Originally posted by finneganThat is because a LIE is not a good response to the TRUTH. 😏
Thanks: I don't respond to Hinds.
Incidentally, I thought I was gone from this debate but I'm unlikely to debate Job again any time soon and I just wondered, does anyone think that this tale in which God takes on a challenge from Satan (we are told - I didn't write it remember, it's the BIBLE) and looks to see what Job will do if all his wealth is taken ...[text shortened]... mous dictum that God does not play with dice? Apparently he does - well, he gambles anyway.
HalleluYah !!! Praise the Lord! Holy! Holy! Holy!
Originally posted by finneganGod does not play dice with the universe. Job's fair game. 🙂
Thanks: I don't respond to Hinds.
Incidentally, I thought I was gone from this debate but I'm unlikely to debate Job again any time soon and I just wondered, does anyone think that this tale in which God takes on a challenge from Satan (we are told - I didn't write it remember, it's the BIBLE) and looks to see what Job will do if all his wealth is taken ...[text shortened]... mous dictum that God does not play with dice? Apparently he does - well, he gambles anyway.
Originally posted by KellyJayYou beg to differ with me on that because you apparently do not understand the purpose of a hypothetical.
I beg to differ you most certainly did,
" Suppose that God also decides to line up a bunch of Jewish people and execute them because He is bored and thinks it will be fun."
You have God lined up to act because....He is bored and thinks it would be fun.
That is reducing God to a human by filling His motivation to that of boredom
and going to do somet ...[text shortened]... it is
not, and I'm telling you it is always up to God and He can do it as He wills.
Kelly
That is reducing God to a human by filling His motivation to that of boredom
and going to do something just for the fun of it. God has a purpose in all He does
and He even takes those things we do and work them out for the good.
Well, doing something because you think it will bring you fun also outlines a purpose. And, again, I didn't reduce God to anything.
I'm afraid that you are in no position to object on the basis of God's hypothetical reasons for acting. For one thing, your view is that God has the right to do whatever with His creation for any reasons whatever, remember? For a second thing, you were the one who already stated in this very thread that you are in no position to understand God's reasons, remember? You implied that you take the subject as a big mystery until He reveals such understanding to you on the day of judgment. If you cannot figure out why God has done what He has done, such as the examples in your own accounts where He engages in mass killings and whatnot, what makes you think you can figure out His reasons in hypothetical cases? According to you, it's perfectly within His right to line up Jewish persons and execute them; and, also, according to you, you are in no position to understand His reasons for His actions. The way in which you jettison your basic and deep-seated moral intuitions about reasons for acting in some cases (such as when I bring up examples of God's sanctioning genocide, etc, in your biblical accounts) and yet stick to them in others (such as when I bring up my hypothetical) is arbitrary and shameless. For all you know on the basis of your own commitments, God may as well simply reveal to you on judgment day that bringing Himself a bit of fun and kicks is a great reason to execute a bunch of persons.
If I bring up a biblical example of God's sanctioning genocide and ask what reasons He could have for this, you are suddenly in no position to speak about His reasons and it's all a big mystery what they could be and yadda yadda yadda; but if I bring up this hypothetical -- which, by the way, is perfectly consistent with your claim that He has a right to do whatever at all for whatever reason at all -- suddenly you think you have obvious knowledge on what could or could not be God's reasons for acting.
Originally posted by LemonJelloYour little pea brain can't understand God either. So what are you crowing about? Perhaps, you should stop crowing and start pecking until you find your pecking order. 😏
You beg to differ with me on that because you apparently do not understand the purpose of a hypothetical.
[b]That is reducing God to a human by filling His motivation to that of boredom
and going to do something just for the fun of it. God has a purpose in all He does
and He even takes those things we do and work them out for the good.
Well, d ...[text shortened]... hink you have obvious knowledge on what could or could not be God's reasons for acting.[/b]
Originally posted by LemonJelloI differ NOT because I don't understand the hypothetical, I gave you my
You beg to differ with me on that because you apparently do not understand the purpose of a hypothetical.
