quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade: Lisa: See my mistaken assumption in my post to Rivka.
Fair enough.
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade:
quote:What does that mean? God isn't an object.
Out of curiosity, how do you interpret Exodus 33:20-23?
Metaphor. Just like "God is a man of war". Just like "With a mighty hand and an outstretched arm".
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade:
quote:We'd say, "Sorry, but God gave us His Torah and told us that if anyone comes to add or subtract from it claiming that the instruction was from Him, we're supposed to kill him as a false prophet. He also said that even if the person in question does signs and wonders, it's just God testing us. So no, the altar (and btw, God wouldn't misspell 'altar') is defiled."
The caveat being that the prophet tells you to go after other Gods.
That's just an example. God told us it refers to any changes in the Torah. Ordinarily, adding or subtracting from the Torah is a prohibition, but if you say that God said to do it, it's false prophecy.
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade: God changing his instructions is not the same thing as a messenger telling you that God has changed his instructions.
I get that you think this is the case. But God is timeless. The very concept of God changing His mind is a non-starter. And even if you were to say, "Okay, it's not that He's changing His mind; it's just that He wanted X up to this point and Y from this point on," it still doesn't work with the Torah, because God put conditions in it that make it impossible for anyone, including God, to change it.
Is that a limitation on God? By no means. If God wants to change something, He can go and change the original source. Like I said, He isn't timebound. But He made sure that no one could misrepresent Him by making it impossible for us to accept any such changes.
When God said that a command was "an eternal statute for your generations", that means forever. And ever.
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade: You are most certainly right God would not misspell altar, but if he spelled it "alter" I should think that that spelling would then become correct.
Heh. Nice.
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade:
quote:True. Also, God can never be killed, since He is God, the very definition of life and immortality. A dead body isn't God. It's a dead body. And it defiles not only anything it touches, but any person or open vessel in the same building it's in.
Did you not notice where I said, (ignoring anything to do with Jesus.) I was not saying that there was any relation to the dead body and God himself. I was just asking that if God came down, made a dead body disappear from off the altar and pronounced it clean, would said altar then become clean.
Nope. God gave us instructions as to how defiled things can be purified. He can't say, "Well, you don't have to bother in this case." If He wants to make an exception, He has to make it ab initio.
According to the Sages, there were certain things that God created during the 7 days of creation, prior to sundown on the sixth day:
quote:"Ten things were created on the Sabbath eve at twilight. They are: the mouth of the earth [which swallowed Korach and his co-conspirators] (Numbers 16:32), the mouth of the well [which accompanied Israel in the desert], the mouth of the donkey [which rebuked Balaam] (ibid., 22:28), the rainbow, the Manna, the staff [of Moses], the shamir worm, the script [of the Torah], the inscription [on the Tablets of the Ten Commandments], and the Tablets.
What this means is that God plays by the rules He set up. For the donkey to speak to Balaam, the potential for that one donkey to do had to be a part of creation from the beginning, however hidden, or it couldn't have happened. Same with everything else on the list. God created the ability for those things to happen like a pool player lines up a trick shot, so to speak.
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade: I made a mistake forgetting you don't believe God has any sort of physical form. Apparently he could not appear to anyone in any recognizable form. edit: Or would not rather than cannot?
Well, that's a sticky question. There are two major views in Judaism. They're both the same, really; the only difference is sort of philosophical. One is that God has no physicality whatsoever. That God when God interacts with the world physically, He does so through angels. And by angels, I don't mean folks with wings and halos and harps, and I don't mean Della Reese or Nick Cage. I mean messengers of any kind.
The other one is sometimes referred to as panentheism. That's the one I think is more correct. It means that God has no specific physicality. God is everywhere and everything, and all of creation is simply an expression of God. God is all of existence. You and I are expressions and extensions of God, as is the chair I'm sitting on and the keyboard I'm typing on and the air I'm breathing. Nothing exists other than God. So any specific physicality God might choose to manifest would no more be God than my cellphone is. No less, either.
