Question for Christians - #3

[elliotfc]

How would one stop a tsunami? Did god put 120,000 people in front of it to try to slow it down? Why did god create an Earth with tectonic plates that occasionally slip and kill lots of people despite whatever free will they are using at the time.

I've read (it's a theory) that the tectonic plate shifts are necessary for life on the planet, allowing for gases to reach the atmosphere or summat. I forget what book I read which built that case.

The Christian explanation is that just as humanity is fallen, so is creation. The fall of humanity may or may not be related to the fall of creation, may or may not be cause/effect, etc.

Rationalize this all you want, but the most sensible answer is that the question begging above is starting from false assumption that god exists.

Sensible is a subjective value judgment. Yours is an assumption itself; false is best described as a moral opinion, as what possible objective standard can you compare the conclusion to?

If I build a bookshelf I know is going to fall over and kill my kid, am I not responsible for her death when she gets squished?

I think that God is, in some way, responsible for everything. He is the architect of the universe. The variable that I don't think you've considered is the resurrection of the body, or some other kind of afterlife.

-Elliot

 

[elliotfc]

But he didn't die, right?

No, he did die.

Not all the way, anyway, he is up in heaven with Daddy right now.

But that goes for everybody! If you're going to be whimsical about the death of Jesus, why not be whimsical about the death of EVERYONE. The standard applies to everyone (or, anyone). Anyone could be up there with Daddy now, but you selectively apply your whimsy to Jesus.

If he knew he was going to heaven, how is that a sacrifice?

Because he died.

I've already answered this charge in this thread.

You have decided that an a sacrifice must be eternally, or absolutely, or conclusively NEGATIVE in order for it to be rated a sacrifice. Jewish/Christian theology disagrees with that notion. It believes that all sacrifices will be RECOGNIZED by God, and when absolute and eternal justice is applied, the sacrifice will be acknowledged/rewarded.

If you want to remain consistent, you must insult or ignore all commendations for people who sacrifice today. A woman dies for her child? It can't be a sacrifice, not if she is praised in obituaries and headlines. A guy gets an award for giving millions to charities? That's no sacrifice, not if people reward him for doing it. You can't expect religious people to be as cynical about sacrifice as you. No, I guess you can.

He gave up being a filthy, persecuted human for perfection, what a giver.

Note, you didn't state the converse.

If you have a negative opinion about people/entities who do something for others, that's on you. It's a horrible way to view generosity and charity. In fact, it's the heighy of uncharity.

-Elliot

 

[elliotfc]

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

I think you're projecting things onto me. How would you have any idea whether I thought I was an expert?

You are correct, I just went back into the thread, someone else mentioned Jews in response to the mention of John 3:16. Sorry about that, sometimes I forget I am talking to 6 different people. It would be a lot easier for me if I can be in a thread where one person talks to me and vice versa. I need to get over the unfortuante reality and work harder at this.

I still think your attitude regarding John 3:16 is snarky...and useless, come to think of it. If John 3:16 is correct, than a snarky attitude is counterproductive. If John 3:16 is incorrect, snarkiness is irrelevant.

-Elliot

 

[elliotfc]

Humanity and God are separate. Why do you think you can ever reach God? There will always be a separation. You may hope to attain heaven, but even there, as long as you are an individual, you will not be "united" with God.

I'm not sure in what way you're thinking of union. I am united with my family, or a husband and a wife are united. I was thinking of that kind of union, where a direct relationship is possible.

Yes, as long as individuality exists there will be separation. I didn't mean union as in the cessation of separation.

-Elliot

 

[Tricky]

No, he did die.

Depending on how you define "die". I believe there is some verse somewhere about "whosoever believeth in him shall not perish but have everlasting life." I'm not sure you can reconcile that with saying he died. He just "left the earth".

Of course, I realize that most Christians use the term "die" to refer to the death of their physical bodies. Still, it is the lure of not really dying that gives Christianity (like some other religions) it's biggest draw.

