| Welcome to The New Coffee Room. We hope you enjoy your visit. You're currently viewing our forum as a guest. This means you are limited to certain areas of the board and there are some features you can't use. If you join our community, you'll be able to access member-only sections, and use many member-only features such as customizing your profile, sending personal messages, and voting in polls. Registration is simple, fast, and completely free. Join our community! If you're already a member please log in to your account to access all of our features: |
| Westboro Baptist Church Thanks God; for London tube bombings | |
|---|---|
| Tweet Topic Started: Jul 11 2005, 01:37 AM (3,071 Views) | |
| QuirtEvans | Jul 14 2005, 06:30 AM Post #151 |
|
I Owe It All To John D'Oh
|
Exactly.
|
| It would be unwise to underestimate what large groups of ill-informed people acting together can achieve. -- John D'Oh, January 14, 2010. | |
![]() |
|
| ivorythumper | Jul 14 2005, 08:03 AM Post #152 |
|
I am so adjective that I verb nouns!
|
Steve: It does not take a particularly lengthy explanation. God allows evil to happen (let's talk about bad human acts, not natural disasters), because he doesn't have pets or robots. We have free will so that we can love and choose good things. The capacity for free will is what makes us human, and makes us capable of moral actions. The lion has no moral choice in eating you. All we can do is "choose the good", but because of passions, warped conscience, bad formation, weak wills, dimmed intellects, etc we often choose "lesser goods" over "higher goods". The essence of morality is to choose the right action for the right reasons in the right circumstances. "Evil", properly speaking, is a privation of the good. (as cold is a privation of heat, dark is a privation of light). Even acts of evil, such as 9/11 were done "under the aspect of the good" -- but that "good" was so slight in proportion to the means to acquire that good and the rejection of the expontentially higher goods of justice and the duty to upholding the civil order, etc, that it can only be considered an act of great evil. If you will reference my POST ABOVE wherein I discuss good, human perfection, and the actualization of our being, this suggests why we ought to do good: because it makes us more human and leads to greater human happiness. So we have free will in order that we can choose the good ("and the greatest of these is Love") -- but part of the bargain is that it gives us the opportunities to choose lesser goods which can be, in fact, objectively evil acts (such as terrorism, abortion, etc.). Hope that was not too lengthy! |
| The dogma lives loudly within me. | |
![]() |
|
| Dewey | Jul 14 2005, 08:49 AM Post #153 |
![]()
HOLY CARP!!!
|
Before I answer you, let's make sure that I understand which of those five options you're aiming for. As this sentence is written: "Starting from that position, can you then understand my outrage when Falwell claims to be the one who knows what sorts of people (feminists?) make God mad enough to start crashing airplanes in to buildings?" it would tend to imply that you believe that God directly executes bad things - i.e., "God #4." I can't argue or agree with that, as I don't believe in God #4 - but I don't think you do either. Would your sentence more accurately reflect your intent if it were written this way: "Starting from that position, can you then understand my outrage when Falwell claims to be the one who knows what sorts of people (feminists?) make God mad enough to allow people to start crashing airplanes in to buildings?" The distinction is huge. If that's what you meant, then I agree with you. But that agreement hinges on two qualifiers: 1. You've said that Falwell claims "to be the one who knows" what societal ills were the "tipping pont" for God's allowing such a thing to happen. In one sense, every Christian has a conscience, and a brain, and (presumably) a Bible. At least in the Reformed Protestant tradition, every Christian is responsible to read, understand, and interpret scriptures in living out his or her life in Christ (yes, such interpretations may be right or wrong, but this fact remains). So in one sense, any studious believer could give, with some scriptural authority, an enumeration of parts of society that are inconsistent with at least their take on scriptures. It's certainly their right to do so, whether their interpretation is spot-on, partially correct, or entirely off base. OTOH, if you mean that Falwell has set himself up as the definitive spokesman for Christians, or Protestants, or Evangelicals, or the Christian Right, or any group larger than that populated by himself, he's mistaken. I've heard him speak. Years ago I met him and heard him preach in person. He says many things that I would agree with. He also says lots of things I don't agree with. If he ever claimed to speak for me, I'd be pissed. I don't know that he's ever made such a claim, but if he did, I'd be outraged. 2. As to the follow-up of why people, President or otherwise, would listen to him: I'll listen to pretty much anyone, to get their input on an issue. To some extent, Falwell no doubt speaks for a certain constituency, and as such should be heard out. But at the end of the day, if I'm responsible for a decision, I weigh all input and decide accordingly. I may give weight to some of what people have advised me, and completely discount other things said by the same person. Oh crap, I have to run to a meeting...
