nameandnature

Can I take this to mean that you think parents who smack their children do not love them?

No, although I'm not sure smacking is a good idea. In the context, what I meant was that I find it difficult to see how God both claims to love people and threatens the worst possible violence against them (Hell involving more than spanking, we presume), and how Christians who claim to love God can truly do so when they believe that if they did not, God would do them violence.

You do not think when assessing actions knowing the motivation behind them is important?

Sometimes it is. However, what I think the law goes by is intention: if someone intends to kill, it's murder, if someone kills by accident, it's manslaughter. God must surely be the one person who never does anything by accident. Someone's motivation for an intentional killing may lead us to sympathise, or even to a reduced sentence, but they're no less guilty. And of course, some crimes are so bad that there is no mitigation. Choosing to eternally torture a fair proportion of everyone who ever lived seems to fall into that category to me. I don't care whether someone claims to have reasons for that, because no reasons could be good enough.

What is the unskewed view of humanity and Christianity?

There's a question that could be the subject of books :-) Briefly, on humanity, that within us lies the capability for both great good and great evil. That it is possible to do good without the assistance of supernatural beings. That some people are better than others, and that this matters and is to their credit. And on Christianity, that there entire other traditions of Christianity which do not interpret the Bible the way evangelicals do.

From:

In the context, what I meant was that I find it difficult to see how God both claims to love people and threatens the worst possible violence against them

Ah, sorry. I took it mean that you thought there was a logical contradiction in God's character; this I would have to disagree with which was why I was suggesting you were using a false assumption. That it is difficult to understand all of God's character, and how the various aspects of his character result in his various actions, is not something I would dispute. I strongly suspect it is impossible for me to do so fully. Of course this does not mean I do not consider it a worthwhile task to seek greater understanding of such things; to know God better.

how Christians who claim to love God can truly do so when they believe that if they did not, God would do them violence.

This is where motivations come in again. Christians love God in reponse to the love he has shown us.

Sometimes it is. However, what I think the law goes by is intention: if someone intends to kill, it's murder, if someone kills by accident, it's manslaughter.

I was thinking more along the topical news line of self-defence. When there is an intruder in my house whom I try to knock unconcious by whacking him over the head with my handy oriental vase I am told the law will treat me differently to if decided to start bashing random people over the head, trying to render them unconcious, because I don't like them. Both actions are quite deliberate with the same intention, but treated differently due to my motivation.

Or for another topical example: I think many people when assessing armed conflicts would want to have a look at the motivations of the various people involved. (Of course, there is the pacifist position of saying armed conflict is always wrong, so no motivation can ever justify it. Out of interest would you support that position?)

From:

I took it mean that you thought there was a logical contradiction in God's character
Evangelical Christianity is riddled with logical contradictions, you get into all sorts of inescapable conundrums by having an all powerful all knowing God who has ended up with a totally screwed up universe, were God really all powerful and all knowing then this would not have occured (see Wikipedia: The problem of evil (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Problem_of_evil)).

Another one that came up on the Christianity Explored course was that logically God cannot be totally loving (http://www.livejournal.com/users/robhu/105882.html#isgodtotallyloving) (or perfectly loving, or 'as loving as he could be') if either some are called or some are chosen irresistably. Of course you could say that either everyone has the choice available to them, or that everyone goes to heaven - neither of these match up with what we see around us, or that everyone goes to heaven - but I don't think there are many evangelicals who would say that.

From:

Evangelical Christianity is riddled with logical contradictions,

Ummm. No it's not. If you believe you have found one please do post it as a thorough logical arguement, listing *all* of your assumptions, and I will happily tell you which of your assumptions I disagree with. (He says in the hope that you haven't suddenly come up with some stunning new proof)

Out of interest, are you happy with what is wrong with this arguement (or do you think it is a valid argument against God's omnipotence?):

"Can good make a rock big enough so that he cannot lift it?"

If the answer is no the is something God cannot do. If the answer is yes the is something God cannot do. So God can't be omnipotent.

I ask, as I feel at some stage I might want to show that other arguments are equivalent to that, so would be helpful now to agree with a simple example that such arguments are invalid.

