 |
 | 
1Heart
Registered Member
Date Joined Feb 2004
Total Posts : 1128
| Posted 3/3/2004 6:34 AM (GMT -6) |   | [quote]Originally posted by MephEternal
(MEPH)
The question is simple:
(JO-ANNE) The question is simple?
(MEPH) {"Given your understanding of moral culpability and what that entails, do YOU think that God is morally culpable for God's thorough "involvement" in fallen, evil structures (like sickness, death, etc)? I ask you to PLEASE keep in mind things like the striking Miriam down with leprosy thing."}
(JO-ANNE) No. I will be respectful (of course) and use the poll to vote.
(MEPH) If you wish, you can explain your own person reasoning for your answer to this question. I'd really like to hear from the "no's" myself. 
(Jo-ANNE) I chuckled when I first read this (sorry) because it reminded me of all those voting times in past church history, where the vote was to be anonymous (like this poll) but people would always want to know who voted no and why. Just struck me as humorous. But, good discussion point. Since I'm voting no, I'll be first to give an explanation. As with complicity, the use of culpable will cause problems. By definition, neither of these words should, IMHO, be used to describe the Father.
What say ye?
cul·pa·ble ( P ) Pronunciation Key (klp-bl)
adj.
Deserving of blame or censure as being wrong, evil, improper, or injurious. See Synonyms at blameworthy.
Synonyms: blameworthy, blamable, blameful, censurable, culpable, guilty, reprehensible
These adjectives mean meriting reproof or punishment: blameworthy behavior; blamable but understandable resentment; blameful impulsiveness; censurable misconduct; culpable negligence; guilty deeds; reprehensible arrogance.
Antonyms: blameless 
"Sometimes all we can do is go back to the character of God, and drop anchor there."
| | Back to Top | | |
|
Wahoo
Registered Member
Date Joined Jan 2004
Total Posts : 142
| Posted 3/3/2004 7:12 AM (GMT -6) | | I voted "no", and here's why...
The Bible ascribes “holiness” to God and so does the dictionary. However, the Bible does not ascribe biblical “evil” to God. I would submit that the dictionary definition of “evil” is not the same as the biblical definition of “evil”. If it was then we could not have a logical discussion without throwing out either the Bible or the dictionary because the two definitions are polarized against each other.
In the parameters of this discussion however, I would say that God is holy.
"holy" is a higher definition that exists above the physical and above the human. Evil is not neccesarily so... God can do anything He wants, even destroy His own creation and it would be holy and not evil. | | Back to Top | | |
|
Wahoo
Registered Member
Date Joined Jan 2004
Total Posts : 142
| Posted 3/3/2004 2:07 PM (GMT -6) | | You have to be patient Meph!
I have to get inside the construct...
While you are waiting you can write your own dictionary of Mephian theory and you might want to get this published and copyrighted. Someone else could get rich off all your rhetoric.
Compassionately yours~ | | Back to Top | | |
|
Wahoo
Registered Member
Date Joined Jan 2004
Total Posts : 142
| Posted 3/3/2004 2:10 PM (GMT -6) | | Oh, and I am putting the theory into practice at the...
"Lets solve the problem of bus strikes" thread. After all, what good is all of this jargon if it has no application.
 | | Back to Top | | |
|
Wahoo
Registered Member
Date Joined Jan 2004
Total Posts : 142
| Posted 3/3/2004 7:11 PM (GMT -6) | | What tha!
Where are all these voters coming from?
Anyway, Mephi... The "Contents of this discussion board are protected by copyright."
Where have all of you voters been? | | Back to Top | | |
|
One Love
Registered Member
Date Joined Jan 2003
Total Posts : 13888
| Posted 3/4/2004 4:48 AM (GMT -6) | | This is SOOO important that I want to post this here too!
___________________
Hmmmm...I think I'm seeing something...
Moon River, I DO think that we are getting hung up on terminology. I also think the issue is coming up about HOW one defines sin. I'm believing that a significant amount of people here are having a more Wesleyan view of sin where sin is willful, knowing, intentional, INDIVIDUAL action or thought against God. (This is why I told Laika that there ARE other robust ideas of sin that exist in the Church) The issue with this view of sin is that it fits very well with the free will idea...BUT it SUCKS when it comes to the idea of systemic evil and structural sin. Using this more Wesleyan idea of sin, the logic becomes...
To the extent that one doesn't WILLFULLY, KNOWINGLY and INTENTIONALLY from the heart support the an evil structure, they are not in ANYWAY complicit.
