OFFICIAL: Biblical/Theology Discussion thread

[buckeyegrad]

I think you're missing the point of the exercise in which I was asked to engage.... and, if I can assume you're talking specifically about my healing on the sabbath remarks, I'm acting quite unlike your hated Pharisees, in that I agreed with Jesus (several times, in fact) that healing on the sabbath was the "right" thing to do.

And more importantly to our discussion, not a violation of Torah.

 

[lvbuckeye]

*high five* :p

 

[Buckeyeskickbuttocks]

And more importantly to our discussion, not a violation of Torah.

*high five* :p

Guys.... How can either of you declare - unilaterally - that healing on the sabbath is NOT a violation of Torah? Indeed, without reference to Jesus, you're quite simply unable to. And, of course, in the context of the game we were playing (or at least the one I understood us to be doing) reference to Jesus is useless as it's the object of inquiry. Akin to the following:

Q: Did you kill the victim?
A: No.


How so?
Q: Jesus, did you work on the Sabbath?
A: No, you hypocrits.

and... somehow you come to the conclusion that we should just say "Oh... Well... Jesus said he's not breaking the law, so he must not be."

Or, in other words, you're appealing to the authority that which in question. Or, to put a finer point on it... for these purposes suppose Jesus isnt the Christ. Then, how do you argue that healing on the Sabbath is not a violation of Torah.

8 "Remember the Sabbath day by keeping it holy. 9 Six days you shall labor and do all your work, 10 but the seventh day is a Sabbath to the LORD your God. On it you shall not do any work, neither you, nor your son or daughter, nor your manservant or maidservant, nor your animals, nor the alien within your gates. 11 For in six days the LORD made the heavens and the earth, the sea, and all that is in them, but he rested on the seventh day. Therefore the LORD blessed the Sabbath day and made it holy.

Now, I must confess, I believe resonable minds can disagree on what is labor.... It's not "work" for me to heal a cut on my daughter's knee since I'm not a doctor. But, what if I was a Doctor? In any case, this is part of the reason why I agree with Jesus - that it's OK for him to heal on the Sabbath.

But, regardless of that... the problem you two run in to is that you purport to be biblical literalists.... That is, you don't leave room for individual interpretation(s) ... or (trying to say this right) ... you believe there is only ONE interpretation and that interpretation is self evident (Or, as I indicated above, outlined by others, specifically Jesus (or more specifically, those who purport to be writing about him)). So, that being the case, what other way is there to read Exodus other than by "strictly" reading the language before you? (Incidentally, considering Jesus' take on adultry and murder in Matthew Capter 5, isn't it fair to say a strict interpretation of "work" is called for? I mean, if just looking at another woman than your wife lustfully is adultry (Matt. 5:27-28), how isn't healing on the sabbath work? Your answer, of course, is that Jesus came to fulfill the laws... but, that explaination is unsatsfactory as it simply assumes the authority of that which is in question... which means, why even bother with the question in the first instance, if you're simply required to defer to that which you'd want to solve?) Again, I'm asking you to stay within the langauge before you, and expressly NOT by reference to Jesus. I recognize that doing so is outside of the parameters of your actual faith, but I don't seem to be able to get the point across that circular references to authority get us nowhere otherwise...

I think you'd both readily admit that at the end of it all it is a function of faith. You have faith in Jesus, and therefore you believe the Bible is whatever you think it is. What I don't understand, however, is that knowing full well that it is faith and faith alone which provides you your authority, how either one of you could ever argue or otherwise advance your religion... Christianity... as the ONE true religion.

Maybe I'm pointing the finger in the wrong place... and I dont' mean to single you guys out... what I'm saying is... recognizing that deciding to be a Christian (Or Jew, Muslim, etc. for that matter) is merely an act of faith, how is it that anyone can ever hang their own faith over any one elses head? How can a Christian (or jew, etc.) say with a straight face, knowing damn well that their ideas about religion are only as sound and correct as their own self serving belief that it is sound and correct, that Christianity is the only way to salvation?

There's a lot of Good things in Christianity... Matthew Chapter 5, as I noted above, comes to mind... why is it that so few Christians practice these "liberal" ideas... like giving spare change to beggars... More to the point, how could any Christian tolerate the Christian Right in this country?

 

[lvbuckeye]

Guys.... How can either of you declare - unilaterally - that healing on the sabbath is NOT a violation of Torah? Indeed, without reference to Jesus, you're quite simply unable to. And, of course, in the context of the game we were playing (or at least the one I understood us to be doing) reference to Jesus is useless as it's the object of inquiry. Akin to the following:

Q: Did you kill the victim?
A: No.


How so?
Q: Jesus, did you work on the Sabbath?
A: No, you hypocrits.

and... somehow you come to the conclusion that we should just say "Oh... Well... Jesus said he's not breaking the law, so he must not be."

Or, in other words, you're appealing to the authority that which in question. Or, to put a finer point on it... for these purposes suppose Jesus isnt the Christ. Then, how do you argue that healing on the Sabbath is not a violation of Torah.

what does the Torah say?

Now, I must confess, I believe resonable minds can disagree on what is labor.... It's not "work" for me to heal a cut on my daughter's knee since I'm not a doctor. But, what if I was a Doctor? In any case, this is part of the reason why I agree with Jesus - that it's OK for him to heal on the Sabbath.

fair enough. but you still need to know what the Torah says.

But, regardless of that... the problem you two run in to is that you purport to be biblical literalists.... That is, you don't leave room for individual interpretation(s) ... or (trying to say this right) ... you believe there is only ONE interpretation and that interpretation is self evident (Or, as I indicated above, outlined by others, specifically Jesus (or more specifically, those who purport to be writing about him)). So, that being the case, what other way is there to read Exodus other than by "strictly" reading the language before you? (Incidentally, considering Jesus' take on adultry and murder in Matthew Capter 5, isn't it fair to say a strict interpretation of "work" is called for? I mean, if just looking at another woman than your wife lustfully is adultry (Matt. 5:27-28), how isn't healing on the sabbath work? Your answer, of course, is that Jesus came to fulfill the laws... but, that explaination is unsatsfactory as it simply assumes the authority of that which is in question... which means, why even bother with the question in the first instance, if you're simply required to defer to that which you'd want to solve?) Again, I'm asking you to stay within the langauge before you, and expressly NOT by reference to Jesus. I recognize that doing so is outside of the parameters of your actual faith, but I don't seem to be able to get the point across that circular references to authority get us nowhere otherwise...

WRT adultery: he was speaking about the attitudes of your HEART. you might not go out and bang every broad you see (mostly because you are afraid of the consequences), but if that lust is still in your heart, are you not equally guilty? the actual act of sex is simply an outward manifestation of an impure attitude of ones heart.

