This cracked me up. I'd love to see what folks said in the emails they sent in reply to him.
I think the answer to the disconnect has to do with justice. But the disconnect itself is interesting in its own right (as the video hilariously points out). I think many people who call themselves Christians live in this world of disconnect without ever realizing how confused they are. And when it dawns on them, I think that's when they jump ship.
It seems to me that it's clear to anyone who isn't a Christian, but only about 5% of people who are Christians (the rest, as you say, have either not got there yet or have jumped ship) that you can't have unconditional love that's conditional on something.
ReplyDeleteAs far as I can tell, there are only three solutions to this:
1) God's love is conditional - he really does only love those who do as he says.
2) God's love is unconditional - because he doesn't want anyone to perish, they won't and so all that eternal punishment thing doesn't exist.
3) The construct we refer to as God isn't a single conscious entity, or doesn't exist in the way that this all presupposes.
what about the
ReplyDelete4)he's fully just but also loving
argument? in justice, all would perish. but he has chosen to save some, not based on what they have done (#1) but at his own whim (or purpose, depending on how you look at it).
ReplyDeleteIn either case God would not be unconditionally loving if certain people started out with odds so stacked against them that nothing they could do would ever result in being saved, whereas others where going to be OK by default.
If that were the case, wouldn't you then consider the concept of eternal punishment to be unjust and disgusting?
ReplyDeletecan't you capriciously choose to unconditionally love some things/people but capriciously choose not to love others?
ReplyDeletecaprice isn't really the right word.
does unconditional love have to be global in order to be unconditional? or can you have unconditional love for one person and no love at all for another?
how so?
ReplyDeleteif all have done something unjust at some point, and they are to be judged for that injustice, then what would be unjust or disgusting about judging the unjustice?
what you're saying is that if someone is standing before a judge and they are found guilty, and that judge then punishes them as a result, that's unjust and disgusting?
I'm saying that justice cannot be capricious, or else it's not justice.
ReplyDeletethe quality of being just, impartial, or fair
If you're going to save some and punish the rest, then it is not justice. It's favoritism which is not justice. And when you factor in the concept of eternal punishment for such favoritism, of picking some and not others which effectively means some were consigned to that punishment from the start, then it's disgusting.
it's not the justice that's capricious. the justice is universal. it's the love and the satisfaction of the justice that is capriciously doled out. the justice is fully satisfied. that's not the issue. it's who gets the love/forgiveness that is the issue.
ReplyDeleteAnd that issue, about favoring some over others, which invalidates the justice. Justice has to be meted out impartially, otherwise it's not justice.
ReplyDeleteIf a judge punished only the blacks, and "loved/forgave" the whites, when all have been found guilty of the same crimes, is that still justice?
Or even more pertinently, if the judge let off his friends, would that judge be just?
ReplyDeleteSome interpretations of Christianity can read:
1) All have sinned
2) God will judge everyone
3) If you make friends with the judge, you'll be ok.
BUT
4) The judge has already decided who he is going to be friends with
And that Calvanistic interpretation is, honestly, an example of injustice to me.
ReplyDeleteI think point 4 should read: the judge already knows which of the condemed will choose to be friends with him.
ReplyDeleteIt's the old question of predestination vs free will.
Though predestination undermines any concept of justice as well, the free will/predestination thing is a separate discussion.
ReplyDeleteif 5 people owe me money and i ask for all five to pay me back, but then a 6th person steps up and says, "here. i'm covering those two." and hands me what they owe me. then i am still getting what is owed to me, even though those two had someone step in and cover their share of what was owed. the "justice" is still served. it was just circumvented, or met, by that other person stepping in.
ReplyDeleteBut, was justice still served?
ReplyDeleteIf five people owe you money, then justice would be those five people repaying their debt, not just in your receiving what was owed to you. They need to pay their debt just as much as you need to be repaid for there to be justice. Otherwise there is injustice in the form of favorism occurring.
Especially when you factor in that the one paying the debt for the two is the same person who is demanding payment (to take your analogy to its conclusion ;).
yes. but what if the debt is so huge that they can never repay it?
ReplyDeletethat's when mercy kicks in. God loves us. He says: look, I know you can't repay your debts, I'm paying them for you.
and the payment is for everyone.
all we have to do is accept his cheque and take it to the collection agency. those who don't - well, they end up having to pay and pay and pay and pay and never get out of their debt trap. but please don't blame God for this - he has paid. for everyone. unconditionally.
Which is a presumption that goes against what was being discussed: predestination, in which there is a condition, that being having been preselected.
ReplyDeleteoh, the predestination idea - yes, I know the Bible talks about election, there is such a thing as people having been chosen by God, but there's no way I can buy the idea that others have been "unchosen" - I can't see any biblical basis for suggesting that there are people who are outside of the scope of God's grace except for those who choose not to accept his grace.
ReplyDeleteThere are plenty of verses that point to predestination. The following are all from Young's Literal Translation edition:
ReplyDelete1 Peter 1:2 ...according to a foreknowledge of God the Father, in sanctification of the Spirit, to obedience and sprinkling of the blood of Jesus Christ...
Romans 8:29-30 because whom He did foreknow, He also did fore-appoint, conformed to the image of His Son, that he might be first-born among many brethren; and whom He did fore-appoint, these also He did call; and whom He did call, these also He declared righteous; and whom He declared righteous, these also He did glorify.
Ephesians 1:5 having foreordained us to the adoption of sons through Jesus Christ to Himself, according to the good pleasure of His will
Ephesians 1:11 in whom also we did obtain an inheritance, being foreordained according to the purpose of Him who the all things is working according to the counsel of His will
Matthew 25:34 Then shall the king say to those on his right hand, Come ye, the blessed of my Father, inherit the reign that hath been prepared for you from the foundation of the world
This one is rather poignant:
2 Timothy 1:9-10 who did save us, and did call with an holy calling, not according to our works, but according to His own purpose and grace (IOW, those who are saved are so due to a greater plan, and are just playing a part, same with those who aren't - ed.), that was given to us in Christ Jesus, before the times of the ages, and was made manifest now through the manifestation of our Saviour Jesus Christ, who indeed did abolish death, and did enlighten life and immortality through the good news
2 Thessalonians 2:13 And we -- we ought to give thanks to God always for you, brethren, beloved by the Lord, that God did choose you from the beginning to salvation, in sanctification of the Spirit, and belief of the truth
I could go on, but you can see there is plenty of support for the concept of the "chosen" and, by default, those who were "unchosen".
i find it interesting that though the jews are the "chosen people", there were extensions of that even in the old testament (ruth, rahab) -- and multitudes of extensions of that in the new testament. that certainly implies a bit of latitude in terms of "chosen".
