Power Corrupts
Pages
| Author | Topic: Power Corrupts |
|---|---|
|
E Equals MC What!!!!
Member # 5491
|
written Friday, April 21 2006 17:32
Profile
Homepage
Short answer, he does. Not the Garden of Eden itself, but Heaven's supposed to be just as good, or so I'm told. (simple answer to a simple question, please don't ask "what are you basing that on?" or anything like that. Just pointing out that there's no inconsistency in Christian thinking here.) -------------------- SupaNik: Aran, you're not big enough to threaten Ash. Dammit, even JV had to think twice. Posts: 1861 | Registered: Friday, February 11 2005 08:00 |
|
Shake Before Using
Member # 75
|
written Friday, April 21 2006 17:41
Profile
There's not that much difference, really. Only less sex, and adults were around to make sure we didn't beat each other with clubs. EDIT: And I meant "between being a caveman and a small child", not "between the Garden of Eden and Heaven". [ Friday, April 21, 2006 17:42: Message edited by: Imban ] Posts: 3234 | Registered: Thursday, October 4 2001 07:00 |
|
Law Bringer
Member # 6785
|
written Friday, April 21 2006 18:05
Profile
If you want one possible answer to why we're not still in Eden, try the Studio Foglio website in the Free section for Good Omens. Since God by definition, at least in some religions before we debate my definiton, is all powerful and all knowing then eating the forbidden fruit was already known before telling Adam and Eve not to do it. Whether or not we have free will, if God knows the future, then the action must have been planned by God. So whatever happened was part of God's design and therefore there was never an intention for us to stay in Paradise. This can start a whole new debate upon predestination and whether we truly have free will if all are actions are known in advance by God. As to power corrupting, if you don't have it before then getting it will usually affect you. Look at Aran and his wondering whether this topic was about him. The degree of corruption depends upon excercising power. The more it is used to force one's will upon others the more the others feel that it is corrupting. Posts: 4643 | Registered: Friday, February 10 2006 08:00 |
|
BANNED
Member # 4
|
written Friday, April 21 2006 18:24
Profile
Homepage
quote:Actually, this brings up a fairly interesting biblical proof that outright defeats the notion of free will: "But as for you, ye thought evil against me; but God meant it unto good, to bring to pass, as it is this day, to save much people alive." Genesis 50:20 Joseph is saying that god had his brothers send him into Egypt so that the Israelites might have food when Joseph ultimately gains the power to distribute it as such. Which is odd, because in previous examples where the Israelites need to be spared of some horrible famine/massacre, it's usually the direct hand of god or at least a prophetic manifestation that saves the tribe. Or at the bare minimum (if we're to use the example of the Judges, which has its own set of circumstances that SHOULD make it inaplicable), god will make people to good things, but never bad things. This verse most clearly implies the "hand of god" overriding the brothers' consciences by stating that their having Joseph go to Israel was pre-planned: That is, there was no free will on the part of the brothers. -------------------- * Posts: 6936 | Registered: Tuesday, September 18 2001 07:00 |
|
Lifecrafter
Member # 6193
|
written Friday, April 21 2006 18:29
Profile
Homepage
I'll have to agree with what PoD said about the absolute power issue. (Jesus I'm agreeing with him all over the place today, I feel like a yes-man :) ) The reason mortal rulers are generally corrupted by power is that they fear losing it. Some are genuinely sadistic and enjoy causing harm, but most simply want to stay in power. Unless you think of God in a polytheistic way, its hard to imagine a supreme being needing to opress mortals to ensure his power. The only reason God would have to act in a "corrupt" manner would be just for amusement, like a kid setting ants on fire. Hopefully God is more mature than that. -------------------- Guaranteed to blow your mind. Frostbite: Get It While It's...... Hot? Posts: 900 | Registered: Monday, August 8 2005 07:00 |
|
BANNED
Member # 4
|
written Friday, April 21 2006 18:37
Profile
Homepage
quote:Job. -------------------- * Posts: 6936 | Registered: Tuesday, September 18 2001 07:00 |
|
Lifecrafter
Member # 6700
|
written Friday, April 21 2006 18:56
Profile
Homepage
quote:Have you ever actually read Job? I mean, actually read it? It wasn't an abuse of power, and it wasn't being immature. Job's suffering was a combination of a test of faith and an object lesson, done to make points to both Satan and Job. And Job ended up getting everything back once he understood the lesson. -------------------- The Silent Assassin wants to know why I had a problem with his butchering a cow in the kitchen earlier today. Let me make this clear: when I said that I wanted Cheesesteak, I implied that I wanted to order out. -------------------- -Lenar Labs What's Your Destiny? Ushmushmeifa: Lenar's power is almighty and ineffable. All hail lord Noric, god of... well, something important, I'm sure. Posts: 735 | Registered: Monday, January 16 2006 08:00 |
|
Shock Trooper
Member # 4445
|
written Friday, April 21 2006 18:59
Profile
"Amusement" is an unfair exaggeration and you know it. The most important part of Job is that it makes a good exemplum. Acting in a "corrupt fashion" (debatable, since Job came out ahead - although that argument's moot if you consider that his wife and children were killed) to make a point is a little different from amusement. I'd also like to point out that the Bible doesn't seem to hold God's power as absolute. I'd have to disagree with you on the Joseph passage; the bible claims that God's physical power is limitless, but it seems to be only physical. In that instance, God was able to influence events such that Joseph's brothers didn't accomplish their aim, but God could not stop them from taking actions with that aim in mind. It's a subtle distinction, and I don't know how well I'm making it, but God spends most of the Old Testament trying to coerce people into doing things with physical threats (10 plagues, Nineveh, Sodom & Gomorrah, etc.). The implication, then, is that there is some core of free will that God cannot touch, and God must resort to other methods (like trickery, in the Joseph case) to get humans to accomplish God's aims. The New Testament seems like God throwing up his hands and deciding not to use temporal inducements to get people to do what ze (gender-neutral pronoun) wants. [ Friday, April 21, 2006 19:01: Message edited by: PoD person ] Posts: 293 | Registered: Saturday, May 29 2004 07:00 |
|
Lifecrafter
Member # 6193
|
written Friday, April 21 2006 19:03
Profile
Homepage
The story of Job was written with a message like "Have faith in God during the hard times, your reward will be greater for it." God tempts Job's faith, and when Job passes the test he is rewarded. A rough equivalent to modern times would be someone falling across hard times (Job's are caused by Satan, perhaps this would be just hard luck), but sticking with God and weathering it. God smiting random people just because he hates humanity or revels in their suffering (like the ant image) wouldn't really apply here. Edit: Wow two people beat me to it. [ Friday, April 21, 2006 19:06: Message edited by: Lazarus. ] -------------------- Guaranteed to blow your mind. Frostbite: Get It While It's...... Hot? Posts: 900 | Registered: Monday, August 8 2005 07:00 |
|
BANNED
Member # 4
|
written Friday, April 21 2006 19:21
Profile
Homepage
quote:If you are arguing that one set of wife-and-children is ethically equal to another, then you are engaging in moral calculus- a philosophy that is not only highly materialistic, but is also overtly evil. quote:In this instance, that's not applicable. Are you saying that god purposefully chose Joseph for Israel to love far more than his other sons? In which case god is STILL having someone act considerably worse to get the job done. quote:"Trickery" still doesn't explain the behaviors of the brothers. God clearly had assigned them this behavior, and they do it. Regardless of the methods, whether they be subterfuge, psychology, etc., if god assigns you something to do and you do it without knowing but with certain accuracy, you have no free will. To argue otherwise is to have a narrow-minded vision of what "free will" actually means. quote:Why do there have to be hard times? If there is no free will (and I can begin to whittle away arguments that there is progressively, but you in particular don't seem to be going at me on this count), then why did god CREATE a world in which there ARE hard times? If god is an omnipotent creator, why make a world that sucks so bad? -------------------- * Posts: 6936 | Registered: Tuesday, September 18 2001 07:00 |
|
Lifecrafter
Member # 6193
|
written Friday, April 21 2006 19:35
Profile
Homepage
If you want to look at the Adam and Eve story you can say its all our fault, I won't bother to argue that course... There are two basic ways you can respond to evil in the world "God is suppposed to be love and goodness, but yet I see evil in the world, therefore God mustn't exist." Or "The existence of evil doesn't disprove God, we can't understand all of God's actions/lack of action." Basically remain theistic. I look at it the second way, I'll assume you see it the first. Fair enough, I doubt either of us will come up with any evidence to change the others' mind. It would probably require personal life experience. -------------------- Guaranteed to blow your mind. Frostbite: Get It While It's...... Hot? Posts: 900 | Registered: Monday, August 8 2005 07:00 |
|
Law Bringer
Member # 6785
|
written Friday, April 21 2006 19:40
Profile
quote:I hate to agree with you, but their seem to be two explanations. One is the kid torturing ants like in the Star Trek episode "Trelayne." The other is that God is deliberately placing limitations on his power in order to achieve some result. We're part of an experiment to see if after enough time we're all dead from self destruction (that may happen soon if Iran gets the bomb) or evolve into something better that is closer to God but of lesser power. Posts: 4643 | Registered: Friday, February 10 2006 08:00 |
|
Shock Trooper
Member # 4445
|
written Friday, April 21 2006 19:54
Profile
quote:I don't really understand what you're saying here. quote:Looking at a more vernacular translation, I'll agree that, the way Joseph says it, his Brothers were God's pawns. Bear in mind, though, that direct quotations from any biblical character other than Yahweh/Jesus (ze)self are suspect, especially when the character is "reassuring," or "speaking kindly," as my translation puts it, and especially when the character doesn't, at that time, seem to be serving as a prophet of any kind. Heck, he may have been trying to persuade his brothers that they didn't act of their own free will to make them feel better. I feel like taking this passage as a disproof of free will when free will seems to be God's primary frustration throughout the Old Testament is making a mountain out of a molehill. quote:That's what I take out of the bible, anyways, although the bible implies more of a desire to see something choose happiness as opposed to being created happy (rather than Mengele-like experimentation). [ Friday, April 21, 2006 20:01: Message edited by: PoD person ] Posts: 293 | Registered: Saturday, May 29 2004 07:00 |
|
Master
Member # 5977
|
written Friday, April 21 2006 22:32
Profile
Homepage
quote:This reminded me just a bit too much of the Hitch Hikers Guide to the Galacy. But to be honest, on this whole matter of free will, isn't it so that, if one believe sin god, you automatically don't believe in free will? God is the ruler, god does everything, god regulates what happens and what not. When I see a father of a muslim fundamentelist that blew himself up, then the first thing he says is: "it was what Allah wanted," which means that his son/daughter didn't really want to do it, he/she only thought that he/she wanted to do it, but inreality god made him/her to do it. I can be mistaken in this, as I don't believe in god or something of that kind. -------------------- Play and rate my scenarios: Where the rivers meet View my upcoming scenario: The Nephil Search: Escape. Give us your drek! Posts: 3029 | Registered: Saturday, June 18 2005 07:00 |
|
E Equals MC What!!!!
Member # 5491
|
written Friday, April 21 2006 22:38
Profile
Homepage
quote:I would just like to point out here that "A character in the Bible said" does not directly correlate with "The Bible teaches". EDIT: Oops, beaten. Carry on. Thralni: No, that's not how it works. [ Friday, April 21, 2006 22:41: Message edited by: Ash Lael ] -------------------- SupaNik: Aran, you're not big enough to threaten Ash. Dammit, even JV had to think twice. Posts: 1861 | Registered: Friday, February 11 2005 08:00 |
|
Master
Member # 5977
|
written Friday, April 21 2006 22:42
Profile
Homepage
Then I'm afraid I will need some explanation. If there is a god who controls everything, then a person really can't do what he wants, as it is god who controls him. Only if god doesn't control everything, free will can exist. So how does it exactly work? -------------------- Play and rate my scenarios: Where the rivers meet View my upcoming scenario: The Nephil Search: Escape. Give us your drek! Posts: 3029 | Registered: Saturday, June 18 2005 07:00 |
|
E Equals MC What!!!!
Member # 5491
|
written Friday, April 21 2006 22:45
Profile
Homepage
God doesn't control everything. At least, according to mainstream Christian thinking. [ Friday, April 21, 2006 22:47: Message edited by: Ash Lael ] -------------------- SupaNik: Aran, you're not big enough to threaten Ash. Dammit, even JV had to think twice. Posts: 1861 | Registered: Friday, February 11 2005 08:00 |
|
Electric Sheep One
Member # 3431
|
written Saturday, April 22 2006 00:22
Profile
quote:Pretty much everyone agrees that the problem with the ontological proof is somewhere in its step from definition to reality. The hard part is explaining exactly what and where the problem is. Most people figure that Immanuel Kant came closest to it, but a lot of people find his explanation insufficiently clear. As far as your explanation goes, Zeviz, the whole point of this 'proof' is that a definition is not an assumption. Anselm could just as well have said, "Consider the greatest possible being", without mentioning the term "God". It would then be a rather trivial observation that, "Hey! 'Greatest possible being' is pretty much what everyone normally calls 'God', isn't it?" -------------------- We're not doing cool. We're doing pretty. Posts: 3335 | Registered: Thursday, September 4 2003 07:00 |
|
...b10010b...
Member # 869
|
written Saturday, April 22 2006 00:30
Profile
Homepage
quote:The important question isn't really whether he does actively control everything in the world, but whether he can. An omnipotent and omniscient being choosing to intervene in a given situation is indistinguishable from an O&O being choosing not to intervene; either way, the being is knowingly choosing to allow a particular result to come about. (I should add that the view that God's will actively sustains the existence of the universe is well within the bounds of "mainstream Christian thinking", so even if you don't buy the argument that knowingly failing to intervene in a situation that you know will lead to a particular result is equivalent to actively bringing about that result, God is still making an active decision to allow events in the world to happen in a certain way simply by choosing to allow the world to continue to exist.) -------------------- The Empire Always Loses: This Time For Sure! Posts: 9973 | Registered: Saturday, March 30 2002 08:00 |
|
...b10010b...
