 |
| Open Theism Discussion Board > Public Forums > Let’s solve the problem of evil > Extraneous Stuff: Skit From An Insomniac | Forum Quick Jump
|
| 
Starkman
Registered Member
Date Joined Oct 2001
Total Posts : 1747
| Posted 12/4/2001 4:36 PM (GMT -6) |   |
Note How Mephi side-steps the real issue here: it wasn't his computer that went berzerk, it was total destruction (most probably due to high heat) of the keyboard.
Mephi, you destroyed your keyboard, you did. Admit it! You typed so much that the thing gave up the ghost! That's really the issue here, isn't it! And now you threaten to do it to one of your homie's laptops. Sheesh!
On another note...
Perhaps the concept of existential existence, in reference to God, does not incorporate morals or love quite the way we might think it does. Interestingly enough, The creation of Adam and Eve do not record anything to do with love or goodness or morals with regard the character and existance of God or Adam/Eve. These characteristics do, however, show up only by the serpent, a fallen being, and later by God ONLY after mankind has fallen and now the entire concept of love and hate, and good and bad are to mean anything.
Perhaps God does not exist within a framework that "loves" others within the same framework (heaven) the way we think, as if hate is just around the corner, but love is just over there a ways. Perhaps, too, God doesn't exist within a framework of goodness since badness is also not around the corner. When God created earth, it state's "and God saw that it was good", but this isn't goodness in reference to badness being somewhere else to be found. It's goodness from a different framework. Perhaps another way to translate that statement is "...and God saw that it was of the same nature as to what God's existance is and to where God's existance resides. (I don't mean that the earth somehow is part of God)
This makes heaven and a pre-fallen earth more eschatological than descriptive of moral and ethical character, of love and goodness. For God to give Adam the choice to eat or not to eat of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil is to introduce something possible for ADAM to do, but not necessarily for God to do; He doesn't exist within a good/bad, sin/sinlessness, good/bad or love/hate 'world'. One of his creations may, but He doesn't have to. For one of his creations to "sin" is to still stay outside of the framework in which God resides.
Therefore, I'm considering if God's giving of freewill is but to offer an open door to mankind that is not open for God simply because He doesn't exist anywhere, so to speak, where a door of this nature is to be found. Hence, in a pre-fallen state, for God to have given free will to Adam - first to choose life or death; second, to choose how to live (by naming the animals) is not to invoke love for God to keep from choosing evil, anymore than Adam didn't have to necessarily love Eve to have relationship with her. It is to invoke simple obedience based on nothing more, perhaps, than the knowlege (of Adam) of who God is verses who Adam is.
So, if an atheist asks me about issues of injustice or badness or of these types of things, as if these were stumbling blocks, I can point him to what I've just said. Secondly, I can explain that for God to have answered the "sin" question via the cross, it is not to say that God has done anything outside of His true framework; for Christ took on the body of a human first to partake of the wrath. He did not do this within His true framework. (okay, at this point I gotta stop and think some more on this!)
For the conversation,
Starkman | | Back to Top | | |
 |
Modes of Thought
Registered Member
Date Joined Jun 2001
Total Posts : 817
| Posted 12/4/2001 5:02 PM (GMT -6) | | Starkman, that was GREAT! I will have to mull it over (as Writerdad would say) a bit more before I respond, but I really resonated with what you were saying.
And Meph, once again, YOU amaze me. So sorry to hear about your computer woes. If Stark is right you can just confess it. We will understand.
Fun AND important thread.
"Christianly understood, truth is obviously not to know the truth but to be the truth. Despite all modern philosophy, there is an infinite difference here..." SK | | Back to Top | | |
|
GregBoyd
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 1818
| Posted 12/4/2001 8:36 PM (GMT -6) | | Its a hoe down folks! Round TWO.
Its Doc and TGB (love ya bro. love ya) verses Modes, Mephi and (maybe?) Starkman (love you guys too. but you're WRONG). Others invited to join in. Just drop a quarter in the slot and play a round.
This round I will engage in guerilla warfare rather than a sustained attack. I will offer miscellanious missles at various slights, left vulnerable on the several posts since my last entry. Let the round begin!
Modes, to me: It is one thing to ask for logical consistency and an entirely different matter to drag my sinful and inadequate, self-referential "values" into the matter.
Doc: What? You’re joking, I hope, but I don’t know what about.
Modes: If I look to the object(/Divine Community) under discussion rather than speculate in hopes that perfection itself is what I imagine it to be (only more), what fallacy am I committing?
Doc: No fallacy. But doesn’t the "object" itself/themselves declare that they are altogether holy? The ontological argument doesn’t compete with revelational knowledge. It just proves that God’s holiness is not something God achieved.
Modes: The force of logical "necessity" is not binding unless we are clearly comprehensive in all that precedes it.
Doc: No my friend. The force of logical necessity is a formal necessity. This is why the ontological argument works even though we concede at the outset that we can’t materially (as opposed to formally) attain the height of divine perfection in our minds. The formal category of "greatest" will do.
Modes: I think the [ontological] argument helpful metaphysically, but not religiously.
Doc I don’t see how you can divorce metaphysics and "religion" in this way. Is it a religious, or a metaphysical issue to say that God can break covenantal promises? I take it to be both.
Mephi (after reviewing the ontological argument in Trinity and Process): "Hopefully, I've tagged Doc's ideas competently here."
Doc: You were brilliant. How such a mind can avoid my brilliant conclusions is utterly baffling .
Mephi It (the ontological argument implying the necessity of God’s moral character) would work out fine if SOMEONE could cogently show me WHY the moral categories have to be dealt with in this manner.
Doc What does it mean to conceive of a being "GREATER THAN that which no other can be conceived"? I can’t conceive of GREATER devoid of moral characteristics.
Meph: Necessity in this case (God’s character) would imply the INABILITYto change one's moral characteristics...or changing's one's moral choices.
Doc: Yes and no. "Yes" in that God can’t become worse. But why describe this as an INABILITY. It’s a superb ABILITY. God can’t lie, right? (Heh dudes, thats SCRIPTURE, NOT my ontological argument!) That’s a freedom, not a fault. No in that God CAN change his moral choices, but not for the better or the worse. There can be a multitude of choices that are "as good" as any other, or which have a roughly equal probability of producing "as good" results.
Meph: Isn't [saying a Necessary Existent can have personal relationships without having libertarian freedom] basically doing the SAME THING that you guys want to lambast (sic) the TSE idea for: essential giving God "different rules" to play by JUST BECAUSE God is God?? Just because of who he is? It seems like EXACTLY the same animal to me.
Doc: No no no my friend. Its an entirely different animal. A necessary being is necessary, a contingent being is contingent. Hence it makes sense to say (infact, its logically required to say) that a necessary being has a necessary moral character, and a contingent being a contingent moral character.
The problem with TSE is not that God plays by different rules as we should expect a necessary being to do. The problem is that for TSE God plays by the same morally contingent rules we do. Even worse, he plays by them WORSE than we do, for we all know that one should never break a unconditional promise!
Mephi: I reject that OMNIBENEVOLENCE (as it is being conceived here) is to be used as a NECESSARY attribute in the ontological argument! Once someone disputes this, Doc, then it is NOT just a matter of "married bachelors" or "round triangles" And I think you know this, right? Oh, and you say that you can conceive of a God "better" than one who is not omnibenevolent. Hmmm. Let me guess. It's one that CANNOT NOT be omnibenevolent. Whohoo. Word of knowledge. Now, come on, y'all. HOW subjective is THAT?
Doc (THIS ONE IS CENTRAL TO THIS ISSUE) : Do you think that it is subjective to say that Mother Teresa was greater than Hitler? If not, then you can’t accuse a person of operating out of subjectivity when they affirm that a being who is by nature perfectly good is greater than a being who is not by nature perfectly good. Nor can you deny that moral catagories are involved in the estimation of one being being "greater" than another.
Oddly, you seem to grant the basic logic of the ontological argument – the conception of the greatest conceivable being implies the existence of the greatest possible being – and yet you want to denude the term "greater" of any moral quality. But in what sense is God then the "greatest" conceivable being? If God were Satan, a virtual cosmic Hitler, would he still be the greatest conceivable being? Would not a cosmic Mother Teresa be greater?
Mephi Finally, to my man Modes, He COMPLETELY bats it OUT OF THE PARK with his last post! How many atheists do YOU know that have said that the entire notion of the Cross is IMMORAL and UNFAIR at best? I know PLENTY.
Doc: With all due respect to Modes, it was an unsuccessful bunt at best.  How many atheists understand the Incarnation enough to know that what God did to Jesus Christ he was doing to himself? There rantings are all based on a "third party" understanding of Christ sufferings. Come on. Do YOU and MODES think the cross was immoral or unfair? It was the supreme example of beautiful, gracious, perfect GOODNESS.
Starkman: Perhaps God does not exist within a framework that "loves" others within the same framework (heaven) the way we think, as if hate is just around the corner, but love is just over there a ways. Perhaps, too, God doesn't exist within a framework of goodness since badness is also not around the corner.
Doc: Nietzsche’s "Beyond good and evil" is coming to mind here – but I’m sure I’m missing you’re point. Perhaps in your statement that for God "evil" and "sin" are "not just around the corner," you mean to say God is good necessarily, not contingently. I doubt you’re suggesting this – but if you were, it would make sense, and (predictably enough) I'd applaud. As it stands, I’m not sure exactly what you’re saying.
Starkman When God created earth, it state's "and God saw that it was good", but this isn't goodness in reference to badness being somewhere else to be found. It's goodness from a different framework.
Doc: What this "different framework" you refer to is I haven’t a clue. The goodness of creation – or of God prior to creation – needn’t contrast with any ACTUAL evil (though I’m convinced the goodness of creation in Gen. 1 DOES contrast with actual evil, suggested in Gen. 1:2 – a different topic for sure). The goodness of God and of creation need only contrast with POSSIBLE evil. But it MUST contrast with SOMETHING, or it is devoid of meaning.
For example, the rightness of me and TGB contrasts with the wrongness of Meph and Modes .
ITS THIS SIMPLE FOLKS: READ MY FINGERS.
A being greater than which none other can be conceived is a being whose GOODNESS is greater than which none other can be conceived, or we are simply not conceiving of the GREATEST conceivable being.
And THAT means the god of the skit is not GOD.
Now if I could just get to sleep because I have a lovely BOARD MEETING in (check my watch) FOUR HOURS. Shoooot.
night night
Doc
"Three is the magic number, oh yes it is, it's the Magic Number" - De La Soul | | Back to Top | | |
|
Mephi2K
Registered Member
Date Joined Jun 2001
Total Posts : 713
| Posted 12/5/2001 1:39 PM (GMT -6) | | Praise God! I have a new ISP so things don't suck AS BAD on this archaic machine. Sweet.
Doc said:
quote:
What does it mean to conceive of a being "GREATER THAN that which no other can be conceived"? I can’t conceive of GREATER devoid of moral characteristics.
Hmmm... Couldn't this be seen as a HUMAN limitation? Isn't THIS what Modes was hinting at? I think so. See, because of who we are, we cannot think of "beings" WITHOUT the context of moral behavior. But instead of even THINKING that God could be a bit broader than our categories, we tend to place God within them. But, hey, since you can't "conceive of GREATER devoid of moral characteristics", how about this?
A being greater than which none other can be conceived is a being whose CAPACITY for goodness is greater than which none other can be conceived, or we are simply not conceiving of the GREATEST conceivable being.
If this is the case, then the God represented in the skit IS God.
Show me wrong. In order to do so, you have to cogently argue that the "greater" must be the NECESSARY EXERCISE of a moral characteristic, and not just the capacity for such. You have to argue that a being who is not FREE to choose good over evil (but chooses good naturally) is BETTER THAN one who has to choose between the two. Make no mistake. Choosing between "goods" is NOT a true moral decision...and I think you know that. Hmmm...I wonder how this argument would work out in the Christology department. Especially about the part where Jesus CHOSE the Cross...and the Gethsemene episode.
One could talk about "greater" using moral terms by talking in terms that "free" beings like us can understand: THE CAPACITY TO PERFORM GOOD VS EVIL. This capacity would not only consist of one's SPHERE OF INFLUENCE in this regard, but also the POWER OF WILLING to carry it out. Just like you argue that Satan's capacity for evil was proportionate for his capacity to do good, so with God. I could argue that God's level of moral CAPACITY is "greater than which NONE other can be conceieved"! Now, wouldn't this satisfy YOUR criteria of incorporating morality...without going into the semi-sensical idea of making morality ontological?
And doesn't this show the subjectivity involved in the whole thing? If one values a particular moral value (either good or bad) OVER the CAPACITY concerning said values, then of course they would say something like what YOU, Tom, and Pia say. But in doing so, you take away significant freedom of God to laud what YOU think are the values that should be lauded. However, if one deals with the CAPACITY issue (which is PRESUPPOSED IN THE FIRST PLACE when dealing with moral choices) one would say something like what Modes, Stark, and myself are saying. You may find our thought somewhat on the Ubermensch side, but you can't really knock our overall logic. Ours works with less hassle and less abstraction. Yours don't. We rule.
Recapping. The Ontological Argument would still be JUST AS POWERFUL by using moral catergories more USEFULLY in terms of capacity, not some ontological attribute!
