coptichymns.net :: Spiritual Coptic Orthodox Forums and Discussions

Coptic Forums

The official forums of the Coptic Media Network, focusing on Coptic hymns, Orthodoxy, spirituality, friendship, and member experiences.

Coptic Forums » Religion and Faith » Coptic Orthodoxy » Questions about Coptic Orthodoxy

Benevolence of the Old Testament God?

Post new topic Reply to topic

Previous 1, 2

mikokiko

posted on Jun 21, 2008 - 10:18 PM

Hey Truth.Seeker, sorry I couldn't read your posts, I like to get my sermons from clergy...JUST KIDDNIG!!
Seriously just read what I wrote in depth. It directly answers what I think might be wrong in your saying that killing 3,000 years ago was okay and now is not okay. If you see no disagreement with what I said, then there is no need for more discussion. But I don't think I agree with what you have said 100%. I was mainly dealing with your final premise, as I can't disagree with "God can't lie", "what God says is evil, it's evil", "anything that deviates from His goodness is evil", and "God is all good". I am using those premises (and others), to show what might be wrong with your last statement.

God Bless

Joined: Feb 11, 2003 | Posts: 1019

Truth.Seeker

posted on Jun 21, 2008 - 10:48 PM

My last "premise" wasn't a premise, it was a conclusion. You need to disagree with one of the premises or show how those premises can't lead to the conclusion.

Joined: Feb 25, 2008 | Posts: 432

mikokiko

posted on Jun 21, 2008 - 11:31 PM

That's exactly what I did, if you would read what I wrote. I am showing you that whatever is evil, and alien to God's nature, is ALWAYS evil and alien to God's nature. Whether in the Old or the New Testament. It tells us nothing of what is morally objectively wrong and sinful. Again, because He is immutable and does not change.

If you don't disagree with me (first read what I wrote, and don't you silly excuses, like I like to get my sermons from clergy), then there is no read to continue the discussion (if you would at least engage in it by reading what I wrote, though it may be long).

God Bless

Joined: Feb 11, 2003 | Posts: 1019

Truth.Seeker

posted on Jun 22, 2008 - 12:07 AM

Miko,

The ONLY thing that is morally objectively wrong is doing something that deviates from God's nature. God decides whether what we do deviates from His Good nature or not. That's it.

In your previous post, you mentioned it's "not what we do" but it's our state of mind. That's false, or at least not the full story.

Here's how it goes:

1) If something is wrong, whether you think it's right or wrong doesn't matter, it's still a sin if you commit it. The blind leading the blind.

2) If something is alright, but you think it's wrong, and you do it, it's counted as a sin against you. St. Paul said that.

_______

It is God who decides what's wrong (1)) - because what's wrong is what is against His nature. Let me demonstrate by the killing example:

1) A kills B who was about to kill X, Y, and Z.
2) A kills B for kicks.

In both cases, A kills. Are both killings contrary to God's goodness? Probably not the first one.

It is you who decides if you want to do something which you view as wrong (which will be counted as a sin against you whether it's objectively wrong or not). You seem to be talking about this category.

And no, we don't all know what's right and what's wrong. In fact, St. Paul explicitly said (when talking about eating food offered to idols), that if you think what you're doing is wrong, even if it's right (clearly he wouldn't say this if everyone knew what was right and what was wrong), it will be wrong.

Joined: Feb 25, 2008 | Posts: 432

Truth.Seeker

posted on Jun 22, 2008 - 12:14 AM

These are the verses I'm referring to:

