Jump to content

God's Sovereignty And Free Will


BillM

Recommended Posts

Good points Bill,

 

However, past thoughts and lessons do come up in the present and i certainly don't advocate not learning from happenings in the past and especially and as you say not leaving the future to "que sera sera" We can always use the past in the present without believing as Bonhoeffer says " There is nothing that can replace the absence of someone dear to us, and one should not even attempt to do so." His advice to "simply hold out and endure it" doesn't sound healthy to me. He seems to advocate "For to the extent the emptiness truly remains unfilled one remains connected to the other person through it" holding on rather than letting go in my view.

 

As you, i see change as good and the future does indeed benefit from past experiences but rather than keep reliving them by 'holding on' i would advocate making changes and 'moving on' rather than holding them with gratitude and remembrance in hopes it " transforms the torment of memory into silent joy" That's just the way i see and handle it and should not to be mistaken for apathy or non-action.

 

Joseph

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 3 weeks later...

I read this this morning and found it...helpful:

 

One of the most damaging arguments within almost any theology – and a theology is by necessity an understanding that is based on some idea of a “God”, as the root of the word is “theos,” the Greek word for god – is the question of evil. If there is a God, and God is good, then why is there evil or why does God allow evil? Pantheism struggles on this point, because if everything is God, then everything evil is equally God. Panentheism, however, has a different understanding. Borg speaks rather eloquently to this point in the same interview:

 

“Let me start by talking about evil in relationship to that supernatural interventionist model of God. A major problem that I and other theologians have had with the supernaturalist, interventionist model of God is that it makes it very difficult to explain how things like the Holocaust, or TWA 800 exploding in the sky, or the individual and random tragedies that people experience all the time, can happen. If we think that God can intervene when God chooses to, then it become incomprehensible how God could have let the Holocaust happen. If we think that God sometimes intervenes to heal people of catastrophic and life threatening illness, then it becomes incomprehensible why God doesn't do that for everybody who's got premature cancer, let's say. All of those problems become utterly insoluble it seems to me with the interventionist model of God. Some 30 years ago, Bishop John Robinson, who wrote Honest to God listed three reason why atheism is the only attractive modern option--and he was thinking of atheism in relationship to the supernatural model of God. One of those [reasons was that] God is morally intolerable. His point is the one I'm just making. If God could intervene but chooses not to, then God is morally intolerable. For the panentheistic model of God, the notion of God as a being outside of the process, who sometimes intervenes, simply disappears. With a panentheistic model, God is present in everything and God is the source of everything--that doesn't mean God is the source of everything that happens, but God is present in everything.” (ibid)

 

To delve into this a little further, it might be best to begin again with a metaphor for the relationship between, for example, humans and God in a panentheistic worldview. One of the most familiar metaphors is that of cells in a body to the body itself. In a human body, for example, the cells are a generally necessary part of the whole, though any individual cell may die or be replaced with no particular harm to the whole. Similarly, cells are themselves made up of constituent parts, and perform different functions. As humans, we are now aware that we have cells; we are reliant upon them; we may even do what we can to increase the overall health of the cells. But we do not control our cells; they function or fail to function independently of our will, for the most part. Additionally, most of us would agree that our larger self, the human being, has a consciousness and awareness that greatly supercedes the awareness of an individual cell, and also human beings have agency that exceeds the agency of a cell – in other words, I as a human person can do things and my cells are a part of that, whether they know it or not. They are a part of a greater whole. Of course, as a human person, I can directly impact some of my cells; I could cut off my leg, for example. And, my cells can impact me – they can grow without regard to limit, and then I have cancer, which could kill me and all my cells. But within this metaphor, you see that the relationship between self and cells is necessary but not directive. Loosely speaking, my cells have free will. As do human beings within the paradigm of panentheism. And it is by choosing poorly – or perhaps, with imperfect or limited knowledge? – that human beings in particular create suffering or evil. However, to the panentheist, there is something much more important than how suffering or evil might come about, and that is that God is present with us in our experience of suffering. There is something more than our experience of pain; and this can be a healing concept. Martin Luther King, Jr. once spoke to this concept when he famously quoted one of our Unitarian forefathers, “the moral arc of the universe is long, but it bends toward justice.” The transcendent, enduring “moreness” of God is that justice-bending arc. -- Audette Fulbright

