Paul on Human Intuition

Have an Essay you've written and want to get feedback? Post it and get some feedback.

Paul on Human Intuition

Postby auggybendoggy » Sun Jul 31, 2011 7:30 am

A while ago I posted a paper by Thomas Talbott, "False Prophets and the Abuse of Revelation", which reveals our need to test all spirits including Calvinism's. Most Christians are uncomfortable with this because it calls into question our simplicity for just accepting theological propositions. Over the last few years, in my journey to Universalism, I’ve encountered an idea which continues to present itself; the idea that human intuition is Humanism.

It seems there are Christians, who believe that for one to consider their own intuition, it is a form of Humanism; that is man’s view overrides scripture. Universalists have no problem listening to their own intuition or conscience. But when Universalists object to the hatred or Malevolence of God, Christians sound the "humanism" alarm. Often I'm told that I'm tickling my itching ears by measuring God's word against my own. If God says he's going to torture people for all eternity, then I'd better simply accept it and not listen to my own intuition.

As these issues are pressed, the more people argue that the Scriptures trump our intuition because our intuition is defective and can only be guided by scripture. So for many Calvinists, the thought (though as repulsive as it may seem) that God has predestined a great many to eternal torture, of which they could not choose any other, must be accepted on biblical grounds and the intuition must be bypassed (or altered). For many Arminains, the thought (as right as it might sound) that God has gambled up the objects of his love (since that's the only way that love can exist), must be accepted on biblical grounds and human intuition must be bypassed. So if something appears evil to us or looks dark, we're called by God to accept it anyhow. We're called to curtail our intuition by allowing scripture to guide us rather than our own conscience.

So the question at hand is can, people outside of the bible really know what is good and what is bad? If we cannot tell what is good because we must be informed by scripture then why in Romans 1 does Paul write:

18 For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men who suppress the truth in unrighteousness, 19 because that which is known about God is evident within them; for God made it evident to them. 20 For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes, His eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly seen, being understood through what has been made, so that they are without excuse.

If man cannot know what is good (due to his total depravity) then how is it that since creation [prior to the scriptures being written] man has clearly seeing and understood God's invisible qualities? If the scriptures are the only source for our knowing what is good or what is moral, then how is it that prior to the scriptures being written man knew?

It seems to me that God expects us to trust our intuition rather than bypass it. So when Arminians say, God gave free will and risked his children's eternal status, I say my intuition tells me something's corrupt about that. When Calvinists say, God determined that most people will end up in hell for all eternity and they have no other options, my intuition tells me there's something corrupt about that aslo. And when Christians appeal to the trump card that the bible teaches either of those paradigms, I say "Perhaps it doesn't and you're defective interpretation is leading you down a corrupt path".

I'm hoping that some people might understand the weight of Talbott's essay. I'm hoping that some people will understand George Macdonalds statement that if something looks dark but others say it’s not, then trust your intuition; I agree. Not only so, I believe Romans 1 is evidence that prior to scripture or external to scripture, people know what is moral.

Does anyone have a response to my use of Romans 1 and human intuition? I'm open to any dialogue
"If you're not cheating....then you're not trying!" - Jim Rome
User avatar
auggybendoggy
Administrator
 
Posts: 1286
Joined: Thu Aug 28, 2008 3:57 pm
Location: Southern California

Re: Paul on Human Intuition

Postby Alex Smith » Mon Aug 01, 2011 3:50 am

I agree with you 8-)

However, for some people their intuition tells them that Christianity is a lot of rubbish. If the opportunity was right, I'd say to them that they must've misunderstood the message, and perhaps I could help explain it to them better? i.e. intuition and conscience are extremely important but we still need to be reacting to the accurate information.
User avatar
Alex Smith
Administrator
 
Posts: 3543
Joined: Wed Sep 22, 2010 4:00 am
Location: Tasmania, Australia

Re: Paul on Human Intuition

Postby Alex Smith » Mon Aug 01, 2011 2:31 pm

Also I think the Holy Spirit is in us somehow, trying to point us in the right direction :)
User avatar
Alex Smith
Administrator
 
Posts: 3543
Joined: Wed Sep 22, 2010 4:00 am
Location: Tasmania, Australia

Re: Paul on Human Intuition

Postby Dondi » Mon Aug 08, 2011 10:08 am

There is also Romans 2:14-15:

"For when the Gentiles, which have not the law, do by nature the things contained in the law, these, having not the law, are a law unto themselves:

Which shew the work of the law written in their hearts, their conscience also bearing witness, and their thoughts the mean while accusing or else excusing one another;)"


While it is true that our conscience can be seared as with a hot iron, that kind of searing involves deliberate disobedience to His Divine commands. But for those of us seeking God and his righteousness, God has promised that we will find Him if we seek with all our heart (Deut. 4:29). Conscience serves as a tool to distinguish right and wrong, truth from error, and is strengthened as we exercise it. We may see through a glass darkly, but there is enough light shining through to direct our path.

If God made us in His Image, then it is certainly reasonable to expect that we also think in His image. No where in the bible do I find that we are to toast people alive over an open flame, nor do I see God directing the Israelites to do so. We are repelled at the thought because we detect a sense of wrongness about it. God's business is not about torturing people. Although He has pressed the judgement of death on to many, death only means a cessation of life; there is no torture involved.

So then, is our conscience wrong in telling us that the idea of an eternal conscious torture involving excruciating agony in a real burning flame forever and ever is simply absurd in every fashion? Not to mention the idea of supposed justice associated with it? I would gather that those who even believe in that idea are repelled by it, especially when they are led to believe that some of their own family and friends are current partakers in it.

To be honest, even when I did believe in hell as just described, I surely didn't dwell on the concept, lest I be driven mad to think too long on the dire consequences that awaits the lost. I simply chose to put such thoughts out of my mind. How could I not?

