 |
Open Theism Discussion Board > Public Forums > Ethics, etc. > (No Subject)
| Forum Quick Jump
|
 | 
PotOnWheel
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 9890
| Posted 7/31/2003 6:22 AM (GMT -6) |   | quote:
Originally posted by Electra
I hope that this question will help us clarify what we mean by love, and how/if it is distinct from ethics.
The "OV" has a reputation, among those who do not follow it, of having a peculiar and confined definition of love -- one that is not and has not always been used.
Taking a moment to question that seems healthy.
quote:
Originally posted by Electra
Question: According to the greater good approach to theodicy, God permits the suffering of some in order to maximize the good of the whole. For example, although the suffering of Zosia was against God’s will, God permitted it because preventing it would have somehow entailed even more suffering overall.
This seems to be opperating in a closed system, taht it capped at the end so that nothing tabulated in the bottom-line is eschatological.
Would this view ("greater good") work in the instance of one person who lives out the discipline of James 1:2-4 and Romans 5:3-4? Doesn't this "greater good" view confine its adherants to working "by sight" and not "by faith." Doesn't it make them presume that they know enough; and can assess the free-will factor? I thing those are some of the questions that need asking.
quote:
Originally posted by Electra
...God permitted it -- a particular suffering (of Zosia in this case) -- because preventing it would have somehow entailed even more suffering overall.
Again, it seems that this is a "by sight...not by faith" kind of view. It compares apples and oranges all the while keeping each inside brown-paper bags, and perhaps even mixing them.
Here, instead, is the KEY that Scripture gives us:
quote:
Romans 5:5
"And hope does not disappoint us, because God has poured out his love into our hearts by the Holy Spirit, whom he has given us."
quote:
James 1:5-8
"But if any of you lacketh wisdom, let him ask of God, who giveth to all liberally and upbraideth not; and it shall be given him. But let him ask in faith, nothing doubting: for he that doubteth is like the surge of the sea driven by the wind and tossed. For let not that man think that he shall receive anything of the Lord; a doubleminded man, unstable in all his ways."
quote:
Originally posted by Electra
...God permitted it -- a particular suffering (of Zosia in this case) -- because preventing it would have somehow entailed even more suffering overall. How is this theodicy compatible with love as defined as “ascribing unsurpassable worth to the other at cost to oneself”?
Maybe it is not compatable. But maybe more choices are needed then.
Question this definition (a 'Holy Cow' around here): love as defined as “ascribing unsurpassable worth to the other at cost to oneself”.
Keep the first part, but question the second.
Some horribly mistaken things have been said on this board about the inter-trinitarian relationships based on reading this romaniticized definition of love INTO the coinherance/perichoresis of the Trinity.
This definition does NOT work within the God-head. And for THAT reason, I think that we should question whether it is a good definition of love or not; or whether it is a result of fashion.
quote:
Originally posted by Electra
...God permitted it -- a particular suffering (of Zosia in this case) -- because preventing it would have somehow entailed even more suffering overall. ................ It seems to define individual worth instrumentally (i.e. an individual’s worth is relative to the good of the whole) rather than intrinsically (i.e. an individual’s worth is inherent).
Yes, that "greater good" view does seem to "define individual worth instrumentally." And we are not in the possition to do such judgings. Rather, we should look again ar James and Romans:
quote:
"And hope does not disappoint us, because God has poured out his love into our hearts by the Holy Spirit, whom he has given us." (Romans 5:5)
"But if any of you lacketh wisdom, let him ask of God, who giveth to all liberally and upbraideth not; and it shall be given him. But let him ask in faith, nothing doubting: for he that doubteth is like the surge of the sea driven by the wind and tossed. For let not that man think that he shall receive anything of the Lord; a doubleminded man, unstable in all his ways." {James 1:5-8)
PotOnWheel
| | Back to Top | | |
|
PotOnWheel
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 9890
| Posted 7/31/2003 7:53 AM (GMT -6) | | Thinking about what I posted, the images come to mind of certain grandmotherly types in churches I've known. Not necessarily the extroverted ones, either. I'm thinking of the ones who read their Bibles and pray, and offer love, patience, mercy, humor, etc. And here's why I'm reminded of them.
