Interesting story. I can't even imagine how much that must have messed that poor kid up.
Posted by ClaudiaTherese (Member # 923) on :
Oh, my word.
Posted by Strider (Member # 1807) on :
wow, that he made it through all that and has managed to live a relatively normal life afterwards is really amazing.
Could you imagine keeping that a secret for 50 years?
Posted by twinky (Member # 693) on :
Yeah, exactly, on top of somehow having lived through all of that. Wow.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
I don't even know what to say about this. I almost bit my own hand when I read about his family being murdered.
Posted by dantesparadigm (Member # 8756) on :
Hey, Godwin's law.
Posted by erosomniac (Member # 6834) on :
Hell of a story. Thanks for linking, Noemon.
Posted by brojack17 (Member # 9189) on :
What an amazing story. Thank God for the soldier who took pitty on him and decided to help.
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
quote:Originally posted by dantesparadigm: Hey, Godwin's law.
Posted by Brinestone (Member # 5755) on :
Wow. That's awful and amazing at the same time.
Posted by ketchupqueen (Member # 6877) on :
quote:Originally posted by Brinestone: Wow. That's awful and amazing at the same time.
My response exactly.
Posted by Strider (Member # 1807) on :
quote:Thank God for the soldier who took pitty on him and decided to help.
<rant>
I'm sorry, I know the thread isn't about this at all, but I read things like that and I cringe. I don't know how literal you were being with that statement, but should I damn god for all the soldiers that took no pity and slaughtered innocent men, women, and children? For all the countless atrocities committed by the Nazis?
It's heartwarming that this man's life was spared as a child, and it was a great act of compassion by the SS officer, but to attribute it to god seems to me to not only minimize what the soldier did, but all the millions of deaths that weren't prevented as well.
I'm not trying to offend any religious people, and I'm not suggesting you stop using the phrase "thank god" to express thankfulness at a happy outcome, but its use in this exact type of situation and the thoughts that would stem from it were the first thoughts to lead me away from religion at a young age. </rant>
Posted by Javert Hugo (Member # 3980) on :
That's funny, Strider, because I agree with you about it, but I have a very different response to it.
Your conclusion isn't the only one, though.
Basically, I don't blame God for people's crappy decisions. The evil things men do are allowed because we have free will. The Lord won't stop those evil things because that would take away our free will, and then there is no meaning to anything we do.
On the other hand, if all good impulses come from God, then when someone does do something good, they are acting on a prompting, a softening of the heart, that came from the Lord. They still have to decide to be brave and to act on it, but you can thank God for the good impulse he gave that soldier while not blaming him for the evil choices other people made.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
quote:Originally posted by Javert Hugo: That's funny, Strider, because I agree with you about it, but I have a very different response to it.
Your conclusion isn't the only one, though.
Basically, I don't blame God for people's crappy decisions. The evil things men do are allowed because we have free will. The Lord won't stop those evil things because that would take away our free will, and then there is no meaning to anything we do.
On the other hand, if all good impulses come from God, then when someone does do something good, they are acting on a prompting, a softening of the heart, that came from the Lord. They still have to decide to be brave and to act on it, but you can thank God for the good impulse he gave that soldier while not blaming him for the evil choices other people made.
What she said. I'm surprised we found some common ground on this topic Javert Hugo.
[ August 22, 2007, 05:09 PM: Message edited by: BlackBlade ]
Posted by Strider (Member # 1807) on :
what she said. Posted by Noemon (Member # 1115) on :
quote:Originally posted by Javert Hugo: Basically, I don't blame God for people's crappy decisions. The evil things men do are allowed because we have free will. The Lord won't stop those evil things because that would take away our free will, and then there is no meaning to anything we do.
On the other hand, if all good impulses come from God, then when someone does do something good, they are acting on a prompting, a softening of the heart, that came from the Lord. They still have to decide to be brave and to act on it, but you can thank God for the good impulse he gave that soldier while not blaming him for the evil choices other people made.
Am I correct in understanding that you're arguing that humans are essentially evil beings, and that all good actions occur at least in part because of divine intervention?
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
quote:Originally posted by Strider: what she said.
Thanks for the correction, it has been duly edited.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
Noemon, I think that the problem with that is thinking that Divine inspiration is less a part of a person than other impulses.
I don't believe that the Divine (whatever we call it) is separate from us in the way we are used to thinking of outside agents acting on somwone.
Posted by Kwea (Member # 2199) on :
Just because I thank God for something doesn't mean I am reducing the soldier's actions in any way, shape or form.
I say thanks every day for the good things in my life...even those I pay for myself.
I see God in the good things we do for others, but it is always and foremost our choice to do those things. It's called Free Will.
Posted by AvidReader (Member # 6007) on :
quote: Am I correct in understanding that you're arguing that humans are essentially evil beings, and that all good actions occur at least in part because of divine intervention?
That about sums up my church's philosophy on it. We can choose to be like God, or we can choose to focus on ourselves.
That's the bit that confuses folks sometimes. Sin and evil are everything that aren't of God. So you don't have to be out killing folks to be evil. You just have to be preoccupied with yourself instead of others.
Posted by Strider (Member # 1807) on :
it just seems to me that there's a lot of "thank god" going around and not a lot of "damn god". God always gets props when things go right, but never takes the heat when things don't. It's always our fault, or we can't see god's mind, or don't understand his plan, need to have more faith, etc...seems hypocritical to me, at best.
quote:On the other hand, if all good impulses come from God, then when someone does do something good, they are acting on a prompting, a softening of the heart, that came from the Lord.
And where do evil impulses come from? The devil? Or god as well? Or like Noemon says, are they innate(which in essence would be from god as well)?
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
quote:which in essence would be from god as well
Not necessarily.
Posted by porcelain girl (Member # 1080) on :
I sort of agree with what both JH and kmboots said. I think God is made up of truth and light, and our souls were organized of the same stuffs, and we can choose to tap into it, or ignore it.
I thank the part of God that is in my self, that magnifies good choices I might make that will lessen evil and unwarranted suffering in the world.
The part about him hiding in the forest and biting his hand made me cry. He was so young. What a thing to carry by yourself.
Posted by Primal Curve (Member # 3587) on :
I'm going to have to go with Strider on this one. Too often, god is given the benefit of the doubt even when he allows millions of people to be slaughtered. How does that make god Love, for those of you who believe that?
Posted by MightyCow (Member # 9253) on :
God really should soften some people a whole lot more.
Posted by Primal Curve (Member # 3587) on :
Isn't that what carpet bombing is for?
Posted by MightyCow (Member # 9253) on :
Better a spiritual carpet bombing than a physical one due to the lack of the former.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
I think (again) that we are running into the problem of thinking of God as some external being with magical powers.
Posted by Javert Hugo (Member # 3980) on :
I can't agree with you, Mighty Cow. When people make terrible choices, I think it's because they are choosing to. No matter how much it pains the Lord, I don't think he'll stop someone if they are determined to do evil.
I value my own free agency too much to wish others' away.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
quote:Originally posted by Primal Curve: I'm going to have to go with Strider on this one. Too often, god is given the benefit of the doubt even when he allows millions of people to be slaughtered. How does that make god Love, for those of you who believe that?
OK so how many slaughterings does God have to prevent in order for you to be satisfied that he is love? Obviously the instance of this little kid is woefully inadequate for you. Does He have to prevent ALL killing? 90%, 75%, 40%?
You know at least for me, I have always believed that birth like death is traumatic for some, exciting for others, and everything else in between for the rest. Extrapolating on my own theology when it came time to be born we were already mature, active, adults in spirit form. We were about to embark on a journey, that would see many of us lost. We would be stripped of almost all our knowledge of God. Many of our friends that we had developed friendships with over the course of millions to trillions of years would be lost to us, in some cases forever. Some of us destined to be born to families that love us and try hard to adapt to us, others to families that would make life unbearable. Some of us would not even be born into the world, we'd live just long enough to have been said to live, while others would endure long trials of 90 years or more. I am sure some cursed God for his seemingly unfair plan and sided with the force that has always opposed good. I am equally sure that others saw the necessity of it all and stepped forward determined to succeed in spite of it all, and excited to test their mettle.
It does not all make sense to me, outside of the fact that I am here, right now. So it must have made sense to me at some point otherwise I would have refused to come down here. There are many things that at the time seemed too horrific and unpleasant, and yet only later did I find out why they were important. The quickest example I have of this is vaccinations. I worried myself sick thinking about a needle entering my arm, all to prevent something I did not know anything about and had no reason to believe in. Life makes sense to me more and more as I study and ask God for clarity, but I don't think anyone with a finite mind can understand every single factor that goes into God's decisions in running this world.
I do know that when I speak with God and do as He says, I am happy.
Posted by MightyCow (Member # 9253) on :
I'm not saying God should push people so hard that they cannot possibly choose to do evil.
I'm just saying that if God is going to push people a little bit so they're more likely to do good, he should push some people really, really, really hard.
Being able to do evil .000000001% of the time is still free agency.
Where's your cutoff point?
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
And you think the "pushing" is from the outside?
Posted by Javert Hugo (Member # 3980) on :
I don't think he does push some people more than others - I think he always available and we choose how much we listen.
quote:Being able to do evil .000000001% of the time is still free agency.
