Post Edited (jefscott) : 11/17/2006 8:03:23 AM (GMT-6)

Post Edited (Sahid) : 11/17/2006 5:12:13 PM (GMT-6)

Jeff: What chapter/verse says it was injustice?

Zach: Job 19:7 "Though I cry, 'I've been wronged!' I get no response; though I call for help, there is no justice."
Job 27:2 "As surely as God lives, who has denied me justice..."
Job 34:5 "Job says, 'I am innocent, but God denies me justice."

Job 42:7 After the LORD had said these things to Job, he said to Eliphaz the Temanite, "I am angry with you and your two friends, because you have not spoken of me what is right, as my servant Job has."

It is Job's friends who say things like, "Does God pervert justice? Does the Almighty pervert what is right?" and "It is unthinkable that God would do wrong, that the Almighty would pervert justice."

Jeff:  I'll have to find time this week to look at this. At face value it seems to say God is unjust. I just don't know what that means. You say below you agree with me that God can only be unjust by being untruthful. So either I reconcile the passage somehow or reject Job's theodicy. I'm indifferent, with respect to the topic at hand, as to which we way we go.

Jeff: The intro explains that, I think. Job's steadfastness was an indicator to Satan of the power of God in those who believe, for Satan assumed that Job would deny God if he suffered.

Zach: How does this explain that Christ is glorified in the story of Job? I don't get the connection. It glorifies Mohammed as much as it glorifies Christ.

Jeff: I think it's probably as simple as God was proven right, to Satan, regarding Job. Job feared God to the end. Whatever glorifies God as creator/lord of the universe necessarily glorifies Christ insomuch as he, too, is creator/lord of the universe.

Jeff: It doesn't directly. Rather, I think for God to cease the project and/or it's orderly nature (which is necessary to render it probationary), it would be equivalent to Satan depriving Him of His purpose for this creation. God and Christ must now suffer to attain His purpose. So must we now, because of the Fall.

Zach: But the question that you were responding to was, "Certain people have suffered in places that had never heard the gospel. How does their suffering ultimately bring glory to Christ?" What is the logical connection from God and Christ suffering to those who have never heard the gospel suffering?

Jeff: As I said elsewhere, if for no other reason that more "brethren" are incorporated into Christ's kingdom by perpetuating the creational project. I don't know how it all works specifically. I am assuming there must be some way Christ's glorification is maximized by perpetuating the creational project because otherwise, I don't know how to explain God's essential loving nature for a world full of senseless suffering consistently with the fact that He doesn't need our glory/love in the first place.

Jeff: Thus, justice isn't relevant to God except in the sense of being true and faithful to His own word and natural revelation. He is not bound by an external law.

Zach: I agree completely. God's denying us freedom/slaveholding/owning is not wrong unless he claims that he has made us free.

Jeff: It is not a contradiction for humans to both have LFW and be held accountable for how we choose. You are defining freedom in a very specific way. But that is not the only way it can be defined. So God is only unjust if He has revealed that your definition of freedom is the true one and yet owns us. How has He revealed this?

Jeff: God isn't indifferent, according to the Bible. He hates cruelty and will hold cruel people accountable.

Zach: You moved from present tense to future tense.

Jeff: Have you understood me to be saying that consequences are not future?

Zach: Under your view I can understand that God hates cruelty now, but he doesn't hate it enough to sacrifice any of his glory to stop it now. He will let people suffer now and only help them when it does not conflict with his own purpose being met. This, to me, seems out of character with Jesus.

Jeff: You're saying something virtually identical. You're saying that your definition of freedom is so important to God that He will do nothing to minimize those sufferings you say MATTER. This is what I've been trying to argue for months now; the mere fact that the creational project is perpetuated proves that God gets something out of it's continuance which justifies (per my view) the postponement of consequences or explains (per your view) His relative indifference to the suffering.

What difference does it make, in principle, if His sentient satisfaction is glory or some other kind of pleasure? It's still the self-interest of God that it ultimately gets down to. I'm just saying that God's self-interest is not selfish insomuch as it is the satisfaction He receives from glorifying His Son--which allows me to say that God is not seeking His own even when forebearing the madness of this world. You're saying it's a self-interest, but not identifying it. How does not identifying that self-interest help explain God's supposed loving, unselfish nature?

Jeff: How does a person suffering cruelty come to know that a benevolent God is trying to ascribe meaning to that suffering?

Zach: By hearing the story of Jesus.

Jeff: Then billions have no reason to believe this since they didn't have that story. So if they didn't have reason to believe it, they had good reason to believe that one's best interest in a dog-eat-dog world is to be a dog. I can't see any way around it. Reason can not be at odds with morality if God is benevolent. He must EXPECT people to play the dog-eat-dog game if He has given them no information to see this as irrational. And any view that denies post-mortem consequences implies that playing that game is rational. It is irrational to play by rules when they are not in your best interest (Christ consistently taught that suffering for righteousness sake in this life was wise because of it's post-mortem/post-parousia consequences). But if God expects people to be rational and hence play the dog-eat-dog game, then He is either not benevolent or clueless about the relation of reason and volitional action isn't He? What am I missing here?

