quote:

---

I ain't got no problem with God being above good and evil. But that's just me.

---

quote:

---

By what standard are you suggesting I choose a Deity?

---

I don't know about anyone else. But I chose Jesus because I had an undenibable experience in the CHRISTIAN context. I prayed and (I suppose) Jesus answered me in a REAL way. I didn't choose Jesus because I thought he was oh-so-good (even though I did believe his sacrifice would be considered good). I believed because it IMPACTED me. Chances are if the Koran and some experience occured in a ISLAMIC context, I'd be a Muslim. In this way, I don't think that I choose "God", but "God" chose ME.

As far as judging the moral actions of deities, if we are not willing to go with the "Creator makes His/Her/Its own rules" idea, then I suppose we evaluate them by OUR standards...in which case MOST deities would fall below being omnibenevolent SOMEWHERE along the line.

For what it's worth,


PS: If it was just about trying to choose a "god" or theistic worldview, based on current evidences, I'd be just be an humble, yet honest agnostic who was inclined to believe in the paranatural and call it a day. Check my Contemplations On My "Theistic" Existence thread.


Edited by - Mephi2K on 03/16/2002 10:43:01 AM

quote:

---

In this way, I don't think that I choose "God", but "God" chose ME.

---

quote:

---

Are you asking a way to choose a WORLDVIEW?

---

quote:

---

This is such a predictable, common response to the Bible's "texts of terror"... what it always ends up doing is placing whatever God does (no matter how evil it may seem to us) ABOVE human judgments and/or knowledge of right and wrong. I think this leads us into a terrible, unresolvable quandry that no one seems able to admit or honestly deal with. I honestly am not sure why people end up saying things like the above except that they feel forced to suspend all logic and their own moral intuition out of their need to justify everything in a particular text. But then again, I imagine followers of any religious tradition will be willing to justify all the atrocities in their own holy books if their religion demands it. (And I'm sorry if I sound rude...I am just being honest.)

---

You are correct, I do believe that God’s judgment and/or knowledge of right and wrong is above my own. (However, I don’t think this text offers much insight into God’s mind, since God is not part of the action—let’s not confuse Elisha or the she-bears or the Bible with God. Maybe I’m missing something? ) Anyway, you are also correct that I am comfortable with ambiguity, and willing to suspend judgment (though not indefinitely). I try to remain as open as possible to as much as possible, so that I don’t miss something important.

As for feeling the need to justify God—ha ! God doesn’t need my help. (I think the best example of someone who took it upon himself to help God out is Dostoyevsky’s Grand Inquisitor.) Claims to this text’s moral integrity belong in the same category as claims to its lack of moral integrity. I wasn’t trying to make a claim in this category.

Honesty is always welcome.
Electra

~·•·~·•·~·•·~·•·~
“The star truly is high in the sky, is just as high in the sky although, reflected in the sea, it seems to lie far under the earth.” § Søren Kierkegaard

Edited by - Electra on 03/16/2002 5:51:10 PM

quote:

---

To me the bottom line seems to be this: God will do whatever is necessary to be able to communicate effectively with His people. Whether it is sending a couple bears to tear apart 42 young men or flooding the entire world, God will go ahead with His project and do what is necessary to bring that about.

---

quote:

---

As for feeling the need to justify God—ha ! God doesn’t need my help. (I think the best example of someone who took it upon himself to help God out is Dostoyevsky’s Grand Inquisitor.) Claims to this text’s moral integrity belong in the same category as claims to its lack of moral integrity. I wasn’t trying to make a claim in this category.

---

quote:

---

Empiress: I don't think you understood my point here, I wasn't accusing you of making any claims at all, quite the opposite. Empiress: I don't think you understood my point here, I wasn't accusing you of making any claims at all, quite the opposite.

Electra: Regarding this point, I granted you the following in the ¶ you didn’t quote: "You are correct, I do believe that God’s judgment and/or knowledge of right and wrong is above my own.… you are also correct that I am comfortable with ambiguity, and willing to suspend judgment." Does it still seem like I’m missing your point?

---

quote:

---

In dealing with such passages exegesis has above all else to be clear about the criteria it proposes to apply. It ought to be perfectly obvious that…our modern Christian humanitarian ideal completely fails as a standard of judgment. But if such critical questions are left open—though there is no reason why they should be—it is, theologically, a bad sign that, as usually happens, they are asked only of aspects of the prophetic message which seems to us immoral or inhumane.

