 |
| 
One Love
Registered Member
Date Joined Jan 2003
Total Posts : 13888
| Posted 7/15/2005 6:38 PM (GMT -6) |   | Yo. I'm going to try something VERY bold here. But I have to get some preliminary stuff done first. I want everyone to REALLY look at all this and tell me what you think. I have to get an generally accepted view of "God" before I can go forward. Right now, I'm not dealing with any moral discussion about God. That's the next step. First, I want to deal something else. Read on...
------------------------------------------
God is the creator (or first cause) of the entire universe. God was the source from whence all energy and matter come. This would mean that God, either directly or indirectly, has originated billions of galaxies....within which there are billions of stars...around which may be billions of planets, asteroids, comets, etc. And that's just the physical universe. That's not considering any and all possible non-corporeal reality, like spirits.
In accordance with any level of self-limitation God decides to go by, God has some level of influential power on EVERY particle/wave of matter/energy in the entire cosmos (including dark matter)...to the extent that God can actually form planetary bodies and such. God is the fundamental originator of all natural principles that exist. God knows the location and composition more or less of EVERY particle/wave of matter/energy in the entire cosmos.
Moreover...
For any biological lifeform that exists, God has had some hand in that lifeforms creation and evolution. Actually, God sets parameters by which lifeform creation and evolution take place. These parameters need not be exhaustive, but they are set by God. As such, God knows absolutely EVERYTHING that there is to know about any biological lifeform or ecosystems that those biological lifeforms make up. God knows how every biological process interacts with every other biological process.
Moreover...
God has complete objective knowledge of the thoughts, experiences, and dispositions of any sentient being. What this means is that, assuming presentism and libertarian freewill, God has complete knowledge of every experience, psychological motivation, emotional state, character/dispositional development, etc. that occurs in the life of any sentient being from the present moment back through the being's origination. As with biological life, God sets parameters for the non-corporeal essence of sentience.
How this all translates is as follows:
If there were a unicellular organism in an unspecificed ecosystem on an unnamed life-conducive moon surrounding an unnamed planet in an unnamed solar system in an unnamed galaxy in an unnamed galaxy cluster on the other "side" of the universe from our present location on Earth...God would know exactly where it is, when and how it was created (God could have created it Godself!), what has happened to it up to the present time, EVERY experience it has had...and everything else that could be known about it. Moreover, God could bring forces to bear upon that unicellular organism to the extent that God choose to, either decided at that moment or prior to the organism's creation.
----------------------------------------------
Before I move on, I want to see how many people would agree with my thoughts about God so far. Would y'all agree with all this?Post Edited (MephEternal) : 7/15/2005 6:49:01 PM (GMT-5) | | Back to Top | | |
 |
One Love
Registered Member
Date Joined Jan 2003
Total Posts : 13888
| Posted 7/15/2005 7:25 PM (GMT -6) | | Sahid:
To say that God has objective knowledge is to say he could not be deceived. If God, as defined here, were to be deceived, it would have to be by something "outside" of the universe he created. Were "God" deceived by a higher being, he might not even know that he wasn't really God. The deception could be complete.
Unless I'm wrong about this, God knows it to be true. So even his "objective" knowledge over this universe, would actually be subjective given that it arises from a suspect (i.e. not certainly reliable) point of view.
This higher-than-God evil demon possibility has no evidence to support it, but it is as likely objectively true as not. If it were true, there would be no evidence.
I hear what you're sayin'. Let's assume that God truly is the First Cause, though. In that case, God's subjective knowledge would be "objective." How do you think I have described the omnipresent, omnipotent, omniscient God?
"I've been converted three times. The first was to traditional Christianity; the second to honesty and the third was to the Love of God and man (humanity) The third was the real conversion. The first two were preliminary."
--Nels Ferre, a theologian speaking of his spiritual journey with the Triune God
| | Back to Top | | |
|
One Love
Registered Member
Date Joined Jan 2003
Total Posts : 13888
| Posted 7/15/2005 9:32 PM (GMT -6) | | Jeff:
Seems like it to me, bro. Is this some kind of trick question?
No trick question. I just want to get a really good grasp of what we are dealing with when we talk about "God".
More stuff...
God is able to originate sentient non-corporeal beings. This would obviously be the "angelic" host...or something of that effect.
I'll assume we'll accept this too. | | Back to Top | | |
|
Tom
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 10353
| Posted 7/15/2005 10:55 PM (GMT -6) | | | | |
|
One Love
Registered Member
Date Joined Jan 2003
Total Posts : 13888
| Posted 7/16/2005 10:17 AM (GMT -6) | | Pausing for a bit.
Personally, I think that if the above were all there were to the story, that the problem of evil would be fairly intractible. If God were the only SENTIENT, non-corporeal being that exist, God would completely control enough of everything, even positing relative ontological autonomy, to really question some things...especially when looking at the history of planet Earth.
But there's other stuff to be said...so...
