Ah, the modern Life-Force philosophy. So grand, so poetic, so comfortable...
And yet I disagree. If God is a merely creative force, what right does He/it have to be called a god? How, if this force is (as it must be) mindless, purposeless, impersonal, can it be called a god? God must be personal. God is personal.
I have to agree with you. To add, if you dont mind, that always reminds me of Star Wars. There's good, there's bad, and you manipulate the force to do what you want. If God was the "force" who's to know if He's good or bad, or what those two are. (Am I making any sense at all? I dont feel like I am... :) ) I'm trying to say that if God cant show or tell us what is right and wrong, then how could we know? We know what is right or wrong, so He must be personal...I hope that made sense...Quote:
Originally Posted by weepingforloman
Weepingfor loman writes:
"If God is a merely creative force, what right does He/it have to be called a god? How, if this force is (as it must be) mindless, purposeless, impersonal, can it be called a god? God must be personal. God is personal."
I agree with reservations. If by "God" we understand someone or something deserving of worship then clearly nothing devoid of a mind (and hence awareness and intelligence) could qualify, since what would be the point of worship? So the conclusion that God must be personal seems to be a reasonable one. My reservation is that the movement from what God must be to be God to the statement that there is such a being is unwarranted. For example, to say that for life to exist on Titan it must be able to tolerate an environment containing methane snow does not actually prove that any such organism exists, either on Titan or elsewhere.
http://i94.photobucket.com/albums/l1...7081527611.gif Kinda says it all, doesn't it?
God bless
Pen
I want to take a shot at addressing the original post, thank you.Quote:
Originally Posted by Shadowsarin
By the way, firefangled's "emanations of goodness" is an extremely useful philosophy, thanks. It's encouraging to see daring minds boldly shape the future of god consciousness in new and positive directions, because where the mind goes, we go.
Philip K. Dick, Carl Jung, William Blake and many writers throughout history tend to explain the problem of good and evil with a demiurgic solution. That is, the created world is the doing of a lesser god.
I came across an essay by St. Augustine (345-430) called "The City of God," in which the writer explains how humankind was prideful even before the fall, the eating of the apple, otherwise Adam and Eve would not have been charmed by the serpent.
"For the fact that the woman sinned on the serpent's persuasion, and the man at the woman's offer," wrote Augustine.
In his essay, Augustine claims that nature is not intrinsically prideful or evil. As seems to be endemic to his time, St. Augustine separates man from nature and seems to believe that humankind are necessarily wicked.
"...yet their pride seeks to refer its wickedness to another--the woman's pride to the serpent, the man's to the woman," wrote Augustine, and I can see the tendency to shift blame continued into his own time, as well. For all this blaming of each other, could it be that we can't pinpoint blame precisely because it is God who is to blame for the malady of his own creation?
Consider the often stated, but hardly satisfactory remedy that "God gave man free will." Well? So what? If homo sapiens were faultlessly created, and given free will, don't you think he would tend to employ unselfish judgment in his decision making? Given that there is an equal likelihood that a man or woman, with a free will, would decide to take the course of action that would reflect the command of God as there is to make the decision to disobey the command, what other explanation can exist but that God's manufacture was flawed? That must also mean that the Creator is flawed, as he is unable to make a perfect creation in his own image.
What I'm trying to illuminate is the latter church's (Third and Fourth Century Roman) blindness or ignorance of who they are really talking about when they talk about the Old Testament YHVH. Augustine failed to trace the breadcrumbs back far enough in his explanation of the root of universal discordance.
Did Mastemah, the prince of heaven (Dead Sea Scrolls "Jubilees", 4Q225, fragment 2) have a hand in the creation of the human? Of course, in demiurgic literature, significantly so in the Apocryphon of John, that was exactly the case.
It isn't enough to say failure began with Adam, by way of Eve, or to indict the Serpent or Devil. The intrinsic failure to abide by God's will must indicate that humans were predisposed to failure, and that given two choices, Adam and Eve would make the bad one. And, since Adam and Eve did not make themselves, there is only one more step behind them in the chain of custody to consider. To me, that leaves two options, and I prefer the second of these:
1) That there is one God who is imperfect, and with the potential for evil. I would not say indifferent, however, because were that so this god would not be so inclined to punish his own creation for behaving according to the nature he built into them to begin with. In that respect, it seems to me that flooding and plowing those who transgress his will shows bad parenting skills. Likewise does jealousy of other gods reveal a disconcerting insecurity with one who is supposed to be supreme and infallible.
2) The world and the visible universe is the making of a god, but not the God. There is Lord, King of the Universe, and there is God in Heaven. The former toys with his creation, like a boy in a sandbox playing with toy soldiers, while the latter is aloof and above it all, perhaps s
Earthboar: "To me, that leaves two options, and I prefer the second of these:
1) That there is one God who is imperfect, and with the potential for evil. I would not say indifferent, however, because were that so this god would not be so inclined to punish his own creation for behaving according to the nature he built into them to begin with. In that respect, it seems to me that flooding and plowing those who transgress his will shows bad parenting skills. Likewise does jealousy of other gods reveal a disconcerting insecurity with one who is supposed to be supreme and infallible.
