theological philosophy

[Paddy]

There was a devout religious man who found himself directly in the path of huge storm.  Everyone told him to leave, but he said "God will save me. I have faith".   As the water rose he climbed to the second story of his house.  A man came by in a boat and told him to get aboard.  The religious man said "God will save me.  I have faith".  The water rose some more and the man climbed onto his roof.  Another man came by in a boat and frantically told him to climb aboard.  Again the religious man refused.  The waters continued to rise and the a helicopter came by, hovered, dropped a rope ladder and shouted for him to come aboard.  The man refused for a third time, saying "God will save me.  I have faith."   The waters rose, the wind blew, and the man drowned.

Upon entering the gates of heaven the man was really pissed.  He demanded to talk to God.  God asked him "May I help you?"  The man angrily answered "All my life, I've been a devout believer. When that storm came, I wasn't afraid.  I knew you would save me on account of my faith.  Instead, you just let me die."

God answered "I sent you two boats and a helicopter."

[griz]

Fistful, when both sides are stating opinions, then disagreement is pretty much required to talk with each other. My problem is when the opinion itself is stated as conclusive proof that a differing opinion is wrong. The proof should be based on provable or agreed upon facts, not opinions. An example is Galileo advancing the preposterous notion that the earth revolved around the sun. The church knew he was wrong because God told them so. Thats the kind of presumption I am talking about. IE: I am right because I believe God thinks I am right. If it turns out to be true, its fine. But it speaks poorly of the churchs divine insight when it is proven wrong.

I guess what it comes down to is I believe that most of any religion is improvable, and therefore I believe arguments over which is right are fruitless. But I dont object to you believing your religion is the correct one. As you said, why wouldnt everybody believe they are right?

1. What do you mean about negating desires?

2. Christians do not believe that God creates evil, even if He uses it for His purposes.  He created beings capable of love, but that means we are also capable of hatred.

You said As God is the author of good, and is perfectly holy, the only reason to reject Him is so that we might pursue our own vile and corrupt desires. The second part of that statement only follows if you assume that God did not create evil. So I was asking if God creating evil would negate the statement. I have read the rest of the posts about the origins of evil. But it still comes down to if not God then who created it? You can argue mans free will, but that doesnt account for things like hurricanes and the snake in the garden. If you want to take the approach Stand_watie is using, that I don't think it's a concept the human mind can get around, then why do people, or even any church, pretend to understand it.

[grampster]

Someone said in this thread,  loosely paraphrased, that at the end of the day, it comes down to faith.

  One can argue and reason all day long about things that are beyond the ken of man.  The inspired words of the Christian bible even ask "who can know the mind of God?"  That's somewhere in the New Testament, also loosely paraphrased.  The book of Job also has some advice for those who ask unanswerable questions.  God put his "hand" in front of Moses face while he passed in front of Moses, because Moses would not be able to handle seeing God, and his hair turned white and he was hard to look at when he came back down the mountain, according to the OT writer.

So, imho that is why when we get in discussions such as these, it should stay polite as no one really has any standing to project puffery and or contempt.  One should politely put forth, perhaps, the reason for the faith that one has and let it go at that.  If the party on the other side of the question gains anything from the discussion it hopefully is respect for the faith that is being projected.

As for my faith, I wonder about it all the time.  But it is settled for me nonetheless.
I made mention of other sects being useful.  My reasoning for saying that is that if Jesus IS Lord, then He will certainly leave a door open somewhere for everyone to enter.  Free will implies we have choices.  Perhaps those doors or choices are just not evident to everyone as they are not necessary for everyone.  Most people experience life in different ways, even those closest to you.

[griz]

Well said Grampster!

[Perd Hapley]

Thank you, Stand_watie, I knew I was missing something.  I'm just glad my answers are consistent with yours, which I believe is the correct one.  

But it still comes down to if not God then who created it? You can argue mans free will, but that doesnt account for things like hurricanes and the snake in the garden. If you want to take the approach Stand_watie is using, that I don't think it's a concept the human mind can get around, then why do people, or even any church, pretend to understand it.

Stand_watie addressed this already.  Evil necessarily exists, as the opposite of God's attributes.  

The serpent in the garden.  I have declined so far, in regard to simplicity, to discuss another class of beings created with intelligence, consciousness, and free will.  I speak now of angels.  The serpent in the garden is usually regarded as being Satan, an angel that rebelled against God.  So, the snake is really part of the same free will problem.  