I think you'd both readily admit that at the end of it all it is a function of faith. You have faith in Jesus, and therefore you believe the Bible is whatever you think it is. What I don't understand, however, is that knowing full well that it is faith and faith alone which provides you your authority, how either one of you could ever argue or otherwise advance your religion... Christianity... as the ONE true religion.

i suspect that i differ from BGrad on this point. but as a 'religion' i don't think that Christianity is any better than any other 'religion.' i hate religion, and i hate religious people. but i am not referring to 'religious' people in the context that people use the word today. religion is people telling you what to do. religion has NOTHING to do with spirituality or salvation. Christ railed against the religious people of His day. what i have is a RELATIONSHIP with Jesus Christ. i really think that you should read the history of C.S. Lewis' conversion. he was a professor of mythology. in his talks with J.R.R. Tolkein, he remarked that although he was a deist, he was always curious that in virtually every mythology he studied the people were saved by the god sacrificing himself. Tolkein chuckled and said that there is a fundamental truth that may be crystallized from ALL religious mythologies, and that is, we are hopeless to save ourselves, and only God can save us. then Tolkein went on to say that the only difference between Christianity and all the other mythologies was that the story actually happened. and he was dead right.

so it's not so much as the 'one true religion' to me, but no one can save himself. we can only be saved by the sacrifice of God, and any religion that denies the fact that you can only come to salvation through the sacrifice of God through the person of Jesus Christ, has, by definition, missed the mark. that's not MY problem, however. i can only be concerned about the status of my OWN soul, i can make no judgement on the heart of another... (that's not to say that i shouldn't spread the message of Love.)

Maybe I'm pointing the finger in the wrong place... and I dont' mean to single you guys out... what I'm saying is... recognizing that deciding to be a Christian (Or Jew, Muslim, etc. for that matter) is merely an act of faith, how is it that anyone can ever hang their own faith over any one elses head? How can a Christian (or jew, etc.) say with a straight face, knowing damn well that their ideas about religion are only as sound and correct as their own self serving belief that it is sound and correct, that Christianity is the only way to salvation?

valid point. i am NOT a hellfire and damnation Christian. Christ preached a message of LOVE, and that is what i try to do- love God with all my heart, and love my fellow man as much as i love myself. do that, and you have all the rest of the rules covered.

There's a lot of Good things in Christianity... Matthew Chapter 5, as I noted above, comes to mind... why is it that so few Christians practice these "liberal" ideas... like giving spare change to beggars... More to the point, how could any Christian tolerate the Christian Right in this country?

the simple answer is that although they profess to be "Christians," they are in name only. there are a LOT of so-called Christians who are going to be disappointed on Judgement Day.

"Matthew 7:21) Not every one that saith unto me, Lord, Lord, shall enter into the kingdom of heaven; but he that doeth the will of my Father which is in heaven. 22) Many will say to me in that day, Lord, Lord, have we not prophesied in thy name? and in thy name have cast out devils? and in thy name done many wonderful works?
23) And then will I profess unto them, I never knew you: depart from me, ye that work iniquity.

 

[Buckeyeskickbuttocks]

what does the Torah say?
fair enough. but you still need to know what the Torah says.

Posted it above. ..."Remember the Sabbath day by keeping it holy. 9 Six days you shall labor and do all your work, 10 but the seventh day is a Sabbath to the LORD your God. On it you shall not do any work....

WRT adultery: he was speaking about the attitudes of your HEART. you might not go out and bang every broad you see (mostly because you are afraid of the consequences), but if that lust is still in your heart, are you not equally guilty? the actual act of sex is simply an outward manifestation of an impure attitude of ones heart.

I don't disagree re: what Jesus is meaning (and in my mind, it teaches one to be faithful and want not that which you don't have, etc... which are "good" lessons).... but, just a moment ago, you referred me back to Torah, right? And, what does it say about adultery?

You shall not commit adultery.

So, I guess it begs the question... if we can let Jesus play loose (even if I agree with his result) with what is "work" on the sabbath.... how can we then let him expand adultery to include attitudes of the heart and then say he wasn't something of a maverick with respect to Jewish law?

For the record, and I want to be clear on this, my issue is not Jesus' message. I can certainly appreciate the wisdom he brought to the debate, and, much like I think of even this discussion itself and the people in it, that is to be encouraged and enjoyed. ... as I surmise from the remainder of your post, you and I are of like mind on the .... I'll say problems... of man screwing around with otherwise glorious ideas (organized religion).

i suspect that i differ from BGrad on this point. but as a 'religion' i don't think that Christianity is any better than any other 'religion.' i hate religion, and i hate religious people. but i am not referring to 'religious' people in the context that people use the word today. religion is people telling you what to do. religion has NOTHING to do with spirituality or salvation. Christ railed against the religious people of His day. what i have is a RELATIONSHIP with Jesus Christ. i really think that you should read the history of C.S. Lewis' conversion. he was a professor of mythology. in his talks with J.R.R. Tolkein, he remarked that although he was a deist, he was always curious that in virtually every mythology he studied the people were saved by the god sacrificing himself. Tolkein chuckled and said that there is a fundamental truth that may be crystallized from ALL religious mythologies, and that is, we are hopeless to save ourselves, and only God can save us. then Tolkein went on to say that the only difference between Christianity and all the other mythologies was that the story actually happened. and he was dead right.

Well, obviously you and I differ to the extent that we can save ourselves, and that disagreement is not a big deal (so far as I'm concerned). I have come to better appreciate your position on what I have been haphazardly referring to as "the Church" and/or "organized religion" and sometimes even "Christianity" It would seem we are closely aligned in our views on that issue.

so it's not so much as the 'one true religion' to me, but no one can save himself. we can only be saved by the sacrifice of God, and any religion that denies the fact that you can only come to salvation through the sacrifice of God through the person of Jesus Christ, has, by definition, missed the mark. that's not MY problem, however. i can only be concerned about the status of my OWN soul, i can make no judgement on the heart of another... (that's not to say that i shouldn't spread the message of Love.)

Well, again, you and I disagree on who can save who... but, you're certainly entitled to your beliefs. I think your parenthesis remark - message of love - is really closer to the key to salvation than a lot of other things. That is to say, different roads may lead to the same place.

valid point. i am NOT a hellfire and damnation Christian. Christ preached a message of LOVE, and that is what i try to do- love God with all my heart, and love my fellow man as much as i love myself. do that, and you have all the rest of the rules covered.

I agree here, and it's comforting to hear that you're far more interested in the joy of man than the judgment of man. I am troubled when God is used by man to acquire the desires of any one man... as I suspect you are as well. And, to me, it's pretty clear that when a man seeks power through God instead of love, that man isn't doing himself any favors (much less anyone else).

the simple answer is that although they profess to be "Christians," they are in name only. there are a LOT of so-called Christians who are going to be disappointed on Judgement Day.

"Matthew 7:21) Not every one that saith unto me, Lord, Lord, shall enter into the kingdom of heaven; but he that doeth the will of my Father which is in heaven. 22) Many will say to me in that day, Lord, Lord, have we not prophesied in thy name? and in thy name have cast out devils? and in thy name done many wonderful works?
23) And then will I profess unto them, I never knew you: depart from me, ye that work iniquity.

