That's like complaining that you have to chew to eat what you like. If one is faithful and religious, this isn't a stretch at all. In other words, they already know the Bible is inspired. I must be too respectful of people who do not believe in the Bible since my wording is getting in pointless trouble. If you don't think the Bible is inspired, what's the big deal exactly?
The best translations are the ones that translate from the earliest writings. King James does not fit that description. That's not a knock as King James gets the job done except for one big flaw which I'm not going to touch.
King James isn't good enough for some because it was written for King James and no one speaks in thee's and thou's anymore. It is better to get an accurate translation spoken in a form familiar with current readers.
No "big deal," just trying to wrap my mind around your logic.
1) How do you "know" the Bible is inspired by god? Or is that just something you have to take for granted?
2) I assume you've read the earliest versions? Because if you haven't read them directly (i.e. untranslated), then you're pretty much getting god's sloppy seconds, right? Even if they're "translated from the earliest versions."
3) Which translation is right? You said all but one was wrong, just curious which one I should bring to Africa to save people with.
Pascal's Wager is not a strong argument. It is flawed for being biased and assumptive reguarding the nature of divine judgment and not something one should base their entire life upon. The Bible verse you quoted is built around this fallacy. I don't fear the Christian concept of eternal hellfire any more than you fear retribution from the Great Ju-Ju at the bottom of the sea. I, however, chose to disregard both for being equally ridiculous.
EzLink and Himuro (and others, obviously), I really enjoyed your conversation. And I second what Himuro said about long-term goals. I learned that I was an agnostic when I was 13
while at Christian summer camp
and realized that I was an atheist around 17 or 18 ("oh wait - you can be agnostic and an atheist... and I don't believe... so I guess I'm an atheist"), and kept going to church until I was 19. One of the things that has occasionally bothered me is the idea that, yes, I'm going to die after another, if I'm lucky, 50 to 60 years. And, no, I'm not going to be rewarded if I'm a good person or punished if I'm a bad person.
But like someone else said, I've been thinking that it ultimately makes things more meaningful and more important if this is all there is. I think RustyNails implied this when he talked about giving warm food to an orphan. If this is all there is, it makes what you do and say more meaningful, not less.
It's still hard for me to get around the egotistical feelings of wanting to live forever and not being able to comprehend nonexistence, but it helps.
Deus and JGS, would either of you (or any other Christian in this thread) care to comment on this passage?
"11 though they were not yet born and had done nothing either good or badin order that God's purpose of election might continue, not because of works but because of him who calls 12 she was told, The older will serve the younger. 13 As it is written, Jacob I loved, but Esau I hated.
14 What shall we say then? Is there injustice on God's part? By no means! 15 For he says to Moses, I will have mercy on whom I have mercy, and I will have compassion on whom I have compassion. 16 So then it depends not on human will or exertion, [2] but on God, who has mercy. 17 For the Scripture says to Pharaoh, For this very purpose I have raised you up, that I might show my power in you, and that my name might be proclaimed in all the earth. 18 So then he has mercy on whomever he wills, and he hardens whomever he wills.
19 You will say to me then, Why does he still find fault? For who can resist his will? 20 But who are you, O man, to answer back to God? Will what is molded say to its molder, Why have you made me like this? 21 Has the potter no right over the clay, to make out of the same lump one vessel for honorable use and another for dishonorable use? 22 What if God, desiring to show his wrath and to make known his power, has endured with much patience vessels of wrath prepared for destruction, 23 in order to make known the riches of his glory for vessels of mercy, which he has prepared beforehand for glory" (Romans 9 11-19. ESV
ftw
)
The ONLY way I can reasonably interpret that passage is with a calvinistic viewpoint. And indeed, this is what the people were questioning Paul about. "Why does he still find fault?" Why does he fault humans that he doesn't select for heaven? They have no possible way of coming to Christ unless he calls them. And no, I don't buy into the argument that he "calls everyone", because many passages in the Bible do not support that
Calvinism/predestination is the biggest stumbling block I have to Christianity (even though I still have plenty of issues). And most modern churches take the easy way out and ignore Calvinism, injecting their own interpretation of how everyone has equal opportunity. Because I don't think most people can handle how incredibly shitty Calvinism seems, myself included :/
Pascal's Wager is not a strong argument. It is flawed for being biased and assumptive reguarding the nature of divine judgment and not something one should base their entire life upon. The Bible verse you quoted is built around this fallacy. I don't fear the Christian concept of eternal hellfire any more than you fear retribution from the Great Ju-Ju at the bottom of the sea. I, however, chose to disregard both for being equally ridiculous.
The uncertainty of knowing which religion is true does not invalidate Pascal's wager. Pushing it further, you're upping your chances of winning either way by worshiping Jesus or Great JuJu or Ganesh or whatever. Your best bet on Pascal's wager is to decide on a winning Religion. How you come to that conclusion, its up to you. But its better than worshiping nothing because in the end, anything is better than 0%. Besides, if Great JuJu is really the God I should be worshiping, he did an awfully shitty job of conveying his message to humanity.
Shanadeus said:
It is almost depressing when you consider the fragility of not just human life, but all life on earth, in this very hostile universum. There are supernovas that cleanse vast areas filled with stars and planets and possibly life without even the smallest warning, and it doesn't matter if we are capable of deflecting a minor meteor if another meteor ten or a hundred times larger is unstoppable and wipe out all life on the planet.
Humans are the only creatures on earth capable of even fathoming the dangers to our planet, and I feel it is our goal and responsibility to spread life throughout the universe so that no matter what - life will always live on.
Pascal's Wager is not a strong argument. It is flawed for being biased and assumptive reguarding the nature of divine judgment and not something one should base their entire life upon. The Bible verse you quoted is built around this fallacy. I don't fear the Christian concept of eternal hellfire any more than you fear retribution from the Great Ju-Ju at the bottom of the sea. I, however, chose to disregard both for being equally ridiculous.
You confuse me for someone who is trying to prove that God exists. I was using a passage of Scripture to argue why an individual on these boards would never fully be able to shake the feeling of the possibility of the Christian position on God being correct. You then challenged that by changing the passage to fit an atheistic worldview. I then told you that either the passage was true or was not, but if it was true, you have a problem.
Hence, my assertion was:
If that passage of Scripture is true (assuming that somehow, someway, the passage could be verified as truth), you would have a problem because you do not believe in God.
If I were going to argue for God's existence, I would go with something stronger than Pascal's Wager: probably the Kalām cosmological argument. Since you seem well-versed in enough philosophy of religion to already know about Pascal's Wager, I'll assume you've heard of this one as well.
Even still, the honest philosopher will admit that there is no "open-and-shut" philosophical case when it comes to arguments either for or against God's existence.
Deus and JGS, would either of you (or any other Christian in this thread) care to comment on this passage?
"11 though they were not yet born and had done nothing either good or badin order that God's purpose of election might continue, not because of works but because of him who calls 12 she was told, The older will serve the younger. 13 As it is written, Jacob I loved, but Esau I hated.
14 What shall we say then? Is there injustice on God's part? By no means! 15 For he says to Moses, I will have mercy on whom I have mercy, and I will have compassion on whom I have compassion. 16 So then it depends not on human will or exertion, [2] but on God, who has mercy. 17 For the Scripture says to Pharaoh, For this very purpose I have raised you up, that I might show my power in you, and that my name might be proclaimed in all the earth. 18 So then he has mercy on whomever he wills, and he hardens whomever he wills.
