If God Knows How to Get My Attention Why Doesn't He Do So?
After hearing a presentation of the Underground Railroad my wife and I watched a local parade and then went to the Park to mingle, eat, and watch some skydivers land in an open space. I saw an old friend named Joe there are we got into a conversation. He is a Bible Thumper, and by that I mean someone who finds all of his theological questions answered decisively in the Bible, not in reason. Even as a believer I thought Joe was lopsided, since reason was something God created and he required us to think about these issues as well. But Joe has all of the answers.
Joe is sure that he's right and that he has the proper interpretation of the Bible, even though he has had no deep theological training at all. He has the tendency to talk down to others since he has divine truth and it doesn’t matter if someone has studied these issues out deeply either. Again, he has divine answers.
In the course of our conversation he told me that he cannot convince me to believe again, only the Holy Spirit can do that. As he was starting to quote the Bible I interrupted him. I told him about the presentation I just heard concerning the Underground Railroad and the rumors of a tunnel, and how to think through such claims. Then I said to him he needs to begin by thinking, not quoting.
“Don’t quote the Bible to me. Just think about what you’re saying. Does the Holy Spirit know how to get my attention?” He said that “it depended on whether I reject the Spirit or not.” “But even if I rejected it can the Holy Spirit get my attention anyway, like what supposedly happened to Paul who was so hard-hearted that he was even persecuting Christians? Can he get my attention like his supposedly got Moses’ attention with a burning bush? Can he get my attention like he did with Gideon, or many others?” Joe had to admit that I was right, "yes he knows how to get your attention." Then I simply asked him: "If God knows how to get my attention why doesn’t he do so? It’s not that I don’t want to believe. I am open to the evidence just like I’m open to the evidence that there is a tunnel in the town of Orland. It’s just that I cannot believe. I really can’t. It not only doesn’t make sense, there isn’t enough evidence to believe these ancient stories.”
In the end Joe asked if he could pray for me. I told him yes that would be fine. But then I also said if prayer works it’s a done deal. I should eventually believe.
We parted as friends, but I hope the lesson was not lost on him. We must begin to evaluate a claim by simply thinking about it.
Joe is sure that he's right and that he has the proper interpretation of the Bible, even though he has had no deep theological training at all. He has the tendency to talk down to others since he has divine truth and it doesn’t matter if someone has studied these issues out deeply either. Again, he has divine answers.
In the course of our conversation he told me that he cannot convince me to believe again, only the Holy Spirit can do that. As he was starting to quote the Bible I interrupted him. I told him about the presentation I just heard concerning the Underground Railroad and the rumors of a tunnel, and how to think through such claims. Then I said to him he needs to begin by thinking, not quoting.
“Don’t quote the Bible to me. Just think about what you’re saying. Does the Holy Spirit know how to get my attention?” He said that “it depended on whether I reject the Spirit or not.” “But even if I rejected it can the Holy Spirit get my attention anyway, like what supposedly happened to Paul who was so hard-hearted that he was even persecuting Christians? Can he get my attention like his supposedly got Moses’ attention with a burning bush? Can he get my attention like he did with Gideon, or many others?” Joe had to admit that I was right, "yes he knows how to get your attention." Then I simply asked him: "If God knows how to get my attention why doesn’t he do so? It’s not that I don’t want to believe. I am open to the evidence just like I’m open to the evidence that there is a tunnel in the town of Orland. It’s just that I cannot believe. I really can’t. It not only doesn’t make sense, there isn’t enough evidence to believe these ancient stories.”
In the end Joe asked if he could pray for me. I told him yes that would be fine. But then I also said if prayer works it’s a done deal. I should eventually believe.
We parted as friends, but I hope the lesson was not lost on him. We must begin to evaluate a claim by simply thinking about it.
76 comments:
Ah, the old, "If Christians would only just think about it..." argument, implying that there is no reason within Christianity itself. Two problems with that: 1) Many Christians have "thought about it" and done research. Sure, maybe they haven't shelled out thousands of dollars to get an official college education. But to paraphrase Matt Damon in "Good Will Hunting", Why waste $100,000 on some college knowledge you could have got for $1.50 in late charges at the public library? So is that the only way one can have credibility: by receiving a degree in X, Y and Z? If so, then no one is allowed to pronounce judgment on anything they are not officially trained in: laymen cannot comment on politics, ethics, even on how their local plumber or electrician handled recent maintenance on home repairs.
Problem No. 2) If atheists trully subscribe to relativism, then who are they to say that the religious system of which they claim to not be a part of is wrong? You know what they say about backseat drivers...
P.S., John, God uses many ways to get your attention (like your friend); however, if you choose not to listen, He won't trample on your free will to get you to pay attention. In the end, the choice is up to you, John. Do you want to listen?
Joe, is sure he is right and that he has the "proper interpretation of the Bible, even though he has had no deep theological training at all."
John, you are dead wrong if you believe that a christian must undergo a "deep theological training" to be a a proper christian. You are a primaary example yourself for you underwent an intensive theological training under some of the prestiged seminaries and philosophical trainers, yet you ended up losing your faith.
If God knows how to get your attention why doesn't he do so, right? Well, there are so many reasons one would wonder it insn't the case to you, as it was for Paul, Moses or Gideon. One reason may be that God is now dead and he wont do it again but the second reason may be that God find that you are far less important as a person for Him to reveal himself to you even in the slightest possible way, let alone as was the case to these ancient biblical figures.
No belittling intended please but why do you assume God should reveal yourself to you in a spectacular fashion? So that you believe in him...oh, I think God has enough of supermen and women who stayed and stay loyal to trust him from all people of all races and cultures. Please John, with all honesty, do you really think that you are that important?
edson, no I'm not that important at all! But if God values the soul of just one person who is led astray by me then I would think that one soul is that important.
Blue, you are an anti-intellectual. I find this is typical of people who have never studied theology in colleges. You never hear people saying what you just did if they have theological degrees. Why do you think this is the case?
I do think John is that important, edson. I think each of us is that important. I am sure we would all recognize Scriptures proclaiming how important EVERY individual is to God. This is, however, where free will comes in. God does in fact reveal Himself in many ways all around us everyday. It is up to us to open our eyes, ears, and minds to see that evidence.
I have shared this with John before, but I liken it to the scene in Bruce Almighty when he is pleading with God for a sign that He is real. Even as Bruce is pleading, the camera shows signs all around him that Bruce simply doesn't see.
Evidence is there. It's a matter of what we each will accept as evidence and how we explain away the evidence when it's presented to us.
A bit more charity in your attitudes, bluemongoose and edson, would likely do wonders.
Aha, if that is the case then God would respond that he already saved your soul. He sent his Son to save your soul, yet you need another round of spectacular and frenzy show, whow!
Let me be more charitous as Prof. Dan advised me. John, I'm fully aware of the situation you are in. I, personally, sometimes find myself in very serious faith crisis to so many theological and other issues pertaining to Christianity. So it is foolhardy if I say my journey of faith is smooth.
However, there is one thing I sworn I wont do, under any circumstances. I wont take any initiative to attack Christianity the way you do when I'll find myself to be out of my faith. Christianity may be false, but certainly isn't a bad philosophy. Christians throughout history have behaved badly but also have contributed overwhelmingly to the development of the West and the world in general. God, as depicted in the Old Testament is obviously not tasty but assuming he is the same God who is the supposed author of the Universe and life, who will deny that life is not amazing and scintillating? Aren't you even puzzled by the genious behind nature?
Obviously, I'm angry. But not because you are fighting Christianity. But rather because the reasons you fight Christianity are not convincing. Some jews, muslims and hindus fight Christainity for the reasons that christain missionaries are converting their populace and thus altering their cultural identity. Well, that seems more plausible to me, as far as I'm concerned. But not to you a former christian, who use the boogeyman of oh, christians have a political agenda..., oh christians want to make gays second class citzens..., oh christianity is delusional..., oh, Christian faith makes someone stupid...etc, etc.
Blue, you’ve yet to come up with even one single absolute / never changing example.
Is the Bible an example of your “absolute” standard? What about the term “God”?
Pick an example from either the Bible or theology as an example of your never changing absolute and I’ll knock it down with newer theologies of God both within the Bible and in newer creedal confessions.
You seem to have some theory of an never changing principle of an absolute foundation, yet you offer no examples to back it up.
This is your philosophical dichotomy: Either you MUST have absolute never changing foundation or you must be a relativist. It’s an either or with you, but this dichotomy is now your Catch 21 problem.
There is ONLY one eternal in the universe which is change itself.
I will remain open and wait for one example of your absolute ideal. [Please don’t use “God” since this term is in a state of constant change in the Bible.]
Plus, to claim God never changes, but that only man’s understanding of him does uses circular reasoning and only begs the question even further.
John Loftus wrote: He is a Bible Thumper, and by that I mean someone who finds all of his theological questions answered decisively in the Bible, not in reason.
Your stereotypical view of reason being incompatible with Christianity doesn't fly. I, for one, spend much of my time in "reasoning" scientific explanations, evidences, hypotheses, etc. and find no incompatibility with the Bible, as did NOT these individuals: Founders of Science
Faith certainly tells us what the senses do not, but not the contrary of what they see; it is above, not against them. - Blaise Pascal
Alan,
You haven't been here very long have you? John has never said that all Christians are irrational. Some are, some are not, just as some atheists are irrational and some are not.
Faith tells us nothing but to show the folly of being more certain about some propositions than evidence can justify. Spouting quotes will get you nowhere unless you can back them up with something more substantial than some randomn appeal to authority.
Alan is right.
A lot of scientists were Christians.
This proves that science and Christianity are compatible.
And a lot of slave-owners were Christians.
By Alan's logic, I have now proved that slave-owning and Christianity are compatible.
According to Jesus, 'If the miracles that were performed in you (Capernaum) had been performed in Sodom, it would have remained to this day.'
If miracles could convince the citizens of Sodom, why can God not provide miracles to convince John Loftus?
Blue: you say, "God uses many ways to get your attention (like your friend); however, if you choose not to listen, He won't trample on your free will to get you to pay attention."
I have two problems with this. About the latter part of your statement: It seems to me if the christian god existed, he tramples on your free will all the time. He sent the friend? He answers the prayers of his followers? He sends angels to guard people and visions or dreams to guide them? I hear these claims all the time.
If god really didn't want to trample your free will to get your attention, he'd just sit back and do none of those things. After all, he already sent Jesus and the bible, right? Anything more, like sending the friend to preach to an experienced theologian, IS an extra attempt to get his attention! IMHO
As to my first objection, it's about god using the friend. Firstly, I'd hope god would 'arm' the friend better before setting him up against a biblical expert. Does god really think a toothpick will beat a sword?