[b]That is reducing God to a human by filling His motivation to that of boredom
and going to do something just for the fun of it. God has a purpose in all He does
and He even takes those things we do and work them out for the good.
Well, d ...[text shortened]... hink you have obvious knowledge on what could or could not be God's reasons for acting.[/b]
reasons why. You want to treat God as if He were a man, God is not a man.
Kelly
2 edits
Originally posted by KellyJayWell you will insist on going in circles all the same and as such simply evade the debate. Even so you confirm the thread title over and over.
I differ NOT because I don't understand the hypothetical, I gave you my
reasons why. You want to treat God as if He were a man, God is not a man.
Kelly
If Christians insist that God is "Just" then that is a claim they make about God. If no claim at all can be made about God, then stop insisting that God is Just. delete also all claims of a Divine Plan, Divine Purpose, or the claim that in the end the outcome for humans will be a good one subject to conditions regarding faith, conforming to scripture, morality, or any other condition because that asserts in effect that we have the power to influence our own end by, in effect, influencing God by means of our own behaviour - a cause and effect relationship that cannot be used unless we can make about God such claims as being just, fair, good, etc.
If nothing can be known or said, then what is the role of the Bible, which makes many specific assertions about God in just the terms mentioned? Is it reasonable at the very least to declare that we will discuss God by referring to the Bible? If so, then is it reasonable to invoke the Book of Job as I have done earlier? Or not and why not? If it is not accurate, and that is an interesting position which I would share, then alternatively it is at least a source of information about what believers have understood on the subject and some historical account of how their thought has evolved over time, which clearly it has.
To say of God that He is Just or Good etc is not to assert that He is human at all. But it is to say that there is a quality which we name "Just" or one named "Good" and that applies to God. If those terms mean anything, then they have a socially agreed meaning which should be clarified. Immediately, one is obliged to set a standard and judge against that, if not God, then at least the "God" of the Bible.
Of course, as I noted in Job, the God in the Bible rejects all such standards and declines to be held to any such criterion whatever. That indeed is where we enter the territory of the thread title. We find that Christians are asking us to allow the terms "Just" or "Good" in a very specialised way that is different to common usage.
That is interesting in examining faith. It is bothersome when examining the contribution of Christian activists to social affairs and politics. There is an important difference between a just society and an authoritarian, intolerant, bigoted, conformist theocracy as many examples have shown through history. A major tactic in authoritarian regimes is to transform the meaning of language, using code words or insider terminology that mean something very different to what is normal usage.
Originally posted by finneganHey, finnegan.
Well you will insist on going in circles all the same and as such simply evade the debate. Even so you confirm the thread title over and over.
If Christians insist that God is "Just" then that is a claim they make about God. If no claim at all can be made about God, then stop insisting that God is Just. delete also all claims of a Divine Plan, Divine Pu ...[text shortened]... s or insider terminology that mean something very different to what is normal usage.
I know you directed this elsewhere, so I hope you don't mind if I chime in with my two cents.
Orthodox Christianity (bereft of denominations) maintains that man, through his interaction with himself, others and nature, can know there is a god... and nothing else. The God of whom Christianity speaks is the God who can be known, who has made Himself known albeit via revelation. That revelation has taken different forms throughout the history of man, but its current form is limited to the Bible. Is this the preferred medium? Hard to say. I think we all can vouch for the experiential as a pretty enjoyable method offered by life. Yet we can all equally vouch for the comfort of the transcendent, its water-like permeation of seemingly our very beings. Whichever. The short story tells us that our contact with the body of knowledge regarding God is between those covers for the time being.
Without question, words divide before they add or multiply. We should expect nothing less from the Bible. It begins dividing us from its opening salvo (here's how human history began) and refuses to continue doing so up until its final "Amen" (here's how human history will end). For orthodox Christianity, the Bible is a mosaic, good for singular points but meant to be seen as a whole. As with anything important, it deserves our attention and care to consider it within the context of the time it was written as well as within the context of the whole. I know you are aware of all of this, and it's not my intention to sound as condescending as I know this does, I'm simply trying to lay the groundwork for what I am saying next.
