[RD] Ask a Theologian V

[El_Machinae]

As to moral truths this consideration is somewhat different. I do think they can accept that there are necessary moral truths, but I think that this acceptance is an unprincipled exception to their atheism which reflects the truth that morality is inscribed into the human nature. I say this because if atheism were true, than there is no necessary moral truth at all (and morality itself would be an illusion), since our own existence would be brute fact with no meaning or purpose (for the universe itself would have no meaning or purpose, and therefore no purpose or meaning could be ascribed to anything within it).

Yeah, I'll buy that morality is, in some ways, an illusion. I mean, so is the concept of 'chair', though. There is no objective definition of a chair, but we know one where we see one, and the concept of 'chairness' utterly depends upon the existence of our knees and our bum.

 

[Agent327]

Since God is the first principle from which everything proceeds (since before creation and outside God there is nothing), for something to be a necessary truth (such as one + one equals two) it must in a sense proceed from some essential truth of Gods own nature. Ergo that it is necessary that one plus one equal two, or more implicitly, that there is a necessary order that is not some direct imposition of divine will (rather than such an order being pure chaos where numerical values, or shape and form, are non-existent.) thus to my thinking indicates that the rational necessity of these truths, emerges from the rational nature and being of God (the divine logos, creative reason). Since God "is being" and is reasonable, than everything that surrounds God and proceeds from him as first principle must necessarily comport to that reason. Thus why the universe has cosmic order mathematical and otherwise, since it is a reflection of the divine creative reason. Chaos as such (such as square circles) is anathema to the reason of God, God is reasonable and thus his creation and everything that proceeds from him is comprehensible (even considering the fallen nature of existence and so forth)

Two things: you are arguing that God is logical - or rather, the origin of logic. But, if everything proceeds from God, so does irrationality (or illogicality, if you will). Secondly, "outside God there is nothing" is pantheism. The fact that something (or everything) proceeds from God does not make it divine necessarily, or, in other words, the fact that all is created by God does not necessarily imply that all attributes found in creation are divine - except in origin, since they proceeded from God.

It does follow, according to this line of reasoning that any morality (or necessary truth) has a divine origin. But again, that does not imply that there is no morality or necessary truth outside God. On the contrary, since creation exists by definition outside God, so do any morality or truth devised by man. (If not, then all immorality and untruth are equally divine - as argued above.)

 

[Jehoshua]

Yeah, I'll buy that morality is, in some ways, an illusion. I mean, so is the concept of 'chair', though. There is no objective definition of a chair, but we know one where we see one, and the concept of 'chairness' utterly depends upon the existence of our knees and our bum.

I of course do not think that morality is an illusion (that is to say I think there is an objective moral order), the point being that for an atheist to say that can only be an unprincipled exception with regards to the consequences of his atheist doctrine. The objective definition for a chair (or a seat) is a location where one finds it expedient to rest ones posterior incidentally . if I pointed to a bonfire no one would call that a potential chair.

Two things: you are arguing that God is logical - or rather, the origin of logic. But, if everything proceeds from God, so does irrationality (or illogicality, if you will). Secondly, "outside God there is nothing" is pantheism. The fact that something (or everything) proceeds from God does not make it divine necessarily, or, in other words, the fact that all is created by God does not necessarily imply that all attributes found in creation or divine - except in origin, since they proceeded from God.

Firstly I suggest you read what I said. I said "before God and outside of creation there is nothing". I wasn't suggesting God is somehow creation or creation is part of God, they are quite clearly separate things (despite Gods omnipresence). I am not suggesting pantheism. Your argument is thus a (hopefully unintentional) straw man.

Secondly your position that there is such a thing as "irrationality" or "illogicality" reeks of a Manichaean dualism. Really what is irrationality and illogicality other than an absence of logic and reason? They aren't "things" they are absences, and indeed the absence of reason and logic on the part of human beings is quite consistent with their fallen nature, separated as it is from the divine origin of their being (which is restored in Christ as mediator between men and God). Likewise my point in referring to the Logos is that this essential aspect of the divine I think precludes chaos in the absolute sense.

It does follow, according to this line of reasoning that any morality (or necessary truth) has a divine origin. But again, that does not imply that there is no morality or necessary truth outside God. On the contrary, since creation exists by definition outside God, so do any morality or truth devised by man. (If not, then all immorality and untruth are equally divine - as argued above.)

It is an absurd proposition to say that because creation is extrinsic to God (in the sense he created it, and the universe is not God) therefore morality must also be outside of God and cannot be objective. I say this is absurd since although objective things exist outside of God (the universe for one) this does not make them independent of Him (since God created the universe, and the universe could not otherwise exist without Him) precisely because God is the creator and created things are products of the divine will.

