religion and faith (also long)

[AJackson]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
from Matthew 5:43-48

43"You have heard that it was said, 'Love your neighbor and hate your enemy.' 44But I tell you: Love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you, 45that you may be sons of your Father in heaven. He causes his sun to rise on the evil and the good, and sends rain on the righteous and the unrighteous. 46If you love those who love you, what reward will you get? Are not even the tax collectors doing that? 47And if you greet only your brothers, what are you doing more than others? Do not even pagans do that? 48Be perfect, therefore, as your heavenly Father is perfect.

Is this what you are referring to?

[/ QUOTE ]

I guess the question you should be asking is Did Jesus really believe in the God of the Old Testament?


[/ QUOTE ]

An even better question is since God is a perfect entity, why the big change from an eye for a eye-stone to death your disobediant children-philosophy to a love your neighbor philosophy?

Did he change his mind?

[Peter666]

"But all of that aside, I would like to know what your idea of the "good life" is, since to me this is the most important issue for a human being. Just curious."

Superb question. This should be answered by all before making any attempts to subvert the opinions of others.

[Davidius]

Why thank you!

[pilliwinks]

I am no expert on the Old Testament, so I hesitate to even speculate on explanations for some of the events mentioned. Nonetheless, I think there are some general principles that relate to figuring out how the God of wrath is the same as the God of love.

It is a core christian belief that God is unchanging. Jesus certainly believed in the God of the old testament, and that he was the son of that same God. Jesus did not suggest that the old testament was flawed in itself, or factually incorrect, but he did very strongly criticise the interpretation of it.

One traditional interpretation had been that God demanded righteousness, that righteousness was defined by the laws of Moses, and that anyone (Jew or foreigner) who refused to follow these laws, fell legitimately under the wrath of God (who might delegate the smiting duties to them). Before all you Jews leap on me, I should say that this is a terrible perversion of the Jewish faith, nonetheless, I think it characerises some of the sects that Jesus criticises.

I think some claim christians also believe this, and there is no doubt that some church-folk have (the crusades and inquisition etc etc).

But what does Jesus say? Well, he says that all of the law and prophets (ie all the rules that were supposed to make you righteous) are summed up in "love God wholeheartedly" and "love your neighbour as yourself". Obviously, loving God includes doing what he recommends.

And when you don't? Here there a two points. Jesus is clear that we have no moral high ground from which to punish the wicked: let him who is without sin cast the first stone. It is also clear that God does have the moral high ground from which to punish (he doesn't sin and knows all the facts).

This is the point from which you can potentially reconcile the God of wrath with the God of love. He makes it clear that he has no pleasure in the death of the wicked, rather he forgives and has mercy to the point that the 'righteous' start complaining (eg Jonah 4:1). Nonetheless, there comes a point at which he acts.

You can see these acts as unjustifiable if you wish, but on what basis? This is a God who knows the outcome of his action, or inaction. We cannot track the swirls of history that result from the death or sparing of an evil individual or nation, but he can. He also has eternal priorities: the death of Jesus is seen by him not as an appalling miscarriage of justice, but rather as an eternal triumph of sacrificial love. So if he is prepared to kill his own son for a higher purpose, do you think he should baulk at punishing the wicked? Or even killing the innocent, like Jesus, when there is a greater good to be gained?

Now you may say that there is no good to be gained by having bears attack taunting children, but how can you tell? In every case where events are clearly linked to the actions of God, people's lives are changed - not just those involved, but also those who hear later, even thousands of years later.

Obviously, I don't know either, what all the fallout from God's interventions has been. So I can't add it up for you and say: there, see it was for the best. What I can say is: I believe in a God who makes us and loves us. He wants us to prosper. Nonetheless, there are times when suffering is called for, and he will administer it. I am glad about that, though I don't pretend to understand why it has to happen in every case. This is not hard to understand if you ever went to the dentist before the advent of pain relief!

sorry, this turned out a bit longer than I expected...

[MidGe]

[ QUOTE ]
This is not hard to understand if you ever went to the dentist before the advent of pain relief!

[/ QUOTE ]

Yes, I guess the pain was god's punishment then, or a slight oversight in the design.


Really?

[madnak]

This is just a dodge. In the first place, it assumes the end justifies the means. In the second, it's largely circular. You assume we can't judge God as part of your argument that we can't judge God. And in the third, this is just the argument that a butterfly flapping its wings can cause a hurricane. Maybe Hitler was actually a really nice guy, maybe the world is better for his contributions. We can't know! Maybe Hitler hated the things he did, because he really loved everyone, but he had a divine revelation that his atrocities were for the best. This is the argument you're making. Is it valid? It's theoretically sound, but not exactly convincing to anyone who doesn't take the divinity of the Christian God as a basic premise. Someone who claims Hitler was omnibenevolent would be standing on the same ground.

Finally and most importantly, it fails to take hell into consideration. While slaughter and slavery and genocide and rape might ultimately have positive effects, hell is eternal. It can't lead to something positive. There is no such eventuality. Hell proves that God values suffering inherently, and therefore is not loving, merciful, and omnibenevolent.

[pilliwinks]

I think we all agree that there are circumstances where unpleasant means are unavoidable to acheive worthy ends. The second world war being an obvious example. I do not condone killing, and regard 'justifications' of it as repugnant, nonetheless I would have fought in that war.

