|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: Purgatory: What if I'm right?
|
Justinian
Shipmate
# 5357
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Grits:
But you'll have to trust me -- I have no preconceptions, and everyone knows I don't use tradition, reason nor interpretation for reading the Bible! (Sorry -- I'm punchy from wardening in the Church of Fools 'til 2 a.m.)
No problem, but you've just highlighted the real problem I have with fundamentalists of all stripes- not using any interpretation is a psychological impossibility, as is not using any reason in places where the bible conflicts with itself (of which there are plenty). I therefore find such claims dishonest.
quote:
quote:
My interpretation is that the garden of eden was a test, and that we passed.
I agree with this -- except I think we flunked. ![[Smile]](smile.gif)
My understanding there is pretty heretical. *shrug* My other interpretation may be closer to the truth anyway- that it wasn't a pass/fail issue, but one of which future would fit us best. (I'd rather have this one)
quote:
In fact, I am so committed to this choice that I am certain I would have had no problem cutting off communication with a wayward child.
Two questions: temporarily or permenantly? and how is this equivalent to condemning them to eternal torment?
quote:
I just believe that it's all about choices and consequences, both here and beyond. That is the true test that we all must pass.
There I'll agree. I just won't agree that the consequences in your scheme are, by any measure, just, merciful or loving.
quote:
quote:
I'm not 100% sure I want Him to be the way I see Him.
But why not? Tell me what you would change.
A sense of humour in an omnipotent being is an extremely dangerous thing. I think what I'd change would depend on my state of mind at the time.
--------------------
My real name consists of just four letters, but in billions of combinations.
Eudaimonaic Laughter - my blog.
Posts: 3926 | From: The Sea Coast of Bohemia | Registered: Dec 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Grits
Compassionate fundamentalist
# 4169
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by pysduck:
You can't mean that! No problem?
My remark did sound a little cavalier. By "cut off" I guess I meant to be unapproving and physically unsupportive. (I mentioned that love and prayers would continue.) But I am a total advocate of the old "Tough Love" theory. I also believe there is no earthly relationship that should usurp our obedience to God. Jesus told us that "anyone who loves mother, father, etc. more than Me is not worthy of Me." His whole ministry concerned teaching us to "leave the dead to bury the dead", dropping our nets and following Him. I have too many friends who value earthly relationships more than they do their spiritual relationship with God.
I'm still not totally getting where you're at, Justinian, but that's OK.
quote:
not using any interpretation is a psychological impossibility, as is not using any reason in places where the bible conflicts with itself (of which there are plenty). I therefore find such claims dishonest.
I totally agree with the first part of this passage, and totally disagree with the latter. (Is that possible?) I have tried to explain the "interpretation phenomema" to several Shipmates by PM -- don't know how successful I was. I still concede that there is some confusion about the actual term "interpretation". Yes, the scriptures have to be read in context, in light of the times in which they were written, etc. Who would have a problem with that? The interpretation I refuse to do is deciding "This part can't be true" or "This part couldn't be inspired of God" or "This part's pure crap." That's the kind of interpretation I see being used quite often, and that's the kind that I find worse than dishonest.
quote:
I just won't agree that the consequences in your scheme are, by any measure, just, merciful or loving.
And once again I will play the "You're putting your concepts and measure of justice, mercy and love on the God who created the universe" card.
quote:
A sense of humour in an omnipotent being is an extremely dangerous thing. I think what I'd change would depend on my state of mind at the time.
Interesting. Really, really obscure, but interesting. ![[Biased]](wink.gif)
Thanks for your response, Justinian.
--------------------
Lord, fill my mouth with worthwhile stuff, and shut it when I've said enough. Amen.
Posts: 8419 | From: Nashville, TN | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Justinian
Shipmate
# 5357
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Grits:
I'm still not totally getting where you're at, Justinian, but that's OK.
Don't worry- there are days when I don't get where I'm at. Would it help if I were to repeat my statement in hell and say that I'm trying to seek the right question rather than the right answer?
quote:
quote:
not using any interpretation is a psychological impossibility, as is not using any reason in places where the bible conflicts with itself (of which there are plenty). I therefore find such claims dishonest.
I totally agree with the first part of this passage, and totally disagree with the latter. (Is that possible?) I have tried to explain the "interpretation phenomema" to several Shipmates by PM -- don't know how successful I was. I still concede that there is some confusion about the actual term "interpretation". Yes, the scriptures have to be read in context, in light of the times in which they were written, etc. Who would have a problem with that? The interpretation I refuse to do is deciding "This part can't be true" or "This part couldn't be inspired of God" or "This part's pure crap." That's the kind of interpretation I see being used quite often, and that's the kind that I find worse than dishonest.
It's not worse than dishonest if you work under the assumption that the scriptures are the divinely inspired work of man, and as works of man they have attributes of any work of man and are therefore flawed, making it ones duty to try and work out what's direct divine inspiration, what's misunderstood divine inspiration, what's hyperbole and what's the work of man. You are, however, on extremely shaky ground as you can then use the bible to prove pretty much anything.
I would, however, make the point that by saying you don't interpret as opposed to saying you don't reject scriptures out of hand you are saying far, far more than you mean and making many think you do your best not to think at all. (As for who would have a problem with what you don't call interpretation, many who believe the world was created in six days- I've even met two people who believe that the bible is the inerrant Word of God laid down for all time and everything said in it is either factual history or the ideal to which we should aspire)
I'd certainly be interested in hearing more about intercession phenomena either by PM or as a new thread in Purg (if it's what I think it is, it's far too important to add to this one).
quote:
quote:
I just won't agree that the consequences in your scheme are, by any measure, just, merciful or loving.
And once again I will play the "You're putting your concepts and measure of justice, mercy and love on the God who created the universe" card.
And I'm going to play the obvious counter and say that God tries to use such human terms for a reason, and that there is no way he can be less than man- the definitions I'm giving are (to me) bare minimums- being Love is a completely different issue from being loving.
--------------------
My real name consists of just four letters, but in billions of combinations.
Eudaimonaic Laughter - my blog.
Posts: 3926 | From: The Sea Coast of Bohemia | Registered: Dec 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Golden Key
Shipmate
# 1468
|
Posted
Justinian called my name :
quote:
I'm not GK and don't see punishment as completely contrary to the nature of God (and my God certainly has a sense of humour- something far more dangerous for creation). There is a vast difference between not punishing and not doling out eternal punishments.
Well, first thing: I certainly think/hope God has a sense of humor. If She doesn't, we're all in big trouble. ![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
I've never said that nothing needs to be done about the evil that happens in this life--just the opposite, actually. But as I've said at other times, there are only 2 sane reasons for "punishment"--helping the person learn not to do the bad thing again, and making restitution to whomever was wronged. Anything else is sadistic.
As I said on pg. 3 of this thread:
quote:
Originally posted by Custard123:
After all, if God is inifintely good, then rejecting him is an infinite crime.
Only if God counts it as one.
Is God really going to say, "Boo hoo! You don't like me. Bad human. BAD! Take your toys and go home to hell. Hope you get a nice tan"?
I swear, we often make God sound like a two year old with a tantrum.
And does anyone truly reject God? They may reject *ideas about* God, but no one really *knows* what God is like. And everyone sees through the lenses of their experiences, culture, biochemistry, etc.
Anyone else - what would God do to Hitler?
The same as She would do with anyone else: help him get well, help him face what he did and make peace with the people he hurt, help him grow, love him.
And I do not say this lightly.
(Italics for emphasis.)
I think that if God's good, She's in it for the long haul. She won't rest until everyone and everything is Home and safe and whole and well.
Me again:
quote:
Perhaps...
What if God made us out of love, and She knows us as we are, and She loves us as we are?
What if She's like a healthy mom watching Her kids grow and learn--seeing us fall and go boom, get into fights, break each other's toys, get sick, even make Her laugh and smother Her with kisses?
What if we've somehow misheard and misunderstood, and She's not about judgement? She may say "clean up your act/planet/marriage/whatever", but She's not about to throw anyone way--both because She loves us and because it would break Her heart.
Maybe She just says, "Whoops, sweetie, you fell down" and waits as long as it takes for us to get up again.
Maybe She really is LOVE, and we've gotten most of it wrong all along.