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I appreciate Audette's metaphor of God as the body and we as its cells. All God-talk is, IMO, metaphor, but some metaphors work better than others. Audette's works for me because it illustrates how we do have a certain amount of free will in our lives yet we are not disconnected from one another or from the Whole. Marcus Borg, in a number of his talks, articles, and books, speaks of God in these panentheistic terms. He references it to the verse in Acts where Paul says that God is the One in whom we live and move and have our being. This speaks to me much better than the theistic models of God in heaven and us down here. The panentheistic model of God doesn't, of course, solve every theological problem. Theology is simply too varied. But I think this model is worth serious consideration, especially for people like me who thought that the only alternative to theism is atheism.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I read this this morning and found it...helpful:

If there is a God, and God is good, then why is there evil or why does God allow evil? Pantheism struggles on this point, because if everything is God, then everything evil is equally God.

 

I must admit I find Audette's position unsatisfactory. I really can't speak for all pantheists but being that way inclined ... evil is not a problem! Evil is literally a figment of my perception. Big difference. In my world there is no evil. (On a slightly sadder note there is no good either). Evil becomes what I dislike and good becomes what I like. I have little control, if any, over what I like and dislike.

 

Panentheism ... just cannot quite let go of duality. If god and the universe are one then there is no need for magic ... everything and nothing can be seen as "magic". What I like about pantheism is a point where atheism and theism become one.

 

Regarding free will, if microbes have free will then so does everything. This simply becomes a semantic issue.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 9 months later...

Hi Bill

 

Really sorry for your loss, I've lost people I know - a nephew committed suicide last year and my father died last year as well. It's not nice.

 

Anyway, one thing in my search is that there is no such thing as Christianity without God. Any morals apart from God can only ever be 'relative morality.' You may think it's wrong to do one thing while I think it's okay to do it. Both are valid viewpoints and neither is wrong in this form of morality.

 

I also believe that definitely God is not responsible for your granddaughter's death, the driver of the car is. He chose to drive in a dangerous manner and that resulted in her death. But all through this, God was with you. He stood with you in your grief and still stands there with you today. He also knows what it is like to lose a loved one - Christ died for a crime He never did. He was innocent of all wrong and yet He paid the penalty for it.

 

Russell

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hi Russell,

 

Welcome to the forum.

 

Defining morals as "a person's standards of behavior or beliefs concerning what is and is not acceptable for them to do", i would suggest that all morals are basically apart from God. To me it is not a case of 2 opposing viewpoints and either or both being valid or a case of being right or wrong but rather a matter of choices and consequences that may be associated with a particular viewpoint.

 

​In Bill's story it was not so much a moral decision the one texting made while driving but rather a choice that carried with it the potential of consequences that did result this time in a death. A person who makes wise choices may or may not believe in God (at least in the context of your beliefs) yet their morals may be very similar if not the same as one who does. Morals do not, in my view, indicate right and wrong but rather a persons beliefs, as the definition states "concerning what is or what is not acceptable for them to do". I personally like the word "prudent" when making choices. :)

 

Just my take on it,

Joseph

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hi Joseph

 

I understand where you are coming from but then I disagree with you. But then, what makes me wrong and you right/correct in both our definitions or choices?

 

It boils down to whether you accept another person's definition. Some people want to maintain the definition of Christianity as some minimal literal belief ... usually that Jesus is literally the son of God and the rest of us are sinners so to speak; and that he died on the cross for our supposed sins and was resurrected.

 

Personally I am not married to any definition and so long as the definition is clear, then communication is possible. But of course switching between definitions can cause confusion.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hi Joseph

 

I understand where you are coming from but then I disagree with you. But then, what makes me wrong and you right/correct in both our definitions or choices?