Evangelism is driven by the idea. Yet most passionate evangelists have to keep some sanity lest the depressed thoughts sink them into perpetual despair. So is it any wonder why in our churches, there is resistance to soul-winning when we ought to be shouting in the streets 24/7 for fear that anyone should go there. It is impractical to maintain that kind of passion for too long without getting morbidly depressed. So we try to shove it from our minds and maybe go out on visitation days. Even then, sometimes our fear of meeting unknown people in our door knocking efforts overrides compassion in seeing them saved. It's hard to tell someone that they maybe headed to hell. It's just not something that comes up easily in conversation.
"...Inasmuch as ye have done it unto one of the least of these my brethren, ye have done it unto me." - Matthew 25:40
User avatar
Dondi
 
Posts: 579
Joined: Tue Nov 03, 2009 5:12 am

Re: Paul on Human Intuition

Postby auggybendoggy » Thu Aug 11, 2011 5:34 pm

I think I wrong on this.

I thought about it further and think perhaps someone could argue that before the scriptures were written, God revealed to them the truth (through whatever means) and that truth was against they totally depraved intuition.

Aug
"If you're not cheating....then you're not trying!" - Jim Rome
User avatar
auggybendoggy
Administrator
 
Posts: 1286
Joined: Thu Aug 28, 2008 3:57 pm
Location: Southern California

Re: Paul on Human Intuition

Postby Eleutheros » Fri Nov 11, 2016 11:10 am

auggybendoggy wrote:As these issues are pressed, the more people argue that the Scriptures trump our intuition because our intuition is defective and can only be guided by scripture. So for many Calvinists, the thought (though as repulsive as it may seem) that God has predestined a great many to eternal torture, of which they could not choose any other, must be accepted on biblical grounds and the intuition must be bypassed (or altered). For many Arminains, the thought (as right as it might sound) that God has gambled up the objects of his love (since that's the only way that love can exist), must be accepted on biblical grounds and human intuition must be bypassed. So if something appears evil to us or looks dark, we're called by God to accept it anyhow. We're called to curtail our intuition by allowing scripture to guide us rather than our own conscience.


auggybendoggy wrote:...I'm hoping that some people might understand the weight of Talbott's essay. I'm hoping that some people will understand George Macdonalds statement that if something looks dark but others say it’s not, then trust your intuition; I agree. Not only so, I believe Romans 1 is evidence that prior to scripture or external to scripture, people know what is moral.


auggybendoggy wrote:Does anyone have a response to my use of Romans 1 and human intuition? I'm open to any dialogue


Hey auggy b.,

Some people do understand!
The simple fact that you, as a human being, understood Talbot's point is proof that others can, too, because you are someone! And, since human intuition was how you came to, "see," that there is something inherently wrong in the logic of Calvinism, then other humans see it, too (including Calvinists), and, therefore, the majority can know exactly what Talbot writes about. However, many choose to ignore this intuition, simply because they can, in order to favor a preferred understanding.

To illustrate this point, let me ask some questions.
Taking into account common sense eliminations caused by physical limitations:
Can any human being learn to drive a car? Play a musical instrument? Learn mathematics? Create art? Fly an airplane? Dance?
Can any human being learn to speak, write and read?
The answer is of course, yes. It is inherent in us that we can all learn these things because all of these things involve intuition.
And how do we learn anything? Through communication with words and our interaction with those learned in a subject - and then practice, which brings out talent.
But not everyone is a mathematician, or drives a car, or dances, or can read and write. So, there are reasons why not all do these things with one of the legitimate reasons being that someone just doesn't want to learn.

And this atttitude of choice seems even more prevalent where religion is concerned; people just don't want to learn from their intuition, even though they can, with many becoming quite vociferous about not learning, and some to the point of not only suppressing the truth of their intuition within his or her self, but actively working to see that other's don't have an opportunity to ask questions that might reveal the deception in the logic they use to suppress their intuition.

Why do we do this? Because we want to. Dondi well addressed this desire to not want to respond to our intuition in his reply when he mentioned that the logic of a hell-based theology leaves one feeling depressed and despondent.

Did you know that instruction to women on how to prevent rape trains them to rely heavily on their intuition? I mention this to illustrate that intuition has its quick conclusions in truth, even if, at the time, we may not be able to verbalize why those conclusions are of truth.
I will also point out that there is a difference between male and female intuition exactly because our perceptions, and therefore, our motivations, are different. That is to say, Male and Female defines who we are as human beings. We are different and I say, "Vive la différence!"

However, I must point out there is a difference between the human conscience and human intuition, such that the words are not synonymous and, therefore, not interchangeable.

The basic difference is this: the ability to become intuitive is something we gain through our life experiences interacting with our fellow human beings, and through education, while a conscience is something conceptually inherent in all human beings and from which we all know the difference between right and wrong.

An illustration of this is found in our observations of children. A parent must watch over and instruct a child to keep that child from getting into dangerous situations because of ignorance, that is to say, until their intuition develops and they can perceive danger themselves. But, as we know, a child will lie readily to keep shame and guilt hidden when he or she has been discovered doing something wrong because shame and guilt come from our shared conscience.

So, in the verse you quoted Paul does, indeed, appeal to human intuition, the very same intuition that he knows all have simply because he is a mature human! Now, Paul knows of what he is talking about because there was once a time when he, too, chose to ignore his intuition in favor of his preferred theology. After all, he stood to loose a lot, including his self-identity, if the truth that his intuition was telling him about Jesus Christ was allowed room to breathe. So, he fell back on injustice, and a weakly axiomated logic as justification, in an attempt to restore the status quo.

Here is the verse again:

For not ashamed am I of the evangel, for it is God's power for salvation to everyone who is believing -- to the Jew first, and to the Greek as well. For in it God's righteousness is being revealed, out of faith for faith, according as it is written: "Now the just one by faith shall be living."
For God's indignation is being revealed from heaven on all the irreverence and injustice of men who are retaining the truth in injustice, because that which is known of God is apparent among them, for God manifests it to them.
For His invisible attributes are descried from the creation of the world, being apprehended by His achievements, besides His imperceptible power and divinity, for them to be defenseless, because, knowing God, not as God do they glorify or thank Him, but vain were they made in their reasonings, and darkened is their unintelligent heart. Rom 1:16-21 CLV

And here is the verse Dondi quoted, wherein the human conscience is mentioned directly as proof that the law is correct, for the law is but a conceptualization of what we know is the difference between right and wrong.