I'm well aware of the evil that happens in this world. But the more I grow and get to know people, the more I understand that there are reasons for the way a person is, that only God can see how much choice a person has in a particular situation, and that everyone matters.
I've done a lot of wrestling to get to this point. I don't even know if God exists. But to me, if She does and is good, She can't let anyone go.
--------------------
Blessed Gator, pray for us!
--"Oh bat bladders, do you have to bring common sense into this?" (Dragon, "Jane & the Dragon")
--"Oh, Peace Train, save this country!" (Yusuf/Cat Stevens, "Peace Train")
Posts: 18601 | From: Chilling out in an undisclosed, sincere pumpkin patch. | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
J. J. Ramsey
Shipmate
# 1174
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by ...psyduck...:
JJRamsey: quote:
Those who believe the God of the OP is indeed God recognize (at least intuitively) the epistemological problem and therefore find fault with judging God and choose instead to justify what to them can only be apparent injustice on God's part.
quote:
Those who believe the God of the OP is indeed God
I take this to mean "Those who believe that the OP is the truth about God." Thus when Russ says: quote:
If I pass on a rumour that Grits tears the heads off hamsters, is it not entirely reasonable for you to reject such a notion on the grounds that it doesn't square with what you know of her character ?
if I can strain the analogy, the Sharkshooters would be in the position of saying "Yes indeed, she does do all that you say our belief about her implies that she does. And yet she is still by definition good, loving and just, because she is Grits - and she herself is the definition of these things." Note that they aren't saying "Well, it may look this way, but in the end it will turn out to be that, when we know even as we are known (I Cor. 13) we shall be able to see that God actually is good and loving and just in ways that make sense to us."
That still amounts to the believers in the Sharkshooter doctrine trying to, as I said before, "justify what to them can only be apparent injustice on God's part." You just pointed out a couple different ways of justifying these apparent injustices, and noted that the believers in the Sharkshooter doctrine who posted on this thread used one of those ways rather than the other.
quote:
Originally posted by ...psyduck...:
JJ Ramsey says: quote:
Those who believe that the God of the OP is not truly God feel free to judge the God of the OP because according to their worldview, it is not the source of their moral intuition and so the epistemological problem is avoided.
Now he's talking about my position vis-a-vis the Sharkshooter Doctrine here, so I feel no compunction in rejecting what he says. My position is that God is the source of our moral intuition
You misunderstand. Let me rephrase slightly (addition in square brackets):
quote:
Those who believe that the God of the OP is not truly God feel free to judge the God of the OP because according to their worldview, it [that is, the God of the OP] is not the source of their moral intuition and so the epistemological problem is avoided.
Given that you clearly deny that the God of the OP is actually God, is it not fair to say that as far as you understand it, the God of the OP did not give you your moral intuition?
--------------------
I am a rationalist. Unfortunately, this doesn't actually make me rational.
Posts: 1490 | From: Tallmadge, OH | Registered: Aug 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Psyduck
Ship's vacant look
# 2270
|
Posted
JJ Ramsey: quote:
That still amounts to the believers in the Sharkshooter doctrine trying to, as I said before, "justify what to them can only be apparent injustice on God's part."
The point I was making , unless I misunderstand it, was that the Sharkshooterettes aren't saying "All this may seem unjust now, but one day we shall see clearly that it is just. They're not even saying (and this too is a fairly classical theological/philosophical position) "All this may seem unjust, but that's because we can neve hope to have all the information on which to understand the moral basis of God's actions here. He is omniscient, we aren't, and never shall be, so we can never have all the information, and in principle, we can never understand. We just have to trust that God is just - in the sense (or something pretty much like it, only purer and better) in which we, too, understand justice.
No, they are saying - at least some of them , quite explicitly - "Hey, this is God we're talking about! He's not accountable to you! Anything he does is OK, because this is his universe, and you are nothing! How dare you suggest that God is unjust. Justice is whatever God says it is!"
And some of them seem to me to go on to say "Oh, and by the way - that sense of justice that he's implanted in you - that's no guide at all. That's just so that you will keep his laws, which are only stuff for you to live by, and do your head in by your inability to keep - and they won't save you anyway! So don't go measuring God by those..." In other words, it's the Sharkshooterettes who are really postulating a disconection between what's moral for us and what's just with God.
quote:
Given that you clearly deny that the God of the OP is actually God, is it not fair to say that as far as you understand it, the God of the OP did not give you your moral intuition?
You mean, in the sense that I don't beieve that Kali, or Apollo, or Optimus Prime gave me my moiral intuition? This harks back to the confusion I mentioned earlier. The God of the OP is not Allah, or Kali. The God of the OP is a candidate for the "This Is God - The Christian God - As All Christians Should Believe In Him™" Award; this is a postulate that if you are a Christian, this is how you should believe. And what I'm saying isn't that I disbelieve in the God of the Op, but that the OP is wrong about God. Wrong about the Christian God. Wrong about what Christianity is.
In short, yes, I do believe that the Christian God gave me my "moral intuition". Yes it's perfectly clear to me that the God being described in the OP is the Christian God. It's just (IMO, IMHO, IMVHO) a monstrously misleading and parodic description of the Christian God, much further from the truth than my own understanding - a position vis-a-vis my understanding which I'm sure is precisely mirrored on the other side of the debate.
But I agree with the other side of the debate that there is one God, and with some, maybe, on that side of the debate that this one God is the source of my moral understanding, such as it is.
And that means that my moral understanding is not completely misleading, and where it is, it is misleading because it diverges from moral truth as it subsists in God. And, because this moral truth is "God is love", where it diverges from the moral truth that subsists in God, it diverges because I'm insufficiently loving. Not because my doctrine of hell ain't hot enough!
But again I press the charge. It's the Sharkshooterettes who are saying that our moral understanding isn't grounded in God. As far as I can see, for them moral understanding takes its rise in a purely cognitive reading of God's law, which is identified with the whole of Scripture. That's not a moral sense - as is illustrated by the lack of a moral sense in the faith of the OP.
--------------------
The opposite of faith is not doubt. The opposite of faith is certainty.
"Lle rhyfedd i falchedd fod/Yw teiau ar y tywod." (Ieuan Brydydd Hir)
Posts: 5433 | From: pOsTmOdErN dYsToPiA | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
contouredburger
Apprentice
# 7409
|
Posted
Could somebody explain to me why our moral perception is to be regarded as such an important and valid tool for this discussion? Surely if sin distorts our very nature then this faculty must be distorted as well? I take Paul's argument that we should be able in some way to identify God through the creation, which we evidently cannot do, to mean that our natural perception of God is impaired. For instance, the religious leaders in the time of Christ's ministry had a lot of difficulty in associating him with God, and often for what they regarded as moral reasons, as well as legalistic ones. Their moral perception of God was impaired, and I don't see how ours has become any more foolproof. If the response to this objection is that faith in Christ as the Son of God and his very image, allows us to work backwards and so to gain a better moral perception of God, then all well and good. However, I would argue that this is the case for both OP theology and the majority of liberal theologies as well. The fact that there can be such disagreement implies that at least one party has got it wrong.
--------------------
I seem to be having tremendous difficulty with my lifestyle
Posts: 46 | From: Edinburgh | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Psyduck
Ship's vacant look
# 2270
|
Posted
contouredburger quote:
Could somebody explain to me why our moral perception is to be regarded as such an important and valid tool for this discussion? Surely if sin distorts our very nature then this faculty must be distorted as well?
I don't think there's much argument about that, contouredburger. I've certainly said that I believe that our moral 'sense' is compromised by our fallenness, and in specific ways.
What I'm objecting to are these assertions:
a) that we have a moral sense that is so broken that it's utterly discontinuous with God,
so that justice and morality are essentially utterly incomprehensible; which would seem to mean that we are to love one another, and our neighbour as ourself, simply because we're (contingently) told to, not because God's will for us is an expression of his love for us. (At least for this position, it is possible to assert that God is just without making that a tautology, as the next position does.)
b) the assertion, which I think is much more fundamental to the position of the OP, that whatever God chooses to do is ipso facto just and moral, so that there is no stability at all to these concepts; which implies that God is unconstrained even by his nature as love.
Our moral perception is at the heart of this discussion, because for the anti-Sharkshooters it is our moral 'sense' that is revolted by the Sharkshooter Creed. The Sharkshooterettes are telling us that that's irrelevant. I think that most of them are doing this on the basis of position (b) above.