No, I don't agree. There's no such thing as a little bit enslaved.
Posted by MightyCow (Member # 9253) on :
quote:Originally posted by Javert Hugo: On the other hand, if all good impulses come from God, then when someone does do something good, they are acting on a prompting, a softening of the heart, that came from the Lord. They still have to decide to be brave and to act on it, but you can thank God for the good impulse he gave that soldier while not blaming him for the evil choices other people made.
If all good impulses come from God, then I would argue if someone doesn't do something good, they didn't get strong enough impulses.
Only being able to do good when prompted by God doesn't sound very free, for that matter.
Posted by Javert Hugo (Member # 3980) on :
...or they didn't act on the promptings which are always there and God doesn't force anyone.
I don't agree with your logic in either statement.
Posted by Primal Curve (Member # 3587) on :
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade:
quote:Originally posted by Primal Curve: I'm going to have to go with Strider on this one. Too often, god is given the benefit of the doubt even when he allows millions of people to be slaughtered. How does that make god Love, for those of you who believe that?
OK so how many slaughterings does God have to prevent in order for you to be satisfied that he is love? Does He have to prevent ALL killing?
That'd be about right. Instead we have a petty God who gives us free will to make our own choices and then gets pissed off and jealous when we decide to do things on our own (despite giving us capacity to do so). In retaliation, despite having some not-so-inconsequential power to intervene, he decides to let us kill each other. In some cases, depending upon your particular flavor of Christianity, he punishes us for all eternity.
Thanks, god!
Posted by MightyCow (Member # 9253) on :
JH: Let me try to be more clear. If I understand correctly, you believe that people can only do good things when God prompts them to - softening their heart, as you put it.
So if God doesn't prompt someone, then it follows that they are unable to do good. If I am only allowed to go the the restroom when the warden says I am, I'm not really free.
Posted by Primal Curve (Member # 3587) on :
quote:Originally posted by Javert Hugo: ...or they didn't act on the promptings which are always there and God doesn't force anyone.
I don't agree with your logic in either statement.
How do you account for someone with a mental illness who commits a crime (say rape or murder)? If one of his/her stronger symptoms was hearing voices in his/her head, wouldn't god really need to dial up the signal to get through all the noise? Even then, would whatever sane element left to that person's psyche believe the source?
Isn't god in some way responsible for that person's condition? It could have developed because of PTSD or eating lead paint chips or it could have existed from birth. Either way, the circumstances of god's oh-so-great "plan" caused this person to be this way and caused them to act in that manner despite his gentle nudgings over breakfast cereal every morning.
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
quote:How do you account for someone with a mental illness who commits a crime (say rape or murder)?
What power to intervene are you talking about? And are you using a literal interpretation of scripture for the "pissed off and jealous" part? And doesn't letting us make our own decisions mean letting us kill each other?
We have the freedom to kill each other; we decide to use that freedom to kill each other. How is letting us kill each other an act of retaliation? We had that freedom already.
Again, Primal Curve, you are talking about God as if God were some external magical being.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
quote:Originally posted by Primal Curve:
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade:
quote:Originally posted by Primal Curve: I'm going to have to go with Strider on this one. Too often, god is given the benefit of the doubt even when he allows millions of people to be slaughtered. How does that make god Love, for those of you who believe that?
OK so how many slaughterings does God have to prevent in order for you to be satisfied that he is love? Does He have to prevent ALL killing?
That'd be about right. Instead we have a petty God who gives us free will to make our own choices and then gets pissed off and jealous when we decide to do things on our own (despite giving us capacity to do so). In retaliation, despite having some not-so-inconsequential power to intervene, he decides to let us kill each other. In some cases, depending upon your particular flavor of Christianity, he punishes us for all eternity.
Thanks, god!
None of what you said is true of the Christian God, at least not the one *I* worship. Our motives to Him are far more important then our acts in of themselves.
IMO anyone who believes that God punishes ignorance as severely as intentional sinning is gravely mistaken.
edit:
quote:How do you account for someone with a mental illness who commits a crime (say rape or murder)? If one of his/her stronger symptoms was hearing voices in his/her head, wouldn't god really need to dial up the signal to get through all the noise? Even then, would whatever sane element left to that person's psyche believe the source?
How can anyone know that save God? If somebody with a mental illness raped/murdered another person, I wouldn't be in a position to know how the man got from Point A to Point B. I can try my best to understand it, but ultimately the explanation is God's to reveal.
Certainly it is understood that somebody with a mental illness deserves more compassion for heinous acts then a person of sound mind and understanding.
Posted by Javert Hugo (Member # 3980) on :
Pointing to the insane isn't relevant to those who are not. Whole different thing.
I think we all of part of the divine within us, and if we listen and pray for, we get even more than that. Choosing to commit evil - especially Nazi-level evil - means deliberately ignoring that light we all have. We always have it - the light of Christ doesn't go away. We have to drown it out and ignore it if we don't want to feel it.
MC, you're perfectly clear. I just think you're wrong. Also, I do not agree with you summary of my position.
Posted by MightyCow (Member # 9253) on :
JH: Please explain, if you would be so kind, how my summary of your position is incorrect, or more specifically, summarize your position so that I can see where I am wrong.
If you wouldn't mind addressing why and how you think I'm wrong, I would appreciate that as well.
Posted by Javert Hugo (Member # 3980) on :
quote:If I understand correctly, you believe that people can only do good things when God prompts them to - softening their heart, as you put it. ... So if God doesn't prompt someone, then it follows that they are unable to do good. If I am only allowed to go the the restroom when the warden says I am, I'm not really free.
1)This summary is incorrect. I believe that all good things come from God - good desires, good promptings, soft hearts, charity, all of it.
However, I also believe it is always there. We are made by him and have the divine with us, and there is the light of Christ that influences all of us. Rather than permission from the warden to use the bathroom, the bathroom is always, always there and we always have access to it if we want it.
So, I don't agree with the part about God not giving enough good promptings and you can tell because people do evil. There are always enough - we always have the light of Christ.
2) I don't agree with the part where you eliminate the person's choice. You are making a humongous leap here - you are eliminating the possibility of free will off the bat. You are assuming that people do what has been impressed upon them, and you leave no room for someone being prompted to do good and doing evil instead. In other words, you are starting with your conclusion - no free will exists.
3)I do not equate promptings with impulses. A prompting is sort of tap on the shoulder, a still small voice, while an impulse is unthinking and comes from the gut. Sorry about the metaphors, but I make a distinction between them.
Posted by MightyCow (Member # 9253) on :
Thank you for the clarification. OK, I'll see if I understand any better.
So the light of Christ influences all people, and if people do good, it is because they are following the prompting of God.
As far as good or bad choices, it seems that the only way people can choose to do good, is if they are correctly prompted by God. We do not have it in us to do good without following God's prompting.
So with no prompting, one cannot do good. It then follows that good acts have some threshold of prompting that allows us to complete them. More prompting should produce a greater likelihood of good acts.
If tell your child once to say please and thank you, or you remind them every time the opportunity arises to say please and thank you, it is obvious that the stronger prompting will produce better results, even thought you never once remove the child's free agency in the matter.
If a parent only told their child once to say please and thank you, and the child thereafter didn't say them, it seems clear to me that more prompting on the part of the parent would have produced an equally free yet more polite child.
Shouldn't the same apply to God? If people choose to do non-good acts, isn't it logical that God could prompt them more consistently, more clearly, or more forcefully to better encourage right behavior?
Why is the light of Christ influencing a mass-murderer only a still, small voice when he should be shouting in the man's ear "Thou Shalt Not Kill!"?
Posted by Javert Hugo (Member # 3980) on :
quote: It then follows that good acts have some threshold of prompting that allows us to complete them. More prompting should produce a greater likelihood of good acts.
No, it doesn't necessarily follow. I disagree with that leap there.
I think that the amount of prompting and light we do get from the light of Christ is plenty enough to show the way to doing good acts if we want to.
I think that, fundamentally...I think that fundamentally you are not placing a high value on free will and are therefore holding God responsible for people's choices. When people behave badly, then you think God is doing something wrong.
That's the fundamental assumption I disagree with.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
MightyCow, the metaphor of God as parent is generally useful, but seems to be an obstacle here. These promptings are, I believe, better thought of as coming from the God that is present within us as coming from some external source.
And I do think that we all have that good as part of us. I do think that some people or even all people under different circumstances have more obstacles to accessing that good inside them. Some of those things can include physical problems like those mentioned above. Sometimes being incarnate sucks.
Posted by MightyCow (Member # 9253) on :
JH: Your view of free will certainly has some constraints built in. People are only as free as God allows them to be free, as they are unable to do good except with the prompting of God's light.
Why not allow people as much freedom as they want, as long as it's good? I can't physically jump from the ground and fly, but I still consider myself free, even with that constraint. It makes sense that I could still be free if I was constrained to not do evil.
Posted by Javert Hugo (Member # 3980) on :
Hmm...you know, I never said your second sentence there. That's a constraint you've invented.
The light of Christ is always there, and since people can clearly do crap in spite of it, it sure doesn't look like compulsion.
quote:Why not allow people as much freedom as they want, as long as it's good.
Because we don't learn anything that way and we don't grow. Opposition in all things, and we are here on earth for a purpose - to grow and develop through experience and making (true) choices.
