-->
@Tradesecret
That's quite a gish gallop could we focus on just one thing at a time? Whatever you wouldlike to focus on.
is the idea of unconditional love compatible with the God of the old testament?
Posts
Total:
96
-->
@secularmerlin
Ok.
Let's go back to Genesis in the Garden of Eden.
Where do you think God went wrong?
-->
@Tradesecret
Creating beings he knew ahead of time would piss him off and then punishing them for pissing him off.
-->
@secularmerlin
Creating beings he knew ahead of time would piss him off and then punishing them for pissing him off.
Ok. So how is this wrong?
I have children. I knew before I had children that they would piss me off from time to time. I also knew before I had children that I would also have to discipline them and punish them.
Isn't that normal? Why is that wrong? Even though I knew these things about my children, I don't think it was wrong to have them and in fact I would do it again.
Please explain why it is wrong?
-->
@Tradesecret
According to the source material the Yahweh is all knowing and all powerful. He didn't just know they were going to piss him off but specifically how. Why bother with testing people if you already know what the results of the test will be? Indeed if you are truly all powerful and we are so flawed and unworthy why not make less flawed more worthy beings to start with? At a certain point if a self driving car keeps running into people the designer will have to take some responsibility for his creation and the Yahweh is only more culpable since if he is all powerful he should have been able to make people that would not piss him off or create the need to suffer. In fact if people created the need to suffer and the Yahweh created them knowing they would create the need to suffer doesn't that mean the Yahweh created the need to suffer by proxy?
-->
@Tradesecret
Put more plainly the Yahweh's first mistake was making flawed and unworthy beings. If you are right about the picture the bible paints of our our character as a species then according to the bible it is Yahweh who decided to make us so shoddily.
-->
@secularmerlin
Put more plainly the Yahweh's first mistake was making flawed and unworthy beings. If you are right about the picture the bible paints of our our character as a species then according to the bible it is Yahweh who decided to make us so shoddily.
Ok. But if we rely on the source material, God did make humanity without flaws. He called them very good. He thought they were good enough to rule the world. There certainly is no indication of flaws in either Adam or Eve.
So if they flawed, how so?
-->
@Tradesecret
(IF) the Yahweh created Adam and Eve (AND) they were flawed enough to eat the fruit (AND) the Yahweh is all knowing and all powerful (THEN) he intentionally created beings that did not live up to his standards.
Why not simply create beings who were worthier than Adam and Eve to begin with? Whatever flaw in our character led to the fall was put there by the Yahweh if the bible is to be believed.
-->
@secularmerlin
(IF) the Yahweh created Adam and Eve (AND) they were flawed enough to eat the fruit (AND) the Yahweh is all knowing and all powerful (THEN) he intentionally created beings that did not live up to his standards.Why not simply create beings who were worthier than Adam and Eve to begin with? Whatever flaw in our character led to the fall was put there by the Yahweh if the bible is to be believed.
I am sorry, I don't understand how you say Adam and Eve were created flawed. What particular flaw are we talking about? The story clearly indicates that God made humanity very good. Clearly up to his own standards. So I am not sure it is factual to suggest that they were not made to his standards.
It seems that you are suggesting that because Adam and Eve were capable of making a poor decision that they are flawed. Why don't we explore that.
How does it make them flawed? If they had chosen to make the right decision, would that make them any less flawed? After all, it would still be the same person.
Does having the ability to choose and make good or poor decisions - mean we are flawed? Why? Please walk me through what you mean?
As for worthier, I think they were made worthy. In fact I take the view that they were more worthy than anyone else who has lived, save for Jesus.
-->
@n8nrgmi
i would say no as clearly God had conditions on earning his favordiscuss, debate
Are unconditional love and unconditional favor really the same?
Regardless - at one point he destroys all of humanity except for one family. I don't know, I just don't get an "unconditional love" sort of vibe from that.