It seems to me, that those women, across several generations, are an excellent authority on the wisdom and mercy of God, and the grace of God's judgements. THEY know the meaning of such verses as those in Romans and James that I quoted.
It is these grandmas who can tell us the meaning of those verses. It is not necessarily the philosopher type, trying to think of what 'must be'; but the soul that walks with God who might really know the answer to Electra's question! | | Back to Top | | |
|
PotOnWheel
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 9890
| Posted 7/31/2003 7:56 AM (GMT -6) | | quote:
Originally posted by PotOnWheel
It is ... not necessarily the philosopher type, trying to think of what 'must be'; but the soul that walks with God who might really know the answer to Electra's question!
ASK THEM!
| | Back to Top | | |
|
PotOnWheel
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 9890
| Posted 7/31/2003 11:16 AM (GMT -6) | | When my dad faced "open heart" back in the days when it was not a common thing (early seventies) THIS was the Psalm he went to, shared, and recommended:
www.botticellisvision.com/st%20francis%20web%20site/Psalm%20139.htm
Psalm 139
quote:
Psalm 139
O Lord, thou hast searched me and known me. Thou knowest my down sitting and mine uprising, thou understandest my thought afar off. Thou compassest my path and my lying down, and art acquainted with all my ways. For there is not a word in my tongue, but lo, O Lord, thou knowest it altogether. Thou hast beset me behind and before, and laid thine hand upon me. Such knowledge is too wonderful for me; it is too high, I cannot attain to it.
Wither shall I go to flee from thy spirit? or wither shall I flee from thy presence? If I ascend up into heaven, thou art there: if I make my bed in hell, behold thou art there. If I take the wings of the morning, and dwell in the outermost parts of the sea; Even there shall thy hand lead me, and thy right hand shall hold me. If I say, Surely the darkness shall cover me; even the night shall be light about me.
Yea, the darkness hideth not from thee; but the night shineth as the day: the darkness and the light are both alike to thee. For thou hast possessed thy reins: thou hast covered me in my mother's womb. I will praise thee; for am fearfully and wonderfully made: marvelous are thy works; and that my soul knoweth right well. My substance was not hid from thee, when I was made in secret, and curiously wrought in the lower parts of the earth. Thine eyes did see my substance, yet being unperfect; and in thy book my members were written, which in continuance were fashioned, when was none of them.
How precious also are thy thoughts unto me, O God! How great is the sum of them! If I should count them, they are more in number than the sand: when I awake, I am still with thee. Surely, thou wilt slay the wicked, O God: depart from me therefore, ye bloody men... For they speak against thee wickedly, and thy enemies take thy name in vain. Search me, O God, and know my heart: try me, and know my thoughts: And see if there be any wicked way in me, and lead me in the way everlasting.
Amen! | | Back to Top | | |
|
Electra
Registered Member
Date Joined Feb 2002
Total Posts : 611
| Posted 8/1/2003 3:04 AM (GMT -6) | | Thanks for your thoughts, Pow.
P: It seems to me, that those women, across several generations, are an excellent authority on the wisdom and mercy of God, and the grace of God's judgements. THEY know the meaning of such verses as those in Romans and James that I quoted.
E: Unfortunately, I only know one older woman and your post reminded me that I have been out of touch with her for a long time. While I wouldn’t want to generalize or sentimentalize all older women, this particular one fits your description.
P: When my dad faced "open heart" back in the days when it was not a common thing (early seventies) THIS was the Psalm he went to, shared, and recommended: Psalm 139.
E: Personally I like to go back and forth between Psalm 22 and Psalm 23, with cup in hand.