This works well, Doc. Come on, admit it.
Coming with Both Guns Blazin'...all in Christian Love,
PS: Just for the record, I STILL don't think that moral categories should be thought of ontological. Just to let you know.
PSS: LAST MINUTE IMPORTANT THOUGHTS
Here's something that may help us...
The Idea of the Perfection of Human Freedom
Something kept nagging me to go back to Satan and the Problem of Evil. Now I know why. The idea that is perpetrated is that the perfection of human freedom is the ability to ONLY choose good (or God, rather) Here's where Doc and Sanders get into it:Is it POSSIBLE to sin after the second coming of Christ when we are to be LIKE HIM in the end? (See how important that christological question REALLY is???) Whereas Sanders would be much more apt to speculate yes, Doc obviously would not. However, isn't this very idea of the perfection of freedom to be disputed? Wouldn't a better, MORE INTUITIVE idea of the perfection of human freedom be to have the ability to successfully bring about what one WILLS to do. In other words, have the ability to legitimately follow one's inclinations without stumbling. It seems to me that one of the significantly reoccuring lines of thought that emerges in the Bible is that of the WAVERING WILL and how much it ends up offending God. We see this in the Pauline works (especially his Romans 7), James, and definitely in the life of Israel. Let's get deeper. LOOK AT JESUS!!!! He was not lauded for merely being UNABLE to sin and choose God. He was lauded for being tempted with the possibility of NOT following God, but CHOOSING God's way over his way. Now, THAT's some hellafied WILLPOWER and execution of freedom. Is it to wild to think that THIS is what it means to be Christlike? To have the wherewithal to ALWAYS choose to work with the Spirit (Rom 8)? To choose the way of God over our own way? Something to think about, now isn't it?
Why do I bring this out? Because I am CONVINCED that this helps the whole Doc line of thought. Doc believes that the perfection of personal freedom is the ABILITY (not INability) to be able NOT to choose any evil. And I'd wager that he holds this belief based not only on philosophical concerns but primarily on the life of Jesus. I think that he is straight up wrong. I believe that the perfection of personal freedom is the ability to successfully bring out the choice that one WILLS to choose! Someone may say:
But this says nothing about the moral value of the thing chosen. One could say that the perfection of freedom exists when does EVIL all the time because they choose to.
Why, certainly. But here's the thing. God's TELEOLOGICAL AIM is Himself and His goals. It is possible for one to achieve perfection of freedom and NOT go towards God's telelogical aim. Doesn't the doctrine of hell (WHATEVER version) show us this??? See what I've done? Unlike Doc, I separate the perfection of human freedom from the telelogical aim of God. And DOESN'T IT PLAIN MAKE MORE SENSE TO DO SO? One may be inclined to think so.
And guess what? This whole idea works EXTREMELY well with the TSE idea. Ain't it cool?
Oos. One more thing...
How about the Greatest Possible HUMAN Being?
I've thought about something. Just see what you think. If someone were to muse about the greatest possible human being, what could they say? I'd like to speculate on what I believe Doc would say. Doc would say that the greatest possible human being is one who, for one thing, does goodness and loving acts from her BEING. In other words, their character is such that it doesn't take deliberation for this person to do good. It's pretty much habitual. Now, this is suprisingly familiar, right? Hold on to that thought. But what would also be said? It couldn't be the case that the greatest possible human being were CREATED this way, for then said being would not have moral freedom...which would essentially invalidate all the good acts somewhat. However, it would be VERY GOOD if said human were to DEVELOP a good character by her own free willed personal choices...such that the habitual goodness truly was justified, and not merely robotic. That's great for the greatest possible human being, but what about the greatest possible BEING?
Human beings are CONTINGENT which explain how their character (ie SOLIDIFIED BEHAVIOURAL AND EMOTIONAL PATTERNS) can change over time. But what about a necessary being whose "character" would NOT be able to change? It would seem that if this necessary being were given a character, it would have to have existed as long as the being itself and be UNCHANGEABLE. So we seem to have a dilemma of sorts. Of course, we value goodness coming from one's character...but ONLY if said character emerges from the ultimate context of FREE WILL. This works with contingent beings because spontaneous free will decisions can end up becoming character traits in them. With a necessary being, this would not be the case.
So if one were wanting to say that a necessary being was completely good (in the same manner as as the HUMAN being we just talked about) one would have to say that said being was by NATURE this way. Not just a creature of emerging habit, but that the necessary being's "ontological makeup" somehow made it so.
Do you see the problem? With respect to God as the necessary being, one would have to make a big choice. Either one bigs up the aspect of WILLING, in which case it would be genuinely possible for God to not do good...or one bigs up the notion of GOOD by making that an ontologically binding characteristic of the necessary being. [Note: Choosing the former does not negate the possibility for omnibenevolence. It just says that it's basis is NOT in any ontological makeup, but continuing choice.] Many choose the second option.
Could all of this be a factor in why some people (like Doc) feel the NEED to assert what they do? Possibly. Doc certainly believes that a necessary being MUST have a necessary character...a thought he has yet to really back up logically. What do you think?
Love God. Love People. Love Truth. Dedicate your all to that which you love.
Edited by - Mephi2K on 12/05/2001 6:41:44 PM | | Back to Top | | |
|
BBBCanada
Registered Member
Date Joined Jun 2001
Total Posts : 2763
| Posted 12/5/2001 2:48 PM (GMT -6) | | Ok. So I am reading this thread for the umteenth time. Soaking it in. Still trying to put the pieces together. Had a great sleep today. Mind is fresh. Let me see if I am understanding this.
As Stark on Modes says:
As Modes says, there is some freaky stuff in the Bible that is attributed to God that many atheists are much more willing to be forthright about than Christians ...
Some of those things would be for example, lying. Modes says: "What DO we do when prophecies are unfulfilled (there are multiple biblical examples of this) or when God sends a lying spirit (1 Kings 22:20-23)?
and
But what does it mean that "God cannot lie" but God can send a lying spirit? Does God need to get off the hook on technicalities?
So for Modes and Meph Man we cannot use "moral categories" to ontologically define God. That is, we cannot say for example that God is omnibenevolent necessarily in his person(?) because for Modes these are as he says:
If I am going to talk about God at all in terms of ethics or morality it will only be based on what God has revealed about those things.
and to think otherwise is to
ask(s) us to start with our human and sinful conceptions of morality and think them as best we can and then insist that that is what God must be like. By necessity no less!
