 |
| Open Theism Discussion Board > Public Forums > Theological Q&A > Knowledge of Good & Evil vs. Tree of Life... | Forum Quick Jump
|
| 
John Earp
Registered Member
Date Joined Oct 2002
Total Posts : 1715
| Posted 5/26/2003 5:20 PM (GMT -6) |   | John Earp
So, in your opinion, it would not be sin if God tortured people for all eternity because they violated a law that they couldn't keep, right? (This absolutely must follow if your logic is that whatever God does is righteous because God does it, not because it is intrinsically righteous).
Iconoclast
Well, I certainly know that I would not feel especially loved by God if he tortured me for eternity because I littered. Do you really think He does that sort of thing?
John
I absolutely do NOT believe God tortures individuals for eternity for something they could not avoid. (By the way, why do you think littering is unavoidable? Don't be a litterbug!)
But seriously, by admitting that you do not find this idea to present a loving God (nor do I) reveals that you in fact affirm in your conscience the law of love, and that you judge God to in fact conform to this very law (being loving and acting in a loving way by not torturing individuals for eternity for that which they could in no case avoid).
Ike said:
What I would like to understand from you John is exactly what special knowledge you have to be able to claim that you can judge whether WHATEVER God does is righteous or unrighteous? I hear you presupposing that you can in fact do this. Is that what you are saying?
John replies: The Bible itself reveals God as righteous in all his ways, that he always does what is right, and so forth. I shouldn't have to do your homework for you on this one; it is clearly stated throughout Scripture that God in fact does act righteously, and that he does in fact act lovingly, always.
John Earp
With regard to Hitler, on what basis do you claim that what he did was unloving. We have already seen the utter incoherence of ascribing "infinite" worth to all indivuals.
Iconoclast
2. My own internal experience of what impacts me as being loving or unloving.
John
(Ditto to what I said above about your own conscientious knowledge of what loving or unloving is).
Icon
As to the "utter incoherence of ascribing 'infinite' worth to all individual" I must repeat that I am using the phrase "ascribing UNSURPASSABLE worth" to all individuals. I don't know how to ascribe "infinite" worth to people but I do know how to ascribe unsurpassable worth to all individuals - not that I am particularly good at actually doing this - but I do know how to proceed when I put my mind to it. I simply ascribe the most worth that I possibly can at the moment - I ascribe the amount of worth to another whereby I cannot think (at the moment) of how to ascribe more worth. Thus, at that moment, the worth I am ascribe is unsurpassable TO ME in that I cannot think of a way to surpass it. Of course, with practice I hope to get better the next time at which point I am now ascribing "unsurpassable" worth again. One indicator that I am NOT ascribing unsurpassable worth to another is when I find myself judging them for being too this or too that.
John
There is absolutely no substantial difference between "infinite" and "unsurpassable." What real difference do you see between these two terms?
"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
Edited by - John Earp on 05/27/2003 01:56:46 AM | | Back to Top | | |
 |
John Earp
Registered Member
Date Joined Oct 2002
Total Posts : 1715
| Posted 5/26/2003 5:34 PM (GMT -6) | | Starkman,
Hypothetically speaking, let's try to imagine the situation before the Fall. If Adam had physically beaten or even murdered Eve before the Fall, would that not have been in fact sinful? If Eve had lied to Adam before the Fall, would that not have been in fact a sin?
God gave Adam and Eve several commands prior to the Fall, which included the command not to eat of one particular tree, but also included commands to be fruitful and multiply (which I'm going to assume they were working on before the Fall  ), to take dominion over the earth, etc. We have no evidence whatsoever that they ever disobeyed God until they ate of the fruit.
The point I'm trying to make is that they did in fact have a moral law from God which entailed ethical questions to consider (albeit much more simple than ours) before the Fall, or else why would Eve have tried to reason with the Serpent? Of course it would seem rather obvious that in their pre-Fall state to do right would have been totally natural, and to do evil would be totally foreign to them, as opposed to after the Fall. But it does not seem to me to be reasonable at all to think that they somehow acquired a different moral capacity after their first sin. True, their free will was corrupted, but it does not seem that the image of God was utterly erased or ruined, for in Gen. 9 God again says that mankind is in the image of God.
Abraham does in fact appeal to God's righteous character when he pleads for Sodom and Gomorrhah; "Shall not the Judge of all the earth do right?"
Moses uses substantially the same kind of argument when pleading with God not to destroy the people of Israel for idolatry:
Ex 32:12 "Why should the Egyptians speak, saying, 'With evil {intent} He brought them out to kill them in the mountains and to destroy them from the face of the earth'? Turn from Your burning anger and change Your mind about {doing} harm to Your people.
(An appeal to God's reputation).
Ex 32:13 "Remember Abraham, Isaac, and Israel, Your servants to whom You swore by Yourself, and said to them, 'I will multiply your descendants as the stars of the heavens, and all this land of which I have spoken I will give to your descendants, and they shall inherit {it} forever.'"
(An appeal to God's integrity--he promised such and such; now he should not go back on His word).
Ex 32:14 So the LORD changed His mind about the harm which He said He would do to His people. NASB
"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
Edited by - John Earp on 05/27/2003 01:56:10 AM | | Back to Top | | |
|
PotOnWheel
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 9890
| Posted 5/26/2003 6:16 PM (GMT -6) | | quote:
The point I'm trying to make is that they did in fact have a moral law from God which entailed ethical questions to consider (albeit much more simple than ours) before the Fall, or else why would Eve have tried to reason with the Serpent?
