Question for Christians - #3

[elliotfc]

Re: Re: Re: Engaging Elliot

No human would condemn innocent people to die in, let's say, an earthquake. God would.

A few things...

1st, we are all guilty, or tainted, to God. That doesn't mean we are not redeemable, it just means that there are no innocent people. It's the dogma of original sin which is basically universal to all Christians although I'm sure there are exceptions, and there may be some variation in the notions of original sin.

2nd, I personally don't think that God causes earthquakes; rather, he allows them to happen. Natural disasters in the OT that are attributed to God...well, I think I've already given me take on that. However, I can understand the fundamentalist position that if *innocent* people were to die in a natural disaster, their lives are by no means over, but their souls will be subject to whatever lies in the next one. The way you say it is like it's game over, and of course you believe that, but that's not consistent with Christian theology.

3rd, we are all condemned to die! All of us! The only question is method, and yes there are many different methods to die, but innocent people can die of old age, or cancer, or and of a variety of diseases and accidents. You identify the natural disaster, which we humans view as a horrible thing because of it's suddenness and the apparent inability to plan around its occurence. See, we humans like control. We don't like suffering and we don't like sudden surprises and we don't like the fact that we haven't conquered nature in a way that we can control all natural events. So we hate this kind of stuff. In a way, their occurence can be a way to temper human pride. As an atheist and a person who does not believe in an afterlife, you may shudder at that way of thinking so I can only ask you to consider the persepctive. If I can participate in any sort of event that God would effect in order to make a point, and if that meant I die in an avalanche, I'd do it. I think (like I'd have a choice, right?) I'm only playing devil's advocate here, as I'm not sure if God operates in such a fashion...but if he did, it would hardly devastate my theology.

-Elliot

 

[elliotfc]

Re: Re: Re: Engaging Elliot

How can we say that "good" has any meaning if such senseless killing is allowed?

Because *senseless* is a matter of opinion, and is dependent on an individual's concept of what is sense, and what isn't.

Also, I think that you mean killing in the permanent sense, when Christians don't believe in killing in a permanent sense.

See, I'd say that if it doesn't make sense to you, that's a deficiency in you, and I wouldn't say that as an insult, because we are all deficient in our own particular ways. In fact I respect anyone who hates senseless killing, and if you want to take it up with God (if you ever get the chance) I respect that to. All I'm saying is that God's sense trumps our sense.

This is where I diverge from many Christians. I believe that people who take issue with God will be respected...to a point. Like Job. It's OK to bring a case against Job...you just have to know when to capitulate. You have to capitulate. I mean, you don't have to capitulate...but if you want to be in communion with God and all that, you do.

Hypothetically speaking Tricky, can you conceive the possibility that a)if there is a God and b)if there is an afterlife that c)you would have to consider, eventually, God's perfect perspective which by definition would make your perspective, while valid and potent, less than perfect?

Was Jack the Ripper "good"? He might have had a reason too.

I don't know. Are you referring to perspective?

It's possible that Jack the Ripper *thought* he was a good person doing good things. I'm not sure I'd go with that...I suspect that he knew he was doing bad things, or, he was sociopathic. Or at the very least he knew the consequences of his *bad* actions, which is why they never caught him.

Or are you talking about Jack the Ripper theoretically, and not from his or anyone's perspective? I'd say Jack the Ripper was good in that he was/is redeemable, despite all of his activities. I guess that would go for Hitler to...

But I have no problem saying Hitler was bad, or Hitler was evil, because when I'm saying that I'm thinking about a particular Hitler within chronological time doing horrible things. I'm not talking about Hitler as a 4 year old, or Hitler as he is facing the souls of millions in the next one. But I accept that Hitler did some good things in his life (oh God I'm sounding like Marge Schott) although when I say that I mean that maybe he gave a present to his next door neighbor when he was 11, and that even the most evil person imaginable has the capacity to do good.

-Elliot

 

[elliotfc]

Re: Re: Re: Engaging Elliot

I think it's relatively easy to expose the internal inconstancies in Christianity, even (and especially) given it's premises. It does not pass any logical test. Any attempt to do so involves redefining the premises.

See Tricky, I don't think you're quite doing it, if only because I had something to say (in my opinion in refutation) for the past several posts.

I see that a lot here. I say people come out and say what Christians believe to prove an inconsistency, yet what you say is not consistent with either what I believe, or what I think other Christians believe.

Which puts me on the defensive and/or makes me befuddled or perplexed. Which is why I'll often say something like: "Well, yeah, I agree with what you said, I agree that is inconsistent, but since that isn't what Christians believe (or, as what I as a Christian believe) it's a bit of a sham of an argument."

All skeptics, or the ones that I hear from, have a *belief* in God, or in Christianity, that they articulate when they represent their take on Christianity. Frankly, I find validation in their demonstration, because they get it wrong almost all the time. When they get it right, it comes down to a difference of opinion for me, and then subjective morality/values kick in, and who is right and who is wrong?

-Elliot

 

[Skeptical Greg]

Originally posted by elliotfc

..... and that even the most evil person imaginable has the capacity to do good.

One might say " .... even the most evil God imaginable has the capacity to do good.."


Or


" ... even the most righteous person imaginable has the capacity to do evil.. "

I suppose it all depends on one's perspective.. Doesn't it always ?

