Christian

Philosoft,

I have a long response typed out, but I suspect we're not speaking the same language which would make splitting philosophical hairs much more difficult. In that spirit ...

I don't understand how you are using the word "constraint." Could you give me a definition?

Why does it 'certainly' seem to be a violation of free will to you? Please explain.

Do you accept (for this conversation anyway) the definition of free will I posted earlier?

If not, please provide an alternative definition.

Respectfully,

Christian

Christian

Rhea,

God hath wisely filled the earth with after market Miata vendors. This is an obvious sign that He loves His children, and gives them abundant life. Verily, a supercharger can be had that leaves you just inside stock class.

CLICK HERE

Now if He would just convince my wife ......



Respectfully,

Christian

Christian

Helen,

Some thoughts:

Retribution (especially when metted out by an omnipotent omnicient Judge) is the righting of wrongs. God's position as omnipotent omnicient Creator makes Him uniquely qualified to oversee just retribution. He has the right to deal with moral agents in that way, because they are His moral agents. Excessive vengence is not justified, but vengence itself is a necessary aspect of justice. Something can't really be considered a crime if it does not merit being punished. Vengence is very strongly forbidden for the individual. It is the role of governments here on earth and of God Himself in eternity.

If that's not coherent it's because I'm thinking out loud.

Respectfully,

Christian

Christian

Rhea,

So “wrath” is “an intense emotional state induced by displeasure and suggests a desire or intent to revenge or punish.”

OK. So that is what you don’t see in any wise person.

I suggest that someone who can witness a grave injustice and feel no hint of wrath has no sense of justice. For example, a couple years ago my wife and I were doing short term emergency foster care in our home. Basically we cared for small children who were removed from their homes by the authorities while the courts figured out what to do with them. One little girl of 14 months that we picked up had been punished for crying in the following manner : the adult male who was currently residing in that house held her right hand under running hot water for probably over a minute. All of the skin was burned off of her hand. A day and a half later her mother reluctantly brought her into the emergency room. A week later she was recovering in our home.

I suggest that an injustice occurred in that little girl’s life. In this situation her pain was made even more personal, though. Abused children, in my experience, are either terrified of the father figure or they are complete Daddy’s girls/boys. This little girl was the latter. For the 3 months she was under our care she made it copiously and enthusiastically clear to all observers that I was her favorite person in the world. One part of her recovery plan was that my wife and I had to massage her hand with lotion 3 times every day. It obviously hurt her. It obviously terrified her. She screamed and cried every time. She obviously did not understand why we forcibly hurt her sore hand so often. And there is no way, absolutely no way, to explain such things to a 14 month old girl with a very sore hand and a traumatic memory. She must have thought that ALL father figures forcibly hurt your hand on a regular basis. That’s just life. But the simple medical fact in this case was that long term scaring was inversely proportional to time and energy spent massaging her sore hand with lotion.

In considering the father figure previously in the girls life, I submit that I had to deal with some feelings of wrath. It was an intense emotional state which I encountered. This state was in fact induced by my displeasure with the little girl’s abuser. And I would be lying if I told you that I never identified in myself the desire to avenge the wrongs done to this girl.

As a Christian I believe it is my duty to overcome such feelings by not dwelling or acting on them. I am to leave the business of vengeance in God’s hands. Man’s anger does not result in righteousness. (Jas 1:20) And that is what I did.

But what is implied by your position is that I am morally deficient for even thinking about retribution when encountering such an outrage. I humbly disagree, and counter that I would be morally deficient if I was given so close a view to any such injustice and the idea of avenging the innocent never even occurred to me. For an individual human to take vengeance into their own hands is immoral. For an individual human to reach a state where grave injustice never even suggests vengeance to them is a-moral … an indication of deadness where a sense of morality is supposed to reside. If that is what you consider “wisdom”, then may I never become wise.

I don’t dispute the fact that God is in the revenge business. But I have seen enough human behavior to accept that He is just in His vengeful actions. Glimpses such as the one I just described suggest to me that vengeance is a morally necessary part of bringing the current state of affairs to ultimate resolution.

