Gods responsibility

[sojourner]

A question about your terminology: by "God is present in", do you mean "God is responsible for"?

No. What do you mean?

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

No. What do you mean?

It was your question.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

I'm not throwing a tantrum. I'm trying to pin you down to your theological reasons for your statements, such as "God is simply another player in the game," and "God is not present through positive human action."

I don't recall saying that second quote. Is that supposed to be your paraphrase?

That doesn't constitute a "tantrum." It does constitute theological discussion.

There would be reasonable ways to have a discussion to achieve those ends. You've chosen a different way: a more tantrum-y way.

But "[You] don't want to play [that] game with [me]?" Sooo... you've thrown in on a theological discussion, but you won't discuss theologically? This is tantamount to, "I wanna play Monopoly, but I don't wanna buy and sell property, use play money, or move my token around a board."

I'm fine with having a theological discussion. I'm not fine with indulging a temper tantrum. If you calm down, we can talk. Do you want to do that?

 

[idav]

What then, is your theological reason for God not being present in positive human action? Is God, or is God not present in positive human action? And please include the reasons for your conclusion.

If god is present in positive human action then negative human action too.

 

[sojourner]

If god is present in positive human action then negative human action too.

How so? Upon what do you base that theological conclusion?

 

[sojourner]

It was your question.

I want to know what you mean by "God is present in." Do you mean "responsible for?"

 

[sojourner]

I don't recall saying that second quote. Is that supposed to be your paraphrase?

It's a summary, apparently, of your thinking expressed in #174. Is that an accurate summary? If not, can you summarize.

I'm fine with having a theological discussion.

Fine. Me too. So: Upon what do you base your statement, "God is simply another player in the game?"

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

I want to know what you mean by "God is present in." Do you mean "responsible for?"

It's not an expression I tend to use.

You know, refusing to explain what you mean by your question is not the behaviour of someone who wants an answer.

 

[sojourner]

It's not an expression I tend to use.

You know, refusing to explain what you mean by your question is not the behaviour of someone who wants an answer.

You didn't ask for explanation. You asked for clarification. Nonetheless, what I mean is that the premise "God's actions are manifest in human acts of compassion and mercy" stands in congruity with the premise that we are the imago dei. IOW, when we act in accordance with what fosters love and relationship, we mirror, or image the qualities that generally describe God. It has nothing to do with "being controlled by God." It has everything to do with acting in congruity with what we believe about God. When we image God's qualities, we act on God's behalf.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

It's a summary, apparently, of your thinking expressed in #174. Is that an accurate summary? If not, can you summarize.

I don't know what you mean by the term, so I don't know whether it's accurate or not.

Post 174 is only a few lines long. I don't think a summary is necessary.

Fine. Me too. So: Upon what do you base your statement, "God is simply another player in the game?"

I base it upon the idea of objectivity. "The game" in this case are the "rules" and factors that apply objectively and universally. For something (e.g. morality or the logical absolutes, to give two examples that often get thrown around in these discussions) to be objective, it must be independent of any individual thought.

If something is grounded in God, then it's by definition subjective, not objective.

As an example, take morality: if morality is rooted only in God, then it's merely God's whim. Terms like "good" and "evil" presuppose an objective standard, but God cannot be such a standard, since if God is the standard, then God is not subject to the standard. And if God is not subject to it, then it's not objective and therefore not objective morality.

 

[sojourner]

I don't know what you mean by the term, so I don't know whether it's accurate or not.

Post 174 is only a few lines long. I don't think a summary is necessary.


I base it upon the idea of objectivity. "The game" in this case are the "rules" and factors that apply objectively and universally. For something (e.g. morality or the logical absolutes, to give two examples that often get thrown around in these discussions) to be objective, it must be independent of any individual thought.

If something is grounded in God, then it's by definition subjective, not objective.

As an example, take morality: if morality is rooted only in God, then it's merely God's whim. Terms like "good" and "evil" presuppose an objective standard, but God cannot be such a standard, since if God is the standard, then God is not subject to the standard. And if God is not subject to it, then it's not objective and therefore not objective morality.

This presents, I believe, the fundamental difference between you and I. For me, God is "the game." The cosmos -- the world -- life -- is God, and encompasses everything -- is the stage upon which existence is placed. God isn't a being -- one of many things that "have" existence; God is Being, itself. Call it "the Divine Principle," if you will.

Proceeding on that premise, Morality isn't "rooted in God." Morality is God. Whatever is moral... is God. God (to use your language) applies objectively and universally.

Before we go much further, in order to clarify, so that we don't misunderstand, what we call "good/evil," "moral/immoral" are human perceptions of life that I don't *think* apply, particularly from a Divine perspective. Remember that in the garden, humanity partook of something we never were meant to: the knowledge of good/evil. Perhaps those polarities aren't real, in a Divine sense. God is universal -- we have divided that universality into opposing definitions of good/evil. So, when we deal with theodicy: "how can a "good" God allow "evil" to exist?" It presents us with a conundrum that we can't solve.

But I digress. Suffice to say that, IMO, "God is simply another player in the game" doesn't work. I think we're dealing with culpability, when we really need to be dealing with something else. The OP opining that, because God knew that God was setting in motion something with the capacity for "evil," God shares responsibility for that "evil," kind of places a false cosmology upon God. You sort of do touch on that when you point out that we thank God for the "good" but don't hold God responsible for the "evil." I don't think it works that way (and I don't think you do either, yes?).

 

[Thief]

Its by gods power we can do evil or good. Does god not care to stop evil?

God gave Man dominion.

If your hand does anything.....it's because you thought you should...or because you wanted to.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

This presents, I believe, the fundamental difference between you and I. For me, God is "the game." The cosmos -- the world -- life -- is God, and encompasses everything -- is the stage upon which existence is placed. God isn't a being -- one of many things that "have" existence; God is Being, itself. Call it "the Divine Principle," if you will.

What would make such a thing "God"? A "principle" can't poof a universe, a world, or even a ham sandwich into existence of its own accord, or dictate commandments to a prophet, grant human beings an afterlife, literally manifest itself in a cracker, or any of the many things attributed to God.

Proceeding on that premise, Morality isn't "rooted in God." Morality is God. Whatever is moral... is God. God (to use your language) applies objectively and universally.

IMO, this construction doesn't actually match the way that people talk about God.

OTOH, it matches up with my own view of god-concepts: in general (some polytheists don't fit this formulation, but in general), I take "God" to be an anthropomorphism of the believer's idea of perfection and virtue... but this is an atheistic perspective on God, IMO.

Before we go much further, in order to clarify, so that we don't misunderstand, what we call "good/evil," "moral/immoral" are human perceptions of life that I don't *think* apply, particularly from a Divine perspective.

Why wouldn't they apply?

Even if good and evil are a matter of human perspective, they can still apply. The best you could do is say that God doesn't need to care.

We would be completely correct to say that Queen Elizabeth has never completed the Super Burrito Challenge at Pancho Villa's in Sterling Heights, MI (the one where if you finish an 8-pound burrito in one sitting single-handedly, you get it for free). Does she care? Does she even know about the Super Burrito Challenge? Probably not... but it's still correct to say that she hasn't done it.

Remember that in the garden, humanity partook of something we never were meant to: the knowledge of good/evil. Perhaps those polarities aren't real, in a Divine sense. God is universal -- we have divided that universality into opposing definitions of good/evil. So, when we deal with theodicy: "how can a "good" God allow "evil" to exist?" It presents us with a conundrum that we can't solve.

On the contrary: it can be solved easily.

Pancho Villa's - Home of the Flaming Fajita
But I digress. Suffice to say that, IMO, "God is simply another player in the game" doesn't work.[/quote]
It works fine within the framework of the beliefs of most theists.

I think we're dealing with culpability, when we really need to be dealing with something else. The OP opining that, because God knew that God was setting in motion something with the capacity for "evil," God shares responsibility for that "evil," kind of places a false cosmology upon God. You sort of do touch on that when you point out that we thank God for the "good" but don't hold God responsible for the "evil." I don't think it works that way (and I don't think you do either, yes?).

