Is God all-fair?
ConversazioniLet's Talk Religion
Iscriviti a LibraryThing per pubblicare un messaggio.
Questa conversazione è attualmente segnalata come "addormentata"—l'ultimo messaggio è più vecchio di 90 giorni. Puoi rianimarla postando una risposta.
1timspalding
Christians and at least some other monotheists believe God is
1. All knowing
2. All powerful
3. All good
But does this require, or is he otherwise required, to be "all fair"?
As an example, if indeed there are vastly disparate eternal destinies (e.g., Heaven and Hell), do we all get an "equal shot"? Is God condemning some to eternal torment who, if they been born a town over, would have found their way to eternal salvation? Is God sending more people born with a one set of genes to Hell than those born with another—for example, more people born with a strong genetic predisposition to psychopath or to affability?
What's the role of fairness in God's nature?
1. All knowing
2. All powerful
3. All good
But does this require, or is he otherwise required, to be "all fair"?
As an example, if indeed there are vastly disparate eternal destinies (e.g., Heaven and Hell), do we all get an "equal shot"? Is God condemning some to eternal torment who, if they been born a town over, would have found their way to eternal salvation? Is God sending more people born with a one set of genes to Hell than those born with another—for example, more people born with a strong genetic predisposition to psychopath or to affability?
What's the role of fairness in God's nature?
2John5918
At one level this sounds a bit like asking how many angels can dance on the head of a pin. If God is love, if the name of God is mercy (as Pope Francis says, and interestingly so do Muslims), then it seems pretty academic to me whether (or how) God is or isn't all-anything.
But basically love and mercy are not necessarily "fair" in human terms. Loving and forgiving the transgressor may well seem unfair to the righteous person, and there are plenty of stories in the gospels which demonstrate this benevolent "unfairness". Walter Kasper (and Francis, I think) make the point that mercy often seems to be at odds with human concepts of justice (fairness). It would be "fair" to punish someone, not to forgive them. Fortunately God is not bound by human concepts.
Your question seems to focus on the concept of God condemning, apparently ignoring the fact that the basis of God's interaction with us is loving, forgiving, showing mercy, not condemning.
But basically love and mercy are not necessarily "fair" in human terms. Loving and forgiving the transgressor may well seem unfair to the righteous person, and there are plenty of stories in the gospels which demonstrate this benevolent "unfairness". Walter Kasper (and Francis, I think) make the point that mercy often seems to be at odds with human concepts of justice (fairness). It would be "fair" to punish someone, not to forgive them. Fortunately God is not bound by human concepts.
Your question seems to focus on the concept of God condemning, apparently ignoring the fact that the basis of God's interaction with us is loving, forgiving, showing mercy, not condemning.
3abbottthomas
>1 timspalding: Your question pretty much sums up why I don't believe in any sort of deity.
5abbottthomas
>4 timspalding: Well, as far as a creator spirit is concerned, my intellect can grasp that concept no more and no less than understanding what happened one-trillionth of a second after the Big Bang so I am content to be regarded as agnostic in cosmological terms. However I guess this thread is dealing with a very anthropocentric idea of a concerned Creator with some sort of continuing relationship with his/her/its creation.
If such an entity has brought the world and all that therein is into being and - omniscient - knows about all the shit that adversely affects much of Creation and - omnipotent - can do something to improve things, the fact that he/it (surely can't be a 'she'!) doesn't brings to mind the opening of The Wild Bunch where smiling children have placed a scorpion in an ants' nest eventually ending the carnage by dropping burning straw on the creatures. I can't go along with the old Cathar idea that life is shit but if you toe the line you'll be OK after you are dead and I'm unimpressed by the argument that all mankind's problems are a consequence of the free-will that the supposedly kindly creator has given us. An involved creator, if such there be, is behaving badly!
Sadly, and all too often, believers, keen to extend their influence, use their God as an excuse to behave badly too. Christians of various sorts have a long history of gratuitous violence in the cause of their faith and we are currently seeing plenty of the same from self-professed Muslims. Would the world be a better place without organised religions? I rather think it would.
If such an entity has brought the world and all that therein is into being and - omniscient - knows about all the shit that adversely affects much of Creation and - omnipotent - can do something to improve things, the fact that he/it (surely can't be a 'she'!) doesn't brings to mind the opening of The Wild Bunch where smiling children have placed a scorpion in an ants' nest eventually ending the carnage by dropping burning straw on the creatures. I can't go along with the old Cathar idea that life is shit but if you toe the line you'll be OK after you are dead and I'm unimpressed by the argument that all mankind's problems are a consequence of the free-will that the supposedly kindly creator has given us. An involved creator, if such there be, is behaving badly!
Sadly, and all too often, believers, keen to extend their influence, use their God as an excuse to behave badly too. Christians of various sorts have a long history of gratuitous violence in the cause of their faith and we are currently seeing plenty of the same from self-professed Muslims. Would the world be a better place without organised religions? I rather think it would.
6richardbsmith
I think a prior question is whether humanity holds the place in Creation that we think we hold - in the image, a little lower than angels, ruling the fish of the sea, the birds of the sky, and all the living things that creep on the Earth.