Consider that the original sin, also called the "original pride" was deciding to "be god." This is MUCH deeper than the shallowest examples of Ethics that you can imagine. And that difference is a useful tool.
As Yannaras said in the quote I posted: "...when we are to study the truth about man and his morality we start with the truth about being with its source and cause: we start from the acceptance of God's revelation, from the truth about God. " The "truth about being" for Adam and Eve is that they were not God. But they tried to take on that role. And we know the rest of the story.
The "Ethics" can be made into sound-bites later, after the fact. But the life, or the sin, each are related to something much deeper, the "source and cause" of reality, found in the "truth about God." | | Back to Top | | |
|
John Earp
Registered Member
Date Joined Oct 2002
Total Posts : 1715
| Posted 5/26/2003 8:48 PM (GMT -6) | | Hi PoW,
I certainly agree that pride is the root of sin; however, I don't see precisely how your point relates to mine. Could you clarify?
The First Pair were already like God in that they were originally created "in his image and in his likeness." The problem came in when they became persuaded that to be as God was desirable.
"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
Edited by - John Earp on 05/27/2003 02:00:43 AM | | Back to Top | | |
|
BBBCanada
Registered Member
Date Joined Jun 2001
Total Posts : 2763
| Posted 5/27/2003 3:11 AM (GMT -6) | | quote:
As to Ike's antinomian claims, I suppose Adolf Hitler could have in fact been holy in his actions, had he had a warm, fuzzy feeling towards the Jews while he gassed them.
I would not argue on the basis of warm lovy dovy feelings. This is clearly not what Iconoclast and Greg have meant by love in the past and as Iconoclast shows by this:
quote:
The testimony of the people who were horribly impacted by what he did.
However, when Iconoclast says:
quote:
2. My own internal experience of what impacts me as being loving or unloving.
I find this to be way too subjective and individualistic. My contention for ethics is that the Spirit speaks to us through the text of scripture and so we cannot get away from the text (though I'm afraid there will be much more to explain than what I'm can do here at the moment).
Either way, I find that people can think that they are being loving, I mean they REALLY DO HAVE GOOD INTENTIONS, when in all reality they are being VERY LEGALISTIC and hypocritical. It's called, "A blindspot." This is why I disagree with John on this point concerning the pharisees in another thread. John says that they were not accepted by God. That is not the issue though. Of course they weren't accepted by God. But this was not what I was trying to say. The issue is WHAT THEY THOUGHT OF THEMSELVES AND WHAT THEY THOUGHT GOD THOUGHT OF THEM. And the pharisees REALLY BELIEVED that they were pleasing God. Anyhoo, at some point, I think we might want to deal with the nature of legalism and hypocrisy.
Brandon
Can a mother forget the baby at her breast and have no compassion on the child she has borne? Though she may forget, I will not forget you! See, I have engraved you on the palms of my hands; your walls are ever before me.--Isa 49:15-16
Edited by - BBBCanada on 05/27/2003 08:15:17 AM | | Back to Top | | |
|
PotOnWheel
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 9890
| Posted 5/27/2003 3:57 AM (GMT -6) | | quote:
John Earp: PoW, I certainly agree that pride is the root of sin; however, I don't see precisely how your point relates to mine. Could you clarify?
PoW: I was responding to the phrase, "they did in fact have a moral law from God which entailed ethical questions to." You sum up well as follows:
quote:
The First Pair were already like God in that they were originally created "in his image and in his likeness." The problem came in when they became persuaded that to be as God was desirable.
I think that the difficulty in distinguishing between "ethical behavior" and "faithfulness" is stems from our Western tradition of separating "symbol" from "reality." Originally a "sym-bol" was (and is if we let it) a thing that contained meaning, a reality that also refered beyond itself. (My wedding ring IS a ring AND is more than just a piece of gold. The Eucharist IS Bread and Wine AND is participation in the Body and Blood.) But Medieval times separated them for us; and spawned all the lovely confusion like "ubiquity" and "transsubstantiation." SO... we tend to separate "behaviors" and "faith."
But I think that I sense that you are witness that they belong together.
PoW
Edited by - PotOnWheel on 05/27/2003 09:12:59 AM | | Back to Top | | |
|
Iconoclast
Registered Member
Date Joined Oct 2001
Total Posts : 1227
| Posted 5/27/2003 6:10 PM (GMT -6) | | Brandon
quote:
As to Ike's antinomian claims, I suppose Adolf Hitler could have in fact been holy in his actions, had he had a warm, fuzzy feeling towards the Jews while he gassed them.
I would not argue on the basis of warm lovy dovy feelings. This is clearly not what Iconoclast and Greg have meant by love in the past and as Iconoclast shows by this:
quote:
The testimony of the people who were horribly impacted by what he did.
However, when Iconoclast says:
quote:
2. My own internal experience of what impacts me as being loving or unloving.
I find this to be way too subjective and individualistic. My contention for ethics is that the Spirit speaks to us through the text of scripture and so we cannot get away from the text (though I'm afraid there will be much more to explain than what I'm can do here at the moment).
Either way, I find that people can think that they are being loving ...
