Question for Christians - #3

[Patrick]

If I understand Christian doctrine correctly, God endows man with free will, and then holds him accountable for his choices. But if God is All-Powerful, surely He is able to foresee the choices everyone will make. If He's able to do that, then He knows every choice that each individual will make when he is created. That being the case, how can He hold everyone accountable with rewards and punishments, when there was no doubt about the outcome from the beginning? Or do you want to claim that God is NOT All-Knowing? Then does that mean that He is imperfect?

[Jellby]

Let's play God's advocate here.

Maybe God can know everything, every action and every choice if He wants to, but He chooses not to look into that, letting us have our lives without He interfering.

[Patrick]

Maybe God can know everything, every action and every choice if He wants to, but He chooses not to look into that, letting us have our lives without He interfering.

Surely He's seen the negative consequences of that by now, surely He realizes the need to interfere?

[geni]

Originally posted by Patrick
Surely He's seen the negative consequences of that by now, surely He realizes the need to interfere?

To interfere would involve affecting free will.

[Patrick]

To interfere would involve affecting free will.

Yeah, so what? Clearly by Christian stndards of morality, free will is a failed experiment.

[geni]

Originally posted by Patrick
Yeah, so what? Clearly by Christian stndards of morality, free will is a failed experiment.

Not really. Since you can only be good if you can chose to be evil.

[Patrick]

Since you can only be good if you can chose to be evil.

But God could have created a world where people only were good, lacking the ability to chose evil. Why allow free will, if it leads to evil? That it WAS allowed contradicts the notion that God is All-Good.

[geni]

Originally posted by Patrick

But God could have created a world where people only were good, lacking the ability to chose evil. Why allow free will, if it leads to evil? That it WAS allowed contradicts the notion that God is All-Good.

Denying free will is good? Once again you are assuming that gods actions are within your abaility to reason.

[Patrick]

Denying free will is good? Once again you are assuming that gods actions are within your abaility to reason.

Your argument:

All the evil and self-contradiction I see is just because I don't get it. If I were All-Powerful and All-Knowing too, I'd be able to see that evil is good, illogic is logic, and undoubtedly that sh_t is ice cream.

[geni]

Originally posted by Patrick


All the evil and self-contradiction I see is just because I don't get it. If I were All-Powerful and All-Knowing too, I'd be able to see that evil is good, illogic is logic, and undoubtedly that sh_t is ice cream.

And of course you can't prove this wrong. In many ways this is the ultimate god of the gaps.

[Eleatic Stranger]

Denying free will is good? Once again you are assuming that gods actions are within your abaility to reason.

I've always been troubled by the Free Will defense of evil. The reason it bothers me is that there are plenty of constraints on my will at the moment simply by virtue of being the kind of creature that I am. I can't fly around the room, for example,or lick my own elbow, or (more to the point), I can't take pleasure in my own pain or that of another (barring distinctive circumstances). So, clearly, if there is a God that created me he already imposed a whole set of restrictions upon my free will as it is (and there's an interesting argument that I won't go into to the effect that without those restrictions I wouldn't be able to have free will at all) simply by making me the sort of thing that I am.

Now, given that, why is he so finicky about adding further restrictions - such as making human beings two shades more empathic, or making us just a little less liable to a destructive us/them tribalism?

[plindboe]

Originally posted by Patrick
Surely He's seen the negative consequences of that by now, surely He realizes the need to interfere?

Another problem is that God decides where in the world souls will be distributed. Since the environment one grows up in practically determines what beliefs people will end up having, God is the one deciding which beliefs people will end up having, and therefore he has already decided which ones will go to Hell and Heaven.

The three omnis are certainly big problems for christianity.

...and don't call me Shirley. :p

[kuroyume0161]

Originally posted by Eleatic Stranger
I've always been troubled by the Free Will defense of evil. The reason it bothers me is that there are plenty of constraints on my will at the moment simply by virtue of being the kind of creature that I am. I can't fly around the room, for example,or lick my own elbow, or (more to the point), I can't take pleasure in my own pain or that of another (barring distinctive circumstances). So, clearly, if there is a God that created me he already imposed a whole set of restrictions upon my free will as it is (and there's an interesting argument that I won't go into to the effect that without those restrictions I wouldn't be able to have free will at all) simply by making me the sort of thing that I am.

Now, given that, why is he so finicky about adding further restrictions - such as making human beings two shades more empathic, or making us just a little less liable to a destructive us/them tribalism?

Well said, Eleatic Stranger! And, isn't this the major problem with religious concepts of "free will"? That some sort of 'absolute' free will is available to us? Because, as you so eloquently point out, there is no such thing at all. The best application is that we have free will in our decisions and corresponding actions (to some degree), but only up to the point where biology, genetics, laws of physics, and all of the baggage of 'environment' (customs, traditions, education, experience, etc.) lose some control.

Absolute free will does not and can not possibly exist in this universe. And the supposed free will that we seem to enjoy is very limited indeed. So, if the attribute of (extremely limiting) free will introduces great evils, what does that say about 'absolute' or higher-order free will? Is it possible that Satan (the Devil, whomever) is just a natural product of more free will imparted to supposedly higher beings? Enough hyperbole. :)

Robert

[Kitty Chan]

Originally posted by Patrick
If I understand Christian doctrine correctly, God endows man with free will, and then holds him accountable for his choices. But if God is All-Powerful, surely He is able to foresee the choices everyone will make. If He's able to do that, then He knows every choice that each individual will make when he is created. That being the case, how can He hold everyone accountable with rewards and punishments, when there was no doubt about the outcome from the beginning? Or do you want to claim that God is NOT All-Knowing? Then does that mean that He is imperfect?

Im going to add from question 2 a bit because it ties in with free will, why God allows evil, Holocaust.

You are correct when you say God endows man with free will and holds him accountable for choices. The same way a parent holds the child accountable for choices. Also the way life in general holds one accountable. For example if you eat too much you get a stomach ache or gain weight. Touch something hot, get burned. Cheat on a spouse possibly loose them.

So where would you have God draw the line? If He was to control all aspects of ones life and you would never do anything wrong perhaps you are like a potted plant that sits there and does nothing. Which is not what God intended.

Now, these are all personal to one. What about evil like the holocaust. God did stop it. He stopped it through good people realising that we were made in the image of God and not the image of a master race invented by Hitler and stopped him.

When people ask why isnt God swooping down from the sky and stopping whatever, God's answer is I am doing something I put you there to do it.

What does society think of someone who couch pototos around and does not work and lives off the good hearts of everyone else. We look down on them. We dont let each other away with it.

[TillEulenspiegel]

The sort of dichotomy exhibited in the "free will" scenario has brethren of farther reaching consequences.
For instance Is God capable of evil? Christians will deny this , but if God is an omniscient, Omnipotent entity how can that be so...carried farther It was he who "made" the morning star, Lucifer . If he knew all paths why didn't he see that coming prevent it? Was the reason because he needed a surrogate to balance His good with evil? Can he make a rock he cannot move? No? then clearly he is not omnipotent ( useless philosophical meanderings to be sure).
The defenders of the faith will say when every things putting along properly that God hath provided again! When evil prospers it's "God works in mysterious ways". Tell that to the mother of the 12 yr old girl who was abducted , raped and murdered, tell that to the people in south Sudan or the Holocaust survivors.

There IS free will because the universe is stochastic and out to eat you. So plan accordingly cuz there's no daddy who lives in the sky.


edit: OK now I have totally depressed myself sigh.

[SezMe]

Originally posted by Kitty Chan
(snip)Which is not what God intended.
What does god intend? How do we (you) know?

[Kitty Chan]

Originally posted by SezMe
What does god intend? How do we (you) know?

(A)
We were created to be the sons and daughers of God. Thats why preachers say the "family" of God. Also, to watch over and take care of one another and the earth.

(B)
"The Spirit itself beareth witness with our spirit, that we are the children of God; and if children, then heirs; heirs of God, and joint-heirs with Christ; if so be that we suffer with him, that we may be also glorified together" (Romans 8:16-17).

"Thou madest him a little lower than the angels; thou crownest him with glory and honor, and didst set him over the work of thy hands" (Hebrews2: 7).

"Let us make man in our own image according to our likeness. Let them rule over the fish of the sea and over the birds of the sky and over the cattle and over ALL the earth, and over everything that creeps or moves" (Genesis 1:26 ).

[Eleatic Stranger]

What does god intend? How do we (you) know?

Ooh! I can answer this!

If God is omnipotent we can easily know what God intends, because it's what happens.

See how simple that was?

[SezMe]

Thanks, Kitty. Your answers presume that the bible is the word of god or, in other words, that the people who wrote it were divinely inspired. Right? If so, does that mean we are to take ALL of it as the divinely inspired word of god? If so, that implies some pretty horrible consequences. If not, how do we differentiate between the divine and the mundane?

[SezMe]

Originally posted by Eleatic Stranger
Ooh! I can answer this!

If God is omnipotent we can easily know what God intends, because it's what happens.

See how simple that was?
Good point. I wonder if god ever winces at the daily torture that takes place here on terra firma.

[Kitty Chan]

Originally posted by SezMe


God certainly winces at the torture on earth thats something overlooked (see what I said earlier in this thread) This is why we are to do what we can to ease suffering etc. There is a reason the bible mentions Gods judgements. At a point in time God will say we have had enough chances and time to put what we can right and then He will take care of things just like people seem to complain he should do.

Yes, my answers presume the bible is the Word of God or divenely inspired. Just answering (a) in my words and (b) as the source as per the question of how I knew.

You say that if the bible is the Word of God then there are horrible consequences and how do we differenciate between the divine and the mundane.

So Im on the same page;

Please give a example of a horrible consequence

Mundane maybe traditions of the times?

The bible mentions alot of things, I said the heirs of God above, this would be divine perhaps is this what you mean?

[Ossai]

Kitty Chan
So where would you have God draw the line? If He was to control all aspects of ones life and you would never do anything wrong perhaps you are like a potted plant that sits there and does nothing. Which is not what God intended. How do you know what god intended? By making that statement you’ve just declared that you, at least in part, understand god.
We were created to be the sons and daughers of God. Thats why preachers say the "family" of God. Also, to watch over and take care of one another and the earth. The preachers get their information from where?
Referencing buybull verses is meaningless. But if you want to play that – then explain the ones where god creates people just to condemn them to hell, or how about the ones where god sends falsehoods to keep people from accepting him?

Christians have two choices:
1. Keep god omni- and never declare knowledge of anything, including plans, rules, etc. Basically just do what they want and declare that god really wants it as well, pretty much what most of them do now.
2. Drop the omni- bit. It would solve quiet a few problems.

Now, these are all personal to one. What about evil like the holocaust. God did stop it. He stopped it through good people realising that we were made in the image of God and not the image of a master race invented by Hitler and stopped him. This is the same trip that people spout when one person survives a bus crash (or any other large disaster) god was looking out for that person, or god works in mysterious ways. The holocaust was perpetuated by people and eventually stopped by people.

Ossai

[TillEulenspiegel]

That's another one. The Bible. If the Bible is indeed the "word of God", how do you explain contradictory and incorrect information. There are hundreds of examples of this .

[Mr Clingford]

Originally posted by TillEulenspiegel
That's another one. The Bible. If the Bible is indeed the "word of God", how do you explain contradictory and incorrect information. There are hundreds of examples of this . Well, what do you mean by the phrase "word of God"?

[TillEulenspiegel]

I think the Bible is a badly written series of folk tales and grand exaggerations made up by adherents of that faith.

Most Biblical literalist's think that it was the "Hand O' God " that wrote it thru surrogates.

I guess that's what I mean.

[Mr Clingford]

Originally posted by TillEulenspiegel
Most Biblical literalist's think that it was the "Hand O' God " that wrote it thru surrogates.

I guess that's what I mean. Then the hand of God was a bit wobbly that day!

On the other hand (sorry), there are Christian ways of viewing the Bible other than literal, inerrant ways.

[Kitty Chan]

Originally posted by Ossai
Kitty Chan
How do you know what god intended? By making that statement you’ve just declared that you, at least in part, understand god.

The preachers get their information from where?

I answered earlier in thread.

Referencing buybull verses is meaningless. But if you want to play that – then explain the ones where god creates people just to condemn them to hell, or how about the ones where god sends falsehoods to keep people from accepting him?

God didnt create people to send them to hell it's His intention that everyone should be with Him. But some choose not to. I believe with the falsehoods you are referring to people with hard hearts and those have already choosen not to believe God so really they are only getting their choice. Also see that earlier thread

Christians have two choices:
1. Keep god omni- and never declare knowledge of anything, including plans, rules, etc. Basically just do what they want and declare that god really wants it as well, pretty much what most of them do now.
2. Drop the omni- bit. It would solve quiet a few problems.

If God was not omni then He wouldnt be God. I dont know what knowledge you are referring to. Do you have a for instance?

The holocaust was perpetuated by people and eventually stopped by people.

I wouldnt be so quick to say everyone jumped to help as they didnt. Conscience won them over to help and when the Master Plan of Hitler to create images of a perfect race were revealed then the reality hit home. Hitler was thought to be a ok guy originally.


Ossai

[Kitty Chan]

Originally posted by TillEulenspiegel
That's another one. The Bible. If the Bible is indeed the "word of God", how do you explain contradictory and incorrect information. There are hundreds of examples of this .

The contradictions is probably another thread, but like you said there is a ton of books on the subject I havnt found anything astounding in contradictions to date if one searches them out.

Heres a interesting thing that may not be known, did you know the Word is Christ?

[SezMe]

Originally posted by Kitty Chan
Yes, my answers presume the bible is the Word of God or divenely inspired. Just answering (a) in my words and (b) as the source as per the question of how I knew.

You say that if the bible is the Word of God then there are horrible consequences and how do we differenciate between the divine and the mundane.

So Im on the same page;

Please give a example of a horrible consequence
Sorry for the delayed response.

You accept that the bible is the word of god. I appreciate the clarity. Here is just one "horrible" consequence of that. Taking the bible as god's word, god not only established the ten commandments, he also established the penalities for violation of them. Fair enough. The penalty for disobeying your parents is death by stoning. That seems pretty horrible to me. Has there ever been a kid (except mine, of course :-) who did not rebel against his parents? Kids must rebel as a part of growing up. But should they then be stoned to death for doing so?

ETA: Dumb typos.

[Ossai]

Sorry it took so long to reply but this thread fell off the first page.

Kitty Chan
God didnt create people to send them to hell it's His intention that everyone should be with Him. But some choose not to. I believe with the falsehoods you are referring to people with hard hearts and those have already choosen not to believe God so really they are only getting their choice. Also see that earlier thread
Not according to the bible

Jude 1:4 “For there are certain men crept in unawares, who were before of old ordained to this condemnation, ungodly men, turning the grace of our God into lasciviousness, and denying the only Lord God, and our Lord Jesus Christ.�
And


[b]Rom.8:29-30 "For whom he did foreknow, he also did predestinate.... 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."

Christians have two choices:
1. Keep god omni- and never declare knowledge of anything, including plans, rules, etc. Basically just do what they want and declare that god really wants it as well, pretty much what most of them do now.
2. Drop the omni- bit. It would solve quiet a few problems.
If God was not omni then He wouldnt be God. I dont know what knowledge you are referring to. Do you have a for instance?
If god is omni- then god already knows everything and controls everything. People can’t do anything that god hasn’t already determined/witnessed/created/etc. People are then just actors on the stage of life playing their parts. The actors may believe they’re doing what they want (i.e. have freewill) but they can’t actually deviate from the script which god wrote.

Why did you say that god had to be omnipotent? Is that a requirement listed somewhere? Even in the bible god has problems and difficulties which would indicate that at least the OT version wasn’t omnipotent.

Ossai

[elliotfc]

Originally posted by Patrick
If I understand Christian doctrine correctly, God endows man with free will, and then holds him accountable for his choices.

Yes, I think that just about every Christian would agree with that. Some (like me) would temper that explanation, perhaps call it a bit too simplistic, even if it is essentially correct. I think that God takes every conceivable factor into account. My choice not to, or to, steal food from the grocery store is not equivalent to a poor person's choice not tom, or to, steal food from a grocery store. In addition, I feel that RECONCILIATION has to be a part of this understanding. Accountablity includes not just punishment/reward, but a possibility for understanding and healing.

But if God is All-Powerful, surely He is able to foresee the choices everyone will make.

This assumes that he wants to forsee all of the choices everyone will make, or that he does forsee all of the choices that everyone will make. I suspect that you have a different opinion of "omniscience" or "omnipotence" than I, or Christians like myself. God's ability to do something doesn't mean that he does it, that he is interested in doing it, or that he is compelled to do it.

If He's able to do that, then He knows every choice that each individual will make when he is created.

You're assuming that God is interested in all of that at the moment of creation. If God considers us as we are, and not as what we will be, your point is either irrelevant or false.

Second, I don't know if God does in fact no every choice that each individual will make. I think there are a variety of Christian sentiments on this point.

That being the case, how can He hold everyone accountable with rewards and punishments, when there was no doubt about the outcome from the beginning?

Because rewards and punishments are not contingent upon the outcomes of temporal events! The reward is communion with God, and that can not be had by earthly merit. The punishment can be avoided by the greatest sinner if he repents and (in my opinion) goes through a purgation/learning process.

See, most Christians believe that it is not the outcomes of temporal choices/events that result in reward/punishment, but either the embracing of a creed/belief, a repenting of sins, a purgatory process, etc., that has eternal impact.

That isn't saying that temporal outcomes are irrelevant or meaningless. Rather, they are relevant and meaningful, but only as far as they impact us in our path toward God, or away from God.

Or do you want to claim that God is NOT All-Knowing? Then does that mean that He is imperfect?

I'm not sure how relevant his knowledge is to what appears to be the accountability question. Free will means that creatures with free will make free choices. If God knows all of these choices, that doesn't mean that they weren't freely made.

God may be imperfect in your opinion. To a believing Christian, God is perfect. If we are not content with God's perfection, that's our problem, not God's. What God is, is perfection, and if you don't think that to be perfection, you can take it up with God eventually. We Christians do our best to understand and explain God's perfection. We accept it as an article of faith, and frankly aren't all that bothered when non-Christians standards of perfection define our God to be non-perfect. Why should non-believers have the power to define God's perfection? If they had that power, God would not be God, but would be a contingency.

If you are comparing a God that you don't believe in to your objective standard of perfection, you are indicating that you *could* believe in a God, but you can't believe in the Christian God, because your understanding of the Christian God proves him to be imperfect. May I suggest that your understanding of the Christian God is imperfect? If all God cared about was outcomes, there would be no reason for Jesus. The outcomes of free will and choices would determine salvation or damnation. But with the Incarnation, that isn't the case. I think you're missing the point with your questions here. If you want to divorce Jesus/reconciliation/forgiveness from all of this, then you aren't talking about the Christian God at all.

-Elliot

[Richard G]

No creature under Gods creation will enter into eternity without making a concious decision to accept him as Lord, and keep his commandments, or to reject him, and live in rebelion.

God does not force himself on anyone. Each persons decision is his own to make, independent of God.

[Kitty Chan]

Originally posted by Ossai
Sorry it took so long to reply but this thread fell off the first page.
Not according to the bible

Jude 1:4 “For there are certain men crept in unawares, who were before of old ordained to this condemnation, ungodly men, turning the grace of our God into lasciviousness, and denying the only Lord God, and our Lord Jesus Christ.�
And

[b]Rom.8:29-30 "For whom he did foreknow, he also did predestinate.... 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."

Reply from Kitty
Well we all get busy :)

As for the 1st one its referring to ungodly men whom are not interested in God.

The 2nd one is more about predestinate, its speaking firstly about Jesus It is saying that God would begin a work in you but not abandon you but see it through. That we would conform or simply put try to be like Jesus the first born. Then Romans finishes off by saying that nothing around can separate us from Gods love.
Originally posted by Kitty
If God was not omni then He wouldnt be God. I dont know what knowledge you are referring to. Do you have a for instance?
Ossai
If god is omni- then god already knows everything and controls everything. People can’t do anything that god hasn’t already determined/witnessed/created/etc. People are then just actors on the stage of life playing their parts. The actors may believe they’re doing what they want (i.e. have freewill) but they can’t actually deviate from the script which god wrote.

Why did you say that god had to be omnipotent? Is that a requirement listed somewhere? Even in the bible god has problems and difficulties which would indicate that at least the OT version wasn’t omnipotent.
[/QUOTE]

Try a parent, who through life has gained some wisdom. They watch the child struggle and know what will happen if the child continues but allows the child to find out for themselves. The parent could control but does not. the more struborn a child the more the parent has to let the child learn on their own. (Doesnt mean the parent isnt chewing the nails in the meantime:)

(elliot added some about free will so I wont)

As for God watching and us actors. This is why God is probably blamed for a murderer. Because God should have stopped it. So that makes God bad not the murderer. The murderer chose the action and is responsible, not God. If God stopped it then Gods interfering with free will. We are free to love or kill. If we are forced to love it is a empty love, how many books have been written about false love and how unfulfillling it is. We must choose love.

No, we are responsible for our own actions and cannot place blame on God or the devil for making us do anything.

omni - try looking at it from another angle.

You are sitting at your computer reading this at this moment. yesterday is gone, this morning is gone. Tommorow is coming and so is summer. You and I are slaves to time and we mark our lives with it.

Jesus said not to worry about yesterday for it is gone, Tommorow has enough troubles think about today.

God is not a slave to time, He is not confined to it like we are. God is outside the time line we follow. All the days are now to Him. Where they are yesterday, today and tommorow for us.

:)

[Ossai]

Elliotfc
I suspect that you have a different opinion of "omniscience" or "omnipotence" than I, or Christians like myself. No opinion necessary when you bother to use the actual definition.

God's ability to do something doesn't mean that he does it, that he is interested in doing it, or that he is compelled to do it. Yet the bible states that he wants to do it, does it and has done it (predestination that is) for everyone (or at least all those already saved by grace or destined for hell).

You're assuming that God is interested in all of that at the moment of creation. If God considers us as we are, and not as what we will be, your point is either irrelevant or false. Not false or irrelevant, just repeating what’s in the bible.

Second, I don't know if God does in fact no every choice that each individual will make. I think there are a variety of Christian sentiments on this point. Basically – remove the omni- bit.

If God knows all of these choices, that doesn't mean that they weren't freely made.
If god knows person A will make choice X, can person A choose not X?
If you answer ‘yes’ then god’s knowledge wasn’t perfect.
If you answer ‘no’ then person A does not have a choice, just the illusion of one.

May I suggest that your understanding of the Christian God is imperfect? If all God cared about was outcomes, there would be no reason for Jesus. The outcomes of free will and choices would determine salvation or damnation. But with the Incarnation, that isn't the case. A restatement of what you just said. My choices in life are meaningless, therefore I’m not responsible for the harm I do to myself or others. I’ve got a free pass to heaven, and forgiveness, as long as I ask Jesus for it.

Richard G
God does not force himself on anyone. Each persons decision is his own to make, independent of God. Not according to the text of the bible.

Kitty Chan
As for the 1st one its referring to ungodly men whom are not interested in God. Because they aren’t allow to be interested in god.

The 2nd one is more about predestinate, its speaking firstly about Jesus It is saying that God would begin a work in you but not abandon you but see it through. That we would conform or simply put try to be like Jesus the first born. Then Romans finishes off by saying that nothing around can separate us from Gods love. Nope, go back and read Romans 8 again. It starts off talking about Jesus and Jesus interceding, but it brings in those that follow Jesus and how they were predestined to do so.

God is not a slave to time, He is not confined to it like we are. God is outside the time line we follow. All the days are now to Him. Where they are yesterday, today and tommorow for us. You aren’t saying anything that isn’t already covered under omnipotent.

The murderer chose the action and is responsible, not God. The murderer was just playing their part. Look at the person A example above.

Ossai

[Dr Adequate]

Originally posted by Kitty Chan
God didnt create people to send them to hell it's His intention that everyone should be with Him. Originally posted by God, apparently
The LORD hath made all things for himself: yea, even the wicked for the day of evil. --- Proverbs 16:4
Hmm... who to believe...?

[Dr Adequate]

Originally posted by Kitty Chan
When people ask why isnt God swooping down from the sky and stopping whatever, God's answer is I am doing something I put you there to do it.
So, God creates childhood leukemia to torture children to death with, but the world is full of good, decent people who would rather die than do anything one tenth as cruel, some of whom are trying to find a cure. And since God put them there their aspirations and efforts for good should be counted as his, whereas his efforts for evil should be blamed on... the wickedness of man, if I remember my theology.

Wow. Wow. Wow.

I see the light. And it's indistinguishable from darkness, because black is white, and the good that men do is to be attributed to God, and the evil that God does is to be attributed to men, and a filthy torturing sadist is fit to be worshipped as the Highest.

[elliotfc]

Originally posted by Ossai
Elliotfc
No opinion necessary when you bother to use the actual definition.

Sure an opinion is necessary, which is why you offer yours and I offer mine.

You are saying that God MUST follow the dictionary definition of omnipotence/omniscience (actually I'd say that you want God to act omnipotently/omnsciently as you would understand those two words, but I won't quibble that point) and I say that is nonsense. God is not contingent on definitions that humans construct. He is not compelled to follow the Dictionary.

If you think that God has to follow the Dictionary, then you believe that the Dictionary is actually God, and that God is a contingency.

Definitions of concepts are nice. Omnipotence, if it exists, would exist fully (or exist at all) only in God. So what God is would be the actual NON-HUMAN-CONCEPTUAL existence of omnipotence/omniscience. And I'll take that for what it is, and not what you or me or anyone else would have it to be.

More later.

-Elliot

[Eleatic Stranger]

You are saying that God MUST follow the dictionary definition of omnipotence/omniscience (actually I'd say that you want God to act omnipotently/omnsciently as you would understand those two words, but I won't quibble that point) and I say that is nonsense. God is not contingent on definitions that humans construct. He is not compelled to follow the Dictionary.

I doubt that's exactly what he's saying - certainly God doesn't have to follow the dictionary definition of omnipotence/omniscience/etc, but God does have to fulfill the criteria in that definition for those terms to apply to him.

Again, I think what's happening here is a confusion of language and metaphysics. Certainly if God is omnipotent than certain things will be true of him (based on the criteria in the definition), but that isn't a constraint on God - it's a constraint on us, and how we apply the term omnipotent to things.

[Kitty Chan]

Originally posted by Ossai
Because they aren’t allow to be interested in god.

They did know God because it says they turned the Grace of God, it doesnt apply to what your trying to say, thats all :)


Originally posted by Ossai
Nope, go back and read Romans 8 again. It starts off talking about Jesus and Jesus interceding, but it brings in those that follow Jesus and how they were predestined to do so.

I did answer what you say, I did read Romans you have it correct about Jesus being first but then your not quite understanding the next part.

Romans says we could conform to or as I said simply put try to be like Jesus whom is the first born. And states that God would not start a work in you to abandon you He would stay and near the end it finished off by saying that nothing can separate us from Gods love. Its not saying as you say about everyone is predestined.

I said:

God is not a slave to time, He is not confined to it like we are. God is outside the time line we follow. All the days are now to Him. Where they are yesterday, today and tommorow for us.

You said:

You aren’t saying anything that isn’t already covered under omnipotent.

Exactly, God is not tied to time as we are. He sees as you do it, so how can He be writing your next move?

same with the murderer.

Last point if God was writing our moves then He would be responsible. If one thought that they were a puppet then of course one would be mad at God. And of course God looks like a sadist because He could write happiness into everyone.

Now, if God is not writing ones next move then they are responsible for their own moves and the results of those moves. This is where most people dont want to be, responsible. Its better to blame God than take blame themselves for their own actions.

God said heres your life, heres the instructions, you can follow or make up your own, your choice. Just like a parent raises a child and eventually has to let go and see how a child does.

:)

[Riddick]

Originally posted by Patrick
If I understand Christian doctrine correctly, God endows man with free will, and then holds him accountable for his choices. But if God is All-Powerful, surely He is able to foresee the choices everyone will make. If He's able to do that, then He knows every choice that each individual will make when he is created. That being the case, how can He hold everyone accountable with rewards and punishments, when there was no doubt about the outcome from the beginning? Or do you want to claim that God is NOT All-Knowing? Then does that mean that He is imperfect?
So then, it comes down to either 1) not create you at all or 2) create you, knowing what your choices will be.

If you have made your choice, and you are happy with your choice, what is wrong with that?

I'm sure God does intervene for us, more often than we are aware of. It is my thinking, that he will intervene for many people, even those that didn't accept him, in the end. There's a text "whatsoever you have done for the least, you have also done for me." which should provide a gigantic loophole in the end.

[Ossai]

elliotfc
God is not contingent on definitions that humans construct. He is not compelled to follow the Dictionary. Actually since god is a human construct, I would say that he is indeed compelled to follow human definitions.

Definitions of concepts are nice. Omnipotence, if it exists, would exist fully (or exist at all) only in God. So what God is would be the actual NON-HUMAN-CONCEPTUAL existence of omnipotence/omniscience. Since humans have conceptualized omnipotence and since god is the actual non-human conceptualization, does that mean that god is non-conceptual, i.e. non-existant.

And I'll take that for what it is, and not what you or me or anyone else would have it to be.

Kitty Chan
They did know God because it says they turned the Grace of God, it doesnt apply to what your trying to say, thats all Nope, they weren’t allowed the grace of god.

Romans says we could conform to or as I said simply put try to be like Jesus whom is the first born. And states that God would not start a work in you to abandon you He would stay and near the end it finished off by saying that nothing can separate us from Gods love. Its not saying as you say about everyone is predestined. Funny, that’s not what the text says. (color mine)

Romans 8:29 - 31
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.
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.
What shall we then say to these things? If God be for us, who can be against us?

Now, if God is not writing ones next move then they are responsible for their own moves and the results of those moves. This is where most people dont want to be, responsible. Its better to blame God than take blame themselves for their own actions. Ah, but you haven’t read your bible. God already knows everything and created everything, which would mean that god did indeed ‘write my next moves’, in fact, everyone’s prior, current and next moves.

God said heres your life, heres the instructions, you can follow or make up your own, your choice. Just like a parent raises a child and eventually has to let go and see how a child does. What instructions? You can’t be referring to the BuyBull can you, certainly not that pile of hate mongering.

Riddick
So then, it comes down to either 1) not create you at all or 2) create you, knowing what your choices will be.

If you have made your choice, and you are happy with your choice, what is wrong with that?
No choice involved.

God creates person A to do X. Person A does X. Did person A have a choice?
If person A could do not X then god was wrong. If person A must do X, for god to be correct, then person A does not have a choice. At best the illusion of choice.

Ossai

[Kitty Chan]

{[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by Ossai

Nope, they weren’t allowed the grace of god.

Here is the scripture again;

For there are certain men crept in unawares, who were before of old ordained to this condemnation, ungodly men, turning the grace of our God into lasciviousness, and denying the only Lord God, and our Lord Jesus Christ.

Certain men creeping in unawares are false teachers who play at being scriptural. They do not regard God at all. They take the idea of grace and use it for a excuse to sin, by saying God loves to forgive so they abuse it. This condemnation is to do with Enochs prophecy of ungodly men as these were. That they were to come along at a point in time, men just like these. So, they were allowed Grace they did not take it.

It is not God writing a role for a puppet.



Ossai
Funny, that’s not what the text says. (color mine)

Romans 8:29 - 31
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.
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.
What shall we then say to these things? If God be for us, who can be against us?


OK I will explain it another way God sees our lives, its like He is watching a rerun or now as I said before. He see you as you do it but does not write your moves.

If God is writing your life then why do you have to choose to follow Him? These scriptures simply do not say what you are trying to have them say.



Ossai
Ah, but you haven’t read your bible. God already knows everything and created everything, which would mean that god did indeed ‘write my next moves’, in fact, everyone’s prior, current and next moves.


Yes God know everything and created everything but He did not write your next moves.

I said the following, how does God writing your moves fit into this:

God is not a slave to time, He is not confined to it like we are. God is outside the time line we follow. All the days are now to Him. Where they are yesterday, today and tommorow for us.

God is not tied to time as we are. He sees as you do it, so how can He be writing your next move?

The point is next, and I believe the reason for wanting God to be the writer of ones moves.

If God is not writing ones next move then they are responsible for their own moves and the results of those moves. This is where most people dont want to be, responsible.

Its better to blame God than take blame themselves for their own actions.

God said heres your life, heres the instructions, His Word, you can follow or make up your own, your choice.

See, its ones choice if God was writing your life there would be no choice.

Now, you claim hate mongering, with all due respect that is a party lline. It would like me saying oh atheists have no morals, thats a party line. What good is that?

Hate mongering only comes from this idea that Gods writing a life. We do write our own moves and are responsible for them.

[Ossai]

Kitty Chan
They did know God because it says they turned the Grace of God, it doesnt apply to what your trying to say, thats all And yet the BuyBull clearly states that god created the wicked for that purpose. Again I ask, can a person override god?

If God is writing your life then why do you have to choose to follow Him? These scriptures simply do not say what you are trying to have them say. Actually I have just been restating the scriptures. You are the one interpreting the scriptures to mean something else.

I said the following, how does God writing your moves fit into this:

God is not a slave to time, He is not confined to it like we are. God is outside the time line we follow. All the days are now to Him. Where they are yesterday, today and tommorow for us.

God is not tied to time as we are. He sees as you do it, so how can He be writing your next move? You keep stating it but not seeing it. Let me try and break it down a bit.

God created everything.
God is ‘outside’ time.

That means god created the past, present and future simultaneously.
Which means every action you or anyone else does was deliberately caused by god.

You keep removing freewill and haven’t even realized it.

If God is not writing ones next move then they are responsible for their own moves and the results of those moves. This is where most people dont want to be, responsible. Not quiet. One of the big reasons I’m no longer a Christian is I believe in personal responsibility, not in fobbing off my misdeeds to others i.e. begging forgiveness from god. The other reason is I actually read the bible and observed all the Good Christians around me and their actions.

God said heres your life, heres the instructions, His Word, you can follow or make up your own, your choice. Which includes stoning disobedient children, rape and genocide.

See, its ones choice if God was writing your life there would be no choice. According to the bible, there is no choice, merely the illusion of one.

Now, you claim hate mongering, with all due respect that is a party lline. It would like me saying oh atheists have no morals, thats a party line. What good is that? Every, and I mean every, Christian sect I’ve ever interacted with at one time or another basically breaks the world down to Us vs. Them. Some, CoC come to mind, are more prone to do so than others.

Ossai

[elliotfc]

Originally posted by Ossai

Actually since god is a human construct, I would say that he is indeed compelled to follow human definitions.

I don't think I have responded to this yet, I apologize if I already have.

Well there you go. You, by default, assume that God is a human construct, and since you do that, we are talking past each other. My premise is different. So at least we understand our quibble over God/omnipotence.


Since humans have conceptualized omnipotence and since god is the actual non-human conceptualization, does that mean that god is non-conceptual, i.e. non-existant.

I don't think that non-conceptual corresponds to non-existant by any means.

-Elliot

[elliotfc]

Originally posted by Ossai
Yet the bible states that he wants to do it, does it and has done it (predestination that is) for everyone (or at least all those already saved by grace or destined for hell).

Well certainly given facts and objective realities and eternal justice, God would have the suitable "sentence" for each human soul. Of course my conceptions of heaven/hell aren't exactly found in the Bible, so I'm not really referring to, or explicitly defending what you say that the Bible states.

Destiny follows from the choices made, and since God isn't arbitrary and has perfect justice, the destiny will be...well, self-evident from God's point of view. Does that make sense? Yes, the destination is certain, for their is no other alternatives when you're talking about perfect justice.


Not false or irrelevant, just repeating what’s in the bible.

That's what I love about skeptics, they're often bigger Bible believers than me. :)

i know i know i know

Frankly theology (even if you're a fundamentalist Bible-based Christian) has evolved past the Bible. The Bible evolves within itself. What are we talking about again? There's still free choice and there's still eternal justice. Predestination? Why not? Cause and effect is the most natural thing in the world.

If god knows person A will make choice X, can person A choose not X?

It seems (correct me if I'm wrong) that you're saying that God's knowledge has some influence over the human choice. I say that they correspond. In God's case the correspondence is concurrent and instantaneous. But God's knowledge is contingent on the human choice (remember, free will, the thing that you have a problem with).

Specifically within your query, God's power does not compel the choice. In fact your query is itself contradictory. If god knows person A will make choice X, how can person A not make choice X?


If you answer ‘yes’ then god’s knowledge wasn’t perfect.
If you answer ‘no’ then person A does not have a choice, just the illusion of one.

Tough to give a yes or no answer to a question with a fundamental flaw, that negates itself.

You'll get no answer from me. Yay for you. If you supply more questions with inherent contradiction, you'll leave me speechless and I'll concede anything you'd like.

A restatement of what you just said. My choices in life are meaningless, therefore I’m not responsible for the harm I do to myself or others. I’ve got a free pass to heaven, and forgiveness, as long as I ask Jesus for it.

No, everything has meaning.

Yes, you are responsible for any harm you do (that's why you need to ask forgiveness). If we weren't responsible, there's no need to ask for forgiveness.

No, you do not have a free pass to heaven. The pass was paid for by blood and suffering. There's nothing free about it. By saying it's free you clearly don't understand, reject, or have contempt for the magnitude of the Incarnation.

Yes, you have to ask. It has to be sincere and total, and includes a rejection of pride and admission of all of the wrong done. Total capitulation. Each particular sin must be addressed. The wrong done to others must be experienced. It's not bye bye sin, nice knowing you. Rather, you'll feel the pain that you caused others. You may even be confronted by the people you've hurt. Piece of cake you think? I doubt it. Pride is a tough thing to let go of. Admitting that you're wrong, and ditching all of the excuses? Ruminate over that one. Think you're up to it? If not, then you admit that it isn't a free pass.

