Deconstruction - religion and politics

[Orange_Crush]

Why don't you define "perfect God" and then answer. I'm asking you what you believe. If you don't believe God is perfect, then the question doesn't even matter. If you believe that he is, then answer based on what you think that means.

I personally can't imagine a perfect being that would make faith/worship the only thing that matters in the judgment of our probationary state on earth. It's absurd to me. Beyond that, I can't even imagine a perfect being that would put faith/worship among his priorities in judging us.

"That guy is the perfect boss. Above all, he rewards ass-kissing." - no one ever

I'm not the one saying that God can't be perfect if He doesn't meet those criteria. I believe my responses have pokes some holes in your accusations. You asked me to perform a thought experiment, which I've done. Now, we're discussing your thought experiment. Right?

I thought I was fairly clear on what I came out with. I came out with the idea that God passes the thought experiment. Now, let's talk about yours.

You claim that you can't/don't know reality, yet also that you apparently know what a perfect God should and shouldn't do in any given circumstance. That seems a bit internally inconsistent.

You claim that you can't/don't know reality, yet act as though you know God's purposes in creating that reality, else you wouldn't be telling Him by which values to judge, act and respond. That seems a bit internally inconsistent.

You claimed that you can't/don'tknow reality (at least super-reality/meta-reality), yet started the discussion with...

I was a committed conservative Republican and a very committed Mormon, and in both cases, I adopted a new ideology. I was confronted with external evidence that refuted what I wanted to believe, and I also had internal battles about what I saw as my core principles that were supposed to jive with each ideology but didn't.

That seems a bit internally inconsistent.

Again... I believe that God is perfect in every way. I believe that He has communicated that He created this reality to display His glory and as an avenue to give love opportunity to be expressed (1 Cor 13:13). According to the definition of love given in 1 Cor 12, I see that it is a choice, so I believe that He created this universe with free will and rejection as a genuine possibility, while always planning the gospel--the avenue of His love and grace equally expressed with His truth and justice--as the mode by which humanity could be redeemed to the state and relationship that we were designed for.

I suspect that anyone who wants God will have Him, though I don't know procedurally how that happens in some instances. I also believe that anyone--like yourself--who would see God as unworthy of their worship and presence will get exactly what they claim to want--being cast out of His presence forever.

 

[Roustabout]

Man, if we knew what God's definition of anything was, we wouldn't even be having this conversation. Of course I am defining good. I'm talking about my beliefs. When I ask you about it, I'm asking for your thoughts applying your definition of good. The wife in your example is presenting a manipulative, selfish challenge to her husband. I'm just trying to figure out how I should make my way through the world. I know that I'm never going to get answers to these questions in this life, so I'm forced to fill in the blanks with personal beliefs and feelings. I personally believe that being nice is far more important than believing in something I'm not sure is there. I don't even see the point of that.

My definition of good would conform with an Aristotelian or Thomistic view. This would be as a result of pursuing exactly what the OP asked. If I’m being candid I see your definition closer to something like being “kind, or nice.” Actually, you said that very thing.

So, in my personal reflection I had to ask, who gets to set the rules. I stubbornly and with much consternation finally came to the place that it isn’t me. God’s goodness isn’t defined by his willingness to comply to my terms. Especially if my terms are sourced from nothing more than my opinion.

Really only two ways I can see this going. You really believe what you said about reality and are thus open to the idea that your personal beliefs aren’t a good barometer. Or, you dug in on “God isn’t nice.”

If your view is “God isnt nice” then there really is no discussion as it relates to the OP. Heck, I don’t think god is “nice.”

 

[0nelilreb]

Unless you're a Calvinist, in which case you're either born in or born out and have no choice in the matter.

You always have a choice .

 

[Orange_Crush]

"That guy is the perfect boss. Above all, he rewards ass-kissing." - no one ever

Again, I suspect you're making an error is class distinction. That would be a valid point if your boss was actually perfect, and God.

People hate ass kissers because it's disingenuous. It includes those times when one is treating their boss in ways that he doesn't deserve--or put another way, aren't true.

What a good boss does do is appropriately treat people who treat him as he deserves to be treated, and punish people who don't treat him as he deserves to be treated.

I'll ask again. If God is genuinely perfect in every way and completely worthy of all praise, honor and worship... How does He deserve to be treated?

 

[Roustabout]

To further illustrate the problem with nice. Anyone who has served in the military knows that a “good” DI is not determined by whether they are nice. This is not to say all things between god and drill instructors is analogous, but ONLY to show that your definition of good doesn’t comport with theological discussions about God’s nature.

