tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post1162297535441174793..comments2024-03-25T17:35:02.238-04:00Comments on Debunking Christianity: Cole: "I'm tired of looking stupid by trying to defend the Bible."Unknownnoreply@blogger.comBlogger49125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-61642688147677910012010-01-29T13:18:37.059-05:002010-01-29T13:18:37.059-05:00Rob,
"I say you have a good idea. And God di...Rob,<br /><br />"I say you have a good idea. And God did precisely that and he was held responsible and his blood was on us and on our children."<br /><br />I wasn't there so I'll let you shoulder the blame if you want but I'll defer to justice and truth.Chuckhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15657598456196932490noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-74978611145466786702010-01-28T21:11:15.530-05:002010-01-28T21:11:15.530-05:00Stamati,
as to your other questions,
But the iss...Stamati,<br /><br />as to your other questions,<br /><br /><em>But the issue arises on what role exactly God plays in salvation and its maintenance.</em><br /><br />I wouldn't pretend to know how to answer the question of maintenance fully. But all of scripture is about God's role as the instigator of his plan of salvation (not just to keep individuals out of hell, but to redeem the world) that culminated in the life, teachings, death and resurrection of Jesus. And God energizes and directs the church through his spirit to take part in the salvation of the world by spreading it. The Holy spirit of course convicts.<br /><br />What role does God play in maintenance? There is conviction for those who sin. There is guidance, but this is also to be sought within the church.<br /><br /><em>Obviously people have to understand God's word in order for them to be saved-</em><br /><br />If they don't understand it sufficiently for not having anything to do with their own rebellion, then I see no reason to believe that God will judge them for it and instead, they may become a part of God's kingdom on the basis of how they responded to his grace that was available to them which according to your scenario would not be the gospel sufficiently understood.<br /><br /><em>You will say that Cole's misunderstanding was not the only factor in his loss of faith, but why cannot God correct him? </em><br /><br />Cole is free and if he does not want to persevere, then no correction will take place. If he persevered and sought help, God would provide it. God can correct him, but Cole has to pursue that as scripture has directed him to pursue it.<br /><br /><em> My point is that people never hold God to his end of the deal.</em><br /><br />I did. I was persistent and on occasion, I was angry with God. You are right. People don't hold God to his end of the deal in spite of the fact that scripture says over again that we are to do precisely that. Moses interceded for the Israelites reminding God of his promises. And Jesus in more than one instance told us to be persistant in our requests to God.<br /><br /><em>But I say, let God come to man, and let him be held responsible.</em><br /><br />I say you have a good idea. And God did precisely that and he was held responsible and his blood was on us and on our children.Rob Rhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08937716910001145836noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-63302815051918432732010-01-28T16:59:59.036-05:002010-01-28T16:59:59.036-05:00Rob,
You wrote, "But the rejection of the co...Rob,<br /><br />You wrote, "But the rejection of the concept led me down a fascinating path that continues to unfold before me and will continue to unfold in spite of attempts here to shake my faith which know nothing of the vast richness of what the infinitely complex and wondrous Yahweh has wrought."<br /><br />Do you think the opposition to your ideas exists to "shake" your faith? <br /><br />Do you not see the narcissism in that?<br /><br />I know I oppose your ideas because they are obviously rationalizations masquerading as universal truth and, as such, are very bad for society. <br /><br />I could care less about your faith.<br /><br />I care about the truth.<br /><br />I don't know if you were referencing me in that indictment but, since I have openly opposed your ideas and their implications, I wanted you to be certain that my opposition has little to do with you personally and everything to do with the importance of honesty in the arena of ideas.Chuckhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15657598456196932490noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-79166019210487605842010-01-28T12:21:46.758-05:002010-01-28T12:21:46.758-05:00What is emphasized or protected in open theism aga...<em>What is emphasized or protected in open theism against some movements in theology is our understanding of the reality of the personhood of God which we believe suffered to some extent.</em><br /><br />As is my bad habit of not proofreading, this is one item that came out less clear. What I meant is that the personhood of God suffered at the hands of classical theism.Rob Rhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08937716910001145836noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-3954510547868385712010-01-28T01:33:13.485-05:002010-01-28T01:33:13.485-05:00There is also another reason to reject God's i...There is also another reason to reject God's impassibility (most evangelicals and laymen never embrace that one though anyway) is because God's suffering is a frequent part of scripture and those who have suffered terribly in life may take comfort that God suffers with them (This was very important to Christian Philosopher Nicholas Wolterstorff who lost his son in a mountaineering accident).<br /><br />Additionally, my views on free will, the reasons for it and the implications of it have developed as well. Contrary to one of John Loftus' criticisms of free will which if I recall correctly suggested that the only thing freedom makes possible is evil, I have identified several reasons for it. It enables a special type of love, consciousness, creativity and allows the soverignty that God intended for us to exercise in the world to mimic his own through that freedom making the divine reflection even greater.<br /><br />I also believe that to truly embrace free will means that our future is open and thus our future free actions are not truly knowable. Thus God's omniscience must necessarily exclude such free acts (though God can know the variety of possible actions, he can know what he sovereignly determines, and he can know that some actions are psychologically determined as some societal movements are sociologically determined as not all of our behaviors are indeed free in the libertarian sense, thus there is plenty of room for prophecy and prediction in this view).<br /><br />Most of this (with the exceptions of my reasons for free will which is my own thinking) comes from a movement called <a href="http://www.opentheism.info/" rel="nofollow">open theism</a> which I fully embrace.<br /><br />What is emphasized or protected in open theism against some movements in theology is our understanding of the reality of the personhood of God which we believe suffered to some extent. And studying these things made me realize how profound and excellent the concept of personhood is, that common ground between us and God that is the source of the divine image which we reflect. And that leads me to much of my thinking even here that is relevant to considering the merits and truth of Christianity. And the merit is that Christianity in fact provides the strongest foundation for humanism noting that we persons are deeply sacred.<br /><br />I could go on a bit further, for example, inclusivism on a few levels becomes important here as well which has to do with the question of other religions and the question of salvation outside of the gospel, but I think this is enough to answer your question as to what it is that I have learned and why I say it was so priceless.<br /><br />Individualistic predestination led Cole to reject his faith. But the rejection of the concept led me down a fascinating path that continues to unfold before me and will continue to unfold in spite of attempts here to shake my faith which know nothing of the vast richness of what the infinitely complex and wondrous Yahweh has wrought.<br /><br />As to your other questions, I have spent all my time on this one.Rob Rhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08937716910001145836noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-56999927009603586032010-01-28T01:31:30.899-05:002010-01-28T01:31:30.899-05:00post 1 of 2
Stamati,
If the context in which Co...post 1 of 2<br /><br /><br />Stamati,<br /><br />If the context in which Cole was discussing really indicates the essential issue of why he gave up on his faith, clearly, what I learned, contrary to what cole asserted prior to giving up that faith is that the individualistic predestinarian interpretation of scripture is not a solid one and that God's salvation is truly for everyone, not just a preselected group "the elect".<br /><br />But in the process, my understanding of scripture deepened and issues that are related to this though people don't realize their relationship were touched.<br /><br />Instead of individualistic predestination, many of the predestinarian passages are about God's chosen people, not a group of people who were individually selected, but an understanding that carries over from Judaism, that it is the group, the people that are chosen, not the individuals within (except on occasion for specific tasks, not salvation from hell). Some have suggested though that choosing of the group entails choosing of the individual, but this is the <a href="http://www.iep.utm.edu/fallacy/#Division" rel="nofollow">Division Fallacy</a> (Thanks once again to John Loftus, for insisting we read the IEP list of informal fallacies).<br /><br />This view was argued for many decades ago but it's strength has increased in recent years from a development in Pauline studies called the New Perspective on Paul which brings a new understanding to what Paul meant when he distinguished faith from works. It wasn't simply salvation via belief vs. earning one's way to heaven by meritorious works. What Paul was really distinguishing was entering the covenant community by faith vs. entering via the works of the mosaic law. This has a powerful effect on many of the old calvinistic prooftexts such that they are undermined. Furthermore, the view of corporate election gets a boost from sociological studies that suggest that many of the target audiences and authors of that period were more corporately minded and not so individualistic as we westerners are.