--------------------
The opposite of faith is not doubt. The opposite of faith is certainty.
"Lle rhyfedd i falchedd fod/Yw teiau ar y tywod." (Ieuan Brydydd Hir)
Posts: 5433 | From: pOsTmOdErN dYsToPiA | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
contouredburger
Apprentice
# 7409
|
Posted
Psyduck,
Thanks for clarifying that point. It occurs to me that if OP theology maintains point (b) then the supreme aspect of God is his will - i.e. anything he says goes. However, I am not far removed from the OP position, and this is not representative of my theological method. Christian theology argues that God's will has no external constraints, but has the internal constraint of the intrinsic nature of God. For example, with regard to the doctrine of creation, the world might be contingent (it has properties that are determined by God and are therefore non-deducible), but it is also rational (the properties of the world can be predictable even if they are non-deducible). This would then be true of anything that God wills and does, including the commandments he lays down for us and his own actions - e.g. all God's actions and commandments are loving, because God is love. However, this still doesn't imply that our moral perception can or should be the arbiter for our theology in this matter. The real issue is one of internal consistency - does either the OP or any other theological position on the Atonement/salvation/etc. maintain a consistency between the nature and actions of God revealed in Christ and the nature and actions of God revealed elsewhere in the NT and in the OT? Unsurprisingly, given my theological leanings, I think the OP has the edge here, although I have a lot of trouble with the idea of double predestination ![[Help]](graemlins/help.gif)
--------------------
I seem to be having tremendous difficulty with my lifestyle
Posts: 46 | From: Edinburgh | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Psyduck
Ship's vacant look
# 2270
|
Posted
quote:
The real issue is one of internal consistency - does either the OP or any other theological position on the Atonement/salvation/etc. maintain a consistency between the nature and actions of God revealed in Christ and the nature and actions of God revealed elsewhere in the NT and in the OT?
I think a lot stands or falls by what you mean by "revealed" here...
--------------------
The opposite of faith is not doubt. The opposite of faith is certainty.
"Lle rhyfedd i falchedd fod/Yw teiau ar y tywod." (Ieuan Brydydd Hir)
Posts: 5433 | From: pOsTmOdErN dYsToPiA | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
J. J. Ramsey
Shipmate
# 1174
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by ...psyduck...:
quote:
Given that you clearly deny that the God of the OP is actually God, is it not fair to say that as far as you understand it, the God of the OP did not give you your moral intuition?
You mean, in the sense that I don't beieve that Kali, or Apollo, or Optimus Prime gave me my moiral intuition?
Pretty much, yes.
quote:
And what I'm saying isn't that I disbelieve in the God of the Op, but that the OP is wrong about God. Wrong about the Christian God. Wrong about what Christianity is.
Six of one, half a dozen of the other. You disbelieve (and IMHO, rightly) that the OP is right about God, so that entails disbelieving in the God described in the OP.
--------------------
I am a rationalist. Unfortunately, this doesn't actually make me rational.
Posts: 1490 | From: Tallmadge, OH | Registered: Aug 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Willyburger
Ship's barber
# 658
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by ...psyduck...:
The point I was making , unless I misunderstand it, was that the Sharkshooterettes aren't saying "All this may seem unjust now, but one day we shall see clearly that it is just. They're not even saying (and this too is a fairly classical theological/philosophical position) "All this may seem unjust, but that's because we can neve hope to have all the information on which to understand the moral basis of God's actions here. He is omniscient, we aren't, and never shall be, so we can never have all the information, and in principle, we can never understand. We just have to trust that God is just - in the sense (or something pretty much like it, only purer and better) in which we, too, understand justice.
No, they are saying - at least some of them , quite explicitly - "Hey, this is God we're talking about! He's not accountable to you! Anything he does is OK, because this is his universe, and you are nothing! How dare you suggest that God is unjust. Justice is whatever God says it is!"
I think for many Sharkshooterettes, the second statement grew from the first and replaced it as a sufficient explanation. As we make the attempt to reconcile our perception of injustice with God's justice by first defining our ignorance and limitations, and then pointing to the One who is perfect and infinite in power, knowledge, love, justice, mercy, etc., for the eventual balancing of the scales, it can quickly get summarized into an appeal to a higher authority. From there, some boil it down further to Might makes Right.
For some, Might makes Right is a sufficient justification and is their starting and ending point. For others, it's just a sloppy gloss of the greater issue.
--------------------
Willy, Unix Bigot, Esq.
--
Why is it that every time I go out to buy bookshelves, I come home with more books?
Posts: 835 | From: Arizona, US | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Grits
Compassionate fundamentalist
# 4169
|
Posted
I think that's a fairly accurate interpretation, Willyburger. The second is the one adopted when you can't seem to get the first one across! I think the first one is basically what has been stated and implied by those in favor of the OP. And it has been said fairly calmly and lovingly, only to be oft met with ridicule, threats and hatred.
When backed into a corner, one often pulls out the "big gun", ergo the "God is God and He can be anyway He wants to be" argument. When understanding becomes implausible, the nitty-gritty is often unearthed.
--------------------
Lord, fill my mouth with worthwhile stuff, and shut it when I've said enough. Amen.
Posts: 8419 | From: Nashville, TN | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Psyduck
Ship's vacant look
# 2270
|
Posted
JJ Ramsey quote:
You disbelieve (and IMHO, rightly) that the OP is right about God, so that entails disbelieving in the God described in the OP.
No, it doesn't. Disbelieving a postulate that the moon is made of green cheese isn't disbelieving in a green-cheese moon, that other people may believe in. It means disagreeing with people about what the moon is made of. The argument you were advancing about the epistemological status of our moral 'sense' rested on your being able to assume that I didn't believe that the God of the OP was the origin of that moral sense. My position is that my moral 'sense' (however defined) is something that does have its ultimate ground in God. You can't turn that round by saying "Ah, but even you would have to agree that your position is that the God of the OP is not the originator of your moral sense (because you don't believe that the God of the OP exists) so you're basically agreeing with those pro-OP people, for whom the God of the OP exists, that the God of the OP is not the origin of your moral sense."
That's like arguing that, however much I profess to believe that Apollo 11 landed on the moon, the green-cheesers are right to say that I don't believe it, because I don't believe in the green-cheese moon that they say Apollo 11 didn't land on.
It doesn't address, let alone solve, the epistemological difficulty you see here.
--------------------
The opposite of faith is not doubt. The opposite of faith is certainty.
"Lle rhyfedd i falchedd fod/Yw teiau ar y tywod." (Ieuan Brydydd Hir)
Posts: 5433 | From: pOsTmOdErN dYsToPiA | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Psyduck
Ship's vacant look
# 2270
|
Posted
Willyburger: quote:
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by ...psyduck...:
The point I was making , unless I misunderstand it, was that the Sharkshooterettes aren't saying "All this may seem unjust now, but one day we shall see clearly that it is just. They're not even saying (and this too is a fairly classical theological/philosophical position) "All this may seem unjust, but that's because we can neve hope to have all the information on which to understand the moral basis of God's actions here. He is omniscient, we aren't, and never shall be, so we can never have all the information, and in principle, we can never understand. We just have to trust that God is just - in the sense (or something pretty much like it, only purer and better) in which we, too, understand justice.
No, they are saying - at least some of them , quite explicitly - "Hey, this is God we're talking about! He's not accountable to you! Anything he does is OK, because this is his universe, and you are nothing! How dare you suggest that God is unjust. Justice is whatever God says it is!"
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I think for many Sharkshooterettes, the second statement grew from the first and replaced it as a sufficient explanation.
Hmmm. Well... The difficulty is that the line of attack that most of its opponents have taken against the Sharkshooter Doctrine is that it formulates the relationship between God's deeds and his justice in such a way that it completely abuses the notion of justice, and makes it impossible that anything could ever come to light that could redeem this God, or explain what we [purport, under the Sharkshooter Doctrine, to] know about his actions. In other words, if God is and does as the OP says he is and does, no amount of further expanison of our moral sense by broadening of context, knowledge of circumstances, etc. could ever persuade us that these things are just.
Now, it is to that position that the Sharkshooterettes have tended to respond "But God is God, and therefore just, and therefore whatever he diecides to do is just - the position of the 'second statement'. In other words, I don't think that they are really entertaining the possibility that more information, more context, deeper insight, would exonerate and justify God.
