Question for Christians - #3

[c4ts]

Originally posted by Kitty Chan
I was thinking of the cartoon version of Herc or the guy with lucy lawless is that kevin?

Any way what I said earlier

There is God (Father) and Jesus (son) physically two. Now, we go back to you saying Jesus being God.

Jesus said I and my Father are one. Remember there is TWO.

Jesus has the authority given to Him by His Father, therefore they are one.
This would describe Jesus as a successor. A successor can be a seperate entity, so that would still leave two. Why do you say this is not the case, since you say they are one? One and two are discretely different quantites no matter how abstract you can get. There is a big difference between saying they have the same power, and that they are the same entity.

Just as a earthly father can give his son the family business and the son operates the business with the authority that the father had. The son is recognized as the same authority as his father.
This is a bad analogy. When the son operates the business, he remains the son. Only his position has changed, not him. The father has done something else, we call it "retirement," and he no longer has the authority he used to. Or, the authority is shared, in which case two separate individuals are recognised as two leaders, not one. There is no change in identity, as identity does not depend on the power held by the individual. In either case, the son does not become his own father, and if you were to address him as such, he would correct you.

Jesus said I and the Father are one. Not one physically, one as in joined in agreement and unity.
Sometimes Jesus says he is God, other times he says he is God's son, but when does he say he is both at once? Does he say he can merge with God and come back out?

Jesus has proven His right and authority by doing His Fathers will completely. His Father God honours His Son by giving Him the same status as Himself. Jesus can call Himself God and has the right too.

The church was right to pray to Jesus as I have said He is the Way no one else.

Through Jesus the Christ (one and the same) one can be reunited with God.

Does this answer your question.
No. And it raises further questions about identity and authority.

[Kitty Chan]

C4ts

The analogy of the business is tough because there is no frame of reference for something similar. Its as close as I could think of. Both would be in charge partners if you will. The son have equal power to the father but running as the father wished in the first place. But if this is not working then maybe scrap the idea.

you saidSometimes Jesus says he is God, other times he says he is God's son, but when does he say he is both at once? Does he say he can merge with God and come back out?
And it raises further questions about identity and authority.

To start Jesus does not merge with God and come back out.

So what about how sometimes He says Hes God and other times Hes the Son. Maybe its better to start from the beggining and say the trinity. (I know that word isnt in the bible but the concept is) Here is a defination;

The trinity refers to "the unity of Father, Son, and Holy Spirit as three persons."[1] The word "trinity," of course, is formed from the words "tri-" and "unity," and describes "the state of being threefold." In other words, to believe in the trinity means to believe that the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are essentially one God, even while they retain their own set of differences. (Feel the fog beginning to blow around your legs....?)

John Calvin put it this way: "That Father and Son and Spirit are one God, yet the Son is not the Father, nor the Spirit the Son, but that they are differentiated by a particular quality."

Notice its mentioned that its admited the subject is difficult.

Here is some mentions of the trinity in the Bible;

"Therefore go and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit...." (Matthew 28:19)

"May the grace of the Lord Jesus Christ, and the love of God, and the fellowship of the Holy Spirit be with you all." (2 Corinthians 13:14)

"... Chosen according to the foreknowledge of God the Father, through the sanctifying work of the Spirit, for obedience to Jesus Christ and sprinkling by his blood...." (1 Peter 1:2)

So there will be times that one, two or all three will be mentioned in scripture. This I think is what you are referring to.

Now specifically Jesus who is the Word

"In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. He was with God in the beginning. Through him all things were made; without him nothing was made that has been made." (John 1:1-3)

"He is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn over all creation. For by him all things were created: things in heaven and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or powers or rulers or authorities; all things were created by him and for him. He is before all things, and in him all things hold together. And he is the head of the body, the church; he is the beginning and the firstborn from among the dead, so that in everything he might have the supremacy. For God was pleased to have all his fullness dwell in him...." (Colossians 1:15-19)

There is a relationship here between Father and Son. Jesus says He and the father are one, it is because of what is said above.

Another one that may help is

"I tell you the truth, the Son can do nothing by himself; he can do only what he sees his Father doing, because whatever the Father does the Son also does. For the Father loves the Son and shows him all he does.... He who does not honor the Son does not honor the Father, who sent him." (John 5:19, 23)

We do not know anyone who has this same relationship to compare to there is no frame of reference. I had the father son business above. What about a husband and wife. The 2 are to become one, one in mind and purpose, but separate. That could be another example.

Im trying to show the concept here. That while Jesus is the Son He is or shares being God. And God has no problem with the Son sharing the Godship as they are so united in mind and spirit. There is a trust beyond our understanding.

That trust is where Jesus earned the right and the authority to act as God and that right is given to Him by God as Jesus is the firstborn over all creation as its said.

:)

As per forum rules I quote site for quote and some ideas in order to state this in a different way for better understanding.

Four Reasons Why I Believe in the Trinity
by Dr. Ralph F. Wilson
http://www.joyfulheart.com/scholar/trinity.htm

[c4ts]

I'm not asking about the trinity so much as I am asking about identity. Suppose you have two entities, we will call them "A" and "B."

Given:
A is a creation of B.

If A=B
A is a creation of A
B is a creaiton of B
B is a creation of A

The first statement is irrelevant, since the creation of A is not part of the given.

The second two are impossible, given A is a creation of B.

For if A created B, then we know B did not create itself.

These two statements are circular when taken together:
A is a creation of B (given)
B is a creation of A
And the property of creation does not work both ways. For if it were true, then B would have to exist before its creation in order to create A, and A would have to exist before its creation, in order to create B.

In conclusion, identity, when switched, makes no sense in this context. Sons do not engender their own fathers. Daughters do not give birth to their mothers. Therefore identity cannot be transferred in this way.

You must explain how the transfer of authority resolves this conflict before you can apply it to God.

[Ossai]

Kitty Chan
Whereas Jesus being the Son could bridge the way between God and man.

Take prayer for instance we pray to Jesus whom takes the prayer to God. Then there is the Holy Spirit who in a simple term is a messenger between everyone. Does that work?
No. If Jesus is a messenger service then he ‘employees’ the spirit to take messages to himself or god, but he’s the only one that can take messages to god.

From the site you linked to:
1. Because of the trinitarian statements in the NT
2. Because the NT teaches monotheism AND that Jesus is divine
3. Because Jesus and the Father are different persons
4. Because the Holy Spirit is both divine and has personal attributes

Which all come back to one reason, my interpretation of the bible says so. No actual reasons were given.

Ossai

[frisian]

Originally posted by Lucifuge Rofocale
Under the umbrella of Christian thought, we don't have to stay here discussing this topics, since they already revealed.

:D How so.

[frisian]

Originally posted by Diogenes
Under the umbrella of Christian thought, any other person would have been guilty of all kinds of stuff..

Yes.

[frisian]

Originally posted by kuroyume0161
And how does your god-man differ from any of these:

Dying God-men throughout time - Christians have no originality whatsoever (http://www.medmalexperts.com/POCM/pagan_christs_getting_started_FLASH.html)Perhaps how I differ from you?

What does an OMNIPOTENT, OMNISCIENT, CREATOR God need with 'experiencing firsthand'?Those definitions imply what is necessary and that which is done by such must be confined by need? It's like saying that I have to become 'Tron' to understand how my computer programs work...Not at all.

Robert
Merry Christmyth and a Happy New Year!
Michael
Blessed subjectivity and may your beliefs be related to your ego!

[frisian]

Originally posted by c4ts
I'm not asking about the trinity so much as I am asking about identity. Suppose you have two entities, we will call them "A" and "B."

Given:
A is a creation of B.

If A=B
A is a creation of A
B is a creaiton of B
B is a creation of A

The first statement is irrelevant, since the creation of A is not part of the given.

The second two are impossible, given A is a creation of B.

For if A created B, then we know B did not create itself.

These two statements are circular when taken together:
A is a creation of B (given)
B is a creation of A
And the property of creation does not work both ways. For if it were true, then B would have to exist before its creation in order to create A, and A would have to exist before its creation, in order to create B.

In conclusion, identity, when switched, makes no sense in this context. Sons do not engender their own fathers. Daughters do not give birth to their mothers. Therefore identity cannot be transferred in this way.

You must explain how the transfer of authority resolves this conflict before you can apply it to God.

Who said A was a creation of B?

[elliotfc]

Originally posted by kimiko
Comparing God to parents is a false analogy.

It can't be, not for the Christian. Jesus said to refer to God as Our Father. The theology of the Bible is full of analogies to fathers (mothers too) when referring to God. It's a false analogy to you...because...it breaks down at some point? It can't be a false analogy to the Christian, because the theological foundation of the analogy is beyond secure, or solid.


John of the Cross knew Jesus in his imagination. I did too once. Then I realized how amazing human minds are that they can create such sublime experiences through tinkering with their chemistry. No one has had an experience with the person of Jesus in a couple thousand years.

That is your opinion, an opinion I reject. You can't prove your opinion (to my satisfaction) and I can't prove my opinion (to your satisfaction) so we're left with a subjective judgment call.

-Elliot

[elliotfc]

Originally posted by kimiko
You speak as if there is no objective standard at all in history. Some things can be established with evidence. We know Egyptians existed- they left lots of evidence. We know the Israelites plagiarized other people's history for the book of kings. How? Physical proof. Plagiarism is very bad form as far as reliability goes; that's just one example.

I'm not sure if there is an objective standard in history. If there is, it is objective by decree.

Yes, some things can be established with evidence, but the threshhold for evidence is variant.

Yes, we know that Egyptians existed, but surely history doesn't end with that mere point.

You don't know that the Israelites plagiarized other people's history. You have a theory which you elevate to, I suppose, an objective standard, which is your own subjective objectivity. In addition, plagiarism, applied to people thousands of years before, is a profound anachronistic value judgment.

-Elliot

[elliotfc]

Originally posted by Starrman
How would one stop a tsunami? Did god put 120,000 people in front of it to try to slow it down? Why did god create an Earth with tectonic plates that occasionally slip and kill lots of people despite whatever free will they are using at the time.

I've read (it's a theory) that the tectonic plate shifts are necessary for life on the planet, allowing for gases to reach the atmosphere or summat. I forget what book I read which built that case.

The Christian explanation is that just as humanity is fallen, so is creation. The fall of humanity may or may not be related to the fall of creation, may or may not be cause/effect, etc.


Rationalize this all you want, but the most sensible answer is that the question begging above is starting from false assumption that god exists.

Sensible is a subjective value judgment. Yours is an assumption itself; false is best described as a moral opinion, as what possible objective standard can you compare the conclusion to?


If I build a bookshelf I know is going to fall over and kill my kid, am I not responsible for her death when she gets squished?

I think that God is, in some way, responsible for everything. He is the architect of the universe. The variable that I don't think you've considered is the resurrection of the body, or some other kind of afterlife.

-Elliot

[elliotfc]

Originally posted by Starrman
But he didn't die, right?

No, he did die.


Not all the way, anyway, he is up in heaven with Daddy right now.

But that goes for everybody! If you're going to be whimsical about the death of Jesus, why not be whimsical about the death of EVERYONE. The standard applies to everyone (or, anyone). Anyone could be up there with Daddy now, but you selectively apply your whimsy to Jesus.


If he knew he was going to heaven, how is that a sacrifice?

Because he died.

I've already answered this charge in this thread.

You have decided that an a sacrifice must be eternally, or absolutely, or conclusively NEGATIVE in order for it to be rated a sacrifice. Jewish/Christian theology disagrees with that notion. It believes that all sacrifices will be RECOGNIZED by God, and when absolute and eternal justice is applied, the sacrifice will be acknowledged/rewarded.

If you want to remain consistent, you must insult or ignore all commendations for people who sacrifice today. A woman dies for her child? It can't be a sacrifice, not if she is praised in obituaries and headlines. A guy gets an award for giving millions to charities? That's no sacrifice, not if people reward him for doing it. You can't expect religious people to be as cynical about sacrifice as you. No, I guess you can.


He gave up being a filthy, persecuted human for perfection, what a giver.

Note, you didn't state the converse.

If you have a negative opinion about people/entities who do something for others, that's on you. It's a horrible way to view generosity and charity. In fact, it's the heighy of uncharity.

-Elliot

[elliotfc]

Originally posted by kimiko
I think you're projecting things onto me. How would you have any idea whether I thought I was an expert?

You are correct, I just went back into the thread, someone else mentioned Jews in response to the mention of John 3:16. Sorry about that, sometimes I forget I am talking to 6 different people. It would be a lot easier for me if I can be in a thread where one person talks to me and vice versa. I need to get over the unfortuante reality and work harder at this.

I still think your attitude regarding John 3:16 is snarky...and useless, come to think of it. If John 3:16 is correct, than a snarky attitude is counterproductive. If John 3:16 is incorrect, snarkiness is irrelevant.

-Elliot

[elliotfc]

Originally posted by kimiko
Humanity and God are separate. Why do you think you can ever reach God? There will always be a separation. You may hope to attain heaven, but even there, as long as you are an individual, you will not be "united" with God.

I'm not sure in what way you're thinking of union. I am united with my family, or a husband and a wife are united. I was thinking of that kind of union, where a direct relationship is possible.

Yes, as long as individuality exists there will be separation. I didn't mean union as in the cessation of separation.

-Elliot

[Tricky]

Originally posted by elliotfc
No, he did die.
Depending on how you define "die". I believe there is some verse somewhere about "whosoever believeth in him shall not perish but have everlasting life." I'm not sure you can reconcile that with saying he died. He just "left the earth".

Of course, I realize that most Christians use the term "die" to refer to the death of their physical bodies. Still, it is the lure of not really dying that gives Christianity (like some other religions) it's biggest draw.

My wife (a pagan) says, "I have to believe there is more than just this life." And it is true. She does. She rejected Christianity because of... well let's just say because of numerous factors, but she kept the "I will somehow live forever" part. Total and complete death is a concept that she finds it impossible to accept. Too scary.

Originally posted by elliotfc
No, he did die.You have decided that an a sacrifice must be eternally, or absolutely, or conclusively NEGATIVE in order for it to be rated a sacrifice. Jewish/Christian theology disagrees with that notion. It believes that all sacrifices will be RECOGNIZED by God, and when absolute and eternal justice is applied, the sacrifice will be acknowledged/rewarded.
This gets back to the question of whether entry to heaven is based on faith or deeds. If it is faith, then no sacrifice is involved whatsoever. If it is deeds, then no faith will avail you. If it is a combination of both, then we need to ascertain just what combination is necessary. Is agnosticism okay if your deeds are really great? Is a mountain of faith good enough to overcome really bad deeds like murder and pederasty?

So how much suffering was really necessary for Jesus to atone for our sins? If you can say three days was enough, why not three hours? Three milliseconds?

[elliotfc]

Originally posted by Diogenes
What we come up with is that the sacrifice is ' symbolic '... Never mind that a symbolic sacrifice is not a real sacrifice....

Ummm...

It's symbolic in that it stands for something else. Like, it's symbolic because there is love behind it. It's a symbol for love. Or it's symbolic because it shows how the world hates God. It's a symbol for hate too.

I guess I'm losing the plot here. I think the crucifixion can be seen as symbolic for all sorts of things. Or, I think that Jesus' mere existence can be seen as symbolic for all sorts of things.

Re: sacrifice, I think that it was a real sacrifice. Jesus did die. It was a sacrifice. As for the retort that Jesus is God and God can't die...my retort is that all humans have eternal souls, and therefore can't die.

I guess I'd like to submit that if you wax skeptical about the sacrifice of Jesus because Jesus just went to heaven...you should also wax skeptical about the death of everybody else, because they too will have eternal lives (heaven/hell/inbetween but that's beside the point if you ACCEPT eternal life in the context of the argument, which is what is being done by the skeptic when considering the immortality of God). Does that make sense?



But then again, Elliot has said that infallible doesn't mean " always right "..

No, I think infallibility, when invoked, is within a certain context. I think the proof of my assertion is really self-evident. All you have to do is examine the people/organizations who claim infallibility, and then see which matters they apply their infallibility to. It is hardly a universal infallibility that applies to every variety of knowledge/experience known to man. Not even close actually.



I wouldn't have a problem with the God Elliot seems to know. I must commend him for sticking it out here..

This is stimulating stuff. I truly believe that I know God in my own particular way. If I'm wrong, so what? About the worst I'd be getting out of it is having to hear the odd sarcastic comment here and there. No biggie, in spite of my complaints to the contrary. ;)

Actually...maybe one of you skeptics can build a case, and I'll examine it carefully. Here goes.......

Assuming I'm wrong about my theology, so what?

The *so what* is what I'm interested in hearing about.
Here's what I can come up with to fill in the asterisks:
-negative opinions from others
-failure to correspond to subjective ideals regarding reason that other people hold
-the unlikelihood that I'll ever become president of the American Humanist Society (or, as a variant, forum moderator at randi.org or something similar)

That's about it for now. Any others?

-Elliot

[elliotfc]

Originally posted by Kitty Chan
What about the early warning system that could have been set up? They are spouting off all this stuff they knew about tsunamis now. There was knowledge of it coming but there was no system to contact people. If people around the world were not consumed with taking over, killing one another, sex shows, gaining power and money, stomping on one another, lying, cheating. We waste and waste if all the time and effort was spent on helping one another (like God said to) then this stuff would not be a total disaster.