My wife (a pagan) says, "I have to believe there is more than just this life." And it is true. She does. She rejected Christianity because of... well let's just say because of numerous factors, but she kept the "I will somehow live forever" part. Total and complete death is a concept that she finds it impossible to accept. Too scary.

No, he did die.You have decided that an a sacrifice must be eternally, or absolutely, or conclusively NEGATIVE in order for it to be rated a sacrifice. Jewish/Christian theology disagrees with that notion. It believes that all sacrifices will be RECOGNIZED by God, and when absolute and eternal justice is applied, the sacrifice will be acknowledged/rewarded.

This gets back to the question of whether entry to heaven is based on faith or deeds. If it is faith, then no sacrifice is involved whatsoever. If it is deeds, then no faith will avail you. If it is a combination of both, then we need to ascertain just what combination is necessary. Is agnosticism okay if your deeds are really great? Is a mountain of faith good enough to overcome really bad deeds like murder and pederasty?

So how much suffering was really necessary for Jesus to atone for our sins? If you can say three days was enough, why not three hours? Three milliseconds?

 

[elliotfc]

What we come up with is that the sacrifice is ' symbolic '... Never mind that a symbolic sacrifice is not a real sacrifice....

Ummm...

It's symbolic in that it stands for something else. Like, it's symbolic because there is love behind it. It's a symbol for love. Or it's symbolic because it shows how the world hates God. It's a symbol for hate too.

I guess I'm losing the plot here. I think the crucifixion can be seen as symbolic for all sorts of things. Or, I think that Jesus' mere existence can be seen as symbolic for all sorts of things.

Re: sacrifice, I think that it was a real sacrifice. Jesus did die. It was a sacrifice. As for the retort that Jesus is God and God can't die...my retort is that all humans have eternal souls, and therefore can't die.

I guess I'd like to submit that if you wax skeptical about the sacrifice of Jesus because Jesus just went to heaven...you should also wax skeptical about the death of everybody else, because they too will have eternal lives (heaven/hell/inbetween but that's beside the point if you ACCEPT eternal life in the context of the argument, which is what is being done by the skeptic when considering the immortality of God). Does that make sense?

But then again, Elliot has said that infallible doesn't mean " always right "..

No, I think infallibility, when invoked, is within a certain context. I think the proof of my assertion is really self-evident. All you have to do is examine the people/organizations who claim infallibility, and then see which matters they apply their infallibility to. It is hardly a universal infallibility that applies to every variety of knowledge/experience known to man. Not even close actually.

I wouldn't have a problem with the God Elliot seems to know. I must commend him for sticking it out here..

This is stimulating stuff. I truly believe that I know God in my own particular way. If I'm wrong, so what? About the worst I'd be getting out of it is having to hear the odd sarcastic comment here and there. No biggie, in spite of my complaints to the contrary.

Actually...maybe one of you skeptics can build a case, and I'll examine it carefully. Here goes.......

Assuming I'm wrong about my theology, so what?

The *so what* is what I'm interested in hearing about.
Here's what I can come up with to fill in the asterisks:
-negative opinions from others
-failure to correspond to subjective ideals regarding reason that other people hold
-the unlikelihood that I'll ever become president of the American Humanist Society (or, as a variant, forum moderator at randi.org or something similar)

That's about it for now. Any others?

-Elliot

 

[elliotfc]

What about the early warning system that could have been set up? They are spouting off all this stuff they knew about tsunamis now. There was knowledge of it coming but there was no system to contact people. If people around the world were not consumed with taking over, killing one another, sex shows, gaining power and money, stomping on one another, lying, cheating. We waste and waste if all the time and effort was spent on helping one another (like God said to) then this stuff would not be a total disaster.

Maybe someone somewhere would have had the time because they have the knowledge to spend some money and put up a proper warning system in all nations. WE KNOW there is tsunamis, earthquakes, tornados, storms what are we doing about it, only what applies to us not others.

Like I said God said to bear one anothers burdens, give your brother your coat, love one another are we doing it?? This is your answer. We are certainly capable of it we are just too busy being selfish and oops theres that word sinning to care about one another.

Kitty this is an exceptional answer.

