Questioning the faith

[Lord Mord]

Crazydog7,

God didn't explain prayer in Evan Almighty Morgan Freeman did.

Funny. It sure looked like God, dinnit? :)

[Prince Who Was Promised]

My behavior in this example is not at issue. My point is: what does religious thinking foster in the way of practical on-the-ground results? I have a hard time believing that your genuine response in this circumstance would be, "Oop! Nope! Gotta be hands-off on this one, because I don't want to get in the way of what's holy. Murder? Pffft. Murder nothing -- it's worship!"

Am I wrong to be so incredulous?

Well, I doubt anyone would want to kill their mother, but if God came to you like in the Abraham/Isaac story and told you to kill your mother, your obligations to your earthly mother can't trump the obligations to your Creator.

You've just made up that rule. I thought the whole point was that God is beyond our rules, because we could never possibly understand him. And my point is that a person who will judge his religion, judge his god by that god's behavior, would, if they knew that God was arbitrarily sending people to hell, probably change faiths or even adopt atheism.

Judging from the explanations that Christians typically give for not questioning their god, I have to assume that even if they knew it was actually all arbitrary and the injunctions to behave this way or that were basically lies, would continue to worship God anyway. After all, he's the omniscient, omnipotent, omnipresent one who made everything and whose ways are beyond questioning.

Well, first off, if one found out God was sending people to Hell for nothing, converting to atheism would change a thing.

Second, it seems you don't like the idea of not being able to question God. My answer is simple: sure, you CAN question Him, but what right do you have? Your limited knowledge of how your single thread fits into the grand tapestry vs. that of the Weaver of said tapestry? It's like an ant debating a full grown human.

I admire your guilelessness and simplicity here. I'm sure, however, that you can appreciate that your personal convictions, as they form not in the least any bonds on God's actual behavior, nor can they represent any actual knowledge of his character, which is unknowable, can hardly be enough to convince me of His good intentions. If I died a good Christian right now, you wouldn't know what happened to me, and if I were sent to hell, your convictions would be scarcely any comfort there.

Your basis for this argument is "What if God's lying?"

Again, a God with the three omnis would have to lie to decieve. He's all-powerful, He doesn't have to decieve you. Based on Biblical actions, it's logical to assume God lying isn't the case.

But that's my point. You've said that God is not bound by logic. If he were, then we would have to hold him accountable for all sin, which means that holding him accountable is a necessary condition of his being logical. If he's not accountable, then he's not logical, and if he's not logical, then what do we really know about this person? Nothing. We can't trust any of our sensory observations, nor history, nor promises, nor anything.

No, I said God is not bound by our understanding. God did not create sin, He created the possibility of sin. Just because He's not responsible for our mess-ups doesn't mean He's not logical. Haven't you read Genesis? God laid down the laws, mankind broke it.

[Errant Bard]

Second, it seems you don't like the idea of not being able to question God. My answer is simple: sure, you CAN question Him, but what right do you have? Your limited knowledge of how your single thread fits into the grand tapestry vs. that of the Weaver of said tapestry?It's like an ant debating a full grown human.

Humans don't communicate with ants, don't fuck them so the ants have some messiah guy and are not all-powerful so they can actually give ants god-like comprehension. This is where all your comparisons fail: every one of them involves a limited "superior" being.

The right, we have it, we exercise it. God is welcome to answer back if he doesn't like it. If he's so above us as to be not understandable, then belief or no belief is the exact same thing. You seem fond of that ant example, so : that an ant believes in man or not is irrelevant to both man and ant. Deism is cool in my book: an incomprehensible force lurks away from our perception and is what makes life, the universe and everything what it is, there's no link between that not-understandable divine force, and some guy who can appear to people, discuss with them, fuck virgins* and lay down laws for them (like, don't fuck girls out of marriage).

(*) in most pantheons

[Guest Other-in-law]

Well, I doubt anyone would want to kill their mother, but if God came to you like in the Abraham/Isaac story and told you to kill your mother, your obligations to your earthly mother can't trump the obligations to your Creator.