Iconoclast
I agree that we can think we are being loving when the impact on the other person is not experienced as loving. In #2 above I meant my own internal experience of how I am impacted by how others behave toward me. If someone does something that has a positive impact on me then I have some pretty good evidence that if I do the same for others that they will be impacted positively as well. "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you." This is not perfect as something that impact me positively may not actually be helpful for another. We must take individual differences into account and seek to determine if we are actually having a loving impact or not.
thanks,
Iconoclast
"The benefit overran the merit the first day, and has overrun the merit ever since. The merit itself, so-called, I reckon part of the receiving." - Ralph Waldo Emerson | | Back to Top | | |
|
BBBCanada
Registered Member
Date Joined Jun 2001
Total Posts : 2763
| Posted 5/28/2003 6:09 AM (GMT -6) | | Iconoclast said:quote:
I agree that we can think we are being loving when the impact on the other person is not experienced as loving. In #2 above I meant my own internal experience of how I am impacted by how others behave toward me. If someone does something that has a positive impact on me then I have some pretty good evidence that if I do the same for others that they will be impacted positively as well. "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you." This is not perfect as something that impact me positively may not actually be helpful for another. We must take individual differences into account and seek to determine if we are actually having a loving impact or not.
Ok. Let me see if I understand you. Look at the highlighted part again. Now, what I said was:quote:
Either way, I find that people can think that they are being loving, I mean they REALLY DO HAVE GOOD INTENTIONS, when in all reality they are being VERY LEGALISTIC and hypocritical.
I never made ANY mention about “having impact” on the other person. For example I agree with your highlighted part above. But here is what I also think (and probably intended to be clear about but was not).
We can think we are being loving AND having a positive impact on the other person AND the other person who is being impacted is experiencing it as loving, yet in reality we are being unloving and in actuality impacting the other person negatively, though they may not experience it as such (and in the midst of all of this, we are being hypocritical). As a matter of fact, it can work the other way around. The other person may experience the impact as negative but it is, in reality, loving. This is why we need more than what you have to offer (something internal) as far as ethics is concerned. Let me give an example.
Take the seventh commandment—“Thou shalt not commit adultery.” Now Jesus statement on adultery does not nullify the seventh commandment. He still upheld this by returning back to the ideal of one man, one woman together forever. And for now, we won’t deal with this being the case of Jesus “going deeper than the law,” etc. What we will say is this. These are ETHICAL PRONOUNCEMENTS. Contrary to your statement that there is no Christian ethic, these are “oughts” and “ought nots” and I might add that they are universal. That is, they were not meant for that particular situation.
Now it seems to me that you would say something like, “Adultery is wrong because it hurts people.” That is, that it has a negative impact on people, (this is something similar to what Miss. E said in another thread in defense of homosexuality, “Whenever does sexual sin NOT do damage?”). It hurts adulterers themselves because they may care for each other and the deeper their secret, fragmented and finally aborted love, the worse their pain. Then there is the spouse who finds out that her husband has been cheating on her. She is hurt by a sense of being unlovely, unwanted and unrespected. It may hurt friends who know about it and yet still care. So, if adultery hurts NEEDLESSLY, it is no doubt a bad thing.
But suppose EVERYONE’S feelings were to change, so that we all accepted a measure of “healthy extra-marital sex.”
Digression:You may be inclined to say that this could not happen. But let me assure you, that this kind of scenario is very real. Have you ever head of something called, “the open marriage?” Before some religious conservatives go off the handle and think that people who are into open marriages are nothing but perverts, I should remind you that many advocates of open marriages do not maintain that the institution of marriage itself should be discarded. Rather, they call for more flexibility of sexual expression beyond the context of marriage (flexible monogamy as it is termed). And the whole concept of the open marriage can give us Christians some insight into the some positive features of the concept i.e. open marriages rightly remind us that marriage is not to be an instrument of individual fulfillment, (it rightly disposes of a ROMANTIC VEIW of marriage. If any of you think that this is not possible, I will be more than happy to explain myself).End Digression.
Let’s suppose that accepted extra-marital sex brought only a pain that was quite tolerable compared to its pleasures and its opportunities for self-maximizing. If pain (impact) is the reason adultery is forbidden, we may be able to render the commandment (and Jesus’ word’s as well) obsolete by making adultery painless (and therefore eliminate or reduce negative impact) as we make it popular! And even if adultery has some good results (positive impact) does a wrong thing become good just because benefits follow it? For example, let’s say two parents are brought closer together because their child was run down in the street by a drunken driver. Would it not be outrageous for someone to justify the drunken driver on the ground that by killing a child, he actually saved a marriage? While the comparison cannot be exact, it does illustrate a point and that is this: moral evils cannot be justified by beneficial results (positive impact).
Now, let me throw this question out to you.
Is there ever a time where a moral evil is the right thing to do? That is, where we could justify something that has a negative impact on someone? I am not simply asking that we temper our judgment because we understand the extenuating circumstances. I’m asking, whether SOME moral evil deserves no negative judgment at all. It has no need to be forgiven or excused. I would contend that there is, but, what this shows is that extreme situations are what allow for exceptions. This is something similar to what Helmut Theilicke says when he says that ethical dilemmas occur on the outer edges of ethics (paraphrased), after all, if we did not have to struggle with them they would not be dilemmas.
It seems to me that we need something more than mere impact (on our psychological selves) to guide us in our ethical decision making.