Respectfully,

Christian

Stephen T-B

Just a quick point re. manners.
In one response, Radorth wrote “Technically correct. (It is unfortunate how technical and pedantic skeptics get here to make an argument.)”
When I read that I thought: “What’s this guy doing?”
Whether calculated or not, that unsolicited, all-embracing insult can only have annoyed the vast majority of the people who are following this thread. It reveals an almost pathological antipathy towards those who do not share his belief system, and in doing so confirms the appearance which that belief system gives of being encased by self-righteousness - the very characteristic which I, for one, find deeply obnoxious.
Later on he posted: “I do fine with people who don't chase me around the forum looking for witches. All they find is a mirror, though some haven't got it yet.” It clearly hasn’t occurred to him that someone who holds up a darkened image will receive a darkened reflection.

Moving on, I should ask for the indulgence of Rhea (and thank you for initiating this very stimulating thread, to which you have made such thoughtful and though-provoking contributions) and other posters for going off at a tangent; it’s just that something Christian said gives me the opportunity to explore some new territory (new to me.)
In the course of one of his posts he wrote: “It's a necessary evil in this cursed world,” and I commented:
“ ‘A cursed world,’ ” suggests it has been cursed by something or someone; it is an idea which implies a divine judgment..."
I explained that for me, the world is the perfectly natural consequence (it cannot be anything else) of perfectly natural processes which are as indifferent to my well-being and welfare as the sea, the wind, the rain and the sun. “I’m here. I take my chances and sooner or later I’ll die. I am content.”
Christian’s response was one of the most revealing things I have read here at Infidels. He wrote:
“Your contentment with a fundamental lack of purpose and meaning in life is something I'm afraid I can't understand. “
He thus identifies in a single sentence where the gulf between us begins. It says, I think, all there is to be said in order to explain the fact that I have absolutely no reason to believe in gods of any sort, and the fact of his certainty that a god (“God” in his terms) does exist.
He added: “What kind of statement does it make to be content with all the pain and suffering and evil in the world around us? Are you content with the idea that unmerited pain and suffering (as Rhea has gone to lengths to describe) goes on in this world?”
“May I never be content with such a state of affairs.”
These comments show the depth of that gulf. And while I think it futile trying to convey my view of the world to him, I must make the attempt.
Pain, suffering and evil...a ship wreck causes suffering - am I content with that? I’d prefer it didn’t happen, but my preferences are irrelevant. Volcanoes and earthquakes, disease, famine, ignorance and superstitions cause pain and suffering - am I content with that? I’d prefer the pain and suffering didn’t happen, but my preferences are irrelevant. I don’t much like to see a cat play with a mouse; I don’t like to see film of hyenas chasing down a zebra and disembowling it while it still lives; if I were swept out to sea while having a swim, I’d be most upset - but unfortunately my preferences are irrelevant.
That does not mean that I see no reason not to alleviate human pain and suffering where I see them, nor that I should not attempt to counter evil where I see it. Indeed, the “socialisation” process which has contributed to making me the person I am drives me to act in a manner appropriate to my obligations.

The fundamental difference between Christian and me which accounts for why he knows God exists, and why I am sure it doesn’t, is to do with the “externalising” impulse. He has it. I don’t. For him “Something Out There,” is responsible for absolutely everything we know about and experience of the universe we live in.
Lacking that “externalising” impulse, I see the universe as a wholly self-contained system which requires no explanation. "It Is" because "It Is," and because of what it is, everything which occurs with in it is justified by the fact that it is able to occur.

Thank you for your interactions, Christian. You have helped me towards an insight which brings an enhanced sense of repose.

HelenM

It's that you called them stupid?

Helen

Rhea

Christian, perhaps your idea and mine of "revenge" and "retribution" are different. Probably so, as you seem like a decent sort.

When I think "revenge" and "retribution" I understand them to be acts which have no rehabilitative quality. As such, they are pointless and serve only to make the perpetrator as low as the one he punishes. As Low. Nothing more or less. Causing pain because you want to see someone feel pain is, in my personal opinion, barbaric.

If you want to rehabilitate them, you might choose a number of different therapies, some of which might involve some sort of empathy-inducing attempts. But I do not call those "revenge" and "retribution". My understanding of those words is the desire to watch people suffer (for whatever reason, "because they deserve it"), because that makes YOU feel better. Not because it makes them act better in the future, only because it makes you feel better.

For example, the discussion after the kidnapping of the Van Damm girl of how people wanted to see the perp disemboweled, burned, quartered, etc and then killed.