ReplyDeletedang, D. you sound reformed. (in the "reformed" vs. "arminian" sense.) didn't you grow up in a pentecostal church? i woulda thought they'd be arminian. (IOW, those who are saved are so due to a greater plan, and are just playing a part, same with those who aren't - ed.)yup. definitely reformed. go figure. a reformed atheist. whodathunk? ;-)
ReplyDeletehmmm, i just noticed that his little notes don't show up at the top once the video is pulled through to multiply. on youtube there are notes saying that he doesn't really want to hear from anyone any more because none of the messages that people were sending to him made any more sense than what he'd already gone over.
ReplyDeleteThis would be fine, except that the mail service is faulty and God is in charge of it.
ReplyDeleteIn other words not everyone really gets a copy of the message to take the cheque to the collection agency, and many of those who do get it don't understand it, and some others don't believe it. All of those factors are within God's control.
In other words, surely if God really did want to save everyone, then he could, couldn't he?
But that's not really what's happening is it.
ReplyDeleteSuppose 5 people owe you money and then you step up and say "I'm covering those two". How are you deciding which two and whichever means you chose, how is that fair?
Haha, I didn't say I believed any of it. ;)
ReplyDeleteI went to Nazarene, Wesleyan, Pentacostal (AoG), and Roman Catholic churches in my youth.
like I said, I know that the Bible refers to people being chosen by God.
ReplyDeletebut this does not mean that "by default" there are others who are "unchosen" - people who are destined by God to never be saved. That just wouldn't go with all the places in the Bible where we read about God's love for everyone and his desire that no one should perish - starting with the obvious John 3:16 - that whoever believes in him should not perish but have eternal life.
nope - because he doesn't force people to accept his cheque. that's just not his way. he loves us enough to die for us, but he also loves us enough to give us the freedom to choose.
ReplyDeleteI'm not talking about forcing people, I'm talking about people who don't get the message or only half get the message, or get the message along with a bunch of conflicting messages or whatever.
ReplyDeleteI'm fairly sure that if upon the death of a person you were taken to a place where you could see heaven and hell and make up your mind then most people might choose heaven.
My point is that this doesn't happen and so we have to accept what's written in a particular religious text above any others, by people writing many thousands of years ago.
And while we're on the subject of being forced, there are lots of things that we don't get a choice over, why should this one thing be the one that God singles out as not forcing on anyone, despite it being an obvious benefit to all?
[incidentally, I have no interest in the afterlife. I try to do my best and if it's not good enough, then so be it.]
But that's the whole point of this video!
ReplyDeleteInterpreted like this it doesn't make sense. Really, it doesn't!
The concept of infinite punishment for finite crimes goes against the concept of love, period.
ReplyDeleteIn deference to you, the concepts of predestination directly implies that those not chosen for X were unchosen/ignored/neglected/whatever. And it doesn't just refer to them, the verses I quoted outright state that they were preselected. The problem here is that you're disregarding that the source of the believe in John 3:16 was the preselection mentioned in other verses.
Now, if I preselect before putting a train together that only the boxcars will be include, haven't I "unchosen" all the others? How is that any different that the concept of predestination and unchoosing people for salvation?
How is it "force" to give people absolute certainty?
ReplyDeletethat's one big question that I don't think anyone has the answer to - in my mind, the only way I can make sense of it all is by assuming that there must be a last-minute choice given to people, but I don't know this for a fact. as far as I know there isn't anything in the Bible to tell us one way or another - it's just that from what the Bible does tell me about God's character and his love for people, I can't imagine that he'd say: oh well, nobody told Jane about Jesus so she's missed out, tough luck. That's just not within the character of the one who is described as slow to anger and abounding in love.
ReplyDeleteI never said the video makes sense :)
ReplyDeleteIf you're building a train, there's a limit to the size of the train for practical reasons, and probably other practical limitations as to the types of cars that would fit.
ReplyDeleteBut in heaven there is no limit to how many people can fit in, nor are there types of people that could or couldn't fit in. Yes, there are people God has chosen, and I haven't a clue why - that's his business, not mine. But there is no one in the world whom God has chosen to turn away.
The video represents (quite accurately) one of the mainstream Christian views.
ReplyDeleteThe point of the video is to show that this view doesn't make any sense. I think the video itself makes perfect sense.
The problem with the view is that is (a) puts emphasis on the whole afterlife thing and (b) makes it conditional upon certain things.
I'd have to look at the video again and make proper notes before I respond to that properly. But my initial reaction was that it caricatures a misunderstanding of what the Gospel is about. I kind of switched off when I got to the bit about Jesus saying "if you don't worship me you'll go to hell", because he didn't say that. Worshipping Jesus is not a condition for salvation, it is a reaction to what he has done for us - a proper and natural reaction, but not a condition!
ReplyDeleteAgain, that's not really my point. Many mainstream Christian views don't take much notice of what Jesus didn't say and they feel free to add those bits in wherever they like.
ReplyDeleteHowever I think we are mostly in agreement - an unconditionally loving God who held the keys to eternal life, but didn't want to "force" anything good on anyone - would give people a choice after death, which is essentially a universalist view.
But that's not the view that the hypothetical character is being faced with. And although it is a caricature, in many ways it is an accurate portrayal of what people would say who believe those things.
I don't know if the choice is after death or before death - I guess I was assuming before - but like I said, we're only guessing.
ReplyDeletehowever, as far as I understand, universalists go further than this and believe that everyone gets to heaven one way or another. which in my view nullifies the whole point of Jesus dying on the cross.
sad but true. which is why I'm not attempting for one second to defend mainstream Christianity. I'm a Christian - that means I've accepted Jesus' sacrifice on the cross for my salvation. I have not signed up to everything that is taught in various churches. The Bible is my source for understanding what God is like. Everything else is up for grabs.
ReplyDeleteGot a citation to support that?
ReplyDeleteI really think I've said enough on this, if you read my previous comments.
ReplyDeleteSounds fair enough to me :)
ReplyDeleteIt seems as though the person in this video has spent some time in the company of someone from one of those churches where they distill everything down into a small pamphlet and send you away to learn it, rather than setting you off and seeing where you end up.
*groan* sadly, I know what you mean :(
ReplyDeleteI meant, can you cite any biblical passages that explicitly say there's choice, or which contradicts the ones I cited?
ReplyDeletethat's the capricious love side of things.