Meph Man sees a contradiction with defining moral categories ontologically. He says, that if God is genuinely omnibenevolent (or as he says, "defines MORAL CHARACTER in terms of ESSENTIAL categories of a being") then that would mean that God would have to be able to choose to be this way in his relationships and this entails at least having the "ability" to do this. To think otherwise would mean that it is limiting God (meaning that God would have to be loving, good, etc, as Meph Man says "Kind of like a "I just can't HELP but be loving cause it's my nature" type thought. ) and this is a contradiction. Doc responds by saying:
"Yes" in that God can’t become worse. But why describe this as an INABILITY. It’s a superb ABILITY. God can’t lie, right? (Heh dudes, thats SCRIPTURE, NOT my ontological argument!) That’s a freedom, not a fault.
What can be better than not having the ability to become worse?
Aside from this Meph Man brings up the question:"Isn't this basically doing the SAME THING that you guys want to lambast the TSE idea for: essential giving God "different rules" to play by JUST BECAUSE God is God??'
Personally, I think this may be besides the point. Unless it can be shown that one is in fact playing by different rules to which Doc responds:
"No no no my friend. Its an entirely different animal. A necessary being is necessary, a contingent being is contingent. Hence it makes sense to say (infact, its logically required to say) that a necessary being has a necessary moral character, and a contingent being a contingent moral character.
The problem with TSE is not that God plays by different rules as we should expect a necessary being to do. The problem is that for TSE God plays by the same morally contingent rules we do. Even worse, he plays by them WORSE than we do, for we all know that one should never break a unconditional promise!
This last point makes me ask along with Doc, "What are these sinful and inadequate, self-referential "values"? and would it not be the case that TSE is in fact what Modes is harping on as being the above?
I guess this goes back to what Doc says back in the day when he tries to find an analogy in nature for "power to the contrary." It seems to me that to denude "the term "greater" of any moral quality" we would end up with an "amoral" being in the least and a non-existent one at worst. Yet, we are still left with those "unfullfilled prophecies and lying spirit" passages.
Brandon
| | Back to Top | | |
|
Starkman
Registered Member
Date Joined Oct 2001
Total Posts : 1747
| Posted 12/5/2001 3:42 PM (GMT -6) | | The Starkman...will be back. Got to sleep first and think tomorrow!
Hey Brandon, you a bus driver, too? I drive transit in downtown Minneapolis!
Starkman | | Back to Top | | |
|
BBBCanada
Registered Member
Date Joined Jun 2001
Total Posts : 2763
| Posted 12/6/2001 8:43 AM (GMT -6) | | From Starkman
quote:
The Starkman...will be back. Got to sleep first and think tomorrow!
Hey Brandon, you a bus driver, too? I drive transit in downtown Minneapolis!
Starkman
Stark,
You related to Starsky from "Starsky and Hutch"? Yeah. Although I drive for a division of our transit company-I drive a shuttle that carries 24 passengers at most-contracted out to the local casino. I have a CDL license as they say in the U.S. ("AZ" in Canada) but I also have a "C" license to drive the buses that you drive. I love it. Cushy job. I go to work to relax. About three to four weeks ago we had a kid commit suicide by running off the expressway across the medium and into an out of service transit bus in the oncoming lanes. Bus was totalled and is now use for parts. Sad. Looks like he wanted to take someone else out with him.
I've told this to Pia before, but I-LOVE-MINNEAPOLIS!! Best city in America! Nice suburbs. Love the downtown where you can cross from building to building through skywalks (although, I hear the life is somewhat gone out of the core)! And the Mall of America! HELLO!! Keep me away from the Lego store! My wife went to North Central Bible College. That is where I originally met her. I have a vakay coming up in August and November this year, so I may decide to take a trip that way. I want to check out Greg's church and school and meet the gang.
By the way, I was not ignoring what you wrote. You put an twist on the subject and I Greg raised the good question of what your "framework" was, so I want to wait for your response to it.
By the way, Greg is arguing for moral categories being ontologically defined. The point that Fretheim makes is not so much one of "track record." The point he was making in "The Suffering of God" is that although, God's track record may be dubious at times the Israelites still declared God to be loving! as Pia states and as Greg acknowledges.
Brandon
| | Back to Top | | |
|
Starkman
Registered Member
Date Joined Oct 2001
Total Posts : 1747
| Posted 12/8/2001 7:13 AM (GMT -6) | | Well, FINALLY...some time! Split shift is, well...made of words that I can't use here!!! And on top of it all I'm moving. Gads! Okay, here's more of my view about this thread.
With regard to a more specific meaning of my usage of the word "framework" for the ontology of God I hold, it is predicated on the essence of the Scripture Doc quoted : "God cannot sin". This is necessary and must therefore incorporate a security ensuring it.
I disagree with Doc's reasoning addressing it and concur with Meph: inductively it starts with us as coming to terms with how God is moral: to quote Doc, "I can't conceive of GREATER devoid of moral characteristics" (I can actually think of greater than devoid of moral characteristics: one were morals are not in the game with the ontological existance of God; however, this is subjectivism too, and is therefore not the reasoning behind my construct).
I do not, however, hold to Meph's reasoning to address it: maximized capability to will, and thus choose to do unhindered what's morally good. There is no more security to ensure a future for us than there was for Adam or Satan before either fell. What could possibly be any different for us come eternity than was for them? They both were not within the sphere, we will soon be in - made in the image of Christ; Adam could have entered it by eating of the tree of life. Satan? well, I can't speak for him or his choices. Hence my framework.
On Goodness as a choice God makes or an ontological essential:
Doc said regarding my post: What this "different framework" you refer to is I haven’t a clue. The goodness of creation – or of God prior to creation – needn’t contrast with any ACTUAL evil (though I’m convinced the goodness of creation in Gen. 1 DOES contrast with actual evil, suggested in Gen. 1:2 – a different topic for sure). The goodness of God and of creation need only contrast with POSSIBLE evil. But it MUST contrast with SOMETHING, or it is devoid of meaning.
My concept of goodness (as I earlier posted it), as God saw the creation being good: "Perhaps another way to translate that statement is "...and God saw that it was of the same nature as to what God's existance is and to where God's existance resides".
Note, goodness here is not moral or a statement in contrast to evil (I do not hold to the gap theory of Gen 1:1, and I can't see where a contrast behind good and evil are meant within the early stages of creation; how could any of it be evil or have anything to do with evil in mind?) It is an existance of which God is and in which God resides. If it contrasts with anything, it is in view of what God is not. The tree of the knowledge of good and evil is to say something about what is NOT God rather than what is or exists in His sphere. The contents of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil is NOT UNKNOWN to God, but it is not within the functionality of God. It is not an issue to consider evil as to who or what God existance is when God is NOT having to deal with those who ARE in this sphere. Adam was made to be able to enter this sphere of the knowledge of good and evil, if he so chose to do so. BUT he could have chosen to avoided it all together not even knowing what it's contents were; eat of the tree of life.
