A thought experiment: Charlie Hebdo, Religious Rules, and Racism

@fredsbendtheGrinch From an Arminian perspective, we are all called by God, but most don't respond. I'm not sure whether that helps.

@curiousdannii In the abstract, that must be true. If God genuinely is so much greater than we are, human language will be insufficient to describe him, and we'll have to use words that don't quite fit.

But in this particular context, it's problematic. Because if "love is from God; everyone who loves is born of God and knows God. Whoever does not love does not know God, for God is love,‌​" then it doesn't work to say God is the exception who is allowed to do everything for his own glory. Because if God isn't setting the example of self-sacrificial love, we can't know what love is.

@BruceAlderman I think it's more that God is exceptional because he can sacrifice himself and it be both genuinely loving and genuinely for his own glory

God ultimately does everything for his intra-trinity love

When God seeks to glorify himself it is because that's one way in which the persons love each other

God's love for himself overflows into his love for us

@BruceAlderman Not really. I think the Bible mentions in Romans 9 that the pots for destruction and the pots for glory both bring God glory and that is His intent. So whether God ordained pots for their purposes or the pots can make their own way, His intent is to be glorified no matter what you do.

Self-serve.

@curiousdannii Don't you find that ... weird? Like really weird? What would keep Narcissus from looking somewhere other than in the mirror? Nothing. He loved himself that much.

I don't follow the logic that God loves himself so much that he decided he needs a creation to love too.

What does make sense is that God would be contented to just love himself forever.

given that God can love infinitely.

Whereas, Narcissus was unable to acquire the love in return that he gave to his reflection, then killed himself in sorrow upon realizing this.

@BruceAlderman I tried, but it's pretty stupid.

First:

> Since these people are slightly brown, there is a certain amount of racism already baked in.

What a load of crap! I'm so tired of allegations of racism being pushed on something because the subject happens to be not white.

The fact that most muslims are brown skinned hardly crosses my mind when I'm thinking of Islam.

> because, after all, offending people’s religion is a dick move, and why do that without a reason?

@fredsbendtheGrinch I think of 'to glory' as meaning 'to make much of'. So the father is constantly being like "wow the son is great" and the son is thinking "wow the spirit is amazing"

@fredsbendtheGrinch Most muslims are Indonesian. People don't usually think of southern Asian when they think of Islam

@fredsbendtheGrinch Though it's an imperfect analogy, I think it's a little like parents having children. People have children for lots of reasons, but we can imagine an idealised couple who have a strong and pure love for each other. They decide to have children so that their family can have more people with strong and pure loves for each other

The persons of the trinity were thinking "This thing we've got going here is so great. Wouldn't it be even better if there were more? Let's make more people to have fellowship with, just like we have fellowship with ourselves"

Not that people can become divine, but that our relationship with God would be like the relationships the persons of the trinity have with themselves. Of course sin spoilt that.

@fredsbendtheGrinch If there wasn't a Trinity then this would be completely correct. But I think the Trinity makes all the difference. Because it's never Jesus' love for Jesus and the father's love for the father, it's the father's love for Jesus and Jesus' love for the father (and etc for the spirit as well)

There, that's how I've had the reason for life explained to me. I think it makes a lot of sense. Though I admit I don't have a lot of scriptural support for it yet ;)

No, using insult and humor to show the stupidity of someone is a normal part of being a human, freaking being. Getting all pissy about it an murdering over it is not.

Why does it seem like that thought experiment spent more time making it sound like Charlie Hebdo brought it on themselves, rather than condemning the murderers?

[Sorry, the last two comments were part of the original messages. I got pulled away by the children.]