 

[Orange_Crush]

My definition of good would conform with an Aristotelian or Thomistic view. This would be as a result of pursuing exactly what the OP asked. If I’m being candid I see your definition closer to something like being “kind, or nice.” Actually, you said that very thing.

So, in my personal reflection I had to ask, who gets to set the rules. I stubbornly and with much consternation finally came to the place that it isn’t me. God’s goodness isn’t defined by his willingness to comply to my terms. Especially if my terms are sourced from nothing more than my opinion.

Really only two ways I can see this going. You really believe what you said about reality and are thus open to the idea that your personal beliefs aren’t a good barometer. Or, you dug in on “God isn’t nice.”

If your view is “God isnt nice” then there really is no discussion as it relates to the OP. Heck, I don’t think god is “nice.”

“Aslan is a lion- the Lion, the great Lion." "Ooh" said Susan. "I'd thought he was a man. Is he-quite safe? I shall feel rather nervous about meeting a lion"..."Safe?" said Mr Beaver ..."Who said anything about safe? 'Course he isn't safe. But he's good. He's the King, I tell you.”

...

 

[Orange_Crush]

To further illustrate the problem with nice. Anyone who has served in the military knows that a “good” DI is not determined by whether they are nice. This is not to say all things between god and drill instructors is analogous, but ONLY to show that your definition of good doesn’t comport with theological discussions about God’s nature.

"Nobody likes a kiss-ass."

"True, but nobody respects Michael Scott."

 

[LouderVol]

If God is perfect, shouldn't he be good? I think the conclusion flows from the premise, and if it doesn't, I'm fine where I stand. If God isn't good, then why should I want to be in his presence? If God wants recognition above all, then he's not the kind of God I'm interested in.

You're not answering questions in this convo, just asking them?

The difficulty arises in ascribing human properties to a divine condition. And then expecting a+b=c.

I think its extreme hubris or misunderstanding to believe a divine being can be explained with an "if, then" statement.

 

[Roustabout]

The difficulty arises in ascribing human properties to a divine condition. And then expecting a+b=c.

I think its extreme hubris or misunderstanding to believe a divine being can be explained with an "if, then" statement.

Not if the premises are true and the conclusion follows from it.

 

[Roustabout]

"Nobody likes a kiss-ass."

"True, but nobody respects Michael Scott."

LOL
Here is another DI analogy that I think applies.

The drill instructor is harsh with his platoon, and almost seemingly cruel at times. Any attempt to subvert his authority is met with decisive punishment.

That same DI arrives home and gets on the floor and plays with his young daughter. He hugs her and loves on her. She makes mistakes and his reaction is completely different. He is gentle and forgiving. The soldiers say this is unfair that they aren’t treated the same way and that the DI isn’t nice to them.

Anyone with half a brain can see how ridiculous the soldiers are being. Is the DI being unfair? No. Is he being hypocritical? No. Has he changed? No. What has changed is relationship. Here we have someone saying god isn’t nice (in their opinion ), therefore he isn’t good. Hell, we wouldn’t expect a DI to conform to those soldiers wishes. If he did, he would be a BAD drill instructor. This DI is just another flawed human like us, and we don’t expect that from him. We’d be considered an idiot if we honestly did, yet people expect that from god.

“Hey god, Im not interested in whether my beliefs are right. You just need to be nice to me. Sure, you’re eternal, perfect, and Omni3, but unless you conform to my ideas then you must not exist, or you’re a bad god.”

I doubt this will get any serious reflection, but there it is.

 

[LouderVol]

Not if the premises are true and the conclusion follows from it.

Goes back to your "good"

I believe God is consistent.
I believe people and our thoughts/beliefs on God can be consistent.

I dont believe our consistency automatically equals God's.

What you stated is us being consistent. Or the possibility God is consistent. But our consistency is not the same.

God being good to us might not be God being " 'good' to us" to him.

If you believe joining God in heaven is good, the best thing God can do to us is kill us off so we join him sooner. Natural disaster that ruins lives, sends people to God. A "good" life is a longer existence to not truly know God as we would in heaven.

Not saying this is how I fully believe. Just saying that "Good" may not be "good". Which is why I think there is fallacy in ascribing human properties on a divine condition. Us unknowing place limits on the all knowing so that we can understand him.

 

[Roustabout]

Goes back to your "good"

I believe God is consistent.
I believe people and our thoughts/beliefs on God can be consistent.

I dont believe our consistency automatically equals God's.

What you stated is us being consistent. Or the possibility God is consistent. But our consistency is not the same.