From:

"Can good make a rock big enough so that he cannot lift it?"
I would say that that shows fairly clearly that God cannot be omnipotent. Unless God chooses for some reason not to be omnipotent to create such a rock, in which case he loses his omnipotence by choice.

If you believe you have found one please do post it as a thorough logical arguement
OK, I'll give it a go - I'll pass this thread on to a friend of mine who is much better at explaining these things than I.

What about this:

God would not create evil
God is the only being capable of creating things
Evil exists
If only God is capable of creating things and evil exists either God is not the only being capable of creating things, evil does not really exist, or God does not exist.

God is omnipotent and omniscient
God is the only being capable of creating beings
God would not create evil
Evil is defined as rebellion against God
Given two, three, and four: God would not create a being who would rebel against him
God created the devil
The devil rebelled against God
Given six and seven: God created a being who would rebel against him
Given five and eight: God cannot exist

God is perfectly just
Men commit sin
If God is just, then God will punish the sin of men
God can punish Jesus for the sin of mankind
Hell is the punishment for sin
Hell can be avoided if Jesus is punished in someone elses place
God is perfectly loving
God is able to save anyone
God can choose who to save
It is more loving to save everyone than it is to save some
Not everyone is saved
If everyone is not saved then God is not perfectly loving

If God exists, then God is omnipotent, omniscient, and morally perfect.
If God is omnipotent, then God has the power to eliminate all evil.
If God is omniscient, then God knows when evil exists.
If God is morally perfect, then God has the desire to eliminate all evil.
Evil exists.
If evil exists and God exists, then either God doesn't have the power to eliminate all evil, or doesn't know when evil exists, or doesn't have the desire to eliminate all evil.
Therefore, God doesn't exist.

If God exists he is omnipotent, omniscient, and morally perfect
If God exists given that he is morally perfect he would not create evil
Evil is defined as rebellion against God
God created Adam and Eve
Adam and Eve rebelled against God
God transforms people before they go into heaven so that they will not rebel against him
God would not create man with the ability to sin if it were avoidable
Given six: God is able to make man such that he will not rebel against him
Given four and five: God created man who did rebel against him
Given eight and nine: God cannot exist

From:

I ask, as I feel at some stage I might want to show that other arguments are equivalent to that, so would be helpful now to agree with a simple example that such arguments are invalid.
Such arguments are not logically invalid - they are perfect proofs that God cannot be omnipotent!! Therefore no omnipotent God can exist!

From:

Such arguments are not logically invalid - they are perfect proofs that God cannot be omnipotent!! Therefore no omnipotent God can exist!

Oh dear. I think then we have very different ideas of what is valid logic. Maybe you would care to explain your idea of what logic is, and how it is used to show contradictions, as if we disagree on that then reasoned discussion becomes kinda pointless.

Meanwhile, I will try to explain why I consider this to be a nonsensical play on words, rather than a valid logical proof. My apologies if I am making this sound too simple, I haven't got a clue what sort of level to aim it at. (How much do you know about logic?)

When we have a system, which contain concepts of truth and falsehood, we can seek to show that the system is contradictory by taking true statements in that system, applying the rules of deduction, and showing that we can derive false.

We can build up more complex statements by assigning them variables and substituting them into other statements.

So in my system with we are starting with an omnipotent (this could require more careful definition later on, but for now we will define it as meaning that he can create a rock of of any size, and can lift a rock of any size) God.
So we have the question:

"Can God make a rock big enough so that he cannot lift it?"

I would rephrase this as:

1) "Can God make a Z"

2) "Z is a rock big enough that he cannot lift it"

Z I would now argue is a meaningless concept. We have defined God being omnipotent as meaning he can lift a rock of any size, so the concept of a rock which he cannot lift is meaningless in this system. (If you don't find this bit convincing try expressing it to yourself formally in first-order predicate calculus. I would do so myself but typing the symbols would be problematic!)

So this definition of Z as as meaningless as saying that Z is a square circle, or Z is a strawberry flavoured electron.

(Note: the answer to "Can God make a strawberry flavoured electron?" or "Can God make a four sided triangle?" is not "Yes. God can do anything." but "Your question is meaningless."....of course God can make strange flavoured quarks)

So our question becomes "Can God make a (meaningless concept)?"

