Norton! Help!?

[jools]

I would be interested in getting some views on the following ideas. I, like many people, have read lots on the whole debate of God, faith, religion etc and have come to the conclusion that no-one can say either way. It comes down to faith, where you personally draw your line for accepting one perspective or the other and what ‘evidence’ you can accept.

To be more specific, it depends upon whether you accept religious experience (emotional) as proof of the reality of God. It seems to me that an examined faith will primarily come down to this question and then consideration of whether believing or not will impact their lives in other ways (eg. loss of friends / status etc)

Therefore, while intellectually interesting, the whole debate (represented in the podcasts and elsewhere) is pretty irrelevant and not useful to making a decision that is based on truth and reality.

But here is the question I do find really interesting:

Given Gods omnipitence and omnicience, as well as his inherent perfection we can say that God, knows everything, can do anything and needs nothing to add to or sustain his character. We also are told that the Christian God is Love.

In this case, why would God create people and give them a part of his life / eternal nature / spirit, knowing what would happen (sin) and knowing that a large percentage would be eternally punished (& suffer)?

A potential way out did present itself: If God foresaw the fall, why not deal with Satan before he had chance to mess things up by tempting Eve? At least then temptation would not have been an issue, it would have been an independent free will decision and we can imply that Eve would not have eaten that apple without temptation as she had not chosen to up until that point. Or did God see a benefit in allowing Satan free range (as per Job)? In this case, what does that say about God?

A further area for thought is the nature of created Eve with her capacity for sin, the point of her Sin (ie. Exactly when she moved from temptation to Sin), whether disobeying God was ever avoidable and generally, the implication that entry of sin to the world has on who God is and how he created people. (If God give people free will, what, in innocence, would have led to Sin and was it avoidable by that person? Did people really have a choice about falling?

For example, when she was tempted she was innocent of the knowledge of what was happening. More seriously, the reason temptation is tempting is because it appeals to sinful will. It doesn’t appeal to perfection. Even Jesus’s temptation was pretty irrelevant – Jesus knew the score – he was God – therefore Satan had nothing to tempt him with because being God is infinitely better than bowing to your creation and that ‘temptation’. (Also, avoidance of the cross doesn’t count because for Jesus to avoid it would have been a Sin (God willed it – ‘your will be done’) and so altered the character of God, which is not possible).

The implication: Eve was perfect and therefore temptation becoming Sin could not have been something that came from her will without the capacity for it having been created (and preordained?) by God. Logically therefore God created people innocent but with the capacity to sin, he also created people inquisitive and hungry for knowledge, but he never explained (at least there’s no record of it) to Adam and Eve the consequences or specifically what it means to ‘surely die’ in a way that give them a choice (the bar is hot, don’t touch it – you only really know when you do). What is death if you don’t know about good and evil? It’s not possible to understand:

God: Don’t eat this.
Adam: Why:
God: Because you’ll die
Adam: What’s die about?
God: Die is this thing that happens when you disobey me. I would show you what it would be like but I can’t because there’s no pain / suffering here and you just have to trust me.
Adam: But God, I don’t understand how death could ever be necessary and what are you on about – pain and suffering?
God: Yes, that’s unfortunate. I can’t tell you / give you understanding about the whole Good / Evil thing. For that you would have to experience it and that would mean eating that fruit and that would mean death and pain and suffering. (Not sure about the logic here)
Adam: Sorry, I don’t know what you are talking about (Adam doesn’t yet have the knowledge and so cannot understand what God is on about)

Is it fair to expect Adam to understand the actually reality of his situation? Yes, I think so, and I also think that God thought so too. If these ideas logically stand up then one could say that God created people despite the knowledge of the future and he considered the outcome acceptable. Therefore, creation was intentionally set up to fall because even in the beginning, People had no choice to freely choose God because they didn’t know what evil was and so could not choose good freely. IE. For God to have people freely choose him, they had to understand the choice fully.

This leads back to the question of why God (given his character) would need to create and also consideration of where evil therefore come from and what this meant. The implication is that God, having created in this way, does have a need or wants to have people freely choose him for some other reason.

Why ask all this? I personally feel that if there is a God, he had no right to create anyone in the way he did (eternal beings) and that the biblically revealed character of God would not allow for the possibility. For one person to suffer for eternity is unacceptable, let alone 95% (est.) of everyone who ever lived. Given that God needs nothing, creation is not needed by God. But he did it anyway, accepting that his choice would mean evil (suffering in hell). There must also be a reason that comes from Gods will and therefore to an aspect of his character.

Some will say that hell is the absence of God. Ok, again, Hell is the result of Gods absence and ergo his responsibility. For creation to experience it is implicit from the start and God would have considered this. Ergo the responsibility for choice leading to sin is Gods.

