posted
It's ironic to me, Caleb, that you give Abraham as an example. Jewish midrashim (stories that explain the written text) say that he was the first person to find God using only his own mind and heart.
We believe that between the time of Noah and that of Abraham, the concept of monotheism had been lost. Idol worship was ubiquitous. In fact, Abraham's father was an idol merchant. Yet Abraham rejected idols -- the work of men's hands -- and looked elsewhere. He tried to find God in the world around him. He considered the sun, the moon, the stars, the land, the sea. But none had dominion over all others; so none could be the Supreme Ruler.
Eventually, Abraham came to the conclusion that there must be a God that he could not see, who ruled over all that he could. And yet, even though he could not prove the existence of such a God, he was willing to die for His Name. (Prophecy came many decades later.)
Here's something that sums up my thoughts on why God does not reveal Himself to us. (The rest of the essay.)
quote: The same is essentially true of our relationship to God. As long as He is hidden, we can strive toward Him, and attain the Godly. But we do this as a matter of free choice and are not overwhelmed by it. But if God were to reveal Himself, then man would no longer be able to exist as a free entity. He would know that he was always under the scrutiny of his Master, and that would make him into something less than human. He would be come some kind of puppet or robot, with an essential ingredient of his humanness destroyed. The only alternative would be rebellion.
But either alternative would cause more evil and suffering than would be alleviated by God's original intervention.
I agree that the food analogy is kindof a wash; especially since, absent of real knowledge about the choices at hand, any action you take will necessarily be guesswork, and I prefer to think that a loving God would not give our souls over to guesswork.
Conversely, though, I think that having faith as a necessary ingredient of any relationship implies that part of the bridge between the two entities would be guesswork, and therefore not really fitting for my own personal definition of a loving God.
Jacare -
I'm trying to put your response in terms of my questions...
Is it your contention that, if God were to make Himself overwhelmingly obvious to humanity, MORE human beings would reject God? Or do you mean that God simply does not want humans to be as culpable for their choices and actions than we could be? But if that's the case, what is the purpose of this diminished responsibility?
Rivka -
Hey rivka, thanks for the post. You know I've never heard your version of how Abraham came to have faith in Jehova. In the Bibles that I have studied, Abraham literally hears the voice of God on many occasions. The way I interpret "hears the voice of God" is that an audible voice is involved, and that to Abraham this voice in and of itself was enough to dispel all doubts of its origins; so much so that he was willing to risk everything to follow it. From where does your version come?
Beyond the Abraham question, though, there are many other people throughout the Bible who came into direct contact with some manifestation of God and then later displayed that their free will remained intact, both in obedience and disobedience. I never thought that the Bible implied that their obedience or lack thereof was more or less weighty given the evidence-based conditions of their faiths. And that's how I come to the conclusion that this:
quote:But if God were to reveal Himself, then man would no longer be able to exist as a free entity. He would know that he was always under the scrutiny of his Master, and that would make him into something less than human.
Must not be true. Knowing for a fact that we are "under the Master's scrutiny", it seems to me, would have a fulfilling effect on humankind rather than making it something lesser.
Take Adam and Eve for example. Were they not aware of God and his very presence? Did they not have free will?
Posts: 1307 | Registered: May 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:Or do you mean that God simply does not want humans to be as culpable for their choices and actions than we could be? But if that's the case, what is the purpose of this diminished responsibility?
So we are not as accontable as we would be otherwise. Since we are going to make choices, and will inevitably make some poor choices, then we are even more accountable for the wrong choices the more we know.
Not everyone is equally accountable, because not everyone is acting under the same knowledge. If we had perfect knowledge, and still screwed up continually with that knowledge, then we are held even more accountable, and it's harder to repent.
Posts: 26077 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Caleb, my anaolgy was only to try and explain why I don't think God could fully reveal Himself without a very serious negative effect. I agree, any relationship the relies on faith contains guesswork, but that doesn't mean that you can' make sound, logical choices to the best of your ability. And if you knew all the right choices before hand, what would choosing them really mean?
posted
Oh, I agree that you can definitely make sound and logical decisions based on faith. I do so every day.