Not a case to me of one of us being right or wrong, just sharing and like i said above.... Just my take on it.... Took definition right out of dictionary just so we were on the same page in communication. It seems to me that agreement is not a requirement and disagreement can always be the basis for further communications when we remain open so, at a minimum, we can at least understand each other better .

 

Joseph

Link to comment
Share on other sites

G'day Again

 

So going by your response, morality as I have stated previously is relative to each individual or people -group.

 

Russ

 

Not at all Russ.

 

Morality is not even relative. We might think it is.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Only if someone outside of humanity (such as God or a god) is deciding what is right and what is objectively wrong and what is objectively wrong; otherwise it is simply one human deciding such and another deciding differently. They are both right in their own eyes and no one can say they are wrong because that individual is only adding in their morality to make such a decision.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Only if someone outside of humanity (such as God or a god) is deciding what is right and what is objectively wrong and what is objectively wrong; otherwise it is simply one human deciding such and another deciding differently. They are both right in their own eyes and no one can say they are

wrong because that individual is only adding in their morality to make such a decision.

 

Then that God or god is suffering from the same illusion as we are.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

In what way if He suffering...If He gives us objective absolutes such as do not rape babies - how is that delusional. Because He is not applying it to an individual or an individual people-group but to everyone on the planet. And so that is an objective moral and not a subjective relative moral made up by an individual or a people-group.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Rusty,

 

What about an objective absolute such as "though shall not steal"? Clearly, morally speaking, it might be harmful to steal and so we shouldn't.

 

However, what if my children were starving whilst say the powers that be were well and truly fed but refused to share. What if the only way I could stop my children from starving to death was to steal a little food? Which would be the greater moral wrong in this instance - adhering to a black and white objective absolute and thus allow my children to die, or steal a little surplus from somebody who doesn't need it and allow my children to live??

 

Cheers

Paul

Edited by PaulS
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Rusty,

 

I don't think the word morality, by any dictionary definition, connotes anything absolute. Morals is simply a system of accepted values/beliefs whether held by an individual, organization or society level. To put morality on God is in my view to change the definition to something it was not defined to mean. I would not argue against the wisdom of not stealing, not raping, killing, etc. but they are not absolutes as Paul points out in his example. There are indeed potential consequences to any action but are things really black and white? I think not.

 

Doesn't the Bible even say that on occasion God commanded the Israelites to massacre men , women and children and even the livestock in some cases not to mention that at least on one occassion (Num31:7-18) to take the virgins for spoil to themselves? That sounds pretty much like rape as i' would think some women would be unwilling.

 

Joseph

Link to comment
Share on other sites

In what way if He suffering...If He gives us objective absolutes such as do not rape babies - how is that delusional. Because He is not applying it to an individual or an individual people-group but to everyone on the planet. And so that is an objective moral and not a subjective relative moral made up by an individual or a people-group.

 

Suffering might not have been the best word ... experiencing might be better.

 

"He" can give what we perceive as moral absolutes. It is our perception that will make them absolute or not.

If a wolf (dingo whatever) eats a baby is that a moral issue? If some yappy dog "humps" my leg is that moral. They are generally undesirable, at least for me.

 

Lastly I said illusion and not delusion. While I concede that some dictionaries give definitions of illusion as synonymous with delusion, the definition I always use is not as it seems. Just clear up any future misunderstandings.

Edited by romansh
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hi Guys

To answer your comments I think it best to speak to both together. Firstly, using the stealing scenario is (for me) a rationalization and is also suggestive that anarchy is an acceptable behaviour. What if it were me breaking into your house to steal the only food you had (a loaf of bread) – would that be wrong? Where, when would this form of rationalizing a wrong stop?

 

Frederick Nietzsche wrote, “You have your way, I have my way. As for the right way, the correct way, it does not exist.