Brandon
Can a mother forget the baby at her breast and have no compassion on the child she has borne? Though she may forget, I will not forget you! See, I have engraved you on the palms of my hands; your walls are ever before me.--Isa 49:15-16
| | Back to Top | | |
|
John Earp
Registered Member
Date Joined Oct 2002
Total Posts : 1715
| Posted 5/28/2003 1:01 PM (GMT -6) | | Hi Brandon,
The reason it seems to me that Ike’s POV could justify Hitler’s crimes is simply because of the subjectiveness involved in it, as well as the statement, “there is no Christian ethic.” This latter statement, if true, could in fact justify anything, could it not? In any case, it seems that Bonhoeffer in the end abandoned whatever ethics or "non-ethics" that may have restrained him from assassinating Hitler. (By the way, not that my opinion on it matters, but I really think Bonhoeffer made a righteous choice in trying to end Hitler's genocidal rule).
About the Pharisees, my primary point was not that they were “not accepted by God,” but rather, that they had wicked, evil hearts, and were not in fact in possession of good intentions in the least. This is borne out in John 8:
John 8:37 "I know that you are Abraham's descendants; yet you seek to kill Me, because My word has no place in you.
Jesus says that the Pharisees had no place for His word in them.
38 "I speak the things which I have seen with {My} Father; therefore you also do the things which you heard from {your} father."
39 They answered and said to Him, "Abraham is our father." Jesus *said to them, "If you are Abraham's children, do the deeds of Abraham.
40 "But as it is, you are seeking to kill Me, a man who has told you the truth, which I heard from God; this Abraham did not do.
Jesus says if the Pharisees were in fact Abraham’s children, they would not be acting like they were, wanting to kill someone who was telling them the truth.
41 "You are doing the deeds of your father." They said to Him, "We were not born of fornication; we have one Father: God."
42 Jesus said to them, "If God were your Father, you would love Me, for I proceeded forth and have come from God, for I have not even come on My own initiative, but He sent Me.
43 "Why do you not understand what I am saying? {It is} because you cannot hear My word.
44 "You are of {your} father the devil, and you want to do the desires of your father. He was a murderer from the beginning, and does not stand in the truth because there is no truth in him. Whenever he speaks a lie, he speaks from his own {nature,} for he is a liar and the father of lies.
Jesus says the Pharisees are of their father, the Devil, and that their desires (motives, intentions) were likewise of the Devil.
45 "But because I speak the truth, you do not believe Me.
46 "Which one of you convicts Me of sin? If I speak truth, why do you not believe Me?
47 "He who is of God hears the words of God; for this reason you do not hear {them,} because you are not of God."
It seems to me that Jesus was not of the opinion that a person could have good intentions and simultaneously be in such opposition to His message. It also does not seem to me that Jesus was of the opinion that the Pharisees were merely “rejected by God,” but that they were in fact evil through and through as a result of their own choice. They categorically were not well-intentioned, or else Jesus is misleading us in this passage.
"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
Edited by - John Earp on 05/28/2003 6:04:14 PM | | Back to Top | | |
|
Alan Rhoda
Registered Member
Date Joined May 2002
Total Posts : 680
| Posted 5/30/2003 3:20 PM (GMT -6) | | quote:
Alan,
What about this? Prior to eating the forbidden fruit, Adam and Eve had no personal knowledge of evil, and it was designed to stay that way.
Good question, Payaso. My response is that we need to distinguish between two kinds of knowledge. Bertrand Russell called these "knowledge by acquaintance" and "knowledge by description". This distinction is present in many languages. For example, Spanish (conocer / saber), German (kennen / wissen), French (conaitre / savoir), etc. What I am claiming about the function of the tree of knowledge of good and evil is that its presence in the Garden coupled with God's prohibition was sufficient for Adam and Eve to have descriptive knowledge of evil, even if they did not yet have acquaintance with evil. In other words, they did not need to eat of the Tree to know (by description) good and evil. They did come to have an acquaintance knowledge of evil by eating, but this knowledge corrupted them and in fact distorted their descriptive knowledge of good and evil, so that later on people could come to "call good things evil and evil things good".
Alan | | Back to Top | | |
|
Iconoclast
Registered Member
Date Joined Oct 2001
Total Posts : 1227
| Posted 5/31/2003 5:36 PM (GMT -6) | | Alan Rhoda
In other words, they did not need to eat of the Tree to know (by description) good and evil.
Iconoclast
Interesting distinction Alan. I hear you suggesting that Adam and Eve DID know good and evil by description before the fall. If this is correct would you then say that God's description of evil is simply eating of the fruit of the tree of knowledge of good and evil? And that God's description of good is anything else AS LONG AS we are not "eating of the fruit of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil?"
thanks,
Iconoclast
"The benefit overran the merit the first day, and has overrun the merit ever since. The merit itself, so-called, I reckon part of the receiving." - Ralph Waldo Emerson | | Back to Top | | |
|
Iconoclast
Registered Member
Date Joined Oct 2001
Total Posts : 1227
| Posted 5/31/2003 6:38 PM (GMT -6) | | Brandon
If pain (impact) is the reason adultery is forbidden, we may be able to render the commandment (and Jesus’ word’s as well) obsolete by making adultery painless (and therefore eliminate or reduce negative impact) as we make it popular!
Iconoclast
I would argue that we HAVE rendered the commandment (and Jesus' word's as well) obsolete in the specific situation of remarriage after a divorce by allowing it. Why? Because we have all agreed that this form of adultery is not only "painless" but it is actually healthy and life-fulfilling.
Again, we determined this based on the actual impact that remarriage had after a divorce. We noticed (over time) that remarriage after divorce did NOT produce bad fruit. Thus, it is now allowed and most people bristle (and appropriately so) when someone says that it is really still adultery.