Continue next post...
Edited by - Starkman on 12/08/2001 4:01:26 PM | | Back to Top | | |
|
Starkman
Registered Member
Date Joined Oct 2001
Total Posts : 1747
| Posted 12/8/2001 7:14 AM (GMT -6) | | Continue above post (don't know why it wouldn't let me post it all as one post!)
Having eaten of the wrong tree, He would not only have come to understand the tree's contents (as God does), but he would end up a step further - in it's very clutches, something God is not.
For God, there simply is no evil around the corner or even the possibility of it. I see God as necessarily NOT in the realm where there's even an issue of good and evil. Evil only has meaning in view of something good to contrast it. However, if there's no such thing as good for God to ever even have to consider (though for personal relationship with CREATED beings they will have to have the choice to consider it), then God isn't in the position to have to choose good. But also He is not ontologically "good" because there would have to be the possibility of evil eternally - something I don't think is allowable in view of the security offered in the Scriptures: "God cannot lie".
Consider the Trinity. Relationship among the personages OUTSIDE of any sphere where good/bad exists. Love becomes defined under a different circumstance, the same one, I believe, (or close to it) to which Adam was subject until he broke it (his problem was he didn't choose to perpetuate it and find out just where all it would have taken him). His love for Eve was without any concept of evil possible. That could ONLY happen if he entered into something that would make it possible: the tree of knowledge of good and evil. Otherwise, he was quite safe. I do consider that Adam's obedience is the one contingency, but (and here I'll have to think more) even that isn't predicated on any concept of good verses evil.
On being made in the image of Christ:
Being made in the image of Christ, in my opinion, reflects somethng about the present differentiated from eternity. Proper relationship with God through Christ is to begin the journey. Restoration of relationship with God still leaves us, practically, in the sphere Adam entered us. The betterment of morals and of loving within this environment are at issue. However, at the destination (heaven, much larger concept than just sinlessness),we will have been found to have entered into that which God is (the completed "made in the image of Christ") where goodness and evil do not exist. There's no threat of ever doing evil (as there was for Satan). We are removed from that sphere BECAUSE WE GIVE GOD THE RIGHT TO DO SO HAVING BECOME CHRISTIANS. It is there where the security of the future (closed in this regard) is sealed with such precious security. It is there where we find God cannot lie. It was on earth that Christ was tempted, but God in whole uninterrupted by our sphere is where it is true that God cannot be tempted, as James said. What will be found in heaven is the tree of life...and only the tree of life! We give Him the right to place us there, just as Adam would have done if he would have only eaten of the right tree!
For the conversation,
Starkman
Edited by - Starkman on 12/08/2001 4:13:13 PM | | Back to Top | | |
|
GregBoyd
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 1818
| Posted 12/8/2001 6:08 PM (GMT -6) | | Interesting stuff Starkman:
You seem to be referring to the sort of innocence that characterized Adam and Eve prior to the fall: a stage of purity prior to awareness of right and wrong, good or evil. This stage reflects God's being, for God isn't good in the sense of having overcome evil, or in contrast to anything evil outside himself. If Adam and Eve had remained in this stage, they'd just live in the bliss of God's innocence, as we shall be in heaven.
Is this sort of what you're saying?
Yet, you'd agree that God's goodness NOW contrast with the evil of sin. So must it not be the case that, from all eternity, God's goodness contrasts with all POSSIBLE sin that MIGHT exist, if God decided to create a world in which sin COULD exist (viz. a world in which free agents could choose it)?
And so, can we not say that God has from all eternity been "good" -- in contrast to every possible thing that is not?
If you deny this, would you deny that God was "good" before there was any evil to contrast with?
Doc
"Three is the magic number, oh yes it is, it's the Magic Number" - De La Soul | | Back to Top | | |
|
Starkman
Registered Member
Date Joined Oct 2001
Total Posts : 1747
| Posted 12/9/2001 10:32 AM (GMT -6) | |
Doc: "You seem to be referring to the sort of innocence that characterized Adam and Eve prior to the fall: a stage of purity prior to awareness of right and wrong, good or evil. This stage reflects God's being, for God isn't good in the sense of having overcome evil, or in contrast to anything evil outside himself...Is this sort of what you're saying?"
Starkman: Yes, very much so.
Doc: "Yet, you'd agree that God's goodness NOW contrast with the evil of sin. So must it not be the case that, from all eternity, God's goodness contrasts with all POSSIBLE sin that MIGHT exist, if God decided to create a world in which sin COULD exist (viz. a world in which free agents could choose it)?"
Starkman: Yes
Doc: "And so, can we not say that God has from all eternity been "good" -- in contrast to every possible thing that is not? If you deny this, would you deny that God was "good" before there was any evil to contrast with?"
Starkman: Here's where I get stuck. I'm trying to figure out if there can be such a thing as eternity within an ontology of God that would hold to the possibility of evil existing throughout all eternity. This would seeminly be so only if God has always foreknown every possible creation He will create, one or several of which would include this possibility within the creation. If so, then sure, I can accept your reasoning. If not - because the possibility of evil would only come to be at that point in eternity where God "comes up with the idea", so to speak, to create something that makes evil possible - then why would we need to insist the reasoning? I'd see no need to include a moral meaning of moral good within this ontology.
Help me out here, if I'm missing something!
Starkman
| | Back to Top | | |
|
BBBCanada
Registered Member
Date Joined Jun 2001
Total Posts : 2763
| Posted 12/10/2001 3:19 AM (GMT -6) | | quote:
Doc: "And so, can we not say that God has from all eternity been "good" -- in contrast to every possible thing that is not? If you deny this, would you deny that God was "good" before there was any evil to contrast with?"
Starkman: Here's where I get stuck. I'm trying to figure out if there can be such a thing as eternity within an ontology of God that would hold to the possibility of evil existing throughout all eternity. This would seeminly be so only if God has always foreknown every possible creation He will create, one or several of which would include this possibility within the creation. If so, then sure, I can accept your reasoning. If not - because the possibility of evil would only come to be at that point in eternity where God "comes up with the idea", so to speak, to create something that makes evil possible - then why would we need to insist the reasoning? I'd see no need to include a moral meaning of moral good within this ontology.
Help me out here, if I'm missing something!
Starkman
Stark:quote:
I'm trying to figure out if there can be such a thing as eternity within an ontology of God that would hold to the possibility of evil existing throughout all eternity.
I'm just wondering, do we need to posit a contrast between good and evil to know that God is eternally good? For example, just as Greg has postulated that in order for us to love God freely and genuinely the only option, even for God is to create a world in which freewill agents exist, hence the real and only option of the possibilityof sin. See what I'm asking? Let me know.
