Does God operate at a lower standard of morality/ethics than he requires of us?

[Servus]

Yeah, but we don't call those guys Universalists or Existentialists. At least, I don't.

Most Christian universalists stay within certain parameters of orthodoxy. That's why they specify that they are Christian universalists. I don't recall any that I've known for a length of time posting messages from the twilight zone.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

I know you're not. I'm just throwing all that out there to clarify what I'm trying to say. Which is basically, I don't think ECT is consistent with the starting point of traditional orthodox thought. And when I look at the ad hoc arguments that have been made throughout the centuries in hopes of making it appear consistent, the inconsistency becomes even more glaring. I'm just waiting for those arguments to be put forward so their inconsistency can see the light of day...again.

Well, you might not believe me, but I do understand your point of view, PH. Thanks for the added clarification. I understand that IF your angle of ascent is actually what you claim, and that if(f) it is in actuality only that which you claim, then the conceptual trajectory of its destination has to take it where it sounds like it would land. And on the count, I think you'd be absolutely correct!

I simply see things from another angle, and without getting much into what I think about it all since noone here really cares about that anyway ('also because I'm not going to be insistent about it like some other finer, older, more tenured warriors we know), I take a different epistemic and hermeneutical tact in all of this evaluating about God, goodness and eschatological destinations. So, I end up at a different spot of conclusion, however tentative or provisional it may be.

As for arguments, I don't have one. The closest thing I'd have is that I start existentially, and that means I assume as little as possible, and definitely NOT with the Bible when engaging Reality. Therefore, and by this and through this angle, I don't assume that anyone really know God, or Absolutes as anything other than fictions. They may be practical fictions with practical social applications in our social world, but in my mind they remain practical fictions nevertheless. Some of this trend in my thinking simply is a result (or contamination) from my Axiological studies that go with social research where 'human rights' is concerned.

But, yeah. I think Fervent needs to concede the logical outcome of your premises, at the least.

 

[Hmm]

As for Existentialism, I'd say that it essentially (pun intended) releases me from addressing essentials. So, I don't have to operate within an enclosed box of expectations, other than the fact that Reality is Other and that it's bigger than I am

This is not existentialism as I understand it. Existentialism can be summarised as "existence precedes essence" i.e. we find ourselves "thrown" into existence and have to create our own "essense" - our moral values and sense of what's important.

Existentialism a person-centred philosophy based on what is within human experience and is not concerned with abstract statements like "Reality is Other and that it's bigger than I am". If anything, it would say the opposite: God is rejected even if He exists because our justice is bigger than His if it seems suffering and the fact that we are all under a death penalty seems unjust to us. At least, that's the existentialism of Satre, Camus, Dostoevsky and Nietzsche as I understand it. Perhaps we are talking about different things.

As for arguments, I don't have one. The closest thing I'd have is that I start existentially, and that means I assume as little as possible, and definitely NOT with the Bible when engaging Reality. Therefore, and by this and through this angle, I don't assume that anyone really know God, or Absolutes as anything other than fictions.

I kind of agree, certainly with what you say about the Bible, but I don't think that many people's religious thought starts with the Bible and I believe that human experience includes personal experiences of God and that these are just as valid as our experiences of anything else, and this latter is not at all at odds with existentialism as I see it.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

Most Christian universalists stay within certain parameters of orthodoxy. That's why they specify that they are Christian universalists. I don't recall any that I've known for a length of time posting messages from the twilight zone.

And I'd like to meet the person who thinks he has all the essentials as to what constitues 'exact orthodoxy'... and who has the gall to tell ME that I have everything wrong from the get go. Usually, those cases involve a lot of unilateral talking, and none on my part.

Like a lot of you guys (and gals), I too have encountered a many Christian voices squeaking out their answers as they've given them over the past nearly 2,000 years. I, just like you guys, have my favorites.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

This is not existentialism as I understand it. Existentialism can be summarised as "existence precedes essence" i.e. we find ourselves "thrown" into existence and have to create our own "essense" - our moral values and sense of what's important.

