The Ineffability of God's Will

well...who's experiences would i be sharing if not my own?

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

do you know what pathetic means? i wouldn't really take that as an insult. to have sympathy for someone or recognizing an inadequacy. i mean you brought up an unattractive or inadequate person as an example didn't you?

i'm an extreme idealist. people hate that about me, because they do take it as an insult or a judgement, but hey, we're all in the same boat. i just don't think a lot of people can see past that you know? so they don't understand my perspective.

pa·thet·ic
adjective /pəˈTHetik/ 

1 Arousing pity, esp. through vulnerability or sadness
- she looked so pathetic that I bent down to comfort her

2 Miserably inadequate
- his test scores in Chemistry were pathetic

3 Relating to the emotions

i guess it can be interpreted in different ways, but according to my idealism, i still don't think that any of these definitions are unjustified. :shrug:

when it comes right down to it, most people just really really hate to admit that there's anything wrong with us (humans). but i think there definitely is. i think we're all fucked up, and it does make me sad (and mad at god sometimes too). i just really want things to be a lot better for everyone.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

I'm actually starting to pity you now (although I wouldn't call you pathetic since regardless of what it says in the dictionary it is a decidedly degrading term). Why? Because all you ever seem to do is carry on about how "fucked up" everything is.

Yes, many things are fucked up. There's no doubt about it. But many things are not. And if you have the opportunity to embrace all the things that are not, then failing to do so is almost as tragic as not being provided with the opportunity in the first place. In other words, your world-view can ultimately be something you choose by deciding what you are going to spend your time focusing on. Religious or not, viewing the world and all the people in it as fundamentally sick must be a terrible way to live life.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

how much would you like to bet i get my way? tick tock, tick tock...time's almost up. and while you're scared to death and crying if you listen, you'll hear me sing.

for the one that'll hate my guts...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hTgnDLWeeaM

you sound like a major shareholder in BL ind.

 

it's just reality. if i didn't think that there was anything worth redeeming i wouldn't be praying for our redemption.

 

There are more demons forcing people to do horrible things: Texas Woman Blames Devil After Husband Burns Baby Daughter in Microwave

Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,274115,00.html#ixzz1QIuKWCQN

 

An idea is to look into other religions, and how they explain the problem of evil.
See an overview here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Problem_of_evil
with links to individual religions for further detail.
See also the problem of evil in Hinduism: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Problem_of_evil_in_Hinduism

 

This and That

Oh, well ... right. I don't dispute that.

I'm well aware that other theological constructions can be said to have a better handle on the question of evil.

The problem with the cross-application, however, is that these aren't the theologies in question.

Mr. Hermogenes is, essentially, asserting a theological condition. What are the implications of that condition? We have actually had, in this thread, an illuminating glimpse inside those implications. Indeed, the dogpile has spilled all the way into Lori's sex life at this point.

(I'll leave that one to its own, I think. I mean, I don't think it would be fair for me to suddenly put on my green hat and start separating the players. There are enough flags to throw in that ... I'll leave it to the Religion team and their standard method for handling these disputes.)

• • •​

Read more? Do I have to?

Oh, fine.

Okay, I really do regret that.

Eva Marie Mauldin said Satan compelled her 19-year-old husband, Joshua Royce Mauldin, to microwave their daughter May 10 because the devil disapproved of Joshua's efforts to become a preacher.

(Associated Press)​

Additionally, Mrs. Mauldin explains that her husband "is a wonderful father", and has set up a Facebook page asking people to come to Joshua Mauldin's defense.

Okay, so ... we know from the Book of Job that Satan does not operate independently of God's will.

If Satan attacked Mr. Mauldin, and compelled him to put his daughter in the microwave, what is God's purpose?

This is the theological question.

As we saw in the Book of Job, the purpose was to win a bet.

With Satan.

By having Satan act as God's hand, according to God's will.

Say what you want about the Mauldin family; Joshua Mauldin received a twenty-five year sentence.

But what is this woman saying about God?
____________________

Notes:

Associated Press. "Texas Woman Blames Devil After Husband Burns Baby Daughter in Microwave". May 20, 2007. FOXNews.com. June 25, 2011. http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,274115,00.html

 

What exactly are you after? That Christians would provide a solution to theodicy that everyone could accept? That it would somehow be demonstrated that Christianity isn't as horrid as it seems to be? Do you wonder how someone who claims to believe in God can also abdicate their free will?

 

The Implications of Theology

I do not believe at this time that there is any such solution.

Or, rather, the solutions would be unacceptable to the majority of the world's present generations of Christians. Perhaps in the future, but that's entirely up to the faithful.

