How do you assign truth to one teaching of Paul's, while saying that teaching X is just personal opinion?
Posts: 14554 | Registered: Dec 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
KOM: I didn't start off with that premise and then set out to prove it. I read the story, listened to the reasoning, decided it was justified, and since then have experienced God in such a manner that I am inclined to believe the scriptures.
Tom: I am not assuming they are justified, though it seems pretty futile that if we are arguing that God was not justified why does he not just snuff us out for questioning him? God flooding the earth is not justified in of itself, remember Mormons believe God can do all that CAN be done, not everything he pleases. If his genocide was not justified he would cease to be God, and in this instance there is an explanation that justifies the act.
I am quite capable of questioning what God does, I just don't jump to the conclusion that God is evil if I have difficulty comprehending an act. Nor do I focus on the thought, "God is good God is good" until my mind calms down and I forget what was bothering you.
Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:I think the complete prevention of any evil would also necessitate the complete prevention of anything good too.
Well, that's fine. But that means that Satan is not responsible for all evil; it means that God is responsible for all evil, on behalf of a greater good.
Right. After all, the Bible says that God created evil.
Posts: 12266 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:When you know everything God knows, then you can ask a question like that.
Not a good parenting technique, btw. If I tried that with my kids ["When you know all I know, then you can ask me questions! Till then, pipe down."] I can imagine I'd be doing them a pretty big disservice. Strange that Man seems more moral than his God.
That's an issue of morality? Weird.
In any case, you're a lot more similar to your children, in both knowledge and the capacity for knowledge, than you are to God.
Posts: 12266 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
No, you are actually bequeathing to God hypothetical breadth of and capacity for knowledge the existence and details of which you have no real proof, beyond a single tome and an exegetical tradition. I will assert with Faustian arrogance that I can understand anything your [theoretical] god deigns to share with me.
[ December 17, 2006, 02:58 PM: Message edited by: David Bowles ]
Posts: 5663 | Registered: Jun 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:And if we are to take God's word for it, he wept at the prospect of flooding the earth.
God didn't weep about what He was going to do. He wept about the wickedness He saw among His children.
Posts: 14554 | Registered: Dec 1999
| IP: Logged |
quote:And if we are to take God's word for it, he wept at the prospect of flooding the earth.
God didn't weep about what He was going to do. He wept about the wickedness He saw among His children.
I don't know how the translation goes - but in the Hebrew I fail to find the passage in which God wept. It says he was saddened, but I don't see any weeping going on Posts: 97 | Registered: Jun 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:And if we are to take God's word for it, he wept at the prospect of flooding the earth.
God didn't weep about what He was going to do. He wept about the wickedness He saw among His children.
I don't know how the translation goes - but in the Hebrew I fail to find the passage in which God wept. It says he was saddened, but I don't see any weeping going on
I don't see either of those. It's pure invention.
Posts: 12266 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:And if we are to take God's word for it, he wept at the prospect of flooding the earth.
God didn't weep about what He was going to do. He wept about the wickedness He saw among His children.
I don't know how the translation goes - but in the Hebrew I fail to find the passage in which God wept. It says he was saddened, but I don't see any weeping going on
I don't see either of those. It's pure invention.
Lisa....
I noted the origin of the scriptures I linked where it states that God wept, and Enoch asked God "How canst thou weep."
You may see it as "invention." We see your version as "erroneous."
If humans are God's children. Its doubtful he lacks the capacity to feel the entire spectrum of emotions that we do. I wouldn't claim to be able to feel sorrow and then say God is incapable of it.
quote: Um, that doesn't really help for me. In fact, it makes it significantly worse.
"It wasn't me. They made me do it. They were just so wicked. I had to do it."
Oh come on. Is it really so hard to imagine God weeping that his creation had become so degenerate that he had to punish them so severely? But I suppose that NOBODY can know when a drastic course of action must take place. And nobody can weep at having to do something they know must be done.
It gives me a whole new outlook on the movie Old Yeller.