1 Corinthians 8:

1 Now concerning things offered to idols: We know that we all have knowledge. Knowledge puffs up, but love edifies. 2 And if anyone thinks that he knows anything, he knows nothing yet as he ought to know. 3 But if anyone loves God, this one is known by Him.
<b>4 Therefore concerning the eating of things offered to idols, we know that an idol is nothing in the world, and that there is no other God but one. 5 For even if there are so-called gods, whether in heaven or on earth (as there are many gods and many lords), 6 yet for us there is one God, the Father, of whom are all things, and we for Him; and one Lord Jesus Christ, through whom are all things, and through whom we live.
<u>7 However, there is not in everyone that knowledge;</u> for some, with consciousness of the idol, until now eat it as a thing offered to an idol; and their conscience, being weak, is defiled. 8 But food does not commend us to God; for neither if we eat are we the better, nor if we do not eat are we the worse. </b>
9 But beware lest somehow this liberty of yours become a stumbling block to those who are weak. 10 For if anyone sees you who have knowledge eating in an idol’s temple, will not the conscience of him who is weak be emboldened to eat those things offered to idols? 11 And because of your knowledge shall the weak brother perish, for whom Christ died? 12 But when you thus sin against the brethren, and wound their weak conscience, you sin against Christ. 13 Therefore, if food makes my brother stumble, I will never again eat meat, lest I make my brother stumble.

Joined: Feb 25, 2008 | Posts: 432

mikokiko

posted on Jun 22, 2008 - 10:08 PM

Ok let me first address the logical coherency of your view, and then we will move on later with the Scriptures:
Here are some of the premises of your logic that we both agree on, and I will show you how it does not correspond to your statement.
You said that God does not change and is immutable. We humans change. Well said.
You said that God is Good by nature, that is He does not pick
what He is going to be like (that's different from picking from what morals are going to follow), He just IS. He is the I AM. And whatever He picks is in correspondence to His will and His Goodness. We said that whatever we call Good is really a reflection of His Nature, because He is the only True Good, and the Light of righteousness we should all strive to become like.

I am sure we can agree that this Goodness of God, with all its descriptions and His moral attributes CANNOT CHANGE, because He is the SAME and IS Absolute. What is Good, in this sense then, cannot be different three thousand years than it is now. If God is affirmed to be Loving, then it follows that love is a good thing and we should follow it, and lets say we represent that with X.

If the Immutable God was X 3,000 years ago, then He is still X, three thousand years later, and X has always been a good thing, both now, and three thousand years ago. If He was not Z 3,000 years, then He is still not Z now, and Z is sinful and to be despised now, as it was three thousand years ago. Because He is above the consequences of time altogether, He is not subject to the function of Change. He is the only Unalterable and SOLID Ground Reality of the Universe, and the Father of all Facthood. In Him, there is no change. And because the Law of Goodness only reflects Him, in essence, the inherent value of goodness in virtue can NEVER change.

What was good from the time of Adam's creation, was Good from eternity, because it existed in God. Whatever virtue was good for Abel, was good for Athanasius, and whatever was good for Mary, is still good now for Mother Teresa. Virtue does not change, because its Perfection exists in the Changeless Trinity.

In this sense, NOTHING that is Good, or Bad can change. Because it is just that. It is a reflection of the All-Good, Who Himself does not change. Now you see why your statement is meaningless? (Unless I misunderstood what you were trying to say)

How can virtue B be good three thousand years ago, and be bad now? Because God did it? So you're saying that God changed the rules, the very rules that are descriptions of His nature? Well, then He's not the same yesterday, today, and forever is He?

Then you might say, whatever God does is good. Well yes. But God does not do the logically impossible, you know that better than I do. God cannot both be an Infinite and Limited Being. He must be either one. The Godhead is bound by its own Boundless nature, that's exactly why They are God.

You say "yeah but if God does B a thousand years ago, then it was Good back then, but now its Bad because He doesn't do that anymore." Well, that means that God changed, and our source of Morality is no longer the Same, because He changed. We no longer look to a Lord of Order, but a Master of Contradictions; we become worshipers of a Deity of self-Destruction. Virtue is not external to God, its perfectly and changelessly present in Himself from Eternity. He who exists at all times, is the same at all times, and His Moral Nature, and the Law that reflects it, is the same at all times.