And to be honest, I think that they would be being disingenous if they denied this. The first statement is still a position that holds that ultimately God's actions could, maybe shall, be shown to be just, given the whole context. The Sharkshooter Doctrine is basically saying that this position is always illegitimate for Christians to hold because it assumes that God can be justified, so it raises the question of theodicy - the justification of God and what he does.
I don't think it's possible to move with integrity from statement 1 to statement 2. As Grits says, and truly, quote:
When backed into a corner, one often pulls out the "big gun", ergo the "God is God and He can be anyway He wants to be" argument. When understanding becomes implausible, the nitty-gritty is often unearthed.
And the bottom line is unearthed. You don't question God.
Which really means - you don't question the Sharkshooter Doctrine.
--------------------
The opposite of faith is not doubt. The opposite of faith is certainty.
"Lle rhyfedd i falchedd fod/Yw teiau ar y tywod." (Ieuan Brydydd Hir)
Posts: 5433 | From: pOsTmOdErN dYsToPiA | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Willyburger
Ship's barber
# 658
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Grits:
When backed into a corner, one often pulls out the "big gun", ergo the "God is God and He can be anyway He wants to be" argument. When understanding becomes implausible, the nitty-gritty is often unearthed.
Yes, but that's the problem. The Might makes Right argument reduces God to The biggest bully on the block who takes your lunch money, breaks your glasses, pushes you into the mud puddle and then says it's the Right Thing to do, just because he can.
--------------------
Willy, Unix Bigot, Esq.
--
Why is it that every time I go out to buy bookshelves, I come home with more books?
Posts: 835 | From: Arizona, US | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Willyburger
Ship's barber
# 658
|
Posted
quote:
....You don't question God.
I think that is a valid thesis as part of an examination of God's sovereignty. Whether it is defensible on its own is the question. I think that is where much of the disagreement comes from, because sovereignty or justice or holiness is taken out and examined separately and leads to a false (and often unconscious) either-or situation. Our understanding of each of God's attributes must be informed by all the rest, as well as by our understanding of what God is not. quote:
Which really means - you don't question the Sharkshooter Doctrine.
Which is what you get when you value one attribute out of proportion to all the others. Sharkshooterettes put the bar very high for sovereignty. Any theology which challenges that would be, by definition, inferior.
--------------------
Willy, Unix Bigot, Esq.
--
Why is it that every time I go out to buy bookshelves, I come home with more books?
Posts: 835 | From: Arizona, US | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
J. J. Ramsey
Shipmate
# 1174
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by ...psyduck...:
JJ Ramsey quote:
You disbelieve (and IMHO, rightly) that the OP is right about God, so that entails disbelieving in the God described in the OP.
No, it doesn't. Disbelieving a postulate that the moon is made of green cheese isn't disbelieving in a green-cheese moon, that other people may believe in.
Bad example. Disbelieving a postulate that the moon is made of green cheese is disbelieving in a green-cheese moon. That's just shy of a tautology.
quote:
The argument you were advancing about the epistemological status of our moral 'sense' rested on your being able to assume that I didn't believe that the God of the OP was the origin of that moral sense. My position is that my moral 'sense' (however defined) is something that does have its ultimate ground in God. You can't turn that round by saying "Ah, but even you would have to agree that your position is that the God of the OP is not the originator of your moral sense (because you don't believe that the God of the OP exists) so you're basically agreeing with those pro-OP people, for whom the God of the OP exists, that the God of the OP is not the origin of your moral sense."
Where did you get the idea that I was trying to say that you were "basically agreeing with those pro-OP people"?!!! ![[brick wall]](graemlins/brick_wall.gif)
You said:
quote:
The argument you were advancing about the epistemological status of our moral 'sense' rested on your being able to assume that I didn't believe that the God of the OP was the origin of that moral sense. My position is that my moral 'sense' (however defined) is something that does have its ultimate ground in God.
My reply (using your paraphrasing) was:
quote:
"Ah, but even you would have to agree that your position is that the God of the OP is not the originator of your moral sense (because you don't believe that the God of the OP exists)"
That's where my reply ends. This part
quote:
so you're basically agreeing with those pro-OP people, for whom the God of the OP exists, that the God of the OP is not the origin of your moral sense."
is your misreading.
quote:
It doesn't address, let alone solve, the epistemological difficulty you see here.
I wasn't solving anything. I was pointing out the difficulty, which I described as a "wall."
Here's the problem. Here's the "wall." From your perspective, there is no epistemological difficulty, because you are simply using God-given moral intuition to judge what isn't God in the first place. However, as far as the believers in the Sharkshooter doctrine are concerned, you are using God-given moral intuition (and a fallen version of it, at that) to judge the source of that very intuition, and for them, that is, on its face, circular, and therein lies the epistemological problem. Trying to convince opponents with what looks to them like circular arguments just does not get very far, even if the arguments only appear circular from the opponents' perspective.
--------------------
I am a rationalist. Unfortunately, this doesn't actually make me rational.
Posts: 1490 | From: Tallmadge, OH | Registered: Aug 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Grits
Compassionate fundamentalist
# 4169
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by pysduck:
Which really means - you don't question the Sharkshooter Doctrine.
This really struck me as quite funny. I think this was the whole premise of the OP -- to question that doctrine. I think he was really trying to dig into the "whys" of the different beliefs here.
As such, I think this has been a most successful discussion. It seems that way to me, at least.
[ 12. June 2004, 19:09: Message edited by: Grits ]
--------------------
Lord, fill my mouth with worthwhile stuff, and shut it when I've said enough. Amen.
Posts: 8419 | From: Nashville, TN | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Psyduck
Ship's vacant look
# 2270
|
Posted
JJ Ramsey: OK, let's disentangle this. quote:
Here's the problem. Here's the "wall." From your perspective, there is no epistemological difficulty, because you are simply using God-given moral intuition to judge what isn't God in the first place.
I agree with what you're trying to say here. But I wouldn't have put it like that. And this has been my point throughout. I'm not saying "I don't believe in this God." I'm saying "I don't believe that God is as you say he is."
quote:
However, as far as the believers in the Sharkshooter doctrine are concerned, you are using God-given moral intuition (and a fallen version of it, at that) to judge the source of that very intuition, and for them, that is, on its face, circular, and therein lies the epistemological problem.
No. (In any case, why would that be more circular for them than for me? I'm not just proposing to judge their conception of God by a moral standard - let's use that term instead of 'sense' - deriving from God. I'm proposing to judge my own conception too. What's inherently circular about proposing to judge the source of a moral intuition on the basis of that moral intuition? "Shall not the judge of all the earth do right?" is Abraham doing just exactly that. It's no different from saying to someone "That's not like you...")
No, that's not the problem. As I've said several times now, the problem for the Sharkshooterettes is that for them there is a complete caesura, a break, between moral conceptions applying to God and moral language as we use it to speak of anything and everything else. And this is a function of God's sovereignty. Willyburger hitts the nail on the head.
They aren't criticizing me for quote:
using God-given moral intuition (and a fallen version of it, at that) to judge the source of that very intuition...
They are criticizing me for using moral intuition to judge God. At all. God is not to be judged. Not by me, not (incredibly!) by Abraham, who, whatever Scripture says, was a Very Naughty Boy™ for talking back to God. That is their position. The epistemological wall you describe isn't there. They understand that their opponents are saying that their conception of God in immoral, and they are saying "We don't care! Goodness, justice and love, applied to God, mean whatever we say they do, because whatever God is, these things also are. God can be loving, good and just, and still condemn finite beings to an infinity of torture and suffering because they don't make the correct formal confession of faith in him."
Epistemology has nothing to do with it.
Grits: quote:
This really struck me as quite funny. I think this was the whole premise of the OP -- to question that doctrine.
Grits, if you were questioning this doctrine, I missed it. Your privilege, I know...
But here's one for you. How can you say that God is love, if there are times when God isn't love? If Willyburger is right, and Sharkshooterettes place a higher premium on God's sovereignty - presumably his freedom - than on any other attribute, then presumably they reject Moltmann's assertion (which I accept as fundamental) that God is love is The Basic Christian Statement.
--------------------
The opposite of faith is not doubt. The opposite of faith is certainty.
