Reality Check: What Must Be the Case if Christianity is True?
5) That there was a first human pair (Adam & Eve) who so grievously sinned against God when tested that all of the rest of us are being punished for it (including animals), even though no one but the first human pair deserved to be punished. If it's argued that all of us deserve to be punished because we all would have sinned, then the test was a sham. For only if some of us would not have sinned can the test be considered a fair one. But if some of us would not have sinned under the same initial conditions then there are people who are being punished for something they never would have done.
33 comments:
As I noted in Reality Check: 4),
a) it was necessary to impose the disease (Original Sin) on us humans in order to hold out to us the "cure" of Jesus and the Cross.
The summary?
It's a load of self-serving bullshit.
Here is one of the biggest dilemma's for christians.
The scripture says after they ate the fruit of the tree of knowledge,- "man has become like us, knowing both good and evil"!
This scripture indicates that Adam and Eve did NOT know evil before they ate the fruit!
If they did not know evil before they ate it, then how could they have possibly committed an act of deliberate evil????
Only a deliberate act of evil can be considered punishable.
Now if christians say,- "Adam and Eve DID know the difference of right and wrong because God commanded them not to eat of it", then christians are freely admitting that the scripture which says- "man has become like us knowing good and evil"- which takes place AFTER they ate it, is evidently false!
Eitherway the concept is flawed, christians cant have it both ways.
And you must believe that setting people up is appropriate. Hardly sounds like the Golden Rule to me.
The original sin was anal intercourse. For the exegesis, google the first scandal Adam and Eve. Then click, read, and comment.
Robert,
I just read your blog. Do you believe Adam and Eve were real people?
Anyone can be forgiven and join the Lord's side.
Human Secular Society is not so forgiving.
If you screw up, do poorly in school, whatever it follows you for life.
The Lord offers forgiveness; the world does not.
Winston.
As GearHedEd has already said,Your bible imposes the belief that we need forgiveness, and then offers the cure at the same time.
Atheists,
you are going to learn even to TALK about GOD the way you do is going to cost you your lives...
the writing on the wall...
f*ck you very much!
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/6/6e/Touched_by_His_Noodly_Appendage.jpg
see, you degenerates have last names like first names...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flying_Spaghetti_Monster
how about I believe in WHATEVER I want - even in the FLYING SPAGHETTI MONSTER! - and you have nothing to say!
let me show you the end results of this particular *ONE-DIMENSIONAL SCIENTIFIC MODE*
of thinking that is called *CRITICAL THINKING*, which is completely divorced from
any human objectives...
this style has been perfected by dawkins, pz, randi and the other *NEW ATHEISTS*
**
THE BOOBQUAKE - 911!
see how we take a term and convert it into its AUTHENTIC POLITICAL DIMENSION - THAT
OF LIBERATION - not just merely harmless expression...
visit
http://dissidentphilosophy.lifediscussion.net/philosophy-f1/the-boobquake-911-t1310.htm
Do you know what a troll is, DM?
Look in the flippin' mirror, you moron.
Do us all a favor and leave your incomprehensible screed out of intelligent discussion.
This has been one of my biggest objections. No matter how one slices it, I think a literal (obviously) and even figurative interpretation of this doesn't work.
Theologians will point to an obviously flawed nature as evidence for fallen-ness, but it ignores the possibility that we're getting better. Search for Steven Pinker's TED talk supporting that we are getting better, not worse.
Compare the doctrine of the fall with its natural counterpart explanations:
Intimate Relationship with God
- The fall: started as infinitely close, then we were banned to death but still talked to him (Cain/Abel), then stayed pretty amazing throughout the Israelites' history (exodus, prophets, etc.), then was human-to-human with Jesus, then was human-to-spirit with the first outpouring of the Spirit... then dropped off to nothing by anecdotal evidence.
- Natural explanations: our relationship has simply always consisted of anecdotal evidence, misinterpreted at different times to mean different things.
Moral Knowledge
- The fall: We knew nothing but childhood obedience, then distrusted god's commands, then ate and gained awesome knowledge of good and evil, but then disappointed god so much that he killed us all off for a re-do, and then pretty much stayed as a pure mix until present day.
- Natural explanations: We have always been a mix of goodly and badly judged actions (judged based on internal moral intuitions as well as societal and cultural norms/prescriptions at any given time in history).
If you throw in evolution, it gets even more messed up because you have some previous base-line level of morality and knowledge of god, then some kind of crazy spike when god introduced himself and implanted souls, then a crazy drop-off when we sinned.
The simplest explanation would be a flat line at 0 regarding god's interactions with humans and a steady increase in morality (as has been observed) vs. huge spikes, starting at infinity and then dropping, etc.