Let's say that God DOES want relative ontological autonomy to exists in reality...for whatever reason. Meaning that God chooses not to completely orchestrate everything that happens in non-God reality. This means that all non-sentient reality will have some element of "freedom" from God's control...though that element may be small or great. For all sentient reality, those beings too will have some element of freedom from God's control.
Let's also say that God does want a corporeal universe. Moreover, we speculate that God DOES create non-corporeal beings and allows them to administrate his creation of a corporeal universe that will go according to the initial parameters that God has set. God created a whole LOT of these beings. Basically, these non-corporeal beings are able to control things like how many galaxies form when, star formation and destruction, chemical element combinations, etc. When speaking of biological life, these beings are able to control, to a significant degree, the trajectory of biological processes...such that they can orient evolutionary processes. God reserves the right, in some mysterious special cases, to do things unilaterally...but God allows a HUGE amount of autonomy to the non-corporeal beings.
Basically, God would be the Being who delegates tremendous power and authority to these created sentient, free, non-corporeal beings...and delineates for them what they can and cannot do. Supposedly, no non-corporeal being can go beyond the boundaries that God sets for them. They can make choices that are not exactly what God wants, but they absolutely CANNOT transgress God's prescriptive boundaries upon their actions. Every area of freedom is bounded by God's desires. (I suppose this idea would be mirrored in the Job story somewhat)
This line of thinking would actually extend to all things that exist. Though all things would have an element of freedom, that element of freedom (and all potential manifestations of such) would be prescribed by God. What this would mean is that there could be absolutely NO activity in Creation that would not have in some way been allowed by God as acceptable or necessary to God's purposes. If this is true, then, ultimately, there is NO activity in Creation that falls outside of God's overarching purposes. For example, if God definitively didn't want AIDS to exist, God could have so prescribed and contrained things such that it would not exist. However, the creation and evolution of microorganisms (along with the possiblity of the AIDS virus) could have been delegated widely to a sentient, non-corporeal creature. In so doing, God's allowance declared AIDS an "acceptable risk" within his overall purposes.
Thoughts so far?
------------------------------
Along-the-way thoughts of mine:
1) If God has the ability to create non-corporeal sentient free beings, why would God create biological life like microbes and what not? If it was the case that the main thing God wanted was relationship, couldn't this have been satisfied without the creation of corporeal reality or any type of carbon-based biological evolution?
2) Wouldn't this imply that these non-corporeal beings would have "god-like" powers themselves such that, if they so desired, they would be able to create their OWN galaxy with their OWN solar systems with their OWN life-bearing planets? Or to destroy galaxies or solar systems as they see fit? To hurl asteriods in the void of space like skipping stones on a river?
3) Doc's view asserts that non-corporeal beings use their authority to create destructive, violent forces in Creation. That non-corporeal beings are the ultimate (and sometimes penultimate) reason for things like parasites, viruses, and carnivorousness...as well as destructive physical phenomena such as tsunamis, tornados, etc. | | Back to Top | | |
|
Tom
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 10353
| Posted 7/16/2005 11:24 AM (GMT -6) | | |
Mephi: If God were the only SENTIENT, non-corporeal being that exist, God would completely control enough of everything, even positing relative ontological autonomy, to really question some things...especially when looking at the history of planet Earth.
Tom: Do you mean where God is the only sentient of all creatures all of whom happen to be non-corporeal? Or do you mean where God is the only non-corporeal sentient creatures but we corporeal sentient creatures also existed? If the latter, and if we have LFW, then there’s still moral evil. If the former, one could still suppose that the freedom of us sentient humans and the relative freedom of the created order are far more linked than anything you’ve suggested so far. In other words, it might not have been possible for God to have created a material universe that’s exhaustively determined and then place us with LFW in that environment. We are after all made from that material universe. Just a guess, but it might be that God’s got to leave our material order free to some extent depending on how free we are.
Mephi: Let's say that God DOES want relative ontological autonomy to exists in reality...for whatever reason. Meaning that God chooses not to completely orchestrate everything that happens in non-God reality. This means that all non-sentient reality will have some element of "freedom" from God's control...though that element may be small or great. For all sentient reality, those beings too will have some element of freedom from God's control.
Tom: The sort of scenario I just suggested, right? OK. I guess I’d suggest that God’s doing so wasn’t just a “want” incidential to the requirements that necessitated his giving us our freedom.
Mephi: Though all things would have an element of freedom, that element of freedom (and all potential manifestations of such) would be prescribed by God.
Tom: LFW is, we all admit, limited by God’s design to one’s sphere of influence. Right.
Mephi: What this would mean is that there could be absolutely NO activity in Creation that would not have in some way been allowed by God as acceptable or necessary to God's purposes.
Tom: It would mean that all potential evil foreknown by God is an acceptable risk. It’s “allowed” in that sense, yes. This would be the first half of your disjunct (“in some way allowed as acceptable…”). But the other half of the disjunct, the “OR necessary to God’s purposes,” wouldn’t have to be true. It might be false, and I’d like to think it is. Nothing you’ve described so far I can see requires its truth.
