Talking to a Phelps

[saizai]

See http://saizai.livejournal.com/858527.html since copying it over here prettily isn't working well. Discussion here is fine, though.

 

[Jekyll]

Thanks, I enjoyed that.
It does seem strange to me that they hope to go to heaven when they see everyone as pawns. Somehow it just doesn't make sense to me.

 

[MRC_Hans]

Noticed this:

Humans are the clay and God is the potter. The clay has no free will or power to influence the potter in any way.

Obviously, that person has never tried her hand at pottery, or she would speak more respectfully of the clay.

Hans

 

[jon]

interesting interview. What's the service you used, btw - you type an IM chat, and someone else talks to the party on the line?

 

[volatile]

I'm just reading the freewill / predestiny argument - and it makes no sense whatsoever. They preach hatred against people god made gay?

The stupid makes my eyes burn - it's as though they can't even realise that their entire belief system isn't even internally consistent.

 

[jon]

I'm just reading the freewill / predestiny argument - and it makes no sense whatsoever. They preach hatred against people god made gay?

The stupid makes my eyes burn - it's as though they can't even realise that their entire belief system isn't even internally consistent.

To be fair, I think it is internally consistent. If you're going to believe in a God that's by definition both omnipotent, omniscient and good, it's quite consistent to believe that God might create people who are predetermined to act in ways that He views as wrong, for His own purposes. From God's point of view, it might be a good thing overall if a few billion people are predetermined to burn in hell.

Not a particularly appealing belief system, but consistent.

 

[volatile]

To be fair, I think it is internally consistent. If you're going to believe in a God that's by definition both omnipotent, omniscient and good, it's quite consistent to believe that God might create people who are predetermined to act in ways that He views as wrong, for His own purposes. From God's point of view, it might be a good thing overall if a few billion people are predetermined to burn in hell.

Not a particularly appealing belief system, but consistent.

Hmmm... well, Ms Phelps wasn't exactly lucid in stating that. It seemed to me that she was arguing that they wanted homosexuals to stop their homosexual ways, and preached as such, when the homosexuals had no control over whether they stopped anyway. This is particularly obvious when you think about things like the whole "God Hates Sweden" farce - they call for a boycott of Swedish goods because of Swedish condemnation of a homophobic pastor, when, in their world view, no-one had any choice about these actions in the first place.

Also, it struck me that they were condemning (by proxy?) homosexuals for something they have no control over, whilst at the same time praising God for his wisdom. That seems pretty inconsistent to me.

 

[theBigShagboski]

I really enjoy the argument that God hates homosexuals for being homosexuals, but hated them so much FIRST that he made them homosexual so that he could hate them more. Or is it all just a big circle of "I hate you because I know I will make you into something I hate." If God is the only one who has free will, I guess preordaining someone to be something you hate contradicts a loving, just and good God, no?

And the Westboro clan is just doing what they were preordained to do: hate everyone but themselves. I wonder if they've conceived that perhaps they're the ones God hates, and that's why they spread such intolerance?

 

[jon]

Hmmm... well, Ms Phelps wasn't exactly lucid in stating that. It seemed to me that she was arguing that they wanted homosexuals to stop their homosexual ways, and preached as such, when the homosexuals had no control over whether they stopped anyway. This is particularly obvious when you think about things like the whole "God Hates Sweden" farce - they call for a boycott of Swedish goods because of Swedish condemnation of a homophobic pastor, when, in their world view, no-one had any choice about these actions in the first place.

Also, it struck me that they were condemning (by proxy?) homosexuals for something they have no control over, whilst at the same time praising God for his wisdom. That seems pretty inconsistent to me.

hm, Phelps did say that "God created some vessels of mercy - those are the people he loves - he created others as vessels of wrath fitted to destruction...He hates them because it is his good will and pleasure to do so". If God is by definition good, His good will might be to create some people just so that He can hate and punish. Equally, God might decide that it is good for some people to be punished on earth for being the way that He created them - e.g. for those he predetermined to be gay to be executed for the 'crime'.

Having a God to ground morality in lets you do a lot in terms of consistency imo... Obviously, I'm not saying that this type of position is appealing.

 

[theBigShagboski]

hm, Phelps did say that "God created some vessels of mercy - those are the people he loves - he created others as vessels of wrath fitted to destruction...He hates them because it is his good will and pleasure to do so". If God is by definition good, His good will might be to create some people just so that He can hate and punish. Equally, God might decide that it is good for some people to be punished on earth for being the way that He created them - e.g. for those he predetermined to be gay to be executed for the 'crime'.