Also, you equate "pain" with a "negative" or unloving impact. One of the consequences of the fall is that we now tend to assume that pain = evil and pleasure = good. I think positive impact = "towards life" and negative impact = "towards death". Furthermore I think that "I will write the law on their hearts" (Jeremiah something or other) means that we have detectors within us that can accurately assess "towards life" and "towards death". These detectors however only operate in the concrete reality of actual situations and are almost useless in abstract discussion.
thanks,
Iconoclast
"The benefit overran the merit the first day, and has overrun the merit ever since. The merit itself, so-called, I reckon part of the receiving." - Ralph Waldo Emerson
Edited by - Iconoclast on 06/01/2003 9:35:55 PM | | Back to Top | | |
|
Iconoclast
Registered Member
Date Joined Oct 2001
Total Posts : 1227
| Posted 5/31/2003 7:29 PM (GMT -6) | | Brandon
Now, let me throw this question out to you.
Is there ever a time where a moral evil is the right thing to do? That is, where we could justify something that has a negative impact on someone? I am not simply asking that we temper our judgment because we understand the extenuating circumstances. I’m asking, whether SOME moral evil deserves no negative judgment at all. It has no need to be forgiven or excused. I would contend that there is, but, what this shows is that extreme situations are what allow for exceptions. This is something similar to what Helmut Theilicke says when he says that ethical dilemmas occur on the outer edges of ethics (paraphrased), after all, if we did not have to struggle with them they would not be dilemmas.
It seems to me that we need something more than mere impact (on our psychological selves) to guide us in our ethical decision making.
Iconoclast
If by "negative impact" you mean "pain" then I would certainly agree with you. The doctor causes pain when setting a broken bone. But if by "negative impact" you mean "causing one of these little ones to stumble" or "towards death" then I have a hard time agreeing with you.
We have ethical dilemmas because ethics is not the goal but only a guide towards the goal. The goal is to love one another, the goal is to have a positive or loving impact on others - "towards life". An ethical dilemma comes about when the guide towards the goal is inadequate. Ethics says we should not lie. But love sometimes requires lying for another.
I assume you agree with this distinction between the goal (love one another) and ethics (the guide toward the goal). Please correct me if I am wrong. I would guess that the problem here is how we determine whether our actions are actually serving the goal - whether we are actually taking loving action. You seem to see this idea of assessing the impact on another as a key aspect of determining whether we are taking loving action as "mere impact (on our psychological selves)". I think you are making a good point that sometimes love requires us to take action that is not "felt" by the other as a loving action. Confronting a close friend who is an alcoholic is a good example of this. The alcoholic certainly does not "feel" good about being confronted. At the same time a key factor in a successful intervention is to convince the alcoholic that you are confronting them BECAUSE you love them, BECAUSE you WANT to have a positive impact on them. In essence you are trying to convince the alcoholic that they don't "feel" good about being confronted BECAUSE they are addicted to something that is killing them. The extent to which you can convince the alcoholic that your confrontation and what they need to do WILL result in a positive and loving impact on them is the extent to which you will probably be successful. Of course the alcoholic is always free even when he or she sees this to choose life or death.
thanks,
Iconoclast
"The benefit overran the merit the first day, and has overrun the merit ever since. The merit itself, so-called, I reckon part of the receiving." - Ralph Waldo Emerson | | Back to Top | | |
|
Iconoclast
Registered Member
Date Joined Oct 2001
Total Posts : 1227
| Posted 5/31/2003 7:54 PM (GMT -6) | | John Earp
I absolutely do NOT believe God tortures individuals for eternity for something they could not avoid. (By the way, why do you think littering is unavoidable? Don't be a litterbug!)
Iconoclast
Did I say that littering is unavoidable? I would NEVER litter! 
John Earp
But seriously, by admitting that you do not find this idea to present a loving God (nor do I) reveals that you in fact affirm in your conscience the law of love, and that you judge God to in fact conform to this very law (being loving and acting in a loving way by not torturing individuals for eternity for that which they could in no case avoid).
Iconoclast
Perhaps I am just struggling with the way you phrase things. Maybe our language is just so different because I would not say that this affirms that I am using the law of love that is in my conscience. I would say that I would not feel loved, that I would feel hated if someone locked me in a dungeon for littering. Feeling hated by a person doing this and feeling righteous indignation are two different things to me.
Feelings of righteous indignation are feeling that come from judgment. Feeling hated by someone or feeling that someone is against me is a completely different feeling. I don't think this feeling comes from my conscience or any sort of judgment. It comes from a sense of being separate from another or disunity.
Also, Bonhoeffer suggests that our conscience is our own call to become unified with ourselves. That this is a prerequisite to becoming unified with God but it is not the same thing and thus we CAN be fulfilling our conscience but NOT fulfilling God's will for us. He makes a very compelling argument for this in "Ethics". Perhaps the Pharisees were unified in their own conscience and thus FELT that they were righteous and doing God's will but as you pointed out they were really doing their father's (Satan's) will.
thanks,
Iconoclast
"The benefit overran the merit the first day, and has overrun the merit ever since. The merit itself, so-called, I reckon part of the receiving." - Ralph Waldo Emerson
Edited by - Iconoclast on 06/01/2003 01:07:24 AM | | Back to Top | | |
|
Iconoclast
Registered Member
Date Joined Oct 2001
Total Posts : 1227
| Posted 5/31/2003 8:25 PM (GMT -6) | | John Earp
Ike said:
What I would like to understand from you John is exactly what special knowledge you have to be able to claim that you can judge whether WHATEVER God does is righteous or unrighteous? I hear you presupposing that you can in fact do this. Is that what you are saying?