Mephi: If this is true, then, ultimately, there is NO activity in Creation that falls outside of God's overarching purposes.
Tom: Now you’re just assuming the truth of the second disjunct. But why think all evils serve God’s purposes?
Mephi: For example, if God definitively didn't want AIDS to exist, God could have so prescribed and contrained things such that it would not exist.
Tom: God’s got the muscle to do that, yes. But how can you know that his not ruling AIDS out of the equation by tampering with the created order was possible given the sort of freedom the created order possesses AND given the freedom and responsibility WE have to live in and act upon that order?
Mephi: However, the creation and evolution of microorganisms (along with the possiblity of the AIDS virus) could have been delegated widely to a sentient, non-corporeal creature. In so doing, God's allowance declared AIDS an "acceptable risk" within his overall purposes.
Tom: An acceptable risk, yes. All that requires is that God foreknow the possibility of AIDS and say, “My purposes can tolerate that,” and not that AIDS actually “serves” God’s purposes. God can work redemptively and bring good out of something like AIDS, yes, but that might just be “in spite of” and “in response to” AIDS. This doesn't mean AIDS is "necessitated by God's purposes" as the second half of the disjunct says.
See, risk management figures specific risks into one’s plans and so prepares responses that deal with those challenges to the fulfillment of one's purposes. But a “risk” by definition, then, is a CHALLENGE TO the fulfillment of purpose. The purpose of the risk is to stop fulfillment of one's purpose. That's why it's considered a RISK from our point of view. It can’t also SERVE to fulfill that purpose except in the minimal sense in which an adequate response to the risk ends up fulfilling one’s purposes. But this doesn’t mean the risk isn’t OUTSIDE of God’s purposes. It is. Completely and entirely. It would have to be for it to BE a “risk.”
Just my thoughts so far.
Tom
"doGfood itself is good" SahidPost Edited (TGB) : 7/16/2005 11:35:21 AM (GMT-5) | | Back to Top | | |
|
Similitude
Registered Member
Date Joined Apr 2004
Total Posts : 4968
| Posted 7/16/2005 11:43 AM (GMT -6) | | Meph: Supposedly, no non-corporeal being can go beyond the boundaries that God sets for them. They can make choices that are not exactly what God wants, but they absolutely CANNOT transgress God's prescriptive boundaries upon their actions. Every area of freedom is bounded by God's desires. (I suppose this idea would be mirrored in the Job story somewhat)
This line of thinking would actually extend to all things that exist. Though all things would have an element of freedom, that element of freedom (and all potential manifestations of such) would be prescribed by God. What this would mean is that there could be absolutely NO activity in Creation that would not have in some way been allowed by God as acceptable or necessary to God's purposes. If this is true, then, ultimately, there is NO activity in Creation that falls outside of God's overarching purposes. For example, if God definitively didn't want AIDS to exist, God could have so prescribed and contrained things such that it would not exist.
Jeff: Compare the two boldened sentences. Is there no difference between God's "desires" and what is "acceptable or necessary" to His purposes? It would seem there could be to make sense of the phrase, "they can make choices that are not exactly what God wants." So could you clarify the difference between "God's desires" in the first boldened sentence and "what God wants" on the other hand?
wjs | | Back to Top | | |
|
One Love
Registered Member
Date Joined Jan 2003
Total Posts : 13888
| Posted 7/16/2005 2:09 PM (GMT -6) | | Mephi: What this would mean is that there could be absolutely NO activity in Creation that would not have in some way been allowed by God as acceptable or necessary to God's purposes.
Tom: It would mean that all potential evil foreknown by God is an acceptable risk. It’s “allowed” in that sense, yes. This would be the first half of your disjunct (“in some way allowed as acceptable…”). But the other half of the disjunct, the “OR necessary to God’s purposes,” wouldn’t have to be true. It might be false, and I’d like to think it is. Nothing you’ve described so far I can see requires its truth.
I guess I wasn't clear. I'm trying to say that there is no activity in Creation that isn't a product of the interaction of these categories:
1) Foreknown acceptable risk given God's purposes
2) Metaphysical constraints given God's purposes.
Example of 2. If God absolutely wanted two mountains placed side by side...God would have to accept the metaphysical constraint of the valley created between them.
This lead to my statement: there is NO activity in Creation that falls outside of God's overarching or non-negotiable purposes. This is not to say that things don't ever happen that God that fall outside of God's ideal purpose for a thing or event. That does happen. This is to say that there is nothing that occurs that God CANNOT in some way weave into God's overarching or non-negotiable purposes. Any possible type of activity found in God's infinite intelligence that could overpower God's overarching, non-negotiable purposes would be ruled out from the jump. So, there is nothing that occurs that we can say ULTIMATELY thwarts any of God's overarching purposes.