Why do you think I mentioned a pun earlier? See, I think here's the problem, Hmm. You don't trust me. You think I'm secretly here to undermine you. I'm not. I'm here to say my piece. My existential piece. Because my existence preceeds yours, or God's, or Jesus's, or the bible's....from my own personal perspective, that is. See how that works? It's only LATER, after engaging the bible, that I come to consider othewise, as I flow out of and through an Existential perspective. This is one reason, but not all, as to why I invoke Pascal's Wager at some point in my thinking.

Existentialism a person-centred philosophy based on what is within human experience and is not concerned with abstract statements like "Reality is Other and that it's bigger than I am".

Sure, it can be. If my Existence and experience leads me to perceive that Reality is Other (i.e. not fully known by me) , then I'll say that's what it is and that it is bigger than I am.

Do you think I should say that Reality isn't Other and Bigger than I am?

If anything, it would say the opposite: God is rejected even if He exists because our justice is bigger than His if it seems suffering and the fact that we are all under a death penalty seems unjust to us. At least, that's the existentialism of Satre, Camus, Dostoevsky and Nietzsche as I understand it. Perhaps we are talking about different things.

Ok. So, for you, then, may I say of you that you think Axiology is paramount and above all else?

As for Existentialism and as to how various philosophers think about "IT," just know there isn't "one singular, monolithic form" of "IT."

The great thing is that this leaves you free to "be" a Univeralist Christian if that's what you feel pulled toward.

 

[Hmm]

Because my existence preceeds yours, or God's, or Jesus's, or the bible's....from my own personal perspective, that is. See how that works? It's only LATER, after engaging the bible, that I come to consider othewise, as I flow out of and through an Existential perspective.

I do see how that works and that's my undersatanding of existenialism too.

Sure, it can be. If my Existence and experience leads me to perceive that Reality is Other (i.e. not fully known by me) , then I'll say that's what it is and that it is bigger than I am.

Do you think I should say that that Reality isn't Other and Bigger than I am?

No, I think as an existentialist you should say that I don't know what reality is so I'll concern myself with what I do know: that kindness is good, cruelty is wrong etc. What Reality is is irrelevant to this: if it turns out that there is a God who says that kindness is worthless then it will make no difference to your values as an existentialist, you would simply reject such as God, as would I. But no one, Christian or existentialist, can lay claim to knowing what the absolute reality is.

Ok. So, for you, then, may I say of you that you think Axiology is paramount and above all else?

As for Existentialism and as to how various philosophers think about "IT," just know there isn't "one singular, monolithic form" of "IT."

The great thing is that this leaves you free to "be" a Univeralist Christian if that's what you feel pulled toward.

Firstly, axiology simply means values and I think it's helpful in a general forum to use words that most people are familiar with.

As I said above, I would reject a cruel and capricious god if it turned out that's that what he was. So, yes, values are "paramount and above all else" to me. So, if God was as described by Infernalists or 5-point Calvanists, I would pray to that god only that he sends me to hell because I would prefer that than spending eternity with such a being.

But I'm not a universalist because I'm "free" to be one. I believe that values have an objective, not just subjective meaning because they exist in the mind of God, and that our values are reflections of this. A simple argument as to why beauty, truth, values have objective existence is that, to take beauty, we can be taught to appreciate it. If it was merely subjective, we couldn't be.

You don't trust me. You think I'm secretly here to undermine you.

Not at all. I just think you don't like it when people make claim to objective truth but as I've tried to explain, that's not an unreasonable claim. No doubt, also, you see the logical inconsistency in saying absolutely that there is no such thing as absolute truth?

 

[2PhiloVoid]

No, I think as an existentialist you should say that I don't know what reality is so I'll concern myself with what I do know: that kindness is good, cruelty is wrong etc. What Reality is is irrelevant to this: if it turns out that there is a God who says that kindness is worthless then it will make no difference to your values as an existentialist, you would simply reject such as God, as would I. But no one, Christian or existentialist, can lay claim to knowing what the absolute reality is.

"Should"? And "Reality is irrelevant to this"? ... that's one way to see it, or to not see it. It's not the only way, however.

