coptichymns.net - Sharing the Joy of Coptic Hymns Around the World

epchois_nai_nan

posted on Jun 15, 2008 - 03:51 AM

Hi everyone

This topic has been bothering me recently so I thought I would get some other opinions on it.
One of the arguments athiests often use against Christianity is:
Why is the God of the Old Testament so different (seemingly) to the God of the New Testament? How could a benevolent and loving God rain fire down on cities full of people and order his champions to sack towns and kill innocents?
(E.g. Joshua 10:40)
The God of the Old Testament sounds harsher and more violent than the God in the New Testament.

What is our take (as Coptic Orthodox) on this situation?

Pray For Me

Joined: Jun 09, 2008 | Posts: 5

Truth.Seeker

posted on Jun 15, 2008 - 03:30 PM

Well, first, we shouldn't say "God of Old Testament" and "God of New Testament," because it's the same God. I'm sure you just used their terminology (but the starting point is to point this out).

Usually my answer to these kinds of questions is that if God exists, whatever He does is good, since He's God. So, the question itself doesn't make sense. "How could God...," well, because He's God. In essence, the question is illogical because it starts from God existing, then it questions Him. If He doesn't exist, we couldn't say, "How could God." If He exists, then we really couldn't say "How could God."

For example, if God views it as okay to rain fire on cities, then it's ok to rain fire on cities. How could God do it? Because it's good to do it.

Has God changed because He no longer rains fire on cities? No. God has always seen it to be good to rain fire on cities when He rained fire on cities and to not be good to rain fire on cities when He does not rain fire on cities.

As for why the difference in treatment: God knows. I could come up with 100 reasons, but they're all speculative. Personally, when this argument comes up, I say what I said above then I say, "to appease you, I'll give you one simple reason: God protected the Israelites in the Old Testament, this is because Christ was to come from them, if God hadn't protected them, all of us would go to hell because Christ would never have become incarnate, a few thousand or even million physical deaths are better than all humanity for all times going to hell."

This one seems to always get the job done.

_________________
A. S.

Joined: Feb 25, 2008 | Posts: 411

mikokiko

posted on Jun 16, 2008 - 11:28 PM

Truth.seeker, I think he already understands the point that God can only be good. But what he might really be asking is: "How can raining fire on cities be an act of Goodness? Or how can the violence that God orders in the Old Testament be seen as Good?"

And to that, (I am giving the two most common answers that I found have helped me understand), we answer with two explanations. First: God is entitled to punish us, because He gave us free will. That is if free will did not have its consequences, it wouldn't really be free will, as our choice wouldn't matter, and the result would always be the same. God gives us the choice to sin, and sin, whether we think it trivial or not, He thinks to be deadly. Sin is an infinite offense, to Him who is Pure and All-Good. Its stench can never be described in words, no matter how numb our senses are to it. And it is this antithesis of the Goodness of the Gracious Trinity that cause us to be deserving of any punishment possible. Sin is immensely grave, and it is at times that we sin, that we mistake it as a trivial matter, but the Perfect One thinks differently, because He cares.

Secondly, like Truth.Seeker said, no matter what kind of suffering or pain we experience in this lifetime, it will not be in any way PROPORTIONATE to that which we experience in the hereafter. Depending on our choices, we will either experience His benevolence blissfully, or we will experience it as Hell.

But there is no point in saying that God changes His mind at one time trespassing His own nature by becoming evil in anger as you and I become angry. He is Immutable, and His every act is both Loving and Good. Whether we experience it as flames of Fire (for we chose to hate the Anchor of Love of the Universe, here on earth) in Hell, or to embrace His loving kindness here on earth, and so experience eternal ecstasy in His everlasting kingdom, we must make that choice NOW. There is no use in complaining about the gravity of the consequences we receive, when we neglect the seriousness of the choices that lead to them.

And as far as I am concerned, physical punishments weigh out to be exactly NOTHING when we see the magnitude of which direction we take in the afterlife. That is why it does not matter what kind of pain we receive now. All that matters, yes, in fact the only thing that matters, is what we receive then, and we have the volition to make the choice now.

God Bless

Joined: Feb 11, 2003 | Posts: 1001

Truth.Seeker

posted on Jun 16, 2008 - 11:42 PM

I was just pointing out that since we know God is good, then raining fire on cities is automatically good (when He does it). That's the shortest answer. Once you get into free will and consequences, you'll go on a massive tangent (not by choice) - the atheist will automatically take you on one. I'm all for the shortest route.

I would say that your first point is among one of the "100 reasons" I mentioned above. Always good as a supplement, but shouldn't be the main answer. That's my take at least, formed from countless arguments with countless atheists. The shorter the argument the more focused. I could just imagine an atheist responding, "well, how could God let innocent children in Africa die? They havent' sinned."

The shorter the answer, the sooner the countless "what ifs" stop.