Then you say, well then how did God allow polygamy in the Old Testament? Well, look at your question. When does allow mean proclaim as righteousness? God's ALWAYS allowing us to sin and to do good. He permits us to sin, because He is not a Competer with our free will, He GAVE it to us, and He respects our choices.

With that said, we have to make a clear distinction between the Old and the New Testaments. In one, we have grace fully revealed (I am not teaching, I am showing how our beliefs do not support your view), and in another, invariably shown to prophets.

One was in which the Sun of Radiance, invariably shone through the seldom break of clouds, and in the other, He illuminated and dawned through the entire atmosphere, filling it with His piercing rays of brightness by which the world appeared more colourful than ever before and all became crystal clear (He was fully and completely manifested).

In one age, we were left in darkness, with occasional whispers of a time when the Sun of Righteousness would arise with healing in His wings. In the other age, the Lord of the Universe descended on the creation to become a creature, when Perfection was finally demanded. God once dealt with us in permission "because of the hardness of our hearts" but when His grace melted our inner stones, we were ready to accept HIS Spirit of Perfection so that we might accept a Spiritual Law of Perfection.

He did not come to change the law, He came to Perfect and fulfill the Law. And perfection is not created: Its existent from time immemorial in the 'I AM'.

Let's not talk nonsense about God changing the rules of Morality, if we are going to maintain that it reflects the nature of Him Who never changes.

God Bless

Joined: Feb 11, 2003 | Posts: 1019

mikokiko

posted on Jun 22, 2008 - 10:48 PM

St. Paul speaks of the lack of knowledge of God. The thing is, that is not the same as suppressing the conscience and DEFILING as he puts it. Objective Morality (Our Lord) presses Himself on all of us in our conscience, but out of our free will we silence His voice. We deafen our conscience of our own volition. For look at what St. Paul says. He says this knowledge is AVAILABLE to all (and therefore within the power of all). Why? Where they all taught it when they were children? No. By the intuition of the conscience we 'see'. But we indeed defile, and dirty the window of our conscience, so that we cannot differentiate it even from our natural impulses and desires.

Sure, Christ knows, I want more than anything that there would be no God, so as to not be held accountable for anything I do. And indeed this want sometimes trumps (at the obedience of my will) this reason and conscience that is deeply rooted inside me. St. Paul knows that more than I do. He says we have the knowledge available to us in front of us, even if we are not externally taught it, we ourselves internally perceive it. And that available knowledge we suppress as he says:

"For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who suppress the truth in unrighteousness, because what may be known of God is manifest in them, for God has shown it to them. For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even His eternal power and Godhead, so that they are without excuse, because, although they knew God, they did not glorify Him as God, nor were thankful, but became futile in their thoughts, and their foolish hearts were darkened. Professing to be wise, they became fools, and changed the glory of the incorruptible God into an image made like corruptible man—and birds and four-footed animals and creeping things. Therefore God also gave them up to uncleanness, in the lusts of their hearts, to dishonor their bodies among themselves, who exchanged the truth of God for the lie, and worshiped and served the creature rather than the Creator, who is blessed forever. Amen." (Romans 1:18-25)

God does not give the faculty of free will, without also giving us something to be able to give us the knowledge of the choices we are making. Otherwise it wouldn't really be free will, because whatever we did wouldn't really be choices. Choices of what? Are we really choosing sin over goodness (when we have no clue what the difference is)?

Let's speak theoretically. Let's say that a person never hears or is taught the true morality from Adam (as if God were going to teach Adam all the infinite do's and don'ts that he would encounter throughout all situations in his life), is he going to be held accountable for what he does? Yes. For the very fact that he does it, because he has free will. And free will is nothing unless we don't already have a knowledge of what we are choosing. That's where free will has its significance.