2) The world and the visible universe is the making of a god, but not the God. There is Lord, King of the Universe, and there is God in Heaven. The former toys with his creation, like a boy in a sandbox playing with toy soldiers, while the latter is aloof and above it all, perhaps"
In your second option, the God in Heaven seems to be unnecessary and irrelevant - effectively reducing your second option to being the same as your first.
But, I would have thought there are many feasible options, from no-god-at-all to many-gods.
Many-gods should not be discounted too easily, after all, the universe has all the signs of having been designed by a committee.
Thanks again Whifflingpin, I was admittedly narrow in my conclusions. I struggled for a few minutes while writing that to include religious views outside of the Judaic tradition (which includes Christianity), but decided that would be too broad for my particular contribution to the topic, and better left for others to answer according to their own abilities. The original subject, though, only says "God" and doesn't name any particular god(s) or (non)religious tradition, so you are certainly in the right to flesh out other available options.Quote:
Originally Posted by Whifflingpin
I would like to comment on your point about my "second option," however, and that is if the goal of spirit is to transcend the material universe and return to Heaven, the source of our spirit, then in my second option, it is the God in Heaven that is the ultimate objective, and the Lord of the World that is the temporal tyrant of the soul. In other words, he's like your boss at work, you have to put up with him for now, but ultimately you're working toward retirement.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Shadowsarin
i think that's right shadow, you make a good point. you can't have it every way---she can't be inside, outside, and outside time and space, all at the same time. that seems to be a blithe presumption, unless somebody will kindly explain that one to me. :)
my understanding is that there are gods and they dwell in human form on the earth. jack london was such a god.
the problem was borne out of neglecting to make the proper distinction between values and morality. you can have values without morality. moral facts are fantasies, and only when we eradicate "thou shalt" in favor of the "I will," we will be stuck in this living fantasy of evil malevolents and divine benevolents. or something like that.
"I would like to comment on your point about my "second option," however, and that is if the goal of spirit is to transcend the material universe and return to Heaven, the source of our spirit, then in my second option, it is the God in Heaven that is the ultimate objective, and the Lord of the World that is the temporal tyrant of the soul."
Fair enough, but then you have, I think postulated two creators - assuming that the God of Heaven created our spiritual nature, and is therefore less aloof than you suggested at first.
If the Lord of This World created us spiritual, then you seem to be saying that we are intended to rise above our creator - not impossible, as, by analogy, many children do, in fact, surpass their parents - a challenging concept, nonetheless.
"jack london was such a god."
Interesting choice - a good writer, but couldn't build a boat - wherein is/was he divine?
What is a lesser god? If there isn't a greater, how can there be a lesser?Quote:
Originally Posted by earthboar
Perhaps man wasn't prideful in the wicked sort of pride, but simply ambitious?? They wanted to be like their Creator, in the same way that a child wants to be just like his parents.Quote:
Originally Posted by earthboar
Does this mean if a parent lets his child choose btw. a good and a bad choice without FORCING him to do the good, and the child chooses wrong, the parent is at fault??? That's preposterous!Quote:
Originally Posted by earthboar
read London's Martin Eden. of course, his other stuff also has the power of revelation in it. the divinity is in his prose, Whiff. biblical prose pales in comparison. it's as if his words run on water, kindly asking jesus to move out of the way.Quote:
Originally Posted by Whifflingpin
The fact that, though he waxed poetic on the virtues of the wild, he was a fat, lazy slob doesn't bother you? He was a hypocrite.Quote:
Originally Posted by jon1jt
Besides which, the Bible is not meant to be read as prose for the modern reader. It is translated at least once, most of it twice, and written thousands of years ago. The latest of it came before English existed as a language. And if you use prose as a basis for divinity, wouldn't you be better served by worshiping Shakespeare?
Just because God is in everything doesnt mean that he controls everything. Everyone has some good in them, but everyone also controls their life and God cannot stop them, only show them the way.
Some people are saying that God could be both evil and good. But I have to say I think this is simply impossible. Although I may be wrong, I believe that God simply uses "evil" to test people in ways.
Well, according to Hollywood, God can't interfere with free will. Hahahahahahahaha.
Um, so he can't change a person's mind, but he can kill them as he pleases? But isn't it true he hardened Herod's heart a few times? So I would say he can influence free will, if you go by the bible.
Wait, smooth operator, what do you mean he cannot stop them? He can kill you, can he not? That I would consider stopping them; a flood I would consider stopping them.
So, okay, this has all been about JWHA, or the LORD, but in Hinduism, wars and stuff is all just in the gnashing of Krishna's teeth or something, so God is beyond good and evil. Or as Nietzsche says, whatever is love is beyond good and evil, so if God is Love, he is beyond good and evil.
