The Battle For The Mind

[Oscar_Kipling]

In other words, responsibility and blameworthiness are different things for a reason.

Okay, could you explain the difference as you see it?

The basic premise is that one can be responsible but not blameworthy or blameworthy but not responsible. In keeping with the theme, we could say that God is responsible for allowing Adam and Eve to be in a situation where they're offered the fruit of the tree, but Adam and Eve are blameworthy for eating the fruit.

Or, someone might bear no responsibility in the fact that Satan is whispering in their ear, though they'd be responsible for acting.

It's more nuanced than that on examination, but that's the fundamental difference. Not everyone who is blameworthy is also responsible, and not everyone who is responsible is also blameworthy. It's rarely a clean distinction.

hmm, I don't have any particular issue with making this distinction if it helps to clarify an argument. However I do not see how this is functionally different than clarifying by specifying the domains of responsibility outside of semantics. I'd say that in your Adam and Eve example God is responsible for allowing Adam and Eve to be in a situation where they're offered the fruit, While Adam and eve are responsible for acting within their ability to eat or not eat the fruit. The domains of responsibility are different although they arguably have overlap if you specify a different scope or relationship. I have always maintained that depending on various properties, relationships or composition of the God & universe a person is asserting the domains may be completely divorced from one another or they may intersect in a way that they share some responsibility for the same event in equal or unequal proportion. I been saying that I think the boundaries can go from perfectly sharp to indistinguishable and everything in between all depending, and all while only using responsibility.

While i'm thinking about it, I suppose in another sense responsibility and blame at least in my mind can be differentiated from one another in that responsibility can be thought of as influence over the causal chain that culminated in the event in question, while blame can be thought of as a value judgement that is related more to the intention or agency of the actor and less about the degree of influence the actor had on the causal chain. Still even this I feel is just an abstraction layer that is more useful in rhetoric than
 in a framework that better captures some meaningful distinction on a fundamental level; I say this because agency imo is just another way of specifying a scope or domain of influence imo.

What do you think?

Sure. What's important is that there is a difference, so we could assert:

God is responsible for creating the world.
Humankind is blameworthy for the evil it commits.

This can be endlessly broken down into different domains, scopes, etc., but it would come back to that (or not to that, depending on how the argument went).

Well. thanks for your input.

[IMINXTC]

Merely an aside, but: the attributes of the Creator are revealed consistently as absolute, i.e. eternal.

In light of Genesis, God created man and angels with the full acknowledgment that members of both realms, as free moral agents, would strike out on their own, denying the sovereignty and express will of God. Eternal God is responsible for granting these potential rebels freewill with the full awareness that many would fall and the resultant condemnation would ensue, including eternal punishment.

The alternative, from rational man's perspective, would be creating men and angels without free will, thus, without the potential for sin.

God clearly revealed that He was sorry for having put man on the Earth because man was created as a free moral agent, just as angels were - these choices belong entirely to men and angels.

In light of these revelations, God, in His moral perfection, deemed the creating of free-will persons an
act of eternal perfection notwithstanding the eventuality of sin and rebellion.

He is blameless.

Foreseeing the fall of men and angels, i.e. the seeming phenomenon of evil within the realm of creation, and the eternal consequences of sin, cannot diminish the absolute attributes of God as love and holy.

From His eternal and revealed perspective.

[Oscar_Kipling]

Merely an aside, but: the attributes of the Creator are revealed consistently as absolute, i.e. eternal.

In light of Genesis, God created man and angels with the full acknowledgment that members of both realms, as free moral agents, would strike out on their own, denying the sovereignty and express will of God. Eternal God is responsible for granting these potential rebels freewill with the full awareness that many would fall and the resultant condemnation would ensue, including eternal punishment.

The alternative, from rational man's perspective, would be creating men and angels without free will, thus, without the potential for sin.

God clearly revealed that He was sorry for having put man on the Earth because man was created as a free moral agent, just as angels were - these choices belong entirely to men and angels.

In light of these revelations, God, in His moral perfection, deemed the creating of free-will persons an
act of eternal perfection notwithstanding the eventuality of sin and rebellion.

He is blameless.

Foreseeing the fall of men and angels, i.e. the seeming phenomenon of evil within the realm of creation, and the eternal consequences of sin, cannot diminish the absolute attributes of God as love and holy.

From His eternal and revealed perspective.

Well, it is very clear where you stand on blame. What do you think the devil does, or maybe what unique purpose does he fulfil?

[IMINXTC]

Well, it is very clear where you stand on blame. What do you think the devil does, or maybe what unique purpose does he fulfil?

