Question for Christians - #3

[Belle]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

You first.

 

[elliotfc]

Non-believers have the ability to look around as well,

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

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

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

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

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

Your personal experience is your own and I respect it.

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

Enter cynical/mocking comment here.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

You first.

Not interested in validating your contention.

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

-Elliot

 

[elliotfc]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Such pat, safe answers/delusions...

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

-Elliot

 

[Skeptical Greg]

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

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


-Elliot

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

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

I believe you are participating in it also...

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


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


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


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


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

Go!

 

[Tricky]

Engaging Elliot

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

Christians have what you would call internal logical reasoning. You are quite capable of understanding their internal logical reasoning, but you can only do so by accepting their premises.

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

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

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

Rather, I think that fundamentalists do believe in the 100% truth of the Bible but not in the bean-counting sort of way you espouse (you're the one that wanted to count the number of times God did bad things/good things, right)?

Indeed. They seem to believe in a 100% truth which fits whatever brand of fundamentalism they espouse. They let their conclusions drive their thinking. Any data which fails to conform to their conclusions must be re-examined and re-interpreted until they do. This is far different from letting the data drive the conclusions.

I think that it is 100% true that many of the early Jews had some theological notions that I reject. This is why I have no problem saying that I also believe in the 100% truth of the Bible, even though I'm certainly a different kind of fundamentlist Christian if only because I'm Catholic.

It seems that trying to assign percentages to what you believe is true is just going to lead to miscommunication. It seems pointless to say you reject some notions and then say it is 100% true. What in essence you are saying is that you reject some interpretations and accept some others. If we can just leave it there without trying to put numbers to it, then we can discuss the different interpretations.

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

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

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

And I could very well say that it is your mixtrue of insecurity and ego that COMPELS YOU to talk about the insecurity and ego of others.

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

 

[Belle]

You know Elliot...

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

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

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

 

[Ossai]

Elliotfc

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

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

Belle specifically mentioned fundamentalist belief i.e. fundies, not all believers.

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

I though you said you were catholic not a fundamentalist Presbyterian?

That seems silly to me. If God creates imperfect creators, and he values his creative activity, I think that he would care about everything that they do, if he values his creative ability that is.

So god isn’t perfect? Or to put it in question form, how could a perfect entity deliberately or accidentally create an imperfect being?

Christians have what you would call internal logical reasoning.

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

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

Many fundamentalists purport exactly that, a 100% belief in a literal bible.

I think that it is 100% true that many of the early Jews had some theological notions that I reject. This is why I have no problem saying that I also believe in the 100% truth of the Bible, even though I'm certainly a different kind of fundamentlist Christian if only because I'm Catholic.

So the bible is 100% truth unless you disagree with it, in which case you drop the % down to – oh yes – you said so again 100%.

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

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

Which is it? we can understand it if we try or Will we ever perfectly understand? No

Ossai

 

[kimiko]

Re: Re: Question for Christians - #3

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

False analogy. There is no equivalent to the relationship between God and human beings within the human social world. You don't know your friend's boyfriend is a jerk, you've made that judgement call based on interpreting his behavior. Likewise, you cannot possibly know for sure if he was going to cheat. You may think it is so probable as to be almost certain, but you simply aren't certain the way God would be.

 

[kimiko]

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

I'm not quite sure what you're doing...I suppose you're trying to minimize the salvific act. If you're gonig to be cynical about the salvific act, I think it rather impossible that you'll ever take Christianity seriously. -Elliot [/B]

A person will only believe there is one way to salvation if they have already accepted Christianity. There are many people who beleive in God, but not that.

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

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

 

[Mr Clingford]

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

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

Go!

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

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

 

[Skeptical Greg]

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

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

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

That sounds like a tentative ' no '..


Anyone else ?

 

[Mr Clingford]

Diogenes, these part of your question

any rational person

and

a genuine show

are very open to interpretation and, to be be blunt, may be used to wriggle out of a situation.

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

 

[Skeptical Greg]

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

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

Of course, and I am sure they will be interpreted very loosely in an effort to come up with a viable answer..

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


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

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

 

[Mr Clingford]

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

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

The incarnation. The uniting of the human and the divine.
Protestantism especially likes to focus on the death of Jesus, seeing the death and resurrection as solely having soteriological power, but other Christian approaches see a great deal of value just in the fact of the existence of Jesus per se, as he is the embodiment of the reconciliation of the human and the divine.

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

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

 

[kimiko]

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

I was kind of hoping you would comment on what I'd said about the crucifixion not being anything unique. There is also the problem of making human sacrifice a major part of the faith. You can dress it up by saying he was man and god at the same time, but the gruesomeness remains.

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

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

 

[Skeptical Greg]

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

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

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

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

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

 

[Mr Clingford]

I was kind of hoping you would comment on what I'd said about the crucifixion not being anything unique.

It is not the method but the man, who was crucified that is significant.

There is also the problem of making human sacrifice a major part of the faith. You can dress it up by saying he was man and god at the same time, but the gruesomeness remains.

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

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

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

Most Christians believe Jesus had the divine nature, that he died (went to hell) and came back in some form. Jesus died for everyone.

What do you mean by 'miracles'?

 

[Mr Clingford]

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

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

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

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

Hey, don't knock the absurd - it can point out the foolishness and hypocrisy of those in power!

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

 

[Tricky]

It is not the method but the man, who was crucified that is significant.

Only if you accept his divinity. If you don't, it was just another good person dying. They do it every day.

Yes this torturous death was gruesome...

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

Jesus as Christ was God so gave his own life, perhaps only as symbolism, I don't know. Most Christians believe Jesus had the divine nature, that he died (went to hell) and came back in some form. Jesus died for everyone.

Yeah, but he only died for three days. Some "ultimate" sacrifice that is. So if it wasn't the pain that was important, and it wasn't the death (since he didn't stay dead), then what was Jesus's great sacrifice? What did he do that countless other humans have not also done?

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

 

[elliotfc]

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

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

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

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

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

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

Go!

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



-Elliot