IS and OUGHT

[Immanuel Can]

The Supreme Being "admit" shortcomings he can't, by definition, possibly have?

But this is my point. How could anyone be sure that the definition is accurate?

"Supreme" is a pretty basic definition. It just means "the top" or "the ultimate" of something, (the "something" being yet left to be specified, of course.)

In the present case, it just means the First Cause of what exists, and hence the origin of morality. That's not a particularly difficult definition to justify, because neither First Cause nor Supreme Being ask for much very specific.

Whatever is the highest being in the universe is "supreme." Whatever is the original cause of things is "first." And we know by straightfoward logic there must be something that is each of these things. Something must have been "first," and something must be "bigger" or "better" than all the other things, and hence "supreme."

I can understand how someone could look at the world and conclude that it could not have possibly come about other than by intelligent design, and then go on to further conclude that it must be the work of God. An argument could be made for that.

That's exactly what Romans chapter 1 says is the case. It claims that there is enough evidence in the universe itself, observable to every ordinary person, that belief in God and some sense of His nature is not only possible to everybody but really should be expected of anybody.

But the Bible, or any other religious text, is just something that was produced by men.

That's presuppositional. The Bible itself, and Jesus Christ Himself, made quite different claims for it. One has to decide whether or not those claims are warranted.

There is absolutely nothing by which to judge how seriously to take it.

Oh, I would say there is. The whole field of apologetics is devoted to that very thing.

There is nothing intrinsic in the concept of a god that insists on his being all pwerful and all knowing.

In the concept of "a god," no, you're right: there isn't. Zeus, Poseidon, Baal, Thor, Ahura Mazda, the Demiurge...all these "gods" are neither all powerful nor all knowing...in fact, many of them are not even said to be eternal and uncreated.

But the concept "God" is quite different. It's comprehensive. It refers to the Supreme Being and First Cause, of which there can be but one. Both "supreme" and "first" exclude the idea of coequal "gods."

[Harbal]

"Supreme" is a pretty basic definition. It just means "the top" or "the ultimate" of something, (the "something" being yet left to be specified, of course.)

In the present case, it just means the First Cause of what exists, and hence the origin of morality. That's not a particularly difficult definition to justify, because neither First Cause nor Supreme Being ask for much very specific.

Why do you specifically say "hence the origin of morality"? You might just as well say the origin of the propensity in people to be interested in stamp collecting. Besides what if "first cause" is something else? God's boss.

Whatever is the highest being in the universe is "supreme." Whatever is the original cause of things is "first." And we know by straightfoward logic there must be something that is each of these things. Something must have been "first," and something must be "bigger" or "better" than all the other things, and hence "supreme."

But you can't know for sure that the God of which you speak is the highest being in the universe. You are just taking somebody's word for it.

Oh, I would say there is. The whole field of apologetics is devoted to that very thing.

You can't discover the circumstances under which some bloke in the desert wrote something down thousands of years ago by constructing a clever argument.

[Immanuel Can]

"Supreme" is a pretty basic definition. It just means "the top" or "the ultimate" of something, (the "something" being yet left to be specified, of course.)

In the present case, it just means the First Cause of what exists, and hence the origin of morality. That's not a particularly difficult definition to justify, because neither First Cause nor Supreme Being ask for much very specific.

Why do you specifically say "hence the origin of morality"?

For various reasons, but most simply, because everything, including morality, must come from thence. That's definitional, in "First Cause."

But you can't know for sure that the God of which you speak is the highest being in the universe.

If He's not, then by definition, He's not "God." Whatever gives Him his origin is then "God."

Oh, I would say there is. The whole field of apologetics is devoted to that very thing.

You can't discover the circumstances under which some bloke in the desert wrote something down thousands of years ago by constructing a clever argument.

Well, that sort of historical approach is only one sub-department in a very big field.

There are apologetics arguments that depend exclusively on mathematics or logic, and arguments that depend on empirical observation, and arguments the appeal to common sense, or the uses of language, or archaeology, or science, or ethics, or textual criticism, or prophetic fulfillment...it's a very broad and various field. The best arguments are confirmable by multiple means.