Logically it is an impossibility that God is Love but he deliberately created the capacity for evil for no reason.

Discussion?

[Norton]

Hey jools,

That's a really, really good question. Let me catch up on some other stuff and I'll respond soon...

Norton

[jools]

Thanks! Look forward too it.

Out of interest, I noted in one of the pods that there was a discussion about how Emery found the xian assertion of hell for sinners offensive (cant remember which one).

You said that you didnt see why / agree that xians should tell non xians they are going to hell and you included a reference to it being the preserve of fundamentalists.

Am I correct in saying that you therefore take the issue of hell to be an area of loose interpretation? And if so, how do you respond to the fact that Jesus talked quite categorically about the reality of hell (I think its quite high in the list of regular subjects - inc money etc).

I personally find liberal belief quite difficult to understand in light of the explicit nature and concurrence of many of different teachings.

Let me know if you want actual references...!

All the best. j

[Norton]

Quick response to the hell question:

Yes, Jesus talked about it, but often times his language is metaphorical. That doesn't mean the imagery of hell doesn't portray something that is real, just that images of fire and darkness and pits probably shouldn't be taken literally.

Norton

[Emery]

You know, I just realized that Norton would make a fine politician!

[Norton]

Okay Jools,

You asked a whole lot of questions, and unfortunately, I probably won't be able to answer all of them without writing a novel - which still probably wouldn't be a very satisfying answer. So, I'll try to tackle a few of your thoughts:

1. Could it be that creativity is an attribute of God? Thus, even if he had no need to create humans, perhaps it just pleasured him to do so because he enjoys creating. A very rough analogy could be a painter. Why does a painter paint? I'm talking about the purists here. There is no real functional need to painting a picture of the mountains and then hanging it on your wall. But some people still do it because that's simply who they are and what they enjoy doing. Couldn't it be the same for God?

2. The very essence of free will involves temptation to choose the wrong. In other words, don't get hung up on the creation story and what would have happened if the snake wasn't there or the tree wasn't so appealing or if God didn't explain what death really was or not. I'm not discarding the value of the creation story or saying that it didn't happen in some way - we've just got to realize that not all the details are included and it could have some metaphorical aspects. The bigger picture is that the story is communicating that God created humans, they had free will to trust him and bear out the purpose and responsibility given to them - which, by all indications would include meaning, purpose, the ability to create and experience and rule and do all the things that make life what it is - and yet humans chose to believe that God couldn't be trusted and they knew what was better for themselves than their creator.

Even if you take the creation story extremely literally, then you still have the story of Satan's fall to deal with. And unfortunately, we have no narrative in the Bible that covers this and therefore we are still left with a created being given free will and moral responsibility and choosing to abuse that freedom and shirk the responsibility, and in turn bearing out the consequences.

3. About death... again, we just don't have all the details of the story and have to assume that Adam and Eve understood the consequences of their decision. Nothing in the Bible implies that they were unaware of this and simply stumbled into this mistake as innocent victims. Also, nothing in the Bible states that plants and animals weren't dying at that time. It would be strange in fact if they weren't and if the original intention of God was that all plants and animals in the Garden or on earth would live forever. It may have been that plants and animals were dying of natural causes (not the result of sin), so that when God explained the consequences of sin being death, Adam and Eve could picture what this meant. This is all conjecture, but something worth thinking about. And of course, death has many layers, it's not just a physical thing.

4. You question God's right to create humans if there was a chance that some or many of them would suffer harmful consequences as a result. But don't we as humans do that every single time we reproduce? We bring children into this world that could have terrible and horrible lives. Abuse, war, rape, poverty, violence, torture, etc. What right do we have to bring new children into our world knowing that the chances are substantial that they will suffer some pretty bad things?

5. Wouldn't it be logically impossible for God to create the capacity to love without the capacity to abuse, pervert, or deny love? Thus the capacity for evil isn't without reason or even arbitrary; it's simply inherent within the capacity for love.

Okay, that should be enought to spurn some thoughts. Any comments?

Norton

[Irrational Entity]

(1) Why actualize a creation that will certainly include all the evil you later mention? If this world is God’s will, then the deity is amoral relative to human concerns.

(2.1) This position assumes free will exists relative to God. If God knows everything and can do everything, then the Primer Mover has intended this world exactly as it is. I see no place for free will in such a scheme.

(2.2) What extra-Biblical evidence exists for Adam and Eve? Evolutionary development would mean that groups moved towards modern humanity. If some event narrowed the species to just two, how extensive would the genetic problems be?

(2.3) Taking Genesis literally, Satan is never mentioned. A snake is described as the most intelligent or subtle of the beasts of the field. No mention is made of supernatural capacity, demon possession, or so on. The passage describes a walking, talking snake.

