Board index ‹ Jesus

[Book Mitten]

> God is perfect because He has no flaws and no sin.

From what do you derive the notion that God is perfect? How do you come to that conclusion? Experience? Knowledge? Erudition?

[jimwalton]

We have only one source for such information and conclusion: what is told to us in the Bible. The Bible purports to reveal God to us, and so when it tells us God is perfect, then that's information for us.

But then the Bible also theologically interprets historic events for us. So when the Bible tells us such-and-such is what happened historically, and then here is God's part in that, we learn from the interpretation of that event that God has no flaws and no sin.

So it call comes from the Bible. But we don't accept that blindly. We accept it because the Bible has repeatedly proved itself to be reliable and authoritative, and based on that authority we recognize its claim as God-breathed, and based on that we accept its theological statements.

I've done some reading in science philosophy, and a very similar thing happens in science. Thomas Kuhn says that, generally speaking, scientists don’t try to falsify their theories; they defend them. What’s more, theories aren’t immediately considered defunct if a single example of a falsifying observation arises. Instead, they are shored up by adjusting their hypotheses. In the end, science seems to be little more than opinion, expert opinion granted, but still just an opinion. There is, in Kuhn’s words, "no standard higher than the consent of the relevant community": a situation that has been colorfully characterized as scientific mob rule.

Paul Feyerabend argues that there is no scientific method, that science is, and should be, anarchic. Later sociological studies have claimed that scientific knowledge is no more certain than any other type of knowledge, that its knowledge is culturally determined.

So even though scientists claim to have a grip on "the truth," philosophers warn us that even scientific knowledge is regarded as such "because they say so."

Don't get me wrong. I believe in science, and sometimes I think philosophers have their philosophies, but know the difference between them and the real world. And yet, it's interesting and challenging to read their disclaimers about science. At its root, when pushed hard enough, science lacks complete explanatory power of all it claims. Reality is too big for science to be able to give sufficient reason and explanation.

[Book Mitten]

> Why are you able to use "what God says" to deprecate God, but I can't use "what God says" to vindicate Him?

I'm referring to what is said in the text and comparing it with the world. I'm not saying that you can't be inspired by what you believe is God's word. I'm just reserving the right to question your standards of fairness, as well as God's.

[Book Mitten]

Well I'm not a proponent of "Scientism" as it's called. I see the benefits of various approaches to unearth truth.

Regarding the Bible, I think there's some good ideas and some bad ideas. It seems to me that many devout believers are inspired by the good parts and then say that we shouldn't question God when we find something objectionable (Job being an example).

In addition to this, there is disagreement among Christians as to what is historical in the Old testament and what is not. Some take it literally, others interpret it as stories that are meta real. In other words, ways of understanding the human condition.

[jimwalton]

> It seems to me that many devout believers are inspired by the good parts and then say that we shouldn't question God when we find something objectionable (Job being an example).

It always good to ask questions. God (and Jesus) didn't mind doubt, and they didn't rebuke it. What they rebuked was lack of faith. The difference is that the former motivates us to learn, and the latter distracts us from the truth.

You misunderstand Job. The point of Job is whether the world runs according to the Retribution Principle (which it doesn't), and how to think well about God knowing there is evil in the world. The book makes the case that God's justice is not the foundation of how the world operates. Instead, God runs the world according to wisdom. Job is about: The way God operates the world and in the world is more complicated than people can imagine, and His ways cannot be reduced to a simple equation or a simple issue (such as the existence of suffering). It's not about rebuking Job for doubt or questioning God.

> In addition to this, there is disagreement among Christians as to what is historical in the Old testament and what is not.

Yes, we always expect thinking people to disagree. But it's also true that there are at least some scholars dedicated to tearing down the credibility of the OT.

And you're right that some want to bleed all spirituality out of it and make it into a sociological treatise on the human condition. These people distort the text and the intent behind it (which is to reveal God through the mechanism of the covenant).

[Book Mitten]

> Instead, God runs the world according to wisdom. Job is about: The way God operates the world and in the world is more complicated than people can imagine, and His ways cannot be reduced to a simple equation or a simple issue

How can wisdom be the underlying principle when we as humans can't understand something as simple as evil? Moreover, what kind of wisdom is brought about through bad things? The knowledge that they are bad?