The old Sunday School standard is that Adam's day in Eden was a test and Satan served as an agent for that testing, therefore fulfilling an ordained purpose. This I seriously doubt, as Scripture never states such a scenario, and God never tempts any man, even through second agents. Testing, in this regard, is ultimately unnecessary if Adam was not deceived and was yet prepared to disobey the Creator who spoke clearly to Adam before-hand - God supplied the rules to Adam ahead of time.

Contrary to a lot of modern-day conjecture, particularly in churches, there is no grand-purpose for evil or fallen angels. Every suggestion and manifestation of evil is pure tragedy, while the Cross of Christ manifests the goodness and eternal purpose of a loving God. IMO.




.

[Oscar_Kipling]

Well, it is very clear where you stand on blame. What do you think the devil does, or maybe what unique purpose does he fulfil?

The old Sunday School standard is that Adam's day in Eden was a test and Satan served as an agent for that testing, therefore fulfilling an ordained purpose. This I seriously doubt, as Scripture never states such a scenario, and God never tempts any man, even through second agents. Testing, in this regard, is ultimately unnecessary if Adam was not deceived and was yet prepared to disobey the Creator who spoke clearly to Adam before-hand - God supplied the rules to Adam ahead of time.

Contrary to a lot of modern-day conjecture, particularly in churches, there is no grand-purpose for evil or fallen angels. Every suggestion and manifestation of evil is pure tragedy, while the Cross of Christ manifests the goodness and eternal purpose of a loving God. IMO.
.

Honestly that makes the most sense to me, this is just the way it all shook out. How does this work with the notion of God's plan? I mean if that is something you subscribe to, but even if you don't, maybe especially if you don't, I'm interested in your thoughts.

[IMINXTC]

Well, it is very clear where you stand on blame. What do you think the devil does, or maybe what unique purpose does he fulfil?

The old Sunday School standard is that Adam's day in Eden was a test and Satan served as an agent for that testing, therefore fulfilling an ordained purpose. This I seriously doubt, as Scripture never states such a scenario, and God never tempts any man, even through second agents. Testing, in this regard, is ultimately unnecessary if Adam was not deceived and was yet prepared to disobey the Creator who spoke clearly to Adam before-hand - God supplied the rules to Adam ahead of time.

Contrary to a lot of modern-day conjecture, particularly in churches, there is no grand-purpose for evil or fallen angels. Every suggestion and manifestation of evil is pure tragedy, while the Cross of Christ manifests the goodness and eternal purpose of a loving God. IMO.
.

Honestly that makes the most sense to me, this is just the way it all shook out. How does this work with the notion of God's plan? I mean if that is something you subscribe to, but even if you don't, maybe especially if you don't, I'm interested in your thoughts.

The most profound and most neglected scriptural dissertations, particularly of the NT, base God's current plan on His foresight, sending the Son, who becomes man, to assume the eternal throne as the fulness of God in His human form, having once paid the ultimate price for man's redemption.

While morality is an essential scriptural mandate, lesson and message for man, the overarching topic is the revelation of Christ and His person. Everything else pales in significance, seeing as the Savior is, simply speaking, the manifestation of Holy God - the perfection of God in a human body, resurrected from the grave.

So much is lost when the testimony of the Church is dominated by discussions of (often comparative) morality at the expense of the testimony of God, which is the revelation of the Son and His destiny.

Immorality has little chance against the full revelation of Christ, which is the current and full plan of God.

[Oscar_Kipling]

The most profound and most neglected scriptural dissertations, particularly of the NT, base God's current plan on His foresight, sending the Son, who becomes man, to assume the eternal throne as the fulness of God in His human form, having once paid the ultimate price for man's redemption.

While morality is an essential scriptural mandate, lesson and message for man, the overarching topic is the revelation of Christ and His person. Everything else pales in significance, seeing as the Savior is, simply speaking, the manifestation of Holy God - the perfection of God in a human body, resurrected from the grave.

So much is lost when the testimony of the Church is dominated by discussions of (often comparative) morality at the expense of the testimony of God, which is the revelation of the Son and His destiny.

Immorality has little chance against the full revelation of Christ, which is the current and full plan of God.

I read this several times, took a break read it a few more times and I still do not quite get what you are saying. Would you mind terribly restating your points in a different way for me?