There isn't just one kind of evidence for God. I think people are often misled about that, because of the delight some take in hasty dismissal of the entire idea of apologetics. They find one narrow area, such as, say, the Anselmian approach, and then say "Well, that's the whole shootin' match," and dismiss the rest with a wave of the hand...but that's just not realistic.

[Harbal]

Well, that sort of historical approach is only one sub-department in a very big field.

There are apologetics arguments that depend exclusively on mathematics or logic, and arguments that depend on empirical observation, and arguments the appeal to common sense, or the uses of language, or archaeology, or science, or ethics, or textual criticism, or prophetic fulfillment...it's a very broad and various field. The best arguments are confirmable by multiple means.

There isn't just one kind of evidence for God. I think people are often misled about that, because of the delight some take in hasty dismissal of the entire idea of apologetics. They find one narrow area, such as, say, the Anselmian approach, and then say "Well, that's the whole shootin' match," and dismiss the rest with a wave of the hand...but that's just not realistic.

A proper historical approach is the only sort that would have any validity. Anything that even sounds like an argument is based on false premise. There is a very good reason that the church puts so much emphasis on faith, because when it comes down to it, that's all you've really got.

[Immanuel Can]

Well, that sort of historical approach is only one sub-department in a very big field.

There are apologetics arguments that depend exclusively on mathematics or logic, and arguments that depend on empirical observation, and arguments the appeal to common sense, or the uses of language, or archaeology, or science, or ethics, or textual criticism, or prophetic fulfillment...it's a very broad and various field. The best arguments are confirmable by multiple means.

There isn't just one kind of evidence for God. I think people are often misled about that, because of the delight some take in hasty dismissal of the entire idea of apologetics. They find one narrow area, such as, say, the Anselmian approach, and then say "Well, that's the whole shootin' match," and dismiss the rest with a wave of the hand...but that's just not realistic.

A proper historical approach is the only sort that would have any validity.

Oh, I don't think so. It would certainly be one important approach, but it's far from the only one. There are many ways at getting at this kind of question.

For example, there are arguments that require nothing more than a basic knowledge of mathematics, or a basic grasp of empirical facts, and don't depend on historiography at all. Like I said, the field is very big.

[Harbal]

Oh, I don't think so. It would certainly be one important approach, but it's far from the only one. There are many ways at getting at this kind of question.

For example, there are arguments that require nothing more than a basic knowledge of mathematics, or a basic grasp of empirical facts, and don't depend on historiography at all. Like I said, the field is very big.

None of it is provable, IC, not by argument, and certainly not by demonstration. All you have is words in a book.

[Immanuel Can]

None of it is provable, IC, not by argument, and certainly not by demonstration. All you have is words in a book.

Actually, some of it is very provable. But you'd need a couple of things to know whether or not my saying so is true.

First, you'd need an idea of what the field of apologetics actually contains, and then you'd need to examine the relevant arguments to see if they meet whatever standard of "proof" you've decided to set.

But it's certainly not the case that all one has is a sort of gratuitious leap of belief.

But pick your angle, I guess...what do you think needs proof, and what standard would you accept for proof of that?

[Harbal]

Actually, some of it is very provable. But you'd need a couple of things to know whether or not my saying so is true.

First, you'd need an idea of what the field of apologetics actually contains,

Well I have no idea whatsoever, so we can safely dispense with that.

But pick your angle, I guess...what do you think needs proof, and what standard would you accept for proof of that?

A bit of video footage of Adam and Eve chatting to God in the Garden of Eden would do quite nicely, if you have it.

[Immanuel Can]

Actually, some of it is very provable. But you'd need a couple of things to know whether or not my saying so is true.

First, you'd need an idea of what the field of apologetics actually contains,

Well I have no idea whatsoever, so we can safely dispense with that.

Well, that kind of makes it hard to know what's available, then, doesn't it?

But pick your angle, I guess...what do you think needs proof, and what standard would you accept for proof of that?

A bit of video footage of Adam and Eve chatting to God in the Garden of Eden would do quite nicely, if you have it.

Yes, that seems reasonable to expect. I'll check my old blu-rays.

[promethean75]

You laugh, yes, but every time somebody says they saw a UFO or a Sasquatch, you aks them for video.

[Immanuel Can]

you aks them for video.

I ain't aks anybody fer anything.

[Belinda]

However as to whether or not God is a person ,according to The Bible or Trinitarian doctrine, I take issue.

Well, who would one think invented "personhood"?

If "personhood" itself is a gift of God, one would hardly expect the Supreme Being to lack that feature.

"The Lord your God is a jealous God"

"Jealousy" is contextual, of course. There are things about which one should have no zeal at all (an alternate translation of "jealousy"), and situations about which one always ought to have the strongest sort of reaction. The rightness of such zeal, or "jealousy" depends on the circumstances.

If somebody tries to steal your spouse, and you are not at all jealous about that, I would suspect that maybe you didn't have the love for your spouse that you say you do.

Likewise, as God is the ultimate good of all human existence, one would think something was quite wrong with Him if He had no strong opinion about which "god" you ended up with. It would imply that it really didn't matter, and God really didn't care what you did, or where you ended up.

"The first person of the Trinity". As soon as you see God in His aspect of three persons you cease to see Him as the unique and self -existant impersonal force.

Actually, that's only half right.

One ceases to see Him as "impersonal," it's true. But one has to realize that Trinitarianism is actually the only way He actually can be "self-existent" or "loving." And, of course, the Supreme Being is always, by definition, "unique."

"God so loved the world He gave His only begotten son."

Yep.

This would indeed be an enormous sacrifice if God had feelings like a person has feelings.

Yes. And it would be a cosmic-scale proof of sincere good intentions toward humankind.

No wonder, then that the angels at the annunciation are reported to have declared, "Peace on Earth, goodwill toward men." It would be the ultimate evidence of His goodwill, to send His son to deal with our sin and make our "peace" with God. No one, after that, could possibly declare God indifferent to our sufferings and struggles, or unwilling to grapple with our situation.

It would mean that God Himself was taking hold of the human dilemma.

I understand and accept your explanation of God as "jealous". 'Zeal' is indeed a good paraphrase, however 'concerned' would be even better. The topic deserves to be discussed more than this.

You don't make it clear why " Trinitarianism is actually the only way He actually can be "self-existent" or "loving." " I can only guess. The way I'd say what I guess you mean is that incarnation of God i.e. God as omnipresent, is implied by God's being absolute.

The entire Christmas myth still affects me. It's a super story and is so multi-faceted, even encompassing pagan midwinter feasting. No wonder incarnation myths are to be found in many cultures

As it happens I don't like pagan regeneration myths that are expressed by human sacrifice. The Atonement is part and parcel of the incarnation and Birth. You can see this symbolised in Renaissance paintings , where sad faced Virgins accept the role of handmaiden of God, and the holy baby seems able to foretell the Cross. God should never have permitted evil to become so terrible His son was crucified . A much smaller amount of evil would have sufficed.

On the other hand, to meet God in His incarnation as a helpless baby shows us we can help the Holy Family in particular His mother to protect and nurture Him. I wonder if Xianity is possible without the doctrine of the Atonement.

[Immanuel Can]

However as to whether or not God is a person ,according to The Bible or Trinitarian doctrine, I take issue.

Well, who would one think invented "personhood"?

If "personhood" itself is a gift of God, one would hardly expect the Supreme Being to lack that feature.

"The Lord your God is a jealous God"

"Jealousy" is contextual, of course. There are things about which one should have no zeal at all (an alternate translation of "jealousy"), and situations about which one always ought to have the strongest sort of reaction. The rightness of such zeal, or "jealousy" depends on the circumstances.

If somebody tries to steal your spouse, and you are not at all jealous about that, I would suspect that maybe you didn't have the love for your spouse that you say you do.