People who *should* know better, like materialists, are always doing what they can to improve the lot of humanity. Yet they can't perceive what you, in your "blind" faith, can see quite clearly.

Yours is a very empowering point of view Kitty.

-Elliot

 

[elliotfc]

If there were some basic teaching in churches (I'm not a Catholic so maybe they do teach some basic theology there) it would sure help a lot. Jesus isn't God (although he had a divine nature) although Christ is. It is paradoxical; yes it doesn't appear to make much sense (like quantum physics!). There is no reason why one shouldn't address the divine as God so I don't know what the preacher was on about.

I guess it's called CCD. But the amount of variation in CCD is impossible to...underestimate I'd say. There are dozens of different texts, teachers are not vetted (they'll take anybody they can get) and countless ideologies/theologies are mixed in.

It is assumed by all Christian faiths that Christian parents will raise their children in the faith. That's a big assumption on so many different levels, but Christian education is primarily the responsibility of parents. This is a very important and clear instruction given to parents at Catholic baptisms, and I would assume it is similar in other Christian denominations.

At the Mass, the homilies are a mixed bag which are minimally challenging and primarily aimed more at what to do in your daily life as opposed to pure theology. I reckon the same goes for other Christian denominations.

Theology, in my opinion, has to be an intensely personal thing in order for you to get true meaning out of it. I was educated in Catholic schools in high school, and I'd suspect that I had a far greater grasp on Catholic theology, in high school, over 90% of all Catholics. Yet I was not a believer in high school. Today, I believe that a deeply rooted spirituality, tempered by theology, is superior to a first-rate theologian delivering verse or dogma mechanically.

Well duh, some of you are saying. That is why you should reject theology. Yet you will then place your allegiance in something else. Humans can't depersonalize themselves from the worldviews which they *choose*. You can spout a worldview and act in a completely different way (as do many Christians). Likewise, I think a skeptic can preach their worldview, yet in practice, passionately believe in any number of things that can not be proven.

-Elliot

 

[elliotfc]

Mr Clingford now you are confusing me. What do you mean that Jesus and Christ are not the same?

Jesus is the Christ, actually there is quite a lot of names of Jesus Christ. The Way, The Truth, The Life.

Or have you misunderstood C4ts?

It has nothing to do with catholic either.

I think that in my perspective, Jesus and the Christ are the same.

I theorize, however, that Christ is an aspect of God that may exist in multiple forms. For example, there may be a differnent life form millions of light years away that has their own Christ, but he would be called by a different name.


-Elliot

 

[Mr Clingford]

To further these attempts to clarify Jesus, Jesus is the anointed, that is Christus, and embodies the second part of the trinity on earth. As Elliot has suggested, the second part may be incarnated in other species on other planets in the universe.

The Christianity that many in this forum have encountered appears to be somewhat different to the one I believe in, as I am not a fundamentalist and I am not alone either. I wonder if the fact that I live in England has a little to do with it.

 

[c4ts]

Who said A was a creation of B?

I did. In the section under "given." It doesn't have to be true.

If you want to take it as a Biblical analogy, and say A=Jesus and B=God, and you are saying Jesus was not a creation of God, then please explain.

 

[Mr Clingford]

I did. In the section under "given." It doesn't have to be true.

If you want to take it as a Biblical analogy, and say A=Jesus and B=God, and you are saying Jesus was not a creation of God, then please explain.

It is Christian belief that Jesus was not made by God like the universe but was born in a sense. The Nicene Creed says this:
'We believe in one Lord, Jesus Christ, the only Son of God, eternally begotten of the Father, God from God, Light from Light, true God from true God, begotten, not made, of one being with the Father."

 

[kimiko]

I still think your attitude regarding John 3:16 is snarky...and useless, come to think of it. If John 3:16 is correct, than a snarky attitude is counterproductive. If John 3:16 is incorrect, snarkiness is irrelevant.

This is why I'm being snarky: The question was how does God show he loves people. Your answer was a passage that says (paraphrasing, if you'll let me) "he loves us so much, he sent this guy so you won't die in a figurative sense". Well the second part of the passage doesn't necessarily follow from the first, and the first part was exactly what was being asked. Responding with that was....dare I say, useless?

 

[c4ts]

It is Christian belief that Jesus was not made by God like the universe but was born in a sense. The Nicene Creed says this:
'We believe in one Lord, Jesus Christ, the only Son of God, eternally begotten of the Father, God from God, Light from Light, true God from true God, begotten, not made, of one being with the Father."

Swap "beget" with "create" in my model and it still makes no sense.

 

[kimiko]

It can't be, not for the Christian. Jesus said to refer to God as Our Father. The theology of the Bible is full of analogies to fathers (mothers too) when referring to God. It's a false analogy to you...because...it breaks down at some point? It can't be a false analogy to the Christian, because the theological foundation of the analogy is beyond secure, or solid.

That is your opinion, an opinion I reject. You can't prove your opinion (to my satisfaction) and I can't prove my opinion (to your satisfaction) so we're left with a subjective judgment call.

I didn't say it was a false analogy in every instance, I was just replying to what you said here:

Parents do not necessarily know how their children feel.

God as parent does know how his children feel, human parents cannot.

So you mean unite as in "a direct relationship", not separation. Christianity heavily advertises its "personal savior" and "personal relationship with Jesus" as why it is better than other religions. God takes a personal interest according to Christianity and you can talk and pray directly, not through intercession/rituals/whatever. Well, do you have to be reconciled with God to pray? I was responding to this:

Anyhow, Christian theology is clear that there exists a separation between God and man. Whether or not it is literal (being thrown out of the Garden), or spiritual, there is an actual separation. ... If something (a separation) is actual, it would take either energy/effort of, in this case, overcome it or bridge the gap, right? So where are we diverging? Why are you saying that something did *not* have to be done to reconcile God to humanity? Do you think that there was never a separation, or a need for reconciliation? Or, do you believe that even if there was a separation, it could be overcome by doing nothing?

Does not prayer alone bridge the gap? What is it about having a personal relationship that requires Jesus to have died? Could people not pray before Jesus? How does the personal relationship of a sinner emoting/thanking/asking God differ from an 'absolved' person doing the identical? I would out of hand reject the idea that one has to be absolved to truly pray since Christianity requires one to seek forgiveness through prayer to be absolved.

 

[kimiko]

People who *should* know better, like materialists, are always doing what they can to improve the lot of humanity. Yet they can't perceive what you, in your "blind" faith, can see quite clearly.

But that is exactly what materialists *do* perceive! Materialists/skeptics/atheists/agnostics know they have no one to rely on but themselves and each other to make things better, so they do. It is the religious who waste effort with prayers that don't work, money on religious groups who waste it proselytizing and supporting structures and clergy when all of that money could go to a useful purpose. It is the unbelievers who are efficient about helping their fellow man, rather than diverting their energy through a religious system.

Everything that religion does that physically benefits humanity is accomplished without God. Agnostics and atheists give money and volunteer time to charities to improve the world, so you don't need religious organizations to do that. People engage in socializing outside of churches. The most efficient religious charity can be run equally efficiently without being religious. The time wasted in religious schools on religion classes could be devoted to more constructive subjects, like languages, math and science.

What about the early warning system that could have been set up? They are spouting off all this stuff they knew about tsunamis now. There was knowledge of it coming but there was no system to contact people. If people around the world were not consumed with taking over, killing one another, sex shows, gaining power and money, stomping on one another, lying, cheating. We waste and waste if all the time and effort was spent on helping one another (like God said to) then this stuff would not be a total disaster.Maybe someone somewhere would have had the time because they have the knowledge to spend some money and put up a proper warning system in all nations. WE KNOW there is tsunamis, earthquakes, tornados, storms what are we doing about it, only what applies to us not others.
Like I said God said to bear one anothers burdens, give your brother your coat, love one another are we doing it?? This is your answer. We are certainly capable of it we are just too busy being selfish and oops theres that word sinning to care about one another.