This question doesn't have a true, or false answer, it is nonsense, so then cannot be used in deduction.

From:

I think we've just posted the same answer (see mine below).

So, do the inhabitants of Heaven have free will?

From:

I have responded to this in the comment below by Paul.

From:

From:

If you define "omnipotent" to mean "able to do anything which is not logically impossible" then the problem goes away. Nick's argument is that worrying that God cannot create a rock so heavy he cannot lift it is akin to worrying that God cannot create a square circle or similar, or worrying about what happens when an irresistable force meets an immoveable object. In all cases, the question contains a contradiction and is therefore meaningless.
Indeed - I was hoping that he would define omnipotent in this way. If we define omnipotent as "Having unlimited or universal power, authority, or force; all-powerful" for instance that then leads us to having to consider whether or not God created logic, and if not (and so he is in some way constrained by it) then where did it come from?

Omnipotence in its pure form cannot be true because as you have pointed out it you can easily show that it would be contradictory, so if God exists he cannot be omnipotent in this way. I'm just reading "The blind watchmaker" by Dawkins, and he makes a similar comment - that if God is constrained to some degree then the real question is what/who is the origin of that constraint, for it cannot be God.

The Problem of Evil is then solved by arguing that a universe in which there is no evil but we still have free will is a logical contradiction. God cannot create a logically contradictory universe and so can't be blamed for evil. A counter to this is to ask whether the inhabitents of heaven have free will. Discuss [20 marks].
I am aware of that solution, I was waiting for him to suggest it then I was going to ask whether or not the inhabitants of heaven do have free will :0)

From:

Indeed - I was hoping that he would define omnipotent in this way.

I quite deliberately did not define it as "able to do anything which is not logically impossible", my arguement is that logic impossiblities are not things, they are nonentities, they are nonsenses. So by nature of not being things, they don't enter into the question of "able to do anything". There is no such thing as a square circle, so a statement about any-thing are not about it.

I am aware of that solution, I was waiting for him to suggest it then I was going to ask whether or not the inhabitants of heaven do have free will :0)

Ahem. I think I'll need you to tell me what this free will is you speak of before I answer such a question (also would be nice to know in your view of the world, do you think you have it now?). I suspect I may completely reject your concept of free will, but that might depend on how you define it.

From:

I quite deliberately did not define it as "able to do anything which is not logically impossible", my arguement is that logic impossiblities are not things, they are nonentities, they are nonsenses.
Both statements resolve down to the same thing from your position. God is unable to do something because he is constrained by the system of logic. I would argue that a stronger definition of omnipotence (the first point in the linked Wikipedia entry) would be that he is able to change / 'exists somehow outside of' (*cough*) / something the system of logic that we are constrained by.

I think I'll need you to tell me what this free will is you speak of before I answer such a question (also would be nice to know in your view of the world, do you think you have it now?)
A highly interesting question :0) I'm not sure I have a good definition, but it would seem to be something like:
"Something is said to have free will when it has the ability make choices"

Some choices (for instance choosing to no longer have gravity available to me) are possible but cannot be acted out due to physical limitations, others (deciding to love a person) needn't even result in a physical action.

It could be argued that our free will is limited to a large degree by our environment, perhaps this is true - if so then we have less free will in such an environment. I don't agree with this defintion though as we can will something without being able to act upon it.

The heaven problem is rather thorny because even if I am entirely unable to act upon my sinful willful choice it still exists within my head/soul/core program - and as we all know sinful thoughts are just as bad as sinful actions.

Then there is the old Christian chesnut that God gave Adam and Eve the freedom to choose (freedom of will) in the garden of evil because that is a prerequisite of love, without choice they are robots as they love him purely because they have no other choice and so the love is meaningless. This falls to pieces both because it doesn't deal with the obvious question of how all this relates to the angels (and specifically Satan who decided to rebel against God and so therefore presumably also has free will), and if people are transformed such that they cannot sin in heaven then that ability to choose has been taken from them and so although perhaps they have free will in other respects (choosing what colour socks to wear for instance) they certainly don't have the ability to love God anymore.

From:

Both statements resolve down to the same thing from your position.

No they don't

"Can God make a square circle?"

What is the response in your description of my position? What is the response in my description of my position?