I guess time will ultimately tell... But, I hope Jesus is as forgiving as I understand him to be in the event that my conclusions regarding him today are mistaken. Actually, in that I strongly believe what I believe "hope" isn't the correct word... as I said pages ago, I accept the consequences of my faith.

Anyway... thanks for the insight LV. I know we can go round and round sometimes, but I do truly appreciate what you bring to the conversation.

 

[kinch]

(and I appreciate all of your postings; I, like what I assume are many others, am following this thread with interest)

 

[buckeyegrad]

Guys.... How can either of you declare - unilaterally - that healing on the sabbath is NOT a violation of Torah? Indeed, without reference to Jesus, you're quite simply unable to. And, of course, in the context of the game we were playing (or at least the one I understood us to be doing) reference to Jesus is useless as it's the object of inquiry. Akin to the following:

Q: Did you kill the victim?
A: No.


How so?
Q: Jesus, did you work on the Sabbath?
A: No, you hypocrits.

and... somehow you come to the conclusion that we should just say "Oh... Well... Jesus said he's not breaking the law, so he must not be."

Or, in other words, you're appealing to the authority that which in question. Or, to put a finer point on it... for these purposes suppose Jesus isnt the Christ. Then, how do you argue that healing on the Sabbath is not a violation of Torah.

Why is healing not a violation of Torah? Because the Torah does not forbid it. You have shown that Torah forbids work on the Sabbath, but you have yet to show that the Torah defined healing as work! Why? Because healing is never defined as work in any of the Old Testament writings. In addition, there are other commands in the Torah (e.g. love thy neighbor as thyself--Lev. 19:18) that one also should also be following that provides us a greater understand of the spirit of the Law, which in turn helps us understand the individual instances of the letter of the Law.

Furthermore, I am pretty confident that if you ask an Orthodox Jew whether Torah in itself specifically forbids healing on the Sabbath they would say no. They would appeal to other Jewish writings, such as Talmud, as the source for that instruction.

As for Jesus' authority to interpret the commands of Torah, well since we beleive he is the promised Messiah (and hence the incarnate God), that means he is the author of Torah, he is the one who gave it to the Israelites through Moses. Considering he is the original author and perfect in knowledge and understanding, then his interpretation is the only one that matters.

You ask us to consider what if he is not the Christ. Well, if he is not, then you are correct in that his interpretation means no more than any other man's. However, such hypothesizing is meaningless to a Christian. Jesus fulfilled all of the prophesies that relate to the suffering servant aspect of the Messiah--he will fulfill the conquering king aspects upon his promised return. His resurrection serves as the sign that he was who he claimed to be.

But, regardless of that... the problem you two run in to is that you purport to be biblical literalists.... That is, you don't leave room for individual interpretation(s) ... or (trying to say this right) ... you believe there is only ONE interpretation and that interpretation is self evident (Or, as I indicated above, outlined by others, specifically Jesus (or more specifically, those who purport to be writing about him)). So, that being the case, what other way is there to read Exodus other than by "strictly" reading the language before you?

What you describe here is a flawed literalist approach to understanding the Bible, which I admit does exist among some. Simply reading Exodus or any other passage in isolation of the rest of scripture does not constitute appropriate exegesis. When reading a specific verse or passage in the Bible, it must be read in consideration of every other verse.

As for the unified, universal message of the Bible being self-evident, I would say it is, but we are not able to fully access it without the Holy Spirit, because it is only through his intercession that we can fully overcome our cultural baggage and read it without reading ourselves into the Word.

(Incidentally, considering Jesus' take on adultry and murder in Matthew Capter 5, isn't it fair to say a strict interpretation of "work" is called for? I mean, if just looking at another woman than your wife lustfully is adultry (Matt. 5:27-28), how isn't healing on the sabbath work?

In both instances Jesus is working with the spirit, or intent, of the Law. Therefore, one interpretation may look more stict than another on the surface, but only if one is working from the sole perspective of the letter of the Law. God's intent for us to observe a day of rest and to hold a holy convocation (Leviticus 23:3) once every seven days has nothing to do with ignoring other commands (such as the one I gave earlier in loving thy neighbor). God's intent for us to not commit adultry has everything to do with remaining faithful to our spouse, which one has not done if they lust after another woman.

I think you'd both readily admit that at the end of it all it is a function of faith. You have faith in Jesus, and therefore you believe the Bible is whatever you think it is. What I don't understand, however, is that knowing full well that it is faith and faith alone which provides you your authority, how either one of you could ever argue or otherwise advance your religion... Christianity... as the ONE true religion.

I really don't understand your point here. If I didn't advance Christianity as the one true understanding of God and mankind, then it really wouldn't be faith. A person's faith defines his/her reality. If it does not, then you really haven't hit upon the individual's faith. It would be absurd for someone to not claim their faith as the absolute measure of understanding all things.

Maybe I'm pointing the finger in the wrong place... and I dont' mean to single you guys out... what I'm saying is... recognizing that deciding to be a Christian (Or Jew, Muslim, etc. for that matter) is merely an act of faith, how is it that anyone can ever hang their own faith over any one elses head? How can a Christian (or jew, etc.) say with a straight face, knowing damn well that their ideas about religion are only as sound and correct as their own self serving belief that it is sound and correct, that Christianity is the only way to salvation?

If a Muslim came to me and said it is okay that you do not worship Allah because it is only my faith that works for me and you as a Christian have a different faith that works for you, I would not consider him as holding an Islamic-based faith. Rather, he holds faith in something else. Why? Because Islam is not defining his faith in this instance, something else is. Same with me as a Christian. If I denied that Christ, (not Christianity), is the only means to salvation, then by definition my faith is not the one of a Christian. It is a faith of something else. However, since I am Christian, I believe Christ is the only means to salvation.

There's a lot of Good things in Christianity... Matthew Chapter 5, as I noted above, comes to mind... why is it that so few Christians practice these "liberal" ideas... like giving spare change to beggars... More to the point, how could any Christian tolerate the Christian Right in this country?

I assume you mean the first 12 verses of Chapter 5 by your statement. How are these "liberal" ideas?

Blessed are the poor in spirit
Blessed are they that mourn
Blessed are the meek
Blessed are the they which do hunger and thirst after righteousness
Blessed are the merciful
Blessed are the pure in heart
Blessed are they which are persecuted for righteousness sake
Blessed are ye, when men shall revile you, and persecute you, and shall say all manner of evil against you falsley, for my sake

How is any of this "liberal"? Seems as though Jesus is teaching about righteousness here and that those who seek it and suffer for it are to be blessed by God.

Now, it is true that Christians should help care for the poor (defined primarily in the Bible as widows, orphans, and the handicapped--essentially those unable to physically care for themselves), but that does not mean we should raise them up above all other things. As Leviticus 19:15 says:

"Ye shall do no unrighteousness in judgment: thou shalt not respect the person of the poor, nor honor the person of the mighty: but in righteousness shalt thou judge thy neighbor."

