"Nonsense" about Christianity

[rusmeister]

No responses to or refutations...yet However, I would like a little more detail on what you called "the collective effect of free will", does it exist as one thing, like the collective free-will? (and the like, the concept kinda intrigued me and I'd like a more detailed exposition before I continue this discussion).

What I mean by it is simply that my free will and your free will can very well collide, with results that may infringe on further exercise of free will. For example, a man by free-will commits murder. Society, being the agreed upon will of a large number of people, acts to imprison or otherwise punish/restrain the murderer, thus impinging on his will to continue running around free.
Or, if you prefer, I will to have a party with several friends, but a few of them choose ultimately to not come, leading me to the choice of simply meeting with one friend, or cancelling the party. The will of others impacts on our will. That's pretty much all I mean.

[rusmeister]

Now free will does not mean that the creations can choose all of the choices, but only one of them.

I'm not sure I follow. How is it free will if there's only one option?

I didn't say only one option. I said one choice, which is made out of the options. If you are 18, and must decide whether to join the Army or go to college first, you cannot simultaneously do both (and please don't mention ROTC! ). You have two options (leaving out the option of pumping gas for the rest of your days) and must make a decision - choose one.
Does that clarify it?

To me, the issue here seems to be perfection, not omniscience/omnipotence. Perfection, to my mind, implies completeness. So why create anything else? Creation seems to suggest lack, or want.

To me the operative word here is "seem". How could we know (in the sense of fully understand, as opposed to understanding something about it) what Creation means to its Creator?

Love (a horribly misused word, so I'll occasionally use the Greek agape, to which I primarily refer) desires things for others for their sake, because they are other, not for merely one's own sake. If I experience joy or happiness perhaps I am 'complete'. But love leads us to desire to spread joy and happiness to others, whether it is the infectious smile or something deeper. And God IS love. The nature of the Trinity (as opposed to the monolithic gods of other monotheism - setting aside the differences with polytheism) enables love - there IS other, even within the One, and therefore love is possible.

[rusmeister]

To me, the issue here seems to be perfection, not omniscience/omnipotence. Perfection, to my mind, implies completeness. So why create anything else? Creation seems to suggest lack, or want.

I'm not sure I agree. Creation can also be a way simply to express oneself. I can envision a perfect being wanting to create something, as a means of self-expression. But why would a perfect being create a flawed world? Now *there's* a question to ponder.

(I'm currently envisioning the Elohim deciding, in their perfection, to create a world. <shudder>)

I imagine, Ali, that you already know the Christian answer, that God created a perfect world, but gave us free will that enabled us to become imperfect, because he wants beings that freely choose to love and serve Him, not a bunch of automatons - He really does offer freedom, including the freedom to destroy oneself - although He does everything He can to discourage that and still leave us our freedom.

[rusmeister]

I believe he is referring to what we may call 'agency'. This is just semantical differences, but the meaning the same. Rus' english is so good from other posts that I've seen, that I think I'll let this slide Razz .... especially since I was the first to use the term "free-will" in my discussions and should have probably used "agency".

My thanks for the compliment! I'm an English teacher and I am learning a lot about precision of thought from my much maligned teachers, Lewis and Chesterton.
By "agency", do you mean "the ability to be an agent"? (If so, I can accept it, but see no problem with using the established term "free will".)

It may only be flawed to our preceptions. Because the natural and social laws of this world often work contrary to our desire or reason, we are often led to believe that this world "isn't perfect". Yet it may work perfectly well for whoever designed it (who, I imagine, would have many different conceptions of perfection, good, morality, etc).

One trouble with this argument (I speak as a language-meister here) is that it makes unmeaning of descriptive words such as "good" and "bad" for example (as well as their comparative and superlative forms). Again, Lewis does this much better than I do, but to sum it up, it is essential to have some over-arching, absolute standard of good by which we measure good from bad (which we Christians see as ruined good, not as a value on equal terms with good). Without that, we cannot share common meaning in our most basic language. My good is your bad and vice-versa, and we really are speaking foreign languages. Loss of understanding and meaning. Unmeaning.
Thus, we can only mean anything at all if 'good' really means 'good', to the Creator as well as to us. If He programmed us, then he (initially) programmed us with His conception of good, which we love, and bad, which we hate (so we smile at the good and frown at the bad, with apologies to Madeleine). Children, at least, normally have a clear perception of this. Only we make choices very frequently that dull this clear sense.