And how do I know all of this? It's not in the Bible. Exactly. It's just Catholic theology. If you're trying to get me to accept that the Bible's explanations for the afterlife don't cut it, I'll agree with you on that one.

Richard, the Bible (on this one) is your salvation. Just don't use it as an excuse. Remember, if all we needed was the Bible, there would have been no Incarnation. It's not like Jesus wrote the Bible.

You can restate what I say the way you'd like, and you'll miss what I'm saying every time. You want my understandings and explanations to fit in your little box, the box that demands simplicity and 6-year old explanations. See, you've made your choice. You can't think past what you've already assumed. And believe me, God didn't force you to do that. And if you think he did, you must be one hell of a mental weakling.

-Elliot

[Ossai]

Elliotfc
Destiny follows from the choices made, and since God isn't arbitrary and has perfect justice, the destiny will be...well, self-evident from God's point of view. Does that make sense? Stick to English definition, please.

Destiny
1 : something to which a person or thing is destined
2 : a predetermined course of events often held to be an irresistible power or agency

Yes, the destination is certain, for their is no other alternatives when you're talking about perfect justice.

There's still free choice and there's still eternal justice. Predestination? Why not? Cause and effect is the most natural thing in the world. Again stick to the definitions. Predestination rules out free choice.

It seems (correct me if I'm wrong) that you're saying that God's knowledge has some influence over the human choice. I say that they correspond. In God's case the correspondence is concurrent and instantaneous. And you’ve just dropped omnipotent from God by limiting god by time.

But God's knowledge is contingent on the human choice (remember, free will, the thing that you have a problem with). If god foreknows (knowledge of the future) how can that be contingent on a person’s choice? God already knows person A will do X. Can person A choose not X?

Tough to give a yes or no answer to a question with a fundamental flaw, that negates itself. Point out the flaw. I’ve merely restated, in common parlance, what is stated in the bible and ask a valid question.

No, you do not have a free pass to heaven. The pass was paid for by blood and suffering. There's nothing free about it. By saying it's free you clearly don't understand, reject, or have contempt for the magnitude of the Incarnation. Apparently you don’t understand the definition of ‘free’. It doesn’t matter if someone else paid for it and then gave it to you, from your perspective it is free.
Now we could go into the predestined bit – completely free, or asking for forgiveness – token payment.

Rather, you'll feel the pain that you caused others. You may even be confronted by the people you've hurt. And you get this from where?

And how do I know all of this? It's not in the Bible. Exactly. It's just Catholic theology. If you're trying to get me to accept that the Bible's explanations for the afterlife don't cut it, I'll agree with you on that one. So you’ve just stated, in so many words, that the bible is wrong. How is one supposed to know what parts are correct and which parts are incorrect? Or do you just throw out any bits you don’t like?

Ossai

[Kitty Chan]

Kitty - They did know God because it says they turned the Grace of God, it doesnt apply to what your trying to say, thats all

Ossai - And yet the BuyBull clearly states that god created the wicked for that purpose. Again I ask, can a person override god?

Kitty - Jude does not say that. If this is a jump to another scripture which one?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Kitty - If God is writing your life then why do you have to choose to follow Him? These scriptures simply do not say what you are trying to have them say.

Ossai - Actually I have just been restating the scriptures. You are the one interpreting the scriptures to mean something else.

Kitty - Sorry no interpreting on my part, just reading and understanding.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Kitty - I said the following, how does God writing your moves fit into this:

God is not a slave to time, He is not confined to it like we are. God is outside the time line we follow. All the days are now to Him. Where they are yesterday, today and tommorow for us.

God is not tied to time as we are. He sees as you do it, so how can He be writing your next move?

Ossai - You keep stating it but not seeing it. Let me try and break it down a bit.
God created everything.
God is ‘outside’ time.
That means god created the past, present and future simultaneously.
Which means every action you or anyone else does was deliberately caused by god.
You keep removing freewill and haven’t even realized it.

Kitty - I am seeing it, you are still a slave to time, you are thinking as if God is moving through it. God has no past or future, He is in present.

He did not deliberately cause every action you or I have done. WE are responsible, we choose.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Kitty - If God is not writing ones next move then they are responsible for their own moves and the results of those moves. This is where most people dont want to be, responsible.

Ossai - Not quiet. One of the big reasons I’m no longer a Christian is I believe in personal responsibility, not in fobbing off my misdeeds to others i.e. begging forgiveness from god. The other reason is I actually read the bible and observed all the Good Christians around me and their actions.

Kitty - Like elliot said if you think that when you do something wrong you just fob it off on God. Do you realise, this is WHAT Jude was talking about how they misuse the Grace of God.

Your second point I understand you to say because the christians around you did not measure up to your standards you judged them unworthy.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Kitty - God said heres your life, heres the instructions, His Word, you can follow or make up your own, your choice.

Osssi - Which includes stoning disobedient children, rape and genocide.

Kitty - What about love your neighbour as yourself? Thats a teaching of Christ. Once again you are looking at bits and not the whole.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Kitty - See, its ones choice if God was writing your life there would be no choice.

Ossai - According to the bible, there is no choice, merely the illusion of one.

Kitty - This is quoted where? no choice just a illusion.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Kitty - Now, you claim hate mongering, with all due respect that is a party lline. It would like me saying oh atheists have no morals, thats a party line. What good is that?

Ossai - Every, and I mean every, Christian sect I’ve ever interacted with at one time or another basically breaks the world down to Us vs. Them. Some, CoC come to mind, are more prone to do so than others.

Kitty - I agree every HUMAN on this planet gets out the Us and Them flags. (Yosemite Sam and Bugs Bunny did as well ;) )

WE are ALL wicked and sinful creatures. Adam and Eve were created and as God said about all He created "it was good" You are mistaking the fall with God creating people to be wicked.

The knowledge was the knowledge of good and evil. That God did not want us to suffer. But we do. He did not leave us stranded He gave a way to get rid of the evil or sinful natures.

I find it fasinating that God could be blamed for what we do but the one responsible (Lucifier) is the one getting the pass.

You are correct that those whom are christians should act different, but the secret is they TRY but probably are not perfect. The bible is clear about personal responsibility thats why all the parts about repenting. Like elliot said responsibility is harder than thought.

:)

[Ossai]

Kitty Chan
Jude does not say that. If this is a jump to another scripture which one? Sorry, I may have mixed this thread up with another. I’ll go back and look.

Kitty - I am seeing it, you are still a slave to time, you are thinking as if God is moving through it. God has no past or future, He is in present.

He did not deliberately cause every action you or I have done. WE are responsible, we choose. If god is omnipotent and always in the present – from god’s perspective, then from our perspective god already knows the future. Can we go against what god already knows?

It still boils down to: God knows the future – not predicts but knows. Can a person something that god does not know or can a person do something different than god knows?

Kitty - Like elliot said if you think that when you do something wrong you just fob it off on God. Do you realise, this is WHAT Jude was talking about how they misuse the Grace of God. Reference on this one please.

Your second point I understand you to say because the christians around you did not measure up to your standards you judged them unworthy. Actually the god of the bible doesn’t even measure up to my (or even western societies) rather low standards.

Kitty - What about love your neighbour as yourself? Thats a teaching of Christ. Once again you are looking at bits and not the whole. Which is the same thing you are doing. You are just looking at the nice fluffy bits and ignoring the majority.

Rom.8:29-30 "For whom he did foreknow, he also did predestinate.... 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."
Rom.9:11-22 "For the children being not yet born, neither having done any good or evil, that the purpose of God according to election might stand, not of works, but of him that calleth. .... For he saith to Moses, I will have mercy on whom I will have mercy, and I will have compassion on whom I will have compassion. So then it is not of him that willeth, nor of him that runneth, but of God that sheweth mercy. For the scripture saith unto Pharaoh, Even for this same purpose have I raised thee up, that I might shew my power in thee, and that my name might be declared throughout all the earth. Therefore hath he mercy on whom he will have mercy, and whom he will he hardeneth. Thou wilt say then unto me, Why doth he yet find fault? For who hath resisted his will? Nay but, O man, who art thou that repliest against God? Shall the thing formed say to him that formed it, Why hast thou made me thus? Hath not the potter power over the clay, of the same lump to make one vessel unto honour, and another unto dishonour? What if God, willing to shew his wrath, and to make his power known, endured with much longsuffering the vessels of wrath fitted to destruction."
WE are ALL wicked and sinful creatures. Adam and Eve were created and as God said about all He created "it was good" You are mistaking the fall with God creating people to be wicked. What fall? The myth of Adam and Eve – any evidence for them at all? If you’ll bother reading Genesis, god set them up to fail. Prior to them eating of the fruit of the tree of knowledge they did not know right from wrong. Then when they gain that knowledge god punishes them for it.

I find it fasinating that God could be blamed for what we do but the one responsible (Lucifier) is the one getting the pass. Actually it is the serpent that ‘tempted’ them, not Lucifier.

The bible is clear about personal responsibility thats why all the parts about repenting. Like elliot said responsibility is harder than thought. Again a token payment for transgressions against others. Shouldn’t you be asking those whom you’ve wronged for forgiveness and not god or do they not count in the grand scheme of things?

Ossai

[Skeptical Greg]

Kitty said:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The bible is clear about personal responsibility thats why all the parts about repenting. Like elliot said responsibility is harder than thought.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Ossai said:
Again a token payment for transgressions against others. Shouldn’t you be asking those whom you’ve wronged for forgiveness and not god or do they not count in the grand scheme of things?

Ossai

Or just not wrong anyone in the first place?

People know when they are behaving badly. The hope, is that they won't get caught , or if they do, maybe they will be forgiven...

I think asking for forgiveness from anyone is mostly a bunch of crap. ( Least of all from some dead guy, who wasn't the one you sh&t on). It sends the message :

" I can do whatever I want, as long as I say " I'm sorry. " later..

Saying " Forgive me . " Is another dose of selfishness on top of the wrongdoing that you did in the first place.

I'ts about making you feel better, it doesn't undo what you did.

[elliotfc]

Originally posted by Ossai
Elliotfc
Stick to English definition, please.

Destiny
1 : something to which a person or thing is destined
2 : a predetermined course of events often held to be an irresistible power or agency[

No problem with definition 1. Free will can co-exist with definition 1.

In my opinion, definition 2 does not apply to God. I don't believe that God created entities who have no free will.


Again stick to the definitions. Predestination rules out free choice.

Naw. A destination, within the confines of perfect justice, can certainly and postitively apply, without exception, to every thing which is subject to the perfect justice. Free choice is variable in that different choices can be made, but there are certain consequences that are PRE-DETERMINED for the choices. That's what's predestined. The fate that MUST follow from the free choices. Our choices aren't pre-destined. But there is a pre-destined fate for each choice, or ourselves as beings with free choice.

I'm talking pre-destination as a certain destiny here. Free choice corresponds to certain destiny. That is why they can, and do, co-exist! I am personally empowered by this way of thinking. I have something to do with my destination. Yes it is predestined, and thank God for that. By knowing how the perfect justice works out, my faith in predestination makes my choices clear. If there was no pre-destination, how could I guide my choices? If the destiny is arbitrary and imperfect, free will is truly a lie.

And you’ve just dropped omnipotent from God by limiting god by time.

Oh I disagree with that. I said that God's knowledge corresponds to the human choice. That doesn't mean that God doesn't possess that knowledge eternally.

If god foreknows (knowledge of the future) how can that be contingent on a person’s choice? God already knows person A will do X. Can person A choose not X?

Because he allows free will. Since he allows free will, he allows the choices of free will. Since he allows the choices of free will, his knowledge is instantaneously concurrent with those choices, yet he also is aware of this concurrence at all times, because he is God.

I can't answer the second part because they are senseless when connected. If your point was to have me recognize that "God already knows person A will do X. Can person A choose not X?" makes no sense, I recognize that.

Apparently you don’t understand the definition of ‘free’. It doesn’t matter if someone else paid for it and then gave it to you, from your perspective it is free.

ARGGHHHHHHHHHHHHH

Well you've just gone ahead and stomped on the essence of my religion! See, we Christians only repeat, ad nauseum, that GOD PAID THE PRICE for our sins, so I am not about to say that this is a free deal.

If someone hands you a cheeseburger and says it's free, you apparently don't think it matters if someone else paid for it. But I'm not that kind of person. Christians aren't going to think like you do. Christians think it DOES MATTER that God paid the price for our sins.

You are demonstrating that you disagree with how Christians think. You certainly aren't defining our theology.

Regarding the definition of free....YOU YOURSELF admit it is a matter of pespective. From someone else's perspective it isn't free. In fact, if it is paid for, by DEFINITION, the thing is not inherently free. Go back to the cheeseburger. Was the cheeseburger free? Kindly withhold your personal perspective, and answer the question objectively? Was the cheeseburger free? No, not if someone paid for it.


Now we could go into the predestined bit – completely free, or asking for forgiveness – token payment.

It isn't a token if it's the most important thing that matters in the end. Agreed? Let's see if I can get you to agree with a hypothetical. If, hypothetically speaking, it is the most important thing in the end, can you really call it a token? Feel free to use your dictionary for that one.

And you get this from where?

Just as there are thousands of descriptions of Heaven and Hell, there are thousands of descriptions of Purgatory. Purgatory is not to be found in the Bible, it is a Catholic dogma that I accept, and that I explain in my own individual way, a way that co-exists and often corresponds to I don't know how many other hundreds of explanations of purgatory I have encountered. If you want to limit yourself to the Bible, then surely you would reject Purgatory. (For clarification purposes, do you limit yourself to the Bible in your beliefs?)




It is what it is, and I accept it for what it is. I don't believe that the ENTIRETY of objective reality is in the Bible. Does that make it wrong? That could make everything wrong. I do recognize that there are many contradictions in the Bible. Does that make it wrong? It does, if you believe that there was only one author of the Bible who was intent on complete internal harmony.

I wouldn't classify the Bible as wrong, and I'm not dodging your question. It is what it is. If you must see the Bible in black and white, take your pick. I read the Bible and I follow the evolution of theological ideas. This would be akin to me saying that the theory of evolution is wrong because evolutionary ideas have evolved over time.


[B]How is one supposed to know what parts are correct and which parts are incorrect?

Discernment. Understanding that perspectives have changed over the centuries. Having a healthy respect for the centuries of hermeneutics that are available. Like all things, every human must do the best they can to suss out all that is before him or her. Respect will be given to effort. I'm not sure how much respect will be given to absolute a priori rejection. But I don't think you're doing that, because you seem to be thinking through the Bible.


Or do you just throw out any bits you don’t like?

You could do that, but I don't throw out any bits of the Bible. I think it's all in there, for good reason.

-Elliot

[Skeptical Greg]

ARGGHHHHHHHHHHHHH

Well you've just gone ahead and stomped on the essence of my religion! See, we Christians only repeat, ad nauseum, that GOD PAID THE PRICE for our sins, so I am not about to say that this is a free deal.

If someone hands you a cheeseburger and says it's free, you apparently don't think it matters if someone else paid for it. But I'm not that kind of person. Christians aren't going to think like you do. Christians think it DOES MATTER that God paid the price for our sins.



Pointing out that God paid the price for our sins is like saying Bill Gates gave me a free copy of Windows.


Maybe Ossai is suggesting that Ray Kroc is handing you the cheeseburger..?


Have you heard the story of " The widows mite? "


Explain the magnanimity of calling the fire deprtment after you have started a fire?

[KingMerv00]

"...GOD PAID THE PRICE ..."

By torturing his son?

Seems kinda unnecessary.

[Ossai]

Elliotfc
No problem with definition 1. Free will can co-exist with definition 1. How?
If person A is destined to do X, can they do not X?

Free choice is variable in that different choices can be made, but there are certain consequences that are PRE-DETERMINED for the choices. That's what's predestined. The fate that MUST follow from the free choices. Our choices aren't pre-destined. But there is a pre-destined fate for each choice, or ourselves as beings with free choice.
You are incorrectly using the terms. You’ve set up a straw man. You’re mixing pre-determined consequence verses predestined action. Stick to action in the example.

I'm talking pre-destination as a certain destiny here. Free choice corresponds to certain destiny. Same straw man. You are still mixing action and consequence of action.

And you’ve just dropped omnipotent from God by limiting god by time.
Oh I disagree with that. I said that God's knowledge corresponds to the human choice. That doesn't mean that God doesn't possess that knowledge eternally. That’s what I’ve been saying. From our perspective, god already knows. Can a person do something that god does not know?

If god foreknows (knowledge of the future) how can that be contingent on a person’s choice? God already knows person A will do X. Can person A choose not X?
Because he allows free will. Since he allows free will, he allows the choices of free will. Since he allows the choices of free will, his knowledge is instantaneously concurrent with those choices, yet he also is aware of this concurrence at all times, because he is God. You are limiting god again by making him dependent upon human action. Is god omnipotent or not?If god is omnipotent then god does not rely on human action.

If someone hands you a cheeseburger and says it's free, you apparently don't think it matters if someone else paid for it. But I'm not that kind of person. Christians aren't going to think like you do. Christians think it DOES MATTER that God paid the price for our sins. I.E. Free Ride.

You are demonstrating that you disagree with how Christians think. You certainly aren't defining our theology. Because most Christians don’t think. They keep to the fluffy bits of their holy book and never question it. When confronted with some actual question they usually run and hide or start killing people.

Regarding the definition of free....YOU YOURSELF admit it is a matter of pespective. From someone else's perspective it isn't free. In fact, if it is paid for, by DEFINITION, the thing is not inherently free. Go back to the cheeseburger. Was the cheeseburger free? Kindly withhold your personal perspective, and answer the question objectively? Was the cheeseburger free? No, not if someone paid for it. Yes, the cheeseburger was free to me.
So stating that ‘eternal forgiveness’ is free is valid or the token payment.

It isn't a token if it's the most important thing that matters in the end. Agreed? Let's see if I can get you to agree with a hypothetical. If, hypothetically speaking, it is the most important thing in the end, can you really call it a token? Feel free to use your dictionary for that one. Yes it remains a token payment. Do you have to give up something for it? Do you have to change your life for it? Can you do it on your death bed or just before your car goes over a cliff? Token payment.

Just as there are thousands of descriptions of Heaven and Hell, there are thousands of descriptions of Purgatory. Not in the bible.

(For clarification purposes, do you limit yourself to the Bible in your beliefs?) No, but for purposes of discussion you must have a common basis. Once you start adding and subtracting from the foundation you must re-establish that basis. At this point we don’t have a common basis.

Since you add and subtract from your holy book, how do you determine which parts are good or bad? How do you decided what parts are literal, figurative or symbolic? What about parts that were, in the past, considered literal but are now considered symbolic?

KingMerv00
"...GOD PAID THE PRICE ..."

By torturing his son?

Seems kinda unnecessary.
That’s another thing that annoys me about Christianity.

God paid the price, to whom and for what? Original sin? What sin when the two people didn’t know it was a sin nor what the consequences would be. Up until that time they had no knowledge of good or evil or even a concept of death.

Whom did he pay, himself. Isn’t death and hell his own punishment for them disobeying him, wouldn’t normal forgiveness have worked?

God punishes everyone for the actions of two people.
Should a child go to prison because the parent committed a crime, what about a grandchild?

Ossai

[Mr Clingford]

Originally posted by KingMerv00
"...GOD PAID THE PRICE ..."

By torturing his son?

Seems kinda unnecessary. Remember, Merv, that the son is God too according to trinitarian theology although that point may get lost a bit with the horrible Penal Substitution Theory that fundamentalists are taught.

[Ossai]

Mr Clingford
Remember, Merv, that the son is God too according to trinitarian theology although that point may get lost a bit with the horrible Penal Substitution Theory that fundamentalists are taught. Which means that god sacrificed (but he really didn’t give up anything so it wasn’t much of a sacrifice) god to god so that god would forgive people and they wouldn’t suffer god’s unjust punishment.

Ossai

[Mr Clingford]

Originally posted by Ossai
Mr Clingford
Which means that god sacrificed (but he really didn’t give up anything so it wasn’t much of a sacrifice) god to god so that god would forgive people and they wouldn’t suffer god’s unjust punishment.

Ossai Penal Sunstitution Theory is indeed something like that. Although giving up one's life as Jesus did isn't too pleasant, I would think.

[Ossai]

Mr Clingford
Penal Sunstitution Theory is indeed something like that. Although giving up one's life as Jesus did isn't too pleasant, I would think. But not exactly uncommon, at that time.

[Mr Clingford]

Originally posted by Ossai
Mr Clingford
But not exactly uncommon, at that time. and therefore... what?

[Belle]

Originally posted by Mr Clingford
and therefore... what?

And therefore, what's so special about it?

Aside from the fact that the bible is full of contradictions...

Aside from the fact that many of the translations aren't correct...

Aside from the fact that the largest chuch makes its own rules and appoints its own "unerring" human for life to make up MORE rules...

How can intelligent, thinking people be so blindly needy (and at the same time egotistical) to believe that any being as powerful as they make their God out to be would even bother with their petty squabbles, racism, wars and mundane fears - let alone care so deeply that he allowed his son (or himself, if you must) to die for our sins?

This is not something to be proud of or grateful for - it is simply absurd!

But... that won't stop you - and while you live you'll bask in the sunshine of your "rightness"...

Know what's unfair? You think you'll have the opportunity to tell people like me, "See? I was right!" Whereas I can only smile knowing that's not gonna happen...:p

[Mr Clingford]

Why, hello Belle. I hope you feel a good rush after typing that because I enjoyed that splurge.Originally posted by Belle
And therefore, what's so special about it? In Xtian thinking it is because of the importance of who died

Originally posted by Belle
Aside from the fact that the bible is full of contradictions... Yes, so?

Originally posted by Belle
Aside from the fact that many of the translations aren't correct... Here and there yes, so?

Originally posted by Belle
Aside from the fact that the largest chuch makes its own rules and appoints its own "unerring" human for life to make up MORE rules... I'm not sure what points you are trying to make here.

Originally posted by Belle
How can intelligent, thinking people be so blindly needy (and at the same time egotistical) to believe that any being as powerful as they make their God out to be would even bother with their petty squabbles, racism, wars and mundane fears - let alone care so deeply that he allowed his son (or himself, if you must) to die for our sins? In Xtian thinking it is because God created us to relate to us so he is therefore very interested in us which is very far from saying 'God is on our side'.

Originally posted by Belle
This is not something to be proud of or grateful for - it is simply absurd!

But... that won't stop you - and while you live you'll bask in the sunshine of your "rightness"...

Know what's unfair? You think you'll have the opportunity to tell people like me, "See? I was right!" Whereas I can only smile knowing that's not gonna happen...:p Hmm, you say you know you are right; you are more confident in your beliefs than I am, then. If you read some of my other posts you will discover you have picked on the wrong Xtian. Although, perhaps, after you have died still atheist, in heaven I will turn to you and say "See? I was right!"

[Kitty Chan]

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Ossai
Kitty Chan
Sorry, I may have mixed this thread up with another. I’ll go back and look.

If god is omnipotent and always in the present – from god’s perspective, then from our perspective god already knows the future. Can we go against what god already knows?

Yes we can go against God people do it all the time. God asks us to do whatever and we may or may not depends on us. God does not force otherwise we would all be worshipping Him now.

It still boils down to: God knows the future – not predicts but knows. Can a person something that god does not know or can a person do something different than god knows?

God knows the future, He knows when someone is going to do x, He does not make the person do x. There is a verse that says if say I do not do something God needs done then He will ask another. So whatever it is can get done. What needs done? feed the homeless, talk to prisoners, help the widows and children. So why would He need another if He was controlling our individual lives??

Reference on this one please.

What you were talking about earlier in thread about Jude

Actually the god of the bible doesn’t even measure up to my (or even western societies) rather low standards.

You were talking about the other christians that were not up to standard. If you feel the others or God are not up to your standards that is fine, however you want it. God says as you have judged others in life is exactly the same measure of how you will be judged by God. So its all even and fair after all.

Which is the same thing you are doing. You are just looking at the nice fluffy bits and ignoring the majority.

I was bringing up the other side of what you said, that there is more to make a whole. No fluffy bits in love your neighbour as yourself, in fact its pretty hard.

As for Adam and Eve they were told not to eat of the tree, but listened to that serpent.

Rev 20:2 that old serpent, which is the Devil, and Satan

Again a token payment for transgressions against others. Shouldn’t you be asking those whom you’ve wronged for forgiveness and not god or do they not count in the grand scheme of things?

Repenting is token? then why is it so hard? Jesus says exactly what you want, many times one is to go to their brother to ask forgiveness then come back to Jesus for forgiveness. And in there you are to forgive yourself as well.

You do not understand God if you think one just says oh Ive done bad but its ok, its fine God will forgive. This finds us back at Jude "turning the Grace of God", (which is what I just described).

Maybe this is the key as we keep coming back to this point. Jude 1 4 says that God is not a instant forgive machine. This is something that should make you happy that people are not just going around doing whatever and getting forgiven for it.

Jude says that God is not going to tolerate that.


ps Diogenes this last part would address your objection as well..

[haikuhamu]

Originally posted by Patrick
If I understand Christian doctrine correctly, God endows man with free will, and then holds him accountable for his choices.That's my understanding as well. Just as you can allow your kids to decide whether or not to get drunk tonight...and they have to live with the hangover that ensues.

But if God is All-Powerful, surely He is able to foresee the choices everyone will make.That's pretty much implied by the definition of God.

If He's able to do that, then He knows every choice that each individual will make when he is created.So far, so good. A leads to B leads to C.

That being the case, how can He hold everyone accountable with rewards and punishments, when there was no doubt about the outcome from the beginning?How did you make this leap of "logic"? I suppose you're thinking of the world mechanistically? That an all-powerful God is 100% responsible for the starting conditions of the universe, would be 100% aware of where such starting conditions would lead to through the eons, and thus be personally responsible for every outcome.

A very neat and tidy way to rid yourself of personal responsibility and accountability for your actions. Unfortunately, some people (of the faith and otherwise) do actually believe this.

I believe the implied assumption in your last point is that if you know what is going to happen, then you are accountable for it. By that line of reasoning, if I know that my friend's boyfriend is a jerk and going to cheat on her, that makes ME accountable when he does so. I don't think so!!! His action, his responsibility.

[Ossai]

Kitty Chan
Can we go against what god already knows?

Yes we can go against God people do it all the time.
1. I think you’re misunderstanding what I wrote. The question is can people go against – as in do something other than god knows i.e. invalidate god’s knowledge.
2. Given the above, god isn’t omnipotent.

You were talking about the other christians that were not up to standard. If you feel the others or God are not up to your standards that is fine, however you want it. God says as you have judged others in life is exactly the same measure of how you will be judged by God. So its all even and fair after all. Ah, but whom judges god? Or does god get away with all the genocide, murder, rape, etc just because god did it?

As for Adam and Eve they were told not to eat of the tree, but listened to that serpent. Irrelevant, they had no knowledge of good or evil prior to eating of the fruit of the tree of knowledge of good and evil nor of the consequences of their actions.

Jesus says exactly what you want, many times one is to go to their brother to ask forgiveness then come back to Jesus for forgiveness. And in there you are to forgive yourself as well. And when the brother is dead or unavailable?

Jude 1 4 says that God is not a instant forgive machine. I’ll look it up later.

[b] haikuhamu/[b]
If He's able to do that, then He knows every choice that each individual will make when he is created.
So far, so good. A leads to B leads to C.

How did you make this leap of "logic"? I suppose you're thinking of the world mechanistically? That an all-powerful God is 100% responsible for the starting conditions of the universe, would be 100% aware of where such starting conditions would lead to through the eons, and thus be personally responsible for every outcome. The requisite result of omnipotent.

A very neat and tidy way to rid yourself of personal responsibility and accountability for your actions. Unfortunately, some people (of the faith and otherwise) do actually believe this. Gee, I wonder why? Maybe because it’s stated a number of times in the bible? Hmmm, could be.

I believe the implied assumption in your last point is that if you know what is going to happen, then you are accountable for it. Close but no cigar. Think of it more like pulling a trigger. When the bullet strikes someone, is the bullet responsible or the person who pulled the trigger? To expand it a bit the one who pulled the trigger, made the gun, manufactured the bullet, set the situation up so the other person would be in the necessary place, loaded the gun, aimed the gun and finally pulled the trigger.

Ossai

[Kitty Chan]

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Ossai
Kitty Chan

1. I think you’re misunderstanding what I wrote. The question is can people go against – as in do something other than god knows i.e. invalidate god’s knowledge.
2. Given the above, god isn’t omnipotent.

(Kitty in bold)
Im trying to follow you here. Invade Gods thoughts? are you saying surprize Him with something He didnt know. No because He still does know all.

Heres another example When various people came to Jesus when He was teaching in the temple they tried to trick Him into saying something. But Christ Knew their hearts. Even though He knew their hearts they still went ahead and tried to trick Him. His knowing did not change their actions.

Ah, but whom judges god? Or does god get away with all the genocide, murder, rape, etc just because god did it?

God needs no judge as He is without sin. Its probably another thread but those accusations keep coming up. Once again the problems of the world are being, to use your word, fobbed on God. Your gun example to haikuhamu does not work because God is not setting up anybody. Rather like I said above many people were trying to trick Jesus and set Him up.

Irrelevant, they had no knowledge of good or evil prior to eating of the fruit of the tree of knowledge of good and evil nor of the consequences of their actions.

Gen 2:17 (God speaking to Adam) But of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat of it: for in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die.

Gen 3:1-5 Now the serpent was more subtil than any beast of the field which the LORD God had made. And he said unto the woman, Yea, hath God said, Ye shall not eat of every tree of the garden?

And the woman said unto the serpent, We may eat of the fruit of the trees of the garden: But of the fruit of the tree which [is] in the midst of the garden, God hath said, Ye shall not eat of it, neither shall ye touch it, lest ye die.

And the serpent said unto the woman, Ye shall not surely die:

For God doth know that in the day ye eat thereof, then your eyes shall be opened, and ye shall be as gods, knowing good and evil.

Notice that Adam and Eve and even the serpant Knew that if the tree was eaten then death would occur. So they knew and they knew what would happen.

Eve chose to believe the serpant when he said she would not die and her eyes would be open and she would be as gods. Vanity.


And when the brother is dead or unavailable?

Unavailable then he should be sought out. Dead, well then if you truly feel you had done wrong then one would ask God for forgiveness, but the harder one to get forgiveness from is yourself.

You see alot of what God asks of us in forgiving others, loving your neighbour is not what we want to do as its harder than ignoring the problem. Its easier to ignore the brother than ask forgiveness. The whole point is to grow beyond yourself and to see others more than you see yourself.

[/B]

[Belle]

The typical response of the fundamentalist Christian appears to be that we question your God by blaming him/her for the state of the world - and that is not the case. What is being questioned is your belief through the Bible - and there is more than enough "blame" there for actions attributed to God... we need not invent more, and we don't invent more because we do NOT believe.

Subsequent atrocities of Christians "in the name of God" do not have to be invented - they are real... and whether or not more modern Christians state that these atrocities were not committed with God's approval is a mute point... The people who committed them believed as fervently that they were right as you do, and there's enough evidence in your Bible to support the idea that your God would have approved.

I also repeatedly hear that we cannot understand unless we believe - and that is false. Rationalization can be manipulated for almost any argument WITHOUT belief, as can be proved through a debate exercise where you are handed a position to defend without personal belief in that position... whether or not that rationalization "holds water" is another question.

I can give you hundreds of sections in the Bible showing your God's injustice, cruelty, and intolerance - far more than you can show me of love and caring... so if in your mind the Bible is the literal truth, I feel sorry for you - you must live in constant fear.

[Kitty Chan]

Originally posted by Belle
I also repeatedly hear that we cannot understand unless we believe - and that is false. Rationalization can be manipulated for almost any argument WITHOUT belief, as can be proved through a debate exercise where you are handed a position to defend without personal belief in that position... whether or not that rationalization "holds water" is another question.


The answer to this is:

1Cr 2:14 But the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know [them], because they are spiritually discerned.

The last part spiritual discernment can only happen if one believes that Jesus is the son of God. Or another way if the Holy Spirit is accepted by you.

Our spirit was lost when Adam and Eve were separated from God. We have to accept that spirit back it cannot be forced. Thus the talk of born again its a spiritual reconnection to God. When that happens we then are adopted back to God.

I will try to be clearer a natural man as is said thinks with heart and reason. A person who chooses to follow God thinks still with heart and reason but added is the spirit which one can use for discernment.

Three, Gods big on threes. Maybe Jesus is heart, God is reason, and then the Holy Spirit which communicates between.

One last way to sort of explain spiritual discernment is intuition. But its probably only good for a frame of reference.

:)

[Belle]

Originally posted by Kitty Chan
The answer to this is:

1Cr 2:14 But the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know [them], because they are spiritually discerned.

The last part spiritual discernment can only happen if one believes that Jesus is the son of God. Or another way if the Holy Spirit is accepted by you.

Our spirit was lost when Adam and Eve were separated from God. We have to accept that spirit back it cannot be forced. Thus the talk of born again its a spiritual reconnection to God. When that happens we then are adopted back to God.

I will try to be clearer a natural man as is said thinks with heart and reason. A person who chooses to follow God thinks still with heart and reason but added is the spirit which one can use for discernment.

Three, Gods big on threes. Maybe Jesus is heart, God is reason, and then the Holy Spirit which communicates between.

One last way to sort of explain spiritual discernment is intuition. But its probably only good for a frame of reference.

:)

Silly me. I keep looking for a hint of logical reasoning on the part of Christians, and continue to hear that I'll never understand unless I believe - and it's written, no less, in the bible! (of course)

When conflicting biblical passages are presented, they're said to mean something other than what they say (this from those who believe in the literal truth of the bible)

When God acts unjustly, promotes or commits murder, demands the unreasonable, and a multitude of other things contrary to what the "Christian" God of peace and love is supposed to be - we can't understand because God is beyond our understanding.

Such pat, safe answers/delusions... such a strange mixture of insecurity and ego that demands so many believe. Hundreds of years of perfection in brainwashing technique has gone into this business called Christianity... and the pope who stated that "This Jesus myth has served us well" was right on - the money that is.

But then... that's another thread...

I will bother you no further, and you will probably only hear from me on this sort of thread when (because of blatant absurdity) I can't restrain myself

[Kitty Chan]

Well you asked and I have taken my time and answered the best I can.

Im not sure how you determine they are safe pat answers as opposed to just being the answers.

Your answer shows that you do not understand maybe its foolish ;) to you just like it says.

You say you keep hearing the same answer over and over. I would say the answer is perhaps, correct? Why does it have to be a conspiricy?

[Belle]

Originally posted by Kitty Chan
Well you asked and I have taken my time and answered the best I can.

Im not sure how you determine they are safe pat answers as opposed to just being the answers.

Your answer shows that you do not understand maybe its foolish ;) to you just like it says.

You say you keep hearing the same answer over and over. I would say the answer is perhaps, correct? Why does it have to be a conspiricy?

One more try...

The answers you have given me have been either lacking (as in Pharaoh was bad vs. addressing the accusation of the murder of innocents), a cop out (as in Pharaoh got what he deserved vs. addressing the verses that repeatedly claim GOD hardened his heart after implying that he was about to give in), or down-right condescending (as in "you can't understand until you've accepted Christ").

The only answer I may have implied that I heard repeatedly was the "not understanding unless..." statement - hardly an answer...

The answers are not even complete - let alone correct. Conspiracy? The affluent business of Religion implies it... Christian leaders who have been shown to take advantage of their following support that contention, and the "sameness" of those former leaders and ones who are still being followed - as well as the similarities in their teachings - support it even further.

As I stated before (and you chose to ignore) a Pope is confirmed to have stated that "This myth of Jesus has served us well..." Yes, this was a RC Pope, and prior to any Protestant beginnings - but all Christian faiths are derived from the bible - which was put together for the new Church (afterwards the RC Church) by Constantine... more for political motivations than religious.

Say all you want about God using them to do his work... that's simply another "pat" answer - the fact remains that the basis for Fundamental Christianity (the bible) is flawed.

Are you aware of the vaious early sects of Christianity that were banned by Constantine because they didn't serve his purpose? The early Christian writings that were ommitted from the Bible? The fact that HE decided that (in his new religion) Jesus would be the Son of God because Romans preferred worshipping more than one God and his new religion would not be as successful if Jesus were only a prophet?

I'm going beyond what I intended - I really only wanted you to accurately address my questions... but it's amazing how little Christians actually know of their religion - and that's probably the way the Church intends to keep them.

[Ossai]

Kitty Chan
Im trying to follow you here. Invade Gods thoughts? are you saying surprize Him with something He didnt know. No because He still does know all. So god knows the future and people aren’t able to invalidate god’s knowledge. Therefore if god knows person A will do X, person A must do X. The person can’t invalidate god’s knowledge so the person doesn’t have a choice to do not X.

Heres another example When various people came to Jesus when He was teaching in the temple they tried to trick Him into saying something. But Christ Knew their hearts. Even though He knew their hearts they still went ahead and tried to trick Him. His knowing did not change their actions. Christ knew that the people would try to trick him. The people tried to trick him. Their actions could not vary because Christ already knew what they would do.

God needs no judge as He is without sin. Its probably another thread but those accusations keep coming up. So god gets away with it because he’s god. Or to put it another way when god deliberately kills someone it’s ok, examples in Job and Exodus. God sets rules for people to live by but doesn’t have to obey them himself. God is a hypocrite.

Once again the problems of the world are being, to use your word, fobbed on God. Your gun example to haikuhamu does not work because God is not setting up anybody. Except the text specifically states that god does indeed set up people.