P: It is these grandmas who can tell us the meaning of those verses. It is not necessarily the philosopher type, trying to think of what 'must be'; but the soul that walks with God who might really know the answer to Electra's question!
E: Calling all souls that walk with God!
Electra
Love in action is a harsh and dreadful thing. ~ Dostoevsky | | Back to Top | | |
|
John Earp
Registered Member
Date Joined Oct 2002
Total Posts : 1715
| Posted 8/16/2003 1:36 PM (GMT -6) | | It is impossible to ascribe INFINITE worth to anyone but God.
I continue to be bumfuzzled by the persistent insistence by so many on this board that the definition of love as "ascribing infinite worth" is correct. It is obviously utterly impossible to ascribe anything but RELATIVE worth to anyone but God. This is why I prefer the concept of benevolence as the biblical definition of 'agape' love(which does of course lend itself to the "greater good" idea).
I also continue to be quite puzzled by the insistence of so many on this board that love must be separated from ethics. What Christian ethical standard could possibly exist apart from LOVE (benevolence)?
He that loves another fulfills the law -- Paul.
You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart, soul, mind, and strength, and your neighbor as yourself -- Jesus.
The royal law of liberty...love thy neighbor as thyself -- James.
Gal 5:14 For the whole Law is fulfilled in one word, in the {statement,} "YOU SHALL LOVE YOUR NEIGHBOR AS YOURSELF."
James 2:8 ¶ If, however, you are fulfilling the royal law according to the Scripture, "YOU SHALL LOVE YOUR NEIGHBOR AS YOURSELF," you are doing well.
John 13:34 "A new commandment I give to you, that you love one another, even as I have loved you, that you also love one another.
John 13:35 "By this all men will know that you are My disciples, if you have love for one another."
John 15:12 ¶ "This is My commandment, that you love one another, just as I have loved you.
John 15:17 "This I command you, that you love one another.
Rom 12:10 {Be} devoted to one another in brotherly love; give preference to one another in honor;
Rom 13:8 ¶ Owe nothing to anyone except to love one another; for he who loves his neighbor has fulfilled {the} law.
Gal 5:13 ¶ For you were called to freedom, brethren; only {do} not {turn} your freedom into an opportunity for the flesh, but through love serve one another.
Eph 4:2 with all humility and gentleness, with patience, showing tolerance for one another in love,
1 Thess 4:9 ¶ Now as to the love of the brethren, you have no need for {anyone} to write to you, for you yourselves are taught by God to love one another;
1 Pet 1:22 ¶ Since you have in obedience to the truth purified your souls for a sincere love of the brethren, fervently love one another from the heart,
1 Pet 4:8 Above all, keep fervent in your love for one another, because love covers a multitude of sins.
1 John 3:11 ¶ For this is the message which you have heard from the beginning, that we should love one another;
1 John 3:23 ¶ This is His commandment, that we believe in the name of His Son Jesus Christ, and love one another, just as He commanded us.
1 John 4:7 ¶ Beloved, let us love one another, for love is from God; and everyone who loves is born of God and knows God.
1 John 4:11 Beloved, if God so loved us, we also ought to love one another.
1 John 4:12 No one has seen God at any time; if we love one another, God abides in us, and His love is perfected in us.
2 John 1:5 Now I ask you, lady, not as though {I were} writing to you a new commandment, but the one which we have had from the beginning, that we love one another.
Of course, if one is talking about ethics that would not be universally binding upon all who call themselves Christians, that would of couse require a different standard by which to determine ethics. But for the Christian whose ethics are to be determined by Scripture, there is absolutely no other standard BUT benevolent love.
