|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: Purgatory: What if I'm right?
|
QLib
Bad Example
# 43
|
Posted
The thing is, Lep, that my opinion on your view of God is based on what has been posted on this thread, that is, your defence of a God who condemns non-Christians to an eternity in Hell. Nothing posted on this thread – or anywhere else on the Ship, I’d care to wager – suggests that anyone here supports the view of God suggested by Martin. I wouldn’t expect someone who sanctifies Clint Eastwood’s macho cinematic posturings to understand a ‘liberal’ view of God, but I would expect him not to repeatedly and deliberately mis-represent it. But no, here he goes again:
quote:
The liberal God could not possibly care about our pain.
What evidence do you have for this Martin? It’s a lie.
P.S. And this is similarly rubbish: quote:
originally posted by DoD: ...the God suggested by many liberal accounts both cares about our pain and (in the divine nature) shares it, it's just that (S)He can't do very much about it.
--------------------
Tradition is the handing down of the flame, not the worship of the ashes Gustav Mahler.
Posts: 8913 | From: Page 28 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Divine Outlaw
Gin-soaked boy
# 2252
|
Posted
Qlib get a dictionary and look up the word 'many' as distinct from 'all'. I used it deliberately. I was not commenting on your personal doctrine of God. It is a matter of fact that many current Christian doctrines of God, which would be classed as liberal, involve :-
(a.) Divine passibility.
(b.) Limits on divine omnipotence.
(c.) Suspicion of grand historical narratives, and therefore of universal eschatological salvation.
Thus my criticisms.
--------------------
insert amusing sig. here
Posts: 8705 | Registered: Jan 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
QLib
Bad Example
# 43
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Divine Outlaw-Dwarf: (a.) Divine passibility.
(b.) Limits on divine omnipotence.
(c.) Suspicion of grand historical narratives, and therefore of universal eschatological salvation.Thus my criticisms.
I am one of the 'many' who believes in 'limits on divine omnipotence' (though both you and I know that it is not a simple as that). But, you see, the thing is this: these are explanations or interpretations of what we all observe, which is that, in this world, Evil often flourishes, 'like the green bay tree'. Your God is no more or less powerful than mine
--------------------
Tradition is the handing down of the flame, not the worship of the ashes Gustav Mahler.
Posts: 8913 | From: Page 28 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Justinian
Shipmate
# 5357
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard:
Rot in Hell alone Qlib.
The liberal God could not possibly care about our pain.
It is insensate to it or worse. Just like the hyperCalvinist one.
Not so. Why else the incarnation?
quote:
If it cared it would do something about it.
Unless it is NECESSARY.
Necessary or desirable.
Do parents raise their children in a padded room permenantly, or do they let them make some of their own mistakes- and more as they get older?
The avoidance of pain is not the highest goal there can be.
quote:
Which isn't very liberal.
Not hyper-liberal certainly, but most liberals acknowledge that bowing before the laws of physics is necessary.
--------------------
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
|
|
Divine Outlaw
Gin-soaked boy
# 2252
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Qlib:
But, you see, the thing is this: these are explanations or interpretations of what we all observe, which is that, in this world, Evil often flourishes, 'like the green bay tree'.
It is one explanation, I agree. Whether it is the best explanation is something we clearly disagree on.
[Fixed rogue [i]]
[ 17. June 2004, 01:02: Message edited by: Duo Seraphim ]
--------------------
insert amusing sig. here
Posts: 8705 | Registered: Jan 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
QLib
Bad Example
# 43
|
Posted
We can't disagree on that yet, because I haven't actually explained what my explanation is.
--------------------
Tradition is the handing down of the flame, not the worship of the ashes Gustav Mahler.
Posts: 8913 | From: Page 28 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Divine Outlaw
Gin-soaked boy
# 2252
|
Posted
True. A line I've often heard is :-
P1: God is loving.
P2: A loving being would remove all evil that it has the power to.
P3: There is evil.
C: God is not omnipotent.
where P1 is derived from experience of God's love and P2 is taken to be self-evident. I'd doubt P2 actually. I think there may well be reasons why a God might not remove all evil at any given moment - which we can begin to understand by dim analogy with human experience (does a human parent remove all sources of evil from her child, for example?). I think God's goodness entails that all evil is conquered eschatologically, which is why I think that there can be no definitive answer to the problem of evil until the end of history. I also think that omnipotence, understood as dominion over all that exists, is probably entailed by the doctrine of creatio ex nihilo. If everything exists only because God wills it to be, and if God could make it cease to be at any moment, it seems strange to then say that God cannot do what God wills with it, to my mind at least.
--------------------
insert amusing sig. here
Posts: 8705 | Registered: Jan 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
QLib
Bad Example
# 43
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Divine Outlaw-Dwarf:
I think God's goodness entails that all evil is conquered eschatologically, which is why I think that there can be no definitive answer to the problem of evil until the end of history. I also think that omnipotence, understood as dominion over all that exists, is probably entailed by the doctrine of creatio ex nihilo.
Agreed. Only I think that God is not functionally omnipotent in 'the World', either because He 'chooses' not to be... or because that's just the way it is. I'm not sure that, from our present perspective, we can distinguish between those two alternatives and neither do I think there is much point in trying. But we digress.....