Maybe someone somewhere would have had the time because they have the knowledge to spend some money and put up a proper warning system in all nations. WE KNOW there is tsunamis, earthquakes, tornados, storms what are we doing about it, only what applies to us not others.

Like I said God said to bear one anothers burdens, give your brother your coat, love one another are we doing it?? This is your answer. We are certainly capable of it we are just too busy being selfish and oops theres that word sinning to care about one another.


Kitty this is an exceptional answer.

People who *should* know better, like materialists, are always doing what they can to improve the lot of humanity. Yet they can't perceive what you, in your "blind" faith, can see quite clearly.

Yours is a very empowering point of view Kitty.

-Elliot

[elliotfc]

Originally posted by Mr Clingford
If there were some basic teaching in churches (I'm not a Catholic so maybe they do teach some basic theology there) it would sure help a lot. Jesus isn't God (although he had a divine nature) although Christ is. It is paradoxical; yes it doesn't appear to make much sense (like quantum physics!). There is no reason why one shouldn't address the divine as God so I don't know what the preacher was on about.

I guess it's called CCD. But the amount of variation in CCD is impossible to...underestimate I'd say. There are dozens of different texts, teachers are not vetted (they'll take anybody they can get) and countless ideologies/theologies are mixed in.

It is assumed by all Christian faiths that Christian parents will raise their children in the faith. That's a big assumption on so many different levels, but Christian education is primarily the responsibility of parents. This is a very important and clear instruction given to parents at Catholic baptisms, and I would assume it is similar in other Christian denominations.

At the Mass, the homilies are a mixed bag which are minimally challenging and primarily aimed more at what to do in your daily life as opposed to pure theology. I reckon the same goes for other Christian denominations.

Theology, in my opinion, has to be an intensely personal thing in order for you to get true meaning out of it. I was educated in Catholic schools in high school, and I'd suspect that I had a far greater grasp on Catholic theology, in high school, over 90% of all Catholics. Yet I was not a believer in high school. Today, I believe that a deeply rooted spirituality, tempered by theology, is superior to a first-rate theologian delivering verse or dogma mechanically.

Well duh, some of you are saying. That is why you should reject theology. Yet you will then place your allegiance in something else. Humans can't depersonalize themselves from the worldviews which they *choose*. You can spout a worldview and act in a completely different way (as do many Christians). Likewise, I think a skeptic can preach their worldview, yet in practice, passionately believe in any number of things that can not be proven.

-Elliot

[elliotfc]

Originally posted by Kitty Chan
Mr Clingford now you are confusing me. What do you mean that Jesus and Christ are not the same?

Jesus is the Christ, actually there is quite a lot of names of Jesus Christ. The Way, The Truth, The Life.

Or have you misunderstood C4ts?

It has nothing to do with catholic either.


I think that in my perspective, Jesus and the Christ are the same.

I theorize, however, that Christ is an aspect of God that may exist in multiple forms. For example, there may be a differnent life form millions of light years away that has their own Christ, but he would be called by a different name.


-Elliot

[Mr Clingford]

To further these attempts to clarify Jesus, Jesus is the anointed, that is Christus, and embodies the second part of the trinity on earth. As Elliot has suggested, the second part may be incarnated in other species on other planets in the universe.

The Christianity that many in this forum have encountered appears to be somewhat different to the one I believe in, as I am not a fundamentalist and I am not alone either. I wonder if the fact that I live in England has a little to do with it.

[c4ts]

Originally posted by frisian
Who said A was a creation of B?

I did. In the section under "given." It doesn't have to be true.

If you want to take it as a Biblical analogy, and say A=Jesus and B=God, and you are saying Jesus was not a creation of God, then please explain.

[Mr Clingford]

Originally posted by c4ts
I did. In the section under "given." It doesn't have to be true.

If you want to take it as a Biblical analogy, and say A=Jesus and B=God, and you are saying Jesus was not a creation of God, then please explain. It is Christian belief that Jesus was not made by God like the universe but was born in a sense. The Nicene Creed says this:
'We believe in one Lord, Jesus Christ, the only Son of God, eternally begotten of the Father, God from God, Light from Light, true God from true God, begotten, not made, of one being with the Father."

[kimiko]

Originally posted by elliotfc
I still think your attitude regarding John 3:16 is snarky...and useless, come to think of it. If John 3:16 is correct, than a snarky attitude is counterproductive. If John 3:16 is incorrect, snarkiness is irrelevant.
This is why I'm being snarky: The question was how does God show he loves people. Your answer was a passage that says (paraphrasing, if you'll let me) "he loves us so much, he sent this guy so you won't die in a figurative sense". Well the second part of the passage doesn't necessarily follow from the first, and the first part was exactly what was being asked. Responding with that was....dare I say, useless?

[c4ts]

Originally posted by Mr Clingford
It is Christian belief that Jesus was not made by God like the universe but was born in a sense. The Nicene Creed says this:
'We believe in one Lord, Jesus Christ, the only Son of God, eternally begotten of the Father, God from God, Light from Light, true God from true God, begotten, not made, of one being with the Father."

Swap "beget" with "create" in my model and it still makes no sense.

[kimiko]

Originally posted by elliotfc
It can't be, not for the Christian. Jesus said to refer to God as Our Father. The theology of the Bible is full of analogies to fathers (mothers too) when referring to God. It's a false analogy to you...because...it breaks down at some point? It can't be a false analogy to the Christian, because the theological foundation of the analogy is beyond secure, or solid.

That is your opinion, an opinion I reject. You can't prove your opinion (to my satisfaction) and I can't prove my opinion (to your satisfaction) so we're left with a subjective judgment call.
I didn't say it was a false analogy in every instance, I was just replying to what you said here: Parents do not necessarily know how their children feel.
God as parent does know how his children feel, human parents cannot.

So you mean unite as in "a direct relationship", not separation. Christianity heavily advertises its "personal savior" and "personal relationship with Jesus" as why it is better than other religions. God takes a personal interest according to Christianity and you can talk and pray directly, not through intercession/rituals/whatever. Well, do you have to be reconciled with God to pray? I was responding to this: Anyhow, Christian theology is clear that there exists a separation between God and man. Whether or not it is literal (being thrown out of the Garden), or spiritual, there is an actual separation. ... If something (a separation) is actual, it would take either energy/effort of, in this case, overcome it or bridge the gap, right? So where are we diverging? Why are you saying that something did *not* have to be done to reconcile God to humanity? Do you think that there was never a separation, or a need for reconciliation? Or, do you believe that even if there was a separation, it could be overcome by doing nothing?

Does not prayer alone bridge the gap? What is it about having a personal relationship that requires Jesus to have died? Could people not pray before Jesus? How does the personal relationship of a sinner emoting/thanking/asking God differ from an 'absolved' person doing the identical? I would out of hand reject the idea that one has to be absolved to truly pray since Christianity requires one to seek forgiveness through prayer to be absolved.

[kimiko]

Originally posted by elliotfc
People who *should* know better, like materialists, are always doing what they can to improve the lot of humanity. Yet they can't perceive what you, in your "blind" faith, can see quite clearly.

But that is exactly what materialists *do* perceive! Materialists/skeptics/atheists/agnostics know they have no one to rely on but themselves and each other to make things better, so they do. It is the religious who waste effort with prayers that don't work, money on religious groups who waste it proselytizing and supporting structures and clergy when all of that money could go to a useful purpose. It is the unbelievers who are efficient about helping their fellow man, rather than diverting their energy through a religious system.

Everything that religion does that physically benefits humanity is accomplished without God. Agnostics and atheists give money and volunteer time to charities to improve the world, so you don't need religious organizations to do that. People engage in socializing outside of churches. The most efficient religious charity can be run equally efficiently without being religious. The time wasted in religious schools on religion classes could be devoted to more constructive subjects, like languages, math and science.

What about the early warning system that could have been set up? They are spouting off all this stuff they knew about tsunamis now. There was knowledge of it coming but there was no system to contact people. If people around the world were not consumed with taking over, killing one another, sex shows, gaining power and money, stomping on one another, lying, cheating. We waste and waste if all the time and effort was spent on helping one another (like God said to) then this stuff would not be a total disaster.Maybe someone somewhere would have had the time because they have the knowledge to spend some money and put up a proper warning system in all nations. WE KNOW there is tsunamis, earthquakes, tornados, storms what are we doing about it, only what applies to us not others.
Like I said God said to bear one anothers burdens, give your brother your coat, love one another are we doing it?? This is your answer. We are certainly capable of it we are just too busy being selfish and oops theres that word sinning to care about one another.

Religion doesn't give a way to help people in environmental disasters, science and human beings do. People don't need religion or a God to not lie/cheat/steal. You don't have to be religious to not waste your time, and I would argue that religion, if untrue, is little other than a gigantic waste of time. It can be a great exercise in critical thinking if it is looked at objectively, and is interesting in the way literature is if the books are read as entertainment. In fact, any time you spend reading the Bible or going to church could be better spent improving the world. Plenty of nonbelievers love others and help them. Just because you ascribe these things to God doesn't mean they only happen in the context of religions.

Originally posted by elliotfc
Actually...maybe one of you skeptics can build a case, and I'll examine it carefully. Here goes.......

Assuming I'm wrong about my theology, so what?

The *so what* is what I'm interested in hearing about.
Here's what I can come up with to fill in the asterisks:
-negative opinions from others
-failure to correspond to subjective ideals regarding reason that other people hold
-the unlikelihood that I'll ever become president of the American Humanist Society (or, as a variant, forum moderator at randi.org or something similar)

I think I just answered part of that above. If theology is false, it is an enormous waste of time, energy, money, and lives (people who go into the clergy/volunteers who spend time on purely religious, not charitable, activities). A parasite on humanity.

Do you mean being religious gives you a negative opinion in the eyes of others? Well, it can work the opposite direction when the religious hold negative views of nonbelievers. That would be a waste if their theology is wrong.

It's basically Pascal's wager. If you gamble that god exists and are right, great!, he got that part. If you're wrong, then you haven't lost nothing, you've lost everything! The only life you'd ever have- wasted on religion. Throwing away money and energy; wasting feelings of guilt and shame over one's inherent sinfullness and disobeyed religious directives; countless opportunities and experiencies lost through prohibition, time being occupied by religion instead; fear of hellfire and damnation.

[Kitty Chan]

C4ts

you said

I'm not asking about the trinity so much as I am asking about identity.

And the property of creation does not work both ways. For if it were true, then B would have to exist before its creation in order to create A, and A would have to exist before its creation, in order to create B.

In conclusion, identity, when switched, makes no sense in this context. Sons do not engender their own fathers. Daughters do not give birth to their mothers. Therefore identity cannot be transferred in this way.

You must explain how the transfer of authority resolves this conflict before you can apply it to God.


You cannot separate the trinity it is 3 identities.

Like I quoted here;
John Calvin put it this way: "That Father and Son and Spirit are one God, yet the Son is not the Father, nor the Spirit the Son, but that they are differentiated by a particular quality."

You say the property of creation not working both ways. That makes sense but maybe the problem is applying that to Jesus and God.


"In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. He was with God in the beginning.

Through him all things were made; without him nothing was made that has been made." (John 1:1-3)


It says in the beginning was the Word (Jesus) and Jesus was with God, and Jesus was God. Jesus was with God in the beginning. There is no creation at this point they always were. This is why Jesus said He is the Alpha and Omega beginning and end. No creation they always were.

Then through Jesus all things were made, without Jesus nothing was made that has been made. Now, you have creation, what has been made, all things, made by the creator who always was.

Now, you talk of the transfer of authority. Or how did Jesus get the authority to call Himself God. Once again;


"He is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn over all creation. For by him all things were created: things in heaven and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or powers or rulers or authorities; all things were created by him and for him. He is before all things, and in him all things hold together. And he is the head of the body, the church; he is the beginning and the firstborn from among the dead, so that in everything he might have the supremacy. For God was pleased to have all his fullness dwell in him...." (Colossians 1:15-19)


God was pleased to have all His fullness dwell in Him Jesus. Jesus is the head of the church. All authority has been given Jesus. But like the next statement says the Son can do nothing by Himself only what the Father does.


"I tell you the truth, the Son can do nothing by himself; he can do only what he sees his Father doing, because whatever the Father does the Son also does. For the Father loves the Son and shows him all he does.... He who does not honor the Son does not honor the Father, who sent him." (John 5:19, 23)


Like I said there is a united mind and spirit here. There is trust and love and all authority given.

One that has always been and will always be and was not created it just is.

[Ossai]

Elliotfc
The Christian explanation is that just as humanity is fallen, so is creation. The fall of humanity may or may not be related to the fall of creation, may or may not be cause/effect, etc. How did the rest of creation ‘fall’? Was it caused by man or was god just annoyed and shoved it as well?

I think that God is, in some way, responsible for everything. He is the architect of the universe. The variable that I don't think you've considered is the resurrection of the body, or some other kind of afterlife. You are basically stating that it’s ok if god tortures and murders you because he’s going to bring you back to life.
From that philosophy, it would be ok to beat your children as long as you give them a PS2 or X-Box afterwards.


But that goes for everybody! If you're going to be whimsical about the death of Jesus, why not be whimsical about the death of EVERYONE. The standard applies to everyone (or, anyone). Anyone could be up there with Daddy now, but you selectively apply your whimsy to Jesus. No. Everyone born after Jesus and didn’t convert is in hell and they are stuck there for eternity. Pretty final death there. Jesus had a bad weekend then go to head to heaven. No sacrifice involved.

You have decided that an a sacrifice must be eternally, or absolutely, or conclusively NEGATIVE in order for it to be rated a sacrifice. Jewish/Christian theology disagrees with that notion. It believes that all sacrifices will be RECOGNIZED by God, and when absolute and eternal justice is applied, the sacrifice will be acknowledged/rewarded.

If you want to remain consistent, you must insult or ignore all commendations for people who sacrifice today. A woman dies for her child? It can't be a sacrifice, not if she is praised in obituaries and headlines. A guy gets an award for giving millions to charities? That's no sacrifice, not if people reward him for doing it. You can't expect religious people to be as cynical about sacrifice as you. No, I guess you can. You’re saying that all religious people use a different definition of sacrifice. How about coming up with a different word, like PAYMENT.

FYI the person donating millions may be making a sacrifice if he expects no acknowledgement for his donations.

The *so what* is what I'm interested in hearing about.
You waste thousands of dollars in support of a religion.
You waste time and effort supporting the religion.
You’re worshiping god the wrong way and god’s sitting in heaven just getting madder and madder –(paraphrased) Homer Simpson

Mr Clingford
'We believe in one Lord, Jesus Christ, the only Son of God, eternally begotten of the Father, God from God, Light from Light, true God from true God, begotten, not made, of one being with the Father." So Jesus sprang forth from god fully formed, except for the whole human body thing. Jesus is separate from god but made by god – from that perspective Christianity seems like a typical pantheon setup. You’ve got YHWH, Jesus, Holy Spirit – a whole host of intermediaries between divine and human in the form of angels, then you have the bad guys, Satan and other demons. Satan is strong enough to go against god but god’s holy book says that god will win the ‘final battle’, yet god apparently can’t control Satan on earth. Satan even manages to tempt Jesus – thus further separating the concept of god from Jesus.

Ossai

[hodgy]

Hello everyone, I've only recently discovered the JREF and this is my first post.

I started reading the first couple of posts on this thread and the debate was centered around whether God allowing humans to damn themselves through the excercise of free will made him omniscient etc... or not.

I have to admit I didn't trawl through the whole 7 pages but did anyone, anywhere not raise the important issue that 'free will' is only an illusion and does not actually exist? On that basis, all the Christian God did at Creation time was to build a giant engine for the cyclical generation and alleviation of suffering. God is either evil or not omniscient.

[elliotfc]

Originally posted by hodgy
I have to admit I didn't trawl through the whole 7 pages but did anyone, anywhere not raise the important issue that 'free will' is only an illusion and does not actually exist?

Hey Hodgy. Here is a little experiment.

Stand up.
Or don't.
Pick one. Stand up, or don't.

Based on that experiment, consider the fact that free will does in fact exist. Or don't consider the fact. Pick one.



On that basis, all the Christian God did at Creation time was to build a giant engine for the cyclical generation and alleviation of suffering. God is either evil or not omniscient.

Evil is a value judgment. What do you base your moral judgments on?

God probably isn't omniscient in the way you define omniscience.

-Elliot

[Ossai]

hodgy
I have to admit I didn't trawl through the whole 7 pages but did anyone, anywhere not raise the important issue that 'free will' is only an illusion and does not actually exist? On that basis, all the Christian God did at Creation time was to build a giant engine for the cyclical generation and alleviation of suffering. God is either evil or not omniscient. To answer your question, yes. I think that was covered more on a different thread that was started around the same time as this one. But it was mentioned in this one at least once.

Oh, welcome to the forums as well.

Ossai

[elliotfc]

Originally posted by Tricky
Depending on how you define "die". I believe there is some verse somewhere about "whosoever believeth in him shall not perish but have everlasting life." I'm not sure you can reconcile that with saying he died. He just "left the earth".

That's a good point.

I think he did die, in one understanding of the word die. Die also means to have an orgasm, or at least it used to in Shakespeare's day.



Of course, I realize that most Christians use the term "die" to refer to the death of their physical bodies. Still, it is the lure of not really dying that gives Christianity (like some other religions) it's biggest draw.

