My previous post talked some about who Satan is. And I commented some on an excellent "He Lives" post on Satan.
How does Satan do what he does? Fortunately, he has a remarkably small bag of tricks. Unfortunately, we don't seem to be evolving very good defenses against them.
Satan's main attack is to question God's Word (for us, the Bible). This may be an outright contradiction, but is often more subtle.
In Genesis 3, we are given a close up view of one of Satan's most effective tacts (it worked on Eve).
Now in Genesis 2:17, God had said מות ת מות. That is, eat the forbidden fruit and "dying, you will die".
Now in Genesis 3, the serpent is trying to trick Eve. And Eve is not fleeing from sin (James 4:7, 2 Timothy 2:22, 1 Timothy 6:11). Here we see that pride comes before sin. Eve is showing off before the crafty serpent. She expands on God's Word, and says, ת מתון. That is, do not eat of it or touch it "lest you die".
Now we see how crafty Satan is. Look at a package of rat poison. It will say something like tetra-hexa-mega-death-o-caine 1%, inert 99%. That is, about one percent poison, ninety-nine percent food. How much poison does it take to kill you? How many lies make you a liar? How much deviation from God's Word brings death?
Satan gives back an interesting mix of what God actually said, and what Eve said: מותת מתון. That is, "dying, you will not surely die".
And that day, Adam and Eve died. And some 900 years later, their bodies died. And Satan told a half-truth. Neither Enoch nor Elijah died, but were taken directly to Heaven (they "did not surely die").
Beware of half-truths, and just a little Scripture. Look to all of God's Word. Flee from sin.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
109 comments:
Ned,
Good post. I believe that understanding Genesis 3 is vital to understanding Christ and what He did for us.
If I may add, in Genesis 3, I believe that Satan’s main tactic is to have us take our eyes off of God and to place them on ourselves. By doing that, we place ourselves before God. (Genesis 3:5) This “pride” doesn’t come before sin. This “pride” is the sin. Adam’s original sin wasn’t necessarily eating from the tree (although technically it is…) It’s the want for him to be “like gods” that Satan promised him. This still goes on to this very day and is still the root of all sin.
The big lie from Satan is that man already knew what was good and bad (good = God and His creation…bad = eating from the tree of knowledge) and they were already like God as they were made in His image and likeness.
Regarding Eve and her “showing off” before the crafty serpent, I read this differently. I think she just got it plain wrong. God didn’t say that you couldn’t touch it. (Genesis 2:17) It also doesn’t say that the tree was in the middle of the garden as she had said…although it doesn’t say exactly where it was. (Genesis 2:9)
Note though that God doesn’t talk to her. He talked to Adam in Genesis 2 before Eve was even “built up.” So, Eve didn’t hear it from God, she heard it from Adam. So, one of two things happened…either Adam wasn’t fully listening to God or Eve wasn’t fully listening to Adam. Either way, they blew it.
Also note that throughout all of Genesis 2 and 3, God is referred to as “Lord God” EXCEPT when the serpent is speaking. Then he only refers to Him as “God.” I think that this is showing that another objective of Satan is to deglorify God. To make Him less than He truly is.
Lastly, note that man doesn’t fall through Eve’s transgression. Man falls through Adam’s. It’s Adam’s sin that is more egregious; however, Eve’s sin—or rather her “No” to God while not necessarily the cause--leads to man’s fall through Adam.
In the New Testament, Luke mirrors this. Through Jesus Christ, man is restored. Thus we call Him the New Adam; however, Mary’s obedience—or rather her “Yes” to God while not necessarily the cause—lead’s to man’s restoration through Jesus Christ. Thus, we call Mary the “New Eve.”
Genesis 3 is just packed with great stuff.
Thanks!
Pride is certainly a sin (and it factors into our other sins to make them worse). The main issue is figuring out when valid self-interest becomes sin. It can be a fuzzy line.
You make a good point about Adam. After they ate the fruit, God goes straight to Adam. He was responsible in the end. Whether it was improperly instructing Eve or not taking responsibility isn't clear.
You do realize that they had no concept of good and evil until AFTER they ate the fruit of the knowledge of good and evil, right? So, how did they know they were doing anything wrong?
GCT,
What I do know is that once they ate from the Tree of Knowledge, they realized that they were naked.
Why?
Because their eyes were off of God and on to themselves. They lost their focus...their vision. Their eyes should have been focused on God and instead it was focused on themselves.
They were prideful.
And they were ashamed.
And they hid themselves from God.
That's what sin does to people. That's what listening to Satan and his lies does to you. It separates you from God.
Fortunately, He searches for you. He wants you back and like Adam, He calls to you and asks you, "Where are you?" (Genesis 3:9)
This is Christ calling you. It's Him calling me. The wayward. The lost sheep. He wants us back in the Garden of Eden. Back to heaven. All you have to do is follow Him.
theden,
That raises the question of what their actual "sin" was though, doesn't it?
Was their sin eating the apple? If so, then how did they know they were doing wrong, since they didn't realize they had done wrong until after eating the apple.
Or, was their sin taking their eyes off of god. In that case, then god has clearly lied, because he's not punishing them for eating the apple, but for being "prideful" as you put it.
(Note: Before anyone points out that ignorance of the law is no excuse, remember that in our legal system we generally expect the defendant to understand the difference between right and wrong. Those who can not understand that difference have a valid defense (insanity or being developmentally challenged.)
Their sin is the same as our sin. Their sin was being disobedient. Their sin was choosing their own will over God’s will.
How did they know what they were doing was wrong? Because God told them not to eat of the Tree of Knowledge; lest you die. They knew it was wrong and they did it anyway.
Incidentally, the reason they die isn’t necessarily because of the sin. It is because they lost access to the “Tree of Life” in the middle of the Garden. This Tree gave them access to Everlasting Life but was lost to them when they were evicted from Eden.
Jesus Christ restores the “Tree of Life.” The Tree of Life from Genesis 2 and 3 is replaced by Christ and the Cross. The Cross is the new Tree of Life and we eat from the Fruit of the Tree—His Body and Blood to gain eternal life as told to us in John 6.
In another post, Ned believes that the bread and wine are ceremonial. This is not correct and this is not the historical view. The bread and wine become Jesus’ Body and Blood and eating of it is what gives us eternal life. He’s right that there’s no need for ceremonial sacrifice. The Eucharist is not a ceremonial sacrifice. It brings us back to the one sacrifice. It brings us back to Calvary so that we can eat and drink from the Tree of Life; unite ourselves to the Body of Christ; and gain eternal life.
"Their sin is the same as our sin. Their sin was being disobedient. Their sin was choosing their own will over God’s will."
When do we become sinful?
"How did they know what they were doing was wrong? Because God told them not to eat of the Tree of Knowledge; lest you die. They knew it was wrong and they did it anyway."
Um, they had no knowledge of good and evil, hence they had no idea of right and wrong until AFTER they ate the apple. So, how could they know that eating the apple was wrong? They didn't have a clue what "wrong" meant. It would have been the same as saying that eating the apple was "hepledumpal" or any other made up word to them. They had no concept of rightness or wrongness. god punishes them for basically being uninformed.
Why did god leave the tree out in the open for them to eat from? If he didn't want them to eat it, why did he make it easy for them to do so? Didn't he know they would eat of the fruit? He had to have known, so since he knew, he facilitated it. In his infinite power, he could have easily kept the fruit from them, but he didn't. He must have wanted them to eat of the fruit, that is the only conclusion that one can come to if god truly is omni-max. Therefore, he punishes them for doing what he desired of them.
GCT,
We become sinful when we are willfully disobedient to God’s word.
Why do you think they had no knowledge of right and wrong? They knew what was right and wrong. They knew that eating from the tree led to death and yet they did it anyway. Your belief that they had no knowledge of right and wrong is not found in Scripture. What they didn’t have was knowledge of what was good and what was evil—something which is ironically evident in today’s world of relativism. The thing is though, we aren’t required to know what’s good and what’s evil. We are asked to be obedient to God’s will.
“Why did god leave the tree out in the open for them to eat from? “
First, I’m not God. Secondly, you’re making the assumption that it was out in the open. I don’t know where it was.
“If he didn't want them to eat it, why did he make it easy for them to do so?”
I don’t know how easy is was for them to do so. Maybe it wasn’t easy. It obviously took Satan to tempt them. Maybe it wasn’t easy. Again you’re making assumptions.
“Didn't he know they would eat of the fruit? He had to have known, so since he knew, he facilitated it. In his infinite power, he could have easily kept the fruit from them, but he didn't. He must have wanted them to eat of the fruit, that is the only conclusion that one can come to if god truly is omni-max.”
Did God know? Of course He did. Did He want them to eat it? Probably not but He gave Adam and Eve free will to choose obedience or disobedience. Was this part of God’s plan?
I don’t know.
What I do know is that God’s response was greater than the original plan of the Garden of Eden. As a result of Adam’s sin, God came down here—for you—to die. God suffered, God was nailed to a tree and God died.
Why?
So you would not have to be separated from Him. He would rather have died than to be separated from you. Instead of giving us the original Tree of Life, God sacrificed Himself for us so that He became the Tree of Life. What He did showed His love for us far more than a Tree of Life and a Garden of Eden.
As a result of Calvary, you have the opportunity to become one with God. You are able to participate in His role as Priest, Prophet, and King. All you have to do is be united with Him. All you have to do is be His friend. All you have to do is obey His commandments. This is far beyond the original plan of Eden.
He doesn’t punish us. He saves us from eternal separation from Him. He calls us and we respond.
theden,
Thank you for answering my questions, I do have more though.
"We become sinful when we are willfully disobedient to God’s word."
I was under the impression that Catholics held the doctrine of original sin, meaning that all humans are guilty of sin from the moment of conception. Is that not the case, or do you differ from the Catholic Church on this teaching (IIRC you are a Catholic, right?)
"Your belief that they had no knowledge of right and wrong is not found in Scripture. What they didn’t have was knowledge of what was good and what was evil—something which is ironically evident in today’s world of relativism."
I see that you are making a distinction between good and evil vs. right and wrong. But is not rightness the same as goodness? Perhaps you can shed some light on the difference?
"The thing is though, we aren’t required to know what’s good and what’s evil. We are asked to be obedient to God’s will."
So, hypothetically, if god asked you to do something that you think is wrong, would it suddenly become right? Say, for instance, that god asked you to become a suicide bomber (just to select an instance that is pertinent in our crazy, mixed-up world). Would this action become justified because god told you to do it? Or, would it still be wrong to blow up innocents?
"First, I’m not God. Secondly, you’re making the assumption that it was out in the open."
I think we can safely assume that the tree's fruit was not that difficult to obtain.
"Of course He did. Did He want them to eat it? Probably not but He gave Adam and Eve free will to choose obedience or disobedience."
I don't think anything can happen contrary to god's plan if god is indeed omni-max. Also, to the question of free will, I contend that we don't actually have free will if god is omni-max, but for the sake of argument, we can assume we do. I still contend that Adam and Eve did not have free will, because they did not have the pertinent knowledge required to make an informed choice. Of course, that is subject to the outcome of whether right and wrong is the same as knowing good and evil, which I contend it is, especially in this instance.
"What I do know is that God’s response was greater than the original plan of the Garden of Eden. As a result of Adam’s sin, God came down here—for you—to die. God suffered, God was nailed to a tree and God died.
Why?"
I really would like to know why god would have to come down here and have himself tortured in order to convince himself to forgive us for the punishment that he levied upon us for doing exactly what he knew we would do in the first place.
"So you would not have to be separated from Him....He doesn’t punish us. He saves us from eternal separation from Him. He calls us and we respond."
[snipped for brevity with what I think are the important points displayed.]
If god truly does not want us to be separated from him, then why are we not all saved? Also, who is it that we need to be saved from? It is god that set up hell. It is god that defaults our condition to "hellbound" unless we somehow atone for our supposed sins (dependent on the original sin question, of course). Why can god not simply forgive? Why was a blood sacrifice required? What did god bleeding and dying do to absolve me of anything? If I were a serial murderer, would it make sense to kill some random, innocent person in order to absolve me of my debt? So, why does it make sense in this case? Is god really presenting a good case here by threatening us all with hell unless we obey/love/worship him? Can god really love us if he is willing to torture us for any amount of time, let alone for eternity? Sorry to throw so many questions at you, but these questions are never answered by those that I ask. If you could answer them, then I would appreciate it.
Knowing good and evil is easy.
Knowing which is which is harder.
But seriously ...
GCT, good questions. I have many questions too and the answers are found in the gardens.
Why did God warn Adam not to eat the fruit from the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil?
Theden, I have to disagree with your statement "Their sin was being disobedient.". While your position is widely held and you are in good company believing this ... I believe it is a misinterpretation of God's motive for forbidding the fruit.
I am not a very good Christian and sometimes I worry about a lightning bolt from the heavens to strike me down for my heresies (and that this doesn’t happen is further proof of a loving and forgiving God) but I believe that it was not a test of obedience but a warning from God that knowledge of good and evil is deadly.
Adam's (and Eve's) sin was not a matter of disobedience but the result of what eating the fruit did to them. Before they ate the fruit of the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil they only knew what was good but they didn't know it as good ... they knew it as being it. After eating the fruit they knew good and evil.
I believe God loves us and forbid the fruit of the tree of knowledge of good and evil because it is deadly (in the same way that a parent tells their child not to drink any of the stuff under the sink).
But, eat of the fruit Adam and Eve did and they were changed and hid themselves. Before they knew only life but after eatting the forbidden fruit they knew good and evil (and just like the poison under the sink this knowledge made them sick). This, in my opinion, was the sin; knowledge of good and evil.
Consider the poison under the sink; if your child drank some poison would you want to make them well again or punish them for disobedience? While disobedience may have led to the child being sick it was not disobedience which made them sick ... it was the poison itself. Punishing the child for the disobedience does not make the sick child well again.
So Adam and Eve were banned from the Garden of Eden, not as punishment, but because if they were to now eat from the tree of life they would be sinful and sick forever. So out into the world they go with pain and hardship to guide them while God worked on the antidote for the sin.
That antidote is Jesus Christ.
And in another garden, the Garden of Gethsemane, Jesus made us well.
braverdave,
"...I believe that it was not a test of obedience but a warning from God that knowledge of good and evil is deadly."
Ignorance is bliss?
But, this doesn't answer my question: if god didn't want us to eat of the fruit, why did he allow it? We put poisons under the sink as a convenience, and those with children should put child locks on the cabinet doors, or simply store their harmful products elsewhere. Still, humans don't have infinite power, god does, and god could quite easily have used that power to keep us away from the poison, yet he didn't?
"So Adam and Eve were banned from the Garden of Eden, not as punishment, but because if they were to now eat from the tree of life they would be sinful and sick forever. So out into the world they go with pain and hardship to guide them while God worked on the antidote for the sin.
That antidote is Jesus Christ."
This still doesn't explain why god couldn't just undo the poison with his infinite power. Why he had to come up with some elaborate scheme to kill himself thousands of years later after this poison had propagated through many generations and left many people in hell. god even killed everyone save 8 (IIRC) people aboard Noah's Ark, and one has to presume that those people did not receive the antidote.
Also, I still don't understand how Jesus can be an antidote. How does his torture and subsequent death do anything for me? I still know of good and evil - in fact, god inflicts evil upon us through natural disasters, or at the very least he doesn't prevent them. Even if I believed in Jesus, I would still know good and evil.
braverdave,
I should have asked this as well...
Is it the knowledge of good and evil that is bad, or the misuse of that knowledge?
GCT,
Yes, I am Catholic. Nothing I have written conflicts with Catholic teaching—at least to the best of my knowledge. In regards to Original Sin, we are not necessarily guilty of Original Sin. It’s more that we bear the stain of Original Sin.
Adam was given a certain privilege. A holiness that as a result of his sin, we were deprived of. Because of Adam, our humanity is wounded and we are born stained of Adam’s sin at birth. We are born separated from God. As a result, we need Jesus Christ in our lives. We must be reborn (per John 3:5). At Baptism, we are born again. We are born of water and spirit and we are washed. We are cleaned of Adam’s Original Sin. From that point, it’s no longer I who lived but rather Christ who lives in me. As I said earlier, at birth, we are deprived of the Tree of Life. By following Christ, we regain that access and by living a life of Christ, we gain eternal life.
“But is not rightness the same as goodness? Perhaps you can shed some light on the difference?”
In my opinion, it’s not the same thing. Right and wrong is subjective. It can be argued what is right and what is wrong. It’s relative. Good vs. evil cannot be argued. If something is good, then it’s good. If it’s evil, then it’s evil. It’s objective. That’s the difference between the two.
“So, hypothetically, if god asked you to do something that you think is wrong, would it suddenly become right? Say, for instance, that god asked you to become a suicide bomber (just to select an instance that is pertinent in our crazy, mixed-up world). Would this action become justified because god told you to do it? Or, would it still be wrong to blow up innocents?“
No…this would not be right. First off, my authority in regards to God is the Catholic Church. If I hear an “inner locution” that tells me to go off and kill people. I need to use discernment. If the command I hear conflicts with Church teachings—as given to the Church by Jesus Christ—then what I’m hearing is wrong. I have enough faith in the Church to not trust my senses or inner locutions. Everything must be discerned before acted upon.
“I still contend that Adam and Eve did not have free will, because they did not have the pertinent knowledge required to make an informed choice.”
Adam and Eve had the same choice that we have. They had the choice to follow God’s will freely. The only free will choice we have is to follow God or to not follow God—out of love. I believe that I can personally argue that nothing else is free will. But to choose to follow Him or not follow Him purely out of love for Him is truly a free choice. Everything else is conditional.
“If god truly does not want us to be separated from him, then why are we not all saved?”
Because, like Adam, when we sin, we hide ourselves from God (Genesis 3:8.) We become ashamed and hide ourselves behind loincloths. Like the Prodigal Son, we move off to a far away land and squander our inheritance far away from our beloved father (Luke 15: 13).
Note that in Genesis 3, God searches for us (Genesis 3:9) and in the Prodigal Son, the Father looks for him and RUNS OUT to him (Luke 15: 20). We separate ourselves from God and He searches for us. He wants us to come back and when we do, He celebrates. (Luke 15:23)
“Why can god not simply forgive? Why was a blood sacrifice required? What did god bleeding and dying do to absolve me of anything?”
In order to understand this, there are many places in the Old Testament we can refer to. For time and space purposes, I’ll stick with one.
“In the course of time Cain brought an offering to the LORD from the fruit of the soil, while Abel, for his part, brought one of the best firstlings of his flock. The LORD looked with favor on Abel and his offering, “ (Genesis 4:3-4)
In the Old Testament, there were series of sacrifices to God in order to please Him. It started with Cain/Abel to Abraham, to Moses all the way to Jesus. From the above passage, God favored Abel’s sacrifice.
Why?
Because it was the best of his firstlings. Whereas Cain just sacrificed stuff. When we give to God, we need to remember to give Him our best. Cain didn’t do that and Abel did. Why sacrifice the best for God? Because you love Him.
What did God sacrifice for us?
He sacrificed His best. He sacrificed His only begotten Son. Like the innocent lambs who are slaughtered at Passover, God sacrificed His innocent Son—the Lamb of God. Why? Because He loves us. That sacrifice unites us with God. It allows us the opportunity to be one with Him. It makes us great—through humility and obedience.
That sacrifice was so great that nothing can surpass it. It makes all other sacrifices before and after pale in comparison.
Could He have just forgiven us?
Sure. But it wouldn’t have the same meaning. It wouldn’t have that impact. What God did makes me shudder. It’s humbling to think that God would do that for me.
Braverdave,
Interesting thoughts…however, what your saying conflicts with Paul’s writings in Romans 5: 19. He explicitly tells us that it was disobedience that was the sin.
Ignorance is bliss but the realization of mistakes made in ignorance is anything but bliss.
GCT, here are my answers (short versions) to your questions;
Is it the knowledge of good and evil that is bad, or the misuse of that knowledge?
What God created was good. That which he did not create is evil. The knowledge of good and evil makes us aware of both. Before eating the forbidden fruit Adam and Eve knew only good as God had created all things good and had no conception of evil and nothing was evil. No thing is evil because God only created good things. Evil is knowledge. Evil is turning away from good things and imagining things that are not. Good and evil are not opposites. Goodness exits because everything God created is good. Evil is our mistaken preception of God's reality. For example after Adam and Eve ate the fruit they became aware that they were not clothed. Before they ate the fruit they certainly knew this but it was good. After eating the fruit they misperceived their nakedness as bad. So he put on a fig leaf. The first of many fig leafs we have used to hide ourselves from God.
... why did he allow it?
God allowed us to eat of the fruit because he gave us free will. The Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil had to be in the Garden of Eden if man was to be free. The option to know evil had to be there.
... explain why god couldn't just undo the poison with his infinite power.
He has. The poison of sin is not intended to be eternal. But it couldn't be just a gratuitous undoing although when I think of "by grace alone" it does seem to be gratuitous. But conundrums don't bother me too much ... sweet mystery of life and all. Adam hid himself and denied himself fellowship with his Creator. Being in a fallen state he had no way to heal his spiritual sickness so God set in motion his plan to heal his children.
Why he had to come up with some elaborate scheme to kill himself ...
If we can continue to use the metaphor of children and poison; wouldn't a good parent give their life to save their child? And even if the good parent fails in their attempt to save that child isn't trying what really counts?
How does his [Jesus] torture and subsequent death do anything for me?
It's the death to self (ego). In the Garden of Gethsemane Jesus was faced with his own imminent death and it troubled him so much that he actually sweated drops of blood.
"O my Father, if it be possible, let this cup pass from me: nevertheless not as I will, but as thou wilt."
"O my Father, if this cup may not pass away from me, except I drink it, thy will be done."
(Matthew 26:39&42)
Jesus had his desires, doubts and temptations. Jesus wanted what God did not want but in his obedience to his Father he put aside himself and did God's will. Jesus died to his human self will and was born again into divine will. It's the same for us. We can serve God or we can serve ourselves. We can do like Adam and Eve and hide ourselves from God or we can follow Jesus, drink of his cup and return to eternal life.
Theden, I don't think what I am saying conflicts with Romans 5:19.
"Wherefore, as by one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin; and so death passed upon all men, for that all have sinned: (For until the law sin was in the world: but sin is not imputed when there is no law. Nevertheless death reigned from Adam to Moses, even over them that had not sinned after the similitude of Adam's transgression, who is the figure of him that was to come. But not as the offence, so also is the free gift. For if through the offence of one many be dead, much more the grace of God, and the gift by grace, which is by one man, Jesus Christ, hath abounded unto many. And not as it was by one that sinned, so is the gift: for the judgment was by one to condemnation, but the free gift is of many offences unto justification. For if by one man's offence death reigned by one; much more they which receive abundance of grace and of the gift of righteousness shall reign in life by one, Jesus Christ.) Therefore as by the offence of one judgment came upon all men to condemnation; even so by the righteousness of one the free gift came upon all men unto justification of life. For as by one man's disobedience many were made sinners, so by the obedience of one shall many be made righteous. Moreover the law entered, that the offence might abound. But where sin abounded, grace did much more abound: That as sin hath reigned unto death, even so might grace reign through righteousness unto eternal life by Jesus Christ our Lord.
(Romans 5:12-21)
I am saying that maybe the sin, knowledge of good and evil, was the result of his disobedience, not the disobedience itself. I think that what I am driving at is that the forbidding of eating of the fruit from the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil was not a test of our obedience. The purpose of God's warning was to keep us from the harm that this knowledge of sin would impart. A difficult distinction to wrap our heads around but a distinction nonetheless and I don't see a conflict with "For as by one man's disobedience many were made sinners, so by the obedience of one shall many be made righteous."
It's dinner time now but I will think about it some more while I am eating and hopefully have time to get back with a more detailed response later this evening.
The important thing to remember in discussions of sin, God's plan, and salvation is: "What is the purpose of life?"
If you think our purpose is centered on us (our success, our happiness, etc.), you will come to the wrong conclusions about God.
That is because, our purpose is to glorify God.
God created us in a way that we could disobey Him (having free will), knowing that we would (Jesus is the lamb slain from before the foundation of the world for the forgiveness of sins).
The sacrifice of Jesus reveals:
1. How much God hates sin.
2. There must be a price paid for sin.
3. That price is too great for us to pay.
4. God's love, mercy (not giving what is deserved), and grace (giving beyond what is deserved) are such that He would give up His Son for us.
braverdave,
I've been contemplating your comments for the last day or so.
I think to understand the eating of the Tree of Knowledge, we have to understand the definitions of Good and Evil.
Good is God. Everything that is created by God is good (Genesis 1:21). Goodness comes from God and only God.
What is evil?
Evil was not created by God.
Evil is the absence of good. (Per St. Augustine)
Evil is the absence of God.
Before the Fall, man only knew God and His creation. As you said, he only knew good. After the Fall, man was separated from God and knew evil. Why? Because of sin. In sin, man is devoid of God’s grace. In all actions, man is a recipient of God’s grace. From the air we breathe to the food we eat to the ones we love. It’s all from God’s grace and it’s all good.
Sin is godlessness. Sin is evil. Sin is absence of good. Sin comes not from God’s will but from man’s. When man ate from the Tree, he learned what it is to be devoid of God and he now had knowledge of good and evil.
And because of that, man brought death into the world.
theden,
I'm confused by the difference between being "guilty" of original sin and merely carrying the "stain," and I'm not sure I followed your explanation. Can you elucidate me on the difference? AFAICT, original sin seems to be a genetic trait that is passed down from generation to generation, so that the sins of the fathers are inhereted by the sons and daughters. Is this an accurate portrayal of original sin?
"In my opinion, it’s not the same thing. Right and wrong is subjective. It can be argued what is right and what is wrong. It’s relative. Good vs. evil cannot be argued. If something is good, then it’s good. If it’s evil, then it’s evil. It’s objective. That’s the difference between the two."
I'm not sure I agree. Is "right" really subjective, or any less subjective that "good"? Can you give an example?
"No…this would not be right...."
But, how do you know that god doesn't have a special plan for you or hasn't taken a different course that the church is unaware of? Also, please remember that my question was purely hypothetical. I could expand to ask what if the order came from god through the church? This is all about Euthyphro's dilemma. If you look that up on wikipedia, you will get a taste of why I'm asking this question.
"Adam and Eve had the same choice that we have...."
But, isn't that conception of how to follow god's will sort of conditional on what knowledge you have? For instance, someone living on a small island that hasn't been taught Catholicism will have a much different idea of loving god than you, if they even think of a god at all. I believe that your notions of good/evil/right/wrong play into how you seek to love god, and Adam and Eve certainly had deficient understandings from what you have.
"Because, like Adam, when we sin, we hide ourselves from God (Genesis 3:8.)..."
The idea here is that we choose not to be with god, so he grants our choice, is that correct?
"Because it was the best of his firstlings. Whereas Cain just sacrificed stuff. When we give to God, we need to remember to give Him our best. Cain didn’t do that and Abel did. Why sacrifice the best for God? Because you love Him."
By why does blood have to be involved?
"He sacrificed His best. He sacrificed His only begotten Son. Like the innocent lambs who are slaughtered at Passover, God sacrificed His innocent Son—the Lamb of God. Why? Because He loves us. That sacrifice unites us with God. It allows us the opportunity to be one with Him. It makes us great—through humility and obedience."
I still don't understand. In the Cain and Abel example, C and A were sacrificing to curry favor with god. In the Jesus example, god sacrifices his own son to curry favor with himself? It seems a meaningless gesture, or worse than that really.
"Could He have just forgiven us?
Sure. But it wouldn’t have the same meaning. It wouldn’t have that impact. What God did makes me shudder. It’s humbling to think that God would do that for me."
But, he didn't really do that for you, did he? He sacrificed his own son so that he could allow himself to forgive us. I don't understand why a torturous, blood sacrifice was required for god to give to himself. If we had given god something for atonement, maybe it would make some sense to me, but that's not what happened.
braverdave,
"What God created was good. That which he did not create is evil. The knowledge of good and evil makes us aware of both...No thing is evil because God only created good things. Evil is knowledge..."
This saddens me. I don't think knowledge is evil. I think knowledge is good. Look at how we've been able to improve the human condition through knowledge of things like medicine, agriculture, technology, etc. Further, doesn't god say that he creates evil? I believe it is in Isaiah. Besides, how can anything in this universe exist if god did not create it? He created all in this universe, didn't he?
"God allowed us to eat of the fruit because he gave us free will. The Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil had to be in the Garden of Eden if man was to be free. The option to know evil had to be there."
It seems rather cruel to give us free will but not the knowledge in how to use it. If they couldn't decide that eating the fruit was wrong, then they didn't make an informed choice. Further, couldn't god have allowed us to have free will without letting us eat the fruit? Didn't Adam have free will before he ate the fruit? I don't see having the fruit available to Adam as being a necessity for free will.
"He has. The poison of sin is not intended to be eternal. But it couldn't be just a gratuitous undoing although when I think of "by grace alone" it does seem to be gratuitous."
Why should a gratuitous healing be beyond an infinite being, especially one that purports to love us so much? This seems a conundrum.
"If we can continue to use the metaphor of children and poison; wouldn't a good parent give their life to save their child? And even if the good parent fails in their attempt to save that child isn't trying what really counts?"
Wouldn't a good parent not allow the child to drink the poison in the first place, especially if that parent knew the child would do so? And, didn't the parent in this instance give his life in order to save the child from the parent? Also, wouldn't a parent save the life of the child without sacrificing his/her own life if it were possible, so that the child did not have to be without the parent? I'm not sure the analogy holds anyway, as god didn't really sacrifice his life. I mean, he was god before Jesus was crucified and he was god after as well. god can't really die after all.
"It's the death to self (ego). In the Garden of Gethsemane Jesus was faced with his own imminent death and it troubled him so much that he actually sweated drops of blood."
Actually, that passage is under suspicion of being added to the gospel at a later date. But, never-the-less, I'm still not seeing what Jesus did for me. Jesus was god, so it's no surprise that he would shed this human life and once again be divine. I'm still not sure how that impacts me.
Nedbrek,
"That is because, our purpose is to glorify God."
Why does god need glorifying? Why did he create us with that reason in mind? How can we mere humans glorify an infinite being? Why does god not already possess infinite levels of glory?
Evil is knowledge.
Should have read ...
Evil is knowledge of that which was not created.
My apologies for the confusion.
Back again ... and really enjoying this discussion. My thanks to everyone for their participation and Ned for being a gracious host. Sometimes my ideas bring about charges of heresy and I am chased out of forums for daring to question what people learned in Sunday School. I am happy to find people willing to consider what I have to share.
Reading through the comments again I find a few old points that I would like to comment on. Hopefully I don't get too sidetracked along the way and catch up to the more current comments.
So here are some excerpts with the writers name: followed by the comment and my response. Usually I use italics to quote you guys or for emphasis and bold to quote the bible.
I will start with Theden's first couple of comments ...
Theden says:"This “pride” doesn’t come before sin. This “pride” is the sin. Adam’s original sin wasn’t necessarily eating from the tree (although technically it is…) It’s the want for him to be “like gods” that Satan promised him."
Putting aside our confusion about what the sin was (technically or otherwise?) for just a moment ... realize that when Satan said "Ye shall not surely die: For God doth know that in the day ye eat thereof, then your eyes shall be opened, and ye shall be as gods, knowing good and evil." (Gen 3:4-5) he was mixing truth and lie. They did become like God as evidenced when God said "Behold, the man is become as one of us, to know good and evil: and now, lest he put forth his hand, and take also of the tree of life, and eat, and live for ever: "(Gen 3:22) and God sent them from the Garden. And although they did not die that day, "But of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat of it: for in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die."(Gen 2:17), they at least began to die, physically, that day in which they were denied the Tree of Life but it could be said that they died spiritually immediately.
Theden says: "It also doesn’t say that the tree was in the middle of the garden as she had said…although it doesn’t say exactly where it was. (Genesis 2:9)"
Actually Gen 2:9 says specifically where the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil and the Tree of Life were. And checking my interlinear Hebrew Bible and Strong's Hebrew Lexicon I am comfortable with the translation below:
And out of the ground made the LORD God to grow every tree that is pleasant to the sight, and good for food; the tree of life also in the midst of the garden, and the tree of knowledge of good and evil.
"in the midst of" - see Strong's 8432 - tavek taw'-vek from an unused root meaning to sever; a bisection, i.e. (by implication) the centre:--among(-st), X between, half, X (there- ,where-), in(-to), middle, mid(-night), midst (among), X out (of), X through, X with(-in).
The trees were in the middle of the garden because they were important trees.
Theden says: "Also note that throughout all of Genesis 2 and 3, God is referred to as “Lord God” EXCEPT when the serpent is speaking. Then he only refers to Him as “God.” I think that this is showing that another objective of Satan is to deglorify God. To make Him less than He truly is."
Not quite right. In Genesis 1 all the references usually translated as God are
Strong's Lexicon # 430 'elohiym el-o-heem' plural of 433 gods in the ordinary sense; but specifically used (in the plural thus, especially with the article) of the supreme God; occasionally applied by way of deference to magistrates; and sometimes as a superlative:--angels, X exceeding, God (gods)(-dess, -ly), X (very) great, judges, X mighty.
In Genesis 2 the first couple references to God; And on the seventh day God ended his work which he had made; and he rested on the seventh day from all his work which he had made. And God blessed the seventh day, and sanctified it: because that in it he had rested from all his work which God created and made. (Gen 2:2-3) again are 'elohiym translated as God.
Then beginning with Genesis 2:4 all further references to God in that chapter are a combination of
Strong's Lexicon 3068 Yhovah yeh-ho-vaw' from 1961; (the) self-Existent or Eternal; Jehovah, Jewish national name of God:--Jehovah, the Lord. Compare 3050, 3069.
and 'elohiym (430). And 3068 is also known as YHWH (Tetragrammaton) which is also closely related to
Strong's Lexicon 1961 hayah haw-yaw a primitive root (Compare 1933); to exist, i.e. be or become, come to pass (always emphatic, and not a mere copula or auxiliary):--beacon, X altogether, be(-come), accomplished, committed, like), break, cause, come (to pass), do, faint, fall, + follow, happen, X have, last, pertain, quit (one-)self, require, X use.
and in Genesis 3 all references to God are 3068 and 430 (which are usually translated Jehovah God or Lord God) excepting where Satan and Eve make reference to God as 'elohiym.
In Genesis 4 references to God are 3068 Jehovah or Yahweh or more properly YHWH.
The revealing of God's name(s) reaches it's climax in Exodus 3 when Moses sees the burning bush and God reveals himself as I AM (1961) or I WILL BE as some translators prefer (my preference too).
Please forgive the digression into God's name(s) but it is one of my favorite topics for Bible study.
Theden says: "In another post, Ned believes that the bread and wine are ceremonial. This is not correct and this is not the historical view. The bread and wine become Jesus’ Body and Blood and eating of it is what gives us eternal life."
I believe that we are saved and receive eternal life by grace alone through faith alone (no matter what any church or priest says to the contrary).
And if by grace, then is it no more of works: otherwise grace is no more grace. But if it be of works, then it is no more grace: otherwise work is no more work.
(Romans 11:6)
GCT says:"You do realize that they had no concept of good and evil until AFTER they ate the fruit of the knowledge of good and evil, right? So, how did they know they were doing anything wrong?"
No concept of good and evil until after eating the fruit ... correct in my opinion and I would add no concept of anything except their reality (which was good as God had created it so). I don't know that they knew they were doing something wrong but it would be more accurate to say they knew they were doing something that God had warned them not to do. And, at the risk of repeating myself, I believe that this warning was not a test of man's obedience but a warning as from a loving God to his children to prevent them from doing something that would cause them real harm.
GCT says:"He must have wanted them to eat of the fruit, that is the only conclusion that one can come to if god truly is omni-max. Therefore, he punishes them for doing what he desired of them.
God wanted them to have free will. That is the conclusion. He does not punish them though. By removing them from the Garden and denying them access to the Tree of Life he is preventing their sin from being immortalized. It is possible and even likely that God knew that Adam and Eve would partake from the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil but he did not punsih them. Do you punsih your child if he is poisoned or do you seek to make him well again?
braverdave,
Some points to your thoughts...
The Tree of Life is in the middle of the garden. The Tree of Knowledge is in the garden. Read what you wrote again. It DOESN'T say the Tree of Knowledge is in the middle of the garden. Nevertheless, that's really not that important to me. Personally, I think it can be argued either way and I'm happy with either translation. My way of understanding makes Eve sound like she really didn't get it which is what I believe.
Regarding the Creation Story, you do realize that there are two creation stories in Genesis right? The first one --Genesis 1:1 through Genesis 2:4 and then Genesis 2:5 through Genesis 2:25. Both creation stories were most likely written by two different authors. When I was referring to "Lord God" I was talking about Genesis 2:5 through Genesis 3.
Regarding the Eucharist, I don't want to argue about the validity of the Eucharist as it's not germane to this discussion. Of course everyone here is welcome to what they believe. I was just pointing out my own belief. I'm sure if Ned wants to discuss this, he can put up a separate post.
Ned says: "The sacrifice of Jesus reveals:
1. How much God hates sin."
et cetera
The sacrifice of Jesus reveals how much God loves us.
Theden says "I think to understand the eating of the Tree of Knowledge, we have to understand the definitions of Good and Evil."
and "After the Fall, man was separated from God and knew evil. Why? Because of sin.
An excellent metaphor for describing good and evil is light and dark. Light exists. Dark does not. When you turn on a lightbulb photons come from it and provide light. When you turn off the lightbulb it is the absence of light that creates the darkness.
I agree (mostly) with your definitions but please allow me to clarify a few things and I hope you can agree with them.
Everything created by God is good and that before the fall Adam and Eve knew only life which happened to be good but they did not know it as good but knew it as life. It was not relative good but absolute good ... naked but not ashamed ....
Anything not created by God is evil. And since God created everything good, nothing was evil. And then the fall and ... I was afraid, because I was naked; and I hid myself. This is one of the saddest passages in the whole Bible. Sad because now Adam misperceived his nakedness and it made him ashamed. It was still good because God had created it so but Adam misperceived it as evil.
Read that carefully and let it sink in.
Nothing had changed in God's good creation except now Adam mispercieved some of that creation as evil. Evil is a way of thinking that turns from the good things that are and imagines evil things that are not. Naked ... not clothed.
And now, knowing good and evil, man was like God; Then the Lord God said, 'Behold, the man has become like one of us, knowing good and evil. God knew both good and evil but created only good. He could have created both good and evil but being a loving God he only created good. When man ate the forbidden fruit he perceived of evil things that God had sought to spare him from.
So why was the tree there? Because the option to know evil had to be available if we were to be free.
Evil is ignorance and denial of the truth of God's good reality.
It is a delusion, a misperception and a misconception.
Evil is a self-deception. Even with the fig leaf Adam was still naked. Even though he was afraid he was still in paradise.
GCT,
Your understanding of Original Sin is different than mine.
As descendants of Adam, we are born separated from God--in need of the Sanctifying Grace from Jesus Christ. Additionally, we inherit what is called "concupiscence" which means that our human nature is inclined to sin.
When Adam was created, He was with God in the Garden of Eden and knew not sin. He possessed a holiness that was lost with the Original Sin. The fact that we are born without Adam's original holiness is our inheritance of Original Sin.
Through Jesus, we must be born again of water and Spirit per John 3. When we are reborn, we are washed away of the stains of Original Sin and we receive the Holiness that was lost by Adam.
"I'm not sure I agree. Is "right" really subjective, or any less subjective that "good"? Can you give an example?"
I covered my thoughts in the earlier comment to braverdave. "Right and Wrong" don't fully encompass "Good and Evil." Good and Evil is far grander than "Right and Wrong." Good is from God and Evil is the absence of good. Wrong is not the absence of right. Right and wrong are relative to your perspective whereas Good and Evil are from God's perspective.
"But, how do you know that god doesn't have a special plan for you or hasn't taken a different course that the church is unaware of?"
Because what has been revealed to the Church has been sealed. The Apostolic Tradition stopped when the last Apostle died. Church teaching does not change. It matures, it is better understood but it does not change.
Let me put it this way. If my local priest...or the Pope tells me to kill my fellow man, I would tell them "No, because it violates Christ's teaching." If what they are saying goes against the core Church teaching then they are wrong.
"But, isn't that conception of how to follow god's will sort of conditional on what knowledge you have? For instance, someone living on a small island that hasn't been taught Catholicism will have a much different idea of loving god than you, if they even think of a god at all. I believe that your notions of good/evil/right/wrong play into how you seek to love god, and Adam and Eve certainly had deficient understandings from what you have."
Your answer can be found in Romans 2:14-16 which explains that the law is written in people's hearts and they will be judged by God accordingly by how they follow that law.
"The idea here is that we choose not to be with god, so he grants our choice, is that correct?"
Yes as that is free will.
"By why does blood have to be involved?"
Because in the Old Testament, blood is used for the atonement of sins by the priest as he enters the Holy of Holies. Jesus uses His own blood to atone for our sins.
"C and A were sacrificing to curry favor with god."
No, that's not right. They were sacrificing because they loved God and worshiped Him. God sacrifices Himself because He loves us.
" If we had given god something for atonement, maybe it would make some sense to me, but that's not what happened."
The Hebrews used blood for their atonement. They sacrificed a lamb and ate its flesh so that they would escape death during Passover. Abraham was asked to sacrifice his beloved son out of love for God.
God used His blood for our atonement. He sacrificed the Lamb of God and we eat His flesh to escape death and like Abraham, He sacrificed His beloved Son out of love for us.
The ancient Hebrews got it because everything Christ did was found in the Old Testament.
Theden,
The verse I quoted isn't what I wrote. It's what the translators of the King James Bible wrote. Ha - just being pedantic! I should have looked online for a literal translation from the original Hebrew to copy/paste but since I have my interlinear Hebrew/Greek/English Bible open beside me I will share it with you now.
(By the way
Jehovah God from the ground every tree pleasant to the sight and good for food; and the tree of life in the midst of the garden and the tree of knowledge of good and evil. (Gen 2:9)
A little ambiguous but seeming to indicate that both trees were in the midst of the garden. I have fired off an email to a friend who reads, writes and speaks Hebrew to check with him as to his thoughts on the matter. Anyways I thought it worth mentioning when you had said "I don’t know where it was." responding to GCT.
Eve did refer to it as in the middle (Strong's Lexicon # 8432) of the garden in Genesis 3:3 and since she lived there I expect she knew where it was. Eve did however, as you mentioned, add to God's command when she said nor shall you touch it .
Yes, I am aware of two creation stories and the theory of multiple authors for Genesis. I was simply expanding upon your reference to Satan's use of God instead of Lord God (Jehovah God).
Regarding the bread and wine I am not arguing ... just responding to a point you had brought up earlier in this discussion.
Peace.
oops - forgot to finish a thought I was interjecting during my proof reading.
(By the way ...
I usually quote from the King James Bible unless otherwise noted simply because unlike many modern translations the KJV is not copyrighted)
GCT says: "This saddens me. I don't think knowledge is evil. I think knowledge is good."
Taking into accout my correction and my further explanations of what I believe evil to be (or not be) do you still feel the same way?
GCT says: "doesn't god say that he creates evil? ... how can anything in this universe exist if god did not create it?
God knows evil and good and the difference between them and this is why when he created the world he could call his creation good . He did not create anything evil. He did provide the means by which man may know good and evil. Evil does not exist in the same way darkness does not exist. Evil is the absence (misperception) of good. You can say something is evil but in God's creation and reality everything was and is good and it is our sin (misperception of good) that makes it evil.
GCT says:"... free will ... "
God gave us free will. We used that free will and chose to disobey God's warning about knowing evil. It was as an informed choice as it could be considering we didn't know anything but life (which was good but we didn't know it).
GCT says: "Why should a gratuitous healing be beyond an infinite being, especially one that purports to love us so much?"
It isn't beyond God's ability but then what have we learned from our experience if it was entirely gratuitous. But it is almost gratuituous ... we are saved by grace alone through faith alone. There is nothing we can do in ourselves to heal and save ourselves. Only God's grace can do that. And the only way to receive that grace is through faith in Jesus Christ.
GCT says "Wouldn't a good parent not allow the child to drink the poison in the first place, ..."
God told them not to eat the fruit. He told them they would surely die. He had to allow them the choice to eat the fruit or not if they were to stop being simply children. Do you see the progression? When you are young your parents warn you about bad things but most kids have to find out for themselves. It's called growing up. And hopefull when a child is grown they know their good parents were right and avoind the bad things becasue they KNOW they are bad. Same situation with God. He wants us to freely choose to do the good things. And God has shown us the way. God became human and lived his life and sacrificed his human life to provide the example I spoke of earlier; death to our selfishness and rebirth into selflessness.
GCT says: I'm still not seeing what Jesus did for me."
What Jesus did for you is provide a way by which you can give your life purpose beyond any purpose by our own works. By believing and following Jesus we have faith and through that faith we receive God's grace and by God's grace we are saved.
Loving one another as he loved us.
Dying to ourself the way Jesus died to his self.
Putting aside our will and doing God's will.
another oops - let's try this one more time ...
And made spring Jehovah God from the ground every tree pleasant to the sight and good for food; and the tree of life in the midst of the garden and the tree of knowledge of good and evil.(literal Hebrew/English translation of Gen 2:9)
... reading right to left isn't easy.
"Evil is knowledge.
Should have read ...
Evil is knowledge of that which was not created."
That's a relief, athough I'm still wondering how anything can exist that god did not create?
"I don't know that they knew they were doing something wrong but it would be more accurate to say they knew they were doing something that God had warned them not to do. And, at the risk of repeating myself, I believe that this warning was not a test of man's obedience but a warning as from a loving God to his children to prevent them from doing something that would cause them real harm."
But if they didn't know it was wrong to disobey god, then why would they think that they shouldn't disobey god? I think the problem we have looking back at this story is that we come from a culture where we have evolved quite a useful set of morals and distinctions between good and evil. It is hard for us to imagine those who do not possess this. Perhaps you should think of the mentally handicapped. Would we put a mentally challenged individual to death for killing another if they didn't understand what they had done or why it was wrong (Texas notwithstanding)?
Also, again, wouldn't parents prevent their child from the chance of drinking the poison if they could?
"God wanted them to have free will. That is the conclusion. He does not punish them though. By removing them from the Garden and denying them access to the Tree of Life he is preventing their sin from being immortalized."
Hmmm, I think women would disagree with that if you asked them during childbirth whether they had been punished. If god's sole purpose was to heal them, he could have erased their memories and wouldn't have had to send them away. He's god, right? He has infinite power and infinite wisdom, he should have done differently if he truly only wanted to heal Adam and Eve.
"Taking into accout my correction and my further explanations of what I believe evil to be (or not be) do you still feel the same way?"
I'm not saddened by it and I thank you for the correction, although I question how evil could not have come from god.
"God knows evil and good and the difference between them and this is why when he created the world he could call his creation good . He did not create anything evil..."
I disagree. How would you translate the passage in Isaiah where god says that he creates evil? Isaiah 45:7 says:
"I form the light and create darkness,
I bring prosperity and create disaster;
I, the LORD, do all these things."
"God gave us free will. We used that free will and chose to disobey God's warning about knowing evil. It was as an informed choice as it could be considering we didn't know anything but life (which was good but we didn't know it)."
I guess the question is though, was it really an informed choice? If someone said to you, "Don't eat that fruit because if you do, you will gurtleglib," would you know whether it was OK to eat the fruit or not? You don't know what gurtleglib means, so you'd be stymied. Maybe it was a warning, maybe it was sarcastic and gurtleglib is a great thing to have happen, maybe it was because the person simply doesn't want you to have something great. Do you really have the info you need?
Also, I stll don't see why god had to allow them to eat the fruit (I won't go into why free will is an illusion unless you want me to) in order for them to have free will. It seems like god could create a world where they freely choose to do what they wish, without doing something that will cast them out of paradise.
"It isn't beyond God's ability but then what have we learned from our experience if it was entirely gratuitous."
Does god desire us to learn or to love him and be with him?
"But it is almost gratuituous ... we are saved by grace alone through faith alone. There is nothing we can do in ourselves to heal and save ourselves. Only God's grace can do that. And the only way to receive that grace is through faith in Jesus Christ."
This seems rather contradictory to me. If there is nothing we can do to heal and save ourselves, doesn't that include having faith in Jesus Christ? I ask because I don't know if you hold to the Calvinistic view of predestination, which seems the most consistent to me, but also is contradictory when believers blame the unsaved for being unsaved.
"God told them not to eat the fruit. He told them they would surely die. He had to allow them the choice to eat the fruit or not if they were to stop being simply children. Do you see the progression?"
I see where you are going, but I have to think that god would be able to plan better than that. He knew they would disobey, so he knew they weren't ready for the responsibility. Also, I would think a parent wouldn't simply make a mandate not to do something and never teach their child why one shouldn't do that. I'd hope that a parent wouldn't leave poison lying around for little kids who don't know any better thinking that a warning not to drink it would be sufficient. This is the reason we have child locks, because children don't understand right and wrong and will drink the poison out of curiosity, even if you tell them not to.
"When you are young your parents warn you about bad things but most kids have to find out for themselves. It's called growing up. And hopefull when a child is grown they know their good parents were right and avoind the bad things becasue they KNOW they are bad. Same situation with God. He wants us to freely choose to do the good things. And God has shown us the way. God became human and lived his life and sacrificed his human life to provide the example I spoke of earlier; death to our selfishness and rebirth into selflessness."
It seems like we are saying similar things here, but I'm seeing a disconnect. By your logic, I would think that god wanted them to eat of the fruit so that they could learn and become adults. Also, I don't see why he cast them out forever, instead of teaching them their lesson and moving on. Do parents typically cast their children out to the street for disobedience?
"What Jesus did for you is provide a way by which you can give your life purpose beyond any purpose by our own works. By believing and following Jesus we have faith and through that faith we receive God's grace and by God's grace we are saved."
I'm a little slow. This doesn't really seem to answer my question. How is it that Jesus dying allows these things? Why did Jesus have to suffer and die for me to believe that Jesus was the son of god and preached "the good word"? I'm still not seeing why the suffering and death was important.
Oh, and I almost forgot, you heretic! ;)
theden,
"Your understanding of Original Sin is different than mine."