Posts: 8913 | From: Page 28 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
QLib
Bad Example
# 43
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Qlib:
quote:
Originally posted by Divine Outlaw-Dwarf: I think God's goodness entails that all evil is conquered eschatologically, which is why I think that there can be no definitive answer to the problem of evil until the end of history. I also think that omnipotence, understood as dominion over all that exists, is probably entailed by the doctrine of creatio ex nihilo.
Agreed. Only I think that God is not functionally* omnipotent in 'the World', either because He 'chooses' not to be... or because that's just the way it is. I'm not sure that, from our present perspective, we can distinguish between those two alternatives and neither do I think there is much point in trying. But we digress.....
Edited to say: *And that's still a gross over-simplification, but this isn't the place to go into detail.
--------------------
Tradition is the handing down of the flame, not the worship of the ashes Gustav Mahler.
Posts: 8913 | From: Page 28 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
Divine Outlaw
Gin-soaked boy
# 2252
|
Posted
I could go along with the 'He chooses not to be option', although I think that describing it in terms of limitations of omnipotence is misleading. Some theologians have talked about God making 'space' for creation to be. This, I think, is OK - God makes something which is not God to be, and doesn't (for whatever reason) 'act' in regard to this as 'much' as God likes. As the inverted commas suggest, I think our langauge falls apart at this point!
--------------------
insert amusing sig. here
Posts: 8705 | Registered: Jan 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
sanc
Shipmate
# 6355
|
Posted
can GOD's omnipotence be brought into question if a few of HIS creature endowed with freewill decides not to do HIS will? the connotation that this argument suggests is that the evildoer can be omniponent as well if not more so, in that he continue to exist inspite of a powerful GOD who frowns on his ways.
evil undo the evildoer. GOD is not diminished or made greater by our actions.
--------------------
I am, therefore I think.
Posts: 358 | From: Philippines | Registered: May 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
QLib
Bad Example
# 43
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Divine Outlaw-Dwarf:
I think our langauge falls apart at this point!
Indeed.
But I think this thread is now in its death throes. We're hopelessly adrift from the OP, aren't we? Posting here is beginning to feel indecent.
--------------------
Tradition is the handing down of the flame, not the worship of the ashes Gustav Mahler.
Posts: 8913 | From: Page 28 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Divine Outlaw
Gin-soaked boy
# 2252
|
Posted
And we were almost in agreement!
![[Waterworks]](graemlins/bawling.gif)
------
Is the OPer aware that 'those who do not acknowledge Jesus is Lord' are the majority of human beings who have ever lived?
[sorted UBB]
[ 16. June 2004, 22:33: Message edited by: Divine Outlaw-Dwarf ]
--------------------
insert amusing sig. here
Posts: 8705 | Registered: Jan 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Duo Seraphim*
Sea lawyer
# 3251
|
Posted
Hosting
Martin PCNot& Ship's Biohazard - it is a matter of complete indifference to me whether you choose to post in Hell or not. This
quote:
Rot in Hell alone Qlib.
is completely unacceptable in Purgatory. Kindly apologise to Qlib for it.
Duo Seraphim, Purgatory Host
--------------------
2^8, eight bits to a byte
Posts: 3967 | From: Sydney Australia | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Martin60
Shipmate
# 368
|
Posted
Very well Duo, I unreservedly apologize Qlib. What for I'm not quite sure ![[Smile]](smile.gif) I was referring to the infernal region on this site. Under no circumstances would I want anyone jumping through the fiery hoop of Gehenna to oblivion. I will continue my responses on this thread and invite Qlib to do the same, unless the indifferent powers, consensus, custom, practice and etiquette decree otherwise.
--------------------
Love wins
Posts: 17586 | From: Never Dobunni after all. Corieltauvi after all. Just moved to the capital. | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Martin60
Shipmate
# 368
|
Posted
I find it interesting, Leprechaun, that you find my utter anathematization of the God of the OP to be a misrepresentation of the Evangelical God. I'm Anglican Evangelical by most recent practice. Will be again this Sunday.
I didn't realise that it was de rigeur for Evangelicals to believe that now is the only day of salvation and that unless one has taken the Dalek oath of allegiance to Jesus-Davros (who has come again! He's in AMBRIDGE!!) before one pops one's clogs, then one really must go straight to a mish-mash of Tartaroo-Gehenna via Hades-Sheol to chew one's tongue forever.
--------------------
Love wins
Posts: 17586 | From: Never Dobunni after all. Corieltauvi after all. Just moved to the capital. | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Justinian
Shipmate
# 5357
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by sanc:
can GOD's omnipotence be brought into question if a few of HIS creature endowed with freewill decides not to do HIS will? the connotation that this argument suggests is that the evildoer can be omniponent as well if not more so, in that he continue to exist inspite of a powerful GOD who frowns on his ways.
No. Just because God is omnipotent (and therefore can act) doesn't mean he must act. (Actually if he had to act in such a situation, it would be more of a challenge to his omnipotence).
--------------------
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
|
|
Martin60
Shipmate
# 368
|
Posted
Justinian, my esteemed co-denizen, shall we continue here appropriately while our ids battle it out below?
