be a terror just to understand the report.”
20 For the bed is too short to stretch out on,
And the covering so narrow that one cannot wrap himself in it.

No more covering. Evil no longer concealed. Here is an example of this process, realizing the disclosure was highly partial.

Isaiah 6:1-5
In the year that King Uzziah died, I saw the Lord sitting on a throne, high and lifted up, and the train of His robe filled the temple. 2 Above it stood seraphim; each one had six wings: with two he covered his face, with two he covered his feet, and with two he flew. 3 And one cried to another and said:

“Holy, holy, holy is the Lord of hosts;
The whole earth is full of His glory!”

4 And the posts of the door were shaken by the voice of him who cried out, and the house was filled with smoke.

5 So I said:

“Woe is me, for I am am undone!
Because I am a man of unclean lips,
And I dwell in the midst of a people of unclean lips;
For my eyes have seen the King,
The Lord of hosts.”

OK, with the above as a contextual backdrop, might this God's ability to forgive be phrased as How can God look at a sick person as though He is well?

Scripture supplies the answer, but it is cryptic. As far as building a temple (analogy for building a belief system), that brick needs to wait for other ones (with my sense of truth)! But, it absolutely nails down gospel theory.

Anyway, the Scripture that supplies an explanation is text that immediately precedes this verse:

Romans 4:22
22 And therefore “it was accounted to him for righteousness.”

 

[o2b]

So, for instance, when you look at the story of Christ, and ask why was the cross necessary, there is no satisfactory answer.

Ummmmmm!

Check out these verses, as examples.

Hebrews 1:1-2a
God, who at various times and in various ways spoke in time past to the fathers by the prophets, 2 has in these last days spoken to us by His Son

Hebrews 10:1-4
For the law, having a shadow of the good things to come, and not the very image of the things, can never with these same sacrifices, which they offer continually year by year, make those who approach perfect. 2 For then would they not have ceased to be offered? For the worshipers, once purified, would have had no more consciousness of sins. 3 But in those sacrifices there is a reminder of sins every year. 4 For it is not possible that the blood of bulls and goats could take away sins.

The primary application of Hebrews is the last days. There is a grace referred to as very image and it has the following qualification. It is able to produce a mind that no longer has a consciousness of sins.

Now, if the passage is saying what it seems to be saying, given that the qualification is far from ever having been met. that grace has yet to be available. To state as a converse, if that grace was available, it would produce that wonderful state.

Here is a similar verse:

Hebrews 9:14
14 how much more shall the blood of Christ, who through the eternal Spirit offered Himself without spot to God, cleanse your conscience from dead works to serve the living God?

And for context:

Hebrews 9:8-9
8 the Holy Spirit indicating this, that the way into the Holiest of All was not yet made manifest while the first tabernacle was still standing. 9 It was symbolic for the present time in which both gifts and sacrifices are offered which cannot make him who performed the service perfect in regard to the conscience

Same thing.

Christ's work as Lamb manufactured the grace that make righteous. To rephrase with a healing model, it is the needed medicine to make all sick folks well.

There were two deaths and resurrections at Calvary. One is physical and there is no grace in that one that is efficacious for our being made well. The other is in the realm of conscious existence and that one is wholly efficacious for making us well.

I posted this before:


This chart is a depiction of Christ's sacrificial death. Unlike Judas, Christ was victorious within that burden. His victory was His resurrection by faith.

This grace has been largely kept from us because if we were to perceive most of it, we would be consumed. To use Scripture and appreciating the term is a metaphor, Elijah must come first.

The grace wrapped up in the cross is exactly what we need.

 

[mintoots]

Hi @o2b, is it okay if we simplify? Sometimes the scripture is daunting to me because there a lot of words there with at least 101 possible connotations, interpretations, and so on. Is it okay if we take it point by point?

So just to logically parse things out, your conception of who or what God is, such as with your glass partially filled with water analogy, is not a necessary construct with respect to this specific subject. Is that a true statement?

What do you mean by this exactly? Can you expound?

OK, with the above as a contextual backdrop, might this God's ability to forgive be phrased as How can God look at a sick person as though He is well?

Possibly. Where have I heard this before? I've heard of the perception of sinners or of those who are "far from God" as sick but I am uncomfortable with this. While it has been repeatedly symbolized by the many sick people that Christ has healed throughout his life, I can't decidedly attribute being a sinner to being a sick person that needs to be fixed or healed. For one, it is more judging than loving to state that one must be in a "better place". To me, God loves regardless of sin so at that it must be irrelevant if one is a sinner---God's love will remain. But then, there's the gift of choice and free will and like a decent martyr, God gives us that choice and waits. So then, I'm not exactly asking as though why God looks at a sick person and see him as well. Again, I don't see how this contradicts my views, so I may need to be further enlightened as to your point.