My earthly mother is a real person who's existence is incontrovertible, and for whom I have ample reason to feel love and gratitude to. Intangible and hypothetical deities simply do not trump her rights.

Honestly, this isn't even a hypothetical situation. I've linked this in the past, but here again is a local story of a young man who brutally murdered his mother because he believed God ordered him to. Do you endorse his actions? You seem to be thoroughly willing to endorse them in principle. If you wish to differentiate between a genuine command from God from mere voices in the head of a mentally disturbed person how do you tell the difference? Seriously, how?

Well, first off, if one found out God was sending people to Hell for nothing, converting to atheism would change a thing.

I'm guessing you meant to say "wouldn't" rather than "would". If so, we can compare to the Warsaw ghetto uprising against the Nazis; the resistance was utterly crushed in the end, but does that mean it was pointless? They say virtue is it's own reward; isn't taking a stand against injustice and tyranny a virtuous act?

Second, it seems you don't like the idea of not being able to question God. My answer is simple: sure, you CAN question Him, but what right do you have? Your limited knowledge of how your single thread fits into the grand tapestry vs. that of the Weaver of said tapestry? It's like an ant debating a full grown human.

The biggest difference is that full grown humans actually and demonstrably exist.

As for rights, it's worth considering what a right is. It's not the same as ability, for people are able to commit all manner of crimes. In my view, a right is an action that one may take with the expectation that one will not be punished for doing so by the legal authorities. But then, sometimes those authorities are wicked and unjust and will punish people for, or prevent them from doing, things that we feel they are entitled to. In such cases, we say that their rights have been violated. Therefore it's not just that a right is something that the authorities permit, it's that we view the authorities themselves as having the right to forbid us to perform that particular act . This in turn requires us to be able to judge their legitimacy.

To put it more simply, our right to question any so-called gods may or may not be granted by the gods themselves; it's irrelevant to me. The important thing is that it's a right that we grant to ourselves.

Again, a God with the three omnis would have to lie to decieve. He's all-powerful, He doesn't have to decieve you. Based on Biblical actions, it's logical to assume God lying isn't the case.

JUDGES 20:

But the Benjamites would not listen to their fellow Israelites. 14From their towns they came together at Gibeah to fight against the Israelites. 15At once the Benjamites mobilized twenty-six thousand swordsmen from their towns, in addition to seven hundred chosen men from those living in Gibeah. 16Among all these soldiers there were seven hundred chosen men who were left-handed, each of whom could sling a stone at a hair and not miss.

17Israel, apart from Benjamin, mustered four hundred thousand swordsmen, all of them fighting men.

18The Israelites went up to Bethelb and inquired of God. They said, “Who of us shall go first to fight against the Benjamites?”

The Lord replied, “Judah shall go first.”

19The next morning the Israelites got up and pitched camp near Gibeah. 20The men of Israel went out to fight the Benjamites and took up battle positions against them at Gibeah. 21The Benjamites came out of Gibeah and cut down twenty-two thousand Israelites on the battlefield that day. 22But the men of Israel encouraged one another and again took up their positions where they had stationed themselves the first day. 23The Israelites went up and wept before the Lord until evening, and they inquired of the Lord. They said, “Shall we go up again to battle against the Benjamites, our brothers?”

The Lord answered, “Go up against them.”

24Then the Israelites drew near to Benjamin the second day. 25This time, when the Benjamites came out from Gibeah to oppose them, they cut down another eighteen thousand Israelites, all of them armed with swords.

26Then the Israelites, all the people, went up to Bethel, and there they sat weeping before the Lord. They fasted that day until evening and presented burnt offerings and fellowship offeringsc to the Lord. 27And the Israelites inquired of the Lord. (In those days the ark of the covenant of God was there, 28with Phinehas son of Eleazar, the son of Aaron, ministering before it.) They asked, “Shall we go up again to battle with Benjamin our brother, or not?”

The Lord responded, “Go, for tomorrow I will give them into your hands.”

