God can write straight with crooked lines.

[Limnor]

Marcus Im just approaching discussion here as just that—discussion. I don’t want to excuse anything or lessen impact. What I’m exploring is: if God meant it, what does that say about obedience, conscience, and how God Himself works?

The truth is I don’t know how to resolve this, and I’m not sure a clean resolution exists. I’m not saying the command was good or understandable—only that the text portrays it as real, horrifying, and intentional, and I wouldn’t feel honest trying to smooth that away.

And I'm just saying another way to resolve it is to conclude that it didn't come from a god, but that humans invented the story.

That’s a fair conclusion.

[MG 2.0]

It's important to remember that belief in God is an individual thing. What one person might consider to be evidence for God another person might ignore. Also, there are a lot of folks that are a LOT smarter than me that believe it is quite reasonable to believe in God, and not only God, but Christianity.

So, it's not a closed door by any means.

But to each his or her own, right?

In this thread I think that there has been a lot said in response to the original OP as to whether or not God can write straight with crooked lines. Personally I've become even more convinced that He does/can.

It pretty much falls in place with the world that we actually see and experience.

Regards,
MG

[Limnor]

It's important to remember that belief in God is an individual thing. What one person might consider to be evidence for God another person might ignore. Also, there are a lot of folks that are a LOT smarter than me that believe it is quite reasonable to believe in God, and not only God, but Christianity.

So, it's not a closed door by any means.

But to each his or her own, right?

In this thread I think that there has been a lot said in response to the original OP as to whether or not God can write straight with crooked lines. Personally I've become even more convinced that He does/can.

It pretty much falls in place with the world that we actually see and experience.

Regards,
MG

I agree God can write straight with crooked lines. I’m less sure that means the crookedness itself becomes straight in hindsight because someone selects those incidences to serve their own purposes—that distinction still feels important, regardless of individual belief or non-belief.

[malkie]

So, how does the situation change if we consider that no redefinition is required: us humans simply didn't understand god's definition to begin with?

That’s possible, yes. I don’t think “God’s ways are not our ways” limits our ability to recognize good as good, nor do I think God asks us to suspend that recognition—even when we’re thinking about Him. It seems more meaningful to say that we may not grasp God’s purposes, without concluding that God would will or require what is not good. I think Jesus explains something along these lines when He says a good father does not give his child a snake.

When you say "good" here, do you mean by your definition, or by God's. Since we cannot, I believe, know the purposes of this god/God, how can we know if his good and our/your good agree. I think you'd agree that there's plenty of disagreement among people about good - which implies a difference between yours and god's.

[Gadianton]

I'm not sure that we can say that we "get a God who can redefine evil as good", rather that we get a God whose standards of evil and good are not the same as ours.

One of the points that apologists make when critics claim that "god" would or would not want something or another is that we are not entitled to make these claims, because "god's ways are not our ways". Of course, the apologists expect the critics to accept their claims about what their god wants. I seem to recall having - or attempting to have - a conversation about this point a couple of months ago, and being (in my opinion) blown off at the end.

A very important point. But they only do this after the fact, like MG, right? At first, the lines are as straight as they come. God is literally our father, and much like a perfect version of an earthly daddy, and we even have a mom. We're all brothers and sisters and the afterlife is one big family reunion. Everything is straightforward and intuitive, we just believe and keep a few commandments and be decent folk. MG has just described heaven in comprehensible, meaningful terms to the average lowly human.

Until polygamy or some other thing is brought up, and then suddenly, God's ways are not our ways. They are never "not our ways" before the fact. The emphasis is always on simplicity until they get caught red handed, then it's really complicated and above our paygrade.

But, I think it is possible for God's ways not to be our ways before the fact. What would that be like? Well, it's quite possible that some super advanced alien species has no obvious equivalent of what we think of as morality. I mean, we don't go around judging fire ants by our morals. Some super advanced alien may be no more bothered by human on human violence than we are by all the violence of plants and animals against each other in the Amazon.

However, the implication of "God's ways aren't our ways" is that God is not a personal God. You can't have it both ways. If God is personal, and can give a moral lecture on right and wrong and how to treat people, then his thought world isn't incommensurable with ours the way ours is with fire ants, and it shouldn't be that hard to explain "his ways" to us. But a non-personal God -- who knows what we amount to. Perhaps all the "evil" in the world does make sense, but it's more like to such a being, reality isn't cut up in a way that registers as the word "evil" does to us.

