|
Post by Jeff on Dec 13, 2005 2:54:55 GMT -5
David Redcorn 12 11-08-2004 12:05 AM ET (US) Also Jessie, I have no idea if God changes Her mind. Wouldn't that lead to the, 'is something Good because God says it is, or was something already Good & God is just pointing it out to us?' kind of question? I'm sure there's an answer, but probably only Jeff or Justin know it. I personally would probably say that God does change Her mind, because that would mean the universe makes even less sense.
I think that the bible has absolutely nothing to do with reality as far as history goes. I know that there might be some sort of proof that Jesus existed, but I'm sticking with my "Faith-Wins" beliefs and know that Jesus never existed. Regardless of what "scientific evidence" says to the contrary.
|
|
|
Post by Jeff on Dec 13, 2005 2:55:12 GMT -5
Justin McBride 13 11-08-2004 09:35 AM ET (US) Dave,
You're absolutely right. We are operating under the primary assumption that Christianity provides us some leg to stand on. I'd say there are a number of reasons why we're doing it that way. For starters, the whole thing came about because of the op-ed piece, which was pointing out some of the snags in Christian beliefs that may work against the policies a particular variety of Christians are publicly espousing. Secondarily, I think it's something we all have some familiarity with. Even though some of us may not be Christians now, the fact that we all grew up in and around the Bible Belt gives us a background knowledge about at least some of the local Christian beliefs. I'm sure that everyone of us, for example, has heard someone tell us that Jesus was a member of the divine Trinity who died in an earthly form for the sins of humankind, we've all read portions of the Bible, and perhaps even participated in Holy Communion. Lastly, so far this discussion has been mostly peopled by those of us still are Christians, who still participate in the faith to some extent. And that's why the topic was called "Christian Politics," or so I assume. If we would like to discuss the origins, history, and practice of Christianity--which I'm sure could be as lively and interesting a discussion--then I'd suggest we do so as another topic. I'm sure the very same players would be present for that discussion, as well.
I like Jessica's question about God's changing or unchanging mind. I think it raises some interesting ideas. I believe a more general question to the same effect could be worded as "Is God static or dynamic" or something similar. Well, I'd say there are two answers for this.
One comes directly from the pages of the Bible. As the principal source of information about God for many Christians, scriptural evidence is widely regarded as unattested fact, although not all and not always. We can point to a number of passages where God does change (here's the ol' pronoun game: I don't think God has gender, and most certainly has neither male nor female organs) ITS mind, or at least could be argued as such. In Genesis we see a few classic examples dealing with Abra(ha)m. God tells him to sacrifice his son Isaac, but then provides an opportunity for him to do otherwise at the last minute. God and Abraham have a pretty spirited discussion about the number of righteous people God could find in two condemned cities that might save them from destruction; God agrees to lower the number several times, but then destroys them anyway when he can't find that many. Earlier in the book, God destroys the world with water and then vows never to do it again. In the very next book, God becomes so disheartened by the conduct of the newly freed Israelites that Moses has to talk God out of destroying all of them and making a new nation just from Moses's line. Moses makes an appeal to God's memory of an earlier covenant with Abraham in order to bargain successfully for this. In the next book, God puts forth a great many food ordinances, only to revoke these to Peter in the book of Acts. In the books of Samuel, God puts forth two competing kings, each chosen by God to rule over the Isrelites--first Saul and much later David. We could go on and on. Now some could argue that these are not clear cases of mind-changing, but just as well, some could argue that they are. And at any rate, it's scriptural basis for a dynamic God.
The second answer is just my own personal belief which is informed in no small way by what I've witnessed throughout my thirty years of life. Jeff has paraphrased Alfred North Whitehead's belief that God does not perform Its duties for free. God acts as a processual filter between moments, extracting from our experience two principal qualities, generality and intensity. In this regard, God is also a process, an ever-changing entity that is, well, intensely general (sorry about saying this, 'cos it sounds bad... but it's not my intention here to offend anyone or God). I very much like this thought. It makes sense. In my own life, I have felt God's hand a number of times. In fact, I have felt time and time again that God and I have interacted in a long-winded dialog. Just yesterday I felt like God answered questions I put forth earlier in the week. To my mind, God cannot be static and interact with any of us erratic, trivial, and self-centered human beings. We are a nearly homogeneous blend of idiosyncracies (if that's not too vague and contradictory). For God to "speak" in what ever form to us, It must be capable of doing so in a general enough way that also maintains some degree of personal recognition. Now, this says as much about our nature as God's, but I personally believe that the two are not mutually exclusive. God is in all, at least in part. Some Christians will disagree with this, saying that the Creator cannot also be the Created. But I don't buy that. My God is one of life-affirming (process-affirming) perpetuity. And in that, I'd say that we can observe God's interaction with Its creation through our perpetual interaction with the world. That's what I'd say is meant by God's omniscience and omnipresence. In any event, though, I'd say this God I'm describing is about as far away from stasis as possible.
|
|
|
Post by Jeff on Dec 13, 2005 2:58:35 GMT -5
David Redcorn 14 11-08-2004 04:17 PM ET (US) Its true that the intent of all of this is to focus on how the Democrats can get the Fundamentals to realize the fallacy of the far right Republican policies. However, "Christian Politics" isn't so one sided. As a proudly non-Christian Democrat/Liberal, I can say that every time I hear the term "family values" or nowadays even the mere mention of Christianity, I cringe. Now thats not because I hate Jesus or because I worship the dark lord and all that noise. Its because I sincerely feel disenfranchised by the religion as a whole. But I think thats almost mainly due to the Conservative Rights propaganda machine.
So when I read this discussion, even though I know its not the case, it almost seems like this is pandering to the Fundamentals at the possible expense of some of the Democratic base. I think that there is room in a Christian discussion like this to allow for a voice of the other side of the coin.
Now I truly do believe that it is in the Democrats best interests to debunk the spin thats been done by the Republicans on the Fundamentals. Absolutely no question there. I'm just saying that it should be approached in such away that it doesn't turn away some of the more extreme Liberal Democrats. Even though the Green Party hurt its own cause 4 years ago doesn't mean they won't eventually regroup again to take away votes from Democratic candidates as it did in 2000. Or even worse, those Liberals turned away will stop voting all together.