And if you can't lay claim to knowing what the absolute reality, then you've conceded to my point and I'd suggest you not do so by telling me what is relavant or not in Reality.

Firstly, axiology simply means values and I think it's helpful in a general forum to use words that most people are familiar with.

No, I'm sorry, Hmm. Axiology does not "simply" mean values. But that's ok. Everyone has to start somewhere with this philosophy stuff. The thing is, it doesn't always start axiomatically. ... well, for some it does.

As I said above, I would reject a cruel and capricious god if it turned out that's that what he was. So, yes, values are "paramount and above all else" to me. So, if God was as described by Infernalists or 5-point Calvanists, I would pray to that god only that he sends me to hell because I would prefer that than spending eternity with such a being.

But I'm not a universalist because I'm "free" to be one. I believe that values have an objective, not just subjective meaning because they exist in the mind of God, and that our values are reflections of this. A simple argument as to why beauty, truth, values have objective existence is that, to take beauty, we can be taught to appreciate it. If it was merely subjective, we couldn't be.

If God exists and Jesus is the Lord and Saviour, then yes values are supremly objective, not just subjective. But that's "IF." Otherwise, we have subjective, relative even, practical fictions.

Not at all. I just think you don't like it when people make claim to objective truth but as I've tried to explain, that's not an unreasonable claim. No doubt, also, you see the logical inconsistency in saying absolutely that there is no such thing as absolute truth?

And you haven't read or understood various philosophers who think that at least some arguments get bifurcated by 2nd Order thinking and other applications of Criticism (or Critical Thinking).

But, that's fine. I get it. Everyone has their favorites; its axiologically inevitable.

 

[Hmm]

Axiology does not "simply" mean values. But that's ok. Everyone has to start somewhere with this philosophy stuff.

Well, perhaps a good start for you would be to explain what else it means...

I'm not sure I can continue with this because I prefer a calmer and more focused and constructive approach to discussion, sorry.

 

[Servus]

And I'd like to meet the person who thinks he has all the essentials as to what constitues 'exact orthodoxy'... and who has the gall to tell ME that I have everything wrong from the get go. Usually, those cases involve a lot of unilateral talking, and none on my part.

Like a lot of you guys (and gals), I too have encountered a many Christian voices squeaking out their answers as they've given them over the past nearly 2,000 years. I, just like you guys, have my favorites.

What I'm noticing is you seem to be going at great lengths to explain yourself. I don't see anyone else in in this thread in that position. Are you going for being the super unique set apart individual?

 

[2PhiloVoid]

What I'm noticing is you seem to be going at great lengths to explain yourself. I don't anyone else in in this thread in that position. Are you going for being the super unique set apart individual?

I'm going to great lengths to explain myself ? Well, that's what Hmm prompted me for in an earlier post... he thought I'd be afraid of criticism, I guess.

I'm not.

I understand your concern though, and in a similar vain, some people in the Church thought the same about Pascal or Kierkegaard when they spouted some of their own viewpoints during their own lifetimes. Everyone else was unimpressed and suspicious and prone to apply Ad Hominems to them----I assume it was with capital letters when they did so. Some people are just touchy about their favorite ideas, I guess.

I'm also sick and tired of other Christians bashing me and each other, hence one reason you see my book list end where it does ... ...

 

[2PhiloVoid]

Well, perhaps a good start for you would be to explain what else it means...

I'm not sure I can continue with this because I prefer a calmer and more focused and constructive approach to discussion, sorry.

Well, we can end it right there. Have a blessed and relaxing rest of your day, bro!

 

[Hmm]

Well, we can end it right there. Have a blessed and relaxing rest of your day, bro!

As you will. Are you wearing sunglasses because you find me too bright? (joke!)

 

[Fervent]

Well, brother Fervent, why can't I make up my own version of Christianity? I'm an Existentialist, after all, and I believe in freedom of thought. Why do any of us have to be pinned down to the term 'Orthodox' or 'Catholic' or whatever other favored terms float about in the vernacular of any one denomination or person?