ReplyDeletein my opinion, if God is to be god rather than sub-god or demi-god or human, then he has the ability to do whatever he wants. he's not limited. for whatever reason, he's chosen to do things a certain way. it doesn't really make sense to me. but it doesn't have to. there's nothing in the definition of god that requires everyone agrees that what God does is agreeable. in some sense the weather seems to mirror god in some ways. it can be wonderful and warm and life giving. but it can also kill and destroy and create untold havoc. we might be upset about what the weather has done, we might even say "why did this have to happen?" but i rarely here people say 'that tsunami was unjust." or "i won't believe in that hurricane because i don't like how it's behaving."
i don't understand God's caprice in love. but in my opinion, if God is god, then he gets to be capricious whether i like it or not. i can question it and dislike it and rant and rail against it, but that doesn't change what it is.
if i'm going to believe in God, then that means taking what i perceive as bad along with what i perceive as good. either that, or i can change what i think it means to be god. (or i suppose i could change what i perceive as bad to be something good.)
yeah. this is what i trust in. God's character.
ReplyDeletei often wonder, when reading through the old testament histories, why God waits so long to punish people. why doesn't he whack them immediately so that the one who's screwing up get's the punishment instead of his great, great grandkid. but i think that's part of the point. there's a lot of patience going on and lots of chances to learn and change and grow and respond. and there's always the remnant who does get it and does remain faithful. but they still end up getting the punishment too, in the end. (habakkuk comes to mind. although i suppose there's daniel and co. as well.) so it's like there's a much larger picture going on that spans across multiple generations. God is patient and he upholds those who remain faithful even through times of trial. (and as shadrach, meshach and abednego said, "even if he doesn't save us through this trial, that doesn't change the fact that he's God.")
hmmm, i'd say it represents one of the mainstream confusions about Biblical teaching. (which some people who call themselves christians might subscribe to, but i'd venture to say that they're likely of the cultural christian variety.)
ReplyDeleteyes, this is my take on universalists as well. and i agree with the nullification bit.
ReplyDeleteSo, this paragraph brings up an interesting question. We don't call the weather "unjust" because it is not a moral agent: it's the result of physics and chemistry and thermodynamics and other related reactions. It's incapable of making choices, so it's not able to be just or unjust. It just is.
ReplyDeleteSo, given that, is god a moral agent, able to make choices? Can it only able to act according to some greater rules that define what is morally right? Or, can it make morally bad choices?
If it can't make choices and must abide by some other set of rules, then who or what defined those other rules? And are those rules and their source more powerful than this god?
If it can make choices, then it must be capable of committing evil, otherwise we're back to the whole lack of free will debate. If that's the case, then is morally good defined by how this god conducts itself, and isn't that just a case of "might makes right" which is inherently evil?
perhaps something like hebrews 6:6 that makes it look like the salvation bit is in control of the person rather than God?
ReplyDeletehebrews 6:4-6 "It is impossible for those who have once been enlightened, who have tasted the heavenly gift, who have shared in the Holy Spirit, who have tasted the goodness of the word of God and the powers of the coming age, if they fall away, to be brought back to repentance, because to their loss they are crucifying the Son of God all over again and subjecting him to public disgrace."
i'd say that verse sounds like someone made a choice for God, then they made a choice away from God.
or, in a more positive direction, there's the famous "choose life" bit in deuteronomy (30:19) "This day I call heaven and earth as witnesses against you that I have set before you life and death, blessings and curses. Now choose life, so that you and your children may live"
excellent questions. and i have no clue to the answer.
ReplyDeletebut here's where i'd probably start walking if i were to try to answer it anyway: God defines morality.
shebang! that's a bit of a greased pig, isn't it? *begins to dance about in anticipation of the frolicksome fun that is about to follow* ;-)
Good citations, though I'd say that the Hebrews one is more debateable given that we have to draw a conclusion based on it rather than it directly stating there's a choice.
ReplyDeleteNow, if those indicate choice while the ones I cited indicate predestination, then is that a case of the bible contradicting itself?
And that's why I have so much respect for you, Meg. You didn't avoid the hard question and instead answered it without saying, "this is absolutely the answer". :)
ReplyDeleteAnd I think greasy pig dancing is hilarious!
of course not, silly! that's a case of us not understanding. ;-)
ReplyDelete(i mean this both facetiously and truly. i think there's stuff we just don't get and we can argue about it for 2000 years and still not have it nailed down just right. that doesn't mean that the contradiction nullifies the value of either side of the issue. it could mean we don't have all the info. it could mean that we have the info. but haven't figured out how to put the pieces together correctly yet. or, of course, it could mean it's all a bunch of bunk and we should toss it out the window. but if you're going to do the "believe in God" thing in the first place, then you're probably not going to roll with the latter option. and if you've chosen to go the "God's a bunch of bunk" route then the latter option will seem the most reasonable. in which case, it's all a matter of point of view, i suppose.)
not the way I see it. God chooses people, but each person has the freedom to reject or accept him. My husband chose to marry me, but he didn't force me to become his wife, he asked me. Love doesn't force itself onto people.
ReplyDeleted'aw! now i'm blushing. i might even have to put down the pig a minute so i can wipe this tear from my eye.
ReplyDeletethat's kind of what I was thinking when I read Meg's weather analogy - like analogies tend to, it falls down at some point. the weather may be a bit like God but they're not identical twins. we don't call the weather unjust because the weather is not a moral agent. we talk about God being just - and are able to have debates as to whether or not that is true - because God is a moral agent who makes choices.
ReplyDeleteI am uncomfortable with Meg's references to God being capricious. I can accept that he may sometimes seem capricious to our limited human understanding, but that's because we don't see the whole picture. I believe God is good and wise and faithful, so those things that don't make sense to me - that's all they are, things that don't make sense to little me, and I expect to understand better when I get to meet him and no longer see through a glass darkly.
and God chooses everyone?
ReplyDeletei totally agree. i think i said early on that capricious wasn't the best word for it. but i couldn't come up with one that worked better either. but your explanation fits what i mean.
ReplyDeleteyou know - I think that's exactly it. I think you've nailed it.
ReplyDeletecool. and in the meantime I've seen your other comment about how there's stuff we don't understand, so I could have saved myself a paragraph or so :)
ReplyDeleteYou're assuming your conclusion: if predestination is true, then only those who were chosen are saved and they have no choice. We haven't determined that predestination is not the case, only that there are verses the are support it, and others that support choice.
ReplyDeleteNow, now, don't go getting all mushy on me. Mushy, greasy and smelling like a pig that's been wrestling (or rasslin' if you're in NC) isn't a very pretty state...
ReplyDeleteBut, like in mathematics, analogies can bring us to seeing things in a new way and opens them up to new questions.
ReplyDeleteSo if this god can make moral choices, can it choose to act evil? What I'm gunning for here is to identify the source for morality:
1) If morality is defined as "whatever god does is morally good" then morality is subjective, might makes right, and we've got a problem in that the stories of this god killing babies is "good" directly contradicts morality as we understand it.
