In Christianity, is God an idolator?

[Htom Sirveaux]

An idolator is one who pays tribute to limited things as though they were God.
God loves the world (which is limited) with infinite love ("For God so loved the world...&quot . Only God can "deserve" infinite love. Therefore, when God loves with infinite love, God is loving the world as though it were God himself. Even Genesis declares that humans are "made in the image of God". We are God's images, his idols. God would seem to be idolatrous for our sakes, a strange position for a God from a tradition with strong taboos about idolatry.

Unless the world really is God.

[Act_of_Reparation]

1. It depends

Is God infinitely good because He absolutely adheres to an objective morality, or is He infinitely good because His actions could never be considered wrong?

Those who make excuses for God's assorted Old Testament atrocities tend to go with the latter, for obvious reasons.

[Htom Sirveaux]

2. Traditionally, the first one, with some neo-platonic

metaphysics thrown in to describe the relationship between that standard and God's being.

[AtheistCrusader]

3. You really end up chasing your tail whenever you try to logically extrapolate any of god's alleged

characteristics.

The most honest result I've seen yet is 'it's turtles all the way down'.

[Htom Sirveaux]

4. Try asking someone who believes in penal substitution

how Jesus could be God and forgive anyone (he forgives the sins of the paralytic who gets lowered down through the roof) if he hadn't died on the cross for our sins yet, given that supposedly God couldn't forgive us without a perfect sacrifice.

[AtheistCrusader]

5. I have some christian friends that are always gushing about how amazing Jesus's deal for them is.

I just point out there was already a term for it; scapegoating.

[Htom Sirveaux]

6. There's an alternative perspective that I find interesting.

In traditional scapegoating, the scapegoat is declared guilty. For Christians, Jesus is the innocent scapegoat, thereby exposing injustice, and undermining the whole logic of the scapegoating system for defusing social tension and pleasing God.

A French Catholic anthropologist, Rene Girard, came up with that one.

[trotsky]

11. Whose injustice did the punishment of Jesus expose? n/t

[Htom Sirveaux]

12. I think Girard was making a general point about human nature.

That one of the ways societies cope with rivalry is to unite the rivals against some innocent other.

So one answer to "who" would be "anyone who engages in this sort of thing." The more specific, historical answer would be "the Romans and their temple collaborators."

[trotsky]

13. Jesus was sacrificed to appease the Romans & their collaborators?

That's it? I thought there was something more to Christian theology.

[Htom Sirveaux]

14. Certainly, there are other perspectives in

Christian theology on Jesus's death. The one I've been describing is relatively new. It's a critique of the traditional idea that God demands a sacrifice to take the punishment for sin, and Jesus fulfills that demand. From the Girardian perspective, humans are the ones who demand a sacrifice, as a release valve of social pressure.

But God wants mercy, not sacrifice. That is what the Hebrew prophets said. And yes, God in the Bible is sometimes depicted as ordering sacrifice, but the Bible has no trouble echoing a previous story and changing the meaning of it. It's more an argument among different understandings of God than a completely univocal narrative.

[trotsky]

15. That "traditional idea" has formed the bedrock foundation of Christian theology since its inception.

Granted, smarter theologians have realized the absolute ridiculousness of it and are crafting alternate interpretations, but you can't swap out the foundation all that easily.

[Htom Sirveaux]

16. Not so, satisfaction theory is credited to St. Anselm of Canterbury (1033-1109)

Prior to that, it was mainly thought that Jesus's death was a model for us (moral example theory), and/or a trojan horse to trick Satan and defeat him (Christus victor theory).

[trotsky]

17. Not so on your not so.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Satisfaction_theory_of_atonement

"...the satisfaction theory teaches that Christ suffered as a substitute on behalf of humankind satisfying the demands of God's honor by his infinite merit."

and

"Christ's death, the ultimate act of obedience, brings God great honour. As it was beyond the call of duty for Christ, it is more honour than he was obliged to give. Christ's surplus can therefore repay our deficit. Hence Christ's death is substitutionary; he pays the honour to the Father instead of us. Penal substitution differs in that it sees Christ's death not as repaying God for lost honour but rather paying the penalty of death that had always been the moral consequence for sin"

It was more of a softening of the ransom theory than a rewrite. The central themes - humankind's innate sinfulness and wickedness, a vengeful and angry god who demands sacrifice, etc. - were all still there.