I suspected as much. The original sin that I was taught meant that people are born in a state of sin, thus they need Jesus to save them.
"As descendants of Adam, we are born separated from God--in need of the Sanctifying Grace from Jesus Christ. Additionally, we inherit what is called "concupiscence" which means that our human nature is inclined to sin."
This seems close to my interpretation with some subtle differences, agreed?
"Through Jesus, we must be born again of water and Spirit per John 3. When we are reborn, we are washed away of the stains of Original Sin and we receive the Holiness that was lost by Adam."
When does one gain this stain, at conception or at birth? Also, why do we think this original sin is passed from generation to generation? In all fairness, shouldn't we each get a chance to choose our own path, to eat or not eat the fruit as it were?
"I covered my thoughts in the earlier comment to braverdave. "Right and Wrong" don't fully encompass "Good and Evil." Good and Evil is far grander than "Right and Wrong." Good is from God and Evil is the absence of good. Wrong is not the absence of right. Right and wrong are relative to your perspective whereas Good and Evil are from God's perspective."
I'm still having trouble with how you delineate the concepts. May I ask again if you have an example? I think that would be very instructive.
"Because what has been revealed to the Church has been sealed. The Apostolic Tradition stopped when the last Apostle died. Church teaching does not change. It matures, it is better understood but it does not change.
Let me put it this way. If my local priest...or the Pope tells me to kill my fellow man, I would tell them "No, because it violates Christ's teaching." If what they are saying goes against the core Church teaching then they are wrong."
It seems rather complicated, moreso than it was. god is the highest authority, so if he gives you an order, you should follow it, no? Shouldn't his orders supercede the church or his previous orders through what you interpret Jesus Christ to be saying in the Bible? I mean, what if he says that his new orders don't contradict his old orders? I realize this is highly hypothetical.
"Your answer can be found in Romans 2:14-16 which explains that the law is written in people's hearts and they will be judged by God accordingly by how they follow that law."
Is belief part of those rules or the practices of the church? For someone on a dessert island, they obviously won't go to church. Perhaps you are proposing an idea whereby people can be good and saved separately from the church?
"Yes as that is free will."
So, how much knowledge do we need or should god grant us to give us that free choice? For my part, I don't think that I'm choosing "not god" because if I had evidence for god I would believe in him. I would think that god knows what I need to see/hear/feel/etc. to believe in him, but does not do so.
"Because in the Old Testament, blood is used for the atonement of sins by the priest as he enters the Holy of Holies. Jesus uses His own blood to atone for our sins."
But, why was it necessary in the OT? I hate to nitpick, but you've only moved the problem back one level without answering my question. I still don't understand why blood is necessary.
"No, that's not right. They were sacrificing because they loved God and worshiped Him. God sacrifices Himself because He loves us."
OK, that does make more sense, but C and A were sacrificing to god. Jesus was a sacrifice by god to himself so that he could forgive us. I see a distinction there.
"The Hebrews used blood for their atonement. They sacrificed a lamb and ate its flesh so that they would escape death during Passover. Abraham was asked to sacrifice his beloved son out of love for God.
God used His blood for our atonement. He sacrificed the Lamb of God and we eat His flesh to escape death and like Abraham, He sacrificed His beloved Son out of love for us.
The ancient Hebrews got it because everything Christ did was found in the Old Testament."
I've sort of asked the questions about blood and god self-sacrificing already, so I won't belabor those points. I just wanted you to know that I did read the whole comment.
Braverdave,
I think we're more in agreement now than disagreement.
Peace!
GCT,
Regarding Original Sin, if you're definition is similar to mine then no need to belabor this point.
Life begins at conception, therefore, original sin starts at conception. Without the original sin. Without the deprivation of holiness, there would be no need for a Savior.
Right/Wrong vs. Good/Evil. We could argue for days whether it was right or wrong to drop the atomic bomb on the Japanese. We could present data showing how many lives it saved and how it ended the war. Or we could talk about how wrong it was because it was savage warfare.
Was it good? Was the death of hundreds of thousands good? Was the suffering that followed good? No. That was not good. Was it justified? Maybe. Was it right? Maybe. Was it good? no.
"god is the highest authority, so if he gives you an order, you should follow it, no?"
If through prayer and discernment, I determine God's will for me and it conforms to the teachings of the Church, then yes. I act on His command. However, if it conflicts with Church teachings then no, as it is not conforming to Church teachings and therefore must not be from God.
"Is belief part of those rules or the practices of the church? For someone on a dessert island, they obviously won't go to church. Perhaps you are proposing an idea whereby people can be good and saved separately from the church?"
Alright, this is extremely complicated but here goes:
1. Belief and Baptism are necessary for Salvation
(Note: Not Belief then Baptism but belief and Baptism.)
If a person is not Baptized with water (as per Christ's command) then a Baptism of Desire is possible which means that the person would have been baptized if the person would have had the opportunity (such as the thief on the cross) or would have understood their consequences of not being baptized.
2. Salvation can only be found in the Church (i.e. the Catholic Church).
In order to be saved, one must be united to Christ's body (per Scripture). Christ's body is the Church (per Scripture)--specifically the Catholic Church. As a Catholic, I believe that the Church that Jesus Christ instituted is the Catholic one. Therefore, all Salvation is through her as she is the mystical Body of Christ. All other Churches and all other denominations can trace their origins from the Catholic Church.
Does that mean that if you're not Catholic, you're not saved? No! Actually, being Catholic is definitely not a guarantee of salvation.
The Catholic Church views all Christians as Catholic (whether they like it or not) but only as "separated brethren."
If they're saved, they're saved through the Body of Christ which is the Church.
3. If a person on a deserted island died without knowing of Catholicism or Christ, can that person be saved?
Yes! Per Romans 2:14-16, a person who does not know Christ but follows the law"as written in their hearts" can be saved. They will be judged by God through Jesus Christ.
The Church teaches that all men have the opportunity of being saved and they don't condemn anyone--alive or dead--to Hell. For all people and all sinners, Christian and non-Christian alike, there is the hope that at the moment before their death, Jesus could have appeared before them and asked them to repent of their sins and turn to Him. Is it possible? Yes and the Church holds out hope that that does happen.
In regards to Salvation, I don't focus on any one's but my own. Am I worthy enough to enter through the narrow gate? I don't know. I'm not worried about it. What I do worry about is loving God with all of my heart all of my mind and all of my strength and to love my neighbor as my self. That love is shown (per Scripture) through obedience to Christ. I'll let Him worry about my Salvation. I'll just stay focused on loving Him.
Honestly, GCT, I can answer all the rest of your questions but it's getting late and I've left you enough to chew on. Also, I'm strongly getting the idea that you're only doing this to try to confuse me or cast doubt in to my belief system.
And that's just not going to happen.
(a note on form ... I won't be repeating your paragraphs this time around. I will respond and introduce each new response with "Next". Hopefully the introductory sentence reminds you of your original query but if it's too hard to follow I would suggest copying and pasting, either my response or your queries, onto a wordpad {or similar} document for temporary use to display next to the other {ie. side by side} for the full context. [I hope this works okay for you.])
GCT, I know it's difficult to understand. I am explaining what I believe as best I can and I don't mind repeating myself because as I say the same thing in a different way maybe the lightbulb will suddenly come on.
Good exists.
Adam and Eve were created good and everything in the rest of creation was good. They could not know anything evil because evil did not exist because everything was good. They knew good but did not know it as good because to them it simply was life. Good was not a relative thing. Good was an absolute thing.
Good is what is.
When they ate the forbidden fruit they were able to perceive evil. Or rather they misperceived what was good and perceived it as evil. They had always known they were naked and it was good but now they perceived their nakedness as evil (this is the sin and evrey thought and action like this). They knew evil and knew it as a relative thing to good.
Evil is what is not.
Knowledge of good and evil. Knowledge of what is and what is not. Remember that every thing that was created was good and no thing was created which was evil.
Evil does not exist.
How's that for heresy? But I believe it to be true. Evil does not exist in the same way that good exists because evil is a misperception of that which is good.
Whew ... that's enough of those particular mental and spiritual exercises for tonight. Next!
Adam and Eve knew that God had warned them not to eat the fruit because if they did they would die. To me that is as good a reason to obey as any but I know what you are saying when you say looking back at this story is problematic. It is. We know good and evil. We can look back with perfect hindsight and say "I wish I hadn't done that." and I am sure Adam and Eve wished the same. A comparison to the mentally handicapped is helpful in understanding the mindset of the innocence that Adam and Eve possesed. But when you mention punishment you are forgetting that I do not believe that being removed from the Garden of Eden (and it's perk of direct and personal fellowship with God) was punishment. Man was removed from the Garden ( sent to Texas so to speak) so that they would not be able to eat from the Tree of Life and make their new sinful nature a permanent one (eternally speaking).
Next ...
The poison analogy bugs you, eh? Yes, parents will try to prevent their children from drinking poison but they can't hold their hands every moment forever if that child is to become an adult.
Next ...
God's purpose is to heal us but in a way he wants us to heal ourselves. Or more accurately God wants to help us heal ourselves. If he had just waved his hand and healed us and erased our memory of evil what's to say we wouldn't have eaten the forbidden fruit again since the fruit had to be there in order for man to be free.
God does have infinite power and infinite wisdom and I trust in God (and all others pay cash).
Next ... it's fine to question how evil could not have come from God. I questioned too and after enough questions and answers I know that God created everything good and created nothing that was not good.
I form the light, and create darkness: I make peace, and create evil: I the LORD do all these things.
Isaiah 45:7 (KJV)
Hmmm ... that's a tough one at first glance but after some research and thought becomes clear. The Hebrew word translated as "evil" in that verse is ...
Strong's Lexicon 7451 ra` rah from 7489; bad or (as noun) evil (natural or moral):-- adversity, affliction, bad, calamity, + displease(-ure), distress, evil((- favouredness), man, thing), + exceedingly, X great, grief(-vous), harm, heavy, hurt(-ful), ill (favoured), + mark, mischief(-vous), misery, naught(-ty), noisome, + not please, sad(-ly), sore, sorrow, trouble, vex, wicked(-ly, -ness, one), worse(-st), wretchedness, wrong. (Incl. feminine raaah; as adjective or noun.).
... and is not ever translated as sin. God created evil only in the sense that he made sorrow, wretchedness and misery to be the fruits of sin.
For comparison consider ...
Shall a trumpet be blown in the city, and the people not be afraid? shall there be evil in a city, and the LORD hath not done it?
Amos 3:6 (KJV)
... with ...
Is a trumpet blown in a city, And do people not tremble? Is there affliction in a city, And Jehovah hath not done [it]?
Amos 3:6 (literal Hebrew/English)
See? We are talking about translations of words that have different possible meanings or connotations in each language. One translator chooses one word and the next chooses another. But looking at the variety of connotations of a word (in each language) helps us to better understand the meaning and then comparing that same word to other instances of it's use provides comparative context.
Next ... is any choice really an informed choice until you experience that choice? For example; you might inform yourself about altering your consciousness with an entheogen (that's what us kids are calling it today) but you won't know what the experience is really like until you take the trip.
Next ... ah yes. Free will. It's a doozy ain't it. I understand why some people believe free will is an illusion but I believe thay are suffering from a delusion. Free will does exist (and I won't go into it unless you want me too).
Next ... God wants love. Learn it and live it. When we love God and our fellow beings we are doing God's will.
Ye have heard that it hath been said, Thou shalt love thy neighbour, and hate thine enemy. But I say unto you, Love your enemies, bless them that curse you, do good to them that hate you, and pray for them which despitefully use you, and persecute you; That ye may be the children of your Father which is in heaven: for he maketh his sun to rise on the evil and on the good, and sendeth rain on the just and on the unjust. For if ye love them which love you, what reward have ye? do not even the publicans the same? And if ye salute your brethren only, what do ye more than others? do not even the publicans so? Be ye therefore perfect, even as your Father which is in heaven is perfect.
Matthew 5:43-48
Next ... oh oh! Predestination - another doozy. I do not believe in predestination. I can see why some people would. Please let's not get into this one unless we have to as it leaves me chasing my proverbial tail in a circular paradox. But I will explain "by grace alone through faith alone" as I understand it and would add "because of Christ alone. Actually I won't explain it in my own words but provide this excerpt from an article on Sola Fide (Latin for "faith alone")
Sola fide asserts that, although all people have disobeyed God's commands, God declares those people obedient who place their confidence, their faith, in what God has done through the life, death and resurrection of Jesus. They account Christ's obedience as their own, and the only meritorious, obedience. Their assurance is that God's work in Christ is their commendation for acceptance by God. Conversely, the doctrine says that those who trust God in this way do not trust what they themselves have done (which has no worth, because of sin).
The doctrine, though never defined explicitly in the scriptural texts, holds that it is not through personal goodness that sinners are reconciled to God. Reconciliation is only through the mercy of God himself, made effectual for forgiveness through the sacrifice of his son; thus it is only through the obedience of Christ given as a substitute for the disobedience of believers, who for their sake was raised from the dead, that they have confidence that they are in fact heirs of eternal life.
{-- excerpted from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sola_fide}
(the whole article is a good read especially since there are scriptures used to support and oppose "faith alone" - another paradox - sigh)
Next ... I am glad that you can see where I am going because sometimes I don't. But then the best laid plans ... et cetera. I do however trust God's plan. He is teaching me the why every day. And again we come around to what I mentioned earlier about not knowing what it really means until you have experienced it yourself. Life is a trip.
Next ... I don't believe that God wanted them to eat the fruit but knew that if they were to be free the option had to be available. If they did eat the fruit God was determined that they would learn a lesson from it. God did not cast them out forever, God is teaching us a lesson by Christ's example and providing the means by which we may "move on".
Next ... I am a little slow too. What was the question? Oh yeah ... what did Jesus do for you? Jesus dying provides us a direct route to salvation as opposed to the roundabout route previously available. If you are familiar with the story of the crucifixion you will remember that when Jesus died the veil in the Temple was torn in two - now man had access through the blood of Christ directly into the presence of God. No more priest sor sacrifices or rituals are necessary. Jesus was and is the High Priest and the sacrifice, once for all and forever. Amen.
Next ... awww! Well it doesn't bother me too much, I am in good company.
Pilate then went out unto them, and said, What accusation bring ye against this man? They answered and said unto him, If he were not a malefactor [heretic], we would not have delivered him up unto thee.
John 18:29-30 KJV [except as revised by Braverdave]
Theden, that's good!
It's late here and even if we disagreed I would have to put further discussion off until tomorrow.
I need to get some sleep tonight or tomorrow I might pound my thumb along with the nails (today I smashed a finger).
And my bloody hands are not stigmata ;)
Jumping way back...
"Why does god need glorifying? Why did he create us with that reason in mind? How can we mere humans glorify an infinite being? Why does god not already possess infinite levels of glory?"
God doesn't need anything from us. But it does please Him to reveal His glory. Imagine if someone entered the room who was perfectly beautiful in every way (inside and out). People would be right to stare. God is like millions times better than that.
God reveals many of His attributes by Himself, in the Trinity (love, omni-everything). But some attributes require a third party - mercy, grace, long-suffering patience, wrath, justice.
He created us, knowing we would sin, knowing some would go to Hell, so that His attributes can be revealed to everyone.
If this disturbs you, it should!
We must try to minimize the number of those that go to Hell. If you want to do something, keep yourself out of the hellfire; then go and save others!
"And others save with fear, pulling [them] out of the fire" (Jude 1:23a)
theden,
"Right/Wrong vs. Good/Evil...."
Ah, but how do we decide what is right or wrong? Don't we do that on making a distinction between what does the most or at least more good than the alternatives? So, perhaps I should have stated that good/evil isn't equal to right/wrong, but you can't have a conception of what is right and wrong without having a concept of good and evil.
"If through prayer and discernment, I determine God's will for me and it conforms to the teachings of the Church, then yes. I act on His command. However, if it conflicts with Church teachings then no, as it is not conforming to Church teachings and therefore must not be from God."
This creates quite a conundrum, no? I think what you are expressing, although you will probably disagree, is that you know what is right and wrong or good and evil. If god tells you to do something that is wrong, then you will find a reason not to do it, even though god's commands shape your church doctrine. IOW, good and evil are absolutes that are not determined by god, but that exist independently from god.
"The Church teaches that all men have the opportunity of being saved and they don't condemn anyone--alive or dead--to Hell."
Per the rules you put down, this seems to contradict some, unless they are not mutually exclusive? Anyway, "they" don't condemn anyone? Who is "they" in this instance?
"What I do worry about is loving God with all of my heart all of my mind and all of my strength and to love my neighbor as my self. That love is shown (per Scripture) through obedience to Christ. I'll let Him worry about my Salvation. I'll just stay focused on loving Him."
It's a worthy thing to love your fellow human beings, but is obedience to Christ really the best way to do that? Going to church doesn't seem as helpful to others as volunteer service or donations, for instance.
"Honestly, GCT, I can answer all the rest of your questions but it's getting late and I've left you enough to chew on. Also, I'm strongly getting the idea that you're only doing this to try to confuse me or cast doubt in to my belief system.
And that's just not going to happen."
I'm glad to know that you are open to other points of view ;)
I'm not trying to confuse you or cast doubt. Well, maybe the second one, but not because of some nefarious plot. I simply see lots of holes that don't ever seem to be answered, inconsistencies that don't make sense, and a theology that I honestly think is unhealthy in the way that it treats its adherents and people in general. I honestly think that claiming that all people need to be saved because we are inherently tainted and/or evil is rather hateful. I also fail to see the judgements and actions of the Christian god as anything approaching love, goodness, justice, etc. Perhaps if my questions were answered, I might have a more charitable view of Yahweh, but so far that has not happened.
braverdave,
I don't doubt that good exists, nor do I dispute that Adam and Eve had no conception of good and evil before eating the fruit. We agree on that. What I contend is that god should not have punished them for doing something wrong when they didn't even know what wrong meant.
"Knowledge of good and evil. Knowledge of what is and what is not. Remember that every thing that was created was good and no thing was created which was evil."
Were not the actions of the serpent evil? Did not god create the world knowing it would be tainted with evil? Did god not create the knowledge of evil, or at least a fruit that would cause humans to become evil? Also, what about the quote in Isaiah where god says that he creates evil?
"How's that for heresy? But I believe it to be true. Evil does not exist in the same way that good exists because evil is a misperception of that which is good."
Is murder not evil? Is slavery not evil? Those are just two examples. We could even say that natural disasters are evil.
"Adam and Eve knew that God had warned them not to eat the fruit because if they did they would die."
They didn't know what the word "die" meant.
"But when you mention punishment you are forgetting that I do not believe that being removed from the Garden of Eden (and it's perk of direct and personal fellowship with God) was punishment. Man was removed from the Garden ( sent to Texas so to speak) so that they would not be able to eat from the Tree of Life and make their new sinful nature a permanent one (eternally speaking)."
Texas...nice one.
Did god not make childbirth painful for women? Did god not make our lives hard and short? I see what you are saying that he didn't want the disease to spread, but then why did he make the original sin pass from generation to generation?
"The poison analogy bugs you, eh? Yes, parents will try to prevent their children from drinking poison but they can't hold their hands every moment forever if that child is to become an adult."
Ah, but the child doesn't have to actually drink the poison to become an adult. I wouldn't expect a parent to simply leave poison lying around for a two year old to drink and simply saying, "Well, I can't hold the kid's hand all the time if he's going to become an adult."
"God's purpose is to heal us but in a way he wants us to heal ourselves. Or more accurately God wants to help us heal ourselves. If he had just waved his hand and healed us and erased our memory of evil what's to say we wouldn't have eaten the forbidden fruit again since the fruit had to be there in order for man to be free."
I disagree that man can't be free without the forbidden fruit right there. This goes against the idea that god is omnipotent. Also, knowledge does not have to be a bad thing.
"God does have infinite power and infinite wisdom and I trust in God (and all others pay cash)."
Pay cash with the words, "In God We Trust" on it you mean. This is highly problematic. Anyway, an omni-max god presents some interesting problems.
"Next ... it's fine to question how evil could not have come from God. I questioned too and after enough questions and answers I know that God created everything good and created nothing that was not good."
You'll pardon me if I don't accept this rationale I hope.
"Hmmm ... that's a tough one at first glance but after some research and thought becomes clear. The Hebrew word translated as "evil" in that verse is ..."
god still creats evil, even if in response to sin.
"Next ... is any choice really an informed choice until you experience that choice?"
Yes. I don't have to kill someone to know that I shouldn't do it.
"Next ... ah yes. Free will. It's a doozy ain't it. I understand why some people believe free will is an illusion but I believe thay are suffering from a delusion. Free will does exist (and I won't go into it unless you want me too)."
Free will is an illusion if you hold to an omni-max god. If I have true free will, then I can choose something that god has not foreseen, therefore god is not omniscient. If I can not go against god's plan, then I don't have free will. When god set up the universe, he knew all that would happen before he even started the events in motion, else he is not omniscient. This creates a deterministic system, whereby it is all set in stone, thus negating free will. If I have the free will to make a choice, then the universe is not determined and god did not have the foreknowledge at the beginning that an omni-max god would have.
"Next ... God wants love. Learn it and live it. When we love God and our fellow beings we are doing God's will."
Then he has a funny way of showing it. Should we love absentee parents that don't appear in our lives, except in arcane ways that could be explained by other factors? Should we love an entity that threatens to cast us into hell for not loving it? Should we love a being that condemns us to hell unless he decides to save us for some unknown reason? Should we love an entity that has admitted to mass murder? It is questions like this that make it hard to believe that god has any idea what love is.
"Next ... oh oh! Predestination - another doozy. I do not believe in predestination. I can see why some people would. Please let's not get into this one unless we have to as it leaves me chasing my proverbial tail in a circular paradox."
That's fine, although it makes the most sense to me. An omni-max god would create a determined universe, so predetermination is the only thing that makes sense to me. I know the blog owner believes in it, so if you ever want to talk about it, you can converse with him.
"Next ... I am a little slow too. What was the question? Oh yeah ... what did Jesus do for you? Jesus dying provides us a direct route to salvation as opposed to the roundabout route previously available."
Alas, I don't think this answers my question. How does Jesus's blood do anything? How does killing Jesus open up routes to salvation? Why was his death necessary? Why does killing a supposedly innocent man somehow absolve me of crimes that I don't think I've committed? It's very puzzling.
"Next ... awww! Well it doesn't bother me too much, I am in good company."
Yes, there have been many heretics throughout time that would put you in good company. Ghandi comes to mind, as does Einstein, Darwin, Paine, Jefferson, Madison, Voltaire, etc.
nedbrek,
"God doesn't need anything from us. But it does please Him to reveal His glory. Imagine if someone entered the room who was perfectly beautiful in every way (inside and out). People would be right to stare. God is like millions times better than that."
Do you realize how petty this sounds? That god would create us because he likes to glorify himself?
"He created us, knowing we would sin, knowing some would go to Hell, so that His attributes can be revealed to everyone."
Again, this is not justice. Sending just one person to hell demonstrates injustice at an infinite level. Humans are finite beings and are thus incapable of infinite harm to god (or any harm really) so god sending a person to hell infinitely for finite crimes is infinitely unjust.
"We must try to minimize the number of those that go to Hell. If you want to do something, keep yourself out of the hellfire; then go and save others!"
How do you know how to keep others from going to hell? How does my trying to keep others out of hell keep me out of hell?
GCT,
Right/Wrong is from a self interested perspective. It's right if it benefits me and it's wrong if it does not benefit me--or my argument. You think I'm wrong as you don't agree with me. It's subjective and has nothing to do with good/evil. You're not being able to distinguish between good/evil and right/wrong is pretty surprising for a man of your intellect.
"This creates quite a conundrum, no?..."
No it really doesn't. It's saying that I have enough trust in the Church to go with her judgement. That I don't have to trust my instinct and I'm very happy with that.
"they" don't condemn anyone? Who is "they" in this instance?
They is the Church. What I'm saying is the Catholic Church doesn't look at a person--alive or dead--and say "Oh! They're damned to Hell!" That's because the Church understands that they honestly don't know who is damned to Hell as only God knows. I think it's interesting that some Protestants can look at a person and say, "I know they're saved" or "All Romanists are going to Hell!" or "I don't think Mother Teresa is saved! How does one know? How can someone make that judgement unless they're God? I'm not expecting you to answer that. Just my thoughts.
"is obedience to Christ really the best way to do that?"
Obedience to Christ is the only way to do that. Christ demands that we be obedient to Him. If we are to be saved, it's through obedience to Christ's commandments. Contrary to popular belief, it's not Sola Fide and it says that about a thousand times in Scripture.
"I simply see lots of holes that don't ever seem to be answered, inconsistencies that don't make sense"
And I'm trying to answer your questions but it appears to be you who isn't open to other people's opinions.
I've already given Atheism a chance. I've looked into Protestant beliefs. I've studied Calvinism and Arminianism. The Catholic understanding of Scripture, Salvation and God is the only one that is consistent and makes sense to me.
Oh and if forgot to respond to this item back a few comments ago in GCT's response to Theden ...
" ... if I had evidence for god I would believe in him."
But faith is a belief that doesn't require proof.
On to the latest set of questions/comments ...
GCT, we keep going round and round on this point; God did not punish Adam and Eve. I guess we will have to disagree but rest assured that I won't excommunicate or kill you ;)
And so many questions ...
Yes, the actions of the serpent were evil.
God created the world knowing it could and possibly would be tainted with evil.
God knew of evil but did not create it but He did create the fruit that would allow man to know evil.
I explained my understanding of the Isaiah passage in my response on October 30, 2007 11:35 PM.
Yes, murder is not good and thus evil. Natural disasters are just that; natural disasters resulting from the natural laws of the universe.
Where is the scriptural evidence to suggest Adam and Eve din't know what the word "die" meant?
You started the Texas bashing so I thought I would follow suit. My apologies and sympathies to Texans.
Next ... Yes, God made childbirth painful for women and our lives solitary, poor, nasty, brutish and short (-- Thomas Hobbes). But these sorrows are not God's punishment despite seeming to be punishment. Remember that Adam's disobedience was the indirect sin which led to the direct sin which is knowledge of good and evil. Remember the poison analogy? God is the parent, man is the child, fruit is the poison. The parent says "Don't touch the stuff under the sink." The child disobeys, drinks some poison and becomes ill. The parent says "You disobeyed and now we have to go to the emergency room". The disobedience led to the illness but the disobedience did not make him ill ... the poison did. When the parent told the child to not drink the poison this was a selfless command in which the parent is protecting the interests of the child. The child gets hurt by the poison, not the parent (although the parent necessarily feels anguish seeing their child suffer). Keep these parental motives in mind and apply them to the story of the Garden of Eden and then look at the so called "punishment". There are two types of punishment; the first type seeks vindictive retribution for harm experienced by the punisher, the second type delivers a lesser hurt in order to prevent a greater hurt. Which type of "punishment" did God give to Adam and Eve? Does it still seem like God was punishing them? Or was he protecting them from greater harm? God didn't prevent the spread of the disease because it did pass from generation to generation. But he did prevent it's immortalization by removing man from the Garden to prevent access to the Tree if Life by which they would have lived forever with the sin.
Next ... You are misunderstanding or misrepresenting the poison analogy. Adam and Eve were not 2 year olds. They had faculties of reason and logic, knew the consequences as much as they could be known without experiencing it and made the choice (with some temptation and deceit from the serpent) to disobey God and eat the fruit. Maybe in the poison analogy we should have the evil neighbour babysitting the kids and tempting them to try out the poison under the sink because their parents just want it all for themselves.
Next ... You disagree that the fruit had to be there in order for man to be free. Fine, but please explain how and why you think that the fruit being there goes against the idea that God is omnipotent. Knowledge of evil does have to be a bad thing because it allows for the possibilty of people acting upon that knowledge and doing evil.
Next ... I am a Canadian. Our money doesn't have "In God We Trust" on it. You will have to explain what you mean by omni-max. If you mean omniscience, omnipotence and omnipresence then I do understand your reference and while I can understand why some people might question the state of the world considering God's ability to make it better I do believe that God has a plan to make it better but it might not be happening quickly enough to satisfy some.
Next ... of course you are pardoned. Forgive us our tresspasses as we forgive those who tresspass against us.
Next ... okay now I know you did read my explanation of the Isaiah quote but either didn't understand it or disagree with it.
Next ... yes but remember, as you previously pointed out ... we have knowledge of good and evil whereas Adam and Eve did not.
Next ... free will. I will be who I will to be. I am aware of the arguments for (have you considered these?) and against free will and omniscience and have been through them too many times to go through the motions again except to say this ...
We should live as if we do have free will, even if it is an illusion. If not we are sock puppets and not responsible for what we do. We must treat each other as if we do have free will. If everyone is a " no free will puppet " why bother talking at all? It leads to despair.
and this ...
I don't know what God knows but I can suppose that God has free will and can choose to know some things and not others and thus allow us free will without determinism.
There are other arguments that allow free will and God's omniscience to exist together but I can't remember them (other than my favorite noted above) off the top of my head and although a search engine could dredge them up for me I would rather not go into it. Been there and done that too many times.
Next ... God doesn't feel like an absentee parent to me and the arcane ways you speak of could be explained by God. I don't believe in the commonly understood definition of hell but do believe in non-existence as the final disposition for those who do not recieve eternal life. Which mass murder are you speaking of? (I want to be sure which one you are talking about before I provide my response.)
Next ... Predestination doesn't make sense to me because it negates free will. Again it's another topic I have been over too many times to get excited about. I have made up my mind but it's not too important to me if I am right or wrong on the matter.
Next ... alas, I think it does answer your question. The sola fide excerpt I quoted answers your further questions about the how and why. Everyone of us (excepting Jesus) have committed "crimes" of one sort or another. I know I have ... I was angry just this morning.
Next ... Heretics to left of us and rebels to the right (and slow drivers in the passing lane).
Theden, I noticed you couldn't resist the dig at "faith alone". That's okay. If either (or both) of us have it wrong I am confident that God will forgive us.
Faith and salvation was the subject of another Bible study I did a few months ago with a couple other online friends and one of them had linked to an essay that was interesting and after some searching I found it again.
Catholic and Protestant "Similarities"
on Faith, Faith Alone, Salvation...
If the hyperlink works you should be able to click on the title above and go right to the essay.
Re. God is petty:
It would be petty for a finite, fallible being. But God is infinite and good.
Re. Hell is not just:
God is the one offended by sin, He determines the consequences. As we discussed in http://nedsfaith.blogspot.com/2007/07/doctrine-of-hell.html
Anything but eternal punishment would be unjust.
Re. Salvation:
Anyone who is remorseful to God, repents from their sins, and trusts in Jesus Christ for salvation is saved. That's what the Bible says. If you think you've done that, examine yourself: are you living in sin? Do you hunger for God's Word? Do you desire fellowship with other Christians? Are you concerned for the lost?
theden,
"Right/Wrong is from a self interested perspective. It's right if it benefits me and it's wrong if it does not benefit me--or my argument."
If that is your definition then I understand why we disagree. That is not my definition, nor is it the commonly accepted definition.
"You think I'm wrong as you don't agree with me. It's subjective and has nothing to do with good/evil. You're not being able to distinguish between good/evil and right/wrong is pretty surprising for a man of your intellect."
Using this defintion of right vs. wrong is using one that is devoid of moral distinction. In this sense, I would not say that Adam and Eve were wrong to eat of the fruit, nor should you according to your own definition. You should instead say that Adam and Eve committed evil by eating the fruit, which is not beneficial to your argument. In fact, it is contrary to your argument. In short, I feel that you are equivocating on the words right and wrong. I think it was pretty obvious that we were speaking of right and wrong in a moral sense, not in a sense of being wrong by saying that 2 and 2 are 5.
"No it really doesn't. It's saying that I have enough trust in the Church to go with her judgement. That I don't have to trust my instinct and I'm very happy with that."
You have enough trust that your church has it right even if god comes to you and tells you point blank that they don't have it right?
"They is the Church. What I'm saying is the Catholic Church doesn't look at a person--alive or dead--and say "Oh! They're damned to Hell!""
Perhaps not anymore. This has not always been the case. If it is true, however, then it is indeed a step in the right direction. I happen to agree with you that it is foolish to state that you "know" one is saved or not. This is especially so since you can't "know" that your faith is correct at all.
"Obedience to Christ is the only way to do that. Christ demands that we be obedient to Him. If we are to be saved, it's through obedience to Christ's commandments."
Sorry, I was asking whether obedience to Christ was really the best way to show love toward one's neighbor. I do agree that obedience is the best way to attain salvation (unless predestination is true). god makes it a point to state this over and over again in both testaments.
"And I'm trying to answer your questions but it appears to be you who isn't open to other people's opinions."
We will have to disagree on this score. I'm not closed to your opinions, I simply don't see you addressing my questions. It's fine for you to express opinions. But, if I ask about X and you tell me about Y, it doesn't go far towards swaying me to what you are saying.
"I've already given Atheism a chance. I've looked into Protestant beliefs. I've studied Calvinism and Arminianism. The Catholic understanding of Scripture, Salvation and God is the only one that is consistent and makes sense to me."
OK, but I obviously don't agree. I find no theistic faith to be consistent (shrug).
braverdave,
Well, you sure are wordy. Of course, so am I, so we should get along splendidly.
"But faith is a belief that doesn't require proof."
Actually, faith is a belief in the absence of proof.
"GCT, we keep going round and round on this point; God did not punish Adam and Eve. I guess we will have to disagree but rest assured that I won't excommunicate or kill you ;)"
Then why did he make childbirth painful? Why did he decide that they should have to toil from then on? At least I won't be killed for being heretical; that's a relief.
"Yes, the actions of the serpent were evil."
Did not god create the serpent knowing it would do evil? That god allowed this evil to go on makes god complicit at least.
"God created the world knowing it could and possibly would be tainted with evil."
Isn't god omniscient? If so, then he would have known that it would be evil, not suspected that it could or would be.
"God knew of evil but did not create it but He did create the fruit that would allow man to know evil."
Of course he created it. He created the universe and everything in it. To say that god did not create evil is to say that god is not the sole author of the universe; that god is not the supreme ruler of the universe.
"I explained my understanding of the Isaiah passage in my response on October 30, 2007 11:35 PM."
OK, but I disagree with it. The use of the word "ra" is synonymous with evil in its other uses in the Bible.
"Yes, murder is not good and thus evil. Natural disasters are just that; natural disasters resulting from the natural laws of the universe."
Then evil does exist, not just good that is misinterpreted? Also, does god not control the weather? That god sends hurricanes to level cities speaks to the evil of god.
"Where is the scriptural evidence to suggest Adam and Eve din't know what the word "die" meant?"
If there was no death in Eden, then they would not have a concept of it. Perhaps god taught them about the concept sufficiently for them to understand, but I don't think it's crucial to the argument.
"You started the Texas bashing so I thought I would follow suit. My apologies and sympathies to Texans."
I did? Oh yeah, I forgot about that. Oh well, good on ya anyway. Anyone who makes fun of Texas can't be all bad.
"Yes, God made childbirth painful for women and our lives solitary, poor, nasty, brutish and short (-- Thomas Hobbes). But these sorrows are not God's punishment despite seeming to be punishment...The disobedience led to the illness but the disobedience did not make him ill ... the poison did...Keep these parental motives in mind and apply them to the story of the Garden of Eden and then look at the so called "punishment". There are two types of punishment; the first type seeks vindictive retribution for harm experienced by the punisher, the second type delivers a lesser hurt in order to prevent a greater hurt. Which type of "punishment" did God give to Adam and Eve? Does it still seem like God was punishing them? Or was he protecting them from greater harm? God didn't prevent the spread of the disease because it did pass from generation to generation. But he did prevent it's immortalization by removing man from the Garden to prevent access to the Tree if Life by which they would have lived forever with the sin."
Wait, so the unrelated act of painful childbirth was a loving punishment that god inflicted on women for what purpose? That god decided that the misuse of knowledge was bad would be fine, that he wouldn't simply correct that misuse and instead cast out his children is ruthless and monstrous. Any parent would take their child to the emergency room and do all they could to remove the poison, whereas god simply uses retributive means (yes, they are retributive because they serve no other means) and doesn't heal the sickness. Your analogy is continually breaking down.
"You are misunderstanding or misrepresenting the poison analogy. Adam and Eve were not 2 year olds...."
In terms of their moral development, they were. They had the moral faculties of a newborn, with no knowledge of good and evil until after they ate the fruit. Suddenly, they went from neonatal conceptions to adult conceptions, a shock that would be difficult for anyone, and god gets angry instead of being understanding and concerned. Further, do you think it helps your argument to have the evil next door neighbor pushing them? It's especially true since god should have known that the evil next door neighbor would tempt them and put him in charge anyway. It's like if god had gotten a registered sex offender to be the babysitter.
"You disagree that the fruit had to be there in order for man to be free. Fine, but please explain how and why you think that the fruit being there goes against the idea that God is omnipotent. Knowledge of evil does have to be a bad thing because it allows for the possibilty of people acting upon that knowledge and doing evil."
I'm not arguing that the presence of the fruit means god isn't omniscient. I'm saying that an omniscient god means that we can't have free will. The two ideas are logically incoherent. As to knowledge of evil, it could provide a basis for what not to do. It is not the possibility of evil that is evil, but the actualization of evil.
"I am a Canadian. Our money doesn't have "In God We Trust" on it. You will have to explain what you mean by omni-max. If you mean omniscience, omnipotence and omnipresence then I do understand your reference and while I can understand why some people might question the state of the world considering God's ability to make it better I do believe that God has a plan to make it better but it might not be happening quickly enough to satisfy some."
Ah, Canada. I have fond memories of your country. I've been there quite a few times (I grew up near the border).
Omni-max means what you think it does, plus omni-benevolent. It is simply an incompatible state of affairs that suffering would exist with a being that supposedly abhors evil and has the power to stamp it out.
"yes but remember, as you previously pointed out ... we have knowledge of good and evil whereas Adam and Eve did not."
This actually works against you the more I think about it. Adam and Eve had to experience evil to understand it, so they couldn't have possibly known that eating the fruit was evil. Therefore, they are blameless and god is capricious and cruel.
"We should live as if we do have free will, even if it is an illusion. If not we are sock puppets and not responsible for what we do. We must treat each other as if we do have free will. If everyone is a " no free will puppet " why bother talking at all? It leads to despair."
I agree completely. We should live as if we do have free will, because it's free as far as we will ever be able to tell (most likely). The point is that if god does exist, then we are truly not free and god is capricious and cruel to torture us for our non-free actions.
"I don't know what God knows but I can suppose that God has free will and can choose to know some things and not others and thus allow us free will without determinism."
Interesting thought, can god truly have free will? I think free will and omniscience are irreconcilable. If god knows all that he will do before he does it (omniscience) does he have the option to choose something else (free will)? If no, then he's not free. If yes, then he's not omniscient.
"There are other arguments that allow free will and God's omniscience to exist together but I can't remember them (other than my favorite noted above) off the top of my head and although a search engine could dredge them up for me I would rather not go into it. Been there and done that too many times."
They mostly deal in limited omniscience or claiming that omniscience is a limited concept. I reject those as equivocations on the meaning of the word.
"Next ... God doesn't feel like an absentee parent to me and the arcane ways you speak of could be explained by God. I don't believe in the commonly understood definition of hell but do believe in non-existence as the final disposition for those who do not recieve eternal life. Which mass murder are you speaking of? (I want to be sure which one you are talking about before I provide my response.)"
Sure, anything "could" be explained by god. The "goddidit" "hypothesis" can be used to explain anything and everything. Does it really explain anything though? No, it doesn't.
I do admit that non-existence is more just than eternal torture, but it's not well supported by the NT.
And, god's mass murders are pretty well documented. He commits it himself a couple times: the Noachian flood, Sodom and Gommorah (sp?), passover, etc. He also orders it quite often as he does with Saul (and becomes angry at Saul even when Saul doesn't kill everything), the books of Exodus, etc. There are many examples.
"Next ... Predestination doesn't make sense to me because it negates free will."
Well, because I see no way to reconcile free will with an omni-max god, and because I believe an omni-max god would know all that would happen in the universe prior to its creation and would make it to his liking, predestination is the closest to making sense to me. (Wow, run-on sentence anyone?) That's not to say that I believe in it. I'm just saying that it's the most likely of the unlikely.
"Next ... alas, I think it does answer your question. The sola fide excerpt I quoted answers your further questions about the how and why. Everyone of us (excepting Jesus) have committed "crimes" of one sort or another. I know I have ... I was angry just this morning."
You are telling me that belief in Jesus will save me. OK, but that's not what I'm asking. I'm asking how it saves me. How does belief save me? How does his blood save me? What about his blood was salvific? Why did it have to be his blood? Why do I have to believe in Jesus? Shouldn't it be enough that I live a good life, regardless of whether I believe Jesus is the son of god? These are the questions I'm not seeing addressed. The hows and whys, not the whats.
"Next ... Heretics to left of us and rebels to the right (and slow drivers in the passing lane)."
'Here I am, stuck in the middle with you...'
nedbrek,
"Re. God is petty:
It would be petty for a finite, fallible being. But God is infinite and good."
What makes it non-petty for god? Why is it not petty for god to create things to glorify him? Why does he need that anyway? Isn't god perfect? If god is perfect, then why does he need any more glory? Doesn't he already have infinite glory? Why would he create this world anyway? If he is perfect, then why did he feel the need to create a universe at all?
"Re. Hell is not just:
God is the one offended by sin, He determines the consequences. As we discussed in http://nedsfaith.blogspot.com/2007/07/doctrine-of-hell.html
Anything but eternal punishment would be unjust."
So, if someone offends me I get to decide their fate? Anyway, I'll note that there were many unanswered questions in that thread that you ignored. IOW, you didn't answer my most of my objections, and the ones you did try to answer, I rebutted. For instance, your free will defence of hell, in which I pointed out that hell has nothing to do with free will. Hell is a final destination and eternal torture is nothing more than retributive punishment after the fact. Further, you keep trying to counter the argument that finite beings can't harm an infinite being and that finite beings can't cause infinite offense with the statement that god gets to decide how he will punish us. But, this doesn't answer the objection and leads to other problems, like the fact that it doesn't address the justice aspect at all. god can, and is, capricious and cruel for sending us to hell, and that is not abated by the fact that god is the judge, jury, and executioner. Pointing out that god holds those three positions does nothing to show how god judiciously performs those tasks.
"Re. Salvation:
Anyone who is remorseful to God, repents from their sins, and trusts in Jesus Christ for salvation is saved. That's what the Bible says. If you think you've done that, examine yourself: are you living in sin? Do you hunger for God's Word? Do you desire fellowship with other Christians? Are you concerned for the lost?""
I'm not concerned for the lost in the sense that you mean, because I don't think that anyone is "lost" in that sense. I am concerned for people like you who I consider to be lost. You are shackled by a hateful rhetoric that teaches you to hate yourself and your fellow man. Yeah, you can claim all the love your neighbor bromides that you want, but it's all bunk. Love your neighbor in this sense means that you should see your neighbor as inherently wicked and sinful and in need of saving. If you truly want to love your neighbor, why don't you celebrate the humanity of your neighbors? Why do you insist that they are bad, evil, and ripe for eternal torture? You can't love someone that you think deserves to be eternally tortured.
GCT,
Did Adam and Eve commit evil by eating from the Tree of Good/Evil? YES THEY DID. Evil is the absence of good. Their act was devoid of God's grace therefore it's inherently evil. That doesn't go against my argument at all.
As I keep saying, Right and Wrong are subjective. I'm sorry that you don't understand what I'm writing. Maybe it's my fault for not communicating it well enough to you.
"You have enough trust that your church has it right even if god comes to you and tells you point blank that they don't have it right?"
Yep...God won't tell me point blank that they don't have it right.
"Perhaps not anymore. This has not always been the case. " Please tell me when they did that. Please show me one person that the Church has condemned to Hell saying that they are "not saved." I'll save you the trouble. That's never happened!
There was a priest about sixty years ago who was teaching that you had to be Catholic to be saved. Word got out and you know what the Church did? They excommunicated him. (I sure hope he was wrong for his sake!) The most the Church can do is excommunicate a person. This does not damn them to Hell as only God can do that.
"I was asking whether obedience to Christ was really the best way to show love toward one's neighbor."
Yes as Christ commands us to love our neighbor. If we are to be obedient to Him, then we show love toward one's neighbor through obedience.
"I find no theistic faith to be consistent " That's because you're not really looking. The faith that I believe is consistent. It's intellectual and it does not conflict with Scripture (contrary to what you may have heard elsewhere.)
Re. God's glory.
God's glory is infinite in degree, but creation allows different directions (mercy, wrath, justice, grace).
Re. Punishment.
The (civil) law determines if someone is indebted to you. Once that debt is established, you can accept payment in whatever form you desire (nickels, check, money order, steaks).
How is it capricious to send guilty people to prison? I understand we disagree about whether people are guilty or not.
Re. I am lost:
Why do you care about me? Why do you care about anyone outside your own enjoyment? In a billion billion years, we'll all be dead. To go further, why do you care if Pol Pot massacres millions of his people? It doesn't affect your enjoyment of life... Isn't that what humanity is about? Oppressing people for your own pleasure? Isn't that a uniquely human trait? Or at least one we have perfected far beyond anything in animals?
Splendiferous. I am trying to keep my answers to your questions as concise as possible.
GCT said to Ned or Theden "This is especially so since you can't "know" that your faith is correct at all."
And I can't resist the temptation to respond. I am a Church of One. I have always felt that even when people attend the same church they can't all possibly believe exactly the same thing. Most people can't even read a single Bible verse and arrive at the same interpretation.
"Actually, faith is a belief in the absence of proof."
And it appears that people can't even agree on the definition of a simple word. Here are some definitions (relating to proof) excerpted directly from dictionaries;
... belief that is not based on proof
... Belief that does not rest on logical proof or material evidence.
Like I said; Faith is a belief that doesn't require proof. And I would add that faith also means trust.
Next ... Why the suffering? Because pain and suffering turn us away from what is wrong and direct us to what is right. Touch the hot stove and suffer the pain and next time you are near the stove you will remember your pain and not touch it.
Next ... well ... I'm not sure if the serpent is really Satan or not. If the serpent is Satan (the most commonly held theory) then originally he was an angel who rebelled against God (more of that ineffable free will). God created angels with free will and thus he knew that the possibilty existed that they might choose evil. No it does not make God complicit in evil. God created everything good.
Next ... the idea that God is omniscient is widely held and although there are verses that seem to suggest this possibilty there are no verses that state it explicitly using the word omniscient (or some hebrew or greek word translated so). Nevertheless, even if God did create the world and knew that his creation would eventually be tainted with evil ... what's your point? He gave man free will to corrupt themselves and they did.
Next ... "To say that god did not create evil is to say that god is not the sole author of the universe; that god is not the supreme ruler of the universe." God created all things and all things were and are good. Through our free will actions we have chosen that which is not good (ie. evil) and this denial of good is our sin. Evil is not a thing. Evil is a way of thinking.
Next ... fine. It's all right to disagree. I am just sharing some of my ideas and if they don't work for you that's okay ... remember I have already promised not to excommunicate or kill you when we disagree.
Next ... yes evil exists as a misperception of good. And you have just provided and an example of it when you asked "Also, does god not control the weather? That god sends hurricanes to level cities speaks to the evil of god." God created the weather but he does not send hurricanes to level cities.
... for he maketh his sun to rise on the evil and on the good, and sendeth rain on the just and on the unjust.
God created lions and tigers and bears (oh my) but when they do what lions and tigers and bears do ... eat other animals and sometimes people ... that doesn't make them or God evil. It just makes them lions and tigers and bears doing what they do (same goes for the weather).
(Check out the story of Elisha (and the bears) in 2 Kings 2.)
Next ... where is the scriptural evidence that there was no death in Eden (isn't it likely that animals lived and died)? But as you mention, if they didn't know what "die" meant I guess God would have explained it to them. Crucial to the argument or not it was a point you brought up and which I answered to the best of my ability.
Next ... Texas. Yeah, well I am sure it's funny to everyone except Texans. Actually that's wrong. I have an online friend who lives in Texas and he would find our Texas bashing funny and have another friend who used to live in Texas (escaped to Oregon) who's Texas bashing makes you and me look like amateurs.
Next ... what's up with the obsession with painful childbirth? I had a kidney stone a couple years ago and it wasn't a bed of roses either. Maybe childbirth was always painful and God exempted the pain before the fall.
The means are not retributive. I do see a purpose. The purpose is to make us well. That God doesn't simply make it so with a wave of his hand does not make it retributive. It is a blessing that God gave us pain and suffering because it gives us something to measure joy and delight by. I'm sorry if you can't see the value in it.
Next ... I have explained several times that God was not angry and in fact was understanding and concerned. Just because you say he was does not make it so. If you choose to misinterpret God's motives and actions in the story as such then I hope that you are able to gain some satisfaction from it for whatever useful purpose you may have in believing that God was angry and retributive (your own private hell in your mind).
Adding the next door neighbour to play the serpent's role neither helps or aids my argument since I am not making an argument but am merely making an analogy by which I had hoped to help you to better understand.
Next ... so you agree that the fruit had to be there for man to be free?
You believe "that an omniscient god means that we can't have free will." and I believe that it is possible we can have both (granting that God is omniscient which is yet to be proven). We are both going over ground that has been trodden by many people with no resolution either way and I don't expect we will develop any new or exciting positions on the matter.
As to knowledge of evil, by being only good (the life that Adam and Eve had) there is no need for a knowldge of what not to do because life (being) was an actualization of good.
Next ... yup, Canada.
Okay ... and omni-benevolent. That's good. What you say next is worth repeating; "It is simply an incompatible state of affairs that suffering would exist with a being that supposedly abhors evil and has the power to stamp it out."
Ahhh ... now we are getting closer to the crux of the matter. God does have the power to stamp it out and God plans to do so. It's just taking a several thousand years. Please try to be more patient.
Next ... "Adam and Eve had to experience evil to understand it, so they couldn't have possibly known that eating the fruit was evil. Therefore, they are blameless and god is capricious and cruel."
Right, but not quite right as they knew that eating the fruit was something God had told them not to do. Wrong and wrong because God warned them not to because he genuinely cared for their well being.