 

[John K]

So, John, while I certainly value everyone's personal belief system, I kind of don't have a horse to play on the matter. For me, the biblical evidence is absolutely settled and as I do not see how my conception of reason is violated with my belief, my reason is happy (settled) as well.

Hi o2b - I've picked this quote to represent the whole of your long post.

I think it's worth just doing a rain-check first on what we are doing here, because it's hard to give a context on something as complex as this in threads. What I'm not doing is trying to persuade you that you are misinterpreting the scriptures. It's more a matter of comparing notes, and your analysis is frankly fascinating. There are many ways of interpreting scripture and they all bring fresh insights and new perspectives. As far as I'm concerned, we are comparing our different viewpoints rather than challenging what we are each saying. We are of course going to differ, because my own intellectual position is that of Roman Catholic orthodoxy, on the whole.

In my branch of Christianity, doctrinal authority comes not only from the Bible, but from the centuries of developing of understanding that followed and which built on the Bible accounts. This is not acceptable to many other branches of Christianity of course, but it does take into account the very particular circumstances of Christ's mission. In fact all Christianity is like that - people who have dug deep like yourself and pulled out a variety of conclusions that are not explicit in the original Christian bible.

A couple of thoughts:

It's obvious from (eg) Mark's Gospel that Jesus was very careful not to claim publicly who He was during his mission, because it was politically incompatible with his goals to do this until his trial and execution - he taught for several years while concealing who he was from the people. If He hadn't done that, either He would have been killed before He got started, or even worse, could have triggered a major rebellion against the Romans, and we know how that ended 40 or 50 years later when it actually happened. The whole series of events has to be set in the context of the Jewish heroic Messianic expectations, and the Graeco-Roman culture surrounding the Israel of those days. The disciples who went around with him consistently failed to understand who He was and what He was saying, and they only started to become clearer on this after Pentecost. As Paul tells us, Jesus replaced the Law of the Old Testament with Himself and that was a huge pill for the people of those days to swallow, and that took a few centuries to be fully worked through.

Another problem I have with using the Bible as sole evidence is that it is a product of its times, written in and for the culture of people in the Middle East of the Roman Empire of the First Century AD. Much of it refers back to Old Testament Messianic prophesies for example, and uses context, metaphors and anecdotes that mean something very different to every subsequent generation than they meant to people of those days. Only a few of us too can read it as it was originally written - primarily in ancient Greek, but maybe some in Aramaic, and again we can't read it with the same eyes as a contemporary. This again is why I'm OK with accepting the traditions of my Church on who and what Christ was, because they are rooted in a continuous line of succession back to the first centuries AD, and back to people who had thought through the implications, but were in far greater contact with the culture of the times, and even knew and had lived with people who had known Christ.

Correct me if I am wrong, but I see that you understand the Son of God and the Holy Spirit as being a part of the One (God).

No, that's not how I see it - they each are the One God in my eyes. The nearest I can get to expressing this is to say in metaphor that they are like personas of the One. If you think about it, God must be to all that exists what He is to us too, and much of it is outside our comprehension. I see Jesus as the way that God presents Himself to humans in order for us to approach Him as far as we are able.

Ummmmmm!

Check out these verses, as examples.

Sorry, I didn't explain this clearly - what I mean is that it's a mystery why God would need to reconcile us to Him in such a brutal way. I know what the effect is, what it has done for us, but why was it necessary? Couldn't a more gentle and humane approach have been possible? One possible explanation is that what needed to be done was very difficult, even for an all-powerful God, and necessitated such a drastic and awful remedy, but that doesn't give any understanding as to why.

 

[o2b]

Hi mintoots and John,

Just got back from a long day of errands and I'm taking a nap!

I'll post likely tomorrow.

Thanks!

 

[o2b]

Hi @o2b, is it okay if we simplify? Sometimes the scripture is daunting to me because there a lot of words there with at least 101 possible connotations, interpretations, and so on. Is it okay if we take it point by point?

What do you mean by this exactly? Can you expound?

I am pretty sure I was referring to your view of God as being both light and dark as it might relate what the godhead is, such as a Trinitarian view or a literal Sonship view or some other.

I do not see how your light and dark view of God supports or rejects a specific view of the godhead.

That's what I meant.

Hi @o2b
Possibly. Where have I heard this before? I've heard of the perception of sinners or of those who are "far from God" as sick but I am uncomfortable with this. While it has been repeatedly symbolized by the many sick people that Christ has healed throughout his life, I can't decidedly attribute being a sinner to being a sick person that needs to be fixed or healed. For one, it is more judging than loving to state that one must be in a "better place". To me, God loves regardless of sin so at that it must be irrelevant if one is a sinner---God's love will remain. But then, there's the gift of choice and free will and like a decent martyr, God gives us that choice and waits. So then, I'm not exactly asking as though why God looks at a sick person and see him as well. Again, I don't see how this contradicts my views, so I may need to be further enlightened as to your point.

