Board index ‹ Free Will

[Book Mitten]

> If we are just chemicals

I have argued that this is not the case.

> I could just as well say, "This key fob on my desk is worth $1 million!" My subscription to and fabrication of that value doesn't give it worth and meaning.

Then why does God saying it is so give it any more value? Isn't his perspective just one among others? We might be limited in our perceptions, but that doesn't mean we can't get at some parts of the truth.

> So I guess by "meaning" I mean some kind of intrinsic purpose, value, and significance.

Why does something always need a purpose to be significant? Some things might (in many situations, a hammer will need to be fit for purpose to be considered valuable), but what is the purpose of God, for example? What is the purpose of his kingdom? Isn't it an end in itself?

[jimwalton]

> I have argued that this is not the case.

If we are not just chemicals, and if it's not just something we fabricate for ourselves, then from where does our value derive?

> Then why does God saying it is so give it any more value?

If God (by definition) is the ideal being, and we are made in His image, then we have intrinsic value by being the special creation of the ideal being.

> Why does something always need a purpose to be significant?

I guess I would ask for an example of something that has absolutely no purpose but has intrinsic value.

> what is the purpose of God, for example?

For one, the Bible says He holds the universe together: He sustains it by His powerful hand.

> What is the purpose of his kingdom?

The purpose of His kingdom is to bring us into right relationship with Him.

> Isn't it an end in itself?

The end is our relationship with God. It's what it's all about: To know God and be in relationship with Him.

[Book Mitten]

> If we are not just chemicals, and if it's not just something we fabricate for ourselves, then from where does our value derive?

Depends what you mean by "derive." If you mean "where do you get your idea of value from?" I would say my experience. This includes my experience of understanding data and things which I might not experience in the same way as others do. E.g. I think it is of value that people do not freeze to death involuntarily. My idea of this comes from my experience of gaining knowledge that freezing to death is experienced as bad.

> I guess I would ask for an example of something that has absolutely no purpose but has intrinsic value.

A life well lived. We could debate what that involves, but as a whole I'd see a good life as the point of existence in the first place.

>> what is the purpose of God, for example?
> For one, the Bible says He holds the universe together: He sustains it by His powerful hand.

Surely though Christians would argue that God had an objectively perfect nature prior to creation? Maybe some would argue otherwise, but I haven't heard them do so yet. In either case, if what you're saying implies that the purpose of God is creation of the universe, I could ask for the purpose of that itself. Which leads us to this:

>> What is the purpose of his kingdom?
> The purpose of His kingdom is to bring us into right relationship with Him.

How would you come to believe that this was a good thing? Presumably through your experience, am I correct?

>> Isn't it an end in itself?
> The end is our relationship with God. It's what it's all about: To know God and be in relationship with Him.

So if this is the end point, does it have a purpose? If not, doesn't this show that not everything of value needs a purpose?

[jimwalton]

> Christians would argue that God had an objectively perfect nature prior to creation?

Of course. Yes, He did.

> if what you're saying implies that the purpose of God is creation of the universe

I was just giving one purpose, as an example. There are many others. So I'm not implying that "the purpose of God is creation of the universe." That's too limiting.

> How would you come to believe that this was a good thing? Presumably through your experience, am I correct?

Not through experience, but through revelation. Some Christians don't have good or easy lives. Some are persecuted from the moment of faith, are tortured and killed. Some exist as homeless because of persecution. Our experiences as believers are not necessarily (and certainly not automatically) positive. After all, it was MANY posts ago I talked to you about how the world does work according to the Retribution Principle.

So it's not through experience. When we come to recognize Jesus as divine, we admit His words, then, are the words of God. What we know about the kingdom and a relationship with God are by revelation.

To be fair, many also know it by experience. Many people speak of a radical inner change when Jesus comes in.

> So if this is the end point, does it have a purpose?

