You might interested in this study by the syriac scholar Sebastian Brock:"The Holy Spirit as Feminine in Early Syriac literature"

I would argue (at least some) Christians believe God would prefer no one go to hell, and the sacrifice of Jesus was the alleged evidence of that. — MrLiminal

:up:

Are not two sparrows sold for a farthing? and one of them shall not fall to the ground except your Father knows.

30 But the very hairs of your head are all numbered.

31 Fear ye not therefore, ye are of more value than many sparrows. — Matthew 10:29

Neat! Saving for later. It always made sense to me, as the Holy Spirit seems very feminine coded by the standards of the religion

Yeah, the argument is that humans were permanently tainted by the fall, which required the sacrifice of Jesus to make humans redeemable. The logic is that humanity fell through the actions of Adam and Eve and accepting Jesus is the way to use free will to get around our inherent sinful nature. — MrLiminal

Right, so the narrative is that Jesus redeems us from the curse of Adam. Without that redemption, we're condemned.

I don't think it's usually assumed that God is contending here with rules beyond His control. Being omniscient, He would have to have known Adam would sin. And being omnipotent, he could change things if we wanted to.

The idea is that there is a mysterious grand purpose in all of this. To some extent, that's coming from the Neoplatonic roots of Christianity.

Right, so the narrative is that Jesus redeems us from the curse of Adam. Without that redemption, we're condemned.

Not necessarily, if a person is a good person and serves his fellow man. He does not require redeeming. Isn’t Christ the fisher of men, seeking out the virtuous ones*.

* It could be argued that virtuous people have learned the lesson of the fall. A lesson they could not have learned had there not been a fall.

Not necessarily, if a person is a good person and serves his fellow man. He does not require redeeming. Isn’t Christ the fisher of men, seeking out the virtuous ones*. — Punshhh

I don't think that's how Original Sin works. Catholics believe humans are born cursed. That's why they baptize infants. The death of Jesus offers a way to be redeemed from the curse.

By "those mentioned things", I mean this: If there is a God and He does not know how to create, then there is only God. There is creation. Therefore, God knows how to create things.

I was taught that it wasn't so much rules beyond his control so much as the sin-nature makes us incompatible with his pure divinity. The distinction does seem a bit semantic though. Our particular brand also heavily suspected that God was already planning for Jesus before it happened. Supposedly the angel Jacob wrestled was an early Jesus manifestation.

I don't think it's usually assumed that God is contending here with rules beyond His control. Being omniscient, He would have to have known Adam would sin. And being omnipotent, he could change things if we wanted to. — frank

Correct. God, for example, could remove the tree from the scene. All problems solved! Even I can remove a tree without needing to be omnipotent! :wink:

I was taught that it wasn't so much rules beyond his control so much as the sin-nature makes us incompatible with his pure divinity. — MrLiminal

That view fits well with the Neoplatonic vision that says reality is a grand round trip out of heaven, down into materiality, and then back again, ending in reunification with God. The ground of your being is God, so it's like you're a part of God that has amnesia.

Many early Christians were Neoplatonists who adopted the Christian narrative, consciously using it as a myth. They didn't take any part of it literally. Over time, Christianity settled into dogma, retaining the outlines of earlier mysticism. How literally are we supposed to take the narrative? I don't think there is one answer to that.

Correct. God, for example, could remove the tree from the scene. All problems solved! — MoK

He could have had a tea party in the Garden. Instead it's all snakes and apples. :grin:

He could have had a tea party in the Garden. — frank

Yes, and there was no need for torturing himself as well! :wink:

Instead it's all snakes and apples. :grin: — frank

What do you mean?

Yes, and there was no need for torturing himself as well! — MoK

True.

Instead it's all snakes and apples. :grin:
— frank
What do you mean? — MoK

In the Garden of Eden, there was a snake and a couple of fruit trees.

I see.

The argument I was told was that without the ability to choose, humans couldn't have truly loved God. God allegedly gave us free will knowing we would fail because he wanted us to CHOOSE to love him instead of being forced to, which was why he planned for Jesus down the road.



Also sounds vaguely gnostic

The argument I was told was that without the ability to choose, humans couldn't have truly loved God. — MrLiminal

Why should humans love God?

God allegedly gave us free will knowing we would fail because he wanted us to CHOOSE to love him instead of being forced to, which was why he planned for Jesus down the road. — MrLiminal

But God knew beforehand that a creation with the Tree of Knowledge and Humans would lead to a disaster, including the suffering of Jesus on the Cross! Another scene is a creation without the Tree of Knowledge. So, peace on Paradise!

I don’t blame people for not getting it

Right, many versions of Christianity start from a quite different metaphysics, which is difficult to acclimatize to. I used to think the athiest preference for univocal divine command theories and fidesm was because these are most morally counterintuitive (as admitted by some of their own authors, e.g. Luther's letters to Erasmus), and thus represent good targets. However, I also think that they are easier to understand, in that they tend towards a metaphysics that is quite similar to popular forms of secular physicalism and nominalism, since they evolved out of the same tradition.

Why should humans love God?

There are many different responses here, but in general, Christianity embraces realism re morality and value. If God is truly best, it would seem that we ought to love what is better and more worthy, as opposed to what is worse and less worthy.

But the answer actually varies quite a bit between different theologies. Milton's Satan can be read as such a sympathetic character because, on some views, whatever is good is simply good because it is what God wills. Satan, by asserting his own will, is in a sense "being more like God." Goodness is obedience. God's goodness then, seems arbitrary (although few would say it is arbitrary ) and it is at least inscrutable. In which case, why love what God loves?

There are theologians who have embraced the extreme position that if God told us to eat our own children, it would be good, or if God told us we ought to hate Him, it would thus be good to hate God. In such contexts, agreeing with God is still always "in one's best interest," in a sense, since God can bestow both unimaginable rewards and unfathomable, infinite punishments, which in turn makes orienting oneself to God consequentially "desirable." But, the thinkers who go this far also often tend towards denying free will, so you don't really have a choice in loving God anyhow. It's something God has to do to (or with) you.

Personally, I find this view deeply troubling. It strikes me as a sort of maximalist elevation of power—divine freedom and goodness as a sort of sheer power. Even humanity's freedom becomes problematic, as a challenge to divine freedom (whereas the ability to communicate real freedom might itself be seen as a manifestation of divine power/goodness). It also isn't that common though, at least in its most extreme forms.

In other accounts, God is "Goodness itself." Everything, to the extent that it is anything at all, reflects God through an analogous likeness. Thus, when one loves anything, one loves God. Anything that is good, or even merely appears to be good, is such through its participation in the divine goodness. So, one always loves God in a sense. Any intentionality must be directed somewhere, and there is nothing "outside of God." The issue is rather that we can love God better or worse, more or less fully. And to know and love God more fully is necessarily also to be more like God (to be perfected) which is what is most desirable and fulfilling, by the very nature of rational creatures.

On either account, loving God can be said to be both good, and the most fulfilling path to happiness, although obviously they diverge quite a bit in some other aspects.

As an aside, a criticism of the latter view, which is what resulted in the development of first one, is that this makes God less then wholly omnipotent, because God is constrained by what is good. I think this is a misunderstanding, but it's a hotly contested issue.

Wait a minute. If God says masturbation or gay sex or eating the wrong thing is a sin that needs to be absolved, isn't that the end of the discussion right there? Even if I grant that other sins are legitimate and might need absolving, the God of the Bible, by declaring nonsinful actions sinful, is obviously not the entity to do it.

That’s an argument from external incoherence for the Bible; but that has no relevance to frank’s OP: they are asking about why God would sacrifice Himself for our sins.

My point was that we don’t have to agree on what is sinful to agree that if we sin then there must a punishment; and from there my argument begins.

My point was that we don’t have to agree on what is sinful to agree that if we sin then there must a punishment; and from there my argument begins. — Bob Ross

Why does there have to be a punishment?

ETA: Scratch that. Let's say we have two people, Bob and Alice. Alice is an atheist who lives a decent life and does no great harm to anyone, just minor sins here and there. Bob is a serial killer who's tortured and killed untold numbers of kids. On his deathbed, Bob accepts Jesus into his heart. Alice doesn't. What do Alice's and Bob's punishments look like?

There are many different responses here, but in general, Christianity embraces realism re morality and value. If God is truly best, it would seem that we ought to love what is better and more worthy, as opposed to what is worse and less worthy. — Count Timothy von Icarus

It is right to embrace a better quality of course. It is also right to achieve a better quality as well. So, becoming Godly is the final goal, and it is all right, too. Adam and Eve just wanted to look Godly. What is wrong with that?

