Theology III

[Lief Erikson]

Originally Posted by brownjenkins

Speaking of which, this new thread doesn't get you off the hook for answering all my points in the last one.

Nor does it let you off the hook from responding to my responses in post 986 . I already responded to about half your post. I'll take the rest now.

Originally Posted by brownjenkins

Beings that have no independent control are not an audience. Would you consider Harry, Ron and Hermione part of Rowling's "audience"?

They certainly would be audience, with a very deep internal look at her book, if they were alive. And life vs. non-life is the major failing of the book analogy.

And you don't have to have independent control to be an audience. I might grab you by the wrists and physically force you to watch a movie, and that doesn't stop you being an audience member, even if you are an unwilling one. But God doesn't grab anyone by the wrists and force them to watch the movie- people do what they want. In that way, this comparison falls short.

Originally Posted by brownjenkins

God, in your explanation, isn't "developing" anything at all. He creates good personalities and evil personalities and watches them do exactly what he expects them to do. There is no "developing".

As they do what he expects them to do, they develop. That process is developing. Just because God planned how it would develop doesn't mean it doesn't develop . Are you saying that for anything to develop, it has to be free of anyone's control? That's completely contrary to what we observe in life.

Film develops while under control. Buildings develop while under human control. We plan it out beforehand, put our resources together and build it, but it develops. Of course humans can't develop humans, although they certainly can influence them a lot, but God is far above us, and his developing us doesn't mean we don't develop. The result of God's planning develops in fulfillment of that plan. There is no contradiction between God's planning and acting and development.

Originally Posted by brownjenkins

Quote:
Originally Posted by Lief Erikson
Of course you're right that in the final analysis, God writes it all. However, humans still get to act freely according to their personalities in the circumstances they're in, and can change their circumstances through their wills, whatever their will may happen to be, and it will also be God's. One thing that no character should be able to complain of to the author in a good book is, "I wanted to do this one thing, but you intervened, messed with my character and prevented me doing what I would naturally do." Good authors create characters who behave in exactly the ways that are natural for them to behave in. Poor writers tamper with the personalities of their characters in unrealistic ways.


The only reason you can talk about what is "natural" and "unnatural" or "realistic" and "unrealistic" is because the author is not also writing your story. Whatever Rowling chooses to write about Harry, Ron and Hermione is perfectly "natural" from their point of view because Rowling created them.

It may or may not be natural from your point of view only because Rowling did not create, and thus does not control, your personality.

I don't understand what you're trying to say, here.

Originally Posted by brownjenkins

Quote:
Originally Posted by Lief Erikson
Characters do have some control over what happens around them and over what choices they make, but God has complete control. Their control and God's control don't contradict one another- that's my point.


They do contradict one another. If someone has complete control, by definition of the word complete, no one else has any control. The best you can give them is the perception of control if they do not completely see or understand the being that has complete control.

The concept is so basic, I feel silly even having to explain it.

I have already responded to this many times.

Originally Posted by brownjenkins

Quote:
Originally Posted by Lief Erikson
I define free will differently than you do, because I think the definition you are arguing for (without believing in it), and which I have commonly heard from other people, makes no sense.


What you are doing is calling a lack of free will, "free will". I could argue to the end of my days that black is really white, but no one is going to believe me.

Let me ask you a question: do you think god has free will in the common definition of the term (i.e. he can do whatever he wants with no outside control)?

Like us, he is bound to fulfill his personality, to be himself, just as we are.

I may respond to the rest later. I have to go now.

[brownjenkins]

Originally Posted by Lief Erikson

I have already responded to this many times.

I'd argue that, but since this is the heart of it, we can drop the rest.

Explain to me one more time, as simply as possible, how one being can have complete control over another being and yet, at the same time, that being retains at least some control.

And let me make clear, I have no issue if you wish to theorize that god has complete control over us. That's perfectly valid. As I said before, I also think the universe is deterministic at it's heart, I just don't put a "god" behind it.

The problem comes in when a) you claim we still have some freedom and, b) you claim we still have some responsibility.

The only way you can logically justify those claims is by saying that, due to our limited knowledge, we perceive that we have some freedom and some responsibility and thus act accordingly. (This is perfectly in line with determination, since our perceptions determine our actions.)