In my honest opinion, there should be no reason to have a Green Party. The Democratic party should be able to accommodate that ideology, while being able to also house true Christians. Sure we can say that that isn't a realistic goal, and that its pointless to debate on such. But even though one of my favorite quotes is 'Trying is the first step toward failure', I'm still a person driven by hope.
So my question is still this: why would someone who is a victim of the bibles intolerance ever want to worship it? If its the guide to salvation for humanity as its touted to be, shouldn't it be able to speak to everyone?
Also, I wanted to mention that Exclusivism, Inclusivism and Pluralism cannot work with a "Faith-wins" ideology attached to them, as Jeff said. I was just surprised to hear how, even though it still fails, the more relativist ideologies are more favorable in that instance.
|
|
|
Post by Jeff on Dec 13, 2005 2:59:03 GMT -5
Jeff McBride 15 11-08-2004 05:04 PM ET (US) Justin and David, et al.
A few hours ago, I read through Justin and David’s posts, and for most of the morning I’ve been debating the ethics of posting a response. Their posts are incredibly insightful and valuable, and I don’t want to see them pushed down the list or downgraded in importance. Adding this letter to the list may do that, and this is lamentable because I won’t be saying anything more important than they did. The only virtue my post will have is that it was generated later.
Time is so brutal; in the words of Dr. Merrill, “It’s just one damn thing after another.” Life is perpetual perishing. How could value ever arise in such circumstances? Look at our discussion board. It embodies the principle of succession but not any other value, thus my dilemma about posting a new message. To achieve the additional organization that value provides, there must be some order superimposed. Any one of us might rate the various posts and organize them in folders according to importance. But this evaluative process requires an evaluator.
Now think larger. Is there value in the universe? Some people believe that we supply all the value that exists. This is wrong. When I appreciate value, I am in-formed. I have an awareness of something that was always there but had not been recognized. Why would this be so if I am creating all my values? How could I ever discover anything about my values; how could I ever “get it” about anything of importance? This is one of Whitehead’s basic arguments for the existence of God, and I find it very powerful. It works for the same reason that the argument against idealism works. That is, we feel that the world is external to us. We discover it in its awful immensity. Even if you find the physical version of the cosmological argument unconvincing, you might be persuaded by this axiological version. The presence of value in the universe requires an explanation. And neither we as individuals nor taken collectively can provide the explanation on pain of self-stultification. The world, in both its physical and axiological dimensions, happens to us before we can happen to it.
What is wonderful about this little argument, is that it fits nicely into the ordering that time provides. Time becomes the Clue to the divine riddle. Death is a proof of God, not in the sense of providing some kind of guarantee of immortality, but in the guarantee that Death provides for loss. Real loss is not possible without real value. Without real value, the loss implied by death is merely a subjective irrationality, not the crucial spiritual fact of the human condition that it actually is.
So, this argument fits nicely with the picture of God that Justin was starting to paint. From my numerous conversations with him, I know that he and I largely agree about this stuff. But why? I mean, why should any two people be able to reach an agreement about God? Doesn’t it seem like the more people try to think for themselves, the more idiosyncratic their expressions of religion should be? Aren’t we forever presented with the idiosyncrasies of artists? Why is religious expression any different? Over and over again the deepest religious thinkers come back to the same great ideas. And this commonality is stunning.
I think it provides the basic answer to David’s line of questioning. If one embraces inclusivism or pluralism, it need not have any kind of relativism tagging along with it. “Now, we see through a glass darkly, but then face to face.” The darkness of our vision is not an excuse for a contradictory position like relativism. It is a case for fallibilism, which I embrace.
David’s other question concerned the moral motivation for embracing a religion that recognized the darkness of its own vision. First, all visions are dark, but some are brighter than others. Choose the bright ones. Second, there is always the temptation to abandon all religious expressions from the past due to their darkness. This is a mistake. We have much to learn from important historical expressions of religious experience, and not just interesting things about the various cultures in which we find these expressions embedded. For example, one of the four great spiritual statements from the Hindu Upanishads is: “Tat Tvam Asi” (That Art Thou), found in the Chandogya Upanishad. It upholds the identity of the self, atman, with the essence of the world as the real, satya. This is a serious thought that is not found nearly as clearly in its Western mystical formulations. It would be a mistake to abandon the Sermon on the Mount for this assertion of identity, to be sure. But it would be a far worse mistake to abandon both because of the moral inadequacies we find in the cultures in which these religions are embedded. We must hope for a progressive religion, even offer a hand in its creation.
This, then, is my answer concerning the particular motivations that guide today’s homosexuals to embrace Christianity. Again, there are many kinds of Christianities. Who owns the Bible? We all do, and the best way to understand our world and our own spiritual experience is not to abandon this work.
Jeff
PS The religion I speak of here is a long way from the literalism of our earlier discussions. Adam might well use this vision as an argument against ever leaving the sheltering shoals of literalism. And it is a real question, isn’t it?
|
|
|
Post by Jeff on Dec 13, 2005 2:59:54 GMT -5
David Redcorn 16 11-08-2004 09:00 PM ET (US) Edited by author 11-08-2004 09:01 PM I have to admit that I have no freaking clue what fallibilism is. I tried to find out what it was... www.niu.edu/phil/~reed/How%20to%20T...t%20Fallibilism.pdfBut after the first page I realized that I didn't have time tonight to read a 153 page philosophical treatise on the subject. So I'll concede that point, but mainly because I have no idea what you're talking about. The other point is an aspect which just feels inherently counter-intuitive when considering Christianity, which I think is a great example of the successfully forced dogma upon us from the Christian Right. The idea that we divorce the culture from the religion. The Fundamentalists of course embrace "Faith-wins"/Exclusivism, which is the main thing you hear from most Christians. It sure is easier. But to assign values to specific parts of every religion and create a new whole with those best parts, well... whats that all about? What religion is that? Whats going on here? Who am I? All of that makes me question what that leaves us with. Is this just a simple need for a nice, tidy, categorized, quantifiable, & pigeon-holed structure that I can choose to embrace or disregard? I mean, would this still be "Christianity"? Because this seems to change it from 'Jesus is our Savior' to 'Jesus, and a few other dudes around the world are our Saviors'. It just doesn't seem like it could be called Christianity anymore (as you said in your P.S. to Adam). And as odd as this may seem, my current mindset is to actually agree with that! Tyler, please take Tammy's gun, drive over and shoot me in the head for having agreed with the Fundamentals. But don't get me wrong. I think that ideal for a religion is freaking great. And since I am not a Christian, its really no bother for me to say that that isn't Christianity, but something better. So, if all this is true, that seems like a damn hard sell to the Religious Right. It seem like such an idea is abandoning the Fundamentals. Leaving all the Pauls of the world out in the cold. Doesn't every religion need its Fundamental base? Would Christianity have survived without them? To come up with away to turn the base is the best plan, but how do you do that? By the way, Adam, where are you? Your Fundamental voice is needed for this. You have like 30 points to respond to!