Gen 2:17 (God speaking to Adam) But of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat of it: for in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die. Your point? Adam and Eve did not know it was evil to disobey god. They had no knowledge of it until after they ate of the fruit.
Another point to make, since most Christians I’ve spoken to claim that death is the result of Adam and Eve eating, how would they even know what death was before then?

Notice that Adam and Eve and even the serpant Knew that if the tree was eaten then death would occur. So they knew and they knew what would happen. Eve was just repeating what god said. Imagine a 1 year old repeating everything it hears. It can repeat what was said but does not understand.

Eve chose to believe the serpant when he said she would not die and her eyes would be open and she would be as gods. Vanity. Did Eve have any reason not to believe the serpent? Did Eve have any reason to believe god? Or was she so naive that she would believe everything (usually the latest thing) told to her? Since deception is usually classified as evil, how could she have know that the serpent was trying to tempt her?

Our spirit was lost when Adam and Eve were separated from God. We have to accept that spirit back it cannot be forced. Thus the talk of born again its a spiritual reconnection to God. When that happens we then are adopted back to God. So people don’t have a spirit/soul until they are saved?
If hell is spiritual separation from god then everyone not saved is already in hell. When we die we would cease to be. Why bother being saved?
If the spirit is separated from us where is it now? If it’s currently with god and we die without being saved then our spirit never leaves heaven. Being saved and reunited with our spirit would only open up the possibility that once we have a spirit we could do something to be damned and the spirit would be cast into hell. Why bother being saved?

Ossai

[Mr Clingford]

Originally posted by Belle
As I stated before (and you chose to ignore) a Pope is confirmed to have stated that "This myth of Jesus has served us well..." Yes, this was a RC Pope, and prior to any Protestant beginnings Would you tell me which Pope said this, when he said it and to whom?

[Belle]

Originally posted by Mr Clingford
Would you tell me which Pope said this, when he said it and to whom?

Perhaps "confirmed" is too strong a word, but there is more evidence for this statement than for the existence of your Christ:

Pope Leo X http://www.askwhy.co.uk/christianity/0640ChristianFraud.html

guote:
"Evidence that Christ, the Christian god, is a myth is in the words of Pope Leo X, who contemptuously admits Christ was a myth when he is alleged to have said:

How profitable that fable of Christ hath been to us and our company!

It is not a surprising belief for a churchman to hold, the surprise is that he should have openly admitted it. A Christian apologist kindly supplies us with the source—Pageant of Popes by the Elizabethan clergyman and dramatist, John Bale—and some additional quotations. Bale wrote mystery plays, and was one of the precursors of Shakespeare through his semi-historical work, King John. He is noted above all as the author of the first bibliography of English literature. Bale was not at all savage to Leo, being quite kind to him, but highlighted the fact that historians do not dispute—he was no great cleric:

This Leo was of his own nature a gentle and quiet person, but often times ruled by those that were cruel and contentious men, whom he suffered to do in many matters according to their insolent will. He addicting himself to niceness, and taking ease did pamper his flesh in diverse vanities and carnal pleasures. At banqueting he delighted greatly in wine and music, but had no care of preaching the Gospel, nay was rather a cruel persecuter of those that began then, as Luther and others, to reveal the light thereof, for, on a time when a cardinal Bembus did move a question out of the Gospel, the Pope gave him a very contemptuous answer saying: “All ages can testifie enough how profitable that fable of Christ hath been to us and our company�.

More modern writers tend to be more critical of Leo. He was “not a competent ruler�, and was “not greatly interested in the advancement of the church�. He was a dilettante of letters and arts and his fame rests on being Raphael’s patron and on his literary circle including Cardinals Bembo and Bibbiena. An author in the Catholic Encyclopedia is more indulgent!

It is proper, however, to pay full credit to the good qualities of Leo. He was highly cultivated, susceptible to all that was beautiful, a polished orator and a clever writer, possessed of good memory and judgment, in manner dignified and majestic. It was generally acknowledged, even by those who were unfriendly towards him, that he was unfeignedly religious and strictly fulfilled his spiritual duties. He heard Mass and read his Breviary daily and fasted three times a week. His piety cannot truly be described as deep or spiritual, but that does not justify the continued repetition of his alleged remark: “How much we and our family have profited by the legend of Christ, is sufficiently evident to all ages�. John Bale, the apostate English Carmelite, the first to give currency to these words in the time of Queen Elizabeth, was not even a contemporary of Leo. Among the many sayings of Leo X that have come down to us, there is not one of a skeptical nature. In his private life he preserved as pope the irreproachable reputation that he had borne when a cardinal. His character shows a remarkable mingling of good and bad traits.

We can hardly expect the Catholic Encyclopedia not to defend one of its own. Yet, the only point in the item from the article that might make a skeptic wonder is that Leo was “unfeignedly religious�. At the same time the author concedes that he was not deeply pious. T Craven in Men of Art describes Leo as “a smiling sybarite infected with the popular neopagan culture of his day� and adds “his pontificate was a georgeous carnival that left the Church bankrupt�. Craven also accuses Leo of working Raphael to death in a “reckless patronage of the arts� and tells us that even when he was being enthroned, he remarked, “Since God has given us the papacy, let us enjoy it�. That sounds a saying “of a skeptical nature�, and much in line with Bale’s quotation.

The Catholic Encyclopedia does denigrate John Bale, a pious and creative man himself, by calling him “the apostate English Carmelite� when he was a protestant English bishop, a graduate of Cambridge University and a protegé of Thomas Cranmer. Bale became an apostate to the Catholic Church because he was part of that great movement in protest at its excesses called the Reformation. Since Leo and his rather large family, the Medicis, were doing all right out of the Catholic Church as it was—pope Clement VII was another Medici—he could hardly have been expected to support Martin Luther and the other protestants. But for opportunistic reasons he declared Henry VIII as “Defender of the Faith� and Bale became one of the men who defended it in England before the schism.

Leo had replenished his declining coffers by selling indulgences, a most profitable pastime for a man who, unlike many of his famous family, was acknowledged as being a poor businessman. The Medicis were successful businessmen because they were the Mafia of their day, with a corrupt and scheming reputation. The Catholic Encyclopedia seems to suppress this detail, presumably because the Medicis were staunch supporters of the Catholic Church that served them so well. Leo is said not to have been unusually nepotistic, but he nevertheless placed lots of his fellow Medicis into sinecures. If his “character shows a remarkable mingling of good and bad traits�, it is only because the Catholic Church was unable to suppress entirely the bad traits!

The Catholic Encyclopedia is also hardly honest to say that Bale was not a contemporary of Leo, especially as the gospels Christians regard so highly were themselves not contemporaneous with the life of Jesus but were written over half a century later. Leo was born in 1475 while Bale was born in 1495. so, the two men lived as contemporaries for 26 of Leo’s 46 years. Nowadays, at least, the clergy are mainly clever and educated men. They know the history of the Church and that the story of Christ is a legend. So they are no different from Leo X.

The disgraceful list of absurdities and frauds goes on and it has, indeed, been enormously profitable for the Church. The Church has always existed mostly to accumulate wealth for the prelates at the expense of the ignorant faithful. If the latter once realised that they cannot buy their way into heaven by paying money to the priests, they would kill the whole scam in a couple of years. But there is little likelihood of that! A good friend gives more to the Catholic Church than he gives to his wife to run the household."

[Mr Clingford]

That Holding guy says this in reply
http://www.tektonics.org/lp/popeleox.html
He replies to the author at the bottom.

Do you have any links from other sources?

[elliotfc]

Originally posted by Diogenes
Pointing out that God paid the price for our sins is like saying Bill Gates gave me a free copy of Windows.

Ach the ingratitude!

Here's where your analogy breaks down. You could get Windows in manifold and sundry other ways. Only one way to get salvation.

I'm not quite sure what you're doing...I suppose you're trying to minimize the salvific act. If you're gonig to be cynical about the salvific act, I think it rather impossible that you'll ever take Christianity seriously. As a word of caution, when confronted with objective truth, cynicism will be a great obstacle. Practicing and applying cynicism on Earth will train you to be a certain kind of person. It may give you kicks and validation in this life, but it could very well be a lodestone in the next one.

I'll concede this point to you, as you appear incapable of taking the salvific act seriously.


Maybe Ossai is suggesting that Ray Kroc is handing you the cheeseburger..?

But Ray Kroc didn't invent the cheeseburger, and isn't the only cheeseburger manufacturer.


Have you heard the story of " The widows mite? "

I don't think so...any good?


Explain the magnanimity of calling the fire deprtment after you have started a fire?

None. Are you likening that to the activity of God? Starting a fire is a direct choice made by free will. God allows us to start fires on Earth, he doesn't do it himself. That's where your analogy breaks down.

-Elliot

[elliotfc]

Originally posted by KingMerv00
"...GOD PAID THE PRICE ..."

By torturing his son?

Seems kinda unnecessary.

Argh.

People did the torturing. Free will.

Unless you believe that God is incarnate in every human being, you are applying activity to the wrong source.

Do you blame parents when their son hacks up a woman and tosses her into a lake?

-Elliot

[elliotfc]

Originally posted by Ossai
Elliotfc
How?
If person A is destined to do X, can they do not X?

If a person chooses to do X, then they are destined to do what they have already chosen.

The destiny is recognized by God and only God, and it is contingent on the choice that is made in chronological time, as we experience chronological time.

Since the destiny corresponds to what the choice is, they can not do "not X", because they have already chosen what their destiny is.



You are incorrectly using the terms. You’ve set up a straw man. You’re mixing pre-determined consequence verses predestined action. Stick to action in the example.

You're trying to confine God to your way of thinking. Why should i do as you do? Not interested. I've explained this 10 times already. If you expect God to think like you, in chronological time, thus limiting his scope, I'm not interested.

You've set up your own straw God. In the next one, don't get the two confused. And if there is no next one, none of this matters anyways, which ever side you happen to be on.


Same straw man. You are still mixing action and consequence of action.

They correspond with objective and universal justice. Unless you believe in arbitrary justice. Christians do not. when it comes to God.


That’s what I’ve been saying. From our perspective, god already knows. Can a person do something that god does not know?

No.


You are limiting god again by making him dependent upon human action.

Yes, because of the doctrine of free will. God, who respects free will, limits himself by free will. In this case, a manifestation of omnipotence is the POTENCY to limit omnipotence.


Is god omnipotent or not?

Depends on your definition and understading of omnipotence.

We've gone over this before. You have a theoretical understanding of omnipotence, based in the dictionary. Here's one Ossai. Does an omnipotent being exist Ossai? Yes or no? I'll agree with you if you say no! I'll agree with you if your specific understanding of omnipotence does not exist objectively. Hell, I've been doing that throughout this thread.

So if you're saying that the Christian understanding of God's omnipotence does not correspond to your understanding of theoretical omnipotence rooted in the dictionary...well...yeah. We agree.

Look, if you have a problem with God and how he manifests his potency, take it up with God. Obviously you have a problem with many dogmas, and I'm sure these will be explained to you in the next one better than I can explain them. If yours is an honest and well-meaning confusion, I respect and admire your inability to understand all of this. It's clear that you've put effort into this and you are thinking it through.


If god is omnipotent then god does not rely on human action.

Unless he respects human action (ie free will).

This is nonsense to the Christian, who believes in the Incarnation, and believes that God DID IN FACT rely on a cast of thousands throughout the lifetime of Jesus.


I.E. Free Ride.

This is a cynical portrayal of the salvific act. I'm not interested in it, do not respect it, and won't respond to it again.


Because most Christians don’t think.

Now you're disrespecting other people who don't think LIKE YOU. You're talking like an elitist. Most Christians don't think. Yay for you. Oh but you think, you're unlike most people. Ridiculous. Stick to the issues and don't insult other people please. Indicate the problems and disagreements, and save your judgment calls. It says more about you than these "most" people you are talking about. You don't know most Christians. To say that they "don't think" is something to make you feel better about yourself. Petty and disappointing. Unless you have some scientific, objective way to measure thought patterns in the brain. In that case, refer to the scientific test that has measured the brain waves of most Christians. Short of that yours is a statement of faith.


They keep to the fluffy bits of their holy book and never question it.

So much for all the Bible study, eh? So much for all the questions directed towards pastors, et al. Man, can you see past your own putdowns of others?

You're wrong if you say that most Christians don't question the Bible. Attend a Bible study and get back to me on that one. That is, if you're interested in testing your theories. Perhaps you believe in them by faith alone.


When confronted with some actual question they usually run and hide or start killing people.

Goodbye Ossai. Nice talking to you.


-Elliot

[Ossai]

Elliotfc
If you're gonig to be cynical about the salvific act, I think it rather impossible that you'll ever take Christianity seriously. As a word of caution, when confronted with objective truth, cynicism will be a great obstacle
What objective truth would that be? The Christian messiah and the purported acts are purely subjective.

But Ray Kroc didn't invent the cheeseburger, and isn't the only cheeseburger manufacturer. You are trying to set up another straw man. The cheeseburger is still free.

None. Are you likening that to the activity of God? Starting a fire is a direct choice made by free will. God allows us to start fires on Earth, he doesn't do it himself. That's where your analogy breaks down. You haven’t read the bible much have you? God claims responsibility for all sorts of natural disasters, earthquakes, famines, plagues, etc.

People did the torturing. Free will. Unless god is omnipotent, which trumps free will.

Unless you believe that God is incarnate in every human being, you are applying activity to the wrong source. Isn’t that a belief of at least one Christian sect? How do you know it’s wrong and yours is right?

Do you blame parents when their son hacks up a woman and tosses her into a lake? Depends, how old and in what mental condition was their son?

Ossai

[elliotfc]

Originally posted by Mr Clingford
Remember, Merv, that the son is God too according to trinitarian theology although that point may get lost a bit with the horrible Penal Substitution Theory that fundamentalists are taught.

If evil and suffering matter, are significant, and have meaning, they must be addressed. This is how God chose to address it. If you think it is a horrible theory, God will respect your opinion.

Your qualifier of "horrible" is your own personal opinion, independent of the objective reality of the salvific act. Like free will, it's all yours.

If, however, you think it is an objective opinion, how do you come up with that objective opinion? What standards do you use?

-Elliot

[elliotfc]

Originally posted by Belle
How can intelligent, thinking people be so blindly needy (and at the same time egotistical) to believe that any being as powerful as they make their God out to be would even bother with their petty squabbles, racism, wars and mundane fears - let alone care so deeply that he allowed his son (or himself, if you must) to die for our sins?

First, it isn't blind. All believers have the ability to look around. If you walk through some dogams (I'll happily do it with you) you'll see that they are a result of what can be seen around you by looking around.

Careful...in your judgments of others...you are on your way to be just as guilty as they are. It's egotistical to say that other people are blindly needy when their beliefs are based on experiences. Looking around. Regarding needy, everybody is needy.

You've just classified racism and wars as petty? I'm not interested in that. If you are, that's on you.

In my opinion, and many atheists share my opinion, suffering IS a big deal. When innocent kids are killed, that IS a big deal. My religion has a way of rectifying all that. If your hypothetical (if God exists, why would he care abous such pettiness?) is true, I take it that you also have issue with atheists who make a big deal about human suffering?


But... that won't stop you - and while you live you'll bask in the sunshine of your "rightness"...

And that doesn't go for everyone on this board?

Know what's unfair? You think you'll have the opportunity to tell people like me, "See? I was right!" Whereas I can only smile knowing that's not gonna happen...:p

I'll leave that opportunity to God. That's the difference. If you want a belief system that will allow you "to smile knowing that's not gonna happen", you have it, don't you? Is that what you want?

Here's what I want. I want you to be able to have a conversation with God that is free of cynicism, pettiness, smugness, and obstinancy. If you want to elevate that desire to something greater, that's on you.

-Elliot

[elliotfc]

Originally posted by Belle
The typical response of the fundamentalist Christian appears to be that we question your God by blaming him/her for the state of the world - and that is not the case.

Belle, I've been on this board for over a year off and on, and *some* atheist types have done exactly that in a hypothetical. As in...if God exists, and if God allows free will, then he is responsible for the state of the world. I won't apply that to you, or even to the majority of atheists, but rather just to the atheists who say that.


Subsequent atrocities of Christians "in the name of God" do not have to be invented - they are real... and whether or not more modern Christians state that these atrocities were not committed with God's approval is a mute point... The people who committed them believed as fervently that they were right as you do, and there's enough evidence in your Bible to support the idea that your God would have approved.

These are all good points. You are correct when you say that "God" justification for what we rightly call atrocious activity can be justified by particular Bible verses. This is why I place a higher premium on the NT, and try to understand how the theology developed throughout the Bible.

The (vast I think) majority of current Fundamentalists do not commit atrocities, even though they claim to believe the Bible to be 100% truth. I can guarantee you that every Fundamentalist Christian also has a different understanding of theology as did Moses. Every Christian who reads the Bible applies discernment in doing so. Yet some also say that the Bible is 100% truth. If they're able to do each (and the vast majority can and do), I don't have any real issue with the situation.


I also repeatedly hear that we cannot understand unless we believe - and that is false. Rationalization can be manipulated for almost any argument WITHOUT belief, as can be proved through a debate exercise where you are handed a position to defend without personal belief in that position... whether or not that rationalization "holds water" is another question.

Fair enough, but I think that is said with the object already in mind. In other words, it isn't that we can't understand in general, but that we can't understand, specifically, A B C D & E unless we believe. Does that make sense? So I agree with your general principle, but I don't think the general principle is meant when the statement is used.


I can give you hundreds of sections in the Bible showing your God's injustice, cruelty, and intolerance - far more than you can show me of love and caring... so if in your mind the Bible is the literal truth, I feel sorry for you - you must live in constant fear.

What universal standard do you use to make value calls btw?

I disagree that you can come up with "far more" bad things about God. Let's test this. Set up a thread, and we'll suss it out. I think yours is an argument based on faith. Have you gone through the Bible and kept a tally?

I feel sorry that you believe that another person lives in constant fear. First, how do you know that? Second, why do you have to think that? Third, why is fear on your mind?

I respect all of your good points, but why the heck are you musing about whether or not other people are living in fear? What's the point in that? That seems to be a petty and personal speculation that means little or nothing. If you're got fear on the brain, you could ask the "other" if they're living in constant fear. Or, maybe you can find a way of measuring that. Not sure how. But you could try.

-Elliot

[Belle]

Originally posted by elliotfc
First, it isn't blind. All believers have the ability to look around. If you walk through some dogams (I'll happily do it with you) you'll see that they are a result of what can be seen around you by looking around.

Non-believers have the ability to look around as well, without being confined by fundamentalist belief in a bible written by other men and containing flaws.

Originally posted by elliotfc Careful...in your judgments of others...you are on your way to be just as guilty as they are. It's egotistical to say that other people are blindly needy when their beliefs are based on experiences. Looking around. Regarding needy, everybody is needy.[/B]

Although some are more needy than others. This is an observation based on personal experience - I used to believe. Once I was able to take a clear look at myself, those around me, and the basis for that belief there was no other conclusion. Man created God because it was the only way he could answer some of his questions. He created a God that cared about man because man was too egotistical to consider a God who would do otherwise.

Originally posted by elliotfc You've just classified racism and wars as petty? I'm not interested in that. If you are, that's on you.[/B]

I have not classified racism and war as petty, although according to the bible, your God feels that way... The mere fact that you think he cares about such things is attributing understandable human characteristics to him - something you've told others who don't believe is wrong.

Originally posted by elliotfc In my opinion, and many atheists share my opinion, suffering IS a big deal. When innocent kids are killed, that IS a big deal. My religion has a way of rectifying all that. If your hypothetical (if God exists, why would he care abous such pettiness?) is true, I take it that you also have issue with atheists who make a big deal about human suffering?[/B]

Again, you're putting words in my mouth. Whether or not a God would care has nothing to do with humankind caring.

Originally posted by elliotfc Here's what I want. I want you to be able to have a conversation with God that is free of cynicism, pettiness, smugness, and obstinancy. If you want to elevate that desire to something greater, that's on you.[/B]

You first.

[elliotfc]

Originally posted by Belle
Non-believers have the ability to look around as well,

Agreed, but you said that believers are blind and they demonstrably are not.

without being confined by fundamentalist belief in a bible written by other men and containing flaws.

But they aren't confined by that! First of all, you don't use the Bible to change a flat tire. Second, no where in the Bible is trinitarian explicitly stated. Third, no where in the Bible does it say which gospels should be rejected and which should be accepted. I could go on and on.

You are wrong when you say that funadmentalists are confined by the Bible when, quite frankly, most of what we believe is not to be found in the Bible!

Although some are more needy than others. This is an observation based on personal experience - I used to believe. Once I was able to take a clear look at myself, those around me, and the basis for that belief there was no other conclusion.

Your personal experience is your own and I respect it.

Yes, some people are more needy than others. We're all needy, and we all need explanations and we all need to dialogue and we all need validation and randi.org forums exist. We are needy. Maybe there are some atheists out there who wouldn't stop by the randi.org forum if you paid them. They are less needy. I don't see how neediness is relevant to objective truth, or anything. I need all sorts of stuff and have no problem admitting it.

Enter cynical/mocking comment here.


Man created God because it was the only way he could answer some of his questions.

That is a statement of faith that could only be proved if you could go back in time and sort it out. I respectfully disagree.


He created a God that cared about man because man was too egotistical to consider a God who would do otherwise.

I guess all theories are egotistical. I could very well say that you believe what you believe in because you are egotistical. Well...yeah I guess. Everything is believed for an egotistical reason...because I think it is right.

Musing about sentiments isn't something that I find terribly interesting.

I have not classified racism and war as petty, although according to the bible, your God feels that way...

No, I disagree. You'll have to supply chapter/verse please to back up your claim.


The mere fact that you think he cares about such things is attributing understandable human characteristics to him - something you've told others who don't believe is wrong.

I'm not quite sure what you mean by the last part, but regarding the first part, the Incarnation makes human characterization of God valid. That and the fact that we are created in God's image, which would be the reverse way of looking at it.



Again, you're putting words in my mouth. Whether or not a God would care has nothing to do with humankind caring.

Why are you assuming that if a God exists, he wouldn't care? That seems silly to me. If God creates imperfect creators, and he values his creative activity, I think that he would care about everything that they do, if he values his creative ability that is. You think that the one side is borderline self-evident, while I have the same opinion about the alternate side.



You first.

Not interested in validating your contention. :)

Since you don't want to start such a thread...I'll leave it at that.

-Elliot

[elliotfc]

Originally posted by Belle
Silly me. I keep looking for a hint of logical reasoning on the part of Christians, and continue to hear that I'll never understand unless I believe - and it's written, no less, in the bible! (of course)

I don't think Kitty is saying quite that, but she is quite capable of clarifying herself. She is certainly doing a great job in defending herself and her beliefs. It seems as if many of you are talking past her.

Christians have what you would call internal logical reasoning. You are quite capable of understanding their internal logical reasoning, but you can only do so by accepting their premises. Just like I can understanding your internal logical reasoning if I accept your premises. Belle, to me this is borderline goeswithoutsaying domain.



When conflicting biblical passages are presented, they're said to mean something other than what they say (this from those who believe in the literal truth of the bible)

They would only conflict based on your expectations. It's clear (again goeswithoutsaying) that your expectations differ from Kitty's.

Which would indicate...that...fundamentalists, do not in fact, believe in the 100% truth of the Bible. Would you have them believe in the 100% truth of the Bible Belle?

Rather, I think that fundamentalists do believe in the 100% truth of the Bible but not in the bean-counting sort of way you espouse (you're the one that wanted to count the number of times God did bad things/good things, right)? I think that it is 100% true that many of the early Jews had some theological notions that I reject. This is why I have no problem saying that I also believe in the 100% truth of the Bible, even though I'm certainly a different kind of fundamentlist Christian if only because I'm Catholic.


When God acts unjustly, promotes or commits murder, demands the unreasonable, and a multitude of other things contrary to what the "Christian" God of peace and love is supposed to be - we can't understand because God is beyond our understanding.

No, we can understand it if we try. We can try to follow an evolution of theology throughout the Bible. I don't believe in poo-pooing it away. Will we ever perfectly understand? No.


Such pat, safe answers/delusions...

See, I don't get this. Kitty certainly doesn't descend to such talk. You've already got all the Christians pigeonholed. If you could talk objectively and with disinterest you'd be much more effective. But saying such things...it's like you are more concerned with characterization that discussion. It hardly reinforces your beliefs and arguments; rather, it makes them look petty. Should I not expect disinterested and congenial and respectful dialogue from you Belle? Let me know.

such a strange mixture of insecurity and ego that demands so many believe.

And I could very well say that it is your mixtrue of insecurity and ego that COMPELS YOU to talk about the insecurity and ego of others. Belle I'll just ignore such talk from you and hope that you can do better in time. If you're interested that is, maybe you're not. Maybe you get a kick out of insulting others and speculating about their internal motivations.


Hundreds of years of perfection in brainwashing technique has gone into this business called Christianity... and the pope who stated that "This Jesus myth has served us well" was right on - the money that is.

Which is why Kitty will always rightly return to talking about the Bible. What a Pope in the 1500s says does not concern her of course.


I will bother you no further, and you will probably only hear from me on this sort of thread when (because of blatant absurdity) I can't restrain myself

Yes, it's obvious that you have many personal things to say. Only you can control your emotions, don't let others control them for you.

-Elliot

[Skeptical Greg]

Originally posted by elliotfc




I disagree that you can come up with "far more" bad things about God. Let's test this. Set up a thread, and we'll suss it out. I think yours is an argument based on faith. Have you gone through the Bible and kept a tally?


-Elliot

You know, we do this all the time. A recent whole 'nother thread about it is here...

http://www.randi.org/vbulletin/showthread.php?s=&threadid=47934

I believe you are participating in it also...

We have asked for examples from the Bible that demonstrates God's love..


Keep in mind that, we do not accept killing a bunch of people to make way for another bunch of people, as a demonstration of love.


Can you give us an example from the Bible, that any rational person would accept as a genuine show of God's love for everyone ( all of creation ) ?


We are really tired of crap like.. " Well he made the world, and you're alive.. So that shows that God loves you ... "


We really don't need a tally.. Just one example..

Go!

[Tricky]

Pardon me for butting in here, Elliot, but we haven't spoken in a while, and I miss our exchanges.

Originally posted by elliotfc
Christians have what you would call internal logical reasoning. You are quite capable of understanding their internal logical reasoning, but you can only do so by accepting their premises.
I agree that this is true, but what I often see is that the premises are circular. For example, start out with a simple premise like "God is good". If this is a premise, then nothing God does in the Bible, such as destroying whole cities, having bears eat children for the sin of taunting, or torturing Job, can ever be construed as "bad" because that would violate the premise. So even if the following logic can be made perfect, (which I have never seen, but I'll take it on faith that it can be done ;) ) it must conform to a premise which is, in itself, undefined.

Sometimes the "logic" consists of redefining the premise, for example, some Christians may say, "Good doesn't mean the same thing for God as it does for us. He may have good reasons for doing bad things to people." Thus, the word "good" has taken on a completely different meaning than it would have if you were applying it to humans.

But you are correct in that logic, in and of itself, does not necessarily reveal truth. It reveals internal consistancy.

Originally posted by elliotfc
Rather, I think that fundamentalists do believe in the 100% truth of the Bible but not in the bean-counting sort of way you espouse (you're the one that wanted to count the number of times God did bad things/good things, right)?
Indeed. They seem to believe in a 100% truth which fits whatever brand of fundamentalism they espouse. They let their conclusions drive their thinking. Any data which fails to conform to their conclusions must be re-examined and re-interpreted until they do. This is far different from letting the data drive the conclusions.

Originally posted by elliotfc
I think that it is 100% true that many of the early Jews had some theological notions that I reject. This is why I have no problem saying that I also believe in the 100% truth of the Bible, even though I'm certainly a different kind of fundamentlist Christian if only because I'm Catholic.
It seems that trying to assign percentages to what you believe is true is just going to lead to miscommunication. It seems pointless to say you reject some notions and then say it is 100% true. What in essence you are saying is that you reject some interpretations and accept some others. If we can just leave it there without trying to put numbers to it, then we can discuss the different interpretations.

(What % wrong do you think Baptists fundamentalists are? ;) )

Originally posted by elliotfc
No, we can understand it if we try. We can try to follow an evolution of theology throughout the Bible. I don't believe in poo-pooing it away. Will we ever perfectly understand? No.

Then it seems odd to describe things that we cannot understand as "true". Are the truths conditional? What is the difference between something that is only believed versus a "truth" that we can never perfectly understand?

Originally posted by elliotfc
And I could very well say that it is your mixtrue of insecurity and ego that COMPELS YOU to talk about the insecurity and ego of others.
And you ARE saying it, admittedly while hedging your words. It is true that these discussions can become incivil (I do it a lot), but let us not pretend that the incivility is all one-sided. Still, it is precicely because of your attempts to stay polite that I like discussing with you. Please do not misconsture my remarks as a personal attack.

[Belle]

... you're pretty darn good at insults yourself - and there is nothing I haven't said where you haven't come back even harder with the insults. Very Christian of you. Admittedly, I have no such excuse :p

BTW, you're NOT a Christian Fundamentalist. If you think you are, I suggest you find out exactly what that is - because it's belief in the LITERAL bible, not the explanations that the RC Church publishes. I know of no true fundamentalist who would consider a Catholic one as well... Christian yes, fundamentalist - definately not. I was replying to someone I thought was a fundamentalist regarding those "nasty god" verses - and since you are not one, your version of the bible would allow you to "manipulate" their meaning much more easily... along with not taking the OT as seriously as the NT.

Diogenes is right - there is a place to post your "god love" proof.

[Ossai]

Elliotfc
Originally posted by Belle
Non-believers have the ability to look around as well,
Agreed, but you said that believers are blind and they demonstrably are not.
Belle specifically mentioned fundamentalist belief i.e. fundies, not all believers.

You are wrong when you say that funadmentalists are confined by the Bible when, quite frankly, most of what we believe is not to be found in the Bible! I though you said you were catholic not a fundamentalist Presbyterian?

That seems silly to me. If God creates imperfect creators, and he values his creative activity, I think that he would care about everything that they do, if he values his creative ability that is. So god isn’t perfect? Or to put it in question form, how could a perfect entity deliberately or accidentally create an imperfect being?

Christians have what you would call internal logical reasoning. They don’t have a internal logical reasoning, they have faith. They have it because it gives them a sense of security/pleasure/comfort/etc. No logic required and often actively discouraged.

Which would indicate...that...fundamentalists, do not in fact, believe in the 100% truth of the Bible. Would you have them believe in the 100% truth of the Bible Belle? Many fundamentalists purport exactly that, a 100% belief in a literal bible.

I think that it is 100% true that many of the early Jews had some theological notions that I reject. This is why I have no problem saying that I also believe in the 100% truth of the Bible, even though I'm certainly a different kind of fundamentlist Christian if only because I'm Catholic. So the bible is 100% truth unless you disagree with it, in which case you drop the % down to – oh yes – you said so again 100%.

100% - N% (Jewish portions you disagree with where N > 0) = 100%

No, we can understand it if we try. We can try to follow an evolution of theology throughout the Bible. I don't believe in poo-pooing it away. Will we ever perfectly understand? No. Which is it? we can understand it if we try or Will we ever perfectly understand? No

Ossai

[kimiko]

Originally posted by haikuhamu
I believe the implied assumption in your last point is that if you know what is going to happen, then you are accountable for it. By that line of reasoning, if I know that my friend's boyfriend is a jerk and going to cheat on her, that makes ME accountable when he does so. I don't think so!!! His action, his responsibility.
False analogy. There is no equivalent to the relationship between God and human beings within the human social world. You don't know your friend's boyfriend is a jerk, you've made that judgement call based on interpreting his behavior. Likewise, you cannot possibly know for sure if he was going to cheat. You may think it is so probable as to be almost certain, but you simply aren't certain the way God would be.

[kimiko]

Originally posted by elliotfc
Here's where your analogy breaks down. You could get Windows in manifold and sundry other ways. Only one way to get salvation.

I'm not quite sure what you're doing...I suppose you're trying to minimize the salvific act. If you're gonig to be cynical about the salvific act, I think it rather impossible that you'll ever take Christianity seriously. -Elliot [/B]
A person will only believe there is one way to salvation if they have already accepted Christianity. There are many people who beleive in God, but not that.

You can't really fault people for 'minimizing the salvific act' seeing as many people have been crucified through history. The fact that they thought he was dead, took him down, put him in his tomb, and then he was walking around later isn't that reliable as they didn't have very reliable medical knowledge then. Was he really dead when they took him down? People are known to have survived crucifixion in the ancient world.

One problem unbelievers have with Christians is that they elevate one guy's crucifixion above countless others that happened as if his suffering was qualitatively different.

[Mr Clingford]

Originally posted by Diogenes
Can you give us an example from the Bible, that any rational person would accept as a genuine show of God's love for everyone ( all of creation ) ?

Go! I'm not sure that there are any examples as the Bible is a compendium of writings from a small group of people (the Jews), who, on the whole, saw God as God only for them, until the time of Jesus and his followers, who still only lived in one small part of the world; so by definition there can't be any universal examples.

The incarnation (depending on one's theology) may be the only suggestion.

[Skeptical Greg]

Originally posted by Mr Clingford
I'm not sure that there are any examples as the Bible is a compendium of writings from a small group of people (the Jews), who, on the whole, saw God as God only for them, until the time of Jesus and his followers, who still only lived in one small part of the world; so by definition there can't be any universal examples.

The incarnation (depending on one's theology) may be the only suggestion. That sounds like a tentative ' no '..


Anyone else ?

[Mr Clingford]

Diogenes, these part of your questionany rational person and a genuine show are very open to interpretation and, to be be blunt, may be used to wriggle out of a situation.

Rethinking (for a few nanoseconds) I offer more strongly the incarnation and would like an explanation of your answer (so we have something to discuss!).

[Skeptical Greg]

Originally posted by Mr Clingford
Diogenes, these part of your question and are very open to interpretation and, to be be blunt, may be used to wriggle out of a situation.

Rethinking (for a few nanoseconds) I offer more strongly the incarnation and would like an explanation of your answer (so we have something to discuss!).
Of course, and I am sure they will be interpreted very loosely in an effort to come up with a viable answer..

You would think the love of God would be a little more demonstrable than that, wouldn't you?


As I understand it the ' incarnation ' was not for everyone.. ( originally or at all, depending on who you ask ).. Jesus was the Jewish messiah.. ( I suspect you know that .. ;) )

But assuming Jesus lived and died for everyone, it was still a sham sacrifice.. As I mentioned earlier; if Jesus had gone to hell and stayed there, that would have been a sacrifice. As it was, it was an unpleasant vacation. I'm sure a few thousand years in heaven, pretty much makes up for it..

[Mr Clingford]

Originally posted by Diogenes
As I understand it the ' incarnation ' was not for everyone.. ( originally or at all, depending on who you ask ).. Jesus was the Jewish messiah.. ( I suspect you know that .. ;) )

But assuming Jesus lived and died for everyone, it was still a sham sacrifice.. As I mentioned earlier; if Jesus had gone to hell and stayed there, that would have been a sacrifice. As it was, it was an unpleasant vacation. I'm sure a few thousand years in heaven, pretty much makes up for it.. The incarnation. The uniting of the human and the divine.
Protestantism especially likes to focus on the death of Jesus, seeing the death and resurrection as solely having soteriological power, but other Christian approaches see a great deal of value just in the fact of the existence of Jesus per se, as he is the embodiment of the reconciliation of the human and the divine.

I do assume that Jesus lived and died for all. The hell that Jesus visited was Hades in Greek, a place of the dead. Jesus, though, couldn't be in hell (meaning the separation from God voluntarily chosen by an individual) for ever because the trinity couldn't split from itself.

Just remind me of your thinking as to why the atonement is a sham (don't bother with Penal Subsitution Theory as I can't stand it either).

[kimiko]

Originally posted by Mr Clingford
Just remind me of your thinking as to why the atonement is a sham (don't bother with Penal Subsitution Theory as I can't stand it either).
I was kind of hoping you would comment on what I'd said about the crucifixion not being anything unique. There is also the problem of making human sacrifice a major part of the faith. You can dress it up by saying he was man and god at the same time, but the gruesomeness remains.

Even if you assume Jesus was a real person, which is an assumption due to a lack of evidence, everything that is supposed to be divine is unprovable. Was he god also? Did he go to hell and come back? Did he perform miracles? Does his death scribble out believers' sins?

Just out of curiosity, do you believe miracles other religious figures supposedly performed?

[Skeptical Greg]

Originally posted by Mr Clingford

Just remind me of your thinking as to why the atonement is a sham (don't bother with Penal Subsitution Theory as I can't stand it either).

Remember the ' free cheeseburger ' metaphor. There is no sacrifice when there is no loss involved.

That was my point about going to hell and staying there.

Christians make a big deal about the resurrection, when in actuality the resurrection voids the sacrifice. If Jesus had stayed dead, that would be a sacrifice..

I'm sure this sounds absurd to a Christian, which is somewhat ironic, since absurdity goes with the territory..

[Mr Clingford]

Originally posted by kimiko
I was kind of hoping you would comment on what I'd said about the crucifixion not being anything unique. It is not the method but the man, who was crucified that is significant. Originally posted by kimiko
There is also the problem of making human sacrifice a major part of the faith. You can dress it up by saying he was man and god at the same time, but the gruesomeness remains. Yes this torturous death was gruesome, but I am not clear what you are saying as Christians aren't meant to go and crucify people. Jesus as Christ was God so gave his own life, perhaps only as symbolism, I don't know. Originally posted by kimiko
Even if you assume Jesus was a real person, which is an assumption due to a lack of evidence, everything that is supposed to be divine is unprovable. Was he god also? Did he go to hell and come back? Did he perform miracles? Does his death scribble out believers' sins?

