Random destinies

[Avatar]

If there is no God, there is no bad stuff.

It doesn't mean there''s no bad stuff. It just means that it's only bad according to us.

--A

[Fist and Faith]

My point Fist, if there's a God, He determines bad stuff, regardless of your opinion. If there is no God, there is no bad stuff.

No. Not if what God does goes against my morality. If he's doing wrong, he's doing wrong.

[Cybrweez]

Wow, wrong according to Fist, which is different than wrong according to Av, or me, or anyone else. "But Dad, its not fair!"

Av, I know that's the gist. Like I said, "us" can't even define bad. Yet, we'll say if there's a God that created us, we should dictate whether His actions are good or bad. Once we define that. Which we can't. But, since each of us can define our own good/bad, then maybe He has to meet all these in some combination? Take some intersecting set of all these definitions?

[Fist and Faith]

Cybrweez, you have no idea what it's like to not believe. I'm coming at you from a completely different direction than yours. There are atheists in foxholes. Those who smirk and think otherwise are ignorant and/or arrogant. We don't all start going to church when our children are born. And we don't believe God is the authority on right and wrong, even if he does exist and created the universe. That's not how it works outside of the belief systems that think that is how it works. Insisting and repeating that we are wrong about that does not get the conversation anywhere. Getting snotty about it accomplishes even less.

[aliantha]

We're not talking about punishing a kid for not mowing the lawn, Weez; we're talking about whether it's morally defensible for Dad to kill the kid.

I'm sure you've heard the phrase, "Do as I say, not as I do." Are you saying we should apply that to God's actions? Human parents typically use the phrase to excuse their human fallibilities. But God is perfect, as I understand it, so he has no fallibilities, human or otherwise. Does he still get a "do as I say, not as I do" pass? Does he deserve an excuse of *any* kind?

[Cybrweez]

Cybrweez, you have no idea what it's like to not believe.

I don't even know where to begin, so I won't bother.

And we don't believe God is the authority on right and wrong, even if he does exist and created the universe.

I know, I thought that's what I've been talking about? But that's where irrationality comes into play in my mind. If God exists and created all, He is the authority, whether you like it or not. Sorry to say, its not snotty in any regard. To say, God may exist, and created everything, but no, He's not in authority, just sounds silly doesn't it? I guess you can believe He created everything, and then said that creation has authority over Him? Or they are equal? That's the options.

[Fist and Faith]

The snotty part is, "Wow, wrong according to Fist..."

But no, if I found reason to believe the God you believe in exists, he would not automatically be the authority in this matter. You have chosen to accept that; I need not. In universe construction, sure. Physics, matter/energy, etc etc, yes. But you cannot insist that I accept everything God has done as Good, simply because God did it. He did things that I believe are wrong, and I don't have any problem telling him so.

Do you not see the impossibility of forcing me to accept this? How will you accomplish it?

[Avatar]

He has to meet all these in some combination? Take some intersecting set of all these definitions?

Nah, just mine.

--A

[Fist and Faith]

But seriously, not even that. He has to be true to himself. Just as I do.

[Cybrweez]

fist, I'm confused how you can think God did wrong things? What is wrong? What you don't like? That's fine then that you would tell him so, but what would that mean?

God must be true to Himself, sure. I don't see any inconsistency there.

[Fist and Faith]

fist, I'm confused how you can think God did wrong things? What is wrong? What you don't like? That's fine then that you would tell him so, but what would that mean?

You are saying God is the authority of what's right and wrong. I assume you mean that anything he does is, by definition, right. I'm saying that's not true. It's wrong to kill the firstborn children of a group of people because that group is persecuting another group. It's wrong to allow Satan to kill Job's children and servants just to prove to Satan that Job's faith in God is strong. He is not the one to look to for a model of good behavior if he does those things.

God must be true to Himself, sure. I don't see any inconsistency there.

Nor do I. I just say not to model God's behavior.