Yes, to some extent. But Christians, to a man/woman, really think that Jesus did die. Of course they also believed that Christ "conquered" death, by dying. I think that if Christians didn't believe in dying, they wouldn't glorify the crucifix, but would rather have a resurrected Jesus above each altar.



My wife (a pagan) says, "I have to believe there is more than just this life." And it is true. She does. She rejected Christianity because of... well let's just say because of numerous factors, but she kept the "I will somehow live forever" part. Total and complete death is a concept that she finds it impossible to accept. Too scary.

It can be scary. It could also be scary to understand that we humans continually display our contempt for God by sinning.

In my opinion, I think the scariest thing would be to believe that there is more than just this life, and what comes after is a horror show. Maybe similar to Norse mythology. Now that's scary!

Perhaps many people's theologies are based on fear avoidance. However, I can also surmise that many skeptic's belief systems are based on fear avoidance as well! Think about it. If you recognize that, in your opinion at least, religion is based on fear, and then you reject religion, you are rejecting fear as well. That's also fear avoidance.

In my opinion, fear is just a variable emotion that is probably nominated for things that it may not necessarily be responsible for. Nor can I figure out how anyone can prove that fear is behind any particular belief. It all comes down to opinion, which is itself a belief system.

The exception, of course, would be people who explicitly say that their beliefs are based on fear.


This gets back to the question of whether entry to heaven is based on faith or deeds.

Unless the possession, or acceptance of faith, is itself a deed!


If it is faith, then no sacrifice is involved whatsoever.

The sacrifice of personal pride?


If it is deeds, then no faith will avail you.

Unless you need some obtuse faith in order to perform deeds. For example, you can take an exemplary skeptic, who insists he/she has no faith. Yet why does the skeptic act in an exemplary way, and why does the skeptic perform good deeds? Whatever is *behind* the good deeds is some sort of faith, whether it is an admittedly Christian faith or a humanistic faith.


If it is a combination of both, then we need to ascertain just what combination is necessary. Is agnosticism okay if your deeds are really great? Is a mountain of faith good enough to overcome really bad deeds like murder and pederasty?

I think it is different for each individual, and I think that the individual must, personally, never be satisfied where he/she is.

See, I'll apply Christian charity here. I won't say that any other person can't get to heaven based on their faith or their works. I will hold myself to a higher standard. I think that I need to continue to improve both my faith and my deeds. Since I do possess the faith, I think that more is expected from me.

At the end of it all, agnosticism would have to be rejected when you are confronted by God. Also, it is my belief that even if you accept God, you have to be held *accountable* in some way for all of the bad deeds you have done. I theorize that Hitler, in order for him to become reconciled with God, has to understand/experience all of the suffering that he inflicted on others. He has to be confronted by all those who died by his regime.

In both instances, I don't think that it is *easy* to get to heaven. It wouldn't be easy for the evil man, for obvious reasons. It also wouldn't be easy for the hardened skeptic. How many skeptics on this board would capitulate, or admit error, in front of God?



So how much suffering was really necessary for Jesus to atone for our sins? If you can say three days was enough, why not three hours? Three milliseconds?

That depends how you define suffering. Do babies suffer as they are being born? Or when they cry for food? Do kids suffer when they are not getting enough attention? Depending on how you define suffering, some people have been suffering every second of their entire lives. :)

-Elliot

[hodgy]

Elliott,

Your experiment doesn’t prove the existence of free will, it just shows that I am capable of making decisions. There are programs on my computer that are able to make decisions. A flipped coin does not exercise free will in determining which side to come down on.

As I am referring to the Christian God in this argument, I am using the Christian notion of evil in its general common-sense meaning. If God knowingly created a universe in which evil can exist (when he had the option to create one without evil since he is omnipotent) then he is evil.

To use the parent/child analogy much loved by the believers on the thread:

Example A: I am not omniscient

I put a baby to bed in an overheated room and he died. I thought I was keeping him warm and didn't know that the temperature was dangerous.

Result: I am not omniscient and I am not evil.

Example B: I am not omnipotent

I put a baby to bed and a fire broke out in our house. I could not put out the fire or rescue the baby and he died.

Result: I am not omnipotent and I am not evil.

Example C: I am omnipotent and omniscient

I put a baby to bed in an overheated room, even though I knew it was dangerous. Since I am omniscient I also know that the temperature would eventually kill him. I knew that a fire was going to burn the house down because I started it. Since I am omnipotent I could have put out the fire or rescued the child. The child died in the flames exactly as I knew it would.

Result: I won't use my defintion of evil - draw your own conclusion about me...

[Ossai]

elliotfc
Yet why does the skeptic act in an exemplary way, and why does the skeptic perform good deeds? Whatever is *behind* the good deeds is some sort of faith, whether it is an admittedly Christian faith or a humanistic faith.
Again, let’s stick to commonly accepted definitions.
You’re just insulted every agnostic, atheist, deist, etc that has ever performed a good deed. There need not be any faith involved at all, every.

I think he did die, in one understanding of the word die. Die also means to have an orgasm, or at least it used to in Shakespeare's day. I think you’re mixing you’re languages as well as meaning up here.

Yes, to some extent. But Christians, to a man/woman, really think that Jesus did die. Of course they also believed that Christ "conquered" death, by dying. I think that if Christians didn't believe in dying, they wouldn't glorify the crucifix, but would rather have a resurrected Jesus above each altar. If the whole point is the resurrection / conquering death why isn’t there a resurrected Jesus instead of a torture instrument hung above the altar?

More later.

Ossai

[Kitty Chan]

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Ossai
Kitty Chan
So where is the warning and instruction manual from god about life and everything that can happen?

Warning system – developed by humans.
You forgot to mention all the time and effort spend trying to placate god.
You forgot all the people performing violence, gaining power and consumed with lying, cheating, etc all in the name of god.

If Jesus and god are separate and Jesus has god’s authority then Christianity ......

Ossai


Ossai sorry :o this is a big thread and alot of posts, I found your post and did not mean to be rude.

The instruction manual is Gods Word the Bible but you knew that.

My point was if man as a whole should be concerned about others rather than only personally what one can gain. Then a early warning system would have been set up and the effects of the storm lessened. Gods warning was love one another.

As for the people who do terrible things in Gods name God has a answer for them it is:

Not all who call me Lord will I recoginize, I will spit them out of my mouth. So dont worry Gods all over that.

As for the authority I did tend to talk to C4ts re that so just read those posts so I dont repost this already long thread. :)

[Kitty Chan]

[QUOTE]Originally posted by kimiko
But that is exactly what materialists *do* perceive! Materialists/skeptics/atheists/agnostics know they have no one to rely on but themselves and each other to make things better, so they do. It is the religious who waste effort with prayers that don't work, money on religious groups who waste it proselytizing and supporting structures and clergy when all of that money could go to a useful purpose. It is the unbelievers who are efficient about helping their fellow man, rather than diverting their energy through a religious system. . . . . .


Reply by Kitty Chan

God said bear one anothers burdens, or rely on one another. Its an instruction actually.

I may add that if you do a search you will find that christians are at the head of the pack in giving and serving others. another instruction from God. Just His way of improving the world getting us up off our duffs and helping out.

Unbelievers do have organizations (I never mentioned they didnt) But its a fact that they are not out giving christians. So where is the waste? Theres none.

Also go back to what I said was waste its in sex, drugs, booze, wild selfish lifestyles, govts that spend money on themselves and forget their own poor. Sure some people who do not believe in God can give but its not the norm of this world the norm is to stomp one another. History plays this out.

And those that use Gods name in the persute of their own gain will answer to God for it like I already mentioned to Ossai. They are just using God like they would use their own mother and stomp on her to get ahead. They are not worthy of anything.

You can look on religion as to what you are losing or what you are gaining. Gods way is giving all you can of yourself to others. The worlds ways is stomping on one another to get ahead.

If you understand Gods way to be guilt and shame then you do not understand anything God said in the least. You have totally missed the boat. If you look at what Gods wants its you to be refined as gold. How does that play out for a life of guilt and shame.

Refined and grow to be better than you are through loving your neighbour.

Man as a society wants the gold without the refining by stomping the neighbour.

Thats the difference. :)

[Kitty Chan]

Originally posted by elliotfc
Kitty this is an exceptional answer.

People who *should* know better, like materialists, are always doing what they can to improve the lot of humanity. Yet they can't perceive what you, in your "blind" faith, can see quite clearly.

Yours is a very empowering point of view Kitty.

-Elliot

Well Elliot I have been of late trying to determine what exactly we are to be doing and I truly believe that when we say to Christ what are you doing about this? He responds I am doing something thats why I spoke to you and laid it on your heart.

[kimiko]

Originally posted by Kitty Chan
I may add that if you do a search you will find that christians are at the head of the pack in giving and serving others. another instruction from God.

Unbelievers do have organizations (I never mentioned they didnt) But its a fact that they are not out giving christians. So where is the waste? Theres none.

Sure some people who do not believe in God can give but its not the norm of this world the norm is to stomp one another.

If you understand Gods way to be guilt and shame then you do not understand anything God said in the least. You have totally missed the boat. If you look at what Gods wants its you to be refined as gold. How does that play out for a life of guilt and shame.
Over 30% of the charitable giving in the US goes to religious organizations, but has anyone ever looked to see how much of this actually goes to helping others and how much goes to maintain buildings, provide salaries to employees/priests/preachers and support the social activities of the groups? I can't find any stats on that. So, I don't believe Christians are ahead of the pack, and won't until there is a good study showing that.

I'm not sure what you mean by this "Unbelievers do have organizations (I never mentioned they didnt) But its a fact that they are not out giving christians.".

Some people who don't believe in God give, and only some Christians give. Some of the meanest people I've ever known were Christians, and some of the nicest were atheists. No blanket statement can cover either group. You'll find the whole spectrum of cruelty to kindness in both groups.

I didn't say God's way was just guilt and shame, but those emotions can be a product of the teachings of organized religions. Whatever God's way would be is not the same as the man-made religions that claim divine purpose.

There are plenty of atheists who are generous and charitable and they didn't need instructions to be that way. They also don't expect to be rewarded for their generosity in some way. I'm not saying all Christians do, but some certainly volunteer and donate not out of love but for other reasons. It isn't unusual to expect atheists to donate, not out of faith, but out of simple love for other human beings, realizing they could be in the same position, or perhaps some evolutionary instinct for survival of the species.

Basically, people are people, no matter what faith they do or don't have. Religious people aren't better than nonbelievers, and you don't need religion to be a decent person.

[Kitty Chan]

This is getting more off track, while I appreciate what you say and agree with alot of it, I was never talking about charitable groups I was talking about society as a whole.

The original statement was about the storm, I said because people are too self centered thats why these things are worse. Im not talking about the minority who are christian or not christian that give. You will find givers over all are minority and the takers are majority.

It was never a comparision between christians and atheists, that was not the point. Reread what I said and think about the people and govt's Im referring to. Im speaking about a bigger picture of the whole world.

Realize what the world spends its money on and know why there is still poverty, sickness, starvation and lack of storm warnings. All countries have a pot of money to spend now, its almost like a competition.

So, where was it when they could have gotten together and made a system to warn people. Too busy with themselves thats my point. Thats what Gods on about with loving the neighbour. Hes just asking people to wake up and bear one anothers burdens.

[Ossai]

elliotfc
At the end of it all, agnosticism would have to be rejected when you are confronted by God. Doesn’t that go without saying. However, so far god hasn’t confronted anyone – AFAIK.

In both instances, I don't think that it is *easy* to get to heaven. It wouldn't be easy for the evil man, for obvious reasons. It That is not the typical Christian attitude in my area.

It also wouldn't be easy for the hardened skeptic. How many skeptics on this board would capitulate, or admit error, in front of God?
To answer your general question – I would say all – given that it was god (if god were proven and standing in front of the skeptic).
The real question would be, why? If it were god then all their errors would already be know and god would already know how they feel about them.


Kitty Chan
The instruction manual is Gods Word the Bible but you knew that. That mishmash of contradictions and faulty logic? That’s the best instruction book an all loving, omnipotent being could come up with? BTW I’ve read the bible and it doesn’t offer much in the way of instructions. Now when a preacher/priest/clergy is ask the same question they always have their own interpretation of some passage that they claim answers the question. The only problem with that is they almost never agree with each other.

Gods warning was love one another. So you don’t actually expect god to do anything at all, merely steal credit for people’s hard work.

I may add that if you do a search you will find that christians are at the head of the pack in giving and serving others. I would say that has more to do with expectation, group dynamics, social pressure, etc than any sort of divine intervention.

Sure some people who do not believe in God can give but its not the norm of this world the norm is to stomp one another. History plays this out. How about actually reading some history. It’s those that believe in God doing the stomping.

And those that use Gods name in the persute of their own gain will answer to God for it like I already mentioned to Ossai. No true Scotsman.

If you understand Gods way to be guilt and shame then you do not understand anything God said in the least. You have totally missed the boat. Kind of a tongue in cheek response, but got ask a Catholic about that.

Ossai

[elliotfc]

Originally posted by kimiko
This is why I'm being snarky: The question was how does God show he loves people. Your answer was a passage that says (paraphrasing, if you'll let me) "he loves us so much, he sent this guy so you won't die in a figurative sense". Well the second part of the passage doesn't necessarily follow from the first, and the first part was exactly what was being asked. Responding with that was....dare I say, useless?

I get your point.

The Christian answers it in the past tense (that he gave us his only Son), and the theology proclaims that this past tense has everlasting consequences for all of humanity.

The second part does follow from the first, according to the gospel, which is how a Christian (I think) should be expected to answer the question.

Now, do you expect me to answer your question from the perspective of a Christian? Or the perspective of a non-Christian?

If I answer your question form the perspective of a Christian who does not see the essential point of Christianity in John 3:16 (I suppose there are some of them out there), I'd say that the mere existence of us and every thing is how God shows that he loves people.

Do you reject my two answers? Obviously you do. We have different belief systems/expectations of God. But I must insist that your question has been answered. You reject my answer (which disappoints me) while others have no problem with my answer (which may or may not disappoint you).

-Elliot

[elliotfc]

Originally posted by kimiko
God as parent does know how his children feel, human parents cannot.

Good point. This would make God a super-parent, which is how Christians perceive him.

So you mean unite as in "a direct relationship", not separation.

Yes, basically. I don't think that we can have a relationship with God as Adam had a relationship with God in the Garden. That is how I think of my current separation. And I have mixed feelings about how literally I should take Genesis...but that is my working model of separation, or relationship, with God.

Christianity heavily advertises its "personal savior" and "personal relationship with Jesus" as why it is better than other religions.

Yes, better follows I think from the mere acceptance of Christianity. Which is why I wouldn't necessarily use the word better, but would indicate what you identify, the mere fact that a Christian does feel a personal relationship with God through Jesus, the intermediary aspect of God. Better follows from the possession of that belief, but that word can overshadow the mere existence of the professed relationship, which can be identified by someone who does not believe that the belief is *better*.


God takes a personal interest according to Christianity and you can talk and pray directly, not through intercession/rituals/whatever. Well, do you have to be reconciled with God to pray?

No, God will listen to any prayer. Heck God listens to everything I suppose. Anyone can pray.



Does not prayer alone bridge the gap?

No! Not to the Christian. If prayer alone could bridge the gap, that would make Jesus unnecessary.


What is it about having a personal relationship that requires Jesus to have died?

Because Jesus is a human, like us, a human that will physically die. We have shaken our fists at God for death and suffering for thousands of years, and Jesus is Gods' response. It is a *human* response, and as such, we can have a *human* relationship with God. This is why Jesus is sometimes called the divine condescencion.


Could people not pray before Jesus?

They absolutely could. I've already indicated a working concept of *relationship* (Adam/God in the Garden). It may be different from that.

-ELliot

[elliotfc]

Originally posted by kimiko
How does the personal relationship of a sinner emoting/thanking/asking God differ from an 'absolved' person doing the identical? I would out of hand reject the idea that one has to be absolved to truly pray since Christianity requires one to seek forgiveness through prayer to be absolved.

Those are good questions...that I can't answer to even my own satisfaction.

Absolution, as I as a Catholic understand it, is a sign of God's grace. It is part of the sacrament of Reconciliation. It is not salvation. Absolution is akin to being baptized. It is a gift. In addition, a human *continually* needs absolution, so you never really stop being a sinner.

Regarding to your point about how prayer *differs*...I think that all prayer differs. Forget, for a moment, whether or not the person is a sinner or is absolved. Every human being has a unique relationship with God (even if it is a *disconnected* one, like Christians believe it to be). So God will listen to each of us in a unique way. It is dependent on circumstances. So...back to your specific point...yes, it does differ. How exactly does it differ? It differs because it must differ...because every human differs from every other human. As for the how...that's up to God and to the specific person I guess. I really can't speak for any personal relationship with God besides my own.

I think I'm familiar with the belief that a sinner shouldn't, or can't pray...it's usually a personally practiced belief however. Many times a sinner will publicly or privately decide that they can't pray, or that they are so bad that God won't hear them. Hopefully a stand-up Christian will step in and inform the person that God will hear their prayers louder than any others! Like the lost sheep, God has a special interest in those who have strayed from the flock. In this case however, pride is a tremendous obstacle. Those who thinks they are too bad to pray are actually too proud to pray.

-Elliot

[kimiko]

Originally posted by elliotfc
I don't think that we can have a relationship with God as Adam had a relationship with God in the Garden. That is how I think of my current separation. And I have mixed feelings about how literally I should take Genesis...but that is my working model of separation, or relationship, with God.

