The POE Drama Continues: Can It Get More Naïve?
Posted in Atheism, Blogosphere, Logic on | 2 minutes | 38 Comments →Along the lines of what we’ve been talking about, I’d like to highlight a selection from the blogosphere that I think is typical of the atheist position. To a commenter who challenged the Muehlhauserian use of emotional imagery to score rhetorical points in the POE, an atheist blogger who’s name is not worth repeating recently wrote,
The problem with your logic is that you fail to acknowledge the assumed premise. In this case, the assumed premise is that God is good. No. Better than good. He’s perfect. He is goodness exemplified. He is omni-benevolent. He is who all goodness tries to emulate. A good god insures that there is only goodness in the world. etc. etc. blather blather, etc. IOW, with a benevolent god there should be no evil.
LOL! The thing that really gets me is that this is perceived as “logic” and “rationalism” in atheist circles. Go team atheism! Let’s use those canned arguments! Seriously though, could one possibly construct a more simplistic approach to things? Talk about failing to acknowledge the assumed premise! It is this anti-theist blogger who fails to acknowledge the assumed premises in his own “argument.” Specifically, this:
A good god insures that there is only goodness in the world.
Why? Because this anti-theist blogger with an axe to grind says so? This is exactly what I mean when I recently wrote that all POE arguments I’ve seen reduce to an argument from incredulity, i.e., “I can’t fathom why God would allow such evil, therefore it’s more likely that my atheism is true.”
It saddens me to see so many people falling head-over-heels over incredulity. It really does.
J. K. Jones
says...Good series of posts on POE.
I also do not understand where the atheist gets the standard for “good” that he / she uses to criticize God. He / she must borrow from the Christian view of the world to even have a criticism. What right does the atheist have to invoke a universal standard of “good” that cannot be backed up within the atheist view of the world?
Thinking Emotions
says...J.K. Jones,
“What right does the atheist have to invoke a universal standard of “good” that cannot be backed up within the atheist view of the world?”
The atheist isn’t invoking anything. They just point out what they see to be an internal inconsistency within Christianity, and then the Christian usually responds with the free will defense or skeptical theism. At that point, the atheist usually abandons the evidential POE (God and evil are logically incompatible) and switches his approach to a probabilistic one (God and evil are logically compatible, but the existence of evil makes His existence unlikely).
I usually never bring up the POE anymore because I don’t feel like having an unproductive conversation. What am I to say to “God has a reason that we don’t know of?” The exchange hits an immediate dead end.
cl
says...If I might chime in here, I think there are at least two breeds of atheist in this regard: the genuinely inquisitive, and those that I would describe as emotionally invested. I think the genuinely inquisitive atheist simply attempts to judge the Bible on it’s own merits. They reason something like, “Okay, if this supposedly good God exists, why is there all this evil and suffering in the world?” The second breed goes a step further and actually experiences genuine anger at God. These types metaphorically condemn God in their heart, whereas the genuinely inquisitive types react with a disconnect towards the whole thing. So, the point of all that was, some atheists *DO* invoke a standard of good with which they [metaphorically] condemn God and/or the Bible, and other atheists simply reference what they perceive as an internal inconsistency, as TE said above.
TE,
Howdy there.
Actually, for me, it dead ends in the preceding exchange, i.e., the one where the atheist reasons from incredulity to some variant of, “If God is good, there wouldn’t be this much evil.” Or if not that exchange, then the one where the atheist reasons from intuition to some variant of, “Atheism is more likely given observed evil / suffering.” To me, those are the real discussion-enders, the first one because it’s just incredulity, and the second because it’s just an intuition. If the atheist allows that for his or herself, then surely the theist ought to be allowed credulity and intuition of his or her own, right? Unless of course we want to get science involved.
Thinking Emotions
says...cl,
Hey there. First of all, indeed we are being very general in saying things like “the atheist says…” or “the atheist argues…” I don’t think these statements are necessarily accurate indicators of what most atheists genuinely think.
Well, when you present it like that, I would agree. But when an atheist makes those sort of points in such a simplistic fashion, you have to doubt his philosophical acumen and/or his history with the POE.