|
|
"By nature, i prefer brevity." - John Calvin, Institutes of the Christian Religion, p. 685. "Never waste your time trying to explain yourself to people who are committed to misunderstanding you." - Anonymous "Oh sure, every once in a while a turd floated by, but other than that it was just fine." - Joe A., 2011 I'll answer your other comments later, but my primary priority for the rest of the evening is to get drunk." - Klaus, 12/31/14 | |
![]() |
|
| gryphon | Jul 14 2005, 02:35 PM Post #154 |
|
Middle Aged Carp
|
I guess I should thank several of you, and I hope Steve thanks you, for helping him try to explain his own position. Lord knows I've tried for pages and he avoids it. Steve, you've equated God allowing bad things to happen with God causing bad things to happen. After all, he is omnipotent and omnipresent, right? He's both driving and watching the bus, as you told JBryan. I guess I'm curious first of all if you believe in God. |
![]() |
|
| Jeffrey | Jul 14 2005, 03:57 PM Post #155 |
|
Senior Carp
|
Dwain: By the way, Calvin accepts the Euthyphro distinction (as he must as a matter of logic) and takes line (b) - that morals are arbitrary (kindness is good, because God commands it, not because of any intrinsic property of kindness). If God commands Abraham to kill Isaac his son, then that is the right thing to do, because it is what God commands (remember, the angel had to forcibly stay Abraham's hand - he was going to do it). Calvin's general argument for this is that to say that kindness is good for some intrinsic reason, is to constrain the power of God (he would be bound by the reasons for morality, and his will would not be supreme and omnipotent). It is not my problem if you don't understand the philosophical basis for your religion. |
![]() |
|
| Dewey | Jul 14 2005, 05:48 PM Post #156 |
![]()
HOLY CARP!!!
|
Jeffrey, you really don't understand my position. I'm not sure that's your fault, I'm not sure that I ever explained it to you. Frankly, I'm not going to waste my time doing so in detail now. I will leave it at this: It is not inconsistent for a person who believes in the God defined in classical Christian theology to make either of the statements that you've identified. The two statements indeed are quite distinct. If applying them to something less than the all-knowing and all-good God that Christians worship, the distinction might be of interest theologically or philosophically. However, when posited about the Christian God so defined, the questions start out headed in opposite directions, but end up merging into one thing: God wills things because they are good, and things that are willed by God are good because they are willed by God - because God is the source of all good and incapable of willing evil or "less than good." You seem to think that I don't understand your philosophical distinction. I understand it perfectly; I just take it to its further conclusion when applied to the Christian God - that while Christian theologians have considered these questions and arrived at different answers, and while it may make for interesting cocktail party debate, in the end it's really quite irrelevant. I understand why this is such a big thing to you. Devoid of a belief in God, a person is left with only secular philosophy to guide him, and to act as a basis of morals and guidance in life. In essence, this reliance in philosophy simply becomes the person's religion, but a bizarre religion with no God. And this religion's equivalent of "redemption" must all happen here and now, within the person's lifespan - because, according to the tenets of this religion, after you're gone, you're gone. So the "sacred texts" and arguments of the religion must be defended at all cost against any alternate viewpoint - they must constantly be defended as having been "proven" and therefore beyond dispute, validating the faith that the person has put in them. It's really the only way that a follower of such a religion can avoid lying awake at night thinking, "is this really all there is? Or am I only fooling myself, and not even completely succeeding at that?" People like me, on the other hand, operate under no such limitation as the span of our own life for either the enjoyment of, or the ultimate validation of, our beliefs. And even though there are no end of Christians who want to do their version of the cocktail party game of "proving" their beliefs, they're barking up the exact same wrong tree as you. I don't live under any pressure or feel any need to try to prove any of my beliefs to you. As I 've told you before, my God has not commanded me to do so, and has in fact stated that it would be impossible to do. If anyone reaches an understanding of the Christian faith, it won't be because of the eloquence of some speaker, or because of some attempted "proof" of the faith. It will happen because - and only because - God has worked within the person Himself, enabling the person to see the truth of the faith. So at the end of the day, it isn't up to me, or anything I could possibly say, or any amont of time I could burn up endlessly debating with you, whether you believe in God. And if you choose to view my refusal to debate at length an issue which I view as entirely irrelevant to the core issue of faith as evidence of my lack of intelligence or ability to understand logic, that's up to you. But I will tell you this. We obviously share very different outlooks on life. We have very different beliefs. Yet despite those differences, and our spirited debates in the past, I have always tried to be respectful toward you personally, debating only issues and avoiding personal insults. In all honesty, there have been times when this has been difficult. In all honesty, this is another one of those times. Over time, quite a few of your comments to me and others have included personal insults. Usually, this is a sign that a person is either just an ass, or is running out of intellectual ammunition in an argument. I'm not sure which of these is the case with you - in fact, I don't know that either really applies. You're obviously an intelligent person, and I don't really believe you're as big an ass as your comments would imply. So with you, I really don't know what's behind the style of argument. In the end, though, this is another irrelevant philosophical question, so I'm not going to concern myself with its answer. And I'm not going to return in kind with personal insults. I wish you well, Jeffrey. If you want to think that I'm some sort of mentally stunted dunce, and that I haven't studied (much less understand) the questions that you raise, and many other difficult ones, as they relate to faith, that's okay with me. Because, as Mother Teresa said in that famous quotation about worrying about what "they" think; "You see, in the final analysis, it is between you and God; It was never between you and them anyway." |
|
"By nature, i prefer brevity." - John Calvin, Institutes of the Christian Religion, p. 685. "Never waste your time trying to explain yourself to people who are committed to misunderstanding you." - Anonymous "Oh sure, every once in a while a turd floated by, but other than that it was just fine." - Joe A., 2011 I'll answer your other comments later, but my primary priority for the rest of the evening is to get drunk." - Klaus, 12/31/14 | |