Example: Jesus. Let's say that one of God's non-negotiable purposes for Jesus were for Him to die a violent killing at the hands of human beings in a particular way. It stands that God would NOT allow ANY other type of death to come to Jesus (death by sickness, starvation, fall from high place, etc) Though these possibilities surely would have existed in the mind of God...AND in reality...God would have taken pains to eliminate all possible hinderances to the specific TYPE of death God wanted Jesus to endure. Given God's purpose for Jesus, allowing Jesus to die of sudden infant death syndrome or a falling rock was an unacceptable risk.
Now, let's think Daniel. The whole 21 days thing. One thing that we can end up saying is this: It was an acceptable risk to God that Daniel's prayer NOT be immediately answered. Though God may have liked it if the angel had gotten there the first day, it wasn't essential to any of God's purposes for the world that it happen. So, the little angelic battle was allowed to play out. So, the angelic battle and Daniel waiting for 21 days IN NO WAY thwarted either God's overarching plans or God's non-negotiable plans.
***************************
Mephi: However, the creation and evolution of microorganisms (along with the possiblity of the AIDS virus) could have been delegated widely to a sentient, non-corporeal creature. In so doing, God's allowance declared AIDS an "acceptable risk" within his overall purposes.
Tom: An acceptable risk, yes. All that requires is that God foreknow the possibility of AIDS and say, “My purposes can tolerate that,” and not that AIDS actually “serves” God’s purposes. God can work redemptively and bring good out of something like AIDS, yes, but that might just be “in spite of” and “in response to” AIDS. This doesn't mean AIDS is "necessitated by God's purposes" as the second half of the disjunct says.
See, risk management figures specific risks into one’s plans and so prepares responses that deal with those challenges to the fulfillment of one's purposes. But a “risk” by definition, then, is a CHALLENGE TO the fulfillment of purpose. The purpose of the risk is to stop fulfillment of one's purpose. That's why it's considered a RISK from our point of view. It can’t also SERVE to fulfill that purpose except in the minimal sense in which an adequate response to the risk ends up fulfilling one’s purposes. But this doesn’t mean the risk isn’t OUTSIDE of God’s purposes. It is. Completely and entirely. It would have to be for it to BE a “risk.”
and....
Jeff:
Compare the two boldened sentences. Is there no difference between God's "desires" and what is "acceptable or necessary" to His purposes? It would seem there could be to make sense of the phrase, "they can make choices that are not exactly what God wants." So could you clarify the difference between "God's desires" in the first boldened sentence and "what God wants" on the other hand?
I put these both together because I feel like they are related. Going back to the Daniel idea. God's ideal intention may have been that God wanted Daniel's prayer answered as soon as it was made. However, it was within God's acceptable range of intention that it NOT occur for weeks. But the only reason that the acceptable range exists is because God allows it to. Again, if it were absolutely essential to God's plans that Daniel's prayer be answered immediately, no angel, demon, or person could have stopped that from occuring.
The main thing that I want understood is this: There is absolutely no particular form of "evil" that has ever occured that we can say fell outside of God's ultimate desire and purpose. If there is any UNACCEPTABLE risk to God, God takes steps to ensure that said risk will not be made. So, if, let's say, sentient, non-corporeal beings DO have the ability to toss asteroids at Earth, precipitating extinction level events, shape biological processes, possibly originating horrific pestilence...or playing with solar flares and what have you...then all of the potential ramifications have to be understood as being ACCEPTABLE RISKS to God, given his mysterious purposes.
Is this clearer, Tom and Jeff?
 | | Back to Top | | |
|
Starkman
Registered Member
Date Joined Oct 2001
Total Posts : 1747
| Posted 7/16/2005 2:51 PM (GMT -6) | | Meph: Meph: There is absolutely no particular form of "evil" that has ever occured that we can say fell outside of God's ultimate desire and purpose. If there is any UNACCEPTABLE risk to God, God takes steps to ensure that said risk will not be made.
Still sounds, Meph, like you're saying that since a risk is known and allowed, therefore, it must be part of God's desire and purpose. Acceptable risk within God's purpose, yes. But part of his desire? No. (You may not be saying that, but I'm just being clear here). I think you said it better here: "Example of 2. If God absolutely wanted two mountains placed side by side...God would have to accept the metaphysical constraint of the valley created between them. ".
These "rules of engagement," whatever they are, seem to me to be ever beyond our knowledge. I appreciate you trying to flesh some of them out, and I think this would make a hek of a disseration, but we're given so little to go with (in scripture and otherwise) that we end up having to speculate so much. I wonder, can the problem of evil ever be resolved?
You do, Meph, bring out the behind-the-scenes issues, though; dealing with the stuff of life that so consistently goes over the heads of those living right in the midst of it all: "If God has the ability to create non-corporeal sentient free beings, why would God create biological life like microbes and what not? If it was the case that the main thing God wanted was relationship, couldn't this have been satisfied without the creation of corporeal reality or any type of carbon-based biological evolution?"). More and more these kinds of behind-the-scenes surface in conversations like this—and sobering the thought process they do—but why is it so hard to find the clues (if not the handbook itself) that gives us the rules of engagement? Why did God veil this so greatly? The best we have, in my opinion, is found in Job. Even then, it's God who seems to directly initiate the stuff, not Satan. It's like, "God, if you would have just shut up, none of the "Job" stuff would have happened." Of course there's more to it than just God not keeping quiet, but there's always that veil hiding the meat of what's really going on.