However, I think an acknowledgment needs to be made by the theist in this case. In a probabilistic POE argument, the existence of evils that could be agreed to as “gratuitous” (e.g. birth defects, natural disasters) are simply not helping the case of Christianity. Even if God has an excellent reason for allowing such evils, that reason is 100% imperceptible to us foolish, temporal beings. That’s it. It doesn’t have to make atheism more likely, but I think at the very least, all should admit that it does not help the case of Christianity seem feasible. It doesn’t have to score points for atheism, but it shouldn’t be wiped away from Christianity’s blemishes, either.
cl, I totally agree that the standard atheist objections usually aren’t very compelling, but I think the theist responses aren’t any more persuasive. I’m pretty open when it comes to the POE. I’m willing to listen to both sides opine on this issue. But it’s frustrating to me how theists ostensibly try to bar the topic from Earthly discussion.
cl
says...TE,
I do, because I have yet to meet an atheist who doesn’t factor one or both responses into their objection. They might frame their map with different words, but when you get down to the territory, it’s always the same. At least, that’s been my experience.
I’d have to disagree. I mean, if a mortal and far less than omniscient human being such as myself can perceive answers that make sense, how much more so could God? I’m not being dismissive, either. I’m serious. Who’s to say suffering isn’t justly compensated in the next life? Who’s to say that evil prevented is necessarily better than evil abolished? On and on and on. While there’s certainly nothing wrong with saying God ways are not our ways, the theist doesn’t even need to do that here.
I’m not sure what you mean by that…
therealadaam
says...What you don’t seem to understand is that “the second breed” of atheist doesn’t get angry at God…
And I know of many atheist’s that HATE it when Christians say that we are just “angry at God.” It makes us think you’re dumb and can’t understand a simple thing, we don’t believe in God, god, Zeus, Hades, etc…
Do you hate Zeus? Is that why you’re not following him?
Do you hate Allah? Is that why you’re not following him?
I hate to use this canned response, but I’ve heard the whole “angry at God” argument more times that I care to admit. Do you REALLY believe that non-believers hate your god(s)?
cl
says...therealadaam,
Uh, what you don’t seem to understand is that there are atheists who *DO* get [metaphorically] mad at God, and if you are not one of them, then my comment didn’t apply to you.
No. You’re getting all carried away over nothing. I was make a particular comment about a particular emotional reaction experienced by a particular strain of atheist, and you’ve taken that and blown it all out of proportion.
Thinking Emotions
says...cl,
Obviously suffering won’t be compensated in the next life for everyone that has suffered; at least, not on your world view. I’m not trying to insult you, but not everyone believes in Jesus Christ and thus, not everyone is going to Heaven. However, everyone suffers. Even if everyone did go to Heaven, it doesn’t change the fact that the suffering could have been avoided.
I don’t understand your second question. Abolishing evil and preventing evil are the same thing from a human perspective.
To correct a prior mistake, I called the logical POE the evidential POE. My mistake; the evidential POE is the only one I think holds any weight.
Have you ever read the syllogism for the evidential POE? There is no intuition claiming there should be less evil as a result and there is no incredulity. Here’s Paul Draper’s version:
1. Gratuitous evils exist.
2. The hypothesis of indifference, i.e., that if there are supernatural beings they are indifferent to gratuitous evils, is a better explanation for (1) than theism.
3. Therefore, evidence prefers that no god, as commonly understood by theists, exists
cl
says...TE,
That doesn’t follow. Nothing in “suffering being compensated” mutually excludes “wrongdoing being judged.” Even more fundamental than that, though… the atheist needs to demonstrate why God’s scriptural attributes require that God disallow all evil [or some evil, if the atheist wishes to take that route].
Sure, but then we’re right back to square one, which is you saying you think things would ultimately be “more good” if the suffering was avoided. To me, that seems like a pretty tough position to demonstrate, and if you look, I think you’ll notice it’s just a variant of, “I can’t see how things would be ultimately more good given the suffering we see, therefore it’s more likely God doesn’t exist.” Again, the incredulity seems to be smuggling itself in.
I disagree. To “abolish” is to do away with, which implies existence. To “prevent” is to disallow existence altogether.