Likewise, as God is the ultimate good of all human existence, one would think something was quite wrong with Him if He had no strong opinion about which "god" you ended up with. It would imply that it really didn't matter, and God really didn't care what you did, or where you ended up.

"The first person of the Trinity". As soon as you see God in His aspect of three persons you cease to see Him as the unique and self -existant impersonal force.

Actually, that's only half right.

One ceases to see Him as "impersonal," it's true. But one has to realize that Trinitarianism is actually the only way He actually can be "self-existent" or "loving." And, of course, the Supreme Being is always, by definition, "unique."

"God so loved the world He gave His only begotten son."

Yep.

This would indeed be an enormous sacrifice if God had feelings like a person has feelings.

Yes. And it would be a cosmic-scale proof of sincere good intentions toward humankind.

No wonder, then that the angels at the annunciation are reported to have declared, "Peace on Earth, goodwill toward men." It would be the ultimate evidence of His goodwill, to send His son to deal with our sin and make our "peace" with God. No one, after that, could possibly declare God indifferent to our sufferings and struggles, or unwilling to grapple with our situation.

It would mean that God Himself was taking hold of the human dilemma.

I understand and accept your explanation of God as "jealous". 'Zeal' is indeed a good paraphrase, however 'concerned' would be even better. The topic deserves to be discussed more than this.

Yes, it does. If you wish to discuss it, let me know.

You don't make it clear why " Trinitarianism is actually the only way He actually can be "self-existent" or "loving." " I can only guess. The way I'd say what I guess you mean is that incarnation of God i.e. God as omnipresent, is implied by God's being absolute.

I wondered if you'd be curious.

I'll try to make it brief and simple. That being said, it's an explanation best approached through a problem in Hinduism, one that is not easy to grasp at first. The problem is this: that a unitary "god," a conception of a supreme being as "all one thing" is not self-existent. And why isn't it, you may ask. It's not self-existent because in order to "exist," by definition, it needs an "other" to which it can be contrasted; if everything is simply "one," then nothing can be said to "exist" at all, and "exist" is not even a possible predication.

Try to imagine that the whole world would be made of...say, water. Not just the oceans, but the land, and the creatures, and even the membranes and other lines between things, and the air itself, and the globe, and the stars and space...if that happened, then in what sense could you say anything "exists"? All would be made up of water, nothing would exist that was not water, all would flow into each other ontologically, and there would be no entity at all distinct from anything else. What we would have is an infinite amount of water; but even "water" wouldn't be discernable, since every single thing in the universe would be describable as "water," so nothing at all exists that is distinct from anything.

So the Hindus worry that if that were the situation, "the god" would not exist. To solve this problem, the posit the eternal existence of two things: the "god" and also the physical world. The physical world exists because it is projected out as the "other" of "the god," making possible the existence and self-contemplation of "the god." The "god' exists as distinct from this physical world. And because they need each other in order for existence to happen at all, both "god" and the physical world MUST be eternally in tension with each other, eternally existing together.

So a unitary "supreme being" would need an eternal "universe" to exist as his counterpart and to make its existence possible. In that sense, "the god" would not be self-existent, but dependent on the existence of the physical universe.

Here's where Trinitarian solves a problem unitarianism cannot. In Trinitarianism, God Himself is in relationship intrinsically. There is the Father, the Son, and the Spirit, which is also constitutive of their communion. Were there not physical universe, God would still exist, because He has within Himself both the integrity of the unity of the Trinity, but also the "otherness" inherent in the Father-Son dynamic. God does not "need" the physical universe to exist; He pre-exists it, and can create it as a free action, since He does not "need" it to exist in order to exist Himself. And the universe can be contingent and perishable, even, since God Himself will continue to exist if the universe should disappear.

The entire Christmas myth still affects me.

Myth? Well, if that's what it is to you, maybe it still doesn't affect you quite enough.