When I was a christian we were told a joke in the homily around which the priest built his point. It was the same as your saying the friend was sent to get John’s attention. It deals with a man in a flood zone who turns down police in a car, a rescue boat and then a helicopter in turn as the waters rise, always saying god will save him. In the end he dies and goes to heaven. He rebukes god for not saving him only to be told, “Well, first I sent a car…”
This is the “God helps those who help themselves” mentality. In other words, do everything you can to help yourself, then give god the credit when it turns out ok. Or give god the credit for the heroic flight crew, or EMTs, or that $5 bill you found on the ground the day you lost your lunch money. Irrational, if you ask me.
Hi, John.
Anti-intellectual. You jump to conclusions too soon. I've found during debates that so-called atheists like to throw this term around prematurely.
Never hear the argument? Are you sure one never hears the argument from those holding degrees? Maybe many don't make the arugment b/c it would make them feel bad to know they could have gotten their education at a much cheaper price after they wasted so much $$.
Just to chew on: Do you ever wonder why the only way to obtain a credible "certification" in a particular field is by using the most expensive route?
BBlue: my opinion on this:
"Why waste $100,000 on some college knowledge you could have got for $1.50 in late charges at the public library?"
Wow, a snappy remark that sounds better than it is!
It's not a waste to spend good money learning from people experienced in their fields. Teachers are there to clarify for us, to challenge and support us, and to help find answers we cannot find ourselves. In college, you also learn from fellow students.
I could read about electricity 'till I'm blue in the face, but I wouldn't trust myself to rewire a house without real training.
"So is that the only way one can have credibility: by receiving a degree in X, Y and Z? If so, then no one is allowed to pronounce judgment on anything they are not officially trained in"
Nice try. Obviously, there are degrees of credibility. If I study said electricity, my friends who know nothing may find my advice on what problem they have in their house or what credentials they should look for in an expert helpful.
They have no credibility in this case; I have a little. My friend Hilary who has a degree and is an actual electrician has the most, though.
In less technical subjects, good ideas can come from all sides, but the person with the most expertise, usually the one with the degree, is generally the most credible.
Harry:
We must lay foundations first. Think back to when you were in school. Did your teachers/professors ever just say to you, "This is the way it is, so just accept it"? No, they did not. And if they had, it would have spurred within you a rebellion against that kind of thinking. Your teachers layed foundations as to why things were the way they were. That's what we're doing here. I only ask that you treat our debates here the same way you treated your studies in school.
Absolutes. Your questions about the Bible and God leave a wide open space for many "human interpretations". This is a habit you'll have to break if you don't want to be continually tripped up by relativism. So while people can have many interpretations of God and the Bible, there is only one God and one Written Word (mind you, we're not talking about biblical translations).
Picking an example so you can knock it down. Well, Harry, that's a very inviting request. My answer: We're getting there. One thing at a time. Patience is a virtue...
Newer theologies. So is that the standard, the trite old vs. new battle?
Why do you believe the either/or situation is now my catch 21 (22)?
"There is only one eternal in the universe, which is change iself." Except that statement right there, correct? You're saying that remark is the only other constant, right? Congratulations! You just defeated your own argument.
"Please don't use 'God' since this term is in a state of constant change in the Bible." Again, you make a definitive statement. But how can a definitive remark be allowed in a world that is constantly changing? Issue No. 2) Why can't I use "God"? That's the problem with many so-called atheists today: They ask a question about God, but yet they don't want answers that comes from the source that speaks about God.
Finally, Issue No. 3) The term is constantly in a state of change. My answer: That's just your interpretation...
Cypressgreen:
We have a problem w/the term "force". Was John forced to accept what his friend said to him? Did his friend tell John, "Believe this way, or I will hurt you"? What you are doing is assigning a subjective defintion to the word.
Sitting back and doing nothing. Seems that way at first, doesn't it, CypressGreen. But what if for a moment we assume Yahweh of the Bible is real and there is ultimate judgment? And what if we also assume He is a loving father who is crazy about His kids -- so much so that if He had the ability to help them 1) lead lives sans worry, stress 2) heal their sicknesses 3) give them assurance of an eternity in heaven, then why would He just sit back and let them be w/out all that good stuff? If you're a parent, you don't expect your kids to go out and forage for food on their own, if yo uhave it in abundance and are ready, willing and able to just give it to them. Likewise, in God's original plan, it was His will that we depend on Him for all our needs.
Arming the friend. This is case in point that you don't understand how God works. You see, even if John's friend didn't win John over at that time, that small act started a domino effect. While John rebuffed the attempts at the time, he was so irked by the friend's actions, that it prompted him to make a post about it here at the blog. In turn, John got many people talking and thinking about God. And ultimately God used one atheist to plant seeds for His divine purpose in the hearts of others. Toothpick beats the sword...
"God helps those who help themselves." C.G., this is where we would talk again about God's original plan for our lives vs. His plan for us after the fall. But you present an either/or situation here. What if there was a 3rd option?
"Irrational, if you ask me." Notice how you said, if you ask me. This indicates you are using yourself as a system of weights and measures as to whether something is right or wrong. But in the relativistic world you just advocated for, where there are many interpretations, why should yours be the definitive one?
Steven Carr wrote: By Alan's logic, I have now proved that slave-owning and Christianity are compatible.
You have "proven" nothing. Finding oil in water, lions & zebras in African savannah, or sheep among wolves does not prove compatibility.
Steven srote: John has never said that all Christians are irrational. Some are, some are not, just as some atheists are irrational and some are not.
Therefore what?
Steven Carr wrote: If miracles could convince the citizens of Sodom, why can God not provide miracles to convince John Loftus?
Your question is answered with uncanny precision in Luke 16:19-31
If the above doesn't make sense to you then perhaps this will explain: Isaiah 6:9-10
Blue:
I don’t see where the term ‘force’ was used (?)
“God's original plan for our lives vs. His plan for us after the fall.” 1. God knows everything past and future. Why does he need 2 plans? All he had to do was plant the damn magic trees somewhere else but Eden…or nowhere! What kind of loving father sets up his children to fail, then punishes them with death for doing so? Especially if he knew for certain they would!! And I’m glad you’re here, privy to the Supreme Being’s Ultimate Plans.
“While John rebuffed the attempts at the time… it prompted him to make a post about it… John got many people talking and thinking about God. And ultimately God used one atheist to plant seeds for His divine purpose in the hearts of others.” Wishful thinking. The purpose of the blog is to discuss Christianity! Only ‘believers’ who come here to read and comment risk ‘conversion.’
"Irrational, if you ask me." Notice how you said, if you ask me.” Very funny. It is a manner of polite speech, as I’m sure you know. Like when I said IMHO.
“This indicates you are using yourself as a system of weights and measures as to whether something is right or wrong. But in the relativistic world you just advocated for, where there are many interpretations, why should yours be the definitive one?” Ultimately, we must all answer to ourselves for our behavior. To you, yours is definitive and to me, mine. The difference is I am open to changing my views based on experience and knowledge while I am assuming you base yours on a thousands of years old text of which we only have copies of copies of copies of the original. If the bible and Yahweh have the definitive answer, why are there hundreds of sects of Christianity, none of which agree?
You're my boy Blue!!!
"Why waste $100,000 on some college knowledge you could have got for $1.50 in late charges at the public library?"
In the movie that you so eloquently quoted, Matt Damon's character was an anomaly, an intellectual freak of nature. I don't quite know how to tell you this blue.......but you're not. :)
Bluemongoose writes:
"God uses many ways to get your attention (like your friend); however, if you choose not to listen, He won't trample on your free will to get you to pay attention."
What ways did God use to get the attention of those people living in North and South America prior to the year 1492? They obviously did not become Christians. Are they "saved," or are they "damned"? Was the fact that they did not become Christians because they chose not to listen, or was it because of something else?
Alan Clarke writes:
"Steven Carr wrote: By Alan's logic, I have now proved that slave-owning and Christianity are compatible."
You have "proven" nothing. Finding oil in water, lions & zebras in African savannah, or sheep among wolves does not prove compatibility."
Obviously slave-owning and Christianity WERE compatible. Most of the men who founded the Confederate States of America in order to protect slavery were fine, upstanding Christian gentlemen. Weren't they?
Slave-owning and Christianity were compatible off and on for the better part of two millenia. The past 150 years or so are something of an exception.
Blue - But what if for a moment we assume Yahweh of the Bible is real and there is ultimate judgment? And what if we also assume He is a loving father who is crazy about His kids...
Here is the problem, Blue - many of us not only had that assumption, we truly believed it. But the problem is assumptions tend to fail when evidence amounts against it. This is what happened to John, this is what happened to me and many others. I don't know if you have read my blog article Why I Left Christianity, but there I tell the story of how evangelical believing Christian scholars, trying to be objective and honest with the evidence, ultimately led me to reject the faith.
You can posture all you want, and keep throwing out the "relativism" statements until your "blue" in the face, but in the end, the evidence is against any evangelical reading of the Bible.
Alan has found a part of the Bible which contradicts the part I gave.
Wow! That showed me up!
Noneoftheabove wrote: Obviously slave-owning and Christianity WERE compatible. Most of the men who founded the Confederate States of America in order to protect slavery were fine, upstanding Christian gentlemen. Weren't they?
Christianity is not defined by those who attempt, succeed, or fail in following its statutes, but by the original founder, Jesus Christ. If Christians followed your recipe, then Jesus could be discarded and we could rename it "Robert E. Leeism".
I smoked marijuana for about 1 year after becoming a Christian. From this, one might falsely deduct that marijuana and Christianity are compatible. During this time I was convicted of my sin and miserable because the two WERE NOT compatible. I was not only breaking the law, but I was damaging my lungs and brain. It was God's chastising and steady love (despite my sin) that eventually freed me. So we might categorize the early American founders as exhibiting similar failures as pertaining to slavery.
John 8:34 Jesus answered them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Whosoever committeth sin is the servant of sin.
Very strategic use of the Biblical examples John. It's amazing the myths that the Christian subculture has convinced itself of that not only are unreasonable, but aren't even biblical. "God doesn't reveal himself more aggressively because he's respecting your free-will for the sake of authentic love (that's Christian philosophy, not biblical theology). If you want to see him, he will reveal himself. You're not seeing him, cause you don't want to... and ow I'm not judging your heart/motives right now... ahh, I'm judging your "fruit" see? ;o)
My own deconversion experience began with a whole lot of finding out how many things I'd been taught at my non-denominational (Willow Creek style) church that we're unbiblical. That was humbling. Then I learned how deep the rabbit whole (of "cocoa puffs") goes. Now I've learned I was wrong in the assumptions I was making on so many fronts that non-believers aren't calling me arrogant anymore. Now the believers are.