Hurricanes are not really an evil, but more of a hardship.  However, it is the result of man's sin.  The Bible teaches that God cursed all of creation when man sinned.  We could discuss at length why this is man's doing and not God's, but let us go on for now.  
Edited to add:  I have stated this more eloquently in post 64, which was an explanation of some Christian doctrine:

Retribution:  God's retribution is the result of our own choice.  That is, Hell is a seperation from God, which is precisely what sinful people choose and desire.  God seeks to bring us to faith, and gives us much reason to believe.  If, however, in the end we choose not to believe, it is because of a sinful refusal to submit to God, and to trust Him.  If one does not wish to acknowledge God, or to love Him, that choice will be honored, and the sinner set apart from God's presence.  Unfortunately, that is a horrible situation, but many people are determined to have it.  If you do not believe this, consider the horrible things so many to do themselves and others, and the messes so many make of their lives.  Hell will be simply a magnification of the evil wrought by sinful people on Earth.  The point is, God honors human free will, and will force no one to love Him or stay with Him....  

Imperfect beings:  When God created the first man and first woman, they knew no sin.  The whole creation was perfectly healthy, clean and beautiful.  A part of the perfection of man was his ability to think, to feel, to love, etc.  But, again, God respects the choice of others whether to love Him or hate Him.  The first people disobeyed God, just as you and I would have, and followed their own reasoning instead.  This is the famous Apple Incident.  So, they brought death and curses upon themselves and the whole world.  See my comments on Hell, above.  This explains the imperfection of man.

[griz]

I assume that God was capable of creating perfect beings. So why did He decide to create imperfect ones?

[Perd Hapley]

First of all, my wife says "Hi" to all of my computer friends.

griz, I posted that stuff for a reason.  Why not read it?

But I will answer anyway, as soon as I do the dishes.  The wife beckons.

[griz]

I did read it. But whatever the response I will not be able to read it until tomorrow. Gotta go.

[Perd Hapley]

I assume that God was capable of creating perfect beings. So why did He decide to create imperfect ones?

He didn't.  God's original creation was perfect.  In the Genesis account of creation, God said that His creation was "good."  But some of his creatures decided their idea of good was better than God's.  As I said before:

A part of the perfection of man was his ability to think, to feel, to love, etc.  But, again, God respects the choice of others whether to love Him or hate Him.  The first people disobeyed God, just as you and I would have, and followed their own reasoning instead.  This is the famous Apple Incident.  So, they brought death and curses upon themselves and the whole world.

The question is, could God have created beings capable of love, reason, intelligence, consciousness, etc., but with no chance of doing evil?  I don't believe so.  Many Christians have reasoned that God is capable of creating perfect beings, but that such would only be automatons, pre-programmed to "love" their creator.  A Stepford humanity, if you will.

I forgot to mention, though, that I don't agree with Stand_watie about humans not being able to understand the the question of theodicy.  It is not easy to have faith that God really loves us, and is working for our good, but I think it is comprehensible.

[Perd Hapley]

My problem is when the opinion itself is stated as conclusive proof that a differing opinion is wrong. The proof should be based on provable or agreed upon facts, not opinions.

Absolutely.  Let us not beg the question.  Has anyone done so in this thread?

As for the Galileo controversy, the church had every right to its beliefs.  It was their enforcing such at axe's edge I disagree with.  But I would comment that there is nothing Christian about geocentrism.  Actually, it reminds me of the Intelligent Design center being shut down at Baylor University.

I guess what it comes down to is I believe that most of any religion is improvable, and therefore I believe arguments over which is right are fruitless.

I agree in a way.  However, I will try to explain why my beliefs are plausible, and might point out flaws I see in other belief systems.  Respectfully, of course.

[Strings]

Ok... so evil dates to the same time frame as God, making them equal? Is that the gist of it?

 I'm not trying to  be obtuse here: it's an actual question...

[Strings]

>I agree in a way.  However, I will try to explain why my beliefs are plausible, and might point out flaws I see in other belief systems.  Respectfully, of course.<

And there lies the REAL key to this debate (and the major difference between those who believe in personal liberty, and those who wish a nanny-state): while we may disagree, we're willing to defend each-others' right to our own beliefs...

[Perd Hapley]

Yeah, but there are some things that just shouldn't be legal.

Yeah, well, you've never seen Hunter Rose in tights or a kilt

That there is a stonable offence!


Hunter Rose,

I don't think evil could be considered equal to God, at least not in a Christian perspective.  We believe that God is always in control, and always causes evil to serve a good purpose.  Believing in that really does take some faith!  Also, evil is a concept, while God is a person; or, rather, three persons.  That, and He can create and populate His very own universe.  Neato!

As far as time frame goes, God is eternal.  You can't look for when God and evil began to exist.  God has always been.  More precisely, God IS (His name is I Am).  

I will stop giving the orthodox Christian view, here, and give my own personal musings.  When contemplating theistic creation, it is normal to think of God as sitting around for countless eons, thinking about what He will create.  But he didn't; there was no time before creation.  There was no "before creation."  Mind-blowing, don't you think?  There is something the human mind can't get itself around.

[Perd Hapley]

I wonder at the thinking that causes someone to say that the deity they follow is omnipotent and capable of all things, but then turn around and say that the deity cannot or will not appear in some other aspect to people of a different perspective.

Wonder no more.  

God cannot perform that which is contrary to His nature.

God cannot lie.  God cannot sin.  (Holiness)

God cannot make things so heavy He cannot move them.  God cannot create a being or force more powerful than Himself.  (Omnipotence)

I'm sure we could think of some more.

Also, God cannot teach one group one set of beliefs and moral laws, and give a different set to others.  He cannot present Himself as one thing, and as a contradictory thing.  This is dishonest and unfair, and therefore ungodly.

[Ron]

Actually I believe God did create evil.  

In the Bible he so much as says he did.  In Isaiah somewhere he says this.

If at one point "He" was all there was,  then he creates what we know as creation (including free will),  and "evil" is part of creation then He as the creator created evil.  I believe evil is the result of free will exercised outside the will (or want) of God.

It is still under Gods control and responsibility as far as I see it.  The eventual conquest of all evil is a done deal because the potter has complete dominion over the work of his hands.

[Strings]

>Yeah, but there are some things that just shouldn't be legal.

    Yeah, well, you've never seen Hunter Rose in tights or a kilt

That there is a stonable offence!<

Hey... I look damn good in either! And my wife will back me up on that

[Sindawe]

"He who made kittens put snakes in the grass."

Bonus points if you can name the artists and song title.

Also, God cannot teach one group one set of beliefs and moral laws, and give a different set to others.  He cannot present Himself as one thing, and as a contradictory thing.  This is dishonest and unfair, and therefore ungodly.

Why not?  If humans are capable of holding two contradictory points of view in the mind at once, why can not the Divine Being do so as well?  As for it being "unfair", sounds to me like you are attempting to impose human standards of behavior apon that which is clearly above/supirior to humanity.

My views. These are MINE, you have to get your own.  Be warned, I failed "Sharing" in Kindergarten.

The true nature of what we call God/Gods/Divinity/Holy is currently beyond our abiltiy to comprehend.  We can only think/rationalize a limited set of dimensions, for most it is height/length/depth/time, some can see a 5th of possibility that branches from each of the first four.  The GGDH is outside our frame of reference, and I suspect takes no more interest in our affairs than a passing child does in an ant hill.  Sometimes, for the ants that is The Apocalypse with foul airs and fire, somtimes it is sweet meats and mana.

The analogy of the pipe and shadows is a good one IMAO.  For me, the shadows of a one-eyed man in blue with a floppy hat and two pet ravens speakes closest to my soul as the Truth, though I personally realize my calling is to another of that Pantheon.

[griz]

It looks as if we didn't change each others mind, but thanks for the answer Fistful.

[Felonious Monk/Fignozzle]

"He who made kittens put snakes in the grass."
Bonus points if you can name the artists and song title. big_smile

So, let's bungle in the jungle, with the amazing Ian Anderson and Jethro Tull from the album War Child.

A quick vignette, if you will: I saw Pink Floyd, Boston, Aerosmith, LedZep and all manner of groups in concert in the late '70's.  Saw Jethro Tull 4 times over 12 years.
Bar NONE, every time, there was never a more heavily intoxicated audience than the JT audiences.
Not sure what to infer from that, but it seems Tull fans were the most prolific druggies of the time.
Still LOVE the music, though.  Just not experienced through the haze anymore.

[Perd Hapley]

If humans are capable of holding two contradictory points of view in the mind at once, why can not the Divine Being do so as well?  As for it being "unfair", sounds to me like you are attempting to impose human standards of behavior apon that which is clearly above/supirior to humanity.

I'm not sure what you mean by the first sentence here.  

As for the rest, I was describing the Christian God, whose characteristics are known, to a certain extent.  When I said "unfair" I meant that God holds all people to the same standard, whether Jew, Gentile, European or African, etc.

The true nature of what we call God/Gods/Divinity/Holy is currently beyond our abiltiy to comprehend.  We can only think/rationalize a limited set of dimensions, for most it is height/length/depth/time, some can see a 5th of possibility that branches from each of the first four.

I agree with the first sentence, but I don't know why you bring up physical and temporal dimensions.  I believe it is the moral qualities of God that are being discussed.

[Perd Hapley]

In that case, griz, I must resort to bribery or brute force.  Which will it be?

[Ron]

I think this thread is diminished by the people who choose not to participate in it.

This thread and the ID thread have me thinking about things I haven't thought about in years.

[Strings]

Actually, this thread reminds me of something that happened one sunday in boot...

 My rackmate was also our religious PO (and a devout Lutheran). He and I got into a discussion with an atheist, trying to argue from our two vantage points that there HAD to be some form of higher being: the ahteist ended up becoming a Protestant a couple weeks later, and was still practicing when I saw him a year or so later. There's an equation in there somewhere (Pagan + Lutheran= Protestant)...

[Perd Hapley]

religious PO ?

[Strings]

relgious Petty Officer. One of the neat lil' things you have (or had, might've changed) in Navy bootcamp...