19 You will say to me then, Why does he still find fault? For who can resist his will? 20 But who are you, O man, to answer back to God? Will what is molded say to its molder, Why have you made me like this? 21 Has the potter no right over the clay, to make out of the same lump one vessel for honorable use and another for dishonorable use? 22 What if God, desiring to show his wrath and to make known his power, has endured with much patience vessels of wrath prepared for destruction, 23 in order to make known the riches of his glory for vessels of mercy, which he has prepared beforehand for glory" (Romans 9 11-19. ESV
ftw
)
The ONLY way I can reasonably interpret that passage is with a calvinistic viewpoint. And indeed, this is what the people were questioning Paul about. "Why does he still find fault?" Why does he fault humans that he doesn't select for heaven? They have no possible way of coming to Christ unless he calls them. And no, I don't buy into the argument that he "calls everyone", because many passages in the Bible do not support that
Calvinism/predestination is the biggest stumbling block I have to Christianity (even though I still have plenty of issues). And most modern churches take the easy way out and ignore Calvinism, injecting their own interpretation of how everyone has equal opportunity. Because I don't think most people can handle how incredibly shitty Calvinism seems, myself included :/
Sure, I'd be happy to comment on this passage in full later today. Right now I have a few things to finish up in the library before heading home. In brief for now, though, I'll say that when it comes to Calvinism/predestination/election/foreknowledge, etc., any honest argument either for or against has to admit two things:
1. The Bible teaches predestination.
2. The Bible teaches human responsibility for one's own actions, including rejection of God.
I look forward to discussing this some more later.
No "big deal," just trying to wrap my mind around your logic.
1) How do you "know" the Bible is inspired by god? Or is that just something you have to take for granted?
2) I assume you've read the earliest versions? Because if you haven't read them directly (i.e. untranslated), then you're pretty much getting god's sloppy seconds, right? Even if they're "translated from the earliest versions."
3) Which translation is right? You said all but one was wrong, just curious which one I should bring to Africa to save people with.
1. I "know" because I- a. believe in God and b. Studied what the Bible said. You don't take it for granted. You believe it based on what you read and what you see. If you don't understand what you're reading or don't see how the bible affect modern day life, then you'll never think of it as inspired.
2. I haven't read the earliest versions since I don't speak Hebrew or Greek. However, any good reference book provides sources. You research the sources to find their legitimacy. I don't understand the sloppy seconds comment. If you get the 1,000,000th copy of your favorite book, are you getting sloppy seconds? The language is irrelevant as long as the translation is good.
3. I didn't say this about translations, I said it about interpretation so I can't answer this one.
1. I "know" because I- a. believe in God and b. Studied what the Bible said. You don't take it for granted. You believe it based on what you read and what you see. If you don't understand what you're reading or don't see how the bible affect modern day life, then you'll never think of it as inspired.
2. I haven't read the earliest versions since I don't speak Hebrew or Greek. However, any good reference book provides sources. You research the sources to find their legitimacy. I don't understand the sloppy seconds comment. If you get the 1,000,000th copy of your favorite book, are you getting sloppy seconds? The language is irrelevant as long as the translation is good.
3. I didn't say this about translations, I said it about interpretation so I can't answer this one.
You confuse me for someone who is trying to prove that God exists. I was using a passage of Scripture to argue why an individual on these boards would never fully be able to shake the feeling of the possibility of the Christian position on God being correct. You then challenged that by changing the passage to fit an atheistic worldview.
Sorry, it came of preachy. My rewrite, when read by a rational atheist, was meant to explain exactly how an on-the-fence atheist can free themselves from nagging doubt. Maybe it was too subtle, I'm not sure.
I then told you that either the passage was true or was not, but if it was true, you have a problem.
Hence, my assertion was:
If that passage of Scripture is true (assuming that somehow, someway, the passage could be verified as truth), you would have a problem because you do not believe in God.
Children do not grow up believing in the Boogie man for the rest of their lives. At some people, we become adults and we throw away our childish beliefs. Your argument about "if it's true you're in trouble, so why not believe?" is as meaningless to me as my suggesting to you that if you don't look under your bed tonight the Boogie man might, just might!, get you so what's the harm in looking? The harm is the insult to your intelligence to assume that an unproven Boogie Man exists at all. That's exactly why that Biblical verse you mentioned does nothing to promote any sort of "uneasiness" in an atheist.
Even still, the honest philosopher will admit that there is no "open-and-shut" philosophical case when it comes to arguments either for or against God's existence.
Deus and JGS, would either of you (or any other Christian in this thread) care to comment on this passage?
"11 though they were not yet born and had done nothing either good or badin order that God's purpose of election might continue, not because of works but because of him who calls 12 she was told, The older will serve the younger. 13 As it is written, Jacob I loved, but Esau I hated.
14 What shall we say then? Is there injustice on God's part? By no means! 15 For he says to Moses, I will have mercy on whom I have mercy, and I will have compassion on whom I have compassion. 16 So then it depends not on human will or exertion, [2] but on God, who has mercy. 17 For the Scripture says to Pharaoh, For this very purpose I have raised you up, that I might show my power in you, and that my name might be proclaimed in all the earth. 18 So then he has mercy on whomever he wills, and he hardens whomever he wills.
19 You will say to me then, Why does he still find fault? For who can resist his will? 20 But who are you, O man, to answer back to God? Will what is molded say to its molder, Why have you made me like this? 21 Has the potter no right over the clay, to make out of the same lump one vessel for honorable use and another for dishonorable use? 22 What if God, desiring to show his wrath and to make known his power, has endured with much patience vessels of wrath prepared for destruction, 23 in order to make known the riches of his glory for vessels of mercy, which he has prepared beforehand for glory" (Romans 9 11-19. ESV
ftw
)
The ONLY way I can reasonably interpret that passage is with a calvinistic viewpoint. And indeed, this is what the people were questioning Paul about. "Why does he still find fault?" Why does he fault humans that he doesn't select for heaven? They have no possible way of coming to Christ unless he calls them. And no, I don't buy into the argument that he "calls everyone", because many passages in the Bible do not support that
Calvinism/predestination is the biggest stumbling block I have to Christianity (even though I still have plenty of issues). And most modern churches take the easy way out and ignore Calvinism, injecting their own interpretation of how everyone has equal opportunity. Because I don't think most people can handle how incredibly shitty Calvinism seems, myself included :/
I get a little different reading from it starting at verse 1. Basically some would think that they had an inherent right to God's graces, namely Israellites who were related by blood to Abraham. Paul is stating that just because you think you're in good standing, that God's decision to make. This is also why Gentiles are allowed to be a part of the Christian Church - because God allows it, not humans.
He then gives two examples of this.
Esau & Jacob were both related to Abraham, but only one of them was favored by God.
Pharoah, who did not worship God at all, was used by him to prove how powerful God was. Again, Pharoah had nothing to do with it.
EDIT: Also, I don't believe in predestination. God does have the ability to foreknow everything, that does not mean he uses it at all times on all people because that would give the impression that choice is hindered which is a prime component of Christianity or belief in God in general. The primary times God used predestination was in direct regards to his purpose - Jesus dying, Jacob being chosen over his older brother, or the fortelling of a great apostasy in the Christian Church. Average Joe down the street does not have that kind of affect on God's purpose and should only worry about whether he wants to be Christian or not.
Sorry, it came of preachy. My rewrite, when read by a rational atheist, was meant to explain exactly how an on-the-fence atheist can free themselves from nagging doubt. Maybe it was too subtle, I'm not sure.
Children do not grow up believing in the Boogie man for the rest of their lives. At some people, we become adults and we throw away our childish beliefs. Your argument about "if it's true you're in trouble, so why not believe?" is as meaningless to me as my suggesting to you that if you don't look under your bed tonight the Boogie man might, just might!, get you so what's the harm in looking? The harm is the insult to your intelligence to assume that an unproven Boogie Man exists at all. That's exactly why that Biblical verse you mentioned does nothing to promote any sort of "uneasiness" in an atheist.
I never said, "so why not believe?" Still, you cannot find anything factually incorrect about anything I said. Here, I'll even put it into modus ponens form for you:
If that passage of Scripture is true, then you have a problem.
That passage of Scripture is true (assuming some way of verifying that it is, in fact, true).
Therefore, you have a problem.
I asserted nothing more than the above.
As for Dennett, he's been ably debated before, most notably by Alvin Plantinga in 2009. If you want to think Dennett's arguments for atheism are "open-and-shut," be my guest. The more sensible among us know otherwise.
