Originally posted by JimL
View Post
Announcement
Collapse
Philosophy 201 Guidelines
Cogito ergo sum
Here in the Philosophy forum we will talk about all the "why" questions. We'll have conversations about the way in which philosophy and theology and religion interact with each other. Metaphysics, ontology, origins, truth? They're all fair game so jump right in and have some fun! But remember...play nice!
Forum Rules: Here
Here in the Philosophy forum we will talk about all the "why" questions. We'll have conversations about the way in which philosophy and theology and religion interact with each other. Metaphysics, ontology, origins, truth? They're all fair game so jump right in and have some fun! But remember...play nice!
Forum Rules: Here
See more
See less
An Infinite Past?
Collapse
X
-
Atheism is the cult of death, the death of hope. The universe is doomed, you are doomed, the only thing that remains is to await your execution...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jbnueb2OI4o&t=3s
-
Originally posted by mattbballman31 View PostRead this: http://christianthinktank.com/godlies.html
It helps. Your problem is that you're reading the word 'lie' and then pushing the panic-button, without doing any exegetical legwork. Things are more complicated than how you're framing the issue. Let me frame it the way Glenn Miller does, and then we go from there. Not saying Miller is automatically right; I just think he's framing the issue way better than you are. You're treating it like a simple talking-point.
Here's the kicker:
Comment
-
Originally posted by seer View PostNo, it is not - I already said this Jim. Anyway James, I'm done, enjoy your meaningless, hopeless, insignificant existence...
Comment
-
-
Exegesis is the understanding of the original intent of the authors, not a rationalization of their intent in order to fit ones own agenda.
The original intent is clear. God asks his angels, "who will decieve Ahab so that he will go to battle and die."
Glenn Miller:
The actual word for 'entice' is the 'seduce' word we saw in Jeremiah. God asks who will 'seduce/overpower' Ahab in going to his death (no mention of 'deception' yet). A spirit volunteers to be a 'lying spirit' and God grants permission, with a "go and do it". Seduction DOES NOT necessarily include deception. There were OTHER forms of the verb, and other words that could have brought that meaning out--if so intended, but they are not used in this passage.
One angel comes forward and says he will go down and put a lying spirit in the prophets, which he does, and which, according to the narrative, is the reason why the prophets lied to him.
It doesn't matter that Micaiah came along after the fact and told him the truth, that doesn't change the fact that God already had decieved him.
Micaiah admits to this himself in his prophecy. He says: "So now, the Lord has put a lying spirit in the mouths of all these prophets of yours. God admits to it as well.
He says to the volunteer angel:"You shall succeed in decieving him. Go forth and do this."
Now you can rationalize it all you want if it makes you feel better, but the intent of the authors here is clear, and their intent is that God purposely lied to Ahab.
Let me know if my new approach helps!Many and painful are the researches sometimes necessary to be made, for settling points of [this] kind. Pertness and ignorance may ask a question in three lines, which it will cost learning and ingenuity thirty pages to answer. When this is done, the same question shall be triumphantly asked again the next year, as if nothing had ever been written upon the subject.
George Horne
Comment
-
Originally posted by mattbballman31 View PostWell, okay. I'm going to try to ignore this and stick to the issue. But thanks for the lecture.
I guess all I can do is repeat what I already quoted.
Glenn Miller:
So, the original intent is not 'clear'. The original language implies seduce/overpower, and seduction doesn't necessarily imply deception. Other words - in the original language - could have been used to necessarily imply deception. But these words were not used. If 'deception' was intended, these other words would have been used, instead of the one which implies seduction.
Yea, and ALL OF THIS is told to Ahab. If I am trying to lie to you, and I tell you that what I am saying is not true, then a necessary condition for a lie has been left out: namely, the intent to deceive. If I tell you that what I am saying is a lie, I no longer have the intent to deceive, and is therefore not a lie.
It doesn't? God sending Micaiah to tell Ahab that the prophets were lying takes away intent to deceive, and therefore is not a lie. If I tell my wife that I am being faithful, and then I say that I am lying about my faithfulness (immediately after), then I have not lied, because I told the truth about my deception. It's not even genuine deception anymore; the word is just being used poetically.
Right. God allows Micaiah to tell Ahab that his prophets are lying to him, taking away intent to deceive. If God really wanted to lie, God wouldn't have allowed Micaiah to say as much.
God says this in accordance with His foreknowledge of how He knew Ahab would act.
I'll try to ignore this too. I'm trying to ignore this part, because I think I've decided it's more productive to just interact with the content of what is said. With Tassman, I think I've learned that it's just too much work to play the motive game. So, maybe that can be an apology for my history of posts on this thread. I got too carried away. So, I'm sorry for the insults; but from now on, I'll just focus on what I think to be the content of what is being argued only.
