Questioning the faith

[Lord Mord]

PWWP,

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.

Understood. I've got ... heh ... personal issues of my own I'm having to battle just at present. No worries :)

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.

Okay, well, if we're going with a different definition of the word sacrifice, meaning only that some blood is being spilled, then, the sacrifice God made is not by dint of its being a sacrifice illogical. However, it is still illogical inasmuch as God is his own son, and the son dies while the father lives. I mean, sure, the son comes back to life, but for a while there, the same person was dead and alive, in heaven and on earth.

I suppose I shouldn't quibble too much, though, only because once a person has assumed the condition of anyone being omnipotent in the first place, a specific exercise of that illogical power is not properly described as illogical.

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.

Oh, well, free will doesn't exist, especially not if you believe in an omnipotent god.

[Prince Who Was Promised]

Okay, well, if we're going with a different definition of the word sacrifice, meaning only that some blood is being spilled, then, the sacrifice God made is not by dint of its being a sacrifice illogical. However, it is still illogical in as much as God is his own son, and the son dies while the father lives. I mean, sure, the son comes back to life, but for a while there, the same person was dead and alive, in heaven and on earth.

Yes, the Trinity is very confusing.

Oh, well, free will doesn't exist, especially not if you believe in an omnipotent god.

Explain?

[Lord Mord]

PWWP,

Yes, the Trinity is very confusing.

Well, it is confusing. It's confusing, in part because it is illogical.

Explain?

Free will presupposes our ability to avoid determination. We are all determined by the omniscience of God. In looking ahead at all the trillions upon trillions of ways in which he could have created the universe, he could see in each way exactly how we were all going to behave in every moment we're alive. In that knowledge, he created the world to make it happen in exactly a particular way.

If free will were real, then it wouldn't matter what God chose, we'd be able to frustrate his choices for our lives, but then that precludes either his omniscience or his omnipotence.

[Errant Bard]

It's believed that the Bible was divinely inspired.

I'll let you in on something: my posts are divinely inspired too. So you've got to believe me.

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

Oh, and how does this mesh with him being benevolent, exactly? He's sending people to hell on purpose.

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

So he's limited and cannot create a mankind that stays good, or an environment devoid of sin

[Prince Who Was Promised]

Free will presupposes our ability to avoid determination. We are all determined by the omniscience of God. In looking ahead at all the trillions upon trillions of ways in which he could have created the universe, he could see in each way exactly how we were all going to behave in every moment we're alive. In that knowledge, he created the world to make it happen in exactly a particular way.

If free will were real, then it wouldn't matter what God chose, we'd be able to frustrate his choices for our lives, but then that precludes either his omniscience or his omnipotence.

But you chose what you do. Yes, God already knows, but you're still responsible for your actions.

-----

Oh, and how does this mesh with him being benevolent, exactly? He's sending people to hell on purpose.

How? Because He didn't come down to you personally and said "Hi, I'm here," but chose rather to reveal himself through the Bible?

So he's limited and cannot create a mankind that stays good, or an environment devoid of sin

More like He gave mankind a choice whether or not to stay good, and they chose not to.

[Matrim Fox Cauthon]

JUDGES 20:

...

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.

Not really. I am not an apologetic. I am not sure if God is being entirely deceptive, since it does appear that God is truthfully answering the specific question that they are asking. But I think that the bigger question that is frequently glossed over is why God would regret doing something or change God's mind (i.e., God changes its mind on Saul being king). This is another case where the "omni-qualities" of metaphysics would appear to be a contradiction with Israel's understanding of how God acts in history.

Well, it is confusing. It's confusing, in part because it is illogical.

Not necessarily illogical, but certainly convoluted. But the various doctrines of the Trinity are a natural attempt by believers to rationalize the nature of the unknowable and mysterious relationship of the Trinity. You cannot know it, but you want to be able to talk about it dogmatically.

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

The Bible is not an autobiography.

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.

Holy, leaping logic, Batman!

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."