But, since god does not have those same limitations (his perception of reality is perfect), it would be silly for him to make those same claims, since he knows they are not true.

[Mari]

So what punishment would you give homosexuals and heretics then?
What could get them to see your way and not resent you for it?

[Lief Erikson]

Originally Posted by Mari

So what punishment would you give homosexuals and heretics then?
What could get them to see your way and not resent you for it?

I'm not saying we would do that.

Most heretics were punished by fines, banishment or excommunication. That seems valid, to me.

I haven't researched the punishments of homosexuals much, so I can't say about them.

[littleadanel]

Originally Posted by Lief Erikson

The 1450-1750 witchcraft trials were at the very end of the Medieval Ages. They were more of a Reformation and Early Enlightenment phenomenon. There were some witchcraft trials before that, and I know less about them (I just finished taking an entire course on the later witchcraft trials, which is the vast majority of them), for the big number of witchcraft burnings was during the 1450-1750 time period.

I don't have a problem with the principle of killing witches for witchcraft. They are dealing with Satanic powers, and it is going to be harmful to anyone they "bless."

o.O

Ok, this made me curious. If you don't mind me asking, what was this course like, what did you learn about? How did you examine the trials? Just askin' because I, too, had a course (this time last year) on witch beliefs and trials, though I suspect our topics were different. Ours was more centered around witch beliefs - with the trial documents providing a source material of people's ideas in those times, about witches and their practices -, and their possible origins.

Just curious...

[Mari]

Well, I wasn't asking about what they did in the past, I'm interested in what you think would be an acceptable punishment nowadays, with so many people fighting for their rights etc. I do realize that your ideas are ideas and not ready to be implemented, but I was just wondering if you had thought of the practical side of things.
I'm sorry, I am a rather practical person myself most of the time, so I like concreteness

[Mari]

I assume then that the Christians you speak of in a general sense would not include me and many other Christians who do not agree with your opinion?
Too bad.

[Nautipus]

Lief, do you still believe it is morally sound and justified to kill witches? Why not try to convert them to Christianity, meet evil with good, I think you know the verse.

There are reasons those practices diminished: they are barbaric at best. As a Christian, you should recognize this. Christ didnt say "go forth and terrorize the masses."

[sisterandcousinandaunt]

I was still kinda hanging on "Judge Not lest ye be judged", myself, but that's a good one, too.

[Lief Erikson]

Originally Posted by sisterandcousinandaunt

I was still kinda hanging on "Judge Not lest ye be judged", myself, but that's a good one, too.

Much of my response to Nautipus below responds directly to this passage, as well.

Jesus was talking, in the verse you have quoted, to a crowd of people who would apply it in their personal lives. I believe that on a personal level, this passage applies. Since Jesus was talking to private citizens rather than government officials, this is likely how it was intended to apply. If you apply it to the government's prosecution of crimes, the whole corpus of our criminal law goes out the window. Most Christians, I'll wager, don't see that as the proper interpretation.

I will add that you should also consider Romans 13, when you consider this passage.

Romans 13:4 says, "[The one in authority] is God's servant to do you good. But if you do wrong, be afraid, for he does not bear the sword for nothing. He is God's servant, an agent of wrath to bring punishment on the wrongdoer."

The government, according to St. Paul, has the mandate to judge. Jesus was talking about how people should behave in their private lives. If someone hits me, I should turn the other cheek. If someone wrongs me, I should forgive rather than retaliating. This rejection of judging is to be practiced on an individual basis, and it is beautiful and plainly holy. For society to be an ordered place, however, the earthly government has to judge.

Originally Posted by Nautipus

Lief, do you still believe it is morally sound and justified to kill witches? Why not try to convert them to Christianity, meet evil with good, I think you know the verse.

This is why I support such ministries as Prison Fellowship, people who meet those in prison and try to bring them to Christ, changing their lives. And I simultaneously support the authorities who put the prisoners in jail in the first place. These two perspectives are not inconsistent.

I believe that when there are murderers in society, they should be brought to justice. The same for thieves. The same for witches.