Furthermore, there has been some recent reserach (I'll have to look for the author) that shows "religious conservatives" are more likely to give to charity than any other demographic group. So, perhaps helping the poor is being done by conservatives, just through means other than the government.

 

[Buckeyeskickbuttocks]

Why is healing not a violation of Torah? Because the Torah does not forbid it. You have shown that Torah forbids work on the Sabbath, but you have yet to show that the Torah defined healing as work! Why? Because healing is never defined as work in any of the Old Testament writings. In addition, there are other commands in the Torah (e.g. love thy neighbor as thyself--Lev. 19:18) that one also should also be following that provides us a greater understand of the spirit of the Law, which in turn helps us understand the individual instances of the letter of the Law.

Furthermore, I am pretty confident that if you ask an Orthodox Jew whether Torah in itself specifically forbids healing on the Sabbath they would say no. They would appeal to other Jewish writings, such as Talmud, as the source for that instruction.

Well, I guess it's about time to move this conversation on to another topic, as I'm clearly unable to properly extract the point I'm making here. I'll try this last time, just because I'm stubborn.

You're saying Torah does not forbid healing on the Sabbath. By your use of the exclaimation mark, I suppose I should affirm to you that I recognize that healing is not defined as "work" in Torah itself. That's not the point I'm arguing... that is, I've never set out to establish healing on the Sabbath is work at all... just that the "controlling authority" of the day believed it was... and again, this portion of the discussion centers entirely on my remark that Jesus was a maverick with respect to the Law as understood in his day... which you balked at.

Our disconnect on this issue, I think, is affirmed by:

As for Jesus' authority to interpret the commands of Torah, well since we beleive he is the promised Messiah (and hence the incarnate God), that means he is the author of Torah, he is the one who gave it to the Israelites through Moses. Considering he is the original author and perfect in knowledge and understanding, then his interpretation is the only one that matters.

You ask us to consider what if he is not the Christ. Well, if he is not, then you are correct in that his interpretation means no more than any other man's. However, such hypothesizing is meaningless to a Christian. Jesus fulfilled all of the prophesies that relate to the suffering servant aspect of the Messiah--he will fulfill the conquering king aspects upon his promised return. His resurrection serves as the sign that he was who he claimed to be.

Because you say this as if the thought never occured to me, it's clear we're not playing the same game (maybe you abandoned the exercise I've been trying to stay in pages ago?). The point I've been trying to make is a jury is a blank slate.... And your offer of proof on the Jesus' divinity subissue is to unilaterally declare precisely what is at issue in the first place.

Anyway... I think the game I've been playing (apparently alone) has run it's course, so... let's move on to some other topic.

What you describe here is a flawed literalist approach to understanding the Bible, which I admit does exist among some. Simply reading Exodus or any other passage in isolation of the rest of scripture does not constitute appropriate exegesis. When reading a specific verse or passage in the Bible, it must be read in consideration of every other verse.

As for the unified, universal message of the Bible being self-evident, I would say it is, but we are not able to fully access it without the Holy Spirit, because it is only through his intercession that we can fully overcome our cultural baggage and read it without reading ourselves into the Word.

And who among us is the judge of who is being "moved" by the Holy Spirit and who is not? That is, earlier I remarked that I do honestly believe that my thoughts on God are guided by what you'd call the Holy Spirit. Likewise, I also believe that the things you believe about God are guided by the Holy Spirit. In the way you seem to evaluate the world, one of us must be wrong. In the way I evaluate the world, we're both right. In your view, being wrong comes with the consequence of damnation for the unbeliever... in my view, being "wrong" is impossible because there are infinite ways to appreciate the infinite... this is why I call Christianity (or other religions) "exclusive" and it's why I inherently distrust any of the tennents in it. Because, as I indicated in my response to LV, it smack of Man using God for his own POWER... to elevate one's own self over those of a different mind. It is why two seperate belief systems war with eachother over the course of millenia. And, I am simply unwilling to accept an infinite loving God who would approve of such conduct. In other words, if loving God while not elevating myself over others who do not believe as I do is not enough for God, then I accept my damnation.

Do you see what I'm driving at? Jews think they're right. Christians are certain they're right. Muslims would insist... no, we've got it right. And each with equal appeals to documentation, prophets, etc. If only ONE of these ideas can be right, then the greater bulk of Man is doomed by the very god who created them. How sadistic is this god who would purposely create eternal suffering for the majority of his creation? And for what reason? If God was tired of being alone, he surely could be up to the task of creating a companion who would not be damned. Of course, the response is - who am I to sit in judgment of God? To which I would ask, who are you to sit in judgment of God and Me? Because in asking the first question, you too have "judged God" in accord with whatever it is you believe about me (in as much as it differs from what I believe, thus predicating the question you'd ask.)

In both instances Jesus is working with the spirit, or intent, of the Law. Therefore, one interpretation may look more stict than another on the surface, but only if one is working from the sole perspective of the letter of the Law. God's intent for us to observe a day of rest and to hold a holy convocation (Leviticus 23:3) once every seven days has nothing to do with ignoring other commands (such as the one I gave earlier in loving thy neighbor). God's intent for us to not commit adultry has everything to do with remaining faithful to our spouse, which one has not done if they lust after another woman.

Yeah, I get that. I think I should point out again, I'm not hostile to the message, only those "messengers" who would use the message to secure their own power... to elevate one's own self over any one else.

I really don't understand your point here. If I didn't advance Christianity as the one true understanding of God and mankind, then it really wouldn't be faith. A person's faith defines his/her reality. If it does not, then you really haven't hit upon the individual's faith. It would be absurd for someone to not claim their faith as the absolute measure of understanding all things.

So, what you're telling me is my position is absurd. That is, as should be no surprise at all, I absolutely believe my faith.... and yet... I do not hold the premise that my understanding is the one true understanding. To the contrary, I hold there are an infinite number of understandings.... an infinite number of correct views of the universe. That God IS everything, and anything that is, is God. (So as not to quibble, you can assume I mean God is more than everything in the way you would use the term "infinity" to be something less than everything (or God is more than infinte)).

If a Muslim came to me and said it is okay that you do not worship Allah because it is only my faith that works for me and you as a Christian have a different faith that works for you, I would not consider him as holding an Islamic-based faith. Rather, he holds faith in something else. Why? Because Islam is not defining his faith in this instance, something else is. Same with me as a Christian. If I denied that Christ, (not Christianity), is the only means to salvation, then by definition my faith is not the one of a Christian. It is a faith of something else. However, since I am Christian, I believe Christ is the only means to salvation.

And that's all well and good... well... actually, it's not all well and good, I guess... because here is where the exclusivity comes in.

I assume you mean the first 12 verses of Chapter 5 by your statement. How are these "liberal" ideas?