Orthodox knows what it knows through the Bible and has opted to filter its interpretation of reality through it, not experience. When orthodox says 'justice,' it is said with an etymology based on the person and character of God--- as seen through the totality of the Bible. He is our standard for what is just, love, what constitutes grace and gifts, what informs our understanding of mercy. We hold that anything other than God as the standard is ephemeral and ultimately, corrupt. Not that our understanding is any stronger than our weakest link, but we do maintain that despite our crappy carpentry skills, our foundation is true
We further hold that any other foundation for these philosophical concepts are flawed and will eventually result in errant assignments of right and wrong. If we can get it wrong applying the unchanging standard, how much further afield will we get if we select standards which are consistent only in their constant shifting?
4 edits
Originally posted by FreakyKBHNo I don't mind you butting in on me butting in on Lemonjello's interesting debate with KellyJay!
Hey, finnegan.
I know you directed this elsewhere, so I hope you don't mind if I chime in with my two cents.
Orthodox Christianity (bereft of denominations) maintains that man, through his interaction with himself, others and nature, can know there is a god... and nothing else. The God of whom Christianity speaks is the God who can be known, who has ill we get if we select standards which are consistent only in their constant shifting?
Orthodox Christianity (bereft of denominations) maintains that man, through his interaction with himself, others and nature, can know there is a god... and nothing else.
Precisely so. "Be still and know that I am God"
The God of whom Christianity speaks is the God who can be known, who has made Himself known albeit via revelation.
This is where the big claims enter in - "the God who can be known" and "revelation." If you'll forgive me you introduce also a distinction between "orthodox Christianity" (I assume you do not mean the Orthodox Church as you qualify this with "without denominations" ) and "Christianity" as though there maybe two separate categories here sharing one name. You later appear to identify yourself as orthodox.
When orthodox says 'justice,' it is said with an etymology based on the person and character of God--- as seen through the totality of the Bible. He is our standard for what is just, love, what constitutes grace and gifts, what informs our understanding of mercy. We hold that anything other than God as the standard is ephemeral and ultimately, corrupt.
Absolutely so again. This is consistent with my comments in this thread.
We further hold that any other foundation for these philosophical concepts are flawed and will eventually result in errant assignments of right and wrong. If we can get it wrong applying the unchanging standard, how much further afield will we get if we select standards which are consistent only in their constant shifting?
You appear to side with Plato in his dialogues now and assert that we (people in general) employ terms such as "Justice" without actually having a clear concept of "Justice" in mind. However, when you refer to the alternative "unchanging standards" you enter a curious evasion. You may wish to argue that God is the only unchanging standard. What any student of history can remind you, sadly, is that the interpretation and application of His unchanging standards is highly volatile and shaped by the context of the times and the human authority on whom people have to rely, since it is generally accepted tha "revelation" is not readily accessible to everyone and we tend to defer to expert guides.
Both St Paul and Mohammed have relied on Revelation as their authority and both were innovatory and both very divergent in their thinking, so for an outsider to both faiths that leaves some concerns to be cleared up. Any concept of justice that is not acceptable and respectful to both Christians and to Muslims is going to collapse across a large part of our shared planet. For reasons such as this, any approach has to be secular, not atheist but not dependent on one religious system either. Many religious leaders, notably the Dalai Lama recently, Bishop Holloway of the CofE and others, are agreed on this.
Indeed, the unchanging standards have certainly changed within the unfolding story of the Bible itself, something that is usually accommodated by referring to an evolution or progression over time and the important qualification that every passage must be read in the context of the whole Bible. Certainly, few modern Christians would rely, for example, on Leviticus as their final authority in matters of social policy and morality, though a few passages seem to be priviliged over others depending on the argument. God may be unchanging but not the standards provided as a guide for human behaviour.