Listening...
Starkman
My teacher used to say that whenever he read Scripture, he would always ask the question, "What does this have to say about the character of God?" Working off his thinking, as I read Scripture, I have come to ask, "What does this have to say about the heart and passion of God's desire for relationship for us? | | Back to Top | | |
|
One Love
Registered Member
Date Joined Jan 2003
Total Posts : 13888
| Posted 7/16/2005 8:22 PM (GMT -6) | | Jeff:
If I'm following you, I think I agree. In fact, the idea of "ultimate" purpose is kinda what I think Paul is meaning when he quotes the hypothetical antagonist in Rom. 9, saying, "For who has resisted His purpose?" That seems to be a rhetorical question demanding the answer, "No one!"
YES! Exactly right! 
****************
Starkman:
You do, Meph, bring out the behind-the-scenes issues, though; dealing with the stuff of life that so consistently goes over the heads of those living right in the midst of it all: "If God has the ability to create non-corporeal sentient free beings, why would God create biological life like microbes and what not? If it was the case that the main thing God wanted was relationship, couldn't this have been satisfied without the creation of corporeal reality or any type of carbon-based biological evolution?" . More and more these kinds of behind-the-scenes surface in conversations like this—and sobering the thought process they do—but why is it so hard to find the clues (if not the handbook itself) that gives us the rules of engagement? Why did God veil this so greatly? The best we have, in my opinion, is found in Job. Even then, it's God who seems to directly initiate the stuff, not Satan. It's like, "God, if you would have just shut up, none of the "Job" stuff would have happened." Of course there's more to it than just God not keeping quiet, but there's always that veil hiding the meat of what's really going on.
Some things...
1) Personally, I think that is a HUGE question. Much of the suffering, death, and dis-ease of our corporeal existence IS because of our corporeality. But it's clear that non-corporeal beings can have morality, rationality, creativity and emotion (all the things needed for a love relationship). It seems very clear that corporeal, biological life did NOT have to exist for God to have loving relationships with creatures. So, how could we say that love is the main reason for creating corporeal existence...including human beings. When examined in contrast to the obvious death and painful growth of the earth, animals, and homo sapiens, this is a question that demands an answer. All the nature "red in tooth and claw" could have been avoided! This question is especially hard for those who don't believe in a substantival understanding of the Imago Dei. What this implies is that God's desire for corporeal sentient free beings was NOT a metaphysical necessity based on God's desire for love...and actually could be argued to have created more problems than it was worth. So, what's the proposed explanation?
2) At what point does God's apparent "veiling" cause us to question our understanding of what it means for God to be "all-good"? Even if one posits ALL the soul-making, "epistemic distance" ideas in the world, the level of obscurity does not seem requisite. When does this cause us to ask some questions?
************************************
Given everything I've talked about thus far, doesn't it seem VERY strange that God would know the absolutely DISASTROUS ramifications of placing the creation of the entire universe under so much authority of his "angels"...particularly if God were intending upon creating sentient, corporeal, carbon-based lifeforms who would be highly subject to the permeating influence of those delegated authorities? Was that an "acceptable risk" to God?
More... | | Back to Top | | |
|
Similitude
Registered Member
Date Joined Apr 2004
Total Posts : 4968
| Posted 7/16/2005 9:39 PM (GMT -6) | | | Meph: Given everything I've talked about thus far, doesn't it seem VERY strange that God would know the absolutely DISASTROUS ramifications of placing the creation of the entire universe under so much authority of his "angels"...particularly if God were intending upon creating sentient, corporeal, carbon-based lifeforms who would be highly subject to the permeating influence of those delegated authorities? Was that an "acceptable risk" to God?
Jeff: If evil "angels" preexisted humans, I don't see how the disastrous ramifications were a risk at all. They were a virtual certainty. So I suspect your going to take the Kenneth Miller route, which is to say that humans were not specifically foreplanned by God - that, rather, they were a contingent and non-necessary product of evolution or a creation of evil "angels." Am I right? If not, hurry it up. The suspense is killing me! 
wjs Post Edited (jefscott) : 7/17/2005 8:20:44 AM (GMT-5) | | Back to Top | | |
|
Violin for God
Luke, I am your father. --Nooooooooo!!!!!
Date Joined Dec 2004
Total Posts : 690
| Posted 7/17/2005 1:19 AM (GMT -6) | |
Meph said...
So, how could we say that love is the main reason for creating corporeal existence...including human beings.... What this implies is that God's desire for corporeal sentient free beings was NOT a metaphysical necessity based on God's desire for love...and actually could be argued to have created more problems than it was worth. So, what's the proposed explanation? It's amazing how much goes on this board in just 2 days! Ok, I skimmed through what you all have so far, and Meph, the first posts you have, yeah, I agree. And the questions the others brought up, yeah, I agree with most of those questions there... now, here's what I've basically come to for a while.
