You assume that the Bible is a big proponent of “free will.” Why assume that? Doesn’t the Bible much more strongly imply that everything is predestined? I think Calvanism lost widespread support mostly because it was depressing, not because it lacked Biblcal support.
I don’t think you realize that I am not subjective here. I am just like you guys pounding at the Bible, minus your outside-the-Bible knowledge and plus being a believer. That’s why I posted this, for intellectual purpose, not as a debate! Maybe I shoudn’t have posted this here but in GQ?
I am realizing the ridiculousness of the quotes I posted, as I didn’t know who these people were and if they were biased. Maybe everyone else is not seeing this thread as productive, but it is good experience for me to converse with people such as you. I am going through the logical test, unlike 99% of the christians out there. I did say that my faith probably was not on the line here, but my view of the Bible is ready to go either way, North or South. But, being a believer, I am going to give the Bible whatever logical benefit of the doubt I can… hence my perceived subjectiveness.
It is unfathomable in your eyes that a person with my objective mindset has come in here asking this question, but here I am. Please see me for what I am and don’t assume I am claiming all the radical inerrancy crap. Unlike those literalists, I am wise enough to know that the Bible is not inerrant, technically, from our limited point of view. A book of it’s nature and age will never end up looking correct in our day and age. I have already accomplished this line of thinking and am moving on to learn more about what these errors suggest about the Bible… whether these errors murder the Bible’s validity, or whether they leave merely superficial wounds.
Now, can you who have been through these facts help me see the forest for the trees? I seem to have a gitft for being objective when I want to. I only ask that you be as objective and non-cynical/skeptical as I am so that I can gain a proper view of the Bible.
You are mistaken if you think moral judgement has anything to do with being “worthy.” Morality is about clear standards: standards that cannot be violated unless there is some NECESSARY need to serve a higher standard. In this case, we have to ask for each and every baby that God had his angel murder: was this murder necessary? Couldn’t the “miracle” have been just as impressive if God had spared this one child? Why couldn’t God have shown off his powers with non-lethal signs, or just big freakin letters saying “let the Jews go or I’ll kick your ass!”? Why not just teleport the people of Israel out of Egypt? How was Passover in any way NECESSARY?
But it’s worse than that. If I had to kill an innocent person for some higher cause, I would be heartwrenched about it long afterwards, and I would most certainly make sure everyone knew it was not GOOD in and of itself that I had to kill: it was necessary for some greater good. Nowhere is this understanding or argument presented in the Bible. If anything, God is portrayed as being proud about it (indeed, the “higher good” in this case is explicitly described as being a form of pride). Now, I’m no literalist, so I have no need to believe this is how God really would have behaved or felt. But it does tell me that the writers of the text had some seriously questionable values.
That would make all moral rules, ever and forever, completely meaningless and arbitrary.
It makes no sense to tlak of “making” moral rules. Either something is wrong or it is not. If you break them, that’s bad. Period. As I said: you can try to redefine “morality,” but in doing so you ultimately make it into a form of nihilism.
Maybe, but as I said, anyone can make an ad hoc argument to justify anything if they can appeal to unexplained elements and futures. The burden of proof is on the one who commits the act to explain why it was just. And nowhere do I see any such explaination. In fact, nowhere in the Bible do I even see any indication that God or his people acknowledged that it was wrong. God never says “now, I’m doing this bad thing for the greater good, but don’t think that, in isolation, it’s right to do this without good reason.” It just basically says “I’m making this man do evil, then punishing him for it, so I can show off.”
Apos, please quote my posts in their entirety. If you read my post in it’s entirety, I responded to this in the bullet or number. I was taking you through a logical string in that post, they were not meant to be separated.
No, please don’t. Only quote the parts that you are responding to. If the quote is taken out of context, then the poster should be called on that. We can all go back and review entire posts here. (This is directed at Fuel, not you, Apos.)
You obviously didn’t see the part where I asked you to be empathetic to God and forget what you know about being a moral human being. Everything you just said was assuming God was not, well, God! Being God changes the rules a little bit, don’t you agree?
If I were God right now, I would be chuckling at the fact that some little bitty human being that I made is using his head, which is in the forest, to decide whether what I am doing is justified or not, when my head is above the trees in the forest and I can see all. I would realize that that poor little human being has NOT read, meditated on, and accepted my message (the Bible), so of course he is going to say what he is saying. Upon realizing this, I supernaturallly call this human being to me in the hopes that he will lose his pride and gain an understanding of my message. I even send a guy on a message board called Fuel to explain it to him in human terms, But time and time again, he is distracted by a finite mindset and an unwilling spirit.
I didn’t mean that to be rude, but it was the best way I could think of to communicate infinite idea in finite terms.
Ok, apos, I take it back. I only want you to quote in it’s entirety what was intended to be read together.
What is the understood rule behind quoting, be fair? Because not everyone goes back to look at the context?
Is God good or isn’t he? Is he good only because he says he is good? If so what does it really mean to say that he is good? If not, then Good must have some meta-theistic meaning which God is just as subject to as anyone else. I guess what I’m getting at is what does the word “good” mean?
Empathy requires some vulnerability on the part of the entity you’re empathizing with. An omnipotent God is not only invulnerable on any physical or emotional level (and therefore provides no point of entry for an empathetic response) but is actually impervious to empathy or the lack of it. God cannot logically be affected by the sympathy of humans nor by the lack of it. I prefer to reserve my empathy for those who need it and can be helped by it. As a matter of fact, this is precisely the avenue that Jesus advised for humans. See the parable of the sheep and the goats.
Not without rendering his own “goodness” meaningless.
See above.
This is a philosophically valueless argument because it can be used in any instance of an act of seeming evil by God. It’s always possible to say that there is a greater, unseen good…an assertion which is neither falsifiable nor helpful in understanding God. Prove there was a greater good, then we’ll talk.
Why does it necessarily follow that a “Creator” is entitled to sovereignty? What if the creator is evil? Do I still have show him obedience? Personally, I have no interest in a deity who will “do whatever it wants.” If the “Creator” cannot be consistently good and just (in a manner which is comprehensible to humans, none of that “mysterious ways” cop-out) then that Creator gets no recognition, affection or fealty from me. Might does not make right.
How is Christianity any more difficult to believe than any other religion?
**
What religion does try to “make everyone happy?”
Cite?
[quote]
Ok, apos, I take it back.[q/uote]
You quoted bnorton, not me.
No, I don’t agree, at least in regards to morality.
On this board, there is no need to quote posts in their entirety to “prove” that we read them. The posts ALREADY exist on the page: they don’t need to be repeated over and over. And, more often then not, people who quote entire posts tend to be those that DON’T read posts in their entirety. You seem to be exactly this sort of person, because you have no continued the discussion we were having by actually responding to the substantive arguments I made in response to your arguments.
Instead, you tell me again to be empathetic to God. But what does that mean? That’s not an arguement or explanation of anything. All it seems to be is a liscence to ad hoc your way out of having to make any sort of coherent argument. To wit…
Such examples are colorful, but they don’t explain anything. God can chuckle all he wants from whatever position of superiority he occupies. However, if you want to go this route in arguing that God is above the logic and morality that you or I can discuss, then it works both ways. I can just as easily argue that God is evil, has you thouroughly fooled, and my argument is no weaker than yours simply because you yourself have suggested that God is so powerful that he can break all rules and do things beyond your understanding. If that is so, then you can simply have no effective comeback to anything I suggest about God. Anything you say can be overcome by the same excuse you’ve given me: God’s intent and character is simply beyond your understanding. He chuckles at you, I’m sure.
So your entire line of argument is a pointless stalemate. Please go back to the actual points I raised about morality, which can at least have some substantive meaning.
Weeeellll, there is a whole shitload of things you have to believe before you can call yourself a christian.
That what the bible says is all true…
That there is such a thing as a god, but only one…
Oh, and angels and, although supra natural, they’re not gods, they are… errr,… something else.
That this god created earth and the rest of the universe and man
Original Sin (big one that)
that Jesus was his son
and that Jesus=God
and that Jesus=God and also something weird called a holy spirit
That he died to relieve us of the OS (although they are at odds how exactly that one works)
That he was the messiah, without actually being and doing what was prohesized.
And every mass he becomes a coocky and you should eat him (thank you Montezuma for that one)
Oh yes and of course, every other religion is wrong and should be put right…
There’s plenty more for the outsider to scratch his head about.
At least other religions try to explain the world. This one just confuses the hell out of you.
Fuel asked
No, no, and no.
Standard Christian theology identifies God as having the attribute of holiness, and calls Him “the same - yesterday, today, and forever”.
Cite : HEB 13:8 NIV; - Jesus Christ is the same yesterday and - Bible Gateway
Therefore, by definition the Christian God is perfect, and does not vary from this. Not now, not tomorrow, and not ever. After all, the entire basis of the supposed need for a savior is that God cannot stand to look upon sin. It is thought that God could not look upon His own son on the cross because Jesus had become sin for us. If God cannot even look at sin, He certainly cannot commit it!
In other words if you believe the Bible, then God has already said that He is perfect, and does not vary from that state. So he could not because of His own nature deceive people, cause them to sin, or “change the rules”.
So to reiterate - No, No, and No! 
Fuel: Been there, done that, got the T-shirt! It is annoying in the extreme to be taken for something you are not, and argued against as a straw man of whom you really are.
However, following the Lord’s injunction to feel as others feel, to love them as yourself and esteem them higher than yourself, you must concede that it is quite reasonable to make the (in your case erroneous) presumption that when someone comes into Great Debates and makes an OP from a Biblically based perspective, and then apparently vanishes with no attempt at dialogue – as many have done in the pass – that it’s merely another fundamentalist or reasonable facsimile with a “drive-by witness.” IMHO, you truly cannot fault your detractors for making that false assumption, based on experience here!
Another key point is in your analysis of error. I’m not sure precisely what your stance on inspiration and errancy is, though I gather it’s an attempt to be a scholarly informed believer. But I would submit to you that the overwhelming majority of “errors” in the Bible are in fact just that – errors of the human authors, men of their time and culture, subject to its limitations and presuppositions, who may well have been moved by God to write, but presumed to understand fully His will when they did not (as of course none of us do!), and who in some cases were not loath to attribute to Him the cultural biases of their own culture. It would be very convenient , as the leader of an army who has just won a major battle against your clan’s longtime enemy, to have God available as the alleged author of an order to execute all the losers. While someone might argue with you, nobody’s going to argue with God!
Further, to disagree with or doubt the Bible on a given matter is not to disagree with or doubt God, unless you are a thoroughgoing inerrantist who believes that He is responsible for every jot and tittle of the text as we have it, and further that you understand it precisely as He meant it – overweening presumptions that not even the most self-contented of inerrantists do not presume to make!
As a very conservative preacher whom His4Ever once linked to said, “the only way to understand a Bible passage is to read it in the context of the whole Bible, with due attention to when and where the passage was written and for what purpose.” (Slightly paraphrased, but the meaning is preserved.)
Finally, it is not disrespectful of His sovereignty to expect that what He says be internally consistent – rather, this is a test of our own understanding, since two common human tendencies are to make excuses and explain away inconsistencies, and to slant the truth for our own purposes. These are not God’s traits – but they may well be those of the human authors, or of people whose faith in God depends too greatly on having a trustworthy record of His works and words.
Think it through. And pray about it.
[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by Apos *
**
This post is an example of how you aren’t giving the benefit of the doubt or being reasonable. I know prefectly well I quoted bnorton. Does that mean that if I refer everyone to a certain post that I HAVE to reply to the quoted poster? Who made that rule up and didn’t tell me?
Rolls Eyes
If you presume to define what constitutes a Christian, latro in what way are you morally superior to His4Ever, who presumably thinks we’re all Hellbound (and would save us if she could)?
Was I trying to be morally superior??
Don’t think so, just pointing out that some of the stuff is pretty hard to get your head around.
I wasn’t presuming to make a definite definition of the christian either but these all are tenets of the christain religion, no?
Ben, your answer was as clear as a West Texas sandstorm. I don’t think you have specifically addressed this as you claim, and if you have, you can correct me by actually providing the quotes in this thread to it.
This is what you addressed to another earlier in this thread:
**Wasn’t Lot Jewish?
“My visitors I should hand over? Oy, vey. Go ahead and take my daughter, why don’t you?” (Shuts the door, muttering darkly about how the whole town has been taken over by chazzers.)
See? No contradiction there.
**
So this doesn‘t address my question. Maybe you have another quote in mind. If so, let’s see it. You’ve said elsewhere, how can anyone not be considered “righteous” simply because of Lot’s one mistake of which you didn‘t seem to think much of it. That “one mistake” being when he slept with his daughters; not this episode. So again, “if Lot getting drunk and sleeping with both daughters was his one mistake, then, what was this?” Another freakin’ relapse, and Lot retains his “righteous“ title in your eyes yet again? Hell, man, he wasn’t even drunk in this account. Another big mistake, there, Ben. Even Woody Allen would be screaming to Lot ,“You bastard!”
You switched from saying that Lot slept with his daughters to saying that he overindulged in alcohol.
This is asinine, and you’re desperate. He did both as I’ve stated. I don’t state anything to the contrary. Do you truly need help understanding that this is not a switch of argument? And do you realize how easy it would be to accuse anyone of switching their argument, if this is the standard they go by? It’s not even an accurate. I could give countless examples of your posts or anyone’s to illustrate this, if this is all it took, but it is too silly to address any further.
I’ll try not to accuse you of switching the argument to rape here when it‘s a case of incest. Lot was drunk and the daughters willingly had sex with their father. The daughters apparently were old enough to know about a lot of things. But in the other part, Lot clearly offers up his daughters to perverts to rape them or do what they wanted to do, and Lot wasn’t even drunk when he made this offer. So what‘s your answer? Is this clearly another big stain in Lot’s life, or not? Even after knowing about these, you still think he’s a “righteous” man?
Yes, you’ve said that before as if that is a defense. His memory problem probably had a lot to do with too much to drink, don’t you think? That‘s doesn‘t change a thing just because he can’t remember. That doesn’t excuse one’s behavior. Every drunken criminal in the county would be using that as a defense if that‘s all it took.
JZ
Mars, when I said break the rules, I didn’t mean break his promises, but break the rules set forth in humanity.
The Bible says God won’t change, but it also says God is sovereign and just. There is a fine line between the two and only God himself knows this line. I believe God’s dealings with people are both sovereign and fair, in reality. But in our realm of thought, the two many times clash. This is all faith, though, in what the Bible says. This is not my opinion, I am just relaying the Bible here.
To all: If you want to use the world’s definition of fairness and justness, GOD IS UNFAIR, YES! If you want to see things as best you can from God’s and the Bible’s POV, God is the only fair and just being in the world, or so the assumption goes according to the Bible.
Bottom Line is that a human being can indeed question the fairness of God’s acts, but he cannot come to a conclusion because of the limited scope of his vision and grasp. I know, this makes for a very convenient way out of many arguments for Christians, but it is a fact we must employ when debating the actions of God. The only thing we can do from a critical aspect of the Bible is find errors in fact or shortcomings in the writings and decide what effect those errors and shortcomings have on the whole of the Bible. We cannot overstep our limitations into the realm of judging morality.
Latros,
I would say that once you concede the possibility of any supernatural entity or event then the relative difficulty of belief becomes pretty much equal. It’s just as difficult to believe in a single god as it is to believe in a million. Christianity requires no greater strain on credulity than Islam or Hinduism. If you don’t accept the possibility of the supernatural (as I don’t-- at least not without proof) then it’s all equally implausible.
You are right about the word “cuwth”.
( http://hessel.no/visdomsord/h5/49.htm#6 )
You are wrong about 1 Chronicles using a different word. (You may have been mislead by the way Bible translators manipulate the text to fit their view of what it ought to say.)
(http://hessel.no/visdomsord/index.htm has the Bible in English [KJV] and Norwegian with links to a Greek/Hebrew dictionary for most of the words. http://bible.crosswalk.com/ lets you examine various translations of the passages in question.)
According to 2 Samuel God “cuwth’ed” David to number Israel.
According to 1 Chronicles Satan “cuwth’ed” David to number Israel.
Hmm.
Did it not occur to the all-knowing God that some people might find it a tad bit confusing when two parts of the Bible telling exactly the same (excluding the contradictions) story starts “God moved David to number Israel” and “Satan moved David to number Israel” respectively?
Would you accept it if I were to use the same logic to prove that God “really” did something the Bible attributes to Satan?
But let’s assume that you’re right. “God moved David” is in fact a bizarre way of saying “God sent his servant Satan to move David”. This does not make the killing of 70000++ innocents to punish David for doing something God, directly or indirectly, caused him to do any less horrible.