Me1: The liberal God could not possibly care about our pain.
It is insensate to it or worse. Just like the hyperCalvinist one.'
You1: Not so. Why else the incarnation?
Me2: Good point. Why indeed? 'I'll join you in this arbitrary meaningless slough of pain that I let happen, sorry about that' Why? We certainly don't need salvation, forgiveness, anything except our 'rights' to eternal paradise. Or what? I can speculate about many reasons, some quite 'nice'.
Me1: If it cared it would do something about it.
Unless it is NECESSARY.
You1: Necessary or desirable.
Do parents raise their children in a padded room permenantly, or do they let them make some of their own mistakes- and more as they get older?
The avoidance of pain is not the highest goal there can be.
Me2: A useless analogy. Good meaningless rhetoric. So what higher goal is achieved with pain?
Me1: Which isn't very liberal.
You1: Not hyper-liberal certainly, but most liberals acknowledge that bowing before the laws of physics is necessary.
Me2: What has that got to do with anything? Can you join up the dots please?
Hall effect: When charged particles flow through a tube which has both an electric field and a magnetic field (perpendicular to the electric field) present in it, only certain velocities of the charged particles are preferred, and will make it undeviated through the tube; the rest will be deflected into the sides. This effect is exploited in such devices as the mass spectrometer and in the Thompson experiment. This is called the Hall effect. Copyright © 2004 Erik Max Francis. All rights reserved.
=
billions of years of arbitrary, random, meaningless agony
Why is that desirable?
--------------------
Love wins
Posts: 17586 | From: Never Dobunni after all. Corieltauvi after all. Just moved to the capital. | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Justinian
Shipmate
# 5357
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard:
Justinian, my esteemed co-denizen, shall we continue here appropriately while our ids battle it out below?
Me1: The liberal God could not possibly care about our pain.
It is insensate to it or worse. Just like the hyperCalvinist one.'
You1: Not so. Why else the incarnation?
Me2: Good point. Why indeed? 'I'll join you in this arbitrary meaningless slough of pain that I let happen, sorry about that' Why? We certainly don't need salvation, forgiveness, anything except our 'rights' to eternal paradise. Or what? I can speculate about many reasons, some quite 'nice'.
To provide an example (Abelard IIRC). The whold Christus Victor model.
Who said anything about "rights" to eternal paradise other than you, Martin? If you'll read back, I certainly haven't.
quote:
The avoidance of pain is not the highest goal there can be.
Me2: A useless analogy. Good meaningless rhetoric. So what higher goal is achieved with pain?
Learning? Wisdom? It's a necessity for free will to work effectively? Pick one or think of another.
quote:
Me1: Which isn't very liberal.
You1: Not hyper-liberal certainly, but most liberals acknowledge that bowing before the laws of physics is necessary.
Me2: What has that got to do with anything? Can you join up the dots please?
One of the reasons God acts in the way he does- so as not to disturb creation and hence make it meaningless.
quote:
billions of years of arbitrary, random, meaningless agony
Why is that desirable?
If it is it isn't, but it isn't so it is.
And what do you believe in? Nothing? Or how do you answer your own questions?
[ 17. June 2004, 17:47: 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
|
|
Martin60
Shipmate
# 368
|
Posted
My dear Justinian.
What do I believe?
That this is the best of all possible worlds. Right now. That it always has been. That there is no alternative, no better way, no easier way.
That God does not patronize us. That His biblical self-disclosure at every point and all points is accurate and not subject to fundamental type change, revision, rationalization: that Eden isn't a metaphor for evolution. That He isn't bound by our literary genres. That He killed and will kill again. That He has impossible standards for human behaviour, including our sex lives, desires and fantasies, which condemn us all. That He is Righteous Judge, King, warrior, conqueror, perfect, jealous, saviour, father, brother, mother, lover, outrageously liberal in grace, in forgiveness and mercy, capable of saving all but the theoretical fully free willed post-mortem reprobate.
That His intervention in history and individual lives and minds is minimal, absolutely minimal. Deftly so. With enormous impact too big for most to see on both scales.
That He helplessly shares all suffering.
That He will make it all, all right, soon.
--------------------
Love wins
Posts: 17586 | From: Never Dobunni after all. Corieltauvi after all. Just moved to the capital. | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Psyduck
Ship's vacant look
# 2270
|
Posted
I think that what Martin PC Not just said (with the possible exception of what he seems to say about the Bible*) is actually not that far from what I mean when I say that God is love. On the other hand, I'm prefectly clear that what Ender's Shadow imputes to me is absolutely not what I mean when I say that God is love. I think he thinks that I mean that "God is nice"... I don't.
Martin - a thought. If what you mean about the Bible is along the lines of "The Bible is just exactly the way God wants it to be, thank you very much..." then we may not be too far apart even 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
|
|
Martin60
Shipmate
# 368
|
Posted
Dear oh dear. Now what? Cuh. Fuh.
--------------------
Love wins
Posts: 17586 | From: Never Dobunni after all. Corieltauvi after all. Just moved to the capital. | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Psyduck
Ship's vacant look
# 2270
|
Posted
Errr... duh? (Seems to follow...)