Of course, I'm not saying I'm better. I have done things I think are wrong, and I'll almost certainly do such things many more times throughout my life. I guess there are various reasons for it. Sometimes I just take the easy way out. If the God you believe in exists, maybe he doesn't think some of the things I'm talking about are any more right than I do, but he did them anyway. (Certainly, you don't think that's the case. I'm just brainstorming.) So I'm not necessarily judging him as worse than me. Problem is, when he does something wrong, a world might blow up. heh

[rusmeister]

Hi guys!

(To post or not to post...?)

Obviously, I understand where Cyberweez is coming from, although I would present arguments somewhat differently - but I now think it's futile to present the arguments - even ones such as that your judgement of God's actions (or anyone else's) hinge on your knowledge and perceptions - if you learn something, even one thing, that transforms them and reveals them to be just, then your condemnation falls apart. It'd be like a person who walked in on the story in the Illearth War at the point of Caerroil Wildwood's execution of Fleshharrower and judged it to be violent and therefore evil. The knowledge that the Giant was a Raver and no longer a Giant would transform the judgement.
But I think it is, like I said, futile.

If people are dogmatically convinced of something - whether they are aware of their dogmas or not, then no arguments of any sort will make a dent (and yes, I realize that this applies to my own dogmas as well. But if something is actually true, what could make a dent in it, except falsehood? And that is what dogmas are about, and everybody has them and operates on them, consciously or not). I even doubt the small steps, Fist. (ref a response of yours to me a month or so ago). This strengthens my general conviction that a society that does not agree on the fundamental nature of truth must ultimately fall apart - although it can put on a good show for a hundred years or so. If people can not agree on what is right, or even if there is a right (skepticism in full bloom), then the society is already decadent and well on its way to the thing that comes after pride.

The problem you are coming up against at the moment is the problem of authority. It has been a problem in the West since the Reformation (accepting conventional historical labels for the moment). Once the Reformers rejected the Roman Catholic Church as authority, they had the problem of deciding what to treat as the authority, and went with the Bible (although, if the Roman Church, as part of a larger and unified body in the 4th century was invalid even then, how the Bible could be valid, and what Christians up to that time did with only bits and pieces of it, if that, is a mystery). The trouble was that very quickly people began disagreeing on how to interpret the Bible. Being only a book, however holy and inspired, it could not itself arbitrate disputes on its own meaning. Once a central authority that is the ultimate arbiter of truth is rejected, then the individual ultimately becomes his own authority. This in turn made the so-called "Enlightenment" possible (here I must reject the conventional term as philosophically wrong - I use "Endarkenment".)
The so-called "enlightened" thinkers who founded modern western philosophies, were founded ultimately on their own authority, and so philosophy ceased to be a thing like science, where dogma is piled on dogma in an ever-broader establishment of truth, and became a smorgasbord, where the individual, on his own authority, can pick and choose what he likes to believe. Thus, we prate about science and push the learning of the sciences, but we deliberately avoid the teaching of philosophy and say that "it is up to the individual" (you are your own authority) - something that (I hope) we would readily admit to be insanity if applied to science. It is equally insane to apply it to philosophy, for philosophy means simply "the love of truth" - and it is no love of truth to found all thought on a (usually unexamined) dogma that there is no truth.
And so philosophy is at the lowest point it has ever been in history since the time before Greece. Even the so-called "Dark Ages" were not so unphilosophical as we are.

We are a short-lived people. Far too short to have much time to come to the answers to life, the universe, and everything on our own. If we are really on our own, then we must be content to be agnostic, which is merely the Greek for ignorant - unless we accept dogma on the basis of outside authority. The question then becomes, 'What do we accept as authority?". It should be clear (but perhaps is not) that anyone who accepts outside authority - particularly something institutional that accumulates wisdom over millenia - would have a tremendous advantage over someone who simply relied on what they, personally, had time to learn (their pittance of 70 or so years, if that) and would have access to much deeper knowledge and wisdom, even if they personally didn't know all of it.