God being good to us might not be God being " 'good' to us" to him.

If you believe joining God in heaven is good, the best thing God can do to us is kill us off so we join him sooner. Natural disaster that ruins lives, sends people to God. A "good" life is a longer existence to not truly know God as we would in heaven.

Not saying this is how I fully believe. Just saying that "Good" may not be "good". Which is why I think there is fallacy in ascribing human properties on a divine condition. Us unknowing place limits on the all knowing so that we can understand him.

That’s why we should use logic. Logic is evidence of the divine mind.

The Bible (Gods word) uses anthropomorphism.

Some of the other stuff you have here is just odd:

 

[Orange_Crush]

That’s why we should use logic. Logic is evidence of the divine mind.

The Bible (Gods word) uses anthropomorphism.

Some of the other stuff you have here is just odd:

Unless I read it wrong, I think he's saying we can use logic to know some things of God, but can't get caught in the trap of thinking He has to conform to any/every of our logic, or think that He can be fully described by our logic.

I think...

 

[AshG]

I believe that God created us in their image, and is probably facepalm theirself because we've been recreating them in our image as long as we've existed.

 

[n_huffhines]

To further illustrate the problem with nice. Anyone who has served in the military knows that a “good” DI is not determined by whether they are nice. This is not to say all things between god and drill instructors is analogous, but ONLY to show that your definition of good doesn’t comport with theological discussions about God’s nature.

One hell of a straw man you've built.

 

[n_huffhines]

The difficulty arises in ascribing human properties to a divine condition. And then expecting a+b=c.

I think its extreme hubris or misunderstanding to believe a divine being can be explained with an "if, then" statement.

Fair enough. I don't think I'm trying to explain God, tho. I'm testing the Christian theory of God. I'm told he is perfect and omnipotent. My personal beliefs about what perfection is imply God is righteous, fair, honest, kind, all the good things...and then someone tells me all that matters to salvation is faith? Why would a perfect being construct such a system? We're told all the other values matter too, but faith is the only one that determines salvation? I'm not saying I've disproven God or disproven the Christian God. I'm saying that this specific idea of God does not jive with my values, therefore I do not believe in this idea of God. I do not understand this God.

 

[n_huffhines]

Nobody will answer this question, but if you were God, what kind of probationary system would you set up? Would you base salvation on faith? Why?

 

[hog88]

Nobody will answer this question, but if you were God, what kind of probationary system would you set up? Would you base salvation on faith? Why?

Nobody CAN answer that question.

 

[n_huffhines]

Nobody CAN answer that question.

It's really easy for me to answer. I would set up a merit-based system that prioritizes values other than faith, and I would be merciful in judgment.

If you're God, you get to decide everything. How can you not answer that question?

If you had a blank piece of paper and a pen, what would you draw?

Nobody can answer that question.

 

[hog88]

It's really easy for me to answer. I would set up a merit-based system that prioritizes values other than faith, and I would be merciful in judgment.

Most people couldn't fathom being God, good for you.

 

[n_huffhines]

Most people couldn't fathom being God, good for you.

I can't fathom being a soldier in the military but I can still tell you the kind of soldier I would want to be.

This isn't a difficult thought exercise, aside from having the stones to answer.

 

[hog88]

I can't fathom being a soldier in the military but I can still tell you the kind of soldier I would want to be.

This isn't a difficult thought exercise, aside from having the stones to answer.

You can gain some perspective and insight into what a soldier is by talking to soldiers. Can't do that with the big guy.

 

[n_huffhines]

You can gain some perspective and insight into what a soldier is by talking to soldiers. Can't do that with the big guy.

 

[Sandman 423]

Fair enough. I don't think I'm trying to explain God, tho. I'm testing the Christian theory of God. I'm told he is perfect and omnipotent. My personal beliefs about what perfection is imply God is righteous, fair, honest, kind, all the good things...and then someone tells me all that matters to salvation is faith? Why would a perfect being construct such a system? We're told all the other values matter too, but faith is the only one that determines salvation? I'm not saying I've disproven God or disproven the Christian God. I'm saying that this specific idea of God does not jive with my values, therefore I do not believe in this idea of God. I do not understand this God.

Maybe that is the only way any of us heathens are going to heaven.

 

[n_huffhines]

Maybe that is the only way any of us heathens are going to heaven.

But why, tho? Why would anyone set up a system of rules where that is the only way, when any system can be set up? I get it if somebody were to say "God is subject to eternal laws that dictate that", which some people believe, but if that's true, then he's not really omnipotent. So he either sets up whatever system he thinks is best or he's not omnipotent.