30 Oct 07
1 edit
Originally posted by whodeyWe have drifted off from my original question on page 2 to a question about faith and how to establish it. The point is that if I have enough information to make the right decision myself, I don't need to put faith into anyone else. And no matter how much I love or trust someone, I would expect them to give me the necessary information if possible, rather than just asking me to trust them. As your God is said to be omnipotent and have created us, it would certainly be possible for him to give us the necessary information and knowledge that would enable us to make the right choice. My questions were why he has chosen not to do so, how sufficient knowledge would limit free will (as I said in my post on page 2, in my understanding it would rather enable us to exercise free will), and what good free will does if it only means that we can make the wrong choice due to lack of knowledge or information.
But I did answer the question. How did I not answer the question?
30 Oct 07
Originally posted by NordlysHow much knowledge do you require? Is it the same amount of knowledge that God has? If so, this is an impossibility because we are finite beings with the inability for such knowledge that God has. This is why faith is required. At some point we will reach the end of our knowledge or our capacity for knowledge. However, where are capacity for knowledge end Gods continues. This is why we place our faith in him. He is our "seeing eye" God, so to speak.
We have drifted off from my original question on page 2 to a question about faith and how to establish it. The point is that if I have enough information to make the right decision myself, I don't need to put faith into anyone else. And no matter how much I love or trust someone, I would expect them to give me the necessary information if possible, rather th ...[text shortened]... oes if it only means that we can make the wrong choice due to lack of knowledge or information.
In terms of having enough information to make the right decision yourself, perhaps you view Adam and Eve not being given the right amount of knowledge to make the right decision? At the time they were without sin so they had no point of reference with which to understand what sin was all about until they ate of the fruit. They had a limited capacity for such knowledge. All that they knew was that God told them that if you eat of the fruit you will die.
30 Oct 07
3 edits
Originally posted by vistesdLets create a scenerio where I possess the ability to give others eternal life because I love them. Morally, should I force people to accept eternal life? I think that the only moral way to go about things would be to offer it as a gift, no? One must choose the gift rather than having the gift thrust upon them. However, one must believe that I possess the ability of giving them eternal life thus they must place their faith in me for this gift. The question will then probably be asked why not prove to every one that I am able to give them this gift so that they will not doubt and will gladly accept such a gift? This is where it gets complicated. What if this gift is a physical attribute that only I possess and I am required to interact with you for you to recieve it? What if simply interacting with me causes you to achieve immortality because I am the source of all life? Is not establishing a relationship with me then required? Is not desiring a relationship with me desirable or even required? Othewise I am forcing you to interact with me just so you can recieve such immortality. The only way to avoid this coersion is to see if one loves me to begin with and enjoys being with me and loves my ways. Then such interaction is mutually pleasurable rather than compulsary. In such a relationship there exists no coersion. Therefore, the first business at hand would be to assess which people desire a relationship with me based upon who and what I am all about. Do my ways appeal to you?
I was aking you, in response to your post saying that I was looking at it (love) the wrong way.
30 Oct 07
Originally posted by whodeyEnough to make an informed decision. In this particular case, no-one in their right mind and with the correct information would choose to go to hell. Therefore anyone in hell, was not given enough knowledge. If it requires all of Gods knowledge to make the correct decision then why does God let us choose without enough information? He is in effect throwing dice to see who goes to heaven or hell. We are not actually choosing when we do not have sufficient information, we are simply making a random choice.
How much knowledge do you require?
In terms of having enough information to make the right decision yourself, perhaps you view Adam and Eve not being given the right amount of knowledge to make the right decision? At the time they were without sin so they had no point of reference with which to understand what sin was all about until they ate of the fruit. They had a limited capacity for such knowledge. All that they knew was that God told them that if you eat of the fruit you will die.
Yet they were punished for that. If your two year old child does something terribly wrong will you punish him the same way that you punish a 20 year old? The reason for the difference is that the older person is presumably making a more informed decision.
30 Oct 07
2 edits
Originally posted by whodeyThe poster was talking about how he personally does not have enough information to believe in the existence of God and therefore not enough information to make informed decisions regarding God.
But I did answer the question. How did I not answer the question?