In the story of GK Chesterton, which sadly, most know little of, he describes how he had tried to form his own philosophy, to include justice and wisdom, etc, and, as he put he, he tried to be ahead of his time, only to discover that he was over 1800 years behind it. That what he had been searching for (truth) was already fully-formed. He didn't need to re-invent the wheel, or develop his own philosophy (truth). And neither do we, if we are willing to learn from and accept outside authority.

It's probably futile to have said all that. But I feel sorry for "Weez", going it alone against people who will never agree with him, and would only suggest that perhaps there are greater depths here that none of the participants are touching on (or getting to) - and I intend no snobbery or superiority in saying so. There are deeper things in Christian history that CW has not touched on, and there are far deeper responses to the objections held by unbelievers - deep enough that I could not give them all to you. But I know where to search. I know that I am not, in the short time given to me, capable of discovering the truth about the nature of man and meaning of our existence, and if I want to be able to claim to know anything about those questions, I need to refer to an authority outside of myself. (Conversely, a person who is ignorant can't make any such claims at all - or even claim that there can be no such authority that actually is in possession of the truth.) Ignorance, in this sense, is not bliss.

There is an excellent article in Touchstone magazine that is somewhat related - www.touchstonemag.com/archives/article. ... 6-04-034-f

[Fist and Faith]

Yes, it may be futile in the sense that there are things we will always disagree on.

But it would not be futile to explain something like why Caerroil Wildwood's actions were not what they first seem.

However, that's as much of your post as I'm reading. Your arrogance is too much for me, and I'm not going to deal with it any longer. "Futile... futile... futile..." You don't have me falling all over your brilliant words, converting to your beliefs? You shouldn't expect it. That's not always how things go. You aren't seeing the light of my brilliance, either, eh? But am I saying talking to you is futile, futile, futile? No. I've simply continued to offer thoughts, and watched you not take them as Truth.

[Orlion]

Also, as rus said, we are dealing with dogmas. I'll give you an example: a religious person may say, "God created you so that you could be happy." Now, a skeptical person would respond by saying, "If that is so, why does he allow, no, force horrible things to happen to us such as disease and death taking away those that give our life meaning?" If we look at things objectively, God himself doesn't seem to give us any moral laws, these come from the religion of man. If God, then, intended us to view him as being the source of morality, I almost have to ask why is he absent from our lives in such a way that we must create him in our own image with our dogmatic parameters?

Another point: I never agreed with the assumption that right is what God decides it to be. This would make him seem, well, childish, and like all of morality hinges upon what he happens to feel at the time. As a result, I like to believe that morality (right and wrong) exist outside of God, and if he does do anything, I would hope it is because he at least understands it and does it because it is right.

[aliantha]

Rus, you give lip service to the idea that you hold dogmatic beliefs, but you never follow that line of thinking to its logical conclusion.

You too are picking and choosing what you want to believe. You have the same smorgasbord of ideas before you as everyone else in today's world. Your personal decision is to believe what someone has told you -- that X doctrine is The Truth. I could rudely point out that your choice conveniently doesn't require you to do any thinking for yourself -- you just have to do what you're told (and yes, what you're told to do is hard, are the strictures are onerous but the rewards in the next life are worth it, etc.). But I'm not going to be rude. I'm not going to accuse you of taking the intellectually easy way out. Because your choice is as valid as anyone else's here. And that's especially true if the Christian doctrine of free will is correct.

I've got one more point to make this morning. I've heard a fair number of analogies here about God the Father and how we, as his children, must follow him and do what he tells us in order to live correctly. But again, the analogy isn't followed to its inevitable conclusion: the number-one job of a parent is to raise the child to maturity -- and then let go. At some point, you have to let the kid make his own way in the world. If you only have little kids, and/or if you grew up in an authoritarian household where even young adults are under Mom & Dad's thumb, it might be hard to grasp this fact. But you see it all the time in nature; for example, birds kick the nestlings out when they're old enough to fend for themselves. They trust -- and human parents who don't have their egos tied up in their kids trust -- that they have taught the kids everything they need to know to survive, and now the parents need to step back. Christianity, otoh, requires its followers to be children forever.