Many people (in the back of their minds) tend to think of God's creating us was as if filling some sort of emptiness (that is, desire to create us was as if there was some sort of need to share the love). He had no emptiness though, which I'm sure we'd all agree with that. Thus, here's what I say: no, God's decision to create us was not solely because of love, but because He is all-loving, while "considering" us (I use that term somewhat lightly), while making us, and after having made us, in Him was love that already stretched toward us. He simply decided to create us and from the creating us, since He by His nature is all-loving, He automatically loved us with a love greater than what we could comprehend. In His omniscience, He considered us good and worth it to take risks to extend the good even further than original creation... the kind of extention that takes place only in development. Sure, He could have made us already developed, but where would the greater joy be found: in already having developed sentient beings, or having developing sentient beings? So them's my thoughts...
Some people have taken it as a shock when I told them that it seems to me that God had no need to create us, but simply decided to do so and out of that automatically came the loooove!
| | Back to Top | | |
|
One Love
Registered Member
Date Joined Jan 2003
Total Posts : 13888
| Posted 7/17/2005 2:45 PM (GMT -6) | | Alright, alright. Here's the deal.
I dare everyone here to read through the Old Testament IN FULL VIEW the type of God I've been describing up top.
Don't read the New Testament. At all. Take a break from it for a while. Just read the Old. The Law, Prophets, and the Writings. This includes...
1) all the "open view" passages about God supposedly not knowing what his people would do in a given situation
2) Joshua and his conquests. (Specifically the "dedication" of Jericho) And The sun standing still...
3) Elijah and the 2 she bears mauling the 42 kids.
4) The 70,000 people killed by angel following the mysterious Satan/God inciting David to count the people.
5) Numberous references to God controlling geological and meteorological phenomena like hail, rain, earthquakes, etc.
I would like for you to read the Old Testament with the God we've been describing above in view. I'm thinking that you will come to the conclusion that, on a lot of levels, there's some deep conflict. Did God really have to test Abraham to KNOW what was in his heart, given the immense amount of emotional, psychological, and sociological history God knew about him? Was God truly able to stop or slow down the rotation of the earth such that the sun appeared to stand still in the sky for a whole half a day...given the supposedly "huge" amount of autonomy given to Creation ala open-view theism? Did God REALLY test the Israel's hearts for 40 years in the wilderness Does God really bring ALL the rain and ALL the hail upon people when he chooses to? Who IS responsible for things like falling asteroids and extinction level events (or casting down stars from heaven)? God? "Satan"? Chance? Is God REALLY struggling that hard against "Satan"?
Basically, I'm coming to the conclusion that depiction of God that emerges from OT scripture is schizophrenic, at best. God is POWERFUL ENOUGH to assign the length of days of life before a person is born and absolutely control the weather...but also so LACKING IN PERSONAL KNOWLEDGE of others that God must test people to find out what they are going to do. God is supposedly a God who is INFINITELY INTELLIGENT and supremely wise...but keeps making decisions that God ends up regretting. God supposedly antedates ALL existence and is the BRILLIANT mind behind all parameters of creation all the way down to quanta...but at the same time, appears emotionally ERRATIC, almost unable to contain his anger, making decisions "in the heat of the moment" that God almost immediately changes his mind on.
Bottom line: I'm pretty tired of the mystery card entitled "There's a really good reason for all of this that we just won't know about this side of eternity" I completely understand that there are various authors writing in the OT with obviously very diverse theological perspectives. However, there is one thing I know that all these writers had in common: They had absolutely NO idea how complex the history of Creation was...whereas we are beginning to get a glimpse. No 3-tiered-universe for us! So, any OT perspective that we take, it would seem, has to be reconciled with God being the omnipresent, omnipotent, omniscient Creator of the universe that we know of with superpositions, viruses, tectonic plates, Black plague, black holes, extinction level events, etc.
Frankly, I'm having a very, VERY hard time reconciling those things.
Not only that, but check this out...
winace.andkon.com/designed_organisms/
Don't worry about the most of it. Just go to the portions that deal with the maladies...like Wuchereria bancrofti. And believe you me, these are just a few of nature's wonderful blessings to us!
At any rate, things like this seem like a veritable no-win situation.
A) If God did create these things intentionally, either via fiat or process, there's a lot to be said about the "goodness" of God there...particularly with things like the prehistoric velociraptor(en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Velociraptor) or the Candiru catfish!
B) If God delegated MAD authority to angels, and parasites like these were "acceptable risks" to God when doing the delegating, what the HELL does this mean...especially when God didn't have to create corporeal reality anyway? What kind of bone-headed decision is that??
Did Adam name the damn candiru catfish too??? Heh.
Anyways, after reading the OT for a while, I'd love to know what conclusions that y'all come to about that whole thing. Do you still feel it's inerrant or infallible? Do you still feel it speaks accurately about God as God is? Remember, Jesus believed in the OT too. So what does that mean?