Your reply was all about how you experienced God. It simply doesn't answer the posters question at all. The poster is not asking how he should find God, he is asking how he can be held responsible for decisions relating to a God that he does not have sufficient information to believe in. Whether or not the information available is sufficient is not the issue.
30 Oct 07
Originally posted by vistesdThroughout Scripture, we see God's very make-up being described otherwise, i.e., the foundation of His throne being righteousness and justice and etc. God is described as Truth, as Light.
No, Freaky, I think that is the error. I could not find one instance in the OT or NT where it says God is righteousness, or holiness, or justice. Those are applied to God as aspects/attributes (adjectives, if you will); just as you stated that God is perfect, not perfection—let’s call that a Freudian grammatical slip on ...[text shortened]... * pneuma and ho theos are similarly identified in the nominative case in John 4:24
Further, when we consider what is ultimately right, the same is always in juxtaposition to God. When we consider absolute truth, it is with Him in mind, as it is with justice, perfection, beauty, glory and etc. God has always and forever been viewed by the Scripture of the penultimate exemplfier of all things good. Man has no higher standard nor source for what is right.
30 Oct 07
Originally posted by whodeyThis is interesting, but let me try adding another piece to it—
Lets create a scenerio where I possess the ability to give others eternal life because I love them. Morally, should I force people to accept eternal life? I think that the only moral way to go about things would be to offer it as a gift, no? One must choose the gift rather than having the gift thrust upon them. However, one must believe that I possess the ...[text shortened]... desire a relationship with me based upon who and what I am all about. Do my ways appeal to you?
None of us asked for life to begin with, nor consented to our creation. Now, I have had a pretty good life so far—I’ve been poor, but never really destitute; I’ve experienced tragedies, but not been crushed by them; I’ve loved and been loved.
But some people are born, without their consent, suffer unremitting, horrible pain and misery—and then die.
I don’t want to turn this into a pure “argument from evil” (although my opening post is an angle on Euthyphro’s dilemma, I suppose). But here is your scenario, as I understand it:
God has the power to bestow eternal life. The source of that power and that eternal life is love. Since God is love, one must have a relationship (sharing, communion) with that source in order to receive the bestowal (rather in the same way that one must actually drink of the fountain of youth in order for the water to have effect). God, being love, will not coerce any of that.
However— If I refuse, or fail to recognize, this whole thing, I don’t simply die; nor do I simply continue much as I am now (sans a relationship with God): I still receive eternal life, but with a huge increase in suffering and torment. God does not allow me to choose simple death; that is not part of the scenario. I now become like those people who are born into dreadful suffering, also without their choice.
Now, if a God of love was able to create our life to begin with without our consent—that is, if that act is consistent with a perfectly loving God—why is bestowal of eternal bliss without our consent unloving? After all, once we have received that gift, we are unlikely then to reject it. And if that gift entails being infused with love, then we will be infused with love, realize the beauty of it, and not want to relinquish either it or its source...
30 Oct 07
4 edits
Originally posted by FreakyKBHGod has always and forever been viewed by the Scripture of the penultimate exemplifier of all things good.
Throughout Scripture, we see God's very make-up being described otherwise, i.e., the foundation of His throne being righteousness and justice and etc. God is described as Truth, as Light.
Further, when we consider what is ultimately right, the same is always in juxtaposition to God. When we consider absolute truth, it is with Him in mind, as it is wit ...[text shortened]... exemplfier of all things good. Man has no higher standard nor source for what is right.
And all these things get jumbled and require complicated theologizing to try to weave them into some coherent whole if they do not all flow from a cohesive essence. That cohesive essence according to John is agape. Judaism fundamentally identifies God as a singular cohesive essence of being: “Hear, O Israel, The-One-that-Is, our God, The-One-that-Is, is one.” To identify that Is-ness as agape is a Christian identification. That is identified (as it also is with the Sufis, but not the rest of the Islamic world) as the unifying essence of God’s one-ness, whole-ness.
Or, to use another analogy: we all have multiple personalities; however, we do not all suffer from multiple personality disorder. That is because our personalities are integrated. For John (and I would say for Paul as well) the integrating essence of God’s various attributes (which are all subject to what you have called a language of accommodation) is agape, from which they flow, and apart from which they cannot be understood.