As C.S Lewis writes: Besides reasoning about matters of fact, men also make moral judgments-'I ought to do this'-'I ought not to do that'-'This is good'-'That is evil.' Two views have been held about moral judgments. Some people think that when we make them we are not using our Reason, but are employing some different power. Other people think that we make them by our Reason. I myself hold this second view [as I do]. That is, I believe that the primary moral principles on which all other depend are rationally perceived [like the knowledge of the One Creating God, you see how that directly deals with our moral choices]. We 'just see' that there is no reason why my neighbor's happiness should be sacrificed to my own, as we 'just see' that things which are equal to the same thing are equal to one another. If we cannot prove either axiom, that is not because they are not irrational but because they are self-evident and all proofs depend on them. Their intrinsic reasonableness shines by its own light. It is because all morality is based on such self-evident principles that we say to a man, when we would recall him to right conduct, 'Be reasonable.'

The best to read and see the reason of this universal moral law pressing on all of us in our conscience is to read the first book of Mere Christianity by C.S. Lewis, you'll get a really good view. If you want to go into depth, read the Abolition of Man. That is not anti-scriptural. We see indications of the belief in a universal consciences in bits and pieces of the Pauline Epistles. All you have to do prove me wrong, is to show that my view is incongruous with any verse from the Scripture. Trying to rationalize so that it satisfies my understanding is not wrong, as long as it coincides with what I have read. The Scriptures are ALWAYS in support of reason, that's why I have put my trust in them, because the writer is the God of Reason, the God of (and who belongs to by relation) the Logos, our Lord Jesus Christ.

God Bless

Joined: Feb 11, 2003 | Posts: 1019

Truth.Seeker

posted on Jun 23, 2008 - 12:19 AM

"If the Immutable God was X 3,000 years ago, then He is still X, three thousand years later, and X has always been a good thing, both now, and three thousand years ago."

"In this sense, NOTHING that is Good, or Bad can change. Because it is just that. It is a reflection of the All-Good, Who Himself does not change. Now you see why your statement is meaningless? (Unless I misunderstood what you were trying to say)."

_______

In this sense, you are absolutely wrong. God's goodness does not change. That is not the same as saying what humans can do (i.e. what is not evil for us to do) may change.

Do not forget that as far as concerns us, what is "good" for us to do has a lot to do with US. Before humanity was created, there was no possibility of killing or robbing, etc. So, tell me, before humans were created, was killing "bad?" That's nonsensical, killing did not exist!

Killing is something that is against God's goodness when engaged in by humans in a sense that is against His nature (which only He can determine).

How is this different from me talking about His goodness? Well, His goodness does not change, because it always was, is, and will be. It does not depend on humanity (remember, no humans, no killing, no polygamy, etc...).

Your reading of too much philosophy has confused your sense of what is to be viewed in isolation and what is to be viewed in connection with other things.

The fact that polygamy was fine and now is not fine defeats your point. It was not a sin to engage in polygamy in the Old Testament. It is a sin to engage in polygamy in the New Testament. You ignore this and talk to me about what "allowing" means.

Your sermon does not change that fact. This is largely why I did not read your previous post in full. You make a claim, then instead of backing it up, you speak of the "Sun of Radiance." WHAT are you DOING?

_______

I've already read most of C.S. Lewis's books. You said, "trying to rationalize so that it satisfies my understanding is not wrong, as long as it coincides with what I have read." Unlike you, I do not try to rationalize things I want to believe. I believe things based on what I see as rational.

Joined: Feb 25, 2008 | Posts: 432

Truth.Seeker

posted on Jun 23, 2008 - 12:27 AM

In short - the immutable God's relations with mutable humanity are not static.

Joined: Feb 25, 2008 | Posts: 432

mikokiko

posted on Jun 23, 2008 - 12:49 AM

Polygamy was never fine. God never went, "meh, polygamy, that'll do." There is no scriptural evidence of God's condoning of polygamy. There is proof of official permitting and non-permitting. Only that which is Good is Fine. But we were more justified in practicing polygamy then because we did not have the grace revealed to us perfectly, just as I am more justified in hating someone who hated me, then hating someone who has loved me (that does not make it right). I will receive far harsher punishment for hating those who loved me, than for hating those who hated me in my lifetime.