The purpose of the universe.
Perhaps we have overstated our status.
The purpose of the universe.
Perhaps we have overstated our status.
7richardbsmith
As for the OP question.
In scripture there seems to be conflicting evidence. God is smart, but does not seem to know all things.
God is powerful, but does not always seem all powerful.
God can be good, but he is as often bad.
Religions can claim the premises, but I do not think they have been proven.
In scripture there seems to be conflicting evidence. God is smart, but does not seem to know all things.
God is powerful, but does not always seem all powerful.
God can be good, but he is as often bad.
Religions can claim the premises, but I do not think they have been proven.
8abbottthomas
>6 richardbsmith: ....whether humanity holds the place in Creation that we think we hold....
Most religions developed by mankind - certainly by People of the Book - seem to cling to the idea that humankind is pre-eminent on earth.
Most religions developed by mankind - certainly by People of the Book - seem to cling to the idea that humankind is pre-eminent on earth.
9richardbsmith
And the Earth is the center of creation.
Is that correct?
The universe has been for 14 BY. The Earth has been for 4.5 BY. Life has been for 4 BY. Humanity for maybe 100 KY.
In an astronomy course the end of the Solar System was discussed and someone asked the question what will humanity do to survive. Will we travel to another star?
My thought was that our species has existed for 100,000 years and based on that history we think we will continue to exist 4 billion years from now?
Is that correct?
The universe has been for 14 BY. The Earth has been for 4.5 BY. Life has been for 4 BY. Humanity for maybe 100 KY.
In an astronomy course the end of the Solar System was discussed and someone asked the question what will humanity do to survive. Will we travel to another star?
My thought was that our species has existed for 100,000 years and based on that history we think we will continue to exist 4 billion years from now?
10abbottthomas
>9 richardbsmith: No (known) species, until 21st C. man, has had the technology to escape the solar system if life becomes impossible here. We do.
As the same technology also has the power to help us wipe ourselves out I'll go with your scepticism and expect extinction before escape.
As the same technology also has the power to help us wipe ourselves out I'll go with your scepticism and expect extinction before escape.
11richardbsmith
abbotthomas,
I don't think we will wipe ourselves out. I just think we will run the course of all species and eventually become extinct.
That however seems foundational to Christianity. That we are rulers over the Earth. And I just wonder how the title of rulers of the Earth might be evaluated by another perspective.
Are we, humanity, the goal of creation?
I don't think we will wipe ourselves out. I just think we will run the course of all species and eventually become extinct.
That however seems foundational to Christianity. That we are rulers over the Earth. And I just wonder how the title of rulers of the Earth might be evaluated by another perspective.
Are we, humanity, the goal of creation?
12John5918
>11 richardbsmith: That however seems foundational to Christianity
No. Some strands of Christianity, yes.
No. Some strands of Christianity, yes.
13paradoxosalpha
By "fairness," I'm going to suppose that we mean what would in more traditional theological language be called "justice." It is not at all unusual to pair "justice" with "mercy" as complementary qualities in tension with one another. Humans thus tend to negotiate these by compromising between them. A genuine godhead might be imagined to fulfill both without denying either, but it would require the sort of agency of one who could truthfully declare, "I am speech, and I am silence, and I am that which is beyond them. I am life, and I am death, and I am that which is beyond them. I am war, and I am peace, and I am that which is beyond them."
15richardbsmith
What is the Catholic position about humanity's position in creation?
Are we the crown of creation?
" Now, we turn back to concentrate on the crown jewel of God’s creation - the human race. In this lesson we’ll be learning about our ancestors, the founding father and mother of the human family."
https://stpaulcenter.com/studies/lesson/lesson-two-creation-fall-and-promise
Here looks to be a good essay on the topic. Worth considering, although the conclusion seems to be that humanity is not dethroned from the crown.
https://www.athenaeum.edu/pdf/The%20Crown%20of%20Creation.pdf
There are many more references.
https://books.google.com/books?id=WSD1BgAAQBAJ&pg=PA1&lpg=PA1&dq=hum...
Perhaps we might be able to smooth out my word selection, as rulers over the Earth? I still think that Christianity holds humanity to be just a little below the angels.
Are we the crown of creation?
" Now, we turn back to concentrate on the crown jewel of God’s creation - the human race. In this lesson we’ll be learning about our ancestors, the founding father and mother of the human family."
https://stpaulcenter.com/studies/lesson/lesson-two-creation-fall-and-promise
Here looks to be a good essay on the topic. Worth considering, although the conclusion seems to be that humanity is not dethroned from the crown.
https://www.athenaeum.edu/pdf/The%20Crown%20of%20Creation.pdf
There are many more references.
https://books.google.com/books?id=WSD1BgAAQBAJ&pg=PA1&lpg=PA1&dq=hum...
Perhaps we might be able to smooth out my word selection, as rulers over the Earth? I still think that Christianity holds humanity to be just a little below the angels.