For not the listeners to law are just with God, but the doers of law shall be justified.
For whenever they of the nations that have no law, by nature may be doing that which the law demands, these, having no law, are a law to themselves, who are displaying the action of the law written in their hearts, their conscience testifying together and their reckonings between one another, accusing or defending them, in the day when God will be judging the hidden things of humanity, according to my evangel, through Jesus Christ. Rom 2:13-16 CLV

The word for conscience appears thirty-two times in the New Testament. So, it would seem that The Words have some significant things to say about it.

There is more I would like to say, but I don't want this, my first reply to a topic, to be too long.

Thanks for the invitation to reply. I hope to hear from your heart, that is, your thoughts on this, when you have time, as well as from the heart of others.

Be good, auggy b.! It is, after all, what you were created to be!

Dennis!
Truth, when introduced,
is a tossed rope—
or a noose.
User avatar
Eleutheros
 
Posts: 63
Joined: Sat Oct 29, 2016 7:52 pm
Location: Somewhere... "Honey? Where are we again?... Oh, yea." In Texas.

Re: Paul on Human Intuition

Postby auggybendoggy » Sun Dec 04, 2016 8:45 am

Thanks Eleutheros (Dennis) for that response.

I'm still inclined to see both systems, Calvinist and Armainian, as having their own set of difficulties regarding this notion that - we can't know wrong from right. I might especially narrow it down to Arminianism. For Calvinism, it's very own logic is compatible with reprobates never ever knowing the truth and be damned for their wickedness - they have no quarrel with that. But since Arminians depend on the volition of someone for culpability, then that volition seems heavily relative to one know good from evil. I just don't see how they can hold to this and state people require the bible to guide them.

Aug
"If you're not cheating....then you're not trying!" - Jim Rome
User avatar
auggybendoggy
Administrator
 
Posts: 1286
Joined: Thu Aug 28, 2008 3:57 pm
Location: Southern California

Re: Paul on Human Intuition

Postby Paidion » Sun Dec 04, 2016 3:35 pm

Yes, the main problem with BOTH Calvinism and Arminianism is that neither system allows for the free will of man.

In Calvinism, God meticulously controls every event. Both good and evil are God's doing. Evil events are all part God's plan for the purpose of leading to a "greater good." I don't understand why God couldn't bring about this greater good without, for example, allowing little girls to be raped and murdered.

In Arminianism, God knows in advance every action that people will do. THAT implies that those actions are inevitable, and therefore there is no possibility that man could choose otherwise. For example, if God knows that you will eat an apple tomorrow, then it is now TRUE that you will eat an apple tomorrow. If it is now true that you will eat an apple tomorrow, then tomorrow you CANNOT REFRAIN from eating an apple, and so with all your other actions. Therefore you do not have free will.

Only open theism permits the free will of man. This view is widely misunderstood. It is assumed that open theists do not believe in the omnipotence of God. However, they do. They believe that God knows all that is possible to know. But it is not logically possible to know in advance what a free-will agent will choose.
Paidion

Man judges a person by his past deeds, and administers penalties for his wrongdoing. God judges a person by his present character, and disciplines him that he may become righteous.

Avatar shows me at 76 years. I am now in my 80th year of life.
User avatar
Paidion
 
Posts: 4121
Joined: Sun Jan 11, 2009 5:38 pm
Location: The Back Woods of North-Western Ontario

Re: Paul on Human Intuition

Postby Eleutheros » Wed Dec 21, 2016 10:37 am

auggybendoggy wrote:Thanks Eleutheros (Dennis) for that response.

I'm still inclined to see both systems, Calvinist and Armainian, as having their own set of difficulties regarding this notion that - we can't know wrong from right. I might especially narrow it down to Arminianism. For Calvinism, it's very own logic is compatible with reprobates never ever knowing the truth and be damned for their wickedness - they have no quarrel with that. But since Arminians depend on the volition of someone for culpability, then that volition seems heavily relative to one know good from evil. I just don't see how they can hold to this and state people require the bible to guide them.

Aug


Hey Aug,

Please forgive the lateness of this reply. I've been busy finishing out this fall semester and now getting ready for Christmas Day.

If I understand your words correctly, the exasperation you've expressed comes from how these two theologies, Calvinism and Arminianisim, "explain away," the dissatisfaction you feel from your intuition (what I recognize as conscience) for their, "theo-logical," conclusions.
Logical conclusions that, for being derived from postulates proposed by scripture, must be true (they claim), despite the way the conclusions make you feel in your soul. And that uncomfortable feeling revealed to you that you do have a conscience and, therefore, know the difference between right and wrong. Then, frustration sets in when, from this uncomfortable feeling, you ask logical questions that come from the contradictions you perceive in their conclusions, and are told to just, "Accept it, pilgrim. And shut up and sit down and be glad that you aren't among the damned for putting your faith in our religion. And be sure to tithe."

If this is a good summation of your experience, then know well that I, too, have felt exactly what you felt.

One of my answers to this predicament came when I realized the fact that the KJV is an ulterior motivated, deliberate mis-translation of the Original Words, a mis-translation that began with the first Latin version.
In fact, the KJV is a translation from the Latin intended to support Augustinian theology, which was not the understanding of the first 400 years or so of Christianity. Armininaism then, is nothing more than a late response to the ugliness in the logical conclusions of Calvinism. That is to say that these theologies are just two sides of the same coin. Flip it to determine what you wish to believe, but don't try to reconcile the two, because you can't. And that is because contradiction, which is stating that two opposite things are true at the same time, can never be reconciled. In other words, a door cannot be both open and closed at the same time. Likewise, we cannot have both free will and be subject to predestination at the same time, despite that the Bible tells me so.

So, for knowing this fact, I learned to hold any and all postulates derived from the KJV as suspect. Additionally, for knowing Logic's, "dirty little secret," I know that if the postulates are wrong, the conclusions will also be wrong, though the conclusions of Calvinism and Armininanisim are logical conclusions.

For the Dirty Little Secret of Logic, is that logic works independently of truth in the postulates upon which it is founded. That is to say, given a set of postulates, logic will always lead you to a conclusion. But, if the postulates (or axioms as they are also called) are wrong - that is to say they don’t accurately reflect reality - then the conclusions will likewise be wrong. But note that you will arrive at a conclusion!

So, one of the ways to determine if the veracity of a postulate should be suspect is to look for contradiction in the conclusions.