And this logic gets into ABSURD lengths. I remember this one guy who was BIG in this idea of sin. And he said that he hadn't sinned in 5 years. I was like WHAT the HECK??? I thought he was crazy...until I got to the root of his theology. What he was saying in essence was this:
In five years, I have not (to my knowledge) KNOWINGLY and WILLFULLY from the heart supported anything against God. Therefore, I haven't sinned.
I had a serious talk with Doc just yesterday on this issue. Our idea of sin (both individual and structural), to the extent that we are consistent, has VERY important ramifications on how we view issues like God's activity in the world, not to mention our OWN participation in sexism, racism, etc. This gets VERY important.
Check it. If someone has a thoroughly INDIVIDUALIZED idea of sin then when they here "God is complicit in fallen, sinful structures", chances are they are hearing this...
God is morally accountable for WILLFULLY, KNOWINGLY, and INTENTIONALLY from the heart supporting fallen, evil structures.
I can then UNDERSTAND why people would not like what I am saying! They would be HEARING me say (as opposed to me actually saying) that God is a SINNER, that God is someone who supports sin or "greater good" from the heart. This would give God NO real separation from the devil.
But this is NOT what I'm saying...
I have a more decidedly LUTHERAN (I'm finding out) take of sin
that gives is a much more PERMEABLE nature. Accountability is NOT just based on willful, knowing, "from the heart" participation in sin. It's deeper that that. Ignorance is NOT bliss. Good intentions DON'T get you off the hook. Participation is MUCH MORE multifaceted. What this means is this:
Complicity in sinful, fallen, systems and structures can be willful, knowing, and intentional from the heart...BUT it can ALSO be UNwilling, UNknowing, AND UNintentional!
What this means is that it's possible that you could actively be fully working AGAINST an evil system while being IN the evil system, using the BENEFITS of that evil system against itself...but participating IN that evil system still makes you somewhat ACCOUNTABLE.
Does everyone see this?
Your view of moral responsibility and sin DIRECTLY relates to how you see this issue. And I'm willing to bet that a VAST MAJORITY of people here are having a more Wesleyan view of sin and moral culpability.
Thoughts?
"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 | | |
|
Wahoo
Registered Member
Date Joined Jan 2004
Total Posts : 142
| Posted 3/4/2004 5:24 AM (GMT -6) | | I thought this was really important too...
quote:
Originally posted by Selah
"why is it so important for me to hold God morally culpable for (some) evil" or better "what part of me is so intent on holding God morally culpable--and what is the purpose and intention of that part" kinda thing. ya know? "Soul listen up...what is it about evil (in my life and others) that affects me to the extent that I have to ascribe (at least part of) it to God?" I mean, this is a "belief" right? So it must have been installed at some point.
| | Back to Top | | |
|
One Love
Registered Member
Date Joined Jan 2003
Total Posts : 13888
| Posted 3/4/2004 5:36 AM (GMT -6) | | Hmmmm...
Selah said:
quote:
why is it so important for me to hold God morally culpable for (some) evil" or better "what part of me is so intent on holding God morally culpable--and what is the purpose and intention of that part" kinda thing. ya know? "Soul listen up...what is it about evil (in my life and others) that affects me to the extent that I have to ascribe (at least part of) it to God?" I mean, this is a "belief" right? So it must have been installed at some point
Hopefully, it's made plain that this is not to be some "blame God" trip. Selah's thought appears to be that there is some EMOTIONALLY LINKED reason why I'm dealing with moral culpability as it relates to God. And she said she was guessing. Well, it was a not-so-good guess.
Again, the idea is that our theologies, cosmologies, and axiologies INFORM one another. Implications abound. The principle of moral responsibility is METAPHYSICALLY IMPORTANT to the realms of theology (ala free will theism) and and quite important to axiology (realm of morality and ethics). So in dealing with the idea of complicity in fallen, evil structures...you deal with both subjects. All I'm saying is that a certain idea of what makes one morally culpable has effects theologically.
This ain't comin' from some bitterness against God or anything like that. Nice try at a guess, though.
Get this, Selah? 