I just don't agree that knowing you're making the right choice can somehow take away from the fact that you're making the right choice.
I certainly don't feel any less human when I stop at a red light (a decidedly robotic thing to do) because it's been proven to me that it is the law and that obedience thereof is in my best interest. In fact, it makes me feel like a responsible choice-making human being. Posts: 1307 | Registered: May 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote: I'm trying to put your response in terms of my questions...
Is it your contention that, if God were to make Himself overwhelmingly obvious to humanity, MORE human beings would reject God? Or do you mean that God simply does not want humans to be as culpable for their choices and actions than we could be? But if that's the case, what is the purpose of this diminished responsibility?
If God were to make himself overwhelmingly obvious to humanity then more human beings would be damned. That is pretty much the gist of it. Certainly more people would make correct choices, but every wrong choice would be an act of open rebellion to a greater or lesser extent since everyone would know exactly how they must act. I don't know how far a person must go to be irrevocably damned ( apoint where the atonement of Christ can no longer have any effect for that person), but that point would be a lot more reachable if God were obvious.
quote: But if that's the case, what is the purpose of this diminished responsibility?
The purpose of this diminished responsibility is to give us the chance to learn from our mistakes and to change our lives rather than going directly to hell (do not collect 200$) for our mistakes.
Posts: 4548 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
That's certainly true, that following what you know is right can be rewarding. But do you really learn anything if all you do is follow others commands? Expecially when they are omniscient?
But from where I'm sitting, your view of man's relationship to God is a lot more robotic--or animalistic, perhaps--than mine is. In your worldview man is purposefully kept in a certain amount of darkness so as to avoid the realities of consequence; but then it's worth pointing out that your view of mankind is significantly less optimistic than mine. Posts: 1307 | Registered: May 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
"No Tom, what I mean is that if you never have to think, you're just told what is right and wrong, what have you learned?"
But all those people who, for example, condemn homosexuality only because their religion says it's bad, but feel kind of guilty doing so because they personally don't see anything harmful about it, are just taking that position because they've been told what's right and wrong, even though it goes against their own gut feeling and experience.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
There's a difference between mindlessly following the commands of others and realizing that a law is intended for your safety as well as other people's safety... the point of the stoplight example is to show that obedience and knowledge together can be a rewarding AND growing experience, even if you didn't have to guess whether to stop or not. Posts: 1307 | Registered: May 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Does that mean that you shouldn't have to obey the laws if you don't believe they help?
What if it's one o'clock in the morning, you see no one on the roads for miles in each direction, and you run a red light? Is it wrong to not obey then?
Posts: 26077 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Caleb, midrashim are found in the Talmud and other writings. More info here. Oh, and certainly Abraham spoke to God; but that was much later in his life. He first received prophecy at the age of 70. (More midrashim about Abraham.)
Ok, I oversimplified, and you were right to call me on it. There are actually several incidents where God appeared unequivocally to those who were not really prepared to fully believe in Him so completely. I'll use the example you gave, of Adam and Eve. What did they do with this unequivocal knowledge? They tried to deny it, and they rebelled against Him. When humans are denied their free choice, they do have a second option. (The first is becoming little more than automatons.) The second is rebellion, an attempt to reclaim their right to choose.
quote: I certainly don't feel any less human when I stop at a red light (a decidedly robotic thing to do) because it's been proven to me that it is the law and that obedience thereof is in my best interest. In fact, it makes me feel like a responsible choice-making human being.
But what if you KNEW, with absolute certainty, that running the red light would mean your death. Then you still have a choice, but it's not nearly as indicative of your ability to choose responsibly.
posted
Yes, I agree with both of you Tom and Caleb. If someone thinks homosexuality is wrong and has no reasons than they should think through their position. I think it's OK to believe something that was just told to you if A) You think that the person who told it to you knows what they are talking about and B) It has little impact on your life. For instance, if someone just told me the equation for lift on a plane's wing who worked at Boeing, I would have to problem just taking their word for it. But if it was my English teacher, I'd have to go find out.