[Htom Sirveaux]

18. What you quoted describes satisfaction theory

being slightly modified by penal substitution (a still later development):

Penal substitution differs in that it sees Christ's death not as repaying God for lost honour but rather paying the penalty of death that had always been the moral consequence for sin"

From that same article:

Anselm regarded his satisfaction view of the atonement as a distinct improvement over the older ransom theory of the atonement, which he saw as inadequate. Anselm's theory was a precursor to the refinements of Thomas Aquinas and John Calvin which introduced the idea of punishment to meet the demands of divine justice.

[trotsky]

19. Oh it's clearly an "improvement"

but it still has the same repulsive themes. That's my point.

[Htom Sirveaux]

20. I think there has been some confusion.

The order, starting with the earliest goes like this:

1. moral example and/or ransom
2. satisfaction
3. penal substitution

This order does not show improvement over time, but degradation. Jesus goes from example and part of God's attack on Satan (to free humanity from bondage to him) to a victim of God's own demands, whether of honor or justice.

My point in all of this is that the idea of God demanding Jesus's death to fulfill God's own demands is not part of Christianity's foundations from its inception, as you stated. It was a later and gradual development.

[trotsky]

21. Well if you want to go that route, an "improvement" when it comes to theories...

means a theory is becoming closer and closer to explaining reality.

How do we test ransom theory, satisfaction theory, and penal substitution theory for their accuracy?

[Htom Sirveaux]

22. You were just telling me

how much penal substitution and satisfaction stink. Absolutely ridiculous, you called them. So I didn't think it controversial that a progression of theories that puts a stronger and stronger emphasis on Jesus as a sacrifice to God would be getting worse and worse.

[trotsky]

23. Well it's not so much these "theories" themselves but the assumptions that underpin them.

Humanity is horrible, evil, sinful, and deserves death/punishment
God is an angry and vengeful god who demands sacrifice
etc.

So, which theory is more accurate?

[Htom Sirveaux]

24. The best we can do on that score is to ask:

"which of these theories most strongly reflects God's nature?" That, then, depends on what we think God's nature is. In Christianity, God is defined as love. So if we have the capacity to judge actions as more or less loving, we can rank these theories. Based on what we've said here, of the four historical atonement theories, I think we can agree that moral example/ransom from Satan theories were the most loving, and satisfaction/penal substitution the least.

[trotsky]

25. You make a lot of big assumptions there.

"God is defined as love." Well, that's your definition. Which really says nothing. Love is a human emotion - existing only within our minds. Is that what you say god is like? Or is your god more than that, too?

And that's not even getting into the difficulties of judging actions as "more or less loving." Some people believe that a new human life is created at conception. In their eyes, is it more or less loving to get an abortion? Some people believe that homosexuality is a sin (the RCC, for instance) and that dying in a state of sin will result in eternal separation from god. If you believed that, would it not be the loving thing to try and "convert" homosexuals and turn away from their "sinful" lifestyle?

[Htom Sirveaux]

26. Since we were discussing Christian theories of atonement,

I thought adding Christian context to answer your question was appropriate.

And your claim that love is just a human emotion existing only within our minds is highly suspect. Take your description of the RCC, for example. If you don't agree with them that they are being loving, you must have some idea of what love really is, whether the RCC agrees or not. Even if they say, "but we're quite sure that we feel love when we propound these doctrines", you would have to deny that love is dependent on their feelings about what they are doing, if you intended to continue disagreeing with them.

Note that you give an example of someone who believes that abortion is murder. That person would have no trouble saying that abortion is less loving than no abortion. If you disagree, you're not disagreeing about whether its possible to measure what is loving. You're disagreeing about which ruler to use. To deny that there is a ruler at all would be to make comparison of moral claims impossible, and thus make moral reasoning impossible.

[trotsky]

27. No - you're not adding "Christian" context...

you are adding context that you believe, as the kind of Christian you are.

And in your clarification of "love," you seem to be cementing my description. Love is what people say it is. And what exactly does this mean: "You would have to deny that love is dependent on their feelings about what they are doing." No I wouldn't, because that's exactly what I just said love is.

So - back to my question - is that all your god is? Or do you think it is more? Does it exist outside human minds?

Your comment about having a "ruler" to measure moral claims is also problematic. Tell me this: what is the difference between having no absolute moral standard, and there being an absolute moral standard but having NO way to determine what it is?

[Htom Sirveaux]

28. Is all morality "what people say it is"?

Because if that's the case, then when I say morality is objective, it is objective. Which in turn makes your statement false. Your question still rests on faulty assumptions about morality.

With no standard, as I've said, moral reasoning becomes impossible. With an unclear moral standard, we can do moral reasoning with openness to the possibility of being wrong.

[trotsky]

29. Please, let's stick to one topic.

Since you've honed in on this absolute morality thing again, let's tackle it first.