Any manifestation of God we ever perceive is sort of a projection. Even when we talk about an attribute of God, that attribute is a created thing. A vessel, so to speak, through which we can perceive God in a certain light. When we speak of God's attribute of Mercy, for example, it only means that we perceive God's influence in a way that translates to what we ordinarily perceive as mercy.
God is simultaneously completely immanent and completely transcendent.
Posts: 12266 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Ron Lambert: Lisa, just out of curiosity, what do you regard the purpose of those animals that were sacrified to have been,
First of all, as is the case with all of God's commandments, we can only theorize as to their purpose. And even then, we can only (if we are being honest) theorize that X is one of the purposes, because even if it is one, it needn't be the only one.
But clearly, the message is, "Here's this living thing. You don't really have any right to live in God's world if you won't follow His rules. Place your hands on the head of this animal and watch as it dies. That's what God would be entitled to do you for your transgression. This is what it means to break something of value."
quote:Originally posted by Ron Lambert: if not to confess one's sins AND confess faith in God's provision for our salvation in the coming Sinbearer who would really bear our sins and pay for them?
<snicker> Honestly, Ron. "Sinbearer"? Sounds like something out of the Thomas Covenant books. Saltheart Foamfollower, Loric Vilesilencer, and Savior Sinbearer.
Here's the thing. If I understand correct, you believe in a thing called Original Sin. It's one of the most morally bankrupt concepts I can possibly imagine; the idea that the deeds of an ancestor can result in the descendents being born "in sin".
In fact, we don't even recognize such a concept as being "in sin". Sin isn't a condition, Ron. It's an action. Or inaction. Because you believe God is a malign thug (as Mark Twain put it) who punishes babies for something that happened thousands of years ago, you have to believe that He created a remedy for the illness He created. Thus: Savior Sinbearer.
But God isn't like that. In fact, Ezekiel (he was a prophet, btw) tells us that God says explicitly that a person will die for his own sins. Not for those of an ancestor. We aren't born "in sin", and we have no need for anyone to "bear our sins". When we transgress, we repent. God so loved the world that He gave us a mechanism by which we can return to Him. It's called repentance, and it's pretty amazing.
quote:Originally posted by Ron Lambert: Do you believe that the blood of bulls, goats, and lambs had redemptive power in itself?
Not at all. Obeying God's instructions about how to repent, on the other hand, does. Repentance is made up of five parts, two of which are situational. (1) You have to stop doing the transgression. (2) You have to confess verbally what you did wrong (not to anyone in particular; you can close the door and say it if you want). (3) You have to commit to not doing it in the future.
The situational steps are (4) If the transgression was against another person, you must do what you can to appease them (within obvious limits) and (5) If there are required sacrifices for the transgression and the means to bring them exists, you have to do so.
quote:Originally posted by Ron Lambert: Do you think that if you sin against God, then kill a lamb, that puts you at peace with God, in and of itself? Confession, even accompanied by repentance, does not constitute atonement.
What a shame, Ron. Here's God, holding out the most precious gift imaginable. The means to come close to Him. To return to Him. And you deny it and insist that we can't do it.
quote:Originally posted by Ron Lambert: Or do you think it does? I seem to recall you saying something some time ago that sounded like you were saying repentance is all the atonement we need. I have to question whether that could bring us back into full fellowship and approval with God.
You know... I really think I'll go with God, here, Ron. Your questioning is your business.
quote:Originally posted by Ron Lambert: If Adolph Hitler were to be resurrected, and he said, "I'm sorry," would that be sufficient for you? If that were all God required, would He be Just?
See above. I'm not quite sure how Hitler would manage step 4, but if he did, then yes, it would. No one is all good and no one is all bad. Your odious violation of Godwin's Law to the contrary.
Also... are you telling me that your religion doesn't claim that Hitler can be "saved"?
Posts: 12266 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:According to the Sages, there were certain things that God created during the 7 days of creation, prior to sundown on the sixth day:
Where is this exactly stated? It's obviously not in the scriptures.
quote:Metaphor. Just like "God is a man of war". Just like "With a mighty hand and an outstretched arm".