No! Not to the Christian. If prayer alone could bridge the gap, that would make Jesus unnecessary.

Because Jesus is a human, like us, a human that will physically die. We have shaken our fists at God for death and suffering for thousands of years, and Jesus is Gods' response. It is a *human* response, and as such, we can have a *human* relationship with God. This is why Jesus is sometimes called the divine condescencion.
So you have a different kind of relationship in heaven and earth, I can follow that. So would the relationship in heaven be identical to the relationship in the garden? God wasn't in the presence of Adam and Eve constantly. And it isn't simply a conversation like on earth. God 'shows up' occasionally to check in. Is that the only difference?

The problem is that everyone still suffers and dies. But everyone is supposed to still exist in an afterlife, just a particularly painful one for the nonbeliever. So Jesus wouldn't be preserving anyone's life, only giving them admittance to a comfy place.

[elliotfc]

Originally posted by kimiko
But that is exactly what materialists *do* perceive! Materialists/skeptics/atheists/agnostics know they have no one to rely on but themselves and each other to make things better, so they do.

That's interesting...yet surely you'd rely on someone's hand to help you up if you fall. Or, you'd rely on medical treatment to cure an ailment.

Frankly...I'm not sure if you practice what you say, no offense. What is life if not relying on other people CONSTANTLY? Just think about everything that happens around you.


It is the religious who waste effort with prayers that don't work, money on religious groups who waste it proselytizing and supporting structures and clergy when all of that money could go to a useful purpose.

You've decided that they don't work, so of course you view prayer so negatively. Since I don't share your absolute belief in this matter, your particular opinions associated with your personal belief really don't register with me.

*Useful* is a subjective term based on our own particular moralities and beliefs. Since our belief system and morality differ, I understand your position here, but I reject your opinions.


It is the unbelievers who are efficient about helping their fellow man, rather than diverting their energy through a religious system.

The Red Cross has been working quite efficiently for a long time. I'm glad the religious spearheaded the abolition movement in the US. Suffrage too. I'm not sure how to really judge your statement as you deliver it non-scientifically...you'll have to back up your decree with institutions or examples so I can compare and contrast.

In addition, the religious people consider helping people to include spirituality, and obviously the unbelievers reject religion and belief in God, so yours is a position that obviously no Christian could appreciate.


Everything that religion does that physically benefits humanity is accomplished without God.

We believers think that we exist because of God. Believing that, your statement makes about as much sense as if I was to say that anything humans could do for each other could be possible without the sun.

In other words, I can boil down what you say to "I don't believe in God", while I can say "I believe in God". Everything else follows from that. As a rejoinder to every one of your statements in this particular point, I can "Of course, this follows because you do not believe in God".

Agnostics and atheists give money and volunteer time to charities to improve the world, so you don't need religious organizations to do that.

Yet they exist, don't they? Would you do away with them?

This is like me saying believers give money and volunteer time to charities to improve the world, so we should do away with agnositc/atheist organizations who do the same. What's the point? It is good for everyone to do what they can to benefit their fellow man, regardless of their belief system.

I'm not the kind of person who says that agnostics/atheists have no concern in helping their fellow man. I also recognize that a cursory view of reality shows that churches do a hell of a job in organizing relief aid. You could tip the cap for that, right? Just like I'd tip the cap if the American Humanist Society raises a million dollars from its membership to benefit tsunami victims. We can have problems with our belief systems, yet we're all still humans and we all still have morals and we all do what we can, in our own ways, to help the world. Let's have more faith in each other if possible!


People engage in socializing outside of churches. The most efficient religious charity can be run equally efficiently without being religious.

Yeah, and the most efficient non-religious charity can be run equally efficient without being non-religious. I'm not sure what your point is. I, myself, will never accuse a non-believer of lacking the ability to be generous or charitable or interested in the plights of humanity. All I will say is that a religious person can help other people in ways that a non-religious person could not. Of course I would not be talking financially or materialistically in that case.


The time wasted in religious schools on religion classes could be devoted to more constructive subjects, like languages, math and science.

Constructive is based on subjective morality. I understand your opinion, I really do, but it has no objective worth. All you are saying is "Religion is a waste of time".

But let's be practical now. This is where the "So what?" question kicks in. So I'll ask it. So what? So religious schools, in your opinion, are a waste of your time, or, would be a waste of yours or your childrens' time. So what? How about TV? Nintendo? Professional wrestling? Crossword puzzles? You've indicated an aesthetic notion. Is it your desire to proselytize it? Legislate it? Or just say things to get things off your chest?

For example, maybe you could swing by a Catholic school, at a parent/teacher meeting, and express your views. Or you could write an op-ed. Or you can try to organize a telephone campaign to call senators and try to get legislation passed to ban, or restrict, religious education to minors. These are all practical things you can do (you are the one talking about being constructive, right?).

Short of that, all I'm getting is that you don't believe in God, and that you don't like religion. Message received loud and clear.

Religion doesn't give a way to help people in environmental disasters, science and human beings do.

Sure, if you ignore the empirical data, you're absolutely right. Or maybe you think you understand the concept of "help" better than the people in question. Here's a link:
http://www.wwrn.org/parse.php?idd=9864&c=85

Can I guess your response? "Oh, but that really isn't help." Tell that to the victims who do think it is help.

-Elliot

[kimiko]

Originally posted by elliotfc
Absolution, as I as a Catholic understand it, is a sign of God's grace. It is part of the sacrament of Reconciliation. It is not salvation. Absolution is akin to being baptized. It is a gift. In addition, a human *continually* needs absolution, so you never really stop being a sinner.
As I always understood it, one had to be saved already to be absolved, except at one's first communion when it happened simultaneously. I don't think a person needs absolution continually, I think it is cyclical. Absolved, sinner, absolved, sinner, etc. You wouldn't need absolution again until you had actually committed a sin.

But the idea of God's grace is most interesting. Since christianity separates faith and works ( I think I've argued here before how I would disagree) faith cannot be a deliberate act. Some believe faith itself is a gift of God's grace. In fact it would have to be unless it is admitted to be an act. The problem with it being an act of course it that it isn't different from a ritual and is something you've earned, then. You would simply have to perform the act, whatever mental tricks to convince yourself, and then you've earned your way into heaven. Nips at Jesus' heels somewhat. But if it is a gift from God, then God made people into the believers and unbelievers they are, so he couldn't exactly punish them for that. And if he did, then he wouldn't be the benevolent God he is portrayed to be.

I much prefer Shin Buddhism, and it shares quite a bit with christianity. Simply, Buddha made a promise that anyone who asked him sincerely he would help to make their way to heaven. That way, you only have to want to be 'saved', rather than having to believe or earn your way. It seems far more forgiving. And since Rennyo beleived society was so corrupt at the time, it was expected that it would be too difficult for a person to attain enlightenment themselves within their lifetime, making help necessary.

[kimiko]

Originally posted by elliotfc
That's interesting...yet surely you'd rely on someone's hand to help you up if you fall. Or, you'd rely on medical treatment to cure an ailment.

Frankly...I'm not sure if you practice what you say, no offense. What is life if not relying on other people CONSTANTLY? Just think about everything that happens around you.

You've decided that they don't work, so of course you view prayer so negatively. Since I don't share your absolute belief in this matter, your particular opinions associated with your personal belief really don't register with me.

*Useful* is a subjective term based on our own particular moralities and beliefs. Since our belief system and morality differ, I understand your position here, but I reject your opinions.

The Red Cross has been working quite efficiently for a long time. I'm glad the religious spearheaded the abolition movement in the US. Suffrage too. I'm not sure how to really judge your statement as you deliver it non-scientifically...you'll have to back up your decree with institutions or examples so I can compare and contrast.

In addition, the religious people consider helping people to include spirituality, and obviously the unbelievers reject religion and belief in God, so yours is a position that obviously no Christian could appreciate.

This is like me saying believers give money and volunteer time to charities to improve the world, so we should do away with agnositc/atheist organizations who do the same. What's the point? It is good for everyone to do what they can to benefit their fellow man, regardless of their belief system.

I'm not the kind of person who says that agnostics/atheists have no concern in helping their fellow man. I also recognize that a cursory view of reality shows that churches do a hell of a job in organizing relief aid. You could tip the cap for that, right? Just like I'd tip the cap if the American Humanist Society raises a million dollars from its membership to benefit tsunami victims. We can have problems with our belief systems, yet we're all still humans and we all still have morals and we all do what we can, in our own ways, to help the world. Let's have more faith in each other if possible!

Yeah, and the most efficient non-religious charity can be run equally efficient without being non-religious. I'm not sure what your point is. I, myself, will never accuse a non-believer of lacking the ability to be generous or charitable or interested in the plights of humanity. All I will say is that a religious person can help other people in ways that a non-religious person could not. Of course I would not be talking financially or materialistically in that case.

Constructive is based on subjective morality. I understand your opinion, I really do, but it has no objective worth. All you are saying is "Religion is a waste of time".

But let's be practical now. This is where the "So what?" question kicks in. So I'll ask it. So what? So religious schools, in your opinion, are a waste of your time, or, would be a waste of yours or your childrens' time. So what? How about TV? Nintendo? Professional wrestling? Crossword puzzles? You've indicated an aesthetic notion. Is it your desire to proselytize it? Legislate it? Or just say things to get things off your chest?

For example, maybe you could swing by a Catholic school, at a parent/teacher meeting, and express your views. Or you could write an op-ed. Or you can try to organize a telephone campaign to call senators and try to get legislation passed to ban, or restrict, religious education to minors. These are all practical things you can do (you are the one talking about being constructive, right?).

Short of that, all I'm getting is that you don't believe in God, and that you don't like religion. Message received loud and clear.
I said themselves "and each other", meaning people and people. Of course no one makes their way entirely on their own in the world, I would never argue that.

I think prayer doesn't work, because they aren't all answered, unless some are answered no, but then it isn't spelled out that way except that the prayee doesn't recieve what he asked for. Basically, there is no way to know if any particular prayer did anything.

I would define useful as physically effective, but certainly I can see how believers might reject that.

It wasn't meant to be scientific, it is only a generalization. The shortest distance between two points is a straight line, so giving directly to an organization that provides help is more direct than giving first to a church that takes a cut, then passing some of that on through charity. Naturally, not every religious charity operates through a church, so they would be equally as efficient as secular charities.

You aren't seeing what I'm saying. If anyone is fed or clothed or comforted in the world, it is themselves or others doing it. God doesn't make appearances.

It doesn't matter if someone feels motivated by God, it is they who are getting up or donating or whatever. In that respect, I don't care if it is a direct religious aid organization, because it is only people doing the helping. God doesn't fill soup bowls at shelters. I don't feel any need to 'tip the cap' at religious charities, I tip my cap at the people in them.

"All I will say is that a religious person can help other people in ways that a non-religious person could not."

No they don't. There are atheists who are as comfortable in the world as christians, so whatever peace the concept of salvation gives can be found other ways.

"Constructive is based on subjective morality. I understand your opinion, I really do, but it has no objective worth. All you are saying is "Religion is a waste of time"."

You're right, it is subjective; I only think things are constructive if they have some basis in the real world. Religion is lovely as a subject for its mythology and psychology and cultural values, but when it is treated as true without the standards that are applied to everything else to determine accuracy, it is a waste.

TV, Nintendo and the rest are leisure activities and recognized as such. Religion is not recognized as a social club, leisure activity, hobby, etc. It is portrayed as something true. Well, once you start with that, you have to show how it is true, and religion fails because it always comes down to a leap of faith.

So what? Well, you asked for an opinion, so I gave it. I am doing something constructive right here by arguing about it, because I find it interesting and is a bit of a hobby of mine. I don't care if other people are irrational, I don't want to change them, but I'll give my opinion if I feel like it and I think it's appropriate. I find value in philosophy, logic, and rationality because they have been shown to be constructive. If interaction with me brings someone else to look at them again, that's great, but I'm not on a great campaign.

(edited to shorten quote)

[kimiko]

Originally posted by elliotfc
Sure, if you ignore the empirical data, you're absolutely right. Or maybe you think you understand the concept of "help" better than the people in question. Here's a link:
http://www.wwrn.org/parse.php?idd=9864&c=85

Can I guess your response? "Oh, but that really isn't help." Tell that to the victims who do think it is help.

-Elliot
What empirical data are in that link? And my response isn't the one you expect. From the article: They have come to the house of god, they will be well looked after," he said."

And yes, they will be looked after, by people. It is the human beings who matter in humanism.

A beautiful sentiment often abused by the faithful: "Religion is the sigh of the oppressed creature, the heart of a heartless world and the soul of soulless conditions. It is the opium of the people."- Karl Marx

I am always amazed by the human mind, and what they are able to create. All the good and horror in religion is a product of people, and to them I give the credit.

[Kitty Chan]

Ossai

Calling the bible a mishmash is your understanding. To the millions who have read it they consider it instructions. Even other religions consider it as a source. There is many who read it and understand it just fine.

But I think theres a difference between understanding and accepting. You said you have read it so I would say if you dont accept whats written thats your choice but I cannot believe you are that incapable of understanding words on a page.

I was watching the NGC on the people who think its a hoax that we landed on the moon. They have some good points. The producers did the show and looked at the skeptics view. But the skeptics never looked at Nasas view. So they never had the whole picture so how could the skeptics decide.

And they missed interviewing the science station in texas where they actually point a laser at the moon and its reflected back from parts the astronauts left there. If nothing else thats the easiest answer but the skeptics wont interview him in 30 years.

[elliotfc]

Originally posted by kimiko
Religion doesn't give a way to help people in environmental disasters, science and human beings do.

I've been thinking about this one a bit more...

It's just so wrong. EVERY TIME you have a catastrophe you will find people turn to religion for help. And the thing is...they GET help, whether you want to believe that or not.

In fact, I propose that if religion did not, in fact, help people after catastrophes, it would be analogous to a deleterious trait! Religion would have a hard time competing and surviving through the generations if it did not serve as a benefit to the survivors of severe environmental stresses.


People don't need religion or a God to not lie/cheat/steal.

Agreed.

You don't have to be religious to not waste your time, and I would argue that religion, if untrue, is little other than a gigantic waste of time.

Not necessarily. How many movies do we watch that our untrue? How man fiction books do we read that are untrue? I disagree with your proposition. I mean, you may practice your life where you completely avoid all fiction, but to me that is very unfortunate. Engaging with things that aren't true is not *necessarily* a waste of time. Of course it could be a waste of time, just as engaging with things that are *true* could also be a waste of time.


It can be a great exercise in critical thinking if it is looked at objectively, and is interesting in the way literature is if the books are read as entertainment.

I critically think through the Bible, and I also read it as entertainment. I read the Bible on several different levels.


In fact, any time you spend reading the Bible or going to church could be better spent improving the world.

Not if going to church or reading the Bible makes you a better person! And please don't supply the rejoinder "but you don't have to go to church or read the Bible to become a better person". Duh, we all know that. That's like saying you don't have to go to college in order to improve the world. Does that mean going to college is a waste of time?

What you are doing is *proselytizing*. In your experience, going to church or reading the Bible does not make you a better person, a person better able to improve the world. Why is your anecdotal testimony proof that *all people* would be better served by not going to church or reading the Bible?

I accept your testimony as evidence that alternatives to religious edification exist. Of course I've never challenged that.


Plenty of nonbelievers love others and help them. Just because you ascribe these things to God doesn't mean they only happen in the context of religions.

I really don't think I've ever claimed the contrary.


I think I just answered part of that above. If theology is false, it is an enormous waste of time, energy, money, and lives (people who go into the clergy/volunteers who spend time on purely religious, not charitable, activities).

By your morality. By my morality, engaging with things that are false are *not necessarily* a waste of time. I am invovled with 4 different creative writing groups. I continually engage with written words that are contrived and false. I understand that by your perspective, I am wasting my time. I disagree. And you are also missing, or disposing of, the *associative* benefits. You have to disassociate charitable from religious, don't you? But what if the religion CALLS AND DEMANDS charity? It's a divorce you can identify in your head, but in practice it doesn't work out like your ideal. Like in my creative writing groups. There are so many associative benefits (meeting some OUTSTANDING people, being challenged and challenging others, learning some pedagogical and organizational skills, etc) that I can't divorce from the pure *fiction* of the activity because I am PRACTICING the exercise. Unlike you, who are outside of it, and can dissect and comparmentalize the *good* things (charity) from the *bad* things (theology). To reiterate, completely rejecting the fact that the theology calls for charity!


A parasite on humanity.

Six and a half billion people. Parasite...such a negative word. An idea being a parasite? Be fruitful and multiply? Surely you can see *some* symbiosis...


Do you mean being religious gives you a negative opinion in the eyes of others?

Ummm...well, if I take people seriously, people have in fact told me that they have negative opinions of religious people. Should I not take those people seriously?


Well, it can work the opposite direction when the religious hold negative views of nonbelievers. That would be a waste if their theology is wrong.

*EVERYTHING* would be a waste if my theology is wrong. :)


It's basically Pascal's wager. If you gamble that god exists and are right, great!, he got that part. If you're wrong, then you haven't lost nothing, you've lost everything!