God is unable to do something

Are you claiming that square circles are things? I am saying they are non-things, so are not included in some-thing. Or are you claiming that any combination of words (without regard for meaning) define a thing?

the system of logic that we are constrained by.

This argument actually has nothing to do with God. It is about the system of logic we are using. You seen to be happy using meaningless statements as part of your deductive process, this is not something the systems of logic I use allows! Of course if you do accept meaningless statement as part of proofs (do you?) it does make it very easy for me to prove everything (and anything) I want about God, I just need to start by reciting Jabberwocky:

`Twas brillig, and the slithy toves
Did gyre and gimble in the wabe:
All mimsy were the borogoves,
And the mome raths outgrabe.

As for free will: free will being a prerequisite for love as far as I can see is an assumption you are making, I would query the necessity and basis of that assumption. I think it is more accurate as describing man as having a will, and this will as being free to X. (For various X, to be defined).

Re: This year's CICCU Main Event - DIRECTION

From:

ex-robhu.livejournal.com - Date: 2005-02-07 01:44 pm (UTC) - Expand

Re: This year's CICCU Main Event - DIRECTION

From:

bluap.livejournal.com - Date: 2005-02-09 10:16 am (UTC) - Expand

Re: This year's CICCU Main Event - DIRECTION

From:

nlj21.livejournal.com - Date: 2005-02-09 10:33 am (UTC) - Expand

Re: This year's CICCU Main Event - DIRECTION

From:

bluap.livejournal.com - Date: 2005-02-09 12:37 pm (UTC) - Expand

Re: This year's CICCU Main Event - DIRECTION

From:

nlj21.livejournal.com - Date: 2005-02-09 12:51 pm (UTC) - Expand

Re: This year's CICCU Main Event - DIRECTION

From:

ex-robhu.livejournal.com - Date: 2005-02-09 05:05 pm (UTC) - Expand

Re: This year's CICCU Main Event - DIRECTION

From:

nlj21.livejournal.com - Date: 2005-02-09 05:41 pm (UTC) - Expand

Re: This year's CICCU Main Event - DIRECTION

From:

ex-robhu.livejournal.com - Date: 2005-02-09 06:48 pm (UTC) - Expand

Re: This year's CICCU Main Event - DIRECTION

From:

nlj21.livejournal.com - Date: 2005-02-09 10:53 pm (UTC) - Expand

From:

It would appear there are some interesting definitions of Omnipotence on Wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Omnipotent

From:

Also: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Omnipotence_paradox

From:

I took it mean that you thought there was a logical contradiction in God's character; this I would have to disagree with which was why I was suggesting you were using a false assumption

I think there is a contradiction between claiming to love everyone and doing some people infinite harm. As

robhu points out, the parallel with limited amounts of harm doesn't apply here (unless you're suggesting that hell is finite, but I thought that evangelicals weren't allowed to believe in Purgatory). Either God is not universally loving or he does not send people to Hell: Christians have chosen variations on those themes at various times, I think.

Christians love God in reponse to the love he has shown us.

Indeed, but my point was that love can hardly be seen as healthy when it is given under the threat of violence: it really does sound like the sort of Stockholm Syndrome stuff which Wednesday's Usenet posting talks about. Christians seem cast in the role of the beaten wife who makes excuses for her husband ("he loves me really; he's done so much for me; I deserve it").

I was thinking more along the topical news line of self-defence.

A key test for self-defence is whether it is proportionate (so you're not allowed to shoot someone who merely looks at you funny, or similar). I do believe that war can be justified sometimes, but again a key test for a just war is proportionality. In both cases, the analogy to punishment in Hell does not apply, since Hell is portrayed as an infinite punishment for a finite offence.

In conclusion then, the standard evangelical doctrine of Hell contradicts the idea that God is universally loving, and portrays God as abusive and unjust.

I do wonder whether there is anything which God could to which you would see as wrong, or whether anything he does is correct by definition.

From:

I think there is a contradiction between claiming to love everyone and doing some people infinite harm.

I don't think you can just say the two things are contradictory. You're starting with an emotion (love), and ending with an action (harm). I think it is necessary to say how the two are related (emotions and actions) before claiming an emotion and an action are contradictory.