How do you know those statements are not true in that God does have arms to stretch forth and he is in fact a man capable of engaging in war? Maybe God actually placed his hand in front of Moses face, but permitted him to see his back.
Where does the concept that God is formless come from? I have trouble seeing it anywhere.
quote:Nope. God gave us instructions as to how defiled things can be purified. He can't say, "Well, you don't have to bother in this case." If He wants to make an exception, He has to make it ab initio.
Ah I see.
While I certainly disagree that God placed a sort of God proof seal on the Law of Moses, I can see where you are coming from. Agree to disagree I suppose.
Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Mucus: These conversations are amusing.
In a way, the sides don't even agree to enter the same universe. Instead, we have someone arguing in a universe where the Jewish God exists and someone else arguing in a different universe over here where the Christian God exists. And allllllllll the way over here there's this person who's arguing in a universe where Jesus is just, "this guy, you know."
But somehow the objections to one proposal in one universe, say going back in time to kill Jesus are rebutted by someone working with a completely different universe and a different set of rules.
Its not entirely different from Star Wars vs. Star Trek debates when the conversation degenerates and people start pulling out stuff like whether Darth Vader could force crush everyone on the Enterprise or whether Q could snap his fingers and vanish the entire Imperial navy.
Well put.
But seriously. I am curious to know how many points I get for taking out the opposing player's rook when playing Scrabble.
Posts: 4287 | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by ketchupqueen: Pffft. Corran Horn would totally blow pirates AND everyone else away. And look sexy doing it. Humbly. And with a witty line. But without levitating.
True, but he'll make them think he levitated.
I'm not sure if Mirax would appreciate talk of him blowing pirates though. Not after what happened with Tavira.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Mucus: These conversations are amusing.
In a way, the sides don't even agree to enter the same universe. Instead, we have someone arguing in a universe where the Jewish God exists and someone else arguing in a different universe over here where the Christian God exists. And allllllllll the way over here there's this person who's arguing in a universe where Jesus is just, "this guy, you know."
But somehow the objections to one proposal in one universe, say going back in time to kill Jesus are rebutted by someone working with a completely different universe and a different set of rules.
Its not entirely different from Star Wars vs. Star Trek debates when the conversation degenerates and people start pulling out stuff like whether Darth Vader could force crush everyone on the Enterprise or whether Q could snap his fingers and vanish the entire Imperial navy.
Well put.
But seriously. I am curious to know how many points I get for taking out the opposing player's rook when playing Scrabble.
quote:According to the Sages, there were certain things that God created during the 7 days of creation, prior to sundown on the sixth day:
Where is this exactly stated? It's obviously not in the scriptures.
Lot of things aren't in the scriptures. This happens to be in a tractate of the Mishnah (compiled around 230 CE) called Avot, or Basic Principles. It's in Chapter 5. Here's a link. It's Mishnah H, according to their listing.
The primary corpus of law and lore that God gave Israel at Sinai was not given in written form.
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade:
quote:Metaphor. Just like "God is a man of war". Just like "With a mighty hand and an outstretched arm".
How do you know those statements are not true in that God does have arms to stretch forth and he is in fact a man capable of engaging in war? Maybe God actually placed his hand in front of Moses face, but permitted him to see his back.
God told us so. If you want something scriptural, try Numbers 23:19. "God is not a man, that He should lie, nor a son of man, that He should change His mind."
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade: Where does the concept that God is formless come from? I have trouble seeing it anywhere.
If God isn't formless, it means that He exists within the world. That the world is greater than He is. But the Torah says that He created the world, so that wouldn't make any sense. Here's a good discussion of the issues involved.
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade:
quote:Nope. God gave us instructions as to how defiled things can be purified. He can't say, "Well, you don't have to bother in this case." If He wants to make an exception, He has to make it ab initio.
Ah I see.
While I certainly disagree that God placed a sort of God proof seal on the Law of Moses, I can see where you are coming from. Agree to disagree I suppose.
quote:If God isn't formless, it means that He exists within the world. That the world is greater than He is.
I'm not sure I understand this. If I build a house and live in it, does that mean the house is better than I am?