<br /><br />This is all important and had a significant impact on my understanding important things within Christianity, which I don't consider invalidates the evangelical presentation of salvation or my former view, but merely serves to deepen it. But there are other related topics in my understanding which may be even deeper and more widespread than what I described above. In studying the topic of predestination, I studied it's place in theology and the history of theology, that it was first emphasized by Augustine, Aquinas and then Calvin (and several other figures in between) as a part of their theology that had developed as a result of the synthesis of classical Greek thought and Christian thinking. So earlier, Eric had used the term classical theism which is the result of this synthesis. As I noted earlier, I chafe at classical theism though I am quick to point out that I agree with Christian philosopher William Hasker who said that it was divine providence that we had that Greek influence that helped us to analyze and develop our theology, though, as Hasker continues, we shouldn't think that the early church fathers always made the right decisions in their use of that Greek thought.<br /><br />Individualistic predestination is a part of this picture as it is a part of determinism which is a part of the classical view of God that says that God is so otherworldly that he is not affected by the world. God, in this view is outside of time, immutable (which means he does not change in any way shape or form... even in thought), and impassible (which means that he is not affected by us and is without emotions, or if he does have emotions, he is perpetually happy as Calvin put it), simple (without parts). Such a God must determine all things because if he allowed us libertarian free will, then his plans for us would indeed be affected by our actions, and he would not be immutable. And involving himself in our temporal free actions would entail his own temporality.Rob Rhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08937716910001145836noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-25884798256108680502010-01-27T11:01:19.638-05:002010-01-27T11:01:19.638-05:00Its not easy to escape indoctrinated faith that of...Its not easy to escape indoctrinated faith that often has longstanding traditional deeply ingrained fear factor involved in faith in it.<br /><br />Hopefully Cole can see that even if there does happen to be some supernatural supreme being,obviously thus far there has been no way for humans to honestly gain any factual scientifically verifiable knowledge of anything about this supreme being or what it may or may not expect etc.<br /><br />All faiths show factual evidence of always being merely relative to the cultures surrounding them !<br /><br />Hopefully Cole can see the extreme danger of this total ignorant careless thoughtless guess work,and might be interested in helping gain momentum to finally remove the ignorance of old barbaric laws of rights to total freedoms of superstitious faiths that have allowed for thoughtless ignorant killings of those judged as witches and the very many sufferings historically brought on by this nasty allowance of thoughtless guess work of faith.<br /><br />Hopefully Cole can understand that in honest reality we never had nothing more than mere human thoughts and learned knowledge and use of logic and common sense to go by,whether it was ancient mans thoughts in the bible the koran some other faith or even that of our own thoughts.There is absolutely no factual proof of any supernatural devine knowledge known to man!,so following any belief is but following thoughts of another man.Why then should there be need for us to fear our own thoughts of logic and common sense etc?.<br /><br />The difference is we now ALSO know we understand many more things that we once used to!.We need no longer be ignorant cave men and stupidly let our imaginations run riot with (unfounded) fear,such as that maybe there might really be gods punishing us with things like famine, earthquakes, lightning, tsunami, drought, floods etc<br /><br />Because we now understand what makes these things happen.<br /><br />Hopefully Cole can see that without decent factual proof either way of whether there be god/s or none,thus far! at best one can only in all honesty be agnostic.<br /><br />Hopefully common sense and logic will reign and allow Cole to understand,surely it would be a very mean and nasty supreme being that would likely punish anyone for simply choosing to prefer to not promote or support any ancient (unproven faiths) that historically have always!! abused and made a certain ammount of humans need to suffer like Russian Roulette, like it was some acceptable statistic !.<br /><br />Dont allow yourself to be tortured any longer Cole.Just because you lack faith,doesnt mean there is any need to change so much or lose any humanity or stop caring etc<br /><br />Relax most likely there is no harsh gods,the sky is not likely to fall on your head.Gandolfhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02624178234332819107noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-79610365318660947362010-01-27T10:26:24.801-05:002010-01-27T10:26:24.801-05:00Yes, I too am curious.
But this is the problem,...Yes, I too am curious. <br /><br />But this is the problem, even if, as you're saying, Cole had a misunderstanding of the truth. First of all, I would agree that we all are limited in what we can accurately perceive. We can't escape our rose colored glasses. But the issue arises on what role exactly God plays in salvation and its maintenance. Obviously people have to understand God's word in order for them to be saved- yet what is the point at which that understanding becomes sufficient for salvation? How accurate must one be in order for God to warrant granting them repentance and so on? You will say that Cole's misunderstanding was not the only factor in his loss of faith, but why cannot God correct him? Why, when he comes on to this forum to save us, does he end up damned? <br /><br />My point is that people never hold God to his end of the deal. It is <i>always</i> up to <i>people</i> to maintain their relationship with God. If someone were to try their best to find him, yet fail to, <i>they</i> would shoulder the blame. But I say, let God come to man, and let him be held responsible.stamati anagnostouhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08933207821787646512noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-22134691805207742842010-01-26T23:33:59.074-05:002010-01-26T23:33:59.074-05:00What did you learn Rob?What did you learn Rob?Chuckhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15657598456196932490noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-76836379631899029092010-01-26T23:32:35.424-05:002010-01-26T23:32:35.424-05:00What did you learn Rob?What did you learn Rob?Chuckhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15657598456196932490noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-5736153144447389982010-01-26T22:52:21.672-05:002010-01-26T22:52:21.672-05:00post 1 of 2
Stamati,
So you're saying he ha...post 1 of 2<br /><br />Stamati,<br /><br /><br /><em>So you're saying he had true faith for an inauthentic religion? If that's so,that is what I was trying to get at. Or are you saying that he held merely a misunderstanding of the true religion?</em><br /><br />He had a misunderstanding of the truth. But that said, I wouldn't say that my own understanding is the best for the simple reason that our understanding of God, humanity, the world can always improve. God has not finished teaching the church and no religious historian can point to a time when our understanding quit developing, though some of that development is occasionally (and certainly not always) getting back to or clarifying the original teachings. That's not to necessarily say that we have a better relationship to God then those that came before because understanding is only a help to a relationship but doesn't gaurantee that the relationship to be excellent.<br /><br /><em>So you've just admitted that one's knowledge can give them faith or take it away.</em><br /><br />What we think we know can indeed hider us, or what we do in fact know can indeed challenge our faith. But that said, it is not determinative. One can persevere and seek a deeper understanding when the current one fails.<br /><br />When I almost lost my faith for similar (if not exact) reasons that cole has given up on his, what I learned through my perseverance in response to that crisis was priceless.Rob Rhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08937716910001145836noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-43784267526516145642010-01-26T22:40:38.872-05:002010-01-26T22:40:38.872-05:00This post makes me so happy... I'm rejoicing ...This post makes me so happy... I'm rejoicing along side the demons in hell!<br /><br />But seriously, for most people (me, for instance) the deconversion process really sucks. Based on his temporary relapse, I wouldn't be surprised if it really sucks for Cole too.<br /><br />I was mentally freer immediately, but it took over a year to be happier.<br /><br />Cole, I don't know your set-up, but if you don't have many non-religious friends in real life, take full advantage of the web. Writing out your story and publishing it on a site like de-conversion.com that specializes in stories like this can be very therapeutic. (Mine went up October '08.) I'll bet a lot more people want to hear what you have to say than you realize.Jeffrey Amoshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11134064631280499241noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-18645600637832284612010-01-26T21:02:33.087-05:002010-01-26T21:02:33.087-05:00Eric, God is his essence, eh Eric? God is identica...Eric, God is his essence, eh Eric? God is identical with his nature, right? Did you read Plantinga's book "Does God have a Nature"?<br /><br />Aquinas' view is incompatible with two fundamental concerns of Christianity, I think. First, God has only one property. His love is the same as his power and his knowledge and as such human beings cannot comprehend him. Second, the Bible presents God as a person but that can't be since the property of person-hood is not distinct from his goodness or knowledge or power.<br /><br />You cannot even talk about such a being. He becomes ineffable and as such you cannot even say he is ineffable.<br /><br />Such a high cost to defending your God. You and Aquinas have constructed a supreme being out of your imaginations.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-72385535134121004302010-01-26T20:41:55.005-05:002010-01-26T20:41:55.005-05:00Eric:
>> I would first like to know what yo...Eric:<br /><br />>> I would first like to know what you mean when you say god is a "complex phenomenon," since the god of classical theism is neither "complex" nor a "phenomenon."<br /><br />According to my understanding, God possesses a variety of abilities, including power, knowledge, wisdom, benevolence, freedom, justice, mercy, and so on. At least, that is what religious texts seem to indicate. It would appear to me that anything that possesses such a wide variety of abilities and qualities would be complex, especially if it is responsible for designing, creating, and sustaining the entire universe. Saying that such an entity is “simple” is using a definition of “simple” that is so diluted of meaning that I don’t even know that one is talking about.<br /><br />>> Second, when you say that you expect the definition to be more precise, would you expect the terms we use to describe god in the definiens to be, with respect to their acceptation, used univocally or analogically?<br /><br />Ideally, I would like the terms to be unambiguous and clear. If the terms are fundamentally ambiguous and unclear, and can only be understood via analogy, then I find it hard to believe that anything concrete can be concluded about the referent of the term. It would be so hazy and clouded in mist that one would be unable to gain any genuine understanding at all. The only justified response to such a scenario is SILENCE.<br /><br />>> But if you like, here's what a classical theist means when he uses the word 'god': ipsum esse subsistens ("subsistent being itself" or "the subsistent act of being itself"). This definition follows from a series of arguments, so it's not as if we're saying, "Hey, let's arbitrarily say that god is 'ipsum esse subsistens' -- because it sounds so cool!" And, if we work out the logic of these arguments further, we reach conclusions concerning certain "properties" (using the term analogically) we can predicate of god: he is eternal, simple, immaterial, omniscient, good, etc.<br /><br />First, can you elucidate the arguments that conclude that God is “subsistent being itself”? I’m very interested!<br /><br />Second, can you show the further working out of those arguments as concluding the rest of God’s properties? I’m very interested!<br /><br />>> Personally, I'd love to see you try to justify your suspicion itself. Or do you regularly suspect things without justification?<br /><br />It’s solely based upon my experience discussing religious arguments with other believers. That is why it is only a suspicion of mine. I’m not saying that it is a fact. However, if you could provide the chain of reasons that led you from one position to another, then it would be easier to see if my suspicion is actually a fact after all. :)dgullerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14647381896282400404noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-82057960805123316682010-01-26T20:27:04.620-05:002010-01-26T20:27:04.620-05:00"I would expect it to be more precise, becaus..."I would expect it to be more precise, because God is a complex phenomenon that consists of multiple attributes and properties."<br /><br />I would first like to know what you mean when you say god is a "complex phenomenon," since the god of classical theism is neither "complex" nor a "phenomenon."<br /><br />Second, when you say that you expect the definition to be more precise, would you expect the terms we use to describe god in the definiens to be, with respect to their acceptation, used univocally or analogically? <br /><br />"First, you still haven’t provided even a minimal definition of “God”."<br /><br />Right, because that hasn't been my purpose. I was pointing out some obvious and frequently encountered errors concerning the expectations that people often have when thinking about how to define god.<br /><br />But if you like, here's what a classical theist means when he uses the word 'god': ipsum esse subsistens ("subsistent being itself" or "the subsistent act of being itself"). This definition follows from a series of arguments, so it's not as if we're saying, "Hey, let's arbitrarily say that god is 'ipsum esse subsistens' -- because it sounds so cool!" And, if we work out the logic of these arguments further, we reach conclusions concerning certain "properties" (using the term analogically) we can predicate of god: he is eternal, simple, immaterial, omniscient, good, etc.<br /><br />"Second, if you start with a restricted set of definitions in order to begin with some sort of common ground, then you have to be very careful not to overextend your conclusions beyond what is contained within the limited definitions. A classic fallacy that occurs in this situation is the fallacy of equivocation in which the meaning of the terms changes as one proceeds through the argument."<br /><br />So you're saying, "Make sure your arguments aren't fallacious." Right. Thanks for that.<br /><br />"I suspect that the way that you made the transition from “strong atheism to agnosticism to a general belief in god to Christianity to Catholicism” was partially via the fallacy of equivocation, but I would have to see the justification of that process in order to be sure."<br /><br />Personally, I'd love to see you try to justify your suspicion itself. Or do you regularly suspect things without justification?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-68464256943755606842010-01-26T19:31:37.279-05:002010-01-26T19:31:37.279-05:00Eric:
>> Let me put it this way: would you ...Eric:<br /><br />>> Let me put it this way: would you expect the definition of god *we can arrive at through reason alone* to be more precise than the definition of existence? If so, why? (I'll answer one possible objection in my quick response to Rob below.)<br /><br />I would expect it to be more precise, because God is a complex phenomenon that consists of multiple attributes and properties. Unlike the general concept of “existence”, the concept of “God” is supposed to point out something specific, i.e. a divine person with a variety of characteristics. <br /><br />>> Does that mean that we'll have to restrict ourselves, for now, to a discussion of god that is less rich than it could be? Sure. But it doesn't mean that what we're saying is therefore less true -- or helpful.<br /><br />First, you still haven’t provided even a minimal definition of “God”.<br /><br />Second, if you start with a restricted set of definitions in order to begin with some sort of common ground, then you have to be very careful not to overextend your conclusions beyond what is contained within the limited definitions. A classic fallacy that occurs in this situation is the fallacy of equivocation in which the meaning of the terms changes as one proceeds through the argument.<br /><br />I suspect that the way that you made the transition from “strong atheism to agnosticism to a general belief in god to Christianity to Catholicism” was partially via the fallacy of equivocation, but I would have to see the justification of that process in order to be sure.dgullerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14647381896282400404noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-69288820879417049262010-01-26T13:21:09.598-05:002010-01-26T13:21:09.598-05:00"I never suggested Cole's faith was inaut...<i>"I never suggested Cole's faith was inauthentic. no, given Cole's comments, that's his misunderstanding of the Christianity for which he probably held an authentic faith."</i><br /><br />So you're saying he had true faith for an inauthentic religion? If that's so,that is what I was trying to get at. Or are you saying that he held merely a misunderstanding of the true religion?<br /><br /><i>"The point of having a better understanding is that it is useful to our faith, not because it is the substance of our relationship to God. It is a part of that, but it is not everything. <b>It can be a source of strength and of ruin for one's faith.</b>"</i><br /><br />So you've just admitted that one's <i>knowledge</i> can give them faith or take it away. Unless you were referring to 'strength' and 'ruin' in less than absolute terms.stamati anagnostouhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08933207821787646512noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-24655130946748288452010-01-26T07:37:02.264-05:002010-01-26T07:37:02.264-05:00"I do not know anyone who demands that believ..."I do not know anyone who demands that believers present a description of God with the same level of detail as one can describe an Abyssinian cat."<br /><br />Dguller, I've certainly encountered such people, but since you apparently are not one of them, that's not important. Let me put it this way: would you expect the definition of god *we can arrive at through reason alone* to be more precise than the definition of existence? If so, why? (I'll answer one possible objection in my quick response to Rob below.) <br /><br />"I chafe against "classical theism" (not to be confused with all of orthodoxy or all of the tradition). God is more than the abstract ground of existence. God is the quintessential person and as a person, it is indeed through particulars of history biblical values that we know and may speak of him."<br /><br />Rob, I very much agree. But you have to remember that we're speaking with atheists and skeptics here, so any sort of appeal to the Bible will get us nowhere fast. I try to restrict myself, when speaking with atheists, to arguments with premises we can all, in principle, agree with. Does that mean that we'll have to restrict ourselves, for now, to a discussion of god that is less rich than it could be? Sure. But it doesn't mean that what we're saying is therefore less true -- or helpful. Baby steps. That's how I made my way from strong atheism to agnosticism to a general belief in god to Christianity to Catholicism.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-38386099511028625412010-01-26T00:33:31.085-05:002010-01-26T00:33:31.085-05:00Eric,
I chafe against "classical theism&quo...Eric, <br /><br />I chafe against "classical theism" (not to be confused with all of orthodoxy or all of the tradition). God is more than the abstract ground of existence. God is the quintessential person and as a person, it is indeed through particulars of history biblical values that we know and may speak of him. God has related to us in a personal way and thus there is much to talk about as personhood is very much about particulars.<br /><br />The most valuable thing about existence is not that it is (and has a ground) but that persons exist and bring life and meaning to existence and that a person is responsible for most of existence (other than himself). There is nothing greater nor more important than personhood in which love and relationality take place, where there is consciousness, emotion, rationality, creativity, morality and God is the ultimate exemplar of this. And it's not as if though personhood should be worshiped because only persons are worthy of such devotion, not abstractions.<br /><br /><br />stamati,<br /><br /><em>I just want to throw my two cents in on the idea that we have to have a superior understanding of God in order to have an authentic faith, or however you'd like to put it.</em><br /><br />Don't know that anyone here promoted that idea. I know I didn't.<br /><br />I never suggested Cole's faith was inauthentic. no, given Cole's comments, that's his misunderstanding of the Christianity for which he probably held an authentic faith.<br /><br />The point of having a better understanding is that it is useful to our faith, not because it is the substance of our relationship to God. It is a part of that, but it is not everything. It can be a source of strength and of ruin for one's faith.Rob Rhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08937716910001145836noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-3718673014349745312010-01-26T00:07:43.206-05:002010-01-26T00:07:43.206-05:00Eric:
>> That is -- and this is the importa...Eric:<br /><br />>> That is -- and this is the important part -- our concept of god is even broader than one of the broadest concepts we have, viz. existence itself. So, if we can say little at all about existence, and nothing with precision, why should we expect to be able to speak precisely and to define with detail that which is conceptually broader still? Or, to put it more plainly, why, given what I've just said, expect us to be able to say as much about god as we can about an Abyssinian cat?<br /><br />That is an intriguing series of ideas that are very similar to Heidegger’s famous question of Being. <br /><br />My response to it is that it is both a straw man and a red herring. <br /><br />I do not know anyone who demands that believers present a description of God with the same level of detail as one can describe an Abyssinian cat. That is not the issue at all. The issue is to provide a minimal definition of God that is logically consistent, which can then be examined to see if it fits the empirical world that we experience. <br /><br />So, if you want to proceed with this discussion, then provide such a minimal definition. However, if your next move is to deny the possibility of ANY definition whatsoever of God, because of his utter transcendence and inscrutability, including that he exists, then feel free to stop talking about him, because the concept is utterly empty of all meaning. <br /><br />And saying that God is the “ground of all being”? Who says that being needs a ground at all? Have you experienced a being that suddenly snuffs out of existence, because it lost its underlying ground? Or is this based upon an analogy with our ability to walk requiring a ground beneath our feet? If so, then that analogy is firmly entrenched within the empirical world, and there is no good reason that what goes on in the empirical world should also go on “outside” the empirical world in the supernatural beyond. <br /><br />I think that this is just confusion masquerading as profundity.dgullerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14647381896282400404noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-26299326032996932372010-01-25T23:27:47.642-05:002010-01-25T23:27:47.642-05:00Eric's monologue reminds me of Nigel Tufnel...Eric's monologue reminds me of Nigel Tufnel's speech in Spinal Tap, "But these go to 11"Chuckhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15657598456196932490noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-60751140745149095842010-01-25T23:19:15.177-05:002010-01-25T23:19:15.177-05:00I think this thread proves how even skeptics can p...I think this thread proves how even skeptics can proselytize.<br /><br />The reason I come to this blog is because, even though rhe discussion is pointed, it's still discussion, unlike, say, Pharyngula. But more Aland more here I'm starting to see that same type of absolutism on this blog. John, don't let this place become an echo chamber like Myers' and Dawkins' site. Less "rah rah" and more substantive discussion.Brad Haggardhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14814856985147330634noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-6291500225768752652010-01-25T22:50:46.074-05:002010-01-25T22:50:46.074-05:00Re: our understanding of, or ability to define pre...Re: our understanding of, or ability to define precisely, god, I usually put it like this: imagine a particular Abyssinian cat. Suppose I asked you to describe it to me. There's quite a bit you could say about it: what color it is, how much it weighs, how old it is, etc. But now suppose I ask you describe not a specific Abyssinian cat, but what 'an Abyssinian cat' is. You'd be much less specific here, and for obvious reasons. But let's take it further: you can say more, and can use more precision, about an Abyssinian cat than you can about 'a cat'; and you can say more, and can use more precision, about a cat than you can about 'a felid'; and you can say more about a felid than you can about 'a mammal'; and you can say more about a mammal than you can about 'an animal'; and you can say more about an animal than you can about 'a living thing'; and you can say more about a living thing than you can about 'a thing', or 'an entity'; and, finally (well, almost!) you can say more about a thing than you can about 'existence' as such.<br /><br />Now the lesson here is that as we move from the more specific to the more broad, we can say less and less with precision. So how does this apply to the god of classical Christianity? Well, let's take that last concept, 'existence.' We can say very little about it, right? (Some philosophers think we can only provide an ostensive definition of existence, viz. a wave of the hand to indicate 'everything.') But no one faults us here once they understand the nature of what we're trying to describe. Yet classical theists will tell you that we can't properly say of god, "God exists" -- not, that is, unless we make it clear that we're using the term 'existence' analogically. For god isn't one item that happens to exist among the many others we know of; rather, god is the ground of all existence. That is -- and this is the important part -- our concept of god is even broader than one of the broadest concepts we have, viz. existence itself. So, if we can say little at all about existence, and nothing with precision, why should we expect to be able to speak precisely and to define with detail that which is conceptually broader still? Or, to put it more plainly, why, given what I've just said, expect us to be able to say as much about god as we can about an Abyssinian cat?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-67257046301180612332010-01-25T22:21:39.480-05:002010-01-25T22:21:39.480-05:00I just want to throw my two cents in on the idea t...I just want to throw my two cents in on the idea that we have to have a superior understanding of God in order to have an authentic faith, or however you'd like to put it. When did this all become our job anyway? At what point is one's understanding of God too low fidelity to warrant faith? Why, if God were real, would he not see the misunderstanding and then supernaturally fix it? Such bullshit, I'm sorry.stamati anagnostouhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08933207821787646512noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-33295486436110331042010-01-25T22:19:05.705-05:002010-01-25T22:19:05.705-05:00Hey, John. You just might become more famous than...Hey, John. You just might become more famous than Benny Hinn with your Blog!<br /><br />Seriously, I wonder just how many Christians you have put under conviction with the spirit of intellectual truth and honesty?<br /><br />And Brother Dguller: Your place is in the <i>Amen Corner</i> of the choir! (No speaking in tongues, please!) <br /><br />Preach on John!Harry H. McCallhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08974655354593831851noreply@blogger.com