SPOILER****
Travis didn't KNOW he had to shoot the rabid Old Yeller. In fact it was impossible for him to really be sad while doing it. There must be another explanation.
quote:Originally posted by David Bowles: No, you are actually bequeathing to God hypothetical breadth of and capacity for knowledge the existence and details of which you have no real proof, beyond a single tome and an exegetical tradition. I will assert with Faustian arrogance that I can understand anything your [theoretical] god deigns to share with me.
Whatever makes you feel good.
Posts: 12266 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
I noted the origin of the scriptures I linked where it states that God wept, and Enoch asked God "How canst thou weep."
Ah, sorry. It's in one of your books. I thought the claim was that it was in Genesis, which it isn't.
Posts: 12266 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by crescentsss: end of parshat breishit "וינחם ה' כי עשה את האדם בארץ ויתעצב אל לבו"
edit: genesis 6:6
It doesn't say He was sad to wipe us out; it says He was said that He created us in the first place.
Posts: 12266 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade: If humans are God's children. Its doubtful he lacks the capacity to feel the entire spectrum of emotions that we do. I wouldn't claim to be able to feel sorrow and then say God is incapable of it.
It was doubtful to Maimonides (In The Guide to the Perplexed ), who said that emotions cannot be ascribed to God. And that's enough for me to consider that view as more than just "doubtful."
Posts: 97 | Registered: Jun 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:Oh come on. Is it really so hard to imagine God weeping that his creation had become so degenerate that he had to punish them so severely?
Imagine I am a parent. Of course I weep that my children are doing drugs. I don't knock them on the head and put them in the garage with the car running, though.
It's not the crying that bothers me. It's combination- the act.
I can imagine that an individual person can be so evil that a parent might kill them in desperation. However, I do not buy an entire race and indeed set of creatures- babies, children, adults, grandparents, all could ever deserve such a thing.
Of course, it doesn't help that I don't believe that God ever inflicted such a genocide only that survivors interpreted a natural disaster that way, not such a stretch, even in this day and age. But hypothetically speaking, I do not recognise a person or a God that would do such a thing. It's just the way I am.
EDIT:
quote:it says He was sad that He created us in the first place.
Sentient species are complicated little playthings.
Posts: 8473 | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:I can imagine that an individual person can be so evil that a parent might kill them in desperation. However, I do not buy an entire race and indeed set of creatures- babies, children, adults, grandparents, all could ever deserve such a thing.
Deserve? Like, as in fairness?
I'm not going to try to excuse God for the innocents presumably killed in the flood.
Posts: 14554 | Registered: Dec 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
Lisa, I can assure you that it does not, in fact, make me feel good. I would like nothing more than to discover that there is a reason for it all, that there is, after all, a kind and generous being who will make it all okay in the end. Beyond the total lack of evidence of her/his/its existence, I also have struggled to find a single religion the beliefs of which actually reflect a benign divine nature.
It makes me quite sad, actually.
Posts: 5663 | Registered: Jun 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:I also have struggled to find a single religion the beliefs of which actually reflect a benign divine nature.
What does 'benign' mean to you?
If, for example, having the gene for blonde hair will eventually trigger psychosis in all who possess that gene, resulting in mass global terror and zombification of north and south America, what would a benign God do to prevent that, AND maintain the capacity for human free will?
Posts: 14554 | Registered: Dec 1999
| IP: Logged |
quote:what would a benign God do to prevent that, AND maintain the capacity for human free will?
Eliminate the gene, and/or blondeness? Provide a common fruit that, when eaten by people with blonde hair, cures psychosis? And so on...
Seriously, whenever I hear "free will" advanced as a solution for the problem of evil, I'm always struck by how little imagination people ascribe to God. Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
quote:Seriously, whenever I hear "free will" advanced as a solution for the problem of evil, I'm always struck by how little imagination people ascribe to God.
quote:Seriously, whenever I hear "free will" advanced as a solution for the problem of evil, I'm always struck by how little imagination people ascribe to God.
Good point.
How so? It seems like a point with no substance to me.
Posts: 12266 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by kmbboots: KoM, how come you like debating with BlackBlade so much and you hardly debate me at all!
