The Paradox of the Biblical God

[Kyuuketsuki]

No, that this quote: "To ask that God's love should be content with us as we are is to ask that God should cease to be God: because He is what He is, His love must, in the nature of things, be impeded and repelled by certain stains in our present character, and because He already loves us He must labour to make us loveable... What we would here and now call our 'happiness' is not the end God chiefly has in view: but when we are such as He can love without impediment, we shall in fact be happy" answers your first point.

I disagree with that argument as I've already said.

Kyu

[Titan]

I know, but what aspect of that? Which point is he wrong on?

[Kyuuketsuki]

I know, but what aspect of that? Which point is he wrong on?

Quite apart from the fact that he is arguing for something for which there is bugger all evidence in the first place I do not accept that a loving, all powerful, prescient god would allow misery, disease, death, pain ... you know all those inconvenient little things that don't quite fit with such a being  

[Titan]

Quite apart from the fact that he is arguing for something for which there is bugger all evidence in the first place I do not accept that a loving, all powerful, prescient god would allow misery, disease, death, pain ... you know all those inconvenient little things that don't quite fit with such a being

I disagree with the first statement and would like to debate it. But secondly that isn't the point you addressed. You said: "the biblical god is supposed to be all loving (perfect love), all knowing and all powerful and I think the contradiction between your god's supposedly perfect love lies in it's inability to love us perfectly when it has such power and prescience." Which is what the quote addresses.

You know just because you think Lewis is the best thing since the ark doesn't mean that I have to agree.

I never said you did, I was trying to point out that if you actually disagree you should point out where the quote is wrong. Now which part of the quote do you disagree with?

[Kyuuketsuki]

I disagree with the first statement and would like to debate it.

About there being bugger all evidence for your god? Go for it but bear in mind I mean validatable evidence.

But secondly that isn't the point you addressed. You said: "the biblical god is supposed to be all loving (perfect love), all knowing and all powerful and I think the contradiction between your god's supposedly perfect love lies in it's inability to love us perfectly when it has such power and prescience." Which is what the quote addresses.

And I've already told you (or at least heavily implied) I don't think his answer actually answers the point, I think it's a glib avoidance.

I never said you did, I was trying to point out that if you actually disagree you should point out where the quote is wrong. Now which part of the quote do you disagree with?

I disagree with the entire quote, the answer as a whole.

Kyu

[Titan]

About there being bugger all evidence for your god? Go for it but bear in mind I mean validatable evidence.

Validatable? As in?

I disagree with the entire quote, the answer as a whole.

Why?

[PipeBox]

I'd say the problem with the quote is that it implies that, in a nut shell, bad things don't happen to good people.  But they seem to happen equally to everyone.  If you apply it, instead, to the human race at large, it loses any meaning at all, because duh we'll all be in peace and prosperity when we've fixed all mankind's problems.  Heck, we'd see a drastic decrease in wars if we all just followed the same ideology, even if it was the "wrong" one.

The other problem is that it has the nasty habit of making God non-omnipotent.  I, personally, can directly go and help out and hang out with people who are incredibly sinful, while committing no sins myself.  Same goes for the character of Jesus.  He could even heal them.  But drop that into omnipotent, omniscient, omnipresent God's lap, and our character problems are what is impeding him from giving us any help at all . . .

[Kyuuketsuki]

About there being bugger all evidence for your god? Go for it but bear in mind I mean validatable evidence.

Validatable? As in?

Validatable! Verifiable!Confirmable!

I disagree with the entire quote, the answer as a whole.

Why?

Because it simply equates to God is ineffable ... it's a bullsh*t argument, it means nothing, it achieves nothing, it simply means you (I) can't understand the actions of god.

Kyu

[Titan]

Validatable! Verifiable!Confirmable!

I mean, what evidence type? As in a big booming voice that says "Kyu, seriously man, I AM GOD!" Or something else?

Because it simply equates to God is ineffable ... it's a bullsh*t argument, it means nothing, it achieves nothing, it simply means you (I) can't understand the actions of god.

I don't think it is equating God's morals as being ineffable as much as beyond our knowledge. Meaning that we could argue for his purpose in language if we were granted the knowledge of what it is. But you surely don't believe this. When a child comes up to their parents and says "Mom, dad, can I play on the street?" and the parents say no, the child may not know why but the knowledge is there. The parents simply understand more, understand the dangers more, than the child does from it's limited knowledge base. I remember many things my parents said I couldn't do that I was pissed and confused about but now I understand completely.