Now I'm sure that MFC and tSS can weigh in with impressive interpretations on why the biblical god isn't being deceptive in this story, but at the very least he wasn't being very forthright when he sent them to their dooms the first two times. If a friend of yours persuaded you to undertake some seemingly risky endeavor which resulted in catastrophe...twice...before finally saying well, this time it will really work, you might begin to consider them a bit untrustworthy. But if they omnipotent, it would mean they were actually were withholding the means for success from you, and saying "NOW, I'll give you victory" is as good as an admission to that effect.

[Lord Mord]

PWWP,

Well, I doubt anyone would want to kill their mother, but if God came to you like in the Abraham/Isaac story and told you to kill your mother, your obligations to your earthly mother can't trump the obligations to your Creator.

I'm a little taken aback by the fact that you won't own any responsibility in the friendship which my hypothetical supposes. I've got the woman who raised me and loved me my whole life by the hair, right? I'm holding a knife to her neck and she's pleading with me as strenuously as she dare so not to get cut. You're standing right there.

Of course your initial instinct is to say, "God, no, Roger! Don't do it! She loves you dearly, she doesn't deserve it! Why are you even doing this? What can have possessed you?"

I tell you, "God orders it done!"

Given what you've said to date, I don't see how you have any choice but to dust off your hands and say, "Well, I tried. But I can't stand in God's way." And then walk out and leave my mother to her fate.

I have a hard time believing that is actually how you would behave, but you haven't committed yourself one way or the other. I admit it's a little disappointing.

Well, first off, if one found out God was sending people to Hell for nothing, converting to atheism would[n't] change a thing.

Edit in brackets mine.

It may not change a thing, but that's not the point. The point is, how can I think to worship something that'd put me in hell on a whim? I mean, that's what the conversation is about, yeah? To worship or not to worship.

If I can't pin God down to certain rules I can believe in as good in of themselves, then he doesn't get one nod, not one word of prayer from me. If God exists and is benevolent, he should revel in our choice to expect him to be good -- so that when we worship him it is not merely on some fearful hope that he will be good, but a knowledge that he is. That is, of course, he would revel if logic were allowed to apply to him.

Second, it seems you don't like the idea of not being able to question God. My answer is simple: sure, you CAN question Him, but what right do you have? Your limited knowledge of how your single thread fits into the grand tapestry vs. that of the Weaver of said tapestry? It's like an ant debating a full grown human.

Not quite. Because God is able to understand the human, in a way the human cannot understand the ant. God knew that the human was going to ask that exact question, with that exact meaning behind it, at that exact moment.

If I could communicate with the ant, I'd have no personal problem telling him everything I knew. If I were omni-cubed, then I'd have plenty of time for it, no rush. Of course, if I were omni-cubed, I might just as easily have given the ant understanding ahead of time, so that he wouldn't have to ask.

No, I said God is not bound by our understanding. God did not create sin, He created the possibility of sin. Just because He's not responsible for our mess-ups doesn't mean He's not logical. Haven't you read Genesis? God laid down the laws, mankind broke it.

I think this is a distinction without a difference.

The logic you're describing that is supposed to limit God's behavior, it's a logic that you understand, right? And it's a logic that you expect me to be able to understand, too? So, what's the difference between limiting God by logic that is itself limited by what you and I understand, versus limiting God by our understanding?

[Prince Who Was Promised]

If he's so above us as to be not understandable, then belief or no belief is the exact same thing.

Huh?

You seem fond of that ant example, so : that an ant believes in man or not is irrelevant to both man and ant. Deism is cool in my book: an incomprehensible force lurks away from our perception and is what makes life, the universe and everything what it is, there's no link between that not-understandable divine force, and some guy who can appear to people, discuss with them, fuck virgins* and lay down laws for them (like, don't fuck girls out of marriage).

(*) in most pantheons

I think you're taking the ant/human thing a bit too literal. It's not an exact comparison, but a way of saying that just like the ant doesn't understand humans, humans don't understand God.

--------

My earthly mother is a real person who's existence is incontrovertible, and for whom I have ample reason to feel love and gratitude to. Intangible and hypothetical deities simply do not trump her rights.

Honestly, this isn't even a hypothetical situation. I've linked this in the past, but here again is a local story of a young man who brutally murdered his mother because he believed God ordered him to. Do you endorse his actions? You seem to be thoroughly willing to endorse them in principle. If you wish to differentiate between a genuine command from God from mere voices in the head of a mentally disturbed person how do you tell the difference? Seriously, how?

Do I agree with what the guy did? Depends on whether or not God actually told him to. How do you tell the difference? Well, seeing as what goes on in his mind is different than ours, I don't know.

I'm guessing you meant to say "wouldn't" rather than "would". If so, we can compare to the Warsaw ghetto uprising against the Nazis; the resistance was utterly crushed in the end, but does that mean it was pointless? They say virtue is it's own reward; isn't taking a stand against injustice and tyranny a virtuous act?

Yes, I meant wouldn't, sorry. The Warsaw ghetto uprising against the Nazis is a flimsy comparison for humans against God. Nazis could be (and were) defeated. God can't.

As for rights, it's worth considering what a right is. It's not the same as ability, for people are able to commit all manner of crimes. In my view, a right is an action that one may take with the expectation that one will not be punished for doing so by the legal authorities. But then, sometimes those authorities are wicked and unjust and will punish people for, or prevent them from doing, things that we feel they are entitled to. In such cases, we say that their rights have been violated. Therefore it's not just that a right is something that the authorities permit, it's that we view the authorities themselves as having the right to forbid us to perform that particular act . This in turn requires us to be able to judge their legitimacy.

So the government would be wicked for not letting you do things you think you should be able to? If we knew we were supposed to be allowed these things, then it'd be another story. If it's based only on what we think we're entitiled to, than why does what you think overrule what the government thinks?

To put it more simply, our right to question any so-called gods may or may not be granted by the gods themselves; it's irrelevant to me. The important thing is that it's a right that we grant to ourselves.

If you grant yourselves the right, then you grant yourself the right. You can question or judge God, but in what court would you have Him tried, and by what jury? Yours? You have no power over Him. Is there something higher than God that can pass the sentence? No? Then I guess you can question God, but it does you no good, so I guess you're stuck.

Now I'm sure that MFC and tSS can weigh in with impressive interpretations on why the biblical god isn't being deceptive in this story, but at the very least he wasn't being very forthright when he sent them to their dooms the first two times. If a friend of yours persuaded you to undertake some seemingly risky endeavor which resulted in catastrophe...twice...before finally saying well, this time it will really work, you might begin to consider them a bit untrustworthy. But if they omnipotent, it would mean they were actually were withholding the means for success from you, and saying "NOW, I'll give you victory" is as good as an admission to that effect.

I'd have to say the last answer you gave. As to why that was the case, I don't know.

--------

I'm a little taken aback by the fact that you won't own any responsibility in the friendship which my hypothetical supposes. I've got the woman who raised me and loved me my whole life by the hair, right? I'm holding a knife to her neck and she's pleading with me as strenuously as she dare so not to get cut. You're standing right there.

Of course your initial instinct is to say, "God, no, Roger! Don't do it! She loves you dearly, she doesn't deserve it! Why are you even doing this? What [could] have possessed you?"

I tell you, "God orders it done!"

Given what you've said to date, I don't see how you have any choice but to dust off your hands and say, "Well, I tried. But I can't stand in God's way." And then walk out and leave my mother to her fate.

I have a hard time believing that is actually how you would behave, but you haven't committed yourself one way or the other. I admit it's a little disappointing.

I edited it for you in the brackets.

If God orders something done, then I honestly don't think I should get in His way. But in the scenario you presented, it depends on whether or not I believe you. If I were to actually walk into the room with you about to kill your mother, I'd stop you, because I likely wouldn't believe you.

If God tells ME, however, then I would have faith He had a reason (whether it be testing me or something else) for doing it.

Edit in brackets mine.

Thanks.

It may not change a thing, but that's not the point. The point is, how can I think to worship something that'd put me in hell on a whim? I mean, that's what the conversation is about, yeah? To worship or not to worship.

If I found out God was sending believer and non-believer alike to Hell, no I wouldn't worship Him, because He lied about who He was so the God I was worshiping wasn't Him anyways. But, again, it wouldn't make a difference because either way you'd get sent to Hell, so there's no reason for worship.

If I can't pin God down to certain rules I can believe in as good in of themselves, then he doesn't get one nod, not one word of prayer from me. If God exists and is benevolent, he should revel in our choice to expect him to be good -- so that when we worship him it is not merely on some fearful hope that he will be good, but a knowledge that he is. That is, of course, he would revel if logic were allowed to apply to him.

Logic can be applied to God in some situations. It's when we deem Him unreal because it doesn't make sense to us that the problem arises.

And, if I may ask, what kind of God would sacrifice Himself because of an endless list of mistakes we made?

Not quite. Because God is able to understand the human, in a way the human cannot understand the ant. God knew that the human was going to ask that exact question, with that exact meaning behind it, at that exact moment.

I think you're taking it a bit too literal. The ant can't understand us, just like we can't understand God. God can understand us, but that's not the point.

If I could communicate with the ant, I'd have no personal problem telling him everything I knew. If I were omni-cubed, then I'd have plenty of time for it, no rush. Of course, if I were omni-cubed, I might just as easily have given the ant understanding ahead of time, so that he wouldn't have to ask.

Nice to know what you would do if you were omni-cubed and talked to ants.

I think this is a distinction without a difference.

The logic you're describing that is supposed to limit God's behavior, it's a logic that you understand, right? And it's a logic that you expect me to be able to understand, too? So, what's the difference between limiting God by logic that is itself limited by what you and I understand, versus limiting God by our understanding?

It's not just my understanding. It's what the Bible says. It clearly says that we sinned, God didn't. Meaning He's not responsible for our mess-ups.

[MinDonner]

It's not just my understanding. It's what the Bible says. It clearly says that we sinned, God didn't. Meaning He's not responsible for our mess-ups.

That's pretty good. In my autobiography* it says that actually it was you that robbed that bank, not me. I guess I'm in the clear. The police will be round at yours shortly. :smoking:

*available from all good bookshops

[Errant Bard]

I think you're taking the ant/human thing a bit too literal. It's not an exact comparison, but a way of saying that just like the ant doesn't understand humans, humans don't understand God.

No, it's a cop out, because all the conclusions you reach from that metaphor hang from the fact humans are not all powerful and not benevolent

In addition, explain to me how you reconcile those two sentences:

just like the ant doesn't understand humans, humans don't understand God.

[...]

It's not just my understanding. It's what the Bible says. It clearly says that we sinned, God didn't. Meaning He's not responsible for our mess-ups.

Considering the bible was written by humans.

It's lottery with what humans understand? Or does God chooses what we understand or not for kick and giggles? What's with the responsibility opt-out, is God all-powerful or not? Additionally, do you mean that he's only responsible for the good stuff, or that he's responsible for nothing?

[Prince Who Was Promised]

It's lottery with what humans understand? Or does God chooses what we understand or not for kick and giggles? What's with the responsibility opt-out, is God all-powerful or not? Additionally, do you mean that he's only responsible for the good stuff, or that he's responsible for nothing?

It's believed that the Bible was divinely inspired. To answer your question, God chooses what to reveal to us and what not to.

And to answer the second question...well, I've answered it before. God created mankind good, but they chose sin.

[TerraPrime]

It's believed that the Bible was divinely inspired.

It is believed by the faithful that the Bible is divinely inspired, because if it were not, then humans would be without any standardized guidance from this alleged creator and arbiter of morality on how to behave and what to do. In other words, the believes believe because to do otherwise will leave them lost and bewildered.

To answer your question, God chooses what to reveal to us and what not to.

And to answer the second question...well, I've answered it before. God created mankind good, but they chose sin.

Stock answers that are neither in any way intellectually satisfying, nor do they address the central issue at hand concerning why humans should accept this particular narrative offered by this God. It's the equivalent to answering the question "why is the sky blue?" with "because it is not any other color."

