Riiiight, because it’s an impossible mystery to explain, you’ve unraveled the secret. Forget that theologians have been arguing for millennia about this, or that dozens of books have been written on the subject. We’ll pretend, for the moment that you’re not asking me to explain the CORE as you put it, of a metaphysical theory that is central to the belief structure of a two thousand year old religion that spans the globe, and has thousands of possible interpretations based upon mere theories. We’ll forget that these theories are based on a book written in Greek and Hebrew that spans more than two thousand pages in and of itself, and must be used for appropriate source documentation. We’ll forget that you ignored my request to take this to email where a more lengthy set of replies might possibly have allayed your curiosity. We’ll forget that you failed to clarify whether you are asking for my personal theory, a general explanation, or The Truth, which I am unable to personally give.
In many ways, Apos, you remind me of the Buddhist monk who asked the hotdog vendor to “Make him one with everything”, except you’re actually serious. We can also forget that you refused my offer to simply drop this, and accept a gentleman’s draw. No, you chose that as your opportunity to comment on the fact that it was unfair for me to simply drop this because you failed to understand the central part of my reasoning. As it stands, I have no control over your ability to understand a simple or complex problem, to reason, nor can I help you develop the capacity for logic.
So, I’ll explain my reasoning, in a truncated form:
To begin with, you must understand the concept of God, as I see and interpret the Biblical description of Him. God is omnipotent, omnipresent, and omniscient. He is all powerful, everywhere, and knows everything. He is the creator of the universe, and the result of that creation includes the code of morals standards.
Those moral standards are universal laws, by the nature of their creation, in much the same way as time and space are universal. As to the speculation that an arbitrarily defined moral is drained of meaning, I would disagree.
I disagree on the first count, because obviously a moral which simply is, is as arbitrary as a created moral for the purposes of this discussion, since we have accepted that all things that are, are derived from the creation of God. I disagree on the second count that these definitions must be arbitrary, on the basis that they are mutable or conceptually defined. Personally, I see the moral strictures as simply being the nature of God, as He fits into the universe. Many have commented on the seeming disparities between the practices of God Himself and the moral structure which He has designed for humanity. There are other obvious designs to this, but we will use the example again of time.
The God at the time of judgment is the same God at the creation time, not a God a number of years older and wiser. God would not see time as passing in the manner that we do, but rather as a static existence of the universe as a whole, from beginning to end. So while there is a past or future for those of us experiencing the flow of time, there is none for God, who sees the time of the universe laid before Him simultaneously.
Similarly, with moral structures of His creation, God is not bound to them, nor does their purpose, as you asserted, need to be the judgment of the values of human actions. There are many and varied theories as to the existence and reasoning behind morals, from societal agreement to logical safety of the species as a whole. But, for the purposes of these morals, we can assume that what is wrong is Wrong and what is right is Right regardless of who, or where you are, the society you grew up in, or the circumstances of your life.
The assumption of right and wrong as a standard for judging the merits of an individual is laid out in the Bible fairly clearly, as a concept reserved for God. We are not given to judge sins based even on the standards set forth by God, He is. So twice we have the assertion that the roles for morality differ between humans and God.
A quick reality check will show this to be an obvious necessity, and not an unjust overruling by a despotic tyrant. If there is to be a right and wrong clearly and solidly in place, there must therefore be a consequence for these actions, and an arbiter of the judgment. This also is reserved for God.
This is neither unjust, nor unfair. Our ability to define such terms, our universe and our existence is the gift of God, and we are His property. He created us for His purpose, and we are in existence solely for that. Because we have no identity separate from this, nor could we exist apart from it, it is not slavery.
The concept of these things all plays into the concept of free will. What you had previously described as free will is not, and is in fact anathema to the concept of free will. What you are proposing as free will, in which someone can only make the right choices, is actually simply a selection of the acceptable parameters.
This is obviously unacceptable in a universe which includes a concept of Wrong. It cannot be considered a literal ‘free will’ if a given person can select only from a set number of the available options. In order for a person to truly have free will, they must be able to select from the full range of options, which in this case we have determined to include Wrong.
Many times a person would ask me what the purpose of such a system might be, and I always reply, “What would the purpose of such a system be if it were not so?”
In your example, Why not simply make it so everyone chooses only the Right Thing? This is analogous to asking why students must fail a class, why they can’t simply be given tests with only right answers. The answer to that question is not because they would not learn anything by being given such a test, even knowing that the test would be so, but that it defeats the purpose of the test itself. Why even have such a test?
So, in a system in which an individual can select only Right, there is simply no Wrong. Defined or not, the concept of Wrong would be without purpose and need not be created at all.
This often calls up the second question, Why must there be wrong? Once again, many theories for the existence of Wrong in the universe have been presented. Some believe that in a discussion of a concept of this size, the choice truly is arbitrary, simply a matter of selection. Others believe that this is a classroom for learning the right and wrong of existence, and still others believe that this is a challenge of will. Personally, I subscribe to the belief that there is a genuine caring of the part of the deity to draw forth the acceptable from among the subjects created, as many as can be attained naturally, in order to retain the most suitable for their designated purpose. Knowing the truth of this is an impossibility for the moment, and we must simply wait and see for this to become truly clear.
So, Why create the universe at all? God is all knowing and all powerful, etc. so why not simply create the individuals as needed? I am not certain that this was not done, as the experience of the passage of time from within a set point in the universe is arbitrary, and not absolute. God, on the ‘outside’ of time as it were, would experience it as an instantaneous happening. So, this may be the method for just such a creation.
Ah, but then we must explain the concept of Hell. Why is there a Hell then? Hell, as portrayed popularly, is largely a construct of recent times by comparison to the Christian and before it the Hebrew faith. A concept, a vision of what it may be to not be among those selected to move onward in the manner laid forth for them. This is not to say that those who are not accepted are tossed into a lake of fire. That is one of the many interpretations of the consequence. Others include the concept of absence from God, and still others simply death, or non-existence. I ascribe to non-existence. I find this to be the most logical choice given the previous logic. As the process of creation finishes, those acceptable continue to exist, and those who are not cease to be.
This is consistent with my theory of existence as an instantaneous process in the perception of God. After a roundabout manner, we arrive at the conclusion that a group of beings are created for a specific purpose instantaneously.
This is my truncated explanation, and I am willing to clarify any points you find lacking, but, as I said, this is my personal theory based on my view of the Bible, not necessarily The Truth.