Another way is to learn to heed the appeal of conscience, especially if you have a conscience cleansed and re-invigorated by holy spirit, as scripture declares it to be for those who are born anew.

And amazingly enough, NT scripture seems to support the conclusion that the first believers relied heavily on their conscience, apart from the correct teaching of the apostles (which formed the core postulates), to maintain themselves in doing right - that is to say, in righteousness - while allowing for mis-steps, for which there was grace, and that given to those who were willing to confess when they did wrong.

In my case, the dissatisfaction I felt in my soul from the logical things of Calvinism and Arminianisim dissipated when I was willing to accept what was clearly becoming a fact as I looked into the history of the Bible and what the first Christians believed. For Universalism was the true belief of the first few centuries, before the Clergy/Laity divide (that relied heavily on hell to be viable), replaced that original understanding so that Christianity might become a religion.

In other words, I was willing to learn the difference between keeping an open mind and believing something because I wanted it to be true.
I say willing because I have come to perceive that faith is believing facts, and the conclusions they lead you too, that challenge long held perceptions and will alter, forever, what you previously either choose to believe, or where taught to believe. That is to say, they change your heart.

So, I have come to trust my conscience, apart from the teachings derived from the KJV Bible. Where there is agreement with my soul, there is satisfaction. For the things where there is disagreement from my soul, I have learned to investigate the KJV translation to derive truth, which leads to satisfaction.

After all, Jesus said it was much better for holy spirit (not the Bible) to come than for Him to remain.

Be good!

Dennis!
Last edited by Eleutheros on Wed Dec 21, 2016 11:06 am, edited 1 time in total.
Truth, when introduced,
is a tossed rope—
or a noose.
User avatar
Eleutheros
 
Posts: 63
Joined: Sat Oct 29, 2016 7:52 pm
Location: Somewhere... "Honey? Where are we again?... Oh, yea." In Texas.

Re: Paul on Human Intuition

Postby Eleutheros » Wed Dec 21, 2016 11:01 am

Paidion wrote:Yes, the main problem with BOTH Calvinism and Arminianism is that neither system allows for the free will of man.

In Calvinism, God meticulously controls every event. Both good and evil are God's doing. Evil events are all part God's plan for the purpose of leading to a "greater good." I don't understand why God couldn't bring about this greater good without, for example, allowing little girls to be raped and murdered.

In Arminianism, God knows in advance every action that people will do. THAT implies that those actions are inevitable, and therefore there is no possibility that man could choose otherwise. For example, if God knows that you will eat an apple tomorrow, then it is now TRUE that you will eat an apple tomorrow. If it is now true that you will eat an apple tomorrow, then tomorrow you CANNOT REFRAIN from eating an apple, and so with all your other actions. Therefore you do not have free will.

Only open theism permits the free will of man. This view is widely misunderstood. It is assumed that open theists do not believe in the omnipotence of God. However, they do. They believe that God knows all that is possible to know. But it is not logically possible to know in advance what a free-will agent will choose.


Well, then, I must be an Open Theist!

This is an idea that a pastor named Gregg Boyd articulates well. I once exchanged a few pleasant e-mails with him before he became swamped and had to quit making personal replies.

Paidion, we've exchanged a few scattered replies ourselves and because of your replies to others, I think I know a bit about you. So, because of what you wrote in this reply, I feel comfortable enough to ask you a question, from curiosity, about your understanding. If you wish to reply, I would like to ask, "What do you think: Did Jehovah know, as a fact, that the first humans were going to turn before He created them?"

Dennis!
Truth, when introduced,
is a tossed rope—
or a noose.
User avatar
Eleutheros
 
Posts: 63
Joined: Sat Oct 29, 2016 7:52 pm
Location: Somewhere... "Honey? Where are we again?... Oh, yea." In Texas.

Re: Paul on Human Intuition

Postby Holy-Fool-P-Zombie » Wed Dec 21, 2016 2:17 pm

Eleutheros wrote:
Paidion wrote:Yes, the main problem with BOTH Calvinism and Arminianism is that neither system allows for the free will of man.

In Calvinism, God meticulously controls every event. Both good and evil are God's doing. Evil events are all part God's plan for the purpose of leading to a "greater good." I don't understand why God couldn't bring about this greater good without, for example, allowing little girls to be raped and murdered.

In Arminianism, God knows in advance every action that people will do. THAT implies that those actions are inevitable, and therefore there is no possibility that man could choose otherwise. For example, if God knows that you will eat an apple tomorrow, then it is now TRUE that you will eat an apple tomorrow. If it is now true that you will eat an apple tomorrow, then tomorrow you CANNOT REFRAIN from eating an apple, and so with all your other actions. Therefore you do not have free will.

Only open theism permits the free will of man. This view is widely misunderstood. It is assumed that open theists do not believe in the omnipotence of God. However, they do. They believe that God knows all that is possible to know. But it is not logically possible to know in advance what a free-will agent will choose.


Well, then, I must be an Open Theist!

This is an idea that a pastor named Gregg Boyd articulates well. I once exchanged a few pleasant e-mails with him before he became swamped and had to quit making personal replies.

Paidion, we've exchanged a few scattered replies ourselves and because of your replies to others, I think I know a bit about you. So, because of what you wrote in this reply, I feel comfortable enough to ask you a question, from curiosity, about your understanding. If you wish to reply, I would like to ask, "What do you think: Did Jehovah know, as a fact, that the first humans were going to turn before He created them?"

Dennis!


Much depends on whether you look an open theological system (i.e. open theism) or a closed theological system. But here are some answers given, to similar questions - at Got Questions and Quora:

Charismatic / Eastern Anglo-Catholic / Holy Fool; Inclusivist / Purgatorial Conditionalist / Nicene Creed / ACNA; Zombie Apocalypse;
Contemplation (Celtic, Mindfulness, Yoga, Zen); Holistic Medicine (i.e. Ayurveda, Homeopathy, Kampo, Traditional, Spiritual);
User avatar
Holy-Fool-P-Zombie
 
Posts: 2826
Joined: Mon Oct 20, 2014 3:30 pm
Location: Near Chicago or hanging out with Holy Fools, Zombies, P-Zombies, Nerds and Geeks

Re: Paul on Human Intuition

Postby Eleutheros » Wed Dec 21, 2016 6:13 pm

Hey!