[RabbiKnife]

I think he is pointing out the truth that the Church spends 99% of its time and effort wringing our hands over philosophy and esoteric theological bits and politics and culture instead of focusing on learning from Scripture the glory of the person of Jesus

Knowing Jesus in increasing depth day by day makes all the other stuff seem vacuous and banal

[Oscar_Kipling]

I think he is pointing out the truth that the Church spends 99% of its time and effort wringing our hands over philosophy and esoteric theological bits and politics and culture instead of focusing on learning from Scripture the glory of the person of Jesus

Knowing Jesus in increasing depth day by day makes all the other stuff seem vacuous and banal

Well, okay, but like, I engaged with this thread because I was in a hand wringing mood...I kind of just wanted to talk about the things.


Edit: I don't want to leave without saying that personally I find myself unable to get over the vacuous and banal details of the faith. The idea that I might get to know Jesus without Jesus being a thing that is a coherent concept itself all swaddled within a constellation of incoherent concepts is something that doesn't make a whole lot of sense to me. Wondering what the heck I'm even supposed to be trying to get to know or form a relationship with or what forming a relationship with this thing even means seems like a requisite step. Its just such a weird move that I see time and time again...perhaps its just me.

[IMINXTC]

Respectfully but frankly, your enquiries usually border on the obstruse and you place a challenge on believers to try to address intellectual or even emotional roadblocks you have encountered in understanding the revelation of God. In so doing, you easily set up responders for failure, because the tenets of Scripture are the fully authorized standards of Christian truth, even where difficult to apprehend, and we place complete assurance in them, and are careful to not add to them or inject presumptuous analogies into them.

Having sufficient evidence that Christ rose from the dead after fulfilling many centuries-old prophecies, we believe without necessarily comprehending every aspect of this revealed truth, and to demand full intellectual satisfaction
in order to believe is, according to Scripture, a matter of conscience, already long-settled and awaiting judgment.

It behooves the witnessing believer to point to the evidence and authority of Scripture - it is not incumbent upon the believer to satisfy every doubt nor to prove what is clearly a matter of conscience. Anything less than the contextual revelation is subject to supreme error, though many have proffered their "insights" down through the ages.

The believer can authoritatively and finally state that all things will be brought under the throne of Christ. All other
speculations carry the inevitable risk of one's slip-sliding into eternity without having escaped the darkness which is the common lot for most men and even angels.

Nothing especially unique about unbelief.

[Oscar_Kipling]

Respectfully but frankly, your enquiries usually border on the obstruse and you place a challenge on believers to try to address intellectual or even emotional roadblocks you have encountered in understanding the revelation of God. In so doing, you easily set up responders for failure, because the tenets of Scripture are the fully authorized standards of Christian truth, even where difficult to apprehend, and we place complete assurance in them, and are careful to not add to them or inject presumptuous analogies into them.

Having sufficient evidence that Christ rose from the dead after fulfilling many centuries-old prophecies, we believe without necessarily comprehending every aspect of this revealed truth, and to demand full intellectual satisfaction
in order to believe is, according to Scripture, a matter of conscience, already long-settled and awaiting judgment.

It behooves the witnessing believer to point to the evidence and authority of Scripture - it is not incumbent upon the believer to satisfy every doubt nor to prove what is clearly a matter of conscience. Anything less than the contextual revelation is subject to supreme error, though many have proffered their "insights" down through the ages.

The believer can authoritatively and finally state that all things will be brought under the throne of Christ. All other
speculations carry the inevitable risk of one's slip-sliding into eternity without having escaped the darkness which is the common lot for most men and even angels.

Nothing especially unique about unbelief.

That is fine. Perhaps someone else will be interested in explaining their understanding of the purpose of the devil. It has been my expirience that Christians, people, draw their lines all over the page and onto the tabletop and down the leg and across the floor and up the wall and out the window. Nothing especially unique about belief either, we're just people doing people stuff.

[ProDeo]

That is fine. Perhaps someone else will be interested in explaining their understanding of the purpose of the devil. It has been my expirience that Christians, people, draw their lines all over the page and onto the tabletop and down the leg and across the floor and up the wall and out the window. Nothing especially unique about belief either, we're just people doing people stuff.

A bit of Plato

The Cycle of Opposites
The first argument is based on the cyclical interchange by means of which every quality comes into being from its own opposite. Hot comes from cold and cold from hot: that is, hot things are just cold things that have warmed up, and cold things are just hot things that have cooled off. Similarly, people who are awake are just people who were asleep but then woke up, while people who are asleep are just people who were awake but then dozed off.

True for about anything else, about everything has its opposites. Love vs Hate, Justice vs Injustice, etc. etc. And thus also Good vs Evil. Meaning if good exists its opposite evil MUST exist also. Good is simply the absence of Evil and vice versa, the Cycle of Opposites.