On the other end, if a civil engineer tells me that I would hate that career, I wouldn't just follow their advice despite the fact that it was coming from someone who knows what they are talking about. I would have to actually figure it out because that's far too important a desicion to make based on someone's word.
If somone thinks that homosexuality has little to no impact on them, and they have no plans of convincing anyone, I don't think there's anything wrong with just "God told me". But if they don't live that life, they need to do some reasearch and figure it out for themselves. I would assume that God will only condone or condem things for logical reasons, not just because. If I believe something is right or wrong I hope that I have logical reasons to back it up or I have no buisness trying to convince anyone else.
So I guess I can see where you're coming from. It's not always wrong to just be told what to do, sometimes you don't have time to fiure it out for such a small choice (or whatever). My point is that if you get to the end of your life and look back, you may have made all the right choices, but how would it have helped you if you just followed what others said?
I know for a certainty that if I were to murder someone in our society, my life would more or less be forfeit. But my choice not to murder someone is not based so much on my fear of the consequences as it is based on my understanding of the principles involved. It is just so with the stoplight. It could be one in the morning and no one around, and I would still feel guilty for running the red light whether or not there were consequences involved. The knowledge and understanding of the law are what lead me to obey it with any kind of meaning.
Posts: 1307 | Registered: May 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
But it's darkness with directions on how to get out, and the process of getting out is a learning experience. That's not the same as forever darkness.
Posts: 26077 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:The knowledge and understanding of the law are what lead me to obey it with any kind of meaning.
And ultimately any Christian worth his or her salt, imo, will need to know and understand all the laws that they obey. And by understand, I don't just mean receive confirmation that it's God's word, but also to understand how it fits into the overall plan of life -- the consequences, implications and reasons of the law.
But acquiring wisdom takes time. And there are levels of understanding. So meanwhile (or along the way), living the law and being obedient help ingrain patterns that help us steady the course of our lives.
I'm the kind of person who always wants to know the 'why' behind the rules. When I was on my mission, I was initially frustrated by those who didn't need to understand why -- who just obeyed. I saw them as shallow. As lacking knowledge, as naive about the world and even somewhat insensitive to the challenges people face. I was right about that to a certain extent. But as my mission progressed, I realized that me and other missionaries who were more "knowledge-based" and who were skilled at seeing the depths and whys of things sometimes were hesitant to act or were sometimes cavalier about things even if we knew better.
So what I decided is that we're all on a continuum. Some of us need to work more on bridging the gaps between our knowledge and actions. Others of us need to work harder to gain knowledge and understanding. And all of us need to increase in both our understanding of God's law and how well we live it.
And: because of these variations, I'm glad that it's not a strict God reveals in objective manner -- people obey or are condemmed by the revelation kind of thing.
Posts: 3423 | Registered: Aug 2001
| IP: Logged |
Forever was not mentioned or implied. I was talking about what Christians refer to as "this present darkness", and my contention was clearly that that definition of man's present state, in my view, is pretty robotic in its own rite.
Posts: 1307 | Registered: May 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote: I know for a certainty that if I were to murder someone in our society, my life would more or less be forfeit. But my choice not to murder someone is not based so much on my fear of the consequences as it is based on my understanding of the principles involved. It is just so with the stoplight. It could be one in the morning and no one around, and I would still feel guilty for running the red light whether or not there were consequences involved. The knowledge and understanding of the law are what lead me to obey it with any kind of meaning.
Hmm, I don't see that this disagrees with what I said. I also I keep laws (both of the country in which I live, and His) primarily based on my belief that I should, rather than on fear of the consequences. I believe that's a far better reason to do so, and shows far more positive character traits.
Back to the stoplight analogy. If I know, with absolute certainty, that running the red light will get me killed, what does obeying the law prove? That I'm neither a complete idiot or suicidal. If I obey the same light when traffic is light, and the risk of consequences is small? I show good judgment -- any possible gain of time is offset by the risk, small though it may be -- and possibly respect for the law. But if I obey the law at "one in the morning and no one around," it is clear that I have respect for the law.
I have chosen in a way the other scenarios did not allow.