The way I meant sick has nothing to do with God's attitude toward us.

I believe a consciousness in which there is immorality is inherently psychologically sick. And God manages things with that in mind. Not that He loves us less or anything. Like God is a doctor and we are His patients.

 

[o2b]

Hey John K,

Thanks for clarifying. That is really helpful!

I can see that I unknowingly posited my system of what constitutes extracting truth onto you. Thanks to your post, I now see that the system I adhere to is different from the system you adhere to. Mine is 100% What does the Bible seem to me to say and what does my reason do about it?

Now, I appreciate that this is a contrast to your sense of things, but here I'll elaborate on my sense of institutionalism.

I am only discussing institutionalism from the perspective of it being formed because of the impact of what is believed to be an advancement of truth.

A good example is when Israel was confronted with this advancement in understanding of the Messiah. When Christ walked this earth, lived His life, and experienced His death and resurrection.

The institution of the day utterly rejected this advancement. It expelled all who received it. So, they didn't even have a choice in the matter. So, they form a separate institution.

Now, those that formed it experienced the shift. What of succeeding generations? To what degree do they believe the truth because it was passed down to them according to what became tradition?

I think what happens with occurrences like the above is the folks that make up the institution naturally lose the passion held by its founders. The folks who lived thru that shift, the advancement in understanding they were so passionate about. Passionate enough to perhaps leave their former lives behind. After 4-5 generations, that characteristic is gone and is largely replaced with the tradition of the institution.

OK, so after a good 4-5 generations and the institutional makeup morphing from the experience of living through the shift to an experience of living within a traditional framework, what happens if they are confronted with advanced light? I think the response is inevitable. I don't think a Christian institution in the world has ever accepted a shift after having morphed from its initial revolutionary and passionate experience to a much more traditional-laden one.

I believe in the last days, a confrontation is coming that will be nuclear in scope. I foresee no possibility that a single institution in the world will embrace it. I think institutionalism is batting 0% on that count. I don't think they can help themselves. Like it's a human thing. Institutionalism is needed to cherish advanced light, but it will never be equipped to receive more.

Matthew 23:31-34
31 “Therefore you are witnesses against yourselves that you are sons of those who murdered the prophets. 32 Fill up, then, the measure of your fathers’ guilt. 33 Serpents, brood of vipers! How can you escape the condemnation of hell? 34 Therefore, indeed, I send you prophets, wise men, and scribes: some of them you will kill and crucify, and some of them you will scourge in your synagogues and persecute from city to city,

 

[Ren]

Apologies for getting back to this a little late.

Does a strict definition concerning the divinity of Christ exist? If He was born of human flesh the implication is that He was capable of sin, yet he remained sinless which evinces His divinity, and in those actions He redeemed humanity. The important question here is: did He redeem man because of His divinity, or did He gain divinity through the act of redemption? Can something be redeemed if it doesn't possess the same quality which has been condemned?

I think he redeemed man because although "fully man", he died sinless. It is true that he has to possess the traits of that which has been condemned. It gets more complicated when we ask ourselves whether Jesus was, in fact, capable of sin. Since he is "fully man", he should be capable of sin; but since he is also "fully God", he shouldn't be. I suspect that some of the non-Orthodox views stressing the humanity of Jesus over (or against) his divinity have their basis in the coherence of atonement. The Orthodox view would probably have to say that he was both capable and incapable of sin, and that this is precisely why redemption was possible.

St. Anselm has an interesting theory of atonement. Citing Encyclopedia Britannica:

Anselm held that Jesus’ death on the cross was absolutely necessary because there was no other rationally intelligible way in which sinful humankind could have been reconciled with God. If God in his mercy had simply forgiven humans for their sin, God’s moral order would have been repudiated. God’s righteousness, offended by human sin, demanded satisfaction; that satisfaction could be rendered only by someone who was both God—because God could overcome sin by sinlessness—and human—because humans were those who were guilty of sin. Anselm’s theory was also significant for presenting a comprehensive system that focused on the interrelationship between God, Jesus, and humankind; Satan and the notion of Jesus dying a substitutionary death for humankind had been avoided.

 

[mintoots]

I do not see how your light and dark view of God supports or rejects a specific view of the godhead

Yup. Neither do I. Raised and educated as a Catholic, I guess it's my feeble attempt at piecing together what little I understand.

immorality is inherently psychologically sick

I'm a bit torn about this because immorality is a very complicated discussion. I guess if we simplify to the delineations of the ten commandments and the seven deadly sins, I guess we could say so, but this is something I still have to think about.

Sorry it took me a while to reply. I ran out of steam about the topic.