Joined: Feb 25, 2008 | Posts: 411

mikokiko

posted on Jun 17, 2008 - 01:20 AM

That is a common objection, and here is my attempt at refuting it. God does not create evil Himself, for His Mind, our Lord Jesus Christ, is Perfect and Pure. And since He creates through this Logos, which is the source of the Divine Creativity (like our logic is our source of creativity on a finite level), cannot create impure and evil things. Essentially, He cannot "think them up". But it is our free will that allows the possibility of evil, that is essentially, the separation from God's Nature and Being. But in the end all, God keeps our free will, so that He might finish the story Ultimately with a Good Ending. That is, just as He used the evil of Joseph the righteous' brothers to bring out goodness (even though the brothers are to be blamed), so too does God use the evil caused by man's volition to turn these children's suffering into Good. Perhaps by pity.

In fact, as harsh as this sounds, the death of any human being (which is insignificant to eternity) is worth much less than any goodness that might arise from it. Even though we caused this death to occur, when we separated ourselves from the Life of the Universe, He uses even this to arouse pity among people, so that people will run to charity and give to those less fortunate then them. Just imagine a world (where pain was still possible), but where everyone were rich and wealthy? What need would there be of giving away to others? And if no need, how would those inclined to sin, be drawn towards unity and brotherhood?

These are many ideas I have taken from the book "The Problem of Pain" written by C.S. Lewis, which I just finished reading, I highly recommend it to anyone who has had trouble tackling the question of pain.

Anyways, that's my two cents (and C.S. Lewis').

God Bless

Joined: Feb 11, 2003 | Posts: 1001

Truth.Seeker

posted on Jun 17, 2008 - 01:34 AM

Seeing the tangent I mentioned?

Joined: Feb 25, 2008 | Posts: 411

mikokiko

posted on Jun 17, 2008 - 02:33 AM

Never denied it. But I am offering some of the reasons you said you knew, so that anyone reading that question could have it answered by one of those reasons.

God Bless

Joined: Feb 11, 2003 | Posts: 1001

epchois_nai_nan

posted on Jun 18, 2008 - 11:04 AM

Hi guys and thanks for your replies

From Truth.Seeker:I was just pointing out that since we know God is good, then raining fire on cities is automatically good (when He does it). That's the shortest answer. Once you get into free will and consequences, you'll go on a massive tangent (not by choice) - the atheist will automatically take you on one. I'm all for the shortest route.

Truth.Seeker, while this argument works fine for us, because we already know and trust God based on other aspects of His His interaction with us, this is not good enough for an athiest. To the athiest, God is not good, he is a fanciful dream, twisted and moulded to suit man's needs. If someone wanted to sack a city, they could claim that God had told them to do so and therefore justify themselves in doing so. This leads us to that tangent you were talking about in order to explain the acts of God legitimately. I don't think we should be afraid to explore this "tangent", because one of the great things about Christianity is that it holds its own against criticism. I don't believe God is asking us for blind faith. He wants us to know for sure that He is right, not just take His word for it. He has nothing to hide and so we have nothing to fear from questioning Him. That said it is always important to remember our own limits, that is, to know when we are talking about things we are simply not qualified to talk about. God knows infinitely better than us, so we may not always understand what He does and why He does it.


When I asked my church priest about this issue, his answer basically was "Same God, different people". The main point he made was that the world was a much more brutal place back then. The other point he made was that the Israelites were "a stiff-necked people" who continually turned away from God despite His constant interaction with them. God was deaing with an immature, stubborn and sinful people and His actions show this.

However I suppose that the most we can ever hope to do is speculate, because we are trying to understand God, which is not even remotely possible.

Pray For Me and God Bless You

Joined: Jun 09, 2008 | Posts: 5

mikokiko

posted on Jun 18, 2008 - 05:52 PM

Epchois Nai Nan, the point I think Truth.Seeker was trying to make was that God is good by definition, just as by definition God is omnipotent. If someone was claiming that God has limited power, then we say that that is a contradiction, because He cannot be called God. God is by definition Good.

Therefore all that He can do is Good. If we claim that God does X, then we must be claiming that X is Good. If we claim that P is doing X, then we are not claiming anything about X's moral worth. I hope that clarifies it a bit. If we say that X is bad, then we are saying that God could not have committed it. It's like saying a Perfect Being did Evil Actions. Will, if He did evil actions then He's not Perfect is He?

God Bless

Joined: Feb 11, 2003 | Posts: 1001

Truth.Seeker

posted on Jun 19, 2008 - 12:44 AM

Epchois,

Above I wrote:

"Usually my answer to these kinds of questions is that if God exists, whatever He does is good, since He's God. So, the question itself doesn't make sense. "How could God...," well, because He's God. In essence, the question is illogical because it starts from God existing, then it questions Him. If He doesn't exist, we couldn't say, "How could God." If He exists, then we really couldn't say "How could God.""

