Bumper sticker. . .(shudder)

[Darth Rotor]

I was once a believer like you. I can confidently tell you that it is you who are blind.

I suggest you are both looking at the same glass of water. She sees it as half full, you as half empty, and I suspect The Atheist wants to know why it isn't a glass of beer.

Note: I initially thought you were replying to Huntster, but discover that I erred, so "He" corrected to "She" in this edit.

DR

 

[Mr Clingford]

In the interest of better rounding out my understanding, are there any particular articles, or books, that you recommend that discuss this theological position?

DR

Try Adoptionism

Wiki: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adoptionism

 

[Ossai]

Mr Clingford

I believe God might do some material stuff because of what people have told me - I won't rule it out - but it appears that, on the whole, God lets his natural processes work.

The second god interacts with the world, you have a capricious and malevolent god. For if god does interact, i.e. miracles, but only does them on a random basis, not by victim, degree of pain, or any other manner of distinction then god is malicious for letting those with more pain, more suffering, or other distinction suffer while curing someone else less worthy. If the standard Christian ‘it’s a mystery’ is used then the mind of god has been declared unknown and unknowable hence every edict, past present and future, unless unequivocally from the mouth of god is rendered suspect.

Now getting back to the sacrifice. A number of other posters have already answered this, including Kurious Kathy to give things that nice fundy view.

get things wrong and screw things up. God as Jesus overcomes all this 'going wrongness', the process starting, but not finishing, with Jesus's life and death and life. Something like that. I will expand on my vague take on the Atonement if you like, but it does not involve the death of Jesus acting as a sacrifice to appease an angry God,

First, you are making your god inept and non-omnipotent in that people could defy a divine plan.
Second, if Jesus successfully overcame the ‘going wrongness’ then why is there still ‘wrongness’?

It is more Fundamentalist type Christians who go on about that approach - it appears to work for them but not for a lot of Christians who see things differently.

The majority of Christians meaning Catholics and large Pentecostal denominations, disagree with that view.

Ossai

 

[Garrette]

In an excusably cowardly hit and run post here; no apologies

I suggest you are both looking at the same glass of water. She sees it as half full, you as half empty, and I suspect The Atheist wants to know why it isn't a glass of beer.

Assuming the smiley only applies to the beer part and not to the half full/half empty part, I think you're mistaken.

As an atheist myself, I can attest that my glass became full with possibilities only after I renounced belief and was half full of empty promises prior.

 

[Darth Rotor]

Assuming the smiley only applies to the beer part and not to the half full/half empty part, I think you're mistaken.

As an atheist myself, I can attest that my glass became full with possibilities only after I renounced belief and was half full of empty promises prior.

The thought in my head that inspired the post was the back and forth between RandFan and Huntster over how to look at scriptural references. In the initial reply, I didn't realize that I had mistaken who RandFan was posting to. On further review, that metaphor wasn't all that well chosen.

Revisited kibitzing attempt here: I can suggest that the two (Randfan and KK, and yourself I guess) are looking at the world through different lenses . . . but that doesn't set up a beer joke very well. Something about beer goggles is trying to fight its way out of my brain, like the Alien out of that guy's chest, but it's not developed enough to break out.

On the internet, no one can hear you think.

DR

 

[Garrette]

The thought in my head that inspired the post was the back and forth between RandFan and Huntster over how to look at scriptural references. In the initial reply, I didn't realize that I had mistaken who RandFan was posting to. So, I am guessing that metaphor wasn't all that well chosen.

So, revisited kibitzing attempt here, I can suggest that the two (Randfan and KK, and yourself I guess) are looking at the world through different lenses . . . but that doesn't set up a beer joke very well. Something about beer goggles is trying to fight its way out of my brain, like the Alien out of that guy's chest, but it's not developed enough to break out.

On the internet, no one can hear you think.

DR

Actually, I understood all that and even thought the beer joke was funny.