I explain this justification with the fact that we are now in the New Testament when the Lord Jesus Christ, the Son of God, has been revealed and rained on us His grace, so that we now have the Power of the Holy Spirit to guide us to perfection. I wasn't giving a sermon, I speak poetically to try to keep my writing from being dry and boring, if still is for you, then I guess I have not been very successful.

Secondly, killing is never, in and of itself, wrong or right. Sex is never wrong or right. Again it is what comes out of the heart of the man, that determines its moral value, so long as it is done through the body. Like I said killing could be good, if I do it to serve and defend my country. It might be good if it is done to punish criminals (Capital punishment), but that does not mean I hate the person I am killing. I could very well love them (as the person who gives himself in to authorities for capital punishment does not hate himself but comes to his sense that justice must be served, and by repenting, he saves himself from the eternal suffering of hell).

Sex is, in most cases wrong (that is, if we are looking at history), but that is not where sin or virtue lies. The sin lies in infidelity. If I am committing premarital sex I am being unfaithful to my future wife, and being unfaithful with God. But Sex might itself be the sign of fidelity, of the pure and holy love between the complementary relationship between man and woman in Union.

Remember when I said the real sins and virtues are spiritual ones? And originate in the mind? As not what comes from the outside that ruins a man, but what comes from within, as our Lord Jesus said. Real sins are Pride, Infidelity, Dishonesty, Hatred, Impurity (because even raped nuns do not loose their purity), Selfishness, Hypocrisy, Blasphemy and Cowardice. Again the true virtues are spiritual ones like: Courage, Joy, Faith, Hope, Justice, Mercy, Compassion, Love, Patience, Forbearance, Longsuffering, Charity, Gentleness, Peace Making, Altruism, Cheerfulness, Hospitality, Chastity, Faithfulness, Obedience, Respect, Sincerity, Humility, Humbleness, Fidelity, Temperance, Loyalty, Sternness, Purity, Dutifulness, Prudence, Tenacity, Frugality, Discipline, Perseverance, Industriousness, Gravity, Fortitude, Forgiveness, Honesty, Piety, and so on and so forth (as you can already see how one virtue is related to the other, so that abrogation of one, would be the abrogation of all others). These are virtues of the mind, that are revealed through the changing physical body.

You don't really think I was saying that our physical actions are what I am judging God by? As if God could cut us with a knife in His hand, like we do? I am talking about the moral spiritual value, as the Spiritual Center of Life also has. I am saying He has been eternally Faithful, Honest etc. But to say that God is forgiving or faithful, or merciful is to not say HOW He was merciful. The one thing we can be sure about is that we will never know exactly HOW God does things.

Remember the difference between us and God is that He is purely Spiritual, while we are both physical and spiritual. Whatever sins we commit in the mind, we also commit in the body (but it is what comes out of the heart of man that defiles him). God does not do Good through the body like we do. That is the difference.

We might have a better understanding of it when we see His face in His awaiting kingdom. Same thing for us as spiritual beings. To say that A is being faithful is not to say anything about how he physically committed that virtue (he is that type of person). Just as God is that type of person, both in power and actuality.

And the reason that most Church Fathers will give you is that these virtues were existent in the Community of the Trinity from Eternity. Just as the Father always Loved the Son, and the Son the Father. But you will say was the Father "honest" to the Son. Remember every virtue is eternally existent in the Trinity, and that is because God is eternally in the NOW. Think about it this way. If God only had these virtues in power and not in action, and that they became in action wen He created the mutable humans, then God could not be what He is except by creating (thereby making the word Self-existent, a meaningless word). But we say that His Goodness is ever-present within the Trinity. And what is power in anyways if the potential of actuality is not real? (or doesn't become real until it is created). That means God had to create His own actuality for it to be real. Which is nonsense. God does not create what is proper to Himself. God does not create His own Logos.