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by ketchupqueen: Pffft. Corran Horn would totally blow pirates AND everyone else away. And look sexy doing it. Humbly. And with a witty line. But without levitating.
True, but he'll make them think he levitated.
I'm not sure if Mirax would appreciate talk of him blowing pirates though. Not after what happened with Tavira.
Yeah, I thought of mentioning Mirax's reaction to all this but, um... Thought maybe I had gone far enough. Posts: 21182 | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:If God isn't formless, it means that He exists within the world. That the world is greater than He is.
I'm not sure I understand this. If I build a house and live in it, does that mean the house is better than I am?
No, but it does mean that the house is greater than me in any number of ways. Weight. Size. Nothing is greater than God in any way.
Posts: 12266 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:If God isn't formless, it means that He exists within the world. That the world is greater than He is. But the Torah says that He created the world, so that wouldn't make any sense.
I created my children; I exist independently outside their existence. I have form; I am "greater" than them in most ways.
The link you posted regarding this issue starts out from the premise that if God had a physical form, man could eventually somehow escape from him. I'm not sure why that particular terminology is used; but it's not entirely logical (despite the article's strident protestations to the contrary).
quote:If one believes that God is physical, he will feel capable of escaping Him. One need not intellectually follow this logical reasoning to reach this conclusion: a human being will naturally act out the logical consequences of the concepts he believes. A man does not have to be a philosopher in order to realize these logical consequences. Without considering, he instinctively reacts from the position of his beliefs. If he takes the position that God is corporeal, that He occupies space, then he will intuitively conclude that he can hide from Him.
I'm curious how such a philosophy deals with Adam and Eve's reactions to being in the buff, with God ringing the doorbell for dinner...
With my own puny, human mind, I can think of ways that a corporeal God still has the whole world within His reach. There's nothing that says that his corporeal form needs to be constrained to space and time, any more than His mind/spirit/will/whatever does; this is GOD we're talking about, after all.
Posts: 14554 | Registered: Dec 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
I think getting hung up on semantics is kind of silly. I mean, saying that no one is ever greater than God in any way - and then saying that "more evil = greater" is ridiculous. You can add "-er" to anything and then say that makes it greater than God. Like, my house is greater than yours because it's smaller, so it's greater in smallness?
A greater capacity to sin, greater capacity to do evil, yes. (And of course "more embodied" is a point of debate; maybe some of us have more body hair than God or something ... I don't know.) That doesn't make us greater than God in the sense that we know better than He or can do more good. But I think some of us are so afraid of saying that men could have more of anything than God - even "more laziness" - that we get into this silly debate over semantics.
Posts: 1522 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:If God isn't formless, it means that He exists within the world. That the world is greater than He is. But the Torah says that He created the world, so that wouldn't make any sense.
I created my children; I exist independently outside their existence. I have form; I am "greater" than them in most ways.
God isn't greater than us like you're greater than your children. Once you created your children, they became independent of you. Whereas God didn't just create the world at the beginning. His creation is an ongoing thing.
quote:Originally posted by Scott R: The link you posted regarding this issue starts out from the premise that if God had a physical form, man could eventually somehow escape from him. I'm not sure why that particular terminology is used; but it's not entirely logical (despite the article's strident protestations to the contrary).
Yeah... I probably wouldn't have put it the way he did in that article. He makes some good points, but the article isn't perfect.
quote:Originally posted by Scott R:
quote:If one believes that God is physical, he will feel capable of escaping Him. One need not intellectually follow this logical reasoning to reach this conclusion: a human being will naturally act out the logical consequences of the concepts he believes. A man does not have to be a philosopher in order to realize these logical consequences. Without considering, he instinctively reacts from the position of his beliefs. If he takes the position that God is corporeal, that He occupies space, then he will intuitively conclude that he can hide from Him.
I'm curious how such a philosophy deals with Adam and Eve's reactions to being in the buff, with God ringing the doorbell for dinner...
Elaborate?
quote:Originally posted by Scott R: With my own puny, human mind, I can think of ways that a corporeal God still has the whole world within His reach.