I'm leaning toward no. You can lose his love to the point that he will destroy you.
I am sorry, I don't understand how you say Adam and Eve were created flawed. What particular flaw are we talking about?
Whichever flaw led to the fall. Perhaps gullibility in that they were taken in by the snake or perhaps willfulness in that they did not follow instructions. I am not prepared to commit to a particular flaw necessarily but those are two possibilities. Whatever argument you want to offer they clearly were not worthy of continued residency in the garden. Any argument to the contrary is in direct conflict of the story. They were deemed unworthy by their actions and ejected fro the garden by the Yahweh.
well i mean that's if god existed in the first place ;)
-->
@Crocodile
well i mean that's if god existed in the first place ;)
I am perfectly willing to entertain a hypothetical situation and also to discuss the ramifications of fictional characters and their actions.
-->
@Tradesecret
The commandments clearly forbids rape.
Which commandment clearly does that? Because it's pretty clear about stuff like not working on the sabbath (whichever day during the week it is), it's clear about not making drawings or idols of god (though that's fallen by the wayside), and it's pretty clear that you shouldn't say his name in vein, and it's very confident in convicting you of crimes that only happen in your mind (like coveting your neighbor's ass or wife, or neighbor's wife's ass) but I don't recall which one of the commandments expressly says don't rape.
The answer to the topic is no. There's a very clear condition on god's love: you have to love him and believe in him and follow his laws. Otherwise you are either ignored and annihilated (this is the softest way Christians have com eup with to deal with stuff like a hindu child who dies at 9 years old from cancer) or you are punished for all eternity, which is not something people who love someone else would do. Finite transgressions have finite punishments not eternal ones.
-->
@ludofl3x
The answer to the topic is no. There's a very clear condition on god's love: you have to love him and believe in him and follow his laws. Otherwise you are either ignored and annihilated (this is the softest way Christians have com eup with to deal with stuff like a hindu child who dies at 9 years old from cancer) or you are punished for all eternity, which is not something people who love someone else would do. Finite transgressions have finite punishments not eternal ones.
Well stated.
-->
@secularmerlin
I am sorry, I don't understand how you say Adam and Eve were created flawed. What particular flaw are we talking about?Whichever flaw led to the fall. Perhaps gullibility in that they were taken in by the snake or perhaps willfulness in that they did not follow instructions. I am not prepared to commit to a particular flaw necessarily but those are two possibilities. Whatever argument you want to offer they clearly were not worthy of continued residency in the garden. Any argument to the contrary is in direct conflict of the story. They were deemed unworthy by their actions and ejected fro the garden by the Yahweh.
If we are to go on the source documents, God made them without flaw. You continue to insert flaw into what was made despite the source documents clearly saying otherwise.
Is being gullible a flaw? But were they gullible? I would suggest the so called flaw you are actually after is "free will". Although personally, I don't think free will is a flaw. God gave humanity a brain to evaluate the things that they were looking at and to weigh up the different ramifications of eating the fruit. They weighed up the ramifications and thought the risk was worth it.
Obviously to this point God has only presented himself as good and kind even as he had laid down the rules which seem harsh to many of us. Perhaps they thought God was naïve. Perhaps they thought God was hiding things from them? Perhaps they thought a good and a loving God would never be mean to them? But at the end of the day - it was not a flaw which caused them to sin - it was their choice to do it.
Is free will a flaw? I don't think so. If I was making a robot to carry out my commands perfectly, then it would be a flaw. Yet If I desired someone to love me freely of their own free will, then it would not be a flaw. God does not force people to love him or to obey his commands. HE encourages them to do so because it is the right thing to do. And when they don't obey his commands he will punish or discipline them. This is however not compulsion per se. Yet God is not going to be restrained by humanity's choices to disobey him either. He does not need us.