Except I'm not interested in gambling. And I'm not fixating on the reward. I'm saying, basically, the obvious. If I'm wrong, so what? *I AM NOT SAYING* that if I'm wrong, I've lost everything. Those are your words. I am content to *limit* what I say, to mean what I say, and not have what I say extrapolated. If I truly believed that if I'm wrong, I've lost everything, then I would say that. BUT I DON'T BELIEVE THAT. I also don't believe that if you're wrong, you've lost everything!!!

That's why I have no use for Pascal's wager. I don't believe that the people who are *wrong* (by rejecting God) will lose everything. I believe that they will have the opportunity to accept God after they die.

I just believe what I say. I say that if I'm wrong, so what? That's it. End of.


The only life you'd ever have- wasted on religion.

But I certainly don't feel that way now. What, do you think I'll feel that way after I'm dead? What you say has no meaning to me. The worth of my life is not for you to judge. I certainly have more self-esteem than that. If it makes you feel better to describe the lives of religious as being wasteful, that's on you. Whatever gives meaning to your worldview, I guess you have to go for it.

I don't believe that anyone wastes their lives solely based on their worldview. I'm sorry that you feel differently.

Throwing away money and energy; wasting feelings of guilt and shame over one's inherent sinfullness and disobeyed religious directives; countless opportunities and experiencies lost through prohibition, time being occupied by religion instead; fear of hellfire and damnation.

More fear. Get in line, you're only about the fifitieth randiforum-skeptic to invoke the fear word. Funny, I hear nothing about fear in my church. The only people I hear talk about fear, when it comes to religion, are in this forum. Nice one. Keep talking and thinking about fear. I'm not interested, and neither are the people with whom I practice my religion. If you want to believe differently, you are free to create your own reality. We all have to find validation as best we can.

Anyways I reject the fear of Hell. If you want to reject God, Hell is PERFECT. It is wish fulfillment. Why should we paste the fear label on what people want? It misses the point completely. Why the bad attitude about hell? The people who want hell, get hell. Fear is irrelevant. It's like that stupid Green Day song. You accuse the *other* of being motivated by fear, while spinning your own sob stories about how horrible the world is and how they're about to start breaking down your doors. It's so flimsy...my heart goes out for them more than my intellect. If I intellectually try to engage such thinking I feel embarrassed.

Do an experiment. In the next month, count the number of times you use the "fear" word, or think about fear, or consider how others are motivated by fear. Talk about wastes of time...........

-Elliot

[elliotfc]

Originally posted by hodgy
Elliott,

Your experiment doesn’t prove the existence of free will, it just shows that I am capable of making decisions.

That's how I view free will! The ability of a human being to make decisions.


There are programs on my computer that are able to make decisions.

Yes, but a computer program is not a human being, so this is irrelevant to my definition.

A flipped coin does not exercise free will in determining which side to come down on.

Ditto!



I think this is a hard question for you to answer...but I have to ask it. Hard because you reject free will. Anyhow...how do you define free will (the concept you reject)?



As I am referring to the Christian God in this argument, I am using the Christian notion of evil in its general common-sense meaning.

So you accept the Christian notion of evil then? What Christian notions do you accept, and what Christian notions do you reject?

I mean, if you are going to invoke a particular notion of Christianity (evil), why do you accept that notion? Or, are you only accepting the notion theoretically?

If so, you've avoided my question. You either believe in evil, or you don't believe in evil. If you don't believe in evil, I don't care about your opinions about what is evil and what isn't evil, to be perfectly honest.

Define evil then. If you don't believe in evil, why are you using a definition of evil that you don't believe in?


If God knowingly created a universe in which evil can exist (when he had the option to create one without evil since he is omnipotent) then he is evil.

Evil *can* exist, because God created imperfect creatures. I believe that God obviously believes that it is justifiable to create imperfect creatures knowing that evil would thus be a *possibility* (you yourself used the word *can*). I say this because I exist. If I didn't exist, and if no imperfect creatures exist, then neither would your question.

Your question is contingent upon the *possibility* (remember, you used the word *can*) of evil. I do believe that you have the possibility of doing evil things. Does that make you evil then? For example, if you (are you male/female?) have a child, and the child has the capacity to perform evil, does that make you evil?

I reject your idea because when I follow it through, it would make all creators evil. It would make everybody evil. It doesn't make any sense to me. How can everything be evil?



Result: I won't use my defintion of evil - draw your own conclusion about me... [/B]

I don't know enough about you. For now I am merely curious about you. :)

You seem like a thinking sort of a chap/chappette. Am I right? That's about the only conclusion about you that I am comfortable making at this time.

-Elliot

[elliotfc]

Originally posted by Kitty Chan
Well Elliot I have been of late trying to determine what exactly we are to be doing and I truly believe that when we say to Christ what are you doing about this? He responds I am doing something thats why I spoke to you and laid it on your heart.

Amen Kitty! We are all member of the Body of Christ! We are commanded to be Christ to one another! When we make demands of Christ and shake our fists at Christ and ask for Christ to transfrom the world we do all of that to ourselves and to the universal Church.

Jesus does not make it easy on us. Saint Theresa of Avila identified the reason quite clearly. We are empowered, we are the foot soldiers, we are the ones who must bear the crosses of the day. It should follow that for these reasons many will reject Christ. Human history will have ended when Jesus no longer expects and challenges the persons whom he has empowered. And the same people who demand God to enter the stage, how will they behold God, how will they appear to God, at that moment? As a friend, or as an antagonist who did not answer the command to be as Christ to the stranger and to the enemy?

-Elliot

[Kitty Chan]

Originally posted by elliotfc
Amen Kitty! We are all member of the Body of Christ! We are commanded to be Christ to one another! When we make demands of Christ and shake our fists at Christ and ask for Christ to transfrom the world we do all of that to ourselves and to the universal Church.

Jesus does not make it easy on us. Saint Theresa of Avila identified the reason quite clearly. We are empowered, we are the foot soldiers, we are the ones who must bear the crosses of the day. It should follow that for these reasons many will reject Christ. Human history will have ended when Jesus no longer expects and challenges the persons whom he has empowered. And the same people who demand God to enter the stage, how will they behold God, how will they appear to God, at that moment? As a friend, or as an antagonist who did not answer the command to be as Christ to the stranger and to the enemy?

-Elliot

So simple, I like what she said, thanks its a blessing. :)

[kimiko]

It's just so wrong. EVERY TIME you have a catastrophe you will find people turn to religion for help. And the thing is...they GET help, whether you want to believe that or not.
They get help from other human beings.
[In fact, I propose that if religion did not, in fact, help people after catastrophes, it would be analogous to a deleterious trait!
That isn't true. A trait doesn't have to be beneficial to survive, it simply has to not interfere with procreation and survival. So just because something isn't purposeful, doesn't make it deleterious. Plus, the survival of religion isn't based on catastrophes. Catastrophes are infrequent, and as long as religion replicates itself in human behavior, it will remain.
Engaging with things that aren't true is not *necessarily* a waste of time.
Fiction in the form of books and movies and other things is recognized as fiction. You don't go to the movies and think it is real. They aren't newsreels. Religion is different because it is mistaken for something true.
Not if going to church or reading the Bible makes you a better person!
I would doubt that it does. It would be the burden of proof for the believers to prove that what they suggest actually works.
What you are doing is *proselytizing*. In your experience, going to church or reading the Bible does not make you a better person, a person better able to improve the world. Why is your anecdotal testimony proof that *all people* would be better served by not going to church or reading the Bible?
I question the assertions of the religious. This proselytizing you disdain was in direct response to your suggestion that an unbeliever make a case for you to take apart. I don't go around saying this in my daily life, and I don't hold it as some kind of standard.
By your morality. By my morality, engaging with things that are false are *not necessarily* a waste of time.
My objection to religion is not for the fiction, it is for the misrepresentation as truth.
Like in my creative writing groups.
You know it is a creative writing group and not a commandment of God.
Parasite...such a negative word. An idea being a parasite?
No, the institutions and what is done in their names, not the idea.
Ummm...well, if I take people seriously, people have in fact told me that they have negative opinions of religious people. Should I not take those people seriously?
Do you not take the religious seriously when they suggest others are under the influence of the devil or are bad people because they don't accept Christ or whatever? That goes both ways.
*EVERYTHING* would be a waste if my theology is wrong.

*I AM NOT SAYING* that if I'm wrong, I've lost everything.

If I truly believed that if I'm wrong, I've lost everything, then I would say that. BUT I DON'T BELIEVE THAT.
Aren't these contradictions?

That's why I have no use for Pascal's wager. I don't believe that the people who are *wrong* (by rejecting God) will lose everything. I believe that they will have the opportunity to accept God after they die.
That's a nice idea, but does not follow the Church's teachings. Certainly, it would help do away with some of the negative consequences of Christian theology, but it isn't theologically justified. From the catechism: "1021 Death puts an end to human life as the time open to either accepting or rejecting the divine grace manifested in Christ.592
The worth of my life is not for you to judge.
I'm not judging you, I was just making a case, like you asked.
I don't believe that anyone wastes their lives solely based on their worldview.
I don't believe my post assigned the waste to the worldview, but that any waste would be in the choice of behaviors, the behaviors being necessitated by the religion. I also happen to think that people who get absorbed into things that are fiction and come to literally believe them are wasting their time in doing so. Like people who think they are werewolves, or Jedi knights, or vampires. I'm don't think religion is alone in this.
More fear. Get in line, you're only about the fifitieth randiforum-skeptic to invoke the fear word. Funny, I hear nothing about fear in my church. The only people I hear talk about fear, when it comes to religion, are in this forum. Nice one. Keep talking and thinking about fear. I'm not interested, and neither are the people with whom I practice my religion.
That's interesting; maybe the people in your church don't read the Bible. Fear is mentioned specifically in the Bible and believers are cautioned to have it. Also, the very concept of Hell is supposed to be fear provoking. "Therefore, knowing the fear of the Lord, we persuade men..." 2 Corinthians 5:11
"But I will warn you whom to fear: fear him who, after he has killed, has power to cast into hell; yes, I tell you, fear him!" (Luke 12:2-5)
Why the bad attitude about hell?
Um, is that a joke?
Fear is irrelevant. You accuse the *other* of being motivated by fear, while spinning your own sob stories about how horrible the world is and how they're about to start breaking down your doors.
I suggest you approach the Church with suggestions for editing the Bible then. And, I'd prefer you not project things on me.

What I think and the case I was trying to make at your request are not the same. I suppose it wasn't a very strong case, but I only did it for the sake of the conversation.

[elliotfc]

Originally posted by kimiko
Over 30% of the charitable giving in the US goes to religious organizations, but has anyone ever looked to see how much of this actually goes to helping others and how much goes to maintain buildings, provide salaries to employees/priests/preachers and support the social activities of the groups? I can't find any stats on that. So, I don't believe Christians are ahead of the pack, and won't until there is a good study showing that.

It would be a tough study, that's for sure.

People certainly do give a lot of money to charitable organizations. Surely we can agree on that point.


I'm not sure what you mean by this "Unbelievers do have organizations (I never mentioned they didnt) But its a fact that they are not out giving christians.".

What organizations, that exist, are specifically "unbeliever" organizations? Secular organizations do not take a position on religion. Let's take one example. The American Humanists. Do they fundraise? I don't mean to single them out, and for all I know they raise millions of dollars a year to give to charitable organizations. I'm just trying to think of an organization that has a stated anti-religion agenda, or mission statement.

Or the randi forums. Are we raising money for tsunami victims? I'll kick in, if we are. I may not share the beliefs of most of you, yet I am still a part of this community, and I believe in doing good, even if I'm not in lock-step when it comes to ideas and beliefs.



Some people who don't believe in God give, and only some Christians give. Some of the meanest people I've ever known were Christians, and some of the nicest were atheists. No blanket statement can cover either group. You'll find the whole spectrum of cruelty to kindness in both groups.

Well said kimiko.


I didn't say God's way was just guilt and shame, but those emotions can be a product of the teachings of organized religions. Whatever God's way would be is not the same as the man-made religions that claim divine purpose.

I'd say *not necessarily* the same. Of course a religion is distinct from God, but that doesn't mean either a)overlap/alignment is not possible or b)failure to achieve perfect alignment means an attempt should not be made.



There are plenty of atheists who are generous and charitable and they didn't need instructions to be that way.

Ummm...maybe they did, sort of. Like maybe they were told by a parent to be charitable when they were six or something. In any case, what's so bad about instructions? We need standards for behavior, and it is a good thing to instruct others. We pass good ideas along this way. I don't claim to be above instruction in anything. I think that's dangerous. That way of thinking would make each person a center or the universe.


They also don't expect to be rewarded for their generosity in some way.

You say that like that's a good thing. :)

When others do something well, I am delighted to reward them in any way that I can. If the do-gooder charitably declines, a thank you is also a reward.

I guess I don't confuse the expectation with the way things ought to be. We should recognize goodness. The idea that one shouldn't expect a *reward* for doing good is nice, but that is also a very proud belief. Is the person above receiving a reward? Why is the person so concerned about how another person might respond to their good act?

It's simple. Do good. When comes your way in response will come your way. Be gracious. Don't worry about perception. Don't expect rewards either, but, if they come, don't be too proud to accept them.

For the Christian, we believe in a God who appreciates good. Our God will reward good. Is that *why* we should do good? No. But why should we be so hung up about the fact that God would reward good?

For example...and I've never really seen a response to this one (I've certainly mentioned it at least twice)....

If your employer hands you a year end bonus for doing a hell of a job at work, would you decline it?

Why exactly is the concept of *reward* so anathema, or embarrassing, when it comes to religion, while it is celebrated in so many other arenas?

I am a teacher. I *reward* my students in many different ways. Do my students expect rewards? I neither know, nor care. That is besides the point. The recognition of *good* achievement is the most natural thing in the world. Isn't it?


I'm not saying all Christians do, but some certainly volunteer and donate not out of love but for other reasons. It isn't unusual to expect atheists to donate, not out of faith, but out of simple love for other human beings, realizing they could be in the same position, or perhaps some evolutionary instinct for survival of the species.

Ok it's fine that you can wax cynical about Christians. I can wax cynical about atheists. Maybe atheists donate for *other* reasons. So what?

And where do these *idyllic* standards that you seem to possess come from? Are they subjective opinions, or are you in alignment with a particular morality which trumpets your virtues that you espouse?



Basically, people are people, no matter what faith they do or don't have. Religious people aren't better than nonbelievers, and you don't need religion to be a decent person.

Agreed! Christians have said the same thing I don't kinow how many times. We Christians proclaim that every human being, regardless of faith, is a sinner. Decency is *not* the reason for the Incarnation. Christ didn't come to make the world a decent place. That is something that *WE* as human beings can do. We religious recognize the primary and exclusive benefits of our religion for those things that it proclaims that human beings can't do on their own.

This isn't to say that I would reject the notion that religion can help people become more *decent*, or, make the world a better place. In fact, I don't know how many atheists out there are better people BECAUSE of religion. They identify the hypocrisy of the religious, and it inspires them to proselytize in their own ways. In doing so they have built a standard for themselves to live out, and I have no doubt that most atheists do it quite well.

But think about it...if the non-believer can identify hypocrisy, or less than decent action in the believer, they must also recognize that the religions does in fact proclaim a standard that the believers are not living up to! Like Chesterton said, it isn't that Christianity has been tried and found wanting, but, Christianity has been found difficult, and not been tried. Anyone can identify the *good* in Christianity. The skeptics seem to be more capable in this regard than the believers!

-Elliot

[elliotfc]

Originally posted by kimiko
So you have a different kind of relationship in heaven and earth, I can follow that.

Yes...

I'm treading on uncertain ground here, because my personal beliefs on this are not developed to my satisfaction. I believe, strongly, that humans are MEANT to be human, and that God will recreate the Earth as it was supposed to be.

I don't think of heaven as a place. I think of it as a *relationship* that was meant to be. Earth, as we know it now, is that relationship corrupted. Hell would be the complete *absence* or relationship.

This is how I understand much of my theology, through the lens of relationship. That is the essential defining characteristic between heaven/earth/hell. To me at least. Kitty Chan may have different notions about all of this. I don't think that my ideas are *unChristian* in the least, but they probably don't mesh with many fundamentalist perspectives.

So an Earth that is put right (actually, the universe I guess) would be heaven to me. It's not a place that we go that we are not meant for. Again, we were created human. We were created to live on this planet. So Earth could very well be heaven, eventually. But then again, maybe not. I'm not sure.


So would the relationship in heaven be identical to the relationship in the garden? God wasn't in the presence of Adam and Eve constantly. And it isn't simply a conversation like on earth. God 'shows up' occasionally to check in. Is that the only difference?

I don't know.

Part of the beauty of Genesis, though, is how God is simply *there*. I never saw it as *shows up*. Or, it doesn't read that way to me. It's a nice story. God makes a garden for a man. He lets the man name the animals, it helps him feel like it's home, or, like it is really his place, and not God's place. So there's definitely separation there...yet God and Adam have conversations. If I read Genesis literally, I wouldn't limit Adam and God's conversations to the ones portrayed in the Bible.

But certainly it isn't *simply* a conversation, because we can not converse with God, now, like Adam did. So it is a conversation, but it's a conversation that we can not have.



The problem is that everyone still suffers and dies.

Yes! My recognition of the *primacy* of these problems is what made me reconsider Christianity years ago.


But everyone is supposed to still exist in an afterlife, just a particularly painful one for the nonbeliever.