Thus when I say morality (in the objective sense) proceeds from God as a requirement of his essential being, and that this objective morality is objective both in this sense and in the sense that God commands it of men (ergo it is not macro-relative in the sense that God cannot create some other universe with a totally inverse morality due to his own nature, and in the sense that it is universally compelled of all by divine decree in the universe) I am saying that God has instituted this divine moral order into the creation he has made because he could not do otherwise.

 

[timtofly]

The only reason that humans have an issue with morality is because that is part of the curse that God placed on humans. There were no moral issues before the curse. Saying that morality comes from God, because that is who he is does not follow. God was not affected when humans gained the knowledge of good and evil. It was humans who were affected. We cannot come to God in a fallen condition, not because God is Holy, but because we are not. Humans are moral beings, because that is part of knowing good and evil.

Now I am not going to contradict myself, but it will sound like a contradiction.

When God came to Moses and gave him the Law, God told Moses that He was Holy in the context of the Law. God is not a concept, neither is God capable of being anything that a human can be. If God is defined by human concepts, then he is just another human construct. God allows humans to perceive him on their terms, but the catch is how do we know if those terms are from God, or just made up by humans. That is why humans used philosophy to explain God. They were attempting to explain God in terms outside of their own making. They seemed to have forgotten that God was just as capable of doing that on his own.

The completion of the Law was done on the Cross. Why would any one put themselves back under the restrictions of the Law? Humans have always been capable of determining right from wrong. Even the "if it feels good do it" people come to that realization sooner or later. Morality does not come from a God who is beyond human comprehension. Morality came when Adam decided to carry the burden of that morality.

Yes God is Holy. That is one of the ways He manifests himself to Humans, and even the Angels. Remember that humans were created to be in constant communication with him. Even a place in heaven for humans was not "fashioned" until after the Cross. Humans were put here on this earth as God's image. We were actual embodiments of God in the physical realm. Even after the fall we did not need an image of God, we were the image of God already. In our fallen state, we lost (in our minds) the ability to see that image. Even the law could not force us to manifest that image. The only way we can be God's image is through the grace that God provided when the Law was fulfilled and finished on the cross. The thinking that only heaven is the place for that image, only frustrates the ability for God to actually provide an image of himself here on earth. That being the only reason God placed Humans on the earth to begin with.

God and creation are not separate. They are one and the same. God does not have a body, but everything that exist in the universe only exist as part of God. Creation is the physical manifestation of God. Humans are the image of God's physical presence on earth. That is not an Unitarian view either. Denying that Jesus is God is the same thing as saying there is no God. An image is not the same thing as the being that it represents, and we are not perfect, which indicates we were at one point. It is not pantheism, because manifestations are not the same as the being manifested, neither would everything physical be considered persons, although humans seem dead set on changing that. BTW, Biology exist, because we are biological beings that need biology to exist. It is not the origin of existence, but the means.

 

[Agent327]

Firstly I suggest you read what I said. I said "before God and outside of creation there is nothing". I wasn't suggesting God is somehow creation or creation is part of God, they are quite clearly separate things (despite Gods omnipresence).

Ergo, there is plenty outside God. (I am aware I took that part out of context: this was done deliberately to show that that part of the sentence does not fit. That is not a matter of not reading well, it is a matter of not writing well.)

Secondly your position that there is such a thing as "irrationality" or "illogicality" reeks of a Manichaean dualism. Really what is irrationality and illogicality other than an absence of logic and reason? They aren't "things" they are absences, and indeed the absence of reason and logic on the part of human beings is quite consistent with their fallen nature, separated as it is from the divine origin of their being (which is restored in Christ as mediator between men and God). Likewise my point in referring to the Logos is that this essential aspect of the divine I think precludes chaos in the absolute sense.

It is not my position that there is such a thing as irrationality. Irrationality exists. Defining it as 'lack of ratio' does not change that in the least. There are are plenty of examples of God acting irrational, i.e. emotional, in the OT. Your definition that everything proceeds from God must necessarily also include any phenomena that are negative by nature or perception. Trying to argue these away by insisting that they are non-phenomena (which seems to be what you are arguing) does not solve the paradox - for a paradox it is. I merely pointed out that if everything proceeds from God, this includes both phenomena defined as positive, as well as those defined as negative. Simply declaring such phenomena non-phenomena does not solve this dilemma.

It is an absurd proposition to say that because creation is extrinsic to God (in the sense he created it, and the universe is not God) therefore morality must also be outside of God and cannot be objective. I say this is absurd since although objective things exist outside of God (the universe for one) this does not make them independent of Him (since God created the universe, and the universe could not otherwise exist without Him) precisely because God is the creator and created things are products of the divine will.

It is not an absurd position simply because it is not your position. It is a valid position until you can argue convincingly that it is not. You are concluding not what I said, which is that it not necessarily follows. According to your line of reasoning it should - but it doesn't. That apart, see my argument above, as it applies similarly here.

Thus when I say morality (in the objective sense) proceeds from God as a requirement of his essential being, and that this objective morality is objective both in this sense and in the sense that God commands it of men (ergo it is not macro-relative in the sense that God cannot create some other universe with a totally inverse morality due to his own nature, and in the sense that it is universally compelled of all by divine decree in the universe) I am saying that God has instituted this divine moral order into the creation he has made because he could not do otherwise.

There is a clear paradox (or possible contradiction) between the attributes of God being perfectly good and God being omnipotent. A paradox only resolved by attributing primacy to the first. However, that would imply that anything created by God is implicitly good - a position not generally attested by theologian and layman alike. So, the paradox remains.

Secondly, claiming there is such a thing as 'absolute morality' is absurd. Morality applies to practicality: it applies to things real, otherwise it is nothing but abstraction, having no relation whatsoever to reality. In short, if there were no reality (or creation) there would be no need for morality either, as there is nothing to apply it to. In extremis: if nothing but God existed, it would be immaterial whether God is perfectly good. Morality without any other being to apply it to is meaningless. Similarly, objective morality has no meaning: morality is always relative to a subject. (Again, if the only subject in existence were God, it would be irrelevant to call this God 'good' or 'bad'. Those two categories always apply to a subject outside oneself. It is like saying: There is absolute Light. There isn't. Light does not exist without darkness, and vice versa. And again, one might point out: Yes, but there is darkness, because there is no light. Well, if there was nothing but light there would be no darkness either. Attributing an absoluteness to either does not change this.)

 

[Kyriakos]

^I tend to agree with most of the above, but not in regards to it being immaterial what morality one has if they are isolated from everything else (or nothing else exists/ which is another matter).

Even an isolated human in some desert can still have one object to be moral or not to. His own self. In a way it is a pleonasm, but morality can also be seen as something to one's own self in some circumstances, and thus be tied to the instinct of self-preservation. Some people do become prone to hate their own selves, or worse.

In regards to morality being "relative" to an outcome/situation/group etc:

Yes, it is obviously relative. On the other hand due to the constraints of the "natural" state of those groups it is relative to, it is rendered relative only to a degree, and not entirely able to assume any identity while still being a morality. Ie it is easy to note that some people can be violent, and still claim that they are moral. It is not as easy to note that some may cut your hand off and eat it along with the food they bought from the supermarket, and then still claim they are moral.

 

[El_Machinae]

I of course do not think that morality is an illusion (that is to say I think there is an objective moral order), the point being that for an atheist to say that can only be an unprincipled exception with regards to the consequences of his atheist doctrine. The objective definition for a chair (or a seat) is a location where one finds it expedient to rest ones posterior incidentally . if I pointed to a bonfire no one would call that a potential chair.

No they wouldn't, but the concept of the 'perfect' chair is nearly nonsensical as well. At the very best, 'perfect chairness' is subjective, but no one doubts that chair objectively exist as a concept. And you're wrong about atheism and morality. There is objective morality, but it definitely requires humans (or sapients) to exist, in a way that 'chairness' depends upon human characteristics as well. An octupus chair is not a human chair.

 

[Cheetah]

I have recently come across the BBC series Bible's Buried Secretes, which I understand has an earlier namesake in the PBS Nova series The Bible's Buried Secrets. The Wikipedia article seem to only talk about the Nova series, but both series seem to have the same focus, and the article gives a summary of the contents. I've only watched the BBC series, but I wanted to mention the Nova series to avoid any unnecessary confusion.

In the BBC series, Francesca Stavrakopoulou presents three episodes in which she argues that:

1. While the House of David must have been a relatively important dynasty, the legendary King David did not exist, and there was never such a thing as a united Israeli kingdom. In fact, the history of the kingdom of Israel and its king Omri was edited to be of less importance in the Bible, and the importance of the kingdom of Judah was likewise exaggerated to the extent that David, Salomon and even a united Israeli kingdom was invented!

2. The ancient Jews did not invade Canaan, they were in fact native Canaanites who, while being polytheistic, mainly worshiped the chief god El, which they also called Yahweh. Furthermore, El/Yahweh's divine wife, Asherah was also worshiped. The monotheistic faith did not develop until the Exile, and at that time the Jewish Bible was written down and edited to remove as many references to polytheism as possible.

3. The Garden of Eden is a figuratively story that tries to justify why the kingdom of Judah lost to the Babylonians and the Exile began. The Garden of Eden is in fact the Temple in Jerusalem: A Mesopotamian garden was a place for the gods, the kings were the stewards of the garden (Adam is symbolising the king of Jerusalem), cherubs are Mesopotamian guardians which was heavily used in Babylonian and Assyrian architecture, etc. There is also another place in the Bible were the king of Tyre is threatened to be "thrown out of Eden", which seem to corroborate this interpretation of the Eden-story.