"The Discovery of new truth will modify old views and opinions, and there is perhaps no end to this process with finite minds in any world." Charles G. Finney, Systematic Theology.
revivaltheology.net
| | Back to Top | | |
|
GregBoyd
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 1818
| Posted 8/19/2003 1:51 PM (GMT -6) | | Electra: According to the greater good approach to theodicy, God permits the suffering of some in order to maximize the good of the whole. For example, although the suffering of Zosia was against God’s will, God permitted it because preventing it would have somehow entailed even more suffering overall.
Doc: I think you're absolutely right that there is an instrumental value attached to individuals in the greater good defense. I'm not sure, but by using Zosia as you're example and my standard definition of love, I get the impression that you believe the warfare trinitarian theodicy is a version of the greater good defense. In point of fact, its the antithesis of the greater good defense -- and you may have realized this and were intending all along to critique the same theodicy I critique.)
Anyway, for what its worth, the CLASSICAL theodicy is the greater good defense, for it assumes there is a specific divine reason for each specific thing that occurs in history. The reasoning goes something like this:
* If God is all powerful, he could stop anything from happening that happens.
* If God is all good, his will is all good.
* So if God didn't stop a particualr evil, it must be "good" that he didn't stop it.
* If the "good" isn't for the individual, it must be for "the whole."
By contrast, the Trinitarian Warfare Theodicy does NOT believe there is a specific divine reason for every event, hence does not need to postulate a "greater good" for any specific event. When God decided to create THIS KIND of world (where love is possible, hence freedom necessary), he put constraints on what he can and cannot do. The ultimate reason for things that are not in line with God's will is to be found in other free wills.
So far as I can see, there is no incompatibility with this theodicy and the affirmation of inherent unsurpassable worth of each individual. Indeed, I suspect only this theodicy -- or theodicies like it that acknowledge metaphysical constraints upon God -- are capable of being consistent with this affirmation.
Blessings
Doc
"The responsibility is with the chooser -- God is blameless." Plato, Republic, 10. | | Back to Top | | |
|
GregBoyd
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 1818
| Posted 8/19/2003 1:59 PM (GMT -6) | |
JE: I continue to be bumfuzzled by the persistent insistence by so many on this board that the definition of love as "ascribing infinite worth" is correct. It is obviously utterly impossible to ascribe anything but RELATIVE worth to anyone but God.
Doc: You know what something is worth by what one is willing to pay for it. How much was God willing to pay for you? THAT's what you're worth, according to God. And he's the only one in the universe in a position to know this accurately.
I acknowledge your concern to preserve the distinct worth of God over and against the creation. But I think we inadvertently loop God INTO the creation if we simply conceive of him as have "more" worth than his creation -- like its a zero sum game. The distinction, I submit, is rather being SOURCE and REFLECTOR. Ultimately, ALL worth is derived from GOD's worth. He is to be distinctly worshipped as the originator of all worth and as the gracious Creator who has given us the capacity to reflect HIS worth in marvelously distinct and creative ways.
JE: I also continue to be quite puzzled by the insistence of so many on this board that love must be separated from ethics. What Christian ethical standard could possibly exist apart from LOVE (benevolence)?
Doc: There's a chapter in my forthcoming book Love and the Knowledge of Good and Evil that you're going to have to read. In the mean time, might I recommend Bonhoeffer's Ethics.
Blessings
Doc
Rom 12:10 {Be} devoted to one another in brotherly love; give preference to one another in honor;
Rom 13:8 ¶ Owe nothing to anyone except to love one another; for he who loves his neighbor has fulfilled {the} law.
Gal 5:13 ¶ For you were called to freedom, brethren; only {do} not {turn} your freedom into an opportunity for the flesh, but through love serve one another.
Eph 4:2 with all humility and gentleness, with patience, showing tolerance for one another in love,
1 Thess 4:9 ¶ Now as to the love of the brethren, you have no need for {anyone} to write to you, for you yourselves are taught by God to love one another;
1 Pet 1:22 ¶ Since you have in obedience to the truth purified your souls for a sincere love of the brethren, fervently love one another from the heart,
1 Pet 4:8 Above all, keep fervent in your love for one another, because love covers a multitude of sins.
1 John 3:11 ¶ For this is the message which you have heard from the beginning, that we should love one another;
1 John 3:23 ¶ This is His commandment, that we believe in the name of His Son Jesus Christ, and love one another, just as He commanded us.