Do tell. Corporeality is, by definition, limitation. God isn't limited by anything. Anything that could limit Him would be superior to Him.
quote:Originally posted by Scott R: There's nothing that says that his corporeal form needs to be constrained to space and time, any more than His mind/spirit/will/whatever does; this is GOD we're talking about, after all.
I see the words, but they don't gel into anything concrete. They lack meaning. Corporeality is limited by definition.
Posts: 12266 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson: But aren't we more evil than God? More fallible? More embodied?
It's a semantic artifice. Evil, as such, doesn't exist. It's defined as qualitative difference from God. If you think of a line stretching from ultimate good to ultimate evil, God is at the ultimate good end, because He's the definition of good. Evil doesn't exist any more than darkness does. Darkness is simply absence of light. Evil is simply absence of good.
quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson: I mean, I have more of a body than God does. Therefore I'm greater than He is in that way, right?
No, because your body is simply part of God. While it's misleading to say so, you can think of all of existence as "God's body". It's true, but it means the same thing as God not having a body.
Posts: 12266 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Once you created your children, they became independent of you. Whereas God didn't just create the world at the beginning. His creation is an ongoing thing.
I can't see how this point helps your argument.
quote: Scott said:
I'm curious how such a philosophy deals with Adam and Eve's reactions to being in the buff, with God ringing the doorbell for dinner... [Smile]
Lisa asked:
Elaborate?
Well, when Adam and Eve found out that they were nekkid, and God came banging around the garden, they went into hiding. From the article you linked, this would imply that Adam and Eve thought they could hide from God; implying that perhaps Adam and Eve thought God had a body. (Or at least they didn't understand metaphysics)
Assuming a literal reading of Genesis, anyway.
quote:Corporeality is, by definition, limitation. God isn't limited by anything. Anything that could limit Him would be superior to Him.
Corporeality isn't necessarily limitation. It's definition; meaning that corporeality lends dimensions. God's arm is thus long, for example; but His command of the universe is complete, so there's no shelf tall enough for him to not be able to reach the cookies at the top. (Maybe he's got stretchy arms, or maybe he creates a wormhole between his hand and the cookie jar-- either way, the end is a delicious snack for the Master of Universe.)
Posts: 14554 | Registered: Dec 1999
| IP: Logged |
Why? If indeed everything that has a body is part of God, why couldn't God manifest a body that He perceived as His own, while still remaining infinite?
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Lisa: Do tell. Corporeality is, by definition, limitation. God isn't limited by anything. Anything that could limit Him would be superior to Him.
Is God limited by what is logically possible?
Posts: 644 | Registered: Sep 2008
| IP: Logged |
Why? If indeed everything that has a body is part of God, why couldn't God manifest a body that He perceived as His own, while still remaining infinite?
"that He perceived as His own". Null symbols, Tom. Everything is "His own". Psalms 24:1.
Posts: 12266 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Lisa: Do tell. Corporeality is, by definition, limitation. God isn't limited by anything. Anything that could limit Him would be superior to Him.
Is God limited by what is logically possible?
Since God created the rules by which things work in all of existence, and since God isn't timebound (meaning that if He wanted the rules to be other than they are, He could change them ab initio), then functionally speaking, to all intents and purposes, the result is the same as if God was limited by what is logically possible.
Posts: 12266 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Lisa: Do tell. Corporeality is, by definition, limitation. God isn't limited by anything. Anything that could limit Him would be superior to Him.
Is God limited by what is logically possible?
God certainly isn't limited by our understanding of what is logically possible.
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
But anything that's logically possible can be understood to be such by us, at least in principle.
Posts: 12266 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Thank you for taking time to answer all these things Lisa. I'll probably post later, but I'm finding what Tom and Scott are asking to be just as interesting as anything I could come up with.
Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Then no. Hakol b'yidei shamayim, chutz mi'yira'as shomayim. Everything is in the hands of God (lit. heaven), except for fear of God (lit. heaven).
Posts: 32919 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Scott, God granted human beings free will. What you're asking is a lot like "Can God make a rock so big that He Himself can't lift it?" It's a question that can only exist as a semantic trick. Can God interfere with the free will He's given us? Practically speaking, yes. He hardened Pharaoh's heart, for example. But Pharaoh still had free will. He was influenced, but ultimately, he still retained the ability to choose.