The point is that once an atheist asks "How could God," the atheist is no longer considering what we believe in a "fanciful dream." Along the lines of what Mikokiko said, it's like asking, "how could flying pigs fly?" Well - they're flying pigs.

The point the atheist is trying to make is to say, "If God exists, and He is good, He would not do the things that you claim He did, because those things were bad, therefore God does not exist." The reply is, "If God exists, whatever He does is good." In other words, it is not the atheist who gets to decide what is good and what is bad.

If God exists, God is always right. If God does not exist, the question "how could God" is absurd. The atheist is assuming he knows what is good and what is bad apart from God.

My response is not a matter of fearing tangents, it's about the most logical response to an absurd question. I mention tangents because they distract from the main point and usually take people no where.

Do the following if you wish: ask an atheist why murder is bad. Keep asking follow up questions after they answer.

Q: Why is murder bad?
A: Because you're taking away someone else's life.

A: Why is doing that bad?
B: Because you are taking away something that does not belong to you.

A: Why is that bad?
B: [silence]

Ask a Christian why murder is bad.

Q: Why is murder bad?
A: Because God said so.

Joined: Feb 25, 2008 | Posts: 411

mikokiko

posted on Jun 19, 2008 - 02:03 AM

Truth.seeker, if you will allow me to critique your point, there are a number of things that I find troubling in some of your posts, and please do not be offended by this, I could easily be wrong, but here is what I was taught, and this is what makes the most sense to me.

A lot of the times in some of your posts you say well it's right "because God says so." Great we all know that whatever God says is right. But we are asking if God really said that. Or sometimes we are asking WHY God says something. Or how can God committing X be good? Not whether its good or not, but HOW can it be good?

Having said that, we must be learned over one thing. God does not arbitrarily pick which things He "feels" like calling Good, and which things He feels like calling Bad. God is NOT above goodness, or evil. That is New Age belief.

This brings us back to the dialogue of Socrates and Euthephro that Plato wrote about, which you are probably aware of, where Socrates asks Euthephro whether something is good BECAUSE God wills it, or if God wills it because it is Good.

The First option is not wholly right (indeed whatever God wills is Good, and therefore we should do whatever He commands us to do), because then it makes morality arbitrary and truly of no real value (which seems to me the view that you are espousing). Why? Because God could have easily chosen murder and hatred as Goods. There is nothing wrong about murder in and of itself. That is, if we follow this belief murder or any virtue or sin have no intrinsic moral worth, but that which God externally gives to them (that is if, God is indeed external to what we call virtues).

The second option, which Socrates believed was the right choice also falls into the same problem. That is God wills what is good, because it is good. Indeed both these options would be right, if we could but see the missing premise that connects them together. God wills what is Good, because it is Good, and what God wills is Good, because it is Good. What is missing? God Himself is Righteousness as the Lord Jesus Christ told His disciples: "Seek ye the Kingdom of God and His Righteousness, and all these things shall be given to you."

God's very nature is Good. He is the Rational Source of the conscience of humanity. We all, whether secular, atheist, naturalist, or religious, feel a universal moral law pressing on us, whether it corresponds with what we were taught or not. The Law of Charity, surprisingly, was known as well to the Greeks, as well as it was known to the Indians, as it was known to the Jews. Indeed, in essence Christ never came to teach any new morals, the reason we see them as Good morals is because we perceive by reason, that apart from what we think, they really are Good in themselves.

What Christ came to teach was a theology that the world was yearning to hear for so long. Both Jew and Gentile equally was waiting to hear that the Eternal Death of God would put to death the death which had its dominion on us. Because the Death of God is Eternal Life, from which the incomprehensible light dawns on the dead humanity to raise them to the glorified nature of Christ. Indeed all men by their own conscience see that there REALLY is something WRONG about rape. Whether a person likes to do it or not, there really is something intrinsically wrong about it. But in the rest of the Animal kingdom, indeed we might perceive many things as rape, but they have no rational level to conceive of sin and virtue in the first place, because they have no free will, they are not on our common moral level at all.

It has been Satan and the lurking fallen angels that have been numbing men's consciences all along, that caused us to sin against our free will, and God does not leave us alone with free will, without the conscience that first presents to us the moral law that will reflect our rationality. Indeed free will would be of no value, if it didn't mean that we didn't KNOW what was Good or Bad in the first place. And since the Spirit of God has come to awaken our consciences and reverse the numbing process, we can now see more clearly, without our willingness to throw dirt at our "windows".

So it is the very nature of God that is Good. He is not external to Virtue, He is Virtue, because He is Perfect, and its fullness and Origin is found in Himself and His Logos (His Mind), which emanates it to the rest of the Creation in His Spirit.

Again, forgive me if you know all this already, I just wanted to point it out.