Zach: I disagree. I think the gospels do a masterful job saying this. There is probably a technical literary term for how Jesus and the gospels speak, but I don't know what it is. Maybe irony? Jesus in the gospels keeps repeating the refrain, "If anyone has ears to hear, let him hear." He has a habit of speaking his message in a way that is very easily misunderstood. Especially when people try to trap him, he gives an answer that stupifies the audience, and then he says, "If anyone has ears to hear, let him hear." He is laying something between the lines. If people are happy with their worldviews, Jesus does not break them down. But if you are listening to Jesus from the point of view of the victim, you can hear a very earth-shattering message.

Jeff: So the gospels do a masterful job of saying there is no atonement? Can you provide a text and apply the hermeneutic you're talking about so I can see how it works in an example? Take the passages, e.g., where Christ says he gives his life as a ransom and sheds his blood for the remission of sins. Explain to me how he was actually masterfully saying that the pouring out of his blood held no analogy to Jewish sacrifice. And I still don't see the need for another death to manifest that God forgives. Jews already believed in forgiveness. So a non-atoning death seems superfluous.

Where does Christ even hint that the OT sacrifices were nonsense? Did he not do the passover according to the Law? Do you think the authors of the epistles believed in an atoning effect of Christ's death? If so, is this because they didn't have ears to hear?

Post Edited (jefscott) : 11/20/2006 6:17:59 AM (GMT-6)

Zach: Job 19:7 "Though I cry, 'I've been wronged!' I get no response; though I call for help, there is no justice."
Job 27:2 "As surely as God lives, who has denied me justice..."
Job 34:5 "Job says, 'I am innocent, but God denies me justice."

Job 42:7 After the LORD had said these things to Job, he said to Eliphaz the Temanite, "I am angry with you and your two friends, because you have not spoken of me what is right, as my servant Job has."

Jeff:  I'll have to find time this week to look at this.

Tom: You shouldn’t need too much time, Jeff. Zach’s move here is not valid. You cannot conclude from 42.7 that absolutely everything Job is recorded to have said about God is factually true (which you need to be the case for Job to be right in 19.7; 27.2; and 34.5). All that need be true is that Job and his friends disagree on some significant point and that Job better understood the point. Just what that point is is something we can debate, but I just wanted to point out that interpreted Job as speaking truthfully earlier on the basis of 42.7 isn't necessarily warranted by 42.7.

The first thing God says to Job when he finally adresses in 38.2: "Who is this that darkeneth counsel by words without knowledge?" On the one hand Job darkens the issue by speaking out of his ignorance. On the other Job speaks rightly about God whereas his friends do not. So it's a bit more sophisticated than you suggest, Zach. 

Tom

Post Edited (TGB) : 11/20/2006 7:39:54 AM (GMT-6)

Zach: Zach: If Job believed that God was just, he would have nothing to complain about.

Tom: Not necessarily. I see your point, but let me suggest one word here (a good 'process' word too! Perspective).

I believe God is just but have sometimes STRUGGLED TO SQAURE THIS BELIEF WITH MY LIMITED PERSEPCTIVE. The pain of suffering will force this, force us to question our convictions, ask us to question whether it's true that God is this or that. During times of suffering we voice our doubts and struggles. Anybody who might hear us WITHIN that struggle would wonder where we stand on a number of issues. So it's entirely meaningful to say we are committed to believe God is just while being forced by our circumstances to explain this belief. The temptation is to define what God is (just or not) solely on the basis of my limited perspective. That's Job's whole struggle. He's suffering. He's in pain and wondering where the hell God is, something a person who was convinced God was the sort of person who didn't show up wouldn't wonder. Let's let Job be IN PROCESS, IN the struggle, ON the journey, shall we? Let's leave him to speak from within his struggle.

I mean, let's have a little hermeneutical patience with Job's rantings. Just because he says word for word "God's denies me justice," doesn't mean he's factually right (even if God later remarks "Job spoke rightly about me"), nor does it mean he was CONCLUDING or SETTLING ON a conviction about God. He might just be WONDERING and DOUBTING. There's always that middle ground where we wonder out loud, even in very categorical terms, without at all having committed ourselves to this or that conclusion.

Jeff: I think it's probably as simple as God was proven right, to Satan, regarding Job. Job feared God to the end. Whatever glorifies God as creator/lord of the universe necessarily glorifies Christ insomuch as he, too, is creator/lord of the universe.

Zach: But many people glorify a creator/lord deity. Would you say that they all glorify Christ?