____________________________________________________

Sorry, I put that badly. I believe in the conscience because it is reasonable. I suspend that belief until I see something in the Scriptures that speak against it. All that St. Paul has said concerning the conscience corresponds to my view. Therefore I hold my view until it is proven wrong within th entire context of the Scriptures.

But it's funny to hear that you've read most of his books. Just a day ago you said you don't accept him as an authourity (as he is a layman of the Church of England). Not that you've contradicted yourself or anything (not being sarcastic).

God Bless

Joined: Feb 11, 2003 | Posts: 1019

Truth.Seeker

posted on Jun 23, 2008 - 10:26 AM

I will leave it at that as I have a very busy week Smile .

Joined: Feb 25, 2008 | Posts: 432

mikokiko

posted on Jun 23, 2008 - 05:33 PM

Please reply back as soon as you are free to do so...

Joined: Feb 11, 2003 | Posts: 1019

Truth.Seeker

posted on Jun 24, 2008 - 12:58 AM

I've even read from Martin Luther. It's good to know what you're disagreeing with. As for C.S. Lewis, I take from him what I find reasonable, and I leave the rest. Same with any other author worth reading from, whether St. Augustine or Thomas Aquinas, etc...

I don't like poetry, especially in theological debates! Not the best forum for it, and I am usually under a time crunch. Put yourself in my shoes, with writing 1), 2), 3) bullets and getting back "Sun of Radiance."

I've actually read your post this time. I don't even remember what the original disagreement was about. You disagreed with me saying that it's sufficient to say, "If God says so, it's fine." That rapidly deteriorated.

Looks to me like you're talking about inner spirituality, and I'm talking about how that manifests itself. Going back to my original replies, I don't know what the issue is. What me might disagree on is how much that inner spirituality really knows.

I know it's less than this 100% stuff you're putting forth (because of Biblical anecdotes). Like the quote I have of St. Paul above. Or when St. Paul tells the Jews they have a zeal for God, but not according to knowledge (think they're doing God's work, but really they're not). Or when St. Paul tells young widows that in HIS judgment, not God's, they should do this or that (if St. Paul doesn't know what's absolutely good or bad, how much less will we?) I can go on for a while.

This is NOT to say that we don't know anything. You mentioned Romans I above, it's one my favorite chapters (because it basically says the rational thing to do is believe in God just because we exist and see everything around us). St. Paul tells the unbelievers that they KNOW He exists, yet suppress that truth.

I guess you could make an argument that if a person does not know something, it is because that person is suppressing the truth. I would counter that because a hermit may be spiritually higher than a regular monk, that does not mean the monk is suppressing his spirituality. I.e. active suppression is not the only way to not know something, you might have just not gotten to a higher spiritual level.

My conclusion - everyone knows more than that God exists and everyone knows less than 100%.

Joined: Feb 25, 2008 | Posts: 432

mikokiko

posted on Jun 24, 2008 - 01:43 AM

You may be right, but let me put it this way: God does not expect us to commit a virtue that cannot be apprehended by us internally, but would have to be apprehended by us externally.

That's why I think psychopaths, who do not have a real sense of right and wrong at all, will be judged at in their condition, because of their neural deficiency. Remember the Body sets up for us obstacle to believing: Desires and so forth. I know that more than anything many of the atheists I have talked to, all DO NOT want to believe in God. The modernday Zeitgeist has already presented the belief to us as something wholly repugnant and aesthetically displeasing. Primitive images of an old man, with a long beard, sitting on a decorated chair, in a shiny palace, a top a cloud in the sky, with persons flapping their wings, is repulsive to them; it is to me too.

But they refuse to truly reason within themselves. And when they do become theists, it is not I, who has injected my reason in to them, I have guided them with facts, so that with their own internal reason they can see it. Because that faculty already is within them.