How was my phrasing exactly to my liking and your phrasing not just wrong?:lol
The interpretation has nothing to do with translating unless the translation is wring or intentially adds or omits from the earliest copies.
The correct interpretation is God's and this should be kindergarten simple. After all, if i tell you mu favorite color is blue, am I supposed to accept you saying that my favorite color is really red? If you believe other than the way God wants you to, then you're wrong in regards to worshipping him.
God makes it pretty clear what he wants from us and I'm sorry if you can't see that but want to but otherwise couldn't care less if you have no real interest. In any event, I fail to see how your dissatisfaction with the Bible is my problem.
Sure, I'd be happy to comment on this passage in full later today. Right now I have a few things to finish up in the library before heading home. In brief for now, though, I'll say that when it comes to Calvinism/predestination/election/foreknowledge, etc., any honest argument either for or against has to admit two things:
1. The Bible teaches predestination.
2. The Bible teaches human responsibility for one's own actions, including rejection of God.
I look forward to discussing this some more later.
Yes, exactly, the Bible teaches predestination but God still places blame on people who don't obey Him, even though within the context of predestination it is literally, physically impossible for humans who aren't called to do so. It's like saying "Hey, go jump off a cliff and start flying! Hahahahahaha, I know you are a human that can't fly, but if you don't do it anyway I'm gonna send you to hell!" It seems like such a blatant contradiction, and one that also flies in the face of any remote concept of "justice" or "love"
JGS said:
I'm going on the fly so bear with me.
I get a little different reading from it starting at verse 1. Basically some would think that they had an inherent right to God's graces, namely Israellites who were related by blood to Abraham. Paul is stating that just because you think you're in good standing, that God's decision to make. This is also why Gentiles are allowed to be a part of the Christian Church - because God allows it, not humans.
He then gives two examples of this.
Esau & Jacob were both related to Abraham, but only one of them was favored by God.
Pharoah, who did not worship God at all, was used by him to prove how powerful God was. Again, Pharoah had nothing to do with it.
EDIT: Also, I don't believe in predestination. God does have the ability to foreknow everything, that does not mean he uses it at all times on all people because that would give the impression that choice is hindered which is a prime component of Christianity or belief in God in general. The primary times God used predestination was in direct regards to his purpose - Jesus dying, Jacob being chosen over his older brother, or the fortelling of a great apostasy in the Christian Church. Average Joe down the street does not have that kind of affect on God's purpose and should only worry about whether he wants to be Christian or not.
I know he foreknows everything, but I also can't read into most calvinistic passages that He's simply saying he "calls" people based on the foreknowledge of weather or not they were going to choose him in the first place. Though I wish I could share that view, it would make things a whole lot easier.
That verse also says he prepares vessels for wrath and destruction and vessels for glory. Seems like its suggesting He has it planned beforehand weather a human soul will be damned or saved
As for Dennett, he's been ably debated before, most notably by Alvin Plantinga in 2009. If you want to think Dennett's arguments for atheism are "open-and-shut," be my guest. The more sensible among us know otherwise.
I actually thought he came across as rather narrow minded, dogmatic, and quite willing to battle religious folk over petty religious politics. I rather like the man, but I don't feel like he has some sort of enlightened argument.. he's another atheist pundit. On the contrary, the catholic philosopher he was debating with had a much more open-minded and satisfactory assessment of religion and fundamentalism (I'm not a theist, btw)... I urge anyone to watch this debate and see what I mean.
So given the conversation that has been going back and forth.. Are peoples main problem with the religion of Christianity or the existence or non-existence of God?
Reason I ask (and why you might pull those as two seperate questions..) is because for me personally, I've given up on Christianity as a religion and simply have focused on the relationship w/ God. Never before in my 29 yrs if existing... Have I been more free. Most people I encounter either are in a theological love/hate relationship with Christians in general and their crap that they defend. I find it's easier to defend God than it is a religion and that's what I think most get switched around. Anyways.. Very intersting thread and I look forward to keeping tabs on it.
I never said, "so why not believe?" Still, you cannot find anything factually incorrect about anything I said. Here, I'll even put it into modus ponens form for you:
If that passage of Scripture is true, then you have a problem.
That passage of Scripture is true (assuming some way of verifying that it is, in fact, true).
Therefore, you have a problem.
If the passage was true, and there was a way of verifying that it was infact true then God would have been proven and there would be no more reason for a lack of belief in God. Therefore, any rational person would have no problem at all with a belief in God.
So, no one would have a problem other than those ignorant to the proven truth.
If there's a God who's willing to punish people for refusing to have blind faith then I'd rather tell him to fuck himself than worship him. So, there's really no problem for me either way.
Hmmm that's interesting. I remember at the time wanting to debate you (just out of philosophical curiosity: I'm cool with both AtheistGAF and MuslimGAF).. but it seemed like you were confidently making your choice so I had nothing to say. It's interesting that so quickly thereafter you are describing yourself as athiest. It's good to see that you have tried on a few different hats in this religious question. I can actually take your debates seriously since you are actually investigating these traditions... not just sticking with whatever you were raised with.
Yes, exactly, the Bible teaches predestination but God still places blame on people who don't obey Him, even though within the context of predestination it is literally, physically impossible for humans who aren't called to do so. It's like saying "Hey, go jump off a cliff and start flying! Hahahahahaha, I know you are a human that can't fly, but if you don't do it anyway I'm gonna send you to hell!" It seems like such a blatant contradiction, and one that also flies in the face of any remote concept of "justice" or "love"
This is why predestination is not a Bible teaching in connection with everyone. Everyone has the opportunity to know God and make a choice one way or another
EzLink said:
That verse also says he prepares vessels for wrath and destruction and vessels for glory. Seems like its suggesting He has it planned beforehand weather a human soul will be damned or saved
That's not suggesting that at all. It's suggesting that he chooses to do what he wishes with anyone he wishes because he is God. This will not change no matter how many people disagree with him.
This is why context is important. There are verse before and after this that clarify the point you don't understand.
It also fits in with the context of the Bible in general. I hate cherry picking but these are two pretty common scriptures:
- John 17: 3 mentions that life is based on knowledge, not on simple selection. Anyone who knows God and his son can gain everlasting life
- John 3:16 says that God love the world so much he gave his son for a ransom to all. Clearly the opportunity exists for all to become Christian, it was just prophesied that mist would not want to be one.
Christian Summer Camp? I started to have my doubts at summer camp, but I always went because that was what you did, ya know? It was fun and it wasn't always about God. For me it was about the swimming, the canoing, the fun and games and candy and unity, not worship. Worship was always my least favorite part!
And you know when they'd hold a hat, and make you write down your sins? That stuff always confused me. "I don't really sin...I've never stolen or really told many lies, I'm a good person. What do I do?"
Another thing that puzzled me was when people would CRY when they were talking about Jesus at camp. It's like,"Jesus died for our sins! Let's cry!" and I just didn't "get it" so I'd be standing there while everyone else was crying their eyes out.
Looking back on my days at Christian camps, it's no fucking wonder I'm now an atheist. I've been a rebel since day fuckin' one.
I too went to a couple of Jesus camps during my childhood. Man oh man, I never got that. It was usually a bunch of girls that would be bawling their eyes out. Even at my Christian school, when we had students as speakers or as worship leaders.. damn... Those people would be crying like their favorite dog just died. Oh, and there were some that would be laughing hysterically while crying... I would be sitting there thinking, "Is this normal? Is there something wrong with me? Why am I not acting like these people? Is the Holy Spirit avoiding me for some reason?"
I never said, "so why not believe?" Still, you cannot find anything factually incorrect about anything I said. Here, I'll even put it into modus ponens form for you:
If that passage of Scripture is true, then you have a problem.
That passage of Scripture is true (assuming some way of verifying that it is, in fact, true).
Therefore, you have a problem.