I'd say the problem with the quote is that it implies that, in a nut shell, bad things don't happen to good people. But they seem to happen equally to everyone. If you apply it, instead, to the human race at large, it loses any meaning at all, because duh we'll all be in peace and prosperity when we've fixed all mankind's problems. Heck, we'd see a drastic decrease in wars if we all just followed the same ideology, even if it was the "wrong" one.

I disagree, the quote is talking about how we can't always understand God's will from our perspective. That our perspective on pain, pleasure, life and death isn't necessarily his perspective. For instance, many people feel that God letting a little child die is cruel and unjust. But if God is the author of life (from a Christian perspective) then life ultimately belongs to him, it is his to give and take away. Furthermore, (from a Christian perspective, again) God would be taking that child to be with him. Christians believe that Heaven > Earth. There are people who quantify death and God's justification as having four different attributes. Two that apply to evil people and two that apply to good people. If you want I could try my best to explain them.

The other problem is that it has the nasty habit of making God non-omnipotent. I, personally, can directly go and help out and hang out with people who are incredibly sinful, while committing no sins myself. Same goes for the character of Jesus. He could even heal them. But drop that into omnipotent, omniscient, omnipresent God's lap, and our character problems are what is impeding him from giving us any help at all . . .

I'm sorry, I read this twice, I think I'm too tired to understand it...could you explain it in idiot terms for me...I'm just not the sharpest tool in the shed.

[PipeBox]

To ask that God's love should be content with us as we are is to ask that God should cease to be God: because He is what He is, His love must, in the nature of things, be impeded and repelled by certain stains in our present character, and because He already loves us He must labour to make us loveable... What we would here and now call our 'happiness' is not the end God chiefly has in view: but when we are such as He can love without impediment, we shall in fact be happy" answers your first point.

I meant this in particular, maybe I grabbed the wrong quote.  Either that, or I'm misunderstanding it.
And from that quote, is made to seem that we can't be happy because God is repelled by our character, sinfulness, whatever.  But it strikes me odd that an omnipotent being should be repelled by anything.  As I said, I can hang out with sinners and even help them out without sinning or being defiled by their presence, and even Jesus supposedly walked among and performed miracles for vast numbers of sinners.  But if we ask all-powerful God to do something for us in prayer, he suddenly can't because we have character flaws.  I don't buy it.  It looks like a justification for why God doesn't help out, being more put off by sin than he is concerned with the overall sorry state of his creation.  It looks like a justification for why God never answers prayers (based on the statistical evidence, and the fact that all 'answered' prayers had a naturalistic, completely possible outcome (A person getting over the flu, or getting through cancer, but never, ever regrowing a limb).

Also, it occurs to me now that God can't have created sin, since he is so repulsed by it.  He can't have established for himself what is right and wrong, it was a pre existing system.  It seems to supercede God, because he is perfect and there are pre-existing rules of what that entails.  Either that, or God created sin, right and wrong, morality, and then decided what he wasn't going to tolerate, but then he'd be free to change that any time and he should get on it.  I mean, imagine how much good could be done if God could help us out!  Hope that makes sense, it's giving me a headache trying to voice this the way I understand it.

(Also, I'd like to note that having to explain your way out of these situations is why theology is a total mind****.  I prefer science, all I need are the facts.  Not rationalization of one particular interpretation of one particular piece of the Bible.  Or having to philosophically work out all the ramifications of a supreme being.  And after all that, you still have no concrete details, just a rationalization, one of many.  But you're into Christianity and science, so I guess at the very least you get a good mental workout.)

[Titan]

And from that quote, is made to seem that we can't be happy because God is repelled by our character, sinfulness, whatever.

Not our character, simply sin.

But it strikes me odd that an omnipotent being should be repelled by anything.

It seems odd only in that you are attempting to apply "all-powerful" to "all-accepting."

As I said, I can hang out with sinners and even help them out without sinning or being defiled by their presence, and even Jesus supposedly walked among and performed miracles for vast numbers of sinners.

The question isn't: can God in some facet be near us when we are sinful, isn't the question. The question is: can a perfect God be CONTENT with us if we are sinners.

But if we ask all-powerful God to do something for us in prayer, he suddenly can't because we have character flaws.I don't buy it. It looks like a justification for why God doesn't help out, being more put off by sin than he is concerned with the overall sorry state of his creation. It looks like a justification for why God never answers prayers (based on the statistical evidence, and the fact that all 'answered' prayers had a naturalistic, completely possible outcome (A person getting over the flu, or getting through cancer, but never, ever regrowing a limb).