(pouts)
Because he claims to have been convinced by evidence; that makes him a rational person, capable of having his mind changed by being shown better evidence. You, however, "choose to believe". This is an irrational act changeable only by superior force. Since I cannot apply superior force through the Internet (nor in person, US law being unfortunately irrational on the subject of what is justifiable grounds for violence), there is no use in debating with you.
You think superior force would change it? Hmmm...might. I hope not. Anyway, chalk one up for faith that is not dependent on evidence - though I miss out on the fun of debating KoM.
Scott, I'm not quite sure what you are asking. I think that Paul's writings are inspired. I think they are likely written - or at least dictated - by Paul. I think that they are written to address specific concerns of specific audiences and that they need to by understood in that context, but that they contain a great deal that is applicable, useful, and "truthful" to us. I do not think that Paul was always right. I do think that he had a unique and important relationship with God and that what he wrote is important to us.
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
In terms of my scenario, Tom and Fugu are right-- there are a hundred thousand things an omnipotent God could do to resolve the situation.
It's a poor scenario for the point I was trying to make. And anyway, it's not a point that I can make until one accepts a very Mormon and very Scott R'ish point of view-- that God isn't omnipotent, and cannot be nice all the time and still be God.
I should've stuck with my initial question: What does benign mean?
Posts: 14554 | Registered: Dec 1999
| IP: Logged |
quote: I think that they are written to address specific concerns of specific audiences and that they need to by understood in that context
quote:I do not think that Paul was always right.
How do you determine which teaching is specific to the audience Paul was writing to and which is general, 'Everyone-do-this' doctrine.
How do you determine when Paul is right?
For Mormons, we refer to the teachings of current prophets to interpret the directions of ancient scripture. The words of our current prophets are validated by the charismatic power of the Holy Spirit. Thus, in our belief, we are able to say for example, that Paul was being somewhat misogynistic when he said women shouldn't teach in church, and we say that we say that with God's approbation.
Posts: 14554 | Registered: Dec 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
From the attempts by some to criticize God despite His restraint, it is easy to see why He did not obliterate all who conceived evil right away. He allows this world to lurch on in its evil-caused distresses, so the true nature of evil can be fully witnessed by all. That way, when He does finally act to remove all sin and sinners from the universe, all will know He is fair and just without question. So Isaiah was inspired to write God's purpose: "I have sworn by myself, the word is gone out of my mouth in righteousness, and shall not return, That unto me every knee shall bow, every tongue shall swear." (Isaiah 45:23) That must include Satan and all the other fallen angels with him, along with all the humans who have joined with them in embracing evil. They will bow and confess the justice of God, but it will not be a genuine repentance, only a confession of their own guilt moved by regret at the consequences they themselves must justly suffer.
The reasons why God wiped out the antedeluvians were stated thusly: "And God saw that the wickedness of man was great in the earth, and that every imagination of the thoughts of his heart was only evil continually." (Gen. 6:5) Also: "And God said unto Noah, The end of all flesh is come before me; for the earth is filled with violence through them; and, behold, I will destroy them with the earth." (Gen. 6:13)
For this to be true, that the thought of every heart was only evil continually, and especially taking note of the fact that the earth was filled with violence, it is reasonable to conclude that the incorrigible wicked had killed all the righteous, all but Noah and his family. Had it not been for the Flood taking away the wicked, they would have gotten around to killing Noah and his family, too, despite their instinctive reverence for a man six hundred years old.
Posts: 3742 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Some of it is scholarly and historical - if you know that the Church at Ephesus was having a certain issue, you can better understand what Paul was saying, why he might have emphasized certain points rather than others etc.
One example is the infamous "justification" of slavery. This is much clearer when we understand it in context. Paul was a product of his time and was dealing with the realities of his own culture - one that included slaves (as well as women as property). When Paul advises slaves to submit to their masters, that didn't mean that slavery was right. We know better now.
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:He allows this world to lurch on in its evil-caused distresses, so the true nature of evil can be fully witnessed by all. That when, when He does finally act to remove all sin and sinners from the universe, all will know He is fair and just without question.