Anyways, that's my challenge. Really think about your current post Hubble telescope, post-microbiology, post-psychology, post-neurophysiology view of God...and see if the Old Testament (and later, the NEW testament for that matter) makes any damn sense to you. It's absolutely NO wonder to me that people like Hugh Ross, John Polkinghorne, or any other cats like that hardly touch too much of the Old Testament with a 10 foot pole. Problematic as hell. God putting LEPROSY on someone? (Miriam) NO WAY! Heh.
So...go to it. Read it. Think about it. Have fun with it. And then ask yourself...honestly...
Do I REALLY believe this stuff? Like for real. Do I??
When you determine your answer, ask yourself "Why or why not"
Then let's talk some more about that.
I already know that there's just some stuff I'm not believing. So where does the slippery slope go? I'm finding out...
Post Edited (MephEternal) : 7/17/2005 2:48:07 PM (GMT-5) | | Back to Top | | |
|
Starkman
Registered Member
Date Joined Oct 2001
Total Posts : 1747
| Posted 7/17/2005 4:10 PM (GMT -6) | | Meph,
Man, I must be loosin' it. My writing is not clear or something. I mean, I was in total resonance with you, in that you bring out the behind-the-scenes stuff very well, like the bit about there being no need for us to have a corporeal existence in order for God to achieve His purposes. I completely agree. Why in the world does God create us the way he did? What's the sense of it if He could have achieved the same effects without creating us as we are? My point, however, was how are you going to solve that kind of problem? Where are you going to find the information to unravel this mystery? The OT? The NT? Trying to think it through (definitely a noble feat, but can it be done)?
(By the way, I mentioned Job as a main source of information about the problem of evil, but I think I'll have to adjust that. Job is, in my opinion, more epochal than literal in substance; it's theological rather than historical. That is absolutely important as regards the theology of faith and trust in God, particularly when fighting evil, but it doesn't clue us in too well as to what the hek is going on. A lot could be infered from job, but little can be educed in certainty about the real problem of evil.
Listen, Meph, you rock! Would that all pastors and teachers would tackle the issues and be as honest and blunt as you are (well, honest yes, but they might have to tone it down a bit from the pulpit...
From the pulpit pulpit: "Listen, this sh_t bites. I mean, what the hell was God thinking? Who's with me on this?" (Silence and bug-eyed parishioners!)
At the Unemployment office: "yeah, I'm looking for a job, damn it!
"Well," the unemployment agent says, "there's a speakers position open in the ETS."
At the next ETS convention: "Can't you see that God's out to lunch? I mean, Adam...catfish...you do the math!"
Why, yes, Pastor Mephs conservative and evangelical...yes, in the Jerry Falwell sense. Why do you ask?
Sorry. Little humor, you know.
I'm thoroughly convinced there must be rules of engagement. If it were as simple as God stopping all evil, then the whole game would have been over a long time ago. And if God can't intervene—I mean, if He's simply not powerful enough to do so—well, then, find me another God, please. And since man seems to be pretty good at being evil with little help from Satan or any other evil influence other than his own dark heart, stuff is going to happen. I have to conclude, since stuff does happen, since there surely must rules of engagement, and since God is able to intervene, that there is simply no other conclusion but that the other side of life is the only place where will see the whole darned thing layed out. The rules of engagement are between God and evil, not God and us. Whether we like it or not, the obvious is that we simply do not know the rules, and chances are we never will until we're dead.
As to the Old Testament, it isn't schitzo of God to knock off some youth who have insulted the vessel of His word (the prophet) but not do so other times. Surely there is a reason why God does what He does and doesn't do what He doesn't do. The thing is we're not even in the parking lot, much less the Operations Room, where the rules of engagement and the strategies have been developed. All we know at this point is that we are caught on the battle field and told to trust God in it all.
That said, Meph, I will definitely look to see more and more of your thinking in regard to this issue. I just think it's a dead end, and I dearly know that you don't like the idea of roads leading to dead ends.
Press on, dude! I, for one, will be here to listen.
Starkman
My teacher used to say that whenever he read Scripture, he would always ask the question, "What does this have to say about the character of God?" Working off his thinking, as I read Scripture, I have come to ask, "What does this have to say about the heart and passion of God's desire for relationship for us?Post Edited (Starkman) : 7/17/2005 4:46:45 PM (GMT-5) | | Back to Top | | |
|
Similitude
Registered Member
Date Joined Apr 2004
Total Posts : 4968
| Posted 7/17/2005 4:23 PM (GMT -6) | | Meph (question): So where does the slippery slope go?
Meph (answer): Really think about your current post Hubble telescope, post-microbiology, post-psychology, post-neurophysiology view of God...and see if the Old Testament (and later, the NEW testament for that matter) makes any damn sense to you.