|
|
|
Post by Jeff on Dec 13, 2005 3:00:13 GMT -5
Jeff McBride 17 11-09-2004 07:21 AM ET (US) Edited by author 11-09-2004 07:23 AM This is not a terrible rendition of the argument you and Adam want to make: www.apologeticsindex.org/r14ab.htmlCertainly there are better versions to be found in your most powerful allies. Alvin Plantinga and Peter van Inwagen, both top notch philosophers, are also Christian exclusivists. I am still looking for good link… Plantinga’s best piece is “Pluralism: A defense of Religious Exclusivism” and van Inwagen’s best piece is “Non Est Hick,” a reference to my ally John Hick. Here is an introduction to Hick’s recent book “Dialogues on the Philosophy of Religion,” which deals with the debate between pluralism and exclusivism: www.palgrave.com/pdfs/0333761057.pdf(I’d save a copy of this when you get it. It is no longer up on the Palgrave (the publisher) website, and I don’t know how long it will continue to be available.) As Justin has previously suggested, this issue is going to come down to who has the burden of proof. And I think the answer is difficult, prima facie, but clear when all the relevant issues are teased out. We can go into this later but I don’t have time right now. The issue appears intractable because folks conflate pluralism and relativism. But there is no reason a pluralist cannot be a realist about God yet understand that human beings vary in both their perceptions and their expressions of Her reality. There is the old saw about the five blind men and the elephant… But the elephant was always real! I must go now, but these questions are on the mark. I think it is only fair to show Adam that if we manage to dislodge him from his literalism, the rest of the ocean turns out to be vast indeed. What I’d like to find is an argument (or a series of them) that at least makes it clear which direction he should swim to avoid the ravenous sharks. Jeff PS I am beginning to despair, not about losing the argument but about explaining our reasoning in a simple way every election year from now on. Maybe we can see this board as a means of working out the main lines of argument, then come back and clean them up afterward. PPS fallibilism = Doctrine that nothing can be known for certain, that is, there is no infallible knowledge, but there can still be knowledge. We need not have logically conclusive justifications for what we know. This was particularly insisted on by the American pragmatist Charles Sanders Peirce (1839-1914) in his opposition to foundationalism.
|
|
|
Post by Jeff on Dec 13, 2005 3:00:42 GMT -5
Adam Hull 18 11-09-2004 09:23 AM ET (US) Adam’s Responses
1st sorry I’ve been so quit of late, but after 1pm on Sat I’ve been on the go and do to the fact that my work is starting to pick back up I won’t have the free time to try and comment right away like I was doing, so please bar with me. Sorry Dave I'm trying to respond, but you guys are running so fast it's hard to catch up. I'm trying to take each comment in order, but maybe you would direct me to the main focus and I'll leave the others for another time. Please help me. (I fallen and can't get up, but I'm still right.)
I’ll first address Justin’s email on the striped sheep.
You used Genesis 37 to 39 to make a point on observation I think please correct me if I take you out of context, as this will make my comment in appropriate.
Your challenge and scientific proof is true you or anyone can’t make striped sheep just by allowing them to look at striped objects. I believe this was some type of old wives tale that Jacob was following, but if you read further on through Genesis 31:13 you will see that God revealed to Jacob in a dream that all the male goats that where mating where striped, speckled and mottled, for he had seen all that Laben was doing to Jacob and thus he protected Jacob and made him prosper while Laben slowly lost all his wealth.
So in this case yes it was miraculous. So as for your challenge it won’t happen unless you intend to steal, lie and deceive some poor person who God has decided to protect and in which case you would be on the wrong end of God’s wrath. Remember God had plans for Jacob he always deals with those who come against his people. (Note: God deals with people and sin on his time scale, not usually when we think he should, but he does and will deal with them.)
Justin wrote: Incidentally, I think Tina addressed these and other points in her second email. I feel like we’re already walking on stale ground. Maybe I’m the only one doing so.
Not sure which email of Tina’s you’re referring to, cause the one’s I’ve responded to I though I explained the deference between the Mosaic Law and the New Covenant of Jesus.
This next response is to Jessica’s comment/questions and a comment on just part of Justin’s response. (Sorry if this looks like I’m picking on Justin. It’s just where I decided to jump back in is all.)
Justin you also mentioned Samuel when talking about God and changing of minds, Note: God never changed his mind in the case of Saul and David. The people cried out to Samuel to ask God to give them a King so they could be like all the other nations, God then told Samuel to tell the people what they could expect if this is what they really want for a man to rule over them instead of letting God be their only king and he gave them exactly what they ask for. When Saul fell from grace, God then raised another to be king. Thus God didn’t change his mind; he just wouldn’t Bless a King who wouldn’t follow/serve him. (God gives and God takes away.) The other question: “is the bible true history, or a huge metaphorical comparison containing real-life scenarios?”
To my knowledge so far (and others may wish to prove me wrong on this) Yes, it is True history, as time and science will prove out over time. I once saw a documentary on how archeologist had unearthed the site they believed to be Jericho and through their studies they proved that the walls indeed fell outward as the bible describes. I’m sure there are many other discoveries that I haven’t heard of yet that does prove out the Bible as a valid history book.
This conversation maybe be part of a subject for another discussion. I’ll leave that up to Jeff as I think he can keep us on topic.