1 John 4:7 ¶ Beloved, let us love one another, for love is from God; and everyone who loves is born of God and knows God.
1 John 4:11 Beloved, if God so loved us, we also ought to love one another.
1 John 4:12 No one has seen God at any time; if we love one another, God abides in us, and His love is perfected in us.
2 John 1:5 Now I ask you, lady, not as though {I were} writing to you a new commandment, but the one which we have had from the beginning, that we love one another.
Of course, if one is talking about ethics that would not be universally binding upon all who call themselves Christians, that would of couse require a different standard by which to determine ethics. But for the Christian whose ethics are to be determined by Scripture, there is absolutely no other standard BUT benevolent love.
"The responsibility is with the chooser -- God is blameless." Plato, Republic, 10. | | Back to Top | | |
|
John Earp
Registered Member
Date Joined Oct 2002
Total Posts : 1715
| Posted 8/19/2003 8:34 PM (GMT -6) | | Frankly, Bonhoeffer's Ethics was the most confusing, nonsensical thing I think I've ever read by him. The Cost of Discipleship was quite good, though. In Ethics, Bonhoeffer says "there is no Christian ethic."
The reason I disagreed with Bonhoeffer was I don't see how a Christian can deny that Jesus says the two greatest commands are loving God supremely and one's neighbor as oneself, and the Paul says the whole law is fulfilled in one word: Thou shalt love thy neighbor as thyself. What is law if not a system of ethics? What is love, if not the only righteous motive for any moral choice?
Perhaps most importantly, why does anyone feel the need to construct an ethic (or perhaps a "nonethic") for the Christian that is distinct from 'agapao' love?
If the NT says that we fulfill the law when we LOVE, what real ethic can exist for us beyond this? Certainly nothing morally binding for the Christian.
It may perhaps be valid to construct a system of ethics for a Christian who is also a lawyer or a doctor or a pastor, perhaps, but again, the core of this ethic would always, if Christian remain LOVE, or it would not be truly Christian in the biblical sense at all.
"The Discovery of new truth will modify old views and opinions, and there is perhaps no end to this process with finite minds in any world." Charles G. Finney, Systematic Theology.
revivaltheology.net
| | Back to Top | | |
|
One Love
Registered Member
Date Joined Jan 2003
Total Posts : 13888
| Posted 8/20/2003 12:08 AM (GMT -6) | | Doc:
quote:
I think you're absolutely right that there is an instrumental value attached to individuals in the greater good defense. I'm not sure, but by using Zosia as you're example and my standard definition of love, I get the impression that you believe the warfare trinitarian theodicy is a version of the greater good defense. In point of fact, its the antithesis of the greater good defense -- and you may have realized this and were intending all along to critique the same theodicy I critique.)
and…
quote:
By contrast, the Trinitarian Warfare Theodicy does NOT believe there is a specific divine reason for every event, hence does not need to postulate a "greater good" for any specific event. When God decided to create THIS KIND of world (where love is possible, hence freedom necessary), he put constraints on what he can and cannot do. The ultimate reason for things that are not in line with God's will is to be found in other free wills.
Uh, oh. I gotta differ with you on this, Doc. The whole IDEA of “sacrificing the rook for the queen” idea is utilitarian to the core. This idea says that in order to WIN THE GAME, a player is willing to accept the loss of one piece (even though the person doesn’t like losing that piece) to preserve a more important or strategic piece. This is “greater good” type thinking.
Now, remember. We’ve already said LONG AGO that the whole Zosia thing MAY be a possible “sacrificing the rook for the queen” episode. And that’s all that matters. I said this before: The warfare worldview theodicy only allows for us to say that NOT ALL episodes of evil fit into a “greater good” mode. But SOME may.
