Brushes with the divine?

[Prof.Pepperwinkle]

@Kable

This is my topic. I understand why you don’t want to share your thoughts though as we both know you really aren’t that progressive.

But you haven’t shared your thoughts on Free Will yet.

[Marley23]

@Kable

That’s very progressive that Presbyterians don’t require ministers to repent from what the Bible calls abominations. What’s the Presbyterian (and your) stand on sex workers, porn stars and regular folks who like to openly have sex outside of marriage? Can they all become ministers in the Presbyterian church?

This appears to be a hijack. Take it to a separate thread.

[Kable]

@Prof.Pepperwinkle

But you haven’t shared your thoughts on Free Will yet.

Well, I’m late for work so I’ll have to get back to you on that for detail. I’m a determinist though.

About my questions please?

[Kable]

@Marley23

This appears to be a hijack. Take it to a separate thread.

How can I hijack my own meandering thread?

[Prof.Pepperwinkle]

@Kable

Well, I’m late for work so I’ll have to get back to you on that for detail. I’m a determinist though.

About my questions please?

I already answered them on the previous thread.

[tomndebb]

@Kable

How can I hijack my own meandering thread?

By trying to steer it back to a separate conversation that already has its own thread.

You are the OP, but you do not own the thread to do with it as you please.

Take this line of discussion back to its original thread or drop it. Do not pursue it here.

[ /Moderating ]

[huck]

@Kable

OK I get it. You like the pretty churches, you like thinking you will go to heaven, but you pretty much make up your religion as you go along, picking and choosing passages at will. You and the professor must be shopping at the same market.

Ok, sure. I don’t know what this has to do with your original question, how you would know that (or why you would suspect it in light of what I’ve already said) but let’s just say that this supernatural insight of yours is correct.

What’s so bad about that?

If it makes me more tolerant, more able and inclined to work for justice and the benefit of the needy and happier, what’s the problem?

I am genuinely curious as to why someone who does not believe in God, even someone who is angry about the political and social influence of the religious right (I am too), would devote so much energy to disparaging religious beliefs of tolerant Christians or any other denomination for that matter.

I realize that’s not germane to the question you originally posted but neither is much of the thread.

[Kable]

@Prof.Pepperwinkle

This assumes God controls our every thought and action. I disagree.

You said that God knows ahead of time where we are all going to end up. If that is true, how could a person change their destiny? If people can’t change their destiny, how can they’re will be truly free?

So, it isn’t just modern liberalism.

I don’t know if it’s only modern liberalism, but it’s particularly popular among modern liberal Christians.

Only if you agree with Calvin. His ideas were innovative, useful, but did not ultimately satisfy.

So you are most interested in what satisfies you rather than what’s most reasonable?

It is what the Bible says in some parts, and not in others. Studying the totality of the scriptures and the history of its interpretation does not necessarily lead one to this conclusion.

I think the totality of scripture leans more in favor of Calvin than the other way. Logic, given the typical Christian assumptions about their God certainly does.

Again, the predestination in these verses refers to the special call of the apostles, and not to the world in general.

So you think God only predestines some people but not others? Some people get free will but not others? When bad things happen, it isn’t according to Gods plan?

And what’s your take on it?

As I said earlier, I’m a determinist. I think free will is clearly illogical. I can see biological and environmental cause everywhere. How about you?

[Kable]

@Prof.Pepperwinkle

What’s the definition? You tell me, you mentioned it first.

No, actually you did, you said:

“Just keep in mind the fact that you are a finite creature judging a concept that is, at least for the standard idea of the Christian God, by definition beyond the scope of human understandng.”

I just want to know what the definition is that you are talking about.

[Kable]

@Prof.Pepperwinkle

The authorship of the Book of Revelation? I’m very dubious about its claims to authenticity, and I’m not alone: it nearly wasn’t included in the canon.

Cool. How about Leviticus?

[Kable]

@Prof.Pepperwinkle

FWIW, as a teenager I was very interested in Project Blue Book, the writings of Frank Edwards, etc., and was struck by the fact there’s no solid evidence aliens have ever been to earth. Ergo, it didn’t even occur to me.

So if you were more into sci-fi it would have been a consideration? I imagine it can occur you at a later date if you want.

[Prof.Pepperwinkle]

@Kable

So if you were more into sci-fi it would have been a consideration? I imagine it can occur you at a later date if you want.

When I read fiction, it’s usually science fiction, so no.

[Kable]

@Prof.Pepperwinkle

The hearing of the angels singing is the miracle in question.

OK, but you said yourself that you don’t know they were miracles, you just say you heard a song. I set my bar a little higher with regards to miracles. So does Malthus who says he shared a similar experience:

@Malthus

The whole point of my previous most is that the two things (“miracles” on the one hand, and “mystic experiences” on the other) are totally different.

To sum, in as simple a form as I can:

1. Resurrection of the dead = miracle = folklore, mythology, did not literally happen, no convincing evidence can be advanced because it is not literally true.

