Question for Christians - #3

[Kitty Chan]

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]

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.

haikuhamu/

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]

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]

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

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]

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

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]

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

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]

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

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]

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

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]

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

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]

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

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]

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]

"...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]

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]

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]

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...

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]

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

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