John replies: The Bible itself reveals God as righteous in all his ways, that he always does what is right, and so forth. I shouldn't have to do your homework for you on this one; it is clearly stated throughout Scripture that God in fact does act righteously, and that he does in fact act lovingly, always.
Iconoclast
I think we are really missing each other here. I certainly agree that we know that God loves us and always acts righteously because the bible tells us that He does.
But doesn't this mean that WHATEVER God does is by definition righteous? When God commands the slaughter of the Canaanites don't we determine that this is, by definition, a loving thing to do SINCE God commanded it? And wouldn't our own judgment facility tell us that this WASN'T a loving thing to do EXCEPT that God commanded it?
To me this shows that God is not bound by some moral law that we all have access to or that is somehow higher than God. At the same time I agree that God freely chooses to love. That it is a choice. But it does not come about because of some ethical demand that God is under. It comes about because God loves to love.
thanks,
Iconoclast
"The benefit overran the merit the first day, and has overrun the merit ever since. The merit itself, so-called, I reckon part of the receiving." - Ralph Waldo Emerson | | Back to Top | | |
|
Iconoclast
Registered Member
Date Joined Oct 2001
Total Posts : 1227
| Posted 6/1/2003 9:40 AM (GMT -6) | | Brandon
Either way, I find that people can think that they are being loving, I mean they REALLY DO HAVE GOOD INTENTIONS, when in all reality they are being VERY LEGALISTIC and hypocritical. It's called, "A blindspot." This is why I disagree with John on this point concerning the pharisees in another thread. John says that they were not accepted by God. That is not the issue though. Of course they weren't accepted by God. But this was not what I was trying to say. The issue is WHAT THEY THOUGHT OF THEMSELVES AND WHAT THEY THOUGHT GOD THOUGHT OF THEM. And the pharisees REALLY BELIEVED that they were pleasing God.
John Earp
About the Pharisees, my primary point was not that they were “not accepted by God,” but rather, that they had wicked, evil hearts, and were not in fact in possession of good intentions in the least. This is borne out in John 8:
John 8:37 "I know that you are Abraham's descendants; yet you seek to kill Me, because My word has no place in you.
Jesus says that the Pharisees had no place for His word in them.
Iconoclast
Brandon, I think John makes a good point that the Pharisees really DID NOT have good intentions.
John, I think Brandon makes a good point that the Pharisees surely seemed to THINK that they DID have good intentions. That they really WERE being pleasing to God. They seemed to be totally unaware that they had negative intentions and were really serving Satan.
Can both of these be true?
Let me suggest how they might both be true.
Bonhoeffer says that our conscience is an indicator that we are in disunity with ourselves – that our “espoused beliefs” are in contradiction with our “beliefs-in-use” (what we actually do). Whereas shame is the indicator that we are in disunity with God and with others. Bonhoeffer says that shame was the first experience we had when we fell – we hid from God because we were ashamed. We suddenly realized that we were in disunity with God and we felt “naked” and ashamed.
When we feel “judged” we either feel shame or we feel righteous indignation. It seems to me that shame or disunity is the first and most basic feeling that we have and that righteous indignation is a “masking” feeling. It is a way to NOT feel the shame that comes from the disunity. It does not however overcome the feeling of disunity but simply changes the power structure of where the perceived disunity comes from. Rather than feeling the “shame” of being judged we turn this around to feeling the “shamefulness” of the one we now judge.
It seems to me that the Pharisees must have still felt “pangs of conscience” in that they did not do what they told others to do. Jesus states this clearly. However, I wonder if they did not feel the shame of disunity with God BECAUSE they only felt the shamefulness of everyone else who was clearly not working as hard as they were to satisfy the law – which really meant to them – to satisfy the pangs of their own conscience. They convinced themselves of the abstract argument that since they clearly worked harder than others to satisfy God’s law then they were the most unified with God.
Thus, they truly believed (falsely, abstractly) that they were unified with God’s law and that thus that they had good intentions.
What one can see clearly from this is that their true god was their own conscience – which is the same as saying - themselves. They felt that as long as they were working hard to satisfy the ethical demands of their own conscience that therefore they, by their own definition, had good intentions and were pleasing to God.
One can, I think, also see clearly from this that their TRUE intentions had nothing to do with serving God at all but ONLY serving themselves – the god of their own conscience – which is, in principle, Satan – “the accuser”. Our conscience accuses us (is "ha satan") of disunity with ourselves as though that is really disunity with God.
What do you guys think?
thanks,
Iconoclast
"The benefit overran the merit the first day, and has overrun the merit ever since. The merit itself, so-called, I reckon part of the receiving." - Ralph Waldo Emerson
Edited by - Iconoclast on 06/01/2003 2:42:27 PM | | Back to Top | | |
|
John Earp
Registered Member
Date Joined Oct 2002
Total Posts : 1715
| Posted 6/1/2003 11:25 AM (GMT -6) | | Ike,
Is the following statement true?
"Love must be chosen."
"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 | | |
|
Iconoclast
Registered Member
Date Joined Oct 2001
Total Posts : 1227
| Posted 6/1/2003 12:16 PM (GMT -6) | | John Earp
Is the following statement true?