[Limnor]

That’s possible, yes. I don’t think “God’s ways are not our ways” limits our ability to recognize good as good, nor do I think God asks us to suspend that recognition—even when we’re thinking about Him. It seems more meaningful to say that we may not grasp God’s purposes, without concluding that God would will or require what is not good. I think Jesus explains something along these lines when He says a good father does not give his child a snake.

When you say "good" here, do you mean by your definition, or by God's. Since we cannot, I believe, know the purposes of this god/God, how can we know if his good and our/your good agree. I think you'd agree that there's plenty of disagreement among people about good - which implies a difference between yours and god's.

Man between and marcus you are really making me think tonight!

Im thinking that if “good” isn’t at least partly recognizable to us, then we might as well just say “God does whatever God does.” I’d say that Jesus seemed to assume that His listeners understood what a good father would do.

[malkie]

I'm not sure that we can say that we "get a God who can redefine evil as good", rather that we get a God whose standards of evil and good are not the same as ours.

One of the points that apologists make when critics claim that "god" would or would not want something or another is that we are not entitled to make these claims, because "god's ways are not our ways". Of course, the apologists expect the critics to accept their claims about what their god wants. I seem to recall having - or attempting to have - a conversation about this point a couple of months ago, and being (in my opinion) blown off at the end.

A very important point. But they only do this after the fact, like MG, right? At first, the lines are as straight as they come. God is literally our father, and much like a perfect version of an earthly daddy, and we even have a mom. We're all brothers and sisters and the afterlife is one big family reunion. Everything is straightforward and intuitive, we just believe and keep a few commandments and be decent folk. MG has just described heaven in comprehensible, meaningful terms to the average lowly human.

Until polygamy or some other thing is brought up, and then suddenly, God's ways are not our ways. They are never "not our ways" before the fact. The emphasis is always on simplicity until they get caught red handed, then it's really complicated and above our paygrade.

But, I think it is possible for God's ways not to be our ways before the fact. What would that be like? Well, it's quite possible that some super advanced alien species has no obvious equivalent of what we think of as morality. I mean, we don't go around judging fire ants by our morals. Some super advanced alien may be no more bothered by human on human violence than we are by all the violence of plants and animals against each other in the Amazon.

However, the implication of "God's ways aren't our ways" is that God is not a personal God. You can't have it both ways. If God is personal, and can give a moral lecture on right and wrong and how to treat people, then his thought world isn't incommensurable with ours the way ours is with fire ants, and it shouldn't be that hard to explain "his ways" to us. But a non-personal God -- who knows what we amount to. Perhaps all the "evil" in the world does make sense, but it's more like to such a being, reality isn't cut up in a way that registers as the word "evil" does to us.

The before and after the fact difference is reminiscent of the "speaking as a man" excuse when an LDS leader turns out to be wrong: it's an invaluable rationalization for the apologist, but fails in general utility because it is always post hoc.

Concerning the personal vs. non-personal distinction, I'm not sure that we even need to consider it.

While Mormonism portrays Mormon god as working for the benefit of mankind - presumably in terms of what we humans expect our "benefits" to look like, I contend that we have no right whatsoever to believe that. God's ways and purposes may be as far from our expectations as are the shepherd's purposes from the expectations of the sheep. Mormon god may be fattening us up for consumption at a godly feast, and we would have no way of knowing.

The same is true for Christianity in general.

In the Church of Scotland we frequently sang the hymn:

Immortal, invisible, God only wise,
In light inaccessible hid from our eyes,
Most blessed, most glorious, the Ancient of Days,
Almighty, victorious, Thy great name we praise.

If sheep could reason and sing, they could equally well sing such a hymn - apart from the invisibility part - to the shepherd who cares for them.

For a humourous recounting of the story of the wolf, the sheep, and the shepherd, I recommend aesop revised by archy " in archy and mehitabel - Don Marquis - search for "aesop.

[malkie]

When you say "good" here, do you mean by your definition, or by God's. Since we cannot, I believe, know the purposes of this god/God, how can we know if his good and our/your good agree. I think you'd agree that there's plenty of disagreement among people about good - which implies a difference between yours and god's.

Man between and marcus you are really making me think tonight!

Im thinking that if “good” isn’t at least partly recognizable to us, then we might as well just say “God does whatever God does.” I’d say that Jesus seemed to assume that His listeners understood what a good father would do.

At least as far as the idea of "god is good" in human terms goes, Jesus could have been either a naïve propagandist, or a willing participant in the scam. I'm not saying, however, that these are exhaustive and mutually exclusive possibilities, in case you were thinking of accusing me of excluding some middle ground - you know I wouldn't try to get that past you.