Remember when I said that our works in and of themselves, aren't really what God cares about, but what type of person we are? Well, this is essentially what God is like. He is faithful, Just, Obedient (yes, the Son to the Father), and Loving. We are not called to commit virtues, but to BE virtues. That is, if we become faithful, we become a faithful person. And all our actions will be faithful, because they are done by faithful people. If we become Loving, all our actions will be loving, because they are done by loving people. That's precisely, and I think you can agree with me, what I am saying about God. Every action of His, has the same virtues that were asked of us from our creation. That's why the might seem different. Just as I might commit adultery and no one would no about it (because I thought about it in my head). Again if I am pure and faithful, I cannot think those thoughts in my head. Or I might be a murder but never have killed someone in my life, by hating my brother. But that would never happen if I am a loving person.

To put it simply, God did give us a conscience, and it is by this conscience, if we are without Church, Bible, and so forth, that God will judge us by, as He does the Gentiles who have not heard about Christianity (they are not the only ones with consciences). And it is this conscience, that He gave us when we were given free will. This free will is by which we choose sin over goodness, from a choice we make. Choices can only be choices, when we know, at least partially, what we are rejecting or accepting. But if we could not even differentiate that one action was a sin and another action was a virtue, how could we be judged? The animal kingdom, has no way of finding out, and no action of theirs has any moral worth, they simply live and die, they are indeed nothing but mere chemical reactions (without considering God's Grand scheme of things).

But the more we learn, the more that awakens (and reverses the defiling process of this conscience), our conscience to do what is good, and we are held more accountable, because of more knowledge. If Gentiles who hear nothing (at least in theory) of Christianity or Judaism, are going to stand before the judgment seat of Christ at the end of days, does that not mean that they had a means of knowing what they did right and what they did wrong? Certainly. But I am sure God knows circumstances. When we are taught the good things (from the Church and the Bible), and continually reminded of it, we will receive far greater punishment if we do not do them (as Christ says).

It's already been proven that the Gentiles can do the moral law written in their conscience, I do not see why that cannot be applied to us as well, since we also have consciences. Therefore at the very least, we have some vague knowledge within us of what is right and what is wrong, even if it is just that: vague.

God Bless

Joined: Feb 11, 2003 | Posts: 1019

Truth.Seeker

posted on Jun 24, 2008 - 02:00 AM

"Therefore at the very least, we have some vague knowledge within us of what is right and what is wrong, even if it is just that: vague."

I agree. Infact, we are probably held to a higher standard than non-Christians, because not only do we have a conscience, but we have the Holy Spirit.

Joined: Feb 25, 2008 | Posts: 432

mikokiko

posted on Jun 24, 2008 - 02:19 AM

Agreed. I am glad we reached a civilized consensus here, and have agreed with one another (whether or not we were always really agreeing with one another).

God Bless

Joined: Feb 11, 2003 | Posts: 1019

Truth.Seeker

posted on Jun 24, 2008 - 02:35 AM

Woooooooohoooooooo.

Joined: Feb 25, 2008 | Posts: 432

mikokiko

posted on Jun 24, 2008 - 07:01 AM

I've got a question for you though. What parts of C.S. Lewis' reason, or his teachings that you found heretical? This is just a question out of curiosity, as I have not really seen anything stand out. Would love to hear from you, as I respect your opinion.

God Bless

Joined: Feb 11, 2003 | Posts: 1019

Truth.Seeker

posted on Jun 24, 2008 - 10:24 AM

Since he's not authoritative, I didn't particularly remember what I disagree with him on. If you really want to know, I can dig out his books and look what I wrote in the margins. As I usually wrote one of two things: "*" or "-."

Something that comes to mind is that when talking about "self-will," i.e. turning from God and focusing on one's self, Lewis says, "This is, if you like the 'weak point' in the very nature of creation, the risk which God apparently thinks worth taking."

The only beings that take "risks" are those who don't know what's going to happen, that's the very definition of risk - uncertainty that matters. God doesn't take "risks" because He always knows what's going to happen.

P.S. I appreciate that you can respect my opinion even though we may disagree at times. For the record, I respect your opinions too (I just sometimes bluntly say you're wrong - remember, it's all about the bullet points).