Next ... I am happy we agree about a couple things at least. But once again, contrary to your belief, I must say that we are free and God loves us.
Next ... chasing that free will tail some more. Let me know when you catch it ;)
Next ... reject equivocations of the word away all you like but I would point out that their are no verses that clearly state in unequivocal terms that God is omniscient. God is ineffable and although there are no verses that state that unequivocally I embrace the idea.
Next ... Goddidit. No it doesn't explain it, just who did it. Ask God to explain and if he won't explain it to you ask around and see if he has explained it to someone else.
Non-existence and/or annihilation is another one of the heresies I consider as at least a possibilty. I realize it's not a strong position but there is some wiggle room that lets me hope for it at least. I don't like the idea that people I love may suffer in hell for eternity so I choose to disbelieve in a literal and eternal torment in hell. Knowing Texas exists is enough for me ;)
Next ... Before the flood ... And GOD saw that the wickedness of man was great in the earth, and that every imagination of the thoughts of his heart was only evil continually. And it repented the LORD that he had made man on the earth, and it grieved him at his heart. And the LORD said, I will destroy man whom I have created from the face of the earth; both man, and beast, and the creeping thing, and the fowls of the air; for it repenteth me that I have made them. (Gen 6:5-7) God repents (!) having created man and destroys most of the life on earth. Then after the flood ... ... and the LORD said in his heart, I will not again curse the ground any more for man's sake; for the imagination of man's heart is evil from his youth; neither will I again smite any more every thing living, as I have done. (Gen8:21) Hmmm ... sounds like God repents again? Amazing story full of lessons!
Other mass murders are another matter and the traditional reasoning varies with each case. The same topic came up in another forum I was taking part in and someone brought up the USA president's statements that the attack on Iraq was a result of God's commands to him. I seriously doubt (ie. it didn't happen) that God talks to the president and made the comparison to some of the mass murders mentioned in the Bible (more heresy). But it is possible that when the Israelites said that God told them to slaughter the Canaanites they were providing a false justification for their actions. The more traditional theory holds that the Canaanites were a particularily barbarous society burning their babies as sacrafice for their gods and all sorts of other nasty stuff. I can live with that too if I keep in mind the analogy of a surgeon cutting off an arm or leg to save the patients life.
Next ... predestination and run-on sentences. I was able to follow it (and it may not have even been a real run-on). I think you think it's the most likely of the unlikely because you have such rigid defintions attached to an omnimax God.
Next ... How does the blood of Jesus save you? By expiation. Our guilt for our sins has been expiated by Jesus who consented to stand in our place. Jesus voluntarily sacrificed himself for the purpose of serving God's plan to expiate our sin and give us to eternal life. (Important to understand that I don't hold with the view of propitiation of sin because it does not take care of the original problem. If God was only venting his wrath for our sin on Jesus then we are still left with our sin after God has gotten his wrath out of his system.) And it's more than simply believing. We are living in sin and are slaves to our misperception of the world and we must repent (change our way of thinking and being). Jesus' death and resurrection must become our death and resurrection. Like Jesus said "If any man will come after me, let him deny himself, and take up his cross daily, and follow me. For whosoever will save his life shall lose it: but whosoever will lose his life for my sake, the same shall save it. For what is a man advantaged, if he gain the whole world, and lose himself, or be cast away? (Luke 9:23-25){also see Romans 6 for more along these lines of dying to ourself}
"'Here I am, stuck in the middle with you...'"
Indeed! GCT, I have patiently answered many of your questions and now I hope that you will return the favour and answer a few of my questions.
Why are you here at this forum? Are you sincerely attempting to understand a mind that works differently from yours, or are you just superficially scanning what he writes for what you percieve as argumentative weaknesses in order to attack his position?
Do you believe in God and are simply pissed off at him for the world he created? Or do you disbelieve in God and are just pissed off at people who do believe in God? Or is there a better way of describing your belief or lack of it and the reason for your antagonism (for lack of a better word) of people who do trust in God?
theden,
If there's some nuance in your argument, I must be missing it.
"Did Adam and Eve commit evil by eating from the Tree of Good/Evil? YES THEY DID. Evil is the absence of good. Their act was devoid of God's grace therefore it's inherently evil. That doesn't go against my argument at all."
If what they did was evil, then god punished them for committing an evil that they could not have known about until after they ate the fruit.
"As I keep saying, Right and Wrong are subjective. I'm sorry that you don't understand what I'm writing. Maybe it's my fault for not communicating it well enough to you."
I don't agree that right and wrong are subjective, I think they are situational. I also don't think that right and wrong have anything to do with this situation, if Adam and Eve did something "evil."
"Yep...God won't tell me point blank that they don't have it right."
Well, that's why it would be a conundrum if he said that they DID have it wrong, wouldn't it? It would put you in a weird position. How would you handle that? My guess is that you know what is good/evil and you would do what you know to be "right" regardless of what god said or your church said. For instance, if god came to you and said that he wants you to go on a killing rampage, you would demure to your church that told you not to go on a killing rampage. Yet, it was god himself telling you to do that, the entity that orders your church what to do/believe. Would you disobey god in favor of your church? Doesn't god rail against disobedience in the Bible?
"Please tell me when they did that. Please show me one person that the Church has condemned to Hell saying that they are "not saved." I'll save you the trouble. That's never happened!"
I didn't mean to touch a nerve, I simply thought that it was pretty common knowledge that this has happened many times throughout the last couple millenia. For instance, the inquisition did this quite regularly.
"There was a priest about sixty years ago who was teaching that you had to be Catholic to be saved. Word got out and you know what the Church did? They excommunicated him. (I sure hope he was wrong for his sake!) The most the Church can do is excommunicate a person. This does not damn them to Hell as only God can do that."
Oh, I must have misunderstood you. I thought you meant that they claimed that such and such person was going to hell. It seems you were talking about the church having the actual ability to send someone to hell? If that is the case, then it's a trivial non-argument, unless I make the case that the church has killed people who were not saved, thus sending them to hell, but that's not worth taking the time.
"Yes as Christ commands us to love our neighbor. If we are to be obedient to Him, then we show love toward one's neighbor through obedience."
I would argue that the best way to love one's neighbor is to love one's neighbor. That this is also in obedience to Christ is secondary.
"That's because you're not really looking. The faith that I believe is consistent. It's intellectual and it does not conflict with Scripture (contrary to what you may have heard elsewhere.)"
No, it's because there is no faith that doesn't rely on a distinct lack of evidence. There is no evidence for god, therefore any theistic view is inconsistent. I further find all Xian views to suffer from inconsistencies about the attributes of god. For instance, god's omni-max nature is contradictory to us having free will. Another example would be the conundrum of whether god can himself have free will as it conflicts with his own omniscience.
nedbrek,
"Re. God's glory.
God's glory is infinite in degree, but creation allows different directions (mercy, wrath, justice, grace)."
So, what you are saying is that god's glory is not infinite? If god's glory is infinite, then it doesn't matter what direction you go in, god's glory is maximal. Your response makes no sense.
"The (civil) law determines if someone is indebted to you. Once that debt is established, you can accept payment in whatever form you desire (nickels, check, money order, steaks)."
Actually, no. I can't order the person I sued to pay me in nickels. They have to pay me, and the law stipulates that they have to pay me in legal tender. If they give me dollar bills, I have to accept it.
"How is it capricious to send guilty people to prison? I understand we disagree about whether people are guilty or not."
It's capricious how god chooses who goes to hell and who doesn't by your theology. It's cruel to send people to hell.
"Re. I am lost:
Why do you care about me? Why do you care about anyone outside your own enjoyment? In a billion billion years, we'll all be dead. To go further, why do you care if Pol Pot massacres millions of his people? It doesn't affect your enjoyment of life... Isn't that what humanity is about? Oppressing people for your own pleasure? Isn't that a uniquely human trait? Or at least one we have perfected far beyond anything in animals?"
Do you really think humanity is about oppressing people for your own enjoyment? If you realized tomorrow that god does not exist, it sounds like you would go on a killing/looting spree which is truly scary. Sentiments like that are (one reason) why I am concerned for you. You don't even comprehend what it means to be human. Humans are social animals. It's trivial to show that we aren't simply out for ourselves, as it's trivial to show that many other animals act in the same fashion. That you make such argument shows that you are either a nihilist at the core that is only tempered because you fear god's wrath, or you are simply creating strawmen so that you can knock them down.
Further, I've asked you this before I believe...why does it matter if humanity will be gone in a billion billion years? What does that have to do with the here and now? Is your morality dependent on whether the universe will be around in a billion billion years?
braverdave,
"And I can't resist the temptation to respond. I am a Church of One. I have always felt that even when people attend the same church they can't all possibly believe exactly the same thing. Most people can't even read a single Bible verse and arrive at the same interpretation."
If you asked X people to tell you all about their god, you'd get X different answers. With so many different interpretations, how can anyone think they are 100% right?
"Like I said; Faith is a belief that doesn't require proof. And I would add that faith also means trust."
I misunderstood your previous comment. I don't think our definitions are in conflict.
"Next ... Why the suffering? Because pain and suffering turn us away from what is wrong and direct us to what is right. Touch the hot stove and suffer the pain and next time you are near the stove you will remember your pain and not touch it."
That's not 100% true though, is it? Certainly there is no need for the pain and suffering inflicted by natural events, such as Hurrican Katrina.
"Next ... well ... I'm not sure if the serpent is really Satan or not. If the serpent is Satan (the most commonly held theory) then originally he was an angel who rebelled against God (more of that ineffable free will). God created angels with free will and thus he knew that the possibilty existed that they might choose evil. No it does not make God complicit in evil. God created everything good."
Yes, it does. He foreknew they would rebel, not that they might rebel. He set it in motion knowing full well they would rebel, hence he created evil.
"Nevertheless, even if God did create the world and knew that his creation would eventually be tainted with evil ... what's your point? He gave man free will to corrupt themselves and they did."
Because he knew the consequences of his actions would result in evil, and he undertook them anyway. This is a complicit act.
"God created all things and all things were and are good. Through our free will actions we have chosen that which is not good (ie. evil) and this denial of good is our sin. Evil is not a thing. Evil is a way of thinking."
Murder is not good, you agreed with me on that, did you not? Therefore, not all things are good things that become evil through denial of them. Evil is also not strictly a way of thinking. Is it a way of thinking that murders people?
"Next ... yes evil exists as a misperception of good. And you have just provided and an example of it when you asked "Also, does god not control the weather? That god sends hurricanes to level cities speaks to the evil of god." God created the weather but he does not send hurricanes to level cities."
Whether god specifically sent Katrina to kills people or not, he created a hurrican knowing full well what would be the end result. There's no wiggle room here. I don't think you can claim anything does happen without god's approval, else god is not the supreme ruler of our world.
"Next ... Texas. Yeah, well I am sure it's funny to everyone except Texans. Actually that's wrong. I have an online friend who lives in Texas and he would find our Texas bashing funny and have another friend who used to live in Texas (escaped to Oregon) who's Texas bashing makes you and me look like amateurs."
I've met some Texans that would agree as well, and others that would be really hot under the collar.
"Next ... what's up with the obsession with painful childbirth? I had a kidney stone a couple years ago and it wasn't a bed of roses either. Maybe childbirth was always painful and God exempted the pain before the fall."
Because it's one of the examples that is explicitly stated in Genesis.
"The means are not retributive. I do see a purpose. The purpose is to make us well. That God doesn't simply make it so with a wave of his hand does not make it retributive. It is a blessing that God gave us pain and suffering because it gives us something to measure joy and delight by. I'm sorry if you can't see the value in it."
Are you asserting the Adam and Eve did not have joy and delight in Eden? What is heaven? Isn't that a place where there is no evil and suffering, yet people experience joy and delight? Do the souls of miscarried babies go to heaven? Don't they get there never having experience human pain and suffering? Is their experience in heaven lessened because of it? I find the argument that we have to have pain and suffering in order to have joy to be rather problematic.
"Next ... I have explained several times that God was not angry and in fact was understanding and concerned. Just because you say he was does not make it so."
I didn't say that god was angry (did I? If I did, I didn't mean it literally, because god might be cool as a cucumber when he commits attrocities.) It doesn't matter if god was angry or not, as the punishment can't be anything but retributive. He casts them out, makes their lives hard and short, gives them pain and suffering, and decides to make it so that all their offspring are tainted forever more. If they were truly sick, then he would have cared for them had he loved them, and no, I don't think tossing them out for their own good is caring for them when he had the power to do anything and everything to allow them to live well and not be poisoned. What I'm saying is that even I can come up with better ways that god could have handled the situation, and I'm supposedly not as bright as god, so what's the deal? Your argument hinges on this being a necessary action by god, yet there are other, better actions that he could have taken. Why couldn't he simply put the tree of eternal life out of their reach for instance?
"Adding the next door neighbour to play the serpent's role neither helps or aids my argument since I am not making an argument but am merely making an analogy by which I had hoped to help you to better understand."
I assumed that your analogy was to make an argument for a position. Either way, I've disagreed with your analogy multiple times with multiple reasons.
"Next ... so you agree that the fruit had to be there for man to be free?"
No, I do not. If I led you to believe that, then I must have misspoken.
"As to knowledge of evil, by being only good (the life that Adam and Eve had) there is no need for a knowldge of what not to do because life (being) was an actualization of good."
And they had no way of knowing the goodness of life (being) didn't include eating the fruit.
"Ahhh ... now we are getting closer to the crux of the matter. God does have the power to stamp it out and God plans to do so. It's just taking a several thousand years. Please try to be more patient."
Which is laughable (pardon me) that an omni-max being that supposedly abhors evil is unable or unwilling to do away with it forthwith.
"Right, but not quite right as they knew that eating the fruit was something God had told them not to do. Wrong and wrong because God warned them not to because he genuinely cared for their well being."
If he cared for their well being, he would have placed the fruit out of their reach. I would condemn any parent that left poison out (to use your analogy against you) for a child with simply a stern warning not to drink of it. Especially if that child didn't have the moral development to understand good vs. evil. This shows that god is negligent at least. Of course, the fact that he foreknew it would happen shows premeditation on his part. Adam and Eve, however, did not have the faculties to understand that it was evil, so they are blameless, just as I would hold a toddler blameless for drinking poison.
"Next ... chasing that free will tail some more. Let me know when you catch it ;)"
You seem unwilling to talk about the contradiction of free will, which is fine, but some of my arguments do touch on it, so I will refer to it from time to time most likely.
"Next ... reject equivocations of the word away all you like but I would point out that their are no verses that clearly state in unequivocal terms that God is omniscient. God is ineffable and although there are no verses that state that unequivocally I embrace the idea."
Whether the Bible states it or not, that you accept it is reason enough to put forth counter-arguments. If you decide that you don't believe in god's omniscience, then we will move past that at that time.
"Non-existence and/or annihilation is another one of the heresies I consider as at least a possibilty. I realize it's not a strong position but there is some wiggle room that lets me hope for it at least. I don't like the idea that people I love may suffer in hell for eternity so I choose to disbelieve in a literal and eternal torment in hell. Knowing Texas exists is enough for me ;)"
It's still rather unjust and unequal to decide that some people should be in heaven while others should cease existence, but it is more fair than eternal hell. Eternal hell for anyone is unjust.
"Next ... Before the flood ... "
Why should god repent anything? Isn't god perfect? If god is perfect, why does he do imperfect things? It sounds to me like god knew that what he did was wrong/evil.
"Other mass murders are another matter and the traditional reasoning varies with each case. The same topic came up in another forum I was taking part in and someone brought up the USA president's statements that the attack on Iraq was a result of God's commands to him. I seriously doubt (ie. it didn't happen) that God talks to the president and made the comparison to some of the mass murders mentioned in the Bible (more heresy). But it is possible that when the Israelites said that God told them to slaughter the Canaanites they were providing a false justification for their actions. The more traditional theory holds that the Canaanites were a particularily barbarous society burning their babies as sacrafice for their gods and all sorts of other nasty stuff. I can live with that too if I keep in mind the analogy of a surgeon cutting off an arm or leg to save the patients life."
Bush has indeed spoken of how god told him to invade Iraq. I agree with you that god didn't tell him to do this, because I don't believe in god. If the Xian god does exist, however, then I would not be surprised if god did tell Bush to do that. And, I don't see this as cutting off a leg to save the person. We are not talking about limbs here, but people; people that are going to hell to be tortured for eternity, or at the very least are being ripped from this Earth before getting to live out their lives for non-existence (if you decide that you hold to that after all). I find it hard to believe that the only way to deal with the Canaanites, the Amelikites, and the myriad other tribes that were slaughtered by the Jews was to totally kill all of them; man, woman, child, and livestock. Do you really believe that this was the best way that an omni-max god could come up with?
"Next ... predestination and run-on sentences. I was able to follow it (and it may not have even been a real run-on). I think you think it's the most likely of the unlikely because you have such rigid defintions attached to an omnimax God."
If we relax some of the definitions, then possibilities do open up. This is, however, not theologically done for the most part.
"Next ... How does the blood of Jesus save you? By expiation. Our guilt for our sins has been expiated by Jesus who consented to stand in our place."
How does killing a supposedly innocent man absolve me of my debt to god, even if Jesus volunteered for it? Why was his blood/death necessary?
"Why are you here at this forum? Are you sincerely attempting to understand a mind that works differently from yours, or are you just superficially scanning what he writes for what you percieve as argumentative weaknesses in order to attack his position?"
I first came here because Nedbrek and I met on another blog and we continued a conversation here. I come back because of a couple reasons. One is that I tend to like to discuss theology. Another is that I do have questions that I continually not answered and I am wondering if any theist has a sufficient answer to any of them (haven't found one yet, no offense). I also like to debate, and blogs like this allow for such things. I also dislike bad logic and bad arguments, which I see a lot of from the theistic side (again, no offense). I also dislike the way that theism is thrust down my throat in this country/culture, and this is one way of my making a dent in that. I also believe that Xianity (and many other religions) are unhealthy, and it's almost incumbent upon me as a moral being to counter hateful rhetoric when I encounter it. This is not a full list BTW, but just some reasons.
"Do you believe in God and are simply pissed off at him for the world he created? Or do you disbelieve in God and are just pissed off at people who do believe in God? Or is there a better way of describing your belief or lack of it and the reason for your antagonism (for lack of a better word) of people who do trust in God?"
I disbelieve in god. I find no reason to believe, and no evidence that such a being exists. In fact, the best arguments are against such a being existing at best and at worst are agnostic to the idea. I also do not hate believers, nor am I pissed off at them as a group. True, some of them do piss me off for various reasons, but not all of them. I'm not pissed off at you, nor do I hate you. I think the beliefs that you have are hateful, but I think that you personally (and this is just from what I've read) have some ideas that are less hateful than some other Xians (like Fred Phelps for instance). But, a big pet peeve for me is when Xianity impinges on my life in a negative way, like when adherents seek to take away my rights. Atheism is a civil rights issue, and for that I will fight with my words and the force of my arguments to secure my rights.
GCT,
"If what they did was evil, then god punished them for committing an evil that they could not have known about until after they ate the fruit."
God punished them for disobeying His commandment. When they disobeyed (because they chose themselves over Him) it was inherently evil because it was devoid of God's grace.
"I don't agree that right and wrong are subjective, I think they are situational. I also don't think that right and wrong have anything to do with this situation, if Adam and Eve did something "evil.""
You just changed your argument as you initially said that they knew "right from wrong."
"Would you disobey god in favor of your church? Doesn't god rail against disobedience in the Bible?"
That command would not be from God. God will NOT tell me to go and kill as it violates His commandment. If God were to tell me that and tell me not to kill, that would be inconsistent.
"For instance, the inquisition did this quite regularly."
The Inquisition was an embarrassment for the Church. It's about men who misunderstood the Church doctrine and killed people as a result. These men were sinners and will be judged by God accordingly. Still, the Church has never condemned anyone who died in the Inquisition to Hell.
The Church is made up of sinners. On occasions, ravenous wolves infiltrate it in the form of bishops, priests and popes who try to tear down the Church. Yet the Church survives. That's what happened with the Inquisition. Yet, the Church condemned no one.
"Oh, I must have misunderstood you. I thought you meant that they claimed that such and such person was going to hell."
That's what I mean. There may be priests or nuns who may say something like, "so and so is going to Hell." That's not the Church. That's some priest's opinion.
"I would argue that the best way to love one's neighbor is to love one's neighbor. "
Well, GCT, there's the conundrum as what do you mean by loving one's neighbor?
"god's omni-max nature is contradictory to us having free will. Another example would be the conundrum of whether god can himself have free will as it conflicts with his own omniscience."
Your point is indicating to me that you think that God thinks like you or is limited to human capacities. Surprisingly, it shows lack of imagination from you. God being omniscient/omnipotent does not limit us in free will. We choose to do something and He knows. Just because He knows our choice, does not limit our free will. It's two separate points that are independent of each other. He does not interfere with our choice and yet He knows the outcome. To me, it's not confusing at all.
Another problem with your logic is you're putting God in space and time. God is outside of space and time and is not constrained by it. God has free will as He can do what He wants. His actions do not affect outcomes. His actions are. He is who is.
I think your problem is that you are trying to limit God to your own capacities and that doesn't compute in your head. I understand the flaw in your logic now and we will always be in disagreement until you let that go.
Re. God's infinite glory
Are you not familiar with orders of infinite? x -> as x approaches infinite is different than x^2 -> as x approaches infinite. God in His triune nature expresses love, and goodness (among other things). In order to express wrath, mercy, justice, and grace; there must be another party.
Re. payment
Sure you have to accept payment. But what can you pay to God? Can you comprehend that an infinitely good God could be offended by your defaming His good name?
Re. capricious
We don't know exactly who God is choosing. Is it capricious to oppose the proud and lift up the humble? That's what the Bible says God does.
Re. Hell:
How is justice cruel? Anything except eternal punishment is not just. It degrades God's value.
Re. humans are social animals
Humans are more complicated than any animal. I hope you can agree to that. We are also often anti-social. Would you say that megalomaniacal dictators are not human? Are they not simply living their lives as they wish? How do justify opposing them? If you improse your values on them, how are you different?
Re. oblivion
Largely I'm trying to get you to think about the long term implications of your "theology".
Morality doesn't have meaning outside of an image of God. It seems you want Christian morality without Christian theology. The two are inseparable. If there is no God, then Christians are liars.
Otherwise, you are appealing to (human, physical) power. How then can you say anyone is "wrong"? You can only say, "I disagree, and I am more powerful."
GCT, please forgive me if I skip over a few of your comments, after a brief recognition, in instances where I think that repeating myself (again and again), something I don't mind doing so long as it's constructive, is becoming exceeedingly redundant. For the sake of progress I suggest that we simply agree to disagree and move on from these points. Our gracious host Ned seems to have started several new posts based on some of the tangents we have touched on in this discussion and if either of us feel the need to continue to discuss those topics (ie. free will) that we do so at the new posts Ned has made.
It doesn't surprise me that my beliefs don't coincide with yours ... I would be very surprised if they did.
Next ... misunderstanding forgiven. It happens.
Next ... It is true for voluntary free will actions. Ascribing the weather to God's will, especially as a punitive action, smacks of superstition.
Next ... no, it doesn't. Again we come down to argument over free will versus omniscience. Let's agree to disagree and move on as I don't think we will be able to absolutely solve what centuries of thought on the matter has not . {Theden, by the way I liked your response on this matter ... To me, it's not confusing at all.. I feel the same way (ie. not confused).}
Next ... see above.
Next ... That's right. Murder is not good. Murder is a result of hate and a misperception of love.
Next ... God created a universe ruled by natural laws of that universe. A hurricane kills people. Why? Because it's a hurricane. Some things are an end in themselves and do not have a purpose.
Next ... Texas. I am feeling a little guilty about slamming Texas so much. I hereby repent of maligning Texans and the great state of Texas and resolve to praise Texans and Texas whenever possible in the future (please be patient).
Next ... childbirth. A painful mystery. I asked my Mom and she said it was well worth it ;)
Next ... I am asserting that Adam and Eve had no pain and suffering by which to measure their joy and delight in Eden. Problematic maybe but relativistic.
Next ... yes, you did say God was angry. Your exact words were "and god gets angry instead of being understanding and concerned.". Not literal but figurative? Okay, that's fine, I guess, and up to each of us to decide for ourselves and I certainly won't hold your figurative words against you ;) As for your assertion that there are better actions that God could have taken, that is merely your opinion and while I sympathize with your difficulty with understanding God's plan I must state that I trust in God's plan as being purposeful (and ineffable sometimes too).
"Why couldn't he simply put the tree of eternal life out of their reach for instance?" He did. And even gave us the chance to reach for it's fruit again.
Next ... agree to disagree. You don't like my analogy and have your reasons. That's okay. Maybe you would like it better if I had defined it as an allegory (which it probably more accurately is).
Next ... misspeaking forgiven. It happens.
Next ... "And they had no way of knowing the goodness of life (being) didn't include eating the fruit." Wrong ... they did know that eating the fruit would lead to death (non-being) because God told them it would. You and I have not experienced death but do we really know what death is?
Next ... pardon granted. God likes a good laugh too and maybe a few thousand years is forthwith to him.
Next ... omnisciencne and free will again. Moving on due to redundant repetition.
Next ... I did speak of the contradiction of free will and omniscience, albeit briefly, and let you know that it was a topic I have been over too many times to do more than touch on it as I am not concerned or confused by the apparent contradiction but you are more than welcome to touch on it as you see fit providing you are aware of my holding in abeyance of absolute answers on the matter.
Next ... Whether I accept it (God's omniscience) or not does not mean it is true or not and putting forth arguments or counter-arguments is merely a means by which I further my understanding of the matter. I reserve the right to believe in what seems to be most true to me right now and I refuse to be surprised when some of those things I believe now turn out to be false later. It helps keep me from being upset ;)
Next ... thinking that things are just or unjust is easy. Knowing which is truly which is far harder and I am happy to leave it, in this instance, to God.
Next ... I don't know why ... just that he did. Rest assured it is on the list of questions I will ask God when I get the chance to.
Next ... Good to know we agree that God didn't tell President Bush to invade Iraq, although for different reasons. I see the president of your country as a proverbial wolf in sheep's clothing that scripture warned of.
As for the Canaanites and the rest of them alledgedly slaughtered by the Hebrews please keep in mind that it may not be literal history but may be figurative allegory that could mean whatever the reader understands it to mean (right or wrong).
One day two men were walking by a river. "Look at the fish swimming about," said one man, "They are really enjoying themselves."
"You are not a fish," replied the other man, "So you can't truly know that they are enjoying themselves."
"You are not me," said the first man. "So how do you know that I do not know that the fish are enjoying themselves?"
Next ... for the most part maybe because most people like rigid definitions. This and not that. But I am comfortable with flexible definitions so long as others understand the various possible definitions which I usually try to point out.
Next ... The killing of Jesus, an innocent man, can absolve us of our guilt if we follow his example and die to our selfish will and resurrect into God's will. His death to self and our death to self is necessary for rebirth into life.
"Not as I will but as thou will. Not my will but thy will be done."
It's the reverse of what happened in the Garden of Eden when man decided to live as they willed and ate of the fruit of the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil and not as God willed.
Next ... If no offence is intended then of course none is taken. I too like to debate but do not see logic as the end all of be all.
Pete: "That don't make no sense!"
Everett: "Pete, it's a fool that looks for logic in the chambers of the human heart."
(excerpted from O Brother, Where Art Thou?
And just because you don't like the answers doesn't necessarily discount the answers. What might be useful and satisfying to me may be useless and
I am sorry to hear that theism is thrust down your throat but it seems to me since, by your won admission, you like to "discuss theology" you are partly responsible for having your mouth open ;)
I would ask you to please let me know what, if any, hateful rhetoric I am alledgedly guilty of as I am open to objective criticism, though I necessarily require some specificity of explanation to aid in my understanding. To aid in your comprehension of my intent, which I confess may not be easily discerned by the means I employ, allow me to assure you once again that if no offence was intended, as you repeatedly pointed out, that none was taken.
"If someone comes to give you a gift and you do not receive it, to whom does the gift belong?"
So you don't believe in God. I had kind of figured that out for myself but thought it would be worthwhile asking why to better aid my understanding of you. And just so you know, I am not pissed at you and nor do I hate you. Thanks for the nod to my less hateful beliefs but once again I remind you to let me know of any hateful rhetoric I employ as I always try to do all things in love. I had to run Fred Phelps through a serach engine to know who he was and it's good of you place me above him on the love/hate scale. Mr. Phelps reminds me of the pharisees and sadducees and if I had the chance I would remind him that he is a sinner too and no different for that account in God's eyes than the people who he so bitterly hates. I am ashamed that people like Mr. Phelps consider themselves Christians because all too often people use guilt by association to judge one another. Just as you are an atheist I don't judge you by other atheists I know (a total of 5 now although one recently admitted he does believe in God but was simply being rebellious when he said otherwise so I guess the count is back to 4) even though one of them was the biggest jerk I have ever had the pleasure to meet.
If I may I would like to offer some criticism of your arguments. Sometimes you are separating the wheat from the chaff and taking the chaff. You are being even more literalist in some of your interpretations than even the most regressive Calvinist Fundamentalist.
I encourage (and am encouraged that) you to recognize the need for open and continuing apperceptive dialogue between people with an interest in developing an evolving, expansive and increasingly comprehensive imagining and understanding of the world and our place in it. This requires a commitment to respect the opinions of others and to try to imagine and understand those opinions through the mind of others.
Of course this is best done in an atmosphere of mutual respect. When we can collectively establish the hope of growing beyond conventional limitations we ensure our (collective and individual) liberation (and salvation).
In other words; Peace!
A minor correction to this paragraph ...
It doesn't surprise me that my beliefs don't coincide with yours ... I would be very surprised if they did.
... should read ...
It doesn't surprise me that some of my beliefs don't coincide with yours ... I would be very surprised if they all did.
And an unfinished thought ...
What might be useful and satisfying to me may be useless and unsatisfying to you (and vice versa).
... completed here.
Thanks!
Found a great site (thanks to Ned) with this brilliant essay;
Religious Pluralism
... and it also speaks a great deal about religious truth and I agree wholeheartedly.
theden,
"God punished them for disobeying His commandment. When they disobeyed (because they chose themselves over Him) it was inherently evil because it was devoid of God's grace."
The point though is that it's like punishing a mentally disabled person. Adam and Eve didn't understand good and evil until after they had committed evil. They were undeveloped morally.
"You just changed your argument as you initially said that they knew "right from wrong.""
I never said that. I said that they didn't know right from wrong, and I still hold to that. I've agreed with you that right and wrong are separate from good and evil (good point by you) but I think the concepts are intertwined still, and that one can not know right from wrong without some moral development in knowing good from evil.
"That command would not be from God. God will NOT tell me to go and kill as it violates His commandment. If God were to tell me that and tell me not to kill, that would be inconsistent."
Except god has ordered people to murder others against his own commandment. So, should they have murdered the people god told them to, or should they have protested that it was against god's other commandment? For instace, should Saul have refused to kill the Amalekites?
"The Inquisition was an embarrassment for the Church. It's about men who misunderstood the Church doctrine and killed people as a result. These men were sinners and will be judged by God accordingly. Still, the Church has never condemned anyone who died in the Inquisition to Hell."
It's an embarrassment now, but it wasn't then. Morality changes and evolves, and the church's morality is no exception. We look back at such things with horror because we've evolved a morality that precludes such actions. This is why I say that we don't get our morality from the Bible. We get it from our culture and then misattribute it back to the Bible by making the Bible passages say what we think they should say in order to be in accordance with our modern conceptions of morality.
"That's what I mean. There may be priests or nuns who may say something like, "so and so is going to Hell." That's not the Church. That's some priest's opinion."
If you think that the church has never held an official position and still doesn't on who will go to hell, I'd have to doubt you on that, but it's not really important.
"Well, GCT, there's the conundrum as what do you mean by loving one's neighbor?"
Whatever it is, it's not by believing in some deity. That does nothing to help my neighbor in a time of need.
"Your point is indicating to me that you think that God thinks like you or is limited to human capacities. Surprisingly, it shows lack of imagination from you. God being omniscient/omnipotent does not limit us in free will. We choose to do something and He knows. Just because He knows our choice, does not limit our free will. It's two separate points that are independent of each other. He does not interfere with our choice and yet He knows the outcome. To me, it's not confusing at all."
I'm not claiming that god has human capacities, I'm claiming that there is a logical contradiction in the concept of god being omniscient and us having free will.
"Another problem with your logic is you're putting God in space and time. God is outside of space and time and is not constrained by it. God has free will as He can do what He wants. His actions do not affect outcomes. His actions are. He is who is."
God being outside of space and time is a necessity of him being omniscient IMO, so I'm not ignoring that at all. We are not outside of space and time, however. Time is linear for us, and we live within it. When god created the universe, he created a linear time that we would live in. Yet, because god is outside of space and time, he foreknew all that would transpire in that linear time before it happened for us, therefore it was set at the time of creation and the universe became a determined system. If I truly have the ability to choose, then I can choose to do something god did not foresee at the beginning of the universe. This is clearly impossible, however, so if god is omni-max then we do not have free will. Same holds for god's free will. God knows all his choices before he makes them. If he has free will, then he can choose to change his choice, which would negate his omniscience. This is a logic problem that is not easily solved. The best solutions usually restrict god's powers.
"I think your problem is that you are trying to limit God to your own capacities and that doesn't compute in your head. I understand the flaw in your logic now and we will always be in disagreement until you let that go."
You'll have to show me where the logic is flawed, because my argument hinges on god not having limitations. If god were limited to human capacities, then I would say that it's entirely possible that we have free will. If you want to hinge your whole rebuttal on something that I haven't said and don't argue for, then all I can say is that it will amount to a strawman.
nedbrek,
"Re. God's infinite glory
Are you not familiar with orders of infinite? x -> as x approaches infinite is different than x^2 -> as x approaches infinite. God in His triune nature expresses love, and goodness (among other things). In order to express wrath, mercy, justice, and grace; there must be another party."
Are you not familiar with the concept of perfect? You assert that god is perfect, therefore he has maximal glory, no matter which "direction" you go (which you have yet to show why there are "directions" anyway). If this is not the case, and if god can become more perfect through more glory, then god was not perfect in the first place.
"Re. payment
Sure you have to accept payment. But what can you pay to God? Can you comprehend that an infinitely good God could be offended by your defaming His good name?"
Even if we take the infinitely good part of that as true for the sake of argument, why would an infinitely good god want a death sacrifice as payment? Again, it makes no sense.
"Re. capricious
We don't know exactly who God is choosing. Is it capricious to oppose the proud and lift up the humble? That's what the Bible says God does."
It's capricious in the sense that we really don't know who gets the free pass and who doesn't. Do miscarried fetuses go to heaven, while the rest of us have to struggle and fight our way from being labeled evil to god's good graces? That is capricious.
"Re. Hell:
How is justice cruel? Anything except eternal punishment is not just. It degrades God's value."
And torturing people doesn't degrade god's value? You're sick and twisted, you know that? Also, inflicting cruelty is not justice. Infinite torture for finite crimes is not justice. Even if we deserved infinite punishment, why does it have to be torture? Torture is not justified, especially not for a being that is supposedly all-loving and all-good.
"Re. humans are social animals
Humans are more complicated than any animal. I hope you can agree to that. We are also often anti-social. Would you say that megalomaniacal dictators are not human? Are they not simply living their lives as they wish? How do justify opposing them? If you improse your values on them, how are you different?"
You don't even understand the terms you are using do you? No, humans are not more complicated than any animal, especially because we are animals ourselves. Being "anti-social" doesn't preclude a human from being a social animal. The term means that we live in societies and raise our young, etc. It doesn't mean that some people are mean or loners. Geez.
"Re. oblivion
Largely I'm trying to get you to think about the long term implications of your "theology"."
My theology? Is bald a hair color? Is not collecting stamps a hobby? What are the long term implications of atheism then?
"Morality doesn't have meaning outside of an image of God. It seems you want Christian morality without Christian theology. The two are inseparable. If there is no God, then Christians are liars."
No, I don't want Christian morality at all. I don't want women to be degraded, I don't want slavery, I don't want non-believers to be degraded and/or put to death, etc. Why does morality have to be tied to a deity? Have you read Euthyphro? I suggest you look it up on wikipedia to see a great counter-argument. Also, I would not say that all Christians are liars, I would say that they are mistaken in their beliefs.
"Otherwise, you are appealing to (human, physical) power. How then can you say anyone is "wrong"? You can only say, "I disagree, and I am more powerful.""
Of course I can say that one is wrong. One does not have to have a good in order to formulate the golden rule. I also don't need a god to determine good from evil, and to say that that which increases good is right and that which increases evil is wrong.
"GCT, please forgive me if I skip over a few of your comments, after a brief recognition, in instances where I think that repeating myself (again and again), something I don't mind doing so long as it's constructive, is becoming exceeedingly redundant. For the sake of progress I suggest that we simply agree to disagree and move on from these points. Our gracious host Ned seems to have started several new posts based on some of the tangents we have touched on in this discussion and if either of us feel the need to continue to discuss those topics (ie. free will) that we do so at the new posts Ned has made."
Works for me.
"Next ... It is true for voluntary free will actions. Ascribing the weather to God's will, especially as a punitive action, smacks of superstition."
Except that god creates and controls all. Nothing happens that isn't part of god's will.
"Next ... no, it doesn't. Again we come down to argument over free will versus omniscience. Let's agree to disagree and move on as I don't think we will be able to absolutely solve what centuries of thought on the matter has not . {Theden, by the way I liked your response on this matter ... To me, it's not confusing at all.. I feel the same way (ie. not confused).}"
It's not confusing to me either, although it seems my arguments are not being met head on. We don't have to hash it out here though.
"Next ... That's right. Murder is not good. Murder is a result of hate and a misperception of love."
Except when it's not about hate, like when it's about power. It matters not. god is still complicit.
"Next ... God created a universe ruled by natural laws of that universe. A hurricane kills people. Why? Because it's a hurricane. Some things are an end in themselves and do not have a purpose."
So, god created a world that creates hurricanes that come and kill people, and that is supposedly a good thing? How is that good? Didn't god know at the time of creation that Katrina would devastate a whole entire city and that many would suffer because of it? Yet, he went ahead and said, "Oh well, let them suffer." He sounds like a swell guy, this god.
"Next ... childbirth. A painful mystery. I asked my Mom and she said it was well worth it ;)"
That's great. Does she realize that other animals don't have it so bad? Either way, god decided to inflict pain upon us. This is cruel and evil and unjustified.
"Next ... I am asserting that Adam and Eve had no pain and suffering by which to measure their joy and delight in Eden. Problematic maybe but relativistic."
So what? That's how god made them. He created a system where they can either be happy but not know it, or they can be sinners and toil. Why could he not create a system where Adam and Eve could have had the knowledge they needed, but could have sought out good instead of evil? This god leaves much to be desired. He doesn't seem to have a lick of common sense.
"Next ... yes, you did say God was angry. Your exact words were "and god gets angry instead of being understanding and concerned.". Not literal but figurative? Okay, that's fine, I guess, and up to each of us to decide for ourselves and I certainly won't hold your figurative words against you ;) As for your assertion that there are better actions that God could have taken, that is merely your opinion and while I sympathize with your difficulty with understanding God's plan I must state that I trust in God's plan as being purposeful (and ineffable sometimes too)."
I stand corrected, I did say angry. You are right that the Bible doesn't explicitly say he was angry, so I stand corrected. As to whether god could have done better, that's not up for discussion, because it's self-evidentially true practically. god created a system whereby we are guilty until proven innocent. Our respective countries have both come up with better systems, and I don't think I have to prove to you that those systems are better.
""Why couldn't he simply put the tree of eternal life out of their reach for instance?" He did. And even gave us the chance to reach for it's fruit again."
Without throwing them out of Eden I meant. He could have put the poison out of their reach too, but he didn't.
"Next ... agree to disagree. You don't like my analogy and have your reasons. That's okay. Maybe you would like it better if I had defined it as an allegory (which it probably more accurately is)."
Allegory or analogy, I don't like it because it doesn't work. I don't agree to disagree on this one. It's a horrible analogy as I've demonstrated multiple times. god does NOT act like a parent in any way, or at least one where the state would allow the parent to keep custody of the child in question.
"Next ... "And they had no way of knowing the goodness of life (being) didn't include eating the fruit." Wrong ... they did know that eating the fruit would lead to death (non-being) because God told them it would. You and I have not experienced death but do we really know what death is?"
Did they? Besides, god lied. They didn't die that day. Yeah, you'll assert it was spiritual death, but that defeats this part of your argument because you will be equivocating definitions.
"Next ... thinking that things are just or unjust is easy. Knowing which is truly which is far harder and I am happy to leave it, in this instance, to God."
Why would you do such a foolish thing when god's own writings have condemned him many times over? IOW, god has shown an inability to show just judgement so many times that I would not trust my life to the guy. Further, I dislike the "punt" argument, that god's ways are so much more than ours, therefore he is just. This is not an answer to someone questioning god's justice. If I say that god is unjust because of X, it does you no good to counter that god is just simply because he's god.
"Next ... I don't know why ... just that he did. Rest assured it is on the list of questions I will ask God when I get the chance to."
Ask him why all the torture, why all the mass killings, why salt the Earth instead of letting his people use it for food, etc.
"Next ... Good to know we agree that God didn't tell President Bush to invade Iraq, although for different reasons. I see the president of your country as a proverbial wolf in sheep's clothing that scripture warned of."
He's something, that's for sure. I sure didn't vote for him.
"As for the Canaanites and the rest of them alledgedly slaughtered by the Hebrews please keep in mind that it may not be literal history but may be figurative allegory that could mean whatever the reader understands it to mean (right or wrong)."
How would you know the difference? Besides, even if it is figurative, what are we supposed to take from this? They might not have actually slaughtered all those people, but god sure told them to go wage war and kill, didn't he? Or is that part figurative too? I don't see how it could be.
"Next ... for the most part maybe because most people like rigid definitions. This and not that. But I am comfortable with flexible definitions so long as others understand the various possible definitions which I usually try to point out."
Definitions have to be rigid for the purposes of agreeing to what one is communicating about. If both parties have the same definition for a word, they can communicate. Otherwise, if you define "good" as mass genocide, then god could be "good" to you, but it will never fly with me.
"Next ... The killing of Jesus, an innocent man, can absolve us of our guilt if we follow his example and die to our selfish will and resurrect into God's will. His death to self and our death to self is necessary for rebirth into life."
Why did Jesus have to die for us to follow his teaching and live moral lives? I still don't see the question answered.
""Not as I will but as thou will. Not my will but thy will be done."
It's the reverse of what happened in the Garden of Eden when man decided to live as they willed and ate of the fruit of the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil and not as God willed."
Again, why does an innocent man have to die? Why did he have to be innocent? Why did he have to die? If it is simply for an example, then why must we believe in Jesus in order to be saved, when we could simply live morally?
"Next ... If no offence is intended then of course none is taken. I too like to debate but do not see logic as the end all of be all."
Why is logic not the end all be all when it comes to debate?
"Pete: "That don't make no sense!"
Everett: "Pete, it's a fool that looks for logic in the chambers of the human heart."
(excerpted from O Brother, Where Art Thou?"
We aren't talking about emotions, we are debating facts and arguments.
"And just because you don't like the answers doesn't necessarily discount the answers. What might be useful and satisfying to me may be useless and "
I'm not discounting the answers because I don't like them. I'm saying that they don't answer my questions. If I do discount an answer, it's because I have an argument against it that should be addressed.
"I am sorry to hear that theism is thrust down your throat but it seems to me since, by your won admission, you like to "discuss theology" you are partly responsible for having your mouth open ;)"
I meant in a civil rights sense.
"I would ask you to please let me know what, if any, hateful rhetoric I am alledgedly guilty of as I am open to objective criticism, though I necessarily require some specificity of explanation to aid in my understanding. To aid in your comprehension of my intent, which I confess may not be easily discerned by the means I employ, allow me to assure you once again that if no offence was intended, as you repeatedly pointed out, that none was taken."
I find the Christian tenets that all men are inherently sinful to be hateful. I find that the idea that we are in need of being "saved" is hateful. I find that the idea that we should be guilty until graced innocent is hateful. I find the idea that we deserve torture at all to be hateful, let alone infinite torture. I also find the idea that having knowledge of good and evil is somehow bad to be at least misguided.
"So you don't believe in God. I had kind of figured that out for myself but thought it would be worthwhile asking why to better aid my understanding of you. And just so you know, I am not pissed at you and nor do I hate you. Thanks for the nod to my less hateful beliefs but once again I remind you to let me know of any hateful rhetoric I employ as I always try to do all things in love. I had to run Fred Phelps through a serach engine to know who he was and it's good of you place me above him on the love/hate scale. Mr. Phelps reminds me of the pharisees and sadducees and if I had the chance I would remind him that he is a sinner too and no different for that account in God's eyes than the people who he so bitterly hates. I am ashamed that people like Mr. Phelps consider themselves Christians because all too often people use guilt by association to judge one another. Just as you are an atheist I don't judge you by other atheists I know (a total of 5 now although one recently admitted he does believe in God but was simply being rebellious when he said otherwise so I guess the count is back to 4) even though one of them was the biggest jerk I have ever had the pleasure to meet."
I don't judge you by the actions of Fred Phelps, although I do judge your religion at times by the actions of the adherents of that religion. I'm also relieved to know that I'm not hated, because you'd be surprised at how many people simply hate atheists just because.
"If I may I would like to offer some criticism of your arguments. Sometimes you are separating the wheat from the chaff and taking the chaff. You are being even more literalist in some of your interpretations than even the most regressive Calvinist Fundamentalist."
For example?
"I encourage (and am encouraged that) you to recognize the need for open and continuing apperceptive dialogue between people with an interest in developing an evolving, expansive and increasingly comprehensive imagining and understanding of the world and our place in it. This requires a commitment to respect the opinions of others and to try to imagine and understand those opinions through the mind of others."
I try my best to adhere to your arguments as you write them and as I understand them. If you feel that I am not understanding or misrepresenting, please let me know.
"Of course this is best done in an atmosphere of mutual respect. When we can collectively establish the hope of growing beyond conventional limitations we ensure our (collective and individual) liberation (and salvation).
In other words; Peace!"
I agree, and the best way I can give you respect is to try to faithfully argue against your actual arguments and give props when you say something that convinces.
Re. directions of God's glory:
God, in the Trinity, expresses some attributes (love, trustworthiness, etc).
In order to express justice and mercy, He needs things to show mercy to, and things in need of justice (wrath against sin).
That's us. God has given us what we need to be fully responsible for our actions. And He will hold us accountable and bring us to justice.
But none of us can keep God's law perfectly (because it is perfect, just as He is perfect).
So that God can express mercy, He sent His Son to take our punishment. The penalty of sin is death. The penalty corresponds to the importance of the one offended.
Without sin and sinners (us) God cannot express these things. There is no need for wrath within Himself or for mercy on Himself.
I wouldn't describe Hell as torture, but it's not something I can really debate. It is certainly not filled with angels or devils delighting in torture. That is a medieval creation.
The Bible only describes Hell enough to know you don't want to be there. Some people believe the "wailing and gnashing of teeth" actually comes from sinners continuing to complain about God, more than any particular torture going on.
Hell is certainly free of any of the goodness God now gives to the unrepentant. It could be described as God losing patience with the unrepentant and removing Himself.
nedbrek,
"Re. directions of God's glory:
God, in the Trinity, expresses some attributes (love, trustworthiness, etc).
In order to express justice and mercy, He needs things to show mercy to, and things in need of justice (wrath against sin)."
Why does he need to do this? Isn't he perfect? A perfect being wants for nothing, yet god lacks the ability to be/show justice without creating wicked sinners? This does not compute. I don't think you understand the meaning of the word "perfect".
"That's us. God has given us what we need to be fully responsible for our actions. And He will hold us accountable and bring us to justice."
Yet, he could have easily done that without making us choose evil by default. Nor is it just to hold us guilty until given grace by god. Nor is hell just. If god is trying to prove his justice, then he is doing an extremely bad job of it. Why does he want to prove his justice anyway? Why does a perfect being need to prove anything? Who is god proving his justice to? This story makes no sense.
"But none of us can keep God's law perfectly (because it is perfect, just as He is perfect)."
For god to expect imperfect beings - that he created that way - to uphold perfection is rather unrealistic and shows not only injustice but poor planning. I'm surprised that you think this helps your argument in any way, because frankly it doesn't.
"So that God can express mercy, He sent His Son to take our punishment. The penalty of sin is death. The penalty corresponds to the importance of the one offended."
Mercy for whom? Certainly it wasn't merciful for Jesus. Besides, why did someone have to die? god is the one who imposed that punishment and that dictate; that someone had to die. If he were merciful, he would have decided that death wasn't necessary. Instead, he concocted some hare-brained scheme whereby he would sire his own son who was actually part of him, then have him killed in some ritualistic sacrifice in order to appease himself and somehow convince himself to let us off the hook, which is what he wanted to do anyway? This makes no sense.
"Without sin and sinners (us) God cannot express these things. There is no need for wrath within Himself or for mercy on Himself."
Why does a perfect being need to do anything?
"I wouldn't describe Hell as torture, but it's not something I can really debate. It is certainly not filled with angels or devils delighting in torture. That is a medieval creation."
It doesn't matter if anyone is there to delight in it, the fact is that it is described as torture. At the very least, it is not a nice place (lake of fire anyone?) That god would do this for any length of time, let alone eternity, is beastly, cruel, and beyond contempt.
"Hell is certainly free of any of the goodness God now gives to the unrepentant. It could be described as God losing patience with the unrepentant and removing Himself."
So, instead of showing himself to people who obviously haven't seen the evidence, he simply tosses them aside, even though he knows that the actions he has taken were not enough for them, and he knew what actions were required to get them to believe? That's love right there I guess, huh? Yeah, god loves us so much that he's going to hide from us and then when we don't find him, he'll cast us into hell. And, why? Do we learn anything from being cast into hell? Of course not, it's purely a punitive measure. Once in hell, that's it baby, game over. There is no redemption from hell. Why would a loving god give out one-way tickets to hellsville? Again, your story makes no sense.
"Why does a perfect being need to do anything?"
God "needs" us in the sense that there is no other way to show mercy and justice. He is not compelled ("needing") to do anything. He is "pleased" to do these things.
"So, instead of showing himself to people who obviously haven't seen the evidence"
I recommend you read my post on "Why the Gospel does not make sense". Then maybe things will make more sense :)
Nedbrek,
"God "needs" us in the sense that there is no other way to show mercy and justice. He is not compelled ("needing") to do anything. He is "pleased" to do these things."
I highly doubt that this is true. Why does god need to show mercy and justice? Why does god desire it? Who is god showing it to? Why does god need us in order to show mercy and justice? Why does god not display mercy or justice? Why does a perfect being have wants? Your answers don't seem to be answering anything that I'm asking.
"I recommend you read my post on "Why the Gospel does not make sense". Then maybe things will make more sense :)"
Will this answer my questions? May I ask these same questions there?
nedbrek,
I answered you in the other post. I do have to wonder whether you thought you were answering any of my questions though, because you didn't answer a single one.
GCT, I think you are starting to catch on despite your efforts not to ...
"He created a system where they can either be happy but not know it, or they can be sinners and toil. Why could he not create a system where Adam and Eve could have had the knowledge they needed, but could have sought out good instead of evil?"
Close ... God created a paradise where man was good and didn't know anything evil but when man chose to disobey God's warning about the dangers of eating from the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil man suffered the natural consequences of his knowledge of evil.
Your second sentence is where you come much closer to the truth, apparently without realizing it. God did almost exactly what you say he should have. He created a system where we had access to the knowledge we need and can seek good or evil as we choose. Isn't that so?
"I stand corrected, I did say angry. You are right that the Bible doesn't explicitly say he was angry, so I stand corrected. As to whether god could have done better, that's not up for discussion, because it's self-evidentially true practically. god created a system whereby we are guilty until proven innocent."
More progress ... another miracle! Now that you have come to the realization that God was not angry can you also please (re)consider the idea that Adam & Eve were not being punished. Maybe go back over the thread and reread the bits where I repeatedly said that Adam's sin was not disobedience, God was not punishing them for disobedience when he sent them from the Garden and that Christ's death was not simply vicarious punishment for our sin and reconsider your preconceptions in this new light (dim as it is).
Oh oh ... not a self-evident truth . Did you know that some people deny the existence of self-evident truths? My college philosophy intructors warned me about people who speak of self-evident truth. It's like saying if the truth isn't evident to you then you must be an idiot and wouldn't know an axiom if it hit you in the face. You did qualify your reference to a self- evident truth with the word practically which if taken to mean almost or nearly would seem to preclude your truth as self-evident because by definition it is self evident because it brooks no argument and must be an obvious truth but if you meant practically as in a practical or pragmatic manner then that's a different matter entirely. Anyways ... that's enough fun with philosophications and definitions for today. Either way I think I get your drift.
By the way, I have noticed that you don't like to capitalize God. Even when it is natural to do so at the beginning of a sentence you went out of your way to leave the g in the lower case. I think it's possible that despite your assertion that you don't believe in God's existence that in fact you do and act out your anger with God by refusing to capitalize his name (even though God is a poor understanding of God's real name but that's another topic entirely).
But I digress (twice) ... back to your conception of God's system; specifically "god created a system whereby we are guilty until proven innocent". You have not looked far enough in that you have not looked to Jesus who provided the means by which we may be innocent again.
"Why would you do such a foolish thing when god's own writings have condemned him many times over?
Just for the reasons I stated and I don't mind being foolish ....
Let no man deceive himself. If any man among you seemeth to be wise in this world, let him become a fool, that he may be wise. For the wisdom of this world is foolishness with God. For it is written, He taketh the wise in their own craftiness. (I Corinthians 3:18-19)
"... but god sure told them to go wage war and kill, didn't he?"
Maybe not. It's possible that the Hebrews merely said that God told them to (in the same way that your president asserts that God is instructing him to wage war) in order to provide justification for their own selfish purposes.
"Why did Jesus have to die for us to follow his teaching and live moral lives? I still don't see the question answered."
"... why does ... ? Why did ... ? Why did ...?"
Reread the thread. You have asked variations on this question a few times and I have provided answers. Are you being deliberately obtuse in order to frustrate me and possibly gain some satisfaction that you are not able to find otherwise?
"We aren't talking about emotions, we are debating facts and arguments."
I love Jesus and I love you. That's a fact and an emotion and brooks no argument.
"I'm not discounting the answers because I don't like them. I'm saying that they don't answer my questions."
I will repeat myself in the hope that you get the message; An answer that is useful and satisfying to me may be useless and unsatisfying to you (and vice versa). If I don't mind when your responses are unsatisfying why should you mind when the shoe is on the other foot. Please try to be more tolerant ;)
"I meant in a civil rights sense."
You don't have the right to your atheism (has it gotten that bad down there)? Others shouldn't have the right to their theism? How is theism thrust down your throat? What makes it a civil rights issue? What rights are denied you because you are an atheist? Please elaborate.
"I find the Christian tenets that all men are inherently sinful to be hateful. I find that the idea that we are in need of being "saved" is hateful. I find that the idea that we should be guilty until graced innocent is hateful."
Aren't we inherently sinful? Have you never hated or been angered without cause? Or been selfish or covetous? Or simply been a bad boy? Why should being sinful be hateful if it's a fact of life? Don't we need salvation? Would you rather remain guilty than receive grace? Wouldn't you rather be loving than hateful?
"I don't judge you by the actions of Fred Phelps, although I do judge your religion at times by the actions of the adherents of that religion."
Ahhh ... but you do compare me to him. Your exact words were "I think the beliefs that you have are hateful, but I think that you personally (and this is just from what I've read) have some ideas that are less hateful than some other Xians (like Fred Phelps for instance)." You make a relative judgement (comparison) between Christians but an absolute one towards all Christians. How is that different than the judgement that you accuse God of making against all of us as being inherently sinful ? Pot ... meet kettle ;)
By the way, I think we are all inherently good as God originally created us good. We just got a little bit o' sin smeared on us. But have no fear, sin (like shit, sweat, blood and tears) wipes off.
"I'm also relieved to know that I'm not hated, because you'd be surprised at how many people simply hate atheists just because."
I am not surprised at all. I'm sure that some people simply hate Christians just because.
"For example?"
An example is your (mis)conception that God was angry with Adam and Eve. Your insistance (which despite your admission of standing corrected was/is and will likely remain evident through much of your writing) that God was/is angry exemplifies a misunderstanding that is widespread through Christianity and in my opinion is an example of the misperceptions of God's motives and a manifestation of the evil that came into the world when we partook of the forbidden fruit.
Another example; when you are asserting that God's system is guilty until proven innocent but conveniently ignore the means by which we are proven innocent; Jesus Christ.
You have admitted your error in at least one instance and I am certain you are capable of doing so again if you would reconsider some of your misconceptions. While your questions and (cherry-picked) examples of difficult elements from the scriptures are not entirely without merit, your focus on the negative (chaff) is at the expense of other examples of sublime wisdom and understanding.
Separating wheat from chaff and grains from tares (and knowing which is which) ...
it ain't easy, it ain't easy
it ain't easy to get to heaven
when you're going down
all the people got their problems
that ain't nothing new
with the help of the good Lord
we can all pull on through
we can all pull on through
get there in the end
sometimes it'll take you right up
and sometimes down again
... well worth the effort even if it ain't easy.
braverdave,
"GCT, I think you are starting to catch on despite your efforts not to ..."
I try to be as dense as I can...
'"He created a system where they can either be happy but not know it, or they can be sinners and toil. Why could he not create a system where Adam and Eve could have had the knowledge they needed, but could have sought out good instead of evil?"
Close ... God created a paradise where man was good and didn't know anything evil but when man chose to disobey God's warning about the dangers of eating from the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil man suffered the natural consequences of his knowledge of evil.'
Again, though, I must disagree. It's not knowledge that is evil, but misapplication of that knowledge. You seem to want to blame the messenger, which is the same thing god did.
"Your second sentence is where you come much closer to the truth, apparently without realizing it. God did almost exactly what you say he should have. He created a system where we had access to the knowledge we need and can seek good or evil as we choose. Isn't that so?"
No, not really. We could seek that knowledge, but not without being punished for it. Further, what I'm talking about is having that knowledge and being able to live good lives. The ability to live with god in the garden ends as soon as they gain the knowledge.
'"I stand corrected, I did say angry. You are right that the Bible doesn't explicitly say he was angry, so I stand corrected. As to whether god could have done better, that's not up for discussion, because it's self-evidentially true practically. god created a system whereby we are guilty until proven innocent."
More progress ... another miracle! Now that you have come to the realization that God was not angry can you also please (re)consider the idea that Adam & Eve were not being punished. Maybe go back over the thread and reread the bits where I repeatedly said that Adam's sin was not disobedience, God was not punishing them for disobedience when he sent them from the Garden and that Christ's death was not simply vicarious punishment for our sin and reconsider your preconceptions in this new light (dim as it is).'
I'm calling foul on this one. The Bible doesn't say that god was angry, but it similarly doesn't say that he wasn't. If I'm not allowed to jump to that conclusion, then surely you aren't either.
'Oh oh ... not a self-evident truth . Did you know that some people deny the existence of self-evident truths? My college philosophy intructors warned me about people who speak of self-evident truth. It's like saying if the truth isn't evident to you then you must be an idiot and wouldn't know an axiom if it hit you in the face. You did qualify your reference to a self- evident truth with the word practically which if taken to mean almost or nearly would seem to preclude your truth as self-evident because by definition it is self evident because it brooks no argument and must be an obvious truth but if you meant practically as in a practical or pragmatic manner then that's a different matter entirely. Anyways ... that's enough fun with philosophications and definitions for today. Either way I think I get your drift.'
I used "self-evident" because I figured that pretty much anyone alive could come up with a better system if they actually think about it for any amount of time. We all have the ability to come up with better ideas than god has come up with so far. It's been demonstrated many times.
"By the way, I have noticed that you don't like to capitalize God. Even when it is natural to do so at the beginning of a sentence you went out of your way to leave the g in the lower case. I think it's possible that despite your assertion that you don't believe in God's existence that in fact you do and act out your anger with God by refusing to capitalize his name (even though God is a poor understanding of God's real name but that's another topic entirely)."
No, not at all. I simply see no reason to afford this entity that you call "god" with a capital letter, because god doesn't exist.
"But I digress (twice) ... back to your conception of God's system; specifically "god created a system whereby we are guilty until proven innocent". You have not looked far enough in that you have not looked to Jesus who provided the means by which we may be innocent again."
Ah, but that changes nothing. Are we born innocent or are we born guilty? It's the latter, of course, and that is why we are in need of saving. That is why the onus is on us to do something (believe in Jesus, good deeds, etc.) to attain salvation. In order to be considered innocent until proven guilty, we would have to be slated to go to heaven until it was proven that we had strayed.
'"Why would you do such a foolish thing when god's own writings have condemned him many times over?
Just for the reasons I stated and I don't mind being foolish ....'
What reasons are those again? I don't remember seeing any. Do you deny that the Bible records some pretty evil things that god has done?
'"... but god sure told them to go wage war and kill, didn't he?"
Maybe not. It's possible that the Hebrews merely said that God told them to (in the same way that your president asserts that God is instructing him to wage war) in order to provide justification for their own selfish purposes.'
Yeah, that's possible, but if that's true then you are admitting that your scriptures are no more holy than the phone book; maybe not even as holy. At least the phone book has some degree of accuracy.
'"Why did Jesus have to die for us to follow his teaching and live moral lives? I still don't see the question answered."
"... why does ... ? Why did ... ? Why did ...?"
Reread the thread. You have asked variations on this question a few times and I have provided answers. Are you being deliberately obtuse in order to frustrate me and possibly gain some satisfaction that you are not able to find otherwise?'
I disagree that you have provided answers. I still see no reason why Jesus had to be tortured and crucified and what that has to do with me. I'm not being obtuse, I honestly don't see an answer in there. You state that Jesus had to die for us so that we can be cleansed of the poison that Adam and Eve put in us, but I don't see that as an answer to WHY Jesus had to die. Why did Jesus have to be tortured? Why did god decide that this poison should be spread to Adam and Eve's offspring?
'"We aren't talking about emotions, we are debating facts and arguments."
I love Jesus and I love you. That's a fact and an emotion and brooks no argument.'
Actually, I can still argue about that, because I don't think you can actually love Jesus, and if you follow the teachings of Xianity, I don't think you can love me. Regardless, if Jesus came and died for our sins, that would not be an emotion. If we are trying to figure out whether this happened and why, that is not about your emotions.
'"I'm not discounting the answers because I don't like them. I'm saying that they don't answer my questions."
I will repeat myself in the hope that you get the message; An answer that is useful and satisfying to me may be useless and unsatisfying to you (and vice versa). If I don't mind when your responses are unsatisfying why should you mind when the shoe is on the other foot. Please try to be more tolerant ;)'
It's not intolerance, it's curiosity. If I try to answer a question and you find it unsatisfying, then I expect that you too will question again, or ask in a different way, or ask me to explain further.
'"I meant in a civil rights sense."
You don't have the right to your atheism (has it gotten that bad down there)? Others shouldn't have the right to their theism? How is theism thrust down your throat? What makes it a civil rights issue? What rights are denied you because you are an atheist? Please elaborate.'
I do have a right to my atheism, but there are those that would take that right away. My money, my pledge of allegiance, etc. all pay homage to a god that I don't believe in. My government wages holy wars. My government also gives money to churches that they subsequently use for proselytizing. These churches also don't pay taxes, even though they often step over the line and break the rules of non-profit orgs. There is discrimination against atheists in this country and some people have been fired for their lack of belief. There have been custody cases where one parent was denied visitation rights or parental rights because of their lack of beliefs. I've got tons of these. Bottom line is this, I don't care what you believe as long as it doesn't negatively affect me.
'"I find the Christian tenets that all men are inherently sinful to be hateful. I find that the idea that we are in need of being "saved" is hateful. I find that the idea that we should be guilty until graced innocent is hateful."
Aren't we inherently sinful? Have you never hated or been angered without cause? Or been selfish or covetous? Or simply been a bad boy? Why should being sinful be hateful if it's a fact of life? Don't we need salvation? Would you rather remain guilty than receive grace? Wouldn't you rather be loving than hateful?'
No, we are not inherently sinful (by that I guess you mean evil or bad). We are human. Humans sometimes do things that others consider bad. So what? Does that mean we deserve eternal torture? And, why would I "remain guilty"? On the contrary, it is your theology that teaches that. And, yes, it is hateful to teach that we are all bad and in need of saving, yet many people won't be saved. This is hateful. This is teaching people that their fellow man is evil, and how can you love an evil thing?
'"I don't judge you by the actions of Fred Phelps, although I do judge your religion at times by the actions of the adherents of that religion."
Ahhh ... but you do compare me to him. Your exact words were "I think the beliefs that you have are hateful, but I think that you personally (and this is just from what I've read) have some ideas that are less hateful than some other Xians (like Fred Phelps for instance)." You make a relative judgement (comparison) between Christians but an absolute one towards all Christians. How is that different than the judgement that you accuse God of making against all of us as being inherently sinful ? Pot ... meet kettle ;)'
What? You're really stretching here. My "absolute judgement" is that the teachings of Xianity are hateful. I'm not saying that you are inherently sinful; in fact I'm not saying anything about you personally at all. This is not a personal attack on you, and this is nothing like what god does.
'By the way, I think we are all inherently good as God originally created us good. We just got a little bit o' sin smeared on us. But have no fear, sin (like shit, sweat, blood and tears) wipes off.'
That's a nice sounding way of putting it, but just a semantic band-aid on a hateful concept. We all have sin on us, because why? Because we are all sinners by default. I'm not seeing the distinction here.
'"I'm also relieved to know that I'm not hated, because you'd be surprised at how many people simply hate atheists just because."
I am not surprised at all. I'm sure that some people simply hate Christians just because.'
True, some people hate others, just because, and nothing is a shield from that. That said, this culture has an inherent bias towards the idea that Xian = good (or at least that faith/religion = good). This leads to disproportionate treatment.
'"For example?"
An example is your (mis)conception that God was angry with Adam and Eve. Your insistance (which despite your admission of standing corrected was/is and will likely remain evident through much of your writing) that God was/is angry exemplifies a misunderstanding that is widespread through Christianity and in my opinion is an example of the misperceptions of God's motives and a manifestation of the evil that came into the world when we partook of the forbidden fruit.'
Ah, but we haven't proven that it was a misperception, just that the Bible doesn't explicitly say he was angry. Again, the Bible doesn't say the opposite either, so I don't think we can say for sure whether god was angry or not.
"Another example; when you are asserting that God's system is guilty until proven innocent but conveniently ignore the means by which we are proven innocent; Jesus Christ."
Again, this is because we have to take steps to establish our innocence. The system is rigged so that we are all in jail and some people have access to the key to get out of their cells. Some of those people actually get to the key and get out, while all the rest are eternally tortured. This is not a misperception on my part.
"You have admitted your error in at least one instance and I am certain you are capable of doing so again if you would reconsider some of your misconceptions. While your questions and (cherry-picked) examples of difficult elements from the scriptures are not entirely without merit, your focus on the negative (chaff) is at the expense of other examples of sublime wisdom and understanding."
I've been fair and admitted when I overstepped. I have not overstepped in all areas, however, and I've explained why. Further, if god is omni-benevolent, then why are there any difficult parts of scripture at all? How odd.
"... well worth the effort even if it ain't easy."
Why would an omni-benevolent god make it hard to be saved? If god truly wants us all to be in heaven with him after we die, why make it difficult to get there? Again, how odd.
GCT, nothing wrong with being dense ... I am porous.
Again, please forgive me if I skip over some of the instances where we are being repetitive in our back and forth to no productive end. I am sorry that you don't think that some of my responses are the answers your questions but as I have said it doesn't surprise me that an answer that may useful and satisfying to me might not be the same for you. However if there is any point of yours that you think I have unfairly neglected or overlooked without some attempt at a response somewhere along this long thread please feel free to tell me so.
"No, not really. We could seek that knowledge, but not without being punished for it. Further, what I'm talking about is having that knowledge and being able to live good lives. The ability to live with god in the garden ends as soon as they gain the knowledge."
You are still working under the assumption that we are being punished. Please remember that I believe that God removed us from the Garden to prevent access to the Tree of Life for a good reason. That good reason was to prevent us from eating the fruit of the Tree of Life and thereby living forever with our newly aquired sickness (sin). Furthermore I believe we can have that knowledge (of evil) and suffer with pain and hardship yet still live good lives (just not perfectly good). Although God removed us from the Garden (and thus a direct relationshipwith him and access to the the Tree of Life) he did provide the means by which we can have that relationship again.
"I'm calling foul on this one. The Bible doesn't say that god was angry, but it similarly doesn't say that he wasn't. If I'm not allowed to jump to that conclusion, then surely you aren't either."
Call foul all you want but I am not jumping to any conclusion. I have reached my conclusion through careful study and reflection upon the relevant scriptures in context with God's motives and provided a reasonable explanation as to why God was not angry as evidenced by his selfless and loving actions for our best interests.
"I used "self-evident" because I figured that pretty much anyone alive could come up with a better system if they actually think about it for any amount of time. We all have the ability to come up with better ideas than god has come up with so far. It's been demonstrated many times."
It's not self-evident (by defintion) then is it? As for your assertion that man's system is better than God's; I disagree. If man (generally speaking) has gotten better at anything it is hating and killing one another. That has been demonstrated far too many times and is demonstrated every day.
"No, not at all. I simply see no reason to afford this entity that you call "god" with a capital letter, because god doesn't exist."
Okay, if you insist on using the lowercase g feel free. But to be fair your statement should read "because I believe god doesn't exist." ... Right? I believe that God exists. You believe God does not exist. Neither one of us can prove our belief beyond stating our belief (faith) in the matter.
"Ah, but that changes nothing. ... In order to be considered innocent until proven guilty, we would have to be slated to go to heaven until it was proven that we had strayed."
It amazes me that you say these things as if they 'were not' when they 'are'. We were innocent but we have strayed.
"What reasons are those again?"
The reason is that I trust in God. In every way and in every matter and though some things may be a mystery to me ... I trust in God.
"Yeah, that's possible, but if that's true then you are admitting that your scriptures are no more holy than the phone book;"
I worship God, not the Bible. I have read the Bible (and apocrypha and pseudepigrapha {and studied other religions}) many times through and see a panoramic story. Whether given events are real or symbolic, recognized as canon or not, is insignificant to me because the stories contained within it give us essential truths about God and ourselves.
"Actually, I can still argue about that, because I don't think you can actually love Jesus, and if you follow the teachings of Xianity, I don't think you can love me.
Argue all you want but it won't change the fact that I love Jesus and you too. Like Jesus said ...
... thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind, and with all thy strength. ... And ... thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself. There is none other commandment greater than these.
(Mark 12:30-31{excerpted})
This is my commandment, That ye love one another, as I have loved you.
(John 15:12)
Please explain how your understanding of the words of Jesus teach other than that I should love you?
"It's not intolerance, it's curiosity."
I know. That's why I had the ;) winky face after my request that you be more tolerant. Just letting you know that I was being sarcastic in a good natured way to keep the mood light.
"I do have a right to my atheism ... My government ... My government ... These churches ... this country ... Bottom line is this, I don't care what you believe as long as it doesn't negatively affect me."
My sympathies to you that you live in the so called "land of the free and the home of the brave". Maybe you could move to Canada (or maybe a country where there are only atheists?)? But then my country is only marginally better since we are (sadly) providing troop support (via NATO) for the war in Afghanistan but have (mostly) stayed out of being involved with the Iraq holy war ; both of which by the way my church (independantly and by way of it's central organization; MCC) has sent letters to your leaders to express our sadness about these wars and to protest the use of illegal weapons of mass destruction (cluster bombs and depleted uranium munitions) and to share our vision of peace.
"What? You're really stretching here. My "absolute judgement" is that the teachings of Xianity are hateful. I'm not saying that you are inherently sinful; in fact I'm not saying anything about you personally at all. This is not a personal attack on you, and this is nothing like what god does."
It may be a stretch but I think I can reach. Please note it was a question when I asked "How is this different ...?" and not an assertion. And note the winky face again too when I made the pot/kettle crack. And I didn't say that you said "you are inherently sinful."
However you did previously say "I think the beliefs that you have are hateful, but I think that you personally (and this is just from what I've read) have some ideas that are less hateful than some other Xians" Please note the use of the word personally despite your more recent claim that "in fact I'm not saying anything about you personally at all.".
Don't worry though ... no offence taken.
Nonetheless I think the comparison between your judgement of all Christians as having hateful beliefs and God's judgement of all people being sinful is a comparison worthy of consideration. Think about it.
"That's a nice sounding way of putting it, but just a semantic band-aid ..."
Thank you. I liked it too. It's more than just a band-aid though ... at least I think it is.
"True, some people hate others, just because, and nothing is a shield from that. That said, this culture has an inherent bias towards the idea that Xian = good (or at least that faith/religion = good). This leads to disproportionate treatment."
Love is the shield from that. When someone hates you and you love them back you might be amazed at how disarming it is. Bias towards one thing or another is nothing new and certainly does lead to mistreatment. It's unfortunate but responding in kind only incites more of the same. Refusing to answer hatred in kind and responding with love is the best way.
"Ah, but we haven't proven that it was a misperception, just that the Bible doesn't explicitly say he was angry. Again, the Bible doesn't say the opposite either, so I don't think we can say for sure whether god was angry or not."
As I mentioned previously in this response; I have reached my conclusion (that God was not angry) through careful study and reflection upon the relevant scriptures in context with God's motives and provided a reasonable explanation as to why God was not angry as evidenced by his selfless and loving actions for our best interests.
It comes down to interpretation. I believe that God's motives and intentions with man are good. Misinterpreting his actions in the Garden makes God out to be vindictive and is a failure to understand the nature of the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil (and the nature of sin) and the Tree of Life. And failing to understand the problem leads us to misunderstand the solution offered in Christ.
"... Some of those people actually get to the key and get out, while all the rest are eternally tortured. This is not a misperception on my part."
Remember that I am a heretic (all joking aside - I am serious) and I do not believe in eternal torture. Jesus died for all and saved us all. He died to his human will and was reborn into divine will. We can do the same.
"Further, if god is omni-benevolent, then why are there any difficult parts of scripture at all?"
There are difficult parts of scripture. Some will use them to mock the Bible (and thereby God). Some will refuse to consider it, prefering to remain blissfully ignorant. And others will research it, think about it, pray about it and become richer for it.
Here is an example of a difficult scripture;
Now on the last day, the great day of the feast, Jesus stood and cried out, saying, "If anyone is thirsty, let him come to Me and drink. "He who believes in Me, as the Scripture said, `From his innermost being will flow rivers of living water.' "
(John 7:37-38)
On several occasions when Jesus is talking he quotes from (old testament) hebrew scripture. In this case he is quoting a scripture that does not appear in our Bible.
There are difficulties with the Bible ranging from instances like the above example to the establishment of final canon which produced the Bible we have today and the simple fact the there is no original "first edition" of the bible but only copies of copies (with additions, omissions and misquotes). Another topic for another day perhaps?
"Why would an omni-benevolent god make it hard to be saved? If god truly wants us all to be in heaven with him after we die, why make it difficult to get there?"
It ain't easy? I must admit to being facetious again.
It is easy ... we only make it hell for ourselves ;)
"You are still working under the assumption that we are being punished. Please remember that I believe that God removed us from the Garden to prevent access to the Tree of Life for a good reason. That good reason was to prevent us from eating the fruit of the Tree of Life and thereby living forever with our newly aquired sickness (sin). Furthermore I believe we can have that knowledge (of evil) and suffer with pain and hardship yet still live good lives (just not perfectly good). Although God removed us from the Garden (and thus a direct relationshipwith him and access to the the Tree of Life) he did provide the means by which we can have that relationship again."
How else can I interpret it considering that god could have simply moved the tree from our reach without kicking us out of the garden? That god had no need to cause physical pain to women? Etc. etc. etc. They did something bad of which they had no idea until afterwards. god tosses them out on the street for being kids. Would a parent do that for a reason that was not punitive? If a parent truly loved his/her kid, would that parent toss the kid out on the street for breaking a rule? "Oh, little Timmy, I know you are only 2 and you don't understand the rules yet, but I asked you to blow your nose instead of sniffing up the snot. Since you disobeyed me, I'm going to cause your nose to hurt for forever more, I'm kicking you out of the house, and unless you follow some arcane belief system, I'm going to make sure that you are tortured for eternity."
"Call foul all you want but I am not jumping to any conclusion. I have reached my conclusion through careful study and reflection upon the relevant scriptures in context with God's motives and provided a reasonable explanation as to why God was not angry as evidenced by his selfless and loving actions for our best interests."
Sorry, but that simply doesn't fly. The Bible doesn't explicitly say god was angry, so I can't claim that he was. But it doesn't say that god was concerned, so you can't claim that he was concerned. The Bible also does not say that god wasn't angry, and his actions speak to him being so. You can't outlaw my inference and then assert that your own is better (based on what, self reflection?) with no more evidence than I had.
"It's not self-evident (by defintion) then is it?"
Which is why I had a modifier on it.
"As for your assertion that man's system is better than God's; I disagree. If man (generally speaking) has gotten better at anything it is hating and killing one another. That has been demonstrated far too many times and is demonstrated every day."
This has nothing to do with the working of the world. It has to do with whether any man could devise something better than god has, and it happens every day. Parents don't cast children out onto the streets for gaining knowledge. Parents don't torture their kids. I could go on.
"Okay, if you insist on using the lowercase g feel free. But to be fair your statement should read "because I believe god doesn't exist." ... Right? I believe that God exists. You believe God does not exist. Neither one of us can prove our belief beyond stating our belief (faith) in the matter."
No, not at all. I would not say it is accurate that I am making a positive assertion about god's non-existence. I'm saying that I see no reason to place a positive belief in a god and no evidence for such an entity. The argument you are trying to make is to put both of our positions on level metaphysical ground, but I reject that. The onus is not on my to disprove your god, the onus is on you to prove your god. It is quite rational for me to not accept your god based on the lack of evidence for that god.
"It amazes me that you say these things as if they 'were not' when they 'are'. We were innocent but we have strayed."
"We" have strayed? Why am I guilty? Because of the actions of some humans that lived long ago? Why do their guilts pass through generation to generation to infect me? That is injustice. If it is a condition of living, that eventually one will perform an act against god, then what of the newborns or even pre-newborns? What of those (if you believe a human gains a soul at conception) who are aborted or miscarried? Have they offended god before they even came out of the womb? Do they go to hell? If they don't, then why do Xians not support abortion? Also, why would god place unfair restrictions on those who do live? Finally, if I am to go to hell, what have I done that merits that punishment? How long have I been guilty? When I was two and I probably did something that my parents warned me not to do, did god check me off the list and say, "Well, he's going to hell now unless he believes in me?"
"The reason is that I trust in God. In every way and in every matter and though some things may be a mystery to me ... I trust in God."
And, why do you trust in god? Remember, this is the same god that is a self-avowed murderer, that has ordered the deaths of untold numbers, and has a gun to your head saying, "Worship me or go to hell for eternity." Why would you trust this entity?
"I worship God, not the Bible. I have read the Bible (and apocrypha and pseudepigrapha {and studied other religions}) many times through and see a panoramic story. Whether given events are real or symbolic, recognized as canon or not, is insignificant to me because the stories contained within it give us essential truths about God and ourselves."
So, in so many words, you are claiming that the Bible is made up, but somehow still gives you directives about god? You can't have it both ways. Essentially, what you are doing is counting the hits and ignoring the misses. The hits are the bits about the Bible that you like, so those obviously came from god and tell you about him so that you can base your beliefs from it. The misses would be the things that we have culturally evolved to understand are wrong, so therefore god didn't do those things. Am I warm?
"Argue all you want but it won't change the fact that I love Jesus and you too. Like Jesus said ...
... thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind, and with all thy strength. ... And ... thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself. There is none other commandment greater than these.
(Mark 12:30-31{excerpted})"
Ok, then riddle me this: how does one love an entity that one can't be sure exists? What vessel do you use to have information about this entity? You've already thrown the Bible out the window (if my argument above is correct), so what do you use? Also, how can you love your fellow man when your fellow man is tainted with evil and deserving of eternal torture? Think about it.
"Please explain how your understanding of the words of Jesus teach other than that I should love you?"
Because your religion teaches that we are all worthy of damnation. So, if you are to love us, then Jesus is asking you to love evil. But, that would be contradictory to your tenets, so therefore you can not. (That's a more logical spin on my argument from above.)
"I know. That's why I had the ;) winky face after my request that you be more tolerant. Just letting you know that I was being sarcastic in a good natured way to keep the mood light."
Good show. I didn't catch that. Most Xians do think that atheists are intolerant, however, which is ironic considering how tolerant most Xians are of atheism.
"My sympathies to you that you live in the so called "land of the free and the home of the brave". Maybe you could move to Canada (or maybe a country where there are only atheists?)? But then my country is only marginally better since we are (sadly) providing troop support (via NATO) for the war in Afghanistan but have (mostly) stayed out of being involved with the Iraq holy war ; both of which by the way my church (independantly and by way of it's central organization; MCC) has sent letters to your leaders to express our sadness about these wars and to protest the use of illegal weapons of mass destruction (cluster bombs and depleted uranium munitions) and to share our vision of peace."
And I support our brothers to the North. I do actually have fond memories of Canada.
"It may be a stretch but I think I can reach. Please note it was a question when I asked "How is this different ...?" and not an assertion. And note the winky face again too when I made the pot/kettle crack. And I didn't say that you said "you are inherently sinful.""
Still, you're going to have to try very hard.
"However you did previously say "I think the beliefs that you have are hateful, but I think that you personally (and this is just from what I've read) have some ideas that are less hateful than some other Xians" Please note the use of the word personally despite your more recent claim that "in fact I'm not saying anything about you personally at all."."
I'm not saying anything about you personally except in the sense that you at least have the common decency to throw out some of the more abhorrent teachings of your religion. Is that better?
"Nonetheless I think the comparison between your judgement of all Christians as having hateful beliefs and God's judgement of all people being sinful is a comparison worthy of consideration. Think about it."
Sorry, but I have, because I've seen this before. It's not the same, nor is it comparable. What I'm saying is that the ideas espoused by Xianity are hateful, much as I would claim that the KKK has hateful ideas. You might believe in those ideas, but you probably don't actually act on them, as most modern people don't. I'm not claiming that you are a bad person. On the contrary, you're probably a lot like me. You probably donate to charity, you try to help people when you can, etc. IOW, you are probably not a good Xian. (As an aside, this idea that pervades our culture of claiming that Xianity = good is simply farcicle.) god, however, has condemned you as a person for being a person. There's a key difference there. He's not attacking ideas, he's attacking persons.
"Thank you. I liked it too. It's more than just a band-aid though ... at least I think it is."
Sorry, but it's nothing more than a band-aid. It's like the idea of hating the sin but loving the sinner when applied to gays. It sounds nice, but it's really just a way of saying that it's OK to discriminate against them.
"Love is the shield from that. When someone hates you and you love them back you might be amazed at how disarming it is. Bias towards one thing or another is nothing new and certainly does lead to mistreatment. It's unfortunate but responding in kind only incites more of the same. Refusing to answer hatred in kind and responding with love is the best way."
Ironic that you should say that as the Bible teaches, "An eye for an eye..."
"As I mentioned previously in this response; I have reached my conclusion (that God was not angry) through careful study and reflection upon the relevant scriptures in context with God's motives and provided a reasonable explanation as to why God was not angry as evidenced by his selfless and loving actions for our best interests."
And I've also done careful study. So, why is your study worth more than mine? Answer, it isn't. Further, how did you determine what god's motives are? Isn't that circular?
"It comes down to interpretation. I believe that God's motives and intentions with man are good. Misinterpreting his actions in the Garden makes God out to be vindictive and is a failure to understand the nature of the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil (and the nature of sin) and the Tree of Life. And failing to understand the problem leads us to misunderstand the solution offered in Christ."
But, once again, what do you base your assumptions on? How do you justify tossing out such inconvenient facts as the ones that have been brought up during this debate?
"Remember that I am a heretic (all joking aside - I am serious) and I do not believe in eternal torture. Jesus died for all and saved us all. He died to his human will and was reborn into divine will. We can do the same."
Then, it seems that god forgives us all? Does anyone go to hell? The Scriptures teach that most go to hell. Also, why did we need Jesus at all? Why couldn't god simply forgive us, since that's the end result anyway? Why did Jesus have to meet a cruel and bloody end? Why would an omni-benevolent god not relent unless an act of such creulty and barbarism was done? Why do I need to believe in Jesus if god will forgive me anyway?
"There are difficult parts of scripture. Some will use them to mock the Bible (and thereby God). Some will refuse to consider it, prefering to remain blissfully ignorant. And others will research it, think about it, pray about it and become richer for it."
You are claiming that the Bible lists all of god's murdering so that some people can mock it, some people can refuse to consider it (I take that to mean Xians who think god is omni-benevolent), and others will become richer for it? What? What does it serve for people to read about the bloodbaths that god has caused?
"Here is an example of a difficult scripture;
Now on the last day, the great day of the feast, Jesus stood and cried out, saying, "If anyone is thirsty, let him come to Me and drink. "He who believes in Me, as the Scripture said, `From his innermost being will flow rivers of living water.' "
(John 7:37-38)"
I meant difficult as in contradicting the tenets of Xianity. Why would you think this is difficult, except that it contradicts other passages where evil is afoot under the direction of god?
"On several occasions when Jesus is talking he quotes from (old testament) hebrew scripture. In this case he is quoting a scripture that does not appear in our Bible."
Biblical inerrancy perhaps? ;)
"There are difficulties with the Bible ranging from instances like the above example to the establishment of final canon which produced the Bible we have today and the simple fact the there is no original "first edition" of the bible but only copies of copies (with additions, omissions and misquotes). Another topic for another day perhaps?"
Yeah, another day. I think we can stick to the difficulties meaning the evil that god inflicts on mankind.
"It ain't easy? I must admit to being facetious again.
It is easy ... we only make it hell for ourselves ;)"
Really, it's easy? How so? According to the blog host's theology, we are unable to come to god unless he changes our hearts. That would mean it's not just hard, but impossible except via act of god. I suppose you mean that it's easy in that one simply has to believe in Jesus, right? Is that really so easy though? Why do most of the world's population not believe in Jesus? Why does god not present evidence for Jesus that someone like me would accept? If he wants me to be saved, then he knows what must be done and what I would need to believe, yet he doesn't do so. Further, one doesn't simply decide to believe in Jesus. Can you decide to simply believe in Allah starting tomorrow?
GCT, I read through the thread again and compiled a summary followed by a brief commentary. Hopefully it helps you to better understand me.
God created the universe and it was/is good. God warned Adam and Eve, because he loved them (not as an arbitrary test of obedience), not to eat the fruit from the Tree of knowledge of Good and Evil because God knew it would harm them. Adam and Eve did eat the forbidden fruit and it changed them. Where they had previously been naked and not ashamed after eating the forbidden fruit they knew they were naked and were ashamed. What was good they now misperceived as evil. God went searching for Adam in the Garden but Adam hid himself and denied himself his original relationship with God.
God set his plan to heal his children into motion. He removed them from the Garden thereby preventing them from eating from the Tree of Life and immortalizing their pain. God was not punishing Adam and Eve (and is not punishing us). Because God loved them their pain was only to be temporary and a means to guide them back to goodness. God's plan is that all evil and sin will be only for a limited time.
While man struggled in the painful world God worked out his plan to heal his children which culminated in Jesus Christ who died to his human will, was reborn into divine will and was resurrected. Our suffering and pain instructs us to follow Jesus, die to our selfish will and be born again into God's will. God was not simply venting his wrath on Jesus. Jesus voluntarily laid down his life for us and saved us all. Jesus stood in our place and embodied the sins of the world and through his death all sins for all people have been expiated. God's grace is the truth and by it we are free to eat the fruit from the Tree of Life.
That's the good news of the gospel (as I understand it). Don't believe me just because I say so because of course I could be wrong. Read the Bible, reflect on it, read the reflections of others, pray about it and interpret it for yourself. Everyone either makes their own interpretation or blindly follows the interpretations of others. Nobody believes everything and lives (literally) by everything in the Bible. God has written his Law of Love in my heart and with this guidance I support truth and oppose error (even if it is in the Bible).
Now for your some of the points from your most recent response. GCT, lucky for you I am as patient as the day is long (but not forever) ...
" ... tortured for eternity."
"... go to hell?."
"... going to hell ..."
"Worship me or go to hell for eternity."
"deserving of eternal torture?"
"Because your religion teaches that we are all worthy of damnation."
Please stop attributing the beliefs of others to me. Your use of this particular belief in your argument against my beliefs is a straw man (a misrepresentation of my position) that you repeatedly set up and knock down. I have been patient and gentle in my reminders whenever you have done this but your repeated use of this fallacy is unfair and intellectually dishonest.
I have clearly stated I do not believe in a literal hell of torment for eternity. I have mentioned the alternative possibility of annihilation. Biblical evidence exists for both positions. But I believe (mostly) in another position for which there is Biblical evidence as well; that eventually everyone will be reconciled to God (and if there is a hell that it will be empty).
"I'm not saying anything about you personally except in the sense that you at least have the common decency to throw out some of the more abhorrent teachings of your religion. Is that better?"
It would be better if you would remember it and amend your arguments to reflect my beliefs. Despite your apparent acknowledgement that my beliefs differ from those of others you still keep atributing the beliefs of others to me and arguing from the point of view that I believe in hell and eternal torment.
We can discuss the evidence for these various beliefs and what it means if you like but perhaps it's another topic for another day as well. If Ned is still following this discussion maybe he will see fit to create a new post (or remind us of one that already exists) on this topic.
"You can't outlaw my inference [God was angry] and then assert that your own is better (based on what, self reflection?) with no more evidence than I had."
You previously accused me of jumping to a conclusion and I explained that I did not jump to a conclusion. I have studied the matter and arrived at my conclusion after careful consideration of the evidence. Maybe you have done the same? If we interpret differently and arrive at different conclusions that is no surprise to me. By no means is it my intention to outlaw your inference. I do however believe it is in error so I speak against it and explain why. I can indeed claim that God was concerned for our well being because I believe it and have provided my reasoning for believing this to be so. If you don't like it that's fine although it is a bit of a mystery to me how you can make an inference about a God in whom you don't believe. Regardless, please remember I have promised not to kill or excommunicate you for holding a different belief than I do.
"So, in so many words, you are claiming that the Bible is made up, but somehow still gives you directives about god? You can't have it both ways. Essentially, what you are doing is counting the hits and ignoring the misses. The hits are the bits about the Bible that you like, so those obviously came from god and tell you about him so that you can base your beliefs from it. The misses would be the things that we have culturally evolved to understand are wrong, so therefore god didn't do those things. Am I warm?"
Close ... but no cigar. I have many questions about the Bible and the answers I have are mine. Questions like; literal or figurative, are there other scriptures outside the Bible that are inspired, what is inspired, what is opinion and many cultural, temporal and moral questions. At this point I have more questions than answers, some of which I have shared with you, but I am working on them, enjoying the intellectual and spirtual journey and trusting in God to provide me the answers to my questions.
As I said; the stories contained within it give us essential truths about God and ourselves. I do not ignore the misses at all. They are one of many continuing subjects of study. I have explained my understanding of some of those difficult instances (misses); for instance; the stories of the Hebrew slaughter of Canaanites with a modern day comparison to President Bush and his allegedly divinely inspired holy war. This is an instance that teaches me an ugly truth about ourselves.
"how does one love an entity that one can't be sure exists? What vessel do you use to have information about this entity? You've already thrown the Bible out the window (if my argument above is correct), so what do you use? Also, how can you love your fellow man when your fellow man is tainted with evil and deserving of eternal torture?"
But I am sure God exists. I know it in my heart. I know it in my soul and my spirit. Contrary to your statement, I have not thrown the Bible out the window. I love my fellow man because it's how I feel. Why should I hate them?
"Because your religion teaches that we are all worthy of damnation. So, if you are to love us, then Jesus is asking you to love evil. But, that would be contradictory to your tenets, so therefore you can not. (That's a more logical spin on my argument from above.)"
There you go again, talking about what my religion teaches and damnation and insisting we are evil . When have I said that you or anyone is evil or deserving of damnation? Another straw man argument ... please stop.
My religion , the faith I define by my beliefs and not the beliefs of others, or even more accurately; Jesus ... teaches me to love everyone. Even my enemies (if I had any).
Love your enemies, do good to them which hate you, Bless them that curse you, and pray for them which despitefully use you. And unto him that smiteth thee on the one cheek offer also the other; and him that taketh away thy cloke forbid not to take thy coat also. Give to every man that asketh of thee; and of him that taketh away thy goods ask them not again. And as ye would that men should do to you, do ye also to them likewise.
Luke 6:27-31
Ye have heard that it hath been said, An eye for an eye, and a tooth for a tooth: But I say unto you, That ye resist not evil: but whosoever shall smite thee on thy right cheek, turn to him the other also.
Matthew 5:38-39
"Ironic that you should say that as the Bible teaches, "An eye for an eye...""
Ironic that once again you separate wheat from chaff and keep the chaff. I just demonstrated that Jesus came and showed us a better way. Surely you knew that Jesus said this? Maybe you should get your Bible out and give it a read again.
"And I've also done careful study. So, why is your study worth more than mine? Answer, it isn't. Further, how did you determine what god's motives are? Isn't that circular?"
Well, judging from the example directly above your study has perhaps not been careful enough. Regardless, I have made no claim to my study being more worthy than yours. I have said on more than one occasion that I might be wrong in my reasoning and conclusions and that it is up to each of us to decide for ourselves what we believe. I am here to share my ideas and my understanding, and conversely to share in and understand the ideas of others.
God's motive is love.
Beloved, let us love one another: for love is of God; and every one that loveth is born of God, and knoweth God. He that loveth not knoweth not God; for God is love. In this was manifested the love of God toward us, because that God sent his only begotten Son into the world, that we might live through him.
(1 John 4:7-9)
"But, once again, what do you base your assumptions on? How do you justify tossing out such inconvenient facts as the ones that have been brought up during this debate?"
My assumptions about God are based on the principle that God is love.
What inconvenient facts have I tossed out? Please provide a specific example.I have stated my desire to answer your questions to the best of my understanding and ability. I have also asked that if there is anything you feel I have failed or neglected to address to please point it out.
"Then, it seems that god forgives us all? Does anyone go to hell? The Scriptures teach that most go to hell. Also, why did we need Jesus at all? Why couldn't god simply forgive us, since that's the end result anyway? Why did Jesus have to meet a cruel and bloody end? Why would an omni-benevolent god not relent unless an act of such creulty and barbarism was done? Why do I need to believe in Jesus if god will forgive me anyway?"
Good questions. Here are some verses that might guide you to the answers you seek;
And the angel said unto them, Fear not: for, behold, I bring you good tidings of great joy, which shall be to all people. For unto you is born this day in the city of David a Saviour, which is Christ the Lord.
Luke 2:10-11
For the Son of man is come to seek and to save that which was lost.
Luke 19:10
For God hath concluded them all in unbelief, that he might have mercy upon all.
Romans 11:32
For this is good and acceptable in the sight of God our Saviour; Who will have all men to be saved, and to come unto the knowledge of the truth. For there is one God, and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus; Who gave himself a ransom for all, to be testified in due time.
1 Timothy 2:3-6
The Lord is not slack concerning his promise, as some men count slackness; but is longsuffering to us-ward, not willing that any should perish, but that all should come to repentance.
2 Peter 3:9
For what if some did not believe? shall their unbelief make the faith of God without effect?
Romans 3:3
For as in Adam all die, even so in Christ shall all be made alive.
1 Corinthians 15:22
And God shall wipe away all tears from their eyes; and there shall be no more death, neither sorrow, nor crying, neither shall there be any more pain: for the former things are passed away.
Revelation 21:4
"You are claiming that the Bible lists all of god's murdering so that some people can ..."
No ... that is what you are claiming. I claim what I said and do not claim the misrepresentation you made it out to be.
"I meant difficult as in contradicting the tenets of Xianity."
For example?
"Biblical inerrancy perhaps? ;)"
Perhaps.
"Really, it's easy? How so?"
It's easy when you trust in God. But you don't believe in God so for you it might not be so easy.
"According to the blog host's theology ...
You will have to ask Ned your questions about his theology.
As for me ... I will be who I will to be.
Almost done now. I saved this following point for last ...
"The argument you are trying to make is to put both of our positions on level metaphysical ground, but I reject that. The onus is not on my to disprove your god, the onus is on you to prove your god."
Why should the onus be on me? I have faith (belief without proof) in God. How can I prove that faith to you? We are on a level metaphysical ground whether you reject it or not. If you believe that God does not exist and cannot prove it your belief is without proof as well.
Having said that ... I do believe there is proof that God exists. It's all around us.
Once again I have some questions for you ...
Why does my belief in God mean so much to you? You are spending a fair bit of time and effort refuting something that you claim not to believe in. Is it possible that you are curious to see if you can be convinced to believe in God? Is it possible that you want to know God (and maybe don't even know it)?
Behold, I stand at the door, and knock: if any man hear my voice, and open the door, I will come in to him ...
Is Jesus knocking at the door of your heart?
braverdave,
"God created the universe and it was/is good. God warned Adam and Eve, because he loved them (not as an arbitrary test of obedience), not to eat the fruit from the Tree of knowledge of Good and Evil because God knew it would harm them. Adam and Eve did eat the forbidden fruit and it changed them. Where they had previously been naked and not ashamed after eating the forbidden fruit they knew they were naked and were ashamed. What was good they now misperceived as evil. God went searching for Adam in the Garden but Adam hid himself and denied himself his original relationship with God."
And, my point was that if god loved them, a simple warning would not have sufficed. He would have removed the fruit from their reach. As in the poison analogy, we would find any parent that left the poison out on the floor to be negligent and take their kids away, even if they did give a stern warning. Why is god not negligent? How can a perfect, omni-max god not have seen this coming?
"God set his plan to heal his children into motion. He removed them from the Garden thereby preventing them from eating from the Tree of Life and immortalizing their pain. God was not punishing Adam and Eve (and is not punishing us). Because God loved them their pain was only to be temporary and a means to guide them back to goodness. God's plan is that all evil and sin will be only for a limited time."
Why did it take thousands of years for god to actually implement his plan? Why did god include such things are toil, hardship, and physical pain if this was not punitive? Why did god have to cast them out of the garden at all, instead of just removing the tree of life from their reach? Why is god so stupid?
"While man struggled in the painful world God worked out his plan to heal his children which culminated in Jesus Christ who died to his human will, was reborn into divine will and was resurrected. Our suffering and pain instructs us to follow Jesus, die to our selfish will and be born again into God's will. God was not simply venting his wrath on Jesus. Jesus voluntarily laid down his life for us and saved us all. Jesus stood in our place and embodied the sins of the world and through his death all sins for all people have been expiated. God's grace is the truth and by it we are free to eat the fruit from the Tree of Life."
Why did god, then, kill off almost all of humanity during the flood? Why did god not already have a plan in place? Isn't god omni-max? Didn't he know this would transpire?
"That's the good news of the gospel (as I understand it). Don't believe me just because I say so because of course I could be wrong. Read the Bible, reflect on it, read the reflections of others, pray about it and interpret it for yourself. Everyone either makes their own interpretation or blindly follows the interpretations of others. Nobody believes everything and lives (literally) by everything in the Bible. God has written his Law of Love in my heart and with this guidance I support truth and oppose error (even if it is in the Bible)."
The good news? That some maniacal entity is holding a gun to your head and will torture you in hell forever unless you worship him? That's supposed to be good news?
And, BTW, I have read the Bible and this is my interpretation of it. I think that most Xians don't read the Bible and when they do, they make a priori assumptions about god. I think if more Xians read the Bible with an open mind, actually looking for truth, there would be less Xians.