"Lle rhyfedd i falchedd fod/Yw teiau ar y tywod." (Ieuan Brydydd Hir)
Posts: 5433 | From: pOsTmOdErN dYsToPiA | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Psyduck
Ship's vacant look
# 2270
|
Posted
quote:
Epistemology has nothing to do with it.
That, I admit, was a bit sweeping. The formal procedures by which Sharkshooterettes dismiss the moral objections of their opponents, though perfunctory, do bear some resemblance to a rather violent epistemology according to which what we know of God is derived from infallible propositions contained in Scripture, which are to be accepted and correlated on the basis that each has the status of absolute truth. All roads through this kind of "epistemology" lead in short order to Dead Horse Country. If you want to call this "epistemology", I admire your charity.
--------------------
The opposite of faith is not doubt. The opposite of faith is certainty.
"Lle rhyfedd i falchedd fod/Yw teiau ar y tywod." (Ieuan Brydydd Hir)
Posts: 5433 | From: pOsTmOdErN dYsToPiA | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Lyda*Rose
Ship's broken porthole
# 4544
|
Posted
Yes, I too think the point for the pro-OP folks is that God is not loving, just, merciful, or even vindictive and terrible in any human framework. He's just God. It's his ballgame, whatever it is, and it's our place to shut up and worship 'cause it's the only game in town. ![[Paranoid]](graemlins/paranoid.gif)
Now how does that square with the part of the Trinity that is human/divine? Is there any normal human love or compassion in the Godhead? I personally think so. First, we were made in God's image and I don't believe in our ability to thwart God's plan as thoroughly as some people believe. And second, I think the Incarnation is important beyond setting up the conditions for the Sacrifice and Resurrection. We couldn't (and shouldn't) become God, but God could and did become us. He reconciled humanity to himself by the sacrifice of his omnipotence for the span of a lifetime. And as he conquered sin and death for the human within himself, he conquered them for us. ![[Tear]](graemlins/tear.gif) ![[Votive]](graemlins/votive.gif)
--------------------
"Dear God, whose name I do not know - thank you for my life. I forgot how BIG... thank you. Thank you for my life." ~from Joe Vs the Volcano
Posts: 21377 | From: CA | Registered: May 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
contouredburger
Apprentice
# 7409
|
Posted
It seems that there is general agreement at this juncture that it is an unbalanced theology that exalts one divine attribute over any other - e.g. divine sovereignty over divine love. This would appear (and I am of course willing to apologise if this is a misapprehension on my part) to be precisely the criticism of OP theology (sovereignty>love). However, whilst I would agree that there are OPers who are guilty of this, I would disagree that it is some global weakness in such a theology. Moreover, it strikes me that precisely this weakness can be found in alternatives to OP theology. For instance, God is love, and therefore God sends his Son to die for sinners. This is God acting consistently with his own nature as love. But, as an OPer, I see "the wall" arising at precisely this point in some non-OP theology, because there is a sudden chariness with other aspects of the divine character or nature. "God would not act in a manner that would contradict his loving nature" is a common refrain, and rightly so, but but why not "God would not act in a manner inconsistent with his holiness" also? I've already pointed out my own views on the consequences of God's holiness. The danger here is that we can be comfortable with one divine attribute, but overemphasise it to preclude the acceptance of divine actions that make us uncomfortable. In other words, we have the same problem as some OPers.
Not all OP, nor all non-OP theology has this imbalance. Let's all avoid stereotypes.
Posts: 46 | From: Edinburgh | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Grits
Compassionate fundamentalist
# 4169
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by pysduck:
then presumably they reject Moltmann's assertion (which I accept as fundamental) that God is love is The Basic Christian Statement.
I, of course, have no idea who Moltmann is, but let's do look at this "God is love" quotient that many seem to think is the negating factor in the OP:
Beloved, let us love one another, for love is of God; and everyone who loves is born of God and knows God. He who does not love does not know God, for God is love.
So, apparently, there are some who do not know love and do not know God. How will they be received by a God they have chosen not to know?
In this the love of God was manifested toward us, that God has sent His only begotten Son into the world, that we might live through Him. In this is love, not that we loved God, but that He loved us and sent His Son to be the propitiation for our sins.
Once again, THIS is how God shows His love for us -- by having sent His Son to provide a way of salvation for all.
Whoever confesses that Jesus is the Son of God, God abides in him, and he in God. And we have known and believed the love that God has for us. God is love, and he who abides in love abides in God, and God in him.
So... what about those who have not confessed Jesus and do not abide in God?
Love has been perfected among us in this: that we may have boldness in the day of judgment; because as He is, so are we in this world.
Why would those perfected in His love have any more advantage at judgment if we are all going to be "made whole"?
There is no fear in love; but perfect love casts out fear, because fear involves torment. But he who fears has not been made perfect in love. We love Him because He first loved us.
And that is why those of us who believe in the God of the OP can do so without fear. Abiding in His love gives us that victory.
This was just a passage I selected at random. There are many more. And then, there's Moltmann, too.
--------------------
Lord, fill my mouth with worthwhile stuff, and shut it when I've said enough. Amen.
Posts: 8419 | From: Nashville, TN | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Justinian
Shipmate
# 5357
|
Posted
Hmmm...
What about those who have not confessed Jesus?
No man hath seen God at any time. If we love one another, God dwelleth in us, and his love is perfected in us.
also
God is love; and he that dwelleth in love dwelleth in God, and God in him.
Therefore by loving our fellow man we prove that God dwells in us. Confessing Jesus, by my reading, is not the only way- if we love one another, that is sufficient. It's only grinches who do not love at all that do not dwell in God and have God dwell in them.
There goes the premise of the OP that "Anyone who does not acknowledge that Jesus is Lord here on earth will endure eternity separated from God."
And what of the hell of the OP?
God is love. ... There is no fear in love; but perfect love casts out fear, because fear involves torment.
Therefore God will not torment for he is [perfect] love. Kinda makes the hell of the OP look a bit odd.
Edited to point out that I'm using the same passage Grits selected at random.
[ 12. June 2004, 22:17: Message edited by: Justinian ]
--------------------
My real name consists of just four letters, but in billions of combinations.
Eudaimonaic Laughter - my blog.
Posts: 3926 | From: The Sea Coast of Bohemia | Registered: Dec 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Grits
Compassionate fundamentalist
# 4169
|
Posted
quote:
It's only grinches who do not love at all that do not dwell in God and have God dwell in them.
Exactly. So... what happens to them on judgment day?
quote:
Therefore God will not torment for he is [perfect] love. Kinda makes the hell of the OP look a bit odd.
Only if one has allowed the love of God to dwell in him will the fear of torment be cast out.
This has never been about people who have accepted that love. It's about the ones who have rejected it.
--------------------
Lord, fill my mouth with worthwhile stuff, and shut it when I've said enough. Amen.
Posts: 8419 | From: Nashville, TN | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Golden Key
Shipmate
# 1468
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Grits:
quote:
It's only grinches who do not love at all that do not dwell in God and have God dwell in them.
Exactly. So... what happens to them on judgment day?
God heals 'em, same as everyone else. If you are a grinch, with a heart "seven sizes too small", it's because you've been hurt and damaged.
I think whatever judgement there is, it's like a doctor saying "ok, you've got X, Y, and Z diseases--they're serious, but curable". Everything will be curable.
quote:
quote:
Therefore God will not torment for he is [perfect] love. Kinda makes the hell of the OP look a bit odd.
Only if one has allowed the love of God to dwell in him will the fear of torment be cast out.
This has never been about people who have accepted that love. It's about the ones who have rejected it.
And again, does anyone ever really, truly reject God?
--------------------
Blessed Gator, pray for us!
--"Oh bat bladders, do you have to bring common sense into this?" (Dragon, "Jane & the Dragon")
--"Oh, Peace Train, save this country!" (Yusuf/Cat Stevens, "Peace Train")
Posts: 18601 | From: Chilling out in an undisclosed, sincere pumpkin patch. | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Justinian
Shipmate
# 5357
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Grits:
quote:
It's only grinches who do not love at all that do not dwell in God and have God dwell in them.
Exactly. So... what happens to them on judgment day?
I've yet to meet any humans incapable of love and I'm not even sure such a thing classifies as human. On the other hand, I dont think the judgement is going to be comfortable for anyone.
quote:
quote:
Therefore God will not torment for he is [perfect] love. Kinda makes the hell of the OP look a bit odd.