Yes, Adam and Eve were put out of the garden. Their treason made them unworthy. They were kicked out his family. Yet, God was willing for them to come back into his family, anytime they repented of theirs sins and chose to love him. Notice that Adam and Eve and even Satan, did not repent. Adam blamed Eve. Eve blamed Satan. Did they repent?
Yet up until the time they ate the fruit, they were worthy - made without flaw. Intelligent, - reasoning creatures - at the height of their powers.
So if this was not God's first mistake, what was?
-->
@Tradesecret
Ah the old free will argument. Well you haven't actually demonstrated freewill either but assuming it for a moment I have to ask is there free will in heaven? Be careful how you answer because if he can make a truly perfect place with freewill then the work he did down here is unimpressive to me. And again I remind you that for me this is a hypothetical situation not an inconsistent level of credulity.
-->
@secularmerlin
Ah the old free will argument. Well you haven't actually demonstrated freewill either but assuming it for a moment I have to ask is there free will in heaven? Be careful how you answer because if he can make a truly perfect place with freewill then the work he did down here is unimpressive to me. And again I remind you that for me this is a hypothetical situation not an inconsistent level of credulity.
I think the term "free will" is flawed as a concept generally. I am trying to put into ordinary terms what it seems you are referring to as a flaw. You used the word naïve or gullibility - and nor did you demonstrate either.
I really don't want to dragged into a rabbit hole either. But to entertain your question about free will in heaven, I actually take the view that the Garden of Eden is or was heaven. So if what Adam and Eve had was what we might call free will, then yes, free will exists in heaven. But what is free will? That is the rub. Can total freedom of the will exist in a universe with a totally sovereign God? Capacity to choose however I don't think means freedom to do whatever you want. When our government lays down a law that says "do not speed", it is not saying "you have the freedom to go as fast as you want". Even if it puts a sanction into place like a fine. This does not mean the government is giving you permission to speed so far as you understand you will need to pay a fine. It is saying NO SPEEDING. It ineffect is denying you freedom to speed. IF you choose to break it - you can't put that on the government. You can't say "you gave me a choice".
For me to answer the question - we need to define free will first. Why don't you give it a go? After all, It seems to me that it is the only possible flaw that Adam and Eve might have had. And I am not convinced it is a flaw.
-->
@Tradesecret
I don't actually believe in freewill. I think I it is a logical impossibability. I am therefore willing to accept your preferred definition.
-->
@secularmerlin
I don't actually believe in freewill. I think I it is a logical impossibability. I am therefore willing to accept your preferred definition.
Fascinating.
So out of curiosity, why don't you believe in free will and what is the alternative? Surely you don't believe we are all automatons? Or that we don't have a certain amount of freedom?
-->
@Tradesecret
Either our actions are caused (determinism) or they are uncaused (indistinguishable from random) neither is compatible with free will and no clever mix of the two magically generates free will.
The same applies to any hypothetical god or spirit by the way.
Either god's actions are caused (determinism) or they are uncaused (indistinguishable from random) neither is compatible with free will and no clever mix of the two magically generates free will.
-->
@secularmerlin
Either our actions are caused (determinism) or they are uncaused (indistinguishable from random) neither is compatible with free will and no clever mix of the two magically generates free will.The same applies to any hypothetical god or spirit by the way.Either god's actions are caused (determinism) or they are uncaused (indistinguishable from random) neither is compatible with free will and no clever mix of the two magically generates free will.
Thanks for that. You remind me of my economics lecturer discussing the two and ONLY forms of economic organisation. The command system and the free market system. He indicated that theories arise justifying both of these systems but there is no theory justifying the mixing of the two. The fact is however - all over the world we have mixed systems. There is no theory underlining the basis of mixed systems - mostly, it simply pragmatic, and a cultural thing. Or perhaps he just was unable to come up with the theory. And most of his students never bothered questioning the authority of this man who produced significant reasons for his position.
Now for the record I don't know whether my lecturer was right or wrong in his reasoning. Yet I live in a economic system which is a mixed economy for want of a better term.
In relation to your argument above - you may be right in relation to humans or indeed any part of the creation. Yet I fail to see how it applies to God in the same manner. At least not the God I see in the Bible.
The God of the Bible causes all of his actions and thought and movements. But their determination is Himself. He does all things in accordance with his own character. I would accept that God does nothing randomly, but always purposely and intentionally. Yet not from without - but from within.
And if this is the case, then I don't see how this makes God impossible.
In relation to the creation - I certainly agree with you that every thing is in one sense determined and that would be with God being the ultimate first cause of all things. But not just first cause, also the one who makes sure all things come to pass. I don't for the record believe that randomness plays a part.
Yet the Bible also indicates that humanity is responsible for his own actions. You can let me know, but do you think people ought to be held accountable for crimes in our society? If so why? Either determinism as you put it or randomness as you put it - excuses intention. So if someone rapes someone else or enslaves someone - it is either because they have been determined to do - hence not their fault or it has happened randomly without any determinism - so still not their fault. but I am sure you will inform us of my misunderstanding.
This is why the Bible talks of second causes. God determines all things - making anything impossible without God. Zeno's paradoxes provide a wonderful example of why words cannot articulate everything - and yet also a picture of what God does. An arrow is either where it is or where it is not. For an arrow to fly across the room - it has to go from where it is - to where it is not. And it has to do this many many times. Of course - if an arrow is in a place where it is not, then it really cannot be there. How does it move?
But humanity is responsible for his own actions. The question is whether second causes are part of this picture or not. I don't think people do things randomly. People tend to do things for a reason and that reason may well be by the environment they are in, or by the desires they have inside of them. It may because of how they were nurtured or even because of their genetics. Yet I don't think - either their genetics or their environment excuses them.
Free will - I think is a label we have attached to the idea that people need to be responsible for their own actions. It is unacceptable I think that people can simply say - it's not my fault, or my parents taught me - this is their fault. Or I am poor - it is not my fault. Or it is because I have a mental illness, therefore I ought to be excused because I am not totally in control of my situation. Yet, as a criminal lawyer, I use these things not as excuse but more for an explanation of why? And this is in order to determine how we prevent them from doing it again in the future.
I think the Bible talks of free will in that sense. Not in the sense that people are not determined or in the sense that they randomly do things. I also take the view that humanity is pretty much free to do whatever they want - obviously within certain parameters. Yet now after the fall - this free will has been tainted - so that they now don't necessarily have the freedom to do what they ought to do. In other words, their human nature has come to the fore. As Adam Smith puts it - they are self interested. And even their altruism is based on their own self interest - to look good or not feel bad for not helping others.
Prior to the fall, their free will - in the sense of being responsible for their own actions - had the capacity of choosing to do things without being self interested.
I don't think it is a flaw to be responsible for your own actions. I would actually think it is ultimately a thing of beauty. For God to design and then create a being which is ultimately responsible for his own actions - is amazing. Definitely not a flaw. Some might take the view that the ultimate perfection is to create something which has no flaws and obviously therefore without the ability to take responsibility for itself. Others on the other, would suggest that is just another automaton.
Yet to create something which is without flaw - but yet has the capacity to make itself flawed and be ultimately responsible for that flaw is another thing altogether.
Sorry I am tired. I will come back to this in the morning.
-->
@Tradesecret
Now for the record I don't know whether my lecturer was right or wrong in his reasoning. Yet I live in a economic system which is a mixed economy for want of a better term.
No clever mix of caused and uncaused leads us to free will.
Allow me to restate my argument in its entirety.
Either our actions are caused (determinism) or they are uncaused (indistinguishable from random) neither is compatible with free will and no clever mix of the two magically generates free will.
In relation to your argument above - you may be right in relation to humans or indeed any part of the creation. Yet I fail to see how it applies to God in the same manner. At least not the God I see in the Bible.