![]() |
|
| Jeffrey | Jul 14 2005, 06:50 PM Post #157 |
|
Senior Carp
|
Dwain - Your post still displays absolutely no awareness of the logical distinction being made. The only reason this is important to me is that you, like many others, use your citations of what you personally happen to believe God commands to dictate your personal moral opinions to others - on Schiavo, gay rights, abortion, stem cells and other topics. I couldn't care less what you think about the ultimate fate of the universe (and your speculations there seem to be your projections and fears, not mine. I find your train of thought there rather silly. It is what you obviously want to believe about atheists.) I care that you and others use your opinions about God as an excuse to dictate matters to others, without further rational moral argument. Why persecute gays? Because God says so!! We have Falwell and Phelps as examples, and all those that, more or less, and with various caveats, defended them. I was simply pointing out that you do not even understand the logic of Calvin's moral theory. Hopefully this will make you think harder next time you preach persecution for others, based on your subjective understanding of what you imagine God thinks. I know I hope this in vain, but at least I pointed it out. |
![]() |
|
| Rick Zimmer | Jul 14 2005, 09:24 PM Post #158 |
|
Fulla-Carp
|
Dwain, Not a bad list given the topic but none of it reflects my belief. I don't think God sees anything that happens in the world as good or bad, except sin, which is an individual action against one's own conscience and value system. Humans are the ones who define these happenings as good or bad, primarily based on whether they cause suffering or not. I don't think God cares all that much about suffering per se because His goal is on a one-to-one basis with each of us and it does not deal with what happens to us, but rather how we react to what happens to us. I think what God cares about is whether our reaction to what happens to us is good or sinful. A case in point -- I believe 9/11 caused some people to sin and others to do good. I don't think God cared that 9/11 happened. He only cared about how individual people dealt with it. After all, how many times and in how many ways did Jesus tell us not to worry about what happens to us in this world, but to focus ourselves only on being prepared for the Kingdom of God? |
| [size=4]Violence is incompatible with the nature of God and the nature of the soul -- Benedict XVI[/size] | |
![]() |
|
| Dewey | Jul 15 2005, 03:30 AM Post #159 |
![]()
HOLY CARP!!!
|
Well Rick, as far as I can tell, that would be a type of "God #3." God could do something about suffering, but chooses not to, choosing instead to concentrate on something else. I agree with you that God's concern is the individual's relationship with Him, and that that relationship is something that will transcend whether the person encounters good or bad in his life. I also agree that regardless of whether we find ourselves in good circumstances or bad, what's most important is that we live in a Christlike manner. But I disagree strongly with the notion that God doesn't actually distinguish between good and bad, and especially that God doesn't care about suffering. I won't list the countless scriptural references that would dispute your position, but they are numerous. So also are the references that a huge part of "preparing for the kingdom of God" is caring for those who do suffer - and if God didn't really care about suffering (i.e., the distinction of good & bad), why would he place such a high level of importance on it in describing the proper way to live? I think you're saying that sin is the seed of all suffering and evil, so God's primary concern with us is sin. That's true, but I think the logic stretches so far as to snap, by saying that God does not care about the suffering and evil that the sin creates - or that, as you seem to be saying, there really is no such thing as good or bad. Christianity defined as something that exclusively inward, and denying the innate goodness or badness of external reality, seems to become more Buddhist than Christian. |
|
"By nature, i prefer brevity." - John Calvin, Institutes of the Christian Religion, p. 685. "Never waste your time trying to explain yourself to people who are committed to misunderstanding you." - Anonymous "Oh sure, every once in a while a turd floated by, but other than that it was just fine." - Joe A., 2011 I'll answer your other comments later, but my primary priority for the rest of the evening is to get drunk." - Klaus, 12/31/14 | |
![]() |
|
| Rick Zimmer | Jul 15 2005, 07:35 AM Post #160 |
|
Fulla-Carp
|
No, I am not saying that there is no such thing as good or bad. I am saying that I believe God applies such a label to individual actions and assigns responsibility to the individual -- did the individual do good or bad in an particular circumstance? I don't believe that God sees a tsunami that kills a couple of hundred thousand people and defines it as either good bad, nor do I believe that God sees two planes crashing into buildings and killing 3000 people and defines the event as either good or bad. Both are simply events. Those who cause the event, assuming they are human caused like 911, may be judged by God as having done good or having done bad. How people react to the event may be seen by God as doing good or bad. But the event itself? It is just an event. You are very correct that there is a multitude of examples in the Christian Scriptures where God makes it clear that the individual's responsibility when seeing suffering is to alleviate it. To this extent, I believe God cares about suffering -- specifically He cares how we react to it either when we ourselves are suffering or how we respond when others are suffering. But I don't believe God cares if there is suffering per se; suffering is simply a part of the world and human experience. |
| [size=4]Violence is incompatible with the nature of God and the nature of the soul -- Benedict XVI[/size] | |
![]() |
|
| Jolly | Jul 15 2005, 07:48 AM Post #161 |
![]()
Geaux Tigers!
|
Isn't that just another way of saying "situational ethics"? Is there nothing that is always right, or always wrong? |
| The main obstacle to a stable and just world order is the United States.- George Soros | |
![]() |
|
| Rick Zimmer | Jul 15 2005, 08:19 AM Post #162 |
|
Fulla-Carp
|
No, it is not situational ethics -- at least I do not see it as such. Jesus told us there are two commandments which encompass the entire law -- to love God with our whole hearts, minds and souls and to love our neighbor as ourselves. If we do both of these in all situations, we have fulfilled the Law that Jesus gave us. Situational ethics would allow us to pick and choose when we can act out of love of God and love of our neighbor based upon the situation. Jesus does not give us that option. In all situations we must act out of love for God and our neighbor, no matter the circumstances. There are no situational ethics allowed -- love of God and love of neighbor is required of all Christians at all times. |
| [size=4]Violence is incompatible with the nature of God and the nature of the soul -- Benedict XVI[/size] | |
![]() |
|
| Dewey | Jul 15 2005, 11:10 AM Post #163 |
![]()
HOLY CARP!!!