God Bless

Joined: Feb 11, 2003 | Posts: 1001

Truth.Seeker

posted on Jun 19, 2008 - 02:17 AM

Mikokiko,

I don't see what the issue is? God is good. He cannot choose to do that which is evil. It is against His nature. Therefore, anything He says (and God does not lie) is good. Here, Him saying something just means revealing a Truth. If God commands the Israelites to go and kill, then going and killing is good. Perhaps not all killing for all times is good, but that one instance of it is good.

I am troubled by your following statement: "The First option is not wholly right (indeed whatever God wills is Good, and therefore we should do whatever He commands us to do), because then it makes morality arbitrary and truly of no real value (which seems to me the view that you are espousing)."

God CANNOT choose something that is evil as "good." Just by choosing it, that means it's not evil. That is because God cannot choose evil.

How does automatically following the command of Someone who cannot do evil morally arbitrary?

This reminds me of a discussion I had with someone sometime ago. He said if what is good is not indepenent of God, then God does not deserve praise for doing what is good.

I told him if what is good is independent of God and independent of man, we're left with animals and nature deciding what is good. What is good cannot be independent of God. All that is good derives from God's nature. His will derives from His nature. Therefore, whatever He wills is good.

Like I said, I don't see what the issue is. I think your critique rests on a faulty premise (that God can choose evils as goods). Let me know your thoughts.

Joined: Feb 25, 2008 | Posts: 411

Truth.Seeker

posted on Jun 19, 2008 - 02:28 AM

Let me put it another way:

How do we define evil? Doesn't Christianity define evil as anything which deviates from God's will? How then could we call evil anything that God wills? How then could God will any evil?

Joined: Feb 25, 2008 | Posts: 411

mikokiko

posted on Jun 19, 2008 - 02:41 AM

Truth.Seeker. I am here defining God again. And you will agree with me once you see what I am saying. To say that God arbitrarily picks what is Good and what is Evil, is saying that God is external to virtue. Because He chooses things (it could have been hatred, it could have been murder) and calls them Good. He is not arbitrary, but indeed Love in itself has intrinsic moral worth to it, because God IS Love. I never said that God can command evil. I am saying whatever God commands is good. And why? Because He is Good. And Goodness has a specific nature and Being.

God both wills what is good because it is good, and also whatever God wills is good because He wills it. That is because His Will IS Goodness. Love is Good in and of itself. We say hatred is bad because we see it is bad, not because we necessarily have to come across a group of letters from the alphabet compiled together with ink on a piece of paper in the Bible to tell us that.

It appeals to our rationality and our conscience. The conscience God gave us, when He gave us free will. And that was given to all humanity, as a universal and common ground to know what is Good. If God is a solid Being, and He is Good, whatever we see Good in this Life is intrinsically of itself Good. Like Charity and so on. God doesn't give us free will, without the INTERNAL aid to know what is Good and what is Bad. And it is our free will to choose the Bad from the first (that is to desensitize ourselves to our conscience's voice). Whatever is Good is Good in and of itself. Whatever God chooses is Good in and of itself, and He Himself is that Goodness. Since God can only will what is Good, it follows that He is internally Perfect.

God Bless

Joined: Feb 11, 2003 | Posts: 1001

Truth.Seeker

posted on Jun 19, 2008 - 08:21 AM

We don't disagree, and hence, I say again, "what is the issue?"

You said:

"To say that God arbitrarily picks what is Good and what is Evil, is saying that God is external to virtue."

I've already said God can only pick what is good because His nature is good.

____

As for us knowing what's bad when we see it - a bit more uncertain. If we saw the Israelities attack and destroy a city in the Old Testament times, we may think it was bad, but it was actually good. Certainly, if we see a similar event today, we would think it was bad. Same event, two different conclusions. It all turns on whether God sanctions the action or not. Certainly, you cannot fault the people the Israelites were about to kill for thinking what was about to happen to them is bad.

Whether they were objectively right or wrong in thinking it was bad is another story (we are talking about what they subjectively perceive when we start talking about what people are thinking). Many non-Christians are very faithful and sincere (and wrong) in their own religion. Technically, if we all know what's bad, everyone would believe in Christ (at least believe that He is God, because believing otherwise is bad).

But it's a tough issue - as St. Paul says in Romans I - some just suppress the truth in all unrighteousness. Afterall, according to Romans I, everyone knows God exists just by taking a look around. According to Christ, anyone that asks will receive. So, there MUST be some kind of suppression of the truth going on.

I guess the question turns on when you're talking about. If someone has already suppressed the truth, he/she cannot tell what's right from what's wrong at sometimes (because God does not help them). If someone is yet to suppress the truth, he/she would know what's right and what's wrong.