Either the Yahweh's actions are caused (determinism) or they are uncaused (indistinguishable from random) and omniscience =/= freewill. An omniscient being would by definition know the best course of action for accomplishing that beings goals. If the Yahweh is omniscient and if the Yahweh has a plan then the Yahweh knows the single best course of action to accomplish this goal. The "choices" then become take said action (not a choice if the being is trying genuinely to accomplish it's goals) or work counter to this plan (indistinguishable from random behavior).
If you see a specific flaw in my logic or in the structure of my argument please offer a specific critique of the argument itself or a pertinent counterfactual.
-->
@secularmerlin
Either the Yahweh's actions are caused (determinism) or they are uncaused (indistinguishable from random) and omniscience =/= freewill. An omniscient being would by definition know the best course of action for accomplishing that beings goals. If the Yahweh is omniscient and if the Yahweh has a plan then the Yahweh knows the single best course of action to accomplish this goal. The "choices" then become take said action (not a choice if the being is trying genuinely to accomplish it's goals) or work counter to this plan (indistinguishable from random behavior).
Are we talking about a being in a linear timeframe or an eternal system?
Your characterization of an omniscient being seems two dimensional. An omniscient being is not necessarily led or ruled by knowledge of outcomes. The Bible for instance lists omniscience as one of God's characteristics - but not the only one and hardly I would add as the dominant or ruling one. I am pretty sure that the God of the Bible does not determine value by the ends. He is not utilitarian in that manner. Think about the situation where Jesus is being tempted by Satan in the wilderness. Satan said to Jesus - bow down to me and I will give you every person in this world. Now if Jesus was ends orientated, he would have taken the knee, and then the people and then destroyed Satan. He did not do this. His goal in coming to earth was not simply about the ends - of saving people and restoring them to himself. It was much more profound than this. It also included the manner or the process of how this would happen. Christianity rejects the maxim - that the ends justifies the means.
-->
@Tradesecret
Are we talking about a being in a linear timeframe or an eternal system?
Regardless of the system under discussion actions are either caused (determinism) or uncaused (indistinguishable from random) or some mix of the two. I don't see any other options. Can you suggest another option?
-->
@secularmerlin
regardless of the system under discussion actions are either caused (determinism) or uncaused (indistinguishable from random) or some mix of the two. I don't see any other options. Can you suggest another option?
You sound a little like Mises - whom I quite like.
As for your statement, I tend to agree that in relation to humanity and or creation that this is quite likely. I don't concede it in relation to God.
That would be to put limitations upon God within a system. And honestly, I don't think God fits within any system. The biblical picture of God is one who creates systems but is not subject to the same. It is similar to the question of moral rights and wrongs. Do they exist somewhere as an absolute or not? I say no. I think that moral rights and wrong exist because God determines what they are. Take for instance your moral position that genocide is ALWAYS immoral. Why? Who determines that such a thing is wrong? Is it you? Or is it the UN? Or is it just some innate law in the absolutes of the universe that EVERYONE knows is immoral?
-->
@Tradesecret
I don't concede it in relation to God.
Then please suggest an alternative to caused uncaused or a mix of caused and uncaused. We will proceed from there.
Take for instance your moral position that genocide is ALWAYS immoral.
You are overstating my position. I said that I am of the intractable opinion that it is always wrong. I cannot imagine what would change my mind but it is my mind under discussion not the mind of the members of the United Nations.
-->
@secularmerlin
I don't concede it in relation to God.Then please suggest an alternative to caused uncaused or a mix of caused and uncaused. We will proceed from there
God says in the bible that he is whom he is. Not that he was caused by an external force or that he randomly appeared from somewhere all by himself - but that he eternally is. Since this is how he describes himself - as one outside of the systems of humanity, and outside of their jurisdiction, I am not sure how profitable it is to place the limitations on him that you would like to do so. (If we attempt to place such limitations on God in order to hypotheticize, it really is not going to add to either your or mine understanding of the God of the Bible) I accept that this makes it difficult to characterise God, but I think this is a miss step from our discussion in relation to "free will". It is not the free will of God that we are discussing, but rather that of a created being, Adam and Eve.