Divinely inspired or not, the narrative is not offered by God but by a community of believers. It may not appear to be intellectually satisfying, that is because it was not written to be so. The Bible is not a work of systematic theology!

Okay, well, if we're going with a different definition of the word sacrifice, meaning only that some blood is being spilled, then, the sacrifice God made is not by dint of its being a sacrifice illogical. However, it is still illogical inasmuch as God is his own son, and the son dies while the father lives. I mean, sure, the son comes back to life, but for a while there, the same person was dead and alive, in heaven and on earth.

Caspen, this is not going "with a different definition of the word sacrifice," it is about going with what a sacrifice meant historically in the ancient and classical world. The "Son" is as an aspect of the Trinity and not a biological progeny of God, and as resurrection is performed by the "God in heaven," Christ as being fully human (despite being 'fully god') was raised by God. And again, the sacrifice is about blood manipulation.

I'll let you in on something: my posts are divinely inspired too. So you've got to believe me.

Strawman, much?

What is with all these strawmen and the poorly constructed reductionist fallacies in this thread by apologists and detractors alike? Or moral and emotive arguments attempting to masquerade as logical ones? I agree that theology is convoluted mess, but purposefully misrepresenting it without attempting to properly understand it does not make for a particularly strong argument. If you want to demolish the faith to boost your fragile egos that have long since been shattered by the shackles of religions, fine. But first try understanding what believers, doctrine, dogma, and scripture are trying to say with an open, but critical, mind. Open a book! Read it! Learn! But know that none of this, however, will really provide "proof" or evidence of God's existence, benevolence or malevolence. It is a waste of time. Scientists do not worry about God's existence, because the question is irrelevant. And yet you all persist in talking about it through twisting it all to further your own agendas? I do not know why you, or I for that matter, bother.

[Errant Bard]

Strawman, much?

I'm sorry, how is this misrepresenting the opposing argumentation to better attack it? PWWP used "the bible is divinely inspired" to respond my question about the reason why and the manner how god chose to make us understand stuff.

We're talking about man understanding God, or God making himself understood. PWWP says that it is believed by a lot of people that the bible is divinely inspired, fair enough, but since we were going on about how man just *doesn't understand* (with all those human/ant comparisons) I think I have the right to question why I should consider this thing the direct pure divine word, more than other writings by guys claiming the divine touched them, or not claiming anything but having a flash. To achieve that, I made the ridiculous claim that the divine inspired my posts, because if I claim that, how are you going to disprove it or just know I lie? Common sense? Please.

I do not know why you, or I for that matter, bother.

I believe it's more because of the debate than the object of the debate. Though for you, if your post is any indication of what you think are motives of people posting in this kind of threads, it's probably to boost your fragile ego, aye? ;)

If you want to demolish the faith to boost your fragile egos that have long since been shattered by the shackles of religions, fine.

... Strawman much?

[Lord Mord]

PWWP,

But you chose what you do. Yes, God already knows, but you're still responsible for your actions.

He's the one who chose that I would act that way. If he'd wanted me to act differently, he would have created the whole universe around my acting differently. It would have been very easy for him, being omnipotent.

Because he didn't choose that, but instead chose this, then this is how he wanted me to behave. Therefore, it wasn't my choice, but his.

[Lord Mord]

MFC,

Caspen, this is not going "with a different definition of the word sacrifice," it is about going with what a sacrifice meant historically in the ancient and classical world.

Okay. All I meant was that the definition you were using was different than mine. Which it was.

The "Son" is as an aspect of the Trinity and not a biological progeny of God, and as resurrection is performed by the "God in heaven," Christ as being fully human (despite being 'fully god') was raised by God. And again, the sacrifice is about blood manipulation.

I beg your pardon, but this is doublespeak.

In order to be logical, the Trinity is either one thing (God), in which case God simultaneously dies and lives, or else it is three things, in which case the Trinity is not three aspects of one thing, but a group of three individual things. It cannot be both.

Being illogical of course does not mean that it couldn't have happened; it certainly could have.

[Prince Who Was Promised]

He's the one who chose that I would act that way. If he'd wanted me to act differently, he would have created the whole universe around my acting differently. It would have been very easy for him, being omnipotent.

