mark@utzoo.UUCP (mark bloore) (07/24/83)
from a recent article: The statement "God does what He wants ... for no other purpose than to bring Himself glory" does NOT say that God's ONLY motivation is self-glory but rather that His PRIMARY motivation is His glory. i don't understand. the quote says "no other purpose". surely this is synonymous with "only purpose". perhaps we disagree that "purpose" means "motivation" here? or that "his glory" is the same as "self-glory" when god is the glory-maker? (god is not himself? well, we all have days like that.) mARK bLOORE univ of toronto {allegra,ihnp4,linus,decvax}!utzoo!mark
hutch@dadla-b.UUCP (07/26/83)
OK, mARK bLOORE caught me in the middle of a semantic discontinuity, In other words, I do think there is a difference between purpose and motivation but when I try to categorize it, I fall into a mumble of vague and ambiguous cross references. Therefore, I retract my agreement with the notion that God's only purpose in any of His actions is to bring Himself glory. It is a major motive as far as we are shown in the Jewish and Christian scriptures. I cannot say for sure what it would mean to assert that it is His ONLY purpose. I suspect my difficulty (or lack thereof) is that I see purpose, used in this sense, to mean "intention", where mARK sees it in its alternate menaing (meaning, I meant) of "reason for". If you substitute the word "intention" you get an assertion that sounds a little better to our biased ears, and seems to me to be a little more of a general statement. Thanks, mARK, for your incisive reply. Hutch.
mark@utzoo.UUCP (mark bloore) (07/28/83)
ok, hutch, let us say that "god's primary INTENTION is to bring himself glory". i don't see that this makes him look any better in the light of all the terrible things he has done to his people. (yes, i am judging him by my own standards. i see no reason to condone cruelty in a god that i would condemn in a human. its not as if this were a matter strictly between gods). your analogy of the self-glorifying artist would be better if the artist were also a bloody conquerer, a la alexander the great or attila the hun. the artist is harmless, or even laudable, whatever i think of his motives. the conquerer needs to be stopped. suppose the artist sacrificed his son for the sake of one of his beautiful creations. would this be a glorious thing? that is why i mentioned double standards. mARK bLOORE univ of toronto {allegra,ihnp4,linus,decvax}!utzoo!mark
hutch@dadla-b.UUCP (07/29/83)
Continuing a discussion between myself and mARK bLOORE . . . Well, mARK, the fact is that God DID sacrifice His Son. This was not a case of saying, "Son, just to make a more elegant creation, I am going to kill you now" The situation was more one of Jesus CHOOSING to die for that creation. And don't forget that most Christians believe that Jesus is one PERSON of a single God who has shown us THREE Persons. One of the Apostles remarked about an argument very like your own. What, said he, is it to you, if the potter decides to take some clay and turn out a beautiful vase, and then uses some more of the same clay to make a toilet? Do you have the right to complain of the cruelty of the potter when, after he has made a batch of vases and fired them, that he should destroy the ones which cracked, or sagged in the kiln? How then can you fault God, who has made it possible for us cracked and saggy and highly imperfect (don't bore me by claiming to be perfect or even remotely close to it) creations, to become perfect? Or is it that you are so completely knowledgeable about the world and about what is right and wrong, that you can judge God to be wrong in His acts on the face of your own experience. (Heavyhanded sarcasm) What I challenge in all this is your claim that even if you did believe in the Christian view of God, that you would turn from Him because you could not accept His actions. Would you similarly turn away from your views on natural history and evolution because of the massive cruelty inherent in the destruction of those thousands of species of dinosaur when the asteroid fell? Hutch
mark@utzoo.UUCP (mark bloore) (08/03/83)
from a continuing discussion between hutch and myself: How then can you fault God, who has made it possible for us cracked and saggy and highly imperfect (don't bore me by claiming to be perfect or even remotely close to it) creations, to become perfect? so who made us cracked and saggy and highly imperfect? your analogy between us and the potter's rejects suggests that our troubles are god's bad luck. does god depend on luck? shall i thank god for offering a helping hand after dumping me in the mud? What I challenge in all this is your claim that even if you did believe in the Christian view of God, that you would turn from Him because you could not accept His actions. Would you similarly turn away from your views on natural history and evolution because of the massive cruelty inherent in the destruction of those thousands of species of dinosaur when the asteroid fell? natural history does not choose to do cruel things, they just happen. if god chooses to cause suffering then i shall certainly take exception to it. if he has no choise, then why should i worship him? he is not doing anything special. mARK bLOORE univ of toronto {allegra,ihnp4,linus,decvax}!utzoo!mark