I'd also contend that I don't have a problem with complexity or mystery as long as it doesn't cause unnecessary harm (I've given examples of what I deem unnecessary. For the sake of not irritating you with saying what I've said before, I won't repeat them). I don't think evil is necessary for Complexity or mystery to exist. Indeed, one example of evil could be a person driven to insanity from lack of ability to discover new experiences.

Perhaps you'd argue that the possibility rather than the certainty of evil is required. I would answer that even if this were true, prolonged cases of evil (which incidentally often take away the victim's freedom) are different from evil acts which are stopped short of prolonged atrocity.

[jimwalton]

> How can wisdom be the underlying principle when we as humans can't understand something as simple as evil?

First, we are to immerse ourselves in God's revelation of Himself, and that's where we'll find wisdom (Prov. 1.7). Second, we understand that there is much that is beyond us, and that's where we are to show our fealty to God in a trusting relationship with Him. As we learn to depend on God and interact with Him, we learn all that we need for life and godliness (2 Pet. 1.3).

> even if this were true, prolonged cases of evil (which incidentally often take away the victim's freedom) are different from evil acts which are stopped short of prolonged atrocity.

I agree the prolonged cases of evil are different from evil acts of shorter duration. The prolonged cases of evil and the most difficult to discuss because the level of (sometimes lifelong) suffering is high. But there are even cases of such suffering (such as the story of Joni Eareckson Tada, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joni_Eareckson_Tada) where God shines through. Clearly, protracted suffering is the most dreadful condition of humanity. I still don't think it qualifies to claim (1) God doesn't exist, (2) God doesn't care, or (3) God is is cruel.

[Book Mitten]

> If nothing else, extreme starvation awakens us all to the morality and goodness of overproducing food and sharing what we have with those less fortunate, turning greed into benefaction and motivating compassionate care for other human beings.

Even if I were to concede that some cases of evil are necessary, (I'm not just yet, but let's assume for the sake of argument) you can have benefaction without prolonged cases of starvation, as I said in my other reply. Likewise compassionate care. I wouldn't consider it compassionate of myself to create a situation where people starve in order to cultivate the possibility of compassion on their part.

[jimwalton]

To me a question is: has God created a situation where people starve, or have we done that? Humanity has a horrific record when it comes to environmental abuse. In the ancient world, completely stripping, razing, and burning all vegetation to the ground in conquered countries. In all cultures, the hoarding of resources and the systematic prevention of just distribution of them. I don't even have to talk about the industrial revolution and current climate crises.

I just wonder how much of this is really on God's shoulders, as you imply, or whether most of it is largely a matter of environmental abuse and maltreatment of our fellow humans. When destructive environmental crises happen, such as famine, tornadoes, earthquakes, etc., it is our duty as human beings to share resources. Even now I hear about barges of food rotting at the docks because oppressive political regimes refuse its distribution; medicines deliberately kept away from populations; etc. Protracted starvation is horrific, but I honestly question whether God is to blame. He has created a planet capable of vast provision—right now the Earth is sustaining a population of close to 8 billion people. It's astounding. It we learn to share and provide as the Bible teaches, we could eliminate hunger on the globe.

[Book Mitten]

> If we learn to share and provide as the Bible teaches, we could eliminate hunger on the globe.

"All it takes is a little push" as the Joker might say. Certain oppressors act and create a knock on effect. Even if I were to concede that humans were entirely to blame (I don't think this is the case; humans have some responsibility in an open theist scenario, as God might not forsee their actions, but there's things he creates like inclination, character, tendency and so forth) the problem remains that God watches it being perpetuated. I'd like to think that if I saw an atrocity occuring before my eyes, I would make an effort to prevent it. Of course, there are occurrences of people being aware and not acting, such as (ostensibly) in the murder of Kitty Genovese. But in these situations, neither does God.

Certain people do share and cooperate. They can often be interfered with by outside forces with malicious intent however. Why is preserving the freedom of the malicious force more important than the freedom of those that share? This is essentially the result of God standing by in these cases, I would argue. You might say that since he does anything, he isn't responsible. But he has the most power, and (presumably) the most knowledge on what organisational system works best. As a wise man once said, "All it takes for evil to prevail is for good men to stand by and do nothing."