Blessed are the poor in spirit
Blessed are they that mourn
Blessed are the meek
Blessed are the they which do hunger and thirst after righteousness
Blessed are the merciful
Blessed are the pure in heart
Blessed are they which are persecuted for righteousness sake
Blessed are ye, when men shall revile you, and persecute you, and shall say all manner of evil against you falsley, for my sake

How is any of this "liberal"? Seems as though Jesus is teaching about righteousness here and that those who seek it and suffer for it are to be blessed by God.

Now, it is true that Christians should help care for the poor (defined primarily in the Bible as widows, orphans, and the handicapped--essentially those unable to physically care for themselves), but that does not mean we should raise them up above all other things. As Leviticus 19:15 says:

"Ye shall do no unrighteousness in judgment: thou shalt not respect the person of the poor, nor honor the person of the mighty: but in righteousness shalt thou judge thy neighbor."

Furthermore, there has been some recent reserach (I'll have to look for the author) that shows "religious conservatives" are more likely to give to charity than any other demographic group. So, perhaps helping the poor is being done by conservatives, just through means other than the government.

I said "liberal" with the intent of haveing an axe to grind... truth is, that remark was all that remained of several paragraphs I decided to delete because I re-read what I was going to say and decided that it was far too insulting and contrary to what a disucssion of God should be about. Actually, it was cathartic in a way, because as I thought about the emotions I was feeling when I wrote that stuff which I deleted, it occurred to me that any time I become angry when discussing God, I'm not discussing God at all.... but instead I'm discussing me, and doing precisely what I've been talking against in this post... namely elevating myself above others thru God. If I gain no other insight from this thread ever again, I learned a very valuable lesson about myself yesterday and one which I'm hopeful will lead me towards a much more content and peaceful mind.

Of course I am not going to be perfectly able to give up whatever it is that makes me human (otherwise, I'd be Christ, right?) where emotions are concerned.... but, I feel I have taken a step closer towards true freedom of the soul from the confusions of man.

 

[Bleed S & G]

I feel I have taken a step closer towards true freedom of the soul from the confusions of man.

 

[buckeyegrad]

Well, I guess it's about time to move this conversation on to another topic, as I'm clearly unable to properly extract the point I'm making here. I'll try this last time, just because I'm stubborn.

You're saying Torah does not forbid healing on the Sabbath. By your use of the exclaimation mark, I suppose I should affirm to you that I recognize that healing is not defined as "work" in Torah itself. That's not the point I'm arguing... that is, I've never set out to establish healing on the Sabbath is work at all... just that the "controlling authority" of the day believed it was... and again, this portion of the discussion centers entirely on my remark that Jesus was a maverick with respect to the Law as understood in his day... which you balked at.

Ah, then there was a misunderstanding. I will agree that Jesus was a "maverick" to the Law as understood in his day by the religious authorities, but he was not a "maverick" to the Law in itself, which is the important point of his ministry.

Because you say this as if the thought never occured to me, it's clear we're not playing the same game (maybe you abandoned the exercise I've been trying to stay in pages ago?). The point I've been trying to make is a jury is a blank slate.... And your offer of proof on the Jesus' divinity subissue is to unilaterally declare precisely what is at issue in the first place.

Anyway... I think the game I've been playing (apparently alone) has run it's course, so... let's move on to some other topic.

I gave up playing the jury game a long time ago as I found it unfruitful to discussing claims of truth. Sorry if I didn't make this clear.

Because, as I indicated in my response to LV, it smack of Man using God for his own POWER... to elevate one's own self over those of a different mind. It is why two seperate belief systems war with eachother over the course of millenia. And, I am simply unwilling to accept an infinite loving God who would approve of such conduct. In other words, if loving God while not elevating myself over others who do not believe as I do is not enough for God, then I accept my damnation.

While it has been used as such, it does not mean it is used in every case. Nor does the Christian message, as found exclusively in the Bible, say that it should occur. In fact, the ironic thing about the Christianity in its unadulterated form is that if flurishes more when it is persecuted, not when it is in a position of power. On a personal level, I don't think I have ever used my belief to elevate myself over others. Yes, I believe I have a favord position in relationship to God, but that has nothing to do with me as I can't claim responsibility for it. In fact, my belief humbles me more than anything else because I acknowledge I need help from God for my salvation rather than believing I can do it on my own or that I don't need it in the first place. All I want is for as many people to see what I believe is the truth--how is that anything else but a lack of love.

Which raises an interesting point. Do you think what Christians do or have done in the past may not necessarily be an accurate representation of the Christian message? Or do you think the two exist within one another?

Do you see what I'm driving at? Jews think they're right. Christians are certain they're right. Muslims would insist... no, we've got it right. And each with equal appeals to documentation, prophets, etc. If only ONE of these ideas can be right, then the greater bulk of Man is doomed by the very god who created them. How sadistic is this god who would purposely create eternal suffering for the majority of his creation? And for what reason? If God was tired of being alone, he surely could be up to the task of creating a companion who would not be damned. Of course, the response is - who am I to sit in judgment of God? To which I would ask, who are you to sit in judgment of God and Me? Because in asking the first question, you too have "judged God" in accord with whatever it is you believe about me (in as much as it differs from what I believe, thus predicating the question you'd ask.)

People are not doomed by anything God does. We are the sole authors of our suffering. Likewise, God does not create eternal suffering. We are the authors of that as well by choosing to be divorced from the Creator. Suffering only exists when one chooses to remain separate from God.

As for saying none of us have the ability to judge God, how is that a judgment? It is a statement that the finite cannot possibly understand that which is beyond itself, which seems a pretty reasonable statement that I would think almost all could agree.

So, what you're telling me is my position is absurd. That is, as should be no surprise at all, I absolutely believe my faith.... and yet... I do not hold the premise that my understanding is the one true understanding. To the contrary, I hold there are an infinite number of understandings.... an infinite number of correct views of the universe. That God IS everything, and anything that is, is God. (So as not to quibble, you can assume I mean God is more than everything in the way you would use the term "infinity" to be something less than everything (or God is more than infinte)).

Absurd? From a Christian perspective, yes. From your own perspective, no. What I am getting at with faith is that it defines your reality. Therefore, the belief that no one is wrong if they are seeking God is a conclusion of your faith. What you are saying is that God is "x" and a human's relationship with him is "y"; therefore, you conclude that no one can be wrong. What I am saying is that God is not "x", but is "a" and a human's relationshihp with him is not "y", but is "b"; therefore, I conclude that there is only one correct path.

The only way everyone cannot be wrong, is if your faith is correct, but that cannot be proven, otherwise it would not be faith. However, to insist that all faiths are not wrong is a contradiction in itself since the existence of faiths that say there are incorrect ones is evidence of one being wrong by the standard on none being wrong.

 

[lvbuckeye]

Posted it above. ..."Remember the Sabbath day by keeping it holy. 9 Six days you shall labor and do all your work, 10 but the seventh day is a Sabbath to the LORD your God. On it you shall not do any work....