Am I wrong or Did someone once say that "success in life is a matter of pissing off the right people" ? ;)
But Alan, we don't assume the founding fathers were perfect or divine. That's what allows us to succeed in learning from their mistakes and evolve (culturally) beyond them. The problem with Christianity is that we assume that the thoughts of its founders - as captured in the Bible - are perfect (we - at least the types of Christians this blog is addressing - assume they are the perfect capturing of the thoughts of a perfect all-knowing God.) Therefore, we limit ourselves from being able to continue to learn and grow beyond the Biblical author's thinking.
“But even if I rejected it can the Holy Spirit get my attention anyway, like what supposedly happened to Paul who was so hard-hearted that he was even persecuting Christians? Can he get my attention like his supposedly got Moses’ attention with a burning bush? Can he get my attention like he did with Gideon, or many others?”
1), all of these people were believers, even if they were as mistaken as Saul. God acted in ways to show them not that he existed (the biblical challenge was never to get people to believe that God existed after all) but to show them that he was speaking to them. The current development of theological thought doesn't need such guidance like it did then, not now that we have a cannon and tradition (as well as reasons which has been developed more thoroughly). That's not to say that God can't act today to lend some guidance to our understanding of him. Its my understanding that Clark Pinnock experienced a miraculous healing of his eye which was a catalyst for change in his thought.
2) These men provided crucial guidance to Israel at critical points in her history. While lesser men to this day have experienced the miraculous, most of us do not stand in such a unique place. While I have experienced some minor miracles (nothing that couldn't be explained away by a skeptic, but I accept that they were from God) I don't stand in the place of these men and I don't expect fireworks for the vindication of my faith.
3) To insist that you should be able to experience the miraculous or some experience comparable to these men is to show that you have an individualistic epistemology. But an individualistic epistemology where the knower personally should be able to experientially (or perhaps by way of rational deduction) verify each claim (or at least the type of claim), especially in an age of science would only serve debunk most human knowledge from history to science. After all, the vast majority of humans do not have the time, training, skill, or money to verify so many of the claims of science. We are dependent upon others.
It is only more so the case with Christianity that explicitly calls us to community and part of community is to spread and share knowledge.
Christianity is not defined by those who attempt, succeed, or fail in following its statutes, but by the original founder, Jesus Christ. If Christians followed your recipe, then Jesus could be discarded and we could rename it "Robert E. Leeism".
It's not clear to me what you mean by that. How was Christianity "defined by the original founder" in a way that is relevant to the present discussion?
American slaveholders, with few exceptions, did not think that they were doing anything contrary to the will or intent of the original founder of Christianity (probably most of the rare exceptions were Jews who didn't care much one way or the other about Jesus). They did not call themselves "Robert E. Leeists," they called themselves "Christians." Is there any reason not to take them at their word?
I smoked marijuana for about 1 year after becoming a Christian. From this, one might falsely deduct that marijuana and Christianity are compatible. During this time I was convicted of my sin and miserable because the two WERE NOT compatible. I was not only breaking the law, but I was damaging my lungs and brain. It was God's chastising and steady love (despite my sin) that eventually freed me. So we might categorize the early American founders as exhibiting similar failures as pertaining to slavery.
Of course we cannot reason from your particular personal to any conclusion about Christian slaveholders. For much of history, they wouldn't have given a second's thought to the question of whether slaveholding might be sinful. It simply would not have occurred to them that it might be. In the U.S. they were only eventually forced to think about it when some other Christians, mostly hailing from the "free" states, advanced the argument that holdings slaves was, indeed, a sin. So they thought about it, and the more they thought about it, the more they came to the conclusion that those other so-called Christians were not followers of Christianity at all. Perhaps they were adherents of, for want of a better word, "Alan Clarkeism." When South Carolina seceded from the Union in 1861, one of its bills of particulars against the Alan Clarkeists of the day was that "they have denounced as sinful the institution of slavery" -- surely as close to a charge of religious heresy as has ever been levelled in a major American political document. "We, therefore, the People of South Carolina, by our delegates in Convention assembled, appealing to the Supreme Judge of the world for the rectitude of our intentions, have solemnly declared that the Union heretofore existing between this State and the other States of North America, is dissolved...."
However miserable you may have been as a Christian pot smoker, the thing that made Christian slaveholders miserable was not holding slaves, but a perceived threat to their legal right to hold slaves -- and they would have none of it.
A few years ago I had an online discussion about slavery with a minister from a fundamentalist Lutheran sect. I put to him the direct question: "Was slaveholding a sin?" He tried briefly to dodge the question, but then answered, flatly, "No." This was, mind you, in the 21st century, not the 1850's. As far as I know, he believed that he was a faithful follower of the "original founder" of Christianity, and believed that this did not permit him to deviate into Alan Clarkeism.
Blue wrote: Problem No. 2) If atheists trully subscribe to relativism, then who are they to say that the religious system of which they claim to not be a part of is wrong? You know what they say about backseat drivers...
Blue, you seem continually repeat the fallacy of confusing an 'is' with an 'ought.'
Either God exists, or he does not. Either the theory of Evolution is an reasonably accurate description of how life evolved on or planet, or it is not. Either I have five dollars in my pocket or I do not. These are facts, not moral judgements.
To illustrate this fallacy more clearly, my acknowledgment that the female species of some insects eat their male counterparts after mating in no way means I endorsee cannibalism.
However, this is because, as a non-theist, I separate facts from moral truths.
As a theist, you must assume that our current state of affairs is as it should be since God is all powerful. Or, to reference a well known book, "All Truth is God's Truth" because God allows it to occur. Since God is your source of reality and your source of morality, these things are inseparable.
Yes, God may not control if a flipped coin lands on heads or tails, but I'm guessing you would say this is an intentional choice on his part. God could decide the outcome, but he allows either result, just as he allows the female insect to eat the male after mating.
In your theology, this is as it should be, which is by reference must be ultimately "Good"
Furthermore, unless we are going to accept everything we hear as true, we need to be skeptical and question what we are told. This includes our own intuitions and conclusions. Otherwise, we'd be left with conflicting beliefs as not everything can be true. So we must find a way to quantify and qualify what we think is true.
For example, might I want to think God exits because it makes me feel better and it cannot be falsified?
Perhaps I just can't imagine a world with out God, but does that mean that God must exist?
My intuition in a particular case may lead me astray because I have limited experience in a particular field. Or perhaps our intuition as a species is significantly less accurate at scales that human beings usually do not operate, such as the very small, very large or very complex.
And we know that in some cases, regardless of what we learn, our intuitions keep telling us the wrong thing even when we know they are false.
Are we in control of our own decisions. Specifically, note the illusions at 2:25 in the video.
So, if we are going to determine if it is factual that God exists, then we must attempt to reasonably compare God's supposed nature and to his supposed past and future actions, or lack there off. And we must try to do so objectively.
Which leads us back to John's question. If God exists, why does he apparently "violate" the free will of some, but not others, by getting their attention in explicit means?
Noneoftheabove wrote: They did not call themselves "Robert E. Leeists," they called themselves "Christians." Is there any reason not to take them at their word?
Therefore the definition of "Christian" rests on the words of the American founders?
"How many legs does a dog have if you call the tail a leg? Four. Calling a tail a leg doesn't make it a leg." - Abraham Lincoln
Therefore the definition of "Christian" rests on the words of the American founders?
The definition of a word is determined by how the word is used. Are you implying that the American slaveholders who applied the word "Christian" to themselves, and had it applied to them even by their opponents, were somehow using the word incorrectly? How did the "original founder" use the word "Christian"?
"How many legs does a dog have if you call the tail a leg? Four. Calling a tail a leg doesn't make it a leg." - Abraham Lincoln
"Neither party expected for the war the magnitude or the duration which it has already attained.... Each looked for an easier triumph, and a result less fundamental and astounding. Both read the same Bible and pray to the same God, and each invokes His aid against the other." -- Abraham Lincoln
Blue: “Think back to when you were in school. Did your teachers/professors ever just say to you, "This is the way it is, so just accept it"? No, they did not. And if they had, it would have spurred within you a rebellion against that kind of thinking. Your teachers layed foundations as to why things were the way they were. That's what we're doing here.”
Re: My first “school” was Bob Jones University and any expressed dissenting opinions were dealt with as rebellion. On the average, the University expelled one student per week for such attitudes.
This is the goal of dogma and orthodoxy: To stamp out heresy; be it women teaching men religion in the Southern Baptist Convention or set doctrines in the Mormon Church. (This is even why your are committing here at DC.)
I was asked to leave the Southern Baptist over my opinion on the use of the Baptist Quarterly.
Facts prove: The more conservative Christianity is, the more dogmatic and heresy hunting they are (Again, yourself as the example here.)
So, I just don’t follow your reasoning, since (by your commits posted here) you appear very conservative (see below).
Blue: “Absolutes. Your questions about the Bible and God leave a wide open space for many "human interpretations". This is a habit you'll have to break if you don't want to be continually tripped up by relativism. So while people can have many interpretations of God and the Bible, there is only one God and one Written Word (mind you, we're not talking about biblical translations).”
Re: In what way? Relativism is a subset of Eternal Change. If not, just why does the New Testament writters only quote the LXX and not the MT text?
This fact totally sinks your claim “there is only one God and one Written Word (mind you, we're not talking about biblical translations).”
Now Blue, pick up A Concordance to the Septuagint And Other Greek Versions to the Old Testament (Including the Apocryphal Books) and just do a basic word study on אלהים, יהוה, אל, θεός, and κύριος then tell me the term “God’ is not in a constant state of change and relative to the current school that created the Biblical text.
Just why did Jesus not call God, his father, by either his personal name; Yahweh or even Adonai?
Is the concept of God as the Divine Warrior in the Hebrew Bible the same a the loving father of Jesus in the New Testament? No.
And you claim אל is never subject to change. This is where your $1.50 late fee at your local public library has hurt your Hebrew and Greek etymologies in their historical and theological context. (The ONLY absolute אל may have if, whether it’s used in the Hebrew Absolute or Construct cases!)
Blue: “Newer theologies. So is that the standard, the trite old vs. new battle?