What do you see as the relevant difference?
Are you kidding me? It’s smuggled into the opening premise. Draper makes the same argument as Peter Hurford, with “needless” being replaced by “gratuitous” (which are essentially synonymous). Calling the evil “gratuitous” implies that the evil is “more than it should be,” which is another way of saying there could be less.
Then, consider Draper’s 2: “The hypothesis of indifference, i.e., that if there are supernatural beings they are indifferent to gratuitous evils, is a better explanation for (1) than theism.” Why? Because Draper says so? No offense intended, but that argument reflects the same naïveté that inspired this post!
Thinking Emotions
says...I don’t see any naïveté there. The Christian God supposedly intervenes, right? God is framed as the greatest conceivable being, no? If there could be a being greater than God, that would be God. If you really think that gratuitous evils are better explained by a personal God than an impartial one, and that gratuitous evils aren’t better explained by an impersonal one, I’m at a loss of words at how to change your thinking.
For the record, I do believe a God of theism and evil are compatible; in fact, perhaps even gratuitous evil is compatible with a theistic God. Like I said, I’m not closed on this issue.
The logical POE insists that God and evil are not compatible. The evidential POE concedes their possibility, but believes it lowers the chance of the existence of God. This is close to what I was saying earlier… the POE doesn’t need to score points for atheism, but it should not be wiped away as a blemish from Christianity. IOW, I don’t think the POE has been solved. Are there some good side steps and possibilities available in the mean time? Sure.
I do think there could be less evil because there could be. I do not know if there should be, but I believe 100% that it would be possible. My completely fallible human intuition tells me like a reflex there should be if God exists, but yours doesn’t?
Even though you are right in saying those two things aren’t mutually exclusive, I was just saying that on your world view, there is a lot of suffering that will never be compensated. At least, if I’m reading you correctly, that is.
To my knowledge, there is nothing in the Bible that requires God to disallow evil of any sort. But if you want to start there, can we find any scriptural evidence to support the claim that God is good at all?
Rufus
says...How about Psalm 100:5?
http://scripturetext.com/psalms/100-5.htm
therealadaam
says...cl
Okay, fair enough.
And you are correct, I did blow that out of proportion. My bad.
doubtingThomas
says...It’s a tough subject to be sure.
I think my answer to this objection would be as follows:
For there to be the potential for growth, there must be the potential for suffering. I completely agree with atheists that there is “needless/gratuitous” suffering, in the sense that it doesn’t actually have to exist. But there can not logically be growth without there at least being the potential for suffering.
One could lament the fact that we are allowed to suffer, or cherish the fact that we are allowed to grow.
JohnEvo
says...“I do, because I have yet to meet an atheist who doesn’t…. blah, blah, blah”.
You were saying something about atheism and evidence?
therealadaam
says...doubtingThomas
Why is it illogical for there to be growth without the possibility of suffering?
And unless I’m mistaken, it’s not the suffering that grows character. It’s overcoming the challenge that creates character. Yes, suffering does bring significant challenges, but so does working, raising kids, education, etc
Which leads to my next question, when you say suffering, do you mean pain? If so, do you mean physical or emotional pain?
Do you mean evil? If so who/what defines evil?
Thinking Emotions
says...Rufus,
Hello. That verse does explicitly state God is good, and I imagine there are other verses like that. However, of course the Bible is going to refer to God as good, merciful, loving, etc. because it is written in support of such a deity. Lots of atheists like to talk about barbaric things God commanded, required, or did; when I asked for scriptural evidence of God’s goodness and kindness, I was asking for maybe an anecdote where God does something touching and loving.
cl,
Is there any evil or suffering you consider gratuitous?
Rufus
says...TE,
Sorry, I misunderstood what you were look for. How about John 3:16?
therealadaam
says...Thinking Emotions,
I’m looking for a scripture that is evidence of God’s goodness and kindness, but I am having a hard time finding them in the Old Testament…
The New Testament they are everywhere, but not so in the Old. Everything is conditional too, that I’ve seen. “Follow my laws and I’ll be good to you. Don’t and you’ll be punished.”