"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 | | |
|
Wahoo
Registered Member
Date Joined Jan 2004
Total Posts : 142
| Posted 3/4/2004 5:39 AM (GMT -6) | | | I don't think you have to hate God to have a theology either. But you should have at least a concise application of it. I don't think you've shown that yet. | | Back to Top | | |
|
selah
Registered Member
Date Joined Oct 2001
Total Posts : 1210
| Posted 3/4/2004 6:53 AM (GMT -6) | | quote:
Originally posted by MephEternal
...Selah's thought appears to be that there is some EMOTIONALLY LINKED reason why I'm dealing with moral culpability as it relates to God. And she said she was guessing. Well, it was a not-so-good guess.
selah: ya well. No loss no gain. I'm good.
quote:
Again, the idea is that our theologies, cosmologies, and axiologies INFORM one another. Implications abound. The principle of moral responsibility is METAPHYSICALLY IMPORTANT to the realms of theology (ala free will theism) and and quite important to axiology (realm of morality and ethics). So in dealing with the idea of complicity in fallen, evil structures...you deal with both subjects. All I'm saying is that a certain idea of what makes one morally culpable has effects theologically.
selah: I'm officially assigning myself to the role of spectator. I want to watch this play itself out.
quote:
This ain't comin' from some bitterness against God or anything like that. Nice try at a guess, though.
selah: well, I don't remember using the word bitterness but ok. One thing I will stand by is simply this Meph, like me, you do have a matrix.
peace and love,
selah
"When we acknowledge that all of life is sacred and that each act is an act of choice and therefore sacred, then life is a sacred dance lived consciously each moment. When we live at this level, we participate in the creation of a better world."
Scout Cloud Lee | | Back to Top | | |
|
Wahoo
Registered Member
Date Joined Jan 2004
Total Posts : 142
| Posted 3/4/2004 7:37 AM (GMT -6) | | | What I mean, Meph, is that you have drawn lines connecting all kinds of things and then out of the blue you seem to have come up with a theology that God is "complicit" in evil? Come on... You have to grab people's attention, not offend their theologies. And then you have to offer a clear and easily understood connection. I haven't seen it and it is apparent that no one else has either. So what I'm saying is, you have created your own theodicy with its own rules that other people are having trouble with. | | Back to Top | | |
|
One Love
Registered Member
Date Joined Jan 2003
Total Posts : 13888
| Posted 3/4/2004 10:13 AM (GMT -6) | | Wahoo:
quote:
What I mean, Meph, is that you have drawn lines connecting all kinds of things and then out of the blue you seem to have come up with a theology that God is "complicit" in evil? Come on... You have to grab people's attention, not offend their theologies. And then you have to offer a clear and easily understood connection. I haven't seen it and it is apparent that no one else has either. So what I'm saying is, you have created your own theodicy with its own rules that other people are having trouble with.
Ok, then. The only thing that I can think to start with is HOW I'm being perceived by others. Could you, Wahoo, describe what you hear me saying? See, what's obviously happening is that what I'm saying IS being understood to the degree that people's theologies are being offended. So, what this tells me is NOT that I'm completely incoherent unto puzzlement...but that I'm saying something that goes against certain ideas of God to the point of offending.
So, what do you hear me saying?
"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 | | |
|
Wahoo
Registered Member
Date Joined Jan 2004
Total Posts : 142
| Posted 3/4/2004 10:20 AM (GMT -6) | | I hear puzzlement... I see that others take offense that God is implicit in sin. But, then you offer some points that I totally agree with and yet others are still offended, i.e. "guilt by association in systemic evil.
The major puzzlement issue for me is, what on earth does the "complicity" of God in sinful structures have to offer the argument that we are responsible for social evils within your parameters? | | Back to Top | | |
|
Wahoo
Registered Member
Date Joined Jan 2004
Total Posts : 142
| Posted 3/4/2004 10:44 AM (GMT -6) | | Mephious,
When I hear that God is complicit in sinful structures and substantiated by the leperous Miriam, I am hearing that God is implicated as a free and acting agent in a sinful act. I have some differences with that based on the holiness of God and the "Wesleyan" view of sin.
But that does not even come into play in my understanding your two parameters of moral culpability. I believe God is amoral in this sense. However, the way that he acts in this moral system is by the rules, his rules. I named the laws of thermodynamics as the "enemy" but not being sinful. The non-free agents in this system do not have the ability to be sinful. | | Back to Top | | |
|
Wahoo
Registered Member
Date Joined Jan 2004
Total Posts : 142
| Posted 3/4/2004 10:57 AM (GMT -6) | | Yes Meph,
Before the fall of man, rules were rules, and man knew no sin. What sin? But whatever your view on sin entering the world, God did not cease to be a holy God. And given the advantage of being God, he could unleash the laws that creation would destroy itself, or he could let things work themselves out. That wasn't working very well so he caused the flood. Evil? I don't think that God creating heavens and earth or a cleansing flood for that matter was evil.
BTW, I think that the discussion on sin has an application here. | | Back to Top | | |
| 45 posts in this thread.
Viewing Page : 1 2 |
| Forum Information | Currently it is Monday, November 09, 2026 5:26 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 |
|
|