My only nitpick was the pinning of the pessimistic/half-empty label on the atheist and the optimistic/half-full label on KK/Hunster/christians-in-gneral.

My point was the labels should be reversed.

But I'm not really into a discussion of it so perhaps I shouldn't have posted at all.

 

[Darth Rotor]

Actually, I understood all that and even thought the beer joke was funny.

My only nitpick was the pinning of the pessimistic/half-empty label on the atheist and the optimistic/half-full label on KK/Hunster/christians-in-gneral.

My point was the labels should be reversed. But I'm not really into a discussion of it so perhaps I shouldn't have posted at all.

Where ya sit determines what ya see.

As I pointed out to one of my overzealous Air Force colleagues:

"Pete, we're the foreigners here."

DR

 

[Tricky]

Something about beer goggles is trying to fight its way out of my brain, like the Alien out of that guy's chest, but it's not developed enough to break out.

So what would happen if the Alien laid it's egg in Superman?

 

[Paulhoff]

So what would happen if the Alien laid it's egg in Superman?

Starvation

Paul

 

[Darth Rotor]

So what would happen if the Alien laid it's egg in Superman?

I think Supe would squeeze it out, digestively, which could make for a rather disturbing "morning constitutional."

Luckily, in space, no one can hear you scream.

DR

 

[Huntster]

....My only nitpick was the pinning of the pessimistic/half-empty label on the atheist and the optimistic/half-full label on KK/Hunster/christians-in-gneral.

How does one who openly declares themself in a position of denial (not just doubt or skepticism) have a container either half-full or half-empty?

Isn't it completely empty, void, and turned upside down so the inside won't be moistened with dew?

My point was the labels should be reversed.

Amazing.

 

[The Atheist]

I suggest you are both looking at the same glass of water. She sees it as half full, you as half empty, and I suspect The Atheist wants to know why it isn't a glass of beer.
DR

Damn right, all this god talk is making me thirsty. Dark ale, anyone?

 

[The Atheist]

That leads me to the conclusion that God does value me and my life, as he creates and loves it, but that pain and death are not so important to God as other things. Nervous Systems have evolved and are very useful things - besides I can get a lot of pleasure out of mine (I assume you do too!). So the next question is what are these other things and do I consider them to be sufficient? Am I in a position to answer those questions well? People believe that some things are more important than life - certain values etc, for instance. Those who believe that there is some sort of afterlife see that as a factor when we see the child die. I have left the lasy bit short as I want to have some lunch now!

Yep, all my erogenous zones are in perfect working order! (And my wife and I are with Huntster on those ads, we love 'em!)

I get the suspicion here that you've been unable to think of a good counter to that dying child as well. I can tell you a story of a little boy, named Joshua, who was born in 1997, in Kenya. His father died of AIDS and his mother tried to scrape a living. Joshua suffered from constant malnutrition and contarcted TB at the age of 9. Aside from a few short months in a project village prior to his death in July this year, he had had a life characterised by pain, hunger and disease. Unfortunately, intervention came too late to save his life.

Your god allows him to suffer through that and end up at the same heaven as a ninety year old debaucherer who has found god at the last moment and been forgiven his sins.

Does the kid get a special place in heaven to make up for the fact that he's already been through hell? Or does the rake get to sleep in the heaven subway because he's sinned all his life and still reaped the love of god?

 

[Garrette]

How does one who openly declares themself in a position of denial (not just doubt or skepticism) have a container either half-full or half-empty?

By being able to focus on the wonder in front of me instead of the fantasy promised for later.

Isn't it completely empty, void, and turned upside down so the inside won't be moistened with dew?

That's a nifty turn of phrase, but in truth my glass if filled with three kids.

Amazing.

They are. Thanks.

 

[Mr Clingford]

Mr Clingford
The second god interacts with the world, you have a capricious and malevolent god. For if god does interact, i.e. miracles, but only does them on a random basis, not by victim, degree of pain, or any other manner of distinction then god is malicious for letting those with more pain, more suffering, or other distinction suffer while curing someone else less worthy. If the standard Christian ‘it’s a mystery’ is used then the mind of god has been declared unknown and unknowable hence every edict, past present and future, unless unequivocally from the mouth of god is rendered suspect.

I think there are a number of assumptions here. I don't think any Christian would say that God could act on a random basis. As humans are finite and have a limited view it is possible God has reasons that we do not know or understand. God is not knowable by us fully but only partially.

Now getting back to the sacrifice. A number of other posters have already answered this, including Kurious Kathy to give things that nice fundy view.

Indeed!

First, you are making your god inept and non-omnipotent in that people could defy a divine plan.

I'm not following you here.

Second, if Jesus successfully overcame the ‘going wrongness’ then why is there still ‘wrongness’?

Because wrongness will only be completely gone in heaven etc.

The majority of Christians meaning Catholics and large Pentecostal denominations, disagree with that view.

Ossai

Again I'm not sure what you mean here. There have been no ecumenical councils (like Nicea) that state that Penal Substitionary Atonement is the official Christian view. If you have a link that has the Official Catholic View espousing only Penal Substitionary Atonement I would like to read it. I think most Christians believe that Christ died for us as a sacrifice in the way that sacrifices occured in the OT but not necessarily to appease God's anger. I have come across an essay by a Catholic that looks at this; it is a bit long but I think I will post some excerpts as they are more clear than my ramblings.

 

[Mr Clingford]

Yep, all my erogenous zones are in perfect working order! (And my wife and I are with Huntster on those ads, we love 'em!)

TMI, TMI! (What all of them - I thought men only had 1).

I get the suspicion here that you've been unable to think of a good counter to that dying child as well. I can tell you a story of a little boy, named Joshua, who was born in 1997, in Kenya. His father died of AIDS and his mother tried to scrape a living. Joshua suffered from constant malnutrition and contarcted TB at the age of 9. Aside from a few short months in a project village prior to his death in July this year, he had had a life characterised by pain, hunger and disease. Unfortunately, intervention came too late to save his life.

Yes, there is lots of awful suffering and hardship in the world and God as creator takes ultimate responsibility for making a universe in which this **** happens. But people and their structures (economic, social etc) have responsibility too for their beliefs and actions. These are crunch questions which should be asked and for some people only atheism is the answer.

Your god allows him to suffer through that and end up at the same heaven as a ninety year old debaucherer who has found god at the last moment and been forgiven his sins.

Does the kid get a special place in heaven to make up for the fact that he's already been through hell? Or does the rake get to sleep in the heaven subway because he's sinned all his life and still reaped the love of god?

You know, Jesus told a parable about that, didn't he children? The man who worked only a few minutes will be paid as much as the man who worked all day. Yeah, God will be open to the sinner too. I don't know how it might work - I have to trust God.

 

[Ossai]

Mr Clingford

I think there are a number of assumptions here.

Could you point them out.

As humans are finite and have a limited view it is possible God has reasons that we do not know or understand. God is not knowable by us fully but only partially.

That just move the goalpost a bit. The original point is still valid. The mind of god has been declared partially unknown and unknowable hence every edict, past present and future, unless unequivocally from the mouth of god is rendered suspect.

First, you are making your god inept and non-omnipotent in that people could defy a divine plan.

I'm not following you here.

Short version:
Assumption: god has a divine plan
Assumption: god is omnipotent
Events will play out exactly as planned.
A finitely powerful person does not have the ability to alter an infinitely powerful god’s plan.
If people have the ability to alter the plan, then god isn’t omnipotent.

Second, if Jesus successfully overcame the ‘going wrongness’ then why is there still ‘wrongness’?

Because wrongness will only be completely gone in heaven etc.

If you have a link that has the Official Catholic View espousing only Penal Substitionary Atonement I would like to read it. I think most Christians believe that Christ died for us as a sacrifice in the way that sacrifices occured in the OT but not necessarily to appease God's anger.

I never stated penal substitution atonement.

On this page of the Catechism.
601
The Scriptures had foretold this divine plan of salvation through the putting to death of "the righteous one, my Servant" as a mystery of universal redemption, that is, as the ransom that would free men from the slavery of sin. Citing a confession of faith that he himself had "received," St. Paul professes that "Christ died for our sins in accordance with the scriptures." In particular Jesus' redemptive death fulfills Isaiah's prophecy of the suffering Servant. Indeed Jesus himself explained the meaning of his life and death in the light of God's suffering Servant. After his Resurrection he gave this interpretation of the Scriptures to the disciples at Emmaus, and then to the apostles.

Ossai

 

[Huntster]

Originally Posted by Huntster
How does one who openly declares themself in a position of denial (not just doubt or skepticism) have a container either half-full or half-empty?

By being able to focus on the wonder in front of me instead of the fantasy promised for later.

And just how is it that someone who believes in God cannot focus on the wonder in front of us all?

Life after death cannot be known, but we have hints that can be believed, doubted, or rejected.

And that has nothing to do with living a life with appreciation for God today.

Originally Posted by Hunster
Isn't it completely empty, void, and turned upside down so the inside won't be moistened with dew?

That's a nifty turn of phrase, but in truth my glass if filled with three kids.

Having children has nothing to do with having faith in God or not.

 

[Huntster]

....I can tell you a story of a little boy, named Joshua, who was born in 1997, in Kenya. His father died of AIDS and his mother tried to scrape a living. Joshua suffered from constant malnutrition and contarcted TB at the age of 9. Aside from a few short months in a project village prior to his death in July this year, he had had a life characterised by pain, hunger and disease. Unfortunately, intervention came too late to save his life.

Your god allows him to suffer through that and end up at the same heaven as a ninety year old debaucherer who has found god at the last moment and been forgiven his sins....

Yup.

And we allow (and sometimes perpetuate) his suffering.

Does the kid get a special place in heaven to make up for the fact that he's already been through hell?

I believe he does.

Or does the rake get to sleep in the heaven subway because he's sinned all his life and still reaped the love of god?

"Render unto Caesar those things that are Caesar's, and render unto God those things that are God's."

So many here focus on the physical and on physical suffering, yet try to downplay the accepted sacrifice of Christ's suffering.

They also don't consider the words of Christ in John, Chapter 9:

As he passed by he saw a man blind from birth. His disciples asked him, "Rabbi, who sinned, this man or his parents, that he was born blind?" Jesus answered, "Neither he nor his parents sinned; it is so that the works of God might be made visible through him. We have to do the works of the one who sent me while it is day. Night is coming when no one can work. While I am in the world, I am the light of the world."

While Christ spoke of that individual man's destiny in meeting and being healed by Him (and the rejection of the miracle by those who claim to be able "to see"), but also that the glory of God might be seen in those who suffer when we do what we can do for them.

"Blessed are the peacemakers". "Blessed are the healers."

 

[Ossai]

Huntster

"Render unto Caesar those things that are Caesar's, and render unto God those things that are God's."

Old Joke

Every week, three Priests, a Catholic, an Anglican and an Lutheran, get together to meet and discuss religious matters. Well, one week the topic of tithing and what part went to god and what part went to the church came up.

The Lutheran told how he divided the tithe. First, he said, once everyone else has left, I go to the back room and draw a circle and step in. Then I take all the money and throw it up in the air. Everything that comes down in the circle is the churches and everything that comes down outside the circle is god’s.

The Anglican priest spoke up next. I do something similar, he said. I go in one of the back rooms and draw a line on the floor. Then I take the all the money and throw it up into the air. Everything that comes down on the side of the room I’m in is the churches and everything that comes down on the other side is god’s.

The Catholic priest then described how they split the tithe. Like you two, I go into one of the back rooms with all the money. I throw it up into the air. Everything god wants, he catches. The rest goes to the church.

Ossai