Nope. Creator has different rights than creatures. — Agustino

Sure, but they wouldn't include doing that which is wrong among creatures, for then you're faced with a contradiction: God can do right by himself by doing wrong to us, so he can do both right and wrong simultaneously, which is impossible.

Sure, but they wouldn't include doing that which is wrong among creatures, for then you're faced with a contradiction: God can do right by himself by doing wrong to us, so he can do both right and wrong simultaneously, which is impossible. — Thorongil

Nope.

Also please note that God depriving you of free will doesn't mean the same thing as me depriving you of free will. When I deprive you of free will, I don't actually eliminate your free will, but rather physically force you to do what you do not want to do - which is harmful and painful. When God deprives you of free will he takes away your free will entirely. — Agustino

I haven't said God could beat you and torture you and that would be right.

Nope. — Agustino

Clarify this negative. Nope as in, "no, God wouldn't do what we deem wrong," or nope as in, "you're wrong, Thorongil."

But regarding God beating and tormenting people : Many Christian traditions claim that this is in fact one of the things God does (calvinism for example once again)

But regarding God beating and tormenting people : Many Christian traditions claim that this is in fact one of the things God does (calvinism for example once again) — Beebert

Those traditions are wrong.

Clarify this negative. Nope as in, "no, God wouldn't do what we deem wrong," or nope as in, "you're wrong, Thorongil." — Thorongil

No as in God wouldn't do wrong. What is wrong for you to do isn't necessarily wrong for God to do - that's the difference between created creature and uncreated Creator.

Let me ask you - is God free?

No as in God wouldn't do wrong. What is wrong for you to do isn't necessarily wrong for God to do — Agustino

That doesn't get out of the contradiction! If God can do right by doing wrong from our perspective, then he's still doing wrong. But God can't do wrong. What is wrong for us must, at minimum, be wrong for God, in addition to whatever else may be wrong from God's perspective that we don't know about. This is once again because God, if he exists and is goodness itself, is the author of our notions of right and wrong. So he can't violate them without violating his own nature.

What I find to be a helpful approach (and maybe you would possibly), is a small dose of ignosticism, in a Theistic way. Meaning that any knowledge of the Creator filtered through our perceptions is bound to be relative. Even if one defines the Creator as absolute, we as humans are planted in the relative world. Even if one were given a glimpse of the Absolute, the finite brain, as wonderful and powerful as it is, immediately turns the experience into something of a lower-resolution copy, like a low bitrate audio file of a Beatles song. Is it still useful and real and special? Yes, for certain. But if there is degradation in message quality even within one's own mind, how much more so when attempting to communicate it to others? Which again is all well and good. Sharing our beliefs, experiences, speculations, and opinions, etc. can possibly be true, beautiful, and good. Keeping in mind the nature of our minds, the limits of the entire affair, the "rules of the game" if you will, might make things a bit clearer. This might be obvious, but it bears mentioning. FWIW.

But there are plenty of Places where God beats up, torments and kills People in the old testament. How would the orthodox tradition understand these things?

Thank you for the tips!

But there are plenty of Places where God beats up, torments and kills People in the old testament. How would the orthodox tradition understand these things? — Beebert

You mean there are places in the Old Testament where sinners are punished and killed? Of course.

:) (Y)

If God can do right by doing wrong from our perspective — Thorongil

No, your perspective is wrong. There is only one true perspective, and that is God's.

because God, if he exists and is goodness itself, is the author of our notions of right and wrong. — Thorongil

Your notions of right and wrong are first of all corrupted by original sin, so you do not see very clearly. Second of all, your notions of right and wrong are self-centered - or better said creature-centered - which means that they are myopic since they do not take into account your creaturely nature, and the difference between the Uncreated and the created. The Lord gives and the Lord takes away - FREELY! And it's His right to.

Yes. In often a seemingly unreasonable and tyranical way. He tormented David's Child for 6 days for example and then killed it. In what way was David's sin his child's fault?

Yes. In often a seemingly unreasonable and tyranical way. He tormented David's Child for 6 days for example and then killed it. In what way was David's sin his child's fault? — Beebert

I direct you towards this book.