That's only a beginning and I am already out of time.

[rusmeister]

Sorry, Orlion, ya lost me at the fish-heads...

Might be why some religions make the call that we should become more like divinity...

Heh. Didn't we just talk about that in a different thread? How the serpent seduced Eve into biting the apple because then she'd become more like God?

I must've missed it. But yes, that is essentially the case - only the serpent wanted Eve to make herself the god of herself.

God wants us to become like Him in divinity and humility - to truly submit to Him as God. For me, the essence of selfishness reveals which is right.

[Avatar]

...only the serpent wanted Eve to make herself the god of herself.

Sounds alright to me. "Thou art god."

--A

[CovenantJr]

Now free will does not mean that the creations can choose all of the choices, but only one of them.

I'm not sure I follow. How is it free will if there's only one option?

I didn't say only one option. I said one choice, which is made out of the options. If you are 18, and must decide whether to join the Army or go to college first, you cannot simultaneously do both (and please don't mention ROTC! ). You have two options (leaving out the option of pumping gas for the rest of your days) and must make a decision - choose one.
Does that clarify it?

Ah, I see. I misunderstood. Thanks for clarifying.

[Orlion]

I believe he is referring to what we may call 'agency'. This is just semantical differences, but the meaning the same. Rus' english is so good from other posts that I've seen, that I think I'll let this slide Razz .... especially since I was the first to use the term "free-will" in my discussions and should have probably used "agency".

My thanks for the compliment! I'm an English teacher and I am learning a lot about precision of thought from my much maligned teachers, Lewis and Chesterton.
By "agency", do you mean "the ability to be an agent"? (If so, I can accept it, but see no problem with using the established term "free will".)

It may only be flawed to our preceptions. Because the natural and social laws of this world often work contrary to our desire or reason, we are often led to believe that this world "isn't perfect". Yet it may work perfectly well for whoever designed it (who, I imagine, would have many different conceptions of perfection, good, morality, etc).

One trouble with this argument (I speak as a language-meister here) is that it makes unmeaning of descriptive words such as "good" and "bad" for example (as well as their comparative and superlative forms). Again, Lewis does this much better than I do, but to sum it up, it is essential to have some over-arching, absolute standard of good by which we measure good from bad (which we Christians see as ruined good, not as a value on equal terms with good). Without that, we cannot share common meaning in our most basic language. My good is your bad and vice-versa, and we really are speaking foreign languages. Loss of understanding and meaning. Unmeaning.
Thus, we can only mean anything at all if 'good' really means 'good', to the Creator as well as to us. If He programmed us, then he (initially) programmed us with His conception of good, which we love, and bad, which we hate (so we smile at the good and frown at the bad, with apologies to Madeleine). Children, at least, normally have a clear perception of this. Only we make choices very frequently that dull this clear sense.

That's only a beginning and I am already out of time.

Agency or free-will, I can (and do) use them interchangeably, but sometimes it has to be established that that is what we're doing.

As far as your problem of Unmeaning, I can see where you are coming from, though I think relative situation is taken into account for what is "good" (at times, such as preferred ice cream flavors). Despite this relativity, we may be able to reach an objective good or goal. Consider: Let's just say that everyone who dies dwells in the presence of God in the eternities. We'll call this objective fact (for the sake of argument). We also come to know as objective fact that only those who are "cleansed of sin" by whatever means are the only ones who can abide the presence of God. As a result, in our mortal life, we see as an objective good the quest for absolution of our sins (and a loving God would probably also see this as objective good). So, in mortal life and perceptions, many goods can be seen, such as career, family, hobby, etc. However, one would have to look outside to see an objective good which is (or ought to be) the goal of all which is only perceived when considered from outside the realm of mortal experiance.

A bit of a mess, I too have often envied Lewis' skill with the english language.

