Metacrock

Meta =>Just my theory, but if my original premise is correct and the point of creation is to have a moral universe, that is one in which free moral agents willlingly internalize the good, then it stands to reason that free is a necessity.

you can't have a moral universe without free moral agents, by defition free moral agents must have free will. you can't have moral universe without moral decisions, which by defition have to be free will decisions.


Yes I believe that God is limited by the a priori

<a href="http://pub18.ezboard.com/bhavetheologywillargue" target="_blank">Have Theology, Will Argue</a>

[ April 28, 2002: Message edited by: Metacrock ]</p>

Metacrock

Meta =&gt;The other chrisitians are afraid to argue with you RW, becasue they don't want to alienate you further. I figure your already aliented enough so I'm doing it. But I'm still assuming we are friends.

[ April 28, 2002: Message edited by: Metacrock ]</p>

Metacrock

[quote]Originally posted by sighhswolf:
<strong>

RW,
Your post raises a question that has long been two
stepped around by christianity.
The concept of the christian god is/was presented
as the all powerful creator of the universe.
Christians wanted their god to be limitless in scope, above and outside of time and space.
They want a god who resides in a reality outside of the one in which we exist.
Yet they also want a god that is accessible and understandable a personal guide and mentor, with whom they can communicate through worship and prayer.
They assign to this god attributes that serve to help them understand this divine being and identify it's nature.
But a conflict arises that is hard to reconcile.
The moment they assign attributes to this being, the moment they define the nature of this being,
they limit and restrict the capacities and capablities to a known set of operating parameters, and in effect destroy the image of an all powerful being that is limitless in scope.
Some early christian theologians refused to say that this god exists at all, because to do so would limit this being to the known natural laws of the universe that he himself has created.
They therefore adopt the position of "Religious Agnosticism", and claim that this being is fundamentally "unknowable" by mankind.
Man cannot and never will understand the true nature and ways of god.
Now it would seem that no one could say that something exists, without identifying what it is.
If I claim that god is unknowable, it presupposes
that I have some knowledge of this being and his existence...... and would therefore disqualify it as being unknowable.
The theologian tries to explain the concept of god by pointing out that it/he is unexplainable.
That logic sidesteps reason.
Everyone knows all these arguments and that out of these arguments arises the concepts of "unlimited attributes" omnipotence, omniscience
omnipresent, and all the "omni's" you can name.
But all these points aside, the omnibenevolent factor of which you speak cannot be so.</strong>

Meta=&gt;That's esentially true, but I don't see that as a weakness. No one knows anything. All our concepts and even our ability to think is basically made up of culturally stuctructed imates and symbols. We are trapped in "the prision house of langaue" and thus our very understanding is limited to what our cultural construct can allow us to voice. No philosopy or position in life can enable us to escape this. Most atheists dread the "subjective" and rely upon science as some sort of "objectivity bulwark." But that is futile because in the final analysis all we have is the subjective self.


you are ignoring several devices that theologians have used for getting around this problem, some of them are not limited to Christinaity. Apophatic speech is one. The main one of course is mystical union. Through mystical union we can know God, and the great theologians of the Eastern faith have said this. Then to speak of our mystical insights, which are beyond words by their very nature, we use analogical and apophatic speech. "The way of negation" and the "way of mystical union." This is as much as any philosophical approach can offer.

The Christain existential position is the best way to come to terms with these things.

Meta -&gt;Then why expect us to defend "omnibenevolence?" But these descriptions of human qualities are merely part of the analogical nature of religious speech.


Meta =&gt;But of course you are paraphrasing. Nothing in the Bible actually says that. So your paraphrase is more interpriative than summational. In point of fact, hell is symbolic and analogical. Since the term "omnibenevelant" is never used, I don't feel I have to defend it. It's a daft concept, and one more apt to be used at atheists than by Christians. Rather than saying that God is "omibenevolient" which really taps to "I can do what I want or else God is a big meanie," I prefur to think of God as "The good itself." To that extent the good might also impose justice, which would have bad consqeuences for the evil doer.

As for the attitude stuff "O worhsip me cause I'm so great," these are human words inturpriting experinces of the divine, and they are stated because it is good for us to worship God; it makes our health better, our minds work better, we live longer, we feel beeter, we have less depression. this is all in study after study. But I don't think God actually ever says that in so many words, it's stated about him by the Psalmist but so what?