16John5918
>15 richardbsmith:
There are many strands of Christian thought. Even amongst fairly mainstream Christian thinkers, many would prefer the word "steward" to "ruler"; still controversial because it implies a higher position, but nevertheless very different from ruler. St Francis of Assisi and many of the Christian mystics might have held a different position. Then there is Thomas Berry who sees humans as having a special role in that they represent the consciousness of the evolving universe - they are the species that has evolved to be self-aware - but not because they are inherently better than the rest of creation.
There are many strands of Christian thought. Even amongst fairly mainstream Christian thinkers, many would prefer the word "steward" to "ruler"; still controversial because it implies a higher position, but nevertheless very different from ruler. St Francis of Assisi and many of the Christian mystics might have held a different position. Then there is Thomas Berry who sees humans as having a special role in that they represent the consciousness of the evolving universe - they are the species that has evolved to be self-aware - but not because they are inherently better than the rest of creation.
17richardbsmith
John,
I am fine with either word. Ruler, steward, special role, consciousness of the evolving universe. All these words seem to have something of the sense of humanity having the position of the "crown of creation".
The question for me, is whether that correct, that we have that position.
We do have consciousness.
The question being asked in the OP is whether God is just, given his omniscient, omnipotence, and omnibenevolence.
And I think that question is being framed from the perspective of humanity having a special position in creation.
The question is something akin to why bad things happen to good people, because God having those attributes would be so involved in the crown of creation as to prevent bad things meeting good people.
I think the first question is whether we have our place judged correctly. Then we can consider God's place and whether he is correctly using his omniscience, omnipotence, and omnibenelovence.
I am fine with either word. Ruler, steward, special role, consciousness of the evolving universe. All these words seem to have something of the sense of humanity having the position of the "crown of creation".
The question for me, is whether that correct, that we have that position.
We do have consciousness.
The question being asked in the OP is whether God is just, given his omniscient, omnipotence, and omnibenevolence.
And I think that question is being framed from the perspective of humanity having a special position in creation.
The question is something akin to why bad things happen to good people, because God having those attributes would be so involved in the crown of creation as to prevent bad things meeting good people.
I think the first question is whether we have our place judged correctly. Then we can consider God's place and whether he is correctly using his omniscience, omnipotence, and omnibenelovence.
18amarie
>2 John5918: My thoughts on this subject led to a more or less classic parable-type story from Mormon apostle Boyd K. Packer (read and watch or dramatized). But then I found a refute pointing out that Packer's version just shifted the debt instead of an outright gift. Which matches what I heard from Brad Wilcox from BYU on "His Grace Is Sufficient" (I didn't attend BYU, but heard him give this same speech elsewhere and remember how enlightening it was).
No human is or can be perfect, yet we'll need to be in order to be in God the Father's presence (i.e. heaven). We do what we can as mortals ("good works") but ultimately must rely on the grace provided by a Savior. And if you're born in the next town over without joining a faith to be saved/perform good works/whatever keeps you busy in this life? That's the reason for the Mormon temples, because darn it we're not losing anyone lacking a simple ritual or two. However, we also believe that even with all this genealogy, and microfilm, and huge family trees, truly no one will be without the chance in this life or the next.
No human is or can be perfect, yet we'll need to be in order to be in God the Father's presence (i.e. heaven). We do what we can as mortals ("good works") but ultimately must rely on the grace provided by a Savior. And if you're born in the next town over without joining a faith to be saved/perform good works/whatever keeps you busy in this life? That's the reason for the Mormon temples, because darn it we're not losing anyone lacking a simple ritual or two. However, we also believe that even with all this genealogy, and microfilm, and huge family trees, truly no one will be without the chance in this life or the next.
19JGL53
>1 timspalding: "But does this require, or is he otherwise required, to be "all fair"?.... What's the role of fairness in God's nature?"
Own a bible, Tim?
Then read - very slowly and carefully - the Book of Job in god's holy infallible scriptures.
Fairness does not come into anything concerning god.
All humans are pawns in an ultimate chess game - a game that is rigged and there can only be one winner. (That's a metaphor.)
Satan - stupid asshole that he is - may one day figure this out. In any case it will be too late for that mothergrabber.
But you, Tim? Will you ever figure it out? CAN you figure it out? I.e., how thorough a job have your mentors done on you? Is it pretty much a done deal? If so, my sincere condolences.
Me? I'm not any god damn pawn. I go with the sound logic of our third President. See the second paragraph of #4:
http://www.stephenjaygould.org/ctrl/jefferson_carr.html
Own a bible, Tim?
Then read - very slowly and carefully - the Book of Job in god's holy infallible scriptures.
Fairness does not come into anything concerning god.
All humans are pawns in an ultimate chess game - a game that is rigged and there can only be one winner. (That's a metaphor.)
Satan - stupid asshole that he is - may one day figure this out. In any case it will be too late for that mothergrabber.
But you, Tim? Will you ever figure it out? CAN you figure it out? I.e., how thorough a job have your mentors done on you? Is it pretty much a done deal? If so, my sincere condolences.
Me? I'm not any god damn pawn. I go with the sound logic of our third President. See the second paragraph of #4:
http://www.stephenjaygould.org/ctrl/jefferson_carr.html