Brandon
| | Back to Top | | |
|
GregBoyd
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 1818
| Posted 12/10/2001 4:27 PM (GMT -6) | | Starkman: Here's where I get stuck. I'm trying to figure out if there can be such a thing as eternity within an ontology of God that would hold to the possibility of evil existing throughout all eternity. …If not…the possibility of evil would only come to be at that point in eternity where God "comes up with the idea", so to speak… then why would we need to insist the reasoning? I'd see no need to include a moral meaning of moral good within this ontology.
Doc: Its simple logic. God knows all things. Whatever comes to be was always logically possible. Hence, whatever comes to be God always KNEW as logically possible.
BB Canda: Do we need to posit a contrast between good and evil to know that God is eternally good?
Doc: I submit that a term is only meaningful if it meaningful contrasts with its antithesis. If "good" contrast with nothing, it has the same meaning as "shlaiekingsortoff." That which contrasts with nothing IS nothing. So yes, if we want to say that God has eternally been good, this goodness must contrast with SOMETHING. But this something need not be actual.
Blessings
Doc
"Three is the magic number, oh yes it is, it's the Magic Number" - De La Soul | | Back to Top | | |
|
PotOnWheel
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 9890
| Posted 12/10/2001 4:50 PM (GMT -6) | | quote:
Starkman: Here's where I get stuck. I'm trying to figure out if there can be such a thing as eternity within an ontology of God that would hold to the possibility of evil existing throughout all eternity. …If not…the possibility of evil would only come to be at that point in eternity where God "comes up with the idea", so to speak… then why would we need to insist the reasoning? I'd see no need to include a moral meaning of moral good within this ontology.
Doc: Its simple logic. God knows all things. Whatever comes to be was always logically possible. Hence, whatever comes to be God always KNEW as logically possible.
BB Canda: Do we need to posit a contrast between good and evil to know that God is eternally good?
Doc: I submit that a term is only meaningful if it meaningful contrasts with its antithesis. If "good" contrast with nothing, it has the same meaning as "shlaiekingsortoff." That which contrasts with nothing IS nothing. So yes, if we want to say that God has eternally been good, this goodness must contrast with SOMETHING. But this something need not be actual.
Blessings
Doc
this makes me remember the quote from Evdokimov I'd offered last Summer where in the eschaton, with the solidity lightening (jsut think of C.S. Lewis' Great Divorce if nothing else) and the heaviness of the world evaporting, and, and...no one listending to the devil anymore, he was left with nothing and no one to rule. I REALLY liked that image!!!
PoW
Edited by - PotOnWheel on 12/10/2001 9:51:51 PM | | Back to Top | | |
|
BBBCanada
Registered Member
Date Joined Jun 2001
Total Posts : 2763
| Posted 12/11/2001 3:28 AM (GMT -6) | | Greg,
So, if this "something" is not "actual" what would it be? An idea in the mind of God or some sort of possibility, because, as you say, "God knows all things. Whatever comes to be was always logically possible. Hence, whatever comes to be God always KNEW as logically possible?"
Brandon
Edited by - BBBCanada on 12/11/2001 08:30:26 AM | | Back to Top | | |
|
Modes of Thought
Registered Member
Date Joined Jun 2001
Total Posts : 817
| Posted 12/11/2001 5:31 AM (GMT -6) | | quote:
Greg,
So, if this "something" is not "actual" what would it be? An idea in the mind of God or some sort of possibility, because, as you say, "God knows all things. Whatever comes to be was always logically possible. Hence, whatever comes to be God always KNEW as logically possible?"
Brandon
Edited by - BBBCanada on 12/11/2001 08:30:26 AM
Possibilities are eternal, and some of them get actualized. This is not much different than Plato's forms. They "exist" logically, but not "somewhere". So yes, they exist in the mind of God as ideas of sorts. What's liberating (and different from Classical thought on this) is the recogniztion that God NEED NOT actualize all possibilities. Thus our rejection of "purus actus".
"Christianly understood, truth is obviously not to know the truth but to be the truth. Despite all modern philosophy, there is an infinite difference here..." SK | | Back to Top | | |
|
BBBCanada
Registered Member
Date Joined Jun 2001
Total Posts : 2763
| Posted 12/11/2001 11:17 AM (GMT -6) | | quote:
Possibilities are eternal, and some of them get actualized. This is not much different than Plato's forms. They "exist" logically, but not "somewhere". So yes, they exist in the mind of God as ideas of sorts. What's liberating (and different from Classical thought on this) is the recogniztion that God NEED NOT actualize all possibilities. Thus our rejection of "purus actus".
"Christianly understood, truth is obviously not to know the truth but to be the truth. Despite all modern philosophy, there is an infinite difference here..." SK
I have never read Plato, but I believe I recall Grenz talking about "forms" in "The Moral Quest." Thanks, Modes. Got it!
Brandon
| | Back to Top | | |
|
Modes of Thought
Registered Member
Date Joined Jun 2001
Total Posts : 817
| Posted 12/11/2001 11:22 AM (GMT -6) | | Glad to help. 
"Christianly understood, truth is obviously not to know the truth but to be the truth. Despite all modern philosophy, there is an infinite difference here..." SK | | Back to Top | | |
|
Starkman
Registered Member
Date Joined Oct 2001
Total Posts : 1747
| Posted 12/12/2001 3:33 PM (GMT -6) | |
To quote the Grinch: "Run for your life before I kill again!" I'm so frustrated with no time to read these posts, to study and to think! Thank heavens I can do some thinking on the bus. I'm almost tempted to paste a placard on the back of the bus: Stay back 500 ft. Driver is reading!
Okay, finally some time...
Brandon sir,
You said "I'm just wondering, do we need to posit a contrast between good and evil to know that God is eternally good?"
I don't believe we need to posit a contrast between evil and good to know that God is eternally good because, I don't think there is such a thing as the possibility of good and evil eternally in the ontology of God requiring a posit of contrast. It only comes into play in view of what you next said:
"For example, just as Greg has postulated that in order for us to love God freely and genuinely the only option, even for God is to create a world in which freewill agents exist, hence the real and only option of the possibility of sin."
I'm considering the following:
Only when God actualizes something - a temporary existance which opens the door to evil, such as our own contingency - does goodness mean anything. And so, Doc, in regard to your previous post to me: (And so, can we not say that God has from all eternity been "good" -- in contrast to every possible thing that is not? If you deny this, would you deny that God was "good" before there was any evil to contrast with?), I would say that yes, in view of the possibility of evil God is good; however, apart from this possibilty - meaning that when there is no actualization of the possible which could/would open the door for evil, God is not good!
So, what then is He if He's not good (apart from the need to be, such as, in relationship with that which could possible open the door for evil)? Well, He is certianly not evil, because to be evil presupposes good. What then is He?