Joined: Feb 25, 2008 | Posts: 432

mikokiko

posted on Jun 24, 2008 - 08:13 PM

No serious-thinking philosopher like C.S. Lewis would mean by a statement like that that God is NOT omniscient. I think it is obvious from that passage that C.S. Lewis is speaking anthropomorphically, to help us understand the Divine Dilemma, so to speak.

God Bless

Joined: Feb 11, 2003 | Posts: 1019

Truth.Seeker

posted on Jun 25, 2008 - 10:34 AM

Hey man, if C.S. Lewis helps you understand stuff, by all means - stick with it. If you see some of his arguments failing, let me know.

Joined: Feb 25, 2008 | Posts: 432

copt07

posted on Jun 28, 2008 - 02:37 PM

Another way to refute this question, in addition to what others have mentioned, is to simply show the benevolences of God in the Old Testament. Passages such as:

“‘When you reap the harvest of your land, you shall not wholly reap the corners of your field, nor shall you gather the gleanings of your harvest. And you shall not glean your vineyard, nor shall you gather every grape of your vineyard; you shall leave them for the poor and the stranger: I am the LORD your God. ‘You shall not steal, nor deal falsely, nor lie to one another. And you shall not swear by My name falsely, nor shall you profane the name of your God: I am the LORD. ‘You shall not cheat your neighbor, nor rob him. The wages of him who is hired shall not remain with you all night until morning. You shall not curse the deaf, nor put a stumbling block before the blind, but shall fear your God: I am the LORD. ‘You shall do no injustice in judgment. You shall not be partial to the poor, nor honor the person of the mighty. In righteousness you shall judge your neighbor. You shall not go about as a talebearer among your people; nor shall you take a stand against the life of your neighbor: I am the LORD. ‘You shall not hate your brother in your heart. You shall surely rebuke your neighbor, and not bear sin because of him. You shall not take vengeance, nor bear any grudge against the children of your people, but you shall love your neighbor as yourself: I am the LORD.’” Lev. 19:9-18

Or from Micah 6:1-8,

Hear now what the LORD says:

“Arise, plead your case before the mountains,
And let the hills hear your voice.
Hear, O you mountains, the LORD’s complaint,
And you strong foundations of the earth;
For the LORD has a complaint against His people,
And He will contend with Israel.
“O My people, what have I done to you?
And how have I wearied you?
Testify against Me.
For I brought you up from the land of Egypt,
I redeemed you from the house of bondage;
And I sent before you Moses, Aaron, and Miriam.
O My people, remember now
What Balak king of Moab counseled,
And what Balaam the son of Beor answered him,
From Acacia Grove[a] to Gilgal,
That you may know the righteousness of the LORD.”
With what shall I come before the LORD,
And bow myself before the High God?
Shall I come before Him with burnt offerings,
With calves a year old?
Will the LORD be pleased with thousands of rams,
Ten thousand rivers of oil?
Shall I give my firstborn for my transgression,
The fruit of my body for the sin of my soul?
He has shown you, O man, what is good;
And what does the LORD require of you
But to do justly,
To love mercy,
And to walk humbly with your God?

There are many others, this is just the beginning of God's mercy and benevolence.

Peace

Joined: Apr 17, 2006 | Posts: 13

Post new topic

Return to the Forum Index

Total		Daily
Topics:	7221	3.92
Users:	6148	3.34
Posts:	60829	33.05

Dioscorus
hany58
kmonib
mariham124
ophadeece
ziko45

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

Navigation

RSS Syndication

Coptic Forums

Benevolence of the Old Testament God?

mikokiko

Truth.Seeker

mikokiko

Truth.Seeker

Truth.Seeker

mikokiko

mikokiko

Truth.Seeker

Truth.Seeker

mikokiko

Truth.Seeker

mikokiko

Truth.Seeker

mikokiko

Truth.Seeker

mikokiko

Truth.Seeker

mikokiko

Truth.Seeker

mikokiko

Truth.Seeker

copt07

Forum Statistics

Online Members