Actually, prayer isn't that simple from a Christian perspective. If you are good God isn't going to automatically grant your every whim. But this is a digression from the topic at hand. Also, the quote isn't in regard to that, it has more to do with God accepting us into heaven if we are sinful. As I said, prayer is a whole different issue.

Also, it occurs to me now that God can't have created sin, since he is so repulsed by it. He can't have established for himself what is right and wrong, it was a pre existing system.

Consider this analogy, I hand you a pen and a piece of perfectly white paper and say: "You can color on anything except the paper." But you color on the paper anyway and the paper becomes splotched and messy. Now, did I create the blackness on the paper? Notice that the pen itself is not bad in this analogy.

It seems to supercede God, because he is perfect and there are pre-existing rules of what that entails. Either that, or God created sin, right and wrong, morality, and then decided what he wasn't going to tolerate, but then he'd be free to change that any time and he should get on it. I mean, imagine how much good could be done if God could help us out! Hope that makes sense, it's giving me a headache trying to voice this the way I understand it.

Socrates would ask a similar question, I believe in Euthyphro or the Republic Book I, does piety supersede the deity or does the deity dictate what is pious? In either case can God sin? If Christianity is to believed then the question actually becomes irrelevant since God is believed to be all good but we try to answer it regardless.  Since God dictates what has value and what doesn't, or what has more significance, then by definition he is creating a moral system of right an wrong. Something isn't wrong unless an object or person or thing in the midst has value and that value is being corrupted. Since ultimately all things look for their value in the creator his will ultimately dictates right and wrong in all circumstances. Therefore, God cannot be wrong from a complete perspective because ultimately a sin is a crime against God (defying the value he places on things). So unless God can defy himself, he can't sin. But again, this is irrelevant in light of an omniscient, genial God.

(Also, I'd like to note that having to explain your way out of these situations is why theology is a total mind****. I prefer science, all I need are the facts.

Doesn't science, by its very nature, explain things. Also, the fact that there are questions doesn't invalidate a theory, a theory is invalidated only if there aren't answers.

Not rationalization of one particular interpretation of one particular piece of the Bible. Or having to philosophically work out all the ramifications of a supreme being. And after all that, you still have no concrete details, just a rationalization, one of many.

I think the philosophical ramifications of a supreme being (and whether one exists or not) would have to be the ultimate question of existence. What is the meaning of life? (Other than 42) The question is answered when we figure out what our value is. If we are finite in a universe devoid of a God then we ultimately don't have value and therefore there is no meaning to life. If we are subject to the wills of a God who is demanding of us, then our lives are lives of complete obedience and penitence. If God is a God of grace...well...some other time.

And after all that, you still have no concrete details, just a rationalization, one of many. But you're into Christianity and science, so I guess at the very least you get a good mental workout.)

My brain's the bastard child of Philosophy and science and therefore isn't much good for either one  

[PipeBox]

Hey, the quote said "stains in our present character," so I was just painting with a large brush to make sure you wouldn't reply "that isn't what it meant."  So much for that idea.  

All powerful doesn't necessitate all accepting, no.  It does mean, though, that if he is a totally genial god, with perfect empathy and unlimited love, that he should be able to get over that lack of acceptance.  But I suppose there's a pre-existing problem with perfect justice and perfect compassion.

Should God's ability to be content with someone dictate his compassion towards them?  I always thought the two could function independently, personally, and that's how I held it when I was a Christian.

As to prayer not being part of the topic at hand, apologies, I just blew in to the second page of the thread.  I have no foundation here, I'll bow out.  Though I'd like you to list all the stipulations regarding prayer sometime, see to all of them, and then ask God to fix up the world a bit.  I don't know why you should need to ask, either, but nothing is getting done at the moment . . .

As to the analogy of the pen:  *head asplodes*
But if I think I understand it: you could not present the piece of paper and still present the pen.  That would be the sensible thing to do if you didn't want any marks on any paper.  In layman's, free will can still exist without the ability to sin.  You can still mark all over the walls, however you choose, just not on the non-existent paper.  A God that willfully creates a situation where [strike:y32i1gdz]we can[/strike:y32i1gdz] he knows we will get screwed isn't doing too great of a job.  I like asking fundies if they ever considered why omniscient God stuck the tree of knowledge where Adam and Eve could get to it.  Personally, I like to leave the Drain-o and Windex and anti-freeze where small children can get and drink them.  Yeah.