Similarly, if I God forces me to believe in His existence, my choices would be similarly narrowed. Could I still choose to do wrong? Certainly. But to do so would require utter rebellion. And not doing so would not show very much merit.
Posts: 32919 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
"If I know, with absolute certainty, that running the red light will get me killed, what does obeying the law prove? That I'm neither a complete idiot or suicidal."
The thing is, God already KNOWS whether you're a complete idiot. He knows whether you have good judgement. What is gained by forcing you to exercise that judgement, potentially to your detriment, with no obvious benefit?
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
quote: The thing is, God already KNOWS whether you're a complete idiot. He knows whether you have good judgment. What is gained by forcing you to exercise that judgment, potentially to your detriment, with no obvious benefit?
Because tests are not to prove your worth to Him. They are for you to prove your worth to yourself, and to stretch yourself in ways you may not have thought you ever could. I disagree that there is "no obvious benefit." Every time you exercise the correct judgment, make the right choice -- ESPECIALLY if doing so is difficult -- you grow. Spiritually, emotionally, sometimes physically. Think of an athlete in training. They must constantly push their limits. Well, we are all "in training" in this world.
To toss in a few obvious clichés: What doesn't kill you makes you stronger. God doesn't give me anything I cannot handle. I do often wish He didn't believe I could handle so much!
Posts: 32919 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
*sighs* Sorry, mack. I agree that it's not an answer that works for everyone. Heck, some days it doesn't work all that well for me!
But a purpose that I can't fully understand or appreciate (and sometimes have trouble appreciating at ALL) seems so much better to me than NO purpose. YMMV
I'd hug you, but I'm respecting your boundaries. Posts: 32919 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote: But from where I'm sitting, your view of man's relationship to God is a lot more robotic--or animalistic, perhaps--than mine is. In your worldview man is purposefully kept in a certain amount of darkness so as to avoid the realities of consequence; but then it's worth pointing out that your view of mankind is significantly less optimistic than mine.
Huzzah! Caleb and I nearly agreed completely on a topic involving religion! The point of disagreement is as to which philosophy is more optimistic, but we can let that slide.
quote: The thing is, God already KNOWS whether you're a complete idiot. He knows whether you have good judgement. What is gained by forcing you to exercise that judgement, potentially to your detriment, with no obvious benefit?
This is why I dislike the "test" illustration- because the term "test" is usually thought of in the scholastic sense where you show the teacher what you know. Well, as Tom pointed out, this certainly makes no sense.
The sort of test that we face in this life is a test in the sense that running track is a test- you actively develop attributes which you did not previously possess. God knows where you are in your personal development and he knows where you will be, but that doesn't mean that you can skip the part where you get there. The same can be said when you see a pinecone on the ground- you know what it looks like now and you know that it will become a tree and you even know a bit about how it will do so; but your knowledge does not mean that the pinecone is a tree. It still must grow to reach its potential.
posted
"The sort of test that we face in this life is a test in the sense that running track is a test- you actively develop attributes which you did not previously possess."
The problem here is that obviously not everyone passes these tests.
If you proceed on the theory that God allows us to suffer in order for us to surpass this suffering and improve in some way, wouldn't it be logical to conclude -- as rivka has, above, at least in her situation -- that God sends only those tests people can handle? Presumably, God KNOWS which tests you can pass, and which ones you're not equipped to pass right now.
Why would God send -- or permit -- a test that you'll fail, if He KNOWS which tests you're going to pass in advance? If His intent is really to help as many people possible to pass without directly interfering with their free will, why doesn't He customize the tests we encounter in such a way that everyone is brought along to the same point by the end of their lives?
If God permits these tests and trials ONLY for the purpose of making us better people, and clearly has the power to alter and ameliorate these tests and trials (as, for example, rivka believes), AND knows in advance the results of any tests and trials, why would He send us a test that we would fail?
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
I tend to think God likes good stories, and so tries to avoid interfering too much with the plot.
Posts: 9866 | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
So, you'd be perfectly fine with NOT going through life and letting God just assign you your eternal destiny even though you never did any of the things He says you did?