Religion doesn't give a way to help people in environmental disasters, science and human beings do. People don't need religion or a God to not lie/cheat/steal. You don't have to be religious to not waste your time, and I would argue that religion, if untrue, is little other than a gigantic waste of time. It can be a great exercise in critical thinking if it is looked at objectively, and is interesting in the way literature is if the books are read as entertainment. In fact, any time you spend reading the Bible or going to church could be better spent improving the world. Plenty of nonbelievers love others and help them. Just because you ascribe these things to God doesn't mean they only happen in the context of religions.

Actually...maybe one of you skeptics can build a case, and I'll examine it carefully. Here goes.......

Assuming I'm wrong about my theology, so what?

The *so what* is what I'm interested in hearing about.
Here's what I can come up with to fill in the asterisks:
-negative opinions from others
-failure to correspond to subjective ideals regarding reason that other people hold
-the unlikelihood that I'll ever become president of the American Humanist Society (or, as a variant, forum moderator at randi.org or something similar)

I think I just answered part of that above. If theology is false, it is an enormous waste of time, energy, money, and lives (people who go into the clergy/volunteers who spend time on purely religious, not charitable, activities). A parasite on humanity.

Do you mean being religious gives you a negative opinion in the eyes of others? Well, it can work the opposite direction when the religious hold negative views of nonbelievers. That would be a waste if their theology is wrong.

It's basically Pascal's wager. If you gamble that god exists and are right, great!, he got that part. If you're wrong, then you haven't lost nothing, you've lost everything! The only life you'd ever have- wasted on religion. Throwing away money and energy; wasting feelings of guilt and shame over one's inherent sinfullness and disobeyed religious directives; countless opportunities and experiencies lost through prohibition, time being occupied by religion instead; fear of hellfire and damnation.

 

[Kitty Chan]

C4ts

you said

I'm not asking about the trinity so much as I am asking about identity.

And the property of creation does not work both ways. For if it were true, then B would have to exist before its creation in order to create A, and A would have to exist before its creation, in order to create B.

In conclusion, identity, when switched, makes no sense in this context. Sons do not engender their own fathers. Daughters do not give birth to their mothers. Therefore identity cannot be transferred in this way.

You must explain how the transfer of authority resolves this conflict before you can apply it to God.


You cannot separate the trinity it is 3 identities.

Like I quoted here;
John Calvin put it this way: "That Father and Son and Spirit are one God, yet the Son is not the Father, nor the Spirit the Son, but that they are differentiated by a particular quality."

You say the property of creation not working both ways. That makes sense but maybe the problem is applying that to Jesus and God.


"In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. He was with God in the beginning.

Through him all things were made; without him nothing was made that has been made." (John 1:1-3)


It says in the beginning was the Word (Jesus) and Jesus was with God, and Jesus was God. Jesus was with God in the beginning. There is no creation at this point they always were. This is why Jesus said He is the Alpha and Omega beginning and end. No creation they always were.

Then through Jesus all things were made, without Jesus nothing was made that has been made. Now, you have creation, what has been made, all things, made by the creator who always was.

Now, you talk of the transfer of authority. Or how did Jesus get the authority to call Himself God. Once again;


"He is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn over all creation. For by him all things were created: things in heaven and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or powers or rulers or authorities; all things were created by him and for him. He is before all things, and in him all things hold together. And he is the head of the body, the church; he is the beginning and the firstborn from among the dead, so that in everything he might have the supremacy. For God was pleased to have all his fullness dwell in him...." (Colossians 1:15-19)


God was pleased to have all His fullness dwell in Him Jesus. Jesus is the head of the church. All authority has been given Jesus. But like the next statement says the Son can do nothing by Himself only what the Father does.


"I tell you the truth, the Son can do nothing by himself; he can do only what he sees his Father doing, because whatever the Father does the Son also does. For the Father loves the Son and shows him all he does.... He who does not honor the Son does not honor the Father, who sent him." (John 5:19, 23)


Like I said there is a united mind and spirit here. There is trust and love and all authority given.

One that has always been and will always be and was not created it just is.