As an aside, a criticism of the latter view, which is what resulted in the development of first one, is that this makes God less then wholly omnipotent, because God is constrained by what is good. I think this is a misunderstanding, but it's a hotly contested issue. — Count Timothy von Icarus

And there is the problem of evil too, for a perfect good God who can only create a good creation. To my understanding God of the Old Testament is closer to being true since He accepted to be the source of good and evil.

The argument would likely be:

1) Because he made us and loves us (he's called "the Father" very intentionally)

2) They would say love without choice is not love. Supposedly God let all that happen because he didnt want to force us to love him. Whether or not that's right or ethical is typically a foregone conclusion, because God is usually interpreted of being all good if not the actual personification of good.

1) Because he made us and loves us (he's called "the Father" very intentionally) — MrLiminal

This argument makes no sense to me. A Lovely Father who is perfect does not leave humans in an unjust situation. Why should we return the same? Don't you see injustice on Earth, which is the result of ignorance and imperfection in humans? We are creatures, so we are not responsible for our imperfections. Shouldn't we hate the main cause of the injustice?

2)
They would say love without choice is not love. Supposedly God let all that happen because he didnt want to force us to love him. Whether or not that's right or ethical is typically a foregone conclusion, because God is usually interpreted of being all good if not the actual personification of good. — MrLiminal

No, please, I don't want to love anything to such an extreme as is common in Christianity! I always have room for a little hate as well. I prefer to find myself in the state of peace as quickly as possible. So no extreme, please!

By "those mentioned things", I mean this: If there is a God and He does not know how to create, then there is only God. There is creation. Therefore, God knows how to create things.

Not necessarily, we can’t assume that God knows any particular thing. Also to God the bit of creation that we know might not be a creation. Or it might be something else, like part of his body. Let me explain this by analogy. A human person is in a sense God of the whole of his/her person. But even if this is the case, the person is not aware of many things that form part of his/her body. For example, the person doesn’t know the feelings, mind and experience of each cell in his/her body.

To extend the analogy, there may be a disorder/disease in the body, but the person is not aware of it, what’s causing it, or how to put it right. There might be this sort of thing in God’s world, or body. Indeed the self destructive activity of humans might be a disorder in his world.

All we can say is what we can deduce about the bit of it that is our world.

I don't think that's how Original Sin works. Catholics believe humans are born cursed. That's why they baptize infants. The death of Jesus offers a way to be redeemed from the curse.

This doesn’t necessarily negate truly virtuous people.

This is a hang over from the political decision by the Catholic Church to require confession from all of the congregation. With the aim of knowing all the secret information in the society at large. So as to cement their power base.

There is a grain of truth in the notion that everyone is by birth, or nature, a sinner. In the sense that we can never know the complexity of the world we inhabit, or the consequence of our actions. We may only be aware of a small part of what is going on. So this might indicate that every human will require redemption in some way.

1) I mean, I agree that it is very easy to read God's actions as toxic and abusive from the outside; the Christian narrative only really works if you start at the assumption that God is good and correct. Internally though, they would likely attribute injustice and evil to people not obeying God's will.

2) That sounds like a personal preference, but I see where you're coming from. Again, it makes more sense though when you start from the assumption that God is perfect and good. It doesn't really work otherwise as written, unless you want to start getting into the more obscure stuff like gnosticism.

Thanks for the link. Interesting.

Glad I'm not the only person who realized the holy spirit maps to the Christian God's feminine aspect

Yes, this is a profound understanding, as embodied in the father-mother-son relationship. In a sense, this is the trinity in human form.

Thank you; it just tracks too well to not be intentional. The Holy Spirit fulfills most of the functions that people of the time would have likely associated with women, and it makes sense that a God of all creations would have both a male and feminine aspect. I have just rarely seen anyone agree with me, so this is nice to hear.

The premise here is that the aim of justice is punishment. Why should we accept that?

Well, for my part, there appear to be issues of consistency that have been raised here that you and Tim have not yet addressed. Mind you, I haven't finished reading the additions form overnight yet. But yes, the conversation has not been productive.

It might be helpful to continue to distinguish the Thomist view you are using for rhetorical purposes, from your own.