Re: Jesus vs. the Pharisees. Pharisees vs. the Sadducees. Paul vs. Peter and the Judaizers (Jews whose theology had more in common with Jesus than with the Hellenistic Paul.)
If theologies don’t change in the Bible, then why the meeting of the Pillars in Acts 15?
Blue: “Why do you believe the either/or situation is now my catch 21 (22)?”
Re: Just look at the corner you just painted yourself into by forcing your current apologetics on to the MT, LXX and N.T.!
Blue: “2) Why can't I use "God"? That's the problem with many so-called atheists today: They ask a question about God, but yet they don't want answers that comes from the source that speaks about God.”
Re: Just what source, other than the MT, LXX or Greek N.T. text are your referring to??
Blue: “Finally, Issue No. 3) The term is constantly in a state of change. My answer: That's just your interpretation…”
Re: No. NO! Simply check out the words used for the English term “God” in any Hebrew or Greek lexicon. (These books are available on Inter-Library loan.)
Change is eternal.
If God exists then God is beyond human understanding. So how can anyone answer your question?
Blue, you seem continually repeat the fallacy of confusing an 'is' with an 'ought.'
...However, this is because, as a non-theist, I separate facts from moral truths.
It's perfectly reasonable to ask what alleged moral truths are in fact truthful. There is a distinction of what is and what ought to be and it's also the case that some alleged moral principle either "is" or it "is not". That is it's either grounded in reality or in illusion.
Which leads us back to John's question. If God exists, why does he apparently "violate" the free will of some, but not others, by getting their attention in explicit means?,
It's not a violation if it doesn't interfere with God's purposes in making humans free. And it isn't the case that these people didn't exercise free will, but rather, as is true with every individual on the face of the earth, their context of freedom and the sorts of free decisions they would face would be unique in many ways.
As the prophet Balaam and King Saul demonstrated, even someone with a special calling can rebel against God.
Even with one of the most coercive examples of guidance, that of Saul (the future Paul, not the king), it isn't clear that his free decisions weren't important. After all, even if he was drastically mistaken, he was already committed to following God prior to his dramatic conversion.
Concerning the old "God gives us the evidence, we just have to open our eyes to see it" chestnut: isn't it interesting that *everything* that God does needs to be attributed to him?
He never directly, obviously does anything on his own. We have to play Monday morning quarterback and say after the fact, "Oh--that was God doing that." It's an odd state of affairs for a being that is the perfect omnipotent creator of the cosmos and whom many people consider to be the most real and obvious thing in their life.
To everyone:
Wow! So much fan mail. I promise that I will try my best to answer as many people as I can. However, I am but one individual, and I can only do so much.
"God does in fact reveal Himself in many ways all around us everyday. It is up to us to open our eyes, ears, and minds to see that evidence.
I have shared this with John before, but I liken it to the scene in Bruce Almighty when he is pleading with God for a sign that He is real. Even as Bruce is pleading, the camera shows signs all around him that Bruce simply doesn't see."
How is a sign that he doesn't notice better than no sign at all? Wouldn't an omnipotent being know what it would take to convince Bruce/John? Why not just do that?
Rob R wrote: It's perfectly reasonable to ask what alleged moral truths are in fact truthful. There is a distinction of what is and what ought to be and it's also the case that some alleged moral principle either "is" or it "is not". That is it's either grounded in reality or in illusion.
First, I'd clarify that...
...However, this is because, as a non-theist, I can separate facts from moral truths.
Yes, It's reasonable to ask in the correct context. However, Blue seems to continually depict all questions as being right or wrong, instead of true or false where appropriate, to present an opportunity to play the 'relative' card. It's as if Blue thinks non-thiests cannot say that the statement "the sky appears to be red at noon on clear days" wrong (aka false).
While it might be the case that Blue thinks all questions ultimately have a moral grounding because of God's existence, this would be an artifact of Blues' worldview, not mine.
Second, is your question if morality is grounded in reality or illusion.
I'd have to ask, is pain rooted in reality or illusion? Clearly, people experience pain, just as people make moral judgements. We are not hallucinating when we stub our toe or we observe someone say they think murder is wrong. But we also know that the phenomena of experiencing pain in a particular part of our body is an illusion. This is because we can trick our body into thinking pain is occurring somewhere else. Furthermore, some people have limited or no experience of pain due to biological reasons.
From my perspective, morality is somewhat like pain. The foundation of pain is in our minds, as is morality. It's a real experience most of us share in a near universal way, but it's not absolute. Nor does it exist in some external form.
Of course, I've given a very rough analogy, as I think culture plays a significant factor. Nor is this anything but a quick attempt to convey my personal thoughts on the matter.
It's not a violation if it doesn't interfere with God's purposes in making humans free. And it isn't the case that these people didn't exercise free will, but rather, as is true with every individual on the face of the earth, their context of freedom and the sorts of free decisions they would face would be unique in many ways.
You appear to be suggesting that you know I'm not facing the sorts of decisions that would require God to get my attention in a significant way. On what basis do you make this decision?
Could it be because your pre-conceived definition of God dictates he would only act in that way? Therefore, since I have not received any special sign, I must not need it?
How might we discern the existence of such a God from a God that does not exist? Or perhaps the ambiguity that results from your response is by design?
Furthermore, I merely used the Christian claim that God cannot violate our free-will as an example of God's supposed nature that we can use to cross check God's behavior, or lack there off. There are many more which can and should be considered.
.
post 1 of 2
Scott,
While it might be the case that Blue thinks all questions ultimately have a moral grounding because of God's existence, this would be an artifact of Blues' worldview, not mine.
Not that this is directly relevant to your discussion with blue (who takes things in directions that I wouldn't necessarily go), but it actually isn't a fruitless endeavor to examine the moral aspects of truth and falsity. There have been interesting efforts along this thinking which arises from the human instinct to assign moral blame and praise to approaches to knowledge as evidenced by insults like "you stupid fool" and "ignoramus" or the near moral praise found in exclamations of "genius" or "brilliant."
We aren't doing epistemology, a human endeavor, justice when we are merely focusing on the nature of justifying what we believe to be truth and proving what is false to be false if we aren't paying attention to the personal traits that goes along with these determinations. So, to borrow from ethical theories, we have epistemic virtues such as being a hard studier, and open minded but virtues are often to be balanced traits, so open mindedness should be balanced against the epistemic vice of credulity. Another example, Epistemic sobriety, or the refusal to immediately change ones mind just because contrary evidence arises. That is the balance between rigidity, the refusal to ever change and to be "blown here and there by every wind of teaching".
I think another ethical way of looking at epistemology, which is more immediately relevant to these discussions would be moral utilitarianism where we are conscious of what usefulness truth provides. Of course a deception could be useful, but truth is arguably more useful in more situations, so for example, with the problem of evil (not the religious one but the problem that is evil itself), we may note that a view like atheistic materialism is utterly useless for so many people of the world where they suffer terrible evil and never see justice in their life up till the end. Contrast this with the theistic view where there will be a resurrection and a judgment and the world will be put to rights. the usefulness of this of course does not prove it, but it is nevertheless one very important epistemically positive aspect.
You appear to be suggesting that you know I'm not facing the sorts of decisions that would require God to get my attention in a significant way. On what basis do you make this decision?
My general comment was in response to your general comment referring to John's question. I don't know what your specific situation is or what God's plans and possible plans are for your life with whatever issues you are facing. But God's primary mode of action in the world is through his church and through the love of those in the church. (Of course I know many in the "church" are not loving though scripture warned that there'd be people who claimed to follow Jesus but in fact are not). God's primary way of getting people's attention is not through the means that he did for all the biblical figures that John mentioned as I highlighted in my first post in this thread (not to you).
Of course for those who do not experience the love of God through the church by lack of access or by the presence of a church that fails to carry out its mission, Scripture testifies that God is not absent in those cases and it is reasonable that God will look merciful on those who respond positively to the grace that is available to them. There is little clarity as to what that looks like, though Peter in the book of acts chapter 10 observes an example in Cornelius when he declares "I now realize how true it is that God does not show favoritism but accepts men from every nation who fear him and do what is right," after meeting Cornelius who, prior to accepting the gospel, gave to the poor and made prayers that went up to God as a memorial. This is not the only passage either on this point.
.
post 2 of 2
Could it be because your pre-conceived definition of God dictates he would only act in that way?
What I wrote was not preconceived. It's based on my modest studies into the issue.
How might we discern the existence of such a God from a God that does not exist? Or perhaps the ambiguity that results from your response is by design?
There was no ambiguity in what I said in response to the specific statements I answered. You are raising a different (though related) issue.
I could take your question 2 ways. You could be asking how we can prove God's existence such that it is illogical or obviously absurd to refuse to acknowledge his existence. I don't believe that such a means always exists. Nothing can eliminate the freedom to obey God for most if not all of humanity as we know it on a daily basis, and acknowledging his existence is a subset of that for some of our culture (not all of it, as I for example, am not currently psychologically in a place where i'd fully entertain the possibility of life without belief in God, though I have my struggles to obey God and still make free choices there). As a subset of this approach, you may be asking how we may determine God's existence from a neutral objective starting point, but I don't believe such a place exists. We cannot deal with this question any other way than to do so from where we already find ourselves with the lives we lived, the experiences we've had and the choices we've already made all of which comes into play when dealing with a personal reality of a personal deity who wishes to relate to us personally.
Now if you're asking how we may determine that it's reasonable and even wise to believe in God (reasonable, but not necessary) there's a lot more that can be said to that. There are so many of the classic arguments for God, like the cosmological and teleological arguments that are hotly contested. But what is more fruitful is to figure out what God is like and how he works in the world. This is a more basic question than God's existence since you need to know something about anything before you can determine that it exists. While we probe the question of what God is like, we also must look at the shape of the world we live in to see how well the pattern fits. And it's not the case that other explanations can't also explain the pattern, but we may still work to see what is better. But in our standards for what is better, subjectivity cannot be eliminated either. And I don't think we should eliminate it. For example, I am going to insist that the quality of an answer depends heavily on how well human worth and significance is upheld while realistically dealing with how evil is an affront to that worth and can sometimes compromise it.
Now if you want more detail than that, I could oblige with some interaction, but doing full justice to the question is perhaps beyond the scope of this discussion and my ability and time to spend on it. But I would recomend a book by someone who takes a similar approach. "Simply Christian" by N T Wright does this sort of thing as Wright explains why Christianity makes sense.
Is this one of those thousands of Christianities that make so much sense?
Exorcism left dead boy on a cross
http://www.news.com.au/adelaidenow/story/0,22606,25689726-5005962,00.html
The church members decided the boy was demon-possessed. In reality the young man had epilepsy.