To borrow from Teshi:
"See? SEE!!! I was totally right! Told you so, I told you so! Uh-huh. Check me out now, freaks. I told you that the G-O-D was in the hizzouse. BOO-YAH! On your k-nees, mo'fos! Tha's right."
I don't think that the reason God allows evil to continue is to prove that Good > Evil. He could have done that with a DVD player and a 'Lord of the Rings' dvd.
Posts: 14554 | Registered: Dec 1999
| IP: Logged |
quote: It was doubtful to Maimonides (In The Guide to the Perplexed ), who said that emotions cannot be ascribed to God. And that's enough for me to consider that view as more than just "doubtful."
Well I am glad that a great thinker you respect thought so, but bear in mind.
From wikipedia, The Scholastics agreed with him that no predicate is adequate to express the nature of God; but they did not go so far as to say that no term can be applied to God in the affirmative sense.
Now when I read in the Old Testament God saying, "In the hotness of my anger..."
"For I am a jealous God."
"Have I any pleasure at all that the wicked should die? saith the Lord GOD: and not that he should return from his ways, and live?"
Now perhaps God has completely different spectrum of something we might crudely call emotions. Or perhaps he has emotions just as we do, and he uses the same adjectives we do to describe them because we in that regard are just like him. Which sounds simpler?
Even in much of Christian thought, the idea is that, "God is without passions." I respect scriptural scholars, I really do, but it just seems in my experience it just does not say that in the text, or what I mean is,
"I've yet to encounter a scripture where God is describes or describes himself as without emotion, and yet have read many places where he declares his feelings/emotions."
Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I think the questioners are included among those who "will know He is fair and just without question." I think that's kind of Ron's point.
Posts: 14554 | Registered: Dec 1999
| IP: Logged |
quote:Now perhaps God has completely different spectrum of something we might crudely call emotions. Or perhaps he has emotions just as we do, and he uses the same adjectives we do to describe them because we in that regard are just like him. Which sounds simpler?
You left out an even simpler option: God has no emotions, but He uses anthropomorphic language to express things in a manner that human beings can understand.
Posts: 32919 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote: That way, when He does finally act to remove all sin and sinners from the universe, all will know He is fair and just without question.
Sure. That's only logical since He'll have eliminated all the questioners.
Karl are you seriously suggesting that you think the God who flooded the earth would have done so if everybody was kind and virtuous but too darn curious and questioning?
You know theres a great set of scriptures where Abraham was asking God about his plan to destroy Sodom and Gumorah and keeps asking God if there were X righteous people would he spare the cities. It went sorta like this
"What if there were X?"
"Then I would spare it"
"What if there were Y?"
"Then I would spare it"
"What if there were Z?"
"Then I would spare it"
Well X > Y > Z and Z = 10
Sadly there were not even 10 people who were righteous in the cities, Noah and his family were probably close to that number as well. My points isn't that God perhaps wipes out areas where at least 10 good people can be found.
But God certainly seems to be fine with us questioning things in an effort to understand. Moses whining got a rebuke, Abraham querying got answers.
Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
I was giving this sosme thought this weekend. There is quite a bit of scripture that I do need to take more literally than I do. Not the Creation stuff or the Noah stuff - and definately not the Revelation stuff. I am quite comfortable with my take on those.
But I have way too many coats, for example. I could stand to give some of them to people who have none. I fail, often, to give to those who ask. I have not come anywhere close to selling my possesions and giving it to the poor. I judge all the time.
What do you thinnk of this kind of literalism?
I need to take all of this more seriously. More literally.
Most particularly - if nothing else - I need to take this literally and engrave it on my heart:
"I tell you the truth, whatever you did not do for one of the least of these, you did not do for me."
quote:Now perhaps God has completely different spectrum of something we might crudely call emotions. Or perhaps he has emotions just as we do, and he uses the same adjectives we do to describe them because we in that regard are just like him. Which sounds simpler?
You left out an even simpler option: God has no emotions, but He uses anthropomorphic language to express things in a manner that human beings can understand.