(3) I guess this understanding depends on what the Knowledge of Good and Evil is.

(4) Again, God’s omni-capacity plays a role. God knows exactly every evil event that will take place in creation even before performing the creative act; God can intervene at any time in innumerable ways to mitigate or prevent evil.

(5) Why should this be the case? Borrowing from the discussion of mental disorders, the malfunction of the brain can be used to say God could not create the mind to be fully functional without also creating the mind to include the capacity for malfunction. Christians seem to believe that hatred and schizophrenia did not exist before the “Fall” and will not exist in heaven, so the necessity of them now is extremely questionable.

[kobodur]

4. You question God's right to create humans if there was a chance that some or many of them would suffer harmful consequences as a result. Norton

If he knew things wouldn't run smoothly, then it would be more than just a chance. It would be a sure thing.

But don't we as humans do that every single time we reproduce? We bring children into this world that could have terrible and horrible lives. Abuse, war, rape, poverty, violence, torture, etc. What right do we have to bring new children into our world knowing that the chances are substantial that they will suffer some pretty bad things?
Norton

God won't protect them and you can't effectively protect them. I think humanity should have cut its collective losses a long time ago. You may have the right to reproduce, but I'd advise against it.

[jools]

On reproducing: (kobodur)

I would agree that having kids is entirely illogical in todays world. It is a choice very close to my heart at the moment and one I struggle with for the reasons mentioned above, but also because of the need for a degree of selflessness that I don't see in myself at the moment.

But. A family dinner last night led to a conversation about what we are each thankful for, and without exception everyone mentioned family. I do therefore agree with the bible when it says that it is not good for man to be alone. Given that humanity has evolved in the context of social groups not wanting kids is only really a choice that has become an option since people had more life choice / access to contraception and a choice, and could therefore afford to be selfish and still survive.

On Nortons Reply: (Thu Jul 06, 2006 12:14 am)

1. Creativity may be an aspect of God but I question the right of God to create with foreknowledge of the reality of hell. To extend this argument, would you agree that the bible says that Gods love is infinite and everlasting and its theologically correct to say that applies to individuals?

If so, this also presents (in my mind) a problem - infinite love cannot be reconciled with knowledge of everlasting torment. Even man made in Gods image, who loves imperfectly, would not chose eternal torment for something he could create and love (like a child). How much more must this be true of perfection. I therefore say that God is a contradiction to the God of the bible or that one must question what the character of the God of the bible is or whether he doesnt exist.

Following on from this, I would suggest that God is become flaky at best and other questions become pertinent to ask:
a. Whether there is any actual hard evidence for the supernatural. (That is not based on perspective - like God 'answering' a prayer for X, which is regularly given to non believers.)
b. The validity of one religious world view over another. Who is to say that the Muslim view isn't correct? It comes from Judaism as well - why is it wrong - its just as reliant on faith and the word of God. 'There is no God but Allah'. An xian discounts it as the work of Satan and vice versa.
c. What is it about religion that is so attractive? Belonging / the illusion of certainty in life / acceptance and less stress in facing situations (like my pastor friend who is dealing with cancer and shingles and is in permanent pain). The fact that self belief, support and love are potent factors in allowing the resilient, broken person to heal emotionally.
d. The fact that religion, at least in name but also by proxy in God leaving the question of competing truth somewhat ambiguous, has been responsible for most of the suffering in history.
e. That religion is easily accepted by people of low intelligence and hardest for those who ask questions.
f. That Gods will is invoked as the reason for what is just life's randomness - God is testing me / blessing me etc, in a way that is very very close to a person looking for a reason to accept their circumstances.


2. I never had the choice to have the choice. Who is God to create me a certain way, with the drive for life and survival, knowing the choices I will make. If God is real I would rather have never been conceived. Ignorance is better than eternity. Also, the idea of Genesis being a metaphor - thats one hugely damaging metaphor (in terms of resulting argument and as a stumbling block to people). Dont you think a straight explanation would have been more helpful than a 'metaphor'.

Glad to see you mention the Satan fall issue - another interesting theological question raiser.

3. Heaven - no death or disease. Eden = heaven. Ergo I reject your supposition.

Death - many layers. Isn't that borne out of circular argument from your view. How do you know it has many layers?

4. So humans made in Gods image are doing what God did on a grander scale - makes sense, but what does that say about the character of God in view of the biblical view and therefore in regard of your belief system??

5. I should be saying that!! In terms of God, I dont believe that its inherent with the capacity to love. Perfect love (God) casts out fear (hardly true of most people scared of hell or living under the controlling nature of imperfect human pastors etc), and therefore one would suppose suffering etc. But there is certainly evidence that God allows even those who love him to suffer even to death. I know there are 'growth' answers from the xian worldview, but even so...harsh, don't you think.


All the best

Jools.