2) If morality is not defined by this god's actions, then who or what defined that moral code? And is this god bound by that moral code, in which case I would ask whether this god has free will, or can it behave in ways that go against that moral code?
Once those questions are answers then we'll be closer to understanding whether this god is even able to be capricious.
you know, Darryl, if I had the impression that you were willing to actually listen to what I'm saying instead of just trying to score points, I'd have been happy to carry on talking to you.
ReplyDeleteand if you had enough respect for me and for Meg to refrain from referring to God as "it", that would also help.
sorry, I'm out of here.
No disrespect, but that's a rather weak way to exit the conversation. Rather than informing me of what I'm doing (no, I'm not scoring points, but I am very methodical in a discussion like this) and using that as an excuse, why not just admit it if you're not willing or able to explore the things I'm bringing up.
ReplyDeleteAs for using "it", what's the problem there? Do you think it's a pejorative? I'm referring to the concept, the hypothetical, and not to any specific being at this point.
hi. I don't mind exiting a conversation in what you may see as a weak way, as whether you see me as weak or not is irrelevant to me.
ReplyDeleteI did come back just to point out one thing - your comment saying that I was assuming my conclusion - this comment seems to assume that I was trying to prove something. if you had bothered to listen to me, you would have realised that I was not. all I have been doing here is discussing my understanding of these issues - how I look at what the Bible says and try to make sense of it.
as for referring to God as "it" - yes, of course it's pejorative. you would use "it" to talk about your dog or about your desk, but not about a person. and considering you're talking about someone that Meg and I both know and love, it would be helpful to try and be a bit more respectful. I know you don't believe in God, but seeing as we are actually discussing what he is or isn't like, a bit more respect would be helpful.
but I know I'm talking to the wall :(
I'm not talking about a person: as I said, I'm talking about a concept.
ReplyDeleteThat was rude and uncalled for.
ReplyDeleteI'm sorry. What I meant was: I feel as though I'm talking to the wall.
ReplyDeleteI'm not sure if you're wondering what people here think or what the supposed logic behind the "christian" point of view in this video thinks. Clearly whichever one you choose you have to bite a bullet if you have that mindset.
ReplyDeleteTo answer for myself I would say that your question doesn't have anything to do with what I think God is.
I'm sorry you feel that way, but it's not due to me. I'm very open to ideas and discussions and am not a person who shuts out any opposing ideas. I'm anything but a wall. ;)
ReplyDeleteI'm wondering more about the greater concepts behind morality WRT anything called a "god". So it's not necessarily an xtian thing, but one I would like for any theist to answer. Especially one who says their morality is based on their belief.
ReplyDeleteI think morality is just someting that affects people living our human existence. We may put the label of "good" or "moral" onto God, but that's our extrapolation.
ReplyDeleteI didn't mean you were shutting out opposing ideas. What I meant was that I feel you have not been listening to me, you have not been trying to understand what I've been saying.
ReplyDeleteEither that, or I haven't been clear. But I really think I've been as clear as I can, so either way there's no point in me trying to explain things to you. Nothing personal, no hard feelings, just no point in trying to have a dialogue with someone if they're not able, for whatever reason, to understand what you're saying.
I would disagree with that. Morality isn't a human thing, but an intrinsic aspect of any interaction between two moral agents. I don't think any god would be exempt from that. One might argue that a god, by having powers, can't be held accountable for immoral behavior, but that might doesn't exclude them from morality.
ReplyDeleteI heard, and understood, what you were saying. I was asking you to support it with citations. In the case of predestination, when I said you were assuming your conclusions, it was because you'd made a statement and then proceeded as if it had been accepted by everybody involved. Something I don't believe to be the case. You assumed choice was always present, and I don't think such has been shown to be the case. The only thing we've found is that there are two sets of verses that support two contradictory positions WRT predestination: one set supports it, the other doesn't. So now I, at least, was hoping to discuss that case and not just dismiss it as "we can never understand it, so just accept it".
ReplyDeleteno. I was not assuming everyone else had accepted it. I was simply trying to explain how I see it.
ReplyDeleteI have absolutely no intention of trying to prove anything on this subject. Just offering my point of view, how I make sense of the whole thing. This is what you have consistently appeared to misunderstand.
you see these things as contradictory. I have tried to explain how I reconcile these two things.
ReplyDeletefor me as a person who has chosen to put her faith in God, there is a fine line to walk - God has given me a brain and I use it to try and understand stuff, and this is what I've been doing here, discussing my way of understanding these issues; but at the same time I know my brain is limited and there are things that I can't understand. that's part of God being God and me being human.
ReplyDeleteOkay, I'm sorry, but I didn't see any reconciliation of them beyond just accepting them on face value.
ReplyDeleteI think we, as intelligent human beings, can understand more than most would give us credit. Imagine people centuries ago trying to understand virology, or quantum physics, or even something as simple as a computer. I don't think we're incapable of understanding things if we discuss, dissect and examine them with an open mind. :D
ReplyDeleteBut, at the same time, we have to also be willing to give up sacred cows if they don't fit.
So which other moral agents do you know of?
ReplyDeleteAny thing which can form intent is capable of moral choices.
ReplyDeleteThere is a huge amount we can understand, and as you say there are many things we understand today which people didn't understand centuries ago - that's because people have been observing stuff and experimenting with stuff and working things out.
ReplyDeleteThat does not mean that there is nothing we aren't capable of understanding.
No, it doesn't. And our lack of understanding some thing today does not mean we can never understand it in future, either.
ReplyDeletesure. sometimes we are surprised by suddenly understanding something that seemed impossible to get at. it's a great feeling when that happens!
ReplyDeleteThen why discount anything as "unknowable"?
ReplyDeletebecause the way I understand who God is and what he is like, I understand that he is way beyond my understanding. it comes with the territory of God being God and me being one of the beings he created.
ReplyDeleteit doesn't stop me trying to understand all the stuff that I can understand. God doesn't forbid me from trying to work stuff out, he even gives me the tools. but whilst I try to work out the stuff I can, I also allow for the possibility that there are some things I'm not going to understand within this life, and they will make a lot more sense when I go into eternity with God and get to ask him stuff face to face.
Okay, fair enough, I guess. So you don't have a set of things marked as "are not knowable, do not touch" regarding the natural world, right?
ReplyDeleteHow do you know that?
ReplyDeleteFor all we know, morality might be just part of our way of looking at the universe.
And for all we know based on direct experience, beings who are capable of forming intent are capable of moral deliberation. It's reasonable to assume that the same rules apply any where in the universe, just as we're confident that chemisty, math, and physics work elsewhere and are not just here on Earth.
ReplyDeleteYou're arguing from ignorance, mate.
I'm saying that as far as I'm concerned we have no data to determine this. 1 species is not a good sample for predicting what goes on in the rest of the universe.