Member # 869
|
written Saturday, April 22 2006 00:35
Profile
Homepage
quote:Well, if the problem isn't with the definition of "God" (which, as you point out, it isn't), it's with the definition of "great" (or "perfect", or any of a number of other words I've seen substituted into the argument). The idea that it's possible to unambiguously define perfection, and that that definition necessarily includes the fact that a perfect being is more perfect if it exists than if it doesn't, is an attractive one, but considering how much trouble philosophers have adequately defining even words that don't have so much ideological baggage, we can't safely take it as axiomatic. -------------------- The Empire Always Loses: This Time For Sure! Posts: 9973 | Registered: Saturday, March 30 2002 08:00 |
|
Warrior
Member # 6975
|
written Saturday, April 22 2006 00:39
Profile
Homepage
god dose NOT have absolute power because he dose NOT exist...evidince:if god created everything who created him,and is there was some one created him who created that guy and so on for infinity and if they all created holy things to create y not created the galixy them selfs :confused: how do you like that i bet none of you ever thought of that..well maby a few but not many edit:also if some how god dose exist if you liked vilence but went to heavin wouldent heavin be a place were every one had bats and guns and killed eachother only to come back 1/2 a sec later to fight some more or if you liked vilence and went to h@11 wouldt h@11 have god and a bunch of monks siting wateing for you to meditate or something :eek: agaion bet you didnt think of this [ Saturday, April 22, 2006 00:50: Message edited by: lord llama ] Posts: 80 | Registered: Wednesday, March 29 2006 08:00 |
|
Electric Sheep One
Member # 3431
|
written Saturday, April 22 2006 01:04
Profile
The book of Job is, like many books in the Bible, a pastiche. We can detect at least three stylistically and thematically separate stories: the long middle part in which Job suffers and argues with his (supposed) friends; the short penultimate dialogue between Job and God; and the frame in which Satan initially talks God into testing Job, and then at the end Job gets new stuff and a new family. Many people still wish to assume that the entire book in its current form is a divine revelation; but even these people are not required to interpret the different parts of the book in the same way. For instance, I take the frame story ironically. It casts it all as God's test of Job, when the main theme of the story is, of course, Job's test of God; the point is that both tests are unfair. The 'whirlwind' scene provides an answer to the problem of evil that is by no means reassuring, but silences me as it does Job: "When was the last time you commanded the morning?" What would we know about how to run a universe, or about the issues and purposes that need to be considered by a being who can run a universe? -------------------- We're not doing cool. We're doing pretty. Posts: 3335 | Registered: Thursday, September 4 2003 07:00 |
|
Electric Sheep One
Member # 3431
|
written Saturday, April 22 2006 01:21
Profile
quote:It's an interesting idea to attack the definition of greatness, but my own feeling is that this part is probably not the problem. That is, I'd be happy to take 'greatness implies existence' as an axiom, but then I would still feel that the Ontological Proof is invalid — and be hard pressed to specify why. I'm pretty sure Kant was on the right track, but I once failed to uphold his criticism against a philosophy prof who actually believed a version of the Ontological Proof (the one that introduces the concept of 'necessary existence'). Anselm's original argument is obviously pretty naive about precision of definition. This is fair enough for a product of the 11th century, but it has been dressed up since, even by someone as precise as Kurt Gödel. (I don't actually know his version of it, though.) -------------------- We're not doing cool. We're doing pretty. Posts: 3335 | Registered: Thursday, September 4 2003 07:00 |
|
Electric Sheep One
Member # 3431
|
written Saturday, April 22 2006 01:27
Profile
Much — maybe even all — of the problem of free will is independent of theology. Plenty of atheists doubt the existence of free will. It will take a pretty neat trick for free will to get past the iron laws of physics; if it pulls it off, the same trick will probably work to get by God. -------------------- We're not doing cool. We're doing pretty. Posts: 3335 | Registered: Thursday, September 4 2003 07:00 |
|
E Equals MC What!!!!
Member # 5491
|
written Saturday, April 22 2006 01:51
Profile
Homepage
quote:Oh you are so clever and full of unexpected thoughts I had never considered before you have now turned my entire worldview upside down whatever shall I do Seriously, your first argument applies to everything, not just God. How did matter get here? -------------------- SupaNik: Aran, you're not big enough to threaten Ash. Dammit, even JV had to think twice. Posts: 1861 | Registered: Friday, February 11 2005 08:00 |