Jeff: Yes, to the extent that they are appropriately glorifying the creator. Not everything that people claim is glorifying the creator is glorifying the creator, though.

Zach: I think that God reveals that our freedom is broad by giving us his Son to model his character to us.

Jeff: What is it about Christ’s life that indicates humans are not held accountable for their actions unless they are related to a covenant?

Jeff: Have you understood me to be saying that consequences are not future?

Zach: No. I just think that future happiness does not excuse present suffering in all cases.

Jeff: Not sure what you’re saying here.

Zach: I am not saying that it is self-interest that motivates His "relative indifference." I think that it is unbiased altruism which stays his hand.

Jeff: What do you mean by unbiased altruism? To me, insomuch as God requires faith/belief for forgiveness, He is not unconditionally altruistic--at least in this temporal phase of the creational project (if UR is true, that will change in the future). Do you think we will ever partake of a "divine nature" such that sinning will be impossible? Or does God go on forgiving us forever so long as we’re sorry for our sinning? If the former, is there a divine, sentient motive for bringing an end to sin? And if so, doesn't that imply there is something now constraining Him from stopping it already, if He has the sheer power to do so?

Zach: I think that suffering is an insurmountable obstacle for any theodicy based on what you have called a moral order.

Jeff: I don’t think so since I’m saying something similar to the process theists. They say God can’t coerce. I’m saying God can’t stop the temporal project (or those tribulations that Christ says are inherent in it) until He has accomplished that for which the creation exists. And this is because His love compels Him to accomplish it. But yes, it does involve the priority of Christ over the creature. No doubt about it--just as you say that those who repent/believe have a kind of priority over those who don’t. God has the sheer power to treat all identically. It is His nature, given His purposes, that renders it impossible. But so long as God’s ability to prevent suffering is truly constrained, theodicy is coherent. We must posit the creator that is even if He doesn’t fit the mold of tradition. That’s where I agree with process thought.

Zach: Practically speaking, our real-life problems still center around suffering, but my view, rather than seeking or hoping primarily for the elimination of suffering, seeks to eliminate the meaninglessness and senselessness of suffering.

Jeff: Theodicy, to my mind, has everything to do with "practically speaking" as opposed to mere theorizing. If God is only troubled by meaningless and senseless suffering, does God ever fully eliminate that kind of suffering? If so, why does He do that? The only reason why I can imagine He would ultimately eliminate it is because He is interested in its elimination—which just brings us back to the theodicy question of what can God do, given His nature? For if God can do what He is interested in doing and yet doesn't, we have a problem.

Jeff: So if they didn't have reason to believe it, they had good reason to believe that one's best interest in a dog-eat-dog world is to be a dog. I can't see any way around it.

Zach: Yes.

Jeff: Then God must either be indifferent to those humans on the bottom of the dog pile, or He doesn’t expect people to act rationally. I can’t make sense of either of those options. God can not unbiasedly expect one to suffer for the sake of another if there is only disadvantage to the sufferer for it. Christ, himself, constantly appealed to self-interest to motivate people to do good. This is mere rationality. It is not peculiar to covenant living.

Zach: You are missing the distinction that I am drawing between those who have accepted covenant and those who have not. Mine is not a "view that denies post-mortem consequences." I don't understand why you say, "He is either not benevolent or clueless..."

Jeff: I understand the distinction. But if

1) God implanted reason in our mind for us to use practically, AND

2) He has put us in a world where it seems most rational to be a dog,

He must expect people to be dogs, or He doesn’t know what He’s doing (because He is expecting what is very implausible). I can’t believe either of these. Unless God doesn't expect anything at all. But this is hard to believe too.

Zach: When you say benevolent, it seems like you mean "benevolent to the people who happen to appreciate their unrequested suffering." The benevolence which you seem to be speaking of does not apply to evil people (unless its the condescending benevolence which forces people to do "what's good for them" against their will). The benevolence which you argue for is just as much malevolence for the evildoer who never asked to be created into this world of moral order. I say there are no rules to the game of life.

Jeff: I’m saying that the fact that most people think the golden rule is the rule to live by is actually to the benefit of evil people as much as it is to good people. If all people thought that being a dog was the most rational, this would be to no one’s benefit. In short, I think the fear of consequences actually works for the greater good for all. That is not to say that all people are motivated this way. Some people are motivated predominantly by the anticipation of reward. These may see the idea of negative consequences as irrelevant. But they are not irrelevant for many. But when one considers that virtually all languages have words or phrases for ill-desert, it seems like something pretty intuitive is going on there.

I think all people are theists early in life. At that time, they naturally think of ill-desert in terms of a theistic interpretation. After people abandon theism or cease to fear God, they still tend to hold to some concept of ill-desert and respond (more or less, depending on solidification) to the moral sensibilities associated with it. As I see it, it is this concept of ill-desert--which is only coherent with a theistic world-view--that serves as a restraint to the human mind.