For it has a message; and that message is that God sent His Son into this created world to rescue His creatures who had fallen far from Him. The message is that God is not some impersonal, distant "unity" suspending us in a permanent "vale of suffering" (samsara) called "Earth," but rather an involved and caring Father who wants His children to return to Him, and is willing to do all that it takes to make that possible.

To see the Christmas lights but to hear none of the meaning of the "myth" is really a pretty sad way to celebrate, I have to say. What the world most needs is to know that God cares for us. To miss that message would be tragic.

God should never have permitted evil to become so terrible His son was crucified . A much smaller amount of evil would have sufficed.

Apparently not. Apparently God knows and understands just how terrible evil actually is. It's mankind that misses that point, that excuses its own guilt and rationalizes its wickedness, as if it's all just "not so bad." But in the crucifixion, God declares just how awful it is to break fellowship with the God of all goodness, light, health, happiness, life and hope, and to plunge oneself into the rebellious darkness of alienation from Him. It took the death of God's son to undo show us the measure of evil, and to bring us back to the light.

So how serious is God about your salvation? How much is He willing to love you, that He would send His son to that place and that death so that you could come to HIm? And when you see it that way, you have to realize that the cross is more than terrible; it is a magnificent declaration of God's total intention of good toward you. "Peace on earth; goodwill toward men."

I wonder if Xianity is possible without the doctrine of the Atonement.

One can call oneself a "Christian" of course, and believe anything. But without the atonement, Christianity has no message, no meaning, and no hope in it. Can that be "Christianity" at all?

I would say not.

[Belinda]

Well, who would one think invented "personhood"?

If "personhood" itself is a gift of God, one would hardly expect the Supreme Being to lack that feature.


"Jealousy" is contextual, of course. There are things about which one should have no zeal at all (an alternate translation of "jealousy"), and situations about which one always ought to have the strongest sort of reaction. The rightness of such zeal, or "jealousy" depends on the circumstances.

If somebody tries to steal your spouse, and you are not at all jealous about that, I would suspect that maybe you didn't have the love for your spouse that you say you do.

Likewise, as God is the ultimate good of all human existence, one would think something was quite wrong with Him if He had no strong opinion about which "god" you ended up with. It would imply that it really didn't matter, and God really didn't care what you did, or where you ended up.


Actually, that's only half right.

One ceases to see Him as "impersonal," it's true. But one has to realize that Trinitarianism is actually the only way He actually can be "self-existent" or "loving." And, of course, the Supreme Being is always, by definition, "unique."


Yep.


Yes. And it would be a cosmic-scale proof of sincere good intentions toward humankind.

No wonder, then that the angels at the annunciation are reported to have declared, "Peace on Earth, goodwill toward men." It would be the ultimate evidence of His goodwill, to send His son to deal with our sin and make our "peace" with God. No one, after that, could possibly declare God indifferent to our sufferings and struggles, or unwilling to grapple with our situation.

It would mean that God Himself was taking hold of the human dilemma.

I understand and accept your explanation of God as "jealous". 'Zeal' is indeed a good paraphrase, however 'concerned' would be even better. The topic deserves to be discussed more than this.

Yes, it does. If you wish to discuss it, let me know.

You don't make it clear why " Trinitarianism is actually the only way He actually can be "self-existent" or "loving." " I can only guess. The way I'd say what I guess you mean is that incarnation of God i.e. God as omnipresent, is implied by God's being absolute.

I wondered if you'd be curious.

I'll try to make it brief and simple. That being said, it's an explanation best approached through a problem in Hinduism, one that is not easy to grasp at first. The problem is this: that a unitary "god," a conception of a supreme being as "all one thing" is not self-existent. And why isn't it, you may ask. It's not self-existent because in order to "exist," by definition, it needs an "other" to which it can be contrasted; if everything is simply "one," then nothing can be said to "exist" at all, and "exist" is not even a possible predication.

Try to imagine that the whole world would be made of...say, water. Not just the oceans, but the land, and the creatures, and even the membranes and other lines between things, and the air itself, and the globe, and the stars and space...if that happened, then in what sense could you say anything "exists"? All would be made up of water, nothing would exist that was not water, all would flow into each other ontologically, and there would be no entity at all distinct from anything else. What we would have is an infinite amount of water; but even "water" wouldn't be discernable, since every single thing in the universe would be describable as "water," so nothing at all exists that is distinct from anything.