I think that's one of the scariest things about this life - we are subject to other people's crappy choices. It isn't just that I'm afraid of the consequences of MY choices; I am a little afraid of the consequences of other people's choices, as I do not live in a bubble (although this recent Summer of Buffy got pretty close).
Still, the freedom is worth the risk.
Posted by camus (Member # 8052) on :
quote:That about sums up my church's philosophy on it. We can choose to be like God, or we can choose to focus on ourselves.
That's the bit that confuses folks sometimes. Sin and evil are everything that aren't of God. So you don't have to be out killing folks to be evil. You just have to be preoccupied with yourself instead of others.
I think that's fairly close to how I originally learned it. Basically, evil is the absence of God in one's life in the same way that a shadow is not itself an object, merely the absence of light. Although, admittedly I'm not sure if that's something I actually believe.
----
quote:The light of Christ is always there, and since people can clearly do crap in spite of it, it sure doesn't look like compulsion.
If people have to take the blame for when they choose to bad things, they should likewise get the credit for the good things they choose to do. God shouldn't get the credit unless he took away the choice altogether and made you do the good thing.
quote:Still, the freedom is worth the risk.
What about when God intervenes in human affairs? Do those people still have free will?
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:I think that the amount of prompting and light we do get from the light of Christ is plenty enough to show the way to doing good acts if we want to.
If we want to, why do we need the prompting, again?
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
quote:If people have to take the blame for when they choose to bad things, they should likewise get the credit for the good things they choose to do. God shouldn't get the credit unless he took away the choice altogether and made you do the good thing.
You are right (edit: in that people do deserve credit for the correct choices they make, and God specifically says rewards are both here and forthcoming), but for many the ability to be proud of one's own choices comes pretty easy, while the desire to acknowledge God comes with difficulty. God takes credit insofar that he helped make you who you are. Our spirits were created by Him, how we act brings glory or shame to God.
quote: What about when God intervenes in human affairs? Do those people still have free will?
They sure do, but so does God.
[ August 23, 2007, 06:16 PM: Message edited by: BlackBlade ]
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
quote:Originally posted by MightyCow: If tell your child once to say please and thank you, or you remind them every time the opportunity arises to say please and thank you, it is obvious that the stronger prompting will produce better results, even thought you never once remove the child's free agency in the matter.
If a parent only told their child once to say please and thank you, and the child thereafter didn't say them, it seems clear to me that more prompting on the part of the parent would have produced an equally free yet more polite child.
Leaving aside everything but the metaphor here, I have to say that it is clear you have no kids.
No, reminding your kids every time certainly does NOT produce "better results" by any measure I can think of: sincerity, spontaneity, child's attitude, likelihood of appreciation by the recipient, or affect on future behavior.
Posted by Javert Hugo (Member # 3980) on :
quote:If people have to take the blame for when they choose to bad things, they should likewise get the credit for the good things they choose to do. God shouldn't get the credit unless he took away the choice altogether and made you do the good thing.
Sure. When people make good choices, there's credit enough for everybody - the Lord, the person, their mother, etc.
Posted by camus (Member # 8052) on :
Ok, so if God were to withdraw his good impulses*, would humans be incapable of doing good?
* Psalm 51:11 - Cast me not away from thy presence; and take not thy holy spirit from me.
Posted by Javert Hugo (Member # 3980) on :
Again, impulses is not the word I would use and I don't agree that it is applicable to what I'm talking about.
I see a difference between the light of Christ and the Holy Ghost. The Holy Ghost can (and will sometimes) withdraw, but the light of Christ never goes away.
The light of Christ is like the background radiation in the universe - it's always there. It is enough for everyone to know the difference between good and evil. The influence of the Holy Ghost is much more...dynamic. It is the Holy Ghost that comforts, answers prayers, and that may withdraw if we offend or reject the Lord.
So...it's like asking if we would stay on the earth without gravity. It's not a situation that occurs.
Posted by MightyCow (Member # 9253) on :
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade: God takes credit insofar that he helped make you who you are. Our spirits were created by Him, how we act brings glory or shame to God.
People seem much less willing to blame God for human failings, even though our flawed spirits were created by Him as well.
Posted by Javert Hugo (Member # 3980) on :
Hmm...I think we are flawed because we are young, eternity-speaking, and not that the flaws were deliberately introduced.
Posted by camus (Member # 8052) on :
Perhaps I should rephrase my question.
So the only reason why humans are able to do something good is because of the light of Christ and without the light of Christ in the universe, humans could only be evil all the time?
When an atheist does something good, is it because he is unknowingly listening to the light of Christ?
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
What about someone, such as myself, who consciously rejects the light of Christ. Do we not have the free will to do that or are the people who do just doomed to be evil?
Posted by Javert Hugo (Member # 3980) on :
quote:So the only reason why humans are able to do something good is because of the light of Christ and without the light of Christ in the universe, humans could only be evil all the time?
Absense of the light of Christ in the world? I'd say amoral rather than immoral. If there is no goodness, there is no evil. No light, there's no absense of it.
Also, I never said that humans are only able to do good because of the light of Christ.
quote:When an atheist does something good, is it because he is unknowingly listening to the light of Christ?
I think when someone does something good, it is because he chooses to. However, if he determined it was good, he knew it was good because of the light of Christ.
Posted by MightyCow (Member # 9253) on :
quote:Originally posted by rivka: Leaving aside everything but the metaphor here, I have to say that it is clear you have no kids.
No, reminding your kids every time certainly does NOT produce "better results" by any measure I can think of: sincerity, spontaneity, child's attitude, likelihood of appreciation by the recipient, or affect on future behavior.
I don't have my own children, but I do recall from my childhood that being taught anything generally involved the teacher being willing to put some effort into my education.
Since I'm unqualified to discuss children, let's change it to adults. If an adult, in college for example (which I have attended) is shown a series of slides about a subject vs. carefully and thoroughly told the ins and outs of a subject, I think any rational person could agree that giving someone more intense education would tend to give a greater number of people a greater ability to correctly understand and perform the subject at hand.
Maybe children don't learn things, they simply know them based on their temperament or some magical tendency to Know, but to the best of my understanding, adults often learn things better when they're taught better.
Maybe the holy spirit should spend more time educating people who need more help, rather than retreating from them because they offend it. It would be a poor teacher who gave all students the same background attention, rather than helping those who needed some extra attention.
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
MC, rivka's pretty much right, but I think you may have misunderstood the point of her criticism. Kids don't generally behave better if you prompt them every time.
Your mistake was the every, not the suggestion that more prompting often gets better results than less.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
Okay, I think we've pretty soundly proved the philosophical emptiness of the "all goodness comes from God" claim, except in those cases when "God" is defined as "all things which are good" instead of an actual entity.
Posted by Javert Hugo (Member # 3980) on :
I don't agree. You're wrong about that.
Posted by MightyCow (Member # 9253) on :
TomDavidson: You haven't proven anything! They're just getting warmed up! Posted by camus (Member # 8052) on :
quote:I think when someone does something good, it is because he chooses to. However, if he determined it was good, he knew it was good because of the light of Christ.
So goodness (and therefore evil) exist independent of the Lord or the light of Christ. However, the light of Christ is necessary to determine the difference between good and evil, like a conscience of sorts, and whether [edit]a person views that as the light of Christ or not is a separate matter? So when people thank God for goodness, they are really thanking God for the ability to recognize what is good?
Posted by Noemon (Member # 1115) on :
Is this "Light of Christ" the same thing as the fruit of the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil?
Posted by Javert Hugo (Member # 3980) on :
quote:So goodness (and therefore evil) exist independent of the Lord or the light of Christ. However, the light of Christ is necessary to determine the difference between good and evil, like a conscience of sorts, and whether he views that as the light of Christ or not is a separate matter?
Hmm...yeah, this is about what I think.
quote:So when people thank God for goodness, they are really thanking God for the ability to recognize what is good?
The ability in themselves and in others? Hmm...I wouldn't limit God that much (more direct influence through the Holy Ghost is possible, usually when sought) but that's a good description of the everpresent minimum.
Noemon: I don't know - that's never occurred to me. Can I think about it/look things up and come back?
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
I'm a little confused. Does the light of Christ just grant the ability to determine good from evil, or does it impel a person towards doing good?
Also, is it forced on people against their will?
Posted by Noemon (Member # 1115) on :
quote:Originally posted by Javert Hugo: Noemon: I don't know - that's never occurred to me. Can I think about it/look things up and come back?
Sure! I'm definitely interested in hearing your thoughts once you've had a chance to mull it over.
Posted by Javert Hugo (Member # 3980) on :
Noemon: According to Moroni in the Book of Mormon, yeah, it looks like the same kind of thing.
quote:18 And now, my brethren, seeing that ye know the light by which ye may judge, which light is the light of Christ, see that ye do not judge wrongfully; for with that same judgment which ye judge ye shall also be judged. 19 Wherefore, I beseech of you, brethren, that ye should search diligently in the light of Christ that ye may know good from evil; and if ye will lay hold upon every good thing, and condemn it not, ye certainly will be a child of Christ.
As for my thoughts, I have to admit that I'm less sure about what exactly/literally happened in the Garden of Eden than I am about the light of Christ. It kind of looks like the same thing, though. For reference, I'm more using what I know/feel about the light of Christ to explain the fall from Eden than the other way around.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:I don't agree. You're wrong about that.
I didn't necessarily expect you to see that it's been proven. But it has.
Unless your definition of "God" is "all good things," the idea that an active prompting from some aspect of God is responsible for all good has been demonstrated in this thread as being completely incompatible with free will.
Now, it's fine to think of "God" as some passive reservoir of "goodness" on which people can choose to draw, but implying that this reservoir actively pushes itself on people runs aground almost immediately on the Problem of Evil.
Posted by camus (Member # 8052) on :
quote:Is this "Light of Christ" the same thing as the fruit of the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil?
One of the interpretations of that account that I've heard was that the tree symbolized God's right to determine good and evil and that right was forbidden to Adam and Eve. Thus, the eating of the fruit symbolized Adam and Eve's desire to decide for themselves what good and evil is instead of listening to God, in essence trying to usurp God's position.
Posted by Javert Hugo (Member # 3980) on :
Neither of the above statements is an accurate description of what I have been saying. That's why you're wrong - you're refuting the wrong thing.
camus: Hmm...while I haven't worked out everything that I think about the Garden of Evil, I don't think that.
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
Is the light of Christ culturalyl specific or a more general thing?
It would seem to me that people's knowledge of what is good and evil is based strongly on the culture in which they were raised. Different times and cultures blithely accepted things that we now consider barbaric and evil. Was the light of Christ just insufficient to overcome their cultural conditioning such that they really didn't have a problem with evil, or does it embrace the culture in which people are raised?
---
quote:One of the interpretations of that account that I've heard was that the tree symbolized God's right to determine good and evil and that right was forbidden to Adam and Eve. Thus, the eating of the fruit symbolized Adam and Eve's desire to decide for themselves what good and evil is instead of listening to God, in essence trying to usurp God's position.
But the immediate change that came from eating the fruit was knowledge, not judgement. They suddenly knew they were naked. They didn't know they were naked all along and then decide for themselves that this should not be.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
quote:Originally posted by MrSquicky: I'm a little confused. Does the light of Christ just grant the ability to determine good from evil, or does it impel a person towards doing good?
Also, is it forced on people against their will?
The way I see it, is that since we are created in God's image and likeness, we are imbued with a sympathy towards what is good. The light of Christ is that sympathy, that spark of the divine by which we partially base our decisions on. By listening to it it remains there for us, if we deceive ourselves or actively go against it, it grows weaker until we just can't feel it anymore.
Also I don't think you truly understand the magnitude of the phrase, "I conciously deny the light of Christ."
Posted by MightyCow (Member # 9253) on :
Perhaps, just as Javert Hugo has been telling us what she means for two pages and some of us just can't manage to tell it back to her correctly, the Light of God might tell some people how to behave correctly, and they can't manage to understand what it's saying either.
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade: Also I don't think you truly understand the magnitude of the phrase, "I conciously deny the light of Christ."
No offense Mr. Squicky, but I hope it means you grow horns and a tail and start breathing smoke. That would rule! Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:That's why you're wrong - you're refuting the wrong thing.
I'm refuting the idea that all conscious good deeds are a consequence of active prompting by a God who respects Free Will. If you're not saying this, I'm not refuting what you're saying. Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
quote:Perhaps, just as Javert Hugo has been telling us what she means for two pages and some of us just can't manage to tell it back to her correctly, the Light of God might tell some people how to behave correctly, and they can't manage to understand what it's saying either.
This is entirely possible. It's not as if the light of Christ always spells out specific action (though it certainly can), it just helps you think. But it like any attribute grows when it is exercised, and I am convinced that not everyone experiences it to an equal degree initially.
edit Javert Hugo: In fairness to Tom I think I agree with his last statement. Think of Christ's statement on the cross, "Father! Why has thou forsaken me?" Clearly, at least to me, Christ was left on his own to determine whether He would actually chose to be an agent of good unto himself without having the luxury of His father's will constantly in his mind, something He had spent his entire life basing his decisions on.
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
quote:Also I don't think you truly understand the magnitude of the phrase, "I conciously deny the light of Christ."
Explain it to me, than. I strongly doubt you know my moral state or what I base my decisions on better than I do.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
quote:Originally posted by MrSquicky:
quote:Also I don't think you truly understand the magnitude of the phrase, "I conciously deny the light of Christ."
Explain it to me, than. I strongly doubt you know my moral state or what I base my decisions on better than I do.
Oh I don't doubt the latter statement. We will make this simple. Can you agree with this statement?
"I wish to inflict suffering and misery on all who are good at all times and through all eternity. I will do this so that they can all be miserable, as I am."
Posted by MightyCow (Member # 9253) on :
Oh crap, MrSquicky's out to make our lives hell. Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
BB, I think it's safe to say that Squicky's point was that consciously rejecting "the Light of Christ" did not have "inflict suffering and misery on everyone who is good" as a necessary consequence. Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson: BB, I think it's safe to say that Squicky's point was that consciously rejecting "the Light of Christ" did not have "inflict suffering and misery on everyone who is good" as a necessary consequence.
If that is true, then I am right to say he does not understand the magnitude of the statement, as that is what it MEANS when it is said.
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
quote:"I wish to inflict suffering and misery on all who are good at all times and through all eternity. I will do this so that they can all be miserable, as I am."
If that's who I really am, then yes.
I don't want your descolada. I don't desire misery or evil...just freedom. But if I can't be good without your god forcing it on me, I don't want it. I am completely serious about that.
---
edit: I've got to wonder, does consciously rejecting Christ's light also destroy my ability to reason? Because I rest a significant part of my morality of reasoning out the effects of my actions, and this is inconsistent with what you are describing as the necessary effects of my desire.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
quote:Originally posted by MrSquicky:
quote:"I wish to inflict suffering and misery on all who are good at all times and through all eternity. I will do this so that they can all be miserable, as I am."
If that's who I really am, then yes.
I don't want your descolada. I don't desire misery or evil...just freedom. But if I can't be good without your god forcing it on me, I don't want it. I am completely serious about that.
Could you elaborate? I don't see why you think God is forcing you to be good. God simply embodies all that is good, while Satan embodies the opposite. You choose which force you are going to support as you cannot support both. God did not create the force we call good, he has simply attuned himself to it perfectly. That is it, the end. If you chose to support God you become an agent unto yourself for good (is that not freedom?). If you support Satan he dominates you and makes you his slave in misery.
As far as I know there is no third option where you reject God and Satan and move out to some other universe and live by your own rules.
edit: and if you truly were evil you would deny that that statement applies to you, as anyone who is truly evil knows that deception is the name of the game when it comes to destroying the good. You're too honest to be evil Mr S Posted by twinky (Member # 693) on :
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade:
quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson: BB, I think it's safe to say that Squicky's point was that consciously rejecting "the Light of Christ" did not have "inflict suffering and misery on everyone who is good" as a necessary consequence.
If that is true, then I am right to say he does not understand the magnitude of the statement, as that is what it MEANS when it is said.
Presumably this is only true if the Light of Christ exists and is what you think it is.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
quote:Originally posted by twinky:
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade:
quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson: BB, I think it's safe to say that Squicky's point was that consciously rejecting "the Light of Christ" did not have "inflict suffering and misery on everyone who is good" as a necessary consequence.
If that is true, then I am right to say he does not understand the magnitude of the statement, as that is what it MEANS when it is said.
Presumably this is only true if the Light of Christ exists and is what you think it is.
No, presumably this is true if the Light of Christ exists and the description as given by the person who named that principle Light of Christ is to be believed.
Posted by twinky (Member # 693) on :
Isn't that what you think it is? I at least get points for brevity, right? Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
I am not supporting either. My life is not dedicated towards their purposes, but rather an expression of who I am.
I reject God and his interference with who I am. I reject Satan and his interference with who I am.
If who I am without their interference aligns with what they want, then I'll go along with them, but this choice is driven by who I am, rather than choosing one of them and letting them control who I am.
If morality to you is a matter of picking a side and doing what they tell you, how do you know you've made the right choice? As I've said before, it seems, based on their beliefs and behavior, more likely to me that most Christians are worshipping Satan than they are worshiping a benevolent deity.
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
I don't understand how, if God is not influencing me, I'll obviously turn to evil, unless my base nature is evil. If that is true and God is the embodiment of all that is good, then did Satan make me? It doesn't seem that the God that you are describing would create me evil.
Also, is the whole world naturally evil without God's influence? If so, did Satan create it all? But if so, then wouldn't God's claim to have created everything be a iie?
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
quote:If who I am without their interference aligns with what they want, then I'll go along with them, but this choice is driven by who I am, rather than choosing one of them and letting them control who I am.
I think we are in agreement on this point. According to our theology you are in fact espousing God's view while rejecting Satan's. It was Satan's plan to simply force those who live on earth to do good. It was God's to make us agents unto ourselves and give us the right to choose.
quote:If morality to you is a matter of picking a side and doing what they tell you, how do you nkow you've made the right choice?
Decide on the effects of your choices. Me, I've found that righteous choices empower me and make me ultimately happier, while wicked ones make me weak and miserable.
quote: As I've said before, it seems, based on their beliefs and behavior, more likely to me that most Christians are worshipping Satan than they are worshiping a benevolent deity.