I believe that Christ's love should be brought to all of these people too, and the opportunity to repent should be afforded them. Of course, if a murderer repents and asks for forgiveness, does that mean that the penalty of the law should be removed, in his case? The man might be faking his repentance in order to get out of prison quickly.

The law must be enforced whether the person repents or not. Repentance should be offered though as an option, because if their repentance is true, it might save the souls of those who engage in it.

Justice should be tempered with mercy, though. That was plainly Jesus' teaching, when he saved the woman accused of adultery from those that planned to stone her. He did not tell the Pharisees that the law they were following was wrong, but he instead showed them that we should practice mercy as well.

I believe that is true in the case of murderers and thieves as well as in the case of witches. There should be a law against these crimes. Justice should be exacted on all of these cases where people harm other people, and themselves. Justice should also be tempered with mercy, however.

And considering the small number of witchcraft trials throughout the Medieval Ages, until the end of the Medieval Ages (1450-1750), I suspect that this is how it used to be generally practiced, until the beginning of the modern era.

Out of curiosity, do you believe that thieves and murderers should be treated only with mercy, and do you think that all earthly laws against their actions should be repealed?

If not, why not?

Originally Posted by Nautipus

There are reasons those practices diminished: they are barbaric at best. As a Christian, you should recognize this. Christ didnt say "go forth and terrorize the masses."

Well, Romans 13 said that if a person does wrong, he should be afraid, for the ruler doesn't bear the sword for nothing. And it says that this ruler's use of his power is his mandate by God. I don't care if a murderer who has committed a crime feels scared of the government that's coming after him! In fact, it's good that he does. He's that much more likely to either make a mistake or give himself up.

Laws against witchcraft did not terrify the masses. The masses were not generally practicing witchcraft. Some people did. And at the beginning of the modern era, many people were unjustly killed when accused of witchcraft they never engaged in. This was horrible, and much of what was done then is justly condemned today.

But even at that time, most witchcraft prosecutions were local affairs rather than widespread "witch hunts." About 50,000 people across Europe were killed in witch hunts, in 300 years. This is a horrible figure, but it is also relatively small when considered against the numbers of people killed for other crimes. And the common people tended to feel it was just. They were usually the ones who called for a witch trial in the first place. The "masses" were not terrified. They were much more afraid of witches than they were of witchcraft trials.

Originally Posted by Mari

I assume then that the Christians you speak of in a general sense would not include me and many other Christians who do not agree with your opinion?
Too bad.

I don't know exactly what part of my post you're responding to, so I'm afraid I don't know what you're saying. I don't consider you (from what I presently know of your beliefs) to be a conservative Christian, if that's what you mean. I didn't know that you are a Christian at all, in fact, until just now.

I don't know what you're saying, though, because I don't know what part of my post you're responding to.

[sisterandcousinandaunt]

Really Lief, your point of view is so odd. First of all, your POV on what constitutes "crime" is so completely random. Part of it is "crime" and part of it is "sin", and you don't seem to need evidence for either. It's clear to me that, as far as 'witchcraft" goes, you're exactly at 'she turned me into a newt." with it. Where on earth would you get the idea that 'witches' are dangerous to anyone safe in God's hands? They may be misguided, or ill-intentioned (of course you want witches' 'blessings' punished too) but why would you fear them?

Last I checked, Satan himself couldn't touch the godly. Why would his minions have a power stronger than his, assuming any of these people existed? It just makes no sense.

So much of your program seems to be about removing the temptation to sin from people. But God himself faced temptation, and taught people some of the ways of resisting it. That's part of how people develop, spiritually.

Your cherry picking of Bible verses is so weird. This business about whose audience got "judge not" and the connection to Romans is just ...well, weird. I mean, why don't you point out that Jesus was lecturing Jewish men? Then you can tell me that not being neither a Jew, nor a man, he wasn't speaking to me, at all. In fact, my ancestors, at the time, were painting themselves blue, and He didn't choose to appear to them, so hey, I'm completely off the hook for this message.

Your point of view is that the standards for godliness are completely different depending on whether you hold public office or not? That'll be a big relief to Elliot Spitzer.

And, I could point out, that if you have THAT slavish a respect for 'those in governmental authority" you can stop complaining about public schools, abortion, vaccinations, and whatever else they choose to impose on you. After all, you've got Paul's word for it that they're inspired and empowered by God in these policies.

