Question for Christians - #3

[kuroyume0161]

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

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]

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]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Don't "assume" you know what's being asked...

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]

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]

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]

Re: Re: Re: Engaging Elliot

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]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Don't "assume" you know what's being asked...

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]

Re: Re: Re: Question for Christians - #3

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]

Re: Re: Re: Engaging Elliot

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]

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]

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]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Don't "assume" you know what's being asked...

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]

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!).

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.

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!)

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.

[Re Hell]

Images of hell can't be taken literally as they contradict each other - darkness, burning rubbish pit and lake of sulphur

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]

Re: Re: Re: Engaging Elliot

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]

Re: Re: Re: Engaging Elliot

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]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Engaging Elliot

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 God

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]

Re: Re: Re: Engaging Elliot

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