|
Post by moritz on Jul 29, 2008 7:12:36 GMT -8
Mo, I didn't even know this last post of yours had been made. Sorry I missed it. So much going on... hard to keep track of... I've got 2 kids you know! Wow, I missed these posts as well among the flurry of other things getting posted. I got some reading to do. **See Josh, this is why we need that "posts since my last visit" feature. I have a hard time navigating this forum without it. Here's a hint if you really want to make sure you don't miss something. Click on Members, then find Moritz, then click last 20 posts and you'll have all the posts you missed since the day before Love ya Mo Part of me really wishes you had kids. ;D I think my girlfriend wished we had kids too. Give me another year. As far as my last twenty posts are concerned: I fear that won’t help you to find everything I involved myself in either. I had hoped you guys weren’t replying because you were still chewing on it Anyway, here’s a list of the posts for which I’m still hoping to get a reply: The God Delusion Chp. 2: The God Hypothesis The Missing 297 Yrs/ Skepticism and Religious Bias On secularization God's personality The First Cause Argument (Peter Kreeft) The God Delusion Chp. 1: Science and Awe (I’m waitning for a reply to the post before my last post here) Which is Older? Polytheism or Monotheism? (not really waiting for a reply, just a short confirmation that you’ve seen it) Lightning and Love: Defining Miracles UM #2: Morality as Social Convention? UM #1: Morality as Herd Instinct? A quick thought on selfishness Authorship/ Myth in the Bible? Defining the sin of Lust ;D Relax, it doesn’t have to be today Go out and play ball with the kids.
|
|
|
Post by moritz on Jul 29, 2008 7:17:43 GMT -8
Hey Mo, I've just read your response to me (Dated July 15th ) and I'm not sure how I missed it. Not to make excuses, but I was out of town all last weekend and the last two weeks of work have been intense so it might have something to do with it. Anyway, I intend to to respond to all your points (good points by the way), but I'll only take one for now because it's the one that jumped off the page at me. That's a great question and one that Christians have debated forever (ever get into the Calvinism/Arminianism thing?). The truth is, like many other valid questions, we don't really know. I have a loosely held hypothesis that departs from most Christian answers to this question. That is, I believe God may have set up the fall on purpose because it was the only way to have a creation with free will beings (Yes, I know you don't believe in free will, but let's assume for arguments sake that it does exist in humans) and eliminate all possibility of sin by exhausting, not only it's power and effects, but it's potential as well. It's kind of like starting an avalanche with dynamite to prevent a more devasting one later. Of course this assumes the cross (another mystery) absorbs the power of sin and dissipates it like kinetic energy is transferred into something like spent energy. Kind of like an intentional avalanche takes potential energy, converts it to kinetic, and then exhausts it's energy altogether. This theory probably sounds silly to you and perhaps it raises more questions than answers, but it makes sense to me anyways. And it's really not something I require an answer for anyways. Some things I'm content with waiting for answers for. I'll be back when I can to answer the other points you've raised. But I'm back to work tomorrow and it will depend on how much mental energy I have left on my breaks. I'm not sure if I understood what you were trying to say, Chris. It doesn't make any sense to me. It looks a lot like escapism.
|
|
|
Post by Josh on Jul 29, 2008 8:54:19 GMT -8
Chris,
We may not have a "posts since last visit" option but now we have the Moritz post site-map.
It's kind of like choosing what to eat for lunch.
|
|
|
Post by moritz on Jul 29, 2008 8:58:06 GMT -8
Chris, We may not have a "posts since last visit" option but now we have the Moritz post site-map. It's kind of like choosing what to eat for lunch. haha ;D
|
|
|
Post by Josh on Jul 29, 2008 9:00:19 GMT -8
|
|
|
Post by Josh on Jul 29, 2008 13:01:19 GMT -8
Just picking away one bit at a time. I don't know why you want me to save my earlier reply... there's more ground to cover. If you want to bring it up, then get ready to discuss it again. Job
|
|
|
Post by moritz on Jul 29, 2008 13:10:40 GMT -8
Just picking away one bit at a time. I don't know why you want me to save my earlier reply... there's more ground to cover. If you want to bring it up, then get ready to discuss it again. JobI don't want to discuss it again. Job is a perfect example of God's cruelty. I remember you said that it was all good cause Job later got some candy. And I said that it's of poor character to torture someone (just for the fun of it) and later make it all up to him. I'm sorry. It's wicked. We don't agree on this. But if we rewrote the story and didn't put it in a religious context, maybe you would agree. Let's say God was a King and Job was a tributary. Ah, common, how twisted must a person be do do what God did to Job. He's such a prick, he gets me angry every time I think of it. What's even worse is that 21st century humans defend this kind of attitude.
|
|
|
Post by christopher on Jul 29, 2008 21:16:27 GMT -8
Hey Mo, Thanks for your patience and continued dialog. I do appreciate the exchanges. Sorry again for missing your reply on this, I was actually waiting for your answer on this only to find out it’s been there for almost two weeks. This might seem a little outdated by now in this thread. I’m not going to deal with every point you made about Dawkins because I don’t really want to get off on that tangent (we’ve got too many as it is ). Suffice it to say that he is not without bias and many have undergone to answer his opinions (and quite effectively too IMO). So since his opinions appear to me to be laced with his biased agenda driven rhetoric, they carry very little weight with me. You wrote: C’mon…I seriously doubt you have found many (if any) Christians that say God “changed His mind and personality”. Isn’t that just your assumed conclusion being read into the argument? How about that God fulfilled His plan? Wouldn’t that be more along the lines of a typical Christian response? To me, that’s like say it’s not worth having children because I already know in advance they’re going to die. If God sees the inevitable result of free will, why wouldn’t it also make sense to make plans to also overcome that? It makes total sense to me. I recognize there are perceived problems with timing and all (many generations), but I also accept that we are arrogant if we think we can know the mind of God completely. That would be of the liberal persuasion of which I cannot relate, so I can’t speak for them. I believe the bible (in original form) to absolutely true, all the way throughout. “Immorality” needs a standard to be judged by and “maltreatment” is in the eye of the beholder, and Job is a very good example of that. Job began accusing God of unjust “maltreatment” until God answered him (read Job 38..”who is this who darkens counsel by words without knowledge?”). Read Jobs’ perspective after that (Job 42:5-6 “Job 42:5-6… "I have heard of You by the hearing of the ear, But now my eye sees You. Therefore I abhor myself, And repent in dust and ashes." NKJV). I know from other threads that you read this as a harsh answer by God, but the written word is tricky isn’t it? Without tone and expression, you really can’t get the full picture of what is being communicated. You said in another thread to not take your words too harshly but to imagine you laughing and being sarcastic (paraphrase on my part). I challenge you to do the same with this passage. Read it and imagine God chuckling and using some light-hearted sarcasm towards Job’s pity party and tantrum to help Job see how non-sensical he’s being. Like a parent watching a cute little heart-warming tantrum being thrown by his/her terrible two year old (2nd or 3rd, not 1st born). God allows suffering...yes, even ordains it at times. But it’s for a purpose and he takes no pleasure in the death of the wicked (Ezek 33:11). Tell me, is it always wrong for me to allow a man to come at my child with a knife? What if the man is a surgeon? It’s a matter of perspective. Without an eternal perspective, it’s easy to draw the conclusions you do. If this life is all there is, I can see how it would seem unjust for God to let me suffer even the slightest bit. But with an eternal perspective, suffering begins to grow pale and loses its sting. Many Christians went to the arena and to the fiery stake singing hymns and praising God that they were counted worthy to suffer for His name. Well, I can try. First of all, on point #1, we don’t derive from the gaps and silence that God is loving, but the actions that show He is (like giving His Son because he loved the world John 3:16). If one believes that God is Love (1John 4:8,16) , then the gaps of knowledge are easily filled with loving purpose for things we don’t understand. It’s called trust. Christian trust that God is good and loving, even when we don’t understand why he does something. My kids are not thinking it’s a very loving thing for me to discipline them until much later when they reflect back on it. On point #2, it’s unfair, unreasonable, and unwise to take isolated stories without the broader context and draw a conclusion about it. The whole of scripture is God's story and we can't just wrestle a bit of out here or there and press it into service to support our own presuppositions. We have to take it as a whole if we're going to be fair and honest about how God is portrayed. We have much information about God, not just what is presented in those isolated cases. We must draw conclusions based on ALL the facts, not just the ones that APPEAR to support our prejudices. You are bringing many assumptions to this argument, including the Augustinian/Calvinistic assumption God makes all the decisions in the universe. Theologians have no such consensus, so your argument is based on an assumed premise. I think the bible clearly indicates that many things happen against God’s choice. Why would God say something like “turn, turn, why should you die? (Ezek 33)” if all decisions were His? Why would He say “All day long I’ve stretched out my hand to a disobedient and contrary people (Isa 65:2, Rom 10:21)” if no decisions can ever happen against His choice? I won’t. God can (and does) reveal Himself in any way He desires to. Maybe He wants real love by people who genuinely seek Him and not those who just want to toe the line to the path of least resistance. Why should He cheapen the relationship by making it easy decision between choosing to love Him over sin? Isn’t the victory of your favorite soccer (or do you call it football over there?) team sweeter when you don’t know, but are only hoping for the outcome? I think it’s possible that God intensifies our love for Him by being slightly elusive and un-granted. Cute, but Georgies’ “Lord” is Hare Krishna. (and I know I shouldn’t love that song, but it’s so darn catchy ) Not so. He came in the flesh, did miracles, and people didn’t believe Him because they didn’t want to. He gave His Holy Spirit to the church so that He could be in many places at once, and people still don’t believe Him. But of course, the problem is, there are tares among the wheat. But if you look closely enough, you can see God in the Church (if you can get past all the institutional non-sense) and that’s the way He’s chosen to reveal Himself. Check out Cornelius in Acts 10. He was a righteous and generous man who didn’t suppress the truth, and prayed diligently. God heard Him and revealed Himself to him. Actually, the difference is the soldier isn’t real, I made him up. ;D Nope, bearing the “wages” of sin Himself so we don’t have to. Imagine a Father who takes his child’s disease through a blood transfusion, leaving the child clean and the Father with the disease. Not S&M, but L-O-V-E. I’ve touched on this in my previous response, and I’ll answer your objections there. I will admit that I don’t know why bloodshed is required and I won’t wax eloquent on that. For some reason, the “wages of sin is death”, and although theologians wrestle with this question, it’s all conjecture at the end of the day. However, that doesn’t falsify or deem it illogical in any way. Maybe it does in your mind, but I have no problem in waiting for an answer. Actually, believe it or not, Paul acknowledges your position: 1 Cor 2:11-16 Even so no one knows the things of God except the Spirit of God. 12 Now we have received, not the spirit of the world, but the Spirit who is from God, that we might know the things that have been freely given to us by God. 13 These things we also speak, not in words which man's wisdom teaches but which the Holy Spirit teaches, comparing spiritual things with spiritual. 14 But the natural man does not receive the things of the Spirit of God, for they are foolishness to him; nor can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned. 15 But he who is spiritual judges all things, yet he himself is rightly judged by no one. 16 For "who has known the mind of the LORD that he may instruct Him?" But we have the mind of Christ. NKJV
|
|
|
Post by christopher on Jul 29, 2008 22:31:49 GMT -8
Mo, I'm sorry I didn't communicate it more clearly. I'm not really sure how to improve on the analogy though. What do you mean by escapism? Is that like compensating for cognitive dissonance or something? Maybe if I twist a few scriptures out of context for a moment and use it as another analogy: John 12:24-25 24 Most assuredly, I say to you, unless a grain of wheat falls into the ground and dies, it remains alone; but if it dies, it produces much grain. NKJV and.. 1 Cor 15:42-49 The body is sown in corruption, it is raised in incorruption. 43 It is sown in dishonor, it is raised in glory. It is sown in weakness, it is raised in power. 44 It is sown a natural body, it is raised a spiritual body. There is a natural body, and there is a spiritual body. 45 And so it is written, "The first man Adam became a living being." The last Adam became a life-giving spirit. 46 However, the spiritual is not first, but the natural, and afterward the spiritual. 47 The first man was of the earth, made of dust; the second Man is the Lord from heaven. 48 As was the man of dust, so also are those who are made of dust; and as is the heavenly Man, so also are those who are heavenly. 49 And as we have borne the image of the man of dust, we shall also bear the image of the heavenly Man. NKJV Maybe this helps illustrate a little. Or maybe not. I'll have more to add to this later, but it's 11:30 now and that's waaaaay too late for me.
|
|
|
Post by moritz on Jul 30, 2008 15:48:16 GMT -8
Yo Chris, are you ready for one hell of an elephant answer? I’m not going to deal with every point you made about Dawkins because I don’t really want to get off on that tangent (we’ve got too many as it is ). Suffice it to say that he is not without bias and many have undergone to answer his opinions (and quite effectively too IMO). So since his opinions appear to me to be laced with his biased agenda driven rhetoric, they carry very little weight with me. I find that plain stupid to be quite frankly, but it’s your decision. Maybe you should ask yourself why Dawkins has his bias instead of simply dismissing everything he has to say without listening to it. Anyway that’s your decision. I’d like to start with the part about omnipotence: You are bringing many assumptions to this argument, including the Augustinian/Calvinistic assumption God makes all the decisions in the universe. Theologians have no such consensus, so your argument is based on an assumed premise. I think the bible clearly indicates that many things happen against God’s choice. Why would God say something like “turn, turn, why should you die? (Ezek 33)” if all decisions were His? Why would He say “All day long I’ve stretched out my hand to a disobedient and contrary people (Isa 65:2, Rom 10:21)” if no decisions can ever happen against His choice? Look, I don’t know the theological debates on this topic. But it’s quite easy to see: If you are omniscient that means that you know everything. EVERYTHING! There is nothing that could take you by surprise. You know the present, the past and the future. Every detail. There is nothing we could ask God that he wouldn’t know. Cause he’s omniscient. That’s what omniscience means by definition: the capacity to know everything infinitely. If you are omnipotent, that means that you can do anything you want. There is no limit to your power. Nothing you can’t do, no one who could overpower you. Savvy? Okay, now, if you’re omnipotent, you have an infinite number of possibilities in every second. Cause in every second, if not nanosecond, you could do whatever you please. This also implies that you have an infinite number of choices. This, combined with omniscience, means that you know everything that goes on and could influence or prevent whatever you want. Now I repeat: God knows everything we do before we do it and if he lets it happen, then just because he wants it that way. He always has the choice. This logically follows from omniscience and omnipotence. This is not even open for debate. It’s included in the definition. Hence, you are wrong, nothing can happen against God’s will. Why would God say the things you quoted from the Bible that apparently contradict his omnipotence? I have a very good answer for you. Because he a) either isn’t omni-xy or b) because the humans who wrote that down didn’t think it through when they invented that story. You choose As far as God’s responsibility is concerned (I think Josh brought that up): If you (a human) know that your friend A is going to murder your friend B and you don’t do anything about it even though you could, you make yourself guilty. At least in Germany but I’m quite sure in the USA too. I’d like to see you in court saying: “Well, I knew that A was gonna kill B and I sure could have prevented it, but, you know, A has his free will and I think that’s the most important thing ever. So I let it happen.” What do you think the judge would say? God knew every sin, every murder, every rape, simply everything that would happen on this planet before he even created the planet. And he knew why it would happen. He knew who would end up suffering in hell for eternity. And even though he could have prevented everything, he chose to let it happen. Why? Why all the drama? Why the cross? Why the fall? Why the flood? Why all this blood? Why?? Yeah, because the Lord moves in mysterious ways! You’ll sure believe that, blue eyes. You’ll try to make up complicated reasons about love and free will in order to make it fit instead of seeing what’s probably easier: It’s just ancient make-believe. It’s irrational and ill-conceived. How I wish you would just take a minute to really question it and think about it. From a rational perspective. You wrote: C’mon…I seriously doubt you have found many (if any) Christians that say God “changed His mind and personality”. Isn’t that just your assumed conclusion being read into the argument? How about that God fulfilled His plan? Wouldn’t that be more along the lines of a typical Christian response? Hm, I get the impression that you’re not concentrated when you read my posts. I don’t mean this in an offensive way. But I never said Christians said God changed his personality. I said Christians speak of a new bond between God and humanity through Jesus Christ. The rest indeed is my conclusion. New bond as compared to old bond. This of course arises a lot of questions. For instance: Why, if God is omniscient, would he need a NEW bond? Why didn’t he make the old one fit so he wouldn’t have to renew it? Update to bond 2.0? This only seems reasonable if bond 1.0 was a failure. But if he is omnipotent and omniscient, why would he create a failure? This all sounds so human. A human architect would build a building knowing that it has to be renovated sooner or later. But a perfect architect? You say God fulfilled his plan. So it was his plan to murder all those people at Sodom and Gomorrha and the Great flood? Was this a loving fathers’ pedagogical measure? What a stretch! All those attempts to compare deliberate mass murder and more than questionable morals (should we really stone somebody to death just because he worked on Sabbath??) to a benign father who has to be strict at times. You should hear yourself talk! God could easily have been really strict with the humans without murdering them. Or torturing them. He could have made them realize and stop their wrong ways without a single drop of blood. To me, that’s like say it’s not worth having children because I already know in advance they’re going to die. If God sees the inevitable result of free will, why wouldn’t it also make sense to make plans to also overcome that? It makes total sense to me. I recognize there are perceived problems with timing and all (many generations), but I also accept that we are arrogant if we think we can know the mind of God completely. No, we don’t have to know God’s mind completely. But if we are supposed to put our entire trust in something we can’t see, if we are supposed to follow the most daffy instructions of ancient authors, then at least it’s gotta make sense. I repeat: if God, the almighty creator of everything doesn’t want sin, why did he create it. There are so many things, so many abilities he didn’t give us, why did he give us sin? Why did he give Adam acces to the tree of truth if he didn’t want Adam to fall? He knew that Adam would disobey him. Would you give your children (when they are age 3 or 4) access to your guns? Or would you lock the guns away? Answer! That would be of the liberal persuasion of which I cannot relate, so I can’t speak for them. I believe the bible (in original form) to absolutely true, all the way throughout. Does that mean you believe women are originally made of a spare rib? That’s hilarious. I can only wonder how people believe something like that. I’ve heard about these people, but now at least I know one. I’m not sure how much sense it makes to discuss with you. You decided to enter “God’s wonderland” and I guess there is no proof in the world that could shake your faith. Alright, there is no hope for you. But at least do me a favour and don’t call yourself a truth-seeker. You’ve already found your truth. That of course does nothing to the real truth. “Immorality” needs a standard to be judged by I’ll take the actual Constitution and social convention of my country. “maltreatment” is in the eye of the beholder, and Job is a very good example of that. So I assume you don’t agree that the Devil maltreated Job with God’s permission, only to find out what God knew all the time? I know from other threads that you read this as a harsh answer by God, but the written word is tricky isn’t it? Without tone and expression, you really can’t get the full picture of what is being communicated. Well, then maybe the Lord in all his wisdom should have made sure to pick other words, or add a clarification, just like I did in the other thread (and I’m not as wise as the Lord, you know?). The attitude God presents in this story so many other stories made me interpret his answer that way. But I’ll read it again and try to see it with different eyes. This of course requires reading the whole Old Testament again. I’ll see when I’ll find the time. I need a new bible anyway. Read it and imagine God chuckling and using some light-hearted sarcasm towards Job’s pity party and tantrum to help Job see how non-sensical he’s being. Like a parent watching a cute little heart-warming tantrum being thrown by his/her terrible two year old (2nd or 3rd, not 1st born). This comparison is so inapt I can’t find the words. “Oh, hihihi, how funny, cute little Job is blaming ME for the nuts I put him through, hihihi, how non-sensical he is!”. God allows suffering...yes, even ordains it at times. But it’s for a purpose and he takes no pleasure in the death of the wicked (Ezek 33:11). Tell me, is it always wrong for me to allow a man to come at my child with a knife? What if the man is a surgeon? It’s a matter of perspective. I browsed the scripture you quoted and it just increases the nonsense. I’m sorry. I really don’t want to use these pejorative terms all the time. But it makes no sense. Seriously! If he’s omni, he knows why people don’t shake off their evil ways. It’s hypocritical to stand there and say: “it’s no pleasure for me to watch you drown in the mess I created for you. I knew you would drown in the mess but I created you and the mess anyway. I know you won’t shake off your evil ways and I know why. After all I wanted it that way. I could help you, but I won’t. I’m gonna watch you die and suffer. But believe me, that’s no pleasure for me! No Sir! HA!” Without an eternal perspective, it’s easy to draw the conclusions you do. If this life is all there is, I can see how it would seem unjust for God to let me suffer even the slightest bit. But with an eternal perspective, suffering begins to grow pale and loses its sting. Okay but then why suffer to begin with? I mean, okay, let’s say we can’t cherish the pleasure if we don’t know what pain is (if God wanted us to be able to cherish the one without experiencing the other, it would be possible of course). But it’s as you said, this little lesson grows pale during the course of eternity. Just think of how fast we get used to things. I don’t know you but I’m sure you’re complaining from time to time too, even though you know you have it better than the big majority of the world’s population. Right? Again I ask, where is the sense? Will we remember our suffering 80 years 3.000.000 years from now? I don’t think so. So what’s all this for? Well, I can try. First of all, on point #1, we don’t derive from the gaps and silence that God is loving, but the actions that show He is (like giving His Son because he loved the world John 3:16) . I wanna cry. I don’t understand that. Why does that make sense? Why would you have to give birth to a son just to sacrifice him because you love the world? Why? Especially when you could have it any other way? The guy is omnipotent for crying out loud! It’s like the story with the Werewolf and the silver bullets. This isn’t logical. If one believes that God is Love (1John 4:8,16) , then the gaps of knowledge are easily filled with loving purpose for things we don’t understand. It’s called trust. This isn’t an explanation. Why should I trust in something that doesn’t make sense? My kids are not thinking it’s a very loving thing for me to discipline them until much later when they reflect back on it. Yeah, again you’re reducing mass murder and torture to a pedagogical measure. You’re perception of this is really clouded. I wonder if you’re kids will understand your love one day when you used to give them disproportional bashings every time they went wrong… On point #2, it’s unfair, unreasonable, and unwise to take isolated stories without the broader context and draw a conclusion about it. The whole of scripture is God's story and we can't just wrestle a bit of out here or there and press it into service to support our own presuppositions. We have to take it as a whole if we're going to be fair and honest about how God is portrayed. We have much information about God, not just what is presented in those isolated cases. We must draw conclusions based on ALL the facts, not just the ones that APPEAR to support our prejudices. I won’t. God can (and does) reveal Himself in any way He desires to. Maybe He wants real love by people who genuinely seek Him and not those who just want to toe the line to the path of least resistance. Why should He cheapen the relationship by making it easy decision between choosing to love Him over sin? Isn’t the victory of your favorite soccer (or do you call it football over there?) team sweeter when you don’t know, but are only hoping for the outcome? I think it’s possible that God intensifies our love for Him by being slightly elusive and un-granted. Good point Christopher, you are certainly right with this. There’s still a difference. I’m not saying that God can’t be loving either or is only a sadist. But the wicked parts are there. You can’t talk them away. You can try to defend them, but they are there. And God has shown parts of his nature that simply go beyond anything a normal person would call adequate pedagogical measures. Ultimately, none of you so far could answer why God had to do the things the way he did them. Why he had to be so extremely brutal. The approaches to explain it always end at the question of why it had to be this way and not any other way. Cute, but Georgies’ “Lord” is Hare Krishna. (and I know I shouldn’t love that song, but it’s so darn catchy ) I think this song reflects the unconditional desire of a person to meet God. Whatever name you wanna give the Lord. Not so. He came in the flesh, did miracles, and people didn’t believe Him because they didn’t want to. Yeah and when was that? 2000 years ago. He left ME hanging high and dry for sure. and that’s the way He’s chosen to reveal Himself. You see, that’s the kind of blurry revelation I was talking about when discussing personal experiences. A revelation through the church… that has no compelling substance. It’s your very arbitrary opinion. You can’t ask a reasonable person to something like that. Well, I guess you know that and that’s why you said it takes a personal encounter with God. Well, when we look at your personal encounter we’ll find that it isn’t less blurry. You assume that God reveals himself through the church (maybe God can’t stand the church), you assume that your feeling while studying the Bible was a revelation. You assume and assume and assume, but what kind of evidence is that supposed to be? Let’s imagine you would sit in court again but this time as a witness. And you bring on such evidence. Who’s gonna buy it? Nobody! Check out Cornelius in Acts 10. He was a righteous and generous man who didn’t suppress the truth, and prayed diligently. God heard Him and revealed Himself to him. And Paul was a Christian-hunter who didn’t believe in Jesus, yet he got a first class revelation. God apparently has his pets… Nope, bearing the “wages” of sin Himself so we don’t have to. Imagine a Father who takes his child’s disease through a blood transfusion, leaving the child clean and the Father with the disease. Not S&M, but L-O-V-E. An omnipotent father would have to take such measures. He could heal the son with just one word. But… it had to be suffering. Bad suffering. Lots of blood, lot’s of pain, not the worst possible way to die but a pretty ugly one. And all of this totally unnecessary. The father made the crossing plan (= sadism) the son “joyfully embraced” the cross (= masochism). Although this may have nothing to do with sexual S&M (at least I hope so) it remains S&M. I’ve touched on this in my previous response, and I’ll answer your objections there. I will admit that I don’t know why bloodshed is required and I won’t wax eloquent on that. For some reason, the “wages of sin is death”, and although theologians wrestle with this question, it’s all conjecture at the end of the day. Thank you, Chris. Honestly, thank you! We can operate from there. However, that doesn’t falsify or deem it illogical in any way. Maybe it does in your mind, but I have no problem in waiting for an answer. What has the last part of the last sentence to do with the first part of the last sentence? 1. Apparently you DO have a problem with waiting for an answer, because you gave yourself the religious answer to the open questions of life long before these questions are answered for instance scientifically. How brave of you to wait for the answers to the questions religion now arises. PAHAHA! 2. The question about why bloodshed is required DOES raise serious questions. Your intents to provide answers to this make as much sense as the silver bullets and the Werewolf, I can only repeat myself. No logical sense. Since when does the suffering of one man take away the guilt of another man? I’ve asked this at least three times before and nobody answered. Why is this supposed to be logical? From a human perspective, it seems barbaric, Actually, believe it or not, Paul acknowledges your position: I repeat. Why are you rejecting the human perspective? What makes you think you should judge all this with anything else but your comprehension? You should rather rely on your brain than on your gut feel! Mo, What do you mean by escapism? Is that like compensating for cognitive dissonance or something? Yeah, I’m sorry if I didn’t use the correct word. Hm. What I’m trying to say is that your “loosely held hypothesis” looks a bit like a half-cocked attempt to answer a question you can’t really answer. The question is seriously threatening the Bible’s logic and so there’s no getting around it. It seems pretty senseless and your attempt to explain it doesn’t make much sense either (although I’m happy you shared it with me). Again it all shipwrecks on God’s omnipotence. You said perhaps it was the only way for God to allow free will, but as I pointed out there is no “only way” for God. He always has all the possibilities he desires. Am I done replying? I’m done! Eureka!!
|
|
|
Post by moritz on Jul 30, 2008 16:13:07 GMT -8
A little intermission for your amusement:
Let's hear what the devil has to say about God's personality... ;D
(Al Pacino in: The Devil's Advocate)
|
|
|
Post by christopher on Jul 30, 2008 20:19:38 GMT -8
Wow, that was an elephant....perhaps if you used ALL CAPS for your rants they'd be a little more forceful and convincing. ;D Seriously Mo, I think a little calmer conversation is in order here. I'm not going to eat the whole thing right now, I'm actually going to try and get a little sleep tonight. But why don't we play a little game? It'll be fun and educational. You continually make assertions like: If you're going to appeal to logic, why don't you specify which laws of logic are being violated by God or the bible (i.e. logical fallacies) instead of assuming everyone agrees with your logic and your definitions. And I don't mean from the book of first and second Mo. Why don't you use accepted rules of logic to back the assertions you are making. They'll carry more weight than screaming, believe me. In case you're unfamiliar with them, here's a website I just googled that has a list of many of these logical fallacies and their definitions to get you started: www.logiclaw.co.uk/fallacies/Straker.htmlWhen I come back, I'll try to eat this "elephant" one bite at a time and point out how you are using some of these fallacies (like Ad Hominem, False Dichotomy, Circular Reasoning, Begging the Question, etc. and of course my personal favorite...Ad Adsurdum). But for now...it's bed time. Gute nacht.
|
|
|
Post by moritz on Jul 31, 2008 3:03:45 GMT -8
Wow, that was an elephant....perhaps if you used ALL CAPS for your rants they'd be a little more forceful and convincing. ;D Seriously Mo, I think a little calmer conversation is in order here. (…) They'll carry more weight than screaming, believe me. I didn’t scream for a second. I can see why you thought I screamed though. Your criticism of my debating style is justified. I think I’m doing harm to my own points in many different ways by appearing to be in rage. I think a lot of this comes from my own inability to express myself clearly in English. This lack of language skill is constantly causing misunderstandings. On many occasions I have the impression you guys aren’t replying to the core of my arguments but missing the point I was trying to make. I’m the one to blame for that. And my debating style sure could use a little grinding. I haven’t got a tactic. No clear concept. I’m just writing down what I think. When something seems absurd to me, I dismiss it vigorously, when somebody seems to be silly, I attack him ad hominem (as I learned today). Yeah, that’s no sophisticated way. Less rant, more argument. I’ll try that. I can’t promise anything though. Sometimes I gotta let off some steam. I only wished I could express myself clearer. However, the fact that I’m taking the focus away from my points on to my debating style doesn’t reduce the significance of my points. It only leads away from the points. If you're going to appeal to logic, why don't you specify which laws of logic are being violated by God or the bible (i.e. logical fallacies) instead of assuming everyone agrees with your logic and your definitions. And I don't mean from the book of first and second Mo. Very true, Christopher. I was trying to explain what I meant by logic in this case, with the werewolf example. Let me try again. Maybe that’ll clear something. If you reread my posts then, we might exclude a huge source of misunderstanding. I mean the kind of logic when B follows from A. Not to be confused with false dilemma. I’m well aware that there are often many possibilities that could follow from a premise. Example for what I mean: If I can’t find my shoes, I can’t put them on. This logically follows. If I haven’t got anything to eat at home, I can’t cook myself some dinner (unless I go and get some food at, i.e. the supermarket, but when I return from the supermarket I DO have food at home, so the premise changed). If God had kept the tree of truth (or however it is called in English) out of Adams reach, Adam couldn’t have eaten an apple from that tree. Everything clear so far? B logically follows from A. Now, the point I’ve been trying to make is that the Bible arises a lot of questions concerning the logic of God’s actions. Example: God had to send his son to earth, in order to die on the cross and by doing that absorb all sin. Even if this isn’t theological consensus, it’s what you brought up, Chris. I’m asking: Why is it logical that sin will be absorbed by the sacrifice of anybody? Why is this supposed to be a logical conclusion? How does B follow from A here? That’s illogical. Do you understand what I mean? Why couldn’t an omniscient, omnipotent and loving God have it all without bloodshed? We don’t have to know everything. But if you try to remember how you saw the bible before you converted, you will acknowledge that it is a pretty wild story. With a lot of claims that contradict our own experience (example: resurrecting after being dead for three days. I’ve never seen somebody walking on the water. I’ve never seen somebody waking a dead person who was already a couple of days dead and stinky. I've never seen somebody fixing a cut-off ear with a simple touch. etc. etc.). If I’m supposed to ignore everything I’ve learned about life and dedicate myself completely to the testimony of ancient authors whom I hardly know anything about, the story in itself must be consistent. That’s why certain things must be known. When I said that the question threatened the logic of the Bible, I wanted to say: The story of Jesus and the cross seems inconsistent to me. I can’t find a logical explanation of why it had to be that way nor how it could ever work that way. As long as we can’t find a reasonable answer, the justifyed SUSPICION remains that there really isn’t a logical explanation. There can of course be a logical explanation. But this is too important to be ignored. This really can't wait for after death, imo. There are many more examples. I hope you understand me now. One more thing about capital letters: I use them to accentuate a word. Not because I want to make it sound as if I yelled. I’m often typing in MS Word and I don’t always want to copy and paste those little brackets in order to write a word in italic letters, what I would do if I typed in the forum directly.
|
|
|
Post by christopher on Jul 31, 2008 11:24:13 GMT -8
Mo wrote: I believe you, and thanks for understanding where I'm coming from also. I posted a possible solution to the language thing here. ;D You're right, it doesn't, only rebuttal does that. I've scooped up the "elephant" and am working on that off-line. Hopefully I'm able to post it tonight sometime. Ciao.
|
|
|
Post by christopher on Aug 1, 2008 22:52:44 GMT -8
Hey Mo, I’d like to make three very important points before I get started. 1) There are times (many times) that I will rebut something with a plausible alternative for the simple purpose of pointing out the logical fallacy of an argument. This does not necessarily mean I hold the view I’m using (I’m agnostic on many things), only that it is a plausible one sufficient to demonstrate that an argument isn’t as air-tight as one might think it is. 2) Many of things you present are problems, not contradictions or logical fallacies or even logical inconsistencies. There’s a huge difference in those things. Christians do not deny that the gaps in knowledge in the bible that present philosophical problems. The bible doesn’t claim to be an exhaustive book of knowledge. These problems are often tackled with logic, speculation, and informed intuition, but it is unfair to demand an answer to all your “why did God do this” questions because the answer is often not revealed in scripture. That doesn’t make it false. 3) I didn’t answer all your points because the logical fallacies began to be repetitive (Ad Nauseum) IMO and my responses began sounding like a broken record and I didn’t want to make the post any longer than it needs to be. I doubt too many people will read the whole thing as it is. PLEASE don’t assume I’m being evasive. If there is anything I left out that you feel should be addressed, PLEASE point it out and I will answer that point specifically. Ok, time to eat that elephant…one bite at a time as they say. I’m going to use the same terms in that list of fallacies that I linked to yesterday so that we’re “on the same page” so to speak. Ready? You wrote: Actually, the bible doesn’t use those terms to describe God, theologians do. Have you ever heard of open theism? That is the theory that God is all-knowing (knows everything there is to know), but that the future has not happened yet so it is not a thing to know. Therefore, this definition creates a False Dillemma, Circular Definition, and is minorly Begging the Question. I’m agnostic on this by the way. The only view I reject is that of Augustinian/Calvinism which says that God knows everything because He makes all the decisions (determinism). Whether the Arminian or Open Theistic view is to be preferred, I’m undecided. False Dillemma, Circular Definition. Again, the bible doesn’t use that term and indeed lists things that God cannot do. He cannot lie (Titus 1:2) He cannot be tempted (James 1:13), He cannot deny Himself (2Tim 2:13). Logically speaking, God cannot create another like Himself, that would violate the negative principle of modality. There are other things that God can rightly choose not to do and not violate His loving nature, like not interfering with the free will of humans. But it is open for debate, we’re debating it right now. I’ve already shown that it’s not included in the definition because it is not necessary to agree with your definition. That’s called a Circular Definition. Excluded Middle. You leave out the possibility that God has chosen to allow His creatures free will and I can understand why He would. You are totally leaving relationship out of this whole equation of yours. How boring it would be for God to be the great puppeteer of the cosmos and make His creature do whatever He pleases. I couldn’t imagine being married to a robot that I programmed and have little robot kids. How empty those relationships would be wouldn’t they. But if God is all about Love (relationship), and love is voluntary, then does it not also follow that He must risk being rejected as well as being accepted? False Analogy. I believe you are falsely classifying God and humans together and this is a category error. God is infinite and immortal, humans are finite and mortal. God cannot be compared to humans and is not subject to any judge in any courtroom because He transcends creation. Therefore, He is not bound by human moral duties (notice I didn’t say morality) and is free to have a greater purpose for allowing, and even ordaining, suffering and death that in the end is good. There is no logical fallacy in that premise that I can see. Besides, if you carry your assertion out to its logical conclusion, don’t you also have every self-sufficient person in this world directly culpable for anyone starving to death? We all have the means of reaching in our pocket and giving them what they need to live. Do you not have an extra Euro or two you could give to the poor rather than buying that beer at the pub? Therefore, using your own logic, you are culpable for the death of the little girl in India that will die of starvation tonight because you could have done something about it. This, I believe, is Denying the Antecedent and it makes no sense to me. A very Catholic assumption IMO (which also spilled over into Protestant traditions). This is understandable given your background. But not all theologians agree on eternal torment in hell. I’m agnostic on this topic, but I believe there is good and rational reason to hope for Universal Reconciliation, which philosophically fits better with God’s revealed will and character IMO. Ad Hominem, Ad Absurdum, Argument from Ignorance (and solicitation thereof). I hope I don’t have to explain the Ad Hominem and Ad Absurdum because it’s obvious in your ridicule of my beliefs. It adds no force to your argument. That you don’t know “why” God does what He does, doesn’t make it “ancient make believe” or “irrational and ill-conceived”. Nor does it warrant your solicitation for me to enter into the same trap. That is called Argument from Ignorance. I think I read you just fine, that is exactly what you wrote. That expressly implies that someone (a Christian) is arguing that God changed his mind and personality. Is it not? Again, Argument from Ignorance and solicitation thereof. However, to answer your question about the New Covenant versus the old, there is biblical data on that. Gal 3:23-24 24 Therefore the law was our tutor to bring us to Christ, that we might be justified by faith. NKJV The law was there to show humanity, in our haughty self-deception, that we are unrighteous and in need of a Savior. Again, Argument from Ignorance (and solicitation thereof), Begging the Question, Ad Absurdum. By the way, God told Abraham he’d spare Sodom and Gomorrah if he could find just 10 righteous people in it (Gen 18:32). Apparently Lot was the only one (and I don't consider him all that righteous, but God apparently did because of his faith). False Analogy, Argument from Ignorance (and solicitation thereof), Begging the Question, Ad Absurdum. Hopefully obvious. If not, let me know and I’ll expound. By the way, I do lock my guns away. But my kids still rebel nonetheless. I hate to be a broken record but…same list. One to add is Appeal to Common belief. By the way, I am truth seeker. No amount of Abusive Ad Hominem will change that truth. You are right though that I believe that I’ve found the truth…the real truth (at least the major part of it and source of it). That doesn’t keep me from being honest, it only makes me a little more critical of that which is contrary to what I believe. You don’t honestly think your perfectly objective…do you? That’s fine, but it still rather arbitrary without a some standard as a starting point. Where did your country’s constitution and social convention come from? Since you're in Europe, I might have a good guess. You assume wrong. I do agree that the devil maltreated Job. But I also know that Job already knew God was letting it happen (Job 13:15). At first he held it to be unjust, but still committed to trusting God, even against the counsel of his nagging wife. I also know that it wasn’t just a few “goodies” (or whatever you said) that Job got, but deeper intimacy with God which makes any amount of suffering pale in comparison IMO. regarding Ezek 33:11, you wrote: We’ve covered this ground already so I won’t waste a lot of space. Please state the logical fallacy here in terms we can understand without the ridicule. Go ahead , I won’t think any less of a man. ;D Again, you haven’t demonstrated the logical fallacy here…only that you disagree with the choice. I don’t know why you would, but I do know why I do. There are many things about God that don’t make sense to me either, but I think He has demonstrated time and again that He’s trustworthy (at least to me He has). This is a repeated theme and a category error you continually bring up and I think it may be a matter of paradigm differences. You falsely categorize and eternal, infinite God with finite humans whose lives are but a span. God is not bound by death like we are. If I kill someone, there’s nothing left that I can do to redeem that. But if God does it, He has time and ability on His side to make that into something beneficial to not only the recipient of the suffering, but to mankind as well. That is why martyrs joyfully embraced death because as it was said in the great persecution “the blood of the saints is the seed of the church”. People were getting saved left and right in the arenas as Christians were being devoured by beasts. Well, hang in there. Your life isn’t over yet. It’s not the end of the story, only the middle of a chapter. I haven’t. I don't. Bingo. You may be on to something there. I’ve actually wondered if the growing number of atheists isn’t an indictment and judgment on the Church. We need to truly follow Jesus and the world will know He is truly King. The only court I’m sitting in is my own personal convictions. I can choose to be honest or dishonest with myself. I choose honesty. That you, and others like you, are unconvinced doesn’t make it false. Your point here, by the way, is a Red Herring. We are discussing the personality of God, not my personal revelations that lead me to faith. That is another thread altogether. Well, there is a difference you may want to consider. Jesus said about Paul: Acts 9:16 16 For I will show him how many things he must suffer for My name's sake." NKJV And Paul certainly did suffer all his life, especially as a Christian. I’ll take Cornelius’ lot myself if I have the choice. But Paul saw it differently. 2 Cor 4:17 17 For our light affliction, which is but for a moment, is working for us a far more exceeding and eternal weight of glory NKJV and... Rom 8:18-19 18 For I consider that the sufferings of this present time are not worthy to be compared with the glory which shall be revealed in us. NKJV False Assumption, Argument from Ignorance. This is nothing but False Deduction. Jesus asked that the cup (the cross) pass from Him. It wasn’t the suffering He embraced joyfully, but the reward (reconciliation to His beloved). Likewise, the bible doesn’t say the Father enjoyed the brutal killing of Jesus, only that it was necessary. Matt 26:39 "O My Father, if it is possible, let this cup pass from Me; nevertheless, not as I will, but as You will." NKJV Can you repeat that please? I never said I “reject” human perspective, only that it’s inadequate to answer all the questions. I add to my human perspective the Divine perspective and things become much clearer IMO. Thanks for the advice. I’ll take that into consideration. I’ve stated before that I don’t mind sharing plausible explanations that I don’t necessarily subscribe to or only suspect. It should not be assumed that it is grasping at straws, only throwing out possibilities. If there is a plausible explanation, then the argument I'm responding to is non-sequitur. If you want to see it as half-cocked, fine. But I won’t be lured into giving an Argument from Ignorance on something that the bible doesn’t claim to answer in the first place (hence the reason for theological debates on the subject). Affirming the Consequent. You assume that if God is all-powerful/all-knowing, then He can create a contradiction (turning guilt into justification with a wave of the hand). I don’t think it’s that easy. Something about sin requires redemptive actions according to scripture. Even if that something is left untold. Conclusion: (Assuming for a moment the bible to be true for the sake of argument) As Creator, Sustainer, and Redeemer of the universe, God has the moral freedom and right to allow, and even ordain, human suffering for the sake of greater plan He is executing over the course of all human history. Furthermore, the suffering itself can be ultimately redeemed and counted as good and necessary just as the pain and suffering of a surgery can be redeemed for the ultimate good of the patient. We can’t presume to know why God does what He does. Nor can we rightly demand God to reveal it. As corporeal beings, it’s impossible for us to know the spiritual violence that is done to Divine Love when we rebel against it. Many things in the bible are meant as physical types and shadows of spiritual truths. Perhaps the physical suffering that humans witness and endure is meant to demonstrate the spiritual suffering of a fallen creation (Romans 8:22). But that is merely conjecture because we don’t really know. I believe I have adequately dismantled your logical objections and rightly placed them into the category of mere disapproval on your part by pointing out the logical fallacies of your arguments (I realize you will disagree with that). While it is your prerogative to disapprove of God’s modus operandi, it doesn’t follow that God is illogical, irrational, a bad Father, or as you put it…a “total p---k”. On the contrary, IF God is exists, is perfect and loving in every way, and is Sovereign over all His creation, THEN I would conclude that it is the disapproval of His ways that are rebelliously irrational IMO. My “gut feeling” tells me…that is not so. ;D
|
|
|
Post by Josh on Aug 2, 2008 10:19:53 GMT -8
OK, so I'm hopelessly behind, but I'll try to bring up the "strategic rear". Mo wrote: Mo, I hope in re-reading the thread on Job (I note you did respond to it) you'll concede that this "Job getting candy" hoohah is decidedly not my perspective. JobOn the subject of "My Sweet Lord" I'll have to side with Mo. I think it's a great song to generally apply to any longing toward God. I'll have to play Larry Norman's cover of it for you, Chris ;D What's missing here, I think, Mo is that God has two wills, just like humans do. In other words, He has wills in conflict. I've written on this elsewhere if you're interested. Two definitions of God's willI, for one, am not an open theist (at this point) so when I think about this subject I do assume that God does know the future in it's entirety.
|
|
|
Post by Josh on Aug 2, 2008 10:48:35 GMT -8
bump
|
|