Next response is to Jeff
You used only part of my quote “If it is proven to have been written by man…” Apart from the fact that the Bible was written by man, a fact most Christians I know accept
This I fully agree with you, but my full quote was “If it is proven to have been written by man and not divine inspiration, then man is the authority and god plays no part….” Thus the bible could be proven to be inaccurate and thus fallible. At this time I don’t believe it to be a lie and I do read and listen and watch what history has shown us and what science unearths and so far nothing has been given to shake my belief. Unless you can produce Jesus’ body or some other such big event that just can’t be denied except by a blind man. Why is it that I say no other proof can be held against the Bible, because again I really do believe it to be God’s perfect word. If you look at it from that viewpoint you may be able to see what I see when I read the Bible.
Jeff’s comment: referring to my earlier comment of bible written by man or divine inspiration. This is a false dichotomy (need to look up this word). There are lots of different kinds of faiths (sic) out there, and just because folks don’t believe like you do, doesn’t mean that they don’t have any faith.
I never said they don’t have any faith, but what I question is what is the object of their faith is it works? Something they have to do to get to God (other than believe) or something they have to keep doing to stay with God. I’m sad to say more people have been turned off or away from Christianity because some many churches try to front load or/and back load the Gospel. They make serving God the same as Salvation, cause they say if you just tell people that you just have to believe they’ll never come to church and that makes it easy believism. Later in another email you warn about being wary of the easy way, “Well my comment would be sometimes the easy way is the most hard to believe, cause society has taught us you have to earn something or you have to keep doing something to keep it what ever it may be.”
Got to go it’s 12:27am and I need sleep will respond some more tomorrow. Adam
|
|
|
Post by Jeff on Dec 13, 2005 3:01:00 GMT -5
Adam Hull 19 11-09-2004 12:45 PM ET (US) A response to David's comment that comments to Jessica
David note that through out the bible God shows great tolerance many times to a great number of people and situations. Even when it goes against his plans, and yes when he does decide to act it usually is very decisive. The OT is full of examples.
Example marriage/unity between one man and one woman to become one flesh (Genesis). God never intended for divorce, but when man cried out for divorce. God gave them a procedure on how to go about doing it, but he never said he approved of it or that it was right. Now also God didn’t say he wouldn’t bless either of these people with different spouses or even lot’s of children. I know I’ve seen these people being blessed by God and they have done quite well for them selves, but they have turned back to God and are in a strong relationship with him today.
Now as for our subject of Gay marriage, the Bible says it’s wrong/a sin just like divorce. Now the Bible doesn’t say that this couple can’t be believers or even receive some of God’s Blessings, but it is a sin that must be dealt with other wise this damages their testimony to others. The same way if I frequent a bar every night getting drunk or just having a casual drink. So that if I expect to be a good tool in the service of God I have to remember the world is looking at me my life and judging what they can see only. Again just because their Gay or drunks or what ever doesn’t mean they can’t still do good deeds, they may even do more good than most Christians that don’t have any of these stumbling blocks in their lives.
Yes, the Bible does speak to everyone it points out that we can’t get to God under our own good works cause the measurement is Perfection so we need a savior, but again we usually let society or our culture be our ruler (and these two things are always changing) where the Bible is suppose to be a rock unchanging something you can count on.
As it says “do not be conformed to this world, but instead be transformed by the renewing of you mind…..”
The Gay marriage thing, well we live in a country that allows us to assist in the making and amending of its laws, this is a great thing. This really is a small issue in the big scheme of things, but it polarizes people. For me “no” I don’t agree with Gay marriage, but I wasn’t going to go out and start a petition to stop it, but I did vote against it when given an option. We have to reach out to these people through love and by living our lives for God, so that God, the Holy Spirit and Jesus can do their job. By passing these laws (and I’m as guilty as the next) we placed one more reason for them to turn away from Christ.
For shame on us this makes us just as bad as the Jewdeismers(forgive my spelling) who followed Paul around trying to add to the Gospel message that he was sharing.
Please help know which comments you would like for me to try and respond to first, other wise I'll keep jumping around to catch what I can with out being left to far behind.
Thanks Guys
|
|
|
Post by Jeff on Dec 13, 2005 3:01:25 GMT -5
Adam Hull 20 11-09-2004 01:31 PM ET (US) Adam
The apologeticsindex: I do agree that the world and reality does show proof that there is a God. This is the point being made why God gave mankind over to his lustful desires, when man choose to worship the created instead of the Creator. This again as I’ve mentioned explains how the person in the rain forest can be saved by acknowledging God when he may never get to hear the Gospel.
My wife had an Uncle (deceased now) that was a devote atheust, a very intelligent man who got a job studying fibonacci Blocks, not sure how to properly explain what this is I would encourage all to look it up on Google. But as I understand it her uncle after studying these Blocks believed that Chaos couldn’t have created something like this, that there had to be a God to put such order to so small a building block, now whether he went on to believe in Christianity or/and Jesus is unknown, but he did finally believe in a God.
I still need to read the palgrave site info, before even trying to comment.
|
|
|
Post by Jeff on Dec 13, 2005 3:01:40 GMT -5
Adam Hull 21 11-09-2004 01:47 PM ET (US) Your correct Justin to say/believe that God does interact with his creation, but he has a specific plan for man and the world and yet he some how leaves room in it to allow mankind to make choices and decisions. But these Choices and decisions never disrupt his main plan for us. Other wise he wouldn't be all powerful would he.
I'm sure I need to say more, but I'm running out of time as I really should get back to work now. I'll write more later, till then have fun chopping up my responses.
Boni appitet (sorry for my spelling again)
|
|
|
Post by Jeff on Dec 13, 2005 3:02:03 GMT -5
Jeff McBride 22 11-09-2004 07:28 PM ET (US) Another Argument against Literalism—Which We Should Define Eventually!
“God does interact with his creation, but he has a specific plan for man and the world and yet he some how leaves room in it to allow mankind to make choices and decisions. But these Choices and decisions never disrupt his main plan for us. Other wise he wouldn't be all powerful would he.” Adam Hull
Either God intends us to do the sinful things that we do (come on, admit it. We’re all evil) or She doesn’t. If She does, then God intends evil which is inconsistent with Her goodness. If She doesn’t, then She is either not omniscient or not omnipotent or both. It does not suffice to say that God could keep us from doing evil but chooses not to. That completely misses the point. The point concerns God’s intentions. What does She want?
This is a version of the problem of evil, of course. But notice that I am not using it to prove that God does not exist. I think that Alvin Plantinga effectively shows that God’s existence is logically compatible with evil. Nevertheless, the existence of evil does tell us something about God’s nature, and this is almost never considered by theists or atheists.
I would argue that you can’t have the Christian omni-God (omnipotent, omniscience, and omnibenevolent), human freewill, and real moral evil. Something has to give. Now, for the last two, freewill and evil, I will rely on your personal experience as proof of their existence. The Bible is (I’d argue) explicitly committed to the omni-God. Here is proof:
1. Omnipotent: Think of all the uses of “Almighty,” also consider the following passages: Gen. 17:1, Gen. 18:14, Job 42:2, Isa. 26:4, Matt. 19:26, Luke 1:37, Acts 26:8, Rev. 19:6, Rev. 21:22
2. Omniscient: 1 John 3:20, Heb. 4:13, Rom 11:33-34, Acts 1:24, Matthew 10:30, Matthew 6:4, 8, 18, 32 (Just NT this time because there are too many!)
3. Omnibenevolent: You might be surprised to learn that God’s claim to goodness is not perfect. Instead you hear a lot of strangeness, especially in the OT. Here are some samples.
"I form the light and create darkness: I make peace and create evil: I the Lord do all these things" (Is. 45:7).
"Out of the mouth of the most High proceedeth not evil and good?" (Lam. 3:38).
In addition, sometimes God's reasons for causing suffering are given, and the reason is immoral. For example, 1 Samuel 15:1-3 has God order the genocide of the Amelekites:
1 Samuel 15:3: “Now go and smite Amalek, and utterly destroy all that they have, and spare them not; but slay both man and woman, infant and suckling, ox and sheep, camel and ass.”
The reason given for this genocide a few verses earlier is that the Amelekites had attacked the Israelites centuries earlier when they were leaving Egypt. Surely killing people for something their distant ancestors did is immoral. There is no "unknown purpose" here that may save the incident from immorality. God explains the reason, and it does not justify the wholesale slaughter. The God of the Bible also clearly allows, shall we say, slavery, the oppression of women, and other immoral acts.
Nevertheless, if God isn’t all good, She certainly does not deserve to be worshipped. The best way to make the case for omnibenevolence is to argue that god is both perfect and morally good. And this is easily done:
Perfect: Deut. 32:4, 2 Sam. 22:31, Psa. 18:30, Matt. 5:48, Rom. 12:2, Ja. 1:17
Morally good: Matt. 7:11, Matt. 19:17, Mark 10:18, Luke 18:19, Luke 1:53, Luke 6:35, Rom. 2:4, Rom. 11:22, 2 Thess. 1:11, Tit. 3:4, Ja. 1:5,17, 1 John 4:8
Another way to get omnibenevolence is to equate it with holiness. And there are plenty of passages where God is noted to be holy. Here’s just one: Revelation 15:4—notice the mention of righteousness, which is another route we might take to omnibenovalence.
Apart from the question of taking God’s OT immorality literally—which is certainly one sort of gotcha a literalist must explain, if we can defend God’s goodness then the original problems presses; that is, what we are now stuck with the puzzle that God either intends the evil that we do or She doesn’t. There is no retreat from the omni-God for Christians. Again, their only plausible retreat would be to give up God’s goodness, but YOU CAN’T DO THAT!
So, here again is the problem of relating reason and faith. If faith always wins, then God is unreasonable or at least inscrutable. The only reason to worship Her would be to worship Her sheer power or Her ability to do something good for us, like give us eternal life. That has always seemed like a pathetic spiritual assessment of human beings. Certainly, it doesn’t say much about our ability for spiritual growth.
Jeff
|
|
|
Post by Jeff on Dec 13, 2005 3:02:35 GMT -5
Adam Hull 23 11-09-2004 11:52 PM ET (US) Either God intends us to do the sinful things that we do (come on, admit it. We’re all evil) or She doesn’t. If She does, then God intends evil which is inconsistent with Her goodness. If She doesn’t, then She is either not omniscient or not omnipotent or both. It does not suffice to say that God could keep us from doing evil but chooses not to. That completely misses the point. The point concerns God’s intentions. What does She want?
Adam’s Response:
No, God does not intend for mankind to do evil, but he does understand that our flesh is weak and can be tempted. Note: we all are born with the bent to sin/do wrong, ask your self do you have to teach your child to do what is right or do you have to teach them to do what is wrong. If you teaching them to do what is wrong then what kind of people are we. Yes, God could just keep us from doing evil, but then where is the free will? God will protect us from the pull of temptation to do evil if (our choice) we walk with him and surround our selves with likeminded people as accountability partners. God never intended for us to be lone ranger Christians.
"I form the light and create darkness: I make peace and create evil: I the Lord do all these things" (Is. 45:7).
Adam’s Response:
Your translation is King James I believe? In the NAS (New American Standard) instead of evil it uses the word calamity. My study reference leads me to Is. 31:2 and 47:11 and Amos 3:6
To explain the meaning of this word evil or calamity and at each place it refers to God strikeing against an enemy of evildoers. Not the same meaning of evil that you may want to believe makes Him a Bad God.
"Out of the mouth of the most High proceedeth not evil and good?" (Lam. 3:38).
The NAS translate as such “Is it not from the mouth of the Most High That both good and ill go forth?”
To understand this word evil and good or good and ill, My study reference leads me to Job 2:10 and Is. 45:7 and Jer 32:42.
Job calls this adversity which refers to Job 1:21 God gives and God takes away. In Jeremiah 32 God is explaining to Jeremiah that he is punishing his people for turning away from him and worshiping false Gods in his place. Again this is not the Evil God your trying to point out.
In addition, sometimes God's reasons for causing suffering are given, and the reason is immoral. For example, 1 Samuel 15:1-3 has God order the genocide of the Amelekites:
Jeff’s reference: 1 Samuel 15:3: “Now go and smite Amalek, and utterly destroy all that they have, and spare them not; but slay both man and woman, infant and suckling, ox and sheep, camel and ass.”
Jeff said: The reason given for this genocide a few verses earlier is that the Amelekites had attacked the Israelites centuries earlier when they were leaving Egypt. Surely killing people for something their distant ancestors did is immoral. There is no "unknown purpose" here that may save the incident from immorality. God explains the reason, and it does not justify the wholesale slaughter. The God of the Bible also clearly allows, shall we say, slavery, the oppression of women, and other immoral acts.
Adam’s Response: Now looking at 1Sam. 15:2 Ex. 17:8-16; Num. 24:20; Deut. 25:17-19
In Exodus we find out about the battle with the Amaleks and how God swore to utterly blot out the memory of Amalek from under heaven. The same is repeated in the other Books also, in Deuteronomy has more detail what the Amaleks where doing to the Jews.
Now looking at 1Sam. 15:3 Num. 24:20; Deut. 20:16-18; Josh. 6:17-21
In Deut. 20:16-18 God explains that these people must be wiped out because if they are left behind they will teach his people to do detestable things which they have done for their gods, so that you would sin against the Lord your God.
Note: God only says to do this in the cities that he has given his people as their inheritance. He has other Laws of Warfare dealing with other cities.
In Josh. 6:17-21 he warns to Obey God and you will Prosper and do not tempt his anger as it was done before at Massah.
God had Judge the Amaleks long ago when they attacked the Jews, I have no doubte that history or a study of the Amalek’s culture would show they where so turned away from the True God that they would have never turned back. As for the children I believe in the age of accountability at which point a child is no longer the innocent and has thus made a choice. The young who where put to death haven’t reached that point of accountability and thus where spared, being taught to except the detestable things their parents did or the false gods they served.
Jeff’s Comment: The God of the Bible also clearly allows, shall we say, slavery, the oppression of women, and other immoral acts. I’ve seen a few verses about the slavery and am willing to explain them also, if you site specifics as you did before I’ll do my best on other subjects oppression of women and other immoral acts.
Have to stop for now as this has taken me the last 4hours to respond to, until tomorrow.
Adam
|
|
|
Post by Jeff on Dec 13, 2005 3:02:56 GMT -5
Justin McBride 24 11-10-2004 12:26 AM ET (US) (New Truckloads of Justin's Self-Indulgent Laundry for Public Airing) Jeff, You know, since we've talked about this before, that I don't really have a problem giving up God's omnibenevolence. I think this is borne out scripturally and from my own personal observations. As you say (sorta), God can't allow evil while being omniscient, omnipresent (I guess this is just a version of omniscience, but I'll include it since I'm a freakin' just-this-side-of-voodoo animist heathen...), omnipotent, AND omnibenevolent. Well, I have no problem believing God is omni- scient, -present, and -potent. All that seems necessary for God to perform the roles of chief designer and momentary perpetuator of the entire universe. I'd say benevolence is less than necessary given the milquetoast state of the observable universe. You say, "if God isn’t all good, She certainly does not deserve to be worshipped." I would ask why. The truth of the matter is, I am completely awestruck by any level of serious thought about God (I was going to type 'God's wonder' or 'God's works', but 'God' does just as well). It's just a natural reaction for me to fall down and worship It. Furthermore, I can derive goodness (or evil, if I'm were ever so inclined, although I'm not) from anything and everything I observe. I guess I feel that's all just part of the package of creation. So, I still get goodness and love and mercy and all that jazz. And I get that from God, since I believe God is everywhere at all times. I really feel that the qualities of goodness or otherwise are just a symptoms of my limited human intellect. I just cash things out that way because it's the highest order I can observe as a human. For me, I'd say it's just kinda automatic. You may wonder why I think God has created this universe if It is not omnibenevolent. I don't really know or care, to be honest. That seems like a silly question without a real place in my life or my current understanding of what's important. Yeah, I know that comes across as a cop-out, I know, I know, but it really just doesn't interest me. I do believe strongly that there's a point to my own life (to appreciate the gift of my existence within this God-made world as fully as possible in as consistent a manner possible, avoiding at all costs making this task more difficult or impossible for others [defined loosely]), but I'm not sure at all how much of that comes from God and how much of it comes from me. Whatever side the coin lands on, I really doubt that God loses any sleep over it! Also, I guess I'm not saying that God is not benevolent at all, because I can plainly see benevolence in creation. And I wouldn't say that God is impersonal, because I plainly feel the communication. So, I would personally define God as benevolent--at least as far as my relationship with God. I can't really speak for anyone else. But, again, I can't say how much of that is me and how much of that is God. Honestly, I like the fact that even in my depest revery, I can't really pinpoint where I end and It begins. I'm sure we all feel this way to some degree or another, as such a belief is really required in my world-view. This also plays into my belief in Jesus. I consider myself a Christian without blinking, without giving it a second thought. But for me, I don't need the Bible to be true, Jesus to be divine, or even any shred of history to be knowable at all. If it were all just a big lie, it wouldn't concern me in the slightest. Now, C. S. Lewis says either Christ is divine, or his worshippers are lunatics. To me, this seems to be the same as you saying, "their only plausible retreat would be to give up God’s goodness, but YOU CAN’T DO THAT!." That seems to me to be a knee-jerk statement without a lot of substance behind it (I don't mean any offense, bro; I know where you're coming from, but I just need you to *show* me). I know that I can believe what I do, because I do. And it doesn't bother me at all. I still feel a part of Christ's kingdom, and I still feel fellowship with other Christians, and I still feel Christ's influence in my life on a daily basis as I struggle to achieve the life he outlined for me. Am I a lunatic? I know some would probably say, "No, but you're just not a Christian." And I'd disagree, of course! Maybe I'll learn the real truth after I'm dead and I have no more earthly memory of the paths I took anyway... On a seemingly unrelated topic, the only thing about Christ that I've never fully integrated into my understanding is his constant insistence upon healing the sick. You know, I'm all for sick people getting well, but for some bizarre reason I just can't help but think that Jesus may have had bigger fish to fry. Now, what those fish could be is anybody's guess. I guess I would like to have heard more preaching. Some more metaphorical stuff with practical applications. Jesus seems to give precious little information on just about everything, and I guess I'd just like to have heard more, that's all. I'm not complaining, though. As it is, the life of Jesus speaks volumes to me. Obviously... 'cos I'm a Christian! Yer Bro, -jtm#3
|
|
|
Post by Jeff on Dec 13, 2005 3:03:14 GMT -5
Jeffrey McBride 25 11-10-2004 01:03 AM ET (US) Edited by author 11-10-2004 01:14 AM “If She doesn’t, then She is either not omniscient or not omnipotent or both. It does not suffice to say that God could keep us from doing evil but chooses not to. That completely misses the point. The point concerns God’s intentions. What does She want?”
Let me try to make this plainer.
1. God doesn’t intend for us to commit evil. (ex hypothesi) 2. God is omniscient. (Bible) 3. God is omnipotent. (Bible) 4. God knows that humans are going to commit evil. (By 2) 5. God could prevent humans from committing evil. (By 3) 6. That which you know about and could prevent from happening but do not is intended by you to happen. (Definition of “intend”) So, God must intend for humans to commit evil. (By 4, 5, and 6)
Notice, I am not claiming that God approves of evil or even that God lacks the intention to create a state of affairs whose goodness outweighs some intermediate evil. I assume that a theist would say that God doesn’t approve, perhaps even that God can use evil in some mysterious way to make us or the world better. On such a view, evil exists because of some sufficient reason that God knows but we might not ever be able to. I hold such a view myself. But that is not the point here. Even if God has some hidden reason, She still intends the evil that exists to exist.
God created a world with evil in it. Either she intended to do this or not. If she didn’t, then She must either not be a very good creator or She didn’t realize what would happen. But this contradicts the original assumptions drawn straight from the Bible.
SO…every theodicy that I know of takes the first horn: God’s creation of a universe with evil in it is not opposed to Her goodness. But here is the lovely trick that I thought of this afternoon. Sure, you might say that God has some sufficient reason to allow the evil, say human freewill. But that is irrelevant to the issue of whether She intends evil. We are stuck saying that God despises evil yet intends for it to exist. In other words, intending evil is not necessarily evil; in some instances the ends justify the means.
Is this true? Do the ends justify the means here? We might never know. But take a moment to consider how terrible the means are… Is any state of personal union with God really worth all the suffering we see around us? No matter what the payoff is, isn’t the game all too brutal? There are 3 and 4 year olds getting their arms blown off in the Middle East today. Does it make things any better if after their slow agonizing deaths, God is waiting on the other side? Again, God might have some magic reason up Her sleeve that will make the passing horrors seem like a blessing…
And even if you say that I’m wrong, that you’ll just take this one on faith, doesn’t God’s own moral reasoning become estranged from our own? Here the Deity is embracing evil to accomplish a grander goal. Are we ever justified in doing the same? We lack omnipotence and omniscience, of course, so we do not know when to make The Evil Trade.
Again, the main way the problem of evil has been used has been to cast doubt on the existence of God. But as a person of faith, I believe God exists. Even so, the existence of evil in the world must have some relation to God’s nature, especially Her moral nature. If literalists believe that the Bible is a moral book par excellance, then they have some explaining to do.
Jeff
PS sorry about the howlers in the last missive: I kept getting interrupted.
PPS I think we should define literalism. I've been thinking that there is no tenable definition.
|
|
|
Post by Jeff on Dec 13, 2005 3:03:32 GMT -5
Jeffrey McBride 26 11-10-2004 01:27 AM ET (US) In response to Justin’s statement:
Man I wish I could write like you!
Anyway, sure you can give up omnibenevolence if you like. But you give up any literal interpretation of the Bible in doing so. Chump change to you and I, but mean green to Adam. You would also be giving up the Bible as an important moral work. If our conceptions of ethics and morality are fundamentally “symptoms of our limited human intellects” then what does knowing a god’s mind have to do with us? Jesus might be worthwhile morally, but only insofar as he is human, thus no more or less than any other gifted human teacher. I must admit, that here I balk, too. There ain’t no one like Jesus, man.
About your healing of the sick comments: These miracles are puzzling. I have always taken them to mean that there is something good about our life here and now, that the body is not to be despised or forgotten, that joy is simple when you think of it, as simple as walking without a cane. The ability regained, which we take for granted, is the highest prize. Blessed are those who haven’t seen, yet believe. Blessed, indeed.
Jeff
|
|
|
Post by Jeff on Dec 13, 2005 3:03:48 GMT -5
Jeffrey McBride 27 11-10-2004 02:01 AM ET (US) Edited by author 11-10-2004 02:06 AM A short one since I’m still awake:
First, I just write this philosophical stuff to see how Adam will respond to moral problems with the literal interpretation of the Bible, especially problems with the interpretation of God. It is impossible, I think, to make God completely good if you take the OT seriously. It is far easier to see God as a character who evolves through time. I do not mean to suggest that God actually changes—though I believe She does. Rather, I mean that our understanding of God has progressed, and the Bible is proof of this.
Second, the word "suckling" (“infant” in other translations, e.g., NAS) in 1 Sam 15:3 refers to a human baby, a “yanaq” which means literally “to suck.” Any child who is still nursing has not reached an age of accountability…except perhaps the Last Emperor of China who was still nursing when he was 13—“She was not my wet-nurse, she was my butterfly.” Come on, Adam. We’re talking baby killing here, and if that isn’t immoral, I can’t say what is. And what about the poor oxen, sheep, camels and donkeys? I mean, what did they ever do?
Jeff
|
|
|
Post by Jeff on Dec 13, 2005 3:04:20 GMT -5
nellej1@excite.com 28 11-10-2004 11:24 AM ET (US) _______________________________________________ Join Excite! - www.excite.comThe most personalized portal on the Web! < replied-to message removed by QT >
|
|
|
Post by Jeff on Dec 13, 2005 3:04:43 GMT -5
Adam Hull 29 11-10-2004 11:26 PM ET (US) Don't fear I will respond, but to keep Priscilla and the kids happy with me I will have to reserve my Response times to the Weekends, so it will take more time inbetween your comments before you here from me.
Talk soon Adam
|
|
|
Post by Jeff on Dec 13, 2005 3:05:06 GMT -5
Jeffrey McBride 30 11-11-2004 12:19 AM ET (US) Edited by author 11-11-2004 12:25 AM Adam,
First of all, be a good dad. God willing, we'll still be haunting this board waiting for you to come back. In the meantime...
