From: chrisa@extro.ucc.su.OZ.AU (C. G. Albone)
Subject: Re: Changing nature of God
Organization: /etc/organization
Date: Thu, 1 Oct 1992 07:34:04 GMT

Me:
>>Can a poor human being ask what does one mean by 'just' when referring to God?

>Well, I couldn't say for sure for everyone else, but my personal
>understanding/use of the word 'just' in this context is similar to that of
>the commom notion. (ie. punishment/reward according to one's actions/
>intentions/etc. *though not necesarily immediate*)
>
>
>>Lets have a quick look at what this 'just' God has done in its time, or more
>
>>humans would sin (whatever sin is...). More than that, the christian world-view
>Sin is the transgression of the Law.
>Sin is lawlessness (1John 3:4)
>
>It is often useful to make notes (mental ones at least) of all relevant (&
>perhaps even apparently irrelevant) assumptions that one makes while forming
>an arguement. And then remember that, strictly speaking, any errors in any
>relevant assumptions/bases/starting-points/(that 'p' word I forgot in the
>exam 2 yrs ago) renders the conclusions of the arguement logically without
>worth. Further, one must also be careful not to 'skip steps' when forming
>'and therefore ...' type (sub)conclusions in one's arguement. These errors
>can occur simply through uncited assumptions or from mixing up concepts just
>because they share the same English word; or are often associated together;
>or plain bad logic. Any (logically) invalid steps render the whole arguement
>invalid.
>
>Now:
>* God's plan is to make human beings his sons/daughters.
>* This is in spite - and not 'helped by' - man's tendency to sin.
This step here is the interesting one... How and why do we have this 
tendancy to sin? Did it happen as a lack of foresight by God? That can't
be the case because God is all-knowing and all-seeing. Did it happen because
God could do no other? That can't be the case because God is all-powerful and
limitless. Where does that leave us? Human beings sin, this didn't happen
by accident, by lack of foresight or the like, God knew from the beginning that
it would be the case. Now, because God created us with this ability to sin, 
knowing full-well that some (most) of us will find it sin irresistable, and 
because it would seem that this has a place in his scheme of things, then it
would still seem that God and 'just' are mutually exclusive. 
>* Yes, God knew we were going to sin. That's why he made the plan of salvation
>through JC.
And God knew that certain of us would not turn back, indeed it would seem that
God created the world such that it was impossible for certain of us to turn
back. If God knew that john was going to turn away from God from the beginning
of time, but still goes ahead and creates john anyway, what does that say about
God? What does that say about responsibility.

>* God did/does/will reward/punish according to one's actions/thoughts/etc.
Actions & thoughts, it would seem, that God knew we would have long before
we came into existance.
>* God is more than just; he is merciful. & JC will return in due time to show
>us plainly both these characteristics.
If what i have said about God from the definition of the properties of God that
I was taught is the case, then it would seem that "merciful" is also a dodgy
concept...
>* Until then he will allow us to sin to teach us how bad sin is.
What constitutes 'sin' is much a cultural thing as a possible spiritual thing.
Some things that have been concidered sinful in the past are not concidered so
now. Some things that Protestants concider sinful Catholics don't. Of course
there are lots of things that Protestants and Catholics concider sinful, but
I guess I have problems with "God's Laws" when i can see so the marks of 
humankind so strong in them. Faith, of course, is the response, but in that
response, it would seem that Christians are on no better ground than Jews,
Samaritans, Zorastrians, Sihks, Muslims, or any other religion that you would
care to think of.
>
>Also: * responsibility & blame are 2 different concepts.
This is true, but the way things work normally, is that we blame a person
who is responsible for a particular act or situation. 
>      * God & man have many similarities, but also many diffrences; be careful
>of your assumptions.
>
Now, you having mentioned assumptions, will you be willing to play the game
and look at your own assumptions? Such as there exists free will in the universe
and that human beings have this free will. That you have actually got the 
correct information about God, indeed that there is a God anyway?

When i wrote my original piece i tried to cover as many of my assumptions as
possible, and worked from definitions of the Divine that I have been taught
by various christians. What this whole thing proves is that it is dodgy trying
to predicate much at all about a Deity that is by definition so huge that we cant
define.

>>judge a tree by its fruit" in the bible, and when one looks at the fruit of the
>>god of the christians, at least i am inclined to scratch my head when dealing
>>with questions of justice. 
>
>No one can blame you for this, Chris. It is indeed a difficult set of concepts
>to understand; even the intellectual Athenians couldn't grasp it. 

Couldn't grasp what?
The athenians had their own sets of concepts as to what consituted Diety.
Socrates challanged them, and was put to death for that fact. Socrates own
concepts of Deity were challanged and modified by thinkers after him, from
the gods to Aristotle's Prime Mover to the virtual identity of Deity with
Nature of the Stoics and the Epicurean's belief that the Deities were 
effectively causally impotent in terms of the present world.

In fact, the christian understanding of Deity is phrased in terms of hellenistic
philosophy. It would appear that YHWH got a hellenistic face-lift when being
taken over into the christian churches. 

>My .sig by H. Lee. Brackets Miss, brackets. This .sig goes as follows and
>begins now. All VAXes are thin at one end, much much thicker in the middle
>and then thin again at the far end. That is my .sig, it is mine, and belongs
>to me and I own it, and what it is too.            c9037395@cs.newcastle.edu.au
i like the .sig :)

--
chris,

Newsgroups: aus.religion