Look, if you want me to concede that if it could be definitively proven using the scientific method that the Biblical verse you quoted was indeed the true and accurate conclusion to all human life then, yes, I would have a problem. We would all have a very serious problem for living in such a poorly crafted universe built by such a maniacal, elusive and self-absorbed deity. Faced with such a truth, I'm not so sure I'd be so willing to bow down. I might prefer to burn than succumb to such an illogical and evil dictatorship.
This whole conversation is so meaningless, it's literally giving me a headache and at least that's something real that can actually be measured in the real world.
But the way he uses His jealousy, anger, and punishment isn't for evil in the way humans use is. He's jealous because He created us and wants us to love Him, but since He doesn't force that he's jealous when we ignore Him. Analogous to a parent. Imagine having a child you love, but that child despises you and bonds with some other parental figure. I'm sure that would incite jealousy. Anger and punishment is for all of the injustice of the world. So that makes sense too. I get angry at all the horrible people on earth and wish for them to be punished too.
You see, to me that sounds like bad parenting. A truly loving parent will seek to understand their childs view, even if it doesn't reflect their own values. Patience, understanding, unconditional love... these things are fundamentally opposed to jealousy, anger and judgement.
The God of the old testament is apparently justified in feeling this way and acts like a spoilt child! This is completely different to how Jesus behaves. You don't see him throwing a hissy fit every time someone questions him and murdering a bunch of people.
Those aspects of the old testament, the judgemental ones, really do seem like people projecting their own traits onto God.
Deus and JGS, would either of you (or any other Christian in this thread) care to comment on this passage?
"11 though they were not yet born and had done nothing either good or badin order that God's purpose of election might continue, not because of works but because of him who calls 12 she was told, The older will serve the younger. 13 As it is written, Jacob I loved, but Esau I hated.
14 What shall we say then? Is there injustice on God's part? By no means! 15 For he says to Moses, I will have mercy on whom I have mercy, and I will have compassion on whom I have compassion. 16 So then it depends not on human will or exertion, [2] but on God, who has mercy. 17 For the Scripture says to Pharaoh, For this very purpose I have raised you up, that I might show my power in you, and that my name might be proclaimed in all the earth. 18 So then he has mercy on whomever he wills, and he hardens whomever he wills.
19 You will say to me then, Why does he still find fault? For who can resist his will? 20 But who are you, O man, to answer back to God? Will what is molded say to its molder, Why have you made me like this? 21 Has the potter no right over the clay, to make out of the same lump one vessel for honorable use and another for dishonorable use? 22 What if God, desiring to show his wrath and to make known his power, has endured with much patience vessels of wrath prepared for destruction, 23 in order to make known the riches of his glory for vessels of mercy, which he has prepared beforehand for glory" (Romans 9 11-19. ESV
ftw
)
The ONLY way I can reasonably interpret that passage is with a calvinistic viewpoint. And indeed, this is what the people were questioning Paul about. "Why does he still find fault?" Why does he fault humans that he doesn't select for heaven? They have no possible way of coming to Christ unless he calls them. And no, I don't buy into the argument that he "calls everyone", because many passages in the Bible do not support that
Calvinism/predestination is the biggest stumbling block I have to Christianity (even though I still have plenty of issues). And most modern churches take the easy way out and ignore Calvinism, injecting their own interpretation of how everyone has equal opportunity. Because I don't think most people can handle how incredibly shitty Calvinism seems, myself included :/
Okay. Sorry it took me so long to get back to this. Essentially, I find it hard to read this passage other than Calvinistically, just as you do. The difference is that you find a Calvinistic understanding of it to be grounds for rejecting Christianity while I do not. However, I do understand your position and how something like this seems unfair and perhaps makes God seem capricious in a "Hmm...maybe I'll save that one over there, but not that one" manner.
When reading difficult passages such as this one, it is important to keep in mind that God is always just in whatever he does and that no human is deserving of anything good from him. Where we get into trouble regarding the "fairness" of God is that our understanding of fairness is based entirely on merit. In other words, the human standard of fairness depends entirely on what is supposedly deserved. Many times we treat God as though he owes us salvation.
When we look at what the Bible says humans deserve, however, the answer is bleak: death. Scripture makes clear that all humans are deserving of death because of their sin, but God, in his grace, has made a way for salvation and that this salvation is open to all. "But wait," you may say. "This passage indicates that God chooses some, but not others." Yes, but Scripture also says that Jesus died for the sins of the whole world and that God's salvation is freely available to all who believe. So, how does one reconcile that? I don't know and that has been a debate within the church for a long, long time.
The important thing to remember for me is that God didn't have to save anyone and that everyone has sinned and fallen short of the glory of God (Romans 3:23). How he has eternally predestined some to salvation and yet still holds human beings responsible for their actions, including the decision to accept or reject him, is a divine mystery that won't ever be solved.
You might think that's a cop-out. Some do. You might think that makes God sound unfair. Again, some do. But I really don't know what to say other than to tell you that Scripture teaches both eternal predestination and human responsibility. There are philosophical arguments that try to explain that interaction and we can go into those if you want, but they are not explicitly biblical.
Christian Summer Camp? I started to have my doubts at summer camp, but I always went because that was what you did, ya know? It was fun and it wasn't always about God. For me it was about the swimming, the canoing, the fun and games and candy and unity, not worship. Worship was always my least favorite part!
And you know when they'd hold a hat, and make you write down your sins? That stuff always confused me. "I don't really sin...I've never stolen or really told many lies, I'm a good person. What do I do?"
Another thing that puzzled me was when people would CRY when they were talking about Jesus at camp. It's like,"Jesus died for our sins! Let's cry!" and I just didn't "get it" so I'd be standing there while everyone else was crying their eyes out.
Looking back on my days at Christian camps, it's no fucking wonder I'm now an atheist. I've been a rebel since day fuckin' one.
I went to a Catholic church growing up, and I went through with confirmation for a lot of reasons, but the biggest was that I thought that it was required - I told my mother that I didn't want to go, but she didn't think I meant it "like that."
But near the end of it of the confirmation process, they would have us go on this retreat - we'd leave for God knows where (read: I forget where they took us), and we'd get rooms and basically have several all-day worship / discussion / music sessions (three hours of "We fall down / We lay our crowns / At the feet of Jesus" drove me mad :lol ). On one of the days, we did something where we essentially sat in semi-circle rows around the altar, and a priest would come around with this cloth that was supposed to be have had something done to it - I forget whether it was blessed or had holy water / oil or what, but it was supposed to be significant, somehow. In any case, the priest would come around, you would lower your face into the cloth, and you were supposed to basically think about the Trinity and then raise your head. There's nothing quite like being surrounded by several hundred of your peers immediately bursting into racked sobs after raising their heads from the cloth.
I loved Christian camp, though. There was a bit of Christian trappings to it, but it was basically a generic summer camp beyond that with all the good stuff you mentioned. Well, that and we had VeggieTales when the weather sucked, and you can't be a good person and dislike VeggieTales. Just not possible.
EzLink, a preface: I don't mean to offend you with any of this. It sounds like you're in the 2nd stage of belief and I think it's a mistake to simply abandon a religion because you don't care for 1 precept. As a Missouri Synod Lutheran, I'm biased, but I think that's objective. Odds are that you'll delve into another religion (here, Buddhism) until you bump up against something that bothers you. It also sounds like you haven't done a lot of reading on the matter, just puzzling. That's fine, but you should read what smarter people have to say before choosing an alternate path (something I certainly don't mind). I'll recommend 2 Lutherans who should appeal to your still-Calvinist thought (and I'd strongly recommend reimmersing yourself in Calvinism before choosing something different. I just am poorly read in that denomination).
1. Martin Luther: Concerning Bound Choice/On The Bondage Of The Will. It's a landmark argument for predestination against Erasmus. You're dealing with 2 brilliant men and your biggest concern. Read a good translation of it. Then, move on to his sermons if you like it.