I don't disagree re: what Jesus is meaning (and in my mind, it teaches one to be faithful and want not that which you don't have, etc... which are "good" lessons).... but, just a moment ago, you referred me back to Torah, right? And, what does it say about adultery?


So, I guess it begs the question... if we can let Jesus play loose (even if I agree with his result) with what is "work" on the sabbath.... how can we then let him expand adultery to include attitudes of the heart and then say he wasn't something of a maverick with respect to Jewish law?

according to the Law as it was written, He wasn't a maverick. according to the 'modern' (in His lifetime) interpretation and enforcement, He was.

For the record, and I want to be clear on this, my issue is not Jesus' message. I can certainly appreciate the wisdom he brought to the debate, and, much like I think of even this discussion itself and the people in it, that is to be encouraged and enjoyed. ... as I surmise from the remainder of your post, you and I are of like mind on the .... I'll say problems... of man screwing around with otherwise glorious ideas (organized religion).

that sound good by me. you do, however, realize that Jesus Christ had the same problems with organized religion that you do?

Well, obviously you and I differ to the extent that we can save ourselves, and that disagreement is not a big deal (so far as I'm concerned). I have come to better appreciate your position on what I have been haphazardly referring to as "the Church" and/or "organized religion" and sometimes even "Christianity" It would seem we are closely aligned in our views on that issue.



Well, again, you and I disagree on who can save who... but, you're certainly entitled to your beliefs. I think your parenthesis remark - message of love - is really closer to the key to salvation than a lot of other things. That is to say, different roads may lead to the same place.

herein lies that slippery slope. either Christ was who he said he was or he wasn't. if He was, then there is no other path to salvation. if He wasn't, then why bother listening to the teachings of a charlatan, no matter how noble they seem...

I agree here, and it's comforting to hear that you're far more interested in the joy of man than the judgment of man. I am troubled when God is used by man to acquire the desires of any one man... as I suspect you are as well. And, to me, it's pretty clear that when a man seeks power through God instead of love, that man isn't doing himself any favors (much less anyone else).

those people are, by definition, antichrist.

I guess time will ultimately tell... But, I hope Jesus is as forgiving as I understand him to be in the event that my conclusions regarding him today are mistaken. Actually, in that I strongly believe what I believe "hope" isn't the correct word... as I said pages ago, I accept the consequences of my faith.

Anyway... thanks for the insight LV. I know we can go round and round sometimes, but I do truly appreciate what you bring to the conversation.

the best thing about the discussion is that it causes us to examine our views, and provide a solid backing for our points, which, in turn, strengthens our faith... er, or whatever. :p

 

[Buckeyeskickbuttocks]

Which raises an interesting point. Do you think what Christians do or have done in the past may not necessarily be an accurate representation of the Christian message? Or do you think the two exist within one another?

Not sure if I follow your question, but I'll wager a response. I think that it is not only possible, but likely (Indeed, I'd say it is a certainy) that people purporting to be Christians are not now nor have they been in the past an accurate representation of the message of Christianity. In saying this, I have to make up my own mind as to what that message is, of course... and in doing that, the reality is, I'm in no position to determine what is, or is not, Christian. So, when I say that, I am saying there are few Christians who meet the criteria of Christianity I would establish for myself if I were to subscribe to that theory. This, naturally, follows from the fact that I'm not Christian... or, said in another way, if I were able able to meet the standard of Christianity which I believe would be required of a "true" Christina (in my view) I would be a Christian.

The real issue for me - and it's a fundemental difference between people who think as I do, and people who think as you do - is that I see the Bible as man's work about God, and not God's work. In other words, I see the biblical authors as inspired by the Holy Spirit (if you will) in the same manner that I am... or you are.. or LV is.. or anyone who should write down their thoughts on God. I look at it as a collection of ideas about God... about our place in the universe... I look at it as a codification of rules of an organized society... a collection of "important" wisdom handed down over time. I believe the Book is written with God as it's inspiration. But, I do not believe it was written by God.

The reason I believe the way I do is because the God I love is infinite and accessible. As I've alluded, God is literally everything. So, if I want to learn anything about God, all I need to do is examine the natural world around me, whether that's physical analysis (say, chemistry) or the metaphysical world (say, psychology) or anything else. Again, to be clear, I do not believe that God is merely the physical and metaphyscial reality that surrounds us, but that he is at least these things. So.. when I examine the rules of nature.... when I explore the way people behave... whenever I think about anything, I am appreciating and learning about God. So, what I'm saying is, my infinite God is not only accessible on the pages of the Bible. I can learn about His nature by thinking about how a black hole works.

Oddly enough, even the people whom I distrust on matter God are, in fact, God in this view. That is, as I've been testing myself over the last several pages with questions about why I feel the way I do about people if God is as I say, I've come to realize that if I say "there is no such thing as good or evil" that means there is no such thing as me trusting or mistrusting people. What occured to me is that I have been confusing my spirit with my body. So... when I argue with emotion and passion I am expressing my human nature (body) which I now realize I have been previously mixing up with ME (my spirit). Or, in other words, my human emotions aren't important in any "real" sense... they represent a dataset of things which my spirit is to learn, interperate and appreciate the glory that is God.

Not sure if I'm being any more clear than I have been over the last 20 odd pages. I'm trying to say, I've recently come to realize that I was being inconsistent with what I say about God and the nature of the Universe and how I behave... and the reason for that is becaue I did not appreciate the distinction of the parts of me that are MAN and SPIRIT. I have been attempting to deny the parts of me that a man.... and where those parts of me differed from what my Spirit told me about stuff, I suffered confusion and at times dispair. But, I think I've finally realized, I am not my body... My body is simply something that is, and while I control it, it's purpose is for study of God (as is everything else). I've come to realize that I'm not a hypocrite for behaving in the world, that my behavior is simply just another great mystery to be explored.

People are not doomed by anything God does. We are the sole authors of our suffering. Likewise, God does not create eternal suffering. We are the authors of that as well by choosing to be divorced from the Creator. Suffering only exists when one chooses to remain separate from God.

Well, on this, I would have to ask you how infinte your version of God is. Because it would seem he doesn't have intention or the ability to appreciate the consequences of his actions. You're examining the 'free will problem" and placing emphasis on our autonomy from God. But, as I said above, in my view... we ARE God. In a sense, our collective consciousness is God examining himself. We are, if I might use the metaphor, like red blood cells (but with awarness of ourselves)... essential with respect to God's living... but any one of us, inconsequential (that is, if I lose any particular blood cell, I do not die - so long as there are other cells available).

As for saying none of us have the ability to judge God, how is that a judgment? It is a statement that the finite cannot possibly understand that which is beyond itself, which seems a pretty reasonable statement that I would think almost all could agree.