Only if one has allowed the love of God to dwell in him will the fear of torment be cast out.
But a being who is Love will not torment. He may let you torment yourself, but that is a completely different thing from throwing you into hell and tormenting you that way. (There goes the Hell of the OP)
quote:
This has never been about people who have accepted that love. It's about the ones who have rejected it.
Not entirely.
quote:
From the OP:
Anyone who does not acknowledge that Jesus is Lord here on earth will endure eternity separated from God.
You can accept the love of God under the premises of 1 John 4 without ever acknowledging that Jesus is Lord while here on earth. You can accept the love of God under those premises while thinking that Jesus was a false prophet.
There goes another plank of the OP.
--------------------
My real name consists of just four letters, but in billions of combinations.
Eudaimonaic Laughter - my blog.
Posts: 3926 | From: The Sea Coast of Bohemia | Registered: Dec 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Grits
Compassionate fundamentalist
# 4169
|
Posted
I understand all that you say, Justinian. I just feel you are stretching your beliefs to the point of breaking, trying to encompass your definitions.
Love isn't God. God is love. There's a HUGE difference.
--------------------
Lord, fill my mouth with worthwhile stuff, and shut it when I've said enough. Amen.
Posts: 8419 | From: Nashville, TN | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Justinian
Shipmate
# 5357
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Grits:
I understand all that you say, Justinian. I just feel you are stretching your beliefs to the point of breaking, trying to encompass your definitions.
I don't think so. What breaks in my view is the OP.
You asked what I think will happen on the day of judgement: we shall be divided into the sheep and the goats. We shall all find ourselves to be one of the sheep and we shall all find ourselves to be one of the goats. The light shall strip away all illusion and pretense and show ourselves who we truly are. Such shall be the judgement and almost all shall despair, to be healed by the love of God.
quote:
Love isn't God. God is love. There's a HUGE difference.
Agreed. But being Love is a much much stronger statement than God is loving. If God is Love, he can do nothing incompatable with being Love.
--------------------
My real name consists of just four letters, but in billions of combinations.
Eudaimonaic Laughter - my blog.
Posts: 3926 | From: The Sea Coast of Bohemia | Registered: Dec 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Grits
Compassionate fundamentalist
# 4169
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Justinian:
We shall all find ourselves to be one of the sheep and we shall all find ourselves to be one of the goats. The light shall strip away all illusion and pretense and show ourselves who we truly are. Such shall be the judgement and almost all shall despair, to be healed by the love of God.
May I ask upon what this teaching is based? And please don't say the Bible.
quote:
If God is Love, he can do nothing incompatable with being Love.
And show thusly by sending His Son.
--------------------
Lord, fill my mouth with worthwhile stuff, and shut it when I've said enough. Amen.
Posts: 8419 | From: Nashville, TN | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
JimT
Ship'th Mythtic
# 142
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard:
May I ask, particularly of JimT, what is "wrong", if anything with my fundamentalism, if that's what it is, in the light of outrageous grace as will be exercised in Judgment?
Is there a philosophical, theological, moral, Christian flaw or problem in accepting the Bible as "erring" on the side of literal, especially with regard to the multiply (y = ee not I) lethal God revealed from one end of it to the other, who whilst incarnate was distinctly not and who is revealed as determined to save the vast majority of mankind after death?
My but this is awkward. I've only been asked for my blessing one time before, by a coworker who had unwittingly committed a terrible atrocity in Vietnam, was too ashamed to confess to a priest, and therefore confessed to me when he found out my father was a "priest" (country preacher and high school second shift janitor).
The JimT stamp of approval is nothing anyone should aspire to, as it obviously means absolutely nothing. I can only comment because I don't really know what exactly is right: I'm only convinced of a few things that are wrong.
Personally, I get around all the issues of "God" being seemingly unfair by making "him" essentially "impersonal." So all the apparent "unfairness" in the universe is not the "fault" or "doing" of a personal, conscious, willful, God who decides that the "unfairness" is in fact "fair." Martin PC, you retain a personal God with whom you have a personal relationship. That is outside my experience, so I can't comment on it directly.
I can give these observations and reflections:
- In my personal experience of "Fundamentalism," and by that I mean Northern Appalachian Pentecostal Holiness Fundamentalism, any form of Christianity that veers from the OP is not in fact "Fundamentalism." It goes just like Sharkshooter said. Postulating that your atheist father simply was annihilated at death instead of scheduled for eternal torture would make you too soft-headed and too soft-hearted in the Fundamentalist circles I knew. There will be torture for those who "deserve it" and those who "deserve it" is everyone, and you only get out of it by believing that the blood of Jesus got you out of it. So "your fundamentalism" is their "feel-good Oprah show liberalism."
- I personally see the depiction of God as "lethal" with power and willingness to "kill" but desirous to save all as a position that is philosophically, theologically, and morally sound, but not quite as radical as I believe Christianity to be. Eternal reward for those blessed by circumstance and death for all others is to me Rome with syringes instead of crosses. I am being provocative again. Whom did Christ come to save? The presumed hopeless and rejected by God. Not specifically whores, tax collectors, and cripples. All who were presumed beyond all shadow of doubt to be unclean, unholy, and doomed. Had I a Christianity with a personal God and a redeeming Son, he would heal the most despicable of our generation as he did those of his. He would stand in their place on the Day of Judgement and say, "I will not allow you to harm any of these; they are all mine" and he would have the power to stay the hand of an angry God or usurping Satan. He would be an even better Christ than the one of which the gospel writers, apostles, and saints, none of whom were holier than I am, have written. The Spiritual Christ. Beyond the words of the Bible.
But I have no such Christ, nor a need for one. This life, before Death, is all that I am permitted to know. This is where I must provide salt and light; soil for the growing of wheat. Whether it is harvested in this life or beyond my Death, it will be harvested, it will be eaten, it will nourish, and the chaff will return to the soil to make more wheat. That is Eternal Life to me, and I share it with your father, in whose soil you grew.
Posts: 2619 | From: Now On | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Peppone
Marine
# 3855
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Grits:
Love isn't God. God is love. There's a HUGE difference.
Must admit I'd never thought this through before, and it might even deserve its own thread, but wait a minute, if God is love, then isn't love, truly understood, God?
--------------------
I looked at the wa's o' Glasgow Cathedral, where vandals and angels painted their names,
I was clutching at straws and wrote your initials, while parish officials were safe in their hames.
Posts: 3020 | From: Hong Kong | Registered: Dec 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Psyduck
Ship's vacant look
# 2270
|
Posted
Isn't that, in a sense, what 1 John says?
--------------------
The opposite of faith is not doubt. The opposite of faith is certainty.
"Lle rhyfedd i falchedd fod/Yw teiau ar y tywod." (Ieuan Brydydd Hir)
Posts: 5433 | From: pOsTmOdErN dYsToPiA | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Justinian
Shipmate
# 5357
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Grits:
quote:
Originally posted by Justinian:
We shall all find ourselves to be one of the sheep and we shall all find ourselves to be one of the goats. The light shall strip away all illusion and pretense and show ourselves who we truly are. Such shall be the judgement and almost all shall despair, to be healed by the love of God.
May I ask upon what this teaching is based? And please don't say the Bible.
Trying to reconcile the irreconcilable. Part bible, part Lewis and keeping heaven and hell as the same place, part mysticism of various forms, part intuition, part reason and part me.
quote:
quote:
If God is Love, he can do nothing incompatable with being Love.
And show thusly by sending His Son.
Which was a big bit of evidence, but only one bit of evidence and far outweighed by the existance of hell to which people are condemed for all eternity. If people are condemed to hell for all eternity, then Jesus can be seen as a further way of tormenting humans by seeming to offer them a path and by inducing guilt. There is a good reason Hope was hidden in Pandora's Box.
--------------------
My real name consists of just four letters, but in billions of combinations.
Eudaimonaic Laughter - my blog.
Posts: 3926 | From: The Sea Coast of Bohemia | Registered: Dec 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
sungara
Shipmate
# 5605
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by JimT:
But I have no such Christ, nor a need for one.
i was with you until here - why do not need such a Christ? I do.