 

With moral problems/issues/disagreements, even if extraordinarily different viewpoints do prevail, a resolution is still needed. From this perspective, moral reflection that transcends human differences is needed even if relativism is entirely true. When two parties argue about some serious, divisive, and contested moral issue...we tend to think that some genuinely fair and justified compromise may be reached, or perhaps we remain uncertain while anticipating the emergence of the best argument.[2]

In short, were relativism true, we might well have to act as if it wasn’t! Effectively, we can say, few relativists can remain relativists when they move from the calm realm of theory to that of practical realm of action where our roles as practitioners and evaluators come into prominence.

 

The gist of that argument of moral relativism as being a good explanation of the moral disagreements we observe is fallacious. Yet the claim that some moral statements seem true to some people and false to others merely restates the fact of moral disagreement that is supposedly explained by relativism, it cannot explain that fact. (Perhaps some things are self-explanatory, but not moral disagreement!)

So there is the familiar kind of truth dependent on how reality is apart from people’s beliefs or perceptions, and a bogus kind that is nothing more than belief.

 

Moral relativism is at best morally confusing due to the absence of any clear ob­jective moral standards. If there is no absolute moral law then there is no basis for making moral judg­ments or decisions. Would we say that Mother Teresa is no more or less virtuous than Adolf Hitler? If there is no absolute moral standard, how can we call Hitler and the Nazi atrocities absolutely wrong? Is genocide relatively wrong or absolutely wrong?

 

If morals were simply 'how one perceives things' then that by definition would be moral relativism.

 

Is God a moral monster? No, even when we look at the Old Testament we can see that as a sovereign being He brought justice into the world. He warned people of the wrongs that they were doing (prostitution, sacrificing babies, etc), gave them time to change and then brought judgment onto them as a result of their refusing to obey His commands.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hi Guys

To answer your comments I think it best to speak to both together. Firstly, using the stealing scenario is (for me) a rationalization and is also suggestive that anarchy is an acceptable behaviour. What if it were me breaking into your house to steal the only food you had (a loaf of bread) – would that be wrong? Where, when would this form of rationalizing a wrong stop?

Frederick Nietzsche wrote, “You have your way, I have my way. As for the right way, the correct way, it does not exist.

With moral problems/issues/disagreements, even if extraordinarily different viewpoints do prevail, a resolution is still needed. From this perspective, moral reflection that transcends human differences is needed even if relativism is entirely true. When two parties argue about some serious, divisive, and contested moral issue...we tend to think that some genuinely fair and justified compromise may be reached, or perhaps we remain uncertain while anticipating the emergence of the best argument.[2]

In short, were relativism true, we might well have to act as if it wasn’t! Effectively, we can say, few relativists can remain relativists when they move from the calm realm of theory to that of practical realm of action where our roles as practitioners and evaluators come into prominence.

The gist of that argument of moral relativism as being a good explanation of the moral disagreements we observe is fallacious. Yet the claim that some moral statements seem true to some people and false to others merely restates the fact of moral disagreement that is supposedly explained by relativism, it cannot explain that fact. (Perhaps some things are self-explanatory, but not moral disagreement!)

So there is the familiar kind of truth dependent on how reality is apart from people’s beliefs or perceptions, and a bogus kind that is nothing more than belief.

Moral relativism is at best morally confusing due to the absence of any clear ob­jective moral standards. If there is no absolute moral law then there is no basis for making moral judg­ments or decisions. Would we say that Mother Teresa is no more or less virtuous than Adolf Hitler? If there is no absolute moral standard, how can we call Hitler and the Nazi atrocities absolutely wrong? Is genocide relatively wrong or absolutely wrong?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

While absolute truth is a logical necessity, there are some religious orientations (atheistic humanists, for example) who argue against the existence of absolute truth. Humanism's exclusion of God necessitates moral relativism. Humanist John Dewey (1859-1952), co-author and signer of the Humanist Manifesto 1 (1933), declared, "There is no God and there is no soul. Hence, there are no needs for the props of traditional religion. With dogma and creed excluded, then immutable truth is also dead and buried. There is no room for fixed, natural law or moral absolutes." Humanists believe one should do, as one feels is right.