Continuing the project of making a literal interpretation of the Bible implausible, I offer you these 10 problems for literalists all drawn from the book of Exodus. There are more problems in that book that we could talk about, and certainly more if we broaden our scope to include the rest of the Bible.
Jeff
1. The first sign that you are getting old… Exodus 2:18 Reuel was the father-in-law of Moses. Exodus 3:1 Sorry, his name was Jethro. Numbers 10:29, Judges 4:11No, no, no Hobab. Yeah, that’s the ticket. And Reuel was Moses’ grandfather-in-law.
2. Do as I say not as I…say? Or that morality stuff only applies to people we like. Exodus 3:20-22, Deuteronomy 20:13-17 God instructs the Israelites to rob the Egyptians. Exodus 20:15, 17, Leviticus 19:13 God prohibits stealing, defrauding, or robbing a neighbor.
3. Hard times for the Chosen Ones Exodus 12:37, Numbers 1:45-46 The number of men of military age who take part in the Exodus is given as more than 600,000. Allowing for women, children, and older men would probably mean that a total of about 2,000,000 Israelites left Egypt. 1 Kings 20:15 All the Israelites, including children, number only 7000 at a later time.
4. God never changes: He just has different feelings at different times toward different people… Exodus 15:3, 17:16, Numbers 25:4, 32:14, Isaiah 42:13 God is a god of war: fierce and angry. Romans 15:33, 2 Corinthians 13:11, 14, 1 John 4:8, 16 God is a god of love and peace.
5. I’ll do it myself! Not. Exodus 20:1-17 God gave the law directly to Moses (without using an intermediary). Galatians 3:19 The law was ordained through angels by a mediator (an intermediary).
6. Suffer the little children… Exodus 20:5, 34:7, Numbers 14:18, Deuteronomy 5:9, Isaiah 14:21-22 Children are to suffer for their parent's sins. Deuteronomy 24:16, Ezekiel 18:19-20 Children are not to suffer for their parent's sins.
7. Thou shalt not kill, unless I tell you to! Exodus 20:13, Deuteronomy 5:17, Mark 10:19, Luke 18:20, Romans 13:9, James 2:11 God prohibits killing. (Exodus 23:7 God expressly prohibits the killing of the innocent.) Genesis 22:2 God tells Abraham to kill his son. Exodus 32:27, Deuteronomy 7:2, 13:15, 20:1-18 God orders killing. 2 Kings 19:35 An angel of the Lord slaughters 185,000 men in the night, a genocide on the Assyrians. Numbers 31:17-18, Deuteronomy 7:2, Joshua 6:21-27, 7:19-26, 8:22-25, 10:20, 40, 11:8-15, 20, 30-39, Judges 11:30-39, 21:10-12, 1 Samuel 15:3 God orders or approves the complete extermination of groups of people which include innocent women and/or children.
8. Prostitution is a learning experience. Exodus 20:14 God prohibits adultery. Hosea 1:2 God instructs Hosea to "take a wife of harlotry."
9. A Scout is trustworthy… Exodus 34:6, Deuteronomy 7:9-10, Titus 1:2 God is faithful and truthful. He does not lie. Numbers 14:26-35 God breaks his promise. I know, I know: The Israelites had been bad, but a promise is a promise. 1 Kings 22:21-23 God condones a spirit of deception. 2 Thessalonians 2:11-12 God deludes people, making them believe what is false, so as to be able to condemn them. (Note: some versions use the word persuade here. The context makes clear, however, that deception is involved.)
10. Goodly Evil Exodus 34:6-7, Joshua 24:19, 1 Chronicles 16:34 God is faithful, holy and good. Isaiah 45:6-7, Lamentations 3:1-21 (especially the “made my teeth grind on gravel” bit. Ouch!), Amos 3:6 God is responsible for evil.
|
|
|
Post by Jeff on Dec 13, 2005 3:05:28 GMT -5
Jeffrey McBride 31 11-11-2004 06:45 AM ET (US) Edited by author 11-11-2004 07:58 AM Hey Adam, My idea is that if you will not be convinced by outside evidence or the kind of philosophical arguments that I have tried to give, then another way to budge you is with internal inconsistency in the Bible. Is this an effective line of argument? That is, would you ever, faced with inexplicable inconsistency, give up the literal interpretation? Or is it that the case that it doesn’t matter how the world is or what the Bible says, your faith is what it is? I think we could go on for many days giving lists like the one I did last night. Here are some more: www.infidels.org/library/modern/jim...contradictions.htmlwww.webster.sk.ca/GREENWICH/bible-a.htmwww.krysstal.com/contradi.htmlwww.atheists.org/christianity/contradictions.htmlwww.borndigital.com/tcont.htmI have one more line of argument if this doesn’t work, and that would be trying to get clear on exactly what a literal interpretation is. Again, I don’t think this is possible. So, in the end you have the following list of claims, which I think are true: 1. The Bible doesn’t square with experience, whether moral or scientific. 2. The Bible doesn’t square with reason, i.e., it implies a set of propositions that can’t all be true. 3. The Bible is internally inconsistent. 4. There is no way to even understand what a literal interpretation of the Bible would be. (Lest we forget, I also believe: 5. The Bible is the greatest spiritual expression that mankind has ever produced.) 1-4 are all the attacks on literalism. Justin says that I should just come out and say what I am doing, so here goes. Right now, I am just going these attacks one by one. Tina and Amanda framed the first. I did the second one with the problem of evil post, though I could do others on this topic. I am doing the third one now with the lists. The fourth is on the horizon. If the attack is successful, then I plan to turn back to the gay marriage issue. My main case there is what I have already specified. It is the argument from social justice in some form. If we can agree about that, then we should turn to the other issues of “moral values” that cause Red Staters to vote for Bush. Finally, we should look back and summarize our path. If we can, we should produce a short list of our most effective arguments for use every two years by we Christians who oppose fundamentalism. Now, if any one else has other plans for our discussion, then I am all ears. In fact, I welcome all concerned voices. Let’s just not give up on this. The road ahead is long, but the journey is made easier by good company and good will. Jeff
|
|