Rivka, you have a point. I think. So... anything that's possible -- in our scope -- can be understood to be such by us, at least in principle.
Our perception of existence is necessarily limited, precisely by the principle that Rivka stated. God is One. God is everything. All of existence. So how can we have separate existences from Him? Only by means of God obscuring full perception of Himself from us.
I think I mentioned in previous posts that this is what prophecy is. It's perceiving past one level of obscured vision to a clearer perception of God.
Posts: 12266 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Lisa: Can God interfere with the free will He's given us? Practically speaking, yes. He hardened Pharaoh's heart, for example. But Pharaoh still had free will. He was influenced, but ultimately, he still retained the ability to choose.
I've always preferred the opinion that says that it was actually BY hardening his heart that God ensured that Paroah had free will, despite the external influences.
Posts: 32919 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote: But Pharaoh still had free will. He was influenced, but ultimately, he still retained the ability to choose.
How did you come to this conclusion? Does it mention somewhere in Exodus that despite God hardening his heart, Pharaoh really, ultimately was responsible for his own choices?
Or are you using sources outside the Bible to justify this point of view?
I'm willing to give them a look-- I think this is fascinating. I hope I'm not coming across as antagonistic, rivka, Lisa; if I am, I'll dial it back a bit.
Posts: 14554 | Registered: Dec 1999
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Scott R: Or are you using sources outside the Bible to justify this point of view?
Not by our definitions. There is a fairly lengthy discussion in the Midrash Rabbah, and every one of the major biblical commentaries discusses the question. In fact, I think one of the smaller presses released a book (most likely in Hebrew) on the subject a while back.
It's interesting to note the differences between Jewish belief and Mormon belief. Like Judaism (apparently), Mormonism states that free will was a gift from God.
Unlike Judaism, Mormonism claims that free will does put boundaries on what God is capable of. He cannot, for example, harden someone's heart; the Joseph Smith translation of Exodus revises those passages to make it clear that it was Pharaoh who was responsible for his impenitence. (From a certain perspective, he's responsible in Judaism's version of the story, too; but the first article vacillates on the point rather than confronting it directly, IMO)
Both articles point out the idea that Pharaoh was completely outmatched by God; that any sane person would have conceded after the first or second trial. BUT-- why would Pharaoh think he was outmatched? His own sorcerers were duplicating Aaron and Moses, miracle for miracle. The second article then makes this fairly ridiculous claim:
quote:Confronted by such mind-boggling firepower, Pharaoh was a mere puppet without any real choice. By hardening his heart, God gave Pharaoh the strength to counteract the force of the open miracles, and returned to Pharaoh the ability to decide according to his desires, independent of the external consequences.
I don't see this as a logical conclusion at all, and certainly not based on what I know of the story. This is apologetics not...I dunno, serious critical examination of the issue.
quote:The very same revelation that brings man toward God at the same time limits individual free will, making the actions of the individual, post-revelation, meaningless. God reestablished the equilibrium in His relationship with man by imbedding in his nature the desire to rebel against the word of God. This is the key to the Golden Calf debacle.
In general, throughout the era of prophecy, the same dilemma existed. When people heard direct communication with God, their freedom was effectively curtailed. Therefore, throughout the age of prophecy there existed a powerful urge to worship idols. Only in the Second Temple period, when prophecy became a thing of the past, did the urge for idolatry disappear.
Elijah's servant saw the Host; Miriam and Aaron both saw miracles. I'm inclined to believe that their later misdeeds were not due to personality-hijacking tampering from God, but to personal weakness.
Seeing angels does not make one inherently angelic.
Posts: 14554 | Registered: Dec 1999
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Lisa: Scott, God granted human beings free will. What you're asking is a lot like "Can God make a rock so big that He Himself can't lift it?" It's a question that can only exist as a semantic trick. Can God interfere with the free will He's given us? Practically speaking, yes. He hardened Pharaoh's heart, for example. But Pharaoh still had free will. He was influenced, but ultimately, he still retained the ability to choose.