I recently read the following exchange with Richard Dawkins:

Jaron Lanier: “There’s a large group of people who simply are uncomfortable with accepting evolution because it leads to what they perceive as a moral vacuum, in which their best impulses have no basis in nature.”

Richard Dawkins: “All I can say is, That’s just tough. We have to face up to the truth.”

“Evolution: The dissent of Darwin,” Psychology Today, January/February 1997, p. 62.

The questions I would ask atheist Dawkins are: "Why must I face up to the truth? What moral obligation do I have to do so?" This kind of incoherent thinking is evidence to me that people can't coherently live in a moral vacuum even when they try to.

Zach: If you are strong enough to sustain yourself, you are welcome to try (but none of us can). If, on the other hand, you would like to make an agreement with God, you are welcome also. No one needs to die for this to happen. You simply ask with sincerity (i.e repent and believe) and all is forgiven.

Jeff: But then aren’t those without the "story" doomed for no fault of their own? How is God not biased, then? If nothing short of the "story" can help them, does He at least provide a post-mortem chance at forgiveness?

Zach: They do a masterful job of saying that atonement is unnecessary. Some texts? Matthew 9:2, 22, 29; 13:58; 15:28; Romans 1:17; 3:21-31 especially 31.

Jeff: It doesn’t follow from these texts that forgiveness can not be conditioned in different ways if God so chooses. If He says He will forgive a specific sin if the appropriate sacrificial law is observed, this is no contradiction to the fact that all past sins can be forgiven via Christ, his apostles, or John the Baptist. One mode doesn’t rule out others. The former mode might have been deemed necessary for sins future to Christ’s forgiveness until he died if forgiveness truly requires atonement. So unless you can prove that Christ’s and John’s modes of forgiveness applied to future sins also, it seems you are assuming Christ’s death is non-atoning rather than demonstrating it.

Zach: I think that Jesus' sacrifice is analogous to Jewish sacrifice. I do believe that he gave his life as a ransom for many. I just do not assume that the one holding us for ransom was God (or his sense of justice). I hold to the original ransom theory that the ransom paid was to Satan i.e. our own murderous systems of "justice."

Jeff: What does it mean to say a "ransom" was "paid" apart from the notion of an effectual atonement?

Zach: I do believe that shed his blood for the remission of sins. His shed blood is a message to the world that it's system of sacrifical atonement makes victims of even the most innocent people.

Jeff: The people didn’t claim they were sacrificing him for atonement. They claimed he blasphemed. Capital punishment is not sacrifice. And they did this, most likely, to keep peace with their benefactors, the Romans—not God. So I don't see how his death was related to their system of sacrificial atonement unless his death actually propitiatory.

Zach: And taken with the way he lived his life, it shows us that a better way is available. A way of "remitted sins." You said "Jews already believed in forgiveness." I would contend that you are mistaken. If they believed that, then they wouldn't have killed Jesus.

Jeff: You and the Jews say forgiveness is conditional. You say it is conditional upon faith/repentance. The Jews had their own idea of the proper conditions. But killing Jesus just proves they disagreed with the conditions he taught. It doesn’t prove they didn’t believe in forgiveness per the conditions laid out in the Torah.

Zach: A non-atoning death IS superfluous. That is the point. Jesus takes what today is called realism or practicality and shows it to be unreal, unpractical, and thus superfluous.

Jeff: Seems to me that a brutal, superfluous killing is intrinsically malevolent. You are not saying it’s superfluous. You are saying it "shows" us something. I just have never seen it to mean what you claim it shows. So neither of us think it is truly superfluous. 

Zach: Where does Christ hint that OT sacrifices were nonsense? Do a search on the word "sacrifice." Skip the hundreds of passages in the OT prophets that say the OT sacrifices were nonsense and then stop when Jesus quotes those very prophets. Matt 12:7.

Jeff: What’s wrong with the traditional view that says these verses allude back to Saul’s sin? God told him He desired obedience, not sacrifice. But it seems doubtful that God was saying anything other than sacrifice cannot be effectual for the impenitent. Hebrews says this was the meaning of Moses’ law. With respect to Christ's comment in Matt. 12, he might very well have been alluding to more. The question is, Does this "more" involve an atonement? But the context seems consistent with the idea that Christ is merely saying that being merciful is one of the obligations of the Law, apart from which there will be no mercy (i.e., forgiveness) even if they sacrificed according to specifications. IOW, he might be saying that Mosaic sacrifice was only effectual for the truly repentant, just like the Torah indicates.

Zach: For those covenant people who were bound to that system, he encourages them to make their obligatory sacrifices. But he doesn't say that the system itself is good.

Jeff: Can we unilaterally obligate God to a covenant of our own making? Even if it’s a useless (hence, wasteful) or evil covenantal system? If not, why would Christ encourage such a system? To what benevolent end?

Zach: In fact the curtain in the temple is torn when he dies. How some interpret this to be a symbol of Jesus' perfection of temple sacrifice, I'll never understand. If someone destroyed the Statue of Liberty, would we interpret that as an endorsement of that for which the Statue stood?

Jeff: If Hebrews is right about the significance of the veil, the logic works. And I don’t know how to disprove Hebrews. Indeed, the only thing Christ’s death can mean to me is what scripture seems to say it means. In and of itself, it’s just another cruel, senseless death. I would never infer what you take it to mean or that it is propitiatory apart from specific scriptural statements about it.

Post Edited (jefscott) : 11/26/2006 8:26:52 PM (GMT-6)

Zach: I've started to respond a couple times and got scared off by how long I expect the response will have to be.

Jeff: I'm having the same feeling right now, but I'll try to respond a bit. I think I'm understanding you're perspective a bit more from this last post.

Jeff: What is it about Christ’s life that indicates humans are not held accountable for their actions unless they are related to a covenant?

Zach: The fact that he kept most of his ministry to Israelites. The teaching that there are degrees of accoutability. But mostly I see that Jesus speaks of accountability for our actions and common sense tells me that I am not legitimately bound to contracts that I do not sign.

Jeff: Granted, we're not bound to contracts we don't make. And there are definitely degrees of accountability. And Jesus does speak of accountability for actions. But the questions is, "does Christ rule out accountability for the actions of non-convenanters?" For example, when Christ says that it would be better for those who cause his brethren to stumble if they were instead cast into the sea with a millstone tied to them, is he saying that's true only if they have "signed" a contract? What about the passage where he says those who don’t aid his brethren will be cast into the fire prepared for the devil and his angels? Was Christ referring to covenanters only, there, too? If so, what do they have to contract to in order to be held accountable thus?

Zach: No. I just think that future happiness does not excuse present suffering in all cases.

Jeff: Not sure what you’re saying here.

Zach: If I subject you to the risk of suffering, my action is not excused even if I later give you immeasurable happiness in the future. This is because I have not undone my earlier bad action.

Jeff: Well, I would say that only people need excuses. God, by definition, needs no excuse. God can not undo the sufferings of this world. But on the other hand, He owes no man anything.

Zach: I think that repentance and faith/belief must be required for salvation or else God would not be altruistic. If we don't want it, God doesn't force it on us. Were he to force things on us that we don't want, he would not be altruistic. If you assume that everyone (deep down) wants what God want to give them, then salvation without repentance and faith could be good. But I don't assume that.

Jeff: What I think is that humans, so long as they are rational, desire the greatest sentient satisfaction they can experience. And I believe that God provides that greatest level of sentient satisfaction to those who are in harmony with Him. I also believe Paul when he says that God will stop the mouths of everyone one day and that they will bow the knee to Jesus. Which is to say, IMO, that they will one day agree that they were wrong about much and that Jesus is lord.

Whether such a change of mind is equivalent to the biblical heart belief or not, I think God would be nothing but benevolent/altruistic to forgive them and endow them with the divine nature. In short, I can't see how God is anything but altruistic if UR is true, per a unilateral act of God. God knows what is best for us does He not? So why would He allow the creature to suffer due to their own ignorance if He could remedy that ignorance? So let me re-ask my original question:

Do you think we will ever partake of a "divine nature" such that sinning will be impossible? Or does God go on forgiving us forever so long as we’re sorry for our sinning? If the former, is there a divine, sentient motive for bringing an end to sin? And if so, doesn't that imply there is something now constraining Him from stopping it already, if He has the sheer power to do so?

Zach: Therefore God cannot universally impose his will on people and still be acting in a loving way toward them. There must be the condition of the person wanting his gift i.e. repentance and faith.

Jeff: Are parents, then, unloving in those cases where they impose upon children for the sake of their well-being? It would seem that unilateral action by parents (or God) is benevolent/altruistic so long as it truly increases the sentient satisfaction of the subject. Would a unilateral UR constitute an unloving act even if it results in eternal bliss for all? What does it mean to love someone apart from affecting their sensibilities positively? If sensibilities have nothing to do with love, then suffering and death are no indicators of the absence of love—in which case God is not unloving even if he torments people meaninglessly.

It all gets down to sensibilities or nothing makes sense. Could we say that God is loving if He subjected us to suffering for eternity so long as that suffering is meaningful? The ultimate cessation of suffering is inevitable, to my mind, if God is truly loving. But this entails that sin, itself, must cease. And this entails that there is a sentient motive for tolerating suffering for now.