"Please stop attributing the beliefs of others to me. Your use of this particular belief in your argument against my beliefs is a straw man (a misrepresentation of my position) that you repeatedly set up and knock down. I have been patient and gentle in my reminders whenever you have done this but your repeated use of this fallacy is unfair and intellectually dishonest."
I argue this because a bulk of Xianity espouses this belief and it is all over the Bible (NT actually). You've recently said that you don't believe in hell, which raised further questions which I asked. I'll further ask why you disbelieve in hell, considering that the Bible does talk about it quite a bit.
"I have clearly stated I do not believe in a literal hell of torment for eternity. I have mentioned the alternative possibility of annihilation. Biblical evidence exists for both positions. But I believe (mostly) in another position for which there is Biblical evidence as well; that eventually everyone will be reconciled to God (and if there is a hell that it will be empty)."
Annihilation is better than eternal torment, but not quite enough for an all-loving, all-just god, is it? I am unaware of any Biblical evidence that says that all will be reconciled with god, and it also raises the questions I've previously asked.
"It would be better if you would remember it and amend your arguments to reflect my beliefs. Despite your apparent acknowledgement that my beliefs differ from those of others you still keep atributing the beliefs of others to me and arguing from the point of view that I believe in hell and eternal torment."
We can focus on your beliefs, but I am permitted to ask why your beliefs differ and how you came to those beliefs, especially since most Xians disagree with you about your beliefs and I find much evidence in scripture to back up their beliefs, and not as many to back up yours.
"You previously accused me of jumping to a conclusion and I explained that I did not jump to a conclusion. I have studied the matter and arrived at my conclusion after careful consideration of the evidence. Maybe you have done the same? If we interpret differently and arrive at different conclusions that is no surprise to me. By no means is it my intention to outlaw your inference. I do however believe it is in error so I speak against it and explain why. I can indeed claim that God was concerned for our well being because I believe it and have provided my reasoning for believing this to be so. If you don't like it that's fine although it is a bit of a mystery to me how you can make an inference about a God in whom you don't believe. Regardless, please remember I have promised not to kill or excommunicate you for holding a different belief than I do."
Fine, then I hold that god was angry. There are plenty of other places where god and Jesus both display anger, so this is not an emotion that you can claim god has never shown. In fact, it's quite common for god to be angry, so it's no surprise to me that god would be angry in this situation, and it fits nicely with the fact that god could have done all manner of things that would have caused his "beloved humans" less physical and emotional pain - like not personally inflicting physical pain on them as he does in the story.
"Close ... but no cigar. I have many questions about the Bible and the answers I have are mine. Questions like; literal or figurative, are there other scriptures outside the Bible that are inspired, what is inspired, what is opinion and many cultural, temporal and moral questions. At this point I have more questions than answers, some of which I have shared with you, but I am working on them, enjoying the intellectual and spirtual journey and trusting in God to provide me the answers to my questions."
And, how do you determine which is literal and which is figurative? You base it on what follows what you previously believe and find moral. Where does this come from? It came from your parents and your learned morality.
"As I said; the stories contained within it give us essential truths about God and ourselves. I do not ignore the misses at all. They are one of many continuing subjects of study. I have explained my understanding of some of those difficult instances (misses); for instance; the stories of the Hebrew slaughter of Canaanites with a modern day comparison to President Bush and his allegedly divinely inspired holy war. This is an instance that teaches me an ugly truth about ourselves."
What essentail truths are these? That god is vindictive and cruel, or that god is infinitely loving? If the latter, then you are most certainly counting only the hits. Another pernicious part of Xianity is the directive that all evils are born of man. god is thereby absolved of all evil and man is wicked and horrible. Like your insistence that the slaughters of the Canaanites are the work of evil men, even though god specifically commanded them to do this. This is a classic example of what I'm talking about.
"But I am sure God exists. I know it in my heart. I know it in my soul and my spirit. Contrary to your statement, I have not thrown the Bible out the window. I love my fellow man because it's how I feel. Why should I hate them?"
How do you know that god exists? I asked that and you answered with, "I know." That's no answer. How do you know this? You have no evidence to present, so there's no way that you can be certain of god's existence. So, how can you love something that you can't be certain exists? Does this entity talk to you? Does it hold conversations with you? Does it laugh at your jokes?
"There you go again, talking about what my religion teaches and damnation and insisting we are evil . When have I said that you or anyone is evil or deserving of damnation? Another straw man argument ... please stop."
You don't think we need to be saved? You've been quite clear that Jesus Christ was necessary for us to become reconciled with god. This is no strawman.
"My religion , the faith I define by my beliefs and not the beliefs of others, or even more accurately; Jesus ... teaches me to love everyone. Even my enemies (if I had any)."
And, I'm saying it is contradictory, because you can't love someone who is evil.
"Ironic that once again you separate wheat from chaff and keep the chaff. I just demonstrated that Jesus came and showed us a better way. Surely you knew that Jesus said this? Maybe you should get your Bible out and give it a read again."
Why did god change his mind? Is god not perfect? Why give contradicting directions for morality? Also, I knew he said it, but it contradicts other things he says, so it's not a good guide. If I separate the wheat from the chaff and only keep the chaff, you only keep the wheat. You've blinded yourself to all the evil in the Bible and are counting only the hits. Yes, Jesus said some things - if he existed - that were indicative of moral behavior. He also said some things that are quite monstrous. He advocated adherence to the OT law, strict adherence, while at the same time advocated things like what you are quoting above? How are we to make sense of it? Why couldn't god be more clear and not contradict himself?
"Well, judging from the example directly above your study has perhaps not been careful enough. Regardless, I have made no claim to my study being more worthy than yours. I have said on more than one occasion that I might be wrong in my reasoning and conclusions and that it is up to each of us to decide for ourselves what we believe. I am here to share my ideas and my understanding, and conversely to share in and understand the ideas of others."
My study is not careful enough because you disagree with it? This presupposes that your study is better than mine, that your answers are right and mine are wrong, unless I agree with you.
Further, if you truly believe that it is up to each of us to figure out what we believe, then I find that troubling. Apart from its relativistic overtones - and I find any Xian using relativism to be rather humorous - it smacks of the is/ought fallacy, that somethine is because you think it ought to be. Also, god certainly has laid down some laws, etc. and he doesn't seem the type to simply say, "Well, I don't care what you believe so long as you truly believe it." If hell is correct (or annihilation), then this way leads to eternal damnation for not just many or most, but virtually all and god will be pretty lonely in heaven, which raises the further question of why god made us in the first place. Actually, why did god make us? If god is truly perfect, then he has no need for us.
"God's motive is love."
Simply asserting so doesn't provide support. I asked you how you know this. So, how do you know this? god doesn't display love in the scriptures, so I'm wondering how you came to this conclusion.
"Beloved, let us love one another: for love is of God; and every one that loveth is born of God, and knoweth God. He that loveth not knoweth not God; for God is love. In this was manifested the love of God toward us, because that God sent his only begotten Son into the world, that we might live through him.
(1 John 4:7-9)"
So what? Actions speak louder than words, and god's actions scream out that these are empty words. god says he loves us, but does he show it? It's like the abusive spouse who claims that (s)he beats up the other because (s)he loves the other so much.
"My assumptions about God are based on the principle that God is love."
And, you would do well to show evidence for that. I've got tons of Biblical passages that show god is not about love. In fact, the very first commandment pretty well shows that this is not the case, especially since god is a "jealous god". The inconsistency alone is enough to tell me that this god is lying at one point.
"What inconvenient facts have I tossed out? Please provide a specific example.I have stated my desire to answer your questions to the best of my understanding and ability. I have also asked that if there is anything you feel I have failed or neglected to address to please point it out."
I do point it out, that's why there are so many question marks in my comments. Those questions are all unaddressed points. They are things that have been tossed out, like why if god is not being punitive did he put physical pain upon Adam and Eve?
"Good questions. Here are some verses that might guide you to the answers you seek;
And the angel said unto them, Fear not: for, behold, I bring you good tidings of great joy, which shall be to all people. For unto you is born this day in the city of David a Saviour, which is Christ the Lord.
Luke 2:10-11"
This is not illuminating at all.
"For the Son of man is come to seek and to save that which was lost.
Luke 19:10"
Again, this tells us that we are all lost and in need of saving, which I specifically have pointed out is hateful.
"For God hath concluded them all in unbelief, that he might have mercy upon all.
Romans 11:32"
You do realize that this is speaking of people who have been elected, right? These are people that god has come to and physically changed their hearts. This is not supportive for you.
"For this is good and acceptable in the sight of God our Saviour; Who will have all men to be saved, and to come unto the knowledge of the truth. For there is one God, and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus; Who gave himself a ransom for all, to be testified in due time.
1 Timothy 2:3-6"
Ouch, the King James Version? Other versions state that god wants all men to be saved, not "will have", and the KJV is notoriously bad as a translation. I also note that the rest of that passage is pretty mysogynistic.
"The Lord is not slack concerning his promise, as some men count slackness; but is longsuffering to us-ward, not willing that any should perish, but that all should come to repentance.
2 Peter 3:9"
Again, this shows desire for people to be saved, which is pitiful. If god desires that all are saved, why are we not all saved, and why would we need Jesus? Yet, the Bible teaches that not all are saved, so god is rather impotent for an omnipotent being.
"For what if some did not believe? shall their unbelief make the faith of God without effect?
Romans 3:3"
This passages speaks to the assertion that god is real even if some do not believe.
"For as in Adam all die, even so in Christ shall all be made alive.
1 Corinthians 15:22"
This passages speaks more to the idea that "annihilation" is not an option.
"And God shall wipe away all tears from their eyes; and there shall be no more death, neither sorrow, nor crying, neither shall there be any more pain: for the former things are passed away.
Revelation 21:4"
And a couple phrases later (21:8) god talks about all those who are "sinful" (although he lists a bunch of sins) burning in the lake of fire forever.
"No ... that is what you are claiming. I claim what I said and do not claim the misrepresentation you made it out to be."
Then what are you claiming? You seem to be saying that these stories are in the Bible so that we can reflect upon them and somehow disregard them to believe that god is good in spite of the evidence? I find what you said to be without substance. I'm trying to make sense of it.
"For example?"
That god is all-loving, yet that god goes on murdering sprees? That would be a good example.
"It's easy when you trust in God. But you don't believe in God so for you it might not be so easy."
I would say it's still not easy. Jesus has some words to that affect as well I believe. The sermon on the mount is all about taking the law to such extremes that it's impossible to follow for anyone.
"You will have to ask Ned your questions about his theology."
I just bring it up as a counter idea to yours and mine.
"As for me ... I will be who I will to be."
Fair enough, but remember that there are those out there that use the same exact book and come to very different conclusions.
"Why should the onus be on me? I have faith (belief without proof) in God. How can I prove that faith to you? We are on a level metaphysical ground whether you reject it or not. If you believe that God does not exist and cannot prove it your belief is without proof as well."
The onus is on you because you are putting forth a positive statement. You saying, "god exists." My statement is a disavowal of yours in that I'm saying, "If you wish to assert that god exists, then you must provide evidence to that affect, otherwise I am rationally justified in not accepting your assertion." This is quite different from what you are putting forth as my argument. Further, you plaint that you have no proof, but neither do I, is completely wrong-headed. I do not need proof to reject your positive assertion because you lack the proof to make it a viable option.
"Having said that ... I do believe there is proof that God exists. It's all around us."
Please point out some way of verifying this proof and what specifically you claim is evidence for god. Please note that begging the question will not be accepted.
"Why does my belief in God mean so much to you? You are spending a fair bit of time and effort refuting something that you claim not to believe in. Is it possible that you are curious to see if you can be convinced to believe in God? Is it possible that you want to know God (and maybe don't even know it)?"
Although I would want to know god if god does exist, I'm not searching for god, so don't think that I'm here to be proselytized to. It matters to me because I have empathy and compassion. If I knew someone that were being beaten by their spouse, I would be concerned for that person too. And, I truly think that the beaten spouse is a very good analogy for the relationship between man and the Xian god.
"Behold, I stand at the door, and knock: if any man hear my voice, and open the door, I will come in to him ...
Is Jesus knocking at the door of your heart?"
god should know what it would take for me to believe, since god is omni-max. Therefore, Jesus doesn't not need to knock at the door of my heart, but simply show me whatever it would take for me to believe. In fact, I find this argument to be a pretty devastating one against god being omni-benevolent. If god truly wants us to be saved and we have to believe in god in order to be saved, then god's absence from most people's lives is in direct contradiction to his stated omni-benevolence.
GCT, have you always been an atheist?
braverdave,
"GCT, have you always been an atheist?"
I guess that depends on who you ask. I've had plenty of Xians tell me that it's impossible that I was previously a Xian because I'm not one now. But, to answer your question, I was raised a Xian and I used to believe in god, Jesus, etc.
"How can a perfect, omni-max god not have seen this coming?"
Maybe God did see it (eating the forbidden fruit) coming. It's certainly a possibility. Even probable. I believe that the fruit had to be there for man to be free and will even concede that until they ate the fruit they only had the illusion of free will. If God knew they would eat the fruit does that increase or decrease the negligence you allege?
"Why did it take thousands of years for god to actually implement his plan? Why did god include such things are toil, hardship, and physical pain if this was not punitive? Why did god have to cast them out of the garden at all, instead of just removing the tree of life from their reach? Why is god so stupid?"
Well ... the commonly held belief is that God wanted to give man a chance to prove to themselves that they need God. That self-governance continues to this day for those who have not surrendered their lives to doing God's will. I explained the why of the pain and suffering in the summary I provided and have explained it previously too. I can only provide conjecture as to why not simply remove the tree of life from the Garden; because then it wouldn't be the Garden anymore.
I don't appreciate your last remark. I thought we agreed that an atmosphere of mutual respect for one another and our respective beliefs would be most condusive to our discussion. Yes?
"Why did god, then, kill off almost all of humanity during the flood? Why did god not already have a plan in place? Isn't god omni-max? Didn't he know this would transpire?"
We previously discussed God's repenting of the flood and my amazement and wonder remain. God possibly and probably did have the plan in place. I don't know if God is omni-max ( as I have said before). He might have known this would transpire. I don't know. As I mentioned previously I have no definitive answer (and may never have one).
"The good news? That some maniacal entity is holding a gun to your head and will torture you in hell forever unless you worship him? That's supposed to be good news?"
You forgot again. Tie a string around your finger or something. I don't believe in eternal torment in hell.
"And, BTW, I have read the Bible and this is my interpretation of it. I think that most Xians don't read the Bible and when they do, they make a priori assumptions about god. I think if more Xians read the Bible with an open mind, actually looking for truth, there would be less Xians."
Very good. Your interpretation of something you don't believe in. And I thought I did some incredible mental contortions ;)
I agree that people don't read the Bible often enough. Too many are all too willing to leave it to their preacher and hear his (or the Church's official interpretations) interpretations once a week.
I have been fascinated with the Bible since I was a kid reading my first children's Bible stories book. I have a Bible collection with at least a dozen different versions, Bibles in a few different languages (German, Dutch, French) as well as Hebrew and Greek to English translations. And several childrens Bible story books too. A few of my Bibles are over a hundred years old. My favorite is an old Scofield Reference KJV held together with hockey tape. I don't like Scofield's notes, though they do make for some interesting reading for understanding the end of the world cultists, so much as I like the notes in the margins written by the Bible's previous owner. As a friend of mine likes to remark " ... and all the best parts are already underlined.".
These days when I read the Bible I specifically read it looking to challenge my (and other's) a priori assumptions. I just moved recently and have joined a new (Mennonite) church in my new town. I have been to a few "young adult" (the older generations don't care for striplings in their groups) Bible studies and am on the waiting list to lead a 2 week study on the subject(s) of my choosing. Rest assured that some of the topics we have touched on are under consideration for the studies I will organize.
I don't know if there would be fewer Christians if they would read their Bibles looking for the truth with an open mind but they would certainly be more interesting ;)
"... why you disbelieve in hell ..."
First let me point out that I might be wrong. Second let me say that I don't believe in a hell of eternal torment but believe in a limited hell. Third ... or hell might be annihilation. There is Biblical evidence in varying degrees for all of these positions but I believe in a limited hell that allows for people to change (repent) and eventually get to heaven.
Why? Because I believe that infinite punishment for finite sins is immoral and that God would not do it because God loves us. Just as I believe God was not punishing Adam and Eve when he sent them from the Garden, despite the pain and suffering they experienced in the world, because to leave them in the Garden with the Tree of Life would have immortalized evil and the pain and suffering would have been far greater and lasted forever so I believe that a limited hell with everyone ultimately reconciled to God is what God would do since God has promised to wipe away every tear .
"I am unaware of any Biblical evidence that says that all will be reconciled with god ..."
Seriously? Universalism was very popular in the early church. If you are really interested I would suggest using your favourite search engine with key words like; universalism, christian universalism, universal reconciliation, ultimate reconciliation and apocatastasis. Also read about a guy named Origen (I got turned onto his teachings in college and they made a big impression on me). He was an early Christian Church scholar who was declared a heretic, by the Roman Catholic Church, a few centuries after he was dead.
"Fine, then I hold that god was angry. There are plenty of other places where god and Jesus both display anger, so this is not an emotion that you can claim god has never shown. In fact, it's quite common for god to be angry, so it's no surprise to me that god would be angry in this situation,"
Fine. You are not alone in your belief. It's just not mine. And yes, God (and Jesus) get angry but the anger is usually fleeting and replaced by forgiveness and love.
For his anger endureth but a moment; in his favour is life: weeping may endure for a night, but joy cometh in the morning.
Psalms 30:5
The LORD is merciful and gracious, slow to anger, and plenteous in mercy. He will not always chide: neither will he keep his anger for ever.
Psalms 103:8-9
"And, how do you determine which is literal and which is figurative?"
Sometimes it's obvious. Sometimes it's not. Sometimes it's decided by how I feel and sometimes it changes how I feel.
"How do you know that god exists? I asked that and you answered with, "I know." That's no answer. How do you know this? You have no evidence to present, so there's no way that you can be certain of god's existence. So, how can you love something that you can't be certain exists? Does this entity talk to you? Does it hold conversations with you? Does it laugh at your jokes?"
It is an answer. You just don't like my answer. That's okay. I will be who I will to be and I will to be a man of God. Sometimes God speaks (figuratively ... I don't hear voices) to me. I certainly talk (literally) to God. I believe that God likes a good joke and (hopefully) laughs at mine.
"You don't think we need to be saved? You've been quite clear that Jesus Christ was necessary for us to become reconciled with god. This is no strawman."
We do. He is. It is a strawman because you presented my position as something that it is not and proceeded to knock it down. It's fine with me if you speak of eternal torment and damnation and evil by commonly held definitions of the majority of Christians so long as you make it clear that is what you are doing but I have gone out of my way to define what I believe and it is unfair to attribute the the beliefs of others to me and argue as if those beliefs were mine. It is possible that my heresies mean that I am not a Christian ( by the commonly held definition) ... hehehehe.
"And, I'm saying it is contradictory, because you can't love someone who is evil."
And I am saying it is not contradictory and I can love everyone.
= P ... that's me sticking out my tongue in a childish display of stubbornness.
I might not love the (evil) things they do but I can still love the person.
"Why did god change his mind? Is god not perfect? ... Why give contradicting directions for morality? ... If I separate the wheat from the chaff and only keep the chaff, you only keep the wheat ...How are we to make sense of it? Why couldn't god be more clear and not contradict himself?"
Nice ... thanks! Maybe God didn't change his mind. Maybe the "eye for an eye" was one of the proverbial "traditions of men". Jesus certainly taught a better way and rebuked the pharisees and scribes for honouring God with their actions and not their hearts. I can make sense of it by seeing a progression from a law written in stone to a law written on our heart.
"My study is not careful enough because you disagree with it? This presupposes that your study is better than mine, that your answers are right and mine are wrong, unless I agree with you."
Not at all. Your study is apparently careful enough because you have admitted to knowing the other half of the lesson but lack the honesty to mention it because it didn't suit your argument. Counting the misses but not the hits ... to use your metaphor ... the same (but opposite) thing you accuse me of. So you're a pot and I'm a kettle and we both are black as night. Or would you rather be the kettle ... I'm happy with either.
"Further, if you truly believe that it is up to each of us to figure out what we believe, then I find that troubling. Apart from its relativistic overtones - and I find any Xian using relativism to be rather humorous - it smacks of the is/ought fallacy, that somethine is because you think it ought to be."
Why shouldn't it be up to each of us to figure it out? If I blindly believe what the preacher man preaches and he is wrong then how can I ever know what's right? Back in my old home town, when a few friends and I shared a house together, the Jehovah's Witnesses would come around once a week to visit. They would say that the Bible is there for our instruction and it was up to each of us to read it, understand it and learn from it. They would nvite us to read the Bible (their version of course) with them and yet when we would understand and learn from a verse differently (or insist on another translation) than they did then suddenly the injuction to understand it ourselves went out the window. Then we were misunderstanding. They were (mostly) interested in having us understand their understanding and were not interested in our understanding.
I want to read, understand and learn from the Bible and I want to understand what other people have understood and learned when they read the Bible. That's why I am here. To share my understanding and share in the understanding of others. Even yours ;)
"Simply asserting so doesn't provide support. I asked you how you know this. So, how do you know this? god doesn't display love in the scriptures, so I'm wondering how you came to this conclusion."
God does display love in the scriptures. One of my favourite parables is "The Prodigal Son" and is a an example of our relationship to God and his love for us. God's love is the root of Jesus' life and death and my faith and all of my understanding is based upon God's love for me (and you).
"I do point it out, that's why there are so many question marks in my comments. Those questions are all unaddressed points. They are things that have been tossed out, like why if god is not being punitive did he put physical pain upon Adam and Eve?"
How have I tossed out this question when I have addressed this question and explained my understanding a several times now? I have addressed your questions to the best of my ability and understanding and when I have no definitive answer I have said so. If it's not good enough for you then what more can I do?
"Ouch, the King James Version? Other versions state that god wants all men to be saved, not "will have", and the KJV is notoriously bad as a translation. I also note that the rest of that passage is pretty mysogynistic."
Lame. I have explained why I use the KJV; most other versions are copyrighted. Besides, I like the poetic nature of the KJV. But let's see what some other versions say, after all, seeing what other versions say is one of my favourite hobbies and so easy with a computer;
KJV - Who will have all men to be saved, and to come unto the knowledge of the truth.
NRSV - who desires everyone to be saved and to come to the knowledge of the truth.
WNT - who is willing for all mankind to be saved and come to a full knowledge of the truth.
YLT - who doth will all men to be saved, and to come to the full knowledge of the truth;
The NASB is the same as the NRSV so that should make you happy because it uses the word "everyone" instead of "all men" or "mankind" which leads us to your next point ...
So it's misogynistic is it?
misogynistic - adj. Of or characterized by hatred of women.
I fail to see any hatred of women in the verse since an acceptable definition is;
man - noun
2. a member of the species Homo sapiens or all the members of this species collectively, without regard to sex: prehistoric man.
3. the human individual as representing the species, without reference to sex; the human race; humankind: Man hopes for peace, but prepares for war.
4.a human being; person: to give a man a chance; When the audience smelled the smoke, it was every man for himself.
You're not a woman, are you? If you are then you have my sympathies and apologies.
Now that was misogynistic, if only slightly so but it's the best I could do, and I extend my sincere apologies to women for my satirical indulgence.
Momentary digression ... I have this great little book called "Politically Correct Bedtime Stories" by James Finn Garner.
There once was a young person named Red Riding Hood ... One day her mother asked her to take a basket of fresh fruit and mineral water to her grandmother's house - not because this was womyn's work, mind you, but because the deed was generous and helped engender a feeling of community. Furthermore, her grandmother was not sick, but rather in full physical and mental health and was fully capable of taking care of herself as a mature adult.
So Red Riding Hood set off with her basket through the woods. Many people believed that the forest was a foreboding and dangerous place and never set foot in it. Red Riding Hood, however, was confident enough in her own budding sexuality that such obvious Freudian imagery did not intimidate her.
As the author states in his introduction ...
Today, we have the opportunity - and the obligation - to rethink these classic stories so they reflect more enlightened times. To that effort I submit this humble book. While it's original title, Fairy Stories for a Modern World was abandoned for obvious reasons (kudos to my editor for pointing out my heterosexualist bias), I think that the collection stands on it's own. This, however, is just a start. Certain stories, such as "The Duckling That Was Judged on Its Personal Merits and Not on Its Physical Appearance", were deleted for obvious space reasons. I expect I have volumes left in me, and I hope this book sparks righteous imaginations of other writers and, of course, leaves an indelible mark on our children.
I would claim fair use for copying this copyrighted material but I can't because I don't live in the USA. I can only throw myself on the mercy of Mr. Garner.
Maybe you should endeavour to rewrite the Bible and produce a "politically correct version". I would read it. Laughter is chicken soup for the soul. I would even help you write it. The irony would be big time sublime, divine and mighty fine (I'm being ironic).
That's enough of that for tonight (I think I just saw a lightning bolt and heard the rumble of thunder).
"Fair enough, but remember that there are those out there that use the same exact book and come to very different conclusions."
Fair enough, and I am very interested in hearing and (hopefully) understanding those different conclusions. They might even influence or change my conclusions! How could they not?
"The onus is on you because you are putting forth a positive statement. You saying, "god exists." My statement is a disavowal of yours in that I'm saying, "If you wish to assert that god exists, then you must provide evidence to that affect, otherwise I am rationally justified in not accepting your assertion." This is quite different from what you are putting forth as my argument. Further, you plaint that you have no proof, but neither do I, is completely wrong-headed. I do not need proof to reject your positive assertion because you lack the proof to make it a viable option."
If you wish to assert that you are rationally justified in not accepting [my] assertion that's fine with me. I won't hold a gun to your head or stop talking to you. My lack of proof (that you would accept as proof) for my assertion (def. - a positive statement or declaration, often without support or reason) is not a complaint becasue I am not complaining and neither is it unviable (nor wrong-headed) because it is an assertion (by definition) made on faith which (by definition) is a belief in the absence of proof.
"Please point out some way of verifying this proof and what specifically you claim is evidence for god. Please note that begging the question will not be accepted."
See? My proof isn't good enough for you even before I presented it! And I'm not allowed to beg questions? Ohhh ... GCT! I don't know if I want to play with you anymore ;)
"I'm not searching for god, so don't think that I'm here to be proselytized to."
Okay. If you say so.
"... simply show me whatever it would take for me to believe."
Okay. I will pray to God for you. Maybe you will be like Saul/Paul on the road to Damascus.
Braverdave,
"Maybe God did see it (eating the forbidden fruit) coming. It's certainly a possibility. Even probable. I believe that the fruit had to be there for man to be free and will even concede that until they ate the fruit they only had the illusion of free will. If God knew they would eat the fruit does that increase or decrease the negligence you allege?"
If god is omni-max is it more than probable, it is certainty. So, this would really rise above the level of simple negligence to premeditated action. It is erroneous, however, to assert that man needed to be tainted by sin and evil in order to have free will.
"Well ... the commonly held belief is that God wanted to give man a chance to prove to themselves that they need God. That self-governance continues to this day for those who have not surrendered their lives to doing God's will. I explained the why of the pain and suffering in the summary I provided and have explained it previously too. I can only provide conjecture as to why not simply remove the tree of life from the Garden; because then it wouldn't be the Garden anymore."
That's a weak answer. god is under no rules, god makes the rules. I see no logical reason why the garden of eden would cease to be by removing the ability of man to reach the fruit of life. Also, I recall no explanation of why god necessarily had to inflict pain and suffering, especially in regards to reproduction. At best, you claim that it is part of the poison, but your latest attempts to explain things seem to suggest that the poison is necessary for us to have free will. Are you really saying that we can't have free will without suffering? That physical pain during childbirth makes free will possible? That is rubbish.
"I don't appreciate your last remark. I thought we agreed that an atmosphere of mutual respect for one another and our respective beliefs would be most condusive to our discussion. Yes?"
What, that god is stupid? What other conclusion should one reach when faced with such utter, abject incompetence and inability to think as displayed by god? Do you really wish to assert that god has infinite intelligence, logical capacity, etc. yet can't even figure out how to raise a child, or how to keep humans from eating from a tree?
"We previously discussed God's repenting of the flood and my amazement and wonder remain. God possibly and probably did have the plan in place. I don't know if God is omni-max ( as I have said before). He might have known this would transpire. I don't know. As I mentioned previously I have no definitive answer (and may never have one)."
Doesn't god repenting of the flood indicate that god is not omni-benevolent? How can an omni-benevolent entity do something that causes it to have to repent? Doesn't this also speak against god's perfection?
"You forgot again. Tie a string around your finger or something. I don't believe in eternal torment in hell."
The Bible writers sure did. It doesn't matter. Your theology still holds that one can only attain some reward through worship of an evil entity.
"Very good. Your interpretation of something you don't believe in. And I thought I did some incredible mental contortions ;)"
Why can't I interpret the Bible? This makes no sense. The words are written in English, are they not - I'm fully aware they are translations. The point is that I can read just as well as any Xian, so there's no need for me to believe the Bible in order for me to interpret it and even do so correctly. Of course, I have no assurance that my interpretation is correct, nor does anyone else, including any Xian that claims that their interpretation is correct, which happens quite often.
"I agree that people don't read the Bible often enough. Too many are all too willing to leave it to their preacher and hear his (or the Church's official interpretations) interpretations once a week."
Yeah, they might like the stories of bloodshed and genocide.
"These days when I read the Bible I specifically read it looking to challenge my (and other's) a priori assumptions. I just moved recently and have joined a new (Mennonite) church in my new town. I have been to a few "young adult" (the older generations don't care for striplings in their groups) Bible studies and am on the waiting list to lead a 2 week study on the subject(s) of my choosing. Rest assured that some of the topics we have touched on are under consideration for the studies I will organize."
If you do approach with an open mind, try approaching with the idea that god may not be omni-benevolent.
"I don't know if there would be fewer Christians if they would read their Bibles looking for the truth with an open mind but they would certainly be more interesting ;)"
I agree with that. It gets tiring having to tell Xians what their own scriptures say.
"First let me point out that I might be wrong. Second let me say that I don't believe in a hell of eternal torment but believe in a limited hell. Third ... or hell might be annihilation. There is Biblical evidence in varying degrees for all of these positions but I believe in a limited hell that allows for people to change (repent) and eventually get to heaven."
What is limited hell? Is there still torture? How would one "repent" from that?
"Why? Because I believe that infinite punishment for finite sins is immoral and that God would not do it because God loves us. Just as I believe God was not punishing Adam and Eve when he sent them from the Garden, despite the pain and suffering they experienced in the world, because to leave them in the Garden with the Tree of Life would have immortalized evil and the pain and suffering would have been far greater and lasted forever so I believe that a limited hell with everyone ultimately reconciled to God is what God would do since God has promised to wipe away every tear ."
Yes, infinite torture for finite crimes is infinitely unjust, so if god is omni-just, then hell can not exist.
"Seriously? Universalism was very popular in the early church. If you are really interested I would suggest using your favourite search engine with key words like; universalism, christian universalism, universal reconciliation, ultimate reconciliation and apocatastasis. Also read about a guy named Origen (I got turned onto his teachings in college and they made a big impression on me). He was an early Christian Church scholar who was declared a heretic, by the Roman Catholic Church, a few centuries after he was dead."
When I get a chance I'll see what comes up. My impression, however, was that the closest to that would be armageddon, resulting in "reconciliation" of a kind, but really with hordes (most) of humanity in hell, which doesn't count as "reconciliation" in my book.
"Fine. You are not alone in your belief. It's just not mine. And yes, God (and Jesus) get angry but the anger is usually fleeting and replaced by forgiveness and love."
But, why does a perfect, omni-benevolent being feel anger? This makes no sense. And, if you conclude that god was not angry at the garden of evil (which you now concede is a possibility, since god does get angry) then you have to explain how it is a logical necessity that things like painful childbirth be a condition of expulsion from the garden, and even why that was necessary. You seem to think that expulsion was necessary to keep them from eating the fruit of life, but god could have simply moved the tree out of their reach or set a barrier around the tree without casting them out. Actions that are unneccesarily punitive point towards either a god that was angry or one that is cruel. Come to think of it, it could very well be the second one.
"Sometimes it's obvious. Sometimes it's not. Sometimes it's decided by how I feel and sometimes it changes how I feel."
You make emotional determinations of what is literal and what is emotional? This is too relativist for my tastes. What is more likely is that you base your interpretation from your morals and fit the story to how you think god should act/be.
"It is an answer. You just don't like my answer. That's okay. I will be who I will to be and I will to be a man of God. Sometimes God speaks (figuratively ... I don't hear voices) to me. I certainly talk (literally) to God. I believe that God likes a good joke and (hopefully) laughs at mine."
No, it is not an answer. An answer to a "how" question involves something more than simply reiterating what has been asked. You speak out loud, but how do you know that there is a god that receives your words? How does god figuratively speak to you? Do you interpret coincidences as god speaking to you? This is a case of counting the hits and ignoring the misses most likely.
"We do. He is. It is a strawman because you presented my position as something that it is not and proceeded to knock it down. It's fine with me if you speak of eternal torment and damnation and evil by commonly held definitions of the majority of Christians so long as you make it clear that is what you are doing but I have gone out of my way to define what I believe and it is unfair to attribute the the beliefs of others to me and argue as if those beliefs were mine. It is possible that my heresies mean that I am not a Christian ( by the commonly held definition) ... hehehehe."
If you believe that we must be saved, then you hold that we are in need of saving, and the only reason I can think is because we are inherently offensive to god. This has nothing to do with your belief or disbelief in hell. This has to do with your belief that men are inherently evil. You can say that you believe men are inherently good, but then we wouldn't necessarily need saving. IOW, your claims of strawmen are not because I am doing so, but because you are making a contradictory argument. No matter what I say, you will claim it is a strawman unless I simply agree with you, but this is fallacious because you have said two things that can not both be true.
"I might not love the (evil) things they do but I can still love the person."
The person is what is evil.
"Nice ... thanks! Maybe God didn't change his mind. Maybe the "eye for an eye" was one of the proverbial "traditions of men". Jesus certainly taught a better way and rebuked the pharisees and scribes for honouring God with their actions and not their hearts. I can make sense of it by seeing a progression from a law written in stone to a law written on our heart."
So, god write traditions of men into his holy scriptures and we are to know this how? It seems that god wants to be nebulous, and then punish us (or at least not reward us) when we are confused by him. Capriciousness anyone?
"Not at all. Your study is apparently careful enough because you have admitted to knowing the other half of the lesson but lack the honesty to mention it because it didn't suit your argument. Counting the misses but not the hits ... to use your metaphor ... the same (but opposite) thing you accuse me of. So you're a pot and I'm a kettle and we both are black as night. Or would you rather be the kettle ... I'm happy with either."
Not at all. If god is perfect, then I should not able to find the contradictions and the stories that tell us to murder people. Yet, there they are. You want to cut out most of the Bible and just hold onto the things that make you feel good? Well, that's not a proper reading, is it? Reading the bad out loud, however, is a proper reading. Should we say that Saddam Hussein was misunderstood and really a good guy because he said some nice things and he treated his kids well? Of course not. One good action or hollow word from god does not absolve him of the blood on his hands.
"Why shouldn't it be up to each of us to figure it out? If I blindly believe what the preacher man preaches and he is wrong then how can I ever know what's right? Back in my old home town, when a few friends and I shared a house together, the Jehovah's Witnesses would come around once a week to visit. They would say that the Bible is there for our instruction and it was up to each of us to read it, understand it and learn from it. They would nvite us to read the Bible (their version of course) with them and yet when we would understand and learn from a verse differently (or insist on another translation) than they did then suddenly the injuction to understand it ourselves went out the window. Then we were misunderstanding. They were (mostly) interested in having us understand their understanding and were not interested in our understanding."
The problem is that you are essentially claiming a Truth; that god is real, wants certain things, etc. This is an objective statement about reality, yet you want to backpedal and claim that it is only a subjective truth? If this is the case, then our souls are at stake over what we want to be true. IOW, and don't take this the wrong way, but in a sense you are doing just want the JWs did. You may be more willing to shrug your shoulders over the conclusions that others reach, but you certainly have reached conclusions that you feel are objective and realizable by anyone if they were correct.
"I want to read, understand and learn from the Bible and I want to understand what other people have understood and learned when they read the Bible. That's why I am here. To share my understanding and share in the understanding of others. Even yours ;)"
This is different from what you are saying before though, right? You want to learn because you are searching for some objective truth. You will not find it through relativistic means, however. IOW, what you want to be true may not be (probably isn't) true.
"God does display love in the scriptures. One of my favourite parables is "The Prodigal Son" and is a an example of our relationship to God and his love for us. God's love is the root of Jesus' life and death and my faith and all of my understanding is based upon God's love for me (and you)."
I fail to see how god displays love through Jesus. This story is an elaborate charade. god sends Jesus to Earth to be tortured so that he can convince himself to forgive us for our trespasses against him that he caused us to commit? This is absurdity, not love.
"How have I tossed out this question when I have addressed this question and explained my understanding a several times now? I have addressed your questions to the best of my ability and understanding and when I have no definitive answer I have said so. If it's not good enough for you then what more can I do?"
If you can't address my questions, then I will have to search (in vain) for those who can. Problem is, no one can. That's a big reason why Xianity is a no-go. It amazes me, though, that these questions can point out the inherent fallacies and contradictions in the Xian story, but people simply ignore that.
"Lame. I have explained why I use the KJV; most other versions are copyrighted. Besides, I like the poetic nature of the KJV. But let's see what some other versions say, after all, seeing what other versions say is one of my favourite hobbies and so easy with a computer;"
The KJV is based off a known bad translation.
"KJV - Who will have all men to be saved, and to come unto the knowledge of the truth.
NRSV - who desires everyone to be saved and to come to the knowledge of the truth.
WNT - who is willing for all mankind to be saved and come to a full knowledge of the truth.
YLT - who doth will all men to be saved, and to come to the full knowledge of the truth;
The NASB is the same as the NRSV so that should make you happy because it uses the word "everyone" instead of "all men" or "mankind" which leads us to your next point ..."
And, my point stands as I said. The KJV version uses a different translation, and the others point out that god wants all men to be saved, but will not necessarily do so.
"So it's misogynistic is it?"
Yes, it is.
"9I also want women to dress modestly, with decency and propriety, not with braided hair or gold or pearls or expensive clothes, 10but with good deeds, appropriate for women who profess to worship God.
11A woman should learn in quietness and full submission. 12I do not permit a woman to teach or to have authority over a man; she must be silent. 13For Adam was formed first, then Eve. 14And Adam was not the one deceived; it was the woman who was deceived and became a sinner. 15But women[a] will be saved[b] through childbearing—if they continue in faith, love and holiness with propriety."
"I fail to see any hatred of women in the verse since an acceptable definition is;"
Women must be submissive...it's a woman's fault for being deceived (Adam never was?)...women can't teach men...etc.
"You're not a woman, are you? If you are then you have my sympathies and apologies."
I'm not a woman, but I am a feminist.
"Momentary digression ... I have this great little book called "Politically Correct Bedtime Stories" by James Finn Garner."
I've heard of this, and although it may seem over the top to many, there is certainly a pervasive thread of mysogyny in our culture, mostly from the Biblical injuctions against women.
"Maybe you should endeavour to rewrite the Bible and produce a "politically correct version". I would read it. Laughter is chicken soup for the soul. I would even help you write it. The irony would be big time sublime, divine and mighty fine (I'm being ironic)."
Good idea, except that I wouldn't want to do it for one reason. That reason is that I wouldn't want to encourage women to join an organization that has such things written into its scriptures.
"If you wish to assert that you are rationally justified in not accepting [my] assertion that's fine with me. I won't hold a gun to your head or stop talking to you. My lack of proof (that you would accept as proof) for my assertion (def. - a positive statement or declaration, often without support or reason) is not a complaint becasue I am not complaining and neither is it unviable (nor wrong-headed) because it is an assertion (by definition) made on faith which (by definition) is a belief in the absence of proof."
Then, we should agree that I am not making a positive truth statement, and as such it is not my burden to prove my position, nor is my position on a par with your metaphysically.
"See? My proof isn't good enough for you even before I presented it! And I'm not allowed to beg questions? Ohhh ... GCT! I don't know if I want to play with you anymore ;)"
The point is that one must provide evidence that would count as evidence regardless of the a priori judgements of the person viewing the evidence. Take a scientific paper for instance. I should be able to recreate the author's test setup and recreate their results. If their results rely on how I feel, however, then I think we are right in taking their findings with huge grains of salt, if not outright rejecting them.
"If god is omni-max is it more than probable, it is certainty."
Ahh, but we have not proven that God is omni-max . And once again we must deal in definitions (omni this that and the other) that are not definitive even after centuries of thought on the matter. Some things are ineffable and may remain a mystery (and it obviously bothers you more than it does me).
"Doesn't god repenting of the flood indicate that god is not omni-benevolent? How can an omni-benevolent entity do something that causes it to have to repent? Doesn't this also speak against god's perfection?"
Maybe. That's why I brought it up in answer to some of your questions. Mind blowing, eh?
"Your theology still holds that one can only attain some reward through worship of an evil entity."
Nope. Once again you misrepresent my theology. It is your theology that defines God as evil ... not mine.
"Why can't I interpret the Bible?"
Did I say you can't? That's a rhetorical and satirical question on my part and does not require an answer on your part (since I know it's not true) although an apology for once again misrepresenting my words would be welcome.
I encourage everyone to read and interpret the Bible as they understand it. Then compare their understanding to that of others and re-evaluate their understanding and maybe understand it anew.
"What is limited hell? Is there still torture? How would one "repent" from that?"
Limited in a temporal sense. Maybe ... it depends on your definition of torture. The same way one repents of anything which is to change the way you think.
"When I get a chance I'll see what comes up. My impression, however, was that the closest to that would be armageddon,"
Please do check it out. The teachings of Origen (and apocatastasis) are good places to start.
Oh oh, aramageddon ... another topic for another day. The "end of the world cult" is another topic that has always fascinated me. Rest assured that my interpretation of the "last days" is different from what most believe.
"But, why does a perfect, omni-benevolent being feel anger? This makes no sense. And, if you conclude that god was not angry at the garden of evil (which you now concede is a possibility, since god does get angry) then you have to explain how it is a logical necessity that things like painful childbirth be a condition of expulsion from the garden, and even why that was necessary."
Check out the defintions of anger, especially the older definitions and etymology behind them. Compare with the original Hebrew word's meanings in verses where it is translated as anger.
I don't now concede it. I have always considered it a possibility. But my interpretation leads me to what I consider a more probable conclusion which I have shared with you. If it doesn't work for you that's okay with me.
"You make emotional determinations of what is literal and what is emotional? This is too relativist for my tastes."
I said sometimes and was making the statements in regards to literal and figurative interpretations (not literal and emotional as you stated). Please read more carefully and be more careful when you present your questions. I am seeing a pattern here and often I am correcting your mistaken assumptions about what I believe and said. If I were to take a less gracious view of this pattern I would say you have a bad habit of misrepresenting the words of others (and hiding behind a question mark) to take cheap shots.
Too relativistic, eh? Too bad. If you are looking for objectivity you will have to look elsewhere. I understand that you would like to see God's signature on the moon in flashing neon but you will have to settle for a more ambiguous answer.
"No, it is not an answer. An answer to a "how" question involves something more than simply reiterating what has been asked. You speak out loud, but how do you know that there is a god that receives your words? How does god figuratively speak to you?"
Yes, it is. How do I know that God hears me? Because I believe in God. I don't always speak out loud to God, usually I silently speak to God. But regardless of how I speak to God he does answer me albeit in ineffable ways.
"If you believe that we must be saved, then you hold that we are in need of saving, and the only reason I can think is because we are inherently offensive to god. This has nothing to do with your belief or disbelief in hell. This has to do with your belief that men are inherently evil. You can say that you believe men are inherently good, but then we wouldn't necessarily need saving. ... but this is fallacious because you have said two things that can not both be true."
Not at all. You haven't even repeated what I believe accurately. It's possible you simply don't understand what I am saying or deliberately choose to not understand or maybe I am explaining myself poorly.
But since you seem to want objective truths and seemingly shun subjective truths I don't think we will ever truly understand one another.
Yet I keep trying. When I get tired of trying (I don't have God's patience) I will let you know.
"The person is what is evil."
In your neo-fundamentalist/hyper-calvinist interpretation of theology. Not in mine.
"So, god write traditions of men into his holy scriptures and we are to know this how? It seems that god wants to be nebulous, and then punish us (or at least not reward us) when we are confused by him. Capriciousness anyone?"
Maybe ... through subjective means. It may seem capricious to you but it doesn't seem that way to me. Please forgive the relativistic jab ;)
"Not at all. If god is perfect, then I should not able to find the contradictions and the stories that tell us to murder people. Yet, there they are. You want to cut out most of the Bible and just hold onto the things that make you feel good? Well, that's not a proper reading, is it? Reading the bad out loud, however, is a proper reading."
Not at all. I don't reject the bad stories. Quite the opposite; I have read them and I have interpreted them as I understood them and taken them in context with the good stories. That's all.
"The problem is that you are essentially claiming a Truth; that god is real, wants certain things, etc. This is an objective statement about reality, yet you want to backpedal and claim that it is only a subjective truth?"
When have I ever claimed an objective truth (much less capitalized it with a capital T)? I believe in God. How can that be anything except subjective? No backpedalling here (despite your attempt to make it seem so).
"If this is the case, then our souls are at stake over what we want to be true. IOW, and don't take this the wrong way, but in a sense you are doing just want the JWs did. You may be more willing to shrug your shoulders over the conclusions that others reach, but you certainly have reached conclusions that you feel are objective and realizable by anyone if they were correct."
Nope, I don't think our souls are at stake (read about universalism) over what we want to be or believe to be true. I have reached subjective conclusions and have never claimed they were objective conclusions. Since I am willing to shrug my shoulders and not make claims to objective truth then what I am doing is not what the JWs did (ie. saying flat out that a given interpretation is wrong). I always qualify MY beliefs as subjective by saying that they are MY beliefs. I have repeatedly gone out of my way to state that I may be mistaken in MY beliefs and have told others not to believe what I say just because I say so but have encouraged them to understand it for themselves. My beliefs are subjective. How could they be otherwise if they are MY beliefs?
"This is different from what you are saying before though, right? You want to learn because you are searching for some objective truth. You will not find it through relativistic means, however. IOW, what you want to be true may not be (probably isn't) true."
No it is not different ... when have I ever stated (please provide an exact quote to back up your allegation) that I want to learn because I am searching for an objective truth? How would I know it even if I found it? Will a dove descend from heaven and land on my shoulder?
What I am searching for is an understanding of the beliefs of others and that understanding will be found through relativistic means. As for what I want to be true being probably not true I will just have to wait and see.
"I fail to see how god displays love through Jesus."
Indeed, you do.
"If you can't address my questions, "
I have.
"then I will have to search (in vain) for those who can."
Good luck with that and don't let the door hit your ass on the way out ;)
"And, my point stands as I said. The KJV version uses a different translation, and the others point out that god wants all men to be saved, but will not necessarily do so."
My point is that the other translations do not exclude the possibility that all men will be saved and in fact convey a similar meaning as the KJV.
"Yes, it is [misogynistic]."
You were speaking of a particular verse ("I also note that the rest of that passage is pretty mysogynistic") and I showed that by definition and variations in translations that the passage was not misogynistic.
The other verses you quote (without book/chapter/verse references) are another matter.
The first passage you quote admonishes vanity and promotes modesty. What's misogynistic about that? I think it's good advice. So do some women I know.
The second passage is more complicated but if you read this and this . It may further your understanding of the matter (as it did mine).
"I'm not a woman, but I am a feminist."
Equal rights, eh? Sometimes things are equal and sometimes not. Sometimes things are the same but different.
"I've heard of this, and although it may seem over the top to many, there is certainly a pervasive thread of mysogyny in our culture, mostly from the Biblical injuctions against women."
Certainly, although your defintion of misogyny (note the spelling - or are you mispelling it that way on purpose the way some feminists spell women as womyn?) seems to recognize and finds fault with the fact that men and women are not necessarily equal in all thing whereas the definition of misogyny is hatred, dislike, or mistrust of women. The passages you quote do not show hate, dislike or mistrust of women. They do however show an apparent order of authority as it relates to certain matters. And my thanks for pointing out the passage that mentions women being saved through childbearing (very interesting when considered with your points about pain in childbirth).
There is misogyny in our culture and is somewhat (but not mostly as you assert) from biblical injuctions (because if it was mostly then how do you explain the misogyny in other cultures where the Bible has no influence? or misogyny in our culture amongst those with no biblical beliefs).
"Good idea, except that I wouldn't want to do it for one reason. That reason is that I wouldn't want to encourage women to join an organization that has such things written into its scriptures."
My suggestion for a politically correct Bible was meant to be taken as the author of Politically Correct Bedtime Stories meant his stories to be taken ... ironically.
Most women join an organization of their own free will. In my college days I dated a girl who went to a feminist rally/meeting and she came away dissapointed and shocked at the misandry (hatred of men) on display there which just goes to show (1) that some women are equal to some men in that some of them hate one another with equal passion and (2) what goes around comes around but that doesn't make it right.
"Then, we should agree that I am not making a positive truth statement, and as such it is not my burden to prove my position, nor is my position on a par with your metaphysically."
Sure, I can agree that you are making a positive truth statement as opposed to a negative truth statement and as such stating you won't accept the burden of proof because you can't prove that God does not exist. And I can agree that our positions are not on par metaphysically if my statement is metaphysical and yours is not.
"The point is that one must provide evidence that would count as evidence regardless of the a priori judgements of the person viewing the evidence. Take a scientific paper for instance. I should be able to recreate the author's test setup and recreate their results."
We are not discussing scientific papers. We are talking about faith.
"... huge grains of salt ..."
Whatever helps it taste better ;)
Last night I had a long discussion about this discussion with a friend who has been following it. My friend says that I am wasting my time talking with you. That nothing I say will ever help you understand me better and that you aren't trying to understand what I say but are more interested in attacking what I say.
Maybe.
But then hope is born when optimism dies.
And I still have hope.
oops ...