Ummm...yeah. Maybe. I think hell will be different for each individual who rejects God. For all I know...maybe a heroin addict will reject God, and his/her hell will be an infinite supply of heroin and no fear of OD. Is that painful or pleasurable? I think that hell will be total isolation. Nobody else but you. To Sartre that would be heaven (hell is other people). I think it depends on the perspective of the person in hell.

So kimiko, from the CHRISTIAN'S perspective (the people who don't want to go to hell), it will be painful. And they will create the most painful analogies and pictures to get this point across. But I don't know how the person who is THERE will necessarily perceive hell. I'm not going to get my personal wishful thinking define their reality. I really don't know what their reality will be. Painful? Sure, probably. And maybe not. It doesn't matter to me. Hell is not for me.


So Jesus wouldn't be preserving anyone's life, only giving them admittance to a comfy place.

Depends how you define comfy. Yes, I reckon it would be comfy for the person who wants to be there.

But lets take another kind of person. A person who is confronted by God, and is outraged. God gives the explanations, and it isn't enough. Would that person want entrance to the "comfy" place where everyone agrees that God is the best thing since, well, whatever?

As a thought experiment, imagine yourself having to spend eternity with people like Kitty Chan (who's an absolute sweetheart in my book). Would that be comfy for you?

I'm trying to keep an open mind about all of this.

-Elliot

[Skeptical Greg]

Originally posted by elliotfc
Like Chesterton said, it isn't that Christianity has been tried and found wanting, but, Christianity has been found difficult, and not been tried.

-Elliot And this is supposed to be profound; that most Christians don't behave as they should; and that this does not speak ill of Christianity?


Sounds like another way of saying :
" Christianity would not look so bad if it weren't for Christians.. "

[elliotfc]

Originally posted by kimiko
As I always understood it, one had to be saved already to be absolved, except at one's first communion when it happened simultaneously.

That isn't the Catholic perspective. I don't know if other Christian denominations use the word "absolution" like Catholics do.

When you say "happened simultaneously", do you mean that salvation and absolution both happen at First Communion? No Catholic believes that, as far as I know. I've been invovled in First Communion prep in a few different churches. That's an idea I've never heard before.

Absolution is the result of the sacrament of reconciliation. It is a sign of God's grace. It is not equivalent to salvation.


I don't think a person needs absolution continually, I think it is cyclical. Absolved, sinner, absolved, sinner, etc. You wouldn't need absolution again until you had actually committed a sin.

That's a good point. I think the idea is that no Catholic will ever be absolved of *all* sin, because absolution requires recognition, appreciation, repentance, reconciliation with the harmed part, all sorts of things, and no Catholic will *ever* profess every sin that he/she has ever committed.

Yours may also be a moot point, because Catholics believe that people who die with un-absolved sins may still be saved. And like I said, that would be *everybody*.


But the idea of God's grace is most interesting. Since christianity separates faith and works ( I think I've argued here before how I would disagree) faith cannot be a deliberate act.

I disagree. I am certain that personally, I have deliberately embraced faith. I truly went from saying I can't have faith, to saying that I can have faith. If that isn't/wasn't deliberate, than nothing I have ever mentally considered/decided has ever been deliberate.

-Elliot

[elliotfc]

Originally posted by Diogenes
And this is supposed to be profound; that most Christians don't behave as they should; and that this does not speak ill of Christianity?


Sounds like another way of saying :
" Christianity would not look so bad if it weren't for Christians.. "

Profound? I have no idea. Is it true? Or isn't it true?

That's the problem with ideals, isn't it? Especially since we rejoice and triumph in the hypocrisy of others.

Follow me here...

-Christianity is an ideal.
-Believers and non-believers alike recognize that Christianity is an ideal.
-Most Christians most of the time do not live up to the ideal.
-Non-believers RECOGNIZE this fact because they recognize the ideal of Christianity, and compare the ill behavior of the Christian to the recognized ideal.
-The ill behavior of Christians is used as ammunition by many non-believers.
-Many non-believers use the ill behavior of Christianity in an expanded form to criticize Christianity.

So there you go.

As for your final comment, if there were no Christians, Christianity would be irrelevant, wouldn't it?

-Elliot

[elliotfc]

Originally posted by kimiko
What empirical data are in that link? And my response isn't the one you expect. From the article: They have come to the house of god, they will be well looked after," he said."

And yes, they will be looked after, by people. It is the human beings who matter in humanism.

Are you saying that the houses of god are not affiliated with religion?

I mean...I guess religion isn't some *guy* who helps you. Like, if a priest gives you bus fare, you wouldn't say "Thanks Roman Catholicism!"

Ummm...I guess I don't get your point. I mean, of course an ideal doesn't *help* a person in the way that you think it does. People help people. Exactly.

So, do you define *help* as what a person does for another person? Fair enough. Then all ideals, every single one, do not help people. Right?

Right?

If not, provide an ideal that does help people (so I can shoot it down). :)

Kimiko I really enjoy your posts. It is a veritable certainty that I won't be checking in again until next week, so, enjoy your week.

-Elliot

[Skeptical Greg]

Originally posted by elliotfc
Profound? I have no idea. Is it true? Or isn't it true?

That's the problem with ideals, isn't it? Especially since we rejoice and triumph in the hypocrisy of others.

There was a time when that was true for me. Now it just saddens me..

Follow me here...

-Christianity is an ideal.
-Believers and non-believers alike recognize that Christianity is an ideal.
-Most Christians most of the time do not live up to the ideal.
-Non-believers RECOGNIZE this fact because they recognize the ideal of Christianity, and compare the ill behavior of the Christian to the recognized ideal.
-The ill behavior of Christians is used as ammunition by many non-believers.
-Many non-believers use the ill behavior of Christianity in an expanded form to criticize Christianity.

So there you go.

As for your final comment, if there were no Christians, Christianity would be irrelevant, wouldn't it?

-Elliot But if Chesterton is saying the problem is not with Christianity, but with the Christians? Doesn't that sort of make Christianity irrelevant?
If there is nothing distinguishable about a group of people who gather under a banner, of what relevance is their banner?

[Ossai]

Elliotfc
If I answer your question form the perspective of a Christian who does not see the essential point of Christianity in John 3:16 (I suppose there are some of them out there), I'd say that the mere existence of us and every thing is how God shows that he loves people. That bit of torture is the only example of god’s supposed love you can find in the entire bible? Rather disappointing.

God takes a personal interest according to Christianity and you can talk and pray directly, not through intercession/rituals/whatever. Well, do you have to be reconciled with God to pray?
No, God will listen to any prayer. Heck God listens to everything I suppose. Anyone can pray.
Does not prayer alone bridge the gap?
No! Not to the Christian. If prayer alone could bridge the gap, that would make Jesus unnecessary. Doesn’t your first answer invalidate your second answer?
People can pray and god listens.
Jesus is necessary as an intermediary between people and god.

That's why I have no use for Pascal's wager. I don't believe that the people who are *wrong* (by rejecting God) will lose everything. I believe that they will have the opportunity to accept God after they die. Then why bother worshiping at all in this life? You’ve just given yourself a get out of hell free card (http://www.goohf.com/).

Do an experiment. In the next month, count the number of times you use the "fear" word, or think about fear, or consider how others are motivated by fear. Talk about wastes of time........... I noticed in your response that you only looked at one of kimiko ‘s points. What about the others?
Throwing away money and energy; wasting feelings of guilt and shame over one's inherent sinfullness and disobeyed religious directives; countless opportunities and experiencies lost through prohibition, time being occupied by religion instead;…

I'm treading on uncertain ground here, because my personal beliefs on this are not developed to my satisfaction. I believe, strongly, that humans are MEANT to be human, and that God will recreate the Earth as it was supposed to be. God is evil. If humans can be created or recreated as perfect (ie not sinners) and the world can be created perfect (abundant food, no plagues, etc) why didn’t’ god do so in the first place?
Or to look at it another way, why create just one ‘perfect’ garden and use it for entrapment (fruit, Adam & Eve) and create the rest of the world the way it is. Doesn’t that suggest that god knew Adam & Eve would disobey and he already had the rest of the world waiting.

Ummm...yeah. Maybe. I think hell will be different for each individual who rejects God. Nice notion, but hell is rather clearly defined in the bible, burning and eternal suffering.


Kitty Chan
Calling the bible a mishmash is your understanding. To the millions who have read it they consider it instructions. Even other religions consider it as a source. There is many who read it and understand it just fine.

But I think theres a difference between understanding and accepting. You said you have read it so I would say if you dont accept whats written thats your choice but I cannot believe you are that incapable of understanding words on a page.

You must be using your own definition of understanding and instructions.
Yes there are some basic instructions in it, for instance how to clean a house with a fungus growing in it, etc. But there are instructions that clearly contradict other parts of the bible. I’m more than capable of reading the written word and understanding what it’s conveying. However if you bother to take notes you can’t help but compare certain books and find gross disorganization.

And they missed interviewing the science station in texas where they actually point a laser at the moon and its reflected back from parts the astronauts left there. If nothing else thats the easiest answer but the skeptics wont interview him in 30 years. Nice, but what parts of the bible can you point at and say ‘this happened’? Can you only point at the loosely historical items, city and place names, rulers, etc? Can you point out any supernatural items and say that as well? What about the parts of the bible that can be pointed to and definitely said ‘this did not happen’ i.e. Genesis, walking dead, etc?


Ossai

[Lucifuge Rofocale]

Originally posted by Ossai
elliotfc

and

and
Damn, you’re inconsistent.
1. We are all guilty
2. We will all be judged
3. We won’t be punished, unless we want to be
4. Those being punished will be sent to hell
5. Hell isn’t punishment

I would definitely call it fractured.

But you previously stated that we aren’t punished unless we want to be so there was no need for a sacrificial plan.

No it’s not. You declare it such but have yet to back it up with anything more than ‘might makes right’.
If you’re entire value system is based on that then we should all be out trying to take advantage of those weaker than ourselves.

From your prior statements, the whole Christian angle is meaningless. All anyone has to do is wait till they are dead then decide they don’t want to be punished.

I believe Lucifuge Rofocale means that the act would nullify original sin and people wouldn’t be born guilty. That it would be possible to live a perfectly moral life. That all sin would basically be erased which would cancel the need for judgement.

Big rant and you managed to avoid the question entirely.

Let me restate it:
�Why don't you tell me whats that horrible sin jesus need to pay in the cross. To exist?�

Ossai


Those are the contradictions I wanted to be answered. Thanks Ossai for taking the time to respond to Elliot posts while I wasn't here (I had to marry those days).
Elliot would you answer Ossais's post above?

[Lucifuge Rofocale]

Originally posted by elliotfc
In sinning we display a hatred for God.


How can we hate the non-existant? and also ,any new born hates god? any 10 years old hates god? how can an atheist can hate god if he/she does not believe in it? by your theology, an atheist can't sin.......



...maybe. I don't know, but I admire your faith in that assertion. I don't know anyone who believes in invisible red dragons, so I have no idea if there is any substance behind this theoretical belief. In my opinion there is a variable amount of substance behind all belief, scientific or religious or sociological, but then again what is the objective standard of measuring substance? And what, besides faith, buffets that objective standard? Once you have faith in a particular standard is follows that you can challenge the substance of all other standards, doesn't it?


I'm still demanding objetive proof ;)





I don't think I'm challenging your grammar...or maybe I am. You are free to rephrase what you said, but if you mean what you said, what you say is patently absurd. The reality of my belief? What do you think I'm doing here? Are you saying that my belief is not real? If so, why are you having a dialogue with me?

Rather, I think you mean that my belief is not *true*, or something like that. Regarding facts to back up whether or not my belief is true, I've already said, in this thread, that everything around me backs of the truth of my beliefs. Do they *necessarily* back the truth of my belief? Of course not. But saying there are no facts no back up my belief is ridiculous, since I do have facts that back up my belief and so do I don't know how many of billions of other people. Everybody who believes in something has at least one fact to back up that belief. The problem, of course, is that the facts can lead to a variety of beliefs. You just think that your belief is superior to mine, which is fine, but believe me, I'm quite aware of the facts that surround us.



and I keep asking for objetive proofs ;)





If you characterize my saying that God allows tsunamis to happen
as rationalization that's fine. I can just as easily say that your inability to be with angry with god for allowing a tsunami to happen is also rationalization. What's the point exactly? We both agree that the tsunami actually happened, right? Neither of us say that the tsunami happened because God made it happen, right?


I'm not sure how can you reject your faith in an all powerfull creator of the universe and still go to church. If you say that the tsunami was not god's business, amen.







Really? OK. Desist from using Version 1 then. If you can't, then it isn't the same stuff. OK? Get back to me in a year, tell me how it goes.


And how the fact that I use version 1 or version 2 changes the fact?






This is fine, and I don't believe God will fault you for what you can't do. Just be careful, because at some point you'll have to stop saying that you can't have faith. Or, rather, you can keep saying that, and then you will never have to worry about God again, accept when you are cursing his name, if that will even be possible. I'm not sure.


-Elliot

Now I'm sure you are not sure. Well, your theology keeps amazing me a lot. I'll keep yor idea of hell not being a punishment...not even a negative. It would be rather a club where all non believers can hang aroung without god annoying us. That would be a great place to be if god exists. Thanks

[elliotfc]

Originally posted by kimiko
But the idea of God's grace is most interesting. Since christianity separates faith and works ( I think I've argued here before how I would disagree) faith cannot be a deliberate act.

This would void the dogma of free will. Some Christians do not believe in free will, but I *think* that most do.

Some believe faith itself is a gift of God's grace.

Yes that's true. I also think that free will is a gift of God's grace.

In fact it would have to be unless it is admitted to be an act. The problem with it being an act of course it that it isn't different from a ritual and is something you've earned, then.

But Christians also believe that rituals are gift of God's grace. I don't really see a strict and unbridgeable dichotomy here. I do understand a difference between faith and works...I think that faith is often behind many works...and I think that works often lead to faith. They are different but connected.

I would consider a mental decision an act, so my definition of act may be wider than others.

You would simply have to perform the act, whatever mental tricks to convince yourself, and then you've earned your way into heaven.

You sure have a wonderful way of phrasing things. :)

What do you mean by tricks exactly? It's not a very helpful word. I can say that you use "tricks" to convince yourself anything that you believe and accept. Could you elaborate on "tricks"?

Yes, you need to have faith in order to go to heaven, but it needs to be a complete faith, a faith with your entire being, and I don't personally believe that humans are capable (with the exception of Mary) of being completely faithful to God. Faith on earth is an outstanding gift that we must continually increase; this will be more than helpful when we must face God and answer for ourselves.

Nips at Jesus' heels somewhat.

Excellent! Everything we Christians do nips at Jesus' heels! I don't think he minds this, as we are commanded to imitate him.

But if it is a gift from God, then God made people into the believers and unbelievers they are, so he couldn't exactly punish them for that.

Well, the gift can be refused (the gift of faith that is). The gift of free will can not be refused, as we were created with it. So maybe some people could rightfully say that free will is NOT a gift. I think it's a gift for attitudinal reasons. But you could also reject the concept of faith as a gift for attitudinal reasons. You could say that gift implies something *good* or *beneficial* and that faith is neither good or beneficial.

In my opinion you are fixated a bit too much on punishment. God wants to do positive things. Negative things are a consequence of personal choice. We've already gone in circles on this one Kimiko. Your cynicism will make it impossible, I think, to understand where I am coming from on this one.

And if he did, then he wouldn't be the benevolent God he is portrayed to be.

Punishment is allowing someone who wants to be permanently seperated from God to be permanently seperated from God. The *punished* could very well be the *rewarded*; it's all about how it is perceived. It's a bit funny. The skeptics are the one who bash Christians on the head for being obsessed with reward/punishment...and in this case Kimiko...you can't let it go. Or, you can't understand that reward and punishment are SUBJECTIVE words.

Let's make this really simple. Kimiko, if someone wants to be seperated from God for eternity, and God allows that, is that punishment? If someone wants to be seperated from God for eternity, but God does not allow that, is that reward?

I much prefer Shin Buddhism, and it shares quite a bit with christianity. Simply, Buddha made a promise that anyone who asked him sincerely he would help to make their way to heaven.

Sounds good to me!

That way, you only have to want to be 'saved', rather than having to believe or earn your way.

Want can't be enough, for the Christian. The Christian is called to capitulate. You can't tell God you want something, but only on your own personal terms. Or, I mean, you could, but that would be problematic. Or maybe not, depending on your perspective.

In any case, you at the very *least* have to believe in Buddha, the one who is being asked by you for help. That's certainly belief, isn't it? And as for earn, in *asking* Buddha for something, that may be the *trick* (your word) that *earns* you what you want.

In this case I think it's just like Jesus. Ask Jesus. He'll answer. Accept the answers for what they are, and not what you would wish them to be. See, if you ask, but only have certain conditions under which you would accept the answer as legit, then you're not really asking totally, but partially. This is where Jesus may diverge from the Buddha. I'll yield to what I expect is a superior understanding of Shin Buddhism that you possess. Would this in fact be a divergence?

It seems far more forgiving.

I think you're confusing forgiving and allowing. God will not allow our own personal pride to override his plan divine plan for all of us. He will forgive everything we have ever done, but he can't forgive what we won't relinquish. This is why pride is called the great sin. When a conflict arises, pride will make us believe that our way is superior to God's way. And if that belief is truly held, how can God forgive that belief? The belief is inconsistent with his divine plan, and the proud person does not believe that he/she is in the wrong. How can forgiveness happen in that situation?