Zach: ... what about the person who has been placed in bad circumstances which he did not deserve? That person may very well not care what God's project is. God's project is what is causing him pain. So theodicy keeps that person from belief. Why love a God who subjects you to torture? In such a case, the person who rejects God makes a lot of sense - a lot more sense than the one who worships his abandoner.

Jeff: I'm saying that God is to be obeyed because reason dictates that such results in our highest good if there is a moral order that is rational. Granted, if it is not rational, all bets are off. But if that is the case, why would God ever appeal to our sense of reason at all? But regardless, the state of affairs you describe has to be accounted for by your view, also. How do you answer your own question?

See, I'm not saying that God subjects people to meaningless torture. I'm saying that God simply doesn't always intervene in an orderly created system to stop the suffering. But God didn't foreknow the suffering or intend it. Rather, God forebears meaningless suffering so that another end can be accomplished. I don't see how we can get around this even in your view. How would you do so?

Aren’t you saying that God forbears meaningless suffering so He can enjoy freedom? If not, I’m still not understanding you. If so, it is you that has God tolerating suffering so He can attain His own enjoyment. I’m saying that God, Himself, is suffering—but does so because of His love for Christ. Granted that love is motivated by the sentient satisfaction the lover receives from benefiting the beloved. But there’s no way around that, to my mind. If this is a hindrance to theodicy, it is also a hindrance to any theism that conceives of God as a person.

Zach: So, your solution (it seems) is to say that God is not primarily interested in the well-being of people.

Jeff: Right, but only in the sense that Christ's sentient satisfaction trumps the short-term interest of the creature in some cases. Your saying, as I understand it, that God’s interest in freedom trumps the long-term or eternal interest of the creature. I don’t see how that’s better. Because we both hold that God has the sheer power to benefit the creature unilaterally. Right?

Zach: He is instead primarily concerned with his own interests which may require our suffering. Not the nicest guy. We suffer so he can achieve his goals. Why not reject belief in such a selfish deity?

Jeff: Our suffering is not absolutely required to achieve His goals, though. God intended, per my view, that no such "meaningless" sufferings should have occurred. Sin is the cause of all such suffering. So suffering (even greater degrees of meaningful suffering) is now inevitable for God, Christ, and creatures if He is to continue the creational project. Again, how can your view deny this? If God doesn't need our worship or thanksgiving, why does He tolerate the insane suffering, per your view?

Aren’t you saying that God’s interest in freedom is what causes Him to tolerate the meaningless sufferings? You seem to be saying the same thing as me. Except that I’m  saying God is not “seeking His own.” Your view seems to be implying that He is seeking His own. Does God need creaturely freedom? If so, are we to believe there is a necessary God-creature relationship into the eternal past?

Zach: Why do you give these options? Maybe he does expect people to act rationally and be "evil," while at the same time offering those on the bottom of the dog pile an alternative.

Jeff: How do we not, by this view, imply that God chooses and intends evil if He expects for people to be rational AND, consequently, evil? This is the part I don't understand. How can a god like this be loving? He is in effect for the suffering of those on the bottom of the pile. And this is because He is smart enough and powerful enough to do otherwise—unless you really are saying that God needs creaturely freedom in such a way that He truly can not stop the suffering. But if this is the case, then it seems we truly are stuck with positing a necessary God-creature relationship—which seems to imply that God has never existed apart from creatures because it is impossible for Him to do so.

Zach: It is your alternative in which "God unbiasedly expects one to suffer for the sake of another if there is only disadvantage to the sufferer for it." You would have it be wrong for God's colateral damage to reject belief.

Jeff: I don't understand what you're saying here.


Jeff: I understand the distinction. But if

1) God implanted reason in our mind for us to use practically, AND

2) He has put us in a world where it seems most rational to be a dog,

He must expect people to be dogs, or He doesn’t know what He’s doing (because He is expecting what is very implausible). I can’t believe either of these. Unless God doesn't expect anything at all. But this is hard to believe too.

Zach: I don't think it's hard to believe at all. I think it's much easier to believe. (The first one.)

Jeff: What do you find easy to believe, exactly? 1) and 2)? That God expects people to be dogs? What?

Jeff: In short, I think the fear of consequences actually works for the greater good for all.

Zach: Yes, but that is exactly the point we are arguing. For you to make this statement you must already assume a static, non-revelativistic conception of "good." The fact that you assume a conception of "good" is not a good reason for anyone else to believe in it. Perhaps other people consider selfishness to be good. Why should I believe you over them? It's a circular argument: 'Assuming that good is X, X is good.' You have not proven the condition, so I have no reason to believe its consequence.

Jeff: I believe selfishness can be a good. I just don't think it is the highest good because of post-mortem consequences. Let me put it like a philosopher once did. He said something like, "Most people believe they owe duties to their fellow-men. All people, without exception, believe their fellow-men owe them duties." If you can find someone who is not insane and yet truly believes and lives consistently with the notion that there is nothing one could do to wrong him, then I say you're getting closer to establishing your view of human nature. I think you're going to have trouble doing so, though.