[rusmeister]

Rus, you give lip service to the idea that you hold dogmatic beliefs, but you never follow that line of thinking to its logical conclusion.

You too are picking and choosing what you want to believe. You have the same smorgasbord of ideas before you as everyone else in today's world. Your personal decision is to believe what someone has told you -- that X doctrine is The Truth. I could rudely point out that your choice conveniently doesn't require you to do any thinking for yourself -- you just have to do what you're told (and yes, what you're told to do is hard, are the strictures are onerous but the rewards in the next life are worth it, etc.). But I'm not going to be rude. I'm not going to accuse you of taking the intellectually easy way out. Because your choice is as valid as anyone else's here. And that's especially true if the Christian doctrine of free will is correct.

I've got one more point to make this morning. I've heard a fair number of analogies here about God the Father and how we, as his children, must follow him and do what he tells us in order to live correctly. But again, the analogy isn't followed to its inevitable conclusion: the number-one job of a parent is to raise the child to maturity -- and then let go. At some point, you have to let the kid make his own way in the world. If you only have little kids, and/or if you grew up in an authoritarian household where even young adults are under Mom & Dad's thumb, it might be hard to grasp this fact. But you see it all the time in nature; for example, birds kick the nestlings out when they're old enough to fend for themselves. They trust -- and human parents who don't have their egos tied up in their kids trust -- that they have taught the kids everything they need to know to survive, and now the parents need to step back. Christianity, otoh, requires its followers to be children forever.

Hi, Ali!
A few things have to be refuted...
Actually, the whole point is that I do NOT pick and choose. having found the Authority, I accept what it tells me, whether I like it or not - and that is a key point - that something that is the truth must include things that we don't like or are uncomfortable with - but we have to accept them if we trust the Authority. Why should I trust it? Blindly, just because it tells me to? Actually, no. If I find that it is right, not only where I was right, but more importantly, where I was wrong - that it is consistently right, and more right than I am, then the trust is not blind. It is with eyes wide open.
And the point that unbelievers (incredibly) generally miss, and it seems that you may have, is that I am free at any time to "not do what I'm told". I can always ignore them - and it will be at my cost when I do (and costs in this life, as well as the next). If this Authority has been consistently more right than me, then it follows that it is likely to be right, even if I can't perceive how.

I agree that our choices are all valid - but that only means that they are choices, not that they are all right choices. That is what free will is about.

The Christian view I am a part of agrees with you - that we must "grow up" in a real sense. There is another sense in which we must remain as children - but not in the way you seem to mean - of ignorant, foolish and immature, but rather in the sense of innocence and wide-eyed wonder - at seeing and appreciating the world the way a child does, at not taking it for granted (and this is something you find a lot of in Chesterton - it is a major theme for him). The Orthodox doctrine of theosis is all about "growing up". en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theosis

Fist, I'm sorry that you see arrogance - it is really not intended.

exaggerating or disposed to exaggerate one's own worth or importance often by an overbearing manner <an arrogant official>

There is nothing personal in this; I am in no way "better" than you. It is another matter entirely, though, that I declare a particular belief to be true. That is not arrogance; I am not exaggerating my own worth; it is a claim to be established as true or not.

[Cybrweez]

I see, there is no absolute right or wrong, but I'll hold God to my standard. Ok, but my point is, so what? What is your standard? To anyone, especially a God that created you? It means nothing, literally. I might think white people are superior, and God, being good, would encourage their dominance, and enlsavement of others. If He doesn't, I'll tell Him He's wrong.

ali, I think rus answered your claim about being childish, but I'll add, one key part of child/parent relationship, the child does not have any big picture. They make their accusations on such limited experience, and adults do the same to God, as rus mentioned.