It is not me who says such things as, “God is love, but God is also just”—setting up an opposition that then needs be to integrated.
However, if you can offer me another “cohesifying” essence (with the scriptural reference), and an argument as to why that is essence, while agape as aspect/attribute is subsumed under it, I’ll certainly take a look at it. It might well be more reasonable than agape. (Frankly, I find the Stoic view, outlined below, as more reasonable; I am arguing here strictly within the context of Christian logic. Absent a definition of God's essence as agape, neither the Christic sacrifice, nor the rest of it, seem to make much sense--and you are left with a rather abstruse collection of texts cobbled together into a rule-book that resembles those assembly instruction manuals that we all complain about.)
You’ll have to deal with John as well, of course, explaining how and why his rather direct statement needs to be contextualized by others, rather than it providing the context for them.
_______________________________________
For example, the Stoics would identify the essence of theos (a non-personal term, for most of them anyway) as the cohering force of logos, that which ensures coherence rather than chaos. logos is also used as a term for the patterns that such coherence takes. This logos is indifferent to any individual in the phenomenal order; its sole “concern” is for the harmonious working of the whole.
Our rationality is an expression of that logos. (Or, as I sometimes put it, the grammar of our consciousness is itself a manifestation of the syntax of the cosmos.) The goal of the Stoic is to achieve eudaimonia by using our reasoning faculty to live in accord with the logos.
This is quite similar to Taoism. Any talk of “justice” here is in impersonal terms.
Is this the kind of view you’re getting at?
30 Oct 07
2 edits
Originally posted by vistesdNobody says it's going to be easy, least of all God. We can choose to blame God for creating us, but in the end what does that accomplish? Blaming God means nothing more than a refusal to take responsibility for a situation which we are nevertheless going to be held accountable for. It doesn't matter whether we feel it is unfair, nor does it matter how reasonable our arguments are, in the end blaming God is nothing more than shirking the responsibility (really the opportunity) to own the blame for our present state.
This is interesting, but let me try adding another piece to it—
None of us asked for life to begin with, nor consented to our creation. Now, I have had a pretty good life so far—I’ve been poor, but never really destitute; I’ve experienced tragedies, but not been crushed by them; I’ve loved and been loved.
But some people are born, without their conse ...[text shortened]... fused with love, realize the beauty of it, and not want to relinquish either it or its source...
God is just to condemn the eternal souls of all men and women to destruction. It's not about, as you say, "refusing" or "recognizing" God's love, at least sentimentally speaking. Salvation begins with repentance, which is the recognition of the reality of our moral culpability before a holy God and the subsequent renunciation of all sin. The truth is, no one who has ever lived or who ever will live, as long as they are capable of being held morally accountable, will be able to stand before God on judgment day and give a spotless account of his or her life. Even if that person were the nicest, most pleasant person you've ever known, nevertheless he or she will be condemned to hell -- if they've never placed their trust in God's only Son, Jesus Christ, for their salvation.
In order to understand the significance of this intellectually, you must understand that every one of God's infinite attributes agrees with the condemnation laid upon man according to the Law. Not only the righteous and holy aspects of His character, but His love-kindness, too! God is One, and everything in Him agrees in the condemnation of all sinners to eternal torment. Likewise, everything in God agrees with the the forgiveness of all those who place their trust in Jesus Christ. Whether we choose to take responsibility for ourselves before God or not, God nevertheless lays that responsibility upon us; and whether we are cast away from God forever or ushered into the bliss of eternal life, either way justice is served.
God humbled Himself to the cross, and He expects nothing less than the same from all of us. We have nowhere to hide.
30 Oct 07
Originally posted by epiphinehasBlame was not my point. My discussions with whodey, across several threads (which means it represents a single discussion for us, even if others lose track) have been about the nature of love. And his challenges have been eminently helpful; they push me to remember once again what, in my “ego-I-self” I keep forgetting. They have pushed me to once again realize wherein lies the reconciliation of my Zen and Sufi sides (speaking metaphorically).
Nobody says it's going to be easy, least of all God. We can choose to blame God for creating us, but in the end what does that accomplish? Blaming God means nothing more than a refusal to take responsibility for a situation which we are nevertheless going to be held accountable for. It doesn't matter whether we feel it is unfair, nor does it matter ho ...[text shortened]... and He expects nothing less than the same from all of us. We have nowhere to hide.