---

Where he uses the term "modern Christian humanitarian ideal", he is NOT being clear. Is he saying that we should try to use other OLDER moral systems in our analysis...OR is he making a implicit CRITIQUE of contemporary humanitarian ideals...OR is he saying that the human moral IDEALS that our "moral wiring" provides us completely fails. If the first or second ideas, then he needs to SPECIFY what he believes is the CORRECT moral standard to use. But then he places himself in the position of an moral theorist who has to morally justify some of the "heinous" acts that many "humanitarian" idealists would think wrong. Sure, he could try to go by the argument that God was just "accomodating" to the moral systems of the time where wholesale slaughter, under certain circumstaces, could be completely justified. But this would be problematic, for with that argument, we would just end up saying:

Whatever God did in the Bible was completely good BECAUSE it was morally acceptable at the time that He did it.

In that case, God would be the NUMERO UNO moral relativist. And I bet that a number of people today would have a field day with THAT thought.


If the third idea, then Miss E's point stands tall as is. Either way, Rad is basically saying that we CANNOT TRUST our own moral senses and should not use these as a standard of judgment. But this leads to a serious problem of calling anything God does "good" or "evil" FROM OUR PERSPECTIVE. The most we could end up saying is something like this:

God's acts here are LIKE our "bad" acts, but not identical to being "bad" acts as we understand them.

...which would be tantamount to nonsense. God's "good" acts (which are good from dogmatic concerns) are LIKE our "good" acts...but not in the same way. AND God's "good" acts can be LIKE our "bad" acts...but not in the same way. The moral equivocation make distinction MEANINGLESS.



Bottom line: Unless we can look at a text, and using HUMAN MORAL CATEGORIES, evaluate any act or deed (AT LEAST APPARENTLY) in holy writ, then it all ends up in tautology. Given some of Von Rad's implication, we would not even be able to say that God's acts were APPARENTLY evil or good. We'd just have to say that God's acts are God's acts.


Here's a question, Electra:

Can we use our human moral categories to say that some of God's acts and deeds in the Bible are APPARENTLY evil, callous, and arbitrary?

OR...

Would you say that NONE of the above descriptions that use our human moral categories could apply to God because of who God is?

Answer this and I'll be Miss E has the answer that she needs.

Blessings,


Love God. Love People. Love Truth. Dedicate your all to that which you love.

Edited by - Mephi2K on 03/17/2002 08:15:17 AM

quote:

---

I didn't choose Jesus because I thought he was oh-so-good (even though I did believe his sacrifice would be considered good). I believed because it IMPACTED me. Chances are if the Koran and some experience occured in a ISLAMIC context, I'd be a Muslim. In this way, I don't think that I choose "God", but "God" chose ME.

---

quote:

---

"God chose ME", is still my experience.

---

On point, Don! This reminds me. When I became a dedicated Christian, I remember something that my former roomate said when I told him a lot of the stuff. He said:

"Interesting. Your stuff seems for real. After all, no one goes looking for God on prom night."

I asked him what he meant. He said it was pretty simple. "Prom Night" is symbolic for a time in person's life when things are doing pretty well, reasonably speaking. Got a date. Looking nice. Music's right. Things look promising for later. (heh) With things going THIS good, NO ONE goes looking for God. Thus for one to say that they've experienced God during this time is a QUANTUM LEAP from someone who has hit bottom, has no where else to turn, and is at the end of their rope...and THEN finds God (like so many penitentiary conversions)

Basically, he was giving more credibility that I HAD experienced something (ala Paul) then me just using God as a crutch to get through a hard period in life.

quote:

---

From our earlier thread on this verse, I found the best combination of considerations to be
* the "little boys" may have been teenagers
* the taunt may have been a blasphemous railing
* the verse doesn't say GOD sent the "she bears". Spiritual authority may be used for the better or the worse.
* Relatedly, it may be that a spirit in God's council responded to Elisha's rebuke, though it wasn't necessarily God's will that it do so. Spirits too have free will.

Right now, this is the best I can do. If it wasn't for the endorsement of Jesus, it would be far easier to dismiss the whole thing as a piece of archaic legend that reflects the undeveloped moral sentiments of the time. But alas...

I'm certainly open to other considerations.

Doc


"Three is the magic number, oh yes it is, it's the Magic Number" - De La Soul

---