 

[elliotfc]

Re: Re: Re: Engaging Elliot

Would it occur to you that your "conclusions" were based on a Christian-centered environment in which you were raised?

Yes, that has a heck of a lot to do with it. I view it kind of like how mother's pass on immunity in vivo, you probably view it differently.

Parents pass onto their children what they love, and I recognize that.

Was your morality in place before you discovered the source of it?

Probably it mostly was.

I know that my concepts of "good and bad" were formed very early in life, and I have a hard time, even as an adult, trying to reject any of them. Many of my moral principles are similar to Christian morality, which says to me that religion is not the only thing that defines morality.

Agreed.

I think that when you say "break it down" that you involve a whole lot of subjective reasoning. It suggests that there is not a single way to "break it down". Even when you do so, the parts are dissimilar.

Agreed, but only because "break it down" will happen within the individual and according to the individuals personal affectations and ways of thinking.

What I wish to be ditched is the idea that it is either infallible or that it is the work of God. It is clearly the work of Man, with all their fallibilities. It seems so obvious because God is described in so many different ways. Only humans could foul things up so completely.

I agree/sympathize. But I think you miss the caveats. It probably helps me because I come from a Catholic background.

The Bible is infallible within limits (like the Pope is infallible within defined limits). You don't use the Bible to change flat tires, so to me it *goes without saying* that the Bible is not infallible. Rather, it is infallible in what it is to be infallible for. There is variation of opinion about the extent of that infallibility, or the nature of that infalibility, so you can join that debate.

It is often called the "word of God" and basically never called the "work of God". People wrote it, and I believe it was inspired by God. Some books more than others. Judges is a tough read.

-Elliot

 

[Skeptical Greg]

The Bible is infallible within limits (like the Pope is infallible within defined limits). You don't use the Bible to change flat tires, so to me it *goes without saying* that the Bible is not infallible. Rather, it is infallible in what it is to be infallible for. There is variation of opinion about the extent of that infallibility, or the nature of that infalibility, so you can join that debate.

So, it is right except when it's wrong? ( The Pope also.. )

How does the Vatican feel about your definition of ' infallible ' ?

 

[elliotfc]

Re: Re: Re: Engaging Elliot

The world and everything are only "evidence" of t bible if you already believe in the bible. The world exists for everyone. Only Christians think it has anything to do with their God. It is a clear case of data fitting. And I see you recognize this. For a Christian, you are remarkably insightful.

Aw shucks. blush.

Actually I'm not sure, because I think that everybody believes in the world and what they see around them before they believe in the Bible. Right? And before you can believe in the Bible, you need reasons to support a belief in the Bible. And one of those reasons could very well be the world and everything. Right?

They cannot do so if they make assumptions about it.

Well...

However, many things about the bible (such as the creation story) are so very provably wrong, that it does not make much sense to deal with them as anything other than myths.

I don't know, because the reasons that show something to be *very provably wrong* are extrapolatory in nature. There is no way to directly observe what happened in the past. Yes, from a point of view bolstered by back-extrapolation, Genesis creation is very provably wrong. So the assumption then is obvious; the assumption is that the extrapolations can't possibly be wrong. It's certainly one hell of a reasonable assumption, and it is one that I have absolutely no desire to refute.

So...if you conceive of the possibility of your extrapolations being wrong (like I can), then you could possibly handle it as something other than myth, but you may have no interest in doing so, and that's fine, I can't say that part of me doesn't sympathize with you.

I totally respect your goal. But what you are describing is the evolution of an entire culture, not just its religion.

Yep, that too.

I think that you will find that the religion follows the culture rather than vice versa.

Well...not necessarily. A persuasive argument can be made that non-conformists or radicals or extremists within a culture could, using their religion, push the culture, rather than the reverse.

Just look at how modern Christians have manipulated the Bible to conform to their beliefs. Homosexuality? Abortion? These were not major biblical issues.

I don't think that homosexuality *had* to be a major issue, because the prohibition was so absolute. It seems (to me at least) that the early Jews just weren't interested in it, found it abominable, and for that reason they didn't need to be reminded about it being wrong.

Re: abortion, technology to perform elective abortion just didn't exist back then. There were, no doubt, some herbal options and of course people have always been aware that the invasive option was a possibility, but it is just inconceivable to me that back then 1 out of 3 pregnancies ended in elective abortion, so that too would have been a moot point.

Religion seems to be able to address issues that come after. In this way religion frames how people will see cultural innovations or variations.

I would love to have you arguing my side, because you would do a remarkable job of it.

Aw shucks. Back in the day I used to pretend to be pro-abortion because I enjoyed it. And then I'd say I was pro-life and that I didn't believe anything I just said, and then people would look at me like I was an *******, which I guess I kind of was.

Honestly I'm the kind of guy who can watch a talking head show and agree with both sides of an issue, like the Iraq War. And I could probably argue 2 sides of an issue if I wanted to and do it well. But that could go for all of us, couldn't it? I mean, as long as none of you skeptics overdid it, you could probably play the Christian in a bible-church for a good few months until your head started to hurt.