Because he didn't choose that, but instead chose this, then this is how he wanted me to behave. Therefore, it wasn't my choice, but his.

A choice that you are fine with, and you go along with.

[Lord Mord]

PWWP,

A choice that you are fine with, and you go along with.

EDIT: Actually, it doesn't matter if I'm fine with it or not. God already made the choice for me, and I can do nothing to alter what he's chosen for me.

[Matrim Fox Cauthon]

Strawman, much?I'm sorry, how is this misrepresenting the opposing argumentation to better attack it? PWWP used "the bible is divinely inspired" to respond my question about the reason why and the manner how god chose to make us understand stuff.

We're talking about man understanding God, or God making himself understood. PWWP says that it is believed by a lot of people that the bible is divinely inspired, fair enough, but since we were going on about how man just *doesn't understand* (with all those human/ant comparisons) I think I have the right to question why I should consider this thing A) the direct pure divine word, B) more than other writings by guys claiming the divine touched them, or not claiming anything but having a flash. C) To achieve that, I made the ridiculous claim that the divine inspired my posts, because if I claim that, how are you going to disprove it or just know I lie? Common sense? Please.

A) You would have a right to question such an assertion, but this is not a claim by all Christians who nevertheless claim the divine-inspiration of scripture, B) it's more to it than that, and finally C) because you wrote nothing witnessing to God's self-revelation in the world. The people of the book believe that their scriptures are divinely-inspired because they believe that the writings are witness to and are revealing of God's nature. So yes, you could very well be writing divinely-inspired posts, but that does not make what you write sacred text or revealing of the Abrahamic god.

I believe it's more because of the debate than the object of the debate. Though for you, if your post is any indication of what you think are motives of people posting in this kind of threads, it's probably to boost your fragile ego, aye? ;)

... Strawman much?

I am willing to admit hypocrisy. Are you? If you don't have a fragile ego in need of boosting, then my comment does not apply to you. But I would prefer that you would be respectful and stop misrepresenting mine.

Okay. All I meant was that the definition you were using was different than mine. Which it was.

Fair enough.

I beg your pardon, but this is doublespeak.

In order to be logical, the Trinity is either one thing (God), in which case God simultaneously dies and lives, or else it is three things, in which case the Trinity is not three aspects of one thing, but a group of three individual things. It cannot be both.

Being illogical of course does not mean that it couldn't have happened; it certainly could have.

It would seem like doublespeak, but that is where Christian theologians throughout the ages would vehemently disagree with you, because they will insist that the Triune God exists as distinct three persons in one unified being in logical (albeit ultimately unknown) harmony. Christians also hold that Christ existed prior to incarnation as well.

[sologdin]

obligations to your Creator.

whatever.

but, since we're on the subject, my reading of genesis does not indicate that the tetragrammaton is my creator. sure, YHWH is alleged to have "created" (childish term, naturally, but what does one expect?) humanity ex nihilo (also very stupid), but it does not forbid the creation of same by other deities, which the early texts acknowledge as co-existent with YHWH, nor does it deny the possibility of biogenesis, or xenogenesis for that matter. the only actually evidenced creation is adam and eve--the bible even redacts the well known lillith tale. this is plainly not a reliable narration.

the existence of cain's wife elsewhere appears to confirm that other origins of humanity are possible within even the bible's narrow understanding.

i therefore submit that, even though other folks are happy to be the spawn of a tyrannical astrotheological revenge deity like the tetragrammation, my own heritage is obviously evolutionary, preferably extraterrestrial.

[Matrim Fox Cauthon]

obligations to your Creator.

whatever.

but, since we're on the subject, my reading of genesis does not indicate that the tetragrammaton is my creator. sure, YHWH is alleged to have "created" (childish term, naturally, but what does one expect?) humanity ex nihilo (also very stupid), but it does not forbid the creation of same by other deities, which the early texts acknowledge as co-existent with YHWH, nor does it deny the possibility of biogenesis, or xenogenesis for that matter. the only actually evidenced creation is adam and eve--the bible even redacts the well known lillith tale. this is plainly not a reliable narration.

the existence of cain's wife elsewhere appears to confirm that other origins of humanity are possible within even the bible's narrow understanding.

i therefore submit that, even though other folks are happy to be the spawn of a tyrannical astrotheological revenge deity like the tetragrammation, my own heritage is obviously evolutionary, preferably extraterrestrial.

I get your joke well enough - problematic as it may be - but the bold is too much of a stretch.

[Lord Mord]

MFC,

It would seem like doublespeak, but that is where Christian theologians throughout the ages would vehemently disagree with you, because they will insist that the Triune God exists as distinct three persons in one unified being in logical (albeit ultimately unknown) harmony. Christians also hold that Christ existed prior to incarnation as well.

Well, they are free to disagree, but their disagreement is not well-supported by English semantics and logic. I mean, to the extent that either does not always describe the observable world expertly well, then I have to accept such abandon as plausible; it does not make it any less an abandon, which was my only point.

[Eponine]

If you want to demolish the faith to boost your fragile egos that have long since been shattered by the shackles of religions, fine. But first try understanding what believers, doctrine, dogma, and scripture are trying to say with an open, but critical, mind. Open a book! Read it! Learn!

As a participant in this thread, I find this very offensive. I like you, MFC, but I feel like you're just in here sitting on your pedestal of theological study, criticizing everyone else's lesser intellectualism and complaining that no one but you really understands Christianity. I feel like the main posters here have been trying to converse in a way that makes sense to them- even if there are some errors introduced, and you're interjecting with how they don't really understand this or that grammatical construct. And saying the Bible isn't an autobiography, really, do you have to be so pedantic? Can you not accept an analogy? If the Bible is an account of God's interactions with ancient Israel, the disciples and followers of Jesus, and the early church, and if it was divinely inspired by God, then it's a fuck of a lot like a ghost written autobiography.

You say that you just want to promote clear understanding of the Bible, but even as you admit that there are a myriad of positions, you posit your learning as "the way" to understand. You're not committed to any position, and so you don't have to be consistent. If someone tries to introduce the concept of god's omniscience into the Original Sin story, you can just say- well that's not in that exact text- never mind that a consistence of god's qualities are foundational to Christianity. That's fine for a Bible as Literature class, but that's not what this thread was ever about.

In understanding a religion, then you have to accept that the religion and its writings aren't just for scholars like you who have made an extensive study of all its cultural, historical, linguistic, textual, etc., etc. consistencies and inconsistencies. Jesus says that Christianity is for those who come as little children and I Corinthians says that God chose the foolish things of the world to confound the wise, right? So if there's an extent to which the Bible can be discussed as any sort of truth for those considering Christianity, it also lies in the domain of the first time reader. Certainly there's benefit in using a Biblical scholar as a resource for understanding... but if the Holy Word of the Lord appears to be full of contradictions, cruelties, and inconsistencies that have to be "explained away" by a much smarter person... well that says something too, especially if it is to be considered true that God is not the author of confusion and the word of the lord will not return void.

[Matrim Fox Cauthon]

MFC,

Well, they are free to disagree, but their disagreement is not well-supported by English semantics and logic. I mean, to the extent that either does not always describe the observable world expertly well, then I have to accept such abandon as plausible; it does not make it any less an abandon, which was my only point.

If it is not well-supported by English semantics and logic, this is largely because it was originally supported by Greek and Latin semantics and logic. :P

As a participant in this thread, I find this very offensive. I like you, MFC, but I feel like you're just in here sitting on your pedestal of theological study, criticizing everyone else's lesser intellectualism and complaining that no one but you really understands Christianity. I feel like the main posters here have been trying to converse in a way that makes sense to them- even if there are some errors introduced, and you're interjecting with how they don't really understand this or that grammatical construct. And saying the Bible isn't an autobiography, really, do you have to be so pedantic? Can you not accept an analogy? If the Bible is an account of God's interactions with ancient Israel, the disciples and followers of Jesus, and the early church, and if it was divinely inspired by God, then it's a fuck of a lot like a ghost written autobiography.

You say that you just want to promote clear understanding of the Bible, but even as you admit that there are a myriad of positions, you posit your learning as "the way" to understand. You're not committed to any position, and so you don't have to be consistent. If someone tries to introduce the concept of god's omniscience into the Original Sin story, you can just say- well that's not in that exact text- never mind that a consistence of god's qualities are foundational to Christianity. That's fine for a Bible as Literature class, but that's not what this thread was ever about.

In understanding a religion, then you have to accept that the religion and its writings aren't just for scholars like you who have made an extensive study of all its cultural, historical, linguistic, textual, etc., etc. consistencies and inconsistencies. Jesus says that Christianity is for those who come as little children and I Corinthians says that God chose the foolish things of the world to confound the wise, right? So if there's an extent to which the Bible can be discussed as any sort of truth for those considering Christianity, it also lies in the domain of the first time reader. Certainly there's benefit in using a Biblical scholar as a resource for understanding... but if the Holy Word of the Lord appears to be full of contradictions, cruelties, and inconsistencies that have to be "explained away" by a much smarter person... well that says something too, especially if it is to be considered true that God is not the author of confusion and the word of the lord will not return void.

So my two lines of offense against you is returned by three paragraphs of offense against me? I honestly have no idea how I am supposed to respond to this.

[Eponine]

So my two lines of offense against you is returned by three paragraphs of offense against me? I honestly have no idea how I am supposed to respond to this.

You're just more concise. I'm not asking you to respond in any way except to consider that maybe you've been demeaning in tone throughout this entire thread to those who have less intellectual knowledge about the Bible as you. If you think I've been too harsh in calling you out for it, alright- but acting like other posters are close-minded and uneducated and emotionally driven was pretty harsh too. Despite some misunderstandings, there have been apologies and attempts to be respectful and understanding- I think it's open-minded that these things have been worked out and the conversation was able to continue.

[Lord Mord]

MFC,

If it is not well-supported by English semantics and logic, this is largely because it was originally supported by Greek and Latin semantics and logic. :P

What I meant to say is that the interpretation is not supported either by English semantics or by logic. There's no such thing as English logic or Latin logic.

Although, I don't suppose, really, that I ought to have brought the English part in at all. If I spoke Greek or Latin, I could easily put words in a string that say Ran is a woman, and that doesn't make it so. I could, theoretically, use Aramaic to say that Ran is thirty years old, ninety years old, and two thousand years old, and you, if you understand Aramaic, would probably look at me askance and say, "That doesn't really make any sense."

But, somebody says that a single being is three beings, and no questions asked.

[Lord Mord]

I look at introspection on the question of religion as something a bit like hearing that your best friend has met the Second Coming of Christ in person.

Now, you have a very large set of some enormous common assumptions with your friend, since you are both Christians. You assume together that there is a God, that he is benevolent, that he is omni-present and so on. You assume together, in this case, that we had/have need of a savior, that the savior has already been born once, and that the savior is on his way a second time. You can use this shared frame of reference -- in particular the Bible -- to debate the relative merits of whether or not the person your friend has met is indeed the second coming.

Stepping back for a moment from the metaphor: what frame of reference does the atheist have in common with the theist? Answer: the collection of sensory information and also the intellect it takes to process that information into logical conclusions. In the example, it's possible to debate the relative merits of an apparent Christ on the basis of whether or not it fits the frame of reference. But for some reason, when it comes to a discussion of religion providing realistic explanations at all, Christians avoid restraining themselves to the common frame of reference; there is a tendency, also, to refuse to acknowledge this avoidance is real.

That's the part that's frustrating. Let's have a discussion restricted to rational skepticism, or else let's acknowledge that you don't care about rationality and are going to just mentally skip over holes in logic with the power of faith. At that point, there's nothing left for me to say -- I mean, I can't make you not have faith, nor does it particularly interest me to try.

It's just when you attempt to say that your explanations are rational that things get dicey.