I'd hardly press you to conform to a denomination, but if we're all going to simply make up our own "version" I'm not sure the word "Christian" has much meaning. There is one God, one Christ, and we learn of Him through the pages of Scripture. My bone is with how the theology is being conducted rather than the conclusions.

 

[Fervent]

My third-party view is that you are now making ad-homs simply because you (clearly) don't have a plausible answer to the very simple question you were asked.

Your position is hardly unbiased, but its rather amusing you accuse me of making ad hominems while ignoring the previous post accusing me of having "warped sensibility" for not simply taking their view uncritically.

 

[Fervent]

It seems a lot of your arguments are based on how a word is supposed to be used.

I'm not forwarding an argument with the definition, but stating the only way I can see their argument being cogent is if we use a particular understanding of "destine" that excludes human agency.

My argument is simply that building a theological premise on philosophical grounds rather than exegesis is fundamentally flawed, not a dispute over a word.

 

[Hmm]

Your position is hardly unbiased, but its rather amusing you accuse me of making ad hominems while ignoring the previous post accusing me of having "warped sensibility" for not simply taking their view uncritically.

I am unbiased and that's another ad hom if you think about it. Please stop! Or at least try to cut down and ask yourself "Do I really need to send this ad hom now? Perhaps I could save it till tomorrow and just send a devastating hermeneutical refutation instead."

 

[2PhiloVoid]

I'm not forwarding an argument with the definition, but stating the only way I can see their argument being cogent is if we use a particular understanding of "destine" that excludes human agency.

My argument is simply that building a theological premise on philosophical grounds rather than exegesis is fundamentally flawed, not a dispute over a word.

My argument is that we can't but help to build a theological premise on philosophical "grounds." The real question is, which philosophy and which method are we choosing to recognize and use? Exegesis does help us to clarify what we read but it by no means establishes a comprehensive understanding or a comprehensive, perfectly worked out theology.

And we just have to recognize God didn't offer His Truth to us in that way. At best, we have bits and pieces of insight. It's enough for us to respond by His Spirit and place our faith in Jesus; it's not enough for any one Christian from any one denomination---or seminary---- to beat up on another Christian, or 12 other different kinds of Christians, who come at the Christian faith from other angles.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

As you will. Are you wearing sunglasses because you find me too bright? (joke!)

Yes, I had to put my shades on. I also had to put an extra layer of sun-block on as well. Love you, bro!

I'm sorry I have to be hard to get along with.

 

[Fervent]

My argument is that we can't but help to build a theological premise on philosophical "grounds." The real question is, which philosophy and which method are we choosing to recognize and use? Exegesis does help us to clarify what we read but it by no means establishes a comprehensive understanding or a comprehensive, perfectly worked out theology.

And we just have to recognize God didn't offer His Truth to us in that way. At best, we have bits and pieces of insight. It's enough for us to respond by His Spirit and place our faith in Jesus; it's not enough for any one Christian from any one denomination---or seminary---- to beat up on another Christian, or 12 other different kinds of Christians, who come at the Christian faith from other angles.

I'm not denying philosophy has a role in the process, but comprehensive systems and perfectly worked out theologies are more problematic than desireable. There's something to be said for being aware of how God has spoken to people, but Christian theology not build on exegesis is simply men grasping in the darkness. When we say things like "absolute goodness" as if we know what that is from the get-go it is idol-building. While we may develop convictions from extensive exegesis, theology serves not to define God but to qualify the God revealed in Scripture. So exegesis is not simply a means for clarification, but about the closest we can get to an objective standard to test our theological ideas against.

 

[Fervent]

I am unbiased and that's another ad hom if you think about it. Please stop! Or at least try to cut down and ask yourself "Do I really need to send this ad hom now? Perhaps I could save it till tomorrow and just send a devastating hermeneutical refutation instead."

First, you're about as much of a cheerleader for all things UR as is possible, so to call yourself unbiased is absolutely laughable.

Second, neither of the things you are calling ad homs are ad homs as neither was forwarded as a defeator of an argument. Mockery is not a fallacy, though perhaps it may be a bit uncouth.