Another sincere question for theists...

[Riddick]

Please continue to avoid the substance of my posts if it suits your needs. Please continue to think that attacking a home-made straw man isn't stupid, if that suits your needs. Please continue thinking that pointing out the stupidity of this line of argument constitutes a "personal attack", if this suits your needs. Please continue to live in a fantasy world undisturbed by criticism of your thinking, if that suits your needs. But if that is what you need, why are you on these forums?

What I have learned about you so far is that this:

Originally posted by Dr AdequateBut have you any idea how stupid it makes you look?

is acceptable bantering with another person. Ah hah, very well. I may look stupid, but I have a question for you: Can you kick MY ASS?

Well, I really don't see very much to respond to in your previous post. Just that we don't agree on seveal key points.

 

[Atlas]

What principles of Bible interpretation, which verses and what theology did you use to form this meaning?

John 3:16 - For God so loved the world that he gave his only Son, that whoever believes in him should not perish but have eternal life.

I used the Mel Gibson meaning of "gave his only Son" with the common belief that most perish into eternal torment: Hell - if they do not accept the Son who saves us.

We haven't met yet Mr. Clingford... I do think my interpretation of the passage is implied. Where do you disagree?

 

[Mr Clingford]

John 3:16 - For God so loved the world that he gave his only Son, that whoever believes in him should not perish but have eternal life.

I used the Mel Gibson meaning of "gave his only Son" with the common belief that most perish into eternal torment: Hell - if they do not accept the Son who saves us.

We haven't met yet Mr. Clingford... I do think my interpretation of the passage is implied. Where do you disagree?

Hi, say, do you work out?

I am not familiar with Mel Gibson's theological works - he isn't a scholar, is he? (I haven't seen the Passion of the Christ).
It is orthodox Christian belief that Jesus Christ is God, so that in a sense God died on the cross, as God is the son as well as the father.
There are very vocal Christians (especially in America, I believe) who trumpet loudly that only they are going to be saved and that YOU, and especially the FAGS, are going to burn in hell forever, haha, but I would suggest that there are other ways of looking at it.

There are Bible verses which suggest that God wants all to be saved and that Jesus died for all humanity and that possibly all may eventually be with God. John 12:47 'I did not come to judge the world, but to save it' is an example.

There are several words in the Bible that are to do with hell; sheol meaning the place of shades, departed spirits (as the ancient Hebrews didn't believe in an afterlife); gehenna meaning a place of burning which was named after the burning rubbish dump outside Jerusalem; Hades which may have a lake of burning fire (fire may purify the 'soul') and is also described at the end of Revelation as being thrown into the fire (confusing, eh!) and is therefore not eternal. The Hebrews were very fond of expressing ideas in imagery that it would be probably incorrect to interprete literally (Revelation,anyone?).

There are, of course, verses to do with God's judgement and anger, which is fair enough if you agree that hurting others is wrong, but if hell is a state where people have cut themselves off from God, but with the possibility of coming to realise that they have gone wrong and ceasing to be in hell, i.e. it is only for ever if they choose to make it so. 1 Peter 3:18-20 is interesting as it has Jesus preaching to the spirits 'in prison' (in sheol) from the time of Noah, suggesting that if you haven't done right in this life then it isn't the end of the road.

I am suggesting that it is possible to interprete the Bible as saying that God died for us, that most, if not all people will be with God, that hell is not a literal place but possibly a state in which someone may burn within their own selfish destructive ideas, but may come through them and cease to be in hell, but will be with God thereafter.

 

[Atlas]

Thanks for the reference in Peter to Jesus preaching to the "spirits in prison". I have wondered about that for some time and lost the reference. (Actually my thoughts were more on the Creed - "He descended into Hell". I figured it had some Biblical reference but I had not researched it.)

We may agree on the Lake of Fire (which is the second death) implying that souls are indeed not tormented through eternity but purged like tissue paper in the flames and forgotten.

I have difficulty even accepting that God would need to do that. Why inflict even that as a last experience on the disappearing. Better to leave them in the ground, dead and merely reward those whom you like. This view of how God handles the spirits of the dead, imprison them and then chuck them into the Lake of Fire on Judgement Day, seems to have been invented by a people who hold long grudges and demand that scores be settled even if it's handled by succeeding generations. It makes sense to me that this view of the deity is a projection of dark human attributes and nothing the omnipotent would be interested in unless He enjoys the show of the tormented tumbling. screaming, and evaporating in fire.

Here is the elongated passage from Peter you mentioned...

18For Christ died for sins once for all, the righteous for the unrighteous, to bring you to God. He was put to death in the body but made alive by the Spirit, 19through whom[d] also he went and preached to the spirits in prison 20who disobeyed long ago when God waited patiently in the days of Noah while the ark was being built. In it only a few people, eight in all, were saved through water, 21and this water symbolizes baptism that now saves you also–not the removal of dirt from the body but the pledge[e] of a good conscience toward God. It saves you by the resurrection of Jesus Christ, 22who has gone into heaven and is at God's right hand–with angels, authorities and powers in submission to him.

I really like Peter's positive attitude. God waited patiently for Noah to complete the ark so he could drown the world's people like rats. 8 people are saved. That's holding the focus well considering Peter believed it was an example of god's good judgement on ALL of mankind.

I am fascinated by how a few words, linked to an extreme extinguishment of life, can through ritual become the basis for a sacramental baptism that saves you through the resurrection of Jesus Christ. He speaks of the effect as a chemist would today of some mixing of potions or like an alchemist applying the correct change agents to turn lead into gold.

An amazing application of ritual tied to the flimsiest set of ideas. People today line up for baptism even when the do not believe in the whole earth flood. So much of belief is grounded in these kinds of shifting sands.

These thoughts of yours I am suggesting that it is possible to interprete the Bible as saying that God died for us, that most, if not all people will be with God, that hell is not a literal place but possibly a state in which someone may burn within their own selfish destructive ideas, but may come through them and cease to be in hell, but will be with God thereafter, is also a projection. It can indeed be interpreted out of the same words that others use to condemn most to eternal torment. It shows that you have, I think, chosen to believe in a "different" god than most. I think it's possibly because of the same revulsion that you share with many non believers of the worst descriptions of the personality traits of the Judeo-Christian deity.

 

[pgwenthold]

There are Bible verses which suggest that God wants all to be saved and that Jesus died for all humanity and that possibly all may eventually be with God. John 12:47 'I did not come to judge the world, but to save it' is an example.

Of course, this just begs the question, save it from what? Well, the wrath of God, of course. Therefore, Jesus (aka God) comes to save the world from destruction that God himself will provide.

This is just the usual Christianity protection racket. Jesus is just Guido coming to collect payment to protect the business from being destroyed by a fire that Guido, or some other representative of the Don, will set.

Is a mafia protection racket evidence that the Godfather loves business owners? He sends his people to save them, to allow them to prevent them from having their businesses destroyed. How loving of him. Of course, if he wouldn't be the one destroying thier businesses in the first place, it might ring a little less hollow...

 

[Dr Adequate]

Well, I really don't see very much to respond to in your previous post. Just that we don't agree on seveal key points.

Marvellous. I don't know who this guy is or where he's been lately, but he's bringing laughter back into my life.

 

[farmermike]

second verse same as the first

Wrong, as it turns out. Look, I've done this. I did it again on Wednesday, when you asked me to. Then I had another look at the Gospels and the Acts of the Apostles. And I still can't solve the problem of evil.
***************************
Karen
You don't have to solve the problem of evil. That is God's department, although we are instructed to oppose it.
*************************************

Hmm, let's think about the "effects of man" I've seen lately which I'm not too keen on. Now, let's see... are Al-Qaida and the Taliban "men who have disposed with God"? Or are they both composed of theists? George W. Bush? Saddam Hussein? Believers, it seems. The troubles in the Middle East? Turns out all those suicide bombers are devout. If you really mean to blame all the troubles of the world, not just on people, but on people who are atheists, you'd better be prepared to back that slander up with more than words.
*******************************
Guess I was thinking more local than global. A quick glance around your friendly neighbourhood video store will back up my position, or at your average newspaper headline. I'm not really arguing theism in case you haven't noticed, but Christianity. Sure Christians are human and as such can do a lot of harm to the cause. Maybe God should have gone with robots afterall.
*************************************
But that's just the trouble caused by humans. A glance at the world tells us that acts of God are far more devastating then the works of humanity. God kills a million African children a year with malaria alone. Humanity has its faults, granted, chiefly the fighting of wars, but last century we saved more lives with penicillin alone than we wasted in war, so I still think we come out more good than bad, overall.
**************************************
I think you'll find in most impovrished nations that the local huntas(people) have a hand in the devastating plight of their countrymen. I'm assuming you are familiar with origianl sin? We're living plan b.
******************************
I should add that lights don't shine brighter in the darkness. That's just contrast. And that I've heard this kind of talk before, but I've never seen anyone banging their head against the wall so that later they may have the pleasure of stopping.
**********************************
Tempting to level a similar personal attack but that won't advance our discussion now will it?

The problem here seems to be and I've elucidated it before, that I don't have God in a test tube, but then if I did he wouldn't be God. And any suggestion that because we can't see Him doesn't prove He isn't there, is held up to ridicule. I would suggest that your search for God/truth is not as genuine as you purport. Praying once on Wednesday,with the full expectation that you would not get a response does not constitute a valid attempt. This is a process. Take out your Bible and read it from the point of view that maybe there is a God, who came all unassuming like, as a baby, gave you a soul and an intellect and left you with the instruction manual for how to make sense of your existence- and oh yeah, the choice to run it through the shredder.
******************************
2 Peter 3: 8-9 "But do not forget this one thing, dear friends: With the Lord a day is like a thousand years, and a thousand years are like a day. The Lord is not is not slow in keeping his promise, as some understand slowness. He is patient with you, not wanting anyone to perish, but everyone to come to repentance."
************************************
My favourite hymn. By A. E. Housman. You may not have heard it.
Easter Hymn

If in that Syrian garden, ages slain,
You sleep, and know not you are dead in vain,
Nor even in dreams behold how dark and bright
Ascends in smoke and fire by day and night
The hate you died to quench and could but fan,
Sleep well and see no morning, son of man.

But if, the grave rent and the stone rolled by,
At the right hand of majesty on high
You sit, and sitting so remember yet
Your tears, your agony and bloody sweat,
Your cross and passion and the life you gave,
Bow hither out of heaven and see and save.

*****************************
Nice. It must be the melody that really gets ya'? Still, the second verse isn't bad, although I'd add a "thanks for" to the last stanza and a couple of "ing's".

 

[Skeptical Greg]

I'm assuming you are familiar with origianl sin?

Why don't you give us your version.

 

[Mr Clingford]

Of course, this just begs the question, save it from what? Well, the wrath of God, of course. Therefore, Jesus (aka God) comes to save the world from destruction that God himself will provide.

This is just the usual Christianity protection racket. Jesus is just Guido coming to collect payment to protect the business from being destroyed by a fire that Guido, or some other representative of the Don, will set.

Is a mafia protection racket evidence that the Godfather loves business owners? He sends his people to save them, to allow them to prevent them from having their businesses destroyed. How loving of him. Of course, if he wouldn't be the one destroying thier businesses in the first place, it might ring a little less hollow...

You write 'of course' as though it is the only possible option but it is not; I share your dislike of the model you have described; it is commonly known because it is popular among the most vocal of Christians, yet there other approaches. Another idea is that God saves us from the consequences of sin (sin being attitudes of selfishness, little regard for the welfare of others) which are separation and destruction (of relationships for instance). It is not a matter of God casting into fire but of the selfish turning away from goodness. How does that notion grab you?

 

[pgwenthold]

You write 'of course' as though it is the only possible option but it is not; I share your dislike of the model you have described; it is commonly known because it is popular among the most vocal of Christians, yet there other approaches. Another idea is that God saves us from the consequences of sin (sin being attitudes of selfishness, little regard for the welfare of others) which are separation and destruction (of relationships for instance). It is not a matter of God casting into fire but of the selfish turning away from goodness. How does that notion grab you?

Since not all consequences of sin are bad, it fails.

For example, in your approach, it's not a sin if you don't get caught or can in some other way get away with it. Moreover, some sins are apparently evil just by existing even though the outcome is desired by the people involved. Homosexuality, for example, or masturbation, if you want to avoid interpersonal relationships.

Since I do not have a problem with separation or destruction that result from selfishness, why do I need God to save me from them?

 

[Mr Clingford]

Since not all consequences of sin are bad, it fails.

For example, in your approach, it's not a sin if you don't get caught or can in some other way get away with it.

One's character may be harmed, though because integrity is important

Moreover, some sins are apparently evil just by existing even though the outcome is desired by the people involved. Homosexuality, for example, or masturbation, if you want to avoid interpersonal relationships.

an action in and of itself may not harm anyone but it may build and foster the growth of attitudes of concern only for oneself and disregard for others' needs

Since I do not have a problem with separation or destruction that result from selfishness, why do I need God to save me from them?

Are you saying that you do not care if you develop self-destructive tendencies for instance?

 

[Ossai]

Farmermike

You don't have to solve the problem of evil. That is God's department, although we are instructed to oppose it.

If you’re going with the ‘humans can’t understand god or god’s plan’ then how are we supposed to oppose evil? Couldn’t opposing what we consider evil actually be empowering evil?

Guess I was thinking more local than global. A quick glance around your friendly neighbourhood video store will back up my position, or at your average newspaper headline.

You’ve attempted to change the scope, but the problem remains.

Dr Adequate But that's just the trouble caused by humans. A glance at the world tells us that acts of God are far more devastating then the works of humanity. God kills a million African children a year with malaria alone. Humanity has its faults, granted, chiefly the fighting of wars, but last century we saved more lives with penicillin alone than we wasted in war, so I still think we come out more good than bad, overall.

I think you'll find in most impovrished nations that the local huntas(people) have a hand in the devastating plight of their countrymen. I'm assuming you are familiar with origianl sin? We're living plan b.

Nice strawman, but until you can show how humans are controlling the weather, causing pandemic infections and other natural disasters, Dr. Adequate’s statement still stands.

And any suggestion that because we can't see Him doesn't prove He isn't there, is held up to ridicule. I would suggest that your search for God/truth is not as genuine as you purport. Praying once on Wednesday,with the full expectation that you would not get a response does not constitute a valid attempt.

Two in one here. The first one is basically, I have no evidence but I believe so I’m right. The second is a very good example of the no true Scottsman.

Mr Clingford

an action in and of itself may not harm anyone but it may build and foster the growth of attitudes of concern only for oneself and disregard for others' needs

(color mine) If an action in and of itself is not harmful and does not build and foster the growth of attitudes of concern only for oneself and disregard for others’ needs – is it still a sin?

One's character may be harmed, though because integrity is important

So the child that disobeys an abusive parent’s order (assuming the order is dangerous, etc) is committing a sin.

Ossai

 

[Mr Clingford]

Thanks for the reply. I do think that we have to be wary because the Bible is far from being a systematic theology

...We may agree on the Lake of Fire (which is the second death) implying that souls are indeed not tormented through eternity but purged like tissue paper in the flames and forgotten.

Agree on the first part but not the second; perhaps the 'dross' of solely self-regarding attitudes are burned away with contemplation/being exposed to the love of God, leaving a person who now departs from their personal hell to be in relationship with God

I have difficulty even accepting that God would need to do that. Why inflict even that as a last experience on the disappearing. Better to leave them in the ground, dead and merely reward those whom you like. This view of how God handles the spirits of the dead, imprison them and then chuck them into the Lake of Fire on Judgement Day, seems to have been invented by a people who hold long grudges and demand that scores be settled even if it's handled by succeeding generations. It makes sense to me that this view of the deity is a projection of dark human attributes and nothing the omnipotent would be interested in unless He enjoys the show of the tormented tumbling. screaming, and evaporating in fire.
...These thoughts of yours I am suggesting that it is possible to interprete the Bible as saying that God died for us, that most, if not all people will be with God, that hell is not a literal place but possibly a state in which someone may burn within their own selfish destructive ideas, but may come through them and cease to be in hell, but will be with God thereafter, is also a projection. It can indeed be interpreted out of the same words that others use to condemn most to eternal torment. It shows that you have, I think, chosen to believe in a "different" god than most. I think it's possibly because of the same revulsion that you share with many non believers of the worst descriptions of the personality traits of the Judeo-Christian deity.

I am in a lot of agreement but would reword your last statement thus: 'I believe in a "different" God... because of the same revulsion I share with many non believers of some interpretations of the worst attempts to describe the personality traits of the Christian deity'

My views though not similar to many Christians are not uncommon in the British Anglican Church and probably not far from the personal beliefs of the Archbishop of Canterbury, Rowan Williams, who is an educated intelligent guy.

 

[Mr Clingford]

Mr Clingford
(color mine) If an action in and of itself is not harmful and does not build and foster the growth of attitudes of concern only for oneself and disregard for others’ needs – is it still a sin?

From the bare bones of the question it doesn't necessarily sound like sin

So the child that disobeys an abusive parent’s order (assuming the order is dangerous, etc) is committing a sin.

Ossai

Would you expand on this question as I am not sure what you asking as it doesn't seem to follow

 

[Dr Adequate]

Re: second verse same as the first

I should add that lights don't shine brighter in the darkness. That's just contrast. And that I've heard this kind of talk before, but I've never seen anyone banging their head against the wall so that later they may have the pleasure of stopping.
**********************************
Tempting to level a similar personal attack but that won't advance our discussion now will it?

I don't know how on Earth you interpreted this as a personal attack, but it really isn't. My point was just that although I have heard people excuse pain as giving contrast to pleasure, and evil as giving contrast to good, no-one actually seeks out pain in order to then contrast it with pleasure, or evil so as to contrast it with good. Will we see such a contrast in Heaven? The promise seems to be "no", and yet presumably the goodness of God would be more and not less apparent to us: "Now we see as through a glass darkly..."

By the "problem of evil" I mean the question that this thread was addressing: how can a supposedly loving, omnipresent, all-powerful God coexist with evil and suffering? If someone was suffering, and you or I were around, and had the power to alleviate their suffering, we would. That's just common decency. God is in that position with repect to everyone who's suffering all the time, but seems content to let Nature take its cause. But worse than that, if everything (but for our free will) is under his dominion, then he appears to be not just passively but actively wicked. This is why I am not a theist --- since some of God's supposed attributes (omnipotence, omnipresence, existence) contradict others of his supposed attributes (love, compassion, justice, mercy).

 

[pgwenthold]

Re: Re: second verse same as the first

I don't know how on Earth you interpreted this as a personal attack, but it really isn't. My point was just that although I have heard people excuse pain as giving contrast to pleasure, and evil as giving contrast to good, no-one actually seeks out pain in order to then contrast it with pleasure,

"Pain is SUCH a rush..." - that drugged out guy from Bachelor Party who tried to slit his wrist with an electric razor and then got depressed because his drugs killed a donkey

 

[Ossai]

Mr Clingford

If an action in and of itself is not harmful and does not build and foster the growth of attitudes of concern only for oneself and disregard for others’ needs – is it still a sin?

From the bare bones of the question it doesn't necessarily sound like sin

Then, substantially what is different with what pgwenthold wrote?

Would you expand on this question as I am not sure what you asking as it doesn't seem to follow

You originally wrote

One's character may be harmed, though because integrity is important

So the child that disobeys an abusive parent’s order (assuming the order is dangerous, etc) is committing a sin.

I’ll expand a bit. If integrity is important is it more important than one’s safety, assuming no one else is put at risk?
A child disobeying a parent – listed as a big NO in the 10Cs – but doing so to avoid personal harm.

(This was the 1st example that came to mind. I’m sure someone else can come up with a better one.)

Ossai

 

[RussDill]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Another sincere question for theists...

Humans play a role in this. So we've basically throttled God's ability.

if we control who does and does not exist, then I exist only because my parents procreated, not because god loves me. You can't have it both ways.

I should probably redefine "you exist because God loves you" to mean that God provides the mechanism for the living being.

So...the argument is entirely circular then

 

[Mr Clingford]

Mr ClingfordIf an action in and of itself is not harmful and does not build and foster the growth of attitudes of concern only for oneself and disregard for others’ needs – is it still a sin?

From the bare bones of the question it doesn't necessarily sound like sin

Then, substantially what is different with what pgwenthold wrote? [/QUOTE] which was

Since not all consequences of sin are bad, it fails.

For example, in your approach, it's not a sin if you don't get caught or can in some other way get away with it

I don't see how they are the same; if you get away with something, e.g. an extreme case like murder then you are a changed human being for the worse inside. I am saying that even if an act has no consequences outside of an individual it may be destructive to the character of that individual.

You originally wrote
So the child that disobeys an abusive parent’s order (assuming the order is dangerous, etc) is committing a sin.

I’ll expand a bit. If integrity is important is it more important than one’s safety, assuming no one else is put at risk?
A child disobeying a parent – listed as a big NO in the 10Cs – but doing so to avoid personal harm.

Ossai

Well in Matthew 22:37-39 Jesus summed up the commandments with 'Love God' etc and 'love your neighbour as yourself' so a child disobeying a parent to avoid personal harm would not be going against these commandments. Why such rigid categorisations? These commandments are guidelines.

 

[elliotfc]

I have asked this before on other threads but so far no reply. Can anyone demonstrate the "love" part of God. I honestly do not see a loving entity from the descriptions given about him.

The probable Christian response would be the Incarnation, i.e. Jesus.

A general philosophical response could be our mere existence.

Re: descriptions, there are manifold descriptions of God, and those descriptions have evolved over time within each of the major established religions.

Please don't give me that old saw about God saving two people while he let x number burn to death. That is not indicitive of a love for anything.

This is helpful. You believe that there is such a thing is love. To you there is an objective standard by which you decree something to be love, or something to be other than love. Here we are in agreement, and as long as we agree on this I am certain that you are on the right track. In fact, any depicition of God's love that you reject, I probably reject as well. Probably.

-Elliot