--------------------
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 Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard:
What do I believe?
That this is the best of all possible worlds. Right now. That it always has been. That there is no alternative, no better way, no easier way.
Does that make you an optimist or a pessamist?
quote:
That God does not patronize us. That His biblical self-disclosure at every point and all points is accurate and not subject to fundamental type change, revision, rationalization: that Eden isn't a metaphor for evolution. That He isn't bound by our literary genres. That He killed and will kill again. That He has impossible standards for human behaviour, including our sex lives, desires and fantasies, which condemn us all. That He is Righteous Judge, King, warrior, conqueror, perfect, jealous, saviour, father, brother, mother, lover, outrageously liberal in grace, in forgiveness and mercy, capable of saving all but the theoretical fully free willed post-mortem reprobate.
I have few problems with that.
quote:
That His intervention in history and individual lives and minds is minimal, absolutely minimal. Deftly so. With enormous impact too big for most to see on both scales.
And that's a deft way of putting what I've been trying to get at.
quote:
That He helplessly shares all suffering.
That He will make it all, all right, soon.
Not sure what you mean by 'soon'. Otherwise we seem to be in basic agreement.
--------------------
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
|
|
Russ
Old salt
# 120
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard:
Eden isn't a metaphor for evolution
You're right, it isn't. Being cast out of Eden is a metaphor for being cast out of the womb, which every living one of us was. Not our fault, but necessary for our growth and development. Which I think is what you're saying about pain in general.
quote:
this is the best of all possible worlds. Right now. That it always has been. That there is no alternative, no better way, no easier way.
Yes again. If the only things that can be morally right or wrong are the choices that intelligent beings make, then the goodness of God-as-Creator is precisely the question of how this universe compares with all the possible universes that he chose not to make instead.
Which in one sense is something we can never know. We have no knowledge of other possible universes. What we have is imagination.
We can imagine better universes than this. Universes very similar with only small changes; universes where pain is fleeting and joy long-lived, instead of the other way around.
Who can say whether they are possible ? What meta-Creator laid down the rules to say what acts of Creation are and are not possible ?
Russ
--------------------
Wish everyone well; the enemy is not people, the enemy is wrong ideas
Posts: 3169 | From: rural Ireland | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Wood
The Milkman of Human Kindness
# 7
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Russ:
quote:
Originally posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard:
Eden isn't a metaphor for evolution
You're right, it isn't. Being cast out of Eden is a metaphor for being cast out of the womb, which every living one of us was. Not our fault, but necessary for our growth and development. Which I think is what you're saying about pain in general.
...rather than a more general metaphor for the human condition, you mean?
Seriously, you can't really say it's a definitive metaphor for the womb.
--------------------
Narcissism.
Posts: 7842 | From: Wood Towers | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Martin60
Shipmate
# 368
|
Posted
Justinian - we all die soon enough! And I have a side bet on imminent eschatological fulfilment.
So I'm a cock-eyed optimist! I certainly don't want to live to see the Beast and his Prophet, the Whore and the gang all being terminally fulfilled again, but it would bring matters to a close!
Rewinding:
Perhaps it would be interesting to map out chronologically how God is biblically revealed: the anthropomorphic and other roles in sequence with provisos for later editing.
How quickly does He become legislator, judge, executioner, advocate, priest, king? In repeated waves from the beginning: Eden - whatever it was, Noah, Abraham, the Exodus big time.
He finds a way to partly redeem us from His wrath, or at least the Jews, in the sacrificial system.
But His law means death. For everyone. Everyone fails. He angrily condemns us all, no matter how innocent. Sin, alienation, no matter how acquired is utterly unacceptable, unforgivable. There was no after life for the Jews, certainly for no one else. Moses, Abraham and David had inklings, as members of the Church ahead of time, but not a lot to go on to say the least.
Since Eden, for Eden and for ourselves, without the law and within it, we are all dead. Alienated to oblivion.
We cannot come, evolve, negotiate, repent to God the holy, the perfect, the righteous. We cannot ever reconcile to Him.
I'm not justifying it, not justifying God being this way, being an angry legalist, apart from surrendering to His right to be so in His perfection, but surely this is how He presents Himself for 4000 years at least.
This is the legal position, surely, up until He reconciled us to Himself as Jesus.
And this is not a metaphoric, allegorical, anthropomorphism. It's horribly real, backed up by His ancient lethality.
Unless that is pure social evolution on our part: externalization of the ideal bronze-age self. Our misattribution of the weather.
Which has no milage for me whatsoever I'm afraid. No credibility at all.
I say this to attempt to rewind on the paragraph to which you said 'I have few problems with that'.
I'll take a breath there look forward to your response.
Regards - Martin
--------------------
Love wins
Posts: 17586 | From: Never Dobunni after all. Corieltauvi after all. Just moved to the capital. | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Justinian
Shipmate
# 5357
|
Posted
Law is necessary for human beings in order to be able to function at anything like their potential (rather than devolve straight into Might Makes Right). While Man (or rather Society) was immature enough to be unable to come up with such a system, God handed them down in addition to guidelines like the Golden Rule. He gradually had to do less and less enforcement of such rules as the OT went on. When a significant proportion of Society was capable of coming up with such rules for itself, the rules given by God directly ceased to be Necessary as we could do that much for ourselves, and God folded the removal of that one of his functions into the many, many things accomplished by the incarnation.