Let me know if my new approach helps!
Comment
-
Originally posted by JimL View PostYour new approach is fine, but you are ignoring the plain fact that the angel of God says, "I will put a "lying spirit" into the mouths of the prophets" in order to decieve Ahab, and God says "good, go and do it". It doesn't matter that the purpose of the lies were to decieve, persuade or seduce Ahab, the fact remains that the tactic used to decieve, persuade or seduce Ahab was to lie to him.
The fact that Ahab was told that God put a lying spirit into the mouths of prophets means that the intent to deceive (call it ITD) was not there.
I maintain that ITD is a necessary condition for genuine deception.
This would be akin to saying, "Honey, what I am about to tell you is not true: I didn't cheat on you." Semantically, this is identical with saying, "Honey, I cheated on you."
Since both semantically identical propositions do not have ITD, there is not genuine deception.
Let's go back to Miller's statement:
The actual word for 'entice' is the 'seduce' word we saw in Jeremiah.
JE 4:10 - Then I said, "Ah, Sovereign LORD, how completely you have deceived this people and Jerusalem by saying, 'You will have peace,' when the sword is at our throats."JE 20:7 - O LORD, you deceived me, and I was deceived you overpowered me and prevailed. I am ridiculed all day long; everyone mocks me.
Our passage in 20.7 uses a special form of the verb (Piel of pth) that is slightly different than 'deceive' but MUCH stronger than 'persuade'--it is the form used for 'seduce' in Ex 22.16.
The second verb in 20.7, 'overpowered' is the word "hazaq" which is ALSO used of seduction in the OT (Deut 22.25; 2 Sam 13.11, 14).
"The verb 'deceived' is so bold and offensive to religious sensibilities that some have tried to soften it by translating it 'persuaded' or 'enticed' so that the verse does not seem to verge on blasphemy. In its intensive form (as here), the verb 'patah' means 'to seduce,' as a virgin is seduced (cf. Exod 22.16; I Kings 22.20-22). To be sure, Jeremiah is not accusing God of lying or misrepresentation; but what he calls seduction is the divine compulsion on his spirit. He is claiming that the Lord overpersuaded him to be a prophet. He pleads that, though the Lord overcame his resistance to the call (1.4-10) and he believed the Lord's promises, he has now been abandoned to shame."
1. Important Point A: Notice also that the rulers were not really interested in TRUE messages from God--they WANTED 'lies'. Thier prophets did falsehood and they "LOVED it that way" (5.31). The rulers actually told Jeremiah to NOT speak in the name of Yahweh(11.21)! They told the people to 'pay no attention to him' (18.18). When he did prophesy, instead of paying attention to something that just MIGHT BE TRUE, instead they had Jeremiah beaten (20.1) and tried to execute him (26.7). This is the book that has the famous scene (chpt 36) when the king burns the prophecies of Jeremiah AS HE READS THEM! These rulers were not interested in truth AT ALL--they wanted and LOVED the lies of the false prophets.2. Important Point B: Notice also that the rulers STILL HAD A CHOICE. By the very fact that Jeremiah was ALERTING them to the false prophets, they STILL were confronted with BOTH SIDES! --God did NOT just leave them to the 'lies'-He stayed in there and witnessed to truth TO THEM to the end.
And the LORD said, 'Who will entice Ahab into attacking Ramoth Gilead and going to his death there?'
"One suggested this, and another that. 21 Finally, a spirit came forward, stood before the LORD and said, 'I will entice him.' "
'By what means?' the LORD asked.
" 'I will go out and be a lying spirit in the mouths of all his prophets,' he said.
" 'You will succeed in enticing him,' said the LORD. 'Go and do it.'
"So now the LORD has put a lying spirit in the mouths of all these prophets of yours. The LORD has decreed disaster for you."
Notice that this passage 20-23 is BEING GIVEN face to face to AHAB! Micaiah, in the presence of the other prophets and even the king of the Southern Kingdom, is describing this vision IN DETAIL to AHAB! Ahab has every opportunity to reject the lying spirits and accept the true message from YAHWEH!Many and painful are the researches sometimes necessary to be made, for settling points of [this] kind. Pertness and ignorance may ask a question in three lines, which it will cost learning and ingenuity thirty pages to answer. When this is done, the same question shall be triumphantly asked again the next year, as if nothing had ever been written upon the subject.
George Horne
Comment
-
Originally posted by mattbballman31 View PostI agree about the plain fact. But the meaning in plain facts have to be amended in light of context.