I just heard a good question yesterday, who is skeptical of skepticism? Who doubts doubt? It reminded me of Ravi Zecharias, on tour of Ohio State U, was taken to building designed as post-modern architecture, pillars for no reason, staircases end at a wall, similar things. Ravi had one question, "Did the architect do the same thing w/the foundation?" Wow, so profound. On the practical and philosophical levels.

[Cybrweez]

Another thing I heard yesterday, when someone was told they were narrow minded b/c they believed Christianity was true to the exclusion of all others. He mentioned how narrow minded his kindergarten teacher was, when she asked him 2+2, he could've answered infinte numbers, but she would only accept the number 4. How narrow minded.

[aliantha]

Actually, the whole point is that I do NOT pick and choose. having found the Authority, I accept what it tells me, whether I like it or not

You missed my point. I wasn't talking about picking and choosing *now*. I was talking about your decision to follow Orthodoxy in the first place. Of all the choices out there -- to be Catholic, Protestant, Baha'i, Muslim, Neopagan, an atheist, and on and on -- the one that most resonated with you is Orthodoxy. So you picked that one. That choice requires you to follow certain rules, so you do. I get that part. What I'm saying is that your choice came at an earlier point.

Of course you can pick *not* to follow Orthodoxy's rules, and that feeds into my other comment. Because if you don't follow the rules, at that point the Hand of God comes down and smites you somehow. If you follow my analogy, tho, at some point along the developmental continuum, the Hand of God should just step back and say, "I've taught you all I can. My job is done," and no smiting would occur.

Now I personally believe that people always get what they deserve. I tend to think that it's less the Hand of God getting involved, and more that people's behaviors will draw out predictable behaviors from others. But that's a repercussion, not a punishment. See the difference?

Weez, the difference between that kindergarten teacher and one's choice of religion is that 2+2=4 is proven. Nobody has yet been able to prove irrefutably the existence of God. (If they had, we wouldn't be having this discussion.)

As to your other point, about kids not having the big picture -- I would agree. But as they mature, they develop the ability to see the big picture, and eventually become parents themselves. I dunno if you've ever had the experience of hearing your parent's words coming out of your own mouth. Then, if you're paying attention, you might get a flash of insight: "*Now* I get why Dad said that to me!"

The Christian God *never* allows you to have that insight. As far as he's concerned, you will never be mature enough to understand why he does what he does. He's not training you to be a grownup. He's training you to be a perpetual child.

[Fist and Faith]

I see, there is no absolute right or wrong, but I'll hold God to my standard. Ok, but my point is, so what? What is your standard? To anyone, especially a God that created you? It means nothing, literally. I might think white people are superior, and God, being good, would encourage their dominance, and enlsavement of others. If He doesn't, I'll tell Him He's wrong.

We're having this conversation because you insisted that God is the authority on right and wrong. An authority that we must all accept. I'm saying that's not true. I am not saying that I am that objectively correct standard. All are free to disagree with my morality. Just as we are free to disagree with that of the God you believe exists. Just as we are free to disagree with it even if we do believe that God exists. God does not determine the bad stuff for those who do not believe he does.

Another thing I heard yesterday, when someone was told they were narrow minded b/c they believed Christianity was true to the exclusion of all others. He mentioned how narrow minded his kindergarten teacher was, when she asked him 2+2, he could've answered infinte numbers, but she would only accept the number 4. How narrow minded.

Different things entirely. Anyone can disagree with the rules of the mathematical system we use if they want to. But when they try to give me $2 for a $10 bill, they're gonna have a problem. And if you try to program a computer to send a rocket to Mars, but have that computer operate with an answer to 2+2 other than 4, you're not likely gonna get to Mars. 2+2=4 is a matter of experience. It's verifiable.

OTOH, although I do not believe any aspect of Christianity (even though I agree with some of the moral aspects of it), I haven't had any problems.