You can't logically argue against the existence of absolute truth. To argue against something is to establish that a truth exists. You cannot argue against absolute truth unless an absolute truth is the basis of your argument. Consider a few of the classic arguments and declarations made by those who seek to argue against the existence of absolute truth…

"There are no absolutes." First of all, the relativist is declaring there are absolutely no absolutes. That is an absolute statement. The statement is logically contradictory. If the statement is true, there is, in fact, an absolute - there are absolutely no absolutes.

"Truth is relative." Again, this is an absolute statement implying truth is absolutely relative. Besides positing an absolute, suppose the statement was true and "truth is relative." Everything including that statement would be relative. If a statement is relative, it is not always true. If "truth is relative" is not always true, sometimes truth is not relative. This means there are absolutes, which means the above statement is false. When you follow the logic, relativist arguments will always contradict themselves.

"Who knows what the truth is, right?" In the same sentence the speaker declares that no one knows what the truth is, then he turns around and asks those who are listening to affirm the truth of his statement.

"No one knows what the truth is." The speaker obviously believes his statement is true.

We all know there is absolute truth. It seems the more we argue against it, the more we prove its existence. Reality is absolute whether you feel like being cogent or not. Philosophically, relativism is contradictory. Practically, relativism is anarchy. The world is filled with absolute truth.

Moral relativism maintains that everyone should be able to believe and do whatever he wants. Of course, this view is emotionally satisfying, until that person comes home to find his house has been robbed, or someone seeks to hurt him, or someone cuts in front of him in line. No relativist will come home to find his house robbed and say, "Oh, how wonderful that the burglar was able to fulfill his view of reality by robbing my house. Who am I to impose my view of right and wrong on this wonderful burglar?" Quite the contrary, the relativist will feel violated just like anyone else. And then, of course, it's OK for him to be a relativist, as long as the "system" acts in an absolutist way by protecting his "unalienable rights."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If someone wants to say that God is a moral monster (please I am not pointing any fingers here), the question is, what objective moral standard are you using to assess God? Do you think there is an objective moral standard? Where do you get that? How do you make sense of that on an evolutionary view? Or a Moral Reletavist’ view? You’ll discover that evolution can't give you an objective moral standard. It can only give you a subjective relative view of morality. Ironically, Dawkins’s own book River Out of Eden affirms that in a universe of selfish genes and electrons, there is no good or evil—just blind, pitiless indifference. How can he make such a metaphysical jump to damn “religion”? He can only criticize God by appropriating the moral resources available within theism rather than naturalism.

There is the issue of specific examples. The person says that God is a moral monster. The questions are easier to answer when you boil them down to specific acts rather than addressing a vague observation. Which acts would qualify God as a moral monster? Which acts are genocidal? Often times, people won't have the specifics. When they do offer the specifics, we can deal with them on a case-by-case basis.

You're going to have to do your homework on specific cases that are offered. Objectors, skeptics, and atheists typically don't have very good hermeneutics. They don't know how to read or interpret the Bible well, so they're not fair-minded when it comes to the text. They don't do the historical study or look at the background information. For instance, looking at the morals and ethics of the ancient Near East region, Israel was a huge improvement. But atheists don’t typically place their acts in historical context.

Certain acts by God are morally justified. An effected part of the body left to travel its inevitable course will cause the body to die. When cancer becomes so corrupt it will kill the rest of the body, it must be cut out. It’s morally justifiable for God to command the destruction of a certain group of people because of their corruption. Not only their corruption and the resulting corruption within that particular people group, but also the corruption of other people groups.

Looking at the history of the Old Testament narrative and the purposes God had for Israel, God had adequate moral justification for what he commanded in the Old Testament, and the details give us the specifics that we need make that case.

http://creation.com/god-moral-monster

https://carm.org/god-of-old-testament-a-monster

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

terms of service