2. Soren Kierkegaard. You can either go the annoying, self-satisfied, stereotypical-teenager way (French existentialism) or his way (Christian existentialism). He agreed with Luther on every important issue but predestination and, more than any other theologian ever, explains why our choices are important and how we can make them in a God-bound world. Fear And Trembling deals with your concerns most, Repetition deals with malaise, and The Concept Of Anxiety is about fearing choice. Then, move on to his "upbuilding discourses" if you like them.
It's heavy reading, but as your questions get smarter, you need smarter people to answer them. They're both stellar writers, though.
Himuro said:
I disagree. It sounds really boring. Happiness without pain and various trials is not true happiness.
Living in a place that's warm and fuzzy and where there's no pain and all I do is worship a God all day doesn't really sound appealing or something I'd remotely want to visit.
The Christian conception of heaven is not "happiness." If that were so, you'd be right. It's more like love amplified second upon second, always fresh, always new, thanks to our proximity to God, the source of love and its essence, and the new holiness of all believers. "The familiarity of experience" is a totally earthly experience.
Himuro said:
So confirmation is being anointed. I've been anointed and I've never heard of it be called that.
Hm. Basically, everywhere but the United States' southeastern denominations calls it that.
Poimandres said:
So... what do you guys make of mystical schools of thought?
There's basically a mystical arm of every major religion. Common factors: heavy focus on the interconnectdness of all things on an energetic level, no personalized God (but rather viewing "God" as the totality of existence), emphasis on raising "awareness" or "consciousness" on a personal level, embracing scientific discoveries, a tendency towards concepts of karma and reincarnation.
I'm not sure that's true for the Christian religion. Most mystic strains are grounded in history (Orthodox) or were weeded out as heresies. I think it's an important separate axis of all religions, though, that balances materialism.
More or less. I mean, there was the whole anointing thing that happened, but they called the entire process leading up to it - the weekly classes after church, the discussion groups, the retreats, etc. - "confirmation." The Catholic version is a sacrament where you're supposed to receive the Holy Spirit.
It's basically the point at 14 or 15 when you're (apparently) old enough to make a decision about whether you want to continue in the church. I think that that's a bit silly (there's enormous family and social pressure to say yes, after all), though. Or that's how they described it to us. When you're a child or a baby and first baptized, your parents made that choice for you; this is where you have the opportunity to make that choice.
I think it's basically the same as what you described, though.
Okay. Sorry it took me so long to get back to this. Essentially, I find it hard to read this passage other than Calvinistically, just as you do. The difference is that you find a Calvinistic understanding of it to be grounds for rejecting Christianity while I do not. However, I do understand your position and how something like this seems unfair and perhaps makes God seem capricious in a "Hmm...maybe I'll save that one over there, but not that one" manner.
When reading difficult passages such as this one, it is important to keep in mind that God is always just in whatever he does and that no human is deserving of anything good from him. Where we get into trouble regarding the "fairness" of God is that our understanding of fairness is based entirely on merit. In other words, the human standard of fairness depends entirely on what is supposedly deserved. Many times we treat God as though he owes us salvation.
When we look at what the Bible says humans deserve, however, the answer is bleak: death. Scripture makes clear that all humans are deserving of death because of their sin, but God, in his grace, has made a way for salvation and that this salvation is open to all. "But wait," you may say. "This passage indicates that God chooses some, but not others." Yes, but Scripture also says that Jesus died for the sins of the whole world and that God's salvation is freely available to all who believe. So, how does one reconcile that? I don't know and that has been a debate within the church for a long, long time.
The important thing to remember for me is that God didn't have to save anyone and that everyone has sinned and fallen short of the glory of God (Romans 3:23). How he has eternally predestined some to salvation and yet still holds human beings responsible for their actions, including the decision to accept or reject him, is a divine mystery that won't ever be solved.
You might think that's a cop-out. Some do. You might think that makes God sound unfair. Again, some do. But I really don't know what to say other than to tell you that Scripture teaches both eternal predestination and human responsibility. There are philosophical arguments that try to explain that interaction and we can go into those if you want, but they are not explicitly biblical.
Yep. Cop-out and unfair for sure. See, when I was a Christian I still felt the same way (that it was a cop-out and unfair) but I was just like "well there are some things humans will never understand". But now that way of thinking just seems illogical. I know the Bible doesn't explain the "tension" between predestination and human responsibility so maybe these philosophical arguments you mention might help, even if its just some minute way
GhaleonQ said:
EzLink, a preface: I don't mean to offend you with any of this. It sounds like you're in the 2nd stage of belief and I think it's a mistake to simply abandon a religion because you don't care for 1 precept. As a Missouri Synod Lutheran, I'm biased, but I think that's objective. Odds are that you'll delve into another religion (here, Buddhism) until you bump up against something that bothers you. It also sounds like you haven't done a lot of reading on the matter, just puzzling. That's fine, but you should read what smarter people have to say before choosing an alternate path (something I certainly don't mind). I'll recommend 2 Lutherans who should appeal to your still-Calvinist thought (and I'd strongly recommend reimmersing yourself in Calvinism before choosing something different. I just am poorly read in that denomination).
1. Martin Luther: Concerning Bound Choice/On The Bondage Of The Will. It's a landmark argument for predestination against Erasmus. You're dealing with 2 brilliant men and your biggest concern. Read a good translation of it. Then, move on to his sermons if you like it.
2. Soren Kierkegaard. You can either go the annoying, self-satisfied, stereotypical-teenager way (French existentialism) or his way (Christian existentialism). He agreed with Luther on every important issue but predestination and, more than any other theologian ever, explains why our choices are important and how we can make them in a God-bound world. Fear And Trembling deals with your concerns most, Repetition deals with malaise, and The Concept Of Anxiety is about fearing choice. Then, move on to his "upbuilding discourses" if you like them.
No offense at all my man. And I abandoned it for more than just Calvinism, but that is certainly the biggest reason. The reason I'm interested in Buddhism is because of how flexible it seems to be. If something doesn't gel with you (like for me, reincarnation) just ignore it and its all fine and dandy. I've read plenty about Calvinism, as far as I'm pretty well versed with TULIP and how it works and the different views within Calvinism. But no, I've never read anything by Luther or Kierkegaard (the latter of which I've never heard of). I'm not looking for an argument FOR predestination, as I already believe thats what the Bible teaches. But this Kierkegaard didn't believe in predestination you say? Maybe I'll have to check into that. But again, it will probably be impossible for me to somehow discover some other way to interpret every passage (of which there are many) that suggest predestination.
Fucking calvinism uuuuugh. Talking with you all in this thread is making me wish I could get back to Christianity even more. Although I think it might be for the wrong reasons... I want to become a Christian again just because shit would be so much easier. I wouldn't have to be someone I'm not about my parents, I wouldn't have to constantly struggle with feeling totally meaningless, etc. Those are the wrong reasons to go into religion anyway, I guess
Seriously, if I somehow knew for sure the Christian God was real I would put up with all the bullshit and concede that this being knows much more than I do. But when you aren't even certain He exists in the first place, all of these kooky seemingly illogical issues certainly don't push me in the religious direction
No offense at all my man. And I abandoned it for more than just Calvinism, but that is certainly the biggest reason. The reason I'm interested in Buddhism is because of how flexible it seems to be. If something doesn't gel with you (like for me, reincarnation) just ignore it and its all fine and dandy. I've read plenty about Calvinism, as far as I'm pretty well versed with TULIP and how it works and the different views within Calvinism. But no, I've never read anything by Luther or Kierkegaard (the latter of which I've never heard of). I'm not looking for an argument FOR predestination, as I already believe thats what the Bible teaches. But this Kierkegaard didn't believe in predestination you say? Maybe I'll have to check into that. But again, it will probably be impossible for me to somehow discover some other way to interpret every passage (of which there are many) that suggest predestination.