ReplyDeleteYou're arguing from ignorance, mate.
Well, you're incouraging it. All of this is pure speculation without any basis really.
As far as I can tell there are a few possible standpoints. One I've recently come across goes:
"everything that happens is God, anyway, so what's the difference?"
I suppose you can pin it down to two types of view, anthropomorphic and non-anthropomorphic. In the non-anthropomorphic view (which could be caricatured in the phrase above), God's views and intents are really tied up in our own, so there's no distinguishing between God and the rest of us.
In an anthropomorphic view, if you think that God had any part in "setting the ball rolling" as far as the universe is concerned, and was aware of the outcome, then God might have committed immoral acts, because his actions have knowingly caused all the outcomes in the universe, which again brings us back to that same view.
Careful, that premise can be easily flipped around to dismiss all of your arguments WRT gods. ;)
ReplyDeleteAnd I counter that by saying we can extrapolate, based on that one species, general rules regarding ethics. Then, as other instances are discovered, observe and the modify those rules as necessary to remain consistent.
ReplyDeleteIOW, there's no reason to assume morality and ethics apply only to us and not to any other intelligent species that might exist.
As for the (non-)anthropomorphic (I think that's not quite the right term to use, but let's proceed anyway): in both cases you seem to have removed all responsibility from the created beings:
In the non-anthropomorphic theory, the created beings' intentions are manifestations of the god's
In the anthropomorphic, the god knows the outcome of the creation event, which precludes any being from making a separate choice; this undermines any possibility of free will[1]
[1] you and I already had this conversation here.
in the natural world? I can't see why anyone would.
ReplyDeleteGood, that's a starting point for any discussion then.
ReplyDeletei haven't read any of the following comments yet, so i might be crossing old ground, and i'm going to respond with my gut reaction as opposed to pulling scriptures out. here's my thoughts:
ReplyDelete1. i don't think that "whatever god does is morally good" is an appropriate or accurate description of morality. ... i'm trying to figure out why i think this. i suppose i'd have to go with something along the lines of, what we do could be morally wrong even if when god does it its morally right. i think morality is something that governs humans, not god. god is god -- ungoverned. unrestricted. unlimited. otherwise there's be a finite aspect to god which i don't think fits with what it means to be god. there are lots of scriptures about god being righteous and holy and so on. but i think that by definition, anything god does is acceptable because, well, he's god. like i said earlier, he can do what he wants, when he wants to, in the way he sees fit. whether we like it or not, that's the way it is. that's what it means to be god. its vast and frightening and powerful. just because we don't like it doesn't mean it's not true. we can sissify god in our minds as much as we like but that doesn't change his nature.
God hurts. God kills. God uses one nation against another as punishment even when he fully realizes that it will be brutal and ugly. (Habakkuk is a good example of that. It is very clear that God knows exactly what sort of people he is sending to destroy Israel.) We would say that doing this sort of thing is morally wrong. And I believe that if I sent someone to brutalize another someone, that would definitely be morally wrong on my part. But God is something other. He's not a human. He's called a person, but he's not a person in any sense that we naturally relate to. I think that's why I like the weather analogy. It's something that comes closer to the majesty and grandeur and power and chaos that I think God embodies. Granted, God is even more so. But we can kinda "get" weather in a sense that it's harder to "get" when talking about God, I think.
2.Who defines morality? I think I'd still say (I think I said this earlier, yes?) that God does. That doesn't mean that all that God does is something we'd call morally right. But God is the arbiter of what is moral. Love your neighbor as yourself. Do not kill. Forgive as you have been forgiven. They're directives given by God.
I think this can get particularly confusing, especially when you're mixing in "don't kill" with "there are repercussions for wrong-doing." I'm not a big fan of capital punishment (except, perhaps, when it comes to clear cases of child-abuse/rape like the cali. gal that was found 18 years after abduction), but if someone is going to punish, it makes sense that it would be God. In fact, if I'm going to believe that God truly is a being of unlimited power, unfettered, unhindered, etc. then whether I think he should also have the right of punishment is irrelevant. He already can do whatever he wants. Punish or not. It's in his ability in a way that takes my opinion out of it entire. Ditto on loving people. I think of the parable where the guy employed several different people throughout the day but paid them all the same wage. The guys that started work earlier were ticked that the later guys got paid the same. But whether or not they agreed with the employer didn't change the fact that he was the employer and it was his decision and they really didn't have a say in the matter.
hmmm, i hadn't caught the "it".
ReplyDeleteI do think "it" is derogatory. at the same time, neither "he" nor "she" is accurate either. none of the three words work very well to describe an entity or person that is beyond anything a "he," "she," or "it" could ever be. i prefer to use "he" because i think culturally it carries the most respect. but it's neither accurate nor really the most respectful we could be. using only God rather than a pronoun might be most appropriate. but as screwed up beings with a screwed up language, i think the conversation is more important than pronoun details in the end. perhaps we could all agree to an inaccurate "he" instead of an inaccurate "it" though?
I think this is part of what makes a conversation like this hard. For monotheists to talk about what god is, means you're talking about God. You just are.
ReplyDeleteBut I think it is helpful to talk about "If there is a god, what would that god need to be like? What would define god as being different than anything else, like a person or a universe or a force?" In that sense, we're really talking about the concept of "What is a god?" as opposed to "Who is God?" It's more of an impersonal discussion, and yet we can bring in specific details about God as well. I try to use the capital to differentiate.
and i've appreciated that. thanks for joining in, meirav. :-) i'm glad you joined us.
ReplyDeletehmmm, if i had to describe darryl, i'd say that he's more like a rubber wall. he's quick to be contrary. that doesn't mean that there's any emotion tied in with that (as you often find with other people who are being contrary, especially when you get into politics or religion). he also pushes. he wants to take an idea and push it as far as it can go. this can sometimes be annoying when you're tired of discussing something after awhile. at that point it's best just to walk away.
ReplyDeletethe pro of having a discussion with darryl is that he will get you thinking. he's great at challenging assumptions and pushing things to logical ends.
the con is that he's not always logical himself and when he does let emotion get into it he can be a real turd and not admit when he's wrong.
(both of these are common ISTJ traits. ;-) )
so he's a rubber wall with heavy springs that push back. sometimes too hard. how's that? ;-) he makes for a great place to bounce a ball against, though.
ok. there you go trying to confuse me. what the heck is WRT? wrong, right, true? wrong, right, temporary? white, red, taupe?
ReplyDeleteyeah. i think i agree. this is sorta what i said in about 100 or so more words, right? thanks for summarizing what i hadn't even said yet. love it!
ReplyDeleteso you're saying that god is a moral agent?