Posts: 14554 | Registered: Dec 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
"So, you'd be perfectly fine with NOT going through life and letting God just assign you your eternal destiny even though you never did any of the things He says you did?"
I'm not sure how that follows, Scott. Surely you're not saying that those people who do NOT fail all their tests have not "gone through life," are you? As we've established, these "tests" aren't really tests; they're not actual types of MEASUREMENT, since God already knows our measure. They're like practice questions, designed to get us good at something.
So surely, God -- as the author of the practice questions -- understands that giving people questions they don't comprehend and can't satisfactorily answer doesn't prepare them for anything. Why, then, would He submit trials to people who can't deal with them, if those trials exist for no reason other than self-improvement?
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
quote:Why, then, would He submit trials to people who can't deal with them, if those trials exist for no reason other than self-improvement?
Where does God's responsability for giving you trials that you can handle end, and your responsability for living up to what God expects of you begin?
Posts: 14554 | Registered: Dec 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
What about God living up to our own expectations of benevolent, consistent behavior?
There's still the element of victim blaming.
If you fail the test, it's your fault for not living up to expectations.
But if you give someone a test you know they won't pass, like giving a four year old a math test, how will blaming the four year old for failing be fair by any means?
Not being able to pass God's apparently arbitrary tests of faith and life is a character flaw of your own, and certainly can't be God's fault at all.
Because God is perfect, and we are not, and therefore it's our own fault when bad things happen.
Posts: 14745 | Registered: Dec 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
Which explains Christ's command, "Judge not, lest ye be judged," in terms of a human relationship. . .
But as He IS omniscient, God is equipped to judge whether you performed to the best of your ability, or whether you slacked.
Posts: 14554 | Registered: Dec 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
"Where does God's responsability for giving you trials that you can handle end, and your responsability for living up to what God expects of you begin?"
I would submit that no one has the responsibility to live up to trials inflicted upon them by others, particularly if the only point of those trials is ostensibly to IMPROVE them.
Don't try to turn the question around, Scott. Answer it as written: if God's only reason for giving us trials is to help us achieve enlightenment, why wouldn't He arrange these trials -- knowing as He does all results of those trials -- to ENSURE enlightenment?
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
Seems like an odd thing to do, really. I mean, what kind of spirit agrees to be a baby who'll die in childbirth? What are they intending to learn from that experience?
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
We didn't get to pick what tests we get. If we did, I'm still signing up for the blessed-with-everything kind of trial.
We came to be tried (the tests part) and to be gain a body. The baby who dies in childbirth gains a body.
Posts: 26077 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
So let me repeat my question: why would God give tests He KNOWS we can't pass to people He KNOWS will fail them? Why would He submit someone to the kind of life that, for example, would lead them to grow into the kind of person who doesn't actually have a hope of achieving their potential?
Even assuming that we, pre-birth, hung out with God and said something like, "Hey, God. I'm bored. Send me to school," why would God decide to assign calculus to a four-year-old? If tests are a learning experience, why would He give us tests that He KNOWS will teach the wrong lesson?
Surely you're not suggesting that God doesn't have individualized lesson plans.
posted
He knows what we'll do, but he doesn't force us to do them.
If we didn't go to school, we be damned - stopped. Failing at school means being damned - right where you started and where you would have been if you hadn't gone to school.
God won't force us to learn, but provides opportunities. In other words, there's no way to go but up.
Posts: 26077 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
You keep using this word. . . I don't think you're qualified to use it. . .
God gives everyone the opportunity to excel. He knows which of us will succeed and which will fail, but gives everyone the opportunity because He is just. (And to prevent whining, such as, "God just sent me to Hell! I didn't even DO anything! Nothing!") He also has promised to help us through our trials if we turn to Him.
quote:if God's only reason for giving us trials is to help us achieve enlightenment, why wouldn't He arrange these trials -- knowing as He does all results of those trials -- to ENSURE enlightenment?
He does.
[ October 15, 2003, 12:57 PM: Message edited by: Scott R ]
Posts: 14554 | Registered: Dec 1999
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Dont Know]](graemlins/dontknow.gif)
YMMV![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
Can we declare a moratorium on adverbs?