In other words, the greatest good that he can do FOR those he created as "vessels of wrath fitted to destruction" is to punish them, since forgiving them and treating them well would be contrary to the way they were made? So he punishes them knowing that, as these vessels of badness, the fairest result is punishment and damnation.

Huh... you're right, it CAN be consistent. Frightening, but consistent.

 

[saizai]

The service I used is called "IP relay". Wikipedia has good articles. Also see sprintip.com et al.

I think that the Phelps are actually remarkably consistent, more so than many other Christians. There are a few weaknesses - e.g. why does god originally hate someone and therefore condemn them (to be gay and therefore anger him and go to hell)? 'cause he wants to. Why are the Phelps going to heaven? Well they're not certain but they think they are... but that's the same claim other Christians make.

Some of their behavior does appear to be modification-oriented, e.g. calling for a boycott etc., so I think they are somewhat inconsistent about the claim to not believe in free will. But you can't fault them for not taking the "preach loudly" commandment to heart.

 

[Tanstaafl]

Wow! First the Way of the Master and now the Phelps clan. My hat's off to you, saizai. I think such a combination of stupidity and insanity would make my head explode if I tried to communicate with these people.

 

[IMST]

You come off as rediculously calm and polite. I'd be reaching through the phone to do violence.
On the other hand, every time I hear these people all I can think is if God made me to be gay specifically to hate me and condemn me, then I'm better have a REALLY good time while I'm here. I might just have to get to a gay bar to do some sinnin' tonight. Thanks, the Phleps!

 

[Marquis de Carabas]

Some of their behavior does appear to be modification-oriented, e.g. calling for a boycott etc., so I think they are somewhat inconsistent about the claim to not believe in free will.

Not really. They were pre-ordained to call for those boycotts, after all.

 

[ksbluesfan]

Fred Phelps and the Westboro Baptist Church should be ignored. They're attention whores of the highest order.

 

[Wolfman]

One argument used in the predestination debate goes as follows:

God exists outside of time and space; while we see things in terms of a progression of events, God would have seen everything that I have ever done and ever will do at the same time that he was creating the world. God knew every choice I would make, every action I would take. It is impossible that I could act in any way other than the way he already saw, since if I did so, that would mean he was not omniscient.

Besides being omniscient, god is also omnipotent...nothing can happen without him declaring that it should happen. So, by "knowing" what I will do, and by creating me to do it, god has effectively predestined me to act in exactly that manner.

You might think of it in terms of quantum theory, the whole Schroedinger's Cat paradox. On a quantum level, matter can exist in different states simultaneously, until the act of observation 'forces' it into one particular state. Well, you could argue that so long as matter is not being observed in this manner, it has "free will"...it can do whatever it wants. But once observed, it is "locked" into a particular state, and is now "predestined" to be in that state.

Well, god observed every subatomic particle from the beginning of time; and the simple act of observation meant that even if those actions would have been a result of free will, because it was observed and known by god, it became "locked" in place, and that person had no choice to act in any way other than the way in which they do act.

It is fun using something like quantum physics to explain predestination, and I know that it has flaws...but this essentially unites "free will" and "predestination" into one argument.

 

[Gregoire]

I really enjoy the argument that God hates homosexuals for being homosexuals, but hated them so much FIRST that he made them homosexual so that he could hate them more. Or is it all just a big circle of "I hate you because I know I will make you into something I hate." If God is the only one who has free will, I guess preordaining someone to be something you hate contradicts a loving, just and good God, no?

And the Westboro clan is just doing what they were preordained to do: hate everyone but themselves. I wonder if they've conceived that perhaps they're the ones God hates, and that's why they spread such intolerance?

I I have talked to Calvinists in the past and never found them to be so vehemently anti-homosexual as Phelps. Oh, I am sure if pressed that they would claim God hates homosexuals, but it was more important to them to tell me about all the other things God hates, including how he hates "supposed Christians who don't honor the Sabbath." It often seemed like the Calvinists I talked to hated other fundamentalist sects more than they hated nonbelievers.

Essentially, the doctrine of Predestination turns the words of contemporary Christianity on their head. God is "loving", but only in the context of those whom he has "chosen". God is "just" but only by definition. Everything he does is by definition "right" because he is the one who determines what is "right" in the first place.