I have not been able to find any actual accounts of God doing something good in the Old Testament. I figure this might have something to do with my bias.
I’m not counting any laws as good that God did (even though I’m tempted to say that those laws were great for the times).
Anyone else wanna do more research into this? I can’t find anything.
Rufus
says...thereakadaam,
How about Gen 2:18-25?
therealadaam
says...Rufus,
Yes, creating humans was “touching and loving” but unless I’m mistaken (very likely), TE was looking for something different. The opposite of 2 Samuel 6:3-7…
No offence, but the creation story where God ends up punishing the future of mankind, because of two people’s innocence/ignorance/disobedience, isn’t my idea of “touching and loving”
But at the same time, IF mankind was created, then life IS a gift. Something we wouldn’t have had without direct divine intervention/creation.
But the problem is that you can also see life as a gift from any angle.
‘We’re alive, that’s a gift’
‘We were created, that’s a gift’
‘What a gift we have in life, in lieu of the HIGHLY improbable statistics, we are alive’
etc…
In any case, let’s get back to finding some scriptural evidence of God preforming “touching and loving” acts.
Rufus
says...Ok, how about I Kings 3:5-15. God appears to Solomon offering to give him whatever he wants. Solomon asks for wisdom to rule and to know right from wrong. God gives this to Solomon and also gives him riches and glory. That sounds touching and loving to me. It is from the Old Testament. It is a gratuitous gift. Does it meet all the criteria being specified. This really is not a difficult task. We could go book by book through the Bible and find examples of God blessing people.
Thinking Emotions
says...Rufus,
Thanks, I really appreciate you digging up a verse to satisfy my demands and/or to prove your point. :) You’re also right. This is an act that is both loving and touching. The reason I asked for such a verse is that a lot of these qualities atheists like to ascribe to God (e.g. omnipotence, omniscience, ubiquity, omni-benevolence) are assumed and unsubstantiated. I read elsewhere that cl has written a post about biblically backing up the 3-O God. I need to read it!
If one is to believe God truly is good at all, let alone omni-benevolent, how do we reconcile his loving acts with acts that are seemingly cruel? I refer to Genesis 19:24 where God kills everyone in Sodom and Gomorrah. Verses like these seem to be categorical evidence of God’s cruelty.
I can immediately perceive three ways the Christian could get out of this (mind you, this is not exhaustive):
1. God’s ways are not man’s ways; what we think is cruel is not actually cruel on His part.
2. That Bible verse is not literal, taken out of context, etc.
3. We cannot judge God because he is perfect and we are sinful.
cl, I know you said there is no mutually exclusionary relationship between compensation for suffering and wrongdoing being judged. I think that’s true. However, I don’t see judging in this case as much as I see God blatantly destroying two cities. I also think there is a contradiction between loving acts and destructive acts. Not to mention, perhaps you could weasel the destruction of the two cities under the scope of judgment, but turning someone into a pillar of salt is simply cruel and unusual punishment (yes, I am aware she defied the orders of the angels).
cl
says...Lots of good conversation and questions here. Thanks, everybody, for your input. For now, I’d like to make a general point about “research” using something therealadaam said as a springboard, though, I’m actually speaking to everybody, and not singling therealadaam out:
I couldn’t help but wonder what was meant by “research” there. What do you mean when you use the word? By “research” do we simply mean typing some string like “God’s love Old Testament” into Google and briefly perusing the results? In particular, the “I can’t find anything” remark led me to that question. While I can’t speak for anybody else here, I can say I’ve read the Bible cover-to-cover at least once, maybe even two or three times if you were to add up all the intermittent sessions. I think people who have dedicated this level of committment to the source material have an advantage here. I guess what I’m saying is this: atheists and theists alike should be wary of false confidence. Perfunctory keyword searches might be a good place to start, but there can be no substitute for a thorough command of the source material, and that applies to any human endeavor where learning and critical thinking are to take place.
therealadaam,
I hope you don’t get the feeling that I’m harping on you, or trying to imply that you don’t know the Bible, or anything else that could possibly be construed as negative or accusatory. I have no idea how much of the Bible you’ve read. I simply want to encourage people towards strong command of source material, and discourage people against false confidence based on perfunctory research. Again, not saying that’s you.