[Nautipus]

Originally Posted by Lief Erikson

Much of my response to Nautipus below responds directly to this passage, as well.

Jesus was talking, in the verse you have quoted, to a crowd of people who would apply it in their personal lives. I believe that on a personal level, this passage applies. Since Jesus was talking to private citizens rather than government officials, this is likely how it was intended to apply. If you apply it to the government's prosecution of crimes, the whole corpus of our criminal law goes out the window. Most Christians, I'll wager, don't see that as the proper interpretation.

I will add that you should also consider Romans 13, when you consider this passage.

Romans 13:4 says, "[The one in authority] is God's servant to do you good. But if you do wrong, be afraid, for he does not bear the sword for nothing. He is God's servant, an agent of wrath to bring punishment on the wrongdoer."

The government, according to St. Paul, has the mandate to judge. Jesus was talking about how people should behave in their private lives. If someone hits me, I should turn the other cheek. If someone wrongs me, I should forgive rather than retaliating. This rejection of judging is to be practiced on an individual basis, and it is beautiful and plainly holy. For society to be an ordered place, however, the earthly government has to judge.

So if I was actually in office I could dish out judgement in any way I wish? If this is true, Lief, why are you so adamant about public schools and....oh, wait, sis beat me to it.

( I am NOT discrediting Paul's testimony here) So, if a government has the right to come after you for a crime (which it should, to a point), would that mean that I could deal out the punishments I see fit? This ties in to the point about judgment in office. But why does a mere man have the right to say either way? Why do we listen to the flesh and not God?

This is why I support such ministries as Prison Fellowship, people who meet those in prison and try to bring them to Christ, changing their lives. And I simultaneously support the authorities who put the prisoners in jail in the first place. These two perspectives are not inconsistent.

Okay, that sounds pretty good.

I believe that when there are murderers in society, they should be brought to justice. The same for thieves. The same for witches.

But on who's authority? Your's? The government'? Maybe, just maybe, God's? If you hit someone at a crosswalk by mistake and kill them, should you go to jail, even if you stopped to help? What if the govenmental office says so? What is legal, is not always right, Lief.

I believe that Christ's love should be brought to all of these people too, and the opportunity to repent should be afforded them. Of course, if a murderer repents and asks for forgiveness, does that mean that the penalty of the law should be removed, in his case? The man might be faking his repentance in order to get out of prison quickly.

The law must be enforced whether the person repents or not. Repentance should be offered though as an option, because if their repentance is true, it might save the souls of those who engage in it.

Justice should be tempered with mercy, though. That was plainly Jesus' teaching, when he saved the woman accused of adultery from those that planned to stone her. He did not tell the Pharisees that the law they were following was wrong, but he instead showed them that we should practice mercy as well.

I agree with most of this.

I believe that is true in the case of murderers and thieves as well as in the case of witches. There should be a law against these crimes. Justice should be exacted on all of these cases where people harm other people, and themselves. Justice should also be tempered with mercy, however.

And considering the small number of witchcraft trials throughout the Medieval Ages, until the end of the Medieval Ages (1450-1750), I suspect that this is how it used to be generally practiced, until the beginning of the modern era.

Out of curiosity, do you believe that thieves and murderers should be treated only with mercy, and do you think that all earthly laws against their actions should be repealed?

If not, why not?

Back to the crosswalk analogy, who claims malicious intent? And to say that all laws should be repealed is useless. People will always make their own rules, it is almost constant. Malicious intent should be paramount. (Along with stupidity for that matter )

Well, Romans 13 said that if a person does wrong, he should be afraid, for the ruler doesn't bear the sword for nothing. And it says that this ruler's use of his power is his mandate by God. I don't care if a murderer who has committed a crime feels scared of the government that's coming after him! In fact, it's good that he does. He's that much more likely to either make a mistake or give himself up.

Yes. Very true, but once again: who says the government is taking the right course of action in their judgment. Not that it matters in the end (the very very end), but, in your view, should they not at least consult the Lord? In a perfect world human judgement, of course, would not be a factor, but one never knows.