The finite can understand that which is beyond itself. I think you confuse understanding at all with understanding in full. I mean, take an infinite thing... say the universe (which is actually finite, but just for the sake of argument).. My inability to know the whole does not mean I cannot know anything of the parts. For example, this coffee cup is somewhere in the universe. If I was outside of the universe and knew everything about it, I would know that it (the cup) is inside that universe. But, here I am, inside the universe.. and I know this coffee cup is here.. Get what I'm saying? We can know something about the nature of God.... by examining that which he created. It's not only possible, it's assured, because there is no alternative.

Or, like this.. someone made this pen in front of me. I certainly can't tell you a great deal about whoever it was. But I CAN tell you some things with a reasonable degree of certainty. Whoever made it was interested in selling it, whoever made it was able to acquire the materials to make it, whoever made it had a business plan, and so on. Obviously, these aren't necessarily GRAND conclusions.. but, I'm trying to illustrate we can know something about a creator by examination of his creation. Everything? Well.... no... but lots of things.... But, then, neither of us attempts to argue man could ever know the whole of God.

Absurd? From a Christian perspective, yes. From your own perspective, no. What I am getting at with faith is that it defines your reality. Therefore, the belief that no one is wrong if they are seeking God is a conclusion of your faith. What you are saying is that God is "x" and a human's relationship with him is "y"; therefore, you conclude that no one can be wrong. What I am saying is that God is not "x", but is "a" and a human's relationshihp with him is not "y", but is "b"; therefore, I conclude that there is only one correct path.

The only way everyone cannot be wrong, is if your faith is correct, but that cannot be proven, otherwise it would not be faith. However, to insist that all faiths are not wrong is a contradiction in itself since the existence of faiths that say there are incorrect ones is evidence of one being wrong by the standard on none being wrong.

I recognize the conflict you refence here in your last paragraph. It is, as you say, a contradiction. But, keep in mind, I believe "negative infinity" and "positive infinity" are the same place. (Hope that makes sense, since there really aren't such things as negative or posititve infinities as a "spot" on some imaginary numberline) So, what I mean is, when I say all faith is wrong, and all faith is right, it's the same statement. "All faith is." The ultimate paradox, of course, and maybe resolution of this quandry is what makes God different from his creation, and with reference only to my view (not because it's superior, but just to limit the dataset for purposes of simplicity) is this: If I am right about God, then I've just established that my key premise is wrong. See... We are taught that a paradox or a contradiction means we need to go back and fix something broken in the theory we're working on.... but, I don't see it that way. Because "negative infinity is the same "place" as positive infinity" (again, this is just an attempt to describe a thought, and should not be taken literally as if there are such "places") a contradiction is .... the gate to God.. I guess. God, if he is, as you and I seem to both hold "more than infinity" then it is my best estimation that he is the resolution of a paradox... or in other words He is the impossible. (as well as the possible, which is the universe around us). To truly be EVERYthing, he - it seems to me - HAS to be both everything that is, as well as exactly everything that is not. When I say "infinity" I mean to include literally everything, including those things which are impossible.

herein lies that slippery slope. either Christ was who he said he was or he wasn't. if He was, then there is no other path to salvation. if He wasn't, then why bother listening to the teachings of a charlatan, no matter how noble they seem...

Well, as I've argued with Jwin.... I don't understand the problem.. probably because I don't appreciate the consequences of Jesus being a "liar" because those consequences are of no import to my faith. To me, it's as simple as accepting as true the statement "1 + 1 = 2" from someone who is certifiably insane. In other words, I don't see the world as on or off, yes or no... liar or truth teller. I see the world more as an expression of these things (yes, no.. on, off, etc.) AND everything in between. If Jesus is a liar about who he is, that does not mean his insights are null and void in their entirety. To me... anyway.

the best thing about the discussion is that it causes us to examine our views, and provide a solid backing for our points, which, in turn, strengthens our faith... er, or whatever. :p

Indeed.

 

[PlanetFrnd]

Hey all, I think this is a very interesting thread, I just wanted to get involved, so I am trying to address some of the past good dialogues. Have a religion background, so I?m not completely out of left field, though its apparent that the trajectory of what I studied is different than Grad, for example.

This is the age old philosophical/theological discussion known as "The Problem of Evil."

The classic answers are that in order to have good, evil must exist or you wouldn't know what good is. There really wouldn't be freedom of choice because you couldn't choose evil. If everyone lived forever, life would not be as valuable.

Several philosophers have come to that conclusion. I seem to remember someone named Dodd from my Philosophy of Religion course.

The more difficult question to rectify is that if God created everything and God is all good, how does evil exist?

Or as theologian Paul Tillich put it that God is the opposite of existence... non-being if you will. In this case, God is beyond all reasonable thinking. I think most get the idea of God as "SuperMan" idea from the Genesis account which states that man was created in God's image. Freud would say that idea comes from our own mind. It is our manifestation of the ultimate "Super Ego."

I think your assertion of the non existance of good and evil is best summarized by Brad Pitt's character in 12 monkeeys: "There's no right, there's no wrong, there's only popular opinion."

Yeah, I was just trying to give a thumbnail sketch of some of the basic arguments before I headed to lunch. I honestly agree that no one has yet put forth a logically sound argument that solves this issue to date.

I believe the essence of what you are stating is that evil doesn't really exist. It's actually close to BKB's argument. Actually, these arguments only deal with moral evil. Thump's original question also included natural evil... disease and such. The free will discussion doesn't account for natural evil.

It's both closer and farther from BKB's argument. On one hand, you could say that I argue evil doesn't exist because it is only a conception to describe the lack of something else (i.e. good). On the other hand, I would argue that good exists, otherwise evil couldn't be described as its absence. So I am really saying something very different than BKB since I conceive the presence and absence of good to be two very different things.

If God is infinite, Good cannot be absent. Evil must therefore be something other than the absence of Good. Or... God isn't infinte. Frankly, I can live with either result, though I must confess, I try to explain things while keeping God Infinite. If Good and Evil have to disappear, so be it.

I think the concept of evil is tricky because there are essentially two very different questions that must be answered. The first, generally addressed above is, ?does evil exist?? If the surmisable answer to the first question is affirmative, than the second question is ?why does (or how can) evil exist??

This first question defines evil ? if one chooses to define it ? as opposite of good (or vice versa) which requires a moral judgment that separates everything into two opposite ideas with no gray area and deems one morally desirable and the opposite morally offensive. The obvious problem lies in where the line is drawn and as well as with whom does the power to draw it lie. For many peoples of the world and in history, the responsibility and/or power belongs to God or god(s). VERY GENERALLY SPEAKING AND FOR THE SAKE OF THIS ARGUMENT in the history of Judeo-Chirstian-Muslim thought, God has been defined to be omnipotent and, usually, omnipresent. In fact, the reason God is given the responsibility is because of His divine judgment (which is divine because He is omnipotent and omnipresent and therefore extra-human) Historically, culturally and personally people have always disagreed on what is morally desirable and what is the opposite thereof. However, differences aside, we can move on to the second question.