This, I believe, is what Electra is talking about. To the extent that God does this AT ANY TIME, God necessarily considers a being’s INSTRUMENTAL WORTH comparative to the whole. And this puts it somewhat in the same boat as Calvinism. How? LIKE Calvinism, open view theism can say that even though God truly does sometimes consider individual worth as instrumental, given a certain situation, this does NOT negate the idea that each person has INTRINSIC worth. (Something I said and dealt with with the glorification principle) In other words, just because God sacrifices the rook for the queen sometimes doesn’t mean that God ULTIMATELY values the rook any more or less than the queen. He can and does love BOTH “chess pieces” the same. But the structure of the game FORCES the issue and sometimes, sacrifices must be made.
THIS, people, is why I think that this is the PERFECT example about talking about the distinction between love and ethics. Ethics EMERGES in a situation where solutions (virtually all imperfect) must be found in a FALLEN context. Justice, fairness, equity and the like. NONE of these things would have any meaning if ALL was love. Love would do all of these things INHERENTLY, and therefore there would be no need to strive for these things for themselves. This is why I said on another thread…
quote:
We are not called to follow ANY ethical standard. We are called to love God and love our neighbor. Ethics EMERGES because we are called to do this in a finite, FALLEN situation.
God LOVES all people unconditionally. But due to the FALLEN situation of Creation, JUSTICE, WRATH, and “GREATER GOOD” issues arise…where CONDITIONALITY is displayed.
In the absence of the fallen situation, ETHICS WOULD CEASE TO EXIST! Ethics will have absolutely NO PLACE after the Consummation! This is how love always goes beyond ethics, even though love and ethics sometimes demand similar things.
Supposedly, in the Consummation, all anti-love will be no more. All will be of love. In WHAT CONTEXTS would issues concerning justice, fairness, equity, and the like ever emerge? They wouldn’t! In what context would issues of partiality or utilitarianism ever exist? They wouldn’t! Ethicists would LOSE a job because love INHERENTLY does all the things that true ethics requires…and EVERYONE would be completely loving! But before then, God has to deal with IMPERFECT SOLUTIONS to problems that may mandate SACRIFICE…which may include God operating for the greater good in “sacrificing the rook for the queen.”
This is why it seems obvious to me the love and ethics are distinct, in that love goes BEYOND ethics. This is a THEOLOGICAL, rather than merely a pragmatic truth.
Bottom line: It is POSSIBLE for all beings to have the same INTRINSIC worth to God while, due to creational factors with which God has to abide, beings are CALLED OUT, SEPARATED, and sometimes SACRIFICED based upon INSTRUMENTAL worth.
"I've been converted three times. The first was to traditional Christianity; the second to honesty and the third was to the Love of God and man (humanity) The third was the real conversion. The first two were preliminary."
--Nels Ferre, a theologian speaking of his spiritual journey with the Triune God
| | Back to Top | | |
|
Starkman
Registered Member
Date Joined Oct 2001
Total Posts : 1747
| Posted 8/20/2003 5:14 AM (GMT -6) | | Indeed, if we're going to talk about loving another as one loves one's self, we'll need to ask, "What is the base for loving one's self?"
"Do unto others as you would have them do unto you."
When we love ourselves, we are declaring that we understand that we want (and must) live in such a manner so as to preserve ourselves: we do not harm ourselves but nurture ourselves; we do not wrong ourselves. And we expect others to do these same things to us that we would do to ourselves. It is in this context "loving our neighbor" is framed. When I love another, I have already (or should have already) come to an understanding what it means to love myself. Indeed, I can't love another without first knowing who I am and what it takes to love myself; for this is what I'm to pass along to another, as I want them to pass along to me. I think this gets so overlooked when Christians talk about loving themselves. Too quickly they write off the issue because it's a no-brainer: who doesn't love themselves, they ask. Why give it more thought. The problem then becomes two-fold: first, the Christian hasn't given thought to what love really is or how it operates (it is only assumed, based on instinct or something similar, that we simply love ourselves), and second, there is left no context to properly understand loving another. There's then too much shooting from the hip.