 

[Ossai]

Elliotfc

The Christian explanation is that just as humanity is fallen, so is creation. The fall of humanity may or may not be related to the fall of creation, may or may not be cause/effect, etc.

How did the rest of creation ‘fall’? Was it caused by man or was god just annoyed and shoved it as well?

I think that God is, in some way, responsible for everything. He is the architect of the universe. The variable that I don't think you've considered is the resurrection of the body, or some other kind of afterlife.

You are basically stating that it’s ok if god tortures and murders you because he’s going to bring you back to life.
From that philosophy, it would be ok to beat your children as long as you give them a PS2 or X-Box afterwards.

But that goes for everybody! If you're going to be whimsical about the death of Jesus, why not be whimsical about the death of EVERYONE. The standard applies to everyone (or, anyone). Anyone could be up there with Daddy now, but you selectively apply your whimsy to Jesus.

No. Everyone born after Jesus and didn’t convert is in hell and they are stuck there for eternity. Pretty final death there. Jesus had a bad weekend then go to head to heaven. No sacrifice involved.

You have decided that an a sacrifice must be eternally, or absolutely, or conclusively NEGATIVE in order for it to be rated a sacrifice. Jewish/Christian theology disagrees with that notion. It believes that all sacrifices will be RECOGNIZED by God, and when absolute and eternal justice is applied, the sacrifice will be acknowledged/rewarded.

If you want to remain consistent, you must insult or ignore all commendations for people who sacrifice today. A woman dies for her child? It can't be a sacrifice, not if she is praised in obituaries and headlines. A guy gets an award for giving millions to charities? That's no sacrifice, not if people reward him for doing it. You can't expect religious people to be as cynical about sacrifice as you. No, I guess you can.

You’re saying that all religious people use a different definition of sacrifice. How about coming up with a different word, like PAYMENT.

FYI the person donating millions may be making a sacrifice if he expects no acknowledgement for his donations.

The *so what* is what I'm interested in hearing about.

You waste thousands of dollars in support of a religion.
You waste time and effort supporting the religion.
You’re worshiping god the wrong way and god’s sitting in heaven just getting madder and madder –(paraphrased) Homer Simpson

Mr Clingford

'We believe in one Lord, Jesus Christ, the only Son of God, eternally begotten of the Father, God from God, Light from Light, true God from true God, begotten, not made, of one being with the Father."

So Jesus sprang forth from god fully formed, except for the whole human body thing. Jesus is separate from god but made by god – from that perspective Christianity seems like a typical pantheon setup. You’ve got YHWH, Jesus, Holy Spirit – a whole host of intermediaries between divine and human in the form of angels, then you have the bad guys, Satan and other demons. Satan is strong enough to go against god but god’s holy book says that god will win the ‘final battle’, yet god apparently can’t control Satan on earth. Satan even manages to tempt Jesus – thus further separating the concept of god from Jesus.

Ossai

 

[hodgy]

Hello everyone, I've only recently discovered the JREF and this is my first post.

I started reading the first couple of posts on this thread and the debate was centered around whether God allowing humans to damn themselves through the excercise of free will made him omniscient etc... or not.

I have to admit I didn't trawl through the whole 7 pages but did anyone, anywhere not raise the important issue that 'free will' is only an illusion and does not actually exist? On that basis, all the Christian God did at Creation time was to build a giant engine for the cyclical generation and alleviation of suffering. God is either evil or not omniscient.

 

[elliotfc]

I have to admit I didn't trawl through the whole 7 pages but did anyone, anywhere not raise the important issue that 'free will' is only an illusion and does not actually exist?

Hey Hodgy. Here is a little experiment.

Stand up.
Or don't.
Pick one. Stand up, or don't.

Based on that experiment, consider the fact that free will does in fact exist. Or don't consider the fact. Pick one.

On that basis, all the Christian God did at Creation time was to build a giant engine for the cyclical generation and alleviation of suffering. God is either evil or not omniscient.

Evil is a value judgment. What do you base your moral judgments on?

God probably isn't omniscient in the way you define omniscience.

-Elliot