--------------------
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
|
|
Martin60
Shipmate
# 368
|
Posted
Ah, we agree then! '...the many, many things accomplished by the incarnation.' United at that point regardless of how we get there?
--------------------
Love wins
Posts: 17586 | From: Never Dobunni after all. Corieltauvi after all. Just moved to the capital. | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Justinian
Shipmate
# 5357
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard:
Ah, we agree then! '...the many, many things accomplished by the incarnation.' United at that point regardless of how we get there?
Yes, but the 'how we get there' and the why are in many ways more important than the what
--------------------
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
|
|
Martin60
Shipmate
# 368
|
Posted
Indupitably.
--------------------
Love wins
Posts: 17586 | From: Never Dobunni after all. Corieltauvi after all. Just moved to the capital. | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Matt Black
Shipmate
# 2210
|
Posted
Some further musings ref the problem with 'God the Monster' of the OT.
Jesus said the key ... He "came to seek and to save that which was lost." God the Father is judgmental of sin. He will deal with sin in the strongest of ways. That does not make Him a monster ... unless we are going to recreate God in our own image and thoughts. The problem of the liberal is that he/she wants to redefine the eternal God and Creator in their own ways. "If God is this way - I can't accept Him."
Conservative Christians do not have a higher understanding of God. We simply trust the Scriptures to be valid and the revealed God to be Who He is. Our finite minds will not be able to deal with Who God is ... so we have to trust that it will make sense when we can see the infinite and comprehend Him.
It simply comes down to - will you accept and worship the one who made you or will you decide who is God to you? The created never can decide anything about the creator.
We live in a day of opinions ... even in the church. Although God does care what a person's opinion of Him is, the opinion does not change Who He is. And in the church, God does not want our opinions making the decisions. The only opinion which ultimately matters is God's opinion. God will define Himself.
The problem is that most people have a square concept of God or a circle concept of God and then try to squeeze everything into it until it fits. Instead of trying to force God into our preconceived notions, wouldn't it be better to just learn what God is like and let the chips fall where they may. Each new thing we learn about God shouldn't modify our concept of God, it should add to it. It's like a painting with each new stoke enhancing the picture. It isn't a receipe with each new ingredient diluting and changing the previous ingredients.
Some people, unfortunately, are forced into a Scripture non-response by their pre-conceived notions. They have determined ahead of time what type of character God must have. Then, they reject anything that disappoints their view. They are not dealing with God and Scripture from a credible academic perspective. No honest scholarship starts with a finished product ... honest scholarship demands a discovery (and with things about God, faith acceptance of those discoveries).
Consider 1 John 2:19
(Realising this is approaching convergence with the Inerrancy dead horse)
Yours in Christ
Matt
[ 21. June 2004, 08:24: Message edited by: Matt Black ]
--------------------
"Protestant and Reformed, according to the Tradition of the ancient Catholic Church" - + John Cosin (1594-1672)
Posts: 14304 | From: Hampshire, UK | Registered: Jan 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Psyduck
Ship's vacant look
# 2270
|
Posted
Matt Black: quote:
We simply trust the Scriptures to be valid and the revealed God to be Who He is.
So how is your position different to mine - except that you hold that Scripture is the primary revelation, and I hold that Jesus Christ is? quote:
Our finite minds will not be able to deal with Who God is ...
Serious question: why then, do you expect a finite Scripture to be able to?
You say that God is not different to his revelation. I say the same thing, but what we mean is very different.
To put it in the language of the end of John's Gospel, it seems to me that the difference between us is that I find God revealed in the Christ about whom, were all of the truth of Him to be set down "I suppose that the world itself could not contain the books that would be written." Whereas you seem to believe that the whole of God is contained in sixty-six books.
--------------------
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
|
|
leonato
Shipmate
# 5124
|
Posted
Some more questions for Matt:
quote:
The problem of the liberal is that he/she wants to redefine the eternal God and Creator in their own ways.
Now you should now this isn't true. All any "liberal" has done on this thread is discuss why the God of the OP does not fit into what they see as being God as revealed in scripture and elsewhere.
quote:
Conservative Christians do not have a higher understanding of God.
Neither does anyone else!
quote:
will you accept and worship the one who made you...
Serious point: why should we worship a creator merely because he is the creator? Surely as Christians we worship God because he is incarnate in Christ primarily. It is God's actions and his love that are cheifly worthy of worship, not his position as creator.
quote:
The created never can decide anything about the creator.
Why not? If we are created in God's image does that not include a rational intelligence that is capable of making decisions? God did not create us as some kind of worship-fodder robots.
quote:
God will define Himself.
True, but how are we to know what God's definition is without forming opinions, and acting upon them. Many of these opinions may be wrong, but we still have to have them.
--------------------
leonato... Much Ado
Posts: 892 | From: Stage left | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Russ
Old salt
# 120
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Matt Black:
The problem of the liberal is that he/she wants to redefine the eternal God and Creator in their own ways. "If God is this way - I can't accept Him."