You see, it's not about proving anything. It's about what do people seem to reveal about their beliefs by their words and actions, REGARDLESS whether we can prove them. Some things are intuitive and, hence, unproveable. I think people's belief in ill-desert is intuitive. Thus, it is unproveable. But that doesn't make it untrue. In fact, if nothing is obvious, nothing can be proved.

Jeff: But then aren’t those without the "story" doomed for no fault of their own? How is God not biased, then? If nothing short of the "story" can help them, does He at least provide a post-mortem chance at forgiveness?

Zach: Forgiveness for what? They didn't do anything wrong!

Jeff: Then why repent? You say repentance is required for forgiveness but deny they've done anything wrong to repent for. What are they, then, repenting for? Is repentance just an acknowledgement that there is a higher good they were previously unaware of ? If so, and if they had done no wrong previous to the “repentance,” then it is not sin that they are repenting for, right? Isn’t a sin a wrong? If not, then what is sin, per your view?

Zach: But yes I think God will offer hope to all (post-mortem if necessary).

Jeff: Ok. That helps. But what will they repent for, per your view, if they've done nothing wrong? What’s the difference in preferring an option one becomes aware of and repenting? Also, can a person avoid the age-abiding torment Christ prophecied if they “repent,” and will they know this? Because if so, then I think your view entails UR unless you think people are much more masochistic than I can even imagine.

Jeff: It doesn’t follow from these texts that forgiveness can not be conditioned in different ways if God so chooses. If He says He will forgive a specific sin if the appropriate sacrificial law is observed, this is no contradiction to the fact that all past sins can be forgiven via Christ, his apostles, or John the Baptist. One mode doesn’t rule out others. The former mode might have been deemed necessary for sins future to Christ’s forgiveness until he died if forgiveness truly requires atonement. So unless you can prove that Christ’s and John’s modes of forgiveness applied to future sins also, it seems you are assuming Christ’s death is non-atoning rather than demonstrating it.

Zach: Ok. I can't prove anything on this topic, and neither can you. I'm just saying it's reasonable.

Jeff: Fair enough. All I'm saying is, I don't see any evidence that Christ's apostles thought Christ's death was not propitiatory. And the words that we have of Christ would seem, to me, to most naturally be understood by his disciples as indicating his death was propitiatory. Because their whole theological framework was propitiatory. And Christ knew this and yet used language that alluded to that very theological framework. I'm not saying we can't look for another meaning to those texts. I just don't see other meanings as necessary or clear.

To my mind, part of what it means for a person to be benevolent is that they make appropriate effort to articulate clearly what it is people need to know to better their lot. So when I say that Christ would have been a nut if didn’t believe the OT, I’m meaning that he was a very poor communicator if he didn’t believe the OT.  When you’re trying to change people’s whole frame of reference, I can’t see why you would continue to say things that allude to the propriety of that very frame of reference. I mean, Christ said not one jot or tittle would pass from the law. He talked about prophecies and so forth. What is this but concession to the legitimacy of the OT as a revelation? It just doesn’t seem like Christ was trying to really change their mind about that. Consequently, if the OT is false, it doesn’t seem to me that Christ was too worried about me seeing that.

Jeff: You and the Jews say forgiveness is conditional. You say it is conditional upon faith/repentance. The Jews had their own idea of the proper conditions. But killing Jesus just proves they disagreed with the conditions he taught. It doesn’t prove they didn’t believe in forgiveness per the conditions laid out in the Torah.

Zach: My conditions are qualitatively different from "the Jews'" conditions. My conditions are that forgiveness is not forced upon an unwilling recipient. Forgiveness is readily available. Those who killed Jesus disagreed.

Jeff: Disagreed with which part? That "forgiveness is not forced upon an unwilling recipient," or that "forgiveness is readily available?"

Zach: If Jesus wanted to say that mercy is a prerequisit for obedience to Law, he could say so. What he said was, "Mercy NOT sacrifice." It seems like you want to add the word "merely" in front of sacrifice.

Jeff: He said if they showed no mercy they would receive no mercy. As for "merely," yeah, that's what I think his disciples would have understood him to mean. Language is not like math. Context (grammatical and historical) colors everything. Just like you apparently think that Christ’s warnings applied only to covenanters though there are no words to that effect. But I don’t see how Christ’s audience could have figured all this out. I think their context was the OT and Christ’s words and actions—which seemed to sanction the OT. Seemingly, he kept that law as well as verbally sanctioned it.

We can even see Christ’s language as absolute, while not contradicting the torah. He could have been saying that God desires obedience, which requires no sacrifice. This way, he’s not ruling out the legitimacy of the torah so much as he is affirming God’s opposition to sin in the first place. IOW, obedience is always God’s true desire. But this doesn’t rule out that God can provide for a sacrifice or baptism of repentance/remission for those who do sin.