ReplyDeletebwa ha ha!!!!! i distinctly remember having conversations with you and J several years ago about this and it was YOU who was assuming choice was always present. i wonder if i could dig any of those up.
ReplyDeleteby this definition my dog is a moral agent.
ReplyDeletefor me it's a matter of time and brain strength. i'd rather declare something unknowable and stop haggling over it at some point than spend my life worrying over an idea and not moving on to something greater, like actually learning how to forgive someone and do it well.
ReplyDeletei like arguing. i like dissecting thoughts. i like getting to the meat of a juicy idea. but if it's going to trip me up and keep me from moving forward, then i'd rather mark it "read" and move on. i can come back to it later if i want. "unknowable" is ok in my book. (dang, when it comes to creation or end times, i'd rather check "unknowable" and run like hell than deal with some of the people like to haggle over those issues.)
yeah, that too.
ReplyDeletemen.
ReplyDeletei feel like i understand them pretty well as in, i can predict what one is going to do. but that doesn't mean that i really "get" them in any proper sense of the word. just because i know he's about to do it doesn't mean it makes any sense to me. honestly, what's so hard about putting the toilet seat down and returning the newspaper to where you got it from? the bathroom floor is NOT where we store our newspapers!!!!!!
i think you're arguing from a skewed definition.
ReplyDeleteok. so this is as far as i've gotten and i need to go pick up nathan from D&D. so this quote is my marker for where i'm at. :-)
ReplyDeleteokay, I know I'm being pedantic but splitting hairs is one of my main hobbies, and this is the weekend, right?
ReplyDeleteif there's stuff that I choose to stop haggling over/worrying about/etc because I feel there are other, more important and/or more fun things I could do with my time (and yes, learning how to forgive someone is definitely more important to me than working out the Calvinist/Arminian debate) then I wouldn't call that sort of stuff unknowable, I would just say I'm not bothered about knowing it.
Unknowable is what I can't know even if I do choose to spend time and energy on working it out.
I feel some examples coming on...
If you ask me what 5,739,123,018.65 x 3,197,258.34 is, I could work it out if I took the time. (leaving calculators out of the equation for the moment) but hey, my life doesn't depend on knowing the answer, and I've got an interesting book to read, so I ain't going to bother.
When I wanted to understand what happens inside a car when I change gears, I got my husband to explain it to me, with visual aids, until I got it. Because I was curious, I wanted to know the answer, and finding out was doable within the time I was willing to give it and with the brain cells I have at my disposal.
So what have we got so far? We've got one example of something that I could know but choose not to bother finding out; and one example of something that I did have enough motivation to find out about. And then there's stuff that I'd have to work out for myself if I wanted to know - not just asking my husband to explain - so again there would be the question of how much motivation I have and how much time and energy it would take. If I'm stranded on a desert island I would probably have a lot more motivation to work out stuff I don't know like how to hunt and how to build a fire and make clothes out of whatever etc., but seeing as I live in Western urban comfort and I can buy the things I need, I haven't even bothered to learn how to sew. It's knowable, but there are tons of things that are knowable and we have to make choices as to what we're going to put our minds to.
Now, there are other things where there might be a question as to whether or not they are knowable. Like for instance the Met Office here issues weather forecasts, and they got laughed at pretty badly recently because they had said we'd have a "barbecue summer" and we had so much rain that you couldn't have done much barbecuing unless you had a really good roof above your patio. So, if we want to know what the weather will be like tomorrow or next week or next month, is this knowable or not? is it just a question of improving the tools we use? or is there a certain level of unpredictability built in to the weather, which would mean that the weather forecast is actually unknowable?
End of ramble for now :)
No, I'm not.
ReplyDelete:P
WRT="with regards to"
ReplyDeleteWouldn't one have to be? Why would divinity exclude moral responsibility?
ReplyDeleteWouldn't one have to be? Why would divinity exclude moral responsibility?
ReplyDeleteI always assume the ability to choose is present; i.e., there's nothing, to date, that shows our choices to be the result of a controlled and guided process. ;)
ReplyDeleteI would suck as a calvanist...
Yes, it would be. And, dare I say, is. But not to the same degree as a human. Your dog is trainable, and can be taught what is and is not acceptable. And it can make choices based on that conditioning. It's not as skillful as a person in, say, looking at the long term effects of its choices, but a dog can make very limited moral choices.
ReplyDeleteThen I think "unknowable" is the wrong term to use. Something isn't unknowable just become someone doesn't want to know about it. Unknowable means it's beyond comprehension and understanding.
ReplyDeleteSo, for example, trigonometry is not unknowable just because Caleb doesn't want to sit and read his math book. :D
Can you provide a more precise definition?
ReplyDelete+1 I agree completely.
ReplyDeleteSure, but there are things in trigonometry which are unknowable, as with some other (all?) areas of mathematics. An example from breakfast time here, I'd been firing some mental arithmetic at the kids and got as far as something like
ReplyDelete"I multiply a number by 5 and get 40 - what is the number?"
and I threw in
"I mutiply a number by 0 and get 0 - what is the number?"
There is no possible way to work that out, in fact it's provably unknowable.
Sorry, but it is knowable: you know it. And you can tell someone else and they can know it. You're mistaking discernable with knowable.
ReplyDeleteI can give you the answer to your second question: the set of all numbers. Remember, in math, one answer is actually the rare result. Your thinking that it's only one number that's the answer is a mistake in thinking on your part. ;)
I meant to reply to this and forgot to.
ReplyDeleteCan you name some aspect that's unknowable? And I don't mean "hard to identify" or "hasn't been identified yet". I mean something where mathematicians have said "we will never know the answer to that no matter how long and hard we look and learn".
why would god Have to be a moral agent?
ReplyDeletemost especially because you can't spell calvinist. there's nothing, to date, that shows our choices to be the result of a controlled and guided process. ;)if God were controlling your every action, how would you know?
ReplyDeleteis it a moral choice if you've been conditioned to behave that way?
ReplyDeletebut within the world-of-caleb, it IS unknowable. at least, it can be labeled that way.
ReplyDeletei think a better label would be, "not worth delving into at this point in my life." i've already delved into trig. so i'll shoot for organic chemistry as being unknowable for me.
can you remind me what we were defining?
ReplyDelete*sigh* ok, ok. i'll try to dig back and figure it out myself. if i don't attempt a better definition then the laziness won.
how in the world is 0 x 0 = {all numbers} ?
ReplyDeletecan you spell that one out for me?
... so was it a definition for morality that you were trying to get at?
ReplyDeletei'd have to think on that. your example with the dog relies heavily upon culture and training. i think morality is beyond that (though perhaps has a component that needs to behave a particular way based upon the cultural setting).