The ruler is given the sword for a good reason: to protect the masses according to what they think is the best way, not the other way around.

Laws against witchcraft did not terrify the masses. The masses were not generally practicing witchcraft. Some people did. And at the beginning of the modern era, many people were unjustly killed when accused of witchcraft they never engaged in. This was horrible, and much of what was done then is justly condemned today.

But even at that time, most witchcraft prosecutions were local affairs rather than widespread "witch hunts." About 50,000 people across Europe were killed in witch hunts, in 300 years. This is a horrible figure, but it is also relatively small when considered against the numbers of people killed for other crimes. And the common people tended to feel it was just. They were usually the ones who called for a witch trial in the first place. The "masses" were not terrified. They were much more afraid of witches than they were of witchcraft trials.

But whose to know who did or not? A jealous woman could accuse a man's wife of it rather easily. Simple superstition put on a pedestal.

[BeardofPants]

Originally Posted by Nautipus

There are reasons those practices diminished: they are barbaric at best. As a Christian, you should recognize this. Christ didnt say "go forth and terrorize the masses."

Hear hear!

I find it reassuring that the liefs' of the world are being reduced. Draconian anything scares me.

[Earniel]

Originally Posted by sisterandcousinandaunt

It's clear to me that, as far as 'witchcraft" goes, you're exactly at 'she turned me into a newt." with it.

I got better!






(Oh come on, admit it many of us were just waiting until Monty python was quoted in this discussion. )

[Lief Erikson]

Originally Posted by Eärniel

I got better!






(Oh come on, admit it many of us were just waiting until Monty python was quoted in this discussion. )

Lol!

Originally Posted by Mari

Lief, I was referring to your general (and loose if I may add) use of the term Christian. I am Christian, but I do not feel like the Christian you are describing.

Notice that a few times, I qualified my term to "conservative." Because of your statement, "I do believe that we are not the ones to judge morality," among other things you've said on Entmoot, I'd consider you to be liberal, so several of the things I said would apply less to you. But again, as you haven't given me specifics of what I said that doesn't work, I can't have much idea as to whether I made a linguistic error or not.

Originally Posted by Mari

Furthermore, though human law is human law and we should obey that, I do believe that we are not the ones to judge morality. God gave us laws through Mozes, in the form of the Ten Commandments. But it is IMHO God who will do the final judging.

Yes, he will do the final judging. Yet, as you pointed out, we should also obey a human law while here on Earth.

I agree with you that it is not for us to decide what is moral and what is not. That is why I believe we should follow Biblical teachings on morality, as well as the authoritative religious teachings of the Early Church Fathers and the Catholic Church.

Originally Posted by sisterandcousinandaunt

Really Lief, your point of view is so odd. First of all, your POV on what constitutes "crime" is so completely random. Part of it is "crime" and part of it is "sin", and you don't seem to need evidence for either.

First of all, I will say that because I believe the Bible to be inerrant, if its condemnation of witchcraft was all the evidence needed, it would be sufficient for me. There is very good reason, in my view, to believe the Bible to be inerrant, but discussing this foundational issue would lead to a whole different (and very broad) debate.

"Sin" is condemned in God's eyes. "Crime" is condemned in human eyes. My position that witchcraft constitutes a crime is based first on the Bible. The Old and New Testaments present witchcraft clearly as a real, powerful, and terrible phenomenon, and the Old Testament (the New doesn't spend much time on the role of the government) condemns it in law. Jesus said that he did not come to abolish the Law but to fulfill it, so the early Christian nations, after Christianity had gained a position in the political realm, made witchcraft illegal. They made it a crime because the Bible does.

I have heard people talk about their firsthand experiences at the receiving end of witchcraft, and it's pretty dark. No, it is not "she turned me into a newt" . I also have had some drastically negative experiences with powerful demons (as opposed to mental peeves) in my own past, which convince me thoroughly that the spiritual realm is powerful and can be very dangerous. Witchcraft has never been used on me, but I have talked with people that do dabble in witchcraft or who have experienced it. I also once had an experience of seeing a person in a college class for the first time, someone I had never known or seen before, and the instant I saw him and heard his voice, I had an extremely powerful sense of darkness and personal revulsion toward him. Over the next year or so of meeting the person and talking with him from time to time, I got to know him better, and I learned that he was strongly interested in at least two forms of witchcraft and was involved in a personal quest for "divine energy." There were other things rather messed up in his life too, but on the exterior, he is very confident, handsome, eloquent and dignified.

One of my cousins had a similar experience, when she was working in a hospital. One day she walked into an hospital hall, and she had an intense feeling of evil when she neared one of the men on a bed. Later, she learned that the man was a self-professing warlock.

I have also heard stories of believers in foreign lands, particularly Africa, who have had spells used against them, and when they had forgotten to pray for safety, these spells created bizarre kinds of incidents. For instance, one family's mother and father prayed every night for protection against magic (they had heard threats that spells would be used against them). One night, they forgot to pray for defense, and that night their tent burned down in a fluke accident. They barely escaped with their lives.

Evidence outside of the Bible convinces me that the common human consensus since the origin of our species, that witchcraft has real power, and the conservative Christian consensus, that witchcraft is dangerous, is correct.

So does evidence from within the Bible, which would be enough, either way.

Originally Posted by sisterandcousinandaunt

It's clear to me that, as far as 'witchcraft" goes, you're exactly at 'she turned me into a newt." with it. Where on earth would you get the idea that 'witches' are dangerous to anyone safe in God's hands? They may be misguided, or ill-intentioned (of course you want witches' 'blessings' punished too) but why would you fear them?

Last I checked, Satan himself couldn't touch the godly. Why would his minions have a power stronger than his, assuming any of these people existed? It just makes no sense.

Christians, just like anyone else, can be murdered, or stolen from, or can die by accidental causes. Or can be killed by witchcraft. God protects us from any of the above things when we pray, and sometimes he protects us from them even when we don't pray. The power of prayer plays a significant role in our protection, though.

Originally Posted by sisterandcousinandaunt

So much of your program seems to be about removing the temptation to sin from people. But God himself faced temptation, and taught people some of the ways of resisting it. That's part of how people develop, spiritually.

Part of the Lord's Prayer is, "lead us not into temptation." The scripture also says that the Lord does not tempt anyone, but people are led astray when tempted by their own evil desire.

Your argument makes as much sense as it does to allow a drug dealer to have full access to your children.

Originally Posted by sisterandcousinandaunt

Your cherry picking of Bible verses is so weird. This business about whose audience got "judge not" and the connection to Romans is just ...well, weird.

The audience is everyone. The passage applies to every human. However, it doesn't apply to every form of judging. Romans 13 makes it clear that this is not meant to remove the right of secular authorities to enforce laws. Do you think that Jesus intended to abolish the entire corpus of criminal law when he said, "judge not"?

Originally Posted by sisterandcousinandaunt

And, I could point out, that if you have THAT slavish a respect for 'those in governmental authority" you can stop complaining about public schools, abortion, vaccinations, and whatever else they choose to impose on you.

You don't see me bombing abortion clinics, do you?

We live in a democracy. I have a responsibility to take part.

[Mari]

Lief, I was referring to your general (and loose if I may add) use of the term Christian. I am Christian, but I do not feel like the Christian you are describing.

Furthermore, though human law is human law and we should obey that, I do believe that we are not the ones to judge morality. God gave us laws through Mozes, in the form of the Ten Commandments. But it is IMHO God who will do the final judging.

Okay, I'm talking to several people at the same time here, so I kinda forgot what point I wanted to make...

[sisterandcousinandaunt]

Lief hasn't gotten the update that "Perfecti" are no longer part of the Catholic Church. Perhaps the elevation of a former Nazi gave him room for optimism on this point.

[Gwaimir Windgem]

Eh? My brain is scrambling, but all I can come up with is the "perfecti" of the Cathars, which doesn't seem to have much bearing on anything mentioned...

[Mari]

Funny, the theology thread here makes me feel like a very liberal Christian, whereas the thread of another forum I visit makes me feel like a very strict one... >_<

[BeardofPants]

Personally, I like the anglican approach to xtianity. My boyfriend's granddad is an anglican pastor, and he's a firm proponent of science and the theory of evolution, etc. There's an anglican church in town that has rainbow sermons (for teh gays if you don't know).