Carl Jung has something to say on this subject in his "Answer to Job." A couple of things stand out in Jung's book. One was that God was modified during his punishment of Job (which wasn't really a punishment, in the sense that Job did anything to transgress God. It was more like God was torturing Job). In the end, God seemed remorseful that he inflicted so much needless pain. A clue that God, having emotional ambivalence, is not perfect.Quote:
Originally Posted by joshka
The other thing Jung pointed out was that God did not make the decision by himself, but the adversary, literally "Satan" influenced God's decision to inflict torture upon Job. Note that at this time, Satan was not living in the underworld as a fallen angel, but was God's confidante and adviser. Apparently, God listened to Satan back then. Why would a perfect God need or heed the advise of his angels? Good question.
Or what is the similarity between chaos and evil?
I agree that some things that are dangerous are not evil, and only bad from our point of view. If we were hit by a gamma ray burst (is that right-?) we would all die very, very quickly, but I wouldn't consider that evil, just chaotic.
Oh, that was a reply to the first page, lol. Sorry about that.
Who says God is everything? This is not the general Western view of God, but a pantheistic Eastern view. You would have to address your problems to an impersonal "force" a la the (I think Daoist?) concept of the Yin/Yang.Quote:
Originally Posted by Smooth Operator
Satan was not God's "confidante" at this point. He was already fallen in Genesis (the serpent). But he presents himself before God because God is still sovereign, and he cannot defy God's will (I separate permissive will from active will in this instance... causing pain is not something God desires, but something He permits). And God did not "torture" Job. Satan was the one who struck him with disease. And God allowed this, in part to take Satan's bait, but in part to ensure that Job would not rest upon his blessings. God alone is man's joy, not wealth or family, as Job had. We take pleasure from these things, but they are from God nonetheless. If we had nothing, we would still be happy if we knew Him.Quote:
Originally Posted by earthboar
Jung was a very intelligent man - but his analysis of Job (despite some fascinating comments and insights) treats Job as a literary text rather than a single episode within the cohesive narrative of the Bible.Quote:
Originally Posted by earthboar
1) God did not "punish" Job - He allowed Job to be put under trial by Satan - and this is something that all believers understand is a reality of living in a fallen world. Any one of us could have such an experience - and the NT appropriately warns us thusly.
We tend to be very ignorant of the "game rules" that God and Satan are operating under and make vast assumptions about why God does what He chooses to do. When you understand the rules of a game, what the players do tends to make more sense.
2) I do not think God is remorseful about His decision, but rather that such an ugly episode had to occur at all. The cosmic battle taking place is essentially Satan's attack on the character of God (see Genesis 3 for Satan's revelation of this charge); as such, Satan will use human beings to attack the character of God. Satan did so in ch. 1 of Job by suggesting that Job did not "love" God but merely served Him for mercenary reasons (i.e. the blessings Job enjoyed). God, who knew Job's heart, allowed Job to prove that God is who He says He is. I rather see God as annoyed at the other individuals who came to "comfort" Job and ended up condemning him instead.
3) Satan did not "influence" God; He questioned God's character and God let the evidence (Job's faithfulness) speak for itself. Which is more convincing in a court trial? The defense's claim or the evidence? God could have said "No - Job loves me - you just don't know him like I do." And if God had done that, wouldn't we now be attacking His concealment of the truth by not allowing Job to prove Satan wrong?
4) Where do you get the idea that Satan was still an "advisor" to God? No "advisor" to God would attack His character as Satan attempted to do. God did not need Satan's "advice" - He responded to a false charge by presenting evidence.
I liked Answer to Job as analysis, but I wouldn't accept Jung's questions as good Biblical theology.
in my humble opinion, prose is a better basis for divinity than the current one. i make a supplication to many great writers. Jack London is seated upon his throne, Kerouac seated at the right hand, Bukowski at the left. Shakespeare serves them the wine. :DQuote:
Originally Posted by weepingforloman
it's true that Jack London was overweight, but lazy slob he was not. a voluminous writer is never lazy. what did Jesus ever write? and jesus could have used a shave and hair cut you know.
Can you give proof for your first and third sentences? Because I don't agree with it. While it would appear that God cursed the serpent, causing it to crawl on its belly:Quote:
Originally Posted by weepingforloman
Genesis 3:14, “The LORD God said to the serpent, "Because you have done this, Cursed are you more than all cattle, And more than every beast of the field; On your belly you will go, And dust you will eat All the days of your life.”
the conflict is that God also listened to Satan, and was complicit in allowing Satan to torture Job:
Job 1: 6 One day the angels [a] came to present themselves before the LORD, and Satan [b] also came with them. 7 The LORD said to Satan, "Where have you come from?"
Satan answered the LORD, "From roaming through the earth and going back and forth in it."
8 Then the LORD said to Satan, "Have you considered my servant Job? There is no one on earth like him; he is blameless and upright, a man who fears God and shuns evil."
9 "Does Job fear God for nothing?" Satan replied. 10 "Have you not put a hedge around him and his household and everything he has? You have blessed the work of his hands, so that his flocks and herds are spread throughout the land. 11 But stretch out your hand and strike everything he has, and he will surely curse you to your face."
Satan is roaming the earth, but so are humans, and so are all creatures. Why do you equate that with "fallen"? If Satan was fallen, then he must also have been "risen" to appear before God. Also, note how God talks to Satan. It's not exactly the conversation one would expect between the condemner and the condemned.