|
"No, I am not saying that there is no such thing as good or bad. I am saying that I believe God applies such a label to individual actions and assigns responsibility to the individual -- did the individual do good or bad in an particular circumstance?" I agree with this statement as far as it goes, but I think it is incomplete. "I don't believe that God sees a tsunami that kills a couple of hundred thousand people and defines it as either good bad,..." I agree in part with this. I think that a tsunami, being a result of the all-but-autonomous order of the universe, is essentially a neutral thing, neither good nor bad. but the results of such an occurrence can inded be bad (or good), and God considers those results to be "bad" or "good." "...nor do I believe that God sees two planes crashing into buildings and killing 3000 people and defines the event as either good or bad. Both are simply events." On this we disagree entirely. The 9/11 planes did not crash as part of an unwilled natural process, like a tsunami, an earthquake, or a volcanic eruption. They were steered by humans, who willed the actions that resulted. I agree that the actions of the individuals is counted as evil, or "bad" toward themselves, but I also think that the abstract concept of crashing a plane into a building to kill people - as a concept, not an individual's action - is itself also deemed "bad" by God. Certainly, "good" actions and results can come from "bad" things - this is a crucial part of Christian thought regarding why evil and suffering exists - but that doesn't mean that God therefore deems the original acton not to be inherently "bad." Just as there is ample scriptural authority to understand that it is our duty to help those who suffer, there is equal scriptural authority to understand that, despite the fact that God intends for good to arise from all bad, God still considers the bad to be, in itself, bad. |
|
"By nature, i prefer brevity." - John Calvin, Institutes of the Christian Religion, p. 685. "Never waste your time trying to explain yourself to people who are committed to misunderstanding you." - Anonymous "Oh sure, every once in a while a turd floated by, but other than that it was just fine." - Joe A., 2011 I'll answer your other comments later, but my primary priority for the rest of the evening is to get drunk." - Klaus, 12/31/14 | |
![]() |
|
| ivorythumper | Jul 15 2005, 11:49 AM Post #164 |
|
I am so adjective that I verb nouns!
|
If I might chime in here... I think that there is a problem (theologically) of ascribing to God the judgment of labeling persons, things, events and actions as good or bad (evil). That is part of the whole problem with Jeffrey's use of Euthyphro to go beyond the simple problem of the Divine Command Morality (DCM) to the wholesale divorce of theology from moral action (which I cannot find in the actual text although he insists that it is there). God does not "label" things as good or bad, and thus they are; nor does he adjudicate and label things as good or bad on a case by case basis. In short, he does not "deem" anything -- that is an anthropomorphization. Things (events, actions, etc) are good to the extent that they lead to the perfection of the "system" (for want of a better term, whether the good of sunlight for a photosynthesizing plant, the moral good of virtue for a person, the maintenance of the common good for a society, or the naturally occurring cycles in the order of nature. EG, though we not like hurricanes and tornados and tsunamis and forest fires and floods, etc, it can be argued that these events are indeed necessary for the continued existence of life itself on the earth -- which is a far greater good than the cessation of life if perhaps they did not occur. Thus, there is an "evil" in them (in the strict sense of a privation of the good) but that the good obtained is proportionally more important to justify the "evil". Note that this is not the same as "choosing the lesser of two evils" -- the good obtained is a positive and necessary good. Parenthetically, I don't think that Rick is leaning toward situational ethics, but nor do I agree with Rick that "Situational ethics would allow us to pick and choose when we can act out of love of God and love of our neighbor based upon the situation." I don't think that Fletcher would be cause saying that one must not "do good and avoid evil" -- his concern is that the good is always relative to the situation. Perhaps Jeffrey can correct me on this (which if I am wrong, I am certainly that he will correct me in charity). My point is that God does not label at all. Nor does he "cause" things to happen to punish the wicked or reward the faithful ("it rains on the just and unjust alike" as Jesus said). He has established the order of nature that is ordered toward the penultimate good of existence itself, and has endowed humanity with free will to seek their individual and corporate perfections through human moral action. The fact we this can be (and regularly is) abused is not germane either to safeguarding God's omniscience nor to his omnipotence. |
| The dogma lives loudly within me. | |
![]() |
|
| Dewey | Jul 15 2005, 01:18 PM Post #165 |
![]()
HOLY CARP!!!
