Redemptio Vox

whatever the crap he wants

This post is a reply to a question asked via e-mail, here it is: Okay, so my question is what are your thoughts on the whole "did God make Adam and Eve sin and does he make us sin" question? Just curious... :)...

This question has been circulating around the makenew community for the last few weeks and is in need of some clairity. Before I launch out here I want to make a disclaimer, which is this: This post is not a comprehensive theological answer to the problem of the authorship of evil, it's not even supposed to be. This is part 1 of a multi post answer to the practical question of sovereignty and free will. That said let's begin.

We will focus here on the particular question of Adam and Eve knowing that we are really speaking about humanity in a broader sense. So did God make Adam and Eve sin? NO.

That made half of you happy and the rest of you are angrily typing responses without reading the rest, please read the rest, you might even like it.

Here is another questoin that needs to be answered, could Adam and Eve have not sinned? It is not the same question because the first question asks if God made them do it, this question asks if anything else could have made them do it. (Side note, when I write 'made' I mean effectually compelled not possessed like a demon or controlled like a robot) So could they have not sinned? NO

Here is what we know:

God made man and in doing so made man both volitional and able to love himself.
God has designed us both gerally as people and specifically as individuals.
God controlls all things in that he holds all things together and 'works' all things.
God is holy and can have no relationship with sin or sinful things.
God assures us that there is alway a means of escaping sin.

Now let's attempt to sythesize this information. God made us and therefore has intimate knowledge our personal inner workings. God knew that if Adam and Eve were in the type of situation they found themself in they surely would sin. This does not eliminate the volition of Adam or Eve it validates it. God understood their self love to be strong enough that they surely would participate in the devil's scheme. This does not eliminate the possibility of a means of resistance but rather speaks to God's knowledge of his creation.

I could leave my daughter alone in room with a cookie and tell her not to eat it. I could even tell her that she could call me for help if the temptation was too strong. But my finite knowledge of my daughter tells me that cookie is gone. I wanted her to succeed, gave her every opportunity, offered my help, yet I knew she would eat the cookie. How much more precisely can God predict the response of his creation in any given circumstance. The question now becomes did God knowingly design the circumstance in which he knew His creation would sin? Yes.

He holds all things together. He works all things. He is sovereign and I wouldn't have it any other way.

the bible says...

Recently I have been wrestling with the tendency of people of faith to quote their books to people who don't share their faith. In this post I don't want to argue against faith or the revelatory sources thereof. I do want to submit a perspective that has been developing in my mind on this issue however. I find that if one believes they have the inside track on truth via revelation then that individual should be anxious to demonstrate and explain the practicalities of this truth. Instead I find people who have appear to have no interest in why this truth matters.

Truth matters.

This is an adaption of a post for a class full of bible quoters:

I want to take an opportunity to interject something I think may be beneficial as a perspective with regard to the bible/scripture/authoritative writings. If it is not helpful please disregard, but I am compelled since we have a few bible quoters in the class.

I find that truth cannot contradict itself, A cannot be equal to not A. If this is accurate then those who believe in a particular source of revelation/insight should not need to quote their particular book as any actual truths therein would resonate with the truth we find in our existence. Meaning this; one could argue that murder is bad on account of the bible which the speaker believes to be true or one could argue that murder is bad on account of the many accessible, actual, apparent reasons why murder is bad. This is not an invalidation of a revelatory source, in fact it is a validation. As thinkers we must choose whether we will argue "murder is bad because my book says so" or "the truth is that murder is bad and my book agrees." (if you must mention the book at all)

So I say let your books point you toward the truth but find that truth manifest in reality and resonate there in expressing such things. This allows for faith and a credible contribution to any dialogue on any subject.

As I said earlier, if this is not helpful let it slide on by, these are simply my thoughts on a recurring issue.

MN - Ryan

a little incest can't be that bad

Please read my post on truth as it relates to the bible to pick up our context here. This post was from a class I have addressing the ethical issues of incest. While I expect most people don't stop by redemptiovox for the latest in incest news I believe this post speaks to the "how" of finding truth in reality that is pointed to by a source of revlelation. This is inresponse to a question: Is there an ethical element to incest?

I wonder if we could argue this point:

1. Virtually every human culture in the known history of the world has considered incest taboo.
2. There are very few virtually universal taboos of this kind.
3. I find that such a commonality on such a scale must be attributed to one's membership to the human race (or human nature).