The assumption I'm going on is that any god has free will, and free will involves choice which brings into play morality. Unless the god is an automaton, it must be a moral agent.
ReplyDeleteWe couldn't, could we? If we were absolutely puppets on a string, I don't know how we could know unless the puppeteer directed our attention to the strings.
ReplyDeleteYes, since you're still making a choice to act in a certain way. The conditioning only makes it a tendency or inclination to behave as conditioned: it doesn't remove your ability.
ReplyDeleteBut mislabeling something doesn't change its nature. And I agree, the word "unknowable" was incorrect WRT knowledge about our universe. It may take a long time, or require great resources, but there's nothing within the known world that is unknowable.
ReplyDeleteHonestly, I don't quite remember. You replied about skewed definitions when I told fourcheez he was arguing from ignorance. In that particular case ignorance of any other moral agents in the universe and using that ignorance to claim morality as a human-only action.
ReplyDeleteI didn't say that. I said that any number multiplied by zero is zero, so his claim that his number is "unknowable" is flawed since the answer is any number. IOW:
ReplyDelete0 * {x|x is any number} = 0
No, I actually wasn't defining anything when you said I was using a "skewed definition". That's why I asked you to provide one. ;)
ReplyDeleteAs for conditioning, training and morality, what human isn't also conditioned and trained in order to behave within society? And what aspect of morality isn't the result of our choices based on that conditioning and training?
i don't think i'd say that God is an automaton. i do believe God can act as he pleases. but God is also god in that that is his nature. and he acts according to his nature, which includes power beyond anything we can imagine, knowledge beyond anything we can comprehend, etc. this expansive being, this ultimate being, is far and away beyond not only what we are but also what we can imagine.
ReplyDeletemorality, on the other hand, is a human construct based upon human limitations and understandings.
although i believe that God teaches us how we should behave (be forgiving, loving, hospitable, etc.) and i also believe that God follows through on these behaviors (he is forgiving, loving, hospitable, etc.) that doesn't mean that he's limited to them nor does it mean that following other behaviors is immoral. it's beyond. morality is a description of something within the human scope of behavior. it doesn't exceed that scope. God does. his behavior does. it can be within the scope of human morality. but it also resides outside of it.
i don't know how to explain it any better than that. but i'd say that my understanding of what it means to be god is pretty much foundational to all this. if god weren't all encompassing, all knowing, etc. then it would be much easier for me to shove him into a realm of morality and explore his behavior in that light. but i don't think that's appropriate based on my conception of what "god" is.
so there's no way to "show our choices to be the result of a controlled and guided process." seems like a dead end in the conversation to me. you can't prove you're being controlled. you can't prove you're not being controlled.
ReplyDeletehmmm, i'm going to have to think on this. if i've been conditioned to salivate every time i hear a bell, what real control do i have in that?
ReplyDeletei suppose this makes me think of battered women. they basically are conditioned to take what's dished out at them. they know they should leave. they know they're in a bad spot and they should grab the kids and run for their lives. but they don't. they stay. they're conditioned. (and there's all sorts of other pressures as well.)
sure, if they're brave and strong and perhaps have a person standing there helping them out, they might run and find a safe house. but that's probably more the exception than the rule.
does that mean that when they stay and they're beaten and see their kids being beaten that they're condoning something that is morally wrong? i don't think so. they're conditioned to allow it.
but like i said, i still need to think on this one. that's just my first run thoughts.
That's a huge area where we disagree, then. Morality is not a human construct any more than mathematics is a human construct or chemistry. We have a system for describing it, but that which we're describing are derived from interaction and not something we created from whole cloth.
ReplyDeleteAs for any god, including the xtian one, being able to "act as he pleases" 1) does not make all of its actions automatically more or above reproach (since might does not make right, and what you're describing is cowering and fear as a response) and 2) you still haven't explained why, beyond that fear response, divinity, omniscience or any other omni-attribute would in any way preclude morality.
To use an analogy, in our house I am (please don't tell Christene this) absolute authority. I can act as I please. Does that mean, from the boys' view, I am above morality? Or am I even more bound by moral rules to be an example and not an exception to the behavior I expect from them?
... we can be conditioned that men should wear their hair short. but it's not the keeping of the hair short that would be morally right in that instance. it would be the willingness to keep your hair short even when you don't want to, out of respect for the culture or a person within that culture. and that, i would say, is morally good. (right doesn't sound right. good sounds better there.)
ReplyDeleteNot really. Occam's Razor comes into play here. If the choice is either 1) we're free agents who can make choices, or 2) we're puppets on strings that we can never see or which are impossible for us to see, then the likeliest choice is 1).
ReplyDeleteThat's operant conditioning: you don't have a choice in that sort of a response, nor is something like drooling for food a moral choice.
ReplyDeleteWhen you brought up conditioning, I more was referring to people who rape, kill or rob others and then blame the way they were raised for their behavior. That's a false claim since they still had to choose to commit those acts and that choice was their moral failing.
does that mean that when they stay and they're beaten and see their kids being beaten that they're condoning something that is morally wrong? i don't think so. they're conditioned to allow it.
Yes, it does mean they're condoning it tacitly by allowing it to continue when they could leave. Again, conditioning does not remove your ability to choose.
so you're saying that morality is something basic to the universe? and what you're describing is cowering and fear as a response) where did i mention cowering or fear?you still haven't explained why, beyond that fear response, divinity, omniscience or any other omni-attribute would in any way preclude morality.perhaps a possible parallel is determining whether a referee is in bounds or whether he's committed a foul. the example of yourself is inherently flawed in my view because you are human and you are describing a situation involving human morality.
ReplyDeleteboth can't be true at the same time?
ReplyDeleteI'm saying morality is derived from interactions. Just as you can't put two things together with other things and not have four things total, you can't have two beings freely interacting without there being some moral quality to the interaction. Morality is an aspect of interaction.
ReplyDeleteYou didn't mention cowering. You're describing it when you give a being a free pass on something because it's more powerful than you.
No. They're mutually exclusive: you can't have free will when any will you have is overridden by another's.
ReplyDeleteTry moving it around:
ReplyDeleteX x 0 = 0
X = 0/0
0/0 is undefined in mathematics.
Since I set the question, I think I'm allowed to decide what kind of answer is the right one :)
ReplyDeleteThat was not your original proposition. Your proposition was "I multiplied a number by zero and got zero, so what is the number?" And the answer is "any number" even though you thought the answer can only be the one you chose.
ReplyDeleteNot really. You proposed a math problem for which personal choice plays no role: you don't get to decide "what kind of answer is the right one". ;)
ReplyDeleteI'm just giving you another example, 0/0 doesn't have an answer.