As [info]robhu points out, the parallel with limited amounts of harm

As I've pointed out in another reply my aim was not to suggest parrallel or anology, but to query some of your original statements, which I felt were key to your reasoning. (no love with violence. actions assessed apart from motivations)

Either God is not universally loving or he does not send people to Hell: Christians have chosen variations on those themes at various times, I think.

Christians have throughout history affirmed both of those truths.

Christians seem cast in the role of the beaten wife who makes excuses for her husband ("he loves me really; he's done so much for me; I deserve it").

Such parallels completely ignore God's right to judge his creatures.

In conclusion then, the standard evangelical doctrine of Hell contradicts the idea that God is universally loving, and portrays God as abusive and unjust.

Would you consider a non-infinite Hell to contradict the idea that God is universally loving? And be abusive and unjust?

(I haven't tried this line of reasoning, so be prepared for me to back-track quickly. But the prescence of the word infinite does make my inner-mathmo think an analysis style of arguement might be valid.)

I do wonder whether there is anything which God could to which you would see as wrong, or whether anything he does is correct by definition.

Correct by definition.

From:

I don't think you can just say the two things are contradictory. You're starting with an emotion (love), and ending with an action (harm). I think it is necessary to say how the two are related (emotions and actions) before claiming an emotion and an action are contradictory.

If by love we mean the pure form of agape or charity which always seeks the highest good for its object, it is hard to see how that good is advanced by sending the person to Hell, wouldn't you say?

Christians have throughout history affirmed both of those truths.

What, that God is not universally loving and doesn't send people to hell? :-)

Such parallels completely ignore God's right to judge his creatures.

God does not have that right, or at least not an unqualified right. If he stands in relation to us as a parent to a child, we do not allow earthly parents to torture their children, even if the parents think it will do them good. God as envisaged by evangelical Christians is all-powerful and so has the ability to judge, but I don't believe his might makes him right.

Would you consider a non-infinite Hell to contradict the idea that God is universally loving? And be abusive and unjust?

Depends on how non-infinite it is and what the experience is like (and what happens at the end of this non-infinite experience). As I said, it's about proportionality. We recognise that some people escape punishment for their crimes in this life, and so some kind of court in an afterlife is not necessarily immoral. However, evangelical Christianity posits that we are all guilty, another point I'd disagree with.

Correct by definition.

So if God appears to you (or sends an angel, perhaps) and tells you to go on a killing spree or similar, in an old fashioned OT style, would you do it?

From:

If by love we mean the pure form

I don't think by love I mean what you mean by pure form. I understand your pure form to mean: in the abscence of other emotions/motivations. Would you say that is accurate? If that is the case, your reasoning stands.

My issue (which was the point of how emotions result in actions) is that all we know about God's character is not just his love, but also that he is just, he desires his own glory, etc..

First I would say that emotions (I want a better word to suggest the more deep-felt emotions which make up our character, rather the fickle emotions which vary from day to day) can easily appear contradictory without being so. The obvious example being how it is possible to both love and hate someone. (Has often been said how the opposite of love is indifference, not hate).

I would then think about how these result in action. I would say God's intellect works from these complex motivations to form actions. He uses his wisdom to harmonize these motivations and form effective choices, his actions.

This is my model of how a mind works. So I would agree you contradiction stands if we have love by itself, in its "pure form". But I would say this is not the case with God. He does have a genuine, universal, love. And also has a desire for justice, amongst other things, which is why what we don't get the actions we would expect if he had just that love.

God does not have that right, or at least not an unqualified right.

!!! On what basis would you qualify God's right about anything?

If he stands in relation to us as a parent to a child,

I should probably say that I don't think he does stand in relation to you as a parent to a child. That's the relationship between God, the Father, and the Christian.

As I said, it's about proportionality. We recognise that some people escape punishment for their crimes in this life, and so some kind of court in an afterlife is not necessarily immoral. However, evangelical Christianity posits that we are all guilty, another point I'd disagree with.

Hummmm. Depends what the crime being punished is. I'm guessing you're not too bothered about sins against God?

So if God appears to you (or sends an angel, perhaps) and tells you to go on a killing spree or similar, in an old fashioned OT style, would you do it?

