01 Nov 07
Originally posted by whodeyI'll see if I have time to contribute today.
I would like to start a new thread about how I view the God of the Bible. I view the study of God much in the same way as the study of love. What is love, why are we so dependent on it, why can there be so much pain associated with it, why does it seem to illogical at times, etc.? As far as religous dogma, who cares? As the Bible says, if you have love an ...[text shortened]... de and out but have not love you are nothing. Therefore, I invite you to join me in the thread.
01 Nov 07
Originally posted by whodeyYou appear to be arguing that any amount of suffering is acceptable so long as a loving relationship can be achieved. You also seem to be claiming that suffering is a necessary requirement of a loving relationship and possibly that all suffering in a loving relationship is a necessary result of that loving relationship.
So at what point is ones suffering offset by ones joy or vise versa? Put another way, at what point is love not worth while if suffering is involved? Is not suffering an inherent risk in terms of having a loving relationship? Who here has not suffered in regards to the effects of having loving relationships? I realize that not everyone will agree as to ho ...[text shortened]... recognize that we are all willing to take some risk. How much risk is really a personal matter.
Next you'll be telling us that our sin is a necessary requirement for God to love us.
01 Nov 07
Originally posted by StarrmanLet me put it another way. Suppose I give an engagement ring to a prospective wife. What girl in her right mind would not want a diamond ring, however, if she accepts the gift what will she be accepting? Is it not a life long relationship with me? This is how I would compare the gift of the cross.
But that's my choice, the gift was still given without reservation. Otherwise it was not a gift to begin with.
01 Nov 07
Originally posted by twhiteheadI am merely posing questions. For example, you gave the example of children born with genetic disorders as reasons for abortion. However, there a wide range of such disorders that have a wide range of sources of suffering. One such disorder is Downs. Some are high functioning and others are not. Some feel as though they would want to have the child anyhow if they know they have Downs as where others may not. It just appears to me that such a question is dependent upon ones personal opinion on what is acceptable risk even if you know what the risks are.
You appear to be arguing that any amount of suffering is acceptable so long as a loving relationship can be achieved. You also seem to be claiming that suffering is a necessary requirement of a loving relationship and possibly that all suffering in a loving relationship is a necessary result of that loving relationship.
Next you'll be telling us that our sin is a necessary requirement for God to love us.
As far as a love requiring sin, this is not what I am saying, rather, I am saying that love requires the risk of another choosing sin. My reasoning is this, to have a mutually loving relationship one must have the capacity to accept or reject the other. Sin is merely the rejection of the source of love which is God.
For example, not all of creation has chosen to sin. In fact, the majority of angelic hosts did not rebel when Lucifer fell. However, for humans the matter is convoluted because we are born in sin nature. We are compelled to sin but despite this, we still have the option of choosing God anyway and choosing a way out of sin.
As I have said before, there is an element of service in all loving relationships or give and take, if you will. So if no one ever chose not to serve God, could one say that free will actually exists?
01 Nov 07
Originally posted by whodeyThat's not a gift, that's a signature on a contract. This is a semantic game that religion plays time and again. Redefine a term to fit a presupposed definition and then equivocate.
Let me put it another way. Suppose I give an engagement ring to a prospective wife. What girl in her right mind would not want a diamond ring, however, if she accepts the gift what will she be accepting? Is it not a life long relationship with me? This is how I would compare the gift of the cross.
01 Nov 07
2 edits
Originally posted by StarrmanTo say that salvation or eternal life is a gift apart from God who is the source of life is an impossibility. Either we are apart of God who is the source of such life or we are not. Nonetheless, it is a gift for those who desire a relationship with their Maker in that I did nothing to deserve it and can never repay God for the gift.
That's not a gift, that's a signature on a contract. This is a semantic game that religion plays time and again. Redefine a term to fit a presupposed definition and then equivocate.