Also, compare with Zechariah 3:
1 And he showed me Joshua the high priest standing before the angel of Jehovah, and Satan standing at his right hand to be his adversary.
2 And Jehovah said unto Satan, Jehovah rebuke thee, O Satan; yea, Jehovah that hath chosen Jerusalem rebuke thee: is not this a brand plucked out of the fire?
In any case, there he is, standing near Jehovah, not in hell.
To Redzeppelin:
My contention is that there is no such thing as a cohesive bible. An anthologized collection of books that eventually came to be called "The Bible" is something that developed in later centuries. I grant that when you read the bible, you might interpret a cohesive continuity. When I read the bible, it appears as distinct and disparate books that sometimes make references to earlier books, sometimes not.Quote:
Originally Posted by Redzeppelin
I will refer to a statement in an article posted by Washington State University,
"The Bible is not so much a book as a library of books, a collection of writings which evolved over many centuries and did not become completely fixed in its classic form until the first century CE."
http://www.wsu.edu:8080/~wldciv/worl...rew_bible.html
Before the modern, bound codex-form of the Bible, each Bible story were separate scrolls, distinct and individual. This was the case with Job, as it was with Genesis, Exodus, and Daniel, etc., and many others that remained uncanonized. This is where a study of the Dead Sea Scrolls is most helpful to get a context of what Jewish people were reading--not one book, where each story was simply a coherent and sequentially arranged chapter. They were separate scrolls. The Bible, in other words, is an anthology, a collection of books, not a long continuous narrative. Therefore, in my opinion Jung did not unfairly treat the Book of Job.
I take issue with that "all believers" part. Specious, statistical. Which believers constitute "all believers"? Only a certain kind of believer? Not sure how you can support such a judgment call. For instance, I might be a believer who does not believe suffering as a universal reality, much less that the intelligence that created me would not raise a hand against extreme cruelty, and much, much less that my creator literally made a deal with the devil.Quote:
Originally Posted by Redzeppelin
I will concede that God gave Satan a liberal amount of authority to traumatize, torture or cause Job anguish. That we resort to euphemisms, saying it wasn't really punishment, it was a trial, doesn't quite do it for me, sorry. Job was inflicted with punishment while on trial? This is what makes Job such a great case study of God's emotional ambiguity. In the end, I think Jung gave YHVH a generous benefit of the doubt. Still, Jung was unequivocal in saying that Job's punishments (oops!) resulted in a change in temperament in God. Why? Because the creator was incapable of empathy with his creation. I am reminded of a little boy who tortures an animal, but later feels remorse and vows never to do it again. God learned!
Who said there isn't a greater God? Not I. If I said "lesser god," then I implied there must be a greater god.Quote:
Originally Posted by Bookworm4Him
Why would man be ambitious before he had eaten the apple, if he was the product of a perfect creator? Why would people want to be more than what they were, and succumb to temptation, if they were perfectly formed? Defect. Or...perhaps the serpent was really on our side, and that god who ejected us from the garden is hiding something from us, something we were meant to have...Quote:
Originally Posted by Bookworm4Him
Only preposterous if there was something flawed in the supposedly perfect creator's creation. If there was a flaw (and, the eating of the apple proves there was), then it reflects on the one who created the flawed creature. Again, if we had been perfect from the outset, the outcome of all choices would always be the good choice.Quote:
Originally Posted by Bookworm4Him
That contention is based upon the idea that the books were simply inspired and written by men; Christianity believes that the Bible is the inspired word of God (and that He is the true "author" and as such, quite capable of weaving together a cohesive narrative across centuries). The cohesiveness is not simply "created" via interpretation - it is consistent in its themes, its portrayal of God and His character throughout. Its cohesiveness can be demonstrated - not merely inferred.Quote:
Originally Posted by earthboar
So? This statement means that the Bible has no internal cohesion? It simply states a fact about the physical entity we call "the Bible" but it says nothing of how its narratives work together.Quote:
Originally Posted by earthboar
I do not use the word "narrative" to indicate that the Bible is one long work; I use "narrative" in terms of the overall story it creates about God. The Bible is composed of books that focus on the lives of various individuals and their experiences or beliefs, but each story is really about God, and as such, creates a cohesive picture of God.Quote:
Originally Posted by earthboar
I use the term "all believers" to mean those who read the Bible and understand its assertion. In a number of places in the Bible, New and Old Testament, it is made clear that being a believer in God does not protect one from trials - those put upon us by Satan for our detriment or those allowed by God to refine our character. As such, those who read the Bible and profess to believe in God should be aware that following God requires things of us, not all of which will be pleasant. The point has been made that if the Son of God Himself was not spared the difficulties of this life, then why should we expect any easier path? You can believe whatever you like, but if your beliefs contradict what the Bible says, then you've created your own version of God to follow and might as well not believe in God at all because Gods we create are merely inflated versions of ourselves.Quote:
Originally Posted by earthboar
There was no "deal with the devil." God's character is on trial; Satan challenged God and God let his faithful servant demonstrate his mettle. You're not required to like what happened. Ugly things happen in war - and the cosmic battle we are in makes all other wars pale by comparison.