[the silent speaker]

Stock answers that are neither in any way intellectually satisfying, nor do they address the central issue at hand concerning why humans should accept this particular narrative offered by this God. It's the equivalent to answering the question "why is the sky blue?" with "because it is not any other color."

They may not be intellectually satisfying, but there's a reason they're always in stock.

As to the Gibeah incident: what makes you think everybody else was spotless white?

Would I let you kill your mother? That depends on what grounds I had for believing God actually told you to. In your case, I would almost certainly default to the asusmption that you are simply nuts. If you had a prior track record of proven prophecy that had come true, that might change matters.

[Guest Other-in-law]

As to the Gibeah incident: what makes you think everybody else was spotless white?

I don't need to. The issue isn't whether the Israelites deserved to be slaughtered, it's whether or not this God character is deceptive or not. If someone asks your advice and you deliberately tell them to do something that leads to their destruction, saying "I did that because I don't like them" doesn't get you off the hook for being misleading.

[Lord Mord]

PWWP,

I edited it for you in the brackets.

Thanks.

If God orders something done, then I honestly don't think I should get in His way. But in the scenario you presented, it depends on whether or not I believe you. If I were to actually walk into the room with you about to kill your mother, I'd stop you, because I likely wouldn't believe you.

If God tells ME, however, then I would have faith He had a reason (whether it be testing me or something else) for doing it.

Okay, so now God, for whatever reason, doesn't tell you to interfere, but then he also hasn't told you to not interfere.

Don't you find that ... a little calloused?

If I found out God was sending believer and non-believer alike to Hell, no I wouldn't worship Him, because He lied about who He was so the God I was worshiping wasn't Him anyways. But, again, it wouldn't make a difference because either way you'd get sent to Hell, so there's no reason for worship.

For all you know, though, that is exactly what is happening. You don't think that someone who gets your obedience should have to demonstrate their worth -- when they clearly could do so?

I mean, it's not like you're asking for the sun. It's not like you don't believe. It's just saying, well, since the proof is so easy and it's right to hand, what could possibly possess you to not prove yourself? I mean, if when I ask you give me a lot of resistance ... then what am I supposed to think?

Logic can be applied to God in some situations. It's when we deem Him unreal because it doesn't make sense to us that the problem arises.

And, if I may ask, what kind of God would sacrifice Himself because of an endless list of mistakes we made?

I see. So, when logic facilitates the point of view adherents have, then logic is okay. But whoop! As soon as logic contradicts your theory of God, then God isn't really bound by our understanding and it doesn't apply.

I mean, I'm cool with either:

a) logic doesn't apply at all, in which case we know nothing about God's true nature and it's all taken on bare, inexplicable faith

or else

b) logic applies absolutely and, if God exists as described, then we will have to amend our understanding of some of his descriptors

But I find it hard to believe that you find it open or honest to cherry-pick logic for what suits the preconceptions of your faith.

I think the point about God's sacrifice falls under heading (a). Let me be clear: it hardly means that the sacrifice isn't real, or that God isn't real. It's simply a matter where reality and rationality are unimportant relative to the articles of faith. Not only is it fine, but insofar as your faith is a part of what keeps an adherent strong and generous and full of love, then it can be fantastic.

I have found that I prefer logic.

I think you're taking it a bit too literal. The ant can't understand us, just like we can't understand God. God can understand us, but that's not the point.

The metaphor presented is problematic, then. I don't see how the relationship between a man to an ant is at all like the relationship between God and a man. The power differential between what God may exert over a man and what a man may exert over an ant renders a superlative like "astronomically great" anemic.

It's not just my understanding. It's what the Bible says. It clearly says that we sinned, God didn't. Meaning He's not responsible for our mess-ups.

That may be what the Bible explicitly says, but the logic of what it literally means to be omni-cubed makes that impossible. He can either be responsible for what we've done, or else he's not omni-everything, as it is claimed. You can't have it both ways, except by faith.

[Lord Mord]

the silent speaker,

Would I let you kill your mother? That depends on what grounds I had for believing God actually told you to. In your case, I would almost certainly default to the asusmption that you are simply nuts. If you had a prior track record of proven prophecy that had come true, that might change matters.

I don't see how it's possible you would stop me. It's not your place to question God, right? How do you know where God is going to choose to speak or act?

Suppose you did interfere. And now my pastor -- who happens also to be your pastor -- screams down at you. "HOW DARE YOU?!" he thunders. "That was a holy mission and now it's forever ruined!"

You might say, "Well, it didn't look like a holy mission."

"And how would YOU, an ant, know what a holy mission looks like?"

You might say, "Well, why didn't you tell me it was a holy mission ahead of time?"

"And why should I? You were told it was a holy mission by our humble brother! Do you not believe the word of God when you hear it?"

And then your pastor goes on to say:

"Until you completely repent and are prepared to take God at his word in all things from now on, you are living in sin and bound for hell."

Now, you're stuck. You can change pastors, but that's just abandoning the word of God when it gets a little too tough for you. Or else you can agree to the pastor's proposition, but then aren't you betraying your own conscience?

[Prince Who Was Promised]

Okay, so now God, for whatever reason, doesn't tell you to interfere, but then he also hasn't told you to not interfere.

Don't you find that ... a little calloused?

Well seeing as Jesus was supposed to be God's last prophet-figure, I'd likely stop you from killing her and think you're nutts. As Silent Speaker said. Yeah, I know, I'm bouncing off of his words, but they fit what I'm thinking.

For all you know, though, that is exactly what is happening. You don't think that someone who gets your obedience should have to demonstrate their worth -- when they clearly could do so?

I have faith in God that He's not lying.

I mean, it's not like you're asking for the sun. It's not like you don't believe. It's just saying, well, since the proof is so easy and it's right to hand, what could possibly possess you to not prove yourself? I mean, if when I ask you give me a lot of resistance ... then what am I supposed to think?

Belief is supposed to come from faith, not always what you can see.

I see. So, when logic facilitates the point of view adherents have, then logic is okay. But whoop! As soon as logic contradicts your theory of God, then God isn't really bound by our understanding and it doesn't apply.

God has revealed some things to us, and not revealed others. While the peices of the puzzle revealed are logical, we can't call the peices not revealed not logical because...well...they haven't been revealed.

I think the point about God's sacrifice falls under heading (a). Let me be clear: it hardly means that the sacrifice isn't real, or that God isn't real. It's simply a matter where reality and rationality are unimportant relative to the articles of faith. Not only is it fine, but insofar as your faith is a part of what keeps an adherent strong and generous and full of love, then it can be fantastic.

I have found that I prefer logic.

Wait, how is God's sacrifice not logical?

The metaphor presented is problematic, then. I don't see how the relationship between a man to an ant is at all like the relationship between God and a man. The power differential between what God may exert over a man and what a man may exert over an ant renders a superlative like "astronomically great" anemic.

My point was to say that God is beyond our understanding, not an exact comparison.

That may be what the Bible explicitly says, but the logic of what it literally means to be omni-cubed makes that impossible. He can either be responsible for what we've done, or else he's not omni-everything, as it is claimed. You can't have it both ways, except by faith.

How? God let Adam and Eve chose without Him interrupting, so now He's responsible for their choice?

[Prince Who Was Promised]

Now, you're stuck. You can change pastors, but that's just abandoning the word of God when it gets a little too tough for you. Or else you can agree to the pastor's proposition, but then aren't you betraying your own conscience?

Stuck?? Just say "Oh, ok, sorry God" and not go to Hell. Not exactly hard to answer.

[Lord Mord]

PWWP,

Belief is supposed to come from faith, not always what you can see.

I'm not sure I follow your semantics. Suffice to say, I think that faith is a highly specific subset of belief, which is to say a person can believe without faith, cannot have faith without belief, and in theory could believe in nothing at all, in which case they also have faith in nothing.

Belief is simply what one accepts as true, while faith is specifically those beliefs one holds which one will not permit to be disproved, or which in of themselves defy disproof. My beliefs certainly could be disproved, but to my knowledge none which I presently hold have been. Your belief in God, particularly by your own descriptions of God's nature, defy disproof -- there's nothing anyone could summon that would overcome your belief. It's faith.