I think you are right in that there is an element of a contract in such a gift. However, I think you are approaching it as an obligation to fulfill such a contract that is burdensome as where I look at it as something I desire. For example, if the woman in question did not love her husband but had alterior motives for the marriage then the contract is a chore. However, the difference lies in the woman who loves her prospective spouse. No matter the contract or gift the woman desires her spouse regardless. Therefore, the gift becomes icing on the cake rather than the motivation for such a union.
I think it is comparable to Abraham's relationship to God. Abraham followed after God and then God later made a covenant type of relationship with him. However, regardless of such perks Abraham would have followed after God anyway. The contract was made as a way to bless Abraham and not to entice him with material or personal gain.
01 Nov 07
2 edits
Originally posted by StarrmanFair enough.
And again. I'm not discussing your tangent.
God asks for your self-surrender because He alone is worthy of it. Self-surrender to His authority is not a personal degradation, but a complete fulfillment of who we are. God knows that nothing else in heaven or earth is worthy for you to surrender to or worship, except Himself, which is why He refuses to let us settle for anything less.
Does that answer your question succinctly?
02 Nov 07
2 edits
Originally posted by epiphinehas[/i]Well, we are where we were before.
[b]And this is where we break down. You are not only translating love into judgment (by which I assume you mean something more than discernment/decision), you are translating love into wrath: at which point it is simply no longer love.
My point is, for a sinner, i.e., a person who rejects God's will and prefers his own way, the love of God [i]is[/ und, since they both stand on the same ground.[/b]
My objection is that eternal hell, after the point at which there is no longer any possibility of free will / choice (death being the bar), is not consistent with love. At that point, God does not love those who are condemned. And it does seem to be God who sets up and adjudicates the condemnation. (Remember, there are those of us who love; but we do not believe in your concept of God, and we stand eternally condemned based on that single fact.)
—I could never condemn my wife to life-long—let alone eternal—suffering because she chooses not to love me. She can choose not to love me of her own free will, and I will only wish her well. If she is subsequently injured or ill, I will do whatever I can to help her; if she is unconscious, and cannot ask, I will not let the possible violation of her free will deter my help. If I were to act in any other manner, I would no longer love her.
Normally, we consider a person who knowingly chooses pain, torment, suffering, and torturous, intensely painful self-destruction as insane. I submit that no sane person would knowingly choose hell. Ergo, no sane person can be the adjudicator of his/her own eternal condemnation to hell.
I repeat:
An eternally punitive “love” that is not aimed at healing/restoration—making whole, making well—is not ineffable: it’s a contradiction.
Our other difference is in that you reject out-of-hand the healing model of salvation, in favor of the juridical model. Salvation is viewed as mercy and pardon, not healing; hell is punitive, not curative.
Whodey made a good start on a thread on love. I’d be interested in how you define and understand love per se, before any reference to whether or not, and in what ways, God can be considered to be love.
Re C.S. Lewis: I presume you do not follow him in the possibilities he presents in The Great Divorce?
02 Nov 07
2 edits
Originally posted by StarrmanAnd that is why I’m getting so obsessive about explaining how we use our terms. This from another thread (adapted to the conversation here)—
That's not a gift, that's a signature on a contract. This is a semantic game that religion plays time and again. Redefine a term to fit a presupposed definition and then equivocate.
This goes to what Wittgenstein thought was the philosophical predicament: Being bewitched by our own language into thinking we know what we’re talking about. The way out of any such bewitchment is to look at how given words are used, because that is where the real meaning lies—not just in definitions stringing together more words.
That is what I am getting at when I say that, unless we are able to specify what kind of behavior is entailed by the word “loving”, we cannot specify what kind of behavior entails “perfect love.” And if we can’t specify the kind of behavior we’re talking about, we cannot establish what is, and what is not, loving behavior—because we can’t even specify what we mean by love. And without that ability, we can’t say that God is love, or loving (or just or holy, if those terms behaving in a certain way).