"Punishment" is your euphemism for what happened to Job; don't make it sound like I'm the one mincing words. To prove that God "punishes" Job, you'd need some textual support to suggest that God allows Satan to torture Job because he's done something wrong. You cannot find such proof. Job was not on trial; God was.Quote:
Originally Posted by earthboar
Jung's conclusions about God are incorrect. Although Job was guiltless of sin and showed his remarkable faith, he did make the mistake of putting himself at a certain "equal" level with God by demanding to have his case heard. Once God showed up and reminded Job who He was, Job realized his mistake. When one stands before the creator of the universe, personal "rights" kind of shrivel in comparison.
Supposing God revealed himself through the prophets, it does not follow that the bible is a cohesive and continuous book.Quote:
Originally Posted by Redzeppelin
The themes are not always consistent, except that all were written according to Jewish cultural norms of their time. Esther is very different from the books of Moses; Job is very different from Esther. What each share is they are talking about Jewish problems of their time, whether that is in Egypt, Canaan or Persia (Shushana). The portrayal of God across he Old Testament is wildly, recklessly variant. That is one of my struggles, and one reason I am so fascinated by the irreconcilable mood swings of a "jealous god" and one that would punish his own creation with mortal reprobation.Quote:
Originally Posted by Redzeppelin
The physical form of the Bible is more of a design by committee. If you are not aware, it takes different forms in different places. Syriac, Greek Orthodox, Alexandrian. In terms of the New Testament, the Valentinians and Sethians, Mandeans, Manicheans and Cathars each included slightly different selections. What you call "the Bible" undoubtedly differs from what I call "the Bible". Yes, I call it a man-made anthology, I'll leave it at that, since I have not solicited a request to be converted to a particular theological point of view, thank you.Quote:
Originally Posted by Redzeppelin
OK, and I do understand where you're coming from, and respect it as truthful within you. If you take any of the several Bible versions and read it, from beginning to end, I'm sure some unified message will appear. But, whether each story is about God seems to me a predisposition that that is what you are expecting the book to be about. In other words, if you are raised or taught beforehand, "this book is about God," that is what you are going to get out of it.Quote:
Originally Posted by Redzeppelin
Me too! What a coincidence. However, I might point out that our beliefs seem to vary dramatically. Could it be that two people reading the Bible draw vastly different conclusions, meaning, and lessons? Yes. You and I can read the same Bible, and draw different conclusions. Therefore, theological "Truth" is not an absolute.Quote:
Originally Posted by Redzeppelin
It would be helpful if, from now on, instead of using language like, "The Bible makes it clear," you would quote or refer to specific passages, so we can read for ourselves just how clear or unclear the Bible makes certain assertions. Otherwise, I have no reason to take one individual's assertions on the blind faith that their interpretation is unimpeachable.Quote:
Originally Posted by Redzeppelin
1) "As such, those who read the Bible and profess to believe in God" Well friend, I read the bible, I believe in God, yet our conclusions about the meaning of the scriptures and the identity of God are quite different. Therefore, I suggest you might be making a judgment, rather than an observation.Quote:
Originally Posted by Redzeppelin
2) "should be aware that" That's telling people how to think, not suggesting that this is what you think. You are projecting a personal point of view onto everyone who reads the Bible.
3) "You can believe whatever you like, but if your beliefs contradict what the Bible says, then you've created your own version of God to follow and might as well not believe in God at all because Gods we create are merely inflated versions of ourselves." It's not up to you whether my beliefs and my interpretation are incompatible with God. More likely, my beliefs and my interpretation of scripture is at odds with your personal belief, and that you have associated your personal belief system with absolute truth, for whatever reason. I see no reason why this line of reasoning doesn't work equally well with you, that you have created your own God based on your prejudices of Biblical interpretation. In fact, that is exactly how I am reading you.
Do I, likewise, admit that I have created a God in my own mind? I readily admit it. The difference between us, perhaps, is how much we are willing to admit that God is an imaginative construct. Sacred imagination.
Why war, if God is supremely perfect? If there was conflict in heaven, then there was conflict in perfection, and therefore no perfection. Why would God not protect his creation from Satan's meddling? Was God insecure in his supremacy? That is what I read in Job.Quote:
Originally Posted by Redzeppelin
Ok, I won't challenge that.Quote:
Originally Posted by Redzeppelin
I do not follow how this statement presents a cause-effect that contradicts my position.Quote:
Originally Posted by earthboar
Is it possible that your vision of who God is doesn't allow for the expansive nature of the revelation of His character? In other words, is it possible that the picture of God given strikes you as "wildly...variant" because your idea of God is more narrow than the Bible portrays it? If I decided that all of the universe should be defined by what I can see out my window at night, have I not diminished the universe by the very nature of my limited idea as to what it is? We were created in "God's image" - and I believe that the vast range of human emotion is a reflection of God's emotive character.Quote:
Originally Posted by earthboar
The varying themes of the different books combine to create a "master theme" which is the revelation of God's character. That is the Bible's entire job - to show us who God is.