Joined: Feb 25, 2008 | Posts: 411

mikokiko

posted on Jun 19, 2008 - 03:33 PM

"For there is no partiality with God. For as many as have sinned without law will also perish without law, and as many as have sinned in the law will be judged by the law (for not the hearers of the law are just in the sight of God, but the doers of the law will be justified; for when Gentiles, who do not have the law, by nature do the things in the law, these, although not having the law, are a law to themselves, who show the work of the law written in their hearts, their conscience also bearing witness, and between themselves their thoughts accusing or else excusing them) in the day when God will judge the secrets of men by Jesus Christ, according to my gospel." (Romans 2:11-16)

I will reply back when I am available tonight, I have an exam today.

God Bless

Joined: Feb 11, 2003 | Posts: 1001

mikokiko

posted on Jun 20, 2008 - 03:17 AM

Truth.seeker, the problem I have with what you are saying is that WE cannot know what the moral law says. The problem is that you ignore that we have a conscience which God has given us so that we would have the knowledge of Good and Evil. If God gave us a free will but we could not differentiate between Sin and Virtue, then how would it be fair for God to judge us?

Even those without Scriptures have the same conscience that we do as Christians and are no different. Even St. Paul says this in the aforementioned passage, where Gentiles who do not hear the God are saved by living the law of God that is WRITTEN ON THEIR CONSCIENCE. And this is not the only place that the Scriptures mention man's conscience. In the Passage of the Adulteress Woman St. John writes:
"Then those who heard it, being convicted by their conscience, went out one by one, beginning with the oldest even to the last." (John 8:9)
What did the conscience convict them of? Hypocrisy. It made them feel guilty of committing sin, even though the Holy Spirit had not been sent to them yet.
And again St. Paul's conscience keeps him from lying:
"I tell the truth in Christ, I am not lying, my conscience also bearing me witness in the Holy Spirit." (Romans 9:1)

Those who continually sin, quiet the voice of their conscience, as St. Paul said of the pagans:
"...and their conscience, being weak, is defiled." (1 Corinthians 8:7)
Not that they never had one in the first place. Or again in his epistle to his disciple St. Timothy:
"...speaking lies in hypocrisy, having their own conscience seared with a hot iron," (1 Timothy 4:2).

So what exactly is this conscience? C.S. Lewis does a great job at explaining it in both his books: "Mere Christianity", and "the Abolition of Man". He calls it the moral law. And indeed as St. Paul says the conscience bears witness (to the Gentiles) the moral law written in their hearts. This Moral Law is what God wants of us. In fact, it describes to us, Who HE is. God is not some arbitrary picker of what is Good and what is Not.

Otherwise our calling Him Good would be meaningless, because He would have to already be what He picks, which is a contradiction. He doesn't pick, His will, being of His Nature is Good. And God is a SOLID BEING. The Divine Nature is Immutable it doesn't change. His Goodness is the same as it was yesterday, today, and forever, because His Goodness is His Unchanging Divine Nature. See, the problem I have with what you wrote is that it almost seems to state God is Good, and then hushes up the part where we try to understand God's Goodness. And you answer to that, "God is Good, and every act He does is Good." Great. We agree with you. But HOW is He Good. Let's learn to imitate His Impassible, Unchanging Nature. Therefore our looking at His Goodness does not change. We CAN Know what He wants, even if we have not read the Scriptures, from our very own conscience.

"To say that God arbitrarily picks what is Good and what is Evil, is saying that God is external to virtue."

You've completely misunderstood me on this. I am saying God is external to morality, if He decides for us what is going to be right or wrong. Not what He does is right or wrong. Morality is a description of His Nature. He doesn't choose His Nature, because it is not external to Himself. He is His Nature, if that makes sense. He is Who He is. He is the "I AM". The Self-Existing, Self-Sufficient Eternal Absolute, in Whose Being exists the very Fullness of Existence itself. That isn't something He chooses. He is Good. He doesn't pick what is Good.

Whatever He does, is all He CAN DO, and that is Goodness. He cannot hate, because that is sin. He cannot lie, because that is His negation. He cannot become faithless to us, because that is the antithesis of His Nature. If you say, yes but if He is faithless it is Good, I answer with: "Does that mean if, God becomes a contingent Being He is still the Absolute Existence?" Of course not. That is wrong. Goodness is Solid and never changes. Goodness is what it is, from eternity. Goodness is God, and His rules will never change, because His rules are reflections of His Immutable Essence.

And from the beginning of the world, ever since man was created IN the Image of God, (that is, the faculty of reason, which reflected the Image of God, the Logos, our Lord Jesus Christ, His Reason and Wisdom was given to humanity), we were given the knowledge of Virtue and Vice.

A world where there was no common morality in the hearts of men, would be a world where 2 + 2 = 3. As G.K. Chesterton once said: "Men do not differ much about what things they will call evils; they differ enormously about what evils they will call excusable." C.S. Lewis asks us to imagine a country where men were praised for running away in battle, or where men were acknowledged for having been most hateful to all the people that loved them the most. Or that it was the law to take things that you are not entitled to you. Or that murder was the highest good. Indeed, cultures differ enormously, but all the moral laws have been existing in the hearts of man, ever since we've been created in His Image. But we are all humans, and we were all created from the same dust, and in the same Image.