This poor young man was repeatedly beaten with belts and reeds by his mother and other church members over the last three days of his life. The last two days of his life his mother and the rest of the church hung him on a cross where he died of suffocation.
No god was looking out for this young man, but evidently some Christianity's version of a god was telling the mother and the church's clergy and laymen just how to treat his illness. They spent three days torturing him with beatings and long, slow suffocation.
second wind for more of the same disproven bad argument russ?
Is this one of those thousands of Christianities that make so much sense?
only in a similar way that eugenics was a part of some of the thousands of versions of evolution that make so much sense.
No god was looking out for this young man
right, God made his parents responsible. They were the ones who failed their responsibility.
Seems to me these poor Christian folk were just following the teachings of their holy book and leader, "…when the Sabbath came, Jesus went into the synagogue and began to teach. The people were amazed at his teaching, because he taught them as one who had authority, not as the teachers of the law. Just then a man in their synagogue who was possessed by an evil spirit cried out, "What do you want with us, Jesus of Nazareth? Have you come to destroy us? I know who you are—the Holy One of God!" "Be quiet!" said Jesus sternly, "Come out of him!" The evil spirit shook the man violently and came out of him with a shriek. The people were all so amazed that they asked each other, "What is this? A new teaching—and with authority! He even gives orders to evil spirits and they obey him."
Mark 1:21-27
Julie would disagree with you Rob.
http://hamptonroads.com/2008/06/can-any-christian-cast-out-demon
Seems to me these poor Christian folk were just following the teachings of their holy book and leader,
Then I guess we can agree that your ability to interpret a text is as good as theirs. Clearly the quality of that ability isn't limited to an ancient text since we haven't discussed anything here to indicate whether I'd agree with Julie or not.
Rob R,
You're truly disgusting. You so want your delusion to be true that you'll pick any scapegoat to mask the atrocities. You claim a moral high ground, just like most Christianities do, and yet your response to a true horror committed by your Christian brethren is the sick excuse that you're simply no better than others who have committed reprehensible acts.
This young man died directly due to your filthy Christian religion.
You said,
God made his parents responsible. They were the ones who failed their responsibility.
Your god must have really had it in for this kid, because he also made your responsible adult, the mother, mentally ill. I'm sure your first choice for who should be next in the responsibility chain-of-command would be...the Christian clergy. They were there. They killed him.
You're right about one thing though, Rob R, your goofy god is not responsible. It would have to exist for accountability to hold. Fortunately, the nonexistence of your useless god frees me from needing to defend morally vulgar superstitious practices like you are required to.
Rob R, your religion is a supportive social group you associate with. In that social group you have a version of Christianity you all agree to claim to hold to(at least in your church building). You have defined a god you all agree to claim to believe in(again, at least in your church building). Your particular version of Christianity is one of the Wesleyan variants. And, you certainly have strong opinions about which of Hope Wesleyan or Douglas Road Wesleyan or Countryside Wesleyan is the best. Your revealing comparisons about such things get people's attention, but your imaginary god is notably absent in that regard.
It's good that you have a group to associate with and among whom you feel comfortable. But, none of what you and your friends agree to among yourselves is necessary to be a good person or to live a good life. Those people who reject Wesleyanism; those who reject the Christianities; those who reject theism; and, those who reject religion all remind us that not being like you is the norm not the exception, and that that is a good thing.
Recall, you've demonstrated your religious idiocy to me before when you stated that the differences between Christianities are insignificant. That there are atheist as well as theistic Christianities, demonstrates that the differences are significant. That you would learn to believe from your group's accepted doctrine that this child's death at the hands of Christians is insignificant while other Christians would be outraged, demonstrates that the differences are significant. That Wesleyans became Wesleyans specifically so that they would not be Methodists, demonstrates that the differences are significant, and significant enough to drive people apart instead of bringing them together.
When I was a kid this kind of religious inadequacy and incoherency - don't bother trying to refute these, Rob R, I know that all groups like yours have fabricated imaginary solutions for all sorts of blatant stupidity - caused me to look skeptically at religion and the church. I'm sure that when your four kids asked questions that you always had a ready answer that stuck your god in somewhere. You made sure they were never without an answer, just like you now. For people like you, a wrong answer is better than no answer.
Unfortunately, doling out a wrong answer, for instance saying that it doesn't matter that the Christianities contradict each other, often causes far more harm than the more honest, "I don't know."
In keeping with the post title, the idea of your god does get my attention. One way is by telling so many people contradicting absolutes. Another way is by telling you, dear Wesleyan, that the contradictions don't matter, even when Christianities kill the innocent due to those glaring contradictions.
Now, boy, go make up some more stupid religious shit to make yourself feel better. You can pray to my all-powerful rock if you like.
Oh, Robby boy,
Here's another thread you'll be interested in.
http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2009/07/unscientific_america_and_those.php
You'll love this. It's PZ Myers' book review of a book that doesn't take too kindly to these New Atheists, and it's rather unflattering to PZ himself.
But, it has some insights related to gods not revealing themselves to us.
Here's an excerpt for ya:
Following this, he proceeds to damn the "New Atheists" for "collapsing the distinction" between methodological and philosophical naturalism, and argues that Dawkins is taking a philosophical position and misusing science to claim it "entirely precludes God's existence."
One big problem: we don't. Oddly enough, this is one of the most common canards used by theistic critics, that we're demanding a kind of philosophical absolutism, yet Mooney is an atheist. The "New Atheist" approach is firmly grounded in methodological naturalism; it's an extremely pragmatic operational approach to epistemology that leads us to reject religious claims. None of us make an absolute declaration of the impossibility of the existence of a deity, either.
One strand of this view is simple empiricism. Science and reason give us antibiotics, microwave ovens, sanitation, lasers, and rocketships to the moon. What has religion done for us lately? We have become accustomed to objective measures of success, where we can explicitly see that a particular strategy for decision-making and the generation of knowledge has concrete results. I'm sorry, but faith seems to produce mainly wrong answers, and in comparison, it flops badly.
Now, now, I can hear the defenders of religion begin to grumble, there's more to life than merely material products like microwave ovens — there's contentment and contemplation and a sort of subjective psychology of ritual and community and all that sort of thing. Sure. Fine. Then stick to it, and stop pretending that religion ought to be a determinant of public policy, that it can inform us about the nature of our existence, or that it provides a good guide to public morality. Get it out of our schools and courthouses and workplaces and governments, take it to your homes and your churches, and use it appropriately as your personal consoling mind-game. And stop pretending that it is universal and necessary, because there are a thousand different religions that all claim the same properties with wildly different details, and there are millions of us with no religion at all who get along just fine without your hallowed quirks.
Okay, boy, now go on over there and rip him apart with the many amazing religious insights you and your friends have made up.
I have had a conversion experience.
I am a passionate Russtefarian!
Great stuff Russ.
Russ, I'll take a closer looksee at what you wrote but some of this I've already responded to towards you in ed's blog that he just closed (presumning you are the same russ as you do have a similar approach).
Rob wrote: Not that this is directly relevant to your discussion with blue (who takes things in directions that I wouldn't necessarily go), but it actually isn't a fruitless endeavor to examine the moral aspects of truth and falsity.
When we have a more accurate map of reality, our ability to navigate it successfully is increased. When we have a less accurate map of reality, our ability to navigate successfully is decreased. We can separate this increased success from the moral status of particular path we are attempting to navigate.
For example, if we assume the accelerator in a car is actually the brake, instead of vice versa, it's much less likely we'll successfully reach our destination. This is true regardless if we are delivering meals to home bound seniors or the driving the get-away van in an armed bank robbery.
in this particular context, I'd say that a more accurate map of reality can be viewed in a neutral way.
However I'd agree that, as a culture and a species, we tend to assign a positive moral status to the endeavor to discern what is true from what is false.
we may note that a view like atheistic materialism is utterly useless for so many people of the world where they suffer terrible evil and never see justice in their life up till the end. Contrast this with the theistic view where there will be a resurrection and a judgment and the world will be put to rights. the usefulness of this of course does not prove it, but it is nevertheless one very important epistemically positive aspect.
Have you ever considered the reason why theism is so "useful" in solving the problem of "evil" is due to the fact that, epistemically, it creates the very problem that is supposedly solves?
The idea that cosmic justice is somehow "due" is a side-effect of assuming a particular state of affairs in reality accurately explains why suffering happens. Specifically, there is some evil force that is the ultimate cause for bad things that happen and, by it's very nature, deserves to be punished. Furthermore, it assumes there is some force that is the source of all goodness, which allows evil to wreak havoc in the present, but will ultimately will dish out punishment at some future point in time.
In other words, by presenting duality as the solution to the question of suffering, theism creates the perception of gap that "needs" to be filled. So, it's really no surprise that theism is "useful" at filling this gap since it's essentially the other side of the same epistemic coin. Nor is it a surprise that MN is "useless" at filling this gap since it does not propose such a gap actually exists in the first place.
God's primary way of getting people's attention is not through the means that he did for all the biblical figures that John mentioned as I highlighted in my first post in this thread (not to you).
To in which you said...
The current development of theological thought doesn't need such guidance like it did then, not now that we have a cannon and tradition (as well as reasons which has been developed more thoroughly).
Which seems like an assumption of the same nature.
First, multiple theologies can be thoroughly refined over several centuries that appeared to be internally cohesive, yet exhibit significant differences that result in fundamental incompatibilities about God's nature. Concrete examples of such theologies are Calvinism and Arminianism.
One might even suggest that Calvinism is more cohesive as it is more internally consist. However, regardless of what camp you're in, I'd guess that you think one of these thoroughly developed theologies is very wrong, while the another is very right and is very much in need of guidance.
Second, John seems to think that God was not and is not speaking to him. As someone who's books are being used in religious study classes, he would represent an opportunity for God to reach others.
Third, you seem exclude the possibility that God picked people not because they were influential, but that these people became influential *because* God picked them.
After all, the vast majority of humans do not have the time, training, skill, or money to verify so many of the claims of science. We are dependent upon others.
However in the case of Christianity, God, who is supposedly infinite, would have the time and ability to remove such a dependency. There is no necessary condition that requires God to use such a strategy. Furthermore, this strategy has resulted in a significant number of people groups that have yet to be reached.
Worlwide Bible translation statistics (2008)
Scripture testifies that God is not absent in those cases and it is reasonable that God will look merciful on those who respond positively to the grace that is available to them
While I'm far from a theologian, I've been exposed to God though attending regular services of various denominations, by indirect and direct exposure to Christians who I'd consider well versed individuals who live morally upright lives and through my own personal research on the subject.