I do not recall doing anything even remotely resembling proseltyzing.Quote:
Originally Posted by earthboar
The idea that the Bible is a "man-made anthology" presupposes the idea that God had no say whatsoever as to which of His writings were made available to the public in the form of a "fixed" cannonical structure. I find that difficult to accept; a being capable of calling reality into existence with His very words ought to be quite capable of making sure that His written revelation of Himself could be assembled without having serious violence done to the integrity of the narrative He wished us to have.
Can you point out how any book in the Bible is not about God or the character of God?Quote:
Originally Posted by earthboar
Perhaps, but the validity of one's interpretation depends upon its correspondence with the cohesive structure of the Bible and its alignment with the character of God. Any interpretation that fails to satisfy those two criteria is suspect in terms of its validity.Quote:
Originally Posted by earthboar
As you wish:Quote:
Originally Posted by earthboar
"Consider it complete joy, my brothers, when you become involved in all sorts of trials, well aware that the testing of your faith brings about steadfastness."
James 1:2-3
"For as we experience richly the sufferings of Christ, so we enjoy through Christ an abundance of consolation."
2 Corinthians 1:5
"I regard everything as loss in comparison with the supreme value of knowing Christ...for his sake I have incurred loss of all things and consider them rubbish in order to gain Christ...that I may know him, and the power of his resurrection and the sharing of his sufferings, becoming like him in his death, in order that I might arrive at the resurrection from the dead."
Phillipians 3:8-11
"Be joyful that you are sharing to some degree the sufferings of Christ, in order that at the revealing of his glory you may be full of joy...if you suffer as a Christian, do not be ashamed but praise God because you bear that name...For this reason let those who are suffering according to the will of God, entrust their souls to God, the faithful Creator, while they do what is right."
1 Peter 4:13-19
I'll find more if you like.
And you are not putting forth your own judgments on the matter?Quote:
Originally Posted by earthboar
Telling people what they should be "aware" of does not tell them what to think; it expresses the idea that there is some essential information that they should understand, be cognizant of; if I tell you that you should be aware of your surroundings when you walk through the bad side of town, I've not told you to think in any particular way.Quote:
Originally Posted by earthboar
I did not suggest anything about your personal beliefs beyond asserting a principle about how we assess the validity of our "picture" of God. If God is real and the Bible is His revelation, then it makes sense to me that any vision of God we possess ought to be consistent with the revelation of His character that the Bible provides. If one wishes to profess that one is a mathematics professor, I would assume that there is some standard that the individual is consistent with in order to claim such an identity.Quote:
Originally Posted by earthboar
I never said your vision was wrong - I simply pointed out the standard by which the validity of one's idea about who God is should be measured.
That's where the Bible is essential; it allows us to see the inconsistencies of our vision of God; the Holy Spirit's job is to convict us if our picture of God is incorrect.Quote:
Originally Posted by earthboar
War exists because free will exits; in giving His creatures free will (angels included) God took the supreme risk of allowing the universe to become disrupted; apparently, He felt the risk justifiable because love cannot exist with free will.Quote:
Originally Posted by earthboar
Satan's charge is that God is a tyrant who compels service through punishment or bribes it through blessing; as such, if God said "You're not touching Job," then Satan could turn to the "jury" (the other created worlds) and say "See? God knows that Job's service would be exposed for what it is if He actually allowed His creature to experience discomfort and suffering; in fact, the creature would totally reject God without the bribery of blessings God gives - so, therefore, God isn't really loving, because "love" is not measured by mercenary exchange." God's character was on trial - still is - and God chose to let Job's faith speak for itself, which resulted in a resounding defeat for Satan because Job proved that he loved God.
Remember - only God can "read" hearts; angels and other created beings can only judge by what they see. As such, there was no other way for God to transparently prove that His character is good because just saying "I know Job's heart" won't work once God's character has been questioned. If God just quashed the challenge, well, we'd call Him a tyrant, wouldn't we?
God had to let the evidence speak for itself.
Thank you.Quote:
Originally Posted by earthboar
If God were omniscient, why would he have to prove anything to Satan, or to himself? This sounds like the doubt of an uncertain god. And, wasn't the evidence ad hoc? God didn't provide evidence, he tested Job. Calling that evidence after the fact is, I hate to use the cliche, post hoc ergo propter hoc explanation. Might not Job have done something entirely different? Given free will, and all that.Quote:
Originally Posted by Redzeppelin
Remember??? You are stating a personal opinion as if it were a fact. That's like saying, "Remember, Marconi invented the radio." He didn't.Quote:
Originally Posted by Redzeppelin
I've already called into question God's omniscience, in having to test Job to satisfy Satan and himself.
If God just quashed the challenge, I might call him omniscient and self-assured. How would he be a tyrant by refusing to subject Job to torture for the amusement of Satan?
Diversion time: Here's something interesting I found in 1 Enoch, the E. Isaac translation from Vol. 1 of James H. Charlesworth's "The Old Testament Pseudepigrapha":
40: 7-8 "And the fourth voice I heard expelling the demons and forbidding them from coming to the Lord of the Spirits in order to accuse those who dwell upon the earth."