I don't think the argument is circular: I am saying that if you accept that God is who I say (omni3), one logical consequence is that you cannot convincingly question his actions. This is the message of the book of Job: Job says why do bad things happen to good people, and God says "I am God". I love that bit. It would be so reasonable for the writers to attribute some other motive to God (the greeks always did). But there is no fudge: either you accept that God is responsible (and trust that he has your interests at heart), or you deny that he is God.

I guess I wasn't trying to put forward a convincing argument for God's benevolence to those who don't believe in him. I was trying to explain to those who do believe in him, that bad things are not inconsistent with a loving God.

There are countless examples of God's grace and mercy through the bible and church history. These examples are sadly lacking from the history of Hitler, so it is harder to believe that he meant well. I never knew him, but I have heard that he was a sad twisted character. On the other hand I do know God, and I can vouch for his character.

It is interesting to hear that you think God values suffering. This is a popular theme in many faiths, and has cropped up from time to time in the church also. It does run counter to everything I have read in the bible, though (verses available on request!).

Hell clearly can lead to something positive, in the same way that all threats of dire consequences can - people make different choices if they know what the outcomes will be. Having said that, I tend to agree with those writers that portray heaven and hell as an eternalisation of our earthly relationship (or lack thereof) with God. In that sense it is not a punishment or threat, it is an inevitable consequence.

MidGe, I was looking for an example of unavoidable suffering in a good cause. Perhaps having injections is easier to make sense of? It is neither a punishment nor a mistake, but it can be really hard to explain to small children.

[madnak]

[ QUOTE ]
But there is no fudge: either you accept that God is responsible (and trust that he has your interests at heart), or you deny that he is God.

[/ QUOTE ]

God's actions imply the second course is wiser.

[ QUOTE ]
I guess I wasn't trying to put forward a convincing argument for God's benevolence to those who don't believe in him. I was trying to explain to those who do believe in him, that bad things are not inconsistent with a loving God.

[/ QUOTE ]

Then it has no value at all for someone trying to determine whether to believe in an omni3 God.

[ QUOTE ]
Hell clearly can lead to something positive, in the same way that all threats of dire consequences can - people make different choices if they know what the outcomes will be.

[/ QUOTE ]

I agree with you that the point of hell is to scare people into submission. I don't think that's a good thing.

[ QUOTE ]
Having said that, I tend to agree with those writers that portray heaven and hell as an eternalisation of our earthly relationship (or lack thereof) with God. In that sense it is not a punishment or threat, it is an inevitable consequence.

[/ QUOTE ]

This is directly fallacious for various reasons. The greatest of which is that God is omnipotent. The idea that God doesn't want anyone to go to hell, but what can He do? His hands are tied, it's the "inevitable" consequence. This idea is absurd. God makes the rules - nothing is "inevitable" except when He chooses for it to be. And God is capable by definition of offering redemption even in the afterlife, or simply destroying souls destined for hell rather than allowing them to be tortured eternally. Moreover, as God created our souls and the universe, and all the rules thereof, He is the sole architect of hell. Finally, as God is omnibenevolent, He can value nothing above suffering. Even if hell were somehow "just" (and that's not an idea I'd give any credit to except for the sake of argument), God would still stop it - because if He is truly omnibenevolent He must value compassion and mercy above justice. If He values justice above compassion, He's not omnibenevolent. His benevolence plays second fiddle to His sense of "justice."

[ QUOTE ]
MidGe, I was looking for an example of unavoidable suffering in a good cause. Perhaps having injections is easier to make sense of? It is neither a punishment nor a mistake, but it can be really hard to explain to small children.

[/ QUOTE ]

Injections have a clear positive effect on the child. The situation isn't analogous. The average parent would never sentence a child to eternal torture. Also in many cases God created extreme suffering in innocent people in order to secure an advantage for His "chosen" people. That's like telling your son he's going to be brutally dismembered, but that's okay because his brother is going to get all his stuff.

Numbers 31:17-18 - "Now therefore kill every male among the little ones, and kill every woman that hath known man by lying with him.

But all the women children, that have not known a man by lying with him, keep alive for yourselves."

Some "medicine."

[MidGe]

Hiya pilliwinks,

[ QUOTE ]
MidGe, I was looking for an example of unavoidable suffering in a good cause. Perhaps having injections is easier to make sense of? It is neither a punishment nor a mistake, but it can be really hard to explain to small children

[/ QUOTE ]

That is missig the point. The parents dilemna is within the game presumably set by your god. The parent are not all-powerful and able to change the settings. You god, otoh, being all-powerful, could have set it up differently. Maybe is not all powerful, or at least has some severe imperfections or weaknesses.

For instance he could set the game so that ultimately everyone became a follower after many rebirths etc...or that everyone were condemned to relive till they get it right! It still would be megalomiac, to me, but less so than one strike (life) and you are out and damned!

[pilliwinks]

Looks like both of you think that being omnipotent means you can do anything [img]/images/graemlins/grin.gif[/img]

Seriously, though, I think it was Aquinas who said that it was heretical to assert that the inability of God to do the impossible was a limitation on his omnipotence. The point being that orthodoxy not only accepted that God cannot do impossible things, they insisted on it.

The question then is not 'is God ever unable to do what he wants', but rather 'are we looking here at a situation where God's hands are tied'.

One obvious area where I believe God's hands tied relates to people's choices: God appears to normally allow us to make choices, including a choice to despise and reject him. If he allows that choice it is not clear to me how he is supposed to magically intervene and generate a loving eternal relationship. Your suggestion of do-overs until you choose right does not sound like choice to me!