And it in relation to the perceived flaw you believe the creatures had leading them into sin which in turn persuades you that God made a mistake. I on the other hand do not see the flaw, and am not convinced that the sin is related to the design of the creature nor even to its environment. The other thing which seems to be implied by you is that should a person be caused or uncaused, that this somehow removes their personal responsibility. I don't agree with that logic, unless that person has no freedom whatsoever, but is merely an automaton, a robot, one without a conscience.
Take for instance your moral position that genocide is ALWAYS immoral.You are overstating my position. I said that I am of the intractable opinion that it is always wrong. I cannot imagine what would change my mind but it is my mind under discussion not the mind of the members of the United Nations.
If I am overstating your position - I apologize - but you used the words intractable which I submit implies unable to reverse -which sounds pretty solid and is tantamount to ALWAYS. Are you saying for instance that although you are convinced currently it is immoral, that this is because you as an individual are convinced of it - even without the UN deciding it is immoral? And if the UN decided that there was sometimes a good reason for genocide, that this still would not change your mind. I admit your reasoning seems a little fuzzy to me. It sounds like you are putting up some kind of NATURAL LAW argument.
-->
@Tradesecret
that he eternally is.
An eternal beings actions would be either caused (determinism) or uncaused (indistinguishable from random) or some mix of the two. If you can think of an alternative please present it.
you used the words intractable which I submit implies unable to reverse -which sounds pretty solid and is tantamount to ALWAYS.
Yes my opinion about genocide is always that they are wrong. This is not however a natural law unless my opinion = natural law. Also the UN stance on genocide is completely incidental to my own. They could agree or disagree and my stance would remain unchanged.
-->
@secularmerlin
that he eternally is.An eternal beings actions would be either caused (determinism) or uncaused (indistinguishable from random) or some mix of the two. If you can think of an alternative please present it.
I don't agree with your is /or logical argument here in respect of God. God is not subject to such things. For example - Jesus is FULLY GOD and FULLY MAN. God is Trinity - namely ONE but THREE. He intentionally does not limit himself to our ways of logic - so even on the basis of that alone, I don't accept it in relation to God. And respectfully, trying to find a way to place God within such limits is only going to provide you with satisfaction within yourself - but again it won't assist in furthering our discussion because whatever God you can place limitations on is not the GOD of the Bible.
In any event we were not looking at God - but at his creatures which you maintain were flawed despite the source material. You have yet to provide one that we both agree on. As I said above, I don't think the creature or design was flawed. And I don't think the environment was flawed. Perhaps it might be that the very perfection of the model was that it could make poor decisions. Is that a flaw?
you used the words intractable which I submit implies unable to reverse -which sounds pretty solid and is tantamount to ALWAYS.Yes my opinion about genocide is always that they are wrong. This is not however a natural law unless my opinion = natural law. Also the UN stance on genocide is completely incidental to my own. They could agree or disagree and my stance would remain unchanged.
" If it looks like a dog, and it barks like a dog, ..." what is the difference between Natural Law and your "genocide is always wrong"? What is so special about your own personal moral system that you can not only make an ALWAYS assertion on morality - (admitting it is a subjective moral position) and then furthermore make it objective that even a divine being must comply or be immoral? I hope you notice the absurdity of your statement. I think Atheism is always MORALLY wrong. Therefore you and all atheists are EVIL.
Yet this is a subjective statement that I think ALWAYS is the case. What does saying it achieve? Especially to those who are atheists?
Similarly, for you to say to me that GENOCIDE is ALWAYS immoral - just because you think it is - just tells me you have strong opinions - but does not provide me with the sense of whether something is immoral or not immoral. Just that you disagree with it - and you cannot even tell me why?