In the first 3 chapters of the Bible we read God created a very special place called Eden (Paradise), very special because the natural laws did not apply. There was no death, no illness, people and animals eat fruit and verbs, no flesh. And God called this supernatural place "very good", but notable not "perfect". Just look it up, it's important. He equipped us (like Himself) with a free will and free will includes a risk. Hence "very good" instead of "perfect" because only God is good and perfect.

And God (aware of the existence and opposite of Him (Evil) wanted His creation (us) not to become aware and save us from knowing Evil (and only experience Good) and gave A&E the well known order, don't go there, symbolized by the tree of knowledge of Good & Evil.

Carefully read chapter 3 what happened during the temptation, the outcome, A&E insisted to be like God and KNOW all about Evil. And God gave A&E what they desired, they were removed from Paradise (temporarily away from Him) and they landed on the evolved Earth, a place full of Good and Evil. I guess they cried a million tears.

So now we learn the difference by experience both.

As to your question -- what's the purpose of the devil -- there wasn't any, he fell from grace and with his free will decided to overthrow God, what an idiot, and became the enemy of God.

[Oscar_Kipling]

A bit of Plato

The Cycle of Opposites
The first argument is based on the cyclical interchange by means of which every quality comes into being from its own opposite. Hot comes from cold and cold from hot: that is, hot things are just cold things that have warmed up, and cold things are just hot things that have cooled off. Similarly, people who are awake are just people who were asleep but then woke up, while people who are asleep are just people who were awake but then dozed off.

True for about anything else, about everything has its opposites. Love vs Hate, Justice vs Injustice, etc. etc. And thus also Good vs Evil. Meaning if good exists its opposite evil MUST exist also. Good is simply the absence of Evil and vice versa, the Cycle of Opposites.

In the first 3 chapters of the Bible we read God created a very special place called Eden (Paradise), very special because the natural laws did not apply. There was no death, no illness, people and animals eat fruit and verbs, no flesh. And God called this supernatural place "very good", but notable not "perfect". Just look it up, it's important. He equipped us (like Himself) with a free will and free will includes a risk. Hence "very good" instead of "perfect" because only God is good and perfect.

And God (aware of the existence and opposite of Him (Evil) wanted His creation (us) not to become aware and save us from knowing Evil (and only experience Good) and gave A&E the well known order, don't go there, symbolized by the tree of knowledge of Good & Evil.

Carefully read chapter 3 what happened during the temptation, the outcome, A&E insisted to be like God and KNOW all about Evil. And God gave A&E what they desired, they were removed from Paradise (temporarily away from Him) and they landed on the evolved Earth, a place full of Good and Evil. I guess they cried a million tears.

So now we learn the difference by experience both.

As to your question -- what's the purpose of the devil -- there wasn't any, he fell from grace and with his free will decided to overthrow God, what an idiot, and became the enemy of God.

Well okay, I obviously have questions about what you've said here. I wonder about the nature of evil as is described here, with God being the only thing that is good and perfect, and everything needing an opposite, does this mean that evil & imperfection existed for as long as God has? That is, did evil exist prior to God ever actually creating anything? If so, in what way could it be said to have existed? I guess as a bit of an aside, what exactly is it that prevented God from creating humans with a good nature & free will like himself?

[ProDeo]

Well okay, I obviously have questions about what you've said here. I wonder about the nature of evil as is described here, with God being the only thing that is good and perfect, and everything needing an opposite, does this mean that evil & imperfection existed for as long as God has? That is, did evil exist prior to God ever actually creating anything? If so, in what way could it be said to have existed?

I don't know.

I guess as a bit of an aside, what exactly is it that prevented God from creating humans with a good nature & free will like himself?

And God saw everything that he had made, and behold, it was very good. [Genesis 1:31]

A&E were even created very good, but even very good is not perfect.

[Oscar_Kipling]

Fair enough on the on the question of the existence of evil prior to any creations. Do you have any thoughts on anything from the bible that may prohibit such a possibility?

And God saw everything that he had made, and behold, it was very good. [Genesis 1:31]

We were even created very good, but even very good is not perfect.

Ha, yes, of course. I think perhaps I didn't word my question very well. My assumption was that you hold to the idea God has free will, could choose evil in principle, however his nature is such that he will not choose evil, though I realize now that you may not. I suppose the question that I should have asked is whether in your understanding of God, his [intrinsic?] goodness and the degrees of freedom he possesses as far as his will [free will?], God has the ability to choose evil, but will not due to some factor? If this is the case do you have any notions on what this factor is? Along that line, what prevents God from creating beings similarly with both free will    and this factor that would see them never actually choose it in practice even though they could in principle?