Last interesting tidbit: just watched a video interview with Dawkins and Fr. George Coyne, at one time the Pontifical Astronomer (something like that). He has quite interesting views and in video 6/7 he essentially denies that we were given souls or anything such. On one hand, it was interesting to hear a Catholic present a stance which supports science wholeheartedly while professing faith.
On the other hand... if you watch the series, his belief literally reduces to something like: 'I was taught it. It's what I believe. It's what I think god revealed to me through scripture and tradition.' That's it. No evidence, no basis other than choice.
At that point... seems like the simpler explanation is to do away with the unnecessary hypothesis.
Posts like that of DM's are intriguing in one sense, in that they actually make no sense whatsoever, but I always try to hard to make sense of them anyway! HA! Joke is on me I guess. I follow their links hoping that the next link will bring their incoherent ranting together, but no. Always more of the same nonsensical musings of the same variety.
I wonder how christians reconcile the belief in original sin with the belief that our ancestry passed through a population bottleneck named Noah, "a righteous man, blameless among the people of his time," according to Genesis 6:9. If we've all descended from Noah, then wouldn't the transmission of original sin stopped at him?
"even though no one but the first human pair deserved to be punished."
The problem is with the English word "deserve" and its cosmic imputation and definition.
No one "deserves" God's grace and yet God decides who deserves what.
There can be no "fair" in a universe where absolute choices determine the destinies of other individuals.
"the test was a sham."
The English word "test" here fails to address God's omniscience as well as the principle of an infinite determiner which would have contributed to a finite being of choice making a "wrong" choice at some point in the future.
"For only if some of us would not have sinned can the test be considered a fair one."
If not a "tree" then perhaps distrusting God at some point in the future. God having a tree of knowledge of good and evil is just merely speeding up the inevitable so that we don't end up with an eternal state in chaos. What we have now is actually more logical.
This is what you don't understand.
Salvation out of a cursed state is much better than God losing us one by one because we have not been armed with the truth of His Self-Sacrificing Love and His eternal protection and grace and our learning all of the different contrasts that we needed to learn.
Don't call it a "test" - call it a prove. When God 'proved' Adam and Eve in the garden needed to learn of His Holiness and how important it is to trust God. They needed to learn about good and evil and its eternal consequences. The whole human race (those who will be adopted out of the rest who are perishing) needed to learn about how much God loved them.
There is much more here that needs to be addressed. I don't believe that the serpent necessarily "spoke" as in opened its mouth and spoke like Adam would talk. The enemies of God's children have a biblical pattern by which they speak to us and I believe that Eve was no exception.
It would be a rather strange occurence to having a "talking animal" and the red flag would have been up. There are many extra biblical references which corroborate the Genesis account of Adam and Eve. We would need to go deep into this rich history to keep from falling into the deception of foolishness such as Documentary Hypothesis or comparing mythology such as Enuma Elish.
Adam made an actual choice based on circumstances. He was NOT programmed. God knew exactly what Adam would CHOOSE. His knowledge didn't take away the choice any more than Adam having a potential to commit "evil" (sin) because of lack of knowledge and lack of motive which need to be learned and demonstrated (respectively).
Eternity will determine an actual real potential (and act as an infinite determiner). (This is only an example of an infinite determiner it is NOT an explanation of theological infinite determinism).
Bottom line: This wasn't a "test" to see what would take place. This instead was an actual "choice"
that was merely speeded up by allowing a being of choice to do what he wanted to do and that is deceive Eve.
We can easily ask "What was the wolf doing in the sheep's den?"
Logical question. Answer: Proving. Question everything. What do I mean by 'proving' in this context?
Why did God stick a tree that would be a temptation right in the MIDDLE (center) of the garden?
There is much more to this story than just original sin.
Adam loved Eve and chose to die (spiritually) with her rather than trust God (or offer himself as punishment for her - like Jesus would some day do for us). Q.B.
"Now if christians say,- "Adam and Eve DID know the difference of right and wrong because God commanded them not to eat of it", then christians are freely admitting that the scripture which says- "man has become like us knowing good and evil"- which takes place AFTER they ate it, is evidently false!
Eitherway the concept is flawed, christians cant have it both ways."
No. You are failing to differentiate between the knowledge of being told something and the knowledge that to disobey it is either "good" or "evil" and being able to CONTRAST these two and observe them and their consequences. Just because you are uncorrupted because you are still existing in a state of obedience due to contributing circumstances and a neutral nature does NOT mean you have fully understood what evil is or experienced it.
to know it by experiencing it will corrupt you, btw. you will need salvation. Q. Breckmin
Breckmin said,
"...God knew exactly what Adam would CHOOSE."
Here's where the story utterly breaks down.
If god knew what the result would be, then Adam only had the illusion of free will.
And don't hand me any of that crap about "god is outside of time and acts as an observer..."
Yuo're left with a conundrum:
Either God is omniscient and free will is an illusion, or
We really do have free will and god is therefore in the dark about what we will choose.
The way out of this paradox is to admit that the conception of God as expressed in the Bible is a caricature,; one that has been layered through time with all these superlartive attributes to accomodate the flaws in the scripture and place His powers beyond question.
The problem is that some of those superlatives are INCOMPATIBLE, and cannot exist logically in the same being.
Question the Bible, Breckmin.
You don't do that.
I personally love seeing how God reacts to A&E's "disobedience" (as well as throughout the bible) as if he didn't know or wasn't expecting any of this. Oh man, he was pretty upset! I suppose he had to speak to them in a way they could understand just like how he communicated his creation process?
Andre
"If god knew what the result would be, then Adam only had the illusion of free will."
Your concept of God is far too small and you expect too little from Him. God not only knows every decision we "will" someday make but He also knows every single electron orbital that has been or will be.
Knowing Adam's choice because He observes and interacts with choices and all circumstances is actual because of His atemporal existence.
"And don't hand me any of that crap about "god is outside of time and acts as an observer...""
It is incorrect to say "outside of time." Time is infinite but only effectual with finite existence to experience it (or be affected by it via the possibility and actuality of movement).
Your problem is that you are looking at this from a consecutive linear progressive timeline and you are restricting the Infinite Creator to your temporal experience. You are doing the same thing that Calvinists were guilty of with lapsarianism.
Clearly, "free will" is an imperfect nomenclature to describe what we have now...but the concept of volition and the ability for making decisions via self-impulsion is very important. Without volition/choice/limited sovereignty you don't get "love."
It would undermine God's purposes for creating us in His Image so that we COULD love. Love requires choice. You can't agree with God if you can't disagree with God (the eternal potental to disagree with the Holy Owner of the universe is not a "good" thing for you personally).
Of course God knows all decisions that "are being made" or will be made - someday chosen. Observation of a decision does not mean there is no decision...and even decisions can be reactions or the result of knowledge of consequences (as well as what you "want" to choose).
It is intellectually antiquated to claim that we must look at this with linear restriction. There is no dilemma if God observes our choices because He "exists" in the future as well as "our" present. We are in motion, God is not (imperfect statement depending on reference).
"Either God is omniscient and free will is an illusion, or
We really do have free will and god is therefore in the dark about what we will choose."
OR God's omniscience is infinite and instead of being a seemingly infinite set of circumstances like in theological determinism - there is an "actual" infinite (amount/set/number all fail in the English) degree of circumstances that "indetermine" such determinism and allow for absolute choice/decision. The problem is the limitations placed on circumstances and choices (and options to choose from).
Still... there are options.
Decisions are choices we make between more than one option.
Knowledge of the outcome does NOT mean that the decision was not self-generated by the person making such decision. That would
be over simplifying due to final outcome.
I gave the filming of a person making a decision elsewhere as an example. To claim that omniscience removes choice is actually "isolating" on final outcome and is employing tunnel vision and over-simplification because of consecutive linear experience with time.
We can do better than isolate on final outcome. We can look at the reality of self-impulsion (with respect to human consciousness/limited sovereignty/volition only) and see clearly that both "choice" and omniscience are possible when you look at the whole picture instead of a linear restriction.
I'm not claiming "outside" of time...but I am claiming that God is beyond the limitations of time and space. Q E
"Question the Bible, Breckmin.
You don't do that."
Which manuscripts? Which canon? Which "bible?"
Which questions do you want me to apply?
I find reading breck's comments aloud with a "Yoda" voice makes them mildly entertaining.
Adam and Eve are the archetypal man and woman, the quintessential symbol of humanity. The idea is that there is no source of life other than God, and by estranging ourselves through sin from Him Who is Holy, we thereby also become mortal and die. Death, in its turn, is the seat of weakness, temptation, and ultimately (even more) sin: it's a vicious cycle. (1 Corinthians 15:56 + Romans 6:23). Christ came to break the cycle and set us free: which is why we call Him Saviour, Redeemer, & Deliverer.
Breckmin said to me,
"Your concept of God is far too small and you expect too little from Him. God not only knows every decision we "will" someday make but He also knows every single electron orbital that has been or will be."
Bullshit!
And your concept of God has been grossly and gratuitously enlarged to explain all the contradictions in scripture.
That's the part you don't question.
"...It would undermine God's purposes for creating us in His Image so that we COULD love. Love requires choice. You can't agree with God if you can't disagree with God..."
And if we could disagree with God, then we could confound prophecy and create for ourselves a world that God didn't intend.
YOUR conceptualization is faulty.