Sure, I can agree that you are making a positive truth statement ...
should read;
Sure, I can agree that you are not making a positive truth statement ...
My apologies for any confusion.
GCT, here is a bit more explanation on a couple points ...
"So, god write traditions of men into his holy scriptures and we are to know this how?"
It could be more accurate to state that men write the traditions of men and they have ended up in the Bible for a number of reasons.
Are you familiar with how the books of what we call the Bible were chosen to be in the Bible? It would have been nice if we could have layed pages out and God would send a heavenly light to shine on the bits he likes but it didn't work that way. Essentially Biblical canon was determined by popularity.
What we call the old testament was fairly straightforward as the hebrews had already established many of their scriptures and copied them word for word as is evidenced by various copies being virtually identical.
What we call the new testament is a mess. The copies are varied due to omissions and additions and just plain sloppy. The books that make up the new testament were established in 367AD by Athanasius of Alexandria and the most popular scriptures were reviewed and voted on. Recently the "Original Greek New Testament" has been released. I have a copy and wading through it is a challenge. A given page will have be half text and the other half will be the citations and sources of the primary variations. And how was it assembled? All the bits and pieces of the so called original biblical greek were examined my scholars and once again a committee voted on what they think is the closest to the original source.
And as I stated previously there are significant problems with what we call Biblical scripture when it comes down to reading the stories as real or symbolic, literal or figurative, inspired or opinion and so on.
So when you ask how can we know which is what my short answer is that we can't. In my opinion at least. We can research and make our best judgements. And of course having faith in God to guide one helps as well.
So you see, when you say ...
"If god is perfect, then I should not able to find the contradictions and the stories that tell us to murder people. Yet, there they are. You want to cut out most of the Bible and just hold onto the things that make you feel good? Well, that's not a proper reading, is it? Reading the bad out loud, however, is a proper reading."
... you do touch on the truth (disclaimer; subjective truth). You claim I want to hold onto the good parts and ignore the bad parts. And that may be true to a certain degree but I don't ignore the bad parts. I do take them with a proverbial grain of salt however. You say that reading the bad out loud is a proper reading but that's only true if you read the good parts too.
A complete reading of the Bible sees it all. The good, the bad and the beautiful and the ugly.
I haven't followed the whole conversation, but the canon was fairly solid by the end of the second century (that is, 199 CE).
See my post on Marcionism, and the Wikipedia entry on the canon.
I wouldn't call it a "popularity contest". The canonical texts were all written by apostles or close associates of apostles. The various letters had been read in churches for approximately one hundred years, during times when the Holy Spirit was acting very visibly (now He acts mostly invisibly).
The various churches were aware of the power of the canonical letters, and aware of a number of heretical and "uninspired" letters as well.
The fact that there was so much agreement is good evidence of inspiration. Most of the debate centers on the Revelation to John (because of its large amounts of symbolism), and Jude (for the reference to the book of Enoch). There were a couple of books left out that some people wanted included. They include one from Barnabas (which I have read, wasn't impressed) and the Shepherd of Hermas (which I haven't read, but the case is more tenuous).
Hey Ned,
Maybe I was a little glib with my reference to canon being established by popularity but I didn't call it a "popularity contest" either ;)
But the committees of scholars at the original establishment of biblical canon (and the recent development of the greek new testament) did make their collective decisions by a popular vote. I have no doubt that they are all excellent biblical scholars but the differences of opinions about some items does make for interesting study.
Are you aware of the instance (I mentioned it to GCT earlier in our discussion) in the new testament where Jesus quoted scripture that doesn't appear in our old testament?
"Jesus quoted scripture that doesn't appear in our old testament?"
That seems familiar, but I can't remember the passage. Do you have it? (Google is defeating me right now...)
Thanks!
braverdave,
I don't visit for a day or two and I come back to a lot...I'll try and catch up.
"Ahh, but we have not proven that God is omni-max . And once again we must deal in definitions (omni this that and the other) that are not definitive even after centuries of thought on the matter. Some things are ineffable and may remain a mystery (and it obviously bothers you more than it does me)."
You are right, we have not proven omni-max-ness...but it's your theology that generally holds that god has this quality. It is not up to me to prove that god is omni-max. If you wish to argue (as most Xians do) that god has this quality, then you have to give arguments for it. An omni-max god is both necessary and impossible for Xianity, however. If god is not perfect, then there goes a lot of the arguments for why god can punish people, allow evil, etc. If god is perfect, then god is contradictory by its very nature. It's like an enigma wrapped inside a mystery inside of a riddle.
"Maybe. That's why I brought it up in answer to some of your questions. Mind blowing, eh?"
Not really. It's more like self-refuting to the idea of a perfect god.
"Nope. Once again you misrepresent my theology. It is your theology that defines God as evil ... not mine."
You might not define god as evil, but that's not because god isn't evil. It's because you have a priori decided that god is good, therefore you count the hits and ignore the misses in order to prove to yourself that god is indeed good. It's amazing how well we can convince ourselves that we were right all along regardless of the facts sometimes. This requires you, however, to explain away things that are very hard to explain away, like the genocides, etc.
"Did I say you can't? That's a rhetorical and satirical question on my part and does not require an answer on your part (since I know it's not true) although an apology for once again misrepresenting my words would be welcome."
How did I misrepresent your words? I find it very hard to misrepresent one's words by asking them a question about what they meant. If you can tell me how I did that, then I'd like to know.
"I encourage everyone to read and interpret the Bible as they understand it. Then compare their understanding to that of others and re-evaluate their understanding and maybe understand it anew."
Then you should not be so quick to toss out my interpretations.
"Limited in a temporal sense. Maybe ... it depends on your definition of torture. The same way one repents of anything which is to change the way you think."
Is there support for this in the Bible? Is there torture - or are you hinging on the same kinds of things that our attorney general does? How can an all-loving god not just permit but participate in torture?
"Please do check it out. The teachings of Origen (and apocatastasis) are good places to start."
I'll probably have some time this weekend.
"I don't now concede it. I have always considered it a possibility. But my interpretation leads me to what I consider a more probable conclusion which I have shared with you. If it doesn't work for you that's okay with me."
Based on what? I'm still unsure what you base it on, except a preconceived notion that god is good, so therefore god could not have been angry. Yet, we know that god can be angry and we have no reason to conclude that the punishments visited upon Adam and Eve were necessary for any reason.
"Too relativistic, eh? Too bad. If you are looking for objectivity you will have to look elsewhere. I understand that you would like to see God's signature on the moon in flashing neon but you will have to settle for a more ambiguous answer."
OK, but that's not too bad for me, but too bad for you. Whenever Xians resort to relativism, it makes me smile, because it's basically diametrically opposed to the Xian faith in an absolute god.
"Yes, it is."
How do you know that there is a god, because you know? I think what you know is that you don't have an answer for that question.
"How do I know that God hears me? Because I believe in God. I don't always speak out loud to God, usually I silently speak to God. But regardless of how I speak to God he does answer me albeit in ineffable ways."
And, here you admit it. You don't know that god hears you, you believe it. You do know the difference between belief and knowledge, right? And, how does god answer you? What do you mean by "ineffable ways?" To me, that sounds like counting the hits and ignoring the misses once again.
"Not at all. You haven't even repeated what I believe accurately. It's possible you simply don't understand what I am saying or deliberately choose to not understand or maybe I am explaining myself poorly."
Then, if we don't need saving, Jesus is superfluous, he didn't need to die, etc. etc. etc. You are making contradictory statements, so don't blame me when I can't repeat your beliefs word for word, since no matter what I say you can claim that you didn't mean that.
"But since you seem to want objective truths and seemingly shun subjective truths I don't think we will ever truly understand one another."
What subjective truths? How can you claim that god is a subjective truth?
"In your neo-fundamentalist/hyper-calvinist interpretation of theology. Not in mine."
It can be no other way. Otherwise, we don't need to be saved and Jesus is not necessary, which flies in the face of Xianity.
"Maybe ... through subjective means. It may seem capricious to you but it doesn't seem that way to me. Please forgive the relativistic jab ;)"
What else could it be? You make god out to be a trickster and/or wholly uninterested in being frank with us, yet willing to decide our fates when we die.
"Not at all. I don't reject the bad stories. Quite the opposite; I have read them and I have interpreted them as I understood them and taken them in context with the good stories. That's all."
And somehow you decide god is omni-benevolent? How is that possible if god shows that he isn't omni-benevolent?
"When have I ever claimed an objective truth (much less capitalized it with a capital T)? I believe in God. How can that be anything except subjective? No backpedalling here (despite your attempt to make it seem so)."
If you wish to assert that god is real, then that is an objective truth. If you are claiming that god is simply a figment of your imagination, then I suggest you see a therapist instead of writing comments to me.
"Nope, I don't think our souls are at stake (read about universalism) over what we want to be or believe to be true. I have reached subjective conclusions and have never claimed they were objective conclusions. Since I am willing to shrug my shoulders and not make claims to objective truth then what I am doing is not what the JWs did (ie. saying flat out that a given interpretation is wrong). I always qualify MY beliefs as subjective by saying that they are MY beliefs. I have repeatedly gone out of my way to state that I may be mistaken in MY beliefs and have told others not to believe what I say just because I say so but have encouraged them to understand it for themselves. My beliefs are subjective. How could they be otherwise if they are MY beliefs?"
Then, if you make no objective statements about the world, there's no point in going on. I do make objective statements, like the fact that there is no evidence for god. If you wish to say that god only lives in your beliefs and in your imagination, then so be it.
"No it is not different ... when have I ever stated (please provide an exact quote to back up your allegation) that I want to learn because I am searching for an objective truth? How would I know it even if I found it? Will a dove descend from heaven and land on my shoulder?"
I assumed that you wished to learn about god and whether god is real, etc and what the real attributes of god are. It seems that you may simply want to learn what you can pontificate about in your own head and feel good about believing. So be it. Again, if you have no need to do anything except talk about your subjective feelings, then I will desist.
"What I am searching for is an understanding of the beliefs of others and that understanding will be found through relativistic means. As for what I want to be true being probably not true I will just have to wait and see."
You seem to think that all beliefs are subjective and therefore are all about subjective things and that people make no claim on objective reality? Is this what you really mean to say here, because that's what I'm getting from you. If you think that, then you are living in a dream world. People make objective claims about their (and your) god all the time.
"Good luck with that and don't let the door hit your ass on the way out ;)"
And good luck with your subjective thoughts that don't impinge on reality in any way.
"My point is that the other translations do not exclude the possibility that all men will be saved and in fact convey a similar meaning as the KJV."
It doesn't say that they will. Again, you wish to read in your own interpretation and it doesn't matter if the text doesn't support it, you will conclude that anyway (alas, I too was guilty of it, but at least I admitted it).
"You were speaking of a particular verse ("I also note that the rest of that passage is pretty mysogynistic") and I showed that by definition and variations in translations that the passage was not misogynistic."
Actually, the exclusive use of "he/him" is mysogynistic in its roots, but I chose not to go there.
"The other verses you quote (without book/chapter/verse references) are another matter."
They directly follow the passage you cited. I was simply making an observation about the love that Xianity preaches towards women. I thought it funny that they happened to be right there.
"The first passage you quote admonishes vanity and promotes modesty. What's misogynistic about that? I think it's good advice. So do some women I know."
Specifically for women no less. Yet, I think we both know what that passage is saying, and we know what is meant by telling women to be "modest."
"The second passage is more complicated but if you read this and this . It may further your understanding of the matter (as it did mine)."
It's not more complicated, it's straight out sexist.
"Certainly, although your defintion of misogyny (note the spelling - or are you mispelling it that way on purpose the way some feminists spell women as womyn?) seems to recognize and finds fault with the fact that men and women are not necessarily equal in all thing whereas the definition of misogyny is hatred, dislike, or mistrust of women. The passages you quote do not show hate, dislike or mistrust of women. They do however show an apparent order of authority as it relates to certain matters. And my thanks for pointing out the passage that mentions women being saved through childbearing (very interesting when considered with your points about pain in childbirth)."
Yes, women must be saved through pain....and this is supposed to be good for them? Yes, it is misogynistic (thanks for the spelling correction) as I find the subjugation of women to be so.
"There is misogyny in our culture and is somewhat (but not mostly as you assert) from biblical injuctions (because if it was mostly then how do you explain the misogyny in other cultures where the Bible has no influence? or misogyny in our culture amongst those with no biblical beliefs)."
Yes, it happens in other cultures as well, but that does not get the Bible (supposedly the words of an omni-benevolent, morally perfect god) off the hook for teaching hatred against women. In our culture, however, it does come from Biblical injuctions for the most part.
"My suggestion for a politically correct Bible was meant to be taken as the author of Politically Correct Bedtime Stories meant his stories to be taken ... ironically."
The problem is that with religion, people actually believe it.
"Sure, I can agree that you are making a positive truth statement as opposed to a negative truth statement and as such stating you won't accept the burden of proof because you can't prove that God does not exist. And I can agree that our positions are not on par metaphysically if my statement is metaphysical and yours is not."
Now who is misrepresenting whom? I don't have to disprove your notions of god, you have to prove them to me, unless you want to continue to assert that god is some figment of your subjective imagination. If you wish to assert that god is real, however, it is up to you to prove it. Else, you will have to disprove that the FSM exists, or that Russell's teapot exists, or that pink unicorns exist, etc. Do you or don't you accept the burden of disproving those things?
"We are not discussing scientific papers. We are talking about faith."
Again, if you concede that god is solely a subjective figment of your imagination, then no quarrel here.
"Last night I had a long discussion about this discussion with a friend who has been following it. My friend says that I am wasting my time talking with you. That nothing I say will ever help you understand me better and that you aren't trying to understand what I say but are more interested in attacking what I say."
I'm interested in what you have to say if you have something worth hearing. But, if you simply want to repeat that you believe in god because you believe in god and it's solely a subjective belief that has no bearing on the objective world, then you are wasting both our times. If you simply want to know what I believe or don't believe, or why I disbelieve what you believe, then simply ask and don't try to present your beliefs as having any validity.
"oops ...
Sure, I can agree that you are making a positive truth statement ...
should read;
Sure, I can agree that you are not making a positive truth statement ...
My apologies for any confusion."
OK, I answered above before reading this. I am confused, however. Do you mean to assert then that I really don't have any necessity to take on a burden of disproof?
"It could be more accurate to state that men write the traditions of men and they have ended up in the Bible for a number of reasons."
So, I'm left wondering what value the Bible has, except as maybe a story written by man about other men. IOW, it has nothing to do with god, so how can we know anything about god from the Bible?
"Are you familiar with how the books of what we call the Bible were chosen to be in the Bible?"
I have some familiarity, yes. And, it's quite a sticking point for most Xians, especially ones that think the gospels were written by eye-witnesses, etc.
"And as I stated previously there are significant problems with what we call Biblical scripture when it comes down to reading the stories as real or symbolic, literal or figurative, inspired or opinion and so on."
And, how do you decide? You can't simply decide that all the things you like and are "good" are therefore really from/about god and all the others are from/about man.
"So when you ask how can we know which is what my short answer is that we can't. In my opinion at least. We can research and make our best judgements. And of course having faith in God to guide one helps as well."
Exactly, we can't.
"... you do touch on the truth (disclaimer; subjective truth). You claim I want to hold onto the good parts and ignore the bad parts. And that may be true to a certain degree but I don't ignore the bad parts. I do take them with a proverbial grain of salt however. You say that reading the bad out loud is a proper reading but that's only true if you read the good parts too."
Again, not if god is supposedly omni-benevolent. And, let's point out that you want to read the bad with a grain of salt, but shouldn't you also read the good that way?
"A complete reading of the Bible sees it all. The good, the bad and the beautiful and the ugly."
And should leave everyone with a bad taste in their mouth. I am continually amazed that anyone could read that book and come away thinking that god is somehow good. god makes the worst serial killers in the history of Earth look like pikers.
Hi Ned,
He that believeth on me, as the scripture hath said, out of his belly shall flow rivers of living water.
John 7:38
The scripture Jesus refers to does not appear in our old testament (or any other non-canon scripture).
Hello GCT,
"It is not up to me to prove that god is omni-max. If you wish to argue (as most Xians do) that god has this quality, then you have to give arguments for it. An omni-max god is both necessary and impossible for Xianity, however. If god is not perfect, then there goes a lot of the arguments for why god can punish people, allow evil, etc. If god is perfect, then god is contradictory by its very nature. It's like an enigma wrapped inside a mystery inside of a riddle."
Have I asked you to prove it? I don't want to argue it. I simply don't know. Like you say it's an enigma in a mystery in a riddle. And as I have said it is ineffable.
"Not really. It's more like self-refuting to the idea of a perfect god."
Well there you are then. One of the questions you asked has been answered. But the flood took place back when God was young and inexperienced. I forgive him.
"How did I misrepresent your words? I find it very hard to misrepresent one's words by asking them a question about what they meant. If you can tell me how I did that, then I'd like to know."
You asked "Why can't I interpret the Bible?" which insinuates that I said you are not able or are not allowed to interpret the bible. It's that simple. Now I had made a sarcastic remark expressing my amazement about biblical interpretations from an athiest and made a self-deprecating remark about my own mental contortions and followed the humorous statements up with a winky face ;) just to make sure you would understand I was having some fun. You chose to take it as a literal injuction against you interpreting the bible and responded with "Why can't I interpret the Bible?" when I had said no such thing. Don't you see how you misrepresented my words?
"Then you should not be so quick to toss out my interpretations."
When have I done that? An example would be nice. I have considered your interpretations and responded by sharing my own and providing the explanation for why I believe the way I do. Furthermore, I thought I made it clear that you ask some good questions and brought up some good points. I also mentioned that I plan on bringing some of these points up in the bible study group at my church. I certainly do not quickly toss them out as you have falsely claimed.
"Is there support for this in the Bible? Is there torture - or are you hinging on the same kinds of things that our attorney general does? How can an all-loving god not just permit but participate in torture?"
Yes there is. It's been promised ...
And God shall wipe away all tears from their eyes; and there shall be no more death, neither sorrow, nor crying, neither shall there be any more pain: for the former things are passed away.
Revelation 21:4
Is it torture when a parent gives a misbehaving child a time-out to reflect upon what they have done wrong? It may seem like torture to the child but the parent hopes that the child will realize their error and repent of it.
"Based on what? I'm still unsure what you base it on, except a preconceived notion that god is good, so therefore god could not have been angry. Yet, we know that god can be angry and we have no reason to conclude that the punishments visited upon Adam and Eve were necessary for any reason."
I have explained my reasoning by which I believe that God was NOT punishing Adam and Eve. God's actions prevented greater harm. I have given the details of my explanation a few times now. If you missed it I suggest you read through some of my earlier responses again.
"OK, but that's not too bad for me, but too bad for you. Whenever Xians resort to relativism, it makes me smile, because it's basically diametrically opposed to the Xian faith in an absolute god."
I am so glad that I made you smile. Seriously. But always remember that my faith is my own and as relativistic as it may be it does not discount the absolute (but ineffable) nature of God.
"How do you know that there is a god, because you know? I think what you know is that you don't have an answer for that question."
That is why my belief in God is defined as FAITH.
Haven't you been paying attention?
(please note {in order to avoid any misunderstanding}that I am smiling and laughing {but not at you} when I ask this good natured rhetorical question)
"And, here you admit it. You don't know that god hears you, you believe it. You do know the difference between belief and knowledge, right? And, how does god answer you? What do you mean by "ineffable ways?" "
Right. I believe it. I do understand the difference and have repeatedly demonstrated it by being careful to point out that my belief in God is faith in God and as such is not based upon proof.
ineffable - incapable of being expressed or described in words; inexpressible
You would probably discount (or possibly ridicule) the answers that God gives me as incredibly subjective so I won't waste the effort to try to explain. I don't expect you or anyone to understand but I would like respect for my beliefs.
"Then, if we don't need saving, Jesus is superfluous, he didn't need to die, etc. etc. etc. You are making contradictory statements, so don't blame me when I can't repeat your beliefs word for word, since no matter what I say you can claim that you didn't mean that."
You do not quote my beliefs word for word . You paraphrase my beliefs and more than once have attributed the beliefs of others to mine and proceeded to argue against my misrepresented beliefs. I have pointed it out a couple times when you create strawmen to knock down yet you continue to do it.
Furthermore, you ask leading and misleading questions. An example is the instance I noted above when you asked"Why can't I interpret the Bible?. There are other instances (some in this response) I have pointed out asking where and when I said something you attribute to me in your questions.
Don't you see how these tactics are less than honest?
If you have two statements of mine that you believe to be contradictory please quote them exactly as I presented them and I will address them. These statements must be statements I made describing MY beliefs and not the instances where we were discussing beliefs of other Christians.
"What subjective truths? How can you claim that god is a subjective truth?"
Belief in God (or disbelief) is subjective. And that's the truth.
"And somehow you decide god is omni-benevolent? How is that possible if god shows that he isn't omni-benevolent?"
When did I say that God was omni-benevolent? That's one of your favourite terms you use to define God, not mine. I have said that God loves us but that doesn't qualify as a defintion of omni-benevolent. We have discussed your omni-max term and your defintion of it and I have provided my response to this previously.
"If you wish to assert that god is real, then that is an objective truth."
No it's not. To be objective it would have to be NOT influenced by my personal feelings and interpretations.
"If you are claiming that god is simply a figment of your imagination, then I suggest you see a therapist instead of writing comments to me."
HA! Then God (in one faith or another) is a figment of the imagination of the majority of the people around the world. There are not enough therapists to deal with everyone that has a belief in God.
"Then, if you make no objective statements about the world, there's no point in going on. I do make objective statements, like the fact that there is no evidence for god. If you wish to say that god only lives in your beliefs and in your imagination, then so be it."
So why are you still here talking to me? The fact that there is no evidence for god doesn't explain why so many people in the world have some sort of belief in God. Do you have an explanation for that?
"I assumed that you wished to learn about god and whether god is real, etc and what the real attributes of god are. It seems that you may simply want to learn what you can pontificate about in your own head and feel good about believing. So be it. Again, if you have no need to do anything except talk about your subjective feelings, then I will desist.
Desist then.
You assumed correctly. I am learning about God everyday. I have faith that God is real and it grows stronger everyday.
"You seem to think that all beliefs are subjective and therefore are all about subjective things and that people make no claim on objective reality? Is this what you really mean to say here, because that's what I'm getting from you. If you think that, then you are living in a dream world. People make objective claims about their (and your) god all the time."
Subjective beliefs may be about objective reality but since those beliefs are subjective and often at odds with another's subjective beliefs then trying to define objective reality by those subjective beliefs is difficult (if not impossible).
People might make objective claims about their respective God all the time but if those claims are different then how can they be anything but subjective.
It sure doesn't feel like a dream but it could be.
"And good luck with your subjective thoughts that don't impinge on reality in any way."
Thank you.
But to be fair your statement should read ... "that don't impinge on my (subjective) reality in any way" ... because my thoughts do have an effect on my reality and I have it on the good authority of others that my thoughts have affected them.
"It doesn't say that they will. Again, you wish to read in your own interpretation and it doesn't matter if the text doesn't support it, you will conclude that anyway (alas, I too was guilty of it, but at least I admitted it)."
The text does support it (depending on what translation is read and how one interprets it) and I have repeatedly stated that I might be wrong in my interpretations. So your insinuation that I claim my interpretation is the only correct interpretation is dishonesty or ignorance on your part.
"Actually, the exclusive use of "he/him" is mysogynistic in its roots, but I chose not to go there."
Fine. But the word you didn't like in the first passage under discussion when you brought up misogyny was the word "men". I did show that other translations do not use "men" and substituted "everyone" and "mankind" and provided a defintion of the word in question to show that it's use for describing "all people" was an acceptable application of the term. I still fail to see how it is misogynistic (expressing hatred, dislike or mistrust of women) and since you have not shown how it was misogynistic then I can see why you don't want to continue discussing this passage and your claim that it was misogynistic.
"Specifically for women no less."
Specifically for women. Yes. So? There are other passages where there are admonitions (specifically for men) where men are told to love their wives.
There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither bond nor free, there is neither male nor female: for ye are all one in Christ Jesus.
Galatians 3:28
And this verse states we are all one (equal) regardless of the distinctions we choose to make amongst ourselves.
"Yet, I think we both know what that passage is saying, and we know what is meant by telling women to be "modest."
What are you insinuating? How do you interpret it? I would be very interested to know what you think is meant by "modest"? Please don't worry about offending my modesty ;)
"Yes, women must be saved through pain....and this is supposed to be good for them? Yes, it is misogynistic (thanks for the spelling correction) as I find the subjugation of women to be so."
It's interesting, that's for sure. Further reading of different peoples opinions suggested that these passages about women were Paul's opinion. And again I think that it doesn't fulfill the defintion of misogynistic (you are welcome for the spelling correction) because it is not expressing hatred for women. But, regardless, we come down to inerrancy questions about opinion/inspiration and cultural/temporal signifigance. I note that very few (if any) literal fundamentalists shave their wive's head for praying without a veil.
But every woman that prayeth or prophesieth with her head uncovered dishonoureth her head: for that is even all one as if she were shaven. For if the woman be not covered, let her also be shorn: but if it be a shame for a woman to be shorn or shaven, let her be covered.
1 Corinthians 11:5- 6
And yes, I know the verses preceding these tell men NOT to cover their heads ;)
Also, there are examples of subjugation of females by males in the animal world and vice versa too. How is one sexes authority over the other wrong if it is what is natural? I am not necessarily saying that men should have authority over women just for the sake of it (because too many men are assholes) but am asking you to consider this idea. Is it natural that a man should be the head of the family or is it natural that the woman should be?
"Yes, it happens in other cultures as well, but that does not get the Bible (supposedly the words of an omni-benevolent, morally perfect god) off the hook for teaching hatred against women. In our culture, however, it does come from Biblical injuctions for the most part."
But I asked how you explain the misogyny in other cultures. Please provide your best example of hatred of women from the Bible. I don't think the misogyny in our culture (and others) from religious injuctions for the most part . I don't deny that some instances have their origins there but most of those have been twisted to suit those seeking power over others.
"Now who is misrepresenting whom? I don't have to disprove your notions of god, you have to prove them to me, unless you want to continue to assert that god is some figment of your subjective imagination."
Ohhh ... confusion ;) My apologies once again. I wish there was an edit feature that would allow us to correct mistakes like that. At one forum I visit they have an edit function available for a limited time after the initial comment is posted. Let's you make corrections to HTML stuff too which can be handy. There is nothing more frustrating than a hyperlink that won't work (or italic or bold type run amok because you forgot to close the tag). I do note that at these "blogger" blogs it tells you if your HTML has an error and won't post the comment until you find it and fix it. Anyways ... I digress ...
"OK, I answered above before reading this. I am confused, however. Do you mean to assert then that I really don't have any necessity to take on a burden of disproof?
Yup, no necessity or burden on you to disprove God.
Especially if you don't want to ;)
"If you wish to assert that god is real, however, it is up to you to prove it."
Nope, my belief in God is faith in God and as such is not based on proof and does not require proof.
"I'm interested in what you have to say if you have something worth hearing. But, if you simply want to repeat that you believe in god because you believe in god and it's solely a subjective belief that has no bearing on the objective world, then you are wasting both our times. If you simply want to know what I believe or don't believe, or why I disbelieve what you believe, then simply ask and don't try to present your beliefs as having any validity."
I have asked what you believe and why ... but I have not made any judgements as to the validity of your beliefs although it dissapoints me that you have judged my beliefs and found them inadequate. Nevertheless, I respect you and your beliefs. I am sorry if you think we are wasting our time but I don't think we are. I have learned many things in our discussion and I have you to thank. Whether or not what I have to say is worth hearing ... well, if you are listening then that judgement rests with you.
Hello again GCT,
"So, I'm left wondering what value the Bible has, except as maybe a story written by man about other men. IOW, it has nothing to do with god, so how can we know anything about god from the Bible?"
It has value in that it is man seeking God and God revealing himself to men, man struggling towards God and God struggling to reach men.
The more you look at the Bible, the more you will see.
"And, how do you decide? You can't simply decide that all the things you like and are "good" are therefore really from/about god and all the others are from/about man."
Why not? I believe that God has written his law on my heart so how I feel is how I decide. I certainly won't let someone else decide for me (but I do value the conclusions they reach).
"Exactly, we can't."
It's so nice when we agree! We can't know (in the strictest sense) it but we can believe it.
"And, let's point out that you want to read the bad with a grain of salt, but shouldn't you also read the good that way?"
But the good already tastes salty ;)
Braverdave,
"Have I asked you to prove it? I don't want to argue it. I simply don't know. Like you say it's an enigma in a mystery in a riddle. And as I have said it is ineffable."
You simply lamented that it has not been proved. I've pointed out some problems with the stance either way. Which will you choose?
"Well there you are then. One of the questions you asked has been answered. But the flood took place back when God was young and inexperienced. I forgive him."
Answered in a way that is refuting to Xianity? OK, I'll go along with that. I had expected more resistance.
"You asked "Why can't I interpret the Bible?" which insinuates that I said you are not able or are not allowed to interpret the bible. It's that simple. Now I had made a sarcastic remark expressing my amazement about biblical interpretations from an athiest and made a self-deprecating remark about my own mental contortions and followed the humorous statements up with a winky face ;) just to make sure you would understand I was having some fun. You chose to take it as a literal injuction against you interpreting the bible and responded with "Why can't I interpret the Bible?" when I had said no such thing. Don't you see how you misrepresented my words?"
No, I don't. If anything I may have been guilty of misunderstanding you, but for you to level a charge of misrepresentation is over the top and simply not true. It did sound to me like you were implying that I could not interpret the Bible (for whatever reason) and I asked. I have had Xian say explicitly that atheists are incapable of interpreting the Bible BTW.
"When have I done that? An example would be nice. I have considered your interpretations and responded by sharing my own and providing the explanation for why I believe the way I do. Furthermore, I thought I made it clear that you ask some good questions and brought up some good points. I also mentioned that I plan on bringing some of these points up in the bible study group at my church. I certainly do not quickly toss them out as you have falsely claimed."
That's how it seems from some of your remarks.
"Yes there is. It's been promised ...
And God shall wipe away all tears from their eyes; and there shall be no more death, neither sorrow, nor crying, neither shall there be any more pain: for the former things are passed away.
Revelation 21:4"
Didn't I already point out that that was talking about those who are saved? Revelation 21:27 (same chapter even) talks about those not listed in the book that will not get to heaven.
"Is it torture when a parent gives a misbehaving child a time-out to reflect upon what they have done wrong? It may seem like torture to the child but the parent hopes that the child will realize their error and repent of it."
Wow, so you think the lake of fire is the same as a time-out for a child?
"I have explained my reasoning by which I believe that God was NOT punishing Adam and Eve. God's actions prevented greater harm. I have given the details of my explanation a few times now. If you missed it I suggest you read through some of my earlier responses again."
Let me clarify. What is your reasoning for thinking that god was simply trying to prevent greater harm? I don't accept your "answer" because it's simply restating your claim in different words. What is your support for god not being angry? 'Because he wanted to prevent any more harm.' But that doesn't answer the original question. What is your support for this?
"I am so glad that I made you smile. Seriously. But always remember that my faith is my own and as relativistic as it may be it does not discount the absolute (but ineffable) nature of God."
Contradiction. You are making an objective claim now based on your subjective beliefs that you claim are purely subjective claims.
"That is why my belief in God is defined as FAITH."
Good, now we are getting somewhere. So, the next logical step is for you come out and admit that you don't actually know that god exists.
"Right. I believe it. I do understand the difference and have repeatedly demonstrated it by being careful to point out that my belief in God is faith in God and as such is not based upon proof."
And you've taken the next step, I'm pleased. I would disagree that you have shown so by the answers you give that you "know" that god exists, but let's move on. Now that we've established that you don't know that god exists, what evidence do you have to make you cling to that belief over the beliefs of any other religion or no religion at all?
"ineffable - incapable of being expressed or described in words; inexpressible
You would probably discount (or possibly ridicule) the answers that God gives me as incredibly subjective so I won't waste the effort to try to explain. I don't expect you or anyone to understand but I would like respect for my beliefs."
And how does god speak to you in ineffable ways? Further, I don't see that respecting your beliefs is any necessity of mine. I will respect your humanity and you as a person, but I'm under no imperative to respect your beliefs, especially since they are not based on anything (so far as I know) to make them respectable. Further, if you hold to the Xian tenets of needing saving (up for debate with you apparently) then I find your beliefs to be inhumane and detestable and not worthy of respect.
"You do not quote my beliefs word for word . You paraphrase my beliefs and more than once have attributed the beliefs of others to mine and proceeded to argue against my misrepresented beliefs. I have pointed it out a couple times when you create strawmen to knock down yet you continue to do it."
And you have misunderstood me as well at times I'm sure, whether I caught it or not. Let's not assume that the other is intentionally doing things like this unless you have some proof. The more likely explanation in a case like this is that the other is having trouble understanding your ideas from a plethora of potential factors.
"Furthermore, you ask leading and misleading questions. An example is the instance I noted above when you asked"Why can't I interpret the Bible?. There are other instances (some in this response) I have pointed out asking where and when I said something you attribute to me in your questions."
I may not quote you back with your exact words, but that doesn't necessarily mean that I am misrepresenting you. It sometimes means that I didn't understand you. Other times it is because I am taking an argument that you made and taking it to its logical conclusion. Also, if you make contradictory statements, it is not a misrepresentation to point that out to you.
"Don't you see how these tactics are less than honest?"
Screw that. I have not been dishonest, and have admitted mistakes when I made them. That you are making contradictory claims is not my fault.
"If you have two statements of mine that you believe to be contradictory please quote them exactly as I presented them and I will address them. These statements must be statements I made describing MY beliefs and not the instances where we were discussing beliefs of other Christians."
Maybe you could start with the instance I just brought up that you are responding to here? I'll ask you direct questions. Do you believe man is inherently good? (I believe that you have said that you do.) Do you believe that man needs Jesus Christ to be saved? (I believe you have also expressed this.) If yes to both questions, how is that possible? If we are inherently good, then why do we need saving? If no to the second, then what do we need JC for?
"When did I say that God was omni-benevolent? That's one of your favourite terms you use to define God, not mine. I have said that God loves us but that doesn't qualify as a defintion of omni-benevolent. We have discussed your omni-max term and your defintion of it and I have provided my response to this previously."
Then perhaps you think god is not omni-benevolent? If so, then why is god worthy of our worship? Certainly you are arguing against an omni-max god here, so what other omni-ness are you willing to jettison?
"No it's not. To be objective it would have to be NOT influenced by my personal feelings and interpretations."
If god is real, then god would be real regardless of your personal feelings and interpretations, unless of course you think that you created god?
"HA! Then God (in one faith or another) is a figment of the imagination of the majority of the people around the world. There are not enough therapists to deal with everyone that has a belief in God."
Appeal to popularity. Just becuase lots of people think they have an invisible friend doesn't make it so. The point is that if you aren't making a claim about the objective world, then what's to talk about?
"So why are you still here talking to me? The fact that there is no evidence for god doesn't explain why so many people in the world have some sort of belief in God. Do you have an explanation for that?"
Should I not be? Is god simply a subjective thought in your head, or are you realizing now that you are making objective statements? Also, there are many possible explanation for god belief from genetics (cultural evolution) to simply fear of death/the unknown. None of those reasons constitute evidence for god, especially not a particular god.
"Desist then."
OK, nice talking to ya.
"You assumed correctly. I am learning about God everyday. I have faith that God is real and it grows stronger everyday."
Have fun with your imagination then.
P.S. "So your insinuation that I claim my interpretation is the only correct interpretation is dishonesty or ignorance on your part."
I never said that, so don't be so quick to claim foul play in the future.
"Fine. But the word you didn't like in the first passage under discussion when you brought up misogyny was the word "men". I did show that other translations do not use "men" and substituted "everyone" and "mankind" and provided a defintion of the word in question to show that it's use for describing "all people" was an acceptable application of the term. I still fail to see how it is misogynistic (expressing hatred, dislike or mistrust of women) and since you have not shown how it was misogynistic then I can see why you don't want to continue discussing this passage and your claim that it was misogynistic."
One last point...I've already explained that the passage I was referring to was later in the chapter, you probably missed me saying that. And, I believe I've already stated that subjugation of women is misogynistic as it is hateful, so I really don't see your point or why you are arguing it anymore.
P.P.S. I am sorry if you think we are wasting our time but I don't think we are. I have learned many things in our discussion and I have you to thank. Whether or not what I have to say is worth hearing ... well, if you are listening then that judgement rests with you.
If my stopping seems abrupt I simply decided to stop arguing along those lines. If there is still more than you wish to ask me, feel free. I'll check back to see if you do, or if there is something that you feel is worth discussing, then let me know. As it is, however, I find your claims to solely subjective beliefs to be less than inspiring. If you are not making objective statements (which I still contend you are) then I'm not sure what you think you or I will get out of this.
braverdave:
I have made a post addressing John 7:38.
Hi GCT,
"You simply lamented that it has not been proved. I've pointed out some problems with the stance either way. Which will you choose?"
As I said "I simply don't know.". I hold my choice in abeyance.
"Answered in a way that is refuting to Xianity? OK, I'll go along with that. I had expected more resistance."
How does it refute Christianity? The lesson I learned doesn't invalidate my beliefs but rather confirms them.
"No, I don't. If anything I may have been guilty of misunderstanding you, but for you to level a charge of misrepresentation is over the top and simply not true."
Fine. Let's chalk it up to a misunderstanding then. I apologize for my accusation of misrepresentation in regards to this particular instance.
"That's how it seems from some of your remarks."
Another misunderstanding on your part then? Please take a look back and if you can find an instance where I tossed out your interpretations in my remarks I would be very interested to see an example. It may be "how it seems" as you claim but a that is a misperception on your part or an attempt to make it seem that I do not consider your interpretations as worthy of consideration. I will grant the former becasue I believe you are inherently good :)
"Didn't I already point out that that was talking about those who are saved? Revelation 21:27 (same chapter even) talks about those not listed in the book that will not get to heaven."
The old heaven or the new heaven? I see a reference to the inhabitants of the new earth which are presumably those who were found written in the book of life after the judgement at the great white throne. If the former things (death, sorrow, crying and pain) are passed away doen't it stand to reason that there will be no hell in which these former things would seem to exist in abundance? The reference to the lake of fire defines it as the second death. In the preceding chapter there is a reference to death and hell being cast into the lake of fire and again refers to it as a second death. Death would seem to contradict the idea of an eternal life of torment.
The Book of Revelation has it's difficulties and is not so easily understood. Usually it leaves me with more questions than answers but I quoted the verse I did because it is a favorite of mine and one I committed to memory long ago. Other passages in other books support universalism and/or ultimate reconciliation and if you do get a chance to spend some time looking at these topics this weekend I am certain that others have explained it at greater length and better than I can.
"Wow, so you think the lake of fire is the same as a time-out for a child?
More accurately; hell could be the same as a time-out. As I pointed out above in Revelation there is mention of hell being thrown into the lake of fire (the second death).
You might take a look at the Roman Catholic teaching of Purgatory for an interesting comparison. And Judaism and the idea of Gehenna being a temporary place for the purification of the soul (a waiting room for heaven). Or even the teachings of other religions for some interesting comparisons.
"Let me clarify. What is your reasoning for thinking that god was simply trying to prevent greater harm? I don't accept your "answer" because it's simply restating your claim in different words. What is your support for god not being angry? 'Because he wanted to prevent any more harm.' But that doesn't answer the original question. What is your support for this?"
The greater harm would be eating of the tree of life and immortalizing their sin so he removed that possibilty until such a time as he made the remedy (Christ) available and once again could allow access to the tree of life.
"Contradiction. You are making an objective claim now based on your subjective beliefs that you claim are purely subjective claims."
You will have to itemize what that objective claim you say I am making and the subjective belief and claims you say contradict it for me to better understand the contradiction you claim.
If you say that my objective claim is the absolute nature of God (which is unknowable and indescribable- for me at least) I will argue that it is not objective but is subjective because it is influenced by my beliefs.
"Good, now we are getting somewhere. So, the next logical step is for you come out and admit that you don't actually know that god exists."
How are we getting somewhere when nothing has changed? The very first time we discussed belief and faith I defined my belief in God as faith and defined faith as belief not requiring (or in the absence of) proof. No, that is not the next logical step because that would be a lack of faith and faith is something I have.
"And you've taken the next step, I'm pleased. I would disagree that you have shown so by the answers you give that you "know" that god exists, but let's move on."
I (the subjective me) "know" that God exists because I have faith in God. I may know it but I can't make you know it the way I know it. So you can claim I have taken the next step all you like but that claim doesn't make it so as your subsequent disagreement acknowledges. But I can agree to move on.
"Now that we've established that you don't know that god exists,"
(which we have not but are moving on regardless)
"what evidence do you have to make you cling to that belief over the beliefs of any other religion or no religion at all?"
Because I believe!
Evidence has nothing to do with it.
Logic has nothing to do with it.
I will be what I will to be.
I will to believe.
"And how does god speak to you in ineffable ways?"
You asked how does God speak to me. I told you I can't describe it and termed it ineffable. Repeating the question and answer won't get you any more further. But I will think about it more and if I can put it onto words then I will share it with you.
"I will respect your humanity and you as a person, but I'm under no imperative to respect your beliefs, especially since they are not based on anything (so far as I know) to make them respectable."
Fine. Love the sinner but hate the sin, eh? The person isn't evil but what they believe might be evil, eh? Works for me ;)
"And you have misunderstood me as well at times I'm sure, whether I caught it or not. Let's not assume that the other is intentionally doing things like this unless you have some proof. The more likely explanation in a case like this is that the other is having trouble understanding your ideas from a plethora of potential factors."
There is a difference between misunderstanding and misrepresenting. While I may not have incontrovertible "proof" of your intentions I have at least evidenced a pattern of behaviour. I am more than willing to let bygones be bygones and be reconciled ... forgive us our trespasses as we forgive those who trespass against us ... and all.
"I may not quote you back with your exact words, but that doesn't necessarily mean that I am misrepresenting you. It sometimes means that I didn't understand you. Other times it is because I am taking an argument that you made and taking it to its logical conclusion. Also, if you make contradictory statements, it is not a misrepresentation to point that out to you."
Sometimes, other times, whatever. If I have made contradictory statements please quote them and I will attempt to reconcile the apparent disagreement and maybe even repent and change my mind.
"Screw that. I have not been dishonest, and have admitted mistakes when I made them. That you are making contradictory claims is not my fault."
Fine. Forgive and forget. I still have not seen your evidence for any contradictory claims.
"Maybe you could start with the instance I just brought up that you are responding to here? I'll ask you direct questions. Do you believe man is inherently good? (I believe that you have said that you do.) Do you believe that man needs Jesus Christ to be saved? (I believe you have also expressed this.) If yes to both questions, how is that possible? If we are inherently good, then why do we need saving? If no to the second, then what do we need JC for?"
Ahhh - here we go ... Direct questions instead of indirect questions. Much better.
Yes, I believe that man is inherently good. God created us good. But that doesn't mean we don't do evil when we choose to.
No, I believe we need God's grace to be saved. God offers this grace to everyone. We needed Jesus Christ to provide the expiation of the sins of the world and thus be the way by which we are reconciled to God.
I wonder if you will be happy with my answers, qualified as they are, but they are what I believe. You will probably have more questions and that's great but I think it's best you find your own answers.
"Then perhaps you think god is not omni-benevolent? If so, then why is god worthy of our worship? Certainly you are arguing against an omni-max god here, so what other omni-ness are you willing to jettison?"
Not saying that either. I am reluctant to jettison any idea so please consider the defintion of omni-benevolent as a matter that is under consideration and that's why I can argue for and against it as part of my effort to understand it from both sides of the fence. But I do believe God loves us and I think that love for us justifies our existence.
"If god is real, then god would be real regardless of your personal feelings and interpretations, unless of course you think that you created god?"
Ahhh ... now you are asking an interesting question. I have some ideas and though the explanations behind them could fill a book I can try to summarize the ideas but they start with a question; How is it possible that anything exists at all? And that question leads to more questions; Who? What? When? Where? How? and most importantly Why? (but not necessarily in that order).
God is self-existent (his existence is not contingent but is necessary). God was alone and all there was. God is love but without someone to love that love can't be realized. God created us in his image in order to express himself. Everything that God created was created from himself. Each of us and everything in creation is a very tiny piece of God. God becomes his creation and when he does this he forgets himself so that we (his creation) may remember (create God) himself.
"Appeal to popularity. Just becuase lots of people think they have an invisible friend doesn't make it so. The point is that if you aren't making a claim about the objective world, then what's to talk about?"
Regardless of popularity I will still believe in God (and my belief is my own and ultimately only popular with me). And of course popularity does not make it so, neither does it make it not so. But it's a fact that many people do have some belief in God and I simply asked if you had an explanation for our mass hallucination. My point is if you only want to talk about the objective world there isn't that much to talk about (and then why are we still talking? because it's fun?).
"Should I not be? Is god simply a subjective thought in your head, or are you realizing now that you are making objective statements? Also, there are many possible explanation for god belief from genetics (cultural evolution) to simply fear of death/the unknown. None of those reasons constitute evidence for god, especially not a particular god."
Not if you don't want to. My beliefs about God are subjective. And even the claim that God exists is subjective because it can't be objective if others assert that God does not exist. The possible reasons you list for belief in God do not constitute direct evidence but they are evidence albeit circumstantial.
"OK, nice talking to ya."
Likewise, I'm sure. Parting is such sweet sorrow.
"Have fun with your imagination then."
And you yours (do you have one?).
"I never said that, so don't be so quick to claim foul play in the future."
I didn't say you said it, I said you insinuated it with what you said. There's a difference. If you did not intend that insinuation that's fine. I forgive you (and ask yours in return) and will endeavour to not be so quick to accuse in the future, after all Satan accuses us all, so I guess it's best left to him.
"If my stopping seems abrupt I simply decided to stop arguing along those lines. If there is still more than you wish to ask me, feel free. I'll check back to see if you do, or if there is something that you feel is worth discussing, then let me know. As it is, however, I find your claims to solely subjective beliefs to be less than inspiring. If you are not making objective statements (which I still contend you are) then I'm not sure what you think you or I will get out of this."
I have asked you further questions but if you want to stop that's fine. I'm interested in your answers but it isn't that important. I will check back to see if you do answer but will not have too much time to respond to them over the next few weeks.
Next week I am leading the Bible study group at my church (hopefully I make up my mind as to the subject this weekend because it starts on Monday). The week after that I am off on a hunting trip with friends and I have to find some time to get my camping gear organized and get some target practise in with my new bow to be sure the scope is properly adjusted. Then Christmas. Then a trip down to the coast to visit family and friends for New Years.
So maybe in January ... until then I wish you a Merry Christmas and all the best in the New Year and these last words (for now);
Inspiration is where you find it,
where you strain to gain and
wrap your mind around it.
It's here, there and everywhere,
sometimes elusive and others effusive
but everyone has their share.
Back again, dinner is done and so are the dishes ...
So GCT, how did you like my little poem; Ode to Inspiration , a BraverDave original.
I have you to thank because you inspired it but did it inspire you?
Ned, thanks for letting me know about the Lost Scripture post. I haven't been to your homepage lately to see what's new but will make an effort to find the time to get there soon.
braverdave,
I'll go ahead and answer the questions that you pose...at least the ones that seem productive.
"Other passages in other books support universalism and/or ultimate reconciliation and if you do get a chance to spend some time looking at these topics this weekend I am certain that others have explained it at greater length and better than I can."
I've looked at a few things. It seems that universalists believe that all will be reconciled with god through being saved by Jesus Christ at least at some point before eternity. Sound about right? I also found some pages that argued against it, like carm.
"If you say that my objective claim is the absolute nature of God (which is unknowable and indescribable- for me at least) I will argue that it is not objective but is subjective because it is influenced by my beliefs."
Again, the truth or falsity of god's existence is NOT influenced by your beliefs. Whether you think god exists or not is a belief you hold, but not whether god actually exists or not.
"I (the subjective me) "know" that God exists because I have faith in God."
The point is that you don't "know" that god exists. You can suspect that he does or wish that he does, but not "know" that he does.
"Yes, I believe that man is inherently good. God created us good. But that doesn't mean we don't do evil when we choose to.
No, I believe we need God's grace to be saved. God offers this grace to everyone. We needed Jesus Christ to provide the expiation of the sins of the world and thus be the way by which we are reconciled to God."
Just to be clear, I believe that the above is contradictory. If we need to be saved, then we are not inherently good.
"Not saying that either. I am reluctant to jettison any idea so please consider the defintion of omni-benevolent as a matter that is under consideration and that's why I can argue for and against it as part of my effort to understand it from both sides of the fence. But I do believe God loves us and I think that love for us justifies our existence."
If you argue both sides, then you can see how I might get confused about which statements you make are real and which aren't. If I make an argument based on what you said while arguing from side one and then you turn around and say that you actually believe side two, that can lead to misunderstandings and charges of misrepresentation, can it not?
Either way, I don't think there is wiggle room over the definition of omni-benevolent. Either god is it or he isn't.
"Ahhh ... now you are asking an interesting question. I have some ideas and though the explanations behind them could fill a book I can try to summarize the ideas but they start with a question; How is it possible that anything exists at all? And that question leads to more questions; Who? What? When? Where? How? and most importantly Why? (but not necessarily in that order)."
How is it possible that anything exists at all? We don't know. We may never know. We do know that something happened at the big bang which led to this universe forming and evolving as it did. It would be fallacious, however, to assume that there was a cause and then to further assume that god was that cause and/or that this god had a reason for all of it.
"The possible reasons you list for belief in God do not constitute direct evidence but they are evidence albeit circumstantial."
No, actually, they do not constitute evidence of anything, except fallacious thinking. If I fear death and make up some god figure that will grant me life after death, have I really provided evidence for god? Of course not.
"And you yours (do you have one?)."
I do.
"...after all Satan accuses us all, so I guess it's best left to him."