That any given Google search didn’t return the results we’re looking for doesn’t necessarily constitute a reason to think those results don’t exist.
cl
says...To All,
While I realize this can be tough to judge, and my scale is certainly arbitrary and could be improved on, how would you rate your familiarity with the Bible in your adult life?
1) at least one chapter of the Bible.
2) at least one full book of the Bible [i.e. all of Genesis, all of Matthew, etc.]
3) 5-10 books.
4) 10-20 books
5) the entire New Testament or equivalent [27 books].
6) the entire Old Testament or equivalent [39 books].
7) 40-50 books
8) 50-60 books
9) the entire Bible cover-to-cover once [66 books].
10) I have read the entire Bible cover-to-cover more than once, and I make use of concordances, Greek / Hebrew lexicon, apocryphal texts, etc.
I’ll go first: I’m at 10.
doubtingThomas
says...I’m about a 7. Climbing gradually to 8.
therealadaam
says...Rufus,
Sorry if I was a bit harsh before. And yes, both of your examples are blessings. But those blessings are conditional, are they not?
For the sake of this argument, both are great examples. But I’m interested in finding Old Testament passage(s) that show God preforming unconditional acts of love.
The only reason is because the New Testament has unconditional acts of love everywhere, yet (in my limited knowledge) I have not seen many unconditional acts of love in the Old Testament.
cl,
No worries, I agree. Just googleing “God good” or such does not constitute as research in my mind.
Not sure if you’ve heard of Torry Academy or Biola Star, but I was a part of that homeschool program. And my teacher was amazing, he helped me discover how to think for myself. How to let go of my parent’s ideals and learn for myself. Most importantly he showed me what good research is, and how to properly use source material.
I’m no academic, but I like to think I’m above average.
Well I was slowly scanning the Old Testament for answers, but I know my confirmation bias would lead me much more easily to passages like 2 Samuel 6:3-7.
“While I realize this can be tough to judge, and my scale is certainly arbitrary and could be improved on, how would you rate your familiarity with the Bible in your adult life?”
I’m currently at a 9. Read through the Bible multiple times. I used to be a 10, but not anymore (was homeschooled with Christian curriculum and went to church 4 or 5 times a week). Not gonna lie it’s been awhile since I’ve needed/been interested enough to go to that deep a level, or use those tools.
Thinking Emotions
says...cl, I read up to the part in Genesis where Cain kills Abel and God calls out to Cain. That makes me a one on your scale. I also agree with you. There is a certain level of familiarity and expertise gained from reading the Bible comprehensively that cannot be gained from simply being familiar with a few parts.
Rufus
says...Hey therealadaam,
No worries. I selected the Solomon passage because it seemed unconditional to me. He is given whatever he asks for, no matter what it is. Do you not agree with this being unconditional? God then goes on to provide the conditional that if Solomon lives according to God’s law, he will be blessed with long life.
cl,
I would say that my knowledge of the Bible is somewhere around an 8 (+/- 0.5). I am able to read Koine with my Greek Lexicon not too far away, though I have no knowledge of Hebrew at all.
cl
says...I haven’t got to all of the comments yet, but I had time to field these…
ThinkingEmotions,
The world contains much suffering and evil that I would consider “extreme” or “highly undesired by decent standard,” but I can’t say whether the suffering and evil we see is “necessary” or “gratuitous.” It might be necessary, it might be gratuitous, but any reliable answer requires knowledge I lack.
I wasn’t getting the impression you were closed. It’s just that I take issue with this:
It seems to me that “better explained” is just being used as a euphemism for something like, “I prefer,” or, “my intuition tells me.” What does it mean to say “better explained?” By what objective protocol can we arrive at such a judgment? If you could show me something like that, it might go a great way towards changing my thinking. However, if none can be given, aren’t those who claim the evil and suffering we see is gratuitous just sorta “feeling” their way towards truth?
Well, what do you mean by “solved?” If the prosecution doesn’t make their case, the defendent cannot rightfully be charged guilty.