"Love must be chosen."
Iconoclast
I would say yes - else it is not love.
thanks,
Iconoclast
"The benefit overran the merit the first day, and has overrun the merit ever since. The merit itself, so-called, I reckon part of the receiving." - Ralph Waldo Emerson | | Back to Top | | |
|
John Earp
Registered Member
Date Joined Oct 2002
Total Posts : 1715
| Posted 6/1/2003 7:37 PM (GMT -6) | | quote:
John Earp
Is the following statement true?
"Love must be chosen."
Iconoclast
I would say yes - else it is not love.
thanks,
Iconoclast
John replies: Okay, so we agree on this point. And so you would also have to agree that for God's love to be real love, it would likewise have to be chosen, correct?
"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 | | |
|
BBBCanada
Registered Member
Date Joined Jun 2001
Total Posts : 2763
| Posted 6/2/2003 9:07 AM (GMT -6) | | Ok. Let’s put it like this. I agree with you that we can have “pain” that is good for us as in the example you provide. As I recall, you had a hard time admitting this in the past. I also agree that the “guide towards the goal is inadequate” at times, hence our ethical dilemmas. But what I am also saying is that sometimes we can think that we are having a positive impact and it leads to death i.e. in the adultery example I gave. (Pr 14:12, 16:25) Therefore, I am not looking at this purely from a “painful/painless” point of view. Though you may place a lot more worth on “detectors within us that can accurately assess ‘towards life’ and ‘towards death’ ” then I, I tend to see the law of God written on our hearts as pertaining to having in some sense a basic understanding of right and wrong and the healthy guilt that comes from it. But I certain don’t place the kind of weight that you place on it for ethical decision making. Self-deception extends into all spheres of human activity, including the moral sphere where it takes on the form of rationalization—the inventing of reasons for doing what ought not to be done and for not doing what ought to be done. The only way to relieve ourselves of self-deception is through a understanding of oneself in light of an external, transcendent standard. Some scholars say that "the self that others see" (similar to what Terry Baxter said with regard to the will) is ultimately the real self. The “inner man” as a discrete moral assessment, does not exist. That is to say for example, that I may find the revelation of a drug-pusher’s heart has been in the right place all along, but not a substitute for his behavior in describing him.
I readily admit that the heart can be too deceptive for a guide. So I
A: Dare not go on without the Spirit and the text.
B. Dare not go on without the help of the help of the Christian community in certain tenses of the term, past, meaning tradition, present including culture, that is we have the Bible and culture to help us in solving certain dilemmas i.e. psychology can help us with understanding addictions. I find your “detectors” to be way to subjective and individualistic.
C. Think your “towards life” and “towards death” is isolationist. That is, it remains in the category of personal. It doesn’t seem to go into the area of the political where the complexity of decision making can be even more intensified. That is to say, that when I begin to ask questions of a political nature, it is not all that easy to see that something is leading toward life or death as you might like.
As far as the Pharisees go I have to disagree with John’s portrayal of them. As a matter of fact, there is much that we can learn from the Pharisees and the spirit in which they moved that can inform our understanding of the tension between law and gospel or law and grace. That is, is Mt. Sinai equal and eternally valid with Mt. Calvary? Does the Gospel transform, while it does not annul Pharisaism? You’d be surprised. I don’t think it helps to take portions of scripture out of their historical settings. What is needed here is a solid understanding of the Pharisees within their historical surroundings. This may have to be reserved for another discussion.
In the end, without a standard, the house of faith itself may begin to crumble, not—as it appears—because of the storm’s power, but because of an earlier foolish decision to build the house on sand instead of rock.
Brandon
Can a mother forget the baby at her breast and have no compassion on the child she has borne? Though she may forget, I will not forget you! See, I have engraved you on the palms of my hands; your walls are ever before me.--Isa 49:15-16
Edited by - BBBCanada on 06/02/2003 2:09:39 PM | | Back to Top | | |
|
John Earp
Registered Member
Date Joined Oct 2002
Total Posts : 1715
| Posted 6/2/2003 12:18 PM (GMT -6) | | Ike:
I think you may have mistaken the most important part of John ch. 8 that I had referred to earlier in demonstrating the evil hearts of the Pharisees, when Jesus says to them, "the desires of your father (the Devil) you wish to do." Here Jesus nails down what I have been trying to point out. This damning indictment of the Pharisees hearts is repeated time and again throughout the gospels, with more and more emphasis the further we go in the gospel story. (As in "Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, HYPOCRITES!" Jesus goes so far as to call the Pharisees "whitewashed tombs, full of dead men's bones." What more evidence could one need to conclude that Jesus (God in the flesh) viewed the Pharisees not at all as "well intentioned."
Brandon:
As to Sinai vs. Calvary, it seems to me that Jesus emphatically denied that the Pharisees were in the spirit of Abraham or Moses, and that even though they may have claimed to have been faithful to the Torah, the truth was that they "made the word of God of none effect" by their traditions.
"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
Edited by - John Earp on 06/03/2003 01:12:13 AM | | Back to Top | | |
|
BBBCanada
Registered Member
Date Joined Jun 2001
Total Posts : 2763
| Posted 6/3/2003 2:51 AM (GMT -6) | | John,
I have to make this quick, though, in my opinion, this whole Pharisee speil is beside the point of this thread.