I find that barbaric. Personally. If I think he is irredeemable, just skip straight to killing him. Remove him from society. Adding more suffering to the pot does NOTHING for me. This does not, I don't think, make me cold and unfeeling. Since becoming a parent I find I have trouble even reading the accounts of the kidnappings because it makes me cry (quite a state for someone who is not a crier over personal frustrations). But "revenge" and "retribution" just don't come to mind. Fixing the problem comes to mind.
- How can we rehabilitate this person to make them not do such a thing again.
- CAN we rehabilitate him?
- If not, how can we remove from him the chance to do this thing again. (How can we make society safer)
- The death penalty is fine with me, as long as we are absolutely certain of guilt (tough to do - life imprisonment is sufficient)

It sounds like that is so foreign to you that you would call it "cold" and "unfeeling". I disagree. I just simply see NO POINT in making others suffer for the sake of having them suffer. It is completely unproductive and is, IMO counterproductive as it teaches that circumstances exist under which is is OKAY to make people suffer and I believe that is is this concept which allows people, stable or unstable, to justify their cruel acts. It is easy for them to say, "Society finds suffering okay to inflict with reason, and by god, _I_ have reason.

In my world there is NEVER A REASON. Never. Ever. I just DO NOT see that concept of inflicting suffering to be any positive step toward a better world. Period.

To me, a just god would NEVER punish. The two terms are completely incompatible. A god would know who is rehabilitatable and who is not. And a just god would simply annihilate the irredeemable without suffering. POOF. Problem gone.

I understand your emotions about the abuser. But do you really think your feeling of revenge or retribution could contribute to a better world? Whether you were in a position to judge or not? Why don't you harbor feelings of rehabilitation? or at the very least, elimination?


I maintain, that feelings of revenge and retribution are exactly the feelings of the abuser of that girl. Exactly. And look where that went. He was no doubt seeking revenge for some act she committed.

Again, that is the key, IMO. Many (most?) cases of human suffering at the hands of other humans are due to a feeling of entitlement. Entitlement of revenge, retribution or the righteous extreme of selfishness. I would like to see those feelings eradicated, not preached as Godly.

Does that make more sense?

(And by the way, there is NO allowance for changing the intake of a car within Stock classes (of any venue that I know - perhaps some particular circuit allows it?), which makes sense. Miatae are normally aspirated, as God intended. Unless you want to drive in a modified class, in whuch case, why aren't you going after the 5.0L V8 engine swap? Supercharge that and, ZOWIE! I think you should do it. Tell your wife I said so!)

Rhea

Stephen T-B, your tangent is very interesting, no prob with me for indulging. Well put analysis, I think.

I think it is interesting for Christian to ask "are you content with that", as if _either_ of us has any ability to change it that the other lacks.

No, I am not content. But this suffering occurs exaclty as I would expect it to in the absense of a deity who wants something different.

It kind of begs the statement...
[b]So, it seems God is content with that.[/i]
because it continues year by year, century by century to be the way of things - doesn't it?

And this harks back directly to the OP - if something different is available in heaven, but is not implemented on earth, then God must be content with that.

I am not. I try to make changes to improve the human condition ( by being a grade-school mentor, literacy volunteer & etc). Christian is not content either, he serves as a Foster parent.

But God.
God appears to be content.
Or, perhaps helpless to make an impact.
Functionally identical?

When does Free Will end. You maintain it doesn't. Your God is content.

Perhaps?

Christian

Rhea,

I’ll buy that they are intertwined. But they can be clearly distinguished and analyzed.

This I don’t buy. You can make the pain seem less, but that is a matter of perception not reality. The physical pain itself is no different, unless somehow chemical responses in the body make a difference.

What someone says is even further removed from physical pain than what they perceive.

I accept that mental anguish and physical pain are both factors in assessing degree of suffering.

I still assert that Jesus experienced “the worst” of those things.

I’ve never met anyone who sweated blood.

To the average person reading that Jesus “sweat blood” would seem like either embellishment or the product of an overactive imagination. I would be incredibly surprised if arcane medical trivia was better known in the 1st century than today. Including such a detail raises questions that need to be answered … why would Luke do that if he was making the story up? That is the opposite of the approach someone would take if they were trying to create a legend. If you are writing legend you don’t include troublesome and difficult to explain details. That’s counterproductive. The most rational explanation for Luke recording that Jesus sweated blood is that eyewitnesses told him it actually happened.

People would have to have been exponentially more scared back then for hematidrosis to have been well known.