God is 'good' morally when he is dealing with beings who have BECOME moral beings but were not originally made in that image. But eternally, in God's sphere, what would the necessity of good be for, and further, what possible evil could there ever be WITHIN that which God is? It's only in the actuality of the possibility of evil that this is an issue. It is only WE who perceive that God must therefore be 'good' morally and ethically otherwise (ontologically) because that's what we understand in a non-perfect state, mind you. I see no reason, within God's pure and perfect sphere of existance for a morality or the possibility of good to have to exist. But I see every reason for God to be good when He is within that arena calling for it. Here's why.
God displaying 'goodness' is only a display of something much more meaningful within the character of God: the complete ABSENCE of goodness. No, not from nothing comes nothing, rather, given God's position to choose what to do in the arena of the existance of evil, He will do good and not evil, a perversion of good.
It is the absence of moral goodness which makes it possible for it to be said of God "God cannot lie", "God cannot be tempted". He doesn't exist within any sphere where such a thing is possible. There can be no perversion of good within His sphere of existance. His displays of goodness to moral beings in a good verses evil existance are only a natural projection of what God is ONLY when He steps into same sphere we are: where evil is actualized.
I hardly doubt that in eons past in heaven, when sin was unknown by anyone, or even it's possibility (other than known by God), I hardly doubt one angel would look to another and say, "You know, God sure is good, isn't He" in a moral or ethical meaning, as if something not so good was just around the corner. They'd have had no comprehension of that characteristic anymore than Adam did. I wonder, too, if the concept of love hasn't also become for us something different than what it is in a perfect environment with no concept of sin; to say God is love, again, being something not moral but of the pure and perfect nature of God.
Noted in the book of Revelation is something closer for us to view of this perspective of the sphere in which God dwells (exists) - "Come up here". What do see the occupants of heaven speak (yes, some have come out of sin, but we're looking towards a bigger picture of God here): Holy (set apart from all else); Lord God Almighty; Worthy, blessed, honored, glorified; great and marvelous, righteous; Who was, is and is to come, etc. Yes, you can find something of a hint of the previous evil because it's that context of which John writes), but even then there's not goodness as a theme, but restoration of perfection and purity, holiness. This could be called good if we mean it as SAYING SOMETHING ABOUT THAT WHICH GOD EXISTS AS AND IN but not of the moral or ethical (same context as the creation "And God saw that it was good" mentioned in Genesis 1).
Within the Trinity we see no possibility of evil to exist (for God cannot lie, etc.), and THAT is where we will one day exist ourselves (no, not as gods but within the shelter of God's sphere) with no possibility ever of falling away.
The only way I am able to reconcile free will eternally (for us) and the safety to prohibit it from ever destroying us again is to have us placed within the very sphere where God exist with freewill somehow subserviant...BECAUSE WE GAVE GOD THIS RIGHT IN HAVING UTILIZED OUR FREEWILL TO DO SO.
I see no reason therefore to insist that God must be good ontologically as a moral and ethic within that sphere He exists. He will, however, choose the role of good (not disingenuously) than evil; for God cannot lie. God cannot do evil. IT IS IMPOSSIBLE TO DO EVIL IF YOU MUST FIRST HAVE GOODNESS TO PEVERT! Therefore God CAN ONLY do good and be good when He is presented with an actualization of evil.
Okay, I've re-read this a few times, but last night's 4 hours of sleep is killing me!
For the conversation,
Starkman
| | Back to Top | | |
|
GregBoyd
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 1818
| Posted 12/14/2001 9:02 PM (GMT -6) | | I like the originality of your thought Starkman, but I suspect it doesn't work. (sorry)
If God is, in his own "sphere," neither good nor evil, then is it a matter of divine fiat that we NOW regard some things as "good" and others as "evil"? Could God have created the world such that (say) torturing children for pleasure was morally good?
If you say NO, then you are admitting that goodness, and therefore the possibility of evil, are ETERNAL realities. They are rooted IN GODS NATURE.
Doc
"Three is the magic number, oh yes it is, it's the Magic Number" - De La Soul | | Back to Top | | |
|
BBBCanada
Registered Member
Date Joined Jun 2001
Total Posts : 2763
| Posted 12/15/2001 4:05 AM (GMT -6) | | Ok, I was wanting to respond to Stark's last post, by reiterating "the simple logic" that Greg expounded on. But seeing as Greg also mentioned:
quote:
If you say NO, then you are admitting that goodness, and therefore the possibility of evil, are ETERNAL realities. They are rooted IN GODS NATURE.
I highlighted this last part because I was going to add this to the discussion. I went digging through my boxes of books (unsucessfully) to find Paul Chamberlain's, "Can We Be Good Without God?" In there he makes the (and I know I'm gonna spell this wrong, been awhile since I read it) "euphythgorean(sp?)" argument about "goodness" being grounded in God's nature. Can someone comment on that please? I believe it is an argument related to the subject.
Brandon
Edited by - BBBCanada on 12/15/2001 09:06:36 AM | | Back to Top | | |
|
BBBCanada
Registered Member
Date Joined Jun 2001
Total Posts : 2763
| Posted 12/16/2001 12:05 PM (GMT -6) | | Matt 19:17
"Why ask me about what is good?" Jesus replied. "Only God IS good. But to answer your question, you can receive eternal life if you keep the commandments."
Matt 12:12
"And how much more valuable is a person than a sheep! Yes, it is right to do good on the Sabbath."
Contrast that!
Brandon
Edited by - BBBCanada on 12/16/2001 5:14:38 PM | | Back to Top | | |
|
BBBCanada
Registered Member
Date Joined Jun 2001
Total Posts : 2763
| Posted 12/16/2001 2:05 PM (GMT -6) | | I had to run across campus at the U. here because the computer lab was closing and I really didn't get to comment on the verses above.
As Greg has said, "deity", (I use this word, because according to Merriam-Webster's Dictionary, the definition of deity is:
1 a : the rank or essential nature of a god : DIVINITY b capitalized : GOD 1, SUPREME BEING
2 : a god or goddess
3 : one exalted or revered as supremely good or powerful )
As an aside, the etymology says:
"Middle English deitee, from Old French deité, from Late Latin deitat-, deitas, from Latin deus god; akin to Old English TIw, god of war" (thought you would like that Greg).
has revealed Him/Herself to us! These are "explicit" statements from Scripture regarding the very essential nature of God.
In the Matthew 19:17 verse the Greek word is "agathos" which is defined as:
1. of good constitution or nature
2. useful, salutary
3. good, pleasant, agreeable, joyful, happy
4. excellent, distinguished
5. upright, honourable
Though the greek words for "goodness" appear in a non-moral sense (i.e. land, handsome man, good-of-appearance), as "Baker's Evangelical Dictionary of Biblical Theology" states:"... the most theologically important uses of these words have to do with moral qualities."