--------------------
unbwogable
Posts: 218 | From: kenya | Registered: Mar 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Willyburger
Ship's barber
# 658
|
Posted
quote:
Psyduck (From way back):
I think, for the record, that that's why the thread kept veering away from his intentions; the OP read like someone putting their own construal on what the Bible says, insisting "This actually is what the Bible says..." and asking - thread title - "What if I'm right...?" Which annoyed the karaoke out of people whose position was "Well, I read the same Bible, and I don't see this in there..."
After going back again and again to find a direction for this thread, I'd have to agree. The OP was written generically enough that it functions as a spiritual Rorschach test. Over the last ten pages, the discussion has ranged (or perhaps raged?) through predestination vs. free will, particular election, Hell as eternal torment vs. limited torment vs. annihilationism vs. universalism, and at one point threatened to shoot the pony over Calvinism proper once again.
Ironically, people from opposite sides of various arguments find enough to dislike in it to join forces.
--------------------
Willy, Unix Bigot, Esq.
--
Why is it that every time I go out to buy bookshelves, I come home with more books?
Posts: 835 | From: Arizona, US | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Psyduck
Ship's vacant look
# 2270
|
Posted
Contouredburger:
quote:
It seems that there is general agreement at this juncture that it is an unbalanced theology that exalts one divine attribute over any other - e.g. divine sovereignty over divine love.
I think that's charitably optimistic! I don't think that all the OPers share this sense of unbalance! I think that Willyburger is correct here. For the Sharkshoorterettes, something like God’s glory, holiness, sovereignty is so privileged that it informs the whole of the theology of this position.
quote:
This would appear (and I am of course willing to apologise if this is a misapprehension on my part) to be precisely the criticism of OP theology (sovereignty>love).
One of them, certainly. But subtly so. So absolute sovereignty is seen as the cardinal divine attribute, to the extent that God has to be seen as arbitrary in order to be God. It has to be denied that anything at all can be a factor in determining who is saved and who is lost other than God’s sovereign freedom. Note that even Augustine says that God is just, even though his justice is inscrutable – a formal co-ordination of the attributes of sovereign freedom and justice even though its outworking in Augustine’s predestinarian thought is pretty vacuous! But the Sharkshooterettes won’t even concede this. Their criterion is not God’s love, not God’s justice, not God’s mercy, but a formal acknowledgement – and the form is approved by them! – of the Lordship of Jesus. It’s the contingent acceptance of an arbitrary condition of salvation. I think overwhelmingly, the anti-Sharkshooters take greatest offence at the last clause of the credo: quote:
Anyone who does not acknowledge that Jesus is Lord here on earth will endure eternity separated from God.
because it enshrines this.
quote:
However, whilst I would agree that there are OPers who are guilty of this, I would disagree that it is some global weakness in such a theology.
Noted. Mebbes aye, mebbes naw. I think you have your work cut out here! quote:
Moreover, it strikes me that precisely this weakness can be found in alternatives to OP theology.
Some, maybe… But as you well know, that’s not a counter-argument. For instance, it’s not found in mine! quote:
For instance, God is love, and therefore God sends his Son to die for sinners. This is God acting consistently with his own nature as love. But, as an OPer, I see "the wall" arising at precisely this point in some non-OP theology, because there is a sudden chariness with other aspects of the divine character or nature.
I think this is very fair. I think it's a salient criticism of a fair amount of liberal theology. But only if the selected attribute is used to characterize God exclusively. If the highlighted attribute is deployed to co-ordinate and interpret the other attributes of God, then such a theology needs to be judged on its merits, in the terms you suggested earlier, of faithfulness to revelation. (We still haven’t defined revelation, though, have we! Don’t think I haven’t noticed…) I’d go so far as to say that every last theology ever constructed highlights a fundamental attribute of God. If you can think of one that treats all attributes equally, I’d love to hear about it! But of course, to do that, you’d need a complete and authoritative inventory of divine attributes as either a starting-point, or as a check at the end that you’d actually done justice to them all. Oh, and just to cut off one avenue of escape, if anyone was thinking of saying that Scripture is such an inventory of divine attributes, and an inspired, authoritative one, then be it noted that that is almost certainly (though it’s unstated) the starting point of the OP, and look at how unbalanced that theology is from its highlighting of one attribute. quote:
"God would not act in a manner that would contradict his loving nature" is a common refrain, and rightly so, but but why not "God would not act in a manner inconsistent with his holiness" also?
The question, though, arising out of your own very valid observatoions above, is “What happens when God’s actions in defence of his holiness are co-ordinated by his attribute of love?” I don’t think that the answer to that is anything like the OP.
My criticism of the OP stance is that God's postulated actions in defence of his injured holiness are utterly uncoordinated with his loving nature with regard to a very large section - probably the vast majority - of humanity. Towards them, God simply is not love. And it's not just within a high-Calvinist framework in which God loves only the elect. Enter Amazonian tribes, stage left. Or many in situations of urban deprivation in - well, Scotland. Here, an Arminian and free-will approach is actually more scary than a deterministic one – because God manages to have it both ways. He damns people to hell on the basis of a free will which they possess that is actually unable to mesh with any choices that might have saved them. It’s like a car with superb road-holding capacities being driven off a cliff, and blamed for loss of tyre-grip.
Which begs the question - what would the actions of a loving, holy God be in the situation of a fallen world and a fallen sinful humanity? Is there really any doubt that the Biblical answer here is in terms of love and grace? And yet, the OP faith's concentration is on the defence of God's holiness. Let God sort out love and grace. Our job is to proclaim his holiness. And if that means that love and grace are reduced to meaningless shells of concepts, axiomatically applied to God without any recognizable traces of their meaning for us (even if we learned that meaning from Jesus Christ) - well, tough.
That's not the Gospel, The Gospel is about the God who comes in love and grace in Jesus Christ, who, being holy, does not think to snatch at his status - or holiness - but lays these things aside to be found in the form of a slave. Why are we afraid to let God take care of his holiness, and rejoice in his love and grace? The trouble is that there is a Scriptural rank-ordering of the divine attributes. Holiness - and all the other attributes - co-ordinated by love produce a concept of God which is pretty much what is revealed to us in Jesus Christ. The divine attributes co-ordinated by anything other than love produce distortions which immediately redned the God of Jesus Christ hard – if not impossible – to recognize. Exhibit A – the Original Post.
But if all theologies must begin by identifying an organizing attribute of God, why shoud we be surprised that a theology that prioritizes love produces a theology that is recognizably Christian? Because a theology that organizes God’s glory, God’s holiness, God’s oneness, God’s omnipotence, God’s omniscience under the rubric of God is Love leads directly from Scripture to a Trinitarian understanding of God. Well, directly in maybe 380 years or so. The uncreated, omnipotent God of Glory who is love in his inmost being, and whose love and grace overflow in creation, redemption and the hope of glory for all creation, the God of Christian orthodoxy, isn’t a God you can get to from any starting point but the Incarnate Christ, the Word made Flesh, the great revelatory statement of God which says before all else “God is love”.
Start anywhere else, and see what you get. Quite possibly the God of the OP. And the trouble is that if you start anywhere else than "God is love", you wind up with a God who - many of us seem to agree - isn't love at all. Either "God is love" really is the fundamental insight, or it can't be fitted in anywhere.
--------------------
The opposite of faith is not doubt. The opposite of faith is certainty.
"Lle rhyfedd i falchedd fod/Yw teiau ar y tywod." (Ieuan Brydydd Hir)
Posts: 5433 | From: pOsTmOdErN dYsToPiA | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Peppone
Marine
# 3855
|
Posted
psyduck, thanks. ![[Overused]](graemlins/notworthy.gif)
You can really write.
--------------------
I looked at the wa's o' Glasgow Cathedral, where vandals and angels painted their names,
I was clutching at straws and wrote your initials, while parish officials were safe in their hames.
Posts: 3020 | From: Hong Kong | Registered: Dec 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Beveridge
Apprentice
# 7354
|
Posted
if it was true it obvious what to do: whatever god wants you to.
Posts: 1 | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
sharkshooter
Not your average shark
# 1589
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Willyburger:
[this doctrine] put the bar very high for sovereignty. Any theology which challenges that would be, by definition, inferior.
Exactly.
If God is not sovereign, is He God, or is he a god? Is a non-sovereign god worthy of worship? Not in my mind - for that is not God.