I think it would work that way if God was real. If we assume that God is an intelligent entity with foreknowledge and will - and the vast majority of theists do - then it works just fine. God would be responsible for the foreseeable and avoidable consequences of his actions, and a God who is omnipotent, omniscient, and sovereign over all creation (i.e. a God that matches the most popular conceptions of God out there), then God is responsible for all things, including all the bad things.

 

[sojourner]

What would make such a thing "God"? A "principle" can't poof a universe, a world, or even a ham sandwich into existence of its own accord, or dictate commandments to a prophet, grant human beings an afterlife, literally manifest itself in a cracker, or any of the many things attributed to God.

Most of the things you mention here are mythic representations. As I said in another thread, I don't think theology is grounded in physical cosmology. God isn't an old man with a white beard in the sky. We sort of have that mythic construction, because it makes the concept of "God" easier to grasp for most of us.

So, what is God to you?

IMO, this construction doesn't actually match the way that people talk about God.

You're right. This kind of construction is generally not so easy to grasp as a more anthropomorphic construction. We use these anthropomorphic constructions for ease of description -- not as definitions.

OTOH, it matches up with my own view of god-concepts: in general (some polytheists don't fit this formulation, but in general), I take "God" to be an anthropomorphism of the believer's idea of perfection and virtue... but this is an atheistic perspective on God, IMO.

It may be. But it's also the view of many Christians (admittedly, most of them much more progressive). It certainly makes a whole lot more sense to me -- and I've been through seminary. Although, I will say that most Xtians in this camp take it a wee bit further than that. Most Xtians aren't so humanistic. We wouldn't, for example, say that God is a human construction. We would still say that we are created by God.

Why wouldn't they apply?

I'm still working this out, so it's not nearly as tight as I'd like for it to be. But I'm thinking that, if God is the platform for existence, then what we perceive as "good" or "bad" doesn't really matter, except in the immediate moment of our own life. I look at it this way: when we die, no matter or energy is lost -- it only changes. We return to the dust from which we came. Our energy goes back into the cosmos. Death isn't ultimately "bad." it just... is. I don't think God operates out of a mode of "good/bad." I think God operates out of a mode of "this is existence."
I'm not completely happy with this, but here it is -- for now. Maybe our back-and-forth can help clarify.

The best you could do is say that God doesn't need to care.

Mmmm... yes and no? I just don't think God "sees" existence in those terms. God is above those terms, or outside those terms.

It works fine within the framework of the beliefs of most theists.

I think most people are happy to leave it at that. I'm not.

I think it would work that way if God was real. If we assume that God is an intelligent entity with foreknowledge and will - and the vast majority of theists do - then it works just fine.

I wouldn't go so far as to say God isn't real, but I think God is far more of a principle of Being than God is a being.

I just have a real problem with God as a being who plays on the same field as the rest of us. I just think that sort of construction leads us down a path that goes ultimately nowhere honest. Because then we end up with the theodicy conundrum.

So, I'm gathering that you don't really think that God is simply another player in the game?

How do you construct God?

 

[cottage]

But I digress. Suffice to say that, IMO, "God is simply another player in the game" doesn't work. I think we're dealing with culpability, when we really need to be dealing with something else. The OP opining that, because God knew that God was setting in motion something with the capacity for "evil," God shares responsibility for that "evil," kind of places a false cosmology upon God.

But if God is the creator and sustainer of human existence, which he is by the very definition of the term, then he is responsible for the evil in the world. The contrary position implies a direct contradiction, i.e. God is not God!

 

[Thief]

But if God is the creator and sustainer of human existence, which he is by the very definition of the term, then he is responsible for the evil in the world. The contrary position implies a direct contradiction, i.e. God is not God!

Don't say that too loud....that 'other guy' will hear you!

If you want to say God is responsible.....ok....if you insist.
And what do you think He might do about it?