I'm already aware of the outer boundary of Christianity's general horror; it is only as awful as the faithful can make it.

Okay, that probably makes sense in your context, but the connection isn't apparent in mine.

For me, this is about theology, and the implications thereof. The definition of the ultimate reality fundamentally affects the assignment of values. For instance, a "loving God" theology, wherein the Lord wants us all to find redemption, suggests vastly different priorities than a finite scheme in which God will only rescue 144,000 lost souls. In the former, it is important that people seek truth and do their best. In the latter, it is important that people fulfill God's will—which also implies that one must presume or otherwise believe they know God's will, and be correct.

In any redemptive theistic arrangement, the soul is the highest currency. Unlike money, or even family, the soul is eternal. Biblically speaking, this is the stake of Luke 14.26: "If any one comes to me and does not hate his own father and mother and wife and children and brothers and sisters, yes, and even his own life, he cannot be my disciple."

One might suggest that the case PsychoTropicPuppy brought us is an example. Is Mrs. Mauldin's hatred toward her own daughter correct, in standing by her husband? Or should she have abandoned her husband's defense in order to stand with that perception of God's righteousness? In truth, we mere mortals simply cannot know. That's part of the ineffability of God's will.

Many of us know diverse Christians. At least, I think that's a safe, fair presumption. Among those diverse Christians we will find diverse outlooks. For instance, the idea of a gay Christian strikes me as a bit odd, but when I stop and think about it, it's no different than a capitalist calling himself Christian, or even a gang-banger strapped to the teeth and bearing a multitude of tattoos to commemorate his crimes.

Now, as a way of living, I'm not going to pick any bones with Christianity in general. At least, not according to Christ, who often seems absent from the discussion in American culture, but even that little barb is beside the point.

This isn't about indicting Christians, or Christianity, or theism, or even religion.

When cornered in a debate, Christians will often acknowledge the ineffability of God's will. But compared to what we see in daily practice, that acknowledgment raises a question.

To hop tracks for a moment, I would indict—theologically—the Islamic suicide bomber for his lack of faith in God's will. Slaying some civilian somewhere because the Israeli government is picking on the Palestinians only reminds that the bomber and his sponsors don't trust God; they have no faith in His will. After all, God must have His reasons for permitting the oppression of any people without intervening. They also have no faith in His justice, as they wish to settle up perceived moral debts in this world, instead of leaving it for God to resolve in the next.

Perhaps less apparent, since it doesn't involve bombs and bullets, we might come back to Christians for a moment. Whether it is destroying a work of art (e.g., Serrano's Piss Christ) or passing laws to exclude homosexuals, or bombing women's clinics and gunning down doctors, these Christians are claiming for themselves knowledge of, and the authority to execute, God's will.

"Render therefore to Caesar the things that are Caesar's, and to God the things that are God's" (Matthew 22.21) In the United States, as such, what is "Caesar's" is the Constitution. It is the supreme law of the land (Article VI). In many aspects, from suppression of witchcraft—which saw Zsuzsanna Budapest arrested and tried for witchcraft during my lifetime—to the current debates over homosexuality, public education, and even the treatment of Muslims, Christians have encouraged a higher law than the Constitution—i.e., "God's law"—and thus defied Christ by challenging what is Caesar's on behalf of God.

Certes, there are myriad interpretations of how that all might play out, but the prima facie assertion is that these faithful are rejecting Christ in order to exercise what they believe is God's authority on His behalf.

While we can certainly make a political issue out of this, the relevant point here is a consideration of the ineffability of God's will. Attending the Bible, one might simply accept that if Caesar deems that gays should marry—or that people are free under its laws to be witches or Muslims or whatever—it will be left to God to reckon with the sinners who defy His expressed laws and desires.

That is, certainly one can argue that the homosexual is a sinner. But it would seem, according to the Bible, that judgment of the sinner ought to be left to God. We see in New York, as social conservatives recognized the inevitability of gay marriage, a compromise under the rubric of the Constitution: enough conservative legislators accepted the legalization of gay marriage once the right of religious institutions to enforce God's law within their own houses was assured. And this is, as we consider both the Bible and the Constitution—i.e., the competing supreme laws—the way it should be; a Christian church has no obligation to endorse a sinful union, but civil law (i.e., Caesar) is such that these unions are not only possible, but, by some interpretations, necessarily legal.

Meanwhile, Christians who oppose gay marriage, who demand homosexuals' exclusion and even punishment under the law, appear to run afoul of Christ, who said, "as you did it to one of the least of these my brethren, you did it to me" (Matthew 25.34-46). The compassion or cruelty you show any human being, you also do unto Christ.