God has revealed some things to us, and not revealed others. While the peices of the puzzle revealed are logical, we can't call the peices not revealed not logical because...well...they haven't been revealed.

I can at least call what he has revealed not logical, though, yes? Right now, that's all I'm claiming.

Wait, how is God's sacrifice not logical?

What is a sacrifice? It's the loss, apparently permanent, of something profound. It is painful, and it is a choice made under extremis. A being of God's infinite power is never under extremis.

My point was to say that God is beyond our understanding, not an exact comparison.

Well, I may have been a little strict. I assumed that you were trying to say that, in the same way that a man couldn't, if he tried, make his words, let alone his values, understood by an ant, God is similarly limited.

How? God let Adam and Eve chose without Him interrupting, so now He's responsible for their choice?

You've got it. Or at least most of it. You let out the fact that God made them and made their environment in exactly such a way that he knew what choice they were going to make. Then he let them make it without interrupting. How is he not responsible?

I may as well scream at my shoe horn for disobeying me, only at least I didn't make my shoe horn out of nothing and in its finest detail as only an infinite being can see.

[Lord Mord]

PWWP,

Stuck?? Just say "Oh, ok, sorry God" and not go to Hell. Not exactly hard to answer.

The only difficulty there is: is your apology sincere? It seems to me that if it is, then the next time some relative stranger is holding his mother by the throat and threatening her life with a knife, and tells you he's got to kill her because God told him -- then you'd have to let him go through with it.

If you stuck to your humane convictions and once again interfered, I would have to say that's willful disobedience to what you had previously promised your pastor, that you were sorry.

[Prince Who Was Promised]

I'm not sure I follow your semantics. Suffice to say, I think that faith is a highly specific subset of belief, which is to say a person can believe without faith, cannot have faith without belief, and in theory could believe in nothing at all, in which case they also have faith in nothing.

Belief is simply what one accepts as true, while faith is specifically those beliefs one holds which one will not permit to be disproved, or which in of themselves defy disproof. My beliefs certainly could be disproved, but to my knowledge none which I presently hold have been. Your belief in God, particularly by your own descriptions of God's nature, defy disproof -- there's nothing anyone could summon that would overcome your belief. It's faith.

I have faith in my beliefs. Since I cannot see God, I have faith that He exists and so on. That's what I was trying to say. Working on this and hw at the same time didn't help.

What is a sacrifice? It's the loss, apparently permanent, of something profound. It is painful, and it is a choice made under extremis. A being of God's infinite power is never under extremis.

MFC had a great post about this on the other thread, but I lack his knowledge and detail on the subject. Suffice it to say that the Israelites sacrificed animals to help attone for their sins. It was the spilling of the blood that was important. So when Jesus laid down his life on earth, he spilt his own blood to attone for the sins of man. So, again, it was the blood that was important.

You've got it. Or at least most of it. You let out the fact that God made them and made their environment in exactly such a way that he knew what choice they were going to make. Then he let them make it without interrupting. How is he not responsible?

I may as well scream at my shoe horn for disobeying me, only at least I didn't make my shoe horn out of nothing and in its finest detail as only an infinite being can see.

Because if God interfered He would have interfered with their free will. Yes, God set up their enviornment, but they weren't going to eat the fruit until the Serpent came and tempted them. Picture a man at a crossroads, with God on one path and the Serpent on the other. That, in a way, was their situation.

God didn't interefere with their free will, but rather gave them a choice. He knew the result of the choice, which is why he already had Jesus planned down the road.

[Prince Who Was Promised]

The only difficulty there is: is your apology sincere? It seems to me that if it is, then the next time some relative stranger is holding his mother by the throat and threatening her life with a knife, and tells you he's got to kill her because God told him -- then you'd have to let him go through with it.

If you stuck to your humane convictions and once again interfered, I would have to say that's willful disobedience to what you had previously promised your pastor, that you were sorry.

Ah, I see the issue. It would be sincere, because I sincerely don't want to go to Hell ;)

Just curious, what would you do?