The view you take leads us to believe that there really is nothing wrong about X, it's just that God doesn't want us doing X, and since He wants it, it automatically (all of a sudden) becomes Good. Well, that's half-right. Its definitively wrong because sin is the separation from the Eternal Life that created us. It really is against His nature. Its really hard for me to get my message across, but I hope you got what I was trying to say. Please forgive me if I simply re-iterated what you already knew.

God Bless

Joined: Feb 11, 2003 | Posts: 1001

Truth.Seeker

posted on Jun 20, 2008 - 10:25 AM

I don't find C.S. Lewis as an authority. He was a lay Anglican.

I said it's uncertain because a conscience is not the same as the Holy Spirit guiding people. Now, if our conscience was enough to tell us ALL that was good or bad, we wouldn't need the Holy Spirit to tell us the same thing. Christ said, He will send the Holy Spirit to "teach us all things."

So, our conscience can only tell us so much. Beyond that much, the Holy Spirit is required to know what is right or wrong.

"The view you take leads us to believe that there really is nothing wrong about X, it's just that God doesn't want us doing X, and since He wants it, it automatically (all of a sudden) becomes Good."

You missed my whole point: X is only wrong because it's against what God knows/wants/etc... God is all good. Anything He rejects is not all good - it's wrong. Anything He does not reject is not bad.

We cannot separate what's right or wrong from God.

Joined: Feb 25, 2008 | Posts: 411

mikokiko

posted on Jun 20, 2008 - 03:20 PM

Herein lies the difference: the conscience presents the moral law to us. The Holy Spirit, the Spirit of Righteousness leads us to Righteousness, and guides us to the life of Virtue. Before coming to the Holy Spirit we must have a faculty that will let us know what is Good and Bad first (like our reason), in order to accept it. Otherwise it would be turning a world of mere automata (with no free will), to one where all of a sudden we started understanding what sins are bad and which virtues are good.

The Holy Spirit guides us, but He once created in us a conscience alongside our free will, so that the free will would have value in the first place.

What I meant to say was:
"The view you take leads us to believe that there really is nothing intrinsically and inherently wrong about X, it's just that God doesn't want us doing X, and since He doesn't want X, X automatically (all of a sudden) becomes Bad."

The problem is that says nothing about His Nature. Sure we can make statements like that, but it won't lead us to knowing WHAT His substance is, and how we can imitate it, and become like Him, and partake of His Immutable Divine Nature.

C.S. Lewis' books have inspired the world and awed it with his clear-cut philosophy that is in support of Christianity. He may be a layman of the Anglican Church, but he remains a very solid figure in my life for representing Christianity (very Orthodox btw, more than many ppl would think). I must confess, I do not know where I would be today, if it weren't for him. I make no exaggerations.

God Bless

Joined: Feb 11, 2003 | Posts: 1001

geomekhaiel

posted on Jun 20, 2008 - 05:36 PM

Hello,

There is always the ancient example that says that it is the same God but He just deals with His people differently. Let us not forget how our parents dealt with us when we were children and how they now deal with us as adults. Likewise, the God of the Old Testament dealt with His people as "children" and as they became more "mature" He dealt with them differently.

Example of idea are found within the commandments that He gave. For example, He said "Thou shall not kill" in the OT. Later in the NT He gave the commandments of love found in Matthew 5 and 1 Corinthians 13.

George Mekhaiel

Joined: Aug 05, 2003 | Posts: 1712
Location: Saint George COC

mikokiko

posted on Jun 20, 2008 - 08:48 PM

We talked about that already here (Truth.Seeker and I): http://www.coptichymns.net/index.php?na ... ght=#65443

Joined: Feb 11, 2003 | Posts: 1001

Truth.Seeker

posted on Jun 21, 2008 - 03:59 AM

Miko,

You said:

"The view you take leads us to believe that there really is nothing intrinsically and inherently wrong about X, it's just that God doesn't want us doing X, and since He doesn't want X, X automatically (all of a sudden) becomes Bad."

If you are lead to believe I said that, it's not by anything I wrote. It's by you doing interesting things with what I wrote. This is as simple as black and white.

1) God is all good

2) By DEFINITION, anything that deviates from His goodness is evil

3) God does not lie

4) If God declares something to be evil, that means it's evil.

5) X was ALWAYS BAD to be done at the time when God found it against His nature for X to be done. God is omniscient, He always knew X would be OK 3,000 years ago and not OK today. We didn't know. He did.