Actually, it's god that accuses us, not Satan. I'm reminded of a Robert Ingersoll work:
"There is in regard to them a most wonderful fact: In nearly all the theologies, mythologies and religions, the devils have been much more humane and merciful than the gods. No devil ever gave one of his generals an order to kill children and to rip open the bodies of pregnant women. Such barbarities were always ordered by the good gods. The pestilences were sent by the most merciful gods. The frightful famine, during which the dying child with pallid lips sucked the withered bosom of a dead mother, was sent by the loving gods. No devil was ever charged with such fiendish brutality."
Have a good hunting trip and a good winter solstice (from whence Xmas came).
"Inspiration is where you find it,
where you strain to gain and
wrap your mind around it.
It's here, there and everywhere,
sometimes elusive and others effusive
but everyone has their share."
I agree. We all gain inspiration from different things, ideas, events, etc. It's the creative mind that figures out how to do something with it, hopefully to better mankind.
"I have you to thank because you inspired it but did it inspire you?"
I don't know yet. Time will tell. I hope that Ingersoll's words can similarly inspire you.
GCT, hey hey and howdy do,
"I'll go ahead and answer the questions that you pose...at least the ones that seem productive."
Thanks ever so much.
"It seems that universalists believe that all will be reconciled with god through being saved by Jesus Christ at least at some point before eternity. Sound about right?"
Mostly. There are several different points of view within universalism. And of course there are arguments against it. How could it be otherwise? Thanks for taking a look at it.
"Again, the truth or falsity of god's existence is NOT influenced by your beliefs. Whether you think god exists or not is a belief you hold, but not whether god actually exists or not.
Certainly ... but my subjective statements were regarding the absolute nature of God and not an objective claim to God's existence. My belief in God is based on my faith that God exists and the nature of the God I believe in is a subjective belief.
"The point is that you don't "know" that god exists. You can suspect that he does or wish that he does, but not "know" that he does."
know - verb
1. to perceive or understand as fact or truth; to apprehend clearly and with certainty: I know the situation fully.
2. to have established or fixed in the mind or memory: to know a poem by heart; Do you know the way to the park from here?
3. to be cognizant or aware of: I know it.
4. be acquainted with (a thing, place, person, etc.), as by sight, experience, or report: to know the mayor.
5. to understand from experience or attainment (usually fol. by how before an infinitive): to know how to make gingerbread.
6. to be able to distinguish, as one from another: to know right from wrong.
7. Archaic. to have sexual intercourse with. –verb (used without object)
8. to have knowledge or clear and certain perception, as of fact or truth.
9. to be cognizant or aware, as of some fact, circumstance, or occurrence; have information, as about something. –noun
10. the fact or state of knowing; knowledge. —Idioms
11. in the know, possessing inside, secret, or special information.
12. know the ropes, Informal. to understand or be familiar with the particulars of a subject or business: He knew the ropes better than anyone else in politics.
By these definitions I do "know" that God exists as far as I can "know" it.
"Just to be clear, I believe that the above [repeated below in bold as a reminder] is contradictory. If we need to be saved, then we are not inherently good."
Why can't we be in inherently good but yet need to be saved from our sins?
"Yes, I believe that man is inherently good. God created us good. But that doesn't mean we don't do evil when we choose to.
No, I believe we need God's grace to be saved. God offers this grace to everyone. We needed Jesus Christ to provide the expiation of the sins of the world and thus be the way by which we are reconciled to God."
We need to be saved from our "sins". Just as you can forgive me and I can forgive you so God's grace forgives us in kind.
"If you argue both sides, then you can see how I might get confused about which statements you make are real and which aren't. If I make an argument based on what you said while arguing from side one and then you turn around and say that you actually believe side two, that can lead to misunderstandings and charges of misrepresentation, can it not?"
It is acceptable to make an argument based on what I say but please remember that sometimes I am simply arguing with myself and throwing out ideas in order to better understand myself and hopefully for the most part I make it clear when I am doing so. You can be confused if you want to be but since I make it clear when I don't have answers but only questions or ideas about what the answers may be then the confusion is entirely yours.
"Either way, I don't think there is wiggle room over the definition of omni-benevolent. Either god is it or he isn't."
There is wiggle room if I am not sure if God is omni-this or that. From the first instance when you used the term "omni-max" I have questioned the definition and stated in uncertain terms that I simply don't know and certainly do not accept your defintions as definitive.
"Actually, it's god that accuses us, not Satan. I'm reminded of a Robert Ingersoll work:"
Sympathy for the devil. I have it too. It's okay, God understands.
All laws defining and punishing blasphemy -- making it a crime to give your honest ideas about the Bible, or to laugh at the ignorance of the ancient Jews, or to enjoy yourself on the Sabbath, or to give your opinion of Jehovah, were passed by impudent bigots, and should be at once repealed by honest men.
-- Robert Ingersoll
I couldn't agree more.
"Have a good hunting trip and a good winter solstice (from whence Xmas came)."
It was a good hunting trip. I bagged several gamebirds (grouse, ducks, geese) and got a few rabbits too. Not too cold (thanks to my new winter sleeping bag) and not too much snowfall made for a very pleasant camping/hunting trip.
I am going to a winter solstice party next week and have no doubt it will be a good time and I will have a mystic little Christmas and wish you the same. And all the best in the New Year too.
braverdave
I see you are back. How's the busy life going?
"Certainly ... but my subjective statements were regarding the absolute nature of God and not an objective claim to God's existence. My belief in God is based on my faith that God exists and the nature of the God I believe in is a subjective belief."
But your claims of god's nature are not subject to your beliefs. IOW, that god exists is not subject to your beliefs, nor is god's nature. If god has a nature as you describe or not, it is quite independent of what you believe about god.
"know - verb
1. to perceive or understand as fact or truth; to apprehend clearly and with certainty: I know the situation fully."
How can you "know" that god is fact? Fact is independent of your beliefs.
"2. to have established or fixed in the mind or memory: to know a poem by heart; Do you know the way to the park from here?"
This definition does not fit the context to "knowing" god exists, because you would have to have the factual knowledge of def. 1 in order to have this "knowledge".
"3. to be cognizant or aware of: I know it."
Again, how can you be aware of god in a "know" sense if you have no factual basis for it?
"4. be acquainted with (a thing, place, person, etc.), as by sight, experience, or report: to know the mayor."
This is not to "know" that god exists, but the answer to number 3 holds here as well.
"5. to understand from experience or attainment (usually fol. by how before an infinitive): to know how to make gingerbread."
What experience do you have that allows factual knowledge of god? Remember, your beliefs do not count towards this end.
"6. to be able to distinguish, as one from another: to know right from wrong."
This one is definitely not applicable.
"7. Archaic. to have sexual intercourse with. –verb (used without object)"
If one could "know" god in this sense....well that would be quite a ride I suspect.
"8. to have knowledge or clear and certain perception, as of fact or truth."
Again, what fact or truth do you claim to have? I believe that you have said that you claim no evidence for god (my memory may be faulty, so feel free to correct me on that) so I don't see how this def. could hold.
"9. to be cognizant or aware, as of some fact, circumstance, or occurrence; have information, as about something. –noun"
Again, this is in need of fact.
"10. the fact or state of knowing; knowledge. —Idioms"
No applicable.
"11. in the know, possessing inside, secret, or special information."
N/A
"12. know the ropes, Informal. to understand or be familiar with the particulars of a subject or business: He knew the ropes better than anyone else in politics."
N/A
"By these definitions I do "know" that God exists as far as I can "know" it."
Not at all. None of those definitions deal with what you believe, but what you can factually claim is true.
"Why can't we be in inherently good but yet need to be saved from our sins?"
Because being inherently good means that we have the capacity to not sin. Do we have that capacity? No. We need to be saved. Hence, the two are mutually exclusive.
"No, I believe we need God's grace to be saved. God offers this grace to everyone. We needed Jesus Christ to provide the expiation of the sins of the world and thus be the way by which we are reconciled to God.
We need to be saved from our "sins". Just as you can forgive me and I can forgive you so God's grace forgives us in kind."
If god's grace is about forgiving, then there is no need for Jesus. god could quite simply forgive us without Jesus being involved at all. Also, if this grace is offerend to everyone, then we should all be reconciled with god right away, or at least right after death.
"It is acceptable to make an argument based on what I say but please remember that sometimes I am simply arguing with myself and throwing out ideas in order to better understand myself and hopefully for the most part I make it clear when I am doing so. You can be confused if you want to be but since I make it clear when I don't have answers but only questions or ideas about what the answers may be then the confusion is entirely yours."
It has not been clear to me when you are simply "throwing out ideas" that you may or may not agree with. That you say that you don't have answers and then proceed to seemingly give answers is also confusing, so you'll have to forgive me for not being able to read your internal thinking. You should, perhaps, qualify statements in the future that you agree with or not, or just maybe when you are throwing things out there to test the waters?
"There is wiggle room if I am not sure if God is omni-this or that."
If you do not believe in the omni-max nature of god, so be it, but you can't expect to be able to play both sides of the equation because it ties my hands. For instance, I can't argue against notion A, because you say god is omni-max, but if I say B that doesn't work either because you don't believe in god's omni-max nature. If that is the case, I was wise to drop out of most of the discussion, because I'd like for you to figure out what you are arguing before I try to argue against it (if I even should argue against it once you've decided).
"From the first instance when you used the term "omni-max" I have questioned the definition and stated in uncertain terms that I simply don't know and certainly do not accept your defintions as definitive."
Omni-max is having the qualities that most Xians ascribe to god, i.e. omnipotent, omniscient, perfect, omni-benevolent, omni-just, etc. I contend that such an entity is logically impossible.
"Sympathy for the devil. I have it too. It's okay, God understands."
It's not sympathy for the devil, it's taking the Xian faith at its word. For those that believe in hell, it is god that will case us into hell, not Satan. Without hell, it is still god that judges our misdeeds; it is god that tells us we are sinful. Satan never comes to tell us we are bad and sinful. There is no escaping it, god is a self-confessed accuser.
"All laws defining and punishing blasphemy -- making it a crime to give your honest ideas about the Bible, or to laugh at the ignorance of the ancient Jews, or to enjoy yourself on the Sabbath, or to give your opinion of Jehovah, were passed by impudent bigots, and should be at once repealed by honest men.
-- Robert Ingersoll
I couldn't agree more."
Good.
"It was a good hunting trip. I bagged several gamebirds (grouse, ducks, geese) and got a few rabbits too. Not too cold (thanks to my new winter sleeping bag) and not too much snowfall made for a very pleasant camping/hunting trip."
Good eating too.
"I am going to a winter solstice party next week and have no doubt it will be a good time and I will have a mystic little Christmas and wish you the same. And all the best in the New Year too."
I was thinking about hosting a winter solstice party myself, just so I can cook up another turkey like I did for Thanksgiving. Happy Holidays to you as well (oh no, call out Bill O'Reilly, I must be part of the war on Xmas - hopefully you get the joke).
GCT, the busy life is going well. Construction slows down here in the Great White North during the winter months and allows me more leisure time but even so I still keep busy. Since we came back from hunting a couple days early I have some time to spare. Next week it gets crazy again when friends and relatives start visiting here before Christmas and then after Christmas and into the New Year I will be off on a road trip visiting friends and family.
"But your claims of god's nature are not subject to your beliefs. IOW, that god exists is not subject to your beliefs, nor is god's nature. If god has a nature as you describe or not, it is quite independent of what you believe about god."
Certainly. But my understanding of the nature of God is subjective. God's existence is not subject to my beliefs and neither is his nature. But God's nature, while independent of my beliefs, is still subject to my understanding as it has been revealed to me through personal experience and revelation. It comes down to perception ...
“It is one of the commonest of mistakes to consider that the limit of our power of perception is also the limit of all there is to perceive.”
-- C.W. Leadbeater
"Not at all. None of those definitions deal with what you believe, but what you can factually claim is true."
I disagree. It's not all about facts. The definitions of "know" that allow me to "know" God exists are;
1. to perceive or understand as fact or truth; to apprehend clearly and with certainty: .
8. to have knowledge or clear and certain perception, as of fact or truth.
To perceive or understand a spiritual truth does not require facts. I intuitively apprehend God's existence. Check out the defintions of perceive and perception.
4. be acquainted with (a thing, place, person, etc.), as by sight, experience, or report:
5. to understand from experience or attainment
By my personal life experience I am aquainted with God and know he exists. Lack of factual proof of knowledge doesn't negate my experiences. Your experiences have led you to atheism but do not rest on factual knowledge and proof to be valid for you.
11. in the know, possessing inside, secret, or special information.
This one is applicable too. Use your imagination ;)
"Because being inherently good means that we have the capacity to not sin. Do we have that capacity? No. We need to be saved. Hence, the two are mutually exclusive."
No, it does not necessarily mean that. If we are inherently evil then how could we ever do good? Inherent can be defined as an essential characteristic but that does not exclude other characteristics. And upon examination of the definitions of inherent it becomes apparent that we would be more accurate to use the word "innate" because the word innate means 'inborn' and should apply to living things; inherent is 'essential, intrinsic' and applies best to nonliving things like ideas. Being innately good does not necessarily exclude the capacity to do evil.
"If god's grace is about forgiving, then there is no need for Jesus. god could quite simply forgive us without Jesus being involved at all. Also, if this grace is offerend to everyone, then we should all be reconciled with god right away, or at least right after death."
God's grace was ultimately realized in Jesus. God could forgive us without Jesus if he wanted to and before Jesus there were other means available but chose to do it with Jesus as the perfect means to a perfect end. Grace is offered to everyone and it's possible that we are immediately reconciled with God or shortly after death. We'll just have to wait and see.
"It has not been clear to me when you are simply "throwing out ideas" that you may or may not agree with. That you say that you don't have answers and then proceed to seemingly give answers is also confusing, so you'll have to forgive me for not being able to read your internal thinking. You should, perhaps, qualify statements in the future that you agree with or not, or just maybe when you are throwing things out there to test the waters?"
If it hasn't been clear to you then maybe you have not been reading carefully enough or I have not explained it carefully enough. I have stated when I don't have an answer and have suggested possible answers and do qualify them as possibilties. If I have not been clear enough I apologize.
"If you do not believe in the omni-max nature of god, so be it, but you can't expect to be able to play both sides of the equation because it ties my hands. For instance, I can't argue against notion A, because you say god is omni-max, but if I say B that doesn't work either because you don't believe in god's omni-max nature. If that is the case, I was wise to drop out of most of the discussion, because I'd like for you to figure out what you are arguing before I try to argue against it (if I even should argue against it once you've decided)."
On several occasions when this subject has come up I have made it quite clear that I have no definitive position or opinion. It is a matter under consideration but not really too important to me. So if you expect to argue the proverbial notion A or notion B you will have to find someone who does have a definite opinion on the matter. Remember that I have more questions than answers and my answers may be wrong and I encourage everyone to find their own answer (just like Ingersoll does).
"Omni-max is having the qualities that most Xians ascribe to god, i.e. omnipotent, omniscient, perfect, omni-benevolent, omni-just, etc. I contend that such an entity is logically impossible."
Yes, you have previously explained your definition. And I previously explained my position too. Round and round we go, where it stops, God only knows ;)
"It's not sympathy for the devil, it's taking the Xian faith at its word. For those that believe in hell, it is god that will case us into hell, not Satan. Without hell, it is still god that judges our misdeeds; it is god that tells us we are sinful. Satan never comes to tell us we are bad and sinful. There is no escaping it, god is a self-confessed accuser."
Actually, scripturally speaking, Satan does accuse us before God. Read the story of Job again.
And speaking of scripture, my Bible study topic last week went well. Hopefully next week I will find time to organize and summarize it for a post on my blog.
"Good eating too."
Yup! Grouse noodle soup tonight. After I cut up the grouse and oven roasted the pieces I carved the meat off. Then took the bones and the carcass and some celery, onion and carrot scraps to make a broth which I strained into jars. One jar into the fridge for future use and the other to use for the grouse soup. Chunks of celery, onion and carrots into the broth, then some noodles, then the chunks of grouse, ladle into bowls, fresh parsley ... mmm good. And some of Mom's homemade bread with lots of butter.
"I was thinking about hosting a winter solstice party myself, just so I can cook up another turkey like I did for Thanksgiving. Happy Holidays to you as well (oh no, call out Bill O'Reilly, I must be part of the war on Xmas - hopefully you get the joke)."
I do get the joke. Bill O'Reilly is a dumbass. There are more important wars to speak out against than the war on Christmas but since Bill is a warmonger that is unlikely to ever happen. I don't get the big deal with saying Merry Christmas rather than Happy Holidays. One of my friends down on the coast is Jewish and he wasn't offended when I wished him a Merry Christmas and he happily returned the greeting. And I wished him a Happy Hanukkah too.
Christmas is Christmas (even if it does have it's pagan roots), Hanukkah is Hanukkah, Solstice is Solstice, apples are apples and a rose is a rose is a rose is a rose.
You should host a winter solstice party. Be sure to invite some Christians if you do :) And some heretics too ;)
braverdave,
"GCT, the busy life is going well. Construction slows down here in the Great White North during the winter months and allows me more leisure time but even so I still keep busy."
I understand that. My gf's brother is also in construction in the north (not Canada, but pretty close) and has the same deal.
"Certainly. But my understanding of the nature of God is subjective. God's existence is not subject to my beliefs and neither is his nature. But God's nature, while independent of my beliefs, is still subject to my understanding as it has been revealed to me through personal experience and revelation. It comes down to perception ..."
Which leaves you without the ability to tell me what god's nature is.
"I disagree. It's not all about facts. The definitions of "know" that allow me to "know" God exists are;
1. to perceive or understand as fact or truth; to apprehend clearly and with certainty: ."
You can't perceive or understand as FACT that god exists if you admit that you don't have any facts to back it up.
"8. to have knowledge or clear and certain perception, as of fact or truth."
Again, this relies on fact. What fact do you have that allows you to "know" that god exists. Once again, you can suspect or believe, but not "know". To "know" implies a certain level of certainty that you simply don't have.
"To perceive or understand a spiritual truth does not require facts. I intuitively apprehend God's existence. Check out the defintions of perceive and perception."
What this means is that you "know" what your beliefs are, but not that your beliefs are true.
"4. be acquainted with (a thing, place, person, etc.), as by sight, experience, or report:
5. to understand from experience or attainment"
Yet, you claim you have no evidence that these things actually happened, correct? So once again you can suspect of believe, but not "know".
"By my personal life experience I am aquainted with God and know he exists. Lack of factual proof of knowledge doesn't negate my experiences. Your experiences have led you to atheism but do not rest on factual knowledge and proof to be valid for you."
It doesn't negate your experiences, but it also doesn't validate them as having any bearing on the real, empirical, physical world. IOW, you can "know" that you believe you've had experiences with god, but you can't "know" that god exists in reality. Also, my atheism is not simply "valid for me" because I do not bear the burden of proof in this instance. I deny your claim that god exists, and since there is no evidence for it, then I am perfectly rational to not accept that any entity such as god exists. It is the rational position precisely because there is no evidence for the other position.
"11. in the know, possessing inside, secret, or special information.
This one is applicable too. Use your imagination ;)"
Oh, so you also have the Xian secret decoder ring? Where do I get one of those?
"No, it does not necessarily mean that. If we are inherently evil then how could we ever do good? Inherent can be defined as an essential characteristic but that does not exclude other characteristics. And upon examination of the definitions of inherent it becomes apparent that we would be more accurate to use the word "innate" because the word innate means 'inborn' and should apply to living things; inherent is 'essential, intrinsic' and applies best to nonliving things like ideas. Being innately good does not necessarily exclude the capacity to do evil."
That's not the point. If we are innately good (I'll use this word, no sweat off my back) then it is possible that we can attain heaven without the need to be saved. But, since we all need salvation by default, then we can not be innately good.
"God's grace was ultimately realized in Jesus. God could forgive us without Jesus if he wanted to and before Jesus there were other means available but chose to do it with Jesus as the perfect means to a perfect end."
Yes, killing an innocent is always a good way to achieve one's ends.
"Grace is offered to everyone and it's possible that we are immediately reconciled with God or shortly after death. We'll just have to wait and see."
If you hold that grace is offered to everyone, then I think you have to hold that we all go to heaven directly after death. I say that only because it's pretty apparent that we at least have to wait for death. This is still not good enough, however for a being that supposedly loves us, yet holds us at an arm's length away until we die. god, quite simply, can not be omni-benevolent in this scenario or desire that we all receive his grace unless he allows us to suffer some by being separated from him. This is one of the problems of having omni properties. All arguments for entities with omni properties fall short.
"If it hasn't been clear to you then maybe you have not been reading carefully enough or I have not explained it carefully enough. I have stated when I don't have an answer and have suggested possible answers and do qualify them as possibilties. If I have not been clear enough I apologize."
Well, let's agree to move on and both try better in the future.
"Actually, scripturally speaking, Satan does accuse us before God. Read the story of Job again."
So, St. Peter at the pearly gates is really Satan?
"And speaking of scripture, my Bible study topic last week went well. Hopefully next week I will find time to organize and summarize it for a post on my blog."
What was the topic?
"Yup! Grouse noodle soup tonight. After I cut up the grouse and oven roasted the pieces I carved the meat off. Then took the bones and the carcass and some celery, onion and carrot scraps to make a broth which I strained into jars. One jar into the fridge for future use and the other to use for the grouse soup. Chunks of celery, onion and carrots into the broth, then some noodles, then the chunks of grouse, ladle into bowls, fresh parsley ... mmm good. And some of Mom's homemade bread with lots of butter."
Sounds really good.
"I do get the joke. Bill O'Reilly is a dumbass. There are more important wars to speak out against than the war on Christmas but since Bill is a warmonger that is unlikely to ever happen."
You mean the non-existent war of course!
"I don't get the big deal with saying Merry Christmas rather than Happy Holidays. One of my friends down on the coast is Jewish and he wasn't offended when I wished him a Merry Christmas and he happily returned the greeting. And I wished him a Happy Hanukkah too."
It's all part of showing inclusiveness. Most minority (non)faiths have put up with it for so long that they don't blink (like your Jewish friend) but that doesn't make it right.
"You should host a winter solstice party. Be sure to invite some Christians if you do :) And some heretics too ;)"
The guest list will probably not be up to me so I'll have to live with whoever shows up.
GCT, yeah and it's snowing again tonight.
"Which leaves you without the ability to tell me what god's nature is."
That's right. I can tell you about what I believe God's nature to be but can't tell you what God's nature actually is and I doubt we can even comprehend it in this world and maybe not even in the next.
"You can't perceive or understand as FACT that god exists if you admit that you don't have any facts to back it up."
I perceive and understand it as truth. When you read the definitions you seem to put on the brakes after the word fact (and ignore the definitions of perceive and perception). But the definitions in question read fact or truth ... fact OR truth ... there is a distinction.
"What this means is that you "know" what your beliefs are, but not that your beliefs are true."
I know my beliefs are true because I perceive them to be true.
"Yet, you claim you have no evidence that these things actually happened, correct? So once again you can suspect of believe, but not "know"."
Not exactly, there is evidence but it is circumstantial and subjective and as such isn't good enough for you. But that's okay, I understand.
Since I am feeling especially heretical tonight I will even go so far as to say whether they are pure fact or pure myth is meaningless to me. I find truth in these things and do not seek confirmation of that truth from anyone else.
"It doesn't negate your experiences, but it also doesn't validate them as having any bearing on the real, empirical, physical world. IOW, you can "know" that you believe you've had experiences with god, but you can't "know" that god exists in reality. Also, my atheism is not simply "valid for me" because I do not bear the burden of proof in this instance. I deny your claim that god exists, and since there is no evidence for it, then I am perfectly rational to not accept that any entity such as god exists. It is the rational position precisely because there is no evidence for the other position."
So do you acknowledge that your experiences that have led you to atheism do not rest on factual knowledge and a burden of proof but are nonetheless valid for you?
My experiences do have bearing on the real, empirical, physical world because these experiences make me who I am and as far as I can tell I am real, empirical and physical.
I deny your claim that there is no evidence for the existence of God and I am perfectly rational to have faith that God exists because of my experiences.
"Oh, so you also have the Xian secret decoder ring? Where do I get one of those?"
You have to send in 1,000,000,000 box tops from Manna from Heaven cereal and wait 6 - 8 weeks for delivery.
And Jesus said unto them, I am the bread of life: he that cometh to me shall never hunger;
John 6:35
"That's not the point. If we are innately good (I'll use this word, no sweat off my back) then it is possible that we can attain heaven without the need to be saved. But, since we all need salvation by default, then we can not be innately good."
What isn't it the point? That if we are inherently (innately) evil then how could we ever do good? Or that inherent (innate) can be defined as an essential characteristic but that does not exclude other characteristics ? And why isn't it the point?
Wasn't Elijah was taken to heaven (or at least into the air) without being saved and if he was then wasn't he innately good?
And no man hath ascended up to heaven, but he that came down from heaven, even the Son of man which is in heaven.
John 3:13
"If you hold that grace is offered to everyone, then I think you have to hold that we all go to heaven directly after death. I say that only because it's pretty apparent that we at least have to wait for death. This is still not good enough, however for a being that supposedly loves us, yet holds us at an arm's length away until we die. god, quite simply, can not be omni-benevolent in this scenario or desire that we all receive his grace unless he allows us to suffer some by being separated from him. This is one of the problems of having omni properties. All arguments for entities with omni properties fall short."
I believe that grace is offered to everyone but not everyone chooses to recieve the gift, in this life at least, and as such does not go directly go to heaven, if we go there, wherever and whatever heaven is, at all.
Don't we hold God at arms length too? Is it possible that God suffers by our seperation from him?
"Well, let's agree to move on and both try better in the future."
Yes, let's.
"So, St. Peter at the pearly gates is really Satan?"
Mmm ... no. Peter might hold the keys to heaven ...
And I will give unto thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt bind on earth shall be bound in heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.
Matthew 16:19
... but Satan apparently comes and goes as he pleases;
Now there was a day when the sons of God came to present themselves before the LORD, and Satan came also among them.
Job 1:6
"What was the topic?"
Lost and Found.
Then drew near unto him all the publicans and sinners for to hear him. And the Pharisees and scribes murmured, saying, This man receiveth sinners, and eateth with them. And he spake this parable unto them, saying, What man of you, having an hundred sheep, if he lose one of them, doth not leave the ninety and nine in the wilderness, and go after that which is lost, until he find it? And when he hath found it, he layeth it on his shoulders, rejoicing. And when he cometh home, he calleth together his friends and neighbours, saying unto them, Rejoice with me; for I have found my sheep which was lost. I say unto you, that likewise joy shall be in heaven over one sinner that repenteth, more than over ninety and nine just persons, which need no repentance.
Luke 15:1-7
I hope to organize a cross-referenced summary soon and post it to my blog.
"Sounds really good."
It was. Leftover soup and bread tonight. But tonight after I warmed up the soup I added some miso and cracked a couple of eggs into it and stirred them in to make it an miso/egg drop soup. Even tastier.
This afternoon I carved up one of the rabbits and tomorrow I will put the meat through a handcranked grinder to mince it then combine it with some fresh breadcrumbs, finely chopped onion, garlic, parsley, salt and pepper with a egg to hold it all together and then form it into meatballs with a chunk of goat cheese in the middle of each one and then pan-fry the meatballs and serve them with spaghetinni tossed in olive oil, peperoncino, garlic and parmesano reggiano. And maybe on the side an arugula salad with a simple olive oil, vinegar, whole grain mustard, garlic, salt and pepper dressing.
"You mean the non-existent war of course!"
Which non-existent war? There is a "war" on Christmas as surely as there is a war in Iraq. It's just that the latter is far more destructive than the former. Both are ignored but to varying degrees. I talk about the war in Iraq (and all war and violence) year round but only mention the other "war" at Christmas time ... so here goes;
"It's all part of showing inclusiveness. Most minority (non)faiths have put up with it for so long that they don't blink (like your Jewish friend) but that doesn't make it right."
Put up with what? If they don't want to be included in Christmas they don't have to be. I'm not forcing them and don't see anyone else forcing them either.
If someone wants to say Happy Hanukkah or Merry Christmas or Sunny Solstice or something else entirely (like Happy Holidays) I certainly won't stop them or be offended if their greeting doesn't match mine and neither should they be offended my mine.
One of the companies that we buy materials from is run by Jews and they give their employees the Jewish holy days off as well the Christian holy days. I sure would like to work for them ;)
Back in my old hometown there is a sizable population of Sikhs. I have Sikh friends and when they were having a various observances and shut down main street for a day to have a parade I didn't consider it an inconvienence to be put up with or ask them to show inclusiveness by using a generic term for their holy day. I joined my friends in their festivities (good food by the way and much to admire in their beliefs) and they joined me in mine.
Most people, Christians and otherwise, don't celebrate Christmas for what it is but turn it into an orgy of materialism. Speaking of orgies ... I braved the shopping madness and went into town today (needed a new snow shovel) and saw that the porn store has a Christmas sale on!
Christmas isn't found in a box with pretty warapping and a bow on top. Christmas is Christ born in you (and me).
My little children, of whom I travail in birth again until Christ be formed in you,
Galatians 4:19
What I want for Christmas is that proverbial peace on earth ...
And there were in the same country shepherds abiding in the field, keeping watch over their flock by night. And, lo, the angel of the Lord came upon them, and the glory of the Lord shone round about them: and they were sore afraid. And the angel said unto them, Fear not: for, behold, I bring you good tidings of great joy, which shall be to all people. For unto you is born this day in the city of David a Saviour, which is Christ the Lord. And this shall be a sign unto you; Ye shall find the babe wrapped in swaddling clothes, lying in a manger. And suddenly there was with the angel a multitude of the heavenly host praising God, and saying, Glory to God in the highest, and on earth peace, good will toward men.
Luke 2:8-14
... a gift for everyone.
braverdave,
"GCT, yeah and it's snowing again tonight."
Same here. I woke up and went out to dutifully shovel so my gf could go to work.
"I perceive and understand it as truth. When you read the definitions you seem to put on the brakes after the word fact (and ignore the definitions of perceive and perception). But the definitions in question read fact or truth ... fact OR truth ... there is a distinction."
Ah, but you can't know that it is truth without having some fact to back it up. That's the problem.
"I know my beliefs are true because I perceive them to be true."
In what sense? They are not true in the real world as far as you know. When you make the statement that god exists and that you know it, you are making a statement about the objective world. Perceiving your own beliefs to be true means that you only know what your beliefs are, not how they affect the world around you. Therefore, you can't "know" that god exists.
"Not exactly, there is evidence but it is circumstantial and subjective and as such isn't good enough for you. But that's okay, I understand."
I.E. there is no evidence. Circumstantial evidence is still evidence. I doubt that you have that even. What you have is subjective beliefs, which don't constitute evidence.
"Since I am feeling especially heretical tonight I will even go so far as to say whether they are pure fact or pure myth is meaningless to me. I find truth in these things and do not seek confirmation of that truth from anyone else."
I actually have a problem with this. We should seek to confirm our "truths" with reason and reality. It is this sort of "reasoning" that leads to evolution denial, which is a real problem in this country.
"So do you acknowledge that your experiences that have led you to atheism do not rest on factual knowledge and a burden of proof but are nonetheless valid for you?"
No. I'm saying that I do not base my atheism on "experiences" but on the fact that there is no evidence for god. If I believed in god due to the stunning lack of evidence, what's to keep me from also believing in invisible, pink unicorns, Santa Claus, or Russell's floating teapot? Further, I'm not stating that it is "valid for me" but rather that it is valid. It is the rational approach to demand that the positive statement be defended - that god exists - and to deny that statement in the total absence of any evidence.
"My experiences do have bearing on the real, empirical, physical world because these experiences make me who I am and as far as I can tell I am real, empirical and physical."
I think we both know that's not what I meant. Your experiences (beliefs) do not shape the physical world around you. If you believe that you can defy gravity (unaided), it doesn't make it so, even if you truly believe as hard as you can.
"I deny your claim that there is no evidence for the existence of God and I am perfectly rational to have faith that God exists because of my experiences."
Then, it is up to you to provide some evidence.
"You have to send in 1,000,000,000 box tops from Manna from Heaven cereal and wait 6 - 8 weeks for delivery."
Where do I buy that? Is there a website somewhere because I don't think I've seen that brand in the local grocery stores.
"And Jesus said unto them, I am the bread of life: he that cometh to me shall never hunger;
John 6:35"
That's trivially untrue. There are homeless Xians who are hungry.
"What isn't it the point? That if we are inherently (innately) evil then how could we ever do good? Or that inherent (innate) can be defined as an essential characteristic but that does not exclude other characteristics ? And why isn't it the point?"
Because you contend that we need saving simply because we are human. If we were innately good, however, this would not be the case. I don't think I can explain it any better.
"Wasn't Elijah was taken to heaven (or at least into the air) without being saved and if he was then wasn't he innately good?"
Not by your own theology, since he was taken to heaven by god's grace. (I think I remember you saying that we are saved by god's grace, but if you didn't, my apologies...either way, it wouldn't make Elijah innately good necessarily.)
"I believe that grace is offered to everyone but not everyone chooses to recieve the gift, in this life at least, and as such does not go directly go to heaven, if we go there, wherever and whatever heaven is, at all."
There's an inherent problem with this. Newborns that die at birth go to heaven without the ability to deny this grace offering. Why do they get a free pass? Also, how is it possible for anyone to deny god's grace?
"Don't we hold God at arms length too? Is it possible that God suffers by our seperation from him?"
I find it hard to believe that god can suffer at all, especially not at our hands. And, if we hold god at arm's length, are we solely to blame? I think not. If god wants me to worship him, he knows what he needs to do to convince me of his existence, but he doesn't do it. Further, he knows what he should be in order to be worthy of worship, yet he does not conform to that. Can we really claim fault for god's shortcomings? I certainly don't think it is my fault that god has problems.
"Mmm ... no. Peter might hold the keys to heaven ..."
The point is that god is the one that makes up the rules. god is the one that finds us to be unworthy of those rules he made up. Therefore, god is the accuser.
"... but Satan apparently comes and goes as he pleases;
Now there was a day when the sons of God came to present themselves before the LORD, and Satan came also among them.
Job 1:6"
I fail to see how this pertains to the topic.
"Then drew near unto him all the publicans and sinners for to hear him. And the Pharisees and scribes murmured, saying, This man receiveth sinners, and eateth with them. And he spake this parable unto them, saying, What man of you, having an hundred sheep, if he lose one of them, doth not leave the ninety and nine in the wilderness, and go after that which is lost, until he find it? And when he hath found it, he layeth it on his shoulders, rejoicing. And when he cometh home, he calleth together his friends and neighbours, saying unto them, Rejoice with me; for I have found my sheep which was lost. I say unto you, that likewise joy shall be in heaven over one sinner that repenteth, more than over ninety and nine just persons, which need no repentance.
Luke 15:1-7"
This passage always strikes me as odd. It seems like he's saying that it's better to be a horrible person as long as you apologize for it at the last moment, than to be a good person all your life.
"It was. Leftover soup and bread tonight. But tonight after I warmed up the soup I added some miso and cracked a couple of eggs into it and stirred them in to make it an miso/egg drop soup. Even tastier.
This afternoon I carved up one of the rabbits and tomorrow I will put the meat through a handcranked grinder to mince it then combine it with some fresh breadcrumbs, finely chopped onion, garlic, parsley, salt and pepper with a egg to hold it all together and then form it into meatballs with a chunk of goat cheese in the middle of each one and then pan-fry the meatballs and serve them with spaghetinni tossed in olive oil, peperoncino, garlic and parmesano reggiano. And maybe on the side an arugula salad with a simple olive oil, vinegar, whole grain mustard, garlic, salt and pepper dressing."
That's it. I'm coming for dinner.;)
"Which non-existent war? There is a "war" on Christmas as surely as there is a war in Iraq. It's just that the latter is far more destructive than the former. Both are ignored but to varying degrees. I talk about the war in Iraq (and all war and violence) year round but only mention the other "war" at Christmas time ... so here goes;"
There is no war of Xmas. It's made up. It's just like how some Xians whine about being persecuted in this country. It's a load of BS.
"Put up with what? If they don't want to be included in Christmas they don't have to be. I'm not forcing them and don't see anyone else forcing them either."
Put up with the fact that society marginalizes anyone who is not a Xian who celebrates Xmas. You have a point, in that as private citizens we should be able to say what we want and people should take it in stride. When it becomes institutionalized, however, then it's a problem. As a business owner, I would want to be inclusive so that I don't alienate customers. It would not be smart to say, "To hell with my non-Xian customers, if they don't like it, too bad for them." And, the government needs to stay neutral on the topic due to the laws of the land. For too long, however, these things have been ignored.
Asking for inclusiveness does not a war on Xmas make, however. To claim that this constitutes a war on Xmas would be analogous to claiming that removing organized prayer is school is discriminatory towards Xians.
"If someone wants to say Happy Hanukkah or Merry Christmas or Sunny Solstice or something else entirely (like Happy Holidays) I certainly won't stop them or be offended if their greeting doesn't match mine and neither should they be offended my mine."
I would think that if the person knew you, they would greet you in a way that makes sense, and you should do the same. In your example with your Jewish friend, I think a nice exchange would have been him telling you "Merry Xmas" and you telling him "Happy Hanukkah." Again, though, I'm not talking about private citizens.
"One of the companies that we buy materials from is run by Jews and they give their employees the Jewish holy days off as well the Christian holy days. I sure would like to work for them ;)"
And, as a private business, that is their right. I would find it problematic for the government to do that, however. Actually, in the US, Xmas is a holiday for federal government workers. I used to be a gov. worker and I got that day off, but I don't think it's right.
"Back in my old hometown there is a sizable population of Sikhs. I have Sikh friends and when they were having a various observances and shut down main street for a day to have a parade I didn't consider it an inconvienence to be put up with or ask them to show inclusiveness by using a generic term for their holy day. I joined my friends in their festivities (good food by the way and much to admire in their beliefs) and they joined me in mine."
Good for you. I still don't see a war on Xmas and I still don't understand why we can't ask businesses and government to be more inclusive, or better yet, neutral.
"Most people, Christians and otherwise, don't celebrate Christmas for what it is but turn it into an orgy of materialism. Speaking of orgies ... I braved the shopping madness and went into town today (needed a new snow shovel) and saw that the porn store has a Christmas sale on!"
Well, you gotta do something on those cold December nights.
"Christmas isn't found in a box with pretty warapping and a bow on top. Christmas is Christ born in you (and me)."
Actually, Xmas is co-opted from pagan winter solstice celebrations. Really, you guys (Xians) should celebrate Easter as your high holy day.
"What I want for Christmas is that proverbial peace on earth ..."
Not whirled peas?
"And there were in the same country shepherds abiding in the field, keeping watch over their flock by night. And, lo, the angel of the Lord came upon them, and the glory of the Lord shone round about them: and they were sore afraid. And the angel said unto them, Fear not: for, behold, I bring you good tidings of great joy, which shall be to all people. For unto you is born this day in the city of David a Saviour, which is Christ the Lord. And this shall be a sign unto you; Ye shall find the babe wrapped in swaddling clothes, lying in a manger. And suddenly there was with the angel a multitude of the heavenly host praising God, and saying, Glory to God in the highest, and on earth peace, good will toward men.
Luke 2:8-14
... a gift for everyone."
Everyone that believes you mean.
GCT,
"Same here. I woke up and went out to dutifully shovel so my gf could go to work."
Duty? I consider it an honour and a privilege! I like shovelling snow so much sometimes I do the neighbours driveway too.
"Ah, but you can't know that it is truth without having some fact to back it up. That's the problem."
It's a problem for you but not for me.
"In what sense?"
By the sense of spirtual discernment, realization and recognition.
"I.E. there is no evidence. Circumstantial evidence is still evidence. I doubt that you have that even. What you have is subjective beliefs, which don't constitute evidence."
Nope. It's evident to me (I know circumstantial evidence is evidence as evidenced when I said there is evidence but it is circumstantial) but it might not be evident to you.
"I actually have a problem with this. We should seek to confirm our "truths" with reason and reality. It is this sort of "reasoning" that leads to evolution denial, which is a real problem in this country."
I thought you might. You have problems with so much (hehehe). This sort of reasoning doesn't lead me to denial of evolution.
"I think we both know that's not what I meant. Your experiences (beliefs) do not shape the physical world around you. If you believe that you can defy gravity (unaided), it doesn't make it so, even if you truly believe as hard as you can."
Then you will have to be more precise in your statements because it's what I thought you did mean (or might mean). Thank you for the clarification. But I stand by my statement that our experiences and beliefs do shape the world around us (within the laws of nature).
"Then, it is up to you to provide some evidence."
Nope. Faith requires no evidence.
"Where do I buy that? Is there a website somewhere because I don't think I've seen that brand in the local grocery stores."
You can't buy it. You have to pray for it and wish it into existence.
"That's trivially untrue. There are homeless Xians who are hungry."
Only if you make it trivial. Jesus was speaking of spiritual hunger ... after all ... man does not live by bread alone.
"Because you contend that we need saving simply because we are human. If we were innately good, however, this would not be the case. I don't think I can explain it any better."
I doubt you could explain it any better as well ;) Couldn't being human be otherwise? Don't we evolve (or devolve). You seem determined to ignore the point I was making about how if we are annately evil how could we do good? and the defintion of innate (inherent) not excluding other characteristics. You insist that innately good means that we couldn't do evil.
I believe we are innately good and know evil and thus are in need of saving from the evil so we may simply be good.
"Not by your own theology, since he was taken to heaven by god's grace. (I think I remember you saying that we are saved by god's grace, but if you didn't, my apologies...either way, it wouldn't make Elijah innately good necessarily.)"
I believe we are saved by God's grace (you got it right this time - thanks). The point I was trying to make to you was how was Elijah saved when Jesus hadn't even entered at stage right yet? Was Elijah innately good or innately evil? How could it be that he went to heaven when Jesus said that no man had gone to heaven? As usual I have more questions than answers and I hoped you, o wise one, might have some answers.
"There's an inherent problem with this. Newborns that die at birth go to heaven without the ability to deny this grace offering. Why do they get a free pass? Also, how is it possible for anyone to deny god's grace?"
Good questions. Maybe they get a free pass because even though they have the capacity for knowledge og good and evil they are yet to realize it. Maybe one can deny God's grace can be denied by denying that it exists? Or knowing it exists but denying it from spite?
"I find it hard to believe that god can suffer at all, especially not at our hands. And, if we hold god at arm's length, are we solely to blame? I think not. If god wants me to worship him, he knows what he needs to do to convince me of his existence, but he doesn't do it. Further, he knows what he should be in order to be worthy of worship, yet he does not conform to that. Can we really claim fault for god's shortcomings? I certainly don't think it is my fault that god has problems."
I don't find it hard to believe. Don't children make their parents suffer? If God wants you to love him don't you also have to want to love God, but you don't do it? Isn't it a two way street?
"The point is that god is the one that makes up the rules. god is the one that finds us to be unworthy of those rules he made up. Therefore, god is the accuser."
And you accuse God.
I fail to see how this pertains to the topic.
You asked if Satan was St. Peter at the pearly gates and I provided two verses pertaining to the question you raised. Do you see now?
"This passage always strikes me as odd. It seems like he's saying that it's better to be a horrible person as long as you apologize for it at the last moment, than to be a good person all your life."
Your interpretation is certainly odd but that's okay, mine are odd sometimes too. Click on braverdave to check out the summary of the bible study of this passage.
"That's it. I'm coming for dinner.;)"
You're invited!
"There is no war of Xmas. It's made up. It's just like how some Xians whine about being persecuted in this country. It's a load of BS."
Really? Then why are you speaking out against Christmas? Why do some people protest religious symbols on display when a business chooses to display them. Why do some people want others to use "Happy Holidays" as a substitute for "Merry Christmas"? If there was no war on Christmas then these things wouldn't be happening.
Lots of people are persecuted, Christians included. You have described persecution you have received because you have atheist beliefs and I don't deny that it is persecution but I am thankful you have not been shot at. Just last week some nutball shot up a bunch of Christians in Colorado. Type " Christains shot" into your favorite search engine and you will see it doesn't happen only in your country.
"Put up with the fact that society marginalizes anyone who is not a Xian who celebrates Xmas. You have a point, in that as private citizens we should be able to say what we want and people should take it in stride. When it becomes institutionalized, however, then it's a problem. As a business owner, I would want to be inclusive so that I don't alienate customers. It would not be smart to say, "To hell with my non-Xian customers, if they don't like it, too bad for them." And, the government needs to stay neutral on the topic due to the laws of the land. For too long, however, these things have been ignored."
... the fact that society marginalize anyone who is not a Xian who celebrates Xmas ? How, when, where? If a business owner chooses to celebrate Christmas do you really think it alienates some customers? Not everyone that celebrates Christmas is a Christian. But even if it does alienate some customers and the business owner doesn't mind then what's the problem?
"Asking for inclusiveness does not a war on Xmas make, however. To claim that this constitutes a war on Xmas would be analogous to claiming that removing organized prayer is school is discriminatory towards Xians."
I willing to concede that war is too strong a word and would be happy to substitute limited skirmish ;)
"I would think that if the person knew you, they would greet you in a way that makes sense, and you should do the same. In your example with your Jewish friend, I think a nice exchange would have been him telling you "Merry Xmas" and you telling him "Happy Hanukkah." Again, though, I'm not talking about private citizens."
We did do that too. A little facetiously but that's because we are friends and like to give each other a hard time. Kind of like how you and I go at it here :)
"And, as a private business, that is their right. I would find it problematic for the government to do that, however. Actually, in the US, Xmas is a holiday for federal government workers. I used to be a gov. worker and I got that day off, but I don't think it's right."
Christmas is a national holiday up here too (but we get an extra one called Boxing Day - some sort of British tradition that carried over). There are national holidays for secular holidays like New Year Eve/Day. I don't see much in the way of a war on New Years. In fact, lots of people from my church volunteer for a service where they drive drunks home. I celebrate New Years and prefer to drink at home or at a good friends (and stay the night) and stay off the roads entirely (it's like amateur night out there).
As for the government ... well, I think you just have to resign yourself to the fact you live in a country (as do I) where the majority of people think that if the government gives a nod to Christmas it isn't that big a deal except ot a small minority (at least they don't line that minority up against the wall and shoot them).
" Good for you. I still don't see a war on Xmas and I still don't understand why we can't ask businesses and government to be more inclusive, or better yet, neutral."
Thanks. I think we are inclusive when we include ourselves in the celebrations of others. We all need to celebrate (our differences) more. I have lit a candle on a menorah at Hanukkah and danced down main street (businesses shut their doors) at a Vaisakhi (Sikh New Year) celebration.
"Well, you gotta do something on those cold December nights."
HA! Shovel snow or chop wood.
"Actually, Xmas is co-opted from pagan winter solstice celebrations. Really, you guys (Xians) should celebrate Easter as your high holy day."
I know. It doesn't bother me. Jesus was probably born in September. For me every day is a holy day.
"Not whirled peas?"
Mmm ... peas.
"Everyone that believes you mean."
No, I mean for you and me and every one of us.
braverdave,
"Duty? I consider it an honour and a privilege! I like shovelling snow so much sometimes I do the neighbours driveway too."
Not first thing in the morning though so that you can get out of the driveway and go to work!
"It's a problem for you but not for me."
No, it's a problem for you, because you can't claim truth without evidence.
"By the sense of spirtual discernment, realization and recognition."
Your "spiritual discernment" makes no claims on the truth of the physical world, however, so you can't claim to know that god exists.
"Nope. It's evident to me (I know circumstantial evidence is evidence as evidenced when I said there is evidence but it is circumstantial) but it might not be evident to you."
So, this evidence is...?
"I thought you might. You have problems with so much (hehehe). This sort of reasoning doesn't lead me to denial of evolution."
Not you personally, but it's the same mechanism that so many others use. It's just not a good idea to deny reality or think that reality is shaped by our beliefs.
"Then you will have to be more precise in your statements because it's what I thought you did mean (or might mean). Thank you for the clarification. But I stand by my statement that our experiences and beliefs do shape the world around us (within the laws of nature)."
For example?
"Nope. Faith requires no evidence."
If you claim there is evidence, then you should present it.
"You can't buy it. You have to pray for it and wish it into existence."
Things don't materialize because we wish them to.
"Only if you make it trivial. Jesus was speaking of spiritual hunger ... after all ... man does not live by bread alone."
There are Xians who are spiritually hungry too, else none would ever deconvert.
"I doubt you could explain it any better as well ;) Couldn't being human be otherwise? Don't we evolve (or devolve). You seem determined to ignore the point I was making about how if we are annately evil how could we do good? and the defintion of innate (inherent) not excluding other characteristics. You insist that innately good means that we couldn't do evil."
No, I'm claiming that innately good means that we aren't necessarily in need of saving. BTW, I do think that innately good means that we would not do evil.
"I believe we are innately good and know evil and thus are in need of saving from the evil so we may simply be good."
So, we are being saved from knowledge? Ignorance is bliss? Knowledge is a good thing.
"I believe we are saved by God's grace (you got it right this time - thanks). The point I was trying to make to you was how was Elijah saved when Jesus hadn't even entered at stage right yet? Was Elijah innately good or innately evil? How could it be that he went to heaven when Jesus said that no man had gone to heaven? As usual I have more questions than answers and I hoped you, o wise one, might have some answers."
Why do we have to determine that Elijah is innately good or evil? If god's grace is what gets one into heaven, then how can you tell if Elijah was innately good or evil? Actually, I think I'm misspeaking here. If Elijah was innately good, then why was god's grace needed?
"Good questions. Maybe they get a free pass because even though they have the capacity for knowledge og good and evil they are yet to realize it. Maybe one can deny God's grace can be denied by denying that it exists? Or knowing it exists but denying it from spite?"
Newborns don't have the cognitive capacity to know good and evil. And, if they get a free pass, how is that fair to us who don't get a free pass?
"I don't find it hard to believe. Don't children make their parents suffer? If God wants you to love him don't you also have to want to love God, but you don't do it? Isn't it a two way street?"
Parents are not perfect beings. A perfect being can not suffer. Of course, if you don't hold god to be perfect (the jury is still out for you, right?) then I still hesitate to believe that a being that is as powerful as god could be hurt by us; we'd be like fleas to him. But, again, with the two way street, I fully agree, and that's the point I was making about what god knows that he should do. If he desires my love, then would it hurt him to make at least some overtures towards me? To make himself known at least? How can I love something that I don't believe in? It's impossible. If god wants my love, then he should try to attain it. But, he makes no move to do so.