"With no standard, as I've said, moral reasoning becomes impossible. With an unclear moral standard, we can do moral reasoning with openness to the possibility of being wrong."

OK so you admit the possibility of being wrong. But you have no way of determining what the standard is by which you admit you could be wrong. Ergo, how could you possibly determine whether you were wrong? It has no meaning.

So you're right back to the same criticism you level at those who say there is no absolute moral standard. You haven't solved anything.

[Htom Sirveaux]

32. It's a matter of coherence.

Start with the truths I'm morally sure of, things like "abolishing slavery was morally correct" and use reason and experience to understand what underlies those moral certainties, then live the ideas that follow and see what the results are, and use the further experience to continue expanding my moral understanding and increasing my coherence.

When it starts to break down logically, or I have to start denying more and more of my experiences to hold on to what I think is true, I'm heading in the wrong direction.

[trotsky]

33. Then you're not arguing for an absolute moral standard.

You are arguing for a standard based on your personal interpretation of what is best for humanity.

Isn't it enough to agree, as most of us do, that "abolishing slavery was morally correct?" Does the existence or non-existence of an absolute moral standard affect our ability to agree on that statement?

[Htom Sirveaux]

34. No, I've already argued for an objective moral standard.

Now I'm explaining how I move towards it and increase my understanding of it, since you claimed I had no method. And yes, its not enough to just agree that abolishing slavery was morally correct, because without the existence of a standard, that statement and "not abolishing slavery would have been morally correct" occupy an equal position.

[trotsky]

35. But you haven't provided a method to approach this objective moral standard.

The only method you've provided is one to approach what you deem is an objective moral standard. And it's filled with your own personal assumptions and experiences, which necessarily differ from those of just about everyone else.

Regarding your last sentence, let's get on the same page. Do you feel either of these essays address what you're trying to claim?
http://atheism.about.com/od/atheismatheistsmorals/a/ObjectiveMorals.htm
http://atheism.about.com/od/atheismatheistsmorals/a/AbsoluteMorals.htm

[Htom Sirveaux]

39. I thought the last two paragraphs of the first essay

were relevant. The first part of the essay I didn't find relevant because it was addressing two claims I don't hold: that we all must be deontologists, and that all deontologists must believe in God. The second essay I didn't think was helpful at all, because it assumed an opponent holding to divine command theory, which I am not defending, and it ended in a fallacious ad hominem argument attacking the character of someone holding divine command theory.

But in the latter part of the first essay, Cline is arguing for a morality based on a common human nature. We all have the capacity to improve, therefore increased difficulty should increase moral value. We are all free, therefore we should all act like it. We have the capacity to predict the effects of actions on ourselves and others, so we should make use of that capacity. We have the capacity to discriminate between right and wrong, therefore we should use it. This creates a human essence. If someone doesn't uphold one or more of these things, it confounds our expectations. This person is either judged, as Cline judges when he speaks of inferior morality, or we try to found out what has gone wrong outside of the person's control, so we can excuse them from ordinary moral expectations.

That common human nature consists of objective moral standards, cutting through all the individual, personal subjectivities you were speaking of. How do I know it? Through being human. How do I learn of additional objective moral standards? By increasing my experience of what it is to be human, and reflecting upon that experience, as I was previously describing.

[trotsky]

40. Well I'm glad at least you recognize moral standards and moral progress...

come from human experience and human reasoning, and not gods.

[skepticscott]

7. Or we could ask

Does unicorn poop smell bad? A creature of such mystical purity must have a way to make its shit smell like roses, or anything else it wants, right?

Discuss.

[Htom Sirveaux]

8. Heretic! True devotees know

that unicorns are too mystical and pure to have waste at all!

[skepticscott]

9. And if you can relate that back to your OP

You'll start to get it.

[Htom Sirveaux]

10. God is a unicorn, and the bronies are

the one true faith? Of course, it all makes sense now! Thank you, skepticscott, your friendship truly is magic.

[skepticscott]

36. Babble is a sure sign

that you have no idea what is really being said.

I know you're one of those who needs to get the last word in, regardless of whether it makes any sense or not, but you might at least try to grasp the real meaning here.

[hrmjustin]

30. Wow, just wow!

[skepticscott]

37. This went

right over your head, didn't it?

I can see I was right to keep you on ignore.

[hrmjustin]

38. Wow we both had each other on ignore.

I wonder 7f it was at the same time.

[hrmjustin]

31. I don't look t it that way but it is certainly a good question.

If it is idolatry on his part then I guess it is allowed because God is God.

My 2 cents.