Yes, it does. The purpose is that by being in right relationship with God we become all that we were ever meant to be and relation to God as the relationship that makes everything as it should be.

[Book Mitten]

> Our experiences as believers are not necessarily (and certainly not automatically) positive.

I'm not saying they are. You can come to believe in the existence of something without experiencing it as good.

> So it's not through experience. When we come to recognize Jesus as divine, we admit His words, then, are the words of God. What we know about the kingdom and a relationship with God are by revelation.

1.) What is revelation? How do you know you have encountered it? 2.) When you talk about "his words", I put that under experience. You experience reading or hearing his words as correspondent to reality.

> After all, it was MANY posts ago I talked to you about how the world does work according to the Retribution Principle.

Sure. I get that you said that about this world. My question is, why then is it any more just that the next world be retributive? (If it is the case that it even is in the first place).

[jimwalton]

> 1.) What is revelation?

It is simply God revealing Himself to us. Based on the record of Scripture, it's almost different every time (A burning bush, a pillar of fire, audible words, something visible like a vision, etc.).

> How do you know you have encountered it?

God generally confirmed his theophanies with some sort of sign manifestation (Moses's rod turning into a snake, a predicted historic event [the walls of Jericho falling], etc.).

> why then is it any more just that the next world be retributive?

This world is not just; the next world will be. This world is, in a sense, probationary. It's where we experience, digest, weigh the evidences, and decide. In the next world we are accountable for everything we did in this world.

[Delaune]

Accountable for everything we did in this world for eternity? What if the 'next' world isn't as final as it's meant to be?

[jimwalton]

Delaune, those are GREAT questions.

> Accountable for everything we did in this world for eternity?

You should know that there are Christians on about every side of this issue. Some Christians think that after life God will continue to work with people, doing whatever possible to reconcile them to Himself, and that possibly there will be changes to a person even after life. On the other hand, the Bible has some firm statements that what we do in this life sets the path for the afterlife. My bottom line on the matter would be this: The Bible continually and repeatedly tells us that God will do what is perfectly right and perfectly fair. Whatever strategies He uses, and however it all pans out in the end (given the fact that we're not told everything there is to know about eternity, we can count on Him not to make any mistakes.

> What if the 'next' world isn't as final as it's meant to be?

This is a great speculative question. There's certainly no indication in the Bible of reincarnation—just the opposite: this life is the one we get. As I mentioned above, we have to rest in God's omniscience, righteousness, and justice/mercy to handle the afterlife without flaw. The Bible teaches we can trust God on this regard.

Great questions, though. Thanks for asking them.

[Book Mitten]

> This world is not just; the next world will be. This world is, in a sense, probationary. It's where we experience, digest, weigh the evidences, and decide.

You have said that God will be fair with everyone according to how they have behaved in response to their circumstances. The issue however is of certain people having limited knowledge and, for some, a lack of moral instinct. Some killers might know they are doing wrong, but some will simply be too detached to have sufficient character, I think. Others will think they are making the right decisions but will be mistaken by information and their limitations of experience. Since God is omniscient, he would know what the right decision would be in any given circumstance, presumably. To give an example, someone may kill in self defense without realising that they were not in fact in danger. They made what they thought was the best decision at the time. God if placed in such a situation would know not to kill however. Scenarios like this lead me to believe that there are certain situations that God turns a blind eye to. This means I have trouble accepting the idea of the next world being just if it's preceded by a faulty predicate.

[jimwalton]

I wouldn't say God turns a blind eye to them, but rather that he takes such things (accidents, motives, premeditation, mistakes in judgment) into consideration.

> This means I have trouble accepting the idea of the next world being just if it's preceded by a faulty predicate.

Where's the faulty predicate? God is just because He knows all, sees all, knows the thoughts and intents, premeditation and accidental, and what REALLY happened. Even our own system of justice allows for accidental homicide, involuntary manslaughter, self-defense, and a host of other categories. Where's the faulty predicate with God?