Socrates and Sam – God, Creation, and Sacrifice
Sam: Socrates I do not understand Christianity. It seems so illogical to me.
Socrates: What bothers you about Christianity and what law of logic does it violate?
Sam: Christians teach that God is the created the world and is the universal “law maker” providing order
to the universe.
Socrates: Yes, that is what they teach and as Plato recorded in the Timaeus, I speculated about such a theory.
Surely, you are not claiming that belief in a “First Cause” and a “MIND” behind matter is illogical. Many of the
best philosophers have believed in such a view.
Sam: No, I do not believe that belief in a “First Cause” or a intelligent universe is illogical in itself. It is that I do
not see how if you believe in this you can then believe that such a grand universal architect of the universe would
have to have blood sacrifice to forgive sin. How can one have such great powers at planning and then not have
planned for the ethical perfection of humanity?
Socrates: Well you are comparing two very different things. There is a big difference between planning
impersonal matter and being capable of moral decisions.
Sam: What is the difference?
Socrates: Well let us say that a man makes a chair. As long as the man chooses his materials well and
does his carpentry well then all will be well with the chair. While such creation requires skill, planning,
and proper materials; the outcome is predictable and controllable.
Sam: Why is a human being different than a chair?
Socrates: Well let us say that the same man has a son. He also plans to have the son to be a person of
character and competence. He develops a well thought out plan to provide the son with everything the
young man needs to gain good character and wonderful competence. Let us say that the man makes
perfect plans for the raising and education of the son. Will this guarantee that the son will be a person of
competence and character just as his plans for building the chair guaranteed the chair would be a “good”
chair?
Sam: No, I do not think so. For while providing such an excellent education and nurture will improve the
opportunities of the son, we all know cases where the best of environments failed to produce children of
character and competence. In fact, in some cases men who were given poor examples by their parents
overcome their bad education and training to become human beings of great virtue.
Socrates: I think you are right. The best plans of the best parents many times fail. Your point is well
taken that in fact sometimes those with the worst parents become the best people. So what would ruin a
chair by having poor plans and workmanship does not guarantee the ruin of a human being while that
which guarantees success in chairs will not guarantee success in producing a human being of character
and competence. So why are sons different than chairs?
Sam: That is a good question. What do you think is the difference?
Socrates: Well let us think. In the making of a chair there is one decision maker involved? The carpenter
alone has a “will” to make choices while the material things that he uses can be conformed to his will by
his skill and work. But is this true when it comes to sons?
Sam: No, in the making of the son there are two wills involved. The desires of the father and the desires
of the son are both involved in the creation of a life of character and competence.
Socrates: Which of these two “wills” is the most important in the gaining of virtue. Is it the “will” of the
father or of the son that will ultimately determine the destiny of the son?
Sam: From what we say we would have to say that while the desires of the father may influence a son it
is ultimately the “will” of the son that determines if a life of character and competence is reached for in
some cases the good desires of a father are frustrated by the “will” of the son and at times the
incompetence of a father is overcome by the desires of a child. Therefore, it is the “will” or desires of a
child and not a parent that determines if they attain character or competence.
Socrates: I believe you are right.
Sam: What does this have to do with the Christian view of God?
Socrates: It demonstrates that one could be a creator of a universe in which physical laws brilliantly ran
the cosmos and yet by creating human beings with the ability to have independent thoughts and desires
not being able to guarantee that they would be beings of character and competence.
Sam: This reminds me of what Aratus of Soli in Cilicia said which sounded something like "'In God we
live and move and have our being….’for we are indeed his offspring.'
Socrates: So if this analogy is true then God could be the architect of the physical universe and the
creator of human beings who would need forgiveness for their lack of virtue. Now God would have to be
the willing to forgive moral failure but if such a compassionate view of God can be perceived then there
is nothing illogical about God both designing the universe and needing to forgive human beings their
moral and ethical failures.
Sam: But why blood sacrifices? That seems very messy and primitive.
Socrates: Well it depends on if we see God in this context as an artist instead of an architect.
Sam: Why would this matter?
Socrates: Because an artist knows that to get people to experience a truth it is necessary to do “dramatic”
actions in a play to stir the emotions and awake the audience to take action. In a dramatic play one
chooses symbols, types, and dramatic actions to express love, sacrifice, and hope. The Christian gospel
seems to be saying that God the Creator loves moral failures enough to suffer for them and restore them
to a fellowship of eternal love. The “blood” becomes a very physical and powerful way to express God’s
dedication to justice and to love and the Creator’s willingness to sacrifice for both. It would appear that
such symbols have been effective in reaching many people with these dramatic truths.
Sam: Why do you say that?
Socrates: Because the dramatic story of Christian gospel focused on a God who lovingly sacrifices has
influenced billions to believe. So if God was attempting to paint a picture of love which would influence
people to be restored by forgiveness to divine fellowship and the path of competence and character. No
other artist has ever influenced so many people with a dramatic story as the Christian God in the gospel.
Sam: So God chose these symbols because the Creator knew they would move human beings
emotionally and open them to be restored to divine fellowship?
Socrates: One could make such a case. If this is so then the one who planned the universe also had
developed what has proven to be an effective plan in influencing human beings to seek restoration with
the Creator, accept forgiveness, and seek virtue. So it is hard to see this as violating logic or being a
contradiction.
Sam: So God can be both an architect and an artist without this being a logical contradiction.