"And you accuse God."
No, I apply logic and definition. I do accuse god of being barbaric if the stories I've heard about him are true, however.
"You asked if Satan was St. Peter at the pearly gates and I provided two verses pertaining to the question you raised. Do you see now?"
Nope.
"Your interpretation is certainly odd but that's okay, mine are odd sometimes too. Click on braverdave to check out the summary of the bible study of this passage."
I'll have to do so when I get a little more time.
"You're invited!"
Thanks.
"Really? Then why are you speaking out against Christmas? Why do some people protest religious symbols on display when a business chooses to display them. Why do some people want others to use "Happy Holidays" as a substitute for "Merry Christmas"? If there was no war on Christmas then these things wouldn't be happening."
I'm speaking out against the government endorsing religion in violation of the first amendment. I don't care what religion you wish to be or what you wish to celebrate (so long as it doesn't affect my rights) but I do care when the government tramples my rights. As for people wanting to be more inclusive, that doesn't constitute a war on Xmas, but a call to be sensitive to others. I don't see that as a bad thing.
"Lots of people are persecuted, Christians included."
Not in this country.
"You have described persecution you have received because you have atheist beliefs and I don't deny that it is persecution but I am thankful you have not been shot at. Just last week some nutball shot up a bunch of Christians in Colorado. Type " Christains shot" into your favorite search engine and you will see it doesn't happen only in your country."
I'm sorry, but that's not persecution. Yes, it does happen in other countries, and I'm not denying that, but to compare what happens in other countries to what happens here is absurd.
"... the fact that society marginalize anyone who is not a Xian who celebrates Xmas ? How, when, where?"
Everything (just about) in this country is oriented towards Xmas during this time of year. Canada is probably pretty similar in that regard.
"If a business owner chooses to celebrate Christmas do you really think it alienates some customers? Not everyone that celebrates Christmas is a Christian. But even if it does alienate some customers and the business owner doesn't mind then what's the problem?"
If the business owner doesn't mind potentially losing customers, there isn't a problem (as I said above) - except in extreme circumstances which aren't worth going into. There's nothing wrong with the business owner being Xian or celebrating Xmas. No one is saying there is a problem with that. Businesses are just wising up and becoming more inclusive. Some businesses have asked employees to say "Happy Holidays' because they wish to be inclusive. Then asshats like Bill O'Lielly call them out for it and claim that they are at war with Xmas. It's ridiculous.
"I willing to concede that war is too strong a word and would be happy to substitute limited skirmish ;)"
It's not even an action against Xmas. No one is trying to take Xmas away from anyone.
"We did do that too. A little facetiously but that's because we are friends and like to give each other a hard time. Kind of like how you and I go at it here :)"
And, there's no problem with how friends interact. If he doesn't like how you interact with him, he can find a new friend.
"Christmas is a national holiday up here too (but we get an extra one called Boxing Day - some sort of British tradition that carried over). There are national holidays for secular holidays like New Year Eve/Day. I don't see much in the way of a war on New Years. In fact, lots of people from my church volunteer for a service where they drive drunks home. I celebrate New Years and prefer to drink at home or at a good friends (and stay the night) and stay off the roads entirely (it's like amateur night out there)."
The war on New Year's is just as real as the war on Xmas. Neither exist. But, the key difference is that New Year's day is not a religious observance, while Xmas is. We have specific laws that protect us (US citizens) against the gov. doing what they are doing.
"As for the government ... well, I think you just have to resign yourself to the fact you live in a country (as do I) where the majority of people think that if the government gives a nod to Christmas it isn't that big a deal except ot a small minority (at least they don't line that minority up against the wall and shoot them)."
The majority does not have the right to trample the rights of the minority. Nor does the gov. have the legal ability to trample my first amendment rights, even if I'm the only person in the country who is affected by the actions taken.
"Thanks. I think we are inclusive when we include ourselves in the celebrations of others. We all need to celebrate (our differences) more. I have lit a candle on a menorah at Hanukkah and danced down main street (businesses shut their doors) at a Vaisakhi (Sikh New Year) celebration."
And, saying "Happy Holidays" is just one more way to be inclusive.
"I know. It doesn't bother me. Jesus was probably born in September. For me every day is a holy day."
If Jesus existed you mean.
GCT,
I enjoy shovelling snow anytime ... morning, noon or night.
"If Jesus existed you mean."
He exists and he lives in my heart.
"No, it's a problem for you, because you can't claim truth without evidence."
No, I can and do claim truth without evidence because I have faith which requires no evidence.
"Your "spiritual discernment" makes no claims on the truth of the physical world, however, so you can't claim to know that god exists."
"So, this evidence is...?
We have been over these points before and are going in circles now and while it was fun it is now becoming tiresome.
"Not you personally, but it's the same mechanism that so many others use. It's just not a good idea to deny reality or think that reality is shaped by our beliefs."
Some may use it or misuse it but our beliefs can shape our reality. You might believe we live in a purely objective reality but I believe that you are wrong. I think you are stuck in the mud of your own thoughts on objective and subjective reality and are creating a great degree of objectivity than actually exists. The creative power of our minds is such that we can and do shape our reality. You may choose to stay trapped in the mud but the first step to using your beliefs for creating reality is to first believe that it is possible to do so.
"For example?"
I will be what I will to be. My beliefs become a self-fulfilling function of those beliefs. I believe I am a good cook and because I want to be a good cook I become one. And off course, conversely, you can will yourself to be powerless and unable to shape your reality.
"Things don't materialize because we wish them to."
Yes they do.
"There are Xians who are spiritually hungry too, else none would ever deconvert."
Certainly there are Christians who are spiritually hungry but not all of them deconvert (some would say that once converted is always converted) and being spiritually hungry isn't necessarily a bad thing but I fail to see how deconverting could satisfy a spiritual hunger.
"No, I'm claiming that innately good means that we aren't necessarily in need of saving. BTW, I do think that innately good means that we would not do evil."
A miracle! You did manage to explain it better but I still have a question. So do you believe we are innately evil or innately good?
"So, we are being saved from knowledge? Ignorance is bliss? Knowledge is a good thing."
No, we are being saved from knowledge of evil. Ignorance was bliss. Knowledge of good is a good thing but knowledge of evil is an evil thing.
"Why do we have to determine that Elijah is innately good or evil? If god's grace is what gets one into heaven, then how can you tell if Elijah was innately good or evil? Actually, I think I'm misspeaking here. If Elijah was innately good, then why was god's grace needed?"
We don't if you don't want to. I hoped that I was pointing out some biblical examples that would help you to better understand the points I was making. Regardless, I will answer your questions; I believe that Elijah was innately good (but capable of evil), as we all are, but that God's grace is necessary because we have all done evil. You seem to have missed another point I was making in realtion to Elijah as it regards heaven. The traditional understanding of the story of Elijah has him asceding to heaven in a chariot of fire yet Jesus says that no man has ascended to heaven in the verse I quoted. Any comment?
"Newborns don't have the cognitive capacity to know good and evil. And, if they get a free pass, how is that fair to us who don't get a free pass?"
Hmmm ... it appears I made a poor choice of words. My statement would read better as; Maybe they get a free pass because even though they have the POTENTIAL capacity for knowledge of good and evil they are yet to realize it because they do not have the cognitive capacity to do so. How is that (a free pass) fair? I answered that, albeit poorly, but hopefully the clarification answers it better and since I have universalistic beliefs I believe it's possible that we all get a pass although it's not free because Jesus bought the pass for us.
"Parents are not perfect beings. A perfect being can not suffer. Of course, if you don't hold god to be perfect (the jury is still out for you, right?) then I still hesitate to believe that a being that is as powerful as god could be hurt by us; we'd be like fleas to him. But, again, with the two way street, I fully agree, and that's the point I was making about what god knows that he should do. If he desires my love, then would it hurt him to make at least some overtures towards me? To make himself known at least? How can I love something that I don't believe in? It's impossible. If god wants my love, then he should try to attain it. But, he makes no move to do so."
Why can't a perfect being suffer? And yes the jury on perfection is still out for me. So if you agree that love is a two way street why not the suffering as well? Maybe you don't recognize or afford worth to God's overtures? You did once upon a time though, right? You knew God before and I imagine you professed love for him then. Or were you lying about your belief to yourself?
"No, I apply logic and definition. I do accuse god of being barbaric if the stories I've heard about him are true, however."
Fine, but maybe our logic and definitions fall short of the logic and definition required to understand God's nature and the stories you have heard are examples of that misapplication of logic and definition.
"I'm speaking out against the government endorsing religion in violation of the first amendment. I don't care what religion you wish to be or what you wish to celebrate (so long as it doesn't affect my rights) but I do care when the government tramples my rights. As for people wanting to be more inclusive, that doesn't constitute a war on Xmas, but a call to be sensitive to others. I don't see that as a bad thing."
When the War on Christmas topic first came up you said Happy Holidays was a better greeting because "It's all part of showing inclusiveness. Most minority (non)faiths have put up with it for so long that they don't blink (like your Jewish friend) but that doesn't make it right." and didn't mention the government at all. Recently, however, you have acknowledged that people should be allowed to say what they like and that's good because it's not being sensitive and is trampling the rights of others if you don't want them to say Merry Christmas and would rather they used Happy Holidays as a greeting.
I encourage you to take your War on Government Endorsement of Christmas to your leaders and look forward to seeing you camped out on the White House lawn next year.
"The majority does not have the right to trample the rights of the minority. Nor does the gov. have the legal ability to trample my first amendment rights, even if I'm the only person in the country who is affected by the actions taken."
Right. But in the same way the minority doesn't have a right to trample the rights of the majority. And frankly, I just don't see that much trampling going on when it comes to Christmas and even if there is a bit I don't see it as being very harmful. There are worse violations of rights going on, especially since the Patriot Act.
"Everything (just about) in this country is oriented towards Xmas during this time of year. Canada is probably pretty similar in that regard."
Sure. That would be because most people in your country (80% from a gallup poll I read the other day) consider themselves Christians and Christmas is celebrated in December. It may mean a marginalization of people who don't celebrate Christmas but I don't see Christians in my old town crying marginalization when the Sikhs were having one of their religious celebrations. I think you are making mountains out of molehills and should just accept the fact that most people celebrate Christmas and get over it.
"Businesses are just wising up and becoming more inclusive. Some businesses have asked employees to say "Happy Holidays' because they wish to be inclusive.
I was doing some reading about the war on Christmas and found a couple of examples of businesses finding that Happy Holidays actually hurt their companies more than Merry Christmas. So they wised up, reversed that policy and have gone back to saying "Merry Christmas".
"Not in this country."
"I'm sorry, but that's not persecution. Yes, it does happen in other countries, and I'm not denying that, but to compare what happens in other countries to what happens here is absurd."
persecute: to pursue with harassing or oppressive treatment, esp. because of religion, race, or beliefs; harass persistently.
I suggest you use dictionary.com and check the thesaurus for synonyms and antonyms to come to a better understanding of what persecution means.
Can you imagine if he had gone to a synagogue and killed Jews? Or if he had gone to a gathering of atheists and killed them? He killed people because they were Christians and that is persecution.
So, if you insist that guy in Colorado wasn't persecuting Christians when he went to two different places where Christians were gathered and shot them then what was he doing? Was he protecting or respecting them?
braverdave,
"He exists and he lives in my heart."
Although you don't know that is true. You suspect it is true, you believe it is true, but you don't know it is true.
"No, I can and do claim truth without evidence because I have faith which requires no evidence."
Then, it is not "truth," it is belief.
"Some may use it or misuse it but our beliefs can shape our reality."
How? Maybe an example would help.
"You might believe we live in a purely objective reality but I believe that you are wrong. I think you are stuck in the mud of your own thoughts on objective and subjective reality and are creating a great degree of objectivity than actually exists. The creative power of our minds is such that we can and do shape our reality. You may choose to stay trapped in the mud but the first step to using your beliefs for creating reality is to first believe that it is possible to do so."
This is an objective reality. I can not shape the world by my beliefs, no matter how ardently I believe in them. If you have an example that counters this, then please share it.
"I will be what I will to be. My beliefs become a self-fulfilling function of those beliefs. I believe I am a good cook and because I want to be a good cook I become one. And off course, conversely, you can will yourself to be powerless and unable to shape your reality."
If you are objectively a good cook, it is not your subjective belief that you are a good cook that made you a good cook. Your beliefs did not shape reality or alter it in any way. You are a good cook because you learned how to be a good cook, have the requisite skills, etc, not because of your personal beliefs.
"Yes they do."
This is bordering on the realm of psycho-kinteic powers. So, tell me, what has one conjured up by simply using their mind? The closest I can come to this would be a poem or a thought, but even that doesn't cut it. It isn't your subjective beliefs that conjure up thought, but the objective neural processes of your brain.
"Certainly there are Christians who are spiritually hungry but not all of them deconvert (some would say that once converted is always converted) and being spiritually hungry isn't necessarily a bad thing but I fail to see how deconverting could satisfy a spiritual hunger."
First, you are right about the fact that not all deconvert. Mother Teresa never deconverted even though she seems to have lost her faith long before she died. Second, why couldn't deconverting satisfy a spiritual hunger? Perhaps one isn't seeing what one wants in Xianity and becomes a Muslim and finds greater contentment. I know lots of atheists that say (I'm one of them) that they find greater life contentment by not holding onto the baggage of Xianity.
"A miracle! You did manage to explain it better but I still have a question. So do you believe we are innately evil or innately good?"
I believe we are neither, we just are, and what we are is a product of evolution. (I should be careful about saying "product of evolution" since I don't want to give the impression that we are a goal, but I think you get the idea, right?)
"No, we are being saved from knowledge of evil. Ignorance was bliss. Knowledge of good is a good thing but knowledge of evil is an evil thing."
Back to square one I see. No, knowledge is a good thing, even knowledge of evil. It is a misapplication of that knowledge which is evil. It is not evil to know what murder is, but it is evil to partake in that particular act.
"We don't if you don't want to. I hoped that I was pointing out some biblical examples that would help you to better understand the points I was making. Regardless, I will answer your questions; I believe that Elijah was innately good (but capable of evil), as we all are, but that God's grace is necessary because we have all done evil."
The point is not that we are capable of evil, but that we will necessarily commit evil. That is why we are not innately good, because we will commit evil necessarily. If one does not commit evil, then one does not need to be "saved" correct? But, since we all need "saving" then that means that we will all necessarily commit evil. Innately good things are not things that necessarily commit evil. QED.
"You seem to have missed another point I was making in realtion to Elijah as it regards heaven. The traditional understanding of the story of Elijah has him asceding to heaven in a chariot of fire yet Jesus says that no man has ascended to heaven in the verse I quoted. Any comment?"
I did miss that. It's another contradiction in the Bible AFAIAC.
"Hmmm ... it appears I made a poor choice of words. My statement would read better as; Maybe they get a free pass because even though they have the POTENTIAL capacity for knowledge of good and evil they are yet to realize it because they do not have the cognitive capacity to do so. How is that (a free pass) fair? I answered that, albeit poorly, but hopefully the clarification answers it better and since I have universalistic beliefs I believe it's possible that we all get a pass although it's not free because Jesus bought the pass for us."
Whether we will eventually be reconciled with god or not, newborns get a "free pass" that we don't get. Imagine you are in a line, and someone gets whisked to the front of the line. They get into whatever you are waiting for, while you continue to wait. This is inherently unjust. If you do away with the universalistic beliefs, it just gets worse. Regardless, I happen to like my life here on Earth, as you do I assume, but that's no excuse for god to leave us here whilst whisking others to a paradise that makes our lives here seem horrible in comparison.
"Why can't a perfect being suffer?"
Because any being that suffers can not be perfect by definition.
"And yes the jury on perfection is still out for me. So if you agree that love is a two way street why not the suffering as well?"
Additional suffering by more parties does not cancel out the overall suffering, it simply adds to it, as Gandhi pointed out when he said, "An eye for an eye makes the whole world blind."
"Maybe you don't recognize or afford worth to God's overtures? You did once upon a time though, right? You knew God before and I imagine you professed love for him then. Or were you lying about your belief to yourself?"
No, I actually believed it, and it was all made up in my mind. god never made any overtures towards me, I simply convinced myself otherwise, because I thought I should. I never "knew" god in any sense, because god isn't there. I convinced myself that some entity was there, but that's all it was, my imagination.
"Fine, but maybe our logic and definitions fall short of the logic and definition required to understand God's nature and the stories you have heard are examples of that misapplication of logic and definition."
I highly doubt that is the case. We know that certain things are logical or illogical. Throwing god into the mix does not make those things more logical or less logical, because it's sort of binary, isn't it?
"When the War on Christmas topic first came up you said Happy Holidays was a better greeting because "It's all part of showing inclusiveness. Most minority (non)faiths have put up with it for so long that they don't blink (like your Jewish friend) but that doesn't make it right." and didn't mention the government at all. Recently, however, you have acknowledged that people should be allowed to say what they like and that's good because it's not being sensitive and is trampling the rights of others if you don't want them to say Merry Christmas and would rather they used Happy Holidays as a greeting."
And I stand by that. People should not be required to say "Happy Holidays" as private citizens, but they should want to because they should want to be inclusive and sensitive to their fellow (wo)man. I don't think it's right for everyone in this country to simply assume that everyone else is a Xian, but they have the right to do so if they wish, and I would not seek to take away that right.
"I encourage you to take your War on Government Endorsement of Christmas to your leaders and look forward to seeing you camped out on the White House lawn next year."
I have taken steps, like writing letters to my legislators. True story: I wrote a letter to a senator and actually got a reply. It was a form letter where the first page thanked me for supporting the senator's position (my letter was specifically attacking that position) and the second page was from a separate form letter that talked about a completely different topic.
"Right. But in the same way the minority doesn't have a right to trample the rights of the majority."
Agreed, but generally it's not a case where the majority needs protecting.
"And frankly, I just don't see that much trampling going on when it comes to Christmas and even if there is a bit I don't see it as being very harmful."
Full stop. Any intrusion into the rights of the citizenry is harmful.
"There are worse violations of rights going on, especially since the Patriot Act."
Agreed again, but I don't think we should allow any intrusion into our rights, no matter how benign they may seem. Of course, the intrusion on our religious rights may not be as benign as they seem. We are in Iraq right now because our president believes god told him to do it. I don't consider that to be a small thing. And, if the government celebrates Xmas, which lends credence to Xianity and paints Xians as better citizens, then all those who might not follow Bush's god-given visions are marginalized and it makes anti-war sentiment seem less viable.
"Sure. That would be because most people in your country (80% from a gallup poll I read the other day) consider themselves Christians and Christmas is celebrated in December. It may mean a marginalization of people who don't celebrate Christmas but I don't see Christians in my old town crying marginalization when the Sikhs were having one of their religious celebrations. I think you are making mountains out of molehills and should just accept the fact that most people celebrate Christmas and get over it."
So, you seem to be saying that I should just deal with marginalization because 80% of the country celebrates Xmas, right? I don't see it that way. Further, it's hard for Xians to feel marginalized in this country at all, even when there is a Sikh celebration. Maybe it is too much to ask for the majority to have some empathy for the minority and try to understand what it is like to not be the majority? Personally, I'd be worried that someday the shoe might be on the other foot.
"I was doing some reading about the war on Christmas and found a couple of examples of businesses finding that Happy Holidays actually hurt their companies more than Merry Christmas. So they wised up, reversed that policy and have gone back to saying "Merry Christmas"."
Do you have links to share? The reason I would see this happening would be because asshats like O'Lielly have called boycotts against certain businesses for this, and there are enough Xians in this country that have a persecution complex that they actually believe this IS a war on Xmas and that they are being persecuted.
"persecute: to pursue with harassing or oppressive treatment, esp. because of religion, race, or beliefs; harass persistently.
I suggest you use dictionary.com and check the thesaurus for synonyms and antonyms to come to a better understanding of what persecution means."
No need. There is no persecution of Xians in this country. That some Xian nutball shot up other Xians does not mean Xian persecution. You're really reaching here.
"Can you imagine if he had gone to a synagogue and killed Jews? Or if he had gone to a gathering of atheists and killed them? He killed people because they were Christians and that is persecution."
No, it is a hate crime. And, I don't suppose that you consider the fact that he too was Xian and had a personal vendetta against the particular groups he targeted to be pertinent, do you? Face it, it's not persecution.
"So, if you insist that guy in Colorado wasn't persecuting Christians when he went to two different places where Christians were gathered and shot them then what was he doing? Was he protecting or respecting them?"
No, he was targeting those that triggered his mental instabilities. It's still not persecution, else anytime someone is shot we could claim persecution, which would render the word meaningless. You might want to look into the story more yourself.
GCT,
Happy New Year! Any resolutions?
"How? Maybe an example would help."
Our beliefs influence our choices which in turn shapes our reality.
"This is an objective reality. I can not shape the world by my beliefs, no matter how ardently I believe in them. If you have an example that counters this, then please share it."
Your beliefs shape you (or you shape your beliefs) and you shape your world. You can try to see everything as it really is but since you can't really see everything everywhere you are left with your individual and relative reality. You and I are sharing our individual perspectives and shaping one another's reality (and reshaping our own) while we do it.
"First, you are right about the fact that not all deconvert. Mother Teresa never deconverted even though she seems to have lost her faith long before she died. Second, why couldn't deconverting satisfy a spiritual hunger? Perhaps one isn't seeing what one wants in Xianity and becomes a Muslim and finds greater contentment. I know lots of atheists that say (I'm one of them) that they find greater life contentment by not holding onto the baggage of Xianity."
Two traveling monks reached a river where they met a young woman. Wary of the current, she asked if they could carry her across. One of the monks hesitated, but the other quickly picked her up onto his shoulders, transported her across the water, and put her down on the other bank. She thanked him and departed.
As the monks continued on their way, the one was brooding and preoccupied. Unable to hold his silence, he spoke out. "Brother, our spiritual training teaches us to avoid any contact with women, but you picked that one up on your shoulders and carried her!"
"Brother," the second monk replied, "I set her down on the other side, while you are still carrying her."
I have put the "baggage" of Christianity down but sometimes others insist that I pick it back up again. I don't think Mother Teresa necessarily lost her faith. From what I have read on the matter of one of her letters and a "loss of faith" (words she did not use) it would seem to me to be more like she forgot where she put it for awhile. Lost and found. Even Jesus had his doubts and temptations.
"I believe we are neither, we just are, and what we are is a product of evolution. (I should be careful about saying "product of evolution" since I don't want to give the impression that we are a goal, but I think you get the idea, right?)"
I get it ... evolution isn't your God ... and we just are. That's fine. And we will be what we will to be; good or evil or something in between.
"Back to square one I see. No, knowledge is a good thing, even knowledge of evil. It is a misapplication of that knowledge which is evil. It is not evil to know what murder is, but it is evil to partake in that particular act."
Square one is a fine place to be. Evil is a misperception of that which is good; naked but not ashamed.
"The point is not that we are capable of evil, but that we will necessarily commit evil. That is why we are not innately good, because we will commit evil necessarily. If one does not commit evil, then one does not need to be "saved" correct? But, since we all need "saving" then that means that we will all necessarily commit evil. Innately good things are not things that necessarily commit evil. QED."
Quod erat demonstrandum like the chicken and the egg and which came first. You seem to be making the the need for salvation the reason we do evil. We did not need "saving" before doing evil but we did need saving after doing evil.
"I did miss that. It's another contradiction in the Bible AFAIAC."
If an a priori judgement of contradiction is as far as your concern can reach ... then it is best that you missed it.
"Whether we will eventually be reconciled with god or not, newborns get a "free pass" that we don't get. Imagine you are in a line, and someone gets whisked to the front of the line. They get into whatever you are waiting for, while you continue to wait. This is inherently unjust. If you do away with the universalistic beliefs, it just gets worse. Regardless, I happen to like my life here on Earth, as you do I assume, but that's no excuse for god to leave us here whilst whisking others to a paradise that makes our lives here seem horrible in comparison."
Who said life is fair? Certainly not God. I do like life here on earth despite it's ugly side but am looking forward to a new heaven and a new earth.
"Because any being that suffers can not be perfect by definition."
Says you. It's possible that suffering makes for perfection but that's another topic for another day.
"Additional suffering by more parties does not cancel out the overall suffering, it simply adds to it, as Gandhi pointed out when he said, "An eye for an eye makes the whole world blind.""
Gandhi gets it but that wasn't my point so I think you missed the point I was trying to make. Suffering is a two way street but not so that one direction cancels the other out (as you said - so we agree). We agree that love is a two way street; you love your friends and family and they love you back (although sometimes the love is only going in one direction and the other lane is empty but still there ready to transport love in the other direction). So, in a similar way, suffering is a two way street; God suffers when we suffer and we suffer when God suffers (even if we don't realize it).
"No, I actually believed it, and it was all made up in my mind. god never made any overtures towards me, I simply convinced myself otherwise, because I thought I should. I never "knew" god in any sense, because god isn't there. I convinced myself that some entity was there, but that's all it was, my imagination.
That's an interesting story. But you don't "know" that God never made any overtures to you. Perhaps God did and you simply missed them? You convinced yourself of your belief and believed it. Your new beliefs (lack of belief in God) have subsequently shaped your new reality. Your beliefs shaped your reality, now and then.
"I highly doubt that is the case. We know that certain things are logical or illogical. Throwing god into the mix does not make those things more logical or less logical, because it's sort of binary, isn't it?"
You might doubt it but you don't know it, right? Sorry, couldn't resist busting your balls a bit. I find it highly likely that our logic and definitions fall short of the logic and definition required to understand God's nature but I could be wrong.
"And I stand by that. People should not be required to say "Happy Holidays" as private citizens, but they should want to because they should want to be inclusive and sensitive to their fellow (wo)man. I don't think it's right for everyone in this country to simply assume that everyone else is a Xian, but they have the right to do so if they wish, and I would not seek to take away that right."
I don't think wishing someone a "Merry Christmas" necessarily means you assume they are a Christian since there are people who are not Christians who still celebrate Christmas. My Sikh friends think Chrismas is great and celebrate it with their families and a couple even came to the Nativity Story service at my church one year. Now that was being inclusive and sensitive to their fellow man (me).
"I have taken steps, like writing letters to my legislators. True story: I wrote a letter to a senator and actually got a reply. It was a form letter where the first page thanked me for supporting the senator's position (my letter was specifically attacking that position) and the second page was from a separate form letter that talked about a completely different topic."
HA! Yeah, that doesn't surprise me. Trust me, camping out on the White House lawn with signs protesting the government's endorsement of Christmas would get more attention and be more rewarding. Maybe you could get tasered!
"Agreed, but generally it's not a case where the majority needs protecting."
Agreed, but with the politically correct movement showing few signs of common sense it appears that this may not be the case for too long. I don't know what you think about affirmative action and similar efforts to legislate "equality" but I think that for the most part it actually creates more inequality (and resentment) because it uses the discrimination it seeks to eliminate.
"Full stop. Any intrusion into the rights of the citizenry is harmful."
I didn't say it wasn't harmful but merely reflected that there were more harmful intrusions going on.
"Agreed again, but I don't think we should allow any intrusion into our rights, no matter how benign they may seem. Of course, the intrusion on our religious rights may not be as benign as they seem. We are in Iraq right now because our president believes god told him to do it. I don't consider that to be a small thing. And, if the government celebrates Xmas, which lends credence to Xianity and paints Xians as better citizens, then all those who might not follow Bush's god-given visions are marginalized and it makes anti-war sentiment seem less viable."
I will never understand people who call themselves Christians (and the churches they attend) endorsing war as a method of problem solving. I believe that your president is a war criminal and is either lying (God told him no such thing) or he is a satanist (he certainly makes the satanic salute often enough) seeking to subtly poison people's perceptions and his "god" (Satan or Lucifer or whatever he wants to call it) may indeed have told him to do so.
"So, you seem to be saying that I should just deal with marginalization because 80% of the country celebrates Xmas, right? I don't see it that way. Further, it's hard for Xians to feel marginalized in this country at all, even when there is a Sikh celebration. Maybe it is too much to ask for the majority to have some empathy for the minority and try to understand what it is like to not be the majority? Personally, I'd be worried that someday the shoe might be on the other foot."
Essentially. We are all marginalized in some way or another. It's all in how we deal with it; either dwelling on it and seeing it as a negative or using that marginalization as a constructive opportunity to extend (or receive) empathy to (from) both the majority and minority depending which side of the marginalization fence we currently find ourselves standing on. Live and let live.
"Do you have links to share? The reason I would see this happening would be because asshats like O'Lielly have called boycotts against certain businesses for this, and there are enough Xians in this country that have a persecution complex that they actually believe this IS a war on Xmas and that they are being persecuted."
Using the search engine of your choice, type in the words "war on Christmas" and you will find them like I did. Yes, some reversals of policy on the Happy Holidays/Merry Christmas controversy were the result of calls for boycotts, some were the result of pressure from various special interests groups, some were just common sense reasserting itself.
"No need. There is no persecution of Xians in this country. That some Xian nutball shot up other Xians does not mean Xian persecution. You're really reaching here."
Indeed. No need to know the definition if you don't want to understand the definition. While the nutball may have been a Christian at one time his actions certainly indicate he was not when he set off to kill some Christians. It is persecution and not a reach at all.
"No, it is a hate crime. And, I don't suppose that you consider the fact that he too was Xian and had a personal vendetta against the particular groups he targeted to be pertinent, do you? Face it, it's not persecution."
Check the definition of hate crime and compare it to the definition of persecution. They read very similar to one another. In fact, the thesaurus at dictionary.com has persecution and hate crime listed as a synonyms for one another. I know that he was (past tense) a Christian or at least considered himself one at one time several years ago and I know he had a vendetta against the groups he targeted as evidenced by the hatemail he had apparently been sending them recently and I do consider it pertinent. Face it, it's persecution (or hate crime if you prefer since their definitions are nearly identical).
"No, he was targeting those that triggered his mental instabilities. It's still not persecution, else anytime someone is shot we could claim persecution, which would render the word meaningless. You might want to look into the story more yourself."
I have looked into the story myself. There is mention that he did not target specific individuals so it appears he simply targetted Christians in general (albeit at the locations where he had interacted with Christians several years before) and not particular Christians he had real or imagined grievances with. It is persecution (or hate crime) because he chose victims because they were Christians.
Anyways ... Happy New Year! I did make a resolution. As fun as it has been talking with you I have resolved to spend less time sitting in front of the 'puter so I would appreciate it if we wound our little discussion down soon.
braverdave,
"Happy New Year! Any resolutions?"
Nah, I don't do resolutions.
"Our beliefs influence our choices which in turn shapes our reality."
I thought you might be angling towards that, but that doesn't count. Our actually beliefs are not shaping reality. Our actions are.
"Your beliefs shape you (or you shape your beliefs) and you shape your world. You can try to see everything as it really is but since you can't really see everything everywhere you are left with your individual and relative reality. You and I are sharing our individual perspectives and shaping one another's reality (and reshaping our own) while we do it."
But, again, my beliefs do not make the world conform to anything. The world is as it is, and no matter how hard I believe in something, it doesn't make it true.
"Two traveling monks reached a river where they met a young woman..."
Nice story, but it doesn't really touch on what I was talking about. I was talking about the teachings that we are all sinful, fall short of what god wants, etc.
"I don't think Mother Teresa necessarily lost her faith. From what I have read on the matter of one of her letters and a "loss of faith" (words she did not use) it would seem to me to be more like she forgot where she put it for awhile. Lost and found. Even Jesus had his doubts and temptations."
She never found it before her death. You should take a look at her letters. She didn't feel god's presence at all.
"Square one is a fine place to be. Evil is a misperception of that which is good; naked but not ashamed."
By which you mean that evil is the misuse of knowledge I take it?
"Quod erat demonstrandum like the chicken and the egg and which came first. You seem to be making the the need for salvation the reason we do evil. We did not need "saving" before doing evil but we did need saving after doing evil."
Exactly. If we don't do evil, we don't need saving. Since all need saving, all are tainted by evil. Since all are necessarily tainted by evil, we can not be innately good.
"If an a priori judgement of contradiction is as far as your concern can reach ... then it is best that you missed it."
It is not a priori, and I find it better to look at the Bible and be able to judge one way or the other than to simply a priori (truly) assume the Bible is true and fit the facts around it.
"Who said life is fair? Certainly not God. I do like life here on earth despite it's ugly side but am looking forward to a new heaven and a new earth."
What I'm pointing out is that the claims that god is benevolent and just simply do not hold up. Because god plays favorites, he does not show perfect justice or perfect fairness, and he does not show a universal benevolence.
"Says you. It's possible that suffering makes for perfection but that's another topic for another day."
Says logic. Only a flawed entity can suffer. So, if there is suffering, then the entity is not flawed and therefore not perfect. If suffering makes for perfection, then god once again can not be perfect, at least not at all times. Before the universe, god did not suffer, so god was not perfect. Further, you would have to define a perfect amount of suffering which god would have to endure in order to attain perfection, which is somewhat impossible. If it is maximal suffering, then god is not perfect since he can't attain that, because no matter how he suffers, he could suffer some more.
"Gandhi gets it but that wasn't my point so I think you missed the point I was trying to make. Suffering is a two way street but not so that one direction cancels the other out (as you said - so we agree). We agree that love is a two way street; you love your friends and family and they love you back (although sometimes the love is only going in one direction and the other lane is empty but still there ready to transport love in the other direction). So, in a similar way, suffering is a two way street; God suffers when we suffer and we suffer when God suffers (even if we don't realize it)."
And more and more suffering adds up to more and more suffering, not less.
"That's an interesting story. But you don't "know" that God never made any overtures to you."
Don't take this the wrong way, but unlike you I will concede that I do not "know" that god didn't make overtures. (Unlike how you won't concede that you do not "know" that god exists. If you truly "know" that god exists, then I would equally truly "know" that god has never made overtures towards me and that he equally doesn't exist.) That much is true. god, however, should know what overtures are necessary to make me believe in him, and he does not and did not do so.
"You convinced yourself of your belief and believed it. Your new beliefs (lack of belief in God) have subsequently shaped your new reality. Your beliefs shaped your reality, now and then."
Nope. Reality is the same now as it was then. Whether I believe in god or not has no bearing on whether god exists or not.
"You might doubt it but you don't know it, right?"
We don't "know" it, but we can strongly suspect it and we can deduce it logically. Sorry, but this argument still isn't adding up. At best you are making a god of the gaps argument, which is fallacious.
"I find it highly likely that our logic and definitions fall short of the logic and definition required to understand God's nature but I could be wrong."
Well, it's potentially rather contradictory, since you seem to believe that you understand god's nature, correct?
"I don't think wishing someone a "Merry Christmas" necessarily means you assume they are a Christian since there are people who are not Christians who still celebrate Christmas. My Sikh friends think Chrismas is great and celebrate it with their families and a couple even came to the Nativity Story service at my church one year. Now that was being inclusive and sensitive to their fellow man (me)."
Again, it's a nice story, but it's simply not true that people don't assume that the targets of their greetings are Xian. In this country, you'll be right more than wrong by a good margin, but that doesn't make it morally right.
"HA! Yeah, that doesn't surprise me. Trust me, camping out on the White House lawn with signs protesting the government's endorsement of Christmas would get more attention and be more rewarding. Maybe you could get tasered!"
I used to live near DC and right now I'd be much more likely to be shot than simply tasered. Oh, and did I mention that the senator in question is a Republican, or did I not need to?
"Agreed, but with the politically correct movement showing few signs of common sense it appears that this may not be the case for too long."
I'm sorry, but that's not correct. Political correctness might not be everyone's favorite thing, but at least it does strive towards being completely neutral. In that sense, it does not encroach on the rights of the majority, not by a long shot. The reason we hear this refrain is because the majority think they have the right to continue to violate rights of the minority simply because they've been doing it. Take prayer in school for instance. Some still cry persecution because schools are not allowed to coerce Xian prayer in school. They think that they have the right to force others to follow their prayers and that the minority is taking away their rights somehow.
"I don't know what you think about affirmative action and similar efforts to legislate "equality" but I think that for the most part it actually creates more inequality (and resentment) because it uses the discrimination it seeks to eliminate."
I can see both sides. The problem is that without legislation too many people would simply discriminate and we would not have the strides towards equality that we now have. One of the fallacies of a capitalistic system is that everyone gets a fair shot, but that's simply not true, and where you start does help determine (greatly) where you go.
"I will never understand people who call themselves Christians (and the churches they attend) endorsing war as a method of problem solving. I believe that your president is a war criminal and is either lying (God told him no such thing) or he is a satanist (he certainly makes the satanic salute often enough) seeking to subtly poison people's perceptions and his "god" (Satan or Lucifer or whatever he wants to call it) may indeed have told him to do so."
Yeah, we agree that Bush is evil. ;)
BTW, what is the satanic salute?
"Essentially. We are all marginalized in some way or another."
The point is that the government should not be doing the marginalization.
"It's all in how we deal with it; either dwelling on it and seeing it as a negative or using that marginalization as a constructive opportunity to extend (or receive) empathy to (from) both the majority and minority depending which side of the marginalization fence we currently find ourselves standing on. Live and let live."
And we should live and let live, but we shouldn't simply cede our rights away.
"Using the search engine of your choice, type in the words "war on Christmas" and you will find them like I did. Yes, some reversals of policy on the Happy Holidays/Merry Christmas controversy were the result of calls for boycotts, some were the result of pressure from various special interests groups, some were just common sense reasserting itself."
I'll take a look when I can.
"Indeed. No need to know the definition if you don't want to understand the definition."
Sigh. I know the definition and you are the one incorrectly applying it. There is no systematic (key word here) anything against Xians in this country. Period.
"While the nutball may have been a Christian at one time his actions certainly indicate he was not when he set off to kill some Christians."
No true scotsman fallacy alert! Sorry, but you can't simply jettison him simply because you disagree with his actions or find them distasteful.
"It is persecution and not a reach at all."
Where is the systematic shootings of Xians going on? One act does not make persecution! Again, if an atheist got shot, would that mean that atheists are persecuted? Not simply because of that one act it wouldn't! White men get shot every day probably. Does that mean white men are persecuted?
"Check the definition of hate crime and compare it to the definition of persecution."
The former is a crime motivated by hate or intolerance of a certain group. The latter is a systematic campaign against a group. They are not the same.
"They read very similar to one another. In fact, the thesaurus at dictionary.com has persecution and hate crime listed as a synonyms for one another."
Synonyms are not necessarily the same in all instances.
"I know that he was (past tense) a Christian or at least considered himself one at one time several years ago and I know he had a vendetta against the groups he targeted as evidenced by the hatemail he had apparently been sending them recently and I do consider it pertinent. Face it, it's persecution (or hate crime if you prefer since their definitions are nearly identical)."
It is hate crime, but not persecution. If it is persecution, then all groups are persecuted due to the examples I've brought up and the word has no meaning.
"I have looked into the story myself. There is mention that he did not target specific individuals so it appears he simply targetted Christians in general (albeit at the locations where he had interacted with Christians several years before) and not particular Christians he had real or imagined grievances with."
Yes, he targeted the groups with which he felt a "beef" with. He had a connection to those groups. He was part of those groups. He was a Xian, and you contend that he persecutes other Xians based on their shared religion?
"It is persecution (or hate crime) because he chose victims because they were Christians."
Then the word has no meaning. I'm persecuted for being a white male as well as being an atheist. Wow, I never knew that being a white male could lead to persecution in this country, but your definition allows it.
"Anyways ... Happy New Year! I did make a resolution. As fun as it has been talking with you I have resolved to spend less time sitting in front of the 'puter so I would appreciate it if we wound our little discussion down soon."
That's fine.
I googles "War on Christmas" and only found pages talking about how much of a sham it is.
Hey GCT, just a few loose ends to wrap up;
"I googles "War on Christmas" and only found pages talking about how much of a sham it is."
It's a shame alright. Okay, read this Wikipedia entry about the http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christmas_controversy under the heading of Retailer Controversies. There are instances where the policy of "holiday" did not change but some did go back to "Christmas" and sometimes as a result of pressure to do so.
Also in November 2007, the Best Buy Corporation began using the term "Christmas" as well as "holiday" in their stores and in their advertising[38], and has used Hanukkah and Kwanzaa as well
I liked this last example best because it is a good example of effort to be inclusive to everyone and still maintain a mention of what the holidays are.
"No true scotsman fallacy alert! Sorry, but you can't simply jettison him simply because you disagree with his actions or find them distasteful."
Not at all. I am saying that his actions contravene the tenets of his religion so I think it's fairly safe to say he wasn't a Christian anymore. Or if he was then he was an exceedingly poor example of one. If there is evidence that he still thought of himself as a Christian I would be happy to look at it. What I read in several different articles, which of course is by no means conclusive, was that he WAS a Christian several years ago but after his problems with these groups he dropped out of their fellowship and recenty began obsessing about it and sending them hatemail. Culminating in his visits to two different locations to shoot and kill a variety of Christians essentially shot at random (no specific vendetta against the individual Christians he shot).
"Where is the systematic shootings of Xians going on? One act does not make persecution! Again, if an atheist got shot, would that mean that atheists are persecuted? Not simply because of that one act it wouldn't! White men get shot every day probably. Does that mean white men are persecuted?"
His motive, his goal was to kill Christians (not the specific individuals who he had a beef with but Christians who were simply inncocent associates who attended the same locations as those he had a problem with years ago). He got a gun and ammunition. He went to two different locations to shoot as many Christians as he could. His actions indicate planning. Sounds systematic to me. Sounds like you want to focus on systematic programs of extermination of large numbers of persons rather than the garden variety persecution of making someone suffer. That's fine, but persecution starts somehwhere and maybe he will inspire other nuts to do the same. Will it be persecution then? It certainly wouldn't surprise me to see a copycat of this crime - look at how school shootings seem to inspire more of the same. If an athiest got shot because he was an athiest then 'yes' that is persecution. If white guys are shot because they are white then that would be persecution too. By the way, I never said persecution and hate crime were "the same". However, I did say they had similar definitions and were listed as synonyms for one another.
"Yes, he targeted the groups with which he felt a "beef" with. He had a connection to those groups. He was part of those groups. He was a Xian, and you contend that he persecutes other Xians based on their shared religion?"
His connection was in the past. Years ago. If he hates them then he likely doesn't share their religion anymore. For all we know he may have deconverted and was an atheist. Or maybe he was angry with them because they were sprinklers and he thinks dunking is the correct method of baptism. Makes no difference. While his individual targets were chosen at random he chose his targets because they were Christians and he wanted them to die.
"I used to live near DC and right now I'd be much more likely to be shot than simply tasered. Oh, and did I mention that the senator in question is a Republican, or did I not need to?"
Yeah, maybe it ain't such a good idea. Even the tazer can be lethal. Bah - Republican or Democrat. They all look like professional liars and pigs at the trough to me. I vote for the Green party here in Canada but if we still had the Rhino Party they would be getting my vote.
"Yeah, we agree that Bush is evil. ;) BTW, what is the satanic salute?"
Yup. Skull and Bones and so on but yet so banal and vapid. I bet he farts in elevators too;) I once read an essay that was written by a former witch who laid out some interesting information about the occult significance of so many of the things he does; the timing (date and hour), astrological aspects and such of the launch of the attack on Iraq and his subsequent "mission accomplished" moment on the aircraft carrier for example. Choose your favorite search engine and enter "satanic salute" and you will see lots of pictures. Excuses of being a Texas Longhorns fan are simply lame (is everyone a fan? even if they aren't at a game?) and while I'm sure some people might do it by accident during an innocent gesture ... to flash it so obviously and repeatedly goes beyond coincidence.
Anyways ... that's more than enough time and space devoted to those tangents. Moving on to the last points of our original discussion;
"And more and more suffering adds up to more and more suffering, not less."
Right, but one day the suffering will be over. You and I simply differ as to when and why we believe it to be so. That's okay. I still like you.
"Well, it's potentially rather contradictory, since you seem to believe that you understand god's nature, correct?"
Well, I have my understanding of God's nature but have consistently maintained that it is my interpretation and understanding and nobody else's. And my understanding may be wrong. And others are entitled to their understanding. And it is likely that my logic and definitions fall short of the logic and definition required to understand God's nature simply because God's nature is ineffable to us. It would be nice if God's nature was obvious but I don't mind the mystery.
"Don't take this the wrong way, but unlike you I will concede that I do not "know" that god didn't make overtures. (Unlike how you won't concede that you do not "know" that god exists. If you truly "know" that god exists, then I would equally truly "know" that god has never made overtures towards me and that he equally doesn't exist.) That much is true. god, however, should know what overtures are necessary to make me believe in him, and he does not and did not do so."
I won't take anything the wrong way if it wasn't intended that way. If a punch in the face was meant to be a hug I'm willling to believe it was :) Now don't you take that the wrong way ;) Actually I did concede that I don't truly know at least once. Maybe you missed it? Or are such a nice guy you let it slide? But if I said that only once then I said I have said this a hundred , nay ... a thousand times over; I know God exists because I believe it to be so (don't bother arguing - hehehe). I will be what I will to be. And that's a son of God so that's what I am.
"That's fine."
That's it? No swan songs or fond farewells? No parting is such sweet sorrow? No good night sweet prince? That's okay ... I understand. But don't get too broken up about it because I may be back one day.
For now .... Tschuss!
braverdave,
"Okay, read this Wikipedia entry about the http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christmas_controversy under the heading of Retailer Controversies. There are instances where the policy of "holiday" did not change but some did go back to "Christmas" and sometimes as a result of pressure to do so."
Which is what I said. If anything, it seems as though the war on Xmas was really a war where Xians are attacking businesses that don't cater to their needs. IOW, you better only recognize us or else we'll be upset...how dare you try to be inclusive. That's what it looks like to non-Xians, and I'm not sure that you can really argue with that.
"Not at all. I am saying that his actions contravene the tenets of his religion so I think it's fairly safe to say he wasn't a Christian anymore."
I'm sorry, but did he disavow Jesus or stop believing in him?
"Or if he was then he was an exceedingly poor example of one."
Why is it assumed that all Xians are good, and those who are bad are definitely not Xian? That can't be supported through the Bible.
"If there is evidence that he still thought of himself as a Christian I would be happy to look at it. What I read in several different articles, which of course is by no means conclusive, was that he WAS a Christian several years ago but after his problems with these groups he dropped out of their fellowship and recenty began obsessing about it and sending them hatemail. Culminating in his visits to two different locations to shoot and kill a variety of Christians essentially shot at random (no specific vendetta against the individual Christians he shot)."
And, we have no reason to believe that he didn't still believe in Jesus.
"His motive, his goal was to kill Christians (not the specific individuals who he had a beef with but Christians who were simply inncocent associates who attended the same locations as those he had a problem with years ago). He got a gun and ammunition. He went to two different locations to shoot as many Christians as he could. His actions indicate planning. Sounds systematic to me. Sounds like you want to focus on systematic programs of extermination of large numbers of persons rather than the garden variety persecution of making someone suffer. That's fine, but persecution starts somehwhere and maybe he will inspire other nuts to do the same. Will it be persecution then? It certainly wouldn't surprise me to see a copycat of this crime - look at how school shootings seem to inspire more of the same. If an athiest got shot because he was an athiest then 'yes' that is persecution. If white guys are shot because they are white then that would be persecution too. By the way, I never said persecution and hate crime were "the same". However, I did say they had similar definitions and were listed as synonyms for one another."
No, it's still not persecution. Sorry to burst your bubble, but you are not the put-upon group that you want to be. Your martyr complex will have to go unfulfilled. The fact is that he DID attack the groups that offended him. Even though they weren't the same specific people, he associated those groups as being the same. Even if he didn't it's still not persecution. It's hate crime, but as you admit, they are not the same. And, by your definition abortion providers are persecuted, white men, former Heisman trophy winning player's wives, wives in general, etc.
"His connection was in the past. Years ago. If he hates them then he likely doesn't share their religion anymore. For all we know he may have deconverted and was an atheist. Or maybe he was angry with them because they were sprinklers and he thinks dunking is the correct method of baptism. Makes no difference. While his individual targets were chosen at random he chose his targets because they were Christians and he wanted them to die."
No, he chose his targets because those specific groups had offended and hurt him.
"Yeah, maybe it ain't such a good idea. Even the tazer can be lethal. Bah - Republican or Democrat. They all look like professional liars and pigs at the trough to me. I vote for the Green party here in Canada but if we still had the Rhino Party they would be getting my vote."
Yes, both dems and reps are politicians, which in this country should be a dirty word. The fact is, however, that the dems are much more likely to stand up for the separation of church and state and to be inclusive.
"Yup. Skull and Bones and so on but yet so banal and vapid. I bet he farts in elevators too;) I once read an essay that was written by a former witch who laid out some interesting information about the occult significance of so many of the things he does; the timing (date and hour), astrological aspects and such of the launch of the attack on Iraq and his subsequent "mission accomplished" moment on the aircraft carrier for example. Choose your favorite search engine and enter "satanic salute" and you will see lots of pictures. Excuses of being a Texas Longhorns fan are simply lame (is everyone a fan? even if they aren't at a game?) and while I'm sure some people might do it by accident during an innocent gesture ... to flash it so obviously and repeatedly goes beyond coincidence."
You're joking right?
"Right, but one day the suffering will be over. You and I simply differ as to when and why we believe it to be so. That's okay. I still like you."
How, by multiplying the suffering? If you agree that more and more suffering leads to only more suffering then this conclusion doesn't follow.
"Well, I have my understanding of God's nature but have consistently maintained that it is my interpretation and understanding and nobody else's. And my understanding may be wrong. And others are entitled to their understanding. And it is likely that my logic and definitions fall short of the logic and definition required to understand God's nature simply because God's nature is ineffable to us. It would be nice if God's nature was obvious but I don't mind the mystery."
How can you even think that you might understand god's nature if you also agree that it is beyond all comprehension, even if it is a subjective belief?
"That's it? No swan songs or fond farewells? No parting is such sweet sorrow? No good night sweet prince? That's okay ... I understand. But don't get too broken up about it because I may be back one day."
I didn't know you meant stopping right then and there. I figured a roll back would consist of a couple final points.
Post a Comment