I agree that in principle, there could be less evil. After all, the Bible does end with an eternal kingdom, free of evil. I’ve never contested the contingency of evil. Rather, I challenge anybody who claims to know that the evil we currently see is gratuitous. I want to know how somebody can know that.
I’m not committed to any views in that regard. I don’t know whether all suffering gets compensated. My only point in raising the issue was to show how simple it is to come up with a seemingly logical reason for the existence of evil / suffering, given God.
You have some other comments I intend to get to, so you might want to wait for me to catch up before making your next reply…
therealadaam,
No worries, I can see why… you thought I was making the generally specious argument, “atheists don’t believe because they’re mad at God.” I imagine atheists react to that charge the same way theists react to variants of “theists just believe because they’re ignorant.”
Is this not the mindset any good parent would have?
Well, not really. Not without stretching the meaning of “gift” to include random transactions of matter. IF humanity wasn’t created, then life is more accurately described as an accident than a gift. A gift seems to require intention.
Well, what types of acts would you accept as good?
John Evo,
Hmmm… I guess you want me to guess what you mean. Let’s see: I drew a conclusion based on my experiences with atheists, and you feel that’s unfair because elsewhere, I demand that atheists provide evidence for their claims. Right? Is that your complaint?
doubtingThomas,
Exactly. So well-said. Is the glass half empty or half full?
cl
says...Thanks, everybody, for the answers to the “familiarity with the Bible” question.
ThinkingEmotions,
Rufus already kicked that off, and I was even thinking about dedicating an entire post to the topic. In my opinion, there is no shortage of answers.
It’s right here. Mind you, I’m inclined to agree with the attributes in question. That post was just an attempt to support them biblically, because I wanted to know who actually had grounding for them. I get the impression many people just kind of go through the motions in POE debates. I think a pretty compelling case can be made for each of the four “omni” attributes.
Regarding Sodom and Gomorrah, how do you define “cruel?” Of your three proffered ways out, I don’t take 2 or 3. I might take 1, but that depends on what you mean by “cruel.”
therealadaam,
Which NT acts of love did you have in mind? In your opinion, what necessary criteria must obtain in order to call an act of love “unconditional?”
I hadn’t heard of them. I’m no academic, either. It sounds like you’ve had the privilege of at least one good teacher, though, and that’s cool.
Thinking Emotions
says...cl,
I really appreciate your constructive responses. It is good to see (a)theist discussion that consists of thought-provoking exchanges rather than tendentious bickering; the latter covers practically all of YouTube and many internet forums.
I do see the error in that syllogism I posted earlier. The statement “gratuitous evils exist” almost seems identical to the statement “God is not all good, therefore does not exist” to some theists. I suppose the syllogism almost begs the question in that sense, but I am not sure I view it under that light. Do you think gratuitous evils would disprove the existence of God? Or, rather, be inconsistent with the hypothesis of Christianity? ;) This isn’t a trick, I promise; I am just curious to hear what you think. Even if we knew what evils were gratuitous, I do not think we could say that rules out God’s existence. Perhaps you think differently? And to clarify, I am referring to the Christian God, not a deist one.
I will try to play by your terms here then, cl. Gratuitous evils are more consistent with the hypothesis of a deist God than a theist God, though I do not think the existence of gratuitous evils rules out the theist God. You can call this an intuition or a subjective judgment, but hear me out. Let me analogize.
Which type of parent would be most likely to yield suffering children and/or conditions that would lead to suffering: a totally negligent one (Parent A) or a purportedly caring one (Parent B)? I’m serious.
Parent A, the negligent one, brings his children into existence and immediately steps out of the picture. He will not intervene no matter what and is indifferent to what happens. Parent B, the caring one, brings his children into existence and strongly desires a loving relationship with them. Not only that, but Parent B will also intervene in humanly matters and listens to the desires of his children. Furthermore, he will reward them for obeying him and being in relationship with them. Perhaps this line of reasoning is “intuitive,” but I think this is the best objective protocol I can give you.
I say one would expect, intuitively or not, the world of Parent A to lend way to needless suffering more than the world of Parent B. All evil and suffering, gratuitous or not, seem to align more congruently with a deist God than a theist God. If this gets flagged as intuitive, I am not sure what else I have to offer.