ReplyDeleteActually to contradict myself, there are 3 possible answers:
ReplyDelete1) 0 divided by anything is 0, therefore 0/0 is 0
2) Anything divided by 0 is infinite, therefore 0/0 is infinite (although infinite is really just the mathematical way of saying "don't look for an answer here")
3) Anything divided by itself is 1, therefore 0/0 is 1.
Neither does "what positive number can you add to 1 to make it 0". What's the point?
ReplyDeleteThese are incorrect.
ReplyDeletex / 0 { x | x is any number }
is not infinite. It is undefined, which is a completely separate mathematical concept that means it does not exist. There is no amount of nothings that can be added together to form any non-zero value, not even infinite nothings. So your premise in 2 is incorrect, and your conclusion in 3 is flawed and therefore wrong.
You can google L'Hopital's rule for more information on such limits.
so when a rock is rolled down a hill due to wind or the weight of snow or something like that, and it interacts with a flower by rolling on top of it and crushing it, that is a moral interaction?You didn't mention cowering. You're describing it when you give a being a free pass on something because it's more powerful than you.i still don't get it. rob is more powerful than i am physically, but i don't cower before him. in fact, poor thing, it's often the other way around. (although it's my verbal power that comes into play at that point.)
ReplyDeletei've blathered on about this quite a bit in other locations. i'd dig them up, but i can't remember where it was. (i thought it was in the christian community but a quick search didn't turn anything up.)
ReplyDeletei'm not up for it now. maybe some day when i have more time on my hands. my explanation tends to include yellow, red and orange as well as flatland and pharaohs.
No. Neither the rock nor the hill are moral agents; i.e., they do not have free will and cannot make moral choices.
ReplyDeleteYou don't describe Rob in the same way. You said:
ReplyDeletei do believe God can act as he pleases. but God is also god in that that is his nature. and he acts according to his nature, which includes power beyond anything we can imagine, knowledge beyond anything we can comprehend, etc. this expansive being, this ultimate being, is far and away beyond not only what we are but also what we can imagine.
By saying "God can act as he pleases" you're saying that he can break rules, including morality. And it's implicit in that statement that he can "do as he pleases" because he's "this ultimate being" (IOW, powerful) and you're unable to defy his actions or impose morality on him.
That describes cowering in fear: fear of punishment for imposing morality on such a being.
no, that's not what i'm saying. i'm saying that the man-made rule of morality doesn't apply to such a being.
ReplyDeletewhich leads to an interesting question. does God have free will? or is God constrained to always behave in a way that is consistent with his character/being?
ReplyDeleteYou're assuming that morality is man-made. I'm asserting they are not.
ReplyDeleteAnd, anyway, morality for the xtian is defined by their god, is it not?
I asked that previously in this thread on 08 September. ;)
ReplyDeleteI asked that previously in this thread on 08 September. ;)don't bother linking to it. that would be too easy on the rest of us. :-P
ReplyDeletethe simple and most obvious answer would of course be, "yes." but i suspect it's much more complicated than that (based on various interpretations of scripture, i suppose). calvin found it so repugnant that someone not believe in the trinity that he burned the poor fellow. but i think the most you'd get today is a "whatever" or a very strongly worded verbal tirade. does the response show a change in morals? possibly. at least in our understanding of our own moral obligations in dealing with other's moral failures, yes?
ReplyDeleteI'm not sure how to link to a different message in the thread. Show me! :)
ReplyDeleteBut, whether it's an interpretation or not, the morality itself is purported to be from the bible. And, by extension, from the xtian god. So morality isn't man-made even in that case.
ReplyDeleteAnd, if it is the case that morality comes from the xtian god, then is that god exempt from his own rules? Again, from your reaction before, you're unwilling (out of fear) to hold it accountable for its own actions.
i don't know why you keep saying there's a fear issue. fear is not the issue.
ReplyDeleteon the other hand, if i had a beef with God and wanted to call him to the carpet, it would sorta be like an ant yelling at the gardener that just stepped on his ant hill. the ant isn't afraid of the gardener. but his message doesn't really come across with much force or power, either.
i make rules for my kids that i'm exempt from myself. bed time is a good example of that.
If it's not fear, then what is it?
ReplyDeleteYou describe an ant not yelling at a farmer, but we can't really know motivation in something like an ant, can we? If an ant could have such a sophisticated thought as to think a farmer was hypocritical, would it actually complain if it could communicate, or would it not for fear of being crushed?
Since I assume you believe you can communicate with the xtian god, it's not a lack of being able to convey your displeasure for some action. Then what else is it that makes you say that this god can act as it pleases, if not fear?
BTW, I'm sure your kids have no fear of telling you about their displeasure with your decisions about their bed time, am I right? Can you not do the same on up the chain? :)
an understanding of the difference between what a person is and what a god is?You describe an ant not yelling at a farmer, but we can't really know motivation in something like an ant, can we? If an ant could have such a sophisticated thought as to think a farmer was hypocritical, would it actually complain if it could communicate, or would it not for fear of being crushed?your obsession with fear makes me wonder if it's you that's fearful of the possibility that such a being as a god would exist, a being that not only is, but is far more powerful than you can even imagine. Since I assume you believe you can communicate with the xtian god, it's not a lack of being able to convey your displeasure for some action. Then what else is it that makes you say that this god can act as it pleases, if not fear?an understanding that god is god and god can do as god does. the ant can complain all he wants. but even if he can confirm that the gardener has heard his plea, that does not change the fact that the gardener has designs upon that particular spot and is going to rearrange the garden as he sees fit. BTW, I'm sure your kids have no fear of telling you about their displeasure with your decisions about their bed time, am I right? Can you not do the same on up the chain? :)they can complain all they want, but 1) that does not change the time they need to be in bed and 2) that does not change the fact that the rule does not apply to me.
ReplyDeleteThat describes a situation where the more powerful being (the gardener) doesn't care about the weaker being's desires. So the ant can talk but the gardener's oblivious to the ant's concerns. And the way I hear the xtian god described, at least, there's an assertion of concern. So I again think the analogy fails on that point.
ReplyDeleteI still believe it's fear or else it's a case of believe that might makes right, and that the xtian god, by nature of being powerful, is automatically right since you are powerless to make him see wrong.
Oh, and good try to turn the fear interpretation around on me. That was something I would have used in a debate. You're turning into the nice version of me. :D Seriously, to address it though, I have no fear of some more powerful being like that. Not any more than I have a fear of one of Drew Daywalt's monsters popping out of the closet
yes, it definitely does. this gardener cares about the garden including the health of the creatures living in it.
ReplyDeletethe analogy was supposed to point out the difference in being types and their relationship in that sense.
lol! a "nice" version. i'm not sure whether to be scared or flattered. ;-)
ReplyDeleteGo for flattered. It makes everybody happier. :D
ReplyDelete