Just imagine that one day a large green-tinged figure with a bolt through his head comes up to you and confesses that he was made by a mad scientist, who wants him to kidnap innocent girls and be an accomplice to their rape and murder, murder and conceal the body of anyone who stumbles across the secret laboratory, and, just for fun, catch hamsters and tear the heads off ...
Is it wrong for this individual to say "If my creator is this way - I can't accept him" ? Is your advice to him that he owes eternal obedience to his creator, and deserves everlasting torment if he does not co-operate wholeheartedly with what his creator wishes ?
Before anyone gets upset, let me repeat - no-one is saying that the real true God is a monster or a mad scientist or anything else. I'm talking hypothetically in order to ascertain what are valid arguments and what are non-valid arguments.
I'm suggesting that one can validly reason from a premise of God's goodness to a conclusion that a proposition which makes Him out to be less than good is an untrue proposition.
You may choose not to accept the premise that God is good.
(I'd be interested to know why you think it right to worship Him if you think He isn't, but no-one else has answered that so I guess I'm on a loser with that question).
But your view on this is just as much your opinion whichever way it goes. It's not "only an opinion" if you decide one way and something else entirely if you decide the other way. Your opinion may be based on your understanding of Scripture. But it's still an opinion.
Russ
--------------------
Wish everyone well; the enemy is not people, the enemy is wrong ideas
Posts: 3169 | From: rural Ireland | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Matt Black
Shipmate
# 2210
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Psyduck:
Matt Black: quote:
We simply trust the Scriptures to be valid and the revealed God to be Who He is.
So how is your position different to mine - except that you hold that Scripture is the primary revelation, and I hold that Jesus Christ is? quote:
Our finite minds will not be able to deal with Who God is ...
Serious question: why then, do you expect a finite Scripture to be able to?
1. It is different in that I do not hold to any contradiction between inerrant Scripture and te presentation of Christ as revealed therein.
2.Scripture is the word of the infinite God.
Without Scripture, we would not have known Who Christ is. I really don't see where this artificial 'conflict' lies between the Bible being the Word and Christ being the Word.
Yours in Christ
Matt
--------------------
"Protestant and Reformed, according to the Tradition of the ancient Catholic Church" - + John Cosin (1594-1672)
Posts: 14304 | From: Hampshire, UK | Registered: Jan 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
dyfrig
Blue Scarfed Menace
# 15
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Matt Black:
Without Scripture, we would not have known Who Christ is. I really don't see where this artificial 'conflict' lies between the Bible being the Word and Christ being the Word.
Taking your last point first, the "word" of God means two specific things in scripture - either that "word" handed down at Sinai, the Torah, or the Incarnate word, Jesus himself. Applying the title "word of God" to the finalised Christians scriptures is a later tradition. It is not biblical. The Bible may be "God's word written" but it is not the totality of "God's word".
I'm puzzled by your first sentence. We know who Christ is because of the Spirit, not a book.
--------------------
"He was wrong in the long run, but then, who isn't?" - Tony Judt
Posts: 6917 | From: pob dydd Iau, am hanner dydd | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Matt Black
Shipmate
# 2210
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by corpusdelicti:
Some more questions for Matt:
quote:
will you accept and worship the one who made you...
Serious point: why should we worship a creator merely because he is the creator? Surely as Christians we worship God because he is incarnate in Christ primarily. It is God's actions and his love that are cheifly worthy of worship, not his position as creator.
quote:
The created never can decide anything about the creator.
Why not? If we are created in God's image does that not include a rational intelligence that is capable of making decisions? God did not create us as some kind of worship-fodder robots.
quote:
God will define Himself.
True, but how are we to know what God's definition is without forming opinions, and acting upon them. Many of these opinions may be wrong, but we still have to have them.
My point is that we should allow Scripture which in any event reveals God to shape our opinions of Who God is, rather than allow what we think God should be to shape or reject our opinion of Him or Scripture. We should worship Him as Creator because He created us in love, because we are His creation and that is what we are created to do.
Russ, your Frankestein comparison is apples and oranges.
Yours in Christ
Matt
--------------------
"Protestant and Reformed, according to the Tradition of the ancient Catholic Church" - + John Cosin (1594-1672)
Posts: 14304 | From: Hampshire, UK | Registered: Jan 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Matt Black
Shipmate
# 2210
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by dyfrig:
quote:
Originally posted by Matt Black:
Without Scripture, we would not have known Who Christ is. I really don't see where this artificial 'conflict' lies between the Bible being the Word and Christ being the Word.
I'm puzzled by your first sentence. We know who Christ is because of the Spirit, not a book.
Er...only if you're a hyper-charismatic?!
Yours in Christ
Matt
--------------------
"Protestant and Reformed, according to the Tradition of the ancient Catholic Church" - + John Cosin (1594-1672)
Posts: 14304 | From: Hampshire, UK | Registered: Jan 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Psyduck
Ship's vacant look
# 2270
|
Posted
quote:
It is different in that I do not hold to any contradiction between inerrant Scripture and te presentation of Christ as revealed therein.
Isn't that a tautology? Take out "inerrant" and aren't you left with "I don't see any difference between what the Bible says about Christ and what the Bible says about Christ?" quote:
2.Scripture is the word of the infinite God.