Let's say Pharaoh, prior to God's intervention, had a 10% chance of acting as he did, but after the intervention the chance went to 90%. Is this consistent with your view of intervention while maintaining free will?
I don't particularly like this because, to me, the basis for positing free will is to make moral actors of us. If God makes Pharaoh predisposed to a given course of action, then surely (morally) Pharaoh should be judged less harshly.
Posts: 644 | Registered: Sep 2008
| IP: Logged |
posted
Like Rivka said, God had Moses and Aaron do major miracles before Pharaoh. That was divine intervention right there. God influenced Pharaoh by strengthening him against that influence. That can be seen as interference in Pharaoh's free will, but then, any overt action of God in the world is interference with our free will. If God makes a bird poop on me, it's going to change my actions.
Posts: 12266 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Scott R: BUT-- why would Pharaoh think he was outmatched? His own sorcerers were duplicating Aaron and Moses, miracle for miracle.
Not after the first two. Lice stumped them; it was too small. (And at least according to some Jewish sources, even with the first two, their attempts were pale copies -- red water for blood, frogs that neither moved nor croaked.)
Posts: 32919 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Lisa: Like Rivka said, God had Moses and Aaron do major miracles before Pharaoh. That was divine intervention right there. God influenced Pharaoh by strengthening him against that influence. That can be seen as interference in Pharaoh's free will, but then, any overt action of God in the world is interference with our free will. If God makes a bird poop on me, it's going to change my actions.
You don't think there's a difference between God providing some external stimulus and letting our brains work to reach our own conclusion versus actually influencing how we reach that conclusion?
This seems a relevant distinction, but, clearly, an argument can be made that they are equivalent.
Posts: 644 | Registered: Sep 2008
| IP: Logged |
quote:Let's say Pharaoh, prior to God's intervention, had a 10% chance of acting as he did, but after the intervention the chance went to 90%. Is this consistent with your view of intervention while maintaining free will?
I think according to that view, it would be more like "Pharaoh normally would have freely chosen one course of action. Because of blatant miracles making it obvious that resistance was futile, he would have seen no choice but to do something else. God gave him a superhuman ability to rationalize away the miracles in order to make the decision he really wanted to."
quote:I don't particularly like this because, to me, the basis for positing free will is to make moral actors of us. If God makes Pharaoh predisposed to a given course of action, then surely (morally) Pharaoh should be judged less harshly.
Supposing that's the case -- and there IS a school of thought that Pharaoh did get locked into his later decisions -- what would be the matter with Pharaoh being judged less harshly for his post-plague actions? (Especially considering that most of what he's judged for took place before the plagues started.)
quote:This is apologetics not...I dunno, serious critical examination of the issue.
That makes sense only if you see these as explanations concocted after the fact to make sense of the text, rather than traditions passed down from the start. It once again becomes relevant to note that from the Jewish perspective, the written portion of the Bible was never meant to be understood without the oral tradition.
Posts: 884 | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Lisa, you seem to believe in salvation by the work of repentance. That makes it all based on something humans do.
In your appraisal of the significance of the animal sacrifices, you see a mystery there. But does not the text say over and over that everything having to do with the animal sacrifices was "making an atonement"?
As for original sin, that was Adam's. By inheritance, all his children are fallen from God's fellowship, because Adam was. The son of a human is a human. BUT the Son of God agreed to be humanity's Surety--like a Co-signer. Because the Son of God took humanity into Himself when He took human nature upon Himself, and as the New Adam prevailed in all the areas where Adam failed, as well as paying the penalty for rebellion against God--which is ultimate severing from God, the Source of life--and yet lived, because as God He had life in Himself; Christ gave the entire human race a new default condition of saved. This is the good news of the gospel, that all humanity is already saved in Christ. Every infant is born saved, not lost. When we reach the age of accountability, we must choose for ourselves whether to side with Good and with God, or only consult the desires of self, because God will not force even peace with God on those who do not want it.