Joined: Feb 25, 2008 | Posts: 411

mikokiko

posted on Jun 21, 2008 - 07:59 AM

Well, you and I both know that the true sins that lead us to separation from the All-Good are of the mind and not of the body (of course they are done through the body, as humans everything is). What I mean is that they are spiritual sins: Pride, Hatred, Infidelity, Jealousy, Envy, Blaspheming, etc. (which all root from the thought that we can exist on our own away from the Self-Existent Himself. Once we step on our own out of the very source of our life, we fall into eternal damnation).

Not one action could tell us whether we were committing one of these sins. Sex might be thought of as a sign that infidelity is being committed, but it lies not in the physical act but in the mind. Or killing might be equivalent to hatred of our brother, until we remember that there are such things as capital punishment (I may still love the punished criminal) and war (I commit not the act because I hate the other side, but because I love my country, and want to serve and defend her).

Its not so much about what we do per say, but where that sin originates (the mind). As the Lord Himself said:
"A good man out of the good treasure of his heart brings forth good things, and an evil man out of the evil treasure brings forth evil things." (Matthew 12:35, Luke 6:45)

"But those things which proceed out of the mouth come from the heart, and they defile a man. For out of the heart proceed evil thoughts, murders, adulteries, fornications, thefts, false witness, blasphemies." (Matthew 15:18-19)


Likewise St. Paul taking from the Lord Jesus says:
"...but he is a Jew who is one inwardly; and circumcision is that of the heart, in the Spirit, not in the letter; whose praise is not from men but from God." (Romans 2:29)

"I know and am convinced by the Lord Jesus that there is nothing unclean of itself; but to him who considers anything to be unclean, to him it is unclean." (Romans 4:14)

"...who also made us sufficient as ministers of the new covenant, not of the letter but of the Spirit; for the letter kills, but the Spirit gives life." (2 Corinthians 3:6)

Or again in Romans 5, St. Paul speaks of how the same action can be either wrong or right, all depending on how we we conceive of it in our mind (our conscience bearing witness), concerning the eating of meats sacrificed to the idols.

Again he says this: "All things are lawful for me, but not all things are helpful; all things are lawful for me, but not all things edify." (1 Corinthians 10:23) That's not to say that what we do in the body is unimportant, but what we do in the body in the first place, is determined by what state of mind we are in.

God is not concerned so much about WHAT we do, as to WHO we are. That's why He did not commit Himself to writing a Book of Codes of Rights and Wrongs. He is not a Man of Do's and Don'ts, but the Sender of the Spirit of Righteousness Himself. An analogy C.S. Lewis gives is like that of a tennis player. We might not be very good tennis players, but occasionally, we might make very good shots by chance. But thats not really what we are here for, we are here to become good tennis players. And that requires a certain way of thinking, of knowing what to do, and having our muscles heightened to the right way of reacting to the ball when it comes at us. That will lead us to the most fruitful results. Of course no one said that the results don't matter, but we won't truly get them, until we become the right tennis player.

Similarly, God wants us to be a certain type of person. Not a performer of Do's and Don'ts, but a son of active living faith enshrined in the believer's very being and essence. When we do become who He wants us to be, we evolve from being mere creation (as we are by nature), to being sons of God (by grace), becoming more related to God as sons to a Father, in inheriting His Divine Nature, by imitating His righteousness (for we are to be perfect as the Father is Perfect, and His Only Son is). In this, when we are caught off-guard, when evil and hatred comes our way, we return it with love Naturally, because it becomes a part of Who we are. A person who is simply a performer, will not be given enough time to react the way he wants, but will also react naturally, but with a return of hatred.

The sins of the body might change. In the Old Testament we were permitted to marry more than one wife under certain conditions. Abraham had child with Haggar because he could not have one with Sarah. But if the marriage be the true reflection of the Divine Love, as God calls Himself the husband of Israel in the Old Testament, then fidelity, was always taught, as to ONE. Again the HOW changed, but not the WHAT. Fidelity was always about being faithful to One Person.

When grace shone through on that cold night at the turn of the first century, in a small Palestinian village among the shepherds and animals, in the face of the Lord Jesus Christ, the Law that governed both the prophets, which was the description of the Eternal Moral Attributes of God, was being revealed as never before: the Law Himself was being revealed perfectly. Not as invariably as He did in the times of the darkness of the Old Testament. The days of mere permittance were over, and the perfection of morality, that was found in God had come, so that the Lord Jesus could tell the world: “You have heard that it was said, ‘You shall love your neighbor and hate your enemy.’ But I say to you, love your enemies, bless those who curse you, do good to those who hate you, and pray for those who spitefully use you and persecute you, that you may be sons of your Father in heaven; for He makes His sun rise on the evil and on the good, and sends rain on the just and on the unjust. For if you love those who love you, what reward have you? Do not even the tax collectors do the same? And if you greet your brethren only, what do you do more than others? Do not even the tax collectors do so? Therefore you shall be perfect, just as your Father in heaven is perfect." (Matthew 5:43-48)

Not that in the Old Testament, God was different, but that He permitted things for Israel (and indeed for the pagans, for they did not even have a law), but the time came, when He made it perfect, and Fulfilled the Law of the Old, and made it new, in fact eternally new, and not to the Israelites only, but to the entire human race. He did not destroy it as He said, but fulfilled it. It was waiting to be shown as it really was without any dirt covering it from the lack of grace and truth that came through Jesus Christ. "For the law came through Moses, but grace and truth came through Jesus Christ, and we have received grace for grace."