I’m saying that Luke wouldn’t have included such a problematic detail unless he had gotten it from a reliable eyewitness. This fits with all the archeological evidence showing that Luke was a particularly careful and accurate historian.

The idea that sweating blood embellished the tale to make it seem more severe requires the assumption that hematidrosis was a common or at least well known phenomenon back then. That is a highly unlikely assumption.

I don’t think the Father’s wrath thing started until He was dying on the cross. The severe anxiety of the night prior, resulting in His hematidrosis, was the result of anticipation and dread of what He was about to go through, a very human response. The fact that He pleaded with the Father to not have to go through it at the same time supports this idea.

I disagree. Even without the supernatural suffering it makes the cut.

You don’t have to “grasp” the doctrine of the trinity to know what the doctrine states. I have two friends who are very much in love. I can’t grasp that fact … they seem entirely incompatible to me. Yet I can acknowledge and confess the fact that they are in love. What I’m assuming is that I realize what the elements of the doctrine of the trinity are.

Actually, wrong. Hang with me and I will try to explain. The three scriptural facts I stated are equally true, but they true in different ways. The trinity is not a contradiction. A contradiction would be “one being who is three beings” or “one person who is three persons.” But “one being who is three persons” is not contradictory. Trinitarian theologians maintain that God is three in a different way than God is one. Hence, no contradiction.

So in what way is God three? Short answer – relationship. If God is relating and interacting with His creation or with Himself it is scriptural to speak in terms of three (Father, Son, Spirit). Remember that the third plank in the doctrine of the trinity stands on the hundreds of subject-object distinctions drawn between members of the trinity in scripture. The Father loves the Son, the Son sends us the Spirit, the Son prays to the Father, etc. God is three Who’s. If we are discussing how God relates to Himself or to His creation, the scriptural approach is to describe and think of God as three.

So in what way is God one? He is one ontologically, one Being. He is one in purpose. If we are talking about the eternal attributes of God the scriptural approach is to describe and think of God as one. Basically, in every way other than relationally God is one.

I keep this strait in my mind by the simple phrase “three Who’s and one What.” God’s threeness is seen in considering “who” questions, and God’s oneness is seen in considering “what” questions. I’m not just making this up … it accurately summarizes scripture.

In the situation at hand we are dealing with relationship – an interaction, in fact a transaction of sorts between members of the trinity. That means that in this context the most appropriate way to consider God is as three.

I do acknowledge that God is interacting with God here. But the contextual emphasis is on the relational, and relationally the Father is interacting with the Son.

More of an answer than you wanted, I imagine, but there it is.

I see no problem inherent in God making fewer choices available to us. That we agree on. But I don’t think that accounts for sinlessness in heaven, partially because I don’t see how all sinful choices could possibly be removed. For example, if Jesus tells us to go and do something for Him it would be sin (bad) to not follow His instructions and obedience (good) to follow His instructions. How could you remove the choice of simple disobedience? That is an option that will always be open to us whether we choose to use it or not.

I agree that many temptations will simply not be encountered in heaven. But other temptations will be present and will be overcome by our volition. If the option of simple disobedience is removed, I don’t see how what is left could be called “free will” in any meaningful way. And I’m not sure what would qualify as “removing” the option of simple disobedience.

Respectfully,

Christian

Radorth

Stephen climbs on soapbox, follows general observation so typical of skeptics, with personal insult.

"Appearance" is the operative word.

I "appear" to be a conservative fundy, but have said I have sympathies with pro-choice advocates, am against Bush's war and have no firm opinion about abortion.

I "appear" to be one who thinks all non-Christians go to hell although I have denied it at least 10 times.

I "appear" to think the Bible is inerrant when I've admitted and even pointed out some of it's faults.

I "appear" to have the same attitude toward "all skeptics" but I have often distinguished between them.

I "appear" to be self-righteous when in fact I am the only person here who has ever called himself a hypocrite.

It's pretty much all in your head Stephen, and I really don't give a rat's posterior who is offended when I make such a statement because those who claim to be "free-thinkers" are very rare, and those few get plenty of kudos from me- more than any other Christian I've read on the web. That disproves your gratuitous "pathology" theory. Most so-called "free-thinkers" here are nothing of the sort, and I have answered a hundred of their nitpicking, pedantic and tendentious assertions with considerable patience IMO.

Rad