Meta =&gt;Just another athesit refusal to consider the literary nature of a text.

Meta =&gt;But if when you read Homer all you say is "O that Zeous, he's so randy, how can he be the king of the God's?" than you can't appreiciate Homer! While your picking apart the weaknesses in the logic of Greek gods, your missing that that "rosy fingers of the dawn" stuff that makes Homer so neat! The Angles come from Persian sources in the exile, they make up a rich mytholgoical background for Hebrew culture. we need not accept them as literal beings. If we learn to appreciate the Bible as literature we can learn to appreciate the spiritual wisdom without getting hung up in those aspect which bother modern people.


Meta =&gt;And no theological backing for it either.



Meta =&gt;The boss says to tell you that he wants to tell you personally but you don't want to listen. BTW, we are social creatures. Most people don't want to hear from God, they want social rules. This is illustrated in the Hebrews at Mt. Saini where they say "Ok Moses you go talk to God for us, he's too big and terrible for us to deal with." I thinkt that's true, most people don't want the responsibility of hearing form God about their faults and short commings, they want a go-between, or a leader to take the heat for them.

God didn't want to give Israel a King, the people demanded it.

Wolf

Meta =&gt;It's all analogy and symbolizm and litterary device.



<a href="http://pub18.ezboard.com/bhavetheologywillargue" target="_blank">Have Theology, Will Argue</a>

rainbow walking

Well, I hear what you're saying Meta, but there's a serious problem in your rationale. To begin with I'm not blaming God for my loss of faith. I take full responsibility for that outcome. But I do have a problem with an omnibenevolent God creating a hell to punish me with after knowing that I would lose my faith. No matter how you slice it or dice it you can't escape the necessity of God's culpability in creating a being knowing that being is destined for a hell that God also created. I don't blame God for my loss of faith as much as I do a christian message that lacks the simple coherence of truth sufficient to sustain a faith I once had.

And yes, I think I will plague your boards as well. Thanx for the invite. You are still a prince and a gentleman in my book.

rainbow walking

I don't believe in hell, Meta. I don't believe in any of it, remember? I'm just expressing some of the reasons why. I didn't invent the concept of hell, christianity did. If you're not careful, you'll find yourself taking the same journey I did, re-interpreting scriptures to eradicate the obvious.

rainbow walking

And it conflicts so eloquently with His other attributes. God is so desirous of having man choose to love Him freely that He had to attach that little, "and if they don't, cast them into hell" trailer into the contract. He's so protective of freewill that He allowed a handful of turkeys from Allah's camp to freely decide to exterminate thousands of innocent people in the name of God. Yep, sure sounds like a loving God's best defense to me...not.

Yep, so this omnipotent God hasn't the power to do both. Strange bedfellows these omni's don't you think?

To know the creature will make the wrong choice and fashion an eternal hell for him because he does doesn't sound like much of a deal either. It sounds like a God who's into cross dressing and sex changes after the fact or a God being represented by a corrupt church that is too proud to admit it's mucked up the entire message.

Which is at least an attempt to wryly admit you haven't a clue.

If that is the only option then somebody has just lost their omnipotent cherry.


That means choosing truth for the sake of truth and not just because you want it to be true. I am really hoping some believer has an answer.

HelenM

rw

What about the theology that says you can't be unsaved?

So I guess you'll still have to go to heaven...if you really were saved, that is...

It doesn't save all the people from hell who never were Christians but it gets you off the hook.

What do you think about that?

As for me I find it all somewhat confusing but I've decided that being angry about it just messes up my own life. So I'm trying not to be.

love
Helen

rainbow walking

Hi Helen,
Sorry for not getting back to you sooner. I think the bible is like a fiddle...you can make it play most any old tune.

Good for you Helen. Anger only poisons the mind. I'm trying to find the true path and inject a little humor along the way. Laughter is the medicine of the soul.

HelenM

Metacrock

Meta=&gt;So do I. That's why I don't believe in hell. So why do you?


Meta=&gt;Not if there's no hell. What if one dices it that way?



Meta=&gt;So stick around and make one more Christian who has it on the right way.




Meta=&gt; Hey thanks man! So are you, it will be good to "see" you!