Assuming that evil exists and that God is the one to deem which is good and which is evil AND assuming that God is omnipotent and omnipresent, it is logical to assume that God is responsible for the evil in the world, to the extent that evil exists. However, if you assume a) evil exists and b) God is omnipotent and c) God is Benevolent there are obvious questions.

Man's concept of "evil" may well NOT be God's concept of evil. Indeed, if my theory is correct, there really isn't even such a thing as good or evil, there just is.

What is so evil about the rape and murder of a child, if you're God? If we are to believe in life after "death" I don't see any "evil" being committed at all. Evil in the sense of man? Absolutely. But, God? I doubt it. I think a lot of people think of God as a "SuperMan" that is, Man Plus... And, I just don't think that's the correct way to view Him, if He is in fact in existence.

Leading me to reject, of course, many portions of the Bible which make God sound more like a man than a God.

Not taking into account death, which may not be evil ? in fact, if Christianity is correct, death is a celebration (excuse my lack of elaboration). What about human suffering? Despite what you said about the concept of evil for God differing from the human concept of evil, BKB, it is a fair assertion to most people that some people on this earth suffer an inordinate amount. It is also reasonable to suggest that some of the inordinately suffering people do so unfairly, that is they suffer in great excess of their accumulated sins.

Many people specifically look at the case of suffering infants or children who, for example, suffer great injustices of poverty or starvation as unjustifiable ?evils.? The obvious question

The more difficult question to rectify is that if God created everything and God is all good, how does evil exist?

is therefore the basis for countless books, essays and treatises in the study of the problem of evil, known as Theodicy.

Jesus is the obvious NT example. Jesus? suffering and eventual death is justified in two basic ways: a) that He suffered and died for the sins of man, and b) His suffering and dying is an ultimate good. The book of Job is the classic OT example. Job has been justified and explained by some theologians and/or scholars, but remains controversial enough to be debated academically today.

There are several common ways that evil under the watch of a benevolent, omnipotent, omnipresent God are justified (and excuse my rough language for many of these), for example, though none are bullet proof:

1) God has a plan
2) God?s will
3) Result of sin
4) In the case of innocents, result of original sin

It?s not my point to argue the merits/faults of the above, but it is not hard for some to find flaws. The common basic resolution is that God is either a) not omnipotent or b) not benevolent ? to which ?believers? (for extreme lack of better terms) will refute that God (including His existence, His will, or His plan) is unfathomable to humans. And therein lies the rub.

Here is a link to a very good collection of essays, edited by Mark Larrimore: The Problem of Evil: A Reader



The collection of essays is based on his lecture series of the same title and is highly interesting for those who have any curiosity about the topic.

Theodicy is a the cornerstone of several in-depth studies of the variation of Christian experiences, Liberation Theology and its cousin Black Liberation Theology, for example.

Liberation Theology was made most visible by Catholic scholar Gustavo Gutierrez? book A Theology of Liberation: History, Politics and Salvation, similarly, (generically) Protestant scholar James Cone wrote A Black Theology of Liberation ? both of these books are written to address the concept of wholesale suffering as a race and how that relates to an the concept of an omnipotent and benevolent god.

I just though the following was very interesting:

It's both closer and farther from BKB's argument. On one hand, you could say that I argue evil doesn't exist because it is only a conception to describe the lack of something else (i.e. good). On the other hand, I would argue that good exists, otherwise evil couldn't be described as its absence. So I am really saying something very different than BKB since I conceive the presence and absence of good to be two very different things.

Quite true. The position that good exits but what we call "evil" is only the absence of good is very different than BKB's position that neither good nor evil exist. The first position is one in which there is a God outside of existence who controls all things and only allows for the appearance of evil to exist. In BKB's formulation there is no God beyond existence. Believe me, I'm definately not equating the two. In your formutalation evil only "appears" to exist, but there is an ultimate good. In BKB's, good and evil are human constructs and there is no ultimate. The other option is the traditional dualistic ultimate good and evil.

That's a nice-sounding explanation, but I think that little 3-part formulation (God/infinite/good) is too simplistic to be the definitive word on the subject. I don't see how God's infinite nature would preclude the absence of good at all (are you including "omnipotent" within "infinite")--and where does man and his free will fit into the equation?

Well, it depends on what is good. You are making the assumption here that good is God (which is quite different than saying God is good), to which I would completely disagree. In my conception of God, good, and evil, good is defined as God's Will. So while God is something beyond infinity (i.e. outside of existence), individual actions within His creation can be absent of His Will.

A very good refutation, but still leaves available the question of how suffering can be possible? benevolence, omnipotence, etc.

The possibility that evil actually does exist, and not merely as the absence of good: I for one believe God is within me, as in all things, and yet I have often defiled his presence with my weakness in the face of evil's temptations. That's sin, and that's why I need forgiveness. I have no problem with you trying to formulate a tidy answer to the Problem of Evil for yourself, but I just don't believe the ultimate truths in life can whittled down to such simple tautologies.

So on a personal level if your life is at all typical, what you suffer is not what scholars would consider inordinate suffering and, therefore, would not likely play in the debate surrounding the problem of evil.

If Good is God's will, then Good may only come in to existence upon God's willing it to be so... (or, in other words, When god "thinks" or "does" it is "good" automatically) There is no Good, then, without God. And the statements Good is God and God is Good become the exact same thing, as far as I can tell.

I suppose you're saying it more like this.. BKB is not God, but is capable of Good. Thus, since BKB is not God and can do Good, Good can exist without God.

I guess I look at God as much more intrusive than that. God is everything you see, feel, hear, touch... He is all that you know and don't know. God is everything and Nothing. God is the universe and everything in it, everywhere. Or, simply: God is. (Which is the same thing as saying "God is not"). When I talk of an infinite God, I mean an infinte God in infinite respects... I recognize, however, that this holding appears to not allow for things such as man's free will... evil.. etc... But, again, one must keep in mind I do not believe in such things (ie Evil) there simply is.

Or the shorter version: there is nothing but for God.

To assume such in the context of extreme suffering is the very basis for the foundation of theodicy as a study.

Anyways, just wanted to get involved in the conversation ? was a religion major as an undergrad. IMO, there aren?t many more interesting discussions than theology and this history of theology?

?OK, Buckeye football and basketball, for starters.

 

[Buckeyeskickbuttocks]

Welcome to the discussion, BusNat.

 

[Buckeyeskickbuttocks]

I just had a thought.... rather than conjecture about if there is a God or not... and trying to figure out what is his nature or what is pleasing to him... wouldn't it benefit us to figure out if we have souls first? I mean, we are certainly more accessible than is God for purposes of "hands on" analysis.

Can any one put forth any evidence supporting the notion that they have a soul? That they don't? For me, the existence of ghosts (which I believe in as having had their presence demonstrated to my satisfaction) is evidence of a soul. What's your reason?