I do not agree that Plato had things right however. It seems to me that society has successfully devised consistent ways to formulate concepts of justice that work in practice and that are widely agreed and supported. By all means these leave untold space for debate and change over time and that is one reason why they rest on consensus and debate rather than on authority. In this process of social evolution, which is inherently democratic and inclusive of diverse belief systems and cultures, it is important to notice when people misuse language in ways that are deceptive, claiming to offer justice when they offer something very exclusive, authoritarian, undemocratic and unjust in reality. It is useful to recall of course that Socrates was condemned by his peers for subverting social and political consensus by seeking to damage the confidence of his students in the democratic values on which their society relied, in opposition to a tyranny which Socrates had to some extent (I know he gave a defence on this) supported. Plato was authoritarian and did not give the trial of Socrates quite the slant that it clearly did hold for the Athenians of the time. Plato's authoritarian streak is most glaring in his Republic.
Note of course that I am referring not to the use of language within any faith, but to the misuse of religious thinking in social affairs including politics, when it is at times seen to be used to manipulate and confuse. To prevent such misuses it is desirable to establish a better appreciation of both the correct and the incorrect use of terms. I suppose one example is the slippery reference to God's unchanging standards, which of course are changing all the time in so far as they are known and applied in human society.
1 edit
Originally posted by finneganNo need to reply to me, I can read your thoughts by going to a web site. 🙂
Well you will insist on going in circles all the same and as such simply evade the debate. Even so you confirm the thread title over and over.
If Christians insist that God is "Just" then that is a claim they make about God. If no claim at all can be made about God, then stop insisting that God is Just. delete also all claims of a Divine Plan, Divine Pu s or insider terminology that mean something very different to what is normal usage.
Kelly
Originally posted by KellyJayI said you do not understand the purpose of the hypothetical. I have explained to you over and over that my bringing up the hypothetical intends to show nothing about God. Rather, it intends to show something about your view. At this point, you are simply dodging the issue.
I differ NOT because I don't understand the hypothetical, I gave you my
reasons why. You want to treat God as if He were a man, God is not a man.
Kelly
Originally posted by LemonJelloYes the purpose of the hypothetical "CASTS" God in the light of being bored,
I said you do not understand the purpose of the hypothetical. I have explained to you over and over that my bringing up the hypothetical intends to show nothing about God. Rather, it intends to show something about your view. At this point, you are simply dodging the issue.
and for kicks just kills people...what could be wrong with that, period? I'm not
dodging the issue, I'm telling you that to do that to God is beyond wrong.
The trouble you are having is that God is the one that sets those rules about
life and death, and pretty much all of creation are bound by the limits God
sets. You are suggesting that God for some reason only a human could have
would act out like a human to look at behavior. God does not act as a human
for the human reasons, He does not lie, He holds all the info, He has a purpose.
So to color Him as bored and willing to kill for kicks, just pick another human
instead God isn't going to do anything for those reasons.
Kelly
Originally posted by KellyJayI'm not the one having trouble here, and I think you just continue to dodge the actual issue.
Yes the purpose of the hypothetical "CASTS" God in the light of being bored,
and for kicks just kills people...what could be wrong with that, period? I'm not
dodging the issue, I'm telling you that to do that to God is beyond wrong.
The trouble you are having is that God is the one that sets those rules about
life and death, and pretty much all of cre ...[text shortened]... , just pick another human
instead God isn't going to do anything for those reasons.
Kelly
You have espoused a view on God's rights that in essence says that God has the right to do whatever with His creation for whatever reason at all. It follows naturally that God has the right to line up a bunch of Jewish persons and to execute them for no other reason than to just bring Himself some kicks and giggles. That's just a fact regarding your view. However, if Hitler did the same thing, you would call it "evil to the core". I am still waiting for some explanation that reconciles this....
Your accusations that I am somehow degrading God and whatnot are false. My stating and elaborating on a descriptive fact about your view; the fact that your view entails that God has the right to do such things for such reasons; says nothing at all about God. It says something about your view: namely, that your view is rather absurd.
And I have also pointed out how your view regarding God's reasons is inconsistent. When I bring up examples of God's sanctioning genocide from your own accounts in the bible, you tell me we can have no understanding of what His reasons might be for such actions. Well, then, have it your way: for all you know, it may simply be to bring Himself some kicks and giggles.