Didn’t Christ say that the Pharisees rejected the counsel of God by rejecting John’s baptism of repentance/remission? It would seem that by your view, the Pharisees could have legitimately rejected John’s baptism on the ground that God would never require that someone do anything (like be baptized or sacrifice) to demonstrate repentance and receive remission of sins. But Christ sanctions John—not the Pharisees.

Jeff: Can we unilaterally obligate God to a covenant of our own making? Even if it’s a useless (hence, wasteful) or evil covenantal system? If not, why would Christ encourage such a system? To what benevolent end?

Zach: No, we cannot. But God can indulge us out of love. If a jew sincerely believes that killing a dove effect some change in his relationship to God, he is wrong. But what does effect a change is the sincerity with which he offers that sacrifice. The sacrifice itself is absurd, but the repentance and faith which it refers to is not. I think God responds to such sincerity.

Jeff: What if he thinks sacrificing his child will gain him forgiveness from God? Especially since you say God can be so easily perceived to be cruel, given the sufferings He abides. Is sincerity the only criteria? If not, what is it that God expects us to know so that we know how to covenant in a manner such that sincerity will suffice? And how can we know whatever that is?

Jeff: If Hebrews is right about the significance of the veil, the logic works. And I don’t know how to disprove Hebrews. Indeed, the only thing Christ’s death can mean to me is what scripture seems to say it means. In and of itself, it’s just another cruel, senseless death. I would never infer what you take it to mean or that it is propitiatory apart from specific scriptural statements about it.

Zach: You can't disprove Hebrews, but can you prove it correct? Plenty of people didn't want to admit it into the bible in the first place. I'm not claiming to prove anything. I'm just saying that it is not inconsistent to say Hebrews is wrong (actually irrelevant) on this point.

Jeff: I can’t prove anything apart from some self-evident truths that serve as premises for deductions and axioms for induction. But unless you can prove that the claim in Hebrews about the curtain is false, it might very well be relevant to our interpretation of the incident recorded in the gospels.

I’m not at all trying to change your mind, Zach. For the most part, my questions have to do with understanding how your view coheres. E.g., your claim that there is a post-mortem chance for repentance/salvation helps me see better where you’re coming from. But I didn’t know you held to that. I’m not aware of any statement of Christ that would lead us to believe there is such a thing, though. It seems that you think some things can be known without explicit text, but on other things you seem to demand explicit text. And you seem to believe that gospel texts are to be trusted implicitly whereas all other texts are full of inaccuracies. So I’m still trying to see how your epistemology works.

I’m probably in strong agreement with you about the non-authoritative nature of tradition. But I have a hard time believing that basic intuitive notions of right/wrong/ill-desert/etc are invalid. You say a person outside of covenant can do no wrong since there are no rules of life they are beholden to. I just don’t think there are many people (covenanters or not) who believe that. So I have a hard time believing that people are as void of moral axioms as you seem to think they are. But once I accept the basic intuitions that most people seem to have, I can’t rule out non-gospel texts on those grounds, as you do. So I would need some other criteria by which to conclude that only the gospels are accurate. And I know of no other criteria. Plus, the gospels don't clearly articulate a theodicy that is any different than that of the rest of the bible, anyway, to my mind.

Zach, I don't have time to respond this morning, and I'll be out of town til Friday. I'll try to respond then. The one thing that I think you're missing is my view of what altruism is. To me, an action is altruistic when the only sentient motive a giver has for giving is the empathetic delight experienced by the giver at the receiver's delight in receiving. IOW, I don't know what it means for a person to act utterly without sentient motive. Person's, though, have a capacity for empathy and can be motivated in the way I'm describing. And, yeah, it's analogous to capitalism only in that sense. But not in the sense that the sentient satisfaction of the giver is the only effect of the gift. Not at all; there is a beneficial effect for a receiver, too.

This is all unconditional love can mean to me. To say that God's unconditional love mean He gets no sentient satisfaction from His loving just means that God is not a person, to me. But if this is so, I can't imagine why people naturally conceive of God as a sentient person. I think they do because otherwise God is so non-analogous as to be a non-entity, for all practical purposes.

So I don't say that God acts and forebears in mere self-interest. He is altruistic in that He acts and forebears for Christ and, indirectly, us. But the fact that God is forebearing suffering proves, to me, that God is constrained. So we have two choices, to my mind. Either God is constrained, or God is not motivated by sentient satisfaction at all. This latter implies that God is not a person, to me.

So instead of saying, as you do,

My alternative is to say that God's primary goal is to provide for the satisfaction of all humanity whether or not they accept him.

Post Edited (Sahid) : 12/5/2006 8:12:08 PM (GMT-6)