Your question about Hitler is complicated by the tenses you used. Since Hitler is now dead, that means his probation has closed, and we assume he did not repent and seek the forgiveness of God before he died. Though we cannot know for sure what his last thoughts were. He is not anywhere conscious, right now. He is in the suspended animation of death. Soul-sleep. So whatever was the case in the moment when he died, that was it, for Adolph.
I cannot think of anyone I would be more surprised to see in Heaven. But I am not Hitler's judge, though I will get to review the divine judgment. Actually, Hitler will not be lost because of anything he did, any of his crimes. If he is lost and eternally cut off from the Source of Life, it will be because he refused the salvation he had already been given by Christ.
Posts: 3742 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:I think according to that view, it would be more like "Pharaoh normally would have freely chosen one course of action. Because of blatant miracles making it obvious that resistance was futile, he would have seen no choice but to do something else. God gave him a superhuman ability to rationalize away the miracles in order to make the decision he really wanted to."
But if that were the case, why do the miracles at all? (Of course, once you assume an omnipotent God, that particular question becomes even harder. The whole plagues episode looks pretty ridiculous if you assume a God of even moderate power and intelligence.)
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Ron Lambert: Lisa, you seem to believe in salvation by the work of repentance. That makes it all based on something humans do.
Nope. God didn't have to give us the mechanism of repentance. Had He not, nothing we do would have made a difference.
quote:Originally posted by Ron Lambert: In your appraisal of the significance of the animal sacrifices, you see a mystery there. But does not the text say over and over that everything having to do with the animal sacrifices was "making an atonement"?
Leaving aside the mistake you're making -- again -- of focusing on the text, which is not the primary source of the laws regarding sacrifices, there are different terms for different elements of and types of repentance. Selicha (forgiveness), mechila (pardon) and kappara (atonement) are all different things. Those translations I used are approximations, btw. God forgives and pardons. We atone with God's help.
quote:Originally posted by Ron Lambert: As for original sin, that was Adam's. By inheritance, all his children are fallen from God's fellowship, because Adam was.
Yeah, I get that you think this. Do you get that from a Jewish perspective, that idea isn't just wrong, but obscene?
quote:Originally posted by Ron Lambert: The son of a human is a human. BUT the Son of God agreed to be humanity's Surety--like a Co-signer.
Oh, stop. We're all God's sons and daughters. And no person can take upon himself the sins of another.
quote:Originally posted by Ron Lambert: Because the Son of God took humanity into Himself when He took human nature upon Himself, and as the New Adam prevailed in all the areas where Adam failed, as well as paying the penalty for rebellion against God--which is ultimate<snip>
"New Adam". "Took human nature upon himself". These are basically pagan ideas that were given a thin coat of Jewish concepts. They were never anything that existed in the Torah; never anything that existed until Christianity came into being.
quote:Originally posted by Ron Lambert: Your question about Hitler is complicated by the tenses you used. Since Hitler is now dead, that means his probation has closed, and we assume he did not repent and seek the forgiveness of God before he died.
Do you assume that? Interesting. Oh, it's probably the case, but it's really not relevant. The question was, could he have repented while he was still alive? And the answer is that technically, he could have. God's mercy is limitless. But in practice, I can't see how he would have managed to make recompense for the harm he caused his victims.
quote:Originally posted by Ron Lambert: Though we cannot know for sure what his last thoughts were. He is not anywhere conscious, right now. He is in the suspended animation of death. Soul-sleep. So whatever was the case in the moment when he died, that was it, for Adolph.
"Suspended animation"? Honestly?
quote:Originally posted by Ron Lambert: I cannot think of anyone I would be more surprised to see in Heaven. But I am not Hitler's judge, though I will get to review the divine judgment.
No kiddin', really? You must be important.
quote:Originally posted by Ron Lambert: Actually, Hitler will not be lost because of anything he did, any of his crimes. If he is lost and eternally cut off from the Source of Life, it will be because he refused the salvation he had already been given by Christ.
Blah, blah, blah. God doesn't work that way.
Posts: 12266 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson: The whole plagues episode looks pretty ridiculous if you assume a God of even moderate power and intelligence.)
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[ROFL]](graemlins/rofl.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
