tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8776899.post7313464968599327060..comments2024-03-06T03:15:58.539-05:00Comments on <b>THE NEW REFORM CLUB</b>: A Gallimaufry of Galimatias - IIIHunter Bakerhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14961831404331998743noreply@blogger.comBlogger9125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8776899.post-39466751988584485732007-02-13T21:04:00.000-05:002007-02-13T21:04:00.000-05:00Ah, well James, there are many, many reasons to be...Ah, well James, there are many, many reasons to believe in God, but we've been over that territory before. Heather Mac Donald, like Voltaire, proposes to judge God into nonexistence by pointing to tragedy and evil in the world. I simply provided one of many different scriptural answers to that point which is also quite a logical answer. If there is a God, how exactly do we suppose we can criticize? We get the answer he gave Job -- did you put the stars in the heavens?Hunter Bakerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14961831404331998743noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8776899.post-22457637338687602552007-02-13T19:42:00.000-05:002007-02-13T19:42:00.000-05:00MacDonald, to her credit, is assuming a certain bu...MacDonald, to her credit, is assuming a certain burden of proof in challenging theistic claims on their own terms instead of her own. The old demand for proof of the unprovable is refreshingly absent.<BR/><BR/>Well answered, Jay, on the subject of free will. Questions of right and wrong still obsess us. <BR/><BR/>We have free will, and so truth claims of moral systems, whether the Bible or of a reasonable fellow like Kant, don't really change anything. We believe in them or not; we choose to obey them, or not. We listen to Jiminy Cricket, or squash him like the scolding little bug he is.Tom Van Dykehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07121072404143877596noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8776899.post-51194678689298215942007-02-13T16:03:00.000-05:002007-02-13T16:03:00.000-05:00I think old Mac Donald is also ignoring the basic ...<I>I think old Mac Donald is also ignoring the basic problem of a finite being passing judgment on an infinite one.</I><BR/><BR/>Which only works if you're starting from the premise that there <I>is</I> a god. Thus making the whole enterprise a matter of dueling <I>a priori</I> assumptions and revealing religious intellectualism as devoid of either logic or substance. But by all means, continue.James F. Elliotthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16747033407956667363noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8776899.post-37835910200580498682007-02-13T12:50:00.000-05:002007-02-13T12:50:00.000-05:00Yes, Jay, I think that it's a critical distinction...Yes, Jay, I think that it's a critical distinction, but I agree that it does not constitute a major disagreement between us as compared with the gulf between our position and that of Ms MacDonald. Absolutely.S. T. Karnickhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05971214612730402709noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8776899.post-31304811323466741872007-02-13T12:32:00.000-05:002007-02-13T12:32:00.000-05:00S.T., that hardly rises to the level of disagreeme...S.T., that hardly rises to the level of disagreement. You are simply narrowing the definition of how much we are responsible for the Good.<BR/><BR/>Of course you are aware that this is a fault line between Judaism and Christianity. Judaism believes that faith is only one component and we are responsible to choose the Good in all situations.<BR/><BR/>It also recognizes that it is impossible to do Good always, so we are promised that God will factor that into the judgment. (I'm counting on this very heavily, I'm afraid.) No one is responsible to do more than he can, and God knows exactly how much he can.<BR/><BR/>As the Talmud famously says; "The Bible was not given to angels."Jay D. Homnickhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14714671338316275833noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8776899.post-30940558087930023242007-02-13T11:30:00.000-05:002007-02-13T11:30:00.000-05:00I like this formulation, but I disagree with point...I like this formulation, but I disagree with point "e." The purpose of man is to glorify God, as Scripture says explicitly. "Doing good" may seem to be the way (or a way) to glorify God, but it is not, because it is impossible to do so on a consistent basis and God does not ask the impossible of us. As a result, God states explicitly, in ultimately rejecting the Israelites' sacrifices, that what he wants is not good works but faith. Faith is what glorifies God—and good works flow from faith.S. T. Karnickhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05971214612730402709noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8776899.post-30463505645232079562007-02-13T10:52:00.000-05:002007-02-13T10:52:00.000-05:00I take your point.I take your point.Hunter Bakerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14961831404331998743noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8776899.post-45478285966247397762007-02-13T10:09:00.000-05:002007-02-13T10:09:00.000-05:00Yes, Hunter, you ARE right, but only AFTER I am ri...Yes, Hunter, you ARE right, but only AFTER I am right. I'll explain what I mean.<BR/><BR/>For a believer to tell a non-believer "you can't know the mind of God" is just as manipulative as a non-believer saying "I'm stuck on the foreknowledge vs. free will conundrum so I reject all religion". The reason for that is that God is in essence asking to be known and embraced, except that at some point He says: "Until here but no further."<BR/><BR/>And why is the believer engaging the non-believer if not to convince him that the mind of God is knowable - to the extent necessary for Man to serve?<BR/><BR/>So the first stage of the debate must always be: we CAN know the mind of God in its lower realm, i.e. how He operates within the relationship with humanity. Here we may posit with certitude that<BR/><BR/>a) He created the world<BR/>b) He must have done so for a purpose<BR/>c) the purpose must be in the hands of Man, as the only intelligent creature with free will, to fulfill<BR/>d) the purpose must be knowable by Man so that he may fulfill it<BR/>e) the purpose is to choose good over evil<BR/>f) there must be a way to determine what is good<BR/>g) the revelation of the Bible is to be the ultimate arbiter of the Good.<BR/><BR/>Now "g" is expendable if the debate gets really intense. But all these elements are expressions of the mind of God that we CAN know and we are OBLIGATED to know.<BR/><BR/>An issue like foreknowledge, on the other hand, is not something we really need to know to fulfill our purpose and/or the world's purpose. It is a piece of theology, an "extra revelation", a gift if you will. If you get it, fine. If you don't, fine. But it has no reflection on the basic outline of an intelligent Creator building a world for Man as a testing-ground for choosing Good over Evil to earn a reward in a heaven beyond this place.<BR/><BR/>So you are right, but only because I am right. Since foreknowledge is an "extra" piece, it is part of the mind of God that Man cannot fully know - and need not.Jay D. Homnickhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14714671338316275833noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8776899.post-67130824609630450232007-02-13T07:36:00.000-05:002007-02-13T07:36:00.000-05:00I think old Mac Donald is also ignoring the basic ...I think old Mac Donald is also ignoring the basic problem of a finite being passing judgment on an infinite one. "Who has known the mind of God and who has been his counselor?"Hunter Bakerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14961831404331998743noreply@blogger.com