Despite this availability, I do not believe that theism is true for a multitude of reasons. As such, it's unclear as how you know my situation doesn't require God to get my attention in a significant way.
Rob, when you said.. It's not a violation if it doesn't interfere with God's purposes in making humans free.
In making this statement, you appear to have taken free-will off the table as a means to determine if God's actions were constant with his definition. God values free-will, but only when it's convent for him to do so.
Perhaps I should rephrase the question. How might we determine if a proposed action of God was in alignment with his purposed purpose for making human's free?
But what is more fruitful is to figure out what God is like and how he works in the world. This is a more basic question than God's existence since you need to know something about anything before you can determine that it exists.
So, God exists, therefore, whatever happens in the world is what God must be like?
I'd note that even if, for the sake of argument, we assume that supernatural cause for everything we see, you and I could reach significantly different conclusions about the number and even the very nature of these supernatural forces.
For example, what if God, who is all good, all powerful and all knowing is locked in battle with his all knowing, all powerful evil twin? Surely, this would be at least on par with Christianity in describing what we observe around us. Furthermore one might say it's a far simpler and makes fewer assumptions than Christianity.
How have you discerned the existence of the Christian God from this possible twin God scenario, or a God that does not exist?
Or do you accept these scenarios as equal possibilities?
Cypressgreen:
I agree that it's not a waste for some people who have the money to spend it on college if they want to go there. However, why pigeon hole everyone? College may not be available for everyone. And some may just not learn best in that setting. So if that's the case, why can't those individuals who do their own independent study on the same subjects college grads have studied end up with the same educated conclusions? Are you saying what the college grads have illuminated to them in an expensive, structured educational system is somehow better than what independent thinkers get from the library -- reading the same books?
"I could read about electricity 'till I'm blue in the face." Well, maybe you aren't astute in this field, but who are you to say that another individual can't receive and understand this info. w/o formal education in a college setting? Maybe such things are hobbies for others and they enjoy the challenge of teaching themselves. Who are you to tell them what's best for them, based on your own personal limitations?
Credibility levels. Again, you argue this from your perspective, basing it on what you yourself can acheive. You can't speak for anybody else. Square pegs; round holes. If somebody really puts in the effort to teach himself a trade and studies all the proper information, why shoud he be limited just b/c he couldn't afford to take formal classes or doesn't do well in that environment? That sounds very discriminatory.
Good ideas. Notice how you use the word "usually" here, indicating what you state is not definite. Look at Einstein. He was coming up w/many of his theories before he went to college. He even wrote about how the spirit of learning and creative thought were lost in strict rote learning.
Cypressgreen:
No, you didn't specifically write the word force, but it was implied.
Why does God need 2 plans? Sometimes He has 3, 4 or more, depending on how many times we mess up. He is consistent in the fact that He can always get us back on the right track.
Need for the tree. He wanted to allow humans the opportunity to exercise our free will. How can He say He allows us to make our own choices if He doesn't give us any choices?
Punish them w/death. 2 things here. 1st: You're putting the cart before the horse. Originally, we got God's buffer all around us, but we only get to keep that buffer as long as we allow God to protect us. Adam & Eve decided they wanted to do their own thing w/o God. So they stepped outside of His buffer where death is present. It had nothing to do w/what God did to them. They made the choice. 2nd: But God, being a loving father, didn't leave us w/out His buffer forever. He gave us the option of getting it back through Jesus.
Wishful thinking. Again, evidence that you don't know how God works. Atheists believe that just b/c they have shunned God that He has given up on them and is no longer involved in their lives.
The purpose of the blog. Allow me to throw you a curveball here. Let's assume that in those Christianity conversations, discussions about the Bible sometimes come up. And let's also assume that the Bible purports to be the "Living Word" w/lots of power given to it by God. So whenever it is used or mentioned, it has a supernatural effect, even on those who don't acknowledge it. But then I expect you to make mention of how can something you don't believe in have any affect on you? To which I will answer this way: I can not believe in gravity all I want, but my disbelief doesn't change the fact that gravity still exists.
Polite speech. Or a bad habit that causes you to lose debates? Face it, you're getting a proverbial beat down from the very relativism you've used to try to defend yourself with previously.
Ultimately... This is relativism at its finest. So, C.G., what is one to do when opposing views bump up against each other? Can two completely opposite things both be true at the same time?
Open to changing. Or you mean you will back down whenever somebody merely presents a seemingly better argument than what you've got. Come on...don't you want to be sure? Aren't you tired of that frustration of having no absolutes and being forced to cave in the face of the "You do what works for you, and I'll do what works for me" argument? What are you going to do the first time your kid says that to you? Do you like being at the mercy of the ever-shifting tides of whatever society deems is correct at the moment?
So therein lies the dichotomy: relativism where nothing is for sure versus anchored doctrine.
"If the Bible and Yahweh have the definitive answer, why are there hundreds of sects of Christianity, none of which agree?" You come up with awesome questions! Let me ask you this: Do you allow yourself to be judged by someone else's actions? Can we look at your sibling, mom or dad and determine who you are personally? The answer, of course, is no. So why would you judge an infinite God who has committed no evil by the actions of His finite children who are imperfect?
Jean-Baptiste Emmanuel Zorg:
How do you know I'm not an anomaly? Have you ever met me before? It's all about perception, if relativism is to be adhered to. In that context, why should your perception matter to anyone other than you?
But ultimately, you're trying to cover up the fact that you didn't have a good argument to use. So what's the easiest thing to do in that situation? Unfairly hit below the belt.
Noenoftheabove:
What if I told you that this situation depends not on what we don't know but on what we do know. In one context, people who never heard the Gospel are held to a different standard than those who have heard it. And, likewise, those who have studied it extensively and teachers of the Gospel are held to a higher standard than the regular laymen. However, we must all deal with the sin condition we are born into.
That brings up a good question: Have you ever heard about the "sin condition versus sin committed" issue?
post 1 of 2
Russ
after a closer look I don't think I'll spend much time answering you. You aren't serious about the dialogue but are just more interested in rattling off what is probably a well rehearsed knee jerk tirade some of which doesn't even correspond to anything that was said such as:
and yet your response to a true horror committed by your Christian brethren is the sick excuse that you're simply no better than others who have committed reprehensible acts.
I don't know what you're talking about. I didn't say anything of the sort.
So scott has commented and there is a serious effort on his part to interact with what I've said and he does it like a civil human being (at least for the time being). So I intend to put more energies there and towards the other atheists or skeptics who are serious about this sort of thing. If you can demonstrate an ability to advance the discussion, great, but if not, I've got better things to do.
Your god must have really had it in for this kid, because he also made your responsible adult, the mother, mentally ill.
I don't know whether she was mentally ill or not. And while God may have hardended her heart because she refused to listen to him on something important to begin with, and that hardening may have taken the form of mental illness, as I am not a determinist, I don't know that God did such a thing.
I will mention that I mispoke to say that you were right that God wasn't looking out for this young man. By giving him morally responsible capable parents and/or placing him amongst morally responsible community he is looking out for this young man. They failed him, not God, and God will continue with his responsibility when the world is restored by putting this matter to rights judging with equity with mercy for the innocent and oppressed and condemnation for the guilty and unrepentent.
Rob R, your religion is a supportive social group you associate with.
Right, that's the way it should be. Humanity is essentially social. Ergo a redemptive God works through our social nature amongst other things.
And, you certainly have strong opinions about which of Hope Wesleyan or Douglas Road Wesleyan or Countryside Wesleyan is the best.
No, I am not strongly opinionated to my knowledge according to those labels. But I am strongly opinionated that Christianity is not a worldview. It is a relationship with Jesus Christ and people are going to have varying views even within that relationship. Some views particularly when acted out may be distorted enough to place one outside of a redemptive nature of that and others won't.
But, none of what you and your friends agree to among yourselves is necessary to be a good person or to live a good life.
Not completely necessary for a good life. No. But potentially helpful, absolutely. Does a worldview gaurantee that we will live a good life, I wouldn't say so.
Those people who reject Wesleyanism; those who reject the Christianities; those who reject theism; and, those who reject religion all remind us that not being like you is the norm not the exception, and that that is a good thing.
So you take comfort in social support for your beliefs. Interesting.
Post 2 of 2
Recall, you've demonstrated your religious idiocy to me before when you stated that the differences between Christianities are insignificant.
No, I didn't say such a thing as an unqualified blanket statement. I do recall that you are not good at interpreting comments within context.
That you would learn to believe from your group's accepted doctrine that this child's death at the hands of Christians is insignificant while other Christians would be outraged, demonstrates that the differences are significant.
Russ, you are adept at putting words into peoples mouths. Don't play Freud if aren't good at it.
One way is by telling so many people contradicting absolutes.
What contradictory absolutes have I asserted. Russ, you dialog alot on things that weren't even asserted and aren't even right.
I'm not even a moral absolutist on moral absolutes. Some things are morally absolute, and if they weren't, there'd be no point in your tirade. But some morals aren't absolute. I recognize this.
Another way is by telling you, dear Wesleyan, that the contradictions don't matter, even when Christianities kill the innocent due to those glaring contradictions.
Russ, I've already responded to this twice now. If you cannot deal with what is said, then you demonstrate that you aren't capable of doing this sort of thing.
post 1 of 6
Scott
Have you ever considered the reason why theism is so "useful" in solving the problem of "evil" is due to the fact that, epistemically, it creates the very problem that is supposedly solves?
Here's what I'll recognize. Religion may play a role in the development of morality and the view that there is good and evil. Now, it is near impossible for me to look at the world without seeing good and evil and if I was to become an atheist, I'd still look at the world and claim that justice and fairness were worth pursuing and oppression was worth suppressing. So I have a choice. I can look at this natural tendency (that it was developed does not mean it isn't natural, and the social sciences would agree that it is natural given the sociopathy, the lack of an ability to recognize right and wrong is viewed as a disease state.) as an illusion or I can trust that it is real. And this does not make it different from any other experience we have including our experience of objective reality.
Trusting that it is real doesn't then spring forth an entire world-view, but it is one of many perspectives with which to consider in evaluating other world views.
The idea that cosmic justice is somehow "due" is a side-effect of assuming a particular state of affairs in reality accurately explains why suffering happens.
It's not so much a side effect as it is part of a reasonable solution (reasonable when viewed in a greater scheme of other considerations).