--------------------
Let the words of my mouth, and the meditation of my heart, be acceptable in thy sight, O LORD, my strength, and my redeemer. [Psalm 19:14]
Posts: 7772 | From: Canada; Washington DC; Phoenix; it's complicated | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
contouredburger
Apprentice
# 7409
|
Posted
Psyduck,
May I begin by agreeing with Peppone that you really do have a way with words!
That's enough sycophancy, on with the plot. The Incarnation does indeed reveal the nature of God as love, granted. This can be seen in the self-limitation God is willing to undergo in order to live a human life and die a human death. However, these two facts of the Son of God living and dying as a human could just as easily be co-ordinated around two other divine attributes - namely the divine sovereignty and the divine holiness. To address the first one, and at the risk of coming over all Barthian, the self-limitation of God in the Incarnation reveals the power and majesty of God. Who other than the sovereign Lord could undergo such a self-contradiction and yet remain him/herself? Second, let us remember why Christ lived and died - in order to redeem humanity from the penalty of sin. Christ himself talked consistently if not constantly about the need for repentance in order to escape hell. Christ is the only one to have ever lived a sinless and holy human life before God. Therefore, the co-ordinating attribute as derived from the Incarnation could just as easily be the holiness of God. In fact, as we are all too aware, there are extreme OPers who look to the atoning death of Christ and see the co-ordinating divine attribute as wrathfulness. God forbid we ever come to that point in sane conversation... ![[Projectile]](graemlins/puke2.gif) My point, if anybody has been kind enough to remain with me through this ramble, is that it is quite possible to co-ordinate the love of God through holiness/sovereignty and IMHO this actually accentuates the love of God, insofar as it affirms that God did - but did not have - to become incarnate and redeem us.
Finally, I'm not sure how we get from love as the co-ordinating divine attribute to the doctrine of the Trinity, unless you mean that only such a co-ordinating divine attribute can make sense of the Incarnation, which in turn is essential for a doctrine of the Trinity. However, I would argue that divine sovereignty or holiness could "do the job" just as well. God is triune, and so exists in a manner we can barely conceive of in a perfect life of complete satisfaction. Sounds like sovereignty and holiness (and love) to me.
P.S. Could we really discuss revelation and forms of revelation without starting a new thread, which I feel might gallop swiftly into the land of the dead nag?
--------------------
I seem to be having tremendous difficulty with my lifestyle
Posts: 46 | From: Edinburgh | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
sharkshooter
Not your average shark
# 1589
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by JimT:
... The OP asks me to be literal. So I am being literal. It asks what I would think and how I would behave; what the impact would be if I thought it true. ...
I already know; it would give me a very, very literal view of the Creation Story. So let me think:
1. God says that if you eat of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, you will die. A serpent tells Eve that she will not in fact die, but will simply know good and evil, as God does, and that God does not want this. What happens? They eat, they do not die, and they know good and evil. God now says, man has eaten of the tree of good and evil and become like us; he must not also eat of the tree of life or he will live forever. The original lie of God, that they would die if they ate of good and evil is now completely exposed. Man was going to die all along; eternal life requires eating from a second tree. "God" is a liar and the serpent was telling the truth.
JimT, I don't know where you came up with that interpretation, but it would make a fascinating discussion. I have never heard anyone say that the death of Adam and Eve was to be immediate (which you stated in a later post than the quoted one) because the fruit was poison. Indeed, man was created to live forever (and that is why early man lived some 900 years), and death did come, not from the eating of the apple, but from the desire to become more like God, knowing good from evil. That sin to which Satan previously gave into, was thus passed on to mankind. This was the sin that caused the fall.
But then, you don't believe any of it, for if you believe God lies, you do not know God.
--------------------
Let the words of my mouth, and the meditation of my heart, be acceptable in thy sight, O LORD, my strength, and my redeemer. [Psalm 19:14]
Posts: 7772 | From: Canada; Washington DC; Phoenix; it's complicated | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
JimT
Ship'th Mythtic
# 142
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by sharkshooter:
quote:
Originally posted by JimT:
... The OP asks me to be literal. So I am being literal. It asks what I would think and how I would behave; what the impact would be if I thought it true. ...
I already know; it would give me a very, very literal view of the Creation Story. So let me think:
1. God says that if you eat of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, you will die. A serpent tells Eve that she will not in fact die, but will simply know good and evil, as God does, and that God does not want this. What happens? They eat, they do not die, and they know good and evil. God now says, man has eaten of the tree of good and evil and become like us; he must not also eat of the tree of life or he will live forever. The original lie of God, that they would die if they ate of good and evil is now completely exposed. Man was going to die all along; eternal life requires eating from a second tree. "God" is a liar and the serpent was telling the truth.
JimT, I don't know where you came up with that interpretation, but it would make a fascinating discussion.
I would like very much to have that discussion and will start a thread in Kerygmania.
Posts: 2619 | From: Now On | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Willyburger
Ship's barber
# 658
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by sharkshooter:
quote:
Originally posted by Willyburger:
[this doctrine] put the bar very high for sovereignty. Any theology which challenges that would be, by definition, inferior.
Exactly.
If God is not sovereign, is He God, or is he a god? Is a non-sovereign god worthy of worship? Not in my mind - for that is not God.
No disagreement on that. However, possessing an attribute does not require the blind exercise of that attribute, nor is it clear to me that sovereignty demands a higher place than mercy or love within the Godhead. Is God subordinate to His attributes?
--------------------
Willy, Unix Bigot, Esq.
--
Why is it that every time I go out to buy bookshelves, I come home with more books?
Posts: 835 | From: Arizona, US | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Psyduck
Ship's vacant look
# 2270
|
Posted
Willyburger: quote:
Is God subordinate to His attributes?
Give this man the Templeton Prize for Progress in Science and Religion immediately. Or at least a cigar...
Is that not an interesting question?
--------------------
The opposite of faith is not doubt. The opposite of faith is certainty.
"Lle rhyfedd i falchedd fod/Yw teiau ar y tywod." (Ieuan Brydydd Hir)
Posts: 5433 | From: pOsTmOdErN dYsToPiA | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
Just what i was thinking, psyduck.
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Justinian
Shipmate
# 5357
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Willyburger:
Is God subordinate to His attributes?
Is that even a meaningful question.
Sharkshooter, God is sovereign and hence doesn't need to go round pointing this out. It's only the insecure who need to demonstrate their power.
--------------------
My real name consists of just four letters, but in billions of combinations.
Eudaimonaic Laughter - my blog.
Posts: 3926 | From: The Sea Coast of Bohemia | Registered: Dec 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Psyduck
Ship's vacant look
# 2270
|
Posted
quote:
Is that even a meaningful question.
Well, if it's not - how come you gave it a meaningful answer? See -
quote:
Sharkshooter, God is sovereign and hence doesn't need to go round pointing this out. It's only the insecure who need to demonstrate their power.
--------------------
The opposite of faith is not doubt. The opposite of faith is certainty.
"Lle rhyfedd i falchedd fod/Yw teiau ar y tywod." (Ieuan Brydydd Hir)
Posts: 5433 | From: pOsTmOdErN dYsToPiA | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Justinian
Shipmate
# 5357
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by sharkshooter:
JimT, I don't know where you came up with that interpretation, but it would make a fascinating discussion. I have never heard anyone say that the death of Adam and Eve was to be immediate (which you stated in a later post than the quoted one) because the fruit was poison.
Search page 8 for a reply I made to Grits, complete with proof texts. (One reason I consider proof-texting silly)
quote:
Indeed, man was created to live forever (and that is why early man lived some 900 years), and death did come, not from the eating of the apple, but from the desire to become more like God, knowing good from evil.
So it's a choice between breathing and not ever gaining anything (if you can't tell good from bad, you've just got knowledge, without either understanding or living) and a short life in which you grow, gain understanding and wisdom and actually do things. I'll take the short but meaningful life, thanks and if this isn't what God wants, he is an incredibly bad craftsman.
quote:
But then, you don't believe any of it, for if you believe God lies, you do not know God.
Tell that to Jonah! God either is not omniscient with respect to events in the future or lied to him.
Or are you going to dismiss about half the OT now in accordance with your reading of the bible?
--------------------
My real name consists of just four letters, but in billions of combinations.
Eudaimonaic Laughter - my blog.
Posts: 3926 | From: The Sea Coast of Bohemia | Registered: Dec 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view