I'm reluctant to say what I would do in situations I've never been even vagualy close to. But what I can do is affirm that when God commanded Abraham to sacrifice his son, Abraham was right to obey. I would like to say my faith was strong enough for me to have done the same, but as I said I am reluctant to do so, never having had it be tested in such a way.

From:

I understand your pure form to mean: in the abscence of other emotions/motivations. Would you say that is accurate?

That's not quite what I was getting at. I was thinking of the different kinds of love (as explored in C.S. Lewis's book, say), and thinking about the kind of love which was the selfless, charitable kind, rather than the kind which included in it a desire to possess, say.

[God] also has a desire for justice, amongst other things, which is why what we don't get the actions we would expect if he had just that love.

I think I'm starting to see the point made by Wednesday in her article, where she writes that Christians use the word justice in a way which is quite alien to how most people understand it. The "justice" of God seems more like bullying: demanding worship and perfection from people who cannot match up to his ideals, and taking his wrath out against the wrong person (ignoring for a moment that that person is also supposed to be God).

!!! On what basis would you qualify God's right about anything?

On the basis of my own moral sense. What else do you do? Even if you truly have abdicated this in favour of the belief that whatever God says (or rather whatever the evangelical interpretation of the Bible says) goes, you must at some stage have considered whether God was someone you wanted to know, which in part must mean someone good.

I also believe that God should be at least as good as he expects his followers to be, so in a sense I'm against hypocrisy on his part.

I should probably say that I don't think he does stand in relation to you as a parent to a child. That's the relationship between God, the Father, and the Christian.

In John's "children of God" sense, yes, but in the wider sense of someone who, we are told, created and sustains us, this includes everyone. As some of your own poets have said, "We are his offspring." Paul is not addressing Christians here. Parents as creators have a responsibility to, as well as an authority over, their creations. We do not consider a parent moral if the child disobeys them and then they shove the child in the oven.

Depends what the crime being punished is. I'm guessing you're not too bothered about sins against God?

I am puzzled by the concept of sins against God's person, since God as portrayed by Christianity cannot be hurt by our actions. I can understand sins against goodness, but crucially I do not believe a failure to become a Christian is such a sin.

I would like to say my faith was strong enough for me to have done the same, but as I said I am reluctant to do so, never having had it be tested in such a way.

In a way, I hope your faith would not be strong enough. One of the most worrying things about religion is its capacity for making people think that hurting others is OK because God has said so.

From:

I think I'm starting to see the point made by Wednesday in her article, where she writes that Christians use the word justice in a way which is quite alien to how most people understand it.

Have read her article, she does have a point that the common understanding today is different to the Christian use, but the other guy is right that this is quite a recent development. Also I think the definition has been changing recently as people move away from the "1960s liberal consensus" (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/3905547.stm)

Let me explain. I think an important feature of the Christian view of justice is that wrongdoing demands punishment. At the end of the last century the view of justice has changed to focus on rehabilitation and prevention and the cause of crime. Now people have realised that there are problems with this and are moving back towards an understanding of justice which seeks to punish wrongdoing again as well. Or maybe I am reading too much into the current political rhetoric.

Another issue is the basis on which we are judge (re: sins again God), hopefully will write more on that when I get a chance.

From:

Inspired by the continuing discussion on

atreic's journal, I take up my keyboard again...

I don't think that either Wednesday or I are saying that people who commit crimes should go unpunished, though. Rather, we're talking about the requirements of what I'd call justice, namely that the punishment be proportionate to the crime and that the person punished should actually be guilty of something. Neither of these requirements seem to be to be ridiculous liberal myths.

Re: This year's CICCU Main Event - DIRECTION

From:

nlj21.livejournal.com - Date: 2005-02-19 10:32 am (UTC) - Expand

Re: This year's CICCU Main Event - DIRECTION

From:

nameandnature - Date: 2005-02-20 11:57 pm (UTC) - Expand

Justice

From:

nlj21.livejournal.com - Date: 2005-03-01 12:55 am (UTC) - Expand

Re: Justice

From:

nameandnature - Date: 2005-03-01 01:52 pm (UTC) - Expand

From:

But surely the loving God of the Bible wouldn't do that? At least not to the innocent children? (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/index.php?search=1%20samuel%2015:2-3&version=31)

From: