I’m getting a lot this ‘what a “good god” would do’ thing now in emails and such (backwash from the new atheism).
Try this: Instead of looking supplicant and making excuses for God as if He had been having a bad day, say plainly that “any God that would not judge persons, nations, entire civilizations and even the world would not be a God of any great significance and so unworthy of true faith or sincere worship”.
One way or another we need to face the problem. Either we present God as a mushy glow of love and compassion that would really like to do something about evil but either can’t or won’t, or we present him as he presents himself in scripture and push the problem back at the accuser.
Those without God inevitably absolve the universe of evil in order to avoid the God that judges evil and so make themselves innocent at the cost of moral realism.
Since an ethical life is half of any kind of a reasonable human life once the good is drowned out there is little more about us of any real value, and this is where the atheist wants us to be; with them in the meaningless jumble of protons with neither truth nor goodness.
If we are going to have a God we need him to be a God worth having and anything other than the Christian God is easily reduced to triviality.
A friend wrote to me…
“Someone who says “but a good god would would do ___” is measuring his theoretical god against his *own* standard of what he thinks “good” is. In doing so, he really has made himself to be God, and what he calls “god” is merely a citizen of his own kingdom.” VW
And I think that that is true for the most part but we can also see that since God himself put in our hearts and very constitution (as sentient beings created in the image of God) his own moral law and ethical categories, we are born into the world with the ethical equipment to recognize justice and find God through such activity. Thus we can only in this limited sense “judge God” in that we have the ability to see what he does and that he is always good.
I think this kind of exercise of judgement is found even in holy scripture when we are called upon to not only relent, but to recognize the goodness of God. We are called not just to admit that God is powerful and sovereign over Heaven and Earth, but that he is actually good. His goodness is not reducible to merely his authority and omnipotence but is an actual moral quality inherent in the Godhead itself. Thus perhaps in judging God by the “good” we could say that we are really judging God by God, or maybe measuring God by his own moral consistency.
Neiswonger
Neiswonger
Doug
Josh Hicks
Clay
How come everybody can explain things better than I can? Nice post. Thank you.
Comment by makarios — September 22, 2009 @ 12:44 pm |
“‘what a “good god” would do’ thing now in emails and such”
I can only speak for myself, but my issue is less with what a ‘good god’ would do than what a ‘just god’ would do.
No matter how you slice it, infinite punishment for finite actions is not just. It’s not the judging that’s the issue. It’s whether the judging is fitting or just.
Comment by morsec0de — September 22, 2009 @ 12:44 pm |
I can’t think of any Christian body, at any time in history, that has argued that the punishments that God gives under any conditions are quantitatively infinite.
That seems like a misunderstanding of Christian dogma or at least a self interpretation inconsistent with the facts in evidence.
Neiswonger
Comment by Neiswonger — September 22, 2009 @ 1:57 pm |
So all those Christians that preach that we’re going to burn in hell for all eternity aren’t Christian bodies? Or could you just not think of them?
Comment by morsec0de — September 22, 2009 @ 2:06 pm |
I think I understand what you are saying. That is just not what the term “infinite” means in general nor how it is used in theology, more specifically Christian theology.
Comment by Neiswonger — September 22, 2009 @ 2:15 pm |
So in Christian theology, infinite means something else than ‘eternal’? Half of eternal? But then it wouldn’t be infinite.
What do you think infinite means?
Comment by morsec0de — September 22, 2009 @ 2:29 pm |
So…what does ‘infinite’ mean in this context? Are atheists actually going to burn in hell forever (eternally – for an infinite amount of time/in a state outside of time or in which time has no meaning), or have I been grievously misled all these years? Or do you mean infinite in the sense of a ‘maximal’ punishment?
Comment by gonovelgo — September 22, 2009 @ 2:29 pm |
Look guys… I’m not trying to bore you with rudimentary details here but any conversation begs at least a basic accuracy with terms and their use. No Christian body has ever argued that God’s punishment is “infinite”. That is just basic and unarguable common knowledge.
I’m not trying to tell you how to do your atheism thing; just trying to make sure that we do it in English.
If you would like to bring evidence contrary to the claim you have my blessings (if you’re uncomfortable being blessed you can just have my happy thoughts).
The claim was made that the difference between God being “good” and him being “just” was contingent upon whether or not he mets out infinite punishment, and according to Christian Theology, He does not.
So the argument fails.
I don’t really think this point is worthy of this much discussion.
Comment by Neiswonger — September 22, 2009 @ 2:42 pm |
“If you would like to bring evidence contrary to the claim”
“And if your hand or your foot causes you to stumble, cut it off and throw it from you; it is better for you to enter life crippled or lame, than having two hands or two feet, to be cast into the eternal fire,” (Matt. 18:8)
Eternal fire.
Definition of eternal from Merriam-Webster: having infinite duration
From the Catholic Encyclopedia New Advent: “The Holy Bible is quite explicit in teaching the eternity of the pains of hell.”
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/07207a.htm
So, sorry sir, but you’re wrong.
Comment by morsec0de — September 22, 2009 @ 2:56 pm |
Eternal, or of unending or unlimited temporal duration, is different than the qualitative use attributed to the quality of the thing.
This is a simple confusion of a temporal term with a qualitative term, or a category error.
Infinite is used in two senses: quantitatively and qualitatively. Even God is not said to be quantitatively infinite as this is a mathematical device. God is said to be qualitatively infinite in that he has no limitations other than his nature
A little more from the dictionary would have done this for you…
Main Entry: 1in·fi·nite
Pronunciation: \ˈin-fə-nət\
Function: adjective
Etymology: Middle English infinit, from Anglo-French or Latin; Anglo-French, from Latin infinitus, from in- + finitus finite
Date: 14th century
1 : extending indefinitely : endless; infinite space
2 : immeasurably or inconceivably great or extensive : inexhaustible : infinite patience
3 : subject to no limitation or external determination
4 a : extending beyond, lying beyond, or being greater than any preassigned finite value however large b : extending to infinity c : characterized by an infinite number of elements or terms
Comment by Neiswonger — September 22, 2009 @ 3:06 pm |
In all of this there is just to say that the only thing thought of as actually infinite in Christian theology, is God. Even God cannot give an infinite punishment because there is no infinite object to receive such. There are of course different ways of using the term infinite, we can use it for a party hat if you’d like, but as for actuall appropriation, it is limited in its scope of use.
And as for the Catholic Encyclopedia, 1st it does not say what you are saying, and 2nd, it is not ex cathedra and so does not speak for that church in a final authoritative sense.
I would have thought a good Catholic Atheist like yourself would know that.
Comment by Neiswonger — September 22, 2009 @ 3:12 pm |
Now of course one could ask why our two definitions of “infinite” from the same dictionary differ, and that would be because I am using the adjective, since your question about the goodness or justice of God used such as an adjective, while you used the definition of the term as a noun, which is not what we were talking about.
Comment by Neiswonger — September 22, 2009 @ 3:31 pm |
“Someone who says “but a good god would would do ___” is measuring his theoretical god against his *own* standard of what he thinks “good” is. In doing so, he really has made himself to be God, and what he calls “god” is merely a citizen of his own kingdom.”
Good that you didn’t accept this wholesale. Abraham has his presuppositions about God as expressed in Genesis 18 where he pleads for Sodom. Yes, these are presupposition as there is little revelation up to that point by which to justify Abraham’s expectations.
Comment by Alvina — September 22, 2009 @ 6:45 pm |
There is this church near-by that produces some pageants: The Glory of Christmas, the Glory of Easter, and even the Glory of Creation — but no Glory of Judgment… Now THAT would be a show to keep you on the edge of your seat!
Comment by RevK — September 22, 2009 @ 11:48 pm |
This (i.e., eternal punishment) is exactly the kind of thing that I had a hard time getting past prior to becoming a Christian. But then I realized that, even in this world, there is far more suffering in this world than I feel prepared to accept; so, my preferences have nothing to do with whether such things are true. And whatever source of goodness and hope I might acknowledge, if real, must exist along with this fact of suffering. (I had already come to realize that even the objection depends on a standard of good and evil/right and wrong.)
Next to be considered was the question of what exactly would make eternal suffering so much worse than temporal suffering. If we can speak of a “moment” of eternal suffering (can we?), what would make it so much worse than a moment of temporal suffering? I think the main thing (the main thing I can grasp, anyway) would have to be the utter absence of hope. Yet Hell is reserved for those who reject the Source of all true goodness and hope. This seems fitting and just, even as it makes me abhor all my own foolishness and blasphemy by which I, apart from Grace, have earned the same hopeless fate. What is most mind-boggling is that God-in-Christ would take those wages upon Himself.
It is stupid complacency on our (us humans’) part that causes us to take our discomfort with the notion of Hell to be a reason to reject it as a fact. It is the same kind of complacency that impedes Christians from doing more to express both the holiness and the grace of God to our neighbors. On that last point non-believers can rightly challenge us. But none of these objections or feelings of discomfort oblige God to diminish the extent of His judgment.
Comment by JimAbs — September 23, 2009 @ 12:36 am |
Regarding the doctrine that Christ bore the punishment for our sin, I anticipate the objection that His punishment came to an end, whereas the punishment of those in Hell will not. But such an objection would depend on the conceit that we can quantify God’s wrath, and do so by consulting our watches. There is no good reason to believe we can do this. Rather we have the word of Him who is qualified to speak on such things that
“. . . He was wounded for our transgressions,
He was bruised for our iniquities;
The chastisement for our peace was upon Him,
And by His stripes we are healed.” (Isa. 53:5, NKJV)
Comment by JimAbs — September 23, 2009 @ 12:53 am |
My problem is not with a god dispensing justice from on high. My problem is that he commands people like you and I to go forth and slaughter children, infants even, as his punishment for a wicked civilization. Why slaughter the infants? Why eradicate the women and children and even the men, instead of taking them captive under the watch of this god and his chosen people? Why not just open the ground and swallow them whole, and not make men face the horrors of war? Why did he stand by and let these evil civilizations sacrifice their children in the first place?
Honestly, that is my only contention with this god found in the Old Testament.
Comment by Anon — September 23, 2009 @ 8:48 am |
God is free to execute judgment immediately or by means.
Help me understand why the means makes a difference to you?
Comment by lindsaybrooks — September 23, 2009 @ 11:06 am |
Anon, God is free to carry out His judgments in the manner He wants to, by whom He wants to, and toward whom He wants to. There is Creator/Creature distinction in Christianity which teaches us that God is not *like* us. He doesn’t answer. Since He is the very epitome of holy, just, righteous, and good, then we are to believe that *whatever* he does is holy, just, right, and good. When He commands the slaughter of *anyone* it is not murder. Why? Because He’s God and He doesn’t murder and He’s justified in the taking of anyone’s life since He’s the very one that gives it life in the first place and since said creation has broken His Law, which is perfectly just, holy, and good. God does not sit in the dock of human courts.
Comment by Josh Hicks — September 23, 2009 @ 12:03 pm |
So does god then punish the unjust as well as those dispensing his justice? I’m not sure a sound mind would be able to shrug off the screams of children and infants suddenly silenced by the tip of their spear.
I understand the concept of original sin, and that all are guilty in the eyes of the christian god without the grace of Christ. But here is my dilemma: a God being preached today by the Christian that says he is love and goodness, but he also commands his chosen people to hack up children to bits. One might respond “Ah yes, but he was showing different aspects of himself.” Well if this is the case, then is must be said that either a.) god cannot operate different aspects of his nature simultaneously; or b.) he chooses not to. If ‘b’ is the case, then what is stop the current aspect of grace from changing to one of god telling all the Christians to wage war on entire civilizations that he wants out of the picture? If you posit he will not do this, why not?
Thanks for your time.
Comment by Anon — September 25, 2009 @ 12:59 pm |
Abrahams “presuppositions” are themselves revelation.
Comment by lindsaybrooks — September 23, 2009 @ 8:59 am |
Hey Lindsay,
I hear what you are saying. In the ultimate sense everything in there is considered revelation, in the proximate sense only the things that God communicates in the story or that are implied to be communicated somewhere else is revelation, but there seem to be things that Abraham brought to his interactions with God (this is not meant to imply that these things were not themselves “revelation” of a different sort) that he knew and used in his interaction with God in proximate revelation.
What I mean is, the general revelation of God that all men know, or that they learn from experience, these being Abraham’s “presuppositions”, were carried into his interaction with God in the more obvious communications. And these were merely natural, or from being created in the image of God. Thus he could in a sense, recognize God, when God came to him though they had not previously been formally introduced.
In this, much of what we are by mere creation is the normal means that God uses to prepare us for conversion, just as we must actualize our inherent ability to learn language before we can engage in normal communication.
Neiswonger
Comment by Neiswonger — September 23, 2009 @ 9:36 am |
Hey Chris, my response should have been a reply to Alvina, above, who was responding to your statement about people’s “theoretical god”.
I was saying, as you nicely explicated, that there is a true knowledge of God available to us as the Imago Dei and in natural revelation, but this is different from the “theoretical god” you were writing against.
Comment by lindsaybrooks — September 23, 2009 @ 11:23 am |
What atheists are doing when they criticize God as angry, mean, murdering, etc., or by saying “a good god would ___” is borrowing God’s truth to make such accusations. The intellectually honest atheist will say that he has no moral grounds upon which to make moral judgments about a figment-god’s actions. Thus, Dawkins et al will use God’s definition of right/wrong (murder, lying, etc.) to say that the God of Scripture is these things, then say that’s a reason to *not* believe in Him. Sorry, you can’t use the truth and standards of Him in Whom you do not believe.
Comment by Josh Hicks — September 23, 2009 @ 11:47 am |
[...] 23, 2009 · Leave a Comment Chris Neiswonger gives us some mighty fine food for thought today. I wish I woulda had this in class today as I [...]
Pingback by “Only a Good God Would Do___” « The Pugnacious Irishman — September 23, 2009 @ 9:58 pm |
“then what is stop the current aspect of grace from changing to one of god telling all the Christians to wage war on entire civilizations that he wants out of the picture?”
The accounts of God ordering what we today would call genocide (in error) are simply not transferable to today. In other words, God would not order His followers to do that today.
- Those nations were standing in defiance of and as a threat to the very Nation through whom God was going to bring salvation to the entire world, i.e., the Israelites / Jesus.
- Those nations were evil to the core. Eg. It was a social norm to sacrifice their children as live burnt offering, as well as to subjugate women by the thousands to work as temple prostitutes. It was usually the offspring of these liaisons who were offered to the local gods.
- Those nations were always offered peace prior to war. Anyone who wanted to was free to leave, with their children I might add. Only those who were determined to go to war with Israel stayed and exposed their children to the imminent danger.
- Because of their extreme levels of evil, Creator God was driving them out to provide a homeland for His chosen nation.
I have always wondered, have Jews been hounded, harassed and killed down through history because they are God’s chosen people, or are they God’s chosen people because He knew that they would be hounded, harassed and killed throughout history? Some of each I suspect.
Anyhow, you need not fear that God is going to ask Christians to kill others in His name.
Comment by makarios — September 25, 2009 @ 2:04 pm |
I believe that the unsaved will be judged according to their works,the sad thing is that nobody has good works except Jesus.He will definately judge the evil in the world.Great post man!
Comment by mike42lan — September 30, 2009 @ 8:18 pm |