Therefore I find it reasonable to conclude that there is something in our nature as humans that finds incest inappropriate behavior. One may argue that there may have been a few cultures which may have accepted such behavior. While this may be true we find cultural anomalies to all virtually universal taboos. There are cannibalistic cultures, cultures that have sacrificed innocent children and cultures that may have approved of incest. These clearly are the anomaly. We see this on an individual level almost every night on television. Some heinous crime is being reported to include acts that nearly any member of the culture would find reprehensible. This behavior is not normative or acceptable simply because it occurs, in fact it only speaks to our conviction on a wide variety of base issues.

I read a book recently and in it a writer noted studies which showed that foods which virtually universally smell disgusting are often bad for us if not dangerous. His conclusion is that humans can use their senses to recognize something is bad for them even if they cannot understand all the science/reasons. I believe this may be the case here. We have a sense about us on issues such as incest that tell us it's inappropriate even if we cannot understand all the reasons. This lack of understanding doesn't invalidate the sense any more than not understanding why a food would be bad could cause the food to become good.

Bottom line, there seems to be something in humanity which recognizes that incest is inappropriate.

MN - Ryan

paradigm

Here is a post from my class called The Nature of Human Nature. We are discussing the relationship between the spiritual and scientific means of understanding truth, especially concerning our nature. Enjoy:

I recognize the dilemma here and I can certainly see how a contradiction is possible here and yet I am not convinced that it is necessary. Starting from conflict I want to suggest that the dilemma could be paraphrased as whether or not we are believe that the truth about our human nature is is revealed or discovered. If one is compelled to accept that such information is revealed then the spiritual side of the equation appears to take dominance. I say appears here deliberately as I believe there is an alternate approach available to us that I will return to. On the other side of this seeming contradiction lies science and discovery. Under this model the truth about our nature is up to us to discover either inductively or deductively. On this side of the coin the only significance of revelation has is how it may fuel our discovery process. What this thought does not allow for is revelation as revelation. It is in this sense that I would suggest that if one is inclined toward discovery that the conflict is necessary. Also I would say that the conflict inherent in the terms would be present regardless of which side one elects. However...

I wonder, could a paradigm exist in which what appears to be contradiction actually be complement? I believe that such a paradigm does exist and here is why. Truth does not contradict itself. If one holds to the existence of truth as both of these methods classically do this statement is rather intuitive. This being the case our discussion becomes not how does one truth acquired one way connect with another truth acquired another way. Rather we are considering the relationship of these two means as they pursue the same goal in distinct ways. Now one may suggest that these ways will usually lead to dissenting opinions and this is a important issue. The reality though is that these means do not do such a thing but rather the administrator. It is not the science does not allow for the spiritual but rather prejudice practitioners who in their validation of one means are compelled to invalidate the other.

I believe the resolution lies in allowing each means to be what it is in it's pursuit of authentic truth. For me the function looks something like this, though this is by no means an absolute statement; Science answers, in large part, the how question while spirituality tends to speak to the why question. While a posting such as this can in no way facilitate a comprehensive handling of such a subject I am content that this is a fair starting point for a dialogue on the means of apprehending the truth of human nature.

So the question is this: What is the relationship, if any between a scientific approach to human nature and a spritual one?

define me

I sat over coffee with friends recently discussing the relationship of thoughts and actions. Particularly, our dialog centered on the relationship between theology and praxis in the life of a believer, though the content produced commentary on the larger issue. It seems that classic response to this pairing is that concept should lead practice. That is, we should do what we know to be right or put another way, people should have enough self control to impose the will of their mind on their actions. When we were children we said things like "I couldn't help it," which often precipitated a long lecture and a stinging backside. It was for this reason that I was stunned to hear that some at the table believed that his actions are what dictate his thoughts. Can this be? Was Bruce Wayne correct in his assertion that "It's not who I am underneath, but what I do, that defines me." I have recently watched "What the "Bleep" Do We Know!? - Down the Rabbit Hole Quantum" in which the same type of assertion is made. Which is that we are more a product of our circumstances and actions in this nebulous web of existence than determined free agents in an actual world. Is an idea such as this even reasonable, for what initiates action but mind? Likewise what is the fate of truth in such a paradigm? Is this the newest edition of the chicken and the egg? Are we relegated to skepticism at best and nihilism at worst?
THE QUESTION: What is the relationship between thought and action, concept and practice?

begin

redemptio vox. it is the voice of redemption, the ransoming cry. it is the injection of truth into the dialogue. it is for you and for me.  join the conversation.