Thanks, Randy, for the links. The content of the first two doesn't bring up anything new to me. In fact, it was exactly those arguments - presented by others - that got me looking hard into scripture, in the original languages, to see if I could discover a rebuttal to the logical conclusions from our English translations that these posters presented with such clarity; for I grew to understand that I would never be able to refute this unsavory logic from our English translations. So, many years ago, I put everything I was taught, "on the table," and researched, with all my heart, for an answer that satisfied me and wasn't so disturbing in its consequences.

However the third poster you linked me to presented the problem of predestination vs freewill in a way that I once considered and rejected because it would require belief in a God that could, and would, sin and yet still feel justified in holding us accountable for sin. For as the poster said with such salience: "I've come to accept that if there is a God, (s)he created us in God's image -- which is (to say that (S)He is) psychologically messed up, with a bizarre sense of humor, a twist of rage, kindness and regret.... basically all the ingredients that I guess you would call "sin" as being. Even sinners are sometimes (if not mostly) kind."

Ugh.

If that is the God of the Universe, I most certainly could not love Him, much less worship Him, given this thing in me I call my conscience. He sounds to much like how the the pantheon of Greek gods behaved, with a self-serving sense of fairness, capriciousness from megalomania and a wicked sense of humor (and justice) to boot. Kind of like Q in Star Trek: The Next Generation: "I am omnipotent and can do what I damn well please. And who are you to say anything against me, human?"

I prefer an omniscient God who behaves virtuously, that is to say He knows of the difference between good and evil, right and wrong, and always chooses to do what is good and right, even when it makes Him look bad in the eyes of His turned creation. That is a God in whose image I would like to imagine I was originally created to be. It certainly makes the offer of Jesus for a life more abundant seem a lot more satisfying.

Like I said, this is what I prefer to believe.

What do you think?

Be good!

Dennis!
Truth, when introduced,
is a tossed rope—
or a noose.
User avatar
Eleutheros
 
Posts: 63
Joined: Sat Oct 29, 2016 7:52 pm
Location: Somewhere... "Honey? Where are we again?... Oh, yea." In Texas.

Re: Paul on Human Intuition

Postby Paidion » Wed Dec 21, 2016 6:26 pm

Dennis, I don't understand the phrase "going to turn." Going to turn away from Him, or going to turn toward Him, or what?
Paidion

Man judges a person by his past deeds, and administers penalties for his wrongdoing. God judges a person by his present character, and disciplines him that he may become righteous.

Avatar shows me at 76 years. I am now in my 80th year of life.
User avatar
Paidion
 
Posts: 4121
Joined: Sun Jan 11, 2009 5:38 pm
Location: The Back Woods of North-Western Ontario

Re: Paul on Human Intuition

Postby Eleutheros » Wed Dec 21, 2016 8:38 pm

Paidion wrote:Dennis, I don't understand the phrase "going to turn." Going to turn away from Him, or going to turn toward Him, or what?


Hey!

I would ask that you please forgive my application of a phrase that I personally use to describe what most call, "The Fall." I understand that my phrase might not be as accessible as the more common one.

I use the word, "turning, " because I have come to perceive this pivotal event in human history as much more than a fall; for calling this event, "a fall," is like describing the events of September 11, 2001 as, "A series of collisions" - the magnitude of the loss is not conveyed.

Therefore, I would have better asked, from my curiosity: "What do you think" Did Jehovah know, as a fact, that the first humans were going to be turned (were going to fall) before He created them?"

Thanks for the chance to clarify.

Dennis!
Truth, when introduced,
is a tossed rope—
or a noose.
User avatar
Eleutheros
 
Posts: 63
Joined: Sat Oct 29, 2016 7:52 pm
Location: Somewhere... "Honey? Where are we again?... Oh, yea." In Texas.

Re: Paul on Human Intuition

Postby Holy-Fool-P-Zombie » Thu Dec 22, 2016 5:17 am

Eleutheros wrote:Hey!

What do you think?

Be good!

Dennis!


Hi, Dennis. I am a proponent of open theism. Which means that God would still see things, as most likely outcomes or probabilities. It's really hard to come to grips, with human suffering and pain. Especially if folks are trying to do, the right thing. Theology and philosophy, may give us some frameworks - to cope with these things. But at the end of the day, we have to chalk some things up - to divine mystery. :)

I have studied other things, besides philosophy and theology. Native Americans with their ceremonies, can teach us to be in balance and work with nature. And Buddhists can teach us meditation techniques, to sit in the silence. This way, we are more serene and react less - to the stress. And folks like TV evangelist Joel Osteen, can teach us to expect the best - from God. And Quakers teach you to sit in silence and listen to the guidance of spirit - via the inner light.

But they really don't have any satisfactory answers, to pain and suffering (AKA the big WHY). Any more then the academic philosophers and theologians offer. :!:

And if you want some answers to examine, just type "answers to pain and suffering" into Google. And review the links on page 1. If you find something that stands out and you find excellent - then please - share it with us. :D
Charismatic / Eastern Anglo-Catholic / Holy Fool; Inclusivist / Purgatorial Conditionalist / Nicene Creed / ACNA; Zombie Apocalypse;
Contemplation (Celtic, Mindfulness, Yoga, Zen); Holistic Medicine (i.e. Ayurveda, Homeopathy, Kampo, Traditional, Spiritual);
User avatar
Holy-Fool-P-Zombie
 
Posts: 2826
Joined: Mon Oct 20, 2014 3:30 pm
Location: Near Chicago or hanging out with Holy Fools, Zombies, P-Zombies, Nerds and Geeks

Re: Paul on Human Intuition

Postby Paidion » Thu Dec 22, 2016 6:58 pm

Hi Dennis, you wrote:Therefore, I would have better asked, from my curiosity: "What do you think" Did Jehovah know, as a fact, that the first humans were going to be turned (were going to fall) before He created them?"

Thanks for the chance to clarify.


Well, thank you for clarifying!