I always go for finding out what the other side is thinking. It shouldn't surprise anyone that I'm basically conservative, but I read the New Republic and the Nation. It's tedious to hear your own viewpoint reinforced ad nauseum (and I'm the circular reasoning guy) and I'd like to kick Sean Hannity in the head if I ever see him. Or like when people are asked a question but ignore it and just shout their talking points. Argh that pisses me off. I'm digressing. I like propaganda though, it's usually very honest and refreshing and eye-opening.

The Dead Sea Scrolls, perhaps.

Yah, I like the Enochian stuff but it might shock the grannies.

The bits about Adam's first wife.

Overrated in my opinion, but it can be found in the Midrash for enquiring minds. But the feminists have co-opted it and inflated it beyond recognition.

If I'm not mistaken...Lillith is a variation of an Assyrian female demon. There is a brief mention of Lillith in Isaiah but to consider it a reference to Adam's first wife makes no sense in context and would be a complete interpolation. The only extant references to Lillith in Jewish misrashim but those are, at the earliest, contemporary to the time of Christ and primarily hundreds of years after Christ.

I wish everybody would read the Diary of Adam and Eve (actually a couple separate stories) by Mark Twain, they're terrific and funny and poignant. Twain was quite the sentimentalist, in addition to his cynicism.

Would you hold a single book sacrosanct against revision? Why?

I guess respect for tradition. And if you REALLY want the other stuff, you can find it, like I did 15 years ago.

Indeed. Why should the Bible be different? If a story (such as Genesis) is shown to be a fable, borrowed from other creation myths, then why must it be included?

Because it is included? Because an explanation for creation must exist in any religion's sacred text? To piss off skeptics?

Yes it shares with other creation myths, but if you think about it, if there was actually a TRUE creation myth that actually happened, of course there would be similarities between all creation myths.

And if it is *just* a fable, it seems to have some good morals behind it (because it's a fable, yah?) and there's nothing wrong with a story with a moral message. This could lead into A&E in the science class which is fodder for other threads. But anyhow, why not include a fable (that didn't happen) in the Bible? Why shouldn't the Bible be a compendium of all sorts of literature? That would confirm it's claim to kind be some sort of transcendant work, wouldn't it?

Why not amend it with other texts? Do you think other Christians would mind?

Yah, cuz yer stomping on tradition then. I say let people use their reason and curiosity and intellect to go beyond the Bible if they want. And if they don't want to, what's the big deal?

I apparently value the tradition of the Biblical canon more than you.

Could a more perfect Bible be made? Sure. Should we go at it? I don't think so. Once you start changing things around, then it loses it's weight. BUT THAT'S JUST IT some of you are saying. A demythologizer would certainly want the Bible to change, mutate, or be *fixed*. Without questioning the motivation behind that, I don't think that Christians are as bothered about this issue as you are Tricky. They take the Bible personally. I guess it might be like how you wouldn't want to rewrite any book that has been in existence for centuries. Should we re-write any of the extant British chronological histories, or Herodotus? I don't think so.

You say understanding is possible, but I don't believe it is.

Not with that attitude!

Nor is perfection possible, yet Christians are called to be perfect. Set your goals high, this way your pride will never make you complacent.

If there is such a thing as objective morality, then where does God fit into it?

Well I think that God is objective morality, so it would be a synonym, an idea or concept that can define God.

He is often in violation of our "subjective" morality.

Yes he is...I could qualify that, but I'd be repeating qualifications I've already invoked.

To invoke a "higher morality" seems to invite all kinds of abuses in "the name of God" because someone has decided that they understand the "objective morality".

You are correct. All great things can be abused. Science can be used to make biological weapons. The best things can result in the worst things. It sucks but it's true. It goes for everything.

No, I reject such human decisions about objective morality, even those with the best intentions. What was it that the road to Hell was paved with?

Good intentions...but you won't find that maxim in the Bible.

As for me I still value good intentions, with the understanding that they can result in atrocities.

Yup. If we knew everything, the F word would be irrelevant. You think that will happen any time soon?

Nope. I kind of like the concept of faith though. I find it aesthetically pleasing.



Always a pleasure Tricky.

My goodness...Christmas is here...happy holidays yalls see you next year. -Elliot

 

[Ossai]

Kitty Chan

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.

Yet according to standard Christian doctrine Jesus never married or fathered any children. Isn’t that a major component of human existence?

This is what Jesus was doing by choosing to identify with us. It was for us, not Him.

Then he did a lousy job of it.

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.

Then why did he say

Mathew.27:46
"And about the ninth hour Jesus cried with a loud voice, saying, Eli, Eli, lama sabachthani? that is to say, My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me?"

elliotfc

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.

Circular reasoning cannot reinforce itself because there is no outside input.

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,

Perhaps you haven’t been following the thread, but there was no sacrifice.

but rather a specific and non-repeatable instance of sacrifice to which no other human sacrifice could possibly compare.

Why? Other innocent people have been put to death, other innocent people have been tortured, what makes Jesus’ short term vacation so special?

God knows them beforehand because we can/will make choices. God always knows what choices we make/havemade/willmake.

And since we can’t invalidate god’s knowledge then we’re predestined to make those exact choices.

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.

Good analogy. The characters in the book may, from their perspective have choice, but in actuality don’t have any choice at all. They are merely there for the enjoyment of the reader.

