makeshiftmind

For people who try to use logic to prove a non-logical God exists: I deny that logic is a construct that we “make up.” Like mathematics, it is a language that describes relationships in reality. God is part of reality. Therefore, logic describes God’s relationships to the other things in reality. If you try to argue that God is above logic, burn your Bible because you have no hope that what it contains is meaningful. You could never be certain that a non-logical God would (or could) communicate in propositions that were true. How do we know, for example, that in some supra-logical way that God really ISN’T love? Maybe He’s love and not love at the same time. Maybe your sins aren’t forgiven. Maybe they are and they aren’t, so you’ll have one foot in heaven and one in hell, but it won’t matter because justice may or may not have been achieved, because in the final analysis it may just as well be injustice because you couldn’t tell the difference between the two.

When logic doesn’t apply to something, that thing has no relationship to reality.

NOTE: This objection does not necessarily apply to anyone posting comments on this blog; rather, it grew out of many conversations that I had with many different people over time.

I was pondering a very simple, yet profound logical rule today. It states that:

1. If A is B,
2. And B is C,
3. Then A is C.

Of course logic doesn’t measure the truth of a particular proposition, just it’s relationship to another proposition. In this case, if statement 1 is true, and statement 2 is true, then statement three necessarily follows. Then I began applying this rule to the Bible, and came to a dilemma.

1. If “God is Love” (1 John 4:8),
2. and if Love “keeps no record of wrongs” (NIV) or “does not take into account a wrong suffered” (NASB) (1 Cor. 13:5).
3. Then God keeps no record of wrongs and does not take into account a wrong suffered.

Yet Revelation 20:12-13, 15 states that: “And I saw the dead, the great and the small, standing before the throne, and books were opened; and another book was opened, which is the book of life; and the dead were judged from the things which were written in the books, according to their deeds. And the sea gave up the dead which were in it, and death and Hades gave up the dead which were in them; and they were judged, every one of them according to their deeds… And if anyone’s name was not found written in the book of life, he was thrown into the lake of fire.”

What are we to conclude? It seems that God demands that His creatures exercise unconditional forgiveness when He doesn’t exercise that Himself.

NOTE: I was once told that I made a categorical error with this line of reasoning. The person who critiqued me never bothered to explain what categorical error I made, but I assume he meant the comparison of “love” as defined in premise 1, and “love” as defined in premise 2. If this is a categorical error, I apologize—but I suspect that most (if not all) ministers make the same error, so at least I am well within orthodoxy. For example, no one would raise an objection if I said, “God is love; love is patient; therefore God is patient.”

I am a happy bunny! See me being HAPPY! by David Stout

NOTE: Due to the disturbing nature of the previous bunny, a new, happier bunny has been supplied by Mr. Stout, who is a true paragon of sensitivity.

Question #2: Job

Note: this is actually a series of questions regarding the book of Job and its meaning for human beings.

Regarding the book of Job: what’s the point? Why did God think He had to prove anything to Satan? And who won in the end? Job was faithful–to an extent. Does that mean that God lost; that Satan was ultimately right? Is God’s response indicative of a looser? And why wasn’t Job ever informed about the real reason behind his suffering? Obviously someone was privy to that information, or the book of Job would never have been written. In sum, I’m not sure that there really is anything positive to be gleaned from the book at all. It certainly undermines one’s trust in God, because we never have any guarantee that obedience will bring about His blessing. Doesn’t this undermine faith? How can you love and believe in someone that you don’t trust, and that ultimately is unpredictable?

Conservative proponent and Constitutional defender Phyllis Schlafly has two concise articles on the recent Terri Schaivo case:

Judicial Supremacy Kills

Starving Justice-The Tragedy of Terri Schiavo (this is a good summary of the legal reasons why Judge Greer’s decision was wrong)

For the record, I support the right of an individual to decide the extent of the medical treatment they wish to receive under any conditions. I do not see this as a case that primarily addresses this issue, however. This case revolves around the assumption of unconstitutional power by the judiciary, and the bastardization of Congressional power by our Representatives and Senators (who have the legal right to impeach judges for “inappropriate behavior”).

Shaivo’s case, according to Schlafly, has been in litigation for seven years. During that time period, there is no reason why her intentions and the extent of her present medical condition could not be conclusively determined. Apparently her husband, Michael did not believe that her wishes or her condition warranted death when he “testified to a jury that she needed a large award to provide for her life-long care.” In the event of a “reasonable doubt” however, Judge Greer should have ruled in favor of granting custody to Terri’s parents, who would have elevated Michael’s “monetary burden”.

My fear is that the public’s willingness to accept the assumption of power by judicial tyrants, padded aptly by cultural conditioning, and hidden under the guise of assisted suicide, will not simply lead to the starvation of an innocent woman, but will eventually lead to the starvation of liberty itself–and ironically, it will be done in the name of liberty.

Addendum: Here is an article from Reason.com critiquing the pro-life activist position. While I don’t necessarily agree with the author’s conclusions, she raises some good points.

Prologue

Most of you know my extended struggle with Christianity that has been going on for a few years now. What has been left unsaid, but which most of you suspect, I would assume, is that I no longer consider myself to be Christian. I cannot, in good conscience, place myself in that camp of believers because 1) it’s unfair to Christians and would be a mockery of Christian doctrine, and 2) because I have so many doubts that I feel like swiss cheese would have less holes than my belief system.

That having been said, I am not antagonistic towards Christians (unless by their behavior, they deserve it… but that applies to everyone!). I owe a great debt to my Christian friends, and to my Christian upbringing. I also do not rule out the possibility that my doubts may be mistaken, though at this point I do not believe that. I am still searching for truth (i.e., answers to those basic questions about existence and purpose), though I do not believe the answers can be found in what I once pursued.

When I first started expressing my doubts, my father urged me to write down my questions in order to think through them. I took his advice to heart, and at this point I have constructed a six-page document that expresses some of my questions, doubts, and frustrations with Christianity. Some of these were actually forum posts on TheologyOnline.com, but many of them were simply questions I had been bantering around for some time. I intend to post all six pages on my blog–not at once, but in portions–and I hope that those who read these questions will feel free to add their comments and insights.

Question #1: If God could do it in the future, why hasn’t he done it already?

The standard Christian defense against the “Problem of Evil” is that God had to give man free will–and thus produce the possibility of evil–for genuine love to exist. Therefore, God could not guarantee absolutely that evil would not exist. This view, however, is incompatible with the Christian doctrine of Heaven which states that Heaven will be an eternal utopia–guaranteed free of evil–in which genuine love will exist. But if genuine love requires the possibility of evil, how can such a place as Heaven exist?

The second question is closely related: assuming that a universe CAN exist in which free will and guaranteed utopia could exist simultaneously (as in the case of “Heaven”), then why didn’t God create the world that way to begin with?

It seems that man’s probation period here on earth (in which love is genuine because free will is present) would be superior to a future state in which the ability of free will was removed, even as a consequence of our prior “choice.” God would possess a kingdom of people who would no longer be able to genuinely love.