Here Enoch, a grandson of Noah who was led on a tour of Heaven was referring to the fourth Archangel, Phanuel (sometimes called Uriel or Ariel?).
Quote:
Originally Posted by Redzeppelin
The evidence was more for the other beings in the universe than for God or even Satan; as stated below, only God (who is omniscient) can read the contents of the human heart - both the Psalms and the NT letters of Paul make many references to this reality; as such, a just God would not hesitate to show the universe that He is telling the truth by allowing the evidence to speak for itself. I doubt God would have brought Job up if He was not certain (from His complete and intimate knowledge of Job's heart) that Job would succeed in his task.Quote:
Originally Posted by earthboar
God provided evidence because He knew Job well enough to know that Job would vindicate both himself and God in the process. I don't know if you're a parent, but as a parent I can predict with a fairly high percentage of accuracy how my kids will respond to certain things; if I - an ordinary human - can do such things, with my limited knowlege, what is God capable of, who knows all about us even down to the molecular level?Quote:
Originally Posted by earthboar
The Bible makes it clear that God knows the contents of the human heart. In Romans 8, Paul refers to God as "the Father who knows all hearts."Quote:
Originally Posted by earthboar
You've called nothing into question because nothing in the book of Job indicates that God was uncertain of the outcome. He offered Job because He KNEW Job's heart.Quote:
Originally Posted by earthboar
You advocate a process that you would never agree to here on earth. An authority declines to provide evidence and simply says "I know the truth and that's it"? That kind of response would be highly suspect in any court on earth. If God did that, how would the rest of the universe know the truth - since it is God's character (and Job's primarily) that Satan has attacked?Quote:
Originally Posted by earthboar
I don't think Satan was "amused" by this - at least for long. Satan's true target is God; as Milton imagined (accurately, I think) Satan's impotent rage against God was turned towards the object of His love: humanity. Like the torturer who leaves the prisoner alone but threatens to harm his innocent wife and children instead until the prisoner "talks," Satan turned his rage against God upon us, in order to hurt God via the pain inflicted upon those God loves. While Satan may have enjoyed Job's suffering, his loss at the "heavenly court" hurt far worse in terms of his "case" against Job and against God. Torturing humanity is a means to an end - not an end unto itself for Satan. He cares little for what we experience - only what our experience does to our Creator.
You would not trust a God who concealed evidence behind His authority - especially since no other creature can verify what God knows.
such ideas tempt me into philosophy.
the old stock reply is simple - we are all born with free will.
this is a cop out answer.
god is said to be omnipotent - knows all - past present future - cannot err...
therefore god knows the outcome of all things even before the 'creation'.
there was a time when there was nothing but god (and angels, and of course, Jesus, according to the stock reply).
then, after an infinity (for god is infinite, and has always been god) god
hits on a great idea: an earth and a heaven! and living sentinent beings who, although made to behave, will nonetheless misbehave, and will have to be drowned like rats, except for a select few, and those who remain will re-populate the face of the earth, and they too will misbehave ...... so god, athough knowing all this stuff even before the creation, sends His only son, Jesus, to be tortured and killed, even that is pre-ordained. All that, and more, on account of a man and woman who had not one drop learning, and who fell into bad company - with a walking talking serpent.
All over the fruit of one special tree, and the attainment of knowledge.
Up to that point Adam and Eve could not see, and probably used each other to stumble around the garden.
the first pair then understood good and evil and became one of the gods, but before they could take the tree that gives eternal life, god kicked them out of the garden, thus we now are stained with sin.
It is obvious from Genesis that the gods or god (there is confusion even in the first part of the bible, therefore was god/s confused?) would have been powerless to reverse the process, had they got a grip on the tree of life.
all is, while I am.
Mike Thomas writes:
"the old stock reply is simple - we are all born with free will.
this is a cop out answer.
god is said to be omnipotent - knows all - past present future - cannot err..."
The mentioning of free will is not a "cop out" answer in that it does point out that while God is the creator of all that exists, it is not true that he is the creator of evil, which, as I pointed out earlier, does not have an existence of its own.
I think you have confused "omnipotence" and "omniscience" and meant the latter. God is, according to the Judeo-Christian conception, not only the creator, but also has the attribute of knowing all things. This knowledge is due to his intimate knowledge of his creation. Omniscience does not in itself remove the possibility of free will, any more than a couple getting a perfect score on "The Newlywed Game" meant that either the husband was Svengali, or the wife Jezebel.
hi RichardHresko
point taken re omni whatever. The main thing is this: God is all. Knows all even before anything exists, therefore God knows the outcome no matter how free will might affect things. Its a foregone conclusion.
You really believe that the Creator which knows that: what is about to be created (Satan, people or anything) is going to be evil, or do some evil thing, that no responsibillity falls on the creator?
I make an experimental flying machine, it falls on your house. You blame me, not the machine, right?
God, being God, knows what is about to happen (lets say the mass torture of millions) and allows it to happen, how can that be attributed to the influences of Satan? Isn't that a cop out?
You and I reason. We know that all things which we call 'evil' are the direct result of members of that unique animal which calls itself 'mankind'.
best wishes
Mike Thomas writes:
"You really believe that the Creator which knows that: what is about to be created (Satan, people or anything) is going to be evil, or do some evil thing, that no responsibillity falls on the creator?"