Again deception is the name of the game when it comes to destroying the good. Nothing is more potent in its destruction then to convince somebody that God wants them to do something evil.
Posted by MightyCow (Member # 9253) on :
It sounds to me like worship isn't really a conscious act in this paradigm. If I kick a puppy, I don't first think, "I praise you, Dark Lord Satan, Prince of Midnight, Lord of Liars, and to you I devote this act of sin and wickedness. Hail Satan!"
Each time I make an incorrect moral choice, am I literally rejecting God and joining Team Satan? If so, it seems that we all worship Satan on a frequent basis, especially with that bit in the Bible about how if you think about something sinful, you've already sinned.
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
quote:I've found that righteous choices empower me and make me ultimately happier, while wicked ones make me weak and miserable.
You can tell good from evil because it makes you feel good? To me, that's an awful standard to use. If your nature is evil, then satisfying it would make you feel good. Also, were I actually a sneaky, conniving deity intent on tricking people into my service, I would go about making them miserable when they were in the entry stages. I'd make them feel good, so that they would keep doing, focused on the fact that it makes them feel good rather than the morality involved.
Is your version of Satan really, really supid?
---
edit:
For that matter, am I? If doing the right thing makes me feel good and doing the wrong thing makes me feel bad, why would I, absent outside interference, constantly choose to do the wrong thing? It seems to me like I'd prefer feeling good over feeling bad. Or does this preference rest on having God's interference as well?
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
The other theists currently participating in this discussion have a rather different view of how God interacts (a somewhat misleading term in my view) with us. I am torn between wanting to leap in and clarifu points of difference and being concerned that it would be too complicated to discuss different ideas of God at the same time.
I'm willing to wait to answer some of these questions if we think that would be easier with the caveat that these answers are not what I would say. And to say again that thinking of God as something apart from oneself is misleading.
Does that make sense?
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
quote:Again deception is the name of the game when it comes to destroying the good. Nothing is more potent in its destruction then to convince somebody that God wants them to do something evil.
That's kind of my point. Many, many Christians do and have done terrible things in the name of God (edit: and thought they were happy doing so - check out some of the Crusader/pogrom poetry for example)*. So, obviously, they were worshipping Satan who said he was God. How do you know that you are not?
---
*Actually, caveat, no one answered my question before about the possibly cultural specific nature of Christ's light - maybe what they did wasn't terrible because it was accepted by their culture.
I'll ask again, is the moral perception granted by Christ's light culturally specific or general? If it is general, how can so many people have done so many things we now see as evil with clear consciences?
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
Mighty Cow:
quote:Each time I make an incorrect moral choice, am I literally rejecting God and joining Team Satan? If so, it seems that we all worship Satan on a frequent basis, especially with that bit in the Bible about how if you think about something sinful, you've already sinned.
Very well put.
quote:You can tell good from evil because it makes you feel good?
No, I said because it makes me HAPPY. All that makes me happy makes me feel good, but all that makes me feel good does not make me happy.
quote:Also, were I actually a sneaky, conniving deity intent on tricking people into my service, I would go about making them miserable when they were in the entry stages. I'd make them feel good, so that they would keep doing, focused on the fact that it makes them feel good rather than the morality involved.
Satan strictly speaking is not a deity, though he does have power. And your summation of one of his strategies is aptly stated.
quote:Is your version of Satan really, really stupid?
I must be mistaken in my interpretation of your remarks as your, "What I would do if I were the devil," matches what Satan actually does.
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
quote:And to say again that thinking of God as something apart from oneself is misleading.
boots, Yuo're talking about the difference between an immanent (your view) and a transcendent (the separate entity thing) god. I understand that very well.
I understand that you don't subscribe to the theology being dicussed here and I agree that, while you have interesting contributions on related issues, they don't really fit into the current conversation.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
Cool. Later, then.
Have fun!
[ August 24, 2007, 11:52 AM: Message edited by: kmbboots ]
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
BB, Okay, so if I were Satan, I'd try to make people happy (or trick them into thinking that they are). As such, how is that a good determiner for being on the right side?
Posted by camus (Member # 8052) on :
BB, If God determines for us what is good and what is evil, how do we know that God himself is good and not just using this light of Christ to make us think he's good? I would think that we'd have to be able to distinguish good and evil on our own independently in order to recognize that God himself is good.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
quote:Originally posted by MrSquicky: BB, Okay, so if I were Satan, I'd try to make people happy (or trick them into thinking that they are). As such, how is that a good determiner for being on the right side?
That is a very good question, but I must politely decline to answer in full for now as I need to go to classes.
I will tell you that Satan is incapable of suggesting that we do something that is entirely good. His suggestions are always corrupt or counterfeit versions of what is right.
Posted by camus (Member # 8052) on :
quote:I will tell you that Satan is incapable of suggesting that we do something that is entirely good. His suggestions are always corrupt or counterfeit versions of what is right.
Why? Satan wasn't always a completely evil creature. He surely wasn't created that way.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
Apparently Satan has no free will.
Posted by MightyCow (Member # 9253) on :
If we are unable to see good on our own, and can only know that something is good by trusting an unverifiable outside source, how can we ever have any judgment on our own? We can't freely choose to do good, we can only freely choose to follow the spiritual advice the Light of Christ (we presume) gives us.
How would we be able to tell if Satan were tricking us into thinking we are doing good, while we were actually doing evil, if we have no capacity to recognize good on our own?
Posted by Javert Hugo (Member # 3980) on :
That's like asking how we are supposed to stand if there is no gravity. It's not an issue.
quote:We can't freely choose to do good,
This isn't true. It's actually the opposite of what I had said.
Posted by MightyCow (Member # 9253) on :
You said we have to choose good, but we can only know that it's good when the Light of Christ shows us that it's good. If I can only do something with the assistance of an outside force, I don't consider that I'm completely free in doing it. If I ignore the outside force, and try to do it on my own, I am incapable.
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
quote:That's like asking how we are supposed to stand if there is no gravity. It's not an issue.
Of course it is. Either God doesn't respect free will and forces Christ's light on us or it is possible to be without Christ's light.
Posted by Javert Hugo (Member # 3980) on :
Mighty Cow: Nothing you have said eliminates free will.
It looks like you believe that freedom can only exist in a vacuum.
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
I don't want God forcing his interference on me and changing how I make decisions. How is that not a free will issue?
Posted by MightyCow (Member # 9253) on :
You said earlier that God couldn't eliminate the option to do evil, because that would take away our free will. Why doesn't it take away our free will when he just limits our action a little bit? Why not a little bit more?
Posted by Javert Hugo (Member # 3980) on :
What do you mean? Are you saying that the existence of the light of Christ limits our actions?
It isn't like that at all. It's like...having all the evidentiary documents in a case available to a judge before he decides. The existence of evidence doesn't take away the judge's freedom to decide badly (or wisely).
People are entirely capable of behaving monstrously in spite of it.
Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson: Apparently Satan has no free will.
Thats a lie i have lots of......
*whistles*
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
kat, I'll ask again, is this light of Christ dependent on the culture that the person is in and if not, why did so many people do things we now regard as evil with a clear and even joyous conscience?
Posted by camus (Member # 8052) on :
quote:quote: -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- That's like asking how we are supposed to stand if there is no gravity. It's not an issue. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Of course it is. Either God doesn't respect free will and forces Christ's light on us or it is possible to be without Christ's light.
Gravity is an ever present force that affects you without depriving you of free will. I imagine that's kind of the way Kat views the Light of Christ (Kat: correct me if I'm wrong). Maybe like a compass that can help you find your way, but you still have to decide what course you actually take. However, I don't agree with the idea that a person is incapable of finding his way on his own.
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
camus, Christ's Light must be something added to a person, otherwise it would just be part of that person and not granted to him from an outside source. It is something that apparently changes how you make decisions. Thus, if a person does not want it, God is chaging the way they make decisions against their will. To me, that's a clear violation of free will.
Unlike Christ's Light, gravity does not affect the way you make decisions. It is a property of the things you make decisions about.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
(Seriously, MrSquicky, you're killing me here.)
Posted by MightyCow (Member # 9253) on :
Sometimes I'm frightened by the number of religious folks in America, because it seems at times - this conversation as a prime example - that the world views and basic assumptions of theists and atheists can be at such odds that we can't make ourselves understood to each other.
I can see what JH and BB are saying, the words all make sense individually, but it doesn't make logical sense to me. I'm guessing that they might have a similar view about my take on things.
It seems that the very foundation upon which we discuss - the way logic works for each of us, what we understand as freedom vs. bondage or enabling vs. constraining, the conclusions we draw from a given statement - are all so out of phase that we keep trying to find ways of saying what we mean in different ways, but they all end up being something the other side can't understand or won't accept.
I might, for example, say "The trinity is three things. You can't have three things that are one thing. That makes no logical sense just based on the nature of objects and the way math works."
A Christian might then reply, "Obviously you can have three things which are all one, in the special case of the Holy Trinity, because that's exactly what it is."
I'd have as much luck finding the Loch Ness monster by looking in my bathtub while putting a bicycle in the sink.
Hold on, that's actually a perfect analogy for the Problem of Evil. It all makes sense now. Never mind then.
Posted by camus (Member # 8052) on :
quote:It is something that apparently changes how you make decisions.