But if that is the case why does he say "I am angry" or anything like that. Isn't it just as easy to say, "I am not going to put up with this, it is evil, and I do not tolerate evil."
No emotion in there, and its perfectly clear.
God could even say, "I as the champion of good must do all I can to prevent evil from occurring." Again a complete lack of emotion.
Buddhism has done a great job of explaining why people must act in this or that manner without their emotions being a justification.
It just doesn't seem to me, and of course, what do I know? That God has not intentionally tried to express this concept of being without emotions in the scriptures.
Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Now perhaps God has completely different spectrum of something we might crudely call emotions. Or perhaps he has emotions just as we do, and he uses the same adjectives we do to describe them because we in that regard are just like him. Which sounds simpler?
You left out an even simpler option: God has no emotions, but He uses anthropomorphic language to express things in a manner that human beings can understand.
There are two views of anthropomorphims like this in Judaism. One is what Rivka is saying. The Torah refers to God's "outstretched arm", even though God obviously doesn't have an arm, because it's a metaphor.
The other one is that God has an attribute called yad (or "arm"), and our arms are an approximation of the real thing. It's almost a Platonic way of looking at things, with God as the archetype of everything.
There's no real practical difference between the two; it's pretty much a philosophical one only.
Posts: 12266 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
BB, "anger" is easily comprehended shorthand. And remember, just as you have scriptures that I do not accept, we have the Oral Torah. Maimonides was not coming to his conclusion in a vacuum.
Posts: 32919 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
I'm not going to try to excuse God for the innocents presumably killed in the flood.
Ah, good answer
Obviously, this is where our paths diverge in a yellow wood.
quote:"See? SEE!!! I was totally right! Told you so, I told you so! Uh-huh. Check me out now, freaks. I told you that the G-O-D was in the hizzouse. BOO-YAH! On your k-nees, mo'fos! Tha's right."
Hahaha! Your God is more humourous than mine. Also more rapperish. Makes mine look all boring and blank.
quote: That way, when He does finally act to remove all sin and sinners from the universe, all will know He is fair and just without question.
Sure. That's only logical since He'll have eliminated all the questioners.
Karl, according to John 5:29, there will be two general resurrections: "And shall come forth; they that have done good, unto the resurrection of life; and they that have done evil, unto the resurrection of damnation."
Did you catch that the wicked will also be resurrected? Revelation 20 says the two resurrections are separated by a thousand years. The resurrection of life comes at the Second Advent of Christ, while the resurrection of the wicked comes a thousand years later, when there is a final demonstration and judgment. The wicked will be given a little time to demonstrate that their spirit of rebellion and murderous hatred has not changed, as they attempt to lay seige to the New Jerusalem and take it by force.
They will be interrupted by a final judgment manifested before their eyes, showing them where in their lives they made their fateful choices to depart from God and spurned His entreaties to repent again and again until they sealed their fates. Then all the wicked, including Satan and his fellow devils will be destroyed in the lake of fire, as fire comes down from God out of heaven and the earth's surface becomes molten for a time, as the earth is being re-created into a new Paradise. The righteous will be privileged to witness a new Creation Week.
So everyone, including God's accusers, are confronted with all the evidence and are present when sentence is pronounced.
[ December 18, 2006, 01:59 PM: Message edited by: Ron Lambert ]
Posts: 3742 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by rivka: BB, "anger" is easily comprehended shorthand. And remember, just as you have scriptures that I do not accept, we have the Oral Torah. Maimonides was not coming to his conclusion in a vacuum.
oh indeed, thank you for pointing that out.
Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:this is where our paths diverge in a yellow wood.
I love that poem. It unfortunately gets misintrepreted in every high school in America as being an anthem for non-conformity, rather than a pensive reflection on how choosing between two almost identical paths can make a large difference in one's life.
Posts: 14554 | Registered: Dec 1999
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Monkeys]](graemlins/monkeys.gif)
![[Dont Know]](graemlins/dontknow.gif)
![[Blushing]](graemlins/blushing.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