Let me ask you - is God free? — Agustino

And by the way Thorongil, you still haven't answered my question here.

And Dostoevsky is wonderfully dear to me. My favorite work of his is Brothers Karamazov, which is the greatest book I have ever read. — Beebert

But did you understand it? Do you understand why Alyosha never gave Ivan a reply? Do you understand the West-East conflict that is playing out there? Because lots of people who read Dostoyevsky from the West misinterpret that book completely because they don't understand Christian Orthodoxism.

Your notions of right and wrong are first of all corrupted by original sin, so you do not see very clearly. — Agustino

I see clearly enough to know that God cannot commit evil. Period. And I've given an argument as to why.

Let me ask you - is God free? — Agustino

Not absolutely. He's not free to commit evil, make square circles, cause himself to not exist, etc. His freedom is limited by his nature.

I see clearly enough to know that God cannot commit evil. — Thorongil

Sure but that's because God is the standard of good itself.

He's not free to commit evil, make square circles, cause himself to not exist, etc. — Thorongil

The Lord gives and the Lord takes away, entirely out of His own accord. Why is it bad if He takes away what He has given? :s How can that be bad?! It would only be bad if we assumed that He owed you something - and that's stupid. He owes you nothing. He will not take it away because He intended you to have free will in the first place - but this is not to say that it would be evil for Him to take it back. It wouldn't.

I loved the Jesus explained by Dostoevsky. It was the the book that got me interested in christianity. Reading theology and theologians destroyed it all though. I am not completely unfamiliar with Eastern orthodoxy. It is the Only form of christianity that has a value IMO (Some sides in catholicism are great too, like gregorian music). But I cant find myself trusting orthodox theology when I read scripture. I have tried but I cant. At least not yet.

Sure but that's because God is the standard of good itself. — Agustino

But he can't change his nature, which is goodness itself, which means neither that which is right nor that which is wrong can change their status. If it is wrong to violate someone's will, then, because that which is wrong cannot cease being wrong, it cannot be the case that God "could have" violated someone's will without having done wrong.

I loved the Jesus explained by Dostoevsky. It was the the book that got me interested in christianity. Reading theology and theologians destroyed it all though. I am not completely unfamiliar with Eastern orthodoxy. It is the Only form of christianity that has a value IMO (Some sides in catholicism are great too, like gregorian music). But I cant find myself trusting orthodox theology when I read scripture. I have tried but I cant. At least not yet. — Beebert

Well one aspect of the conflict for example is displayed by the fact that Ivan uses arguments. This surprises Alyosha, because arguments for/against God are quite foreign in Orthodoxy. God is supposed to be a primal reality here, that people just have to recognise by looking within. So that's one reason why Alyosha doesn't respond - he doesn't understand where Ivan (the West) is coming from, for we do not reason to God, but God is rather a noetic & intuitive first principle. People have to be open to encounter God, practice his Commandments, have Faith in him and pray.

Indeed some of the West's current troubles with scientism & atheism are born out of their love with Scholasticism - I know @Thorongil will hate me now :P

But he can't change his nature, which is goodness itself, which means neither that which is right nor that which is wrong can change their status. — Thorongil

I'm not sure I would affirm such a cataphatic statement about God :P - that presupposes for example that God has a nature, just like created things do :s based on what are you saying that?!

If it is wrong to violate someone's will — Thorongil

No it's not wrong in all contexts to violate someone's will. If you want me to shoot you, and I refuse, thereby violating your will, I'm committing no wrong, but a good thing. You have to show and prove to me how violating a created being's will is wrong when the Uncreated God does it.

it cannot be the case that God "could have" violated someone's will without having done wrong. — Thorongil

If your will comes from God, how is God violating it when He takes it away? :s

I'm not sure I would affirm such a cataphatic statement about God :P - that presupposes for example that God has a nature, just like created things do :s based on what are you saying that?! — Agustino

I really thought you understood this from Schopenhauer. The categories of thought that apply to the phenomenon don't apply to the noumenon...

If poor Schopenhauer knew about Orthodoxy well enough, I think he would have converted :P

@Thorongil Who wrote this?