Fucking calvinism uuuuugh. Talking with you all in this thread is making me wish I could get back to Christianity even more. Although I think it might be for the wrong reasons... I want to become a Christian again just because shit would be so much easier. I wouldn't have to be someone I'm not about my parents, I wouldn't have to constantly struggle with feeling totally meaningless, etc. Those are the wrong reasons to go into religion anyway, I guess
Seriously, if I somehow knew for sure the Christian God was real I would put up with all the bullshit and concede that this being knows much more than I do. But when you aren't even certain He exists in the first place, all of these kooky seemingly illogical issues certainly don't push me in the religious direction
1. Well, it's not just the argument for predestination, as I said. Luther wrote a thing, then Erasmus wrote a long thing about his (your) concerns, and then Luther wrote a longer thing (the book) answering those concerns about why they're, in fact, just, and then Erasmus wrote a long, long follow-up that's not that good. I may be wrong, but it sounds like you're well-versed in dogma (very important) but not so much in theology. It gives people a little breathing room to experiment, so you may find that you like it.
2. Don't tell people you're reading Kierkegaard. It's as stereotypical a teenager/college thing as Ayn Rand (except he makes, you know, compelling arguments).
3. He's also hugely influential, because he's a religious conservative who isn't orthodox. You need to read more of his work to really get it, but, basically, Kierkegaard says that we are at once helpless (until a certain point) and in control. http://sorenkierkegaard.org/sickness-unto-death.html Use that site if the stuff's too difficult. There are also many, many summaries and edited versions of his work to pick up on some of his main ideas. http://www.amazon.com/s/ref=nb_sb_n...-tree&field-keywords=kierkegaard+introduction There's Wikipedia, too, as well as Spark Notes. Oh, and ONLY use the Hong translations. I won't lie. This requires effort. However, he deals with A LOT of your concerns. Hence, why he's so stereotypically loved.
And, like I said, I don't do this as a Christian. You've done something that a lot of people don't do, but there's a 3rd step (reconciliation) before you can really settle peacefully. I just like people to test their assumptions both ways, for and against.
I'm not sure that's true for the Christian religion. Most mystic strains are grounded in history (Orthodox) or were weeded out as heresies. I think it's an important separate axis of all religions, though, that balances materialism.
There are definitely still active Christian mystic groups. It was very much frowned upon historically though- punishable by death even! But, that's not really surprising, as the mystical arm(s) of many religious organisations were openly discredited or persecuted by the main religious body.
Lately, though, Christian mysticism has gained popularity thanks to texts like The Gospel of Thomas.
There are definitely still active Christian mystic groups. It was very much frowned upon historically though- punishable by death even! But, that's not really surprising, as the mystical arm(s) of many religious organisations were openly discredited or persecuted by the main religious body.
Lately, though, Christian mysticism has gained popularity thanks to texts like The Gospel of Thomas.
That's true, but it does open up a lot of problems with Christianity itself. In a highly regulated religion like early Christianity, internal coherence was more important than accomodating mystical experiences. Your Quietists didn't stand much of a chance later. Why do you think that is? Is it just because of the theological contradiction, or do you think it has something to do with organizational strength?
The uncertainty of knowing which religion is true does not invalidate Pascal's wager. Pushing it further, you're upping your chances of winning either way by worshiping Jesus or Great JuJu or Ganesh or whatever. Your best bet on Pascal's wager is to decide on a winning Religion. How you come to that conclusion, its up to you. But its better than worshiping nothing because in the end, anything is better than 0%. Besides, if Great JuJu is really the God I should be worshiping, he did an awfully shitty job of conveying his message to humanity.
er...there's a rather obvious hole in this viewpoint. Such as, a hypothetical god becoming more offended by you worshiping the wrong god, and being ok with not worshiping any gods.
And considering the hundreds of religious sects that inevitably pop up within a given religion, does that imply that every major god does an awfully shitty job of conveying his message to humanity?
That's true, but it does open up a lot of problems with Christianity itself. In a highly regulated religion like early Christianity, internal coherence was more important than accomodating mystical experiences. Your Quietists didn't stand much of a chance later. Why do you think that is? Is it just because of the theological contradiction, or do you think it has something to do with organizational strength?
It's probably a mixture of both. The mystical "message" does differ on several key points so it's not difficult to see why it would be met with great opposition from the organised Church. In particular, stressing the role of the individual and interacting directly with the higher realms is downright sacrilegious!
The other thing is, by its very nature mysticism just doesn't lend itself to regulation and structure well- it's far too open ended and ambiguous. As a result, the mystical approach has always been marginalized.
The uncertainty of knowing which religion is true does not invalidate Pascal's wager. Pushing it further, you're upping your chances of winning either way by worshiping Jesus or Great JuJu or Ganesh or whatever. Your best bet on Pascal's wager is to decide on a winning Religion. How you come to that conclusion, its up to you. But its better than worshiping nothing because in the end, anything is better than 0%. Besides, if Great JuJu is really the God I should be worshiping, he did an awfully shitty job of conveying his message to humanity.
Wow seriously? What about the part where you waste the one life you have believing in a lie? Not only believing but practicing. Maybe you go to church. Beliefs inform your actions so they matter.
er...there's a rather obvious hole in this viewpoint. Such as, a hypothetical god becoming more offended by you worshiping the wrong god, and being ok with not worshiping any gods.
I don't what is that, but its definitely not a religion.
But I see what you're saying, which is a hypothetical god being more offended at worshiping a wrong god than not worshiping at all. How would that be fair? I fail to see why a hypothetical god punish someone who intrinsically believes in him and his existence, and reward (or punish less) someone who outright rejects his existence.
And considering the hundreds of religious sects that inevitably pop up within a given religion, does that imply that every major god does an awfully shitty job of conveying his message to humanity?
As far as sects are concerned, that's a secondary matter. Its open for interpretation. The primary concern is god relaying his message, which JuJu, retributor of the seas, has failed to do so.
Cartman86 said:
Wow seriously? What about the part where you waste the one life you have believing in a lie? Not only believing but practicing. Maybe you go to church. Beliefs inform your actions so they matter.
I don't what is that, but its definitely not a religion.
But I see what you're saying, which is a hypothetical god being more offended at worshiping a wrong god than not worshiping at all. How would that be fair? I fail to see why a hypothetical god punish someone who intrinsically believes in him and his existence, and reward (or punish less) someone who outright rejects his existence.
As far as sects are concerned, that's a secondary matter. Its open for interpretation. The primary concern is god relaying his message, which JuJu, retributor of the seas, has failed to do so.
Because even if you fail in the end, you have no one but yourself to blame. Keep in mind, we're arguing strictly inside Pascal's wager framework.
So whichever religion screams the loudest wins? Does it matter what this god has to say? Does it matter if he believes that slavery is right? Homosexuality is wrong? Shellfish? What about the very concept of hell as a means of reward and punishment?
Even if I were to decide this God is real despite my own moral values (nevermined scientific or logical reasoning) he wouldn't be worth worshipping. He would be an evil tirant.
Something I posted in the FBI thread which rather belonged here:
Jibril said:
Or how he freed slaves?
Truthfully, that is something historians taking into account historical cultural relativity, would argue was the completely norm ( even putting aside the fact that even Muslims have different sources stating different ages). Which is why we need to put things into historical context, i.e. is something a fact ? ( p.s. Former Nizar probably MSN'd you to say that, and even if he didn't, give him my salutations regardless).
What's the point of religion evolving beyond its earliest? Religions should be applicable everywhere, regardless of era or conditions. That's why they claim to be from god.
I say, judge religions by their historically documented earliest actions.
What you said just now yourself, that the norms back then were different from today, argues for my point that religions should be let to evolve and change if we want them to stay relevant today, so that they will not be judged according to our modern and more developed norms and culture. That a significant person in a major religion might have been a pedophile when judged by our modern standards is an example of why it's just a bad idea to let religions and the norms contained within stay the same no matter what happens.
Because religions simply aren't applicable everywhere, regardless of era or conditions. That's why they evolve if they wanna survive as the world in which it exist and try to spread in changes as well.
To be clear, I'm not claiming the Bible or the Quran changes; just that the particular role and meaning we derive from these texts change which is reflected in the meaning religion have for many people in civilized countries.
Something I posted in the FBI thread which rather belonged here:
What you said just now yourself, that the norms back then were different from today, argues for my point that religions should be let to evolve and change if we want them to stay relevant today, so that they will not be judged according to our modern and more developed norms and culture. That a significant person in a major religion might have been a pedophile when judged by our modern standards is an example of why it's just a bad idea to let religions and the norms contained within stay the same no matter what happens.
Because religions simply aren't applicable everywhere, regardless of era or conditions. That's why they evolve if they wanna survive as the world in which it exist and try to spread in changes as well.
To be clear, I'm not claiming the Bible or the Quran changes; just that the particular role and meaning we derive from these texts change which is reflected in the meaning religion have for many people in civilized countries.
I hear the slavery issue quite a bit, but find it odd that people think the Bible holds back cultural changes. It didn't do this even during the centuries it was written. People adapted to the culture. In other words, religion does evolve with the time. It can do this without compromising on beliefs. Slavery is an example of this and the meaning of slavery shouldn't have changed in the slightest just because it's not practiced anymore.
It's not like God was expecting people to walk around in loin cloths or even engage in war during their entire worship of him. They adapted from slaves to freeman, to warriors, to landowners, to enslavement again, to landowners again, to etc..., until we get to today. Each of those changes was a major shift in how they used to operate - all the while following God's instructions.
Slavery was not a moral issue in those times and only became one when laws regarding employment were implemented as well as the building of prisons. Otherwise, it was not unusual to have slaves for any number of reasons:
1. Wartime. You either were killed or enslaved. Certianly can't have your enemy running around plotting revenge on you.
2. To pay a debt off. No bankruptcy laws
3. Voluntary which was the case for nearly all Jewish slaves
The moral issues regarding slavery had to do with their treatment which the Mosaic Law & Christian texts outlined in detail and were much fairer than anything experienced by the surrounding cultures.
Now slavery is a moral issue because again, laws and availability make it far easier to employ than enslave. It is completely and totally unnecessary to have slaves because the infrastructure today allows for people to work, to be imprisoned, or to pay a debt through income or dismiss it through bankruptcy.
There was another religious reason why slaves were permitted, if not promoted, but I'll leave that alone for now.
So whichever religion screams the loudest wins? Does it matter what this god has to say? Does it matter if he believes that slavery is right? Homosexuality is wrong? Shellfish? What about the very concept of hell as a means of reward and punishment?
Even if I were to decide this God is real despite my own moral values (nevermined scientific or logical reasoning) he wouldn't be worth worshipping. He would be an evil tirant.
Thats why I mentioned the bolded part. I was arguing within Pascal's framework. I have no interest in convincing you which religion is right, which is wrong or whatever. That's a whole different topic.
I'm not saying big bang isn't supported, because it is. But I wish Biology teachers would stop lumping big bang with evolution when they are two completely separate subjects.
I understand that, but I mostly was responding to and wondering what you meant by statements like, " it's unfair to teach big bang in public schools as if fact (they're right on this)," and "Big Bang Theory does not belong in pre-uni curriculum in my opinion."
JGS said:
That's not a logical conlcusion at all because the assumption is wrong. What some people do does not equal what should be done.
It's not possible to interpret religious text to science anymore than it's possible to interpret history with cave drawings which is why they should stay seperate instead of trying to use one to discredit the other. Biblically speaking, miracles by definition can't be explained scientifically- at least not with the tools available. Then again, abiogenesis can't be explained either.
It is easy to know which are literal and which are symbolic because in most instances, the Bible tells you. I can't speak for other religions.
The creation story can be interpretted as literal since the Scriptures don't say otherwise & Jesus himself believed in both that account and Noah for that matter. However, the scriptures do say God measures time in different ways than people, so you can't interpret the days themselves as being literal 24 hour periods. Each creative day could be millions/billions of years old for all we know and of different lengths. When it was written, time frames did not matter to the eople reading it.
Science backs up the idea that the earh and universe are billions of years old. The Genesis account does not dispute this. However, science does not back up species jumping or life starting on it's own, which means it can't disprove the Scriptures regarding the creation accounts. It's just what someone thought was a good idea since God "logically" doesn't exist.
That's contradictory. You cannot on one hand say that it should be taken literally, while saying that it doesn't really mean what it says. The concept of billions of years changes the entire dynamics of the story. It no longer makes sense that God created the Earth first, birds before land animals, and there is no indication that God created microscopic organisms. Your entire argument rests on the conflation of two different parts of scripture; there is nothing within the creation account itself that says it means anything other than an actual day. Some ancient theologans had some inkling that the creation story couldn't be interpreted exactly as it stands, but none of them, including Jesus, had any comprehension of a 4.5 billion year old Earth and the slow evolution of species. Why should science have to make sense of things before believers stop promulgating untruths?
Lastly, science may not be able to make sense of the creative act, but it should be able to confirm the physical aspects that align the creation account. Most Christians are all too happy to tout facts when they think it supports their side, including those who make their own pseudoscience like creationism. Furthermore, there is just no possible analogy that can be made to abiogenesis here, since in my last post I stated the actual science that has been done on it so far.
Thats why I mentioned the bolded part. I was arguing within Pascal's framework. I have no interest in convincing you which religion is right, which is wrong or whatever. That's a whole different topic.
I no longer wanted to discuss pascal's wager in the logical sense. I can already see that we disagree on that aspect of it so I'm moving on to why you would morally pick the specific religion you chose.
I'm not sure what you mean by contradictory or where I'm saying what you think I am, but I'll read on.
Mgoblue201 said:
The concept of billions of years changes the entire dynamics of the story. It no longer makes sense that God created the Earth first, birds before land animals, and there is no indication that God created microscopic organisms. Your entire argument rests on the conflation of two different parts of scripture; there is nothing within the creation account itself that says it means anything other than an actual day.
I'm not sure why ones would feel a need for detail in the creation account. It was written at a time when everyone knew the account. It was written to bolster the faith of those who believe in God while taking away nothing from those who liked science too.
The people did not know about micro organisms so why would someone write about them? The Bible didn't write about a lot of thigs. So what?
I keep thinking some people think that God should have given us everything at the beginning. I'm also not sure why it matters which animal comes first considering they all happened during the same creative day.
There is nothing in the creation account that says it's a literal day. All we have is the info written later by the same writer of Genesis, plus additional scriptures. All point to the idea that God does not view his day as 24 hours. This is seen even with the death sentence of Adam & Eve. It would make no sense for the Genesis writer to talk literal days and then have Adam live for hundreds of years. The logical conclusion would be that the creative days do not equal literal days especially since the Bible explains it that way. In fact the Bible never mentions a literal day except in relation to human activities (I think). It does nothing to the story except make it more honest.
However, feel free to pick some verse and dismiss others. It happens all the time
In our day, we use the word "day" to mean more than 24 hours, are people back then really supposed to be too stupid to do the same?
Mgoblue201 said:
Some ancient theologans had some inkling that the creation story couldn't be interpreted exactly as it stands, but none of them, including Jesus, had any comprehension of a 4.5 billion year old Earth and the slow evolution of species. Why should science have to make sense of things before believers stop promulgating untruths?
Uhh, as I said, science doesn't have to. It's not even up to the job since it's out of it's bounds. There aren't any untruths that I brought up. Honestly, your argument only works if you don't beieve in God.
The account does not dispute the slow evolution process and whatnot, just species jumping as things were made per kind. Science hasn't gotten past the concept phase of that yet either.
God (& his first creation - Jesus) would naturally know how long the universe has been around. They weren't the ones writing. In fact, your argument backs up the idea that the reason the genesis account didn't say billions of years is because the writer couldn't comprehend that kind of time frame, but could comprehend that God was on a different level when measuring time.