And since Rennyo beleived society was so corrupt at the time, it was expected that it would be too difficult for a person to attain enlightenment themselves within their lifetime, making help necessary.

Christians have a similar understanding. That's why Jesus came at a particular point in history.

As a Christian, I also believe that we all still need help after our lifetimes. Other Christians would explain that belief in radically different ways than I would...but every Christian believes in some form of judgment. That would be the interim between death and going to heaven.

-Elliot

[elliotfc]

Originally posted by kimiko
I said themselves "and each other", meaning people and people. Of course no one makes their way entirely on their own in the world, I would never argue that.

With your clarification, there is no disagreement on this point.

I think prayer doesn't work, because they aren't all answered, unless some are answered no, but then it isn't spelled out that way except that the prayee doesn't recieve what he asked for. Basically, there is no way to know if any particular prayer did anything.

Well, yeah. That's one of the primary explanations of faith actually. You have to have faith that your prayer is heard, answered, and that the prayer meant something.

It's also elementary Christian theology that prayers will not be *answered* in the way we would have them be answered. We don't have a superstitious power over God in this way, making us different from other religions which believe that if you ask god for something, the god will or will not do it in absolute terms.

If your point is that there is no way for humans to *know* anything about the efficacy of prayer, the Christian will agree. That's the whole point of faith!

I would define useful as physically effective, but certainly I can see how believers might reject that.

We just have a bigger concept of usefulness. Of course things that are physically effective are also useful.

It wasn't meant to be scientific, it is only a generalization. The shortest distance between two points is a straight line, so giving directly to an organization that provides help is more direct than giving first to a church that takes a cut, then passing some of that on through charity.

Interesting way of thinking about it. Ummm....well, Catholic churches are giving tsunami aid straight to Catholic Charities. You may not believe that...you may think that the individual church *must* be skimming off that money. That would be where your cynicism kicks in (and it's clear that you have much faith in your cynicism). What you could do is inform yourself, maybe call nearby churches and ask them what the deal is. Whether or not you believe them would depend on the amount of faith you place in what they will say to you, and the amount of faith you will place in your cyncism.

Ummm...as for direct lines...I guess the most direct thing would be going there and directly helping them. There. Short of that you're giving money to people who will do something *for you* in a sense.

Look, whether you want to believe it or not, churches are raising a hell of a lot of money for tsunami aid. Could the givers give their money to a different organiztion to do just that? Sure. But that's a hypothetical. It's only hypothetically true that the same amount of money could be raised if church goers would give their money to other organizations. Would that actually happen?

You may not be in the know (I take it you don't go to church) but different sorts of pressures are applied on church goers. Peer pressure. Bible pressure. Jesus pressure. Pastor pressure. St. Luke's in Brentwood (one of my churches) is over $10,000 for the tsunami, which is twice the weekly collection. Infact Jesus in Port Jefferson (my other church) is over $15,000 for the tsunami, which is the weekly collection. And counting. There are things that went *into* collecting that money that you may not be able to recognize since you are not a church attendee. Not Abu G style torture. Just talking. No fear involved either. Proactive talking. If you can't respect what individual churches do to raise funds, that's on you. And I'm not about to have you accuse my two churches of skimming funds from the top. But if you have to do that in order to rationalize something in yourself, I don't know, if it makes the synapses work I guess you gotta believe what you gotta believe.

-Elliot

[elliotfc]

Originally posted by kimiko
You aren't seeing what I'm saying. If anyone is fed or clothed or comforted in the world, it is themselves or others doing it. God doesn't make appearances.

OK, but what if it is *religious* people doing it in the *name* of religion and for *religious* reasons? What if people go to *religious* churches to get fed and clothed? What if *religious* clerics use *religion* to get people to feed and clothe and comfort others? I think you're being a bit too simplistic.

Christians believe that we are called to be Christ to others.

And you're ignoring spiritual nourishment, but again, your idea of efficacy is physical. Even if I agree to that, there's religion all over the place whenever you have tsunami type ordeals.

Hmmm. Let me get this straight. Let's say you have a missionary helping another person there. You would not call that religion. You would say that is one person helping another person. What if religious idealism is behind the missionary? Is that in any way significant?

It doesn't matter if someone feels motivated by God, it is they who are getting up or donating or whatever.

Interesting...

So. It people's God motivations do not matter when they are helping other people. They only matter in the abstract. Is that correct? Or, they only matter if people are hurting other people. Am I on the right track?

Kimiko you have said much about religious motivations in this thread. Do you talk about them with the ADMISSION that they don't matter? Or do they only matter sometimes, when it helps your own personal arguments, and they do not matter sometimes, when it doesn't help your own personal arguments? And if they always don't matter, why are you saying so much about things that do not matter? And if they only sometimes matter, why are you being selective?

In that respect, I don't care if it is a direct religious aid organization, because it is only people doing the helping. God doesn't fill soup bowls at shelters. I don't feel any need to 'tip the cap' at religious charities, I tip my cap at the people in them.

Fair enough. But in order to remain consistent, may I recommend that you not have any outrage towards religious institutions when religious people who happen to be in those religious institutions do bad things? I mean, that would be the consistent thing to do. Right?

No they don't. There are atheists who are as comfortable in the world as christians, so whatever peace the concept of salvation gives can be found other ways.

You are confusing *can* with the realities of the world. Listen, if the *message* of atheism is helping people that's great. I'm just waiting for Atheists International to spread their message in the most poverty stricken parts of the world. How much longer should I wait? Does the Randi.org forums sponsor humanitarian missions in the world? How about the American Humanist Society? Can you place your hypothetical in the real world so I can make the comparison to organizations that are actually *physcially useful* (your phrase)?

You're right, it is subjective; I only think things are constructive if they have some basis in the real world.

Religion has no basis in the real world? Boy are you wrong! This is too absurd of a statement.....oh man, nothing else to say on this one. Wow. I guess I spend hours and hours a week inhabiting some alternate universe. Kimiko, for my own edification, can you talk about this *unreal* world that I inhabit, and then explain why you believe that I inhabit an *unreal* world for several hours a week? Wow. Wugga wugga wugga.

Religion is lovely as a subject for its mythology and psychology and cultural values, but when it is treated as true without the standards that are applied to everything else to determine accuracy, it is a waste.

Well you've offered a caveat. That's helpful and hopefully informative. You need to qualify your blanket statements, or else I'll have to prod you in that direction to do so.

You mentioned standards. Exactly. Your standards exclude religion, obviously. So it isn't useful to you. Gotcha. Other people have different standards. It is useful to them. You may or may not get that.

See, *use* is as much a subjective concept as an objective concept. But the objective concept, in my opinion, has to account for subjectivity! In other words, an objective FALSEHOOD may have subjective USE to someone else.

As for what you perceive to be a *waste*, I am bemused that you engage yourself with *waste* so thoughtfully. And you are a thougtful person. I'm glad that this *waste* has the ability to make you think. And thank you for elevating myself, who is knee-deep in *waste*, to the level of discourse. Very nice of you. :)

TV, Nintendo and the rest are leisure activities and recognized as such.

Ahhh! Recognition! So this isn't *objective* at all, is it? It's subjective! Recognition!

Very well! Religion is recognized as being useful!

Religion is not recognized as a social club, leisure activity, hobby, etc.

Tell that to people who participate in church socials! Or play in church sports leagues! Or who dabble in theological hobbies!

It is portrayed as something true.

Not by you!

So...you don't have a problem with untrue things as long as everybody agrees they are untrue. Do I have that right? But, you have problems with untrue things that are being protrayed as true. I can understand that.

So...why doesn't the world look to *you* to be the arbitor of what is true and what isn't true? Should the world make you in charge of what is true and what is not true?

All I have here is you telling me what is true, and what is not true. And you've already established that your standards differ from the standards of billions of other people. So you have a personal issue, which frankly I'm not very sympathetic towards. I'm sorry that you're bothered by *untrue* things being talked about like they are *true*. Wouldn't you know it, the religious people are bothered by the skeptics who say *untrue* things as if they are *true*! Well, we can commisserate together. People are people, aren't they? All depends on what standards you possess, doesn't it?

Kimiko I dabble in these forums to validate the premise that the skeptic is not very different from the believer. If I were ever to encounter skeptics who think fundamentally differently from the way that I think, I would be so disheartened that I would flee from these forums, never to return. For now, I am heartened that you have it in you to talk about *waste* with me. I am heartened that you have issues with things that you believe to be *untrue* (I've got the same issues meself!). I am heartened that you tip the cap to good people who do good things. Yes you have bad attitudes about religion, but at least that explains much about your opinions and your rationales. Frankly if you were indifferent towards my theology I would have a harder time appreciating the way that you think. I hold people to high standards. I lower those standards when appropriate. I think that it is just as charitable as holding people to high standards. You have to accept people at the levels at which they operate.

Well, once you start with that, you have to show how it is true, and religion fails because it always comes down to a leap of faith.

No, you don't *have* to do anything of the sort. You are assuming that objective reality corresponds to the human's ability to "show" something to be true. The entirety of human history shows that is absolute folly.

I am doing something constructive right here by arguing about it, because I find it interesting and is a bit of a hobby of mine.

Waste management as a hobby...I like it! :)

I don't care if other people are irrational, I don't want to change them, but I'll give my opinion if I feel like it and I think it's appropriate.

:)

Here we diverge a bit. I do care about people who are irrational, and I try...well, I try to get people to think about what they think. Whether or not that results in change is not my purpose really. Just to get thinking going on is enough.

Out of curiosity Kimiko, do you find me irrational?

I find value in philosophy, logic, and rationality because they have been shown to be constructive.

Agreed, well said.

If interaction with me brings someone else to look at them again, that's great, but I'm not on a great campaign.

Even the smallest of campaigns has the potential to be great. :)

-Elliot

[elliotfc]

Originally posted by kimiko
What empirical data are in that link? And my response isn't the one you expect. From the article: They have come to the house of god, they will be well looked after," he said."

And yes, they will be looked after, by people. It is the human beings who matter in humanism.

You are assuming they are only receiving food/shelter in the house of God. You've already said that you only look at this from the physical standpoint, so I don't see the point in wrestling this point any further.

But it's nice to know that people head to the "house of God" to get the basics. Isn't it?


A beautiful sentiment often abused by the faithful: "Religion is the sigh of the oppressed creature, the heart of a heartless world and the soul of soulless conditions. It is the opium of the people."- Karl Marx

Pffffffffffffffft. And where exactly is the soul of Marxism? I've yet to see it meself.

Re: opium of the people, you can call any worldview an opiate. It doesn't mean anything. I could call your worldview an opiate. Whatever.

I am always amazed by the human mind, and what they are able to create. All the good and horror in religion is a product of people, and to them I give the credit.

Fair enough. I replace science for religion, and it makes just as much sense I guess.

-Elliot

[elliotfc]

Originally posted by kimiko
A trait doesn't have to be beneficial to survive, it simply has to not interfere with procreation and survival.

I was not talking about the mere survival of a particular trait, but the irrefutable reality of the SUCCESS of a trait in lodging itself and expressing itself the species over. You're damn right it doesn't interfere with procreation and survival btw.

Surely you'd agree that if your particular trait is more beneficial than my particular trait we'll see some results. Right? That'll play itself out in the future, near or distant. Eventually. Right? If so, you can have faith in your hypothetical while I look at the real world that you keep talking about. :)

So just because something isn't purposeful, doesn't make it deleterious. Plus, the survival of religion isn't based on catastrophes. Catastrophes are infrequent, and as long as religion replicates itself in human behavior, it will remain.

I guess that depends on how you define catastrophe. I think that catastrophes happen in practically everyone's life, several times over. It could be the loss of a spouse in an accidental, a broken arm, losses in the stock market, 4 consecutive Super Bowl losses, or tsunamis. And wouldn't you know it, religion has always been there to respond.

So what is the survivability of religion based on? Irrationality, that's your answer, right? Is it rational to think that irrationality is so successful a trait, Kimiko?

Fiction in the form of books and movies and other things is recognized as fiction. You don't go to the movies and think it is real. They aren't newsreels. Religion is different because it is mistaken for something true.

There you go again. Recognized as fiction? Recognized by WHO? In making this statement, you are appealing to the FACT that everybody recognizes fiction to be fiction.

Very well.

Then you apply that to religion...when the FACT is that everybody does NOT recognize religion to be fiction. You're trying to have it both ways; I recognize that, and dispose of your contention.

-Elliot

[elliotfc]

Originally posted by kimiko
It would be the burden of proof for the believers to prove that what they suggest actually works.

Prove to who? What are the standards of judgment? Of course you understand that the believers do not feel any burden of proof. We're, or at least I'm, willing to express my belief to you and other skeptics. I certainly don't expect you to collapse on the floor and shout Alleluia. I understand your constructed standards of acceptance, so it would be *irrational* for you to accept anything I say as proof, based on the standards that you believe. And I certainly do not find you irrational. Completely the opposite actually.

But I agree with you that anyone who expects you, or any other skeptic, to capitulate to Christian logic does, in fact, need to understand that they do carry a burden of proof, which would be the price of admission a skeptic would charge to open up their worldview to public alteration.

My objection to religion is not for the fiction, it is for the misrepresentation as truth.

Understood. And I understand your skepticism to be the misrepresentation of truth as well. I'm glad you've clarified this, it's the way I you your way of thinking, so we really think along the same lines here.

Do you not take the religious seriously when they suggest others are under the influence of the devil or are bad people because they don't accept Christ or whatever? That goes both ways.

I actually don't...

That's a nice idea, but does not follow the Church's teachings. Certainly, it would help do away with some of the negative consequences of Christian theology, but it isn't theologically justified. From the catechism: "1021 Death puts an end to human life as the time open to either accepting or rejecting the divine grace manifested in Christ.592

Ummm...sounds good to me. Many Christians don't see it that way, but Catholics do, and I'm a Catholic.

I don't believe my post assigned the waste to the worldview, but that any waste would be in the choice of behaviors, the behaviors being necessitated by the religion.

Christian behavior is always a waste then? Or just sometimes a waste? Or is waste independent of the behavior?

For example, if the chosen behavior is to be "physically useful" to others, is that a waste? Or, is the wastefulness of the religion completely independent of physical use?

I also happen to think that people who get absorbed into things that are fiction and come to literally believe them are wasting their time in doing so.

You've definitely got a clear judgmental opinions of the religious, and frankly I guess it really doesn't matter what you think about what other people do to pass the time. Calling it a waste of time is a nice subjective outlook. If you care to convince me that it is an *objective* outlook go right ahead, if you're interested that is.

That's interesting; maybe the people in your church don't read the Bible.

They don't pick and choose...like you're about to do...

Fear is mentioned specifically in the Bible and believers are cautioned to have it. Also, the very concept of Hell is supposed to be fear provoking. "Therefore, knowing the fear of the Lord, we persuade men..." 2 Corinthians 5:11
"But I will warn you whom to fear: fear him who, after he has killed, has power to cast into hell; yes, I tell you, fear him!" (Luke 12:2-5)

And the Bible also says the phrase "be not afraid" dozens of times, just do a bible search at bible.com to find the passages.

My church tends to focus more on the "be not afraid" stuff than the "fear" stuff, but you can focus on whatever you want.

I suggest you approach the Church with suggestions for editing the Bible then. And, I'd prefer you not project things on me.

I have no interest in editing the Bible, as I have no desire to force the Bible to suit my personal opinions.

Regarding my projecting things on you, I can't say I respect your preference since you think that billions of people waste their time. If you stop projecting on others, I would have absolutely no reason to project anything on you.

Your negative attitudes about religion are legion, and they are the foundation of my projections on you. They are informed projections. Just as you judge people by what they say and believe, I do the same. We aren't that different, are we?

What I think and the case I was trying to make at your request are not the same. I suppose it wasn't a very strong case, but I only did it for the sake of the conversation.

Thanks for them as I enjoy our conversations. Believe me, I type all that I say with a smile, particularly when I get snippy. If I didn't respect you I most certainly would not talk to you. You're by far the most compelling skeptic I've ever encountered in these forums (no offense to Tricky, who's merely compelling in his good naturedness arf arf arf).

-Elliot

[elliotfc]

Originally posted by Diogenes
But if Chesterton is saying the problem is not with Christianity, but with the Christians? Doesn't that sort of make Christianity irrelevant?
If there is nothing distinguishable about a group of people who gather under a banner, of what relevance is their banner?

I don't think that standards are irrelevant! Christians define themselves as people who are supposed to be living to the standards of Christ. *Problem* as I use it is not the mere fact that the Christian will not perfectly correspond to the ideal; the problem, as I see it, is that people will see the Christian fall and have a bad attitude about Christianity, and not the Christian.

When it's Christianity ITSELF (the standard) that enables the problem (the Christian can't live up perfectly to Christianity) to exist. Therefore it can't be irrelevant because it makes the problem exist.

Their banner is relevant because it is the standard they espouse. If nobody espoused the standard or gathered under its banner, it really would be irrelevant, I guess. Maybe.

-Elliot

[elliotfc]

Originally posted by Lucifuge Rofocale
Those are the contradictions I wanted to be answered. Thanks Ossai for taking the time to respond to Elliot posts while I wasn't here (I had to marry those days).
Elliot would you answer Ossais's post above?

Congratulations on your marriage!

Regarding Ossai's post...he calls my thinking fractured. I'm not just going to respond to the mere statement.

I think that *punishment* is a way of looking at the objective reality of the situation. I'm taking the Skinner approach here (beyond reward/punishment). :)

See, I call it punishment because I want the alternative. It's punishment to me. That's great if it's punishment to you too.

But I am allowing for other people to have the OPPOSITE attitude. If someone wants to be cut off from God, the reality of that will be a REWARD. That's the notion I'm injecting into all of this, and I'm not sure if I'll get anyone here to appreciate that notion, but understand, if you're going to call my thinking *fractured* that notion might be the reason for your opinion, so maybe try to understand what I'm saying here, even if you disagree with that, and just maybe that'll help to mend the supposed broken bones (which I happen to think walk around just fine).

Ossai said that I said there was no need for a sacrificial plan...if I said that, I meant it in that God did not need to have it all laid out like he laid it out. He also didn't need to have a plan to reconcile himself with humanity. That's what I meant when I said that it wasn't necessary. Regarding sacrifice, I suppose that God didn't need to have Jesus in order for the reconciliation to happen, but that's the way it happened, and I think it all works out, and I have no problem with it. If you want to quibble over what God needed to do, or should have done, I'm not all that interested. I'm sorry I even mentioned *need* to that extent, but I will say that God could have done it anyway he wanted to, and that's as far as I meant the word *need*.

I do yield to God's universal authority. He would extent that to a universal *might makes right*. I reject that, because God makes free choice allowances (of course they'd have to *work* in his universal framework) and I reject how he would have me translate that to how morality would work on Earth. No one on Earth is God, so I have no use for *might makes right* in terms of human interaction.

Of course I never SAID *might makes right* so I don't feel any further need to defend a case that I didn't actually make.

As for the Christian angle being meaningless, that's poppycock. I believe that the Christian angle is the recognition of the salvific act. Forget for a moment the specifics of the salvific act. If you can appreciate the concept (maybe you can't), the specifics fill the glass. The specifics aren't the glass. The specifics could be something else. They are what they are. The salvific act had to be something. If it was something else, I'd like to think the Christians would have *that* angle (but then the Christians probably wouldn't be called Christians, would they? :) )

Re: all anyone has to do is wait until they are dead...if anybody has that attitude and glories in that attitude they will have to be accountable for that attitude. They would have to admit that the mere attitude was at the very least unfortunate. The attitude admits that they *knew better*.

Now, if the person does not have that willful attitude (the way in which you express it), I don't think their accountability is by any means commensurate.

And you're back on the *punishing* gig! It isn't that you don't want to be punished! If that's your attitude on getting into heaven (I don't want to be heaven) I'll insist here and now that you won't be getting in that way (and I don't like to use such phrases, but I'm thinking that this is the kind of phraseology you are thinking about, or expecting). It isn't what you DON'T want, but what you DO want. A negative attitude will not (WILL NOT) reconcile you to God. Ugh. You're looking at this totally backwards, and all I can do is shake me head.

The salvific act does not nullify original sin in the immediate, obviously. We are born flawed, with the tendency to sin, and sin we will. We can be freed from that eventually. If you will, you can say or understand that the sacrifice and resurrection of Christ will have its fullest meaning PERSONALLY to the individual at that moment after death, when God is faced and judgment happens and all that. This would be the more transcendant, timeless, and universal understanding of the salvific act.

Obviously the Christian does not believe that Christ's death and resurrection enables us humans to live perfectly moral lives! I'm not sure how to respond to the contrary notion as it is too absurd to consider.

Ossai then boils down his question:
"Why don't you tell me whats that horrible sin jesus need to pay in the cross. To exist?�"

And the answer is that the question is ridiculous. There is no singular horrible sin that Jesus needs to pay on the cross. It is the totality of human sin. In its entirety. We're all part of that.

-Elliot

[elliotfc]

Originally posted by Lucifuge Rofocale
How can we hate the non-existant?

Argh. Listen, if you don't believe in God, why are you engaging Christian theology?

Go back to the original post in this thread. I understand that it has evolved/mutated whatever. But the implicit understanding in this thread is that you'll accept some basic theological points in order to engage the Christian in a theological discussion in which some inconsistancies can be exposed. That's what the thread was after.

Frankly Lucifuge, your "God doesn't actually exist" should beg the question. Why are you in this thread? You have other threads to choose from. This one's working WITHIN Christian dogma. Patrick (the original post) starts by saying "If I understand Christian doctrine correctly..." He's working with some givens, and then he asks questions. You are questioning the fundamental given, and that is completely opposite to the point of this thread.

There. I've said it. There have been hundreds of God exists/God doesn't exist threads here. Your comment would fit nicely in one of those.

any new born hates god?

Not sure how you conceive of "hate god". Of course no newborn *articulates* that he/she hates God. And neither do I. And of course no newborn shakes his/her fist at God and curses. And neither do I. What does the newborn do? Place his/herself in the center of the universe. That's original sin. But can you blame the newborn for doing that? Blame has nothing to do with it. It's are state of existence. We have inheritied it. We are as we are. We are given the means to be better than we are. That's the Christian message.

how can an atheist can hate god if he/she does not believe in it?

I've just explained it. Pride is the great sin.

by your theology, an atheist can't sin.......

You've got my theology wrong.

But I will say this. If you don't believe in God, I think you're a different case than I. God has a different understanding of you. This isn't to say that you can't sin...but I think that as a believer, God has different expectiations of me than he has of you.

I'm still demanding objetive proof ;)

No kidding, that's what I keep saying to the abiogeneticists! :)

It is not my purpose to fulfill your demands. I'm just here talking about Christian theolgoy. The skeptics have asked the questions in this thread. If the thread began with "I demand objective proof", you can bet your butt I wouldn't be in this thread. :)

It appears this thread has run its course, if the *objective truth* demand is the ultimate recourse of the skeptic. And it's fine for what it is, but it is not what it was on previous pages of the thread. :)

I'm not sure how can you reject your faith in an all powerfull creator of the universe and still go to church.

Easy. You just do it. I think it's possible (you used the word can). Try really hard? I don't know. Actually, I think you'd have to explain to me why a person who rejects their faith could not go to church. Would that mental belief shift affect how their muscles coordinate with each other?

If you say that the tsunami was not god's business, amen.

Seriously, I think we're together on this one. The people who say that the tsunami was God's wrath applied on man...ugh.

Now I'm sure you are not sure. Well, your theology keeps amazing me a lot. I'll keep yor idea of hell not being a punishment...not even a negative. It would be rather a club where all non believers can hang aroung without god annoying us. That would be a great place to be if god exists. Thanks

I think it will be quite solitary essentially, although the individual may be able to conjure up people to inhabit his own personal hell. But the conjuring will be, must be, totally futile and unhappy. In my conception of hell that is.

If you embrace pride, you embrace yourself. Me myself and I. If you want to hang out with yourself for eternity, and that will make you happy for eternity...yeah. I guess God will allow that happiness. How could he not? That's free will, and individuals will forever be free to be happy with themselves.

-Elliot

[elliotfc]

Now I feel like spewing forth about Hell and what it's all about, and that's completely off the initial topics of the thread, so I do declare that I am through with this thread. A very successful thread, 9 pages and 2000+ views. Nice one!

Back to hell. Many people (most of them Christians) think that hell is the place where Satan lives! And all of the devils! And you're bobbed up in down in fire!

I don't see hell that way, and my particular branch of Christianity does not define hell that way. I think hell will be a reality for some humans, and it will be a *human* reality. Satan and demons are on different levels of existence and I don't believe we'll all be mixed in together.

I believe that humans are created in God's image, and are themselves a unique creation that is created to be live a fulfilled existence in a unique way. Original sin is something we possess that other orders of beings (angels and devils) do not possess. Our "punishment" will differ from the punishment of fallen angels.

So I view hell as the choice of the human individual. It may manifest itself as demons poking with hot pokers and all that, because that may be the rationalization of the person in "hell". In this way the descriptions of hell are true. And they could also be false.

-Elliot

[elliotfc]

I will no longer be stopping by this thread. Any unresolved issues can be directed to me via private message. I will be happy to start a new thread with unresolved issues! But you're going to have to send me a private message, directing me to that thread, so I'll know what's up! Thanks, this was very enjoyable and stimulating. -Elliot

[Ossai]

Elliotfc
Some believe faith itself is a gift of God's grace.
Yes that's true. I also think that free will is a gift of God's grace. So if faith is a gift of god and some people obviously don’t have it then god deliberately withholds the gift of faith. If faith is necessary for salvation then god deliberately condemns some by not granting faith. Well, you’re going along with the bible so far.

Punishment is allowing someone who wants to be permanently seperated from God to be permanently seperated from God. The *punished* could very well be the *rewarded*; it's all about how it is perceived. Ok, this definitely does not coincide with the bible. The lake of fire/the pit/hell are all considered punishment and eternal suffering. How could anyone consider them anything else?

In this case I think it's just like Jesus. Ask Jesus. He'll answer. Tried it, didn’t work.

The belief is inconsistent with his divine plan, and the proud person does not believe that he/she is in the wrong. How can forgiveness happen in that situation? You do believe in a divine plan, so the tsunami was god’s doing.

You may not be in the know (I take it you don't go to church) but different sorts of pressures are applied on church goers. Peer pressure. Bible pressure. Jesus pressure. Pastor pressure. You are saying that churches give more money because of the pressure applied to the members. Kind of like a protection scheme.

Regarding Ossai's post...he calls my thinking fractured. No, I showed your thinking is fractured.

See, I call it punishment because I want the alternative. It's punishment to me. That's great if it's punishment to you too.

But I am allowing for other people to have the OPPOSITE attitude. If someone wants to be cut off from God, the reality of that will be a REWARD. You are disagreeing with your own holy book. If you can interpret it as you wish why can’t I and why can’t everyone? God created the world static and unchanging. Satan, the most holy light, gave humanity free will so that they may see with clarity all the evil perpetuated by god in his pettiness and anger. People were starting to drift away and actually ‘wake-up’ when god in his capriciousness wanted them back. So he sent his son to be tortured and killed so that all those who follow him could honor an instrument of torture and death. This would cause a schism between god’s original choose and the followers of torture so that chaos could be sown and death would follow.

Ossai said that I said there was no need for a sacrificial plan...if I said that, I meant it in that God did not need to have it all laid out like he laid it out. Now you are saying that god is not omnipotent. After all an omnipotent entity could have come up with a much better plan.

As for the Christian angle being meaningless, that's poppycock. I believe that the Christian angle is the recognition of the salvific act. Forget for a moment the specifics of the salvific act. Considering there was no sacrifice, the salvific act you keep referring to is meaningless.

Re: all anyone has to do is wait until they are dead...if anybody has that attitude and glories in that attitude they will have to be accountable for that attitude. They would have to admit that the mere attitude was at the very least unfortunate. The attitude admits that they *knew better*. But according to what you posted earlier, it would still work and the would still be admitted to heaven.
“Oops, sorry bout that.�
“That’s ok, come on in.�

And you're back on the *punishing* gig! It isn't that you don't want to be punished! If that's your attitude on getting into heaven Because Christianity, like many religions, has two motivations punishment, hell, and reward, heaven, everything else is window dressing. If you discount one motivational factor that only leaves the other.

The salvific act does not nullify original sin in the immediate, obviously. So the non-sacrifice is meaningless to the living.

If you will, you can say or understand that the sacrifice and resurrection of Christ will have its fullest meaning PERSONALLY to the individual at that moment after death, when God is faced and judgment happens and all that. This would be the more transcendant, timeless, and universal understanding of the salvific act. So if I don’t understand it now, because of the lack of faith, all anyone would have to do is wait till they die. Again, the same get out of hell free card, just worded slightly different.

Ossai then boils down his question:
"Why don't you tell me what is that horrible sin jesus need to pay for on the cross, to exist?�"

And the answer is that the question is ridiculous. There is no singular horrible sin that Jesus needs to pay on the cross. It is the totality of human sin. In its entirety. We're all part of that. Then original sin is included and people aren’t born We are born flawed, with the tendency to sin, and sin we will. Hmmm, again you contradict yourself.

Argh. Listen, if you don't believe in God, why are you engaging Christian theology? While we don’t believe it, many people do and we have to deal with them on a day to day basis. It’s always good to know how they form their opinions. If I were living in a predominately Buddhist country, it would be Buddhism I would be reading and talking about.

He's working with some givens, and then he asks questions. You are questioning the fundamental given, and that is completely opposite to the point of this thread. Actually, Christians don’t even agree on the fundamentals of their own religion, and I’m only speaking about the mainstream versions.

That's original sin. But can you blame the newborn for doing that? Blame has nothing to do with it. It's are state of existence. We have inheritied it. We are as we are. We are given the means to be better than we are. That's the Christian message. But Jesus had a bad weekend – which was cut short by the way – to make-up for the sins, which apparently didn’t work.

I've just explained it. Pride is the great sin. And here I thought cursing the holy spirit was the greatest sin. At least according to those fundamentals you keep mentioning.

No kidding, that's what I keep saying to the abiogeneticists! And once objective proof is given, then what of your beliefs?

All that space wasted and you still haven’t answered the basic questions I put forth and now you’re running away.

Ossai

[hodgy]

Originally posted by elliotfc
That's how I view free will! The ability of a human being to make decisions.[/qoute]

Fair enough but you haven't made an argument to distinguish that from a decision made by a non-human. Any decision, made by any decider can only be caused (therefore determined) or random.


Yes, but a computer program is not a human being, so this is irrelevant to my definition.

Ditto!



Ditto ditto


I think this is a hard question for you to answer...but I have to ask it. Hard because you reject free will. Anyhow...how do you define free will (the concept you reject)?


Its not definable logically - its like saying 'define dry liquid'. Thats my point - its an irrelevant concept.


So you accept the Christian notion of evil then? What Christian notions do you accept, and what Christian notions do you reject?

I mean, if you are going to invoke a particular notion of Christianity (evil), why do you accept that notion? Or, are you only accepting the notion theoretically?

If so, you've avoided my question. You either believe in evil, or you don't believe in evil. If you don't believe in evil, I don't care about your opinions about what is evil and what isn't evil, to be perfectly honest.

Define evil then. If you don't believe in evil, why are you using a definition of evil that you don't believe in?

Evil *can* exist, because God created imperfect creatures. I believe that God obviously believes that it is justifiable to create imperfect creatures knowing that evil would thus be a *possibility* (you yourself used the word *can*). I say this because I exist. If I didn't exist, and if no imperfect creatures exist, then neither would your question.

Your question is contingent upon the *possibility* (remember, you used the word *can*) of evil. I do believe that you have the possibility of doing evil things. Does that make you evil then? For example, if you (are you male/female?) have a child, and the child has the capacity to perform evil, does that make you evil?

I reject your idea because when I follow it through, it would make all creators evil. It would make everybody evil. It doesn't make any sense to me. How can everything be evil?



I am using your own definitions to define your own meanings - I am asking you to consider how your concept of evil could exist in your universe without your God having evil within him.



I don't know enough about you. For now I am merely curious about you. :)

You seem like a thinking sort of a chap/chappette. Am I right? That's about the only conclusion about you that I am comfortable making at this time.



A thinking chap I am - and where I come from (the Black Country) the feminine of 'chap' is 'wench'.

Cheers,

- Julian.

-Elliot

[Richard G]

The answer to the questions in the first post are found in Gods word:

Romans:8:29: For whom he did foreknow, he also did predestinate to be conformed to the image of his Son, that he might be the firstborn among many brethren.

Romans:8:30: Moreover whom he did predestinate, them he also called: and whom he called, them he also justified: and whom he justified, them he also glorified.

Eph:1:4: According as he hath chosen us in him before the foundation of the world, that we should be holy and without blame before him in love:

Eph:1:5: Having predestinated us unto the adoption of children by Jesus Christ to himself, according to the good pleasure of his will,

Eph:1:11: In whom also we have obtained an inheritance, being predestinated according to the purpose of him who worketh all things after the counsel of his own will:

[Z]

Originally posted by Richard G
The answer to the questions in the first post are found in Gods word:

Just as a minor nitpick - what evidence have you that these are, in fact, God's words?

For that matter, what proof do you have at all that these are even the words actually contained in the original letters, as written in their original tongues?

[Ossai]

Richard G
The answer to the questions in the first post are found in Gods word: You believe in predestination and not freewill. No wonder humanity is so !u(<#d, we do exactly what god wants and he apparently likes suffering.

Ossai

[Skeptical Greg]

Originally posted by Richard G
The answer to the questions in the first post are found in Gods word: quote:Romans:8:29: For whom he did foreknow, he also did predestinate to be conformed to the image of his Son, that he might be the firstborn among many brethren.

Romans:8:30: Moreover whom he did predestinate, them he also called: and whom he called, them he also justified: and whom he justified, them he also glorified.

Eph:1:4: According as he hath chosen us in him before the foundation of the world, that we should be holy and without blame before him in love:

Eph:1:5: Having predestinated us unto the adoption of children by Jesus Christ to himself, according to the good pleasure of his will,

Eph:1:11: In whom also we have obtained an inheritance, being predestinated according to the purpose of him who worketh all things after the counsel of his own will:
--------------------------------------------------------------------

Do you by any chance have an English translation of this?

[Ossai]

Diogenes
Do you by any chance have an English translation of this?

The Shakespearean language is obviously divinely inspired, how dare you throw doubt on the KJV of the bible. Apparently it just took god a while (about a thousand years) to get it right. ;)

Ossai