[Seven Words]

Thanks cybr, I was just thinking of goading him about it... I -THIIINK- I was the only person here who tried to directly answer this question that he said was really important to him. (I was just annoyed at feeling invisible/inaudible.)

SevenWords, I still want to know where YOUR assumption comes from. ...your assumption that perfection stands apart from other beings, abstaining from relationships with other beings.

Are you assuming that all love relationships are based on both parties' need? Or that drawing into relationship with anything less than perfect would make a perfect being "dirty"? Or something else still?

There WERE no other beings at the time before Creation...just God. There is no conceivable reason for perfection to change. any change from perfection MUST, by definition, be to something OTHER than perfection.

The question isn't important to me in the sense i think you mean it...the lack of an answer is one of the more noteworthy reasons I left Christianity, not a barrier to my EVER accepting the faith again. Again, given either the proof or a personal experience I would become Christian, questions like this would be irrelevant. Absent either of those, this becomes a glaring weakness in the doctrines.

[Seven Words]

...only the serpent wanted Eve to make herself the god of herself.

Sounds alright to me. "Thou art god."

--A

That which groks is God. Drink deeply, my brother.

[Xar]

Thanks cybr, I was just thinking of goading him about it... I -THIIINK- I was the only person here who tried to directly answer this question that he said was really important to him. (I was just annoyed at feeling invisible/inaudible.)

SevenWords, I still want to know where YOUR assumption comes from. ...your assumption that perfection stands apart from other beings, abstaining from relationships with other beings.

Are you assuming that all love relationships are based on both parties' need? Or that drawing into relationship with anything less than perfect would make a perfect being "dirty"? Or something else still?

There WERE no other beings at the time before Creation...just God. There is no conceivable reason for perfection to change. any change from perfection MUST, by definition, be to something OTHER than perfection.

The question isn't important to me in the sense i think you mean it...the lack of an answer is one of the more noteworthy reasons I left Christianity, not a barrier to my EVER accepting the faith again. Again, given either the proof or a personal experience I would become Christian, questions like this would be irrelevant. Absent either of those, this becomes a glaring weakness in the doctrines.

Your consideration stems from the assumption that perfection is a) unchangeable, and b) a very limited state of being. In other words, as you yourself say, your consideration stems from the idea that "any change from perfection MUST, by definition, be to something OTHER than perfection." But this is not necessarily the case. Consider happiness. If you are already happy for whatever reason, and while in that state, you choose to do something that you also enjoy rather than sitting on a chair and being blissful, does that by definition make you other than happy? If I'm happy because I went out with the girl I like and everything was fine, and then came home and started reading a book I enjoy, would that make me less happy? I wouldn't think so. Perfection does not imply stagnation - it can be dynamic, not necessarily static.

[Seven Words]

Thanks cybr, I was just thinking of goading him about it... I -THIIINK- I was the only person here who tried to directly answer this question that he said was really important to him. (I was just annoyed at feeling invisible/inaudible.)

SevenWords, I still want to know where YOUR assumption comes from. ...your assumption that perfection stands apart from other beings, abstaining from relationships with other beings.

Are you assuming that all love relationships are based on both parties' need? Or that drawing into relationship with anything less than perfect would make a perfect being "dirty"? Or something else still?

There WERE no other beings at the time before Creation...just God. There is no conceivable reason for perfection to change. any change from perfection MUST, by definition, be to something OTHER than perfection.

The question isn't important to me in the sense i think you mean it...the lack of an answer is one of the more noteworthy reasons I left Christianity, not a barrier to my EVER accepting the faith again. Again, given either the proof or a personal experience I would become Christian, questions like this would be irrelevant. Absent either of those, this becomes a glaring weakness in the doctrines.

Your consideration stems from the assumption that perfection is a) unchangeable, and b) a very limited state of being. In other words, as you yourself say, your consideration stems from the idea that "any change from perfection MUST, by definition, be to something OTHER than perfection." But this is not necessarily the case. Consider happiness. If you are already happy for whatever reason, and while in that state, you choose to do something that you also enjoy rather than sitting on a chair and being blissful, does that by definition make you other than happy? If I'm happy because I went out with the girl I like and everything was fine, and then came home and started reading a book I enjoy, would that make me less happy? I wouldn't think so. Perfection does not imply stagnation - it can be dynamic, not necessarily static.