Comment
-
Originally posted by JimL View PostThe plain fact is all that we are arguing. Seer and yourself assert that God can't lie. This passage proves that assertion to be wrong. God did lie. It doesn't matter that Ahab chose to believe Gods lies rather than to believe Micaiah whose truth in the matter you also attribute to God. The fact remains, that God in this instance did lie to Ahab and Ahab chose to believe the lie. What you are doing is putting the onus on Ahab to decipher which of the 2 statements coming from God is true and which is a lie.Atheism is the cult of death, the death of hope. The universe is doomed, you are doomed, the only thing that remains is to await your execution...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jbnueb2OI4o&t=3s
Comment
-
Originally posted by JimL View PostThe plain fact is all that we are arguing. Seer and yourself assert that God can't lie. This passage proves that assertion to be wrong. God did lie. It doesn't matter that Ahab chose to believe Gods lies rather than to believe Micaiah whose truth in the matter you also attribute to God. The fact remains, that God in this instance did lie to Ahab and Ahab chose to believe the lie. What you are doing is putting the onus on Ahab to decipher which of the 2 statements coming from God is true and which is a lie.
1. False statement, whose falsity is revealed, without intent to deceive.
2. False statement, whose falsity is not revealed, with intent to deceive.
God did 1, not 2.
And I would say it all depends. 2 isn't even always a sin: lying to Nazis about Jews in the cellar.
I don't think God even lied here: he used a lying spirit as a judgment. Glenn Miller bases God's judgment on what he calls a 'permission ethic': Miller notes (in a parallel case w/ Jesus, Legion, and the pigs) -
Note: When the demons in Matt 8.30 asked for permission to enter the animals, Jesus simply said 'Go' (.31). This does NOT make Him the active sponsor of evil. When he told Judas to do his betrayal "quickly," this did not implicate Him in His own betrayal. God allows us to chose ignorance. He seems to stall it off for a while, but if we become increasingly dishonest in how we deal with information about Him and other truth, eventually He will ethically be driven to 'punish us'--to allow our character to BECOME like the character of our most recent choices (e.g. to reject obvious truth).
BUT--by the goodness of God somehow--in each of the cases we have seen, God has along with the deceptive forces, provided INFORMATION about those forces. He has provided truth even about the 'confusion' SO THAT WE might accept truth and change the path of our character. In this act of providing insight and explanation as to the nature and aberrant truth-status of the deceptive messages, God seems to attempt to thwart His judicial actions Himself! He really does want us to know Him.
God permits deceptive forces to enter someone's life if they are COMMITTED to deception already, and if they have demonstrated a culpable history of that destructive dishonesty (and so deserving censure--hopefully corrective...cf. 2 Tim 2.25-26). But even with that permission, God often sends a counter-balancing message of truth--alerting the recipient of the danger of deception.
Where is the contradiction here? It appears that this objection is asserting that the fact that God does not like lying necessarily implies that He could not use this evil for His own ends as a judgment. This is hardly a valid syllogism. One's feelings toward something don't have any connection with whether it is possible to use that something towards one's own ends.Last edited by mattbballman31; 10-28-2014, 03:32 PM.Many and painful are the researches sometimes necessary to be made, for settling points of [this] kind. Pertness and ignorance may ask a question in three lines, which it will cost learning and ingenuity thirty pages to answer. When this is done, the same question shall be triumphantly asked again the next year, as if nothing had ever been written upon the subject.
George Horne
Comment
-
This thread has deteriorated off topic to a apologists theme. of Does God lie?
In the philosophy of science and working knowledge of math cosmology and science uses infinities to describe the nature of our physical existence. The following article gives some basis for a constructive discussion. I will post more of the article in later posts.
Comment
-
I cut to this section which is the heart of the description of Infinity in cosmology.
Last edited by shunyadragon; 11-24-2014, 09:28 PM.
Comment
-
Originally posted by seer View PostWell if there was an infinite past then all possibilities will become actual. I think that that was the way to word it. So the question is - is it possible for all matter/energy not to exist? So why wouldn't that be possible?
Comment
-
Huh, wouldn't an infinite past indicate that Christ died and came back to life an infinite amount of times? After all, it is only necessary that the particles arrange themselves in such a way so as to restore brain function.-The universe begins to look more like a great thought than a great machine.
Sir James Jeans
-This most beautiful system (The Universe) could only proceed from the dominion of an intelligent and powerful Being.All variety of created objects which represent order and Life in the Universe could happen only by the willful reasoning of its original Creator, whom I call the Lord God.
Sir Isaac Newton
Comment
Related Threads
Collapse
Topics | Statistics | Last Post | ||
---|---|---|---|---|
Started by shunyadragon, 03-01-2024, 09:40 AM
|
172 responses
610 views
0 likes
|
Last Post
by seer
04-15-2024, 11:55 AM
|
Comment