|
I don't entirely disagree with you Steve, but I disagree if you are stating that God does not, as a natural reflection of His own essence of pure "good," cause as a necessity any particular action to be "bad." To grant that "good" can, and is intended to, emanate from "bad" does not negate the "badness" of the bad action to begin with. Let's say a person robs, rapes, and then kills a woman, leaving a small child to be orphaned. Due to the loss of his mother, the child grows up troubled and leading a terrible life. This is obviously a "bad" thing. It's badness sits on the shoulders of its perpetrator, but that does not negate the concept that robbery, rape, and murder, are "bad" things, or that God "labels" the concept of these actions "bad," independent of the "badness" of a person carrying them out. But what if the child, after years of living a hopeless and depraved existence, gets his head screwed on straight, and devotes the remainder of his life to helping people to avoid becoming robbers, rapists, and murderers, and helping victims of those crimes as well. Due to the direct intervention of this person, dozens of would-be criminals are turned onto the "right track," and the suffering of many victims of crimes is softened. And none of this good would have occurred, had the man's mother not been so brutally abused when he was a boy. Does the subsequent, resulting "good" negate in any way the fact that the original event was "bad?" No. Does this kind of occurrence (which is an illustration of one train of Christian theodicy to consider the mere existence and purpose of "bad" to begin with) mean that the original bad is now considered "good?" No. Does it mean that robbery, rape, or murder might be viewed as either good or bad by God? No, I don't think so. Frankly, the existence of any commandment from God regarding how one should live are innately descriptors of "good" and "bad" from God. Plus, a point of order: "God does not "label" things as good or bad, and thus they are; nor does he adjudicate and label things as good or bad on a case by case basis. In short, he does not "deem" anything -- that is an anthropomorphization." Of course, much of the way we try to understand God is via anthropomorphism. But that isn't necessarily a bad thing. Remember, when God wanted to convey Himself in the most relevant and meaningful way to us humans, he anthropomorphed Himself in order to do it.
|
|
"By nature, i prefer brevity." - John Calvin, Institutes of the Christian Religion, p. 685. "Never waste your time trying to explain yourself to people who are committed to misunderstanding you." - Anonymous "Oh sure, every once in a while a turd floated by, but other than that it was just fine." - Joe A., 2011 I'll answer your other comments later, but my primary priority for the rest of the evening is to get drunk." - Klaus, 12/31/14 | |
![]() |
|
| ivorythumper | Jul 15 2005, 01:51 PM Post #166 |
|
I am so adjective that I verb nouns!
|
"God does not...cause ... any particular action to be "bad."" Yes, God does not cause any action to be bad -- actions are good or bad in respect to (among other things) whether or not they are ordered to the perfection of the being (or "system"). Why do you disagree with this? Your case of the abused child (or whether any good coming from evil can justify the original evil) is already covered in St Paul's admonition "Shall we continue in sin, that grace may abound? God forbid." It does not negate the intrinsic badness of the event. Nor am I saying that we as human persons cannot (and ought not) judge the objective goodness or badness of moral action according to revelation and right reason.
Yes, but their validity as descriptors is NOT predicated on the fact that God commands. That leads to the problem of arbitrariness in Euthrypho. God "could not" state that in order to live a life pleasing to him one always must walk on one's hands and say "neep" every third word. His commandments are given so that we understand what is the proper course of human perfection, and his commandments are ordered toward that end. This again is why the dilemma set up in Euthrypho is not applicable to the Christian (at least in the Catholic mindset -- if Calvin did indeed hold a Divine Command Morality, and you are betting on Calvin to be right, that is something you might have to grapple with).
Your point about the Incarnation is unassailable -- and indeed all we can do is predicate of God by analogy apart from the Incarnation, and try to understand God through the Incarnation and the revelation that Jesus brings us. But my point is that the language of "labelling" and "judging" is a language of analogy -- not that this makes it wrong or invalid -- but it is a human construction that tries to seek accord with our understanding of the divine operation. I think that the problem of your disagreement with Rick is based in how each of you are using this language of analogy -- but I might be wrong. |
| The dogma lives loudly within me. | |
![]() |
|
| Dewey | Jul 15 2005, 02:39 PM Post #167 |
![]()
HOLY CARP!!!
|
""God does not...cause ... any particular action to be "bad."" Yes, God does not cause any action to be bad -- actions are good or bad in respect to (among other things) whether or not they are ordered to the perfection of the being (or "system"). Why do you disagree with this?" Well, I don't disagree with your cropped quotation at all. But the crop means something completely different from where I was heading. If you look at the entire sentence that I wrote, it actually means something different - or at least, I as trying to make it say something very different. Here we have a "language problem," since I was struggling (and apparently not succeeding) to make this point without anthropomorphising, as I sensed that you had problems with theological discussions that used that vehicle. Here's a case where doing so may have made the meaning clearer. What I was trying to say has nothing to do with the "does God will bad?" question, that the clipped quotation seems to respond to. In fact, my point is that the essence of God is, among other attributes, perfect goodness. Therefore, anything that is contrary to that perfect "goodness" - i.e., something that "is not ordered to the perfection of the being or system," as you have defined it - is, by definition, "bad." The fact that it is considered "bad" upon its comparison to the essence of God, is what I mean by using the phrase that God "deems" or "labels" certain things good or bad - it's certainly easier to use that human-based analogy than to fumble with words for an entire paragraph to convey the concept (and possibly still fail!), The real crux of my disagreement is that, if I understood Rick's words correctly, God does not see any actions, beyond their being a personal sin, as abstractly "good" or "bad" simply by their own merit, or "essence - " that, since both good and bad may emanate as a result of them, they cannot be considered to be "bad" in their original essence. (Rick, please correct me if I've misunderstood your point). It's this point that I disagree with. I certainhly believe in the concept that perpetrating such actions inure to the detriment of the perpetrator; but I also feel that by God providing instructions on what we should, and should not, do, this by definition creates actions that are innately "good" and "bad." "God "could not" state that in order to live a life pleasing to him one always must walk on one's hands and say "neep" every third word. His commandments are given so that we understand what is the proper course of human perfection, and his commandments are ordered toward that end." I don't have a problem with this at all. But realize also that we can only say this due to the course of perfection as we have had it handed to us by God. In other words, on another planet, God could have ordered a system in which it was indeed necessary for his creatures to precisely walk on their hands and say "neep" every third word. The fact that we say that God "could not" or "would not" command us to do that is only an extension of saying that God's commandments to us are ordered to the end of perfection as he has defined it for us. In other words, our saying that God "could not" do such a thing is determined solely from our own vantage point of perception of God's revelation to us. God, being fully sovereign, could certainly order any system in any way that God sees fit, and whether Plato approves of it or not. Once that system is ordered and established, it is only then that the creatures living within it can comprehend what God "deems" (sorry - how about "is deemed by comparison against God and his commands") good and bad. As to the Euthrypho Dilemma, I agree with you that it does not apply to the God as defined in Christian theology. I disagree with some of the tenets used as the foundation of the Dilemma's logical train of thought, and therefore disagree with some of its resultants. Mostly, I believe it to not apply because it assumes a God that is far too limited to be the Christian God; and that it requires an infinite God to be perfectly comprehensible to human philosophy. It's because of these underlying disagreements with the premises of the Dilemma that I won't endlessly debate it with Jeffrey: in essence, we look at the same words, but our foundation for their application is so different as to render any meaningful discussion impossible. |
|
"By nature, i prefer brevity." - John Calvin, Institutes of the Christian Religion, p. 685. "Never waste your time trying to explain yourself to people who are committed to misunderstanding you." - Anonymous "Oh sure, every once in a while a turd floated by, but other than that it was just fine." - Joe A., 2011 I'll answer your other comments later, but my primary priority for the rest of the evening is to get drunk." - Klaus, 12/31/14 | |
![]() |
|
| ivorythumper | Jul 15 2005, 03:52 PM Post #168 |
|
I am so adjective that I verb nouns!
|
Forgive the eliding -- I was just trying to get at the core of your sentence. LATER EDIT= I am still not clear on the difference if I add back the elided sections ("as a natural reflection of His own essence of pure "good,"" and "as a necessity"). Is it to say: as a condition (or consequence) of God's essential goodness, by necessity God does not cause any particular action to be bad? I still don't see the difference. BTW, I do not have concerns with using the vehicle of analogy or anthropomorphic projection (esp. given OT revelation and the Incarnation) -- as long it respects the limits of how far that language can take us.
I am not following you on "The fact that it is considered "bad" upon its comparison to the essence of God..." What in respect to its comparison to the essence of God is ANYTHING not defective (simply by virtue of its being contingent)? I don't think that is where you are going, but I am not making sense of the wording.
If that is what Rick is saying, than I would agree. I also agree that Rick seems to be saying that all things are neutral since good and bad may come from them. I would disagree with this interpretation, even though both good and bad may come from them. I prefer the paradoxes that "God writes straight with crook lines" and "Even the Devil works for God" (though I supposed these are not strictly theological statements).
This only works in another system if the moral perfection of the being included walking on its hands and saying "neep" every third word. Only then would it still not be arbitrary. I trust you realize that I put "could not" in quotes precisely to preserve God his perfect autonomony (for which I just received a "thank you for thinking of me" note). I think we are on the same page on this one.
Did you intend "it requires a finite God", to show the limitations of Euthyphro? Even so (depending on what you mean by "perfectly comprehensible"), through reason and revelation (OT, NT, Incarnation) we can know quite a bit even if not perfectly. That said, if there is no true revelation (God revealing himself to humanity) then we do not positively know that God is Love and all the proceeds from it. We can't get much past what Aristotle worked out, and modern materialistic atheism does not need to work within these categories. |
| The dogma lives loudly within me. | |
![]() |
|
| Rick Zimmer | Jul 15 2005, 05:34 PM Post #169 |
|
Fulla-Carp
|
Damn! I wish I could have said it like that! |
| [size=4]Violence is incompatible with the nature of God and the nature of the soul -- Benedict XVI[/size] | |
![]() |
|
| Rick Zimmer | Jul 15 2005, 06:40 PM Post #170 |
|
Fulla-Carp
|
Wow! I am impressed with the discussion going on. Since the discussion between the Thumpster and Dwain seems to be on what did I mean by what I said and then their reaction to it, let me explain further what I mean. I honestly do not know if there is any philosophical or theological backing for what I believe. What I am explaining is also an evolution of my thoughts, a direction my thoughts have be going for several years now and it remains to be refined. To some extent, it is the result of being 54 years old and trying to make sense of so much. It seems to me that each of us is created for only one purpose -- ultimate unity with God upon our death. Perhaps the most basic thing I learned as a young child in Catholic school came from the Baltimore Catechism and has been the basis of on-going intermittent meditation on my part for sime time now; namely the question and answer in the Catechism: "Why did God make me? God made me to show his goodness and to make me happy with him in heaven." A simple question. A simple answer. But for me an extremely basic truism in my life and my religion. God made me for two reasons -- to show his goodness (this to me as two interpretations and for now I will leave that discussion aside) and to make me happy with Him in heaven. OK. If this is why I am made; it is also why each of us is made. This is all God is after. Nothing more. So the next question I grapple with is how do I get to this singular ultimate end which is the purpose of God creating me. First of all, Jesus died for me. He has made it possible, even though I am a sinner, to enter into heaven, allowing me to be" happy with Him in heaven." OK, so God has done His part. Now what is my part? There are those who would argue that it is simply enough for me to accept Jesus as my Savior, go through some sort of conversion experience and after that nothing else need be done. Yea, it's asssumed I will act properly if I have had this conversion experience, but I really don't have to. But I personally can't buy this explanation because I find it ripe with contradictions and illogical conclusions. So, I study and pray some more. I read and hear all sorts of things. Lots of rules and regulations. Lots of philosophical and theological bases for them and, to be quite honest, many of them contradict each other and many are contrary if not contradictory to what I see going on in the world. And, of course, so many of them have changed over the millenia because of cultural changes. So, I figure it has to be something other than all of these rules and regulations, for God's commands cannot change over time. And so I decide -- let's just see what this man, who I believe to be God, says about all of this. In reading what he says and does, at some point I find he is asked the ultimate questioin -- what is it that God has commanded that is the MOST important. He answers "Love God with your whole heart, mind and soul and love your neighbor as yourself." And then he follows this up with "In this is the whole law." Bingo, I say to myself! If Jesus Himself has defined this as the most important command from God and He then tells us that this encompasses everything that is expected of us, this then must be the answer of what I am to do. I continue to read the four Gospels and I find that virturally everything Jesus says is aimed at the individual and how the individual is to act. It is all how a unique individual is to act. Not how the group is to act. Not how society is to act; but how an individual is to act. This takes me back then to that simple question and answer from the Baltimore Catechism. "God made ME to show His goodness and to make ME happy with Him in heaven. God creates the individual, God has a specific and singular goal in his creation of that individual and Jesus, when teaching what God expects, speaks to individuals. And so I conclude that God is interested in the unique and intimate interaction between Himself and each one of us -- not as members of a group, but as unique individuals. And he focuses solely on what each of us as unique individuals and whether we carry out the most important commandment; to love God completely and love our neighbor as ourself." It comes down, for me, to what does each of us, as individuals, do to carry out this command. Hence, His interest is not in what happens to us or whether it is good or bad, but how we react to what happens to us based on this ultimate and most important commandment, which in itself encompasses the entire law. To apply this now to the current discussion and specifically Dwain to your example of the young child.
I believe that God will judge the individual who did this to the mother as having sinned because he did not act in accordance with the ultimate commandment. What he did was wrong, sinful, bad. I do not believe though that God would label the situation in which the child finds himself -- horrible as it is in human terms -- to be bad. It is simply the situation in which the child finds himself. The circumstances do not deny the child the ability to ultimately be happy with God in heaven which is the only reason God created the child. However, this child must now, given all the circumstances he finds himself in, follow the commandment to love God with his whole heart and soul and love his neighbor as himself. This is all God asks of this child and God will ultimately judge this child with perfect justice and perfect mercy based on these circumstances. Did the child and ultimately the adult react to these circumstances by loving God and loving his neighbor as himself? And this is why I do not believe God labels events, be they naturally occuring or manmade, as good or bad. The event is not important to our reaching our only goal, the only purpose God created us -- to be happy with Him in heaven. In the case of 9/11, I think God cared about each of the 19 hijackers individually and whether they did what was good or bad as he judges, not as we judge. I think he cares about the 3000 who died, and especially those who did not die instantaneously. Did they react to this event that was perpetrated against them based on loving God completely and loving their neighbor as themselves. And I think he cared about all of the survivors and all of us who were affected by what happened; did each of us react loving God completely and loving our neighbors -- which includes those who hate us and would do evil against us -- as we love ourselves. I honestly don't know how this fits into the discussion between the Thumpster and Dwain. I honestly don't know if I could back this up with any specific school of philosophy or theology. And honestly, I don't care. I do not see any of these schools or structures as having as much meaning to me as "God made me to show His goodness and to make me happy with Him in heaven." And to fulfill God's sole goal for me I must "Love God with my whole heart, mind and soul and love my neighbor as myself." For in this is the entire law, no matter what philosophers or theologians, Churches or religions, may say -- all of whom I believe make things far too complicated and far too rigid. Or so I think. |
| [size=4]Violence is incompatible with the nature of God and the nature of the soul -- Benedict XVI[/size] | |
![]() |
|
| Dewey | Jul 15 2005, 06:49 PM Post #171 |
![]()
HOLY CARP!!!
|
Did you intend "it requires a finite God", to show the limitations of Euthyphro? Even so (depending on what you mean by "perfectly comprehensible"), through reason and revelation (OT, NT, Incarnation) we can know quite a bit even if not perfectly. That said, if there is no true revelation (God revealing himself to humanity) then we do not positively know that God is Love and all the proceeds from it. We can't get much past what Aristotle worked out, and modern materialistic atheism does not need to work within these categories. [/QUOTE] I might reply further to your post tomorrow Steve, but for tonight: My original words: "Mostly, I believe it to not apply because it assumes a God that is far too limited to be the Christian God; and that it requires an infinite God to be perfectly comprehensible to human philosophy." As the great philosopher Daffy Duck once said, "Hmm, pronoun trouble..." the "it" I'm referring to is the Dilemma itself. Here's an "amplified" version of this sentence to explain what I'm trying to convey: "Mostly, I believe [the Dilemma] to not apply because it assumes a God that is far too limited to be the Christian God; and that [the premises of the Dilemma] [place an impossible and improper demand on an infinite God that he] be perfectly comprehensible to human philosophy." Does that help? "through reason and revelation (OT, NT, Incarnation) we can know quite a bit even if not perfectly." I agree completely. We may know quite a bit through both revelation and reason. Further, while such revelation (and therefore, our understanding) is not comprehensive, it is at least sufficient to our need to understand, and what portion God has elected to reveal is reliable, even if partial. "That said, if there is no true revelation (God revealing himself to humanity) then we do not positively know that God is Love and all the proceeds from it." As I said, there is true revelation, but there has not been (and due to human finitude, could never be) complete, or comprehensive, revelation. However, those portions of God's truth that God has chosen to definitively reveal - including the truth that "God is love" - is reliable and can therefore be positively known. |
|
"By nature, i prefer brevity." - John Calvin, Institutes of the Christian Religion, p. 685. "Never waste your time trying to explain yourself to people who are committed to misunderstanding you." - Anonymous "Oh sure, every once in a while a turd floated by, but other than that it was just fine." - Joe A., 2011 I'll answer your other comments later, but my primary priority for the rest of the evening is to get drunk." - Klaus, 12/31/14 | |
![]() |
|
| ivorythumper | Jul 15 2005, 07:16 PM Post #172 |
|
I am so adjective that I verb nouns!
|
Rick: I appreciate greatly your thoughts, and coming to understand what are the core values for you. Your reflections raise two points for me, which you might consider as you continue to work through this. (1) a principle of Catholic theology is that we are saved both individually and corporately as members of the Body of Christ. Thus, the importance of upholding the social order (common good) to allow all men and women the peace and dignity needed to work towards their own perfection. Violence against the social order (such as terrorism) is indeed objectively bad in this regard. It does not, of course, compromise God's ability to judge in justice and mercy, but it does possibly affect directly the degree of potential human perfection that we individually and corporately might attain. (2) As Eric Voegelin points out, the order in society it the result of the order in the souls of the members of society, and the disorder in society is the result of the disorder in the souls of the members of society. This is why the Church has always seen it important to evangelize both the individual and the whole culture simultaneously. The social and political considerations directly affect the ability to cultivate individual virtue, which in turn aid or inhibit the well ordering of the society. |
| The dogma lives loudly within me. | |
![]() |
|
| Rick Zimmer | Jul 15 2005, 07:35 PM Post #173 |
|
Fulla-Carp
|
Thumps, I have no trouble with either of the points you raise -- and they fit very nicely in Jesus' command that we love our neighbors as ourselves. Human beings are social by nature; our instinct and our need is to live in communities. To do so, there must be customs, mores and laws to make this possible. I believe that as individuals we must do two things -- maintain a social order that serves all and also to move to alter that social order when we perceive it does not serve all. I am a member of the Body of Christ and the command that I love others as myself mandates that I act fully and completely as a member. I am also a member of a nation, a community and world and a host of other groups. In all of these capacities, I am mandated to act in love for my neighbor as I love myself. To the extent that we harm that social order or maintain a social order that does not serve society for our own selfish purposes, we have failed to follow Jesus' command that we love others as we love ourselves. I believe the Church has a responsibility to evangelize, although you and I might disagree on what that entails and what the goal should be. To me, that evangelization should be to simply spread Jesus' two commands not to impose rules and regulations or even to impose a certain theological belief system. |
| [size=4]Violence is incompatible with the nature of God and the nature of the soul -- Benedict XVI[/size] | |
![]() |
|
| ivorythumper | Jul 15 2005, 07:41 PM Post #174 |
|
I am so adjective that I verb nouns!
|
Agreed -- but I do think that these two commandments already enjoin a series of rules and regulations as to how to implement the commandments, and imply a certain and rather specific theological belief system. These commandments make no (or severely limited) sense to Buddhists or Moslems or Hindus. But you're not far from the Kindgom.
|
| The dogma lives loudly within me. | |
![]() |
|
| Dewey | Jul 15 2005, 07:49 PM Post #175 |
![]()
HOLY CARP!!!
|
Rick, that was a good post. I'm going to reply to it in more detail tomorrow, but just one quick comment: your reference to the item in the Baltimore Catechism caught my attention. FYI, we Presby/Reformed folk have what we call the "Westminster Catechism." Religion wonks will be quick to point out that the WC comes in both the "Larger" and "Shorter" versions. The very first question (in either version) is "What is the chief end of man?" ; with the answer being, "Man's chief end is to glorify God, and to enjoy him forever." Pondering that answer from time to time, and considering its ramifications, has been helpful to me, as has the similar passage from your Catechism. Just a piece of trivia to throw out there... |
|
"By nature, i prefer brevity." - John Calvin, Institutes of the Christian Religion, p. 685. "Never waste your time trying to explain yourself to people who are committed to misunderstanding you." - Anonymous "Oh sure, every once in a while a turd floated by, but other than that it was just fine." - Joe A., 2011 I'll answer your other comments later, but my primary priority for the rest of the evening is to get drunk." - Klaus, 12/31/14 | |
![]() |
|
| Go to Next Page | |
| « Previous Topic · The New Coffee Room · Next Topic » |






)


8:55 AM Jul 13