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.

Another Christian get out of hell free card.

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

I would have to say C, D and E at least.

To answer your question directly, I believe in the tautology because I think it's a bang-up tautology that has explanatory power.

What explanatory power? I think you believe it in because it makes you feel special.

Does it benefit the survival of the species? Another hypothetical...but the species seems to be doing OK.

You don’t watch the new much do you? How about history, ever study that?

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. … 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.

Or to put it another way, god is good, if god does something bad then god didn’t really do it.
If you don’t like that one how about. Since god created us then he can do anything he wants to us, just like a parent can murder get rid of their child if they don’t want it anymore.

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.

This is the same old straw about god is beyond our understanding.

1st, we are all guilty, or tainted, to God. That doesn't mean we are not redeemable, it just means that there are no innocent people. It's the dogma of original sin which is basically universal to all Christians although I'm sure there are exceptions, and there may be some variation in the notions of original sin.

I.E.:
Babies go straight to hell when they die.
God is good because everyone else is bad.
It’s all our (humanity’s) fault.
We’re wretched and don’t deserve anything good.
It’s ok to punish others children for what their parents did.


Mr Clingford

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!).

I know it is just myth, but I’ve meet too many Christians that proclaim the bible literal and believe it. However, it still leaves the whole reconciliation bit in the air. What exactly was the reconciliation for?

No, it doesn't - it goes against Fundamentalism (which itself may be argued to go against Christian doctrine!)

Considering I’m surrounded by fundies (I live in Nashville) then my general reaction is to assume most Christians are, sorry about that. (Case in point, elliotfc.)

Saying God is outside of time is not saying he doesn't know, though.

Correct, it’s used as a convenient escape clause. If god is omniscient then people don’t have freewill, merely the illusion of it.

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

Going against the laws of physics is supernatural.


Ossai

 

[Kitty Chan]

Originally posted by 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

Originally posted by kimiko
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.

Why would God be getting a tutorial from Jesus? There is no redundant part of Jesus, God or the Holy Spirit. Working in harmony all knew the pain and the joys that Jesus would experience. Knowing would make it all the harder especially in the end. When its said that Jesus paid the price by His death. Maybe you or others by focusing on gruesome are not totally getting what that means.

In the beginning A & E were to live forever. When they got the knowledge their days alive on this earth were numbered and on a day they would die. Just as we are born and will die.

Jesus since He raised Himself from the dead is said to hold the keys to death. Meaning that He will not die. This was the reason, it was not just death it was overcoming death.

One could think of gruesome but that was only part of it the other was the resurrection. Thats the important part.

Now, what Jesus is saying if one understands just what it is He did and accepts that, He will graft them into the family tree (thus the expression) to be with Him. One does not earn by anything one does, one only accepts that Jesus is who He said He is.

If one does not accept who Jesus is then they have chosen not to be grafted onto that family tree.

 

[Kitty Chan]

Kitty Chan said
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.

Originally posted by Ossai
Kitty Chan
Yet according to standard Christian doctrine Jesus never married or fathered any children. Isn’t that a major component of human existence?

My sister in law cannot have children is she not part of the human existance? I cannot father children, you cannot bear children. We are still part of the human existance.

We are born experience sorrow and joys, we live our lives and die. There are gods that are worshipped that are only stone they do not know what it is to be human. Jesus knows and understands our sorrows and joys as He has shared in them. He did not have to, but chose to. Thats the point.

To be with us, live in the trenches, walk a mile in the shoes etc. Like I said is not the worker happy when the boss picks up a shovel. Jesus is not just waving from the podium at the crowd He walked with the crowd. This is the point I was making. This is what Jesus was doing by choosing to identify with us. It was for us, not Him.

As for what He said below;

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mathew.27:46
"And about the ninth hour Jesus cried with a loud voice, saying, Eli, Eli, lama sabachthani? that is to say, My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me?"
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
There was several times Jesus could have stopped going to the cross but didnt. When He called out it was because the pain of separation from God was probably intense not to mention the physical pain. All in all He probably felt excruciatingly horrible.

 

[Ossai]

Kitty Chan

There was several times Jesus could have stopped going to the cross but didnt. When He called out it was because the pain of separation from God was probably intense not to mention the physical pain. All in all He probably felt excruciatingly horrible.

What separation from god? Isn’t Jesus supposed to be god and if he is how can he be separated from himself?

Ossai

 

[elliotfc]

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

I'm just asking Christians, who continously proclaim " God loves you/us/etc. ", to give me an example...

I'ts as simple as that..

Argh! Yer question/request has been answered/fulfilled.

Genesis, John 3:16.

Your obfuscation is not unexpected..

Dang it Diogenes, you missed my points COMPLETELY. I said what I said because I predicted (successfully) that you would reject the two examples. THAT is why I asked you what you are expecting. That isn't obfuscation. It would be obfuscation if I DIDN'T provide any examples. Rather, it is more about trying to understand you better, and get a feel for what your standards are about. See, if you reject the two examples, that means your standards demand something (hopefully, if you're intellectually honest) else, and I'd like to know what that something is.

If you would reveal what that something is, we can either look in the Bible to see if your something is there, or, we can suss out whether your something is a fair test or standard for God.

