Might makes right?

[Glorfindel of Gondolin]

I've been thinking about why God has the right to do anything He wants, and the simple answer seems to be the fact that no one can do anything about it. Obviously humans who abuse power, such as Adolf Hitler, do not qualify for "might makes right" because they, unlike God, do not have ultimate might. We don't condemn God for sending people to hell or creating a world with the potential for suffering. Is there an argument better than the fact that God is all-powerful, so His way is the right way? I'm certainly not claiming that God abuses his power, but I'm searching for an answer for people who do think this way.

[Kolbitar]

[Pete]

[Adam]

[Josh]

[Adam]

::One of the great problems that modern man has with Christianity is that the Christian God does not need anyone's service. Humanity, like all creation, is wholly superfluous to God. For my part, I'll follow the Mighty King. The apparent struggle of Gethsemene (the only point at which Christ could be said truly to struggle--I don't see acts of martyrdom or sacrifice as acts of struggle (just the opposite)), was a one-time event.

In the Latin tradition, the creative act of God is an authoritative act; in creating ex nihilo, God asserts His absolute authority over creation in terms of His knowledge of and power over it.

In the Hebrew tradition, the creative act of God is a moral act; in creating out of chaos, God asserts His moral authority over creation in terms of His defeat of evil and power over it.

Medieval theology replaced the Hebrew Covenant with the Divine Right of Kings. But it is no great honor to capture and command slaves. It is the glory of a king to capture the hearts and command the wills of free men.

Before creation, God was in need of nothing. But the moment He chose to create, God chose to be in need of something, He chose to need humanity. And in so choosing, He chose also to struggle, to surrender, to suffer, and to sacrifice. This is what it means to love; to choose to need what one does not need, and thus make it true.

Merely becoming human was a humiliation and disgrace to God, a surrender. To then live and die was to struggle. Martyrdom is a struggle precisely because the act of surrender is a powerful act.

Christ's glory was not that God had the last laugh. God had the first laugh. Even if Christ had not been resurrected, His death was still glory, His love still real and true. The surrender was power.

Those who follow the power doctrines of medieval theology believe themselves to be honoring God, but in fact they dishonor God by dishonoring themselves, His children. I do not need to be poor for God to be great. In fact, if I am great, then how much greater the God whom I serve.

[Josh]

[Adam]

Josh,

The ancient Hebrew myth, found in Job, of creating the world by taking a sword and slaying the sea monster is a good example of creation out of something. From there, it is not hard to trace the evolution of Hebrew creation to Genesis 1, retaining the fundamental feature, an act of creation which includes the taming of chaos, first embodied in the sea monster, then conceptualized as water, and finally abstracted into evil.

On the contrary, the Gospel of John clearly illustrates an account of creation through Christ and out of nothing. It is theologically necessary for John's Christology. And if it is clearly not a classically Hebrew idea, we can estimate where it may have originated.

::If man's will is captured and his heart commanded, can he still be said to be "free"? (I think the answer is yes, but this question has haunted the Church for the better part of its existence.)

You could always kill your enemies. But capturing them requires that they cease to fight to the death. It requires that they surrender.

::That doesn't make any sense. You cannot "choose" to need something. A need by definition is something beyond a person's choice. If it is a function of choice, then it is a want, not a need. That was precisely God's disposition, according to orthodoxy, at creation. He did not need community; he wanted community.

This morning, I could have chosen to wake up at 7:00am and walk to school, or I could have waited until 7:45am and depended upon my friend to give me a ride in his car. By lying in bed until 7:30, I chose to need a ride.

One can choose to be independent, or one can choose to depend upon others. But when the choice is made, when love is risked, there is no turning back.

::You can't have it both ways. Are martyrdom and sacrifice products of weakness or of strength?

The action of surrendering is considered by the world to be a weak act, but the person who surrenders is in fact strong. The act is weak, but the person is strong. The God who had the power to call upon angels instead surrendered himself to die. The person had power that was not exercised in action.

::It is not a matter of being great or not being great. God promises that his people will not only be great, but will be glorified with their Redeemer through all eternity. The question instead is the mode of one's greatness: is it of man or of God? Does God make me great (in my weakness), or do I make myself great (in my perceived strength)?

You are great; your being is great. Before you ever spoke or acted, you were great. And the God whom you worship is the God who deserves to be worshiped by greatness, because He is greater. You would be better off on your own than you would be serving Allah. The Buddha probably doesn't have anything to say that you can't hear somewhere else or think up on your own. And Moloch deserves to be spat upon. But the Lord is worthy of you. There is no pride in declaring that Moloch is not worthy of you: therefore you must be worth something. We cannot hide in non-existence and false humility forever just to make God look better by comparison. His greatness has nothing to fear from ours.

[Josh]

[Adam]

[Josh]

[Adam]

::But God doesn't need to get to school in the first place! You're presuming an underlying, preexisting need that is not present with God.

Does God need to be good?

If I am a good person, and I buy a dog, then having bought the dog, I need to feed it. Otherwise, I am not a good person. I could have avoided the whole matter by not buying the dog in the first place. But as long as it is in my care, I'd best buy some kibble.

Once God decided to create, He made it so that he needed to perfect creation. That is what it means to say that need is created by the will.

::I make such distinctions because men much wiser than I have made them, and they made the distinctions because the distinctions actually exist. The distinction between ontological and moral goodness has been around since Socrates (and probably before that), and it has not been refuted (or even challenged really). Philosophers have disagreed on whether man is ontologically good or bad or morally good or bad, but the distinction is fundamental. It is particularly fundamental if we believe in free will.

Philosophy is incapable of categorizing the aspect of identity which I just proposed as the basis of a theory of identity. Please remember that philosophy was always my primary field; I am not speaking of it in ignorance or with disdain. But you did not really address my point; there is something to you which is neither essential or active, but which is treated as the fundamental aspect of your identity by those that know you. It is common for Christians to explain it as the creation of charity, but I think that is a deconstruction on par with positivism. There is something to who you are which is neither what you are nor what you do. It defies category. Whatever that is, God is worthy of it.

::Unless there really is an Allah (and there is, to a degree). Anytime worship is turned from self outward, we move closer to God (even if we don't know him by name). This is what Paul talks about in Romans 1 and 2.

I would suggest that is not at all what Paul means in Romans 1 and 2, but without getting into an interpretive war on the most complicated passages in the entire Bible, suffice to say that, save a trick of language, in the end, if it's just you and the Lord in a room, and you aren't talking to the Lord, then you are talking to yourself.

[Josh]

[Adam]

[Josh]