I do see Calvinists' beliefs as very consistent especially with the "Old Testament" where the character known as god goes around killing or having others kill for him. And believing god only "saves" the "elect" or "chosen" seems to be just what he is alleged to have done with the Israelites when he supposedly "chose" them.

Of course, it has been documented that these ancient texts referred to as the "Bible" have changed over the years. And the beginning of the "New Testament" was written long after those alleged events supposedly occured (and are thus mutually contradictory). So it is probably anyone's guess what the original messages of the various authors really were?

 

[arthwollipot]

These people frighten me. I'm very glad that most Christians believe as we do that they are a bunch of nutcases. I woudn't be suprised if they all do themselves in (a la Peoples Temple) sometime in the future.

Although I hesitate to say it, the world would be better off.

 

[saizai]

Wow! First the Way of the Master and now the Phelps clan. My hat's off to you, saizai. I think such a combination of stupidity and insanity would make my head explode if I tried to communicate with these people.

You come off as rediculously calm and polite. I'd be reaching through the phone to do violence.

Thank you. I'm surprised you remembered my WotM bit.

Using IP relay does make it rather easier to stand back and see it analytically. You should thank your local relay operator - they have to deal with this sort of thing day in day out.

Not really. They were pre-ordained to call for those boycotts, after all.

Certainly. But for what purpose?

Indeed, the question of 'purpose' is somewhat central if you take this seriously; if they do not believe that others have free will, then there is no 'purpose' to their actions; they do things simply because that's their part in the play.

FWIW, it reminds me a lot of the end of Story of Your Life (a most excellent short scifi story which I strongly recommend you all read). Don't skip ahead (it's very short and worth the time to not spoil), but note the part about those who read from the Book of Life.

(snip)...but this essentially unites "free will" and "predestination" into one argument.

You reiterate the usual determinism argument.

FWIW, I am a compatibilist. I believe that we are indeed deterministic (at least at the non-sub-atomic level, which is all that is relevant to us), and that if there is an omniscient god, it must certainly realize this.

I believe that "free will" is actually a shortcut for saying "the *experience* of free will". That is certainly something that Really Exists. And indeed, we probably can't ever know enough to run a complete deterministic modeling, so to our experience, the world is nondeterministic. I don't however believe that one can characterize the existence of the experience of free will as *needing* some sort of "real" free will - for what would such a thing even mean? That you can 'freely' choose to do something... free of what, hmm? It only makes sense if contrasted against some sort of compelling force, and no such force that we know of has ever been shown to be nondeterministc at the non-sub-atomic scale. (E.g. that of the neuron, brain, or body...)

What is important is that you don't *experience* those compelling forces. Just like you don't usually *experience* the force of past advertising (or 'priming' as the psychs call it) on present decisions, but it's definitely still there...

I would not be surprised if this *expierence* of free will could eventually be characterized by some set of neural activity. After all, there are lesion and psychotic cases where people experience a *lack* of free will over their actions (as if they are "forced" to do something). Compare them, distill it (ah, there's the 'nontrivial' part), and there's your answer.

I I have talked to Calvinists in the past and never found them to be so vehemently anti-homosexual as Phelps. Oh, I am sure if pressed that they would claim God hates homosexuals, but it was more important to them to tell me about all the other things God hates, including how he hates "supposed Christians who don't honor the Sabbath." It often seemed like the Calvinists I talked to hated other fundamentalist sects more than they hated nonbelievers.

I do wonder about that one. Supposedly Jesus said that thing about not working on the sabbath wasn't all *that* important, that you're just supposed to 'keep it holy' (i.e. engage in religion regularly). *shrug*

Essentially, the doctrine of Predestination turns the words of contemporary Christianity on their head. God is "loving", but only in the context of those whom he has "chosen". God is "just" but only by definition. Everything he does is by definition "right" because he is the one who determines what is "right" in the first place.

Yup. A lot of that (i.e. minus the loving bit) is accepted by somewhat more mainstream Christians also, e.g. evangelicals... that God is just and right by definition. It's quite mainstream-Christian to claim that morality is *defined by* God, not merely *exemplified*.

So it is probably anyone's guess what the original messages of the various authors really were?

Let's please not open that bucket of worms on this thread.

 

[Madalch]

Jacob and Aesop? Surely she meant Esau- was she the one typing this, or did someone else do the transcription?