If any change from perfection is not, by definition, imperfection, then (I'm NOT being sarcastic) your definition of perfection is very different from mine. Perfect is an absolute, in all ways the best possible.

[CovenantJr]

Agreed. Perfection is, by my definition, the ultimate state. There can't be multiple states of perfection. I find that nonsensical.

I accept that your definition is different, Xar, but I don't understand it.

[Cail]

Huh? No offense, but how can we imperfect folk possibly think we can define what perfection is?

[Orlion]

Huh? No offense, but how can we imperfect folk possibly think we can define what perfection is?

Here's how I would do it: Take a couple eggs, two cups of flour, a spoonful of sugar...

But seriously, I believe I am in agreement with Xar more than anyone else, though maybe not entirely, here's why:

Perfection deals with specific characterizations. A perfect X is that which does what X is suppose to do. For example, let's say an ax was made to cut down trees. This ax would be perfect so long as it continued to cut down trees. If it became dull and could not cut down trees, than the ax is imperfect because it did not "fulfill the measure of its creation." Here is why perfection is various, we can have the perfect mint ice cream cone, the perfect car, the perfect job, etc. Saying God is perfect would then be to say that he is doing what God should do. What is that? It could be creating worlds, destroying lives, or studying man like a scientist studies bacteria, we don't know.

These are simple examples, in my opinion, what a God does would be much more extended.

[Seven Words]

Huh? No offense, but how can we imperfect folk possibly think we can define what perfection is?

If we weren't capable of defining it, then shouldn't God have, in His Word to us in Genesis, used a DIFFERENT term, one we COULD define?

[Xar]

Agreed. Perfection is, by my definition, the ultimate state. There can't be multiple states of perfection. I find that nonsensical.

I accept that your definition is different, Xar, but I don't understand it.

It's a matter of perception, I think. To offer an analogy, you see perfection as the highest pinnacle of a mountain: there's only one point at the top of the pinnacle, and moving away from it necessarily means climbing down the mountain. To me, it's more like swimming on the surface of an ocean: you can swim around as much as you want and still remain on the surface.

In other words, to you, there is only one perfect state - deviate a little from that combination of factors and you're no longer perfect. To me, perfection is not necessarily fixed as a single state defined by a specific conglomeration of factors - or rather, a perfect being can do things and still be perfect.

[Cail]

Xar's interpretation seems much more logical. IOW, I think that SW and CovJr. are using a strict definition of "perfection" in order to justify their beliefs.

In no way are perfection and creation mutually exclusive.

[Seven Words]

Xar's interpretation seems much more logical. IOW, I think that SW and CovJr. are using a strict definition of "perfection" in order to justify their beliefs.

In no way are perfection and creation mutually exclusive.

Justify? I feel no need to justify my beliefs. I believe what I believe for what I deem good and sufficient reasons. Other people have THEIR own good and sufficient reasons for their beliefs. Absent objective proof, it's pretty arrogant and self-righteous to try and tell other people that their beliefs are wrong. That was more than mildly insulting Cail. I don't apply this one definition of perfection in regard to spiritual matters, and a different one elsewhere.

[CovenantJr]

I'm not justifying any beliefs. My idea of perfection is the same whether it applies to a divine entity, a novel or a cake. I'm not remotely commenting on whether or not a 'perfect' being would or could have a desire to create. I'm just saying I can understand that argument, given my interpretation of the concept of perfection.

I'm not sure I see perfection as a mountain so much as, for the sake of consistency, a cake. If you have a perfect cake, with jam and icing and whatever else (the details of what you personally consider a good cake aren't really relevant here), and it is indeed absolutely perfect, changing it can only be imperfection. If you add more icing, there'll be too much icing for it to be perfect. If you take some away, there'll be too little. If you change the jam, the flavour will be wrong. If you make it bigger, it's too big; if smaller, too small. If it is perfect, any conceivable deviation can only move it away from that state.

Again, this has nothing to do with my 'beliefs', whatever you, Cail, suspect them to be. It's my understanding of a concept, applied to divinty or anything else you care to name.