I believe that God took a big risk in creating human beings with free wills, and therefore did not know (in the absolute sense of "knowing") whether they would continue to follow Him or turn away from Him, for it is impossible to know (in the absolute sense of the word) in advance what a free-will agent will choose. One can predict what he will choose, based on one's knowledge of the character of the free-will agent, and as a result the free-will agent often does just what we predicted. But often the agent doesn't do what we predicted. However God, knowing all things, including our thoughts, is in a much better position to predict the actions of people than we. Yet events do not always transpire as God predicts either. Here is an example:

Jeremiah 3:7 (NASB) "I thought, ‘After she has done all these things she will return to Me’; but she did not return, and her treacherous sister Judah saw it.

Some translations have "I said" rather than "I thought" and that may be correct. But that makes no significant difference, for God wouldn't say Israel would return to Him, if He had known she wouldn't. He does not lie.


Man was created in the image of God. That certainly wasn't the physical image since God is not physical but is spirit (John 4:24). So we must somehow be in His image mentally and/or spiritually. I suspect that one of the main ways in we are like God is in the matter of possessing free will as God does. God wanted people to choose to serve Him of their own free wills. He had no interest in creating a race of robots.

John Sanders wrote a powerful book called "The God Who Risks." You can get it from Amazon for very little. If you go to the Amazon site below, you can also "look inside" the book without cost.

https://www.amazon.com/God-Who-Risks-Theology-Providence/dp/0830828370
Paidion

Man judges a person by his past deeds, and administers penalties for his wrongdoing. God judges a person by his present character, and disciplines him that he may become righteous.

Avatar shows me at 76 years. I am now in my 80th year of life.
User avatar
Paidion
 
Posts: 4121
Joined: Sun Jan 11, 2009 5:38 pm
Location: The Back Woods of North-Western Ontario

Re: Paul on Human Intuition

Postby Eleutheros » Fri Dec 23, 2016 11:37 am

Holy-Fool-P-Zombie wrote:And if you want some answers to examine, just type "answers to pain and suffering" into Google. And review the links on page 1. If you find something that stands out and you find excellent - then please - share it with us. :D


I have taken your suggestion and am actually on page three and working on a reply. But, its Christmas! And, like a pregnancy, Christmas comes whether your ready or not!

Just wanted you to know that I am pleased to respond, but it will take a bit

to get

to it.

Have a blessed Holiday!

Dennis!
Truth, when introduced,
is a tossed rope—
or a noose.
User avatar
Eleutheros
 
Posts: 63
Joined: Sat Oct 29, 2016 7:52 pm
Location: Somewhere... "Honey? Where are we again?... Oh, yea." In Texas.

Re: Paul on Human Intuition

Postby Eleutheros » Fri Dec 23, 2016 11:57 am

To Paidion,

Very, very cool!

I don't know how I can convey to you how refreshing it is to read someone else writing as if I were doing the writing. In other words, for all you said: "Couldn't have said it better myself!"

Paidion wrote: However God, knowing all things, including our thoughts, is in a much better position to predict the actions of people than we.


After I finish replying to Randy's invitation to write something from my heart, I would wish to start a conversation next week about this very thing you mentioned above; for I asked myself a question once, and, much later, found a ready answer.

The question was: "What is the heart?"

Have a blessed Holiday!

Dennis!
Last edited by Eleutheros on Fri Dec 23, 2016 9:50 pm, edited 2 times in total.
Truth, when introduced,
is a tossed rope—
or a noose.
User avatar
Eleutheros
 
Posts: 63
Joined: Sat Oct 29, 2016 7:52 pm
Location: Somewhere... "Honey? Where are we again?... Oh, yea." In Texas.

Re: Paul on Human Intuition

Postby Holy-Fool-P-Zombie » Fri Dec 23, 2016 1:15 pm

Eleutheros wrote:
Holy-Fool-P-Zombie wrote:And if you want some answers to examine, just type "answers to pain and suffering" into Google. And review the links on page 1. If you find something that stands out and you find excellent - then please - share it with us. :D


I have taken your suggestion and am actually on page three and working on a reply. But, its Christmas! And, like a pregnancy, Christmas comes whether your ready or not!

Just wanted you to know that I am pleased to respond, but it will take a bit

to get

to it.

Have a blessed Holiday!

Dennis!


You too, Dennis. I (and I'm sure everyone), would be interested in the Google reading and response exercise I've suggested. Perhaps sometime after the holidays?
Charismatic / Eastern Anglo-Catholic / Holy Fool; Inclusivist / Purgatorial Conditionalist / Nicene Creed / ACNA; Zombie Apocalypse;
Contemplation (Celtic, Mindfulness, Yoga, Zen); Holistic Medicine (i.e. Ayurveda, Homeopathy, Kampo, Traditional, Spiritual);
User avatar
Holy-Fool-P-Zombie
 
Posts: 2826
Joined: Mon Oct 20, 2014 3:30 pm
Location: Near Chicago or hanging out with Holy Fools, Zombies, P-Zombies, Nerds and Geeks

Re: Paul on Human Intuition

Postby maintenanceman » Fri Dec 23, 2016 6:17 pm

Dennis,

Merry Christmas and we will all mix it up in the new year. Thanks for coming on board :!: :D
User avatar
maintenanceman
 
Posts: 1331
Joined: Fri Mar 20, 2015 4:22 am

Re: Paul on Human Intuition

Postby Eleutheros » Sat Dec 24, 2016 1:38 pm

maintenanceman wrote:Dennis,

Merry Christmas and we will all mix it up in the new year. Thanks for coming on board :!: :D


Wow. I thank you for the invitation! May you have a very cool holiday.

Dennis!
Truth, when introduced,
is a tossed rope—
or a noose.
User avatar
Eleutheros
 
Posts: 63
Joined: Sat Oct 29, 2016 7:52 pm
Location: Somewhere... "Honey? Where are we again?... Oh, yea." In Texas.

Re: Paul on Human Intuition

Postby Eleutheros » Tue Dec 27, 2016 4:32 pm

Holy-Fool-P-Zombie wrote:Hi, Dennis. I am a proponent of open theism. Which means that God would still see things, as most likely outcomes or probabilities. It's really hard to come to grips, with human suffering and pain. Especially if folks are trying to do, the right thing. Theology and philosophy, may give us some frameworks - to cope with these things.... But they really don't have any satisfactory answers, to pain and suffering (AKA the big WHY). Any more then the academic philosophers and theologians offer. :!:
And if you want some answers to examine, just type "answers to pain and suffering" into Google. And review the links on page 1. If you find something that stands out and you find excellent - then please - share it with us. :D


Thank you, Randy, for the very unique inquiry! I truly enjoy a chance to share from my heart along with a chance to learn from others.

Well, beginning by ignoring the lawyer advertisements offering to inform me how much money my pain and suffering were worth (!), I read the articles on the first page. Then read the ones on two more. This lead me to read up on Job, which lead to the first five chapters of the The First Book of Enoch, which reminded me of the last two chapters of Isaiah and the last three chapters of The Unveiling (Revelation). Then back to Job. I then remembered an article in Guideposts that my wife once showed me about the success Bryan Doerries had using the Book of Job, presented as a dramatic reading, to help the people of Joplin, Missouri deal with tragedy and loss after a devastating tornado.

Then the Joy of Christmas put all that contemplation aside, for awhile. Well, except for that theologically pesky thing of Pain and Suffering we call,"The Slaughter of the Innocents."

So, picking it up again, refreshed in my spirit for the time I spent reflecting on the birth and death and resurrection of Earth's Redeemer and King, did I find anything of excellence to share?

Well, most of the answers Christians gave were well thought out and presented, but they were not unfamiliar answers for being a theodicy derived from what I call, "Modern medieval theology" - Calvinism/Arminianisim repackaged for 20th, and now 21st Century, human beings.
Thus, for this being the core theology derived from our English Bibles, most Christian theodicy has, understood within it, the theological postulate that, because Jesus is the Lamb crucified from the foundation of the world, God must have known, as a fact, that Adam and Eve were going to fall before He created them.
This then leads to the logical conclusion that God intended for the events of that time to happen, and thus the world and Us are exactly as He intended It to be simply because He created it, which includes the redemption of at least some, if not all human beings.
Or, it leads to the logical conclusion that, for knowing He couldn't stop those events, He created us anyway, always intending to redeem at least some, if not all human beings.

So, I must report that, for this underpinning in modern Christian theodicy, I did not find anything of excellence.

That does not mean that I reject it. Far from it! There is much good written that applies well to how we might respond to the fact that there is Pain and Suffering in the world, even if we can't explain why a good God would allow it.

Now, the atheist apologist's answers were the expected non-answers because I perceive that atheist don't ask The Question intending to hear and learn, but rather ask it to prove their point that it is unreasonable to assume that God exists; for, if God is Good, as religions claim, then there should not be any Pain and Suffering in His creation! Therefore, He must be only a wistful creation of the human mind as it deals with the forces of Evolution. That is to say, He cannot exist any more than Santa Claus exists. Now, go forth and be a good, moral and enlightened soul as you deal righteously, according to your internal morality, with the Pain and Suffering others cause you.

However, putting that necessary comment on atheist theodicy aside, what I noticed is that many Christian apologists begin their answers by assigning categories to our Pain and Suffering, which they then address, one by one. Roughly outlined the categories are:

:( Pain and Suffering caused by Nature, which are euphemistically called, "Acts of God." These include the serious health issues that result from our DNA being, "naturally," or artificially altered, as well as the disease and pestilence and disasters perpetrated, "naturally," by Our Hostile and Lively, but Indifferent Earth.

:( Pain and Suffering that result from the wickedness of others on whom we depend for our own needs. Wives and Husbands, Fathers, Mothers and Siblings, Employers, Friends, and Persons of Authority, whose abuse of their position result in injustice, are the perpetrators of this.

:( Pain and Suffering that come from the Evil actions of others which result in Trauma; like those unthinkable actions of horror we hear on the nightly news, committed by our, "neighbors," and the stories we hear about atrocities committed in the wars between nations and ethnicities, and the unspeakable horrors done to human beings by other human beings that justify themselves through their religion or their politics. This includes psychological and physical torture, acts of vengeance, terrorism, murder, genocide and creative forms of mass-murder, enslavement, and forced sexual acts.

:( Pain and Suffering that come from the Tragedy created by others immoral or improper actions while inebriated or while using intoxicating drugs.

:( Pain and Suffering that result from the misunderstanding of others who act improperly from that understanding for assuming that they are right in their understanding. We often call this unfairness.

:oops: Additionally, I will add this category: Pain and Suffering that comes from adults misappropriating, for personal gratification, the link between human love and our sexuality. This includes Adultery, Fornication and other conscience-confusing couplings of human beings that we claim as consent between adults and capture, for our enjoyment, in Pornography.

:x And finally, Pain and Suffering that come from our own Improper Actions, our own Misunderstandings from which we act, our own Wickedness that leads to Injustice or the neglect and abuse of those who depend on us for their needs, and our own, "Unthinkable," actions of Evil.

Of these categories, I perceive that it is the very last category that leads to all the others, except the first.

I must be honest with myself if I am to expect the forgiveness of Jehovah, for I am guilty of doing many things that will slide all too easily into one of these categories: things of shame and dishonor, things of sexual misconduct, lawlessness and iniquity, things of selfishness, and even, "unthinkable," things.

And so, that's the rub, as I see it: The vast majority of Pain and Suffering in the World is caused by me - and all who are just like me.

I am only exempt from the first category; for I cannot control Nature: It is only over myself that I have any semblance of control.

~

There is a criminal under my own hat.

I know him well and must admit that he deserves incarceration - at the very least he should have been stopped dead in his acts of overt and subtle violence and self-righteousness - that is if he cannot, or will not, be rehabilitated. And I note that he has perpetrated many acts of wickedness and iniquity with seeming impunity. Well, apart from the natural laws of consequence that follow actions that violate his conscience. And I'm glad he didn't get what he deserved, because I don't want to die, much less be punished.

So if this good God that I know exists because I perceive that His attributes are incorporated into His creation, which includes the conscience He put into me, did not stop me dead when I should have been (and I knew I should have been), but seemed to let me continue on as I created Pain and Suffering in others, then why should I expect this good God to stop others when they create Pain and Suffering for me?

And so the question for me to answer is not stated as, "If God is good then why is there so much suffering in the world?" Rather it is stated as, "God is good and I am sentient and know the difference between right and wrong, so why do I create so much Pain and Suffering in the world?

~

Would you be willing to follow a mental exercise with me?
I'd like you to imagine, if you will, our Earth, exactly as it is now - that is, dangerous and very evolutionary in its capriciousness - but which never gave Its air to a human being for breath; an Earth on which no human foot ever trod, and from which no human being ever extracted Its resources to manufacture shelter in defense of his and her self from Its cyclical capriciousness.

There were never any cities, nor machinery, nor manufacturing nor the cultivation of good vegetation over bad; no mass raising of animals for food; no scaring of the Earth from manipulation for the purposes of commerce.

The cycles would continue. Land vegetation would grow unchecked, keeping beautiful and beneficial plants choked out and frequently creating huge vegetation fires as the dead matter piled up.

Oceanic vegetation and the erosion from the interaction of water and land would be constantly changing the border between the two, affecting life on both sides of that border.

Animals on land and in the waters would continue to kill and be killed as the Earth maintains Its Perennial Destruction and as they battle for food and shelter and for their need to satisfy their sexual drives.

Hurricanes and Tornadoes, Hail and Rain Storms with Lightning, Earthquakes, Floods, Winter, Spring, Summer, and Fall would continue on and on and on....

But to what end?

For what purpose does all this life and growth and death and destruction exist?

If Evolution brought it forth, then Pain and Suffering must logically be just the unfortunate outcome of survival in the face of forces unable to accomplish anything different. Randomness and Chance brought it all, imperfectly, into existence, and so, It failed to develop us.

Thus, I perceive through this thought exercise that all questioning itself is meaningless without human beings, because, "The Question of Why," can only be drawn forth from sentience; and there is no sentience in this Universe of our imagining because the Universe never produced us!

So, if through our imagining, we can recognize that even an Earth brought forth through Evolution should bring forth sentient beings in order for there to be meaning in the Universe, how much more so would a Universe created on purpose by Sentience require Sentience in His creation for there to be meaning in anything He did?

~

Therefore, I recognize that without me (and without at least one more of you), there is no meaning! Thus, for what I observe for being sentient, this makes me and you the center of something either Grand or Sinister. But which is it?

As human beings we ourselves are often both Grand and Sinister. So, is God also this way?

There is no way I know to answer this question... apart from the conscience I possess and for a Little Supernatural Intervention every now and then, recorded for posterity, that I might have something from which I can study and learn.

For my conscience is capable of guiding me into understanding right and wrong, and the Supernatural Events of Human History are recorded that I might discover, for myself, an answer that satisfies me as to The Question.

And in those Recorded Events I discover that our Earth was not created to be the way I am experiencing it - that is capricious and indifferent as it turns through each the year in hostility toward its inhabitants. Rather, it was created to sustain me, well cared for!

And then came The Turning. A momentous and consequential event in our History that leaves me breathless in my comprehension for what was lost when the first human beings failed to acquire virtue before they acquired a conscience.

In other words, way back then, at the beginning, something that was not supposed to happen did happen, and something that was supposed to happen did not.

As a result the Creator turned the Earth from Home to Hostility because the Creator said it was for our benefit, given that we will now be human beings who have no desire for virtue, despite our knowledge of the difference between Good and Evil. In that misstep, which resulted from a lack of faith in the goodness of God, we failed to become complete. Therefore, we do not, naturally (not yet anyway), reflect all the attributes of the Creator Who said we were created to resemble Him.

So, to sum it up: He is virtuous and we are not, not yet.

Thus, the actions of this good God are now bent toward redeeming His creation, if I understand the Book of Historical Stories correctly.

This means me.

He is bent on redeeming me.

And He has provided well for my rehabilitation, and eventual redemption, if I will only trust and believe in His provision, that is, have faith, in a Stunning Historical Figure Who was named before His Birth, Y'Shua, which name means in His native language, "He will Save!" For this Human Being claimed (if the Historical Records are accurate), to be the Son of this good God and that He was sent so we might know the true personality of this God through Him; for He went about doing good and healing all those with affliction.

That means that He is bent on redeeming you, too!

And I need to respect that. Because I recognize that He must be working in you in much the same way He worked in me to resire me through holy spirit that I might be given His virtuousness, and everything else I might need to live my life doing what is right and good, for being born anew!

So, just between you and me, I don't think He will lose a single one of us for we are taught in this Book of Our History that just as the First Human brought death to all, so this New and Divine Human will restore life to all!

Therefore, for me, the reason why there is so much Pain and Suffering in the world, despite their being a good God, is because of me, and others like me.
But, now I recognize that He cannot redeem all of us by continually acting as a Policeman and Judge. And so, we will all have to face Pain and Suffering caused by others and by a Hostile Earth until all He promised is fulfilled and we are all redeemed and dwelling on a New and Homey Earth which is Itself the Center of a New Heaven, even as the Book of History proclaims this to be His intention for all of us.

~

At this point I wish to include this sanguine quote from the Catholic Church's answer to The Question. It explained well how some can respond courageously to Pain and Suffering, while others retreat to cowardice. I keenly felt the truth in this answer:

A Pope’s Answer to the Problem of Pain
By: Christopher Kaczor

The author Victor Frankel in his book Man’s Search for Meaning describes his horrifying experiences in Nazi concentration camps. He notes that although all the prisoners were in the same material circumstances—the most horrible imaginable—they did not all react in the same way. Some prisoners killed themselves by walking into electrified fences; others clung to life and even found joy despite the atrocities occurring around them daily. What made the difference? One way to put it is that man can endure anything if he has a reason (logos) to live. Conversely, man can endure nothing if he does not.


I have a great reason to live. But not just live out my life, rather to live it virtuously; my Resurrection!

In my Day of Deciding, I hope to hear my Redeemer say, "Well done, you good and faithful servant!"

So, the one who caused so much Pain and Suffering in the world, before, is now among the ones who are earning an allotment in the Kingdom of God. Only a God Who is good could accomplish such an amazing thing!

Let Earth receive Her King!

And so that is why I say: "Be good, my fellow humans, for that is what you were created to be!"

Dennis!
Truth, when introduced,
is a tossed rope—
or a noose.
User avatar
Eleutheros
 
Posts: 63
Joined: Sat Oct 29, 2016 7:52 pm
Location: Somewhere... "Honey? Where are we again?... Oh, yea." In Texas.


Return to Essays

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests