| Topic: |
Religions > Atheism |
| User: |
"Vacendak" |
| Date: |
04 Sep 2004 03:53:01 PM |
| Object: |
A god who plays mind games |
That's how i see it.
You can't detect him with any of our 5 senses, and yet we still have to
believe in him. Because if we don't, we all get sent to hell to be tortured
for all eternity.A god who punishes people for making an honest mistake, by
reading the wrong sacred text or by calling him the wrong name.
"A god who puts out traps for people, invites them to sin, and allows them
to sin and commit crimes he could prevent. Only to finally get the barbarian
pleasure to punish them in an excessive way, of no use for himself, without
them changing their ways and without their example preventing others from
committing crimes." Baron d'Holbach (Systeme de la Nature, 1789)
Why should i believe in a god like this?
.
|
|
| User: "keith" |
|
| Title: Re: A god who plays mind games |
13 Sep 2004 09:01:04 AM |
|
|
Enkidu <enkidu@leaddogs.org> wrote in message news:<Xns9562AD0744EC2o5l4bj502sneakemailc@68.6.19.6>...
keithj43@yahoo.com (keith) wrote in
news:ba696799.0409121424.9388262@posting.google.com:
Enkidu <enkidu@leaddogs.org> wrote in message
news:<Xns9561B19667586o5l4bj502sneakemailc@68.6.19.6>...
keithj43@yahoo.com (keith) wrote in
news:ba696799.0409081457.461620b@posting.google.com:
[snip]
Killing 42 children for mocking a prophet is hardly justice. We
assume that the young are foolish, and we don't hit them with big
punishments for youthful transgressions. God's mercy is of a
different kind than man's.
We can deal with *that* objection in a different post. I am trying
to deal with the specific atheist claim that God punishes people
for making a theological mistake. I challenged that claim. You are
conceding that point?
It is and has been a part of Christian theology for nearly 2,000
years that salvation is to be had only through acceptance of Jesus.
This is correct.
Sin has never merited punishment on it's own.
I'd say: you're not right; it's that salvation isn't merited by your
good works.
So it *isn't* what you do or don't do that damns or saves you, it's
faith in Jesus that saves you.
That's not it. What you do damns yuo, what Christ did saves you.
That's why confessing sins is part
of the catholic ritual. You can commit any sin and get into the
Pope's heaven, as long as you confess and repent. Failure to do so
earns you a spot in hell. Ask any priest.
I'd say: you are misinterpreting. The christian view is that all of us
have sinned and that through Christ we can avoid the merited
punishment. Catholic theology has us repent by confessions to priests,
but we protestants don't believe that we need any middle man.
Christianity tells us that we are all condemned by Adam's original sin.
This is exactly what baptism represents, the washing away of that sin.
So we are not condemned by our own actions alone, but by the actions of
the long dead.
That's not quite right, according to the Apostle Paul (I'd say).
(snip)
SPIN??? "John 14:6 Jesus saith unto him, I am the way, the truth,
and the life: no man cometh unto the Father, but by me." What
else could that passage possibly mean?
It means that Christ is the only way; I didn't say *that* was spin.
Your spin was that failure to know the truth condemns a man. Not
so; *sin* condemns a man.
No. Sorry, it just isn't standard Christian theology.
yes it is. You are confusing the idea that we sinners can avoid our
merited punishment by turning to Christ (and consequently if a person
doesn't repent he will not avoid the merited punishment) with it
being the case that the punishment was imposed because of an honest
theological mistake.
If we are *ALL* sinners, and the only way to salvation is through faith,
then the result is simple. You can spin it any way you like, but faith
saves you and lack of faith damns you.
God's grace saves you, you access his grace through faith, but it
isn't lack of faith that damns you but rather your sin. It is rather
like how the disease makes you sick, and not taking the medicine means
you stay sick, but not taking the medicine isn't what *makes* you
sick.
It's not about our actions, as
you have said we all merit damnation, none of us are good enough without
forgiveness through faith.
It is because of our actions--all of us are guilty of wrong actions.
Therefore, the man who makes an honest
mistake and chooses the wrong religion loses. The man who never hears
your "words of truth" is condemned. Ignorance and honest mistakes *DO*
lead to hell.
Failing to take the right medicine means you suffer from the disease,
that is true, but it's the disease that makes you sick. We seem to be
talking past each other here. I am guessing your point is that it'd
somehow be unjust for God to show favoritism to a subset of sinners by
offering *them* a way to avoid the punishment they merit while holding
back that offer to other sinners. That's a separate issue from the one
we are discussing. I for one would question whether the bible says
there will be anyone who honestly has the wrong theological opinion,
when all is said and done. But we can save that issue for some other
discussion.
Leaving that
aside, it isn't even ones own sins that one is damned for and
forgiven of if one has faith, it's Adam's sin. That is truly stupid.
I think you are misconstruing the idea of Original Sin. The apostle
Paul wrote:
"Therefore, just as sin entered the world through one man, and death
through sin, and in this way death came to all men, BECAUSE ALL
SINNED" (Romans 5:12)
The passage does say that sin entered the world through one man,
bringing death into the world, but the penalty was because all sinned.
All? Even those who were not yet born? So much for free will.
It doesn't say that at all. It says that all who exist have sinned. I
would agree that it means that all who will exist will sin.
One can be
forgiven ANY action in this life if only one believes, yet one is
condemned for actions committed 8,000 years ago by one of God's
creations who acted according to his nature, that nature crated by
God.
having said that, God created the universe from nothing; it
would not be difficult for him to somehow bring it about that
everyone who would actually benefit from knowing the truth ends
up finding the truth. And nothing in the bible implies that God
will not do just that.
And what about those who will not benefit by knowing the truth?
As creations of God, their flaws are on his hands.
I'm sorry, but I think it is childish to blame God for the bad
things freely choose to do. "YOU made me God, so I'm not to blame"
is a sorry excuse in my opinion.
Not my excuse. God didn't make me. I'm a product of complexity and
evolution.
Fair enough, but my point was that it doesn't follow that IF God gives
us freedom and we choose to bad THEN we aren't to blame for our bad
actions.
If God knows all, then he created us knowing full well that some of us
would not measure up, and he would torment us for eternity for failing.
What would you say of a man who bred dogs, and cruelly tortured those
who couldn't round up sheep?
THose dogs are not freely choosing not to round up sheep. That God
knows we will freely choose to do bad and still makes us doesn't
relieve *us* of the guilt for our actions.
What would you say of such a man who bred
cocker spaniels and cruelly tortured those who could not round up sheep?
You'd say he's a cruel and stupid ***** for punishing the dogs for
failing to live up to his standards when he should have known they never
would. Well, that's how I see your God.
I owuld say that cruelly trsating an animal for lacking an ability
isn't right to begin with, whether or not the breeder knew in advance.
But that's not the case with us sinners. Whether or not we sin is our
choice, unlike the situations you describe with the dogs above. As I
said above, God's knowing that we will make free but bad choices and
still creating us doesn't relieve us of the guilt for our choices.
BTW, I don't remember if I said this to you, but I am skeptical that
the Bible teaches everlasting damnation of sinners, in fact I think
there's a good biblical argument to be made that eventually everyone
will repent, turn to Christ and be saved. But I am not defending that
view here, since *that* view *is* a minority view among Christians.
This is the belief of the vast
majority of Christians. Why else would missionary work matter?
Missionary work is one way to get the message out, that's why.
Why get the message out if a good man will be rewarded with or
without hearing Jesus' message?
Because none of us are good *enough*. All of us are bad in that all
of us sin, we are selfish, lazy etc.
No, all of us carry "original sin" which God will forgive us for, if
only we grovel.
Your spin is a caricature of Christian theology, I'd say.
I'd say you choose the parts of Christianity you like and ignore the
parts you don't.
NOt so, and also irrelevant to the discussion, I'd say. I am trying to
accurately describe the typical Christian view, namely that there will
be people in hell forever, that only those who accept Christ wil lbe
spared from this fate. In this debate I am giving you that much. But
the point is: on the typical Christian view everyone who recieves
punishment is being punished for his bad behavior, not *for* his
honest mistakes. An honest mistake can result in bad consequences, of
course. Criminals honestly think the police are no where around, and
they are caught. But they cannot say they punished for their honest
mistake.
I find your version less cruel than the more common
variety, but I think you should wonder why you are ignoring parts. You
have more respect for your own judgement than you do the printed Bible
and the historical practices of Christianity.
THis is a separate issue, IMO, since nothing I have argumed depends on
my non-inerrancy view. But we can discuss it for a minute.I'd say that
you have no choice but trust your own judgment; even deciding not to
trust it would require that you *judged* your own judgment to be
unworthy of trust:-) A biblical inerrantist has to trust his judgment
that the whole bible is without error. I'm no different in that
respoect from anyone else.
You are a short step away
from rethinking your beliefs. Take that step, reevaluate your beliefs.
See where logic and your own sense of right and wrong lead you. I don't
think you will end up siding with the God of Christianity after
considering his actions in the Old Testament.
It was rehtinking my beliefs that moved me from years of atheism to
Christ. THis is continuing away from the topic under discussion, but I
would say that morality doesn't even make sense if God doesn't exist
(not necessarily the christian God). I would say the Christian view
comports very well with our intuition of right amnd wrong: God
respects our freedom and dignity, but we go wrong by not respecting
the freedom and dignity of others, we are indifferent to their
suffering, and God's solution to the problem is to take upon himself
the pain that is rightfully ours, he takes this because he loves us
and wants us to enjoy relationship with him. Seems pretty good to me.
If it's lack of sin, not faith that gains
salvation, why push faith?
because none of us is without sin.
I am. I reject the concept. "Sin" is something that is wrong
because God said it was wrong. I consider an action wrong because of
the results it beings on me, my family, my country, and my planet.
I'd say: you don't deny that you have done bad things, surely. In your
comment above you granted (for the sake of discussion only, I know
that) that such things as salvation and God and all exist; you asked
what the point of faith is if lack of sin could get you salvation. My
answer was to that particular question. I didn't assume you actually
*believed* in the thing you granted for discussion.
Correct. I was pointing out that *my* judgement of right and wrong is
based firmly in the present, in a world where data exists, where
theories can be formed and tested against reality.
I would include
moral theories. You would exclude morality from examination because the
Bible tells us what is right and wrong, and this disconnects your
morality from reality. The results of your actions have no bearing on
whether they are right or wrong.
I would say it is impossible to derive th e"ought" of morality from
any scientific data.
(snip)
Failure to know God through faith in Jesus is what Christianity
condoms.
No. Failure to know God through faith is what precludes you from
gaining the benefit that comes from faith in Christ. Your wrong
actions is the disease, Christ is the cure, and as is always the case,
when a person refuses the cure he doesn't get cured.
If we're all guilty of sin, then this is a distinction without a
difference.
I don't see how. There iw a difference bwetween an innocent person
being condemned for honest ignorance and a guilty person not escaping
from his penalty because of his ignorance.
Inerrancy is not relevant to the question you pose. Suppose the
bible is inerrant; still there's the question "how do you know
it's true?". Supposing that it is possible to know the whole
bible is true, that same "way" could allow you to know that some
parts are true.
It could allow YOU to know? And perhaps ME? And if we disagree,
yet we both KNOW, what then? And what is this "way" of knowing
which parts are true?
Obviously, if we disagree about something then at least one of us
only thinks he knows. But that's the way it is for everything. What
is your point?
My point is that if you know that parts of the Bible is false, but
you have no method of determining which parts, you are relying on gut
feeling only. History has show such gut feelings are very often
wrong. Lots of dead witches died of such certainty.
There is nothing that you know that doesn't come with it the gut
feeling that you know it, and every time you *have* that gut feeling
you *believe* you know. Your gut feeling is the feeling part of when
you use your judgment. If it's wrong to trust gut feeling then you
cannot know anything about anything.
Entirely false. I *know* sqrt(2) is an irrational number. I can prove
it.
I can prove it to. But I know of people who have seen the steps of the
proof and still don't understand what they have seen. They don't have
the gut feeling that goes with recognizing that the proof really does
prove what it proves.
I know evolution explains most of the living natural world.
You didn't always know that did you?:-) There was a gut feeling that
went with your recognizing that evolution was a solid explanation;
that's the feeling I'm talking ahout. If you hadn't had the feeling
you wouldn't know.
I can
investigate the evidence for myself. I know my wife and children love
me and support me, because I have the evidence before me in their words
and deeds. Could I be wrong? Perhaps, but my knowledge is based on
evidence I can examine.
And each case, you have a gut feeling that the evidence points in the
direction you say. That's the gut feeling I'm talking about. Without
that gut feeling you wouldn't know.
How do you know which parts of the Bible are
true and which are not? What evidence do you examine?
I use my gut, the same way you and I use our gut when we evaluate a
pile of evidence. When we look at a pile of alleged evidence, we think
about each part, we compare it with other things in our experience,
and eventually we have this gut feeling that says "this proves such
and such" or it deosn't, or it's inconclusive. I do a similar thing
with the bible, and when I get the analogous gut feeling that means I
believe it.
Unless you have a "method" for determining that it's true, you
can't use it as a guide either. But if you have a method, then
the method could apply to parts of the bible; it needn't be an
all or nothing thing. A math book can be trusted even when there
are mistakes in the book, all you have to do is understand the
principles and minor errors don't matter.
(1) A math text does not claim to be the word of God.
Correct. But you seemed to say that if a book had errors you
couldn't know which part to trust. My example shows why that's not
the case.
Then tell me how you know which parts to trust. I can do that with a
flawed math text.
That which rings true when I read it, I trust. That which seems false
I distrust. And then there's the stuff I don't know.
That's a very weak standard of evidence. Would you trust a doctor who
used such a standard over years of study, the results of clinical
trials, appropriate laboratory tests, and consultation with specialists?
My standard is exactly the same standard as th eexperts use. They
examine the evidence and come to judgments about it; I examine the
evidence (the bible) and come to judgments about it. You might not
consider the bible to *be* evidence; likewise the OJ jury didn't
consider DNA to be evidence:-)
(2) There are methods for identifying errors in a math text.
Exactly.
(3) Passages in a math text have never justified murder, rape,
genocide.
That's a red herring. Your claim was that if a book contained
errors all of it was untrustworthy. The specific content of a
specific book is irrelevant to the general principle you were
claiming.
No, my claim was that if part of YOUR book was false, all of it was
untrustworthy, because you have no method of knowing which parts are
false. My math text suffers under no similar handicap.
yes I do. You can check the math book by understanding the principles
presented in the book and seeing when a specific claim is not
consistent with those principles. That's what I do with the Bible.
What principles *external* to the Bible do you use? Gut feeling?
Why do the principles need to be external to the bible? When I
understand those principles I can evaluate specific claims, the same
as in a math book.
(snip because I have to leave in two minutes).
I'll try to get to the rest if I have time; you raised som egood
points I want to address.
see yo later
keith
.
|
|
|
| User: "Enkidu" |
|
| Title: Re: A god who plays mind games |
14 Sep 2004 08:34:29 AM |
|
|
(keith) wrote in
news:ba696799.0409130601.6fc4335d@posting.google.com:
Enkidu <enkidu@leaddogs.org> wrote in message
news:<Xns9562AD0744EC2o5l4bj502sneakemailc@68.6.19.6>...
(keith) wrote in
news:ba696799.0409121424.9388262@posting.google.com:
Enkidu <enkidu@leaddogs.org> wrote in message
news:<Xns9561B19667586o5l4bj502sneakemailc@68.6.19.6>...
(keith) wrote in
news:ba696799.0409081457.461620b@posting.google.com:
[snip]
Killing 42 children for mocking a prophet is hardly justice.
We assume that the young are foolish, and we don't hit them
with big punishments for youthful transgressions. God's mercy
is of a different kind than man's.
We can deal with *that* objection in a different post. I am
trying to deal with the specific atheist claim that God punishes
people for making a theological mistake. I challenged that
claim. You are conceding that point?
It is and has been a part of Christian theology for nearly 2,000
years that salvation is to be had only through acceptance of
Jesus.
This is correct.
Sin has never merited punishment on it's own.
I'd say: you're not right; it's that salvation isn't merited by
your good works.
So it *isn't* what you do or don't do that damns or saves you, it's
faith in Jesus that saves you.
That's not it. What you do damns you, what Christ did saves you.
According to all Christians I've met other than you:
(1) All mankind carries the stain of original sin.
(2) All mankind deserves death, the wages of sin.
(3) The only way out of this death is by God's grace.
(4) The only way to God is through Jesus by way of faith.
Therefore all men, regardless of their actions will suffer unless they
have faith in Jesus.
It isn't about our acts, it's about faith. According to Christ, we were
born damned. We didn't get the chance to earn it. If this is true, it
is not just, and I would not respect any such God.
That's why confessing sins is part
of the catholic ritual. You can commit any sin and get into the
Pope's heaven, as long as you confess and repent. Failure to do
so earns you a spot in hell. Ask any priest.
I'd say: you are misinterpreting. The christian view is that all of
us have sinned and that through Christ we can avoid the merited
punishment. Catholic theology has us repent by confessions to
priests, but we protestants don't believe that we need any middle
man.
Christianity tells us that we are all condemned by Adam's original
sin. This is exactly what baptism represents, the washing away of
that sin. So we are not condemned by our own actions alone, but by
the actions of
the long dead.
That's not quite right, according to the Apostle Paul (I'd say).
You'd be alone. Original sin is a major belief of all Christian sects.
SPIN??? "John 14:6 Jesus saith unto him, I am the way, the
truth, and the life: no man cometh unto the Father, but by me."
What else could that passage possibly mean?
It means that Christ is the only way; I didn't say *that* was
spin. Your spin was that failure to know the truth condemns a
man. Not so; *sin* condemns a man.
No. Sorry, it just isn't standard Christian theology.
yes it is. You are confusing the idea that we sinners can avoid our
merited punishment by turning to Christ (and consequently if a
person doesn't repent he will not avoid the merited punishment)
with it being the case that the punishment was imposed because of
an honest theological mistake.
If we are *ALL* sinners, and the only way to salvation is through
faith, then the result is simple. You can spin it any way you like,
but faith saves you and lack of faith damns you.
God's grace saves you, you access his grace through faith, but it
isn't lack of faith that damns you but rather your sin. It is rather
like how the disease makes you sick, and not taking the medicine means
you stay sick, but not taking the medicine isn't what *makes* you
sick.
Bad analogy. With the concept of original sin, we are born pre-damned.
We may do more to merit God's wrath, but how much more damned can you
get? God punished man for a thousand generations for a single act.
He's not easy to please.
It's not about our actions, as
you have said we all merit damnation, none of us are good enough
without forgiveness through faith.
It is because of our actions--all of us are guilty of wrong actions.
And if we weren't we'd still be damned. That original sin is a
particularly nasty bit. We don't punish men for the crimes their
fathers commit.
Therefore, the man who makes an honest
mistake and chooses the wrong religion loses. The man who never
hears your "words of truth" is condemned. Ignorance and honest
mistakes *DO* lead to hell.
Failing to take the right medicine means you suffer from the disease,
that is true, but it's the disease that makes you sick. We seem to be
talking past each other here. I am guessing your point is that it'd
somehow be unjust for God to show favoritism to a subset of sinners by
offering *them* a way to avoid the punishment they merit while holding
back that offer to other sinners. That's a separate issue from the one
we are discussing. I for one would question whether the bible says
there will be anyone who honestly has the wrong theological opinion,
when all is said and done. But we can save that issue for some other
discussion.
That's only a minor complaint. The very concept of sin in repulsive.
The concept of punishing all for the transgressions of one is repulsive.
The concept of eternal torture for *anything* is repulsive. The
disdain shown for intellect and reason is repulsive. The defense of
evil in the name of "free will" is repulsive. The defense of evil in
the name of "God's will" is repulsive. I could go on, but you get my
drift.
Leaving that
aside, it isn't even ones own sins that one is damned for and
forgiven of if one has faith, it's Adam's sin. That is truly
stupid.
I think you are misconstruing the idea of Original Sin. The apostle
Paul wrote:
"Therefore, just as sin entered the world through one man, and
death through sin, and in this way death came to all men, BECAUSE
ALL SINNED" (Romans 5:12)
The passage does say that sin entered the world through one man,
bringing death into the world, but the penalty was because all
sinned.
All? Even those who were not yet born? So much for free will.
It doesn't say that at all. It says that all who exist have sinned. I
would agree that it means that all who will exist will sin.
God created all, knowing all would sin, all would deserve eternal
torture, but a few would hear the magic password and not suffer eternal
torture. Yet this is the model of "infinite justice" we hear about?
That sounds insane to me.
One can be
forgiven ANY action in this life if only one believes, yet one is
condemned for actions committed 8,000 years ago by one of God's
creations who acted according to his nature, that nature crated by
God.
having said that, God created the universe from nothing; it
would not be difficult for him to somehow bring it about that
everyone who would actually benefit from knowing the truth
ends up finding the truth. And nothing in the bible implies
that God will not do just that.
And what about those who will not benefit by knowing the truth?
As creations of God, their flaws are on his hands.
I'm sorry, but I think it is childish to blame God for the bad
things freely choose to do. "YOU made me God, so I'm not to
blame" is a sorry excuse in my opinion.
Not my excuse. God didn't make me. I'm a product of complexity
and evolution.
Fair enough, but my point was that it doesn't follow that IF God
gives us freedom and we choose to bad THEN we aren't to blame for
our bad actions.
If God knows all, then he created us knowing full well that some of
us would not measure up, and he would torment us for eternity for
failing. What would you say of a man who bred dogs, and cruelly
tortured those who couldn't round up sheep?
Those dogs are not freely choosing not to round up sheep. That God
knows we will freely choose to do bad and still makes us doesn't
relieve *us* of the guilt for our actions.
If God creates us, knowing our actions in advance of our creation, and
we act as he foresaw while he had the power to make us differently, then
he bears responsibility. If I sell a crappy car, and I know the ball
joints are defective, and I know they will fail on the first hard right,
and I know that the only way off my lot is a hard left onto a freeway, I
am certainly responsible for the deaths that follow.
What would you say of such a man who bred
cocker spaniels and cruelly tortured those who could not round up
sheep?
You'd say he's a cruel and stupid ***** for punishing the dogs for
failing to live up to his standards when he should have known they
never would. Well, that's how I see your God.
I would say that cruelly treating an animal for lacking an ability
isn't right to begin with, whether or not the breeder knew in advance.
But that's not the case with us sinners.
It is. We are what we are. We can make choices within limits, but it
is certain that we will act selfishly at times, covet our neighbor's
wife, etc. And above all, we inherit sin.
Whether or not we sin is our
choice, unlike the situations you describe with the dogs above. As I
said above, God's knowing that we will make free but bad choices and
still creating us doesn't relieve us of the guilt for our choices.
BTW, I don't remember if I said this to you, but I am skeptical that
the Bible teaches everlasting damnation of sinners, in fact I think
there's a good biblical argument to be made that eventually everyone
will repent, turn to Christ and be saved. But I am not defending that
view here, since *that* view *is* a minority view among Christians.
The Bible expressly says that eternal torment awaits the unsaved.
This is the belief of the vast
majority of Christians. Why else would missionary work
matter?
Missionary work is one way to get the message out, that's
why.
Why get the message out if a good man will be rewarded with or
without hearing Jesus' message?
Because none of us are good *enough*. All of us are bad in that
all of us sin, we are selfish, lazy etc.
No, all of us carry "original sin" which God will forgive us for,
if only we grovel.
Your spin is a caricature of Christian theology, I'd say.
I'd say you choose the parts of Christianity you like and ignore the
parts you don't.
Not so, and also irrelevant to the discussion, I'd say. I am trying to
accurately describe the typical Christian view, namely that there will
be people in hell forever, that only those who accept Christ will be
spared from this fate. In this debate I am giving you that much. But
the point is: on the typical Christian view everyone who receives
punishment is being punished for his bad behavior, not *for* his
honest mistakes. An honest mistake can result in bad consequences, of
course. Criminals honestly think the police are no where around, and
they are caught. But they cannot say they punished for their honest
mistake.
Calvin, Martin Luther, Aquinas would not agree with you. Neither would
a single Christian I've met.
I find your version less cruel than the more common
variety, but I think you should wonder why you are ignoring parts.
You have more respect for your own judgement than you do the printed
Bible and the historical practices of Christianity.
This is a separate issue, IMO, since nothing I have argued depends on
my non-inerrancy view. But we can discuss it for a minute. I'd say
that you have no choice but trust your own judgment; even deciding not
to trust it would require that you *judged* your own judgment to be
unworthy of trust:-) A biblical inerrantist has to trust his judgment
that the whole bible is without error. I'm no different in that
respect from anyone else.
You are different. The common Christian view is summed up by the bumper
sticker: "God said it. I believe it. That settles it."
You are a short step away
from rethinking your beliefs. Take that step, reevaluate your
beliefs. See where logic and your own sense of right and wrong lead
you. I don't think you will end up siding with the God of
Christianity after considering his actions in the Old Testament.
It was rethinking my beliefs that moved me from years of atheism to
Christ. This is continuing away from the topic under discussion, but I
would say that morality doesn't even make sense if God doesn't exist
(not necessarily the christian God). I would say the Christian view
comports very well with our intuition of right and wrong: God
respects our freedom and dignity, but we go wrong by not respecting
the freedom and dignity of others, we are indifferent to their
suffering, and God's solution to the problem is to take upon himself
the pain that is rightfully ours, he takes this because he loves us
and wants us to enjoy relationship with him. Seems pretty good to me.
All you have to give up is your integrity. I would never ask another to
suffer for my mistakes.
If it's lack of sin, not faith that gains
salvation, why push faith?
because none of us is without sin.
I am. I reject the concept. "Sin" is something that is wrong
because God said it was wrong. I consider an action wrong because
of the results it beings on me, my family, my country, and my
planet.
I'd say: you don't deny that you have done bad things, surely. In
your comment above you granted (for the sake of discussion only, I
know that) that such things as salvation and God and all exist; you
asked what the point of faith is if lack of sin could get you
salvation. My answer was to that particular question. I didn't
assume you actually *believed* in the thing you granted for
discussion.
Correct. I was pointing out that *my* judgement of right and wrong
is based firmly in the present, in a world where data exists, where
theories can be formed and tested against reality.
I would include
moral theories. You would exclude morality from examination because
the Bible tells us what is right and wrong, and this disconnects your
morality from reality. The results of your actions have no bearing
on whether they are right or wrong.
I would say it is impossible to derive the e"ought" of morality from
any scientific data.
Not at all. We know what promotes man's health and welfare. Those
things we call good. Those things that are detrimental to his health
and welfare we call bad. We call them "good" and "bad" based on their
observed effects. Observation is the basis of all science.
Failure to know God through faith in Jesus is what Christianity
condoms.
No. Failure to know God through faith is what precludes you from
gaining the benefit that comes from faith in Christ. Your wrong
actions is the disease, Christ is the cure, and as is always the
case, when a person refuses the cure he doesn't get cured.
If we're all guilty of sin, then this is a distinction without a
difference.
I don't see how. There is a difference between an innocent person
being condemned for honest ignorance and a guilty person not escaping
from his penalty because of his ignorance.
If there were any "innocent" people, you might have a point. It is the
lack of people in this category that makes any such distinction
irrelevant.
Inerrancy is not relevant to the question you pose. Suppose
the bible is inerrant; still there's the question "how do you
know it's true?". Supposing that it is possible to know the
whole bible is true, that same "way" could allow you to know
that some parts are true.
It could allow YOU to know? And perhaps ME? And if we
disagree, yet we both KNOW, what then? And what is this "way"
of knowing which parts are true?
Obviously, if we disagree about something then at least one of
us only thinks he knows. But that's the way it is for
everything. What is your point?
My point is that if you know that parts of the Bible is false, but
you have no method of determining which parts, you are relying on
gut feeling only. History has show such gut feelings are very
often wrong. Lots of dead witches died of such certainty.
There is nothing that you know that doesn't come with it the gut
feeling that you know it, and every time you *have* that gut
feeling you *believe* you know. Your gut feeling is the feeling
part of when you use your judgment. If it's wrong to trust gut
feeling then you cannot know anything about anything.
Entirely false. I *know* sqrt(2) is an irrational number. I can
prove it.
I can prove it to. But I know of people who have seen the steps of the
proof and still don't understand what they have seen. They don't have
the gut feeling that goes with recognizing that the proof really does
prove what it proves.
Limited mental ability or lack of effort don't alter the point. Some
people can't understand how a car works, but cars still work.
I know evolution explains most of the living natural world.
You didn't always know that did you?:-) There was a gut feeling that
went with your recognizing that evolution was a solid explanation;
that's the feeling I'm talking about. If you hadn't had the feeling
you wouldn't know.
No. There is data that evolution explains and religion does not.
Observation comes first. It also comes last, because observation trumps
theory. It trumps religion too.
I can
investigate the evidence for myself. I know my wife and children
love me and support me, because I have the evidence before me in
their words and deeds. Could I be wrong? Perhaps, but my knowledge
is based on evidence I can examine.
And each case, you have a gut feeling that the evidence points in the
direction you say. That's the gut feeling I'm talking about. Without
that gut feeling you wouldn't know.
Wrong. The preponderance of the evidence points one way. Observation
trumps everything, even the Bible.
How do you know which parts of the Bible are
true and which are not? What evidence do you examine?
I use my gut, the same way you and I use our gut when we evaluate a
pile of evidence. When we look at a pile of alleged evidence, we think
about each part, we compare it with other things in our experience,
and eventually we have this gut feeling that says "this proves such
and such" or it doesn't, or it's inconclusive. I do a similar thing
with the bible, and when I get the analogous gut feeling that means I
believe it.
Your method is contrary to the Bible's express instructions. It says to
shun reason and philosophy. Every major theologian has echoed this
theme.
Unless you have a "method" for determining that it's true,
you can't use it as a guide either. But if you have a method,
then the method could apply to parts of the bible; it needn't
be an all or nothing thing. A math book can be trusted even
when there are mistakes in the book, all you have to do is
understand the principles and minor errors don't matter.
(1) A math text does not claim to be the word of God.
Correct. But you seemed to say that if a book had errors you
couldn't know which part to trust. My example shows why that's
not the case.
Then tell me how you know which parts to trust. I can do that
with a flawed math text.
That which rings true when I read it, I trust. That which seems
false I distrust. And then there's the stuff I don't know.
That's a very weak standard of evidence. Would you trust a doctor
who used such a standard over years of study, the results of clinical
trials, appropriate laboratory tests, and consultation with
specialists?
My standard is exactly the same standard as the experts use. They
examine the evidence and come to judgments about it; I examine the
evidence (the bible) and come to judgments about it. You might not
consider the bible to *be* evidence; likewise the OJ jury didn't
consider DNA to be evidence:-)
But we have no external support to verify the Bible. And you yourself
discount parts of it, but can't give a procedure for doing so. The
Bible isn't even poor evidence if random parts are false.
(2) There are methods for identifying errors in a math text.
Exactly.
(3) Passages in a math text have never justified murder, rape,
genocide.
That's a red herring. Your claim was that if a book contained
errors all of it was untrustworthy. The specific content of a
specific book is irrelevant to the general principle you were
claiming.
No, my claim was that if part of YOUR book was false, all of it
was untrustworthy, because you have no method of knowing which
parts are false. My math text suffers under no similar handicap.
yes I do. You can check the math book by understanding the
principles presented in the book and seeing when a specific claim
is not consistent with those principles. That's what I do with the
Bible.
What principles *external* to the Bible do you use? Gut feeling?
Why do the principles need to be external to the bible? When I
understand those principles I can evaluate specific claims, the same
as in a math book.
I don't believe you have "principles" (rules) for evaluating the Bible.
You have not stated what they are.
(snip because I have to leave in two minutes).
I'll try to get to the rest if I have time; you raised some good
points I want to address.
see yo later
keith
I worked on this response at three different times over two days. I
hope it follows some thread. Have a good day.
--
Enkidu aa 2165
Now playing: Talking Heads - Totally Nude
That wall, embodied in the First Amendment, is perhaps
America's most important contribution to political progress
on this planet.
Lowell Weicker
Republican Senator 1971-1989
.
|
|
|
| User: "keith" |
|
| Title: Re: A god who plays mind games |
15 Sep 2004 10:05:02 AM |
|
|
Enkidu <enkidu@leaddogs.org> wrote in message news:<Xns956442F81431Bo5l4bj502sneakemailc@68.6.19.6>...
keithj43@yahoo.com (keith) wrote in
news:ba696799.0409130601.6fc4335d@posting.google.com:
Enkidu <enkidu@leaddogs.org> wrote in message
news:<Xns9562AD0744EC2o5l4bj502sneakemailc@68.6.19.6>...
keithj43@yahoo.com (keith) wrote in
news:ba696799.0409121424.9388262@posting.google.com:
(snip)
Sin has never merited punishment on it's own.
I'd say: you're not right; it's that salvation isn't merited by
your good works.
So it *isn't* what you do or don't do that damns or saves you, it's
faith in Jesus that saves you.
That's not it. What you do damns you, what Christ did saves you.
According to all Christians I've met other than you:
(1) All mankind carries the stain of original sin.
(2) All mankind deserves death, the wages of sin.
(3) The only way out of this death is by God's grace.
(4) The only way to God is through Jesus by way of faith.
I didn't disagree with anything you wrote above, though. I disagreed
with your interpretaion *of* original sin.
Therefore all men, regardless of their actions will suffer unless they
have faith in Jesus.
That doesn't follow. It *does* follow that all men would suffer unless
they have faith in Christ, but it doesn't imply they would suffer even
*if* their actions were all morally proper. What it implies is that
there will be no men whose actions *are* all morally proper.
It isn't about our acts, it's about faith. According to Christ, we were
born damned. We didn't get the chance to earn it. If this is true, it
is not just, and I would not respect any such God.
Christ didn't say anything like that, and I would argue that only a
misinterpretation of orginal sin allows you to infer we are all born
damned.
That's why confessing sins is part
of the catholic ritual. You can commit any sin and get into the
Pope's heaven, as long as you confess and repent. Failure to do
so earns you a spot in hell. Ask any priest.
I'd say: you are misinterpreting. The christian view is that all of
us have sinned and that through Christ we can avoid the merited
punishment. Catholic theology has us repent by confessions to
priests, but we protestants don't believe that we need any middle
man.
Christianity tells us that we are all condemned by Adam's original
sin. This is exactly what baptism represents, the washing away of
that sin. So we are not condemned by our own actions alone, but by
the actions of
the long dead.
That's not quite right, according to the Apostle Paul (I'd say).
You'd be alone. Original sin is a major belief of all Christian sects.
I didn't deny original sin, just your interpretation of it.
(snip)
No. Sorry, it just isn't standard Christian theology.
yes it is. You are confusing the idea that we sinners can avoid our
merited punishment by turning to Christ (and consequently if a
person doesn't repent he will not avoid the merited punishment)
with it being the case that the punishment was imposed because of
an honest theological mistake.
If we are *ALL* sinners, and the only way to salvation is through
faith, then the result is simple. You can spin it any way you like,
but faith saves you and lack of faith damns you.
God's grace saves you, you access his grace through faith, but it
isn't lack of faith that damns you but rather your sin. It is rather
like how the disease makes you sick, and not taking the medicine means
you stay sick, but not taking the medicine isn't what *makes* you
sick.
Bad analogy. With the concept of original sin, we are born pre-damned.
So says your interpretation of original sin. Your interpretation is
not Paul's interpretation and Paul's writings are the biblical source
for the idea.
We may do more to merit God's wrath, but how much more damned can you
get? God punished man for a thousand generations for a single act.
He's not easy to please.
It's not about our actions, as
you have said we all merit damnation, none of us are good enough
without forgiveness through faith.
It is because of our actions--all of us are guilty of wrong actions.
And if we weren't we'd still be damned.
I challenge you to find any biblical support for that claim; that's
not what Paul wrote, and it doesn't follow from anything Paul wrote.
That original sin is a
particularly nasty bit. We don't punish men for the crimes their
fathers commit.
Therefore, the man who makes an honest
mistake and chooses the wrong religion loses. The man who never
hears your "words of truth" is condemned. Ignorance and honest
mistakes *DO* lead to hell.
Failing to take the right medicine means you suffer from the disease,
that is true, but it's the disease that makes you sick. We seem to be
talking past each other here. I am guessing your point is that it'd
somehow be unjust for God to show favoritism to a subset of sinners by
offering *them* a way to avoid the punishment they merit while holding
back that offer to other sinners. That's a separate issue from the one
we are discussing. I for one would question whether the bible says
there will be anyone who honestly has the wrong theological opinion,
when all is said and done. But we can save that issue for some other
discussion.
That's only a minor complaint. The very concept of sin in repulsive.
How is it repulsive? Sin merely means "doing wrong things", how is
recognizing that people do wrong things repulsive?
The concept of punishing all for the transgressions of one is repulsive.
And the Bible doesn't do that.
The concept of eternal torture for *anything* is repulsive.
This is a much more complex issue. I would argue that the Bible
doesn't teach that *anyone* will end up ternally tortured, but my view
is a minority one.
The
disdain shown for intellect and reason is repulsive.
Where does Christianity teach disdain for reason? Nowhere.
The defense of
evil in the name of "free will" is repulsive. The defense of evil in
the name of "God's will" is repulsive. I could go on, but you get my
drift.
And I would say your drift is inaccurate. Nowhere does Christianity
defend evil in the name of free will. It says that God *isn't* evil
for allowing us to be free. There is nothing repulsive about the
Christian argument there.
Leaving that
aside, it isn't even ones own sins that one is damned for and
forgiven of if one has faith, it's Adam's sin. That is truly
stupid.
I think you are misconstruing the idea of Original Sin. The apostle
Paul wrote:
"Therefore, just as sin entered the world through one man, and
death through sin, and in this way death came to all men, BECAUSE
ALL SINNED" (Romans 5:12)
The passage does say that sin entered the world through one man,
bringing death into the world, but the penalty was because all
sinned.
All? Even those who were not yet born? So much for free will.
It doesn't say that at all. It says that all who exist have sinned. I
would agree that it means that all who will exist will sin.
God created all, knowing all would sin, all would deserve eternal
torture, but a few would hear the magic password and not suffer eternal
torture. Yet this is the model of "infinite justice" we hear about?
That sounds insane to me.
I'd say that you cannot find any biblical support for the idea that
there will exist anyone who would have repented but for God not giving
them the "magic password", so your caricature *isn't* the model of
infinite justice. I would also challenge you to show how a guilty
person has any legimitae complaint if he recieves what he
deserves--how can he complain that God *ought* to have given him the
magic password?
(snip)
Not my excuse. God didn't make me. I'm a product of complexity
and evolution.
Fair enough, but my point was that it doesn't follow that IF God
gives us freedom and we choose to bad THEN we aren't to blame for
our bad actions.
If God knows all, then he created us knowing full well that some of
us would not measure up, and he would torment us for eternity for
failing. What would you say of a man who bred dogs, and cruelly
tortured those who couldn't round up sheep?
Those dogs are not freely choosing not to round up sheep. That God
knows we will freely choose to do bad and still makes us doesn't
relieve *us* of the guilt for our actions.
If God creates us, knowing our actions in advance of our creation, and
we act as he foresaw while he had the power to make us differently, then
he bears responsibility. If I sell a crappy car, and I know the ball
joints are defective, and I know they will fail on the first hard right,
and I know that the only way off my lot is a hard left onto a freeway, I
am certainly responsible for the deaths that follow.
If your not making the crapy car made a world that was not as good as
the world with the crappy car, then what you'd be responsible for is
making a better world. Likewise, if not creating us free makes a less
good world, then God--by creating us, even knowing that we would do
wrong--is responsible for making things better.
What would you say of such a man who bred
cocker spaniels and cruelly tortured those who could not round up
sheep?
You'd say he's a cruel and stupid ***** for punishing the dogs for
failing to live up to his standards when he should have known they
never would. Well, that's how I see your God.
I would say that cruelly treating an animal for lacking an ability
isn't right to begin with, whether or not the breeder knew in advance.
But that's not the case with us sinners.
It is. We are what we are. We can make choices within limits, but it
is certain that we will act selfishly at times, covet our neighbor's
wife, etc.
It is certain that we will freely choose to do wrong things, but
that's on us. By your view, nothing is morally wrong since we are what
we are and we do what we do. The christian who tortures non-believers
until they confess is (according to your view) not doing anything
morally wrong and consequently doesn't deserve any condemnation.
Really?
And above all, we inherit sin.
A tricky subject, original sin; that's probably why you have
misinterpreted it:)
Whether or not we sin is our
choice, unlike the situations you describe with the dogs above. As I
said above, God's knowing that we will make free but bad choices and
still creating us doesn't relieve us of the guilt for our choices.
BTW, I don't remember if I said this to you, but I am skeptical that
the Bible teaches everlasting damnation of sinners, in fact I think
there's a good biblical argument to be made that eventually everyone
will repent, turn to Christ and be saved. But I am not defending that
view here, since *that* view *is* a minority view among Christians.
The Bible expressly says that eternal torment awaits the unsaved.
I challenge you to support this claim.
(snip)
Your spin is a caricature of Christian theology, I'd say.
I'd say you choose the parts of Christianity you like and ignore the
parts you don't.
Not so, and also irrelevant to the discussion, I'd say. I am trying to
accurately describe the typical Christian view, namely that there will
be people in hell forever, that only those who accept Christ will be
spared from this fate. In this debate I am giving you that much. But
the point is: on the typical Christian view everyone who receives
punishment is being punished for his bad behavior, not *for* his
honest mistakes. An honest mistake can result in bad consequences, of
course. Criminals honestly think the police are no where around, and
they are caught. But they cannot say they punished for their honest
mistake.
Calvin, Martin Luther, Aquinas would not agree with you. Neither would
a single Christian I've met.
Well, since Calvin and Luther and Aquinas are dead, they'd be tough to
query on the subject. I didn't deny original sin, though, so I don't
expect *that's* the problem you refer to.
I find your version less cruel than the more common
variety, but I think you should wonder why you are ignoring parts.
You have more respect for your own judgement than you do the printed
Bible and the historical practices of Christianity.
This is a separate issue, IMO, since nothing I have argued depends on
my non-inerrancy view. But we can discuss it for a minute. I'd say
that you have no choice but trust your own judgment; even deciding not
to trust it would require that you *judged* your own judgment to be
unworthy of trust:-) A biblical inerrantist has to trust his judgment
that the whole bible is without error. I'm no different in that
respect from anyone else.
You are different. The common Christian view is summed up by the bumper
sticker: "God said it. I believe it. That settles it."
That;s not what I was talking about. What I *said* was that
necessarily everyone depends on his judgment. The common Christian you
mention above trusts that his own judgment about the validity of "God
said it. I believe it. That settles it" is an accurate one.
You are a short step away
from rethinking your beliefs. Take that step, reevaluate your
beliefs. See where logic and your own sense of right and wrong lead
you. I don't think you will end up siding with the God of
Christianity after considering his actions in the Old Testament.
It was rethinking my beliefs that moved me from years of atheism to
Christ. This is continuing away from the topic under discussion, but I
would say that morality doesn't even make sense if God doesn't exist
(not necessarily the christian God). I would say the Christian view
comports very well with our intuition of right and wrong: God
respects our freedom and dignity, but we go wrong by not respecting
the freedom and dignity of others, we are indifferent to their
suffering, and God's solution to the problem is to take upon himself
the pain that is rightfully ours, he takes this because he loves us
and wants us to enjoy relationship with him. Seems pretty good to me.
All you have to give up is your integrity. I would never ask another to
suffer for my mistakes.
If you have any one you love, then you know that there's no avoiding
making other people suffer for your mistakes--if you hurt yourself you
hurt those who love you.
(snip)
Correct. I was pointing out that *my* judgement of right and wrong
is based firmly in the present, in a world where data exists, where
theories can be formed and tested against reality.
I would include
moral theories. You would exclude morality from examination because
the Bible tells us what is right and wrong, and this disconnects your
morality from reality. The results of your actions have no bearing
on whether they are right or wrong.
I would say it is impossible to derive the e"ought" of morality from
any scientific data.
Not at all. We know what promotes man's health and welfare. Those
things we call good. Those things that are detrimental to his health
and welfare we call bad. We call them "good" and "bad" based on their
observed effects. Observation is the basis of all science.
You cannot derive any duty to promote the general good from your
observation of what happens to promote it. The sociopath knows that
killing hurts other people, but from that fact you cannot derive the
fact that he *ought* to give a damn.
Failure to know God through faith in Jesus is what Christianity
condoms.
No. Failure to know God through faith is what precludes you from
gaining the benefit that comes from faith in Christ. Your wrong
actions is the disease, Christ is the cure, and as is always the
case, when a person refuses the cure he doesn't get cured.
If we're all guilty of sin, then this is a distinction without a
difference.
I don't see how. There is a difference between an innocent person
being condemned for honest ignorance and a guilty person not escaping
from his penalty because of his ignorance.
If there were any "innocent" people, you might have a point. It is the
lack of people in this category that makes any such distinction
irrelevant.
And since there are no innocent people then nobody has a right to
complain if they experience the consequence of their guilt.
(snip)
Entirely false. I *know* sqrt(2) is an irrational number. I can
prove it.
I can prove it to. But I know of people who have seen the steps of the
proof and still don't understand what they have seen. They don't have
the gut feeling that goes with recognizing that the proof really does
prove what it proves.
Limited mental ability or lack of effort don't alter the point. Some
people can't understand how a car works, but cars still work.
The point is: no one who lacks that gut feeling I was talking about
has knowledge about the thing.
I know evolution explains most of the living natural world.
You didn't always know that did you?:-) There was a gut feeling that
went with your recognizing that evolution was a solid explanation;
that's the feeling I'm talking about. If you hadn't had the feeling
you wouldn't know.
No. There is data that evolution explains and religion does not.
So? That's not the point. The point is: if you lacked the gut feeling
that the evidence pointed toward evolution you would not know that the
evidence pointed toward evolution.
Observation comes first. It also comes last, because observation trumps
theory. It trumps religion too.
There is no scientific observation that conflicts with the Gospel of
Christ.
I can
investigate the evidence for myself. I know my wife and children
love me and support me, because I have the evidence before me in
their words and deeds. Could I be wrong? Perhaps, but my knowledge
is based on evidence I can examine.
And each case, you have a gut feeling that the evidence points in the
direction you say. That's the gut feeling I'm talking about. Without
that gut feeling you wouldn't know.
Wrong. The preponderance of the evidence points one way.
Wrong? I didn't say the evidence didn't point the way you claimed? So
how was I wrong? Are you denying that when you look at the evidence
you have this gut feeling the evidence points the way you claimed it
did?
Observation
trumps everything, even the Bible.
How do you know which parts of the Bible are
true and which are not? What evidence do you examine?
I use my gut, the same way you and I use our gut when we evaluate a
pile of evidence. When we look at a pile of alleged evidence, we think
about each part, we compare it with other things in our experience,
and eventually we have this gut feeling that says "this proves such
and such" or it doesn't, or it's inconclusive. I do a similar thing
with the bible, and when I get the analogous gut feeling that means I
believe it.
Your method is contrary to the Bible's express instructions. It says to
shun reason and philosophy. Every major theologian has echoed this
theme.
That's completely false, and a little silly. Aquinas surely didn't say
to shun reason, neither did Luther nor Calvin. Neither did scientist
and Christian Isaac newton for that matter.
(snip)
Then tell me how you know which parts to trust. I can do that
with a flawed math text.
That which rings true when I read it, I trust. That which seems
false I distrust. And then there's the stuff I don't know.
That's a very weak standard of evidence. Would you trust a doctor
who used such a standard over years of study, the results of clinical
trials, appropriate laboratory tests, and consultation with
specialists?
My standard is exactly the same standard as the experts use. They
examine the evidence and come to judgments about it; I examine the
evidence (the bible) and come to judgments about it. You might not
consider the bible to *be* evidence; likewise the OJ jury didn't
consider DNA to be evidence:-)
But we have no external support to verify the Bible.
So? If you take the set of everything that is evidence for a given
claim, you have nothing *external* to that set to verify the set--by
definition the set contains all the evidence. You have to judge the
set of evidence without reference to evidence. That's the same thing I
do with the bible.
And you yourself
discount parts of it, but can't give a procedure for doing so. The
Bible isn't even poor evidence if random parts are false.
I gave a procedure; I told you what it was above.
(snip)
yes I do. You can check the math book by understanding the
principles presented in the book and seeing when a specific claim
is not consistent with those principles. That's what I do with the
Bible.
What principles *external* to the Bible do you use? Gut feeling?
Why do the principles need to be external to the bible? When I
understand those principles I can evaluate specific claims, the same
as in a math book.
I don't believe you have "principles" (rules) for evaluating the Bible.
You have not stated what they are.
Whatever, insult man. The Bible teaches that God loves us, and that we
are to love God with all our heart and love our neighbor as ourselves.
Any claim that conflicts with that, I disagree with. That is one of
the principles I was talking about.
(snip because I have to leave in two minutes).
I'll try to get to the rest if I have time; you raised some good
points I want to address.
see yo later
keith
I worked on this response at three different times over two days. I
hope it follows some thread. Have a good day.
Thanks
keith
--
Enkidu aa 2165
Now playing: Talking Heads - Totally Nude
That wall, embodied in the First Amendment, is perhaps
America's most important contribution to political progress
on this planet.
Lowell Weicker
Republican Senator 1971-1989
.
|
|
|
| User: "Enkidu" |
|
| Title: Re: A god who plays mind games |
15 Sep 2004 08:49:24 PM |
|
|
(keith) wrote in
news:ba696799.0409150705.3c05b3ec@posting.google.com:
[snip]
That's not it. What you do damns you, what Christ did saves you.
According to all Christians I've met other than you:
(1) All mankind carries the stain of original sin.
(2) All mankind deserves death, the wages of sin.
(3) The only way out of this death is by God's grace.
(4) The only way to God is through Jesus by way of faith.
I didn't disagree with anything you wrote above, though. I disagreed
with your interpretaion *of* original sin.
If we *don't* carry the stain of original sin, and it does not effect our
position in God's eyes, why is it mentioned anywhere? Why is it
remembered?
Therefore all men, regardless of their actions will suffer unless
they have faith in Jesus.
That doesn't follow. It *does* follow that all men would suffer unless
they have faith in Christ, but it doesn't imply they would suffer even
*if* their actions were all morally proper. What it implies is that
there will be no men whose actions *are* all morally proper.
Three comments here.
(1) If God made us in such a way that *no man* can be morally proper, then
he erred when he created us or his standards. If *no man* can act morally,
then he is asking the impossible an punishing eternally when he doesn't get
it.
(2) I argue with your equation of "sin" and acting in a way that is not
"morally proper". Sin is by definition acting against God's will or law,
regardless of the outcome. Many of us have seen people acting according to
the Bible, but the outcomes of their actions are disasterous. Morality
need not be tied to the Bible and Christianity. In fact, I argue that
morality CANNOT be tied to the Bible, because it chronicles, even mandates,
acts that are clearly immoral.
(3) If God can forgive, then why can't he simply show compassion and
forgive? Why is the sacrifice of Jesus required? Why must sombody die in
order for others to be forgiven? Is that how YOU forgive people who wrong
you? Kill their kids then forgive them? Kill your own kids then forgive
them? Demand some form of payment then forgive them? No, this is not
forgiveness, it is sick and twisted retribution.
[snip]
Failing to take the right medicine means you suffer from the
disease, that is true, but it's the disease that makes you sick. We
seem to be talking past each other here. I am guessing your point
is that it'd somehow be unjust for God to show favoritism to a
subset of sinners by offering *them* a way to avoid the punishment
they merit while holding back that offer to other sinners. That's a
separate issue from the one we are discussing. I for one would
question whether the bible says there will be anyone who honestly
has the wrong theological opinion, when all is said and done. But
we can save that issue for some other discussion.
That's only a minor complaint. The very concept of sin in repulsive.
How is it repulsive? Sin merely means "doing wrong things", how is
recognizing that people do wrong things repulsive?
No, it does not. I means "Doing that which God, as interpreted in the
Bible, forbids, regardless of the outcome." An act should be judged by
it's likely outcome, not by some bronze age superstition. Any rational
moral code MUST be based on the true needs of man. Conditions change, new
technologies are developed, new problems arise, and bronze age rules don't
cut it. Do you eat lobster? It's a sin, you know.
The concept of punishing all for the transgressions of one is
repulsive.
And the Bible doesn't do that.
What's with the "pain of childbirth" all women suffer because of Eve?
What's with death coming to all men because og Adam's transgression? Why
must his children and grandchildren suffer? God can't punish just the
offenders?
The concept of eternal torture for *anything* is repulsive.
This is a much more complex issue. I would argue that the Bible
doesn't teach that *anyone* will end up ternally tortured, but my view
is a minority one.
Yep. Many Christians seem to drool when telling us atheists what God has
planned for us.
The disdain shown for intellect and reason is repulsive.
Where does Christianity teach disdain for reason? Nowhere.
"At that time Jesus answered and said, I thank thee, O Father, Lord of
heaven and earth, because thou hast hid these things from the wise and
prudent, and hast revealed them unto babes."
The defense of
evil in the name of "free will" is repulsive. The defense of evil in
the name of "God's will" is repulsive. I could go on, but you get my
drift.
And I would say your drift is inaccurate. Nowhere does Christianity
defend evil in the name of free will. It says that God *isn't* evil
for allowing us to be free. There is nothing repulsive about the
Christian argument there.
Christians explain away any kind of evil as part the result of free will or
God's will. I can cite several cases of children raped and brutally
murdered in my own community. Christians are quick to explain how it's not
God's fault. Hell with that. If YOU had the power to stop such evils, and
you did not act, you would be reviled by all men. God gets a pass. A
prominent protestant theologian told grieving parents that their sons'
deaths in Korea were part of God's plan for populating heaven.
Is there NO evil you would find incompatible with God's goodness?
[snip]
God created all, knowing all would sin, all would deserve eternal
torture, but a few would hear the magic password and not suffer
eternal torture. Yet this is the model of "infinite justice" we hear
about? That sounds insane to me.
I'd say that you cannot find any biblical support for the idea that
there will exist anyone who would have repented but for God not giving
them the "magic password", so your caricature *isn't* the model of
infinite justice. I would also challenge you to show how a guilty
person has any legimitae complaint if he recieves what he
deserves--how can he complain that God *ought* to have given him the
magic password?
No man deserves eternal torment. No man deserves punishment for the
transgressions of another. No man deserves punishment for acting according
to his capacities. Jesus promises eternal torment. God sacrificed Jesus
for the sins of others. Men are what they are, and if ALL MEN earn
punishment, then men were poorly created for the purpose God puts them to,
and are not at fault.
[snip]
If God creates us, knowing our actions in advance of our creation,
and we act as he foresaw while he had the power to make us
differently, then he bears responsibility. If I sell a crappy car,
and I know the ball joints are defective, and I know they will fail
on the first hard right, and I know that the only way off my lot is a
hard left onto a freeway, I am certainly responsible for the deaths
that follow.
If your not making the crapy car made a world that was not as good as
the world with the crappy car, then what you'd be responsible for is
making a better world. Likewise, if not creating us free makes a less
good world, then God--by creating us, even knowing that we would do
wrong--is responsible for making things better.
A God that created us such that *NONE* of us measure up is responsible. If
it is impossible for even a singe man to live a good, just, honest,
productive life in God's eyes, then he created poor flawed creatures or he
expects too much of them.
What would you say of such a man who bred
cocker spaniels and cruelly tortured those who could not round up
sheep?
You'd say he's a cruel and stupid ***** for punishing the dogs
for
failing to live up to his standards when he should have known they
never would. Well, that's how I see your God.
I would say that cruelly treating an animal for lacking an ability
isn't right to begin with, whether or not the breeder knew in
advance. But that's not the case with us sinners.
It is. We are what we are. We can make choices within limits, but
it is certain that we will act selfishly at times, covet our
neighbor's wife, etc.
It is certain that we will freely choose to do wrong things, but
that's on us. By your view, nothing is morally wrong since we are what
we are and we do what we do. The christian who tortures non-believers
until they confess is (according to your view) not doing anything
morally wrong and consequently doesn't deserve any condemnation.
Really?
If EVERY ONE of us ends up making "wrong choices" then consistently making
right choices is not within our capacity, and damning us for something that
is clearly beyond our control is irrational and evil.
And above all, we inherit sin.
A tricky subject, original sin; that's probably why you have
misinterpreted it:)
If it didn't stain us all, it would be irrelevent. It's a common theme in
thousands of churches every Sunday.
Whether or not we sin is our
choice, unlike the situations you describe with the dogs above. As
I said above, God's knowing that we will make free but bad choices
and still creating us doesn't relieve us of the guilt for our
choices. BTW, I don't remember if I said this to you, but I am
skeptical that the Bible teaches everlasting damnation of sinners,
in fact I think there's a good biblical argument to be made that
eventually everyone will repent, turn to Christ and be saved. But I
am not defending that view here, since *that* view *is* a minority
view among Christians.
The Bible expressly says that eternal torment awaits the unsaved.
I challenge you to support this claim.
I must admit, I can't find it in the Bible. My fundamentalist neighbors
seem to have found it.
Your spin is a caricature of Christian theology, I'd say.
I'd say you choose the parts of Christianity you like and ignore
the parts you don't.
Not so, and also irrelevant to the discussion, I'd say. I am trying
to accurately describe the typical Christian view, namely that
there will be people in hell forever, that only those who accept
Christ will be spared from this fate. In this debate I am giving
you that much. But the point is: on the typical Christian view
everyone who receives punishment is being punished for his bad
behavior, not *for* his honest mistakes. An honest mistake can
result in bad consequences, of course. Criminals honestly think the
police are no where around, and they are caught. But they cannot
say they punished for their honest mistake.
Calvin, Martin Luther, Aquinas would not agree with you. Neither
would a single Christian I've met.
Well, since Calvin and Luther and Aquinas are dead, they'd be tough to
query on the subject. I didn't deny original sin, though, so I don't
expect *that's* the problem you refer to.
Shakspere is dead to, but his influence lives on.
I find your version less cruel than the more common
variety, but I think you should wonder why you are ignoring parts.
You have more respect for your own judgement than you do the
printed Bible and the historical practices of Christianity.
This is a separate issue, IMO, since nothing I have argued depends
on my non-inerrancy view. But we can discuss it for a minute. I'd
say that you have no choice but trust your own judgment; even
deciding not to trust it would require that you *judged* your own
judgment to be unworthy of trust:-) A biblical inerrantist has to
trust his judgment that the whole bible is without error. I'm no
different in that respect from anyone else.
You are different. The common Christian view is summed up by the
bumper sticker: "God said it. I believe it. That settles it."
That;s not what I was talking about. What I *said* was that
necessarily everyone depends on his judgment. The common Christian you
mention above trusts that his own judgment about the validity of "God
said it. I believe it. That settles it" is an accurate one.
No, he follows his preacher's judgement.And he places his beliefs and his
morallity above all questioning, now and forever. These are frightening
people. Some sects cut of all conections with one who questions or strays
from their interpretation. One is not allowed to follow his one judgement
without paying a high price.
You are a short step away
from rethinking your beliefs. Take that step, reevaluate your
beliefs. See where logic and your own sense of right and wrong
lead you. I don't think you will end up siding with the God of
Christianity after considering his actions in the Old Testament.
It was rethinking my beliefs that moved me from years of atheism to
Christ. This is continuing away from the topic under discussion,
but I would say that morality doesn't even make sense if God
doesn't exist (not necessarily the christian God). I would say the
Christian view comports very well with our intuition of right and
wrong: God respects our freedom and dignity, but we go wrong by not
respecting the freedom and dignity of others, we are indifferent to
their suffering, and God's solution to the problem is to take upon
himself the pain that is rightfully ours, he takes this because he
loves us and wants us to enjoy relationship with him. Seems pretty
good to me.
All you have to give up is your integrity. I would never ask another
to suffer for my mistakes.
If you have any one you love, then you know that there's no avoiding
making other people suffer for your mistakes--if you hurt yourself you
hurt those who love you.
That's not the same as demanding that they suffer for my mistakes.
Correct. I was pointing out that *my* judgement of right and
wrong is based firmly in the present, in a world where data
exists, where theories can be formed and tested against reality.
I would include
moral theories. You would exclude morality from examination
because the Bible tells us what is right and wrong, and this
disconnects your morality from reality. The results of your
actions have no bearing on whether they are right or wrong.
I would say it is impossible to derive the "ought" of morality
from any scientific data.
Not at all. We know what promotes man's health and welfare. Those
things we call good. Those things that are detrimental to his health
and welfare we call bad. We call them "good" and "bad" based on
their observed effects. Observation is the basis of all science.
You cannot derive any duty to promote the general good from your
observation of what happens to promote it. The sociopath knows that
killing hurts other people, but from that fact you cannot derive the
fact that he *ought* to give a damn.
That's what makes him a sociopath. If one values human happiness, one
"ought" to do the things that promote it. Stealing does not promote human
happiness because when it becomes widespread, it suppresses production and
leads to social instability. Murder does not promote human happiness
because when it becomes widespread, it make us all more likely to be
victims. I could go on, but I think you can see that there are rational
reasons for morality that do not rely on God or the Bible.
[snip]
Entirely false. I *know* sqrt(2) is an irrational number. I can
prove it.
I can prove it to. But I know of people who have seen the steps of
the proof and still don't understand what they have seen. They
don't have the gut feeling that goes with recognizing that the
proof really does prove what it proves.
Limited mental ability or lack of effort don't alter the point. Some
people can't understand how a car works, but cars still work.
The point is: no one who lacks that gut feeling I was talking about
has knowledge about the thing.
"Gut feelings" do not constitute knowledge. It's an excuse to believe what
yuo want to believe without doing the hard work required to know.
I know evolution explains most of the living natural world.
You didn't always know that did you?:-) There was a gut feeling
that went with your recognizing that evolution was a solid
explanation; that's the feeling I'm talking about. If you hadn't
had the feeling you wouldn't know.
No. There is data that evolution explains and religion does not.
So? That's not the point. The point is: if you lacked the gut feeling
that the evidence pointed toward evolution you would not know that the
evidence pointed toward evolution.
You want to use "gut feeling" as a way to show that all knowledge claims
are really the same. This is just a very slight variation on the common
Christian claim that we all use faith, that science is just faith in logic,
that it's no different from faith in God. Nothing could be further from
the truth. Knowledge does not require faith or "gut feeling". Knowledge
requires observation, thought, theorizing, altering or discarding ideas
that don't match subsequent observations. It's completely different from
your "gut feeling" that God exists. You have no evidence, no observation
that God exists. You are unwilling to discard you belief when facts fail
to support it. You hypothesize things which by their nature cannot be
verified, and then use the fact that they have not been proven false, that
this somehow makes them credible.
Observation comes first. It also comes last, because observation
trumps theory. It trumps religion too.
There is no scientific observation that conflicts with the Gospel of
Christ.
There have been hundreds. Christians keep re-defining what the Gospel says
when the conflict with reality becomes so obvious that it cannot be hidden
any longer.
I can
investigate the evidence for myself. I know my wife and children
love me and support me, because I have the evidence before me in
their words and deeds. Could I be wrong? Perhaps, but my
knowledge is based on evidence I can examine.
And each case, you have a gut feeling that the evidence points in
the direction you say. That's the gut feeling I'm talking about.
Without that gut feeling you wouldn't know.
Wrong. The preponderance of the evidence points one way.
Wrong? I didn't say the evidence didn't point the way you claimed? So
how was I wrong? Are you denying that when you look at the evidence
you have this gut feeling the evidence points the way you claimed it
did?
I have no "gut feeling". I have evidence. There is a difference. Your
failure to admit it is a attemp to sneak the total lack of evidence for
your position past by equating your faith in God which has no supporting
evidence with well founded beliefs which are supported by evidence.
All beliefs are not equal. The ones supported by observed fact are
superior to those supported only by "gut feeling".
Observation trumps everything, even the Bible.
How do you know which parts of the Bible are
true and which are not? What evidence do you examine?
I use my gut, the same way you and I use our gut when we evaluate a
pile of evidence. When we look at a pile of alleged evidence, we
think about each part, we compare it with other things in our
experience, and eventually we have this gut feeling that says "this
proves such and such" or it doesn't, or it's inconclusive. I do a
similar thing with the bible, and when I get the analogous gut
feeling that means I believe it.
Your method is contrary to the Bible's express instructions. It says
to shun reason and philosophy. Every major theologian has echoed
this theme.
That's completely false, and a little silly. Aquinas surely didn't say
to shun reason, neither did Luther nor Calvin. Neither did scientist
and Christian Isaac newton for that matter.
"Reason must be deluded, blinded, and destroyed. Faith must trample
underfoot all reason, sense, and understanding, and whatever it sees must
be put out of sight and ... know nothing but the word of God."
Martin Luther
"Human salvation demands the divine disclosure of truths surpassing
reason."
Aquinas
Sounds pretty much like yuo've got to believe things you've no rational
reason to believe.
Newton was a Unitarian, and was forced to hide his religious beliefs. He
was also a mystic and an alchemist. He was not an entirely rational
person. Too bad, because when he was, he was amoung the greatest thinkers
the world has produced.
Then tell me how you know which parts to trust. I can do that
with a flawed math text.
That which rings true when I read it, I trust. That which seems
false I distrust. And then there's the stuff I don't know.
That's a very weak standard of evidence. Would you trust a doctor
who used such a standard over years of study, the results of
clinical trials, appropriate laboratory tests, and consultation
with specialists?
My standard is exactly the same standard as the experts use. They
examine the evidence and come to judgments about it; I examine the
evidence (the bible) and come to judgments about it. You might not
consider the bible to *be* evidence; likewise the OJ jury didn't
consider DNA to be evidence:-)
But we have no external support to verify the Bible.
So? If you take the set of everything that is evidence for a given
claim, you have nothing *external* to that set to verify the set--by
definition the set contains all the evidence. You have to judge the
set of evidence without reference to evidence. That's the same thing I
do with the bible.
This is irrational. The only evidence for the Bible is in the Bible. A
book that is true because it says it is true certainly not true. Consider
the evidence for evolution. Thousands of sites spread across the world,
genetic evidence, radioisotope dating, etc. For you to claim that the
evidence for the Bible is the same as the evidence for evolution because in
each case the the evidence there is is all the evidence there is just dumb.
And you yourself
discount parts of it, but can't give a procedure for doing so. The
Bible isn't even poor evidence if random parts are false.
I gave a procedure; I told you what it was above.
"Gut feeling" is not a method.
yes I do. You can check the math book by understanding the
principles presented in the book and seeing when a specific
claim is not consistent with those principles. That's what I do
with the Bible.
What principles *external* to the Bible do you use? Gut feeling?
Why do the principles need to be external to the bible? When I
understand those principles I can evaluate specific claims, the
same as in a math book.
I don't believe you have "principles" (rules) for evaluating the
Bible. You have not stated what they are.
Whatever, insult man. The Bible teaches that God loves us, and that we
are to love God with all our heart and love our neighbor as ourselves.
Any claim that conflicts with that, I disagree with. That is one of
the principles I was talking about.
No insult intended. By "principles" I meant "rules". The Bible also
teaches not to eat shellfish, to stone women who commit adultery, children
who show disrespect to their parents.
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "John Ritson" |
|
| Title: Re: A god who plays mind games |
14 Sep 2004 01:48:10 PM |
|
|
In message <Xns956442F81431Bo5l4bj502sneakemailc@68.6.19.6>, Enkidu
<enkidu@leaddogs.org> writes
keithj43@yahoo.com (keith) wrote in
news:ba696799.0409130601.6fc4335d@posting.google.com:
Enkidu <enkidu@leaddogs.org> wrote in message
news:<Xns9562AD0744EC2o5l4bj502sneakemailc@68.6.19.6>...
keithj43@yahoo.com (keith) wrote in
news:ba696799.0409121424.9388262@posting.google.com:
Enkidu <enkidu@leaddogs.org> wrote in message
news:<Xns9561B19667586o5l4bj502sneakemailc@68.6.19.6>...
keithj43@yahoo.com (keith) wrote in
news:ba696799.0409081457.461620b@posting.google.com:
[snip]
Killing 42 children for mocking a prophet is hardly justice.
We assume that the young are foolish, and we don't hit them
with big punishments for youthful transgressions. God's mercy
is of a different kind than man's.
We can deal with *that* objection in a different post. I am
trying to deal with the specific atheist claim that God punishes
people for making a theological mistake. I challenged that
claim. You are conceding that point?
It is and has been a part of Christian theology for nearly 2,000
years that salvation is to be had only through acceptance of
Jesus.
This is correct.
Sin has never merited punishment on it's own.
I'd say: you're not right; it's that salvation isn't merited by
your good works.
So it *isn't* what you do or don't do that damns or saves you, it's
faith in Jesus that saves you.
That's not it. What you do damns you, what Christ did saves you.
According to all Christians I've met other than you:
(1) All mankind carries the stain of original sin.
(2) All mankind deserves death, the wages of sin.
(3) The only way out of this death is by God's grace.
(4) The only way to God is through Jesus by way of faith.
You must be meeting a very restricted set of 'Christians', since the
Roman Catholic Church, ever since the Council of Trent in the middle of
the sixteenth century (and re-affirmed by Vatican II) has held that
belief in salvation by faith alone is anathema.
So presumably anyone who is not a member of your particular
sub-sub-schism is not a Christian?
Therefore all men, regardless of their actions will suffer unless they
have faith in Jesus.
It isn't about our acts, it's about faith. According to Christ, we were
born damned. We didn't get the chance to earn it. If this is true, it
is not just, and I would not respect any such God.
{snip]
--
John Ritson
.
|
|
|
| User: "Thomas P." |
|
| Title: Re: A god who plays mind games |
15 Sep 2004 09:28:06 AM |
|
|
John Ritson <john@jritson.demon.co.uk> wrote in message news:<yJ3MVEZqzzRBFwhX@jritson.demon.co.uk>...
In message <Xns956442F81431Bo5l4bj502sneakemailc@68.6.19.6>, Enkidu
<enkidu@leaddogs.org> writes
keithj43@yahoo.com (keith) wrote in
news:ba696799.0409130601.6fc4335d@posting.google.com:
snip
According to all Christians I've met other than you:
(1) All mankind carries the stain of original sin.
(2) All mankind deserves death, the wages of sin.
(3) The only way out of this death is by God's grace.
(4) The only way to God is through Jesus by way of faith.
You must be meeting a very restricted set of 'Christians', since the
Roman Catholic Church, ever since the Council of Trent in the middle of
the sixteenth century (and re-affirmed by Vatican II) has held that
belief in salvation by faith alone is anathema.
So presumably anyone who is not a member of your particular
sub-sub-schism is not a Christian?
Your point really changes nothing of significance. The Catholic
Church also teaches that we are born in sin. It also teaches that we
are saved by faith (and good works). In other words we are born
needing to be saved because of an offense we did not commit. The
doctrine makes god sound like a sulking bully. If he existed he would
be worthy of fear but certainly not of respect or love.
snip
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Steve Knight" |
|
| Title: Re: A god who plays mind games |
07 Sep 2004 08:00:22 PM |
|
|
On 7 Sep 2004 06:53:32 -0700, (keith) wrote:
snippage
Enkidu <enkidu@leaddogs.org> wrote in message news:<
There are quite a few who don't, but that's not really important for
this post, as even on biblical inerrancy, honest ignorance isn't what
is punished.
How can you possibly know this? The Bible told you? Was it in the
errant or the inerrant part?
Let me rephrase: neither the bible nor conservative christianity holds
that honest ignorance is punished.
Well that clears that up.
Oh, wait....... Does 'honest ignorance' include atheists that
wasted years of their lives believing christian mythology only to
reject it later in life?
How about an atheist that has examined your superstition and
dismissed it as nothing but superstition?
Or is 'honest ignorance' the new buzz spin for 'if you don't
believe the way I do, you are obviously wrong;?
Warlord Steve
BAAWA
www.sonic.net/~wooly
.
|
|
| |