I think killing someone for disobedience is cruel and authoritative in its very nature, for starters. I could draw the picture out in human terms, but you said you are inclined to take 1; I feel as if that effectively precludes a human analogy translating my point correctly.
For the definition of “cruel,” let’s start with the dictionary.com definition: willfully or knowingly causing pain or distress to others. If you ask me, this is a really good start and nearly identical to what I wanted to say. I was going to posit a definition with the word “sadistic” in it, and I think this definition conveys that.
What kind of bugs me, even though I think it is hysterical in its absurdity, is that turning someone into a pillar of salt is unarguably cruel! The illustration for it on Wikipedia under the Sodom and Gomorrah page is hilarious. I imagine this is supposed to be symbolic of something, however, so I will await your biblical expertise on the matter. :) Oh, and at a later point in the Bible, God’s destruction of the two cities is referred to as “… the LORD [overthrowing them] in fierce anger” by Moses in Deuteronomy 29:22-23. Just noting this.
therealadaam
says...“Which NT acts of love did you have in mind? In your opinion, what necessary criteria must obtain in order to call an act of love ‘unconditional?'”
Well after a quick skim John 4:43-54 is a good one. I have honestly not had much time to look into it.
And by “unconditional” I just mean an act of love that was done with no strings attached. I don’t think I’m being that picky, am I?
I’ll clarify a bit more. If I were to give $5 to a homeless person on the street, that would be an unconditional act of love (agape love). If I gave him $5 to wash my windows, that’s conditional love.
Does that example make sense?
Again, I don’t think I’m being picky. The example that Rufus gave earlier was good, but my only issue was with the context. If you look at 1 Kings 3, you’ll see that Solomon went and sacrificed 1000 burnt offerings to God. THEN God gave him a blessing.
I don’t think it’s wrong of me to think of that act of love as conditional, right?
Rufus
says...therealadaam,
You seem to be assuming that God gives Solomon wisdom because he offered the sacrifices. It does not say that, so I think you may be reading into the text IMO. How about 1 Samuel 16, the anointing of David. What did David do to earn this blessing?
-Rufus
therealadaam
says...Rufus,
Perhaps you are right, I might be reading into the text. And I also am fighting a confirmation bias here, lol. I CURRENTLY think the Bible (as a religious text) is a load of crap. There are some amazing stories there, and looking deeper at the context of the time, it is amazing.
I digress…
Yes, the anointing of David was a blessing.
Daniel
says...therealadaam,
The Bible is polysemous. It’s not just a matter of reading it with the proper historic context (thought that is an important thing to consider); it is also a matter of considering truths on various levels. Certain passages are to be taken as literally true. Other passages are meant to be taken as anagogically true, allegorically true, or tropologically true. At times some or all of these levels are operating at the same time.
I think reading the Bible with these added dimensions in mind helps one to understand the inspired and inerrant nature of the scriptures.
rtyecript
says...I really liked the article, and the very cool blog
therealadaam
says...Daniel,
I do agree with your said statement, except for this:
“I think reading the Bible with these added dimensions in mind helps one to understand the inspired and inerrant nature of the scriptures.”
What do these added dimensions have to do with the inspiration of the scriptures?
And what do the added dimensions have to do with the inerrant nature of the scriptures?
How does one know which dimensions apply to specific passages?
Is the Resurrection of Christ anagogically true, allegorically true, tropologically true, or literally true?
Please don’t think I’m being insulting or annoying, I’m genuinely curious.
cl
says...Speaking for myself, I take it as literally true, because of other verses which tend to corroborate a literal interpretation. OTOH, I take a verse like Mark 9:43 allegorically (“And if your hand causes you to sin, cut it off. It is better for you to enter life crippled than with two hands to go to hell, to the unquenchable fire”), on account the apparent conflict with other verses if we interpret it literally.
At the end of the day, that’s my system for figuring which verses to read literally, allegorically, etc. I compare them to the totality of Scripture and make the best judgment I can, and where there is uncertainty, I refrain from rigidity.