|
|
|
moakley
SFN Regular
USA
1888 Posts |
 Posted - 07/07/2005 : 04:20:25 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by markie
The gospel which Jesus taught throughout his life assumed a God who would *naturally* forgive and gladly welcome back his own son or daughter.
throuhout his life or just the last 3.5 years ? |
Life is good
Philosophy is questions that may never be answered. Religion is answers that may never be questioned. -Anonymous |
 |
|
|
moakley
SFN Regular
USA
1888 Posts |
Posted - 07/07/2005 : 04:33:42 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Dave W.
This one thing has changed my opinion of you, Hippy:quote:
Originally posted by hippy4christ
Also, when you think about alcoholics, AIDS, war, you will begin to see that much of humanity freely chooses to be destroyed, mainly because they ignore the consequences of their actions.
The idea that the things you used as examples are avoidable simply through paying attention to possible consequences is... to be blunt... stupid. It's so blindingly dumb that I'm left speechless.
One of the consequences of immersing oneself so completely in the pages of a poorly edited collection of little books. Limited perspective and reduced capacity for honest inquiry. Stuck in the spin cycle. |
Life is good
Philosophy is questions that may never be answered. Religion is answers that may never be questioned. -Anonymous |
|
|
|
Dry_vby
Skeptic Friend
Australia
249 Posts |
Posted - 07/07/2005 : 20:51:45 [Permalink]
|
Greetings all.
I'm hopping in here because I have a contradiction which has always made me feel uneasy with this whole bible thing.
Why did god want Abraham to kill his son?
Surely, if god is omniscient, then sHe would already know that Abraham was willing to go through with this disgusting request without having to actually put him through the trauma of acting out this horrendous charade to prove his faith.
One other thing.
Hippy4christ writes:
"The dictionary defines suicide as "The act or an instance of intentionally killing oneself." It does not delineate between self-sacrifice and selfishness. I myself would not consider martyrdom or any other self-sacrificial act to be suicide because it is done for unselfish purposes."
I disagree with his ascertion that the act of martrydom he is willing to embark on, is un-selfish.
IMHO, getting a free ride into heaven is as selfish a reason as you could find. |
"I'll go along with the charade
Until I can think my way out.
I know it was all a big joke
Whatever it was about."
Bob Dylan
|
|
|
|
dv82matt
SFN Regular
760 Posts |
Posted - 07/07/2005 : 23:06:36 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Dry_vby
Greetings all.
Welcome Dry_vby, to the good ship SFN.
It's always good to hear new voices.
quote:
I'm hopping in here because I have a contradiction which has always made me feel uneasy with this whole bible thing.
Why did god want Abraham to kill his son?
Surely, if god is omniscient, then sHe would already know that Abraham was willing to go through with this disgusting request without having to actually put him through the trauma of acting out this horrendous charade to prove his faith.
Yeah, this and many, many other Biblical examples of injustice, ruthlessness, and predjudice make me uneasy about the whole Bible thing too.
However, sticking strictly on the topic of whether this is a logical contradiction, it occurs to me that one could say that God was not forcing Abraham to prove his faith in God, to God, but rather He was forcing Abraham to prove his faith in God to himself ie. Abraham. In other words the 'test' could have been for Abraham's benefit, not God's.
Anyway I'm not saying that you don't have a contradiction here, just that in light of the agreed upon premises for this thread, I'm not yet convinced that it is one.quote:
One other thing.
Hippy4christ writes:
"The dictionary defines suicide as "The act or an instance of intentionally killing oneself." It does not delineate between self-sacrifice and selfishness. I myself would not consider martyrdom or any other self-sacrificial act to be suicide because it is done for unselfish purposes."
I disagree with his ascertion that the act of martrydom he is willing to embark on, is un-selfish.
IMHO, getting a free ride into heaven is as selfish a reason as you could find.
I agree that an act of martrydom could be a selfish act, but I don't believe that an act of martyrdom must be a selfish act. |
|
|
|
markie
Skeptic Friend
Canada
356 Posts |
Posted - 07/09/2005 : 12:29:02 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by hippy4christ
Markie:
I have two disagreements with the translation you provided:
Where the NAB says "Just as it is written, "Jacob I loved, but Esau I hated", the KJV simply says "As it is written, "Jacob I loved, but Esau I hated". I think that this is a parenthetical statement meant merely to identify those involved, and not meant to say Esau was hated before he had done evil. Two reasons: 1) Esau and Jacob had not yet been named in the passage; 2) The passage Paul quoted was Malachi 1:2-3, and neither it, nor any other passage I can find, states that Yahweh hated Esau before he had done evil. This passage states that what was decided before Jacob and Esau had done evil was who would serve who.
Where the NAB says "What if God, although willing to demonstrate His wrath and to make His power known, endured with much patience vessels of wrath prepared for destruction? And {He did so} in order that He might make known the riches of His glory upon vessels of mercy, which He prepared beforehand for glory",
the KJV says "[What] if God, willing to shew [his] wrath, and to make his power known, endured with much longsuffering the vessels of wrath fitted to destruction: And that he might make known the riches of his glory on the vessels of mercy, which he had afore prepared unto glory,".
In this case "fitted" and "prepared" are different words in the Greek. The NAB translation tries to say that people were created destined for hell by connecting the statement "he had afore prepared unto glory" with the previous statement of the vessels "prepared for destruction". But the statement "endured with much longsuffering the vessels of wrath fitted to destruction" does not neccessarily imply that they were pre-made for destruction; neither does this verse indicate that it was Yahweh who fitted them for destruction.
And neither does this passage say that Yahweh created people with no choice but to be good. I believe that He prepared everyone to be vessels of mercy, but most of us didn't stick to that plan.
It was a breakthrough for me Hippie4Christ when I started reading the bible according to *authorial intent* than trying to force a text to not contradict in meaning with what one thinks the rest of the bible says.
Any good writer like Paul would use different words (like what is translated as 'fitted' and 'prepared') to convey the same general meaning. The overall impression of the text is clear as to Paul's meaning. You ignored some of the more obviously clear statements like "before they had done anything good or bad..."
quote:
Originally posted by hippy4christ
Jhn 14:26 But the Comforter, [which is] the Holy Ghost, whom the Father will send in my name, he shall teach you all things, and bring all things to your remembrance, whatsoever I have said unto you.
So actually, truth was being given even after the Ascension.
I agree. Hey, I believe in the Holy Spirit and the presence of the Son in the world through the Spirit, leading people to righteousness. But I still challenge the particular belief that the Father needs his Son killed to be able to forgive sins. That is the key to Paul's gospel, but not Jesus' gospel.
|
|
|
|
hippy4christ
Skeptic Friend
193 Posts |
Posted - 07/12/2005 : 14:30:23 [Permalink]
|
Hello everyone, here's further insight on suicide: When most people kill themselves, their main intent is to stop feeling physical or emotional pain, or to keep themselves from some certain responsability. Take a business owner whose company just crashed and now is up to his ears in debt and decides to jump out of a window. He'd rather not kill himself, but he sees no other way to get out of his situation. He cares more about relieveing himself of responsability than he does about living. Now take an alcoholic who knows that the drink will kill him if he keeps on abusing it. He'd rather not die, but he thinks that he can't help himself. He cares more about drinking than he does about living. It was with this thinking that I labeled alcoholism "suicide". According to a dictionary definition it wouldn't be suicide, and if you like I'll withdraw the term. But to me there's scant difference between the two examples.
Humbert:
quote:
You see suffering as a direct result of abusing free will and disobeying god's edicts. You conveniently ignore the preponderance of cases that run contrary to your beliefs.
We could discuss this, but it's off-topic. Maybe another time.
quote:
He knows before a person is even born everything that person will ever do.
Can you find Scriptural support for your statement? I agree that Yahweh is omniscient but I haven't found your definition of omniscience in Scripture.
quote:
Why would he be so harsh on those who simply possess a rational mind?
For all I know they may receive grace, but it's not His perfect will for anyone to continue in unbelief. The theif on the cross wasn't baptized and he received grace, that doesn't mean that He doesn't want anyone to be baptized. Here's a verse close to this issue:
Rom 2:14 For when the Gentiles, which have not the law, do by nature the things contained in the law, these, having not the law, are a law unto themselves
Mabuse:
Let me assure you, when I was typing the words at which you were upset, I was thinking about the people in America who know good and well how much a threat AIDS is.
Matt:
quote:
I'm just trying to understand where you're coming from. What do you mean by "in an absolute sense"?
For example: if I were to have children, then, in an absolute sense, I do not know for sure if they will ever do anything that causes me pain or regret. In a practical sense, I "know" that they will. Now, Yahweh might have known in a practical sense that if He created free-will beings then inevitably some of them would decide not to love Him. But to say that He absolutely knew that they would disobey Him inherantly implies that He would make it happen that way.
Further consideration on "transcending time": I think I'm going to have to withdraw my affirmation to your statement that Yahweh "chooses to ignore the consequences his actions" by not looking into the future. See above.
quote:
I did read it, and on reading it again I still don't understand your point.
Rom 11:30-31 For as ye in times past have not believed God, yet have now obtained mercy through their unbelief: Even so have these also now not believed, that through your mercy they also may obtain mercy.
In the Gospels, Jesus says that some of those Jews who didn't believe in Him had their hearts hardened by Yahweh. In this passage Paul is talking about the unbelieving Jews who rejected Jesus as Messiah. Paul is saying that they do not believe so that we Christians have an opportunity to pray for them, that they may receive mercy. This was my point; Yahweh may harden someones heart to keep them from asking for mercy, in order to make them an object lesson, or to make them the subject of a test for a Christian, or to show them what happens to people who reject Him, and then give them another opportunity for grace at another time. For example, someone who finds their kid smoking a ciggarette might make them smoke a whole carton to show them what it's like, in hopes that they get sick of it. Not an exact analogy, but close.
Dry_vby:
quote:
Why did god want Abraham to kill his son?
Surely, if god is omniscient, then sHe would already know that Abraham was willing to go through with this disgusting request without having to actually put him through the trauma of acting out this horrendous charade to prove his faith.
This isn't actually a textual contradiction, although many claim that this contradicts with the statement in James that Yahweh doesn't tempt anyone. I'll write on this in my next post.
Like I said to Humbert, I don't think that omniscience includes knowing the future. I don't think that the Bible gives it that definition. I think that omniscience means knowing all facts. It's a fact that this-and-that did happen, or is happening, but saying that Yahweh already knows what people will do is an implicit denial of free will. And He does violate free will in certain cases, and He probably does know the future in certain cases, but not in all cases.
quote:
I disagree with his ascertion that the act of martrydom he is willing to embark on, is un-selfish.
IMHO, getting a free ride into heaven is as selfish a reason as you could find.
This is like saying that married men who are faithful to their wives are only faithful because they want their wives services in the bed. Keeping His law for the law's sake is not sufficient, my motivation must be out of love.
Markie:
quote:
It was a breakthrough for me Hippie4Christ when I started reading the bible according to *authorial intent* than trying to force a text to not contradict in meaning with what one thinks the rest of the bible says.
Yeah, but you have to make sure that you're not looking at his intent through the lens of today's culture. Now, I was talking with someone else about this:
"[What] if God, willing to shew [his] wrath, and to make his power known, endured with much longsuffering the vessels of wrath fitted to destruction: And that he might make known the riches of his glory on the vessels of mercy, which he had afore prepared unto glory,"
He pointed out to me that this entire passage is a "what if" statement. Upon consideration this does make sense; even if this was the case, H |
Faith is believing what you are told, whether it's by a priest or a scientist. A person's scientific beliefs are ones based on personal observation and experimentation.
Lists of Logical Fallacies |
|
|
|
markie
Skeptic Friend
Canada
356 Posts |
Posted - 07/12/2005 : 18:16:57 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by hippy4christ
Yeah, but you have to make sure that you're not looking at his intent through the lens of today's culture. Now, I was talking with someone else about this:
"[What] if God, willing to shew [his] wrath, and to make his power known, endured with much longsuffering the vessels of wrath fitted to destruction: And that he might make known the riches of his glory on the vessels of mercy, which he had afore prepared unto glory,"
He pointed out to me that this entire passage is a "what if" statement. Upon consideration this does make sense; even if this was the case, He would still be right in doing what He did because He decides what is right and wrong.
I have to admit, as seasoned as I am in biblical exegesis, the "what if" is a new one on me! For one, the "what if" is introduced far into the text, so to say it makes the *entire* text merely hypothetical in Paul's mind is a *huge* stretch. Is this passage below hypothetical? It follows right on the heels of the "what if" :
that he might make known the riches of his glory on the vessels of mercy, which he had afore prepared unto glory, even us, whom he hath called, not of the Jews only, but also of the Gentiles?
The above is not hypothetical at all, because it conforms with what Paul says elsewhere. The point is, you're trying every trick in the book to not take Paul at face value, that is, according to what is clearly authorial intent. The good thing (to me anyways) is that at least you're resisting the nonsense he is trying to teach, even though it comes at the expense of sound exegesis.
It reminds me of what I have seen many Christians do when they try to excuse away what Paul says about women. The good thing is that at least they are resisting Paul's teaching on this.
quote:
Originally posted by hippy4christ: What this passage says is that before Jacob and Esau had done good or evil it was decided that Esau would serve Jacob. To say that Esau was hated before he did good or evil is not something that is confirmed by this or any other passage of Scripture, to my knowledge.
I don't believe I said that God hated Esau before he was born, just that the text teaches that God determined their fates even before either of them had done anything good or bad.
And here is another example of how Christians today actually believe better than Paul did. Paul has no problems with the scripture that says "Jacob I loved, but Esau I hated". But in sermons today you will hardly hear that God hates anybody. The saying in Christian circles today is more like "God hates the sin, not the sinner", which is an improvement at least.
quote:
Originally posted by markie: But I still challenge the particular belief that the Father needs his Son killed to be able to forgive sins. That is the key to Paul's gospel, but not Jesus' gospel. quote:
Originally posted by hippy4christ: Can you tell me which specific passage it is in which you think that Paul contradicts Jesus' teachings?
Contradictions? That's like trying to find contradictions between Moby Dick and Snow White, the teachings are so different. Paul taught that God's acceptance and forgiveness of an individual is based on a blood sacrifice:
Eph 1:6-7
...wherein he hath made us accepted in the beloved. In whom we have redemption through his blood, the forgiveness of sins...
No such concept is in Jesus' teaching of the good news of the kingdom. The two teachings are so clearly different that some dispensationalists freely admit it, then try to justify how there can be two gospels, Jesus' gospel for the Jew, and Paul's gospel for the gentile.
But speaking of contradictions, here's something to consider: Jesus taught "love your enemies". And he did just that. He also said that he did what he saw the Father doing. In other words, you see Jesus and you effectively see the Father's character. No argument there (among believers). But 'God' in many places in the Old Testament clearly does not love his enemies, but rather smites them. What's up?
One can go through all kinds of theological contortions in an attempt to justify this, or one can simply admit that many Old Testament (and some New) depictions of God's character are just *wrong*. It's a matter of honouring the living God's character (as exemplified by Jesus and as witnessed by the Spirit today in people) above the merely humanly creed that the bible is infallible in all things.
|
|
|
|
dv82matt
SFN Regular
760 Posts |
Posted - 07/12/2005 : 19:38:57 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by hippy4christ
Hello everyone, here's further insight on suicide: When most people kill themselves, their main intent is to stop feeling physical or emotional pain, or to keep themselves from some certain responsability. Take a business owner whose company just crashed and now is up to his ears in debt and decides to jump out of a window. He'd rather not kill himself, but he sees no other way to get out of his situation. He cares more about relieveing himself of responsability than he does about living. Now take an alcoholic who knows that the drink will kill him if he keeps on abusing it. He'd rather not die, but he thinks that he can't help himself. He cares more about drinking than he does about living. It was with this thinking that I labeled alcoholism "suicide". According to a dictionary definition it wouldn't be suicide, and if you like I'll withdraw the term. But to me there's scant difference between the two examples.
I do think that there is a crucial difference between the two examples, but I would grant that many people might call the alcoholic suicidal as a form of hyperbole, in order to draw attention to the severity of the situation.
In the first example the business owner has decided jump out of a window. The primary purpose of this action (jumping out of a window) is to kill himself, therefore it is suicide.
In the second example the alcoholic continues to drink in spite of his knowledge that it will eventually kill him. The primary purpose of his drinking, however, is not to kill himself, therefore it is not suicide.
I would certainly admit that the alcoholic's behavior is self-destructive. Perhaps that is relevant.quote:
quote:
I'm just trying to understand where you're coming from. What do you mean by "in an absolute sense"?
For example: if I were to have children, then, in an absolute sense, I do not know for sure if they will ever do anything that causes me pain or regret. In a practical sense, I "know" that they will. Now, Yahweh might have known in a practical sense that if He created free-will beings then inevitably some of them would decide not to love Him. But to say that He absolutely knew that they would disobey Him inherantly implies that He would make it happen that way.
Thanks for explaining. Is it fair to say then, that at the time when God created humanity that He knew that many or most of humanity would be sent to hell, He just didn't know precisely which individuals?quote:
Further consideration on "transcending time": I think I'm going to have to withdraw my affirmation to your statement that Yahweh "chooses to ignore the consequences his actions" by not looking into the future. See above.
Fair enough. I'm assuming then, that you would agree that God is unable to transend time?quote:
quote:
I did read it, and on reading it again I still don't understand your point.
Rom 11:30-31 For as ye in times past have not believed God, yet have now obtained mercy through their unbelief: Even so have these also now not believed, that through your mercy they also may obtain mercy.
In the Gospels, Jesus says that some of those Jews who didn't believe in Him had their hearts hardened by Yahweh. In this passage Paul is talking about the unbelieving Jews who rejected Jesus as Messiah. Paul is saying that they do not believe so that we Christians have an opportunity to pray for them, that they may receive mercy. This was my point; Yahweh may harden someones heart to keep them from asking for mercy, in order to make them an object lesson, or to make them the subject of a test for a Christian, or to show them what happens to people who reject Him, and then give them another opportunity for grace at another time. For example, someone who finds their kid smoking a ciggarette might make them smoke a whole carton to show them what it's like, in hopes that they get sick of it. Not an exact analogy, but close.
First of all, thanks for explaining. I'm no expert on Biblical interpretation, so I'll accept your understanding of Rom. 11:30-31.
I'll try to sum up what we have so far.
God is omnipotent, with the exception being that He is unable to transcend time.
God does not want people to go to hell, unless they reject Him.
God does sometimes interfere with free will.
There are many reasons that God might interfere with free will sometimes His reasons are explained, sometimes they are not.
In Rom. 11:30-31 the reason given is so that Christians would have the opportunity to pray for them to receive mercy.
In Jn. 12:40 the reason given is so that they would not be saved.
Other possible reasons are to keep them from asking for mercy, to make them an object lesson, or to make them the subject of a test.
Is this a fair summary?
You mention that God may harden someones heart and then later give them another opportunity for grace at a later time. Is it your opinion that when God hardens someones heart that He always gives them another opportunity for grace down the road, or is it just something that He might do on some occasions but not on others? I don't think your analogy is apt unless God always gives a second opportunity to those whose hearts He hardened. Otherwise it's like forcing those kids to smoke arsenic cigarettes.
One final note, the idea of God messing with free will in order to demostrate what happens to people who reject Him, casts God in the role of a heartless despot. I'm not sure that this is consistent with what you believe. |
|
|
|
Dude
SFN Die Hard
USA
6891 Posts |
Posted - 07/13/2005 : 00:19:17 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Take a business owner whose company just crashed and now is up to his ears in debt and decides to jump out of a window. He'd rather not kill himself, but he sees no other way to get out of his situation. He cares more about relieveing himself of responsability than he does about living. Now take an alcoholic who knows that the drink will kill him if he keeps on abusing it. He'd rather not die, but he thinks that he can't help himself. He cares more about drinking than he does about living.
The ignorance of that paragraph is amazing. If you think that an alcoholic has a choice about lifting that bottle.... then there is nothing else to really say to you H4C. To draw this back to some of your other examples, I suppose you think that everyone who gets AIDS gets it from unprotected sex? What about those healthcare workers who get if from a needlestick? What about the sick who get it from a blood transfusion?
Your irrational thinking in this is appalling, Hippy. Your willfull ignorance even more so.
|
Ignorance is preferable to error; and he is less remote from the truth who believes nothing, than he who believes what is wrong.
-- Thomas Jefferson
"god :: the last refuge of a man with no answers and no argument." - G. Carlin
Hope, n.
The handmaiden of desperation; the opiate of despair; the illegible signpost on the road to perdition. ~~ da filth |
|
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26022 Posts |
Posted - 07/16/2005 : 20:47:59 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by hippy4christ
Now take an alcoholic who knows that the drink will kill him if he keeps on abusing it.
As the son of two people who turned out to be alcoholics, I'd say that the alcoholic who admits that drink will kill him is the alcoholic who doesn't drink. Also known as the "recovering alcoholic."
The rest of what you say simply denies what we know about addiction. It isn't a rational matter of "caring" more about one thing than another, it's an irrational compulsion towards behaviour with severe consequences.
You'd like to think that the alcoholic only "thinks that he can't help himself," but the facts of the matter suggest that they instead actively deny that booze is the problem. The alcoholic, in this state, claims he doesn't have any problems with alcohol.
And this isn't a half-joking denial like the overweight person who claims to be "big boned." The alcoholics' (or other addicts') denial is a powerful cognitive dissonance which often only vanishes when they hit "rock bottom," and the problems the drinking has caused simply overwhelm the ability of denial to... well... deny them.
Those who don't reach that state prior to massive organ failure, die. Like my mother.
Hey, have you ever heard about the people who've denied that their own limbs are, in fact, theirs? Do they care more about the complete fabrication that "someone" has removed their left leg (for example) and replaced it with someone else's leg than they care about sounding sane? This is strictly analogous to what you've said about alcoholics. Where is the conscious choice being made?
I'm of the opinion that those who deny any sort of truly organic basis to alcoholism either think that "alcoholism" means nothing more than "drinks a lot" (which it doesn't, there are plenty of heavy drinkers who aren't alcoholics), or they are largely afraid of it happening to them, and are themselves in denial of the possibility. While most of them (yourself perhaps included) are correct that they won't become alcoholics, it isn't necessarily because they cared more about their life than about booze. It's probably because their brains aren't wired the "wrong" way for that choice to be stripped from them.
To offer another analogy, a person who's never been in a car accident can claim that it's because they're a careful driver, only until someone else crashes into them. Some things, we have no control over. Denying that fact is unreasonable. |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
Dr. Mabuse
Septic Fiend
Sweden
9688 Posts |
Posted - 07/17/2005 : 14:36:46 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by hippy4christ
Mabuse:
Let me assure you, when I was typing the words at which you were upset, I was thinking about the people in America who know good and well how much a threat AIDS is.
Ah. OK. I was assuming you were talking globally (because that was the impression I got), since SFN has an international audience you weren't arrogant enough to only consider Americans, which makes up of less(?) than a tenth of the World population.
Still, even within the US, I bet there are many gay people who think that the threat of AIDS is overstated by homophobes intent on scaring them from physically expressing their love for each other, and because of that denies the risks they are taking. Are such people really knowingly engaging in a self-destructive behaviour?
How good is the American general public's education AIDS-risks?
Can you honestly say that most people exposed to the risks of getting HIV are as educated as you are?
quote:
Further consideration on "transcending time": I think I'm going to have to withdraw my affirmation to your statement that Yahweh "chooses to ignore the consequences his actions" by not looking into the future. See above.
So, when Jesus indicated to John during the last communion that Judas would be the traitor, Jesus wasn't privy to the future?
I've never had any reason to think otherwise. What kind of god would Jahve be if he didn't transcend time? |
Dr. Mabuse - "When the going gets tough, the tough get Duct-tape..."
Dr. Mabuse whisper.mp3
"Equivocation is not just a job, for a creationist it's a way of life..." Dr. Mabuse
Support American Troops in Iraq:
Send them unarmed civilians for target practice..
Collateralmurder. |
|
|
|
Dude
SFN Die Hard
USA
6891 Posts |
Posted - 07/17/2005 : 23:33:29 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Those who don't reach that state prior to massive organ failure, die. Like my mother.
A member of my immediate family also suffered this fate. Dave_W is not even remotely exaggerating the ability of people to live in a state of complete denial.
quote:
What kind of god would Jahve be if he didn't transcend time?
Greek.
|
Ignorance is preferable to error; and he is less remote from the truth who believes nothing, than he who believes what is wrong.
-- Thomas Jefferson
"god :: the last refuge of a man with no answers and no argument." - G. Carlin
Hope, n.
The handmaiden of desperation; the opiate of despair; the illegible signpost on the road to perdition. ~~ da filth |
|
|
|
|
hippy4christ
Skeptic Friend
193 Posts |
Posted - 07/18/2005 : 12:04:06 [Permalink]
|
Markie:
quote:
The point is, you're trying every trick in the book to not take Paul at face value, that is, according to what is clearly authorial intent.
Okay, if you want to talk about authorial intent (even though we can't ask Paul what his intent was, and we're in a culture that's 2000 years away from his culture) you have to include context:
Rom 11:19 Thou wilt say then, The branches were broken off, that I might be graffed in. 20) Well; because of unbelief they were broken off, and thou standest by faith. Be not highminded, but fear: 21) For if God spared not the natural branches, take heed lest he also spare not thee. 22) Behold therefore the goodness and severity of God: on them which fell, severity; but toward thee, goodness, if thou continue in his goodness: otherwise thou also shalt be cut off. 23) And they also, if they abide not still in unbelief, shall be graffed in: for God is able to graff them in again.
Even if Yahweh created some destined for hell and some destined for mercy, He is able to make the damned saved and the saved damned; and the determining factor is our belief.
quote:
I don't believe I said that God hated Esau before he was born, just that the text teaches that God determined their fates even before either of them had done anything good or bad.
He determined that in this life the younger would serve the elder. It doesn't say that He determined their fates for the next life.
quote:
Eph 1:6-7
...wherein he hath made us accepted in the beloved. In whom we have redemption through his blood, the forgiveness of sins...
No such concept is in Jesus' teaching of the good news of the kingdom.
Haven't you read this:
Jhn 12:32 And I, if I be lifted up from the earth, will draw all men unto me. 33) This he said, signifying what death he should die.
or this:
Mat 26:27 And he took the cup, and gave thanks, and gave it to them, saying, Drink ye all of it; 28) For this is my blood of the new testament, which is shed for many for the remission of sins.
quote:
But speaking of contradictions, here's something to consider: Jesus taught "love your enemies". And he did just that. He also said that he did what he saw the Father doing. In other words, you see Jesus and you effectively see the Father's character. No argument there (among believers). But 'God' in many places in the Old Testament clearly does not love his enemies, but rather smites them. What's up?
Simple. Jesus was telling us how to be on this earth. He also told us not to judge, lest we be judged (Mt. 7:1). But read this:
1Cr 6:2 Do ye not know that the saints shall judge the world? and if the world shall be judged by you, are ye unworthy to judge the smallest matters? 3) Know ye not that we shall judge angels? how much more things that pertain to this life?
We are not to judge others on this earth, because man looks on the outer appearance but Yahweh looks at the heart. When we are glorified, we will be able to look at the heart, and hence we will be able to judge. Jesus, in telling us to love our enemies, is showing us that aspect of the Father which we are to emulate. He also tells us not to emulate that aspect of the Father which judges people. Is that a "theological contortion"?
Matt:
quote:
Is it fair to say then, that at the time when God created humanity that He knew that many or most of humanity would be sent to hell, He just didn't know precisely which individuals?
Yeah, that's what I think. I recently talked with a guy who said that he thought that Yahweh did know specifically who would and wouldn't be saved, but that He did it without violating free will. When I asked him how Yahweh did it he said he didn't know, but that was a philosophical question, and philosophy can't be used to impose doctrine. In principle I agree with him, but that kind of thinking is unappealing to me, and since I don't know of any passage specifically stating that Yahweh knew everyone's choices before He made us, I decide not to believe that.
quote:
Fair enough. I'm assuming then, that you would agree that God is unable to transend time?
The Bible doesn't say anything about "transcending time", so what follows is merely my opinion. I don't think that there is any "time" to transcend, the past is a memory, the future is a hope, only the present is real. The idea that there is a timeline that one could theoretically jump back and forth in is based on the idea that all atoms in the universe move only according to the laws of physics and hence there is no free will.
quote:
There are many reasons that God might interfere with free will sometimes His reasons are explained, sometimes they are not.
In Jn. 12:40 the reason given is so that they would not be saved.
I would make it "so that they would not be saved at that time."
quote:
Is it your opinion that when God hardens someones heart that He always gives them another opportunity for grace down the road, or is it just something that He might do on some occasions but not on others?
I don't know, the Bible doesn't specifically say. I personally think and hope that because "his mercies are new every morning" He gives people opportunities for grace all the time.
quote:
One final note, the idea of God messing with free will in order to demostrate what happens to people who reject Him, casts God in the role of a heartless despot. I'm not sure that this is consistent with what you believe.
Heartless, no; despot, yes. I think that the Calvinist belief, that God creates people knowing that He won't let them be saved and that He will burn them in Hell forever and never let them die, is quite heartless. Thankfully I don't think that that's what the Bible teaches.
Dude, Dave, Mab, maybe we can discuss this in a later topic.
Hippy |
Faith is believing what you are told, whether it's by a priest or a scientist. A person's scientific beliefs are ones based on personal observation and experimentation.
Lists of Logical Fallacies |
| Edited by - hippy4christ on 07/18/2005 12:06:51 |
|
|
|
dv82matt
SFN Regular
760 Posts |
Posted - 07/18/2005 : 16:17:09 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by hippy4christ
Matt:quote:
Is it fair to say then, that at the time when God created humanity that He knew that many or most of humanity would be sent to hell, He just didn't know precisely which individuals?
Yeah, that's what I think. I recently talked with a guy who said that he thought that Yahweh did know specifically who would and wouldn't be saved, but that He did it without violating free will. When I asked him how Yahweh did it he said he didn't know, but that was a philosophical question, and philosophy can't be used to impose doctrine. In principle I agree with him, but that kind of thinking is unappealing to me, and since I don't know of any passage specifically stating that Yahweh knew everyone's choices before He made us, I decide not to believe that.
Nonetheless God's ignorance of precisely which individuals are dammed does nothing to free Him from moral responsibility. No matter how you cut it, if God knew that His actions would likely lead to even one individual spending an eternity in Hell, then His actions are morally reprehensible.
If God did not intend for anyone to ever be sent to hell, then I guess you could say He merely screwed up.quote:
quote:
Fair enough. I'm assuming then, that you would agree that God is unable to transend time?
The Bible doesn't say anything about "transcending time", so what follows is merely my opinion. I don't think that there is any "time" to transcend, the past is a memory, the future is a hope, only the present is real. The idea that there is a timeline that one could theoretically jump back and forth in is based on the idea that all atoms in the universe move only according to the laws of physics and hence there is no free will.
Hmmm... interesting. I'm of a different mind than you on this, but it's a philisophical discussion so I'll let it be.quote:
quote:
There are many reasons that God might interfere with free will sometimes His reasons are explained, sometimes they are not.
In Jn. 12:40 the reason given is so that they would not be saved.
I would make it "so that they would not be saved at that time."
Okay, but I think that "at that time" would qualify as an unsaid statement.quote:
quote:
Is it your opinion that when God hardens someones heart that He always gives them another opportunity for grace down the road, or is it just something that He might do on some occasions but not on others?
I don't know, the Bible doesn't specifically say. I personally think and hope that because "his mercies are new every morning" He gives people opportunities for grace all the time.
Maybe, but as you've noted, the Bible doesn't specifically say. What I'm trying to point out is that many of your beliefs are not, in fact, based on the Bible, but instead are based on what you'd like to believe.quote:
quote:
One final note, the idea of God messing with free will in order to demostrate what happens to people who reject Him, casts God in the role of a heartless despot. I'm not sure that this is consistent with what you believe.
Heartless, no; despot, yes. I think that the Calvinist belief, that God creates people knowing that He won't let them be saved and that He will burn them in Hell forever and never let them die, is quite heartless. Thankfully I don't think that that's what the Bible teaches.
Perhaps I've misunderstood your beliefs.
Suppose Billy is at a point in his life where he has decided to pray to God for forgiveness and ask to be saved. God however has decided to use him as an example of what happens to those who reject Him. God hardens his heart to stop him from being saved, and subsequently Billy dies in a horrific car crash. Billy's friends are terribly shaken by his death. Several of them decide to convert to Christianity. One friend in particular who was aware that Billy was seriously thinking of converting just the day before, is motivated by this event to spread the Gospel. Many others who witnessed the accident are so moved that they kneel before God and ask for forgiveness.
I'm sure you would agree that this is heartless. When you wrote this, "Yahweh may harden someones heart to...show them what happens to people who reject Him..." I understood you to mean something similar to the above scenario.
I've noticed a couple of times that you've mentioned that you do not beleive that Hell is a place of eternal torment. I'm curious as to your beliefs on the nature of Hell. |
| Edited by - dv82matt on 07/18/2005 18:24:36 |
|
|
|
H. Humbert
SFN Die Hard
USA
4574 Posts |
Posted - 07/18/2005 : 20:08:35 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by dv82mattquote:
I would make it "so that they would not be saved at that time."
Okay, but I think that "at that time" would qualify as an unsaid statement.
Ah, the god of the biblical gaps.
Yes, hippy, dv82matt has caught you ignoring rule #3: "If a proposal is made to consider the intent of a passage to be figurative, or if one claims that an unsaid statement was intended, compelling evidence must be presented."
Where is your "compelling evidence" that the unsaid phrase "at that time" was actually intended in that passage?
|
"A man is his own easiest dupe, for what he wishes to be true he generally believes to be true." --Demosthenes
"The first principle is that you must not fool yourself - and you are the easiest person to fool." --Richard P. Feynman
"Face facts with dignity." --found inside a fortune cookie |
| Edited by - H. Humbert on 07/18/2005 20:10:12 |
|
|
 |
|
|
|
Topic Locked