Since the act is chosen by a creature with free will, the creature (namely a human) is responsible for the act. God did not choose the act of the creature, he merely foresaw it. He is therefore not the author of the act and therefore did not commit evil if the act itself was evil.
Mike Thomas writes:
"I make an experimental flying machine, it falls on your house. You blame me, not the machine, right?"
The analogy fails because the flying machine lacks free will.
Let's consider a case that would be stronger for your position:
Let us say that Egbert knows that Dymphna intends to murder Chauncey. Let's say that he even knows when, where, and how Dymphna intends to do this, and that Dymphna will in fact carry out her plan. Most of us, myself included, would agree that Egbert would be morally obligated to intervene, and would be culpable, to some extent, if he did not do so.
Is God in a different position than Egbert? To say "no" would be to argue that God is basically just a very powerful being, but in essence no different than ourselves.
If we accept that God is the creator of the universe (creator who engages in creatio ex nihilo and not a mere shaper of what is already there) and that he created without having a necessity to do so, and that he himself was not created, then it follows that he has no obligation towards that creation. This is different than Egbert's position, who is a member of a society and has obligations to it, even if not personal duties to Chauncey.
Mike Thomas writes:
"You and I reason. We know that all things which we call 'evil' are the direct result of members of that unique animal which calls itself 'mankind'."
Agreed, since man has free will. Whether or not there is a personal substance we call 'Satan' does not affect the fundamental fact that we ourselves are responsible for all 'moral evil' in the world.
God is not responsible for the actions of humanity (or devils, for that matter) just as a government is not responsible for the actions of individual criminals.
I was reading just recently, in Doubt: A History, that this was a main reason that the religious leaders have always been against pantheism, because they didn't want to have to admit that God is evil as well as good.Quote:
Originally Posted by Shadowsarin
Unbeliever writes:
"I was reading just recently, in Doubt: A History, that this was a main reason that the religious leaders have always been against pantheism, because they didn't want to have to admit that God is evil as well as good."
I'm not sure which religious leaders are referred to here, but in the Western tradition one should look at Augustine first, since pretty much everything is derived from him.
A major concern of Augustine's in rejecting pantheism is that he considered it important to maintain a distinction between creator and created, as well as between spiritual and material. Both of these concerns were inspired by his rejection of Manicheanism, and to an extent also by his need to rework the neo-Platonist thoughts he incorporated into his world view. His discussion of the soul's relation to God is given, for example at Soliloquies 1.2.7.
More to the point of God's not doing evil is discussed in City of God XII.7. In essence, the argument goes that evil is not something that exists but a privation. Thus, to use a well-worn example, 'blindness' does not have a substantial existence but rather describes a state in which there is a lack of vision where one would expect vision (rocks can not be blind).
If you would give some examples of where religious leaders knew that God did evil but would not 'admit' to this knowledge we can examine and evaluate those specific claims.
Nobody wants to "admit" anything that they know is a flat-out lie. Religious leaders are "against" pantheism because it's wrong - that's why.Quote:
Originally Posted by Unbeliever
the goverment doesn't create all that is.Quote:
Originally Posted by weepingforloman
the goverment governs with the consent (most often) of the plebians. The plebs
pay the goverment to look after them...
god on the other hand, creates innocent, uneducated beings, puts them, like children in a candy store, in a garden full of temptation. In that garden god puts a walking talking serpent who's only purpose is to corrupt the innocent.
and here are we, blamed because go was an irresponsible parent.
regards
I hope you will not be offended by my highlights. I'm just glad someone woke up and realized that the Serpent in the garden wasn't what we call a "serpent". Didn't anybody ever catch that in the punishments delt out it was: Genesis 3: [14] And the LORD God said unto the serpent, Because thou hast done this, thou art cursed above all cattle, and above every beast of the field; upon thy belly shalt thou go, and dust shalt thou eat all the days of thy life:Quote:
Originally Posted by mike thomas
Why would he be made to go upon his belly if he were already there?
But Mike, I don't know if you have kids, I have three. You can raise them as best you can, but you cannot control them when temptation strikes. Will they remember what you said, or listen to other voices? God told them "No!" The Serpent moved one word. Instead of saying "Yeah, God hath said..." he said "Yeah, hath God said..." Turning a statement into a question and creating doubt. Eve stuck to her truth. So The Serpent now adds a word. God said, "Ye shall surely die." The Serpent said "Ye shall not surely die, for..." Adding more doubt. Anyone whose been through peer-presure knows where I'm going. See!
God bless
Pen
Additionaly one must also realize God did not want robots but children who loved Him and did His will through free choice. Therefore he gave them a choice and even placed satan there so that they would have a definite choice of either they could follow God or satan. See if God had only placed the tree Adam and Eve would not have had the desire to eat because they had not yet been contaminated therefore God had to place satan as a contrast to Himself and to instill the idea.
God is not everywhere, in fact he is a relatively small hermit crab on the beach. A very intelligent one, who dreamed us up one night.