An ethic is as couched in the framework of a fallen context. As Meph noted, there's no need for ethics once the Glorification process is completed. It is not only in this context of the Fall that ethics emerge, it is in the character of God the contrast of ethics are made visible. If I'm going to understand anything about loving myself and loving my neighbor, I must do so in the contrast presented before me: God's character and my character. I cannot love myself or my neighbor in the vagaries I will be left in if I do not have this reference. THAT is the context for loving others as ourselves, and it is why ethics emerge. This is why simply saying "love is the highest ethic" is vague and incomplete: Love? What is love if it is not rooted in and flowing from the character of God? Love is not an ontology in and of itself. It is the expression in action of God demonstrating His character to others. For God to "love" others as He loves Himself requires, as it does for us, that God first understand (which, obviously He does) Himself. God expresses to us what He expects expressed to Him in return. We call this loving.
Finally, love is complete fulfills the Law when the foundation for love is understood: the character of God. So, if in any situation, I am to love my neighbor as myself, I have to know something about the character of God contrasted with my character in regard to the issue, and I must seek to offer that same context of awareness to my neigbor. I can do this by asking questions: "How would I wish to be treated in this circimstance? How would I be best preserved and nurtured were it me? How has God revealed His character (in accordance to His Word Foundational) that would be applicable for this issue?" The results will be an ethic, seperate, but originating from and flowing in love. This can be quite subjective, and that is why there is so much controversy in trying to find the simplicity of a loving resolution: if "loving" another is merely being compasionate, kind, etc., there's no controversy. But, in fact, the Bible is filled with commands for the Christian to do: to walk in the character of God, visible to others, flowing from love, being a testimony of the Christ (and His character) we have within us. That's the reason for the controversy. Were it simply a matter of being compassionate, kind, respectful, etc., that'd be one thing. But when we are placed in situations of clear opposition to God's character, the duality of love and ethic is much more distinct, and that becomes confusing, controversial, or both.
(I realize the topic is the Greater Good verses the Trinitarian theodicies. Not trying to derail the thread.)
For better understanding the character of God in order to better understand loving both ourselves our neighbor,
Starkman | | Back to Top | | |
|
honorman
Registered Member
Date Joined Oct 2002
Total Posts : 1137
| Posted 8/20/2003 5:38 AM (GMT -6) | | Doctor Boyd: I do not John was trying to seperate God from creation, but rather to point out the obviously (?) flawed definition of love by many on this board. WE cannot subscibe infinite worth to others, only God can do that, because only God loves like that. All your quoted scriptures point to that. We are called to love like God, but we can never truly love as fully as God loves.
Who of us has a perfect child who can die for others. Would we want them to? | | Back to Top | | |
|
ReasonableDoubt
Registered Member
Date Joined Jan 2003
Total Posts : 655
| Posted 8/21/2003 7:56 PM (GMT -6) | | | Again this is a problem of semantics, in my mind. B/c what does "infinite worth" mean? I'm reminded of Nietzche, when he said that if every person commands respect simply by virtue of being a person, then "respect" means nothing at all. And i see the same thing by saying that every person who has ever existed and will ever exist all equally have "infinite worth." That definition is effectively no definition at all then. | | Back to Top | | |
| Forum Information | Currently it is Monday, November 09, 2026 3:31 PM (GMT -6)
There are a total of 97,718 posts in 6,040 threads.
In the last 3 days there were 0 new threads and 0 reply posts. View Active Threads
|
Forum powered by dotNetBB v2.42EC SP3
dotNetBB © 2000-2026 |
|
|