I have no doubt that the portrayals of the Pharisees in the Gospels, for the most part, is negative. Yet, not all of the Pharisees in the Gospel accounts are portrayed this way. I don't think that it is wise to paint with a broad brush. The piety of MANY of the Pharisees far out does any piety that we see today. And not all piety was external or formalistic either (the bad stuff). There was very much an inward piety that seriously sought to please God.
Luke 7:36 Then one of the Pharisees invited Him to eat with him. He entered the Pharisee's house and reclined at the table.
Luke 13:31 At that time some Pharisees came and told Him, "Go, get out of here! Herod wants to kill You!"
Luke 14:1 One Sabbath, when He went to eat at the house of one of the leading Pharisees, they were watching Him closely.
John 3:1-21 There was a man from the Pharisees named Nicodemus, a ruler of the Jews.
This whole story is a positive portrayal. It really is an interesting study to do on the Pharisees. Maybe I can post some stuff this week when I have more time.
Brandon
Can a mother forget the baby at her breast and have no compassion on the child she has borne? Though she may forget, I will not forget you! See, I have engraved you on the palms of my hands; your walls are ever before me.--Isa 49:15-16
| | Back to Top | | |
|
Iconoclast
Registered Member
Date Joined Oct 2001
Total Posts : 1227
| Posted 6/3/2003 4:41 PM (GMT -6) | | John Earp
I think you may have mistaken the most important part of John ch. 8 that I had referred to earlier in demonstrating the evil hearts of the Pharisees, when Jesus says to them, "the desires of your father (the Devil) you wish to do."
…
What more evidence could one need to conclude that Jesus (God in the flesh) viewed the Pharisees not at all as "well intentioned."
Iconoclast
I agreed with your point here when I said:
quote:
Brandon, I think John makes a good point that the Pharisees really DID NOT have good intentions.
I went on to say that the Pharisees THOUGHT that they were doing what God wanted them to do. The rest of my argument was to suggest how BOTH of these might be true.
thanks,
Iconoclast
"The benefit overran the merit the first day, and has overrun the merit ever since. The merit itself, so-called, I reckon part of the receiving." - Ralph Waldo Emerson | | Back to Top | | |
|
Iconoclast
Registered Member
Date Joined Oct 2001
Total Posts : 1227
| Posted 6/3/2003 4:48 PM (GMT -6) | | John Earp
And so you would also have to agree that for God's love to be real love, it would likewise have to be chosen, correct?
Iconoclast
Yes. I believe that God chooses to be FOR us. He wants to give us all eternal life.
thanks,
Iconoclast
"The benefit overran the merit the first day, and has overrun the merit ever since. The merit itself, so-called, I reckon part of the receiving." - Ralph Waldo Emerson | | Back to Top | | |
|
John Earp
Registered Member
Date Joined Oct 2002
Total Posts : 1715
| Posted 6/3/2003 6:10 PM (GMT -6) | | quote:
John,
I have to make this quick, though, in my opinion, this whole Pharisee speil is beside the point of this thread.
My reason for bringing it up is precisely because Icon had repeatedly asserted that anyone (especially me) who did not agree with him on the "there is no Christian ethic" thing was "stuck in the legal view," and was thinking like the Pharisees. I think it also speaks directly to the issue of intentions (the crucial point in determining ethics, as far as I can tell). The Pharisees seem to present us with quite an irony--So anal-retentively "ethical" and yet in truth absolutely UNethical--Look at how they (in general) treated Jesus. Also, you said earlier in this thread that a person could both have good intentions and be Pharisaical, legalistic. I don't see how, if we are using Scripture to define the terms, "Pharisaical," "legalistic," and "good."
quote:
I have no doubt that the portrayals of the Pharisees in the Gospels, for the most part, is negative. Yet, not all of the Pharisees in the Gospel accounts are portrayed this way. I don't think that it is wise to paint with a broad brush. The piety of MANY of the Pharisees far out does any piety that we see today. And not all piety was external or formalistic either (the bad stuff). There was very much an inward piety that seriously sought to please God.
If so, why does Jesus so unequivocally condemn them as a group? Apart from Nicodemus, in each of the examples you gave it turns out the Pharisees had ulterior motives for appearing to accept Jesus.
Luke 7:36 Then one of the Pharisees invited Him to eat with him. He entered the Pharisee's house and reclined at the table.
(This is the infamous passage where the Pharisee judges the woman who is worshiping Jesus as well as judges Jesus for apparently not realizing this. Doesn't sound like a positive reflection on the Pharisee in question).
Luke 13:31 At that time some Pharisees came and told Him, "Go, get out of here! Herod wants to kill You!"
(In this passage, Jesus does not reply, with "Gee, thanks! I'd better get the heck outta here!", but rather, tells them in so many words that he is not at all afraid of the big bad Herod).
Luke 14:1 One Sabbath, when He went to eat at the house of one of the leading Pharisees, they were watching Him closely.
(This sounds quite a lot like the many other times when the Pharisees were "watching him closely;" i.e., to see if they could catch him breaking the Law).
John 3:1-21 There was a man from the Pharisees named Nicodemus, a ruler of the Jews.
(I certainly admit Nicodemus appears to have been an exception to the general rule. Further it would seem to me that Nic was the exception that proves the rule.
"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
Edited by - John Earp on 06/03/2003 11:12:22 PM
Edited by - John Earp on 06/03/2003 11:43:32 PM | | Back to Top | | |
| 58 posts in this thread.
Viewing Page : 1 2 3 |
| Forum Information | Currently it is Monday, November 09, 2026 2:06 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 |
|
|