Just out of curiosity, do you believe miracles other religious figures supposedly performed? Most Christians believe Jesus had the divine nature, that he died (went to hell) and came back in some form. Jesus died for everyone.

What do you mean by 'miracles'?

[Mr Clingford]

Originally posted by Diogenes
Remember the ' free cheeseburger ' metaphor. There is no sacrifice when there is no loss involved.

That was my point about going to hell and staying there.

Christians make a big deal about the resurrection, when in actuality the resurrection voids the sacrifice. If Jesus had stayed dead, that would be a sacrifice..

I'm sure this sounds absurd to a Christian, which is somewhat ironic, since absurdity goes with the territory.. Hey, don't knock the absurd - it can point out the foolishness and hypocrisy of those in power!

I think I see what you mean; if sacrifice is what it is all about then it doesn't appear to be much of a sacrifice, but my thinking doesn't uses the idea of sacrifice. Perhaps Jesus as God died symbolically taking the blame for the estrangement between God and humanity caused by an individual's selfish attention to himself at the expense of others; as creator of the universe he is ultimately responsible for what happens.

[Tricky]

Originally posted by Mr Clingford
It is not the method but the man, who was crucified that is significant.
Only if you accept his divinity. If you don't, it was just another good person dying. They do it every day.

Originally posted by Mr Clingford
Yes this torturous death was gruesome...
But not nearly as horrible and painful as some others. I watched an aunt die of bone cancer. It took months, and she was in almost constant pain because she didn't want to be drugged into oblivion. Again, I don't see what makes Jesus so special.

Originally posted by Mr Clingford
Jesus as Christ was God so gave his own life, perhaps only as symbolism, I don't know. Most Christians believe Jesus had the divine nature, that he died (went to hell) and came back in some form. Jesus died for everyone.
Yeah, but he only died for three days. Some "ultimate" sacrifice that is. So if it wasn't the pain that was important, and it wasn't the death (since he didn't stay dead), then what was Jesus's great sacrifice? What did he do that countless other humans have not also done?

He just got the publicity because he had a famous dad (if you believe the stories.)

[elliotfc]

Can you give us an example from the Bible, that any rational person would accept as a genuine show of God's love for everyone ( all of creation ) ?

Errr...the creation of the universe in Genesis?


We are really tired of crap like.. " Well he made the world, and you're alive.. So that shows that God loves you ... "

Whether or not you are tired of it would be beside the point, if it's true. If it's true (think hypothetically for a moment), your being "tired of crap" is unfortuante, and changes nothing.


We really don't need a tally.. Just one example..

Go!

Errr...the creation of the universe in Genesis?



-Elliot

[Belle]

Originally posted by elliotfc
Errr...the creation of the universe in Genesis?

So okay - let's stretch things and say he created the universe - how does that show he LOVES us.

...may just show he was bored and wanted something beautiful to look at.

[elliotfc]

Hey Trickster, nice of you to butt in. 8)

...but what I often see is that the premises are circular.

I admit that Christian premises are circular and reinforce each other. What you have to do is enter the circle first, and that's usually by being attracted to a loci. I was attracted to objective morality. Once in the circle, positive feedback can easily kick in.

Having said all that, I've never met 2 Christians who *articulate* their faith the same (once you ask a few questions that is). Also, I'd like to think that I can find circular reasoning in all belief systems...but I'm not saying that to skirt your contention, which I agree with.


For example, start out with a simple premise like "God is good". If this is a premise, then nothing God does in the Bible, such as destroying whole cities, having bears eat children for the sin of taunting, or torturing Job, can ever be construed as "bad" because that would violate the premise.

Yes...but there are two ways of explaining that.

One way is that God, in fact, *did* everything that is assigned to him in the Bible. By definition, all that he does is good.

Another way is that God did not in fact *do* the things in the Bible that we consider to be bad, and that the assignation was an unfortunate mixup by the people/writers in question.

Which way are you looking at, or, does it not matter?

Here's how I look at it. Good is completely contingent upon God. Good is a synonym for God. So, I'm really not saying ANYTHING when I say God is good. I'm just saying God is God. (of course good is an adjective and God is noun, but I think you can get my point). Personally, I pick and choose between the two ways I listed above (based on discernment and reason of course). It's a smell test I guess. Here's hoping my own particular take on objective morality is equivalent to God's, eh?

If I couldn't, or wasn't interested, in linking *good* to God, I wouldn't be a religious person. As I see it, it's the necessary corrollary to a true belief in objective morality.



So even if the following logic can be made perfect, (which I have never seen, but I'll take it on faith that it can be done ;) ) it must conform to a premise which is, in itself, undefined.

I think it can only be defined as tautology (others would say faith, and I don't think I'd disagree with that either, but tautology may make more sense).



Sometimes the "logic" consists of redefining the premise, for example, some Christians may say, "Good doesn't mean the same thing for God as it does for us. He may have good reasons for doing bad things to people."

Right, some Christians may say that, but I think the general idea is that God allows bad things to happen to people. This idea has a very early depiction in the story of Job. Modern Christians (at least the fundamentalists and conservatives) believe that Satan has dominion and power in this world, and God only works in a sort of subterfugic way.

And it isn't he "may" have good reasons for allowing bad to happen. He does, in fact, have a good reason for allowing bad to happen, because all his reasons are, by definition, good.

I can certainly see how this would be frustrating to those outside the loop. Which is why I always say that logic is dependent on premises, and it's always better to say "I reject your premises" than "You're being illogical". It is, I think, extremely problematic for the materialist to speak of logic as if it is objective truth. Logic is a human construct contingent on not only the brain, but language and reasoning and the ability to construct arguments and the ability to frame ideas and senses into some coherent form. It just doesn't exist beyond the human brain (to the materialist that is).


Thus, the word "good" has taken on a completely different meaning than it would have if you were applying it to humans.

A different meaning, but not completely different to the Christian. The Christian believes that he/she is created in God's image and is quite capable of being good, or doing good. Heck, God became a human in Christ, so it can't be completely different.

Where the difference lies is that humans can reject good, and God can't. I've read arguments in the past that God's inability to not do good is commensurate to his not being omnipotent. Shrug.



But you are correct in that logic, in and of itself, does not necessarily reveal truth. It reveals internal consistancy.

If it corresponds to truth that's a definite bonus.

Of course it's definitely true (I think) that if a belief system is internally INCONSISTENT, it can not be true. This is why a great deal of effort is exerted, by atheists, in exposing internal inconsistencies in Christianity. That is a markedly different approach from attacking the premises. The problem with that approach is, almost invariably, one man's internal inconsistency is another man's internal consistency. Argh!


Indeed. They seem to believe in a 100% truth which fits whatever brand of fundamentalism they espouse. They let their conclusions drive their thinking.

Exactly! This goes for me triple! My conclusions existed before I really did a detailed exploration of the Bible. Going the other way around (starting with the Bible, and then forming my conclusion) never really occurred to me...

Most fundamentalists would not call me a fundamentalist, although I like to think of myself as one, if only because I feel like we're on the same side. But I think it definitely works for them, too. I think that many times people get active in a church, and that frames how they read the Bible. I really think that it is rare that people start with the Bible (and I mean really break it down) and then hook up with a particular church.

Now my question is...would you rather people, in fact, start with the Bible and then form their own conclusions? (Of course you'd rather people ditch the Bible altogether no doubt, but lets forget that for the moment :P.) In my opinion, it is a good thing that people have an overarching frame of reference when reading the Bible. Without that, it's frankly a tough thing to get your head around, you know? It is true that God is described in many different ways in the Bible. You need something going into it in order to make sense of it all.


Any data which fails to conform to their conclusions must be re-examined and re-interpreted until they do. This is far different from letting the data drive the conclusions.

You are assuming that the Bible is the only data available. I would say that a whole mess of data (the world, the self, and everything) went into the conclusions, which frame the Bible when read carefully.

If the conclusions are INDEPENDENT of the Bible...surely that's a good thing, right?

This goes for atheists too, of course. The Gospels are "re-interpreted" by atheists to fit their own conclusions (they are fables, interpolated frauds, etc).



It seems that trying to assign percentages to what you believe is true is just going to lead to miscommunication. It seems pointless to say you reject some notions and then say it is 100% true.

Let me try to say now what I thought I said earlier.

I fully accept that some theological notions were held by people thousands of years ago. I accept that as a fact (theological notions were held by others thousands of years ago). Now, I personally don't share those theological notions, yet that doesn't mean that the notions weren't in circulation during the times in question.

To extend that...I don't think that the point of the Bible is to have one consistent theology! I think the whole point is to have a developing theology. The Bible could have been a hell of a lot shorter if the theology was unified and consistent. I believe that Jesus would have been irrelevant if that was the case (I'm actually doing research on a book that will deal with this thesis).

I often feel like I'm talking past other people, or they are talking past me. Reading the Bible is all about expectations. If the expectations differ, so will the interpretations. This is why I always try to get the expectations on the table before I get into a big discussion about a specific biblical issue. Once I know the expectation, I can basically tell the person what interpretation they'll have, and vice versa.

The tricky part is that sometimes I don't think that the expectation, as said by a person, is the actual expectation that the person has. That's a touchy one, and you've got to tread lightly, especially when talking to a well-meaning and decent fundamentalist.



What in essence you are saying is that you reject some interpretations and accept some others. If we can just leave it there without trying to put numbers to it, then we can discuss the different interpretations.

OK, here's why I think 100% true is important.

I don't want any of the Bible to be excised from the book. If I were to take a scientific field, like evolution, I could write a thick book that details the evolution of the theories of evolution. Where contradictions exist, I will explain them, identify the mistakes, and deal with each step of the way accordingly WITH A CONCLUSION IN MIND. In that way, such a book would be 100% true, even though some of the things stated in the book are not in fact true.

Now, most evolution texts will NOT include every rejected idea and hypothesis that came before. The vital ones, of course, will be included, and others will be shown for didactic purposes. But it's not necessary to include everything.

With the Bible, I think it is necessary to have all of the inconsistencies shine through without editorializing or editing. I want to see how we got to Jesus. I just don't want the finished product, or the theology that I agree with the most. That's why I say it is 100% true. The progression is vital and necessary to the fulfillment.

So even if X didn't happen, it matters that people really thought it happened. And even if idea Y about God isn't accurate, it matters that people really thought it was accurate.


Then it seems odd to describe things that we cannot understand as "true". Are the truths conditional? What is the difference between something that is only believed versus a "truth" that we can never perfectly understand?

I don't know if it's that we can't understand them. We may not be able to understand them as God understands them...or, we may not be able to understand everything. But understanding is possible. This goes back to my admitted belief in objectie morality. I believe that I understand the notion that some things are right and some things are wrong. I believe that the notion is true. My understanding is sufficient for me; it may be insufficient for others. It might be a bit like the calculus, which can be understood on different levels.

The difference between...
I think it's the F word.
The perfect truth, when comprehended and possessed completely, would make faith irrelevant I think.


It is true that these discussions can become incivil (I do it a lot), but let us not pretend that the incivility is all one-sided. Still, it is precicely because of your attempts to stay polite that I like discussing with you. Please do not misconsture my remarks as a personal attack.

No, it's all good.

I get snarky when people say demeaning things towards people of faith. When people assume people of faith are consumed by fear, or are stupid and illogical, etc. I don't take that personally, but I take it as if someone is insulting a family member. Moreover, it makes me angry to see a person make themselves look bad, for that is what happens when you define people who disagree with you in such a way.

I may or may not be polite, but I don't think anybody here is stupid or evil or whatever. If I get snippy with certain people, it is because I expect better from them.

It's quite likely if not certain that I have been incivil here, and it's usually if not always in response to, at the very least, perceived incivility. Not the most mature thing, and not turning the other cheek, but in this cynical medium I don't know if that can be conveyed.

In person I'm sure we're all wonderful people, and that goes triple for me. ;)

-Elliot

[evildave]

I admit that Christian premises are circular and reinforce each other. What you have to do is enter the circle first, and that's usually by being attracted to a loci. I was attracted to objective morality. Once in the circle, positive feedback can easily kick in.

Minor correction: Circular reasoning does not reinforce its self. It's only circular.

What you describe seems more like reason circling the drain, and it really does spin faster as the last of it goes down.

[kimiko]

Originally posted by Mr Clingford
Yes this torturous death was gruesome, but I am not clear what you are saying as Christians aren't meant to go and crucify people.

What do you mean by 'miracles'?

Well, if salvation is contingent on Christ's death and resurrection, the main tenent of the faith would be human sacrifice. It was also an offshoot of Judaic animal sacrifices. Gruesome is a rather tame word when you consider deliberate death constitutes the only means of purifying the self. Although the faithful tend to concentrate on trading salvation for faith as the important part of the exchange.

Miracles. Doing amazing/supernatural things. Turning water into wine, etc. Do you believe other miraculous stories outside of Christianity?

[KingMerv00]

Originally posted by elliotfc
Hey Trickster, nice of you to butt in. 8)



I admit that Christian premises are circular and reinforce each other. What you have to do is enter the circle first, and that's usually by being attracted to a loci. I was attracted to objective morality. Once in the circle, positive feedback can easily kick in.

Having said all that, I've never met 2 Christians who *articulate* their faith the same (once you ask a few questions that is). Also, I'd like to think that I can find circular reasoning in all belief systems...but I'm not saying that to skirt your contention, which I agree with.




Yes...but there are two ways of explaining that.

One way is that God, in fact, *did* everything that is assigned to him in the Bible. By definition, all that he does is good.

Another way is that God did not in fact *do* the things in the Bible that we consider to be bad, and that the assignation was an unfortunate mixup by the people/writers in question.

Which way are you looking at, or, does it not matter?

Here's how I look at it. Good is completely contingent upon God. Good is a synonym for God. So, I'm really not saying ANYTHING when I say God is good. I'm just saying God is God. (of course good is an adjective and God is noun, but I think you can get my point). Personally, I pick and choose between the two ways I listed above (based on discernment and reason of course). It's a smell test I guess. Here's hoping my own particular take on objective morality is equivalent to God's, eh?

If I couldn't, or wasn't interested, in linking *good* to God, I wouldn't be a religious person. As I see it, it's the necessary corrollary to a true belief in objective morality.





I think it can only be defined as tautology (others would say faith, and I don't think I'd disagree with that either, but tautology may make more sense).





Right, some Christians may say that, but I think the general idea is that God allows bad things to happen to people. This idea has a very early depiction in the story of Job. Modern Christians (at least the fundamentalists and conservatives) believe that Satan has dominion and power in this world, and God only works in a sort of subterfugic way.

And it isn't he "may" have good reasons for allowing bad to happen. He does, in fact, have a good reason for allowing bad to happen, because all his reasons are, by definition, good.

I can certainly see how this would be frustrating to those outside the loop. Which is why I always say that logic is dependent on premises, and it's always better to say "I reject your premises" than "You're being illogical". It is, I think, extremely problematic for the materialist to speak of logic as if it is objective truth. Logic is a human construct contingent on not only the brain, but language and reasoning and the ability to construct arguments and the ability to frame ideas and senses into some coherent form. It just doesn't exist beyond the human brain (to the materialist that is).




A different meaning, but not completely different to the Christian. The Christian believes that he/she is created in God's image and is quite capable of being good, or doing good. Heck, God became a human in Christ, so it can't be completely different.

Where the difference lies is that humans can reject good, and God can't. I've read arguments in the past that God's inability to not do good is commensurate to his not being omnipotent. Shrug.





If it corresponds to truth that's a definite bonus.

Of course it's definitely true (I think) that if a belief system is internally INCONSISTENT, it can not be true. This is why a great deal of effort is exerted, by atheists, in exposing internal inconsistencies in Christianity. That is a markedly different approach from attacking the premises. The problem with that approach is, almost invariably, one man's internal inconsistency is another man's internal consistency. Argh!




Exactly! This goes for me triple! My conclusions existed before I really did a detailed exploration of the Bible. Going the other way around (starting with the Bible, and then forming my conclusion) never really occurred to me...

Most fundamentalists would not call me a fundamentalist, although I like to think of myself as one, if only because I feel like we're on the same side. But I think it definitely works for them, too. I think that many times people get active in a church, and that frames how they read the Bible. I really think that it is rare that people start with the Bible (and I mean really break it down) and then hook up with a particular church.

Now my question is...would you rather people, in fact, start with the Bible and then form their own conclusions? (Of course you'd rather people ditch the Bible altogether no doubt, but lets forget that for the moment :P.) In my opinion, it is a good thing that people have an overarching frame of reference when reading the Bible. Without that, it's frankly a tough thing to get your head around, you know? It is true that God is described in many different ways in the Bible. You need something going into it in order to make sense of it all.




You are assuming that the Bible is the only data available. I would say that a whole mess of data (the world, the self, and everything) went into the conclusions, which frame the Bible when read carefully.

If the conclusions are INDEPENDENT of the Bible...surely that's a good thing, right?

This goes for atheists too, of course. The Gospels are "re-interpreted" by atheists to fit their own conclusions (they are fables, interpolated frauds, etc).





Let me try to say now what I thought I said earlier.

I fully accept that some theological notions were held by people thousands of years ago. I accept that as a fact (theological notions were held by others thousands of years ago). Now, I personally don't share those theological notions, yet that doesn't mean that the notions weren't in circulation during the times in question.

To extend that...I don't think that the point of the Bible is to have one consistent theology! I think the whole point is to have a developing theology. The Bible could have been a hell of a lot shorter if the theology was unified and consistent. I believe that Jesus would have been irrelevant if that was the case (I'm actually doing research on a book that will deal with this thesis).

I often feel like I'm talking past other people, or they are talking past me. Reading the Bible is all about expectations. If the expectations differ, so will the interpretations. This is why I always try to get the expectations on the table before I get into a big discussion about a specific biblical issue. Once I know the expectation, I can basically tell the person what interpretation they'll have, and vice versa.

The tricky part is that sometimes I don't think that the expectation, as said by a person, is the actual expectation that the person has. That's a touchy one, and you've got to tread lightly, especially when talking to a well-meaning and decent fundamentalist.





OK, here's why I think 100% true is important.

I don't want any of the Bible to be excised from the book. If I were to take a scientific field, like evolution, I could write a thick book that details the evolution of the theories of evolution. Where contradictions exist, I will explain them, identify the mistakes, and deal with each step of the way accordingly WITH A CONCLUSION IN MIND. In that way, such a book would be 100% true, even though some of the things stated in the book are not in fact true.

Now, most evolution texts will NOT include every rejected idea and hypothesis that came before. The vital ones, of course, will be included, and others will be shown for didactic purposes. But it's not necessary to include everything.

With the Bible, I think it is necessary to have all of the inconsistencies shine through without editorializing or editing. I want to see how we got to Jesus. I just don't want the finished product, or the theology that I agree with the most. That's why I say it is 100% true. The progression is vital and necessary to the fulfillment.

So even if X didn't happen, it matters that people really thought it happened. And even if idea Y about God isn't accurate, it matters that people really thought it was accurate.




I don't know if it's that we can't understand them. We may not be able to understand them as God understands them...or, we may not be able to understand everything. But understanding is possible. This goes back to my admitted belief in objectie morality. I believe that I understand the notion that some things are right and some things are wrong. I believe that the notion is true. My understanding is sufficient for me; it may be insufficient for others. It might be a bit like the calculus, which can be understood on different levels.

The difference between...
I think it's the F word.
The perfect truth, when comprehended and possessed completely, would make faith irrelevant I think.




No, it's all good.

I get snarky when people say demeaning things towards people of faith. When people assume people of faith are consumed by fear, or are stupid and illogical, etc. I don't take that personally, but I take it as if someone is insulting a family member. Moreover, it makes me angry to see a person make themselves look bad, for that is what happens when you define people who disagree with you in such a way.

I may or may not be polite, but I don't think anybody here is stupid or evil or whatever. If I get snippy with certain people, it is because I expect better from them.

It's quite likely if not certain that I have been incivil here, and it's usually if not always in response to, at the very least, perceived incivility. Not the most mature thing, and not turning the other cheek, but in this cynical medium I don't know if that can be conveyed.

In person I'm sure we're all wonderful people, and that goes triple for me. ;)

-Elliot

You know I was going to refute you issue by issue with Powerpoint and visual aides and everything...

Then I realized you are in fact DEFENDING CIRCULAR LOGIC!

You have just torn down human civilization. Congrats.



I will now prove the existance of Zeus and my omniscience at the same time. Behold the power of tautology:

1) Zeus exists and is always right. How do we know? See #2

2) I am omniscient and I don't lie. I believe in Zeus. How do we know I am all-knowing and truthful? See #3

3) Zeus tells me so. How do we know? See #4

4) I said so. How do we know I am right? See #2

Just enter into my triangle of reason by faith and we are all set.

[Iacchus]

Originally posted by Belle

So okay - let's stretch things and say he created the universe - how does that show he LOVES us.

...may just show he was bored and wanted something beautiful to look at. Indeed, what good could come out of existence, if it wasn't sustaining?

[Ossai]

Mr Clingford
I do assume that Jesus lived and died for all. The hell that Jesus visited was Hades in Greek, a place of the dead. Jesus, though, couldn't be in hell (meaning the separation from God voluntarily chosen by an individual) for ever because the trinity couldn't split from itself. No sacrifice at all then.

The incarnation. The uniting of the human and the divine.
…, but other Christian approaches see a great deal of value just in the fact of the existence of Jesus per se, as he is the embodiment of the reconciliation of the human and the divine. Are you stating that you believe that Adam & Eve were part divine before the fall?

Yes this torturous death was gruesome, but I am not clear what you are saying as Christians aren't meant to go and crucify people. Jesus as Christ was God so gave his own life, perhaps only as symbolism, I don't know. As Diogenes said his resurrection voided the sacrifice.

Then you post Most Christians believe Jesus had the divine nature, that he died (went to hell) and came back in some form. Jesus died for everyone. which contradicts what you said earlier.

What do you mean by 'miracles'? The standard fare: creating food, healing, resurrection, etc.

elliotfc
Errr...the creation of the universe in Genesis? <buzzer> wrong god, that was (insert god(ess)s name here).

Whether or not you are tired of it would be beside the point, if it's true. If it's true (think hypothetically for a moment), your being "tired of crap" is unfortuante, and changes nothing. Which time? There are two creation stories in genesis? Which one demonstrated love? As for the whole creation bit, lousy job there, since most of the universe can’t support life of any sort.

Here's how I look at it. Good is completely contingent upon God. Good is a synonym for God. So, I'm really not saying ANYTHING when I say God is good. I'm just saying God is God. (of course good is an adjective and God is noun, but I think you can get my point). Personally, I pick and choose between the two ways I listed above (based on discernment and reason of course). It's a smell test I guess. Here's hoping my own particular take on objective morality is equivalent to God's, eh? So you throw out what, 85% of the entire bible?

Right, some Christians may say that, but I think the general idea is that God allows bad things to happen to people. This idea has a very early depiction in the story of Job. Wait a minute, you just threw out Job. BTW god not only allows bad thing to happen to Job, he does all the really nasty stuff himself.

And it isn't he "may" have good reasons for allowing bad to happen. He does, in fact, have a good reason for allowing bad to happen, because all his reasons are, by definition, good. Wait another minute. How can good not only allow but actively support bad? Or are you making up your own definitions?

Where the difference lies is that humans can reject good, and God can't. I've read arguments in the past that God's inability to not do good is commensurate to his not being omnipotent.
To rephrase what you’ve just said.

Premise: murder is wrong
Those whom murder are wrong/bad (or technically committing bad actions)
God murders
God is good

Why?

Or should it be restated:
God is good
God murders
Murder is good

Basically I’m asking whether or not you believe in a universal morality and what is the source?

To extend that...I don't think that the point of the Bible is to have one consistent theology! I think the whole point is to have a developing theology. The Bible could have been a hell of a lot shorter if the theology was unified and consistent. I believe that Jesus would have been irrelevant if that was the case (I'm actually doing research on a book that will deal with this thesis). Of what point is the bible. You have to admit it’s caused a great deal of suffering over the millennium.
A developing theology would also nullify a universal morality (seeing as how it changes over time).

With the Bible, I think it is necessary to have all of the inconsistencies shine through without editorializing or editing. I want to see how we got to Jesus. I just don't want the finished product, or the theology that I agree with the most. That's why I say it is 100% true. The progression is vital and necessary to the fulfillment.

So even if X didn't happen, it matters that people really thought it happened. And even if idea Y about God isn't accurate, it matters that people really thought it was accurate. That means the bible should be a living book, i.e. continually updated and additions made.

KingMerv00
You know I was going to refute you issue by issue with Powerpoint and visual aides and everything...

Then I realized you are in fact DEFENDING CIRCULAR LOGIC!

You have just torn down human civilization. Congrats. Exactly! :clap:

After all human achievement is meaningless, all good things come from/thru god. :rolleyes:




Ossai

[Skeptical Greg]

Originally posted by elliotfc



Errr...the creation of the universe in Genesis?



-Elliot

So, if I create an obstacle course in my backyard, complete with all kinds of deadly traps and ways to get injured and killed, put my son at the entrance and say " see you at the exit ( if you make it, heh, heh, heh )"; this would be a show of love?


I know I said ' just one ' ( thanks for playing ), but you don't by chance have another one, do you ?

[KingMerv00]

Originally posted by KingMerv00
Then I realized you are in fact DEFENDING CIRCULAR LOGIC!


This reminds me of a Bible verse:

Matthew 7:24 Therefore whosoever heareth these sayings of mine, and doeth them, I will liken him unto a wise man, which built his house upon a rock:
25 And the rain descended, and the floods came, and the winds blew, and beat upon that house; and it fell not: for it was founded upon a rock.
26 And every one that heareth these sayings of mine, and doeth them not, shall be likened unto a foolish man, which built his house upon the sand:
27 And the rain descended, and the floods came, and the winds blew, and beat upon that house; and it fell: and great was the fall of it.

Your house isn't even built upon sand. It's built on its own roof.

[kuroyume0161]

Originally posted by Diogenes
So, if I create an obstacle course in my backyard, complete with all kinds of deadly traps and ways to get injured and killed, put my son at the entrance and say " see you at the exit ( if you make it, heh, heh, heh )"; this would be a show of love?


I know I said ' just one ' ( thanks for playing ), but you don't by chance have another one, do you ?

From the Bibble:

Wakovicz 0:
32900: And God so wanted a place utterly inhospitable to life as to make most of it so, that he created the void and it was done. "But, oh, wherein shall I place my playthings to live miserable short existences and wage war and die from disease, famine, accident, and failings of their fragily designed systems?" And thusly God placed the firmament and separated the waters (blah, blah). Behold, the world was created and all manner of ravaging beast and microscopic parasite was placed upon it.
32901: But God was lonely and saw that none of his creation had any truly sentient life on which to feed. And God said, "Let there be humans!", so that they may be fruit-like and multiply, ravaged by the beasts and infested by the parasites. From the earth, He fashioned the two, so alike as to be of the same kind, but with just enough difference so that they could never get along.
32902: Without haste, the suffering commenced and God was pleased. "You are my creation and I love you this much!" Immediately was the love of God shown bright as the microscopic organisms infested the humans and they were eaten by ravaging beasts. They would fall great heights to bone-crushing doom and face all manner of disaster. God saw this and knew that it was good...

Yeah, I think elliotfc has something there.

Robert - in no way, manner, shape, or form affiliated with the Wholy Bibble.

[frisian]

Originally posted by Patrick
If I understand Christian doctrine correctly, God endows man with free will, and then holds him accountable for his choices. But if God is All-Powerful, surely He is able to foresee the choices everyone will make. If He's able to do that, then He knows every choice that each individual will make when he is created. That being the case, how can He hold everyone accountable with rewards and punishments, when there was no doubt about the outcome from the beginning? Or do you want to claim that God is NOT All-Knowing? Then does that mean that He is imperfect?

How does knowing imply lack of choice? Also, if He were "uber" knowing I don't see how that would imply imperfection.

[frisian]

Originally posted by Patrick
Maybe God can know everything, every action and every choice if He wants to, but He chooses not to look into that, letting us have our lives without He interfering.

Surely He's seen the negative consequences of that by now, surely He realizes the need to interfere?

Within the Christian paradigm He has interfered in essence.

[Belle]

Originally posted by frisian
How does knowing imply lack of choice? Also, if He were "uber" knowing I don't see how that would imply imperfection.

You misread - the implication of imperfection would be if god were NOT all-knowing, and the point was the whole thing simply doesn't make sense. Basically, what's the point of making choices or even having the ability to make choices if all our choices are known beforehand by god?

IF they weren't known beforehand by god, THEN god is imperfect.

[frisian]

Originally posted by geni
To interfere would involve affecting free will.

Free will isn't the ability to decide anything, such as flapping your arms and being able to fly.

[Belle]

Originally posted by frisian
Within the Christian paradigm He has interfered in essence.

Which is merely theoretical or philisophical "in essence" - so?

[Belle]

Originally posted by frisian
Free will isn't the ability to decide anything, such as flapping your arms and being able to fly.

Duh... really? Geni neither said nor implied that. Was there a point to your message or was it simply a lame attempt at put-down?

[frisian]

Originally posted by Belle
You misread - the implication of imperfection would be if god were NOT all-knowing, and the point was the whole thing simply doesn't make sense. Basically, what's the point of making choices or even having the ability to make choices if all our choices are known beforehand by god?

IF they weren't known beforehand by god, THEN god is imperfect.

I still haven't seen it articulated WHY one must be all knowing to be deemed perfect....anyway...I suppose I don't understand. If someone or something knows what choice you will make what is the point? The actuality rather than the eventuality?

[frisian]

Originally posted by Belle
Which is merely theoretical or philisophical "in essence" - so?

What isn't?

[frisian]

Originally posted by Belle
Duh... really? Geni neither said nor implied that. Was there a point to your message or was it simply a lame attempt at put-down?

There was a point.

[Ossai]

Frisian
How does knowing imply lack of choice? Also, if He were "uber" knowing I don't see how that would imply imperfection.
-brings out dead horse whip-

Omnipotence, specifically the omniscience portion, negates free will.
If god knows Person A will do X. Person A must do X.
Now throw into the mix the rest of omnipotent and god knew before he created the universe exactly how everything would play out.
Or to put it another way we’re just actors going through the motions. We don’t know we’re actors and the illusion of freewill is there just to enhance our acting.

I still haven't seen it articulated WHY one must be all knowing to be deemed perfect As a handy Christian, they usually just lump it into omnipotent with no real explanation.

Ossai

[frisian]

Originally posted by Ossai
Frisian

-brings out dead horse whip-

Omnipotence, specifically the omniscience portion, negates free will.
If god knows Person A will do X. Person A must do X.
Now throw into the mix the rest of omnipotent and god knew before he created the universe exactly how everything would play out.
Or to put it another way we’re just actors going through the motions. We don’t know we’re actors and the illusion of freewill is there just to enhance our acting.

As a handy Christian, they usually just lump it into omnipotent with no real explanation.

Ossai

Hmmm, I suppose how you are defining free will determines your assertion.

How do you define free will?

And certainly what some one will do, they will do and what they have done, they have done. I don't see how that negates what one will do as being chosen.

[frisian]

I suppose I agree, if free will implies one can do what one won't do...free will doesn't exist.

[Ossai]

Frisian
Hmmm, I suppose how you are defining free will determines your assertion.

How do you define free will?

free will
freedom of humans to make choices that are not determined by prior causes or by divine intervention
The ability or discretion to choose; free choice: chose to remain behind of my own free will.
The power of making free choices that are unconstrained by external circumstances or by an agency such as fate or divine will.
And certainly what some one will do, they will do and what they have done, they have done. I don't see how that negates what one will do as being chosen.
Don’t forget that god knows what a person will do not just has done.
If god knows Person A will do X. The Person A must do X, they don’t have a choice to do not X.
When the choice is presented to Person A they must do X. If they don’t then god’s is wrong and obviously not omniscient.

Ossai

[frisian]

Originally posted by Ossai
Frisian


The ability or discretion to choose; free choiceI believe this fits into the Christian paradigm.
Don’t forget that god knows what a person will do not just has done.
If god knows Person A will do X. The Person A must do X, they don’t have a choice to do not X.Must and will don't seem to have any distinct difference. So If A will do X, indeed A will do X.
When the choice is presented to Person A they must do X. If they don’t then god’s is wrong and obviously not omniscient.

Ossai Agreed.

[Skeptical Greg]

I think, that when the people who made up God gave him all these qualities like omniscience, etc.., they didn't really give it much thought. When they finally got around to discussing it, it was too late.

There is a lot of backpeddling going on, what with the advent of more powerfull telescopes and microscopes, but these things take time.

Who knows? In a few thousand years, God will probably be a lot like Ward Cleaver. And at worst, Jesus will have been grounded for a month.

[Ossai]

Diogenes
Who knows? In a few thousand years, God will probably be a lot like Ward Cleaver. And at worst, Jesus will have been grounded for a month.
No. (I’ve already used this once but I don’t remember which thread)

Ward = God
June = Holy Ghost
Wally = Jesus
Beaver = Humanity

Beaver does something, feels guilty and tells Wally.
June knows about it and tells Ward.
Then Wally tells Beaver how to fix it or baring that intercedes with Ward on Beaver’s behalf (i.e. ‘he’s just a dumb kid, dad’)

Ossai

[frisian]

Originally posted by Diogenes
[B]I think, that when the people who made up God gave him all these qualities like omniscience, etc.., they didn't really give it much thought. When they finally got around to discussing it, it was too late.Why do you believe that?

[Skeptical Greg]

Originally posted by frisian
Why do you believe that? Because when you are making up Gods, your first thought is to make him the best God on the street, i.e. omnipotent and all that...


I really don't believe the part about having second thoughts later.. I just made that up. Absence of logic is not a problem for mythmakers..

[frisian]

Originally posted by Diogenes
Because when you are making up Gods, your first thought is to make him the best God on the street, i.e. omnipotent and all that... I thought most wanted to make up gods that had human like flaws, so one could better identify.

[Skeptical Greg]

Originally posted by frisian
I thought most wanted to make up gods that had human like flaws, so one could better identify. Why did you think that?

[frisian]

Originally posted by Diogenes
Why did you think that?

Sounds feasible.

[Mr Clingford]

Originally posted by Tricky
Only if you accept his divinity. If you don't, it was just another good person dying. They do it every day.That's the whole point, though, innit, in Christianity, that Jesus did have a divine nature


Originally posted by Tricky
But not nearly as horrible and painful as some others. I watched an aunt die of bone cancer. It took months, and she was in almost constant pain because she didn't want to be drugged into oblivion. Again, I don't see what makes Jesus so special. Yes, but I haven't claimed any of this 'his death was the most horrible eva' stuff


Originally posted by Tricky
Yeah, but he only died for three days. Some "ultimate" sacrifice that is. So if it wasn't the pain that was important, and it wasn't the death (since he didn't stay dead), then what was Jesus's great sacrifice? What did he do that countless other humans have not also done?

He just got the publicity because he had a famous dad (if you believe the stories.) FFS didn't you read my post? i wrotebut my thinking doesn't uses the idea of sacrifice. Perhaps Jesus as God died symbolically taking the blame for the estrangement between God and humanity caused by an individual's selfish attention to himself at the expense of others; as creator of the universe he is ultimately responsible for what happens.

[Mr Clingford]

Originally posted by Ossai
Mr Clingford
No sacrifice at all then. Which is what I wrote - I wasn't using the concept of sacrifice

Originally posted by Ossai
Are you stating that you believe that Adam & Eve were part divine before the fall?Eh? What have Adam and Eve got to do with the incarnation?

Originally posted by Ossai
As Diogenes said his resurrection voided the sacrifice.See above

Originally posted by Ossai
Then you post which contradicts what you said earlier. The problem is that the word hell has more than one meaning

Originally posted by Ossai
The standard fare: creating food, healing, resurrection, etc. I think that the miraculous happens (and may do so for anyone)

[Mr Clingford]

Originally posted by Ossai
Don’t forget that god knows what a person will do not just has done.
If god knows Person A will do X. The Person A must do X, they don’t have a choice to do not X.
When the choice is presented to Person A they must do X. If they don’t then god’s is wrong and obviously not omniscient.

Ossai The argument goes, though, if God is beyond/outside of time then it is irrelevant

[Tricky]

Originally posted by elliotfc
Hey Trickster, nice of you to butt in. 8)
My pleasure.
I admit that Christian premises are circular and reinforce each other. What you have to do is enter the circle first, and that's usually by being attracted to a loci. I was attracted to objective morality. Once in the circle, positive feedback can easily kick in.
Can negative feedback kick in as well? If not, why not?

Also, I'm not sure what you mean by "objective morality". It seems to me that morality is, by definition, subjective.

One way is that God, in fact, *did* everything that is assigned to him in the Bible. By definition, all that he does is good.

Another way is that God did not in fact *do* the things in the Bible that we consider to be bad, and that the assignation was an unfortunate mixup by the people/writers in question.
That is extremely interesting. I've never heard a Christian suggest that the things, especially the miracles, that happened in the Bible were not "God's doing". I applaud you for making an admission that few Christians are willing to admit.

Here's how I look at it. Good is completely contingent upon God. Good is a synonym for God. So, I'm really not saying ANYTHING when I say God is good. I'm just saying God is God. (of course good is an adjective and God is noun, but I think you can get my point). Personally, I pick and choose between the two ways I listed above (based on discernment and reason of course). It's a smell test I guess. Here's hoping my own particular take on objective morality is equivalent to God's, eh?

If I couldn't, or wasn't interested, in linking *good* to God, I wouldn't be a religious person. As I see it, it's the necessary corrollary to a true belief in objective morality.
It seems like your linking would suggest that only those who followed God could be "good". I strongly disagree with such a linking. It would mean that I am bad, and I don't think I am.

And again, I must ask that you defend "objective morality". I actually believe in a version of it too, but come from a different direction. It would be interesting to compare our definitions.


I think it can only be defined as tautology (others would say faith, and I don't think I'd disagree with that either, but tautology may make more sense).
I'm glad you recognize that. The difference between faith and tautology eludes many. What eludes me is why you recognize the tautology and yet still honor it. Faithfully.

Right, some Christians may say that, but I think the general idea is that God allows bad things to happen to people. This idea has a very early depiction in the story of Job. Modern Christians (at least the fundamentalists and conservatives) believe that Satan has dominion and power in this world, and God only works in a sort of subterfugic way.
As others have said, God didn't just "allow" bad things, He did them Himself.

As far as what fundamentalists believe, I would not say that they had a consistant viewpoint. They take all sorts of positions to defend the indefensible, like "God is all powerful but can't do anything about Satan."


And it isn't he "may" have good reasons for allowing bad to happen. He does, in fact, have a good reason for allowing bad to happen, because all his reasons are, by definition, good.

I can certainly see how this would be frustrating to those outside the loop. Which is why I always say that logic is dependent on premises, and it's always better to say "I reject your premises" than "You're being illogical". It is, I think, extremely problematic for the materialist to speak of logic as if it is objective truth. Logic is a human construct contingent on not only the brain, but language and reasoning and the ability to construct arguments and the ability to frame ideas and senses into some coherent form. It just doesn't exist beyond the human brain (to the materialist that is).
I agree that logic is human construct, and also that it is dependant upon premises. As far as "existing beyond the human brain", I must say, as a materialist, that the ability for it to exist beyond the human brain must be demonstrated. If you cannot, then we are once again in the realm of "faith".


A different meaning, but not completely different to the Christian. The Christian believes that he/she is created in God's image and is quite capable of being good, or doing good. Heck, God became a human in Christ, so it can't be completely different.

Where the difference lies is that humans can reject good, and God can't. I've read arguments in the past that God's inability to not do good is commensurate to his not being omnipotent. Shrug.
And again, I must suggest that what God means by "good" is completely incompatible with what humans call "good". No human would condemn innocent people to die in, let's say, an earthquake. God would. How can we say that "good" has any meaning if such senseless killing is allowed? Was Jack the Ripper "good"? He might have had a reason too.



Of course it's definitely true (I think) that if a belief system is internally INCONSISTENT, it can not be true. This is why a great deal of effort is exerted, by atheists, in exposing internal inconsistencies in Christianity. That is a markedly different approach from attacking the premises. The problem with that approach is, almost invariably, one man's internal inconsistency is another man's internal consistency. Argh!
I think it's relatively easy to expose the internal inconstancies in Christianity, even (and especially) given it's premises. It does not pass any logical test. Any attempt to do so involves redefining the premises.

Exactly! This goes for me triple! My conclusions existed before I really did a detailed exploration of the Bible. Going the other way around (starting with the Bible, and then forming my conclusion) never really occurred to me...

Would it occur to you that your "conclusions" were based on a Christian-centered environment in which you were raised? Was your morality in place before you discovered the source of it? I know that my concepts of "good and bad" were formed very early in life, and I have a hard time, even as an adult, trying to reject any of them. Many of my moral principles are similar to Christian morality, which says to me that religion is not the only thing that defines morality.

Most fundamentalists would not call me a fundamentalist, although I like to think of myself as one, if only because I feel like we're on the same side. But I think it definitely works for them, too. I think that many times people get active in a church, and that frames how they read the Bible. I really think that it is rare that people start with the Bible (and I mean really break it down) and then hook up with a particular church.
I think that when you say "break it down" that you involve a whole lot of subjective reasoning. It suggests that there is not a single way to "break it down". Even when you do so, the parts are dissimilar.

Now my question is...would you rather people, in fact, start with the Bible and then form their own conclusions? (Of course you'd rather people ditch the Bible altogether no doubt, but lets forget that for the moment :P.) In my opinion, it is a good thing that people have an overarching frame of reference when reading the Bible. Without that, it's frankly a tough thing to get your head around, you know? It is true that God is described in many different ways in the Bible. You need something going into it in order to make sense of it all.
Actually, you are wrong. I do not wish that people ditch the Bible altogether. I wish that they would recognize it as a book of philosophy (and history, to some extent) which says some very good things. What I wish to be ditched is the idea that it is either infallible or that it is the work of God. It is clearly the work of Man, with all their fallibilities. It seems so obvious because God is described in so many different ways. Only humans could foul things up so completely. ;)

You are assuming that the Bible is the only data available. I would say that a whole mess of data (the world, the self, and everything) went into the conclusions, which frame the Bible when read carefully.

If the conclusions are INDEPENDENT of the Bible...surely that's a good thing, right?

This goes for atheists too, of course. The Gospels are "re-interpreted" by atheists to fit their own conclusions (they are fables, interpolated frauds, etc).

The world and everything are only "evidence" of t bible if you already believe in the bible. The world exists for everyone. Only Christians think it has anything to do with their God. It is a clear case of data fitting. And I see you recognize this. For a Christian, you are remarkably insightful. ;)


This goes for atheists too, of course. The Gospels are "re-interpreted" by atheists to fit their own conclusions (they are fables, interpolated frauds, etc).
They are indeed interpreted, but without preset conclusions. The atheists I know are genuinely interested in whatever truth exists in the Bible. They are not out to discredit it, but rather to understand the history of such a remarkable book. They cannot do so if they make assumptions about it. However, many things about the bible (such as the creation story) are so very provably wrong, that it does not make much sense to deal with them as anything other than myths.

I fully accept that some theological notions were held by people thousands of years ago. I accept that as a fact (theological notions were held by others thousands of years ago). Now, I personally don't share those theological notions, yet that doesn't mean that the notions weren't in circulation during the times in question.

To extend that...I don't think that the point of the Bible is to have one consistent theology! I think the whole point is to have a developing theology. The Bible could have been a hell of a lot shorter if the theology was unified and consistent. I believe that Jesus would have been irrelevant if that was the case (I'm actually doing research on a book that will deal with this thesis).
I totally respect your goal. But what you are describing is the evolution of an entire culture, not just its religion. I think that you will find that the religion follows the culture rather than vice versa. Just look at how modern Christians have manipulated the Bible to conform to their beliefs. Homosexuality? Abortion? These were not major biblical issues.

I often feel like I'm talking past other people, or they are talking past me. Reading the Bible is all about expectations. If the expectations differ, so will the interpretations. This is why I always try to get the expectations on the table before I get into a big discussion about a specific biblical issue. Once I know the expectation, I can basically tell the person what interpretation they'll have, and vice versa.

The tricky part is that sometimes I don't think that the expectation, as said by a person, is the actual expectation that the person has. That's a touchy one, and you've got to tread lightly, especially when talking to a well-meaning and decent fundamentalist.
In this, I agree with you completely. I can usually tell within minutes of beginning a philosophical discussion what a person's viewpoints are and what arguments they will make. You are the rare and cherished exception. You continually surprise me. I would love to have you arguing my side, because you would do a remarkable job of it.

I don't want any of the Bible to be excised from the book. If I were to take a scientific field, like evolution, I could write a thick book that details the evolution of the theories of evolution. Where contradictions exist, I will explain them, identify the mistakes, and deal with each step of the way accordingly WITH A CONCLUSION IN MIND. In that way, such a book would be 100% true, even though some of the things stated in the book are not in fact true.
Such a book you describe would be very large. A whole library could not contain it. I would not advocate that anything be excised from the Bible, but rather I would like to see things added. The Dead Sea Scrolls, perhaps. The bits about Adam's first wife. Indeed all the writings on theology would be much larger than most libraries. Would you hold a single book sacrosanct against revision? Why?

Now, most evolution texts will NOT include every rejected idea and hypothesis that came before. The vital ones, of course, will be included, and others will be shown for didactic purposes. But it's not necessary to include everything.
Indeed. Why should the Bible be different? If a story (such as Genesis) is shown to be a fable, borrowed from other creation myths, then why must it be included?


With the Bible, I think it is necessary to have all of the inconsistencies shine through without editorializing or editing. I want to see how we got to Jesus. I just don't want the finished product, or the theology that I agree with the most. That's why I say it is 100% true. The progression is vital and necessary to the fulfillment.

So even if X didn't happen, it matters that people really thought it happened. And even if idea Y about God isn't accurate, it matters that people really thought it was accurate.
Okay, you have answered my previous question. What you want is a history, or as you say, progression. But if that is what you want, then the Bible is woefully incomplete. Why not amend it with other texts? Do you think other Christians would mind? ;)


I don't know if it's that we can't understand them. We may not be able to understand them as God understands them...or, we may not be able to understand everything. But understanding is possible. This goes back to my admitted belief in objective morality. I believe that I understand the notion that some things are right and some things are wrong. I believe that the notion is true. My understanding is sufficient for me; it may be insufficient for others. It might be a bit like the calculus, which can be understood on different levels.
You say understanding is possible, but I don't believe it is. If there is such a thing as objective morality, then where does God fit into it? He is often in violation of our "subjective" morality. To invoke a "higher morality" seems to invite all kinds of abuses in "the name of God" because someone has decided that they understand the "objective morality". No, I reject such human decisions about objective morality, even those with the best intentions. What was it that the road to Hell was paved with?

The difference between...
I think it's the F word.
The perfect truth, when comprehended and possessed completely, would make faith irrelevant I think.
Yup. If we knew everything, the F word would be irrelevant. You think that will happen any time soon?


I get snarky when people say demeaning things towards people of faith. When people assume people of faith are consumed by fear, or are stupid and illogical, etc. I don't take that personally, but I take it as if someone is insulting a family member. Moreover, it makes me angry to see a person make themselves look bad, for that is what happens when you define people who disagree with you in such a way.

This is why it is advised that one never discuss religion or politics. Oddly, I find that my best friends are those with whom I can discuss anything. I guess it is strangers (like those on these boards) that one must be careful with. But then, that is also the allure of such forums. You can say things you would never say to people you were worried about insulting.

Don't expect too much of us mere mortals. We all have our faults and prejudices.

As as side note, I am intrigued to see the word "snarky" become such a common thing. I grew up loving Lewis Carroll's "The Hunting of the Snark" and I find myself nonplussed to see the word take on a meaning that doesn't seem to fit the story. Ah well, I will adjust.
It's quite likely if not certain that I have been incivil here, and it's usually if not always in response to, at the very least, perceived incivility. Not the most mature thing, and not turning the other cheek, but in this cynical medium I don't know if that can be conveyed.
I think you have done a remarkable job of remaining civil in a place that must make you feel like Daniel in the lion's den. I respect you greatly for it, and I hope you will continue to contribute. I will also disagree with you at almost every turn. My respect for you is such that I do not feel that you will take such disagreements as a personal insult.

[Ossai]

Mr Clingford
No sacrifice at all then.
Which is what I wrote - I wasn't using the concept of sacrifice
and
but my thinking doesn't uses the idea of sacrifice. Perhaps Jesus as God died symbolically taking the blame for the estrangement between God and humanity caused by an individual's selfish attention to himself at the expense of others; as creator of the universe he is ultimately responsible for what happens.
Then what was the point of Jesus’s death? If it’s all symbolic then why bother going through with it?

Are you stating that you believe that Adam & Eve were part divine before the fall? Eh? What have Adam and Eve got to do with the incarnation?
You previously wrote
The incarnation. The uniting of the human and the divine.
…, but other Christian approaches see a great deal of value just in the fact of the existence of Jesus per se, as he is the embodiment of the reconciliation of the human and the divine.
I thought it a valid question. If Jesus was fully human and fully divine (Catholic doctrine) and he is the embodiment of the reconciliation, then it would be assumed that prior to the fall both Adam and Eve were also both fully human and at least partially divine. Else you are left with some rather annoying questions.
If Jesus’, life and death, were symbolic or at least partially symbolic and for everyone, then why didn’t everyone receive the benefits immediately?
Why must someone accept the story of Jesus in order to be saved? (As well as the billions that have lived and died never hearing of him at all?)

The problem is that the word hell has more than one meaning
I’m going with definition one. Of the other three to which meaning are you referring?
From Merriam-Webster Hell:
1 a (1) : a nether world in which the dead continue to exist : HADES (2) : the nether realm of the devil and the demons in which the damned suffer everlasting punishment -- often used in curses <go to hell> or as a generalized term of abuse <the hell with it> b Christian Science : ERROR 2b, SIN
2 a : a place or state of misery, torment, or wickedness <war is hell -- W. T. Sherman> b : a place or state of turmoil or destruction <all hell broke loose> c : a severe scolding <got hell for coming in late> d : unrestrained fun or sportiveness <the kids were full of hell> -- often used in the phrase for the hell of it especially to suggest action on impulse or without a serious motive <decided to go for the hell of it>
3 archaic : a tailor's receptacle
4 -- used as an interjection <hell, I don't know!> or as an intensive <hurts like hell> <funny as hell> -- often used in the phrase hell of a <it was one hell of a good fight> or hell out of <scared the hell out of him> or with the or in <moved way the hell up north> <what in hell is wrong, now?>
I think that the miraculous happens (and may do so for anyone) Got any repeatable verifiable evidence?

The argument goes, though, if God is beyond/outside of time then it is irrelevant That is how the argument goes, but it’s incorrect and nothing more than special pleading. It’s irrelevant whether god is beyond/outside of time.
BTW – if god is beyond/outside of time then what how is Jesus god?

Ossai

[elliotfc]

Originally posted by kimiko
One problem unbelievers have with Christians is that they elevate one guy's crucifixion above countless others that happened as if his suffering was qualitatively different.

It might have been...but the cynic could/would say that the differences were of the romantic/sentimental variety.

I think you could elevate the execution of an innocent man over the execution of a guilty man for qualitative reasons. If your friends sell you out and your mother's watching, that could compound the suffering. If you had the power to end the suffering, but resisted that power, that could also add to the suffering.

We elevate it because it was God. If it wasn't God, or nobody believed it was God, it wouldn't be elevated. With the exception of Peter, this may be the only crucifixion that anyone talks about anymore, the rest are basically lost to history, although we know (theoretically or via testimonies) that tens of thousands, if not hundreds of thousands, have taken place in history.

-Elliot

[elliotfc]

Originally posted by Mr Clingford
The incarnation (depending on one's theology) may be the only suggestion.

Should I quote John 3:16? :)

I suspect that any example that a Christian would offer would be shot down, because the shooter wouldn't/doesn't think that it applied to at the very least, him/herself.

One could say that the mere existence of the Bible is God's proof of his love for all of humanity, but you'll find many who would disagree with that.

See, no absolute answer can be given to a subjective question, because it comes down to a matter of opinion.

-Elliot

[elliotfc]

Originally posted by Diogenes
That sounds like a tentative ' no '..


Anyone else ?



Diogenes, may I turn this question around, because frankly I'm not sure what you would consider to be God's universal love for all of mankind.

Would it be something material, like a sack of money under the bed once a year? Something psychic, as in a euphoric feeling when looking at a sunset? Freedom from suffering/death?

I suspect that your answer would indicate why Christianity is unpalatable or irrelevant. What YOU would consider to be God's love doesn't correspond to what God has offered/given, and that's unfortunate for you, but hardly affects Christian belief.

-Elliot

[elliotfc]

Originally posted by Diogenes
You would think the love of God would be a little more demonstrable than that, wouldn't you?

So it's a question of expectation then. You would minimize the Incarnation while others maximize it. What is the universal standard to declare one opinion more valid than the other? And if none exists, then it is a matte of opinion, so your hypothetical may or may not apply. I declare that it doesn't apply, given the popularity and staying power of Christianity. (It should go without saying that popularity/stayingpower has nothing to do with objective truth...but just so nobody jumps on me, there's yer qualifier).


As I understand it the ' incarnation ' was not for everyone.. ( originally or at all, depending on who you ask ).. Jesus was the Jewish messiah.. ( I suspect you know that .. ;) )

John 3:16...it doesn't say that God so loved the Jews...


But assuming Jesus lived and died for everyone, it was still a sham sacrifice.. As I mentioned earlier; if Jesus had gone to hell and stayed there, that would have been a sacrifice. As it was, it was an unpleasant vacation. I'm sure a few thousand years in heaven, pretty much makes up for it..

Only if you believe that all sacrifices were permanent!

See, Christians do not believe that! Sacrifices are TEMPORARY OFFERINGS that have an enormous amount of meaning and power, so much so that they are redeemable.

Don't forget, Christians believe in ABSOLUTE JUSTICE. Sacrifice has its privileges. Would you want something different? Would you rather that whenever someone sacrifices something for another person, NOTHING "good" would ever happen to the sacrificer? That is ridiculous, if you believe that God values sacrifice. By valuing sacrifice he will elevate the sacrificer in the next one.

If you think that is immature reward/punishment type thinking, I would disagree. I think that absolute justice would in fact reward and punish, just as reward and punishment happens in all circles of our human societal interactions.

So you talk of God on the cross as no big deal. All I can say is that I'm really sorry you think that way. It's a no win situation for God, eh? Anything he does means nothing, because he is everything. God would have to destroy himself, or cast himself into pernament oblivion, in order to satisfy your expectations.

-Elliot

[Mr Clingford]

Originally posted by Ossai
Then what was the point of Jesus’s death? If it’s all symbolic then why bother going through with it? Perhaps Jesus's death was a symbolic gesture of taking responsibility? I don't know.Originally posted by Ossai
If Jesus was fully human and fully divine (Catholic doctrine) and he is the embodiment of the reconciliation, then it would be assumed that prior to the fall both Adam and Eve were also both fully human and at least partially divine. Else you are left with some rather annoying questions.I don't follow you here - why would it be assumed?
Originally posted by Ossai
If Jesus’, life and death, were symbolic or at least partially symbolic and for everyone, then why didn’t everyone receive the benefits immediately?
Why must someone accept the story of Jesus in order to be saved? (As well as the billions that have lived and died never hearing of him at all?)What do you mean by 'receive the benefits?'
What do you mean by 'saved'? Atheists, followers of other faiths and those who have not heard of Jesus may be in full relationship with God after death.
Originally posted by Ossai
That is how the argument goes, but it’s incorrect and nothing more than special pleading. It’s irrelevant whether god is beyond/outside of time. Why is it irrelevant?
Originally posted by Ossai
BTW – if god is beyond/outside of time then what how is Jesus god? One has to be careful exactly how one talks about Jesus because the doctrines of the trinity and the incarnation are a little complex. Jesus and the Logos, the second part of the trinity, are not exactly the same. In a sense Jesus is God in material form.

In the Bible several different words may be poorly translated 'hell'; in the OT there is sheol, in the NT there is Hades (which is finite in Revelation) and Gehenna, the rubbish pit in the valley of Hinnon outside Jerusalem, which burns continually. So when one talks about hell in the Bible one has to know what word and usage is being applied. The notion of hell as the place of the devil and devils etc is a later development (especially of the Middle Ages and Milton!). Google these words for explanations of their meanings

[elliotfc]

Originally posted by Mr Clingford
I do assume that Jesus lived and died for all. The hell that Jesus visited was Hades in Greek, a place of the dead. Jesus, though, couldn't be in hell (meaning the separation from God voluntarily chosen by an individual) for ever because the trinity couldn't split from itself.

Good point. Back in the day, hell was heaven. The concept of hell has evolved over the centuries. Nobody "went' to heaven before Christ. Pseudepigrapha and tradition holds that Jesus HAD to descend into the realm of the dead so that he could give them the Good News.

-Elliot

[Skeptical Greg]

Originally posted by elliotfc
Diogenes, may I turn this question around, because frankly I'm not sure what you would consider to be God's universal love for all of mankind.

Would it be something material, like a sack of money under the bed once a year? Something psychic, as in a euphoric feeling when looking at a sunset? Freedom from suffering/death?

I suspect that your answer would indicate why Christianity is unpalatable or irrelevant. What YOU would consider to be God's love doesn't correspond to what God has offered/given, and that's unfortunate for you, but hardly affects Christian belief.

-Elliot I'm just asking Christians, who continously proclaim " God loves you/us/etc. ", to give me an example...

I'ts as simple as that..


Your obfuscation is not unexpected.. The point is, that what you, I and most people, consider to be examples of love, cannot be found in the documented or imagined behaviour of God.


Yes, love is different things to different people, but it is easy to look around and say,
" There is a really loving parent.. etc. "..


Why is it so hard, for a group of people who claim " God Is Love " to provide a tangiable example..


One could even assume God is love if there wasn't so much evidence to the contrary..

Perhaps you should ask yourself " Why should I even be asked this question? "...

[Mr Clingford]

Originally posted by Ossai
Got any repeatable verifiable evidence? [for miracles] Of course not! There isn't any - it's an absurd question

[elliotfc]

Originally posted by kimiko
I was kind of hoping you would comment on what I'd said about the crucifixion not being anything unique. There is also the problem of making human sacrifice a major part of the faith. You can dress it up by saying he was man and god at the same time, but the gruesomeness remains.

Here's a couple of explanations.

One is the pre-existence of human sacrifice. Inspired by demons? Mere human invention? Who knows. In the Incarnation, it is addressed via co-option and transformation.

Another is similar...the need to conquer death. In Christ, death is brought to the innocent, who then dies only to be resurrected. Since death is allowed to rend the innocent assunder, it will be gruesome out of spite. Hate is given free rein to do what it will.


Even if you assume Jesus was a real person, which is an assumption due to a lack of evidence,

You can't say lack of evidence. Look, I wouldn't believe in Jesus if there was a lack of evidence. Rather, you should say the evidence isn't sufficient, or it is suspect, or it does not measure up to certain standards.

No, of course you can say lack of evidence. You just did. It just sounds strange, because there is evidence to believe in Jesus. You just reject the evidence that other people accept.

As you use evidence, you consider it information that backs up a pre-determined conclusion. This is incorrect I think, because it courts of law, evidence exists to support alternate theories. Heck, in science too. The evidence has to be sussed out, but it's all still evidence.


everything that is supposed to be divine is unprovable.

It can't be proved in the ways that you expect things to be proved.



Just out of curiosity, do you believe miracles other religious figures supposedly performed?

Some. Or, at the very least I'm intrigued by them. They could be the result of demonic or confused spirits. Who knows.

-Elliot

[elliotfc]

Originally posted by Diogenes
Remember the ' free cheeseburger ' metaphor. There is no sacrifice when there is no loss involved.[

Well, I think that God has to obey the law of entropy. How can anything be lost? It can only be transformed. :)

Diogenes, you think that sacrifice is permanent, or, should be permanent. Christians don't. What you'll have to do is convince me and other Christians that we should think that sacrifice should be permanent.

Or, you'll have to convince us that the salvific act was no big deal.

Unfortunately, both of your positions are articles of faith, and I'm not sure how successful you'll be, but I assure you I've read and considered your statements on these points and will continue to do so.


Christians make a big deal about the resurrection, when in actuality the resurrection voids the sacrifice. If Jesus had stayed dead, that would be a sacrifice..

No, it was a sacrifice. How can you resurrect without dying?

Do you really believe they cancel each other out?!?!?!?! Everything that happens matters. Everything. They could not possibly cancel each other out. The crucifixion happened, and that was a big deal. Then the resurrection, and that was also a big deal.

We Christians believe that human sacrifice, as a particular form of death, still follows the rule. See, human death does not equal oblivion. We believe in an after-life. Given that belief, we still make a big deal out of death. Because death is a big deal. God agrees. God experienced death, like we will all experience death. That doesn't void death. That is a recognition of death. It's such a big deal that God had to experience and transform it. It was the ultimate sacrifice, since it recognizes each and every human death.

You appear to have a problem with life-after-death. You want a "good" death to lead to oblivion. Why? Why the heck would you want that? What, you want God to allow the best deaths and the best people to just become nothing? That's absurd, especially considering the Christian notions of absolute justice.


I'm sure this sounds absurd to a Christian, which is somewhat ironic, since absurdity goes with the territory..

Well said. :)

-Elliot

[elliotfc]

Originally posted by Mr Clingford
I think I see what you mean; if sacrifice is what it is all about then it doesn't appear to be much of a sacrifice, but my thinking doesn't uses the idea of sacrifice. Perhaps Jesus as God died symbolically taking the blame for the estrangement between God and humanity caused by an individual's selfish attention to himself at the expense of others; as creator of the universe he is ultimately responsible for what happens.

The sacrifice could not possibly result in what would satisfy the cynic. The cynic wants the sacrifice to result in oblivion, when no human death results in oblivion. But it's more that that. They want God himself to be subject to oblivion!

By this way of thinking there is NOTHING that God could do for humanity that would be meaningful, unless he makes himself into nothing via permanent death.

It's an interesting way of thinking I guess, but to me it is patenently ridiculous.

-Elliot

[elliotfc]

Originally posted by Tricky
Only if you accept his divinity.

This is the answer to many a question.

But not nearly as horrible and painful as some others. I watched an aunt die of bone cancer. It took months, and she was in almost constant pain because she didn't want to be drugged into oblivion. Again, I don't see what makes Jesus so special.

You answered the question above.

Christians do not believe that Jesus died the most painful death imaginable, or the most painful death ever. They just believe that he died a painful death. Christianity is not contingent upon Christ having died the most painful death ever.

This is kind of like comparing what wounds you suffered in order to get a Purple Heart. That isn't, or shouldn't be, the point.


Yeah, but he only died for three days. Some "ultimate" sacrifice that is.

It's ultimate because it is God's sacrifice!

Again, you are working under the opinion that sacrifices have to be permanent, or last X amount of time.

When I say "ultimate", I'm mean that it has the ultimate EFFECT! See, in order for sacrifices to be meaningful, the EXPERIENCE is not the point! What results from the sacrifice is what makes sacrifice meaningful!

Here's an example, an extremely hypothetical one. Let's say some guy goes into North Korea and defuses some armageddon type plot by encrypting a computer. He's captured and tortured beyond belief to give up the codes, but he doesn't give in. He's tortured non-stop for 3 years, you name it he got it. Then he dies. Only 20 North Koreans knew about it, 18 are killed. The other 2 are bastards who couldn't care less. Nobody will ever know about the action/sacrifice of the guy. The guy ends up going to hell for eternity and in total anonymity.

Would you say "Wow, what a sacrifice!" I would too. But then I would say, what kind of God would allow such a man to end up in hell for eternity? What's that all about? Rather, a just God would reward such a man for what he did, and his act would be recognized in the next one.

That's the difference between the way we think Tricky. Since you don't believe in the afterlife or eternal justice, you stop at what happens on the planet Earth in the finite human lifetime. If I did that, no doubt I'd think like you on this point.

The test you apply is a no-win situation. 3 days? Why not 3 million years? Crucifixion? Why not flaying and a slow burn? These are hoops to jump through that miss the point. The point is that Jesus did suffer and that Jesus did die.


So if it wasn't the pain that was important,

Argh. No the pain was important. It wasn't important to you, but it's important to Christians.


and it wasn't the death (since he didn't stay dead),

Argh. Nobody stays dead. You're just indicating your rejection of Christian theology, rather than an understanding of Christian theology. Which is fine...just don't pretend that you are stating base points that all Christians would agree with for rhetorical reasons.


then what was Jesus's great sacrifice? What did he do that countless other humans have not also done?

Something and nothing.

The whole point was for Jesus to do something that EVERY human does. Be born. Experience pain. Die.

That fact ALONE could have been the sacrifice. Just the mere experience.

God didn't crucify Jesus! Humans did. If they didn't, the sacrifice of Jesus would remain.

So you're right in that he didn't do what every other human won't do. That's the point!

Of course he did suffer and he did die in a horrible way. I'm not about to minimize that (unlike you). To minimize that would be to say that suffering is no big deal, or that death is no big deal. And I think they are big deals. If you don't, then that makes you different from Christians.

They were such big deals that God himself assumed them.

It appears you can't/won't see that which is sad. It's awful when pain and suffering and death are minimized. God chooses a way to address them, and then his act is minimized.


-Elliot

[Lucifuge Rofocale]

As a former Catholic, I can say that that explanation doesn't hold water anyway.
See:
God needs to punish Man (due to the original sin).
God Punishes Man Sending Him to eternal death (or Hell).There is nothing Man can do to avoid it.
God loves Man so much, he can't see him in eternal death (or Hell).
God finds a scape clause: He sends his son who is also a part of him and who is also him to live here and die here. He is crucified by man.
This sacrifice is perfect, pleases god and can save Man.
But this sacrifice is not perfect. Man have to accept it. If not, he dies anyway.
So God needs to Punish Man that doesn't want to accept that sacrifice (either by not accepting it conciously , not believing in it or never hearing of it )

Is that unlimited love for man?
Is that a perfect sacrifice? (If so, how can it be that some men can still die and go to hell)
Wich sin of mine is jesus paying with his death in the cross?
What amount of pain suffered by god is enought to clear the alleged offense man did to god?
How can a men offend god? May an ant offend you?


Considering all the alleged facts, how can this story be so imaginary? An imaginary offense punished by an imaginary hell and cleared by an imaginary sacrifice that leads to an imaginary grace. Where is the substance?

What's the morality in this story? god feeling the neurotic need to punish man, chooses to punish himself instead, with a punisment that is not a punishment because is not permanent(being god eternal) , but pleases him. Is that moral?

The rationalization of that is too hard. And the fact that there is no evidence of anything of it makes it harder.

[Ossai]

elliotfc
So it's a question of expectation then. You would minimize the Incarnation while others maximize it. What is the universal standard to declare one opinion more valid than the other? And if none exists, then it is a matte of opinion, so your hypothetical may or may not apply. I declare that it doesn't apply, given the popularity and staying power of Christianity. The same standard by which you proclaim a universal/objective morality.

Only if you believe that all sacrifices were permanent!

See, Christians do not believe that! Sacrifices are TEMPORARY OFFERINGS that have an enormous amount of meaning and power, so much so that they are redeemable. That explains everything. Christians have their own meaning for words that don’t correspond to what others mean. So when a Christian says ‘I respect the beliefs of others’ what they really mean is ‘Everyone else is going to hell.’ Well that certainly clears that little miscommunication up.
Now my question is, how do I write my response in a manner you can understand it.

And the very next thing you post is a perfect example.
Sacrifice has its privileges. Would you want something different? Would you rather that whenever someone sacrifices something for another person, NOTHING "good" would ever happen to the sacrificer? That is ridiculous, if you believe that God values sacrifice. By valuing sacrifice he will elevate the sacrificer in the next one.

Sacrifice has its privileges. Payment.
Would you rather that whenever someone sacrifices something for another person, NOTHING "good" would ever happen to the sacrificer? Paying for something is godly. (earlier you mentioned that god = good).
I’ve got it. God is a Capitalist!

Mr Clingford
If Jesus was fully human and fully divine (Catholic doctrine) and he is the embodiment of the reconciliation, then it would be assumed that prior to the fall both Adam and Eve were also both fully human and at least partially divine. Else you are left with some rather annoying questions.
I don't follow you here - why would it be assumed? What else could the reconciliation be? It can’t be the presence of god, he shows up a number of times after the fall and before Jesus. Adam and Eve were said to be immortal before the fall. How could a living being be immortal without a bit of the divine?

What do you mean by 'receive the benefits?' Being saved.
What do you mean by 'saved'? The typical Christian meaning really, not go to hell and get to spend eternity with god.
Atheists, followers of other faiths and those who have not heard of Jesus may be in full relationship with God after death. As a personal belief that’s great, but it goes against Christian doctrine.

That is how the argument goes, but it’s incorrect and nothing more than special pleading. It’s irrelevant whether god is beyond/outside of time.
Why is it irrelevant?
From the person’s perspective (which is all we have) the person does not have a choice. Or to be a bit more exact. At time T when the decision point is reached, Person A must do X.
The whole outside/beyond time is a cop-out to say god didn’t know which is in direct opposition to god being omniscient.

In the Bible several different words may be poorly translated 'hell'; in the OT there is sheol, Where every dead person went irregardless of good or bad, at least until they encountered other cultures.
in the NT there is Hades (which is finite in Revelation) Which is where Hades comes in, a distinctly Greek influence. (and for some reason I want to say Persian but it’s been a while since I’ve read anything about this.)
and Gehenna, the rubbish pit in the valley of Hinnon outside Jerusalem, which burns continually. I remember reading about this one but the symbolic meaning escapes me at the moment. I’m wanting to say it was used as a reference which was expanded in later verses.

Got any repeatable verifiable evidence? [for miracles]
Of course not! There isn't any - it's an absurd question Let me ask another question then. What is a miracle.

Elliotfc
You can't say lack of evidence. Look, I wouldn't believe in Jesus if there was a lack of evidence. Rather, you should say the evidence isn't sufficient, or it is suspect, or it does not measure up to certain standards. Actually, lack of evidence pretty much covers it.

No, of course you can say lack of evidence. You just did. It just sounds strange, because there is evidence to believe in Jesus. You just reject the evidence that other people accept. What evidence would that be?

As you use evidence, you consider it information that backs up a pre-determined conclusion. No, that is not evidence, that is selective data mining.

kimiko
everything that is supposed to be divine is unprovable.
It can't be proved in the ways that you expect things to be proved. How can it be proven then?

By this way of thinking there is NOTHING that God could do for humanity that would be meaningful, unless he makes himself into nothing via permanent death. You are the one that has exclusive focused on that way of thinking. Diogenes has repeatedly asked you for an example of god’s love, i.e. various things that god could do for humanity.

It's ultimate because it is God's sacrifice! But god didn’t actually sacrifice anything.
From Merriam-Webster Sacrifice
1 : an act of offering to a deity something precious; especially : the killing of a victim on an altar
2 : something offered in sacrifice
3 a : destruction or surrender of something for the sake of something else b : something given up or lost

Here's an example, an extremely hypothetical one. Let's say some guy goes into North Korea and defuses some armageddon type plot by encrypting a computer. He's captured and tortured beyond belief to give up the codes, but he doesn't give in. He's tortured non-stop for 3 years, you name it he got it. Then he dies. Only 20 North Koreans knew about it, 18 are killed. The other 2 are bastards who couldn't care less. Nobody will ever know about the action/sacrifice of the guy. The guy ends up going to hell for eternity and in total anonymity. Ok the man sacrifices his life to stop the plot. He expected no compensation.

Would you say "Wow, what a sacrifice!" I would too. But then I would say, what kind of God would allow such a man to end up in hell for eternity? The same one that sent babies to hell and took great pleasure in bashing babies against rocks.
What's that all about? Hey the guy apparently was Christian an his sacrifice was meaningless.
Rather, a just God would reward such a man for what he did, and his act would be recognized in the next one. What next one?

Argh. Nobody stays dead. Want to expand on this one. I’ve never meet anyone that came back from the dead. (Dead dead, not dead for a couple of minutes while doctors got their body working again).

That fact ALONE could have been the sacrifice. Just the mere experience. How, what was given up?

Of course he did suffer and he did die in a horrible way. I'm not about to minimize that (unlike you). To minimize that would be to say that suffering is no big deal, or that death is no big deal. And I think they are big deals. If you don't, then that makes you different from Christians.

They were such big deals that God himself assumed them. Temporarily, then apparently ran back to heaven. Still no sacrifice.

Ossai

[kimiko]

Originally posted by elliotfc
It might have been...but the cynic could/would say that the differences were of the romantic/sentimental variety.

I think you could elevate the execution of an innocent man over the execution of a guilty man for qualitative reasons. If your friends sell you out and your mother's watching, that could compound the suffering.
You're assuming everyone who was ever crucified was guilty.

[frisian]

Temporarily, then apparently ran back to heaven. Still no sacrifice.

Ossai [/B]

Duration defines a sacrifice? How so?

[frisian]

Originally posted by kimiko
You're assuming everyone who was ever crucified was guilty.

Under the umbrella of Christian thought, only one was not guilty of anything and was crucified.

[kimiko]

Originally posted by elliotfc
You can't say lack of evidence. Look, I wouldn't believe in Jesus if there was a lack of evidence. Rather, you should say the evidence isn't sufficient, or it is suspect, or it does not measure up to certain standards.

No, of course you can say lack of evidence. You just did. It just sounds strange, because there is evidence to believe in Jesus. You just reject the evidence that other people accept.

As you use evidence, you consider it information that backs up a pre-determined conclusion. This is incorrect I think, because it courts of law, evidence exists to support alternate theories. Heck, in science too. The evidence has to be sussed out, but it's all still evidence.
I say lack of evidence precisely because it doesn't measure up to standards. You can't ask for special treatment. Was the Trojan War real? It hasn't been proven, so some people don't believe it actually happened, but that it's myth. It may have happened, but possibly someplace else, like England. Is the Iliad proof of the Trojan War? Of course not. Likewise, the Bible isn't proof for the contents of the Bible.

The problem with the Bible is that parts are garbage as far as history is concerned. That is evidence for something, too, but apparently evidence believers reject or explain away.

[Lucifuge Rofocale]

Originally posted by frisian
Under the umbrella of Christian thought, only one was not guilty of anything and was crucified.
Under the umbrella of Christian thought, we don't have to stay here discussing this topics, since they already revealed.

[Ossai]

Frisian
Duration defines a sacrifice? How so?
A sacrifice is giving up something. No time limit involved.

If it were explained in a different manner, Jesus died but to show his blessing/agreement/ etc god resurrected him. But that would require Jesus to be independent from god.

Ossai

[kimiko]

Originally posted by frisian
Under the umbrella of Christian thought, only one was not guilty of anything and was crucified.
Exactly. That's the problem. Everyone captured in Spartacus' uprising was crucified- miles and miles of the Appian Way were lined with crucifixes. Not all of them were gladiators, thousands just fled their enslavement.

There have been people put to death in the US that were exonerated by DNA after the fact.

Ali Muhhamad, the Bab, supposedly sinless as he claimed to be a mirror of God, was put to death.

[Skeptical Greg]

Originally posted by frisian
Under the umbrella of Christian thought, only one was not guilty of anything and was crucified. Under the umbrella of Christian thought, any other person would have been guilty of all kinds of stuff..

[kimiko]

Originally posted by elliotfc
The whole point was for Jesus to do something that EVERY human does. Be born. Experience pain. Die.
God already knows how it feels to be born, experience pain, and die. He knows every emotion and sensation experienced by humanity, he created them.

[Kitty Chan]

Originally posted by kimiko
God already knows how it feels to be born, experience pain, and die. He knows every emotion and sensation experienced by humanity, he created them.

Jesus knows how it feels to be born, experience pain, and die. This way we know we have a God that would be on our level and understand personally our pains and joys thoughout life. Not just be a God in the sky, or carved in stone.

He knows how crummy or beautiful this world can be because He has experienced it first hand.

He knows what it feels like to be loved and hated, have good days and bad. He knows what it is like to be human and all the bad and good that comes with it.

Because He is God, He did not have to, He does not have to do anything, there is no motivation other than love. Jesus did not do anything wrong, broke no laws. He said the greatest thing was to love your neighbours as yourself.

[kuroyume0161]

Originally posted by Kitty Chan
Jesus knows how it feels to be born, experience pain, and die. This way we know we have a God that would be on our level and understand personally our pains and joys thoughout life. Not just be a God in the sky, or carved in stone.

He knows how crummy or beautiful this world can be because He has experienced it first hand.

He knows what it feels like to be loved and hated, have good days and bad. He knows what it is like to be human and all the bad and good that comes with it.

Because He is God, He did not have to, He does not have to do anything, there is no motivation other than love. Jesus did not do anything wrong, broke no laws. He said the greatest thing was to love your neighbours as yourself.

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)

What does an OMNIPOTENT, OMNISCIENT, CREATOR God need with 'experiencing firsthand'? It's like saying that I have to become 'Tron' to understand how my computer programs work...

Robert
Merry Christmyth and a Happy New Year!

[Kitty Chan]

re Differ?

Which one said they were God in flesh?
Which one said you were to be an heir to them?



As becoming Tron you have it backwards. God didnt need to understand us WE needed to understand God. We needed to see that He would really understand what life is about on our level.

Doesnt it make the worker feel better to know the boss will grab the shovel and dig with him? Doesnt it feel better when someone shares what you are doing with you? This is what Jesus was doing by choosing to identify with us. It was for us, not Him.

:)

[kimiko]

Originally posted by Kitty Chan
Jesus knows how it feels to be born, experience pain, and die. This way we know we have a God that would be on our level and understand personally our pains and joys thoughout life. Not just be a God in the sky, or carved in stone.

He knows how crummy or beautiful this world can be because He has experienced it first hand.
You didn't understand my post. I said god knew what all of those feel like because he created them. Not Jesus as God, not God has to have another form to experience them, not God knows it through Jesus. There is absolutely no reason God wouldn't know what those sensations and feelings are like, because he is the creator of all things, including human emotions, therefore, he already knows. He wasn't completely ignorant before Jesus, he already knew!

[Kitty Chan]

kimiko

I would not disagree that God knows the feelings. It actually makes it all the more what Jesus experienced here on earth because He would have known along with God what was to happen.

Sorry didnt mean to confuse things :)

[elliotfc]

Originally posted by Belle
So okay - let's stretch things and say he created the universe - how does that show he LOVES us.

...may just show he was bored and wanted something beautiful to look at.

Or ugly.

Depends how you look at it, right? Why do you think that the universe is beautiful? I guess it's a matter of opinion.

-Elliot

[elliotfc]

Originally posted by evildave
Minor correction: Circular reasoning does not reinforce its self. It's only circular.

It can reinforce itself, in my opinion. Do you speak from experience or from theory? Perhaps I should have said that the practice of circular reasoning can reinforce itself. I base that on experience and theory.



What you describe seems more like reason circling the drain, and it really does spin faster as the last of it goes down.


I dunno, I think that everybody practices circular reasoning when it comes to belief. Circling down the drain...that smacks of wishful thinking. In any case, thanks for sharing your perspective.


-Elliot

[elliotfc]

Originally posted by kimiko
Well, if salvation is contingent on Christ's death and resurrection, the main tenent of the faith would be human sacrifice.

Indirectly, yeah. Of course you must see the differences. Human sacrifice, typically defined, is authorities/acolytes of the religion or the state killing someone to satisfy the gods or nature or summat. Jesus' death was the execution of a sentenced criminal. Like, you could call McVeigh's death a human sacrifice if some cult was to spring up from his death, but even then the death would be properly labeled an execution.

Yet it was also like a human sacrifice. I would hesitate, however, to use your phrase, because we don't think of it as human sacrifice in the general sense, but rather a specific and non-repeatable instance of sacrifice to which no other human sacrifice could possibly compare.



It was also an offshoot of Judaic animal sacrifices.

Definitely. Offshoot is key, as many Jews are adamant that Jesus does NOT fulfill the role of an animal sacrifice (check jewsforjudaism for an explanation.


Gruesome is a rather tame word when you consider deliberate death constitutes the only means of purifying the self.

No, that isn't true for Christians. Why do you say that? Or, do you mean to say that it provides the best, or ultimate, means of purifying the self?


-Elliot

[elliotfc]

Originally posted by KingMerv00
Then I realized you are in fact DEFENDING CIRCULAR LOGIC!

You have just torn down human civilization. Congrats.

Sure, I'll defend circular logic when it comes to belief. How could I not?

As for tearing down human civilization, what's that all about? The people who have build and maintained human civilization have universally practiced circular logic, so I'm not sure what you're all about in saying that.

It's fine if you have a problem with circular logic. But why do you have a problem with circular logic? Is it wrong just because it is inherently wrong? Or, does it fail to measure up to a standard of logic that you practice/espouse? And if so, why would the standard be superior to what it is being compared to? I'm trying to follow your logic here...



I will now prove the existance of Zeus and my omniscience at the same time. Behold the power of tautology:

1) Zeus exists and is always right. How do we know? See #2

2) I am omniscient and I don't lie. I believe in Zeus. How do we know I am all-knowing and truthful? See #3

3) Zeus tells me so. How do we know? See #4

4) I said so. How do we know I am right? See #2

Just enter into my triangle of reason by faith and we are all set.

Right, and since I reject each of your premises, I don't enter into that circle. Now, if you can get people to accept any of your premises, you could be onto something. :)

So yes, it's true that you've erected a theoretical circle, but is it practicable? As far as I can tell not even you espouse the circle. Why not? The premises.

-Elliot

[elliotfc]

Originally posted by Diogenes
So, if I create an obstacle course in my backyard, complete with all kinds of deadly traps and ways to get injured and killed, put my son at the entrance and say " see you at the exit ( if you make it, heh, heh, heh )"; this would be a show of love?

No, of course not.


I know I said ' just one ' ( thanks for playing ), but you don't by chance have another one, do you ?

John 3:16.

-Elliot

[elliotfc]

Originally posted by Belle
You misread - the implication of imperfection would be if god were NOT all-knowing, and the point was the whole thing simply doesn't make sense. Basically, what's the point of making choices or even having the ability to make choices if all our choices are known beforehand by god?

God knows them beforehand because we can/will make choices. God always knows what choices we make/havemade/willmake.

See, you can't avoid making choices. We all make choices. And God is omniscient. This whole point business...what is the point? The reality is what has been said, and you're flummoxed by the point. The point is what it is.

An analogy that might help is the existence of a book in which people have made all sorts of choices. You can read the book at any time or at any point. You can read the last page, then read the first page. In reading the book you are independent of the choices that are made in the book, even if you can know the choices that are to come while reading the first few pages of a book. Or maybe that analogy won't help. The key is to understand that God is outside of chronological time.

-Elliot

[elliotfc]

Originally posted by Tricky
MCan negative feedback kick in as well? If not, why not?

I think it can, and it drives people outside of the circle. But it takes a change in understanding/acceptance. Like, if one of the premises no longer holds water, then the others may get all shook up too, and then the center does not hold and things fall apart and you're flung out like Venus from the orbit of Jupiter and you become an atheist and talk about how Christians are motivated by fear. I think that's the process, or at least it is what I have observed.


Also, I'm not sure what you mean by "objective morality". It seems to me that morality is, by definition, subjective.

Morality can be subjective, but I believe that there is an objective morality which influences our subjective morality. That's why I qualified morality with *objective* because you are right, when talking about morality with no qualifier I myself take it in the subjective sense.


That is extremely interesting. I've never heard a Christian suggest that the things, especially the miracles, that happened in the Bible were not "God's doing". I applaud you for making an admission that few Christians are willing to admit.

Really? But surely you know that many people who accept Christ doubt much of the OT stuff actually happened, right? Or let's just stick with Genesis to make it simple. A good many (at least a third) of Christians would call Adam and Eve mythology, and probably another third would say that believing in A&E isn't necessary to be a Christian.

I think there is a heck of a lot of variety of belief in Christendom. I don't know if that's good or bad, it just is. I do sense that their is the tacit assumption that fundamentalism is the branch of Christianity that is being addressed when Christianity is talked about here.

I guess I'm not a stickler for all of the miracles in the OT. If they all happened I think that's terrfic. If only 3.5 of them happened I think that's cool too. I am a stickler for the Gospels, as are most Christians (but definitely not all Christians).


It seems like your linking would suggest that only those who followed God could be "good". I strongly disagree with such a linking. It would mean that I am bad, and I don't think I am.

But I think that everybody follows God, whether they think so or not. That may sound condescending, and I don't mean it that way. I guess it's like how some Christians say that people can follow Jesus without knowing it; this is how Catholic dogma suggests how non-Christians can enter heaven.

I think that all people are basically good, and that nobody is completely good. That goes for Christians and non-Christians. Now, in order to "go to heaven", whatever that means, you have to accept the fact that you do in fact follow God, regardless of how good or bad you are, or have been. I think that this can be done after death, while other Christians think it must be done during the earthly span.

Night night, will return to this tomorrow.

-Elliot

[kimiko]

Originally posted by Kitty Chan
kimiko

I would not disagree that God knows the feelings. It actually makes it all the more what Jesus experienced here on earth because He would have known along with God what was to happen.

Sorry didnt mean to confuse things :)
If Jesus IS god, then it's redundant and unnecessary. God doesn't need a tutorial on human feelings, he could not possibly know any more or any less, as he would know it completely.

[kimiko]

Originally posted by elliotfc
Gruesome is a rather tame word when you consider deliberate death constitutes the only means of purifying the self.

No, that isn't true for Christians. Why do you say that? Or, do you mean to say that it provides the best, or ultimate, means of purifying the self?
I say that because it is the only way according to Christians. Supposedly, everyone is born already a sinner, and man cannot make up for his sinfullness through performing an act other than believing in Jesus. The only way to purify your soul is then to believe the killing of another human being (god/person, whatever) makes up for one's own wretchedness. In a word: gruesome.

[kimiko]

Originally posted by elliotfc
John 3:16.

He gave his son, so that all who buy the story are made perfect and live forever.

Does a person do something when they concentrate? I would say yes, because you can willfully choose to concentrate or not do so. You can practice and get better at it. Just because it happens in the mind doesn't mean we aren't doing something. Would believing be any different than that mental act? You can choose to believe and not believe. You can practice thinking in such a way as to make it easier. Whether it was killing an animal or believing in Jesus, people have to earn their way into heaven. People still have to buy/trade/do something to be saved. Jesus existing didn't make that part of the transaction go away.

[Mr Clingford]

Originally posted by Ossai
What else could the reconciliation be? It can’t be the presence of god, he shows up a number of times after the fall and before Jesus. Adam and Eve were said to be immortal before the fall. How could a living being be immortal without a bit of the divine? I think you are being a little too literal here, furthermore, it makes sense to me that the Garden of Eden is a story exploring what is the essential nature of sin and how all humans (Adam in Hebrew meaning 'man' or 'person' and Eve similarly) are affected by it so it is not literal (snakes speaking!).
Originally posted by Ossai
Being saved.
The typical Christian meaning really, not go to hell and get to spend eternity with god.Fundamentalists do indeed often intend solely that meaning of the dreaded question 'Are you saved?' (Run for the hills, escape, escape!), but they take a narrow view of the concept of salvation. Other Christian approaches (including Orthodox) emphasize that salvation (meaning purification, restoration of spiritual health) is an ongoing process, not one moment in a life.Originally posted by Ossai

As a personal belief that’s great, but it goes against Christian doctrine. No, it doesn't - it goes against Fundamentalism (which itself may be argued to go against Christian doctrine!)

Originally posted by Ossai
From the person’s perspective (which is all we have) the person does not have a choice. Or to be a bit more exact. At time T when the decision point is reached, Person A must do X.
The whole outside/beyond time is a cop-out to say god didn’t know which is in direct opposition to god being omniscient. Saying God is outside of time is not saying he doesn't know, though.
Originally posted by Ossai
[Re Hell] Images of hell can't be taken literally as they contradict each other - darkness, burning rubbish pit and lake of sulphur
Originally posted by Ossai
Let me ask another question then. What is a miracle. Like most things, of course, 'miracle' has multiple conflicting meanings (what a surprise).I don't go for triadboy's definition (miracles are supernatural events; the supernatural doesn't exist; therefore meanings can't happen - neat, huh!). I think miracles can happen in the sense of going against the laws of physics (but probably very rarely, I think Jesus did some; his resurrection to some sort of spiritual body being a biggie). I think that a lot of the 'miracles' claimed by Christians are nothing of the sort. People can recover from many illnesses etc after they have been prayed for, but remission or getting better may happen anyway. It is also possible that there are undiscoved physical processes in the human body that induce healing - my old biology teacher's son's ear grew a part essential to hearing; he was an atheist and didn't know how this could happen and suggested what I have just written above. Perhaps there are energies too that science will uncover - I don't know, but Mr Randi, among others, needs to continue the job of debunking the charlatans.

[elliotfc]

Originally posted by Tricky
I'm glad you recognize that. The difference between faith and tautology eludes many. What eludes me is why you recognize the tautology and yet still honor it. Faithfully.

Because I don't see anything inherently wrong with tautology! I mean, it may or may not correspond to objective truth, but that goes with everything. What moral standard are we applying here? It is...

a)inherently wrong to believe in a tautology
b)a sign of a bad person when the person believes in a tautology
c)a corrupting habit that leads to faulty thinking/behavior
d)bad for the world when people believe in tautologies
e)a characteristic that does not benefit the survival of the species

or something else?

I should say that I think that *everybody* believes in tautologies at the level of belief. Indicating that, whether in yourself or it others, is just being open and honest.

To answer your question directly, I believe in the tautology because I think it's a bang-up tautology that has explanatory power. Is it inherently wrong for me to feel this way? You'd have to convince me why that would be so. Does that make me a bad person? I think you'd say no to that one. Is it a corrupting habit? You might say yes to that one, but that would be because you have a standard of thinking and reasoning to which you compare all others, and you'd have to convince me why your standard would be *morally* better than another. Is it bad for the world to believe in tautologies? That's a tricky one to answer as it would deal in hypothetical, since practically everybody (I'd think you'd agree) has accepted or does accept tautology to some degree. Does it benefit the survival of the species? Another hypothetical...but the species seems to be doing OK.

People follow tautology and live happy and productive lives. People can do the same by not following tautology. I don't see the inherent problem with it.

Now, I would agree that a particular tautology may be unfortunate or even despicable...but I would say that because I would reject a particular premise, or, I would recognize some general fact about the way the tautology makes the believers behave. But I would not reject it just because it is a tautology.

To extend this, I see tautology in skepticism and all statements of belief. This may ruffle some feathers, but to me, the tenets of materialism and skepticism all support and reinforce each other.

Having admitted tautology, I do wholeheartedly agree that it is healthy to question and challenge it and I always try to do that in myself and in others.

Tricky I'm breaking up your post to keep things presentable.

-Elliot

[elliotfc]

Originally posted by Tricky
As others have said, God didn't just "allow" bad things, He did them Himself.

But I don't think you're saying this as a matter of fact Tricky. I mean, you don't believe in God, so it follows that you don't believe that God did bad things.

Rather, you are hypothetically saying that God does exist, you are hypothetically saying that he did do the things that people say he did, but then you are going beyond that and applying a moral principle to those actions.

And I don't have a problem with that, because I basically do the exact same thing!

So how do we differ? I guess I don't hold it against God, for one. Assuming that God did do the "bad" things, for all I know the peoples he did bad do were the followers of some demonic spirit and needed to be destroyed. I give God the authority and right to handle any of his creatures as he sees fit. See, if God creates imperfect creators, he has the right to deal with them as he would. Of course that isn't satisfactory to you, it's not very satisfactory to me either. So I go a step farther and question whether or not God actually was directly responsible for the *bad* things that he did in the Bible.

And in that case, you really aren't directing your complaint to me, but to fundamentalists who insist that God did, in fact, *do* everything that was attributed to him in the Bible, *bad* stuff included. I'm sympathetic to both sides. I'm sypathetic to the fundamentalists because I respect God's authority and I respect that God has a complete understanding that I lack. I'm sypathetic to the skeptics because I do have the expectation that God follows a perfect morality as represented in the Incarnation.

My current way of thinking is that God *allows* things to happen to people, those things are very often quite bad, and that can be found all over the OT. Those bad things were attributed to God by the believers. This would be clarified later in the Gospels, but it was a *necessary* step in setting the stage for the Incarnation. There's a lot that the early Jews got right; the concept of an ethical "monotheism", the re-definition of sexuality from inserter/receiver to male/female (that will ruffle some feathers), the eradication of human sacrifice, etc. That they got a lot of stuff wrong as well could only be expected, based on the times they were living in and the theologies which surrounded them and predated them.




As far as what fundamentalists believe, I would not say that they had a consistant viewpoint. They take all sorts of positions to defend the indefensible, like "God is all powerful but can't do anything about Satan."

That one is indefensible because it is inaccurate and would be repudiated by fundamentalists, who would way that God is temporarily not doing anything about Satan. Strike that. He has and does do something about Satan. He sent his Son, and he allows for the intercession of himself and/or his saints.

-Elliot

[Skeptical Greg]

I guess I don't hold it against God, for one. Assuming that God did do the "bad" things, for all I know the peoples he did bad do were the followers of some demonic spirit and needed to be destroyed. I give God the authority and right to handle any of his creatures as he sees fit.

How is this any different than saying ' might makes right ', or ' the end justifies the means '..

How can you say you follow the teachings of Jesus and at the same time say " If God chooses to murder and mame, it's O.K. with me. "..?

I hope I'm right in assuming you don't think it's all right to murder children under any circumstances..

How do you work this into your philosophy..

We have probably been down this road before, but maybe you could go over it again.

Does it have anything to do with ' not being able to understand God ' ?

[Mr Clingford]

Originally posted by elliotfc
Assuming that God did do the "bad" things, for all I know the peoples he did bad do were the followers of some demonic spirit and needed to be destroyed. I give God the authority and right to handle any of his creatures as he sees fit. See, if God creates imperfect creators, he has the right to deal with them as he would. -Elliot I don't think I agree with you here, either. As Diogenes points out the character and teachings of Jesus rules out for me that kind of GodOriginally posted by elliotfc
My current way of thinking is that God *allows* things to happen to people, those things are very often quite bad, and that can be found all over the OT. Those bad things were attributed to God by the believers. This would be clarified later in the Gospels, but it was a *necessary* step in setting the stage for the Incarnation. There's a lot that the early Jews got right; the concept of an ethical "monotheism", the re-definition of sexuality from inserter/receiver to male/female (that will ruffle some feathers), the eradication of human sacrifice, etc. That they got a lot of stuff wrong as well could only be expected, based on the times they were living in and the theologies which surrounded them and predated them.
Sounds a good approach to me

[elliotfc]

Originally posted by Tricky
And again, I must ask that you defend "objective morality". I actually believe in a version of it too, but come from a different direction. It would be interesting to compare our definitions.

I'm not sure that I can. I accept the concept on faith, or because I think I ought to, or because it seems like the obvious and reasonable thing to do.

I think that the concept is, at the very least, important. I think that some things should be wrong because they should be wrong and are wrong, and not because the morality of the day says its wrong, and not because humans decide that it is wrong. Things are wrong independent of individual subjective morality and societal consensus morality.

As for a concise definition, I think it's simply morality independent of subjective morality. As for specifics, that will vary from person to person. :) A case where you do the best you can; no one will get it perfectly right, but you can get the basic jist.



I agree that logic is human construct, and also that it is dependant upon premises. As far as "existing beyond the human brain", I must say, as a materialist, that the ability for it to exist beyond the human brain must be demonstrated. If you cannot, then we are once again in the realm of "faith".

Exactly. The best I can do is make the suggestion that something exists outside our human brains, and share some reasons I have for thinking so. And then maybe I could get you to admit the possibility of such a thing, even if it can't be broken down in a schematic that could be understood mechanistically or something. But it's faith. I'm glad you didn't use the qualifier "just" as many do, thanks for that. :)


And again, I must suggest that what God means by "good" is completely incompatible with what humans call "good".

You could be right about that. God's good would be a perfect good that makes 100% sense according to his perspective, while our good would be good as best as we can understand it according to our perspective. I think you're on to something here.

My addendum would be Jesus, the Incarnation, where the perspective of God and the perspective of man can be united and better understood by us, even if we still can't get it completely.

Your comeback might or could be to match up certain OT specfics with the person and theology of Jesus. If they are inconsistent, I think that needs to be understood and integrated into a working theology.

I can't give you any more of a definitive answer than that. It is problematic for me, and it may or may not be problematic for fundamentalists. Christians believe that we'll get the straight scoop eventually, and if we're wrong about that I guess it really doesn't matter anyways. I'm not a big fan of Pascal's thingy, but I use the conclusion of it having achieved a level of faith independent of it.

-Elliot

[elliotfc]

Originally posted by Tricky
No human would condemn innocent people to die in, let's say, an earthquake. God would.

A few things...

1st, we are all guilty, or tainted, to God. That doesn't mean we are not redeemable, it just means that there are no innocent people. It's the dogma of original sin which is basically universal to all Christians although I'm sure there are exceptions, and there may be some variation in the notions of original sin.

2nd, I personally don't think that God causes earthquakes; rather, he allows them to happen. Natural disasters in the OT that are attributed to God...well, I think I've already given me take on that. However, I can understand the fundamentalist position that if *innocent* people were to die in a natural disaster, their lives are by no means over, but their souls will be subject to whatever lies in the next one. The way you say it is like it's game over, and of course you believe that, but that's not consistent with Christian theology.

3rd, we are all condemned to die! All of us! The only question is method, and yes there are many different methods to die, but innocent people can die of old age, or cancer, or and of a variety of diseases and accidents. You identify the natural disaster, which we humans view as a horrible thing because of it's suddenness and the apparent inability to plan around its occurence. See, we humans like control. We don't like suffering and we don't like sudden surprises and we don't like the fact that we haven't conquered nature in a way that we can control all natural events. So we hate this kind of stuff. In a way, their occurence can be a way to temper human pride. As an atheist and a person who does not believe in an afterlife, you may shudder at that way of thinking so I can only ask you to consider the persepctive. If I can participate in any sort of event that God would effect in order to make a point, and if that meant I die in an avalanche, I'd do it. I think (like I'd have a choice, right?) I'm only playing devil's advocate here, as I'm not sure if God operates in such a fashion...but if he did, it would hardly devastate my theology.

-Elliot

[elliotfc]

Originally posted by Tricky
How can we say that "good" has any meaning if such senseless killing is allowed?

Because *senseless* is a matter of opinion, and is dependent on an individual's concept of what is sense, and what isn't.

Also, I think that you mean killing in the permanent sense, when Christians don't believe in killing in a permanent sense.

See, I'd say that if it doesn't make sense to you, that's a deficiency in you, and I wouldn't say that as an insult, because we are all deficient in our own particular ways. In fact I respect anyone who hates senseless killing, and if you want to take it up with God (if you ever get the chance) I respect that to. All I'm saying is that God's sense trumps our sense.

This is where I diverge from many Christians. I believe that people who take issue with God will be respected...to a point. Like Job. It's OK to bring a case against Job...you just have to know when to capitulate. You have to capitulate. I mean, you don't have to capitulate...but if you want to be in communion with God and all that, you do.

Hypothetically speaking Tricky, can you conceive the possibility that a)if there is a God and b)if there is an afterlife that c)you would have to consider, eventually, God's perfect perspective which by definition would make your perspective, while valid and potent, less than perfect?


Was Jack the Ripper "good"? He might have had a reason too.

I don't know. Are you referring to perspective?

It's possible that Jack the Ripper *thought* he was a good person doing good things. I'm not sure I'd go with that...I suspect that he knew he was doing bad things, or, he was sociopathic. Or at the very least he knew the consequences of his *bad* actions, which is why they never caught him.

Or are you talking about Jack the Ripper theoretically, and not from his or anyone's perspective? I'd say Jack the Ripper was good in that he was/is redeemable, despite all of his activities. I guess that would go for Hitler to...

But I have no problem saying Hitler was bad, or Hitler was evil, because when I'm saying that I'm thinking about a particular Hitler within chronological time doing horrible things. I'm not talking about Hitler as a 4 year old, or Hitler as he is facing the souls of millions in the next one. But I accept that Hitler did some good things in his life (oh God I'm sounding like Marge Schott) although when I say that I mean that maybe he gave a present to his next door neighbor when he was 11, and that even the most evil person imaginable has the capacity to do good.

-Elliot

[elliotfc]

Originally posted by Tricky
I think it's relatively easy to expose the internal inconstancies in Christianity, even (and especially) given it's premises. It does not pass any logical test. Any attempt to do so involves redefining the premises.

See Tricky, I don't think you're quite doing it, if only because I had something to say (in my opinion in refutation) for the past several posts.

I see that a lot here. I say people come out and say what Christians believe to prove an inconsistency, yet what you say is not consistent with either what I believe, or what I think other Christians believe.

Which puts me on the defensive and/or makes me befuddled or perplexed. Which is why I'll often say something like: "Well, yeah, I agree with what you said, I agree that is inconsistent, but since that isn't what Christians believe (or, as what I as a Christian believe) it's a bit of a sham of an argument."

All skeptics, or the ones that I hear from, have a *belief* in God, or in Christianity, that they articulate when they represent their take on Christianity. Frankly, I find validation in their demonstration, because they get it wrong almost all the time. When they get it right, it comes down to a difference of opinion for me, and then subjective morality/values kick in, and who is right and who is wrong?

-Elliot

[Skeptical Greg]

Originally posted by elliotfc

..... and that even the most evil person imaginable has the capacity to do good.

One might say " .... even the most evil God imaginable has the capacity to do good.."


Or


" ... even the most righteous person imaginable has the capacity to do evil.. "

I suppose it all depends on one's perspective.. Doesn't it always ?

[elliotfc]

Originally posted by Tricky
Would it occur to you that your "conclusions" were based on a Christian-centered environment in which you were raised?

Yes, that has a heck of a lot to do with it. I view it kind of like how mother's pass on immunity in vivo, you probably view it differently. :)

Parents pass onto their children what they love, and I recognize that.


Was your morality in place before you discovered the source of it?

Probably it mostly was.


I know that my concepts of "good and bad" were formed very early in life, and I have a hard time, even as an adult, trying to reject any of them. Many of my moral principles are similar to Christian morality, which says to me that religion is not the only thing that defines morality.

Agreed.



I think that when you say "break it down" that you involve a whole lot of subjective reasoning. It suggests that there is not a single way to "break it down". Even when you do so, the parts are dissimilar.

Agreed, but only because "break it down" will happen within the individual and according to the individuals personal affectations and ways of thinking.



What I wish to be ditched is the idea that it is either infallible or that it is the work of God. It is clearly the work of Man, with all their fallibilities. It seems so obvious because God is described in so many different ways. Only humans could foul things up so completely. ;)

I agree/sympathize. But I think you miss the caveats. It probably helps me because I come from a Catholic background.

The Bible is infallible within limits (like the Pope is infallible within defined limits). You don't use the Bible to change flat tires, so to me it *goes without saying* that the Bible is not infallible. Rather, it is infallible in what it is to be infallible for. There is variation of opinion about the extent of that infallibility, or the nature of that infalibility, so you can join that debate.

It is often called the "word of God" and basically never called the "work of God". People wrote it, and I believe it was inspired by God. Some books more than others. Judges is a tough read.

-Elliot

[Skeptical Greg]

The Bible is infallible within limits (like the Pope is infallible within defined limits). You don't use the Bible to change flat tires, so to me it *goes without saying* that the Bible is not infallible. Rather, it is infallible in what it is to be infallible for. There is variation of opinion about the extent of that infallibility, or the nature of that infalibility, so you can join that debate. So, it is right except when it's wrong? ( The Pope also.. )

How does the Vatican feel about your definition of ' infallible ' ?

[elliotfc]

Originally posted by Tricky
The world and everything are only "evidence" of t bible if you already believe in the bible. The world exists for everyone. Only Christians think it has anything to do with their God. It is a clear case of data fitting. And I see you recognize this. For a Christian, you are remarkably insightful. ;)

Aw shucks. blush.

Actually I'm not sure, because I think that everybody believes in the world and what they see around them before they believe in the Bible. Right? And before you can believe in the Bible, you need reasons to support a belief in the Bible. And one of those reasons could very well be the world and everything. Right?


They cannot do so if they make assumptions about it.

Well...

However, many things about the bible (such as the creation story) are so very provably wrong, that it does not make much sense to deal with them as anything other than myths.

I don't know, because the reasons that show something to be *very provably wrong* are extrapolatory in nature. There is no way to directly observe what happened in the past. Yes, from a point of view bolstered by back-extrapolation, Genesis creation is very provably wrong. So the assumption then is obvious; the assumption is that the extrapolations can't possibly be wrong. It's certainly one hell of a reasonable assumption, and it is one that I have absolutely no desire to refute.

So...if you conceive of the possibility of your extrapolations being wrong (like I can), then you could possibly handle it as something other than myth, but you may have no interest in doing so, and that's fine, I can't say that part of me doesn't sympathize with you.



I totally respect your goal. But what you are describing is the evolution of an entire culture, not just its religion.

Yep, that too.


I think that you will find that the religion follows the culture rather than vice versa.

Well...not necessarily. A persuasive argument can be made that non-conformists or radicals or extremists within a culture could, using their religion, push the culture, rather than the reverse.


Just look at how modern Christians have manipulated the Bible to conform to their beliefs. Homosexuality? Abortion? These were not major biblical issues.

I don't think that homosexuality *had* to be a major issue, because the prohibition was so absolute. It seems (to me at least) that the early Jews just weren't interested in it, found it abominable, and for that reason they didn't need to be reminded about it being wrong.

Re: abortion, technology to perform elective abortion just didn't exist back then. There were, no doubt, some herbal options and of course people have always been aware that the invasive option was a possibility, but it is just inconceivable to me that back then 1 out of 3 pregnancies ended in elective abortion, so that too would have been a moot point.

Religion seems to be able to address issues that come after. In this way religion frames how people will see cultural innovations or variations.


I would love to have you arguing my side, because you would do a remarkable job of it.

Aw shucks. Back in the day I used to pretend to be pro-abortion because I enjoyed it. And then I'd say I was pro-life and that I didn't believe anything I just said, and then people would look at me like I was an *******, which I guess I kind of was.

Honestly I'm the kind of guy who can watch a talking head show and agree with both sides of an issue, like the Iraq War. And I could probably argue 2 sides of an issue if I wanted to and do it well. But that could go for all of us, couldn't it? I mean, as long as none of you skeptics overdid it, you could probably play the Christian in a bible-church for a good few months until your head started to hurt.

I always go for finding out what the other side is thinking. It shouldn't surprise anyone that I'm basically conservative, but I read the New Republic and the Nation. It's tedious to hear your own viewpoint reinforced ad nauseum (and I'm the circular reasoning guy) and I'd like to kick Sean Hannity in the head if I ever see him. Or like when people are asked a question but ignore it and just shout their talking points. Argh that pisses me off. I'm digressing. I like propaganda though, it's usually very honest and refreshing and eye-opening.


The Dead Sea Scrolls, perhaps.

Yah, I like the Enochian stuff but it might shock the grannies.


The bits about Adam's first wife.

Overrated in my opinion, but it can be found in the Midrash for enquiring minds. But the feminists have co-opted it and inflated it beyond recognition.

If I'm not mistaken...Lillith is a variation of an Assyrian female demon. There is a brief mention of Lillith in Isaiah but to consider it a reference to Adam's first wife makes no sense in context and would be a complete interpolation. The only extant references to Lillith in Jewish misrashim but those are, at the earliest, contemporary to the time of Christ and primarily hundreds of years after Christ.

I wish everybody would read the Diary of Adam and Eve (actually a couple separate stories) by Mark Twain, they're terrific and funny and poignant. Twain was quite the sentimentalist, in addition to his cynicism.


Would you hold a single book sacrosanct against revision? Why?

I guess respect for tradition. And if you REALLY want the other stuff, you can find it, like I did 15 years ago.


Indeed. Why should the Bible be different? If a story (such as Genesis) is shown to be a fable, borrowed from other creation myths, then why must it be included?

Because it is included? Because an explanation for creation must exist in any religion's sacred text? To piss off skeptics?

Yes it shares with other creation myths, but if you think about it, if there was actually a TRUE creation myth that actually happened, of course there would be similarities between all creation myths.

And if it is *just* a fable, it seems to have some good morals behind it (because it's a fable, yah?) and there's nothing wrong with a story with a moral message. This could lead into A&E in the science class which is fodder for other threads. But anyhow, why not include a fable (that didn't happen) in the Bible? Why shouldn't the Bible be a compendium of all sorts of literature? That would confirm it's claim to kind be some sort of transcendant work, wouldn't it?



Why not amend it with other texts? Do you think other Christians would mind? ;)

Yah, cuz yer stomping on tradition then. I say let people use their reason and curiosity and intellect to go beyond the Bible if they want. And if they don't want to, what's the big deal?

I apparently value the tradition of the Biblical canon more than you.

Could a more perfect Bible be made? Sure. Should we go at it? I don't think so. Once you start changing things around, then it loses it's weight. BUT THAT'S JUST IT some of you are saying. A demythologizer would certainly want the Bible to change, mutate, or be *fixed*. Without questioning the motivation behind that, I don't think that Christians are as bothered about this issue as you are Tricky. They take the Bible personally. I guess it might be like how you wouldn't want to rewrite any book that has been in existence for centuries. Should we re-write any of the extant British chronological histories, or Herodotus? I don't think so.


You say understanding is possible, but I don't believe it is.

Not with that attitude! :)

Nor is perfection possible, yet Christians are called to be perfect. Set your goals high, this way your pride will never make you complacent.


If there is such a thing as objective morality, then where does God fit into it?

Well I think that God is objective morality, so it would be a synonym, an idea or concept that can define God.


He is often in violation of our "subjective" morality.

Yes he is...I could qualify that, but I'd be repeating qualifications I've already invoked.


To invoke a "higher morality" seems to invite all kinds of abuses in "the name of God" because someone has decided that they understand the "objective morality".

You are correct. All great things can be abused. Science can be used to make biological weapons. The best things can result in the worst things. It sucks but it's true. It goes for everything.



No, I reject such human decisions about objective morality, even those with the best intentions. What was it that the road to Hell was paved with?

Good intentions...but you won't find that maxim in the Bible. :)

As for me I still value good intentions, with the understanding that they can result in atrocities.


Yup. If we knew everything, the F word would be irrelevant. You think that will happen any time soon?

Nope. I kind of like the concept of faith though. I find it aesthetically pleasing.



Always a pleasure Tricky.

My goodness...Christmas is here...happy holidays yalls see you next year. -Elliot

[Ossai]

Kitty Chan
Jesus knows how it feels to be born, experience pain, and die. This way we know we have a God that would be on our level and understand personally our pains and joys thoughout life. Not just be a God in the sky, or carved in stone. Yet according to standard Christian doctrine Jesus never married or fathered any children. Isn’t that a major component of human existence?

This is what Jesus was doing by choosing to identify with us. It was for us, not Him. Then he did a lousy job of it.

I would not disagree that God knows the feelings. It actually makes it all the more what Jesus experienced here on earth because He would have known along with God what was to happen. Then why did he say
Mathew.27:46
"And about the ninth hour Jesus cried with a loud voice, saying, Eli, Eli, lama sabachthani? that is to say, My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me?"



elliotfc
It can reinforce itself, in my opinion. Do you speak from experience or from theory? Perhaps I should have said that the practice of circular reasoning can reinforce itself. I base that on experience and theory. Circular reasoning cannot reinforce itself because there is no outside input.

Yet it was also like a human sacrifice. I would hesitate, however, to use your phrase, because we don't think of it as human sacrifice in the general sense,
Perhaps you haven’t been following the thread, but there was no sacrifice.

but rather a specific and non-repeatable instance of sacrifice to which no other human sacrifice could possibly compare. Why? Other innocent people have been put to death, other innocent people have been tortured, what makes Jesus’ short term vacation so special?

God knows them beforehand because we can/will make choices. God always knows what choices we make/havemade/willmake. And since we can’t invalidate god’s knowledge then we’re predestined to make those exact choices.

An analogy that might help is the existence of a book in which people have made all sorts of choices. You can read the book at any time or at any point. You can read the last page, then read the first page. In reading the book you are independent of the choices that are made in the book, even if you can know the choices that are to come while reading the first few pages of a book. Or maybe that analogy won't help. The key is to understand that God is outside of chronological time. Good analogy. The characters in the book may, from their perspective have choice, but in actuality don’t have any choice at all. They are merely there for the enjoyment of the reader.

Now, in order to "go to heaven", whatever that means, you have to accept the fact that you do in fact follow God, regardless of how good or bad you are, or have been. I think that this can be done after death, while other Christians think it must be done during the earthly span. Another Christian get out of hell free card (http://www.thisistrue.com/goohf.html).


Because I don't see anything inherently wrong with tautology! I mean, it may or may not correspond to objective truth, but that goes with everything. What moral standard are we applying here? It is...

a)inherently wrong to believe in a tautology
b)a sign of a bad person when the person believes in a tautology
c)a corrupting habit that leads to faulty thinking/behavior
d)bad for the world when people believe in tautologies
e)a characteristic that does not benefit the survival of the species

I would have to say C, D and E at least.

To answer your question directly, I believe in the tautology because I think it's a bang-up tautology that has explanatory power. What explanatory power? I think you believe it in because it makes you feel special.

Does it benefit the survival of the species? Another hypothetical...but the species seems to be doing OK. You don’t watch the new much do you? How about history, ever study that?

So how do we differ? I guess I don't hold it against God, for one. Assuming that God did do the "bad" things, for all I know the peoples he did bad do were the followers of some demonic spirit and needed to be destroyed. I give God the authority and right to handle any of his creatures as he sees fit. … So I go a step farther and question whether or not God actually was directly responsible for the *bad* things that he did in the Bible. Or to put it another way, god is good, if god does something bad then god didn’t really do it.
If you don’t like that one how about. Since god created us then he can do anything he wants to us, just like a parent can murder get rid of their child if they don’t want it anymore.

You could be right about that. God's good would be a perfect good that makes 100% sense according to his perspective, while our good would be good as best as we can understand it according to our perspective. I think you're on to something here. This is the same old straw about god is beyond our understanding.

1st, we are all guilty, or tainted, to God. That doesn't mean we are not redeemable, it just means that there are no innocent people. It's the dogma of original sin which is basically universal to all Christians although I'm sure there are exceptions, and there may be some variation in the notions of original sin.
I.E.:
Babies go straight to hell when they die.
God is good because everyone else is bad.
It’s all our (humanity’s) fault.
We’re wretched and don’t deserve anything good.
It’s ok to punish others children for what their parents did.


Mr Clingford
I think you are being a little too literal here, furthermore, it makes sense to me that the Garden of Eden is a story exploring what is the essential nature of sin and how all humans (Adam in Hebrew meaning 'man' or 'person' and Eve similarly) are affected by it so it is not literal (snakes speaking!). I know it is just myth, but I’ve meet too many Christians that proclaim the bible literal and believe it. However, it still leaves the whole reconciliation bit in the air. What exactly was the reconciliation for?

No, it doesn't - it goes against Fundamentalism (which itself may be argued to go against Christian doctrine!) Considering I’m surrounded by fundies (I live in Nashville) then my general reaction is to assume most Christians are, sorry about that. (Case in point, elliotfc.)

Saying God is outside of time is not saying he doesn't know, though. Correct, it’s used as a convenient escape clause. If god is omniscient then people don’t have freewill, merely the illusion of it.

Like most things, of course, 'miracle' has multiple conflicting meanings (what a surprise).I don't go for triadboy's definition (miracles are supernatural events; the supernatural doesn't exist; therefore meanings can't happen - neat, huh!). I think miracles can happen in the sense of going against the laws of physics Going against the laws of physics is supernatural.


Ossai

[Kitty Chan]

Originally posted by Kitty Chan
kimiko
I would not disagree that God knows the feelings. It actually makes it all the more what Jesus experienced here on earth because He would have known along with God what was to happen.
Sorry didnt mean to confuse things

Originally posted by kimiko
If Jesus IS god, then it's redundant and unnecessary. God doesn't need a tutorial on human feelings, he could not possibly know any more or any less, as he would know it completely.

Why would God be getting a tutorial from Jesus? There is no redundant part of Jesus, God or the Holy Spirit. Working in harmony all knew the pain and the joys that Jesus would experience. Knowing would make it all the harder especially in the end. When its said that Jesus paid the price by His death. Maybe you or others by focusing on gruesome are not totally getting what that means.

In the beginning A & E were to live forever. When they got the knowledge their days alive on this earth were numbered and on a day they would die. Just as we are born and will die.

Jesus since He raised Himself from the dead is said to hold the keys to death. Meaning that He will not die. This was the reason, it was not just death it was overcoming death.

One could think of gruesome but that was only part of it the other was the resurrection. Thats the important part.

Now, what Jesus is saying if one understands just what it is He did and accepts that, He will graft them into the family tree (thus the expression) to be with Him. One does not earn by anything one does, one only accepts that Jesus is who He said He is.

If one does not accept who Jesus is then they have chosen not to be grafted onto that family tree.

[Kitty Chan]

Kitty Chan said
Jesus knows how it feels to be born, experience pain, and die. This way we know we have a God that would be on our level and understand personally our pains and joys thoughout life. Not just be a God in the sky, or carved in stone.

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Ossai
Kitty Chan
Yet according to standard Christian doctrine Jesus never married or fathered any children. Isn’t that a major component of human existence?

My sister in law cannot have children is she not part of the human existance? I cannot father children, you cannot bear children. We are still part of the human existance.

We are born experience sorrow and joys, we live our lives and die. There are gods that are worshipped that are only stone they do not know what it is to be human. Jesus knows and understands our sorrows and joys as He has shared in them. He did not have to, but chose to. Thats the point.

To be with us, live in the trenches, walk a mile in the shoes etc. Like I said is not the worker happy when the boss picks up a shovel. Jesus is not just waving from the podium at the crowd He walked with the crowd. This is the point I was making. This is what Jesus was doing by choosing to identify with us. It was for us, not Him.

As for what He said below;

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mathew.27:46
"And about the ninth hour Jesus cried with a loud voice, saying, Eli, Eli, lama sabachthani? that is to say, My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me?"
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
There was several times Jesus could have stopped going to the cross but didnt. When He called out it was because the pain of separation from God was probably intense not to mention the physical pain. All in all He probably felt excruciatingly horrible.

[Ossai]

Kitty Chan
There was several times Jesus could have stopped going to the cross but didnt. When He called out it was because the pain of separation from God was probably intense not to mention the physical pain. All in all He probably felt excruciatingly horrible.
What separation from god? Isn’t Jesus supposed to be god and if he is how can he be separated from himself?

Ossai

[elliotfc]

Originally posted by Diogenes
I'm just asking Christians, who continously proclaim " God loves you/us/etc. ", to give me an example...

I'ts as simple as that..

Argh! Yer question/request has been answered/fulfilled.

Genesis, John 3:16.


Your obfuscation is not unexpected..

Dang it Diogenes, you missed my points COMPLETELY. I said what I said because I predicted (successfully) that you would reject the two examples. THAT is why I asked you what you are expecting. That isn't obfuscation. It would be obfuscation if I DIDN'T provide any examples. Rather, it is more about trying to understand you better, and get a feel for what your standards are about. See, if you reject the two examples, that means your standards demand something (hopefully, if you're intellectually honest) else, and I'd like to know what that something is.

If you would reveal what that something is, we can either look in the Bible to see if your something is there, or, we can suss out whether your something is a fair test or standard for God.

Short of that, I'm not sure what you're after, since you asked for examples and you got them.



The point is, that what you, I and most people, consider to be examples of love, cannot be found in the documented or imagined behaviour of God.

I disagree completely. Sacrificing oneself so that others may achieve eternal life with God is an example of love, and it is documented in the Bible. That is an example of love. You have invoked "most people" so you're going to have to stand with that, and you'll have to accept that millions if not billions of people would agree with me that sacrificing oneself so that others may benefit is an example of love. Hell, a utilitarian would believe that.

What you should be saying (I think?) is that you don't believe that Jesus existed, or died for others and was resurrected, or that the theology means anything. But that's not what you mean, since you talk about documentation of imagined behaviour of God. So this is a case (one of many) where you just don't have as good of a handle/grasp of Christian theology as you think you do.

Now, if you were to say something like "well, John 3:16 does say that God loved the world and did something about it, but I don't believe in the Bible, so that means nothing to me", then I really couldn't say much in reply. But you are saying that something is NOT in the Bible when that something is there. Your case, or point, seems so useless that I don't know what else to say. The obvious thing to do would be to stick with your rejection of Christian theology and the Bible, but you're trying to be clever or cute and it just isn't working. Because John 3:16 is there, it says something, it means what it says, and it answers the question.


Yes, love is different things to different people, but it is easy to look around and say,
" There is a really loving parent.. etc. "..

And it would be rather superficial, don't you think? Surely a cynic would get that. Acts of parental love that are observed by others say nothing about parent/child interaction that nobody else sees. The stuff that really matters.

Yes, it is easy, and it's so easy that such judgments really don't mean much. Like all the people who said how much Scott loved Laci. I'm not sure what this has to do with the topic at hand. I think you're trying to say that if God is in fact our Father, his actions towards us do not demonstrate love. And I'm content to not be a robot and, by default, have to do what is right along with the rest of humanity. So our expectations differ, or, the ramifications and foundations of our expecations differ.

Would a world without suffering make you impressed by God's parenting skills? A world without death? A world where all is bliss? If so, that's fine. Then why don't you apply the Christian theology which you, I suspect, think you have a handle on? That world is not of this world. Your ideal world, the world where God would be such a loving Father, does not correspond to this world where we will all suffer and we will all die. So God, the parent, allows his children to have free will. The children run with it, and after their exile, will return the gift of free will, or, exercise it to its best possible application: the free choice of obedience to God. Only then will the children ALLOW God to be the wonderful parent that you desire.

So, I find your standard for parenting just fine. And if that's what you're after, you can have it. You are discontent with the state of things, which is as it should be. This is why I never get down or depressed about atheists. They have excellent moral standards and expectations, and usually have intellectual honesty as well. It is my hope that IF they are confronted, after death, with something that they have rejected, their pride won't get in the way of the fulfillment of their just and right desires and wishes.

-Elliot

[elliotfc]

Originally posted by Diogenes
Why is it so hard, for a group of people who claim " God Is Love " to provide a tangiable example..

But this is too much!

The Christian believes that EVERYTHING tangible is proof of God's Love. The mere CONCEPT of tangibility is proof of God's Love.

And then God actually became something tangible to prove his love.



One could even assume God is love if there wasn't so much evidence to the contrary..

Diogenes, it is apparent that your expectations differ from Christians. Meaning that if you could convince me that I should have your expectations, I would be more sympathetic to your notion, and that if I could convince you that you should have my expectations, you would be more sympathetic to my notion.

Short of that, we are both making statements with presumptions behind them. This is why what you call "obfuscation" was invoked by me. So I could understand you better. So we just don't swap dogmatic statements of belief.


-Elliot

[elliotfc]

Originally posted by Lucifuge Rofocale
As a former Catholic, I can say that that explanation doesn't hold water anyway.
See:
God needs to punish Man (due to the original sin).

God doesn't "need" to do anything. That's #1.
#2, Man punishes himself because ALL CHOICES HAVE CONSEQUENCES. That's the point. This is to distinguish from an arbitrary system.

You underestimate or reject what all Christians know, or should know, quite well. Humans are empowered beings you make choices that matter. Humans are responsible for those choices, and have to contend with absolute justice. When you say "needs" you imply that God could very well do otherwise, if not for his "need" (whatever that means), when Man himself is directly in charge of the consequences of his actions, since they correspond exactly and absolutely to his choices.


God Punishes Man Sending Him to eternal death (or Hell).There is nothing Man can do to avoid it.

Absolutely wrong. Man can accept the salvific act. Where are you getting this theology from? No wonder you are an ex-Catholic. If I believed what you were saying to be Catholic, or any kind of Christian theology, I'd reject the faith to. This is another case where I'm content with your conclusions, since what you say I also reject. And I have the hope that if you have good sense and if you find out eventually that your straw horse notions are just that, you'd accept a more palateable way of things (a way of things that you are not invoking here).


God loves Man so much, he can't see him in eternal death (or Hell).

I'm not sure about this one. God will allow people to reject him for eternity, but I don't know if that means God can't "see" them.


God finds a scape clause: He sends his son who is also a part of him and who is also him to live here and die here. He is crucified by man.

If there was any doubt before, it's now apparent that you have intentionally used phrases to demonstrate a skeptical attitude, which is unfortunate if you really want to purport to be delivering Catholic or Christian dogma. Of course I'm now guessing at your intentions, and who knows exactly what they are besides you.

Anyways, what you call a "scape clause" is called by Christians to be a solution, an act of love, or something else. The phraseology definitely matters because it demonstrates the attitude of the person who is handling the theology.

Attitude aside, you've got the deatils bang on.


But this sacrifice is not perfect. Man have to accept it. If not, he dies anyway.

Well...it has to be consistent with Free Will.

When two acts of God collide...

Alright, I'll give it to you this way. If you've got this notion of perfect sacrifice in your head, that would make Free Will a moot point, wouldn't it? But then Free Will would have been an imperfect principle for God's creators, and that wouldn't do.

Or you can go the way you present...stick with Free Will, but then declare that the sacrifice is imperfect.

You may or may not have failed to consider another option: both Free Will and the Salvific Act co-existing. In this way neither is imperfect, as both are open to all humans. They are both perfect in that they are acts of God and they are both perfect in that they are both available to us. More than that, they reinforce each other. The Salvific Act is the solution to the Free Will "problem", and Free Will is necessary to accept the Salvific Act.


So God needs to Punish Man that doesn't want to accept that sacrifice (either by not accepting it conciously , not believing in it or never hearing of it )

I'm not sure what "needs" has to do with this. God does what God does. If anybody is in need it is us.

Is that unlimited love for man?
Is that a perfect sacrifice? (If so, how can it be that some men can still die and go to hell)

Because the Salvific Act does not invalidate Free Will.


Wich sin of mine is jesus paying with his death in the cross?

All of them.


What amount of pain suffered by god is enought to clear the alleged offense man did to god?

The amount is irrelevant. Jesus did not have to be crucified in order for his existence win our salvation.


How can a men offend god? May an ant offend you?

The actions of men can offend God. The desires of men can offend God.

An ant could offend me if it bit me and it was a fire ant or some kind of poison ant.

And the analogy doesn't really work for me because God is my creator and I am not the creator of an ant.


Considering all the alleged facts, how can this story be so imaginary? An imaginary offense punished by an imaginary hell and cleared by an imaginary sacrifice that leads to an imaginary grace. Where is the substance?

I'm not quite sure what the first question is about?

If you're going to invoke "imaginary", you should stick with that. What you've done is supposedly worked through Christian theolgoy, and then call it all imaginary. It seems intellectually dishonest to me...or, at least you should stay consistent within a certain post. Meaning if you want to call it all imaginary in one post, that's fine. And then if you want to work through Christian theology in another post, that's fine too. I dunno. Why work through things if you're just going to call them imaginary a few paragraphs later? It's probably just me, it might make all the sense in the world to you.

As for the substance, if you believe that sin is real and God is real and suffering is real and Love is real, there's a heck of a lot of substance in the theology.


What's the morality in this story? god feeling the neurotic need to punish man, chooses to punish himself instead, with a punisment that is not a punishment because is not permanent(being god eternal) , but pleases him. Is that moral?

No it isn't. Once again, I reject what you reject, as do all Christians.

Really, you (and others like you) would be a heck of a lot more effective in your ruminations if you could resist the attitude from affecting your syntax. Since you can't, any Christian would sensibly reject your bad attitude and hardly be troubled by anything you say.

But maybe I'm missing the point. Maybe you don't want to engage Christians and proselytize your beliefs. Maybe you just want to lash out and apply your negative spin. If that is the case you are satisfying whatever that is inside of you that needs satisfying and you're hardly going to do any good for the skeptical community at large. Unless you're after the Carlin motif of vitriol and sarcasm and ridicule. And if that's the case you shouldn't be surprised by all the people of faith that surround you.

Or maybe you're frustrated? What's the deal, and why exactly are you unable to deliver Christian theology without mutating it to satisfy your personal agenda?


The rationalization of that is too hard. And the fact that there is no evidence of anything of it makes it harder.

Fair enough. My question for you is why can't you leave it at that?

And another thing...if it really is too hard, or if the rationalizations makes "it" harder, why are so many people able to do what is hard? I mean, shouldn't you actually say that it is all so easy, and that's why billions of people have faith and you don't?

If it is hard, like you say, that implies that you can't have faith because it is too hard, which suggests you have some sort of deficit or shortcoming. Know what I mean?



Or maybe I'm trying to find consistency and a fair appraisal in your diatribe and would have been better off not even trying.

-Elliot

[Lucifuge Rofocale]

Originally posted by elliotfc
God doesn't "need" to do anything. That's #1.
#2, Man punishes himself because ALL CHOICES HAVE CONSEQUENCES. That's the point. This is to distinguish from an arbitrary system.


WHAT? Man Punishes himself? That's strike one and please reread your holy book again, there is punishment and is not inflicted by humans. Man lives his life, then dies and accordding to all I was taught he is judged according to some rules not made by man. And the ones that are found guilty, are punished. Where did jesus went after his dead?

About god need to punish man, it's debatable. The other option is that he enjoys it, or he wants to do it. After all, he is all powerfull, so if he wants he would simply send everybody to heaven.

But why then god would have had the need to send his son to die here to save man? from what punisment if there is no need to punish? You contradict yourself.


You underestimate or reject what all Christians know, or should know, quite well. Humans are empowered beings you make choices that matter. Humans are responsible for those choices, and have to contend with absolute justice. When you say "needs" you imply that God could very well do otherwise, if not for his "need" (whatever that means), when Man himself is directly in charge of the consequences of his actions, since they correspond exactly and absolutely to his choices.



Where do you get that idea of correspondence?. What kind of human action deserves ETERNAL punishment? What do you mean by "absolute justice"?






Absolutely wrong. Man can accept the salvific act. Where are you getting this theology from? No wonder you are an ex-Catholic. If I believed what you were saying to be Catholic, or any kind of Christian theology, I'd reject the faith to. This is another case where I'm content with your conclusions, since what you say I also reject. And I have the hope that if you have good sense and if you find out eventually that your straw horse notions are just that, you'd accept a more palateable way of things (a way of things that you are not invoking here).



You are getting it wrong . I said that Man can't do nothing to avoid it and that it's true. god was the one wich sent his son do pay the punisment he set. But if he wouldn't ,then man couldn't have done anyting to get saved. Is that Ok? Could a man be saved by his own, without jesus sacrifice?








I'm not sure about this one. God will allow people to reject him for eternity, but I don't know if that means God can't "see" them.




That's my bad english. I meant god don't want to see man punished.






If there was any doubt before, it's now apparent that you have intentionally used phrases to demonstrate a skeptical attitude, which is unfortunate if you really want to purport to be delivering Catholic or Christian dogma. Of course I'm now guessing at your intentions, and who knows exactly what they are besides you.

Anyways, what you call a "scape clause" is called by Christians to be a solution, an act of love, or something else. The phraseology definitely matters because it demonstrates the attitude of the person who is handling the theology.

Attitude aside, you've got the deatils bang on.



Anyway, what I said is correct according to your belief even tought your wording is different.






Well...it has to be consistent with Free Will.

When two acts of God collide...

Alright, I'll give it to you this way. If you've got this notion of perfect sacrifice in your head, that would make Free Will a moot point, wouldn't it? But then Free Will would have been an imperfect principle for God's creators, and that wouldn't do.

Or you can go the way you present...stick with Free Will, but then declare that the sacrifice is imperfect.

You may or may not have failed to consider another option: both Free Will and the Salvific Act co-existing. In this way neither is imperfect, as both are open to all humans. They are both perfect in that they are acts of God and they are both perfect in that they are both available to us. More than that, they reinforce each other. The Salvific Act is the solution to the Free Will "problem", and Free Will is necessary to accept the Salvific Act.



You are using too much words to say that you believe any act of god is perfect. But that's not logic: The perfect "salvific act" would have cleaned all sins, including rejection of god, wich is the ultimate sin. If it doesn't does it then is not perfect. That's strike two.






I'm not sure what "needs" has to do with this. God does what God does. If anybody is in need it is us.



You are avoiding the subject. Whats the need to punish man? Does man needs to punish himself? Or is god's need? Or nobody needs it?





Because the Salvific Act does not invalidate Free Will.



No . It's because is not perfect.




All of them.




All of my sins are worth the death of jesus in the cross? I haven't done anything who deserves it to anyone I swear.
That's part of the guilt trip don't you think? Why don't you tell me whats that horrible sin jesus need to pay in the cross. To exist?




The amount is irrelevant. Jesus did not have to be crucified in order for his existence win our salvation.



That's incredible! If his existence was all we need to be saved, then why he was crucified? Simple sadism? (That should be the answer)





The actions of men can offend God. The desires of men can offend God.

An ant could offend me if it bit me and it was a fire ant or some kind of poison ant.

And the analogy doesn't really work for me because God is my creator and I am not the creator of an ant.




Ok. What act or desire of man can offend god then.





I'm not quite sure what the first question is about?

If you're going to invoke "imaginary", you should stick with that. What you've done is supposedly worked through Christian theolgoy, and then call it all imaginary. It seems intellectually dishonest to me...or, at least you should stay consistent within a certain post. Meaning if you want to call it all imaginary in one post, that's fine. And then if you want to work through Christian theology in another post, that's fine too. I dunno. Why work through things if you're just going to call them imaginary a few paragraphs later? It's probably just me, it might make all the sense in the world to you.

As for the substance, if you believe that sin is real and God is real and suffering is real and Love is real, there's a heck of a lot of substance in the theology.



If you believe that invisible red dragons are real then you have a lot of sustance in invisible red dragonology. But in the real world, you don't have any fact that you can present anywhere to demostrate the reality of your beliefs. Ergo, we are talking about imaginary stuff, That's why I can't be angry with god for allowing a tsunami wich killed 120,000 people. And you need to rationalize it.







No it isn't. Once again, I reject what you reject, as do all Christians.

Really, you (and others like you) would be a heck of a lot more effective in your ruminations if you could resist the attitude from affecting your syntax. Since you can't, any Christian would sensibly reject your bad attitude and hardly be troubled by anything you say.

But maybe I'm missing the point. Maybe you don't want to engage Christians and proselytize your beliefs. Maybe you just want to lash out and apply your negative spin. If that is the case you are satisfying whatever that is inside of you that needs satisfying and you're hardly going to do any good for the skeptical community at large. Unless you're after the Carlin motif of vitriol and sarcasm and ridicule. And if that's the case you shouldn't be surprised by all the people of faith that surround you.

Or maybe you're frustrated? What's the deal, and why exactly are you unable to deliver Christian theology without mutating it to satisfy your personal agenda?




Let's analyze what I said to see it is what you believe or not (taking away the words you don't like :p):
Version 1:
" god feeling the neurotic need to punish man, chooses to punish himself instead, with a punisment that is not a punishment because is not permanent(being god eternal) , but pleases him. Is that moral?"

Version 2: (the same, reworded to please Elliot):

"God loved man so much that he sent his only son, wich is also god, to pay for his sins. He died in the cross, then went to hell for 3 days and you can accept his sacrifice and please god"

You like more version 2? I have news for you: It's the same stuff!.





Fair enough. My question for you is why can't you leave it at that?

And another thing...if it really is too hard, or if the rationalizations makes "it" harder, why are so many people able to do what is hard? I mean, shouldn't you actually say that it is all so easy, and that's why billions of people have faith and you don't?

If it is hard, like you say, that implies that you can't have faith because it is too hard, which suggests you have some sort of deficit or shortcoming. Know what I mean?




Well, for one, there are many christians that came here and finally turned their mind and become deists, agnostics or atheists. And that's because rationalization became harder and harder for them. You are right that I can't have faith, It's too hard for me, I would have to give up reason.




Or maybe I'm trying to find consistency and a fair appraisal in your diatribe and would have been better off not even trying.

-Elliot

I try to find something in your posts too ;)

[elliotfc]

Originally posted by kimiko
You're assuming everyone who was ever crucified was guilty.

Naw, I don't think Jesus was guilty.

-Elliot

[elliotfc]

Originally posted by kimiko
I say lack of evidence precisely because it doesn't measure up to standards.

Fair 'nuff. Of course standards very by individuals, making it an objective call...


You can't ask for special treatment. Was the Trojan War real? It hasn't been proven, so some people don't believe it actually happened, but that it's myth.

Schliemann (sp?)? Proof is another variable subjective issue. Nothing that has not been observed (i.e. anything before humans "existed") has been proven, but so what? Stuff happened that we (you and I) have not observed, so you do the best you can. And if you reject the particulars that's fine, and if you are told objective truth at some other time you'll have the opportunity to accept/reject. The keys are intention/effort/intellectual honesty. Plus subjective standards.


It may have happened, but possibly someplace else, like England. Is the Iliad proof of the Trojan War? Of course not. Likewise, the Bible isn't proof for the contents of the Bible.

???

The Bible exists, so anything that is in the Bible is proof for the contents of the Bible? Am I missing something?

As for whether or not the "events" of the Bible happened or not, that's a subjective judgment call. Take whatever position you want. Every person has to suss it out individually, and one man's proof is another man's folly. Objective truth is not indivisible with any person's, or any methodology's, take on reality.


The problem with the Bible is that parts are garbage as far as history is concerned. That is evidence for something, too, but apparently evidence believers reject or explain away.

Really? Historians have varying positions.

History is a vast and varying field with any number of opinions, none of which speak for themselves, but are championed by individual historians. You speak as if "history" is some objective standard which is accesible to definitive human knowledge?

Yes, everybody rejects and explains away evidence. How can you not? Evidence is data that does not speak for itself and may very well be irrelevant/incorrect.

-Elliot

[elliotfc]

Originally posted by kimiko
God already knows how it feels to be born, experience pain, and die. He knows every emotion and sensation experienced by humanity, he created them.

Knowlege and experience are two different things.

Your position wasn't enough to satisfy Job. And why should it satisfy anyone?

Parents do not necessarily know how their children feel.

You may be right theoretically. But your theory is hardly as consoling as the actual experience in Jesus Christ for countless Christians. So you can have your theory, and others who are less interested in your theory, like John of the Cross, can have the person of Christ. Everyone can be satisfied, depending on their *need*. And we all have the need, though in this life the understanding of the need will vary.

-Elliot

[elliotfc]

Originally posted by Kitty Chan
Jesus knows how it feels to be born, experience pain, and die. This way we know we have a God that would be on our level and understand personally our pains and joys thoughout life. Not just be a God in the sky, or carved in stone.

He knows how crummy or beautiful this world can be because He has experienced it first hand.

He knows what it feels like to be loved and hated, have good days and bad. He knows what it is like to be human and all the bad and good that comes with it.

Because He is God, He did not have to, He does not have to do anything, there is no motivation other than love. Jesus did not do anything wrong, broke no laws. He said the greatest thing was to love your neighbours as yourself.

Kitty I wish I had your eloquence.

People shake their fists at God, saying God has no compassion for the human experience. When God becomes a Person, they still shake their fists at God for becoming a Person by saying it is unnecessary.

Free Will allows this *victory* for the person who will not believe. And they will be allowed to hold it for eternity if they wish.

-Elliot

[elliotfc]

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)

What does originality have to do with objective truth?

I'd be shocked if no other religions/mythologies had heroes who died and were reborn. Death is the great enemy, and heroes are constructed who defeat death. What's so shocking about that?

I'll side with the Girardian mimetic theory. And if you think Christianity isn't original...of course all religions/mythologies will have similarities and differences. That should be expected. Isaiah spoke of the Suffering Servant without mentioning Jesus by name. Christians have no problem with the issue you raise. Originality? No, not with the OT. Or, Jesus is original while being in line with the OT. If you want to believe that there is nothing *original* in Jesus that's on you; a cursory investigation would demonstrate otherwise, and if you request me to walk you through it I'd be happy to.




What does an OMNIPOTENT, OMNISCIENT, CREATOR God need with 'experiencing firsthand'? It's like saying that I have to become 'Tron' to understand how my computer programs work...

God doesn't *need* to do it. Humans need something, and what we need has been given to us in a particular way.


-Elliot

[elliotfc]

Originally posted by kimiko
You didn't understand my post. I said god knew what all of those feel like because he created them.

So what? You're trying to look at this from God's perspective, whereas the Christian has his/her own perspective. Many Christians will find consolation in the fact that God experienced as a *person* suffering/death. Some won't. That's fine. If you find no consolation in the fact that God suffered/died as a human, you should not begrude others who do find what you do not find.

Anyhow salvation is not about "feeling". Feelings, while important, do not trump objective reality, nor do they trump the methodology God employs to deal with humanity. Yet feelings do have importance (i.e. Job, Jesus on the cross). And why shouldn't they matter? Sin and suffering are big deals.

If you assume that the Incarnation solely happened to placate human "feelings", your assumption does not correspond to Christian theology. Yet if it can correspond to human feeling, that is a nice touch.




Not Jesus as God, not God has to have another form to experience them, not God knows it through Jesus. There is absolutely no reason God wouldn't know what those sensations and feelings are like, because he is the creator of all things, including human emotions, therefore, he already knows. He wasn't completely ignorant before Jesus, he already knew!


Fair enough, I'm glad you have this understanding, but this has nothing to do with whether or not the salvific act is necessary for human redemption.

In addition, there's something to be said about EXPERIENCE over knowledge. I expererienced a fair amount of racial beligerence as a kid. I suppose anyone could theoretically understand what I went through...

Yet I went through it. And the theoretician didn't. And humans do, whether you admit it or not, place a premium on experience. God chose to design his salvific act in a particular way. So you don't care to respect the "experience" of God? Fair enough. That changes nothing. *Something* still had to be done to reconcile humanity with God.

-Elliot

[elliotfc]

Originally posted by kimiko
If Jesus IS god, then it's redundant and unnecessary. God doesn't need a tutorial on human feelings, he could not possibly know any more or any less, as he would know it completely.

But the Incarnation wasn't for God! You are completely missing the point! The Incarnation was for US!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

So I agree with you, in that God doesn't need a tutorial on human feelings! There you go! My follow up is......so what? What does that have to do with the necessity of the salvific act for fallen humanity?



-Elliot

[elliotfc]

Originally posted by kimiko
I say that because it is the only way according to Christians. Supposedly, everyone is born already a sinner, and man cannot make up for his sinfullness through performing an act other than believing in Jesus. The only way to purify your soul is then to believe the killing of another human being (god/person, whatever) makes up for one's own wretchedness. In a word: gruesome.

No, the killing of Christ does not purify the soul!

Christians believe in the RESURRECTION of Christ!

The working analogy is that something must DIE on the way to purification. Yes, the person of Christ died, yet he didn't have to be killed. He could have died a natural death.

When the soul is, as you say, "purified", a part of the human self must die. It can be called pride, or something like pride. Something is sacrificed on the way to understanding and reconciliation. This is the Christian understanding.

As for gruesome...you are welcome to fixate on that word. And I hardly disagree with it. Jesus' crucifixion was gruesome. Sin is gruesome. We are in agreement. Of course I as a Christian believe that even the most gruesome thing can be transformed into the most beautiful thing; I'm not sure if you share my opinion.

-Elliot

[elliotfc]

Originally posted by kimiko
He gave his son, so that all who buy the story are made perfect and live forever.

Way to go, you've just demonstrated that you haven't actually read John 3:16. It says nothing about people being "made perfect". Nice one!

You wax condescending about people capitulating to objective truth. I can hardly have a bad attitude about that, I think it's the most liberating thing to do in the world.


Would believing be any different than that mental act?

Sure, but I don't confine belief to the brain and the temporal existence, or human life span. Since I believe in an eternal soul I think your question is inherently limiting.

Whether it was killing an animal or believing in Jesus, people have to earn their way into heaven.

People have to want it. If you want to call that desire to be commensurate with "earning it", I don't have a problem with that.



People still have to buy/trade/do something to be saved. Jesus existing didn't make that part of the transaction go away.


Fair enough. Jesus is not going to save a person who doesn't want to be saved. That makes sense to me.

-Elliot

[Kitty Chan]

Originally posted by Ossai
Kitty Chan

What separation from god? Isn’t Jesus supposed to be god and if he is how can he be separated from himself?

Ossai

Jesus said "My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me?" it was while on the cross. At that time the weight of the sins of everyone would have been pressing on Him who did not do anything wrong.

Consider what Psalm 22 said: (which I may add was written before crucifixion)

Be not far from me, for trouble is near; For there is none to help.12 Many bulls have surrounded me; Strong bulls of Bashan have encircled me. 13 They open wide their mouth at me, As a ravening and a roaring lion. 14 I am poured out like water, And all my bones are out of joint; My heart is like wax; It is melted within me. 15 My strength is dried up like a potsherd, And my tongue cleaves to my jaws; And Thou dost lay me in the dust of death. 16 For dogs have surrounded me; A band of evildoers has encompassed me; They pierced my hands and my feet. 17 I can count all my bones. They look, they stare at me; 18 They divide my garments among them, And for my clothing they cast lots.

Jesus who knew no sin bore everyones sin. Perhaps the utter hopelessness of the moment was alot to bear and Jesus felt alone. Technically God would not have left Him. We have no relative experience to know just how horrible it would have been.

Remember Jesus choose and could have changed it at any time but did not. He wanted the bridge built back up between God and man.

[Ossai]

Elliotfc
Argh! Yer question/request has been answered/fulfilled.

Genesis, John 3:16. Entrapment and human sacrifice? I don’t think that quiet answers Diogenes’s question.

I disagree completely. Sacrificing oneself so that others may achieve eternal life with God is an example of love, and it is documented in the Bible. Null point, there was no sacrifice.

Now, if you were to say something like "well, John 3:16 does say that God loved the world and did something about it, but I don't believe in the Bible, so that means nothing to me", then I really couldn't say much in reply. Human sacrifice, not an act of love by any ‘normal’ definition. Then realize that there was no sacrifice and you starting looking at a typical protection racket.

Because John 3:16 is there, it says something, it means what it says, and it answers the question. But you said the bible was symbolic. That whole bit is pure symbolism and none of it ever occurred. It’s just the Don not burning down your business because he can get more from you again later.

Would a world without suffering make you impressed by God's parenting skills? A world without death? A world where all is bliss? If so, that's fine. Then why don't you apply the Christian theology which you, I suspect, think you have a handle on? That world is not of this world. Your ideal world, the world where God would be such a loving Father, does not correspond to this world where we will all suffer and we will all die. So God, the parent, allows his children to have free will. The children run with it, and after their exile, will return the gift of free will, or, exercise it to its best possible application: the free choice of obedience to God. Only then will the children ALLOW God to be the wonderful parent that you desire. So god is incapable of parenting and can’t create a heaven until everyone gives up there freewill.

God doesn't "need" to do anything. That's #1.
#2, Man punishes himself because ALL CHOICES HAVE CONSEQUENCES. That's the point. This is to distinguish from an arbitrary system. But humanity is not punishing itself, god is. It’s spelled out rather specifically a number of places in the bible. From god punishing babies for what the parent have done to creating a hell in order to punish.

Humans are responsible for those choices, and have to contend with absolute justice. You’re declaring a universal morality, care to back it up?

When you say "needs" you imply that God could very well do otherwise, if not for his "need" (whatever that means), when Man himself is directly in charge of the consequences of his actions, since they correspond exactly and absolutely to his choices.Yet man is predestined and not the master of his fate – numerous verses in the bible.

Absolutely wrong. Man can accept the salvific act. What act? Are we speaking of a play now?

Alright, I'll give it to you this way. If you've got this notion of perfect sacrifice in your head, that would make Free Will a moot point, wouldn't it? But then Free Will would have been an imperfect principle for God's creators, and that wouldn't do.
1. According to the bible, your freewill does not play a part in your salvation.
2. According to the bible, you are predestined to either heaven or hell.

Or you can go the way you present...stick with Free Will, but then declare that the sacrifice is imperfect.
1. There was no sacrifice.

You may or may not have failed to consider another option: both Free Will and the Salvific Act co-existing. In this way neither is imperfect, as both are open to all humans. Except those that lived before the non-sacrifice, and the billions that have lived after never hearing of it.


What amount of pain suffered by god is enought to clear the alleged offense man did to god?
The amount is irrelevant. Jesus did not have to be crucified in order for his existence win our salvation. So the non-sacrifice was irrelevant. That pretty much negates the whole John 3:16 thing there. Hmmm, no love found yet.

I'm not quite sure what the first question is about?

If you're going to invoke "imaginary", you should stick with that. You’ve already declared that you don’t believe in the story of Adam and Eve, i.e. the source of original sin. Once that becomes imaginary, then where did the sin originate?

What does an OMNIPOTENT, OMNISCIENT, CREATOR God need with 'experiencing firsthand'? It's like saying that I have to become 'Tron' to understand how my computer programs work...

God doesn't *need* to do it. Humans need something, and what we need has been given to us in a particular way.
Wouldn’t a memo, or even a nice post-it have been better?

You wake up each morning and next to you is a memo from god telling you some helpful hints about the coming day. Nice little reminders, god existing, some moral guidelines, no one having to be killed, no jealousy because everyone gets one.

Kitty Chan
Jesus said "My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me?" it was while on the cross. At that time the weight of the sins of everyone would have been pressing on Him who did not do anything wrong. Nice obfuscation, now how about answering the questions.
What separation from god? Isn’t Jesus supposed to be god and if he is how can he be separated from himself?

Ossai

[Mr Clingford]

Hello Ossai, Happy 2005.

I believe you asked me the same question that you asked Kitty on page 4 and I replied One has to be careful exactly how one talks about Jesus because the doctrines of the trinity and the incarnation are a little complex. Jesus and the Logos, the second part of the trinity, are not exactly the same. In a sense Jesus is God in material form You wrote regarding the incarnation and the notion of it as reconciling the human and the divineHowever, it still leaves the whole reconciliation bit in the air. What exactly was the reconciliation for? To bring together God and Humanity which had seperated itself from God.

You wrote Considering I’m surrounded by fundies (I live in Nashville) then my general reaction is to assume most Christians are, sorry about that Thanks for the apology. I have sympathy for you - I'm not sure how I would survive surrounded by fundamentalists!

Back to free will (noooo!) You wroteIf god is omniscient then people don’t have freewill, merely the illusion of it. But God goes knows this stuff outside of time; it makes as much sense to say that God knows everything after it happened as much as to say before.

[Ossai]

Mr Clingford
However, it still leaves the whole reconciliation bit in the air. What exactly was the reconciliation for?
To bring together God and Humanity which had seperated itself from God. How. Since you don’t believe in a literal bible, then how was humanity separated from god and why the need for a reconciliation at all?


If god is omniscient then people don’t have freewill, merely the illusion of it.
But God goes knows this stuff outside of time; it makes as much sense to say that God knows everything after it happened as much as to say before. That is just another level of obfuscation and merely seeks to avoid the repercussions of declaring god omnipotent.

It’s more like saying god know before, during and after. Since you can’t invalidate god’s knowledge it still leaves only an illusion of free will.

Ossai

[Beerina]

Originally posted by Richard G
No creature under Gods creation will enter into eternity without making a concious decision to accept him as Lord, and keep his commandments, or to reject him, and live in rebelion.

I refuse to kneel to an omnipotent God who sits on his infinitely fat ass while children are raped and tortured to death. Is that clear enough for Yaweh? Yaweh thug. Bad. Evil.

[elliotfc]

Originally posted by Diogenes
How is this any different than saying ' might makes right ', or ' the end justifies the means '..

It isn't I guess, although I really wouldn't use those phrases myself because they bring up notions of comparative/relativistic human interactions which often result in atrocities.

You're just phrasing Christian doctrine in a particular way. Anthing that God does is right, or justifiable. I don't begrudge him that. If anyone would begrudge them that, they would use *ammunition* to back up their grudge, and in so doing, they would be applying their own personal moral standard to God, which to a Christian is, by definition, a contradiction, because God is not beholden to other moral standards *OUTSIDE* of the context of free will. If the individual cares to reject God's morality (as in my opinion you have done) the individual is allowed that personal freedom, which in isolation can in fact be viewed as a *triumph* over God.



How can you say you follow the teachings of Jesus and at the same time say " If God chooses to murder and mame, it's O.K. with me. "..?

First, I'm not sure if God does, in fact, murder and maim. I suspect that he doesn't actually.

Second, I don't know what murder would really mean to God. When a human commits a murder, he ends the temporal life that is in interaction with his/her own. When God (theoretically) commits murder, he would end a temporal existence that he created and the soul would still continue to exist. This would go for maiming as well.

Murder, defined, is one human killing another. So a tiger killing a human is not murder. You made an excellent point about Jesus...there is God, as a *human*, and he doesn't murder others. That's a pretty good clue about God right there. But God, when not in human form, is exempt from any notion of murder, which is inherently defined to be one human killing another human.

Second, I think that murder implies illegality? And nothing that God does can be unlawful.




I hope I'm right in assuming you don't think it's all right to murder children under any circumstances..

Yeah, basically. I think that performing abortions are sometimes morally (this would be *my* morality) allowable. BUt that wouldn't be unlawful I guess. Undue force? If I try to stop a kid from doing something really bad, like killing someone else, do I have the right to kill the kid? But that might not be murder either.

Basically I think that there are circumstances where kids can be killed by people. We define some of those circumstances to be lawful, and the rest are unlawful. Are we limiting your question to the current state of legality then, or to some overarching concept of objective morality?



Does it have anything to do with ' not being able to understand God ' ?

I think we can understand God to the best of our ability, and the process of understanding can be developed within the temporal existence, and that the truth that God can never be *completely* understood by humans does not mean that we can't understand God, just that we can't understand God completely, or perfectly.

I haven't yet declared that God kills, or maims people, by the way. I'm just allowing the possibilty for that reality (even though I currently doubt it). I allow the possibility for a hell of a lot, come to think of it.

-Elliot

[elliotfc]

Originally posted by Mr Clingford
I don't think I agree with you here, either. As Diogenes points out the character and teachings of Jesus rules out

Fair enough. Jesus certainly taught us, or, demonstrated, how we should interact with others.

What Jesus didn't teach us was how governments should act. Or how mothers and fathers should act. For example, Jesus didn't teach us that was is inherently immoral, and that people killed in wars are victims of murder. I can theorize (not very well by the way) that if God is handling humanity in *general*, in the context of some authoritative order similar to how the "state" would handle its citizens, he could kill humans. The analogy then would be distinct from the "murder" concept, which is a personal interaction deal (ie Jesus).

I could maybe develop this idea better, but I really don't feel like it. It's a workable theory, maybe, but only if it is understood in a limiting perspective.

I think that we extrapolate the message of Jesus a bit too much. I think there is a heck of a lot he doesn't tell us about everything. What Jesus did in his life really says nothing to me about political science and the military, for instance. I could apply Jesus to declare that biological warfare is immoral...but I could do that without Jesus. Is there ever a circumstance where biological warfare is permissible? Could we think of one? Maybe we could...but it's dangerous to get to into such kind of thinking.

Let's take the Flood. Put a gun to a head, and I'll say that I reject the way it is portrayed in Genesis. I don't think it happened that way, and the theology in it is *immature* (though sincere), in my opinion. But maybe it did happen. Maybe God did have to wipe out all of humanity. In that case he is dealing with humanity in general, in a position of ultimate authority as the creator. It isn't Jesus acting, but God, as the non-human creator of humanity. I can't say that God would be acting immoral in that situation, because he isn't acting as a human being. The obvious drawback of this scenario is that a authoritian power on earth could mimick God's example here and commit an act of nuclear holocaust or something in order to purify the earth. But that would be an act of pride and would be incredibly wrong of course. Just because God can/did do something that doesn't mean it can be done by a human.

I'm just leaving things open is all, I'm not in love with anything I'm saying here.

-Elliot

[elliotfc]

Originally posted by Diogenes
One might say " .... even the most evil God imaginable has the capacity to do good.."


Or


" ... even the most righteous person imaginable has the capacity to do evil.. "

I suppose it all depends on one's perspective.. Doesn't it always ?



Yes.

As a Christian I kind of capitulate my perspective, or, I try to get it in the proper alignment. So when I offer my perspective, while it is still my own, it is righteousness (defined in Christian terms) that makes me think it carries weight. It is rooted in the Christian perspective, even though it is my particular perspective.

So you could say that the most evil God has the capacity to do good, but that wouldn't be a Christian perspective.

I've never tried to do anything other that offer a Christian perspective, and I've already admitted a circularity to it. I hardly expect any skeptic here to "see the light" because of what I, or anybody else here, is going to say. I'm mainly trying to debunk faulty notions regarding Christian theology.

And it comes back to free will, doesn't it? It all depends on one's perspecitve. This empowers the individual, who must then take the individual perspective and butt heads with all other perspectives in existence. That's what we're doing here, whipping out our perspectives and slapping them together.

My personal quest is to *align* my perspective with God's. How do you handle your perspective? What standard do you have in mind, or, do you not worry about anything else in respect to your personal perspective, and let it develop as it does with no contemplative thought guiding it?

A detached commentator could say that what I call God maybe essentially the same as anything that a skeptic has within him/herself to guide the way in which he/she would process the world and everything.

-Elliot

[Ossai]

Elliotfc
Second, I don't know what murder would really mean to God. When a human commits a murder, he ends the temporal life that is in interaction with his/her own. When God (theoretically) commits murder, he would end a temporal existence that he created and the soul would still continue to exist. This would go for maiming as well. Again, you’ve just stated that might makes right.
Why do you not think that’s correct for people but ok for god? Since people are “made in god’s image�, wouldn’t acting as the creator acts be considered devout?

You're just phrasing Christian doctrine in a particular way. Anthing that God does is right, or justifiable. I don't begrudge him that. If anyone would begrudge them that, they would use *ammunition* to back up their grudge, and in so doing, they would be applying their own personal moral standard to God, which to a Christian is, by definition, a contradiction, because God is not beholden to other moral standards *OUTSIDE* of the context of free will. So god doesn’t live up to our mere mortal standards. Or for that matter Christian standards supposedly set by god. What it really comes down to is god doesn’t live up to god’s standards, or to put it differently “do as I say and not as I do�.

If the individual cares to reject God's morality (as in my opinion you have done) the individual is allowed that personal freedom, which in isolation can in fact be viewed as a *triumph* over God. Again since god apparently (according to the bible) rejects his own morality, wouldn’t it be devout to do the same?

I haven't yet declared that God kills, or maims people, by the way. I'm just allowing the possibilty for that reality (even though I currently doubt it). I allow the possibility for a hell of a lot, come to think of it.
So god may or may not murders, maims, tortures, etc; but that doesn’t really matter because if god does then it’s ok because it’s god.

As for the question of legality, you’re attempting the construction of a straw man.

In hypothetical land ‘Sad’ it’s not illegal to kill another human.
You journey there and kill another person. Did you commit murder?

Ossai

[elliotfc]

Originally posted by Diogenes
So, it is right except when it's wrong? ( The Pope also.. )

How does the Vatican feel about your definition of ' infallible ' ?

I'm guilty of stating the obvious! You are right, except when you are wrong!

As for how the Vatican feels...the mea culpas exist, can be counted, and can be read. The Vatican has claimed limited infallibility, which may be a contradiction in terms to you. Only God possesses unlimited infallibility. Do you really think that the Vatican has ever claimed to be God? I'll need to see the written evidence to believe that one...

And even if people say that the Bible is infallible, or perfect, they certainly don't live their lives that way, do they? They don't use the Bible to make pierogis, or sew buttons. That goes for the Vatican too. Has the Vatican ever explained how people should be elected to the Baseball Hall of Fame? Limited infallibility; I don't think it's too difficult of a notion...considering how obivous it is.

-Elliot

-Elliot

[elliotfc]

Originally posted by Lucifuge Rofocale
WHAT? Man Punishes himself?

Hi Lucifuge, I'm going to break your message up into pieces. I'm feeling like I'm saying the same thing over and over again in this thread so I'm going to try to wrap up my thoughts in the next several messages. I'll check back to see your replies, which I may or may not answer.

As a Christian, I believe in Free Will and in Absolute Justice. The Justice is constant, the Free Will is variable. Therefore, I place more responsibility with the chooser, who is contending with certainty. The chooser may place value judgments on the certainties that will result from the choice if it makes him/her feel better.

Regarding one of the value judgments, "punish", it is a mere way of speaking, isn't it? Let's say that Person X wants to reject God for an eternity. Is it a punishment to be allowed to reject God for an eternity? Person X may consider Hell (the absence of God) to be a reward. So, if you're hung up about the concept of "punish", understand that it is contingent on persepctive, and that one man's punishment is another man's reward.



That's strike one and please reread your holy book again, there is punishment and is not inflicted by humans.

Who does inflict punishment? God? Does God exist in Hell?

If you think that being sent to Hell is a punishment, in my belief system, God will not "send" anyone to Hell who does not want to go to Hell. And if you don't want to go to Hell, you'll know exactly what needs to be done in order to be reconciled with God. This isn't Let's Make a Deal. It's all on the table. If someone tells you to apologize to someone who you have harmed or be sent to a place where you are free from having to apologize to anyone, would you say the person is being punished if he refuses to apologize only to be sent to a place where he never has to apologize? I think I feel more empowerment, as a entity with Free Will, than you. I will choose whether or not I want to be reconciled with God, or completely divorced from God. Of course I can only do so with the salvific act...but that empowers me to make the choice. And I do/will.

Personally I think you're too hung-up on the punishment concept. But maybe that isn't a bad thing after all. If you think that punishment is so bad, surely you'll do what you need to do in order to not be eternally punished. But if you don't think punishment is a big deal, what I just said won't mean anything to you. What do you believe anyhow? Do you believe that God punishes people, or not? If you do, then don't worry, you have options. If you don't, then don't worry, it's not an issue.


Man lives his life, then dies and accordding to all I was taught he is judged according to some rules not made by man. And the ones that are found guilty, are punished. Where did jesus went after his dead?

A kind of limbo-ic holding cell where he could give the Gospel to those who came before. You've got it right. Man is judged according to God's standards. But as for being found guilty...WE'RE ALL GUILTY!!! ALL OF US!!! The guilty would be saved by God as long as the guilty want it.


About god need to punish man, it's debatable.

I think need, applied to God, places a value judgment on what God does, which is really beside the point to me.

God respects free will. If man wants to reject God for eternity, and God allows him to do that, would you call that punishment? If you say yes, then you have a problem with God respecting man's free will. Which would be a more fundamental issue we'd have to suss out.


The other option is that he enjoys it, or he wants to do it. After all, he is all powerfull, so if he wants he would simply send everybody to heaven.

But what if some people don't want to go to heaven? Are you allowing for that possibility?

And does God directly "punish" people in Hell, or does he enjoy the mere sentence, which I think would be an instantaneous decision?

If you haven't noticed, it's tough for me to think of anything you have said without seeing how it matches up with free will. What I can't do is isolate certain dogmatic points and examine them separate from the rest of it. My theology isn't as simplistic and fractured as you would have it be.

-Elliot

[elliotfc]

Originally posted by Lucifuge Rofocale
But why then god would have had the need to send his son to die here to save man? from what punisment if there is no need to punish? You contradict yourself.

See, you're fixated on the negative, while my outlook is more proactive.

God didn't become human to rescue us from punishment. He didn't come for a negative, but for a positive. The positive is what you didn't identify (which isn't surprising I guess). He wanted the option of reconciliation. His divine salvific plan is about the best that we can become, not the worst that we can be.

As for "need for punish", once you take away the value judgment, absolute justice does insist (compel if you want) a certain sentence to match all choices. It is what it is. Speculating about needs is beside the point, to me.




I've already talked about punishment.

All decisions made freely deserve a response from God. That's absolute justice.


[B]You are getting it wrong . I said that Man can't do nothing to avoid it and that it's true. god was the one wich sent his son do pay the punisment he set. But if he wouldn't ,then man couldn't have done anyting to get saved. Is that Ok? Could a man be saved by his own, without jesus sacrifice?

Man needs *something* to be saved. To the Christian that something is Jesus. I guess it could have been something else. Any act of God. No, it could not happen solely of man's own accord.


That's my bad english. I meant god don't want to see man punished.

Your English was fine, I just didn't want to get it wrong when a clarification would help me out. God wants every human to be reconciled to him, but he respects free will. Right now punishment is completely besides the point, at least in my way of thinking. It's like obsessing on a worst case scenario which can be AVOIDED while you're heading towards some goal or other.


-Elliot

[elliotfc]

Originally posted by Lucifuge Rofocale
You are using too much words to say that you believe any act of god is perfect. But that's not logic: The perfect "salvific act" would have cleaned all sins, including rejection of god, wich is the ultimate sin. If it doesn't does it then is not perfect. That's strike two.

I've already answered this. You would have the salvific act nullify free will.

What do you mean be "cleaned all sins"? Do you mean that after Jesus' death, it wouldn't matter if I kill or rape another person? So much for absolute justice then.

It's like you can't comprehend more than one dogma working at once. Salvific act and the hell with everything else. Is that your idea of perfection? I believe in harmony.

Frankly your definition or conception of perfections isn't very compelling to me as a Christian. I'm content with what I'm given, and not what I would have something be. I am not God, and I don't decide the method by which I am saved. I respect the gift of free will and understand that even with Jesus, everyone that I do, for good or bad, still means something. The world did not end with the resurrection of Christ. What we do still matters.



You are avoiding the subject. Whats the need to punish man? Does man needs to punish himself? Or is god's need? Or nobody needs it?

You need to keep fixating on need, and I don't need that. You are obsessed with need/punish. Liberate yourself. Think outside your box. God gives his Son, and all you can think about is need/punish.


All of my sins are worth the death of jesus in the cross? I haven't done anything who deserves it to anyone I swear.

Are you saying that you have never sinned? If so, Christianity does not apply to you. It's just for sinners. If you've never sinned, you don't have to worry about whether or not you'll be saved.

If you have sinned, your sin and the sin of everybody else necessitates *something*. That something is God becoming man. Jesus did not have to be crucified. He could have died a natural death.


That's part of the guilt trip don't you think? Why don't you tell me whats that horrible sin jesus need to pay in the cross. To exist?

It happened that he died on a cross. The bastards got him and tortured him and executed him. They made a movie about it last year. Do you feel guilty about Jesus being executed? Why? You didn't do it. You should feel guilty about sinning against God. No need to inflate your guilt outside of yourself. Now it just so happens that very many people do take your attitude, do feel guilt about Jesus on the cross, but those feelings send them in a very different direction than the one you're going in.

Have you ever felt guilty before for anything? Guilt is a healthy feeling. It teaches us that we are not the center of the universe. At the same time I understand that guilt shouldn't be blown out of proportion. For that places yourself back in the center of the universe. Guilt is good for what it is, and it shouldn't be transformed into an idol.


That's incredible! If his existence was all we need to be saved, then why he was crucified? Simple sadism? (That should be the answer)

That could be the answer. They were sick bastards, weren't they? They manifested some of the worst about humanity. I don't know the exact reason, but I do not find it surprising that men will destroy beauty. It happens all the time.

-Elliot

[kimiko]

Originally posted by elliotfc
No, the killing of Christ does not purify the soul!

Christians believe in the RESURRECTION of Christ!

The working analogy is that something must DIE on the way to purification. Yes, the person of Christ died, yet he didn't have to be killed. He could have died a natural death.

No. That might be what you believe, but that is far from Christian theology. Jesus had to be sacrificed. The sacrifice was the death/resurrection, not him being human. A natural death would not have fit the sacrifice requirement, although a natural death works in some other religions where the emphasis isn't on salvation. He was to be the ultimate sacrifice, a fulfillment in the manner of Jewish sacrifices. A deliberate spilling of blood was necessary. The Lamb of God who takes away the sins of the world and all of that.

Just because you find meaning in a figurative interpretation doesn't mean that eliminates the physical meaning and necessity. In a figurative interpretation, Jesus' soul being resurrected would have been enough. The whole crucifixion/physical resurrection thing would be irrelevant.

Edited to say: Actually, now that I think about it, Jesus himself could have been irrelevant as figurative interpretations would even accept a Messianic figure who was a shadow of a dream in the mind of God. As long as something makes up for us.

[kimiko]

Originally posted by elliotfc
Way to go, you've just demonstrated that you haven't actually read John 3:16. It says nothing about people being "made perfect". Nice one!

You wax condescending about people capitulating to objective truth. I can hardly have a bad attitude about that, I think it's the most liberating thing to do in the world.

Sure, but I don't confine belief to the brain and the temporal existence, or human life span. Since I believe in an eternal soul I think your question is inherently limiting.

Wow, you mean I didn't paraphrase to your approval? Who's being condescending?

The natural human condition is one of sin. Only through Jesus' sacrifice is the inherent human nature corrected/cleansed/whatever. Through the forgiveness accorded by the 'sacrifice' people are, yes, perfected. The passage says he loves us so much he gave his son so that people can be saved. Really, I've read the damn passage more than you know.

Perhaps you could detail the mechanism by which an eternal soul 'wants' salvation when they don't have a brain and neurotransmitters to do it with.

[kimiko]

Originally posted by elliotfc
If you assume that the Incarnation solely happened to placate human "feelings", your assumption does not correspond to Christian theology.

*Something* still had to be done to reconcile humanity with God.
I don't, my posts regarding feelings were in response to something Kitty Chan posted.

No, there didn't.

[kimiko]

Originally posted by elliotfc
Knowlege and experience are two different things.

Your position wasn't enough to satisfy Job. And why should it satisfy anyone?

Parents do not necessarily know how their children feel.

You may be right theoretically. But your theory is hardly as consoling as the actual experience in Jesus Christ for countless Christians. So you can have your theory, and others who are less interested in your theory, like John of the Cross, can have the person of Christ. Everyone can be satisfied, depending on their *need*. And we all have the need, though in this life the understanding of the need will vary.
Comparing God to parents is a false analogy.

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.

[kimiko]

Originally posted by elliotfc
[BReally? Historians have varying positions.

History is a vast and varying field with any number of opinions, none of which speak for themselves, but are championed by individual historians. You speak as if "history" is some objective standard which is accesible to definitive human knowledge?

Yes, everybody rejects and explains away evidence. How can you not? Evidence is data that does not speak for itself and may very well be irrelevant/incorrect. [/B]
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.

[Ossai]

elliotfc
If you think that being sent to Hell is a punishment, in my belief system, God will not "send" anyone to Hell who does not want to go to Hell.
and
As a Christian, I believe in Free Will and in Absolute Justice. The Justice is constant, the Free Will is variable.
and
A kind of limbo-ic holding cell where he could give the Gospel to those who came before. You've got it right. Man is judged according to God's standards. But as for being found guilty...WE'RE ALL GUILTY!!! ALL OF US!!! The guilty would be saved by God as long as the guilty want it. 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

What I can't do is isolate certain dogmatic points and examine them separate from the rest of it. My theology isn't as simplistic and fractured as you would have it be. I would definitely call it fractured.

God didn't become human to rescue us from punishment. He didn't come for a negative, but for a positive. The positive is what you didn't identify (which isn't surprising I guess). He wanted the option of reconciliation. His divine salvific plan is about the best that we can become, not the worst that we can be. But you previously stated that we aren’t punished unless we want to be so there was no need for a sacrificial plan.

I've already talked about punishment.

All decisions made freely deserve a response from God. That's absolute justice. 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.

Right now punishment is completely besides the point, at least in my way of thinking. It's like obsessing on a worst case scenario which can be AVOIDED while you're heading towards some goal or other. 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.

What do you mean be "cleaned all sins"? Do you mean that after Jesus' death, it wouldn't matter if I kill or rape another person? So much for absolute justice then. 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.

It happened that he died on a cross. …
At the same time I understand that guilt shouldn't be blown out of proportion. For that places yourself back in the center of the universe. Guilt is good for what it is, and it shouldn't be transformed into an idol. 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

[elliotfc]

Originally posted by kimiko
No. That might be what you believe, but that is far from Christian theology. Jesus had to be sacrificed. The sacrifice was the death/resurrection, not him being human. A natural death would not have fit the sacrifice requirement, although a natural death works in some other religions where the emphasis isn't on salvation.

Yes and it works for one perspective. The Jews believed in ritual sacrifice, where blood is shed as a way of covering up the sins of others. Jesus fulfills that perspective.

I guess I look at things in a bigger picture as well. Jesus is not limited to the Jews; a lot of people continue to overlook that.

I'd have sympathy with your point, kimiko, if I was completely tied to Jewish theology. But I'm not. As for your knowledge of Christian theology it works for those Christians who accept your point of view, and doesn't work for those Christians who hold a different theology.

Just by being born, Jesus had to die. If you're fixated on sacrifice, there it is.

And there are certainly worse things to be fixated on than sacrifice, so I have no problem with your particular Christian perspective on this point.

-Elliot

[Ossai]

elliotfc
Just by being born, Jesus had to die. If you're fixated on sacrifice, there it is.
Wow, so billions upon billions of people both before and after Jesus have been sacrificed!

There was no sacrifice.

Ossai

[elliotfc]

Originally posted by Lucifuge Rofocale
Ok. What act or desire of man can offend god then.

In sinning we display a hatred for God.



If you believe that invisible red dragons are real then you have a lot of sustance in invisible red dragonology.

...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?


But in the real world, you don't have any fact that you can present anywhere to demostrate the reality of your beliefs.

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.


Ergo, we are talking about imaginary stuff, That's why I can't be angry with god for allowing a tsunami wich killed 120,000 people. And you need to rationalize it.

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?



"God loved man so much that he sent his only son, wich is also god, to pay for his sins. He died in the cross, then went to hell for 3 days and you can accept his sacrifice and please god"

You like more version 2? I have news for you: It's the same stuff!.

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.



Well, for one, there are many christians that came here and finally turned their mind and become deists, agnostics or atheists. And that's because rationalization became harder and harder for them. You are right that I can't have faith, It's too hard for me, I would have to give up reason.

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

[elliotfc]

Originally posted by kimiko
No. That might be what you believe, but that is far from Christian theology. Jesus had to be sacrificed. The sacrifice was the death/resurrection, not him being human. A natural death would not have fit the sacrifice requirement, although a natural death works in some other religions where the emphasis isn't on salvation. He was to be the ultimate sacrifice, a fulfillment in the manner of Jewish sacrifices. A deliberate spilling of blood was necessary. The Lamb of God who takes away the sins of the world and all of that.

Actually...the more I think about this...

You are correct in what you are saying, but what I possess is a different understanding of how it all works out. I believe that free will of humanity crucified Christ. I believe that this was, in some way of another, revealed to Jewish types behind the Old Testament. In this way, he had to be crucified because he was, in fact, crucified. God, who is outside of time, reveals hints of this to some OT figures who then integrate this into their own theology. This is my understanding of how it works, and if you're going to say that my understanding is not a Christian theological understanding, I guess I'll just have to live with that. Like Lewis wrote, I actually believe that the explanations behind the reality are innumerable, and that differing explanations should not necessarily exclude any particular Christian from the body of Christ, but then again I'm sure there are some Christians who would disagree with that. kimiko, you can pick and choose your Christian theologians and stick with the ones that give you the most validation.




Just because you find meaning in a figurative interpretation doesn't mean that eliminates the physical meaning and necessity.

I have never eliminated the physical meaning/necessity of the *death* of Jesus. By an immortal God choosing to become something that will die, that right there is a sacrifice. The actual method of death was a variable, completely under the influence of the powers that control Earth, be they demonic or human.


In a figurative interpretation, Jesus' soul being resurrected would have been enough. The whole crucifixion/physical resurrection thing would be irrelevant.

No, because we are all called to be Sons of God. We were created to be *human*, and God will restore us to what we were meant to be. Every Christian creed I'm familiar with explicitly mentions the resurrection of the body. As Stengel would say, you could look it up.


Edited to say: Actually, now that I think about it, Jesus himself could have been irrelevant as figurative interpretations would even accept a Messianic figure who was a shadow of a dream in the mind of God. As long as something makes up for us.

Well like you, I understand that *something* had to be done. It happened in a particular way, and the particulars do not do away with the general assertion.

-Elliot

[elliotfc]

Originally posted by kimiko
Wow, you mean I didn't paraphrase to your approval? Who's being condescending?

No. You did not paraphrase to my approval. You completely missed the mark. John's gospel is universal in scope, this is elementary hermeneutics. I am being condescending. You think you're some sort of expert on Christian theology, and you completely misstate one of the most elementary Bible verses around. All you've demonstrated is the ability to twist a Bible verse to suit your own superior attitude. Which I wouldn't criticize, in itself, if you would have gotten the verse right. And you didn't. You completely missed the mark.

And if you have to *paraphrase*, you admit that the verse doesn't back up your attitudes. You have to twist it, because as it is, you can't use it for ammunition. Of course I'm assuming that you could have correctly stated John 3:16. For all I know you can't, and you've substituted a hopeful notion for something you have never read. No reason to ask me if I'm being patronizing.



The natural human condition is one of sin. Only through Jesus' sacrifice is the inherent human nature corrected/cleansed/whatever. Through the forgiveness accorded by the 'sacrifice' people are, yes, perfected. The passage says he loves us so much he gave his son so that people can be saved. Really, I've read the damn passage more than you know.

It is a damn passage for you, of course.

Don't say "the Jews" when it does not mention the Jews. That is advice. Take it personally if you want. Believe me, I'd prefer it if you said things correctly. It gives me a headache when people say things incorrectly. I take no joy in any of this.


Perhaps you could detail the mechanism by which an eternal soul 'wants' salvation when they don't have a brain and neurotransmitters to do it with.

I can't. If you are in need of the detailed mechanism, I have faith that it will be given to you at some point. If this is a barrier to your acceptance, I have no problem with that. We all have our own personal barriers and obstacles, and God will provide us ways to overcome them, if we would accept them. And I suspect that you would.

-Elliot

[elliotfc]

Originally posted by kimiko
I don't, my posts regarding feelings were in response to something Kitty Chan posted.

No, there didn't.

Kimiko, just to clarify...

I said that *something* had to be done to reconcile humanity with God. You say the opposite.

I'm assuming you say that in the context of Christian theology. Everything that follows is working under that assumption, so if my assumption is incorrect, you can ignore everything else if you want. Or not.

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. Do you disagree with that?

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?

-Elliot

[Starrman]

When people ask why isnt God swooping down from the sky and stopping whatever, God's answer is I am doing something I put you there to do it.

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.

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

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?

[Ossai]

elliotfc
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. Care to present any of those facts? Or do you have your own personal definition of ‘fact’?

By an immortal God choosing to become something that will die, that right there is a sacrifice. More word play – here you go using your personal definitions, again.

Ossai

[Starrman]

By an immortal God choosing to become something that will die, that right there is a sacrifice.

But he didn't die, right? Not all the way, anyway, he is up in heaven with Daddy right now. If he knew he was going to heaven, how is that a sacrifice?

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

[kimiko]

Originally posted by elliotfc
I am being condescending. You think you're some sort of expert on Christian theology, and you completely misstate one of the most elementary Bible verses around. All you've demonstrated is the ability to twist a Bible verse to suit your own superior attitude. Which I wouldn't criticize, in itself, if you would have gotten the verse right. And you didn't. You completely missed the mark.

Don't say "the Jews" when it does not mention the Jews. That is advice. Take it personally if you want. Believe me, I'd prefer it if you said things correctly. It gives me a headache when people say things incorrectly.

No reason to ask me if I'm being patronizing... I take no joy in any of this.
I think you're projecting things onto me. How would you have any idea whether I thought I was an expert? I certainly have disdain for the religion I devoted part of my life to, but not to you, so your rudeness is misplaced.

I didn't mention "the Jews" in the post you're replying to.

Don't tell it to me; tell it to your god.

[kimiko]

Originally posted by elliotfc
I'm assuming you say that in the context of Christian theology.

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. Do you disagree with that?

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?
Your assumption was wrong.

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.

[Skeptical Greg]

Originally posted by Starrman
But he didn't die, right? Not all the way, anyway, he is up in heaven with Daddy right now. If he knew he was going to heaven, how is that a sacrifice?

He gave up being a filthy, persecuted human for perfection, what a giver. We've been over this several times.

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

I believe that Elliot has conceded that his reasoning is circular ( in some respects )...

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

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

[Kitty Chan]

Kitty said
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
When people ask why isnt God swooping down from the sky and stopping whatever, God's answer is I am doing something I put you there to do it.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

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.

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

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?

If you build the bookshelf to kill your kid then you are a murderer. But if you tell your kid that the shelf is unsafe stay away. You write a manual and teach it to the kid and have many people explain it. The kid doesnt listen then its a accident not your fault. Your kid exercised their free will against your suggestion and went their own way. And suffered the consequence. If they stayed away then the consequence would be life.

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 Chan]

posted by Kitty Chan

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Jesus said "My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me?" it was while on the cross. At that time the weight of the sins of everyone would have been pressing on Him who did not do anything wrong.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

posted by Ossai
Kitty Chan
Nice obfuscation, now how about answering the questions.
What separation from god? Isn’t Jesus supposed to be god and if he is how can he be separated from himself?
Ossai [/B][/QUOTE]


I gave you the background and understanding of the situation to start from the beggining. If thats not helping then I will further explain the ones involved.

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.

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.

Jesus said I and the Father are one. Not one physically, one as in joined in agreement and unity.

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.

Does that complete the question or have I missed something. :)

[c4ts]

I thought Jesus was supposed to be more than a man but not quite a god, like Hercules.

[Kitty Chan]

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.

kimiko

This is what Jesus did. He is the bridge to God. Thats why He said He was the Way. The way to God. As I said above to Ossai Jesus has earned the right of being the uniter between God and man.

God wants to be united as well, its not Jesus imposing His Will on God. They are in agreement. So the individual will be united with God through acceptance and understanding of Jesus.

We could never attain heaven ourselves that is true only through the Way, Jesus.
:)

[Mr Clingford]

Originally posted by c4ts
I thought Jesus was supposed to be more than a man but not quite a god, like Hercules. Really?

Jesus is both human and divine, the divine in human form, the incarnation, the physical expression of the second part of the trinity on earth, not a demi-God!

[Kitty Chan]

Originally posted by c4ts
I thought Jesus was supposed to be more than a man but not quite a god, like Hercules.

Compared to Jesus Herules is a girly man :D

[c4ts]

Dude, Kevin Sorbo could beat up Mel Gibson any day.

But, seriously, I am a bit confused on the position of Christianity regarding what Jesus is supposed to be. Sometimes they say he is God, sometime's he's not the same as God, and it seems like there are more than one schools of thought belonging to the same sect with no attempt at reconciliation. For example, there was I church I visited that prayed to Jesus. I asked why, and the preacher said it was becuase Jesus was God. But when I asked why they did not simply pray to God without calling him Jesus, the answer was that Jesus was a separate entity, a go-between, as if God himself wouldn't listen directly. Jesus can't be God and God's middle man at the same time, that makes no sense.

[Mr Clingford]

Originally posted by c4ts
Dude, Kevin Sorbo could beat up Mel Gibson any day. Excellent. I'm not a fan of Mel's films as an Englishman (Let's distort some more history while we're at it!).

Originally posted by c4ts
But, seriously, I am a bit confused on the position of Christianity regarding what Jesus is supposed to be. Sometimes they say he is God, sometime's he's not the same as God, and it seems like there are more than one schools of thought belonging to the same sect with no attempt at reconciliation. For example, there was I church I visited that prayed to Jesus. I asked why, and the preacher said it was becuase Jesus was God. But when I asked why they did not simply pray to God without calling him Jesus, the answer was that Jesus was a separate entity, a go-between, as if God himself wouldn't listen directly. Jesus can't be God and God's middle man at the same time, that makes no sense. 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.

[Ossai]

Kitty Chan
Your kid exercised their free will against your suggestion and went their own way. And suffered the consequence. If they stayed away then the consequence would be life. So where is the warning and instruction manual from god about life and everything that can happen?

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. Let’s see.
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.

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.

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.

Jesus said I and the Father are one. Not one physically, one as in joined in agreement and unity.

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.

Does that complete the question or have I missed something. Actually you’ve just confused the situation even more.

If Jesus and god are separate and Jesus has god’s authority then Christianity is not monotheistic.
If Jesus and god are separate physically but not spiritually – then, again, how could they be separated?
If Jesus and god are separate and god was supposedly sacrificing his son but Jesus came back from the dead and ascended to heaven, there was no sacrifice involved at all.

Ossai

[Kitty Chan]

Originally posted by c4ts
Dude, Kevin Sorbo could beat up Mel Gibson any day.

But, seriously, I am a bit confused on the position of Christianity regarding what Jesus is supposed to be. Sometimes they say he is God, sometime's he's not the same as God, and it seems like there are more than one schools of thought belonging to the same sect with no attempt at reconciliation. For example, there was I church I visited that prayed to Jesus. I asked why, and the preacher said it was becuase Jesus was God. But when I asked why they did not simply pray to God without calling him Jesus, the answer was that Jesus was a separate entity, a go-between, as if God himself wouldn't listen directly. Jesus can't be God and God's middle man at the same time, that makes no sense.

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.

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.

Jesus said I and the Father are one. Not one physically, one as in joined in agreement and unity.

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.

[Kitty Chan]

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.

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.

[Mr Clingford]

Originally posted by Kitty Chan
There is God (Father) and Jesus (son) physically two. Now, we go back to you saying Jesus being God.
I don't think that the word 'physical' is appropriate here to spiritual being, unless I am misunderstanding you. In trinitarian terms the single being God consists of 3 'hypostases' traditionally termed Father, Son and Holy Spirit which are not persons as that term is normally used but some sort of state.

[c4ts]

Originally posted by Mr Clingford
Excellent. I'm not a fan of Mel's films as an Englishman (Let's distort some more history while we're at it!).

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.

Actually, quantum physics makes a lot of sense, it's the observed quantum phenomena that don't.

Back to the discussion, I think the church was Fundamentalist, not Catholic. It was a local, southern thing. It was also years ago, back when I had to go because I was a kid and I had no choice because my parents left me in the care of a very nice family who attended regularly, and they couldn't keep me at home while they went.

If the preacher is still around, I'll ask him again. From what I remember of him, he probably won't give me a different response. In practice, I don't go from church to church questioning everything, that just looks disrespectful, even if it's not quite intentional.

[Kitty Chan]

Originally posted by Mr Clingford
I don't think that the word 'physical' is appropriate here to spiritual being, unless I am misunderstanding you. In trinitarian terms the single being God consists of 3 'hypostases' traditionally termed Father, Son and Holy Spirit which are not persons as that term is normally used but some sort of state.

The word physical is due to lack of a frame of reference. A example to explain separate, 3 aspects but 1.

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?

[Kitty Chan]

Originally posted by c4ts
In practice, I don't go from church to church questioning everything, that just looks disrespectful, even if it's not quite intentional.

Well, I had a pastor of a Baptist church who kept saying "dont believe me look it up yourselves" questioning is good, I dont see where people think its not.

If your questioning as a jerk then maybe but if your just asking the question honestly then theres no problem. Understanding and knowledge are big in the Bible. I think there seems to be a cultural hang up or a percieved one, that one cant question a pastor or a believer.

Maybe in other religions but not Christianity. Like I said think of it this way if Jesus is supposed to be a friend then treat Him like you would a friend. Friends talk, fight, disagree, agree, etc so I dont see a problem with conversation.

:)