Steve,
On your afternoon show, you commented on God's right to do things. However, where do you see the idea that God's right to do things cannot violate his own character?
I know my Calvinist friends place God's rights over his character, and say God can act as abusively as he wants to his creation because it is his right to do whatever he wants to what he made. Don't "right" actions have to follow character? I might say God has every right to treat his creation however he wants, but he will only treat it within his character.
In other words, aren't God own actions subservient to his character?
Therefore, God cannot act certain ways because it would not be right, even if is within his rights?
I guess what I'm trying to say is, where do you place God's right to act in relation with his character?
God's right
-
dizerner
Re: God's right
Would this be related to Euthyphro's dilemma? We could assume God never acts outside his character, the trouble is, I guess, knowing what he is really like.
In the case of what seems to us abusiveness (severity of God) I think it's not so much important how we emotionally feel about it, as whether it fits into God's self-revelation.
The Calvinists and determinists for me go into territory where God does truly become evil, and I think that although logically we could say God could be evil if he wanted to be (who could stop him?) we will say he did not reveal himself to be evil (and fight over those verses).
But now we have a real problem—defining and understanding what evil really is, and the fact that a lot of the things God does or his ways might seem evil to us. God did not reveal himself to us as someone who will never feel or seem evil to our fallen and warped sense of justice based on human emotions.
I think only the free-will theodicy works to preserve the character of God from evil in any sense whatsoever (still admitting some things might seem evil about it to us). I only see two basic ways to justify the problem of evil, autonomy or determinism, and I use two little illustrations to contrast them in this post here: http://forums.carm.org/vbb/showthread.p ... e-are-lost
In the case of what seems to us abusiveness (severity of God) I think it's not so much important how we emotionally feel about it, as whether it fits into God's self-revelation.
The Calvinists and determinists for me go into territory where God does truly become evil, and I think that although logically we could say God could be evil if he wanted to be (who could stop him?) we will say he did not reveal himself to be evil (and fight over those verses).
But now we have a real problem—defining and understanding what evil really is, and the fact that a lot of the things God does or his ways might seem evil to us. God did not reveal himself to us as someone who will never feel or seem evil to our fallen and warped sense of justice based on human emotions.
I think only the free-will theodicy works to preserve the character of God from evil in any sense whatsoever (still admitting some things might seem evil about it to us). I only see two basic ways to justify the problem of evil, autonomy or determinism, and I use two little illustrations to contrast them in this post here: http://forums.carm.org/vbb/showthread.p ... e-are-lost
Re: God's right
Is this primarily a philosophical or existential problem?
At the philosophical level, we try to fit our mental model of the biblical God into the scope of human existence, tragedy and comedy.
But at the existential level, we ask, "Does the machinery of the universe demonstrate a moral compass? And how do I live my life in light of that."
So many times it seems we are trying to solve the problem of suffering at a philosophical level. But it's the *experience* of suffering and the perceived silence of the universe that is the real problem for people. And frequently the reason some people leave the faith.
At the philosophical level, we try to fit our mental model of the biblical God into the scope of human existence, tragedy and comedy.
But at the existential level, we ask, "Does the machinery of the universe demonstrate a moral compass? And how do I live my life in light of that."
So many times it seems we are trying to solve the problem of suffering at a philosophical level. But it's the *experience* of suffering and the perceived silence of the universe that is the real problem for people. And frequently the reason some people leave the faith.
When you are a Bear of Very Little Brain, and you Think of Things, you find sometimes that a Thing which seemed very Thingish inside you is quite different when it gets out into the open and has other people looking at it.
JeffreyLong.net
Jesusna.me
@30thirteen
JeffreyLong.net
Jesusna.me
@30thirteen
Re: God's right
In relation to when we think God is being evil, I think a lot is explained away if we consider the theology of instant eternal torment to be unfounded.
God can put entire civilizations down like a suffering horse, but it can be seen as more a compassionate move than evil if you consider he can work with all the souls on the "other side."
I see this all through history, God never allows evil to get too bad. In a way, this is really not evil, but compassionate.
I can see it might be thought evil if you consider that God is cutting short the days of those people (some innocently wrapped up in evil) to send them to automatic eternal torment.
But if you see that God can still bring those people to him later on the other side of life, then much is resolved regarding his actions in keeping this realm balanced.
Annihilationism can also resolve this problem I believe since it still sees the issue as a putting out of misery, although it can be seen lacking the same hope of Christian Universalism.
God can put entire civilizations down like a suffering horse, but it can be seen as more a compassionate move than evil if you consider he can work with all the souls on the "other side."
I see this all through history, God never allows evil to get too bad. In a way, this is really not evil, but compassionate.
I can see it might be thought evil if you consider that God is cutting short the days of those people (some innocently wrapped up in evil) to send them to automatic eternal torment.
But if you see that God can still bring those people to him later on the other side of life, then much is resolved regarding his actions in keeping this realm balanced.
Annihilationism can also resolve this problem I believe since it still sees the issue as a putting out of misery, although it can be seen lacking the same hope of Christian Universalism.
Re: God's right
I just read this thread, and while the OP asked a response from me, I agree with every point made in the responses given already (including the solution suggested in the OP itself).
When I speak of God being within His rights to do a thing, I mean there would be no injustice, no violation of the rights of others, in anything He might do to us in His providential dealings in this present life. I suppose that God would even have the "right" to be unjust (though the contemplation of what that even means makes my brain hurt), but to be unjust is repugnant to His character.
That God would not do every conceivable act that He could justify Himself in doing, is clearly what the message of grace demonstrates. To speak of God's right to do something does not bring into view which of His rights He could actually exercise without offending His own nature.
When my wife was killed in an accident, in 1980, I had the legal right to sue the driver and the owner of the car. These were not rich people, and any such action would have ruined them. I didn't contemplate such a suit for even a second. It would be abhorrent to me to destroy the lives of others who had merely been guilty of carelessness, not malice. If we have the heart of God, we will frequently give up our rights in the interests of our character. God does the same.
When I speak of God being within His rights to do a thing, I mean there would be no injustice, no violation of the rights of others, in anything He might do to us in His providential dealings in this present life. I suppose that God would even have the "right" to be unjust (though the contemplation of what that even means makes my brain hurt), but to be unjust is repugnant to His character.
That God would not do every conceivable act that He could justify Himself in doing, is clearly what the message of grace demonstrates. To speak of God's right to do something does not bring into view which of His rights He could actually exercise without offending His own nature.
When my wife was killed in an accident, in 1980, I had the legal right to sue the driver and the owner of the car. These were not rich people, and any such action would have ruined them. I didn't contemplate such a suit for even a second. It would be abhorrent to me to destroy the lives of others who had merely been guilty of carelessness, not malice. If we have the heart of God, we will frequently give up our rights in the interests of our character. God does the same.