All of these sorts of arguments depend on people interpreting God's will, which is, ultimately, ineffable.

And that's the point: If God's will is ineffable, then it is ineffable.

One can lecture, then, that the faithful need to actually have faith in God, but that is, itself, beyond the moment we have achieved in considering the questions that either the Hermogenes or Mauldin cases suggest.

In these cases, I would only remind that the assertions of God's will do not occur in a vacuum; they are not without implications.

As such, I would ask—invite, such as it is—people to consider the implications of what they claim on God's behalf. We need not presume them inherently sinister if their claims create some sort of doctrinal paradox; neither have their beliefs evolved in a vacuum.

But the question of whether or not one can know God's ineffable will is not resolved in any way by further assertions of what God's will actually is.

Either God's will is ineffable, or it is not. This is not the sort of condition for which there is a grey area. If, say, God's will can be known, then certainly a gray area can exist regarding what that actually means.

Certainly we know God's will in certain aspects: We should not behave in certain ways. Indeed, in rendering unto Caesar, we should not presume God's will and attempt to enforce it through civil law. Some might reasonably suggest that one cannot come to God through free will under force of law.

In the cases we have before us, we might consider our neighbor Lori, who has endured repeated harsh criticism for her stated positions, and, furthermore, has refused to offer up the other cheek (Matthew 4.38-42; Luke 6.27-31). As one critic has put it:

"A girl is brutally attacked, raped and set on fire. She somehow manages to survive. And what do you come out with? How right you are that lust and porn is evil. And how righteous you are.

Not an ounce of sympathy for this girl. Just your own righteousness and lecturing us on our evil ways and your blathering about repentance and choice."​

Now, perhaps Lori doesn't see it that way, but to some observers, this is an accurate summary. But let us consider Lori's own statements:

Lori 7: hearing that story makes an impression on me, about how dangerous lust is. it creates a negative association which changes my mind and changes my own behavior.

GMilam: So you believe god allowed this young lady to be raped, strangled and burned so that you could be reminded of the evils of lust?

Lori 7: better than for nothing huh?​

Now, let's give Lori a break, here. We cannot presume that she is trying to be cruel. Indeed, the puzzlement she shows at accusations of her cruelty suggest, if we take her at face value, that she simply does not see the situation according to the same context as others.

Still, though, there is the theological implication.

What, in the end, is Lori saying about God? More than one critic has noted the appearance that God apparently willed a savage crime against a human being in order to reaffirm what Lori already believed. And, yes, some might wonder if such measures are extraneous, since, as Lori suggests, "a lot of people either don't get it, or don't care". Apparently this rape and immolation was God's version of "preaching to the choir".

At some point, people start to wonder just what they are supposed to think of this God character who warrants such cruel outcomes for some people in order to accomplish an end that is, simply, unnecessary. Or, to put it another way: Look, if you're not getting through, try something else.

So what is Lori saying about God?

What is the character of a God that behaves like this?

Mr. Hermogenes asserts demons. Even Lori agrees that demons do not operate outside God's will. This is a longtime conundrum of Christian philosophers.

(Certainly, we can look to other theologies, but Mr. Hermogenes is not; Mrs. Mauldin did not; we might suggest that Lori 7 is not.)

What I'm getting at is that people are willing to cast God in a role they would prefer He not play. This is almost an inevitable outcome of trying to claim knowledge and expression of the ineffable.

Thus, if there is a moral and philosophical assertion I must stand on, it has to do with the problems of claiming knowledge of God's will.

In the end, if God's will is ineffable, it is ineffable. And the mere idea that God should will such an outcome as the rape and immolation of a human being in order to make a point will bring many to wonder just what sort of God they're dealing with.

As I told Lori, "Don't do us any favors." That is, she is praying for the coming of a terribly cruel God; she might as well be hoping for the rise of Cthulhu.

Is this really how she, or anyone else, sees God? What are the implications of the theology we subscribe to?
____________________

Notes:

Weigle, Luther A., et al. The Holy Bible: Revised Standard Version. Second edition. New York: Thomas Nelson, 1971. Quod.Lib.UMich.edu. June 25, 2011. http://quod.lib.umich.edu/r/rsv/

United States Constitution. 1992. Legal Information Institute at Cornell University Law School. June 25, 2011. http://topics.law.cornell.edu/constitution

Paybarah, Azi. "Amendments to Marriage Bill Taking Shape, Vote Uncertain". Politicker NY. June 22, 2011. PolitickerNY.com. June 25, 2011. http://www.politickerny.com/2011/06/22/amendments-to-marriage-bill-taking-shape-vote-uncertain/

 