2. Mystic experience = actual thing that literally happens to (some) people, several people in this thread claim it happened to them, there is at least some actual scientific evidence that such experiences literally modify people’s brain functions.

Maybe we all need to get on the same page with regards to what a miracle is.

[Prof.Pepperwinkle]

@Kable

No, actually you did, you said:

“Just keep in mind the fact that you are a finite creature judging a concept that is, at least for the standard idea of the Christian God, by definition beyond the scope of human understandng.”

I just want to know what the definition is that you are talking about.

Okay, the creator of the universe, not limited by time or physicality, omniscient, omnipresent and omnipotent.

[Kable]

@Prof.Pepperwinkle

No, I said the words and language were unintelligible. The import of the message was to let me know that God existed, which it accomplished.

If you didn’t understand the message, how do you know you came to the right conclusion?

[Prof.Pepperwinkle]

@Kable

Cool. How about Leviticus?

With the exception of the Marcionists, I’m not familiar with any Jewish or Christian sect or denomination that wouldn’t include all five books of the Torah in the OT.

[Kable]

@Prof.Pepperwinkle

Why do I describe Genesis’s origin stories as allegory rather than literal interpretation? Having discussed this here I realize allegory was probably the wrong choice of word, one I used hastily because I really didn’t want to try to argue from several different parts of the Bible at once. It’s actually a redaction of several mythic accounts put together into a single, but contradictory narrative. I don’t think it’s a literal translation because it has a talking snake, because there are too many left out pieces of information, because humans don’t live 900 years, and so on. What reason would I have to consider it literally?

So a bunch of stories that sound fake make you not think it’s literally true? What do you do with NT miracles like multiplying fishes, turning water into wine, walking or water, rising from the dead, etc?

Could you give an estimate of what percent of Bible miracles you think are real vs fake?

[Kable]

@Prof.Pepperwinkle

Early on, yes, as seen many places in the OT, but even then such statements as having the Hebrews take “an eye for an eye” were in advance of other similar cultures of the day, where it was “a life for an eye”. When the Hebrew nation went through the diaspora they gained insights by comparison with their Zoroastrian conquerors, hence the appearance of Satan (earliest probable appearance, the Book of Job, role: prosecuting attorney against humanity); and as the centuries pass and more revelations are received, the nature of God becomes less “This and only this”, but “This AND That”, as in Isaiah’s statement that God is the source of both fortune and misfortune. By NT times the ongoing stream of revelation lead to the concept of a personal, loving God, which was in sharp contrast to the harsher, national God of the OT.

Really? Cause when I read the Gospels Jesus is doing a whole lot of talk about how God’s going to make you pay, big time, if you don’t love him enough. You disagree?

The essential nature of God, as I’ve said before, is unknowable. To quote Aquinas: “God may be apprehended, but not comprehended.”

I think it is easy to comprehend that the Christian god is going to hurt you real bad if you don’t love him and only him. Isn’t that what the Bible teaches in both Old Testament and New?

[Kable]

@Prof.Pepperwinkle

No, they aren’t wrong. Repeating again: if I was in India, I’d be taking this whole thing through the Rig-Veda instead of the Bible. I don’t make a claim to Christianity being the unique way God reveals himself to mankind.

Since you mention India, are you open to the idea of polytheism?

[Prof.Pepperwinkle]

This assumes God controls our every thought and action. I disagree.

You said that God knows ahead of time where we are all going to end up. If that is true, how could a person change their destiny? If people can’t change their destiny, how can they’re will be truly free?

I said God knows the choices we will make. As long as they are OUR choices, we have free will.

So, it isn’t just modern liberalism.
I don’t know if it’s only modern liberalism, but it’s particularly popular among modern liberal Christians.

A concept that is at least 15 centuries old, that is still popular. But you dislike, so you dismiss it.

Only if you agree with Calvin. His ideas were innovative, useful, but did not ultimately satisfy.
So you are most interested in what satisfies you rather than what’s most reasonable?

By which I mean, and, frankly I thought it was obvious, that I meant intellectually satisfying after consider study, since that what I’ve been saying all along.

It is what the Bible says in some parts, and not in others. Studying the totality of the scriptures and the history of its interpretation does not necessarily lead one to this conclusion.
I think the totality of scripture leans more in favor of Calvin than the other way. Logic, given the typical Christian assumptions about their God certainly does.

You have a minority viewpoint.

Again, the predestination in these verses refers to the special call of the apostles, and not to the world in general.
So you think God only predestines some people but not others? Some people get free will but not others? When bad things happen, it isn’t according to Gods plan?

Once more with feeling: there’s a general spiritual call to all mankind, and then there are particular, specific calls. The apostles were in a position distinct in time and place, and that’s the call Ephesians is referring to.

And what’s your take on it?
As I said earlier, I’m a determinist. I think free will is clearly illogical. I can see biological and environmental cause everywhere. How about you?

No, I’m for free will. I admit I haven’t studied determinism YET, but I will. From the outset it looks like biological predestination.