Jeff: You said it. The slippery slope results in no bible (OT or NT) that can be understood in a deductive and inductive way. So we have to chunk the bible as a source of information about theodicy - at least as a source for discussion for the Christian COMMUNITY. For those of you have received private revelation, more power to you, but that doesn't get the COMMUNITY anywhere. The problem that I see with your approach is that natural evil seems UTTERLY inexplicable without the clues in the bible. So getting rid of the bible seems to make natural evil MUCH MORE problematic.
Meph: So, any OT perspective that we take, it would seem, has to be reconciled with God being the omnipresent, omnipotent, omniscient Creator of the universe that we know of with superpositions, viruses, tectonic plates, Black plague, black holes, extinction level events, etc.
Jeff: But how do these newly discovered or hypothesized phenomena change the nature of the problem evil? To me, they can only add new examples of the problem of evil. The nature of the problem hasn't changed at all.
Meph: B) If God delegated MAD authority to angels, and parasites like these were "acceptable risks" to God when doing the delegating, what the HELL does this mean...especially when God didn't have to create corporeal reality anyway? What kind of bone-headed decision is that??
Jeff: The only way to solve the "acceptable risks" problem is to deny God's omnipotence. We know He is aware of at least as much of the problem as we are. So surely it's not a deficiency of knowledge on His part. But if He isn't powerful enough to stop evil "angels" now, how could we know He's powerful enough to throw them in a lake of fire in the future? Help me here, bro. There really aren't that many logical alternatives, are there?
Meph: Remember, Jesus believed in the OT too. So what does that mean?
Jeff: Yes. This is a doozy. If Christ can embrace the OT and still be considered wise and benevolent, wouldn't that seem to suggest that it's good enough for us? For as I said, the nature of the problem of evil hasn't been changed by modern science. Your man, Scott Jorgenson, said he didn't think God cared what people's scientific views were. That seems like a safe concession if you think that Jesus accepted the OT at face value AND you disbelieve it, yourself.
wjsPost Edited (jefscott) : 7/17/2005 6:51:39 PM (GMT-5) | | Back to Top | | |
|
One Love
Registered Member
Date Joined Jan 2003
Total Posts : 13888
| Posted 7/18/2005 8:32 AM (GMT -6) | | Starkman:
I'm thoroughly convinced there must be rules of engagement. If it were as simple as God stopping all evil, then the whole game would have been over a long time ago. And if God can't intervene—I mean, if He's simply not powerful enough to do so—well, then, find me another God, please. And since man seems to be pretty good at being evil with little help from Satan or any other evil influence other than his own dark heart, stuff is going to happen. I have to conclude, since stuff does happen, since there surely must rules of engagement, and since God is able to intervene, that there is simply no other conclusion but that the other side of life is the only place where will see the whole darned thing layed out. The rules of engagement are between God and evil, not God and us. Whether we like it or not, the obvious is that we simply do not know the rules, and chances are we never will until we're dead.
Dude, all I'm saying is this. Read the OT Testament...NOT thinking about Christ. Put together the overall view of God that is layed out for you. I'm betting that you will NOT come up with the God that I've described at the top of this thread. You will end up with definitively conflicting ideas about God.
And no amount of "well, there must be a reason" harmonizing is gonna get rid of that. Maybe all we CAN do is just push things back to the by-and-by...and prey on our own ignorance. We can say things like...
Oh, yes, there MUST have been so many good reasons and rules that made God HAVE to tell people to completely annihilate men, women, children, and animals...and for killing 70,000 people after orchestrating (or allowing) David to count his men. There must be so much going on that we just don't know about!
At what point does this not sound like a co-dependent spouse making endless rationalizations for their spouse's inexplicable, erratic behaviour??? Seriously. At least the Calvinists basically say that God cannot be judged because he's God and we're not. I can at least RESPECT that answer. Where they screw up, IMO, is by trying to say that God has a divine perfect reason for everything. Forget that. Why not say this?
Some of the stuff in the Bible may NOT be totally historically accurate, but beyond that, God is arbitary on some things. In other words, God does NOT have to do everything he can to minimize evil and maximize good for all beings in this temporal existence.
Some people would say that this negates the idea that God is all-loving, because an all-loving being would AT ALL TIMES be working for the overall minimization of all forms of evil and maximization of good...including our temporal existence. Well, I say take a look around the OT and see if that's what you see, inductively. I would say you WOULDN'T. You get a God who is loving, benevolent, and merciful, but vengeful, jealous, and adamant about doing all that GOD pleases. Perhaps we read too much 1 John into the Old Testament. Just because the author says "God is love" may not mean what a lot of people think it means.
Anyways, I'm still thinking this all out. But here's a question. What if we just say that God is overwhelmingly loving, yet sometimes arbitrary according to God's purposes...instead of making these endless rationalizations?
PS: Love the humor. I don't know if I'd be in the unemployment line THAT long. There's lots of more liberal churches I could hang out at. There's always the UCC. Hehe. | | Back to Top | | |
| 106 posts in this thread.
Viewing Page : 1 2 3 4 5 |
| Forum Information | Currently it is Monday, November 09, 2026 2:47 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 |
|
|