But a finite word nonetheless, as I'm sure you would agree...
quote:
Without Scripture, we would not have known Who Christ is.
Is this why the disciples has such trouble recognizing him? Ah, if only they'd stayed at a hotel the Gideons had been to! ![[Biased]](wink.gif) Once again, there are several points in the NT at which it's quite clear that in a real sense Christ transcends all the categories of the OT - Peter's confession is one such. Every OT category applied to Christ is reinterpreted in the NT, including Messiah. They are made to derive their new meaning from him; they are not a Procrustean bed onto which he is forced. quote:
I really don't see where this artificial 'conflict' lies between the Bible being the Word and Christ being the Word.
It isn't artifical. It arises from making Scripture determinative of Christ, rather than letting it witness to him in its own way. It subordinates God and Christ to a finite set of infallibly true propositions about them.
And by the way, I don't think this is a deviation from the OP, which posited a small number of propositions - a sort of mini-Scripture - as a summary of faith. "What if God's like this? What if I'm right?" And that's why the overwhelming 'anti' response has been "A God like that is far too small to be the God revealed in Jesus Christ."
--------------------
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
|
|
Matt Black
Shipmate
# 2210
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Psyduck:
quote:
It is different in that I do not hold to any contradiction between inerrant Scripture and te presentation of Christ as revealed therein.
Isn't that a tautology? Take out "inerrant" and aren't you left with "I don't see any difference between what the Bible says about Christ and what the Bible says about Christ?" quote:
2.Scripture is the word of the infinite God.
But a finite word nonetheless, as I'm sure you would agree...
quote:
Without Scripture, we would not have known Who Christ is.
Is this why the disciples has such trouble recognizing him? Ah, if only they'd stayed at a hotel the Gideons had been to! Once again, there are several points in the NT at which it's quite clear that in a real sense Christ transcends all the categories of the OT - Peter's confession is one such. Every OT category applied to Christ is reinterpreted in the NT, including Messiah. They are made to derive their new meaning from him; they are not a Procrustean bed onto which he is forced.
....none of which we would know without Scripture!
I accept the tautology of the first point...and?
Yours in Christ
Matt
--------------------
"Protestant and Reformed, according to the Tradition of the ancient Catholic Church" - + John Cosin (1594-1672)
Posts: 14304 | From: Hampshire, UK | Registered: Jan 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Custard
Shipmate
# 5402
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by dyfrig:
I'm puzzled by your first sentence. We know who Christ is because of the Spirit, not a book.
But in the NT, the work of the Spirit is always associated with the Word of God and/or the word of God. The Spirit makes the Word of God known to us through the word of God (as an inerrantist I'm tempted to add "in the words of God").
Custard
--------------------
blog
Adam's likeness, Lord, efface;
Stamp thine image in its place.
Posts: 4523 | From: Snot's Place | Registered: Jan 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
sharkshooter
Not your average shark
# 1589
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Psyduck:
And by the way, I don't think this is a deviation from the OP, which posited a small number of propositions - ... - as a summary of faith. "What if God's like this? What if I'm right?" And that's why the overwhelming 'anti' response has been "A God like that is far too small to be the God revealed in Jesus Christ."
Actually, the overwhelming "anti" response was "I could not worship God if that was what He was like." A position which, to me, says "I will only worship God if He is what I want Him to be." Which has solidified my belief that liberal Christianity is so far removed from what I believe, that I see no chance of meaningful debate on theological issues - at least none that would ever resolve any differences.
This is my last post on this thread.
--------------------
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
|
|
Psyduck
Ship's vacant look
# 2270
|
Posted
I think that's a parody of the opposition, and a polemical use of 'liberal'. It would be equally easy to parody the OP stance as "Here's a selection of contentious readings of Scripture which I arbitrarily declare to be revealed truth. What are all you guys going to do if this is how things are?" Come to think of it, that's not such a parody after all.
--------------------
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
|
|
Karl: Liberal Backslider
Shipmate
# 76
|
Posted
It's a pity SS's not coming back; I was meaning to ask whether those who broadly agreed with the OP don't get depressed about it?
The more this has mulled over in my mind, the more the overwhelming response to the question "What if I'm right" is "How depressing". It gives me two options:
1) Capitulate and jump through this God's hoops. Go to heaven, but spend eternity knowing that many people I love are suffering indescribably in Hell, and that they really aren't such terrible people as to deserve it. As Arthur Dent says "I don't want to die now - I've got a headache. I don't want to go to heaven with a headache - I'll be all cross and won't enjoy it"
2) Turn on a spit next to them.
Is that not overwhelmingly depressing to anyone else?
[ 21. June 2004, 14:14: Message edited by: Karl: Liberal Backslider ]
--------------------
Might as well ask the bloody cat.
Posts: 17938 | From: Chesterfield | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Alaric the Goth
Shipmate
# 511
|
Posted
Karl, I beleive, or more accuately 'have believed' a large amount of the OP. Not the belly-button-less bit at the start (well I think I went through a phase even believing that!). And I struggle with the bits in bold: 'Anyone who does not acknowledge that Jesus is Lord here on earth will endure eternity separated from God'.