St. Benedict once said: “Always we begin again.” Ram Dass once said that the most difficult thing is to remember—to remember to remember! The spiritual struggle is often between forgetfulness and recollection.
As I get lost once again in my own head-games, I become like Attar in his cloister in the poem I quote below—in what will be my last post on this thread.
30 Oct 07
2 edits
It has just struck me that one way to divide the various spiritual approaches is between those that encourage passion and those that encourage dispassion. At least in terms of general tendency, if not polar extremes. This divide is also seen throughout the history of Christianity.
Nikos Kazantzakis’ Zorba the Greek is a rich study in this very difference. In that book the narrator (named Basil in the film version) is a Buddhist whose life has been one of meditation, intellectualism and Buddhist dispassion. Zorba is the exemplar of passionate agape/eros (terms that the Greeks never separated), and exuberant joy. Basil contemplates and writes; Zorba makes love and dances. Basil is Apollonian; Zorba is Dionysian.
A dispassionate love is no more than, as Basil puts it, “a Buddhist compassion, cold as the conclusion of a metaphysical syllogism”.
Basil is the Bodhidharma in me; Zorba, the Hafiz. My reasoning sense tugs one way; my aesthetic sense, the other. The contemplative finds that in the clarity of pre-conceptual awareness there is no fear; the lover finds that “complete love casts out all fear”. The thinker is a contemplative; the poet is a lover.
The opposites are joined in a single word: We. In that word is the dialectical synthesis of the “I-Thou” relationship of Buber, and the unia mystica of the East. (Though both Easterners and Westerners have understood that.) A samadhi that does not get to that We has not plumbed the depths;* a love that does not get to that We has not plumbed the depths. In both, the boundaries of the “ego-I-complex” consensually collapse.
The “I-self” wants to play it safe; true samadhi results in a spiritual orgasm, or as the Sufi Attar puts it, a “devastation”—
The Beloved wants no lord, no master—
She wants astonishment and devastation!
I’m like a monk, safe in my cloister—
She wants me to give up everything
and roam the world like a dervish!
—Attar
______________________________________
That fire
whose name is love
burns away
both belief and disbelief.
Belief is one thing—
the religion of love
is something different.
...beyond race,
beyond creeds,
beyond petty distinctions.
—Abu Sa’id Abi l-Khayr
A God who is not love can hold no interest for the lover.
________________________________________
* This without regard to any supernatural personalism, theism or nontheism.
30 Oct 07
Originally posted by epiphinehasI don't know which part of this post is the strangest - the call to throw reasoned arguments out the window, or the distortion of words like love, justice, and kindness.
Nobody says it's going to be easy, least of all God. We can choose to blame God for creating us, but in the end what does that accomplish? Blaming God means nothing more than a refusal to take responsibility for a situation which we are nevertheless going to be held accountable for. It doesn't matter whether we feel it is unfair, nor does it matter ho ...[text shortened]... and He expects nothing less than the same from all of us. We have nowhere to hide.
30 Oct 07
4 edits
Originally posted by SwissGambit"For my thoughts are not your thoughts, neither are your ways my ways, declares the LORD. For as the heavens are higher than the earth, so are my ways higher than your ways and my thoughts than your thoughts" (Isaiah 55:8-9).
I don't know which part of this post is the strangest - the call to throw reasoned arguments out the window, or the distortion of words like love, justice, and kindness.
God's ways will always seem strange to us. And it is useless to argue against God.
If we reject the ample evidence which His Son, Jesus Christ, gave, e.g., performing miraculous works and rising from the dead after three days -- the sort of works only God could accomplish, clearly attesting to Christ's legitimacy -- if we reject Him in spite of the evidence, then we have no place in Him.
There is no more reliably preserved document out of antiquity than the New Testament.
If you want a true definition of love, look no further than Jesus Christ, who once hung on the cross and died for your sins. Reject Him, and you reject love. Reject the love of God in Christ Jesus, and on judgment day He will reject you. Justice will be served.
Christ is Lord of heaven and earth, and He will judge the entire world. That is, Love will judge the entire world. And His judgments are just.