First, multiple theologies can be thoroughly refined over several centuries that appeared to be internally cohesive, yet exhibit significant differences that result in fundamental incompatibilities about God's nature. Concrete examples of such theologies are Calvinism and Arminianism.
Well, there's no other way to deal with that situation except to deal with the specifics and continue with the refinements. It's premature to suggest that progress can't be made and it has in fact been made.
It should also be noted that a theology is not the same as our relationship with God. Theology is one important aspect of our relationship with God, but theology is our conception of God and our conceptions of God are not God himself. They help us to understand him and when they fail to do so, we can refine the picture to further facilitate our relationship, obedience to and love of God.
One might even suggest that Calvinism is more cohesive as it is more internally consist. However, regardless of what camp you're in, I'd guess that you think one of these thoroughly developed theologies is very wrong, while the another is very right and is very much in need of guidance.
Right... to your second claim. I think Calvinists need to drop reprobation (the guarantee that one is damned before they live a morally significant life). But what does this matter? It matters for the ongoing quest to learn more about God, but I'm not going to claim that there aren't Calvinists who still know God and love God and have responded appropriately to him. They may be mistaken on something, but those mistakes aren't necessarily going to lead to a damnable rebellion or grievous sin.
This debate is not frozen in a stalemate without progress. There have been very important developments that have powerful implications for this such as corporate election, which has been given a boost from the “new perspective on Paul and the law” and open theism. Also, a universalist theologian, Thomas Talbott has offered a very powerful critique of reprobation with an inconsistency he highlighted from the impossibility of accepting reprobation and completely following the two greatest commandments.
In short, the church doesn't necessarily need explicit divine guidance on this of the type that we see within scripture.
post 1 of 6
scott
Have you ever considered the reason why theism is so "useful" in solving the problem of "evil" is due to the fact that, epistemically, it creates the very problem that is supposedly solves?
Here's what I'll recognize. Religion may play a role in the development of morality and the view that there is good and evil. Now, it is near impossible for me to look at the world without seeing good and evil and if I was to become an atheist, I'd still look at the world and claim that justice and fairness were worth pursuing and oppression was worth suppressing. So I have a choice. I can look at this natural tendency (that it was developed does not mean it isn't natural, and the social sciences would agree that it is natural given the sociopathy, the lack of an ability to recognize right and wrong is viewed as a disease state.) as an illusion or I can trust that it is real. And this does not make it different from any other experience we have including our experience of objective reality.
Trusting that it is real doesn't then spring forth an entire world-view, but it is one of many perspectives with which to consider in evaluating other world views.
The idea that cosmic justice is somehow "due" is a side-effect of assuming a particular state of affairs in reality accurately explains why suffering happens.
It's not so much a side effect as it is part of a reasonable solution (reasonable when viewed in a greater scheme of other considerations).
First, multiple theologies can be thoroughly refined over several centuries that appeared to be internally cohesive, yet exhibit significant differences that result in fundamental incompatibilities about God's nature. Concrete examples of such theologies are Calvinism and Arminianism.
Well, there's no other way to deal with that situation except to deal with the specifics and continue with the refinements. It's premature to suggest that progress can't be made and it has in fact been made.
It should also be noted that a theology is not the same as our relationship with God. Theology is one important aspect of our relationship with God, but theology is our conception of God and our conceptions of God are not God himself. They help us to understand him and when they fail to do so, we can refine the picture to further facilitate our relationship, obedience to and love of God.
One might even suggest that Calvinism is more cohesive as it is more internally consist. However, regardless of what camp you're in, I'd guess that you think one of these thoroughly developed theologies is very wrong, while the another is very right and is very much in need of guidance.
Right... to your second claim. I think Calvinists need to drop reprobation (the guarantee that one is damned before they live a morally significant life). But what does this matter? It matters for the ongoing quest to learn more about God, but I'm not going to claim that there aren't Calvinists who still know God and love God and have responded appropriately to him. They may be mistaken on something, but those mistakes aren't necessarily going to lead to a damnable rebellion or grievous sin.
This debate is not frozen in a stalemate without progress. There have been very important developments that have powerful implications for this such as corporate election, which has been given a boost from the “new perspective on Paul and the law” and open theism. Also, a universalist theologian, Thomas Talbott has offered a very powerful critique of reprobation with an inconsistency he highlighted from the impossibility of accepting reprobation and completely following the two greatest commandments.
In short, the church doesn't necessarily need explicit divine guidance on this of the type that we see within scripture.
post 2 of 6
Second, John seems to think that God was not and is not speaking to him. As someone who's books are being used in religious study classes, he would represent an opportunity for God to reach others.
John's interpretive decisions were real decisions and his decision not to persevere was also a free decision. As Christians, we can expect to face trials and the risk of failure and losing faith is real, but if we persevere, we will be stronger. I don't know exactly what John went through (allegedly amazon is sending me his book where he discusses it) but I'm not a stranger to a crisis of faith. I almost lost my faith over the Calvinism/Arminianism thing. But I was willing to stick it out. I didn't need a miracle from God to make that choice.
Reaching John would represent such an opportunity for others, but it's not like that would be their only opportunity. As Jesus has noted anyway, signs are not for those who are unwilling and demanding of it. John may be willing, but he also seems to be demanding. They are primarily for the guidance of believers. But we are told that the only sign for the unbelievers would be the resurrection of the son. But who did Jesus show himself? It was to the church and it is the church and the early church reveals a natural consequence of resurrection within second temple Judaism. The church lives out the implications of a resurrected Christ. Perhaps we fail to do this often in the west, but the persecuted church demonstrates the living presence of Christ in a powerful way as they show the victory of love even towards those who show them only hate.
Third, you seem exclude the possibility that God picked people not because they were influential, but that these people became influential *because* God picked them.
Actually, I wouldn't insist that that was the case one way or the other. Perhaps it could be a little of both. But, this is very important, it wasn't just that they were needed to be influential, but also the when was an issue. God was developing a nation, one that often was backsliding and rebellious, so that nation would produce a cannon but more importantly, the context for the Messiah. The messiah has come now and God has reformed his people through Jesus The guidance now comes primarily through Jesus' teaching and the Holy spirit, not so much with individually inspired leaders marked with wonders and signs.
However in the case of Christianity, God, who is supposedly infinite, would have the time and ability to remove such a dependency. There is no necessary condition that requires God to use such a strategy.
I don't know that there is a necessity for this strategy. But it appears to me that there are at least very good reasons. God's rescue plan isn't to save a group of independent individuals. God didn't create us to just be individuals. We do not fully reflect the image of God as individuals. And our dependency on each other is part of the context for redemption because our broken social nature is part of the problem.
We aren't just divided and alienated from God. We are alienated from each other and the solution involves not just a reconnection with God, but a reconnection that is facilitated through God's family. God's plan kills two birds with one stone.
post 3 of 6
Furthermore, this strategy has resulted in a significant number of people groups that have yet to be reached.
Right, but while God's rescue plan for the world accomplished by Jesus is implemented through the church, God is still at work beyond the temporal/geographical boundaries of the church as powerfully evidenced in Acts chapter 17 on the Athenians and in Romans 2:17. These passages strongly indicate that God has provided a way that these people can to a degree respond to the grace that is available to them and be on good terms with God. But as our God is a relational personal God, he wants a better relationship with them and the rescue plan for the world as a whole is through the Gospel.
Despite this availability, I do not believe that theism is true for a multitude of reasons. As such, it's unclear as how you know my situation doesn't require God to get my attention in a significant way.
Your situation isn't finished yet. I don't know your heart, but I wager that you have already made free decisions with regard to this that you could have made otherwise and to your general approach to life which has an effect. But if not, and if you never are presented with a live option to choose, then God will judge you on the basis of the grace that is available in your life, on how you treat people and whether you decide to be an all out enemy of the church like Russ who's posted here who has made his decision to refuse to consider anything but corrupt Christians and Christianities and has no interest in understanding the view on its best terms to really honestly evaluate it.
In making this statement, you appear to have taken free-will off the table as a means to determine if God's actions were constant with his definition. God values free-will, but only when it's convent for him to do so.
I have not taken free will of the table, but for God to value free will when it's valuable, what's wrong with that? No scripture explicitly deals with the importance of free will as it is arguably taken for granted. It is something that we have had to work out ourselves. It seems to me that the reasons for free will in creatures is to create them with the ability to have a certain quality of love (self determining love) for God as well as for each other that is only possible with free will, a certain quality of creativity, of consciousness, and to more closely reflect the soviergnty of God and all of these are for the purpose of reflecting God's image. Now the degree to which God needs his image to be reflected is a part of the degree to which God respects our free will. But God does not need all individuals to be equally free in all respects to achieve this as we are not simply individuals but social creatures. But the more God artificially effects free will, the less authentic this creature is and the less it achieves his purposes. So if it's convenient for God to affect free will and yet such an affect doesn't threaten his purposes in creating us free, then there isn't clearly a problem. So there's a balance here that only God knows.
post 4 of 6
How might we determine if a proposed action of God was in alignment with his purposed purpose for making human's free?
What I just wrote to you, I believe provides a reasonable general way of understanding God's approach to our free will, but on the specific individual level, only God knows the heart of the person and how free will and responsibility should be allowed to play out in their life.
post 5 of 6
So, God exists, therefore, whatever happens in the world is what God must be like?
Well, I don't know how you made that step. But one way to go about what I propose is to look at the picture of God painted in scripture and see how it lines up with what we see in the world (and by “the world” I don't mean paltry picture of only what the sciences can tell us, but of our social and experiential world that is available to us).
To take Wright's example he points to four aspects of our humanity, our cry for justice, our near universal spirituality, our value for community and our love of beauty. He suggests that all of these can be interpreted as echoes of a voice, that these undeniable aspects of the human situation can viewed as indicators of something that transcends the world. Now I would add to his list the deep value and significance we assign to history, to individuals (which is part of the value of community), the mystery of consciousness, the puzzle of intentionality, and the value we place on truth in and of itself.
Now, we could explain most all of this from the vantage point of materialism. Wright's four echoes could be explained in terms of naturalistic evolution, that our cry for justice or moral nature was something that evolved, related (or identical to) Dawkin's selfish gene, obviously, our need from community had a survival value and spirituality and the love of beauty are just the side effects of the complex mind that arose out of selective pressures. Everything that wasn't due to a selective pressure is there because of an accident. And the same goes for some of the other possible echoes. And what does this amount to? So the sensation of right and wrong is nothing more than the activity of a neural structure. And if that's not there, then there is no right and wrong. And should their be such a structure? There is no way to answer this. Even if you suggest that it helps a population to survive, well, there's nothing to say whether the population should survive or not. It's hard not to say that ultimately, morality becomes an illusion in this picture. So yes, this picture can explain our moral nature, and it can even support something that I believe, that you don't need religion to be moral, but at what price? As for the other echoes, we could say something similar about most of them and materialism, but I'm going to assume that you don't need me to spell this out.
post 6 of 6
And what is the alternative we are suggesting? A good place to start is with the significance of the individual and the community. Sure we are to a great degree hardwired to see this. You might even suggest that we evolved it(I don't have a big axe to grind on that point). But what anchors this to reality is that we are created in the image of God, so the significance dignity and intrinsic worth that we have is anchored in a sacred design. That image is not fully demonstrated in individuals either, but is demonstrated in community as God is himelf a community, as the trinity breaths life into our understanding of this image. Somehow, this communal nature is most intimately exemplified in marriage as Genesis states that “God created man in his image, male and female he created them.” Since individuals and communities are so sacred, it is easy to see morality arises as we ought to treat each other with dignity and worth. Now our moral nature isn't merely a recognition of the way things ought to be, but it is, in Wright's words, a part of the cry for justice, a recognition that the world is in dire straights, that it is not the way that it ought to be. And so God has a rescue plan which he is enacting through history. He has already achieved the decisive victory in this rescue operation through the life, teaching, death and resurrection of Jesus Christ who has defeated evil by suffering it's greatest consequence and has walked away, but God is not finished but will set everything to rights. And he calls us to be a part of that to continue to work through history until it is brought to an end with the renewal of creation.
Nothing proves this. But it fits and it fits very well.
For example, what if God, who is all good, all powerful and all knowing is locked in battle with his all knowing, all powerful evil twin?
But where I am operating from the history of Israel and the church, you'd be speculating this. If this evil twin is truly a twin to God and coeternal and coequal with equal explanation to the tragic side of nature and humanity, then I could not affirm all of nature as good or basically good. Contrast this with a view where God created everything good much of which became corrupted. And this is our experience of good and evil. Everything that we know that is evil is something that is taken out of context or something that is good but corrupted or potentially could be good. Think of all the sexual crimes we experience. These all arise from something that is good, sexuality, but placed in the wrong context. Violence is where we take something good, human strength and use it for the wrong purpose. There may be some purely evil things in the universe, but they just aren't necessary features and there is clearly an assymetry here (Perhaps something like viruses qualify).
Do I think that I just proved that what I said is better than what you suggested? No, but I think that I've given a good reason as to why it is a better fit. You can't eliminate epistemic risk, that is the state where a belief cannot be proven absolutely, or it is at least conceivable that it somehow could in fact be false. In other word, you can't eliminate faith, not even from scientific claims.
Furthermore one might say it's a far simpler and makes fewer assumptions than Christianity.
Occam's razor is a useful tool, but it's a blunt spoon, not a razor. And if you are making fewer assumptions, it is still to support a woefully simplistic picture. What if I were to suggest merely that everything that is being experience is an illusion and this illusion happens for no reason. What if I were just to assume it. Well there's a simple picture and it's based on just a couple of assumptions, and, most of us would agree (on subjective grounds of course(not that that's a problem)) that its an absurd notion.
Simple doesn't mean adequate.
Here's what I'll recognize.
Were you being charitable when you wrote this or are you intentionally filtering information based on some set of rules?
Now, it is near impossible for me to look at the world without seeing good and evil and if I was to become an atheist, I'd still look at the world and claim that justice and fairness were worth pursuing and oppression was worth suppressing.
I'm referring to cosmic good and evil. Please do not confuse this with a the idea that fairness results in less better outcomes and oppression results in worse outcomes, or that punishment serves to educate and protect others.
And this does not make it different from any other experience we have including our experience of objective reality.
What I'm suggesting is that the idea of cosmic good and evil is not actually evident in what we experience, but is part of the the foundation of theism. For example, there are western religions, some of which predate Christianity, which operate without the assumption of cosmic forces of good and evil. Clearly, they think their experience of reality suggests something else.
Well, there's no other way to deal with that situation except to deal with the specifics and continue with the refinements. It's premature to suggest that progress can't be made and it has in fact been made.
Rob, I'm not suggesting that progress cannot be made. Instead, I'm asking how you decide in which direction should progress be made, as both are considered to be internally consistent and thoroughly refined? Or perhaps "progress" will result in a new theology all together, which could be internally consistent and eventually thoroughly refined as well? Certainly, it has happened before. Best case scenario, one of these theologies are a reasonably accurate depiction of God's nature. However, given God's supposed infinite nature, it could be that none of them are even remotely accurate.
Some liberal Christians do not believe in a literal hell. Should a being decide to sentence people to an eternity of horrendous agony and torture, instead of eternal separation, this would seem to indicate a rather fundamental difference in their nature, don't you think? Could it be that these liberal Christians personally think such a punishment would be excessive, and therefore reject this teaching?
Theology is one important aspect of our relationship with God, but theology is our conception of God and our conceptions of God are not God himself.
What if what you conceive as God is actually the universe? Using this line of thinking, it's unclear how you could discern between the two.
In short, the church doesn't necessarily need explicit divine guidance on this of the type that we see within scripture.
And you know this how?
Reaching John would represent such an opportunity for others, but it's not like that would be their only opportunity.
The problem here, is that you're making assumptions about individuals to which you have little to no knowledge, and about God, who's plan you yourself claim we cannot know in detail. If I recall correctly, John has even received correspondence indicating his book has been the tipping point in someone's de-conversion.
How do you determine if someone has received sufficient information about God?
God was developing a nation, one that often was backsliding and rebellious, so that nation would produce a cannon but more importantly, the context for the Messiah. The messiah has come now and God has reformed his people through Jesus The guidance now comes primarily through Jesus' teaching and the Holy spirit, not so much with individually inspired leaders marked with wonders and signs.
Yes, it is true that, in a majority of cases, Christian guidance currently comes from interpretations of the Bible's teachings. But this is merely echoing what we already observe in reality. The question I'm asking is how do you this state of affairs is sufficient? How do you know there isn't an issue now that needs to be solved by such a means? As a planet, would you not say we not backsliding and rebellious? Is God restricted in the means which he could respond?
God's rescue plan isn't to save a group of independent individuals. God didn't create us to just be individuals. We do not fully reflect the image of God as individuals. And our dependency on each other is part of the context for redemption because our broken social nature is part of the problem.
You haven't shown how this is mutually exclusive. Even if God should have these goals none of them excludes him from speaking to us directly.
So there's a balance here that only God knows.
Which effectively takes free-will off the table.
But what does this matter? It matters for the ongoing quest to learn more about God, but I'm not going to claim that there aren't Calvinists who still know God and love God and have responded appropriately to him. They may be mistaken on something, but those mistakes aren't necessarily going to lead to a damnable rebellion or grievous sin.
Rob, I had to re-read this several times, to make sure I hadn't misread what you wrote.
Just so I'm clear, it appears that you're suggesting one could have a true, personal relationship with someone, yet not know if that someone would predetermine one's soul to eternal damnation. Is this correct?
It's unclear how this could be a true relationship, as this would be a fundamental part of God nature. In other words, are Calvinists really worshiping the Christian God or something else? Or have they created their own God to justify feeling superior to others? Should this be the case, their reasons and motive would be transparent to God. What about the Mormons, who also believe Jesus died for our sins? Where do you draw the line, and why?
But where I am operating from the history of Israel and the church, you'd be speculating this.
You seem to be making the mistake as Bluemongoose. I do not hold this position as factual. I'm asking how you have determined this scenario does not explain what we observe, but Christianity does.
If this evil twin is truly a twin to God and coeternal and coequal with equal explanation to the tragic side of nature and humanity, then I could not affirm all of nature as good or basically good.
The cosmic good of humanity is a claim of Christianity, and the other side of the same coin.
Contrast this with a view where God created everything good much of which became corrupted. And this is our experience of good and evil.
This is *your* experience of cosmic good and evil, again, shaped by Christianity.
There may be some purely evil things in the universe, but they just aren't necessary features and there is clearly an assymetry here (Perhaps something like viruses qualify).
You're assuming that, should God have an evil twin, this would manifest in a specific way, such as things would be all good or all evil. On what basis do you make this assumption?
What if I were to suggest merely that everything that is being experience is an illusion and this illusion happens for no reason.
I'd suggest you've presented a incomplete description.
If everything we experience is an illusion, then what is the reality behind it? What is the source of the illusion. Was it created or did it alway exist? If this illusion happens for no reason, then what is the underlying mechanism which ends up defining what we experience? Are you an illusion as well, and I'm the only thing that actually exists? If not, why do our illusions seem to be correlate to the degree that they do?
Simple doesn't mean adequate
Obviously. But neither are they mutually exclusive. Nor haven you shown how this scenario is not adequate.
What I've suggested is that God, as he is commonly defined, has an evil twin. Both are uncreated. Both have equal abilities. Yet both are diametrically apposed to each other.
Examples assumptions?
- A good God would use evil to for his own purpose.
- God has some sufficient reason why he waited thousands (if not millions) of years to defeat evil, despite being more than capable of doing so.
- God is free to use some other means to test us, but intentionally chose suffering.
Example Conhridictions?
- God creates supernatural beings that are perfect and have intimate knowledge of God's power, yet they decide to turn against him.
- God does not have to appease himself before he can save us.
- God is perfectly good but uses his omnipotent power to intentionally feed us false information.
- God is perfectly good but exhibits human emotions, such as jealousy or anger
- A good God demands humans take part in, or assists with committing genocide.
As an insider of Christianity, these seem reasonable to you. But as an outsider, they appear to be assumptions and contradictions. Furthermore, as an insider, my scenario seems fallacious you. But, between these two supernatural scenarios, as an outsider to both of them, God and his evil twin seems to make the least assumptions and have the lease contradictions.
I wrote: fairness results in less better outcomes
Should have wrote
fairness results in better outcomes
Scott
Some liberal Christians do not believe in a literal hell.
Here's the Christian Bishop Shelby Spong corroborating what you said.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SF6I5VSZVqc
I will get back to this hopefully not too far from now. I'm currently busy.
Scott, I'm a bit disgusted with bloggers 4,000 character limit.
Instead of posting a 8 or 9 part response, I have posted my response as a blog topic. It was too widespread and it isn't aesthetically pleasing as a normal blog topic so I posted it at my utility blog here.
You can answer me here, there, or somewhere else and drop a link here or there.
Post a Comment