[MG 2.0]

I'm not sure that we can say that we "get a God who can redefine evil as good", rather that we get a God whose standards of evil and good are not the same as ours.

One of the points that apologists make when critics claim that "god" would or would not want something or another is that we are not entitled to make these claims, because "god's ways are not our ways". Of course, the apologists expect the critics to accept their claims about what their god wants. I seem to recall having - or attempting to have - a conversation about this point a couple of months ago, and being (in my opinion) blown off at the end.

A very important point. But they only do this after the fact, like MG, right? At first, the lines are as straight as they come. God is literally our father, and much like a perfect version of an earthly daddy, and we even have a mom. We're all brothers and sisters and the afterlife is one big family reunion. Everything is straightforward and intuitive, we just believe and keep a few commandments and be decent folk. MG has just described heaven in comprehensible, meaningful terms to the average lowly human.

Until polygamy or some other thing is brought up, and then suddenly, God's ways are not our ways. They are never "not our ways" before the fact. The emphasis is always on simplicity until they get caught red handed, then it's really complicated and above our paygrade.

But, I think it is possible for God's ways not to be our ways before the fact. What would that be like? Well, it's quite possible that some super advanced alien species has no obvious equivalent of what we think of as morality. I mean, we don't go around judging fire ants by our morals. Some super advanced alien may be no more bothered by human on human violence than we are by all the violence of plants and animals against each other in the Amazon.

However, the implication of "God's ways aren't our ways" is that God is not a personal God. You can't have it both ways. If God is personal, and can give a moral lecture on right and wrong and how to treat people, then his thought world isn't incommensurable with ours the way ours is with fire ants, and it shouldn't be that hard to explain "his ways" to us. But a non-personal God -- who knows what we amount to. Perhaps all the "evil" in the world does make sense, but it's more like to such a being, reality isn't cut up in a way that registers as the word "evil" does to us.

It is true that things get a bit more dicey and complex as one moves from the 'simple center' with God as a loving Father. As we observe and move towards the edges out from this what we might call "Primary Like" center we end up with polygamy, the problem of evil, etc. I would suggest that we start at the center, however, and move out from there rather than the other way around.

When you say that believers are "caught red handed" when things move beyond the center point of 'simple faith' towards the gray areas and the outer edges of faith it might be helpful to refer back to examples where the scriptural canon hits this head on. Book of Job and Paul's mentioning of "seeing through a glass darkly" for starters. Modern day G.A.'s have been teaching the concept of not giving up on what you don't know for a fact, for what you believe you do know, or have a pretty good grasp on in the realm of faith.

When you're commenting on concerns you have with the "God's ways are not our ways" concept it might be helpful to remember that His knowledge and purposes may exceed ours, in somewhat the same way that a parent's moral understanding exceeds a small child's.

At church and in our basic doctrinal positions we typically come from the center. The core beliefs and doctrines. Love thy neighbor. Care for the poor. We act and behave as Christian believers act and believe. In our efforts to do these 'simple things' we find ourselves doing things or even permitting things that cannot be fully reconciled and fixed from our vantage point. We sin. We transgress.

The whole point of the OP of this thread is that before, during, and after we act and are acted upon, God sees the whole picture and can adjust accordingly to individuals and groups. We may fail to give God credit for being smarter than we are. Even smarter than Ivy Leaguers and those that belong to Cassius University.

Your concern that God might look at us as a "fire-ant deity" simply doesn't make sense on its surface to me. We have too many instances where God remains the kind of Being who identifies with victims, calls cruelty sin, and commands mercy. Trying to turn Him into an amoral God is just ludicrous, in my opinion anyway.

Oh, and when we're talking about God bringing good out of evil, we're not redefining evil as good. We are, however, holding to the position that some evils remain genuinely evil whilst also having the belief that there is a 'redemptive story' through Christ. The logic of how this works may not be readily observable to the mortal eye.

That is where faith comes into the picture. Some got it, and some don't.

Regards,
MG

[Limnor]

Man between and marcus you are really making me think tonight!

Im thinking that if “good” isn’t at least partly recognizable to us, then we might as well just say “God does whatever God does.” I’d say that Jesus seemed to assume that His listeners understood what a good father would do.

At least as far as the idea of "god is good" in human terms goes, Jesus could have been either a naïve propagandist, or a willing participant in the scam. I'm not saying, however, that these are exhaustive and mutually exclusive possibilities, in case you were thinking of accusing me of excluding some middle ground - you know I wouldn't try to get that past you.

If Jesus was naïve or complicit, at least He was up front about it instead of passing off something and only telling us after we were first told why we were wrong to think it looked like a snake lol