But I believe that it is possible that many people will be separated from God after the Last Judgement. It has saddened me at times, and it has depressed me when, confronted with the Gospel (and I don't mean a version that emphasises 'hellfire and damnation'), such people are slow to respond or neagtive in their response.
Karl, you uswed the word 'capitulate'. Yes, we do have to 'surrender', as I'm sure you remember one or two 'crappy choruses' make reference to. But it is more akin to the 'surrender' of a child to the love, and authority, of a parent, than the surrencder of a criminal to the police or a soldier to an enemy army.
The element of joy that we are saved through the Cross, and that salvation being available to all, is (or should be) much greater than depression over the (unspecified no. of, given God's mercifulness) people going to Hell (whatever that actually means - and we do have glimpses in the Bible, which don't seem to involve rotating spits).
--------------------
'Angels and demons dancing in my head,
Lunatics and monsters underneath my bed' ('Totem', Rush)
Posts: 3322 | From: West Thriding | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Karl: Liberal Backslider
Shipmate
# 76
|
Posted
The problem I have here is that the OP Theology doesn't seem to have much space for the love or the mercy of God. Once that is introduced, the question of the number of people in Hell, for example, changes.
But my problem is very specifically with the OP God. Capitulation to Him does seem exactly like bowing down before an odious but implacable and undefeatable overlord. At best, it is like Winston's final acceptance of Big Brother.
[tangent]Is that what the "longed-for bullet" entering Winston's brain is? The capitulation to BB and the willing destruction of Winston's ability to think for himself or have any thoughts or opinions of his own? But I digress[/tangent]
As things stand with the OP God - and I cannot stress this enough - it seems to me to be selfish to take pleasure in my own salvation whilst others are left behind to a fate that is too dreadful to be contemplated, far worse then they could possible deserve, and whats worst, being done quite intentionally and purposely by the very person who's rescuing me from it. It's one thing to be grateful to a lifeboat crew who don't manage to get everyone out before the ship sinks; it's quite another to be grateful to a terrorist who releases me but machine-guns the other hostages.
--------------------
Might as well ask the bloody cat.
Posts: 17938 | From: Chesterfield | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Matt Black
Shipmate
# 2210
|
Posted
The Christian faith (and God) is not for philosophical conjecture and scientific analysis. While the Bible is scientific, it is not following the scientific methods established by scholars. God has demanded that we approach Him through His methods, not ours. In other words, much of the liberal’s problem ISTM is in methods and approaches. There is a strong Gnostic similarity in that a sense of higher attainment is part of the thinking.
Is it reasonable, as seems to be the thrust of the liberal position, to maintain the inconsistency of the Christ with the God of the OT and again state they are 'forced' back on either gnosticism/Marcionism or a non-literal interpretation of the OT? Again it is illustrated that those of the Liberal bent are ignoring the realities of life around them. When I was a child, my Father was different (in my eyes) than during my teens, young adult or older years. In each period of life, he seemed to respond to me differently and I saw a different aspects of who he was. God, being infinite, has far more to understand than our earthly Fathers. The God of the OT is showing us that He has expectations concerning sin. He is showing us the basis by which He would judge each of our nations and us. That basis has not changed. In The Revelation we find God judging the nations and punishment is real. The issue is not the “inconsistency of the Christ with the God of the OT”, it is the unwillingness to accept that God will judge and deal with sin. Much of the Liberal argument, ISTM, is designed to allow us to do what we want in the garden. Until you are willing to accept that God will hold all men accountable and separate sin from Himself, I don't believe that you can truly accept the work of Christ on the Cross.
Karl, wouldn't the disciples have had the same depression when Jesus talked to them about Hell? Yet their response was to evangelise and the phenomenal growth of the church which we see in Acts. Alaric has in any event put the point much more succinctly, for which, Alaric ![[Overused]](graemlins/notworthy.gif)
Yours in Christ
Matt
--------------------
"Protestant and Reformed, according to the Tradition of the ancient Catholic Church" - + John Cosin (1594-1672)
Posts: 14304 | From: Hampshire, UK | Registered: Jan 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Karl: Liberal Backslider
Shipmate
# 76
|
Posted
Matt, you misrepresent my position, badly.
I do not have a problem with God as Judge. I have a problem with the perverse form of Justice the OP presents.
I do not think God should let us all do "as we like in the Garden". I object to an unjust tyrant tormenting essentially good people for eternity for minor transgressions.
You say "Again it is illustrated that those of the Liberal bent are ignoring the realities of life around them.". Well, if we're going to get like that, I say that those supporting the OP are ignoring the obvious injustice of the OP theology, and this is clearly demonstrated by the fact that no coherent justification for God acting in the abominable way described has been presented, only "You just have to let God be God" and other such completely useless bromides and attempts at spiritual blackmail.
Speaking of which, exactly what does: "Until you are willing to accept that God will hold all men accountable and separate sin from Himself, I don't believe that you can truly accept the work of Christ on the Cross. " mean? If it means what I think it means, we can discuss it in the Hot Place.
--------------------
Might as well ask the bloody cat.
Posts: 17938 | From: Chesterfield | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view
![[Hot and Hormonal]](icon_redface.gif){kind=icon}
