Righteousness is absolute. It never violates the law, never violates love, is never immoral or dishonorable. I could name every other trait, attitude, disposition, deed, work, or behavior and it would remain the same. Righteousness is all that is good. This is according to the absolutism of God, and the fact that absolutes exist. A “righteousness” that violates the law to whatever degree, does not exist. I am not referring to being lawful one day and then doing an act that is illegal and then repenting of it and regaining the lawful state(such one’s state changing, as in the case of believers for example). I am speaking of God who never changes, and to claim that God holds a permanent position that some principles are to be ignored, results in relativism. Many argue for the existence of “relative righteousness”, especially in the case of humanity. But rather than focus on the discredited doctrine of relative goodness with regards to humanity, I simply mention the doctrine of relative goodness ascribed to humans, for the purposes of revealing that it is actually ascribed to God by unbelievers, deceived believers and “pastors” today.
The end justifies the means is also misunderstood, for the end is not justified in itself by the principle of absolutism, just as the means by which it is claimed to be achieved is unjustified. If a man, angel or God’s intent and method is a violation of law, then the end result or fruit is also a violation of law. The law of states and deeds is an absolute and dictates that the fruit or work of any being is an absolute witness or is evidence of that being’s state. Therefore, if the means is illegal and unprincipled, then the fruit of that means or method is also illegal. Breaking laws results in law breaking, not in lawfulness. The penal substitute doctrine in which it is said that God used the means of punishing the innocent in the place of the guilty, in order to satisfy justice, resulting in the end result, which is “peace with the guilty”, results in a “God” that is as guilty as those He claimed He was originally at odds with. The charge could also be made that God bore false witness at actually being at odds with the unlawful, if it is claimed God used unlawful means. This makes for a show of justice, to give the appearance of justice, in attempts to cover up unlawfulness. What it does is it pulls God down to the level of corrupt men, but in light of the principalities and powers that we war against, it pulls God all the way down to Satan’s own state. Therefore, the God that decided to use illegal means to reconcile with unlawful man and bring man into the lawful state, is never achieved or was ever achievable by those means. Also Justice is not satisfied, but in fact justice as the absolute standard becomes even more wroth, for their are more violators of the law than originally existed, or was there? For the charge can also be made that such a “god” was never just to begin with. The end of the illegal means, results in a an unlawful God becoming subject to justice and condemned Himself, in the criminal sense.
Portraying God’s love as violating the law, and such an unlawful attitude choosing to violate the law for the sake of the guilty, simply isn’t love at all and the end product isn’t law or lawfulness either. When the law is violated, love is violated, morality is violated, and so forth. Why did not love leave justice and it’s demands unmolested? If justice’s disposition as a standard of law originally determined that the just thing to do was to punish the willfully guilty, this places the penal substitute “god” and his motivation at odds with the original claims of justice. For the call for a particular justice in a case, or all cases for that matter…is justice’s declaration of itself and it’s standard. Therefore, according to absolute justice, any other action or decision that is contrary to it’s original declaration of it’s self and standard, is an injustice.
So, if I were to give an example of an evil, unprincipled and unjust god, I would characterize him as punishing the innocent without just cause, and letting the willfully evil off completely scott free. And if this is not a depiction of an unjust and unlawful God, then pray tell what is? Is the depiction of an unjust god, the one that refuses to punish the innocent, and refuses let those who love evil profit in it by totally escaping justice? For it is undeniable that the two are exact opposites of the other. Therefore, one is evil and One is not. The willfully evil being punished is recorded In the Bible and the wording is plain. Yet who is it who must say that although it appears as though God punishes the willfully guilty that is not the case… so do not go by what the word of God says and the first impression that you get from the plain words? Instead, do they not say, “you need to be taught by me in order to understand the word of God”.