I'm not quite sure how you got that from kat's definition. It sounded to me like the Light of Christ is a way to measure good and evil, to compare your standards to God's. Whether a person agrees with those standards is completely up to each individual.
That's why I think I like the compass analogy. The Light of Christ could be compared to the effect of the earth's magnetic field. If your spiritual compass is attuned to it, it can provide direction in life. You are also free to completely ignore it or disagree with what it says. Whether God's view of goodness and evil is important to you and is a factor in the decisions you make is completely up to you.
Posted by MightyCow (Member # 9253) on :
Camus, I think that analogy only works if people are unable to determine direction by any means except a compass, and are unable to go north except when they use the compass to do so.
Posted by camus (Member # 8052) on :
MC, And that's where I take exception to Kat's assertion. She implies that you can only find your way or direction (to do Good) by using the compass (or Light of Christ). I think people are completely capable of finding their way without having to rely completely on her definition of God.
Edit to add: Of course, I also disagree that there's some absolute standard of Goodness.
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
quote:Originally posted by MightyCow: A Christian might then reply, "Obviously you can have three things which are all one, in the special case of the Holy Trinity, because that's exactly what it is."
More focused on Catholics actually. IIRC, during the early days of the Reformation, there were pretty harsh words exchanged about the nature of the trinity between Protestants and Catholics. Although that antipathy seems to have died down now.
Of course, the key is to realize that God is really just the Three Musketeers of deities, "All for one, and one for all" Posted by Strider (Member # 1807) on :
quote:Blackblade said:
quote:You choose which force you are going to support as you cannot support both. God did not create the force we call good, he has simply attuned himself to it perfectly. That is it, the end. If you chose to support God you become an agent unto yourself for good (is that not freedom?). If you support Satan he dominates you and makes you his slave in misery.
If only the world were as black and white as that. If only each and every act could be easily filed away under the concept of "good" or "evil". Decisions would be so easy. We would have no need to discuss moral and ethical issues with each other to determine the proper course of action. There would be no need for a judge to determine someone's sentence, because no special circumstances would ever matter when it comes down to "evil" or "good".
Furthermore, even if I did agree with your above statement, I reject the idea that you choose to support god, and thus become an agent for good. I choose to support "good" and if that aligns me with god, great. You might look at this as an unimportant distinction as in your eyes god and good are one and the same, but to me it makes a world of difference. It's a matter of doing good for the sake of doing good, because from reason, logic, emotion, empathy, i've decided it is the best way to act, rather than doing good because i think i'm told to or for whatever other reason.
Posted by Uprooted (Member # 8353) on :
Well, I don't have time right now to read the whole thread but a glance at this page looks like my "thanks for the link, Noemon, quite a story" post is going to be highly irrelevant to the discussion at hand. But thanks anyway.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
quote:I will tell you that Satan is incapable of suggesting that we do something that is entirely good. His suggestions are always corrupt or counterfeit versions of what is right.
I made a mistake in using the word incapable. What I meant to say is that Satan will not cause anyone to do anything entirely good. Just as God simply does not choose to do evil, Satan does not choose to do good. God would cease to be God if he did something evil and Satan would cease to be a devil if he chose to do something good.
quote:If only the world were as black and white as that. If only each and every act could be easily filed away under the concept of "good" or "evil". Decisions would be so easy. We would have no need to discuss moral and ethical issues with each other to determine the proper course of action. There would be no need for a judge to determine someone's sentence, because no special circumstances would ever matter when it comes down to "evil" or "good".
Why does it matter that THIS world is not black and white? IMO we are here specifically to learn all the nuances of right and wrong. To fully realize what the fruits of righteousness and iniquity are. That includes making good and bad decisions. I refuse to believe that given enough time an individual could not learn all there is to know about ethics and rightness/wrongness. Maybe the entire process is not completed in this lifetime, but why does that even matter? We choose what we want to do with our time given and live with the consequences.
quote:Furthermore, even if I did agree with your above statement, I reject the idea that you choose to support god, and thus become an agent for good. I choose to support "good" and if that aligns me with god, great. You might look at this as an unimportant distinction as in your eyes god and good are one and the same, but to me it makes a world of difference. It's a matter of doing good for the sake of doing good, because from reason, logic, emotion, empathy, i've decided it is the best way to act, rather than doing good because i think i'm told to or for whatever other reason.
I fail to see how what you just said is contrary to what I have already said in previous posts.
I most certainly do choose to support that which is good, with or without the approval of a diety. However, since God embodies all that is good, by serving the good I inevitably must conclude that listening to God is good. Since he created me and my existance is continually reliant on Him, I already to an extent owe him some alligience. Even more, since He loves me completely, and wishes to share all that he has with me, I am quite comfortable, in fact I am eager to involve Him deeply in my affairs.
Posted by Leonide (Member # 4157) on :
BlackBlade, you believe that there are ultimate, universal definitions of "good" and "evil," which are not only capable of being learned by humans but which the defining of is our goal here on Earth AND when these are finally defined and applied, will, no matter the circumstance, be* wholly good and righteous, and will benefit all for the better?
edit: *not "by"
[ August 24, 2007, 02:55 PM: Message edited by: Leonide ]
Posted by Javert (Member # 3076) on :
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade: What I meant to say is that Satan will not cause anyone to do anything entirely good. Just as God simply does not choose to do evil, Satan does not choose to do good. God would cease to be God if he did something evil and Satan would cease to be a devil if he chose to do something good.
How did Satan become so absolute? He started as good, but then chose evil by fighting against god. What's to stop Satan from changing his mind and doing good?
The argument works for God because God has no history of being anything other than good. But Satan has been shown to be a "flip flopper".
Posted by camus (Member # 8052) on :
quote:since God embodies all that is good
Of course, you don't really know that for sure. In fact, you can't know that for sure. [Edit]Especially if God determines for you what is good and evil. You're taking his word for it that he is good, and since you've defined goodness to include everything that God is, does, and says, you can't possibly see it any other way.
Posted by Strider (Member # 1807) on :
My mother gave birth to me, and I owe her some allegiance. And yet, if she murdered someone, asked me to murder someone, or committed acts that I would consider evil based on my morals, that allegiance would end, even if the whole time she loved me completely. Being created by someone does not necessitate the creator being all good.
Also, why is your existence continually reliant on him? Your creation might have been, but if you're saying that god can come in and end your life at any moment, then I have some more questions about free will. If i'm to take that to mean that if someone shoots you and you die, you look at is god taking away the existence you gave you. This would pose some problems for the free will you've been talking about in regards to a person's choice to do good or evil.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
quote:BlackBlade, you believe that there are ultimate, universal definitions of "good" and "evil," which are not only capable of being learned by humans but which the defining of is our goal here on Earth AND when these are finally defined and applied, will, no matter the circumstance, be wholly good and righteous, and will benefit all for the better?
Did you mean be instead of by? If so, I think that's an accurate statement, I had to read it a few times.
quote:How did Satan become so absolute? He started as good, but then chose evil by fighting against god. What's to stop Satan from changing his mind and doing good?
If God, the arbiter of Good cannot persuade you to turn away from evil, what can?
quote: The argument works for God because God has no history of being anything other than good. But Satan has been shown to be a "flip flopper".
In Mormon theology God has not ALWAYS been God.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
quote:Of course, you don't really know that for sure. In fact, you can't know that for sure. [Edit]Especially if God determines for you what is good and evil. You're taking his word for it that he is good, and since you've defined goodness to include everything that God is, does, and says, you can't possibly see it any other way.
Numerous people make this point and my response has always been. We are assuming God is completely good, embodies all that is good. If we discard this assumption there isn't much to talk about anyway as who can stand against an all powerful being bent on doing what he wants with us?
quote: My mother gave birth to me, and I owe her some allegiance. And yet, if she murdered someone, asked me to murder someone, or committed acts that I would consider evil based on my morals, that allegiance would end, even if the whole time she loved me completely. Being created by someone does not necessitate the creator being all good.
You are right, but God does not do any of those things, or more accurately if God were to ask me to "murder" somebody, He'd have to call down higher principles ultimately that made that request make sense to me. God spends all His time trying to help me grow, thus my allegience continues.
quote:Also, why is your existence continually reliant on him? Your creation might have been, but if you're saying that god can come in and end your life at any moment, then I have some more questions about free will. If i'm to take that to mean that if someone shoots you and you die, you look at is god taking away the existence you gave you. This would pose some problems for the free will you've been talking about in regards to a person's choice to do good or evil.
I do not have very deeply developed opinions on whether God conciously keeps everyone alive, or whether he just sets things in motion and interferes when He does. I do believe that there is a greatest good, of which only God is fully aware of, and hence he gives and takes away life so as to create that greatest good.
Posted by Javert (Member # 3076) on :
quote: If God, the arbiter of Good cannot persuade you to turn away from evil, what can?
Touche. Did god try? (Serious question, I don't remember. Will have to look it up in my bible when I get home.)
quote:In Mormon theology God has not ALWAYS been God.
I think I knew that. Must brush up on my Mormon theology.
Posted by camus (Member # 8052) on :
quote:If we discard this assumption there isn't much to talk about anyway as who can stand against an all powerful being bent on doing what he wants with us?