If I say: “George is iplitsch,” you have no idea what I mean if you don’t know what it is to be iplitsch, if you don’t know the use of that word. If I say that one is iplitsch if one acts iplitsch, then you will ask me what kinds of acts constitute iplitschness. If I can’t tell you that, then you can’t have any idea whether George is iplitsch or not.
Suppose I say: “Well, in your language, you might say that George is kind.”
You say: “Ah, I think I get it, then.”
But then I say: “I don’t know your language very well, though; so that might not be correct. Can you tell me what exactly ‘kind’ means?”
At that point, since I don’t know your language well (so that simply giving me other definitional words is unlikely to help me much), you will likely begin to give examples of kindly behavior—that is, you will tell how the word is used. If I then say: “Yes, yes. That’s what iplitsch means", then—and only then—will we have understood one another.
Now: Substitute “God” for “George,” and “loving” (or love)—or just, or any other terms—for iplitsch.
____________________________________________
Bbarr once gave this example: if a Sufi and a Vedantist have some undertanding of what each means by the word “God,” they can enter into meaningful discourse. If a third person comes along and says, “Well, God is a bunch of beer cans strung together”—with him they cannot have meaningful discourse.
When someone says to me that love can be wrath, or that love can be blatantly punitive, they might as well say that love is a bunch of beer cans strung together, for all I understand what they are talking about.
To flesh out the terms of my response above to Epi:
(1) God is the adjudicator of eternal punishment; or
(2) I am the knowing adjudicator of my own eternal punishment; or
(3) I am the unkowing adjudicator of my own eternal punishment.
Under (1), God is not acting out of love.
Under (2), I have submitted that I am (likely, anyway) insane.
Under (3), I am ignorant.
Therefore, my eternal condemnation is the result of God’s decision, my insanity, or my ignorance. And in the second two scenarios, God either will not or cannot remedy the situation. To say that he has remedied the situation (i.e., on the cross) is nonsense, if I remain insane or ignorant, and so condemned.
Throw in original sin, and although all have died in Adam, only some will be made alive in Christ. And that was the point of my original post.
The point here is not to attack Christianity. The point is to challenge particular versions of Christianity that either (a) are fraught with contradictions, or (b) use words like love in such a way that, for me anyway, they lose all meaning.
02 Nov 07
Originally posted by vistesdAbsoutely. Did you ever have a chance to read any of W.V. Quine's work on the indeterminacy of translation? If not, I urge you to squeeze it into your already hefty reading list, I'm sure you'd like it. I'm currently reading Kripke and Russell's work on Names theory which touches on the same concepts; that of how reference and meaning are used between agent and patient. For the moment I am still of the strong opinion that language is the root of all philosophy.
And that is why I’m getting so obsessive about explaining how we use our terms. This from another thread (adapted to the conversation here)—
This goes to what Wittgenstein thought was the philosophical predicament: Being bewitched by our own language into thinking we know what we’re talking about. The way out of any such bewitchment is to look at ...[text shortened]... love is a bunch of beer cans strung together, for all I understand what they are talking about.
02 Nov 07
2 edits
Originally posted by vistesdAn eternally punitive “love” that is not aimed at healing/restoration—making whole, making well—is not ineffable: it’s a contradiction.
[/i]Well, we are where we were before.
My objection is that eternal hell, after the point at which there is no longer any possibility of free will / choice (death being the bar), is not consistent with love. At that point, God does not love those who are condemned. And it does seem to be God who sets up and adjudicates the condemnation. (Remembe ...[text shortened]... : I presume you do not follow him in the possibilities he presents in The Great Divorce?
It is not a contradiction if a person chooses hell of his own volition. God as a loving Creator, who created free will and respects free will, cannot violate it, i.e. He is a gentleman, not a rapist. We are not talking about sleeping people who were blind to right and wrong; we are talking about free and rational creatures who reject God in every sin and who consciously refuse Jesus Christ.