Short of that, I'm not sure what you're after, since you asked for examples and you got them.

The point is, that what you, I and most people, consider to be examples of love, cannot be found in the documented or imagined behaviour of God.

I disagree completely. Sacrificing oneself so that others may achieve eternal life with God is an example of love, and it is documented in the Bible. That is an example of love. You have invoked "most people" so you're going to have to stand with that, and you'll have to accept that millions if not billions of people would agree with me that sacrificing oneself so that others may benefit is an example of love. Hell, a utilitarian would believe that.

What you should be saying (I think?) is that you don't believe that Jesus existed, or died for others and was resurrected, or that the theology means anything. But that's not what you mean, since you talk about documentation of imagined behaviour of God. So this is a case (one of many) where you just don't have as good of a handle/grasp of Christian theology as you think you do.

Now, if you were to say something like "well, John 3:16 does say that God loved the world and did something about it, but I don't believe in the Bible, so that means nothing to me", then I really couldn't say much in reply. But you are saying that something is NOT in the Bible when that something is there. Your case, or point, seems so useless that I don't know what else to say. The obvious thing to do would be to stick with your rejection of Christian theology and the Bible, but you're trying to be clever or cute and it just isn't working. Because John 3:16 is there, it says something, it means what it says, and it answers the question.

Yes, love is different things to different people, but it is easy to look around and say,
" There is a really loving parent.. etc. "..

And it would be rather superficial, don't you think? Surely a cynic would get that. Acts of parental love that are observed by others say nothing about parent/child interaction that nobody else sees. The stuff that really matters.

Yes, it is easy, and it's so easy that such judgments really don't mean much. Like all the people who said how much Scott loved Laci. I'm not sure what this has to do with the topic at hand. I think you're trying to say that if God is in fact our Father, his actions towards us do not demonstrate love. And I'm content to not be a robot and, by default, have to do what is right along with the rest of humanity. So our expectations differ, or, the ramifications and foundations of our expecations differ.

Would a world without suffering make you impressed by God's parenting skills? A world without death? A world where all is bliss? If so, that's fine. Then why don't you apply the Christian theology which you, I suspect, think you have a handle on? That world is not of this world. Your ideal world, the world where God would be such a loving Father, does not correspond to this world where we will all suffer and we will all die. So God, the parent, allows his children to have free will. The children run with it, and after their exile, will return the gift of free will, or, exercise it to its best possible application: the free choice of obedience to God. Only then will the children ALLOW God to be the wonderful parent that you desire.

So, I find your standard for parenting just fine. And if that's what you're after, you can have it. You are discontent with the state of things, which is as it should be. This is why I never get down or depressed about atheists. They have excellent moral standards and expectations, and usually have intellectual honesty as well. It is my hope that IF they are confronted, after death, with something that they have rejected, their pride won't get in the way of the fulfillment of their just and right desires and wishes.

-Elliot

 

[elliotfc]

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

Why is it so hard, for a group of people who claim " God Is Love " to provide a tangiable example..

But this is too much!

The Christian believes that EVERYTHING tangible is proof of God's Love. The mere CONCEPT of tangibility is proof of God's Love.

And then God actually became something tangible to prove his love.

One could even assume God is love if there wasn't so much evidence to the contrary..

Diogenes, it is apparent that your expectations differ from Christians. Meaning that if you could convince me that I should have your expectations, I would be more sympathetic to your notion, and that if I could convince you that you should have my expectations, you would be more sympathetic to my notion.

Short of that, we are both making statements with presumptions behind them. This is why what you call "obfuscation" was invoked by me. So I could understand you better. So we just don't swap dogmatic statements of belief.


-Elliot

 

[elliotfc]

Re: Jesus Christ!

As a former Catholic, I can say that that explanation doesn't hold water anyway.
See:
God needs to punish Man (due to the original sin).

God doesn't "need" to do anything. That's #1.
#2, Man punishes himself because ALL CHOICES HAVE CONSEQUENCES. That's the point. This is to distinguish from an arbitrary system.

You underestimate or reject what all Christians know, or should know, quite well. Humans are empowered beings you make choices that matter. Humans are responsible for those choices, and have to contend with absolute justice. When you say "needs" you imply that God could very well do otherwise, if not for his "need" (whatever that means), when Man himself is directly in charge of the consequences of his actions, since they correspond exactly and absolutely to his choices.

God Punishes Man Sending Him to eternal death (or Hell).There is nothing Man can do to avoid it.

Absolutely wrong. Man can accept the salvific act. Where are you getting this theology from? No wonder you are an ex-Catholic. If I believed what you were saying to be Catholic, or any kind of Christian theology, I'd reject the faith to. This is another case where I'm content with your conclusions, since what you say I also reject. And I have the hope that if you have good sense and if you find out eventually that your straw horse notions are just that, you'd accept a more palateable way of things (a way of things that you are not invoking here).

God loves Man so much, he can't see him in eternal death (or Hell).

I'm not sure about this one. God will allow people to reject him for eternity, but I don't know if that means God can't "see" them.

God finds a scape clause: He sends his son who is also a part of him and who is also him to live here and die here. He is crucified by man.