And the relevance to whether something supercedes God is that one would find that something predated God, God is bound by rules he didn't define, and that universe isn't entirely defined by God.  Some folks would take issue with that, and I have no doubt such a view would complicate theology, even for reasons that aren't obvious to me (I'm no philosopher).

Yes, science by its very nature tries to explain things.  Its explanations are always falsifiable, though.  It keeps things grounded in reality,in this regard, by preventing a non-falsifiable answer being given in support of these theories.  I don't see any conflict with what I said previously . . .

I think the philosophical ramifications of a supreme being (and whether one exists or not) would have to be the ultimate question of existence. What is the meaning of life? (Other than 42) The question is answered when we figure out what our value is. If we are finite in a universe devoid of a God then we ultimately don't have value and therefore there is no meaning to life.

What?  Why does anything need a meaning?  It's just a desire we humans have.  To be preordained to fill a purpose.  To be assigned value greater than we can give ourselves, and for some reason pretending that it doesn't matter how much we value ourselves and each other.  But I ask you what God established your value from.  If he derived it from a mechanism outside himself, then you can do the same.  If he defined it in a completely arbitrary fashion, then you are quite possibly more qualified to define it.  We make our own purpose, though; it isn't implicit, and it isn't required for existence.  A lot of folks don't grasp that, they refuse to give value to their own life, and they need someone else's approval to believe they have any value at all.  They still end up giving their life its meaning by finding God and believing the Bible, but they will claim God gave it to them because anything human is too little for them.  They desire more, and by that fact alone there should be more . . . I dunno, it just makes more sense to count on myself and my friends and family for value.  I can count on them for it.  I can't count on God.

Hope this helps, but yeah, I just jumped in mid-thread, so I'll probably let myself out now.

[Kyuuketsuki]

I mean, what evidence type? As in a big booming voice that says "Kyu, seriously man, I AM GOD!" Or something else?

I don't know, it would have to be properly evaluated which of course is a problem because your god has never made itself available for such evaluation ... and how would I know? As Clarke says, "Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic"

I don't think it is equating God's morals as being ineffable as much as beyond our knowledge. Meaning that we could argue for his purpose in language if we were granted the knowledge of what it is. But you surely don't believe this. When a child comes up to their parents and says "Mom, dad, can I play on the street?" and the parents say no, the child may not know why but the knowledge is there. The parents simply understand more, understand the dangers more, than the child does from it's limited knowledge base. I remember many things my parents said I couldn't do that I was pissed and confused about but now I understand completely.

Isn't that the every essence of ineffability? From Miriam-Webster, "incapable of being expressed in words", from Encarta, "indescribable: unable to be expressed in words" ... in essence beyond our ability to understand?

I disagree, the quote is talking about how we can't always understand God's will from our perspective. That our perspective on pain, pleasure, life and death isn't necessarily his perspective. For instance, many people feel that God letting a little child die is cruel and unjust. But if God is the author of life (from a Christian perspective) then life ultimately belongs to him, it is his to give and take away. Furthermore, (from a Christian perspective, again) God would be taking that child to be with him. Christians believe that Heaven > Earth. There are people who quantify death and God's justification as having four different attributes. Two that apply to evil people and two that apply to good people. If you want I could try my best to explain them.

So ineffable then?

Kyu

[Kyuuketsuki]

Not our character, simply sin.

And sin is not being a believer pretty much yeah?

It seems odd only in that you are attempting to apply "all-powerful" to "all-accepting."

Where's it say that in your bible?

The question isn't: can God in some facet be near us when we are sinful, isn't the question. The question is: can a perfect God be CONTENT with us if we are sinners.

Apparently not since he's sending the lot of us evil f***s to hell.

Actually, prayer isn't that simple from a Christian perspective. If you are good God isn't going to automatically grant your every whim. But this is a digression from the topic at hand. Also, the quote isn't in regard to that, it has more to do with God accepting us into heaven if we are sinful. As I said, prayer is a whole different issue.

Actually from an ex-Catholic POV it is actually very simple ... you pray, you're good, you get rewarded, you don't you get slapped

I dropped out of the rest as it got way to philosophical for me and I'm a bit of a philosophy hater.

Kyu

[Titan]

Kyu, we need to shorten some of our long discussions, this is getting out of hand