Subject:
|
Re: The Brick Testament: A Family Stoned and a City Massacred
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Fri, 8 Oct 2004 19:37:41 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
2456 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Anthony Sava wrote:
| |
Now I’m not trying to convert anyone, but for some strange reason I feel
compelled to defend my faith publically. I just feel the need to write it
down. Feel free to criticise me but I’m probably not going to continue with
this defense beyond what I write in this post.
|
Hi Anthony:
Thanks for taking the time to reply. Even if you choose not to respond after
this post, I hope you’ll read my response, if only to get a sense of where I’m
coming from.
| |
First, for the sake of argument, let us assume certain doctrines of the
Catholic (Christian) faith are true:
God created Man in his own image and gave him free will.
God is without sin, whereas Man has sin.
Sins are evil and vice versa.
|
I must confess that I’m not comfortable with at least two of these assumptions,
and I don’t actually subscribe to them, but for the sake of the argument I’m
happy to take them as given.
***snip***
| |
So if parental love is good, and mankind displays parental love, and if
mankind shares all things good with God, then God should then display
parental love as well.
God created us, has tried to steer us in the right direction, but has never
controled us (that free will he gave us). He doesn’t need us, without us He
is still God.
God does not require anything from us, either. To require something from us,
to force us to do something, is to interfere with free will.
|
Free will, to me, requires that the individual be able to choose between at
least two equivalent options, both (or some) of which are equally
attractive/beneficial/desirable to the individual. Assuming that one has access
to sufficient information, then if one is faced with an overwhelmingly favorable
option and an overwhelmingly detrimental option, then it’s hardly a matter of
choice, is it? Any informed, rational being would choose the beneficial option,
so free will doesn’t enter into it.
Additionally, the doctrine of Original Sin muddies the waters further. Why
would a loving parent allow one child to bear the guilt of another? Should I
punish my son because my daughter has erred? How is this the action of a just
God?
| |
But if God has a parental love for Mankind, then the reason God needs our
love and recognition is simply because of this parental love. God is our
parent (father IMO), and He loves us regardless of what we do. He will
always love us and does not demand from us anything.
|
I have misgivings about the nature of an infinite being who needs or
wants anything, even something as benign as love. To need or want something
implies a lack of that thing, and to lack a thing is to be finite.
| |
God doesn’t require our worship, but He asks us to love him (and each other),
just as any parent would ask of its’ children.
|
Additionally, I find that analogies between finite, sinful beings and infinite,
sinless beings are inherently flawed. God is, presumably, unique, whereas any
meaningfully descriptive analogy about him would require the existence of a
second infinite, omnipotent, and omnibenevolent entity.
But even if we accept the analogy, there are still some problems to overcome.
For example, what kind of loving parent would provide only vague, indirect, and
contradictory instructions to his children, especially if those instructions are
transmitted not from parent to child but from parent to intermediary to
translator to intermediary to child? Any loving parent, in my view, would make
sure that the child had access to complete, clear, and accurate information
before requiring that child to make any kind of choice about that information.
Thanks again for your input.
Dave!
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
Message is in Reply To:
62 Messages in This Thread:
  
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
This Message and its Replies on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