If there was any doubt before, it's now apparent that you have intentionally used phrases to demonstrate a skeptical attitude, which is unfortunate if you really want to purport to be delivering Catholic or Christian dogma. Of course I'm now guessing at your intentions, and who knows exactly what they are besides you.

Anyways, what you call a "scape clause" is called by Christians to be a solution, an act of love, or something else. The phraseology definitely matters because it demonstrates the attitude of the person who is handling the theology.

Attitude aside, you've got the deatils bang on.

But this sacrifice is not perfect. Man have to accept it. If not, he dies anyway.

Well...it has to be consistent with Free Will.

When two acts of God collide...

Alright, I'll give it to you this way. If you've got this notion of perfect sacrifice in your head, that would make Free Will a moot point, wouldn't it? But then Free Will would have been an imperfect principle for God's creators, and that wouldn't do.

Or you can go the way you present...stick with Free Will, but then declare that the sacrifice is imperfect.

You may or may not have failed to consider another option: both Free Will and the Salvific Act co-existing. In this way neither is imperfect, as both are open to all humans. They are both perfect in that they are acts of God and they are both perfect in that they are both available to us. More than that, they reinforce each other. The Salvific Act is the solution to the Free Will "problem", and Free Will is necessary to accept the Salvific Act.

So God needs to Punish Man that doesn't want to accept that sacrifice (either by not accepting it conciously , not believing in it or never hearing of it )

I'm not sure what "needs" has to do with this. God does what God does. If anybody is in need it is us.

Is that unlimited love for man?
Is that a perfect sacrifice? (If so, how can it be that some men can still die and go to hell)

Because the Salvific Act does not invalidate Free Will.

Wich sin of mine is jesus paying with his death in the cross?

All of them.

What amount of pain suffered by god is enought to clear the alleged offense man did to god?

The amount is irrelevant. Jesus did not have to be crucified in order for his existence win our salvation.

How can a men offend god? May an ant offend you?

The actions of men can offend God. The desires of men can offend God.

An ant could offend me if it bit me and it was a fire ant or some kind of poison ant.

And the analogy doesn't really work for me because God is my creator and I am not the creator of an ant.

Considering all the alleged facts, how can this story be so imaginary? An imaginary offense punished by an imaginary hell and cleared by an imaginary sacrifice that leads to an imaginary grace. Where is the substance?

I'm not quite sure what the first question is about?

If you're going to invoke "imaginary", you should stick with that. What you've done is supposedly worked through Christian theolgoy, and then call it all imaginary. It seems intellectually dishonest to me...or, at least you should stay consistent within a certain post. Meaning if you want to call it all imaginary in one post, that's fine. And then if you want to work through Christian theology in another post, that's fine too. I dunno. Why work through things if you're just going to call them imaginary a few paragraphs later? It's probably just me, it might make all the sense in the world to you.

As for the substance, if you believe that sin is real and God is real and suffering is real and Love is real, there's a heck of a lot of substance in the theology.

What's the morality in this story? god feeling the neurotic need to punish man, chooses to punish himself instead, with a punisment that is not a punishment because is not permanent(being god eternal) , but pleases him. Is that moral?

No it isn't. Once again, I reject what you reject, as do all Christians.

Really, you (and others like you) would be a heck of a lot more effective in your ruminations if you could resist the attitude from affecting your syntax. Since you can't, any Christian would sensibly reject your bad attitude and hardly be troubled by anything you say.

But maybe I'm missing the point. Maybe you don't want to engage Christians and proselytize your beliefs. Maybe you just want to lash out and apply your negative spin. If that is the case you are satisfying whatever that is inside of you that needs satisfying and you're hardly going to do any good for the skeptical community at large. Unless you're after the Carlin motif of vitriol and sarcasm and ridicule. And if that's the case you shouldn't be surprised by all the people of faith that surround you.

Or maybe you're frustrated? What's the deal, and why exactly are you unable to deliver Christian theology without mutating it to satisfy your personal agenda?

The rationalization of that is too hard. And the fact that there is no evidence of anything of it makes it harder.

Fair enough. My question for you is why can't you leave it at that?

And another thing...if it really is too hard, or if the rationalizations makes "it" harder, why are so many people able to do what is hard? I mean, shouldn't you actually say that it is all so easy, and that's why billions of people have faith and you don't?

If it is hard, like you say, that implies that you can't have faith because it is too hard, which suggests you have some sort of deficit or shortcoming. Know what I mean?



Or maybe I'm trying to find consistency and a fair appraisal in your diatribe and would have been better off not even trying.

-Elliot

 

[Lucifuge Rofocale]

Re: Re: Jesus Christ!

God doesn't "need" to do anything. That's #1.
#2, Man punishes himself because ALL CHOICES HAVE CONSEQUENCES. That's the point. This is to distinguish from an arbitrary system.

WHAT? Man Punishes himself? That's strike one and please reread your holy book again, there is punishment and is not inflicted by humans. Man lives his life, then dies and accordding to all I was taught he is judged according to some rules not made by man. And the ones that are found guilty, are punished. Where did jesus went after his dead?

About god need to punish man, it's debatable. The other option is that he enjoys it, or he wants to do it. After all, he is all powerfull, so if he wants he would simply send everybody to heaven.

But why then god would have had the need to send his son to die here to save man? from what punisment if there is no need to punish? You contradict yourself.

