Poly:
Ok, so God sees all time at once. He does not know what you will do, He knows what you did do, right? It is like history to Him. Now, you can look back at history and and say “If Poly had not prayed at point A here, then action B would not have occured”. God sees all time at once, he sees you praying and either His actions were modified by that prayer or they were not. I don’t see any legitmate wiggle room between those two options, honestly. Nor do I see why you do not agree with praying for the healing of someone’s grandpa; if God takes your prayer into account right from the beginning of time, why should He not do so for them? If God is affected by prayer, perhaps your prayer will affect him enough that he does do something about grandpa.
I’m afraid that God’s answering prayers does not seem like true answering if whether you prayed or not makes no difference what he did. If he would have kept the servers from crashing whether or not you asked him, then how did he answer you? It is as if I am walking by, calling out multiples of 6: “6, 12, 18, 24…” and you say “what’s eight times four minus two” and I continue “30, 36…” I would have said that anyway at that point; you asked for a thing that happened to be what I was going to do anyway, and I had no intent to answer you, it was merely coincidence. Your request did not affect my actions. Now, if you are saying that I knew that you would ask that, and so arranged it so that I would be saying that at that precise time, then my decision was dependent on your request, and I did answer it. But either way, either my actions were affected by your action or they were not.
I think you are arguing that God is affected by prayer, but you do not wish to have people think that if bad things happen, it is because they did not pray enough. But I think this is adequately covered by “mysterious ways”.
I think that being an evil nasty person is still a bit more likely to get you killed than being nice. We kill murderers far more often than Mother Teresas. Caring about others may not always have perfect results, but it’s not the death sentence you make it out to be.
You seem to be trying to arm people with a fake plastic gun when they really need a nice strong blade and the wits to use it.
Hm, yes, I always base my theories about biology and consciousness from 2000 year old stories. Now, if you’ll excuse me, I have to go get some rowan to protect myself against witches so they don’t steal my soul while I sleep.
Caring about others is nonsensical? You are starting to remind me of a more articulate Eeyore.
I believe that the great majority of people state what they believe becuase they think it is true. If Jesus was wrong about the afterlife, perhaps he was just mistaken, and did not mean to manipulate anyone.
I don’t know. I can’t see accepting anything as anything but an intellectual proposition. In fact, it is even those propostitions which allow me to make some sense of this mess of sensory data and thought.
Perhaps this is why I couldn’t see removing the theism of God…its all one big intellectual proposition to me.
To me, life is a hypothesis. I dunno.
Gaudere
Round and round the mulberry bush. I would venture to restate my previous remarks. No, God does not answer prayers like one would carry out a request. The point of prayer is personal…that it affects the relationship between He and thee. Thus, there is a point to prayer, even in phrasing it in the form of a request.
So. Now I guess we’re arguing two different points.
Dealing with God dichotomies is a little impossible. Obviously, prayer can affect God if he lets it. God can do anything. “Can God make a rock so heavy he can’t lift it?” Of course. Then, instantaneously, he can also make it so he can lift it. The toughie is, “Can God make another God?” Not that he’d necessarily want to, we all know how monopolies tend to crowd out other business
Anyway, with God all things are possible. God doesn’t fit within a dichotomy. Like some hard-core predestination believers, God could choose to set fate in one direction, wipe his own memory clean and then start answering prayers. But even he might not know that, at a time when he did know everything and set the clock running he already answered prayers yet-to-come. Or that he predestined himself, and so on ad nauseum.
Like I said, any dichotomy question about God assumes He can’t be two things simultaneously. Why not? If that’s not a limitation on “all-powerful” I don’t know what is.
I’ve finally thought of an example. You tell a child that if he touches a hotplate, he’ll get burned. Are you really trying to “motivate” or “manipulate” the child into not touching the hot plate, or are you stating a fact? Are people who don’t touch the hotplate not doing so for the express purpose of not getting burned? I don’t know. There may be plenty of reasons not to do so. Spong seems to be saying – no one knows if you touch the hotplate whether you’ll be burned or not, but (presumably) don’t touch it anyway. It is an act of love to tell a child not to touch the hotplate though, if you believe, as Someone told you once, touching it will get you burned if you in fact believe the Guy who told you this in the first place. And I’m doubting Spong believes Him.
Nearly all theists assume that “all-powerful” means God cannot do things logically impossible; therefore he could not be both A and Not-A. He could not both never be affected by prayers and sometimes be affected by prayers. A God not bound by logic is very messy; for example, the justification given for evil in this world is that you cannot have good without evil. However, if God is not bound by logic, then we could have good without evil, and God just decided not to do so. Makes Him sound like a bit of a prick, ya know? So I know of scant theists who argue that God is not bound by logic.
Ha, God bound by logic? I hope he never met Godel. Wow! That would mean there are good things that god can’t do, and evil things god can’t stop.
Sometimes, I wonder why I don’t burst into flames when I walk past churches.
I really think God has to be outside of logic. Or that there is at least God-logic which includes ours as a subset. I dunno…that seems even worse than my A/~A proposition.
It seems to me that Spong has come to the conclusion that modern knowledge of the universe has reached a point where some of the traditional beliefs seem rediculous to many, modern, educated people. He thinks that this is driving many educated people away from Christianity and is afraid that this trend will continue. He proposes that churches make a statement of beliefs that are clearly and specifically reconcilable with a modern education. As an atheist, it all seems like so much hot water to me, as long as new doctrine does not encourage immoral action. I do like the idea of tearing down Christianity and building something better in it’s place, but I fear that there would be a lot of turmoil in the transition and am not convinced that Spong’s idea for a replacement would be an improvement. I’d rather see the intellectuals who drift away from Christianity come up with something new(not necessarily religious but something that replaces the functions of church in modern society) on their own. I’m hoping that I live long enough to see it happen and perhaps be a part of it.
Whew, I hope that makes as much sense to you all as it did to me while I was writing it.
Gaudere is, as usual, posting a lot of my opinions faster and better than I can as if she knew what I wanted ahead of time and answered my prayers. However, I think that is because we coincidentally agree and she types faster than I do. I was going to try to write some stuff about where my beliefs differ slightly from hers, but whenever I try to put it into words I find that I actually do agree. I have a slightly lower opinion of people than she has expressed here, but I love them anyway.
Aren’t Christians a bit curious as to what would happen if an large moral, but atheist, group crystalized into something? Atheists have been largely underground for a long time. What would happen if they became mainstream? I want to know.
:rolleyes: You kill the murderers? So who were the murderers killing? If they were just killing mean nasty people, why are you killing them? No one ever said anything about being nice. Some people want to take Jesus off the cross and replace him with a happy face. Ain’t appopriate if you ask me.
You assume Jesus was lying. Thus, Jesus is the Anti-Christ. We’re disagreeing on something that is axiomatic for a Christian. It is not manipulative if it is axiomatic.
Not what I meant – arguing axioms is pointless.
Well, then his lie was not in his mistake, but in presenting his mistake as if it were true when he didn’t know either way. A lie none-the-less.
I believe that’s the point. You ask a theist why there is evil in the world, and they say, “because to have meaningful free will, you must have both evil and good.” If God could give us meaningful free will without evil, why wouldn’t He?
jmullaney
We kill the murders because they were killing good people and we wanted to stop them. (I am personally against the death penalty, but the fact remains that we do kill murderers) I think I am correct in stating that simply being a good person does not make you more likely to be killed than being an evil person.
No. I think he was mistaken. I am pretty sure he was quite certain about what he was saying and thought it was absolutely true. There are people who are absolutely certain that a thing is correct–and they may still be wrong.
Gaudere, I guess I’ve always thought of eternity and God’s place in it not as the wholeness of time and all it contains, but more of an unending Now, the present moment with an ending nature. Just a thought.
The reason I switched to past tense is because it more easily removes the “free will” issue when contemplating it than trying to hold all times in your head at once and think about it. I am aware that the theory is “to God, all times are now”; however, this is rather difficult to deal with when trying to sort out the real nature of predestination and such. So I switched to past tense. It does not affect my argument, just makes it more comprehensible to me.
OK, I’ll admit it ain’t exactly a plotted curve. I’ll maintain though, from my own experience, it can be a dangerous lifestyle (although traveling in groups helps).
OK. So you should allow for other people to be wrong about this and realize they might not truly be trying to manipulate anyone. Although I realize some self-proclaimed Christian leaders do exactly that for their own purposes.
I didn’t say you said this, but what you did say (and you perhaps were only thinking off the top of your head):
My emphasis.
You seem to imply that not only you see the Christian economia as more of an idle “threat”, but that people who take Jesus at his word have a “simplistic” view of their own religion, and (most disturbingly) you say you wouldn’t mind “forcing them” to change their view. I understand where you are coming from; I just thought it might be useful for you to understand where they are coming from.
Poly, I just wanted to thank you for that prayer post. Great stuff. But I am wondering if that is what Spong really thinks, or just your attempt to reconcile his words/thoughts with conventional Christianity. My limited reading of him did not include anything remotely like that.
It was my impression that Gaud was saying that theoretically God was using the reward of eternal life to manipulate people. It’s not the priests, it’s God himself. Because this is, in my opinion, a bad idea, unworthy of an omniscient being, it is further eveidence that God does not exist.
I believe you are incorrect in assuming I do not know where theists are coming from. I, of course, think heaven and hell are idle threats since I do not think they exist. Therefore, a morality based on the presumption that they exist is not desireable, in my eyes; it’s like parents who use Santa to make their children behave. Now, if Santa does exist, their actions are reasonable, but an outsider who does not believe in Santa might prefer that Santa is not used as a motivator, since s/he does not think Santa exists. Such a person might greet a claim that Santa might not give toys to all good children with happiness, since it would remove what s/he thinks is a imaginary motivator and would therefore encourage what s/he sees as a more realistic, truer morality.
I do not think they have a simplistic view of their religion, but I do think they have a simplistic morality if it is wholly dependent on heaven and hell to encourage moral behavior. Of course all Christians may take Jesus at His word, and heaven and hell will motivate them to a degree; but I see the dependence on some Christian’s parts on a solely reward-and-punishment based morality as juvenile. If heaven and hell are removed as motivators, then those Christians will not be able to depend on a pure reward/punishment morality, and I think that could have a good effect overall. (Though they may just switch to a earthly pure reward/punishment morality then, or maybe become evil. But I think becoming evil once hell is removed is not all that likely, and that though some will simply switch to another reward/punishment system, I have hopes that a few will struggle out) The fact that I personally would prefer to not have certain Christians dependent on a morality that relies on a thing that I think is imaginary does not mean that I do not understand that to them heaven and hell are quite real. Got it?
Is that really what your “if Jesus is wrong He is a liar” spiel was about?