Again, ascending yet higher, we maintain that it is neither soul nor intellect; nor has it imagination, opinion reason or understanding; nor can it be expressed or conceived, since it is neither number nor order; nor greatness nor smallness; nor equality nor inequality; nor similarity nor dissimilarity; neither is it standing, nor moving, nor at rest; neither has it power nor is power, nor is light; neither does it live nor is it life; neither is it essence, nor eternity nor time; nor is it subject to intelligible contact; nor is it science nor truth, nor kingship nor wisdom; neither one nor oneness, nor godhead nor goodness; nor is it spirit according to our understanding, nor filiation, nor paternity; nor anything else known to us or to any other beings of the things that are or the things that are not; neither does anything that is know it as it is; nor does it know existing things according to existing knowledge; neither can the reason attain to it, nor name it, nor know it; neither is it darkness nor light, nor the false nor the true; nor can any affirmation or negation be applied to it, for although we may affirm or deny the things below it, we can neither affirm nor deny it, inasmuch as the all-perfect and unique Cause of all things transcends all affirmation, and the simple pre-eminence of Its absolute nature is outside of every negation- free from every limitation and beyond them all.

I'm not sure I would affirm such a cataphatic statement about God — Agustino

A complete apophaticism would be indistinguishable from atheism. There must be some positive statements one can make about God or else you're just engaged in farce. I agree that we are incapable of comprehending God fully, but we must have some small degree of knowledge about God or else we speak of him in vain.

that presupposes for example that God has a nature, just like created things do — Agustino

No, it implies that God has a nature different from created things, analogous but not identical to created natures. We are said to be made in God's image, after all. Moreover, there is a difference between an "atheistic non-existence of God" and a "hyper-thingness of God," (a point made here: http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1468-0025.2005.00285.x/abstract). God is not absolutely nothing but not a thing either. To assert the former is to assert atheism and to assert the latter is to assert theistic personalism over and against classical theism, which directly leads to atheism, given the paucity of empirical evidence for such an entity that such a view demands.

The categories of thought that apply to the phenomenon don't apply to the noumenon... — Agustino

They don't apply univocally, but analogically. If you reject both univocity and analogy but still want to engage in God-talk, then you're really just an atheist or someone engaged in equivocal gibberish. The alternative, of course, is Wittgenstein's approach: cease talking about God altogether.

A complete apophaticism would be indistinguishable from atheism. — Thorongil

No, since atheism has no desire to experience God. A complete apophaticism represents a desire for God, but it doesn't work alone, it requires dogma. And please not that while dogma does include cataphatic statements about God, the vast majority of it is neither cataphatic nor apophatic, as I've illustrated in Shoutbox.

There must be some positive statements one can make about God or else you're just engaged in farce. — Thorongil

Sure, but they're lamp posts - guides towards an actual encounter with the incomprehensible trans-rational God.

No, it implies that God has a nature different from created things, analogous to but not identical (obviously) created natures. — Thorongil

And how did you come to this conclusion?

We are said to be made in God's image, after all. — Thorongil

Sure, but it doesn't necessarily follow from this that God has a fixed nature :s

(a point made here: http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1468-0025.2005.00285.x/abstract) — Thorongil

I can't read that article for free - but it does appear quite interesting based on the abstract.

God is not absolutely nothing but not a thing either. — Thorongil

Yes. That's apophaticism, denying both that God is no-thing and that He is a thing.

They don't apply univocally, but analogically. — Thorongil

Why? I don't buy this. Even the analogical application is wrong in the final analysis, and merely useful, but not true.

but still want to engage in God-talk, then you're really just an atheist or someone engaged in equivocal gibberish. — Thorongil

That's false. I'm inviting you to know God personally by following the dogmas, believing in the life, death and Resurrection of Jesus Christ, prayer & devotion.

A simple question: are you a fideist?

A simple question: are you a fideist? — Thorongil

Please qualify what you mean by "fideist" because it can mean a variety of things from believing that knowledge of God depends on revelation & faith; to believing that faith is contrary to reason; to believing that faith is independent of reason, etc. So what exactly do you mean?

How about you answer your own questions there? I'd be interested to know your answers to each of them.