Now, Stavrakopoulou is a bit annoying at times, and she lets her personal atheistic and feministic viewpoints shine through a bit too much from time to time, but otherwise she does seem to make some very good points. Some more decent critisism can be found here for those who's interested, but haven't seen the show.

However, some of these arguments are a bit new to me, and I've been trying to research a bit more about them. I've previously been of the belief that a united kingdom of Israel under king David was a historical truth, though likely somewhat exaggerated. But from what I've been able to find, it seems very unlikely that any kingdom of David ever existed.

I'm also very willing to buy the story of the polytheistic Canaanites who became the Jews - it's more or less what was already my understanding. Egypt had a major influence on the area at the time the Jewish identity was formed, and it is likely that they got quite a lot of their mythology, as well as the practice of circumcision, from there. And as the Jewish Bible was not written down until the Exile or even centuries later, there is no reason to assume that the texts were not heavily edited to fit the beliefs of the day.

I have a bit more trouble in accepting the interpretation of the Eden story. True, it, as most things in the Jewish Bible, is heavily influenced by Egyptian, Mesopotamian and Persian beliefs and mythologies, but it seems a bit weird to argue that a stone temple could be described as a garden. Then again, the king of Tyre risks being thrown out of Eden as well, so I suppose there might be something in it...

Has anyone else seen this series, and/or can anyone add some comments or critisism to the information from there?

 

[Mouthwash]

I have recently come across the BBC series Bible's Buried Secretes, which I understand has an earlier namesake in the PBS Nova series The Bible's Buried Secrets. The Wikipedia article seem to only talk about the Nova series, but both series seem to have the same focus, and the article gives a summary of the contents. I've only watched the BBC series, but I wanted to mention the Nova series to avoid any unnecessary confusion.

This isn't particularly relevant to the thread. Plotinus isn't knowledgeable on ancient Jewish history, and it seems like you just want to discuss these theories. So why not make your own thread in WH?

 

[Kyriakos]

^This was on the old testament timeline, and moreso in Judea. It is not history

 

[El_Machinae]

I have recently come across the BBC series Bible's Buried Secretes, which I understand has an earlier namesake in the PBS Nova series The Bible's Buried Secrets. The Wikipedia article seem to only talk about the Nova series, but both series seem to have the same focus, and the article gives a summary of the contents. I've only watched the BBC series, but I wanted to mention the Nova series to avoid any unnecessary confusion.

I'd asked about the PBS series here!
http://forums.civfanatics.com/showpost.php?p=8731774&postcount=130

 

[timtofly]

And Plotinus' answer was in the thread Ask A Theologian III #132

I hadn't heard of this, but from what I can tell after looking at some stuff about it online, it seems pretty decent. It seems to deal honestly with the various issues in modern biblical archaeology and to explain to viewers how much or how little is known about them, and why, and that's got to be good.

 

[Plotinus]

Francesca's my boss, so I'd better not comment too directly on it! As far as I know these aren't especially radical views - they seem reasonable to me - but I really have no expertise in this area at all.

I'll get to the other things in the previous posts too, but I'm very snowed under at the moment, so please bear with me.

 

[Kyriakos]

+1

 

[Arakhor]

Francesca's my boss...

Oooh! Does this mean that we can now start stalking you?

 

[Cheetah]

Francesca's my boss, so I'd better not comment too directly on it! As far as I know these aren't especially radical views - they seem reasonable to me - but I really have no expertise in this area at all.

I'll get to the other things in the previous posts too, but I'm very snowed under at the moment, so please bear with me.

Ooooh!

Is there any chance that you might try to invite her to join us here??

I'd love to ask her more questions about this, and having an extra theologian around could always be useful.

 

[BenitoChavez]

What's the difference between a cult and a religion? And do you consider Scientology a cult, religion, or something else?

 

[Thedrin]

What is biblical/theological justification for belief in the rapture?

 

[Kyriakos]

Ooooh!

Is there any chance that you might try to invite her to join us here??

I'd love to ask her more questions about this, and having an extra theologian around could always be useful.

I think that Plotinus would be more likely to hide CFC from those people

 

[_random_]

My religious studies professor refers to Arius as a Gnostic thinker, citing his notion of Jesus as a lesser god and his devaluation of history. I'd never heard Arius categorized as such before, but I'm also not an academic. But then again, the academic I heard it from focuses on African-American religion, and just teaches a general history of Christian thought class, so it's possible he's misinformed about the fourth century. Since you're more of a Patristics guy, I was wondering if you could weigh in some on the notion that Arius was a Gnostic thinker.