You underestimate or reject what all Christians know, or should know, quite well. Humans are empowered beings you make choices that matter. Humans are responsible for those choices, and have to contend with absolute justice. When you say "needs" you imply that God could very well do otherwise, if not for his "need" (whatever that means), when Man himself is directly in charge of the consequences of his actions, since they correspond exactly and absolutely to his choices.

Where do you get that idea of correspondence?. What kind of human action deserves ETERNAL punishment? What do you mean by "absolute justice"?

Absolutely wrong. Man can accept the salvific act. Where are you getting this theology from? No wonder you are an ex-Catholic. If I believed what you were saying to be Catholic, or any kind of Christian theology, I'd reject the faith to. This is another case where I'm content with your conclusions, since what you say I also reject. And I have the hope that if you have good sense and if you find out eventually that your straw horse notions are just that, you'd accept a more palateable way of things (a way of things that you are not invoking here).

You are getting it wrong . I said that Man can't do nothing to avoid it and that it's true. god was the one wich sent his son do pay the punisment he set. But if he wouldn't ,then man couldn't have done anyting to get saved. Is that Ok? Could a man be saved by his own, without jesus sacrifice?

I'm not sure about this one. God will allow people to reject him for eternity, but I don't know if that means God can't "see" them.

That's my bad english. I meant god don't want to see man punished.

If there was any doubt before, it's now apparent that you have intentionally used phrases to demonstrate a skeptical attitude, which is unfortunate if you really want to purport to be delivering Catholic or Christian dogma. Of course I'm now guessing at your intentions, and who knows exactly what they are besides you.

Anyways, what you call a "scape clause" is called by Christians to be a solution, an act of love, or something else. The phraseology definitely matters because it demonstrates the attitude of the person who is handling the theology.

Attitude aside, you've got the deatils bang on.

Anyway, what I said is correct according to your belief even tought your wording is different.

Well...it has to be consistent with Free Will.

When two acts of God collide...

Alright, I'll give it to you this way. If you've got this notion of perfect sacrifice in your head, that would make Free Will a moot point, wouldn't it? But then Free Will would have been an imperfect principle for God's creators, and that wouldn't do.

Or you can go the way you present...stick with Free Will, but then declare that the sacrifice is imperfect.

You may or may not have failed to consider another option: both Free Will and the Salvific Act co-existing. In this way neither is imperfect, as both are open to all humans. They are both perfect in that they are acts of God and they are both perfect in that they are both available to us. More than that, they reinforce each other. The Salvific Act is the solution to the Free Will "problem", and Free Will is necessary to accept the Salvific Act.

You are using too much words to say that you believe any act of god is perfect. But that's not logic: The perfect "salvific act" would have cleaned all sins, including rejection of god, wich is the ultimate sin. If it doesn't does it then is not perfect. That's strike two.

I'm not sure what "needs" has to do with this. God does what God does. If anybody is in need it is us.

You are avoiding the subject. Whats the need to punish man? Does man needs to punish himself? Or is god's need? Or nobody needs it?

Because the Salvific Act does not invalidate Free Will.

No . It's because is not perfect.

All of them.

All of my sins are worth the death of jesus in the cross? I haven't done anything who deserves it to anyone I swear.
That's part of the guilt trip don't you think? Why don't you tell me whats that horrible sin jesus need to pay in the cross. To exist?

The amount is irrelevant. Jesus did not have to be crucified in order for his existence win our salvation.

That's incredible! If his existence was all we need to be saved, then why he was crucified? Simple sadism? (That should be the answer)

The actions of men can offend God. The desires of men can offend God.

An ant could offend me if it bit me and it was a fire ant or some kind of poison ant.

And the analogy doesn't really work for me because God is my creator and I am not the creator of an ant.

Ok. What act or desire of man can offend god then.

I'm not quite sure what the first question is about?

If you're going to invoke "imaginary", you should stick with that. What you've done is supposedly worked through Christian theolgoy, and then call it all imaginary. It seems intellectually dishonest to me...or, at least you should stay consistent within a certain post. Meaning if you want to call it all imaginary in one post, that's fine. And then if you want to work through Christian theology in another post, that's fine too. I dunno. Why work through things if you're just going to call them imaginary a few paragraphs later? It's probably just me, it might make all the sense in the world to you.

As for the substance, if you believe that sin is real and God is real and suffering is real and Love is real, there's a heck of a lot of substance in the theology.

If you believe that invisible red dragons are real then you have a lot of sustance in invisible red dragonology. But in the real world, you don't have any fact that you can present anywhere to demostrate the reality of your beliefs. Ergo, we are talking about imaginary stuff, That's why I can't be angry with god for allowing a tsunami wich killed 120,000 people. And you need to rationalize it.

No it isn't. Once again, I reject what you reject, as do all Christians.

Really, you (and others like you) would be a heck of a lot more effective in your ruminations if you could resist the attitude from affecting your syntax. Since you can't, any Christian would sensibly reject your bad attitude and hardly be troubled by anything you say.

But maybe I'm missing the point. Maybe you don't want to engage Christians and proselytize your beliefs. Maybe you just want to lash out and apply your negative spin. If that is the case you are satisfying whatever that is inside of you that needs satisfying and you're hardly going to do any good for the skeptical community at large. Unless you're after the Carlin motif of vitriol and sarcasm and ridicule. And if that's the case you shouldn't be surprised by all the people of faith that surround you.