Question!
You have not overcome my objection that if the outcome is known, then we only have the illusion of free will.
The statement,
"...
OR God's omniscience is infinite and instead of being a seemingly infinite set of circumstances like in theological determinism - there is an "actual" infinite (amount/set/number all fail in the English) degree of circumstances that "indetermine" such determinism and allow for absolute choice/decision. The problem is the limitations placed on circumstances and choices (and options to choose from)..."
is such a rickety house of cards that I don't know where to begin.
It's as if you're saying,
"It MUST be true...It MUST be true... So I'll make up something completely incomprehensible and claim truth."
Furthermore, God (we hear) inserts Himself into the story at specifiic points in TIME so that He can achieve His desired outcomes, and there are all kinds of time dependent actions God is said to have taken.
And don't quote Paul at me. He was instructing specific wayward congregations with specific problems.
You ask,
"Which manuscripts? Which canon? Which "bible?"
Which questions do you want me to apply?"
All of it. The whole story. Everything that sounds the least bit 'magical' is to be questioned, INCLUDING the notion that sin could be PAID for by killing some dude by pinning him to a tree.
"And if we could disagree with God, then we could confound prophecy and create for ourselves a world that God didn't intend."
What He intended as far as optimal goes (for us individually)needs to be differentiated from His omniscience of what we will choose.
This is something you do not appear to address.
"And your concept of God has been grossly and gratuitously enlarged to explain all the contradictions in scripture."
Atleast this means that you are beginning to see the logic...however, my concept of God is consistent with what has been alleged by Christians and Jews throughout the centuries. God's infinite existence which transcends the limitations of time goes back before Boethius. Much of my systematic theology is consistent with Peter Kreeft as well as historical Christianity.
The fact that your concept of God does not include God's absolute omniscience is telling.
"And if we could disagree with God, then we could confound prophecy and create for ourselves a world that God didn't intend."
Only because you do not understand how God sunergeis with our choices.
No where do you address a legitimate understanding of concurrence. No where do you address how God's Sovereign Will is inclusive of our absolute choices and how.
No where do you address God's Infinite Existence and how this demonstrates His Omni-time Trancendent Existence.
No where do you address the observation of choices (and self-impulsion with respect to volition).
No where do you address the aspect of human consciousness and how we are little limited creators.
No where do you address the complexity of how 'choice' is directly related/necessary for our ability to love.
"YOUR conceptualization is faulty."
"Only because you do not understand how God sunergeis with our choices.
No where do you address a legitimate understanding of concurrence. No where do you address how God's Sovereign Will is inclusive of our absolute choices and how.
No where do you address God's Infinite Existence and how this demonstrates His Omni-time Trancendent Existence.
No where do you address the observation of choices (and self-impulsion with respect to volition).
No where do you address the aspect of human consciousness and how we are little limited creators.
No where do you address the complexity of how 'choice' is directly related/necessary for our ability to love."
That's because the entire story of God as presented in the Old Testament was fabricated to justify the Hebrews' conquest of the so-called "Holy Land", the New Testament is more about Paul trying to line up all the churches into a cohesive theology, and when people like you come along and bend so far backwards that they're literally tea-bagging themselves to explain how this is a perfect testimonial, it drives intelligent people away from CHristianity.
"No where do you address the complexity of how 'choice' is directly related/necessary for our ability to love."
I HAVE addressed this, several times. I agree that free choice is necessary to love. But free will is impossible if the outcome is known. You replied to that objection with some cryptic bullshit, and think you've answered it.
Here's an example from the bible:
YOU said that God knows the outcome. OK, I'll grant that for the argument.
Then what was the point of telling Abraham to sacrifice Isaac? God already KNEW what Abraham would do, and why.
It was a completely moot exercise.
And incidentally, that last point demolishes your argument for why God chose the Hebrews to be his people.
See?
I write as concisely as I can, and in one sentence, I've wiped out two of your favorite talking points.
I have no doubt you'll disagree with this, but when you do, if you need to "instruct" me with three or four pages of apologetics that don't logically agree with the last three or four pages of apologetics you spouted, well, you've convinced no one but yourself.
"And your concept of God has been grossly and gratuitously enlarged to explain all the contradictions in scripture."
At least this means that you are beginning to see the logic..."
There is no logic in making your picture of God fit the scripture in this way. That's the definition of "special pleading". You've said elsewhere that special pleading is justified in God's case because he's so huge and powerful and so very, very huge.
I disagree. The best proof of the non-existence of God is all the special pleading and apologetics involved necessary to beat the dents out of a coherent concept of God that can be 'sold' to the sheeple.
If god were real, it would be EVIDENT.
And BTW, the Bible is not and can not be evidence of itself.
Post a Comment