Well, I may not be able to stand against an evil, all powerful being, but I would most certainly not give it my allegiance.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
quote:Touche. Did god try?
According to God He did try. Thanks for the acknowledgment.
quote:Well, I may not be able to stand against an evil, all powerful being, but I would most certainly not give it my allegiance.
If I recall King Of Men had some interesting views on how to deal with an all powerful diety that was not kind and benevolent.
Posted by camus (Member # 8052) on :
quote: If God, the arbiter of Good cannot persuade you to turn away from evil, what can?
If God cannot convince me to agree with his standard of Goodness, then I would think that there is no ultimate definition of Goodness.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
quote:If God cannot convince me to agree with his standard of Goodness, then I would think that there is no ultimate definition of Goodness.
Or perhaps you have chosen not to persue goodness. I'm sure if you asked Satan he would disagree on God's definition of goodness.
Posted by camus (Member # 8052) on :
Do you know what Satan's view of goodness is besides what God wants you to think it is? When you only hear one side of the story, I'm not sure why the default is to believe that the side you hear from is the most accurate view.
Edit: Further, I thought the accusation against Satan was not that he disagreed with what Goodness was but that Satan was just plain evil. If Satan honestly thought what he was doing was good, then I think he's being portrayed incorrectly.
Posted by Javert (Member # 3076) on :
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade:
quote:Touche. Did god try?
According to God He did try. Thanks for the acknowledgment.
Any time BB.
I disagree with you about nearly everything theologically, but you're very intelligent and you seem like good people. Hopefully I come off as somewhat close to that, hehe.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:Satan does not choose to do good. God would cease to be God if he did something evil and Satan would cease to be a devil if he chose to do something good.
What's in it for Satan to be a devil (by your definition)? I don't see why he couldn't be just as devillish if he did good occasionally. In fact, you can argue it'd make him far more effectively evil.
Posted by Javert (Member # 3076) on :
quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson:
quote:Satan does not choose to do good. God would cease to be God if he did something evil and Satan would cease to be a devil if he chose to do something good.
What's in it for Satan to be a devil (by your definition)? I don't see why he couldn't be just as devillish if he did good occasionally. In fact, you can argue it'd make him far more effectively evil.
I think BB covered that when he said Satan wouldn't do anything entirely good.
So he'll give you some candy (good), but only to lure you into oncoming traffic (not so good).
Or something like that.
Posted by Leonide (Member # 4157) on :
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade:
quote:BlackBlade, you believe that there are ultimate, universal definitions of "good" and "evil," which are not only capable of being learned by humans but which the defining of is our goal here on Earth AND when these are finally defined and applied, will, no matter the circumstance, be wholly good and righteous, and will benefit all for the better?
Did you mean be instead of by? If so, I think that's an accurate statement, I had to read it a few times.
Yes, be, not by.
I don't know that I follow how that could ever be the case. In fact, didn't Jesus show that even if the law is a good law, that doesn't mean we can't show empathy and compassion based on certain circumstances? His saving of the adulteress from being stoned, for instance. What would the universal law be, there? "Always condemn adulteresses, except those who the Son of God randomly chooses to spare to prove a point about the perils of immutable laws and lack of compassion for our fellow man's imperfections?"
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:I think BB covered that when he said Satan wouldn't do anything entirely good.
So he'll give you some candy (good), but only to lure you into oncoming traffic (not so good).
But why couldn't he just give you some candy because you wanted it and he had some? Sure, that might mean that he'd stop being a devil for a few seconds -- but there's no special power granted to a "devil," is there?
God gets certain powers by virtue of being God, so He has an incentive to only do good things. Satan doesn't, so there's no reason for him not to be good occasionally.
Posted by Leonide (Member # 4157) on :
I'm not sure, too, that I'm completely understanding BlackBlade's conception of "Satan" -- he's just a fallen angel, isn't he? I'm not sure if that's the accepted definition in Mormon theology.
Posted by MightyCow (Member # 9253) on :
All this hidden information, inability to make choices on our own, and so forth seems like a description the ultimate cosmic con game to me. If Satan were actually the one providing the Light Which Allows Us to Choose Stuff, we would have no way of knowing it was the Light of Evil, since we have no way of judging what the light shows us (which we presume is Goodness) except by the light.
If it were actually the Light Of Lucifer (rather than Christ) we would wrongly believe it to be Good, as we have no inherent ability to judge correctly that is able to disagree with the light.
Then our choices would be between Evil - ignoring the light, and Different Evil Pretending to be Good - following the light.
Presumably Satan has no qualms about limiting our free will.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
quote:Do you know what Satan's view of goodness is besides what God wants you to think it is? When you only hear one side of the story, I'm not sure why the default is to believe that the side you hear from is the most accurate view.
Edit: Further, I thought the accusation against Satan was not that he disagreed with what Goodness was but that Satan was just plain evil. If Satan honestly thought what he was doing was good, then I think he's being portrayed incorrectly.
Again an all powerful being who is not truly good can do as he pleases with us, not much we can do stop him.
The account of Satan's journey from Son of the Morning to Son of Perdition is not one that is perfectly explained. What is clear, if we add in the Mormon canon, is that Satan was once one of God's highest favored children. When confronted with God's plan for all His spirit creations He posited his own modifications (specifically direct control over everyone's actions/thoughts)to God's plan and his changes were rejected. Rather then submit to God's plan He rebelled and attempted to convince as many of God's children to join his insurrection. It is revealed that Satan's plan all along was to userp God's position and to rule over everything. Satan and those who chose him over God were expelled from Heaven and sent to earth. Here they willingly continue Satan's work of convincing those who are born here to rebel against God.
Satan could be called a fallen angel, but he seems to have a certain bounds and powers that are not discussed in the scriptures, except in an aside sort of way.
Apparently he and his followers can inhabit the bodies of those living, appear to us, speak to us, reason with us, suggest ideas into our minds, and in some cases physically harm us. The more heed we give them the more power they can exert over us.
But where Satan derives his power from is unclear, and exactly what he can and can't do is not elaborated on anywhere.
quote:God gets certain powers by virtue of being God, so He has an incentive to only do good things. Satan doesn't, so there's no reason for him not to be good occasionally.
*I* think Satan does indeed get powers for siding with evil, from a source I know nothing of. I don't think God granted him any power.
By following the principles of evil he grows in understanding of that particular brand of power.
I don't really wish to discuss Lucifer much more, very little is said about him, most of it is conjecture and opinion.
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
quote:Again an all powerful being who is not truly good can do as he pleases with us, not much we can do stop him.
Why are you assuming that this being is all powerful?
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
quote: *I* think Satan does indeed get powers for siding with evil, from a source I know nothing of. I don't think God granted him any power.
BB, shhh, it's Red Kryptonite. Shhh...don't tell the heathens.
Must interject to say that reading this thread in juxtaposition to say this:
Mr S: Because He has said so?
Posted by MattB (Member # 1116) on :
Squick, MC - From my perspective, the problem that you two and kat/BB are having is based on different definitions of what free will means.
From what I'm reading, it appears that you don't acknowledge the existence of soft determinism. That is, you believe that free will must be libertarian: our choices cannot be influenced by anything (such as, say, God) if they are to remain perfectly free. Now, setting aside the numerous problems with such a stance, I want to talk a bit more about Mormon theology.
The position BB and kat are advocating here is similar to prevenient grace in more mainline Christian theology, which holds that since we were utterly corrupted by the fall, we required God's help to allow us to choose good from evil. Squick holds that this help in itself is an imposition upon free will, but it seems to me that that's begging the question a bit, because he's coming from different assumptions from the Mormons or Methodists that believe in prevenient grace. That is, Squick doesn't believe that humanity ever existed in a situation that made such a thing necessary. So, while he - coming from a libertarian free will standpoint - sees such grace (or, if you like, light of Christ) as an imposition from God, kat and BB see it from a soft determinist perspective; that is, they believe that, yes, our choices are affected (or even determined) by the presence of an outside force, but that does not mean they are not still free. Folks like Thomas Hobbes believed this, so they're not in bad company.
Now, Mormon theology. Mormons are in a unique position here, because, unlike most classical Christianity, there's a great deal of theological ground to argue that God is not the source of all good or evil; these things exist separately from him (and indeed, there's some question as to whether these concept actually exist in the Platonic sense - whether there are universal *moral* as opposed to *physical* laws in the universe). This is because of a second proposition extant in Mormon thought: that being, we are not created by God; that our intelligences and will exist separately from him and are beyond his control. These two ideas, obviously, are intertwined.
So, what about the light of Christ or grace or whatnot? The concept of the 'light of Christ' is present, as kat indicated, in the Book of Mormon, but it's quite nebulous. Lots of people identify it as the conscience, but, of course, as Squick noted, such a thing is largely dependent upon cultural conditioning. What do we do with that? It's possible, as other Mormon thinkers have, to essentially identify the light of Christ with the promptings of the Holy Spirit; that is, guidance from God based upon his far superior knowledge of the way things happen to be. Other folks have essentially equated it with the prevenient grace that Wesley spoke of; that is, it is that result of the atonement that allows us to identify the godly in the world despite our fallen natures. That particular wording hasn't caught on because of Mormon thinking about the nature of the fall, but, there you go.
Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
I remember that there's this place in India where backstabbing, murder, betrayel, and all sorts of anti social behavior, to them it was all perfectly normal, when a missionary came by and showed them te bible they were big fans of Judas, they felt he was the hero of the story.
Moral is, how do we know what is good/evil if in some cultures such actions ARE to them good and perfectly socially acceptable.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
I couldn't stop laughing. Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:*I* think Satan does indeed get powers for siding with evil, from a source I know nothing of. I don't think God granted him any power.
Are you that much of a polytheist? *blink*
--------
quote:That is, you believe that free will must be libertarian: our choices cannot be influenced by anything (such as, say, God) if they are to remain perfectly free.
Isn't that the only common-sense approach to free will possible that still manages to address the Problem of Evil? To argue otherwise is to say that God could intervene in more cases to prevent evil, but does not for reasons which are not related to Free Will.
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
Tom: why would you be surprised? Many members of the LDS church are vague polytheists, for obvious reasons.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
Yeah, but there's a difference between being "vague polytheists" of the "there are multiple aspects of the same God" stripe and being a polytheist of the "there is some source of supernatural power which Satan taps by being evil that doesn't come from God" stripe.
Posted by porcelain girl (Member # 1080) on :
According to the lds faith, didn't God grant Satan certain dominion(s)? Isn't that like granting him power?
Posted by dkw (Member # 3264) on :
quote:Originally posted by Mucus: More focused on Catholics actually. IIRC, during the early days of the Reformation, there were pretty harsh words exchanged about the nature of the trinity between Protestants and Catholics.
You do not recall correctly. Protestants and Catholics did not differ on the doctrine of the Trinity.
</nitpick tangent>
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson: [QB] [QUOTE]*I* think Satan does indeed get powers for siding with evil, from a source I know nothing of. I don't think God granted him any power.
quote:Are you that much of a polytheist? *blink*
Is there something in your eye?
Look I just think it follows that if Mormons do not believe that God is the only God that has ever existed then Lucifer is likely not the only devil who has ever existed. But hey I could be wrong this is pure speculation. Also just because somebody has power does not make them a deity. Mormons believe the priesthood is the authority to act in the name of God and to utilize His power for good. That does not mean everyone who is ordained to the priesthood is a God or even anything approaching such a state.
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
quote:Originally posted by dkw:
quote:Originally posted by Mucus: More focused on Catholics actually. IIRC, during the early days of the Reformation, there were pretty harsh words exchanged about the nature of the trinity between Protestants and Catholics.
You do not recall correctly. Protestants and Catholics did not differ on the doctrine of the Trinity.
I do not think that is entirely true. However, I did some checking, I'm not sure which course/text I heard the initial reference to but I can find several quick links in Wikipedia which seem to back up my memory.
A)
quote:Unitarianism is the belief in the single personality of God, in contrast to the doctrine of the Trinity (three persons in one God). It is the philosophy upon which the modern Unitarian movement was based, and, according to its proponents, is the original form of Christianity. ... The Protestant Reformation of the 16th century saw in many European countries an outbreak, more or less serious, of anti-Trinitarian opinion. Suppressed as a rule in individual cases, this type of doctrine ultimately became the badge of separate religious communities, in Poland (extinct), Hungary and, at a much later date, in England. Compare to Sabellianism.
Along with the fundamental doctrine, certain characteristics have always marked those who profess unitarianism: a large degree of tolerance, a minimizing of essentials, a repugnance to formulated creed and an historical study of scripture.
Martin Cellarius (1499–1564), a friend of Luther, usually appears as the first literary pioneer (1527) of the movement; the anti-Trinitarian position of Ludwig Haetzer did not become public until after his execution (1529) for anabaptism.
B) As an example of the harsh words to which I referred:
quote: ... According to Priestley's Corruptions of Christianity, published in 1782, and many other of his books, the teachings of Jesus and his human character were obscured and obfuscated in the early Christian centuries. As the Church Fathers adapted Christianity to Mediterranean-primarily Greek-forms of thought, they contrived doctrines altogether foreign to Biblical thought, such as the doctrine of the Trinity. Jefferson assumed that a thoroughly reformed Christian faith, true to Jesus' teaching, would be purged of all Greek influence and doctrinal absurdity.
which lead to
quote: Ridicule is the only weapon which can be used against unintelligible propositions. Ideas must be distinct before reason can act upon them; and no man ever had a distinct idea of the trinity. It is the mere Abracadabra of the mountebanks calling themselves the priests of Jesus. -- Thomas Jefferson, letter to Francis Adrian Van der Kemp July 30, 1816
C) As a second example
quote: Though he is better known for his love of science, the Bible was Sir Isaac Newton's greatest passion. He devoted more time to the study of Scripture than to science, and said, "I have a fundamental belief in the Bible as the Word of God, written by those who were inspired. I study the Bible daily." ... Newton is generally thought to have been Arian, not holding to Trinitarianism. He listed "worshipping Christ as God" in a list of "Idolatria" in his theological notebook.
Now, as I said before, clearly the concept of the trinity has "won out" in mainstream protestant belief and the antipathy has died down a bit.
However, my main point was that belief in the trinity is not essential to being a Christian and (as an example) that protestants having been freed from papal authority were more free to advance beliefs that did not accept the trinity.
Edit to add: Perhaps we just have a miscommunication. When I say Protestant, I just mean "Those people that believe in the New Testament (more or less) and if not for the Reformation would probably be still in the Catholic Church." For me, where their beliefs came from is the most important (In scientific terms, I use monophyletic groups). However, I know there are Christians that would dispute whether groups such as Mormons, Deists, or Unitarians are Protestants or indeed whether they are "really" Christians.
Posted by dkw (Member # 3264) on :
Ah. Yes, we are using "Protestant" differently. I use it to mean, "those groups theologically decended from the Protestant reformers (Luther, Calvin, Zwingli, etc.) The "breaking of the monopoly" of the Roman Catholic church also allowed other groups to spring up.
Either way, it's incorrect to say that the idea of the Trinity is a "more focused on Catholic" doctrine. All the mainline protestant churches hold to it as well.
Posted by MattB (Member # 1116) on :
Actually, fugu, Mormons are henotheists. Satan in Mormon theology, however (assuming he actually exists) is not a God, because he does not have a body. He may, however, possess the same knowledge and powers that the pre-existent Christ did. As to BB's rather Manichean speculation; it has very little grounding in Mormon theology. However, we may say that God is God and good because he understands all the rules of the universe; such knowledge may be to some degree morally neutral in and of itself, and it is certainly possible to speculate that Satan is possessed of it to a degree that exceeds our own.
Tom - I'm not sure why theories of free will must be related to theodicy (certainly they can be, but must be, as you imply?) Anyhow, as you note, libertarian free will certainly resolves theodicy. This is the normal path of Mormon thought, I think, and it's what I myself subscribe to. It is, however, perfectly possible to deduce from the raw material of Mormonism (as kat has done here), that our ability to make good choices is dependent upon God's guidance and still justify God. There are the normal ways: some folks, many Mormons among them, would argue that evil in the world is necessary for God's ultimate goals, which are good (such as the development, and moral responsibility, of the human soul). This probably is unsatisfying, I know, to you, but it's at least logically possible.
Other Mormons would argue that even gives the sort of determinism kat postulates, God is still finite; the level of his influence over our decisions extends to only particular things which he would have happen - but things which he does not will are still possible. That's very soft determinism, but still falls within the bounds of compatibilism.
I should also make another distinction: It is possible to support theological libertarian free will and be a cultural or biological determinist of some variety. Or vice versa.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
MattB: I don't think that Manichean is a good adjective for what I believe. Certainly I do in many ways see the universe as a struggle between good and evil, light and dark. But I don't see matter as dark, and I certainly believe that light is far stronger then dark.
Posted by MattB (Member # 1116) on :
BB - I used the term kind of loosely, to describe your implication that Satan is drawing on some sort of particularly 'evil' power independent from God. Certainly, the term shouldn't be taken to imply that you believe that that power is God's equal and opposite. Still, I think it's a fair description of that position, unless I've misunderstood it.
Thanks for giving me the opportunity to clarify.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
quote:Originally posted by MattB: BB - I used the term kind of loosely, to describe your implication that Satan is drawing on some sort of particularly 'evil' power independent from God. Certainly, the term shouldn't be taken to imply that you believe that that power is God's equal and opposite. Still, I think it's a fair description of that position, unless I've misunderstood it.
Thanks for giving me the opportunity to clarify.
Oh well in that case I have no objections. Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
quote:Originally posted by dkw: Ah. Yes, we are using "Protestant" differently... Either way, it's incorrect to say that the idea of the Trinity is a "more focused on Catholic" doctrine. All the mainline protestant churches hold to it as well.
...wheras I would use something more like this this, except I would not really separate Restorationism (because of the monophyletic objection I noted earlier)
In any case, the key is I never said "mainline protestant", I just said "protestants". I wouldn't even be surprised if the trinity was used by so-called mainline protestants to discriminate between themselves and "non-mainline" protestants. I certainly saw it in that surreal (from my POV) debate between OSC and some Christian writer about whether Mormons (from my POV, just another group of Restorationists) were "really" Christians, let alone Protestants. *sigh*
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Laugh]](graemlins/laugh.gif)
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
![[Mad]](mad.gif)
![[ROFL]](graemlins/rofl.gif)