Monkey Man lives !! Did I hear bell right ? She loves to Masturbate . Now that puts images in my Head . I hope she is a she and not a He pretending to be a he like Fraggle thought about Me when we met . O.K. pick on Fraggle time . It is like Hammer Time but with a Fraggle . Fraggle was jacking off thinking about Me . Yeah Way ! He won't respond cause he will be to embarrassed. Oh he could deny it but we would see right through it . I know what happened . It was after He got so mad at Me for thinking I was pretending to be a Girl that I realized what he did( Which I was not pretending to be a girl, Anybody can Google Mekigal and see see it comes from the Sumerians and is the ancient name Michael) . I googled it after though and found out there is a call girl service out of Taiwan called Meki Girls . Young sweet looking Asian girls ready to date for a fee . Shit they are hot too. Sizzling . If I thought I was one of them I would Jack off to my self just so I could touch my self . I would not be braking my promise either . My promise I made to my Wife stupid

 

My memory ? Who was it that wants to wipe out everyone except 500,000 people . Who was that ?

 

now take your pill and keep telling yourself, "everything will be ok". *pat pat on the head*

 

Someone brought up Son Of Sam . Now that was freaky for me back in the day for I had a dog named Sam . He was my best friend sense I had no friends my dog Sam was . It was when I first realized there was some weird freak butt connection in events that ripple out . I could have picked up the torch by the event and gone out and started killing and raping due to the impression on a young person , but evidently it is not in my nature to do so. Probably cause my mother loves Me. I did feel a connection to my dog named Sam. I tell you what there was a movie not about Son Of Sam , but about the life of some people in the area were He committed the crimes . That PyLtrow ( Spelling ) girl was in the movie. Pretty good Movie . Her husband was out fucking whores and sluts all the time and having a grand old time but when it came to his beautiful wife he would do the roll on roll off thing and she was so sexually frustrated it made me want to cry . I think I did ? I think I cried cause she was not getting the sex she needed. Then there was a scene were they went to a sex party and he was getting it good with another woman and his wife Gweneth Powtro ( spel;ling ) got some good dick that made her cum by a stranger . It made Me feel better , but it sure did not make the husband feel better at all . He could not see his wife as a sexual being . See that is just plain wrong . For the most part society excepts Man jacking off and getting pussy but it is still some what a stigma for a woman to have such pleasure. I think it is wrong . The Japanese culture is like that from what I learned from a documentary on Sex In Japanese culture . After they have a child the man no longer sees his wife as a sexual being . He will even pimp out his wife for extra money for the family and so he has a little extra to hire his neighbors wife to fuck him. All just part of there culture . Course I also heard Japanese women are some of most sex deprived women on the planet and a high percentage have never had an orgasm. That is just plain wrong in my Book .

 

To clarify. I got nothing against the pimping , but I do have something against Man not seeing there wife as a sexual being

 

Tiassa -

I emphatize. But I'm afraid there isn't much to say. We live in a dog-eat-dog world. Fortunately or unfortunately, many people get to experience this the most when dealing with theists.

 

i'm not really "puzzled" tiassa, it's just that sometimes the extent of the majority's denial is really hard for me to swallow.

what i would like to know, is how in the world you and others might think it cruel of me to recognize the possibility of, believe in, and pray for an existence without the suffering that you're apparently so horrified by here? i think it's cruel that you don't. i think it's hideous that the majority of humanity shrug their shoulders and say "we're only human". i think it is preposterous that the majority pretends to be puzzled by what causes this, boasting "there's nothing wrong with us. everything is just fine". and i am sorry, but i refuse to believe that the majority is really that stupid. i know damn well that your denial is attributable to your blinding ego and your blinding fear.

the critic you quoted was bells, and i'm kind of surprised you bothered. she's just spewing venom. she sounds like she's lost her fucking mind. like a rabid hound, foaming at the mouth, and it's impossible to take seriously. but since sympathy's in question...i have the sympathy and empathy to an extent, to not only want, but demand a better existence for humanity, while the rest of you are scratching your heads, and pointing your fingers, and shrugging your shoulders, and taking your meds, or wondering who you're going to vote for in the next election. yeah that'll do it. why don't you get oprah on the case? how about the vatican; perhaps they should get involved? perhaps the federal reserve will make everything better? or bells! i mean clearly she's mother fucking teresa; maybe she'll rid the world of all our suffering.

my point is that obviously you guys don't want a world without suffering. you can not even fathom such a thing. you don't believe in the possibility of it. you won't even recognize the cause for our suffering! and I KNOW that's because you won't admit to being a part of it. you won't admit that there's anything wrong with you.

well i have the guts to admit it and therefore i'm willing to do something about it.

 

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

uke: