Why do you believe the Biblical accounts of miracles?

[kanicbird]

@monavis

God knows before we are born that some will choose evil?

He knows that everyone has the choice to choose to do evil, and there is a very high probability that at least some will, but we all have the choice to chose.

Our choise is not really free if we choose evil (which no sane human would do) then be punished for it

Why do you think your actions are not without consequences? It doesn’t mean you can’t chose.

God’s way or the Highway and there is no way of knowing what God really wills; we just have some human’s word for it.

Well considering that God owns the highway, lowway and everything inbetween, you are correct that the only way is God’s way - after all he designed everything. And there is a way of knowing, as pointed out, the gift of the Holy Spirit is available - God Himself will guide you.

[Czarcasm]

@kanicbird

He knows that everyone has the choice to choose to do evil, and there is a very high probability that at least some will, but we all have the choice to chose.

Why do you think your actions are not without consequences? It doesn’t mean you can’t chose.

Well considering that God owns the highway, lowway and everything inbetween, you are correct that the only way is God’s way - after all he designed everything. And there is a way of knowing, as pointed out, the gift of the Holy Spirit is available - God Himself will guide you.

Is your god all-knowing or not? Do you believe that he can see into the future and knows what is going to happen, or is he as ignorant of future events as we are?

[ignorant_but_learning]

@simster

Substitute the words “unmarried young lady” for virgin… is it still miraculous? I could further argue that the “mary quote” was heresay only, and possibly an imbelishment to furhter the prophecy fullfillment angle.

Point being that text does not neccisarily imply she hadn’t had sex… Bill Clinton would still claim that wrt Monica… might imply she didn’t understand, or any number of things.

It could also imply exactly what you think it does, as that is what it has been taught to imply over the centuries.

But it doesn’t have to, and that is the point… there could be perfectly plausible ‘natural’ explanations for the miracles, given honest thougth.

Which basically means that I agree with the OP’s premise… why do we insist that certian things are “miraculous” when a) we wouldnt believe it now from an eyewitness and b) there are other explanations possible given the language, the culture and the intent of the author of the work.

(Both Gospels quoted here were written as testaments, they had a job to do to teach/bestow others the “good news”, its not unreasonable to assume that the authors used language specific to the task of ‘proving’ the gospel (Good News) to be valid, and that their new Messiah was ‘The Messiah’… ).

Bill didn’t have sex with Monica—“she had sex with him”—he used the cigar on (or should i say IN) her!

[ignorant_but_learning]

@Czarcasm

Is your god all-knowing or not? Do you believe that he can see into the future and knows what is going to happen, or is he as ignorant of future events as we are?

What is GOD’S religion??—What did he believe in before he put the Jesus in Mary on Joseph?

[cosmosdan]

@kanicbird

cosmosdan One point you seem to be indirectly making is that one does not have to know that Jesus is the Son of God to be able to receive salvation, the Holy Spirit could indwell a non-believer in Jesus, and that person can do the work of Jesus and become like Him, or is short become Him, even if he doesn’t beleive. If I got this correct I wish to ask you a question relating to this. What about belief in a false god or gods? It seems very clear that God does not like false gods, incurring curses, demonic possession and in general destruction.

I’ll use the Gandhi example since I admire Gandhi. Here’s a Hindu man who lived a life of commitment to seeking the truth and service to his fellow man. He admired the teachings of Jesus but because of the bad example of the Christians he knew he never converted. Do you imagine that when he approached the pearly gates St Peter said “Sorry Gandhi, even though you lived according to the principles Jesus taught more than most Christians do, you never actually accepted Jesus as the only begotten son of God and your personal savior so it’s hell for you pal. Too bad. It was close.”

If St Peter says to Gandhi " Hey nice job with mortality and by the way Jesus is savior" will Gandhi say " I still don’t believe it?" or as a seeker of truth will he say
“Really, that’s cool”

Neither you or I know the whole truth about Jesus. Even Paul admitted it in I Cor 13.

I don’t think the worship of false gods is about the names or images. It’s about putting anything ahead of the truth of our relationship to God and each other. That might be a love of money, power, or religious tradition. Just as Jesus described it.

[PBear42]

kanicbird: Thank you. That was essentially my point. And, I think, that of others who had responded earlier.

monavis and Czarcasm: FWIW, I’ve always found the omniscience-defeats-theological-free-will argument unpersuasive. (Remember, I’m an atheist.) All omniscience means is that God always has known what choices you eventually would make. This doesn’t mean, it doesn’t even imply, that you didn’t make the choices. Consider an analogy. Say I’ll be working during the NCAA basketball final, so I record it somehow, intending to watch it without knowing the outcome. Unfortunately, while I’m still working, someone unaware of my plan blurts out the outcome. Now, when I watch the recording. I know the outcome, but obviously my knowing didn’t cause the outcome. If omniscience exists, there’s no logical reason it can’t work the same way.

[Czarcasm]

@PBear42

kanicbird: Thank you. That was essentially my point. And, I think, that of others who had responded earlier.

monavis and Czarcasm: FWIW, I’ve always found the omniscience-defeats-theological-free-will argument unpersuasive. (Remember, I’m an atheist.) All omniscience means is that God always has known what choices you eventually would make. This doesn’t mean, it doesn’t even imply, that you didn’t make the choices. Consider an analogy. Say I’ll be working during the NCAA basketball final, so I record it somehow, intending to watch it without knowing the outcome. Unfortunately, while I’m still working, someone unaware of my plan blurts out the outcome. Now, when I watch the recording. I know the outcome, but obviously my knowing didn’t cause the outcome. If omniscience exists, there’s no logical reason it can’t work the same way.

If a god knows all the choices I will eventually make, and he knows beforehand that I will not qualify to enter that version of heaven, then he aught to let me know beforehand so that I don’t waste my time trying to get there in the first place-unless, of course, this god gets off on watching some of his creations bust their asses for nothing.

[Diogenes_the_Cynic]

@PBear42

kanicbird: Thank you. That was essentially my point. And, I think, that of others who had responded earlier.

monavis and Czarcasm: FWIW, I’ve always found the omniscience-defeats-theological-free-will argument unpersuasive. (Remember, I’m an atheist.) All omniscience means is that God always has known what choices you eventually would make. This doesn’t mean, it doesn’t even imply, that you didn’t make the choices. Consider an analogy. Say I’ll be working during the NCAA basketball final, so I record it somehow, intending to watch it without knowing the outcome. Unfortunately, while I’m still working, someone unaware of my plan blurts out the outcome. Now, when I watch the recording. I know the outcome, but obviously my knowing didn’t cause the outcome. If omniscience exists, there’s no logical reason it can’t work the same way.

Putting aside the logical incoherence of the free will concept in general, an omnipotent God can still choose to only create people who will “freely” choose good. If God chooses to create people who he knows will choose evil, then God is choosing to bring evil into the universe unecessarily. Why would God create Hitler if he can just as easily create another Gandhi or Martin Luther King?

[Czarcasm]

@Diogenes the Cynic

Putting aside the logical incoherence of the free will concept in general, an omnipotent God can still choose to only create people who will “freely” choose good. If God chooses to create people who he knows will choose evil, then God is choosing to bring evil into the universe unecessarily. Why would God create Hitler if he can just as easily create another Gandhi or Martin Luther King?

Indeed. If this god knows the whole story, then that story isn’t going to change. No matter how many times you watch Titanic that ship isn’t going to miss that iceberg.

[Contrapuntal]

@PBear42

monavis and Czarcasm: FWIW, I’ve always found the omniscience-defeats-theological-free-will argument unpersuasive. (Remember, I’m an atheist.) All omniscience means is that God always has known what choices you eventually would make. This doesn’t mean, it doesn’t even imply, that you didn’t make the choices. Consider an analogy. Say I’ll be working during the NCAA basketball final, so I record it somehow, intending to watch it without knowing the outcome. Unfortunately, while I’m still working, someone unaware of my plan blurts out the outcome. Now, when I watch the recording. I know the outcome, but obviously my knowing didn’t cause the outcome. If omniscience exists, there’s no logical reason it can’t work the same way.

All you know is what happened *after *it happened. That’s not omniscience. That’s information.

[DrDeth]

@simster

A key example is “virgin”… while we think of it to mean “hymen intact”, the word in the text simply refers to a “young woman” (probably has more meaning then that, but it has nothing to do with the hymen itself).

A better translation is “maiden” or “unmarried young woman”. In those days such were assumed to be virgins unless otherwise stated.

There’s only one big fucking miracle in the NT- the conversion of Saul = Paul and his abilty to take a small Jewish cult and make it the worlds biggest religion. It boggles the mind.

[Voyager]

@PBear42

monavis and Czarcasm: FWIW, I’ve always found the omniscience-defeats-theological-free-will argument unpersuasive. (Remember, I’m an atheist.) All omniscience means is that God always has known what choices you eventually would make. This doesn’t mean, it doesn’t even imply, that you didn’t make the choices. Consider an analogy. Say I’ll be working during the NCAA basketball final, so I record it somehow, intending to watch it without knowing the outcome. Unfortunately, while I’m still working, someone unaware of my plan blurts out the outcome. Now, when I watch the recording. I know the outcome, but obviously my knowing didn’t cause the outcome. If omniscience exists, there’s no logical reason it can’t work the same way.

I agree that knowledge of the choices people make doesn’t make god illogical.
What does is if god knows the choices he will make (omniscience) and if he has the power to change them (omnipotence.)

[Chief_Pedant]

@Diogenes the Cynic

Putting aside the logical incoherence of the free will concept in general, an omnipotent God can still choose to only create people who will “freely” choose good. If God chooses to create people who he knows will choose evil, then God is choosing to bring evil into the universe unecessarily. Why would God create Hitler if he can just as easily create another Gandhi or Martin Luther King?

(Underline mine)

Exactly. I have made the point elsewhere that the fundamental problem with Christian theology is not just freewill versus punishing a finite being for making bad choices.

The core dilemma is that it is exactly God’s will to establish a world where beings will choose only good. This existence is called Heaven in Christian theology. No Christian theology embraces a Heaven where things can turn sour when finite beings choose evil.

Therefore the core dillemma is: Why not start with heaven?

Is God not omniscient? Is he not omniopotent? Is he not prescient?

[monavis]

@kanicbird

He knows that everyone has the choice to choose to do evil, and there is a very high probability that at least some will, but we all have the choice to chose.

Why do you think your actions are not without consequences? It doesn’t mean you can’t chose.

Well considering that God owns the highway, lowway and everything inbetween, you are correct that the only way is God’s way - after all he designed everything. And there is a way of knowing, as pointed out, the gift of the Holy Spirit is available - God Himself will guide you.

By your definition God leads some people to evil.

If God knows some people will choose evil(such as Hitler) then God is responsible for allowing Hitler to kill hundreds of thousands of innocent people,If one knows a crime is going to be commited and does nothing to stop it then that person(or being) is as guilty as the actual wrong doer. One could say (As You see God) that humans are the hands of God .

If God’s way is the only way they why does he let Satan have a way.

A parent that would creat a monster then allow the monster to destroy some of his children is a bad parent indeed. And to tell a child as an example: You can go to the movies if you wish, but I do not want you to go, and if you go I will kill you is not free will nor the actions of a loving parent.

Your God does not seem to be a very loving, kind, or just Being.

Your God does not seem worthy of worship.

I do not believe God is so small as you seem to make Him out to be.

Monavis

[cosmosdan]

@Chief Pedant

(Underline mine)

Exactly. I have made the point elsewhere that the fundamental problem with Christian theology is not just freewill versus punishing a finite being for making bad choices.

The core dilemma is that it is exactly God’s will to establish a world where beings will choose only good. This existence is called Heaven in Christian theology. No Christian theology embraces a Heaven where things can turn sour when finite beings choose evil.

Therefore the core dillemma is: Why not start with heaven?

Is God not omniscient? Is he not omniopotent? Is he not prescient?

Perhaps that’s exactly where we started. Then the question becomes why have anything else? We don’t know. Perhaps we agreed to see what it was like to have something to choose.

[cosmosdan]

@Voyager

I agree that knowledge of the choices people make doesn’t make god illogical.
What does is if god knows the choices he will make (omniscience) and if he has the power to change them (omnipotence.)

The Course in Miracles has some interesting ideas in this area although I’ve only begun to explore them. For one thing God does not operate on a linear time line as we think of it. The other suggestion is that we as peers with God and part of God decided to create the illusion of choice and free will. In order to do that we had to have something else to choose.

If the soul or consciousness is eternal then everything we experience in this mortal world is fleeting no matter how awful it seems. That’s not a reason to ignore it or minimize it. How we address this temporary reality reflects our spiritual condition which is our eternal reality.

[kanicbird]

@Czarcasm

Is your god all-knowing or not? Do you believe that he can see into the future and knows what is going to happen, or is he as ignorant of future events as we are?

Knowing all that is to be know, then Yes. Does this mean that everything is predetermined, No. God has allowed - extended His authority - for us to determine where we end up. If one were to ask God if they would go to ‘heaven’ or ‘hell’, I would expect a answer along the lines of ‘that is your choice to make’.