Hold the perpetrators to their deeds?

 

[cottage]

Don't say that too loud....that 'other guy' will hear you!

If you want to say God is responsible.....ok....if you insist.
And what do you think He might do about it?

Hold the perpetrators to their deeds?

Ask yourself this: How is it possible for there to be perpetrators?

I’ll answer that question for you: it is because God brought them into being. It was God’s will that there be perpetrators of evil. For if it wasn’t his will then self-evidently the perpetrators usurped God’s power, which is absurd. Therefore it was God’s will and thus he is responsible for the evil that otherwise could not logically have taken place.

 

[sojourner]

But if God is the creator and sustainer of human existence, which he is by the very definition of the term, then he is responsible for the evil in the world. The contrary position implies a direct contradiction, i.e. God is not God!

God is only "creator and sustainer of human existence," though, in highly poetic and anthropomorphic language. I don't buy that definition in any literalistic sense. I say: "God is Creation and Sustainance. God is Existence. This removes God as "simply another player in the game," and places God as "the game, itself."
That moves the perspective of the game from our POV, at board level, to God's POV at a more bird's eye view. We can only see the squares around us, and only our most immediate moves. Our whole life is represented by only, say, four or five moves of our piece in relationship to a few other pieces -- and only within this one round of a very large tournament. From God's perspective, not only the whole board is seen, but all the pieces, all the moves, all the maneuvers and gambits, the entire strategy of both sides, and all the games of the tournament.

Therefore, it's easy to see how our perception of what is "good" or "bad," what is "right" or "wrong," is very, very limited. We make "mountains out of molehills." If we're a pawn, our death is a very bad thing. The Mean Old Rook murdered us. But from God's perspective, losing a pawn is neither good nor bad. It just... is. The pawn still exists -- just not in that particular round of that particular tournament. The pawn is tucked safely away in the box.

It doesn't even really matter if the game is won or lost, or if the tourney is won or lost. What matters is that the game is played out, and we have each played a part.

 

[cottage]

God is only "creator and sustainer of human existence," though, in highly poetic and anthropomorphic language. I don't buy that definition in any literalistic sense. I say: "God is Creation and Sustainance. God is Existence. This removes God as "simply another player in the game," and places God as "the game, itself."
That moves the perspective of the game from our POV, at board level, to God's POV at a more bird's eye view. We can only see the squares around us, and only our most immediate moves. Our whole life is represented by only, say, four or five moves of our piece in relationship to a few other pieces -- and only within this one round of a very large tournament. From God's perspective, not only the whole board is seen, but all the pieces, all the moves, all the maneuvers and gambits, the entire strategy of both sides, and all the games of the tournament.

Therefore, it's easy to see how our perception of what is "good" or "bad," what is "right" or "wrong," is very, very limited. We make "mountains out of molehills." If we're a pawn, our death is a very bad thing. The Mean Old Rook murdered us. But from God's perspective, losing a pawn is neither good nor bad. It just... is. The pawn still exists -- just not in that particular round of that particular tournament. The pawn is tucked safely away in the box.

It doesn't even really matter if the game is won or lost, or if the tourney is won or lost. What matters is that the game is played out, and we have each played a part.

I’m sorry but that simply doesn’t wash. This isn’t about “perception”; it’s about suffering. No religionist at their most patronising and condescending would dare to say in order to defend their beliefs that nobody suffers. Although what you’ve just stated comes within a hair’s breadth of saying just that!

 

[sojourner]

I’m sorry but that simply doesn’t wash. This isn’t about “perception”; it’s about suffering. No religionist at their most patronising and condescending would dare to say in order to defend their beliefs that nobody suffers. Although what you’ve just stated comes within a hair’s breadth of saying just that!

Of course people suffer. And that suffering is important to us. But, the perception of suffering is part of the game that is played out. Even you will have to admit that most people view death as "bad." But, when pushed, most will admit that death is preferable to pain. how many times have I sat with the family of a dying member who assert, "I want him to die so that he will no longer be in pain?"