Or maybe you're frustrated? What's the deal, and why exactly are you unable to deliver Christian theology without mutating it to satisfy your personal agenda?

Let's analyze what I said to see it is what you believe or not (taking away the words you don't like ):
Version 1:
" god feeling the neurotic need to punish man, chooses to punish himself instead, with a punisment that is not a punishment because is not permanent(being god eternal) , but pleases him. Is that moral?"

Version 2: (the same, reworded to please Elliot):

"God loved man so much that he sent his only son, wich is also god, to pay for his sins. He died in the cross, then went to hell for 3 days and you can accept his sacrifice and please god"

You like more version 2? I have news for you: It's the same stuff!.

Fair enough. My question for you is why can't you leave it at that?

And another thing...if it really is too hard, or if the rationalizations makes "it" harder, why are so many people able to do what is hard? I mean, shouldn't you actually say that it is all so easy, and that's why billions of people have faith and you don't?

If it is hard, like you say, that implies that you can't have faith because it is too hard, which suggests you have some sort of deficit or shortcoming. Know what I mean?

Well, for one, there are many christians that came here and finally turned their mind and become deists, agnostics or atheists. And that's because rationalization became harder and harder for them. You are right that I can't have faith, It's too hard for me, I would have to give up reason.

Or maybe I'm trying to find consistency and a fair appraisal in your diatribe and would have been better off not even trying.

-Elliot

I try to find something in your posts too

 

[elliotfc]

You're assuming everyone who was ever crucified was guilty.

Naw, I don't think Jesus was guilty.

-Elliot

 

[elliotfc]

I say lack of evidence precisely because it doesn't measure up to standards.

Fair 'nuff. Of course standards very by individuals, making it an objective call...

You can't ask for special treatment. Was the Trojan War real? It hasn't been proven, so some people don't believe it actually happened, but that it's myth.

Schliemann (sp?)? Proof is another variable subjective issue. Nothing that has not been observed (i.e. anything before humans "existed") has been proven, but so what? Stuff happened that we (you and I) have not observed, so you do the best you can. And if you reject the particulars that's fine, and if you are told objective truth at some other time you'll have the opportunity to accept/reject. The keys are intention/effort/intellectual honesty. Plus subjective standards.

It may have happened, but possibly someplace else, like England. Is the Iliad proof of the Trojan War? Of course not. Likewise, the Bible isn't proof for the contents of the Bible.

???

The Bible exists, so anything that is in the Bible is proof for the contents of the Bible? Am I missing something?

As for whether or not the "events" of the Bible happened or not, that's a subjective judgment call. Take whatever position you want. Every person has to suss it out individually, and one man's proof is another man's folly. Objective truth is not indivisible with any person's, or any methodology's, take on reality.

The problem with the Bible is that parts are garbage as far as history is concerned. That is evidence for something, too, but apparently evidence believers reject or explain away.

Really? Historians have varying positions.

History is a vast and varying field with any number of opinions, none of which speak for themselves, but are championed by individual historians. You speak as if "history" is some objective standard which is accesible to definitive human knowledge?

Yes, everybody rejects and explains away evidence. How can you not? Evidence is data that does not speak for itself and may very well be irrelevant/incorrect.

-Elliot

 

[elliotfc]

God already knows how it feels to be born, experience pain, and die. He knows every emotion and sensation experienced by humanity, he created them.

Knowlege and experience are two different things.

Your position wasn't enough to satisfy Job. And why should it satisfy anyone?

Parents do not necessarily know how their children feel.

You may be right theoretically. But your theory is hardly as consoling as the actual experience in Jesus Christ for countless Christians. So you can have your theory, and others who are less interested in your theory, like John of the Cross, can have the person of Christ. Everyone can be satisfied, depending on their *need*. And we all have the need, though in this life the understanding of the need will vary.

-Elliot

 

[elliotfc]

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.

Kitty I wish I had your eloquence.

People shake their fists at God, saying God has no compassion for the human experience. When God becomes a Person, they still shake their fists at God for becoming a Person by saying it is unnecessary.

Free Will allows this *victory* for the person who will not believe. And they will be allowed to hold it for eternity if they wish.

-Elliot

 

[elliotfc]

And how does your god-man differ from any of these:

Dying God-men throughout time - Christians have no originality whatsoever

What does originality have to do with objective truth?

I'd be shocked if no other religions/mythologies had heroes who died and were reborn. Death is the great enemy, and heroes are constructed who defeat death. What's so shocking about that?

I'll side with the Girardian mimetic theory. And if you think Christianity isn't original...of course all religions/mythologies will have similarities and differences. That should be expected. Isaiah spoke of the Suffering Servant without mentioning Jesus by name. Christians have no problem with the issue you raise. Originality? No, not with the OT. Or, Jesus is original while being in line with the OT. If you want to believe that there is nothing *original* in Jesus that's on you; a cursory investigation would demonstrate otherwise, and if you request me to walk you through it I'd be happy to.

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...

God doesn't *need* to do it. Humans need something, and what we need has been given to us in a particular way.


-Elliot