Also God has not only made agreements with man, but apparently also with Satan, who does have some interest in the affairs of man (bible cite available upon request) - so God will honor His agreements even if some people will live a while in this world before their final place is determined.

@monavis

If God knows some people will choose evil(such as Hitler) then God is responsible for allowing Hitler to kill hundreds of thousands of innocent people,If one knows a crime is going to be commited and does nothing to stop it then that person(or being) is as guilty as the actual wrong doer. One could say (As You see God) that humans are the hands of God .

The atrocities of humanity are a result of our rebellious nature, God won’t force anyone to obey and worship Him, that would be a far worse ‘crime’ then what Hitler did.

If God’s way is the only way they why does he let Satan have a way.

In short it is God’s way to allow Satan’s way. God is a God of His word, and whatever agreement between God and Satan exists will be honored.

A parent that would creat a monster then allow the monster to destroy some of his children is a bad parent indeed.

There is no indication that I am aware of that Satan was created as a monster, just chose the path of rebellion somewhere along the way.

You can go to the movies if you wish, but I do not want you to go, and if you go I will kill you is not free will nor the actions of a loving parent.

Not really a good analogy IMHO, more like a parent , saying to His child here is the way I know you can live, but you are totally free to try things on your own.

Your God does not seem to be a very loving, kind, or just Being.

Then you don’t understand what Jesus did for us. I can say this because it was such a overwhelming display of love that I don’t think anyone can fully understand it.

Your God does not seem worthy of worship.

My God does not require it.

[PBear42]

I hesitate to expound upon what is really a hijack of the OP - I had intended merely to point out that not all atheists accept the omniscience paradox - but since Diogenes has participated in the hijack, I take it he doesn’t mind.

Czarcasm: You’ve introduced an ethical argument of what God ought to do with his omniscience. This doesn’t logically relate to whether the omniscience exists in the first place. As for the ethical argument, theists have several replies, of which the most popular in my observation is that good ceases to be good without the ability to choose evil.

Diogenes: Most of this is subject to the same objection just stated. Further, you’re simply playing with the oddity of time paradoxes. That God knew what would happen doesn’t make it happen. Moreover, you’re assuming God creates each and every one of us. I realize some fundies believe this, but it’s not a necessary condition to Godness, and has nothing to do with omniscience.

Contrapuntal: Actually, that’s precisely my point. Omniscience is just information. It doesn’t cause anything.

Voyager: Not illogical if the lines converge.

Chief Pedant: Same response as to Czarcasm and Diogenes. What ya’ll are really complaining about is what God does with his omniscience.

monavis: Again, same response. Only here, you’re doing what I call the angry atheist thing. If God exists, why doesn’t he stop the madness? That has nothing to do with the omniscience paradox. And if God doesn’t exist, there’s no point in being angry with him.

Aside to All: I went ahead and defended the more inclusive definition of omniscience because that’s the more familiar one. Were I a theist, I would plunk for a different definition, viz, that God knows everything happening now and that has ever happened, but is subject to the arrow of time. I honestly don’t see how this would undermine his Godness (I’ve seen Liberal make a form of the argument). And, of course, it eliminates the paradox completely.

[Diogenes_the_Cynic]

@DrDeth

A better translation is “maiden” or “unmarried young woman”. In those days such were assumed to be virgins unless otherwise stated.

Almah means "young woman* period. Hebrew has another word, bethulah, for “virgin.”

It’s moot point anyway. The context of the Isaiah passage makes it clear that the woman in 7:14 is not a virgin and that “Emmanuel” is not the Messiah.

There’s only one big fucking miracle in the NT- the conversion of Saul = Paul and his abilty to take a small Jewish cult and make it the worlds biggest religion. It boggles the mind.

There’s nothing miraculous about a religious conversion and Christianity was still an obscure cult when Paul died. Constantine was responsible for making it the biggest religion in the world, not Paul.

[Czarcasm]

@PBear42

Czarcasm: You’ve introduced an ethical argument of what God ought to do with his omniscience. This doesn’t logically relate to whether the omniscience exists in the first place. As for the ethical argument, theists have several replies, of which the most popular in my observation is that good ceases to be good without the ability to choose evil.

But I’ve been told by numerous theists that their god is by definition “good” and cannot do “evil”. If this supposedly all-powerful being cannot choose to be “evil”, how can you define all that she/he/it does as “good”?