God is not bound by being moral attribute (whether good or bad, as you see it) X 2000 years ago, and then all of sudden NOT being bound by X, because the Old Testament "changed". For Christ says it, the Father is Perfect and always has been: and this has how He has been perfect. God loves humanity. He does not change His moral attributes. Indeed if at time A we do what is good, and at time F we do what is good, what we did good never changed, we are reflecting the same Nature as it always has been, the Divine Nature of Goodness, and God does not change: We Change, and we are dealt with accordingly.

Therefore the moral attributes (virtues) ARE what God is, and God IS Unchangeable, therefore His Moral Attributes are Unchangeable as His Essence of Being is Immutable and Impassible. And indeed virtue does not solely lie in the physical ACT itself, but causally prior to this, it lies in its spiritual value: the state of the mind. That is why whatever God does it is Good. Not because He can change what is Good (as it might seem to us), but because He is the same yesterday, today and forever.

Since God is Timeless, He never commits an action solely under the consequences of time (raining fire and brimstone on Sodom and Gommorah), because He does not change at one point, as we do: so that we might think God commits X at one point in "His lifetime". God eternally is a moral set of attributes. He is Loving, Faithful, Just, Merciful, Honest, and so forth. When He, the Spiritual, communes directly into our physical world, these attributes will look differently (as different actions) since creation is not Immutable. An act of His love (as indeed every act of His is) may have once seemed to be cruel (raining fire on Sodom), and another time, the overwhelming warmth of His fiery Love at the demonstration of universal acceptance at the Cross (as long as we will accept Him). "And we know that all things work together for good to those who love God..." (Romans 8:28). Not that His moral attributes will change. We can't say that God is hating to Sodom, and in the Old Testament, and then loving in the New Testament because He is God, He can do whatever He wants, and whatever He does is Good.

Well, we are putting conditions on God (God exists under certain conditions, that makes Him only Who He is, and He is not external to those conditions, they exist in Himself), that He must be Good. I am too. Goodness is Love. And since that is so, God is always Loving and tender kind to His creation. Such thought cannot be the result of a believer in objective morality. If morality is objective, and wholly universal, as reason is, then it is the same as it always has been. Therefore His moral attributes will appear different in our physical world.

Likewise the action of sex, might be thought of as always being unfaithful, until we learned that it might be considered holy and pure, and indeed a very act of fidelity itself. But that is only because we are spiritual too. The state of our minds determine first whether what we are doing is right or wrong.

I hope I have not confused anyone,

God Bless

Joined: Feb 11, 2003 | Posts: 1001

Truth.Seeker

posted on Jun 21, 2008 - 06:10 PM

Miko,

I've read the Bible many times, I know what it says. What you wrote above was beautiful. It is, however, extremely off our immediate topic, i.e. what you are saying I said.

Disclosure: I didn't read your whole post, because I like to get my sermons from clergy.

Tell me, using the number system I wrote above, how any of those premises are wrong. Speak specifically about what I wrote. This is how we can get somewhere.

Don't talk to me about timelessness and setting limits on God or any of that, all of that is fine to talk about - in the appropriate discussion. From my skimming, you're speaking as if I said things I never said. How many times have I said on this forum that God DOES NOT CHANGE, only the requirements as pertaining to US change?

If I say A, and you discuss B instead of discussing "not A," we won't get anywhere, as I will just repeat A, and you will then either repeat B or discuss C.

P.S. this post is not meant to be mean-spirited. I see that you are sincere in this discussion. However, sincerity does not automatically make for a focused discussion - which is my ultimate goal.

Joined: Feb 25, 2008 | Posts: 411

Truth.Seeker

posted on Jun 21, 2008 - 06:14 PM

I just want to point out that if God is ok with us killing 3,000 years ago and not ok with us killing today, then killing was Good 3,000 years ago and killing is not Good today. The only other option is blatant blasphemy - that God was ok with something evil.

What is always the same is God's Goodness - how that Goodness manifests itself on this Earth is what we may see as change.

This is my view. I don't even think this is different from your view. I don't even know if we're in disagreement right now.

When I say there's a change, I'm not talking about a change in God's nature, I'm talking about a change in the specific requirement. Going from killing to not killing is obviously a change. This doesn't mean that God changed.

I've already said this months ago.

Joined: Feb 25, 2008 | Posts: 411