When we enter eternity at death, it's too late to repent and change -- the judgment seat of Christ is the immediate next step. We enter eternity as we are, and we stand before the Judgment seat as we are. Whoever freely chose to reject God and go his own way, will be granted their wish. God will not force them to stay. (Perhaps casting unrepentant sinners into "outer darkness" is God's last merciful act towards them.)
I think you might imagine that the people in hell are free beings like we are, but they cannot possibly be. They've lost the ability to change. They are like ghosts. (In this respect, I agree with Lewis' description of the inhabitants of hell.) Those who choose hell are only shadows of people, crippled by their tenacious clinging to themselves - their refusal to self-surrender. Remember Christ's words? "If you cling to your life, you will lose it; but if you give up your life for me, you will find it" (Matt. 10:39).
The punishment is the crime. Saying no to God means no God.
Normally, we consider a person who knowingly chooses pain, torment, suffering, and torturous, intensely painful self-destruction as insane. I submit that no sane person would knowingly choose hell. Ergo, no sane person can be the adjudicator of his/her own eternal condemnation to hell.
Exactly. We are spiritually insane. It is insane to sin, yet people choose to do it every day. Instead of moving towards repentance and forgiveness, many choose to move toward disobedience and misery. "The wages of sin is death," i.e. the death of joy (the definition of hell), and yet we sin. We are insane. Only the insane prefer misery to joy.
Hell is sin come to its full fruition rather than an external punishment added onto sin, i.e., the punishment is the crime.
In sinning, a person chooses to go insane. If someone force-feeds you drugs, you are not responsible for the crimes you commit under their influence; but if you choose to take them, you are responsible. Sin is the ultimate drug.
02 Nov 07
Originally posted by epiphinehasSo, do you think that a punitive system in which criminals get punished severely without being given a chance to change or learn how to make better choices is more loving than a system in which criminals are allowed to learn and change and are given a new chance when they are ready for it? I don't believe that anyone makes bad choices because they want to live in misery. I believe that when people make a bad choice, it is because they lack the knowledge, skills, willpower, support or environment to make a better choice. If you give them what they need to make better choices, you empower them rather than limiting their free will.
It is not a contradiction if a person chooses hell of his own volition. God as a loving Creator, who created free will and respects free will, cannot violate it, i.e. He is a gentleman, not a rapist. We are not talking about sleeping people who were blind to right and wrong; we are talking about free and rational creatures who reject God in every sin and who consciously refuse Jesus Christ.
When we enter eternity at death, it's too late to repent and change -- the judgment seat of Christ is the immediate next step.
What's the rationale for that? Death is a pretty random point. Why does someone who unexpectedly dies in an accident at the age of 20 not get a chance to change anymore, while someone who lives until he's 90 gets a lot more chances to change?
I think you might imagine that the people in hell are free beings like we are, but they cannot possibly be. They've lost the ability to change. They are like ghosts.
If God is merciful and loving, why doesn't he simply let them die?
Those who choose hell are only shadows of people, crippled by their tenacious clinging to themselves - their refusal to self-surrender. Remember Christ's words? "If you cling to your life, you will lose it; but if you give up your life for me, you will find it" (Matt. 10:39).
In my experience, it's mostly Christians who are preoccupied with achieving eternal life. I think most atheists accept that their life will end when they die.
In sinning, a person chooses to go insane.
If you know that going insane will lead to eternal misery, choosing to go insane means choosing misery, so you would have to be insane to choose to go insane.
I also wonder at which point in life you think a person chooses to go insane. If a child tells a lie, has this child already chosen to go insane? And if it's true that nobody is without sin, as the bible says, do we really have a choice?
02 Nov 07
Originally posted by NordlysI wanted to make those points, but was to lazy, so thanks! Rec'd
So, do you think that a punitive system in which criminals get punished severely without being given a chance to change or learn how to make better choices is more loving than a system in which criminals are allowed to learn and change and are given a new chance when they are ready for it? I don't believe that anyone makes bad choices because they want to li ...[text shortened]... it's true that nobody is without sin, as the bible says, do we really have a choice?