So the Hindus worry that if that were the situation, "the god" would not exist. To solve this problem, the posit the eternal existence of two things: the "god" and also the physical world. The physical world exists because it is projected out as the "other" of "the god," making possible the existence and self-contemplation of "the god." The "god' exists as distinct from this physical world. And because they need each other in order for existence to happen at all, both "god" and the physical world MUST be eternally in tension with each other, eternally existing together.

So a unitary "supreme being" would need an eternal "universe" to exist as his counterpart and to make its existence possible. In that sense, "the god" would not be self-existent, but dependent on the existence of the physical universe.

Here's where Trinitarian solves a problem unitarianism cannot. In Trinitarianism, God Himself is in relationship intrinsically. There is the Father, the Son, and the Spirit, which is also constitutive of their communion. Were there not physical universe, God would still exist, because He has within Himself both the integrity of the unity of the Trinity, but also the "otherness" inherent in the Father-Son dynamic. God does not "need" the physical universe to exist; He pre-exists it, and can create it as a free action, since He does not "need" it to exist in order to exist Himself. And the universe can be contingent and perishable, even, since God Himself will continue to exist if the universe should disappear.

The entire Christmas myth still affects me.

Myth? Well, if that's what it is to you, maybe it still doesn't affect you quite enough.

For it has a message; and that message is that God sent His Son into this created world to rescue His creatures who had fallen far from Him. The message is that God is not some impersonal, distant "unity" suspending us in a permanent "vale of suffering" (samsara) called "Earth," but rather an involved and caring Father who wants His children to return to Him, and is willing to do all that it takes to make that possible.

To see the Christmas lights but to hear none of the meaning of the "myth" is really a pretty sad way to celebrate, I have to say. What the world most needs is to know that God cares for us. To miss that message would be tragic.

God should never have permitted evil to become so terrible His son was crucified . A much smaller amount of evil would have sufficed.

Apparently not. Apparently God knows and understands just how terrible evil actually is. It's mankind that misses that point, that excuses its own guilt and rationalizes its wickedness, as if it's all just "not so bad." But in the crucifixion, God declares just how awful it is to break fellowship with the God of all goodness, light, health, happiness, life and hope, and to plunge oneself into the rebellious darkness of alienation from Him. It took the death of God's son to undo show us the measure of evil, and to bring us back to the light.

So how serious is God about your salvation? How much is He willing to love you, that He would send His son to that place and that death so that you could come to HIm? And when you see it that way, you have to realize that the cross is more than terrible; it is a magnificent declaration of God's total intention of good toward you. "Peace on earth; goodwill toward men."

I wonder if Xianity is possible without the doctrine of the Atonement.

One can call oneself a "Christian" of course, and believe anything. But without the atonement, Christianity has no message, no meaning, and no hope in it. Can that be "Christianity" at all?

I would say not.

I understand and accept your explanation of why Trinitarianism is right and necessary for a proper theology. (Let's leave the Holy Ghost for another occasion!) I appreciate your explanation from Hinduism.

I wish you understood the much more interesting meaning of 'myth' as a narrative that people regard as important in their lives. A myth is a narrative that is a paradigm case of how to live, a moral principle, or a metaphysical idea. You misrepresent me at this point.

Your discussion of Christmas is not enough. Incarnation is easy to understand. But you don't even mention natural evil. As for Atonement, it's unacceptable that a unique event, the torture and death one man however good that man be, is enough to wipe out all natural and moral evil. You refer to God as Father. What a misnomer! No good father would permit his son to be tortured and killed if it were possible to stretch out a hand to save him. The 'Father' personification of transcendent Good confuses thoughtful people and stops some from discovering a reasonable faith.

[FlashDangerpants]

Shouldn't you guys take this to the religion sub? It's got fuck all to do with anything else now.