While it is certainly appropriate to think of these "moral qualities" in terms of God's "good acts" or his "track record," hence, to quote Baker's Dictionary again, "...it is nearly impossible to think about goodness in the abstract. In Scripture goodness always involves particular ways of behaving. Because God "is" good, he is good to his people; when people are good they behave decently toward each other, based on God's goodness to them."
The strong implication is such that God is good in his essential nature!
Therefore, because we have explicit teaching regarding the nature of God's ontology should not our philosophical questions revolve around that? For example, when Modes asks:
I think the argument helpful metaphysically, but not religiously. The cross itself is evidence against the moral version of this argument. If I imagine infinite justice, I do not get the cross. If I imagine infinite mercy, I would not at the same time imagine justice strictly upheld, and so I would not get the cross. If I imagine infinite power, I surely do not get a crucified saviour.
Surely, this is the scandal of the cross. Paul comes in weakness. God saves fools, the not so wise of the world. But should this translate into defining God at the least in some non-contrasting way that comes to mean nothing, and at worst is in total antithesis to God? We may have to work out what justice is and so forth but I certainly shy away from saying God is not good.
Brandon
Edited by - BBBCanada on 12/16/2001 7:19:58 PM | | Back to Top | | |
|
Starkman
Registered Member
Date Joined Oct 2001
Total Posts : 1747
| Posted 12/17/2001 8:01 AM (GMT -6) | | Doc and Brandon,
Hey, hang in there with me one more time, okay! I'm, like, on the brink of at least being able to say that I'm done working through this...but there's a tad more to go. Here it is.
First, do we agree that God cannot sin? He cannot do evil, he cannot lie, and most pointedly to this conversation, cannot be tempted?
Do we agree that Jesus was at least tempted, though some say He couldn't have sinned regardless?
If so, what's the difference between God in whole in His perfect sphere NOT being able to even be tempted, and Jesus being able to be tempted? It couldn't be His divinity being tempted but His humanity. And that is the ground of my point.
If God is good morally ontologically, then He MUST be able to be tempted! And yes, Doc, it would be, as I see it in broad angle, out of divine fiat that WE become moral beings distinguishing good from evil - did not God create all of this universe out of divine fiat?
More restrictively, however, it isn't out of divine fiat. God always has known about morality, the possibilities and such, but that doesn't necessitate that HE must therefore be morally good.
To answer your question, Doc, ("Could God have created the world such that (say) torturing children for pleasure was morally good? to me about God making "), no because that good MORALLY must be in play, first; evil, as torturing children surely is, is only available as a perversion of good. Evil doesn't stand on its own.
Therefore, if God is not good ontologically, then the ONLY options available to Him when He enters into that sphere where good and evil can exist is moral good. He can't be evil - there's no moral good within God to pervert!! He can't sin!! He can't be tempted....all of which COULD be if He were morally good my nature. But God can ONLY work according to whom He is: life, perfection, good (in the sense that there's no impurity, lack or what have you).
So, how can a being that can't be tempted - no, not just "well, He's so highly exaulted that He's above temptation", but literally CAN'T be tempted - not be so if that being is morally good by nature? The difference then between that being and Jesus is no difference at all. We'd then only have the other side of the coin which would answer the issue by saying "Oh, well, He can be tempted but He'll never sin". That was, perhaps the case with Jesus, but how can it be with God in whole?
Brandon, great reflections. Thanks.
As to the verse you quoted: Matt 19:17 "Why ask me about what is good?" Jesus replied. "Only God IS good. But to answer your question, you can receive eternal life if you keep the commandments."
This kind of touches upon the heart of the matter. Surely Jesus was Good, was He not. Surely he qualified to be called Good. However, the attention is taken off Him, because moral goodness isn't the issue here; something beyond that is: proper alignment with God is. Moral goodness is irrelevant at this juncture.
I believe it's highly possible that Jesus was saying "I am morally good, yes, I am not in whole the kind of goodness that means anything to your statement."
So, to sum up, I'm at the end of this. So Doc, Brandon, anyone - usher in one last hit on this for me, if you will. Logically, I'm not up to snuff to go through it in Syllogistic thinking. Address the issue, if you would, of God in His sphere and Jesus in our sphere; tell me how Jesus can be tempted but God can't. If I can solve that one, I can put this to rest in my head!
Thanks so much,
Starkman
| | Back to Top | | |
|
GregBoyd
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 1818
| Posted 12/17/2001 1:50 PM (GMT -6) | | Starkman: Address the issue, if you would, of God in His sphere and Jesus in our sphere; tell me how Jesus can be tempted but God can't. If I can solve that one, I can put this to rest in my head!
Doc: I'm not sure I can answer this in a way that will address your unique perspective and concerns -- which, perhaps from brain fatigue, I'm having trouble tracking at the moment.
When James says "God cannot be tempted" I take this to mean something like "God in his essential nature." Jesus COULD be tempted because he is GOD BECOME A HUMAN, and humans, by definition (I take it) are "temptable."
Think of it this way: temptation is the result of having a the capacity to choose against God. (It doesn't require having that CHARACTER that WILL choose against God... see the christology thread on this). God in his essential nature always chooses God -- The Father, Son and Holy Spirit always choose each other in love, for love is their nature. When the Son becomes a human, however, he TAKES ON something new. He takes on the essentially human capacity to choose against God. He must EXPERIENCE this mental capacity or else he wouldn't be fully human. (Again, he needn't experience actual CHOOSING against God or possess the kind of contingent character that COULD choose against God.)
This is how I'd reconcile the statement "God cannot be tempted" with the statement "Jesus could be tempted" and with the statement "Jesus was God."
I'm not sure how this relates to your "two sphere's" hypothesis.
I suspect, Starkman, that the basic reason why you don't want to affirm that "God is good" in his essential nature, from all eternity, is because you are DEFINING good as the ability to withstand the temptation from evil. Since God doesn't have to withstand this temptation, he is not "good." He's ABOVE being "good."
If so, I can agree with your logic. But I question your definition of "good." I would think that a being who can't even be tempted is "better" than a being who can. IN this sense, perhaps, Scripture says "Jesus was MADE PERFECT (telos =completed) by the things which he suffered."
As God, he is the only one perfectly GOOD in his essential nature.
Am I right in diagnosing why you are averse to calling God "good" from all eternity?
Got to go
Doc
"Three is the magic number, oh yes it is, it's the Magic Number" - De La Soul | | Back to Top | | |
| 54 posts in this thread.
Viewing Page : 1 2 3 |
| Forum Information | Currently it is Monday, November 09, 2026 4:46 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 |
|
|