Mgoblue201 said:
Lastly, science may not be able to make sense of the creative act, but it should be able to confirm the physical aspects that align the creation account. Most Christians are all too happy to tout facts when they think it supports their side, including those who make their own pseudoscience like creationism. Furthermore, there is just no possible analogy that can be made to abiogenesis here, since in my last post I stated the actual science that has been done on it so far.
You would have to give more examples than creationists for me to believe the great conspiracy of God believers at war with science. The reality is scientists can't make sense of their own ideas of how life got here, much less the ideas surrounding being created. Unfortunately, the marriage between real science and unsubstantiated/sci-fi science is enduring. The reality is that it will be more likely to develop warp drive than any proof that life started from nothing.
I'm not familiar with your last posts on abiogenesis, but I'm so positive there is no proof in them that I'm saying it now before looking. I will apologize of wrong, but at the moment it's still pseudoscience. It's easy to write a sentence about how life got here. If no proof is provided, I'll stick to my whacky beliefs.
I'm not sure what you mean by contradictory or where I'm saying what you think I am, but I'll read on.
I'm not sure why ones would feel a need for detail in the creation account. It was written at a time when everyone knew the account. It was written to bolster the faith of those who believe in God while taking away nothing from those who liked science too.
The people did not know about micro organisms so why would someone write about them? The Bible didn't write about a lot of thigs. So what?
I keep thinking some people think that God should have given us everything at the beginning. I'm also not sure why it matters which animal comes first considering they all happened during the same creative day.
There is nothing in the creation account that says it's a literal day. All we have is the info written later by the same writer of Genesis, plus additional scriptures. All point to the idea that God does not view his day as 24 hours. This is seen even with the death sentence of Adam & Eve. It would make no sense for the Genesis writer to talk literal days and then have Adam live for hundreds of years. The logical conclusion would be that the creative days do not equal literal days especially since the Bible explains it that way. In fact the Bible never mentions a literal day except in relation to human activities (I think). It does nothing to the story except make it more honest.
However, feel free to pick some verse and dismiss others. It happens all the time
In our day, we use the word "day" to mean more than 24 hours, are people back then really supposed to be too stupid to do the same?
Uhh, as I said, science doesn't have to. It's not even up to the job since it's out of it's bounds. There aren't any untruths that I brought up. Honestly, your argument only works if you don't beieve in God.
The account does not dispute the slow evolution process and whatnot, just species jumping as things were made per kind. Science hasn't gotten past the concept phase of that yet either.
God (& his first creation - Jesus) would naturally know how long the universe has been around. They weren't the ones writing. In fact, your argument backs up the idea that the reason the genesis account didn't say billions of years is because the writer couldn't comprehend that kind of time frame, but could comprehend that God was on a different level when measuring time.
You would have to give more examples than creationists for me to believe the great conspiracy of God believers at war with science. The reality is scientists can't make sense of their own ideas of how life got here, much less the ideas surrounding being created. Unfortunately, the marriage between real science and unsubstantiated/sci-fi science is enduring. The reality is that it will be more likely to develop warp drive than any proof that life started from nothing.
I'm not familiar with your last posts on abiogenesis, but I'm so positive there is no proof in them that I'm saying it now before looking. I will apologize of wrong, but at the moment it's still pseudoscience. It's easy to write a sentence about how life got here. If no proof is provided, I'll stick to my whacky beliefs.
So because we don't know how abiogensis started its better to insert God? If we don't know the answer why complicate the matter with some supernatural being? I can almost respect the argument that maybe life started by some sort of god like being (would require a good definition), but to then go and claim to know the mind of the creator takes a fairly big leap. I'm okay with that but don't try to justify this belief with logic or science. Leave it as faith.
EZLink, I can sympathize with your existential dilemma. Believe you me, I've had problems with the same line of thinking, we're being digested by an amoral universe, etc., etc.
Believe it or not, this is the most helpful thing I've ever read on the subject.
Yeah, we have a short amount of time, and there's no meaning in the universe.
Except that which we create ourselves! Woo!
I'm not making light. You have to live for what you've got in front of you, the here, the now. Make plans for the future, but not for the afterlife.
...
This was a couple of pages back, but I wasn't here at the time, so I'm responding now.
DeusTrinitas said:
When reading difficult passages such as this one, it is important to keep in mind that God is always just in whatever he does and that no human is deserving of anything good from him. Where we get into trouble regarding the "fairness" of God is that our understanding of fairness is based entirely on merit. In other words, the human standard of fairness depends entirely on what is supposedly deserved. Many times we treat God as though he owes us salvation.
When we look at what the Bible says humans deserve, however, the answer is bleak: death. Scripture makes clear that all humans are deserving of death because of their sin, but God, in his grace, has made a way for salvation and that this salvation is open to all. "But wait," you may say. "This passage indicates that God chooses some, but not others." Yes, but Scripture also says that Jesus died for the sins of the whole world and that God's salvation is freely available to all who believe. So, how does one reconcile that? I don't know and that has been a debate within the church for a long, long time.
The important thing to remember for me is that God didn't have to save anyone and that everyone has sinned and fallen short of the glory of God (Romans 3:23). How he has eternally predestined some to salvation and yet still holds human beings responsible for their actions, including the decision to accept or reject him, is a divine mystery that won't ever be solved.
I've wondered this for a long time. Most people, I think, don't really spend a lot of time thinking about the ramifications of their belief, so you can't really talk to them about the moral intricacies without the eyes glazing over. Deus, though, you've clearly thought this through quite a bit, and done research and you know your stuff.
I'm not going to ask you to prove this. You accept the Bible as justification for itself, so from a personal standpoint, it's true because you know it to be true. I'm not going to try to convince you otherwise, but I am honestly curious as to the answer of how God's behavior is just.
I'm hoping for something other than "because he's God", obviously.
How is it just to set up a system where there is literally no way to live up to the expectations given? Anyone who has sinned in their heart has sinned against God, and accusations of thoughtcrime aside, that is not fair.
For example, Matthew 5:28 says whoever looks at a woman with lust has already committed adultery with her in his heart. Even if that made the slightest amount of sense, who designed the human brain? Who gave males the evolutionary drive to mate with females, so that the species could survive? God did. So how dare he call natural desire a sin? He put it there!
Another example. Job. Chapters 38-42. Homeboy gets put through hell, and when he asks God what that was all about, God says "Where were you when I made the Earth?" He goes on for a while
Job answers "I am not worthy!"
I would have answered something like "I didn't exist yet. Now why the fuck did you kill my family?"
To settle a bet with Satan!
You can argue that God is beyond mortal understanding, and so we don't have to understand the "why" behind His actions, but I won't listen, because that argument is close to meaningless, logically. If it weren't part of the definition that God is the source of justice in the world, how can you possibly think that His actions were just?
Because abiogenesis isn't possible and no one has come up with a better solution (Aliens seeding the universe, organic element, etc...), I choose to believe we are created which has better odds than abiogenesis of actually being possible.
Cartman86 said:
If we don't know the answer why complicate the matter with some supernatural being?
If we don't know the answer, why insult science by inserting fake science that is contrary to all we know about how life starts? Again, this is just a matter of asking a question on the basis of not believing a possibility in the first place.
Cartman86 said:
I can almost respect the argument that maybe life started by some sort of god like being (would require a good definition), but to then go and claim to know the mind of the creator takes a fairly big leap. I'm okay with that but don't try to justify this belief with logic or science. Leave it as faith.
I agree with this to an extent. In fact, it's not possible to know more than something that is said to be superior to you. However, all that we need to know abut God is written down. It's just a matter of:
- Looking for it
- Deciding whether you like what you see
- Accepting or rejecting it
That's what the entire Bible is about- people choosing whether they like God or not and basing their life around that. It works quite well as a line in the sand.
However, I strongly disagree with the idea that abiogenesis is somehow more scientific than creation. That's crazy talk when it has much less backing it up. I'll choose to accept science and religious faith together without controversy thank you very much.
